text:
# Bibliography

The decoherence criterion

Eleonora Alfinitoa111 alfinito@sa.infn.it, Rosario G. Viglioneb222 ros@alex.chem.unisa.it  and Giuseppe Vitielloa333vitiello@sa.infn.it

aDipartimento di Fisica, Università di Salerno, 84100

and INFN Gruppo Collegato di Salerno and INFM Unità di Salerno

b Dipartimento di Chimica, Università di Salerno, 84100

Abstract

The decoherence mechanism signals the limits beyond which the system dynamics approaches the classical behavior. We show that in some cases decoherence may also signal the limits beyond which the system dynamics has to be described by quantum field theory, rather than by quantum mechanics.

The problem of the range of applicability of quantum mechanics (QM) has been the object of much attention and studies since the early days of its foundation. However, only at a later time it has been fully recognized and appreciated the purely quantum phenomenon of decoherence , which in many cases signals the appearance of a classical world in quantum theory . Decoherence is normally triggered by the interaction of the system with the environment and formally consists in suppressing the off-diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix. Its effect is such that quantum superposition in the system wave function is destroyed and thus, provided the time-scale $`\tau _{dyn}`$ characteristic of the dynamics is much greater than the decoherence time-scale $`\tau _{dec}`$, $`\tau _{dyn}\tau _{dec}`$, the classical behavior may be approached. It should be noted that sometimes the system under consideration, assumed to be a closed system, is viewed as composed of two subsystems and we are actually interested only in one of them. The other subsystem is then regarded to be the environment in which the former one is embedded. The reduced density matrix is the one obtained by tracing over the degrees of freedom of the environment (the rest of the Universe, whatever it is).

Decoherence provides an interesting explanation why we do not experience superpositions of objects in the macroscopic world. In fact interaction with the environment produces decoherence in the superposition of macroscopically separate positions so that the familiar classical behavior of non-superposing macroscopic objects is obtained. However, we also have experience (and sound theoretical understanding) of the existence of macroscopic quantum systems, such as superconductors, ferromagnets, crystals, and in general systems presenting ordered patterns, where coherence over macroscopically large distances appears to be particularly stable against environment perturbations. Any system is made by quantum components. It is, of course, not in such a trivial sense that macroscopic systems such as a superconductor or a crystal are quantum systems. These are quantum systems in the specific, non-trivial sense that their macroscopic (classical) behavior cannot be explained without recourse to quantum theory. It is then natural, and necessary, asking the question of the consistency between the decoherence phenomenon and the existence of macroscopic quantum systems. This is indeed the question we address in this paper.

Our conclusion will be that the decoherence mechanism characterizes QM by designing its borderlines also with quantum field theory (QFT), besides, as already known, with classical mechanics. In other words, our result suggests the use of the decoherence mechanism as an useful criterion to scan the border QM/QFT.

For the sake of clarity it might be convenient to start our discussion by shortly reviewing some general aspects of the QFT approach to the study of macroscopic quantum systems, such as superconductors, ferromagnets, crystals, etc. These systems have the common feature of presenting some kind of ordered patterns in the ground state. The observable describing such an ordering is called the order parameter and it is a macroscopic observable in the sense that it is not strongly affected by quantum fluctuations. The spontaneous breakdown of symmetry in QFT provides the mechanism out of which the ordered patterns are dynamically generated.

Suppose that the system Lagrangian (or the field equations from it derived) is invariant under some group G of symmetry transformations. The symmetry is said to be spontaneously broken when the lowest energy state (the vacuum or ground state) of the physical system is not invariant under the same symmetry group G, but under one of its subgroups. For example, for a metal, which below some critical temperature may exhibit superconductivity, the Lagrangian is invariant under the U(1) transformations. However, the ground state of the metal in the superconducting phase is not invariant under the U(1) transformations. The ground state of the same metal above the critical temperature, in the ”normal” (i.e. non superconducting) phase, is, on the contrary, U(1) symmetric. The Lagrangian for a gas of particles endowed with magnetic moment, which under specific boundary conditions may be found in the ferromagnetic phase, is invariant under the SU(2) group of rotations. However, the system in the ferromagnetic phase, below the Curie temperature, is invariant under the U(1) subgroup of the original SU(2). The Lagrangian for a gas of atoms or molecules, which below a critical temperature may be arranged in a crystal phase, is invariant under the continuous space translations. However, the same system of atoms or molecules when it is in the crystal phase has the lowest energy state which is not invariant under continuous space translations, but under discrete translations of the length of the lattice spacing or of its multiples. Whenever, the symmetry of the Lagrangian is not the same as the symmetry of the vacuum we have spontaneous symmetry breakdown. The dynamics of a system, given in terms of the Lagrangian, may thus generate at the observable level, under different boundary conditions (e.g. different temperatures), different phases of the system (the normal phase and the superconducting phase, the ferromagnetic phase and the non-ferromagnetic one, the crystal phase and the amorphous one). The crystal ordering, the superconductor ordering, etc., thus appears in the non-symmetric (or ”less” symmetric) ground state: order is in fact lack of symmetry.

The Goldstone theorem  states that whenever a continuous symmetry is spontaneously broken the dynamics implies the existence of gapless (massless) modes: they are called the Nambu-Goldstone (NG) boson particles or quanta. We will not analyze the case in which there is a gauge field in the theory, which would not change the substance of our conclusions. Also, we will not report the derivation of the Goldstone theorem since it can be easily found in any standard textbook of QFT (see e.g. ).

The Nambu-Goldstone bosons are the quanta of long range correlation among the system constituents. Examples of NG boson quanta are the phonons in the crystals, the magnons in the ferromagnets, the Cooper pairs in the superconductors. As already said, these quanta are of dynamical origin, namely they are not found in the symmetric or normal phases (which are typically obtained above some critical temperature). The NG bosons are thus collective modes, the long range correlation, of which they are the quanta, is responsible for the ordering in the ground state of the non-symmetric (ordered) phase: the NG quanta are the carriers of the ordering information throughout the system. It is in this way that the order is generated by the quantum dynamics and appears as a macroscopic, diffused property of the system in the non-symmetric phase. In other words, in the ordered phase the system components get, so to say, ”trapped” by the long range correlation, they cannot behave as individual particles. Some of their degrees of freedom get frozen by the NG long range correlation, which is a dynamical consequence of the ”lack” of symmetry, and this manifests itself as the system macroscopically observable ordered patterns. We thus arrive at the understanding of the existence of macroscopic quantum systems. All of this is formally expressed in terms of coherent condensation of NG boson quanta in the ground state . Since these quanta are massless their coherent condensation in the lowest energy mode does not add energy to the ground state and the observed high stability of the ordered phases is thus explained. The mathematical formalism of the many-body theory of superconductors, ferromagnets, crystals and other macroscopic quantum systems is given in great details in standard textbooks  and therefore we do not report it here.

A given system thus may possesses degenerate ground states, each corresponding to a physically different phase in which the system may be observed under different boundary conditions. These degenerate ground states are in fact unitarily inequivalent, i.e. it does not exist any unitary operator transforming one of them into another one. In different words, one cannot express the ground state of a specific phase in terms of the ground state of another, different phase: the crystal ground state cannot be expressed in terms of the amorphous ground state, the superconducting ground state cannot be expressed in terms of the normal one, and so on. As well known  \- , this is formally expressed, e.g. for the superconducting Bogoliubov or $`BCS`$ ground state $`|0(BCS)>`$, by

$$<0|0(BCS)>0forV\mathrm{},$$
(1)
in the infinite number of degrees of freedom limit (infinite volume $`V`$ limit). Here $`|0>`$ denotes the ”normal” ground state (i.e. the non-superconducting phase ground state), and $`|0(BCS)>`$ is formally expressed at finite volume as $`|0(BCS)>\mathrm{\Pi }_k(U_k+V_kc_{𝐤+}^{}c_𝐤^{})|0>`$, with $`U_k^2+V_k^2=1`$ and $`c_{𝐤\pm }^{}`$ denoting the creation operators for the spin up and down electron, respectively . The meaning of Eq. (1) is that in the infinite volume limit the ordered ground state $`|0(BCS)>`$ cannot be reached by building up perturbations around the non-ordered one $`|0>`$: the state $`|0(BCS)>`$ cannot be expressed in terms of $`|0>`$, and vice-versa. We have a typical non-perturbative phenomenon: the different physical phases are described by states belonging respectively to different Hilbert spaces, each of them corresponding to a specific ground state. These physically different spaces are the unitarily inequivalent representations of the canonical commutation relations and, for the above example, we denote them by $`\{|0>\}`$ and $`\{|0(BCS)>\}`$. Eq. (1) is a typical QFT result: in fact (1), which states the unitary inequivalence between the representations $`\{|0>\}`$ and $`\{|0(BCS)>\}`$, cannot hold in QM where the von Neumann theorem states that all the representations are unitarily, and thus physically, equivalent . On the contrary, physically different phases are allowed in QFT, since the von Neumann theorem does not hold in QFT and there exist infinitely many unitarily inequivalent representations of the canonical commutation relations.

Eq. (1) thus states that the systems presenting different physical phases cannot be described purely in terms of QM. QM is not enough ”rich” to allow unitarily inequivalent representations, as rigorously implied by the von Neuman theorem. In this paper we are going indeed to confirm such a result from the perspective of the decoherence mechanism in QM.

We will consider as an example the commonly observed process of the formation of a crystal out of an ion solution. The result implied by QM decoherence formulas would prevent the formation of the crystal, since the computed decoherence time for the ions in the solution is too much short with respect to the time one has to wait before the crystal gets formed in common observations. This does not mean that those QM formulas are wrong, neither, of course, it means that our system is a classical one. It means that it is wrong to apply these QM formulas to the ions in solution in order to study the process of the crystal formation. Thus, in QM, once one starts with the ion solution phase, dechoerence tells us that no other phase (the crystal phase) is reachable, which indeed is in perfect agreement with what the von Neumann theorem states.

Let us now turn our attention to the QM decoherence scenario. There is a large body of literature on decoherence and for the sake of shortness we do not reproduce here the already published derivations of the formulas we are going to use. We refer for that to the quoted papers. To be specific, we focus on the formation of, e.g., the binary crystals listed in Table 1. We stress that the system we study is not the already formed crystal, but the solution of ions out of which one expects (observes) the crystal will be formed. Thus, according to the usual chemical recipe, we consider a solution (typically, the water is the solvent) of the constituent elements (e.g. a solution of $`Na^+`$ ions and $`Cl^{}`$ ions) and wait, in specific conditions of temperature, density, etc., till the crystallization occurs. This happens when the saturation of the solution is reached. At the crystallization point, the saturation concentrations can be quite different in different cases, depending on the crystal one wants to obtain, ranging, for example, from $`1`$ ion of $`K^+`$ for $`4`$ molecules of water for $`KF`$, or $`1`$ ion of $`Na^+`$ for $`10`$ molecules of water for $`NaCl`$, to $`1`$ ion of $`Ag^+`$ for $`10^8`$ molecules of water for $`AgBr`$, till $`1`$ ion of $`Pb^+`$ for $`10^{15}`$ molecules of water for $`PbS`$ . The ions in the solution are normally bound, due to Coulomb forces, to water molecules, for example the $`Na^+`$ ion is surrounded by four water molecules. The shielding of the ionic charge by the surrounding water molecules lowers the intensity of the Coulomb interaction among ions. Sometimes one adds a ”germ”, namely a small crystal of the same kind of the one to be formed. Such a germ will act as a catalytic structure making more favorable the aggregation, in the wanted crystal structure, of the ions in the solution. Sometimes the nucleation is simply produced by some ”defect” or ”impurity”, e.g., on the walls of the bowl or container of the solution. One observes the crystal formation in the vicinity of these defects. At the crystallization point, lowering the temperature of the solution normally helps the crystal formation, which can occur within a short lapse of time (from fractions of a second to several seconds) or in a longer one (from minutes to hours).

The interaction among the ions in the solution is of Coulomb type and we will consider the ion-ion collisions and the interactions with distant ions to be two possible sources of decoherence. There are also other sources of decoherence such as, e.g., the interaction with the environment (the water in our case), with the crystal germ or with the defects or impurities, or else with dipole and higher moments of charge distribution. However, the decoherence effect we compute from ion-ion collisions and distant ion interactions are so strong that we can neglect any other decoherence source. Moreover, we will see that the decoherence time does not strongly depend on the different concentrations of the different ionic solutions mentioned above.

The density matrix for the single ion may be shown to be proportional to a function $`f(𝐱,𝐱^{},t)`$ which does not depend on the ion state . Here $`𝐱`$ denotes the ion position. For scattering of environment particles with de Broglie wavelength $`\lambda `$, we have

$$f(𝐱,𝐱^{},t)=e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }t\left(1e^{\frac{|𝐱^{}𝐱|^2}{2\lambda ^2}}\right)},$$
(2)
that is,

$$f(𝐱,𝐱^{},t)\{\begin{array}{cc}e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }t\frac{|x^{}x|^2}{2\lambda ^2}}\hfill & \text{ for }|𝐱^{}𝐱|\lambda \hfill \\ e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }t}\hfill & \text{ for }|𝐱^{}𝐱|\lambda \hfill \end{array},$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }n<\sigma v>`$ is the scattering rate cross section. The product of the cross section $`\sigma `$ by the velocity $`v`$ is averaged over the thermal velocity distribution at $`T=310K`$, $`n`$ is the density of the scatterer centers (ions). Eq. (3) implies that for the single ion the spatial superposition decays exponentially as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ and that for $`N`$ ions as $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }N)^1`$. Let us consider the case of $`Na^+`$ and $`Cl^{}`$ ions solution. The de Broglie wavelength of the $`Na^+`$ ion (mass $`m_{Na}=22.990amu`$) or the $`Cl^{}`$ ion (mass $`m_{Cl}=35.453amu`$) is

$$\lambda =\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{\sqrt{3mkT}}0.3\AA .$$
(4)
In the present case of high ionic concentration, the smallest acceptable inter-ionic distance ($`|𝐱𝐱^{}|`$) cannot be of course smaller than the one corresponding to the elementary cell of the crystalline salt to be formed, which typically is of the order of few Å. Even for such a distance we are clearly in the $`|𝐱𝐱^{}|\lambda `$ limit of equation (2). (Such a condition is certainly satisfied also in the case of the other, smaller concentrations of the other considered ionic solutions). In the case of two ion-ion collision with unit charge $`q_e`$ and with relative velocity $`v`$ the cross section is evaluated to be

$$\sigma \left(\frac{gq_{e}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{mv^2}\right)^2,$$
(5)
where $`g=1/4\pi ϵ_0`$ is the Coulomb constant. The decoherence time $`\tau _1(\mathrm{\Lambda }N)^1`$ for $`N`$ ions is then given by

$$\tau _1\frac{\sqrt{m(kT)^3}}{Nng^2q_e^4}.$$
(6)
We have used $`v\sqrt{\frac{kT}{m}}`$ at thermal equilibrium. $`N`$ is taken to be of the order of $`10^{23}`$ (about a mole of ions), and for $`Na^+`$ and $`Cl^{}`$ at the crystallization point, it is $`n=2.163`$ x $`10^3kgm^3`$ . Then we have:

$$\tau _1\frac{\sqrt{m(kT)^3}}{10^{23}\frac{2163}{m_{Na}+m_{Cl}}g^2q_e^4}4.610^{40}s.$$
(7)
The order of magnitude of this result does not change much even for the other ionic solutions, which confirms the correcteness of the used approximations. The $`\tau _1`$ values we obtain for the other ionic solutions are reported in Table 1.

In a similar way, one can show that the decoherence time $`\tau _2`$ for the interaction with distant ions is given by :

$$\tau _2\frac{\sqrt{m(kT)}}{Nnagq_e^2}.$$
(8)
In this case the smallest acceptable distance between two $`Na^+`$ ions is $`a=5.64\AA `$  (the edge of the cubic elementary cell).

In the following table we report the decoherence time for ion-ion collisions ($`\tau _1`$) and for interactions with distant ions ($`\tau _2`$) in the ionic solutions for the formation of a set of crystalline binary compounds.

Table 1. Decoherence time for ion-ion collisions $`(\tau _1)`$ and for interactions with distant ions $`(\tau _2)`$

| salts | $`\tau _1`$/10$`{}_{}{}^{40}s`$ | $`\tau _2`$/10$`{}_{}{}^{38}s`$ |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| NaF | 2.6 | 4.9 |  |  |  |
| NaCl | 4.6 | 4.4 |  |  |  |
| NaBr | 5.5 | 4.9 |  |  |  |
| NaI | 7.1 | 5.8 |  |  |  |
| KF | 5.1 | 5.2 |  |  |  |
| KCl | 8.3 | 7.1 |  |  |  |
| KBr | 9.6 | 7.9 |  |  |  |
| CsF | 13.4 | 12.0 |  |  |  |
| CsCl | 17.3 | 21.0 |  |  |  |
| CsBr | 19.6 | 25.6 |  |  |  |
| CsI | 23.6 | 27.8 |  |  |  |
| AgCl | 9.5 | 9.2 |  |  |  |
| AgBr | 10.7 | 10.0 |  |  |  |
| AgI | 15.3 | 12.7 |  |  |  |
| ZnS | 7.2 | 7.2 |  |  |  |
| PbS | 16.2 | 14.7 |  |  |  |

According to Table 1, due to the very short decoherence time, there would be no possibility for the formation of the considered crystals to occur, which of course contradicts the common experience (in practice the crystal formation lasts for a time many orders of magnitude longer than $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$ in Table 1). We note that in the computation of the decoherence time we have used for the ions in the solution the shortest possible inter-ionic distances (and therefore the most favorable to avoid decoherence). We also remark, that in the case in which the crystal is described as a quantum mechanical n-body system, the wave functions of the constituent ions are centered at the proper lattice sites and present spatial superposition over distances of the order of the lattice length. Then one could be tempted to conclude that the above results could apply to the ions which form the crystals. This conclusion is, however, clearly wrong. The crystal would not even be stable in this case, in evident contradiction with common experience.

The way out of these contradictions is in the fact that the QM description is not completely adequate for the description of the process of the crystal formation and for the crystal system: as said in the introductory remarks, the crystal phase transition process and the crystal system are many-body QFT problems and the binding of the atoms in the crystalline lattice is due to the long range correlation mediated by the NG bosons (the QFT formalism can be found in full length and details in standard textbooks, see e.g. ). In the present case, the decoherence mechanism thus points to the borderline between QM and QFT.

The inter-ionic distances used in our computations are of course comparable with the wavelength used in the $`X`$-ray diffraction experiments with the systems we consider, which is $`\lambda 1.5\AA `$. This corresponds to oscillation time $`\tau _X`$ of the order of $`0.5`$ x $`10^{18}s`$, much longer than $`\tau _{1,2}`$ in Table 1. Suppose, however, one wants to insist in using, e.g., Eq. (5). Then, we have

$$\frac{\tau _1}{\tau _X}=\frac{n_X}{n},$$
(9)
i.e. the $`X`$-ray typical diffraction time $`\tau _X`$ would correspond to an extremely diluted solution where the density $`n_X`$ of the scatterer centers, say $`Na`$ and $`Cl`$ ions, is of the unacceptable order of $`10^{18}`$, and, from

$$n_X=10^{18}=\frac{(m_{Na}+m_{Cl})amu}{a^3},$$
(10)
we have the equally absurd ion spacing of the order of $`a10^3m=10^7\AA `$. Equally unacceptable conclusions are reached by using Eq. (7).

Again we see that in the case here discussed the QM decoherence picture and formulas cannot be used. They are not consistent with familiar experimental methodologies. Since these methodologies, on the other hand, confirm the quantum dynamical nature of the system, the inconsistency points to the limit of applicability of QM in favor of QFT. As far as we know, the existing literature has not paid attention to this side of the confining limits of QM by using the decoherence phenomenon.

In conclusion, according to our discussion, decoherence may be then promoted to the relevance of a criterion, able to discriminate between QM and QFT, from one side, and classical mechanics from the other side. Thus, generally speaking, and contrarily to current common belief, decoherence does not necessarily signals the approaching to the classical mechanics regime; it may also signals the approaching to the QFT regime, indeed. One must carefully consider the physics of the system under study in order to correctly conclude on the implications of decoherence.

This work has been partially supported by INFN, by MURST, by INFM and by an ESF Network on Topological Defects.


format: text

text:
# Coexistence and Criticality in Size-Asymmetric Hard-Core Electrolytes

\[

## Abstract

Liquid-vapor coexistence curves and critical parameters for hard-core 1:1 electrolyte models with diameter ratios $`\lambda =\sigma _{}/\sigma _+=1`$ to 5.7 have been studied by fine-discretization Monte Carlo methods. Normalizing via the length scale $`\sigma _\pm =\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _++\sigma _{})`$, relevant for the low densities in question, both $`T_c^{}(=k_BT_c\sigma _\pm /q^2)`$ and $`\rho _c^{}(=\rho _c\sigma _\pm ^3)`$ decrease rapidly (from $`0.05`$ to 0.03 and 0.08 to 0.04, respectively) as $`\lambda `$ increases. These trends, which unequivocally contradict current theories, are closely mirrored by results for tightly tethered dipolar dimers (with $`T_c^{}`$ lower by $`0`$-$`11\%`$ and $`\rho _c^{}`$ greater by $`37`$-$`12\%`$).

\]

The formation of coexisting fluid phases of different electrolyte concentrations in ionic solutions has been the topic of numerous recent experimental , theoretical  and simulation studies . The simplest models for electrolytes—the “primitive models”— treat the solvent as a uniform dielectric continuum. The most studied system is the restricted primitive model (RPM) that consists of equisized hard spheres, half carrying a charge $`+q`$ and half $`q`$. Recent simulations  agree with respect to the critical temperature and density for the vapor-liquid transition, finding the remarkably low values $`T_c^{}0.05`$ and $`\rho _c^{}0.07`$ : see (1). By contrast to the RPM, the effects of charge and size asymmetry have not been extensively analyzed either theoretically or via simulation.

Here we focus on the effects of *size asymmetry* on gas-liquid coexistence and critical parameters by studying hard-core primitive models for 1:1 electrolytes that have *no restrictions* on the relative magnitude of the diameters of the $`+`$ and $``$ ions, i.e., the so-called size-asymmetric primitive model (SAPM). The first claim to treat size asymmetry theoretically appears already in Debye and Hückel’s original paper  and extensions invoking Bjerrum ion-pairing have been analyzed . Other mean potential approaches include the symmetrized Poisson-Boltzmann and modified Poisson-Boltzmann  schemes. The mean spherical approximation (MSA)  and hypernetted-chain (HNC)  integral equations have also been applied. Currently, however, there are no simulation results available to check these various theories.

This work, which extends , provides a first study of the effects of size asymmetry on both critical parameters and liquid-vapor coexistence . We find, in fact, a systematic trend of $`T_c`$ and $`\rho _c`$ with increasing size asymmetry that directly conflicts with the principal theories cited.

To be specific, we consider a system of $`N`$ hard spheres of diameter $`\sigma _+`$ carrying charges $`+q`$, and $`N`$ of diameter $`\sigma _{}`$ carrying charges $`q`$. The interaction energy between two nonoverlapping ions, $`i`$ and $`j`$, of charges $`q_i`$ and $`q_j`$ ($`=\pm q`$) separated by distance $`r_{ij}`$ is $`U_{ij}=q_iq_j/Dr_{ij}`$, where $`D`$ represents the dielectric constant of the solvent which will be set to unity. The hard-sphere interactions are supposed additive so the ($`+`$,$``$)-ion collision diameter is $`\sigma _\pm =\frac{1}{2}\left(\sigma _++\sigma _{}\right)`$. This, in fact, provides the basic length scale appropriate for defining both the reduced temperature and the reduced density via

$$T^{}=k_BTD\sigma _\pm /q^2\text{and}\rho ^{}=\rho \sigma _\pm ^3,$$
(1)
 where $`\rho =2N/V`$ is the *total* ionic number density. Other definitions of the reduced density are, of course, viable  and might be advantageous at high densities. However, at the low densities of interest here ($`2\rho _c^{}0.2`$) the formation of ion pairs, triples, chains and rings (see Fig. 4 below) is controlled almost exclusively by $`\sigma _\pm `$, which remains well defined even if $`\sigma _+`$ *or* $`\sigma _{}`$ vanishes yielding point ions . The reduced simulation box length is defined similarly via $`L^{}=L/\sigma _\pm `$.

The key parameter for our study is the ratio of diameters of positive and negative ions, namely,

$$\lambda =\sigma _{}/\sigma _+.$$
(2)
Because of symmetry with respect to the exchange of $`+`$ and $``$ ions, only $`\lambda 1`$ need be considered.

In addition to the ionic systems, we have studied, for the sake of comparison , tightly tethered dipolar dimer systems consisting of $`N`$ pairs of a positive and a negative ion restricted to remain at separations $`\sigma _d`$ satisfying $`\sigma _\pm \sigma _d1.02\sigma _\pm `$. Interactions of the tethered dimers are otherwise identical to those of the ions.

We adopt the methodology of . Neutral grand-canonical fine-discretization Monte Carlo simulations (characterized by a temperature, $`T`$, and a chemical potential for a pair of unlike ions, $`\mu `$) have been performed on cubic boxes of length $`L`$, under periodic boundary conditions. The positions available to each ion are the sites of a simple cubic lattice of spacing $`a`$. A “lattice refinement” parameter $`\zeta =\sigma _\pm /a`$ is introduced, so that when $`\zeta \mathrm{}`$ the continuum is recovered. For values of $`\zeta 3`$, the RPM displays a gas-liquid coexistence curve that approaches the continuum case quite closely already for $`\zeta =5`$ . In a Lennard-Jones fluid studied using $`\zeta =10`$, the phase envelope and critical points of the lattice and continuum systems were equal within the simulation uncertainties . The structure of the liquid at short distances, as judged by the pair correlations, was also the same.

We have thus adopted a refinement parameter of $`\zeta =10`$. For the largest value of $`\lambda `$ we explore, namely $`\lambda 5\frac{2}{3}`$, the diameter of the smaller sphere is $`\sigma _+=3a`$. When $`\lambda =1`$, typical correlation functions for both like and unlike ion pairs then agree to within graphical accuracy with the corresponding continuum results (for the same $`T^{}`$, $`\rho ^{}`$ and $`L^{}`$). For higher values of $`\lambda (>1)`$, the discretization effects on the ($`+`$,$``$) and ($``$,$``$) correlation functions decrease, while those on the ($`+`$, $`+`$) correlation functions increase, as $`\sigma _+/a`$ becomes smaller; but the latter are very small at short distances because of the strong repulsions.

The fine-lattice technique embodies precomputation and subsequent look-up of the Coulomb interaction between any two lattice sites, including all periodic images. The Ewald sums were performed with conducting (“tin-foil”) boundary conditions, i.e., $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}`$; but for $`\lambda =`$1, vacuum boundary conditions ($`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}=1`$) were also used to allow comparisons with : see Table I and below.

Biased insertions and deletions of pairs of unlike ions were performed for ionic models, following . Our tethered dimers, have 318 distinct configurations on the lattice. Dimers were inserted by randomly placing the $``$ ion and selecting one of the 318 positions for the $`+`$ ion.

Histogram reweighting techniques were used to obtain the vapor-liquid envelopes up to $`T0.98T_c`$ . Effective critical points for given $`L^{}`$ were estimated using mixed-field finite-size scaling methods , assuming Ising-type criticality. To discern a systematic dependence on $`\lambda `$, this approach should be satisfactory even though recent results  (which indicate that the pressure should also enter the field-mixing) cast doubts on its full reliability.

The two Ewald-sum boundary conditions for $`\lambda =1`$ yield different critical values (see Table I) but extrapolation to $`L^{}=\mathrm{}`$ gives $`T_c^{}=0.0495(2)`$ for both cases and $`\rho _c^{}=0.078(5)`$ for $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}=1`$ and $`0.079(5)`$ for $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}`$. The agreement is excellent; but since the $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}`$ results vary less with $`L^{}`$ they were used for the further simulations.

These $`\lambda =1`$ results should approximate well those of the continuum RPM: recent studies  yield 0.0488(2)-0.0490(3) for $`T_c^{}`$ and 0.062(5)-0.080(5) for $`\rho _c^{}`$. Our 1% larger value of $`T_c^{}`$ may be due to lattice discretization. Indeed, previous simulations , found that both $`T_c^{}(L^{})`$ and $`\rho _c^{}(L^{})`$ estimates decreased slightly as $`\zeta `$ increased.

The calculated phase diagrams for the ionic and tethered dimer systems are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. The critical points, which are listed in Table II, were calculated  using $`L^{}=18`$ data while the subcritical coexistence curves were obtained using $`L^{}=12`$. The effects of size asymmetry are clearly strong, displaying a marked downward shift in $`T_c^{}`$ and $`\rho _c^{}`$ as $`\lambda `$ increases. (The lower values of $`T_c^{}`$ result in smaller Monte Carlo acceptance ratios and increasing sampling difficulties.)

For $`\lambda =1`$, the critical temperatures of the ionic and dimer systems seem almost identical. Indeed, although $`\rho _c`$ is about 37% higher, the overall phase behavior of the dimers is quite similar to that of the ionic systems, as stressed by Shelley and Patey . When $`\lambda `$ increases, the critical temperatures of the dimers fall more rapidly but the critical densities approach those for ions, differing by only 11% at $`\lambda 5.67`$: see Fig. 3 where these results are depicted graphically vs the asymmetry parameter $`\omega (\lambda )(1\lambda )^2/(1+\lambda ^2)`$. This parameter respects the symmetry under exchange of $`+`$ and $``$ ions and increases monotonically from $`\omega (1)=0`$ for the RPM, up to $`\omega (\mathrm{})=1`$, for point ions. Extrapolating our data to the point-ion limit, $`\omega =1`$, suggests a possibly common critical density, $`\rho _c^{}`$, for ions and dimers of $``$0.015, with distinct critical temperatures, $`T_c^{}`$, in the ranges 0.020-0.025 and 0.012-0.018. To check these speculations, however, may not be easy!

Also shown in Fig. 3, as crosses, are the predictions of the MSA (using the energy route) for $`\lambda =1`$, 2, 10 and $`\mathrm{}`$ . The absolute differences in $`T_c^{}`$ and $`\rho _c^{}`$ were to be anticipated (see, e.g., ); but it is striking that the predicted changes with $`\lambda `$ in both $`T_c^{}`$ and $`\rho _c^{}`$ are *opposite* to those revealed by the simulations. The same failure to predict the correct trends is seen in the various calculations of Raineri *et al.*  as illustrated by the solid curves in Fig. 3. These derive from extensions of the Ebeling and Grigo theory (which employs Bjerrum ion pairing). (See also .)

The conflict of our data with the theories cited is, perhaps, not so surprising when one recognizes the large degree of pair association that occurs already in the critical region of the RPM ($`\lambda =1`$) . Indeed, the presence of many such closely coupled dipolar pairs is what motivated the comparison with charged dumb-bells  and our tethered dimer systems. But, as realized for some time  and evident in sample configurations such as that in Fig. 4, dipolar systems undergo significant aggregation, primarily forming ($`+`$, $``$) chains or “living polymers.” Theories which mainly address the pair correlations cannot readily do justice to the geometrical aspects of the formation and interaction of such chains .

Conversely, some insight into the lowering of $`T_c^{}`$ as $`\lambda `$ increases may be gained by examining how the ground-state binding energies, $`E_b^{}=E_bD\sigma _\pm /q^2`$, of various specific configurations depend on $`\lambda `$. Thus for a neutral cluster of four ions (or two dipolar dimers) we find $`E_b^{}=2.586`$ for a square “ring” when $`1\lambda 1+\sqrt{2}`$; but $`E_b^{}`$ falls smoothly when $`\lambda `$ exceeds 2.414 until, at $`\lambda 8.26`$, the lowest energy configuration switches from a planar diamond to a straight chain with $`E_b^{}=2.333`$. Similarly, if two long ($`+`$, $``$) chains are brought together, the excess binding energy per ion is $`E_b^{}0.752`$ when $`1\lambda 2.414`$ but decreases smoothly to 0.698 when $`\lambda `$ grows larger. Other examples exhibit similar effects again rationalizing the observed drop in $`T_c^{}(\lambda )`$.

The fact that tethered dimers show lower $`T_c^{}`$ values (for $`\lambda >1`$) than ionic systems, supports the view that *free ions* assist in lowering the liquid free energy . The result that the dimers require larger densities to stabilize the liquid is likewise consistent with this idea. In that connection the theory of , in which dipolar dimers are solvated by $`+`$ and $``$ free ions (which strongly screen opposite ends of a dimer) may reasonably be regarded as approximating the solvation of a dipolar dimer by other *dimers*: these will screen by orienting in head-to-tail fashion. A better theory is much to be desired but, as various attempts illustrate (see, e.g., ), that goal seems elusive.

Finally, in an attempt to quantify some structural differences between ionic and tethered dimer systems, cluster densities were sampled for selected, comparable conditions: see Fig. 5. Gillan’s definition of a cluster  was used with a clustering distance $`R_C^{}=R_C/\sigma _\pm =1.1`$. It is evident that there are more large clusters in the less symmetric systems. But tethered dimers have much higher fractions of large clusters than do ionic systems, even allowing for the absence of charged clusters in the former.

In summary, our fine-discretization simulations of hard-core 1:1 electrolyte models have provided unequivocal evidence that increasing the size asymmetry, measured by the diameter ratio $`\lambda =\sigma _{}/\sigma _+`$, leads to sharp, monotonic drops in appropriately scaled critical temperatures and densities \[see (1)\]. Tightly tethered dipolar dimers (or dumb-bells ) display broadly similar behavior but with relatively larger critical densities, and critical temperatures that decrease faster with increasing $`\lambda `$. These trends are in severe disagreement with current theories  and present what appear to be deep challenges to our theoretical understanding even at a qualitative level.

We thank G. Stell, J.J. de Pablo, L.F. Rull and G. Jackson for discussions and Professor Stell for providing a preprint of his work. Funding by the Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences (DE-FG02-98ER14858, AZP) and the National Science Foundation (Grant No. CHE 99-81772, MEF) is gratefully acknowledged. JMRE acknowledges an FPI scholarship and Grant PB97-0712 from DGESIC, Spain.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The latest atmospheric neutrino results based on 1117 days of data from Super Kamiokande are still consistent with a standard two neutrino oscillation $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ with a near maximal mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}>0.88`$ and a mass square splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$ from $`1.5\times 10^3`$ to $`5\times 10^3eV^2`$ at 90% CL . The sterile neutrino oscillation hypothesis $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ is excluded at 99% CL.

Super Kamiokande is also beginning to provide important clues concerning the correct solution to the solar neutrino problem. The latest results from 1117 days of data from Super Kamiokande  sees a one sigma day-night asymmetry, and a flat energy spectrum, which together disfavour the small mixing angle (SMA) MSW solution , the just-so vacuum oscillation hypothesis  and the sterile neutrino hypotheses. All three possibilities are now excluded at 95% CL. The results allow much of the large mixing angle (LMA) MSW region , which now looks like the leading candidate for the solution to the solar neutrino problem. For example a typical point in the LMA MSW region is $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}0.75`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^22.5\times 10^5eV^2`$.

Once the CHOOZ constraint  is taken into account, the latest results seem to imply an approximate bi-maximal mixing scenario $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}1`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{12}1`$, $`\theta _{13}1`$ relating the three standard neutrinos $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$, to the three mass eigenvalues $`m_{\nu _1},m_{\nu _2},m_{\nu _3}`$, where only the values of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2|=|m_{\nu _3}^2m_{\nu _2}^2|`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|=|m_{\nu _2}^2m_{\nu _1}^2|`$ are determined by current experiments. We do not know if the neutrino masses are hierarchical or approximately degenerate with small mass splittings. Another possibility is that the neutrinos have an inverted mass hierarchy, i.e. two of them are approximately degenerate with a small mass splitting, while the third is much lighter. The conventional and inverted neutrino mass hiearchies are depicted schematically in Figures 1 and 2. Neutrino factories will be able to determine the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$ and hence distinguish between the two cases .

The see-saw mechanism  implies that the three light neutrino masses arise from some large mass scales corresponding to the Majorana masses of some heavy “right-handed neutrinos” $`N_R^p`$ $`M_{RR}^{pq}`$ ($`p,q=1,\mathrm{},Z`$) whose entries take values which extend from say $`10^{16}`$ GeV down to perhaps several orders of magnitude lower. The presence of electroweak scale Dirac mass terms $`m_{LR}^{ip}`$ (a $`3\times Z`$ matrix) connecting the left-handed neutrinos $`\nu _L^i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{}3`$) to the right-handed neutrinos $`N_R^p`$ then results in a very light see-saw suppressed effective $`3\times 3`$ Majorana mass matrix

$$m_{LL}=m_{LR}M_{RR}^1m_{LR}^T$$
(1)
for the left-handed neutrinos $`\nu _L^i`$, which are the light physical degrees of freedom observed by experiment. If the neutrino masses arise from the see-saw mechanism then it is natural to assume the existence of a physical neutrino mass hierarchy $`m_{\nu _1}m_{\nu _2}m_{\nu _3}`$, which implies $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2m_{\nu _3}^2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2m_{\nu _2}^2`$, which fixes $`m_{\nu _3}5\times 10^2eV`$, and (assuming the LMA MSW solution) $`m_{\nu _2}5\times 10^3eV`$, with rather large errors. Thus $`m_{\nu _2}/m_{\nu _3}0.1`$.

Hierarchical neutrino masses are not guaranteed because a hierarchy in $`m_{LR}`$ does not necessarily imply a hierarchy in $`m_{LL}`$ since $`M_{RR}`$ is also expected to be hierarchical, and the hierarchies may cancel out in the see-saw mechanism. Nevertheless it would seem surprising if the resulting neutrino spectrum came out to be degenerate $`m_{\nu _1}m_{\nu _2}m_{\nu _3}`$ with three accurately equal masses of say an eV but with small mass splittings appropriate to the atmospheric and solar data especially taking into account radiative corrections , although such a scenario could be enforced by a symmetry . The possibility of an inverted mass hierarchy $`m_{\nu _3}m_{\nu _2}m_{\nu _1}`$ with bi-maximal mixing however is more natural, since it follows from a simple form of mass matrix

$$m_{LL}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& b& c\\ b& 0& 0\\ c& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(2)
which corresponds to neutrino masses of the form $`\nu _e(b\nu _\mu +c\nu _\tau )`$, which implies two degenerate neutrinos $`\nu _e`$ and $`b\nu _\mu +c\nu _\tau `$, and a massless neutrino $`c\nu _\mu b\nu _\tau `$, with neutrino mixing angles $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}=c/b`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{12}=1`$, $`\theta _{13}=0`$. It has also been pointed out that the mass matrix in Eq.2 can be generated from the see-saw mechanism using two right-handed neutrinos with an off-diagonal Majorana mass, using a chiral $`U(1)`$ family symmetry to give the desired textures .

Our discussion of the inverted hiearchy models differs from that already presented in the literature in the following three ways. Firstly we consider the see-saw mechanism in the framework of the supersymmetric standard model with three right-handed neutrinos, and focus on a particular texture for the heavy right-handed neutrinos which is capable of approximately reproducing the mass matrix in Eq.2. Secondly we introduce a vector $`U(1)`$ family symmetry which is broken by vector-like singlets, which allows both signs of charges to contribute, and make a computer scan over all charges which can lead to the desired mass matrix, and tabulate the simplest cases. Thirdly we perform a renormalisation group (RG) analysis of some cases, in order to examine the radiative corrections in going from the GUT scale to low energy.

In section 2 we give an analytic discussion of the model, and in section 3 we introduce a $`U(1)`$ family symmetry and tabulate the simplest charges consistent with our scheme. Section 4 contains a renormalisation group analysis of some examples, and section 4 concludes the paper.

## 2 Analytic Discussion

We begin our discussion by returning to the case of a conventional neutrino mass hierarchy where the presence of a large 23 mixing angle looks a bit surprising at first sight, especially given our experience with small quark mixing angles. Several explanations have been proposed , but the simplest idea is that the contributions to the 23 block of the light effective Majorana matrix come predominantly from a single right-handed neutrino, which causes the 23 subdeterminant to approximately vanish. A dominant single right-handed neutrino then naturally leads to a hierarchical neutrino mass spectrum, with a single dominant physical neutrino mass and two much lighter neutrinos. This mechanism, called single right-handed neutrino dominance (SRHND), was proposed in , and developed for bi-maximal mixing in . The effect of radiative corrections on the bi-maximal SRHND case was considered in . We then show that for the off-diagonal heavy Majorana texture, a reversal of the SRHND conditions leads to an inverted mass hierarchy and bi-maximal mixing.

We first write the neutrino Yukawa matrix in general (in the LR basis) as

$$Y_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a^{}& a& d\\ b^{}& b& e\\ c^{}& c& f\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
There are now three distinct textures for the heavy Majorana neutrino matrix which maintain the isolation of the dominant right-handed neutrino $`N_{R3}`$, namely the diagonal, democratic and off-diagonal textures introduced previously. Only one of these textures, namely the off-diagonal case, can lead to an inverted mass hierarchy. We therefore specialise to the off-diagonal heavy Majorana texture: 222Actually this texture represents a set of off-diagonal Majorana textures related by a re-ordering of the right-handed neutrino fields. For example if we cyclically permute the right-handed neutrino fields as $`12,23,31`$ then we would have
$$Y_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}d& a^{}& a\\ e& b^{}& b\\ f& c^{}& c\end{array}\right),M_{RR}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}Y& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& X\\ 0& X& 0\end{array}\right)$$
with $`m_{LL}`$ unchanged. The results in this paper therefore apply to this larger class of model, corresponding to all possible re-orderings of right-handed neutrino fields. For example the matrices $`Y_\nu `$ and $`M_{RR}`$ in Tables 3,4 may be permuted so that the large elements of order unity appear in the 23 and 33 positions of $`Y_\nu `$, which may be more natural from the perspective of unified theories where a large 33 element is expected.

$$M_{RR}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& X& 0\\ X& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& Y\end{array}\right)$$
(4)
From Eqs.3 and 4, the see-saw formula Eq.1 implies

$$m_{LL}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{d^2}{Y}+\frac{2aa^{}}{X}& \frac{de}{Y}+\frac{a^{}b}{X}+\frac{ab^{}}{X}& \frac{df}{Y}+\frac{a^{}c}{X}+\frac{ac^{}}{X}\\ .& \frac{e^2}{Y}+\frac{2bb^{}}{X}& \frac{ef}{Y}+\frac{b^{}c}{X}+\frac{bc^{}}{X}\\ .& .& \frac{f^2}{Y}+\frac{2cc^{}}{X}\end{array}\right)v_2^2$$
(5)
where $`v_2`$ is the Higgs vacuum expection value which relates the neutrino mass matrix to the neutrino Yukawa matrix $`m_{LR}=Y_\nu v_2`$. From this starting point we may obtain either a conventional hierarchy or an inverted hiearchy, depending on the conditions applied to the couplings.

* The conditions for a conventional hierarchy as in Fig.1 via SRHND are simply that the third right-handed neutrino dominates the 23 block of $`m_{LL}`$,

$$\frac{e^2}{Y}\frac{ef}{Y}\frac{f^2}{Y}\frac{xx^{}}{X}$$
(6)
where $`xa,b,c`$ and $`x^{}a^{},b^{},c^{}`$. For example in the limit that only $`ef`$ are non-zero the spectrum consists of a decoupled massless $`\nu _e`$, plus another massless state $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ (because the 23 subdeterminant vanishes) giving maximal atmospheric mixing with the massive state $`\nu _\mu +\nu _\tau `$. The milder conditions in Eq.6 allow the massless degeneracy to be broken, and $`\nu _e\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ solar oscillations. Assuming SRHND the contribution to the lepton 23 and 13 mixing angles from the neutrino sector are approximately

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}\frac{e}{f},\mathrm{tan}\theta _{13}\frac{d}{\sqrt{e^2+f^2}},$$
(7)
so that Super-Kamiokande and CHOOZ  imply

$$def$$
(8)
The 12 mixing angle is controlled by the sub-dominant right-handed neutrinos, and the condition for a $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{12}1`$ is :

$$max(\frac{a^{}b}{X},\frac{ab^{}}{X},\frac{a^{}c}{X},\frac{ac^{}}{X})max(\frac{bb^{}}{X},\frac{b^{}c}{X},\frac{bc^{}}{X},\frac{cc^{}}{X})$$
(9)
* In order to achieve an inverted hiearchy as in Fig.2 from the off-diagonal texture in Eq.4, we must require contributions to $`m_{LL}`$ in Eq.5 such that Eq.2 is approximately reproduced. It is straightforward to show that only an off-diagonal texture such as Eq.4 allows this. This immediately implies that the first and second right-handed neutrinos with mass term $`X`$ must give the dominant contribution to the matrix relative to the contributions from the third right-handed neutrino with mass $`Y`$,

$$\frac{(e+d+f)^2}{Y}max\left(\frac{(a^{}+b^{}+c^{})(a+b+c)}{X}\right)$$
(10)
which is the opposite of the SRHND condition Eq.6. Furthermore we require one of the following conditions to be satisfied

$$a^{},b,ca,b^{},c^{},ora^{},b,ca,b^{},c^{}.$$
(11)

The simplest example which generates an inverted hierarchy is to take the limit that only $`a^{},b,c`$ are non-zero, so that $`m_{LL}`$ becomes

$$m_{LL}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& b& c\\ b& 0& 0\\ c& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\frac{a^{}v_2^2}{X}$$
(12)
which is of the form in Eq.2. In order to split the degeneracy, we must allow for small perturbations. Suppose to begin with that $`d=e=f=0`$, then only two right-handed neutrinos contribute and

$$m_{LL}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{2aa^{}}{X}& \frac{a^{}b}{X}+\frac{ab^{}}{X}& \frac{a^{}c}{X}+\frac{ac^{}}{X}\\ .& \frac{2bb^{}}{X}& \frac{b^{}c}{X}+\frac{bc^{}}{X}\\ .& .& \frac{2cc^{}}{X}\end{array}\right)v_2^2$$
(13)
Allowing $`a,b^{},c^{}`$ to be non-zero but maintaining $`a^{},b,ca,b^{},c^{}`$ we find neutrino masses 333In fact the eigenvalues have the form $`(|m_{\nu _1}|,|m_{\nu _2}|,|m_{\nu _3}|)`$, with $`|m_{\nu _1}||m_{\nu _2}||m_{\nu _3}|`$, but we can always redefine the masses to be positive, and this is assumed in Eq.14, and subsequently. Note that we take the convention $`|m_{\nu _1}|>|m_{\nu _2}|`$, which fixes the ordering of the 1st two columns of $`V_{MNS}`$.

$$m_{\nu _3}=0,m_{\nu _2}m_{\nu _1}\frac{a^{}\sqrt{b^2+c^2}v_2^2}{X},(m_{\nu _1}m_{\nu _2})\frac{2(a^{}a+b^{}b+c^{}c)v_2^2}{X}$$
(14)
and mixing angles

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}\frac{c}{b},\theta _{13}\frac{c^{}bb^{}c}{a^{}\sqrt{b^2+c^2}},\mathrm{tan}\theta _{12}1$$
(15)
Note that in the inverted hierarchy case $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2|m_{\nu _1}^2m_{\nu _2}^2`$, which fixes $`m_{\nu _1}m_{\nu _2}5\times 10^2eV`$. Since $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|m_{\nu _1}^2m_{\nu _2}^2`$, the LMA MSW solution implies $`|m_{\nu _1}m_{\nu _2}|2.5\times 10^4eV`$, with rather large errors, which is much smaller than the corresponding mass splitting $`5\times 10^3eV`$ in the conventional hierarchy case. This implies that the perturbations in the inverted hierarchy case must be much smaller than in the conventional hierarchy case. A convenient way to describe such perturbations is in the framework of $`U(1)`$ family symmetry to which we now turn.

## 3 $`U(1)`$ Family Symmetry

Introducing a $`U(1)`$ family symmetry , , ,  provides a convenient way to organise the hierarchies within the various Yukawa matrices. For definiteness we shall focus on a particular class of model based on a single pseudo-anomalous $`U(1)`$ gauged family symmetry . We assume that the $`U(1)`$ is broken by the equal VEVs of two singlets $`\theta ,\overline{\theta }`$ which have vector-like charges $`\pm 1`$ . The $`U(1)`$ breaking scale is set by $`<\theta >=<\overline{\theta }>`$ where the VEVs arise from a Green-Schwartz mechanism  with computable Fayet-Illiopoulos $`D`$-term which determines these VEVs to be one or two orders of magnitude below $`M_U`$. Additional exotic vector matter with mass $`M_V`$ allows the Wolfenstein parameter  to be generated by the ratio

$$\frac{<\theta >}{M_V}=\frac{<\overline{\theta }>}{M_V}=\lambda 0.22$$
(16)
The idea is that at tree-level the $`U(1)`$ family symmetry only permits third family Yukawa couplings (e.g. the top quark Yukawa coupling). Smaller Yukawa couplings are generated effectively from higher dimension non-renormalisable operators corresponding to insertions of $`\theta `$ and $`\overline{\theta }`$ fields and hence to powers of the expansion parameter in Eq.16, which we have identified with the Wolfenstein parameter. The number of powers of the expansion parameter is controlled by the $`U(1)`$ charge of the particular operator. The fields relevant to neutrino masses are the lepton doublets $`L_i`$, the charge conjugated right-handed neutrinos and charged leptons $`N_i^c`$, $`E_i^c`$, up-type Higgs doublet $`H_u`$, and a singlet Higgs field whose VEV signals the heavy Majorana masses $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. These are assigned $`U(1)`$ charges $`l_i`$, $`n_i`$, $`e_i`$, $`h_u=0`$, $`\sigma `$, respectively. From Eq.16, the neutrino Yukawa couplings and Majorana mass terms may then be expanded in powers of the Wolfenstein parameter,

$$M_{RR}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{|2n_1+\sigma |}& \lambda ^{|n_1+n_2+\sigma |}& \lambda ^{|n_1+n_3+\sigma |}\\ .& \lambda ^{|2n_2+\sigma |}& \lambda ^{|n_2+n_3+\sigma |}\\ .& .& \lambda ^{|2n_3+\sigma |}\end{array}\right)<\mathrm{\Sigma }>$$
(17)
The neutrino Yukawa matrix is explicitly

$$Y_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{|l_1+n_1|}& \lambda ^{|l_1+n_2|}& \lambda ^{|l_1+n_3|}\\ \lambda ^{|l_2+n_1|}& \lambda ^{|l_2+n_2|}& \lambda ^{|l_2+n_3|}\\ \lambda ^{|l_3+n_1|}& \lambda ^{|l_3+n_2|}& \lambda ^{|l_3+n_3|}\end{array}\right)$$
(18)
which may be compared to the notation in Eq.3. The charged lepton Yukawa matrix is given by

$$Y_e\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{|l_1+e_1|}& \lambda ^{|l_1+e_2|}& \lambda ^{|l_1+e_3|}\\ \lambda ^{|l_2+e_1|}& \lambda ^{|l_2+e_2|}& \lambda ^{|l_2+e_3|}\\ \lambda ^{|l_3+e_1|}& \lambda ^{|l_3+e_2|}& \lambda ^{|l_3+e_3|}\end{array}\right)$$
(19)
For the quarks we shall assume a common form for the textures of $`Y_u`$ and $`Y_d`$

$$Y_u\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^8& \lambda ^5& \lambda ^3\\ \lambda ^7& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^5& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),Y_d\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^4& \lambda ^3& \lambda ^3\\ \lambda ^3& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda & 1& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(20)
The conditions for achieving bi-maximal mixing with either a conventional neutrino hierarchy, or an inverted hierarchy then translate into conditions on the choice of $`U(1)`$ charges for the different fields. We have already tabulated the simplest charges consistent with the SRHND conditions giving a hierarchical spectrum and the LMA MSW solution Eqs.6, 9 . In Tables 1 and 2, we give the simplest $`U(1)`$ charges consistent with an inverted neutrino mass hierarchy Eqs.10, 11

The $`U(1)`$ charges in Tables 1,2 can be arranged into four categories (referred to as cases I, II, III and IV) according to the perturbation terms present in $`m_{LL}`$ which can be expressed in leading order, using Eqs.17, 18 together with Eqs.3, 4,5 as

$$m_{LL}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta & 1& 1\\ 1& ϵ& ϵ\\ 1& ϵ& ϵ\end{array}\right)$$
(21)
where $`\delta =ϵ=\lambda ^4`$ in cases I,II, $`\delta =\lambda ^6`$, $`ϵ=\lambda ^4`$ in case III, and $`\delta =\lambda ^4`$, $`ϵ=\lambda ^6`$ in case IV. Again one can differentiate cases I and II with respect to the textures of charged lepton Yukawa matrix as shown in Table 3. This may lead to different solar mixing angles at the end.

## 4 Renormalisation Group Analysis

We now turn to a renormalisation group study for calculating radiative corrections to neutrino masses and mixing angles at low energies (see  and references therein). We pick up four representative examples, one each from each case listed in Tables 1,2. Our detailed procedure and methods follow closely that used in the case of SRHND in , which we summarise briefly. From  we make use of the renormalisation group equations (RGEs) to one-loop order for Yukawa matrices and three gauge couplings, in the minimal supersymmetric standard model with three right-handed neutrinos, including the effects of the heavy neutrino thresholds. Using the textures in Tables 3,4, and Eq.20 we first run the quanties $`Y^f(f=u,d,e,\nu )`$ , $`Y_{RR}`$ and gauge couplings $`g_{1,2,3}`$ from the GUT scale $`M_U=2.0\times 10^{16}GeV`$ down to the lightest right-handed heavy neutrino mass scale $`M_{R1}`$. We take the effects of the other heavy right-handed neutrino mass thresholds in successive steps in running the RGEs. Using the see-saw formula in the standard way, and inverting $`M_{RR}`$ numerically, the left-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix $`m_{LL}`$ is calculated at the scale $`M_{R1}`$. The corresponding lepton mixing matrix $`V_{MNS}=V_{eL}V_{\nu L}^{}`$ is calculated after performing the diagonalisation of $`m_{LL}^{diag}=V_{\nu L}m_{LL}V_{\nu L}^{}`$ and $`Y_e^{diag}=V_{eL}Y_eV_{eR}^{}`$ at this scale. From $`V_{MNS}`$ mixing matrix we extract $`S_{sol}=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$ as well as $`S_{at}=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ as outlined in . We also calculate the left-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix and the same mixing parameters at the GUT scale for providing a meaningful comparison of radiative corrections at different energy scales though the see-saw mechanism in principle, does not operate at scales above the lightest right-handed neutrino mass $`M_{R1}`$. In the next step while moving from $`M_{R1}`$ scale to low energy scale $`m_t`$, we run the RGEs for the coefficient $`\kappa `$ of the dimension 5 neutrino mass operator in the diagonal charged lepton basis , which is interpreted as see-saw mass matrix $`m_{LL}^{}(M_{R1})=v_2^2\kappa ^{}(M_{R1})`$ where $`\kappa ^{}=V_{eL}\kappa V_{eL}^{}`$. This in turn gives $`m_{LL}^{}(m_t)`$,

$$m_{LL}^{}(m_t)=e^{\frac{6}{5}I_{g1}}e^{6I_{g2}}e^{6I_t}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_{LL11}^{}(M_{R1})& m_{LL12}^{}(M_{R1})& m_{LL13}^{}(M_{R1})e^{I_\tau }\\ m_{LL21}^{}(M_{R1})& m_{LL22}^{}(M_{R1})& m_{LL23}^{}(M_{R1})e^{I_\tau }\\ m_{LL31}^{}(M_{R1})e^{I_\tau }& m_{LL32}^{}(M_{R1})e^{I_\tau }& m_{LL33}^{}(M_{R1})e^{2I_\tau }\end{array}\right)$$
(22)
and

$$I_{g_i}=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}_{\mathrm{ln}m_t}^{\mathrm{ln}M_{R1}}g_i^2(t)𝑑t,I_f=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}_{\mathrm{ln}m_t}^{\mathrm{ln}M_{R1}}h_f^2(t)𝑑t$$
(23)
where $`f=t,\tau `$. We also calculate $`V_{MNS}(m_t)=V_{\nu L}^{}`$ where $`V_{\nu L}^{}`$ is the matrix which diagonalises $`m_{LL}^{}`$. We then obtain the neutrino masses $`m_{LL}^{diag}=diag(m_{\nu 1},m_{\nu 2},m_{\nu 3})`$ and mixing angle parameters $`S_{sol},S_{at}`$ as before. The parameters $`I_f`$ along with the input textures of $`Y^e,Y^\nu ,Y_{RR}`$ are given in Tables 3,4 which are needed in getting the results in Tables 5-8.

The numerical results are presented in Tables 5-8 for cases I-IV where the results in Table 8 is meant for relative comparison only. We define the measure of the splitting of neutrino masses by $`\xi =(m_{\nu 1}m_{\nu 2})/m_{\nu 2}\frac{1}{2}\frac{m_{12}^2}{m_{23}^2}`$ which is found to be decreasing from high energy scale $`M_U`$ to low energy scale $`m_t`$ by about $`(30,43,20)\%`$ for cases I,II and III respectively. But the decrease in moving from the scale $`M_U`$ to scale $`M_{R1}`$ is about $`(22,36,17)\%`$ which is a significant effect. We get at scale $`m_t`$ the values of the measure of the splitting, $`\xi =(0.00238,0.00281,0.00266,0.00004)`$ which corresponds to $`m_{\nu _1}m_{\nu _2}=\xi m_{\nu _2}=(1.7,2.0,1.8,0.03)\times 10^4`$ eV for cases I-IV, which are somewhat on the lower end but within the observational range except for case IV (which is completely ruled out). The low energy absolute values of neutrino masses are also estimated as $`m_{\nu 2}=(0.0711,0.0713,0.0685,0.0682)eV`$ and $`m_{\nu 3}0`$ for cases I-IV respectively. There is almost a smooth decrease in $`m_{\nu 2,3}`$ by about $`20\%`$ while moving from scale $`M_U`$ down to low energy scale $`m_t`$. There is a mild decrease of the solar mixing angle parameter $`S_{sol}`$ while moving from high scale $`M_U`$ to $`m_t`$ scale in all cases, and its low energy values are $`S_{sol}=0.9994,0.8996,0.9994,0.9995`$ for cases I-IV respectively. These values execpt for the case II, are on the higher side which lie outside the allowed range. This depends on the texture of charged lepton Yukawa matrix given in Tables 3 and 4. However the atmospheric mixing angle parameter $`S_{at}`$ is found to increase by about $`6\%`$ from high scale $`M_U`$ to low scale $`m_t`$, of which $`2\%`$ is in the energy range $`M_U`$ to $`M_{R1}`$. The low energy values are predicted as $`S_{at}=0.935,0.957,0.937,0.931`$ for cases I-IV respectively. These values are above the experimental lower bound $`S_{at}>0.88`$. In our numerical analysis the charged lepton textures also predict almost consistent hierarchical ratios of charged lepton masses at low scale as shown in Tables 5-8.

## 5 Conclusion

In conclusion, we have studied models of neutrino masses which naturally give rise to an inverted mass hierarchy and bi-maximal mixing. The models are based on the see-saw mechanism with three right-handed neutrinos, which generates a single mass term of the form $`\nu _e(\nu _\mu +\nu _\tau )`$ corresponding to two degenerate neutrinos $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu +\nu _\tau `$, and one massless neutrino $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$. Atmospheric neutrino oscillations are accounted for if the degenerate mass term is about $`5\times 10^2`$ eV. Solar neutrino oscillations of the Large Mixing Angle MSW type arise when small perturbations are included leading to a mass splitting between the degenerate pair of about $`(1.72.0)\times 10^4`$ eV. We have studied the conditions that such models must satisfy in the framework of a $`U(1)`$ family symmetry broken by vector singlets, and catalogue the simplest examples. We distinguished four types of cases, and then performed a renormalisation group analysis of the neutrino masses mixing angles, assuming the supersymmetric standard model and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, for one example from each case. Cases I,III,IV predict almost maximal solar mixing, and an atmospheric mixing angle which is near maximal, increasing by 6% due to RG running. However case IV predicts a splitting parameter $`\xi `$ which is outside the allowed range, therefore this texture is not favoured for the LMA MSW solution. Case II gives a somewhat smaller solar mixing angle, which decreases by about 3% due to RG running, while the atmospheric angle increases by about 5%. Although these examples predict a large solar mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}>0.9`$, this prediction depends to some extent on the texture assumed for $`Y_e`$, since in the absence of charged lepton mixing angles, the 12 neutrino mixing is almost exactly maximal. Clearly all cases are stable under radiative corrections, leading to a natural explanation of bi-maximal mixing in terms of an experimentally testable inverted hierarchical spectrum.