text:
# Neutrino mass spectrum and lepton mixing Talk given at the XIX International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics, Neutrino-2000, Sudbury, Canada, 16 - 21 June 2000 (transparencies are available at http://nu2000.sno.laurentian.ca).

## Abstract

The program of reconstruction of the neutrino mass and flavor spectrum is outlined and the present status of research is summarized. We describe the role of future solar and atmospheric neutrino experiments, detection of the Galactic supernovae and double beta decay searches in accomplishing this program. The LSND result and four neutrino mass spectra are considered in connection with recent searches for the sterile components in the solar and atmospheric neutrino fluxes.

1. INTRODUCTION.

1.1. Two remarks.

There is a hope that detailed information on the neutrino mass spectrum and lepton mixing may eventually shed the light on
$``$ the origin of the neutrino mass,
$``$ quark-lepton symmetry, unification of quarks and leptons, Grand Unification,
$``$ fermion mass problem,
$``$ physics beyond the standard model in general.
“Detailed information” are the key words: just knowledge that masses are small is not enough to clarify the points.

Results on atmospheric neutrinos  show that the simplest possibility – hierarchical mass spectrum with small flavor mixing has not been realized. The guideline from the quark sector is lost. In this connection we should consider without prejudice all possible mass and mixing spectra which do not contradict experiment.

1.2. The present status.

There are three leptonic flavors: $`\nu _\alpha `$, $`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$ and at least three neutrino mass eigenstates $`\nu _i`$ with eigenvalues $`m_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$). The program of reconstruction of the spectrum consists of the determination of
$``$ number of mass eigenstates,
$``$ masses $`m_i`$,
$``$ distribution of the flavor in the mass eigenstates described by the mixing matrix $`U_{\alpha i}`$,
$``$ complex phases of $`U_{\alpha i}`$ and $`m_i`$.

What is the present status?

The atmospheric neutrino data provide us with the most reliable information. With high confidence level we can say that the data imply the $`\nu _\mu `$ oscillations with maximal or near maximal depth. Moreover, the oscillations are driven by non-zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. From this interpretation we can infer that

(i) There is at least one mass eigenstate with

$$m_a\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2|}(46)10^2\mathrm{eV}.$$
(1)
Further implications depend on assumptions about the number of mass eigenstates and the type of mass hierarchy. In the case of 3$`\nu `$-spectrum with normal mass hierarchy (fig.1), $`m_3m_2,m_1`$, the heaviest state $`\nu _3`$ has the mass (1). If the spectrum has the inverted mass hierarchy, $`\nu _3`$ is the lightest state, $`m_3m_a`$, and $`\nu _1`$, $`\nu _2`$ form a system of degenerate neutrinos with $`m_2m_1m_a`$. In the case of completely degenerate spectrum one has $`m_3m_2m_1m_a`$.

(ii) The admixture of the $`\nu _\mu `$ flavor in the $`\nu _3`$ mass eigenstate is

$$|U_{\mu 3}|^2=0.30.7(90\%\mathrm{CL}).$$
(2)
(iii) The admixture of the electron neutrino in the third state is zero or small :

$$|U_{e3}|^20.0150.05.$$
(3)
Thus, $`\nu _\mu `$ is mixed almost maximally with $`\nu _\tau `$ or/and $`\nu _s`$.

(iv) The $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ channel gives better description of the data than $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ one: the latter is disfavored at 3 $`\sigma `$ level . Substantial contribution of the sterile channel is however possible already at $`2\sigma `$ level.

(v) We assume that $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ are responsible for the solution of the solar neutrino problem. The best fit values of the oscillation parameters from all solution regions (LMA, SMA, LOW, VO) satisfy inequality

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2.$$

That is, the hierarchy of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ exists.

(vi) The distribution of the electron flavor depends on the solution of the $`\nu _{}`$-problem.

Clearly, with this information we are just in the beginning of realization of the program. In what follows I will consider the next steps.

2. $`U_{e3}`$, HIERARCHY, DEGENERACY.

2.1. $`U_{e3}`$.

Future long-baseline experiments MINOS , CERN-GS  will be able to mildly improve present CHOOZ bound. An estimated sensitivity is at most $`|U_{e3}|^2510^3`$ at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2=310^3`$ eV2. Further improvements of the reactor bound are rather difficult (see ). Signatures of non-zero $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ exist in the atmospheric neutrinos. In fact, best fit value of $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ from the atmospheric neutrinos differs from zero, although the deviation is statistically insignificant. However, it is difficult to improve the situation with present experiments and the possibilities of future atmospheric neutrino detectors deserve special study.

Registration of the neutrino bursts from the Galactic supernova by existing detectors SK, SNO (several thousands events) will give information about $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ down to $`10^510^4`$ .

Even better sensitivity $`|U_{e3}|^2>310^5`$ may be achieved at the neutrino factories .

Intuitively, it is difficult to expect very small $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ if mixing between the second and the third generation is almost maximal and the mixing of the electron neutrinos is also maximal or large (unless some special arrangements are done). This has been quantified recently in terms of the neutrino mass matrices which lead to the solutions of the solar and atmospheric neutrino problems . In the assumption that there is no special fine tuning of the matrix elements $`m_{e\mu }`$ and $`m_{e\tau }`$, so that $`|m_{e\mu }m_{e\tau }|max[m_{e\mu },m_{e\tau }]`$, the following relation has been found :

$$U_{e3}^2\frac{1}{4}\frac{\mathrm{tan}^22\theta _{}}{\sqrt{1+\mathrm{tan}^22\theta _{}}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}.$$
(4)
For parameters from the LMA region we get values $`|U_{\mu 3}|^2=0.0030.02`$, where the upper edge is the the present experimental bound.

2.2. Hierarchy and Degeneracy.

Phenomenology of schemes with normal and inverted mass hierarchy is different. The hierarchy can be identified by studies of (i) the neutrinoless double beta decay, (ii) Earth matter effect on 1 - 3 mixing in the atmospheric neutrinos and in the long baseline experiments, (iii) neutrino burst from supernovae.

In the scheme with inverted hierarchy the contribution of neutrinos to the energy density of the Universe can be two times larger than that in the scheme with normal hierarchy: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu 2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}n_\nu `$ ( $`n_\nu `$ is the concentration of one neutrino species). The scheme with normal mass hierarchy (or in general, the scheme with $`\nu _3`$ being the heaviest state) may have partial degeneracy when $`m_2m_1m_2`$. In this case for a given oscillation pattern both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\nu `$ and $`m_{ee}`$ can be larger than in the hierarchical case.

3. IDENTIFYING SOLUTION OF THE $`\nu _{}`$-PROBLEM.

Identification of the solution is one of the major steps in the reconstruction of the spectrum which will significantly determine further strategy of the research. It will allow us to: (i) measure $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ as well as the distribution of the electron flavor: $`|U_{e1}|^2`$, $`|U_{e2}|^2`$; (ii) find or restrict the presence of the sterile neutrinos, (iii) estimate a possibility to measure the CP-violation and to discover the neutrinoless beta decay.

Let us describe some recent results.

2.1. Flux during the night.

The zenith angle ($`\theta _Z`$) distributions of events during the nights differ for different solutions and therefore precise measurements of the distribution can be used to discriminate among the solutions.

The LMA solution predicts rather flat distribution of events with slightly lower rate in the first night bin N1 ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta _Z=00.2`$). The reason is that the oscillation length is small and substantial averaging of oscillations occurs in all the bins .

For the LOW solution, the maximal rate is expected in the second night bin N2 ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta _Z=0.20.4`$) . Indeed, for parameters from the LOW region, the oscillation length in matter is determined basically by the refraction length, $`l_ml_0`$, and it depends weakly on $`E/\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and mixing. No averaging occurs. It turns out that the average length of the neutrino trajectories in the N2 bin equals half of the refraction length, so that the oscillation effect is maximal. The length of the trajectory is about $`l_0`$ in the N3 bin, where minimum of the rate is expected. The height of the peak in N2 bin decreases with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$.

In the case of SMA solution maximal rate is expected in the N5 (core) bin , where the parametric enhancement of oscillations can take place. The peak decreases with mixing angle and at $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 310^3`$ it transforms to the deep.

No enhancement of the night rate should be seen for VO solution.

Thus, using information on integrated day-night asymmetry and signals in N2 and N5 bins one can identify the solution.

Notice that the zenith distribution observed by SK does not fit any of expected distributions: maximal rate is in the N1 bin, and there is no enhancement of rate neither in N2 nor in N5 bins. In the SNO the expected zenith angle distributions have similar character, however absolute value of the regeneration effect is larger due to absence of damping related to $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ contribution to the SK signal.

3.2. Correlations of observables.

Present searches for the “smoking guns” of certain solutions of the $`\nu _{}`$-problem give just $`(12)\sigma `$ indications. To enhance the identification power of the analysis we suggest to study correlations of various observables . Indeed, correlations of observables appear for different solution of the $`\nu _{}`$-problem and they can be considered as signatures of corresponding solutions.

The observables (denote them by $`X`$, $`Y`$) include rates of events at different detectors, characteristics of spectrum distortion (e.g., shift of the first moment of the spectrum) and parameters of the time variations of signals (day-night asymmetry, seasonal asymmetry, etc.). To find the correlations we have performed the mapping of the solution regions in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ \- $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ plane onto the plane of observables $`X`$ and $`Y`$. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ region projects onto the line in the $`XY`$ the correlations is very strong. In general, the criteria for strong correlation is that the area of the projected region, $`S_{XY}`$, is much smaller than the product $`\mathrm{\Delta }X\times \mathrm{\Delta }Y`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y`$ are allowed intervals of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ when they are treated independently.

In fig.2 we show, as an example, mapping of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ regions of solutions onto the plane of the SNO observables \[CC\] and $`A_{DN}`$, where \[CC\] $`N_{obs}/N_{SSM}`$ is the reduced rate of the charged current events and $`A_{DN}2(ND)/(N+D)`$ is the day-night asymmetry of the charged current events.

3.3. Large or Maximal?

The three among five solutions of the solar neutrino problem require large mixing angle of the electron neutrino. Moreover, the LMA solution gives the best global fit of the data. The best fit of the atmospheric neutrino data corresponds to maximal mixing. Is large (or maximal) mixing the generic property of leptons? What is a deviation from maximal mixing?

These questions are important for theory : The deviation from maximal mixing can be related to small parameter $`\lambda 0.22`$ which characterizes the fermion mass hierarchy and appears in the theories with flavor symmetry. We describe the deviation by $`ϵ\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$, ($`ϵ=0`$ at the maximal mixing). Depending on model one can get $`ϵ=\lambda ^n`$, where usually $`n=1`$ or $`2`$, or $`ϵ\sqrt{m_e/m_\mu }=0.07`$, or $`ϵm_e/m_\mu =0.005`$, etc..

In contrast with theory, maximal mixing is not a special point for phenomenology. Nothing dramatic happens when $`ϵ`$ changes the sign: no divergencies or discontinuities appear, all observables depend on $`ϵ`$ rather smoothly .

Performing a global fit of all available solar neutrino data we find  that maximal mixing is allowed in the LMA region at 99.9 % CL, and in LOW region at 99 % CL. For $`ϵ=0.07`$ the interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=(230)10^5`$ eV2 (LMA) is accepted at 99 % CL, etc..

Future perspectives of measurement of the deviation depend significantly on the range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. Observables depend linearly on $`ϵ`$ in the range of the MSW conversion (LMA, LOW). In particular, the survival probability is proportional to $`(1ϵ)`$, the day-night asymmetry $`(1+ϵ)`$, the distortion of spectrum $`ϵ`$. In contrast, in the VO regions the dependence of observables on $`ϵ`$ is quadratic: $`(1+ϵ^2)`$ in the average oscillation case and $`(1ϵ^2)`$ in the non-averaged case.

Thus, for small $`ϵ`$ the sensitivity of measurements of the deviation is much higher in the MSW regions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. The most precise determination of $`ϵ`$ will be possible with the SNO results. Simultaneous measurements of the double ratio \[NC\]/\[CC\] (of the neutral to charged current reduced rates) and the day-night asymmetry of the CC events will allow to determine $`ϵ`$ with accuracy $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ0.07`$ ($`1\sigma `$) .

4. MORE INFORMATION.

4.1. Double beta decay and test equalities.

Remarks:

For any oscillation pattern (values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`|U_{\alpha i}|^2`$) the effective Majorana mass of the electron neutrino relevant for the $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ decay, $`m_{ee}`$, can take any value from zero to experimental upper bound for the normal mass hierarchy and $`|m_{ee}|`$ has non-zero minimum value for the inverted hierarchy provided that $`|U_{e1}|^2>1/2`$ .

If the neutrinoless double beta decay will be discovered and the rate will give $`m_{ee}`$, then under assumption that the Majorana masses are the only source of the decay, we can say that at least one mass should satisfy inequality $`m_j>m_{ee}/n`$, where $`n`$ is the number of mass eigenstates .

Definite predictions for $`m_{ee}`$ can be given in the context of certain neutrino mass spectra (see  and references therein): $`m_{ee}`$ can be related (especially in the cases when dominant contribution comes from one mass eigenstate) with the oscillation parameters. Therefore coincidence of the measured value $`m_{ee}`$ with some combination of the oscillation parameters will testify for certain neutrino mass spectrum. We can call these relations the test equalities.

Let us give examples of the test equalities:

1). In the case of normal mass hierarchy, and SMA, LOW or VO solutions of the solar neutrino problem the dominant contribution comes from $`\nu _3`$:

$$m_{ee}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}|U_{\mu 3}|^2.$$

2). For normal mass hierarchy, LMA solution and small $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ one gets

$$m_{ee}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2}510^3\mathrm{eV}$$
(5)
which can be tested by the 10 ton version of GENIUS experiment.

3). In the case of inverted mass hierarchy, SMA or LMA solutions with equal phases of the mass eigenvalues $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$, one gets

$$m_{ee}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}=(57)10^2\mathrm{eV}$$
(6)
which can be achieved already in the next generation of the double beta decay experiments.

4). For inverted mass hierarchy and large mixing solutions with relative phase of the degenerate states $`\varphi _1\varphi _2=\pi `$ (which holds for the pseudo Dirac system) we find

$$m_{ee}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}.$$

As follows from the above analysis, the bound $`m_{ee}<310^3`$ eV will testify for the normal hierarchy, whereas values $`m_{ee}>10^2`$ eV are the signature of the inverted mass hierarchy provided that $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}0.9`$. Predictions overlap in the case of partial or complete degeneracy of spectra.

4.2. Supernova neutrinos.

In the three neutrino scheme there are two relevant resonances: high (density) resonance at $`\rho _h10^4`$ g/cm3 the low resonance at $`\rho _l10100`$ g/cm3 related to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ correspondingly. Since at the production point $`\rho \rho _h,\rho _l`$, the supernova neutrinos probe whole neutrino mass spectrum. Moreover, mixings associated with both $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ can be matter enhanced.

In spite of uncertainties related to the density profile and, especially, to parameters of the original spectra, some observables are largely supernova model independent which opens the possibility to get reliable information on neutrino mass spectrum. In particular, inequalities of the average energies:

$$E(\nu _e)<E(\overline{\nu }_e)<E(\nu _\mu )$$
(7)
are SN model independent. Violation of these inequalities will testify for the neutrino conversion. It is expected that spectra emitted during short time intervals $`\mathrm{\Delta }t10`$ s are “pinched”. Observation of wide spectra will testify for its compositness which appears as a result of conversion.

Another SN model independent possibility is to study the Earth matter effects on the neutrino fluxes from supernovae. The oscillations of the SN neutrinos in the matter of the Earth can induce irregular structures in the otherwise smooth energy spectra. These oscillations will lead also to different signals at different detectors (for which neutrino trajectories in the Earth are different).

The observable effects are the result of the interplay of neutrino conversion inside the star and oscillations inside the Earth. The level crossing schemes are different for normal and inverted mass hierarchies. The high resonance is in the neutrino channel if the hierarchy is normal and it is in the antineutrino channel for the inverted mass hierarchy. This can lead to completely different patterns of conversion.

If $`|U_{e3}|^2>10^3`$, the conversion in the high resonance is completely adiabatic. Taking into account also that original $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ fluxes are practically identical one gets that in the normal hierarchy case: (i) $`\nu _e`$ converts completely to $`\nu _\mu /\nu _\tau `$, (ii) at the Earth $`\nu _e`$ should have hard spectrum of the original $`\nu _\mu `$ and (iii) the Earth matter effect does not influence this flux. In contrast, the oscillation effect in the matter of the Earth can be observed in the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$-spectrum.

In the case of inverted mass hierarchy $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ interchange the roles: (i) $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ transforms in the star into $`\overline{\nu }_\mu /\overline{\nu }_\tau `$, (ii) at the surface of the Earth $`\overline{\nu }_e`$-flux will have a hard spectrum, (iii) the Earth matter effect should not be seen in the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ signal but it can be observed in the $`\nu _e`$-signal.

Thus, the fact of observation of the Earth matter effect in the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ flux, but not in $`\nu _e`$, will testify for the normal hierarchy. An opposite situation: the Earth matter effect in $`\nu _e`$ channel and an absence of the effect in $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ will be an evidence of the inverted mass hierarchy. Substantial matter effect is possible for the LMA parameters only.

If $`|U_{e3}|^210^3`$ the high resonance is inefficient and significant matter effect can be observed both in $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\nu _e`$ spectra.

5. $`\nu _{}`$, $`\nu _{atm}`$ and LSND.

It is widely accepted that simultaneous explanation of the solar, atmospheric and LSND  results in terms of oscillations requires an existence of the sterile neutrino (see e.g. ). Less appreciated fact is that the explanation requires the sterile neutrino to be a dominant component in oscillations of solar or atmospheric neutrinos. That is, either $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ is the dominant channel of the solar neutrino conversion, or $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ is the dominant oscillation mode for the atmospheric neutrinos. The extreme situation is when sterile channels contribute 1/2 both in the solar and the atmospheric neutrino transformations.

This statement holds for the so called (2 + 2) scheme of the neutrino mass in which two pairs of the mass eigenstates with mass splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ are separated by the mass gap related to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{LSND}^2`$. In these schemes one easily gets the depth of $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ oscillations required by the LSND. It is claimed  that the (2 + 2) scheme is the only possibility and the alternative schemes give too small mixing for the LSND. Situation, however, may change:

1. Recent atmospheric neutrino data disfavor $`\nu _\mu \nu _s`$ as a dominant mode of oscillations. Although up to 0.5 contribution of the sterile channel still gives a good fit .

2. The mode $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ although accepted, does not give the best fit of the solar neutrino data. The $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ solution can be identified soon by (i) equality of the reduced charged current rate at SNO and electron scattering rate at SK: \[CC\] $`R_{SK}`$; (ii) small Day-Night asymmetry ($`<2\%`$) in SK and SNO; (iii) unchanged double ratio \[NC\]/\[CC\]$`1`$ (see ).

If it will be proven that both in the solar and atmospheric neutrinos the contribution of the sterile component is smaller than 1/2, the (2 + 2) scheme should be rejected, and the oscillation interpretation of the LSND will be questioned.

In this connection we have reconsidered the (3 + 1) scheme (see fig.3) in which three mass eigenstates with splittings $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ form the flavor block with small admixtures of sterile neutrino and the fourth state (predominantly sterile) is isolated from the flavor block by the mass gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{LSND}^2`$ . Both solar and atmospheric neutrinos transform into active ones.

The effective mixing parameter for $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ oscillations driven by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{LSND}^2`$ equals

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{LSND}=4U_{e4}^2U_{\mu 4}^2,$$
(8)
where $`U_{e4}^2`$ and $`U_{\mu 4}^2`$ are the admixtures of the $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ in the fourth mass eigenstate. $`U_{e4}^2`$ and $`U_{\mu 4}^2`$ determine the $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ disappearance in oscillations driven by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{LSND}^2`$ and are restricted by the results of BUGEY  and CDHS  experiments correspondingly. For low values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ better limit on $`U_{\mu 4}^2`$ follows from the atmospheric neutrinos . In fig.4 we reproduce the bound on $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{LSND}`$ obtained in  using Eq. (8) and the 90 % CL bounds from BUGEY and CDHS. The bound excludes whole allowed LSND region which led to conclusion that (3 + 1) scheme can not reproduce the LSND result. However, the question is: which confidence level should be prescribed to this bound?

For several values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ we have found the 95 % CL and 99 % CL bounds on $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{LSND}`$ in assumption that distributions of the $`U_{\alpha 4}^2`$ ($`\alpha =e,\mu `$) implied by the experiments are Gaussian (see fig. 4). We used central values of $`U_{\alpha 4}^2`$ and and 90 % CL bounds published in the papers  to restore parameters of the Gaussian distributions.

As follows from the fig.4, in the range $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^21`$ eV2, the product of the 90% CL bounds corresponds to $`95\%`$ CL. The CL decreases with increase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. At 99% CL the LSND region at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^21`$ eV2 becomes acceptable. Moreover, new analysis  shifts the allowed LSND region to smaller $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$, so that now some part of the region is acceptable even at 95% CL.

The (3 + 1) scheme leads to a number of the phenomenological consequences which can be checked in the forthcoming experiments. It has also interesting astrophysical and cosmological consequences .

6. CONCLUSIONS.

What are perspectives of the reconstruction of the neutrino mass and flavor spectrum?

1. Identification of the dominant mode of the atmospheric neutrino oscillations has a good chance with further studies at SK and LBL experiments. The bound on the presence of sterile neutrinos will be better than $`|U_{s3}|^2<1/2`$, which has important implications for theory.

2. Distribution of the electron flavor ($`|U_{e1}|^2`$, $`|U_{e2}|^2`$ as well as $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ will be determined together with identification of the solution of the $`\nu _{}`$-problem. Sooner or later (depending on our luck) this will be done by future measurement at SK, SNO, GNO, SAGE, BOREXINO. Studies of correlations of observables will allow us to enhance an identification power of analysis. Ironically, the solution of the $`\nu _{}`$ problem can be found without solar neutrinos – in KAMLAND experiment. Important bound will be obtained on presence of $`\nu _s`$.

There is some chance to measure $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ in the forthcoming LBL experiments.

3. Determination of the type of mass hierarchy, the level of spectrum degeneracy, the CP-violating phase and the absolute scale on the neutrino mass will require much more serious efforts. Progress will be related to the oscillation experiments with very long base lines and probably with direct measurements of the neutrino mass. Identification of the type of mass hierarchy and important bounds on value $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ can be obtained by the detection of the neutrino burst from the Galactic supernova. Observation of the $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$-decay means the discovery of the lepton number violation and the Majorana nature of neutrinos. Measurements of the effective mass $`m_{ee}`$ will allow to check “test equalities” which relate $`m_{ee}`$ and oscillation parameters in the context of certain schemes of neutrino mass. In this way we will be probably able to identify the scheme and to get information on the absolute scale of neutrino mass.


format: text

text:
# LSND, SN1987A, and CPT Violation[1]

## Abstract

We point out that neutrino events observed at Kamiokande and IMB from SN1987A disfavor the neutrino oscillation parameters preferred by the LSND experiment. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2>0`$ (the light side), the electron neutrinos from the neutronization burst would be lost, while the first event at Kamiokande is quite likely to be due to an electron neutrino. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2<0`$ (the dark side), the average energy of the dominantly $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ events is already lower than the theoretical expectations, which would get aggravated by a complete conversion from $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ to $`\overline{\nu }_e`$. If taken seriously, the LSND data are disfavored independent of the existence of a sterile neutrino. A possible remedy is CPT violation, which allows different mass spectra for neutrinos and anti-neutrinos and hence can accommodate atmospheric, solar and LSND data without a sterile neutrino. If this is the case, Mini-BooNE must run in $`\overline{\nu }`$ rather than the planned $`\nu `$ mode to test the LSND signal. We speculate on a possible origin of CPT violation.

The neutrino masses are strictly zero in the standard model, while recent strong evidence for oscillations in atmospheric neutrino data suggests a small but finite mass for neutrinos . There are also weaker but compelling hints for oscillation in solar neutrino data . Both of them rely on the “disappearance” of the neutrinos compared to theoretical expectations. On the other hand, there is a dedicated neutrino oscillation experiment, LSND, which reported the appearance of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ in the $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ flux from the stopped $`\mu ^+`$ decay . They have also reported a hint for appearance in $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ mode but the significance is low . It was reported that its significance became even lower in the final analysis , and hence we will ignore this hint throughout this letter. It is therefore an important question if all three indications for neutrino oscillation would fit together.

The observation of neutrinos from SN1987A at Kamiokande and IMB marked the birth of neutrino astronomy, and confirmed the standard core collapse model of Type-II supernovae. Detailed comparisons of data and theory put constraints on neutrino oscillation parameters (see  for a review and reference therein). It is the aim of this letter to reexamine the constraints from SN1987A neutrino data with a particular focus on the oscillation parameters preferred by the LSND experiment.

There are basically three types of constraints one can draw from the SN1987A data. The first constraint comes from the energy spectrum of observed events, which are believed to be dominated by $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ events. Because of different reaction rates in the proto-neutron star core, one expects a temperature hierarchy $`T_{\nu _e}<T_{\overline{\nu }_e}<T_{\nu _\mu ,\overline{\nu }_\mu ,\nu _\tau ,\overline{\nu }_\tau }`$. Their average energies are expected to be 10–12 MeV, 14–17 MeV, and 24–27 MeV, respectively. The observed energy spectrum at Kamiokande indicates that the temperature of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ was somewhat on the low side of the theoretical expectations, with an average energy of 7–14 MeV . If there is an efficient conversion between $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ or $`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$, it would increase the energies of the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$-induced events, aggravating the tension between data and theory. Therefore, oscillation parameters that would lead to such an efficient conversion are disfavored . The MSW effect via the resonance occurs when $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ is heavier than $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ for small mixing angles as suggested by the LSND data, because the matter effect due to the charged-current interaction with the electrons would bring the instantaneous eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ state lower and hence can cause level crossing. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=0.1`$–1 eV2, as suggested by the LSND data, the conversion is essentially complete and therefore the SN1987A data disfavor such parameters. We use the requirement $`P_{osc}<0.35`$ by Smirnov, Spergel and Bahcall based on this argument . However, the constraint had not been studied on the dark side $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta >1`$ of the parameter space  to the best of our knowledge . The density profile was taken from  with an empirical approximation

$$N_e(r)=\{\begin{array}{cc}10^{10}N_A\hfill & r<2.15\times 10^4r_{}\hfill \\ 0.1N_A(r/r_{})^3\hfill & r>2.15\times 10^4r_{}\hfill \end{array},$$
(1)
where $`N_A`$ is the Avogadro number, and we took $`E_\nu 25`$ MeV. The resulting constraint on the oscillation parameter space is shown in Fig. 1 on the dark side. The wiggles around $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^5`$ eV2 are due to the Earth matter effect. Because the Large Magellanic Cloud is seen on the southern sky while both Kamiokande and IMB detectors reside on the northern hemisphere, the neutrinos from SN1987A had passed through the Earth, causing regeneration of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and hence making the constraint weaker. We approximate the effect using a constant density $`N_e3N_A`$ and $`R10^4`$ km.

The second constraint comes from the very first (and possibly the second) event at Kamiokande. At the time of core collapse, most of the protons in the iron core of the progenitor are converted to neutrons to overcome the Coulomb repulsion, releasing electron neutrinos. This is called the neutronization or deleptonization burst. Near thermal radiation of all species of neutrinos used in the first constraint appear only about a hundred milliseconds after the neutronization burst. The electron neutrinos dominantly scatter elastically with electrons in water, and produce highly forward peaked electrons, while $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ absorption on proton produces a nearly isotropically distributed positrons. Indeed the very first event at Kamiokande points beautifully back at the SN1987A and is completely consistent with this interpretation. The expected event rate of $`\nu _e`$ is, however, about 0.025 at Kamiokande  and hence the observation is thanks to an upward statistical fluctuation. If there is an efficient conversion between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ or $`\nu _\tau `$, the expected neutral-current event rates due to $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ would be about 1/7 of that due to the $`\nu _e`$ events which have both neutral-current and charged-current amplitudes, and hence the observation of one event would be highly unlikely. Therefore, oscillation parameters that would lead to such an efficient conversion are disfavored . We require $`P_{osc}<0.90`$, so that the observation of one event is possible within 99% CL. The MSW effect via the resonance occurs when $`\nu _e`$ is lighter than $`\nu _\mu `$ for small mixing angles as suggested by the LSND data, because the matter effect due to the charged-current interaction with the electrons would bring the instantaneous eigenvalue of the Hamiltonian of $`\nu _e`$ state higher and hence can cause level crossing. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=0.1`$–1 eV2 suggested by the LSND data, the conversion is essentially complete and therefore the SN1987A data disfavor such parameters. The constraint on the oscillation parameter space is shown in Fig. 1 on the left half $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta <1`$ (the light side).

The third constraint is based on the assumption that the expanding envelope driven by thermal neutrino wind of exploding supernova is the site of nuclear $`r`$-process, synthesizing elements beyond iron. If the $`\nu _e`$ is lighter than $`\nu _\mu `$, there may be an efficient conversion between the two, and the $`\nu _e`$ wind would have the temperature of $`\nu _\mu `$, i.e. higher than what it normally is. The higher temperature of $`\nu _e`$ would have a higher cross section to convert neutrons to protons, where protons would end up mostly in 4He and would not participate in producing neutron-rich nuclei required in the nuclear $`r`$-process. This consideration places a constraint at higher values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ . The constraint derived in  is shown in Fig. 1.

For a comparison, we also show the preferred regions of the parameter space from the solar neutrino data in Fig. 1, taken from .

The important point is that the oscillation parameters preferred by the LSND data, which could be on either sides of the parameter space, are both disfavored by the SN1987A neutrino data, even though the difficulties in theory of supernova explosion and low statistics in the data do not allow us to draw a definite conclusion.

So far, our analysis has been within the two-flavor mixing scheme. However we know there are three light active neutrinos, and it has been argued that we may need even a sterile neutrino state to explain LSND, atmoshperic, and solar neutrino data by neutrino oscillations. Note that our result does not depend on other oscillation effects, in particular whether there exists a sterile neutrino or not. Let us consider the case where all current indications for neutrino oscillations, LSND, atmospheric, and solar, are correct and hence there is one sterile state. Because there are three independent $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, there are $`3!=6`$ ways to order them. Four of them are so-called 3+1 models, where one state is separated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^2`$ while other three are close to each other separated only by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atmos}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{solar}}^2`$. These models used to be disfavored by the combination of CDHS, CCFR, Bugey, and atmospheric neutrino data at SuperKamiokande , but recent reanalysis of the LSND data brought the preferred $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ smaller and there opened a small acceptable region in the parameter space . In these models, the state $`\nu _4`$ widely separated from the rest is nearly pure $`\nu _s`$, with small mixing of $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$. The LSND oscillation is explained by the product $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{LSND}}=4|U_{e4}U_{\mu 4}^{}|^2`$. Two other models are so-called 2+2 models, where two doublets, each responsible for atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillations, are separated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^2`$. $`\nu _e`$ ($`\nu _\mu `$) state is almost exclusively in the solar (atmospheric) doublet. Recent SuperKamiokande data disfavors pure $`\nu _s`$ oscillation in both solar and atmospheric data, and therefore we need to put $`\nu _s`$ in both doublets . Now we follow how the states evolve as the neutrinos exit the proto-neutron star core. In 3+1 models, either $`\nu _e`$ or $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ crosses the $`\nu _s`$ state first, and the transition between these states is well approximated by the two-flavor mixing as studied above. Therefore either of them is nearly completely lost into $`\nu _s`$. This strengthens the constraint from the neutronization burst, while the constraint from the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ spectrum is unchanged by the $`\nu _s`$ component (even though the overall normalization gets further suppressed). In 2+2 models, either $`\nu _e`$ or $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ crosses the atmoshperic doublet first and are nearly completely converted. Therefore the constraints discussed in the two-flavor case are unaffected.

A fair question to ask is how robust these constraints are. As for the temperature difference used in the first constraint, the issue had been raised if an additional process, such as $`\nu NN\nu NN`$, may reduce the temperature differences between $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$, $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$, $`\nu _\tau `$, $`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ , but no concrete estimates of the temperature had been given. This issue can be settled only by more detailed numerical simulations and/or a future observation of supernova neutrino bursts. For instance, SuperKamiokande, SNO, Borexino, and KamLAND can detect $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ via the charged-current reaction, while $`\nu _e`$ can also be detected at SNO via the charged-current, and all neutrino species at SNO, Borexino, and KamLAND via the neutral-current reaction (see  for a recent review on the experimental aspects). Then we can test if there is a significant temperature difference among different event categories. The interpretation that the first Kamiokande event, produced at the angle $`18^{}\pm 18^{}`$ in the forward direction, is due to the elastic $`\nu _ee`$ scattering of $`\nu _e`$ from the neutronization burst is also subject to a criticism. The expected event rate is low, and we are relying on a single event to place the constraint. The probability that this event is due to an isotropically distributed $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ event is about 3% . We find the fact that this event was the first quite suggestive of being a $`\nu _e`$ event. Again a future detection of supernova neutrinos would settle this issue. Because of these possible criticisms, we cannot make a definite claim that the LSND data is incompatible with the SN1987A neutrino events. We can only say that the LSND preferred region is disfavored by SN1987A data based on the assumptions made above.

For the rest of the letter, we take the above constraints seriously, and we discuss how we may accommodate the LSND data despite the constraints. The only way to evade the SN1987A constraints is to assume $`\nu _e`$ is heavier than $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ while $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ lighter than $`\overline{\nu }_{\mu ,\tau }`$. Such a mass spectrum obviously violates CPT, but we do not see any other alternatives as long as we take the SN1987A constraints seriously. Once CPT is violated, in principle one may also consider the violation of Lorentz invariance, which will be discussed elsewhere. For a phenomenological exercise, we consider different mass spectra for neutrinos and anti-neutrinos and keep Lorentz invariance. The question is if we can accommodate atmospheric, solar, and LSND data within the SN1987A constraints.

The key to this question is that the solar neutrino data probe only $`\nu _e`$, but not $`\overline{\nu }_e`$, while the LSND data only $`\overline{\nu }_e`$, but not $`\nu _e`$ . On the neutrino spectrum, unless $`U_{e3}`$ element is extremely small, $`\nu _e`$ cannot be below the atmospheric neutrino mass gap because it would cause a loss in the neutronization burst. Therefore, the solar mass gap must be above the atmospheric mass gap. On the anti-neutrino spectrum, we need $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ the lightest, and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$, $`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ about 1 eV2 above $`\overline{\nu }_e`$. The splitting between two mass eigenstates which are dominantly $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$, $`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ must be relevant to atmospheric neutrino oscillation. The mass spectra are depicted in Fig. 2. It is interesting to note that the combination of the cosmic microwave background anisotropy from Planck satellite and Lyman-$`\alpha `$ power spectrum will be able to exclude the neutrino mass down to 0.29 eV at 2$`\sigma `$ level .

Different mass spectra between neutrinos and anti-neutrinos will affect future neutrino oscillation experiments. The most important consequence is for the Mini-BooNE experiment, which is supposed to put a final word on the LSND signal. They will run primarily in the $`\nu _\mu `$ mode, unfortunately, which would not exhibit the LSND oscillation. They do have a capability to run in the $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ mode, however, and this mode must be used to test the LSND evidence.

Brief comments on the possible origin of CPT violation are in order. First of all, it has been often argued that the small mass of neutrinos could well be originated from Planck-scale physics. Even though Yukawa couplings suppressed by the nominal Planck $`hv/M_{Pl}`$ would be too small compared to the required mass spectra above, the “Planck scale” can well be much lower, even down to the TeV scale as has been discussed intensively lately . Therefore, it is quite possible that the small neutrino masses probe quantum gravity physics. It is then also conceivable that the possible violation of CPT from quantum gravitational physics appears most evidently in the neutrino mass spectra but not elsewhere. For instance, non-commutative geometry violates Lorentz invariance at short distances, producing possible seeds for CPT violation  (see, however, ). It is easy to write down Hamiltonian with different massees for neutrinos and anti-neutrinos in momentum space, but it is non-local in the coordinate space. See Refs.  for recent discussions on other stringy or quantum-gravitational origin of CPT violation. Even though this discussion is highly speculative, we hope that our work provokes more intensive discussions on the possible origin of CPT violation.

In summary, we discussed the SN1987A constraints on the neutrino oscillation parameters, and found that the parameters preferred by the LSND data are disfavored by the SN1987A data on both sides of the parameter space. If we take these constraints seriously, the only way to make the LSND data compatible is to allow different mass spectra for neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, and hence CPT violation.

###### Acknowledgements.

HM thanks Nima Arkani-Hamed, Lawrence Hall, Aaron Pierce, and Dave Smith for useful comments.


text:
# Reformulating Yang-Mills theory in terms of local gauge invariant variables

## Abstract

An explicit canonical transformation is constructed to relate the physical subspace of Yang-Mills theory to the phase space of the ADM variables of general relativity. This maps 3+1 dimensional Yang-Mills theory to local evolution of metrics on 3 manifolds.

A long standing problem in Yang-Mills theories is whether its dynamics can be written in terms of gauge invariant variables. This is very important for our understanding of confinement in QCD. One option is to write the theory as dynamics of Wilson loops. However these are non-local variables and their evolution equations are difficult to handle. Another approach has been to use composite variables constructed out of the non-Abelian electric  or magnetic fields .

In three dimensions, gauge invariant formulation of Yang-Mills theory was carried out in close analogy to gravity in . A similar approach was tried out for 3+1 dimensions in , but the theory turned out to be quite complicated. Here we do a manifestly gauge invariant formulation of 3+1 dimensional Yang-Mills theory using Ashtekar like variables. This formulation is also closely related to ADM formulation of gravity. We identify the physical variables and the Gauss law and then rewrite the Hamiltonian in terms of the new variables.

Starting with the usual Euclidean partition function, we introduce an auxiliary field $`E^{ia}`$ and integrate over $`A_0^a`$ to obtain

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟A_i^a𝒟E^{ia}\delta (D_i[A]E^i)}`$ (1)
$`exp\{{\displaystyle (+i\stackrel{}{E}^i_0\stackrel{}{A}_i)}\}.`$
The hamiltonian density $``$ is given by

$$=\frac{1}{2}(g^2E^{i2}+\frac{1}{g^2}B_i^2),$$
(2)
where $`B_i^a`$ is the usual non-Abelian magnetic field. The phase space of the theory is defined in terms of the canonically conjugate variables $`A_i^a`$ and $`E_i^a`$. These variables are not free, but satisfy a constraint equation which is the non-Abelian Gauss law

$$_i\stackrel{}{E}^i+\stackrel{}{A}_i\times \stackrel{}{E}^i=0.$$
(3)
Following Ashtekar  let us define the driebein $`e`$ as

$$\stackrel{}{E}^i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ijk}\stackrel{}{e}_j\times \stackrel{}{e}_k$$
(4)
Assuming $`E=e^2`$ is nonzero, we obtain $`e_i^a=E^{\frac{1}{2}}(E^1)_i^a`$. Next we introduce the connection $`\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{A}}_i(E)`$ such that

$$ϵ_{ijk}(_je_k+\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{A}}_j(E)\times \stackrel{}{e}_k)=0$$
(5)
This is the unique connection one form which is torsion free with respect to the driebein $`e`$. $`\stackrel{~}{A}_i^a`$ and $`E_i^a`$ together satisfies the non-Abelian Gauss law as follows from (3) and (4). Let us denote the difference between $`\stackrel{}{A}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\stackrel{~}{A}}_i`$ by $`\stackrel{}{a}_i`$. In terms of the new variable $`\stackrel{}{a}_i`$ the Gauss law can be written as

$$\stackrel{}{a}_i\times \stackrel{}{E}^i=0$$
(6)
Note that since $`\stackrel{}{a}_i`$ is the difference between two connections, it transforms homogenously under gauge transformations.

The transformation from $`\{A_i,E^i\}`$ to $`\{a_i,E^i\}`$ is a canonical transformation generated by

$$S[a_i^a,E^{ia}]=d^3xa_i^aE^{ia}+\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{ijk}\stackrel{}{e}_i_j\stackrel{}{e}_k$$
(7)
We now want to make a variable transformation from the pair $`\{a_i^a,E_i^a\}`$ to the pair $`\{\pi ^{ij},g_{ij}\}`$. We will again do it by a canonical transformation. The main reason for using canonical transformations is that this leaves the phase space measure in the functional integral invariant in terms of the new variables. As the variables $`(a,E)`$ are more in number than ($`\pi ,g`$), we first augment the latter set by a canonically conjugate set $`\{\chi ^a,\theta _a\}`$. The relation between the old momenta and new coordinates are

$$g_{ij}=\stackrel{}{e}_i\stackrel{}{e}_j.$$
(8)
To define $`\theta _a`$ consider the Polar decomposition of $`e_i^a`$.

$$e_i^a=e_{ij}O^{ja}$$
(9)
where $`e_{ij}`$ is a symmetric matrix and $`O^{ja}`$ is an orthogonal matrix. $`\theta ^a`$ is the lie algebra element corresponding to $`O^{ja}`$.

$$O=exp(i\theta _a\frac{T^a}{2}).$$
(10)
To construct the full transformation, consider the generator of the canonical transformation

$$S(\pi ,\chi ,E)=\left((\stackrel{}{e}_i\stackrel{}{e}_j)\pi ^{ij}+\theta _a(e)\chi ^a\right)$$
(11)
From this generating functional, we have the relations

$`g_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \pi ^{ij}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{e}_i\stackrel{}{e}_j`$ (12)
$`\theta _a{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta \chi ^a}}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _a[e]`$ (13)
$`a_i^a{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta E^{ia}}}`$ (14)
To relate ‘$`a`$’ explicitly to the other variables, note that

$$\frac{\delta S}{\delta e_i^a}=\frac{\delta E^{bj}}{\delta e_i^a}\frac{\delta S}{\delta E^{bj}}=\frac{\delta E^{bj}}{\delta e_i^a}a_j^b.$$
(15)
In terms of these new variables, Gauss law becomes

$$(\stackrel{}{a}_i\times \stackrel{}{E}^i)^a=\frac{1}{2}(M^1)_b^a[\theta ]\chi ^b$$
(16)
where $`M`$ is defined by

$$O^T(\theta )O(\theta +\delta \theta )1+T^aM_b^a(\theta )\delta \theta ^b.$$
(17)
It is important to note that the canonical momentum $`\pi ^{ij}`$ drops out in the Gauss law equation. With the new variables, the Gauss law is implemented by simply setting $`\chi =0`$. We have thus achieved a separation between the physical momenta $`\pi ^{ij}`$ and the constraint momenta $`\chi `$. This is in direct analogy to ADM decomposition of the metric in gravity, which gives action as

$$I=d^4x\sqrt{g}R=d^4x\{\pi ^{ij}\dot{g}_{ij}N_\mu C^\mu \}$$
(18)
where $`\pi ^{ij}`$ and $`g_{ij}`$ are the physical variables and $`N_\mu `$ and $`C^\mu `$ are the constraints involving the lapse function and shift vectors. In terms of the new variables, our partition function becomes

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟g_{ij}𝒟\pi ^{ij}𝒟\theta ^a𝒟\chi ^a\delta ((M^1)_b^a[\theta ]\chi ^b)}`$ (19)
$`exp{\displaystyle (^{^{}}+i\pi ^{ij}_0g_{ij}+i\chi ^a_0\theta ^a)}.`$
$`\theta ^a`$ represents the gauge degrees of freedom. We may adopt the Faddeev-Popov procedure to choose $`\theta ^a=0`$. In this case $`M_b^a[\theta ]=\delta _b^a`$, and

$$Z=𝒟g_{ij}𝒟\pi ^{ij}exp(^{^{}}[g,\pi ]+i\pi ^{ij}_0g_{ij})$$
(20)
Now we have to rewrite the Hamiltonian in terms of the new variables. The relations between the old and the new variables are given by

$`E^{ia}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{ijk}ϵ^{abc}e_{jb}e_{kc}`$ (21)
$`A_i^a`$ $``$ $`\overline{A}_i^a[E]+a_i^a`$ (22)
$`a_i^a`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}(\pi ^{jk}g_{jk}e_{ia}2\pi ^{jk}g_{ik}e_{ja}).`$ (23)
Here $`e_{ia}`$ has to be regarded as the symmetric square root of $`g_{ij}`$. Hence it has only six degrees of freedom and not the usual nine. From (21) $`(\stackrel{}{E}^i)^2`$ becomes $`\frac{g^{ii}}{g}`$. For $`B_i[A]`$ we can do an expansion about $`\stackrel{~}{A}[E]`$

$`B_i[A]`$ $`=`$ $`B_i[\stackrel{~}{A}[E]]+ϵ_{ijk}D_j[\stackrel{~}{A}[E]]a_k`$ (24)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}(a_j\times a_k).`$
$`B_i[\stackrel{~}{A}[E]]`$ can be expressed entirely in terms of $`g_{ij}`$ and its derivatives. In fact it is related to the Ricci tensor.

$$B_i^a[\stackrel{~}{A}[E]]=\frac{1}{4e}ϵ_{ijk}ϵ_{lmn}R_{jl}g_{km}e_n^a$$
(25)
To evaluate the square of the last term in (24), we use

$`ϵ_{ijk}(a_j\times a_k)ϵ_{imn}(a_m\times a_n)`$
$`=(\stackrel{}{a}_j\stackrel{}{a}_m)(\stackrel{}{a}_j\stackrel{}{a}_m)(\stackrel{}{a}_j\stackrel{}{a}_j)^2.`$ (26)
Here finally ‘$`a`$’ has to be replaced by the expression in (23)

Let us define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k[g]`$ by the equation

$$(D_i[\overline{A}[E]]e_j)^a=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k[g]e_k^a.$$
(27)
Now we can replace $`D_k[\overline{A}[E]]`$ by the covariant derivative corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k[g]`$ when acting on $`g_{ij}`$ or $`\pi ^{ij}`$. Thus $`(\stackrel{}{B}_i[A])^2`$ and hence the full Hamiltonian can be written in terms of local gauge invariant quantities.

We have thus mapped the physical phase space of Yang-Mills theory onto the phase space of the ADM variables and the dynamics is now a local evolution of the metrics on 3-manifolds. The constraint variables and physical variables are explicitly separated and this greatly simplifies the imposition of Gauss law. The theory is now described in terms of gauge invariant unconstrained variables.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The discovery of a Higgs boson will be of profound importance. Arguably, it is one of the most important experimental results of all time. The Higgs boson is a new kind of matter, the first kind to be found in a century. New quarks and leptons have been found, but they are all particles like the electron that carry other charges. New force-mediating bosons have been found but they are all quanta like the photon. The Higgs boson is the quantum of a new kind of field, one for which the energy density of the universe is lower when the field has a non-zero value, and one whose interactions with other particles (both bosons and fermions) allow them to have mass. The Higgs boson both completes the Standard Model of particle physics, and points to how to extend the Standard Model. This discovery will also be a remarkable achievement for human intelligence, which was able to generate the idea of such a particle in nature and then to construct experimental facilities in which it could be produced and detected. It will lead us into a new realm of understanding the laws of nature.

In view of the profound importance of the Higgs discovery the present paper is designed to be largely accessible to the non-specialist. The purpose of the paper is to discuss what the measured values of mass and production rate (assuming a discovery) can tell us about the parameters of the Higgs sector, and about how the Standard Model (SM) will be extended. Many of the points in this paper will hold whether a Higgs boson is found at LEP or at Fermilab. However, we will focus on the possibility that the discovery occurs at LEP, and in that case the mass is already approximately known (since the collider is running at or near its highest energy), and the cross section times branching ratio must be as large as possible to get enough events to observe them. Initially, confirmation that a discovery is indeed a Higgs boson will rely on seeing a decay dominated by couplings proportional to mass, i.e., mainly to $`b\overline{b}`$, with a $`\tau \overline{\tau }`$ branching ratio (at about $`8\%`$) observed later, plus observing the expected production rate approximately. One important question is to identify whether the observed Higgs boson is that of the SM, a light Higgs boson of the supersymmetric (SUSY) Higgs spectrum, or a composite state. If the mass of the Higgs boson is about 115 GeV, one can argue that it is not the SM Higgs boson, because it is well below the lower limit (of about 130 GeV) that destabilizes the vacuum . Further, while in composite approaches to the origin of mass one cannot formulate theories well enough to make precise predictions, the natural mass for a scalar in such theories is near the non-perturbative limit. (For example, ref  gives an approximate region $`165<m_h<230`$ GeV, given certain assumptions.) Thus it is very unlikely that a discovery at LEP could be interpreted as a composite Higgs. In contrast there is motivation to study the case of a SUSY Higgs boson for several reasons. It is well known that the mass of a light scalar is not protected against radiative corrections that raise it up to the unification or Planck scale except in the presence of a symmetry such as SUSY. In addition SUSY predicts a Higgs boson mass consistent with a LEP measurement. Therefore we presume that such a discovery would be the lightest Higgs boson of the supersymmetric theory and proceed to study it in that context. However if the Higgs boson is indeed found at LEP the mass and cross section do not allow us to prove from its properties that it is explicitly a supersymmetric Higgs boson . Direct evidence for SUSY will have to come from discovery of superpartners or of some of the additional Higgs bosons at LEP, Fermilab or LHC. Less direct evidence for SUSY could come from observed deviations of the Higgs boson properties from the SM values when more precise data is available.

It is known that in the general case the number of parameters needed to describe the Higgs sector in SUSY models is at least seven . At tree level the number is only two, but (as was first pointed out in Ref.) the rest enter via large top-stop loop contributions to the Higgs potential that can shift the mass and cross section and branching ratios significantly. If $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, the ratio of Higgs vacuum expectation values, is large, or if the theory is an extension of the minimal supersymmetric SM (MSSM), there are surely more parameters (from b-b̃ loops, or from the mixing of additional scalars). Other loop contributions such as W-chargino and charged Higgs loops can be important as well (see for example  ) . If the mass and cross section are measured there are two relations among the seven or more parameters, and without further input there are unfortunately no additional results that can be deduced, apart from the general results of the above two paragraphs. It should also be noted that $`115`$ GeV is pushing the constraints on allowing electroweak baryogenesis in the MSSM , though those limits are soft ones.

Perhaps the most important success of supersymmetry is that it provides a radiative mechanism by which the breaking of the electroweak (SU(2)$`\times `$U(1)) symmetry can be explained. If radiative electroweak symmetry breaking is indeed correct, it leads to a relation between the measured W or Z masses and the soft supersymmetry breaking masses. If this relation is indeed physics, it must not involve fine-tuned differences of large numbers. If we assume this is so then we get important constraints on the parameter space. This is often called the naturalness assumption . This assumption can be checked a posteriori since it implies the production of gluinos at the Tevatron, and has further implications that we describe below.

Given that a LEP Higgs boson suggests a state with full strength couplings to W, Z and small invisible branching ratio, we can usefully estimate the number of Higgs bosons that will be produced at the Tevatron. Confirmation of a signal in a given mass bin will require less data than a discovery. Once the Higgs mass is measured (e.g. at LEP), all the Higgs bosons produced at the Tevatron  (even the inclusive channel) can be studied to confirm the signal and to observe smaller decay branching ratios, etc. The expected number is of order $`15,000`$ per $`10`$$`fb^1`$. If the Tevatron collider and detectors achieve design luminosity and are not limited by funding shortages, they will gather $`30fb^1`$. Thus with a known mass we can confirm a signal and even hope to see even $`BR(\gamma \gamma )`$ (which is expected to be $`10^3`$.) Observing the $`\gamma \gamma `$ decay immediately proves that $`h`$ does not have spin 1, and the value of the branching ratio is a useful constraint on other new particles in the theory.

The mass of 115 GeV is actually somewhat large for what is expected in the minimal theory if we insist it is not unnatural . The full parameter space of the MSSM allows masses up to about 130 GeV, but if the soft phases are zero the region above about 105 GeV is essentially excluded by naturalness unless $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is rather large, in which case masses up to about 115 GeV are allowed. Thus the LEP mass could be evidence that $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is large. Alternatively, with general phases one can have $`m_h=115`$ GeV for smaller $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, so the LEP mass could suggest large phases. Also, when an extra SU(2) singlet scalar is added to the theory the upper limit on the mass for a given $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and naturalness increases about 30 GeV , so the larger mass could also be evidence for this extension of the MSSM. Of course, a mixture of these effects could be present, or even more general extensions of the MSSM are possible.

When the full SUSY parameter space is present (including the phase which enters the Higgs potential), one might wonder if the production rate can be larger than in the SM. The production cross section can never increase for any parameter over the SM one, but the BR$`(b\overline{b})`$ can be larger than the SM one for special parameters  if the branching ratios to other channels are suppressed. This can at most give about a $`15\%`$ increase in cross section times branching ratio.

Another issue that needs to be studied is the possibility that the “observed” scalar is actually the second lightest one, the lightest being largely decoupled. The arises over a significant region of the parameter space of the theories with extra scalars . This effect can also happen in the MSSM in the presence of phases (a suggestion to that effect has appeared in Ref  as this paper was being written.)

In the following, we first discuss the general situation and then specialize to increasingly specific approaches to the Higgs sector.

## 2 General Case

The most general SUSY model may involve an explicit Higgs mass $`\mu `$, plus a rather general scalar sector, and involve many complex parameters. In such a framework one can deduce no further implications from the measurement of the Higgs mass and production. With rotations one can essentially consider here the two usual Higgs doublets $`H_U`$ and $`H_D`$ plus a single gauge singlet $`N`$ whose vacuum expectation value is responsible for generating the $`\mu `$ term due to the coupling $`\lambda NH_UH_D`$. In a recent analysis (which did not include the effect of phases) one of us showed that in the NMSSM the low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region is technically natural and permitted a strong first order phase transition consistent with electroweak baryogenesis . The reason for the improved naturalness of the NMSSM may be simply understood since the tree-level Higgs mass squared formula is modified from its MSSM value to $`M_Z^2(\mathrm{cos}^22\beta +C\mathrm{sin}^22\beta )`$ where $`C=2\lambda ^2/(g^2+g^2)`$ . As we shall see later an increased tree-level Higgs mass demands less from radiative corrections. The extra Higgs singlet state may mix with or decouple from the physical Higgs state, leading to possible interesting effects.

Specializing to the MSSM, with an explicit Higgs mass term $`\mu H_UH_D`$, it was first recognized a couple of years ago that the Higgs parameter space had been oversimplified  and that some of the parameters could be complex. This has now been studied in some detail , -, and possible effects are large. All the extra parameters enter from loop diagrams that contribute significantly to the Higgs potential. The Higgs mass eigenstates and their couplings to gauge bosons and fermions can be modified. Any conclusion about the Higgs sector — limits or implications of discoveries — that are made without including the full parameter space are not justified and may be simply wrong . The top-stop loop is presumably the dominant one and including it one can list the minimum set of parameters on which the Higgs potential (and hence Higgs mass and couplings) depends as $`M_L^2`$, $`M_R^2`$, $`|A_t|`$, $`|\mu |`$, $`\varphi _\mu +\varphi _{A_t}`$, $`B=m_3^3`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The first three are the left and right handed stop soft breaking square masses and the stop trilinear soft mass parameter, then the Higgs mass parameter $`\mu `$ , followed by the phase combination that arises as the sum of the phase of $`\mu `$ and the phase of $`A_t.`$ $`B`$ is the Higgs mixing parameter in the soft Lagrangian. Finally there is tan$`\beta .`$ The Higgs mass is directly measured kinematically if there is a signal at LEP. Similarly, if there is a signal the cross section is about equal to the SM one, which implies that the masses of the heavier Higgs bosons are large and they effectively decouple; this eliminates one combination of parameters. Thus there are five parameters left. If tan$`\beta `$ is large there is an important bottom-sbottom loop too, with more parameters, and chargino and neutralino and charged Higgs loops could also be non-negligible . In the latter cases there are too many parameters and it is impossible to learn anything beyond the direct data and the implications outlined in the introduction.

However, we think it is worthwhile to proceed with simplifying assumptions below and see what can be deduced if we make some assumptions. While the assumptions may be right, they may not, and the results should not be believed just because otherwise we cannot learn anything — that is “lamppost physics”. Rather, as we will see, at least to some extent the assumptions can be checked a posteriori with more data. For all cases we consider, we can point out what analyses are useful, but final studies and implications have to be done by experimenters who can include efficiencies and errors in appropriate ways.

## 3 Naturalness

We think the safest assumption is that if nature is indeed supersymmetric at the weak scale, and this provides the actual explanation of EWSB, then this explanation will be natural, as discussed above. In that case we can study the general parameter space and find that it is indeed somewhat reduced in size. Some lower values of tan$`\beta `$ are excluded, but only up to tan$`\beta `$ of about 3-4. The phase remains general, unfortunately, with any value allowed. The reduction of the parameter space can be seen most clearly in the $`\mu `$ parameter, which has an upper limit of about $`300`$ GeV. This limit is not very sensitive to other parameters, and not too sensitive to the unknown phase. It has considerable implications, particular for the neutralino and chargino masses, for $`bs\gamma `$ branching ratio and CP asymmetry, and for the LSP cold dark matter relic density and detectability.

In the context of naturalness one may wonder about the question of phases in SUSY. If all the phases are large, there must be some cancellations responsible for the smallness of the neutron and electron electric dipole moments (EDMs) , and given our present understanding this cancellation mechanism apparently violates naturalness. However the cancellations required are model dependent, and in some theories this mechanism could be entirely natural. Another possibility is that the first two families of squarks and sleptons are very heavy, while the third family ones are lighter; then the Higgs potential is unchanged, but the contribution to EDMs is reduced, so the appeal to cancellations is reduced. In this case the needed mass hierarchy would have to be explained. Alternatively there may be small SUSY phases for some presently unknown theoretical reason. It is to this possibility that we now turn.

## 4 Small Phases, Large $`M_A`$ and Larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$.

From now on we set the phase in the Higgs potential to zero, so CP is conserved, and also assume that $`B`$ is rather large (which physically means a large CP-odd peudoscalar mass $`M_A>>M_Z`$) since it is known that in this limit the Higgs production cross-section becomes maximal, consistent with a LEP observation. In this case the Higgs potential only depends on the four parameters $`M_L^2`$, $`M_R^2`$, $`M_{LR}^2=m_t(A_t\mu \mathrm{cot}\beta )`$, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, where $`B`$ has decoupled, and the phase has disappeared leaving only the relative sign of $`A_t`$ and $`\mu `$ appearing in the combination $`M_{LR}^2`$. The first three of these parameters completely determine the physical stop masses $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ and stop mixing angle $`\theta _t`$. Another important question to address is the sign of $`\mu `$. In the Higgs production process we are considering, only the relative sign between $`\mu `$ and the trilinear coupling $`A_t`$ is relevant. We found that for any set of parameter with one relative sign (’$`+`$’ for example) that is consistent with the signal, there is another point in the parameter space with opposite sign that is allowed. Therefore, we cannot decide the relative sign if we take the full parameter space into consideration.

Given these assumptions (including naturalness) a corollary is that $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is larger, say 5-20, the upper limit chosen to avoid the complications of the bottom quarks and squarks. Naturalness prefers larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for two independent reasons: the tree-level contribution to the Higgs mass $`M_Z\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$ is maximised; and the top quark Yukawa coupling is reduced (see later).

Assuming larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the tree-level Higgs mass is near $`M_Z`$. Can one make any statements about the stop spectrum from the condition that its radiative corrections shift the Higgs mass from $`M_Z`$ to about 115 GeV, a difference of about 25 GeV? There are two dominant radiative corrections from the stop sector, a “degenerate” contribution depending on $`\mathrm{ln}(m_1^2m_2^2/m_t^4)`$, and a “hierarchical” contribution depending on $`\mathrm{ln}(m_2^2/m_1^2)`$ and proportional to the combination $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _t(m_2^2m_1^2)/2m_t^2`$. It is possible to obtain the required radiative corrections from either a degenerate heavy stop spectrum with a small mixing angle, or a hierarchical stop spectrum with a large mixing angle and a light stop squark. Degenerate stop squarks with large mixing is also possible. There is no way to choose among them without further information. Thus from the point of view of the low energy theory it is difficult to learn much about the stop spectrum from the Higgs mass, although once one stop mass is measured the remaining stop mass and mixing angle will be constrained.

## 5 High Energy Input Parameters

We now explicitly assume that the low energy parameters such as the stop parameters and Higgs soft masses are determined from some input parameters at a high energy scale, which for definiteness may be taken to be the unification scale $`10^{16}`$ GeV. The relevant high energy input parameters are $`M_i(0),m_Q(0),m_U(0),m_{H_U}(0),m_{H_D}(0),A(0)`$ (the high scale gaugino soft masses, squark doublet soft mass, stop singlet soft mass, Higgs soft masses, and trilinear soft mass, respectively), together with sign($`\mu `$) and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, where $`|\mu |`$ and $`B`$ are fixed by the low electroweak symmetry breaking conditions (unlike the previous approach where the low energy Higgs soft masses were fixed by these conditions.)

The radiative symmetry breaking mechanism involves the high energy Higgs soft mass squared $`m_{H_U}^2(0)`$ being positive but the low energy value $`m_{H_U}^2(t)`$, where $`t=\mathrm{ln}Q`$ and $`Q`$ is the low energy $`\overline{MS}`$ scale, having been driven negative. Naturalness requires that $`|m_{H_U}^2(t)|`$ should not be much larger than $`M_Z^2`$, and in order to prevent this we require $`m_{H_U}^2(t)`$ not to be too negative. As mentioned larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ implies a smaller top Yukawa coupling which helps not to drive $`m_{H_U}^2(t)`$ too negative. Another requirement is that the high energy gluino mass $`M_3(0)`$ not be too large, since large gluino mass drives the squark mass squareds $`m_Q^2(t),m_U^2(t)`$ very positive, and the coupled renormalisation group equations drive $`m_{H_U}^2(t)`$ very negative in response. However $`m_Q^2(t),m_U^2(t)`$ are essentially just the stop parameters $`M_L^2`$, $`M_R^2`$ and the 115 GeV Higgs mass requires at least one of them to be quite large, as discussed, so subtlety is required to avoid some violation of naive naturalness .

Implications for the SUSY spectrum of a 114-115 GeV Higgs have recently been explored assuming the minimal SUGRA relations $`M_{1/2}=M_i(0)`$ and $`m_0=m_Q(0)=m_U(0)=m_{H_U}(0)=m_{H_D}(0)`$ , and it was concluded there that $`M_{1/2}>250`$ GeV. However we note that these authors restrict themselves to small values of $`m_0200`$ GeV where the cosmological relic density calculated with their assumptions is in the desired range. In our view, the implications of knowing $`m_h`$ for cold dark matter can be summarized as follows. While we do expect the LSP to be the lightest neutralino, and to be a significant portion of the cold dark matter, the actual calculation of the relic density is known to be very sensitive to a variety of assumptions. For example, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSP}1/3`$ can be the result of calculations with lighter sleptons but heavier squarks once one does not insist on a single scalar mass $`m_0`$. Or the presence of phases can lead to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{LSP}1/3`$  when it would not if the phases were zero. Or most of the relic density can be created in non-thermal processes . While the actual value of $`m_h`$ does enter all calculations, we do not think it leads to any significant increase in understanding the CDM relic density at the present time, because numerical results require too many major assumptions. In particular we find the assumptions of minimal SUGRA and $`m_0<200`$ GeV to be unnecessarily restrictive.

As an illustrative point, we find that for larger values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and taking $`m_0=500`$ GeV with $`A(0)=2m_0`$ (in our convention above) that the $`M_{1/2}`$ required for a 114-115 GeV Higgs is reduced to about 190 GeV for positive $`\mu `$ (the Higgs measurement does not constrain the sign of $`\mu `$), with a significantly lighter stop mass of about 240 GeV and a chargino mass of about 130 GeV. If in addition we allow a slight violation of scalar universality by increasing $`m_{H_U}(0)`$ by 25% relative to the other scalar masses then $`M_{1/2}`$ is reduced still further to about 180 GeV, with a reduced stop mass of about 160 GeV, and a chargino mass about 140 GeV. Maintaining scalar universality but relaxing gaugino mass universality with $`M_2(0)=2M_3(0)`$, and taking $`m_0=500`$ GeV and $`A(0)=2m_0`$ as before, we find that $`M_3(0)`$ required for a $`114115`$ GeV Higgs is reduced to 150 GeV with a very light stop mass of 80 GeV but a heavier chargino of mass 240 GeV. The effects of non-universality can be understood as resulting from changes in the $`\mu `$ parameter due to changes in $`m_{H_U}^2(t)`$ due to renormalisation group effects. Similar effects can be obtained for $`m_01`$ TeV, $`A(0)>1`$ TeV but with reduced naturalness.

Does naturalness favour a lighter gluino, possibly in the Tevatron range? Given our assumptions we require some large parameter in the stop sector to increase the Higgs mass by 25 GeV due to radiative corrections. The origin of this large parameter may come either directly at the high scale, by for instance choosing $`m_0500`$ GeV, $`A(0)1`$ TeV, in which case $`M_3(0)150`$ GeV and the gluino can be lighter. Or it could arise from having relatively small squark soft parameters at the high scale, but having a large gluino mass which increases the stop parameters through renormalisation group running effects. Both possibilities seem equally likely from the naturalness point of view. The lighter gluino case is testable at the Tevatron. Of course in the more general case with the phase present then the gluino can be lighter than in the zero phase case, for a given Higgs mass and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. In general when the theory is extended to improve naturalness a lighter gluino will be favoured.

## 6 Conclusion

We have discussed in general terms the implications of a possible Higgs boson discovery. We first argued that a Higgs boson discovery at LEP is evidence for a SUSY Higgs boson. The most general supersymmetry theory is too complicated to draw any further conclusions from a Higgs boson mass measurement. We think it is worthwhile to make a series of assumptions and examine the consequences at each stage. We first considered the NMSSM (which extends the minimal supersymmetric theory to include an additional scalar) where naturalness can be improved relative to the MSSM for low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and electroweak baryogenesis looks more promising. Turning to the MSSM, we emphasised that the presence of phases can lead to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ being lower than expected for a given Higgs mass. The BR$`(b\overline{b})`$ can be larger than the SM one for special parameters  if the branching ratios to other channels are suppressed, allowing at most about a $`15\%`$ increase in cross section times branching ratio. We then imposed naturalness where an upper limit on $`\mu `$ could be set. Setting phases to zero and assuming large $`M_A`$ reduces the number of parameters considerably and with those assumptions naturalness probably implies larger $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The stop spectrum must satisfy the constraint of increasing the Higgs mass by about 25 GeV; it can do this in several ways. We then considered the high energy input parameters and showed that with these assumptions some subtlety is required to preserve naturalness. We concluded that a lighter gluino produceable at the Tevatron is likely when the theory is extended to improve naturalness, and will coincide with a lighter stop squark, since both effects arise from a larger trilinear soft mass. This conclusion disagrees with a recent result due to the unnecessarily restrictive nature of the assumptions in that case.

Finally it is still necessary to consider the possibility that LEP will only set a bound on the Higgs mass, and not make a discovery, in which case the true supersymmetric Higgs mass limit is well below the LEP kinematic limit. In this case the cross section is not saturated, and the true limit has to be deduced from the full parameter space. For the mass, the limit is no longer about 115 GeV, but is instead about 20% lower, about 95 GeV . No discovery does not yet imply a conflict with naturalness, since in the general parameter space a given cross section can occur for a lower mass.

Acknowledgment

G.K. thanks A.Schwimmer for a question. We are very grateful to L.Everett for discussions and comments on the paper, and to S.Rigolin for a read of the paper. S.K. is grateful to the Randall Physics Laboratory at the University of Michigan and the Aspen Center for Physics where some of this work was done, and to PPARC for the support of a Senior Fellowship.


text:
# A numerical study of Goldstone-mode effects and scaling functions of the three-dimensional 𝑂(2) model Talk given by J. Engels, the work was supported by DFG Grant No. Ka 1198/4-1

## 1 INTRODUCTION

$`O(N)`$ models are of general relevance to condensed matter physics and to quantum field theory, because many physical systems exhibit a second-order phase transition with the same universal properties. Due to the existence of massless Goldstone modes in $`O(N)`$ models with $`N>1`$ and dimension $`d=3`$ and 4  singularities are expected on the whole coexistence line $`T<T_c,H=0`$, in addition to the known critical behaviour at $`T_c`$. Recently these predictions have been confirmed by simulations of the $`3d`$ $`O(4)`$ model . A further motivation for studying $`3d`$ $`O(N)`$ models is their relation to quantum chromodynamics (QCD). The QCD chiral phase transition for two light-quark flavors is supposed to be of second order in the continuum limit and to be in the same universality class as the $`3d`$ $`O(4)`$ model . In the staggered formulation of QCD on the lattice a part of chiral symmetry is remaining and that is $`O(2)`$. For the comparison to QCD lattice data it is therefore important to know the $`O(2)`$ and $`O(4)`$ universal scaling functions.

The $`O(2)`$-invariant nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model (or $`XY`$ model) on a $`d`$dimensional hypercubic lattice is defined by

$$\beta =J\underset{<i,j>}{}𝐒_i𝐒_j𝐇\underset{i}{}𝐒_i.$$
(1)
$`𝐒_i`$ is an 2-component unit vector at site $`i`$ with a longitudinal (parallel to the magnetic field $`𝐇`$) and a transverse component

$$𝐒_i=S_i^{}\widehat{𝐇}+𝐒_i^{}.$$
(2)
The order parameter of the system, the magnetization $`M`$, is given by

$$M=<\frac{1}{V}\underset{i}{}S_i^{}>=<S^{}>.$$
(3)
There is a longitudinal and a transverse susceptibility

$`\chi _L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{H}}=V(<S_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}>M^2),`$ (4)
$`\chi _T`$ $`=`$ $`V<𝐒_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}>={\displaystyle \frac{M}{H}}.`$ (5)
In the broken phase ($`T<T_c`$) the magnetization attains a finite value $`M(T,0)`$ at $`H=0`$. Consequently the transverse susceptibility diverges as $`H^1`$ when $`H0`$ for all $`T<T_c`$. It is non-trivial that also the longitudinal susceptibility is diverging on the coexistence line for $`2<d4`$. The predicted  divergence for $`d=3`$ is

$$\chi _L(T<T_c,H)H^{1/2},$$
(6)
which is equivalent to an $`H^{1/2}`$-behaviour of the magnetization near the coexistence curve

$$M(T<T_c,H)=M(T,0)+cH^{1/2}.$$
(7)
In finite volumes and $`H0`$ the Goldstone modes induce strong finite-size effects at all $`T<T_c`$.

## 2 NUMERICAL RESULTS

Our simulations were done on three-dimensional lattices with periodic boundary conditions and linear extensions $`L=8160`$ using the cluster algorithm. In order to eliminate finite-size effects we simulated for increasingly larger values of $`L`$ at fixed values of $`J=1/T`$ (i.e. fixed temperature $`T`$) and $`H`$. For $`1/T_c`$ we took the value $`J_c=0.454165(4)`$ from Ref. .

In Fig. 1 we show the data for the magnetization as a function of $`H^{1/2}`$ for six fixed values of $`J`$ in the low-temperature phase. The picture is rather similar to the one obtained in $`O(4)`$ : strong finite-size effects appear for small $`H`$ and persist as one moves away from $`T_c`$, the results from the largest lattices are at first sight linear in $`H^{1/2}`$, as predicted by Eq. 7. Very close to $`H=0`$ the fixed temperature curves become slightly flatter, leading to a higher value for $`M(T,0)`$ than expected from the data at larger $`H`$ values. This behaviour is more pronounced close to $`T_c`$ than at lower temperatures. In order to extrapolate the data to $`H0`$ and $`V\mathrm{}`$ we apply two different strategies. The first is to extend the linear form in $`H^{1/2}`$, Eq. 7, to a quadratic one

$$M(T<T_c,H)=M(T,0)+c_1H^{1/2}+c_2H,$$
(8)
and to fit the data from the largest lattices, which we assume to represent data on an infinite volume lattice, to this form. The second way to find $`M(T,0)`$ is just opposite to the first. Here we exploit the $`L`$ or volume dependence at fixed $`J`$ and fixed small $`H`$ to determine via chiral perturbation theory (CPT)  the magnetization $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the continuum theory for $`V\mathrm{},H=0`$, which is related to $`M(T,0)`$ by

$$M(T,0)=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\sqrt{J}}.$$
(9)
We observe in Fig. 1 a remarkable coincidence of

the fits according to Eq. 8 (dashed lines) with the CPT results at $`H=0`$ (filled circles). In the neighbourhood of $`T_c`$ the results for $`M(T,0)`$ should show the usual critical behaviour. Since we expect here sizeable corrections to scaling  we make the following ansatz to determine the critical amplitude $`B`$ ($`\overline{t}=T_cT`$)

$$M(T\mathrm{}<T_c,0)=B\overline{t}^\beta [1+b_1\overline{t}^{\omega \nu }+b_2\overline{t}].$$
(10)
Here and in the following we use the critical exponents

from Ref.

$$\beta =0.3490(6),\nu =0.6723(11),\omega =0.79(2).$$
(11)
A fit to all extrapolated points gives

$$B=0.945(5),b_1=0.053(23),b_2=0.098(23).$$

In Fig. 2 we show this fit and also the leading term separately. As the critical point is reached the $`H`$-dependence of the magnetization changes to satisfy critical scaling. We therefore fit the data from the largest lattice sizes at $`T_c`$ to the form

$$M(T_c,H)=d_cH^{1/\delta }[1+d_c^1H^{\omega \nu _c}].$$
(12)
A further term proportional to $`H`$ is unnecessary here, because the corrections to scaling are much smaller than on the coexistence line. The largest $`L`$ data can be fitted very well with the ansatz (12) and the critical exponents as input. We find $`d_c=0.978(2)`$ and $`d_c^1=0.075(5)`$, that is again negative corrections to scaling.

## 3 THE SCALING FUNCTION

In the thermodynamic limit, the dependence of the magnetization on temperature and magnetic field can be expressed  in the form

$$M=h^{1/\delta }f_G(t/h^{1/\beta \delta }),$$
(13)
where $`f_G`$ is a universal scaling function and $`t`$ and $`h`$ are the normalized reduced temperature $`t=(TT_c)/T_0`$ and magnetic field $`h=H/H_0`$. Here

$$H_0=d_c^\delta =1.11(1),T_0=B^{1/\beta }=1.18(2),$$
(14)
which implies $`f_G(0)=1`$ and $`f_G(t<0,h0)(t)^\beta h^{1/\delta }`$. Obviously, $`f_G`$ does not account for possible corrections to scaling and is the leading term in the Taylor expansion in $`h^{\omega \nu _c}`$ of a more general form

$$Mh^{1/\delta }=\mathrm{\Psi }(th^{1/\beta \delta },h^{\omega \nu _c}).$$
(15)
We therefore perform quadratic fits to our data in $`h^{\omega \nu _c}`$ at fixed values of $`th^{1/\beta \delta }`$ in the low-temperature region, where the corrections are strong. In the high-temperature region the data scale directly. In Fig. 3 we have plotted $`Mh^{1/\delta }`$ from data with $`H0.0075`$ and $`0.43J0.55`$ and the final result for the scaling function $`f_G`$. An alternative scaling form is that of Widom and Griffiths. It is discussed in Ref. , where more

details of our calculations can be found.

In Ref.  staggered lattice QCD data for $`N_\tau =4`$ were compared to the $`O(4)`$ scaling function. The test failed because the data were indicating a steeper scaling function. Since the $`O(2)`$ scaling function is even flatter than the one for $`O(4)`$, as can be seen from the inset of Fig. 3, the situation will be worse there. A way out may be the comparison to finite-size-scaling functions, since lattice QCD is presumably far from the thermodynamic limit.

### 3.1 Finite-size-scaling functions

The general form of the finite-size-scaling function for the magnetization is given by

$$M=L^{\beta /\nu }\mathrm{\Phi }(tL^{1/\nu },hL^{1/\nu _c},L^\omega ).$$
(16)
On lines of fixed $`z=th^{1/\beta \delta }`$ and after expanding in $`L^\omega `$ we have

$$M=L^{\beta /\nu }Q_{0z}(hL^{1/\nu _c})+\mathrm{},$$
(17)
where $`Q_{0z}`$ is a universal function. Examples of lines of fixed $`z`$ are the critical line where $`z=0`$ and the pseudocritical line, the line of maximum positions of the susceptibility $`\chi _L`$ in the $`(t,h)`$-plane for $`V\mathrm{}`$. The scaling function contains also all information about $`\chi _L`$, because

$$\chi _L=\frac{M}{H}=\frac{h^{1/\delta 1}}{H_0\delta }\left(f_G(z)\frac{z}{\beta }f_G^{}(z)\right).$$
(18)
Evidently, the maximum of $`\chi _L`$ at fixed $`h`$ and varying $`t`$ is at the maximum point $`z_p`$ of the function in the brackets of Eq. (18). $`z_p`$ is again a universal quantity and we find $`z_p=1.556\pm 0.10`$ from (18). As a check we have also determined the peak positions on lattices with $`L=2496`$ which extrapolate to $`z_p=1.65\pm 0.10`$ for $`L\mathrm{}`$. In Fig. 4a we show $`ML^{\beta /\nu }`$ from the reweighted data on the critical line for various $`L`$ values and also the scaling function $`Q_0(z=0)`$. For $`L\mathrm{}`$ the scaling function $`Q_{0z}`$ is related to $`f_G`$ by

$$Q_{0z}f_G(z)(hL^{1/\nu _c})^{1/\delta }.$$
(19)
From Fig. 4b we see that $`Q_0(z=0)`$ seems to be asymptotic in the whole variable range considered. At present we investigate the case $`z=z_p`$.