1: \documentclass[a4paper,11pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx, rotating,amsmath}
3: \usepackage{ifpdf}
4: \ifpdf
5: \usepackage{hyperref, pdfsync, epstopdf} % This is for pdftex
6: \else
7: \usepackage[dvips,bookmarks]{hyperref} % This is for arXiv.org
8: \fi
9: \hypersetup{colorlinks,bookmarksopen,bookmarksnumbered,citecolor=verdes,
10: linkcolor=blus,pdfstartview=FitH,urlcolor=rossos}
11: \def\hhref#1{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/#1}{#1}} % in bibliography
12: \def\mhref#1{\href{mailto:#1}{#1}} % email on title page
13: \oddsidemargin 0cm \evensidemargin 0cm
14: \topmargin -1cm \textwidth 16cm \textheight 22.9cm
15: \newcommand{\riga}[1]{\noalign{\hbox{\parbox{\textwidth}{#1}}}\nonumber}
16: \newcommand{\gE}{\gamma_{\rm E}}
17: \newcommand{\mub}{\bar{\mu}}
18: \newcommand{\Ord}{{\cal O}}
19: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{~{\rm (\ref{eq:#1})}}
20: \newcommand{\sys}[1]{~{\rm (\ref{sys:#1})}}
21: \newcommand{\scatola}[1]{\fbox{$\displaystyle #1$}}
22: \newcommand{\GeV}{\,{\rm GeV}}
23: \newcommand{\TeV}{\,{\rm TeV}}
24: \newcommand{\cm}{\,{\rm cm}}
25: \newcommand{\kmwe}{\,{\rm kmwe}}
26: \def\circa#1{\,\raise.3ex\hbox{$#1$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\,}
27: \newcommand{\pl}{p\hspace{-4.2pt}{\scriptstyle/}}
28: \newcommand{\qsl}{q\hspace{-4.9pt}{\scriptstyle /}}
29: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
30:
31: \newcommand{\NP}{Nucl. Phys.}
32: \newcommand{\PRL}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
33: \newcommand{\PL}{Phys. Lett.}
34: \newcommand{\PR}{Phys. Rev.}
35:
36: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
37: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
38: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
39: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
40: \newcommand{\no}{\nonumber}
41:
42: \newcommand{\mb}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}
43: \newcommand{\DM}{{\rm DM}}
44: \newcommand{\AL}{{\cal L}}
45: \newcommand{\YBL}{{\cal B}-{\cal L}}
46: \newcommand{\YB}{{\cal B}}
47: \newcommand{\YL}{{\cal L}}
48: \font\tenrsfs=rsfs10 at 11pt
49: \font\sevenrsfs=rsfs7
50: \font\fiversfs=rsfs5
51: \newfam\rsfsfam
52: \textfont\rsfsfam=\tenrsfs
53: \scriptfont\rsfsfam=\sevenrsfs
54: \scriptscriptfont\rsfsfam=\fiversfs
55: \def\mathscr#1{{\fam\rsfsfam\relax#1}}
56: \def\Lag{\mathscr{L}}
57: \def\Amp{\mathscr{A}}
58: \def\Ham{\mathscr{H}}
59: \def\circa#1{\,\raise.3ex\hbox{$#1$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}\,}
60: \makeatletter
61: \newcommand{\fig}[1]{~\ref{fig:#1}}
62: %
63: % formato bibliografico standard
64: %
65: %\art[hep-ph/0611389]{autori}{rivista}{numero}{pagina}{anno}
66: \def\art{\@ifnextchar[{\eart}{\oart}}
67: \def\eart[#1]#2#3#4#5#6{{\rm #2}, {#3 #4} {\rm (#6) #5} [{\hhref{#1}}]}
68: %\def\eart[#1]#2#3#4#5#6{{\rm #2}, {\em #1}}
69: \def\hepart[#1]#2{{\rm #2, \hhref{#1}}}
70: \newcommand{\oart}[5]{{\rm #1}, {\em #2 \rm #3} {\rm (#5) #4}}
71: \newcommand{\y}{{\rm and} }
72: %
73: % definizione della macro EQNSYSTEM
74: %
75: \newcounter{alphaequation}[equation]
76: %\def\thealphaequation{\theequation\alph{alphaequation}}
77: \def\thealphaequation{\theequation\hbox to
78: 0.6em{\hfil\alph{alphaequation}\hfil}}
79: % MODIFICATA PER DARE UNA DIMENSIONE UGUALE AD UN 1em AD OGNI LETTERA
80: \def\eqnsystem#1{
81: \def\@eqnnum{{\rm (\thealphaequation)}}
82: %
83: \def\@@eqncr{\let\@tempa\relax \ifcase\@eqcnt \def\@tempa{& & &} \or
84: \def\@tempa{& &}\or \def\@tempa{&}\fi\@tempa
85: \if@eqnsw\@eqnnum\refstepcounter{alphaequation}\fi
86: \global\@eqnswtrue\global\@eqcnt=0\cr}
87: %
88: \refstepcounter{equation} \let\@currentlabel\theequation \def\@tempb{#1}
89: \ifx\@tempb\empty\else\label{#1}\fi
90: %
91: \refstepcounter{alphaequation}
92: \let\@currentlabel\thealphaequation
93: %
94: \global\@eqnswtrue\global\@eqcnt=0 \tabskip\@centering\let\\=\@eqncr
95: $$\halign to \displaywidth\bgroup \@eqnsel\hskip\@centering
96: $\displaystyle\tabskip\z@{##}$&\global\@eqcnt\@ne
97: \hskip2\arraycolsep\hfil${##}$\hfil& \global\@eqcnt\tw@\hskip2\arraycolsep
98: $\displaystyle\tabskip\z@{##}$\hfil
99: \tabskip\@centering&\llap{##}\tabskip\z@\cr}
100: %
101: \def\endeqnsystem{\@@eqncr\egroup$$\global\@ignoretrue} \makeatother
102:
103: \newcommand{\eV}{\,{\rm eV}}
104:
105: \newcommand{\SU}{\,{\rm SU}}
106:
107: \def\baselinestretch{0.975}
108:
109:
110: \usepackage{multicol}
111: \usepackage{color}
112: \definecolor{rosso}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.4}
113: \definecolor{rossos}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.55}
114: \definecolor{rossoc}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.2}
115: \definecolor{blu}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.3}
116: \definecolor{blus}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.6}
117: \definecolor{bluc}{cmyk}{1,1,0,0.1}
118: \definecolor{verde}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.25}
119: \definecolor{verdec}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.15}
120: \definecolor{verdes}{cmyk}{0.92,0,0.59,0.4}
121:
122:
123: \begin{document}
124: \begin{center}
125: %FUP-TH/06-23
126:
127: \bigskip\bigskip
128:
129: \color{black}
130: %\vspace{0.2cm}
131: {\Huge\bf\color{rossos} The smallest neutrino mass}
132: \medskip
133: \bigskip\color{black}\vspace{0.5cm}
134:
135: {
136: {\large\bf Sacha Davidson}$^a$,
137: {\large\bf Gino Isidori}$^b$,
138: {\large\bf Alessandro Strumia}$^c$.
139: }
140: \\[7mm]
141: {\it $^a$ CNRS/Universit\'e Lyon 1,
142: %Institut de Physique Nucl\'eaire de Lyon,}\\
143: %{\it
144: IPN de Lyon, Villeurbanne, 69622 cedex France}\\[3mm]
145: {\it $^b$ INFN, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati,
146: Via E. Fermi 40, I-00044 Frascati, Italy } \\ [3mm]
147: {\it $^c$ Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit{\`a} di Pisa and INFN, Italia}\\
148: \end{center}
149:
150: \bigskip
151:
152: \centerline{\large\bf\color{blus} Abstract}
153: \begin{quote}\large\color{blus}
154: We consider models where one Majorana neutrino is massless at tree level
155: (like the see saw with two right-handed neutrinos),
156: and compute the contribution to its
157: mass $m$ generated by two-loop quantum corrections.
158: The result is $m \sim 10^{-13}\eV$ in the SM and
159: $m \sim 10^{-10} \eV \cdot (\tan\beta/10)^4 $ in the MSSM,
160: compatible with the restricted range suggested by Affleck-Dine baryogenesis.
161: \color{black}
162: \end{quote}
163:
164: \bigskip
165:
166:
167: \section{Introduction}
168: Oscillation data~\cite{data} demand that two neutrinos are massive and strongly mixed;
169: in particular a roughly $\nu_\mu + \nu_\tau$ mass eigenstate is demanded by
170: the atmospheric anomaly.
171: The third neutrino mass eigenstate might be massless, and this possibility is
172: realized in various theoretical models, such as see-saw models
173: with two right-handed neutrinos~\cite{2nu}.
174: Our study applies to generic models, where lepton number is broken at some high scale leaving
175: Majorana masses for two neutrinos.
176: Since $e,\mu,\tau$ have different Yukawa couplings, no symmetry demands that
177: the massless neutrino stays massless: with the inclusion of
178: quantum corrections
179: all neutrinos become massive. In section~\ref{SM}
180: we compute the neutrino mass generated by
181: renormalization-group equation (RGE) effects
182: in the Standard Model (i.e.~without new degrees of freedom up to the scale
183: where neutrino masses are generated).
184: In section~\ref{MSSM} we consider the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM), and
185: in section~\ref{AD} we show that this quantum correction could allow successful
186: Affleck-Dine (AD) baryogenesis via leptogenesis along the $LH_{\rm u}$ flat direction~\cite{AD}.
187:
188:
189: %See-saw models can explain present oscillation data
190: %and have been studied~\cite{2nu} because they are more predictive than
191: %see-saw models with more right-handed neutrinos.
192: %Concerning neutrino masses, they predict that one neutrino is massless:
193: %indeed, each right-handed neutrino can give mass to only one neutrino.
194: %In pratice, one `atmospheric' right-handed neutrino gives mass to
195: %$\nu_\mu + \nu_\tau$, and another `solar' right-handed neutrino gives the solar mass splitting.
196:
197:
198:
199: \section{Standard Model}\label{SM}
200: Within the Standard Model (SM), Majorana neutrino masses are described by the effective operator $(L_i H)(L_j H)$ where $L$ and $H$ are the lepton and Higgs doublets.
201: Its coefficients can be parameterized by the neutrino mass matrix $m_{ij}$.
202: The dominant effect that increases the rank of $m_{ij}$ is the two-loop diagram
203: shown in fig.~\ref{fig:Feyn2loop} (left).
204: See~\cite{Babu} for earlier related studies.
205: The effect is
206: conveniently described in terms of the RGE
207: for $m$:
208: %\footnote{A fully analogous computation
209: %was performed without using RGE in~\cite{Babu},
210: %that explored the possibility that small neutrino masses arise
211: %radiatively from one weak-scale
212: %right-handed neutrino within a four-generation version of the SM.}
213: \begin{equation}
214: \label{eq:RGESM}
215: (4\pi)^2
216: \frac{d m}{d\ln \mu} = m (\lambda - 3 g_2^2+6\lambda_t^2)
217: -\frac{3}{2} (m \cdot Y^T+
218: Y\cdot m )+
219: \frac{2}{(4\pi)^2} Y\cdot m\cdot Y^T+\cdots
220: \end{equation}
221: Here $m$ and $Y = \lambda_E^\dagger \cdot \lambda_E$ are $3\times 3$ matrices
222: in flavour space ($\lambda_E$ is the charged-lepton Yukawa coupling), and
223: $\lambda$, $g_2$ and $\lambda_t$ denote the Higgs self-coupling, the SU(2)$_L$
224: gauge coupling and the top-quark Yukawa coupling, respectively.
225: Notice that the flavor structure of the RGE is dictated by
226: how $m$ and $\lambda_E$ transform under ${\rm U}(3)_L\otimes{\rm U}(3)_E$
227: flavor rotations of the left-handed lepton doublets ($L$) and singlets ($E$).
228: The first two terms on the r.h.s.~of eq.~(\ref{eq:RGESM}) arise at the
229: one-loop level and have been computed in~\cite{SMRGE}: these terms do
230: not change the rank of $m$.
231: From the explicit calculation of the first
232: two-loop diagram in fig.~\ref{fig:Feyn2loop}
233: we have deduced the coefficient of the last term, which is the
234: dominant effect that increases the rank of $m$.
235: The dots denote other effects at two-loop
236: order and higher, that do not give qualitatively
237: new effects.
238:
239: \begin{figure}[t]
240: $$\includegraphics[width=0.95\textwidth]{Feyn2loop}$$
241: \caption{\label{fig:Feyn2loop}\em Feynman diagrams (in the SU(2)-symmetric limit) that increase the rank of the neutrino mass matrix,
242: in the SM (left diagram) and in the MSSM.
243: The black dot denotes the effective operator generating
244: the Majorana mass (in the MSSM case we omitted
245: diagrams proportional the $A$-term of $(LH_{\rm u})^2$).}
246: \end{figure}
247:
248:
249: We parameterize the neutrino mass matrix in the $e,\mu,\tau$ basis
250: as $m = V^* {\rm diag}\,(m_1 ,m_2 ,m_3 ) V^\dagger$
251: where $m_1,m_2,m_3$ are complex eigenvalues,
252: $V =
253: R_{23}(\theta_{23}) \cdot
254: R_{13}(\theta_{13}) \cdot
255: \hbox{diag}\,(1, e^{i \phi},1) \cdot
256: R_{12}(\theta_{12}) $,
257: and $R_{ij}(\theta_{ij})$ represents a
258: rotation by $\theta_{ij}$ in the $ij$ plane.
259: $\phi$ is the CP-violating phase in oscillations.
260: % in the convention of~\cite{review}.
261: We denote the two leading eigenvalues of the neutrino mass matrix as
262: $m_{a}$ and $ e^{-2i\alpha} m_b$ with $m_{a}>m_{b}$,
263: and we denote as $e^{-2i\beta}m_c$ the smallest eigenvalue.
264: $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the usual Majorana phases.
265: If neutrinos have normal hierarchy, then
266: $a=3$ ($|m_3|=m_{\rm atm}\approx 0.05\eV$),
267: $b=2$ ($|m_2|= m_{\rm sun}\approx 0.009\eV$),
268: $c=1$ ($m_1 = m_{\rm min}$).
269: If neutrinos have inverted hierarchy,
270: one instead has $a=2$, $b=1$
271: (neglecting the solar mass splitting, the two heavier neutrinos are degenerate
272: with mass $m_{\rm atm}$)
273: and $c=3$.
274: In both cases, $m_{\rm min}$ has a Majorana phase, $m_{\rm min} = |m_{\rm min}|e^{-2i\beta}$.
275: We can neglect the $\lambda_{e,\mu}$ couplings, such that $Y\simeq (0,0,\lambda_\tau^2)$.
276:
277:
278:
279: In the `diagonalize and run' approach, eq.\eq{RGESM}
280: can be converted into a RGE for the smallest eigenvalue $m_{\rm min}$:
281: \beq
282: \frac{dm_{\rm min}}{d\ln \mu}=
283: \frac{2\lambda_\tau^4}{(4\pi)^4}\bigg [(V_{\tau c} V_{\tau a}^*)^2 m_a +
284: (V_{\tau c} V_{\tau b}^*)^2 e^{-2i\alpha} m_b \bigg]+ \cdots
285: \eeq
286: where we only wrote the two-loop terms that generate it.
287:
288:
289: The `run and diagonalize' approach allows to write the explicit solution
290: to eq.~\eq{RGESM} in the charged-lepton eigenstate basis as:
291: \beq\label{eq:solm}
292: m(\mu) = r \begin{pmatrix} m^{(0)}_{ee} & m^{(0)}_{e\mu} & y m^{(0)}_{e\tau}\cr
293: m^{(0)}_{\mu e} & m^{(0)}_{\mu\mu} & y m^{(0)}_{e\tau}\cr
294: y m^{(0)}_{\tau e} & ym^{(0)}_{\tau\mu} & y^2z m^{(0)}_{\tau\tau}\end{pmatrix},\qquad
295: \eeq
296: where $m^{(0)}_{ij}$ are the initial values of the mass matrix (at some heavy scale where we assume
297: det$\, m^{(0)}=0$)
298: and
299: \beq \ln r(\mu) = \int (\lambda - 3g_2^2+ 6 \lambda_t^2)dt~,
300: \qquad\label{eq:ySM}
301: \ln y(\mu)=-\frac{3}{2}\int \lambda_\tau^2 dt~,
302: \qquad
303: \ln z(\mu) =\frac{2}{(4\pi)^2} \int \lambda_\tau^4dt~,
304: \eeq
305: where $t= {\ln \mu}/{(4\pi)^2}$.
306: Eq.\eq{solm} shows that one loop effects generate a fake $m_{\rm min}$
307: if numerical inaccuracies or partial RGE resummation of higher orders terms
308: break the $y\cdot y\neq y^2$ relation, mimicking the effect of the two-loop term $z$.
309: Running down to the electroweak scale and
310: computing the determinant, one gets the radiatively-generated
311: light neutrino mass and its Majorana phase:
312: \beq
313: m_{\rm min} = (z-1) \bigg [(V_{\tau c} V_{\tau a}^*)^2 m_a +
314: (V_{\tau c} V_{\tau b}^*)^2 e^{-2i\alpha} m_b \bigg]~.
315: \eeq
316: Working at first order in $m_{\rm sun}\ll m_{\rm atm}$
317: and in $\theta_{13}\ll 1$,
318: and inserting numerical best-fit values $\theta_{\rm atm}=\pi/4$ and $\tan^2\theta_{\rm sun}=1/2$
319: in the subleading terms, one gets
320: %
321: % Modified by G.I., it was:
322: %
323: % \beq e^{-2i\beta}m_{\rm min} = (z- 1) \bigg [\frac{m_{\rm atm}}{4} \sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm}
324: % \sin^2\theta_{\rm sun}+ e^{-2i\phi} \frac{m_{\rm sun}
325: % -3\sqrt{2} m_{\rm atm} \theta_{13}e^{i \phi} }{18}\bigg]\eeq
326: %
327: \beq
328: m_{\rm min} = (z- 1)
329: \bigg [ e^{2i \phi}
330: \frac{m_{\rm atm}}{4} \sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm}\sin^2\theta_{\rm sun}
331: + \frac{m_{\rm sun} e^{-2i\alpha} -3\sqrt{2} m_{\rm atm} \theta_{13}e^{i \phi} }{18}\bigg]~,
332: \label{m1_norm}
333: \eeq
334: in the case of normal mass hierarchy, and
335: %
336: % Modified by G.I., it was:
337: %
338: % \beq e^{-2i\beta}m_{\rm min} = (z- 1) \bigg[e^{-4 i (\phi+\alpha)}\frac{m_{\rm atm}}{4}
339: % \sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm}(\cos^2\theta_{\rm sun}+e^{2i \alpha}\sin^2\theta)\bigg] \eeq
340: %
341: \beq
342: m_{\rm min} = (z- 1) e^{-2i(\phi+\alpha)} \bigg[\frac{m_{\rm atm}}{4} \sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm}(\cos^2\theta_{\rm sun}+e^{2i \alpha }\sin^2\theta_{\rm sun} + \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3} e^{i\phi}(e^{2i\alpha}-1)\theta_{13} )\bigg]
343: \label{m1_inv}
344: \eeq
345: in the case of inverted mass hierarchy.
346: %and the Majorana
347: %phase $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are defined by
348: %\beq
349: %{\rm diag} (m_\nu) \approx \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
350: %(e^{-2i\beta} m_{\rm min} ,~ e^{-2i\alpha} m_{\rm sun} ,~ m_{\rm atm} ) & \qquad [{\rm normal}] \\
351: %(m_{\rm atm},~ e^{-2i\alpha} (m_{\rm atm}-m_{\rm sun}),~ e^{-2i\beta}m_{\rm min} ) & \qquad [{\rm inverted}]
352: %\end{array} \right.
353: %\eeq
354: We performed a
355: global fit of present oscillation data\footnote{~$\theta_{12},\theta_{23},|\Delta m^2_{23}|,\Delta m^2_{12}$
356: have been measured, there is an upper bound on $\theta_{13}$,
357: $\phi$ and $\alpha$ are unknown~\cite{data}.}
358: %; see e.g.~Ref.~\cite{review}
359: %for an updated discussion.}
360: finding that the term in square brackets in eq.~(\ref{m1_norm})
361: lies between $1.4$ and 8 meV at $3\sigma$ confidence level.
362: The analogous term for inverted hierarchy in eq.~(\ref{m1_inv})
363: lies between $0$ and $16\,{\rm meV}$.
364: The RGE factor is
365: \beq\label{eq:SUSY2}
366: z-1 \approx \frac{2}{(4\pi)^4}\frac{m_\tau^4}{v^4} \ln \frac{M}{M_Z} \approx
367: 0.85~10^{-12}\ln\frac{M}{M_Z}
368: \eeq
369: where $v=174\GeV$; the numerical value, obtained from a numerical solution of SM RGE equations,
370: agrees closely with the simple analytical approximation;
371: $M$ is the heavy scale where the initial condition
372: det$(m^{(0)})=0$ holds. For $ M \circa{<} 10^{14}$~GeV
373: we find $|m_{\rm min}| \sim 10^{-13}\eV$.
374:
375: \medskip
376:
377: In practice, no significant physical effects arises in the limit $m_{\rm min}\to 0$,\footnote{The SU(2)$_L$ analogous of the QCD $\theta$ angle gives anyway negligible
378: effects exponentially suppressed by $1/\alpha_2$.}
379: so that
380: such a small value of $m_{\rm min}$ is not testable within the SM.
381: For example, oscillation predictions for $0\nu2\beta$~\cite{0nu2beta}
382: are the same for any $m_{\rm min}\ll m_{\rm sun}$.
383:
384:
385: \section{Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model}\label{MSSM}
386: As shown in fig.\fig{Feyn2loop}, supersymmetry implies additional
387: two-loop contributions to the neutrino mass matrix.
388: The diagrams in fig.\fig{Feyn2loop} are those surviving in the limit
389: of exact supersymmetry with $\mu=0$. In this limit their sums vanishes,
390: as dictated by the non renormalization theorem that only allows corrections to
391: wave-functions and therefore forbids a RGE effect that increases the rank of the neutrino mass matrix.
392: Indeed RGE corrections have been computed up to two loop order~\cite{MSSMRGE} and the
393: $Y\cdot m \cdot Y$ term is absent.
394:
395:
396: However, supersymmetry must be broken, presumably at the weak scale.
397: Computing the diagrams in fig.\fig{Feyn2loop}, plus others with $A$-term vertices,
398: one loses the large RGE logarithm present in the SM
399: (the sum of the integrals is convergent) but gains a $\tan^4\beta$ enhancement,
400: because each one of the four $\tau$ Yukawa couplings $\lambda_\tau$
401: is enhanced by $\tan\beta$.
402: The induced neutrino masses can still be expressed
403: by eqs.~(\ref{m1_norm})--(\ref{m1_inv}) with the replacement
404: of the RGE factor with
405: \beq (z - 1) \to \frac{1}{(4\pi)^4} \frac{m_\tau^4}{v^4} \tan^4\beta \cdot f(m_{\tilde{L}},
406: m_{\tilde{E}}, m_H,m_{\tilde{H}})
407: \label{eq:SUSY}
408: \eeq
409: (in the large $\tan\beta$ limit), where $v=174\GeV$
410: and $f$ is a finite adimensional
411: order one function. The explicit form of $f$ is not illuminating.
412: %Moreover,
413: %additional two-loop contributions directly proportional to soft-breaking terms
414: %are present in the MSSM: these do not change the parametric structure of
415: %eq.~(\ref{eq:SUSY}) but can be reabsorbed into a redefinition of $f$.
416:
417:
418: \medskip
419:
420: Furthermore, there is an additional effect \cite{GH} that gives
421: a potentially dominant contribution of relative order $g^2 \ln^2(M_{\rm max}/m_{\rm soft})/(4\pi)^2$
422: with respect to eq.\eq{SUSY}:
423: %in eqs .~(\ref{m1_norm})--(\ref{m1_inv}
424: the SUSY breaking
425: term $A_{ij}(\tilde{L}_iH_{\rm u})(\tilde{L}_j H_{\rm u})$
426: can contribute to the neutrino mass matrix via
427: a gaugino-slepton loop. Depending on taste
428: it can be either classified as a 1 or 2 or 3 loop effect.
429: We assume that the soft terms are flavor independent at
430: $M_{\rm max} = \min(M, M_{\rm med})$,
431: where $M_{\rm med}$ is the mediation scale of soft terms, equal
432: to $M_{\rm Pl}$
433: in supergravity-mediated models.
434: Slepton masses get corrected by flavor-dependent RGE effects;
435: the eigenvectors of $A_{ij}$ get rotated relative to those of $m_{ij}$
436: and the rank of the $A_{ij}$-term matrix is increased already
437: by one loop RGE-running between $m_{\rm soft}$ and
438: $M_{\rm max}$. % = \min(M, M_{\rm messenger})$,
439: % where $M_{\rm messenger}$ is the mediation scale of soft terms, equal
440: % to $M_{\rm Pl}$
441: % in supergravity-mediated models.
442: Indeed, the one loop RGE for $\hat{A}_{ij}\equiv v^2 A_{ij}/m_{ij}$ is
443: \beq
444: (4\pi)^2 \frac{d\hat{A}_{ij}}{d\ln\mu} =2 (\delta_{i\tau} +\delta_{j\tau}) \hat{A}_\tau \lambda_\tau^2+\cdots
445: \eeq
446: where $A_\tau=\hat{A}_\tau \lambda_\tau$ is the $A$-term of the $\tau$-Yukawa coupling and
447: $\cdots$ denotes other terms not crucial for the present discussion.
448: The solution has the form
449: \beq\label{eq:solSUSY}
450: \hat{A}(\mu) = \begin{pmatrix} \hat{A}^{(0)} & \hat{A}^{(0)} &
451: \hat{A}^{(0)} + \epsilon \hat{A}_\tau \cr
452: \hat{A}^{(0)} & \hat{A}^{(0)} & \hat{A}^{(0)} + \epsilon \hat{A}_\tau \cr
453: \hat{A}^{(0)} + \epsilon \hat{A}_\tau &
454: \hat{A}^{(0)} + \epsilon \hat{A}_\tau & \hat{A}^{(0)}+ 2\epsilon \hat{A}_\tau \end{pmatrix},\qquad
455: \epsilon \simeq \frac{\lambda_\tau^2}{(4\pi)^2} \ln\frac{M_{\rm max}}{\mu}\ .
456: \eeq
457: If $A^0_{ij}=\hat{A}^{(0)} m_{ij}^{(0)}/v^2$ has one zero eigenvalue,
458: the additive correction in eq.\eq{solSUSY}
459: transforms it into a small ${\cal O}(\epsilon^2) \hat{A}_\tau$ eigenvalue in
460: $A_{ij}$,
461: justifying our above estimate.\footnote{We here elaborate on the possibly surprising claim that
462: one-loop RGE running generates no ${\cal O}(\epsilon)$ eigenvalue and generates
463: a two-loop-like ${\cal O}(\epsilon^2)$ eigenvalue.
464: Notice that the structure of the additive terms to $A_{ij}$ in eq.\eq{solSUSY}
465: (0 or 1 or 2 depending on how many $\tau$ there are in $ij$) is exact,
466: such that we do control ${\cal O}(\epsilon^2)$ terms.
467: Furthermore, our result is compatible with the general statement~\cite{Kazakov}
468: that RGE effects in softly broken supersymmetry
469: can be condensed into a renormalization of the superfields,
470: with renormalization factors and couplings appropriately promoted to spurion superfields.
471: In our case it (roughly) means
472: that at one loop $\tilde{m}_{ij}\equiv m_{ij} + \theta\theta A_{ij}+\cdots$ only gets corrected via a
473: $\tilde{y} \approx y + \theta\theta \epsilon A_\tau+\cdots$ multiplicative
474: renormalization of the $L_\tau$ superfield, where $y$ is MSSM analogous of
475: SM $y$ in~\eq{ySM}.
476: The vanishing of $\det \tilde{m}$ implies the vanishing of $\det m$
477: and of a combination of $A\times m$ (verified by eq.\eq{solSUSY}), and
478: does not imply the vanishing of $\det A$.}
479: Due to the large uncertainty (all sparticle masses are unknown),
480: we just estimate the slepton-gaugino loop~\cite{GH} contribution to be:
481: $$m_{\rm min}\sim m_{\rm atm}
482: \frac{g^2}{64 \pi^2} \frac{\lambda_\tau^4}{(4\pi)^4} \frac{m_\chi \hat{A} }{m^2_{\rm soft}}
483: \ln^2\frac{M_{\rm max}}{m_{\rm soft}}
484: \sim 10^{-10}\eV\cdot (\frac{\tan\beta}{10})^4,$$
485: comparable to the 2 loop contribution of eq.\eq{SUSY}.
486:
487:
488: %The radiatively-generated neutrino mass in the MSSM is $m_{\rm min}\sim 10^{-10}\eV\cdot (\tan\beta/10)^4$,
489: %where the uncertainty arises because the neutrino mass matrix is not fully known, and because
490: %sparticle masses are fully unknown.
491: %
492: %
493: %For example, if sleptons, Higgses and Higgsinos all have the same mass $m_{\rm SUSY}$ one gets
494: %\beq f(m_{\rm SUSY},m_{\rm SUSY},m_{\rm SUSY},m_{\rm SUSY})=
495: %\frac{3}{2}+\frac{\pi^2}{6}+\frac{8}{\sqrt{3}} {\rm Im}\,{\rm Li}_2 e^{i\pi/3}\approx 7.8\eeq
496: %where ${\rm Li}_2$ is the bi-logarithm function.
497:
498:
499: %\newpage
500:
501: \section{Affleck-Dine leptogenesis}\label{AD}
502: In the supersymmetric context, such a small neutrino mass
503: can have phenomenological consequences.
504: Indeed, recent analyses found that a scalar condensate along the $LH_{\rm u}$
505: flat direction
506: can produce the observed baryon asymmetry if $m_{\rm min}\sim 10^{-(12\div 9)}\eV$~\cite{AD}, where
507: the uncertainty is due to our lack of knowledge about the reheating temperature, sparticle masses
508: and CP phases.
509:
510:
511:
512: The results of~\cite{AD} cannot be immediately applied to our scenario
513: because their neutrino masses are not radiatively generated.
514: Nevertheless, let us first summarize some of the key points of~\cite{AD}.
515: As usual, the $B-L$ conserving sphalerons transfer a lepton asymmetry into a baryon asymmetry:
516: this singles out the $LH_{\rm u}$ direction.
517: It develops, during inflation, a large scalar condensate
518: $\varphi \equiv \langle \tilde{L} \rangle \simeq \langle H_{\rm u}\rangle$
519: if $\varphi $ has a soft mass$^2$ of order $- H^2$
520: from the inflationary vacuum energy, where $H$ is the expansion rate during inflation, then
521: one expects $\varphi \sim v\sqrt{H/m_{\rm min}}$.
522: The smallest neutrino mass $m_{\rm min}$ gives the dominant effect because it allows the largest $\varphi$.
523: When $H^2$ decreases below the mass$^2$ terms in $V(\varphi)$
524: (the normal soft masses, $m^2_{\rm soft}$,
525: plus thermal corrections of ${\cal O}(T^2)$, relevant if the reheating temperature after inflation is high enough)
526: the condensate starts to oscillate generating a sufficient lepton asymmetry,\footnote{Unless
527: the system remains trapped in one of the unphysical vacua often present in the MSSM; thermal effects allow to partially predict which local minimum is dynamically selected as the vacuum~\cite{CCB}.}
528: because the potential contains a $\varphi^4$ term that breaks lepton number,
529: coming from the $A$-term of the $(LH_{\rm u})^2$ operator.
530:
531:
532:
533: Let us now come to the case of radiatively-generated $m_{\rm min}$.
534: %As discussed above, in AD leptogenesis a large
535: %vev develops during inflation, and produces an asymmetry
536: %during its later oscillations.
537: The dynamics of AD leptogenesis is not directly controlled
538: by neutrino masses, but
539: by the $\varphi^4$ and $|\varphi|^6$ terms in the $V(\varphi)$ potential at the beginning of oscillations,
540: respectively generated by the ${A}$-term
541: and by the $F$-term of the neutrino mass operator $(LH_{\rm u})^2$.
542: The $\varphi^4$ term acts as the source of lepton-number breaking
543: and the $\varphi^6$ term limits the initial vev of $\varphi$.
544: Denoting by $r_4$ and $r_6$ the correction factors
545: of these terms with respect to
546: the `standard' values considered in earlier analyses~\cite{AD},
547: %Let us take them to differ by a factor $r_4$ and $r_6$ respectively from
548: %the `standard' values considered in earlier analyses~\cite{AD}.
549: %The final amount of baryon asymmetry then gets corrected by $r_4/r_6$, since
550: %the $\varphi^4$ term acts as the source of lepton-number breaking
551: %and the $\varphi^6$ terms limits the initial vev of $\varphi$.
552: the final amount of baryon asymmetry gets corrected by $r_4/r_6$.
553:
554:
555:
556:
557:
558: %The results of~\cite{AD} cannot be immediately applied because they did not consider the case of radiatively generated neutrino masses.
559: %As discussed above, what directly enters in AD leptogenesis are not neutrino masses,
560: %but the $\varphi^4$ and the $|\varphi|^6$ terms in the $V(\varphi)$ potential around end of inflation,
561: %respectively generated by the $\hat{A}$-term
562: %% \hat{A} instead of A is not a misprint but a subtelty, to avoid bothering with Hubble-generated A-terms
563: %and by the $F$-term of the neutrino mass operator $(LH_{\rm u})^2$. Let us assume that they differ by a factor $r_4$ and $r_6$ respectively from the `standard' values considered in earlier analyses~\cite{AD}.
564: %The final amount of baryon asymmetry then gets corrected by $r_4/r_6$, since
565: %the $\varphi^4$ term acts as the source of lepton-number breaking
566: %and the $\varphi^6$ terms limits the initial vev of $\varphi$.
567:
568: We therefore need to compute $r_4$ and $r_6$.
569: For simplicity we assume that $\varphi$ remains below the scale
570: of new physics that generates the $LH_{\rm u}$ operator.\footnote{In the see-saw scenario,
571: this new physics are right-handed neutrinos of mass $M$,
572: with $M < 10^{14\div 15}\GeV$ if we want to remain in a perturbative regime.
573: It is not clear to us what happens if instead $\varphi> M$;
574: possibly $\varphi$ would slide up to the GUT scale (around $10^{16}\,{\rm GeV}$)
575: rather than being limited by the $|\varphi|^6$ term,
576: giving rise to a dynamics somewhat different from the one studied in~\cite{AD}.}
577: The previous section suggests that, similarly to the lightest neutrino mass,
578: the $\varphi^4$ and the $|\varphi|^6$ terms in $V(\varphi)$
579: are generated by quantum corrections, such
580: that today (after the end of inflation, at temperature $T\ll m_{\rm soft}$)
581: $r_{4,6}$ are not much different from one.
582: However, quantum corrections depend on sparticle masses,
583: which had different values during the epoch relevant for AD leptogenesis.
584: %What directly enters in AD leptogenesis
585: %is not the neutrino mass operator $(LH_{\rm u})^2$, but its $A$ term
586: %(for the generation of lepton number) and its supersymmetric contribution to the potential
587: %(for fixing the vev of the scalar condensate).
588: %Like neutrino masses, these effects are similarly generated by 2 loop quantum corrections
589: %if particles and sparticles have somewhat different masses, such that
590: %the adimensional loop function $f$ and its analogous are of order one.
591: %It is not clear if this conditions is fulfilled in the early universe at the stage relevant
592: %for AD leptogenesis.
593: There are various effects.
594: Corrections to soft terms of order $H^2$ (inflationary masses) and of order
595: $T^2$ (thermal masses) do not qualitatively change our results, because
596: they generically break supersymmetry.
597: The time dependence of $\varphi$ provides one more source of SUSY-breaking
598: via the $D$-terms; furthermore, $\varphi(t)$ directly contributes to $V(\varphi)$
599: when inserted into higher dimensional $D$-terms such as $(L \partial H_{\rm u})^2/M^3$.
600: %\footnote{The background of a finite temperature plasma acts as spontaneous breaking of supersymmetry~\cite{SUSYT}, and particles and sparticles receive `thermal masses' that differ by a factor $\sqrt{2}$
601: %(in their conventional normalization),
602: %giving qualitatively different dispersion relations and spectral densities
603: %at energies and momenta not much above the temperature.}
604: On the contrary, the large vev $\varphi$, inserted in the $\lambda_\tau LEH_{\rm d}$
605: coupling, generates a large supersymmetric mass $\sim \lambda_\tau \varphi$
606: for the $E$ and $H_{\rm d}^-$ particles and sparticles.
607: This suggests that $r_4,r_6 \sim m^2/(\lambda_\tau\varphi)^2$
608: where $m^2$ are SUSY-breaking masses coming from the effects discussed above.
609: Then $r_4/r_6$ remains of order one, such that
610: AD leptogenesis remains successful for the
611: standard value $m_{\rm min}\sim 10^{-9\div 12}\eV$.
612: We have shown that a value in this range does not need contrived flavor models
613: and can be naturally generated by quantum corrections.
614: This encouraging result might be tested in a more stringent way if
615: sparticles will be discovered,
616: and if their masses and especially $\tan\beta$ will be measured.
617:
618:
619:
620:
621: %%PUTTING BACK D-TERM
622: %\footnote{the last term arises because $ \varphi$ is time dependent,
623: %so higher dimensional D-terms, such as $(L \partial H_{\rm u})^2/M^3$
624: % can contribute to the potential in that way}
625: % $ \sim \max (H^2/\varphi^2,T^2/\varphi^2,H^2/M^2)$.
626: %%OLD AS
627: %The 2-loop gives $r_4,r_6 \sim \max (H^2/\lambda_\tau^2\varphi^2,T^2/\lambda_\tau^2\varphi^2,H^2/M^2,T^2/M^2)$
628: %{\bf MAYBE WITHOUT $\lambda_\tau$?}
629: %(the last two terms arise because the time dependence of $\varphi$ breaks supersymmetry).
630:
631:
632:
633:
634: %{\bf
635: %We assume that $\varphi$ is located at its minimum, just
636: %before oscillations start \footnote{
637: %This is delicate with a radiatively generated $m_1$,
638: %because our estimate for the coefficient of
639: %the $\varphi6$ term is only valid when $ \lambda_\tau \varphi < M_N$.
640: %So when $\varphi \gg M_N \sim 10^{14}$ GeV (this
641: %is likely to be the case during inflation), $\varphi$ might
642: %not evolve as studied in ~\cite{AD}. }.
643:
644: \section{Conclusions}
645: Assuming that two neutrinos have Majorana masses and that
646: the lightest neutrino is massless at tree level, we computed
647: the mass generated by quantum corrections, and its Majorana phase.
648: In the SM two loop RGE running
649: gives $|m_{\rm min}|\sim 10^{-13}\eV$.
650: In the MSSM supersymmetry breaking generates various
651: flavor matrices that contribute in different ways; the typical
652: result is $|m_{\rm min}|\sim 10^{-10}\eV(\tan\beta/10)^4$, enhanced
653: by four powers of $\tan\beta$.
654: Such a small neutrino mass is compatible with the restricted range of values that
655: allows successful Affleck-Dine leptogenesis
656: along the $LH_{\rm u}$ flat direction.
657:
658:
659:
660:
661:
662: %In practice the fact that this quantum correction can change the number of massless particles
663: %is not phenomenologically important, since a masless neutrino has no special effect.
664:
665:
666:
667:
668: \paragraph{Acknowledgements}
669: A.S.\ thanks L. Boubekeur, R. Rattazzi for useful comments and P. Ciafaloni and A. Romanino for an old collaboration
670: where 2 loops tools employed in the present paper were developed.
671: We thank K.~Babu and E.~Ma for drawing our attention to their earlier study~\cite{Babu}.
672:
673: %\begin{multicols}{2}
674: \footnotesize
675:
676: \begin{thebibliography}{nn}
677:
678: \bibitem{data}
679: Atmospheric data: see
680: \hepart[hep-ex/0604011]{Super-Kamiokande collaboration}.
681: \hepart[hep-ex/0606032]{K2K collaboration}.
682: \hepart[hep-ex/0607088]{MINOS collaboration}.
683: Solar data: see
684: \art[hep-ex/0406035]{KamLAND collaboration}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}{94}{081801}{2005};
685: \hepart[nucl-ex/0610020]{SNO collaboration}.
686:
687: \bibitem{2nu}
688: See-saw models with 2 right-handed neutrinos have been often considered
689: because they are more predictive than models with 3 right-handed neutrinos.
690: See
691: A. Kleppe % {\em ``Extending The Standard Model With Two Right-Handed Neutrinos''},
692: in Lohusalu 1995, Neutrino physics, 118-125.
693: \art[hep-ph/9810309]{E. Ma, D. Roy, U. Sarkar}{Phys. Lett.}{B444}{391}{1998}.
694: Section 3 of
695: \art[hep-ph/0108275]{A. Romanino, A. Strumia}{Nucl. Phys.}{B622}{73}{2002}.
696: \art[hep-ph/0208157]{P. Frampton, S. Glashow, T. Yanagida}{Phys. Lett.}{B548}{119}{2002}.
697: \art[hep-ph/0210021]{M. Raidal, A. Strumia}{Phys. Lett.}{B553}{72}{2003}.
698: \art[hep-ph/0305059]{B. Dutta, R. Mohapatra}{Phys. Rev.}{D68}{056006}{2003}.
699: \art[hep-ph/0310278]{V. Barger, D. Dicus, H. He, T. Li}{Phys. Lett.}{B583}{173}{2004}.
700: \art[hep-ph/0310326]{W. Guo, Z. Xing}{Phys. Lett.}{B583}{163}{2004}.
701: \art[hep-ph/0311029]{R. Gonzalez Felipe, F. Joaquim, B. Nobre}{Phys. Rev.}{D70}{085009}{2004}.
702: \art[hep-ph/0209020]{T. Endoh, S. Kaneko, S. Kang, T. Morozumi, M. Tanimoto}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}{89}{231601}{2002}.
703: \art[hep-ph/0404187]{S. Chang, S. Kang, K. Siyeon}{Phys. Lett.}{B597}{78}{2004}.
704: \art[hep-ph/0511136]{A. Ibarra}{JHEP}{01}{064}{2006}.
705: For a review see
706: \hepart[hep-ph/0612033]{Wan-lei Guo, Zhi-zhong Xing, Shun Zhou}.
707: In string models the number of right-handed neutrinos
708: (defined as SM gauge singlets that couple to $LH$) is not generically equal to
709: the number of generations, and right-handed neutrino masses
710: (possibly generated by non-perturbative effects in supersymmetric models)
711: can be anywhere below the string scale.
712: However, the fact that the models we are considering arise in string theory
713: could be simply due to the huge number of different string compactifications.
714:
715: \bibitem{AD}
716: \art{I. Affleck, M. Dine}{Nucl. Phys.}{B249}{361}{1985}.
717: \art[hep-ph/9310297]{H. Murayama, T. Yanagida}{Phys. Lett.}{B322}{349}{1994}.
718: \art[hep-ph/9507453]{M. Dine, L. Randall, S. Thomas}{Nucl. Phys.}{B458}{291}{1996}.
719: For recent analyses of the $LH_{\rm u}$ direction see
720: \art[hep-ph/0102187]{M. Fujii, K. Hamaguchi, T. Yanagida}{Phys. Rev.}{D63}{123513}{2001}.
721: \art[hep-ph/0104186]{M. Fujii, K. Hamaguchi, T. Yanagida}{Phys. Rev.}{D64}{123526}{2001}.
722: \hepart[hep-ph/0208003]{L. Boubekeur}.
723:
724:
725: \bibitem{Babu}
726: \art{K.S. Babu, E. Ma}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}{61}{674}{1988}
727: explored the possibility that small neutrino masses arise
728: radiatively from one weak-scale
729: right-handed neutrino within a four-generation version of the SM.
730: \art[hep-ph/9401329]{D. Choudhury, R. Ghandi, J. Gracey, B. Mukhopadhyaya}{Phys. Rev.}{D50}{3468}{1994}
731: explored the possibility of radiatively getting the solar mass splitting from
732: a heavy Hot Dark Matter $\nu_\tau$ within the SM with one weak scale singlet.
733: %\art{W.~Grimus and H.~Neufeld}{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B}{325}{18}{1989}
734: %studied one-loop radiative generation in 2-Higgs doublet models.
735:
736:
737: \bibitem{SMRGE}
738: \art[hep-ph/9306333]{P.H.~Chankowski, Z.~Pluciennik}{\PL}{B316}{312}{1993}.
739: \art[hep-ph/9309223]{K.S.~Babu, C.N.~Leung, J.~Pantaleone}{\PL}{B319}{191}{1993}.
740: An error has been corrected in
741: \art[hep-ph/0108005]{S.~Antusch, M.~Drees, J.~Kersten, M.~Lindner, M.~Ratz}{\PL}{B519}{238}{2001}.
742:
743:
744: \bibitem{0nu2beta}
745: \art[hep-ph/9311204]{S.T.~Petcov, A.Y.~Smirnov}{\PL}{B322}{109}{1994}.
746: For a recent analysis see
747: \art[hep-ph/0201291]{F.~Feruglio, A.~Strumia, F.~Vissani}{\NP}{B637}{345}{2002}.
748:
749:
750: %\bibitem{review} A.~Strumia and F.~Vissani, hep-ph/0606054.
751: \bibitem{MSSMRGE}
752: %In the MSSM RGE equations have been computed up to two loops:
753: %\art[hep-ph/0203027]{S. Antusch, M. Ratz}{JHEP}{0207}{059}{2002}.
754: RGE equations in the MSSM are summarized in
755: \art[hep-ph/0501272]{S. Antush, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, M. Ratz, M.A. Schmidt}{JHEP}{03}{024}{2005}.
756:
757:
758: \bibitem{GH}
759: \art[hep-ph/9702421]{Y. Grossman, H. Haber}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}{78}{3438}{1997}.
760: \art[hep-ph/9808296]{S. Davidson, S. King}{Phys. Lett.}{B445}{191}{1998}.
761:
762:
763: \bibitem{Kazakov}
764: \art[hep-ph/9401241]{Y. Yamada}{Phys. Rev.}{D50}{3537}{1994}.
765: \art[hep-ph/9706540]{G. Giudice, R. Rattazzi}{Nucl. Phys.}{B511}{25}{1998}.
766: \art[hep-ph/9709364]{I. Jack, D. Jones}{Phys. Lett.}{B415}{383}{1997}.
767: For a clear presentation of the superfield tecniques that we employ at one-loop level see,
768: \art[hep-ph/9709397]{L. Avdeev, D. Kazakov, I. Kondrashuk}{Nucl. Phys.}{B510}{289}{1998}.
769:
770:
771:
772:
773: \bibitem{CCB}
774: \art[hep-ph/9604417]{A. Strumia}{Nucl. Phys.}{B482}{24}{1996}.
775:
776: % \bibitem{SUSYT}
777: % \art{D. Boyanovsky}{\PR}{D29}{743}{1983}.
778: % \art{R. Gudmundsdottir, P. Salomonson}{\NP}{B285}{1}{1987}.
779: %\art[hep-th/0303260]{K. Kratzert}{Ann. Phys.}{308}{285}{2003}.
780:
781: \end{thebibliography}
782:
783:
784: \end{document}