1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2: %                       lfv_v2.tex                                %

3: %                   version: 4/26/2004   	                  %

4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

5: %

6: %   This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.

7: %   Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001

8: %

9: %   Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.

10: %

11: %   See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.

12: %

13: % TeX'ing this file requires that you have AMS-LaTeX 2.0 installed

14: % as well as the rest of the prerequisites for REVTeX 4.0

15: %

16: % See the REVTeX 4 README file

17: % It also requires running BibTeX. The commands are as follows:

18: %

19: %  1)  latex apssamp.tex

20: %  2)  bibtex apssamp

21: %  3)  latex apssamp.tex

22: %  4)  latex apssamp.tex

23: %

24: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

25: \documentclass[12pt,aps,tightenlines,epsfig,graphicx,rotate,floats,

26: nofootinbib]{revtex4}

27: %\documentclass[aps,12pt,tighten,epsfig,graphicx,rotate,

28: %floats]{revtex4}

29: %\documentclass[prd,preprintnumbers,12pt,tighten]{revtex4}

30: %\documentclass[twocolumn,prd,preprintnumbers]{revtex4}

31: %\documentclass[twocolumn,prl,preprintnumbers]{revtex4}

32: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

33: %\documentstyle[aps,prl,floats,epsf]{revtex}

34: 

35: 

36: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

37: \usepackage{epsfig}% 

38: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

39: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

40: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

41: 

42: %\nofiles

43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

44: % my commands

45: \newcommand{\Un}{\underline} 

46: \newcommand{\chpt}{$\chi$PT}

47: \newcommand{\lef}{(1-\gamma_5)}

48: \newcommand{\rig}{(1+\gamma_5)}

49: \newcommand{\CQg}{\left( {\langle\bar q q \rangle^{(2)}(\mu)\over 

50: f_\pi^3}\right)}

51: \newcommand{\CQ}{\left( {\langle\bar q q \rangle^{(2)}(\mu)\over f^2}\right)}

52: \newcommand{\imlat}{{\rm Im}\ (V_{ts}^*V_{td})}

53: \newcommand{\spazio}{\vphantom{$\Big( \Big)$}}

54: \newcommand{\ds}{\displaystyle}

55: \renewcommand{\a}{\alpha}

56: \renewcommand{\b}{\beta}

57: \renewcommand{\c}{\chi}

58: \renewcommand{\d}{\delta}

59: \newcommand{\e}{\eta}   

60: \newcommand{\g}{\gamma}

61: \newcommand{\s}{\sigma}

62: \newcommand{\la}{\lambda}

63: \newcommand{\G}{\Gamma}

64: \renewcommand{\S}{\Sigma}

65: \newcommand{\La}{\Lambda}

66: \newcommand{\eps}{\epsilon}

67: \newcommand{\epsp}{\epsilon^\prime}

68: \newcommand{\gm}{\gamma_\mu}

69: \newcommand{\elel}{\bar{e}_L \gamma^{\mu} e_L}  

70: \newcommand{\erer}{\bar{e}_R \gamma^{\mu} e_R}

71: \newcommand{\sw}{\sin^2{\theta_W}}

72: \newcommand{\as}{\alpha_{s}}

73: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

74: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

75: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

76: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

77: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

78: \newcommand{\nl}{\nonumber\\}

79: \newcommand{\fr}{\frac}

80: \newcommand{\dg}{\dagger}

81: \newcommand{\hl}{\hline}

82: \newcommand{\vsl}{v\hskip-.2cm/}

83: \newcommand{\pv}{\fr{1+v\hskip-.2cm/}{2}}

84: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}

85: \newcommand{\real}{{\rm Re}}

86: \newcommand{\imag}{{\rm Im}}

87: \newcommand{\pr}{Phys.~Rev. }

88: \newcommand{\np}{Nucl.~Phys. }

89: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

90: \newcommand{\PL}[3]{{Phys. Lett.} {\bf#1,} {#3} {(#2)}} 

91: \newcommand{\PRL}[3]{{Phys. Rev. Lett.}  {\bf#1,} {#3} {(#2)}} 

92: \newcommand{\PR}[3]{{Phys. Rev.} {\bf#1,} {#3} {(#2)}} 

93: \newcommand{\NP}[3]{{Nucl. Phys.} {\bf#1,} {#3} {(#2)}} 

94: \newcommand{\EPJ}[3]{{Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf#1,} {#3} {(#2)}} 

95: \newcommand{\ZP}[3]{{Z. Phys.} {\bf#1,} {#3} {(#2)}} 

96: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

97: \newcommand{\hepph}[1]{{\tt hep-ph/#1}} 

98: \newcommand{\hepex}[1]{{\tt hep-ex/#1}} 

99: %

100: \newcommand{\cO}{{\cal O}}

101: \newcommand{\cL}{{\cal L}}

102: \newcommand{\cM}{{\cal M}}

103: \newcommand{\cQ}{{\cal Q}}

104: \newcommand{\cA}{{\cal A}}

105: \newcommand{\gsim}{~{}_{\textstyle\sim}^{\textstyle >}~}

106: \newcommand{\lsim}{~{}_{\textstyle\sim}^{\textstyle <}~}

107: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}{c}}

108: \newcommand{\bat}{\begin{array}{cc}}

109: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}

110: \def\eqn#1{(\ref{#1})}

111: \newcommand{\mbf}{\mathbf} 

112: \newcommand{\mrm}{\mathrm} 

113: %

114: % Definition for slashed characters

115: %

116: \def\slashchar#1{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$}\dimen0=\wd0%

117: \setbox1=\hbox{/}\dimen1=\wd1%

118: \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1%                     

119: \rlap{\hbox to

120: \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}}#1\else                                     

121: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$#1$\hfil}}/\fi}

122: %

123: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

124: \newcommand{\no}{\nonumber} 

125: \newcommand{\grts}{\stackrel{>}{_\sim}}

126: \newcommand{\lets}{\stackrel{<}{_\sim}}

127: \newcommand{\Ra}{\Rightarrow} 

128: \newcommand{\ve}{\varepsilon} 

129: \newcommand{\vp}{\varphi} 

130: \newcommand{\vt}{\vartheta} 

131: \newcommand{\wt}{\widetilde} 

132: \newcommand{\wh}{\widehat} 

133: \newcommand{\A}{{\cal A}} 

134: \newcommand{\B}{{\cal B}} 

135: \newcommand{\C}{{\cal C}} 

136: \newcommand{\D}{{\cal D}} 

137: \newcommand{\E}{{\cal E}} 

138: \newcommand{\F}{{\cal F}} 

139: \newcommand{\Ha}{{\cal H}} 

140: \newcommand{\K}{{\cal K}} 

141: \newcommand{\M}{{\cal M}} 

142: \newcommand{\N}{{\cal N}} 

143: \newcommand{\cP}{{\cal P}} 

144: \newcommand{\Q}{{\cal Q}} 

145: \newcommand{\R}{{\cal R}} 

146: \newcommand{\cS}{{\cal S}} 

147: \newcommand{\T}{{\cal T}} 

148: \newcommand{\U}{{\cal U}} 

149: \newcommand{\V}{{\cal V}} 

150: \newcommand{\W}{{\cal W}} 

151: \newcommand{\X}{{\cal X}} 

152: \newcommand{\Y}{{\cal Y}} 

153: \newcommand{\Z}{{\cal Z}} 

154: \newcommand{\st}{\stackrel} 

155: \newcommand{\dint}{\displaystyle \int} 

156: \newcommand{\dsum}{\displaystyle \sum} 

157: \newcommand{\dprod}{\displaystyle \prod} 

158: \newcommand{\dmax}{\displaystyle \max} 

159: \newcommand{\dmin}{\displaystyle \min} 

160: \newcommand{\dlim}{\displaystyle \lim} 

161: \newcommand{\tab}[3]{\parbox{2cm}{#1} #2 \dotfill\ #3\\} 

162: \newcommand{\co}{\; \; ,} 

163: \newcommand{\per}{ \; .} 

164: \newcommand{\del}{\partial} 

165: \newcommand{\fsl}{\not\!} 

166: \newcommand{\Fsl}{\not\!\!} 

167: \newcommand{\epe}{\ve_{\pi^0\eta}} 

168: \newcommand{\pe}{$\pi^0$-$\eta$} 

169: \def\lint{\int\limits} 

170: \newcommand{\epoe}{\epsilon^\prime/\epsilon} 

171: \newcommand{\RE}{\mbox{\rm Re}} 

172: \newcommand{\IM}{\mbox{\rm Im}} 

173: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

174: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}

175: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}

176: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

177: \begin{document}

178: 

179: %\twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname

180: %@twocolumnfalse\endcsname

181: 

182: 

183: %\preprint{MAP-??}

184: % \preprint{UWThPh-2003-2}

185: 

186: \title{

187: Lepton Flavor Violation without Supersymmetry

188: }

189: %\thanks{  }

190: \author{V. Cirigliano} %\email{vincenzo@its.caltech.edu}

191: \author{A. Kurylov } %

192: \author{M.J. Ramsey-Musolf}%

193: \author{P. Vogel}%

194: \affiliation{

195: Kellogg Radiation Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 

196: Pasadena, CA 91125, USA 

197: }

198: 

199: \date{\today}% It is always \today, today,

200:              %  but any date may be explicitly specified

201: 

202: \begin{abstract}

203: 

204: We study the lepton flavor violating (LFV) processes $\mu\to e\gamma$,

205: $\mu\to 3e$, and $\mu\to e$ conversion in nuclei in the left-right

206: symmetric model without supersymmetry and perform the first complete

207: computation of the LFV branching ratios $B(\mu \to f)$ to leading

208: non-trivial order in the ratio of left- and right-handed symmetry

209: breaking scales. To this order, $B(\mu\to e\gamma)$ and $B(\mu\to e)$

210: are governed by the same combination of LFV violating couplings, and

211: their ratio is naturally of order unity.  We also find $B(\mu\to 3

212: e)/B(\mu\to e) \sim 100$ under slightly stronger assumptions. 

213: Existing limits on the branching ratios already substantially 

214: constrain mass splittings and/or mixings in the heavy neutrino sector.  

215: When combined with future collider studies and precision electroweak 

216: measurements, improved limits on LFV processes will test the 

217: viability of low-scale, non-supersymmetric LFV scenarios. 

218: 

219: 

220: \end{abstract}

221: 

222: \pacs{Valid PACS appear here}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy

223:                              % Classification Scheme.

224: %\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword

225:                               %display desired

226: \maketitle

227: 

228: %\vspace{0.5cm}]

229: %\narrowtext

230: 

231: 

232: 

233: \section{Introduction}

234: 

235: 

236: 

237: Leptons of different flavors do not mix in the Standard Model (SM) of

238: electroweak interactions as a consequence of vanishing neutrino

239: masses. The observation of neutrino oscillations, however, has

240: provided clear evidence that nature does not conserve lepton flavor

241: and that the SM must be part of a more fundamental theory that allows

242: for lepton flavor violation (LFV). In the most widely held theories of

243: neutrino mass, LFV is generated at high scales that are well beyond

244: the reach of present and future collider experiments. Searching for

245: LFV among charged leptons in low-energy measurements is an alternative

246: and important way to probe additional aspects of LFV at such high

247: scales.

248: 

249: Attempts to observe, and theoretically predict, the manifestations of

250: LFV involving various modes of muon decay have a long tradition. The

251: rather small upper limit ($2 \times 10^{-5}$) on the branching ratio

252: for the $\mu \rightarrow e + \gamma$ decay determined by Lokanathan

253: and Steinberger \cite{Steinberger55} almost fifty years ago led to a

254: flurry of theoretical activity (see e.g \cite{Feinberg58} and many

255: subsequent papers) that resulted in the realization that the electron

256: and muon neutrinos are different particles -- a fact confirmed

257: experimentally shortly afterward.  Over the intervening years the

258: increase in the intensity of muon beams and advances of experimental

259: techniques led to impressive improvement in the sensitivity of various

260: searches for LFV. Even though no positive effects have been seen so

261: far, the upper limits of the corresponding branching ratios became

262: smaller by a factor of $\sim 10^6$. At present, the most stringent

263: limit on the branching ratio for $\mu\to e\gamma$ is~\cite{muegamma99}

264: \beq

265: \label{eq:MEGA}

266: B_{\mu\to e\gamma}\equiv {\Gamma(\mu^+\to e^+\gamma)\over\Gamma(\mu^+\to e^+ 

267: \nu{\bar\nu})} < 1.2\times 10^{-11}\ \ \ {\rm 90\% C.L.}\ \ \ ,

268: \eeq

269: %

270: obtained by the MEGA collaboration, while for the process of $\mu\to

271: e$ conversion in gold nuclei, the SINDRUM collaboration has obtained

272: the limit~\cite{mueconvAu}

273: %

274: \beq

275: \label{eq:SINDRUM}

276: B_{\mu\to e}^{A}\equiv {\Gamma(\mu^- + A(N,Z) \to e^- + A(N,Z))\over 

277: \Gamma(\mu^- +A(Z,N)\to \nu_\mu+ A(Z-1, N+1))} < 

278: 8 \times 10^{-13}\ \ \  {\rm 90\% C.L.}\ \ \  .

279: \eeq

280: %

281: The present limits on other branching ratios are similarly impressive:

282: $1.0 \times 10^{-12}$ for $B_{\mu^+ \rightarrow e^+e^-e^+}$

283: \cite{mu3e88}, $4.3 \times 10^{-12}$ for $B_{\mu\to e}^{\rm

284: Ti}$\cite{mueconvTi}, and $4.6 \times 10^{-11}$ for $B_{\mu\to e}^{\rm

285: Pb}$\cite{mueconvPb}.  Two ambitious new experiments aiming at

286: substantial improvement in the sensitivity are being developed: MEG

287: plans to reach sensitivity of $\sim 5 \times 10^{-14}$ for $B_{\mu^+

288: \rightarrow e^+ + \gamma}$ \cite{MEG}, while MECO aims to reach $\sim 5

289: \times 10^{-17}$ for $B_{\mu\to e}^{\rm Al}$ in aluminum \cite{MECO}.

290: 

291: Theoretically, the focus in recent years has been on frameworks that

292: could both account for neutrino mass generation at high scales and

293: lead to observable LFV in future experiments with charged leptons.

294: The direct effects of light neutrinos on charged lepton LFV are \lq\lq

295: GIM suppressed" by a factors of $(\Delta m_\nu^2/M_W^2)^2\lsim

296: 10^{-50}$ in the rate and are, thus, entirely negligible. In order to

297: obtain LFV effects that could be seen by experiment, a mechanism must

298: exist for overcoming this GIM suppression. Such a mechanism

299: necessarily involves physics at mass scales heavier than the weak

300: scale. The primary motivation for LFV studies involving charged

301: leptons is to help determine both the relevant scale as well as the

302: most viable models associated with it. 

303: 

304: Although a variety of such models have been considered, based on

305: various supersymmetry (SUSY)

306: scenarios~\cite{Borzumati:1986qx,Leontaris:1985pq,Hisano:1995nq,

307: Barbieri:1994pv,Barbieri:1995tw,Huitu:1997bi}, or left-right

308: symmetry~\cite{Riazuddin:hz,Barenboim:1996vu}, 

309: the most commonly-quoted are %supersymmetric ()  

310: SUSY grand unified theories

311: (GUTs), wherein quarks and leptons are assigned to the same

312: representation of the unification gauge group at the GUT

313: scale. Consequently, the large Yukawa coupling responsible for the top

314: quark mass also appears in LFV

315: couplings\cite{Barbieri:1994pv,Barbieri:1995tw}. The latter then give

316: rise -- via renormalization group evolution -- to sizable lepton

317: flavor non-diagonal soft SUSY-breaking terms at the TeV

318: scale. Superpartner loops that contain insertion of these terms then

319: produce unsuppressed LFV transitions involving charged leptons.  For

320: example, in a SUSY SU(5) scenario, one has~\cite{Barbieri:1994pv}

321: \bea

322: B_{\mu\to e\gamma}& = & 2.4\times 10^{-12}

323: \left(\frac{|V_{ts}|}{0.04}\frac{|V_{td}|}{0.01}\right)^2\left(\frac{100\

324: {\rm GeV}}{m_{\tilde\mu}}\right)^4\\ B_{\mu\to e}^{\rm Ti} & = &

325: 5.8\times 10^{-12} \ \alpha\

326: \left(\frac{|V_{ts}|}{0.04}\frac{|V_{td}|}{0.01}\right)^2\left(\frac{100\

327: {\rm GeV}}{m_{\tilde\mu}}\right)^4\ \ \ ,

328: \eea

329: neglecting gaugino masses. For superpartner masses of order the weak

330: scale, one would expect to see non-zero signals in the up-coming MECO

331: and MEG experiments under this scenario. Moreover, one would also

332: expect to observe an order $\alpha$ suppression of $B_{\mu\to e}^{A}$

333: relative to $B_{\mu\to e\gamma}$ in this case since the conversion

334: process entails the exchange of a virtual gauge boson between leptons

335: and the nucleus rather than emission of a real photon.

336: 

337: In this paper, we study an alternative paradigm for LFV, wherein LFV

338: occurs at much lower scales and does not require the presence of

339: supersymmetric interactions to overcome the GIM suppression factor. In

340: this scenario, neutrino mass generation occurs at the multi-TeV

341: scale via a spontaneously broken extended gauge group\footnote{For a

342: discussion of neutrino masses in this scenario and related

343: phenomenological issues, see, {\em e.g.},

344: Refs. \cite{Deshpande:1990ip,Mohapatra:2003qw}.}.  LFV for charged

345: leptons arises from the interactions of the additional gauge bosons,

346: heavy neutrinos, and Higgs bosons associated with the extended gauge

347: symmetry.  As an explicit realization of this scenario, we work within

348: the left-right symmetric model

349: (LRSM)~\cite{LRSM1,Mohapatra:1979ia,Mohapatra:1980yp}, which gives a

350: minimal, non-supersymmetric extension of the SM with non-sterile,

351: right-handed Majorana neutrinos.  As such, it contains triplet Higgs

352: fields that have non-zero hypercharge and that provide the simplest

353: mechanism for generating a Majorana mass term~\cite{Gelmini:1980re}.

354: As pointed out in Ref. \cite{Raidal:1997hq}, models of this type may

355: give rise to unsuppressed operators for the LFV decay $\mu\to 3e$, and

356: these operators in turn induce logarithmically enhanced amplitudes for

357: $\mu\to e$ conversion at loop 

358: level\footnote{Specific realizations of these ideas

359: been discussed for a doubly-charged scalar singlet~\cite{Raidal:1997hq}

360: and R parity-violating SUSY~\cite{Huitu:1997bi}.}. In the present case

361: such effects -- which were missed in earlier LRSM studies

362: \cite{Riazuddin:hz,Barenboim:1996vu} -- result from the presence of

363: the triplet Higgs fields.  The large logarithms can compensate for the

364: ${\cal O}(\alpha)$ suppression of $B_{\mu\to e}^{A}$ relative to

365: $B_{\mu\to e\gamma}$ that generically follows for SUSY GUTs, and for

366: Higgs masses of order 10 TeV or below, both branching ratios may be

367: large enough to be seen in future measurements. Roughly speaking, we

368: find

369: \bea

370: B_{\mu\to e\gamma}& \approx & 10^{-7}\times |g_{\rm lfv}|^2 \left({1\

371: {\rm TeV}\over M_{W_R}}\right)^4\\ B_{\mu\to e}^{\rm Al} & \approx &

372: 10^{-7}\times \alpha |g_{\rm lfv}|^2 \left({1\ {\rm TeV}\over

373: M_{\delta_R^{++}}}\right)^4 \left(\log{M_{\delta_R^{++}}^2\over

374: m_\mu^2}\right)^2

375: \eea

376: %

377: where $M_{W_R}$ is the mass of the right-handed charged gauge boson,

378: $M_{\delta_R^{++}}$ is the mass of a doubly charged, SU(2)$_R$ triplet

379: Higgs, and

380: %

381: \beq 

382: g_{\rm lfv} = \sum_N

383:  \Bigl(K_R^\dag\Bigr)_{eN}\Bigl(K_R\Bigr)_{N\mu}\left(M_N/M_{W_R}\right)^2\

384:  \ , 

385: \eeq

386: with $K_R$ being a flavor mixing matrix for the right-handed neutrinos

387: of masses $M_N$ (see below). In the limit of degenerate, right handed

388: neutrinos, the LFV factor $g_{\rm lfv}=0$. For heavy masses at the 

389: TeV scale, present experimental limits already  

390: constrain this factor to be tiny: 

391: $|g_{\rm lfv}|\lsim 10^{-2}$. In this case, the heavy neutrino

392: spectrum must either be nearly degenerate or devoid of significant

393: flavor mixing.

394: 

395: Note that both branching ratios are proportional to the same LFV

396: factor, $|g_{\rm lfv}|^2$. Naively, one would expect the loop graphs

397: giving rise to $\mu\to e\gamma$  (with heavy neutrino-gauge

398: boson intermediate states) and the logarithmically enhanced loops that

399: dominate $\mu\to e$ to have different prefactors. As discussed in more

400: detail below, however, the doubly charged, triplet Higgs

401: $\delta_R^{++}$ and its left-handed companion can have LFV violating

402: Yukawa couplings $h_{ij}$ of ${\cal O}(1)$, but the sum over

403: intermediate states in the logarithmically enhanced loop graphs

404: converts the sum over products of these couplings into $g_{\rm lfv}$.

405: 

406: Should $g_{\rm lfv}$ turn out to be nonzero, then one would expect the

407: two branching ratios to be of similar size since the product of the

408: $\ln^2$ and $\alpha$ in $B_{\mu\to e}$ is ${\cal O}(1)$. We expect

409: that any theory with non-sterile heavy Majorana neutrinos will contain such log

410: enhancements, due to the presence of a more complicated Higgs sector

411: than one finds in the SM. However, in SUSY GUT scenarios where LFV

412: occurs at high scales, these logarithmically enhanced loop effects

413: decouple below the GUT scale and do not affect the relative magnitudes

414: of the branching ratios. Only when the symmetry-breaking scale is

415: relatively light does one expect the two branching ratios to be

416: commensurate in magnitude.

417: 

418: Somewhat weaker statements about the relationship between $B_{\mu\to

419: e}$ and $B_{\mu\to 3e}$ can also be made within the context of this

420: model. In particular, we find

421: %

422: \beq B_{\mu\to 3e} \approx 300 \times {|h_{\mu e}h_{ee}^*|^2 \over

423: |g_{\rm lfv}|^2} \ \times B_{\mu\to e}^{\rm Al}\ \ \ , \eeq

424: %

425: so that if all of the triplet Higgs couplings $h_{ij}$ are of roughly

426: the same size and no cancellations occur in the sum 

427: $g_{\rm lfv}= \sum_j h_{\mu j}

428: h_{j e}^*$, the $\mu\to 3e$ branching ratio should be roughly two

429: orders of magnitude larger than the conversion ratio. Given the

430: present experimental limits on $B_{\mu\to 3e}$, one would then expect

431: $B_{\mu\to e}^{\rm Al}$ to be of order $10^{-14}$ or smaller. As we

432: discuss below, if the conversion ratio is found to be non-zero with

433: significantly larger magnitude, then one would also expect to see a

434: sizable effect in the channel $\tau\to 3\ell$ (where $\ell$ 

435: denotes a charged lepton). 

436: 

437: Finally, we observe that, while the logarithmic enhancement of

438: $B_{\mu\to e}^{A}$ is a generic feature of any model that yields

439: effective $\mu\to 3e$ operators at tree level, precise relationships

440: between the various LFV observables depend on details of the model. In

441: this respect, our perspective differs somewhat from the view in

442: Ref. \cite{Raidal:1997hq}. Indeed, the presence of a common factor of

443: $|g_{\rm lfv}|^2$ in $B_{\mu\to e\gamma}$ and $B_{\mu\to e}^{A}$ --

444: but not $B_{\mu\to 3e}$ -- and its relation to the heavy neutrino

445: spectrum follows from the pattern of symmetry breaking in

446: this scenario and the corresponding hierarchy of scales that enters

447: the couplings of the right-handed gauge sector to matter. In order to

448: implement this hierarchy in a self-consistent way, we adopt a power

449: counting in $\kappa/v_R$, where $v_R$ and $\kappa$ are the scales,

450: respectively, at which SU(2)$_R$ and electroweak symmetry are

451: broken. In contrast to previous

452: studies~\cite{Riazuddin:hz,Barenboim:1996vu}, we compute all LFV

453: contributions through leading, non-trivial order in $\kappa/v_R$ and

454: show that they decouple in the $v_R\to\infty$ limit as one would

455: expect on general grounds~\cite{Appelquist:tg}. In addition, we point

456: out the prospective implications of other precision measurements and

457: future collider studies for LFV in this scenario and vice-versa. The

458: identification of such implications necessarily requires the adoption

459: of a specific model, as the corresponding symmetries of the model

460: dictate relationships between the coefficients of effective operators

461: that would appear in an effective field theory framework. Thus, it is

462: useful to have in hand a comprehensive treatment within various model

463: frameworks in order to use experiment to discriminate among them.  In

464: R parity-violating SUSY, for example, the LFV couplings that generate

465: $\mu\to e$, {\em etc.} also appear, in general, in the mass matrices

466: for light neutrino flavors~\cite{grossman:2003}, whereas in the LRSM

467: LFV for charged leptons and light neutrinos are effectively

468: independent.

469: 

470: 

471: Our discussion of the calculation is organized in the remainder of the

472: paper as follows. In Section II we review the main features of the

473: LRSM and define the relevant quantities.  In Section III the

474: effective vertices are calculated and the effective Lagrangians

475: for the LFV processes are determined. Some of the detailed formulae

476: are collected in the Appendices. Section IV gives an analysis of the

477: results, along with a discussion of the rates as well as their ratios. We

478: conclude in Section V.

479:  

480: 

481: 

482: \section{The model}    

483: 

484: The gauge group of the theory is $\rm SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times

485: U(1)_{B-L}$ with the gauge couplings $g_L=g_R=g$ for the two ${\rm

486: SU(2)}$s and $g^\prime$ for the ${\rm U(1)}$.  In this paper we

487: follow the notation developed in Ref.~\cite{Duka:1999uc} where the   

488: LRSM, its quantization, and its Feynman 

489: rules are discussed in detail. 

490: Below, we give a very brief introduction to the model, and explicitly

491: define the quantities used in subsequent analysis. 

492: 

493: The matter fields of the model include leptons (L$_{L,R}$) and

494: quarks (Q$_{L,R}$), which are placed in the following

495: multiplets of the gauge group:

496: %

497: \beqa

498: \label{eq:matter}

499: L_{iL}&=&\left( \begin{array}{c}

500: \nu^\prime_i\\l^\prime_i\end{array}\right)_{L}: \left(1/2:0:-1\right),~

501: L_{iR}=\left( \begin{array}{c}

502: \nu^\prime_i\\l^\prime_i\end{array}\right)_{R}: \left(0:1/2:-1\right) \ , 

503: \nonumber \\ Q_{iL}&=&\left( \begin{array}{c}

504: u^\prime_i\\d^\prime_i\end{array}\right)_{R}: \left(1/2:0:1/3\right),~

505: Q_{iR}=\left( \begin{array}{c}

506: u^\prime_i\\d^\prime_i\end{array}\right)_{R}: \left(0:1/2:1/3\right) \ . 

507: \eeqa

508: %

509: Here, $i=1,2,3$ stands for generation number, and $(I_L, I_R, Y\equiv

510: B-L)$ labels representation of the gauge group for each multiplet. The

511: representation determines interactions of the multiplet with gauge

512: fields. Before spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) the latter include

513: $W^{a,\mu}_{L}$, $W^{a,\mu}_{R}$ ($a=1,2,3$), and $B^{\mu}$ for $\rm

514: SU(2)_L$, $\rm SU(2)_R$, and $\rm U(1)_{B-L}$ gauge group factors,

515: respectively.

516: 

517: The SSB is achieved via the Higgs mechanism. The Higgs sector of the

518: theory is not unique. However, the main results of this paper are

519: largely independent of the details of the Higgs sector provided the

520: LRSM has triplet Higgses and therefore heavy right-handed neutrinos.

521: In our study  we  

522: choose~\cite{Mohapatra:1979ia,Mohapatra:1980yp} a Higgs

523: sector that consists of the bi-doublet $\phi:(1/2,1/2,0)$ and two triplets

524: $\Delta_L:(1,0,2)$ and $\Delta_R:(0,1,2)$:

525: %

526: \beqa \phi&=&\left( \begin{array}{cc} \phi_1^0 & \phi_2^+\\\phi_1^- &

527: \phi_2^0\end{array}\right),~ \Delta_{L,R}=\left( \begin{array}{cc}

528: \delta_{L,R}^+/\sqrt{2} & \delta_{L,R}^{++} \\ \delta_{L,R}^0 &

529: -\delta_{L,R}{^+}/\sqrt{2}

530: \end{array}\right) \ , \\

531: \langle\phi\rangle&=&\left( \begin{array}{cc} \kappa_1/\sqrt{2} & 0\\

532: 0 & \kappa_2/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right),~

533: \langle\Delta_{L,R}\rangle=\left( \begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0

534: \\

535: v_{L,R} & 0 \end{array}\right) \ , 

536: \eeqa

537: %

538: where the vacuum expectation values (VEVs) are shown in the second

539: line. The most general Higgs potential with this field content has

540: been analyzed in Ref.~\cite{Deshpande:1990ip}.  If one requires the

541: scale $v_R$ in the multi-TeV range (but not significantly larger), the

542: only choice which avoids excessive fine-tuning and leads to acceptable

543: phenomenology is to set to zero certain 

544: % the $\beta$ 

545: couplings in the Higgs potential as well as $v_L$~\cite{Deshpande:1990ip}. 

546: Moreover, we assume no explicit or spontaneous CP violation 

547: in the Higgs sector~\cite{Barenboim:2001vu}.   

548: %%%%%%%%%%

549: In summary, two distinct mass scales appear in the model: the

550: electroweak symmetry breaking scale $\kappa \sim \kappa_1 \sim

551: \kappa_2 \sim 250$ GeV, and the scale $v_R$ at which $SU(2)_R$ and $U

552: (1)_{B-L}$ are spontaneously broken.  Phenomenological considerations  

553: require $v_R \gg \kappa$.

554: 

555: 

556: 

557: \subsection{Physical fields}

558: 

559: After SSB matter and gauge fields acquire non-vanishing masses, 

560: which generally allow for mixing of the fields with the same quantum

561: numbers. In the following, we identify masses and mixing angles which

562: are important for our calculation. We omit the discussion

563: of the quark sector of the model, as it is irrelevant for our work. 

564: 

565: \subsubsection{Leptons}

566: 

567: The $3\times 3$ mass matrix for charged leptons is

568: $M_l=\left(y_D\kappa_2+{\tilde y_D \kappa_1}\right)/\sqrt{2}$, where

569: $y_D$ and ${\tilde y_D}$ are, respectively, the Yukawa coupling

570: matrices for the bi-doublet $\phi$ and its charge conjugate. 

571: $M_l$ is diagonalized by a biunitary transformation

572: $V_L^{l\dagger}M_lV_R^l=(M_l)_{diag}$. 

573: Since $(M_l)_{diag} \ll \kappa$, one has $y_D, \tilde{y}_D \ll 1$. 

574: Here, $V_{L,R}^{l}$ are $3\times 3$

575: unitary matrices. These matrices relate the charged lepton mass

576: eigenstates $l_{L,R}$ to the corresponding flavor eigenstates from

577: Eq.~(\ref{eq:matter}): $l_{L,R}^\prime=V_{L,R}^l l_{L,R}$.

578: 

579: Within the LRSM it is convenient to describe neutrino fields by

580: four-component spinors

581: %

582: \beq

583: n_R^\prime=\left( \begin{array}{c}

584: \nu_R^{\prime c}

585: \\

586: \nu_R^\prime

587: \end{array}\right),~

588: n_L^\prime=\left( \begin{array}{c}

589: \nu_L^{\prime}

590: \\

591: \nu_L^{\prime c}

592: \end{array}\right),~

593: \nu_{L,R}^{\prime c}=i\sigma_2\nu_{R,L}^{\prime *} \ . 

594: \eeq

595: %

596: The $6 \times 6$ mass matrix for the neutrinos is of see-saw type.

597: It has both Majorana and Dirac entries:

598: %

599: \beq

600: M_\nu=\left( \begin{array}{cc}

601: 0 & M_D

602: \\

603: M_D^T & M_R

604: \end{array}\right),~M_D

605: ={1\over \sqrt{2}}\left(y_D\kappa_1+{\tilde y_D \kappa_2}\right),~

606: M_R=\sqrt{2}y_M v_R \ , 

607: \eeq

608: %

609: where $y_M$ is a $3\times 3$ Majorana-type Yukawa coupling

610: matrix. $M_\nu$ is diagonalized by a $6\times 6$ unitary matrix $V$:

611: $V^TM_\nu V=(M_\nu)_{diag}$. This matrix relates neutrino mass and

612: flavor eigenstates: $n_L^\prime=V^* N_L$, $n_R^\prime=V N_R$. 

613: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

614: Three eigenvalues of $M_\nu$ are small (denoted later by $m_\nu$), of the

615: order of $M_D^2/M_R$, and correspond to the light neutrinos of the SM.  

616: For $M_R$ in the multi-TeV range, identifying $M_D$ with the charged

617: lepton mass clearly violates the 95\% C.L. limit $\sum m_\nu < 0.7

618: $~eV~\cite{Spergel:2003cb} from WMAP.  However, appropriate choices of

619: $y_D$ and $\tilde{y}_D$ (leading to $M_D$ with non-trivial family

620: structure and absolute scale on the order of $m_e/\kappa \sim 10^{-6}$) 

621: result into $m_{\nu_i}$ consistent with present phenomenology. 

622: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

623: The remaining three eigenstates are predominantly right-handed with

624: mass $M_n \sim M_R\sim y_M v_R\gsim$ 1 TeV, since we assume $y_M \sim

625: {\cal O} (1)$.  The amount of heavy-light mixing of the neutrino

626: sector is set by the ratio $\epsilon\sim M_D/M_R\sim y_D\kappa/y_M v_R

627: \ll 1$. As discussed below, we will expand our results in $\epsilon$

628: and $\kappa / v_R$, and retain leading non-vanishing order.

629: 

630: The LFV couplings of leptons to gauge

631: and Higgs bosons are conveniently parameterized in terms of two

632: $6\times 3$ matrices \cite{Duka:1999uc}

633: %

634: \beqa

635: K_L=V_L^{\nu \dagger}V_L^l,~

636: K_R=V_R^{\nu \dagger}V_R^l,~

637: V=\left( \begin{array}{c}

638: V_L^{\nu *}

639: \\

640: V_R^\nu  

641: \end{array}\right) \ . 

642: \eeqa

643: %

644: At the leading order in $\epsilon$, the upper $3\times3$ block of 

645: $K_L$ and the lower $3\times3$ block of $K_R$, respectively,

646: describe flavor mixing in the light and heavy neutrino 

647: sectors. They are analogous to the CKM matrix which appears in the 

648: quark sector of the SM, and satisfy unitarity conditions 

649: up to corrections of order $\epsilon^2$. 

650: In particular, 

651: the upper $3\times 3$ block of $K_L$ is the familiar mixing matrix for 

652: light neutrinos \cite{Hagiwara:fs}. 

653: As observed in the introduction, 

654: contributions involving light neutrinos (and

655: $K_L$) to any LFV process are GIM suppressed relative to those involving

656: heavy neutrinos. 

657: Therefore, the leading contributions to the LFV processes we consider

658: depend on the masses and flavor mixing of heavy neutrinos only.

659: 

660: \subsubsection{Gauge fields}

661: 

662: The charged gauge bosons acquire the following mass matrix

663: %

664: \beq

665: {\tilde M}_W^2={g^2\over 4}\left( \begin{array}{cc}

666: \kappa_+^2 & -2\kappa_1\kappa_2

667: \\

668: -2\kappa_1\kappa_2 & \kappa_+^2+2v_R^2

669: \end{array}\right) ~,

670: \eeq

671: %

672: which is diagonalized via the mixing angle

673: $\xi=-\tan^{-1}\left(2\kappa_1\kappa_2/v_R^2\right)/2$ with the

674: eigenvalues $M_{W_{1,2}}^2=g^2\left(\kappa_+^2+v_R^2 \mp

675: \sqrt{v_R^4+4\kappa_1^2\kappa_2^2}\right)/4$. Here

676: $\kappa_+=\sqrt{\kappa_1^2+\kappa_2^2}$, and the mass eigenstates 

677: are related to the gauge eigenstates by 

678: %

679: \beq

680: W_L = \cos \xi \, W_1  + \sin \xi \, W_2, \qquad

681: W_R = - \sin \xi \, W_1  + \cos \xi \, W_2 \ . 

682: \eeq 

683: %

684: 

685: The mass matrix for the neutral gauge bosons is

686: %

687: \beq {\tilde M}_0^2={1\over 2}\left( \begin{array}{ccc} {g^2\over

688: 2}\kappa_+^2 & -{g^2\over 2}\kappa_+^2 & 0 \\ -{g^2\over 2}\kappa_+^2

689: & {g^2\over 2}\left(\kappa_+^2+4v_R^2\right) & -2gg^\prime v_R^2 \\ 0

690: & -2gg^\prime v_R^2 & 2g^{\prime 2} v_R^2

691: \end{array}\right)

692: \eeq

693: %

694: It has the following non-zero eigenvalues  (the third one is vanishing)

695: %

696: \beqa

697: M_{Z_{1,2}}^2&=&{1\over 4}\Biggl[g^2\kappa_+^2+2v_R^2(g^2+g^{\prime

698: 2})\nonumber \\ 

699: &\mp& \sqrt{\left[g^2\kappa_+^2+2v_R^2(g^2+g^{\prime

700: 2})\right]^2-4g^2(g^2+2g^{\prime 2})\kappa_+^2v_R^2}\Biggr] 

701: \eeqa 

702: %

703: The explicit form of the unitary matrix that diagonalizes ${\tilde

704: M}_0^2$ is given in Ref.~\cite{Duka:1999uc}.  Here, we only list the

705: expression for the $Z_1-Z_2$ mixing angle:

706: %

707: \beq \phi=-{1\over 2}\sin^{-1}{g^2\kappa_+^2\sqrt{\cos2\theta_W}\over

708: 2 c_W^2(M_{Z_2}^2-M_{Z_1}^2)} \eeq

709: %

710: where $\theta_W$ is the weak mixing angle, 

711: and $c_W(s_W)$ is $\cos \theta_W (\sin \theta_W)$

712: (we use this abbreviation throughout). 

713: In this paper we work in the

714: regime where $\phi,\xi\ll 1$ \footnote{The experimental limits

715: on the gauge boson mixing angles are 

716: $| \xi | < 3 \times 10^{-3}$ and $|\phi |

717: < 1.8 \times 10^{-3}$~\cite{Hagiwara:fs}}, 

718: since both are ${\cal O}( (\kappa/v_R)^2)$. 

719: Note that because $y_D\ll y_M$ we have $\epsilon < \phi,\xi$.

720: 

721: \subsubsection{Higgs fields}

722: 

723: With the Higgs sector described above, there are six neutral and four charged

724: physical Higgs bosons \cite{Duka:1999uc}.   

725: At leading order in $\epsilon$, however, the neutral Higgs bosons do not

726: contribute to the LFV processes involving charged leptons in the

727: external states, and we do not consider them in the following. Two of

728: the remaining bosons, $H_{1,2}^+$, are singly charged, with masses

729: $M_{H_{1,2}}$. The last two bosons, $\delta_{L,R}^{++}$, are doubly charged, 

730: with masses $M_{\delta_{L,R}^{++}}$. 

731: Masses of the Higgs bosons depend on a number of parameters in the

732: Higgs potential, with the natural scale 

733: $M_H \sim M_{\delta} \sim v_R$ \cite{Duka:1999uc,Deshpande:1990ip}. 

734: 

735: 

736: 

737: \subsection{Lepton Interactions}

738: 

739: The LFV interactions of leptons with gauge ($W_2$),    

740: singly and doubly charged  bosons are given by the following 

741: lagrangian densities:

742: %

743: \bea

744: {\cal L}_{CC} &=& \displaystyle\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}} \Bigg\{

745: \overline{N} \Big[ \gamma^\mu \, P_R \, (K_R) \Big] l  \cdot

746: W_{2 \ \mu}^+

747: +

748: \overline{l} \Big[ \gamma^\mu \, P_R \, (K_R^\dagger) \Big] N \cdot

749: W_{2 \ \mu}^-

750: \Bigg\}  \\

751: {\cal L}_{H_1

752: %\delta_L^{\pm}

753: } &=& \displaystyle\frac{g}{\sqrt{2}} \ \Bigg[

754: H_{1}^+  \

755: \overline{N}  \left( \tilde{h} \, P_L

756: \right) l

757: + H_1^-  \

758: \overline{l}  \left( \tilde{h}^\dagger  \, P_R

759: \right) N

760: \Bigg]

761: \label{eq:xlag1}  \\

762: {\cal L}_{\delta^{\pm \pm}_{L,R}} &=&

763: \displaystyle\frac{g}{2} \ \Bigg[

764: \delta_{L,R}^{++}  \

765: \overline{l^{c}}  \left( h_{L,R} \, P_{L,R} \right) l      +

766: \delta_{L,R}^{--}  \

767: \overline{l}  \left( h_{L,R}^{\dagger} \, P_{R,L} \right) l^{c}

768: \Bigg]

769: \label{eq:xlag2} \  , 

770: \eea

771: %

772: where  $P_{L,R} = (1 \mp \gamma_5)/2$,  $N=N_L+N_R=N^c$, $l=l_L+l_R$

773: and where we have neglected ${\cal O}(\xi)$ terms.

774: With our choice of the Higgs sector, it follows~\cite{Deshpande:1990ip} 

775: that  the $3 \times 3$ matrix couplings $h_L$ and $h_R$ can 

776: be identical (manifest left-right symmetry) or can have components 

777: differing  by a sign (quasi-manifest left-right symmetry). 

778: In the manifest left-right symmetry case one finds 

779: %

780: \beq

781: h_L = h_R = K_R^T \, \frac{M_{\nu}^{\rm diag}}{M_{W_2}} \, K_R \equiv h 

782: \qquad \qquad \tilde{h} = K_L^* \, h_L \ . 

783: \eeq

784: %

785: Note that it is $K_R^T$, not $K_R^\dagger$ that appears in the

786: definition of $h$. Because $K_R$ may contain Majorana phases, 

787: $h$ is not necessarily proportional to the unit matrix even if all

788: heavy neutrinos are degenerate.  At leading order in $\epsilon $ one

789: has

790: %

791: \beq 

792: h_{i j} = \sum_{n={\rm heavy}} \, \Big( K_R \Big)_{n i}  

793: \Big( K_R \Big)_{n j}  \, \sqrt{x_n}  \ , 

794: \label{eq:hcouplings1}

795: \eeq

796: %

797: \beq

798: \Big( h^\dagger  h \Big)_{e \mu} =

799: \Big( \tilde{h}^\dagger  \tilde{h} \Big)_{e \mu} =

800: \displaystyle\sum_{n={\rm heavy}}

801: x_n  \Big( K_R^\dagger \Big)_{e n}

802: \Big( K_R \Big)_{n \mu}   \equiv g_{\rm lfv} \ ,

803: \label{eq:xcouplings}

804: \eeq

805: %

806: \beq

807:  x_n = \left({M_n\over M_{W_2}}\right)^2\ \ \ , 

808: \eeq

809: %

810: where the sum is over the heavy neutrinos only.

811: Eq.~(\ref{eq:xcouplings}) relates the lepton-gauge boson couplings to

812: the lepton-Higgs triplet couplings. We emphasize that it is specific

813: to left-right symmetric models, and plays a central role in

814: phenomenological applications. 

815: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

816: Generalization to the quasi-manifest left-right symmetry case  

817: is trivial and we have explicitly checked that a possible  

818: relative sign between $h_L$ and $h_R$ has no observable 

819: consequences in LFV processes.

820: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

821: Finally, note that for degenerate

822: heavy neutrinos, i.e., $x_n = const$, 

823: one has $g_{\rm lfv} = {\cal O}(\epsilon^2)$ due to the 

824: approximate unitarity of the lower $3\times3$ block of  

825: $K_R$. Thus $g_{\rm lfv}$ depends only on the mass square differences

826: of the heavy neutrinos. The same is not true for the individual $h_{ij}$s. 

827: 

828: 

829: 

830: 

831: 

832: \section{Calculation}

833: 

834: Within the LRSM we performed a complete calculation of the LFV  

835: muon processes  $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$, $\mu

836: \rightarrow e $ conversion in nuclei, and $\mu \rightarrow 3 e$ to 

837: leading order in the expansion parameters 

838: $\kappa/v_R$ and $\epsilon \sim M_D /M_R$. 

839: %

840: Diagrammatic contributions fall into three classes, 

841: schematically shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}.   

842: Given the lagrangian in the physical fields basis~\cite{Duka:1999uc},

843: we have first identified all diagrams contributing to leading order in

844: $\kappa/v_R$ and $M_D /M_R$. 

845: %

846: We have then calculated the LFV vertices $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma^*$,

847: $\mu \rightarrow e Z_1^*$, and $\mu \rightarrow e Z_2^*$

848: [Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1} (a)].  Finally, we have combined the LFV

849: effective vertices with the $\bar{q} q \gamma^*$, $\bar{q} q

850: Z_{1,2}^*$ interactions, and relevant box-type [Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1}

851: (b)] and tree-level diagrams [Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1} (c)] to obtain the

852: effective lagrangian for $\mu \rightarrow e $ conversion and $\mu

853: \rightarrow 3 e$.  Our calculation and main results are described in

854: this section, and some technical details are given in the

855: appendixes~\ref{app:functions}, \ref{app:mueg}.

856: 

857: 

858: \begin{figure}[ht]

859: \caption{ 

860: Diagrams contributing to $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$, $\mu

861: \rightarrow e $ conversion in nuclei, and $\mu \rightarrow 3 e$. 

862: The wavy lines represent neutral gauge bosons ($\gamma$ or $Z_{1,2}$). 

863: $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$ is described by class (a). 

864: $\mu \rightarrow e $ conversion is described by class (a) 

865: (attaching a quark line to the neutral gauge boson) and  

866: class (b) (with two external quark legs). 

867: $\mu \rightarrow 3 e$ receives in principle contributions 

868: from classes (a) (attaching an electron line to the gauge boson), 

869: (b), and (c). }

870: \label{fig:fig1}

871: \centering

872: \begin{picture}(100,200)  

873: \put(0,10){\makebox(100,20){\epsfig{figure=diagrams.ps,width=9cm}}}

874: \end{picture}

875: \end{figure}

876: 

877: 

878: 

879: \subsection{Identifying the leading contributions}

880: % 

881: In the LRSM at low energy all effects of the right-handed sector are

882: suppressed by powers of $\kappa / v_R$, as a consequence of the

883: decoupling theorem~\cite{Appelquist:tg}.  In our analysis we keep only

884: the leading contributions in the expansion parameters $\kappa/v_R$ and

885: $\epsilon$.  Throughout, we work in 't Hooft-Feynman gauge.  Our findings

886: can be summarized as follows:

887: 

888: \begin{itemize}

889: 

890: \item The $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma^*$ vertex receives its leading

891: contributions at order $\epsilon^0,(\kappa/v_R)^0$. 

892: In accordance with electromagnetic gauge invariance, however, the

893: momentum-independent piece of the amplitude vanishes, so that the

894: resulting vertex function is actually of order $q^2/v_R^2$, $q$ being

895: the momentum transfer.  Our expression is fully gauge invariant and

896: respects the decoupling theorem. 

897: %%%%%%%

898: Note that when this vertex is inserted into the $\mu\to e$ conversion

899: amplitude, the $q^2$ in the vertex cancels the $1/q^2$ of the

900: photon propagator, leaving a contact interaction that scales  

901: as $\sim 1/v_R^2$.

902: %%%%%%%%

903: 

904: 

905: \item  The $\mu  \rightarrow e Z_2^*$ vertex is again not

906: suppressed by powers of $\epsilon$ or $(\kappa/v_R)$,

907: and we only keep the momentum-independent component. This result does not 

908: contradict the decoupling theorem, as one of the external states belongs 

909: to the heavy sector of the theory.  

910: Since $q^2 << M_{Z_2}^2$, the contribution from this  

911: vertex to the $\mu\to e$ conversion amplitude goes as $1/v_R^2$. 

912: 

913: 

914: \item The $\mu \rightarrow e Z_1^*$ vertex nominally receives its

915: leading contributions at order $\epsilon^0,(\kappa/v_R)^0$.  However, the

916: momentum-independent part of this class of diagrams sums to zero, in

917: accordance with the decoupling theorem.  We find that the leading

918: non-vanishing contribution is ${\cal O} ( (\kappa/v_R)^2 )$.

919: Consequently, the contribution from this vertex to the  

920: conversion amplitude is also $\sim 1/v_R^2$. 

921: 

922: \end{itemize}

923: 

924: For the kinematics of the LFV decays considered here, the momentum 

925: dependent contributions to the  $\mu \rightarrow e Z_{1,2}^*$ vertices 

926: are highly suppressed and can be neglected. 

927: 

928: \subsection{Effective vertices}

929: The $\mu \rightarrow e$ LFV vertices can be expressed in terms of 

930: known couplings and form factors $F_{L,R}^{(i)}, A_{L,R}$  

931: as follows, 

932: %

933: \bea

934: L_{\mu}^{(Z_1)} &=& \displaystyle\frac{e \, G_F M_{W_1}^2}{\sqrt{2} (4 \pi)^2} 

935: \, \displaystyle\frac{1}{s_W \, c_W} \, 

936: \overline{e} \gamma_\mu   

937: \left(F_L^{(1)} P_L  + F_R^{(1)} P_R  \right) \mu    \ , 

938: % \ + \ {\cal O} (q^2/M_{W_1}^2) 

939: \\ 

940: L_{\mu}^{(Z_2)} &=& \displaystyle\frac{e \, G_F M_{W_1}^2}{\sqrt{2} (4 \pi)^2} 

941: \, \displaystyle\frac{1}{s_W \, c_W 

942: \sqrt{\cos 2 \theta_W}} \, 

943: \overline{e} \gamma_\mu  

944: \left(F_L^{(2)} P_L  + F_R^{(2)} P_R  \right) \mu    \ , 

945: % \ + \ {\cal O} (q^2/M_{W_1}^2)

946: \\

947: L_{\mu}^{(\gamma)} &=& \displaystyle\frac{e \, G_F}{\sqrt{2} (4 \pi)^2} \, 

948: \overline{e} \left\{ \left(q^2 \gamma_\mu -  / \! \! \!q q_\mu \right)

949: \left(F_L^{(\gamma)} P_L  + F_R^{(\gamma)} P_R  \right) 

950: \right. \nonumber \\

951: &  &  \left. - i 8 (4 \pi)^2  m_\mu  \sigma_{\mu \nu} q^\nu 

952: \left(A_L  P_L  + A_R P_R  \right) 

953: \right\} \mu \ \ ,  

954: \label{eq:photon}

955: \eea

956: %

957: where $q = p_e - p_\mu$, $\sigma_{\mu \nu} = \frac{i}{2} [ \gamma_\mu

958: , \gamma_\nu ]$.  The $\mu \, e \, \gamma^*$ effective

959: vertex has both ``anapole'' ($F_{L,R}^{(\gamma)}$) 

960: and dipole ($A_{L,R}$) terms 

961: \footnote{The first term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:photon}) involves a

962: coupling of the flavor-violating lepton current to the 

963: electromagnetic current rather than to a field associated with the 

964: corresponding vector potential. Zeldovich referred to this interaction as an 

965: anapole coupling~\cite{Zeldovich}.}.

966: Only the dipole terms contribute to the on-shell decay $\mu

967: \rightarrow e \gamma$, while both anapole and dipole contribute to

968: $\mu$ to $e$ conversion in nuclei.

969: 

970: The $\mu \rightarrow e$ effective vertices receive contributions from

971: the one-particle-irreducible diagrams depicted in

972: Fig. \ref{fig:vertices}, as well as from external-leg corrections.

973: The vertex corrections can be grouped into three classes: (i) gauge

974: contributions (including unphysical Higgs exchange), (ii) singly

975: charged physical Higgs contributions, and (iii) doubly charged Higgs

976: contributions.

977: %

978: Power counting implies that only certain combinations of gauge bosons,

979: neutrinos, and Higgs particles contribute to leading order in

980: $\kappa/v_R$ and $\epsilon$. The relevant intermediate states are indicated

981: diagram by diagram in Table \ref{tab:table2}.  

982: 

983: 

984: \begin{figure}[!bh]

985: \caption{Basic topologies for the 

986: one-particle-irreducible contributions to 

987: the $\mu \, e \, \gamma^*$, $\mu \, e \, Z_1^*$, and 

988: $\mu \, e \, Z_2^*$ effective vertices (detailed version of 

989: Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1} (a)).  

990: Wavy lines represent gauge bosons, dashed lines represent scalars 

991: (physical or unphysical), full lines represent leptons (charged or 

992: neutral). The internal particles contributing at leading order 

993: to  each topology are listed in Table \ref{tab:table2}. 

994: }

995: \label{fig:vertices}

996: \centering

997: \begin{picture}(200,270)  

998: %\put(45,180){\makebox(100,20){\epsfig{figure=gauge.ps,width=12.5cm}}}

999: \put(45,100){\makebox(100,20){\epsfig{figure=gauge.ps,height=11.5cm}}}

1000: \end{picture}

1001: \end{figure}

1002: 

1003: 

1004: \begin{table*}[hb]

1005: \caption{\label{tab:table2}

1006: Intermediate states contributing at leading order in $\kappa/v_R$

1007: and $y_D$ to $\mu \, e \, \gamma^*$, $\mu \, e \, Z_1^*$, and 

1008: $\mu \, e \, Z_2^*$

1009: effective vertices in 't Hooft-Feynman gauge. 

1010: For each topology in Fig.\ref{fig:vertices} we

1011: list the intermediate states as they appear starting from the 

1012: muon vertex and following the loop counter-clockwise.

1013: Neutrinos are denoted by $N_{\rm h}$ (heavy) and $N_{\rm l}$ (light). 

1014: $G_{1,2}$ denote the unphysical Higgs fields associated with the longitudinal 

1015: polarization of the gauge bosons $W_{1,2}$.

1016: }

1017: \begin{ruledtabular}

1018: \begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c}

1019:  & a) & b) & c) & d) & e) & f) 

1020: \\

1021: \hline

1022: $\gamma$  &  $W_{2},W_{2}, N_{\rm h}$  &    & 

1023: $W_2,G_2,N_{\rm h}$   & $G_2,W_2,N_{\rm h}$    

1024: & $G_2,G_2,N_{\rm h}$   &  % $N_{\rm h},N_{\rm h},G_2$    

1025: \\

1026:  &   &   &   &   & $H_1,H_1,N_{\rm l}$   &  % $\nu_i,\nu_i,H_1$    

1027: \\

1028:  &   &   &   &   &  $\delta_{L,R}^{\pm \pm},\delta_{L,R}^{\pm \pm},l_i$ 

1029:   &  $l_i, l_i, \delta_{L,R}^{\pm \pm} $

1030: \\

1031: \hline

1032: $Z_1$  &  $W_{2},W_{2}, N_{\rm h}$  & $N_{\rm h}, N_{\rm h}, W_2$ 

1033: & 

1034: $W_2,G_2,N_{\rm h}$   & $G_2,W_2,N_{\rm h}$    & 

1035: $G_2,G_2,N_{\rm h}$   &  $N_{\rm h},N_{\rm h},G_2$    

1036: \\

1037:       &     &     & 

1038: $W_2, H_2, N_{\rm h}$   & $H_2,W_2,N_{\rm h}$ 

1039:  & $H_2,H_2,N_{\rm h}$ ;   $G_2,H_2,N_{\rm h}$ ; 

1040: $H_2,G_2,N_{\rm h}$    &      

1041: %   &  & &  &  & $G_2,H_2,N_{\rm h}$, $H_2,G_2,N_{\rm h}$  &      

1042: \\

1043:       &     &     & 

1044: $W_2, G_1, N_{\rm h}$   & $G_1,W_2,N_{\rm h}$ 

1045:  & $G_1,G_1,N_{\rm h}$ ;   $G_1,G_2,N_{\rm h}$ ; 

1046: $G_2,G_1,N_{\rm h}$    &      

1047: \\

1048: \hline

1049: $Z_2$  &  $W_{2},W_{2}, N_{\rm h}$  & $N_{\rm h}, N_{\rm h}, W_2$

1050:   & 

1051: $W_2,G_2,N_{\rm h}$   & $G_2,W_2,N_{\rm h}$  

1052:   & $G_2,G_2,N_{\rm h}$   &  $N_i,N_i,G_2$    

1053: \\ 

1054: \end{tabular}

1055: \end{ruledtabular}

1056: \end{table*}

1057: %

1058: 

1059: \subsubsection{$\mu \, e \, Z_1^*$ vertex}  

1060: %

1061: In this case the leading diagrams involving triplet Higgs (singly

1062: and doubly charged) sum to zero, and the main effect stems from gauge

1063: contributions.  When working in 't Hooft-Feynman gauge, one needs to

1064: include the effect of unphysical Higgs exchange, and their mixing with

1065: other physical and unphysical scalars of the theory 

1066: (terms proportional to $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$ below).

1067: %

1068: In terms of the heavy neutrino masses ($M_n$), mixing matrix $K_R$,

1069: and the ratios $x_n = (M_n/M_{W_2})^2$, $y_n = (M_n/M_{W_1})^2$, 

1070: $z_n = (M_n/M_{H_2})^2$, the 

1071: resulting form factors have the following structure:

1072: %

1073: \bea

1074: F_R^{\rm (1)} & = & 

1075: \displaystyle\sum_{n={\rm heavy}} \, \Big( K_R^\dagger \Big)_{e n} 

1076: \Big( K_R \Big)_{n \mu}  \ \, 

1077: \Bigg[  

1078: \eta_0 

1079: \   S_1 (x_n) +   

1080: 2  \,  \eta_1  D_{1} (x_n, y_n)  + \eta_2 D_{1} (x_n, z_n) 

1081: \Bigg]    \ , \\

1082: F_L^{\rm (1)} & = & {\cal O} \left( 

1083: \displaystyle\frac{m_\nu^2}{M_{W_1}^2} \right) \ll F_R^{\rm (1)} 

1084: \ ,  

1085: \eea

1086: where  ($\kappa_-^2 = \kappa_1^2 - \kappa_2^2 $)  

1087: \bea

1088: \eta_0 &=&  - \displaystyle\frac{\sin \phi \ c^2_W}{

1089: \sqrt{\cos 2 \theta_W}} \simeq 

1090: \displaystyle\frac{M_{Z_1}^2 \, c^2_W}{M_{Z_2}^2 - M_{Z_1}^2} 

1091: \simeq 

1092: \displaystyle\frac{1 - 2  s^2_W}{2 c^2_W} 

1093: \frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{W_2}^2}  \ , 

1094: \\

1095: \eta_1 &=& \left(\frac{\kappa_1 \kappa_2 } {\kappa_+ v_R}\right)^2 

1096: \simeq \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{M_{W_2}}{M_{W_1}} \, 

1097: \sin \xi \right)^2 \leq {1\over 2}\left({M_{W_1}\over M_{W_2}}\right)^2 \ , 

1098: % \ \simeq \frac{M_{W_1}^2}{2 \, M_{W_2}^2} 

1099: \\

1100: \eta_2 &=& \left(\frac{\kappa_-^2}{\sqrt{2}\kappa_+ v_R}\right)^2 \leq 

1101: \left({M_{W_1}\over M_{W_2}}\right)^2 \ ,  

1102: \eea

1103: and the functions $S_{1}(x),D_1 (x,y)$ 

1104: are defined in Appendix~\ref{app:functions}.

1105: 

1106: \subsubsection{$\mu \, e \, Z_2^*$ vertex}  

1107: %

1108: As in the previous case, the leading term arises from gauge-lepton

1109: interactions, and the leading physical Higgs effects cancel out.

1110: With the notation established above, we find:

1111: %

1112: \bea

1113: F_R^{\rm (2)} & = & 

1114: c^2_W 

1115: \displaystyle\sum_{n={\rm heavy}} \, \Big( K_R^\dagger \Big)_{e n} 

1116: \Big( K_R \Big)_{n \mu}  \ \, 

1117: S_1 (x_n)  \ ,  \\

1118: F_L^{\rm (2)} & = & {\cal O} \left( 

1119: \displaystyle\frac{m_\nu^2}{M_{W_1}^2} \right) \ll F_R^{\rm (2)} 

1120: \ . 

1121: \eea

1122: 

1123: 

1124: \subsubsection{$\mu \, e \, \gamma^*$ vertex}

1125: 

1126: Both anapole and dipole transition form factors receive non-vanishing

1127: leading contribution from gauge diagrams and exchange of singly and

1128: doubly charged triplet Higgs particles.  Neglecting charged fermion

1129: masses (see Appendix~\ref{app:mueg}) and using Eq.~(\ref{eq:xcouplings}),  

1130: the various amplitudes read: 

1131: %

1132: \bea

1133: F_R^{\rm (\gamma)} & = & 

1134: \displaystyle\sum_{n={\rm heavy}} \, \Big( K_R^\dagger \Big)_{e n} 

1135: \Big( K_R \Big)_{n \mu}  \ 

1136: \left[ \frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{W_2}^2}  \, S_2 (x_n) 

1137: - x_n \, \frac{8}{3}  

1138: \frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{\delta_R^{++}}^2} \, \log 

1139: \left( \frac{-q^2}{M_{\delta_R^{++}}^2} \right) 

1140: \right] \ , 

1141: \\

1142: F_L^{\rm (\gamma)} & = & 

1143: \displaystyle\sum_{n={\rm heavy}} \, \Big( K_R^\dagger \Big)_{e n} 

1144: \Big( K_R \Big)_{n \mu}  \  \, x_n 

1145: \left[  - \frac{8}{3}  \frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{\delta_L^{++}}^2}   \, 

1146: \log \left( \frac{-q^2}{M_{\delta_L^{++}}^2} \right)  

1147: - \frac{2}{9} \frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{H_1^+}^2}  

1148: \right] \ , 

1149: \\

1150: A_L & = & \frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \, 

1151: \displaystyle\sum_{n={\rm heavy}} \, \Big( K_R^\dagger \Big)_{e n} 

1152: \Big( K_R \Big)_{n \mu}  \ 

1153: \left[ \frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{W_2}^2}  \, S_3 (x_n) 

1154: -  \frac{x_n}{3}  \frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{\delta_R^{++}}^2}  

1155: \right] \ , 

1156: \\

1157: A_R & = & \frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \, 

1158: \displaystyle\sum_{n={\rm heavy}} \, \Big( K_R^\dagger \Big)_{e n} 

1159: \Big( K_R \Big)_{n \mu}  \ \, x_n 

1160: \left[  -  \frac{1}{3}  \frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{\delta_L^{++}}^2}  

1161: -  \frac{1}{24}  \frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{H_1^+}^2}  

1162: \right] \ . 

1163: \eea

1164: %

1165: %

1166: The functions $S_{2,3}(x)$ are given explicitly in 

1167: Appendix~\ref{app:functions}.  

1168: The most important feature of these results is the logarithmic

1169: enhancement ($q^2 \simeq -m_\mu^2$) of the anapole transition form

1170: factors, arising from the doubly charged triplet Higgs diagrams.  This

1171: implies that in the left-right symmetry framework, $\mu \rightarrow e$

1172: conversion in nuclei is as strong  probe of LFV as $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$

1173: since its amplitude is logarithmically enhanced,

1174: and thus compensates for the extra factor of $\sim \alpha$. 

1175: This effect was pointed out for a larger class of models in 

1176: Ref.~\cite{Raidal:1997hq} within an effective field theory

1177: approach. Its consequences within the LRSM  will be

1178: discussed in the next section in detail.

1179: 

1180: In Appendix \ref{app:mueg} we report full expressions for the $\mu \,

1181: e \, \gamma^*$ form factors (including charged fermion masses) in

1182: terms of $h,\tilde{h}$ (i.e. without using Eq.~(\ref{eq:xcouplings})).

1183: 

1184: 

1185: 

1186: 

1187: \subsection{Effective Lagrangian for $\mu \rightarrow e$ conversion}

1188: 

1189: The effective Lagrangian for $\mu \rightarrow e $ conversion receives

1190: contributions from (i) tree level exchange of heavy neutral Higgs

1191: states; (ii) box diagrams depicted in Fig.\ref{fig:boxes}; (iii) LFV

1192: effective vertices, with the gauge boson attached to a quark line (the

1193: relevant quark-gauge couplings are summarized in Table

1194: \ref{tab:table1}).  Inspection of the neutral Higgs couplings implies

1195: that the ratio of effective couplings $g_{\rm tree}^{\rm eff}$ and

1196: $g_{\rm loop}^{\rm eff}$ generated by tree level Higgs exchange and

1197: loop corrections, respectively, scales as $g_{\rm tree}^{\rm

1198: eff}/g_{\rm loop}^{\rm eff} \sim (y_D)^2 / (\alpha/4 \pi) \ll 1 $.

1199: Therefore, we safely neglect the Yukawa suppressed tree level

1200: diagrams.

1201: 

1202: \begin{figure}[!t]

1203: %%%%%%%

1204: %\begin{center}

1205: %\resizebox{12.cm}{!}{\includegraphics*[0,530][640,730]{boxes.ps}}

1206: %%%%%%%%

1207: \centering

1208: \begin{picture}(200,100)  

1209: \put(45,-75){\makebox(100,20){\epsfig{figure=boxes.ps,width=9.5cm}}}

1210: \end{picture}

1211: \caption{Box diagrams contributing to $F_R^{(\rm B)}$ 

1212: (Fig.~\ref{fig:fig1} (b)).}

1213: \label{fig:boxes}

1214: % \end{center}

1215: \end{figure}

1216: 

1217: After casting the $\mu \, e \, Z_{1,2}^*$ vertices and the $\mu \, e \,

1218: \gamma^*$ anapole terms in the form of a current-current interaction,

1219: the effective lagrangian can be written as in

1220: Ref.~\cite{Kitano:2002mt}:

1221: %

1222: \bea

1223: {\cal L}_{\mu \to e} &=& 

1224: - \displaystyle\frac{4  G_F \, e}{\sqrt{2}}   

1225: \ m_\mu \   \overline{e} \, 

1226: \sigma_{\mu \nu} (A_L P_L + A_R P_R) \mu 

1227: \cdot F^{\mu \nu}   

1228: \nonumber \\ 

1229: & &  - \displaystyle\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}  \displaystyle\sum_{q} \, 

1230: \Bigg\{  

1231: \overline{e} \gamma_\mu  \Big[ g_{LV} (q) P_L + 

1232: g_{RV}(q) P_R \Big] \mu  \otimes \overline{q} \gamma^\mu q 

1233: \nonumber \\

1234: & &  \qquad 

1235: + \overline{e} \gamma_\mu  \Big[ g_{LA} (q) P_L + 

1236: g_{RA}(q) P_R \Big] \mu  \otimes \overline{q} \gamma^\mu \gamma^5 q 

1237: \Bigg\} + {\rm h.c.} \ ,  

1238: \eea 

1239: %

1240: where $F^{\mu \nu}$ has to be understood as the classical field 

1241: produced by the nucleus.  

1242: In terms of the box contribution ($S_4(x)$ is defined in 

1243: Appendix~\ref{app:functions}) 

1244: %

1245: \bea

1246: F_R^{\rm (B)} & = &  8 \, 

1247: \displaystyle\sum_{n={\rm heavy}} \, \Big( K_R^\dagger \Big)_{e n} 

1248: \Big( K_R \Big)_{n \mu}  \ \, S_4 (x_n)  \  , 

1249: \eea 

1250: %

1251: and the LFV form factors, the couplings $g_{LV,RV} (q)$ are  

1252: \bea

1253: g_{LV}(q) &=& - \displaystyle\frac{\alpha}{4 \pi} \,

1254:  F_{L}^{(\gamma)} \, v_{q}^{(\gamma)}  \ , 

1255: \\ 

1256: g_{RV}(q) &=&   \frac{\alpha}{8 \pi s_W^2} \Bigg\{ 

1257: - 2 \sin^2 \theta_W   F_{R}^{(\gamma)} \, v_{q}^{(\gamma)} 

1258: + \displaystyle\frac{1}{2} F_R^{(1)} v_q^{(1)}  

1259: \nonumber \\

1260:  & & 

1261: + \displaystyle\frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{W_2}^2}  

1262: \displaystyle\frac{F_R^{(2)} \, v_q^{(2)} 

1263: }{4 c_W^4 } \, 

1264: - 

1265: \displaystyle\frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{W_2}^2}  

1266: F_R^{(B)}  v_q^{(B)}  

1267: \Bigg\}  \ . 

1268: \label{eq:grv}

1269: \eea

1270: %

1271: The expressions for $g_{LA,RA} (q)$ are obtained by replacing

1272: $v_q^{(i)}$ with $a_q^{(i)}$ in $g_{LV,RV} (q)$. We remark that all

1273: the contributions to $g_{RV}(q)$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:grv}) enter at

1274: leading order $\kappa /v_R$, contrary to what appears in earlier

1275: calculations~\cite{Riazuddin:hz,Barenboim:1996vu}.  In

1276: Ref.~\cite{Riazuddin:hz} only $F_R^{(2)}$ and $F_R^{(B)}$ were

1277: included, while the authors of Ref.~\cite{Barenboim:1996vu} considered

1278: only $F_{L,R}^{(1)}$. Both of these previous studies omitted the

1279: dominant, logarithmically-enhanced contributions from

1280: $F_{L,R}^{(\gamma)}$.

1281: Finally,  we note that upon taking matrix elements

1282: of ${\cal L}_{\mu \to e}$ in nuclei, the following combinations of

1283: $g_{LV,RV} (q)$ become relevant:

1284: %

1285: \bea

1286: \tilde{g}_{LV,RV}^{(p)} &=& 2 \, g_{LV,RV}(u) + g_{LV,RV}(d)  \ , \\

1287: \tilde{g}_{LV,RV}^{(n)} &=&  g_{LV,RV}(u) + 2\, g_{LV,RV}(d)   \ . 

1288: \eea

1289: 

1290: 

1291: \begin{table*}

1292: \caption{\label{tab:table1} Vector and Axial-Vector couplings 

1293: of $u$ and $d$ quarks to $Z_1$, $Z_2$, and $\gamma$. 

1294: We list for completeness the effective 

1295: Vector and Axial-Vector couplings induced by box diagrams of Fig. 

1296: \ref{fig:boxes}.}

1297: \begin{ruledtabular}

1298: \begin{tabular}{cccccccc}

1299: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$Z_1$}&\multicolumn{2}{c}{$Z_2$}&

1300: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$\gamma$} &

1301: \multicolumn{2}{c}{BOX}

1302: \\

1303: \hline

1304: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$v_u^{(1)}  = 1 - \frac{8}{3} s^2_W   $} 

1305: & 

1306: \multicolumn{2}{c}{    

1307: $v_u^{(2)} =1 - \frac{8}{3} s^2_W $}& 

1308: \multicolumn{2}{c}{    

1309: $v_u^{(\gamma)}=   \frac{2}{3} $} &

1310: \multicolumn{2}{c}{    

1311: $v_u^{(\rm B)}= 1 $} 

1312: \\ 

1313: \multicolumn{2}{c}{    

1314: $a_u^{(1)}= 1   $} & 

1315: \multicolumn{2}{c}{ $a_u^{(2)}= -1 + 2 s^2_W  $}

1316:  &  \multicolumn{2}{c}{    $  $}  &

1317: \multicolumn{2}{c}{    

1318: $a_u^{(\rm B)}= - 1 $} 

1319: \\ 

1320: \hline

1321: \multicolumn{2}{c}{    

1322: $v_d^{(1)}= - 1 + \frac{4}{3}  s^2_W $}

1323: & \multicolumn{2}{c}{

1324: $v_d^{(2)} = -1 + \frac{4}{3}  s^2_W  $} & 

1325: \multicolumn{2}{c}{    

1326: $v_d^{(\gamma)}= -\frac{1}{3}   $} &

1327: \multicolumn{2}{c}{    

1328: $v_d^{(\rm B)}= -\frac{1}{4} $} 

1329: \\ 

1330: \multicolumn{2}{c}{    

1331: $a_d^{(1)} = -1    $} & 

1332: \multicolumn{2}{c}{ $a_d^{(2)}= 1 - 2 s^2_W $} 

1333: &  \multicolumn{2}{c}{    $  $} 

1334: &    

1335: \multicolumn{2}{c}{    

1336: $a_d^{(\rm B)}= \frac{1}{4} $} 

1337: \\ 

1338: \end{tabular}

1339: \end{ruledtabular}

1340: \end{table*}

1341: 

1342: 

1343: 

1344: \subsection{Effective Lagrangian for $\mu  \rightarrow 3 e$}

1345: %

1346: The process $\mu \rightarrow 3 e$ can occur in the LRSM through (i)

1347: tree level exchange of doubly charged Higgses (via the interaction of

1348: Eq.(\ref{eq:xlag2})); (ii) one-loop effective $\mu \rightarrow e$

1349: vertex, with an electron line attached to the gauge boson; (iii) box

1350: diagrams.  Barring the unnatural possibility that

1351: $M_{\delta_{L,R}^{\pm \pm}} \gg M_{W_2}$, the loop amplitudes (ii) 

1352: and (iii) are

1353: suppressed by the standard $\alpha/\pi$ factor, and therefore in our

1354: analysis we disregard them.

1355: 

1356: Doubly charged Higgs particles mediate at tree level also the 

1357: decays $\tau \rightarrow l_a \, l_b \, \bar{l}_c$, with 

1358: $l_{a,b,c}=\mu, e$. In compact notation, the effective 

1359: lagrangian for four-lepton processes is given by:

1360: %

1361: \beq

1362: {\cal L}_{\delta} = \frac{g^2}{4} h_{ij} h_{km}^*  \ 

1363: \left[ \frac{1}{M^2_{\delta_R^{++}}}  

1364: \left( \overline{l_{iR}^c} \, l_{j R} \right) \, 

1365: \left( \overline{l_{k R}} \, l_{m R}^c \right)

1366: +  ( L \leftrightarrow R) 

1367: \right]\ . 

1368: \eeq

1369: %  

1370: 

1371: 

1372: \section{Analysis}  

1373: 

1374: Based on the results described in the previous section, we now discuss

1375: the phenomenology of lepton flavor violation in muon decays within the

1376: LRSM.  

1377: There are three main objectives of our analysis. First, we shall

1378: identify relations between LFV rates that are largely independent of

1379: the model parameters, and therefore can be considered as signatures of

1380: left-right symmetry broken at the multi-TeV scale. The pattern

1381: emerging is remarkably clear, and could be confronted with

1382: experimental findings in the next decade: the branching fractions for

1383: $\mu \rightarrow e$ conversion and $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$ are

1384: expected to be very similar, and two order of magnitude smaller than

1385: the one for $\mu \rightarrow 3 e$ (with some caveats).

1386: %

1387: Second, we shall study the constraints on heavy neutrino masses and

1388: mixings implied by present experimental limits on LFV processes.

1389: And third, we shall discuss 

1390: the impact of future experiments, including collider measurements.

1391: 

1392: 

1393: Before describing the details of our analysis let us shortly recall the

1394: existing limits on the model parameters of interest to us.  Direct

1395: searches imply that $M_{W_2} \geq 786$ GeV, while singly- and

1396: doubly-charged Higgs particles should be heavier than $\sim$100

1397: GeV~\cite{Hagiwara:fs}. Indirect bounds are stronger and require the

1398: Higgs masses to be on the TeV scale. 

1399: In summary, the existing phenomenology is consistent with the heavy

1400: sector masses being generically at the TeV scale or above. 

1401: In what follows, we shall 

1402: explore the consequences of a heavy mass scale being in the range 

1403: 1-10 TeV,  which can be tested in the foreseeable future. 

1404: 

1405: 

1406: \subsection{Setting the stage}

1407: 

1408: The quantities of primary interest to us are the branching ratios:

1409: %

1410: \beq

1411: B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma} = 

1412: \frac{\Gamma (\mu \rightarrow e \gamma)}{ \Gamma_\mu^{(0)}}  \ , 

1413: \qquad  

1414: B_{\mu \to e}^{Z} = 

1415: \frac{\Gamma_{\rm conv}^{Z}}{\Gamma_{\rm capt}^{Z}} \ , 

1416: \qquad 

1417: B_{\mu \rightarrow 3 e} = 

1418: \frac{\Gamma (\mu \rightarrow 3 e)}{ \Gamma_\mu^{(0)}}  \ , 

1419: \eeq

1420: %

1421: where $\Gamma_\mu^{(0)} = (G_F^2 m_\mu^5)/(192 \pi^3) $,  and for the

1422: capture rate $\Gamma_{\rm capt}^{Z}$ we take the experimental values. 

1423: %

1424: The expression for the conversion rate $\Gamma_{\rm conv}^{Z}$ 

1425: involves the overlap integrals~\cite{Kitano:2002mt} 

1426: \bea

1427: V^{(p,n)} &=& \displaystyle\frac{1}{2 \sqrt{2}} \,  

1428: \int_{0}^{\infty} \ dr  \, r^2 \, N^{(p,n)} \rho^{(p,n)} \, 

1429: \left( g_{e}^- g_{\mu}^- + f_{e}^- f_{\mu}^-  \right)   \ , 

1430: \\

1431: D &=& - \displaystyle\frac{4 m_\mu }{\sqrt{2}} \,  

1432: \int_{0}^{\infty} \ dr \,  r^2 \, E(r) \, 

1433: \left( g_{e}^- f_{\mu}^- + f_{e}^- g_{\mu}^-  \right)  \ . 

1434: \eea

1435: %

1436: Here $N^{(p)} = Z$, $N^{(n)} = A-Z$; $\rho^{(p,n)}$ are proton and

1437: neutron densities, $E(r)$ is the electric field generated by protons,

1438: and $g^{-}_{\mu,e}$ $f^{-}_{\mu,e}$, are the upper and lower

1439: components of the initial bound muon and final continuum 

1440: electron wavefunctions, obtained by solving

1441: the Dirac equation. The overlap integrals have dimension of (mass)$^{5/2}$, 

1442: and in our study we use the numerical results for them

1443: reported in Table I of Ref.~\cite{Kitano:2002mt}. 

1444: % 

1445: In terms of the form factors calculated above and $D, V^{(n)},

1446: V^{(p)}$, the relevant branching fractions read:

1447: %

1448: \bea

1449: B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma} &=& 384 \pi^2  \, e^2  (|A_L|^2 + |A_R|^2)  

1450: \ , \label{eq:muegBR} 

1451: \\

1452: B_{\mu \to e} &=& \displaystyle\frac{2 \, G_F^2}{\Gamma_{\rm capt}} \,   

1453: \left(   | A_R^*  \, D + \tilde{g}_{LV}^{(p)} V^{(p)} + 

1454:  \tilde{g}_{LV}^{(n)} V^{(n)} |^2   +  

1455: | A_L^*  \, D + \tilde{g}_{RV}^{(p)} V^{(p)} + 

1456:  \tilde{g}_{RV}^{(n)} V^{(n)} |^2   \right)   \ , 

1457: \label{eq:muconvBR}

1458: \\

1459: B_{\mu \rightarrow 3 e} &=& \frac{1}{2} \, | h_{\mu e} h_{ee}^* |^2   

1460: \left( \frac{M_{W_1}^4}{M_{\delta_{L}^{++}}^4} +

1461: \frac{M_{W_1}^4}{M_{\delta_{R}^{++}}^4} \right) \ . 

1462: \label{eq:mu3eBR}

1463: \eea

1464: %

1465: While $B_{\mu \rightarrow 3 e}$ has a relatively simple structure,  

1466: in general 

1467: $B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma}$ and $B_{\mu \to e}$

1468: depend on a large number of unknown model parameters. However, under

1469: the rather natural assumption  

1470: of a "commensurate mass spectrum" for the heavy sector of the model  

1471: ({\em i.e.}, $M_{W_2}\sim M_{\delta_R^{++}}

1472: \sim M_{\delta_L^{++}} \sim M_{H^+}$), the problem becomes more tractable. 

1473: Specifically, if $M_{W_2}$, $M_{\delta_R^{++}}$, 

1474: $M_{\delta_L^{++}}$, $M_{H^{+}}$, and the heavy neutrino masses $M_n$ 

1475: are all of the same order of magnitude (in practice we

1476: shall assume $0.2 \lsim M_i/M_j \lsim 5$ for each pair of masses), 

1477: the amplitudes for $\mu \rightarrow e$  and $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$   

1478: become approximately proportional to $g_{\rm lfv}$, defined in 

1479: Eq.~(\ref{eq:xcouplings}).  

1480: This is based on the following observations:

1481: \begin{itemize} 

1482: \item[(i)] Doubly charged  Higgs contributions to the couplings 

1483: $A_{L,R}$, $g_{LV}(q)$ and $g_{RV}(q)$ are linear in $x_n$  

1484: (hence proportional  to $g_{\rm lfv}$), and are sizable 

1485: (the anapole transition form factor receives a large logarithmic enhancement). 

1486: \item[(ii)] Gauge contributions depend on $x_n$ through the 

1487: functions $S_i (x)$. These terms always represent a small correction 

1488: to the Higgs contribution because 

1489: $$ 

1490: (a): \  \left| S_i (x) \right| \ll x \ 

1491: \frac{8}{3} \log \frac{M_{\delta^{++}}^2}{m_\mu^2} ;   \qquad \qquad    

1492: (b): \  \left| S_i^{'} (x) \right| \ll 

1493: \frac{8}{3} \log \frac{M_{\delta^{++}}^2}{m_\mu^2} ;   \qquad \qquad    

1494: $$

1495: %

1496: within the region $ (0.2)^2 \leq x \leq 3 $, 

1497: where the lower limit follows from  our

1498: assumption of commensurate spectrum and the upper limit from the vacuum 

1499: stability condition~\cite{Mohapatra:pj,Prezeau:2003xn}

1500: \footnote{In the case of $A_L$, the relevant conditions are $|S_3(x)|

1501: \ll x/3$, and $|S_3^{'} (x)| \ll 1/3$.}.

1502: %

1503: \end{itemize}

1504: %

1505: Condition {\it (a)} ensures that gauge terms are small in the 

1506: case of non-degenerate heavy neutrinos, while condition {\it (b)} 

1507: suppresses them 

1508: in the case of nearly degenerate neutrinos. 

1509: In what follows we account for the small gauge-induced contributions 

1510: to the various couplings  by expanding the $S_i(x)$ around

1511: $\bar{x}=1.5$, and keeping only the linear term.   

1512: We have checked that  

1513: the residual dependence on the expansion point $\bar{x}$ is small, 

1514: and does not affect  our discussion and results in a significant way. 

1515: 

1516: The above considerations about the relevance of $g_{\rm lfv}$ remain

1517: true even in the unnatural limit $M_{\delta_{L,R}^{++}} \ll M_{W_2}$, but

1518: become invalid in the opposite limit $M_{\delta_{L,R}^{++}} \gg M_{W_2}$, as

1519: for $M_{\delta_{L,R}^{++}} \sim 10 M_{W_2}$ the Higgs mass suppression 

1520: compensates the logarithmic enhancement.  

1521: Such unnatural limit will not be considered here.  

1522: 

1523: In summary, in the natural scenario of commensurate mass spectrum

1524: in the heavy sector, $B_{\mu \to e}^Z$ and $B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma}$

1525: are driven by a single combination of heavy neutrino masses and 

1526: mixing parameters, which we defined as $g_{\rm lfv}$. Moreover, 

1527: $B_{\mu \to e}^Z$ and $B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma}$ 

1528: depend only on four independent parameters ($g_{\rm lfv}, M_{W_2},

1529: M_{\delta_L^{++}},M_{\delta_R^{++}}$), and have the generic structure

1530: \beq

1531: B_i = |g_{\rm lfv}|^2 \ \frac{M_{W_1}^4}{M_{W_2}^4} \times  

1532: f_{i} \left( 

1533: \log \frac{M_{W_2}}{\sqrt{- q^2}} , 

1534: \log \frac{M_{W_2}}{M_{W_1}} , 

1535: r_L \equiv  \frac{M_{\delta_L^{++}}}{M_{W_2}}, 

1536: r_R \equiv  \frac{M_{\delta_R^{++}}}{M_{W_2}} \right) \ .  

1537: \label{eq:pheno1}

1538: \eeq 

1539: We shall next explore the consequences of such simplified form. 

1540: 

1541: \subsection{$\mu \rightarrow e$ conversion versus $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$} 

1542: 

1543: The first important consequence is that the ratio $R^A \equiv

1544: B_{\mu \to e}^A/B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma}$ does not depend on $g_{\rm

1545: lfv}$, and is a function of $\log (M_{W_2}/M_{W_1}), r_L, r_R$.  

1546: %

1547: \begin{figure}[!b]

1548: \begin{center}

1549: \leavevmode

1550: \begin{picture}(180,200)

1551: \put(40,60){\makebox(70,70){\includegraphics[width=10.0cm]{RAl1}}}

1552: \put(-135,180){  $B_{\mu \to e}^{Al}/B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma}$  }

1553: %

1554: \put(180,-10){ $M_{W_2}/M_{W_1}$ }

1555: %

1556: %\put(210,110){{\scriptsize $M_{\Delta_L^{++}}/M_{W_2}=0.2$} }

1557: %\put(210,130){{\scriptsize $M_{\Delta_L^{++}}/M_{W_2}=1$} }

1558: %\put(210,145){{\scriptsize $M_{\Delta_L^{++}}/M_{W_2}=5$} }

1559: %

1560: \put(170,97){{\scriptsize $r_{L}=0.2$} }

1561: \put(170,127){{\scriptsize $r_{L}=1$} }

1562: \put(170,148){{\scriptsize $r_{L}=5$} }

1563: \end{picture}

1564: \caption{  

1565: $R^{Al} \equiv B_{\mu \to e}^{Al}/B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma}$ as a

1566: function of $M_{W_2}/M_{W_1}$, for different values of $r_{L}$. We

1567: keep $r_R=1$, because the variation of $R^{Al}$ with this parameter is

1568: considerably smaller then the variation with $r_L$.  The shaded band can be

1569: considered a prediction of left-right symmetry for $R^{Al}$, assuming 

1570: commensurate heavy sector.}

1571: \label{fig:RAl}

1572: \end{center}

1573: \end{figure}  

1574: %

1575: Our explicit analysis shows that, for input parameters in the

1576: commensurate range $0.2 \leq r_{L,R} \leq 5$, $R^A$ varies at most

1577: by $30 \%$ for any fixed value of $M_{W_2}/M_{W_1}$.

1578: As illustration, in Fig.~\ref{fig:RAl} we show the ratio $R$ for 

1579: aluminum $R^{Al}$ 

1580: as a function of $M_{W_2}/M_{W_1}$ for a range of $r_{L}$ values 

1581: (the variation with $r_R$ is much smaller).  The most striking feature

1582: of our result is the near independence on the heavy mass parameters (as

1583: long as they stay in the natural range), leading to a distinctive

1584: prediction of the LRSM for $R^{Al}$. This ratio is of

1585: ${\cal O}(1)$ in this model and it is naturally confined between 1 and

1586: 2, as shown by the gray area in Fig.\ref{fig:RAl}.  The absolute scale

1587: on this plot can be understood as a consequence of the logarithmic

1588: enhancement of the anapole form factor contributing to $B_{\mu \to e}$.

1589: Different values of $R^A$ (in particular values smaller than unity)

1590: can be hardly accommodated without unnatural tuning of mass parameters.

1591: Indeed, for mass parameters just above the present direct limits

1592: ($M_{W_2}=0.8$ TeV and $M_{\delta_{L,R}^{++}}=200$ GeV), we find

1593: $R^{Al}=0.8$, which can be considered the minimal acceptable value

1594: within this model.  This prediction is substantially different from 

1595: R-parity conserving SUSY scenarios, and

1596: can be hopefully tested by future measurements of $B_{\mu \to e}^{Al}$ 

1597: (MECO) and $B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma}$ (MEG).

1598: 

1599: The qualitative features encountered in the analysis of $R^{Al}$ 

1600: apply to other elements as well. In particular, the ratio $R^A$ is 

1601: always of ${\cal O}(1)$. We have studied a few more examples, 

1602: in the same range of mass parameters used above, finding: 

1603: \beq

1604: R^{Ti}:  2 \rightarrow 3.5 \ , \qquad

1605: R^{Au}: 2 \rightarrow 4  \ , \qquad

1606: R^{Pb}: 1.5 \rightarrow  3   \ . 

1607: \eeq

1608: 

1609: 

1610: \subsection{$\mu \rightarrow e$ conversion versus $\mu \rightarrow 3 e$}  

1611: 

1612: Under slightly stronger assumptions, it is also possible to derive an

1613: order-of-magnitude relation between $B_{\mu \rightarrow 3 e}$ and

1614: $B_{\mu \to e}$. Assuming dominance of logarithmic terms induced by doubly

1615: charged Higgs diagrams, and using $ \log

1616: (M^2_{\delta_{R}^{++}}/m_\mu^2) \approx \log

1617: (M^2_{\delta_{L}^{++}}/{m_\mu^2})$, one can write

1618: %

1619: \beq

1620: B_{\mu \to e} = \frac{8 G_F^2  \alpha^2}{9 \pi^2} \, 

1621: \frac{(V^{(p)})^2}{\Gamma_{\rm capt}} \, 

1622: \left( \frac{M_{W_1}^4}{M_{\delta_{L}^{++}}^4} +

1623: \frac{M_{W_1}^4}{M_{\delta_{R}^{++}}^4} \right) 

1624: \left(\log \frac{M^2_{\delta_{R}^{++}}}{m_\mu^2} \right)^2 \ 

1625: \Bigg| 

1626: h_{\mu e} h_{ee}^* + h_{\mu \mu} h_{\mu e}^*  + h_{\mu \tau } h_{\tau e}^* 

1627: \Bigg|^2    \ . 

1628: \eeq

1629: %

1630: Under the assumption that $h_{\mu e} h_{ee}^* \sim

1631: h_{\mu \mu} h_{\mu e}^* \sim h_{\mu \tau } h_{\tau e}^* $, and that 

1632: no cancellations occur between the three contributions, 

1633: one then expects

1634: \beq

1635: B_{\mu \to e} =

1636: k_f \, 

1637: \frac{16 G_F^2  \alpha^2}{9 \pi^2} \, 

1638: \frac{(V^{(p)})^2}{\Gamma_{\rm capt}} \, 

1639: \left(\log \frac{M^2_{\delta_{R}^{++}}}{m_\mu^2} \right)^2 \ 

1640: B_{\mu \rightarrow 3 e} \ ,  

1641: \eeq    

1642: %

1643: where $k_f =|g_{{\rm lfv}}|^2/|h_{\mu e} h^*_{ee}|^2$ 

1644: is a number of order 1. 

1645: For $M^2_{\delta_{R}^{++}} \approx M^2_{\delta_{L}^{++}} \approx 1

1646: {\rm TeV}$, this translates into 

1647: %

1648: \beq 

1649: B_{\mu  \rightarrow 3 e}   \sim 

1650: \frac{ 3 \times 10^{2}}{ k_f }  \ 

1651: B_{\mu \to e}^{Al} \ . 

1652: \eeq

1653: %

1654: So, within this model, one expects that $\mu \rightarrow 3 e$  

1655: could be the first rare muon decay to be observed. 

1656: %

1657: Sizable deviations from the above pattern would provide information 

1658: about the parameters $h_{\mu l} h_{l e}^*$.  In particular,

1659: $ B_{\mu \to e}^{Al}/B_{\mu \rightarrow 3 e} \gg \ 10^{-2} $ would imply

1660: dominance of the $l=\mu$ and/or $l=\tau$ contribution in $|\sum_{l} h_{\mu

1661: l} h_{l e}^*|$, and may lead to observable signals in $\tau \rightarrow

1662: l_a l_b \bar{l}_c$ decays. 

1663: On the other hand, $ B_{\mu \to e}^{Al}/B_{\mu \rightarrow 3 e} \ll \

1664: 10^{-3} $ would signal non-trivial relative phases among the

1665: couplings, necessary to suppress $|\sum_{l} h_{\mu l} h_{l e}^*|$

1666: compared to $|h_{\mu e} h_{e e}^*|$.

1667: 

1668: 

1669: \subsection{Constraints on heavy neutrino masses and mixing}

1670: 

1671: \begin{figure}[!b]

1672: \begin{center}

1673: \leavevmode

1674: \begin{picture}(150,180)

1675: \put(-80,50){\makebox(70,70){\includegraphics[width=8.0cm]{glfv1}}}

1676: \put(170,50){\makebox(70,70){\includegraphics[width=8.0cm]{glfv3}}}

1677: \put(-170,160){  $ \log_{10} (g_{\rm lfv})$  }

1678: \put(80,160){  $ \log_{10} (g_{\rm lfv})$  }

1679: %

1680: \put(-90,160){

1681: \framebox[1.0\width][c]{

1682: \small PRESENT LIMITS 

1683: }}

1684: \put(160,160){

1685: \framebox[1.0\width][c]{

1686: \small MECO AND MEG

1687: }}

1688: %

1689: \put(-10,40){

1690: \framebox[1.0\width][c]{

1691: \scriptsize $r_L = r_R =1$

1692: }}

1693: \put(240,40){

1694: \framebox[1.0\width][c]{

1695: \scriptsize $r_L = r_R =1$

1696: }}

1697: %

1698: \put(25,0){$M_{W_2}/M_{W_1}$}

1699: \put(270,0){$M_{W_2}/M_{W_1}$}

1700: %

1701: \put(195,120){\scriptsize $B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma} < 10^{-14}$}  

1702: \put(155,85){\scriptsize $B_{\mu \to e}^{\rm Al} < 10^{-16}$}

1703: %

1704: \put(-40,130){\scriptsize $B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma} < 1.2 \times 10^{-11}$}

1705: \put(-50,100){\scriptsize $B_{\mu \to e}^{\rm Au} < 8 \times 10^{-13}$}

1706: %

1707: \end{picture}

1708: \caption{

1709: Correlations in the  $g_{\rm lfv}$-$(M_{W_2}/M_{W_1})$ plane 

1710: imposed by present and future (MEG and MECO) limits on 

1711: $B_{\mu \to e}$ and $B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma}$. 

1712: The shaded area represents the region allowed by limits reported on the plot. 

1713: In this plot we use $r_L=r_R=1$. 

1714: Lowering $r_L$ and/or $r_R$ poses tighter constraints on $g_{\rm lfv}$, 

1715: for fixed $M_{W_2}$. }

1716: \label{fig:comp1}

1717: \end{center}

1718: \end{figure}

1719: 

1720: LFV in muon decays is driven by $g_{\rm lfv}$ and the couplings $h_{i

1721: j}$, related to heavy neutrino masses and mixing angles through

1722: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:hcouplings1})-(\ref{eq:xcouplings}).  We now explore the

1723: correlations between $g_{\rm lfv}$ and heavy mass parameters implied

1724: by present experimental limits and future limits/observations of

1725: $B_{\mu \to e}^Z$, $B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma}$.  Subsequently, we

1726: discuss the constraints on $h_{\mu e} h_{ee}^*$ implied by 

1727: limits on $B_{\mu \rightarrow 3 e}$.

1728: 

1729: In order to illustrate the generic model expectations for 

1730: $\mu \rightarrow e$ conversion and $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$, we 

1731: show below  approximate expressions for the rates (obtained by  

1732: setting  $r_L=r_R=1$), 

1733: %

1734: \bea

1735: B_{\mu  \rightarrow e \gamma} &=&  

1736: 1.5 \times 10^{-7}  

1737: \  |g_{\rm lfv}|^2  \ 

1738: \left(\frac{1 {\rm TeV}}{M_{W_2}}\right)^4  \ , 

1739: \\

1740: B_{\mu \to e}^{A,Z} &=&  

1741:  X_A \times 10^{-7} 

1742: \  |g_{\rm lfv}|^2  \ 

1743: \left(\frac{1 {\rm TeV}}{M_{\delta^{++}_{L,R }}}\right)^4 \, 

1744: \alpha \,

1745: \left( \log \frac{M_{\delta^{++}_{L,R }}^2

1746: }{m_\mu^2}   \right)^2 

1747: \ , 

1748: \eea

1749: % 

1750: where $X_A$ is the nucleus dependent numerical factor  

1751: (we find  $X_A$ = 0.8, 1.3, 1.6, and 1.1 for Al, Ti, Au, and Pb,

1752: respectively). These branching ratios

1753: have to be compared with present experimental limits:

1754: \beq

1755: B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma} < 1.2 \times  10^{-11} \,  

1756: \mbox{\cite{muegamma99}}, 

1757: \ 

1758: %\quad 

1759: B_{\mu \to e}^{Ti} < 4.3 \times 10^{-12}  \,  \mbox{\cite{mueconvTi}}, 

1760: \ 

1761: %\quad

1762: B_{\mu \to e}^{Au} <  8 \times 10^{-13} ~ \mbox{\cite{mueconvAu}},    

1763: \ 

1764: %\quad

1765: B_{\mu \to e}^{Pb} <    4.6 \times 10^{-11} ~ \mbox{\cite{mueconvPb}}     \ . 

1766: \eeq 

1767: %  

1768: Thus, assuming commensurate spectrum and $g_{\rm lfv} \sim 1$

1769: (i.e. large mixing angles and non-degenerate heavy neutrinos),

1770: consistency with present limits implies that the scale of $SU(2)_R$

1771: breaking has to be around 20 TeV.  On the other hand, for $M_{W_2}$ in

1772: the 1-10 TeV range,  present experimental limits already  

1773: impose non-trivial constraints on $g_{\rm lfv}$ (left panel in

1774: Fig.~\ref{fig:comp1}).  Values of $g_{\rm lfv}$ at the $10^{-2} -

1775: 10^{-3}$ level imply either small mixing angles in the heavy neutrino

1776: sector or nearly degenerate heavy neutrinos, on the scale set by

1777: $M_{W_2}$.  The most stringent constraints at present come from $\mu

1778: \rightarrow e$ conversion in gold.  Future experiments MEG~\cite{MEG}

1779: and MECO~\cite{MECO} will be able to probe even higher mass scales and

1780: put more stringent upper limits on $g_{\rm lfv}$ (right panel in

1781: Fig. \ref{fig:comp1}).  Once again, $\mu \rightarrow e$ conversion 

1782: will probe the model parameter space more strongly.

1783: 

1784: \begin{figure}[!b]

1785: \begin{center}

1786: \leavevmode

1787: \begin{picture}(150,180)

1788: \put(-80,50){\makebox(70,70){\includegraphics[width=8.0cm]{glfv2}}}

1789: \put(170,50){\makebox(70,70){\includegraphics[width=8.0cm]{glfv4}}}

1790: \put(-170,160){  $ \log_{10} (g_{\rm lfv})$  }

1791: \put(80,160){  $ \log_{10} (g_{\rm lfv})$  }

1792: %

1793: \put(-80,160){

1794: \framebox[1.0\width][c]{

1795: $B_{\mu \to e}^{Au} <  8 \times 10^{-13}$}}

1796: \put(170,160){

1797: \framebox[1.0\width][c]{

1798: $B_{\mu \to e}^{Al} < 10^{-16}$}}

1799: %

1800: \put(25,0){$M_{W_2}/M_{W_1}$}

1801: \put(270,0){$M_{W_2}/M_{W_1}$}

1802: %

1803: \put(-115,35){{\scriptsize $\xi = 10^{-3}$}}

1804: \put(135,35){{\scriptsize $\xi = 10^{-3}$}}

1805: %

1806: %

1807: \put(270,90){{\scriptsize $r_{L.R}=0.2$} }

1808: \put(270,115){{\scriptsize $r_{L,R}=1$} }

1809: \put(270,135){{\scriptsize $r_{L,R}=5$} }

1810: %

1811: \put(10,80){{\scriptsize $r_{L,R}=0.2$} }

1812: \put(10,110){{\scriptsize $r_{L,R}=1$} }

1813: \put(10,135){{\scriptsize $r_{L,R}=5$} }

1814: %

1815: \end{picture}

1816: \caption{

1817: Correlations in the $g_{\rm lfv}$-$(M_{W_2}/M_{W_1})$ plane imposed by

1818: $B_{\mu \to e}$, before and after MECO's goal has been reached, 

1819: for different values of

1820: $r_{L}=r_{R}$.  The shaded area represents the region allowed by the

1821: assumed limits on $B_{\mu \to e}$.  A non-zero mixing angle $\xi$ would 

1822: further reduce the allowed region.  As an illustration, 

1823: the allowed region for $\xi = 10^{-3}$ is plotted in light-gray.}

1824: \label{fig:comp2}

1825: \end{center}

1826: \end{figure} 

1827: 

1828: Focusing on $\mu \rightarrow e$ conversion (present limits and

1829: projected MECO sensitivity), in Fig.~\ref{fig:comp2} we report a more

1830: detailed study of the constraints.  At fixed $M_{W_2}$, lowering or

1831: raising $r_{L,R}$ within the natural range $0.2 \lsim r_{L,R} \lsim 5$,

1832: can change the bound on $g_{\rm lfv}$ by an order of magnitude.

1833: Lighter Higgs particles imply tighter upper limits on $g_{\rm lfv}$.

1834: Finally, the impact of a non-zero mixing angle $\xi$ (detectable, 

1835: for example, through right-handed current signals in $\beta$ decays) is also

1836: considered in Fig.\ref{fig:comp2}. A non-vanishing $\xi$ would

1837: imply~\cite{Masso:1984bt} the upper bound $M_{W_2}/M_{W_1} \leq

1838: 1/\sqrt{\xi}$, and thus narrow down the allowed region in the $g_{\rm

1839: lfv}$-$M_{W_2}/M_{W_1}$ plane (light-gray region in

1840: Fig.\ref{fig:comp2}).

1841: 

1842: Additional information on heavy neutrino parameters can be obtained in

1843: principle from $\mu \rightarrow 3 e$.  The rate depends on doubly

1844: charged Higgs masses and the combination $|h_{\mu e} \, h_{ee}^* |$

1845: (Eq.~(\ref{eq:mu3eBR})).  The present limit $B_{\mu \rightarrow 3 e} <

1846: 10^{-12}$ \cite{Hagiwara:fs} implies (assuming $M_{\delta_L^{++}} =

1847: M_{\delta_R^{++}} $) \footnote{ A weaker upper limit on the same

1848: combination of parameters can be derived from searches of muonium

1849: anti-muonium transition~\cite{Abela:dm,Herczeg:1992pt}.  

1850: In general, present limits on the flavor

1851: diagonal coupling $h_{ee}$ from Bhabha scattering~\cite{Kuze:2002vb}, and other

1852: combinations of $h_{ij}$ from rare $\tau$ decays are much weaker

1853: (typically $B_{\tau \rightarrow l_a l_b l_c} < 10^{-6}$~\cite{Hagiwara:fs}).}

1854: %

1855: \beq 

1856: |h_{\mu e} \, h_{ee}^* | \leq 1.55 \times

1857: 10^{-4} \, \sqrt{ \frac{B_{\mu \rightarrow 3 e}}{10^{-12}}} \, \left(

1858: \frac{M_{\delta_{L,R}^{++}}}{1 {\rm TeV}} \right)^2 \ .

1859: \label{eq:hcouplings2}

1860: \eeq

1861: % 

1862: Thus, assuming $M_{\delta^{++}} \sim 1 \, {\rm TeV} $, the couplings

1863: $h_{i j}$ are constrained to be at the $\sim 10^{-2}$ level. 

1864: Unlike the case of $g_{\rm lfv}$, however, the smallness of 

1865: $h_{\mu e}$ does not imply small mixing angles or almost-degenerate  

1866: heavy neutrinos, because the Majorana phases contained in $K_R$   

1867: may lead to cancellations in the sum of Eq.~(\ref{eq:hcouplings1}).  

1868: 

1869: 

1870: 

1871: 

1872: \subsection{Testing the model: interplay with collider measurements}  

1873: 

1874: 

1875: As noted above, information from LFV processes and other aspects of

1876: low energy phenomenology (such as signals of right-handed currents)

1877: can severely constrain the model parameter space in the near future.

1878: Moreover, given that $B_{\mu \to e}$ and $B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma}$

1879: depend only on $g_{\rm lfv}, M_{W_2}, M_{\delta_L^{++}},

1880: M_{\delta_R^{++}}$, collider searches of heavy particles and low 

1881: energy searches of LFV decays jointly provide a powerful probe of

1882: left-right symmetry.  In fact, in the best-case scenario, separate

1883: measurements of $B_{\mu \to e}^{Al}$, $B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma}$ and

1884: the mass parameters $M_{W_2}, M_{\delta_L^{++}},M_{\delta_R^{++}}$

1885: would allow one to test the model (four parameters versus five

1886: observables).  Even in less optimistic scenarios, one can imagine

1887: using collider information to narrow down the model predictions for

1888: LFV processes, or use observation of LFV to determine 

1889: allowed regions in the heavy mass parameter space. 

1890: %

1891: \begin{figure}[!t]

1892: \begin{center}

1893: \leavevmode

1894: \begin{picture}(200,220)

1895: \put(-60,70){\makebox(70,70){\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{ill3a}}}

1896: \put(-130,200){  $M_{\delta_R^{++}} ({\rm TeV})$  }

1897: \put(20,0){  $M_{\delta_L^{++}} ({\rm TeV})$  }

1898: %

1899: \put(180,70){\makebox(70,70){\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{ill3b}}}

1900: \put(105,200){  $M_{\delta_R^{++}} ({\rm TeV})$  }

1901: \put(260,0){  $M_{\delta_L^{++}} ({\rm TeV})$  }

1902: %

1903: \put(-40,200){

1904: \framebox[1.0\width][c]{

1905: \scriptsize 

1906: $M_{W_2} = 1\, {\rm TeV}$

1907: }

1908: }

1909: \put(195,200){

1910: \framebox[1.0\width][c]{

1911: \scriptsize 

1912: $M_{W_2} = 5 \, {\rm TeV}$

1913: }

1914: }

1915: %

1916: \put(-88,170){{\scriptsize $0.8$}}

1917: \put(-67,170){{\scriptsize $1.0$}}

1918: \put(-48,170){{\scriptsize $1.1$}}

1919: \put(-24,170){{\scriptsize $1.2$}}

1920: \put(7,170){{\scriptsize $1.3$}}

1921: \put(37,150){{\scriptsize $1.4$}}

1922: %

1923: \put(153,170){{\scriptsize $0.8$}}

1924: \put(173,170){{\scriptsize $1.0$}}

1925: \put(192,170){{\scriptsize $1.1$}}

1926: \put(215,170){{\scriptsize $1.2$}}

1927: \put(240,170){{\scriptsize $1.3$}}

1928: \put(268,170){{\scriptsize $1.4$}}

1929: %

1930: \end{picture}

1931: \caption{

1932: Contour plot of 

1933: $R^{Al} \equiv B_{\mu \to e}^{\rm Al}/B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma} $

1934: in the  $M_{\delta_L^{++}}$ -$M_{\delta_R^{++}}$ plane, 

1935: for $M_{W_2}=1$ TeV (left panel) and 

1936: for $M_{W_2}=5$ TeV (right panel). Each curve is labeled by the 

1937: corresponding  $R^{Al}$.  

1938: As a function of the Higgs mass along the line $M_{\delta_L^{++}} =

1939: M_{\delta_R^{++}}$, $R^{Al}$ reaches a maximum at 

1940: $M_{\delta_L^{++}} \sim 2 \,  M_{W_2}$ and then decreases, due to 

1941: decoupling of doubly charged Higgs bosons (the latter effect is 

1942: not visible in the plots).}

1943: %%%%

1944: \label{fig:ill1}

1945: \end{center}

1946: \end{figure} 

1947: %

1948: 

1949: As a simple illustration of this point, we show in

1950: Fig.~\ref{fig:ill1} contour plots of $R^{Al} \equiv

1951: B_{\mu \to e}^{Al}/B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma}$ in the

1952: $M_{\delta^{++}_{L}}$-$M_{\delta^{++}_{R}}$ plane, for two values of

1953: $M_{W_2}$. We focus on the case of heavy masses in the 1-2

1954: TeV range,  which will be accessible at the LHC and 

1955: Tevatron II~\cite{Datta:1999nc}. 

1956: In this mass-region, the model expectations  

1957: are almost independent of $M_{W_2}$. Moreover, one sees that values of

1958: $R^{Al} < 0.8$ can only occur for $M_{\delta_{L,R}^{++}} < 100 \, {\rm

1959: GeV}$, already excluded by direct searches.  

1960: %

1961: Depending on future experimental developments, possible uses of the

1962: plots in Figs.~\ref{fig:ill1} include:

1963: \begin{itemize}

1964: \item Given measurements of Higgs and heavy gauge boson masses, one can  

1965: infer rather precisely where to expect $R^{Al}$ within 

1966: this scenario.

1967: \item Given an experimental signal for $B_{\mu \to e}^{Al}$ and $B_{\mu

1968: \rightarrow e \gamma}$, one can identify the allowed region in the

1969: $M_{\delta^{++}_{L}}$-$M_{\delta^{++}_{R}}$ plane, for different

1970: values of $M_{W_2}$.  Collider searches could then confirm or falsify

1971: the model expectations. 

1972: As can be seen from the plots, however, in order to have a significant test,  

1973: the fractional uncertainty on $R^{Al}$ should be at most $20 \%$

1974: (otherwise most of the $M_{\delta^{++}_{L}}$-$M_{\delta^{++}_{R}}$

1975: would be allowed). 

1976: Given the projected sensitivities, this may be achieved at the next

1977: generation experiments if $B_{\mu \to e \gamma} \geq 2. \times

1978: 10^{-13}$. 

1979: 

1980: \end{itemize}

1981: %

1982: 

1983: 

1984: \section{Conclusions}

1985: The study of flavor violation among leptons now lies at the forefront

1986: of particle and nuclear physics. The tiny masses of the three lightest

1987: neutrinos and the nearly maximal mixing among them stands in stark

1988: contrast with the situation involving quarks, and the origin of this

1989: difference remains a fundamental and unsolved puzzle. A variety of

1990: scenarios have been proposed that attempt to answer this question, and

1991: these ideas would have predictable consequences for other

1992: observables. In this study, we have analyzed the consequences of one

1993: such scenario -- the left-right symmetric model -- that entails

1994: a minimal extension of the SM gauge symmetries and that includes

1995: non-sterile, right-handed neutrinos whose mass could be generated at

1996: the multi-TeV scale, albeit with some fine-tuning.  

1997: We have shown how it implies relationships among

1998: various LFV decays of the muon that could distinguish it

1999: experimentally from other models of LFV. We have also illustrated how

2000: direct searches for right-handed gauge bosons and triplet Higgs at the

2001: Tevatron and LHC would complement the charged lepton LFV studies and

2002: either help favor or rule out the possibility of rather low-scale LFV

2003: without SUSY.

2004: 

2005: The main conclusions of our study are:

2006: \begin{itemize}

2007: \item The branching ratios $B_{\mu \rightarrow e}$ and 

2008: $B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma}$ are similar in magnitude, in distinction

2009: to other possible scenarios which predict that 

2010:  $B_{\mu \rightarrow e}/B_{\mu \rightarrow e \gamma} \sim \alpha$.

2011: \item Within the LRSM, and with reasonable additional assumptions, 

2012: $B_{\mu \rightarrow 3e}/B_{\mu \rightarrow e} \sim$ 300, making

2013: the process $\mu \rightarrow 3e$ perhaps easiest to observe.

2014: \item The existing limits on the LFV muon decays already

2015: substantially constrain the mixing and mass splittings of

2016: the heavy right-handed neutrinos. The planned more sensitive

2017: experiments will therefore test the LRSM severely.

2018: \end{itemize}

2019: 

2020: If the LRSM scenario turns out to be correct, the deeper connections

2021: between the heavy and light neutrino spectrum would, then, have to be

2022: pursued by additional experimental and theoretical work. On the other

2023: hand, should experiment eliminate the possibility of

2024: non-supersymmetric, low-scale LFV based on the considerations

2025: discussed above, the lepton flavor problem will nevertheless remain a

2026: rich area of study, both theoretically and experimentally, for some

2027: time to come.

2028: 

2029: 

2030: 

2031:  

2032: 

2033: 

2034: 

2035: 

2036: 

2037: 

2038: 

2039: \begin{acknowledgments}

2040: We thank M.B Wise for useful comments provided during the course of

2041: carrying out this calculation. This work was supported in part under

2042: U.S. Department of Energy contract \# DE-FG03-88ER40397 and NSF Award

2043: PHY-0071856.  V.C. was supported by a Sherman Fairchild Fellowship from 

2044: Caltech. 

2045: \end{acknowledgments}

2046: 

2047: \appendix

2048: 

2049: \section{Loop functions}  

2050: \label{app:functions}    

2051: 

2052: We collect here the functions $S_{i}(x)$ and $D_{1}(x,y)$ 

2053: appearing in the expression of various $\mu \rightarrow e$ form factors. 

2054: \bea

2055: S_1 (x) &=&  \frac{ 4 \, x}{(1 - x)^2} \, 

2056: \left[ 

2057: 6 - 7 x + x^2 + (2 + 3 x) \log x 

2058: \right]  \ , 

2059: \\

2060: % \eea

2061: %\bea

2062: S_2 (x) &=& \frac{x ( 4 - 3 x)}{(1 - x)^2}  - 

2063: \frac{2 x ( 12 - 10 x + x^2)}{3 ( 1 - x)^2} \, ( S_4 (x) + 1 )  \ , 

2064: \\   

2065: S_3 (x) &=& 

2066: - \frac{x ( 1 + 2 x)}{8 (1 - x)^2}  +

2067: \frac{3 x^2}{4 (1 - x)^2} \, ( S_4 (x) + 1 )  \ , 

2068: \\

2069: S_4 (x) &=& \frac{x}{(1 - x)^2} \, (1 - x + \log x)  \ ,   

2070: \\ 

2071: D_{1} (x,y) &=&  x \left(2 - \log \frac{y}{x} \right) + 

2072: \displaystyle\frac{ (-8 x + 9 x^2 - x^3) + (-8 x^2 + x^3) \log x}{ 

2073: (1 - x)^2} + \displaystyle\frac{x ( y - y^2 + y^2 \log y)}{(1-y)^2} 

2074: \nonumber \\

2075: & & + \displaystyle\frac{2 x y (4 - x) \log x }{(1-x) (1-y)} + 

2076:  \displaystyle\frac{2 x (x - 4 y) \log  (y/x)}{(x-y) (1-y)}  \  . 

2077: \eea

2078: %

2079: Both $S_i(x)$ and $D_1(x,y)$ are regular at $x = 1$ and $y = 1$.

2080: Note that the potentially dangerous contribution involving the 

2081: large mass-ratio $y_n = (M_n/M_{W_1})^2$  has a finite limit 

2082: for $y_n \rightarrow \infty$:

2083: $$ \lim_{y \rightarrow \infty} D_{1}(x,y) = - 7 S_4 (x)  \ . $$ 

2084: 

2085: 

2086: 

2087: \section{Full expressions for $\mu \, e \, \gamma^* $  form factors} 

2088: \label{app:mueg}

2089: 

2090: In terms of the interactions vertices reported in Eq.~(\ref{eq:xlag1},

2091: \ref{eq:xlag2}), and without neglecting the charged lepton

2092: mass-dependence of loops, the photonic form factors read:

2093: %

2094: \bea

2095: F_R^{\rm (\gamma)} & = & 

2096: \displaystyle\sum_{n={\rm heavy}} \, \Big( K_R^\dagger \Big)_{e n} 

2097: \Big( K_R \Big)_{n \mu}  \ 

2098:  \frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{W_2}^2}  \, S_2 (x_n) 

2099: \nonumber \\

2100: & &  + \displaystyle\sum_{l=e,\mu,\tau} \, 

2101: h_{e l}^* \,  h_{l \mu} \ 

2102: \frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{\delta_R^{++}}^2}  

2103: \left[- \frac{40}{9}  -  \frac{8}{3} \log 

2104: \left( \frac{-q^2}{M_{\delta_R^{++}}^2} \right)

2105: - 16 \, S_5 \left( \frac{m_l^2}{-q^2} \right)

2106: \right]  \ , 

2107: \\

2108: F_L^{\rm (\gamma)} & = & 

2109: \displaystyle\sum_{l=e,\mu,\tau} \, 

2110: h^{*}_{e l} \, h_{l \mu}

2111: \ 

2112: \frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{\delta_L^{++}}^2}  

2113: \left[- \frac{40}{9}  -  \frac{8}{3} \log 

2114: \left( \frac{-q^2}{M_{\delta_L^{++}}^2} \right)

2115: - 16 \, S_5 \left( \frac{m_l^2}{-q^2} \right)

2116:  \right] \nonumber \\ 

2117:  & & - \frac{2}{9} 

2118: \Big( \tilde{h}^\dagger \tilde{h} \Big)_{e \mu} 

2119: \frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{\delta_L^{+}}^2}    \ , 

2120: \\

2121: 16 \pi^2 \,  A_L & = & 

2122: \displaystyle\sum_{n={\rm heavy}} \, \Big( K_R^\dagger \Big)_{e n} 

2123: \Big( K_R \Big)_{n \mu}  \ 

2124:  \frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{W_2}^2}  \, S_3 (x_n) 

2125:  - \frac{1}{3}  \displaystyle\sum_{l=e,\mu,\tau} \ 

2126: h^{*}_{e l} \, h_{l \mu}

2127: \  \frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{\delta_R^{++}}^2}   \ , 

2128: \\

2129: 16 \pi^2 \,  A_R & = & 

2130:  - \frac{1}{3}  \displaystyle\sum_{l=e,\mu,\tau} \ 

2131:  h^{*}_{e l}  \, h_{l \mu}

2132: \  \frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{\delta_L^{++}}^2}  

2133: - \frac{1}{24} 

2134:  \Big( \tilde{h}^\dagger \tilde{h} \Big)_{e \mu}

2135: \frac{M_{W_1}^2}{M_{\delta_L^{+}}^2} \ ,    

2136: \eea

2137: % 

2138: where the function $S_5(x)$ is:

2139: \beq

2140: S_5 (x) = \int_{0}^{1} d y \, y (1 - y) \, \log 

2141: \Big( x + y (1-y) \Big)  \ . 

2142: \eeq

2143: 

2144: 

2145: 

2146: 

2147: %  \vfill

2148: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2149: 

2150: \bibitem{Steinberger55} S. Lokanthan and J. Steinberger,

2151: Phys. Rev. {\bf 98}, 240 (1955).

2152: 

2153: \bibitem{Feinberg58} G. Feinberg

2154: Phys. Rev. {\bf 110}, 1482 (1958).

2155: 

2156: \bibitem{muegamma99} M. L. Brooks {\it et al.}

2157: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 1521 (1999).

2158: 

2159: \bibitem{mueconvAu} W. Bertl  {\it et al.}

2160: PSI annual report, p.9 (2002) (unpublished).

2161: 

2162: \bibitem{mu3e88} U. Bellgardt {\it et al.}  Nucl. Phys. {\bf B299}, 1

2163:   (1988).

2164: 

2165: \bibitem{mueconvTi} C. Dohmen  {\it et al.}

2166: Phys. Lett. {\bf B317}, 631 (1993).

2167: 

2168: \bibitem{mueconvPb} W. Honecker {\it et al.}

2169: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 200 (1996).

2170: 

2171: 

2172: \bibitem{MEG}  G.~Signorelli,

2173: %``The Meg Experiment At Psi: Status And Prospects,''

2174: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 29}, 2027 (2003); 

2175: see also  http://meg.web.psi.ch/docs/index.html. 

2176: %%CITATION = JPHGB,G29,2027;%%

2177: 

2178: \bibitem{MECO} J. L. Popp,

2179: NIM {\bf A472}, 354 (2000); hep-ex/0101017.

2180: 

2181: 

2182: %\cite{Borzumati:1986qx}

2183: \bibitem{Borzumati:1986qx}

2184: F.~Borzumati and A.~Masiero,

2185: %``Large Muon And Electron Number Violations In Supergravity Theories,''

2186: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 57}, 961 (1986).

2187: %%CITATION = PRLTA,57,961;%%

2188: 

2189: %\cite{Leontaris:1985pq}

2190: \bibitem{Leontaris:1985pq}

2191: G.~K.~Leontaris, K.~Tamvakis and J.~D.~Vergados,

2192: %``Lepton And Flavor Violation In Susy Models,''

2193: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 171}, 412 (1986).

2194: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B171,412;%%

2195: 

2196: %\cite{Hisano:1995nq}\cite{Borzumati:1986qx}\cite{Leontaris:1985pq}

2197: \bibitem{Hisano:1995nq}

2198: J.~Hisano, T.~Moroi, K.~Tobe, M.~Yamaguchi and T.~Yanagida,

2199: %``Lepton flavor violation in the supersymmetric standard model with seesaw

2200: %induced neutrino masses,''

2201: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 357}, 579 (1995)

2202: [arXiv:hep-ph/9501407].

2203: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9501407;%%

2204: 

2205: 

2206: %\cite{Barbieri:1994pv}

2207: \bibitem{Barbieri:1994pv}

2208: R.~Barbieri and L.~J.~Hall,

2209: %``Signals for supersymmetric unification,''

2210: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 338}, 212 (1994)

2211: [arXiv:hep-ph/9408406].

2212: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9408406;%%

2213: 

2214: %\cite{Barbieri:1995tw}

2215: \bibitem{Barbieri:1995tw}

2216: R.~Barbieri, L.~J.~Hall and A.~Strumia,

2217: %``Violations of lepton flavor and CP in supersymmetric unified theories,''

2218: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 445}, 219 (1995)

2219: [arXiv:hep-ph/9501334].

2220: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9501334;%%

2221: 

2222: %\cite{Huitu:1997bi}

2223: \bibitem{Huitu:1997bi}

2224: K.~Huitu, J.~Maalampi, M.~Raidal and A.~Santamaria,

2225: %``New constraints on R-parity violation from mu e conversion in nuclei,''

2226: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 430}, 355 (1998)

2227: [arXiv:hep-ph/9712249].

2228: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9712249;%%

2229: 

2230: 

2231: \bibitem{Riazuddin:hz}

2232: Riazuddin, R.~E.~Marshak and R.~N.~Mohapatra,

2233: %``Majorana Neutrinos And Low-Energy Tests Of Electroweak Models,''

2234: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 24}, 1310 (1981).

2235: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D24,1310;%%

2236: 

2237: \bibitem{Barenboim:1996vu}

2238: G.~Barenboim and M.~Raidal,

2239: %``Non-decoupling and lepton number violation in left-right models,''

2240: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 484}, 63 (1997)

2241: [arXiv:hep-ph/9607281].

2242: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9607281;%%

2243: 

2244: %\cite{Deshpande:1990ip}

2245: \bibitem{Deshpande:1990ip}

2246: N.~G.~Deshpande, J.~F.~Gunion, B.~Kayser and F.~I.~Olness,

2247: %``Left-Right Symmetric Electroweak Models With Triplet Higgs,''

2248: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 44}, 837 (1991).

2249: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D44,837;%%

2250: 

2251: %\cite{Mohapatra:2003qw}

2252: \bibitem{Mohapatra:2003qw}R.~N.~Mohapatra,

2253: %``Understanding neutrino masses and mixings in the seesaw framework,''

2254: arXiv:hep-ph/0306016.

2255: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0306016;%%

2256: 

2257: \bibitem{LRSM1}

2258: J.~C.~Pati and A.~Salam, 

2259: %``Lepton Number As The Fourth Color,''

2260: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 10}, 275 (1974) ; 

2261: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D10,275;%%

2262: R.~N.~Mohapatra and J.~C.~Pati,

2263: %``Left-Right Gauge Symmetry And An 'Isoconjugate' Model Of CP Violation,''

2264: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 11}, 566 (1975), {\it ibid} 2558 ;

2265: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D11,566;%%

2266: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D11,2558;%%

2267: G.~Senjanovic and R.~N.~Mohapatra,

2268: %``Exact Left-Right Symmetry And Spontaneous Violation Of Parity,''

2269: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 12}, 1502 (1975).

2270: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D12,1502;%%

2271: 

2272: \bibitem{Mohapatra:1979ia}

2273: R.~N.~Mohapatra and G.~Senjanovic,

2274: %``Neutrino Mass And Spontaneous Parity Nonconservation,''

2275: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 44}, 912 (1980).

2276: %%CITATION = PRLTA,44,912;%%

2277: 

2278: \bibitem{Mohapatra:1980yp}

2279: R.~N.~Mohapatra and G.~Senjanovic,

2280: %``Neutrino Masses And Mixings In Gauge Models With Spontaneous Parity

2281: %Violation,''

2282: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 23}, 165 (1981).

2283: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,165;%%

2284: %

2285: 

2286: %\cite{Gelmini:1980re}

2287: \bibitem{Gelmini:1980re}G.~B.~Gelmini and

2288: M.~Roncadelli,

2289: %``Left-Handed Neutrino Mass Scale And Spontaneously Broken Lepton Number,''

2290: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 99}, 411 (1981).

2291: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B99,411;%%

2292: 

2293: 

2294: \bibitem{Raidal:1997hq}

2295: M.~Raidal and A.~Santamaria,

2296:  %``mu e conversion in nuclei versus mu $\to$ e gamma: An effective field

2297: %theory point of view,''

2298: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 421}, 250 (1998)

2299: [arXiv:hep-ph/9710389].

2300: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710389;%%

2301: 

2302: %\cite{Appelquist:tg}

2303: \bibitem{Appelquist:tg}

2304: T.~Appelquist and J.~Carazzone,

2305: %``Infrared Singularities And Massive Fields,''

2306: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 11}, 2856 (1975).

2307: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D11,2856;%%

2308: 

2309: 

2310: \bibitem{grossman:2003} Y. Grossman and S. Rakshit, [arXiv:hep-ph/0311310].

2311: 

2312: \bibitem{Duka:1999uc}

2313: P.~Duka, J.~Gluza and M.~Zralek,

2314:  %``Quantization and renormalization of the manifest left-right symmetric 

2315: %  model of electroweak interactions,''

2316: Annals Phys.\  {\bf 280}, 336 (2000)

2317: [arXiv:hep-ph/9910279].

2318: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910279;%%

2319: 

2320: 

2321: \bibitem{Barenboim:2001vu}

2322: G.~Barenboim, M.~Gorbahn, U.~Nierste and M.~Raidal,

2323: %``Higgs sector of the minimal left-right symmetric model,''

2324: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 095003 (2002)

2325: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107121].

2326: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107121;%%

2327: 

2328: 

2329: %\cite{Spergel:2003cb}

2330: \bibitem{Spergel:2003cb}

2331: D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.},

2332: %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:

2333: %Determination of Cosmological Parameters,''

2334: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 148}, 175 (2003)

2335: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302209].

2336: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302209;%%

2337: 

2338: 

2339: \bibitem{Hagiwara:fs}

2340: K.~Hagiwara {\it et al.}  [Particle Data Group Collaboration],

2341: %``Review Of Particle Physics,''

2342: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 010001 (2002).

2343: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D66,010001;%%

2344: 

2345: \bibitem{Zeldovich} Ya. B. Zeldovich, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 33},

2346: 1531 (1957) [Sov. Phys.  JETP {\bf 6}, 1184 (1958)]; {\bf 39}, 115

2347: (1960) [{\bf 12}, 177 (1961)].

2348: 

2349: \bibitem{Kitano:2002mt}

2350: R.~Kitano, M.~Koike and Y.~Okada,

2351:  %``Detailed calculation of lepton flavor violating muon electron  conversion

2352: %rate for various nuclei,''

2353: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 096002 (2002)

2354: [arXiv:hep-ph/0203110].

2355: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203110;%%

2356: 

2357: 

2358: \bibitem{Prezeau:2003xn}

2359: G.~Prezeau, M.~Ramsey-Musolf and P.~Vogel,

2360: %``Neutrinoless double-beta decay and effective field theory,''

2361: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 034016 (2003)

2362: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303205].

2363: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303205;%%

2364: 

2365: \bibitem{Mohapatra:pj}

2366: R.~N.~Mohapatra,

2367: %``Limits On The Mass Of The Right-Handed Majorana Neutrino,''

2368: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 34}, 909 (1986).

2369: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D34,909;%%

2370: 

2371: %\cite{Masso:1984bt}

2372: \bibitem{Masso:1984bt}

2373: E.~Masso,

2374: %``Gauge Boson Masses And Mixings In Left-Right Symmetric Models,''

2375: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 52}, 1956 (1984).

2376: %%CITATION = PRLTA,52,1956;%%

2377: 

2378: 

2379: %\cite{Abela:dm,Herczeg:1992pt}

2380: \bibitem{Abela:dm}

2381: R.~Abela {\it et al.},

2382: %``Improved Upper Limit On Muonium To Anti-Muonium Conversion,''

2383: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 77}, 1950 (1996)

2384: [arXiv:nucl-ex/9805005].

2385: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 9805005;%%

2386: 

2387: \bibitem{Herczeg:1992pt}

2388: P.~Herczeg and R.~N.~Mohapatra,

2389: %``Muonium to anti-muonium conversion and the decay mu+ $\to$ e+ anti-neutrino

2390: %neutrino in left-right symmetric models,''

2391: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 69}, 2475 (1992).

2392: %%CITATION = PRLTA,69,2475;%%

2393: 

2394: \bibitem{Kuze:2002vb}

2395: M.~Kuze and Y.~Sirois,

2396:  %``Search for particles and forces beyond the standard model at HERA e p and

2397: %Tevatron p anti-p colliders,''

2398: Prog.\ Part.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\  {\bf 50}, 1 (2003)

2399: [arXiv:hep-ex/0211048].

2400: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0211048;%%

2401: 

2402: %\cite{Datta:1999nc}

2403: \bibitem{Datta:1999nc}

2404: A.~Datta and A.~Raychaudhuri,

2405: %``Mass bounds for triplet scalars of the left-right symmetric model and  their

2406: %future detection prospects,''

2407: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 055002 (2000)

2408: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905421].

2409: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905421;%%

2410: 

2411: 

2412: 

2413: \end{thebibliography} 

2414: 

2415: 

2416:  

2417: \end{document} 

2418:  

2419:  

2420: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2421: 

2422: 

2423: 

2424: 

2425: 

2426:  

2427: 

2428: 

2429: 

2430: 

2431: