text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Since the publication of results by SNO  and KamLAND , we now have a reasonably good picture of the neutrino sector of the Standard Model. In fact, by far the best fit to the data is the Large Mixing Angle (LMA) MSW fit  We only have measurements of the mass differences in the neutrino sector:

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{21}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.008}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{eV}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{32}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.05}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{eV}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}$$
(1)
There are three possible neutrino mass patterns consistent with LMA . The first, “normal”, has $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{32}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{>}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}`$. The second, “inverted”, has $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{32}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{<}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}`$. The third, “quasi-degenerate”, has the neutrino masses at a scale where the mass differences are negligable $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}`$.

We also have two measurably large neutrino mixing angles, and one small mixing angle:

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{sol}}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{12}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{6}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{atm}}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{23}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{CHOOZ}}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{13}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.2}$}$$
(2)
In the Standard Model, neutrinos are massless, and neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are distinguished by a total conserved lepton number, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}`$. Since we now know that this is not true, we wish to understand why the neutrino masses are so much smaller than that of the quarks and the charged leptons. Related to this is whether they have a Majorana or Dirac mass term, or both.

## 2 Seesaw models

Dirac mass terms are just like mass terms for the charged leptons and conserve lepton number. They can follow from a neutrino Yukawa coupling, just like charged lepton masses do in the Standard Model:

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}$$
(3)
Majorana mass terms violate lepton number:

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{c}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}}$$
(4)
$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{c}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}}$$
(5)
The term $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}}`$ violates the electroweak gauge symmetry, so we would expect it to be exactly zero. However, no symmetry exists which protects $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}`$, so we would expect that to be very heavy, of the order of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{16}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{GeV}}$}`$. If we have both Dirac and Majorana mass terms, then we can generate small masses of the order of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$, by a Type I seesaw mechanism.

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}}& \overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{c}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}}}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{cc}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{c}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{c}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}$$
(6)
In order to get the physical masses, we must block diagonalise this matrix. Assuming that $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}`$, we find

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{T}$}$$
(7)
$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}$$
(8)
We can then enumerate the forms of $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}}`$ that are consitent with LMA MSW. We refer to terms with a zero in the 11 element ‘type A’, and those without a zero in the 11 element ‘type B’. There is one possiblity with a “normal” heirarchy ($`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$):

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{H}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{ccc}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}$$
(9)
There are two possibilities with an “inverted” heirarchy ($`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$):

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{H}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{ccc}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}}{\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{H}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{ccc}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}& \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}& \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}$$
(10)
There are three possibilities with a degenerate mass pattern ($`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$):

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{G}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{ccc}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}{\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}}& \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}{\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}}\\ \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}{\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}}& \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}& \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\\ \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}{\sqrt{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}}& \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}& \frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{G}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{ccc}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}$$

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{D}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{E}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{G}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{ccc}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}$$
(11)
$`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{I}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{H}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}}`$ leads to a large rate for neutrinoless double beta decay.

From this point on, we focus on the normal heirarchy. In this case, we need to understand why $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{23}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}$}}`$, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{12}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{6}$}}`$. The technical requirement for $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ is for the subdeterminant to be small:

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{det}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left|}$}\begin{array}{cc}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{22}$}}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{23}$}}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{32}$}}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{33}$}}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}$$
(12)
We are then led to ask why this sub-determinant is small, and why the solar angle is large. One model which solves this is right-handed neutrino dominance.

If one right-handed neutrino dominates in the see-saw mechanism, and couples equally to the second and third family left-handed neutrinos then $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{23}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}$}}`$

Furthermore, if a second right-handed neutrino gives the leading sub-dominant contribuitions to the see-saw mechanims and couples equally to all three left-handed generations, then a large solar angle is gnerated $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{12}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\pi }$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{6}$}}`$

The corollary of this is that if the dominant right-handed neutrino is the lightest, then there is a link between the neturino oscillation phase and the phases of leptogenesis and neutrinoless double beta decay .

## 3 The flavour problem

There are two parts to the flavour problem. This fist is understanding the origin of the Yukawa couplings, (and heavy Majorana masses for the see-saw mechanism), which lead to low energy quark and lepton mixing angles. In low energy SUSY, we also need to understand why flavour changing and/or CP violating processes induced by SUSY loops are so small. A theory of flavour must address both these problems simultaneously.

Consider, for example the loop in fig. 1. This leads  to a rate:

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\tau }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{G}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{f}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{32}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left|}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\stackrel{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{~}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{L}$}}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{32}$}}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right|}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{tan}}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\beta }$}$$
(13)
We see that the decay rate depends on off-diagonal slepton masses. There will be two sources of slepton masses. The first is ‘primordial’; this is where there are off-diagonal elements in the SCKM basis at the high-energy scale, generated by the SUSY breaking mechanism. The second is RGE generated. This can be from running a GUT theory from the Planck scale to the GUT scale if Higgs triplets are present. It can also come from running the MSSM with right-handed neutrinos from the Planck scale to the lightest right-handed neutrino mass scale.

In general both sources will be present.

We can address both problems at the same time by employing a family symmetry . This will be spontanesouly by $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}`$, a Higgs field for the family symmetry. The idea is that each generation of matter will not be neutral under the symmetry, and so extra powers of the flavon will appear over some UV cutoff. This will lead to effective Yukawa couplings when $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}`$ gains a VEV:

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\psi }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\psi }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{H}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\psi }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\psi }$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{H}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{i}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{j}$}}}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.1}$}$$
(14)
This gives an explanation of the Yukawa textures:

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{ccc}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{11}$}}}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{12}$}}}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{13}$}}}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{21}$}}}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{22}$}}}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{23}$}}}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{31}$}}}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{32}$}}}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}^{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{33}$}}}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}$$
(15)
This addresses the first part of the flavour problem. However, it can also make the second part problematic. This is because the new fields in the Yukawa operators can develop F-term VEVs, and contribute to the SUSY breaking F-terms in a non-universal way. This leads to a new and dangerous source of primordial flavour violation :

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{ln}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}}$$
(16)
But the auxilliary field is proportional to the scalar component:

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{n}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}$$
(17)
And example of this with a $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ family symmetry is:

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{ccc}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Phi }}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{ccc}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{4}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}$$
(18)
If we take a specific model where we can switch off the new effects, and look at more standard SUGRA flavour violation, we can gauge the relative importance of the new effects . In order to do so, we look at three benchmark points. Point A corresponds to minimum flavour violation, where the SUGRA setup is like mSUGRA. In this case the seesaw RGE contributions are the only contributions. Point B corresponds to a ‘standard’ SUGRA FV setup, where non-universal scalar masses generate primordial FV in the SCKM basis. Finally, point C corresponds to the new effects, where $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{A}$}`$ generates primordial FV even before switching to the SCKM basis.

We display, in fig. 2 $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ at the three sesesaw points, and in fig. 3 $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{B}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\tau }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\gamma }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ at the three benchmark points.

There is no reason why a family symmetry has to be abelian. Consider a SUSY family GUT $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{O}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{G}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}$}`$ . $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ is the largest family symmetry consitent with a $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{O}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ GUT. This model is an example of sequential dominance, gives an excellent description of the quark and lepton masses and mixing angles, and can address the SUSY flavour/CP problems.

In this model, we break the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{O}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{10}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ GUT in the Pati-Salam direction by a Wilson line breaking. The Pati-Salm group is also broken to the MSSM group by Wilson line breaking. The $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}$}`$ is broken first to $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}$}`$ by a Higgs field $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}`$. The remnant $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{F}$}`$ is then broken completely by another Higgs field $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{23}$}}`$.

There are a few global symmetries in the theory to restrict the Yukawa operators allowed. The leading order operator leads to the top Yukawa element ( $`\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.15}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.05}$}`$):

$$\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\psi }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\psi }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{h}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{ccc}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& & \\ & \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \\ & & \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}$$
(19)
The subleading operator leads to the charm Yukawa and the charm-top mixing angles:

$$\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\psi }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{23}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\psi }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\varphi }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{23}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{h}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{=}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{ccc}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& & \\ & \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\\ & \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{y}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}$$
(20)
Setting the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{𝒪}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ coefficients of the operators to get a good fit, we predict the following Yukawa matrices:

$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{u}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{ccc}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1.2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.9}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1.2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.9}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{d}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{ccc}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1.6}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.7}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1.6}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}}& \overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}& \overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}^{\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.7}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}& \overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}^{\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{5}$}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}}}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}$$
(21)
$$\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\nu }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{ccc}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1.2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.9}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1.2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{+}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}}{\sqrt{\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}}}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.9}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\alpha }$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}}{\sqrt{\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}}}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{,}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{Y}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{e}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{ccc}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1.6}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.7}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1.6}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\\ \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.7}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}& \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}$$
(22)
$$\frac{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{R}$}}}{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{M}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\left(}$}\begin{array}{ccc}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{6}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}& & \\ & \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{6}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}^\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}& \\ & & \colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\end{array}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\right)}$}$$
(23)
The first RH neutrino dominates, and we predict $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{2}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{/}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{m}$}_\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}`$, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{tan}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{23}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1.3}$}`$, $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\mathrm{tan}}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{12}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{0.66}$}`$ and $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{\theta }$}_{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{13}$}}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{}$}\overline{\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{ϵ}$}}`$.

This all assumes a canonical Kähler metric, and so we would expect the soft SUSY breaking masses to be universal for a simple SUSY breaking scenario.

## 4 Conclusions

Small neutrino masses can be elegantly explained by the see-saw mechanism. In that case, sequential dominance then provides a natural explanation of a neutrino mass heirarchy and large mixing angles. If the dominant right-handed neutrino is the lightest one, there is a link between the leptogensis phase and the CP phase which is measurable at a neutrino factory.

Family symmetries provide a natural way of understanding the heirarchies in the quark and charged lepton masses, and the smallness of the quark mixing angles. In this case, dangerous new sources of flavour changing masses in general arise from Yukawa operators which lead to large off-diagonal soft trilinears. One example is the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{1}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ family symmetry. Another is the $`\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{S}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{U}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{(}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{3}$}\colorbox[rgb]{1,1,1}{$\textcolor[rgb]{0,0,0}{)}$}`$ family symmetry, which provides an excellent description of the fermion spectrum, with SUSY flavour-changing controlled by the family symmetries.


format: text

text:
# Surface location of sodium atoms attached to 3He nanodroplets

## Abstract

We have experimentally studied the electronic $`3p3s`$ excitation of Na atoms attached to 3He droplets by means of laser-induced fluorescence as well as beam depletion spectroscopy. From the similarities of the spectra (width/shift of absorption lines) with these of Na on 4He droplets, we conclude that sodium atoms reside in a “dimple” on the droplet surface. The experimental results are supported by Density Functional calculations at zero temperature, which confirm the surface location of sodium on 3He droplets, and provide a microscopic description of the “dimple” structure.

Detection of laser-induced fluorescence (LIF) and beam depletion (BD) signals upon laser excitation provides a sensitive spectroscopic technique to investigate electronic transitions of chromophores attached to 4He nanodroplets stienke2 . While most of atomic and molecular dopants migrate to the center of the droplet, alkali atoms (and alkaline earth atoms to some extent Sti:1997b ) have been found to reside on the surface of 4He droplets, as evidenced by the much narrower and less shifted spectra when compared to those found in bulk liquid 4He scoles ; ernst1 ; stienke3 ; Ernst:2001a . This result has been confirmed by Density Functional (DF) anci1  and Path Integral Monte Carlo (PIMC) nakayama  calculations, which predict surface binding energies of a few Kelvin, in agreement with the measurements of detachment energy thresholds using the free atomic emissions KKL . The surface of liquid 4He is only slightly perturbed by the presence of the impurity, which produces a “dimple” on the underlying liquid. The study of these states can thus provide useful information on surface properties of He nanodroplets complementary to that supplied by molecular-beam scattering experiments Dal98 ; har01 .

Although the largest amount of work has been devoted to the study of pure and doped 4He nanodroplets -see toennies ; kwon  and Refs. therein-, the only neutral Fermi systems capable of being observed as bulk liquid and droplets are made of 3He atoms, and for this reason they have also attracted the interest of experimentalists and theoreticians harms ; har01 ; panda ; TF ; gar98 ; gua00 . We recall that while 4He droplets, which are detected at an experimental temperature ($`T`$) of $``$ 0.38 K, are superfluid, these containing only 3He atoms, even though detected at a lower $`T`$ of $``$ 0.15 K, do not exhibit superfluidity grebenev .

The behavior of molecules in He clusters is especially appealing. In particular, probes at the surface of the droplets are desirable because they allow to investigate the liquid–vacuum interface as well as droplet surface excitations. The latter are of interest in the comparison of the superfluid vs. normal fluid behavior, particularly because the Bose–Einstein condensate fraction has been calculated to approach 100% on the surface of 4He Griffin:1996 . Small 3He drops are difficult to detect since, as a consequence of the large zero-point motion, a minimum number of atoms is needed to produce a selfbound drop panda . Microscopic calculations of 3He droplets are scarce, and only concern the ground state structure panda ; gua00 . Ground state properties and collective excitations of 3He droplets doped with some inert atoms and molecular impurities have been addressed within the Finite Range Density Functional (FRDF) theory gar98 , that has proven to be a valuable alternative to Monte Carlo methods, which are notoriously difficult to apply to Fermi systems. Indeed, a quite accurate description of the properties of inhomogeneous liquid 4He at $`T=0`$ has been obtained within DF theory prica , and a similar approach has followed for 3He (see gar98 ; her02  and Refs. therein).

The experiments we report have been performed in a helium droplet machine used earlier for LIF and BD studies, and is described elsewhere Sti:1997b . Briefly, helium gas is expanded under supersonic conditions from a cold nozzle forming a beam of droplets traveling freely under high vacuum conditions. The droplets are doped downstream employing the pick-up technique: in a heated scattering cell, bulk sodium is evaporated in such a way that, on average, a single metal atom is carried by each droplet. LIF absorption spectra of doped droplets are recorded upon electronic excitation using a continuous wave ring-dye laser and detection in a photo multiplier tube (PMT). Since electronic excitation of alkali-doped helium droplets is eventually followed by desorption of the chromophore, BD spectra can be registered by a Langmuir-Taylor surface ionization detector Sti:2000b  housed in a separate ultra-high vacuum chamber. Phase-sensitive detection with respect to the chopped laser or droplet beam was used. For that reason the BD signal (cf. Fig. 2), i.e. a decrease in intensity, is directly recorded as a positive yield. For these experiments, a new droplet source was built to provide the necessary lower nozzle temperatures to condense 3He droplets. Expanding $`P_0=`$ 20 bar of helium gas through a nozzle 5 $`\mu `$m in diameter, we now can establish temperatures down to 7.5 K using a two-stage closed cycle refrigerator (Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Model: RDK-408D). In this way, without needing any liquid helium or nitrogen for pre-cooling or cold shields, stable beam conditions can be utilized over several days.

Fig. 1 compares the number of Na-doped 3He vs. 4He droplets expanding 20 bar helium as a function of the nozzle temperature $`T_0`$. The absolute number densities in the maxima of both distributions are quite similar. For the spectroscopic measurements presented in the following, we set $`T_0=11`$ K for 3He, and $`T_0=15`$ K for 4He. These conditions are expected to result in comparable mean cluster sizes around 5000 atoms per droplet Toe:unpublished ; har01 . In Fig. 2 the absorption spectrum of Na atoms attached to 3He nanodroplets is shown in comparison to Na-doped 4He droplets. We present here the BD spectra because they do not contain the strong fluorescence background lines of free Na atoms which cover the crucial steep increase of the droplet spectrum. Moreover, LIF does not always represent the total absorption spectrum because it relies on the emission of a photon in the spectral range of the PMT. Hence, absorption processes followed by either radiationless decay or emission of photons in the infrared spectral region are suppressed. The latter has been observed in LIF spectra where alkali–helium exciplexes form upon excitation of alkali atoms on the surface of 4He droplets stienke3 ; Lehmann:2000c . In our experiment Na3He exciplexes are formed in the same way as their Na4He counterparts. This became immediately obvious because we were able to discriminate the corresponding red-shifted emission intensities. Furthermore, we followed directly the Na3He formation in real-time applying femtosecond techniques. These results will be presented in a forthcoming paper Sti:unpublisheda . However, as far as the measured absorption spectra of Na$`\mathrm{@}^3`$HeN are concerned, the LIF data are very well in accord with the BD absorption.

The outcome of the spectrum of Na attached to 3He nanodroplets is very similar to the spectrum on 4He droplets, which is remarkable for two apparently very different fluids -one normal and the other superfluid-, and confirms immediately the surface location: embedded atoms are known to evolve large blue-shifts of the order of a couple of hundreds of wavenumbers and much more broadened absorption lines, like e.g. observed experimentally in bulk helium Takahashi:1993 . The blue shift is a consequence of the repulsion of the helium environment against the spatially enlarged electronic distribution of the excited state (“bubble effect”). The interaction towards the 3He droplets appears to be slightly enhanced, evidenced by the small extra blue shift of the spectrum compared to the 4He spectrum. In a simple picture this means that more helium atoms are contributing or, in other words, a more prominent dimple interacts with the chromophore. The upper halves of the spectra come out almost identical, when shifting the 3He spectrum 8 cm-1 to lower frequencies. The increase in width (FWHM) of the spectrum is only 7% for 3He droplets. Taking into account the narrowing of the absorption line for small helium droplets scoles  and the uncertainty in the 3He droplet size distribution, this difference might not even be significant. Although the width of the absorption might be hard to interpret, the blue shift is a clear indication that the “dimple” is more pronounced than in 4He droplets. Regarding the substructure of the line, the only notable exception is the absence of the red-shifted shoulder, which is observed in the case of 4He and marked with an arrow in Fig. 2. This feature, which is even more pronounced in the absorption of Li-doped 4He droplets scoles  has not been interpreted yet. The shift with respect to the maximum of the absorption line is $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}20}`$cm-1, too high in energy to be attributed to an excited compressional or surface mode of the droplet at 0.38 K gar98 ; Chi95 .

FRDF calculations at $`T=0`$ confirm the picture emerging from the measurements just reported, i.e. the surface location of Na on 3He nanodroplets causing a more pronounced “dimple” than in 4He droplets. We have investigated the stable configurations of a sodium atom on both 3He and 4He clusters of different sizes. The FRDF’s used for 3He and 4He are described in bar97 , with the changes introduced in may01 . The large number of 3He atoms we are considering allows to use the extended Thomas-Fermi approximation TF . The minimization of the energy DF’s with respect to density variations, subject to the constraint of a given number of He atoms $`N`$, leads to Euler-Lagrange equations whose solution give the equilibrium particle densities $`\rho (𝐫)`$. These equations have been solved as indicated in Bar03 . The presence of the foreign impurity is modeled by a suitable potential obtained by folding the helium density with a Na-He pair potential $`V_{HeNa}`$. Since the adsorption properties of weakly interacting atoms on liquid He are known to be very sensitive to the details of that potential, accurate descriptions of the impurity-He interactions are mandatory for quantitative predictions. We have used the potential proposed by Patil patil . Potential energy curves describing the He-alkali interaction have been calculated by ab-initio methods nakayama , and found to agree very well with the Patil potential.

Fig. 3 shows the equilibrium configuration for a Na atom adsorbed onto He2000 clusters. For a given $`N`$, the size of the 3HeN droplet is larger than that of the 4HeN droplet -an obvious consequence of the smaller 3He saturation density-. Comparison with the stable state on the 4He2000 cluster shows that, in agreement with the experimental findings presented before, the “dimple” structure is more pronounced in the case of 3He, and that the Na impurity lies inside the surface region for 3He and outside the surface region for 4He note . We attribute this to the lower surface tension of 3He (0.113 K/Å2) as compared to that of 4He (0.274 K/Å2), which also makes the surface thickness of bulk liquid and droplets larger for 3He than for 4He Dal98 ; har01 . The Na-droplet equilibrium distance, here defined as the ‘radial’ distance between the impurity and the point where the density of the pure drop would be $`\rho \rho _0/2`$ ($`\rho _0`$ being the saturation density of bulk liquid He), is $`R1.1`$ Å for 3He, and $`R3.6`$ Å for 4He. For the larger droplets we have studied, $`R`$ is nearly $`N`$-independent. A related quantity is the deformation of the surface upon Na adsorption, which can be characterized anci1  by the dimple depth, $`\xi `$, defined as the difference between the position of the dividing surface at $`\rho \rho _0/2`$, with and without impurity, respectively. We find $`\xi =4.4`$ Å for 3He, and $`\xi =1.8`$ Å for 4He.

Fig. 4 shows the density profiles for Na$`\mathrm{@}`$He1000. Note the more diffuse liquid-vacuum interface for the 3He droplet far from the impurity, and the occurrence of more marked density oscillations (with respect to the 4He case) where the softer 3He surface is compressed by the adsorbed Na atom. Our calculations thus provide a detailed picture of the He structure around the impurity, which is an essential ingredient for any line-shape calculation of the main electronic transitions in the adatom scoles .

Solvation energies defined as

$$S_{Na}=E(\mathrm{Na}\mathrm{@}\mathrm{He}_N)E(\mathrm{He}_N)$$
(1)
are shown in Fig. 5. To compare with “exact” PIMC result nakayama , we have calculated Na$`\mathrm{@}^4`$He300. Part of the small difference between the two values has to be attributed to our neglecting of the zero-point energy of Na.

We have fitted the $`S_{Na}`$’s to a mass formula of the kind

$$S_{Na}(N)=S_0+\frac{S_1}{N^{1/3}}+\frac{S_2}{N^{2/3}}$$
(2)
and have found $`S_0=12.1(12.5)`$, $`S_1=28.3(31.6)`$, and $`S_2=37.3(37.6)`$ K for 4He(3He). The lines in Fig. 5 are the result of the fit. The value $`S_{Na}12`$ K has been obtained within FRDF theory for Na adsorbed on the planar surface of 4He anci1 , which would correspond to the $`N=\mathrm{}`$ limit in Fig. 5.

In conclusion, the presented experimental and theoretical results show that alkali adsorption on 3He droplets occurs in very much the same way as in the case of 4He, i.e. the adatom is located on the surface in a slightly more pronounced “dimple”. Our calculations provide a microscopic description of the liquid structure around the impurity, which is a necessary input for any line-shape calculation as well as for the understanding of dynamical processes which already have been observed in time-dependent experiments Sti:unpublisheda .

We thank Flavio Toigo for useful comments. This work has been performed under grants MIUR-COFIN 2001 (Italy), BFM2002-01868 from DGI (Spain), and 2001SGR-00064 from Generalitat of Catalunya. Financial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Germany) is gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# Observable effects of symmetry energy in heavy-ion collisions at RIA energies

## I Summary

In summary, within an isospin-dependent transport model for nuclear reactions induced by neutron-rich nuclei, we carried out a comparative study of $`{}_{}{}^{100}Sn+^{124}Sn`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{100}Zn+^{124}Sn`$ reactions at a beam energy of 30 MeV/A and 400 MeV/A, respectively. The strength of isospin transport/diffusion is studied by using the rapidity distributions of free nucleons and their isospin asymmetries. An approximate isospin equilibrium can be obtained even for peripheral collisions with only the soft symmetry energy at 30 MeV/A. At 400 MeV/A, however, an appreciable isospin translucency happens even in the most central collisions. We found that the neutron/proton ratio at mid-rapidity but high transverse momenta at 30 MeV/A is most sensitive to the symmetry energy at subnormal densities. On the other hand, at higher beam energies, e.g., 400 MeV/A, neutron-proton differential flow and the $`\pi ^{}/\pi ^+`$ ratio are found to be more sensitive to the density-dependence of the symmetry energy at supranormal densities. To map out the entire density-dependence of the symmetry energy a combination of several complementary observables in a broad range of beam energies is necessary. These observations are useful for planning experiments and designing new detectors for exploring the EOS of neutron-rich matter at RIA. Several observables useful for studying the EOS of neutron-rich matter require the detection of neutrons.

We would like to thank Dr. J. Dobaczewski and Dr. Lie-Wen Chen for providing us the initial nucleon density distributions used in this work. This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation Grant No. PHY-0088934 and PHY-0243571.


text:
# Josephson tunnelling of a phase-imprinted Bose-Einstein condensate in a time-dependent double-well potential

## 1 Introduction

The creation of superconducting  and superfluid  weak links has led to the experimental observation of Josephson effects , arising as a result of macroscopic quantum phase coherence. Josephson weak links are typically created by connecting two initially independent superconducting or superfluid systems via a barrier with dimensions of the order of the system healing length. Such junctions lead to a variety of interesting phenomena , including dc- and ac-Josephson effects. Observations in superconductors preceded those in superfluids, due to the much larger healing lengths, thus enabling easier fabrication of weak links. Evidence for Josephson-like effects has been observed in 4He weak links , and unequivocally demonstrated for weakly-coupled 3He systems . The recent achievement of dilute trapped atomic Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC)  gives rise to a new system for studying Josephson effects. In particular, such systems enable the investigation of dynamical regimes not easily accessible with other superconducting or superfluid systems. Remarkable experimental progress has led to the creation of atomic BEC Josephson junction arrays, in which the harmonically trapped atoms are additionally confined by an optical lattice potential, generated by far-detuned laser beams. Phase coherence in different wells was observed by interference experiments of condensates released from the lattice . In addition, Josephson effects  and the control of tunnelling rate have been demonstrated . Alternative insight into the diverse range of Josephson phenomena can be obtained by looking at a single Jospehson junction arising in a double-well system. This system has already received considerable theoretical attention, with treatments based on a two-state approximation , zero temperature mean field theory , quantum phase models  and instanton methods . Experimentally, a double well potential may be produced by adding a blue-detuned laser beam which induces a repulsive gaussian barrier to a harmonic trap . Atomic interferometry based on such a set-up was recently reported . Alternatively, a condensate can be created directly in a magnetic double-well structure .

In this paper, we investigate the Josephson dynamics for a phase-imprinted atomic condensate in a double-well potential under the influence of a time-dependent potential gradient. We focus on the sensitivity of the Josephson flow direction to the initial state preparation. In particular, preparation in the odd parity energy eigenstate combined with the application of the potential gradient leads to a flow towards a region of higher potential energy providing a clear signature of Josephson tunnelling. Flow reversal in context of the Josephson effect is well known. For example in a superconducting $`\pi `$-junction , the addition of a macroscopic phase difference $`\varphi =\pi `$ across the superconducting weak link leads to reversal of the sign of the current . Also a related effect has been predicted for condensates in optical lattices as a result of the renormalization of the mass in the lattice, based on Bloch wave analysis .

The superfluid analogue of a supeconducting $`\pi `$-junction is a metastable $`\pi `$-state, recently observed in 3He weak links . Atomic BEC junctions behave similarly to those of 3He-B. Thus, although superconducting Josephson junctions can be mapped onto a rigid pendulum, atomic condensate tunnel junctions map onto a non-rigid pendulum , thus exhibiting richer oscillation modes. For example, $`\pi `$ oscillations arise in such systems . For an atomic condensate in a double-well potential, $`\pi `$ oscillation modes can be produced by imprinting a phase shift of $`\pi `$ between the two wells. We study how these modes behave under the action of an external potential difference.

The paper is structured as follows. Sec. 2 introduces our main formalism, and briefly reviews the low-lying states of a condensate in a double-well, while Sec. 3 discusses the dynamics associated with particular initial states, including the $`\pi `$ oscillation modes, under the addition of a time-dependent potential gradient. The experimental observation of controlling the Josephson flow direction by phase imprinting in current BEC set-ups is analysed in Sec. 4, with a short conclusion in Sec. 5.

## 2 Time-independent Properties of a BEC in a double-well potential

At low temperatures, the behaviour of a Bose-Einstein condensate is accurately described by a nonlinear Schrödinger equation known as the Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equation. Throughout this paper we work in dimensionless (harmonic oscillator) units, by applying the following scalings:space coordinates transform according to $`𝒓_i^{}=a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}𝒓__i`$, time $`t^{}=\omega _{}t`$, condensate wavefunction $`\psi ^{}(𝒓^{},t^{})=\sqrt{a_{}^3}\psi (𝒓,t)`$ and energy $`E^{}=\left(\mathrm{}\omega _{}\right)^1E`$. Here $`a_{}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m\omega _{}}`$ is the harmonic oscillator length in the transverse direction(s), where $`\omega _{}`$ the corresponding trapping frequency. We thus obtain the following dimensionless GP equation (primes henceforth neglected for convenience) describing the evolution of the condensate wavefunction (normalised to unity)

$`i_t\psi (𝒓,t)=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^2+V\left(𝒓\right)+\stackrel{~}{g}|\psi (𝒓,t)|^2\right]\psi (𝒓,t).`$ (1)
The atom-atom interaction is parametrized by $`\stackrel{~}{g}=g/(a_{}^3\mathrm{}\omega _{})`$, where $`g=𝒩(4\pi \mathrm{}^2a/m)`$ is the usual three-dimensional scattering amplitude, defined in terms of the s-wave scattering length $`a`$, and $`𝒩`$ is the total number of atoms (mass $`m`$). The total confining potential (see Fig. 1(a)) is given by

$$V\left(𝐫\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left[(x^2+y^2)+\lambda ^2z^2\right]+h\mathrm{exp}\left[(z/w)^2\right]+\delta z.$$
(2)
The first term describes a cylindrically symmetric harmonic trapping potential, with a trap aspect ratio $`\lambda =\omega _z/\omega _{}`$. The trap is spherical for $`\lambda =1`$, ‘cigar-shaped’ for $`\lambda <1`$ and ‘pancake-like’ for $`\lambda >1`$. The second term describes a gaussian potential of height $`h`$ generated by a blue detuned light sheet of beam waist $`w`$ in the $`z`$ direction, located at $`z=0`$. In Eq. (2), the contribution $`\delta z`$ corresponds to an additional linear potential of gradient $`\delta `$ pivoted at the centre of the trap. For $`\delta >0`$, the right well obtains higher potential energy and the trap centre is additionally shifted into the $`z>0`$ region; however, this shift is negligible for the parameters studied throughout this work, and will be henceforth ignored.

The eigenestates of the double-well condensate are calculated by substituting $`\psi (𝒓,t)=e^{i\mu t}\varphi \left(𝒓\right)`$ and solving the resulting time-independent equation as discussed in . As is well-known, sufficiently large interactions lead to the appearance of a loop structure, see e.g. . The loop structure for the first excited state is shown in Fig. 1(b). Corresponding wavefunctions for ground and first excited state are shown in Fig. 1(c) for $`\delta =0`$. The three eigenstates are (i) asymmetric ground state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ with equal population in both wells, (ii) an anti-symmetric state with equal population in both wells and a phase difference of $`\pi `$ across the trap centre, which we shall henceforth refer to as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_e`$ and (iii) two higher energy ‘self-trapped’ states with most of the population in either the left (dotted) or the right (dashed) well . This paper is mainly concerned with states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_e`$ and superpositions thereof. In particular, we will show that the dynamics of excited states in the presence of a time-dependent potential $`\delta z`$ are remarkably different to that of the ground state, and offer a clear demonstration of Josephson tunnelling.

## 3 Tunnelling Dynamics under a time-dependent magnetic field gradient

The main theme of the present study is to consider the tunnelling of states with initial phase $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\pi `$, whose symmetry is broken by the addition of a time-dependent potential gradient which increases linearly. The potential gradient is applied at $`t=0`$, i.e., $`\delta =Rt`$ for $`t>0`$, (dashed line in Fig.1(a) showing the right well with higher potential energy than the left).

Before considering the effect of asymmetry, we review the behaviour of the symmetric double-well. The solution of the GP equation in a double-well potential can be mapped onto a two-state model  by writing the wavefunction as a superposition of states localised in the left and right wells, $`\psi _{\mathrm{}}(𝒓)`$ and $`\psi _r(𝒓)`$, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒓,t)=c_{\mathrm{}}(t)\psi _{\mathrm{}}(𝒓)+c_r(t)\psi _r(𝒓).$$
(3)
The Hamiltonian for this two-state system is,

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }+E_\mathrm{C}N& E_\mathrm{J}\\ E_\mathrm{J}& \mathrm{\Delta }E_\mathrm{C}N\end{array}\right],$$
(4)
where $`N=(N_{\mathrm{}}N_r)/𝒩`$ is the fractional population difference between the left and right well, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the potential energy difference between the left and right well ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=\alpha \delta `$, where $`\alpha `$ is a numerical factor determined numerically from the GP solution), $`E_\mathrm{C}=\stackrel{~}{g}\psi _{\mathrm{},r}||\psi _{\mathrm{},r}|^2|\psi _{\mathrm{},r}`$ is the self-interaction energy, $`E_\mathrm{J}=2\psi _{\mathrm{}}|\left(\frac{1}{2}^2+V_{\delta =0}\right)|\psi _r`$ is the Josephson coupling energy. The energy splittings $`E_\mathrm{C}`$ and $`E_\mathrm{J}`$ are indicated in Fig. 1(b). By writing $`c_i=\sqrt{N_i}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _i)`$ and defining a relative phase $`\varphi =\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\varphi _r`$ the two-state Schrödinger equation can be re-written in terms of the coupled equations

$$\dot{N}=E_\mathrm{J}\sqrt{1N^2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{and}\dot{\varphi }=\mathrm{\Delta }NE_\mathrm{C}\frac{E_\mathrm{J}N}{\sqrt{1N^2}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi .$$
(5)
To find the dynamics of $`N`$ and $`\varphi `$ one needs to know the value of $`E_\mathrm{C}`$, $`E_\mathrm{J}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for any particular barrier height, asymmetry and nonlinearity. Below (Fig. 3) we confirm that the two-state model is an excellent approximation to the full solution of the Schrödinger equation as long as $`|\delta |`$ is not too large.

If a system is initially prepared in one of its eigenstates, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ or $`\mathrm{\Psi }_e`$, it will remain in that same state and there is no tunnelling current. This is shown in Fig. 2(a), where we plot the fractional relative population, $`N`$ as a function of time with $`\delta =0`$ for $`t<0`$. However, if the system is prepared in a superposition of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ or $`\mathrm{\Psi }_e`$ with a $`\pi `$ phase difference, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pi \pm }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\mathrm{\Psi }_g\pm \mathrm{\Psi }_e),$$
(6)
the population tunnels back and forth (see Fig. 2(b) and (c)) and the relative phase between the two wells oscillates around a mean value of $`\pi `$ ($`\pi `$-oscillations ). The amplitude of the $`\pi `$-oscillations depends on the ratio $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=E_\mathrm{C}/E_\mathrm{J}`$ . By solving the two-state coupled equations (5) with initial conditions $`N(0)=0.994`$ (determined from the GP solution for $`\psi _\pi `$) and $`\varphi (0)=\pi `$, we find a critical ratio, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c1.80`$. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, the population oscillates between $`\pm N(0)`$, as in Fig. 2(b)($`t<0`$), whereas for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ the oscillations in $`N`$ are suppressed Fig. 2(c)($`t<0`$). Note that in Fig. 2(b) we have shifted the time origin by a quarter of an oscillation period such that $`N=0`$ at $`t=0`$.

The effect of introducing an asymmetry depends sensitively on the initial state. For $`\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$, the potential gradient induces a Josephson current to the left (lower potential energy region), whereas for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_e`$ flow occurs to the right (higher potential energy) (Fig. 2(a)). The situation is more complex for superposition states, such as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pi \pm }`$. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, if the potential gradient is turned on rapidly (compared to the period of the $`\pi `$-oscillations), the oscillations in $`N`$ are suppressed tending towards a mean $`N`$ close to its initial value, Fig. 2(b). For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, the induced flow is very different for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pi +}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\pi `$. For $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pi +}`$ most of the population remains self-trapped in the higher energy well, whereas for $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\pi `$ a large fraction of the population flows from the lower to the upper well.

The parameters used throughout the rest of the paper, $`\stackrel{~}{g}=\pi `$ and a spherical trap geometry ($`\lambda =1`$), give $`E_\mathrm{C}=0.220\mathrm{}\omega _{}`$ and $`E_\mathrm{J}=0.102\mathrm{}\omega _{}`$, corresponding to the regime, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$. In this regime, the experimental preparation of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pi \pm }`$ from the ground state is more difficult as it requires a transfer of population in addition to imprinting a phase diference of $`\pi `$. However, as we will see in Sec. 4, straightforward phase-imprinting can generate a superposition that contains a large fraction of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pi \pm }`$.

The tunnelling behaviour of different initial states such as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_e`$ under a potential gradient can be explained in terms of the time-independent solutions . These can be plotted as a function of time via their dependence on the time-dependent potential gradient $`\delta =Rt`$. The time evolution and the corresponding time-independent population difference for state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_e`$ is shown in Fig. 3(a), from which it is found that, for slow velocities, the system follows the eigenstate almost adiabatically. The initial dynamics discussed above is also well described by the two-state model  (grey line in Fig. 3(a)). However, for larger gradients the full potential GP calculation predicts that the atoms return to the lower (or left) potential well, as illustrated by the density snapshots in Fig. 3(b), whereas the two-state model suggests they remain in the upper (right) well. This breakdown of the two-state model occurs because it does not take higher lying modes into consideration . This is an important consideration for any experimental demonstration of macroscopic flow to the higher well.

The flow towards the right (higher) potential well shown in Fig. 3(b) provides a clear macroscopic demonstration of quantum tunnelling. To consider whether this effect is observable in current experimental set-ups, we have studied the effect of varying the nonlinearity, trap geometry, and the time dependence of the ramp. Note that, the effect of interactions has also been considered in , with the effective interaction also modified by atom losses . Our studies reveal that increasing the nonlinearity causes a reduction in the amount of initial flow to the upper well, and thus tends to inhibit the experimental observation (see next section for experimental estimates). For example, using the parameters of Fig. 3 with a nonlinearity ten times larger (i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{g}=10\pi `$), leads to a reduction of the average population imbalance induced by the applied potential gradient of slightly more than a factor of 2. It is thus natural to ask if other factors (e.g. modifying initial trap aspect ratio, or changing barrier height $`h`$) will have the opposite effect. Enhanced tunnelling has been predicted for ‘pancake’ traps ($`\lambda >1`$) . Furthermore, such geometries feature a larger energy splitting between the ground and first excited state, making them more robust to external perturbations (e.g. thermal ). However, the suppression of tunnelling induced by increased nonlinearities cannot be compensated by changing the geometry. We should further comment on the extent to which the above findings depend on the rate $`R`$ with which the linear potential gradient $`\delta =Rt`$ is applied. Fig. 3(a) shows the dependence for $`R=10^3(\mathrm{}\omega _{}^2/a_{})`$. If $`R`$ is increased by a factor of 10 then the maximum flow to the right well is reduced by roughly a factor of 2. Also flow to higher potential region can only be observed for approximately one tenth of the time, unless the gradient is ramped up to a particular value and subsequently kept constant. If the gradient is kept constant at the point of maximum population difference, the population remains trapped in the right upper well, i.e., macroscopic quantum self-trapping  occurs to a state with higher potential energy. In this regime, where the gradient does not exceed the value at which the flow is reversed, the two-state model correctly predicts the behaviour.

## 4 Experimental Considerations

We now discuss the feasibility of observing flow to the upper well using phase imprinting . Starting from the condensate ground state in a symmetric double-well trap, population can be transferred to the excited states by applying a light-induced potential of the form

$$V_r(z,t)=\alpha \mathrm{sin}\left(\pi t/\tau _0\right)\mathrm{tanh}\left(z\right)$$
(7)
for ($`t<\tau _0`$), where $`\alpha `$ and $`\tau _0`$ are constants which we vary. At $`t=\tau _0`$, the potential $`V_r`$ is suddenly switched off such that there is a $`\pi `$ phase shift between the two wells. This simple phase-imprinting method does not distinguish between states with similar density and phase profiles such as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_e`$ or $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\pi \pm }`$. Other more sophisticated methods of preparing the initial state such as 2-photon adiabatic passage  could also be explored.

We choose the phase imprinting parameters such that the amplitude of the subsequent number oscillations between the wells in a symmetric double-well potential (i.e. in the absence of a potential gradient) are minimized. The time dynamics for this case are shown by the grey lines in Fig. 4, and essentially correspond to $`\pi `$-oscillations with $`N(t)0`$, as discussed in  and shown in Fig. 2(c). For an imprinted phase of $`\pi `$, the population oscillates with most of the condensate in the left well (grey line in Fig. 4(a)), while for an imprinted phase of $`\pi `$, the population oscillations are contained within the right well (grey line in Fig. 4(b)). In both cases, the addition of the potential gradient at a time indicated by the open circle in Fig. 4, induces a flow to the right or upper potential well (solid lines in Fig. 4). Even at the time in the $`\pi `$-oscillation cycle when most of the population is already on the right well and would subsequently flow back to the left, the addition of the gradient induces more flow to the right, as shown in Fig. 4(b). Note that, in this case, the population remains trapped in the right well until the influence of the second excited state becomes important. If the correct initial state parameters are obtained from the full GP calculation, then the results shown in Fig. 4 can be reproduced using the two-state model, except for the transition to the second excited state. However, a full potential calculation is required to correctly predict the initial state and the dynamics for larger potential gradients, when the two-state model breaks down.

Finally, we discuss typical experimental parameters required for the demonstration of Josephson flow to the upper potential well. The number of atoms is given by

$$𝒩=\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}}{4\pi }\frac{a_{}}{a}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}}{4\pi a}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}}{m\omega _{}}}.$$
(8)
The total atom number is independent of the trap aspect ratio, therefore, for given dimensionless nonlinearity $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$, large atom numbers can be obtained for light, weakly-interacting, transversally weakly-confined systems. For a large number of atoms, one should preferably choose species with a small value of $`a\sqrt{m}`$. For example, taking $`\stackrel{~}{g}=4\pi `$ and $`\omega _{}=2\pi \times 5`$ Hz, we find: $`𝒩=`$ 3300 (23Na) and 1000 (87Rb). An enhancement of the atom number by a factor of 10 may be possible by tuning around a Feshbach resonance (e.g. 23Na, 85Rb, 133Cs) . In the case of 7Li and 85Rb, the number of atoms needed to observe such Josephson flow is not likely to exceed the critical value for collapse.

Note that for fixed, reasonably small, nonlinearity ($`\stackrel{~}{g}<10\pi `$), such that the effect can be clearly observed, one needs weak transverse confinement $`\omega _{}`$ in order to obtain a reasonable number of atoms which can be imaged easily. However, small $`\omega _{}`$ imply long timescales, such that the observation of this effect becomes limited by other factors (e.g. thermal damping , atom losses , etc.). If we choose $`\omega _{}=2\pi \times (5100)`$Hz, then the preparation of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }_e`$ state requires a time $`\tau _0(300150)`$ms. and an applied field gradient $`R=(10^310^2)(\mathrm{}\omega _{}/a_{})`$ (which translates into a Zeeman shift of (1$``$100 MHz)/cm) ramped up over a time $`t_{\mathrm{exp}}`$ (1.5 s$``$75 ms).

## 5 Conclusions

We have studied the Josephson dynamics of phase-imprinted condensates in a double-well potential in the presence of a time-dependent potential gradient. We show that phase imprinting can lead to a significant change in the flow direction producing a clear signature of macroscopic quantum tunnelling. We have discussed the range of parameters for optimum experimental demonstration of this effect, and find that it is only weakly-dependent on the aspect ratio of the trap. However, suppression of the flow for large nonlinearities, restricts the condensate size to a few thousand atoms. An attractive candidate for the observation of the flow reversal is the recently realized atom chips  with a blue detuned laser beam to create the weak link. The observation of the flow of phase imprinted states would provide a clear experimental demonstration of the Josephson effect.

We acknowledge funding from the UK EPSRC.