Document Sample

3) Exploring the consequences of finite neutrino mass: Neutrino magnetic moments, muon decay, beta decay. Scattered comments on particle physics models and the possible path to the nSM. From the neutrino oscillation experiments we know that neutrinos are massive fermions. We also know that their mass is small, mn < `a few’ eV. These findings, by themselves represent `New Physics’ beyond the SM, since they imply the existence of the right-handed neutrino nR. In this lecture we will explore the consequences of these facts on other observables that would also indicate existence of `New Physics’ beyond the SM. Neutrino magnetic moment (or more generally neutrino coupling to the electromagnetic field) and the distinction between the Dirac and Majorana neutrinos. Neutrino mass and magnetic moment are intimately related. In the orthodox SM with massless neutrinos magnetic moments vanish. However, in the minimally extended SM containing gauge-singlet right-handed neutrinos one finds that mn is nonvanishing, but unobservably small, mn = 3eGF/(21/2 p2 8) mn = 3x10-19 mB [mn/ 1 eV] Typically, magnetic moment could be observed in n-e scattering using its characteristic electron recoil kinetic energy T dependence selm = pa2m2/me2 (1-T/En)/T However, a nonvanishing mn will be recognizable only if the elm. cross section is comparable with the well understood weak interaction cross section. Thus, the magnitude of mn that can be probed in this way is Considering realistic values of T it would be difficult to reach Sensitivities below ~ 10-11 mB. The present limits are about 10-10mB. Limits on mn can be also derived from bounds on the unobserved energy loss in astrophysical objects. For sufficiently large mn the rate for plasmon electromagnetic decay into nn pairs would conflict with such bounds. However, plasmons can also decay weakly in nn pairs. Thus the sensitivity of this probe is again limited by the size of the weak rate, leading to Where wP is the plamon frequency. Since in practice (hwP)2 << meT, this bound is stronger (~10-12mB) than the laboratory limits. In any case one cannot expect to reach in foreseeable future much better limits on mn. The interest in mn and its relation to mn dates from ~1990 when it was suggested that there is an anticorrelation between the neutrino flux observed in the Cl (Davis) experiment, and the solar activity (number of sunspots that follows a 11 year cycle). A possible explanation of this was proposed by Voloshin, Vysotskij and Okun, with mn ~ 10-11 mB and its precession in solar magnetic field. Even though the effect does not exist, the possibility of a large mn and small mass was widely discussed. I like to describe a model independent constraint on the mn that depends on the magnitude of mn and moreover depends on the charge conjugation properties of neutrinos, i.e. makes it possible, at least in principle, to decide between Dirac and Majorana nature of neutrinos. See Bell et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 151802 (2005); Phys. Lett. B642, 377 (2006) and Davidson et al. Phys. Lett. B626, 151 (2005). Clearly, it is not enough to minimally extend SM by allowing nR, one needs other `new physics’. QuickTim e™ and a TIFF (LZW) decompres sor are needed to see this pic ture. QuickTime™ and a QuickTime™ and a decompressor TIFF (LZW) decompres sor are neede d to se e this picture. are needed to see this picture. It is difficult to reconcile small mn with mn ~ L2/2me mn/mB ~ mn/10-18 mB [L(TeV)]2 large mn eV To overcome this difficulty Voloshin (88) proposed existence of a SU(2)n symmetry in which nL and (nR)c form a doublet. Under this symmetry mn is forbidden but mn is allowed. For Dirac neutrinos such symmetry is broken by weak interactions, but for Majorana neutrinos it is broken only by the Yukawa couplings. Note that Majorana neutrinos can have only transitional in flavor magnetic moments. Also note, that in flavor basis the mass term for Majorana neutrinos is symmetric but the magnetic moments are antisymmetric. In the following I show that the existence of nonvanishing mn leads through loop effects to an addition to the neutrino mass dmn that, naturally cannot exceed the magnitude of mn . The usual graph for mn can be expressed in a gauge invariant form: H H W B g = CW + CB m m m One can now close the loop and obtain a quadratically divergent contribution to the Dirac mass m In Bell et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 151802 (2005) we evaluated the relation between the scale L the associated neutrino mass dmn and the magnetic moment mn for Dirac neutrinos more carefully and got dmn ~ a/(16p) L2/me mn/mB here dmn is the contribution to the 3x3 neutrino mass matrix arising from radiative corrections at the one loop order. The L2 dependence arises from the quadratic divergence appearing in the renormalization of the d=4 neutrino mass operator. Requiring that dmn 1 eV and L ~ 1 TeV implies that mn 10-14 mB This is several orders of magnitude more stringent than the experimental upper limits on mn. The case of Majorana neutrinos is more subtle due to different symmetries of [mab] (mass is symmetric) and [mab] (magnetic moment is antisymmetric) in flavor indeces. These two one-loop graphs add to zero for mab for Majorana neutrinos ma mab b These graphs, with X for mass insertions, contribute to dmab by ~(ma2 - mb2) mab mab mab This is from Davidson et al. Phys. Lett. B626, 151 (2005). This is from Bell et al., Phys. Lett. B642, 377 (2006) Thus, for mab < 0.3 eV Conclusions: 1) If mn >> 10-14 mB is discovered experimentally it would imply that neutrinos are Majorana. 2) mn >> 10-14 mB is impossible for Dirac neutrinos 3) If mn >> 10-14 mB is discovered the scale L of lepton number violation would be well below the conventional see-saw scale. Note that the distinction between Dirac and Majorana does not require processes that violate lepton number in rates, just amplitudes. For example the neutrino g decay: Angular distribution of photons in the lab system with respect to the neutrino beam direction is where a = 0 for Majorana and a=-1 for Dirac and left handed couplings Neutrino mass constraints on the parameters that characterize `new physics’ in the case of nuclear beta decay and muon decay (Caltech PhD theses of Peng Wang and Rebecca Erwin, 2007 and Erwin et al, Phys. Rev. D 75, 033005 (2007)) See also simplified versions with analogous considerations in Prezeau and Kurylov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 101802 (2005) and Ito and Prezeau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 161802 (2005) In nuclear beta decay one can measure the energy and angular distribution of the electrons and neutrinos (through nuclear recoils) from the decay of oriented nuclei. (this is a classic field, first observation of parity violation was reached this way, Wu, 1957). If you wish to look for `new physics’ you can use a hamiltonian In SM CV = CV’ = 1, CA = CA’ = -1.26 and all other vanish Alternatively, one can use e,d = L,R In SM aLLV = Vud = cosqCabbibo , and all other vanish Here is the famous formula of Jackson, Treiman and Wyld (1957) that describes the distribution of electrons and neutrinos in energy and angle from the beta decay of oriented nuclei. The observables are A,a,B,b,D, etc. Here are, as examples, two observables expressed in terms of Ci Fierz interference coeff electron-neutrino angular correlation coeff. Bottom line: improved constraints on CS, CS’, CT, CT’: can be constrained by considering neutrino masses. Therefore CS+CS’ and CT+CT’ can be 0.14 constrained. Plot of CS/CV vs. CS’/CV. Grey circle: constraint from experiment on |CS|2 + |CS’|2 0.14 Thick band at 450: constraint from experiment on CS - CS’ Thin band at -450: constraint from neutrino mass Same but for of CT/CV vs. CT’/CV. Again thin band at -450: constraint from neutrino mass Brief description of the effective field theory procedures. Below the weak scale we have only SM particles + nR and Effective lagrangian: An example of the one-loop graph for matching of O(6) to O(4)M (the mass term for Dirac neutrinos) solid lines - fermions, dashed - Higgs. O(6) An example of the contribution of one of the O(6) operators to the mass term Coefficients of the operators in the lagrangian are constrained by the magnitude of neutrino mass An example of the relation between the parameter of b decay and the operator coefficient. Constraints on aedg for the Dirac case (Majorana are similar for this). They are in units of (v/L)2 x (mn/1 eV) becoming stronger when L increases or mn decreases. Based on that |CS + CS’|/CV 4 x 10-6 and |CT + CT’|/CA 8 x 10-5 This then constrains these `new physics’ couplings significantly more than the b-decay observables alone. Re/m = branching ratio for p+ decay into e+ and m+ pb = branching ratio for the pion beta decay p+ p0 + e+ + ne CKM unitarity, requiring that using experimental Vud and Vus and constraining the new physics contribution to Vud. Now analogous consideration for the purely leptonic process of the muon decay, m- e- + nm + ne or its analog for m+ The energy and angular distribution of the decay electron is Here x = 2Ee/mm = electron energy as a fraction of its maximum value. The Michel parameters have SM values r = 3/4, d = 3/4 and x =1. Deviations from these values (as well as more subtle effects involving electron polarization) would be signals of `new physics’. Effective Langrangian is parametrized as: where g = S,V,T as before and a,b = L,R again. In SM only nonvanishing a parameter is gVLL = 1, all others vanish. By restricting the other g parameters we could constrain the observable Michel values, e.g., From experiments, deviations from the SM values are not more than: Again, by considering all possible d=6 operators, evolving them and considering possible loop graphs that contribute to the neutrino mass operators, we arrive at constraints on the operator coefficients and through them on ggab One loop graphs for the contribution of the d=6 operators (shaded boxes) to the d=4 Dirac neutrino mass operator. Summary table: Constraints on the gabg stemming from different d=6 operators and neutrino mass. Indeces 1,2,D etc are flavor, only two flavors are considered for simplicity. 12 four- fermion operators constrain gT,SLR,RL 4 two- fermion and 2 Higgs ope- rators Note that the operators O(6)F,,112D and O(6)F,,221D do not contribute to the neutrino mass, so there are no naturalness bounds on their coefficients. As an example lets follow steps needed for the first row in the Table: The entries follow from the inequalities Where dm1Dn is the contribution to the neutrino mass term matrix element 1,D which, naturally, should not exceed the upper bound on neutrino mass. This, in turn follows from the matching of d=6 operators and d=4 mass operator k = 1/4 and 1/8 for S,T Here fBB is the Yukawa coupling of the charged lepton of flavor B, mB = fBB v/2 The bounds discussed above for b-decay and m-decay can be avoided by fine tuning, cancellation between individual dmn. That is, however, “unnatural”. Also, the bounds typically do not constrain the observables (A,B, a, b, etc in b-decay or r, d, etc. in m-decay ) but affect the parameters aabg or gabg in the general lagrangian that are usually obtained in general fits. Lets finish this lecture with few remarks concerning the mixing matrix, its possible symmetries, the remaining undetermined parameters, their significance, and how to possibly relate them to other things. For 3 neutrinos (or quarks) the mixing matrix (without the Majorana phases) is usually parametrized as: From recent global fits: c12 = 0.828+0.028-0.035 , s12 = 0.560+0.049-0.043 c23 = 0.742=0.058-0.115 , s23 = 0.671+0.108-0.071 c13 = 0.996+0.004-0.008 , s13 = 0.089+0.108-0.089 d totally unknown The mixing matrix therefore as of now looks like this: n1 n2 n3 e 0.82 0.56 0.0(0.15) U= m -0.42 0.61 0.67 t 0.38 -0.56 0.74 Here the first entry is for q13 = 0 and the (second) for q13 = 0.15, i.e. the maximum allowed value. (The possible deviation of q23 from 450 is neglected as well as error bars on all mixing angles, also, the CP phase d is assumed to vanish.) Note that the second column n2 looks like a constant made of 1/√3 = 0.58, i.e. as if n2 is maximally mixed. The m and t lines are almost identical suggesting another symmetry. We can contrast this with the CKM matrix for quarks that can be quite accurately parametrized as With l ~ Vus ~ 0.22 << 1. The CKM is nearly diagonal. Note also that the product of the first and third line is made of terms ~l3 only, so it is ideal for the `unitarity triangle’ tests. The neutrino mixing matrix is very different, essentially `democratic’, perhaps with the exception of the upper right corner, the angle q13. Note that the Dirac CP phase d always appears in the combination s13 eid Once more what is known empirically? a) Two mass differences: Dm212 ~ 8 x 10-5 eV2 |Dm322| |Dm312| ~ 2.5 x 10-3 eV2 their ratio, Dm212/ |Dm322| ~ 0.03 is a small number. b) Two mixing angles, q23 ~ 450, q12 ~ 350 are large and reasonably well determined. The third mixing angle, q13 is only constrained from above, sinq13 < 0.15. Perhaps sinq13 is another small parameter. Maybe, one can try (many people do) to find symmetries in the mixing matrix and make expansion in these small parameters to estimate the magnitude of q13 and of the CP phase d In fact, the neutrino mixing matrix resembles the tri-bimaximal matrix, which can be a convenient zeroth order term of such expansions. (compared to the empirical matrix above the the last line and last column were multiplied by -1) n1 n2 n3 e (2/3)1/2 (1/3)1/2 0 U = m -(1/6)1/2 (1/3)1/2 -(1/2)1/2 t -(1/6)1/2 (1/3)1/2 (1/2)1/2 Model building: Basic idea: a) Bottom-up, i.e., use the experimental data and guess some underlying symmetries. Based on them find values or ranges for the so far unknown parameters. b) Top-down, i.e., try to construct some more fundamental theory that would agree with the known facts and would also predict the missing entries. There is no shortage of attempts in both categories, with a wide range of predictions. The mixing angle q13 is restricted by experiment to sin2q13 < 0.05 (90% CL) (figure from Chen 0706.2168(hep-ph) Once the angle q13 is experimentally determined the following beautiful quote will be applicable to most of these models: “ The terrible tragedies of science are the horrible murders of beautiful theories by ugly facts. ” W. A. Fowler (after T. H. Huxley) quote borrowed from Gary Steigman How many parameters we should eventually determine: CKM matrix for quarks: In the quark mass eigenstate basis one can make a phase rotation of the u-type and d-type quarks, thus V -> eiF(u) V e-iF(d) , where F(u) = diag(Fu , Fc , Ft) , etc. The N x N unitary matrix V has N 2 parameters. There are N(N-1)/2 CP-even angles and N(N+1)/2 CP-odd phases. The rephasing invariance above removes (2N-1) phases, thus (N-1)(N-2)/2 CP-odd phases are left. So, for N = 3 there are 3 angles and 1 CP phase The usual convention is to have the angles qi in [0,p/2] and the phases di in [0,2p]. Now for neutrinos: Consider N massive Majorana neutrinos that belong to the weak doublets Li . In addition there are (presumably) also N weak singlet neutrinos, that in the see-saw mechanism are heavy (above the electroweak scale). In the low-energy effective theory there are only the active neutrinos, with the mixing matrix U invariant under U -> e-iF(E) U hv Here F(E) involves the free phases of the charged leptons and hn is a diagonal matrix with allowed eigenvalues +1 and -1. It takes into account the allowed rephasing for Majorana fields. Thus U contains N(N-1)/2 angles in [0,p/2], (N-1)(N-2)/2 `Dirac’ CP-odd phases and (N-1) `Majorana’ CP-odd phases. (N(N-1)/2 phases altogether.) These phases are in [0,2p]. The matrix U (often called PMNS) is responsible for neutrino oscillations in low-energy experiments. At high-energy see-saw theory there are two mixing matrices W (no analog for quarks) and V (different from the PMNS matrix U). They contain together N(N-1) angles and N(N-1) phases. (i.e. for N = 3 there are 6 angles a 6 phases) However, in processes that involve only active n and charged leptons only V appears, parameters in W are irrelevant. In processes that involve active n and Nh only W appears. Leptogenesis depends only on W and on the eigenvalues of Nh , it is independent on V and on the (N-1) relative phases between W and V.

DOCUMENT INFO

Shared By:

Categories:

Tags:

Stats:

views: | 6 |

posted: | 8/13/2012 |

language: | |

pages: | 40 |

OTHER DOCS BY dfhdhdhdhjr

How are you planning on using Docstoc?
BUSINESS
PERSONAL

By registering with docstoc.com you agree to our
privacy policy and
terms of service, and to receive content and offer notifications.

Docstoc is the premier online destination to start and grow small businesses. It hosts the best quality and widest selection of professional documents (over 20 million) and resources including expert videos, articles and productivity tools to make every small business better.

Search or Browse for any specific document or resource you need for your business. Or explore our curated resources for Starting a Business, Growing a Business or for Professional Development.

Feel free to Contact Us with any questions you might have.