1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsfonts,amscd,bbm,graphicx,cite}
3: \topmargin -.5cm \textwidth 16.5cm \textheight 22.5cm
4: \oddsidemargin 0cm \evensidemargin 0cm
5:
6: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}}
7: \newcommand{\Ie}{{\it I.e.}}
8: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.}}
9: \newcommand{\Eg}{{\it E.g.}}
10: \newcommand{\cf}{{\it cf.}}
11: \newcommand{\etc}{{\it etc.}}
12: \newcommand{\eq}{Eq.}
13: \newcommand{\eqs}{Eqs.}
14: \newcommand{\Def}{Definition}
15: \newcommand{\fig}{Fig.}
16: \newcommand{\Fig}{Fig.}
17: \newcommand{\figs}{Figs.}
18: \newcommand{\Figs}{Figs.}
19: \newcommand{\Ref}{Ref.}
20: \newcommand{\Refs}{Refs.}
21: \newcommand{\Sec}{Sec.}
22: \newcommand{\Secs}{Secs.}
23: \newcommand{\App}{Appendix}
24: \newcommand{\Apps}{Appendices}
25: \newcommand{\Tab}{Table}
26: \newcommand{\Tabs}{Tables}
27:
28: \begin{document}
29:
30: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
31: % Title Page %
32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
33:
34: \thispagestyle{empty}
35: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
36: \setcounter{footnote}{1}
37:
38: \vspace*{-1.cm}
39: \begin{flushright}
40: OSU-HEP-04-13
41: \end{flushright}
42: \vspace*{1.8cm}
43:
44: \centerline{\Large\bf Neutrino Oscillations in}
45: \vspace*{3mm}
46: \centerline{\Large\bf Deconstructed Dimensions}
47:
48: \vspace*{18mm}
49:
50: \centerline{\large\bf
51: Tomas H\"allgren$^a$\footnote{E-mail: \texttt{tomash@theophys.kth.se}},
52: Tommy Ohlsson$^a$\footnote{E-mail: \texttt{tommy@theophys.kth.se}},
53: and
54: Gerhart Seidl$^b$\footnote{E-mail: \texttt{gseidl@susygut.phy.okstate.edu}}}
55:
56: \vspace*{5mm}
57: \begin{center}
58: $^a${\em Division of Mathematical Physics, Department of Physics}\\
59: {\em Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) -- AlbaNova University Center}\\
60: {\em Roslagstullsbacken 11, 106~91 Stockholm, Sweden}\\
61: ~\\
62: $^b${\em Department of Physics, Oklahoma State University}\\
63: {\em Stillwater, OK 74078, USA}
64: \end{center}
65:
66:
67: \vspace*{20mm}
68:
69: \centerline{\bf Abstract}
70: \vspace*{2mm}
71: We present a model for neutrino oscillations in the
72: presence of a deconstructed non-gravitational large extra dimension
73: compactified on the boundary of a two-dimensional disk. In the deconstructed phase, sub-mm lattice
74: spacings are generated from the hierarchy of energy scales between
75: $\sim 1\:{\rm TeV}$ and the usual $B-L$ breaking scale
76: $\sim 10^{15}\:{\rm GeV}$. Here, small short-distance cutoffs down to
77: $\sim 1\:{\rm eV}$ can be motivated
78: by the strong coupling behavior of gravity in local discrete extra
79: dimensions. This could make it possible to probe the discretization of
80: extra dimensions and non-trivial field configurations in theory spaces
81: which have only a few sites, \ie, for coarse
82: latticizations. Thus, the model has relevance to present and future
83: precision neutrino oscillation experiments.
84: %\keywords{Keyword1; keyword2; keyword3.}
85:
86: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
87: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
88:
89: \newpage
90:
91:
92: \section{Introduction}\label{sec:Introduction}
93:
94: There may be many ways to give a sensible short-distance definition of
95: a model, which describes the Kaluza--Klein (KK) modes
96: \cite{Kaluza:1921tu} of a compactified higher-dimensional gauge
97: theory. One attractive possibility is offered by deconstructed
98: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001ca} or latticized \cite{Hill:2000mu} extra
99: dimensions. Deconstruction provides a new type of four-dimensional
100: (4D) manifestly gauge-invariant and renormalizable field
101: theories\footnote{For an early formulation in terms of infinite arrays
102: of gauge theories, see \Ref~\cite{Halpern:1975yj}.}, which simulates
103: in the infrared (IR) the physics of extra dimensions, and thus, yields a
104: possible ultraviolet (UV) completion of higher-dimensional gauge
105: theories \cite{UVcompletion}. In deconstruction, a bulk gauge
106: symmetry is mapped onto $N$ copies of a 4D gauge group with
107: bi-fundamental Higgs ``link'' fields connecting the neighboring
108: groups. This becomes equivalent with treating the extra dimensional
109: space as a transverse lattice \cite{Bardeen:1976tm}, where the inverse
110: lattice spacing $\Lambda$ is set by the vacuum expectation values
111: (VEV's) of the link fields. These models find a graphical
112: interpretation in ``theory space'' \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001ed}, where
113: the notion of extra dimensions has been translated into more general
114: organizing principles of 4D field theories \cite{Hill:2002rb}. With
115: this emphasis, the idea of theory space has stimulated the development
116: of interesting theories in four dimensions, which need not be
117: attributed any direct extra-dimensional correspondence at all.
118:
119: Since deconstruction is formulated within conventional 4D field
120: theory, one may now expect that a typical lattice cutoff $\Lambda$
121: naturally varies in the UV desert between $\sim 1\:{\rm TeV}$ and
122: $M_{Pl}\simeq 10^{18}\:{\rm GeV}$, \ie, in the energy range where
123: usual effective field theories are defined. Indeed, if $\Lambda$ is,
124: \eg, of the order the $B-L$ breaking scale $M_{B-L}\simeq
125: 10^{15}\:{\rm GeV}$, then a realistic neutrino phenomenology can
126: arise \cite{Balaji:2003st}, where small neutrino masses and bilarge leptonic mixing result
127: from the lattice-link structure of the theory itself.\footnote{A recent attempt to obtain the quark mixing from deconstruction has been described
128: in Ref.~\cite{Hung:2004wf}.} Generally, deconstructed non-gravitational extra
129: dimensions always give a sensible effective field theory up to energy
130: scales of the order $4\pi \Lambda$, and hence, it seems that low
131: cutoff scales $\Lambda\ll 1\:{\rm TeV}$ are not particularly preferred
132: in this case. However, for inverse lattice spacings above a TeV it
133: will be difficult to test theory space models at low energies, unless
134: the number of lattice sites $N$ is very large. On the other hand,
135: cutoff scales which are hierarchically small compared to $\sim 1\:{\rm TeV}$
136: emerge in local theory space formulations of
137: gravity. Local discrete gravitational extra dimensions are
138: characterized by an intrinsic maximal inverse lattice spacing
139: $\Lambda_{\rm max}$, which is related by a ``UV/IR connection'' to the
140: higher-dimensional Planck scale $M_\ast$ and the compactification
141: scale $R^{-1}$
142: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2002sp,Arkani-Hamed:2003vb,Schwartz:2003vj}. Owing
143: to this UV/IR connection, one obtains a small cutoff $\Lambda_{\rm
144: max}\ll M_\ast$, when $R^{-1}$ and $M_\ast$ are clearly separated. Low
145: string scale models with $M_\ast\sim 1\:{\rm TeV}$, like the large
146: extra dimensional scenario of Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos, and Dvali
147: (ADD) \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs} (see, alternatively,
148: Refs.~\cite{Randall:1999ee, CremadesKokorelisx}), will thus lead to a hierarchy
149: $\Lambda_{\rm max}\ll 1\:{\rm TeV}$, when formulated in local theory
150: spaces.
151:
152: This could, in principle, open up the possibility to test these models
153: experimentally already at low energies.
154: For instance, it is well known that sub-mm
155: sized extra dimensions would allow for a measurable conversion of the active
156: neutrinos in higher-dimensional neutrino oscillations
157: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998vp,Dienes:1998sb,Dvali:1999cn,Mohapatra:1999zd,Mohapatra:2001,MoreauGrx:2004}. Therefore, if discrete gravitational or non-gravitational large extra
158: dimensions exhibit a cutoff $\Lambda_{\rm max}\sim R^{-1}\sim ({\rm mm})^{-1}$, one could study with neutrino oscillations the finite
159: discretization effects of few site models far away from the continuum
160: limit. Clearly, in any such model, it would be important to have a
161: dynamical understanding of the smallness of the inverse lattice
162: spacing $\Lambda\lesssim \Lambda_{\rm max}$ in terms of a mechanism,
163: which generates a value $\Lambda\sim (\mu{\rm m})^{-1}$ from energy
164: scales in the UV desert above a TeV.
165:
166: In this paper, we use neutrino oscillations to probe deconstructed
167: non-gravitational large extra dimensions, which have inverse lattice
168: spacings of the order $(\mu{\rm m})^{-1}$. We motivate the relevance
169: of small inverse lattice spacings $\ll 1\text{TeV}$ by the strong-coupling behavior of gravity in a
170: six-dimensional (6D) model, where the two extra dimensions have been
171: naively discretized in a local theory space. In fact, by requiring that a model of this
172: type with only a few sites allows for testable predictions in typical
173: Cavendish-like (laboratory) experiments, the maximal strong coupling scale
174: $\Lambda_{\rm max}$ is found to be $\Lambda_\text{\rm max}\lesssim 1\,\text{keV}$. We analyze a toy model with few sites for a deconstructed
175: $U(1)$ gauge theory on a disk, where a sub-mm sized boundary emerges
176: dynamically from the hierarchy of energy scales between $\sim 1\:{\rm TeV}$
177: and $M_{B-L}\simeq 10^{15}\:{\rm GeV}$. The active
178: Standard Model
179: (SM) neutrinos mix with a latticized right-handed (\ie, SM
180: singlet) neutrino, which propagates on the boundary of the disk. A
181: gaugeable cyclic discrete symmetry ensures that the latticized
182: neutrino can be treated as a massless Wilson fermion. This symmetry
183: also establishes a Wilson-line type effective coupling between the
184: active neutrinos and the latticized right-handed neutrino. Hence, the
185: model reproduces for coarse latticizations major features of the 5D ADD
186: continuum theory with one right-handed neutrino in
187: the bulk, which couples to the SM through a local interaction. We study the possible neutrino oscillation patterns for the
188: cases of a twisted/untwisted right-handed neutrino and an even/odd
189: number of lattice sites. The neutrino oscillations may account for
190: possible subdominant deviations of neutrino oscillations from the
191: solution to the solar and atmospheric neutrino anomalies
192: and could be tested in ongoing and future low-energy neutrino
193: experiments.
194:
195: The paper is organized as follows. In \Sec~\ref{sec:gravity}, we
196: review the strong coupling behavior of gravity in local theory spaces
197: for the example two discretized gravitational extra dimensions. Next,
198: in \Sec~\ref{sec:Model}, we present our model for the deconstruction
199: of a $U(1)$ gauge theory on the boundary of a two-dimensional
200: disk. This model generates from the hierarchy of energy scales between
201: $\sim 1\:{\rm TeV}$ and $M_{B-L}$ lattice spacings in the
202: sub-mm range, and thus, represents a few site model for large extra
203: dimensions. Properties of the mass spectrum and the coupling of a
204: latticized right-handed neutrino which propagates on the boundary of the disk
205: are analyzed in \Sec~\ref{sec:neutrinomasses}. The mixing of the KK modes of
206: the latticized neutrino with the active neutrinos is calculated in
207: \Sec~\ref{sec:bulkmodes}. In \Sec~\ref{sec:neutrinooscillations}, we
208: consider the neutrino oscillations of the active neutrinos into the
209: latticized fermion and discuss the different neutrino oscillation
210: patterns. Finally, in \Sec~\ref{sec:disc}, we present our summary and conclusions. In Appendix \ref{app:anomalies}, we study the cancellation of
211: anomalies in our model, and in Appendix \ref{app:diagonalization}, we
212: describe in some more detail the neutrino mixing matrices.
213:
214:
215: \section{Strong coupling in discretized 6D gravity}\label{sec:gravity}
216:
217: In this section, we will estimate the strong coupling scale in a naive
218: discretization of 6D gravity. It turns out that in local theory spaces
219: with sub-mm sized extra dimensions, the short-distance cutoff, as
220: determined from graviton scattering, lies in the sub-MeV-range, which is far away from the (effective) 6D Planck scale $M_{6D}\sim
221: 1\:{\rm TeV}$. If we require
222: that such a model leads to predictions which are testable in
223: Cavendish-like experiments, then the UV cutoff can be even further lowered
224: by several orders of magnitude. This motivates to consider the
225: extreme limit of lattice cutoffs in the eV-range. This section briefly reviews part of
226: the formulation of gravity in theory space as given in
227: \Ref~\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2002sp} by considering the case of two
228: discrete gravitational extra dimensions. In doing so, we follow
229: closely the treatment of a single discrete gravitational extra
230: dimension in \Refs~\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2003vb,Schwartz:2003vj}.
231:
232: The starting point of our discussion is standard general relativity in
233: six dimensions, where the two extra spatial dimensions have been
234: compactified on a square. We write the coordinates in the 6D space as
235: $z_M=(x_\mu,y_k)$, where the 6D Lorentz indices are denoted by upper
236: case Roman letters $M=0,1,2,3,5,6$, while we use for the usual 4D
237: Lorentz indices lower case Greek letters $\mu=0,1,2,3$, and the
238: coordinates $y_k$ $(k=1,2)$ describe the fifth and sixth dimension.
239: We write the 6D metric $G_{MN}(x_\mu,y_k)$ in block form as
240: \begin{equation}\label{eq:metric}
241: G_{MN}(x_\mu,y_k)=
242: \left(
243: \begin{matrix}
244: g_{\mu\nu}(x_\mu,y_k)&0\\
245: 0&\mathbbm{1}_2
246: \end{matrix}\right),
247: \end{equation}
248: where we have neglected the associated spin-1 and spin-0
249: excitations\footnote{The spin-1 states decouple from the fields
250: confined to the 3-brane, while the spin-0 fields interact only through
251: the dilaton mode \cite{Han:1998sg}.}. For our purposes, it is
252: sufficient to restrict $G_{MN}$ to the simplified form shown in
253: \eq~(\ref{eq:metric}), since we will be only concerned here with
254: the leading order UV behavior of the scattering amplitudes in the
255: effective theory for massive gravitons. The 6D Einstein--Hilbert
256: action $\mathcal{S}_{\rm EH}=\int d^6x\:M_{6D}^4\sqrt{|G|}R_{6D}[G]$,
257: in which $R_{nD}[G]$ is the Ricci scalar in $n$ dimensions, can then be
258: rewritten as
259: \begin{equation}\label{eq:EH}
260: \mathcal{S}_{\rm EH}=\int d^4x\:dy_1\:dy_2\sqrt{|g|}M_{6D}^4(
261: R_{4D}[g]+\frac{1}{4}\partial_{y_k}g_{\mu\nu}
262: (g^{\mu\alpha}g^{\nu\beta}-g^{\mu\nu}g^{\alpha\beta})\partial_{y_k}g_{\alpha\beta}),
263: \end{equation}
264: where summation over $k=1,2$ is understood. In order to simulate the effects of
265: the two extra dimensions in a 4D model, we assume $N^2$ copies of 4D
266: general coordinate invariance (GC), which we denote as $GC_i$, where
267: $i=(i_1,i_2)$ and $i_1,i_2=1,2,\ldots,N$. In theory space, each
268: coordinate invariance $GC_i$ is represented by one ``site'' $i$, where
269: any two neighboring sites $GC_i$ and $GC_j$ with $|j-i|=1$ are
270: connected by a link field $Y_{ji}$. Thus, the collection of sites and
271: links forms a two-dimensional transverse lattice (see
272: \Fig~\ref{fig:grid}).
273: \begin{figure}
274: \begin{center}
275: \includegraphics*[bb = 235 575 375 715,height=4.0cm]{grid.ps}
276: \end{center}
277: \vspace*{-5mm}
278: \caption{\small{Plaquette in the theory space for a naive
279: discretization of 6D gravity. Each circle denotes one general
280: coordinate invariance ($GC$). Two neighboring GC's $GC_a$ and $GC_b$,
281: where $|b-a|=1$, are connected by a link field $Y_{ba}$, which can be
282: regarded as a map from site $a$ to site $b$.}}\label{fig:grid}
283: \end{figure}
284: As already pointed out in \Ref~\cite{Hill:2000mu}, this can be simply
285: interpreted as a variation of the Eguchi-Kawai plaquette model for
286: large $N$ gauge theories \cite{Eguchi:1982nm}.
287:
288: Each site $i$ is equipped with its own metric $g_{\mu\nu}^i(x_i)$,
289: which is a function of the 4D coordinates $x_i\equiv (x_i^\mu)$ for
290: this site. In order to obtain a lattice version of the derivatives
291: $\partial_{y_k}$ in \eq~(\ref{eq:EH}), we will employ
292: appropriate pullbacks of the coordinates $x^\mu_i$ and metrics
293: $g_{\mu\nu}^i$ as defined in \Ref~\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2002sp}. In this
294: line of thought, a link field $Y_{ji}$ can be considered as a pullback
295: function $Y_{ji}^\mu(x_i)$, which maps a vector $x_i$ on the site $i$
296: onto a vector $x_j$ on the site $j$ with coordinates
297: $x_j^\mu=Y^\mu_{ji}(x_i)$. Likewise, to compare the metric
298: $g^j_{\mu\nu}(x_j)$ on the site $j$ with the metric
299: $g^i_{\mu\nu}(x_i)$ on the site $i$, one can introduce the field
300: $G_{\mu\nu}^{ji}(x_i)\equiv(\partial Y^\alpha_{ji}/\partial x^\mu_i)
301: (\partial Y^\beta_{ji}/\partial
302: x^\nu_i)g_{\alpha\beta}^{j}(Y_{ji}(x_i)) $, which transforms as a
303: metric tensor under $GC_i$, but is left fixed by $GC_j$. Therefore,
304: $G^{ji}$ is the pullback of the metric $g^j_{\mu\nu}(x_j)$ on the site
305: $j$ to the site $i$.
306:
307: Assuming equal lattice spacings $a$ in both the $y_1$- and
308: $y_2$-directions, we can now associate the derivatives in the extra
309: dimensional continuum theory with the nearest neighbor forward
310: difference operators $\partial g_{\mu\nu}/\partial y_k=a^{-1}\left[
311: g^i_{\mu\nu}(x_i)-G^{ji}_{\mu\nu}(x_i)\right]$, where
312: $(j_1,j_2)=(i_1+1,i_2)$ for $k=1$ and $(j_1,j_2)=(i_1,i_2+1)$ for
313: $k=2$. With this definition, we obtain from \eq~(\ref{eq:EH}) a naive
314: transverse lattice formulation of the 6D Einstein--Hilbert action
315: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:discretized}
316: \mathcal{S}&=&
317: \sum_{i,j}\int d^4x_i\sqrt{|g^i|}M^2\left(
318: R_{4D}[g^i]+a^{-2}
319: (g_{\mu\nu}^i(x_i)-G^{ji}_{\mu\nu}(x_i))\right.\nonumber\\
320: &&\times\left.
321: (g_{\alpha\beta}^i(x_i)-G^{ji}_{\alpha\beta}(x_i))
322: (g^{i\mu\nu}g^{i\alpha\beta}-g^{i\mu\alpha}g^{i\nu\beta})
323: \right),
324: \end{eqnarray}
325: where $|j-i|=1$ and $M$ is the fundamental 4D Planck scale, which can,
326: in general, be different from the usual 4D Planck scale $M_{Pl}\simeq
327: 10^{18}\:{\rm GeV}$. Comparison with \eq~(\ref{eq:EH}) shows that
328: $R=Na$, where $\sim 1/R$ is the compactification scale,
329: $M_{6D}^4=M^2a^{-2}$, and $M_{Pl}=NM$. From \eq~(\ref{eq:discretized}) it is evident
330: that we can now equally well drop on all the coordinates $x_i$ the
331: index $i$ by making the identification $x^\mu_i\equiv x^\mu$ and
332: describe on all sites $i$ the positions using only a single universal
333: coordinate system with coordinates $x^\mu$.
334:
335: Following the effective
336: field theory approach advanced in
337: \Refs~\cite{Arkani-Hamed:2002sp,Arkani-Hamed:2003vb,Schwartz:2003vj},
338: we can parameterize the link fields $Y^\mu_{ji}$ in terms of small
339: deviations from $x^\mu$ as
340: \begin{equation}\label{eq:links}
341: Y_{ji}^\mu(x_\mu)=x^\mu+\pi^\mu_{ji}(x_\mu)=x^\mu+
342: A^\mu_{ji}(x_\mu)+\partial^\mu\phi_{ji}(x_\mu),
343: \end{equation}
344: where $\pi^\mu_{ji}(x_\mu)$ behaves in the two-site model defined by
345: $GC_i$ and $GC_j$ as a Nambu--Goldstone boson, which is eaten to
346: provide the longitudinal component of a massive graviton
347: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2002sp}. In \eq~(\ref{eq:links}), the
348: Nambu--Goldstone bosons $\pi^\mu_{ji}(x_\mu)$ have been rewritten in
349: terms of vector fields $A^\mu_{ji}$ and scalars $\phi_{ji}$, where the
350: $\phi_{ji}$ provide the longitudinal components of the massive
351: gravitons. In fact, transforming to the stationary (or unitary) gauge
352: $Y^\mu_{ji}(x^\mu)= x^\mu$, we observe that the ``hopping'' terms in
353: \eq~(\ref{eq:discretized}) produce graviton mass terms of the
354: Fierz--Pauli type \cite{Fierz:1939ix}. By analogy with the Eguchi--Kawai
355: model, the model with two discrete gravitational extra dimensions will
356: therefore lead to a multi-graviton theory, containing one zero-mode
357: graviton and a phonon-like spectrum of massive gravitons with masses
358: of order $\sim 1/(Na)$, which simulates in the IR a linear tower of KK
359: excitations.
360:
361: Now, let us consider small fluctuations of the metrics
362: $g^i_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h^i_{\mu\nu}$ around Minkowski space and
363: express the gravitons as $h^i=\sum_{n}e^{{\rm i}2\pi i\cdot
364: n/N}h_{n}$, where we have introduced the index $n\equiv(n_1,n_2)$ with
365: $n_1,n_2=1,2,\ldots$ and where we have suppressed for simplicity the
366: Lorentz indices. Similarly, we write the scalar modes of the
367: Nambu--Goldstone bosons as $\phi^{ij}=\sum_{n}e^{{\rm i}2\pi i\cdot
368: n/N}\phi_n^k$, where $k=1$ ($k=2$) if the vector $i-j$ points in the
369: $y_1$ ($y_2$) direction. Inserting \eq~(\ref{eq:links}) into
370: \eq~(\ref{eq:discretized}) and transforming to momentum space, we observe that
371: the action contains a part, which takes in the limit $n\ll N$ a form
372: of the type
373: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:momentumbasis}
374: \mathcal{S}&=& \int d^4x\:N^2M^2\left[ h_n\left(\partial^2
375: +\frac{1}{a^2}\frac{n^2}{N}\right)h_{-n}\right.\nonumber\\
376: &+&\left.\frac{1}{a^2}\sum_{k=1,2}\left(
377: \frac{n_1+n_2}{N}h_n\partial^2\phi^k_{-n}+(\partial^2\phi^k_n)(\partial^2\phi^k_m)
378: (\partial^2\phi^k_{-n-m})\right)\right]+\dots,
379: \end{eqnarray}
380: where we have omitted terms involving the transverse spin-1 modes and
381: higher-order terms in the spin-2 excitations. After going to canonical
382: normalization, $h_n\rightarrow h_n'\equiv NMh_n$ and
383: $\phi^k_n\rightarrow{\phi^k_n}'\equiv\frac{(n_1+n_2)M}{a^2}\phi_n^k$,
384: we find from the $(\partial^2\phi)^3$ term in
385: \eq~(\ref{eq:momentumbasis}), when evaluated for the lowest lying
386: modes, the strong coupling scale
387: \begin{equation}\label{eq:strongcoupling}
388: \Lambda=(M_{Pl}N/R^4)^{1/5},
389: \end{equation}
390: which is similar to the corresponding value
391: in a single discrete extra dimension. Now, in order to avoid
392: effects that are non-local in theory space
393: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2003vb,Schwartz:2003vj}, the inverse lattice
394: spacing must always be smaller than the maximal short-distance cutoff
395: $\Lambda_{\rm max}\simeq\sqrt{M_{6D}/R}$. Assuming a
396: compactification scale of the order of $1/R\sim10^{-2}\:{\rm
397: eV}\sim(10\:\mu{\rm m})^{-1}$ and $M_{6D}\sim 10\:{\rm TeV}$, we thus
398: obtain a cutoff $\Lambda_{\rm max}\simeq 0.3\:{\rm MeV}$, which is by
399: many orders of magnitude smaller than $M_{6D}$. From a field theory
400: point of view, it would therefore be necessary to provide an
401: understanding of the hierarchy $a^{-1}\leq\Lambda_{\rm max}\ll
402: M_{6D}$, when the lattice spacing $a$ is dynamically generated in a
403: possible UV completion of the theory of massive gravitons.
404:
405: This hierarchy will be even more enhanced in strong
406: gravitational fields, where the higher-order terms omitted in
407: \eq~(\ref{eq:momentumbasis}) can no longer be neglected. Generally,
408: for a macroscopic body with mass $M'$, the cutoff gets modified
409: as $\Lambda_{\rm max}\rightarrow \Lambda_{\rm max}'\simeq\Lambda_{\rm
410: max}(M_{Pl}/M')^{1/3}$ \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2002sp}. Currently,
411: the most precise Cavendish-like tests of Newton's law use test masses
412: of the order $M'\sim(1-10)\:{\rm g}$ (see, \eg,
413: \Ref~\cite{Hoyle:2004}). If we are only interested in local theory space
414: models of gravity that admit meaningful predictions in such laboratory
415: experiments, then the inverse lattice spacing must be even smaller than a
416: cutoff $\Lambda_{\rm max}\sim 1\:{\rm keV}$. This suggests to consider theory space formulations of
417: large extra dimensions which naturally generate small inverse
418: lattice spacings. Going to the extreme limit where the inverse lattice spacing becomes as small as a
419: few eV, such models would have the additional benefit that
420: the structure of theory space becomes potentially accessible in
421: low-energy experiments via neutrino oscillations, when a right-handed
422: neutrino is propagating in the latticized bulk.
423:
424: Note that, to prevent the SM from getting strongly coupled at
425: $\sim\Lambda_{\rm max}$, we would require a
426: perturbative description of the gravitons above this scale. In absence of
427: such an UV completion for gravity,
428: however, we shall in the next section analyze instead a deconstructed
429: $U(1)$ gauge theory, which provides an UV completion for the theory of
430: massive gauge bosons. This has the advantage that one can readily formulate an
431: explicit mechanism which produces sub-mm lattice spacings from energy scales
432: above the lattice cutoff, while ensuring that the dynamics of the SM fermions
433: always remains perturbatively sensible.
434:
435: \section{Deconstructed $U(1)$ on a disk}\label{sec:Model}
436: In this section, we will study the deconstruction of a $U(1)$ gauge theory in
437: a non-gravitational extra dimension compactified on the boundary of a
438: two-dimensional disk. This theory space has been analyzed in the context of
439: supersymmetry breaking \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001ed} and the
440: doublet-triplet splitting problem \cite{Witten:2001bf}. Various properties
441: of supersymmetric deconstructed $U(1)$ models have also been studied in
442: Ref.~\cite{Falkowski:2002vc}. On the boundary of the disk, sub-mm lattice
443: spacings can be generated from a hierarchy between the masses of the link
444: fields. The resulting coarse latticization is experienced by a
445: right-handed neutrino, which propagates on the boundary of the disk and mixes with
446: the SM neutrinos located in the center. The deconstructed $U(1)$ acts on the SM fermions as a gauged $B-L$ symmetry that is broken at the TeV scale.
447:
448: \subsection{Gauge sector}
449: Consider the deconstruction of a $U(1)$ gauge theory, which is defined on the
450: boundary of a two-dimensional disk. Our
451: deconstructed theory is described in four dimensions by a
452: $U(1)^{N+1}\equiv\Pi_{i=0}^NU(1)_i$ product gauge group, where each
453: gauge group $U(1)_i$ corresponds to a site in theory space. The $N+1$
454: sites are connected by $2N$ scalar link variables $Q_{0,i}$ and
455: $Q_{i,i+1}$ $(i=1,2,\ldots,N)$, each of which carries under exactly two
456: neighboring gauge groups $U(1)_i$ and $U(1)_j$ the $U(1)_i\times
457: U(1)_j$ charges $(+1,-1)$ and transforms trivially under all the other
458: gauge groups. Specifically, for $i=1,2,\ldots ,N-1$, a link $Q_{i,i+1}$ is
459: charged as $(+1,-1)$ under the product group $U(1)_i\times U(1)_{i+1}$, while
460: the link $Q_{N,1}\equiv Q_{N,N+1}$ carries the $U(1)_N\times U(1)_1$
461: charges $(+1,-1)$. Thus, the sub-graph defined by the link fields
462: $Q_{i,i+1}$ has the geometry of a latticized circle. Each link
463: $Q_{0,i}$ ($i=1,2,\ldots,N$) carries the $U(1)_0\times U(1)_i$ charges
464: $(+1,-1)$, which leads to a ``non-local'' theory space, since any two
465: sites are connected through at most two links. The theory space of
466: this model is conveniently represented by the ``moose'' \cite{geor86}
467: or ``quiver'' \cite{douglas:1996xx} diagram in \Fig~\ref{fig:disk}.
468: \begin{figure}
469: \begin{center}
470: \includegraphics*[bb = 210 580 398 766,height=5cm]{figures.ps}
471: \end{center}
472: \vspace*{-5mm}
473: \caption{\small{Moose diagram for the deconstructed $U(1)$ gauge
474: theory on a two-dimensional disk. Each circle corresponds to one
475: $U(1)_{i}\equiv G_{i}$ $(i=0,1,2,\ldots,N)$ gauge group. An arrow
476: pointing toward (outwards) a circle denotes a field with negative
477: (positive) charge under this group. The link fields $Q_{i,i+1}$ define
478: the boundary of the disk, while the radial links $Q_{0,i}$ connect the
479: gauge group in the center with the sites on the
480: boundary. }}\label{fig:disk}
481: \end{figure}
482: The gauge group $U(1)_0$ corresponds to the center of the disk, while the other
483: gauge groups $U(1)_{i\neq 0}$ define the sites on the boundary and are
484: connected by the ``boundary links'' $Q_{i,i+1}$. The ``radial links''
485: $Q_{0,i}$ connect the center to the sites on the boundary. We wish to
486: reiterate that, in contrast to the previous section, 4D gravity is simply added
487: to the 4D model, {\it i.e.}, our deconstructed extra-dimensional manifold is
488: non-gravitational.
489:
490: It is useful to consider the global symmetry which corresponds to a
491: $2\pi/N$ rotation of the disk and acts on the link fields by
492: \begin{equation}\label{eq:ZN}
493: Z_N:\quad Q_{N,1}\rightarrow Q_{1,2},\quad Q_{0,N}\rightarrow Q_{0,1},\quad
494: Q_{i,i+1}\rightarrow Q_{i+1,i+2},\quad Q_{0,i}\rightarrow Q_{0,i+1},
495: \end{equation}
496: where $i=1,2,\ldots ,N-1$. Using the gauge degrees of freedom, we can
497: always establish an equivalence relation $Q_{1,2}\sim Q_{i,i+1}$, for
498: $i=1,2,\ldots,N$, which ``identifies'' the links on the
499: boundary. Now, for the lattice gauge field ``living'' on the disk, the
500: holonomy around each plaquette in \Fig~\ref{fig:disk} is trivial in
501: the lowest energy state. As a consequence, the Wilson lines will break
502: the symmetry $U(1)^{N+1}\times Z_N$ down to $U(1)_{\rm diag}\times F$,
503: where $U(1)_{\rm diag}$ is the diagonal subgroup of $U(1)^{N+1}$ and
504: $F$ can be taken as a diagonal product (linear combination) of a
505: $U(1)_0$ gauge transformation and the global $Z_N$ symmetry
506: \cite{Witten:2001bf}.
507:
508: Initially, the scalar sector possesses a global $U(1)^{2N}$ symmetry,
509: which is broken by the gauge couplings, such that only a
510: $U(1)^{N+1}$ subgroup is preserved as the gauge symmetry of the
511: model. Wilson line breaking of the global symmetry leads to
512: $2N$ Nambu--Goldstone boson
513: fields. At the same time, the Wilson lines break also $N$ generators of the
514: $U(1)^{N+1}$ gauge symmetry, which produces $N$ massive spin-1 vector
515: states by eating $N$ of the Nambu--Goldstone boson fields via the Higgs
516: mechanism. Thus, we are left with $N$ classically massless
517: Nambu--Goldstone bosons in the low-energy theory, which can, however,
518: acquire a mass at the quantum level, since the large global $U(1)^{2N}$
519: symmetry is explicitly violated in the gauge sector.
520:
521: The masses of the gauge bosons receive a contribution generated via the Higgs
522: mechanism from the kinetic terms of the link fields
523: $\sim\sum_{i=1}^N(|D_\mu Q_{0,i}|^2+|D_\mu Q_{i,i+1}|^2)$, where
524: $D_\mu Q_{j,i}=(\partial_\mu+{\rm i}g_jA_{j\mu}-{\rm i}g_iA_{i\mu})Q_{j,i}$ for
525: $(j,i)\in\{(0,i),(i,i+1)\}$ is the covariant derivative, in which
526: $g_i$ and $A_{i\mu}$ denote the gauge coupling and the gauge boson of the group
527: $U(1)_i$. In the basis $(A_0^\mu,A_1^\mu,A_2^\mu,\ldots,A_N^\mu)$, the
528: $(N+1)\times (N+1)$ gauge boson mass squared matrix $M^2_A$, which results from these terms
529: after spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB), is therefore
530: \begin{equation}\label{eq:gaugemass}
531: M^2_A=
532: g^2v^2\left(
533: \begin{matrix}
534: N & -1 & -1 & -1 & \cdots\\
535: -1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots\\
536: -1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & \cdots\\
537: -1 & 0 & 0 & 1 & \cdots\\
538: \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots
539: \end{matrix}
540: \right)+
541: g^2u^2
542: \left(
543: \begin{matrix}
544: 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots\\
545: 0 & 2 & -1 & 0 & \cdots\\
546: 0 & -1 & 2 & -1 & \cdots\\
547: 0 & 0 & -1 & 2 & \cdots\\
548: \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots
549: \end{matrix}
550: \right),
551: \end{equation}
552: where we have assumed, for simplicity, universal gauge couplings $g_i\equiv g$,
553: while $v$ and $u$ denote the universal VEV's $v\equiv\langle Q_{0,i}\rangle$
554: and $u\equiv\langle Q_{i,i+1}\rangle$, of the radial and the
555: boundary link fields, respectively. After diagonalization of the mass squared
556: matrix in \eq~(\ref{eq:gaugemass}), we arrive at the gauge boson mass spectrum
557: \begin{equation}\label{eq:gaugebosonmasses}
558: M_0^2=0,\quad
559: M_n^2=g^2v^2+4g^2u^2{\rm sin}^2\frac{\pi n}{N},\quad
560: M_N^2=(N+1)g^2v^2,
561: \end{equation}
562: where $n=1,2,\ldots,N-1$. We observe that this spectrum contains a zero mode,
563: which would correspond to an unbroken $U(1)_{\rm diag}$ (this symmetry will be
564: broken later, when we introduce fermions). In
565: \eq~(\ref{eq:gaugebosonmasses}), the tower of mass squares $M_n^2$,
566: where $n=1,2,\ldots,N-1$, reproduces for $n\ll N$ a spectrum of KK
567: modes of the order $(n/R)^2=(ngu/N)^2$, which has been shifted to
568: higher values by an additional universal contribution of the order
569: $(gv)^2$ provided by the radial links. One gauge boson with mass $M_N$
570: decouples at low energies for $N\rightarrow\infty$. Thus, in this
571: limit, the theory of massive gauge bosons becomes an effective
572: description of a latticized flat fifth dimension with an inverse
573: lattice spacing $u$ (generated by the boundary links) and one lattice
574: scalar (represented by the radial links), which acquires a VEV $v$ in
575: the 5D bulk. In the process, the link fields break the total $U(1)$
576: product gauge group down to the diagonal subgroup
577: $U(1)^{N+1}\rightarrow U(1)_{\rm{diag}}$, which can be further broken by
578: suitable scalar site variables in the center that acquire a VEV at the TeV
579: scale and will thus correspondingly modify the gauge boson spectrum in
580: Eq.~(\ref{eq:gaugebosonmasses}).
581:
582: \subsection{Large lattice spacings}
583: In order to determine the actual vacuum structure in more detail, let
584: us now consider the scalar potential of the link fields in
585: isolation. The most general gauge invariant renormalizable scalar
586: potential of these fields then reads
587: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:potential}
588: V & = & \sum_{i=1}^{N}\Big{[}m^{2}|Q_{0,i}|^2+M^{2}|Q_{i,i+1}|^2
589: + \mu Q_{0,i}Q_{i,i+1} Q_{0,i+1}^{\dagger} +
590: \mu^{\ast}Q_{0,i+1}Q_{i,i+1}^{\dagger} Q_{0,i}^{\dagger}\nonumber\\
591: &&+\frac{1}{2}\lambda_{1}|Q_{0,i}|^4 + \frac{1}{2}\lambda_{2}|Q_{i,i+1}|^4
592: + \lambda_{3}^{ij}|Q_{i,i+1}|^2\sum_{j=1}^{N}|Q_{0,j}|^2
593: + \lambda_{4}^{ij}|Q_{0,i}|^2\sum_{j\neq i}|Q_{0,j}|^2\nonumber\\
594: &&+\lambda_{5}^{ij}|Q_{i,i+1}|^2\sum_{j\neq i}|Q_{j,j+1}|^2
595: +(\lambda_{6}Q_{0,i}Q_{i,i+1}Q_{i+1,i+2}Q_{0,i+2}^{\dagger} + {\rm
596: h.c.})\Big{]},
597: \label{eq:seesawpotential}
598: \end{eqnarray}
599: where the parameters $m,M,$ and $\mu$ have mass dimension +1, while
600: $\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2},\lambda_3^{ij},\lambda_4^{ij},$ and
601: $\lambda_{5}^{ij}$ are dimensionless real parameters of order unity
602: and $\lambda_{6}$ is a complex-valued order unity coefficient. Note
603: that the potential $V$ is invariant under the global $Z_N$ symmetry in
604: \eq~(\ref{eq:ZN}). From the point of view of usual effective field
605: theories, the dimensionful parameters $m,M$, and $\mu$ may take any
606: value in the UV desert between $\sim1\:{\rm TeV}$ and $M_{Pl}$. We
607: will consider here the interesting case where these masses exhibit a
608: hierarchy $m\ll\mu\simeq M$, \ie, the boundary link fields are much
609: heavier than the radial link fields. To be specific, we assume that
610: the mass $m$ is close to the TeV scale, \ie, $m\simeq 1\:{\rm
611: TeV }$, while $\mu$ and $M$ are of the order the usual $B-L$ breaking scale
612: $\mu\simeq M \simeq M_{B-L}\simeq 10^{15}\:{\rm GeV}$. Note that an
613: understanding of the smallness of the parameter $m$ with respect to
614: $M_{B-L}$ may require mechanisms similar to those who give a solution to the
615: $\mu$-term problem in supersymmetric theories and will not be specifically
616: discussed here.
617:
618: To explicitly minimize the scalar potential $V$, we shall now
619: make the simplifying assumption that the parameters $\mu$ and
620: $\lambda_6$ in \eq~(\ref{eq:seesawpotential}) are real. Actually, in a
621: supersymmetric case, holomorphy of the superpotential sets
622: $\lambda_6\rightarrow 0$ and one could rotate the phase of $\mu$ into
623: the Yukawa couplings of the neutrinos. Therefore, we argue that our
624: basic results concerning the magnitude of the VEV's will not be
625: significantly altered, when considering the more general case of
626: complex $\mu$ and $\lambda_6$. Now, taking $m^2<0$ and $\mu<0$, while
627: $M^2>0$, the potential $V$ in \eq~(\ref{eq:seesawpotential}) has an
628: extremum \cite{Bauer:2003mh}, which is given by $u\equiv\langle
629: Q_{i,i+1}\rangle$ and $v\equiv\langle Q_{0,i}\rangle$, for
630: $i=1,2,\ldots ,N$, where $u$ and $v$ are real and equal to
631: \begin{subequations}\label{eq:VEVs}
632: \begin{eqnarray}
633: u &\simeq&
634: \frac{m^{2}\mu}{2\left[\lambda_{1}+(N-1)\lambda_{4}\right]M^{2}-\mu^2},\label{eq:SmallVEVu}\\
635: v^{2} &\simeq& \frac{-m^{2}}{\lambda_{1} + (N-1)\lambda_{4}}
636: \left(1+\frac{u\mu}{m^2}\right),
637: \label{eq:LargeVEVv}
638: \end{eqnarray}
639: \end{subequations}
640: \ie, the boundary links and the radial links respectively acquire universal
641: VEV's. From \eqs~(\ref{eq:VEVs}) we observe that $u$ and $v^2$ become
642: $\sim 1/N$ suppressed in the large $N$ limit. However, let us now
643: consider the opposite situation, where $N\simeq\mathcal{O}(10)$, \ie,
644: the number of sites is kept moderate or small. In this case, we
645: observe that the choice of mass scales $m\simeq 1\:{\rm TeV}$
646: and $\mu\simeq M\simeq M_{B-L}\simeq 10^{15}\:{\textrm{GeV}}$ generates
647: for the boundary link fields $Q_{i,i+1}$ a small VEV of the order
648: $u\simeq 10^{-1}\:{\textrm{eV}}$, while the radial link fields
649: $Q_{0,i}$ acquire an unsuppressed TeV scale VEV $v\simeq 1\:{\rm TeV}$. In
650: other words, the model generates from mass
651: scales in the UV desert of conventional 4D theories an inverse lattice
652: spacing $u \sim (\mu{\rm m})^{-1}$ in the IR desert of large extra
653: dimensions. The suppression of $u$ due to the hierarchy $m \ll
654: \mu\simeq M$ is similar to the type-II seesaw mechanism \cite{typeII}
655: and, in fact, the structure of $V$ in \eq~(\ref{eq:seesawpotential})
656: can essentially be viewed as a replication of the model in
657: \Ref~\cite{Ma:1998dx}. It is the replication of gauge groups on the
658: boundary, which allows here to interpret $\sim u^{-1}$ as the sub-mm
659: lattice spacing of a deconstructed large extra dimension.
660:
661: Note that our mechanism for the generation of sub-mm lattice spacings differs
662: from the model in Ref.~\cite{Bauer:2003mh} essentially in the choice of the dimensionful parameters $m$, $\mu$, and $M$. In Ref.~\cite{Bauer:2003mh}, they are of the orders $m\simeq\mu\simeq 10^2\:{\rm GeV}$ and $M\simeq 10^9\:{\rm GeV}$.
663: Having $\mu\simeq M$, however,
664: would be an automatic consequence in a supersymmetric version, where the tri-linear plaquette terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:potential}) can emerge from the $F$-terms
665: of the superpotential.
666:
667: \subsection{Inclusion of fermions}
668: In our $U(1)^{N+1}$ model, we will first extend the three generations of SM
669: fermions by three fermions $N_1$, $N_2$, and $N_3$, which are singlets
670: under the SM gauge group $G_{SM}$. Then, the three fermion
671: generations are put on the center of the disk by assuming that they
672: carry nonzero $U(1)_0$ charges, but are singlets under the other gauge
673: groups $U(1)_{i\neq 0}$. Note that the addition of matter fields as
674: site variables on the center leaves the $Z_N$ symmetry in
675: \eq~(\ref{eq:ZN}) unbroken. We suppose that the leptons
676: $\ell_\alpha\equiv(\nu_\alpha,\:e_\alpha)^T$ and $e^c_\alpha$
677: ($\alpha=1,2,3$ is the generation index) are charged under $U(1)_0$ as
678: $+1$ and $-1$, respectively, while the quark doublets $q_\alpha\equiv
679: (u_\alpha,\:d_\alpha)$ carry a $U(1)_0$ charge $-1/3$, and the
680: isosinglets $u^c_\alpha$, and $d^c_\alpha$ are given the $U(1)_0$
681: charges $+1/3$. The SM singlets $N_1$, $N_2$, and $N_3$, carry the
682: $U(1)_0$ charges $-4$, $-4$, and $+5$, respectively. Since the
683: $U(1)_0$ charges of the SM quarks and leptons are identical with their
684: $B-L$ quantum numbers, it is easily seen that the model will be free from
685: axial-vector \cite{axial-vector} and gauge-gravitational
686: \cite{gauge-gravitational} anomalies. Notice that this is slightly
687: different from the usual way of gauging $B-L$, where three
688: right-handed SM singlet neutrinos carry a $B-L$ charge $-1$
689: \cite{Marshak:1979fm}. With our charge assignment, however, the Yukawa
690: couplings of the active neutrinos to the fields $N_\alpha$ are
691: suppressed by many powers of $M_{Pl}$ and are thus negligible. Suitable SM
692: singlet scalar fields $S$ with nonzero $U(1)_0$ charges can then allow
693: renormalizable Yukawa couplings $\sim S N_\alpha N_\beta$ and break
694: the $U(1)_0$ symmetry around the TeV scale. (For a recent detailed analysis of
695: breaking $B-L$ at the TeV scale see, {\it e.g.}, Ref.~\cite{Anoka:2004vf}.)
696: The fields $N_\alpha$,
697: which were only introduced for the purpose of anomaly cancellation,
698: will then decouple below a TeV.
699:
700: Next, we include a SM singlet fermion, which appears with respect to
701: the SM interactions as a right-handed neutrino propagating on the
702: boundary of the disk. In the deconstructed space, the bulk fermion is
703: represented by $N$ right-handed neutrinos $\Psi_i$ $(i=1,2,\ldots
704: ,N)$, which are put as site variables on the boundary of the
705: disk. Here, $\Psi_i$ has a charge $-1$ under the group $U(1)_{i}$, but
706: is a singlet under the other gauge groups $U(1)_{j\neq i}$. In the
707: Weyl basis, we can decompose each field $\Psi_i$ as
708: $\Psi_{i}\equiv(\nu_{Ri},\:\overline{\nu^c_R}_i)^T$, where $\nu_{Ri}$
709: and $\overline{\nu^c_R}_{i}$ are two-component Weyl spinors. The mass terms of the neutrinos will be discussed in the next section.
710:
711: \section{Neutrino masses}\label{sec:neutrinomasses}
712: In this section, we will analyze the kinetic term of the latticized
713: right-handed neutrino and its mixing with the SM neutrinos. Unwanted
714: higher-dimension operators can be eliminated by refining the triangulation
715: of the disk.
716:
717:
718: \subsection{Latticized right-handed neutrino}\label{sec:latticized}
719: The deconstructed model presented so far describes a non-local theory
720: space where any two sites are connected by at most two links. This is
721: in contrast to the continuum theory for neutrinos in large extra
722: dimensions \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998vp,Dienes:1998sb}, where a local
723: interaction of a massless right-handed neutrino in the bulk leads to a
724: $\sim (M_{Pl})^{-1}$ suppressed coupling to the active
725: neutrinos. Moreover, the model is in its present form vector-like and
726: allows unprotected Dirac masses $\sim
727: M_{Pl}\nu_{Ri}\nu_{Ri}^c$. However, if we treat the latticized
728: right-handed neutrino as a massless Wilson fermion
729: \cite{Wilson:1974sk} propagating on the boundary of the disk, which has
730: lattice spacings in the sub-mm range, we can have only small Dirac
731: masses $\sim u\nu_{Ri}\nu_{Ri}^c$, where $u\sim(\mu{\rm m})^{-1}$ is the
732: inverse lattice spacing. In order to remedy this problem and make
733: contact with the 5D continuum theory in
734: \Refs~\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998vp,Dienes:1998sb}, we introduce for each
735: site on the boundary of the disk a pair of scalars $\chi_n$ and
736: $\phi_n$ ($n=1,2,\ldots ,N$), which are $G_{SM}\times U(1)^{N+1}$
737: singlets, and assume a discrete $Z_{6M}$ symmetry ($M$ is an
738: appropriate integer) acting on the fields as
739: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Z6M}
740: Z_{6M}:\left\{
741: \begin{array}{ll}
742: \nu_{Rn}\rightarrow {\rm e}^{{\rm i} 2\pi(n+2)^2/M}\nu_{Rn},&
743: \nu_{Rn}^c\rightarrow {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}2\pi(n+1)^2/M}\nu^c_{Rn},\\
744: \chi_n\rightarrow{\rm e}^{-{\rm i}2\pi(2n+3)/M}\chi_n,&
745: \phi_n\rightarrow{\rm e}^{{\rm i}2\pi(2n+3)/(2M)}\phi_n,\\
746: Q_{0,n}\rightarrow{\rm e}^{{\rm i}16\pi/M}Q_{0,n},&
747: \ell_\alpha\rightarrow {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}2\pi/M}\ell_\alpha,\\
748: e^c_\alpha\rightarrow {\rm e}^{{\rm i}2\pi/M}e^c_\alpha,&
749: q_\alpha\rightarrow {\rm e}^{{\rm i}2\pi/(3M)} q_\alpha,\\
750: u^c_\alpha\rightarrow {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}2\pi/(3M)}u^c_\alpha,&
751: d^c_\alpha\rightarrow {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}2\pi/(3M)}d^c_\alpha,\\
752: N_{1,2}\rightarrow {\rm e}^{{\rm i}8\pi/M}N_{1,2},&
753: N_3\rightarrow {\rm e}^{-{\rm i}10\pi/M}N_3,
754: \end{array}
755: \right.
756: \end{equation}
757: where $n=1,2,\ldots ,N$ and $\alpha=1,2,3$ runs over all three
758: generations. Note that the left- and right-handed SM fermions carry
759: opposite charges under the $Z_{6M}$ symmetry, and hence, the Yukawa
760: couplings of the quarks and charged leptons will remain
761: unsuppressed. Furthermore, we note in \eq~(\ref{eq:Z6M}) that the
762: potential $V$ in \eq~(\ref{eq:seesawpotential}) remains invariant
763: under the $Z_{6M}$ symmetry. In Appendix \ref{app:anomalies}, we show
764: that by adding extra fermions on the boundary the $Z_{6M}$ symmetry
765: can be promoted to a discrete gauge symmetry, which would be protected
766: from quantum gravity corrections \cite{Krauss:1988zc,Ibanez:hv}. It
767: turns out that in the effective theory (ignoring the enlarged gauge
768: symmetry at high energies) all dangerous triangle diagrams would add
769: up to zero. It is interesting to note here, that the SM possesses an
770: anomaly-free $Z_6$ symmetry which can ensure nucleon stability for new
771: physics scales as low as $\sim 10^2\:{\rm GeV}$ \cite{Babu:2003qh}.
772:
773: In the deconstructed theory, the action for neutrino masses which
774: includes all renormalizable interactions with $\mathcal{O}(1)$ Yukawa
775: couplings and the most general $U(1)^{N+1}$ invariant
776: dimension-five operators consistent with the discrete $Z_{6M}$ symmetry,
777: can now be written as
778: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Smass}
779: \mathcal{S}_{\rm mass}=
780: \mathcal{S}_{\rm wilson}+\mathcal{S}_{\rm int}^{4D}+\mathcal{S}_{\rm dim 5},
781: \end{equation}
782: in which the different parts are given by
783: \begin{subequations}\label{eq:actions}
784: \begin{eqnarray}
785: \mathcal{S}_{\rm wilson}&=&\int d^4x\sum_{n=1}^{N}u\nu_{Rn}
786: \Big(\frac{Q_{n,n+1}}{u}\nu^c_{R(n+1)}
787: -\frac{\chi_n}{u}\nu^c_{Rn}\Big)
788: +{\rm h.c.},\label{eq:Slink}\\
789: \mathcal{S}_{\rm int}^{4D}&=&
790: \int d^4x\frac{Y_\alpha}{M_f}\ell_\alpha\epsilon
791: HQ_{0,1}^\ast\nu_{R1}+{\rm h.c.},\label{eq:Smix}\\
792: \mathcal{S}_{\rm dim5}&=&
793: \int d^4x\sum_{n=1}^N\frac{Y_n}{M_f}
794: Q_{0,n}^\ast Q_{0,n+1}\nu_{Rn}\nu^c_{R(n+1)}
795: +{\rm h.c.}\label{eq:Sdim5},
796: \end{eqnarray}
797: \end{subequations}
798: where $\epsilon={\rm i}\sigma^2$ contracts the $SU(2)$ indices, while
799: $Y_\alpha$ and $Y_n$ are (complex) dimensionless $\mathcal{O}(1)$ Yukawa
800: couplings. The non-renormalizable operators $\mathcal{S}^{4D}_{\rm int}$ and $\mathcal{S}_{\rm dim5}$ are generated at the string or ``fundamental'' scale
801: $M_f\simeq(10^{17}-10^{18})\:{\rm GeV}$, where a value as low as
802: $M_f\simeq 10^{17}\:{\rm GeV}$ could be understood in M-theory \cite{Witten:1996mz}. In \eq~(\ref{eq:Slink}), let us assume that the $\chi_n$
803: acquire a universal VEV $\langle\chi_n\rangle=u$ $(n=1,2,\ldots ,N)$,
804: which is equal to the inverse lattice spacing $u$ defined by the
805: universal VEV's of the boundary links in \eq~(\ref{eq:SmallVEVu}). We
806: will comment on a possible origin of the order of this mass scale for
807: the VEV's of the $\chi_n$ later on. With the identification
808: $\langle\chi_n\rangle=u$, the action $\mathcal{S}_{\rm wilson}$ in
809: \eq~(\ref{eq:Slink}) takes the form of a Wilson-modified latticized 5D
810: kinetic term that describes the propagation of the right-handed neutrino
811: on the boundary of the disk, which is interpreted as a fifth
812: dimension. The fields $\nu_{R0}^c$ and
813: $\nu_{R(N+1)}^c$ in \eq~(\ref{eq:Slink})
814: are determined by $\nu_{R1}^c$ and $\nu_{RN}^c$ only
815: up to a discrete $Z_2$ ``gauge transformation'' reflecting the
816: topology of the disk. The $Z_2$ symmetry is associated with the
817: existence of non-trivial or twisted field configurations
818: \cite{Isham:1978xxx} for the latticized right-handed neutrino, which
819: are characterized by distinct spectra in the low-energy theory. In
820: \eq~(\ref{eq:Slink}), we define $(\nu_{R0},\:\nu^c_{R0})=\pm
821: (\nu_{RN},\:\nu^c_{RN})$ and
822: $(\nu_{R(N+1)},\:\nu_{R(N+1)}^c)=\pm(\nu_{R1},\:\nu_{R1}^c)$, where
823: ``$\pm$'' distinguishes between twisted ($-1$) and untwisted ($+1$)
824: fields. The effects of twisted field configurations in deconstruction
825: have been extensively discussed in \Ref~\cite{Hill:2002me}.
826:
827: Upon using
828: the mechanism in \Sec~\ref{sec:Model} for generating small inverse
829: lattice spacings $u\sim (\mu{\rm m})^{-1}$, the latticized 5D kinetic term
830: $\mathcal{S}_{\rm wilson}$ leads then to an effective action for KK modes
831: \begin{equation}\label{eq:nuKK}
832: \mathcal{S}_{\rm KK}=\int d^4x\sum_{n=1}^{N}u\nu_{Rn}
833: \Big(\nu^c_{R(n+1)}-\nu^c_{Rn}\Big)+{\rm h.c.}.
834: \end{equation}
835: In the basis spanned by $(\nu_{R1},\nu_{R2},\ldots,\nu_{RN})$ and
836: $(\nu^c_{R1},\nu^c_{R2},\ldots,\nu^c_{RN})$, the action
837: $\mathcal{S}_{\rm KK}$ in \eq~(\ref{eq:nuKK}) defines a Dirac mass
838: squared matrix $M^2$, which explicitly reads
839: \begin{equation*}
840: M^{2}=u^{2} \left(\begin{array}{rrrrr}
841: 2 & -1 & & & -T\\
842: -1 & 2 & -1\\
843: & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots\\
844: & & -1 & 2 & -1\\
845: -T & & & -1 & 2\end{array}\right),
846: \end{equation*}
847: where $T=\pm 1$ and the blank entries are all zero. The squared masses
848: $m_n^2$ of the fermions are found to be the eigenvalues of the matrix
849: $M^2$. Thus, we obtain for twisted $(T=-1)$ and untwisted $(T=+1)$
850: fields the mass spectra
851: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Wilsonspectra}
852: m_{n}^{2}=4u^2{\rm sin}^2\frac{(n-1/2)\pi}{N}
853: \quad ({\rm twisted}),\qquad
854: m_{n}^{2}=4u^2{\rm sin}^2\frac{(n-1)\pi}{N}\quad
855: ({\rm untwisted}),
856: \end{equation}
857: where $u\sim (\mu{\rm m})^{-1}$ and $n=1,2,\ldots,N$. We hence observe that
858: $\mathcal{S}_{\rm KK}$ reproduces in the IR for $\nu_{Rn}$ and
859: $\nu_{Rn}^c$ always a tower of KK excitations with $\sim(\mu{\rm
860: m})^{-1}$ masses, which becomes for large $N$ indistinguishable from
861: the lightest KK modes of a right-handed bulk neutrino in sub-mm sized
862: continuum extra dimensions. Note in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Wilsonspectra}), that
863: a zero mode is absent for twisted fields.
864:
865: In the above discussion, we require that the $\chi_n$ acquire the
866: small VEV $\langle\chi_n\rangle=u\sim (\mu{\rm m})^{-1}$ to allow the
867: interpretation of $\mathcal{S}_{\rm wilson}$ as the Wilson action for
868: a massless right-handed neutrino. This energy scale has been generated
869: for the VEV's of the boundary links by the mechanism in
870: \Sec~\ref{sec:Model}. Since the potential for the $\chi_n$ and
871: $\phi_n$ is qualitatively similar to the potential $V$ of the link fields
872: in \eq~(\ref{eq:seesawpotential}), a variation of this
873: mechanism can also produce the right energy scale for
874: $\langle\chi_n\rangle$, when $\chi_n$ and $\phi_n$ take the r\^oles of
875: the boundary and radial links, respectively. For this purpose, we
876: suppose that the $\phi_n$ have masses $m_\phi$ around the TeV scale
877: $m_\phi\sim 10^2\:{\rm TeV}$, whereas the $\chi_n$ have masses
878: $M_\chi$ of the order the Planck scale $M_\chi\sim
879: M_{f}$. Additionally, we take in the renormalizable
880: $Z_{6M}$-invariant interactions $\sim\tilde{\mu}_n\phi_n\phi_n\chi_n$
881: the dimensionful couplings $\tilde{\mu}_n$ to be $\tilde{\mu}_n\sim
882: M_{f}$. By the same arguments as in \Sec~\ref{sec:Model}, we find
883: that the $\chi_n$ can acquire a VEV in the range
884: $\langle\chi_n\rangle\simeq m_\phi^2/M_{f}\sim (\mu{\rm m})^{-1}$,
885: which is of the order the inverse lattice spacing $u$ in
886: \eq~(\ref{eq:SmallVEVu}).
887:
888: \subsection{Non-renormalizable terms}
889: The interaction of the active neutrinos $\nu_\alpha$ with the
890: right-handed neutrinos on the boundary of the disk is introduced by $\mathcal{S}_{\rm int}^{4D}$
891: in \eq~(\ref{eq:Smix}). In theory space, we identify the
892: dimension-five term \cite{Weinberg:1979sa,Wilczek:1979hc} in
893: $\mathcal{S}_{\rm int}^{4D}$ with a Wilson line type effective
894: operator, which connects the active neutrinos (in the center of the disk)
895: with $\nu_{R1}$ (on the boundary) via the link $Q_{0,1}$ (see
896: \Fig~\ref{fig:Diracmass}).
897: \begin{figure}
898: \begin{center}
899: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
900: \includegraphics*[bb= 121 466 295 564,height=3cm]{figures.ps}&
901: \hspace*{8mm}&
902: \includegraphics*[bb= 315 466 489 564,height=3cm]{figures.ps}\\
903: \small{(a)}&&\small{(b)}
904: \end{tabular}
905: \vspace*{-2mm}
906: \caption{\small{Non-renormalizable dimension-five operators generated
907: at the fundamental scale $M_{f}$. When the link field $Q_{0,1}$ acquires a VEV $\langle Q_{0,1}\rangle\simeq 1\:{\rm TeV}$, this operator generates for $M_f\simeq 10^{17}\:{\rm GeV}$ a Dirac mass of the order $10^{-3}\:{\rm eV}$, which mixes the active neutrinos $\nu_\alpha$ with the tower of KK states via an
908: interaction with $\nu_{R1}$. In theory space, this dimension-five term
909: corresponds to a Wilson line type effective operator, which connects
910: the SM neutrinos $\nu_\alpha$ in the center with $\nu_{R1}$
911: on the boundary of the disk via the link field
912: $Q_{0,1}$. The operators in (b) generate Dirac masses of the order
913: $10^{-2}\:{\rm eV}$ for the right-handed neutrinos and are
914: neglected with respect to the nearest neighbor hopping terms of the order
915: $10^{-1}\:{\rm eV}$.}}\label{fig:Diracmass}
916: \end{center}
917: \end{figure}
918: Let us now go to the basis where $\mathcal{S}_{\rm KK}$ in
919: \eq~(\ref{eq:nuKK}) is on diagonal form and consider the lowest lying
920: mass eigenstate $\nu_{R}'$ belonging to $\mathcal{S}_{\rm KK}$. After
921: setting $Q_{0,1}$ to its VEV $\langle Q_{0,1}\rangle=v\simeq
922: 1\:{\rm TeV}$, the Wilson line type operator generates an
923: effective Yukawa interaction $\sim Y_\alpha\ell_\alpha\epsilon
924: H\nu'_{R}v/(\sqrt{N}M_f)$, which is suppressed by a factor $\sim
925: v/(\sqrt{N}M_f)$ with respect to the electroweak scale. For a string scale $M_f\simeq 10^{17}\:{\rm GeV}$ and small $N$ we thus obtain Dirac mass terms
926: $m_{D\alpha}\nu_a\nu'_R$, with Dirac masses
927: $m_{D\alpha}=Y_\alpha\langle H\rangle v/(\sqrt{N}M_f)\simeq 10^{-3}\:{\rm eV}$.
928:
929: It is instructive to compare the effective Yukawa interaction generated by
930: $\mathcal{S}_{\rm int}^{4D}$ with the 5D ADD scenario. Here, a
931: right-handed bulk neutrino $\nu_R$ couples to the active neutrinos on
932: the SM brane through a local interaction
933: \cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998vp,Dienes:1998sb}
934: \begin{equation}\label{eq:braneinteraction}
935: \mathcal{S}_{\rm int}^{5D}=\int d^4x
936: \frac{Y^D_\alpha}{\sqrt{M_\ast}}\ell_\alpha(x)\epsilon H(x)
937: \nu_R(x,y=0),
938: \end{equation}
939: where $y$ is the coordinate along the fifth dimension compactified on
940: a circle with circumference $2\pi R$, the coefficients $Y^D_\alpha$ are
941: dimensionless $\mathcal{O}(1)$ Yukawa couplings, and the SM lepton
942: doublets $\ell_\alpha$ as well as the Higgs doublet $H$ are 4D fields
943: trapped at $y=0$ on the SM brane. Note that while $\nu_{R1}$ in
944: $\mathcal{S}_{\rm int}^{4D}$ has mass dimension 3/2, the 5D fermion
945: $\nu_R$ in $\mathcal{S}_{\rm int}^{5D}$ has mass dimension 2. After
946: expanding $\nu_R$ in KK modes as $\nu_R(x,y=0)=(2\pi
947: R)^{-1/2}\sum_n\nu_{Rn}(x)$ and using the relation $2\pi
948: R=M_{Pl}^2/M_\ast^3$, it is seen that the interaction in
949: \eq~(\ref{eq:braneinteraction}) gives rise to a Dirac type coupling
950: $\sim Y^D_\alpha\ell_\alpha\epsilon H\nu_{R0}M_\ast/M_{Pl}$ between
951: the active neutrinos and the zero mode $\nu_{R0}$, which is
952: $M_\ast/M_{Pl}$ suppressed. Since $v\sim M_\ast\sim 1\:{\rm TeV}$, we
953: thus find that, in the limit of coarse latticizations
954: $\sqrt{N}\sim\mathcal{O}(1-10)$, the couplings between the active and
955: the right-handed neutrinos generated by $\mathcal{S}_{\rm int}^{4D}$
956: and $\mathcal{S}_{\rm int}^{5D}$ become suppressed by factors of
957: similar orders $v/(\sqrt{N}M_f)\sim M_\ast/M_{Pl}$. However,
958: despite this numerical coincidence, the two models differ in an
959: interesting way: while the smallness of the Dirac type coupling in
960: $\mathcal{S}_{\rm int}^{5D}$ emerges from a volume suppression factor
961: (\ie, from the large number of KK modes below $M_\ast$), the small Dirac mass generated by $\mathcal{S}_{\rm int}^{4D}$
962: is rather a result of the separation between the site where the SM fermions are located and the boundary of the disk as compared to the length scale $M_f^{-1}$.
963:
964: The dimension-five operators contained in $\mathcal{S}_{\rm dim5}$ in
965: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Sdim5}) give for $M_f\simeq 10^{17}\:{\rm GeV}$ rise to Dirac
966: mass terms between $\nu_{Rn}$ and $\nu_{R(n+1)}^c$ that are of the order
967: $10^{-2}\:{\rm eV}$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:Diracmass}). However, since
968: $\nu_{R1}$ is the only right-handed neutrino which couples ``directly''
969: (at the non-renormalizable level) to the active neutrinos, we may
970: treat the terms in $\mathcal{S}_{\rm dim5}$ as subleading corrections to
971: $\mathcal{S}_{\rm wilson}$, which gives Dirac masses of the order $10^{-1}\:{\rm eV}$, and ignore them in the following discussion. Let us now, instead,
972: consider a more attractive possibility to suppress the unwanted
973: non-renormalizable terms of the type shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Diracmass}(b)
974: by making only use of the plaquette-structure of the model.
975: For this purpose, we will assume that the non-local theory space
976: introduced in Sec.~\ref{sec:Model} is actually part of a larger
977: ``spider web theory space'' \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001ed} as shown in
978: Fig.~\ref{fig:spiderweb}.
979: \begin{figure}
980: \begin{center}
981: \includegraphics*[bb= 187 531 426 766,height=6.2cm]{spiderweb.ps}\\
982: \vspace*{-2mm}
983: \caption{\small{Spider web theory space for the suppression of unwanted
984: higher-dimension operators. The inner disk is
985: defined like in Fig.~\ref{fig:disk} and the latticized right-handed
986: neutrino propagates on the outer circle formed by $N$ additional $U(1)$
987: gauge groups $U(1)_i'\equiv G_i'$ ($i=1,2,\ldots ,N$). The SM fermions are
988: placed on the site corresponding to $G_1$ (gray site). The link fields
989: $Q'_{i,i+1}$
990: on the outer circle have a mass of the order $10^{12}\:{\rm GeV}$,
991: whereas all other link fields have masses of the order $10^2\:{\rm TeV}$. Due
992: to the plaquette-structure near the boundary involving four links, the
993: operators analogous to Fig.~\ref{fig:Diracmass} (b) are suppressed by an
994: extra factor $\sim 10^{-12}$.}}\label{fig:spiderweb}
995: \end{center}
996: \end{figure}
997: This theory space is obtained from the disk in Fig.~\ref{fig:disk}
998: by adding $N$ extra $U(1)$ gauge groups
999: $U(1)_i'$ ($i=1,2,\ldots ,N$), which gives the
1000: total gauge group $U(1)^{2N+1}\equiv
1001: \Pi_{i=0}^NU(1)_i\times\Pi_{j=1}^NU(1)_j'$. Each pair of factors
1002: $U(1)_i'$ and $U(1)_i$ is connected by a link field $Q_{i,i}'$ which is
1003: charged under $U(1)_i\times U(1)_i'$ as $(+1,-1)$ and is a singlet under the other gauge groups.
1004: Two neighboring groups $U(1)_i'$ and $U(1)_{i+1}'$, where $i\sim i+N$,
1005: are connected by a boundary link field $Q_{i,i+1}'$, that is charged as
1006: $(+1,-1)$ under $U(1)'_i\times U(1)'_{i+1}$ and transforms trivially under the
1007: other gauge groups.
1008:
1009: In analogy with Sec.~\ref{sec:Model}, we suppose that
1010: the latticized right-handed neutrino propagates in Fig.~\ref{fig:spiderweb} on
1011: the outer circle defined by the links $Q'_{i,i+1}$. Contrary to the previous
1012: non-local theory space example, however, the SM fermions are now placed on the site associated with $G_1$ on the inner circle (see Fig.~\ref{fig:spiderweb}). The $U(1)_1$ charge assignment of the SM fermions is similar to that in Sec.~\ref{sec:Model} with $U(1)_0$ replaced by $U(1)_1$. Next, we suppose that the boundary
1013: link fields $Q'_{i,i+1}$ on the outer circle have a common mass of the
1014: order of an intermediate scale $10^{12}\:{\rm GeV}$ and positive mass squares.
1015: The remaining link fields $Q_{0,i}$, $Q_{i,i+1}$, and $Q'_{i,i}$, on the
1016: other hand, are supposed to have masses of the order $10^2\:{\rm TeV}$ and
1017: negative mass squares. By the same arguments as in Sec.~\ref{sec:Model}, we
1018: then find that the corresponding scalar potential is extremized for VEV's
1019: $\langle Q'_{i,i+1}\rangle\simeq 1\:{\rm eV}$, while all other link fields
1020: have VEV's of the order $\langle Q_{0,i}\rangle\simeq\langle Q_{i,i+1}\rangle
1021: \simeq\langle Q_{i,i}'\rangle\simeq 10^2\:{\rm TeV}$. The separations of the
1022: sites on the outer circle are therefore in the sub-mm range, whereas the
1023: inverse lattice spacings between all other neighboring sites are of the order
1024: $10^{2}\:{\rm TeV}$. As a result, the active neutrinos couple to the
1025: latticized neutrino on the outer circle via an analog of the operator
1026: $S^{4D}_{\rm int}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Smix}), where only $Q_{0,1}$ has been
1027: replaced by $Q_{1,1}'$. More importantly, the ``dangerous'' dimension-five
1028: operators of the type shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Diracmass} (b) are now replaced
1029: by dimension-six operators as
1030: $\nu_{Rn}\nu_{R(n+1)}^cQ_{0,n}^\ast Q_{0,n+1}/M_f\rightarrow
1031: \nu_{Rn}\nu_{R(n+1)}^c{Q_{n,n}'^\ast}Q_{n,n+1}Q_{n+1,n+1}'/M_f^2$.
1032: As a consequence of the plaquette-structure near the boundary of the spider
1033: web theory space, the unwanted higher-dimension operators are suppressed by an
1034: extra factor $\sim10^{-12}$ and become therefore irrelevant. We thus see,
1035: that the model in Sec.~\ref{sec:latticized} is completely
1036: reproduced for a fundamental scale $M_f\simeq M_{Pl}\simeq 10^{18}\:{\rm GeV}$, but now without the
1037: unwanted higher-dimension terms of the sort given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Sdim5}).
1038:
1039: Up to now, we have been considering the generation of Dirac neutrino
1040: masses in a model, where $B-L$ is preserved by the link fields. In
1041: order to understand recent solar \cite{solar}, atmospheric
1042: \cite{atmospheric}, reactor \cite{KamLAND}, and accelerator \cite{K2K}
1043: neutrino data we assume -- contrary to the usual type-I seesaw
1044: mechanism \cite{typeI} -- that $B-L$ is broken at the TeV scale. One
1045: possibility is here provided by versions of the Babu--Zee model
1046: \cite{Babu-Zee}, which can be easily implemented in our model to
1047: generate radiatively Majorana neutrino masses locally on the site where the SM fermions are located. However, in what follows, we will not further
1048: specify the detailed mechanism which generates the Majorana masses of
1049: the usual neutrinos. Instead, we will always assume the presence of
1050: suitable Majorana mass terms and concentrate in the deconstructed
1051: $U(1)$ model on the mixing of the SM neutrinos with the KK modes that
1052: is introduced by the Dirac neutrino masses.
1053:
1054:
1055:
1056:
1057: \section{Mixing with Kaluza--Klein modes}\label{sec:bulkmodes}
1058:
1059: In this section, we will consider the neutrino mass and mixing terms
1060: of our model by specializing to the simplifying case of only one
1061: single active neutrino $\nu$ coupling to the latticized right-handed
1062: neutrino, which we treat as a Wilson fermion. From the action in
1063: \eq~(\ref{eq:Smass}), we thus obtain in this case after SSB for the
1064: relevant neutrino mass and mixing terms the action density
1065: \begin{equation}\label{eq:mass+mixing}
1066: \mathcal{L}^\nu_{\rm m}=m_\nu\nu\nu+\sqrt{N}m_D\nu\nu_{R1}
1067: +u\nu_{RN}(T\nu^c_{R1}-\nu^c_{RN})
1068: +u\sum_{n=1}^{N-1}\nu_{Rn}(\nu^c_{R(n+1)}-\nu^c_{Rn})
1069: +{\rm h.c.},
1070: \end{equation}
1071: where the small inverse lattice spacing $u\sim (\mu {\rm m})^{-1}$ has
1072: been generated by the mechanism in \Sec~\ref{sec:Model} and the
1073: parameter $T=\pm 1$ describes a twisted/untwisted right-handed
1074: neutrino. In \eq~(\ref{eq:mass+mixing}), the Dirac mass type coupling
1075: $\sqrt{N}m_D=M_f^{-1}\langle H\rangle\langle Q_{0,1}\rangle\simeq
1076: 10^{-2}\:{\rm eV}$ arises from the higher-dimension operator
1077: shown in \Fig~\ref{fig:Diracmass} (a) (or the analogous term in the extension to
1078: spider web theory space with $Q_{0,1}$ replaced by $Q_{1,1}'$,
1079: see Sec.~\ref{sec:neutrinomasses}), while the Majorana mass
1080: $m_\nu\simeq 10^{-2}\:{\rm eV}$ has some other origin and may, \eg,
1081: emerge from a radiative mechanism as mentioned in
1082: \Sec~\ref{sec:neutrinomasses}. For
1083: convenience, we have chosen for the second term in
1084: \eq~(\ref{eq:mass+mixing}) a normalization factor $\sqrt{N}$, which is
1085: related to the volume suppression factor in the corresponding 5D
1086: continuum theory.
1087:
1088: The action density $\mathcal{L}^\nu_{\rm m}$ in
1089: \eq~(\ref{eq:mass+mixing}) translates into a $(2N+1)\times (2N+1)$
1090: neutrino mass matrix from which we determine by diagonalization the
1091: neutrino mass and mixing parameters for the different cases $N$
1092: odd/even and $T$ twisted/untwisted. Since $m_\nu, \sqrt{N}m_D \ll u$,
1093: it is useful to define the quantity $\epsilon\equiv \sqrt{N}m_D/u \ll
1094: 1$ as an expansion parameter in perturbation theory and diagonalize
1095: the matrix $MM^{\dagger}$ in several steps. First, we bring the
1096: latticized fermion kinetic term in \eq~(\ref{eq:mass+mixing}) on
1097: (approximately) diagonal form by applying a transformation
1098: $MM^{\dagger}\rightarrow U^TMM^\dagger U^\ast$ with a suitable unitary
1099: matrix $U$. The mixing matrices $U$ for the different possible cases
1100: are explicitly given in Appendix \ref{app:diagonalization}. For
1101: definiteness, let us consider the case $T=-1$ and $N$ even, the other
1102: cases follow then in similar ways. Transforming to momentum space with
1103: respect to the latticized dimension defines a new basis
1104: $(\nu,\hat\nu_{RN/2+1},\ldots,\hat\nu_{RN},\hat\nu^c_{R1},
1105: \hat\nu^c_{R2},\ldots,\hat\nu^c_{RN})$, in which the resulting mass
1106: squared matrix reads
1107: \begin{equation}\label{eq:X}
1108: {\footnotesize \hat{M}^2=u^2\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccc} \lambda & \gamma & \ldots & \gamma & \gamma & a_{1}
1109: & \ldots & a_{N/2} & b_{N/2+1} & \ldots & b_{N} \\
1110: \gamma & \lambda_{N/2+1}+\delta & \cdots & \delta & \delta \\
1111: \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\
1112: \gamma & \delta & \cdots & \lambda_{N-1}+\delta & \delta\\
1113: \gamma & \delta & \cdots & \delta & \lambda_{N}+\delta\\
1114: a_{1} & & & & & \lambda_{1}\\
1115: \vdots & & & & & & \ddots\\
1116: a_{N/2} & & & & & & & \lambda_{N/2}\\
1117: b_{N/2+1} & & & & & & & & \lambda_{N/2+1} \\
1118: \vdots & & & & & & & & & \ddots\\
1119: b_{N} & & & & & & & & & & \lambda_{N} \\
1120: \end{array}\right),}
1121: \end{equation}
1122: where the blank entries in this matrix are all zero. The nonzero
1123: elements are given by
1124: \begin{equation}\label{eq:gammadelta}
1125: \gamma=\frac{\sqrt{2}m_{D}m_{\nu}}{u^2},\quad
1126: \delta=\frac{2m_{D}^2}{u^2},\quad
1127: a_{n}=\frac{\sqrt{2}m_{D}}{u}\sin{\frac{(2n-1)\pi}{N}},
1128: \end{equation}
1129: for $n=1,2,\ldots,N/2$ and
1130: \begin{equation}\label{eq:b_{n}}
1131: b_{n} = \frac{\sqrt{2}m_{D}}{u}
1132: \left[-1+\cos{\frac{(2n-1)\pi}{N}}\right],
1133: \end{equation}
1134: for $n=N/2+1,N/2+2,\ldots,N$. In \eq~(\ref{eq:X}),
1135: the masses $\lambda$ and and $\lambda_{n}$ are
1136: \begin{equation}\label{eq:lambda}
1137: \lambda=\frac{Nm_{D}^2+m_{\nu}^2}{u^2}\quad{\rm and}\quad
1138: \lambda_{n}=4\sin^2{\frac{(n-1/2)\pi}{N},}
1139: \end{equation}
1140: for $n=1,2,\ldots,N $. The coefficients $\lambda_n$ show the
1141: characteristic doubling of KK modes of a phonon-like spectrum, since
1142: they satisfy $\lambda_{n}=\lambda_{N-n+1}$ for $n=1,2,\ldots,
1143: N/2$. In \eq~(\ref{eq:X}), note that the KK states
1144: $\hat\nu_{R1},\hat\nu_{R2},\ldots,\hat\nu_{RN/2}$ exhibit no Yukawa
1145: interaction with the active neutrino $\nu$, and hence, decouple
1146: completely from the SM interactions. Next, we apply to the basis
1147: $(\nu,\hat\nu_{RN/2+1},\ldots,\hat\nu_{RN},\hat\nu^c_{R1},
1148: \hat\nu^c_{R2},\ldots,\hat\nu^c_{RN})$ a sequence of rotations by
1149: defining the orthogonal states
1150: \begin{equation}\label{eq:rot2}
1151: \tilde{\nu}_{Rn}^c\equiv s_{n}\hat\nu_{Rn}^c+c_{n}\hat\nu_{R(N-n+1)}^c\quad
1152: {\rm and}\quad
1153: {\nu_{Rn}^c}'\equiv c_{n}\hat\nu_{Rn}^c-s_{n}\hat\nu_{R(N-n+1)}^c,
1154: \end{equation}
1155: for $n=1,2,\ldots,N/2$. In \eq~(\ref{eq:rot2}), we have $s_{n} \equiv
1156: \cos\frac{(n-1/2)\pi}{N}$ and $c_{n}
1157: \equiv-\sin\frac{(n-1/2)\pi}{N}$. Crudely, this corresponds to
1158: ``rotating away'' in \eq~(\ref{eq:X}) half of the interactions $\sim
1159: \nu\hat{\nu}^c_{Ri}$, which reduces the degeneracy of the problem from
1160: three-fold to two-fold. In the new basis, the mass squared matrix is
1161: given by
1162: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Mtilde2}
1163: \tilde{M}^2 = u^2\left(\begin{matrix}\lambda&\gamma&\ldots & \gamma & \gamma &d_{1} &
1164: d_{2} &\ldots & d_{N/2}\\ \gamma & \lambda_{N/2}+\delta & \ldots & \delta & \delta \\ \vdots & \vdots &
1165: \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\ \gamma & \delta & \cdots & \lambda_{2}+\delta & \delta\\ \gamma & \delta & \cdots & \delta & \lambda_{1}+\delta\\d_{1} & & & & & \lambda_{1}\\ d_{2} & & & & & & \lambda_{2}\\
1166: \vdots & & & & & & & \ddots \\ d_{N/2} & & & & & & & & \lambda_{N/2}\\
1167: \end{matrix}\right),
1168: \end{equation}
1169: where
1170: \begin{equation}\label{eq:c_{n}}
1171: d_{n} = \frac{2\sqrt{2}m_{D}}{u}\sin{\frac{(n-1/2)\pi}{N}}
1172: \end{equation}
1173: for $n=1,2,\ldots,N/2$. Here $\gamma$, $\delta$, $\lambda$, and
1174: $\lambda_{n}$ are the same as in \eqs~(\ref{eq:gammadelta}) and
1175: (\ref{eq:lambda}). In the continuum limit, we expect for large $N$ to
1176: recover some relevant characteristics of a continuous large extra
1177: dimension. In order to match onto the 5D continuum theory, we will
1178: compare our model with the one given in
1179: \Ref~\cite{Dvali:1999cn}. Since in this model Majorana masses are
1180: absent, we assume in \eq~(\ref{eq:Mtilde2}) that $m_\nu\rightarrow 0$,
1181: which implies that $\gamma\rightarrow 0$. Furthermore, the matrix
1182: elements $\delta$ are small in comparison with the quantities
1183: $\lambda_n$ and can therefore be neglected when calculating to lowest
1184: order. This means that the $N/2$ states
1185: $\tilde{\nu}_{R1}^c,\tilde{\nu}_{R2}^c,\ldots, \tilde{\nu}_{RN/2}^c$
1186: spanning in \eq~(\ref{eq:Mtilde2}) the top-left $N/2\times N/2$
1187: submatrix with entries $\lambda_i+\delta$ ($i=1,2,\ldots ,N/2$) on the
1188: diagonal, decouple from $\nu$. Consequently, we end up with just one
1189: KK tower of $N/2$ states ${\nu_{Rn}^c}'$ $(i=1,2,\ldots ,N/2)$, which
1190: span the last $N/2$ rows and columns of $\tilde{M}^2$ in
1191: \eq~(\ref{eq:Mtilde2}). The remaining entries in $\tilde{M}^2$ become
1192: for $n\ll N$ asymptotically equal to
1193: \begin{equation}\label{eq:d2_{n}}
1194: u^2d_{n}\rightarrow\frac{\sqrt{2}m_{D}}{R}(n-1/2),\quad
1195: u^2\lambda \rightarrow Nm_{D}^2,\quad
1196: u^2\lambda_{n}\rightarrow \frac{1}{R^2}(n-1/2)^2,
1197: \end{equation}
1198: where we have used the fact that $u=N/(2\pi R)$. We will match our
1199: model onto the 5D continuum theory by setting $m_D\equiv y\langle
1200: H\rangle M_\ast/M_{Pl}$, where $y$ is some $\mathcal{O}(1)$ Yukawa
1201: coupling in the ADD scenario. With this identification, our model
1202: reproduces for the case $N$ odd and $T$ untwisted (see
1203: \Tab~\ref{tab:cases}) in the IR exactly the effective neutrino mass
1204: squared matrix of the 5D continuum theory for neutrino oscillations in
1205: extra dimensions as discussed in \Ref~\cite{Dvali:1999cn}.
1206: \begin{table}
1207: \begin{center}
1208: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
1209: \hline
1210: $T$&$N$&$n_{\rm max}$& $d_{n=1,2,\ldots,n_{\rm max}-1}$ &
1211: $d_{n_{\rm max}}$ & $\lambda_{n=1,2,\ldots,n_{\rm max}}$\\
1212: \hline\hline
1213: $+1$&even&$N/2+1$&
1214: $\frac{2\sqrt{2}m_D}{u}\:{\rm sin}\frac{(n-1)\pi}{N}$
1215: &$-\frac{2m_D}{u}$&$4\:{\rm sin}^2\frac{(n-1)\pi}{N}$\\
1216: $+1$&odd&$N/2+1/2$&$\frac{2\sqrt{2}m_D}{u}\:{\rm sin}\frac{(n-1)\pi}{N}$&
1217: $\frac{2\sqrt{2}m_D}{u}\:{\rm sin}\frac{(N-1)\pi}{2N}$
1218: &$4\:{\rm sin}^2\frac{(n-1)\pi}{N}$\\
1219: $-1$&even&$N/2$&$\frac{2\sqrt{2}m_D}{u}\:{\rm sin}
1220: \frac{(n-1/2)\pi}{N}$&
1221: $\frac{2\sqrt{2}m_D}{u}\:{\rm sin}\frac{(N-1)\pi}{2N}$
1222: &$4\:{\rm sin}^2\frac{(n-1/2)\pi}{N}$\\
1223: $-1$&odd&$N/2+1/2$&$\frac{2\sqrt{2}m_D}{u}\:{\rm sin}\frac{(n-1/2)\pi}{N}$&$-\frac{2m_D}{u}$&$4\:{\rm sin}^2\frac{(n-1/2)\pi}{N}$\\
1224: \hline
1225: \end{tabular}
1226: \caption{\small Relevant entries in the neutrino mass matrices of the
1227: type shown in \eq~(\ref{eq:Mtilde2}) in the limit $\gamma\rightarrow
1228: 0$ for the different cases $T$ twisted/untwisted and $N$ odd/even. The first and
1229: second line reproduce for $n\ll N$ exactly the 5D continuum theory
1230: results of \Ref~\cite{Dvali:1999cn} and the third line corresponds to
1231: the example considered in the text. In all cases, the parameter
1232: $\lambda$ is as given in \eq~(\ref{eq:lambda}).}\label{tab:cases}
1233: \end{center}
1234: \end{table}
1235:
1236: Next, we will diagonalize $\tilde{M}^2$ by using two-fold degenerate
1237: Rayleigh--Schr\"odinger perturbation theory.
1238: We start by rewriting the mass squared matrix $\tilde{M}^2$ as
1239: $\tilde{M}^2 = M_{0}^2+\epsilon M_{1}^2$, where $M_{0}^2$ is a
1240: diagonal matrix, $M_{1}^2$ is the perturbation matrix, and
1241: $\epsilon=\sqrt{N}m_D/u\ll 1$ is the small expansion parameter. In
1242: order for perturbation theory to be valid, we require that
1243: $|\langle\phi_{ir}^{(0)}|\epsilon
1244: M_{1}^2|\phi_{js}^{(0)}\rangle/(E_{i}^{(0)}-E_{j}^{(0)})|\ll1$ for
1245: $i\neq j$, where $|\phi_{ir}^{(0)}\rangle $ denotes the zeroth order
1246: eigenvector, $E_{i}^{(0)}$ the corresponding eigenvalue, and $r$ and $s$ are
1247: the degeneracy indices. This means that we will require that
1248: \begin{equation}\label{eq:constraint1}
1249: \left|\frac{2\sqrt{2}m_{D}u\sin\frac{(n-1/2)\pi}{N}}{Nm_{D}^2+m_{\nu}^2-4u^2\sin^2\frac{(n-1/2)\pi}{N}}\right|\ll1
1250: \quad{\rm and}\quad
1251: \left|\frac{\sqrt{2}m_{D}m_{\nu}}{Nm_{D}^2+m_{\nu}^2-4u^2\sin^2\frac{(n-1/2)\pi}{N}}\right|\ll1.
1252: \end{equation}
1253: {}From these relations we note that perturbation theory will not be
1254: valid for arbitrarily large $N$, since the denominator becomes
1255: singular at some point when $Nm_{D}^2+m_{\nu}^2 \sim
1256: 4u^2\sin^2(n-1/2)\pi/N$. For the other cases, $T=-1$, $N$ odd and
1257: $T=1$, $N$ odd/even, one obtains essentially the same
1258: constraints. Now, we apply perturbation theory to this problem and
1259: obtain the matrix that diagonalizes $\tilde{M}^2$ as a result. We
1260: denote this matrix by $W^{(k)}$, where $k$ denotes the $k$th order in
1261: perturbation theory. Thus, the mixing matrix $V$ which relates the
1262: original basis to the mass eigenstate basis via $MM^\dagger\rightarrow
1263: V^TMM^\dagger V^\ast$ is given by
1264: \begin{equation}
1265: V=UP_{1}P_{2}\cdots P_{N/2}W^{(k)},
1266: \end{equation}
1267: where $P_{n}$ are the rotation matrices associated with the state
1268: redefinitions in \eq~(\ref{eq:rot2}), and $W^{(k)}$, as stated above,
1269: is the matrix of eigenvectors of $\tilde{M}$ calculated to some order
1270: $k$ in perturbation theory. The first row is what is of interest to
1271: us, since it gives the relevant mixing angles of $\nu$ with the bulk
1272: modes. It will be entirely determined by $W^{(k)}$. Thus, to lowest
1273: order in perturbation theory, we find
1274: \begin{equation}\label{eq:V2}
1275: V = \left( \begin{matrix} 1 & \epsilon A_{1} & \cdots
1276: & \epsilon A_{N/2} & \epsilon B_{1} & \cdots & \epsilon B_{N/2}\\
1277: * & & & \cdots & & & *\\
1278: \vdots & & & \ddots & & & \vdots\\
1279: * & & & \cdots & & & *\\
1280: \end{matrix}\right),
1281: \end{equation}
1282: which is an $(N+1) \times (N+1)$ orthogonal matrix, where
1283: \begin{equation}\label{eq:A_n}
1284: A_{n}=\frac{m_{\nu}}{u\sqrt{8N}\left[\sin^2\frac{(n-1/2)\pi}{N}-\frac{\lambda}{4}\right]}
1285: \quad {\rm and}\quad
1286: B_{n}=\frac{\sin\frac{(n-1/2)\pi}{N}}{\sqrt{2N}\left[
1287: \sin^2\frac{(n-1/2)\pi}{N}-\frac{\lambda}{4}\right]},
1288: \end{equation}
1289: for $n=1,2,\ldots, N/2$ and the elements denoted by $*$ are not
1290: relevant in the following discussion. Note that one can diagonalize
1291: $MM^{\dagger}$ in other ways then the one described above. For
1292: example, one could have applied four-fold degenerate perturbation
1293: theory directly to the matrix $MM^{\dagger}$. One can show that this
1294: gives the same result for the final neutrino oscillation
1295: probabilities. However, reducing the degeneracy makes the problem much
1296: easier to handle.
1297: \section{Neutrino oscillations}
1298: \label{sec:neutrinooscillations}
1299: Global analyses have well established that the standard active
1300: three-flavor neutrino oscillations with mass squared differences of
1301: the orders of magnitude $\Delta m_{21}^2 \simeq 8.1 \cdot
1302: 10^{-5}\:{\rm eV}^2$ and $\Delta m_{31}^2 \simeq 2.2 \cdot
1303: 10^{-3}\:{\rm eV}^2$ are in excellent agreement with neutrino
1304: oscillation data (see, \eg, \Ref~\cite{Maltoni:2004ei}). However, the
1305: KK modes of the latticized right-handed neutrino could provide a
1306: sizable subdominant component in solar and atmospheric neutrino
1307: oscillations, and thus, lead to new anomalies, which are in reach of
1308: more precise ongoing or future neutrino oscillation experiments. In
1309: this section, we will derive the corresponding neutrino oscillation
1310: formulas for our deconstructed model. These will only be valid in the
1311: regime where the mixing parameters satisfy the constraints in
1312: \eq~(\ref{eq:constraint1}). For phenomenologically allowed values of
1313: the physical parameters, this means that the formulas below will in
1314: general be valid for a low or moderate number of sites, $N\lesssim
1315: 10-100$.
1316:
1317: In order to describe the neutrino oscillations in our model, we can
1318: write the flavor eigenstates as a linear combination of the mass
1319: eigenstates using the mixing matrix in \eq~(\ref{eq:V2}). We find
1320: that
1321: \begin{equation}\label{eq:linearcomb}
1322: |\nu_{f}\rangle = \frac{1}{K}\left(|\nu \rangle + \epsilon \sum_{n=1}^{N/2}
1323: A_{n}|\hat\nu_{n}\rangle + \epsilon \sum_{n=1}^{N/2} B_{n}|\nu_{n}\rangle \right).
1324: \end{equation}
1325: Here $|\nu_{f}\rangle$ denote a flavor eigenstate for some flavor
1326: $f\in\{e,\mu,\tau\}$ and $|\nu\rangle$, $|\hat\nu_{n}\rangle$, and
1327: $|\nu_{n}\rangle$ denote the mass eigenstates. We have also introduced
1328: a normalization constant $K$, which follows from the condition
1329: $|\langle\nu_{f}|\nu_{f}\rangle|^2=1$. Thus, we find from
1330: \eq~(\ref{eq:linearcomb}) that
1331: \begin{equation}\label{eq:K}
1332: K^2=1+\epsilon^2 \sum_{n=1}^{N/2} \left(A_{n}^2 + B_{n}^2 \right).
1333: \end{equation}
1334: Next, in the transition survival probability $P_{ff}\equiv
1335: P(\nu_{f}\to\nu_{f})\equiv|\langle\nu_{f}|\nu_{f}(t)\rangle|^2$, the
1336: time-evolved state $|\nu_{f}(t)\rangle$ is given by
1337: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Ht}
1338: |\nu_{f}(t)\rangle = \frac{1}{K}{\rm e}^{-{\rm i }\frac{\left (Nm_{D}^2+m_{\nu}^2\right) t}{2E}}\left(|\nu\rangle+\epsilon\sum_{n=1}^{N/2}A_{n}{\rm e}^{{\rm i}\phi_{n}}|\hat\nu_{n}\rangle+\epsilon \sum_{n=1}^{N/2}B_{n}{\rm e}^{{\rm i}\phi_{n}}|\nu_{n}\rangle \right),
1339: \end{equation}
1340: where the phases $\phi_{n}$ and the mass-squared eigenvalues $m_n^2$ equal
1341: [\cf~\eq~(\ref{eq:Wilsonspectra})]
1342: \begin{equation}\label{eq:phases}
1343: \phi_{n}=\frac{(Nm_{D}^2+m_{\nu}^2-m_{n}^2)t}{2E}\quad{\rm and}
1344: \quad m_{n}^2=4u^2\sin^2\frac{(n-1/2)\pi}{N},
1345: \end{equation}
1346: in which $E$ is the neutrino energy. Using \eqs~(\ref{eq:linearcomb})
1347: and (\ref{eq:Ht}) gives for the case $T=-1$ and $N$ even
1348: \begin{equation}\label{eq:P2}
1349: P_{ff}= \frac{1}{K^4}\left|1+\epsilon^2 \sum_{n=1}^{N/2}(A_{n}^2+B_{n}^2){\rm e}^{{\rm i}\phi_{n}} \right|^2.
1350: \end{equation}
1351: For the other cases one finds the transition probability expressions
1352: in similar ways, first starting by applying the matrix $U_{1}$ for the
1353: case one considers and then by using a set of rotations similar to the
1354: ones given by \eq~(\ref{eq:rot2}). Next, one applies perturbation
1355: theory and finds the mixing matrix from which the transition survival
1356: probability expressions follows. Thus, for the case $T=-1$ and $N$ odd
1357: we have
1358: \begin{equation}\label{eq:PT-1O}
1359: P_{ff}=\frac{1}{K^4}\left|1+\epsilon^2\left(\sum_{n=1}^{\frac{N-1}{2}}(A_{n}^2+B_{n}^2){\rm e}^{{\rm i}\phi_{n}}+\beta {\rm e}^{{\rm i}\phi_{\frac{N+1}{2}}} \right)\right|^2,
1360: \end{equation}
1361: where $$\beta=\frac{m_\nu^2}{Nu^2\left(4-\frac{Nm_{D}^2+m_{\nu}^2}{u^2}\right)^2}+\frac{4}{N\left(4-\frac{Nm_{D}^2+m_{\nu}^2}{u^2}\right)^2}.$$
1362: Similarly, for $T=1$ and $N$ even we find
1363: \begin{equation}\label{eq:PT1E}
1364: P_{ff}=\frac{1}{K^4}\left|1+\epsilon^2\left(\alpha {\rm e}^{{\rm i}\phi_{1}}+\sum_{n=2}^{N/2}(A_{n}^2+B_{n}^2){\rm e}^{{\rm i}\phi_{n}}+\beta {\rm e}^{{\rm i}\phi_{\frac{N+2}{2}}}\right)\right|^2,
1365: \end{equation}
1366: where $$\alpha=\frac{m_{\nu}^2u^2}{N\left(Nm_{D}^2+m_{\nu}^2\right)^2}$$ and $\beta$ is the same as in \eq~(\ref{eq:PT-1O}).
1367: Note the presence of a zero mode in the phase $\phi_{1}$.
1368: Finally, for $T=1$ and $N$ odd we find
1369: \begin{equation}\label{eq:PT1O}
1370: P_{ff}=\frac{1}{K^4}\left|1+\epsilon^2\left(\alpha {\rm e}^{{\rm i}\phi_{1}}+\sum_{n=2}^{\frac{N+1}{2}}(A_{n}^2+B_{n}^2){\rm e}^{{\rm i}\phi_{n}}\right)\right|^2,
1371: \end{equation}
1372: where $\alpha$ is the same as in \eq~(\ref{eq:PT1E}). For the cases
1373: $T=-1$, $A_{n}$ and $B_{n}$ are given by \eq~(\ref{eq:A_n}) and the
1374: phases $\phi_{n}$ are given by \eq~(\ref{eq:phases}), whereas for the
1375: cases $T=1$ we have
1376: \begin{equation}\label{eq:A_nT1}
1377: A_{n}=\frac{m_{\nu}}{u\sqrt{8N}\left[\sin^2\frac{(n-1)\pi}{N}-\frac{\lambda}{4}\right]}\quad{\rm
1378: and}\quad
1379: B_{n}=\frac{\sin\frac{(n-1)\pi}{N}}{\sqrt{2N}\left[\sin^2\frac{(n-1)\pi}{N}-\frac{\lambda}{4}\right]}.
1380: \end{equation}
1381: In this case, the phases are given by \eq~(\ref{eq:phases}), but with
1382: the masses [\cf~\eq~(\ref{eq:Wilsonspectra})]
1383: \begin{equation}
1384: m_{n}^2=4u^2\sin^2\frac{(n-1)\pi}{N}.
1385: \end{equation}
1386: In \Figs~\ref{fig:plot1}--\ref{fig:plot4}, we have illustrated the
1387: different neutrino transition survival probabilities in vacuum as
1388: functions of $L/E$ for the different cases $T=\pm 1$ and $N$ odd/even
1389: for some specific choices of $N$. In \Figs~\ref{fig:plot1} and
1390: \ref{fig:plot2}, we have given the transition probabilities from
1391: \eqs~(\ref{eq:P2})--(\ref{eq:PT1O}), where for presentation purposes, we have chosen $1-P_{ff}$ on the ordinate. From the validity requirements in
1392: \eq~(\ref{eq:constraint1}) we know that Rayleigh--Schr\"odinger
1393: perturbation theory will break down at some point. In \Figs~\ref{fig:plot3} and \ref{fig:plot4}, we
1394: have therefore presented the curves from numerical
1395: calculations. Nevertheless, at least qualitatively, the neutrino transition
1396: survival probabilities show similar patterns for the analytical and the numerical calculations.
1397:
1398: In what follows, our choice of parameters would correspond in the
1399: ADD scenario to a 4D Planck scale $M_{Pl}=3.4 \cdot 10^{18}\:{\rm GeV}$, a SM Higgs
1400: doublet VEV $\langle H
1401: \rangle=174\:{\rm GeV}$, a Yukawa coupling $y=1$ between the active and the
1402: bulk neutrinos, and a compactification radius of
1403: $R^{-1}=0.1\:{\rm eV}$. In \Figs~\ref{fig:plot1} and \ref{fig:plot2},
1404: the associated fundamental scale would be $M_{*}=1\:{\rm TeV}$, which
1405: gives $m_{D}\simeq 5\cdot 10^{-5}\:{\rm eV}$. In
1406: \Figs~\ref{fig:plot3} and \ref{fig:plot4}, the corresponding
1407: fundamental scale would be $M_{*}=50\:{\rm TeV}$, which gives $m_D\simeq 2.5\cdot 10^{-3}\:{\rm eV}$. We have distinguished the cases
1408: $m_{\nu}=0$ and $m_{\nu}\neq 0$. In \Figs~\ref{fig:plot2}
1409: and \ref{fig:plot4}, we have set $m_{\nu}=0.01\:{\rm eV}$, whereas
1410: in the other figures, we have set $m_{\nu}=0$. We have also made a
1411: comparison for the cases $T=1$ with the corresponding survival
1412: probability in the case of a continuous large extra dimension.
1413:
1414: The qualitative behavior of the curves can be understood by looking at
1415: the expressions for the survival probabilities, \ie, \eqs~(\ref{eq:P2})--(\ref{eq:PT1O}). From these
1416: expressions we observe that the dominant effect will be given by the
1417: lowest lying modes. For practical purposes one can then average over the
1418: higher modes, which means that the essential behavior will be determined by
1419: only a few low modes. Let us first consider the case $m_{\nu}=0$. We
1420: obtain for $T=-1$ and $N$ even the survival probability,
1421: when only the first mode is non-averaged, as $P_{ff}=2\epsilon^2B_{1}^2/K^4\cos\phi_{1}+{\rm const.}$, where the amplitude and the frequency are given by
1422: $2\epsilon^2B_{1}^2/K^4$ and $\phi_{1}$, respectively. For the other cases we obtain similar results.
1423:
1424: First, we observe that the frequencies are proportional to $1/R^2$, \ie, a smaller radius gives faster oscillations.
1425: We also note that the frequencies differ for the cases $T=1$ and $T=-1$. This is due to the different mass eigenvalues that appear in the phases. Thus, we have for the case $T=-1$, when only the first mode is non-averaged, that the frequency is
1426: proportional to $N^2\sin^2 \pi/2N$. However, for the case $T=1$ the frequency is proportional to $N^2\sin^2 \pi/N$, which is roughly
1427: four times larger than for the case $T=-1$. This can be directly seen
1428: in \Fig~\ref{fig:plot1}. The figures also show a dependency of the frequency on
1429: $N$. This is because the frequency in for example the case $T=-1$ is proportional to
1430: $N^2\sin^2\pi/(2N)$. This function grows rapidly for small $N$ and
1431: converges quickly to a fixed value, $\pi^2/4$. A similar relation holds for the case $T=1$. This effect is best visible when $N\leq \mathcal{O}(10)$.
1432:
1433: Second, the amplitude is proportional to $m_D^2R^2$ so that a change of these parameters significantly affects the amplitude. This can be seen by comparing for example \Figs~\ref{fig:plot1} and \ref{fig:plot3}.
1434: There is also a difference in amplitude between the cases $T=1$ and $T=-1$. For the case $T=-1$ the amplitude is proportional to $B_1$, where $B_n$ for $T=-1$ is given in \eq~(\ref{eq:A_n}). However, for the case $T=1$ the amplitude is proportional to $B_2$ where $B_n$ for $T=1$ is given in \eq~(\ref{eq:A_nT1}). Since $B_1 (T=-1)>B_2 (T=1)$ the amplitude will be larger for $T=-1$.
1435:
1436: Note that the case $T=1$ and $N=5$ differs in a significant way from the other cases. The aperiodic behavior of this curve is due to the large interference effect between the two lowest modes, which together give the dominating behavior. This effect can be seen in the relation between the factors $B_2$ and $B_3$. As we increase $N$, the effect of $B_3$ will be suppressed in comparison with $B_2$, so that we for large $N$ obtain a sinusoidal-like behavior. For the case $T=1$ and $N=4$ there is no large interference effect between low-lying modes, since the sum in this case only includes one term. For the case $T=-1$ the corresponding ratio which gives the interference effect is $B_2/B_1$. This ratio is smaller than the ratio $B_3/B_2$ for the case $T=1$. Thus, for $T=-1$ we do not observe any significant distortion of the periodicity.
1437:
1438: Let us now consider the effect of a non-zero $m_{\nu}$. For $T=-1$ we
1439: note that there will be an effect provided that $m_{\nu}R$ is large
1440: enough. If $m_{\nu}^2 \gtrsim 1/R^2$, the frequency will be determined by
1441: $m_{\nu}$. However, for the case we have considered, we have chosen
1442: $m_{\nu}=0.01\:{\rm eV}$ and $R^{-1}=0.1\:{\rm eV}$, which means that the frequency will mainly be determined by $1/R^2$. Thus, for the case $T=-1$ there will be no drastic changes, which can be seen when comparing
1443: the upper rows of \Figs~\ref{fig:plot1} and \ref{fig:plot2}. For $T=1$, on the other hand, there will be a significant effect from $m_\nu$.
1444: This is obvious from \eqs~(\ref{eq:PT1E}) and
1445: (\ref{eq:PT1O}), where the survival probability expressions contain a
1446: term $\alpha e^{i\phi_1}$, in which $\alpha$ is approximately given by
1447: $N/(4\pi^2R^2m_{\nu}^2)$. If $m_{\nu}R$ is sufficiently small, then
1448: this term will be the dominating term. Thus, the survival probability
1449: will be proportional to $\cos (m_{\nu}^2 L/2E)$. This is
1450: the case in the lower row of \Fig~\ref{fig:plot2}. Note that this effect is due to the presence of a zero mode, which is absent for $T=-1$.
1451:
1452: If $N$ is increased, then the curves obtains a more jagged shape because of the interference of a large number of KK modes with different frequencies \cite{Dienes:1998sb}. However, essential properties such as the amplitude and the frequency quickly
1453: stabilizes. Finally, we observe in \Figs~\ref{fig:plot1} and \ref{fig:plot3} that the case $T=1$
1454: reproduces the continuum case \cite{Dvali:1999cn, Mohapatra:2001} as expected.
1455:
1456: We have seen that one could, at least in principle, probe $T=\pm 1$
1457: as well as the number of lattice sites $N$ through neutrino
1458: oscillation experiments. For low $N$ the best probe of $N$ is through
1459: the frequency.
1460:
1461: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
1462: \label{sec:disc}
1463: In this paper, we have considered a model for neutrino oscillations in a
1464: deconstructed $U(1)$ gauge theory defined on the boundary of a
1465: two-dimensional disk. If the masses of the link fields connecting the center
1466: with the boundary are of the order $\sim 1\:{\rm TeV}$ ($10^2\:{\rm TeV}$),
1467: while the link fields on the boundary have masses of the order
1468: $\sim 10^{15}\:{\rm GeV}$ ($10^{12}\:{\rm GeV}$), then the model
1469: generates sub-mm lattice spacings between the sites on the boundary. This allows to obtain dynamically a non-gravitational large extra
1470: dimension with only a few sites. Here, we have motivated the general
1471: significance of large (sub-mm) lattice spacings by reviewing the strong coupling behavior of
1472: gravity in local theory spaces for the example of two discrete gravitational
1473: extra dimensions.
1474:
1475: We have analyzed the mass and mixing properties of a latticized right-handed
1476: neutrino, which propagates on the boundary of the disk and may be twisted or untwisted. A discrete cyclic symmetry, which can be gauged, allows to
1477: treat the latticized right-handed neutrino as a Wilson fermion with vanishing
1478: bare mass. At the same time, the cyclic symmetry also introduces in the
1479: non-local theory space a local Yukawa interaction between the active SM
1480: neutrinos and the latticized right-handed neutrino. As a consequence, the
1481: model simulates key features of the 5D continuum theory for neutrinos in the
1482: ADD scenario.
1483:
1484: We have studied the neutrino oscillation effects of the latticized right-handed neutrino in terms of the survival probability $P_{ff}$ of a single active
1485: flavor $f$ for the cases of a twisted (untwisted) lattice fermion and an
1486: even (odd) number of sites on the boundary. By taking the continuum limit, we could exactly
1487: reproduce known oscillation patterns of existing 5D continuum theory models.
1488: The most direct probe of our model parameters is through the frequency of
1489: $P_{ff}$. For example, if the number of lattice sites $N$ is small, then
1490: $P_{ff}$ can exhibit a strongly aperiodic behavior for odd $N$. Possible
1491: ``odd-even artifacts'', however, quickly disappear when $N$ becomes
1492: large. Generally, twisted and untwisted field configurations can be
1493: distinguished through the different associated frequencies of $P_{ff}$, which
1494: is for an untwisted neutrino roughly four times larger than for a twisted one. The presence or absence of an active Majorana neutrino mass also affects
1495: the oscillation patterns of twisted and untwisted neutrinos in qualitatively different ways. Generally, it should be noted, however, that in more elaborate models one would have to include three flavors (as well as matter effects).
1496: It could also be necessary to take into account additional large extra
1497: dimensions. Therefore, the results obtained from our model should be viewed
1498: as comparatively qualitative.
1499:
1500: The neutrino oscillation effects that are introduced by the KK neutrinos
1501: could, in principle, be observed in present and future precision neutrino
1502: oscillation experiments, such as for example KamLAND \cite{KamLAND},
1503: Borexino \cite{Alimonti:2000xc}, or the proposed
1504: Double-CHOOZ \cite{Ardellier:2004ui} experiment. Borexino would be capable to search for new solar neutrino oscillation effects in an energy range
1505: $E\lesssim 1\:{\rm MeV}$ not covered by Super-Kamiokande or SNO \cite{solar}. Our model could be tested at short baselines by (future)
1506: $\overline{\nu}_e$ (or $\nu_e$) disappearance experiments with sensitivities
1507: for mixing angles $\lesssim 0.2$ between the active and the KK-neutrinos.
1508: Here, it could prove useful to employ also two-reactor-two-detector-setups
1509: \cite{Huber:2004bh}, where one may perform measurements practically free from
1510: the typical systematic uncertainties in the reactor neutrino fluxes. More generally, one can consider any
1511: experiment, which probes the effect of sterile neutrinos, provided that
1512: one can identify the masses and mixings properly.
1513:
1514: The non-zero mixing between the SM Higgs $H$ and the scalar link and
1515: site variables will lead to invisible decays $H\rightarrow W'W'$ (if these
1516: processes are kinematically allowed), which can be checked at the LHC or a future linear collider.
1517:
1518: It is clear, that standard Big Bang nucleosynthesis \cite{wal} will be
1519: affected by the presence of the KK neutrinos. However, the bounds from measurements
1520: of the $^4{\rm He}$ abundance can be alleviated by
1521: assuming a primordial lepton asymmetry \cite{foot} or with low
1522: reheating temperature \cite{Gelmini:2004ah}. The constraints on the effective
1523: number of neutrino species from large scale structure data in conjunction
1524: with cosmic microwave background measurements \cite{el} may also be evaded by
1525: such a lepton asymmetry \cite{Hannestad:2003ye}. Also note that, in this paper, we have assumed the
1526: same constraints that apply to continuous large gravitational extra dimensions,
1527: but it has been argued \cite{Arkani-Hamed:2001ca} that several of the
1528: standard constraints could be relaxed for non-gravitational deconstructed
1529: dimensions.
1530:
1531:
1532: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1533:
1534: We would like to thank K.S.~Babu, T.~Enkhbat, I. Gogoladze, and
1535: M.D. Schwartz for useful comments and discussions. One of us (G.S.)
1536: would like to thank the division of mathematical physics at the Royal
1537: Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden, for the warm
1538: hospitality during the stays at KTH, where part of this work was
1539: developed. This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council
1540: (Vetenskapsr{\aa}det), Contract Nos.~621-2001-1611, 621-2002-3577
1541: (T.O.), the G{\"o}ran Gustafsson Foundation (T.H. and T.O.), the
1542: Magnus Bergvall Foundation (T.O. and G.S.), and the U.S. Department of
1543: Energy under Grant Nos. DE-FG02-04ER46140 and DE-FG02-04ER41306
1544: (G.S.).
1545:
1546: \begin{figure}
1547: \begin{center}
1548: \includegraphics*[width=17 cm]{plot1.eps}
1549: \end{center}
1550: \caption{\small{The neutrino transition survival probability $P_{ff}$ as a
1551: function of $L/E$ for some choices of $N$ even or odd and $T= \pm
1552: 1$. Here we have set $R^{-1}=0.1\:{\rm eV}$, $m_{D}=5\cdot
1553: 10^{-5}\:{\rm eV}$, and $m_{\nu}=0\:{\rm eV}$. {\it Upper left panel:} $T=-1$ and $N$
1554: odd for $N=5$ (dashed curve) and $N=55$ (dotted curve). {\it Upper right
1555: panel:} $T=-1$ and $N$ even for $N=4$ (dashed curve) and $N=44$ (dotted
1556: curve). {\it Lower left panel:} $T=1$ and $N$ odd for $N=5$ (dashed curve),
1557: $N=55$ (dotted curve), and the continuum model (solid curve). {\it Lower
1558: right panel:} $T=1$ and $N$ even for $N=4$ (dashed curve), $N=44$
1559: (dotted curve), and the continuum model (solid
1560: curve).}}\label{fig:plot1}
1561: \end{figure}
1562:
1563: \begin{figure}
1564: \begin{center}
1565: \includegraphics*[width=17 cm]{plot2.eps}
1566: \end{center}
1567: \caption{\small{The neutrino transition survival probability $P_{ff}$ as a
1568: function of $L/E$ for some choices of $N$ even or odd and $T= \pm 1$. Here we have set
1569: $R^{-1}=0.1\:{\rm eV}$, $m_{D}=5\cdot 10^{-5}\:{\rm eV}$, and
1570: $m_{\nu}=0.01\:{\rm eV}$. {\it Upper left panel:} $T=-1$ and $N$ odd for
1571: $N=5$ (dashed curve) and $N=55$ (dotted curve). {\it Upper right panel:}
1572: $T=-1$ and $N$ even for $N=4$ (dashed curve) and $N=44$ (dotted
1573: curve). {\it Lower left panel:} $T=1$ and $N$ odd for $N=5$ (dashed curve)
1574: and $N=55$ (dotted curve). {\it Lower right panel:} $T=1$ and $N$ even for
1575: $N=4$ (dashed curve) and $N=44$ (dotted curve).}}
1576: \label{fig:plot2}
1577: \end{figure}
1578:
1579: \begin{figure}
1580: \begin{center}
1581: \includegraphics*[width=17 cm]{plot3.eps}
1582: \end{center}
1583: \caption{\small{The neutrino transition survival probability $P_{ff}$ as a
1584: function of $L/E$ for some choices of $N$ even or odd and $T= \pm 1$. Here we have set
1585: $R^{-1}=0.1\:{\rm eV}$, $m_{D}=2.5\cdot 10^{-3}\:{\rm eV}$, and
1586: $m_{\nu}=0\:{\rm eV}$. {\it Upper left panel:} $T=-1$ and $N$ odd for $N=5$ (dashed
1587: curve) and $N=55$ (dotted curve). {\it Upper right panel:} $T=-1$ and $N$
1588: even for $N=4$ (dashed curve) and $N=44$ (dotted curve). {\it Lower left
1589: panel:} $T=1$ and $N$ odd for $N=5$ (dashed curve), $N=55$ (dotted
1590: curve), and the continuum model (solid curve). {\it Lower right panel:} $T=1$ and $N$ even for $N=4$ (dashed
1591: curve), $N=44$ (dotted curve), and the continuum model (solid curve).}}
1592: \label{fig:plot3}
1593: \end{figure}
1594:
1595: \begin{figure}
1596: \begin{center}
1597: \includegraphics*[width=17 cm]{plot4.eps}
1598: \end{center}
1599: \caption{\small{The neutrino transition survival probability $P_{ff}$ as a
1600: function of $L/E$ for some choices of $N$ even or odd and $T =\pm 1$. Here we have set
1601: $R^{-1}=0.1\:{\rm eV}$, $m_{D}=2.5\cdot 10^{-3}\:{\rm eV}$, and
1602: $m_{\nu}=0.01\:{\rm eV}$. {\it Upper left panel:} $T=-1$ and $N$ odd for
1603: $N=5$ (dashed curve) and $N=55$ (dotted curve). {\it Upper right panel:}
1604: $T=-1$ and $N$ even for $N=4$ (dashed curve) and $N=44$ (dotted
1605: curve). {\it Lower left panel:} $T=1$ and $N$ odd for $N=5$ (dashed curve)
1606: and $N=55$ (dotted curve). {\it Lower right panel:} $T=1$ and $N$ even for
1607: $N=4$ (dashed curve) and $N=44$ (dotted curve).}}
1608: \label{fig:plot4}
1609: \end{figure}
1610:
1611: \begin{figure}
1612: \begin{center}
1613: \includegraphics*[width=17 cm]{bulkcont.eps}
1614: \end{center}
1615: \caption{\small{Amplification of the lower left panel in \Fig~\ref{fig:plot3}, comparing the continuum model (solid curve) with $N$=55 and $T=1$ (dotted curve)}}
1616: \label{fig:bulkcont}
1617: \end{figure}
1618:
1619: \begin{appendix}
1620:
1621: \section{Cancellation of anomalies}\label{app:anomalies}
1622:
1623: The discrete $Z_{6M}$ symmetry in \eq~(\ref{eq:Z6M}) introduces on
1624: each site on the boundary of the disk a parity-asymmetry between
1625: $\nu_{nR}$ and $\nu_{nR}^c$. The model in
1626: \Sec~\ref{sec:neutrinomasses} for the Wilson fermion is therefore
1627: chiral. If we wish to gauge the $Z_{6M}$ symmetry, we will have to
1628: ensure that the model remains free from chiral anomalies and that all
1629: anomalous contributions from triangle diagrams to the
1630: three-gauge-boson vertex functions cancel. In the low-energy effective
1631: theory, the apparent unbroken $U(1)$ gauge symmetry\footnote{We neglect here the symmetry breaking introduced by the scalar site variables on the center (see \Sec~\ref{sec:Model}).} of the
1632: deconstructed model would be $U(1)_{\rm diag}$ and it is only at short
1633: distance scales that we become aware of the underlying enlarged
1634: $U(1)^{N+1}$ gauge symmetry. It is interesting to compare in these two
1635: limiting cases the formal cancellation of anomalous diagrams by
1636: defining the gauge symmetry (containing the discrete factor) of our
1637: model to be either
1638: \begin{equation}\label{eq:models}
1639: {\rm model\:(a):}\quad G_{SM}\times U(1)_{\rm diag}\times
1640: Z_{6M}\quad{\rm or}\quad{\rm model\:(b):}\quad G_{SM}\times
1641: U(1)^{N+1}\times Z_{6M}.
1642: \end{equation}
1643: Implicitly, model (a) becomes equivalent with a non-linear sigma model
1644: approximation of the deconstructed model in \Sec~\ref{sec:Model}. Of
1645: course, if we are interested in the UV completing linear sigma model
1646: description, only the anomalies calculated in model (b) are of
1647: relevance.
1648:
1649: To work out the anomaly cancellation for models (a) and (b) in
1650: \eq~(\ref{eq:models}), we will denote the $U(1)_n$, $U(1)_{\rm diag}$,
1651: and $Z_{6M}$ charges of a field $f$ by $q_i(f)$, $q_{\rm diag}(f)$,
1652: and $q_{Z_{6M}}(f)$, respectively. First, we observe that the fermions
1653: $f$ located on the center of the disk -- \ie, the SM fermions
1654: and the fields $N_\alpha$ -- satisfy $q_{0}(f)=q_{\rm
1655: diag}(f)=q_{Z_{6M}}(f)$. Thus, the SM fermions and the $N_\alpha$ do
1656: not contribute to any anomalies and we can from now on concentrate on the
1657: anomalous diagrams involving only the right-handed neutrinos
1658: $\nu_{Rn}$ and $\overline{\nu^c_R}_n$. Since the $U(1)_{\rm diag}$
1659: and $U(1)^{N+1}$ gauge bosons couple equally to $\nu_{Rn}$ and
1660: $\overline{\nu_R^c}_n$ on each site on the boundary, all anomalies
1661: which do not involve a $Z_{6M}$ coupling vanish
1662: automatically. Consider now the triangle diagrams in
1663: \Fig~\ref{fig:cubictrace}, which do not have any $U(1)_i$ or
1664: $U(1)_{\rm diag}$ gauge bosons at their vertices.
1665: \begin{figure}
1666: \begin{center}
1667: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
1668: \includegraphics*[bb= 74 363 275 439,height=2.5cm]{figures.ps}&
1669: \hspace*{1mm}&
1670: \includegraphics*[bb= 333 363 538 439,height=2.5cm]{figures.ps}\\
1671: \small{(i)}&&\small{(ii)}
1672: \end{tabular}
1673: \vspace*{-2mm}
1674: \caption{\small{Triangle diagrams leading to cubic (i) and
1675: gauge-gravitational (ii) anomalies in the models (a) and (b). These
1676: anomalies cancel between neighboring sites.}}\label{fig:cubictrace}
1677: \end{center}
1678: \end{figure}
1679: If we choose in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Z6M}) $M=(N+2)^2-4$, then in both models (a) and (b), the cubic $[Z_{6M}]^3$ anomaly (i)
1680: and the gauge-gravitational anomaly (ii) are proportional to
1681: \begin{equation}\label{eq:cubictrace}
1682: \sum_{n=1}^N[q_{Z_{6M}}(\nu_{Rn})^3+q_{Z_{6M}}(\nu_{Rn}^c)^3]=0\quad{\rm and}
1683: \quad\sum_{n=1}^N[q_{Z_{6M}}(\nu_{Rn})+q_{Z_{6M}}(\nu_{Rn}^c)]=0,
1684: \end{equation}
1685: where we have used that $q_{Z_{6M}}(\nu_{R(n-1)})\equiv
1686: -q_{Z_{6M}}(\nu_{Rn}^c)$ and $q_{Z_{6M}}(\nu_{R0})\equiv
1687: q_{Z_{6M}}(\nu_{RN})$, implying that the anomalies cancel between
1688: neighboring sites and vanish when summing over all $2N$ right-handed
1689: neutrino species.
1690:
1691: The anomaly cancellations differ substantially between model (a) and
1692: (b) when evaluating the triangle diagrams of the type shown in
1693: \Fig~\ref{fig:mixedanomalies}, which have at least one $U(1)$ gauge
1694: boson at one of their vertices.
1695: \begin{figure}
1696: \begin{center}
1697: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
1698: \includegraphics*[bb= 74 248 297 326,height=2.5cm]{figures.ps}&
1699: \hspace*{1mm}&
1700: \includegraphics*[bb= 313 248 535 326,height=2.5cm]{figures.ps}\\
1701: \small{(i)}&&\small{(ii)}
1702: \end{tabular}
1703: \vspace*{-2mm}
1704: \caption{\small{Cancellation of mixed anomalies in model (a). The
1705: $Z_{6M}[U(1)_{\rm diag}]^2$ anomaly (i) and the
1706: $U(1)_{\rm diag}[Z_{6M}]^2$ anomaly (ii) vanish when summing over all
1707: sites.}}\label{fig:mixedanomalies}
1708: \end{center}
1709: \end{figure}
1710: Let us first restrict to model (a). In \Fig~\ref{fig:mixedanomalies},
1711: the mixed $Z_{6M}[U(1)_{\rm diag}]^2$ anomaly (i) and the
1712: $U(1)_{\rm diag}[Z_{6M}]^2$ anomaly (ii) are proportional to
1713: \begin{equation}
1714: \sum_{n=1}^N[q_{Z_{6M}}(\nu_{Rn})+q_{Z_{6M}}(\nu_{Rn}^c)]=0\quad{\rm and}
1715: \quad\sum_{n=1}^N[q_{Z_{6M}}(\nu_{Rn})^2-q_{Z_{6M}}(\nu_{Rn}^c)^2]=0,
1716: \end{equation}
1717: where we have used that $q_{\rm diag}(\nu_{Rn})\equiv -q_{\rm
1718: diag}(\nu_{Rn}^c)=-1$. Again, the diagrams cancel between neighboring
1719: sites and vanish when summing over all sites. In total, we thus find
1720: that all divergent triangle diagrams in model (a) formally add up to
1721: zero. Let us next consider the corresponding anomalies in model (b).
1722: The dangerous mixed $Z_{6M}[U(1)_n]^2$ and $U(1)_n[Z_{6M}]^2$
1723: anomalies are obtained from the diagrams in
1724: \Fig~\ref{fig:mixedanomalies} by replacing in (i) and (ii) the gauge
1725: bosons according to $U(1)_{\rm diag}\rightarrow U(1)_n$. In this case,
1726: the diagrams (i) and (ii) in \Fig~\ref{fig:mixedanomalies} become
1727: divergent and the summation over all sites does not remove the
1728: divergences, since the diagrams belonging to different lattice sites
1729: have different external legs and are thus inequivalent.
1730:
1731: In order to remove the anomalies in model (b), we add on each site of
1732: the boundary extra fermions with appropriate quantum numbers. We place
1733: on the site corresponding to the gauge group $U(1)_n$
1734: ($n=1,2,\ldots,N$) three additional Dirac spinors, which are written
1735: component-wise in the Weyl basis as
1736: $\tilde{\Psi}_{n}\equiv(\tilde{\nu}_{n},
1737: \overline{\tilde{\nu}}_n^c)^T$,
1738: $X_n\equiv(\eta_n,\overline{\eta}_n^c)^T$, and $\tilde{X}_n\equiv
1739: (\tilde{\eta}_n,\overline{\tilde{\eta}}_n^c)^T$. The fields
1740: $\tilde{\Psi}$, $X_n$, and $\tilde{X}_n$ carry the $U(1)_n$ charges
1741: $+1$, $-(n+1)$, and $n+2$, respectively, and are singlets under
1742: $G_{SM}$ and the other gauge groups $U(1)_{i\neq n}$. In addition, we
1743: assume that the extra fermions carry specific $Z_{6M}$ charges. The
1744: $U(1)_n$ and $Z_{6M}$ charge assignment for all SM singlet fermions is
1745: summarized in \Tab~\ref{tab:charges}.
1746: \begin{table}
1747: \begin{center}
1748: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
1749: \hline
1750: field & $\nu_{Rn}$ & $\nu_{Rn}^c$ & $\tilde{\nu}_n$ &
1751: $\tilde{\nu}_n^c$ & $\eta_n$ & $\eta_n^c$ & $\tilde{\eta}_n$ &
1752: $\tilde{\eta}_n^c$\\
1753: \hline
1754: \hline
1755: $q_n$ & $-1$ & $+1$ & $+1$ & $-1$ & $-(n+1)$ & $n+1$ & $n+2$ & $-(n+2)$\\
1756: \hline
1757: $q_{Z_{6M}}$ & $(n+2)^2$ & $-(n+1)^2$ & $(n+2)^2$ & $-(n+1)^2$&$+1$&$+1$&
1758: $-1$ & $-1$\\
1759: \hline
1760: \end{tabular}
1761: \caption{\small $U(1)_n$ $(n=1,2,\ldots,N)$ and $Z_{6M}$ charges of
1762: the fermions on the boundary of the disk. These fields transform
1763: trivially under the other gauge groups $U(1)_{i\neq n}$. The $Z_{6M}$
1764: charges have been normalized with respect to the SM leptons in
1765: \eq~(\ref{eq:Z6M}).}
1766: \label{tab:charges}
1767: \end{center}
1768: \end{table}
1769:
1770: >From \Tab~\ref{tab:charges}, we find that the cubic and
1771: gauge-gravitational $U(1)_n$ and $Z_{6M}$ anomalies still vanish, since the
1772: $U(1)_n$ and $Z_{6M}$ symmetries satisfy for the extra fermions relations similar
1773: to \eq~(\ref{eq:cubictrace}). The mixed $Z_{6M}[U(1)_n]^2$ anomaly is
1774: proportional to
1775: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ZU2}
1776: \sum_{n=1}^N\left\{[q_{Z_{6M}}(\nu_{Rn})-q_n(\tilde{\eta}_n)^2]
1777: +[q_{Z_{6M}}(\nu_{Rn}^c)+q_n(\eta_n^c)^2]\right.&&\nonumber\\
1778: \left.+[q_{Z_{6M}}(\tilde{\nu}_n)-q_n(\tilde{\eta}_n^c)^2]
1779: +[q_{Z_{6M}}(\tilde{\nu}_n^c)+q_n(\eta_n)^2]\right\}&=&0,
1780: \end{eqnarray}
1781: where each bracketed term inside the sum is zero. Therefore, these anomalies
1782: cancel on each site.
1783: The mixed $U(1)_n[Z_{6M}]^2$ anomaly is proportional to
1784: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:UZ2}
1785: \sum_{n=1}^N\left\{[-q_{Z_{6M}}(\nu_{Rn})^2+q_{Z_{6M}}(\tilde{\nu}_n)^2]
1786: +[q_n(\eta_n)+q_n(\eta_n^c)]\right.&&\nonumber\\
1787: \left.+
1788: [q_{Z_{6M}}(\nu_{Rn}^c)^2-q_{Z_{6M}}(\tilde{\nu}_n^c)^2]
1789: +[q_n(\tilde{\eta}_n)+q_n(\tilde{\eta}_n^c)]\right\}&=&0,
1790: \end{eqnarray}
1791: where each bracketed expression inside the sum vanishes. Again, all
1792: anomalies cancel individually on each lattice site. In total, the
1793: $Z_{6M}$ symmetry is therefore anomaly-free. In addition, this model
1794: is chiral, since the $U(1)^{N+1}\times Z_{3M}$ symmetry forbids any
1795: bare mass terms for the fermions.
1796:
1797:
1798: \section{Neutrino mixing matrices}\label{app:diagonalization}
1799:
1800: In the basis $(\nu,\nu_{R1},\nu_{R2},\ldots,\nu_{RN},\nu^c_{R1},
1801: \nu^c_{R2},\ldots,\nu^c_{RN})$, the total neutrino mass matrix $M$
1802: described by the action density $\mathcal{L}^\nu_{\rm m}$ in
1803: \eq~(\ref{eq:mass+mixing}) takes the form
1804: \begin{equation}\label{eq:M}
1805: M=\left(
1806: \begin{matrix}
1807: M_L & M_D\\
1808: M_D^T & 0
1809: \end{matrix}
1810: \right),
1811: \end{equation}
1812: where $M_L$ and $M_D$ denote $(N+1)\times(N+1)$ and
1813: $(N+1)\times N$ matrices respectively, which are explicitly given by
1814: \begin{equation}\label{eq:M_L}
1815: M_L=
1816: \left(
1817: \begin{matrix}
1818: m_\nu & \sqrt{N}m_D & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
1819: \sqrt{N}m_D & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
1820: 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
1821: \vdots & \vdots & \vdots& \ddots &\vdots\\
1822: 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0
1823: \end{matrix}
1824: \right),\quad
1825: M_D=u \left(
1826: \begin{matrix}
1827: 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
1828: -1 & +1 & 0 & & \\
1829: 0 & -1 & +1& & \\
1830: & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots\\
1831: & & 0 & -1 & +1\\
1832: T & & & 0 & -1
1833: \end{matrix}
1834: \right).
1835: \end{equation}
1836: Here, the Majorana-like matrix $M_L$ is defined in the basis
1837: $(\nu,\nu_{R1},\nu_{R2},\ldots,\nu_{RN})$, whereas the Dirac-like
1838: matrix $M_D$ is spanned by $(\nu,\nu_{R1},\nu_{R2},\ldots,\nu_{RN})$
1839: and $(\nu^c_{R1}, \nu^c_{R2},\ldots,\nu^c_{RN})$. In \eq~(\ref{eq:M}),
1840: ``0'' denotes an $N\times N$ matrix with zero entries only. The
1841: neutrino masses and mixing angles can be determined from the product
1842: $MM^{\dagger}$, which in this basis explicitly reads
1843: \begin{equation}\label{eq:MMdagger}
1844: {\small MM^{\dagger}=u^2\left(
1845: \begin{array}{cccccccccccc}
1846: \frac{m_{\nu}^2 + Nm_{D}^2}{u^2} & \frac{\sqrt{N}m_{\nu}m_{D}}{u^2} & 0 & 0 & \cdots
1847: & 0 & \vline & -\frac{\sqrt{N}m_{D}}{u} & \frac{\sqrt{N}m_{D}}{u} & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
1848: \frac{\sqrt{N}m_{\nu}m_{D}}{u^2} & 2 +\frac{Nm_{D}^2}{u^2} & -1 & & & -T &
1849: \vline & 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
1850: 0 & -1 & 2 & -1 & & & \vline & 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
1851: \vdots & & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & & \vline & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots &
1852: \ddots & \vdots\\
1853: 0 & & & -1 & 2 & -1 & \vline & 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
1854: 0 & -T & & & -1 & 2 & \vline & 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0\\
1855: \hline & & & & & & \vline & & & & &\\
1856: -\frac{\sqrt{N}m_{D}}{u} & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 & \vline & 2 & -1 & & & -T\\
1857: \frac{\sqrt{N}m_{D}}{u} & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 & \vline & -1 & 2 & -1 & &\\
1858: 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 & \vline & & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots &\\
1859: \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots & \vline & & & -1
1860: & 2 & -1\\
1861: 0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 & \vline & -T & & & -1 & 2\\
1862: \end{array}
1863: \right),}
1864: \end{equation}
1865: where $T = \pm 1$ and the blank entries are zero. Next, we want to diagonalize this matrix. Since
1866: $m_\nu, \sqrt{N} m_D \ll u$, we can define the quantity
1867: $\epsilon\equiv \sqrt{N}m_{D}/u \ll 1$, which we will use as an
1868: expansion parameter in perturbation theory. We will diagonalize the
1869: matrix $MM^{\dagger}$ in steps. First, we perform the transformation
1870: $MM^{\dagger}\rightarrow U^TMM^\dagger U^\ast$ using the
1871: block-diagonal $(2N+1)\times (2N+1)$ matrix $U\equiv{\rm
1872: diag}(1,U_1,U_1)$, where $U_1$ denotes a unitary $N\times N$
1873: matrix. For $T=-1$ and $N$ even, the matrix $U_1$ reads
1874: \begin{equation}\label{eq:UU1}
1875: {\footnotesize
1876: U_1 = \sqrt{\frac{2}{N}} \left(\begin{matrix}
1877: 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 1 & \cdots & 1\\
1878: \sin\frac{\pi}{N} & \sin\frac{3\pi}{N} & \cdots & \sin\frac{(N-1)\pi}{N} &
1879: \cos\frac{(N+1)\pi}{N} & \cdots & \cos\frac{(2N-1)\pi}{N}\\
1880: \sin\frac{2\pi}{N} & \sin\frac{6\pi}{N} & \cdots & \sin\frac{2(N-1)\pi}{N} &
1881: \cos\frac{2(N+1)\pi}{N} & \cdots & \cos\frac{2(2N-1)\pi}{N}\\
1882: \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots\\
1883: \sin\frac{(N-1)\pi}{N} & \sin\frac{3(N-1)\pi}{N} & \cdots & \sin\frac{(N-1)(N-1)\pi}{N} &
1884: \cos\frac{(N-1)(N+1)\pi}{N} & \cdots & \cos\frac{(N-1)(2N-1)\pi}{N}\\
1885: \end{matrix}\right),}
1886: \end{equation}
1887: whereas for $T=-1$ and $N$ odd, we have
1888: \begin{equation}
1889: {\footnotesize
1890: U_{1} = \sqrt{\frac{2}{N}} \left(\begin{matrix} 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & 1 & \cdots & 1 \\
1891: \sin\frac{\pi}{N} & \sin\frac{3\pi}{N} & \cdots & \sin\frac{(N-2)\pi}{N} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \cos\frac{(N+2)\pi}{N} & \cdots & \cos\frac{(2N-1)\pi}{N}\\
1892: \sin\frac{2\pi}{N} & \sin\frac{6\pi}{N} & \cdots & \sin\frac{2(N-2)\pi}{N} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \cos\frac{2(N+2)\pi}{N} & \cdots & \cos\frac{2(2N-1)\pi}{N} \\
1893: \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
1894: \sin\frac{(N-1)\pi}{N} & \sin\frac{3(N-1)\pi}{N} & \cdots & \sin\frac{(N-1)(N-2)\pi}{N} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \cos\frac{(N-1)(N+2)\pi}{N} & \cdots & \cos\frac{(N-1)(2N-1)}{N}\\
1895: \end{matrix} \right) .}
1896: \end{equation}
1897: Similarly, for $T=1$ and $N$ even, we have
1898: \begin{equation}
1899: {\footnotesize
1900: U_{1} = \sqrt{\frac{2}{N}} \left(\begin{matrix}
1901: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & 1 & \cdots
1902: & 1\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \sin\frac{2\pi}{N} & \cdots &
1903: \sin\frac{(N-2)\pi}{N} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \cos\frac{(N+2)\pi}{N}
1904: & \cdots & \cos\frac{(2N-2)\pi}{N}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} &
1905: \sin\frac{4\pi}{N} & \cdots & \sin\frac{2(N-2)\pi}{N} &
1906: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \cos\frac{2(N+2)\pi}{N} & \cdots &
1907: \cos\frac{2(2N-2)\pi}{N} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \ddots &\vdots &\vdots &
1908: \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} &
1909: \sin\frac{2(N-1)\pi}{N} & \cdots & \sin\frac{(N-1)(N-2)\pi}{N} &
1910: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \cos\frac{(N-1)(N+2)\pi}{N} & \cdots &
1911: \cos\frac{(N-1)(2N-2)\pi}{N}\\
1912: \end{matrix}\right),}
1913: \end{equation}
1914: and finally, for $T=1$ and $N$ odd, we have
1915: \begin{equation}
1916: {\footnotesize
1917: U_{1} = \sqrt{\frac{2}{N}} \left(\begin{matrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 1 & \cdots & 1 \\
1918: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \sin\frac{2\pi}{N} & \cdots & \sin\frac{(N-1)\pi}{N} & \cos\frac{(N+1)\pi}{N} & \cdots & \cos\frac{(2N-2)\pi}{N} \\
1919: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \sin\frac{4\pi}{N}& \cdots & \sin\frac{2(N-1)\pi}{N} & \cos\frac{2(N+1)\pi}{N} & \cdots & \cos\frac{2(2N-2)\pi}{N}\\
1920: \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
1921: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} & \sin\frac{2(N-1)\pi}{N} & \cdots & \sin\frac{(N-1)(N-1)\pi}{N} & \cos\frac{(N-1)(N+1)\pi}{N} & \cdots & \cos\frac{(N-1)(2N-2)\pi}{N}\\
1922: \end{matrix}\right) . }
1923: \end{equation}
1924: In \Sec~\ref{sec:bulkmodes}, we consider the case $T=-1$ and $N$
1925: even. The other cases follow in similar ways. The rotation from the
1926: matrix $U_1$ in \eq~(\ref{eq:UU1}) has the effect of diagonalizing
1927: the ``gauge-boson-like'' submatrices in \eq~(\ref{eq:MMdagger}) and
1928: leads in the new basis to the matrix in \eq~(\ref{eq:X}), which can
1929: then be further diagonalized using perturbation theory as described in
1930: \Sec~\ref{sec:bulkmodes}.
1931:
1932: \end{appendix}
1933:
1934:
1935: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
1936:
1937: \bibitem{Kaluza:1921tu}
1938: T.~Kaluza, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) K{\bf 21}
1939: (1921) 966; O.~Klein, Z. Phys. {\bf 37} (1926) 895.
1940:
1941: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2001ca}
1942: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.G.~Cohen, and H.~Georgi, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}
1943: (2001) 4757, \texttt{hep-th/0104005}.
1944:
1945: \bibitem{Hill:2000mu}
1946: C.T.~Hill, S.~Pokorski, and J.~Wang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64} (2001)
1947: 105005, \texttt{hep-th/0104035}.
1948:
1949: \bibitem{Halpern:1975yj}
1950: M.B.~Halpern and W.~Siegel, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 11} (1975) 2967.
1951:
1952: \bibitem{UVcompletion}
1953: H.C.~Cheng, C.T.~Hill, S.~Pokorski, and J.~Wang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64}
1954: (2001) 065007, \texttt{hep-th/0104179}; H.C.~Cheng, C.T.~Hill, and
1955: J.~Wang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 64} (2001) 095003, \texttt{hep-ph/0105323};
1956: C.~Csaki, G.D.~Kribs, and J.~Terning, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65} (2002)
1957: 015004, \texttt{hep-ph/0107266}; H.C.~Cheng, K.T.~Matchev, and
1958: J.~Wang, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 521} (2001) 308, \texttt{hep-ph/0107268};
1959: A.~Falkowski, C.~Grojean, and S.~Pokorski, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 535}
1960: (2002) 258, \texttt{hep-ph/0203033};
1961: H.~Abe, T.~Kobayashi, N.~Maru,
1962: and K.~Yoshioka, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67} (2003) 045019,
1963: \texttt{hep-ph/0205344}; T.~Gregoire and J.G.~Wacker,
1964: \texttt{hep-ph/0207164}; L.~Randall, Y.~Shadmi, and N.~Weiner, J. High
1965: Energy Phys. {\bf 0301} (2003) 055, \texttt{hep-th/0208120};
1966: N.~Maru and K.~Yoshioka,
1967: Eur.~Phys.~J.~C {\bf 31} (2003) 245,
1968: {\tt hep-ph/0311337};
1969: A.~Falkowski, C.~Grojean, and S.~Pokorski,
1970: Phys.~Lett.~B {\bf 581} (2004) 236,
1971: {\tt hep-ph/0310201}; Z.~Kunszt, A.~Nyffeler, and M.~Puchwein,
1972: %``Deconstructing non-Abelian gauge theories at one loop,''
1973: JHEP {\bf 0403} (2004) 061,
1974: {\tt hep-ph/0402269}.
1975:
1976: \bibitem{Bardeen:1976tm}
1977: W.A.~Bardeen and R.B.~Pearson,
1978: %``Local Gauge Invariance And The Bound State Nature Of Hadrons,''
1979: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 14} (1976) 547;
1980: W.A.~Bardeen, R.B.~Pearson, and E.~Rabinovici,
1981: %``Hadron Masses In Quantum Chromodynamics On The Transverse Lattice,''
1982: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 21} (1980) 1037.
1983:
1984: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2001ed}
1985: N.~Arkani-Hamed, A.G.~Cohen, and H.~Georgi,
1986: %``Twisted supersymmetry and the topology of theory space,''
1987: JHEP {\bf 0207} (2002) 020,
1988: {\tt hep-th/0109082}.
1989:
1990: \bibitem{Hill:2002rb}
1991: C.T.~Hill,
1992: %``Fractal theory space: Spacetime of noninteger dimensionality,''
1993: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67} (2003) 085004,
1994: {\tt hep-th/0210076};
1995: %``Geometrical renormalization groups: Perfect deconstruction actions,''
1996: {\tt hep-th/0303267}.
1997:
1998: \bibitem{Balaji:2003st}
1999: K.R.S. Balaji, M. Lindner, and G. Seidl,
2000: %``Seesaw neutrino masses with large mixings from dimensional
2001: %deconstruction,''
2002: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 91} (2003) 161803,
2003: {\tt hep-ph/0303245}.
2004:
2005: \bibitem{Hung:2004wf}
2006: P.Q.~Hung, A.~Soddu, and N.K.~Tran,
2007: %``Complete CKM quark mixing via dimensional deconstruction,''
2008: {\tt hep-ph/0410179}; P.Q.~Hung and N.K.~Tran,
2009: %``Fermionic states in pure 4D deconstruction,''
2010: {\tt hep-ph/0410269}.
2011:
2012: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2002sp}
2013: N.~Arkani-Hamed, H.~Georgi, and M.D.~Schwartz,
2014: %``Effective field theory for massive gravitons and gravity in theory space,''
2015: Annals Phys. {\bf 305} (2003) 96,
2016: {\tt hep-th/0210184}.
2017:
2018: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:2003vb}
2019: N.~Arkani-Hamed and M.D.~Schwartz,
2020: %``Discrete gravitational dimensions,''
2021: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 69} (2004) 104001,
2022: {\tt hep-th/0302110}.
2023:
2024: \bibitem{Schwartz:2003vj}
2025: M.D.~Schwartz,
2026: %``Constructing gravitational dimensions,''
2027: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68} (2003) 024029,
2028: {\tt hep-th/0303114}.
2029:
2030: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs}
2031: N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G.R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B {\bf
2032: 429} (1998) 263, {\tt hep-ph/9803315}; Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59} (1999)
2033: 086004, {\tt hep-ph/9807344}; I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S.
2034: Dimopoulos, and G.R. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 436} (1998) 257, {\tt
2035: hep-ph/9804398}.
2036:
2037: \bibitem{Randall:1999ee}
2038: L.~Randall and R.~Sundrum,
2039: %``A large mass hierarchy from a small extra dimension,''
2040: Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 83} (1999) 3370,
2041: {\tt hep-ph/9905221};
2042: %``An alternative to compactification,''
2043: Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 83} (1999) 4690,
2044: {\tt hep-th/9906064}.
2045:
2046: \bibitem{CremadesKokorelisx}
2047: D. Cremades, L.E. Ib\'a\~nez, F. Marchesano, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 643} (2002) 93, {\tt hep-th/0205074}; C. Kokorelis, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 677} (2004) 115, {\tt hep-th/0207234}.
2048:
2049: \bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1998vp}N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos, G.R.~Dvali,
2050: and J.~March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65} (2002) 024032,
2051: \texttt{hep-ph/9811448}.
2052:
2053: \bibitem{Dienes:1998sb}
2054: K.R. Dienes, E. Dudas, and T. Gherghetta, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 557}
2055: (1999) 25, \texttt{hep-ph/9811428}.
2056:
2057: \bibitem{Dvali:1999cn}
2058: G.R. Dvali and A.Y. Smirnov,
2059: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 563} (1999) 63, {\tt hep-ph/9904211}.
2060:
2061: \bibitem{Mohapatra:1999zd}
2062: R.N. Mohapatra, S. Nandi, and A. P\'erez-Lorenzana,
2063: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 466} (1999) 115,
2064: {\tt hep-ph/9907520}.
2065:
2066: \bibitem{Mohapatra:2001}
2067: R.N. Mohapatra and A. P\'erez-Lorenzana,
2068: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 593} (2001) 451, {\tt hep-ph/0006278}
2069:
2070: \bibitem{MoreauGrx:2004}
2071: G. Moreau, {\tt hep-ph/0407177}
2072:
2073: \bibitem{Han:1998sg}
2074: T.~Han, J.D.~Lykken, and R.J.~Zhang,
2075: %``On Kaluza-Klein states from large extra dimensions,''
2076: Phys.~Rev.~D {\bf 59} (1999) 105006,
2077: {\tt hep-ph/9811350}.
2078:
2079: \bibitem{Eguchi:1982nm}
2080: T.~Eguchi and H.~Kawai,
2081: %``Reduction Of Dynamical Degrees Of Freedom In The Large N Gauge Theory,''
2082: Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 48} (1982) 1063.
2083:
2084: \bibitem{Fierz:1939ix}
2085: M.~Fierz and W.~Pauli,
2086: %``On Relativistic Wave Equations For Particles Of Arbitrary Spin In An
2087: %Electromagnetic Field,''
2088: Proc.~Roy.~Soc.~Lond.~A {\bf 173} (1939) 211.
2089:
2090: \bibitem{Hoyle:2004}
2091: C.D.~Hoyle, D.J.~Kapner, B.R.~Heckel, E.G.~Adelberger, J.H.~Grundlach, U.~Schmidt, and H.E.~Swanson,
2092: \texttt{hep-ph/0405262}.
2093:
2094: \bibitem{Witten:2001bf}
2095: E.~Witten,
2096: %``Deconstruction, G(2) holonomy, and doublet-triplet splitting,''
2097: {\tt hep-ph/0201018}.
2098:
2099: \bibitem{Falkowski:2002vc}
2100: A.~Falkowski, H.P.~Nilles, M.~Olechowski, and S.~Pokorski,
2101: %``Deconstructing 5D supersymmetric U(1) gauge theories on orbifolds,''
2102: Phys.~Lett.~B {\bf 566} (2003) 248, {\tt hep-th/0212206};
2103: E.~Dudas, A.~Falkowski, and S.~Pokorski,
2104: %``Deconstructed U(1) and supersymmetry breaking,''
2105: Phys.~Lett.~B {\bf 568} (2003) 281,
2106: {\tt hep-th/0303155}.
2107:
2108: \bibitem{geor86}H.~Georgi, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 266} (1986) 274.
2109:
2110: \bibitem{douglas:1996xx}M.R.~Douglas and G.~Moore, \texttt{hep-th/9603167}.
2111:
2112: \bibitem{axial-vector}
2113: S.L. Adler, Phys.~Rev. {\bf 177} (1969) 2426; J.S. Bell and R. Jackiw, Nuovo
2114: Cimento A {\bf 60} (1969) 47; W.A. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. {\bf 184} (1969) 1848.
2115:
2116: \bibitem{gauge-gravitational}
2117: R. Delbourgo and A. Salam, Phys.~Lett.~B {\bf 40} (1972) 381; T. Eguchi and P.G.O. Freund, Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 37} (1976) 1251; L. \'Alvarez-Gaum\'e and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 234} (1984) 269.
2118:
2119: \bibitem{Marshak:1979fm}
2120: R.E.~Marshak and R.N.~Mohapatra,
2121: %``Quark - Lepton Symmetry And B-L As The U(1) Generator Of The Electroweak
2122: %Symmetry Group,''
2123: Phys.~Lett.~B {\bf 91} (1980) 222.
2124:
2125: \bibitem{Anoka:2004vf}
2126: O.C.~Anoka, K.S.~Babu, and I.~Gogoladze,
2127: %``Constraining Z' from supersymmetry breaking,''
2128: Nucl.~Phys.~B {\bf 687} (2004) 3,
2129: {\tt hep-ph/0401133}.
2130:
2131: \bibitem{Bauer:2003mh}
2132: F.~Bauer, M.~Lindner, and G.~Seidl,
2133: %``Casimir energy in deconstruction and the cosmological constant,''
2134: JHEP {\bf 0405} (2004) 026,
2135: {\tt hep-th/0309200}.
2136:
2137: \bibitem{typeII}
2138: R.N.~Mohapatra and G.~Senjanovi\'c,
2139: Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 44} (1980) 912; Phys. Rev. D {\bf 23} (1981) 165;
2140: J. Schechter and J.W.F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 22} (1980) 2227; G. Lazarides, Q. Shafi, and C. Wetterich, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 181} (1981) 287.
2141:
2142: \bibitem{Ma:1998dx}
2143: E.~Ma and U.~Sarkar, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80} (1998) 5716,
2144: \texttt{hep-ph/9802445}.
2145:
2146: \bibitem{Wilson:1974sk}K.G.~Wilson, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 10} (1974) 2445.
2147:
2148: \bibitem{Krauss:1988zc}
2149: L.M.~Krauss and F. Wilczek,
2150: %``Discrete Gauge Symmetry In Continuum Theories,''
2151: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62} (1989) 1221.
2152:
2153: \bibitem{Ibanez:hv}
2154: L.E. Ibanez and G.G. Ross,
2155: %``Discrete Gauge Symmetry Anomalies,''
2156: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 260} (1991) 291;
2157: %L.E. Ibanez and G.G. Ross,
2158: %``Discrete gauge symmetries and the origin of baryon and lepton number
2159: %conservation in supersymmetric versions of the standard model,''
2160: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 368} (1992) 3.
2161:
2162: \bibitem{Babu:2003qh}
2163: K.S.~Babu, I.~Gogoladze, and K.~Wang,
2164: %``Gauged baryon parity and nucleon stability,''
2165: Phys.~Lett.~B {\bf 570} (2003) 32,
2166: {\tt hep-ph/0306003}.
2167:
2168: \bibitem{Witten:1996mz}
2169: E.~Witten,
2170: %``Strong Coupling Expansion Of Calabi-Yau Compactification,''
2171: Nucl.~Phys.~B {\bf 471} (1996) 135,
2172: {\tt hep-th/9602070}.
2173:
2174: \bibitem{Isham:1978xxx}C.J.~Isham, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. {\bf 362}
2175: (1978) 383; C.J.~Isham, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. {\bf 364} (1978) 591;
2176: S.J.~Avis and C.J.~Isham, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 156} (1979) 441.
2177:
2178: \bibitem{Hill:2002me}C.T.~Hill and A.K.~Leibovich, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}
2179: (2002) 016006, \texttt{hep-ph/0205057}.
2180:
2181: \bibitem{Weinberg:1979sa}
2182: S.~Weinberg,
2183: %``Baryon And Lepton Nonconserving Processes,''
2184: Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 43} (1979) 1566.
2185:
2186: \bibitem{Wilczek:1979hc}
2187: F.~Wilczek and A.~Zee,
2188: %``Operator Analysis Of Nucleon Decay,''
2189: Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 43} (1979) 1571.
2190:
2191: \bibitem{solar}
2192: SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad {\it et al.},
2193: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87} (2001) 071301;
2194: SNO Collaboration, Q. R. Ahmad {\it et al.}, {\tt nucl-ex/0309004};
2195: Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, S. Fukuda {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. B
2196: {\bf 539} (2002) 179, {\tt hep-ex/0205075}.
2197:
2198: \bibitem{atmospheric}
2199: Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Y. Fukuda {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett.
2200: {\bf 81} (1998) 1562; Phys. Lett. B {\bf 467} (1999) 185.
2201:
2202: \bibitem{KamLAND}
2203: KamLAND Collaboration, K. Eguchi {\it et al.},
2204: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90} (2003) 021802,
2205: {\tt hep-ex/0212021}.
2206:
2207: \bibitem{K2K}
2208: K2K Collaboration, M.H. Ahn {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}
2209: (2003) 041801, {\tt hep-ex/0212007}.
2210:
2211: \bibitem{typeI}
2212: P.~Minkowski,
2213: %``Mu $\to$ E Gamma At A Rate Of One Out Of 1-Billion Muon Decays?,''
2214: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 67} (1977) 421; T. Yanagida,
2215: in {\it Proceedings of the Workshop on the Unified Theory and Baryon
2216: Number in the Universe}, KEK, Tsukuba,
2217: 1979; M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky,
2218: in {\it Proceedings of the Workshop on Supergravity,} Stony Brook, New York, 1979.
2219:
2220: \bibitem{Babu-Zee}
2221: A. Zee, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 263} (1986) 99; K.S. Babu, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 203}
2222: (1988) 132; K.S. Babu and C. Macesanu, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67} (2003) 073010,
2223: {\tt hep-ph/0212058}.
2224:
2225: \bibitem{Maltoni:2004ei}
2226: M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M. T{\'o}rtola, and J.W.F. Valle, New
2227: J. Phys. {\bf 6} (2004) 122, {\tt hep-ph/0405172}.
2228:
2229: \bibitem{Alimonti:2000xc}
2230: Borexino Collaboration, G.~Alimonti {\it et al.},
2231: %``Science and technology of Borexino: A real time detector for low energy
2232: %solar neutrinos,''
2233: Astropart.~Phys.~{\bf 16} (2002) 205,
2234: {\tt hep-ex/0012030}.
2235:
2236: \bibitem{Ardellier:2004ui}
2237: F.~Ardellier {\it et al.},
2238: %``Letter of intent for double-CHOOZ: A search for the mixing angle
2239: %theta(13),''
2240: {\tt hep-ex/0405032};
2241: S.~Berridge {\it et al.},
2242: %``Proposal for U.S. participation in double-CHOOZ: A new Theta(13) experiment
2243: %at the Chooz reactor,''
2244: {\tt hep-ex/0410081}.
2245:
2246: \bibitem{Huber:2004bh}
2247: P.~Huber, M.~Lindner, and T.~Schwetz,
2248: %``R2D2: A symmetric measurement of reactor neutrinos free of systematical
2249: %errors,''
2250: {\tt hep-ph/0411166}.
2251:
2252: \bibitem{wal}
2253: T.P. Walker, G. Steigman, D.N. Schramm, K.A. Olive, and H.S. Kang,
2254: Astrophys. J. {\bf 376} (1991) 51.
2255:
2256: \bibitem{foot}
2257: R. Foot and R.R. Volkas,
2258: %``Reconciling sterile neutrinos with big bang nucleosynthesis,''
2259: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75} (1995) 4350,
2260: {\tt hep-ph/9508275};
2261: R. Foot, M.J. Thomson, and R.R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 53} (1996) 5349,
2262: {\tt hep-ph/9509327};
2263: P. Di Bari,
2264: %``Update on neutrino mixing in the early universe,''
2265: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65} (2002) 043509,
2266: {\tt hep-ph/0108182};
2267: %``Addendum to: Update on neutrino mixing in the early universe,''
2268: Addendum-ibid D {\bf 67} (2003) 127301,
2269: {\tt astro-ph/0302433};
2270: K.N. Abazajian,
2271: %``Telling three from four neutrinos with cosmology,''
2272: Astropart. Phys. {\bf 19} (2003) 303,
2273: {\tt astro-ph/0205238};
2274: for a recent comprehensive review see,
2275: M. Cirelli, G. Marandella, A. Strumia, and F. Vissani,
2276: %``Probing oscillations into sterile neutrinos with cosmology, astrophysics and
2277: %experiments,''
2278: {\tt hep-ph/0403158}.
2279:
2280: \bibitem{Gelmini:2004ah}
2281: G.~Gelmini, S.~Palomares-Ruiz, and S.~Pascoli,
2282: %``Low reheating temperature and the visible sterile neutrino,''
2283: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93} (2004) 081302,
2284: {\tt astro-ph/0403323}.
2285:
2286: \bibitem{el}
2287: The 2dFGRS Collaboration, \O. Elgar\o y {\it et al.},
2288: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89} (2002) 061301, {\tt astro-ph/0204152};
2289: WMAP Collaboration, D.N. Spergel {\it et al.}, Astrophys. J. Suppl.
2290: {\bf 148} (2003) 175, {\tt astro-ph/0302209}.
2291:
2292: \bibitem{Hannestad:2003ye}
2293: S. Hannestad and G. Raffelt,
2294: %``Cosmological mass limits on neutrinos, axions, and other light particles,''
2295: JCAP {\bf 0404} (2004) 008,
2296: {\tt hep-ph/0312154}.
2297:
2298: \end{thebibliography}
2299: \end{document})
2300:
2301:
2302:
2303:
2304:
2305:
2306: