text:
# 𝑞-Thermostatistics and the black-body radiation problem

## I Introduction

Black-body radiation studies constitute a milestone in the history of Physics. Planck’s law is satisfactorily accounted for by recourse to Bose-Einstein statistics and has been experimentally re-confirmed over and over for almost a century. However, in the last decade small deviations from this law have been detected in the cosmic microwave radiation . In , its authors advance the hypothesis that these deviations could have arisen at the time of the matter-radiation de-coupling, and associate them to a non-extensive statistics environment. They argue in favor of such an hypothesis on the basis of the close relation that exists between long-range interactions and non-extensive scenarios . The concomitant non-extensive thermostatistical treatment  is by now recognized as a new paradigm for statistical mechanical considerations. It revolves around the concept of Tsallis’ information measure $`S_q`$ , a generalization of the logarithmic Shannon’s one. $`S_q`$ is parameterized by a real index $`q`$ and becomes identical to Shannon’s measure when $`q=1`$.

The study reported in  employs the so-called Curado-Tsallis un-normalized expectation values  in the limit $`q1`$. Nowadays, it is believed that the Curado-Tsallis (CT) framework has been superseded by the so-called normalized or Tsallis-Mendes-Plastino (TMP) one , which seems to exhibit important advantages . This normalized treatment, in turn, has been considerably improved by the so-called “Optimal Lagrange Multipliers” (OLM) approach . It is, then, natural to revisit the problem from such a new viewpoint.

The OLM treatment can be recommended in view of the findings of  regarding the particular nature of the Lagrange multiplier associated to the temperature. Within an OLM context, non-extensivity is restricted just to the entropy. The internal energy remains extensive and the Lagrange multipliers conserve their traditional intensive character (allowing one to identify them with their thermodynamic counterpart). Moreover, the OLM approach unifies Tsallis and Rényi variational formalisms under a $`q`$-thermostatistics umbrella. The solutions to the concomitant OLM-Tsallis variational problem are also solutions for its Rényi-counterpart . Since Rényi’s entropy is extensive, one easily understands thereby the OLM formalism’s success in reproducing classical thermodynamic results in a simple and clean fashion .

We shall study here, from an OLM viewpoint, black-body radiation in equilibrium within an enclosure of volume $`V`$, with the goal of ascertaining the possible $`q`$-dependence of i) the Planck spectrum, ii) Stefan-Boltzmann’s law, and iii) Wien’s one. We will compare the ensuing results with those found in the literature  (all of them under Curado-Tsallis treatment) and with experimental data . Due to the fact that most previous non-extensive treatments of quantal gases employ the so-called Factorization Approach (FA), and that this approximation underlies some of the preceding treatments of the black-body radiation problem, we will translate the FA into the language of a normalized-OLM Factorization Approach (OLM-FA). This in turn provides one with a $`q`$-normalized generalization of the particle’s density expression for quantum gases.

The paper is organized as follows: In Sect. II we present a brief OLM primer. In Sect. III we obtain the OLM partition function. Sect. IV is devoted to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. We obtain the exact expression for the internal energy (IV A) and find that the Stefan-Bolzmann law holds for all temperatures except a small interval ($`T[10^2K,1K]`$). We also revisit pertinent antecedents in the literature of the non-extensive approach to the black-body problem (IV B). In Sect. V we perform an exact calculation of the energy density. Planck’s law (V A) seems to be valid everywhere, with just slight variations in the shape of the associated curves. Following , the formalism is applied to the cosmic microwave radiation (V C) in order to search for deviations from Planck’s law. Using the maximua of the energy density curves, we search for the $`q`$-generalization of Wien’s law (V B) and find good agreement, save for a small temperature interval ($`T[10^4K,10^2K]`$). Some conclusions are drawn in Sect. VI. In Appendix A we review the FA, introduce our new OLM-FA technique and apply it to the black-body radiation problem.

## II Main results of the OLM formalism

For a most general quantal treatment, in a basis-independent way, consideration is required of the density operator $`\widehat{\rho }`$ that maximizes Tsallis’ entropy

$$\frac{S_q}{k}=\frac{1Tr(\widehat{\rho }^q)}{q1},$$
(1)
subject to the $`M`$ generalized expectation values $`\widehat{O}_j_q`$, where $`\widehat{O}_j`$ $`(j=1,\mathrm{},M)`$ denote the relevant observables.

Tsallis’ normalized probability distribution  is obtained by following the well known MaxEnt route . Instead of performing the variational treatment of Tsallis-Mendes-Plastino (TMP) , we will pursue the alternative path developed in . One maximizes Tsallis’ generalized entropy given by Eq. (1)  subject to the constraints

$`Tr(\widehat{\rho })`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (2)
$`Tr\left[\widehat{\rho }^q\left(\widehat{O}_j\widehat{O}_j_q\right)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3)
whose generalized expectation values

$$\widehat{O}_j_q=\frac{Tr(\widehat{\rho }^q\widehat{O}_j)}{Tr(\widehat{\rho }^q)},$$
(4)
are (assumedly) a priori known. In contrast with the TMP-instance , the resulting density operator

$$\widehat{\rho }=\frac{\widehat{f}_q^{1/(1q)}}{\overline{Z}_q},$$
(5)
is not self referential . In Eq. (5), $`\{\lambda _j\}`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},M`$) stands for the so-called “optimal Lagrange multipliers’ set”. The quantity $`\widehat{f}_q`$ is known as the configurational characteristic and takes the form

$$\widehat{f}_q=1(1q)\underset{j}{\overset{M}{}}\lambda _j\left(\widehat{O}_j\widehat{O}_j_q\right),$$
(6)
if its argument is positive, while otherwise $`\widehat{f}_q=0`$ (cut-off condition ). Of course, $`\overline{Z}_q`$ is the partition function

$$\overline{Z}_q=Tr\widehat{f}_q^{1/(1q)}.$$
(7)
It is shown in Ref.  that, as a consequence of the normalization condition, one has

$$_qTr\widehat{f}_q^{q/(1q)}=\overline{Z}_q,$$
(8)
which allows one to write Tsallis’s entropy as

$$S_q=k\mathrm{ln}_q\overline{Z}_q,$$
(9)
with $`\mathrm{ln}_qx=(1x^{1q})/(q1)`$. These results coincide with those of TMP . Using Eq. (8), the connection between the OLM’s set and the TMP’s Lagrange multipliers set can be written as

$$\lambda _j^{TMP}=\overline{Z}_q^{1q}\lambda _j.$$
(10)
The TMP’s Lagrange multipliers are not intensive quantities . They do not, as a consequence, have a simple physical interpretation. To the contrary, the OLM multipliers are intensive , a fact that can be easily explained noticing that they are the natural Lagrange multipliers of a Rényi’s variational approach .

If we define now

$$\mathrm{ln}Z_q=\mathrm{ln}\overline{Z}_q\underset{j}{}\lambda _j\widehat{O}_j_q,$$
(11)
we are straightforwardly led to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\widehat{O}_j_q}}\left(\mathrm{ln}\overline{Z}_q\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _j,`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda _j}}\left(\mathrm{ln}Z_q\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{O}_j_q.`$ (13)
Equations (12) and (13) are fundamental information theory (IT) relations for formulating Jaynes’ version of statistical mechanics . Due to Eqs. (9) and (10), the IT relation (12) leads straightforwardly to the well known expression

$$\frac{}{\widehat{O}_j_q}\left(\frac{S_q}{k}\right)=\lambda _j^{TMP}.$$
(14)
## III Partition function and Radiation pressure

We will introduce now the exact (OLM) black-body radiation treatment. The chemical potential is taken, of course, equal to zero (Grand Canonical ensemble with $`\mu =0`$) and, in looking for the equilibrium properties we consider that the appropriate thermodynamical variables are, as customary, the volume $`V`$, and the temperature $`T`$ . Consider first the standard situation $`q=1`$.

The Hamiltonian of the electromagnetic field, in which there are $`n_{𝐤,ϵ}`$ photons of momentum $`𝐤`$ and polarization $`ϵ`$, is given by

$$\widehat{}=\underset{_{k,ϵ}}{}\mathrm{}\omega \widehat{n}_{k,ϵ},$$
(15)
where the frequency is $`\omega =c\left|𝐤\right|`$ and $`n_{k,ϵ}=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, with no restrictions on $`\left\{n_{𝐤,ϵ}\right\}.`$

For a macroscopic volume $`V`$ the density of states $`g`$ in an $`n`$-dimensional space is $`g_n(\omega )=A_n\omega ^{n1}`$, with

$$A_n=\frac{2\tau _nV}{(4\pi c^2)^{n/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n/2)},$$
(16)
where $`\tau _n=n1`$ is the number of linearly-independent polarizations.

The partition function

$$Z_1=Tr\left(e^{\beta \widehat{}}\right)$$
(17)
can be written as

$$Z_1=\mathrm{exp}\left\{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega g_n(\omega )\mathrm{ln}\left[1\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta \mathrm{}\omega \right)\right]\right\}=e^{\xi _n},$$
(18)
where

$$\xi _n=\frac{I_nA_n}{(\mathrm{}\beta )^n},$$
(19)
and

$$I_n=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xx^{n1}\mathrm{ln}\left(1e^x\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)\zeta (n+1),$$
(20)
with $`\zeta `$ standing for the Riemann function and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the Gamma function.

The OLM-Tsallis generalized configurational characteristic will be (Cf. Eq. (6))

$$\widehat{f}_q=1(1q)\beta (\widehat{H}U_q),$$
(21)
where $`\widehat{H}`$ is the Hamiltonian given by Eq. (15), $`U_q`$ is the mean energy introduced in Eq. (4), and $`\beta =1/kT`$.

With the aim of calculating $`\overline{Z}_q`$ as defined by Eq. (7), we follow the steps of Ref.  and use the integral (Gamma) definition given by the relation

$$b^{z1}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)}{2\pi }\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t\frac{e^{(1+it)b}}{(1+it)^z}& \hfill \text{for }b>0\\ 0& \hfill \text{ for }b0,\end{array}$$
(22)
with $`Re(z)>0`$, and $`\pi /2<\mathrm{arg}(a+it)<\pi /2.`$

If we set $`b=f_q`$ (the cut-off condition is naturally fulfilled ) and $`z=1/(1q)+1`$ ($`Re(z)>0`$, so that either $`q>2`$ or $`q<1`$), the generalized partition function adopts the appearance

$$\overline{Z}_q(U_q)=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑tK_q(t)Z_1(\stackrel{~}{\beta }),$$
(23)
with $`Z_1`$ given by Eq. (18),

$$K_q(t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[(2q)/(1q)\right]\mathrm{exp}(1+it)e^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }U_q}}{2\pi (1+it)^{(2q)/(1q)}},$$
(24)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }=(1+it)(1q)\beta .$$
(25)
In order to evaluate the integral in Eq. (23), we expand the exponential and obtain

$$\overline{Z}_q(U_q)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }[(2q)/(1q)]}{2\pi }\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\xi _n^m}{m!}(1q)^{nm}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t\frac{e^{(1+(1q)\beta U_q)(1+it)}}{(1+it)^{\frac{2q}{1q}+nm}},$$
(26)
where $`\xi _n`$ is given by Eq. (19).

Using again Eq. (22), with $`b=1+(1q)\beta U_q`$ and $`z=(2q)/(1q)+nm`$, we arrive at

$$\overline{Z}_q(U_q)=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[(2q)/(1q)\right]\left[1+(1q)\beta U_q\right]^{1/(1q)}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_m\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\left[(2q)/(1q)+nm\right],$$
(27)
where

$$B_m=\frac{\xi _n^m}{m!}\frac{\left[1+(1q)\beta U_q\right]^{nm}}{(1q)^{mn}}.$$
(28)
Notice that an additional, cut-off-like condition must be considered, namely,

$$1+(1q)\beta U_q>0,otherwise,\overline{Z}_q(U_q)=0.$$

A similar path can be followed in order to obtain the quantity $`_q`$ (introduced in Eq. (8)), which will read

$$_q(U_q)=\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[1/(1q)\right]\left[1+(1q)\beta U_q\right]^{q/(1q)}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_m\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\left[1/(1q)+nm\right],$$
(29)
although in this case the allowed interval of $`q`$-values is reduced to $`0<q<1`$. Note that this permissible interval of $`q`$-values respects the new cut-off condition introduced above.

Once we have $`\overline{Z}_q`$, the radiation pressure is easily obtained by applying Eq. (12) to $`(\beta P,V)`$ , i.e.,

$$\beta P=\frac{}{V}\mathrm{ln}\overline{Z}_q=\frac{1}{V}\frac{_mmB_m\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\left((2q)/(1q)+nm\right)}{_mB_m\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\left((2q)/(1q)+nm\right)}.$$
(30)
Due to the fact that we have set $`\mu =0`$, the quantity $`\overline{Z}_q`$ of Eq. (27) does not depend on the mean number of particles $`N_q`$. One has

$$\mu =\beta ^1\frac{}{N_q}\mathrm{ln}\overline{Z}_q=0.$$
(31)
## IV Stefan-Bolzmann’s law

### A Exact OLM treatment

As in the previous section, the generalized internal energy of the black-body radiation is obtained from Eq. (4) by specializing the problem to the Grand Canonical ensemble with $`\mu =0`$

$$U_q=_q^1Tr\left(\widehat{f}_q^{q/(1q)}\widehat{H}\right),$$
(32)
with $`\widehat{f}_q`$ given by Eq. (21).

Consider now the trace’s content. Using (22) we can find

$$U_q=_q^1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }[1/(1q)]}{2\pi }\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t\frac{e^{(1+it)[1+(1q)\beta U_q]}}{(1+it)^{\frac{1}{1q}}}Tr\left(Z_1(\stackrel{~}{\beta })\widehat{H}\right),$$
(33)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ is given by Eq. (25). The permissible $`q`$-interval is $`0<q<1`$, due to restrictions posed by the Gamma integral representation. Taking advantage of the fact that

$$Tr\left[Z_1(\stackrel{~}{\beta })\widehat{H}\right]=\frac{Z_1(\stackrel{~}{\beta })}{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}=\frac{n}{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}\underset{m}{}\frac{\xi _n^{m+1}(\stackrel{~}{\beta })}{m!},$$
(34)
we obtain

$$U_q=_q^1\frac{n}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{1q}\right)\frac{\xi _n}{(1q)^{n+1}\beta }\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\xi _n^m}{m!}\frac{1}{(1q)^{nm}}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t\frac{e^{(1+it)[1+(1q)\beta U_q]}}{(1+it)^{\frac{1}{1q}+n(1+m)+1}},$$
(35)
and, using again Eq. (22), we obtain the mean energy expression

$$U_q=\frac{n\xi _n}{(1q)^{n+1}\beta }\left[1+(1q)\beta U_q\right]^{n+1}\frac{\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_m\mathrm{\Gamma }^1[1/(1q)+n(m+1)+1]}{\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_m\mathrm{\Gamma }^1[1/(1q)+nm]}.$$
(36)
Notice that the Tsallis’cut-off condition $`1+(1q)\beta U_q>0`$ is always satisfied. The series in Eq. (36) rapidly converges on account of the exponential-like factors $`B_m`$ (Cf. Eq. (28)), weighted by inverse Gamma functions.

Lenzi et al. solved the $`q`$-black-body radiation problem in exact fashion in its Curado-Tsallis un-normalized version . Since their resulting internal energy is not self referential (as it is in the TMP normalized instance) they were able to describe the asymptotic behavior for $`\beta `$ in quite simple terms. Here we need to perform a more detailed analysis by considering different possibilities for the form that the product $`\beta U_q`$ may take as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$. For instance, if we assume that i) $`\beta U_q`$ goes over to a constant or ii) it is not bounded, the limiting process leads to incoherencies, while if we assume that, in Eq. (36), $`\beta U_q0`$ when $`\beta \mathrm{}`$, $`U_qT^4`$, as one has the right to expect.

As a consequence of the normalization condition given by Eq. (3), we know that $`_q=\overline{Z}_q`$ (see Eq. (8)). This relation allows us to look for alternative expressions for the relevant mean value. If we evaluate $`U_q`$ in terms of $`\overline{Z}_q`$ we find

$$U_q=\frac{n}{\beta }\frac{\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}mB_m\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\left((2q)/(1q)+nm\right)}{\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_m\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\left((2q)/(1q)+nm\right)}.$$
(37)
By inspection of Eq. (30) one realizes that the traditional relation between internal energy and pressure still holds here

$$P=\frac{1}{n}\frac{U_q}{V}.$$
(38)
Eqs. (36) or (37) are recursive expressions that give the OLM version of Stefan-Boltzmann’s law, which, for the $`q=1`$ case, reads

$$U=n\xi _n/\beta T^{n+1}.$$
(39)
The present equations are to be tackled numerically. Fig. 1 depicts $`U_q`$ as a function of $`T`$ for different values of $`q`$ and $`n=3`$ in a log-log scale, where $`U_q`$ has been evaluated from Eq. (36). It is seen that Stefan-Boltzmann’s law is reproduced by our formalism for a wide range of $`T`$-values. Violations are detected just for some special $`T`$-ranges (that depend on $`q`$), within the interval $`10^2K<T<1K`$.

With the present formalism the Stefan-Bolzmann constant becomes a function of i) $`q`$ (namely, “$`\sigma _q`$”) and ii) the relevant range of temperatures. Indeed, for temperatures below $`10^2K`$ results will be markedly different from those obtained if we consider $`T>1K`$ (see Fig. 2). It may be appreciated that, for these two Temperature ranges, the values of $`\sigma _q`$ increase monotonically with $`q`$.

Looking for insights into the meaning of the “violation range” $`10^2K<T<1K`$ we considered the specific heat

$$C_q=\frac{dU_q}{dT}.$$
(40)
The concomitant results are plotted in Fig. 3. One sees that the violation range coincides with that of a constant specific heat, i.e., $`U_qT`$. The specific heat curves’ behavior is quite different from that associated with Gibbs’ predictions, even for $`q`$ values close to unity. By recourse to detailed numerical analysis one notes that the peak one observes is not a discontinuity but part of a smooth curve that reflects the typical behavior of a first excited energy level when that level lies too close to the ground state. The typical step-like form tends to disappear in the $`q1`$ limit, just as if $`1q`$ were a new “degree of freedom” of the system.

For more details on the transition between Gibbs’ and Tsallis’s statistics let us analyze the $`q1`$ limit in Eq. (36). Using the fact that the pertinent series are highly convergent, we can try to recover analytically the above numerical results by keeping only the first order term of the pertinent series,

$$U_q\frac{n\chi _q\xi _n}{\beta }\left[1+(1q)\beta U_q\right]^{n+1},$$
(41)
where $`\chi _q=\mathrm{\Gamma }[1/(1q)](1q)^{(n+1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1[1/(1q)+n+1]`$. For $`q1`$, $`\chi _q1`$ and we see that Stefan-Boltzmann’s law is recovered.

Now, to first order in $`1q`$,

$$\left[1+(1q)\beta U_q\right]^{n+1}1+(n+1)(1q)\beta U_q,$$

so that, rearranging terms, Eq. (41) can be cast as

$$U_q\frac{n\chi _q\xi _n\beta ^1}{1(1q)(n+1)n\chi _q\xi _n}.$$
(42)
The change of behavior we are interested in is better observed with reference to Eq. (37), by keeping only first order terms in the series expansion. We find

$$U_q\frac{n}{\beta }\frac{B_1\mathrm{\Gamma }^1[(2q)/(1q)+n]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^1[(2q)/(1q)]+B_1\mathrm{\Gamma }^1[(2q)/(1q)+n]},$$
(43)
where

$$B_1=\xi _n\frac{[1+(1q)\beta U_q]^n}{(1q)^n}.$$
(44)
It is clear that, for $`\beta U_q`$ such that the first term in the denominator of Eq. (43) dominates, $`U_qT^{n+1}`$. When the second term is dominant, instead, then $`U_qT`$, in agreement with our numerical results. Eq. (42) displays a similar behavior, although its validity is restricted to the $`q1`$ limit. This prevents the second term in the denominator from being dominant, a fact reflected in Fig. 1, where the linear dependence is seen to fade away.

### B Comparison with previous non-extensive results

The Stefan-Boltzmann’s law was first discussed within the Tsallis’ non-extensive framework in . In this paper the authors employ the so-called Curado-Tsallis un-normalized expectation values  and work in the limit $`q1`$: a first order approximation in $`1q`$ is used for the partition function in order to study the cosmic microwaves’ background (in Sect. V C we will apply the results of the present work to the same data set). In a subsequent effort, Lenzi et al.  advanced an exact treatment for the same problem, also within the Curado-Tsallis framework. A third relevant work is that of Tirnakli et al. , that compared the exact nonextensive treatment of the problem with the FA one, including the un-normalized asymptotic approach (AA) already introduced in .

The different ensuing expressions for the pertinent à la Stefan-Bolzmann laws are given in Table I for $`n=3`$. The traditional Gibbs expression can be found in the first row, while the second and third are, respectively, the Curado-Tsallis’ and OLM (exact) results. The TMP solution can be read off the fourth row, where we have simply used Eq. (10) for $`\beta `$. The last three rows are devoted to the $`q1`$ limit. The first one contains the factorization approach result, the second is the our new, OLM factorization approach expression, and, finally, the last one gives the exact OLM treatment in this limit.

Inspection of these expressions allows one to appreciate that the OLM-FA seems to inherit characteristics of both the FA and the OLM treatments for $`q1`$. The OLM-FA numerator coincides with that of the FA approach, while the denominator resembles the OLM one (except for the sign). Indeed, the concomitant integrals are identical here to those of the un-normalized treatment.

## V Planck and Wien laws

### A Planck’s law: exact OLM treatment

The generalized spectral energy distribution of black-body radiation $`u_q`$ is defined by the integral

$$U_q=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\omega u_q.$$
(45)
In order to obtain $`u_q`$ we need to analyze, again, the trace’s argument in the expression for $`U_q`$. We will follow the path already pursued above, but without integrating the $`q=1`$-like term over frequencies. We obtain

$$Tr\left(Z_1(\stackrel{~}{\beta })\widehat{H}\right)=\mathrm{}A_ne^{\xi _n}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\omega \omega ^n\frac{e^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{}\omega }}{1e^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{}\omega }},$$
(46)
that, by recourse to the identity

$$\frac{1}{1e^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{}\omega }}=\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(e^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mathrm{}\omega }\right)^s,$$
(47)
allows us to cast $`U_q`$ in the fashion

$$U_q=_q^1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }[1/(1q)]}{2\pi }\mathrm{}A_n\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\omega \omega ^n\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\xi _n^m}{m!}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t\frac{e^{(1+it)[1(1q)\beta [\mathrm{}\omega (1+s)U_q]]}}{(1+it)^{\frac{1}{1q}+nm}}.$$
(48)
With Eq. (22) the integral above is easily evaluated, and we obtain

$$U_q=_q^1\mathrm{\Gamma }[1/(1q)]\mathrm{}A_n\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\omega \omega ^n\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\xi _n^m}{m!}\frac{\left[1(1q)\beta [\mathrm{}\omega (1+s)U_q]\right]^{\frac{q}{1q}+nm}}{(1q)^{mn}\mathrm{\Gamma }[1/(1q)+nm]}.$$
(49)
According to Eq. (29), the energy density defined by Eq. (45) is

$$u_q(\omega )=\mathrm{}A_n\omega ^n\frac{\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_mS_m\mathrm{\Gamma }^1[1/(1q)+nm]}{\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_m\mathrm{\Gamma }^1[1/(1q)+nm]},$$
(50)
where $`B_m`$ is given by Eq. (28) while $`S_m`$ reads

$$S_m=\underset{s=1}{\overset{s_q}{}}\left[1(1q)\beta _q\mathrm{}\omega s\right]^{\frac{q}{1q}+nm},$$
(51)
where

$$s_q=\left[\frac{1}{(1q)\beta _q\mathrm{}\omega }\right],$$
(52)
and

$$\beta _q=\frac{\beta }{1+(1q)\beta U_q}.$$
(53)
Notice that a new cut-off condition has been introduced, namely, $`1(1q)\beta _q\mathrm{}\omega s>0`$, that transforms the original series into a finite sum.

Since one knows $`U_q`$ from Eq. (36), an expression for $`u_q`$ is easily obtained. Notice that it is not self referential. The shape of the resulting curves is similar to those arising from the traditional treatment, even for $`T`$ values where one detects $`q`$-violations to Plank’s law. Fig. 4 depicts $`u_qvs\omega `$ for different $`q`$ values. The maximum’s values do not coincide with the ones of the canonical Gibb’s approach when $`q`$ differs from unity. In Fig. 4 (a) it becomes apparent that results for $`q=1`$ and for $`q=0.98`$ greatly differ. The difference seems to become less important between results for $`q=0.9`$ and those for $`q=0`$, as can be seen in (b). Another point to be stressed is that the maximum’s position will also depend on $`q`$, not just on $`T`$, as in the traditional Wien’s law.

We have seen from Fig. 4 that Eq. (50) yields results that quite resemble the ones given by Planck’s law. It is then reasonable to look for a perturbative expansion in $`1q`$. The series over the $`m`$ factor in Eq. (50) rapidly converges. Only the first terms are important. In the limit $`q1`$, the exponent $`q/(1q)+nmq/(1q)`$ in Eq. (51), and the finite sum becomes a series expansion. We have

$$u_q\mathrm{}A_n\omega ^nS,$$
(54)
where

$$S=\underset{s=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[1(1q)\beta _q\mathrm{}\omega s\right]^{\frac{q}{1q}}|_{q1}\underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[q\beta _q\mathrm{}\omega (1+s)\right],$$
(55)
a power series in $`s`$ of guaranteed convergence, i.e.,

$$S\frac{1}{e^{q\beta _q\mathrm{}\omega }1},$$
(56)
so that replacement into Eq. (54) yields

$$u_q\frac{\mathrm{}A_n\omega ^n}{e^{q\beta _q\mathrm{}\omega }1},$$
(57)
a first order correction to the Planck law. The classical result is attained for $`q1`$. Eq. (57) provides one, then, with an approximate energy density.

Following the standard text-book treatment , we can define the particle-density as

$$n_q=(\mathrm{}A_n\omega ^n)^1u_q,$$
(58)
which, from Eq. (57) can be written, to first order in $`1q`$ as

$$n_q=\frac{1}{e^{q\beta _qϵ}1},$$
(59)
with $`ϵ=\mathrm{}\omega `$.

We have encountered an alternative expression for the boson particle-density of the black-body radiation, to be compared to the ones that result from either the FA or OLM-FA (see Apendix A). The correct value for the $`q1`$ limit is obtained.

Consider now the specific heat curves of Sect. IV A. From Eq. (53) we see that, to first order in $`1q`$ we have

$$\beta _q\beta [1(1q)\beta U_q],$$
(60)
that, replaced into Eq. (59) and using the fact that $`q=1(1q)`$ leads to (keeping only terms of order $`1q`$)

$$n_q\frac{1}{e^{\beta (ϵ\mu _q^{})}1},$$
(61)
where

$$\mu _q^{}=(1q)ϵ(1+\beta U_q)$$
(62)
plays the role of a fictitious $`q`$-chemical potential, such that $`\mu _q^{}0`$ for $`q1`$. Of course, the “true” physical chemical potential vanishes identically (see Sect. III). A sort of fictitious $`q`$-Bose-Einstein condensation effect might seem to be implied by the presence of this pseudo-chemical potential, a point that deserves further careful exploration, to be addressed in a future work.

### B Wien law

A nice result of the traditional thermostatistics is the linear relation that exists between the frequency $`\omega ^{}`$ that maximizes the energy density spectrum, on the one hand, and the temperature on the other one

$$\omega ^{}T.$$
(63)
This relation is known as Wien’s law.

According to the results depicted in Fig. 4 (see Sect. V A), deviations of the these maximum values from what we expect from them according to the above relation will depend on $`q`$. If we perform the pertinent derivatives in Eq. (50) we obtain

$$\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}B_m\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\left[1/(1q)+nm\right]\left(\frac{n}{\omega }S_m+\frac{dS_m}{d\omega }\right)|_\omega ^{}=0,$$
(64)
where $`S_m`$ depends in a non trivial manner on $`\omega `$ due to the cut-off condition (see Eq. (51): the cut-off condition “cuts” the series at an $`s_q`$ that depends on $`\omega `$).

Numerical calculations of Eq. (64) are depicted in Fig. 5. It can be seen that the linear dependence is respected over temperatures above $`10^2K`$ and below $`10^4K`$. There is a “violation range” the $`T`$-zone ($`10^4<T<10^2`$). This implies lower values of $`T`$ than those that violate Stefan Boltzmann’s law. Departures from Wien’s law are observed even for $`q`$values as close to unity as $`q=0.98`$. Using now Eq. (57) as a starting point we also get first order corrections in $`1q`$ to the Wien law. We can locate the maximum with respect to $`\omega `$ of Eq. (57) with the auxiliary definition

$$x=\frac{\omega q\beta \mathrm{}}{1(1q)\beta U_q},$$
(65)
so that we immediately find

$$e^x+\frac{x}{n}=1,$$
(66)
whose solution is a constant, $`b`$, for each fixed value of $`n`$. For $`n=3`$ we find, for instance, $`b=2.82`$. The maximum of $`u_q(\omega )`$ for different $`T`$’s is located at distinct frequencies according to

$$\omega _i=\frac{bk}{q\mathrm{}}T_i\frac{1q}{q}\frac{U_q}{\mathrm{}},$$
(67)
a first order correction to Wien’s law.

### C Microwave Cosmic Background Radiation

The OLM formalism can be applied to the analysis of the cosmic microwave radiation in order to search for putative deviations from Planck’s law. The best source of data on this topic comes from the COBE satellite (Far-infrared Absolute Spectrophotometer (FIRAS)). The ensuing brightness, when compared to a Planck spectrum at the temperature $`T=2.72584\pm 0.0005K`$ shows significant deviations from the expected form (the $`\chi ^2`$ of the fit to a Planck spectrum is rather large).

FIRAS measures the differential spectrum between the cosmic background and an internal reference adjusted to approximately $`2.7K`$ so as to i) avoid problems with imperfect emissivity and ii) limit the dynamic range of the instrument. In addition, an external black-body is used to calibrate (according to Gibbs’ statistics) the gain of the instrument with a temperature in the range of $`2K`$ up to $`25K`$.

This is the kind of data that will be of interest in order to verify the predictions of the OLM formalism. If we assume the cosmic background does not obey the usual Planck’s law, but the OLM one, we can check the concomitant differences and contrast the ensuing values with those obtained by FIRAS. The results are depicted in Fig. 6. We plot the best fits for four different values of $`q`$. The range of temperatures that allow for the best fitting is also given. In all the graphs it is apparent that deviations are well predicted if we assume a statistics with $`q1`$ for the cosmic background. As $`q`$ deviates from unity higher temperatures are predicted, in agreement with the results displayed in Fig. 4. We see there that the spectrum maximum’s value becomes smaller for a given, fixed temperature when $`q`$ deviates from unity.

The experimental data depicted in Fig. 6 seems to imply that the statistics ruling the cosmic microwave radiation is different from that of the conventional black-body instance. This constitutes evidence for the existence of alternative statistics, and tells us that the statistics behind these phenomena seems to possess an additional, $`q`$-degree of freedom.

## VI Conclusions

Within the $`q`$-Thermostatistics framework we perform an exact analysis of the $`n`$-dimensional black-body radiation process. We employ to such effect both Tsallis’ and Rényi’s entropies, within the range $`0<q<1`$. The new theoretical ingredient here is the so-called OLM approach to non-extensive thermostatistics .

We develop a $`q`$ generalization of several laws: Stefan Boltzmann’s , Planck’s, and Wien’s. We find the the conventional behavior still obtains for temperatures above $`1K`$, although there is a $`q`$ dependence in the appropriate proportionally constants. We recover the traditional relationship between radiation pressure and internal energy using the OLM formalism.

We apply the formalism to experimental data on the cosmic microwaves’ background and reproduce it with acceptable accuracy even for $`q`$-values that appreciably differ from unity. The larger $`|1q|`$ is, the higher the predicted equilibrium cosmic temperature.

###### Acknowledgements.

The financial support of the National Research Council (CONICET) of Argentina is gratefully acknowledged. F. Pennini acknowledges financial support from UNLP, Argentina. S. Martínez wants to thank R. Rosignoli for fruitful discussion.

## A The OLM Factorization Approximation

### 1 Un-normalized Factorization Approximation (FA)

In order to facilitate the reader’s task we review now the factorization approach (FA) treatment, due to Büyükkilic et al., who tackled in Ref.  the quantum ideal gas problem in a grand canonical scenario using the CT-Tsallis formalism. Tsallis’ entropy is thereby maximized subject to the un-normalized constraints

$`Tr\rho ^q\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`U_q`$ (A1)
$`Tr\rho ^q\widehat{N}`$ $`=`$ $`N_q.`$ (A2)
The pertinent partition function is

$$Z_q^{CT}=\underset{i}{}[1(1q)\underset{j}{}n_{ij}x_j^{}]^{1/(1q)},$$
(A3)
where $`n_{ij}`$ are the occupation numbers of the level $`j`$ (with single particle energy $`ϵ_j`$) for a given $`i`$-microscopic configuration and

$$x_j^{}=\beta ^{CT}(ϵ_j\mu ^{CT}),$$
(A4)
with $`\beta ^{CT}`$ the inverse temperature and $`\mu ^{CT}`$ the chemical potential.

According to , “there is no restriction on the summation and thus one an factorise a product of factors, one for each one-particle state, since particle are regarded statistically independent” . Therefore (the essential point of the FA approach), the partition function $`Z_q^{CT}`$ given by Eq. (23) can be factorized. Each factor corresponds to a single particle state

$$Z_q^{CT}\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{i=0}{\overset{w}{}}\left[1(1q)n_{ij}x_j^{}\right]^{1/(1q)}.$$
(A5)
The average occupation number $`n_j_{FA}`$ of the state $`j`$ becomes then

$$n_j_{FA}\frac{1}{[1(1q)x_j^{}]^{1/(1q)}1},$$
(A6)
which is a non-extensive, FA-Tsallis generalization of the Bose-Einstein (Fermi-Dirac) distribution.

### 2 The normalized OLM treatment

An alternative treatment to the factorization approach using the TMP formalism yields self-referential probabilities. The OLM procedure, instead, is not afflicted by such a problem. One again maximizes Tsallis’ generalized entropy given by Eq. (1) subject to the diagonal normalized constraints for the Grand Canonical Ensemble, which results in a partition function of the form

$$\overline{Z}_q=e_q^{x_q}\underset{i}{}\left[1(1q)\underset{j}{}n_{ij}x_j\right]^{1/(1q)},$$
(A7)
where $`e_q^x=[1+(1q)x]^{1/(1q)}`$ and, instead of $`x_j^{}`$ (Eq. (A4)), we have

$$x_j=\frac{\beta (ϵ_j\mu )}{1+(1q)x_q},$$
(A8)
with

$$x_q=\beta (U_q\mu N_q).$$
(A9)
Note that $`x_jx_j^{}`$ for $`q1`$. The conventional limit is the same for both treatments, if one remembers that the un-normalized methodology uses a partition function $`Z_q^{CT}`$, while the normalized treatment deals with a bar partition function $`\overline{Z}_q`$ (see Eq. (11)). The concomitant $`q=1`$-limits are related according to $`Z_1=e^{\beta (U\mu N)}\overline{Z}_1`$.

Proceeding once again as in Ref. , i.e., neglecting correlations between particles and regarding states of different particles as statistically independent, the partition function $`\overline{Z}_q`$ can be factorized. Each factor corresponds to a single particle state,

$$\overline{Z}_qe_q^{x_q}\underset{j}{}\underset{i}{}\left[1(1q)n_{ij}x_j\right]^{1/(1q)}.$$
(A10)
The present expression for $`\overline{Z}_q`$ is formally identical to that encountered in Ref.  (see Eq. (A5)), save for a multiplicative factor, which does not contribute to the ensuing microscopic probabilities. Thus, according to Ref. , the average value $`n_j_{NFA}`$ is now

$$n_j_{NFA}\frac{1}{[1(1q)x_j]^{1/(1q)}1}$$
(A11)
with $`x_j`$ given by Eq. (A9).

We introduce here the normalized factorization approach (NFA) black-body’s treatment. The mean occupation number is given by Eq. (A11) with $`\mu =0`$ (the chemical potential vanishes because we are working with photons). In the continuum limit $`ϵ(\omega )=\mathrm{}\omega `$ ($`\omega `$ is the frequency), and the particle-density will be given by

$$n(\omega )_{NFA}\frac{1}{[1(1q)x^{}(\omega )]^{1/(1q)}1},$$
(A12)
with

$$x^{}(\omega )=\frac{\beta \mathrm{}\omega }{1+(1q)\beta U_q}.$$
(A13)
In the three dimensional case the mean occupation number is connected with the energy-density according to

$$u_q(\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{}V}{\pi ^2c^3}\omega ^3n(\omega )_q.$$
(A14)
Keeping only first order terms in $`1q`$ in Eq. (A14), integrating over frequencies, and re-arranging terms, the internal energy reads

$$U_q^{NFA}=\sigma T^4\frac{1(1q)\theta }{1+\frac{4}{k}(1q)\sigma T^3},$$
(A15)
where $`\sigma =(\pi ^2k^4V)/(15\mathrm{}^3c^3)`$ (with $`c`$, the light’s speed) is in closed connection with the Stefan-Boltzmann constant $`(c\sigma )/(4V)`$ .


format: text

text:
# References

hep-ph/0201151

BIHEP–TH–2002–5

Texture Zeros and Majorana Phases of the Neutrino Mass Matrix

Zhi-zhong Xing ***Electronic address: xingzz@mail.ihep.ac.cn

Institute of High Energy Physics, P.O. Box 918, Beijing 100039, China

## Abstract

We present the generic formulas to calculate the ratios of neutrino masses and the Majorana phases of CP violation from the neutrino mass matrix with two independent vanishing entries in the flavor basis where the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal. An order-of-magnitude illustration is given for seven experimentally acceptable textures of the neutrino mass matrix, and some analytical approximations are made for their phenomenological consequences at low energy scales.

1 The atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillations observed in the Super-Kamiokande experiment  have provided robust evidence that neutrinos are massive and lepton flavors are mixed. A full description of the mass spectrum and flavor mixing in the framework of three lepton families requires twelve real parameters: three charged lepton masses ($`m_e,m_\mu ,m_\tau `$), three neutrino masses ($`m_1,m_2,m_3`$), three flavor mixing angles ($`\theta _x,\theta _y,\theta _z`$), one Dirac-type CP-violating phase ($`\delta `$) and two Majorana-type CP-violating phases ($`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$). So far only the masses of charged leptons have been accurately measured . Although we have achieved some preliminary knowledge on two neutrino mass-squared differences and three flavor mixing angles from current neutrino oscillation experiments, much more effort is needed to determine these parameters precisely. The more challenging task is to pin down the absolute neutrino mass scale and the CP-violating phases. Towards reaching these goals, a number of new neutrino experiments have been proposed .

After sufficient information on neutrino masses and lepton flavor mixing parameters is experimentally accumulated, a determination of the textures of lepton mass matrices should become possible. On the other hand, the textures of charged lepton and neutrino mass matrices may finally be derived from a fundamental theory of lepton mass generation, which is unfortunately unknown for the time being. It is therefore important in phenomenology to investigate how the textures of lepton mass matrices can link up with the observables of lepton flavor mixing.

Recently Frampton, Glashow and Marfatia  have examined the possibility that a restricted class of lepton mass matrices may suffice to describe current experimental data. They find seven acceptable textures of the neutrino mass matrix with two independent vanishing entries in the flavor basis where the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal.

In this paper we carry out a further study of two-zero textures of the neutrino mass matrix. Our work is different from Ref.  in several aspects: (a) we write out the generic constraint equations for the neutrino mass matrix with two independent vanishing entries, from which the analytically exact expressions of neutrino mass ratios can be derived; (b) the formulas to calculate the Majorana-type CP-violating phases are presented; (c) the relative magnitudes of neutrino masses, the Majorana phases, the ratio of two neutrino mass-squared differences, and the effective mass term of the neutrinoless double beta decay are estimated by taking typical inputs of the flavor mixing angles and the Dirac-type CP-violating phase; and (d) an order-of-magnitude illustration is given for seven two-zero textures of the neutrino mass matrix.

2 In the flavor basis where the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal, the neutrino mass matrix can be written as

$$M=V\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_1& 0& 0\\ 0& m_2& 0\\ 0& 0& m_3\end{array}\right)V^T,$$
(1)
where $`m_i`$ (for $`i=1,2,3`$) denote the real and positive neutrino masses, and $`V`$ is the lepton flavor mixing matrix linking the neutrino mass eigenstates $`(\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3)`$ to the neutrino flavor eigenstates $`(\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau )`$ in the chosen basis. A full description of $`V`$ needs six real parameters: three mixing angles and three CP-violating phases. Note that $`V`$ can always be expressed as a product of the Dirac-type flavor mixing matrix $`U`$ (consisting of three mixing angles and one CP-violating phase) and a diagonal phase matrix $`P`$ (consisting of two nontrivial Majorana phases): $`V=UP`$. Then we may rewrite $`M`$ in Eq. (1) as

$$M=U\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda _1& 0& 0\\ 0& \lambda _2& 0\\ 0& 0& \lambda _3\end{array}\right)U^T,$$
(2)
where two Majorana-type CP-violating phases are included into the complex neutrino mass eigenvalues $`\lambda _i`$, and the relation $`|\lambda _i|=m_i`$ holds. Without loss of generality, we take

$$\lambda _1=m_1e^{2i\rho },\lambda _2=m_2e^{2i\sigma },\lambda _3=m_3.$$
(3)
In the following we shall show that both the neutrino mass ratios ($`m_1/m_3`$ and $`m_2/m_3`$) and the Majorana phases ($`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$) can be determined, if two independent entries of $`M`$ vanish.

As $`M`$ is symmetric, it totally has six independent complex entries. If two of them vanish, i.e., $`M_{ab}=M_{\alpha \beta }=0`$, we obtain the following constraint relations:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(U_{ai}U_{bi}\lambda _i\right)=0,\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(U_{\alpha i}U_{\beta i}\lambda _i\right)=0,$$
(4)
where each of the four subscripts runs over $`e`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$, but $`(\alpha ,\beta )(a,b)`$. Solving Eq. (4), we find

$$\frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _3}=\frac{U_{a3}U_{b3}U_{\alpha 2}U_{\beta 2}U_{a2}U_{b2}U_{\alpha 3}U_{\beta 3}}{U_{a2}U_{b2}U_{\alpha 1}U_{\beta 1}U_{a1}U_{b1}U_{\alpha 2}U_{\beta 2}},$$
(5)
and

$$\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _3}=\frac{U_{a1}U_{b1}U_{\alpha 3}U_{\beta 3}U_{a3}U_{b3}U_{\alpha 1}U_{\beta 1}}{U_{a2}U_{b2}U_{\alpha 1}U_{\beta 1}U_{a1}U_{b1}U_{\alpha 2}U_{\beta 2}}.$$
(6)
One can observe that the left-hand sides of Eqs. (5) and (6) are associated with the Majorana-type CP-violating phases, while the right-hand sides of Eqs. (5) and (6) are associated with the Dirac-type CP-violating phase hidden in the elements of $`U`$. Therefore two Majorana phases must depend upon the Dirac-type CP-violating phase. This dependence results simply from the texture zeros of $`M`$ that we have taken.

Comparing Eq. (5) or Eq. (6) with Eq. (3), we arrive at the expressions of two neutrino mass ratios as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_3}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{U_{a3}U_{b3}U_{\alpha 2}U_{\beta 2}U_{a2}U_{b2}U_{\alpha 3}U_{\beta 3}}{U_{a2}U_{b2}U_{\alpha 1}U_{\beta 1}U_{a1}U_{b1}U_{\alpha 2}U_{\beta 2}}}\right|,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{m_3}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{U_{a1}U_{b1}U_{\alpha 3}U_{\beta 3}U_{a3}U_{b3}U_{\alpha 1}U_{\beta 1}}{U_{a2}U_{b2}U_{\alpha 1}U_{\beta 1}U_{a1}U_{b1}U_{\alpha 2}U_{\beta 2}}}\right|.`$ (7)
Furthermore, the expressions of two Majorana phases are found to be

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{arg}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{U_{a3}U_{b3}U_{\alpha 2}U_{\beta 2}U_{a2}U_{b2}U_{\alpha 3}U_{\beta 3}}{U_{a2}U_{b2}U_{\alpha 1}U_{\beta 1}U_{a1}U_{b1}U_{\alpha 2}U_{\beta 2}}}\right],`$
$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{arg}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{U_{a1}U_{b1}U_{\alpha 3}U_{\beta 3}U_{a3}U_{b3}U_{\alpha 1}U_{\beta 1}}{U_{a2}U_{b2}U_{\alpha 1}U_{\beta 1}U_{a1}U_{b1}U_{\alpha 2}U_{\beta 2}}}\right].`$ (8)
With the inputs of three flavor mixing angles and the Dirac-type CP-violating phase, we are able to predict the relative magnitudes of three neutrino masses and the values of two Majorana phases. This predictability allows us to examine whether the chosen texture of $`M`$ with two independent vanishing entries is empirically acceptable or not.

Indeed the prediction for $`m_1/m_2`$ and $`m_2/m_3`$ in a given pattern of $`M`$ is required to be compatible with the hierarchy of solar and atmospheric neutrino mass-squared differences:

$$R_\nu \left|\frac{m_2^2m_1^2}{m_3^2m_2^2}\right|\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}.$$
(9)
The magnitude of $`R_\nu `$ depends upon the explicit solution to the solar neutrino problem. For the large-angle Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW) oscillation of solar neutrinos , which is most favored by the present Super-Kamiokande  and SNO  data, we have $`R_\nu 𝒪(10^2)`$. Because of $`|V_{e3}|^2=|U_{e3}|^21`$ , the atmospheric neutrino oscillation is approximately decoupled from the solar neutrino oscillation.

With the help of Eqs. (7) and (8), one can calculate the effective mass term of the neutrinoless double beta decay, whose magnitude amounts to $`|M_{ee}|`$. The explicit expression of $`|M_{ee}|`$ reads as follows:

$$|M_{ee}|=m_3\left|\frac{m_1}{m_3}U_{e1}^2e^{2i\rho }+\frac{m_2}{m_3}U_{e2}^2e^{2i\sigma }+U_{e3}^2\right|.$$
(10)
The Heidelberg-Moscow Collaboration has reported $`|M_{ee}|<0.34`$ eV at the $`90\%`$ confidence level . Useful information on the absolute mass scale of neutrinos could in principle be extracted from a more accurate measurement of $`|M_{ee}|`$ in the future.

3 As already pointed out in Ref. , there are totally fifteen logical possibilities for the texture of $`M`$ with two independent vanishing entries, but only seven of them are in accord with current experimental data and empirical hypotheses. The seven acceptable patterns of $`M`$ are listed in Table 1, where all the non-vanishing entries are symbolized by $`\times `$’s. To work out the explicit expressions of $`\lambda _1/\lambda _3`$ and $`\lambda _2/\lambda _3`$ in each case, we adopt the following parametrization for the Dirac-type flavor mixing matrix $`U`$:

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_xc_z& s_xc_z& s_z\\ c_xs_ys_zs_xc_ye^{i\delta }& s_xs_ys_z+c_xc_ye^{i\delta }& s_yc_z\\ c_xc_ys_z+s_xs_ye^{i\delta }& s_xc_ys_zc_xs_ye^{i\delta }& c_yc_z\end{array}\right),$$
(11)
where $`s_x\mathrm{sin}\theta _x`$, $`c_x\mathrm{cos}\theta _x`$, and so on. The advantage of this phase choice is that the Dirac-type CP-violating phase $`\delta `$ does not appear in the effective mass term of the neutrinoless double beta decay . In other words, the latter depends only upon the Majorana phases $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ in our phase convention. Without loss of generality, three mixing angles ($`\theta _x,\theta _y,\theta _z`$) can all be arranged to lie in the first quadrant. Three CP-violating phases ($`\delta ,\rho ,\sigma `$) may take arbitrary values from $`\pi `$ to $`+\pi `$ (or from 0 to $`2\pi `$).

Now let us calculate $`\lambda _1/\lambda _3`$ and $`\lambda _2/\lambda _3`$ for each pattern of $`M`$ with the help of Eqs. (5), (6) and (11). The instructive results for $`m_1/m_3`$, $`m_2/m_3`$, $`\rho `$, $`\sigma `$, $`R_\nu `$ and $`|M_{ee}|`$ may then be obtained.

Pattern $`\mathrm{A}_1:`$ $`M_{ee}=M_{e\mu }=0`$ (i.e., $`a=b=e`$; $`\alpha =e`$ and $`\beta =\mu `$). We obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _3}}`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{s_z}{c_z^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_xs_y}{c_xc_y}}e^{i\delta }s_z\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_z}{c_z^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_xs_y}{s_xc_y}}e^{i\delta }+s_z\right).`$ (12)
As current experimental data favor $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _x𝒪(1)`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _y1`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _z0.1`$ , one may make an analytical approximation for the exact result obtained above. By use of Eqs. (7)–(10), we arrive explicitly at

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_3}}t_xt_ys_z,{\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{m_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_y}{t_x}}s_z;\rho {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}},\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}};`$
$`R_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{t_y^2}{t_x^2}}\left|1t_x^4\right|s_z^2,|M_{ee}|=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}`$ (13)
to lowest order, where $`t_x\mathrm{tan}\theta _x`$ and so on. Taking the typical inputs $`\theta _x=30^{}`$, $`\theta _y=40^{}`$, $`\theta _z=5^{}`$ and $`\delta =90^{}`$, we obtain $`m_1/m_30.04`$, $`m_2/m_30.13`$, $`\rho 45^{}`$, and $`\sigma 135^{}`$ (or $`45^{}`$). In addition, we get $`R_\nu 0.014`$, consistent with our empirical hypothesis that the solar neutrino deficit is attributed to the large-angle MSW oscillation. The vanishing of $`|M_{ee}|`$ implies that it is in practice impossible to detect the neutrinoless double beta decay.

Pattern $`\mathrm{A}_2`$: $`M_{ee}=M_{e\tau }=0`$ (i.e., $`a=b=e`$; $`\alpha =e`$ and $`\beta =\tau `$). We obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_z}{c_z^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{s_xc_y}{c_xs_y}}e^{i\delta }+s_z\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _3}}`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{s_z}{c_z^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c_xc_y}{s_xs_y}}e^{i\delta }s_z\right).`$ (14)
In the lowest-order approximation, we explicitly obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_x}{t_y}}s_z,{\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{m_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t_xt_y}}s_z;\rho {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}};`$
$`R_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{t_x^2t_y^2}}\left|1t_x^4\right|s_z^2,|M_{ee}|=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.`$ (15)
Using the same inputs as above, we get $`m_1/m_30.06`$, $`m_2/m_30.18`$, $`\rho 135^{}`$ (or $`45^{}`$), $`\sigma 45^{}`$, and $`R_\nu 0.03`$. We see that the phenomenological consequences of patterns $`\mathrm{A}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{A}_2`$ are nearly the same . However, pattern $`\mathrm{A}_2`$ seems to be more interesting for model building , in particular when the spirit of lepton-quark similarity is taken into account.

Pattern $`\mathrm{B}_1`$: $`M_{\mu \mu }=M_{e\tau }=0`$ (i.e., $`a=b=\mu `$; $`\alpha =e`$ and $`\beta =\tau `$). We obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_xc_xs_y\left(2c_y^2s_z^2s_y^2c_z^2\right)c_ys_z\left(s_x^2s_y^2e^{+i\delta }+c_x^2c_y^2e^{i\delta }\right)}{s_xc_xs_yc_y^2+\left(s_x^2c_x^2\right)c_y^3s_ze^{i\delta }+s_xc_xs_ys_z^2\left(1+c_y^2\right)e^{2i\delta }}}e^{2i\delta },`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_xc_xs_y\left(2c_y^2s_z^2s_y^2c_z^2\right)+c_ys_z\left(c_x^2s_y^2e^{+i\delta }+s_x^2c_y^2e^{i\delta }\right)}{s_xc_xs_yc_y^2+\left(s_x^2c_x^2\right)c_y^3s_ze^{i\delta }+s_xc_xs_ys_z^2\left(1+c_y^2\right)e^{2i\delta }}}e^{2i\delta }.`$ (16)
The smallness of $`s_z^2`$ allows us to make a similar analytical approximation as before. To lowest order, we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{m_3}}t_y^2;\rho \sigma \delta \pm {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}};`$
$`R_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1+t_x^2}{t_x}}\left|t_{2y}c_\delta \right|s_z,|M_{ee}|m_3t_y^2,`$ (17)
where $`t_{2y}\mathrm{tan}2\theta _y`$ and $`c_\delta \mathrm{cos}\delta `$. Note that

$$\frac{m_1}{m_3}\frac{m_2}{m_3}\frac{4s_zc_\delta }{s_{2x}s_{2y}},\sigma \rho \frac{2s_zs_\delta }{t_y^2s_{2x}t_{2y}}$$
(18)
in the next-to-leading order approximation, where $`s_\delta \mathrm{sin}\delta `$ and $`s_{2x}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _x`$. Typically taking $`\theta _x=30^{}`$, $`\theta _y=40^{}`$, $`\theta _z=5^{}`$ and $`\delta =89^{}`$, we arrive at $`m_1/m_3m_2/m_30.7`$ with a difference of about $`0.007`$, $`\sigma \rho 179^{}`$ (or $`1^{}`$) with a difference of about $`3^{}`$, $`R_\nu 0.02`$, and $`|M_{ee}|/m_30.7`$. One can see that $`|\delta |90^{}`$ is required in this texture of $`M`$ for plausible inputs of $`\theta _y`$ and $`\theta _z`$, such that $`R_\nu `$ gets suppressed sufficiently. If pattern $`\mathrm{B}_1`$ is realistically correct, large CP-violating effects may be observable in long-baseline neutrino oscillations. It is also worth mentioning that a typical upper bound on three nearly degenerate neutrino masses can be extracted from the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment : $`m_1m_20.7m_3|M_{ee}|<0.34`$ eV. This bound is certainly compatible with the present direct-mass-search experiments , in particular for the electron neutrino.

Pattern $`\mathrm{B}_2`$: $`M_{\tau \tau }=M_{e\mu }=0`$ (i.e., $`a=b=\tau `$; $`\alpha =e`$ and $`\beta =\mu `$). We obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_xc_xc_y\left(2s_y^2s_z^2c_y^2c_z^2\right)+s_ys_z\left(s_x^2c_y^2e^{+i\delta }+c_x^2s_y^2e^{i\delta }\right)}{s_xc_xs_y^2c_y\left(s_x^2c_x^2\right)s_y^3s_ze^{i\delta }+s_xc_xc_ys_z^2\left(1+s_y^2\right)e^{2i\delta }}}e^{2i\delta },`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_xc_xc_y\left(2s_y^2s_z^2c_y^2c_z^2\right)s_ys_z\left(c_x^2c_y^2e^{+i\delta }+s_x^2s_y^2e^{i\delta }\right)}{s_xc_xs_y^2c_y\left(s_x^2c_x^2\right)s_y^3s_ze^{i\delta }+s_xc_xc_ys_z^2\left(1+s_y^2\right)e^{2i\delta }}}e^{2i\delta }.`$ (19)
In the lowest-order approximation, we explicitly obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{m_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t_y^2}};\rho \sigma \delta \pm {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}};`$
$`R_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1+t_x^2}{t_x}}\left|t_{2y}c_\delta \right|s_z,|M_{ee}|{\displaystyle \frac{m_3}{t_y^2}},`$ (20)
together with

$$\frac{m_2}{m_3}\frac{m_1}{m_3}\frac{4s_zc_\delta }{s_{2x}s_{2y}},\sigma \rho \frac{2t_y^2s_zs_\delta }{s_{2x}t_{2y}}.$$
(21)
Using the same inputs as in pattern $`\mathrm{B}_1`$, we get $`m_2/m_3m_1/m_31.4`$ with a difference of about $`0.007`$, $`\sigma \rho 179^{}`$ (or $`1^{}`$) with a difference of about $`1.4^{}`$, $`R_\nu 0.02`$, and $`|M_{ee}|/m_31.4`$. Because of $`t_y𝒪(1)`$, the phenomenological consequences of patterns $`\mathrm{B}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{B}_2`$ are almost the same.

Pattern $`\mathrm{B}_3`$: $`M_{\mu \mu }=M_{e\mu }=0`$ (i.e., $`a=b=\mu `$; $`\alpha =e`$ and $`\beta =\mu `$). We obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_y}{c_y}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_xs_yc_xc_ys_ze^{i\delta }}{s_xc_y+c_xs_ys_ze^{+i\delta }}}e^{2i\delta },`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_y}{c_y}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_xs_y+s_xc_ys_ze^{i\delta }}{c_xc_ys_xs_ys_ze^{+i\delta }}}e^{2i\delta }.`$ (22)
The approximate expressions for the neutrino mass ratios, the Majorana phases and the observables $`R_\nu `$ and $`|M_{ee}|`$ turn out to be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{m_3}}t_y^2;\rho \sigma \delta \pm {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}};`$
$`R_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1+t_x^2}{t_x}}t_y^2\left|t_{2y}c_\delta \right|s_z,|M_{ee}|m_3t_y^2.`$ (23)
In addition,

$$\frac{m_2}{m_3}\frac{m_1}{m_3}\frac{4t_y^2s_zc_\delta }{s_{2x}s_{2y}},\rho \sigma \frac{2s_zs_\delta }{s_{2x}t_{2y}}$$
(24)
in the next-to-leading order approximation. Taking the same inputs as in pattern $`\mathrm{B}_1`$, we find $`m_2/m_3m_1/m_30.7`$ with a difference of about $`0.005`$, $`\rho \sigma 179^{}`$ (or $`1^{}`$) with a difference of about $`2^{}`$, $`R_\nu 0.014`$, and $`|M_{ee}|/m_30.7`$. One can see that the phenomenological consequences of pattern $`\mathrm{B}_3`$ are essentially the same as those of pattern $`\mathrm{B}_1`$. This point has been observed in Ref. .

Pattern $`\mathrm{B}_4`$: $`M_{\tau \tau }=M_{e\tau }=0`$ (i.e., $`a=b=\tau `$; $`\alpha =e`$ and $`\beta =\tau `$). We obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_y}{s_y}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_xc_y+c_xs_ys_ze^{i\delta }}{s_xs_yc_xc_ys_ze^{+i\delta }}}e^{2i\delta },`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_y}{s_y}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_xc_ys_xs_ys_ze^{i\delta }}{c_xs_y+s_xc_ys_ze^{+i\delta }}}e^{2i\delta }.`$ (25)
To lowest order, we get the following approximate results:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{m_3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t_y^2}};\rho \sigma \delta \pm {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}};`$
$`R_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1+t_x^2}{t_xt_y^2}}\left|t_{2y}c_\delta \right|s_z,|M_{ee}|{\displaystyle \frac{m_3}{t_y^2}},`$ (26)
together with

$$\frac{m_1}{m_3}\frac{m_2}{m_3}\frac{4s_zc_\delta }{s_{2x}s_{2y}t_y^2},\rho \sigma \frac{2s_zs_\delta }{s_{2x}t_{2y}}.$$
(27)
Using the same inputs as in pattern $`\mathrm{B}_1`$, we obtain $`m_1/m_3m_2/m_31.4`$ with a difference of about $`0.01`$, $`\rho \sigma 179^{}`$ (or $`1^{}`$) with a difference of about $`2^{}`$, $`R_\nu 0.03`$, and $`|M_{ee}|/m_31.4`$. One can see that the phenomenological consequences of patterns $`\mathrm{B}_1`$, $`\mathrm{B}_2`$, $`\mathrm{B}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{B}_4`$ are nearly the same. Therefore it is very difficult, even impossible, to distinguish one of them from the others in practical experiments. Nevertheless, one of the four textures might be more favored than the others in model building, when underlying flavor symmetries responsible for those texture zeros are taken into account.

Pattern C: $`M_{\mu \mu }=M_{\tau \tau }=0`$ (i.e., $`a=b=\mu `$ and $`\alpha =\beta =\tau `$). We obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_xc_z^2}{s_z}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_x\left(s_y^2c_y^2\right)+2s_xs_yc_ys_ze^{i\delta }}{2s_xc_xs_yc_y\left(s_x^2c_x^2\right)\left(s_y^2c_y^2\right)s_ze^{i\delta }+2s_xc_xs_yc_ys_z^2e^{2i\delta }}}e^{i\delta },`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _3}}`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{s_xc_z^2}{s_z}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_x\left(s_y^2c_y^2\right)2c_xs_yc_ys_ze^{i\delta }}{2s_xc_xs_yc_y\left(s_x^2c_x^2\right)\left(s_y^2c_y^2\right)s_ze^{i\delta }+2s_xc_xs_yc_ys_z^2e^{2i\delta }}}e^{i\delta }.`$ (28)
Assuming $`s_z^21`$ and $`t_xt_y𝒪(1)`$, we may make an analytical approximation for the exact result in Eq. (28). To lowest order, we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_3}}`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{2c_\delta }{t_xt_{2y}s_z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t_x^2t_{2y}^2s_z^2}}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_2}{m_3}}`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{2t_xc_\delta }{t_{2y}s_z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{t_x^2}{t_{2y}^2s_z^2}}},`$
$`R_\nu `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+t_xt_y}{t_xt_y}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{2}{t_{2x}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1t_{2x}t_{2y}s_zc_\delta }{t_x+2t_{2y}s_zc_\delta }}\right|,`$
$`|M_{ee}|`$ $``$ $`m_3\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4c_\delta }{t_{2x}t_{2y}s_z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{t_{2x}t_{2y}s_z^2}}};`$ (29)
as well as

$`\rho `$ $``$ $`\delta +ϵ\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{with}t_ϵ={\displaystyle \frac{s_\delta }{t_xt_{2y}s_zc_\delta }},`$
$`\sigma `$ $``$ $`\delta \epsilon \pm {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{with}t_\epsilon ={\displaystyle \frac{t_xs_\delta }{t_{2y}s_z+t_xc_\delta }}.`$ (30)
One can observe that a small value of $`R_\nu `$ is possible if and only if the condition $`t_{2x}t_{2y}s_zc_\delta 1`$ is satisfied . Some fine tuning of the inputs seems unavoidable in this case. Taking $`\theta _x=\theta _y=44.8^{}`$, $`\theta _z=5^{}`$ and $`\delta =90^{}`$ for example, we find $`R_\nu 0.03`$, $`\rho +5^{}`$ (or $`185^{}`$), $`\sigma 5^{}`$ (or $`175^{}`$), and $`m_1m_2m_3|M_{ee}|`$. If this texture of $`M`$ is realistically correct, large CP violation may manifest itself in neutrino oscillations.

4 As shown above, the seven patterns of $`M`$ can be classified into three distinct categories : A (with $`\mathrm{A}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{A}_2`$), B (with $`\mathrm{B}_1`$, $`\mathrm{B}_2`$, $`\mathrm{B}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{B}_4`$), and C. It is experimentally difficult or impossible to distinguish the textures of $`M`$ within each category. However, category A is experimentally distinguishable from category B or C. To be specific, let us summarize the main phenomenological consequences of each category:

(1) The neutrino mass spectrum: $`m_1m_2m_3`$ in category A; $`m_1m_2m_3`$ in category B; and $`m_1m_2m_3`$ in category C.

(2) The Dirac phase of CP violation: $`\delta `$ is not constrained in category A; $`|\delta |\pi /2`$ in category B (for plausible inputs of $`\theta _y`$ and $`\theta _z`$); and $`\delta `$ is sensitive to the values of three mixing angles in category C.

(3) The Majorana phases of CP violation: $`|\sigma \rho |\pi /2`$ in category A; $`\sigma \rho `$ in category B; and $`\sigma \rho `$ in category C.

(4) The neutrinoless double beta decay: $`|M_{ee}|0`$ in category A; $`|M_{ee}|m_3`$ in category B; and $`|M_{ee}|m_3`$ in category C.

We see that it is not easy to distinguish between category B and category C, unless the values of flavor mixing angles $`(\theta _x,\theta _y,\theta _z)`$ and the ratio of solar and atmospheric neutrino mass-squared differences ($`R_\nu `$) can be accurately determined.

It is worth remarking that the “inverse” neutrino mass hierarchy $`m_1m_2m_3`$ cannot be incorporated with three categories of $`M`$ discussed above. The reason is simply that such a hierarchy conflicts with our empirical hypotheses , i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2=|m_2^2m_1^2|`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=|m_3^2m_2^2|`$. If $`m_1m_2m_3`$ were assumed, one would inevitably be led to $`R_\nu |m_2^2m_1^2|/|m_3^2m_2^2|m_1^2/m_2^21`$, contrary to the prerequisite $`R_\nu \mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sun}}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^21`$ set in Eq. (9). Therefore we conclude that only the normal hierarchy or near degeneracy of neutrino masses is allowed for seven two-zero patterns of the neutrino mass matrix under consideration.

To give an order-of-magnitude illustration of the neutrino mass matrix, we calculate the elements of $`M`$ for each pattern by using the formula

$$M_{ab}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(V_{ai}V_{bi}m_i\right)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(U_{ai}U_{bi}\lambda _i\right)$$
(31)
and the typical inputs taken before. The rough results are listed in Table 1. We see that there is no clear hierarchy among the non-vanishing elements of $`M`$, unlike the familiar case of quark mass matrices .

Of course, the specific textures of lepton mass matrices cannot be preserved to all orders or at any energy scales in the unspecified interactions which generate lepton masses . Nevertheless, those phenomenologically favored textures at low energy scales may shed light on the underlying flavor symmetries responsible for the generation of lepton masses at high energy scales. It is expected that more precise data of neutrino oscillations in the future could help select the most favorable pattern of lepton mass matrices.

The author would like to thank P.H. Frampton for useful discussions during WIN2002 in Christchurch. He is also grateful to D. Marfatia for helpful communications via e-mail. This work was supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China.


text:
# Chapter 1 High-resolution numerical simulations for galaxy formation

## Chapter 1 High-resolution numerical simulations for galaxy formation

### Abstract

Understanding of the structure evolution in the Universe has been greatly advanced with a rapid progress in high-resolution cosmological simulations. In this contribution, we report a new set of cosmological simulations with $`512^3`$ ($`1.4\times 10^8`$) particles in a simulation box of $`100h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. With this unprecedented resolution, we have successfully overcomed the over-merging problem while retaining a cosmological volume size that is crucial for the statistical analysis. The simulations are being applied to studying important astrophysical problems that are sensitive to the simulation resolution.

### 1. Introduction

Galaxy formation is one of the most important and most challenging problems in astrophysics. In the standard theories of galaxy formation, it is generally believed that the Universe is dominated by dark matter (DM), the early density perturbations generated in the inflationary era are amplified by gravitational instability, the DM halos form via the collapse of the high density regions, and galaxies are formed from the cooled gas within those DM halos.

The formation of DM halos, more generally the DM distribution on small scales, however, is a strongly non-linear problem. Direct numerical simulations provide the only reliable tool to approach this problem. Although there have been many exciting developments in analytical, semi-analytical or empirical modeling of the DM distribution, these results are generally calibrated with N-body simulations and their validity still depends heavily on the resolution of the simulations used.

In this contribution, we report a new set of cosmological N-body simulations that were obtained recently under a collaboration of Shanghai Astronomical Observatory and the University of Tokyo. We use $`512^3`$ particles to simulate a Cold Dark Matter (CDM) model in a cosmological volume of $`100(h^1\mathrm{Mpc})^3`$. The simulations have achieved a mass resolution which is an order of magnitude better than the advanced simulations of the Virgo Consortium (Jenkins, A. et al. 1998) as well as our previous simulations (Jing & Suto 1998). They are now being applied to studying a number of astrophysical problems that are sensitive to the simulation resolutions. As their first application, we (Jing & Suto 2002) have studied the internal matter distributions within virialized halos and have successfully found an ellipsoid description for the halo density profile that is more accurate than the conventional spherical description.

### 2. N-body simulations

The simulations are generated with our Particle-Particle-Particle-Mesh ($`\mathrm{P}^3\mathrm{M}`$) code on the supercomputer VPP5000 at the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. The code adopts the standard $`\mathrm{P}^3\mathrm{M}`$ algorithm (Hockney & Eastwood 1981; Efstathiou et al. 1985), and is fully vectorized (Jing & Suto 1998), and has been recently parallelized. Each simulation uses $`512^3`$ simulation particles. Five simulations are generated for two representative cold dark matter (CDM) models of galaxy formation. The linear DM distribution in CDM models is completely specified by the density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, the cosmological constant $`\lambda _0`$, the shape $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the normalization $`\sigma _8`$ of the linear power spectrum. Table 1 summarizes the physical and simulation parameters used for these simulations. The physical parameters are chosen so that the models are consistent with most observations of the real Universe. A box size of $`100h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ implies that the particle mass in this system is only $`m_p10^9h^1M_{}`$. The force resolution is $`\eta =36h^1\mathrm{kpc}`$ (the Plummer form), so typical galactic halos can be well resolved. Each model (with one box size) will have a few different realizations in order to properly account for the cosmic variance (still in progress). One LCDM model uses a small force softening $`\eta =3h^1\mathrm{kpc}`$ and is evolved with 5000 time steps, so how the force softening affects non-linear structures of DM distribution can be checked. Therefore, these simulations will become an important source for studying galaxy formation, internal structures of DM halos, and nonlinear clustering of dark matter.

### 3. Preliminary results and future work

Figure 1 shows a dark matter distribution of the LCDM100a simulation centered at the most massive halo. The plot corresponds to a slice of $`100h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ wide and $`10h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ thick. Filamentary structures are very visible, as many previous studies of such simulations have discovered. More interesting features of the simulations are seen in Figure 2 which shows the DM distribution of the most massive halo. Substructures within the virialized region are preserved well, similar to high-resolution simulations for individual halos (Moore et al. 1999), therefore the over-merging problem encountered in previous studies of cosmological N-body simulations has now been successfully resolved in our simulations. This will be very important to studying the dynamical properties and spatial distribution of galaxies when using the simulations (e.g. based on the semi-analytical modeling).

With this large set of high-resolution simulations, many interesting cosmological problems will be investigated. As an “incomplete” list, we are 1) studying the DM distribution in the strongly clustering regimes; 2) analyzing internal structures of DM halos; 3) investigating galaxy formation by hand-inputing gas physics; 4) applying the simulations to real observations.

### Acknowledgements

We thank Kohji Yoshikawa for invaluable advice on parallelizing the code. The work is supported in part by the One-Hundred-Talent Program, by NKBRSF (G19990754) and by NSFC (No.10043004). The Numerical simulations were carried out at ADAC (the Astronomical Data Analysis Center) of the National Astronomical Observatory, Japan.


text:
# Quadrupole collective modes in trapped finite-temperature Bose-Einstein condensates

## Abstract

Finite temperature simulations are used to study quadrupole excitations of a trapped Bose-Einstein condensate. We focus specifically on the $`m=0`$ mode, where a long-standing theoretical problem has been to account for an anomalous variation of the mode frequency with temperature. We explain this behavior in terms of the excitation of two separate modes, corresponding to coupled motion of the condensate and thermal cloud. The relative amplitudes of the modes depends sensitively on the temperature and on the frequency of the harmonic drive used to excite them. Good agreement with experiment is found for appropriate drive frequencies.

PACS numbers: 03.75.Fi, 05.30.Jp, 67.40.Db

One of the most significant challenges facing theorists studying Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) is to understand the finite-temperature properties of trapped gases, where the noncondensed fraction is significant. For instance, while solutions of the Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equation for low-lying collective modes  yield good agreement with experiments at low temperatures , the behavior at elevated temperatures is still not fully understood. The quadrupole modes studied in an early experiment by Jin et al.  have been especially problematic. In this experiment, a harmonic modulation of the trap frequency was used to selectively excite either $`m=0`$ or $`m=2`$ modes, and the frequency and damping of the modes as a function of temperature, $`T`$, were extracted from the subsequent response. Although several theories have been proposed that account for the observed damping  and frequency of the $`m=2`$ mode , the experimental data for the $`m=0`$ frequency has yet to find a satisfactory explanation.

The difficulty is apparently related to the fact that the frequency of the $`m=0`$ condensate mode lies relatively close to that of the corresponding noncondensate mode. In particular, the condensate frequency at $`T=0`$ in the Thomas-Fermi (high density) limit is $`\omega =1.80\omega _{}`$  (where $`\omega _{}`$ is the axial trap frequency), while the thermal cloud has a natural frequency of oscillation at $`\omega =2\omega _{}`$. It should be emphasized that the latter is not a true collective mode but is rather a coherent motion of the atoms in a harmonic potential. At temperatures below $`T_c`$, where the condensate coexists with a significant thermal fraction, these two modes of oscillation are strongly coupled by mean-field interactions. As a result, a harmonic drive will tend to excite a superposition of the two, and the observed $`m=0`$ condensate frequency will reveal this coupling. A consistent theoretical model should therefore include the full dynamics of the thermal cloud, and treatments that neglect fluctuations of the noncondensate  or include them perturbatively  will not capture this behavior.

To avoid this shortcoming, Refs.  used a variational scheme to solve coupled GP and Boltzmann kinetic equations to describe the dynamics of, respectively, the condensate order parameter and the noncondensed component. Normal modes corresponding to in-phase and out-of-phase oscillations of the two components were found, and the authors suggested that the $`m=0`$ experimental data could be explained as a cross-over between the two modes. As we shall see, this picture in fact has some validity, however a quantitative interpretation of the experiments requires a more accurate treatment of the thermal cloud. In particular, Landau damping, which is the dominant damping mechanism in this regime, was not included since the variational ansatz used precludes coupling to higher order modes. Moreover, in view of our earlier comment about the nature of the thermal cloud oscillation, it is unclear to what extent the simple normal mode picture for the thermal cloud is meaningful.

In this work we model the experiment of Jin et al.  using numerical simulations based upon the ZNG formalism . This approach was previously applied to the scissors mode  and yielded good agreement with experiment . We evolve a GP equation simultaneously with a semiclassical kinetic equation, where the latter is solved by representing the thermal cloud by means of an ensemble of test particles which suffer collisions with each other as well as with the condensate. Importantly, since the particles are also coupled to the condensate through mean-field interactions, our model includes Landau damping (and corresponding frequency shifts) of condensate oscillations. Further details of the numerical method can be found in .

By using different initial conditions we can separately excite motion of the condensate and thermal cloud. Alternatively, by imposing a harmonic modulation of the trap frequencies over a finite interval (in a similar fashion to experiment), we excite both components simultaneously. At high temperatures we find that the condensate exhibits oscillations with two frequency components — one corresponding to a damped oscillation of the condensate interacting with a quasistatic bath of thermal particles, and a second arising from the mechanical coupling to the oscillation of the thermal cloud. The relative amplitudes of the two components depends on temperature and on the frequency of the harmonic drive. By using different drives we can closely reproduce the observed temperature dependence of the $`m=0`$ frequency.

The GP equation for the condensate wavefunction, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫,t)`$, and the Boltzmann kinetic equation for the thermal cloud phase space density, $`f(𝐩,𝐫,t)`$, are respectively given by

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{t}=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}^2^2}{2m}+U_{\mathrm{eff}}gn_ciR\right)\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(1)
$$\frac{f}{t}+\frac{𝐩}{m}fU_{\mathrm{eff}}_𝐩f=C_{12}[f]+C_{22}[f].$$
(2)
The above equations are derived under certain approximations . Importantly, thermal excitations are treated within the Hartree-Fock (HF) and semiclassical approximations , where they can be identified with particles moving in an effective potential $`U_{\mathrm{eff}}=m\omega _{}^2(x^2+y^2+\lambda ^2z^2)/2+2g(n_c+\stackrel{~}{n})`$. Here, $`n_c(𝐫,t)=|\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫,t)|^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{n}(𝐫,t)=(\mathrm{d}𝐩/h^3)f(𝐩,𝐫,t)`$ are the condensate and noncondensate densities respectively ($`g=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a/m`$, where $`a`$ is the s-wave scattering length and $`m`$ is the atomic mass). The integral $`C_{12}`$ represents collisions that transfer atoms between the condensate and noncondensate, while $`C_{22}`$ collisions take place between thermal particles only. The former process couples to the GP equation through $`R(𝐫,t)=(\mathrm{}/2n_c)(\mathrm{d}𝐩/h^3)C_{12}[f]`$ and leads to a change in the number of condensate atoms.

Our simulation parameters are chosen to match those of the experiment , where $`\omega _{}=2\pi \times 129\mathrm{Hz}`$ and $`\lambda =\sqrt{8}`$. The equilibrium densities of the condensate and noncondensate are found using a self-consistent semiclassical procedure  at each temperature. Due to evaporative cooling the total number of atoms, $`N`$, in the experiment varied with temperature. This is accounted for in our simulations by using experimental data for the temperature and number of condensate atoms, the variables believed to be the most precisely determined . Alternatively, we have also used the temperature and total number of atoms to specify the state of the system. Although this leads to slightly different equilibrium conditions, it does not affect the general conclusions of our work. These experimental uncertainties, however, should be kept in mind when making comparisons between theory and experiment.

We can excite quadrupole modes by imposing velocity fields of the form $`𝐯_c=A_{c0}(x,y)+A_{c2}(x,y)`$ onto the condensate, and $`𝐯_n=A_{n0}(x,y)+A_{n2}(x,y)`$ onto the noncondensate. In the case of the condensate, the velocity is established by multiplying the equilibrium condensate wavefunction by an appropriate phase factor. For the thermal cloud, we simply add the position-dependent $`𝐯_n`$ to the initial velocity of each test particle. Since the $`m=0`$ and $`m=2`$ modes are decoupled from each other due to their different symmetries, it is advantageous to excite both simultaneously (e.g., $`A_{c0},A_{c2}>0`$). The corresponding modes are then projected out in the ensuing evolution by evaluating the moments $`Q_{\{n,c\}0}=x^2+y^2_{\{n,c\}}`$ ($`m=0`$) and $`Q_{\{n,c\}2}=x^2y^2_{\{n,c\}}`$ ($`m=2`$). We note that the ($`l=0`$, $`m=0`$) monopole and ($`l=2`$, $`m=0`$) quadrupole modes of an isotropic trap are coupled by the trap anisotropy , giving rise to low and high frequency $`m=0`$ modes. Only the low-lying $`m=0`$ out-of-phase breathing mode is appreciably excited by the initial conditions considered here.

For our first simulations, we excite oscillations in the condensate alone (i.e., $`A_{n0}=A_{n2}=0`$). The $`Q_n`$ amplitudes remain small during the course of the evolution, while the condensate oscillations are damped. To extract frequencies and damping rates we fit a single exponentially-decaying sinusoid to the data over the timescale of the simulation, $`\omega _{}t=25`$. The open squares in Fig. 1 show the frequencies as a function of the reduced temperature $`T^{}=T/T_c^0`$, where $`T_c^0=0.94\mathrm{}\omega _{}(\lambda N)^{1/3}/k_B`$ is the ideal gas critical temperature. Apart from the highest temperature at $`T^{}=0.9`$, the single function fit is very good, consistent with an excitation of just one mode of each symmetry. For both the $`m=0`$ and $`m=2`$ modes we find a marked downward frequency shift with increasing temperature, in agreement with previous theories that neglect the full noncondensate dynamics , and with the out-of-phase “condensate” mode in Ref. . Also, as in earlier treatments, we find that there is much better agreement with the experimental $`m=2`$ data than with the $`m=0`$ data above $`T^{}=0.6`$.

We next investigate the influence of the thermal cloud dynamics by exciting both components simultaneously. In these simulations, the velocity fields imposed on the condensate and thermal cloud are identical. The triangles in Fig. 1 show results of a single mode fit to the condensate and noncondensate data. At high temperatures the thermal cloud oscillates with a frequency close to the ideal gas value, $`\omega =2\omega _{}`$, which decreases as the temperature is lowered. The $`m=2`$ condensate frequency is largely independent of the initial condition (indeed it is also unchanged for a harmonic modulation of the trap discussed below), apart from the highest temperature point where the condensate mode becomes ill-defined. In contrast, the $`m=0`$ condensate frequencies are generally higher than those found by exciting the condensate alone, and approach the noncondensate value just below the transition.

Further insight into this behavior can be gained by fitting two damped sinusoids to the $`m=0`$ condensate data. This shows that two modes are present at high temperatures, with one frequency close to that found for the condensate-only excitation. The second matches the noncondensate value, and indicates that the condensate is being driven by the thermal cloud at its own natural frequency (through mean field interactions and $`C_{12}`$ collisions). Following Ref.  we refer to these as the “condensate” and “thermal cloud” modes, respectively. The observed condensate oscillation is thus a superpostion of the two modes, with the relative amplitudes being sensitive to the initial conditions. By using a single mode fit to analyze the data, a frequency intermediate between the two mode frequencies is obtained, as shown by the open triangles in Fig. 1(a). In the case of the $`m=2`$ modes, the condensate and noncondensate frequencies are sufficiently separated for the noncondensate to have a minimal effect on the condensate, and the latter thus oscillates at a frequency which is independent of the method of excitation.

Qualitatively, the behavior of the $`m=0`$ mode shown by the open triangles in Fig. 1(a) is reminiscent of that exhibited experimentally . However, a quantitative comparison to experiment requires simulations which more faithfully reproduce the harmonic excitation scheme employed emperimentally. In the simulations to be described next, the axial trap frequency is modulated according to $`\omega _{}^2(t)=\omega _{}^2(1+ϵ\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t)`$ over a time interval of $`\omega _{}t=30`$, before allowing the sample to evolve in the original trap potential for another $`\omega _{}t=30`$. This excites $`m=0`$ type oscillations in both the condensate and thermal cloud. Typical time-dependent plots of $`Q_{c0}`$ and $`Q_{n0}`$ are shown in Fig. 2 for $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1.95`$ and $`T^{}=0.8`$. In the case of the condensate, we clearly see beating between the condensate and thermal cloud modes after removal of the excitation. This should be observable if experimental measurements are extended to longer times.

In the experiments, a single mode fit was used to extract mode frequencies from the data in a time interval of approximately $`\omega _{}t=15`$ following the excitation. We have followed this procedure by analyzing our data within the observation window indicated by the vertical lines in Fig. 2. Very different results for the condensate frequency are obtained depending on the drive frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which affects the relative amplitude of the condensate and thermal cloud oscillations. Fig. 3 summarizes our results by showing frequencies from single-mode fits at each $`T`$ for drive frequencies in the range \[1.75, 2.00\] $`\omega _{}`$. At low $`T`$ the noncondensed component is small and has a minimal effect. As a result, all the frequencies are close to the condensate mode results shown by the open squares in Fig. 1. In contrast, above $`T^{}0.6`$ there is a significant spread in the frequencies extracted from the fits. Taking $`T^{}=0.8`$ as an example, the condensate mode is excited when $`\mathrm{\Omega }1.75\omega _{}`$, while the frequency is close to that of the thermal cloud mode when $`\mathrm{\Omega }2\omega _{}`$.

It is clear from our data that there are two distinct branches above $`T^{}0.7`$. The lower branch follows closely the condensate mode in Fig. 1 while the upper branch moves up to the thermal cloud frequency. Although the precise drive frequency used in the experiments is no longer known , the frequency was chosen to maximize the amplitude of the condensate oscillation. Using this criterion, we have identified the drive frequencies that give a large response by the solid points in Fig. 3. Again there are two clear branches, and although experiment could feasibly have followed either, the upper branch clearly seems most relevant. Given the uncertainties in the experimental conditions the agreement is pleasing, and is strong evidence that a cross-over from one branch to the other is responsible for the observed temperature dependence. Our simulations nevertheless indicate that the lower branch should be observable if driven at the appropriate frequency.

For completeness, we end by comparing our results for the damping rate against experiment. This is perhaps less instructive, since the experimental data contains large error bars. There are also uncertainties in the damping we obtain at the higher temperatures due to sensitivity of the results to both the form of the drive and the timescale of the fit. However, the scatter in the results at low temperatures is much smaller and, as Fig. 3(b) shows, the damping rates obtained in this temperature range are in good agreement with experiment.

In summary, we study quadrupole oscillations of a Bose condensed gas at finite temperatures using simulations based on the ZNG formalism . This allows us to observe the coupled dynamics of the condensed and noncondensed components of the gas, which are paricularly important when considering the $`m=0`$ mode where the characteristic frequencies of the two components are close. Simultaneous excitation of the condensate and thermal cloud by a harmonic modulation of the trap leads to a cross-over between the two frequencies at high temperatures, in accordance with experimental observations. This agreement, taken with previous studies of the scissors mode , indicates that a semiclassical Hartree-Fock description is adequate in describing finite-temperature dynamics in the collisionless regime.

We acknowledge use of the HPCVL computing facility at Queen’s University, and financial support from NSERC of Canada.