1: %% ****** Start of file slactemplate.tex ****** %
2: %%
3: %%
4: %% This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.
5: %% Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001
6: %%
7: %%
8: %% Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.
9: %%
10: %% See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.
11: %%
12: %
13: % This is a template for producing manuscripts for use with REVTEX 4.0
14: % Copy this file to another name and then work on that file.
15: % That way, you always have this original template file to use.
16: %
17: \documentclass[slac_one]{revtex4}
18: \usepackage{graphicx}
19: \usepackage{fancyhdr}
20: \pagestyle{fancy}
21: \fancyhead{} % clear all fields
22: \fancyfoot{} % clear all fields
23: \fancyfoot[LE,LO]{\bf Insert PSN Here}
24: \renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}
25: \renewcommand{\footrulewidth}{0pt}
26: \renewcommand{\sfdefault}{phv}
27: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
28: \setlength{\textheight}{235mm}
29: \setlength{\textwidth}{178mm}%{170mm}
30: \setlength{\topmargin}{-20mm}
31:
32:
33: % You should use BibTeX and apsrev.bst for references
34:
35: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}
36:
37: \begin{document}
38:
39: %Title of paper
40: \title{Physics of Neutrino Mass}
41:
42: \author{Rabindra N. Mohapatra}
43: \affiliation{Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park,
44: MD-20742, USA}
45: %
46:
47: \begin{abstract}
48: Recent discoveries in the field of neutrino oscillations have provided a
49: unique window into physics beyond the standard model. In this lecture, I
50: summarize how well we understand the various observations, what they
51: tell us about the nature of new physics and what we are likely to learn as
52: some of the planned experiments are carried out.
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55: \maketitle
56:
57: \thispagestyle{fancy}
58:
59: \section{INTRODUCTION}
60: For a long time, it was believed that neutrinos are massless, spin half
61: particles, making them drastically different from their other standard
62: model spin half cousins such as the charged leptons ($e, \mu,
63: \tau$) and the quarks ($u,d,s,c,t,b$), which are known to have mass. In
64: fact the masslessness of the neutrino was considered so sacred in
65: the 1950s and 1960s that the fundamental law of weak interaction
66: physics, the successful V-A theory for charged current weak processes was
67: considered to be intimately linked to this fact.
68:
69: During the past decade, however, there have been a number of very exciting
70: observations involving neutrinos emitted in the process of solar burning,
71: produced during collision of cosmic rays in the atmosphere as well as
72: those produced in terrestrial sources such as reactors and accelerators
73: that have conclusively established that neutrinos not only have mass but
74: they also mix among themselves, like their counterparts $(e,\mu,\tau$) and
75: quarks, leading to the phenomenon of neutrino oscillations.
76: The detailed results of these experiments and their interpretation have
77: led to quantitative conclusions about the masses and the mixings, that
78: have been discussed in other lectures\cite{kayser}. They have also been
79: summarized in
80: many recent reviews\cite{rev}. I will start with a brief summary of the
81: results.
82: I use the notation, where the flavor or
83: weak eigenstates are denoted by $\nu_{\alpha}$ (with $\alpha~=~e, {\mu},
84: {\tau},\cdot\cdot\cdot$), that are expressed in terms of the
85: mass eigenstates $\nu_{i}$ ($i=1, 2, 3,\cdot\cdot\cdot)$ as
86: follows: $\nu_{\alpha}
87: =~\sum_i
88: U_{\alpha i}\nu_i$. The $U_{\alpha i}$ can be also be expressed in terms
89: of mixing angles and phases as follows:
90: \begin{eqnarray}
91: U~=~\pmatrix{c_{12}c_{13} & s_{12}c_{13} &
92: s_{13} e^{-i\delta} \cr
93: -s_{12}c_{23}-c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta}
94: &c_{12}c_{23}-s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta} & s_{23}c_{13}\cr
95: s_{12}s_{23}-c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta}
96: &c_{12}s_{23}-c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta} &
97: c_{23}c_{13}}K
98: \end{eqnarray}
99: where $K~=~diag(1, e^{i\phi_1},e^{i\phi_2})$. This matrix characterizes
100: the weak charged current for leptons:
101: \begin{eqnarray}
102: {\cal L}_{wk}~=~\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}\bar{e}_\alpha U_{\alpha
103: i}\gamma_\mu (1+\gamma_5)\nu_i W^{\mu,-}~+~ h.c.
104: \end{eqnarray}
105: We denote the neutrino masses by $m_i$ ($i=1,2,3$).
106:
107: \subsection{What we know about masses and mixings}
108: Analysis of present
109: neutrino data tells us that (at the 3$\sigma$ level of confidence):
110: \begin{eqnarray}
111: sin^22\theta_{23}\geq 0.89\\ \nonumber
112: \Delta m^2_A\simeq 1.4\times 10^{-3}~ eV^2-3.3\times 10^{-3}~ eV^2\\
113: \nonumber
114: sin^2\theta_{12}\simeq 0.23-0.37\\ \nonumber
115: \Delta m^2_\odot\simeq 7.3\times 10^{-5}~ eV^2-9.1\times 10^{-5}~ eV^2\\
116: \nonumber
117: sin^2\theta_{13}\leq 0.047
118: \end{eqnarray}
119:
120: While the mass differences that go into the discussion of oscillation
121: rate are fairly well determined (at least within the assumption of three
122: neutrinos and no exotic interactions), the situation with respect to
123: absolute values of masses is much less certain. There are three
124: possibilities:
125: \begin{itemize}
126:
127: \item (i) Normal hierarchy i.e. $m_1\ll m_2 \ll m_3$. In this case,
128: we can deduce the value of $m_3 \simeq \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{23}}
129: \equiv \sqrt{\Delta m^2_A}\simeq 0.03-0.07$ eV. In this case $\Delta
130: m^2_{23}\equiv m^2_3-m^2_2 > 0$.
131: The solar neutrino oscillation involves the two lighter levels. The mass
132: of the lightest neutrino is unconstrained. If $m_1\ll m_2$, then we get
133: the value of $m_2 \simeq \simeq 0.008$ eV.
134:
135: \item (ii) Inverted hierarchy i.e. $m_1 \simeq m_2 \gg m_3$ with
136: $m_{1,2} \simeq \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{23}}\simeq 0.03-0.07$ eV. In this case,
137: solar neutrino oscillation takes place between the heavier levels and we
138: have $\Delta m^2_{23}\equiv m^2_3-m^2_2 < 0$.
139:
140: \item (iii) Degenerate neutrinos i.e. $m_1\simeq m_2 \simeq m_3$.
141:
142: \end{itemize}
143: The above conclusions do not depend on whether the neutrinos are Dirac or
144: Majorana fermions (Majorana fermions are their own anti-particles).
145:
146: If neutrinos are Majorana fermions, they break lepton number by two units
147: and nuclear decay processes such as $(A,Z)\rightarrow (A, Z+2)+ e^- +e^-$
148: if allowed by kinematics can proceed. These are called $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$
149: process. The $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ decay rate is directly
150: proportional to the neutrino mass since it is the neutrino mass term in
151: the Hamiltonian that breaks the lepton number symmetry. Present upper
152: limits on the $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ decay rate puts an
153: an upper limit on a particular combination of
154: masses and mixings (see the talk by G. Gratta at this
155: school\cite{gratta}):
156: \begin{eqnarray}
157: m_{eff}~=~\sum_i\left[U^2_{e i} m_i\right] \leq 0.3~eV
158: \end{eqnarray}
159: An important point here is that converting the neutrinoless double beta
160: upper limit to information about neutrino mass depends on the type of
161: spectrum\cite{vissani}. Fig. 1 gives the values of the effective
162: neutrino mass $m_{eff}$ predicted for the allowed range of mass
163: differences and mixings given by the present oscillation data.
164: It is clear that for the case of inverted hierarchy, one expects a lower
165: bound on $m_{eff}$ in the range 30 to 50 meV, whereas strictly speaking
166: for the normal hierarchy, this value can be zero due to CP violating
167: phases that can lead to possible cancellations.
168: \begin{figure}[tbp]
169: %\begin{center}
170: \centerline{
171: \includegraphics[height=12.8cm,width=8cm]{meffgraybf.eps}
172: }
173: %%\epsfig{file=meffgraybf.eps,height=16cm,width=10cm}
174: %%\end{center}
175: \vspace{-3mm}
176: \caption{
177: The dependence of $ m_{\it eff}$ on $\langle
178: m\rangle_{min}$
179: in the case of the LMA-I solution,
180: for normal and inverted hierarchy and
181: for the best fit values of the neutrino
182: oscillation parameters. Figure supplied by the authors of the last
183: reference in \cite{vissani}.}
184: \end{figure}
185: At present there is also a claim of a positive signal for
186: $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ decay at the level of few tenths of an eV that needs
187: to be confirmed\cite{klapdor}.
188: There are also limits from tritium beta decay end point search for
189: neutrino mass. In this case one gets a limit on the combination of
190: masses\cite{tri}:
191: \begin{eqnarray}
192: \sum_i|U_{e i}|^2 m^2_i \leq (2.2~eV)^2
193: \end{eqnarray}
194: From the above results, one can safely conclude that all known neutrinos
195: have masses in the eV to sub-eV range.
196:
197: There are also limits from cosmological observations such as WMAP and SDSS
198: observations which put the limits in less than an eV range.
199: \begin{eqnarray}
200: \sum_i m_i \leq 0.4 ~eV
201: \end{eqnarray}
202:
203: It is important to point out that a number of experiments are either
204: approved or planning or ongoing stage in the arena of tritium beta decay
205: (KATRIN), neutrinoless double beta decay (CUORE, MAJORANA, EXO
206: etc.)\cite{gratta} that will improve the above limits. From the domain of
207: cosmology, the PLANCK experiment will also tighten the upper limits on
208: neutrino masses.
209:
210: \subsection{Number of neutrinos}
211: In the above discussion we have assumed that there are only three neutrino
212: species. The question that arises is "How well do we know this ?". What we
213: know from laboratory experiments is that measurement of the Z-width at LEP
214: and SLC allows
215: only three species of light neutrinos that couple to the Z-boson. It is
216: however quite plausible to have additional neutrinos that are light and do
217: not couple
218: (or couple very, very weakly) to the Z-boson or the W boson. We will call
219: them sterile neutrinos
220: $\nu_s$ or $\nu'$. They are therefore unconstrained by the Z-width
221: data. However if
222: they mix with known neutrinos they can manifest themselves in the early
223: universe since the active neutrinos which are present in abundance in the
224: early universe can oscillate into the sterile neutrinos giving rise to a
225: density of $\nu_s$'s same as that of $\nu_{e,\mu,\tau}$. This will effect
226: the synthesis of Helium and Deuterium by enhancing the expansion rate of
227: the Universe. Thus our knowledge of the primordial Helium and Deuterium
228: abundance will then provide constraints on the total number of neutrinos
229: (active and sterile). The limit on the number of sterile neutrinos from
230: BBN depends on several inputs: the baryon to photon ratio $\eta\equiv
231: \frac{n_B}{n_\gamma}$ and the value of the He$^4$ fraction $Y_p$. The
232: first (i.e. $\eta$) is now very well determined by the WMAP observation of
233: the angular power spectrum\cite{WMAP}. The He$^4$ fraction $Y_p$ has
234: however been uncertain.
235:
236: There have been new developments in this field. This has to do with our
237: knowledge of primordial Helium abundance, which is derived from the
238: analysis of low metallicity HII regions. It is now
239: believed\cite{olive} that there are more systematic uncertainties in the
240: estimates of Helium abundance from these analyses than was previously
241: thought. The latest conclusion about the number of neutrinos
242: depends on which observations (He$^4$, D$^2$ or WMAP)
243: are taken into consideration. For example, He$^4$, D$^2$ and
244: $\eta_{CMB}$ together seem to give\cite{olive} $N_\nu \leq 4.44$
245: (compared to 3.3 before). One can therefore allow more than one
246: sterile neutrino mixing with the active neutrinos without conflicting
247: with cosmological observations. This has important implications
248: for interpretation of the positive neutrino oscillation signals observed
249: in the LSND experiment and now being tested by the Mini Boone experiment.
250: We discuss this at a later section of this paper.
251:
252: \section{NEUTRINO MASS: DIRAC VRS MAJORANA}
253: In this section, I give a brief explanation of how to understand a
254: Majorana neutrino.
255: Let us write down the Dirac equation for an electron\cite{kayser}:
256: \begin{eqnarray}
257: i\gamma^{\lambda}\partial_{\lambda}\psi - m\psi =0
258: \end{eqnarray}
259: This equation follows from a free Lagrangian
260: \begin{eqnarray} {\cal L} =
261: i\bar{\psi}\gamma^{\lambda}\partial_{\lambda}\psi
262: -m\bar{\psi}\psi
263: \end{eqnarray}
264: The second term in the Lagrangian is the mass of the electron. However,
265: Lorentz invariance allows another bilinear for fermions that could also
266: act as a mass term i.e. $\psi^TC^{-1}\psi$, where $C$ is the charge
267: conjugation matrix. The difference between these two mass terms is that
268: the first one is invariant under a transformation of the form
269: $\psi\rightarrow e^{i\alpha}\psi$, whereas the second one is not.
270: To discriminate between the two kinds of mass terms, we need to know the
271: meaning of such a transformation: invariance under a phase transformation
272: implies the existence of a charge which is conserved (e.g. the elctric
273: charge, baryonic charge, leptonic charge etc.). Thus the presence of the
274: second kind of mass term means the theory breaks all symmetries. Further
275: note that if $\psi$ satisfies
276: the condition of being self charge conjugate, i.e. \begin{eqnarray}
277: \psi = \psi^c \equiv C \bar{\psi}^T,
278: \end{eqnarray}
279: then the mass term $\bar{\psi}\psi$ reduces to the mass term
280: $\psi^TC^{-1}\psi$. Thus, the second mass term really implies that the
281: neutrinos are their own anti-particles. Furthermore, this
282: constraint reduces the number of independent components of the spinor
283: by a factor of two, since the particle and the antiparticle are now the
284: same particle. This mass term is called the Majorana mass in
285: contrast to the form $\bar{\psi}\psi$ which will be called Dirac
286: mass term.
287:
288: Thus given a number of arbitrary spinors describing spin 1/2 particles,
289: one can write either only Dirac type mass terms or Majorana type mass
290: terms or both. Note that when a particle has a conserved quantum number
291: (e.g. electric charge for the electron), one cannot write a Majorana mass
292: term since it will break electric charge conservation. However for
293: particles such as the neutrino which are electrically neutral, both mass
294: terms are allowed in a theory. In fact one can stretch this argument
295: even further to say that if for an electrically neutral particle, the
296: Majorana mass term is not included, there must be an extra symmetry
297: in the theory to guarantee that it does not get generated in higher
298: orders. In general therefore, one would expect the neutrinos to be
299: Majorana fermions. That is what most extensions of the standard model
300: seem to predict. For a detailed discussion of this see \cite{rnm}.
301:
302: At the moment we do not know if neutrinos are Dirac or Majorana fermions.
303: A crucial experiment that will determine this is the neutrinoless double
304: beta decay experiment\cite{gratta}. A positive signal in this experiment
305: conclusively establishes that neutrinos are Majorana fermions\cite{valle},
306: although contrary to popular belief, it will not be easy without further
307: experiments to determine the mass of the neutrino. The main reason for
308: this is that there could be heavy beyond the standard model particles that
309: could lead to $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ decay withour at the same time giving a
310: ``large'' enough neutrino mass\cite{rnm}.
311:
312: An interesting question is: can we ever tell whether the neutrino is
313: a Dirac fermion ? One can of course never say whether a very tiny Majorana
314: mass term is present in the neutrino mass. This is in fact true for all
315: symmetries in Nature that we assume are exact e.g. Lorentz
316: invariance, electric charge conservation etc. What we can however say is
317: whether the Dirac mass term dominates over the Majorana mass term
318: overwhelmingly.
319: This can be done by a combination of the three
320: experiments: (i) $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ decay experiments which are supposed
321: to reach the level of sensitivity of 30-50 milli eV, (ii) tritium beta
322: decay experiment KATRIN which is expected to push down the mass limit to
323: the level of 0.2 eV and (iii) a long
324: base line experiment that can presumably determine the sign of the
325: atmospheric mass
326: difference square. In the Table I we give the situations when one can
327: conclude that the neutrino is a Dirac particle\cite{njp} and when not.
328:
329: \newpage
330:
331: \begin{center}
332: {\bf Table I}
333: \end{center}
334:
335: \begin{center}
336: \begin{tabular}{|c||c||c||c|}
337: \hline $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ & $\Delta m^2_{23}$ & KATRIN &
338: Conclusion \\ \hline
339: yes & $>0$ & yes & Degenerate, Majorana \\
340: yes & $>0$ & No & Degenerate, Majorana\\
341: & & & or normal or heavy exchange\\
342: yes & $<0$ & no & Inverted, Majorana \\
343: yes & $<0$ & yes & Degenerate, Majorana\\
344: no & $>0$ & no & Normal, Dirac or Majorana\\
345: no & $<0$ & no & Dirac\\
346: no & $<0$ & yes & Dirac \\
347: no & $>0$ & yes & Dirac \\ \hline
348: \end{tabular}
349: \end{center}
350: \noindent{{\bf Table Caption:} Conditions under which one can determine
351: when neutrino is a Dirac particle. Normal, inverted and degenerate refer
352: to the various mass patterns already discussed. }
353:
354:
355: Before closing this section, let us again summarize the open questions
356: raised by present data which need to be
357: addressed by future experiments:
358: \begin{quote}
359: $\bullet$ Are neutrinos Dirac or Majorana?\\
360: $\bullet$ What is the absolute mass scale of neutrinos?\\
361: $\bullet$ How small is $\theta_{13}$?\\
362: $\bullet$ How ``maximal'' is $\theta_{23}$?\\
363: $\bullet$ Is there CP Violation in the neutrino sector?\\
364: $\bullet$ Is the mass hierarchy inverted or normal?\\
365: $\bullet$ Is the LSND evidence for oscillation true? Are there sterile
366: neutrino(s)?
367: \end{quote}
368:
369: It is important to emphasize that if the full menu of experiments being
370: proposed currently such as searches for neutrinoless double beta decay,
371: searches for $\theta_{13}$, precision measurements of $\theta_{12}$ and
372: $\theta_{23}$ using reactor and long baseline experiments, all these
373: questions would recieve answers.
374:
375: \section{IMPLICATIONS FOR PHYSICS BEYOND THE STANDARD MODEL:}
376: These discoveries involving neutrinos, which have provided the
377: first evidence for physics beyond the standard model, have raised a
378: number of challenges for theoretical physics.
379: Foremost among them are, (i) an understanding of the smallness of
380: neutrino masses and (ii) understanding the vastly different pattern of
381: mixings among neutrinos from the quarks. Specifically, a key question
382: is whether it is possible
383: to reconcile the large neutrino mixings with small quark mixings in grand
384: unified frameworks suggested by supersymmetric gauge coupling
385: unifications that unify quarks and leptons.
386:
387: \subsection{ Why neutrino mass requires physics beyond
388: the standard model ?}
389:
390: We will now show that in the standard model, the neutrino mass vanishes
391: to all orders in perturbation theory as well as nonperturbatively. The
392: standard model is based on the gauge group
393: $SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$ group under which the quarks and
394: leptons transform as described in the Table II.
395:
396: \newpage
397:
398: \begin{center}
399: {\bf Table II}
400: \end{center}
401:
402: \begin{center}
403: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|}
404: \hline\hline
405: Field & gauge transformation \\ \hline\hline
406: Quarks $Q_L$ & $(3,2, {1\over 3})$\\
407: Righthanded up quarks $u_R$ & $(3, 1, {4\over 3})$ \\
408: Righthanded down quarks $ d_R$ & $(3, 1,-\frac{2}{3})$\\
409: Lefthanded Leptons $L$ & $(1, 2 -1)$ \\
410: Righthanded leptons $e_R$ & $(1,1,-2)$ \\
411: Higgs Boson $\bf H$ & $(1, 2, +1)$ \\
412: Color Gauge Fields $G_a$ & $(8, 1, 0)$ \\
413: Weak Gauge Fields $W^{\pm}$, $Z$, $\gamma$ & $(1,3+1,0)$ \\
414: \hline\hline
415: \end{tabular}
416: \end{center}
417:
418: \noindent {\bf Table caption:} The assignment of particles to the standard
419: model gauge group $SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$.
420: The electroweak symmetry $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$ is broken by the vacuum
421: expectation of the Higgs doublet $<H^0>=v_{wk}\simeq 246$ GeV, which gives
422: mass to the gauge bosons and the fermions, all fermions except the
423: neutrino. Thus the neutrino is massless in the standard model, at the tree
424: level.
425: There are several questions that arise at this stage. What happens
426: when one goes beyond the above simple tree level approximation ? Secondly,
427: do nonperturbative effects change this tree level result ? Finally, how to
428: judge how this result will be modified when the quantum gravity effects
429: are included ?
430:
431: The first and second questions are easily answered by using the B-L
432: symmetry of the standard model. The point is that since the standard model
433: has no $SU(2)_L$ singlet neutrino-like field, the only possible mass terms
434: that are allowed by Lorentz invariance are of the form
435: $\nu^T_{iL}C^{-1}\nu_{jL}$, where $i,j$ stand for the generation index and
436: $C$ is the Lorentz charge conjugation matrix. Since the $\nu_{iL}$ is part
437: of the $SU(2)_L$ doublet field and has lepton number +1, the above
438: neutrino mass term transforms as an $SU(2)_L$ triplet and furthermore, it
439: violates total lepton number (defined as $L\equiv L_e+L_{\mu}+L_{\tau}$)
440: by two units. However, a quick look at the standard model Lagrangian
441: convinces one that the model has exact lepton number symmetry after
442: symmetry breaking; therefore such terms can never arise in perturbation
443: theory.
444: Thus to all orders in perturbation theory, the neutrinos are massless.
445: As far as the nonperturbative effects go, the only known source is the
446: weak instanton effects. Such effects could effect the result if they
447: broke the lepton number symmetry. One way to see if such breaking
448: weak instanton effects. Such effects could effect the result if they
449: broke the lepton number symmetry. One way to see if such breaking
450: occurs is to look for anomalies in lepton number current conservation from
451: triangle diagrams. Indeed $\partial_{\mu}j^{\mu}_{\ell}= c W \tilde{W} +
452: c' B\tilde{B}$ due to the contribution of the leptons to the triangle
453: involving the lepton number current and $W$'s or $B$'s. Luckily, it turns
454: out that the anomaly contribution to the baryon number current
455: nonconservation has also an identical form, so that the $B-L$ current
456: $j^{\mu}_{B-L}$ is conserved to all orders in the gauge couplings. As a
457: consequence, nonperturbative effects from the gauge sector cannot induce
458: $B-L$ violation. Since the neutrino mass operator described above violates
459: also $B-L$, this proves that neutrino masses remain zero even in the
460: presence of nonperturbative effects.
461:
462: Let us now turn to the effect of gravity. Clearly as long as we treat
463: gravity in perturbation theory, the above symmetry arguments hold since
464: all gravity coupling respect $B-L$ symmetry. However, once nonperturbative
465: gravitational effects e.g black holes and worm holes are
466: included, there is no guarantee that global symmetries will
467: be respected in the low energy theory. The intuitive way to appreciate the
468: argument is to note that throwing baryons into a black hole does not lead
469: to any detectable consequence except thru a net change in the baryon
470: number of the universe. Since one can throw in an arbitrary numnber of
471: baryons into the black hole, an arbitrary information loss about the net
472: number of missing baryons would prevent us from defining a baryon
473: number of the visible
474: universe- thus baryon number in the presence of a black hole can not be an
475: exact symmetry. Similar arguments can be made for any global charge such
476: as lepton number in the standard model. A field theoretic parameterization
477: of this statement is that the effective low energy Lagrangian for the
478: standard model in the presence of black holes and worm holes etc must
479: contain baryon and lepton number violating terms. In the context of the
480: standard model, the only such terms that one can construct are
481: nonrenormalizable terms of the form $~LH LH/M_{P\ell}$. After gauge
482: symmetry breaking, they lead to neutrino masses; however these masses are
483: at most of order $~v^2_{wk}/M_{P\ell}\simeq 10^{-5}$ eV.
484: But
485: as we discussed in the previous section, in order to solve the atmospheric
486: neutrino problem, one needs masses at least three orders of magnitude
487: higher.
488:
489: Thus one must seek physics beyond the standard model to explain observed
490: evidences for neutrino masses. While there are many possibilities that
491: lead to small neutrino masses of both Majorana as well as Dirac kind, here
492: we focus on the possibility that there is a heavy right handed
493: neutrino (or neutrinos) that lead to a small
494: neutrino mass. The resulting
495: mechanism is known as the seesaw mechanism \cite{seesaw1} and leads to
496: neutrino being a Majorana particle.
497:
498: \subsection{Seesaw mechanism}
499: The basic idea of seesaw mechanism is to have a minimal extension of the
500: standard model that add one heavy right handed neutrino per family.
501: In this case $\nu_L$ and $\nu_R$ can
502: form a mass term; but apriori, this mass term is like the mass terms for
503: charged leptons or quark masses and will therefore involve the weak scale.
504: If we call the corresponding Yukawa coupling to be $Y_\nu$, then the
505: neutrino mass is $m_D=Y_\nu v/\sqrt{2}$. For a neutrino mass in the eV
506: range
507: requires that $Y_\nu \simeq 10^{-11}$ or less. Introduction of such small
508: coupling constants into a theory is generally considered unnatural and a
509: sound theory must find
510: a symmetry reason for such smallness. As already already
511: alluded to before, seesaw mechanism\cite{seesaw1}, where we introduce a
512: singlet Majorana mass term for the right handed neutrino is one way to
513: achieve this goal. What we have in this case is a
514: $(\nu_L,\nu_R)$ mass matrix which has the form:
515: \begin{eqnarray}
516: M=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & M_\nu^D \\
517: M^{T,D}_\nu & M_R\end{array}\right)
518: \end{eqnarray}
519: The light neutrino mass matrix obtained by
520: integrating out heavy right-handed neutrinos is given by
521: \begin{equation}
522: {M}_\nu = - M_{\nu}^D M_R^{-1} (M_\nu^D)^T,
523: \end{equation}
524: where $M_\nu^D$ is the Dirac neutrino mass matrix and $M_R$ is the
525: right-handed Majorana mass matrix.
526: Since $M_R$ is not constrained by the standard model symmetries, it is
527: natural to choose it to be at a scale much higher than the weak scale,
528: leading to a small mass for the neutrino.
529: This provides a natural way to understand a small neutrino mass without
530: any unnatural adjustment of parameters of a theory.
531: A question that now arises is: what is the meaning of the new scale $M_R$
532: ?
533:
534: \section{PHYSICS OF THE SEESAW MECHANISM}
535: Inclusion of the right handed neutrino to the standard model open up a
536: whole new way of looking at physics beyond the standard model and
537: transforms the dynamics of the standard model in a profound
538: way. To clarify what we mean, note that in the standard model (that does
539: not contain a $\nu_R$) the $B-L$ symmetry is only linearly anomaly free
540: i.e. $Tr[(B-L)Q^2_a]=0$ where $Q_a$ are the gauge generators of the
541: standard model but $Tr(B-L)^3\neq 0$. This means that $B-L$ is only a
542: global symmetry and cannot be gauged. However as soon as the $\nu_R$ is
543: added to the standard model, one gets $Tr[(B-L)^3]=0$ implying that the
544: B-L symmetry is now gaugeable and one could choose the gauge group of
545: nature to be either $SU(2)_L\times U(1)_{I_{3R}}\times U(1)_{B-L}$ or
546: $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L}$, the latter being the gauge group
547: of the left-right symmetric models\cite{moh}. Furthermore the presence of
548: the $\nu_R$ makes the model quark lepton symmetric and leads to a
549: Gell-Mann-Nishijima like formula for the elctric charges\cite{marshak}
550: i.e.
551: \begin{eqnarray}
552: Q= I_{3L}+I_{3R}+\frac{B-L}{2}
553: \end{eqnarray}
554: The advantage of this formula over the charge formula in the standard
555: model charge formula is that in this case all entries have a physical
556: meaning. Furthermore, it leads naturally to Majorana nature of neutrinos
557: as can be seen by looking at the distance scale where the $SU(2)_L\times
558: U(1)_Y$ symmetry is valid but the left-right gauge group is broken. In
559: that case, one gets
560: \begin{eqnarray}
561: \Delta Q=0= \Delta I_{3L}:\\ \nonumber
562: \Delta I_{3R}~=~-\Delta \frac{B-L}{2}
563: \end{eqnarray}
564: We see that if the Higgs fields that break the left-right gauge group
565: carry righthanded isospin of one, one must have $|\Delta L| = 2$ which
566: means that the neutrino mass must be Majorana type and the theory will
567: break lepton number by two units. As we see below this Majorana mass
568: arises via the seesaw mechanism as was first shwon in the last reference
569: in \cite{seesaw1}. It also further connects the nonzero neutrino mass to
570: the maximal V-A character of the weak interaction forces. To show this, we
571: discuss the left-right models and show how neutrino small neutrino mass
572: arises in this model via the seesaw mechanism and how it is connected to
573: the scale of parity violation. This may provide one answer to the raised
574: in C. Quigg's lecture at this institute regarding why weak interactions
575: are maximally parity violating unlike any other force in Nature.
576:
577: \subsection{Left-right symmetry, neutrino mass and origin of V-A weak
578: interactions}
579:
580: The left-right symmetric theory is basrd on the gauge group
581: SU$(2)_L \, \times$ SU$(2)_R \, \times$ U$(1)_{B-L}$ with quarks and
582: leptons transforming as doublets under SU$(2)_{L,R}$.
583: In Table III, we denote the quark, lepton and Higgs
584: fields in the theory along with their transformation properties
585: under the gauge group.
586: ~~~~~~~~~~
587: \begin{center}
588: {\bf Table III}
589: \end{center}
590:
591: \begin{center}
592: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|} \hline\hline
593: Fields & SU$(2)_L \, \times$ SU$(2)_R \, \times$ U$(1)_{B-L}$ \\
594: & representation \\ \hline
595: $Q_L$ & (2,1,$+ {1 \over 3}$) \\
596: $Q_R$ & (1,2,$ {1 \over 3}$) \\
597: $L_L$ & (2,1,$- 1$) \\
598: $L_R$ & (1,2,$- 1$) \\
599: $\phi$ & (2,2,0) \\
600: $\Delta_L$ & (3,1,+ 2) \\
601: $\Delta_R$ & (1,3,+ 2) \\
602: \hline\hline
603: \end{tabular}
604: \end{center}
605:
606: \noindent{\bf Table caption} Assignment of the fermion and Higgs
607: fields to the representation of the left-right symmetry group.
608:
609: \bigskip
610:
611: The first task is to specify how the left-right symmetry group breaks to
612: the standard model i.e. how one
613: breaks the $SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L}$ symmetry so that the successes of
614: the standard model
615: including the observed predominant V-A structure of weak interactions at
616: low energies is reproduced. Another question of naturalness that also
617: arises simultaneously is that since the charged fermions and the
618: neutrinos are treated completely symmetrically (quark-lepton symmetry)
619: in this model, how does one understand the smallness of the neutrino
620: masses compared to the other fermion masses.
621:
622: It turns out that both the above problems of the LR model have a common
623: solution. The process of spontaneous breaking of the $SU(2)_R$ symmetry
624: that suppresses the V+A
625: currents at low energies also solves the problem of ultralight neutrino
626: masses. To see this let us write the Higgs fields explicitly:
627: \begin{eqnarray}
628: \Delta~=~\left(\begin{array}{cc} \Delta^+/\sqrt{2} & \Delta^{++}\\
629: \Delta^0 & -\Delta^+/\sqrt{2} \end{array}\right); ~~
630: \phi~=~\left(\begin{array}{cc} \phi^0_1 & \phi^+_2\\
631: \phi^-_1 & \phi^0_2 \end{array}\right)
632: \end{eqnarray}
633: All these
634: Higgs fields have Yukawa couplings to the fermions given symbolically as
635: below.
636: \begin{eqnarray}
637: {\cal L_Y}= h_1 \bar{L}_L\phi L_R +h_2\bar{L}_L\tilde{\phi}L_R\nonumber \\
638: + h'_1\bar{Q}_L\phi Q_R +h_2'\bar{Q}_L\tilde{\phi}Q_R
639: \nonumber\\
640: +f(L_LL_L\Delta_L +L_RL_R\Delta_R) +~ h.c. \end{eqnarray}
641: The $SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{B-L}$ is broken down to the standard model
642: hypercharge $U(1)_Y$ by choosing $<\Delta^0_R>=v_R\neq 0$ since this
643: carries
644: both $SU(2)_R$ and $U(1)_{B-L}$ quantum numbers. It gives mass to the
645: charged and neutral righthanded gauge bosons i.e. $M_{W_R}= gv_R$ and
646: $M_{Z'}=\sqrt{2} gv_R cos\theta_W/\sqrt{cos 2\theta_W}$. Thus by
647: adjusting the value of $v_R$ one can suppress the right handed current
648: effects in both neutral and charged current interactions arbitrarily
649: leading to an effective near maximal left-handed form for the charged
650: current weak interactions.
651:
652: The fact that at the same time the neutrino masses also become small can
653: be
654: seen by looking at the form of the Yukawa couplings. Note that the f-term
655: leads to a mass for the right handed neutrinos only at the scale $v_R$.
656: Next as we break the standard model symmetry by turning on the vev's for
657: the $\phi$ fields as $Diag<\phi>=(\kappa, \kappa')$, we not only
658: give masses to the $W_L$ and the $Z$ bosons but also to the quarks and the
659: leptons. In the neutrino sector the above Yukawa couplings after
660: $SU(2)_L$ breaking by $<\phi>\neq 0$ lead to the so called Dirac masses
661: forthe neutrino
662: connecting the left and right handed neutrinos. In the two component
663: neutrino language, this leads to the following mass matrix for the
664: $\nu, N$ (where we have denoted the left handed neutrino by $\nu$ and the
665: right handed component by $N$).
666: \begin{eqnarray}
667: M=\left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & h\kappa \\
668: h\kappa & fv_R\end{array}\right)
669: \end{eqnarray}
670: Note that $m_D$ in previous discussions of the seesaw formula (see Eq. ())
671: is given by $m_D=h\kappa$, which links it to the weak scale and the mass
672: of the RH neutrinos is given by
673: $M_R=f v_R$, which is linked to the local B-L symmetry. This
674: justifies keeping RH neutrino mass at a scale lower than the Planck mass.
675: It is therefore fair to assume that seesaw mechanism coupled with
676: observations of neutrino oscillations are a strong indication of the
677: existence of a local B-L symmetry far below the Planck scale.
678:
679: \subsection{Parity symmetry and type II seesaw}
680: In deriving the above seesaw formula for neutrino masses, it has been
681: assumed that the vev of the lefthanded triplet is zero so that the
682: $\nu_L\nu_L$ entry of the neutrino mass matrix is zero. However, in the
683: left-right model which provide an explicit
684: derivation of this formula, there is an induced ve for the $\Delta^0_L$
685: of order $<\Delta^0_L> = v_T\simeq \frac{v^2_{wk}}{v_R}$. In the
686: left-right models, this this arises from the presence of a coupling in the
687: Higgs potential of the form
688: $\Delta_L\phi\Delta^{\dagger}_R\phi^{\dagger}$. In the presence
689: of the $\Delta_L$ vev, the seesaw formula undergoes a fundamental
690: change. One can have two types of seesaw formulae depending on whether
691: the $\Delta_L$ has vev or not. The new seesaw
692: formula now becomes:
693: \begin{equation}
694: { M}_\nu^{\rm II} = M_L - M_\nu^D M_R^{-1} (M_\nu^D)^T,
695: \end{equation}
696: where $M_L = f v_L$ and $M_R=f v_R$, where $v_{L,R}$ are the vacuum
697: expectation values of Higgs fields that couple to the right and lefthanded
698: neutrinos.
699: This formula for the neutrino mass matrix is called type II seesaw formula
700: \cite{seesaw2}. In Fig. 2, we give the diagrams that in a parity symmetric
701: theory lead to the type II seesaw formula.
702:
703: \begin{figure}[tbp]
704: \centering
705: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{seesaw}
706: \caption{Seesaw mechanism: the first diagram involves the exchange of
707: the heavy right handed neutrino and by itself leads to type I seesaw
708: whereas the second figure gives the extra contribution to seesaw formula
709: in parity symmetric theories and leads to type II seesaw. Of the two
710: $\Delta$ fields in this figure, the one that has a vev is the $\Delta_R$
711: field of Table III and the one that connects the two vertices is the
712: $\Delta_L$ of Table III. }
713: \label{fig:seesaw}
714: \end{figure}
715:
716:
717: One may perhaps get some hint as to which type of seesaw formula is valid
718: in Nature once the neutrino spectrum is determined.
719: In the type I seesaw formula, what appears is the square of the
720: Dirac neutrino mass matrix which in general expected to have the same
721: hierarchical structure as the corresponding charged fermion mass matrix.
722: In fact in some specific GUT models such as SO(10), $M_D=M_u$ which
723: validates this conjecture leading to
724: the common statement that neutrino masses given by the seesaw
725: formula are hierarchical
726: i.e.
727: $m_{\nu_e}\ll m_{\nu_{\mu}}\ll m_{\nu_{\tau}}$ and even a more model
728: dependent statement that $m_{\nu_e} : m_{\nu_{\mu}} : m_{\nu_{\tau}}=
729: m^2_u : m^2_c : m^2_t$.
730:
731: On the other hand in the type II seesaw formula, there is no
732: reason to expect a hierarchy and in fact if the neutrino masses turn out
733: to be degenerate (as discussed before as one possibility), one possible
734: way to understand this may be to use the type II seesaw formula.
735: Since the type II seesaw formula is a reflection of the parity
736: invariance of the theory at high energies, evidence for it would point
737: very strongly towards left-right symmetry at high energies. It also must
738: be stated that a hierarchical mass spectrum could result in either type of
739: seesaw formula. For an example of type II seesaw formula with hierarchical
740: spectrum, see the SO(10) model below.
741:
742: The generic seesaw models lead to a number interesting phenomenological
743: and cosmological consequence that we will not discuss in this talk:
744:
745: \begin{itemize}
746:
747: \item Seesaw mechanism embedded into a supersymmetric framework with
748: supersymmetry broken at the weak scale leads to nonvanishing lepton flavor
749: violation. The detailed predictions for flavor violation depends on
750: specific assumptions. But still one would generally expect in these models
751: that the branching ratio for $\mu\rightarrow e+\gamma$ in these models is
752: expected to be above $10^{-14}$, which is the current goal of the PSI MEG
753: experiment.\cite{masiero}.
754:
755: \item The decay of right handed neutrinos in conjunction with CP violation
756: in the right handed neutrino sector has been a very viable mechanism for
757: origin of matter via lkeptogenesis\cite{yana}.
758:
759: \item The above hig scale CP violation could lead to measurable electric
760: dipole moments for leptons\cite{edm}.
761:
762: \end{itemize}
763:
764:
765: \section{UNDERSTANDING LARGE MIXINGS}
766: While the seesaw formula provides an elegant way to understand the small
767: neutrino masses, it throws no light on the nature of the neutrino
768: mixings. The reason essentially is that for three active neutrinos, the
769: seesaw formula involves 18 unknown parameters whereas thye number of
770: observables for neutrinos is nine including all three phases. One must
771: therefore make specific assumptions or models in order to understand
772: mixings\cite{king}.
773:
774: The neutrino mixing angles get contributions from the
775: mass matrices for the charged leptons as well as neutrinos. Since we can
776: choose
777: an arbitrary basis for either the charged leptons or the neutrinos without
778: effecting weak interactions, it is often convenient to work in a basis
779: where charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal. A fundamental theory
780: can of course determine the structure of both the charged lepton and the
781: neutrino mass matrices and
782: therefore will lead to predictions about lepton mixings. However, in the
783: absence of such a theory, if one wants to adopt a model independent
784: approach and look for symmetries
785: that may explain say the maximal value of $\theta_{23}$ or large
786: $\theta_{12}$ etc., it is useful to work in a basis
787: where charged leptons are mass eigenstates
788: and hope that any symmetries for leptons revealed in this
789: basis are true or approximate symmetries of Nature.
790:
791: It could of course be that the large mixings are the result of some
792: dynamical mechanism e.g. radiative corrections or grand unification
793: and not a symmetry. In such a case, there is no need to start with a
794: particular basis. However, we must then find some
795: characxteristic experimental signatures that
796: could point towards such a theory.
797:
798: In any case, it is necessary to look for signatures of the two approaches
799: to mixing angles i.e. whether it is the symmetry that is
800: responsible for large mixings or dynamics. Below, we describe, one give
801: several examples where either a symmetry or some dynamical reason leads
802: to large mixings.
803:
804: \subsection{$\mu-\tau$ symmetry and large atmospheric mixings}
805: In the basis where charged leptons are mass eigenstates, a symmetry that
806: has proved useful in understanding maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing is
807: $\mu\leftrightarrow \tau$ interchange symmetry\cite{mutau}. The mass
808: difference between the muon and the tau lepton of course breaks this
809: symmetry. So we expect this symmetry to be an approximate one. It may
810: however happen that the symmetry is truly exact at a very high scale; but
811: at low mass scales, the effective theory only has the $\mu-\tau$ symmetry
812: in the
813: neutrino couplings but not in the charged lepton sector so that we
814: have $m_\tau \gg m_\mu$\cite{grimus}.
815:
816: To see how the symmetry of the mass matrix affects the mixing
817: matrix, let us consider the case of only two neutrino generations
818: i.e. that of $\mu$ and $\tau$. Experiments indicate that the
819: atmospheric mixing angle is very nearly maximal i.e. $\theta_A~=~
820: \pi/4$. Working in the basis where the charged lepton mass
821: matrix is diagonal, it is obvious that the nautrino Majorana mass
822: matrix that gives maximal mixing is:
823: \begin{eqnarray}
824: {\cal M}^{(2)}_\nu~=~\pmatrix{a & b\cr b & a}.
825: \end{eqnarray}
826: This mass matrix has $\mu-\tau$ interchange symmetry. Smallness of solar
827: neutrino mass difference implies that we can write $b=-1$ and
828: $a=1+\epsilon$. Clearly, if such a symmetry is responsible for maximal
829: atmospheric mixing angle, it will be against the spirit of quark lepton
830: unification that is a fundamental part of the idea of grand unification.
831: Since there also grand unified models that can lead to near maximal
832: mixing, an important question is: how to distringuish a lepton specific
833: symmetry approach from a general quark-lepton unified GUT approach.
834:
835: To answer this question let us extend the above symmetry discussion to the
836: case of three neutrinos. We then have
837: \begin{eqnarray}
838: {\cal M}_\nu~=~\frac{\sqrt{\Delta m^2_A}}{2}\pmatrix{c\epsilon
839: &d\epsilon &b\epsilon\cr d\epsilon & 1+a\epsilon & -1 \cr
840: b\epsilon & -1 & 1+\epsilon}
841: \end{eqnarray}
842: Note that if $a=1$ and $b=d$, this mass matrix has $\mu-\tau$
843: symmetry and leads to large solar mixing. It also predicts
844: $\theta_{13}=0$. However as (i) $a\neq 1$ or (ii) $b\neq d$, we get
845: nonzero $\theta_{13}$ and for case (ii) $\theta_{13}\sim \sqrt{\Delta
846: m^2_\odot/\Delta m^2_A}$ and $\theta_{13}\sim {\Delta
847: m^2_\odot/\Delta m^2_A}$ in case (i)\cite{theta13}.
848:
849: In comparision, in a dynamical approach such as those based on grand
850: unified theories, we would have to have a mass matrix of type in
851: Eq. (19) but since there is no symmetry, we would expect both $a\neq 1$
852: and
853: $b\neq d$. So that we would expect $\theta_{13}\geq \sqrt{\Delta
854: m^2_\odot/\Delta m^2_A}$. Since the next generation of neutrino
855: experiments are expected to push the limit on $\theta_{13}$ down to the
856: level of $0.04$ or so\cite{theta13e}, it should provide a hint as to
857: whether the GUT approach or the symmetry approach is more promising.
858:
859: \subsection{ Inverted hierarchy and $L_e-L_\mu-L_\tau$ symmetry and large
860: solar mixing}
861: Another very natural way to understand large mixings is to assume
862: the symmetry $L_e-L_\mu-L_\tau$ for neutrinos. This symmetry as we see
863: below, leads to an
864: inverted mass hierarchy for neutrinos, which is therefore a clear
865: experimental prediction of this approach.
866: Consider the mass matrix
867: \begin{eqnarray}
868: { M}_\nu=m_0~\left(\begin{array}{ccc} \epsilon &
869: c & s\\ c & \epsilon & \epsilon\\ s & \epsilon &
870: \epsilon\end{array}\right).
871: \end{eqnarray}
872: where $c=cos\theta_A$ and $s=sin\theta_A$. This mass matrix leads to
873: mixing angles that are completely consistent with all data. The mass
874: pattern in this case is inverted i. e. the two mass eigenstates
875: responsible for solar neutrino oscillation are nearly degenerate in mass
876: and the third neutrino mass is much smaller and could be zero. In the
877: limit of $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$, this mass matrix has $L_e-L_\mu-L_\tau$
878: symmetry. One therefore might hope that if inverted hierarchy structure is
879: confirmed, it may provide evidence for this leptonic symmetry which
880: can be an important clue to new physics beyond the standard model.
881: In fact large departure of the solar mixing angle from its
882: maximal value means that $L_e-L_\mu-L_\tau$ symmetry must be badly
883: broken\cite{emutau}.
884:
885: As in the above example, in the mass matrix in Eq. (), when we set
886: $cos\theta_A= sin\theta_A=\frac{1}{sqrt{2}}$, the theory becomes
887: $\mu-\tau$ symmetric and we get $\theta_{13}=0$. Therefore there is a
888: correlation between $\theta_A$ and $\theta_{13}$ in the case for this
889: case.
890:
891: \subsection{Quark-lepton complementarity and large solar mixing}
892: There has been a recent suggestion\cite{raidal} that perhaps the large
893: but not maximal solar mixing angle is related to physics of the quark
894: sector. According to this, the deviation
895: from maximality
896: of the solar mixing may be related to the quark mixing angle
897: $\theta_C\equiv \theta^{q}_{12}$ and is based on the
898: observation that the mixing angle responsible
899: for solar neutrino oscillations, $\theta_{\odot}\equiv \theta^\nu_{12}$
900: satisfies an interesting
901: complementarity relation with the corresponding angle in the quark sector
902: $\theta_{Cabibbo}\equiv \theta^q_{12}$ i.e. $\theta^\nu_{12}+\theta^q_{12}
903: \simeq \pi/4$.
904: While it
905: is quite possible that this relation is purely accidental or due to some
906: other dynamical effects, it is interesting
907: to pursue the possibility that there is a deep meaning behind it
908: and see where it leads. It has been shown in a recent paper that if
909: Nature is quark lepton unified at high scale, then a relation between
910: $\theta^\nu_{12}$ and $\theta^q_{12}$ can be obtained in a natural manner
911: provided the neutrinos obey the inverse hierarchy\cite{fram}. It predicts
912: $sin^2\theta_\odot\simeq 0.34$ which agrees with present data at the
913: 2$\sigma$ level. It also predicts a large $\theta_{13}\sim 0.18$, both of
914: which are predictions that can be tested experimentally in the near
915: future.
916:
917:
918: \subsection{Large mixing for Degenerate neutrinos:}
919: In this case, there are two ways to proceed: one may add the unit matrix
920: to either of the above mass matrices to understand large mixings or look
921: for some dynamical ways by which large mixings can arise. It
922: turns that in this case, one can generate large
923: mixings out of small mixings\cite{babu1,balaji} purely as a consequence
924: of radiative corrections. We will call this possibility radiative
925: magnification.
926:
927: Let us illustrate the basic mechanism for the case of two generations.
928: The mass matrix in the $\nu_\mu-\nu_\tau$
929: sector\cite{balaji} cab written in the flavor basis as:
930: \begin{eqnarray}
931: {M_F(M_R)} = U(\theta)
932: \left(\begin{array}{cc} m_1 & 0 \\ 0 & m_2 \end{array}
933: \right) U(\theta)^{\dagger}
934: \label{uudag}
935: \end{eqnarray}
936: where $U(\theta)~= \left(\begin{array}{cc} C_\theta & S_\theta \\
937: -S_\theta &
938: C_\theta \end{array} \right)$.
939: This mass matrix is defined at the
940: seesaw (GUT) scale, where we assume the mixing angles to be small. As we
941: extrapolate this mass matrix down to
942: the weak scale, radiative corrections modify it to the form\cite{babu1}
943: \begin{eqnarray}
944: \cal{M_F (M_Z)} ~=~ \cal{R}\cal{M_F (M_R)}\cal{R}
945: \label{mf-fin}
946: \end{eqnarray}
947: where $\cal{R}~=~ \left(\begin{array}{cc} 1+\delta_\mu & 0 \\ 0 &
948: 1+\delta_\tau \end{array} \right)$. Note that $\delta_{\mu} \ll
949: \delta_\tau$. So if we ignore $\delta_\mu$, we find that the $\tau\tau$
950: entry of the $\cal{M_F(M_Z)}$ is changed compared to its value at the
951: seesaw scale. If the seesaw scale mass eigenvalues are sufficiently close
952: to each other, then the two eigenvalues of the neutrino mass matrix at the
953: $M_Z$ scale can be same leading to maximal mixing (much like MSW matter
954: resonance effect) regardless what the values of the mixing angles at the
955: seesaw scale are. Thus at the seesaw scale, lepton mixing angles can even
956: be same as the quark
957: mixing angles as a quark-lepton symmetric theory would require. We call
958: this phenomenon radiative magnification of mixing angles. It requires no
959: assumption other than the near degeneracy of neutrino mass eigenvalues and
960: that all neutrinos have same CP (or all mass terms have same sign).
961: This provides a new dynamical mechanism to understand large mixings.
962:
963: This radiative magnification mechanism has recently been generalized to
964: the case of three
965: neutrinos\cite{parida}, where assuming the neutrino mixing angles at the
966: seesaw scale to be same as the quark mixing angles renormalization group
967: extrapolation alone leads to large solar and atmospheric as well as small
968: $\theta_{13}$ at the weak scale provided the common mass of the neutrinos
969: $m_0\geq 0.1$ eV. The values of the mixing angles at the weak scale are
970: in agreement with observations i.e. while both the solar and atmospheric
971: mixing angles become
972: large, the $\theta_{13}$ parameter remains small ($0.08$).
973:
974: \begin{figure}[h]
975: \begin{center}
976: \includegraphics{fs13.ps}
977: \caption{High scale mixing unification and Radiative magnification
978: of mixing angles for degenerate neutrinos. Note that while the lepton
979: mixing angles get magnified, the quark mixings do not due essentially to
980: the hierarchical pattern of masses.}
981: \end{center}
982: \end{figure}
983:
984: As already noted, an important
985: prediction of this model is that the common mass of the neutrinos must be
986: bigger than 0.1 eV, a prediction that can be tested in the proposed
987: neutrinoless double beta decay experiments.
988:
989: There are many other proposals to understand large neutrino mixings; see
990: for instance \cite{anarchy} as one class of models and others
991: summarized in \cite{king}. An important physical insight one gains from
992: the various ways (models) of ensuring large $\theta_A$ and large
993: $\theta_{\odot}$ is that each have their characetristic predictions for
994: $\theta_{13}$ as well as deviation from solar as well as atmospheric
995: neutrino mixing from maximality. For a sample of these predictions, see
996: \cite{deviation}. As further high precision neutrino experiments are
997: carried out, they can be used to test the various ideas hopefully leading
998: to new insight into the nature of new physics.
999:
1000: \section{SEESAW MECHANISM AND GRAND UNIFICATION}
1001: A naive estimate of the seesaw scale (or the scale of B-L symmetry) can be
1002: obtained by using the $\Delta m^2_A\sim 2.5\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ and the
1003: seesaw formula $m_3\simeq\simeq \sqrt{\Delta m^2_A}\simeq
1004: \frac{m^2_{33,D}}{M_R}$. The value of
1005: $m^2_{33,D}$ is of course unknown however in the context of specific
1006: models that unifiy quarks and leptons, one expects this to be of order 100
1007: GeV or so. Using this, one can conclude that $M_R\simeq 10^{14}-10^{15}$
1008: GeV. This value is tantalizingly close to the scale of coupling
1009: unification in supersymmetric theories, which is around $10^{16}$
1010: GeV\cite{unif}. A natural possibility is therefore to discuss the seesaw
1011: mechnism within the framework of grand unified theories.
1012:
1013: As a simple possibility, one may consider the supersymmetric grand unified
1014: theories. In this class of models, one assigns matter and Higgs to the
1015: representations as follows: matter per generation are assigned to
1016: $\bar{5}\equiv \bar{F}$ and $10\equiv 10$ dimensional representations
1017: whereas the Higgs fields are assigned to $\Phi\equiv 45$, $H\equiv {5}$
1018: and
1019: $\bar{H}\equiv \bar{5}$ representations.
1020:
1021: \noindent{\it \underline{Matter Superfields:}}
1022: \begin{equation}
1023: \bar{F} =\left(\begin{array}{c}
1024: d^c_1\\ d^c_2\\ d^c_3 \\e^-\\ \nu\end{array}\right)\\ \nonumber
1025: ; T \{ 10 \}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}
1026: 0 & u^c_3 & -u^c_2 & u_1 & d_1\\
1027: -u^c_3 & 0 & u^c_1 &u_2 & d_2 \\
1028: u^c_2 & -u^c_1 & 0 & u_3 & d_3 \\
1029: -u_1 & -u_2 & u_3 & 0 & e^+\\
1030: -d_1 & -d_2 & -d_3 & -e^+ & 0 \end{array} \right)
1031: \end{equation}
1032: In the following discussion, we will choose the group indices as
1033: $\alpha, \beta$ for SU(5);
1034: (e.g.$ H^\alpha, \bar{H}_\alpha, \bar{F}_{\alpha}
1035: T^{\alpha\beta}= -T^{\beta\alpha}$ );
1036: $i,j,k..$ will be used for $ SU(3)_c $ indices and
1037: $p,q$ for $ SU(2)_L$ indices.
1038:
1039: To discuss symmetry breaking and other dynamical aspects of the model, we
1040: choose the superpotential to be:
1041: \begin{equation}
1042: W = W_Y + W_G + W_h + W\prime
1043: \end{equation}
1044: where
1045: \begin{eqnarray}
1046: W_Y = h_u^{ab} \epsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta\sigma} T_a^\alpha\beta
1047: T_b^{\gamma\delta} H^\sigma + h_d^ab T^{\alpha\beta} \bar{F}_\alpha
1048: \bar{H}_\beta
1049: \end{eqnarray}
1050: ($a,b$ are generation indices). This part of the superpotential is
1051: resposible for giving mass to the fermions.
1052: Effective superpotential for matter sector at low energies then looks
1053: like:
1054: \begin{eqnarray}
1055: W_{matter}~=~ h_u QH_uu^c + h_d QH_d d^c + h_l LH_d e^c +\mu H_u H_d
1056: \end{eqnarray}
1057: Note that $h_d$ and $h_l$ arise from the $T\bar{F}\bar{H}$ coupling
1058: and this satisfy the relation $h_d=h_l$. This relation leads to mass
1059: equalities at the GUT scale of the form: $m_e=m_d$; $m_\mu = m_s$ and
1060: $m_\tau~=~m_b$. These relations have to be extrapolated to the weak scale
1061: to compared with observations. While the extrapolation for the third
1062: generation is in very good agreement with data, it is far from
1063: observations for the first and the second generations. This is of course a
1064: problem for minimal SUSY SU(5) GUT. This model of course has the problem
1065: of R-parity breaking by dimension 4 operators, which can lead to very
1066: rapid proton decay.
1067:
1068: Ignoring the fermion mass and R-parity problems, we can proceed to see how
1069: it
1070: accomodates light neutrino masses. Again as in the case of standard model,
1071: one can add three right handed neutrinos as singlets to the SU(5) theory
1072: and use the seesaw mechanism to generate small neutrino masses. The
1073: problem however is that we have no reason to choose the mass scvale of the
1074: RH neutrinos to be at the GUT scale. In fact a natural choice would be the
1075: Planck scale. Thus while as a practical model for neutrino masses,
1076: SU(5) GUT theory may be OK, it faces the naturalness problem with respect
1077: to the seesaw scale.
1078:
1079:
1080: \section{SO(10) GRAND UNIFICATION AND NEUTRINO MIXINGS:}
1081: We will now consider the SO(10) model, which as wel will see has a number
1082: of virtues that make it just the right GUT model for neutrino masses.
1083:
1084: First point to note is that the
1085: {\bf 16} dimensional spinor representation of SO(10)
1086: consists of all fifteen
1087: standard model fermions plus the right handed neutrino arranged according
1088: to the it $SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times SU(4)_c$ subgroup as
1089: follows:
1090: \begin{eqnarray}
1091: {\bf \Psi}~=~\pmatrix{u_1 & u_2 & u_3 & \nu\cr d_1 & d_2 & d_3& e}
1092: \end{eqnarray}
1093: We can take three such spinors for three fermion families. The presence of
1094: the Pati-Salam subgroup $SU(4)_c$ allows relations between the neutrino
1095: couplings and the quark couplings thereby raising the possibility there
1096: will be fewer parameters in the model and more predictivity in the
1097: neutrino sector, compared to the simple seesaw formula.
1098:
1099: Secondly, SO(10) contains the B-L symmetry as a gauge symmetry. since
1100: the mass of the righthanded neutrino breaks B-L symmetry, it has to be
1101: constrained from above by the GUT scale, thus eliminating the hierarchy
1102: problem that emerged in the SUSY SU(5) case.
1103:
1104: In order to implement the seesaw mechanism, one must
1105: break the B-L symmetry, since the right handed neutrino mass breaks this
1106: symmetry. One implication of this is that the seesaw scale is at or
1107: below the GUT scale. Secondly in the context of supersymmetric
1108: SO(10) models, the way B-L breaks has profound consequences for
1109: low energy physics. There are two ways to break B-L in SUSY
1110: SO(10) models: (i) by {\bf 16} Higgs or (ii) by {\bf 126} Higgs. Below we
1111: give a comparision between the two ways and the present recent results
1112: that follow from the second way.
1113:
1114: \subsection{Breaking B-L: {\bf 16} vrs {\bf 126}}
1115: If B-L is broken by a Higgs field
1116: belonging to the {\bf 16} dimensional Higgs field (to be denoted by
1117: $\Psi_H$), then the field that
1118: acquires a nonzero vev has the quantum numbers of the $\nu_R$ field
1119: i.e. B-L breaks by one unit. If we recall the definition of R-parity
1120: i.e. $R_p~=~(-1)^{3(B-L)+2S}$, we see that this vev hav has
1121: $R_p~=~-1$. This implies that the effective MSSM below the GUT scale in
1122: such theories will break R-parity. To see how dangerous these operators
1123: can be, note that in this case higher dimensional operators
1124: of the form $\Psi\Psi\Psi\Psi_H$ are the ones that lead to R-parity
1125: violating operators in the effective low energy MSSM theory. They then
1126: lead to operators such as $QLd^c, u^cd^cd^c$ etc. Together these two
1127: can lead to large breaking of lepton and baryon number symmetry with
1128: a strength of $\left(\frac{v_{B-L}}{M_PM_{\tilde{q}}}\right)^2$. They lead
1129: to unacceptable rates for proton decay (e.g. $\tau_p \leq $ sec.). This
1130: theory
1131: also has no dark matter candidate without making additional assumptions.
1132:
1133: Secondly, in this class of theories, the right handed neutrino mass is
1134: assumed to arise out of operators of the form
1135: $\lambda \Psi\Psi\Psi_H\Psi_H/M_P$.
1136: To get $M_R$ of order $10^{14}$ GeV, we would need to assume $\lambda
1137: \simeq 1$. However, it is well known that similar dimension 5 operators
1138: $\lambda'\Psi\Psi\Psi\Psi/M_P$ can also lead tp proton decay rate in
1139: contradiction with observations unless $\lambda'\leq 10^{-6}$. This raises
1140: a naturalness question which is why some operators have coefficients of
1141: order one whereas others have coefficients of order $1o^{-6}$.
1142:
1143: On the other hand, if one break B-L by a {\bf 126} dimensional Higgs
1144: field, none of these problems arise.To see this note that the member of
1145: this {\bf 126} multiplet that acquires vev has $B-L=2$ and
1146: therefore it leaves R-parity as an automatic symmetry of the low energy
1147: Lagrangian. There is a naturally stable dark matter in this
1148: case. Secondly, in this case, all fermion masses (including the right
1149: handed neutrinos) arise from dimension four operators e.g. $\psi \psi
1150: \bar{\bf 126}$ gives rise to right handed neutrino masses. Therefore we
1151: can safely put all dimension five operators to have couplings less than
1152: $10^{-6}$ without any problem.
1153:
1154: A further point is that, any theory with asymptotic
1155: parity symmetry
1156: leads to type II seesaw formula. It turns out that if the B-L symmetry is
1157: broken by {\bf 16} Higgs fields, the first term in the type II seesaw
1158: (effective triplet vev induced term) becomes very small compared to the
1159: type I term. On the other hand, if B-L is broken by a {\bf 126} field,
1160: then the first term in the type II seesaw formula is not necessarily small
1161: and can in principle dominate in the seesaw formula. We will discuss a
1162: model of this type below.
1163:
1164: \subsection{Minimal SO(10) with a single {\bf 126} as a predictive model
1165: for neutrinos}
1166: The basic ingredients of this model are that one considers only two Higgs
1167: multiplets that contribute to fermion masses i.e. one
1168: {\bf 10} and
1169: one {\bf 126}. A unique property of the {\bf 126}
1170: multiplet is that it not only breaks the B-L symmetry and therefore
1171: contributes to
1172: right handed neutrino masses, but it also contributes to charged fermion
1173: masses by virtue of the fact that it contains MSSM doublets which mix with
1174: those from the {\bf 10} dimensional multiplets and survive down to the
1175: MSSM scale. This leads to a tremendous reduction of the number of
1176: arbitrary parameters, as we will see below.
1177:
1178: There are only two Yukawa coupling matrices in this model: (i) $h$ for
1179: the {\bf 10} Higgs and (ii) $f$ for the {\bf 126} Higgs.
1180: SO(10) has the property that the Yukawa couplings involving the {\bf 10}
1181: and {\bf 126} Higgs representations are symmetric. Therefore
1182: if we assume that CP violation arises from other sectors of the theory
1183: (e.g. squark masses) and work in a basis where one of these two sets
1184: of Yukawa coupling matrices is diagonal, then it will have
1185: only nine parameters. Noting the fact that the (2,2,15) submultiplet of
1186: {\bf 126} has a pair of standard model doublets that contributes to
1187: charged fermion masses.
1188: In SO(10) models of this type,
1189: the {\bf 126} multiplet contains two parity partner Higgs submultiplets
1190: (called $\Delta_{L,R}$) which couple to $\nu_L\nu_L$ and $N_RN_R$
1191: respectively and after spontaneous symmetry breaking lead to the type II
1192: seesaw formula for neutrinos, which plays an important role in magnifying
1193: the neutrino mixings despite quark-lepton unification\cite{goran,goh}.
1194:
1195: As we will see a further advantage of using {\bf 126} multiplet is that it
1196: unifies the charged fermion Yukawa couplings with
1197: the couplings that contribute to righthanded as well as lefthanded
1198: neutrino masses, as long as we do not include nonrenormalizable
1199: couplings in the superpotential. This can be seen as
1200: follows\cite{babu}: it is the set {\bf 10}+${\bf
1201: \overline{126}}$ out of which the MSSM Higgs doublets emerge; the
1202: later also contains the multiplets $(3,1,10)+(1,3,\overline{10})$
1203: which are responsible for not only lefthanded but also the right
1204: handed neutrino masses in the type II seesaw formula.
1205: Therefore all fermion masses in the model are arising
1206: from only two sets of $3\times 3$ Yukawa matrices one denoting the
1207: {\bf 10} coupling and the other denoting ${\bf \overline{126}}$
1208: couplings.
1209: The SO(10) invariant superpotential giving the Yukawa couplings of the
1210: {\bf
1211: 16} dimensional matter spinor $\psi_i$ (where $i,j$ denote generations)
1212: with the Higgs fields $H_{10}\equiv
1213: {\bf 10}$ and $\Delta\equiv {\bf \overline{126}}$.
1214: \begin{eqnarray}
1215: {W}_Y &=& h_{ij}\psi_i\psi_j H_{10} + f_{ij} \psi_i\psi_j\Delta
1216: \end{eqnarray}
1217: In terms of the GUT scale Yukawa couplings, one can write the
1218: fermion mass matrices (defined as ${ L}_m~=~\bar{\psi}_LM\psi_R$) at
1219: the seesaw scale as:
1220: \begin{eqnarray}
1221: M_u~=~ h \kappa_u + f v_u \\\nonumber
1222: M_d~=~ h \kappa_d + f v_d \\ \nonumber
1223: M_\ell~=~ h \kappa_d -3 f v_d \\ \nonumber
1224: M_{\nu_D}~=~ h \kappa_u -3 f v_u \\\nonumber
1225: \end{eqnarray}
1226: where $\kappa_{u,d}$ are the vev's of the up and down standard model
1227: type Higgs fields in the {\bf 10} multiplet and $v_{u,d}$ are the
1228: corresponding vevs for the same doublets in {\bf 126}.
1229: Note that there are 13 parameters in the above equations and there are 13
1230: inputs (six quark masses, three lepton masses and three quark mixing
1231: angles and weak scale). Thus all parameters of the model that go into
1232: fermion masses are determined.
1233:
1234: These mass sumrules provide the first
1235: important ingredient in discussing the neutrino sector.
1236: To see this let us note that they lead to the following sumrule
1237: involving the
1238: charged lepton, up and down quark masses:
1239: \begin{equation}\label{main}
1240: k \tilde{M}_l=r \tilde{M}_d+\tilde{M}_u
1241: \end{equation} where $k$ and $r$ are
1242: functions of the symmetry breaking parameters of the model. It is clear
1243: from the above equation that smallquark mixings imply that the
1244: contribution the charged leptons to the neutrino mixing matrix
1245: i.e. $U_{\ell}$ in the formula $U_{PMNS}~=~U^{\dagger}_{\ell}U_{\nu}$
1246: is close to identity and the entire contribution therefore comes from
1247: $U_\nu$. Below we show that $U_nu$ has the desired form with
1248: $\theta_{12}$ and $\theta_{23}$ large and $\theta_{13}$ small.
1249:
1250:
1251: \subsection{Maximal neutrino mixings from type II seesaw}
1252: In order to see how the type II seesaw formula provides a simple way to
1253: understand large neutrino mixings in this model, note that in certain
1254: domains of the parameter space of the model, the second matrix in the type
1255: II seesaw formula can much smaller than the first term. This can happen
1256: for instance when $V_{B-L}$ scale is much higher than $10^{16}$ GeV. When
1257: this happens, one can derive the sumrule
1258: \begin{eqnarray}
1259: { M}_{\nu} &=& a(M_{\ell}-M_d)
1260: \label{key}\end{eqnarray}
1261: This equation is key to our discussion of the neutrino masses and mixings.
1262:
1263: Using Eq. (\ref{key}) in second and third generation sector, one
1264: can understand how large mixing angle emerges.
1265:
1266: Let us first consider the two generation case \cite{goran}. The known
1267: hierarchical
1268: structure of quark and lepton
1269: masses as well as the known small mixings for quarks suggest that
1270: the matrices $M_{\ell,d}$ for the second and third generation have
1271:
1272: \begin{eqnarray}
1273: M_{\ell}~\approx~m_\tau\left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda^2
1274: &\lambda^2\\
1275: \lambda^2 & 1\end{array}\right)\\ \nonumber
1276: M_q ~\approx~m_b \left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda^2 & \lambda^2\cr \lambda^2
1277: & 1\end{array}\right)
1278: \end{eqnarray}
1279: where $\lambda \sim 0.22$ (the Cabibbo angle).
1280: It is well known that in supersymmetric
1281: theories, when low energy quark and lepton masses are extrapolated
1282: to the GUT scale, one gets approximately that $m_b\simeq m_\tau$.
1283: One then sees from the above sumrule for neutrino masses Eq.
1284: (\ref{key}) that there is a cancellation in the $(33)$ entry of the
1285: neutrinomass matrix and all entries are of
1286: same order $\lambda^2$ leading very naturally to the atmospheric
1287: mixing angle to be large. Thus one has a natural understanding of
1288: the large atmospheric neutrino mixing angle. No extra symmetries
1289: are assumed for this purpose.
1290:
1291: For this model to be a viable one for three generations, one must
1292: show that the same $b-\tau$ mass convergence at GUT scale also
1293: explains the large solar angle $\theta_{12}$ and a small
1294: $\theta_{13}$. This has been demonstrated in a recent
1295: paper\cite{goh}.
1296:
1297: To see how this comes about, note
1298: that in the basis where the down
1299: quark mass matrix is diagonal, all the quark mixing effects are
1300: then in the up quark mass matrix i.e. $M_u ~=~ U^T_{CKM}M^d_u
1301: U_{CKM}$. Using the Wolfenstein parametrization for quark mixings,
1302: we can conclude that that we have
1303: \begin{eqnarray}
1304: M_{d}~\approx ~m_{b}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda^4 & \lambda^5
1305: &\lambda^3\\ \lambda^5 & \lambda^2& \lambda^2 \\ \lambda^3 & \lambda^2 &
1306: 1\end{array}\right)
1307: \end{eqnarray}
1308: and $M_{\ell}$ and $M_d$ have roughly similar pattern due to the
1309: sum rule . In the above equation, the matrix elements are
1310: supposed to give only the approximate order of magnitude. As we
1311: extrapolate the quark masses to the GUT scale, due to the fact
1312: just noted i.e. $m_b-m_\tau \approx m_{\tau}\lambda^2$,
1313: the neutrino mass matrix $M_\nu~=~c(M_d-M_\ell)$
1314: takes roughly the form:
1315: \begin{eqnarray}
1316: M_{\nu}~=~c(M_d-M_\ell)\approx ~m_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda^4 &
1317: \lambda^5
1318: &\lambda^3\\ \lambda^5 & \lambda^2 & \lambda^2 \\ \lambda^3 & \lambda^2
1319: & \lambda^2\end{array}\right)
1320: \end{eqnarray}
1321: It is then easy to see from this mass matrix that both the $\theta_{12}$
1322: (solar angle) and $\theta_{23}$ (the atmospheric angle) are
1323: large. It also turns out that the ratio of masses $m_2/m_3\approx \lambda$
1324: which explains the milder hierarchy among neutrinos compared to
1325: that among quarks. Furthermore, $\theta_{13}\sim \lambda$.
1326: A detailed numerical analysis for this modelhas been carried out in
1327: \cite{goh} and it substantiates the above analytical reasoning and
1328: makes detailed predictions for the mixing angles\cite{goh}. We find that
1329: the predictions for $sin^22\theta_{\odot}\simeq 0.9-0.94$,
1330: $sin^22\theta_A \leq 0.92$, $\theta_{13}\sim 0.16$ and $\Delta
1331: m^2_{\odot}/\Delta m^2_A\simeq 0.025-0.05$ are all in agreement with
1332: data. Furthermore the prediction for $\theta_{13}$ is in a range that can
1333: be tested partly in the MINOS experiment but more completely in the
1334: proposed long baseline experiments.
1335:
1336: \begin{figure}[h]
1337: \begin{center}
1338: \includegraphics{pic_2ang.eps}
1339: \caption{$sin^22\theta_{12}$ ~vrs $sin^22\theta_{23}$; scatter
1340: corresponds to different allowed quark mass values.}
1341: \end{center}
1342: \end{figure}
1343:
1344:
1345: \begin{figure}[h]
1346: \begin{center}
1347: \includegraphics{pic_delm.eps}
1348: \caption{scatter corresponds to uncertainty in quark mass values.}
1349: \end{center}
1350: \end{figure}
1351:
1352: \begin{figure}[h]
1353: \begin{center}
1354: \includegraphics{pic_ue3.eps}
1355: \caption {$U_{e3}\equiv \theta_{13}$ and just below the present
1356: upper limit: ``high'' value due to no $\mu\leftrightarrow\tau$
1357: symmetry (see before).}
1358: \end{center}
1359: \end{figure}
1360:
1361: This model has been the subject of many further investigation including
1362: such questions as to how to include CP violation, its predictions for
1363: proton decay etc.\cite{other}.
1364:
1365: We have not discussed the SO(10) models with {\bf 16} Higgs\cite{16} or
1366: multiple {\bf 126} models\cite{chen}.
1367:
1368: \section{LSND and STERILE NEUTRINO}
1369: The first need for sterile neutrinos came from attempts to
1370: explain\cite{caldwell} apparent observations in the
1371: Los Alamos Liquid Scintillation Detector (LSND) experiment\cite{lsnd} ,
1372: of oscillations of $\bar{\nu}_\mu$'s from a stopped muon (DAR) as
1373: well as of the $\nu_\mu$'s accompanying the muon in pion decay
1374: (known as the decay in flight or DIF neutrinos) have apparently been
1375: observed. The evidence from the
1376: DAR is statistically
1377: more significant and is an oscillation from $\bar{\nu}_\mu$ to
1378: $\bar{\nu}_e$. The mass and mixing parameter range that fits data is:
1379: \begin{eqnarray}
1380: \Delta m^2 \simeq 0.2 - 2 eV^2; sin^22\theta \simeq 0.003-0.03
1381: \end{eqnarray}
1382: There are points at higher masses specifically at 6 eV$^2$ which are
1383: also allowed by the present LSND data for small mixings.
1384: KARMEN experiment at the Rutherford laboratory has very strongly
1385: constrained the allowed parameter range of the LSND
1386: data\cite{karmen}. Currently the
1387: Miniboone experiment at Fermilab is under way to probe the LSND parameter
1388: region\cite{louis} using $\nu_\mu$ beam.
1389:
1390: Since the $\Delta m^2_{LSND}$ is so different from that $\Delta
1391: m^2_{\odot, A}$, the simplest way to explain these results is to
1392: add one\cite{caldwell} or two\cite{sorel} sterile neutrinos. For the case
1393: of one extra sterile neutrino, there are two scenarios: (i) 2+2 and
1394: (ii) 3+1. In the first case, solar neutrino oscillation is supposed to be
1395: from $\nu_e$ to $\nu_s$. This is ruled out by SNO neutral current data. In
1396: the second case, one needs a two step process where $\nu_{\mu}$
1397: undergoes indirect oscillation to $\nu_e$ due to a combined effect of
1398: $\nu_\mu-\nu_s$ and $\nu_e-\nu_s$ mixings (denoted by $U_{\mu,s}$ and
1399: $U_{e s}$ respectively, rather than direct
1400: $\nu_\mu-\nu_e$ mixing. As a result, the effective mixing angle in LSND
1401: for the 3+1 case is
1402: given by $4U^2_{e s}U^2_{\mu s}$ and the measured mass difference is given
1403: by that between
1404: $\nu_{\mu,e}-\nu_s$ rather than $\nu_\mu-\nu_e$. This scenario is
1405: constrained by the fact that sterile neutrino
1406: mixings are constrained by two sets of observations: one from the
1407: accelerator searches for $nu_\mu$ and $\nu_e$ disappearance
1408: and the second from big bang nucleosynthesis.
1409:
1410: The bounds on $U_{es}$ and $U_{\mu s}$ from accelerator experiments
1411: such as Bugey, CCFR and CDHS are of course dependent on particular
1412: value of $\Delta m^2_{\alpha s}$ but for a rough order of magnitude, we
1413: have $U^2_{es}\leq 0.04$ for $\Delta m^2 \geq 0.1$ eV$^2$ and $U^2_{\mu s}
1414: \leq 0.2$ for $\Delta m^2 \geq 0.4$ eV$^2$\cite{bilenky}.
1415:
1416: It is worth pointing out that SNO neutral current data has ruled out pure
1417: $\nu_e-\nu_s$ transition as an explanation of solar neutrino puzzle by
1418: 8$\sigma$'s; however, it still allows as much as 40\% admixture of sterile
1419: neutrinos and as we will see below, the sterile neutrinos could very well
1420: be present at a subdominant level. Thus the 2+2 scenario seems to be
1421: highly disfavored by observations, whereas the 3+1 scenario is barely
1422: acceptable.
1423:
1424:
1425: \subsection{Theoretical Implications of a confirmation of LSND}
1426: If LSND results are confirmed by the Mini Boone experiment, it will
1427: require substantial revision of our thinking about neutrinos. For one
1428: thing one should expect deviation from the unitarity constraint on the
1429: three active neutrino mixings. But a much more fundamental alteration in
1430: our thinking about neutrinos may be called for.
1431:
1432: One such interpretation is in terms of breakdown of CPT invariance resulting in
1433: different spectra for neutrinos compared to
1434: anti-neutrinos\cite{mura}. This hypothesis
1435: is now pretty much in conflict with observations after the KamLand
1436: experiment\cite{concha}.
1437:
1438: Another possibility is that there may be one or more sterile neutrinos in
1439: Nature. The immediate challenge for theory then is
1440: why a sterile neutrino which is a standard model singlet (since it does
1441: not couple to the W and Z bosons) has a
1442: mass which is so light. A priori one would expect it to be of order of the
1443: Planck scale.
1444:
1445: A model that very cleverly solves this problem is the mirror universe
1446: model where it is postulated that coexisting with the standard model
1447: particles and forces is an exact duplicate of it, the mirror sector to our
1448: universe\cite{mirror}. The forces and matter in the mirror are different
1449: but mirror
1450: duplicates of what we are familiar with. We will not see the mirror
1451: particles or forces because they do not couple to our forces or matter.
1452: Gravity of course couples to both sectors.
1453:
1454: In this models there will be analogs of $\nu_{e,\mu,\tau}$ in the mirror
1455: sector ($\nu'_{e,\mu,\tau}$). They will play the role of the sterile
1456: neutrinos. It is then clear that whatever mechanism keeps our neutrinos
1457: light will keep the mirror neutrinos light too, thereby solving the most
1458: vexing problem with sterile neutrinos. In Table II, we present the
1459: particle assignment for the mirror model.
1460:
1461:
1462: \begin{center}
1463: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|}\hline
1464: visible sector & mirror sector\\
1465: { $SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y$ }&{
1466: $SU(3)'_c\times SU(2)'_L\times U(1)'_Y$ }\\ \hline { $W,
1467: Z, \gamma, $ gluons} &{ $W', Z', \gamma', $ gluons'}\\
1468: {$\pmatrix{u_L\cr
1469: d_L}$} & {
1470: $\pmatrix{u'_L\cr d'_L}$}\\
1471: { $u_R, d_R$} & { $u'_R, d'_R$}\\
1472: {$\pmatrix{\nu_L\cr e_L}$} &
1473: {$\pmatrix{\nu'_L\cr e'_L}$}\\
1474: { $e_R, N_R$} & { $e'_R, N'_R$}\\\hline
1475: \end{tabular}
1476: \end{center}
1477:
1478: The next question is how to understand why the sterile neutrinos required
1479: to understand the LSND experiment so much heavier ($\sim $ eV) than the
1480: acive neutrinos. This is explained in the mirror model by postulating that
1481: the weak scale in the mirror sector is about 10 to 20 times heavier than
1482: the familiar weak scale. We of course do not know the reason for this. But
1483: it is possible that it is tied to another feature of mirror models
1484: required for their viability i.e. asymmetric inflation which says that
1485: the reheat temperature of the mirror sector after inflation is smaller
1486: than the visible sector so that the number density of relativistic
1487: particles at the epoch of inflation is very small and does not affect
1488: the success of BBN. This is the so called asymmetric mirror
1489: model\cite{bere}.
1490:
1491: This model has all the ingredients needed to understand the LSND results.
1492:
1493: \section{CONCLUSION}
1494: Neutrino physics right now is at a crossroad. Enough important
1495: discoveries have been made so that the knowledge of the masses and mixings
1496: are playing a significant role in influencing the direction of new physics
1497: beyond the standard model; on the other hand, to raise our knowledge about
1498: neutrinos to the same level as quarks as well as to decide more precisely
1499: the direction of new physics, we need more precise information about
1500: masses and mixings than we currently have.
1501:
1502: For instance, on the theoretical side, the seesaw
1503: mechanism for understanding the scale of neutrino masses is regarded as
1504: the prime candidate not only due to its simplicity but also its
1505: theoretical appeal. It is perhaps hinting at the
1506: new physics beyond the standard model to be left-right symmetric (due to
1507: the introduction of the right handed neutrinos) and possibly
1508: also quark-lepton $SU(4)_c$ symmetric\cite{ps} as well as grand
1509: unification. On the last point of grand inification, there are large
1510: variety of models based on the simple SO(10) group. A generic prediction
1511: of SO(10) models is the normal hierarchy or quasi-degeneracy for
1512: neutrinos. So evidence for inverted hierarchy would be point strongly away
1513: from the SO(10) route. Similarly, evidence for Dirac rather than Majorana
1514: neutrino (see Table I) would be a strong blow to the simple seesaw
1515: mechanism.
1516:
1517: On the hand our understanding of mixing angles is far from
1518: complete. No clear consensus seems to have emerged about any particular
1519: idea. An exhaustive list of
1520: scenarios have been suggested to understand the new and unusual pattern of
1521: intra-family mixing among leptons with their characteristic predictions
1522: for observable parameters such as $\theta_A-\pi/4$, $\theta_{13}$ and
1523: $m_{eff}$ in $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ decay. Experiments will play a crucial
1524: role in clarifying the picture here. It is therefore important to
1525: implement the proposals for measuring these observables in the next decade
1526: and one will then not only
1527: have a better understanding of the neutrinos but also a more definite
1528: direction in the nature of new physics beyond the standard model.
1529:
1530: Thus, there remain
1531: enough important things about neutrinos that are unknown so that a healthy
1532: investment in the field will definitely broaden the frontier of our
1533: overall understanding of forces, matter and the Universe. For example, it
1534: is very likely going to throw light on such
1535: important cosmological issues as the origin of matter and formation
1536: of structure in the Universe.
1537:
1538: Neutrino physics has been full of surprises and there may yet be some more
1539: waiting. For instance, confirmation by Mini Boone of the LSND
1540: results will be one such major branch point. While, our general discussion
1541: of mixings will receive a small perturbation, the impact on the
1542: theoretical side will be very major, raising a completely
1543: new set of questions and opening a brand new frontier in particle physics.
1544:
1545: Exciting times are ahead in neutrino physics !!
1546:
1547: \begin{acknowledgments}
1548:
1549: I would like thank the SSI organizers for the invitation to lecture, for
1550: their support and for creating such a pleasant atmosphere for discussions.
1551: This work is supported by the National Science Foundation grant
1552: no. Phy-0354401.
1553:
1554:
1555:
1556: \end{acknowledgments}
1557:
1558: \begin{thebibliography}{99} % Use for 10-99 references
1559:
1560: \bibitem{kayser} B. Kayser, these proceedigs.
1561:
1562: \bibitem{rev} For recent reviews, see J.~N.~Bahcall, M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia
1563: and C.~Pena-Garay, JHEP {\bf 0408}, 016 (2004)
1564: [arXiv:hep-ph/0406294]; C. Gonzalez-Garcia and M. Maltoni,
1565: hep-ph/0406056; M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M. Tortola and J. W. F. Valle,
1566: hep-ph/0405172.
1567:
1568: \bibitem{gratta} G. Gratta, these proceedings; For a review, see
1569: S.~R.~Elliott and P.~Vogel,
1570: Ann.\ Rev.\ Nucl.\ Part.\ Sci.\ {\bf 52}, 115 (2002)
1571: [arXiv:hep-ph/0202264]; H. Kalpdor, {\it Sixty years of Double Beta
1572: decay}, World Scientific (2001).
1573:
1574: \bibitem{vissani} F.~Vissani, JHEP {\bf 9906}, 022 (1999); F.~Feruglio,
1575: A.~Strumia and F.~Vissani, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 637}, 345
1576: (2002); S. Pascoli and S.T. Petcov, {\em Phys. Lett.} {\bf B 580}, 280
1577: (2004).
1578:
1579:
1580: \bibitem{klapdor} H.~V.~Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, A.~Dietz, H.~L.~Harney
1581: and I.~V.~Krivosheina, Mod. Phys. Lett. {\bf A16} (2001) 2409,
1582: hep-ph/0201231;
1583: H.~V.~Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, I.~V.~Krivosheina, A.~Dietz and O.~Chkvorets,
1584: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B586} (2004) 198.
1585:
1586: \bibitem{tri} Ch. Weinheimer et al. Phys. Lett. {\bf B 460}, 219 (1999).
1587:
1588: \bibitem{WMAP} C. Bennett et al. Ap. J. (Supp.) {\bf 148}, 1 (2003);
1589: D. Spergel et al. Ap. J. (Supp.) {\bf 148}, 175 (2003).
1590:
1591: \bibitem{olive} R. Cyburt, B. Fields, K. Olive and E. Skillman,
1592: astro-ph/0408033.
1593:
1594: \bibitem{rnm} R. N. Mohapatra and P. B. Pal, {\it Massive neutrinos in
1595: Physics and Astrophysics}, World Scientific (Third edition, 2003);
1596: B. Kayser et al. {\it The Physics of Msiive Neutrinos}, World Scientific
1597: (1989).
1598:
1599: \bibitem{valle} J.~Schechter and J.~W.~F.~Valle,
1600: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 25}, 2951 (1982).
1601:
1602: \bibitem{njp} R. N. Mohapatra, New J. Phys. {\bf 6}, 82 (2004).
1603:
1604: \bibitem{seesaw1} P. Minkowski, Phys. lett. {\bf B67 }, 421
1605: (1977); M. Gell-Mann, P. Rammond and R. Slansky, in {\it
1606: Supergravity}, eds. D. Freedman {\it et al.}
1607: (North-Holland, Amsterdam,
1608: 1980); T. Yanagida, in proc. KEK workshop, 1979
1609: (unpublished); S. L. Glashow, {\it Cargese
1610: lectures}, (1979). R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi\'c,
1611: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 44}, 912 (1980).
1612:
1613: \bibitem{moh} J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. {\bf D10}, 275 (1974);
1614: R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 11}, 566, 2558 (1975);
1615: G. Senjanovi\'c and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 12}, 1502 (1975).
1616:
1617: \bibitem{marshak} R. N. Mohapatra and R. E. Marshak, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf
1618: 44}, 1316 (1980).
1619:
1620: \bibitem{seesaw2} G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi and C. Wetterich,
1621: Nucl.Phys.{\bf B181}, 287 (1981); R. N. Mohapatra and G.
1622: Senjanovi\'c, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 23}, 165 (1981); For more recent
1623: work see E. Ma and U. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 5716
1624: (1998).
1625:
1626: \bibitem{masiero} For a recent review and extensive references to
1627: literature, see A.~Masiero, S.~K.~Vempati and O.~Vives,
1628: arXiv:hep-ph/0407325.
1629:
1630: \bibitem{yana} M.~Fukugita and T.~Yanagida, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 174}, 45
1631: (1986).
1632:
1633: \bibitem{edm} J. Ellis, J. Hisano, M. Raidal and Y. Shimizu,
1634: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 526}, 86 (2002); B. Dutta and
1635: R. N. Mohapatra, Phys.Rev. {\bf D68}, 113008 (2003); Y. Farzan and
1636: M. Peskin, arXiv:hep-ph/0405214.
1637:
1638: \bibitem{king} S. F. King,
1639: Rept.Prog.Phys. {\bf 67}, 107 (2004); G. Altarelli and F.
1640: Feruglio, hep-ph/0405048; S.~M.~Barr and I.~Dorsner,
1641: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 585}, 79 (2000).
1642:
1643: \bibitem{mutau} C. S. Lam, hep-ph/0104116; T. Kitabayashi and
1644: M. Yasue, Phys.Rev. {\bf D67} 015006 (2003); W. Grimus and L. Lavoura,
1645: hep-ph/0305046; 0309050; Y. Koide, Phys.Rev. {\bf D69}, 093001 (2004);
1646: R.~N.~Mohapatra and S.~Nussinov,
1647: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 60}, 013002 (1999) arXiv:hep-ph/9809415.
1648:
1649:
1650: \bibitem{grimus} For examples of such theories, see W. Grimus and
1651: L. Lavoura, hep-ph/0305046; 0309050.
1652:
1653:
1654: \bibitem{theta13} R. N. Mohapatra, Slac Summer
1655: Inst. lecture; http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/ssi/2004; hep-ph/0408187;
1656: JHEP, {\bf 10}, 027 (2004);
1657: W. Grimus, A. S.Joshipura, S. Kaneko, L.
1658: Lavoura, H. Sawanaka, M. Tanimoto, hep-ph/0408123;
1659:
1660: \bibitem{theta13e} K.~Anderson {\it et al.},
1661: arXiv:hep-ex/0402041; M.~Apollonio {\it et al.}, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\
1662: C {\bf 27}, 331 (2003) arXiv:hep-ex/0301017; M.~V.~Diwan {\it et al.},
1663: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 012002
1664: (2003) arXiv:hep-ph/0303081; D. Ayrea et al. hep-ex/0210005;
1665: Y. Itow et al. (T2K collaboration) hep-ex/0106019; I.~Ambats {\it et al.}
1666: (NOvA Collaboration), FERMILAB-PROPOSAL-0929.
1667:
1668: \bibitem{emutau} R. Barbieri, L. Hall, D. Smith,
1669: A. Strumia and N. Weiner,
1670: JHEP {\bf 9812}, 017 (1998); A. Joshipura and S. Rindani,
1671: Eur.Phys.J. {\bf C14}, 85 (2000); R. N. Mohapatra, A.
1672: Perez-Lorenzana, C. A. de S. Pires, Phys. Lett. {\bf B474}, 355
1673: (2000); T. Kitabayashi and M. Yasue, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 63},
1674: 095002 (2001); Phys. Lett. {\bf B 508}, 85 (2001);
1675: hep-ph/0110303; L. Lavoura, Phys. Rev. D 62, 093011 (2000);
1676: W. Grimus and L. Lavoura, Phys. Rev. D 62, 093012 (2000);
1677: J. High Energy Phys. 09, 007 (2000); J. High Energy Phys. 07, 045 (2001);
1678: R. N. Mohapatra, hep-ph/ 0107274; Phys. Rev. {\bf D 64}, 091301
1679: (2001). K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 532},
1680: 77 (2002); H. S. Goh, R. N. Mohapatra and S.-P. Ng,
1681: hep-ph/0205131; Phys. Lett. {\bf B542}, 116 (2002)); Duane A.
1682: Dicus, Hong-Jian He, John N. Ng, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 536}, 83
1683: (2002); Q. Shafi and Z. Tavartkiladze, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 482},
1684: 1451 (2000); for an early discussion of mass matrices with
1685: various leptonic symmetries, see S. Petcov, Phys. Lett.{\bf B
1686: 10}, 245 (1982).
1687:
1688: \bibitem{raidal} M. Raidal, hep-ph/0404046; H. Minakata and A. Y. Smirnov.
1689: {\tt hep-ph/0405088}.
1690:
1691: \bibitem{fram} P. Frampton and R. N. Mohapatra, hep-ph/0407139.
1692:
1693: \bibitem{babu1} K.S.~Babu, C.N.~Leung and J.~Pantaleone,
1694: Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B319}, 191 (1993); P. Chankowski and
1695: Z. Pluciennik, Phys. Lett. {\bf B316},
1696: 312 (1993);
1697: P.H.~Chankowski, W.~Kr\'{o}likowski and S.~Pokorski,
1698: ~hep-ph/9910231; P. H. Chankowski and S. Pokorski,
1699: hep-ph/0110249; J.A.~Casas, J.R.~Espinosa, A.~Ibarra and I. Navarro,
1700: ~Nucl. Phys. {\bf B569}, 82 (2000); ~hep-ph/9910420; J. Ellis and S. Lola,
1701: hep-ph/9904279; N. Haba, Y. Matsui, N. Okamura and
1702: M. Sugiura, hep-ph/9908429; P. Chankowski, A. Ioannisian,
1703: S. Pokorski and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 3488
1704: (2001); M. Frigerio and A. Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0212263;
1705: J.A.~Casas, J.R.~Espinosa, A.~Ibarra and I.~Navarro,
1706: ~Nucl. Phys. {\bf B556}, 3 (1999);S. Antusch, M. Drees, J. Kersten,
1707: M. Lindner and M. Ratz, Phys. Lett. {\bf B519}, 238 (2001).
1708:
1709:
1710:
1711:
1712: \bibitem{balaji} K.R.S.~Balaji, A.S.~Dighe, R.N.~Mohapatra and
1713: M.K.~Parida,
1714: Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 84}, 5034 (2000);
1715: Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B481}, 33 ~(2000).
1716:
1717:
1718: \bibitem{parida} R. N. Mohapatra, M. K. Parida and G. Rajasekaran,
1719: hep-ph/0301234; Phys.Rev.{\bf D69}, 053007 (2004).
1720:
1721:
1722: \bibitem{anarchy} L.J.~Hall, H.~Murayama and N.~Weiner,
1723: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 84}, 2572 (2000); A.~de Gouv\^ea and
1724: H.~Murayama, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 573}, 94 (2003); Guido Altarelli,
1725: Ferruccio Feruglio, Isabella Masina, JHEP {\bf 0301}, 035 (2003).
1726:
1727: \bibitem{deviation} G.~Altarelli and F.~Feruglio,
1728: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 439}, 112 (1998) arXiv:hep-ph/9807353; E. Kh
1729: Akhmedov, G. Branco and M. Rebelo, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84},
1730: 3535 (2000); T. ~Ohlsson and G.~Seidl, Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 643}, 247
1731: (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0206087]; P.H. Frampton, S.T. Petcov,
1732: W. Rodejohann Nucl.Phys. {\bf B687}, 31
1733: (2004); arXiv:hep-ph/0401206; A.~de Gouvea,
1734: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 093007
1735: (2004); arXiv:hep-ph/0401220; I.~Dorsner and A.~Y.~Smirnov,
1736: arXiv:hep-ph/0403305.
1737:
1738: \bibitem{unif} S. Dimopoulos, S. Raby and F. Wilczek,
1739: Phys.Rev. {\bf D24}, 1681 (1981);
1740: W. Marciano and
1741: G. Senjanovi\'c, Phys. Rev. {\bf D25},
1742: 3092 (1982); M. Einhorn and D. R. T. Jones, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B196},
1743: 475 (1982);
1744: U. Amaldi, W. de Boer and H. Furstenau, Phys. Lett. {\bf B260},447 (1991);
1745: P. Langacker and M. Luo, Phys. Rev. {\bf D44}, 817 (1991); J. Ellis,
1746: S. kelly and D. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. {\bf B260}, 131 (1991).
1747:
1748:
1749: \bibitem{babu} K. S. Babu and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70},
1750: 2845 (1993).
1751:
1752: \bibitem{goran} B. Bajc, G. Senjanovi\'c and F. Vissani,
1753: hep-ph/0210207; Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 051802 (2003).
1754:
1755:
1756: \bibitem{goh} H. S. Goh, R. N. Mohapatra and S. P. Ng, hep-ph/0303055;
1757: Phys.Lett. {\bf B570}, 215 (2003) and hep-ph/0308197; Phys. Rev. {\bf
1758: D68}, 115008 (2003).
1759:
1760: \bibitem{other} D.~G.~Lee and R.~N.~Mohapatra,
1761: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 324}, 376 (1994)
1762: [hep-ph/9310371];
1763: B.~Brahmachari and R.~N.~Mohapatra,
1764: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 015001 (1998)
1765: [hep-ph/9710371];
1766: K.~Matsuda, Y.~Koide and T.~Fukuyama,
1767: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 053015 (2001);
1768: K.~Matsuda, Y.~Koide, T.~Fukuyama and H.~Nishiura,
1769: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 033008 (2002)
1770: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 65}, 079904 (2002)]
1771: [hep-ph/0108202].
1772: T.~Fukuyama and N.~Okada,
1773: JHEP {\bf 0211}, 011 (2002)
1774: [hep-ph/0205066];
1775: B. Dutta, Y. Mimura and R.N. Mohapatra,
1776: arXiv:hep-ph/0402113; Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 115014 (2004); N.~Oshimo,
1777: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 095010; hep-ph/
1778: C.~S.~Aulakh, B.~Bajc, A.~Melfo, G.~Senjanovic and F.~Vissani,
1779: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 588}, 196 (2004)
1780: [hep-ph/0306242]; C. S. Aulakh and A. Giridhar, hep-ph/0204097;
1781: T.~Fukuyama, A.~Ilakovac, T.~Kikuchi, S.~Meljanac and
1782: N.~Okada, arXiv:hep-ph/0401213;
1783: S.~Bertolini, M.~Frigerio and M.~Malinsky,
1784: hep-ph/0406117;
1785: B.~Dutta, Y.~Mimura and R.~N.~Mohapatra, hep-ph/0406262;
1786: W.~M.~Yang and Z.~G.~Wang, hep-ph/0406221;
1787: H.~S.~Goh, R.~N.~Mohapatra, S.~Nasri and S.~P.~Ng,
1788: %``Proton decay in a minimal SUSY SO(10) model for neutrino mixings,''
1789: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 587}, 105 (2004); H.~S.~Goh, R.~N.~Mohapatra and
1790: S.~Nasri, arXiv:hep-ph/0408139; Phys. Rev. {\bf D 70}, 075002 (2004).
1791:
1792: \bibitem{16} K. S. Babu, J. C. Pati and
1793: F. Wilczek, hep-ph/9812538, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B566}, 33 (2000); C. Albright
1794: and S. M. Barr,
1795: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 244 (2001);
1796: T. Blazek, S. Raby and K. Tobe, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 055001 (2000);
1797: Z. Berezhiani and A. Rossi,
1798: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B594}, 113 (2001); R. Kitano and Y. Mimura,
1799: Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, 016008 (2001); R.~Dermisek, arXiv:hep-ph/0406017.
1800:
1801: \bibitem{chen} M. C. Chen and K. T. Mahanthappa,
1802: Phys.Rev. {\bf D62}, 113007 (2000);
1803: Y. Achiman and W. Greiner, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 329}, 33 (1994);
1804: Y.~Achiman, arXiv:hep-ph/0403309.
1805:
1806: \bibitem{caldwell} D. Caldwell and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 46},
1807: 3259 (1993); J. Peltoniemi and J. W. F. Valle, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 406},
1808: 409 (1993); J. Peltoniemi, D. Tommasini and J. W. F. Valle,
1809: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 298}, 383 (1993).
1810:
1811: \bibitem{lsnd} LSND collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 3082 (1996).
1812:
1813: \bibitem{karmen} B. Armbruster et al. Phys. Rev. {\bf D65}, 112001 (2002).
1814:
1815: \bibitem{louis} A. O. Bazarko, BooNe collaboration; hep-ex/9906003.
1816:
1817: \bibitem{sorel} M. Sorel, J. Conrad and M. Shavitz, hep-ph/0305255.
1818:
1819: \bibitem{bilenky} S. Bilenky, W. Grimus, C. Giunti and T. Schwetz,
1820: hep-ph/9904316.
1821:
1822: \bibitem{maltoni} M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M. Tortola and J. W. F. Valle,
1823: hep-ph/0305312.
1824:
1825: \bibitem{mura}
1826: H.~Murayama and T.~Yanagida,
1827: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 520}, 263 (2001)
1828: [arXiv:hep-ph/0010178];
1829: G.~Barenboim, L.~Borissov and J.~Lykken,
1830: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 534}, 106 (2002).
1831:
1832: \bibitem{concha}
1833: M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia, M.~Maltoni and T.~Schwetz,
1834: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 053007 (2003).
1835:
1836: \bibitem{mirror} T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. {\bf 104}, 254
1837: (1956);
1838: K. Nishijima, private communication; Y. Kobzarev, L. Okun and I. Ya
1839: Pomeranchuk, Yad. Fiz. {\bf 3}, 1154 (1966); M. Pavsic, Int. J. T. P.
1840: {\bf 9}, 229 (1974); S. I. Blinnikov and M. Y. Khlopov, Astro. Zh. {\bf
1841: 60}, 632 (1983); E. W. Kolb, D. Seckel and M. Turner, Nature, {\bf 514},
1842: 415 (1985); R. Foot, H. Lew and R. Volkas, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 272}, 67
1843: (1991); E.Akhmedov, Z.Berezhiani, G.Senjanovic, Phys.Rev.Lett. 69, 3013
1844: (1992)
1845:
1846:
1847: \bibitem{bere} Z. Berezhiani and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. {\bf
1848: D 52}, 6607 (1995); Z. Berezhiani, A. Dolgov and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys.
1849: Lett. {\bf B 375}, 26 (1996).
1850:
1851: \bibitem{ps} J. C. pati and A. Salam, \cite{moh}.
1852:
1853:
1854:
1855:
1856:
1857:
1858:
1859: \end{thebibliography}
1860:
1861:
1862:
1863: \end{document}
1864: %
1865: % ****** End of file template.aps ******
1866: