text:
# Shell Structure of Cesium Layer Covering the C60 Fullerene Core This work has been partly supported by the Polish Committee for Scientific Research under Contract No. 2P03B 115 19 and by the Program of Scientific Exchange between the IN2P3-France and the Polish Research Institution No. 99-95

## 1 Introduction

The world wide interest on metallic clusters started in the early 80’s when a group of physicists from Berkeley performed the first experiments with tiny alkali clusters . Since that time an enormous amount of work both on the experimental and theoretical side has been accomplished. Metallic clusters are the quantum many body systems built from several up to a few thousands atoms and their radii are of the order of 10 Å. It is well known that the shell structure of electronic orbitals in the metallic cluster can be well reproduced not only by selfconsistent calculations but also within some average potential approach based on the jellium model (see e.g. ). In the jellium model one assumes, that electrons are moving in the mean field potential which is produced by the background of positive ions and by other free electrons.

In 1996 an experimental group from Stuttgart  succeeded in producing and the measuring optical response of Cesium coated fullerenes C60 covered by a layer of $`N`$ Cs-atoms with $`N500`$. The electronic shell structure of these C60Cs($`N`$) agglomerates was studied in Ref.  using the local approximation to the density-functional theory. The measured abundances of metal-coated fullerenes C60Cs($`N`$) were interpreted there in terms of the magic numbers corresponding to the electronic shell closures. Recently, in Ref.  the shell structure of thin spherical metallic layers was discussed using the Strutinsky shell correction method  and an infinite square well approximation to the mean field potential for electrons. In spite of this rather rough approximation to the average mean field potential it was shown there that for C60Cs($`N`$) the minima of the shell correction as function of the atom number $`N`$ in the cluster were found not far from the experimental magic numbers given in Ref. . The agreement was better at higher mass numbers, where the jellium model is more reliable.

The aim of the present investigation is to use a similar approach as in Ref.  but with a more realistic approximation to the mean-field potential. We are going to keep the spherical symmetry of the potential because the fullerene C60 core is a spherical ball, what additionally stabilizes the system against deformation. We show in the following, that a shifted Saxon-Woods potential reproduces reasonably well the experimental magic numbers and the ionization energies. It will also be shown how the magic numbers of the Cesium layer change with the core radius. This is not only an academic study since one can easily imagine an experiment in which one covers a spherical insulator with a thin metal layer.

## 2 Theoretical model

The valence electrons have a decisive influence on the abundance of metallic clusters. The electrons are moving in a mean field potential which is produced by the jellium, i.e. the positively charged ions and the rest of the electrons.

It was shown (see discussion in Ref. ) that the Saxon-Woods type potential

$$V_{phen}(r)=\frac{V_0}{1+e^{\frac{rR_0}{a}}},$$
(1)
approximates quite well the mean field which is felt by free (valence) electrons. The radius $`R_0`$ in (1) has to be chosen as

$$R_0=r_0N^{1/3},$$
(2)
with

$$r_0=r_{00}(1+\frac{\alpha }{N^{1/3}}),$$
(3)
where $`r_{00}`$ is the Wigner-Seitz cell radius, $`N`$ the number of atoms in the cluster and $`\alpha `$ a constant originating from the so-called ”spilled-out” effect . The potential depth $`V_0`$ and the surface thickness $`a`$ are usually adjusted to the experimental values of ionization energies and to some spectroscopic data (e.g. magic numbers) of clusters in a broad range of $`N`$. Solving the Schrödinger equation

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_e}^2+V_{phen}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu =e_\nu \mathrm{\Psi }_\nu ,$$
(4)
one can obtain the ionization energy by looking for the energy of the last occupied level (Fermi energy). One has to keep in mind that due to the spin of the electron one has to put two electrons on each single-particle level $`e_\nu `$. In the spherical case the levels are strongly degenerated

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\nu =\mathrm{\Psi }_{n\mathrm{}mm_s},\mathrm{while}e_\nu =e_n\mathrm{}.$$

The magic numbers can be roughly identified with the numbers of particles below energy gaps in the single-particle spectrum $`e_\nu `$ or more accurately as minima in the considered as function of the particle number $`N`$ Strutinsky shell correction $`\delta E_{shell}(N)`$

$$\delta E_{shell}(N)=2\underset{occ}{}e_\nu \stackrel{~}{E}(N),$$
(5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ is energy of electrons in the cluster with smeared-out shell structure. We have used here, as usually done in the Strutinsky procedure, a Gauss function with the six order correctional polynomial to washed out the shell effects. The width ($`\gamma `$) of the Gaussian was fixed from the plateau condition of

$$\stackrel{~}{E}(N)=2\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e_\nu \stackrel{~}{n}_\nu (\gamma ),$$
(6)
where $`\stackrel{~}{n}_\nu `$ is the average occupation number of the level $`e_\nu `$.

We are going to discuss the shell structure of the electron orbitals in thin Cesium layers built on a fullerene core or another spherical ball made from insulator. A shifted Saxon-Woods potential seems to be most appropriate in this case. Such a potential, shown in Fig. 1, is described by the following equation

$$V(r)=V_0\left(\frac{1}{1+e^{\frac{rR_2}{a_2}}}\frac{1}{1+e^{\frac{rR_1}{a_1}}}\right),$$
(7)
where $`R_2`$ is the radius of the inner core and $`R_1`$ depends on the number of atoms in the cluster

$$R_1=(r_0^3N+R_2^3)^{1/3}.$$
(8)
The parameters $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ describe the diffuseness of the outer and inner potential wall at $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ respectively. The parameter $`a_1`$ should be essentially equal to the parameter $`a`$ from Eq. (1) for the compacted cluster. The potential which feels the electron in the region between the core and the metallic layer of the Cesium atoms is described by the parameter $`a_2`$ which will be adjusted to reproduce the observed magic numbers in the C60Cs($`N`$) agglomerates as explained in the next section.

## 3 Results

The single-particle levels of electrons were evaluated using the Woods-Saxon potential (1) for the compact spherical clusters build from a few to 1000 atoms. The magnitude of the ionization energy dependens on the depth $`V_0`$ of the potential, its radius $`R_0`$, and surface thickness $`a`$:

$$E_{io}=e_{N/2}(V_0,R_0,a).$$
(9)
In order to fix the parameter set of the potential (1) we have performed a preliminary computation for Sodium Na($`N`$) and Potassium K($`N`$) clusters which are the best known clusters of metals with one valence electron and for which the ionization energies were measured in Refs. , in a relatively broad range of $`N`$.

We have found that using the radius shift constant $`\alpha =0.8`$ and the depth of potential $`V_0=6.0`$ eV for Sodium and 4.6 eV for Potassium clusters, and the surface thickness $`a`$=0.3 Å for both type of clusters one can reproduce quite accurately the experimental systematics of ionization energies as well as their average phenomenological dependence on $`N`$ :

$$E_{io}^{phen}(N)=\frac{3}{8}\frac{e^2}{r_0N^{1/3}}E_{io}(\mathrm{}),$$
(10)
where $`E_{io}(\mathrm{})`$ is the ionization energy equal to 2.7 eV for Sodium and 2.4 eV for Potassium metals.

The comparison of the theoretical and the experimental ionization energies and their average dependences on $`N`$ is presented in Fig. 2 for the Sodium clusters and in Fig.3 for the Potassium clusters. The experimental magic numbers for Sodium and Potassium as well as the other alkaline clusters are the same and equal

$$N_{exp}=2,8,18,20,34,40,58,92,138,198,264,344,442.$$
(11)
The theoretical magic numbers closest to the experimental ones

$$N_{th}=2,8,18,20,34,40,58,92,138,186,198,254,338,440,$$
(12)
which are obtained with the diffuseness parameter of the Saxon-Woods potential equal to $`a`$=0.3 Å.

The Cesium with the ionization energy $`E_{io}(\mathrm{})`$=3.89 eV belongs also to the group of the alkaline metals, so the Cs clusters should have similar properties as the Na and K clusters. It is the main reason why we have adopted the same value of the radius shift parameter (3) $`\alpha =0.8`$ performing calculations for the Cs aggregates. The theoretical systematics of the ionization energies for the Cs($`N`$) clusters obtained with the depth of the Saxon-Woods potential equal to $`V_0=5.6`$ eV and with the surface thickness $`a`$=0.3 Å is very close to its phenomenologic estimate  as it can be seen in Fig. 4. If the surface thickness $`a`$ is larger than 0.5 Å the asymptotic behavior of the ionization energy differs significantly from the estimate made in Ref. . In Fig 5 the Strutinsky shell correction for the compact spherical Cesium clusters is plotted. The minima of the shell correction (5) correspond to the predicted magic numbers. It is seen that the theoretical magic numbers are exactly the same as the experimental ones for $`N138`$ and very close to the measured ones for heavier clusters.

Varying the inner and outer surface widths of the shifted Saxon-Woods potential (1) and keeping the rest of the parameters constant we have tried to find a combination of the $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ widths leading to the magic numbers experimentally found in Ref.  for the C60Cs($`N`$) aggregates. The experimental and theoretical magic numbers from Ref.  obtained in the local density-functional theory are shown in the first two columns of Table 1. The magic numbers obtained in Ref.  for the square well potential are printed in the third column. In Columns 4-9 we have displayed the magic numbers obtained with the potential (7) for different sets of the surface thicknesses. We begin with the outer surface thickness $`a_1`$ significantly larger than the inner one ($`a_2`$) in Column 4 and we end with an opposite choice of the thicknesses in Column 9. It is seen that, in spite of the dramatic change of the parameters, the predicted magic numbers for the lighter clusters do not differ significantly. More pronounced differences are found for the middle mass and heavy Cs clusters. We follow the suggestion made in Ref. 5 when evaluating the positions of the magic numbers in C60Cs($`N`$) and assume that 6 electrons are accumulated in the fullerene core.

There is no reason why the parameter $`a_1`$ in Eq. (7) for C60Cs($`N`$) should not be equal to the parameter $`a`$ in Eq. (1) for the compact cluster. So, in the following, we have restricted our model and we keep $`a_1=0.3`$ Å and we change only the inner surface thickness. The magic numbers closest to the experimental data obtained with the above restriction are shown in the last column of Table 1. An example of evaluated shell corrections for C60Cs($`N`$) clusters is plotted in Fig. 6. The minima of $`\delta E_{shell}`$ correspond to the magic numbers predicted by our model when one take into account the electrons being inside the C60 core. One can observe some differences in the positions of the minima in comparison with Fig. 5. This is due to the effect of the inner potential wall originating from the fullerene core. The amplitude of the shell correction reaches 1 eV for the heavier C60Cs($`N`$) clusters.

The electron single particle levels in the C60Cs($`N`$) aggregates are plotted in Fig. 7 as function of the thickness of the Cs layer which is equal to the difference between outer radius $`R_1`$ and the radius of the fullerene core $`R_2`$. The positions of the Fermi level for different cluster sizes are marked by the black points. It is seen in Fig. 7 that for the large thickness of the Cesium layer the effect of the repulsive core in the single particle potential (7) becomes negligible while for the smaller thicknesses the level corresponding to the low angular momentum are pushed up. This figure is very similar to the single particle plots presented in Ref.  for the metallic bubbles.

## 4 Summary

The phenomenological Woods-Saxon potential with an repulsive inner core describes relatively well the values of the magic numbers observed in the abundance of the C60Cs(N) clusters. We have shown how strongly the structure of the single-particle electron levels changes with the thickness of the metal layer covering the spherical core.

The results of our investigation could be also important for practical or even technological applications, because we indicate how one can tune in an almost continuous way the eigenenergies of electrons. In other words we give a prescription how to change the optical response of thin metallic layers covering arbitrary spherical cores made e.g. from insulator or other material with significantly different properties, by changing the thickness of the layer or the core size.

Table 1. Comparison between the magic numbers for several theoretical and experimental results. The single particle potential thickness parameters $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are in Å units.

|  |  |  | $`a_1,a_2`$ | $`a_1,a_2`$ | $`a_1,a_2`$ | $`a_1,a_2`$ | $`a_1,a_2`$ | $`a_1,a_2`$ | $`a_1,a_2`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Exp. |  |  | 0,1,1.6 | 0.4,1.2 | 0.8,0.8 | 1.2,0.4 | 1,60.1 | 2.0,0.1 | 0.3,0.1 |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 12$`\pm `$0 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 | 14 |
| 27$`\pm `$1 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 24 | 24 |
| 33$`\pm `$1 | 38 | 38 | 38 | 38 | 38 | 38 | 38 | 38 | 38 |
| 44$`\pm `$1 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| 61$`\pm `$1 | 58,64 | 58 | 56 | 56 | 64 | 64 | 64 | 64 | 64 |
| 98$`\pm `$1 | 96 | 86,96 | 86 | 86,92 | 96 | 96 | 96 | 96,110 | 96 |
| 146$`\pm `$2 | 136 | 136 | 122,136 | 136 | 136 | 136 | 138 | 138,162 | 136 |
| 198$`\pm `$0 | 192 | 186,192 | 184 | 186 | 192 | 192 | 202 | 202 | 192 |
| 255$`\pm `$5 | 258 | 258 | 248,258 | 258 | 258 | 258 | 258,272 | 272 | 258 |
| 352$`\pm `$10 | 338 | 336 | 336 | 336 | 336 | 338 | 338,362 | 362 | 338,344 |
| 445$`\pm `$10 | 434 | 434 | 428 | 434 | 434 | 444 | 444,466 | 444,466 | 444 |

Figure captions:

1. The shape of the spherical average potential for electrons in the C60Cs($`N`$) cluster.
2. The ionization energy of Sodium clusters Na($`N`$).
3. The ionization energy of Potassium clusters K($`N`$).
4. The ionization energy of Cesium clusters Cs($`N`$).
5. The shell-correction energy and the magic numbers for the Cs($`N`$) cluster evaluated with the surface thickness $`a`$=0.3 Å.
6. Shell-correction energy and the magic numbers for the C60Cs($`N`$) cluster evaluated with the surface thickness $`a_1`$=0.3 Å and $`a_2`$=0.1 Å.
7. The single-particle levels in the Cesium layer covering the spherical core of radius $`R_2`$. The depth of the single particle potential is equal to 5.6 eV, and the surface thicknesses $`a_1`$=0.3 Å and $`a_2`$=0.1 Å. The black points show the position of the Fermi level.


format: text

text:
# Cosmological limit on the neutrino mass

## I introduction

The absolute value of neutrino masses are very difficult to measure experimentally. On the other hand, mass differences between neutrino mass eigenstates, $`(m_1,m_2,m_3)`$, can be measured in neutrino oscillation experiments. Observations of atmospheric neutrinos suggest a squared mass difference of $`\delta m^23\times 10^3`$ eV2 Fukuda:2000np ; Fornengo:2000sr . While there are still several viable solutions to the solar neutrino problem the so-called large mixing angle solution gives by far the best fit with $`\delta m^25\times 10^5`$ eV2 sno ; Bahcall:2002hv .

In the simplest case where neutrino masses are hierarchical these results suggest that $`m_10`$, $`m_2\delta m_{\mathrm{solar}}`$, and $`m_3\delta m_{\mathrm{atmospheric}}`$. If the hierarchy is inverted Kostelecky:1993dm ; Fuller:1995tz ; Caldwell:1995vi ; Bilenky:1996cb ; King:2000ce ; He:2002rv  one instead finds $`m_30`$, $`m_2\delta m_{\mathrm{atmospheric}}`$, and $`m_1\delta m_{\mathrm{atmospheric}}`$. However, it is also possible that neutrino masses are degenerate Ioannisian:1994nx ; Bamert:vc ; Mohapatra:1994bg ; Minakata:1996vs ; Vissani:1997pa ; Minakata:1997ja ; Ellis:1999my ; Casas:1999tp ; Casas:1999ac ; Ma:1999xq ; Adhikari:2000as , $`m_1m_2m_3\delta m_{\mathrm{atmospheric}}`$, in which case oscillation experiments are not useful for determining the absolute mass scale.

Experiments which rely on kinematical effects of the neutrino mass offer the strongest probe of this overall mass scale. Tritium decay measurements have been able to put an upper limit on the electron neutrino mass of 2.2 eV (95% conf.) Bonn:tw . However, cosmology at present yields an even stronger limit which is also based on the kinematics of neutrino mass. Neutrinos decouple at a temperature of 1-2 MeV in the early universe, shortly before electron-positron annihilation. Therefore their temperature is lower than the photon temperature by a factor $`(4/11)^{1/3}`$. This again means that the total neutrino number density is related to the photon number density by

$$n_\nu =\frac{9}{11}n_\gamma $$
(1)
Massive neutrinos with masses $`mT_02.4\times 10^4`$ eV are non-relativistic at present and therefore contribute to the cosmological matter density Hannestad:1995rs ; Dolgov:1997mb ; Mangano:2001iu

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2=\frac{m_\nu }{92.5\mathrm{eV}},$$
(2)
calculated for a present day photon temperature $`T_0=2.728`$K. Here, $`m_\nu =m_1+m_2+m_3`$. However, because they are so light these neutrinos free stream on a scale of roughly $`k0.03m_{\mathrm{eV}}\mathrm{\Omega }_m^{1/2}h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ dzs ; Doroshkevich:tq ; Hu:1997mj . Below this scale neutrino perturbations are completely erased and therefore the matter power spectrum is suppressed, roughly by $`\mathrm{\Delta }P/P8\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu /\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ Hu:1997mj .

This power spectrum suppression allows for a determination of the neutrino mass from measurements of the matter power spectrum on large scales. This matter spectrum is related to the galaxy correlation spectrum measured in large scale structure (LSS) surveys via the bias parameter, $`b^2P_g(k)/P_m(k)`$. Such analyses have been performed several times before Croft:1999mm ; Fukugita:1999as , most recently using data from the 2dF galaxy survey Elgaroy:2002bi . This investigation finds an upper limit of 1.8-2.2 eV for the sum of neutrino masses. However, this result is based on a relatively limited cosmological parameter space.

It should also be noted that, although massive neutrinos have little impact on the cosmic microwave background (CMB) power spectrum, it is still necessary to include CMB data in any analysis in order to determine other cosmological parameters.

In the present paper we perform an extensive analysis, carefully discussing the issue of parameter degeneracies. The next section is devoted to a Fisher matrix analysis of the problem which establishes possible parameter degeneracies and yields a general idea of the precision with which the neutrino mass can be measured. Section III describes a full numerical likelihood analysis of data from CMB and LSS which yields a robust limit on the neutrino mass. Finally, section IV contains a discussion and conclusion.

## II Fisher matrix analysis

Measuring neutrino masses from cosmological data is quite involved since for both CMB and LSS the power spectra depend on a plethora of different parameters in addition to the neutrino mass. Furthermore, since the CMB and matter power spectra depend on many different parameters one might worry that an analysis which is too restricted in parameter space could give spuriously strong limits on a given parameter. Therefore, it is desirable to study possible parameter degeneracies in a simple way before embarking on a full numerical likelihood analysis.

It is possible to estimate the precision with which the cosmological model parameters can be extracted from a given hypothetical data set. The starting point for any parameter extraction is the vector of data points, $`x`$. This can be in the form of the raw data, or in compressed form, typically the power spectrum ($`C_l`$ for CMB and $`P(k)`$ for LSS).

Each data point has contributions from both signal and noise, $`x=x_{\mathrm{signal}}+x_{\mathrm{noise}}`$. If both signal and noise are Gaussian distributed it is possible to build a likelihood function from the measured data which has the following form oh

$$(\mathrm{\Theta })\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}x^{}[C(\mathrm{\Theta })^1]x\right),$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }=(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }_b,H_0,n_s,\tau ,\mathrm{})`$ is a vector describing the given point in model parameter space and $`C(\mathrm{\Theta })=xx^T`$ is the data covariance matrix. In the following we shall always work with data in the form of a set of power spectrum coefficients, $`x_i`$, which can be either $`C_l`$ or $`P(k)`$.

If the data points are uncorrelated so that the data covariance matrix is diagonal, the likelihood function can be reduced to $`e^{\chi ^2/2}`$, where

$$\chi ^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}\frac{(x_{i,\mathrm{obs}}x_{i,\mathrm{theory}})^2}{\sigma (x_i)^2},$$
(4)
is a $`\chi ^2`$-statistics and $`N_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the number of power spectrum data points oh .

The maximum likelihood is an unbiased estimator, which means that

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Theta }_0.$$
(5)
Here $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$ indicates the true parameter vector of the underlying cosmological model and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the average estimate of parameters from maximizing the likelihood function.

The likelihood function should thus peak at $`\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$, and we can expand it to second order around this value. The first order derivatives are zero, and the expression is thus

$$\chi ^2=\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2+\underset{i,j}{}(\theta _i\theta )\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}\frac{1}{\sigma (x_k)^2}\left[\frac{x_k}{\theta _i}\frac{x_k}{\theta _j}(x_{k,\mathrm{obs}}x_k)\frac{^2x_k}{\theta _i\theta _j}\right]\right)(\theta _j\theta ),$$
(6)
where $`i,j`$ indicate elements in the parameter vector $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. The second term in the second derivative can be expected to be very small because $`(x_{k,\mathrm{obs}}x_k)`$ is in essence just a random measurement error which should average out. The remaining term is usually referred to as the Fisher information matrix

$$F_{ij}=\frac{^2\chi ^2}{\theta _i\theta _j}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{N_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}\frac{1}{\sigma (x_k)^2}\frac{x_k}{\theta _i}\frac{x_k}{\theta _j}.$$
(7)
The Fisher matrix is closely related to the precision with which the parameters, $`\theta _i`$, can be determined. If all free parameters are to be determined from the data alone without any priors then it follows from the Cramer-Rao inequality kendall  that

$$\sigma (\theta _i)=\sqrt{(F^1)_{ii}}$$
(8)
for an optimal unbiased estimator, such as the maximum likelihood tth .

In order to estimate how degenerate parameter $`i`$ is with another parameter, $`j`$, one can calculate how $`\sigma (\theta _i)`$ changes if parameter $`j`$ is kept fixed instead of free in the analysis. Starting from the $`2\times 2`$ sub-matrix

$$S_{ij}=(F^1)_{ij},$$
(9)
one then finds

$$\sigma _{j\mathrm{fixed}}(\theta _i)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{(S^1)_{ii}}}$$
(10)
We therefore define the quantity

$$r_{ij}=\frac{\sigma _{j\mathrm{fixed}}(\theta _i)}{\sigma (\theta _i)}1$$
(11)
as a measure of the degeneracy between parameters $`i`$ and $`j`$.

In order to perform an actual calculation we use the most present data from CMB and LSS.

CMB data set — Several data sets of high precision are now publicly available. In addition to the COBE Bennett:1996ce  data for small $`l`$ there are data from BOOMERANG boom , MAXIMA max , DASI dasi  and several other experiments WTZ ; qmask . Wang, Tegmark and Zaldarriaga WTZ  have compiled a combined data set from all these available data, including calibration errors. In the present work we use this compiled data set, which is both easy to use and includes all relevant present information. Altogether there are 24 CMB data points in this compilation.

LSS data set — At present, by far the largest survey available is the 2dF 2dF  of which about 147,000 galaxies have so far been analysed. Tegmark, Hamilton and Xu THX  have calculated a power spectrum, $`P(k)`$, from this data, which we use in the present work. The 2dF data extends to very small scales where there are large effects of non-linearity. Since we only calculate linear power spectra, we use (in accordance with standard procedure) only data on scales larger than $`k=0.2h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, where effects of non-linearity should be minimal. Making this cut reduces the number of power spectrum data points to 18.

For calculating the theoretical CMB and matter power spectra we use the publicly available CMBFAST package CMBFAST . As the set of cosmological parameters we choose $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, the matter density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=1\mathrm{\Omega }_m\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu `$, the curvature parameter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$, the baryon density, $`H_0`$, the Hubble parameter, $`n_s`$, the scalar spectral index of the primordial fluctuation spectrum, $`\tau `$, the optical depth to reionization, $`Q`$, the normalization of the CMB power spectrum, $`b`$, the bias parameter, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu `$, the neutrino density. In all cases we take the number of massive neutrinos to be 3. The reason is that if neutrinos are to have an impact on CMB and matter spectra their masses must be much larger than the mass splitting inferred from atmospheric neutrino observations ($`\delta m0.050.1`$ eV), and therefore neutrino masses will be degenerate with $`m_1m_2m_3\delta m_{\mathrm{atmospheric}}`$.

In principle one might include even more parameters in the analysis, such as $`r`$, the tensor to scalar ratio of primordial fluctuations. However, $`r`$ is most likely so close to zero that only future high precision experiments may be able to measure it. The same is true for other additional parameters. Deviations from the slow-roll prediction of a simple power-law initial spectrum Hannestad:2000tj ; Hannestad:2001nu ; griffiths ; elgaroy  or additional relativistic energy density Jungman:1995bz ; Lesgourgues:2000eq ; Hannestad:2000hc ; Esposito:2000sv ; Kneller:2001cd ; Hannestad:2001hn ; Hansen:2001hi ; Bowen:2001in ; Dolgov:2002ab  could be present. However, such effects only appear in cosmological models which are more complicated than the “standard” $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model. The parameters we use fully describe the features of the simplest working model.

In the end one can check the consistency of the numerical parameter extraction by calculating the $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom. In Section III we find that the best fit is consistent with expectations and therefore it is unlikely that there are other parameters significantly affecting the power spectra.

Fig. 1 shows the matrix $`r_{ij}`$, calculated for the WTZ + 2dF data set errors, around a reference cosmological model with parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.020`$, $`H_0=70\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, $`n_s=1.0`$, and $`\tau =0`$, i.e. the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM concordance model. Note that $`r_{ii}`$ is an ill-defined quantity. For plotting purposes we simply put $`r_{ii}=1`$, but this has no physical significance.

From this general matrix one can study the $`m_\nu `$-related degeneracies more closely. Clearly the two parameters most degenerate with $`m_\nu `$ are $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, the matter density, and $`b`$, the bias. This is not surprising because a non-zero neutrino mass has little effect on the CMB acoustic peaks and a large effect on the matter power spectrum on scales below the free streaming scale.

Therefore, any parameter which behaves in a similar way will cause degeneracy. This is indeed the case for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, if this parameter is changed while keeping $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ fixed there is little effect on CMB. On the other hand, changing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ changes the normalization of the matter power spectrum at small scales relative to large scales. Changing $`b`$ also mimics a non-zero neutrino mass. The reason is that present day LSS data have large error bars around the free-streaming scale for light neutrinos in the eV range. On low scales the effect of massive neutrinos is simply to lower the fluctuation level roughly as Hu:1997mj

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }P}{P}8\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu }{\mathrm{\Omega }_m},$$
(12)
i.e. it is scale independent and therefore indistinguishable from changing the bias, $`b`$. This degeneracy can be broken by precision measurements around the free-streaming scale where the break in the power spectrum occurs. A good example of how the mass limit on neutrinos can be tightened if bias is fixed comes from Ref. Fukugita:1999as . Here the mass limit comes from comparing the overall normalization of the spectra at COBE scales Bennett:1996ce  with those on cluster scales Eke:1996ds . However, we believe that, at present, keeping bias as a free parameter yields a much more robust constraint. To a much lesser extent the neutrino mass is also degenerate with the Hubble parameter.

It should be noted that there is little degeneracy with $`n_s`$, the spectral index. In Refs. Hu:1997mj ; Elgaroy:2002bi  a significant degeneracy between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu `$ and $`n_s`$ was found when only LSS data is considered. However, this is broken when CMB data is included (as is also noted in Ref. Hu:1997mj ), the reason being that changing $`n_s`$ affects both CMB and matter power spectra, not just the matter spectrum.

Clearly, it would be desirable to fix the parameters with which the neutrino mass is most degenerate, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, $`b`$, and $`H_0`$. As for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ one can use the SNIa result $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.28\pm 0.14`$ which applies to a flat universe Perlmutter:1998np . However, this value is not much more restrictive than what is found from the CMB+LSS data alone. Fixing the bias is much more difficult since it is not a physically well understood parameter. In Elgaroy et al. Elgaroy:2002bi  bias was kept as a free parameter, and we follow this line. $`H_0`$ has been determined precisely by the HST Hubble key project to be $`H_0=70\pm 7\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$ freedman .

If all the above parameters are included in the Fisher matrix analysis the estimated $`1\sigma `$ precision on $`m_\nu `$ is 1.8 eV, equivalent to a 95% confidence limit of 3.6 eV.

## III Numerical results

The Fisher matrix analysis can only give a general idea of the constraints which can be found from a given data set. In reality the likelihood is non-Gaussian and away from the best fit point the formalism breaks down. In order to get reliable estimates it is necessary to perform a full numerical likelihood analysis over the space of cosmological parameters.

In this full numerical likelihood analysis we use a slightly restricted parameter space with the following free parameters: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$, $`H_0`$, $`n_s`$, $`Q`$, $`b`$, and $`\tau `$. We restrict the analysis to flat models, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=0`$. This has very little effect on the analysis because there is little degeneracy between $`m_\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$. In order to study the effect of the different priors we calculate three different cases, the priors for which can be seen in Table I. The BBN prior on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ comes from Ref. Burles:2000zk . The actual maginalization over parameters other than $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu h^2`$ was performed using a simulated annealing procedure Hannestad:wx .

Fig. 2 shows $`\chi ^2`$ for the three different cases as a function of the $`m_\nu `$. The best fit $`\chi ^2`$ values are 24.81, 25.66, and 25.71 for the three different priors respectively. In comparison the number of degrees of freedom are 34, 35, and 36, meaning that the fits are compatible with expectations, roughly within the 68% confidence interval.

We identify the 95% confidence limit on $`m_\nu `$ with the point where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\chi ^2=4`$. These limits are shown in Table II. For the most restrictive prior we find a 95% confidence upper limit of $`m_\nu 2.47`$ eV. This is compatible with the findings of Ref. Elgaroy:2002bi  who find that $`m_\nu 1.82.2`$ eV for a slightly more restrictive parameter space.

Based on the present analysis we consider $`m_\nu 3`$ eV (95% conf.) a robust upper limit on the sum of the neutrino masses. This corresponds roughly to the value found for the CMB+LSS data alone without any additional priors. Even though this value is significantly higher than what is quoted in Ref. Elgaroy:2002bi , it is still much more restrictive than the value $`m_\nu 4.4`$ eV WTZ  found from CMB and PSCz pscz  data. As is also discussed in Ref. Elgaroy:2002bi  the main reason for the improvement is the much greater precision of the 2dF survey, compared to the PSCz data pscz .

## IV Discussion

We have studied cosmological constraints on the neutrino masses from present CMB and LSS data. Initially a Fisher matrix analysis was performed which illustrates the main degeneracies of $`m_\nu `$ with other cosmological parameters used in the analysis. From this simplified analysis it was estimated that the precision on $`m_\nu `$ should be roughly 3.6 eV at 95% confidence from CMB+LSS data alone.

However, in order to obtain reliable estimates we performed a full numerical likelihood analysis. Using reasonable priors on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2`$ and $`H_0`$ we obtained a limit of $`m_\nu 2.47`$ eV at 95% confidence, while using no priors on the CMB+LSS data yielded $`m_\nu 3`$ eV, again at 95% confidence. We believe this to be a robust upper limit.

Our analysis shows, not surprisingly, that priors are extremely important for parameter estimation of $`m_\nu `$. Our most restrictive prior yields a result similar to that found by Ref. Elgaroy:2002bi , while our no-prior case yields a significantly looser constraint.

The Fisher matrix analysis showed that the parameter most degenerate with $`m_\nu `$ is the bias parameter, $`b`$. In order to obtain much stronger limits one must either determine $`b`$ precisely in an independent way or obtain better LSS power spectrum statistics around the scale corresponding to the free-streaming scale for neutrinos, $`k0.020.03h\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey sdss  will measure the power spectrum shape with higher precision on the relevant scale, and this data, combined with CMB data from the MAP experiment map , will either push the limit by a factor of at least a few or indeed detect a non-zero neutrino mass directly. It was estimated in Ref. Hu:1997mj  that $`m_\nu 0.65`$ eV can be reached.

Finally, we note that the present cosmological limit is significantly stronger than current laboratory limits. The Mainz tritium experiment Bonn:tw  currently quotes a 95% upper limit to the $`\nu _e`$ mass of 2.2 eV, which translates to a sum of roughly 6.5-7 eV for the three mass eigenstates. As is also noted in Elgaroy et al. Elgaroy:2002bi , the cosmological limit is compatible with the very controversial detection of neutrinoless double beta decay by the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment Klapdor-Kleingrothaus:2001ke . If this finding is confirmed it would imply a sum of masses of order 1 eV, within range of the MAP+SDSS data.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Extra dimensions are an interesting possibility for physics beyond the standard model (SM). They offer an explanation for the weakness of gravity by the large volume of the compactified space , or by localization of the graviton at a space-time boundary . Gravity becomes strong at the TeV scale, and the large hierarchy between the scale of gravity and the weak scale is eliminated.

We take the fifth dimension to be an $`S_1/Z_2`$ orbifold with a negative bulk cosmological constant, bordered by two 3-branes with opposite tensions and separated by distance $`R`$. Einstein’s equations are satisfied by the non-factorizable metric

$$ds^2=e^{2\sigma (y)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2,\sigma (y)=k|y|$$
(1.1)
which describes a slice of AdS5. 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 AdS curvature and the 5d Planck mass $`M_5`$ are both assumed to be of order $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}10^{19}`$ GeV. The AdS warp factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }=e^{\pi ky}`$ generates an exponential hierarchy of energy scales. If the brane separation is $`kR11`$, the scale at the negative tension brane, located at $`y=\pi R`$, is of TeV-size, while the scale at the brane at $`y=0`$ is 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).

Models with localized gravity open up attractive possibilities for flavor physics. If the SM fermions reside in the 5-dimensional bulk, the hierarchy of quark and lepton masses can be interpreted in a geometrical way . Different flavors are localized at different positions in the extra dimension or, more precisely, have different wave functions. The fermion masses are in direct proportion to the overlap of their wave functions with the Higgs field . Moreover, bulk fermions reduce the impact of non-renormalizable operators which, for instance, induce rapid proton decay and large neutrino masses .

In the proposed framework it is natural to take the SM gauge bosons as bulk fields as well to maintain 5D gauge invariance. The Higgs field has to be localized at the TeV-brane. Otherwise the gauge hierarchy problem reappears . Comparison with electroweak data, in particular with the weak mixing angle and gauge boson masses, requires the Kaluza-Klein (KK) excitations of SM particles to be heavier than about 10 TeV . If the fermions were confined to the TeV-brane, the KK scale would be even more constrained .333Recently it has been advocated that the third generation of quarks should be confined to the TeV-brane to prevent large contributions to the electroweak $`\rho `$ parameter . However, no such conclusion can be drawn for the third generation of leptons.

In refs.  it was demonstrated that small Dirac neutrino masses can be generated by adding sterile neutrinos in the bulk. Both the solar and the atmospheric neutrino anomalies can be accommodated.

In this letter we investigate the alternative possibility of Majorana neutrinos. Because of the warped geometry, the usual see-saw mechanism cannot be implemented in a straightforward way. Namely, under the assumption that the large 5D Majorana mass is $`y`$ independent, the lowest state of the singlet neutrino, it turns out, is localized close to the TeV-brane where it acquires a typical KK scale mass ($``$ a few TeV) from the warped geometry. Fortunately, in contrast to the SM, the warped 5D SM admits larger dimension five Majorana masses and, with a judicious choice of parameters these can be employed for resolving the solar and atmospheric neutrino anomalies. Large mixings arise if the SM neutrinos are located at similar positions in the extra dimension. We demonstrate that the large mixing angle MSW is the favored solution to the solar neutrino anomaly, while $`U_{e3}`$ can be kept below the observational bound. We also discuss possible experimental signatures to distinguish between the scenarios of Dirac and Majorana neutrinos, such as neutrinoless double beta decay and $`\mu e\gamma `$. We also comment on the issue of proton decay.

## 2 Fermions in a Warped Background

To fix the notation let us briefly summarize the properties of fermions in a warped geometrical background. Since the 5D theory is non-chiral, every Weyl fermion of the SM has to be associated with a Dirac fermion in the bulk. The number of fermionic degrees of freedom is doubled. Chirality in the 4D low energy effective theory is restored by the orbifold boundary conditions.

The Dirac equation 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 parameter, 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 (1.1) 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)
eq. (2.4) admits a zero mode solution

$$f_0(y)=\frac{e^{(2c)\sigma }}{N_0},$$
(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 boundary conditions, the zero mode of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_+`$ $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_{})`$ is a left-handed (right-handed) Weyl spinor. For $`c>1/2`$ $`(c<1/2)`$ the zero mode of the fermion is localized near the boundary at $`y=0`$ $`(y=\pi R)`$, i.e. at the Planck- (TeV-) brane. The KK states are always localized at the TeV-brane.

## 3 The See-Saw Mechanism and Warped Geometry

In the see-saw mechanism lepton number is broken by the Majorana mass of heavy right-handed neutrinos, $`_M=M_NNN`$. Together with a Dirac mass term $`_D=\lambda _N\nu _LNH`$, where $`H`$ denotes the SM Higgs field, a Majorana mass for the SM neutrinos $`\nu _L`$ is generated,

$$M_\nu =\frac{\lambda _N^2H^2}{M_N}.$$
(3.9)
Taking $`M_\nu 50`$meV (of the order of the atmospheric $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$), one finds $`M_N\lambda _N^26\times 10^{14}`$ GeV. For $`0.01\stackrel{<}{}\lambda _N\stackrel{<}{}1`$ this points to an intermediate scale for the right-handed Majorana mass.

In theories with TeV-scale gravity $`M_N`$ is naturally bounded to be below a few TeV. Therefore, very small Yukawa couplings $`\lambda _N\stackrel{<}{}10^6`$ are required to generate sub-eV neutrino masses. Keeping in mind the large hierarchy of Yukawa couplings for quarks and charged leptons, this result may not seem “completely unreasonable”. Nonetheless, a deeper understanding of the smallness of neutrino masses is missing.

If the SM and right-handed neutrinos reside in the bulk, the 5D Yukawa coupling $`\lambda _N^{(5)}`$ is somewhat less constrained than the 4D coupling we were concerned with in the previous paragraph. The Dirac mass which enters eq. (3.9) depends on the overlap of the neutrino zero modes and the Higgs

$$m_D\lambda _NH=_{\pi R}^{\pi R}\frac{dy}{2\pi R}\lambda _N^{(5)}e^{4\sigma }H(y)f_0^{(\nu )}(y)f_0^{(N)}(y).$$
(3.10)
We assume that the Higgs profile has an exponential form which peaks at the TeV-brane, $`H(y)=H_0e^{4k(|y|\pi R)}.`$ This shape can be motivated by the equation of motion of a bulk scalar field . Numerically it is equivalent to a delta function-like profile. Using the known mass of the W-boson, we can fix the amplitude $`H_0M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ in terms of the 5D weak gauge coupling.

The zero mode of the SM neutrino has an exponential shape (2.6) which for $`c_\nu >1/2`$ has only a small overlap with the Higgs at the TeV-brane. Sticking to the idea that all input parameters in the 5D theory should be of order unity in natural units, we assume that in the bulk lepton number is broken at $`M_N^{(5)}M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$. Because of this large Majorana mass, the wave function of the lowest state of the right-handed neutrino is modified. Rather than acquiring a mass of order $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$, this state gets localized at the TeV-brane where the warped geometry induces a typical KK mass for it, very similar to excited fermionic states. As a result, the overlap of the right-handed neutrino and the Higgs is large. These basic properties of the right-handed “zero mode” are fairly independent of the details of the KK reduction in the presence of a large bulk Majorana mass.444 If one allows for a suitably tuned profile of the Majorana mass in the bulk, the lowest state of the right-handed neutrino can be peaked around the Planck-brane. Its mass is still found to be bounded by the KK scale. They also do not depend on a possible 5D Dirac mass $`c_N`$ for the right-handed neutrino.

We now estimate the required value of $`\lambda _N^{(5)}`$ to generate a 50 meV neutrino mass. As explained above, the Majorana mass of the zero mode $`M_N`$ is close to the KK scale $`M_{KK}`$. From comparison with electroweak precision data, $`M_{KK}`$ cannot be smaller than about 10 TeV . By localizing $`f_0^{(\nu )}`$ close to the Planck-brane ($`c_\nu 1/2`$), $`m_D`$ can be made very small. However, at the same time, the mass of the charged lepton, residing in an SU(2) multiplet with the neutrino, can become very small as well . Since the tau is the heaviest lepton, it has to reside closest to the TeV-brane, and induces the largest $`m_D`$. Assuming 5D lepton Yukawa couplings of order unity (i.e. $`\lambda _L^{(5)}g^{(5)}`$, the 5D weak gauge coupling), the left-handed tau has to obey $`c\stackrel{<}{}0.57`$ (when the right-handed tau is delocalized, $`c=`$1/2) . If we take $`M_N=10`$ TeV, $`\lambda _N^{(5)}=g^{(5)}`$ and $`c_\tau =0.57`$, we find $`m_D=7.9`$ GeV. A neutrino mass of 50 meV requires $`\lambda _N^{(5)}/g^{(5)}9\times 10^5`$. In accordance with the discussion in the previous paragraph, we have approximated the right-handed zero mode by the wave function of the first KK state of a fermion (2.7) without Majorana mass and $`c_N=1/2`$. In fig. 1 we present the associated wave functions of the $`\nu _\tau `$ and $`N`$ zero modes, together with the Higgs profile. The bound on the Yukawa coupling only mildly depends on $`c_N`$, increasing it from 1/2 to 1 would result in $`\lambda _N^{(5)}/g^{(5)}7\times 10^5`$. The error arising from our approximation of the right-handed neutrino wave function is of the same level.

The bound on $`\lambda _N^{(5)}`$ can be somewhat relaxed if we assume that the right-handed tau is localized at the TeV-brane (let’s say with $`c=1`$). Then we can move the left-handed tau and the tau neutrino closer to the Planck brane, $`c0.63`$, and find $`\lambda _N^{(5)}/g^{(5)}6\times 10^4`$. However, having the right-handed leptons localized towards the TeV-brane ($`c<1/2`$) induces large deviations in the electroweak observables . The KK scale is required to be much higher then 10 TeV, and the gauge hierarchy problem gets reintroduced, albeit in a “mild” form. In the case of the muon the constraints on $`\lambda _N^{(5)}`$ are an order of magnitude weaker.

If one relies on supersymmetry to solve the gauge hierarchy problem, the Higgs fields can reside in the bulk. Then a different and more standard version of the see saw mechanism may be implemented: The right-handed neutrinos, having an intermediate mass, are confined to the Planck-brane. This translates into an intermediate see saw scale in the effective 4D theory. Since the Higgs is spread homogeneously in the bulk, there are no small overlaps anymore. Thus, an explanation of the fermion mass hierarchy is lost. An alternative way of implementing the see-saw mechanism is to assume a $`y`$ dependent singlet Majorana mass.

In conclusion, having the right-handed and sterile neutrinos in the bulk reduces the fine-tuning of the neutrino Yukawa coupling in the see-saw approach to some extent. However, a small number of order $`10^4`$ is still needed to generate sub-eV neutrino masses.

## 4 Dimension Five Neutrino Masses

In the 4D SM one does not have to worry about possible higher-dimensional operators, since they are safely suppressed by powers of the huge Planck mass. Models with a low scale of gravity are very different in this respect. Naively one expects exotic non-renormalizable interactions suppressed by only a few TeV mass scale, unless they are forbidden by symmetries or multiplied by tiny coupling constants. In the warped SM the suppression scale for non-renormalizable operators can be anywhere between a few TeV and the Planck scale, depending on the localization of the fermions .

As previously discussed in refs. , Majorana masses for left-handed neutrinos are generated by the dimension-five operator

$$d^4x𝑑y\sqrt{g}\frac{l_{ij}}{M_5^2}H^2\mathrm{\Psi }_{iL}C\mathrm{\Psi }_{jL}d^4xM_{ij}^{(\nu )}\mathrm{\Psi }_{iL}^{(0)}C\mathrm{\Psi }_{jL}^{(0)},$$
(4.11)
where $`l_{ij}`$ are dimensionless couplings constants and $`C`$ is the charge conjugation operator. The neutrino mass matrix reads

$$M_{ij}^{(\nu )}=_{\pi R}^{\pi R}\frac{dy}{2\pi R}\frac{l_{ij}}{M_5^2}e^{4\sigma (y)}H^2(y)f_{0i}^{(\nu )}(y)f_{0j}^{(\nu )}(y).$$
(4.12)
Again the most stringent constraint on $`l`$ comes from the tau neutrino. Assuming the Yukawa coupling of the tau to be $`\lambda _\tau ^{(5)}g^{(5)}`$ and $`c(\tau _R)=1/2`$, we found $`c(\tau _L)=0.567`$. From eq. (4.12) we obtain a tau neutrino mass of $`m_{\nu ,\tau }=l33`$ MeV . Bringing the neutrino mass down to 50 meV requires a very small value of $`l10^9`$. Such a small coupling could originate from non-perturbative effects of gravity, especially if there is an extra dimension somewhat larger than $`M_{\mathrm{PL}}`$ . However, it would be attractive to relax the bound on $`l`$ within the framework of the effective theory we have considered so far.

We can reduce the neutrino masses by shifting the left-handed leptons closer to the Planck-brane. To maintain the masses of the charged leptons, we either have to move the right-handed leptons closer to the TeV-brane or increase the 5D Yukawa couplings of the leptons $`\lambda ^{(5)}`$ . The first possibility is clearly disfavored by the electroweak precision data, as explained in the previous section. Keeping the positions of the right-handed leptons fixed at $`c=1/2`$, the neutrino masses are roughly proportional to $`1/(\lambda ^{(5)})^2`$ . If we restrict ourselves to $`\lambda _\tau ^{(5)}=10g^{(5)}`$, in order not to induce a large hierarchy in the 5D couplings, we find $`c(\tau _L)=0.647`$ and $`m_{\nu ,\tau }=l320`$ keV.

The neutrino masses can be further decreased if we take the AdS curvature $`k`$ to be smaller than the 5D Planck mass. Approximately, the relation $`m_\nu (k/M_5)^2`$ holds . The assumption $`k<M_5`$ is anyway necessary to derive the warped metric (1.1) from Einstein equations, neglecting terms with higher derivatives . In discussions of the collider phenomenology of the warped model, the parameter range $`M_5/100<k<M_5`$ has been considered . Taking now the the very favorable case $`\lambda _\tau ^{(5)}=10g^{(5)}`$ and $`k/M_5=0.01`$, we obtain $`m_{\nu ,\tau }=l25`$ eV. A neutrino mass of 50 meV can therefore be generated by $`l=0.002`$, which is only a moderately small number. However, one has to keep in mind that for $`k/M_5=0.01`$ the radius $`kR=8.63`$ is already of order $`10^3`$ in units of the fundamental scale $`M_5`$.

Thus, the Majorana neutrino masses induced by the dimension five operator (4.11) are quite large if we take the model parameters to be strictly of order unity. In ref.  we therefore imposed lepton number to eliminate (4.11) completely. Here we assume that one or a combination of the mechanisms discussed above is at work to bring down the neutrino masses to values which are consistent with experimental observations. In the following we investigate the consequences for neutrino mixing as well as for neutrinoless double beta decay.

## 5 Neutrino Mixings

In ref.  it was found that the dimension five neutrino masses (4.12) lead to small mixing angles for the neutrinos. This result arose from the different locations of the left-handed lepton flavors in the extra dimension in order to explain the hierarchy of charged lepton masses. In the following we demonstrate that large mixing angles naturally arise if the left-handed leptons have the same location in the extra dimension. This result is similar to the case of Dirac masses for neutrinos studied in ref. . We will also show that separating the electron neutrino somewhat from the muon and tau neutrinos helps to keep $`U_{e3}`$ sufficiently small.

To obtain the neutrino masses and mixings we diagonalize the mass matrix (4.12) with a unitary matrix $`M^{(\nu )}=U_\nu M_{\mathrm{diag}}^{(\nu )}U_\nu ^T`$. The physical neutrino mixings

$$U=U_l^{}U_\nu $$
(5.13)
also depend on the rotations of the left-handed charged leptons $`U_l`$. The charged lepton masses $`M^{(l)}`$ arise from their couplings to the Higgs field in the same way as the Dirac neutrino masses of eq. (3.10),

$$M_{ij}^{(l)}=_{\pi R}^{\pi R}\frac{dy}{2\pi R}\lambda _N^{(5)}e^{4\sigma }H(y)f_{0i}^{(l)}(y)f_j^{(e)}(y),$$
(5.14)
where we have inserted the charged lepton wave functions and Yukawa couplings $`\lambda _l^{(5)}`$ . We determine $`U_l`$ by diagonalizing $`M^{(l)}(M^{(l)})^{}`$. In general, the neutrino and charged lepton rotations are expected to show the same pattern on average since their positions in the extra dimension are tied together by the SU(2) gauge symmetry of the SM. Including CP violation, the mixing matrix $`U`$ can be written as

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_2c_3& c_2s_3& s_2e^{i\delta }\\ c_1s_3s_2s_1c_3e^{i\delta }& c_1c_3s_2s_1s_3e^{i\delta }& c_2s_1\\ s_1s_3s_2c_1c_3e^{i\delta }& s_1c_3s_2c_1s_3e^{i\delta }& c_2c_1\end{array}\right),$$
(5.15)
where $`s_i`$ and $`c_i`$ are the sines and cosines of $`\theta _i`$. Like in the CKM matrix, there is a single complex phase $`\delta `$ which induces CP violation in the lepton sector. The neutrino mass matrix contains two additional Majorana phases which, however, do not show up in the mixing matrix $`U`$.

The atmospheric neutrino data imply

$$110^3\mathrm{eV}^2<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2<510^3\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _1>0.85.$$
(5.16)
There are several solutions to the solar neutrino anomaly

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2[\mathrm{eV}^2]& \mathrm{sin}^22\theta _3\\ \mathrm{LMA}& 210^5410^4& 0.30.93\\ \mathrm{SMA}& 410^6910^6& 0.00080.008\\ \mathrm{LOW}& 610^8210^7& 0.891\\ \mathrm{VAC}& 10^{10}& 0.70.95\end{array}$$
(5.17)
The SMA solution gives only a poor fit to the data. The CHOOZ reactor experiment constrains $`|U_{e3}|^2s_2^2`$ to be at most a few percent . Nothing is known about the CP violating phase $`\delta `$.

Our solution to the neutrino puzzle follows the “neutrino mass anarchy” models . Mass matrices with randomly chosen entries of order unity have a large probability to fit the neutrino data. Thus, we parametrize the coefficients in (4.12) by

$$l_{ij}\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{~}{l}_{ij}.$$
(5.18)
In contrast to the 4D realization of “neutrino mass anarchy”, in our scenario the smallness of the neutrino masses is not attributed to a very small overall magnitude $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the couplings. Rather, the neutrinos are localized close to the Planck-brane, where the dimension five operator (4.11) is suppressed. The supposedly fundamental theory responsible for the effective interaction (4.11) is represented through the order unity coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{l}_{ij}`$. To incorporate the charged lepton rotations we also generate charged lepton mass matrices with random Yukawa couplings of order unity. We choose suitable lepton locations to reproduce the measured lepton masses.

We consider the very favorable case of $`\lambda _\tau ^{(5)}=10g^{(5)}`$ and $`k/M_5=0.01`$. We take the position of the right-handed tau to be $`c_{\tau ,R}=1/2`$, which means its wave function is delocalized in the extra dimension. To reproduce the tau mass we find the position of the left-handed tau to be $`c_{\tau ,L}=0.72`$. Since different positions for the left-handed leptons tend to produce small neutrino mixing angles , we take

$$c_{e,L}=c_{\mu ,L}=c_{\tau ,L}=0.72.$$
(5.19)
To accommodate the muon and electron masses we use $`c_{\mu ,R}=0.64`$ and $`c_{e,R}=0.85`$. Taking the order unity coefficients to be homogeneously distributed $`1/2<|\stackrel{~}{l}_{ij}|<2`$ with random phases from 0 to $`2\pi `$, we find the most favorable value for the overall scale to be $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.910^3`$. We randomly generate parameter sets for $`\stackrel{~}{l}_{ij}`$, calculate the neutrino mass matrix from (4.12) and compute the neutrino masses and mixings. For the charged lepton rotations we take random Yukawa couplings $`10g^{(5)}/\sqrt{2}<|[\lambda _l^{(5)}]_{ij}|<10g^{(5)}\sqrt{2}`$ with phases from 0 to $`2\pi `$. The charged lepton masses and left-handed rotations are then calculated from the mass matrix eq. (5.14). We require the computed lepton masses to agree up to a factor of 3/2 with the measured values, which holds for about 50% of the random sets of $`\lambda _l^{(5)}`$. These sets are the starting point for the investigation of the neutrino properties.

Focusing on the LMA solution of the solar neutrino anomaly, which turns out to be clearly favored, we find the following picture. From our neutrino parameter sets about 70 % reproduce $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$ (5.16). Imposing in addition the constraint from $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ (5.17), we are left with about 28 % of the parameter sets. The solar and atmospheric mixings angles bring this number down to about 6 %, which is still a considerable fraction given the number of constraints. The most stringent constraint turns out to come from the CHOOZ experiment. Adding the requirement $`|U_{e3}|^2<0.05`$, the fraction of viable parameter sets shrinks to about 0.7 %. This result is clearly related to $`|U_{e3}|^2=0.22`$, which is considerably above the experimentally favored value. Here we use the logarithmic average of a quantity $`X`$

$$X=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{i}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(X_i)}{N}\right).$$
(5.20)
If not stated otherwise, we average over the parameter sets which reproduce the correct $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$’s. In fig. 2 we display the distribution of $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ found in our statistical analysis. We included only parameter sets that reproduce the correct $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$’s. Small values of $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ are somewhat favored. The corresponding distributions for the solar and atmospheric mixing angles are peaked at maximal mixings. Averaging only over the sets which pass all experimental constraints, we find $`|U_{e3}|^2=0.022`$. This means that $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ is probably close to the experimental bound and can very likely be tested at future neutrino experiments, such as MINOS, which is sensitive down to $`|U_{e3}|^20.0025`$ . Since we typically start with large phases in the neutrino and charged lepton mass matrices, the complex phase $`\delta `$ in the mixing matrix $`U`$ is found to be most likely of order unity. If we ignore the charged lepton rotations, i.e. take $`U=U_\nu `$, the fraction of parameter sets satisfying all constraints rises somewhat from 0.7 % to 1.7 %. The reason is that cancellations amongst the large mixing angles in $`U_l`$ and $`U_\nu `$ make it slightly more difficult to reproduce large solar and atmospheric mixings.

These results depend only mildly on the interval chosen for the coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{l}_{ij}`$. If we narrow the range, let’s say to $`0.8<|\stackrel{~}{l}_{ij}|<1.7`$, the fit for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$’s, the solar and atmospheric mixings angles improves remains unchanged, while the CHOOZ constraint becomes slightly harder to satisfy. We find that now about 0.6 % of the parameter sets meet the constraints from eqs. (5.17) and (5.16) and $`|U_{e3}|^2<0.05`$.

The SMA, LOW and VAC solutions to the solar neutrino anomaly can be realized only with severe fine-tuning. The required small values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ are very unlikely to be produced through accidental cancellations in the neutrino mass matrix. For the SMA we find that for the most favorable value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.610^3`$ and $`1/2<|\stackrel{~}{l}_{ij}|<2`$, only about 0.04 % of the parameter sets reproduce the correct $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$’s. Including the constraints from the solar and atmospheric mixing angles and the CHOOZ experiment brings the fraction down to less than $`10^5`$. The LOW and VAC solutions are even more fine-tuned. Under the given assumptions the LMA case is therefore selected as the only realistic solution to the solar neutrino problem. These results, which are summarized in table 1, agree nicely with the 4D model studied in ref. . Note that for the LMA solution the results remain stable if we use real instead of complex mass matrixes. However, the SMA, LOW and VAC solutions are more difficult to accommodate with complex mass matrices since the required cancellations to obtain a small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ become even more unlikely. For instance, with real mass matrices, the fraction of parameter sets which reproduce the SMA mass squared differences increases from 0.04 % to 0.7 %.

So far the constraint from the CHOOZ experiment is the most stringent one. Its inclusion reduces the probability that a parameter set realizes the LMA solution from about 6 % to less than one percent. With all entries in the neutrino mass matrix being of similar magnitude, the ensuing mixing angles are typically large. The fit to the neutrino data improves considerably if the electron neutrino is somewhat separated from the other two neutrino species. Shifting the electron neutrino closer to the Planck-brane induces small elements in the neutrino mass matrix. As a result, small values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ and $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ become more probable. The neutrino mass matrix (4.12) acquires the following structure

$$M^{(\nu )}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^2& ϵ& ϵ\\ ϵ& 1& 1\\ ϵ& 1& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(5.21)
where $`ϵf_{0,e}^{(\nu )}(\pi R)/f_{0,\mu }^{(\nu )}(\pi R)\mathrm{exp}((c_{e,L}c_{\mu ,L})\pi kR)`$. The charged lepton mass matrix does not follow the pattern (5.21) because of the different locations of left- and right-handed leptons. Still $`U_l`$ and $`U_\nu `$

We keep the muon and tau neutrinos at the previous locations $`c_{\mu ,L}=c_{\tau ,L}=0.72`$. A separation of these two would make the fit to the atmospheric neutrino data more difficult since the corresponding mixing is reduced. (A small separation, e.g. $`|c_{\mu ,L}c_{\tau ,L}|\stackrel{<}{}0.02`$ could, however, be tolerated.) For the electron neutrino the most favorable choice turns out to be $`c_{e,L}=0.79`$ leading to $`ϵ=0.15`$. This value is of the order of $`\sqrt{m_\mu /m_\tau }`$, and also of the Cabbibo angle. However, in our model there is no relation to either of these quantities. The positions of the right-handed leptons are found to be $`c_{e,R}=0.79`$, $`c_{\mu ,R}=0.62`$ and $`c_{\tau ,R}=0.49`$.

Let us again focus on the LMA solution. Assuming $`1/2<|\stackrel{~}{l}_{ij}|<2`$ for the order unity coefficients, we find the best value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2.610^3`$. The correct values of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$’s are fitted by 44 % of the parameter sets. Taking into account also the constraints from the solar and atmospheric mixing angles, this fraction shrinks to 5.8 %. This reduction is mostly due to the solar mixing angle which is suppressed if $`ϵ`$ is small. Most important, however, the CHOOZ constraint $`|U_{e3}|^2<0.05`$ is now satisfied almost automatically, and we are finally left with 5.0 % of the parameter sets. Compared to the case of $`ϵ=1`$, the probability for a parameter set to satisfy all observational constraints is enhanced by almost an order of magnitude. It turns out that including phases in the mass matrices is very important to obtain this result. With real valued mass matrices there tend to be large cancellations between the $`U_\nu `$ and $`U_l`$ contributions to the solar and atmospheric mixing angles. Large mixings are then very difficult to realize. If we consider the interval for the coefficients to be $`0.8<|\stackrel{~}{l}_{ij}|<1.7`$, the fit becomes slightly better because the solar mixing angle gets somewhat enhanced. We find that 5.5 % of the parameter sets pass all the constraints.

In fig. 3 we display the distribution of $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ for the case $`1/2<|\stackrel{~}{l}_{ij}|<2`$, where we again include only the parameter sets which reproduce the correct $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$’s. As expected, the distribution is now peaked at small values of $`|U_{e3}|^2`$. Averaging only over parameter sets which satisfy all constraints, we find a moderately small value $`|U_{e3}|^2=0.010`$. As a consequence, the next generation neutrino experiments still has a good chance to detect a non-vanishing $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ .

Taking even smaller values of $`ϵ`$, it is possible to implement the SMA solution to the solar neutrino problem. The most favorable choice of parameters we find to be $`c_{e,L}=0.96`$ corresponding to $`ϵ=0.0020`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2.610^3`$. The correct values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ are reproduced by 1 % of the sets of coefficients $`1/2<|\stackrel{~}{l}_{ij}|<2`$. The constraints from the solar and atmospheric mixing angles reduce this amount to about 0.3 %. The CHOOZ constraint is always satisfied, and we obtain $`|U_{e3}|^2=2.710^6`$ which is much too small to be measurable. The LOW solution is very difficult to implement because of the small solar $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. We take $`c_{e,L}=0.86`$ corresponding to $`ϵ=0.0026`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2.410^3`$. The constraints from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$’s are satisfied by only about 0.01 % of the parameter sets. All the neutrino data are reproduced by a fraction smaller then $`10^5`$. The CHOOZ constraint is again satisfied automatically. Small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$’s could be accommodated by moving the electron (and muon) neutrino closer to the Planck-brane. Then it becomes however more difficult to obtain large mixings. The VAC solution is even more difficult to realize because of the very small value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$. Thus, the LMA solution is by far the most favored scenario. A collection of our results is given table 1.

Neutrino mass matrices of the type (5.21) have previously been considered in refs. . There the small quantity $`ϵ`$ was attributed to a Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism . Our findings agree very well with the results of these studies.

## 6 Corrections from KK Neutrinos

So far we have only considered the neutrino zero modes. But eq. (4.11) also induces mixings between the zero modes and the vector-like excited states. In the following we show that this effect does not modify the conclusions we have reached above. The general neutrino mass matrix takes the symmetric form

$$_\nu =(\nu _L^{(0)},\nu _L^{(1)},\nu _R^{(1)},\mathrm{})\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m_L^{(0,0)}& m_L^{(0,1)}& 0& \mathrm{}\\ m_L^{(1,0)}& m_L^{(1,1)}& m_{KK,1}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& m_{KK,1}& m_R^{(1,1)}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _L^{(0)}\\ \nu _L^{(1)}\\ \nu _R^{(1)}\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)$$
(6.22)
Here $`m_L^{(0,0)}M^{(\nu )}`$ are the Majorana masses for the zero modes from eq. (4.12). The Majorana masses $`m_L^{(i,j)}`$ and $`m_R^{(i,j)}`$ are obtained from eq. (4.12) by inserting the wave functions of the relevant states. $`m_{KK,i}`$ are the KK masses of the excited states. Since the KK states have a greater overlap with the Higgs, the corresponding Majorana masses are larger than those involving zero modes. We consider again the case $`k=0.01M_5`$ and $`\lambda _\tau ^{(5)}=10g^{(5)}`$ implying $`c_{\tau ,L}=0.69`$. To estimate the magnitude of the effect we restrict ourselves to a single neutrino flavor. For the first excited state we find $`m_L^{(0,1)}=l8.8`$ keV, $`m_L^{(1,1)}=l3.5`$ MeV and $`m_R^{(1,1)}=l20`$ keV. For higher excited states these masses approximately do not change. If we would have used a delta function-like Higgs profile, $`m_R^{(i,j)}`$ would be zero since the wave functions of $`\nu _R^{(i)}`$ are odd and vanish at the boundaries. Truncating the KK tower at the first excitation, we find for the lowest state (i.e. the zero mode)

$`\nu _1`$ $``$ $`\nu _L^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_R^{(1,1)}m_L^{(0,1)}}{m_{KK,1}^2}}\nu _L^{(1)}{\displaystyle \frac{m_L^{(0,1)}}{m_{KK,1}}}\nu _R^{(1)}`$
$``$ $`\nu _L^{(0)}+1.510^{18}l^2\nu _L^{(1)}810^{10}l\nu _R^{(1)}.`$
In the second line we used numbers from the previous example. These tiny admixtures have only a negligible input on the properties of the zero modes. The tiny correction to the mass of the zero mode, for instance, is given by

$`\delta m_{\nu _1}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_R^{(1,1)}(m_L^{(0,1)})^2}{m_{KK,1}^2}}`$
$``$ $`1.310^{14}l^3\mathrm{eV}.`$
The contributions of the higher KK states are suppressed by larger KK masses and will affect our result by at most a factor of order unity. In a similar way to (6.22) the charged lepton masses (5.14) also couple zero modes and KK states. Here too the large KK masses suppress corrections to charged lepton masses and mixings from the excited states. Thus, the KK states can be safely neglected in the discussion of neutrino mixings.

## 7 Dirac vs. Majorana Neutrinos

We finally discuss some experimental signatures to distinguish the presented scenario of Majorana neutrinos from the Dirac neutrino scheme discussed in refs. .

The most direct evidence for a Majorana mass of neutrinos would be the discovery of neutrinoless double beta decay ($`0\nu \beta \beta `$). The non-observation of this process in the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment implies an upper bound on $`|M_{11}^{(\nu )}|m_{ee}<0.35`$ eV . There are plans to bring this limit down to about 0.01 eV . If all neutrinos are at the same position in the extra dimension, we expect $`m_{ee}0.02`$ eV, which is far below the current experimental sensitivity but within reach of future experiments. This result does not depend on what solution to the solar neutrino anomaly is realized. Fig. 4 illustrates the unnaturalness of a large Majorana mass in our scenario. As a function of $`m_{ee}`$ we show in a logarithmic scale the fraction of parameter sets $`p`$ which reproduce the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$’s required for the solar LMA solution and for the atmospheric neutrino anomaly. (Including also the constraints from the mixing angles would reduce the number of viable parameter sets by another order of magnitude.) We assume all neutrinos to be at the same location with $`c_L=0.72`$, and take $`1/2<|\stackrel{~}{l}_{ij}|<2`$. To tune $`m_{ee}`$ we set $`\stackrel{~}{l}_{11}=1`$ and vary $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For small values of $`m_{ee}`$ (i.e. small $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) it becomes impossible to accommodate the atmospheric $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, leading to $`p=0`$. For large Majorana masses $`p`$ becomes exponentially small since it is highly improbable to accidentally generate $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2m^2`$. The peak around $`m_{ee}0.015`$ eV corresponds to the fraction of 28 % quoted in table 1. For larger ranges of $`\stackrel{~}{l}_{ij}`$ the distribution is spread out further.

Once the electron neutrino is localized closer towards the Planck-brane $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ becomes drastically suppressed proportional to $`ϵ^2`$. For the clearly favored LMA scenario we find $`m_{ee}0.001`$ eV, which is too small to be detected in the near future. For the SMA, LOW and VAC solutions $`m_{ee}`$ is even smaller. It is therefore questionable if our model induces $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ at a detectable level. In any case the Majorana masses we find are far below the recently claimed evidence of about 0.4 eV .

Tritium endpoint (beta decay) experiments are sensitive to neutrino masses of Majorana and Dirac type. The MAINZ collaboration plans to look for neutrino masses down to about 0.3 eV , which is ,however, still an order of magnitude larger than the typical neutrino masses in the scenario considered.

In refs.  we imposed lepton number symmetry to make the proton stable and eliminate Majorana neutrino masses from non-renormalizable operators. If in the current framework we want to keep Majorana masses but still forbid proton decay, lepton parity is an attractive possibility. It still would allow baryon number violating processes, such as neutron anti-neutron oscillations, which might be close to the observational bound . Without some symmetry dimension six operators inducing proton decay have to be multiplied by small couplings of order $`10^8`$. The proton lifetime then should not be too far above the present experimental constraint.

The scenario with Dirac fermions could manifest itself through lepton flavor violating decays. For instance, the rate for $`\mu e\gamma `$ is considerably enhanced by the presence of sterile neutrino KK states, which spoil the GIM cancellation of the SM. If the SM neutrinos are confined to the TeV-brane, the branching ratio for $`\mu e\gamma `$ is above the experimental limit of about $`10^{11}`$, unless the KK scale is above 25 TeV . In the case of bulk SM neutrinos $`\mu e\gamma `$ does not constrain the KK scale anymore, but the branching ratio may still be close to the experimental bound.

## 8 Conclusions

Neutrino masses generated by dimension five interactions in the SM are of magnitude $`\stackrel{<}{}10^5`$ eV, and consequently the atmospheric neutrino anomaly remains problematic. In contrast, such masses are significantly larger in the 5D warped SM, and we have shown that an explanation of the solar and atmospheric neutrino anomalies can be realized, based on the idea of neutrino mass anarchy. We also provide estimates for the mixing angle $`U_{e3}`$ as well as the parameter $`m_{ee}`$ that appears in the amplitude for neutrinoless double beta decay. No new particles such as SM singlet neutrinos are needed to implement the scenario. Indeed, because of the warped geometry, the usual see saw mechanism will not work in its simplest form, without either giving up the resolution of the gauge hierarchy problem, or invoking supersymmetry.

## Acknowledgements

We thank David Emmanuel Costa, Holger Nielsen and Chin-Aik Lee for helpful discussions, and Wilfried Buchmüller for valuable comments on the draft. This work was supported in part by DOE under contract DE-FG02-91ER40626. We thank the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung for providing the impetus for this collaboration. Q.S. also acknowledges the hospitality of the Theory Group at DESY where this work was completed.


text:
# 1 The Pioneer Missions and the Anomaly

## 1 The Pioneer Missions and the Anomaly

The Pioneer 10/11 missions, launched on 2 March 1972 (Pioneer 10) and 4 Dec 1973 (Pioneer 11), were the first to explore the outer solar system . After Jupiter and (for Pioneer 11) Saturn encounters, the two spacecraft followed escape hyperbolic orbits near the plane of the ecliptic to opposite sides of the solar system. Pioneer 10 eventually became the first man-made object to leave the solar system.

Pioneer 10’s radio signal is weakening. Despite this, the Deep Space Network (DSN) is still able to deliver navigational data from distances $``$80 AU. Indeed, on the 30th anniversary of its launch, 2 March 2002, the Madrid DSN station received a return radio signal from Pioneer 10 at 22:47 CET. This was 22 h 06 m after the uplink signal was sent from the Goldstone, CA, DSN station.

By 1980, when Pioneer 10 was at a distance of $`20`$ AU from the Sun, the acceleration contribution from solar-radiation-pressure on Pioneer 10 (directed away from the Sun) decreased to $`<5\times 10^8`$ cm/s2. At that point the navigational data began to clearly indicate the presence of an anomaly in the Doppler navigational data, which was later interpreted as a constant acceleration, $`a_P`$, directed toward the Sun .

Recently, we published a detailed study of the Pioneer anomaly, which used the existing Pioneer 10/11 Doppler data from 1987.0 to 1998.5. We specifically addressed all possible sources for a systematic origin for the detected anomaly. Our conclusion was that, even after all known systematics are accounted for, there remains an anomalous acceleration signal of $`a_P=(8.74\pm 1.33)\times 10^5`$ cm/s2 directed towards the Sun .

We emphasize “known” because we must admit that the most likely cause of the effect is some as yet not understood systematic generated by the spacecraft themselves, perhaps caused by excessive heat or propulsion gas leaks. But neither we nor others with spacecraft or navigational expertise have been able to find it .

Further, due to its different mission and spacecraft designs, as well as its proximity to the Sun, the use of the Cassini spacecraft to test for the anomaly proved to be impractical. A number of alternative ground-based verifications of the anomaly were also considered; for example, using Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) astrometric observations. However, the trajectory of Pioneer 10, with a small proper motion on the sky, makes it presently impossible to accurately isolate the anomalous Sun-ward acceleration.

Therefore, we strongly argue that the time has come to consider a new deep-space experimental test of this intriguing effect.

## 2  The Mission

When considering any space mission one needs to address a number of important issues, such as (i) the scientific justification for the mission objectives; (ii) the mission configuration and design requirements; and (iii) the overall construction, launch, and ground operations cost. The scientific justification for our mission is clearly outlined above.

The cost would be the most constraining factor. Almost any deep-space mission would now cost on the order of M$300-500 . Therefore, a test of the Pioneer effect might best be considered as a relatively small part of another dedicated mission whose objective is to study the boundaries of the solar system.

First, one needs to be at a distance greater than 20 AU to be able to best distinguish any effect from solar radiation pressure and other near-solar systematics. Therefore, a very energetic rocket would be helpful. We observe that the Russian Proton rocket is an intriguing possibility. Indeed, this might be a useful option for international collaboration and to hold down the cost to NASA . Further, NASA has renewed interest in nuclear rockets . This might enable faster missions to the outer solar system.

Non-gravitational forces acting on spacecraft are common and they can cause problems for precision space navigation. So, once in deep space one needs to have a spacecraft with very small or else well-understood systematics. Therefore, an anomaly test could well impose stringent design constraints. To better understand what is needed, it is useful to keep in mind the design of the Pioneer craft and to understand what made them work so well. (See Figure 2 of Ref. , the present Figure 1.)

Among the most important features of the Pioneers were : (i) simple, spin-stabilized attitude controls; (ii) on-board nuclear power sources, (iii) a well-understood thermal control system; (iv) extensive navigational coverage with high accuracy Doppler tracking; and (v) hyperbolic escape-orbit trajectories. So, in light of our experience studying the Pioneer anomaly, consider the main requirements on a spacecraft design.

### Attitude control:

For navigational purposes Pioneer spacecraft are much simpler than any other spacecraft, including Voyager, Galileo, and Cassini. The two Pioneers are simple spinners and thus they have no continuous jetting of attitude control gas. Moreover, in deep space they require only a single maneuver every few months or so to correct for the effect of proper motion. That is one of the main reasons they are so well tracked.

To be a simple spinner, the craft with its equipment will have to be moment-of-inertia balanced about the main antenna axis. This can be aided by having the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs), which generate the electrical power, on extended booms that are deployed after launch.

However, other mission objectives might necessitate a 3-axis stabilized spacecraft. If so, then in order to achieve comparable navigational accuracy one would need to develop and fly long-lasting accelerometers, very precise fuel gages, and well-calibrated thrusters.

Finally, dual stabilization might be used; 3-axis near encounters and spin stabilized on cruise, as was done for Galileo. In any event, one wants spin-rate control and/or accelerometers that would yield measurements accurate to the level of the Pioneer navigational error, $`𝒪(10^9)`$ cm/s2 \[in other units, $`𝒪(10^{12})`$$`=𝒪(10^3)\mu `$Gal\].

### On-board power system:

RTGs are the only viable choice for deep space power, so international cooperation might again be useful. Due to environmental politics (recall the Cassini Earth-flyby furor) the USA no longer makes 238Pu for RTGs. This could change with NASA’s new nuclear initiative , but for now, Russia is the only source.

### Heat rejection and thermal control:

The RTGs bring up the other main systematic in deep space, thermal emission generated by the spacecraft’s power system. One reason the Pioneer RTGs were placed on booms was fear of gamma radiation damage to the spacecraft electronics and surface. This turned out not to be a problem but the placement was serendipitously lucky. The RTGs, with $`2,500`$ W of heat, were placed where they would have little thermal effect on the craft. (The Pioneer effect could be caused by only 63 W of directed power radiating from the 241 kg craft.) The rotation of the craft and the RTG fin structures were designed to radiate symmetrically fore-aft, with much less heat radiated in the direction towards the craft. The same concept should be used for this mission, with perhaps shielding of the craft to prevent anisotropic heat reflection.

The electrical power in the equipment and instrument compartments must be radiated so as to not cause an undetected systematic. For the Pioneers the central compartment was surrounded by insulation with louvers aft to let out excess heat early in the mission, and to retain heat later on when the electrical power was less. The electrical power degrades faster than the radioactive decay because the thermoelectric devices deteriorate.

For this mission, the louvers should be on the side of the compartment so they will radiate in an axially symmetric manner as the spacecraft rotates. The top and bottom of the compartment should also be insulated to further minimize the heat transfer and reflection. The booms connecting the compartment to the antenna as well as the booms to the RTGs should be thermally isolated, either with insulators in the structure or by using appropriate materials in the construction. As good as possible a priori thermal models should be created and test-stand measurements and calibrations should be made.

### Communications:

Even with all systematics known, no good data is possible without good navigation. This implies the use of both Doppler and range data. The Doppler tracking, which measures the velocity of the craft, should be done at two frequencies, say X-band and Ka-band. The two frequencies are useful to correct for dispersive media effects and will allow precise calibration of plasma systematics. But the Doppler technique only indirectly measures distance to the craft, by integrating the measured Doppler velocity from known initial conditions. Range itself is a time-of-flight measurement. This is done by phase modulating the signal and timing the return signal, which was transponded at the craft. As such, it gives the distance to the spacecraft directly.

### Three-dimensional tracking:

Having both Doppler and range would allow a very precise orbit to be determined, especially if VLBI were used. Indeed. one might be able to obtain good three-dimensional acceleration data. This latter would be very desirable for detailed acceleration anomaly searches. One would expect that an internal systematic would be directed along the craft spin axis, an anomalous new force would be directed towards the Sun, an external drag force would be almost along the velocity vector, and a time acceleration would be directed towards the Earth. Having three-dimensional tracking might allow a differentiation to be made from among these four directions.

### Turning the spacecraft around:

We also propose an experiment which would clearly determine how much, if any, of an anomaly were due to systematics. Suppose one had an additional antenna in the forward direction, appropriate care taken of the mounting of the craft to the launch vehicle. (One would also continuously transmit from both antennas to reduce the radio-power systematic.) Then, aided by Sun and star sensonrs, if one rotated the spacecraft by 180 so that the forward antenna faced the Earth, any systematic would be in the opposite direction whereas an acceleration due to an exterior force would not. A very similar rotation was actually performed on Pioneer 10 soon after launch, the Earth acquisition precession. For a craft like the Pioneers such a maneuver could be done in about two hours and take about 0.5 kg of fuel .

Finally, if the Pioneer anomaly is due either to “normal gravity,” or to “non-gravitational force” but not to systematics, it can be measured by Doppler and range. But accelerometers, used as feed back to control non-gravitational forces, would distinguish between the two types of forces. (Modified inertia , violating the strong equivalence principle, might also be addressed.)

## 3 Summary

Since future space missions will require accurate navigation and/or positioning, it is important that we gain an understanding of the Pioneer anomaly. For instance, the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM) and the Laser Interferometric Space Antenna (LISA) \[and possibly even a mission to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt\] want navigation to a precision less that that which would be caused by the Pioneer anomaly. In particular, if the Pluto/Kuiper mission goes, it would be fortunate if the craft were designed so as to be able to repeat the Pioneer measurement beyond 20 AU.

It is our personal hope that the next generation of deep space missions will utilize a much greater navigational accuracy and precision. Then, independent of whether the Pioneers measured a systematic effect generated by the spacecraft or (unlikely as it is) a manifestation of “new physics,” an experiment to test the result would be important and should be done . If, as is probably the case, the anomaly is due to some systematic, understanding this will greatly aid future mission design and navigational programs. But if, on the other hand, there is something unknown going on, the implications are obvious.

## Acknowledgments

We first express our deep appreciation of the insights obtained from our colleagues in the study of the Pioneer anomaly, Philip A. Laing, Eunice L. Lau, and the late Tony S. Liu. for this work, David Lozier  of NASA/Ames was particularly helpful. The work of J. D.A. and S.G.T was performed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. M.M.N. acknowledges support by the U.S. DOE.