text:
# LMA Solution to the Solar Neutrino Problem and a Phenomenological Charged Lepton Mass Matrix

## Abstract

We propose a phenomenological form of the charged lepton mass matrix, which extends the idea of “lopsided” mass matrix in the literature. The features of the form are that both the 2-3 and 1-3 elements of the charged lepton mass matrix are of order 1 and that the small elements have a new structure . This form leads to an interesting result that both large atmospheric and solar neutrino mixing can be accounted for by the matrix. Another interesting result of this mass matrix is that it leads to very small 1-3 mixing in the lepton sector and can suppress the branching ratio of $`\mu e\gamma `$ under the present experimental limit in the supersymmetric see-saw case.

preprint: TUHEP-TH-02136

The discovery of neutrino oscillation has been one of the most exciting experimental results in the last few yearsfirst . As the experimental data accumulating in the Super-Kamiokande collaboration new ; sma  and more results published by SNOsno , K2Kk2k  and CHOOZchooz  experiments, the parameter space for the neutrino masses and mixing is narrowing down considerably. The recent analyses show that the atmospheric neutrino oscillation favors the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ process with a nearly maximal mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}0.87`$ and the mass squared difference $`1.5\times 10^3eV^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^24.8\times 10^3eV^2`$ at the 99% confidence levelatm . Among the four solutions for the solar neutrino deficits, the large mixing angle MSW (LMA) solution is most favored, followed by the LOW and VAC solutionslma . The small mixing angle (SMA) solution is ruled out at the 2$`\sigma `$ levelsma ; lma . The parameter space for the LMA solution is $`0.2\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{sol}0.75`$ and $`2\times 10^5eV^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^24\times 10^4eV^2`$ at the 3$`\sigma `$ confidence level, with the best fit values $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{sol}=0.37`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2=3.7\times 10^5eV^2`$lma .

On the theoretical side, hundreds of models for neutrino masses and mixings have been published during the last few years. However, a survey of these models shows that most of them yield the SMA or VAC solution for the solar neutrino problembarr , no matter whether the models produce the tiny neutrino masses directly at low energy or by the see-saw mechanism. In the following we will give a brief comment on the neutrino models in the literature and point out the difficulties in obtaining the LMA solution for the solar neutrino problem, and then present our model.

As we know, the neutrino mixing, which is described by the MNS matrixmns , is actually the mismatch between the two bases in which the mass matrix of the charged leptons or that of the active neutrinos is diagonal. The neutrino models are thus generally divided into two classes according to the origin of the large mixing angles: those from the charged lepton mass matrix $`M_L`$ or from the neutrino Majorana mass matrix $`M_\nu `$. For the models which generate the large mixing angles in $`M_\nu `$, it is usually difficult to reconcile the large mixing angles and a small mass squared splitting ratio $`r\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^21.4\times 10^2`$, which generally means a hierarchical structure of $`M_\nu `$. The LMA solution in this kind of models is usually achieved by fine tuning the parameters in non-see-saw case or by choosing a special hierarchy of the right handed neutrino spectrum in the see-saw casebarr .

For models in which the large mixing angles coming from the charged lepton mass matrix the situation is better, since the large mixing and the small mass ratio come from different matrices. These models are either based on the beautiful idea of “flavor democracy”demo  or on the idea of “lopsided” formalbright ; lopsid  of the charged lepton mass matrix. However, having large mixing angles in $`M_L`$ raises the question why large CKM angles do not arise from the diagonalization of the quark mass matrices $`M_D`$ and $`M_U`$. Especially, in grand-unified models the Dirac mass matrices $`M_D`$, $`M_U`$ and $`M_L`$ are generally closely related.

The answer to this question in the “flavor democracy” models is that the CKM angles are small by a cancellation caused by an approximate symmetry between $`M_U`$ and $`M_D`$. This kind of models can predict a bi-maximal form of the MNS matrix by diagonalizing the charged lepton mass matrix and assuming the neutrino mass matrix diagonal at the same time. However, this kind of models tend to give a too large solar neutrino mixing angle near maximality, which is at most marginally consistent with the LMA parameter space.

The “lopsided” form of the charged lepton mass matrix is another elegant idea to give large lepton mixing while keeping small quark mixing at the same time. It is usually realized in the context of grand unified models, especially if an SU(5) symmetry plays a role in the form of the fermion mass matrices. In a SU(5) grand unified model, the left handed charged leptons are in the same multiplets as the CP conjugates of the right handed down quarks. Since the large mixing angle $`\theta _{atm}`$ is attributed to the mixing of the left-handed leptons in such models, it would generally be related by $`SU(5)`$ to a large mixing angle for the right-handed down quarks, which is not observable. On the other hand, the small CKM angles are related by $`SU(5)`$ to small mixings of the right-handed leptons, which are irrelevant to neutrino oscillation phenomena.

However, in most published models the “lopsided” form only accounts for the largeness of $`\theta _{atm}`$ and a SMA or VAC solution for the solar neutrino problem is usually predicted. To obtain a LMA solution in such models requires a right handed neutrino mass matrix with a complicate form and fine tuning of the parameters to some extentalbright ; lopsid .

One exception is given by K. S. Babu and S. M. Barr, where both the large solar and atmospheric neutrino mixing angles can be accounted for by diagonalizing the charged lepton mass matrixbabu . In their model, the charged lepton mass matrix has the following “lopsided” form 111Here we use the convention that a left-handed doublet multiplies the Yukawa coupling matrix from the left side while a right-handed singlet multiplies the matrix from the right side.:

$$M_L=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \rho ^{}\\ 0& \delta & \rho \\ \delta ^{}& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)m_D,$$
(1)
with $`\rho ^{}\rho 1`$, $`\delta \delta ^{}ϵ1`$. The parameters are determined by fitting the quark and lepton spectra and mixing angles. The unique nontrivial prediction of the model is $`U_{e3}`$ element in the MNS matrix by diagonalizing $`M_L`$, which is $`|U_{e3}|0.05`$. This prediction will provide a test of this model.

However, most “lopsided” models predict a similar result of $`U_{e3}0.05`$. Thus a measurement of $`U_{e3}0.05`$ will not discriminate this model from others. Furthermore, the lepton flavor violating process $`\mu e\gamma `$ gives very strong constraints on the element $`U_{e3}`$bi ; sato . It is pointed out in bi  that the “lopsided” models, which always give a large $`\mu \tau `$ mixing and a typical value of $`U_{e3}0.05`$, may lead to the branching ratio of $`\mu e\gamma `$ exceeding the present experimental upper limit in the supersymmetric see-saw case. This will be explained below. Actually, most “lopsided” models are realized in supersymmetric unified SO(10) models and the neutrino spectrum and mixing are given by see-saw mechanism. Thus, it seems that all these models meet the same difficulty in predicting the branching ratio of $`\mu e\gamma `$.

We have found a form of the charged lepton mass matrix independently when we tried to construct a “lopsided” model which can account for the LMA solution of the solar neutrino problem and simultaneously avoid the above difficulty on $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay. Our model is similar to the form (1) in the large elements in the third column but different in the structure of the first two columns. It gives a completely different prediction of $`U_{e3}`$ and the branching ratio of $`\mu e\gamma `$ can be below the present experimental limit. In the following we shall first give our model and its features and then explain the smallness for $`U_{e3}`$. In the last we shall discuss briefly its implication on the lepton flavor violating process $`\mu e\gamma `$ in supersymmetric see-saw case.

The aim of the work is to present a phenomenological model to account for the neutrino oscillation data and avoid the $`\mu e\gamma `$ difficulty. The mass matrices of the charged lepton and neutrino are assumed to have the following form:

$$M_L=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \delta & \sigma \\ \delta & 0& 1ϵ\\ 0& ϵ& 1\end{array}\right)m,$$
(2)
$$M_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_1& 0& 0\\ 0& m_2& 0\\ 0& 0& m_3\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
with $`\sigma 𝒪(1)`$, $`ϵ1,\delta ϵ`$. Similar to form (1) the model extends the usual “lopsided” form of the charged lepton mass matrix between the second and the third generations to include the first generation. For simplicity we have assumed that $`M_\nu `$ is diagonal here. The main feature of the model will not be changed if mixing in $`M_\nu `$ is small. Taking the values of the parameters

$$\delta =0.00079,ϵ=0.12,\text{and}\sigma =0.55$$
(4)
we can obtain the correct mass ratios $`m_e/m_\mu `$, $`m_\mu /m_\tau `$ and the MNS matrix

$$V_{MNS}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.851& 0.525& 0.0056\\ 0.362& 0.595& 0.718\\ 0.380& 0.609& 0.696\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
This model then predicts the neutrino mixing parameters as

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}=0.999,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{sol}=0.38\text{and}U_{e3}=0.0056.$$
(6)
The notable feature of form (2) compared with the usual “lopsided” models is the order $`1`$ element $`\sigma `$. We can see from Eq. (5) that by choosing a large $`(2,3)`$ and $`(1,3)`$ elements in $`M_L`$ we get two large mixing angles, which are corresponding to the maximal mixing of the atmospheric neutrinos and the large solar neutrino mixing in the LMA solution, by diagonalizing the charged lepton mass matrix. In this phenomenological model we separate the large angles $`\theta _{atm}`$ and $`\theta _{sol}`$ from the small mass ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ completely. Thus it is very easy to reconcile the large mixing angles and the neutrino spectrum of the LMA solution without any fine tuning.

Unlike the “flavor democracy” models, which usually predict a bi-maximal MNS matrix, our model gives the best fit value of $`\theta _{sol}`$ for the LMA solution. It is unlike the usual “lopsided” models either, which predict a small lepton mixing angle between the first and the second generations with a typical value of $`\sqrt{m_e/m_\mu }0.07`$albright ; lopsid . This phenomenological form may provide a new possibility of model-building for the fermion masses and mixing.

Besides $`\theta _{atm}\pi /4`$ the prediction of $`U_{e3}=0.0056`$ is quite non-trivial, since all the parameters are fixed by the lepton mass ratios and the solar neutrino mixing angle. This prediction is different from most other “lopsided” models, including that given in Ref. babu . It thus provides a test of our model.

The smallness of $`U_{e3}`$ can be explained as following. The charged lepton mass matrix $`M_L`$ can be diagonalized by a bi-unitary rotation

$$U_L^{}M_LU_R=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_e& & \\ & m_\mu & \\ & & m_\tau \end{array}\right).$$
(7)
The MNS matrix is defined by $`U_{MNS}=U_L^{}U_\nu `$, where $`U_\nu `$ is the unitary matrix diagonalizing the neutrino mass matrix and $`U_\nu =I`$ here. Thus $`U_{MNS}`$ is given by $`U_L`$. $`U_L`$ can be approximately obtained by rotating the left-handed charged leptons so that the right-upper triangle of $`M_L`$ in (2) becomes zeros. This can be achieved by three steps. First we rotate the first two generation charged leptons by a matrix

$$V_{12}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}& s_{12}& 0\\ s_{12}& c_{12}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(8)
with $`c_{12}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12}`$, $`s_{12}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{12}=\sigma /(1ϵ)`$. Then the $`13`$ element of $`M_L`$ becomes zero and the $`23`$ element becomes $`\sigma ^{}=\sqrt{\sigma ^2+(1ϵ)^2}`$. The second step is a similar rotation between the second and the third generations, $`V_{23}`$, with $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{23}=\sigma ^{}`$, which makes the $`23`$ element of $`M_L`$ zero. The final step is a small rotation $`V_{12}^{}`$ which makes the $`12`$ element zero. The rotation angle is $`\theta _{12}^{}\frac{c_{12}\delta }{s_{23}ϵ}`$. We then get the unitary matrix

$$U_L^{}=V_{}^{}{}_{12}{}^{}V_{23}^{}V_{12}^{},$$
(9)
from which we have that $`\theta _{atm}\theta _{23}`$, $`\theta _{sol}\theta _{12}`$ and $`U_{e3}\theta _{12}^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}`$. Using the expressions of the diagonal elements of the resulting triangular matrix $`U_{e3}`$ can be approximately expressed by mass ratio and physical mixing angles as

$$U_{e3}\frac{m_e}{m_\mu }U_{\mu 3}/\mathrm{tan}\theta _{sol}.$$
(10)
On the other hand, the $`U_{e3}`$ from (1) can be expressed by

$$U_{e3}\sqrt{\frac{m_e}{m_\mu }}U_{\mu 3}.$$
(11)
From the Eqs. (10) and (11) we can see that, for large $`\theta _{sol}`$, $`U_{e3}`$ in our model is suppressed compared to that in Ref. babu  due to the smallness of $`m_e/m_\mu `$. The difference in the dependence of $`U_{e3}`$ on the mass ratio of $`m_e/m_\mu `$ originates from the different structures in $`M_L`$ in these two models.

A $`U_{e3}0.05`$ is at the edge of the parameter space measurable in the next generation long baseline neutrino experiments, which may improve the present sensitivity to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ by an order of magnitude, probing $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ at the level of 0.01lbl . To discriminate the two kinds of models, an entry-level neutrino factory is necessary, which can probe $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ down to $`10^3`$nfac1 . If no $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ signal is observed even at this level, most of the “lopsided” models may then be ruled out. If $`U_{e3}`$ is indeed as small as that in our model, the high-performance neutrino factory, which can probe $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ down to the order of $`10^4`$, will be necessary to measure its valuenfac2 .

As for the quark sector, we will not discuss it in detail here. We only want to point out that a large $`(1,3)`$ element in $`M_L`$ will not lead to a large quark mixing if the relation $`M_DM_L^T`$ is satisfied. Unlike the large elements in the mass matrices, the relations between the small matrix elements in the quark sector and those in the lepton sector depend on the details of the grand-unified models used. The simplest possible form of the down quark mass matrix is obtained by first adding a small $`(3,1)`$ element and a coefficient $`\frac{1}{3}`$ in front of $`ϵ`$ in $`M_L`$, and then transposing it. Then $`M_D`$ can produce acceptable down quark spectrum and mixing angles.

Finally, we discuss the case that the neutrino mass matrix is generated by the see-saw mechanism,

$$M_\nu =M_NM_R^1M_N^T,$$
(12)
where $`M_N`$ is the neutrino Dirac mass matrix. In this case we can modify our assumption to that the charged lepton mass matrix of the form in Eq. (2) is given in the basis where the Dirac neutrino mass matrix $`M_N`$ is diagonal. Generally the right-handed Majorana mass matrix $`M_R`$ may be non-diagonal. Then $`M_\nu `$ in Eq. (12) is not diagonal and deviates from Eq. (3). If mixing in $`M_R`$ is small, this deviation is small and the main feature of our model described above remains intact. Another possibility is that $`M_N`$ is hierarchical and this structure transfer to $`M_\nu `$ through the see-saw mechanismbarr . Taking hierarchy of $`M_N`$ similar to that of up quarks as suggested in SO(10) grand unified models and assuming no large hierarchy among the elements of $`M_R^1`$, we find that the mixing in $`M_\nu `$ is tiny, which almost do not change the values of $`V_{MNS}`$ in Eq. (5).

The main virtue of the assumption that $`M_L`$ has the form (2) in the basis where $`M_N`$ is diagonal is that it can avoid the contradiction with the $`\mu e\gamma `$ experiments when the “lopsided” form is realized in the supersymmetric see-saw case. In this case and if supersymmetry breaking is mediated by gravity the soft SUSY breaking terms will introduce new lepton flavor violating sources. The mechanism is that there are two Yukawa coupling matrices $`Y_L`$ and $`Y_N`$ in the lepton sector for the charged leptons and neutrinos at the energy scale above the right-handed neutrino masses. They are proportional to $`M_L`$ and $`M_N`$ respectively. These two Yukawa coupling matrices can not be diagonalized simultaneously and will lead to lepton flavor mixing, in analogy to the flavor mixing in the quark sector. This lepton flavor mixing can transfer to the scalar lepton sector through quantum effects. The masses of sleptons are usually assumed to be universal at the SUSY breaking scale to avoid the low energy flavor problems. The flavor mixing effects in the scalar lepton sector in the low energy region can then be given approximately by

$$\left(\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2\right)_{ij}\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}V_{i3}V_{j3}^{}Y_{N_3}^2(3+a^2)m_0^2\mathrm{log}\frac{M_{GUT}}{M_R},$$
(13)
where $`(\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{ij}`$ is the non-diagonal terms of the scalar lepton mass matrix, representing the lepton flavor mixing between the $`i`$-th and the $`j`$-th generations. $`Y_{N_3}`$ is the third generation Yukawa coupling of neutrinos, which dominates over the first two generations. $`V`$ is the mixing matrix in the lepton sector. The loop effect with internal SUSY particles is much more effective than that with internal neutrinos in producing the $`\mu e\gamma `$ process so that the rate of this process is determined by $`(\delta m_{\stackrel{~}{L}}^2)_{12}`$, which is proportional to $`V_{23}V_{13}^{}`$. Since there is a very high experimental sensitivity to the process $`\mu e\gamma `$ ($`Br(\mu e\gamma )<1.2\times 10^{11}`$exp ), and $`V_{23}`$ is large (around $`1/\sqrt{2}`$) in “lopsided” models, $`V_{13}`$ is thus very strongly constrained.

In the usual “lopsided” models, with the typical value of $`U_{e3}0.05`$, the branching ratio of $`\mu e\gamma `$ is then given bybi

$$Br(\mu e\gamma )C10^7\left(\frac{100GeV}{m_s}\right)^4\left(\frac{\mathrm{tan}\beta }{10}\right)^2,$$
(14)
where $`C`$ is around $`110`$. Thus, if the common SUSY particle mass scale, $`m_s`$, is $`1TeV`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is not too small, then the branching ratio should be above the present experimental limit. This fact has been noticed by a few authorsbi ; sato . However, in our model, by the assumption that $`M_L`$ has the form (2) in the basis where $`M_N`$ is diagonal, $`V_{13}`$ can be as small as $`0.0056`$. Since the rate for the process $`\mu e\gamma `$ is approximately proportional to $`V_{13}^2`$ it is greatly suppressed compared to it’s value in the usual “lopsided”models. Our model predicts a branching ratio of $`\mu e\gamma `$ not too much smaller than the present experimental limits and easily to be detected in the future experimentsnexp . This is an important difference of our model from the model of Ref. babu . Like the usual “lopsided” models, Ref. babu  predicts a $`\mu e\gamma `$ branching ratio already exceeding the present experimental limit.

The process $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ is another promising process to determine whether there is a large mixing between the second and the third generations in the charged lepton sector, since its rate is proportional to $`|V_{23}^{}V_{33}|^2`$. If both processes are found in the future experiments in the range of $`10^6>Br(\tau \mu \gamma )>10^9`$ and $`10^{11}>Br(\mu e\gamma )>10^{14}`$exp ; nexp , our model, with a large $`23`$ mixing while very small $`13`$ mixing, will be a very attractive candidate to accommodate the observations.

In summary, we have constructed a phenomenological form of the charged lepton mass matrix, which provides a new possibility in model construction. This form can produce the large solar neutrino mixing angle and the maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing angle simultaneously without any fine tuning. With such a charged lepton mass matrix it is very easy to build a neutrino model to explain the observed neutrino oscillation experiments. The unique prediction of this model is that $`U_{e3}=0.0056`$, which is different from predictions of all other “lopsided” models . This prediction can be tested in neutrino factory. This model has another virtue that it predicts the branching ratio of $`\mu e\gamma `$ below the present experimental limit but may be not too much smaller than it in the SUSY-GUT see-saw case. If both the $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ and $`\mu e\gamma `$ processes are detected in the near future experiments, our model will be an attractive candidate to explain the experimental results.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under the grand No. 10105004 and No. 19835060.


format: text

text:
# References

UCRHEP-T334

April 2002

Neutrino Mass from Triplet and
Doublet Scalars at the TeV Scale
Ernest Ma
Physics Department, University of California, Riverside, California 92521

## Abstract

If the minimal standard model of particle interactions is extended to include a scalar triplet with lepton number $`L=2`$ and a scalar doublet with $`L=1`$, neutrino masses $`m_\nu \mu _{12}^4v^2/M^510^2`$ eV is possible, where $`v10^2`$ GeV is the electroweak symmetry breaking scale, $`M1`$ TeV is the typical mass of the new scalars, and $`\mu _{12}1`$ GeV is a soft lepton-number-violating parameter.

In the minimal standard model of particle interactions, neutrinos are massless, but if new interactions exist at a higher scale, then they may become massive through the unique effective dimension-five operator

$$_{eff}=\frac{f_{ij}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}L_iL_j\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(1)
where $`L_i=(\nu _i,l_i)_L`$ is the usual left-handed lepton doublet, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(\varphi ^+,\varphi ^0)`$ is the usual scalar Higgs doublet, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an effective large mass. There are three tree-level realizations  of this operator: (I) the canonical seesaw mechanism  using one heavy right-handed neutrino $`N_R`$ for each $`\nu _i`$; (II) the addition of a heavy Higgs triplet $`(\xi ^{++},\xi ^+,\xi ^0)`$ which couples to $`L_iL_j`$ directly ; and (III) the replacement of $`N_R`$ with $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})_R`$ . If the mass of $`N`$ or $`\xi `$ or $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is very large, then each realization is the same as any other at low energies, because the only observable effect would be the appearance of small Majorana neutrino masses.

It has recently been pointed out that simple extensions of the above minimal scenarios for neutrino mass are possible for which the scale of new physics may be only a few TeV and thus be observable at future accelerators. There are two specific proposals: (A) the Higgs triplet $`\xi `$ may be only a few TeV, whose decay into two leptons would map out all elements of the neutrino mass matrix ; and (B) the fermion singlets $`N_R`$ as well as a second Higgs doublet $`\eta =(\eta ^+,\eta ^0)`$ may be only a few TeV .

In (A), the notion of lepton-number violation as a distance effect from the separation of our brane from another in the context of large extra dimensions is invoked to explain the smallness of the trilinear scalar coupling of $`\xi `$ to $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In (B), there is no need to consider large extra dimensions. Instead, the effective operator of Eq. (1) is suppressed because $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is replaced with $`\eta `$, which has a naturally small vacuum expectation value. In this note, the two mechanisms are synthesized so that there is a Higgs triplet $`\xi `$ from (A), and a Higgs doublet $`\eta `$ from (B), but no $`N_R`$. Neutrino masses come from $`\xi `$ (which is assigned lepton number $`L=2`$), and its interaction with $`\eta `$ (which has $`L=1`$). The smallness of $`m_\nu `$ comes from the soft breaking of $`L`$ in the scalar sector, with the result

$$m_\nu \frac{\mu _{12}^4v^2}{M^5}10^2\mathrm{eV},$$
(2)
where $`v10^2`$ GeV is the electroweak symmetry breaking scale, $`M1`$ TeV is the typical mass of the new scalars, and $`\mu _{12}1`$ GeV is a soft lepton-number-violating parameter. This model requires neither large extra dimensions nor $`N_R`$ to obtain naturally small Majorana neutrino masses, and have verifiable experimental consequences at the TeV scale.

In the Higgs triplet model, $`\xi `$ couples to leptons according to

$$_Y=f_{ij}[\xi ^0\nu _i\nu _j+\xi ^+(\nu _il_j+l_i\nu _j)/\sqrt{2}+\xi ^{++}l_il_j]+H.c.,$$
(3)
resulting in $`(m_\nu )_{ij}=2f_{ij}\xi ^0`$. Therefore, in order to explain why neutrino masses are so small, a natural mechanism for $`\xi ^0`$ to be small is needed. Consider now the Higgs sector consisting of the usual standard-model doublet $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (with $`L=0`$), a second doublet $`\eta `$ (with $`L=1`$), and a triplet $`\xi `$ (with $`L=2`$). Let

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\begin{array}{cc}\xi ^+/\sqrt{2}& \xi ^{++}\\ \xi ^0& \xi ^+/\sqrt{2}\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
then the most general $`L`$-conserving Higgs potential is given by

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`m_1^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }+m_2^2\eta ^{}\eta +m_3^2Tr\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi })^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _2(\eta ^{}\eta )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _3\left(Tr\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _4\left(Tr\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\right)\left(Tr\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\lambda _5(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi })(\eta ^{}\eta )+\lambda _6(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi })\left(Tr\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)+\lambda _7(\eta ^{}\eta )\left(Tr\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)`$
$`+`$ $`\lambda _8(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\eta )(\eta ^{}\mathrm{\Phi })+\lambda _9\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }\right)+\lambda _{10}\left(\eta ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\eta \right)`$
$`+`$ $`\mu \left(\eta ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\eta }\right)+H.c.,`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }=(\overline{\eta }^0,\eta ^{})`$ and the parameter $`\mu `$ has the dimension of mass. Lepton number is then assumed to be broken by explicit $`soft`$ terms, i.e.

$$V_{soft}=\mu _{12}^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\eta +\mu ^{}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\eta }\right)+\mu ^{\prime \prime }\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right)+H.c.$$
(6)
Let $`\varphi ^0=v_1`$, $`\eta ^0=v_2`$, and $`\xi ^0=v_3`$, then the minimum of $`V`$ is given by

$`V_{min}`$ $`=`$ $`m_1^2v_1^2+m_2^2v_2^2+m_3^2v_3^2+2\mu _{12}^2v_1v_2`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _1v_1^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _2v_2^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda _3v_3^4+(\lambda _5+\lambda _8)v_1^2v_2^2+\lambda _6v_1^2v_3^2+\lambda _7v_2^2v_3^2`$
$`+`$ $`2\mu v_2^2v_3+2\mu ^{}v_1v_2v_3+2\mu ^{\prime \prime }v_1^2v_3,`$
where $`\mu _{12}^2`$, $`\mu `$, $`\mu ^{}`$, and $`\mu ^{\prime \prime }`$ have been assumed real for simplicity. The equations of constraint are obtained from $`V_{min}/v_i=0`$, i.e.

$`v_1[m_1^2+\lambda _1v_1^2+(\lambda _5+\lambda _8)v_2^2+\lambda _6v_3^2+2\mu ^{\prime \prime }v_3]+\mu _{12}^2v_2+\mu ^{}v_2v_3`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (8)
$`v_2[m_2^2+\lambda _2v_2^2+(\lambda _5+\lambda _8)v_1^2+\lambda _7v_3^2+2\mu v_3]+\mu _{12}^2v_1+\mu ^{}v_1v_3`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (9)
$`v_3[m_3^2+\lambda _3v_3^2+\lambda _6v_1^2+\lambda _7v_2^2]+\mu v_2^2+\mu ^{}v_1v_2+\mu ^{\prime \prime }v_1^2`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (10)
Consider now the case $`m_1^2<0`$, but $`m_2^2>0`$ and $`m_3^2>0`$ with small $`\mu _{12}^2`$, $`\mu ^{}`$ and $`\mu ^{\prime \prime }`$. The solutions to the above equations are then

$`v_1^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2}{\lambda _1}},`$ (11)
$`v_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _{12}^2v_1}{m_2^2+(\lambda _5+\lambda _8)v_1^2}},`$ (12)
$`v_3`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu v_2^2+\mu ^{}v_1v_2+\mu ^{\prime \prime }v_1^2}{m_3^2+\lambda _6v_1^2}}.`$ (13)
Since $`\mu ^{}`$ violates $`L`$ by 1 unit and $`\mu ^{\prime \prime }`$ violates $`L`$ by 2 units, it is reasonable to assume that $`\mu ^{\prime \prime }/\mu ^{}\mu ^{}/\mu v_2/v_1`$. Thus for $`m_2`$, $`m_3`$, and $`\mu `$ all approximated by $`M1`$ TeV,

$$v_2\frac{\mu _{12}^2v_1}{M^2},v_3\frac{v_2^2}{M}.$$
(14)
This shows that $`v_3<<v_2<<v_1`$, and

$$v_3\frac{\mu _{12}^4v_1^2}{M^5},$$
(15)
i.e. the analog of Eq. (2). For $`v_110^2`$ GeV and $`\mu _{12}1`$ GeV, the solutions are $`v_20.1`$ MeV and $`v_310^2`$ eV as desired.

In conclusion, a scenario has been presented where a Higgs triplet at the TeV scale is responsible for neutrino masses. The decay of $`\xi ^{++}`$ into $`l_i^+l_j^+`$ would then map out the neutrino mass matrix, as proposed previously . In addition, a second Higgs doublet at the TeV scale is predicted  so that $`\xi ^{++}\eta ^+\eta ^+`$ is also possible if kinematically allowed.

This work was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-94ER40837.


text:
# V39: an unusual object in the field of IC 1613 Based in part on observations collected at ESO–La Silla

## 1 Introduction

The variable star V39, $`\alpha (2000)`$=$`1^h05^m02^s.1`$, $`\delta (2000)`$=$`2^o10^{}24^{\prime \prime }`$, was discovered by Sandage (1971) in the field of IC 1613. The photographic $`B`$ observations, with an average apparent magnitude of $`B=19.2`$, showed a light curve with the shape of an inverted $`\beta `$ Lyr eclipsing variable with a period of 28.72 days. Sandage included it among the possible Cepheids, but in the subsequent works (see e.g. Madore & Freedman, 1981) it was never used for deriving the $`PL`$ relation of Cepheids. Hutchinson (1973) re-examined these observations and suggested it could be a W Vir star located very far in the halo of our Galaxy. Van den Bergh (2000) suggested that it could be an isolated star in the intergalactic space. Hutchinson noted also a long term variability of about 1000 d. Antonello et al. (1999) surveyed IC 1613 looking for Cepheids, and added further data points to the time series of V39; the data, taken in unfiltered light, seemed to confirm that this is not a classical pulsating star, however its real nature remained unclear. The new observations indicated a long $`P`$ of 1123 d and as regards the shorter one it was not possible to select unambiguously between 28.699 d and half this value, 14.350 d. New $`V`$ and $`I`$ observations were obtained in the context of the OGLE project (Udalski et al. 2001), but these data alone, due to their short baseline, are insufficient to clarify the matter. In 1999 some spectra were taken at ESO-LaSilla, in order to throw new light on the nature of this object; in the present note we rediscuss all the photometric data and report on the analysis of the spectra.

## 2 Photometry

The available photometry includes: 1) the $`B`$ photographic data published by Sandage (1971, 103 datapoints), which were derived from plates taken by Baade from 1929 to 1937; 2) our unfiltered observations ($`Wh`$ band, Antonello et al. 1999, 66 datapoints) taken from 1995 to 1998, with further 6 datapoints obtained by E. Poretti with the 1.5 m telescope of San Pedro Martir Observatory in 1999; 3) the OGLE $`VI`$ observations obtained by Udalski et al. (2001) in 2000 (40 and 42 datapoints, respectively). Another two datapoints were recovered: one $`BVRI`$ observation obtained by Freedman (1988) and one $`VR`$ measurement obtained by us with the Dutch telescope (Antonello et al. 1999). These last data are listed in Table 1 along with the mean values of OGLE data.

Fig. 1 shows the OGLE $`V,I,VI`$ data plotted vs. the time. We can see that they present a clear variation with a period of about 14 days and a sort of irregularity in the light curve. The three panels have the same scale so that it is possible to appreciate the different amplitudes of the curves ($`\mathrm{\Delta }V0.45`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I0.2`$ mag).

In order to get profit of the whole available information we decided to merge all the datasets by transforming them to a common system. Therefore both the $`B`$-photographic and $`Wh`$ data were shifted and rescaled to match the $`V`$ data (for the transformation of $`Wh`$ colour to the $`V`$ one see Antonello et al. 1999 and also Riess et al. 1999; Sandage’s $`B`$ data were transformed assuming that there have not been amplitude variations). When doing this we neglected the small phase shifts between the different color curves, because they are uninmportant for the period search. As a result we obtained a dataset of 219 mesurements spanning about 26000 d. If we plot these data vs time we see that there is a long–period variation. Its presence has been already suggested by Hutchinson (1970) on the basis of Sandage’s data alone, an confirmed by Antonello et al. (1999) on the basis of their $`Wh`$ data.

We frequency analized the data with the least squares power spectrum technique developed to study multiperiodic signal with unequally spaced data (Vanicek, 1971; Antonello et al., 1986). We detected 3 periodic components, a long period term with $`P_L=1118`$ d ($`\nu _L=\mathrm{8.9\hspace{0.17em}10}^4`$ d-1) , a short period one with $`P_S=14.3411`$d ($`\nu _S=0.06973d^1`$) and its first harmonic. The first two power spectra which show the two dominat periods are shown in the top panel of Fig.2. The bottom panel of the same figure shows the spectral window, which, beside the presence of the peak at zero frequency with its one reciprocal year sidelobes, shows another peak at $`\nu _w=0.0339d^1`$ (reciprocal of the synodic month), flanked by its one reciprocal year sidelobes. The double-wave period of 28.677 d is an artifact generated by this structure of the spectral window, in fact its frequency ( 0.0348d-1) corresponds to $`\nu _L+\nu _w`$ (i.e. it is an alias of the long period). It is a mere coincidence that this value is almost exactly twice the short period. The $`V`$ amplitude of the short period variation is about 0.45 mag, while that of the long–period one is about 0.40 mag. After removing the long and short period variations, it is apparent that the data dispersion is still large, 0.096 mag, to be compared with the estimated mean white noise level of 0.068 mag. If we push further on the analysis we find another peak at $`\nu _4=0.07050d^1`$, which satisfies the relation $`\nu _4\nu _S+\nu _L`$. This relation could indicate that this is a non-linear coupling term between $`\nu _L`$ and $`\nu _S`$, suggesting a physical connection between the two periodic variations. However this is a spurious term introduced by the fact that we consider the data in magnitudes; the non–linear transformation from intensities to magnitudes introduces an apparent modulation of the amplitude of the short–period term. In fact, when analyzing the intensity data, the term at 0.0705$`d^1`$ is not present.

Figure 3 shows all the available data after removing the long period variation and the amplitude modulation due to it, phased with the period of 14.341 d. The resulting light curve has the typical shape of that of a pulsating variable, even if the dispersion of the data is still larger than that expected from data errors; probably the light curve does not repeat exactly from cycle to cycle. This can be seen also in the top panel of Fig. 1, which shows the OGLE V data; for comparison the solid line represents the best fit with the period of 14.3411 d.

Fig. 4 shows the long period variation curve with $`P=1118`$ d, obtained after removing the short-period variation.

## 3 Spectroscopy

### 3.1 Observations

The spectroscopic observations were performed with the the Danish 1.54 m telescope equipped with the DFOSC, and the EFOSC-2 attached to the 3.6 m telescope of the La Silla Astronomical Observatory (ESO) from 12 to 14 September 1999. The observations with the DFOSC were taken with the grism #4, with a nominal resolution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ = 8.3 Å and a range from 3500 to 7000 Å; whereas the observations with the EFOSC-2 camera were performed with the grism #11 with a nominal resolution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$=13.2 Å and a range from 3380 to 7520 Å. Bias and twilight flat field frames were gathered in each night. A Helium lamp image was taken soon afterwards the observations. During these three nights we collected a total of 6 images, each with an exposure time of 1200 sec. The complete log of observations is reported in Table 2. The table contains for each image the date of the beginning of the night, the heliocentric Julian date of midexposure, the airmass, the slit width in arcsec and the used camera.

The phases of the spectra computed according to the ephemeris: $`T_{Max}(JD)=2451850.6+14.3411E`$ are: -0.07 (Sep. 12, 1999), 0.01 (Sep. 13), 0.08 (Sep 14), i.e the observations were performed close to the maximum brightness.

### 3.2 Data reduction and Analysis

The standard corrections and the cosmic-ray removal were performed using the ESO/MIDAS packages. All spectra were wavelength calibrated and extracted by means of the ESO/MIDAS (99NOV) “long” context.

In order to improve the $`S/N`$ ratio the three spectra of Sept. 13 and the two of Sept. 14 were coadded respectively. At the continuum level in the region around 6100Å the mean Danish telescope spectra have a $`S/N30`$ and those of the 3.6m telescope $`S/N50`$. The resolutions, as measured from the width of the sky lines, are about 16Å for the Danish telescope and 13Å for the 3.6m telescope. The single Danish spectrum of Sep. 12 has $`S/N23`$, however it is slightly defocussed (FWHM=23Å). The spectra of Sept. 13 and 14 are shown in Fig. 5, where the sky spectrum has been subtracted. We can see four stellar emission lines,$`H\alpha `$,$`H\beta `$,$`H\gamma `$, and a broad feature at 6684 Å (FWHM$`24`$Å, to be compared to that of the adjacent $`H\alpha `$ of about 13Å). We tentatively suggest that it could be the $`HeI`$ 6678 line; no other strong lines are usually present in the vicinity of this wavelength in stellar spectra. However, in this case the feature is red–shifted by about 180 kms-1, while $`H`$ lines on the contrary seem rather blue-shifted. The feature is real because it is present in both the 3.6m telescope spectrograms, while in the Danish telescope spectrograms it is barely detectable.

Other weak emissions (in particular in the 3.6m telescope spectra) seem to be present, but they are not clearly associable to well–known spectral features (apart perhaps the $`H\delta `$) and, at least in part, are spurious features due to the sky subtraction. At the same time, no absorption features are unambiguously detectable.

We tried to verify the membership of V39 to the galaxy IC1613 by means of the radial velocities. No conclusive results were found because the $`H`$ lines supply discordant values.

## 4 Discussion

We can summarize the main observed characteristics of V39 as follows:

* There are light variations with a period of 14.341 d. The corresponding light curve has the typical shape of a Cepheid-like variable, even if it is not perfectly regular. Its amplitude decrease with increasing wavelength ($`\mathrm{\Delta }B=0.9`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=0.45`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=0.2`$, assuming no significant amplitude change over seventy years). $`V`$ and $`I`$ variations are in phase and the star is bluer at maximum luminosity.
* There is a long–period variation with P=1118d and $`V`$ amplitude of about 0.35 mag.
* The spectra at phases close to the maximum brigthness show strong $`H`$ lines emissions. At these phases a feature at $`6684\AA `$ ($`HeI`$ 6678?) is also visible in emission.

### 4.1 V39 as a pulsating star

While it seems very probable that the star is pulsating with a period of about 14 d, it is an unlikely classical pop I Cepheid. The presence of irregularities in the light curve and of $`H`$ and $`HeI`$(?) emission at maximum light indicate that it could be a pop. II Cepheid (i.e.a W Vir star; Lebre & Gillet, 1992). With this interpretation some questions still remain open: a) one should expect also the emission line $`HeI`$ 5876Å; however due to the modest resolution of our spectra, this line, if present, should be blended, especially if red–shifted as the 6678Å one, with the much stronger sky emission line of $`NaI`$ 5890; b) although the presence of $`H`$ emission lines at the observed phases is in agreement with the case of W Vir (Lebre & Gillet, 1992), in such a case the $`HeI`$ emission should be most clearly seen between phases 0.61–0.003, while our best detection is at phase 0.08. May be this can be ascribed to the non-perfect regularity of the variations which can affect the accurate estimate of the maximum phase (see Fig. 1), and to the fact that spectroscopic and photometric observations are not simultaneous. If the star were a W Vir variable, its apparent brightness would exclude its membership to IC1613, and it should be a foreground object.

The long period variations could be ascribed to the presence of a variable red star, a real companion or more plausibly a background star belonging to IC1613 ( a not unlikely case, see the analogous example of the pop. I Cepheid $`V2942B`$, Antonello et al 2000). This is supported by the observed color. The mean $`VI`$ is 1.23 while typical values of W Vir (or metal poor population I Cepheids) are around 0.6. We cannot ascribe this discrepancy to the foreground interstellar reddening because it is negligible in the direction of IC1613 ($`<E(VI)>=0.09`$, Macri et al. 2001). A long–period red variable with an apparent $`V`$ magnitude which is 2 mag fainter than the W Vir star and with $`VI=2.5`$ could approximately explain the observed colour index. Moreover it reduces the ratio between $`V`$ and $`I`$ amplitudes of the 14 d period variation from the observed value of about 2.3 to 1.4, which is similar to that of known W Vir stars. If this were the case, the long–period variation would have a real $`V`$ amplitude of about 1.4 mag, while the $`V`$ amplitude of the short-period variation would increase only marginally. The red star should be a supergiant with $`V20.5`$ and should belong to IC1613. Red variable stars with similar period and brigthness were found by us in this galaxy (see for instance Table 9 of Antonello et al., 2000).

### 4.2 V39 as a high energy source?

The strong emission lines and the photometric variations led us to suspect that the star could be an unusual object belonging to the class of cataclysmic variables, that is a relatively nearby star in a binary system with an accreting disk or envelope around a compact object. However the result of the photometric analysis (in particular the ratio of the amplitudes in the different bands and the phase relations between $`V`$ and $`I`$) rules out a geometric origin of the variability. Moreover, other spectral lines should have been observed. The intriguing feature is the line at 6684 Å, which is difficult to explain in the context of the stellar pulsation, and reminded us of the features observed in an unusual object such as SS433. However, no X-ray source has been found in the catalogues at the location of V39. The comparison of the published coordinates of the star suggests the lack of a proper motion during the last seventy years, and this support the view that it is a far object.

## 5 Conclusion

The observational data tend to indicate that V39 is a foreground W Vir star of IC1613. Adopting the $`PL`$ relation by Nemec et al. (1994), assuming a \[Fe/H\]=–1 and a fundamental mode pulsation we get $`M_V=1.7`$, which for $`<V_0>=18.63`$ gives a lower limit of distance modulus of 20.3, while the distance modulus of IC1613 is 24.5 (Macri et al., 2001). We also speculated that the star could have a red companion, but its presence is not sufficient to confirm the membership of V39 to IC1613. In fact in this case the companion should be much brigther than the W Vir star, the amplitude of the 14 d period variation would be much smaller than what observed, and the red companion contribution to the spectrum should be dominating. In other words, while the W Vir star belongs to the halo of our Galaxy, the red star should belong to IC 1613. The presence of an isolated W Vir star at a distance of at least 115 Kpc (assuming \[Fe/H\]=–2, the distance would be about 130 kpc) should throw new fuel on the open question of the true extent of the galactic halo. If true this would be the farthest known star of our galaxy; known halo field stars and globular clusters are closer than about 100 kpc (e.g. Morrison et al. 2001). Therefore it should be very important to definitively settle the question on the nature of V39. In order to do this, some spectra, at higher resolution of the present ones, should be taken for confirming the reality of the presence of $`HeI`$ emissions, and for deriving accurate radial velocities, which could definitively exclude the membership of IC1613. The spectra should be taken both at phases in which the emission lines are present in W Vir stars (the ascending branch of the ligth curve) and at phases of minimum light, where the emission lines should be absent.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Dr. E. Poretti for supplying us with the SPM $`Wh`$ band observations and for useful comments and suggestions.