1: \documentclass[a4paper]{jpconf}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{amssymb}
4: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
5: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
6: \begin{document}
7: \title{Neutrino masses and mixing}
8:
9: \author{Alexei Yu. Smirnov\footnote{Invited talk given at TAUP2005,
10: September 10 - 14, 2005, Zaragoza, Spain.}}
11:
12:
13: \address{International Centre for Theoretical Physics
14: Strada Costiera 11, 34014 Trieste, Italy\\
15: Institite for Nuclear Research, RAS, Moscow, Russia}
16:
17: \ead{smirnov@ictp.it}
18:
19: \begin{abstract}
20: Status of determination of the neutrino masses and mixing is formulated
21: and possible uncertainties, especially due to presence of the sterile neutrinos,
22: are discussed. The data hint an existence of special
23: ``neutrino'' symmetries. If not accidental these symmetries
24: have profound implications and can substantially change the unification program.
25: The key issue on the way to underlying physics is relations between
26: quarks and leptons. The approximate quark-lepton symmetry or universality can be
27: reconciled with strongly different patterns of masses and mixings due to nearly
28: singular character of the mass matrices or screening of the Dirac structures
29: in the double see-saw mechanism.
30: \end{abstract}
31:
32: \section{Introduction}
33: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
34:
35: In the first approximations the pattern of lepton mixing
36: has been established.
37: The 2-3 mixing is consistent with maximal, 1-2 mixing is large but not maximal and
38: 1-3 mixing is small and consistent with zero.
39: The next step is
40: determination of detailed structure
41: of the mass and mixing, in particular, measurements of the {\it deviations} of
42: 2-3 mixing from maximal and 1-3 mixing - from zero.
43:
44: There are two key issues on the way to the underlying physics:
45:
46: \begin{itemize}
47:
48: \item
49: possible existence of new ``neutrino'' symmetries
50: behind the pattern of neutrino mass and mixing;
51:
52:
53: \item
54: relation between quarks and leptons -
55: their possible symmetries and unification.
56:
57: \end{itemize}
58:
59: The two questions are related:
60: establishing specific symmetry in the neutrino sector
61: may substantially change the unification program.
62:
63:
64:
65:
66: \section{Results and uncertainties}
67: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
68:
69:
70:
71: \subsection{Summarizing results}
72: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
73:
74: Masses: The solar and the atmospheric mass differences squared
75: give the lower bound on ratio of the second and third masses:
76: \be
77: \frac{m_2}{m_3} \geq \sqrt{\frac{\Delta m_{21}^2}{\Delta m_{31}^2}} = 0.15 - 0.20.
78: \label{ratiom}
79: \ee
80: Both cosmology and the double beta decay probe the
81: sub-eV region which corresponds to the quasi-degenerate mass spectrum
82: giving the upper bound $m < 0.2 - 0.4$ eV \cite{cos}.
83: If the Heidelberg-Moscow result~\cite{hm} is confirmed
84: and if it is due to exchange of the light Majorana neutrinos, the
85: neutrino mass spectrum should be strongly degenerate.
86:
87: Results on determination of
88: the lepton mixings are summarized in fig. \ref{12mix}, \ref{13mix}.
89:
90: 1). 1-2 mixing:
91: there is a very good agreement of central values and
92: reasonable agreement of the allowed ranges at different confidence
93: levels obtained by three different groups \cite{sno,sv,bari}.
94: The $3\nu$ analysis does not change the best fit value of mixing
95: in comparison with 2 neutrino analysis but the error
96: bars become smaller.
97:
98: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
99: \begin{figure}[t]
100: %\begin{center}
101: \begin{tabular}{cc}
102: \resizebox{0.50\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{mix1.eps}} &
103: \hspace{0.3cm}
104: \resizebox{0.42\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{mix3.eps}} \\
105: (a) & (b)
106: \end{tabular}
107: \caption{The best fit values and
108: the allowed regions of lepton mixing angles
109: at different confidence levels determined by different groups.
110: \textbf{(a)} $\theta_{12}$ from SNO~\cite{sno}, SV~\cite{sv} and
111: Bari~\cite{bari}. Shown are predictions from QLC and tri-bimaximal mixing.
112: \textbf{(b)} $\sin^2 \theta_{23}$ from SK~\cite{atm}, GMS~\cite{concha},
113: Bari~\cite{bari}. Shown are expectations from QLC and sensitivity limit of T2K
114: experiment~\cite{T2K}.}
115: \label{12mix}
116: \end{figure}
117: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
118:
119: After the recent SNO publication~\cite{sno}, the 1-2 mixing has
120: shifted to larger values by $\Delta \theta_{12} \sim 1.6^{\circ}$
121: due to increase of the CC/NC ratio
122: and now the b.f. value equals
123: $
124: \theta_{12} = 33.9^{\circ}.
125: $
126: In fig. \ref{12mix}a we show also several theoretical benchmarks:
127: predictions from
128: (i) from QLC1 scenario (bi-maximal mixing from the
129: neutrino sector, see sec. 4.3):
130: $\theta_{12} = 35.4^{\circ}$, (ii) the QLC2 scenario:
131: $\theta_{12} =
132: 45^{\circ} - \theta_C \approx 32.2^{\circ}$
133: %%$\theta_{12}= \sim 32.2^{\circ}$,
134: (the bi-maximal mixing from the charge lepton sector),
135: and (iii) tri-bimaximal mixing $\sin \theta_{12} = 1/\sqrt{3}$,
136: or $\theta_{12} = 35.2^{\circ}$.
137: All three predictions are within $1\sigma$.
138: Predictions from the tri-bimaximal mixing and QLC1
139: almost coincide, the b.f. value is in between
140: the QLC2 and two other predictions.
141: To disentangle these two possibilities
142: one needs to measure the 1-2 mixing with accuracy
143: $\Delta \theta_{12} \sim 1^{\circ}$ or
144: $\Delta \sin^2 \theta_{12} \sim 0.015$ ($5\%$).\\
145:
146: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
147: \begin{figure}[t]
148: \begin{center}
149: \resizebox{0.54\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{mix4.eps}}
150: \end{center}
151: \caption{The best fit values and
152: the allowed regions of lepton mixing angle $\theta_{13}$
153: at different confidence levels determined by different groups:
154: SV~\cite{sv} and Bari~\cite{bari}. Shown are also some predictions and
155: the sensitivity limits
156: of Double CHOOZ~\cite{DC} and T2K~\cite{T2K}.}
157: \label{13mix}
158: \end{figure}
159: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
160:
161: 2). The 2-3 mixing is in agreement with maximal one (fig.~\ref{12mix}b).
162: A shift from maximal mixing has been found when
163: effects of 1-2 sector have been included
164: in the analysis \cite{orl}. According to \cite{concha}
165: $\sin^2\theta_{23} = 0.47$ and slightly larger
166: shift, $\sin^2\theta_{23} = 0.44$, follows from the analysis \cite{bari}.
167: So, the deviation from maximal mixing can be quantified as
168: \be
169: D_{23} \equiv 0.5 - \sin^2\theta_{23} \sim 0.03 - 0.06.
170: \ee
171: The shift is related to the excess of
172: e-like atmospheric neutrino events in the sub-GeV range detected by
173: SuperKamiokande (SK).
174: The excess is proportional to the deviation $\Delta N_e/N_e \propto D_{23}$
175: \cite{orl}.
176: No shift from maximal mixing has been found in the
177: recent SK $3\nu$-analysis even after inclusion
178: of the 1-2 sector (LMA oscillations) \cite{suzuki}. The difference of results may be
179: related to treatment of uncertainties in the atmospheric neutrino flux
180: normalization. The change of normalization competes with
181: the effect of LMA oscillations. In the SK analysis
182: the excess of e-like events is explained completely
183: by the normalization. In the analyses
184: \cite{concha,bari} the excess is explained by the normalization
185: partially, since certain distribution of the normalization factors is assumed.
186:
187: Still large deviation from maximal mixing is allowed:
188: \be
189: D_{23}/\sin^2\theta_{23} \sim 0.4 ~~~(2\sigma).
190: \ee
191: %The benchmarks here are the deviation expected in the
192: %QLC-scenario: $\Delta \theta_{23} \sim 4^{\circ}$ and ...\\
193:
194: 3). The 1-3 mixing is consistent with zero
195: (fig. \ref{13mix}). Small non-zero best fit value from the analysis
196: \cite{bari} is related to the angular dependence
197: of the multi-GeV e-like events measured by SuperKamiokande.
198: The most conservative $3\sigma$ bound is $\sin^2 \theta_{13} < 0.048$
199: \cite{bari}. There are several benchmarks here:
200: A very appealing possibility, $\theta_{13} = \theta_{C}$,
201: seems to be excluded at more than $3\sigma$ level. The ratio of the
202: solar and atmospheric neutrino mass scales,
203: \be
204: \sin^2 \theta_{13} = r = \frac{\Delta m_{21}^2}{\Delta m_{31}^2} = 0.033,
205: \ee
206: is allowed at about $2\sigma$ level. An
207: additional (model dependent) factor of the order 0.3 - 2
208: may appear in this relation.
209: Much smaller values of $\sin^2 \theta_{13}$ would
210: imply most probably certain symmetry of the mass matrix.
211:
212: There are several lower bounds on the 1-3 mixing:
213: (i) even if equality $\sin^2 \theta_{13} = 0$ holds
214: at some high energy scale, $\Lambda$ (presumably GUT or scale of flavor
215: physics), a nonzero value of the order $\sin^2 \theta_{13} = 0.003$
216: is generated due to the renormalization group effect (unless
217: some accidental cancellation occurs) \cite{manf}.
218: (ii) Smaller values, $\sin^2 \theta_{13} = 10^{-4}$,
219: are expected due to possible contributions to the mass matrix from the Planck scale
220: interactions $\sim v_{EW}^2/ M_{PL}$ \cite{vv}.
221:
222:
223:
224: \subsection{Uncertainties}
225: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
226:
227: Three types of possible effects can influence interpretation of
228: the neutrino results.
229:
230: 1). Existence of new neutrino states -
231: sterile neutrinos which are of great interest not only in
232: connection to the LSND result.
233: If these states are light they can directly (dynamically)
234: influence observations.
235: If sterile neutrinos are heavy and decouple from the low
236: energy physics, they may substantially change implications of
237: the results for the fundamental theory.
238:
239:
240: 2). Presence of the non-standard (short range) neutrino interactions
241: can change values of the extracted neutrino parameters.
242:
243: 3). Interactions with hypothetical light scalar fields produce
244: ''soft'' neutrino masses
245: which depend on properties of medium. These masses may change with
246: time and be related to the dark energy in the universe \cite{mavan}.
247:
248: At present, however there is no well established results which
249: could testify for deviations from the ``standard'' $3\nu$ mixing scheme and
250: the standard matter interactions.\\
251:
252:
253: Let us consider one
254: aspect of possible presence of sterile neutrinos - ambiguity
255: in interpretation of the neutrino
256: results. Even small mixing of active neutrinos with sterile ones
257: can substantially change the structure of active neutrino mass matrix,
258: in particular, inducing large mixing \cite{abdel}.
259: Suppose the active neutrinos acquire (e.g., via seesaw)
260: the Majorana mass matrix $m_a$. Consider one sterile neutrino,
261: $S$, with Majorana mass $M$
262: and mixing masses with active neutrinos
263: $m_{iS}$ ($i = e, \mu, \tau$). If $M \gg m_{iS}$,
264: then after decoupling of $S$ the mass matrix of active neutrinos becomes
265: \be
266: (m_{\nu})_{ij} = (m_a)_{ij} - m_{iS}m_{jS}/M,
267: \ee
268: where the last term is the matrix induced by $S$.
269: New neutrino states are irrelevant if
270: \be
271: m_{iS}m_{jS}/M \ll (m_a)_{ij}.
272: \label{cond}
273: \ee
274:
275: The smallest matrix elements are in the case
276: of normal mass hierarchy ($m_1 \approx 0$).
277: The data can be well described by
278: \begin{equation}
279: m_{\nu} =
280: \frac{m_3}{2}
281: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
282: 0 & 0 & 0\\
283: 0 & 1 & - 1\\
284: 0 & - 1 & 1
285: \end{array}
286: \right) +
287: %\frac{\sqrt{\Delta m_{21}^2}}{3}
288: \frac{m_2}{3}
289: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
290: 1 & 1 & 1\\
291: 1 & 1 & 1\\
292: 1 & 1 & 1
293: \end{array}
294: \right)
295: \label{tribi}
296: \end{equation}
297: (which by the way, corresponds to the tri-bimaximal mixing),
298: where $m_2 = \sqrt{\Delta m_{21}^2}$ and $m_3 = \sqrt{\Delta
299: m_{31}^2}$.
300: Assuming flavor ``blindness'': $m_{iS} = m_S$, we can rewrite
301: the condition (\ref{cond}) using the smallest elements in (\ref{tribi}) as
302: $
303: m_S^2/M \ll m_2/3,
304: $
305: or
306: \be
307: \sin\theta_S^2~ M \ll m_2/3 \sim 3\cdot 10^{-3} ~{\rm eV}.
308: \label{smixing}
309: \ee
310: Here $\theta_S$ is the active-sterile mixing angle:
311: $\sin\theta_S = m_S/M$.
312:
313:
314: For $M \sim 1$ eV we obtain from (\ref{smixing})
315: $\sin^2\theta_S \ll 3 \cdot 10^{-3}$. This means that if the LSND
316: interpretation as an effect of additional neutrino states is confirmed,
317: its impact on the neutrino mass matrix is strong and can not
318: be considered as perturbation.
319: If the effect is not confirmed, the MiniBOONE sensitivity
320: is not enough to exclude strong effect of new states.
321: For $M \sim 1$ MeV we get $\sin\theta_S^2 < 10^{-9}$.
322: %%which is however excluded by ...
323:
324:
325: \section{Neutrino symmetry}
326: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
327:
328:
329: Several observations may testify for special symmetry(ies)
330: associated to neutrinos:
331: %%
332: %\begin{itemize}
333: %\item
334: %%
335: (i) maximal (close to maximal) 2-3 mixing;
336: %\item
337: (ii) zero (very small) 1-3 mixing;
338: %\item
339: (iii) special values of 1-2 mixing;
340: %\item
341: (iv) degenerate mass spectrum;
342: %\item
343: (v) hierarchy of mass squared differences.
344: %%
345: %\end{itemize}
346: %
347: Some of these features can originate from the same underlying symmetry.\\
348:
349: %%What can be behind?
350:
351: \subsection{Schemes of mixing}
352: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
353: In connection to the above observations the following schemes of mixing
354: can be of relevance.
355:
356: 1). The bi-maximal mixing \cite{bim}:
357: \be
358: U_{bm} = U_{23}^m U_{12}^m =
359: \frac{1}{2}
360: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
361: \sqrt{2} & \sqrt{2} & 0\\
362: -1 & 1 & \sqrt{2}\\
363: 1 & - 1 & \sqrt{2}
364: \end{array}
365: \right).
366: \label{bimax}
367: \ee
368: Identification $U_{PMNS} = U_{bm}$ is not possible due to
369: strong (5 - 6) $\sigma$ deviation of the 1-2 mixing from
370: maximal. However, $U_{bm}$ can play a role of dominant structure
371: or matrix in the lowest order.
372: Correction can originate from the charged lepton
373: sector (mass matrix), so that
374: $U_{PMNS} = U'U_{bm}$ and in analogy with quark mixing
375: $U' \approx U_{12}(\theta_C)$.
376: It generates simultaneously
377: deviation of the 1-2 mixing from maximal and non-zero
378: 1-3 mixing, which are related.
379: %as $\sin \theta_{13} = ...$.
380:
381:
382: 2). Tri-bimaximal mixing \cite{tbm}
383: \be
384: U_{tbm} = U_{23}^m U_{12}(\theta_{12}) =
385: \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}
386: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
387: 2 & \sqrt{2} & 0\\
388: -1 & \sqrt{2} & \sqrt{3}\\
389: 1 & - \sqrt{2} & \sqrt{3}
390: \end{array}
391: \right),
392: \label{bimax}
393: \ee
394: where $\sin^2 \theta_{12} = 1/3$.
395: Here $\nu_2$ is tri-maximally mixed:
396: in the middle column three flavors mix maximally,
397: whereas $\nu_3$ (third column) is bi-maximally mixed.
398: %Mixing parameters turn out to be some simple
399: %numbers 0, 1/3, 1/2 and can appear as Clebsh-Gordon coefficients.
400: This matrix is in a good agreement with data,
401: in particular, $\sin^2\theta_{12}$ is close to the
402: present best fit value 0.31.
403:
404: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
405:
406: \subsection{$\nu_\mu - \nu_\tau$ symmetry}
407: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
408: Maximal 2-3 mixing and zero 1-3 mixing
409: can be consequences of the
410: $\nu_{\mu} - \nu_{\tau}$ permutation symmetry of the neutrino mass matrix \cite{mutau}.
411: General form of such a matrix in the flavor basis is
412: \be
413: M =
414: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
415: A & B & B\\
416: B & C & D\\
417: B & D & C
418: \end{array}
419: \right).
420: \label{23mat}
421: \ee
422: The permutation symmetry can be a part of {\it e.g.} discrete $S_3$ or $D_4$
423: groups.
424:
425: The problem is that the symmetry is broken for charged
426: leptons since $m_{\mu} \ll m_{\tau}$.
427: %and it can not be extended to the quark sector.
428: So, it can not be the symmetry of complete theory.
429:
430: In principle the symmetry violation can be weak -
431: characterized by small parameter $m_{\mu}/m_{\tau}$.
432: In this connection one can consider an
433: example, when the charged lepton mass matrix is
434: ``democratic'' (with all elements to be equal each other) and the
435: neutrino mass matrix is diagonal \cite{zzz}. These matrices
436: (particular cases of (\ref{23mat})) lead to hierarchical
437: charge lepton spectrum (in fact with only one non-zero eigenvalue)
438: and degenerate spectrum of neutrinos.
439: Diagonalization of the charged lepton mass matrix leads
440: to maximal 1-2 mixing and non-maximal 2-3 mixing $\sin^2 2 \theta_{23}
441: = 8/9$. So, small corrections
442: should be introduced to generate masses of muon and electron,
443: as well as to produce mass split of neutrinos and to correct mixings.
444:
445: Let us discuss possible solutions of the problem with
446: $\mu - \tau$ symmetry.
447: The symmetry can be broken spontaneously, and for this the
448: extended Higg's sector is required. Several possibilities exist
449: to explain why it shows up in the neutrino sector only.
450: Apparently the difference of neutrinos and charged leptons should be related to their
451: RH components.
452:
453: 1). Auxiliary symmetry, e.g. $Z_2$, can be
454: introduced to protect neutrino sector
455: from $\mu - \tau$ breaking.
456: $l_R$ and $\nu_R$ should have
457: different properties with respect to this auxiliary symmetry.
458:
459: 2). The symmetry basis can differ from the flavor basis.
460: So, in the symmetry basis
461: (one should speak about 2 - 3 permutations)
462: the mass matrix of charged leptons is off-diagonal.
463: %%In this case
464: %%one should speak about 2 - 3 permutation symmetry (rather than
465: %%$\nu_{\mu} - \nu_{\tau}$).
466:
467:
468: 3). Among other flavor symmetries $A_4$ looks very appealing
469: \cite{a4}. It has one triplet representation and three different singlet
470: representations, ${\bf 1},~
471: {\bf 1'},~ {\bf 1''}$, which provides with enough freedom to explain data.
472: Three leptonic doublets
473: form the triplet of $A_4$: $L_i = (\nu_i, l_i) \sim {\bf 3}$,
474: $i = 1, 2, 3$.
475: Required lepton mixing is generated due to different
476: $A_4$ transformation properties
477: of the right handed components of charged leptons and neutrinos.
478: In some models: $l^c_i \sim {\bf 1},~ {\bf 1'},~ {\bf 1''}$, whereas
479: $N^c_i \sim {\bf 3}$. In other models {\it vice versa}: $l^c_i \sim {\bf 3}$,
480: $N^c_i \sim {\bf 1},~ {\bf 1'},~ {\bf 1''}$.
481:
482: 4). See-saw induced symmetries.
483: In this case neither Dirac mass matrix nor Majorana mass matrix
484: of the RH neutrinos have the required symmetry but they have certain
485: structures (hierarchies of matrix elements).
486: The symmetry appears as a result of the see-saw mechanism.
487: %and certain hierarchy of the mass matrix elements.
488:
489: In specific models some combinations
490: of these mechanisms are realized \cite{model}.
491:
492:
493: \subsection{Real or accidental}
494: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
495: The main question here is
496: whether the ``neutrino'' symmetries are accidental or real,
497: that is, have some physics behind.
498: Models proposed so far are rather complicated with a
499: number of {\it ad hoc} assumptions.
500: It is difficult to include quarks in these models.
501: Further unification looks rather problematic.
502: Asymmetries between neutrinos and leptons
503: are embedded into theory from the beginning.
504: This shows the price one should to pay for realization
505: of the symmetries.
506:
507: %Rather complicated examples of models proposed
508: %so far
509:
510: Furthermore, the facts behind the symmetries -
511: maximal 2-3 mixing and relatively small 1-3 mixing are not yet
512: well established. Still significant deviation
513: of 2-3 mixing is possible and 1-3 mixing can be not so small.
514: Structure of the neutrino mass matrix depends substantially
515: on these deviations.
516: So, it may happen that symmetry constructions are
517: simply misleading.
518:
519: On the other hand if symmetries are not accidental,
520: they have consequences of the fundamental
521: importance as the models constructed show.
522: New structures and particles are predicted, unification
523: path may differ substantially from what we
524: are considering now, etc.. The symmetries may give some clue
525: for understanding fermion masses in general.
526:
527: The key question is how to test this?
528: Obviously, we need to search for and
529: measure deviations: of 2-3 mixing from maximal, $D_{23}$, and 1-3 mixing,
530: $\sin \theta_{13}$, from zero.
531: In the context of specific models
532: the deviations (though small) are expected anyway.
533: The facts we are discussing
534: can originate from the same symmetry and violation of this symmetry
535: will lead then to relations between $D_{23}$ and $\sin \theta_{13}$. \\
536:
537:
538: It may happen that the symmetries are not accidental
539: but the underlying theory has not been found yet.
540: In this connection let us come back to the issue of active-sterile mixing.
541: Let us assume that the couplings of $S$ with active neutrinos are universal:
542: \be
543: m_{iS} = m_S (1, 1, 1) = m_2/\sqrt{3}.
544: \ee
545: Then the induced matrix has form:
546: $
547: m_{ind} = m_2 D/3,
548: $
549: where $D$ is the democratic matrix (the second
550: matrix in (\ref{tribi}).
551: Suppose that the original active neutrino mass matrix has structure
552: of the first matrix in (\ref{tribi}).
553: %\be
554: %m_a =
555: %\frac{m_3}{\sqrt{2}}
556: %\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
557: %0 & 0 & 0\\
558: %0 & 1 & - 1\\
559: %0 & - 1 & 1
560: %\end{array}
561: %\right).
562: %\ee
563: Then the sum, $m_{\nu} = m_a + m_{ind}$, reproduces the mass
564: matrix for the tri-bimaximal mixing (\ref{tribi}).
565: With two sterile neutrinos whole structure (\ref{tribi})
566: can be obtained.
567:
568: Clearly this possibility changes implications of the neutrino results.
569: Since $S$ is beyond the SM structure
570: extended with RH neutrinos, it may be easier to realize ``neutrino'' symmetries as
571: a consequence of certain
572: symmetry of its couplings with active neutrinos.
573:
574:
575:
576: \section{Leptons and Quarks}
577: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
578:
579: %Relations and difference of mass and mixing in quark sector
580: %is another generic question we may ask.
581:
582: \subsection{Comparing leptons and quarks}
583: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
584:
585:
586:
587: There is an apparent correspondence between quarks and leptons.
588: Each quark has its own counterpartner in the leptonic sector.
589: Leptons can be treated as the 4th color \cite{pati}
590: following the Pati-Salam $SU(4)$ unification symmetry.
591: Unification is possible,
592: so that quarks and leptons form multiplets of the extended gauge group.
593: The most appealing one is SO(10) \cite{so10}, where all known components of quarks and
594: leptons
595: (including the RH neutrinos) form unique 16-plet.
596: It is difficult to believe that all these features are accidental.
597: Though it is not excluded that the
598: quark-lepton connection has some more complicated form,
599: e.g., of the quark - lepton complementarity \cite{qlc,qlc1}.
600: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
601: \begin{figure}[t]
602: \begin{center}
603: \resizebox{0.47\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics{mass.eps}}
604: \end{center}
605: \caption{Mass hierarchies of quarks and leptons.
606: The mass of heaviest fermion of a given type is taken to be 1.}
607: \label{ratios}
608: \end{figure}
609: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
610:
611:
612:
613: In the quark sector we have rather complete information about
614: masses and mixings and still no explanation has been found.
615: %which should also be some physics beyond the standard model.
616: It seems, neutrinos have not helped yet, and on the contrary,
617: made a situation even more complicated.
618: Comparison of masses and mixing in the quark and lepton
619: sectors and establishing certain relations between them
620: may give some insight.
621:
622:
623: Apparently the mixing patterns of leptons and quarks is strongly different:
624: The only common feature is that the 1-3 mixing
625: (between the ``remote'' generations) is small in both
626: cases. Two other angles are not equal but complementary in a sense
627: that they sum up to maximal mixing:
628: \be
629: \theta_{12} + \theta_C = \frac{\pi}{4},
630: %45^{\circ},
631: \label{qlcrel}
632: \ee
633: and similar approximate relation can be written for the 2-3 mixings.
634: For various reasons it is difficult to expect precise relation but
635: qualitatively one can say that, the 2-3 mixing in the lepton sector
636: is close to maximal because the corresponding quark mixing is
637: small, the 1-2 mixing deviates from maximal substantially because
638: the 1-2 (Cabibbo) quark mixing is relatively large.
639: It seems that for the third angle we do not expect simple relation
640: and apparently the quark feature
641: $\theta_{13} \sim \theta_{12} \times \theta_{23}$
642: does not work in the lepton sector.
643:
644:
645: The ratio of neutrino masses (\ref{ratiom})
646: can be compared with ratios for charged leptons and quarks (at $m_Z$
647: scale):
648: $m_\mu/m_\tau = 0.06$, $m_s/m_b = 0.02 - 0.03$, $m_c/m_t = 0.005$.
649: The neutrino hierarchy - see eq. (\ref{ratiom}) (if exists at all - still the
650: degenerate spectrum is not excluded) is the weakest one.
651: This is consistent with possible mass-mixing relation:
652: large mixings are associated to weak mass hierarchy.
653:
654: In fig.~\ref{ratios} we show the mass ratios for three generations.
655: The strongest hierarchy and geometric relation $m_u \times m_t \sim m_c^2$
656: exist for the upper quarks. Apart from that no simple relations show up.
657: What is behind this picture? Symmetry, regularities, relation?
658: In the quark sector we can speak about fermion families with
659: weak interfamily connection (mixing) which means strong flavor
660: alignment. In the lepton sector the alignment is weaker.
661: Furthermore, peculiar situation with fermion masses
662: is that spectra have small number
663: of states (levels) - 3, and on the other hand
664: there is no simple relations between parameters of spectra.
665: It looks like the observed pattern is an interplay of some
666: regularities and randomness (``anarchy'').
667:
668:
669: \subsection{Quark-lepton symmetry and Quark-lepton universality}
670: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
671:
672: The picture described in the previous section is still
673: consistent with the approximate quark-lepton symmetry or universality.
674: However, the symmetry is realized in terms of mass matrices (matrices of the
675: Yukawa couplings) and not in terms of observables - mass ratios and
676: mixing angles.
677:
678: The key point is that similar mass matrices can lead to
679: substantially different mixing angles and masses (eigenvalues)
680: if the matrices are nearly singular (rank-1) \cite{sing,dors}.
681: The singular matrices are ``unstable''
682: in a sense that small perturbations can lead to strong variations of
683: mass ratios and mixing angles (the latter - in the context of seesaw.
684:
685: Let us consider the universal structure for the mass matrices
686: of all quarks and leptons \cite{dors}:
687: \be
688: Y_u \sim Y_d \sim Y_D \sim Y_M \sim Y_L \sim Y_0,
689: \ee
690: where $Y_D$ is the Dirac type neutrino Yukawa matrix,
691: $Y_M$ is the Majorana type matrix for the RH neutrinos
692: and $Y_0$ is the singular matrix. As an important example we can take
693: \be
694: Y_0 =
695: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
696: \lambda^4 & \lambda^3 & \lambda^2\\
697: \lambda^3 & \lambda^2 & \lambda\\
698: \lambda^2 & \lambda & 1
699: \end{array}
700: \right), ~~~~ \lambda \sim 0.2 - 0.3.
701: \label{anz}
702: \ee
703: %Apparently $det Y_0 = 0$ as well as determinants of submatrices are zero.
704: This matrix has only one non-zero eigenvalue and determines
705: mixing angles for the third generation.
706:
707: Let us introduce perturbations $\epsilon$ in the following form
708: \be
709: Y^f_{ij} = Y^0_{ij} (1 + \epsilon_{ij}^f), ~~~ f = u, d, e, \nu, N ,
710: \label{pert}
711: \ee
712: where $Y^0_{ij}$ is the element of the original singular matrix.
713: This form can be justified, {\it e.g.} in the context of the Froggatt-Nielsen
714: mechanism~\cite{fn}. (The key element is the form of perturbations (\ref{pert})
715: which distinguishes the ansatz (\ref{anz}) from other possible schemes with
716: singular matrices.)
717: It has been shown that small perturbations
718: $\epsilon \leq 0.25$ are enough to explain large difference in mass hierarchies
719: and mixings of quarks and leptons \cite{dors}.
720:
721: Smallness of neutrino mass is explained by the seesaw mechanism.
722: Furthermore, nearly singular matrix of the RH neutrinos leads
723: to an enhancement of the lepton mixing~\cite{ssenh} and to flip of sign of mixing
724: angle which comes from diagonalization of the neutrino mass matrix.
725: So, the angles from the charged leptons and neutrinos sum up,
726: whereas in quark sector mixing angles from up and down quark mass matrices
727: subtract.\\
728:
729: Keeping this in mind one can consider the following
730: ``working'' hypothesis:
731:
732: \noindent
733: 1). No particular ``neutrino'' symmetry exists,
734: and in general one expects some
735: deviation of the 2-3 mixing from maximal
736: as well as non-zero 1-3 mixing.
737: Nearly maximal 2 -3 mixing would be accidental in this case.
738:
739: \noindent
740: 2). Seesaw mechanism with the scale of RH neutrino masses
741: $M \sim 10^7 - 10^{15}$ GeV explains smallness of neutrino mass.
742: The upper part of this range is close to the GU scale and can be
743: considered as
744: indication of the Grand Unification.
745:
746: \noindent
747: 3). The quark-lepton unification or Grand Unification are realized in some
748: form, e.g. $SO(10)$.
749:
750: \noindent
751: 4). The quark-lepton symmetry is (weakly) broken and
752: there are some observable consequences like $m_b = m_\tau$.
753:
754:
755: \noindent
756: 5). Large lepton mixing is a consequence of the seesaw type-I mechanism
757: - the seesaw enhancement of lepton mixing
758: due to special structure of the RH neutrino mass matrix,
759: (or/and of the contribution from the type II seesaw).
760:
761: \noindent
762: 6). Flavor symmetry or/and physics of extra dimensions determine
763: this special structure.
764:
765:
766: \subsection{Quark-lepton complementarity (QLC)}
767: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
768:
769:
770: Being confirmed the complementarity (\ref{qlcrel}) would require
771: certain modification of the picture described above \cite{qlc}.
772: The latest determination of the solar mixing angle gives
773: $
774: \theta_{12} + \theta_C = 46.7^{\circ} \pm 2.4^{\circ} ~~~(1\sigma)
775: $
776: which is consistent with maximal mixing angle within $1\sigma$.
777: Is the QLC-relation accidental or there is some physics behind,
778: that should include non-trivial quark-lepton connection?
779: The fact that for the 2-3 mixings the approximate complementarity is also
780: fulfilled hints some more serious reasons than just numerical
781: coincidence.
782:
783: A general scheme is that
784: \be
785: ``{\rm lepton~ mixing} = {\rm bi-maximal~mixing} - {\rm CKM}''.
786: \ee
787: There is a number of non-trivial conditions for the exact QLC relation
788: to be realized.
789:
790: (i) Order of rotations: apparently $U_{12}^m$ and $U_{12}^{CKM \dagger}$
791: should be attached
792: \be
793: U_{PMNS} \equiv U_L^{\dagger}U_{\nu} = ...U_{23}^m ... U_{12}^m
794: U_{12}^{CKM \dagger}
795: \label{order}
796: \ee
797: (two last rotations can be permuted). Different order leads to corrections
798: to the exact QLC relation;
799: (ii) Matrix with CP violating phases should not appear between
800: $U_{12}^{CKM \dagger}$ and $U_{12}^m$;
801: (iii) Presumably the quark-lepton symmetry
802: which leads to the QLC relation is realized at high mass scales.
803: Therefore the renormalization group effects should be small enough,
804: etc..
805:
806: Let us describe two possible scenarios which differ by origin
807: of the bi-maximal mixing and
808: lead to different predictions.
809:
810: 1). QLC1: The bi-maximal mixing is generated by the neutrino
811: mass matrix, presumably due to seesaw. The charged lepton mass matrix
812: produces the CKM mixing as a consequence of the q-l symmetry:
813: $m_l = m_d$. In this case the order of matrices (\ref{order})
814: is not realized ($U_{12}^{CKM}$ should be permuted with $U_{23}^m$),
815: and consequently the QLC relation is modified:
816: \be
817: \sin \theta_{12} = \sin (\pi/4 -\theta_C) + 0.5\sin \theta_C (\sqrt{2} -1).
818: \label{qlc1}
819: \ee
820: Numerically we find $\tan^2\theta_{12} = 0.495$ which
821: is practically indistinguishable from the tri-bimaximal mixing (fig.~\ref{12mix}a).
822:
823:
824: 2). QLC2: Maximal mixing comes from the charged lepton mass matrix
825: and the CKM mixing originates from the neutrino mass matrix due to
826: the q-l symmetry: $m_D \sim m_u$ (assuming also that in the context of seesaw
827: the RH neutrino mass matrix does not influence
828: mixing). In this case the QLC relation is satisfied precisely:
829: $\sin \theta_{12} = \sin (\pi/4 -\theta_C)$.
830: %As we have discussed in sect.
831: %the best fit experimental value is in between the QLC-I and QLC-II
832: %predictions and both are within $1\sigma$ uncertainty.
833:
834: There are two main issues related to the QLC relation:
835:
836: (1) origin of the bi-maximal mixing;
837:
838: (2) mechanism of propagation of the CKM mixing
839: from the quark to the lepton sector.
840: The problem here is large difference of mass ratios
841: in the quark and lepton sectors: $m_e/m_\mu = 0.0047$,
842: $m_d/m_s = 0.04 - 0.06$, as well as difference of masses of muon and
843: s-quark at the GU scale.
844: %So, difference of the mass eigenvalues should be
845: %reconciled with equal (close) mixings.
846: This means that mixing should weakly depend or be independent on masses.
847:
848: Mass matrices are different for quarks and leptons
849: and ``propagation'' of the CKM mixing leads to corrections
850: to the QLC relation of the order~\cite{qlc1}
851: \be
852: \Delta \theta_{12} \sim \theta_C m_d/m_s \sim 0.5 - 1.0^{\circ}.
853: \ee
854:
855: The Cabibbo mixing can be transmitted to the lepton sector in
856: more complicated way (than via the q-l symmetry).
857: In fact, $\sin \theta_C$ may turn out to be the generic parameter
858: of theory of fermion masses and therefore to appear
859: in various places: mass ratios, mixing angles.
860: The relation:
861: $\sin \theta_C \approx \sqrt{{m_{\mu}}/{m_{\tau}}}$
862: is in favor of this possibility.
863: %%
864: %On the other hand, the same relation (\ref{univtheta})
865: %may testify for that the QLC relation is accidental.
866: %Indeed, it can be written as pure leptonic relation
867: %$\theta_{12} + \theta_{\mu \tau} = \pi/4$ where, ~~~
868: %$\tan \theta_{\mu \tau} \equiv \sqrt{m_{\mu}/m_{\tau}}$.
869: %Though this relation may even be more difficult to realize.
870:
871: So, if not accidental the QLC relation may have two different
872: implications:
873: One includes the quark-lepton symmetry, existence of some additional
874: structure which produces the bi-maximal mixing, weak dependence of the
875: mixings on mass eigenvalues.
876: Alternatively, it may imply certain flavor physics with
877: $\sin \theta_C$ being the ``quantum'' of this physics.
878:
879:
880: \subsection{Screening of Dirac structure}
881: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
882:
883: The quark -lepton symmetry manifests as certain relation
884: (similarity) between the Dirac mass matrices of quarks and leptons,
885: and it is this feature which creates problem for explanation of
886: strongly different mixings and possible existence of the ``neutrino'' symmetries.
887: Let us consider an extreme case when in spite of the q-l unification,
888: the Dirac structure in the lepton sector is completely eliminated -
889: ``screened'' \cite{scre}.
890:
891: Let us introduce one heavy neutral state $S$ for each generation and
892: consider mass matrix in the basis $(\nu, N^c, S)$ of the following form
893: \be
894: m =
895: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
896: 0 & m_D & 0\\
897: m_D^T & 0 & M_D^T\\
898: 0 & M_D & M_S
899: \end{array}
900: \right).
901: \label{dss}
902: \ee
903: Here $M_S$ is the Majorana mass matrix of new fermions.
904: For $m_D \ll M_D \ll M_S$ it leads to the double (cascade)
905: seesaw mechanism~\cite{dss}:
906: \be
907: m_{\nu} = m_D^T M_D^{-1 T} M_S M_D^{-1 } m_D,
908: \label{doubless}
909: \ee
910: and $M_R = - M_D M_S^{-1} M_D^{T}$.
911: If two Dirac mass matrices are proportional each other,
912: \be
913: M_D = A^{-1} m_D, ~~~~ A \equiv v_{EW}/V_{GU},
914: \label{propo}
915: \ee
916: they cancel in (\ref{dss}) and we obtain
917: \be
918: m_{\nu} = A^2 M_S.
919: \ee
920: That is, the structure of light neutrino mass matrix is determined by
921: $M_S$ immediately and does not depend on the Dirac mass matrix.
922: In this case the seesaw mechanism provides scale of
923: neutrino masses but not
924: the flavor structure of the mass matrix.
925: It can be shown that at least in SUSY version the radiative corrections do
926: not destroy screening \cite{scre}. The relation (\ref{propo}) can be a consequence
927: of Grand Unification with extended gauge group or/and certain
928: flavor symmetry~\cite{scre}.
929:
930: Structure of the light neutrino mass matrix depends now on $M_S$ which can be
931: related to some physics at the Planck scale, and consequently lead to usual
932: neutrino properties. In particular,
933: (i) $M_S$ can be the origin of ``neutrino'' symmetry;
934: (ii) the matrix $M_S \propto I$ leads to the quasi-degenerate
935: spectrum;
936: (iii) $M_S$ can be the origin of bi-maximal or maximal mixing
937: thus leading to the QLC relation
938: if the charged lepton mass matrix generates the CKM rotation.
939:
940: %It allows to reconcile the q-l symmetry with
941: %strong difference of mixings of leptons and quarks.
942:
943:
944:
945: \section{Conclusions}
946: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
947:
948: It may happen that neutrinos prepare new surprise for us on the top of
949: existence of large mixings.
950:
951: It is difficult to construct complete theory of
952: quark and lepton masses. Still we can try
953: to answer some generic questions:
954:
955: - Is ``neutrino symmetry'' accidental or not?
956:
957: - What are relations between quarks and leptons
958: (universality, symmetry, complementarity)?
959:
960: - Do new neutrino states and their mixing with active neutrinos exist?
961:
962:
963: In a sense, we are on the cross-roads and our further advance
964: may depend on how we will answer these questions.
965: The way to answer is precision measurements of neutrino
966: parameters
967: (some benchmarks are identified), study of test equalities, searches
968: for new (sterile) neutrinos.
969: It may happen, that something important (in principles or context)
970: is still missed.
971:
972:
973: %\ack This work has been supported in part by ...
974: %It is my pleasure to thank ... for a discussion of these matters.
975:
976:
977: \section*{References}
978: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
979:
980: \bibitem{cos}U. Seljak et al.. {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 71}, 103515 (2005).
981:
982: \bibitem{hm}H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, et al, {\it Phys. Lett.} B
983: {\bf 586}, 198 (2004).
984:
985: \bibitem{sno}SNO Collaboration (B. Aharmim et al.). {\it Phys. Rev.} C
986: {\bf 72}, 055502 (2005).
987:
988: \bibitem{sv}A. Strumia, F. Vissani, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 726}, 294 (2005).
989:
990: \bibitem{bari}G. L. Fogli et al, hep-ph/0506083.
991:
992: \bibitem{orl}O. L. G. Peres, A. Yu. Smirnov, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 456}, 204
993: (1999); {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 680}, 479 (2004).
994:
995: \bibitem{concha}M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, A. Yu. Smirnov,
996: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 70}, 093005 (2004).
997:
998:
999: \bibitem{atm} Super-Kamiokande Collaboration (Y. Ashie et al.),
1000: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 71} 112005, (2005)
1001:
1002: \bibitem{T2K} Y.~Itow {\it et al.}, hep-ex/0106019.
1003:
1004:
1005: \bibitem{DC} F.~Ardellier {\it et al.},
1006: {\it ``Letter of intent for double-CHOOZ''}, hep-ex/0405032.
1007:
1008: \bibitem{suzuki}Y. Suzuki, these proceedings.
1009:
1010: \bibitem{manf}S. Antusch, et al., {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 674}, 401 (2003).
1011:
1012: \bibitem{vv}F. Vissani, M. Narayan, V. Berezinsky, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 571}, 209
1013: (2003).
1014:
1015: \bibitem{mavan}
1016: M. Kawasaki, H. Murayama and T. Yanagida,
1017: {\it Mod. Phys. Lett.} A {\bf 7}, 563 (1992);
1018: G. J. Stephenson, T. Goldman, B.H.J.McKellar,
1019: {\it Int. J. Mod. Phys.} A {\bf 13}, 2765 (1998);
1020: {\it Mod. Phys. Lett.} A {\bf 12}, 2391 (1997);
1021: R. Fardon, A. E. Nelson, N. Weiner,
1022: {\it JCAP} {\bf 0410} 005 (2004); hep-ph/0507235; D. B. Kaplan, A. E. Nelson, N.
1023: Weiner, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 93}, 091801 (2004).
1024:
1025: \bibitem{abdel}K.R.S. Balaji, A. Perez-Lorenzana, A.Yu. Smirnov,
1026: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 509}, 111 (2001).
1027:
1028: \bibitem{bim}F. Vissani, hep-ph/9708483;
1029: V.~D.~Barger, et al,
1030: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}\ B {\bf 437}, 107 (1998).
1031:
1032: \bibitem{tbm}
1033: L. Wolfenstein, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 18}, 958 (1978);
1034: P. F. Harrison, D. H. Perkins and W. G. Scott, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 458}, 79 (1999),
1035: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 530}, 167 (2002).
1036:
1037: \bibitem{mutau}
1038: T.~Fukuyama and H.~Nishiura, hep-ph/9702253; R.~N.~Mohapatra and
1039: S.~Nussinov, {\it Phys.\ Rev.}\ D {\bf 60}, 013002 (1999);
1040: E.~Ma and M.~Raidal, {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}\ {\bf 87}, 011802 (2001); C.~S.~Lam,
1041: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}\ B {\bf 507}, 214 (2001).
1042:
1043:
1044: \bibitem{zzz} H.~Fritzsch and Z.~z.~Xing,
1045: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}\ B {\bf 440}, 313 (1998); M.~Fukugita, M.~Tanimoto and
1046: T.~Yanagida, {\it Phys.\ Rev.} D {\bf 57}, 4429 (1998)
1047:
1048:
1049: \bibitem{a4}E. Ma,
1050: {\it Mod. Phys. Lett.} A {\bf 17}, 2361 (2002);
1051: E. Ma, G. Rajasekaran, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 64} 113012, (2001);
1052: K.S. Babu, E. Ma, J.W.F. Valle,
1053: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 552}, 207 (2003).
1054:
1055: \bibitem{sees} P. Minkowski, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 67} 421 (1977);
1056: T. Yanagida, in {\it Proc. of Workshop on Unified Theory and Baryon
1057: number in the Universe}, eds. O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto, KEK, Tsukuba, (1979);
1058: M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, in {\it Supergravity}, eds P.
1059: van Niewenhuizen and
1060: D. Z. Freedman (North Holland, Amsterdam 1980);
1061: P. Ramond, {\it Sanibel talk}, retroprinted as hep-ph/9809459;
1062: S. L. Glashow, in {\it Quarks and Leptons}, Carg\`ese lectures, eds M. L\'evy,
1063: (Plenum, 1980, New York) p. 707;
1064: R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi\'c, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 44}, 912 (1980).
1065:
1066:
1067: \bibitem{model} For some recent publications see:
1068: W.~Grimus and L.~Lavoura, {\it JHEP} {\bf 0508}, 013 (2005);
1069: K.~S.~Babu and X.~G.~He, hep-ph/0507217;
1070: E.~Ma, {\it Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.} A {\bf 20}, 2601 (2005).
1071:
1072: \bibitem{pati}J. C. Pati and A. Salam, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 10}, 275 (1974).
1073:
1074: \bibitem{so10}H. Georgi, {\it In Coral Gables 1979 Proceeding, Theory and experiment
1075: in high energy physics}, New York 1975, 329 and H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, Annals
1076: Phys. {\bf 93} 193 (1975).
1077:
1078:
1079: \bibitem{qlc}A. Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0402264;
1080: M. Raidal, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 93}, 161801 (2004).
1081:
1082: \bibitem{qlc1}
1083: H. Minakata, A. Yu. Smirnov, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 70},
1084: 073009 (2004).
1085:
1086: \bibitem{sing}E.~K.~Akhmedov, et al.,
1087: {\it Phys.\ Lett.}\ B {\bf 498}, 237 (2001); R. Dermisek,
1088: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 70}, 033007 (2004).
1089:
1090: \bibitem{dors}I. Dorsner, A.Yu. Smirnov,
1091: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 698}, 386 (2004).
1092:
1093: \bibitem{fn}C. D. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen,
1094: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 147}, 277 (1979).
1095:
1096:
1097: \bibitem{ssenh}A. Yu. Smirnov, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 48}, 3264 (1993).
1098:
1099: \bibitem{scre}M. Lindner, M. A. Schmidt, A. Yu. Smirnov, {\it JHEP} {\bf 0507},
1100: 048 (2005).
1101:
1102: \bibitem{dss}R. N. Mohapatra, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 56}, 561 (1986);
1103: R. N. Mohapatra and J. W. F. Valle, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 34}, 1642 (1986).
1104:
1105:
1106: \end{thebibliography}
1107: \end{document}
1108:
1109:
1110: