text:
# 10 April 2000 DISTRIBUTIONAL MODES FOR SCALAR FIELD QUANTIZATION

## I INTRODUCTION

Manogue et al.  considered the quantization of the scalar field on the trousers spacetime, showing that the natural plane-wave bases are not complete in this setting. Specifically, they pointed out the existence of distributional modes which vanish identically on one region, and which correspond to initial data at the singular point joining the regions. They concluded by speculating on the possibility of quantizing this extra degree of freedom. It is then natural to consider quantizing the scalar field entirely in terms of such distributional modes; this work represents an attempt to do just that.

There is nothing new in using distributions to describe the scalar field. After all, the Feynman propagator is a distribution, as are the various other 2-point “functions” used, among other things, to define the notion of positive-frequency. What is different about the approach outlined here is that we choose to treat certain distributions as basis modes, which we use to expand the field for the purpose of second quantization.

Our distributional modes have position space indices, and in this sense are dual to the usual momentum space description in Minkowski space. But the duality is not precise in that the natural distributional modes correspond not to the standard plane-wave modes, but rather to what we call pseudo plane waves. We therefore also investigate these latter modes. We show that they are a member of an infinite family of distinct mode sets that can be used in place of the standard plane waves to derive the Rindler temperature.

To motivate our general discussion, we first consider 2-dimensional Minkowski space, explicitly constructing a family of distributional modes and discussing both their relationship to standard plane wave modes and their use in computing the Rindler temperature. This is the case that would apply to the trousers spacetime, after taking into account the periodicity the trousers impose. We then use properties of the fundamental solution of the Klein-Gordon equation to establish the existence and uniqueness of canonical distributional modes on any globally hyperbolic spacetime.

We review the standard description of the scalar field in Section II, introduce distributional modes in 2-dimensional Minkowski space in Section III, and discuss the Rindler temperature calculation in Section IV. In Section V we then show how to define canonical distributional modes on any Cauchy surface in any globally hyperbolic spacetime, and in Section VI we discuss our results.

## II BACKGROUND

In this section we review some basic properties of the quantum scalar field in Minkowski space, such as mode decomposition, positive-negative frequency decomposition, and the determination of the Fock space of states by the characterization of the vacuum.

Consider a globally hyperbolic spacetime $`(,g)`$. The classical relativistic scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on $``$ satisfies the Klein-Gordon equation

$$(\mathrm{}m^2)\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{}:=g^{ab}_a_b`$ and our signature is ($``$ $`+`$ $`+`$ $`+`$). ***A more general form of the Klein-Gordon equation includes a term proportional to the scalar curvature. In setting this term equal to zero, we consider the standard case of minimal coupling . For more on the deceptively difficult issue of nonzero coupling, see . The Klein-Gordon form for complex-valued solutions of (1) with compact Cauchy data is

$$(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi })_{KG}:=i_\mathrm{\Sigma }\left((_{\widehat{n}}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})\mathrm{\Psi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\widehat{n}}\mathrm{\Psi }\right)𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma },$$
(2)
where $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the canonical volume element on the Cauchy surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and $`\widehat{n}`$ is the future pointing unit normal to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This form is independent of the choice of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and is more commonly recognized as the inner product for the set of “positive frequency” solutions.

The standard theory in Minkowski space uses the Fourier transform to express the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as a mode-sum over plane waves,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\stackrel{}{x})=_\stackrel{}{k}\left(a(\stackrel{}{k})U_\stackrel{}{k}+\overline{a}(\stackrel{}{k})\overline{U}_\stackrel{}{k}\right)𝑑\stackrel{}{k},$$
(3)
with

$`U_\stackrel{}{k}`$ $`=`$ $`N_\stackrel{}{k}e^{i\omega _\stackrel{}{k}t+i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}}`$ (4)
$`\overline{U}_\stackrel{}{k}`$ $`=`$ $`N_\stackrel{}{k}e^{i\omega _\stackrel{}{k}ti\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}},`$ (5)
and where $`\omega _\stackrel{}{k}=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^2+m^2}.`$ The $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-dependent normalization constants are given by $`N_\stackrel{}{k}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \omega _\stackrel{}{k}}}`$. The normalization of the plane wave modes is given by

$`(U_\stackrel{}{k},U_{\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{k}}})_{KG}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{k}})`$ (6)
$`(\overline{U}_\stackrel{}{k},\overline{U}_{\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{k}}})_{KG}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{k}})`$ (7)
$`(U_\stackrel{}{k},\overline{U}_{\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{k}}})_{KG}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (8)
A positive-negative frequency splitting is made by choosing the $`\{U_\stackrel{}{k}\}`$ as a basis for positive frequency solutions. The positive frequency part of a (real-valued) solution is then given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^+:=_\stackrel{}{k}a(\stackrel{}{k})e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}i\omega _\stackrel{}{k}t}\frac{d^3k}{\sqrt{2\omega _\stackrel{}{k}(2\pi )^3}}=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}}.$$
(9)
In quantization, the expansion coefficients $`a(\stackrel{}{k})`$, $`\overline{a}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ become operators $`a(\stackrel{}{k})`$, $`a^{}(\stackrel{}{k})`$ satisfying the appropriate commutation relations. The vacuum state is then characterized by the requirement

$$a(\stackrel{}{k})|0=0,\stackrel{}{k}.$$
(10)
The final Hilbert space of states (Fock space) is generated by elements of the form

$$a^{}(\stackrel{}{k})|0.$$
(11)
In a curved spacetime, there is a standard mode-sum formalism generalizing the Minkowski space procedure outlined above . In fact, the only part of the above procedure that is specific to Minkowski spacetime is the choice of plane wave solutions for the mode-sum. Since there do not exist plane waves solutions to the Klein-Gordon equation in a general curved spacetime, one instead chooses a set $`\{U_\stackrel{}{k},\overline{U}_\stackrel{}{k}\}`$ of complex solutions satisfying the same orthonormality conditions (6) – (8). Furthermore, the solutions must form a complete set, in that the real fields must be expandable as a mode-sum over the $`\{U_\stackrel{}{k},\overline{U}_\stackrel{}{k}\}`$. Of course, finding such a set of solutions, and proving that they have the required properties to use in a mode-sum expansion, can be a very difficult problem. As we shall see, the distributional modes formalism is able to overcome these difficulties.

## III Two-Dimensional Distributional Modes

### A The Distributional Mode Expansion and Standard Quantum Field Theory

The distributional modes first arose in the context of the $`2`$-dimensional flat, but topologically nontrivial, trousers spacetime . We suggest that these modes (or an appropriate generalization) may similarly prove useful when considering quantization on other spacetimes that do not possess such nice properties as global hyperbolicity. Indeed, there has been an increasing interest in the literature with these issues , especially in connection with Hawking’s “Chronology Protection Conjecture”. As a first step in this development, we begin with the case of two-dimensional Minkowski space $`𝕄^2`$. In this case, the distributional modes retain the same form as in . Also, the well established plane wave-based theory in Minkowski space can then be used to guide the generalization of the distributional modes theory to other spacetimes.

The modes considered by Manogue et al. satisfy the wave equation (1) in the distributional sense and are of the form

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_y(t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\theta (xy+t)\theta (xyt)]`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_y(t,x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\delta (xy+t)+\delta (xyt)],`$ (13)
where $`yϵ\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\{(0,y)ϵ\}`$.

We consider a formalism for the canonical quantization of the scalar field based on this set of modes, which differ from the usual plane wave modes. In particular, the new modes are indexed by position on the surface $`t=0`$, as opposed to momentum, are real instead of complex, and satisfy:

$`(\mathrm{\Theta }_y,\mathrm{\Theta }_{\stackrel{~}{y}})_{KG}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (14)
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }_y,\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{y}})_{KG}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (15)
$`(\mathrm{\Theta }_y,\mathrm{\Delta }_{\stackrel{~}{y}})_{KG}`$ $`=`$ $`i\delta (y\stackrel{~}{y}).`$ (16)
The first step in such a formalism is to expand the field in terms of a set of basis modes, so assume This is a nontrivial assumption in general! See also . that the field can be expanded uniquely in terms of either the plane wave modes $`\{U_k,\overline{U}_k\}`$ or the distributional modes $`\{\mathrm{\Theta }_y,\mathrm{\Delta }_y\}`$:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _k}\left(a(k)U_k+\overline{a}(k)\overline{U}_k\right)𝑑k`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _y}\left(\varphi (y)\mathrm{\Delta }_y+\pi (y)\mathrm{\Theta }_y\right)𝑑y.`$ (18)
The relationship between the expansion coefficients may then be determined by the Bogolubov coefficients

$`a(k)`$ $`=`$ $`(U_k,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _y}𝑑y\left(\varphi (y)(U_k,\mathrm{\Delta }_y)+\pi (y)(U_k,\mathrm{\Theta }_y)\right)`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _y}𝑑y\left[\pi (y)\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2\sqrt{\pi \omega _k}}}e^{iky}\right)+\varphi (y)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _k}{\pi }}}e^{iky}\right)\right],`$ (21)
which can also be written in terms of a Fourier transform as

$$a(k)=\sqrt{\frac{\omega _k}{2}}\widehat{\varphi }(k)+i\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\omega _k}}\widehat{\pi }(k).$$
(22)
Similarly, we find

$$\overline{a}(k)=\sqrt{\frac{\omega _k}{2}}\widehat{\varphi }(k)i\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\omega _k}}e\widehat{\pi }(k).$$
(23)
For fixed $`k`$, $`a(k)`$ is simply the annihilation operator associated with a simple harmonic oscillator of frequency $`k`$ with phase space variables $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ and $`\widehat{\pi }`$! Thus, as the plane wave expansion of the field reveals the field as an infinite collection of harmonic oscillators indexed by their fixed frequency, the distributional mode expansion reveals the field as an infinite collection of Fourier transformed harmonic oscillators indexed by their fixed position on the $`t=0`$ surface. Notice that there is Heisenberg duality at work here: the plane wave oscillators have definite frequencies, and so are completely nonlocal, whereas the distributional mode “oscillators” are localized, and have indefinite frequency. In terms of the plane wave coefficients, the distributional mode coefficients are

$`\varphi (y)`$ $`=`$ $`i(\mathrm{\Theta }_y,\mathrm{\Phi })_{KG}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _{}}\left(a(k)(\mathrm{\Theta }_y,U_k)_{KG}+\overline{a}(k)(\mathrm{\Theta }_y,\overline{U}_k)_{KG}\right)𝑑k`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{}}N_ke^{iky}a(k)+N_ke^{iky}\overline{a}(k)dk`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`\left[\widehat{\widehat{\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{\sqrt{2\omega _k}}}\right)}}(y)\widehat{\widehat{\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{a}}{\sqrt{2\omega _k}}}\right)}}(y)\right],`$ (27)
where $`\widehat{\widehat{f}}`$ represents the inverse Fourier transform of $`f`$. Similarly,

$`\pi (y)`$ $`=`$ $`i(\mathrm{\Delta }_y,\mathrm{\Phi })_{KG}`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`i\left(\widehat{\widehat{\left(\sqrt{2\omega _k}a\right)}}(y)\widehat{\widehat{\left(\sqrt{2\omega _k}\overline{a}\right)}}(y)\right).`$ (29)
The commutation relations for the operator coefficients $`\varphi (y)`$ and $`\pi (y)`$ may be computed from the standard CCR imposed on the operator coefficients $`a(k)`$ and $`a^{}(k)`$. The result is:

$$[\varphi (y),\pi (\stackrel{~}{y})]=i\delta (y\stackrel{~}{y}),$$
(30)
with all other commutators vanishing which, of course, is just the equal time CCR for the field operator and the momentum operator. This is not a coincidence and is the reason for denoting the distributional mode coefficients as we have: $`\varphi (y)=\mathrm{\Phi }(0,y),`$ $`\pi (y)=_t\mathrm{\Phi }(0,y)`$. This will be addressed more fully in Section V, where the general distributional mode formalism is discussed, but we note that this validates our assumption that the field may be uniquely expanded in terms of distributional modes.

The goal is to have a mode-sum formalism that views the distributional modes and their operator coefficients as fundamental, replacing the use of plane waves. Furthermore, we want the formalism to reproduce standard flat space quantum field theory. Thus, we take the decomposition (18) as our starting point, and impose the canonical commutation relations (30) on the coefficients. The Fock space of states is generated by the vacuum, defined by (cf. (10))

$$\left(\sqrt{\frac{\omega _k}{2}}\widehat{\varphi }(k)+i\sqrt{\frac{1}{2\omega _k}}\widehat{\pi }(k)\right)|0=0,kϵ.$$
(31)
Equation (31) defines the same vacuum as the plane waves, but in terms of a new basis.

### B Position Fock Space

One drawback of the previous construction is the definition of the vacuum via (31), which requires a Fourier transform in the variable $`y`$, which destroys the association between distributional modes and individual points on a Cauchy surface. This association is where much of the potential utility of the distributional modes lies. Further, problems can occur with the Fourier transform when working in curved spaces. However, there is an alternative description of the Fock space that does not require a Fourier transform of the (distributional mode) expansion coefficients $`\varphi `$ and $`\pi `$, as in (31), but only a positive-negative frequency splitting of the field. The vacuum condition (10) is equivalent to the condition that the vacuum is annihilated by the positive frequency part of the field, as defined by (9):

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^+(t,x)|0=0xϵ.$$
(32)
Furthermore, as discussed in , if we denote the one-particle state of momentum $`k`$ by

$$|1_k=a^{}(k)|0,$$
(33)
then the function $`f_k(t,x):=0|\mathrm{\Phi }(t,x)|1_k`$ is the positive energy wave function in the configuration space version of the nonquantized Klein-Gordon equation. In this formalism, $`f_k(t,x)`$ is interpreted as the probability amplitude for finding a particle of momentum $`k`$ at the point $`(t,x)`$ in spacetime. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,x)|0=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(t,x)|0`$ represents a state of the field with a field quantum located at $`(t,x)`$, and is a superposition of all one-particle states $`|1_k`$. Similarly, the operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+(t,x)`$ is interpreted as annihilating a particle at $`(t,x)`$. Thus, we may generate the Fock space using the “position basis” by fixing $`t`$ and acting repeatedly on $`|0`$ with the operators $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(t,x)`$. To be explicit when using this position basis for Fock space, we call it “position Fock space”.

In terms of the distributional mode operators $`\varphi (y)`$ and $`\pi (y)`$, the positive frequency field (at $`t=0`$) that defines the vacuum via (32) is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^+(0,y)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\varphi (y)+i(\mathrm{\Omega }\pi )(y)\right),$$
(34)
or, in terms of the operator $`\widehat{\omega }:=\sqrt{_y^2m^2}`$,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^+(0,y)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\varphi (y)+i(\widehat{\omega }^1\pi )(y)\right)$$
(35)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\stackrel{~}{\omega _k^1}(y)`$, and $``$ denotes convolution.

We may view (35) as defining an annihilation operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+(0,y)`$ for position Fock space by an appropriate encoding of the field data $`\varphi (y)`$, $`\pi (y)`$ into the real and imaginary parts (respectively) of a complex quantity $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+(0,y)`$. “Appropriate” in this case refers to equation (35), which reproduces the standard notion of positive frequency in Minkowski space. But, as is well known from the curved space viewpoint, there isn’t a unique choice of positive frequency, only preferred choices (even in Minkowski space!). Therefore, we don’t refer to (35) as the encoding. Indeed, we now look at a particularly convenient encoding that leads to modes called the “pseudo plane wave” modes.

### C Positive-Negative Frequency Splittings and Pseudo Plane Waves

From (35), we saw that the real part of the positive frequency field $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ (at $`t=0`$) involves the data $`\varphi `$, while the imaginary part involves $`\pi `$. We argued that we may view the forming of the $`(t=0)`$ positive frequency field as suitably encoding the (real) Cauchy data $`\varphi (y)`$ and $`\pi (y)`$ into a single complex quantity, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ – the negative frequency part of the field being the complex conjugate. This is analogous to viewing the pair $`(x,y)ϵ^2`$ as real and imaginary parts of a single complex number $`z`$, corresponding to the positive frequency field. The negative frequency field corresponds to $`\overline{z}`$, and the positive-negative frequency decomposition $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }^++\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ corresponds to the statement $`2x=z+\overline{z}`$.

The standard Fourier transform formalism leads to a particular encoding of the data $`\varphi (y)`$ and $`\pi (y)`$ by the plane wave expansion of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$, that of (35). However, the simplest procedure would be to use the above analogy with $`^2`$ more directly and define

$$2\mathrm{\Phi }_{ppw}^+(0,x):=\varphi (x)+i\pi (x).$$
(36)
Then, we would have $`2\mathrm{\Phi }_{ppw}^{}(0,x):=\varphi (x)i\pi (x)`$. To see how this might arise from a mode decomposition, consider the “pseudo plane wave” modes $`V_k`$ and $`\overline{V}_k`$, defined by

$`V_k`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}}e^{ikx}\left(\mathrm{cos}(\omega _kt){\displaystyle \frac{i}{\omega _k}}\mathrm{sin}(\omega _kt)\right)`$ (37)
$`\overline{V}_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}}e^{ikx}\left(\mathrm{cos}(\omega _kt)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\omega _k}}\mathrm{sin}(\omega _kt)\right).`$ (38)
These modes satisfy the same normalization conditions as the plane waves:

$`(V_k,V_{\stackrel{~}{k}})_{KG}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (k\stackrel{~}{k})`$ (39)
$`(\overline{V}_k,\overline{V}_{\stackrel{~}{k}})_{KG}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (k\stackrel{~}{k})`$ (40)
$`(V_k,\overline{V}_{\stackrel{~}{k}})_{KG}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (41)
Expanding the field in terms of the pseudo plane waves yields

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t,x)=_k\left(b(k)V_k+\overline{b}(k)\overline{V}(k)\right)𝑑k.$$
(42)
The Bogolubov transformation between the pseudo plane waves and distributional modes, together with the transformation between the pseudo plane waves and the plane waves, imply:

$`b(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(k)+i\stackrel{~}{\pi }(k)\right)`$ (43)
$`\overline{b}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(k)i\stackrel{~}{\pi }(k)\right)`$ (44)
$`b(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\omega _k}}}\left((1+\omega _k)a(k)+(1\omega _k)\overline{a}(k)\right)`$ (45)
$`\overline{b}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\omega _k}}}\left((1\omega _k)a(k)+(1+\omega _k)\overline{a}(k)\right).`$ (46)
The first two of these equations show that the pseudo plane wave coefficients are related to the Fourier transform of the Cauchy data $`\varphi (y)`$ and $`\pi (y)`$ in essentially the same manner as in (36). Thus, for $`y`$-space pseudo plane waves, one could either Fourier transform on the variable $`k`$, or take the appropriate complex combination of the distributional modes to obtain the desired expansion:

$$V_y=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_yi\mathrm{\Theta }_y).$$
(47)
Another advantageous property of the pseudo plane waves was noted by Dray and Manogue in . In the case of the massless scalar field, the zero frequency limit, $`lim_{k0}U_k,`$ does not exist for the plane wave modes, since the normalization factor $`N_k`$ diverges. Even if we take the zero frequency limit before normalizing and define $`U_0=lim_{k0}e^{i\omega _kt+ikx}=1`$, it is real (and hence has no notion of positive frequency) and is orthogonal to the modes $`U_\stackrel{}{k},\overline{U}_\stackrel{}{k}`$, as well as to itself. Thus, the set $`\{U_0,U_\stackrel{}{k},\overline{U}_\stackrel{}{k}\}`$ is degenerate with respect to the Klein-Gordon form. It is common in practice to simply discard this mode as unphysical. However, this is hard to justify in spacetimes with compact spatial sections, since in this case, $`U_0`$ is a smooth function with compact support. In contrast, Dray and Manogue pointed out that $`V_k`$ and $`\overline{V}_k`$ do have well defined zero frequency limits, namely $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1i)`$ and $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(1+i)`$. It is also noteworthy that the distributional modes $`\mathrm{\Theta }_y`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_y`$ also have zero norm, and that $`\{U_0,\mathrm{\Theta }_y,\mathrm{\Delta }_y\}`$ is not degenerate with respect to the Klein-Gordon product. This is an explicit example of how the distributional modes (as well as the pseudo plane wave modes) have the ability to capture all the degrees of freedom of a system, where the plane waves cannot. The pseudo plane waves are one example of a family of sets of modes we call “generalized plane waves”. We elaborate further on this subject in the next section, after discussing distributional modes in Rindler space.

## IV Rindler Space

### A Quantum Field Theory in Rindler Space

The Rindler wedge  is the globally hyperbolic, open submanifold of Minkowski space corresponding to the right wedge $`x>|t|`$. Canonical “Rindler coordinates” $`(\tau ,\rho )`$ are defined in terms of Minkowski coordinates as follows:

$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}\mathrm{tanh}^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{x}}\right)`$ (48)
$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a}}\mathrm{ln}[a^2(x^2t^2)]`$ (49)
$`t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{a\rho }}{a}}\mathrm{sinh}(a\tau )`$ (50)
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{a\rho }}{a}}\mathrm{cosh}(a\tau ),`$ (51)
where $`a>0`$ is a constant. The line element is given by:

$$ds^2=e^{2a\rho }(d\tau ^2+d\rho ^2).$$
(52)
The rays $`\tau =C`$, $`C`$ a constant, are acceptable Cauchy surfaces for the Rindler wedge. For definiteness we will work with the Cauchy surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_R`$, defined by $`\tau =0`$. The curves $`\rho =D`$, $`D`$ a constant, are hyperbolae symmetric about the $`x`$-axis and have as asymptotes the lines $`x=\pm t`$. These hyperbolae represent the world lines of observers undergoing a constant acceleration $`ae^{a\rho }`$.

In the case of the massless scalar field ($`m=0`$), the Klein-Gordon equation is conformally invariant, and the line element (52) is conformal to the Minkowski line element . It follows that the entire quantization procedure in terms of Rindler plane waves will be formally identical to the Minkowski space quantization procedure, but with $`\rho `$ replacing $`x`$ and $`\tau `$ replacing $`t`$. Thus, we will have an orthonormal basis of positive frequency solutions (with respect to Rindler time $`\tau `$), $`U_l^R(\tau ,\rho )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\nu _l\pi }}e^{i\nu _l\tau +il\rho }`$, that will split Rindler space fields (i.e. solutions to the Rindler space wave equation) into positive and negative frequency parts, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^R(\tau ,\rho )=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{R}{}_{}{}^{+}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{R}{}_{}{}^{}`$. In the usual way, the coefficients $`a^R,a_{}^{R}{}_{}{}^{}`$ of the field expansion become operators satisfying the CCR (80) and define a vacuum state $`|0^R`$ which serves as a cyclic vector for a Fock space of states $`^R`$.

Comparing the Minkowski vacuum $`|0`$ and the Rindler vacuum $`|0^R`$, one finds:

$$0|a_{}^{R}{}_{}{}^{}a^R|0=\frac{1}{e^{\frac{2\pi \nu }{a}}1}.$$
(53)
Thus, the Minkowski vacuum state contains Rindler particles (i.e. the notion of particles defined by quantum field theory the Rindler space) in each mode $`\nu `$, at a density $`1/(e^{\frac{2\pi \nu }{a}}1)`$! Moreover, this spectrum of particles is precisely a Planckian spectrum at temperature $`\frac{a}{2\pi }`$. As mentioned above, curves of the form “$`\rho =D`$” represent uniformly accelerating observers, and so we may interpret the difference in vacua by saying that uniformly accelerating observers in Minkowski space with a quantum field in the vacuum state will “feel themselves immersed in a thermal bath of radiation at the temperature $`\frac{a}{2\pi }`$. This is the Unruh effect.

### B Distributional Modes in Rindler Space

The Rindler space distributional and pseudo plane wave modes are formally the same as the Minkowski versions, but in terms of different variables:

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda (\tau ,\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\theta (\rho \lambda +\tau )\theta (\rho \lambda \tau )\right)`$ (54)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda (\tau ,\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\delta (\rho \lambda +\tau )+\delta (\rho \lambda \tau )\right)`$ (55)
$`V_l^R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_li\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l\right),`$ (56)
where $`\lambda ,lϵ\mathrm{\Sigma }^R`$. The distributional modes $`\mathrm{\Theta }_y`$ are coordinate independent, in the sense that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda (\tau ,\rho )=\mathrm{\Theta }_{y(\lambda )}(t(\tau ,\rho ),x(\tau ,\rho ))`$. However, the same does not hold for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_y`$. The modes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ (respectively, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_y`$) have been defined as the $`\tau `$ (respectively $`t`$) derivative of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda `$ (respectively $`\mathrm{\Theta }_y`$), and $`_\tau _t`$. This is the origin of the inequivalent notions of positive frequency with respect to Minkowski and Rindler coordinates in the distributional modes formalism, where it appears as different notions of time ($`t`$ vs. $`\tau `$).

In the right Rindler wedge, we have the expansions

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^R(\rho ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _l}𝑑l\left(a^R(l)U_l^R+\overline{a^R}(l)\overline{U_l^R}\right)`$ (57)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^R(\rho ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _l}𝑑l\left(b^R(l)V_l^R+\overline{b^R}(l)\overline{V_l^R}\right)`$ (58)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^R(\rho ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\lambda }𝑑\lambda \left(\varphi ^R(\lambda )\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda +\pi ^R(\lambda )\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda \right).`$ (59)
As in the Minkowski case, it follows from the computation of the Bogolubov transformations that the expansion coefficients, hence the annihilation and creation operators defined by the modes, are related as follows:

$`a^R(l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\nu }}}\left(\nu \stackrel{~}{\varphi }^R(l)+i\stackrel{~}{\pi }^R(l)\right)`$ (60)
$`\overline{a^R}(l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\nu }}}\left(\nu \stackrel{~}{\varphi }^R(l)+i\stackrel{~}{\pi ^R(l)}\right)`$ (61)
$`b^R(l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^R(l)+i\stackrel{~}{\pi }^R(l)\right)`$ (62)
$`\overline{b}^R(l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^R(l)i\stackrel{~}{\pi }^R(l)\right)`$ (63)
$`b^R(l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\nu _l}}}\left((1+\nu _l)a^R(l)+(1\nu _l)\overline{a}^R(l)\right)`$ (64)
$`\overline{b}^R(l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\nu _l}}}\left((1\nu _l)a^R(l)+(1+\nu _l)\overline{a}^R(l)\right).`$ (65)
The sets of modes $`U_l`$, $`V_l`$, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda ,\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ are related by

$`V_l`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega _k}}\right)U_k+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega _k}}\right)\overline{U}_k`$ (66)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_li\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_l).`$ (67)
### C The Unruh Effect

A standard method for deriving the Unruh and Hawking effects is to analyze the Bogolubov transformations between the basis modes associated with the two different coordinate systems corresponding to two sets of observers $`𝒂`$ and $`𝒃`$. That one obtains a thermal spectrum of “$`𝒂`$ particles” in the $`𝒃`$ vacuum state follows from a particular property (say, P) satisfied by the Bogolubov coefficients $`\alpha _{lk}`$ and $`\beta _{lk}`$. For the Unruh effect, one makes the standard choice of basis modes in both coordinate systems – plane waves. Although this is a natural choice to make, the point has been stressed that the consideration of alternatives to the plane waves may be advantageous and, in certain spacetimes, even necessary. Thus, the question arises if, and to what extent, the properties of the Bogolubov coefficients that lead to the thermal spectrum result do (or do not) depend on this choice of modes.

In the remainder of this section we will define a family of Bogolubov transformations on plane waves to obtain an infinite family F of sets of “generalized plane wave” modes. We will regard each set in the family as an alternative set of basis modes for the mode-sum formulation of quantum field theory. Considering both Minkowski and Rindler generalized plane waves, we show that the Unruh effect may be derived by choosing any set of modes in the family to serve as the basis modes, so long as corresponding sets of generalized plane waves are used in the two different coordinate systems.

We give a brief review of the derivation of the Unruh effect here in §IV C, pointing out the property P of the Bogolubov coefficients that leads to the Unruh effect. In §IV D and §IV E we define the family F of sets of modes and prove the invariance of the property P under changes of mode sets within F.

We compute the expression for the Bogolubov coefficients $`\alpha _{lk}`$ and $`\beta _{lk}`$ for the Minkowski plane waves $`U_\stackrel{}{k}`$ and $`U_l^R`$.

$`\alpha _{lk}`$ $`=`$ $`(U_l^R,U_\stackrel{}{k})_{KG}`$ (68)
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \omega _k}}})({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \nu _l}}})\left(i\nu _le^{ikx}e^{a\rho (x)il\rho (x)}+i\omega _ke^{ikx}e^{il\rho (x)}\right)𝑑x`$ (69)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega _k}}{4\pi \sqrt{\nu _l}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{ikx}e^{\frac{il}{a}\mathrm{ln}(ax)}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _l}{ax\omega _k}}\right)𝑑x.`$ (70)
Let $`xiy`$ and rotate the resulting contour back to the positive real axis $`x>0`$. Using $`\mathrm{ln}(iy)=\frac{i\pi }{2}+\mathrm{ln}(y)`$, $`yϵ`$, we get

$`\alpha _{lk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{\omega _k}}{4\pi \sqrt{\nu _l}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{ky}e^{\frac{il}{a}\mathrm{ln}(iay)}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _l}{iay\omega _k}}\right)𝑑y`$ (71)
$`=`$ $`e^{\frac{l\pi }{2a}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{\omega _k}}{4\pi \sqrt{\nu _l}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{ky}e^{\frac{il}{a}\mathrm{ln}(ay)}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _l}{iay\omega _k}}\right)𝑑y\right].`$ (72)
By essentially the same calculation, one finds

$`\beta _{lk}`$ $`=`$ $`(U_l^R,\overline{U}_\stackrel{}{k})_{KG}`$ (73)
$`=`$ $`e^{\frac{l\pi }{2a}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{\omega _k}}{4\pi \sqrt{\nu _l}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{ky}e^{\frac{il}{a}\mathrm{ln}(ay)}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu _l}{iay\omega _k}}\right)𝑑y\right].`$ (74)
Thus, we see that the Bogolubov coefficients satisfy the property

$$\alpha _{lk}=e^{\frac{l\pi }{a}}\overline{\beta }_{lk},$$
(75)
which implies

$$|\alpha _{lk}|^2=e^{\frac{2l\pi }{a}}|\overline{\beta }_{lk}|^2.$$
(76)
This is the property P from which the thermal spectrum result follows, provided the Bogolubov identities are satisfied.

### D Generalized Plane Waves

Consider a Bogolubov transformation of the plane waves

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}U_k\\ \overline{U}_k\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}V_k\\ \overline{V}_k\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_k& B_k\\ B_k& A_k\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}U_k\\ \overline{U}_k\end{array}\right),$$
(77)
that does not mix frequencies and is subject to

$$\mathrm{det}\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_k& B_k\\ B_k& A_k\end{array}\right)=A_k^2B_k^2=1,$$
(78)
so that the normalization is preserved. Generally, we have such a transformation for each function $`\theta (k)`$ if we define $`A_k=\mathrm{cosh}(\theta (k))`$, $`B_k=\mathrm{sinh}(\theta (k))`$. If $`B_k0`$, there will be mixing of positive and negative frequencies, and the transformed modes will define a different vacuum state than the standard Minkowski vacuum. An explicit example of such a transformation is given by the pseudo plane wave modes, for which $`\theta (k)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\omega _k)`$. We may formally reproduce the above construction for plane waves in Rindler space and write the transformation as

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}V_l^R\\ \overline{V}_l^R\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_l& B_l\\ B_l& A_l\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}U_l^R\\ \overline{U}_l^R\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}A_lU_l^R+B_l\overline{U}_l^R\\ B_lU_l^R+A_l\overline{U}_l^R\end{array}\right).$$
(79)
We now have a new set of modes $`\{V_k,\overline{V}_k\}`$ in Minkowski space and a new set $`\{V_l^R,\overline{V}_l^R\}`$ in Rindler space.

By using a different set of basis modes we obtain a different set of operator coefficients. It is straightforward to check that for the above class of transformations the new operator coefficients satisfy the same canonical commutation relations as their plane wave counterparts. That is,

$$[a(k),a^{}(\stackrel{~}{k})]=\delta (k\stackrel{~}{k}),$$
(80)
together with

$`b(k)`$ $`=`$ $`A_ka(k)+B_ka^{}(k)`$ (81)
$`b^{}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`A_ka^{}(k)+B_ka(k),`$ (82)
and $`A_k^2B_k^2=1`$ imply that

$$[b(k),b^{}(\stackrel{~}{k})]=\delta (k\stackrel{~}{k})$$
(83)
(with all other commutators vanishing). Thus, the commutation relations (80) are unchanged by the transformation (81),(82).

Using (81),(82), we may compute the following vacuum expectation values:

$`0|b^{}(k)b(\stackrel{~}{k})|0`$ $`=`$ $`0|\{A_ka^{}(k)+B_ka(k)\}\{A_{\stackrel{~}{k}}a(\stackrel{~}{k})+B_{\stackrel{~}{k}}a^{}(\stackrel{~}{k})\}|0`$ (84)
$`=`$ $`0|B_kB_{\stackrel{~}{k}}a(k)a^{}(\stackrel{~}{k})|0`$ (85)
$`=`$ $`B_kB_{\stackrel{~}{k}}0|\delta (\stackrel{~}{k}k)+a^{}(\stackrel{~}{k})a(k)|0`$ (86)
$`=`$ $`B_kB_{\stackrel{~}{k}}0|\delta (\stackrel{~}{k}k)|0+0|a^{}(\stackrel{~}{k})a(k)|0`$ (87)
$`=`$ $`B_k^2\delta (\stackrel{~}{k}k).`$ (88)
Consider the special case where the operators $`a(k),a^{}(k)`$ are the usual Minkowski plane wave operator coefficients and $`b(k),b^{}(k)`$ are the pseudo plane wave operator coefficients. The number operator for $`k`$-mode particles is $`b^{}(k)b(k)`$. The vacuum expectation value of the number operator for $`k`$-mode particles is then infinite:

$$0|b^{}(k)b(k)|0\frac{1}{4}\delta (0)\left(\frac{1}{\omega _k}+\omega _k2\right).$$
(89)
The infinity due to the delta function arises because of the infinite spatial volume of time slices ($`t=k`$, $`kϵ`$ hypersurfaces) in Minkowski space. In particular, if we “put the field in a box” (that is, assume that the time slices are flat 3-tori instead of copies of $`^3`$ ), the delta function becomes a Kronecker delta, and in this case,

$$0|b^{}(k)b(k)|0=\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{1}{\omega _k}+\omega _k2\right).$$
(90)
The total particle content still diverges:

$$\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}0|b^{}(k)b(k)|0=\frac{1}{4}\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{1}{\omega _k}+\omega _k2\right)=\mathrm{}.$$
(91)
This shows explicitly that the vacuum defined by the pseudo plane wave modes defines a Fock space that is not unitarily equivalent to the Fock space generated by the standard Minkowski vacuum, for finiteness of $`_{k=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}0|b^{}(k)b(k)|0`$ is necessary and sufficient to guarantee that the pseudo plane wave vacuum and the standard Minkowski vacuum define unitarily equivalent Fock spaces.

The following section shows that, somewhat surprisingly, the modes $`\{V_k,\overline{V}_k\}`$ and $`\{V_l^R,\overline{V}_l^R\}`$ can nevertheless be used to derive the Unruh effect.

### E Invariance Theorem

We have already noted that the if property P is satisfied by the Bogolubov coefficients, then the Unruh effect follows via the consistency conditions satisfied by the Bogolubov coefficients. We first derive some properties of the Bogolubov transformations $`\alpha _{lk}`$ and $`\beta _{lk}`$ between Minkowski and Rindler plane waves.

###### Lemma 1

The Bogolubov coefficients $`\alpha _{lk}`$ and $`\beta _{lk}`$ associated with the plane wave modes in Minkowski and Rindler space satisfy

$`\overline{\alpha }_{lk}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _{lk}`$ (92)
$`\overline{\beta }_{lk}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _{lk}.`$ (93)
Proof:

By direct computation,

$`\overline{\alpha }_{lk}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{(U_l^RU_\stackrel{}{k})}_{KG}`$ (94)
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \omega _k}}})({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \nu _l}}})e^{ikx}e^{il\rho (x)}\left(i\nu _le^{a\rho (x)}i\omega _k\right)𝑑x`$ (95)
$`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \omega _k}}})({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \nu _l}}}){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{i(l\rho (x)kx)}\left(\nu _le^{a\rho (x)}+\omega _k\right)𝑑x`$ (96)
$`=`$ $`\alpha _{lk}.`$ (97)
Similarly,

$`\overline{\beta }_{lk}`$ $`=`$ $`(U_l^R,\overline{U}_k)_{KG}`$ (98)
$`=`$ $`i({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \omega _k}}})({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \nu _l}}}){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{i(l\rho (x)+kx)}\left(i\nu _le^{a\rho (x)}i\omega _k\right)𝑑x`$ (99)
$`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \omega _k}}})({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi \nu _l}}}){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{i(l\rho (x)kx)}\left(\nu _le^{a\rho (x)}+\omega _k\right)𝑑x`$ (100)
$`=`$ $`\beta _{lk}.`$ (101)
We now prove the main result.

###### Proposition 1

Property P holds for the transformation $`\{V_k,\overline{V}_k\}\{V_l^R,\overline{V}_l^R\}`$ if and only if P holds for the transformation $`\{U_k,\overline{U}_k\}\{U_k^R,\overline{U}_k^R\}`$. That is, for $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{lk}=(V_l^R,V_k)_{KG}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{lk}=(V_l^R,\overline{V}_k)_{KG}`$, $`\alpha _{lk}=(U_l^R,U_k)_{KG}`$ and $`\beta _{lk}=(V_l^R,\overline{V}_k)_{KG},`$ then $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{lk}=e^{\frac{\pi l}{a}}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}_{lk}`$ if and only if $`\alpha _{lk}=e^{\frac{\pi l}{a}}\overline{\beta }_{lk}`$ .

Proof:

The Bogolubov coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{lk}`$ may be expressed in terms of the (untransformed) plane wave Bogolubov coefficients by substitution:

$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{lk}`$ $`=`$ $`(V_l^R,\overline{V}_k)_{KG}`$ (102)
$`=`$ $`(A_lU_l^R+B_l\overline{U}_l^R,A_kU_k+B_k\overline{U}_k)_{KG}`$ (103)
$`=`$ $`A_lA_k(U_l^R,U_k)_{KG}+A_lB_k(U_l^R,\overline{U}_k)_{KG}+`$ (105)
$`B_lA_k(\overline{U}_l^R,U_k)_{KG}+B_lB_k(\overline{U}_l^R,\overline{U}_k)_{KG}.`$
Using the lemma, we get

$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{lk}`$ $`=`$ $`A_lA_k\alpha _{lk}A_lB_k\overline{\beta }_{lk}+B_lA_k\overline{\beta }_{lk}B_lB_k\alpha _{lk}`$ (106)
$`=`$ $`\left(A_lA_kB_lB_k\right)\alpha _{lk}\left(B_lA_kA_lB_k\right)\overline{\beta }_{lk}.`$ (107)
Assuming $`\alpha _{lk}=e^{\frac{l\pi }{a}}\overline{\beta }_{lk}`$, we may use this in the above equation to obtain

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{lk}=\left(A_lA_kB_lB_k\right)e^{\frac{l\pi }{a}}\overline{\beta }_{lk}+\left(B_lA_kA_lB_k\right)\overline{\beta }_{lk}.$$
(108)
Similarly, one finds

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{lk}=\left(A_lA_kB_lB_k\right)\overline{\beta }_{lk}+\left(B_lA_kA_lB_k\right)e^{\frac{l\pi }{a}}\overline{\beta }_{lk}.$$
(109)
By comparing (108) and (109), we conclude that

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{lk}=e^{\frac{l\pi }{a}}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}_{lk},$$
(110)
that is, the Bogolubov coefficients for the transformed modes possess the property P. Applying the same argument to the inverse transformation proves the converse.

## V General Theory of Distributional Modes

### A Existence and Uniqueness of Canonical Distributional Modes

We have so far defined distributional modes explicitly for 2-dimensional Minkowski and Rindler spaces, and the generalization to $`n`$-dimensional Minkowski and Rindler spacetimes is straightforward. However, our desire is to define distributional modes in general, curved spacetimes, and the key to this issue lies in the fact that the distributional modes are closely related to the fundamental solution of the Klein-Gordon equation . This observation makes it possible to establish the existence and uniqueness of a canonical type of distributional mode.

The family of distributional modes {$`\mathrm{\Theta }_y`$}, taken as a single distribution, corresponds precisely to the restriction to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the fundamental solution (the difference between the advanced and retarded Green functions) $`G(x,y)`$ of the Klein-Gordon equation §§§The (homogeneous) Green function $`G(x,y)`$ is defined (as a distribution) on the whole of the product manifold $`\times `$, but in equation (111) we are restricting $`G(x,y)`$ to the subset $`\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$.:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_y=G(x,y)|_{yϵ\mathrm{\Sigma }}.$$
(111)
An important result concerning the fundamental solution is that it is uniquely defined on any globally hyperbolic spacetime. Thus, the distributional modes {$`\mathrm{\Theta }_y`$} have a unique, coordinate invariant generalization to arbitrary globally hyperbolic spacetimes that requires, and will depend on, only a choice of Cauchy surface. The distributional modes {$`\mathrm{\Delta }_y`$} were defined as the (coordinate) time derivative of the modes {$`\mathrm{\Theta }_y`$}, as were the Rindler versions. As mentioned in §IV B, the Minkowski and Rindler versions of these modes differed because of the different definitions of time coordinate. So, although there is a unique set of modes {$`\mathrm{\Theta }_y`$} associated to a given Cauchy surface in a globally hyperbolic spacetime, this will not be the case for {$`\mathrm{\Delta }_y`$}.

The Minkowski space distributional modes have the property that their nonzero data, being delta functions, have support concentrated on a single point. For example, in Minkowski space, the distributional modes have the data (at $`t=0`$)

$$\{\mathrm{\Theta }_y,\mathrm{\Delta }_y\}=\{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{\delta (xy)}\right),\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\delta (xy)}{0}\right)\}.$$
(112)
It is this property that compelled their study, since it allows one to isolate degrees of freedom associated with points in spacetime. Thus, the distributional mode formulation of quantum field theory would be the most natural approach to problems of quantization in spacetimes where there are singular points, such as the trousers spacetime. With this in mind, we define canonical distributional modes that generalize the Minkowski distributional modes in the following sense. For Cauchy surfaces in Minkowski space of the form $`t=C`$, $`C`$ a constant, where $`(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ are inertial coordinates, the normal vector coincides with $`_t`$. Since every Cauchy surface in a globally hyperbolic spacetime has a unique, future pointing normal vector, we may generalize the Minkowski definition of distributional modes using the normal vector to define a preferred set of modes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_y`$.

###### Definition V.1

Let $`(,g)`$ be a globally hyperbolic $`n`$-dimensional spacetime and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ a Cauchy surface. Let $`x`$ and $`y`$ be 2 independent copies of a local coordinate for $``$. Restrict to $`yϵ\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The canonical distributional modes are defined to be the distributional solutions to the Klein-Gordon equation, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_y`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_y`$, corresponding to the data

$$\{\mathrm{\Theta }_y,\mathrm{\Delta }_y\}=\{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{\delta (xy)}\right),\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\delta (xy)}{0}\right)\}.$$
(113)
This definition is substantiated by the following theorem:

###### Proposition 2

Let $`(,g)`$ be a globally hyperbolic $`n`$-dimensional spacetime and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ a Cauchy surface. Then there exist a unique set of distributional modes $`\{\mathrm{\Theta }_y,\mathrm{\Delta }_y\}`$. Furthermore, the set of modes is complete in the sense that any $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ solution of the Klein-Gordon equation $`(\mathrm{}m^2)\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ with compact spatial support may be uniquely expanded in terms of the distributional modes.

Proof:

The solution to the initial value problem for the Klein-Gordon equation is given in terms of the homogeneous fundamental solution $`G(x,y)`$ by

$$\iota :\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\varphi }{\pi }\right)_\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\pi (y)G(x,y)\varphi (y)_{\widehat{n}}^yG(x,y)\right)𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }^y=\mathrm{\Phi }(x).$$
(114)
$`G(x,y)`$ satisfies the Klein-Gordon equation

$$(\mathrm{}m^2)G(x,y)=0$$
(115)
in either argument $`x`$ or $`y`$ and is antisymmetric: $`G(x,y)=G(y,x)`$. Global hyperbolicity allows us to assume without loss of generality that the coordinates have been chosen so that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ corresponds to the hypersurface $`x^0=t=0`$ or $`y^0=s=0`$. It will be helpful to be explicit and write $`G(x,y)=G(t,\stackrel{}{x};s,\stackrel{}{y})`$. The equation (114) then reads

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\stackrel{}{x})=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\{\pi (y)G(t,\stackrel{}{x};0,\stackrel{}{y})\varphi (y)_{\widehat{n}}^yG(t,\stackrel{}{x};0,\stackrel{}{y})\}𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }^y.$$
(116)
Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ be the solution generated by data $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{y}),\pi (\stackrel{}{y})`$, where $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{y})`$ is an arbitrary smooth function of compact support, and $`\pi (\stackrel{}{y})=0`$. In this case, (116) is just

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\stackrel{}{x})=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\varphi (\stackrel{}{y})_{\widehat{n}}^\stackrel{}{y}G(t,\stackrel{}{x};0,\stackrel{}{y})d\mathrm{\Sigma }^y.$$
(117)
Evaluating this equation at $`t=0`$, we find

$$\varphi (\stackrel{}{x}):=\mathrm{\Phi }(0,\stackrel{}{x})=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\varphi (\stackrel{}{y})_{\widehat{n}}^yG(0,x;0,y)d\mathrm{\Sigma }^y.$$
(118)
However, this is exactly the definition of the Dirac delta distribution $`\delta (\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})`$. Differentiate (117):

$$_{\widehat{n}}^x\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\stackrel{}{x})=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\varphi (\stackrel{}{y})_{\widehat{n}}^x_{\widehat{n}}^yG(t,\stackrel{}{x};0,\stackrel{}{y})d\mathrm{\Sigma }^y.$$
(119)
Then,

$$0=\pi (\stackrel{}{x})=_{\widehat{n}}^x\mathrm{\Phi }(0,\stackrel{}{x})=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\varphi (\stackrel{}{y})_{\widehat{n}}^x_{\widehat{n}}^yG(0,\stackrel{}{x};0,\stackrel{}{y})𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }^y.$$
(120)
As $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{y})`$ is arbitrary, we must have $`_{\widehat{n}}^x_{\widehat{n}}^yG(0,\stackrel{}{x};0,\stackrel{}{y})=0`$. Alternatively, let $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ be the solution generated by data $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{y}),\pi (\stackrel{}{y})`$, where $`\pi (\stackrel{}{y})`$ is an arbitrary smooth function of compact support, and $`\varphi (\stackrel{}{y})=0`$. Then (116) reduces to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\stackrel{}{x})=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi (y)G(t,\stackrel{}{x};0,\stackrel{}{y})𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }^y.$$
(121)
Evaluate this equation at $`t=0`$:

$$0=\varphi (\stackrel{}{x})=\mathrm{\Phi }(0,\stackrel{}{x})=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi (y)G(0,\stackrel{}{x};0,\stackrel{}{y})𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }^y.$$
(122)
As $`\pi (\stackrel{}{y})`$ is arbitrary, we must have $`G(0,\stackrel{}{x};0,\stackrel{}{y})=0`$. Lastly, evaluating the normal derivative of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ yields

$$\pi (\stackrel{}{x})=_{\widehat{n}}^x\mathrm{\Phi }(0,\stackrel{}{x})=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\pi (\stackrel{}{y})_{\widehat{n}}^xG(0,x;0,y)𝑑\mathrm{\Sigma }^y.$$
(123)
Collecting these results we conclude that for each fixed $`\stackrel{}{y}ϵ\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`G(t,\stackrel{}{x};0,\stackrel{}{y})`$ is the unique distributional solution to the Klein-Gordon equation having data $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{\delta (\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})}\right)`$, and $`_{\widehat{n}}^yG(t,\stackrel{}{x};0,\stackrel{}{y})`$ is the unique distributional solution to the Klein-Gordon equation having data $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\delta (\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y})}{0}\right)`$. Define $`\mathrm{\Theta }_y`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_y`$ as in (113). The completeness condition then follows from (114).

Thus, we may define a quantization procedure for any globally hyperbolic spacetime by first choosing a Cauchy surface and using (113) to expand the field in terms of distributional modes. A choice of positive-negative frequency would be made by defining the positive frequency field operator

$$2\mathrm{\Phi }_{ppw}^+(0,x):=\varphi (x)+i\pi (x).$$
(124)
The position Fock space would then be generated by the vacuum state, defined by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^+(t,\stackrel{}{x})|0=0(t,\stackrel{}{x})ϵ\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(125)
One may alternatively choose different encodings of the expansion coefficients into the positive frequency operator to define different vacua as desired. For example, in the case of a static spacetime with compact spatial sections, one may Fourier decompose with respect to Killing time and use the encoding as in (31) to obtain a vacuum analogous to the Minkowski plane wave vacuum.

Canonical distributional modes were defined above for any choice of Cauchy surface in any globally hyperbolic spacetime, and a prescription for second quantization was given. In Section IV, distributional modes in Rindler space were constructed on the $`\tau =0`$ hypersurface, but this construction is not a special case of the canonical construction. This is due to the fact that the unit normal vector field does not coincide with the timelike vector field corresponding to the (Rindler) coordinate time derivative used to construct the family $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda \}`$. This situation can be dealt with by relaxing the requirement that the unit normal derivative be used in the definition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$. Instead, associate distributional modes with a choice of Cauchy surface and a choice of timelike vector field $`\xi `$, defining the modes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ as $`\xi (\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda )`$. For static spacetimes such as the Rindler spacetime, a natural choice of timelike vector field to use would be the Killing vector field. However, as far as the mathematical formalism is concerned, any timelike vector field can be used. Equation (114) would then be used to determine the expansion coefficients. Therefore, once a Cauchy surface and timelike derivative is chosen, and the distributional mode expansion made, second quantization may proceed as in the canonical case.

## VI DISCUSSION

In Minkowski space, our distributional modes correspond more naturally to pseudo plane waves rather than plane waves, and in particular are not Poincaré invariant. Nevertheless, we showed that pseudo plane waves can be used in place of plane waves to deduce important physical properties, such as the Rindler temperature. The fact that our distributional modes are related to the fundamental solution, which leads to our existence and uniqueness results, further suggests that pseudo plane waves may deserve further study in their own right.

At first sight, the distributional modes have a simple definition in terms of data on an initial data surface. In Rindler space, however, the definition of the distributional modes depended in a crucial way on Rindler coordinates. Although it turns out that the modes $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda `$ are invariantly defined on any globally hyperbolic spacetime, the modes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\lambda `$ were defined as the derivatives of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\lambda `$ with respect to the Rindler time coordinate, and therefore are not equivalent to their Minkowski counterparts. In this framework, therefore, the fundamental role of a family of observers appears as the choice of time coordinate used to differentiate the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ modes to obtain the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ modes.

Nonetheless, from the results of the theory of PDEs, we were able to produce a canonical generalization of the distributional modes. This construction most directly generalizes the Minkowski case in that the modes are defined using a Cauchy surface and the unit normal derivative, and then prescribing delta function data as in (113). Work is in progress on the generalization of the distributional modes for a given coordinate system and Cauchy surface.

A procedure based on canonical distributional modes for the second quantization of the scalar field in an arbitrary globally hyperbolic spacetime is readily generalized from the Minkowski procedure. There is no a priori need for Fourier transformation nor the need to find solutions explicitly other than the distributional mode solutions. Moreover, the canonical distributional mode solutions exist in any globally hyperbolic spacetime and have the same simple expression in terms of Cauchy data. To demonstrate the utility of this formalism, one should apply it to specific models, such as the trousers spacetime. Also desirable would be a rigorous treatment of the functional analysis involved in the formalism, as well as a detailed examination of how the formalism fits in with the many other approaches to curved space quantum field theory. These issues are all being actively pursued.

## Acknowledgments

We owe a considerable debt to Corinne A. Manogue for inspiring this research with her idea of using the distributional modes as modes. A.A. would like to thank Robert Wald and Robert Geroch for helpful discussions and the Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago for hospitality. This work forms part of a dissertation submitted to Oregon State University (by A.A.) in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree in mathematics, and was partially supported by NSF Graduate Research Fellowship 9616167-DGE.


format: text

text:
# The Infrared Behavior of QCD Propagators in Landau GaugeSupported by DFG (Al 279/3-2) and by the BMBF (06-ER-809).

## 1 Confinement in Landau Gauge QCD

Covariant quantum theories of gauge fields require indefinite metric spaces. Modifications to the standard (axiomatic) framework of quantum field theory are also necessary to accommodate confinement in QCD. These seem to be given by the choice of either relaxing the principle of locality or abandoning the positivity of the representation space. Great emphasis has therefore been put on the idea of relating confinement to the violation of positivity in QCD. Just as in QED, where the Gupta-Bleuler prescription is to enforce the Lorentz condition on physical states, a semi-definite physical subspace can be defined as the kernel of an operator. The physical states then correspond to equivalence classes of states in this subspace differing by zero norm components. Besides transverse photons covariance implies the existence of longitudinal and scalar photons in QED. The latter two form metric partners in the indefinite space. The Lorentz condition eliminates half of these leaving unpaired states of zero norm which do not contribute to observables. Since the Lorentz condition commutes with the $`S`$-Matrix, physical states scatter into physical ones exclusively. Color confinement in QCD is ascribed to an analogous mechanism: No colored states should be present in the positive definite space of physical states defined by some suitable condition maintaining physical $`S`$-matrix unitarity. Within the framework of BRS-algebra the completeness of the nilpotent BRS-charge $`Q_B`$ in a state space $`𝒱`$ of indefinite metric is assumed. The (semi-definite) physical subspace $`𝒱_{\text{phys}}=\text{Ker}Q_B`$ is defined by those states which are annihilated by the BRS charge $`Q_B`$. Positivity is then proved for physical states  which are given by the cohomology $`(Q_B,𝒱)=\text{Ker}Q_B/\text{Im}Q_B𝒱_s`$, the covariant space of equivalence classes of BRS-closed modulo exact states (in the image $`\text{Im}Q_B`$ of the BRS-charge).

In perturbation theory the space $``$ is formed by transverse gluon and quark states. Longitudinal and timelike gluons form (massless) quartet representations with ghosts and are thus unphysical. At the same time the global symmetry $`J_{\mu ,\nu }^a`$ corresponding to gauge transformations generated by $`\theta ^a(x)=a_\mu ^ax^\mu `$ is spontaneously broken quite analogous to the displacement symmetry in QED. Nonperturbatively, Kugo and Ojima have shown that the identification of BRS-singlet states (in $`𝒱_s`$) with color singlets is generally possible, in particular also for transverse gluons and quarks, if this global symmetry is restored dynamically . A sufficient condition for this restoration to happen is that the nonperturbative ghost propagator is more singular than a massless pole in the infrared, i.e.,

$$G(p)=\frac{1}{p^2(1+u(p^2))},\text{with}u(p^2)1\text{for}p^20.$$
(1)
Furthermore, this mechanism is related to Nishijima’s derivation , from Ward-Takahashi identities, of the Oehme-Zimmermann superconvergence relations which formalize a long known contradiction between asymptotic freedom and the positivity of the spectral density for transverse gluons in the covariant gauge .

The remaining dynamical aspect of confinement in this formulation resides in the cluster decomposition property of local field theory. The proof of which, absolutely general otherwise, does not include the indefinite metric spaces of covariant gauge theories . In fact, there is quite convincing evidence for the contrary, namely that the cluster property does not hold for colored correlations of QCD in such a description . This would thus eliminate the possibility of scattering a physical state into color singlet states consisting of widely separated colored clusters (the “behind-the-moon” problem, see also Ref.  and references therein). Then, however, there cannot be a mass gap in the whole indefinite space $`𝒱`$ (which implies nothing on the physical spectrum of the mass operator in $``$).

Our solutions to the DSEs for the ghost and gluon propagators as reported in Refs.  provide for both, the Kugo-Ojima confinement criterion by an infrared enhancement of the ghost propagator and the gapless spectrum by the infrared fixed point in the color-octet correlations. The violation of positivity of transverse gluons observed in  seems unambiguously established by a variety of independent nonperturbative studies of the gluon propagator as summarized in Ref. . It is furthermore interesting to note that recent lattice calculations also verify the Kugo-Ojima criterion .

## 2 Infrared Behavior of Gluon and Ghost Propagators

The known structures in the 3-point vertex functions can be employed to establish truncated DSEs that are complete for the gluon, ghost and quark propagators of Landau gauge QCD . This is possible with systematically neglecting contributions from explicit 4-point vertices to the propagator DSEs as well as non-trivial 4-point scattering kernels in the constructions of the 3-point vertices. The coupled DSEs for the propagators of the pure gauge theory can be solved in a one-dimensional approximation . Asymptotic expansions of the solutions in the infrared are obtained analytically. While the gluon propagator is found to vanish for small spacelike momenta in this way, an apparent contradiction with earlier studies that implied its infrared enhancement can be understood from the observation that the previously neglected ghost propagator now assumes just this: An infrared enhancement of ghosts as predicted by the Kugo-Ojima confinement criterion . This infrared behavior of the propagators in Landau gauge was later confirmed qualitatively by studies of further truncated DSEs . Neither does it thus seem to depend on the particular 3-point vertices nor on the one-dimensional approximation employed in our original solutions.

These solutions to the coupled gluon-ghost DSEs compare well with recent lattice results available for the gluon  and the ghost propagator  (which implement various lattice versions of the Landau gauge condition). Indications towards an infrared vanishing gluon propagator are now seen on the lattice also . At least some suppression in the infrared is certainly excluded to be a finite size effect . Especially the ghost propagator, however, is in compelling agreement with the lattice data. This is an interesting result for yet another reason: In  the Landau gauge condition was supplemented by an algorithm to select gauge field configurations from the fundamental modular region which is to avoid Gribov copies. Thus, our results suggest that the existence of such gauge copies might have little effect on the solutions to the Landau gauge DSEs. The positivity violations of transverse gluons as seen in our results  combined with the evidence from roughly a decade of lattice simulations with considerably increasing statistics  leave little doubt on the significance of this result.

## 3 Nonperturbative Running Couplings

Lattice Landau gauge results have also become available for nonperturbative running couplings from simulations of the 3-gluon  and the quark-gluon vertex . These seem to have the common feature of a maximum value $`\alpha _S^{\text{max}}(\mu _0)`$ at a finite momentum scale $`\mu _0>0`$. Below this scale decreasing values of the couplings are extracted towards smaller scales. Such qualitative forms lead to double-valued $`\beta `$-functions, however. Here, we would like to point out that this behavior seems likely to be an artifact of asymmetric subtraction schemes in theories with confinement realized by the Kugo-Ojima criterion. The reason is seen by relating results from asymmetric schemes $`\alpha _S^{\text{asym}}`$ to those of symmetric subtraction schemes $`\alpha _S^{\text{sym}}`$ which essentially results in a ratio of ghost renormalization functions ,

$$\alpha _S^{\text{asym}}(\mu )\underset{s0}{lim}\frac{1+u(\mu ^2)}{1+u(s)}\alpha _S^{\text{sym}}(\mu ).$$
(2)
With $`u(0)=1`$ this is not well-defined. If the attention is limited to the $`\mu `$-dependence of $`\alpha _S^{\text{asym}}`$, however, the Kugo-Ojima criterion implies an artificial suppression in $`\alpha _S^{\text{asym}}(\mu )`$ as compared to $`\alpha _S^{\text{sym}}(\mu )`$.

The (symmetric) scheme of  is based on the non-renormalization of the ghost-gluon vertex in Landau gauge. The ideal comparison would thus be provided by a lattice simulation employing this vertex to extract the running coupling in a likewise symmetric subtraction scheme. It would be very interesting to see whether such simulations could support the infrared fixed point we obtained from the DSEs in  (with $`\alpha _S(\mu 0)9.5`$ and monotonically decreasing for $`\mu >0`$). This is because such an infrared fixed point entails the existence of unphysical massless (bound) states in the color-octet channels of 4-point functions (of gluon/ghost and quark/antiquark correlations). It might also be worthwhile to consider simulations of such 4-point functions in lattice Landau gauge, and to assess possible indications for massless states in these correlations directly. The existence of massless unphysical states is a necessary condition for a failure of the cluster decomposition property for colored clusters, see Chap. 4.3.4 in Ref. .

Recently we solved the coupled propagator DSEs with quarks included . Implications on positivity violations and confinement for quarks are currently being investigated.

## Acknowledgements

R.A. thanks the organizers of Quark Nuclear Physics 2000 for making this stimulating conference possible. He is grateful to S. Furui, A. Schreiber, A. Thomas and A. Williams for many helpful discussions. Furthermore, he thanks all members of the CSSM for the extraordinary hospitality extended to him at his stay after the conference.


text:
# 1 Representation content of the lepton and Higgs fields considered in the present model. The generators of 𝑍₃ and 𝑍₄ groups are 𝜔 and 𝑖, respectively.

US-00-02

April 19, 2000

A Two Parameter Texture of Nearly Bi-maximal Neutrino Mixing

Ambar Ghosal

Department of Physics, University of Shizuoka

52-1 Yada, Shizuoka-shi, Shizuoka 422 8526, Japan

We propose a texture of three generation Majorana-type neutrino mass matrix in terms of only two parameters which gives rise to nearly bi-maximal mixing angles. We also demonstrate an explicit realization of such type of neutrino mass-matrix in the context of an $`SU(2)_L`$$`\times `$$`U(1)_Y`$ model due to higher dimensional mass terms through the inclusion of discrete $`Z_3`$$`\times `$$`Z_4`$ symmetry and two extra singlet Higgs fields.

PACS No. 12.60 Fr., 14.60 Pq., 13.40 Em.

```
E-mail: ambar@snis.u-shizuoka-ken.ac.jp
        gp1195@mail.a.u-shizuoka-ken.ac.jp

```

( To appear in Physical Review D )

I. Introduction Evidence in favour of neutrino oscillation (as well as neutrino mass) has been provided by the Super-Kamiokande (SK) atmospheric neutrino experiment  through the measurement of magnitude and angular distribution of the $`\nu _\mu `$ flux produced in the atmosphere due to cosmic ray interactions. Observed depletion of $`\nu _\mu `$ flux in earth has been interpreted as the oscillation of $`\nu _\mu `$ to some other species of neutrino. In a two flavour neutrino oscillation scenario, oscillation between $`\nu _\mu `$ \- $`\nu _\tau `$, the experimental result leds to maximal mixing between two species $`\mathrm{Sin}^22\theta 0.82`$ with a mass-squared difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`m_{atm}^2`$$``$ $`(5\times 10^46\times 10^3)`$ $`\mathrm{eV}^2`$. Furthermore, recent result of SuperKamiokande experiment disfavours any large mixing between purely $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _s`$(sterile neutrino) at 99 $`\%`$ c.l.. The solar neutrino experimental results  are also in concordance with the interpretation of atmospheric neutrino experimental result and the data provide the following values as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`m_{e\mu }^2`$$``$ $`(0.82)\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$, $`\mathrm{Sin}^22\theta `$ $``$ 1 (Large angle MSW solution) or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`m_{e\mu }^2`$$``$ $`(0.56)\times 10^{10}\mathrm{eV}^2`$, $`\mathrm{Sin}^22\theta `$ $``$ 1 (vacuum oscillation solution). Furthermore, the CHOOZ experimental result  gives the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{eX}^2<10^3`$ $`\mathrm{eV}^2`$ or $`\mathrm{Sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{eX}}<0.2`$. In order to reconcile with the solar and atmospheric neutrino experimental results, a possible explanation known as bi-maximal neutrino mixing is advocated , in which $`\theta _{12}`$=$`\theta _{23}=45^o`$, and if, the CHOOZ experimental result is interpreted in terms of $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ oscillation, then $`\theta _{31}<13^o`$. Another scenario could still be possible if the solar neutrino experimental result is explained in terms of small angle MSW solution however, we have not address this scenario in the present work. In the prsent work, we propose a texture of Majorana-type neutrino mass matrix in terms of only two parameters considering only three generations of neutrinos. Two parameter texture of neutrino mass matrix has also been discussed earlier . In Ref.6, with three light neutrinos, different zeroth order textures of both neutrino and charged lepton mass matrices has been proposed in view of the solar and atmospheric neutrino experimental results advocating the implication of flavor symmetry. A detailed analysis is found in Ref.7 where the implication of $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ symmetry has been discussed to realize light neutrino mass both via see-saw mechanism and low energy effective theory. An investigation in this path has also been done in Ref.8 through the introduction of a partially conserved chiral $`U(1)_{f_1}`$$`\times `$ $`U(1)_{f_2}`$ symmetry with Standard model gauge group to generate both quark and lepton mass matrices. Apart from the successful description of quark and lepton mass matrices , however, in this model a large value of Higgs coupling of the term of dimension greater than four is needed to avoid the conflict between the minimization condition of the Higgs potential and the choice of low value of the VEV of an $`SU(2)_L`$ triplet Higgs field when vacuum oscillation solution of solar neutrino problem is considered in addition with the atmospheric neutrino experimental result. This problem is avoided in the present model by discarding any hard (dim $``$ 4) discrete symmetry violating term in the scalar potential. In this work, we propose an explicit pattern of two parameter texture of neutrino mass matrix which gives rise to nearly bi-maximal neutrino mixing and also can accommodate the required mass-squared differences to explain the solar (by large angle MSW solution or by Vacuum oscillation ) and atmospheric neutrino experimental results. Next, we demonstrate an explicit realization of the proposed texture within the framework of an $`SU(2)_L`$$`\times `$ $`U(1)_Y`$ model with an extended Higgs sector and discrete symmetry. The plan of the paper is as follows: Section IIcontains the proposed neutrino mass-matrix and its phenomenology. A model accomplishes the proposed mass matrix is presented in Section III. Section IV contains summary of the present work.

II. Neutrino Mass Matrix Before going into the details , first of all, we consider the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal in flavor space. Consider now the following Majorana-type neutrino mass matrix with the basis of the leptonic fields ($`l_{1L}`$, $`l_{2L}`$, $`l_{3L}`$) (where $`l_{iL}`$ have (2,1) quantum numbers under $`SU(2)_L`$$`\times `$$`U(1)_Y`$ gauge group, $`i`$ is the generation index)

$$M_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& a& a\\ a& 0& b\\ a& b& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(1)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are two real model independent parameters and we consider $`ab`$ so that $`M_\nu `$ contains at least two parameters. Also it is to be noted that the absence of $`\nu _e\nu _e`$ mass term in the above neutrino mass matrix evades the bound on the Majorana-type neutrino due to $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ decay. Moreover, the above texture admits no observable CP violating effect in the leptonic sector as the number of parameters is only two. The phases of $`a`$ and $`b`$ could easily be rotated away by redefining the leptonic fields. The elements of $`M_\nu `$ can be generated either by radiative mechanism or by non-renormalizable mass operators. We have not addressed here the see-saw type mass generation because in that case a judicious choice of Dirac-type neutrino mass matrix is necessary. Diagonalizing the neutrino mass matrix $`M_\nu `$ by an orthogonal transformation as $`O^TM_\nu O`$ = $`M_D`$ = Diag($`m_{\nu _1}`$,$`m_{\nu _2}`$,$`m_{\nu _3}`$) where

$$O=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{31}c_{12}& c_{31}s_{12}& s_{31}\\ c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{31}c_{12}& c_{12}c_{23}s_{23}s_{31}s_{12}& s_{23}c_{31}\\ s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}s_{31}c_{12}& s_{23}c_{12}s_{31}s_{12}c_{23}& c_{23}c_{31}\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
we obtain the following values of the mixing angles as

$$\theta _{23}^\nu =\frac{\pi }{4},\theta _{31}^\nu =0,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}^\nu =\frac{m_{\nu _1}}{m_{\nu _2}}$$
(3)
and the eigenvalues of the above mass matrix comes out as

$$m_{\nu _1}=\frac{bx}{2}$$

$$m_{\nu _2}=\frac{b+x}{2}$$

$$m_{\nu _3}=b$$
(4)
where $`x`$ = $`\sqrt{b^2+8a^2}`$. The sign of $`m_{\nu _1}`$ and $`m_{\nu _2}`$ can be made positive by redefining lepton doublet fields. Furthermore, in terms of the three eigenvalues $`m_{\nu _1}`$, $`m_{\nu _2}`$ and $`m_{\nu _3}`$, the mixing matrix $`O`$ can be written as

$$O=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}& s_{12}& 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}s_{12}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}c_{12}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}s_{12}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}c_{12}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\sqrt{\frac{m_{\nu _2}}{m_{\nu _1}+m_{\nu _2}}}& \sqrt{\frac{m_{\nu _1}}{m_{\nu _1}+m_{\nu _2}}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\frac{m_{\nu _1}}{m_{\nu _1}+m_{\nu _2}}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\frac{m_{\nu _2}}{m_{\nu _1}+m_{\nu _2}}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\frac{m_{\nu _1}}{m_{\nu _1}+m_{\nu _2}}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{\frac{m_{\nu _2}}{m_{\nu _1}+m_{\nu _2}}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right)$$
(5)
In the limit $`b`$$``$ 0 ,$`\theta _{12}^\nu `$$``$$`\frac{\pi }{4}`$, the two eigenvalues $`m_{\nu _1}`$ and $`m_{\nu _2}`$ become degenerate and we can achieve the exact bi-maximal neutrino mixing. In this situation, although we obtain the exact bi-maximal neutrino mixing however, the obtained eigenvalues $`m_{\nu _1}`$ = $`m_{\nu _2}`$ and $`m_{\nu _3}`$ = 0, can be fitted with either the solar or the atmospheric neutrino experimental result. Removal of degeneracy between the two eigenvlues require further higher order corrections. For our analysis, we set the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ = $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ which in turn sets the value of $`\theta _{12}^\nu `$. The value of $`x`$ depends on the hierarchical relation between $`a`$ and $`b`$ parameters which is manifested from the values of

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=bx$$
(6)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=\frac{1}{4}(3b+x)(xb).$$
(7)
Now, if, $`b^28a^2`$, then the value of $`x`$ comes out as $`x`$ $`b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$$`0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$$`b^2`$, hence, in this case it is not possible to accommodate both the results of solar and atmospheric neutrino experiments. Thus, for a phenomenologically viable model, we have to consider the hierarchy $`8a^2b^2`$ and in this case $`m_{\nu _1}`$ is also become positive. The pattern of neutrino mass is presented in Figure I. In this situation, we obtain, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ $``$ $`2\sqrt{2}ab`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$$``$ $`2a^2`$. For a typical value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$$``$ $`4\times 10^3`$ $`\mathrm{eV}^2`$ which can explain the atmospheric neutrino deficits, we obtain $`2a^24\times 10^3`$ $`\mathrm{eV}^2`$. For a typical value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$$``$$`4\times 10^{10}`$ $`\mathrm{eV}^2`$ which can explain the solar neutrino deficits due to vacuum oscillation, the value of $`b^2`$ comes out as $`b^210^{17}`$$`\mathrm{eV}^2`$ whereas for the large angle MSW solution a typical value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$$``$$`10^5`$ $`\mathrm{eV}^2`$ the value of $`b^2`$ comes out of the order of $`10^9`$ $`\mathrm{eV}^2`$. The mixing angle $`\theta _{12}^\nu `$ comes out as $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}^\nu `$ $``$ $`\frac{2a\sqrt{2}b}{2a\sqrt{2}+b}`$ and since $`ab`$, $`\theta _{12}^\nu `$ $`45^o`$, and, hence, there is no conflict to satisfy the value of $`\theta _{12}^\nu `$ well within the allowed range of the experimental value. III. A Model In this section, we demonstrate an explicit realization of the above neutrino mass matrix as well as a flavor diagonal charged lepton mass matrix within the framework of an $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_\mathrm{L}\times \mathrm{U}(1)_\mathrm{Y}`$ model with two singlet Higgs fields and discrete $`\mathrm{Z}_3\times \mathrm{Z}_4`$ symmetry. The charged masses are arising in a similar way to Standard Model (SM) whereas neutrino masses are generated through non-renormalizable operators. We have also discussed the situation when the mixing is exactly bi-maximal. Instead of three almost degenerate neutrinos , we obtain a hierarchical pattern of neutrino masses. To obtain a realistic low energy phenomenological model, several attempts have been made through the inclusion of discrete symmetry . Recently, it has been shown  that non- abelian discrete groups (such as dihedral groups $`D_n`$ , dicyclic groups $`Q_{2n}`$ )plays an attractive role to obtain required mixing pattern in the fermionic sector. A recent work in this path has been done  through the inclusion of $`U(1)`$$`\times `$$`Z_2`$ symmetry in the flavor space to explain both the quark and leptonic sector mixing angles. Although the question of embedding such symmetries under a large symmetry is still open , nevertheless, to understand from the low energy point of view, inclusion of discrete symmetry and extra matter fields is an attractive way. The discrete $`\mathrm{Z}_3\times \mathrm{Z}_4`$ symmetry prohibits unwanted mass terms in the charged lepton and neutrino mass matrices in the present model. We consider soft discrete symmetry breaking terms in the scalar potential, which are also responsible to obtain non-zero values of the VEV’s of the Higgs fields upon minimization of the scalar potential. It is to be noted that in order to avoid conflict between the choice of VEV’s of the Higgs fields ($`\rho `$ and $`\xi `$) with the minimization condition of the Higgs potential , we discard any hard discrete symmetry breaking term in the Higgs potential. Discrete symmetry invariant soft or hard terms will not cause hierarchical problem as addressed in Ref.8. The Majorana neutrino masses are obtained due to explicit breaking of lepton number through higher dimensional terms.

The representation content of the leptonic fields and Higgs fields considered in the model is given in Table I. Apart from the standard model doublet $`h`$ Higgs field, we introduced another two singlet Higgs $`\xi `$ and $`\rho `$ fields to obtain two independent parameters for the neutrino sector. The most general lepton-Higgs Yukawa interaction in the present model generating Majorana neutrino masses is given by

$$L_Y^\nu =\frac{(l_{1L}l_{2L})hh\rho }{M_{f^2}}+\frac{(l_{1L}l_{3L})hh\rho ^{}}{M_{f^2}}+\frac{(l_{2L}l_{3L})hh\xi ^2}{M_{f^3}}$$
(8)
and the Yukawa interaction which is responsible for generation of charged lepton masses is given by

$$L_Y^E=f_1\overline{l_{1L}}e_Rh+f_2\overline{l_{2L}}\mu _Rh+f_3\overline{l_{3L}}\tau _Rh+H.c..$$
(9)
We consider $`\rho `$ is a complex scalar field whereas $`\xi `$ is a real scalar field. The present model contains a large mass scale $`M_f`$, and for our analysis we set $`M_fM_{GUT}`$ which is the highest scale considered in the present model. The VEV’s, $`\xi `$ and $`\rho `$ are constrained by the solar and atmospheric neutrino experimental results.

In order to avoid any zero values of the VEV’s of the Higgs fields upon minimization of the scalar potential, we have to consider discrete symmetry breaking terms. Without going into the details of the scalar potential, this feature can be realized in the following way. In general, the scalar potential can be written as (keeping upto dim=4 terms)

$$\mathrm{V}=\mathrm{Ay}^4+\mathrm{By}^3+\mathrm{Cy}^2+\mathrm{Dy}+\mathrm{E}$$
(10)
where ’$`y`$’ is the VEV of any Higgs field and A, B, C, D, E are generic couplings of the terms contained in the scalar potential. Minimizing the scalar potential w.r.t. ’$`y`$’, we obtain

$$\mathrm{V}^{}=\mathrm{A}^{}\mathrm{y}^3+\mathrm{B}^{}\mathrm{y}^2+\mathrm{C}^{}\mathrm{y}+\mathrm{D}$$
(11)
Eqn.(10) reflects the fact that as long as $`\mathrm{D}0`$, and $`A^{}`$ or $`B^{}`$ or $`C^{}`$ is not equal to zero, we will get non-zero solutions for ’$`y`$’. Thus, in order to obtain $`y0`$ solution, it is necessary to retain the terms with generic coefficients D and $`A^{}`$ or $`B^{}`$ or $`C^{}`$. In the present model, both the discrete symmetry breaking terms soft and hard, correspond to the term with coefficient D. Discarding hard symmetry breaking terms, we retain soft discrete symmetry breaking terms, and, hence, none of the VEV is zero upon minimization of the scalar potential. Let us look at the leptonic sector of the prsent model. Substituting the VEV’s of the Higgs fields appeared in Eqn.(9), we obtain flavor diagonal charged lepton mass matrix as

$$M_E=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}d& 0& 0\\ 0& e& 0\\ 0& 0& f\end{array}\right)$$
(12)
where $`d=f_1h`$, $`e=f_2h`$ and $`f=f_3h`$ and substituting the VEV’s of $`\xi `$, $`h`$ and $`\rho `$ Higgs fields in Eqn.(8), we get the Majorana-type neutrino mass matrix as follows:

$$M_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& a& a\\ a& 0& b\\ a& b& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(13)
where111The discrete symmetry invariant $`\nu _e\nu _e`$ mass term appears in the present model at $`M_f^5`$ order which is naturally vanishingly small. $`a=\frac{\mathrm{h}^2\rho }{M_f^2}`$, $`b=\frac{<\xi >^2<\mathrm{h}>^2}{M_f^3}`$. The parameter $`a`$ can fitted with the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$ $``$ $`2a^2`$ $``$ $`4\times 10^3`$ $`\mathrm{eV}^2`$ which explains atmospheric neutrino experimental data by setting $`M_f`$$``$ $`10^{12}`$ GeV, $`h`$$``$ 174 GeV and $`\rho `$ $``$$`10^{11}`$ GeV. Using the same values of $`M_f`$ and $`h`$, it is possible to set the value of $`b`$ as $`b^2`$$``$ $`10^{17}`$$`\mathrm{eV}^2`$ through the choice of $`\xi `$ $``$$`10^7`$ GeV in order to explain the solar neutrino experimental results due to vacuum oscillation solution. For both the cases , the mixing angle $`\theta _{12}^\nu `$ ( given in Eqn.(3)) comes out as nearly maximal. For large angle MSW solution, a typical value $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$$``$ $`10^5`$ $`\mathrm{eV}^2`$ gives rise to $`b^2`$$``$ $`10^9`$$`\mathrm{eV}^2`$ for $`\xi 2\times 10^9`$ GeV. IV. Summary In summary, we propose a texture of Majorana-type neutrino mass-matrix which gives rise to nearly bi-maximal neutrino mixing in a natural way as well as required mass-squared differences in order to explain the solar and atmospheric neutrino experimental results. The elements of the mass-matrix could be generated either by radiative mechanism or by the use of non-renormalizable operators and, thus, those elements are model independent. The proposed neutrino mass-matrix gives rise to the eigenvalues of the three neutrino masses as $`m_{\nu _1}`$ $``$ $`m_{\nu _2}`$ $``$ $`m_{\nu _3}`$ which ends up to an hierarchy between three neutrino mass-squared differences as $`m_{23}^2`$ $``$ $`m_{21}^2`$. We demonstrate an explicit realization of the proposed mass-matrix due to non-renormalizable mass operators in the context of an $`SU(2)_L`$$`\times `$$`U(1)_Y`$ model through the inclusion of two extra singlet Higgs fields and discrete $`Z_3`$$`\times `$$`Z_4`$ symmetry. With a suitable choice model parameters the required mass-squared differences can be accommodated in order to expalin the solar (both large angle MSW solution and Vacuum oscillation) and atmospheric neutrino experimental results.

Author acknowledges Yoshio Koide for many helpful suggestions,discussions and careful reading of the manuscript and also thankful to Masaki Yoshimura for helpful comments. Part of this work has been done under the financial support of The Japan Society For The Promotion of Science, Govt. of Japan.

References

1. Super - Kamiokande Collaboration, Y. Fukuda et al., Phys. Lett. B433, (1998) 9, ibid 436, (1998) 33, Kamiokande Collaboration, S. Hatakeyama et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 2016, T. Kajita, Talk presentd at ’Neutrino 98’, Takayama, Japan, (1998).
2. Y. Obayashi, ‘Neutrino Oscillations and their origin‘ , Fujiyoshida, Japan, Feb 11 - 13 (2000), University Academy Press, Tokyo.
3. R. Davis, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 32 (1994) 13; Y. Fukuda et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 1683, P. Anselmann et al., Phys. Lett. B357, (1995) 237, ibid B361, (1996) 235.
4. M. Appollonio et al. Phys. Lett. B420 (1998) 397.
5. V. Barger, S. Pakvasa, T. J. Weiller and K. Whisnant, hep-ph/9806387, B. C. Allanach, hep-ph/9806294, D. V. Ahluwalia, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 13 (1998) 2249, I. Stancu and D. V. Ahluwalia, Phys. Lett. B460, 431 (1999), V. Barger, T. J. Weiller and K. Whisnant, hep-ph/9807319, J. Elwood, N. Irges and P. Ramond, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, (1998) 5064, hep-ph/9807228, E. Ma, Phys. Lett. B442, (1998) 238,hep-ph/ 9807386, hep-ph/9902392, G. Alterelli and F. Feruglio, Phys. Lett. B439 (1998) 112,hep-ph/9807353, Y. Nomura and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 017303, hep-ph/ 9807325, A. Joshipura, hep-ph /98 08261, A. S. Joshipura and S. Rindani, hep-ph/9811252, K. Oda et al., Phys. Rev. D59, (1999) 055001, hep-ph/9808241, H. Fritzsch and Z. Xing, hep-ph/9808272, J. Ellis et al., hep-ph/ 9808301, A. Joshipura and S. Vempati, hep-ph/ 9808232, U. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D59, (1999) 037302, hep-ph/9808277, H. Georgi and S. Glashow , hep-ph/ 9808293; A. Baltz, A. S. Goldhaber and M. Goldhaber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, (1998) 5730, hep-ph/ 9806540, M. Jezabek and A. Sumino, Phys. Lett. B440, (1998) 327, hep-ph/ 9807310, S. Davidson and S. F. King, Phys. Lett. B445 (1998) 191, hep-ph/ 9808296, K. Kang, S. K. Kang, C. S. Kim and S. M. Kim, hep-ph/ 9808419, S. Mohanty, D. P. Roy and U. Sarkar, Phys. Lett. B445, (1998) 185, hep-ph/9808451; E. Ma, U. Sarkar and D. P. Roy, Phys. Lett. B444, (1998) 391, hep-ph/9810309, B. Brahmachari, hep-ph/9808331, R. N. Mohapatra and S. Nussinov, Phys. Lett B441, (1998) 299, hep-ph/ 9808301, Phys. Rev. D60, (1999) 013002, hep-ph/ 9809415, A. Ghosal, hep-ph/9903497, hep-ph/9905470, R. Barbieri, L.J.Hall and A. Strumia, Phys. Lett. B445 (1999) 407, hep-ph/9808333, Y. Grossmann, Y. Nir and Y. Shadmi, JHEP, 9810 (1998) 007, hep-ph/9808355, C. Jarlskog, M. Matsuda, S. Skadhauge and M. Tanimoto, Phys. Lett. B449, (1999) 240, hep-ph/9812282, S. M. Bilenky and C. Giunti, hep-ph/9802201, C. Giunti, Phys. Rev. D59, (1999) 077301, hep-ph/ 9810272, M. Fukugita, M. Tanimoto and T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 4429, S. K. Kang and C. S. Kim, Phys. Rev. D59, (1999) 091302, R. N. Mohapatra, A. Perez-Lorenzana and C.A. de S. Pires, Phys. Lett. B474 (2000) 355, A. Aranda, C. D. Carone and R. F. Lebed , Phys. Lett. B474 (2000) 170, hep-ph/0002044, H. B. Benaoum and S. Nasri, hep-ph/9906232, C. H. Albright and S. M. Barr, hep-ph/9906297.
6. R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall and A. Strumia, Phys. Lett. B445, 407 (1999), hep-ph/9808333.
7. R. Barbieri et al., JHEP 9812 : 017, (1998), hep-ph/9807235.
8. C. D. Froggatt, M. Gibson and H. B. Nielsen, hep-ph/9811265, Phys. Lett. B446, 256 (1999).
9. D. O. Caldwell and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D50, (1994) 3477, A.S.Joshipura, Z.Phys. C 64 (1994) 31, D. G. Lee and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Lett. B329, (1994) 463, P.Bamert and C.P.Burgess, Phys. Lett. B329, (1994) 289; E. Ma, hep-ph/9812344, Y. L. Wu, hep-ph/9810491, hep-ph/9901245, hep-ph/9901320, hep-ph/9905222.
10. A. S. Joshipura, Phys. Rev. D51(1995), 1321, A. Ioannissyan and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B332, (1994) 93, A. Ghosal, Phys. Lett. B398, (1997) 315, A. K. Ray and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D58, (1998) 055010.
11. K. Fukuura, et. al., hep-ph/9909415, T. Miura, E. Takasugi and M. Yoshimura, hep-ph/0003139, M. Tanimoto, hep-ph/0001306, Y. Koide, Phys. Rev. D60, 077301, 1999.
12. P. H. Frampton and A. Rasin, hep-ph/9910522.
13. M. S. Berger and K. Siyeon, hep-ph/0003121.

FIG. I. Neutrino mass spectrum in the present model.