text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The huge discrepancy between the Planck scale $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}10^{19}`$ GeV and the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking $`M_Z10^2`$ GeV, is one of the most interesting challenges in modern physics. Recently it was realized that compact extra space dimensions can offer a new perspective on this gauge hierarchy problem. In one class of models the weakness of 4-dimensional gravity is induced by the very large volume of compactification . Subsequently, it was demonstrated that a small but warped extra dimension provides an elegant alternative solution to the hierarchy problem  (see also ). The fifth dimension is an $`S_1/Z_2`$ orbifold with an AdS5 geometry, bordered by two 3-branes with opposite tensions and separated by distance $`R`$. The AdS warp factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }=e^{\pi kR}`$ generates an exponential hierarchy between the effective mass scales on the two branes ($`k`$=AdS curvature). If the brane separation is $`kR11`$, the scale on the negative tension brane is of TeV-size, while the scale on the other brane is of order $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$. The AdS curvature $`k`$ and the 5d Planck mass $`M_5`$ are both assumed to be of order $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$. At the TeV-brane gravity is weak because the zero mode corresponding to the 4d graviton is localized at the positive tension brane (Planck-brane).

In low scale models of quantum gravity higher-dimensional operators, now only TeV-scale suppressed, are known to induce rapid proton decay, large neutrino masses and flavor violating interactions. In models with non-factorizable (warped) geometry these problems can be cured to some extent by introducing the Standard Model (SM) fermions as bulk fields, without relying on ad-hoc symmetries such as lepton or baryon number . Because of the warp factor, the effective cut-off scale varies along the extra dimension. If the quarks and leptons are localized towards the Planck-brane in the extra dimension, the effective cut-off scale can by much larger than a TeV.

Fermion masses are generated by the Higgs mechanism. In the non-supersymmetric framework we are discussing, the Higgs field lives close to the TeV-brane in order to maintain the solution of the gauge hierarchy problem . The induced fermion masses crucially depend on the overlap between the Higgs and fermion wave functions in the extra dimension, and naturally become small for fermions residing close to the Planck-brane. This mechanism offers a higher-dimensional view on the problem of fermion mass hierarchies . Also, the quark mixings can be nicely reproduced from order unity Yukawa couplings . The nearest neighbor structure in the CKM matrix is reflected in the different positions the fermions occupy in the extra dimension.

In our set-up we assume that the SM gauge bosons are bulk fields as well in order to guarantee bulk gauge invariance. Electroweak precision data , especially the W and Z boson mass ratio, impose stringent constraints by requiring the Kaluza Klein (KK) excitations of bulk gauge bosons and fermions to have masses of order 10 TeV . The measured W and Z boson masses are reproduced by some (mild) tuning of parameters. We note in passing that contributions of 10 TeV Kaluza-Klein states to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon are two to three orders of magnitude smaller  than the recently reported deviation of this observable from its SM prediction .

Taking into account the constraints on the locations of fermions from their masses and mixings, one can more reliably estimate the suppression scales for higher-dimensional operators. Even though flavor violating interactions are safely suppressed, four-fermion operators suppressed by mass scales of about $`10^{12}`$ GeV can still lead to proton decay at an unacceptable level , unless the dimensionless couplings happen to be $`\stackrel{<}{}10^7`$. In addition keV-size Majorana neutrino masses and small mixings are induced, which do not easily fit the neutrino oscillation data .

In this letter we study the generation of Dirac masses for the neutrinos by introducing right-handed (sterile) neutrinos in the bulk. In the case of TeV-brane SM neutrinos this scenario was put forward in ref. . It turns out that we can accommodate the atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillations without fine-tuning of parameters. Having the SM neutrinos in the bulk reduces their mixing with Kaluza-Klein sterile neutrinos. Lepton flavor violating processes, which in the scenario of ref.  are in conflict with experiment for Kaluza Klein masses below 25 TeV , are safely suppressed. In this respect, moving the SM fermions off the TeV-brane allows for smaller KK masses $`10`$ TeV and therefore reduces the amount of fine-tuning to obtain realistic weak boson masses. The unacceptably large Majorana neutrino masses (see previous paragraph) are eliminated by imposing lepton number symmetry. Another important consequence is that the proton becomes stable. However, certain baryon number violating processes, e.g. neutron anti-neutron oscillations with $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$, are still possible and may lead to interesting experimental signatures .

## 2 Bulk fermions

To set the notation let us briefly review some properties of fermions in a slice of AdS5. We consider the non-factorizable metric

$$ds^2=e^{2\sigma (y)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2,$$
(2.1)
where $`\sigma (y)=k|y|`$. The 4-dimensional metric is $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$, $`k`$ is the AdS curvature related to the bulk cosmological constant and brane tensions, and $`y`$ denotes the fifth coordinate. The equation of motion for a fermion in curved space-time reads

$$E_a^M\gamma ^a(_M+\omega _M)\mathrm{\Psi }+m_\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }=0,$$
(2.2)
where $`E_a^M`$ is the fünfbein, $`\gamma ^a=(\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^5)`$ are the Dirac matrices in flat space,

$$\omega _M=(\frac{1}{2}e^\sigma \sigma ^{}\gamma _5\gamma _\mu ,0)$$
(2.3)
is the spin connection, and $`\sigma ^{}=d\sigma /dy`$. The index $`M`$ refers to objects in 5d curved space, the index $`a`$ to those in tangent space. Fermions have two possible transformation properties under the $`Z_2`$ orbifold symmetry, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(y)_\pm =\pm \gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }(y)_\pm `$. Thus, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_\pm `$ is odd under $`Z_2`$, and the Dirac mass term, which is also odd, can be parametrized as $`m_\mathrm{\Psi }=c\sigma ^{}`$. The Dirac mass should therefore originate from the coupling to a $`Z_2`$ odd scalar field which acquires a vev. On the other hand, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$ is even. Using the metric (2.1) one obtains for the left- and right-handed components of the Dirac spinor

$$[e^{2\sigma }_\mu ^\mu +_5^2\sigma ^{}_5M^2]e^{2\sigma }\mathrm{\Psi }_{L,R}=0,$$
(2.4)
where $`M^2=c(c\pm 1)k^2c\sigma ^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{L,R}=\pm \gamma _5\mathrm{\Psi }_{L,R}`$.

Decomposing the 5d fields as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x^\mu ,y)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi R}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }^{(n)}(x^\mu )f_n(y),$$
(2.5)
one ends up with a zero mode wave function

$$f_0(y)=\frac{e^{(2c)\sigma }}{N_0},$$
(2.6)
and a tower of KK excited states

$$f_n(y)=\frac{e^{5\sigma /2}}{N_n}\left[J_\alpha (\frac{m_n}{k}e^\sigma )+b_\alpha (m_n)Y_\alpha (\frac{m_n}{k}e^\sigma )\right].$$
(2.7)
The order of the Bessel functions is $`\alpha =|c\pm 1/2|`$ for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{L,R}`$. The spectrum of KK masses $`m_n`$ and the coefficients $`b_\alpha `$ are determined by the boundary conditions of the wave functions at the branes. The normalization constants follow from

$$\frac{1}{2\pi R}_{\pi R}^{\pi R}𝑑ye^{3\sigma }f_m(y)f_n(y)=\delta _{mn}.$$
(2.8)
Because of the orbifold symmetry, the zero mode of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+`$ $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_{})`$ is a left-handed (right-handed) Weyl spinor. For $`c>1/2`$ $`(c<1/2)`$ the fermion is localized near the boundary at $`y=0`$ $`(y=\pi R)`$, i.e. at the Planck- (TeV-) brane.

The zero modes of leptons and quarks acquire masses from their coupling to the Higgs field

$$d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{g}\lambda _{ij}^{(5)}H\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{i+}\mathrm{\Psi }_jd^4xm_{ij}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{iR}^{(0)}\mathrm{\Psi }_{jL}^{(0)}+\mathrm{},$$
(2.9)
where $`\lambda _{ij}^{(5)}`$ are the 5d Yukawa couplings. The 4d Dirac masses are given by

$$m_{ij}=_{\pi R}^{\pi R}\frac{dy}{2\pi R}\lambda _{ij}^{(5)}e^{4\sigma }H(y)f_{0iL}(y)f_{0jR}(y).$$
(2.10)
Recall that the Higgs field is confined to the TeV-brane, i.e. $`H(y)=H_0\delta (y\pi R)`$ Using the known mass of the W-boson we can fix $`H_0`$ in terms of the 5d weak gauge coupling $`g^{(5)}`$.

The fermion wave functions and consequently their masses depend on the 5d mass parameters of the left- and right-handed fermions, $`c_L`$ and $`c_R`$ respectively, which enter (2.10). As the 5d Dirac mass, i.e. $`c`$ parameter of the fermion increases, the closer it gets closer localized towards the Planck-brane. Its overlap with the Higgs profile at the TeV-brane is consequently reduced, which is reflected in a smaller 4d fermion mass after electroweak symmetry breaking. In ref.  we have shown that this geometrical picture beautifully generates the charged lepton and quark mass hierarchies, as well as quark mixings, by employing $`c`$-parameters and $`\lambda _{ij}^{(5)}\sqrt{k}`$ of order unity. In the following we apply this mechanism to also generate small neutrino masses consistent with neutrino oscillation experiments.

## 3 Neutrino masses

In ref.  it was have suggested that in warped geometry models small Dirac neutrino masses arise from a coupling to sterile (right-handed) bulk neutrinos. In order to generate masses in the sub-eV range, the sterile neutrinos have to be localized close to the Planck-brane, while the SM model neutrinos were confined to the TeV-brane. Here we generalize the scenario to incorporate bulk SM neutrinos.

In our framework the SM fermions, described by 4d Weyl spinors, correspond to left- and right-handed zero modes of 5d Dirac spinors which live in the bulk. The 5d mass parameters of the $`SU(2)`$ doublet (singlet) leptons $`L_i`$ $`(E_i)`$ are $`c_L^{(i)}`$ $`(c_E^{(i)})`$, where $`i=1,2,3`$. The right-handed neutrinos $`\psi _i`$ are also associated with bulk fermion fields which have right-handed zero modes. Their 5d mass parameters are denoted by $`c_\psi ^i`$, where again $`i=1,2,3`$. We avoid large Majorana neutrino masses by imposing lepton number as discussed earlier. After electroweak symmetry breaking the Dirac masses for the neutrinos are generated from the Yukawa-type coupling between the SM and sterile neutrinos, analogous to eq. (2.9)

$$=h_{ij}^{(5)}\overline{L}_i\psi _jH+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.+\mathrm{}$$
(3.11)
We will demonstrate that the neutrino oscillation data can be reproduced with order unity Yukawa couplings $`h_{ij}^{(5)}`$.

From the KK reduction of the left-handed neutrino fields $`\nu _L`$ we obtain a left-handed zero mode $`\nu _L^{(0)}`$, corresponding to the SM neutrinos, and an infinite tower of left- and right-handed KK excited states $`\nu _L^{(i)}`$ and $`\nu _R^{(i)}`$, where we omit flavor indices. The sterile neutrinos decompose into the right-handed zero mode $`\psi _R^{(0)}`$ and the KK excited states $`\psi _L^{(i)}`$ and $`\psi _R^{(i)}`$. After electroweak symmetry breaking the mass matrix takes the form

$$M_\nu =(\nu _L^{(0)},\nu _L^{(1)},\psi _L^{(1)},\mathrm{})\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m^{(0,0)}& 0& m^{(0,1)}& \mathrm{}\\ m^{(1,0)}& m_{L,1}& m^{(1,1)}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& m_{\psi ,1}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _R^{(0)}\\ \nu _R^{(1)}\\ \psi _R^{(1)}\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)$$
(3.12)
where we again suppress flavor indices, i.e. every entry represents a $`3\times 3`$ matrix in flavor space. The masses $`m^{(i,j)}`$ are obtained by inserting the relevant wave functions into eq. (2.10). The $`m_{L,i}`$ and $`m_{\psi ,i}`$ are the KK masses of the excited neutrino states. The zeros in (3.12) follow from the $`Z_2`$ orbifold properties of the wave functions. In ref.  we used an exponential Higgs profile localized at the TeV-brane instead of strictly confining it to the brane. In that case a mass term arises for $`\psi _L^{(1)}\nu _R^{(1)}`$, etc. We have checked that including this term only affects the neutrino properties at the $`10^3`$ level (at most).

The squares of the physical neutrino masses are the eigenvalues of the hermitian mass matrix $`M_\nu M_\nu ^{}`$. The unitary matrix $`U`$, such that $`U^{}M_\nu M_\nu ^{}U`$ is diagonal, relates the left-handed mass eigenstates $`N_L^{\mathrm{phys}}`$ to the interaction eigenstates $`N_L=(\nu _L^{(0)},\nu _L^{(i)},\psi _L^{(i)})`$ via $`N_L=UN_L^{\mathrm{phys}}`$. The physical neutrinos $`\nu _L^{\mathrm{phys}}`$ correspond to the three lightest states in $`N_L^{\mathrm{phys}}`$. The right-handed mass eigenstates are obtained from a unitary matrix $`V`$ which diagonalizes $`M_\nu ^{}M_\nu `$. If the Yukawa couplings of the charged leptons are diagonal, the mixing angles of the physical neutrinos can be directly read off from $`U`$.

The atmospheric and solar neutrino anomalies can be solved by assuming oscillations among the different neutrino flavors via the mass matrix $`M_\nu `$ (see e.g.  for a recent review). The atmospheric neutrino flux is reproduced by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=2`$$`710^3`$ eV2 and an almost maximal mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}1`$. For the solar neutrinos a variety of masses and mixing angles fit the data. For the large mixing angle MSW solution one finds $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2=10^5`$$`10^3`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}1`$, while for the small mixing angle MSW solution $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2=510^6`$$`10^5`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}=10^3`$$`10^2`$. Similarly, for the LOW solution $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2=510^8`$$`10^7`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}1`$ and for the vacuum solution $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^210^{10}`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}1`$. Finally, the CHOOZ reactor experiment together with the atmospheric neutrino data constrain $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ to be smaller than a few times $`10^2`$. In the next section we demonstrate how neutrino mass matrices with these properties can be obtained from bulk neutrinos.

Our approach to neutrino oscillations is in the spirit of “neutrino mass anarchy” models . It has been demonstrated that a fair fraction of neutrino mass matrices, which appear to have random entries, are consistent with the experimental constraints. This works best for the large MSW solution to the solar neutrino anomaly, where the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ is not too large, and no tiny mixing angles are involved. In our analysis of neutrino oscillations we assume non-hierarchical Yukawa couplings $`h_{ij}^{(5)}`$ on order of the 5d gauge coupling $`g_2^{(5)}`$. However, in our framework the structure of the Yukawa couplings is not mapped one to one to a neutrino mass matrix. Rather, the Yukawa texture is deformed by the neutrino wave function in the extra dimension which enter eq. (2.10). Therefore, it is not trivial that the neutrino data can be obtained with order unity Yukawa couplings. On the other hand, one may hope that the wave functions induce hierarchies that allows one to also reproduce also the small angle MSW, LOW and vacuum solution to the solar neutrino problem.

## 4 Numerical results

Various constraints on the scenario with bulk gauge and fermion fields have been discussed in the literature . With bulk gauge fields for instance, the SM relationship between the gauge couplings and masses of the Z and W bosons gets modified. The electroweak precision data then requires the lowest KK excitation of the gauge bosons to be heavier than about 10 TeV . This bound becomes especially important if the fermions are localized towards the Planck-brane $`(c>1/2)`$. As discussed in ref. , this applies to all SM fermions, with the exception of the top-quark, if the fermion mass hierarchy arises from their different locations in the extra dimension. In this case the bounds induced by the contribution of KK excitations of the SM gauge bosons to the electroweak precision observables are weak. They only require the KK masses to be above about 1 TeV . In the following we will therefore assume that the mass of the first KK gauge boson is $`m_1^{(G)}=10`$ TeV. The corresponding masses of the KK fermions are then in the range 10 to 16 TeV, for $`0<c<1.5`$. The mass of the lightest KK graviton is 16 TeV.

For simplicity we assume diagonal Yukawa couplings $`\lambda _{ij}^{(5)}`$ for the charged leptons. Neutrino mixing is then solely governed by the neutrino mass matrix $`M_\nu `$. To avoid a hierarchy in the 5d couplings, we assume $`\lambda _{ii}^{(5)}=g_2^{(5)}`$, where the 5d weak gauge coupling $`g_2^{(5)}g_2\sqrt{2\pi R}`$. We take $`k=M_5=\overline{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$, where $`\overline{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}=2.44\times 10^{18}`$ GeV is the reduced Planck mass. From $`m_1^{(G)}=10`$ TeV we determine the brane separation $`kR=10.83`$ .

As discussed in ref.  the measured charged lepton masses do not determine the 5d mass parameters $`c_L^{(i)}`$ and $`c_E^{(i)}`$ in a unique way. In order to minimize Majorana neutrino masses, we proposed a scenario where the left-handed leptons $`L_i`$ were placed as close as possible towards the Planck-brane, while the right-handed leptons $`E_i`$ were assumed to be delocalized. The associated fermion mass parameters are

$$c_L^{(1)}=0.834,c_L^{(2)}=0.664,c_L^{(3)}=0.567,c_E^{(1)}=c_E^{(2)}=c_E^{(3)}=0.5.$$
(4.13)
The zero mode wave functions of the left-handed electron and tau, the right-handed zero mode of $`\psi _1`$ and the first excited state of the tau are displayed in fig. 1. Since the SM neutrinos are at different locations in the extra dimension, non-hierarchical Yukawa couplings typically lead to nearest neighbor-type neutrino mass matrices. This is similar to the case of quark mixings which we discussed in ref. . By taking the Yukawa coupling of $`\nu _\tau `$ to be somewhat smaller than unity, it is however possible to obtain large $`\nu _\mu `$$`\nu _\tau `$ mixing. Large $`\nu _e`$$`\nu _\mu `$ mixing would require a hierarchy of order $`10^2`$ at least in the Yukawa couplings, which leaves the small MSW scenario as the only natural solution to the solar neutrino anomaly. The data are, for instance, reproduced by taking

$`c_\psi ^{(1)}=1.38,c_\psi ^{(2)}=1.29,c_\psi ^{(3)}=1.24,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_{ij}^{(5)}}{g_2^{(5)}}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1.1& 2.9& 3.3\\ 2.1& 3.6& 3.8\\ 0.5& 0.4& 0.3\end{array}\right).`$ (4.17)
For the light neutrino masses we obtain $`m_{\nu 1}=8.010^6`$ eV, $`m_{\nu 2}=2.610^3`$ eV and $`m_{\nu 3}=7.610^2`$ eV. The lightest KK state is basically a $`\nu _\tau `$ excitation with a mass of 10.4 TeV. The excitations of the other bulk fields have similar masses. The neutrino data are successfully reproduced with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=5.810^3`$ eV2, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}=0.92`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2=6.810^6`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}=3.010^3`$. The quantity $`U_{e3}^2=510^6`$, much smaller than the experimental bound. This example demonstrates that the small angle MSW solution can be obtained from order unity parameters. This is in contrast to “neutrino mass anarchy models” in four dimensions .

The SM neutrinos mix not only with each other but also with the left-handed KK states of the sterile neutrinos $`\psi _L^{(i)}`$ . This effect diminishes the effective weak charge of the light neutrinos. As a result the effective number of neutrinos contributing to the width of the Z boson is reduced to $`n_{\mathrm{eff}}=3\delta n`$, where $`\delta n`$ is obtained from summing the relevant squared entries of $`U`$. Measurements of the Z width induce the constraint $`\delta n\stackrel{<}{}0.005`$ . For the parameter set (4) we find the result $`\delta n=610^7`$, well below the experimental sensitivity. Because of this small mixing with KK states, the masses and mixings of the light neutrinos can be reliably computed from the zero mode part of the neutrino mass matrix (3.12). In ref.  a result three orders of magnitude larger was reported. Our result is smaller since our KK masses are $``$10 TeV instead of 1 TeV, and being bulk fields, the SM neutrinos have a smaller overlap with the Higgs field at the TeV-brane which reduces the off-diagonal entries $`m^{(0,i)}`$ in (3.12).

In order to reproduce the large mixing angle solutions to the solar neutrino problem we have to relocate the left-handed lepton fields in the extra dimension. A nearest neighbor-type neutrino mass matrix is avoided by placing the SM neutrinos all at the same position, i.e. $`c_L^{(1)}=c_L^{(2)}=c_L^{(3)}c_L`$. We choose $`c_L=0.567`$. In this case our results concerning proton decay  are still valid. The charged fermion masses are reproduced with $`c_E^{(1)}=0.787`$, $`c_E^{(2)}=0.614`$ and $`c_E^{(3)}=0.50`$. A parameter set which implements the large angle MSW solution is

$`c_\psi ^{(1)}=1.43,c_\psi ^{(2)}=1.36,c_\psi ^{(3)}=1.30,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_{ij}^{(5)}}{g_2^{(5)}}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2.0& 1.5& 0.5\\ 1.8& 1.1& 1.9\\ 0.5& 1.9& 1.7\end{array}\right).`$ (4.21)
We obtain the light neutrino masses $`m_{\nu 1}=1.010^3`$ eV, $`m_{\nu 2}=1.010^2`$ eV and $`m_{\nu 3}=7.110^2`$ eV. The KK spectrum is similar to the small MSW case. For the neutrino oscillation parameters we find $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=4.910^3`$ eV2, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}=0.99`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2=1.010^4`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}=0.90`$. Also, $`U_{e3}^2=0.036`$ is close to the experimental bound which is typical for the solutions we find. Since the SM neutrinos now are closer to the TeV-brane, their mixing with the sterile neutrinos is enhanced. We find $`\delta n=210^5`$, still well below the experimental bound.

Along the same lines it is also possible to reproduce the LOW and the vacuum solution to the solar neutrino anomaly. A smaller $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ is obtained by moving the sterile neutrinos $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ closer towards the Planck-brane. We find viable solutions with $`c_\psi ^{(1)}=1.50`$ and $`c_\psi ^{(1)}=1.45`$ (LOW solution), and $`c_\psi ^{(1)}=1.62`$ and $`c_\psi ^{(1)}=1.57`$ (vacuum solution). The mixing between SM neutrinos and sterile neutrinos is of the size found in the large MSW solution.

## 5 Rare processes

The direct experimental signature for bulk SM fields would be the production of the associated KK states in high energy colliders. Since typical KK masses in our scenario are of order 10 TeV, this is not possible before the advent of LHC. It is therefore important to study the implications of the excited states on rare processes and precision variables.

In order to prevent large Majorana neutrino masses, we imposed lepton number. As a result the proton is stabilized as well. However, baryon number may still be violated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ operators contributing to neutron anti-neutron oscillations and double nucleon decay . To be specific let us consider the 6-fermion operator $`O_{\mathrm{\Delta }B=2}=U_1D_1D_2U_1D_1D_2`$. The right-handed quark fields $`U_i`$ and $`D_i`$ are assumed to be bulk fields. Experiments constrain the suppression scale of this operator by $`M_{\mathrm{\Delta }B=2}\stackrel{>}{}3.310^5`$ GeV . In ref.  we discussed how the quark masses and mixings can be obtained by locating them at different positions in the extra dimension. Using the 5d quark mass parameters from that analysis, $`c_{D1}=0.57`$, $`c_{U1}=0.63`$, $`c_{D2}=0.57`$, we estimate $`M_{\mathrm{\Delta }B=2}810^5`$ GeV. The computation of $`M_{\mathrm{\Delta }B=2}`$ is a straight forward generalization of the 4-fermion operator case discussed in refs. , where the effective 4d operator is obtained by integrating the fermion wave functions over the extra dimension. Since in 4 dimensions $`O_{\mathrm{\Delta }B=2}`$ is suppressed by five powers of $`M_{\mathrm{\Delta }B=2}`$, the rate of $`\mathrm{\Delta }B=2`$ processes is about $`10^2`$ below the experimental bound. However, the 5d mass parameters are not uniquely fixed by their masses and mixings. If we move the quark fields closer to the TeV-brane, e.g. $`c_{D1}=0.54`$, $`c_{U1}=0.60`$, $`c_{D2}=0.54`$, $`M_{\mathrm{\Delta }B=2}`$ comes down to the experimental limit. The quark masses and mixings are recovered by reducing the quark Yukawa coupling by a common factor of about 5 compared to the values given in ref. . Flavor changing operators are still sufficiently suppressed by a scale of about $`10^6`$ GeV.

Non-zero neutrino masses violate the lepton flavor symmetry, which induces processes like $`\mu e\gamma `$. The rate for these transitions is considerable enhanced by the presence of heavy neutrino states

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu e\gamma )\left|\underset{i}{}U_{ei}^{}U_{\mu i}\left(\frac{m_i^2}{M_W^2}\right)\right|^2.$$
(5.22)
The matrix elements $`U_{ei}`$ and $`U_{\mu i}`$ encode the admixture of the $`i`$th mass eigenstate in $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$, respectively. If all neutrino masses are much smaller than $`M_W`$, i.e. $`(m_i^2/M_W^2)(0)`$, the rate (5.22) is suppressed due to the unitarity of $`U`$. Heavy neutrinos prevent this cancellation. Lepton flavor violation in the warped geometry model with TeV-brane SM neutrinos and bulk sterile neutrinos  was studied in ref. . It was found that the branching ratio for $`\mu e\gamma `$ exceeds the experimental limit, Br$`(\mu e\gamma )<1.210^{11}`$ , if the first KK state of the sterile neutrino has a mass below 25 TeV. Thus, lepton flavor violation imposes the most stringent constraint on the model.

Evaluating the branching ratio from (5.22) in our scenario with bulk SM fermions leads to a somewhat different conclusion. The rate for $`\mu e\gamma `$ is very sensitive to the mixing between light and heavy neutrino states. With bulk neutrinos the mixing with heavy states is considerably reduced, as was discussed in the previous section. Therefore, we expect that the constraints from lepton flavor violation should be less stringent in our scenario. Indeed, for the example implementing the small MSW solution (4), we find Br$`(\mu e\gamma )10^{26}`$, which is far below the experimental sensitivity. In the case of the large MSW solution (4) the result is considerably enhanced because of the larger mixing of SM and sterile neutrinos. We obtain Br$`(\mu e\gamma )10^{15}`$, still well below the experimental sensitivity. The branching ratios for $`\tau e\gamma `$ and $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ are also much too small to be observed in present experiments. For the LOW and vacuum solutions to the solar neutrino anomaly, the rate for lepton flavor violation is similar to the result for the large MSW example.

In principle, the rates for lepton flavor violation can be considerably enhanced by moving the SM neutrinos (and with them the charged left-handed leptons) closer to the TeV-brane. For instance, if we take $`c_L=0.5`$ as the common 5d mass parameter of the left-handed leptons, we can obtain Br$`(\mu e\gamma )10^{13}`$ with the large MSW solution. The current experimental sensitivity is almost reached for $`c_L=0.45`$ which leads to Br$`(\mu e\gamma )510^{12}`$. In order to reproduce the charged lepton and neutrino masses, the right-handed charged leptons and sterile neutrinos have to reside closer to the Planck-brane. However, for $`c_L<0.5`$ the effective 4d weak gauge of the left-handed leptons start to deviate from the gauge couplings of the right-handed leptons that live close to the Planck-brane, since the W and Z boson wave functions are not strictly constant in the extra dimension . The associated violation of lepton universality renders this part of the parameter space less attractive. For $`c_L>0.5`$, lepton flavor violation may still be only a few orders of magnitude below the present experimental limit.

## 6 Conclusions

We have shown how atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillations, especially the bimaximal mixing scenario, can be incorporated in models with a small extra dimension and non- factorizable ( warped) geometry. An important distinction from earlier work  is the appearance of the SM fermions in our case as bulk fields. Rare processes such as $`n\overline{n}`$ oscillations and $`\mu e+\gamma `$ may occur at a rate not too far below the current experimental limits.

## Acknowledgement

S. H. is supported in part by the Feodor Lynen Program of the Alexander von Humboldt foundation. This work was also supported by DOE under contract DE-FG02-91ER40626.


format: text

text:
# J/Psi Production at RHIC in a QGPSupported in part by U.S. Department of Energy Grant DE-FG02-95ER40213

## 1 Introduction

The pattern of “anomalous suppression” of $`J/\psi `$ observed by the NA50 experiment in Pb-Pb collisions at CERN  has been interpreted in terms of the effects of quark-gluon plasma formation. A straightforward extension of this scenario to RHIC collisions would predict that virtually all of the initially-produced $`J/\psi `$ would be suppressed, even for relatively peripheral collisions. In these pictures, the formation of $`J/\psi `$ from a pair of charm quarks only occurs at the initial times. Subsequent to that, the final state effects of interactions with nucleonic matter, plasma screening, and dissociation by collisions with deconfined gluons lead to the observed suppression. Recombination of the charm quarks into a $`J/\psi `$ at hadronization is much less likely than formation of open charm particles, thus preserving the suppression effect. A tacit assumption in this chain of arguments is that there is no recombination of charm quarks while in the deconfined state. While this may be approximately true in terms of numerical significance, it is of course theoretically inconsistent to neglect the recombination process. For example, formation by capture from an octet state with single gluon emission is precisely the inverse of the primary gluon dissociation process. The existence of both of these processes depend on the ability of deeply-bound states such as the $`J/\psi `$ to exist above the deconfinement transition.

These considerations have the potential to become numerically significant at RHIC energies and above. Estimates of initial production from pQCD calculations indicate that approximately 10 charm quark pairs will be present in each central Au-Au collision at 200A GeV energy. Since the formation rate will be proportional to the square of the number of unbound charm quarks, there is a possibility that the recombination effect can increase dramatically. It has been noted recently that a statistical recombination model utilizing increased heavy quark production at high energy will also result in formation of hidden-flavor enhanced by a quadratic dependence on total heavy flavor. We emphasize that our mechanism is quite distinct, in that a space-time region of color deconfinement is a necessary condition for the existence of our formation and dissociation processes.

## 2 Kinetic model

We estimate the expected $`J/\psi `$ population at RHIC in a detailed kinetic model, in which the competing rates of formation and dissociation are controlled by input densities.

$$\frac{dN_{J/\psi }}{d\tau }=\lambda _\mathrm{F}N_c\rho _{\overline{c}}\lambda _\mathrm{D}N_{J/\psi }\rho _g,$$
(1)
where $`\tau `$ is the proper time, $`\rho `$ denotes number density, and the reactivity $`\lambda `$ is the reaction rate $`\sigma v_{\mathrm{rel}}`$ averaged over the momentum distribution of the initial participants, i.e. $`c`$ and $`\overline{c}`$ for $`\lambda _F`$ and $`J/\psi `$ and $`g`$ for $`\lambda _D`$.

The gluon density is that of an ideal gas in thermal and chemical equilibrium. The initial charm quark population is due to initial production of charm quark pairs according to pQCD calculations. We assume one-dimensional isentropic expansion to get a generic time-temperature profile. The formation process is radiative (gluon) capture from a c-cbar pair in a color octet state. The formation process is just the inverse reaction, and the final $`J/\psi `$ population will be determined by the time integral of the rates for these competing reactions. (Note that in this scenario the D mesons and other hidden charm bound states do not appear in the kinetic equation, since their relatively small binding energies prohibit their existence in a deconfined medium.) For further details of our kinetic model see . The magnitude of the formation term is quite sensitive to the momentum distribution of the charm quarks. We consider a wide range of possible distributions, ranging from a thermal distribution at the plasma temperature to the initial momentum distribution of the pQCD production process.

## 3 Results

The time evolution of the $`J/\psi `$ population is shown in Figure 2 for a typical choice of parameters. Also shown are the formation and dissociation rates. One sees that the formation rate drops due to the reduced charm quark density as the system expands, but remains larger than the dissociation rate at all times. This feature originates in the detailed balance factors which favor the exothermic formation process. Note that the final population of about 0.2 $`J/\psi `$ per collision is greater than that expected from a simple superposition of nucleon-nucleon interactions, typically about 1 % of the 10 initial charm quark pairs produced. In Figure 2 we verify the anticipated quadratic dependence on the initial number of charm quark pairs (exact charm conservation was enforced throughout the numerical solution of the kinetic equations).

We then average over a distribution of initial charm and $`J/\psi `$ to obtain the final $`J/\psi `$ population as a function of average initial charm. The results are shown in Figure 4 for various charm quark momentum distributions. We parameterize those from the initial pQCD calculations in terms of an effective rapidity width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$y.

One sees that even within the variation due to the momentum distribution, the final $`J/\psi `$ population exceeds that expected from a superposition of nucleon-nucleon collisions (the canonical 1 % of initial charm indicated by the short dashed line), and is very far above that which would follow from a screening suppression factor typically 0.05 for RHIC (the long dashed line).

Variation with centrality can also be calculated in this model. We predict a unique behavior in this case, since the quadratic dependence on total charm produces an effect which grows with centrality. This is in strong contrast with a pure screening scenario, in which the maximum suppression occurs for central events. For details, see Ref. .

Finally, we consider the energy dependence within the RHIC range. The effect here is due to the energy dependence of the initial quark production, which is not far from linear in this limited range. The results are shown in Figure 4 for a full range of possible charm quark momentum distributions. One sees a similar behavior with respect to initial production and screening suppression as was noted in Figure 4. Thus it is possible to scan through the initial charm to see the quadratic dependence by performing an equivalent scan through a corresponding energy range.

## 4 Discussion

The magnitude of enhanced $`J/\psi `$ yields at RHIC depends on model parameters which may be subject to some changes as details of the deconfined region emerge from data. However, inclusion of the formation process will always lead to an enhancement of $`J/\psi `$ yields over any calculation in which dissociation from deconfined gluon collisions plays a role. Independent of magnitudes, some key characteristics of the basic physics process will always remain. Especially significant are the quadratic dependence on initial charm and the increase with centrality. These features are quite distinct from those obtained by simple extrapolation of deconfinement scenarios at SPS energies, and should provide model-independent tests. Since our mechanism is operable only for the deeply-bound states, the predictions also differ from statistical hadronization scenarios. We also anticipate significant differences in the momentum spectra, which will be the subject of future work.


text:
# Scaling of hadronic transverse momenta in a hydrodynamic treatment of relativistic heavy ion collisions

## I Acknowledgements

* The author is grateful to Larry McLerran for his searching queries and useful discussions. Valuable comments from Berndt Müller, J. -Y. Ollitrault, J. Schaffner-Bielich, and Xin Nian Wang are also gratefully acknowledged. He is also grateful to Prof. J. Velkovska for sending him the numerical values of the preliminary PHENIX data.


text:
# Effects of Flavor-dependent 𝑞𝑞̄ Annihilation on the Mixing Angle of the Isoscalar Octet-Singlet and Schwinger’s Nonet Mass Formula11footnote 1Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 19991487, 19677205 and 19835060, and the Foundation of the Chinese Academy of Sciences under Grant No. LWTZ-1298.

By incorporating the flavor-dependent quark-antiquark annihilation amplitude into the mass-squared matrix describing the mixing of the isoscalar states of a meson nonet, the new version of Schwinger’s nonet mass formula which holds with a high accuracy for the $`0^+`$, $`1^{}`$, $`2^{++}`$, $`2^+`$ and $`3^{}`$ nonets is derived and the mixing angle of isoscalar octet-singlet for these nonets is obtained. In particular, the mixing angle of isoscalar octet-singlet for pseudoscalar nonet is determined to take the value of $`12.92^{}`$, which is in agreement with the value of $`13^{}17^{}`$ deduced from a rather exhaustive and up-to-date analysis of data. It is also pointed out that the omission of the flavor-dependent $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation effect might be a factor resulting in the invalidity of Schwinger’s original nonet mass formula for pseudoscalar nonet.

PACS numbers: 11.30.Hv, 12.40.Yx, 14.40-n

According to the quark model, the $`q\overline{q}`$ mesons containing $`u`$, $`d`$ and $`s`$ quarks correspond to an octet and a singlet of the $`SU(3)`$ flavor group:

$$3\overline{3}=81.$$
(1)
In general, states with the same isospin-spin-parity $`IJ^{PC}`$ and additive quantum numbers can mix. Thus, the $`I=0`$ member of ground state octet $`\eta _8`$ mixes with the corresponding singlet $`\eta _1`$ to produce the two physical states $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$. Here, we assume that the possibility of the mixing of $`\eta _8`$, $`\eta _1`$ and other isosinglets such as glueball and hidden flavor heavy quark meson can be ignored.

In the $`\eta _8=(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}2s\overline{s})/\sqrt{6}`$ and $`\eta _1=(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d}+s\overline{s})/\sqrt{3}`$ basis, the mass-squared matrix $`M^2`$ describing the mixing of $`\eta _8\eta _1`$ can be described as

$$M^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{88}^2& M_{18}^2\\ M_{18}^2& M_{11}^2\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where $`M_{88}^2`$ is the sum of the mass-squared of $`\eta _8`$ and the transition amplitude of $`\eta _8gg\mathrm{}g\eta _8`$, $`M_{11}^2`$ is the sum of the mass-squared of $`\eta _1`$ and the transition amplitude of $`\eta _1gg\mathrm{}g\eta _1`$, and $`M_{18}`$ is the transition amplitude of $`\eta _8gg\mathrm{}g\eta _1`$ (g denotes gluon). $`M^2`$ satisfies

$$UM^2U^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_\eta ^2& 0\\ 0& M_\eta ^{}^2\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
where

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right),$$
(4)
$`\theta `$ is the mixing angle of $`\eta _8\eta _1`$, $`M_\eta `$ and $`M_\eta ^{}`$ are the masses of the physical states $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$, respectively. Equation (3) reads

$$M^2=U^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_\eta ^2& 0\\ 0& M_\eta ^{}^2\end{array}\right)U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta M_\eta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta M_\eta ^{}^2& \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta (M_\eta ^{}^2M_\eta ^2)\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta (M_\eta ^{}^2M_\eta ^2)& \mathrm{sin}^2\theta M_\eta ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta M_\eta ^{}^2\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
Comparing Eq. (2) with Eq. (5), one can get the following relations:

$`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{M_{88}^2M_\eta ^2}{M_\eta ^{}^2M_{88}^2}},`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{sin}2\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{2M_{18}^2}{M_\eta ^{}^2M_\eta ^2}},`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{tan}2\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{2M_{18}^2}{M_{11}^2M_{88}^2}},`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{tan}\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{M_{88}^2M_\eta ^2}{M_{18}^2}}.`$ (9)
The mixing angle $`\theta `$ can be determined by any of the above four relations.

In the presence of the flavor-independent $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation, the matrix elements of $`M^2`$ can be given by Refs., i.e.,

$`M_{88}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(4M_K^2M_{\pi ^0}^2),`$ (10)
$`M_{18}^2={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}(M_K^2M_{\pi ^0}^2),`$ (11)
$`M_{11}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(2M_K^2+M_{\pi ^0}^2+9A),`$ (12)
where $`A=(M_\eta ^{}^2+M_\eta ^22M_K^2)/3`$, $`M_{\pi ^0}`$ and $`M_K`$ are the masses of the isovector $`\pi ^0`$ and isodoublet $`K`$, respectively; $`M_K^2=(M_{K^\pm }^2+M_{K^0}^2)/2`$. From Eqs. (2) and (5), one can get

$`M_{88}^2+M_{11}^2=M_\eta ^2+M_\eta ^{}^2,`$ (13)
$`M_{88}^2M_{11}^2M_{18}^2M_{18}^2=M_\eta ^2M_\eta ^{}^2.`$ (14)
By eliminating $`A`$ from the two relations, one can get Schwinger’s original nonet mass formula

$$(4M_K^23M_\eta ^2M_{\pi ^0}^2)(3M_\eta ^{}^2+M_{\pi ^0}^24M_K^2)=8(M_K^2M_{\pi ^0}^2)^2.$$
(15)
However, Eqs.(10)$``$(12) are not self-consistent. First, for the $`0^+`$ ($`\pi `$$`K`$$`\eta `$$`\eta ^{}`$), $`1^{}`$ ($`\rho `$$`K^{}`$$`\omega `$$`\varphi `$), $`2^{++}`$ ($`a_2(1320)`$$`K_2^{}(1430)`$$`f_2(1270)`$$`f_2^{}(1525)`$), $`2^+`$ ($`\pi _2(1670)`$$`K_2(1770)`$$`\eta _2(1645)`$$`\eta _2(1870)`$) and $`3^{}`$ ($`\rho _3(1690)`$$`K_3^{}(1780)`$$`\omega _3(1670)`$$`\varphi _3(1850)`$) nonets (All the masses of the physical states are taken from Particle Data Group 98), the left-hand side and right-hand side of Eq. (15) are not balance, especially for pseudoscalar nonet Eq. (15) is obviously invalid (see the columns II, III and IV of Table 1). Second, for a meson nonet, the values of the mixing angle derived from different relations ($`\theta _6\theta _9`$) are different (see Table 2). Therefore, the matrix elements of $`M^2`$ ( Eqs. (10)$``$(12) ) should be modified.

Recently, Burakovsky et al. discussed this problem by incorporating the pseudoscalar decay constants into the matrix elements of $`M^2`$, however, which is valid only for pseudoscalar nonet. In this letter, we shall discuss the same issue by incorporating the effect of the flavor-dependent $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation into the matrix elements of $`M^2`$, which is valid for all above nonets.

We assume that the transition between $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`q^{}\overline{q^{}}`$ is flavor-dependent, i.e., the transition between different flavor quarkonia is not flavor blind, taking into account the possibility that the nonstrange quarkonia and strange quarkonia system have the different wave functions at the origin as the result of the different mass. In the $`N=(u\overline{u}+d\overline{d})/\sqrt{2}`$, $`S=s\overline{s}`$ basis, from Refs., the mass-squared matrix $`M^2`$ can be replaced by

$$M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_N^2+r^2A^{}& rA^{}\\ rA^{}& M_S^2+A^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(16)
where $`r`$ describes the effect of the flavor-dependent $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation, $`r=\sqrt{2}`$ means $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation is flavor-independent; $`A^{}`$ is the transition amplitude of $`Sgg\mathrm{}gS`$. Owing to

$$(N,S)=(\eta _8,\eta _1)R=(\eta _8,\eta _1)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}& \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\\ \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}& \sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\end{array}\right),$$
(17)
the mass-squared matrixes $`M^2`$ and $`M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ can be connected by

$$M^2=RM_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}R^1.$$
(18)
If we assume $`M_N=M_{\pi ^0}`$ and $`M_S^2=2M_K^2M_N^2`$, the matrix elements of $`M^2`$ can now be replaced by

$`M_{88}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(4M_K^2M_{\pi ^0}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}A^{}r^2{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}A^{}r+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}A^{},`$ (19)
$`M_{18}^2={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}(M_K^2M_{\pi ^0}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}A^{}r^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}A^{}r{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}}A^{},`$ (20)
$`M_{11}^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(2M_K^2+M_{\pi ^0}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}A^{}r^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2}}{3}}A^{}r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}A^{},`$ (21)
where

$$A^{}=\frac{(M_\eta ^{}^22M_K^2+M_{\pi ^0}^2)(M_\eta ^22M_K^2+M_{\pi ^0}^2)}{2(M_{\pi ^0}^2M_K^2)},$$
(22)
$$r^2=\frac{(M_\eta ^2M_{\pi ^0}^2)(M_{\pi ^0}^2M_\eta ^{}^2)}{(M_\eta ^{}^22M_K^2+M_{\pi ^0}^2)(M_\eta ^22M_K^2+M_{\pi ^0}^2)}.$$
(23)
Based on Eqs. (13) and (14), the new version of Schwinger’s nonet mass formula including the effect of the flavor-dependent $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation can be derived as

$$[2r^2M_K^2(1+r^2)M_\eta ^2(r^21)M_{\pi ^0}^2][(1+r^2)M_\eta ^{}^2+(r^21)M_{\pi ^0}^22r^2M_K^2]=4r^2(M_K^2M_{\pi ^0}^2)^2.$$
(24)
If $`r=\sqrt{2}`$, Eq. (24) can be reduced to Eq. (15). From Eqs. (19)$``$(24), both sides of Eq. (24) are given in the columns V and VI of Table 1, and the values of mixing angle determined from different relations ( $`\theta _6\theta _9`$ ) are shown in Table 3.

The columns V and VI of Table 1 show that the new version of Schwinger’s nonet mass formula holds with a high accuracy for all above nonets. At the same time, Table 3 indicates that for a meson nonet, the values of the mixing angle derived from different relations ($`\theta _6\theta _9`$) are exactly equal. Furthermore, comparing Table 2 with Table 3, one can clearly conclude that the effect of the flavor-dependent $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation on the mixing angle of $`\eta _8\eta _1`$ for pseudoscalar nonet is quite significant while relatively weak for the $`1^{}`$, $`2^{++}`$, $`2^+`$ and $`3^{}`$ nonets. The mixing angle of $`\eta _8\eta _1`$ for pseudoscalar nonet, $`\theta =12.92^{}`$, is also consistent with the value of $`13^{}17^{}`$ deduced from a rather exhaustive and up-to-date analysis of data including strong decays of tensor and higher spin mesons, electromagnetic decays of vector and pseudoscalar mesons, and the decays of $`J/\psi `$.

It should be emphasized that the only difference between Eqs. (15) and (24) is that Eq. (24) contains $`r`$, the term describing the effect of the flavor-dependent $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation. However, for pseudoscalar nonet Eq. (24) holds with a high accuracy while Eq. (15) is obviously invalid, which implies that the omission of the flavor-dependent $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation effect might be a factor resulting in the failure of Schwinger’s original nonet mass formula for pseudoscalar nonet.

In conclusion, by investigating the effect of the flavor-dependent $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation on the mixing angle of isoscalar octet-singlet and Schwinger’s nonet mass formula for the $`0^+`$, $`1^{}`$, $`2^{++}`$, $`2^+`$ and $`3^{}`$ nonets333The related discussions have been done in Ref. for $`1^{++}`$ nonet, we find that the effect of the flavor-dependent $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation should be considered when we discuss the mixing of isoscalar octet-singlet of a meson nonet, especially for pseudoscalar nonet. We believe that the omission of flavor-dependent $`q\overline{q}`$ annihilation effect might be a factor resulting in the invalidity of Schwinger’s original nonet mass formula for pseudoscalar nonet.