1: \documentstyle[prd,aps,preprint,tighten,epsfig]{revtex}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \draft
6:
7: \title{Friedberg-Lee Symmetry Breaking and Its
8: Prediction for $\theta^{}_{13}$}
9: \author{{\bf Shu Luo} \thanks{E-mail: luoshu@mail.ihep.ac.cn} ~ and
10: ~ {\bf Zhi-zhong Xing} \thanks{E-mail: xingzz@mail.ihep.ac.cn} }
11: \address{
12: CCAST (World Laboratory), P.O. Box 8730, Beijing 100080,
13: China \\
14: and Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
15: \\
16: P.O. Box 918, Beijing 100049, China}
17:
18: \maketitle
19:
20: \begin{abstract}
21: We consider an effective Majorana neutrino mass operator with the
22: Friedberg-Lee symmetry; i.e., it is invariant under the
23: transformation $\nu^{}_\alpha \rightarrow \nu^{}_\alpha + z$ (for
24: $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$) with $z$ being a space-time independent
25: constant element of the Grassmann algebra. We show that this new
26: flavor symmetry can be broken in such a nontrivial way that the
27: lightest neutrino remains massless but an experimentally-favored
28: neutrino mixing pattern is achievable. In particular, we get a
29: novel prediction for the unknown neutrino mixing angle
30: $\theta^{}_{13}$ in terms of two known angles: $\sin\theta^{}_{13}
31: = \tan\theta^{}_{12} |(1- \tan\theta^{}_{23})/ (1+
32: \tan\theta^{}_{23})|$. The model can simply be generalized to
33: accommodate CP violation and be combined with the seesaw
34: mechanism.
35: \end{abstract}
36:
37: \pacs{PACS number(s): 14.60.Lm, 14.60.Pq, 95.85.Ry}
38:
39: %\newpage
40:
41: Recent solar \cite{SNO}, atmospheric \cite{SK}, reactor \cite{KM}
42: and accelerator \cite{K2K} neutrino experiments have convincingly
43: verified the hypothesis of neutrino oscillations. The latter can
44: naturally happen if neutrinos are slightly massive and lepton
45: flavors are not conserved. The mixing of three lepton families is
46: described by a $3\times 3$ unitary matrix $V$, whose nine elements
47: are usually parameterized in terms of three rotation angles
48: ($\theta^{}_{12}$, $\theta^{}_{23}$, $\theta^{}_{13}$) and three
49: CP-violating phases ($\delta$, $\rho$, $\sigma$) \cite{FX01}:
50: \begin{equation}
51: V = \left( \matrix{ c^{}_{12}c^{}_{13} & s^{}_{12}c ^{}_{13} &
52: s^{}_{13} e^{-i\delta} \cr -s^{}_{12}c^{}_{23}
53: -c^{}_{12}s^{}_{23}s^{}_{13} e^{i\delta} & c^{}_{12}c^{}_{23}
54: -s^{}_{12}s^{}_{23}s^{}_{13} e^{i\delta} & s^{}_{23}c^{}_{13} \cr
55: s^{}_{12}s^{}_{23} -c^{}_{12}c^{}_{23}s^{}_{13} e^{i\delta} &
56: -c^{}_{12}s^{}_{23} -s^{}_{12}c^{}_{23}s^{}_{13} e^{i\delta} &
57: c^{}_{23}c^{}_{13} } \right) \left ( \matrix{e^{i\rho } & 0 & 0
58: \cr 0 & e^{i\sigma} & 0 \cr 0 & 0 & 1 \cr} \right ) \;
59: % (1)
60: \end{equation}
61: with $c^{}_{ij} \equiv \cos\theta_{ij}$ and $s^{}_{ij} \equiv
62: \sin\theta_{ij}$ (for $ij=12,23$ and $13$). A global analysis of
63: current neutrino oscillation data yields $30^\circ \leq
64: \theta_{12} \leq 38^\circ$, $36^\circ \leq \theta_{23} \leq
65: 54^\circ$ and $0^\circ \leq \theta_{13} < 10^\circ$ at the $99\%$
66: confidence level \cite{Vissani}, but three phases of $V$ remain
67: entirely unconstrained. While the absolute mass scale of three
68: neutrinos is not yet fixed, their two mass-squared differences
69: have already been determined to a quite good degree of accuracy
70: \cite{Vissani}: $\Delta m^2_{21} \equiv m^2_2 - m^2_1 = (7.2
71: \cdot\cdot\cdot 8.9) \times 10^{-5} ~{\rm eV}^2$ and $\Delta
72: m^2_{32} \equiv m^2_3 - m^2_2 = \pm (2.1 \cdot\cdot\cdot 3.1)
73: \times 10^{-3} ~{\rm eV}^2$ at the $99\%$ confidence level. The
74: on-going and forthcoming neutrino oscillation experiments aim to
75: measure the sign of $\Delta m^2_{32}$, the magnitude of
76: $\theta^{}_{13}$ and even the CP-violating phase $\delta$.
77:
78: How to understand the smallness of $\theta^{}_{13}$ and the
79: largeness of $\theta^{}_{12}$ and $\theta^{}_{23}$ is a real
80: challenge. So far many neutrino mass models have been proposed
81: \cite{Review}. Some of them follow such a guiding principle: there
82: exists an underlying flavor symmetry in the lepton sector and its
83: spontaneous or explicit breaking gives rise to the observed
84: pattern of $V$. This is certainly a reasonable starting point for
85: model building, and it might even shed light on the true flavor
86: structures of leptons and quarks.
87:
88: The purpose of this paper is just to follow the above-mentioned
89: guideline to explore a simple and testable correlation between the
90: neutrino mass spectrum and the neutrino mixing pattern. In the
91: basis where the charged-lepton mass matrix is diagonal, we
92: hypothesize that the effective Majorana neutrino mass operator is
93: of the form
94: \begin{eqnarray}
95: {\cal L}^{}_{\rm mass} & = & \frac{1}{2} \left [ a
96: (\overline{\nu^{}_{\tau \rm L}}- \overline{\nu^{}_{\mu \rm L}})
97: (\nu^{\rm c}_{\tau \rm L} - \nu^{\rm c}_{\mu \rm L}) + b
98: (\overline{\nu^{}_{\mu \rm L}} - \overline{\nu^{}_{e \rm L}})
99: (\nu^{\rm c}_{\mu \rm L} - \nu^{\rm c}_{e \rm L}) \right .
100: \nonumber \\
101: && \left. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + c
102: (\overline{\nu^{}_{e \rm L}} - \overline{\nu^{}_{\tau \rm L}})
103: (\nu^{\rm c}_{e \rm L} - \nu^{\rm c}_{\tau \rm L}) \right ] ~ + ~
104: {\rm h.c.} \; ,
105: % (2)
106: \end{eqnarray}
107: where $a$, $b$ and $c$ are in general complex, and $\nu^{\rm
108: c}_{\alpha \rm L} \equiv C\overline{\nu^{}_{\alpha \rm L}}^T$ (for
109: $\alpha =e$, $\mu$, $\tau$). A salient feature of ${\cal
110: L}^{}_{\rm mass}$ is its translational symmetry; i.e., ${\cal
111: L}^{}_{\rm mass}$ is invariant under the transformation
112: $\nu^{}_\alpha \rightarrow \nu^{}_\alpha + z$ with $z$ being a
113: space-time independent constant element of the Grassmann algebra.
114: Note that this new kind of flavor symmetry was first introduced by
115: Friedberg and Lee in Ref. \cite{Lee} to describe the Dirac
116: neutrino mass operator. Here we apply the same symmetry to the
117: case of Majorana neutrinos and then reveal a completely new way to
118: break it. Corresponding to Eq. (2), the Majorana neutrino mass
119: matrix $M^{}_\nu$ reads
120: \begin{equation}
121: M^{}_\nu = \left ( \matrix{ b+c & -b & -c \cr -b & a+b & -a \cr -c
122: & -a & a+c \cr} \right ) \; .
123: % (3)
124: \end{equation}
125: The diagonalization of $M^{}_\nu$ is straightforward: $V^\dagger
126: M^{}_\nu V^* = \overline{M}^{}_\nu$, where $V$ is just the
127: neutrino mixing matrix, and $\overline{M}^{}_\nu = {\rm Diag} \{
128: m^{}_1, m^{}_2, m^{}_3 \}$ with $m^{}_i$ (for $i=1,2,3$) being the
129: neutrino masses. From Eq. (3) together with the parametrization of
130: $V$ in Eq. (1), it is easy to verify
131: \begin{equation}
132: {\rm Det}(M^{}_\nu) = {\rm Det} \left ( V \overline{M}^{}_\nu V^T
133: \right ) = {\rm Det} (\overline{M}^{}_\nu) \left [ {\rm Det}(V)
134: \right ]^2 = m^{}_1 m^{}_2 m^{}_3 e^{2 i \left (\rho + \sigma
135: \right )} = 0 \; .
136: % (4)
137: \end{equation}
138: This result, which is an immediate consequence of the
139: Friedberg-Lee (FL) symmetry in ${\cal L}^{}_{\rm mass}$, implies
140: that one of the three neutrinos must be massless. In the FL model
141: \cite{Lee} such a flavor symmetry is broken by an extra term of
142: the form $m^{}_0 (\overline{\nu}^{}_e \nu^{}_e +
143: \overline{\nu}^{}_\mu \nu^{}_\mu + \overline{\nu}^{}_\tau
144: \nu^{}_\tau)$ added into the Dirac neutrino mass operator, hence
145: all the three neutrinos are massive.
146:
147: One may wonder whether it is possible to break the FL symmetry in
148: ${\cal L}^{}_{\rm mass}$ but keep $m^{}_1 =0$ or $m^{}_3 =0$
149: unchanged?
150: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
151: \footnote{Because of $m^{}_2 > m^{}_1$ obtained from the solar
152: neutrino oscillation data \cite{SNO}, it makes no sense to
153: consider the $m^{}_2 =0$ case.}
154: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
155: We find that the simplest way to make this possibility realizable
156: is to transform one of the neutrino fields $\nu^{}_\alpha$ into
157: $\kappa^* \nu^{}_\alpha$ with $\kappa \neq 1$. Taking $\nu^{}_e
158: \rightarrow \kappa^* \nu^{}_e$ for example, the resultant Majorana
159: neutrino mass operator takes the form
160: \begin{eqnarray}
161: {\cal L}^\prime_{\rm mass} & = & \frac{1}{2} \left [ a
162: (\overline{\nu^{}_{\tau \rm L}}- \overline{\nu^{}_{\mu \rm L}})
163: (\nu^{\rm c}_{\tau \rm L} - \nu^{\rm c}_{\mu \rm L}) + b
164: (\overline{\nu^{}_{\mu \rm L}} - \kappa \overline{\nu^{}_{e \rm
165: L}}) (\nu^{\rm c}_{\mu \rm L} - \kappa \nu^{\rm c}_{e \rm L})
166: \right . \nonumber \\
167: && \left . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ + c ( \kappa
168: \overline{\nu^{}_{e \rm L}} - \overline{\nu^{}_{\tau \rm L}}) (
169: \kappa \nu^{\rm c}_{e \rm L} - \nu^{\rm c}_{\tau \rm L}) \right ]
170: ~ + ~ {\rm h.c.} \; .
171: % (5)
172: \end{eqnarray}
173: Accordingly, the neutrino mass matrix is given by
174: \begin{equation}
175: M^\prime_\nu = \left ( \matrix{ \kappa^2 (b+c) & - \kappa b & -
176: \kappa c \cr - \kappa b & a+b & -a \cr - \kappa c & -a & a+c \cr}
177: \right ) \; .
178: % (6)
179: \end{equation}
180: We are then left with ${\rm Det}(M^\prime_\nu) = \kappa^2 {\rm
181: Det}(M^{}_\nu) =0$, which is independent of the magnitude and
182: phase of $\kappa$. Thus we obtain either $m^{}_1 =0$ or $m^{}_3
183: =0$ from $M^\prime_\nu$. Our next step is to show that a generic
184: bi-large neutrino mixing pattern, which is compatible very well
185: with current experimental data, can be derived from
186: $M^\prime_\nu$.
187:
188: Let us focus on the $m^{}_1 =0$ case
189: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
190: \footnote{We find that the $m^{}_3 =0$ case is actually
191: disfavored, if we intend to achieve $\theta^{}_{23} = \pi/4$ and
192: $\theta^{}_{13} =0$ from $M^\prime_\nu$ in the leading-order
193: approximation.},
194: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
195: in which $M^\prime_\nu$ is diagonalized by the transformation
196: $V^\dagger M^\prime_\nu V^* = \overline{M}^{}_\nu$ with
197: $\overline{M}^{}_\nu = {\rm Diag}\{0, m^{}_2, m^{}_3 \}$. As the
198: best-fit values of the atmospheric and CHOOZ neutrino mixing
199: angles are $\theta^{}_{23} =\pi/4$ and $\theta^{}_{13} =0$
200: respectively \cite{Vissani}, we may decompose the neutrino mixing
201: matrix $V$ into a product of three special unitary matrices: $V =
202: U RP$, where
203: \begin{eqnarray}
204: U & = & \left ( \matrix{ & & 0 \cr {\bf u}^{}_1 & {\bf u}^{}_2 &
205: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \cr & & \frac{-1}{\sqrt{2}} \cr} \right ) \; ,
206: \nonumber \\
207: R & = & \left ( \matrix{1 & ~~ 0 ~~ & 0 \cr 0 & \hat{c} &
208: \tilde{s} \cr 0 & - \tilde{s}^* & \hat{c}^* \cr} \right ) \; ,
209: % (7)
210: \end{eqnarray}
211: and $P = {\bf 1} e^{i\gamma}$ with the definitions $\hat{c} \equiv
212: \cos\theta ~e^{i\phi}$ and $\tilde{s} \equiv \sin\theta ~
213: e^{i\varphi}$. Note that ${\bf u}^*_1$ is a column vector
214: associated with $m^{}_1 =0$ (i.e., $M^\prime_\nu {\bf u}^*_1 = 0$
215: holds). This observation, together with the unitarity of $U$,
216: allows us to obtain
217: \begin{eqnarray}
218: {\bf u}^{}_1 & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} \left (
219: \matrix{ ~ 1 ~\cr \kappa^* \cr \kappa^* \cr} \right ) \; ,
220: \nonumber \\
221: {\bf u}^{}_2 & = & \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} \left (
222: \matrix{ \kappa \cr \frac{-1}{2} \cr \frac{-1}{2} \cr} \right ) \;
223: .
224: % (8)
225: \end{eqnarray}
226: One can see that $U$ is only dependent on $\kappa$, a free
227: parameter characterizing the strength of FL symmetry breaking in
228: ${\cal L}^\prime_{\rm mass}$. Apparently, $V^\dagger M^\prime_\nu
229: V^* = P^\dagger R^\dagger (U^\dagger M^\prime_\nu U^*) R^* P^*$
230: holds, where
231: \begin{equation}
232: U^\dagger M^\prime_\nu U^* = \frac{1}{2} \left ( \matrix{ 0 & 0 &
233: 0 \cr 0 & \left (b+c \right ) \left ( 2 |\kappa|^2 + 1 \right ) &
234: \left (c-b \right ) \sqrt{2 |\kappa|^2 + 1} \cr 0 & \left ( c-b
235: \right ) \sqrt{ 2 |\kappa|^2 +1} & 4a + b+c \cr} \right ) \; .
236: % (9)
237: \end{equation}
238: If $a$, $b$ and $c$ are all complex, the phases of $U^\dagger
239: M^\prime_\nu U^*$ will finally be absorbed into the phases of $P$
240: ($\gamma$) and $R$ ($\phi$ and $\varphi$).
241:
242: For simplicity, we assume that $a$, $b$ and $c$ are all real. In
243: this case, $U^\dagger M^\prime_\nu U^*$ is a real symmetric
244: matrix. Hence the phases of $R$ and $P$ (i.e., $\gamma$, $\phi$
245: and $\varphi$) can be switched off and the rotation angle of $R$
246: is determined by
247: \begin{equation}
248: \tan 2\theta = \frac{\left (b-c \right ) \sqrt{ 2|\kappa|^2 +
249: 1}}{\left (b+c \right ) |\kappa|^2 - 2 a} \; .
250: % (10)
251: \end{equation}
252: One may observe that $b =c$, which is a clear reflection of the
253: $\mu$-$\tau$ permutation symmetry in ${\cal L}^\prime_{\rm mass}$
254: or $M^\prime_\nu$ \cite{XZZ}, simply leads to $\theta =0$ or
255: equivalently $\theta^{}_{23} = \pi/4$ and $\theta^{}_{13} =0$. In
256: addition, two non-vanishing neutrino masses are obtained from Eq.
257: (9) as follows:
258: \begin{eqnarray}
259: m^{}_2 & = & a + \frac{1}{2} \left (b + c\right ) \left
260: (|\kappa|^2 + 1 \right ) - \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\left [ 2a - \left (b
261: + c \right ) |\kappa|^2 \right ]^2 + \left (b -c \right )^2 \left
262: (2|\kappa|^2 + 1\right )}
263: \;\; , \nonumber \\
264: m^{}_3 & = & a + \frac{1}{2} \left (b + c\right ) \left
265: (|\kappa|^2 + 1 \right ) + \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{\left [ 2a - \left (b
266: + c \right ) |\kappa|^2 \right ]^2 + \left (b -c \right )^2 \left
267: (2|\kappa|^2 + 1\right )} \;\; .
268: % (11)
269: \end{eqnarray}
270: Nine elements of the neutrino mixing matrix $V = URP$ can be given
271: in terms of $\kappa$ and $\theta$:
272: \begin{equation}
273: V = \left ( \matrix{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} &
274: \frac{\sqrt{2} \; \kappa \cos\theta}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} &
275: \frac{\sqrt{2} \; \kappa \sin\theta}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} \cr
276: \frac{\kappa^*}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left
277: ( \frac{\cos\theta}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} + \sin\theta \right ) &
278: ~\;\; \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left ( \cos\theta -
279: \frac{\sin\theta}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} \right ) \cr
280: \frac{\kappa^*}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left
281: ( \frac{\cos\theta}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} - \sin\theta \right ) &
282: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left ( \cos\theta
283: +\frac{\sin\theta}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} \right ) \cr} \right )
284: \; .
285: % (12)
286: \end{equation}
287: After rephasing this expression of $V$ with the transformations of
288: charged-lepton and neutrino fields $e \rightarrow
289: e^{i\phi^{}_\kappa} e$, $\mu \rightarrow -\mu$, $\nu^{}_1
290: \rightarrow e^{i\phi^{}_\kappa} \nu^{}_1$ and $\nu^{}_3
291: \rightarrow -\nu^{}_3$, where $\phi^{}_\kappa \equiv \arg
292: (\kappa)$, we may directly compare it with the parametrization
293: given in Eq. (1). Then we arrive at
294: \begin{eqnarray}
295: \tan\theta^{}_{12} & = & \sqrt{2} |\kappa| \cos\theta \; ,
296: \nonumber \\
297: \tan\theta^{}_{23} & = & \left | \frac{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 + 1} -
298: \tan\theta}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 + 1} + \tan\theta} \right | \; ,
299: \nonumber \\
300: \sin\theta^{}_{13} & = & \frac{\sqrt{2} |\kappa|
301: |\sin\theta|}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} \; ,
302: % (13)
303: \end{eqnarray}
304: where $\theta^{}_{12}$, $\theta^{}_{23}$ and $\theta^{}_{13}$ are
305: required to lie in the first quadrant, $\theta$ is close to zero
306: due to the smallness of $\theta^{}_{13}$ but it may be either
307: positive (in the first quadrant) or negative (in the fourth
308: quadrant). Furthermore, we have $\delta =0$ (when $\theta <0$) or
309: $\delta =\pi$ (when $\theta >0$) together with $\sigma = \pi$,
310: while the CP-violating phase $\rho$ is not well-defined in the
311: $m^{}_1 =0$ case. Thus we conclude that there is no CP violation
312: in this simple neutrino mass model, although its mass operator
313: involves a complex parameter $\kappa$.
314:
315: Now that the mixing angles $\theta^{}_{12}$ and $\theta^{}_{23}$
316: are already known to a reasonable degree of accuracy, we can use
317: them to determine the unknown mixing angle $\theta^{}_{13}$ and
318: the unknown magnitude of $\kappa$ from Eq. (13). Indeed,
319: \begin{eqnarray}
320: \sin\theta^{}_{13} & = & \left |\frac{1 - \tan\theta^{}_{23}}{1+
321: \tan\theta^{}_{23}} \right | \tan\theta^{}_{12} \; .
322: % (14)
323: \end{eqnarray}
324: This interesting expression indicates that the deviation of
325: $\theta^{}_{13}$ from zero is closely correlated with the
326: deviation of $\theta^{}_{23}$ from $\pi/4$. It is a novel
327: prediction of our model, which can easily be tested in the near
328: future. On the other hand,
329: \begin{eqnarray}
330: |\kappa| & = & \frac{\sin\theta^{}_{12}}{\sqrt{\cos
331: 2\theta^{}_{12} + \sin 2\theta^{}_{23}}} \; .
332: % (15)
333: \end{eqnarray}
334: Because of $m^{}_2 = \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{21}}$ and $m^{}_3 =
335: \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{21} + |\Delta m^2_{32}|}$ in the $m^{}_1 =0$
336: case, we get $m^{}_2 \approx (8.48 \cdots 9.43) \times 10^{-3}$ eV
337: and $m^{}_3 \approx (4.58 \cdots 5.57) \times 10^{-2}$ eV from the
338: $99\%$ confidence-level ranges of $\Delta m^2_{21}$ and $|\Delta
339: m^2_{32}|$ \cite{Vissani}. These results, together with the
340: experimental values of $\theta^{}_{12}$ and $\theta^{}_{23}$,
341: allow us to numerically constrain the model parameters via Eqs.
342: (10), (11) and (13). We obtain $0.019 ~{\rm eV} \lesssim a
343: \lesssim 0.026 ~{\rm eV}$, $0.41 \lesssim |\kappa| \lesssim 0.56$,
344: $|\theta| < 11.4^\circ$ and the ranges of $b$ and $c$ shown in
345: FIG. 1. Note that the region of $|\kappa|$ can also be achieved
346: from Eq. (15). In particular, $|\kappa| =1/2$ is favorable and it
347: implies that $U$ takes the so-called tri-bimaximal mixing pattern
348: \cite{TB}. The numerical dependence of $\theta^{}_{13}$ on
349: $\theta^{}_{12}$ and $\theta^{}_{23}$ is illustrated in FIG. 2,
350: from which an upper bound $\theta^{}_{13} \leq 7.1^\circ$ can be
351: extracted. Such a constraint on $\theta^{}_{13}$ is certainly more
352: stringent than $\theta^{}_{13} < 10^\circ$ obtained from a global
353: analysis of current neutrino oscillation data \cite{Vissani}. It
354: will be interesting to see whether our prediction for the
355: correlation between the unknown mixing angle $\theta^{}_{13}$ and
356: two known angles can survive the future measurements.
357:
358: In the above discussions we have taken $\nu^{}_e \rightarrow
359: \kappa^* \nu^{}_e$ to break the FL symmetry and achieve a
360: realistic pattern of the neutrino mass matrix. One may similarly
361: consider $\nu^{}_\mu \rightarrow \kappa^* \nu^{}_\mu$ or
362: $\nu^{}_\tau \rightarrow \kappa^* \nu^{}_\tau$ with $\kappa \neq
363: 1$. In either possibility it is easy to show that $m^{}_1 =0$ or
364: $m^{}_3 =0$ holds, but the neutrino mixing pattern turns out to be
365: disfavored by current experimental data. We find that there is no
366: way to simultaneously obtain large $\theta^{}_{23}$ and tiny
367: $\theta^{}_{13}$ in the $m^{}_3 = 0$ case, no matter whether
368: $\nu^{}_\mu \rightarrow \kappa^* \nu^{}_\mu$ or $\nu^{}_\tau
369: \rightarrow \kappa^* \nu^{}_\tau$ is taken. As for the $m^{}_1 =0$
370: case, it is straightforward to get the neutrino mixing matrix from
371: Eq. (12) with the interchange of its first and second rows (when
372: $\nu^{}_\mu \rightarrow \kappa^* \nu^{}_\mu$ is concerned) or its
373: first and third rows (when $\nu^{}_\tau \rightarrow \kappa^*
374: \nu^{}_\tau$ is concerned). We observe that $|\kappa| \sim 1$ is
375: required to assure $\theta^{}_{23} \sim \pi/4$ and $\theta^{}_{13}
376: \sim 0$ in the leading-order approximation, either for $\nu^{}_\mu
377: \rightarrow \kappa^* \nu^{}_\mu$ or for $\nu^{}_\tau \rightarrow
378: \kappa^* \nu^{}_\tau$. But $|\kappa| \sim 1$ will give rise to an
379: excessively large value of $\theta^{}_{12}$ (e.g., $\theta^{}_{12}
380: > \pi/4$), which has been ruled out by the solar neutrino
381: oscillation data. Hence neither $\nu^{}_\mu \rightarrow \kappa^*
382: \nu^{}_\mu$ nor $\nu^{}_\tau \rightarrow \kappa^* \nu^{}_\tau$
383: with $\kappa \neq 1$, which automatically breaks the $\mu$-$\tau$
384: permutation symmetry, is favored to reproduce the exactly or
385: approximately tri-bimaximal neutrino mixing pattern.
386:
387: Although the discussions from Eq. (10) to Eq. (15) are based on
388: the assumption of real $a$, $b$ and $c$, they can easily be
389: extended to the case of complex $a$, $b$ and $c$ in order to
390: accommodate CP violation. For simplicity of illustration, here we
391: assume that $a$ remains real but $b = c^*$ is complex. One may
392: then simplify the expression of $U^\dagger M^\prime_\nu U^*$ in
393: Eq. (9) by taking into account $b+c = 2{\rm Re}(b)$ and $b-c = 2i
394: {\rm Im}(b)$. After an analogous calculation, we obtain the
395: neutrino mixing matrix
396: \begin{equation}
397: V = \left ( \matrix{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} & i
398: \frac{\sqrt{2} \; \kappa \cos\theta}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} & i
399: \frac{\sqrt{2} \; \kappa \sin\theta}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} \cr
400: \frac{\kappa^*}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left (
401: i \frac{\cos\theta}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} + \sin\theta \right ) &
402: ~\;\; \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left ( \cos\theta - i
403: \frac{\sin\theta}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} \right ) \cr
404: \frac{\kappa^*}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left (
405: i \frac{\cos\theta}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} - \sin\theta \right ) &
406: -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left ( \cos\theta + i
407: \frac{\sin\theta}{\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}} \right ) \cr} \right ) \; ,
408: % (16)
409: \end{equation}
410: where $\theta$ is given by $\tan 2\theta = - {\rm Im}(b) \sqrt{
411: 2|\kappa|^2 + 1}/\left [a + {\rm Re}(b)\left (|\kappa|^2 + 1
412: \right ) \right ]$. Two immediate but important observations are
413: in order:
414: \begin{itemize}
415: \item In this simple scenario $V$ contains two nontrivial
416: CP-violating phases: $\delta = - \pi/2$ (when $\theta <0$) or
417: $\delta = \pi/2$ (when $\theta
418: >0$) and $\sigma = - \pi/2$. Both of them are attributed to the purely
419: imaginary term $b-c$. The Jarlskog invariant of CP violation
420: \cite{J} reads ${\cal J} = |\kappa|^2 |\sin 2\theta|/[2
421: (2|\kappa|^2 +1)^{3/2}]$. A numerical analysis yields $0.41
422: \lesssim |\kappa| \lesssim 0.57$ and $|\theta| < 19.4^{\circ}$.
423: Thus we arrive at ${\cal J} \lesssim 0.041$. It is likely to
424: measure ${\cal J}\sim {\cal O}(10^{-2})$ in the future
425: long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiments.
426:
427: \item $\tan \theta^{}_{23} = 1$ or $\theta^{}_{23} =\pi/4$
428: can be achieved, although the neutrino mass operator ${\cal
429: L}^\prime_{\rm mass}$ does not possess the exact $\mu$-$\tau$
430: symmetry. The reason is simply that $|b| = |c|$ holds in our
431: scenario. In other words, the phase difference between $b$ and $c$
432: signifies a kind of {\it soft} $\mu$-$\tau$ symmetry breaking
433: which can keep $\theta^{}_{23} =\pi/4$ but cause $\theta^{}_{13}
434: \neq 0$ \cite{XZZ}. Note that Eq. (16) also yields
435: $\sin\theta^{}_{13} = \sqrt{2} |\kappa|
436: |\sin\theta|/\sqrt{2|\kappa|^2 +1}~$ and $\tan\theta^{}_{12} =
437: \sqrt{2} |\kappa| \cos\theta$, exactly identical to the
438: expressions given in Eq. (13).
439: \end{itemize}
440: It is worth mentioning that the present scenario has the same
441: number of free parameters as the previous one. Taking account of
442: current experimental data on $\Delta m^2_{21}$, $\Delta m^2_{32}$,
443: $\theta^{}_{12}$ and $\theta^{}_{13}$, we arrive at $0.026 ~{\rm
444: eV} \lesssim a \lesssim 0.032 ~{\rm eV}$, $-0.010 ~{\rm eV}
445: \lesssim {\rm Re}(b) \lesssim -0.005 ~{\rm eV}$ and $-0.013 ~{\rm
446: eV} \lesssim {\rm Im}(b) \lesssim 0.013 ~{\rm eV}$ from a
447: straightforward calculation.
448:
449: Finally we point out that it is possible to derive the Majorana
450: neutrino mass operator ${\cal L}^\prime_{\rm mass}$ from the
451: minimal seesaw model (MSM) \cite{MSM}, a canonical extension of
452: the standard model with only two heavy right-handed Majorana
453: neutrinos. The neutrino mass term in the MSM can be written as
454: \begin{equation}
455: -{\cal L}^{}_{\rm MSM} \; = \; \frac{1}{2} \overline{\left
456: (\nu^{~}_{\rm L}, ~N^{\rm c}_{\rm R} \right )} \left ( \matrix{
457: {\bf 0} & M^{~}_{\rm D} \cr M^T_{\rm D} & M^{~}_{\rm R} \cr}
458: \right ) \left ( \matrix{ \nu^{\rm c}_{\rm L} \cr N^{}_{\rm R}
459: \cr} \right ) ~ + ~ {\rm h.c.} \; ,
460: % (17)
461: \end{equation}
462: where $\nu^{~}_{\rm L}$ and $N^{}_{\rm R}$ denote the column
463: vectors of $(\nu^{~}_e, \nu^{~}_\mu, \nu^{~}_\tau)^{~}_{\rm L}$
464: and $(N^{~}_1, N^{~}_2)^{}_{\rm R}$ fields, respectively. Provided
465: the mass scale of $M^{}_{\rm R}$ is considerably higher than that
466: of $M^{}_{\rm D}$, one may obtain the effective (left-handed)
467: Majorana neutrino mass matrix $M^\prime_\nu$ from Eq. (17) via the
468: well-known seesaw mechanism \cite{SS}: $M^\prime_\nu = M^{}_{\rm
469: D} M^{-1}_{\rm R} M^T_{\rm D}$. As $M^{}_{\rm R}$ is of rank 2,
470: ${\rm Det}(M^\prime_\nu) =0$ holds and $m^{}_1 =0$ (or $m^{}_3
471: =0$) is guaranteed. We find that the expression of $M^\prime_\nu$
472: given in Eq. (6) can be reproduced from $M^{}_{\rm D}$ and
473: $M^{}_{\rm R}$ if they take the following forms:
474: \begin{eqnarray}
475: M^{}_{\rm D} & = & \Lambda^{}_{\rm D} \left ( \matrix{\kappa & 0
476: \cr -1 & -1 \cr 0 & 1 \cr} \right ) \; , \nonumber \\
477: M^{}_{\rm R} & = & \frac{\Lambda^2_{\rm D}}{ab + bc + ca} \left (
478: \matrix{~ a+c ~ & c \cr c & ~ b+c ~ \cr} \right ) \; ,
479: % (18)
480: \end{eqnarray}
481: where $\Lambda^{}_{\rm D}$ characterizes the mass scale of
482: $M^{}_{\rm D}$. For simplicity, we require $a$, $b$ and $c$ to be
483: real and get the mass eigenvalues of $M^{}_{\rm R}$
484: \begin{eqnarray}
485: M^{}_{1} & = & \frac{a + b + 2c - \sqrt{ \left ( a -b \right )^{2}
486: + 4 c^{2}}}{2 \left ( a b + b c + c a \right )} ~\Lambda^2_{\rm D}
487: \; , \nonumber \\
488: M^{}_{2} & = & \frac{a + b + 2c + \sqrt{ \left ( a -b \right )^{2}
489: + 4 c^{2}}}{2 \left ( a b + b c + c a \right )} ~\Lambda^2_{\rm D}
490: \; .
491: % (19)
492: \end{eqnarray}
493: Given $\Lambda^{}_{\rm D} \sim 174$ GeV (i.e., the scale of
494: electroweak symmetry breaking), $a \sim 0.022$ eV and $b \sim c
495: \sim 0.006$ eV as the typical inputs, the masses of two
496: right-handed Majorana neutrinos turn out to be $M^{}_{1} \sim 1
497: \times 10^{15}$ GeV and $M^{}_{2} \sim 3 \times 10^{15}$ GeV,
498: which are quite close to the energy scale of grand unified
499: theories $\Lambda^{}_{\rm GUT} \sim 10^{16}$ GeV. Note that the
500: textures of $M^{}_{\rm D}$ and $M^{}_{\rm R}$ taken in Eq. (18)
501: are by no means unique, but they may serve as a good example to
502: illustrate how the seesaw mechanism works to give rise to
503: $M^\prime_\nu$ or ${\cal L}^\prime_{\rm mass}$ in the MSM.
504:
505: To summarize, we emphasize that the FL symmetry is a new kind of
506: flavor symmetry applicable to the building of neutrino mass
507: models. Imposing this symmetry on the effective Majorana neutrino
508: mass operator, we have shown that it can be broken in such a novel
509: way that the lightest neutrino remains massless but an
510: experimentally-favored bi-large neutrino mixing pattern is
511: achievable. This phenomenological scenario predicts a testable
512: relationship between the unknown neutrino mixing angle
513: $\theta^{}_{13}$ and the known angles $\theta^{}_{12}$ and
514: $\theta^{}_{23}$ in the CP-conserving case: $\sin\theta^{}_{13} =
515: \tan\theta^{}_{12} |(1- \tan\theta^{}_{23})/ (1+
516: \tan\theta^{}_{23})|$. Such a result is suggestive and interesting
517: because it directly correlates the deviation of $\theta^{}_{13}$
518: from zero with the deviation of $\theta^{}_{23}$ from $\pi/4$. We
519: have discussed a simple but instructive possibility of introducing
520: CP violation into the Majorana neutrino mass operator, in which
521: the soft breaking of $\mu$-$\tau$ permutation symmetry yields
522: $\delta = \pi/2$ (or $\delta = -\pi/2$) but keeps $\theta^{}_{23}
523: =\pi/4$. We have also discussed the possibility of incorporating
524: our scenario in the MSM.
525:
526: In conclusion, the FL symmetry and its breaking mechanism may have
527: a wealth of implications in neutrino phenomenology. The physics
528: behind this new flavor symmetry remains unclear and deserves a
529: further study.
530:
531: \vspace{0.4cm}
532:
533: One of us (Z.Z.X.) likes to thank Z. Chang, X.D. Ji, M. Li, J.X.
534: Lu and S. Zhou for very useful discussions. This work was
535: supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of
536: China.
537:
538: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
539: \bibitem{SNO} SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad {\it et al.},
540: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 011301 (2002).
541:
542: \bibitem{SK} For a review, see: C.K. Jung {\it et al.},
543: Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 51}, 451 (2001).
544:
545: \bibitem{KM} KamLAND Collaboration, K. Eguchi {\it et al.},
546: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 021802 (2003).
547:
548: \bibitem{K2K} K2K Collaboration, M.H. Ahn {\it et al.},
549: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 041801 (2003).
550:
551: \bibitem{FX01} H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 517},
552: 363 (2001). See also Particle Data Group, W.M. Yao {\it et al.},
553: J. Phys. G {\bf 33}, 1 (2006).
554:
555: \bibitem{Vissani} A. Strumia and F. Vissani, hep-ph/0606054.
556:
557: \bibitem{Review} For recent reviews with extensive references,
558: see: H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 45},
559: 1 (2000); Z.Z. Xing, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A {\bf 19}, 1 (2004);
560: Altarelli and F. Feruglio, New J. Phys. {\bf 6}, 106 (2004); R.N.
561: Mohapatra {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0510213; R.N. Mohapatra and A.Yu.
562: Smirnov, hep-ph/0603118; A. Strumia and F. Vissani, in Ref.
563: \cite{Vissani}.
564:
565: \bibitem{Lee} R. Friedberg and T.D. Lee,
566: High Energy Phys. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 30}, 591 (2006),
567: hep-ph/0606071.
568:
569: \bibitem{XZZ} Z.Z. Xing, H. Zhang, and S. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B {\bf
570: 641}, 189 (2006); Z.Z. Xing and S. Zhou, hep-ph/0607302.
571:
572: \bibitem{TB} P.F. Harrison, D.H. Perkins, and W.G. Scott, Phys.
573: Lett. B {\bf 530}, 167 (2002); Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 533},
574: 85 (2002); P.F. Harrison and W.G. Scott, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 535},
575: 163 (2002); X.G. He and A. Zee, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 560}, 87
576: (2003).
577:
578: \bibitem{J} C. Jarlskog, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 55}, 1039 (1985);
579: D.D. Wu, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 33}, 860 (1986).
580:
581: \bibitem{MSM} P. Frampton, S.L. Glashow, and T. Yanagida, Phys.
582: Lett. B {\bf 548}, 119 (2002). For a review of the minimal seesaw
583: model, see: W.L. Guo, Z.Z. Xing, and S. Zhou, hep-ph/0612033 (to
584: be published in Int. J. Mod. Phys. E).
585:
586: \bibitem{SS} P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 67}, 421 (1977);
587: T. Yanagida, in {\it Proceedings of the Workshop on Unified Theory
588: and the Baryon Number of the Universe}, edited by O. Sawada and A.
589: Sugamoto (KEK, Tsukuba, 1979), p. 95; M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and
590: R. Slansky, in {\it Supergravity}, edited by P. van Nieuwenhuizen
591: and D. Freedman (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1979), p. 315; S.L.
592: Glashow, in {\it Quarks and Leptons}, edited by M.
593: L$\rm\acute{e}vy$ {\it et al.} (Plenum, New York, 1980), p. 707;
594: R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 44}, 912
595: (1980).
596:
597: \end{thebibliography}
598:
599: \newpage
600:
601: %%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 1 b_c %%%%%%%%%%%
602: \begin{figure}
603: \begin{center}
604: \vspace{0.5cm}
605: \psfig{file=b_c.ps, bbllx=2.2cm, bblly=6.0cm, bburx=12.2cm, bbury=16.0cm,%
606: width=7.5cm, height=7.5cm, angle=0,
607: clip=0}\vspace{1.5cm}\caption{The ranges of $b$ and $c$
608: constrained by current data through Eqs. (10), (11) and (13).}
609: \end{center}
610: \end{figure}
611: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
612:
613: %%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 2 theta13 %%%%%%%
614: \begin{figure}
615: \begin{center}
616: \vspace{0.5cm}
617: \includegraphics[width=9cm,height=9cm]{theta13.eps}
618: \vspace{0cm} \caption{The numerical dependence of $\theta^{}_{13}$
619: on $\theta^{}_{12}$ and $\theta^{}_{23}$ as analytically predicted
620: by Eq. (14).}
621: \end{center}
622: \end{figure}
623: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
624:
625:
626: \end{document}
627: