1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

2: \usepackage{pdproc,epsfig}

3: 

4:   %--------------------START OF DATA FILE----------------------------------

5:   \textwidth 6.0in

6:   \textheight 8.6in

7:   \pagestyle{empty}

8:   \topmargin -0.25truein

9:   \oddsidemargin 0.30truein

10:   \evensidemargin 0.30truein

11:   \parindent=1.5pc

12:   \baselineskip=15pt

13:   \def\be{\begin{equation}}

14:   \def\ee{\end{equation}}

15: 

16:   \begin{document}

17: 

18: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

19: 

20: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\alph{footnote}}

21: 

22: 

23: \title{NEUTRINO MASSES AND MIXING: LEPTONS VERSUS QUARKS

24: \footnote{Talk given at  

25: the III International Workshop on: NO-VE "Neutrinos in Venice" 

26: Fifty years after the Neutrino discovery, 

27: 7-10 Feb 2006, Venice, Italy.}}

28: 

29: \author{ALEXEI YU. SMIRNOV}

30: 

31: 

32: \address{Physik-Department T30d, Technische Universit\"at M\"unchen,

33: James-Franck-Strasse,\\ 

34: D-85748 Garching, Germany\\

35: International Centre for Theoretical Physics,  

36: Strada Costiera 11, 34014 Trieste, Italy\\

37: Institute for Nuclear Research, RAS, Moscow, Russia\\

38:  {\rm E-mail: smirnov@ictp.trieste.it, smirnov@ph.tum.de}}

39: 

40: \abstract{

41: Comparison of properties of

42: quark and leptons as well as understanding their similarities and 

43: differences is one of the milestones  

44: on the way to underlying physics. 

45: Several  observations, if not accidental,  

46: can strongly affect the implications: 

47: (i) nearly tri-bimaximal character of  lepton mixing,

48: (ii) special neutrino symmetries, (iii) the QLC-relations.

49: We consider possible connections between quarks and leptons which include  

50: the quark-lepton symmetry and unification, approximate universality,  

51: and quark-lepton complementarity.

52: Presence of new neutrino states and their mixing with

53: the left or/and  right handed neutrinos can be

54: the origin of additional differences of quarks and leptons.}

55: 

56: \normalsize\baselineskip=15pt

57: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

58: 

59: 

60: 

61: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

62: \section{Introduction}

63: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

64: 

65: %%

66: %The main focus of presentations at this workshop is on  

67: %determination of the neutrino parameters - masses, mixing angles, 

68: %CP-violating phases. In this connection, I would like to make one, 

69: %probably trivial, comment. 

70: %Clearly, the determination of parameters  is not the ultimate goal. 

71: %We want to perform  measurements of masses, mixings, phases 

72: %not just because we want to know certain numbers.  

73: %We want to know these numbers to understand eventually 

74: %the underlying physics. From this perspective it is 

75: %even good that we do not know yet 

76: %all the masses, mixings, phases:  

77: %still there is a room and time for predictions and their tests 

78: %which is the only way to convince that our theory is correct.

79: %%

80: 

81: One of the key issues on the way to underlying physics

82: is a comparison of properties of quarks and leptons and  

83: understanding their similarities and differences.

84: This comparison has two aspects of the fundamental 

85: importance:

86: 

87: \begin{itemize}

88: 

89: \item

90: understanding the fermion masses and mixings;  

91: 

92: \item

93: uncovering the path  of further unification - unification of  quarks and 

94: leptons,  particles and forces. 

95: 

96: \end{itemize}

97: 

98: %The unification can be realized

99: %in context of Grand Unified theories or immediately

100: %string theories.

101: 

102: Are quarks and leptons similar or fundamentally 

103: different? Still whole spectrum of possibilities exists 

104: from the weakly broken quark-lepton universality to 

105: existence of different  structures and  symmetries 

106: in these two sectors. 

107: 

108: 

109: In this paper we confront properties of quarks and leptons.

110: We then discuss their possible connections:

111: 

112: - symmetry and unification; 

113: 

114: - universality; 

115: 

116: - complementarity; 

117: 

118: - diversity, that is,  existence of new structures

119: which can produce difference in the two sectors. 

120: 

121: 

122: %sectors and establishing certain relations between them 

123: %may give some insight.

124: 

125: 

126: \section{Leptons versus quarks}

127: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

128: 

129: \subsection{Confronting mixing and masses}

130: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

131: 

132: 

133: To compare mixings in the quark and lepton sector we use the 

134: standard parametrization of mixing matrices: 

135: \be

136: V_{f} = V_{23} (\theta_{23})I_{\delta} V_{13}(\theta_{13}) 

137: V_{12}(\theta_{12}), ~~~~ f = CKM, ~~PMNS,   

138: \label{param}

139: \ee

140: where $V_{ij}$ is the matrix of rotations in the $ij$- plane, and 

141: $I_{\delta}$ is the diagonal matrix of the CP-violating phases.

142: (Notice that $V_{PMNS}$ corresponds to $V_{CKM}^{\dagger}$). 

143: 

144: 

145: The Table I presents  the mixing angles

146: in the quark and lepton sectors from the analysis of ref. \cite{bari}. 

147: Similar results have been obtained by other groups~\cite{sno,sv}. 

148: Shown are also the sums of the corresponding angles. 

149: Apparently, the mixing patterns in these two sectors

150: are strongly different.

151: The only common  feature is that the 1-3 mixings

152: (between the ``remote'' generations) are small in both

153: cases. 

154: 

155: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

156: \begin{table}

157: \begin{center}

158: \begin{tabular}[t]{|c|c|c|c|}

159: \hline

160: {\rule[-3mm]{0mm}{12mm}\bf angles} & {\bf quarks} & {\bf leptons} 

161: {\rule[-4mm]{0mm}{8mm}} & {\bf sum }  \\

162: \hline

163: {\rule[-5mm]{0mm}{14mm}\bf $\theta_{12}$} & 

164: $12.8^{\circ}$ & $33.9^{\circ}$ & $46.7^{\circ} \pm 2.4^{\circ}$ \\

165: \hline

166: {\rule[-5mm]{0mm}{14mm}\bf $\theta_{23}$} & 

167: $2.3^{\circ}$ & $41.6^{\circ}$ & $43.9^{\circ}~^{+ 5.1^{\circ}}_{-3.6^{\circ}}$ \\

168: \hline

169: {\rule[-5mm]{0mm}{14mm}\bf $\theta_{13}$} & 

170: $0.5^{\circ}$ & $< 8.0^{\circ}$ & $< 8.5^{\circ}$ \\

171: \hline

172: \end{tabular}

173: \caption{The best fit  values of mixing angles in the quark and lepton sectors at $m_Z$ scale in degrees.  

174: Shown are also the sums of the angles with $1\sigma$ error bars. 

175: }

176: \end{center}

177: \end{table}

178: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

179: 

180: Several comments  are in order. 

181: 

182: The b.f. value of the 1-2 mixing angle, 

183: %from the SNO~\cite{sno} analysis equals

184: $\theta_{12} = 33.9^{\circ}$,  deviates from the 

185: maximal mixing by more than $6\sigma$ \cite{sno}.   

186: 

187: 

188: The 2-3 mixing is consistent  with  maximal one.

189: A small shift of $\theta_{23}$ from $45^{\circ}$ 

190: is related to the  excess of 

191: e-like atmospheric neutrino events in the sub-GeV range detected by 

192: SuperKamiokande (SK) \cite{atm}. 

193: It has been found when effects of 1-2 sector were included 

194: in the analysis \cite{orl}.  

195: According to \cite{concha}

196: $\sin^2\theta_{23} = 0.47$ and slightly larger

197: shift, $\sin^2\theta_{23} = 0.44$,  follows from the analysis \cite{bari}. 

198: The deviation of the b.f. value from maximal mixing 

199: is characterized by    

200: \be

201: D_{23} \equiv 0.5 - \sin^2\theta_{23} = 0.03 - 0.06. 

202: \ee

203: 

204: Still large deviation  is allowed:

205: $- 0.17 < D_{23} < 0.21$ and relative shift can be as large as 

206: \be

207: D_{23}/\sin^2\theta_{23} \sim 0.4 ~~~(2\sigma). 

208: \ee

209: 

210: The 1-3 leptonic mixing is consistent with zero. 

211: The most conservative $3\sigma$ bound is $\sin^2 \theta_{13} < 0.048$

212: \cite{bari}, and at $1\sigma$ we have $\sin \theta_{13} < 0.13$.  

213: The 1-3 mixing is small in a sense that 

214: \be

215: \sin \theta_{13} \ll  \sin \theta_{12} \sin \theta_{23} \approx 0.37. 

216: \ee

217: So,  apparently the quark feature 

218: $\theta_{13} \sim \theta_{12} \times \theta_{23}$

219: does not work here.

220: Another interesting benchmarks is the ratio of the

221: solar and atmospheric neutrino mass scales, 

222: \be

223: \sin \theta_{13} = \sqrt{r} \equiv 

224: \sqrt{\frac{\Delta m_{21}^2}{\Delta m_{31}^2}} = 

225: 0.17,   

226: \ee

227: which  is allowed at about $2\sigma$ level. An 

228: additional (model dependent) factor of the order 0.3 - 2   

229: may appear in this relation. 

230: Much smaller values of $\sin \theta_{13}$ would

231: imply most probably certain symmetry of the mass matrix.\\ 

232: 

233: 

234: Let us consider now the masses. 

235: 

236: The latest analysis of the cosmological data 

237: (including the WMAP 3 years result) gives the upper bound 

238: on the sum of masses of active neutrinos~\cite{Uros06}  

239: \be

240: \sum_i m_i < 0.14~{\rm eV},~~~ 95\%  {\rm C.L}. 

241: \label{cosmbound}

242: \ee

243: which already starts to disfavor the degenerate spectrum of neutrinos. 

244:  

245: %%%%%%%%%ffff3%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

246: \begin{figure}

247: \vspace*{13pt}

248: %\leftline{\hfill\vbox{\hrule width 7cm height0.001pt}\hfill}

249: \begin{center}

250: \mbox{\epsfig{figure=mass.eps,width=8.0cm}}

251: \end{center}

252: %\vspace*{1.4truein}             %ORIGINAL SIZE=1.6TRUEIN x 100% - 0.2TRUEIN

253: %\leftline{\hfill\vbox{\hrule width 5cm height0.001pt}\hfill}

254: \caption{Mass hierarchies of quarks and leptons.

255: The mass of heaviest fermion of a given type is taken to be 1.}

256: \label{ratios}

257: \end{figure}

258: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

259: 

260: On the other hand, if the Heidelberg-Moscow result~\cite{hm} is confirmed 

261: and if it is due to exchange of the light Majorana neutrinos,  the 

262: neutrino mass spectrum should be strongly degenerate with 

263: a common mass $m_0 \sim (0.2 - 0.6)$ eV. This would be in conflict with 

264: the bound (\ref{cosmbound}). 

265: 

266: 

267: The solar and the atmospheric mass differences squared 

268: give the lower bound on ratio of the second and third neutrino masses: 

269: \be

270: \frac{m_2}{m_3} \geq \sqrt{r} 

271: = 0.15 - 0.20.

272: \label{ratiom}

273: \ee

274: This should be compared with ratios for charged leptons and quarks (at $m_Z$

275: scale):

276: $m_\mu/m_\tau =  0.06$, $m_s/m_b = 0.02 - 0.03$,  $m_c/m_t = 0.005$.

277: Apparently, the neutrino hierarchy (\ref{ratiom})  is the weakest one.

278: This is consistent with possible mass-mixing relation: 

279: large mixings are associated to weak mass  hierarchy.

280: 

281: In fig.~\ref{ratios} we show the mass ratios for three generations.

282: The strongest hierarchy and geometric relation $m_u \times m_t \sim m_c^2$

283: exist for the upper quarks.  It seems the observed pattern  

284: of masses is an  interplay of some regularities (flavor alignment) and randomness 

285: (``anarchy'').

286: That may indicate the perturbative picture when 

287: the lowest order masses and  mixing are universal,  whereas corrections 

288: have more complicated (``random'') flavor structure. 

289: 

290: In what follows we will discuss certain observed features 

291: which can strongly affect 

292: interpretation of the results. 

293: 

294: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

295: \subsection{Tri-bimaximal mixing} 

296: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

297: 

298: Experimental results are in a very good agreement with the so called 

299: tri-bimaximal mixing \cite{tbm}. 

300: The corresponding mixing matrix is 

301: \be

302: U_{tbm} = U_{23}^m U_{12}(\theta_{12}) =  

303: \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}

304: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}

305: 2 & \sqrt{2} & 0\\

306: -1 & \sqrt{2} & \sqrt{3}\\

307:  1 & - \sqrt{2} & \sqrt{3}

308: \end{array}

309: \right), 

310: \label{tbimax}

311: \ee

312: where $\sin^2 \theta_{12} = 1/3$ is about $1\sigma$ larger than  the best   

313: experimental fit value.    

314: Here $\nu_2$ is tri-maximally mixed: 

315: in the middle column three flavors mix maximally,

316: whereas  $\nu_3$ (third column) is bi-maximally mixed.

317: Mixing parameters turn out to be some simple

318: numbers $0,~ 1/\sqrt{3},~ 1/\sqrt{2}$ and can appear as Clebsh-Gordan 

319: coefficients. 

320: 

321: In the case of normal mass hierarchy ($m_1 \approx 0$)

322: the mass matrix which leads to the tri-bimaximal mixing 

323: has the following form 

324: \begin{equation}

325: m_{\nu} \approx 

326: \frac{m_3}{2} 

327: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}

328: 0 & 0 & 0\\

329: 0 & 1 & - 1\\

330: 0 & - 1 & 1

331: \end{array}

332: \right) +

333: %\frac{\sqrt{\Delta m_{21}^2}}{3}

334: \frac{m_2}{3}

335: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}

336: 1 & 1 & 1\\

337: 1 & 1 & 1\\

338: 1 & 1 & 1

339: \end{array}

340: \right), 

341: \label{tribi}

342: \end{equation}

343: where $m_2 \approx \sqrt{\Delta m_{21}^2}$ and $m_3 \approx \sqrt{\Delta 

344: m_{31}^2}$. It is the sum of two singular matrices 

345: with certain symmetries. The later gives a  hint of its origin. 

346: 

347: Matrix (\ref{tbimax}) was motivated by certain geometric consideration. 

348: If description of the data by (\ref{tbimax}) is not accidental 

349: and certain principle/symmetry is behind, we should conclude on  

350: substantial differences in the quark and lepton sectors.  

351: Though some models have been  constructed which reproduce the 

352: tri-bimaximal mixing and  include also quark~\cite{model}. 

353: 

354: \subsection{Complementarity}

355: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

356: 

357: According to the Table I, the sums of the mixing  angles of quarks 

358: and leptons for the 1-2 and 2-3 generations agree with $45^{\circ}$. 

359: The quark and lepton mixings sum up to maximal mixing \cite{qlc,qlc1}. 

360: Possible implications of this result called  

361: the quark-lepton complementarity relation (QLC) 

362: will be considered in sect. 3.3. 

363: Notice that the QLC relations written for angles are

364: are essentially parametrization independent. Indeed, 

365: due to smallness of 1-3 mixings in the quark and lepton sectors 

366: the relations can be written as 

367: $\arcsin(V_{us}) + \arcsin(V_{e2}) = \pi/4$. 

368: The mixing matrix elements $V_{us}$ and  $V_{e2}$ are  

369: physical parameters.

370: 

371: 

372: \subsection{Neutrino symmetry}

373: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

374: 

375: 

376: Several observations may testify for special symmetry(ies)

377: associated to neutrinos. In particular, 

378: \begin{itemize}

379: 

380: \item

381: maximal or nearly maximal 2-3 mixing, 

382: 

383: \item

384: zero 1-3 mixing,  

385: 

386: \end{itemize} 

387: both indicate toward the same underlying symmetry. 

388: Both features  

389: can be consequences of the $\nu_{\mu} - \nu_{\tau}$ permutation symmetry of the 

390: neutrino mass matrix \cite{mutau} in the flavor basis.

391: The permutation symmetry can be  a part of, {\it e.g.},  discrete $S_3$,  

392: $A_4$ or $D_4$ groups which in turn,  are the subgroups of continuous 

393: SO(3).

394: 

395: Important fact is that the symmetry is realized for neutrinos only, and

396: only in the flavor basis where the charge lepton

397: mass matrix is diagonal. The symmetry is 

398: broken in the charged lepton sector by 

399: inequality of masses of muon and tau lepton.

400: Realization of this symmetry in specific gauge models

401: faces some generic problems. 

402: Model should be constructed in such a way that  the symmetry

403: is weakly broken in the neutrino sector but

404: strongly broken for the charged leptons. 

405: This implies  different transformation properties of the

406: right handed components of neutrinos and charged

407: leptons, since the left components form the SU(2) doublets. 

408: This, in turn,  contradicts the L-R symmetry,   

409: and consequently, the $SO(10)$ type of unification. 

410: Still such symmetry transformations can be consistent with the

411: $SU(5)$  unification. Alternatively, one can consider

412: more sophisticated fermionic or/and Higgs sectors.

413: 

414: It is also non-trivial to extend the symmetry

415: to the quark sector which  prevents from any simple Grand Unification.

416: A modification of the

417: $\nu_\mu \leftrightarrow \nu_\tau$ symmetry

418: has been proposed recently that

419: can be  the universal symmetry of quarks

420: and leptons \cite{anj05}.

421: The symmetry is formulated in the basis which

422: differs from the flavor basis and therefore

423: should be considered as the $2-3$ family symmetry.

424: It is argued that beside maximal (large) 2-3 leptonic

425: mixing, smallnes of the

426: $V_{cb}$ element of the CKM-mixing matrix testifies

427: for this symmetry as well.  

428: 

429: The 2-3 symmetry implies the following universal

430: form of the mass matrices:

431: \be

432: M = 

433: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}

434: X & A & A\\

435: A & B &  C\\

436: A & C & B

437: \end{array}

438: \right) + \delta m, 

439: \label{muniv}

440: \ee

441: where small corrections, $\delta m \ll B$,  are  of the same order for

442: leptons and quarks.

443: 

444: The 2-3 symmetry does not contradict

445: mass hierarchy which depends on particular

446: values of parameters in the matrix (\ref{muniv}).

447: To get the hierarchical mass spectrum of the charged

448: fermions (quarks and leptons) one should take

449: \be

450: B_{q,l} \approx C_{q,l}, ~~~~ X_{q,l} \ll A_{q,l}

451: \ll B_{q,l}.

452: \label{cond1}

453: \ee

454: The corresponding matrices are diagonalized by

455: nearly maximal 2-3 rotation. The physical

456: CKM mixing is small

457: (zero in the limit $\delta m \rightarrow 0$).

458: Large lepton mixing

459: requires small 2-3 rotation from the neutrino mass matrix.

460: This can be achieved if

461: \be

462: C_{\nu} \ll B_{\nu}, ~~~

463: C_{\nu} < |\delta m_{22} - \delta m_{33}|.

464: \label{cond2}

465: \ee

466: Furthermore, correct neutrino mass split can be obtained 

467: if   $X_{\nu} \approx B$, and 

468: neutrinos have quasi-degenerate spectrum. 

469: So, essentially the mass matrices of neutrinos and

470: charged fermions are strongly different; moreover,

471: large lepton mixing is not the consequence of the

472: 2-3 symmetry but result of tuning of paremeters

473: of the zero order matrix and corrections. 

474: Apparently additional symmetries/principles should be

475: introduced to explain properties

476: (\ref{cond1}, \ref{cond2}).\\

477: 

478: 

479: Generic feature is that

480: introduction of symmetry is motivated by  maximal

481: or nearly maximal lepton mixing. However

482: realizations of the symmetry in a majority of

483: gauge models show that

484: large mixing appears eventually as a result of tuning

485: of parameters and {\it not as consequence of symmetry}.

486: %Result does not correspond to expectation. 

487: This clearly makes whole context to be inconsistent.

488: 

489: 

490: Two remarks are in order.  

491: 

492: (i) Symmetry is realized in terms of the

493: mass (Yukawa coupling) matrices.

494: It turns out that  structure of the mass matrix is very sensitive to

495: even small deviations of the 2-3 mixing from

496: maximal and 1-3 mixing from zero.

497: Taking the best fit values of parameters from \cite{bari}

498: $\sin^2 \theta_{13} = 0.01$, $\sin^2 \theta_{23} = 0.44$, 

499: we obtain the matrix of the absolute values of masses in meV \cite{renata}:

500: \be

501: M =

502: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}

503: 3.2 & 6.0 & 0.6\\

504: ... & 24.8  &  21.4\\

505: ... & ... & 30.7

506: \end{array}

507: \right) 

508: \label{mnum}

509: \ee

510: which should be compared with the symmetry matrix

511: (\ref{muniv}). Notice that in contrast to (\ref{muniv}) the 12 and 13 elements

512: are strongly different and 33- element is greater than  22 element  by

513: $20-25 \% $.

514: 

515: (ii) The present measurements

516: admit substantial deviations of $\theta_{23}$ from

517: maximal and $\theta_{13}$ from zero.

518: That, in turn,  allows even stronger deviation

519: of the matrix from the symmetric form.

520: 

521: So, it is not excluded that neutrino symmetry approach is simply misleading.  

522:  

523: 

524: \subsection{Additional structure?}

525: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

526: 

527: The features discussed above: tri-bimaximal mixing, 

528: neutrino symmetry, quark-lepton complementarity 

529: may indicate that quarks and leptons are 

530: fundamentally different and some additional structures exist 

531: that  lead to this difference. 

532: 

533: The main question here is whether

534: these features/relations are real or accidental?

535: ``Real'' in a sense that simple and direct  symmetry 

536: or principle exist which lead to the relations. 

537: ``Accidental'' in a sense  that relations are an interplay (sum)

538: of several independents effects or contributions. 

539: 

540: 

541: Quarks and leptons have similar gauge structure,

542: which establishes clear correspondence of the

543: leptons and quarks. On the other hand, the quarks

544: and leptons have strongly different

545: mass and mixing patterns. 

546: 

547: The hope is that all particular features

548: of neutrino mass spectrum  and lepton mixing

549: can be reduced eventually to the neutrality of neutrinos: zero

550: electric and color charges.

551: This neutrality opens unique possibility for neutrinos 

552: to 

553: 

554: -  have the Majorana mass terms, and

555: 

556: -  mix with singlets of the SM symmetry group.

557: 

558: Both features are realized in the seesaw mechanism~\cite{sees}.

559: As we will see,  the second one

560: may have two different effects:

561: (i) modify the mass matrix of active neutrinos,

562: (ii) produce certain  dynamical effects 

563: on the neutrino conversion

564: (if new states are light).  

565: 

566: Is this enough to explain all 

567: salient properties of neutrinos?

568: Do the data really indicate existence of new

569: physics structure

570: (new particles, interactions, symmetries)? 

571: Is this additional structure the seesaw, 

572: or something beyond seesaw is involved?

573: 

574: In this connection a general context could

575: be that beyond the SM apart from the RH neutrinos

576: some other fermions (singlets of the SM symmetry group)

577: exist. These fermions can have various origins

578: in physics beyond the SM, being related  to

579: Grand Unification, supersymmetry, existence of extra dimension,

580: {\it etc.}. Existence of large number of singlets 

581: is a generic consequence of string theory.  

582: Masses of these singlets

583: can be essentially at any scale, from zero to the Planck  mass.

584: They can mix in general with both  LH and

585: RH neutrino components.

586: 

587: The singlets and their mixing  with SM neutrinos

588: may be a missed structure which

589: explains the difference of quark and lepton properties on the top of strong 

590: interactions. 

591: 

592: \section{Quark-lepton connections}

593: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

594: 

595: 

596: \subsection{Quark-lepton symmetry}

597: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

598: 

599: There is an apparent correspondence between quarks and leptons. 

600: Each quark has its own counterpartner in the leptonic sector.  

601: Leptons can be treated as the 4th color 

602: following the Pati-Salam $SU(4)_C$ unification symmetry  \cite{pati}.

603: 

604: Further unification  is possible, 

605: when  quarks and leptons form multiplets of larger gauge group.

606: The most appealing possibility is SO(10) \cite{so10}, 

607: where all known components of quarks and leptons

608: as well as  the RH neutrinos form unique 16-plet.

609: It is difficult to believe that these features are accidental.

610: Though, it is not excluded that the

611: quark-lepton connection has rather  complicated form. 

612: %{\it e.g.}, of the quark - lepton complementarity \cite{qlc,qlc1}. 

613: 

614: The quark-lepton symmetry is not equivalent to

615: the quark-lepton unification. Indeed, in the $SU(5)$ GU models

616: the quark-lepton correspondence

617: ($\nu \leftrightarrow u $, $d \leftrightarrow l$)

618: is explicitly broken by different $SU(5)$-gauge transformation

619: properties: $u, u^c \sim {\bf 10}$, 

620: whereas  $\nu \sim {\bf \bar 5}$, $\nu^c \sim {\bf 1}$, then 

621: $d \sim {\bf 10}$, $d^c \sim {\bf \bar 5}$ but $l \sim {\bf \bar 5}$,  

622: $l^c \sim {\bf 10}$. This unification leads to diversity which  is not seen 

623: in the low energy effective theory. 

624: 

625: The difference of the gauge properties

626: %(if flavor physics is above the GUT scale) 

627: can lead to

628: 

629: (i) different mass hierarchies of upper and down quarks,

630: and also charge leptons and neutrinos~\cite{babu}; 

631: 

632: (ii) different mixings of quarks and leptons. In fact, the 

633: loopsided mechanism of large mixing realizes this

634: possibility~\cite{loopside}.\\

635: 

636: 

637: Generically, GUT's provide with all ingredients

638: necessary for the seesaw mechanism:

639: 

640: - RH neutrino components;

641: 

642: - large mass scale;

643: 

644: - lepton number violation.

645: 

646: 

647: Besides this, generically GUT's 

648: give  relations between masses and mixings of leptons and quarks.

649: They lead to equalities of  masses if a 

650: single Higgs multiplet is involved in the Yukawa couplings, with 

651: well  known example being  the $b-\tau$ unification,

652: $m_b \approx m_\tau$,  at the GUT scale.

653: %\footnote{Notice the latest determination

654: %shows some

655: In general, when several different Higgs

656: multiplets are involved, one gets ``sum rules''

657: between masses and mixings of quarks and leptons \cite{sumrule}.

658: 

659: However,   GUT's do not explain the flavor structures.

660: Apart from some exceptional cases

661: ({\it e.g.}, antisymmetric

662: representations) no flavor structure is produced by

663: GUT's. Existing attempts to combine GUT's and

664: various horizontal or family symmetries (especially

665: neutrino symmetries) 

666: have not produced yet substantial results.

667: 

668: 

669: 

670: 

671: 

672: 

673: \subsection{Quark-lepton universality}

674: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

675: 

676: Can we speak on the quark-lepton universality in a complete

677: theory, in spite of big differences of mass and mixing patterns? 

678: Is it possible that not only the gauge but also 

679: Yukawa interactions of quark and leptons are very similar?

680: 

681: The idea behind is that the matrix of Yukawa couplings, 

682: $Y$, has the following form

683: \be

684: Y = Y_0 + \delta Y_f, ~~~~ f = u, d, D, l,

685: \ee

686: where  $\delta Y_f \ll Y_0$ and $Y_0$ is the universal

687: matrix for all fermions.

688: The similarity  (universality)  of quarks and leptons 

689: is realized in terms of the matrices 

690: of Yukawa couplings and not of observables - mass ratios and

691: mixing angles. 

692: The key point is that similar mass matrices can lead to

693: substantially different mixing angles and masses (eigenvalues)

694: if the matrices are nearly singular (rank-1) \cite{sing,dors}. 

695: The singular matrices are ``unstable''

696: in a sense that small perturbations can lead to strong variations of

697: mass ratios and mixing angles (the latter -  in the context of seesaw).

698: 

699: Let us consider the universal structure for the mass matrices

700: of all quarks and leptons \cite{dors}:

701: \be

702: Y_u \sim Y_d \sim Y_D \sim Y_M \sim Y_l \sim Y_0, 

703: \ee

704: where  $Y_D$ is the Dirac type neutrino Yukawa matrix,

705: $Y_M$ is the Majorana type matrix for the RH neutrinos

706: and  $Y_0$ is the singular matrix. As an important example we take

707: \be

708: Y_0 =  

709: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}

710: \lambda^4 & \lambda^3 & \lambda^2\\

711: \lambda^3 & \lambda^2 & \lambda\\

712: \lambda^2 & \lambda & 1

713: \end{array}

714: \right), ~~~~ \lambda \sim 0.2 - 0.3.

715: \label{anz}

716: \ee

717: %Apparently $det Y_0 = 0$ as well as determinants of submatrices are zero.

718: This matrix has only one non-zero eigenvalue and no physical mixing 

719: appears at this stage. 

720: 

721: Let us introduce perturbations,  $\epsilon$, in the following form

722: \be

723: Y^f_{ij} = Y^0_{ij} (1 + \epsilon_{ij}^f), ~~~ f = u, d, e, \nu, N ,

724: \label{pert}

725: \ee

726: where $Y^0_{ij}$ is the element of the original singular matrix.

727: This form can be justified, {\it  e.g.}, in context of the Froggatt-Nielsen

728: mechanism~\cite{fn}. (The key element is the form of perturbations (\ref{pert})

729: which distinguishes the ansatz (\ref{anz}) from other possible schemes with 

730: singular matrices.) 

731: It has been shown that small perturbations

732: $\epsilon \leq 0.25$ are enough  to explain large difference in mass hierarchies

733: and mixings of quarks and leptons \cite{dors}.

734: 

735: The seesaw plays crucial role here:

736: It generates not only small  neutrino masses

737: but also large lepton mixing. Indeed,

738: according to the seesaw $m \propto M_R^{-1}$, and  

739: nearly singular matrix of the RH neutrinos leads

740: to enhancement of the lepton mixing~\cite{ssenh}.  

741: %and to flip of sign of mixing

742: %angle which comes from diagonalization of the neutrino mass matrix.

743: %As a consequence, the angles from the charged leptons and neutrinos sum up, 

744: %whereas in quark sector mixing angles from up and down quark mass matrices

745: %subtract. 

746: 

747: In this approach maximal lepton mixing is accidental.\\

748: 

749: The quark-lepton universality can be introduced differently as 

750: universality of the {\it mixing matrices} \cite{JS}.  

751: %(In the lowest order that should be equivalent to certain universality 

752: %of the mass matrices.) 

753: One can postulate that in certain ``universality''

754: basis in the first approximation the mass matrices

755: of all fermions are diagonalized by the same matrix

756: $V$ or its charge conjugate $V^*$.

757: 

758: Such a possibility  is inspired  by the $SU(5)$ unification

759: where leptons and down antiquarks enter the same

760: 5-plet. All the matrices but the matrix for

761: the charged leptons, $M_l$,  are diagonalized by $V$:

762: \be

763: V^{\dagger} M_f V = D_f, ~~~~f = u, d, \nu , 

764: \label{udn}

765: \ee

766: where $D_f$ are  the diagonal mass matrices. For the

767: charged leptons we have

768: \be

769: V^T M_l V^* = D_l.

770: \label{lll}

771: \ee

772: From (\ref{udn}) and (\ref{lll})

773: one obtains  the SU(5) relation: $M_l = M_d^T$.

774: (Another version is when

775: neutrino mass matrix is diagonalized by $V^*$.) 

776: 

777: According to (\ref{udn}, \ref{lll}) in the first approximation one obtains

778: for the physical mixing matrices

779: \be

780: V_{CKM} = V^{\dagger} V = I, ~~~~

781: V_{PMNS} = V^{T} V.

782: \label{mixmat}

783: \ee

784: The quark mixing is absent, whereas the lepton mixing

785: is non-trivial and can be large.

786: 

787: 

788: In general, the upper and down

789: fermions are diagonalized by different matrices

790: $V'$ and $V$. In this case we obtain

791: \be

792: V_{CKM} = V^{'\dagger} V, ~~~~

793: V_{PMNS} = V^{T} V'. 

794: \label{mixmatgen}

795: \ee

796: Now the quark mixing is non-zero in the lowest

797: order. Furthermore, (\ref{mixmatgen}) leads to

798: the following relation between mixing matrices:

799: \be

800: V_{PMNS} =  V^{T} V V_{CKM}^{\dagger}.

801: \label{mixcomp}

802: \ee

803: So, the quark and lepton mixings are

804: complementary to $V_{PMNS}^0 = V^{T} V$.

805: The  matrix  $V_{PMNS}^0$ is symmetric and characterized

806: by two angles $\phi_1 /2$ and $\phi_2$. It is close to phenomenological

807: matrix for relatively small values of the angles:  

808: $\phi_1/2 \sim \phi_2 \sim 20 - 25^{\circ}$.

809: With the CKM type corrections, as in eq. (\ref{mixcomp}), 

810: $V_{PMNS}$ gives good description of data and predicts $\sin \theta_{13} > 0.08$

811: \cite{JS}.

812: 

813: The universal mixing can originate from the  mass matrices

814: of  particular form which are related to the

815: universal real matrix $A$:

816: \be

817: M_{u,\nu} \approx m D^* A D^*, ~~~

818: M_{d} \approx m D^* A D, ~~~

819: M_{l} \approx m D A D^* .

820: \ee

821: Here $D \equiv diag(1, i, 1)$.

822: It happens that the phenomenologically required

823: structure of the matrix $A$ is very similar to that

824: in (\ref{anz}).  Such structures can be embedded into

825: $SU(5)$ and $SO(10)$ models \cite{JS}.

826: 

827: 

828: \subsection{Quark-lepton complementarity (QLC)}

829: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

830: 

831: As it was mentioned in sec. 2.3,  within $1\sigma$  the data are in agreement with 

832: the 

833: quark-lepton complementary relations   

834: \be

835: \theta_{12} + \theta_C  = \frac{\pi}{4}, ~~~~~  

836: \theta_{23} + \arcsin V_{cb}  = \frac{\pi}{4},  

837: %45^{\circ},

838: \label{qlcrel}

839: \ee

840: %The latest determination of the solar mixing angle gives

841: %$

842: %\theta_{12} + \theta_C = 46.7^{\circ} \pm 2.4^{\circ}  ~~~(1\sigma)

843: %$

844: %which is consistent with maximal mixing angle within $1\sigma$.

845: %Is the QLC-relation accidental or there is some physics behind, 

846: %that should include non-trivial quark-lepton connection?

847: 

848: For various reasons it is difficult to expect exact

849: equalities (\ref{qlcrel}). However certain correlation clearly shows up:

850: 

851: \begin{itemize}

852: 

853: \item

854: the 2-3 leptonic mixing is close to maximal one because

855: the 2-3 quark mixing is very small; 

856: 

857: \item

858: the 1-2 leptonic mixing deviates from maximal one

859: substantally because the 1-2 quark mixing ({\it i.e.}, Cabibbo

860: angle) is relatively large.

861: 

862: \end{itemize}

863: 

864: Can it  be accidental?  A general scheme for the QLC relations is that

865: \be

866: ``{\rm lepton~ mixing} =  {\rm bi-maximal~mixing} - {\rm CKM}'',  

867: \ee

868: where the bi-maximal mixing matrix is~\cite{bim}:

869: \be

870: U_{bm} = U_{23}^m U_{12}^m =  

871: \frac{1}{2}

872: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}

873: \sqrt{2} & \sqrt{2} & 0\\

874: -1 & 1 & \sqrt{2}\\

875: 1 & - 1 & \sqrt{2}

876: \end{array}

877: \right). 

878: \label{bimax}

879: \ee

880: Here $U_{ij}^m$ is maximal mixing rotation in the $ij$-plane. 

881: %$U_{bm}$ can play a role of dominant structure

882: %or matrix in the lowest order.  

883: 

884: Let us consider two possible QLC scenarios which differ by  origin

885: of the bi-maximal mixing and lead to different predictions.

886: 

887: 

888: 1). QLC1: The bi-maximal mixing is generated by the neutrino

889: mass matrix, presumably due to  seesaw. The charged lepton mass matrix

890: produces  the CKM mixing as a consequence of the q-l symmetry:

891: $m_l \approx m_d$. Therefore 

892: \be

893: U_{PMNS} = U_{CKM}^{\dagger} \Gamma_{\alpha} U_{bm},

894: \label{qlc1mat}

895: \ee

896: where $\Gamma_{\alpha} \equiv diag(1, 1, e^{i\alpha})$ is the  phase 

897: matrix which appears in general at diagonalization. 

898: In this case exact relation (\ref{qlcrel}) is not realized since the 

899: $U_{12}^{CKM}$ rotation matrix should be permuted with $U_{23}^m$ 

900: in (\ref{qlc1mat}) to reduce (\ref{qlc1mat}) to the standard parametrization form 

901: (\ref{param}).  

902: As a consequence, the QLC relation is modified: 

903: \be

904: \sin \theta_{12} = \sin (\pi/4 -\theta_C) + 

905: 0.5 \sin \theta_C (\sqrt{2} -1 - V_{cb} \cos \alpha). 

906: \label{qlc1}

907: \ee

908: Numerically (without the RGE effects) we find $\sin^2\theta_{12} = 0.3345$ 

909: for $\alpha \sim 90^{\circ}$ and   $\sin^2\theta_{12} = 0.330$ for  $\alpha = 0$.

910: This is practically indistinguishable from the tri-bimaximal mixing 

911: prediction  $\sin^2\theta_{12} = 0.3333$.

912: 

913: Let us stress that practically the  same predictions for 1-2 mixing are obtained 

914: from 

915: two different combinations of matrices:  

916: \be

917: U_{23}^m U_{12}(\arcsin(1/\sqrt{3}))~~~~ {\rm and} ~~~~U_{12}(\theta_C)U_{23}^m 

918: U_{12}^m    

919: \ee

920: which are completely independent. 

921: Therefore an equality of the predictions is 

922: just accidental coincidence.  This means that one of the two approaches 

923: (QLC1 or tri-bimaximal mixing) is wrong. 

924: To some extend that can be tested by measuring the 1-3 mixing.  

925: In the QLC1-scenario one obtains

926: \be

927: \sin^2 \theta_{13} = 0.5 \sin^2 \theta_C \approx 0.0245,  

928: \ee

929: whereas the tri-bimaximal mixing implies  $\sin^2 \theta_{13} = 0$

930: unless some corrections are introduced.\\ 

931: 

932: 

933: 2). QLC2: Maximal mixing comes from the charged lepton mass matrix

934: and the CKM mixing originates from the neutrino mass matrix due to

935: the q-l symmetry: $m_D \sim m_u$ (assuming also that in the context of seesaw

936: the RH neutrino mass matrix does not influence 

937: mixing). Consequently, 

938: \be

939: U_{PMNS} = U_{bm} \Gamma_{\alpha} U_{CKM}^{\dagger}. 

940: \ee

941: In this case the QLC relation for 1-2 mixing is satisfied precisely:

942: $\sin \theta_{12} = \sin (\pi/4 -\theta_C)$. 

943: Now $\sin^2 \theta_{13}  \approx  \sin^2 \theta_{12} V_{cb}^2$ is extremely 

944: small.

945: 

946: 

947: All three predictions for 1-2 mixing (from QLC1, QLC2 and tri-bimaximal mixing) 

948: are within $1\sigma$ errors from the b.f. point. The tri-bimaximal mixing 

949: and  QLC1 predictions almost coincide,  the b.f. value is in between

950: the QLC2 and two other predictions: $\theta_{12}(QLC2) < \theta_{12}^{exp} < \theta_{12}(QLC1) \approx \theta_{12}(tbm)$.

951: To disentangle these two possibilities

952: one needs to measure the 1-2 mixing with accuracy

953: $\Delta \theta_{12} \sim  1^{\circ}$ or

954: $\Delta \sin^2 \theta_{12} \sim  0.015$ ($5\%$).\\

955: 

956: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

957: 

958: There are two main issues related to the QLC relations:

959: 

960: (1) origin of the bi-maximal mixing; 

961: 

962: (2) mechanism of propagation  of the CKM mixing 

963: from the quark sector  to the  lepton one.

964: The problem here is big  difference of mass ratios

965: of the quarks and leptons:  $m_e/m_\mu = 0.0047$, 

966: $m_d/m_s = 0.04 - 0.06$,  as well as difference of masses of muon and

967: s-quark at the GU scale. 

968: %So,  difference of the mass eigenvalues should be

969: %reconciled with equal (close) mixings. 

970: This means that mixing should weakly depend on or be independent of masses. 

971: 

972: So, if not accidental,  the QLC relation may have the 

973: following implications:

974: 

975: - the  quark-lepton symmetry, 

976: 

977: - existence of some additional

978: structure which produces the bi-maximal mixing, 

979: 

980: - mass matrices with weak correlation of the mixing angles and  mass eigenvalues. 

981: 

982: Alternatively, it may imply certain flavor physics with

983: $\sin \theta_C$ being  the ``quantum'' of this physics.

984: 

985: In majority of  models  proposed so far,  the approximate 

986: QLC relation appears as a result of interplay of different independent 

987: factors or as sum of several independent contributions. 

988: From this point of view the QLC relation is accidental. 

989: 

990: 

991: 

992: 

993: \section{Effects of new neutrino states}

994: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

995: 

996: Effects of new neutrino states (singlets of the SM symmetry group) 

997: depend on their masses.

998: Superheavy new states essentially decouple.

999: %An important  criteria is that $M_S \gg Q$,

1000: %where $Q$ is typical energy release

1001: %in the neutrino processes. Here we can take $Q \sim m_W$ -

1002: %the mass of the $W$-boson. (One consider also  production

1003: %of even heavier neutrinos  in  the high energy collisions.)

1004: These states are not produced in laboratory experiments,

1005: but they  can lead to  indirect effects:

1006: 

1007: - modify substantially the

1008: mass matrix of active neutrinos; 

1009: 

1010: - violate  universality of

1011: the weak interactions, 

1012: {\it etc.}.

1013: 

1014: For relatively small masses,   

1015: say $M_S \ll  m_W$, 

1016: these new states can be produced in reactions

1017: thus leading to direct effects but also

1018: they modify the mass matrix of active neutrinos.

1019: Light new states with $m_S \sim m_{\nu}$ can lead to  non-trivial 

1020: oscillation effects.

1021: 

1022: Here we consider two applications of

1023: possible existence of new neutrinos states. They  realize 

1024: an idea that these states play the role of 

1025: additional structures which lead to

1026: substantial difference of quark

1027: and lepton properties.

1028: 

1029: 

1030: 

1031: \subsection{Screening of Dirac structure}

1032: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1033: 

1034: %The quark -lepton symmetry manifests  as certain relation

1035: %(similarity) between the Dirac mass matrices of quarks and leptons,

1036: %and it is this  feature which creates problem for explanation of

1037: %strongly different mixings and possible existence of the ``neutrino'' symmetries.

1038: %Let us  consider an extreme case when in spite of the q-l unification, 

1039: %the Dirac structure in the lepton sector is completely eliminated -  

1040: %``screened'' \cite{scre}.

1041: 

1042: Let us introduce one heavy neutral  state $S$ for each generation and

1043: consider mass matrix in the basis $(\nu, N^c,  S)$ of the following form 

1044: \be

1045: m = 

1046: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}

1047: 0 & m_D & 0\\

1048: m_D^T & 0 & M_D^T\\

1049: 0 & M_D & M_S

1050: \end{array}

1051: \right). 

1052: \label{dss}

1053: \ee

1054: Here $M_S$ is the Majorana mass matrix of new fermions. 

1055: Such a structure can be formed by a 

1056: lepton number violated in the $M_S$ and some additional 

1057: symmetry which forbids also 13-element. 

1058: 

1059: For $m_D \ll M_D \ll M_S$ the matrix  leads to the double (cascade)

1060: seesaw mechanism~\cite{dss}:

1061: \be

1062: m_{\nu} = m_D^T M_D^{-1 T} M_S M_D^{-1 } m_D, 

1063: \label{doubless}

1064: \ee

1065: and the mass matrix of RH neutrinos becomes $M_R = - M_D M_S^{-1} M_D^{T}$. 

1066: If two Dirac mass matrices are proportional each other,  

1067: \be

1068: M_D = A^{-1} m_D, ~~~~ A \equiv  v_{EW}/V_{GU}, 

1069: \label{propo}

1070: \ee

1071: they cancel in (\ref{doubless}) and we obtain

1072: \be

1073: m_{\nu} = A^2 M_S.

1074: \ee

1075: That is, the structure of light neutrino mass matrix is determined by

1076: $M_S$ immediately and does not depend on the Dirac mass matrix (the later is 

1077: screened).

1078: The seesaw mechanism provides  scale of

1079: neutrino masses but not

1080: the flavor structure of the mass matrix.

1081: 

1082: Notice that screening does not depend on the scale of $M_S$ and in fact 

1083: $M_S \ll M_D$ is also possible.

1084: However it is natural to  assume that $M_D$ is at the GUT scale, and 

1085: $M_S$ is at the Planck scale $M_{Pl}$ 

1086: which leads to correct values of the light neutrino masses. 

1087: It can be shown that at least in SUSY version the  radiative corrections do 

1088: not destroy screening \cite{scre}. The relation (\ref{propo}) can be a consequence 

1089: of Grand Unification with extended gauge group or/and certain 

1090: flavor symmetry~\cite{scre,kim}.   

1091: 

1092:  

1093: Structure of the light neutrino mass matrix depends now on $M_S$ which can be 

1094: related to some physics at the  Planck scale, and consequently, lead to ``unusual'' 

1095: properties of neutrinos. In particular,

1096: 

1097: (i) certain symmetry of $M_S$ can be the origin of ``neutrino'' symmetry;

1098: 

1099: (ii) the matrix  $M_S \propto I$  leads to the quasi-degenerate 

1100: mass spectrum;

1101: 

1102: (iii) $M_S$ can be the origin of bi-maximal mixing 

1103: thus leading to the QLC relations,  

1104: if the charged lepton mass matrix generates the CKM rotation.

1105: 

1106: %It allows to reconcile the q-l symmetry with

1107: %strong difference of mixings of leptons and quarks. 

1108: 

1109: 

1110: \subsection{New states and induced mass matrix}

1111: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1112: 

1113: 

1114: Suppose the active neutrinos acquire ({\it e.g.}, via seesaw)

1115: the Majorana mass matrix $m_a$. Consider one sterile neutrino, 

1116: $S$,   with Majorana mass $m_S$

1117: and mixing  with active neutrinos characterized by ``vector'' of masses 

1118: $\bar{m}_{S} \equiv ( m_{eS}, m_{\mu S}, m_{\tau S})$. 

1119: Essentially in the basis $(\nu, N^c,  S)$ 

1120: this corresponds to the mass matrix of the form 

1121: \be

1122: m =

1123: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}

1124: 0     & m_D & \bar{m}_S \\

1125: m_D^T & M_R & 0 \\

1126: \bar{m}_S  & 0   & m_S

1127: \end{array}

1128: \right).

1129: \label{indm}

1130: \ee

1131: 

1132: If $m_S \gg m_{iS}$,  

1133: then after decoupling of $S$ the mass matrix of active neutrinos becomes 

1134: \be

1135: m_{\nu} = m_a + m_I,  

1136: \ee

1137: where the last term is the matrix induced by $S$: 

1138: \be

1139: m_I = \frac{1}{m_S} \bar{m}_{S}^T  \bar{m}_{S}.   

1140: \label{induce}

1141: \ee

1142: The induced matrix has zero determinant 

1143: and therefore can be an origin of  singular structures. 

1144: 

1145: Introducing  the active-sterile mixing angle

1146: $\theta_S$  as  

1147: \be

1148: \sin\theta_S = \bar{m}_S/m_S, 

1149: \label{stmix}

1150: \ee

1151: we can rewrite the elements of induced matrix as 

1152: \be

1153: m_I  \sim \sin^2 \theta_S m_S.

1154: \label{indmix}

1155: \ee

1156: 

1157: The induced matrix may turn out to be   the ``missed'' element which leads to 

1158: the difference 

1159: of mixings of quarks and leptons. Let us consider several possibilities. 

1160: 

1161: 1). Suppose $\bar{m}_{S} \propto (0, 1, 1)$, then the induced matrix 

1162: reproduces the dominant block of the active neutrino mass matrix 

1163: for the normal mass hierarchy: 

1164: \be

1165: m_\nu =

1166: \frac{\sqrt{\Delta m^2_{32}}}{2}

1167: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}

1168: ... &  ...  & ... \\

1169: ...  & 1 & 1\\

1170: ...  &  1 & 1

1171: \end{array}

1172: \right),

1173: \label{domeff}

1174: \ee

1175: where ``dots''  denote small parameters. 

1176: In this case one can realize a possibility 

1177: that the original active neutrino mass matrix, $m_a$, has hierarchical structure 

1178: with small mixings being similar to the quark mass matrices. 

1179: From eqs. (\ref{domeff}) and (\ref{indmix}) we find 

1180: \be

1181: \sin^2 \theta_S m_S = \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{32}} \sim 0.025~ {\rm eV}.

1182: \label{domb}

1183: \ee

1184: 

1185: 2).  Let us assume that couplings of $S$ with active neutrinos are universal - 

1186: flavor ``blind'':

1187: \be

1188: \bar{m}_{S} \propto (1, 1, 1). 

1189: \ee

1190: Then the induced matrix has form: $m_{I} \propto  D$, 

1191: where $D$ is the democratic matrix - the second 

1192: matrix in (\ref{tribi}). 

1193: Suppose that the original active neutrino mass matrix has structure 

1194: of the first matrix in (\ref{tribi}). 

1195: Then the sum,  $m_{\nu} = m_a + m_{I}$,  reproduces the mass

1196: matrix for the tri-bimaximal mixing (\ref{tribi}).

1197: In this case, according to (\ref{tribi}),  

1198: the parameters of $S$  should satisfy relation  

1199: \be

1200: \sin^2 \theta_S m_S = \frac{1}{3} \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{21}} \sim 0.003~ {\rm eV}.

1201: \label{subdomb}

1202: \ee

1203: 

1204: With two sterile neutrinos whole structure (\ref{tribi})

1205: can be obtained.  

1206: 

1207: 

1208: 3). New neutrino states are irrelevant if

1209: $m_{iS}m_{jS}/m_S \ll (m_a)_{ij}$ 

1210: or

1211: \be

1212: \sin^2 \theta_S~ m_S < ~ 0.001~ {\rm eV}. 

1213: \label{smixing}

1214: \ee

1215: 

1216: Clearly, the presence of induced contribution changes 

1217: implications of the neutrino results~\cite{abdel,renata}.  Since $S$ is beyond the 

1218: SM structure 

1219: extended by RH neutrinos,  it may be easier to realize ``neutrino'' symmetries as 

1220: a consequence of certain symmetry of $S$ couplings with active neutrinos. 

1221: 

1222: 

1223: In figs. \ref{fig1} and \ref{fig2} we show lines of constant induced masses 

1224: in the plane $\sin^2 \theta_S -  m_S$  which 

1225: are given by the conditions (\ref{domb}), (\ref{subdomb}), (\ref{smixing})

1226: as well as the line $\sin^2 \theta_S m_S < ~ 0.5$ eV which coresponds 

1227: to maximal allowed value of the matrix elements. 

1228: We confront these lines with various cosmological, astrophysical and laboratory 

1229: bounds on the parameters of new neutrino states (see ref.\cite{renata} for details). 

1230: 

1231: 

1232: %%%%%%%%%%ffff1%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1233: \vglue 1.8cm

1234: \begin{figure}[htb]

1235: \epsfxsize=10cm

1236: \begin{center}

1237: \leavevmode

1238: \epsffile{limits-nus-nue.eps}

1239: \end{center}

1240: \vglue -3cm

1241: \caption{ The benchmark lines of induced masses given in eqs. 

1242: (\ref{domb}), (\ref{subdomb}), (\ref{smixing}) 

1243:   versus the current astrophysical, cosmological and

1244:   laboratory bounds on $\nu_S -\nu_e$ mixing.

1245:   The colored regions are excluded.  The

1246:   ``thermalization'' line and the two decay lines $\tau_S = \tau_{\rm

1247:     rec}$ and $\tau_S = \tau_U$ are also shown.}

1248: \label{fig1}

1249: \end{figure}

1250: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1251: 

1252: 

1253: According to figs. \ref{fig1} and \ref{fig2} two regions are allowed:

1254: 

1255: 1). Small masses window:  $m_S \sim (0.5 - 1)$ eV 

1256: and $\sin^2 \theta_S = 0.001 - 0.1$,  

1257: where direct and indirect effects are comparable. 

1258: This window  is disfavored by results 

1259: of recent analysis of cosmological data \cite{Uros06}, 

1260: and it is closed if the Big Bang nucleosynthesis bound on the effective 

1261: number of neutrino species 

1262: $N_{\nu} < 4$ is taken.   

1263: 

1264: Notice that there are various ways to avoid the cosmological bounds which however 

1265: imply an existence of additional physics beyond the Standard model \cite{renata}. 

1266: 

1267: 

1268: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff2%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1269: %\vglue -1cm

1270: \begin{figure}[htb]

1271: \epsfxsize=10cm

1272: \begin{center}

1273: \leavevmode

1274: \epsffile{limits-nus-numu.eps}

1275: \end{center}

1276: \vglue -0.5cm

1277: \caption{The same as in Fig.\ref{fig1} but for $\nu_S -\nu_\mu$ mixing.}

1278: \label{fig2}

1279: \end{figure}

1280: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1281: 

1282: 

1283: 2). Large masses range: $m_S > 300$ MeV and $\sin^2 \theta_S < 10^{-9}$.   

1284: Here direct mixing effects are negligible and the presence of 

1285: new states can not be verified. 

1286: 

1287: 

1288: 

1289: \section{Summary}

1290: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1291: 

1292: Comparison of the  properties of the quarks and leptons

1293: shows similar gauge characteristics  and  

1294: strong difference of mass and mixing patterns.  

1295: 

1296: \newpage

1297: 

1298: There are several observations which 

1299: (if not accidental) can strongly influence implications of the results.  

1300: Those include possible presence of special leptonic (neutrino)

1301: symmetries; particular (tri-bimaximal)

1302: form of neutrino mixing matrix; 

1303: quark-lepton complementarity relations. 

1304: These features may indicate that quarks and leptons are

1305: fundamentally different

1306: and some new structures of theory exist beyond the seesaw.

1307: 

1308: 

1309: Mixing with new neutrino states can play the role

1310: of this additional structure. In particular, it can 

1311: 

1312: - produce screening of the Dirac structure; 

1313: 

1314: - generate the  induced matrix of active neutrinos with

1315: certain symmetry properties. The induced matrix can lead to 

1316: enhancement of lepton mixings, to generation of the dominant 

1317: block of the mass matrix  in the case of normal mass hierarchy,  

1318: or to various subdominant structures, {\it e.g.}, 

1319: for the tri-bimaximal mixing.  

1320: 

1321: 

1322: Still the approximate quark-lepton universality can be

1323: realized. In this case, the dominant mass or mixing matrices are 

1324: the same for all fermions and small (of the order $\sin \theta_C$) corrections 

1325: can produce whole difference. The seesaw mechanism plays the key role in getting of 

1326: large lepton mixing. 

1327: 

1328: 

1329: 

1330: \section{Acknowledgements}

1331: 

1332: This work has been supported in part by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation 

1333: (the Humboldt research award). 

1334: 

1335: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1336: 

1337: \bibitem{bari}G. L. Fogli et al,  hep-ph/0506083.

1338: 

1339: \bibitem{sno}SNO Collaboration (B. Aharmim et al.). {\it Phys. Rev.} C 

1340: {\bf 72}, 055502 (2005). 

1341: 

1342: \bibitem{sv}A. Strumia, F. Vissani, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 726}, 294 (2005). 

1343: 

1344: \bibitem{atm} Super-Kamiokande Collaboration (Y. Ashie et al.), 

1345: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 71} 112005, (2005)

1346: 

1347: \bibitem{orl}O. L. G. Peres, A. Yu. Smirnov,  {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 456}, 204 

1348: (1999);  {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 680}, 479 (2004). 

1349: 

1350: \bibitem{concha}M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, A. Yu. Smirnov, 

1351: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 70}, 093005 (2004). 

1352: 

1353: %\bibitem{cos}U. Seljak et al.. {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 71}, 103515 (2005). 

1354: 

1355: \bibitem{Uros06}

1356:   U.~Seljak, A.~Slosar and P.~McDonald,

1357:   %``Cosmological parameters from combining the Lyman-alpha forest with CMB,

1358:   %galaxy clustering and SN constraints,''

1359:   arXiv:astro-ph/0604335. 

1360: 

1361: \bibitem{hm}H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, et al, {\it Phys. Lett.} B 

1362: {\bf 586}, 198 (2004). 

1363: 

1364: 

1365: \bibitem{tbm}

1366: L. Wolfenstein,  {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 18}, 958 (1978); 

1367: P. F. Harrison, D. H. Perkins and W. G. Scott, 

1368: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 458}, 79 (1999), 

1369: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 530}, 167 (2002).  

1370: 

1371: \bibitem{model}E. Ma,

1372: {\it Mod. Phys. Lett.} A {\bf 17}, 2361 (2002); 

1373: E. Ma, G. Rajasekaran, {\it  Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 64} 113012, (2001);

1374: K.S. Babu, E. Ma, J.W.F. Valle,

1375: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 552}, 207 (2003);

1376: %%\bibitem{model} For some recent publications see:  

1377:  W.~Grimus and L.~Lavoura, {\it JHEP} {\bf 0508}, 013 (2005); 

1378: K.~S.~Babu and X.~G.~He, hep-ph/0507217; 

1379: E.~Ma, {\it Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.} A {\bf 20}, 2601 (2005). 

1380: G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, hep-ph/0507217; 

1381: H. G. He, Yong-Yeon Keum and R. R. Volkas, hep-ph/0601001. 

1382: 

1383: \bibitem{qlc}A. Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0402264; 

1384: M. Raidal, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}  {\bf 93}, 161801 (2004).   

1385: 

1386: \bibitem{qlc1}

1387: H. Minakata, A. Yu. Smirnov, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 70}, 

1388: 073009 (2004). 

1389: 

1390: \bibitem{mutau}

1391: T.~Fukuyama and H.~Nishiura, hep-ph/9702253;   R.~N.~Mohapatra and 

1392: S.~Nussinov, {\it Phys.\ Rev.}\ D {\bf 60}, 013002 (1999); 

1393: E.~Ma and M.~Raidal, {\it Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.}\  {\bf 87}, 011802 (2001);  

1394: C.~S.~Lam, {\it Phys.\ Lett.}\ B {\bf 507}, 214 (2001). 

1395: 

1396: \bibitem{anj05}

1397:   A.~S.~Joshipura,

1398:   %``Universal 2-3 symmetry,''

1399:   arXiv:hep-ph/0512252.

1400: 

1401: \bibitem{renata}

1402:   A.~Y.~Smirnov and R.~Zukanovich Funchal,

1403:   %``Sterile neutrinos: Direct mixing effects versus induced mass matrix of

1404:   %active neutrinos,''

1405:   arXiv:hep-ph/0603009.

1406: 

1407: 

1408: \bibitem{sees} P. Minkowski, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 67} 421 (1977); 

1409: T. Yanagida, in {\it Proc. of Workshop on Unified Theory and Baryon

1410: number in the Universe}, eds. O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto, KEK, Tsukuba, (1979);

1411: M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky,  in {\it Supergravity}, eds P. 

1412: van Niewenhuizen and

1413: D. Z. Freedman (North Holland, Amsterdam 1980);

1414: P. Ramond, {\it  Sanibel talk}, retroprinted as hep-ph/9809459;

1415: S. L. Glashow, in {\it Quarks and Leptons}, Carg\`ese lectures, eds M. L\'evy,

1416: (Plenum, 1980, New York) p. 707;

1417: R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi\'c, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 44}, 912 (1980).

1418: 

1419: 

1420: \bibitem{pati}J. C. Pati and A. Salam, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 10}, 275 (1974). 

1421: 

1422: \bibitem{so10}H. Georgi, {\it In Coral Gables 1979 Proceeding, Theory and experiment 

1423: in high energy physics}, New York 1975, 329 and H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, Annals 

1424: Phys. {\bf 93} 193 (1975). 

1425: 

1426: 

1427: \bibitem{babu}K. S. Babu and S. M. Barr, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 381} (1996) 202.  

1428: 

1429: \bibitem{loopside}C. H. Albright, K. S. Babu and S. M. Barr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 

1430: {\bf 81} (1998) 1167. 

1431: 

1432: \bibitem{sumrule}B. Bajc, G. Senjanovic and F. Vissani, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90} 

1433: (2003) 051802.   

1434: 

1435: \bibitem{sing}E.~K.~Akhmedov, et al.,

1436:  {\it  Phys.\ Lett.}\ B {\bf 498}, 237 (2001); R. Dermisek,  

1437: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 70}, 033007 (2004). 

1438: 

1439: \bibitem{dors}I. Dorsner, A.Yu. Smirnov,  

1440: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 698}, 386 (2004). 

1441: 

1442: 

1443: \bibitem{fn}C. D. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, 

1444: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 147}, 277 (1979).

1445: 

1446: 

1447: \bibitem{ssenh}A. Yu. Smirnov, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 48}, 3264 (1993).

1448: 

1449: \bibitem{JS}

1450:   A.~S.~Joshipura and A.~Y.~Smirnov,

1451:   %``Quark-Lepton universality and large leptonic mixing,''

1452:   arXiv:hep-ph/0512024.

1453: 

1454: \bibitem{bim}F. Vissani, hep-ph/9708483; 

1455: V.~D.~Barger, et al, {\it  Phys.\ Lett.}\ B {\bf 437}, 107 (1998).

1456: 

1457: \bibitem{dss}R. N. Mohapatra, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}  {\bf 56}, 561 (1986); 

1458: R. N. Mohapatra and J. W. F. Valle, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 34}, 1642 (1986).

1459: 

1460: \bibitem{scre}M. Lindner, M. A. Schmidt, A. Yu. Smirnov, {\it JHEP} {\bf 0507}, 

1461: 048 (2005). 

1462: 

1463: \bibitem{kim}O. Vives, hep-ph/0504079; J. E. Kim and J. C. Park, hep-ph/0512130. 

1464: 

1465: \bibitem{abdel}K.R.S. Balaji, A. Perez-Lorenzana, A.Yu. Smirnov,  

1466: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 509}, 111 (2001). 

1467: 

1468: 

1469: \end{thebibliography}

1470: \end{document}

1471: 

1472: 

1473: