text:
# CPT AND LORENTZ VIOLATION IN NEUTRAL-MESON OSCILLATIONSaafootnote aIUHET 448, presented at the Second Meeting on CPT and Lorentz Symmetry, Bloomington, Indiana, August 2001.

## 1 Introduction

Local relativistic quantum field theories, including the standard model of particle physics, are known to be invariant under Lorentz and CPT transformations. This symmetry is consistent with the results of numerous sensitive laboratory tests. Although no definitive violation has been discovered to date, there are many reasons to undertake careful theoretical studies of possible mechanisms and descriptions of Lorentz and CPT violation.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ One basic motivation is that a comparative and quantitative interpretation of the numerous experimental tests requires a comprehensive theoretical framework within which violations are both allowed and internally consistent.$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ A more ambitious motivation is that suppressed Lorentz and CPT violation might arise from a fundamental theory at the Planck scale$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ but nonetheless be observable with existing technology in experiments of exceptional sensitivity.

At the 1998 Bloomington conference on CPT and Lorentz symmetry,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ I discussed the possibility that Lorentz and CPT symmetry might be broken by physical effects arising in a theory underlying the standard model, including string theory.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ I also described the general standard-model extension allowing Lorentz and CPT violation$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ and summarized some of the experiments that had already been performed to test it at that time. In the intervening three years, substantial advances have been made on both the theoretical and experimental fronts, many of which are discussed in other presentations at this meeting. In particular, experimental tests of the standard-model extension now include studies of neutral-meson oscillations,$`^\mathrm{?}`$<sup>-</sup>$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ comparative tests of QED in Penning traps,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ spectroscopy of hydrogen and antihydrogen,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ measurements of muon properties,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ clock-comparison experiments,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ tests with spin-polarized matter,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ measurements of cosmological birefringence,$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ studies of neutrinos,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ and observations of the baryon asymmetry.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ These experiments measure coefficients for Lorentz and CPT violation in the standard-model extension and are probing the Planck scale.

This talk focuses on the theoretical issues involving tests of the standard-model extension using neutral-meson oscillations. Meson interferometry is a sensitive tool for both CPT and Lorentz violation. Any indirect CPT violation in a neutral-meson system can be parametrized with a complex quantity, denoted in this talk by $`\xi _P`$, where $`P`$ is one of the neutral mesons $`K`$, $`D`$, $`B_d`$, $`B_s`$. The talk outlines the formalism involving $`\xi _P`$, describes the calculation of $`\xi _P`$ in the general Lorentz-violating standard-model extension, and briefly considers some implications for experiment. Reports on the latest experimental results in the $`K`$, $`D`$, and $`B_d`$ systems are being presented separately at this conference.$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ The reader may also find of interest some related recent analyses of possible classical analogues for CPT violation in neutral mesons,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ which fall outside the scope of this talk.

## 2 Setup

Any neutral-meson state is a linear combination of the Schrödinger wave functions for the meson $`P^0`$ and its antimeson $`\overline{P^0}`$. If this state is viewed as a two-component object $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$, its time evolution is controlled by a 2$`\times `$2 effective hamiltonian $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ according to the Schrödinger-type equation$`^\mathrm{?}`$

$`i_t\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (1)
Note that the effective hamiltonian is different for each neutral-meson system, but for simplicity a single symbol is used here.

The eigenstates of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are the physical propagating states of the neutral-meson system, denoted here as $`|P_a`$ and $`|P_b`$. These states develop in time according to

$`|P_a(t)=\mathrm{exp}(i\lambda _at)|P_a,|P_b(t)=\mathrm{exp}(i\lambda _bt)|P_b,`$ (2)
as usual. The complex parameters $`\lambda _a`$, $`\lambda _b`$ in these equations are the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and they are comprised of the physical masses $`m_a`$, $`m_b`$ and decay rates $`\gamma _a`$, $`\gamma _b`$ of the propagating particles:

$`\lambda _am_a\frac{1}{2}i\gamma _a,\lambda _bm_b\frac{1}{2}i\gamma _b.`$ (3)
For practical purposes, it is convenient to work instead with the sum and difference of the eigenvalues, defined as

$`\lambda `$ $``$ $`\lambda _a+\lambda _b=m\frac{1}{2}i\gamma ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ $``$ $`\lambda _a\lambda _b=\mathrm{\Delta }m\frac{1}{2}i\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma .`$ (4)
In these equations, $`m=m_a+m_b`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=m_bm_a`$, $`\gamma =\gamma _a+\gamma _b`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma =\gamma _a\gamma _b`$.

Since the effective hamiltonian is a 2$`\times `$2 complex matrix, it consists of eight independent real quantities for each meson system. Four of these can be specified in terms of the masses and decay rates. Three of the others determine the extent of indirect CP violation in the neutral-meson system. If (and only if) the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{11}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{22}`$ of diagonal elements of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is nonzero, then the meson system exhibits indirect CPT violation. Also, indirect T violation occurs if (and only if) the magnitude of the ratio $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{21}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{12}|`$ of the off-diagonal components of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ differs from 1. The effective hamiltonian thus contains two real parameters for CPT violation and one real parameter for T violation. The remaining parameter of the eight in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be taken as the relative phase between the off-diagonal components of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. It is physically irrelevant because it can be freely changed by shifting the phases of the $`P^0`$ and $`\overline{P^0}`$ wave functions by equal and opposite amounts. Such shifts are allowed because the wave functions are strong-interaction eigenstates. If the $`P^0`$ wave function is shifted by a phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i\chi )`$, the off-diagonal elements of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ shift by equal and opposite phases $`\mathrm{exp}(\pm 2i\chi )`$.

## 3 Formalism

For applications to the heavy-meson systems, where less is known about CPT and T violation than in the $`K`$ system, it is desirable to adopt a general parametrization of the effective hamiltonian $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that is independent of phase conventions,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ valid for arbitrary size CPT and T violation, model independent, and expressed in terms of mass and decay rates insofar as possible. An analysis shows that a practical parametrization permitting the clean representation of CPT- and T-violating quantities can be obtained by expressing the two diagonal elements of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as the sum and difference of two complex numbers, and the two off-diagonal elements as the product and ratio of two other complex numbers.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ A general expression for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can therefore be taken as:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda \left(\begin{array}{cc}U+\xi \hfill & \hfill VW^1\\ & \\ VW\hfill & \hfill U\xi \end{array}\right),`$ (8)
where $`UVW\xi `$ are complex numbers that are dimensionless by virtue of the prefactor $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$. Imposing that the trace of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is tr$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda `$ and that its determinant is $`det\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda _a\lambda _b`$ fixes the complex parameters $`U`$ and $`V`$:

$`U\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ,V\sqrt{1\xi ^2}.`$ (9)
The CPT and T properties of the effective hamiltonian (8) are contained in the complex numbers $`W=w\mathrm{exp}(i\omega )`$, $`\xi =\text{Re}\xi +i\text{Im}\xi `$. Of the four real components, the argument $`\omega `$ of $`W`$ is physically irrelevant and can be freely dialed by the wave-function phase shifts described above. The remaining three components are physical, with $`\text{Re}\xi `$ and $`\text{Im}\xi `$ governing CPT violation and the modulus $`w|W|`$ of $`W`$ governing T violation. They are related to the components of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by

$`\xi =\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda ,w=\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Lambda }_{21}/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{12}|}.`$ (10)
If CPT is preserved $`\text{Re}\xi =\text{Im}\xi =0`$, while if T is preserved $`w=1`$.

The eigenstates of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which are the physical states of definite masses and decay rates, can be written as

$`|P_a=𝒩_a(|P^0+A|\overline{P^0}),|P_b=𝒩_b(|P^0+B|\overline{P^0}),`$ (11)
with

$`A=(1\xi )W/V,B=(1+\xi )W/V.`$ (12)
If unit-normalized states are desired, the normalizations $`𝒩_a`$, $`𝒩_b`$ in Eq. (11) take the form

$`𝒩_a=\mathrm{exp}(i\eta _a)/\sqrt{1+|A|^2},𝒩_b=\mathrm{exp}(i\eta _b)/\sqrt{1+|B|^2},`$ (13)
where $`\eta _a`$, $`\eta _b`$ are free phases that play no role in what follows. For the special case with no CPT or T violation ($`\xi =0`$, $`w=1`$), the states $`|P_a`$, $`|P_b`$ are CP eigenstates. If the choice of phase convention $`\omega =\eta _a=\eta _b=0`$ is imposed, Eq. (11) reduces to the usual form, $`|P_{a,b}=(|P^0\pm |\overline{P^0})/\sqrt{2}`$.

As an aside, note that the $`w\xi `$ formalism above can be related to other formalisms used in the literature provided appropriate assumptions about the phase conventions and the smallness of CP violation are made.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ For instance, in the $`K`$ system the widely adopted$`^\mathrm{?}`$ formalism involving $`ϵ_K`$ and $`\delta _K`$ is phase-convention dependent and can be applied only if CPT and T violation are small. Under the assumption of small violation and in a special phase convention, $`\delta _K`$ is related to $`\xi _K`$ by $`\xi _K2\delta _K`$.

For the heavy meson systems $`D`$, $`B_d`$, $`B_s`$, the $`w\xi `$ formalism appears simpler to use than other formalisms. The three parameters for CP violation $`w`$, $`\text{Re}\xi `$, $`\text{Im}\xi `$ are dimensionless and independent of assumptions about the size of violations or about the choice of phases. Since they are phenomenologically introduced, they contain no model dependence. However, it is crucial to note that they need not be constant numbers. In fact, as outlined in the next section, the assumption of constant $`\xi `$ often adopted for experimental and theoretical analyses represents a strong constraint on the generality of the formalism. Moreover, according to the CPT theorem, the assumption of constant $`\xi `$ is inconsistent with the underlying basis of Lorentz-invariant quantum field theory. If instead Lorentz violation is allowed within quantum field theory, then $`\xi `$ is found to vary with the meson 4-momentum. Although this may seem surprising at first sight, in fact unconventional behavior for $`\xi `$ is to be expected because CPT violation is a fundamental effect.

## 4 Theory

The standard-model extension$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ provides a general quantitative microscopic framework in the context of conventional quantum field theory within which to study various effects of Lorentz and CPT violation. As noted above, many experiments with systems other than neutral mesons have been performed to measure coefficients in this theory. However, to date none of these experiments has sensitivity to the same sector of the standard-model extension as neutral-meson oscillations, basically because only the latter involve flavor changes.$`^\mathrm{?}`$

The dominant CPT-violating contributions to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be calculated perturbatively in the coefficients for CPT and Lorentz violation that appear in the standard-model extension. These contributions are expectation values of perturbative interactions in the hamiltonian for the theory,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ evaluated with unperturbed wave functions $`|P^0`$, $`|\overline{P^0}`$ as usual. The hermiticity of the perturbation hamiltonian guarantees real contributions.

To find an expression for the parameter $`\xi `$, one needs to derive the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{11}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{22}`$ of the diagonal terms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. A calculation yields$`^\mathrm{?}`$

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }\beta ^\mu \mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu ,`$ (14)
where $`\beta ^\mu =\gamma (1,\stackrel{}{\beta })`$ is the four-velocity of the meson state in the observer frame. In this equation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu =r_{q_1}a_\mu ^{q_1}r_{q_2}a_\mu ^{q_2}`$, where $`a_\mu ^{q_1}`$, $`a_\mu ^{q_2}`$ are coefficients for CPT and Lorentz violation for the two valence quarks in the $`P^0`$ meson. They have mass dimension one, and they arise from lagrangian terms of the form $`a_\mu ^q\overline{q}\gamma ^\mu q`$, where $`q`$ specifies the quark flavor. The quantities $`r_{q_1}`$, $`r_{q_2}`$ emerge from normalization and quark-binding effects.$`^\mathrm{?}`$

Among the consequences of Lorentz and CPT violation are the 4-velocity and hence 4-momentum dependence appearing in Eq. (14). These establish the failure of the standard assumption of constant parameter $`\xi `$ for CPT violation. In particular, the appearance of the 4-velocity implies that CPT observables will typically vary with the magnitude and orientation of the meson momentum. This can have major consequences for experimental analyses, since the meson momentum spectrum and angular distribution now contribute directly in determining the experimental CPT reach.$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$

A crucial effect of the 4-momentum dependence is the appearance of sidereal variations in some CPT observables.$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ The point is that the vector $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{a}`$ is constant, while the Earth rotates in a celestial equatorial frame. Since a laboratory frame is adopted for the derivation of Eq. (14), and since this frame is rotating, observables can exhibit sidereal variations. To display explicitly this sidereal-time dependence, one can convert the expression (14) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ from the laboratory frame to a nonrotating frame. Denote the spatial basis in the laboratory frame by $`(\widehat{x},\widehat{y},\widehat{z})`$ and that in the nonrotating frame by $`(\widehat{X},\widehat{Y},\widehat{Z})`$. Choose the $`\widehat{z}`$ axis in the laboratory frame for maximal convenience: for example, the beam direction is a natural option for the case of collimated mesons, while the collision axis could be adopted in a collider. Define the nonrotating-frame basis $`(\widehat{X},\widehat{Y},\widehat{Z})`$ to be consistent with celestial equatorial coordinates,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ with $`\widehat{Z}`$ aligned along the Earth’s rotation axis. Assume $`\mathrm{cos}\chi =\widehat{z}\widehat{Z}`$ is nonzero, as required for the observation of sidereal variations. It follows that $`\widehat{z}`$ precesses about $`\widehat{Z}`$ with the Earth’s sidereal frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The complete transformation between the two bases is in the literature.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ In particular, any coefficient $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ for Lorentz violation with laboratory-frame components $`(a^1,a^2,a^3)`$ has associated nonrotating-frame components $`(a^X,a^Y,a^Z)`$. This transformation determines the sidereal variation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{a}`$ and hence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The entire momentum and sidereal-time dependence of the parameter $`\xi `$ for CPT violation in any $`P`$ system can then be extracted.

To express the final answer for $`\xi `$, define $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ to be standard polar coordinates about the $`\widehat{z}`$ axis in the laboratory frame. These angles reduce to the usual detector polar coordinates if the $`\widehat{z}`$ axis is chosen along the detector axis. In general, the laboratory-frame 3-velocity of a $`P`$ meson can be written as $`\stackrel{}{\beta }=\beta (\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$. The magnitude of the momentum is given by $`p|\stackrel{}{p}|=\beta m_P\gamma (p)`$, where $`\gamma (p)=\sqrt{1+p^2/m_P^2}`$ as usual. In terms of these quantities and the sidereal time $`\widehat{t}`$, the result for $`\xi `$ becomes$`^\mathrm{?}`$

$`\xi `$ $``$ $`\xi (\widehat{t},\stackrel{}{p})\xi (\widehat{t},p,\theta ,\varphi )`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (p)}{\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda }}\{\mathrm{\Delta }a_0+\beta \mathrm{\Delta }a_Z(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\chi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\chi )`$
$`+\beta [\mathrm{\Delta }a_Y(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\chi +\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\chi )`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }a_X\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ]\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{t}`$
$`+\beta [\mathrm{\Delta }a_X(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\chi +\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\chi )`$
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }a_Y\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ]\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{t}\}.`$
## 5 Experimental Tests

The experimental challenge is to measure the four independent coefficients $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ for CPT violation allowed by quantum field theory. The result (15) shows that suitable binning of data in sidereal time, momentum magnitude, and orientation has the potential to extract four independent bounds from any observable that depends on $`\xi `$. Note that each neutral-meson system can have different values of these coefficients. Since the physics of each system is distinct by virtue of the distinct masses and decay rates, a complete experimental analysis of CPT violation requires four independent measurements in each system.

Consider the special case of semileptonic decays into a final state $`f`$ or its conjugate state $`\overline{f}`$. For simplicity, disregard any violations of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q=\mathrm{\Delta }S`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q=\mathrm{\Delta }C`$, or $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q=\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ rules. Then, the basic transition amplitudes can be taken as $`f|T|P^0=F`$, $`\overline{f}|T|\overline{P^0}=\overline{F}`$, $`f|T|\overline{P^0}=\overline{f}|T|P^0=0`$. The standard procedure can be applied to obtain the various time-dependent decay amplitudes and probabilities. Since the meson decays quickly relative to the Earth’s sidereal period, the dependence of $`\xi `$ on the meson proper time $`t`$ can be neglected. The decay probabilities depend on the proper time, as usual, but in the presence of CPT violation they also acquire sidereal time and momentum dependences from those of $`\xi (\widehat{t},\stackrel{}{p})`$.

To illustrate the resulting effects for the case of uncorrelated mesons, suppose direct CPT violation is negligible, so that $`F^{}=\overline{F}`$. An appropriate asymmetry sensitive to CPT violation is then

$`𝒜^{\mathrm{CPT}}(t,\widehat{t},\stackrel{}{p})`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{P}_{\overline{f}}(t,\widehat{t},\stackrel{}{p})P_f(t,\widehat{t},\stackrel{}{p})}{\overline{P}_{\overline{f}}(t,\widehat{t},\stackrel{}{p})+P_f(t,\widehat{t},\stackrel{}{p})}}`$ (16)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2\text{Re}\xi \mathrm{sinh}\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma t/2+2\text{Im}\xi \mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }mt}{(1+|\xi |^2)\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma t/2+(1|\xi |^2)\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }mt}}.`$
This is understood to depend on $`\widehat{t}`$, $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ through $`\xi (\widehat{t},\stackrel{}{p})`$. Independent measurements of the four coefficients $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ can be obtained by various suitable averagings over $`t`$, $`\widehat{t}`$, $`p`$, $`\theta `$, $`\varphi `$, either before or after constructing the asymmetry (16). For example, if data are binned in $`\widehat{t}`$ then it follows from Eq. (15) that measurements of the CPT coefficients $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_Y`$ are possible. As another example, binning in $`\theta `$ separates the spatial and timelike components of $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$.

To date, these ideas have been applied in experiments with the $`K`$ and $`D`$ systems. For the $`K`$ system, two independent CPT measurements of different combinations of the coefficients $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ have been obtained,$`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ one about $`10^{20}`$ GeV on a linear combination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_Z`$, and the other about $`10^{21}`$ GeV on a combination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_Y`$. The experiments in question were performed with mesons highly collimated in the laboratory frame. In this situation, $`\xi `$ simplifies because the 3-velocity takes the form $`\stackrel{}{\beta }=(0,0,\beta )`$. Binning in $`\widehat{t}`$ provides sensitivity to the equatorial components $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_X`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_Y`$, while averaging over $`\widehat{t}`$ eliminates them altogether. For the $`D`$ system, preliminary sensitivity results for two independent bounds have also been obtained by the FOCUS experiment.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ Note that CPT bounds in the $`D`$ system are unique in that the valence quarks involved are the $`u`$ and the $`c`$, whereas the other neutral mesons involve the $`d`$, $`s`$, and $`b`$.

A different illustration is provided by the case of correlated meson pairs produced by quarkonium decay into $`f\overline{f}`$. The double-decay probability is a function of the proper decay times $`t_1`$, $`t_2`$, the momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}_1`$, $`\stackrel{}{p}_2`$, and the sidereal time $`\widehat{t}`$. The CPT properties of the two mesons in each decay typically are distinct because the corresponding parameters $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _2`$ differ. Since the time sum $`t=t_1+t_2`$ is typically unobservable in practice, an integration over $`t`$ is appropriate in deriving the relevant probability $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f\overline{f}}`$. It is then natual to define a CPT-sensitive asymmetry $`𝒜_{f\overline{f}}^{\mathrm{CPT}}`$ as a function of the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=t_1t_2`$ and the sum $`\xi _1+\xi _2`$:

$`𝒜_{f\overline{f}}^{\mathrm{CPT}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\widehat{t},\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f\overline{f}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\widehat{t},\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f\overline{f}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\widehat{t},\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f\overline{f}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\widehat{t},\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f\overline{f}}(\mathrm{\Delta }t,\widehat{t},\stackrel{}{p}_1,\stackrel{}{p}_2)}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Re}(\xi _1+\xi _2)\mathrm{sinh}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }t\text{Im}(\xi _1+\xi _2)\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }t}{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }t+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m\mathrm{\Delta }t}}.`$
As in the previous asymmetry, $`\xi _1`$, $`\xi _2`$ are understood to have sidereal-time and momenta dependences, so the attainable CPT reach can depend on the specific experiment. Suppose, for example, that the quarkonium is created at rest in a symmetric collider. The sum $`\xi _1+\xi _2=2\gamma (p)\mathrm{\Delta }a_0/\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ is then independent of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{a}`$, and direct fitting of the data binned in $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ allows a measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_0`$. If instead the quarkonium is created in an asymmetric collider, then $`\xi _1+\xi _2`$ could be sensitive to all four coefficients $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_\mu `$ for that neutral-meson system. This implies that appropriate data binning would allow up to four independent CPT measurements. The existing asymmetric $`B_d`$ factories BaBar and BELLE can undertake measurements of these types.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG02-91ER40661.

## References


format: text

text:
# On Lepton Flavor Violation in Tau Decays

## I Introduction

One of the many puzzles remaining in the current phenomenology of particle physics is to understand the smallness of the masses ($`\stackrel{<}{}1`$ eV) of standard neutrinos $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$, compared to those of charged leptons. If neutrinos are of a Dirac nature, nonzero masses could be obtained in the Standard Model (SM) by introduction of (sterile) right–handed neutrinos. On the other hand, if neutrinos are of a Majorana nature, more appealing solutions to the small neutrino mass problem exist. In order to avoid the explicit breaking of the SM gauge symmetry and still obtain nonzero Majorana mass terms (via spontaneous symmetry breaking), an additional Higgs triplet is needed in the SM. The latter would result in physical Goldstone bosons, but these have been excluded by experiments at LEP. On the other hand, various models in the context of extended gauge structures result in Majorana mass terms and could give possible solutions to the neutrino mass problem. An appealing solution is the seesaw mechanism  within the framework of $`SO(10)`$ or left–right symmetric models. In the conventional seesaw models, the effective light neutrino masses are within the scales of eV to MeV via a relation involving the hierarchy between very large Majorana masses and Dirac masses comparable to those of charged leptons. Another possible solution was investigated in the framework of heterotic superstring models  with $`E_6`$ symmetry or certain scenarios of $`SO(10)`$ models , where the low–energy effective theories include new left–handed and right–handed neutral isosinglets and assume conservation of total lepton number in the Yukawa sector.

One possibility to test the neutrino sector lies in the study and measurement of lepton–flavor–violating (LFV) processes, e.g., $`\mu e\gamma `$ or $`3e`$; $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ or $`3\mu `$; $`\tau e\gamma `$ or $`3e`$. Such processes are practically suppressed to zero in the SM, due to the unitarity of the leptonic analog of the CKM mixing matrix and the near masslessness of the three neutrinos. Motivated by the aforementioned models with an extended neutrino sector, the authors in Refs.  derived analytic expressions for LFV decay rates of charged leptons in such models with heavy Majorana neutrinos. The authors of Ref.  gave a model–independent framework for analyzing $`\mu e\gamma `$ and $`\mu 3e`$ processes and investigated specific features of several Supersymmetric GUTs. They focused on Parity– and T–violating asymmetries involving muon polarization in the initial state.

Some generic properties of LFV processes and the corresponding constraints on the neutrino mass matrix have been studied in Ref. . Phenomenological studies of various LFV and lepton–number–violating processes have appeared in the literature, including direct production of heavy Majorana neutrinos at various colliders , heavy Majorana mediated processes , and LFV processes (including $`\mu e\gamma `$ and $`\tau \mu \gamma `$) in supersymmetric frameworks .

In this paper we will consider LFV decays of tau leptons in the framework of the two aforementioned models with extended neutrino sectors. We will concentrate on the calculation of the corresponding LFV branching ratios and the corresponding expected numbers of events. In addition, we will calculate a T–odd asymmetry induced by these processes. Under the assumption of CPT symmetry, CP violation is equivalent to T violation. While standard CP violation appears in the quark sector, it could also arise, for example, in processes which involve only elementary (SM) bosons  or (heavy) Majorana neutrinos . In Sec. II we review the two models in question. In Sec. III we present the formulas for the branching ratios of charged lepton decays, $`ll^{}\gamma `$ and $`l3l^{}`$, and the T–odd asymmetry for $`l3l^{}`$ within these two models. In Sec. IV we present approximate maximal values for LFV tau decay rates, exploring the possibility of obtaining sizable rates that can be measured in the foreseeable future, yet keeping consistency with present experimental constraints. We give a summary and state our conclusions in Sec. V.

## II Two neutrino–mixing models

To set up our notation, we briefly review the two models in question: We call Model I the SM with the addition of right–handed neutrinos (singlets under the gauge group) and with the seesaw mechanism involved, and Model II the SM with the addition of both left–handed and right–handed neutral singlets.

Model I: It is the SM with its $`N_L`$ standard left–handed neutrinos $`\nu _{L}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}`$ and an additional set of $`N_R`$ right–handed neutrinos $`\nu _{R}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}`$, where the neutrino mass terms (after gauge symmetry breaking), which can be written as

$$_Y^\nu =\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\nu }_L,\overline{\nu }_R^c)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _L^c\\ \nu _R\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(1)
contain a $`(N_L+N_R)\times (N_L+N_R)`$–dimensional matrix $``$ with a seesaw block form . This matrix can always be diagonalized by means of a congruent transformation involving a unitary matrix $`U`$, namely:

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& m_D\\ m_D^T& m_M\end{array}\right),UU^T=\widehat{}_d.$$
(2)
The resulting $`N_L+N_R`$ mass eigenstates $`n_i`$ are Majorana neutrinos, related to the interaction eigenstates $`\nu _a`$ by the matrix $`U`$

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _L\\ \nu _R^c\end{array}\right)_a=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_L+N_R}{}}U_{ia}^{}n_{L}^{}{}_{i}{}^{},\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _L^c\\ \nu _R\end{array}\right)_a=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_L+N_R}{}}U_{ia}n_{R}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}.$$
(3)
The first $`N_L`$ mass eigenstates are the light standard partners of the charged leptons, while the other $`N_R`$ eigenstates are heavy. It is convenient, as done in Ref. , to introduce a $`N_L\times (N_L+N_R)`$–dimensional matrix $`B`$ for charged current interactions, and a $`(N_L+N_R)\times (N_L+N_R)`$–dimensional matrix $`C`$ for neutral current interactions

$$B_{li}=U_{il}^{},C_{ij}=\underset{a=1}{\overset{N_L}{}}U_{ia}U_{ja}^{},$$
(4)
where the charged leptons are taken in their mass basis. The ratio between the Dirac mass ($`m_D`$) and the Majorana mass ($`m_M`$) characterizes the strength of the heavy–to–light neutrino mixings $`(s_L^{\nu _l})^2_h|U_{hl}|^2`$ ($`|m_D|^2/|m_M|^2`$), as well as the size of the physical light neutrino masses: $`m_{\nu _{light}}m_D^2/m_M`$. In this model the very low experimental bounds on $`m_{\nu _{light}}`$ ($`\stackrel{<}{}1`$ eV) impose severe constraints on the $`|m_D||m_M|`$ hierarchy required, and consequently also on the heavy–to–light neutrino mixings.

Model II: It is similar to Model I, except that it contains an equal number $`N_R`$ of left–handed ($`S_{Li}`$) and right–handed ($`\nu _{Ri}`$) neutral singlets , and the form of the mass matrix $``$ is such that total lepton number is conserved (although lepton flavor mixing is still possible). After electroweak symmetry breaking, the neutrino mass terms are

$$_Y^\nu =\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\nu }_L,\overline{\nu }_R^c,\overline{S}_L)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _L^c\\ \nu _R\\ S_L^c\end{array}\right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& m_D& 0\\ m_D^T& 0& m_M^T\\ 0& m_M& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
The mass matrix $``$ is $`(N_L+\stackrel{~}{N}_R)\times (N_L+\stackrel{~}{N}_R)`$–dimensional, where $`\stackrel{~}{N}_R=2N_R`$ (the Dirac block $`m_D`$ is $`N_R\times N_L`$–dimensional). When $`N_R=N_L`$, this model predicts, for each of the $`N_L`$ generations, a massless Weyl neutrino and two degenerate neutral Majorana neutrinos. Consequently, the seesaw–type restriction $`m_{\nu _{light}}m_D^2/m_M`$ of Model I does not apply here . Here it is not the smallness of light neutrino masses but the present experimental bounds on the heavy–to–light mixing parameters $`(s_L^{\nu _l})^2|m_D|^2/|m_M|^2`$ ($`\stackrel{<}{}10^2`$, see below) which impose a certain level of hierarchy $`|m_D|<|m_M|`$ between the Dirac and Majorana mass sector. This hierarchy is in general much weaker than in seesaw models. Although Model II features ($`N_L`$) massless neutrinos in the light sector, nonzero masses for the light neutrinos can be generated by introducing small perturbations in the lower right block of $``$, i.e., small Majorana mass terms for the neutral singlets $`S_{Li}`$, without much effect on the mixings of heavy-to-light fields.

## III Flavor–violating tau decays within the two models

Recently LFV processes have been investigated extensively because SUSY GUTs predict that the branching ratios for $`\mu e\gamma `$ and $`\mu 3e`$ and the $`\mu e`$ conversion rate in a nucleus can reach just below present experimental bounds . Here we address the predictions for LFV decays of the form $`ll^{}\gamma `$ and $`l3l^{}`$ within the models of Section II.

The amplitudes for $`ll^{}\gamma `$ and $`l3l^{}`$ in terms of the model parameters were obtained in Ref. . These processes occur only at one loop level or higher in the (extended) electroweak theory. The amplitude for $`ll^{}\gamma `$ arises from a $`\gamma `$-penguin with the photon on the mass shell and is given by an expression of the form:

$$(ll^{}\gamma )=i\frac{e\alpha _w}{8\pi M_W^2}ϵ^\mu G_\gamma ^{ll^{}}\overline{u}_l^{}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu (m_l^{}P_L+m_lP_R)u_l,$$
(6)
while the amplitude for $`l3l^{}`$ receives contributions from $`\gamma `$penguins, $`Z`$penguins and box diagrams, $`(l3l^{})=_\gamma +_Z+_{Box}`$:

$`_\gamma (l3l^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w^2s_w^2}{2M_W^2}}\overline{u}_l^{}\gamma ^\mu v_l^{}\overline{u}_l^{}\left[F_\gamma ^{ll^{}}(\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{q_\mu q\text{/}}{q^2}})P_LG_\gamma ^{ll^{}}i\sigma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q^\nu }{q^2}}(m_l^{}P_L+m_lP_R)\right]u_l,`$ (7)
$`_Z(l3l^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w^2}{8M_W^2}}\overline{u}_l^{}\gamma _\mu P_Lu_l\overline{u}_l^{}\gamma ^\mu \left[(24s_w^2)P_L4s_w^2P_R\right]v_l^{}F_Z^{ll^{}},`$ (8)
$`_{Box}(l3l^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w^2}{4M_W^2}}\overline{u}_l^{}\gamma _\mu P_Lu_l\overline{u}_l^{}\gamma ^\mu P_Lv_l^{}F_{Box}^{ll^{}},`$ (9)
In the above expressions, $`ϵ^\mu `$ \[Eq. (6)\] is the photon polarization, $`P_{R/L}=(1\pm \gamma _5)/2`$, and the factors $`G_\gamma ^{ll^{}}`$, …, $`F_{Box}^{ll^{}}`$ are combinations of mixing matrix elements and some special functions that appear in the loop diagrams of the corresponding processes:

$`G_\gamma ^{ll^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_L+\stackrel{~}{N}_R}{}}}B_{li}^{}B_{l^{}i}G_\gamma (\lambda _i),`$ (10)
$`F_\gamma ^{ll^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_L+\stackrel{~}{N}_R}{}}}B_{li}^{}B_{l^{}i}F_\gamma (\lambda _i),`$ (11)
$`F_Z^{ll^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N_L+\stackrel{~}{N}_R}{}}}B_{li}^{}B_{l^{}j}\left[\delta _{ij}F_Z(\lambda _i)+C_{ij}H_Z(\lambda _i,\lambda _j)+C_{ij}^{}G_Z(\lambda _i,\lambda _j)\right],`$ (12)
$`F_{Box}^{ll^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N_L+\stackrel{~}{N}_R}{}}}\left[2B_{l^{}i}B_{l^{}j}B_{li}^{}B_{l^{}j}^{}F_{Box}(\lambda _i,\lambda _j)+B_{l^{}i}B_{l^{}i}B_{lj}^{}B_{l^{}j}^{}G_{Box}(\lambda _i,\lambda _j)\right].`$ (13)
The explicit expressions for the loop functions $`G_\gamma (x)`$, …, $`F_{Box}(x,y)`$ are given in Ref. , and their arguments are $`\lambda _i=m_i^2/M_W^2`$, i.e. the masses (squared) of the Majorana neutrinos inside the loop, in units of $`M_W`$. Eqs. (10)–(13) involve a summation over all Majorana neutrinos, $`\stackrel{~}{N}_R`$ being the number of heavy ones ($`=N_R,2N_R`$ in Models I, II, respectively).

From the amplitudes (6)–(9), the decay rates are obtained. Using the notation of Ref. , they take the form

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(ll^{}\gamma )=\mathrm{\Gamma }(le\overline{\nu }_e\nu _l)384\pi ^2(1+m_l^{}^2/m_l^2)|A_R|^2,`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(l3l^{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }(le\overline{\nu }_e\nu _l)\{2|g_4|^2+|g_6|^2+8Re\left(eA_R(2g_4^{}+g_6^{})\right)`$ (16)
$`+(1+m_l^{}^2/m_l^2)(32\mathrm{log}(m_l^2/3m_l^{}^2)104/3)|eA_R|^2\}\times \{1+𝒪(m_l^{}^2/m_l^2)\},`$
where $`g_4,g_6`$ and $`A_R`$ are the coefficients of the operators in the effective lagrangian relevant to these processes, and are given by:

$`g_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{8\pi }}\{2s_w^2F_\gamma ^{ll^{}}+(12s_w^2)F_Z^{ll^{}}+F_{Box}^{ll^{}}\},`$ (17)
$`g_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _w}{8\pi }}\{2s_w^2F_\gamma ^{ll^{}}+(2s_w^2)F_Z^{ll^{}}\},`$ (18)
$`eA_R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}}{8\pi }}G_\gamma ^{ll^{}},`$ (19)
where $`\alpha _wg_2^2/(4\pi )=\sqrt{2}G_FM_W^2/\pi `$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{em}}e^2/(4\pi )`$ are the weak and electromagnetic fine structure constants, and $`s_w^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w`$.

A T-odd asymmetry can be defined in the decays $`l3l^{}`$ which is sensitive to the CP phases of the neutrino mixing matrices, but has the experimental drawback that it requires independent knowledge of the initial lepton polarization (in this case, the tau lepton polarization). Defining, in the CM frame, the decay plane as the plane that contains the three final momenta, $`A_T`$ is the asymmetry between the cases when the polarization of the initial lepton points to one or to the other side of the decay plane. Geometrically, $`A_T`$ is a $`\varphi `$-angle asymmetry, where $`\varphi `$ is the angle between the decay plane and the plane that contains the polarization vector of the initial lepton $`l`$ and the momentum of the final lepton with charge opposite to $`l`$ (see Ref.  for details). The explicit expression for $`A_T`$ is then:

$$A_T=\left(_0^\pi \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\varphi }𝑑\varphi _\pi ^{2\pi }\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\varphi }𝑑\varphi \right)/\mathrm{\Gamma }$$
(20)
and in terms of parameters (17)–(19) it is

$$A_T=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(le\overline{\nu }_e\nu _l)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l3l^{})}\left\{\frac{192}{35}Im\left(eA_Rg_4^{}\right)\frac{128}{35}Im\left(eA_Rg_6^{}\right)\right\}\times \left\{1+𝒪(m_l^{}/m_l)\right\},$$
(21)
## IV Numerical Results and Discussions

Several experiments provide constraints for the masses and mixings of light and heavy neutrinos: Tritium beta decay provides the present bound on the electron neutrino mass $`m_{\nu _e}<3`$ eV. The solar neutrino deficit can be interpreted either by matter enhanced neutrino oscillations if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^21\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ with small or large mixing, or by vacuum oscillations if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^210^{10}`$ eV2 with maximal mixing. Atmospheric neutrino experiments show evidence for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^22.2\times 10^3`$ eV2 with maximal mixing. We will assume that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2=|m_{\nu _\mu }^2m_{\nu _e}^2|`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2=|m_{\nu _\tau }^2m_{\nu _\mu }^2|`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2<<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$, then $`|m_{\nu _\tau }^2m_{\nu _e}^2|=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ as well. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2<<3^2\mathrm{eV}^2`$, the 3 eV upper bound applies to all three light neutrino masses: $`m_{\nu _e},m_{\nu _\mu },m_{\nu _\tau }<3`$ eV. Experimental evidence indicates that $`\nu _\tau `$$`\nu _e`$ mixing is (nearly) zero . Further, Refs.  investigated possible patterns of the Majorana neutrino mass matrix which are compatible with these results and the non-observation of neutrinoless double beta decay. In the models we are considering, a number of low–energy experiments set upper bounds on possible non–SM couplings, which are characterized in Refs.  as $`(s_L^{\nu _l})^2_h|B_{lh}|^2`$ (where $`h`$ indicates heavy neutrinos). Recent analyses , for models where the additional neutrinos are $`SU(2)_L`$–singlets, give

$$(s_L^{\nu _e})^2<0.005,(s_L^{\nu _\mu })^2<0.002,(s_L^{\nu _\tau })^2<0.010.$$
(22)
There is also a theoretical constraint, a perturbative unitarity condition (PUB) , which states that perturbation theory to one loop is applicable only if the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n_h}`$ of a heavy Majorana neutrino is small compared to its mass, say, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n_h}<M_{n_h}/2`$. In the limit of large masses $`M_{n_h}>>M_W,M_Z,M_H`$, the PUB constitutes an upper bound for heavy neutrino masses:

$$M_{n_h}^2\underset{l=1}{\overset{N_L}{}}|B_{lh}|^2<\frac{2}{\alpha _w}M_W^2,h=1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{N}_R.$$
(23)
In addition, there is a lower bound, $`M_{n_h}>100`$ GeV, arising from the non-observation of heavy neutrinos in experiments to date.

As the bound on $`(s_L^{\nu _\mu })^2`$ in (22) is tighter than those on $`(s_L^{\nu _e})^2`$ and $`(s_L^{\nu _\tau })^2`$, LFV muon decays are more suppressed than tau decays. We will therefore study LFV tau decays in the two models, trying to see if the present experimental upper bounds on $`\tau l\gamma `$ and $`\tau 3l`$

$`Br(\tau ^{}e^{}\gamma )`$ $`<`$ $`2.7\times 10^6,Br(\tau ^{}\mu ^{}\gamma )<1.1\times 10^6,`$ (24)
$`Br(\tau ^{}e^{}e^{}e^+)`$ $`<`$ $`2.9\times 10^6,Br(\tau ^{}\mu ^{}\mu ^{}\mu ^+)<1.9\times 10^6,`$ (25)
can be reached theoretically once we account for all the aforementioned constraints.

A numerical analysis of such reactions in Model I, for $`N_L=3`$ and $`N_R=2`$, has been performed in Ref. . A comprehensive numerical analysis in Model II has been performed in Ref. . In these two references, the analyses were performed by starting with the neutrino eigenmasses and specific combinations of the mixing matrix coefficients $`B_{ij}`$ on which restrictions were imposed. Our approach will be somewhat different, starting with explicit mass matrices, Eqs. (2) and (5), and from there deriving the masses and mixings. This approach is cumbersome if we include all three light generations, so we will take $`N_L=2`$ and $`N_R=2`$. In this way, $`Br(\tau \mu \mu e,ee\mu )`$ will not be considered. However, since we are particularly interested in the largest possible branching ratios, and since either $`Br(\tau 3e)`$ or $`Br(\tau 3\mu )`$ is very suppressed (as argued below), then $`Br(\tau \mu \mu e,ee\mu )`$ is also expected to be suppressed in comparison with the largest of the LFV branching ratios.

### A Model I

In the considered case ($`N_L=2`$ and $`N_R=2`$) for LFV $`\tau `$ decays, we have two light lepton generations ($`\nu _{\mathrm{}},\mathrm{}^{}`$) and ($`\nu _\tau ,\tau ^{}`$), where $`\mathrm{}`$ is either $`e`$ or $`\mu `$. The structure of the CP–violating phases in these types of models was studied in Ref. . In the considered case there are two independent physical phases ($`\delta _i`$, $`i=1,2`$), so that the Dirac and Majorana submatrices in $``$ \[see Eq. (2)\] can be taken to be of the form

$$m_D=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& be^{i\delta _1}\\ ce^{i\delta _2}& d\end{array}\right),m_M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_1& 0\\ 0& M_2\end{array}\right),$$
(26)
where $`a,b,c,d`$ are real. We take the convention $`M_2M_1`$. The matrix $``$ can be diagonalized via the congruent transformation of Eq. (2) – in numerical calculations we use the diagonalization approach as described in Ref. .

We then find the values of $`m_D`$ (i.e. $`a,b,c,d;\delta _1,\delta _2`$) which give, for given heavy Majorana masses $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, the largest possible LFV branching ratios $`Br(\tau \gamma \mathrm{})`$ and $`Br(\tau 3\mathrm{})`$.

In Model I, the transformation matrix $`U`$ of Eq. (2) can be presented as a product of a seesaw transformation block matrix $`U_s`$ and a light-sector mixing matrix $`V^{}`$: $`U=V^{}U_s`$. The seesaw transformation $`U_s`$ produces an effective light neutrino mass matrix $`m_{\nu _{light}}m_Dm_M^1m_D^T`$ in the case $`m_Dm_M`$, namely:

$$m_{\nu _{light}}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\left(\frac{a^2}{M_1}+\frac{b^2}{M_2}e^{2i\delta _1}\right)& \left(\frac{ac}{M_1}e^{i\delta _2}+\frac{bd}{M_2}e^{i\delta _1}\right)\\ \left(\frac{ac}{M_1}e^{i\delta _2}+\frac{bd}{M_2}e^{i\delta _1}\right)& \left(\frac{c^2}{M_1}e^{2i\delta _2}+\frac{d^2}{M_2}\right)\end{array}\right]\times \left(1+𝒪(m_D^2m_M^2)\right),$$
(27)
and LFV mixings of order $`m_Dm_M^1`$. The light sector mixing matrix $`V^{}`$, which is the upper left part of $`U`$, is approximately unitary and of the form:

$$V^{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon )\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{exp}(i\epsilon )& \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right),$$
(28)
where $`\theta =0`$ and $`\pi /4`$ correspond to zero and maximal mixing, respectively, and where $`\epsilon `$ is a CP phase, in general a complicated function of $`\delta _1`$ and $`\delta _2`$.

In the case $`\tau \mu `$, we indeed have maximal mixing $`\theta \pi /4`$, according to atmospheric neutrino experiments. We will consider first this case. If we demand that this maximal mixing is obtained independently of the values $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ of the heavy Majorana sector \[see Eq. (26)\], then the following simple relations in the light Dirac sector are implied: $`a^2=c^2`$, $`b^2=d^2`$, and $`\delta _1=\delta _2\delta `$. The value of $`\delta `$ can be restricted to lie in the range $`\pi /2<\delta \pi /2`$. The eigenmasses of the two light neutrinos are then

$$m_{\nu _1,\nu _2}=\left|\left[\left(\frac{a^2}{M_1}\right)^2+\left(\frac{b^2}{M_2}\right)^2+2\frac{a^2}{M_1}\frac{b^2}{M_2}\mathrm{cos}(2\delta )\right]^{1/2}\pm \left(\frac{ac}{M_1}+\frac{bd}{M_2}\right)\right|,$$
(29)
while the heavy–to–light mixing parameters (22) $`(s_L^{\nu _l})^2_{h=3}^4|B_{lh}|^2`$ are

$$(s_L^{\nu _\mu })^2=(s_L^{\nu _\tau })^2=\frac{a^2}{M_1^2}+\frac{b^2}{M_2^2}(s_L^2),$$
(30)
and the CP–violating parameter $`\epsilon `$ of Eq. (28) is

$$\mathrm{tan}\epsilon =\mathrm{tan}\delta \times \frac{(a^2/M_1)(b^2/M_2)}{(a^2/M_1)+(b^2/M_2)}.$$
(31)
Now, conditions $`a^2=c^2`$, $`b^2=d^2`$ mean two possible cases: (1) $`a=\pm c`$ and $`b=\pm d`$; or (2) $`a=\pm c`$ and $`b=d`$.

1. Case $`a=\pm c`$ and $`b=\pm d`$: then $`m_{\nu _\tau }(a^2/M_1+b^2/M_2)`$, so $`s_L^2m_{\nu _\tau }/M_1<3\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}/M_13\times 10^{11}`$. Since $`Br(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ and $`Br(\tau 3\mu )`$ are approximately proportional to $`(s_L^{\nu _\mu })^2(s_L^{\nu _\tau })^2`$ ($`s_{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$), it follows that $`Br(\tau \mu \gamma )`$ and $`Br(\tau 3\mu )`$ are below $`10^{24}`$. For muon decays, $`Br(\mu e\gamma )`$ and $`Br(\mu 3e)`$ are obtained by dividing the previous values by $`Br(\tau \mu \overline{\nu }_\mu \nu _\tau )0.174`$, thus obtaining $`Br(\mu e\gamma )`$ and $`Br(\mu 3e)`$ below $`10^{23}`$, values which are well below their respective present experimental bounds ($`10^{11}`$ and $`10^{12}`$).
2. Case $`a=\pm c`$ and $`b=d`$: then $`m_{\nu _\tau }2|a^2/M_1b^2/M_2|`$, with the equality being reached only when $`\delta =\pi /2`$. In the latter case, $`m_{\nu _\mu }=0`$, and $`m_{\nu _\tau }=2|a^2/M_1b^2/M_2|=(\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2)^{1/2}0.047`$ eV. This case ($`\delta =\pi /2`$) thus avoids the suppression of $`s_L^2=(a^2/M_1^2+b^2/M_2^2)`$ while keeping $`a^2/M_1`$ extremely close to $`b^2/M_2`$ (a fine tuning situation). The value of $`s_L^2`$ can then be saturated to $`(s_L^2)_{\mathrm{max}}=0.002`$ \[Eq. (22)\] with the following parameters in the Dirac matrix $`m_D`$:

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`c=M_1(s_L)_{\mathrm{max}}/\sqrt{1+M_1/M_2},b=d=a(1\pm \eta )\sqrt{M_2/M_1},`$ (32)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{M_2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4M_1(s_L^2)_{\mathrm{max}}}}1.17\times 10^{13}\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(s_L^2)_{\mathrm{max}}}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{M_1}{M_2}}\right),`$ (33)
and where, as mentioned, $`\delta =\pi /2`$. The rates $`\tau \mu \gamma `$ and $`\tau 3\mu `$ are again practically proportional to $`(s_L^4)`$ and approach their maximum (for fixed chosen values of $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$) in the case given by Eqs. (32)–(33), as shown in the Appendix. The conditions (32)–(33), which are only reached by fine tuning, give the largest possible branching ratios in Model I, $`Br(\tau \mu \gamma )10^9`$ and $`Br(\tau \mu \mu \mu )\stackrel{<}{}10^{10}`$. In Fig. 1 we show the two branching ratios as functions of $`M_2`$, for two different ratios $`M_1/M_2=0.1`$ and $`0.5`$, accounting also for the PUB conditions (23). The CP–violating asymmetry parameter $`A_T`$ (21) is in this case, unfortunately, equal to zero, since $`\delta =\pi /2`$ implies $`\epsilon =0`$ \[Eq. (31)\] and thus no CP violation. If we move $`\delta `$ away from $`\pi /2`$, the allowed branching ratios drop sharply, mainly due to the upper bounds $`m_{\nu _\mu },m_{\nu _\tau }<3`$ eV, i.e., a situation similar to case 1 sets in. Accordingly, we do not consider other situations of CP violation in Model I, as the branching ratios fall dramatically to unobservable values outside the fine–tuning condition.

The results for $`Br(\mu e\gamma )`$ and $`Br(\mu 3e)`$ are again obtained by dividing the above results by $`0.174`$. However, we will then obtain values above the present experimental bounds $`1.2\times 10^{11}`$ and $`1.0\times 10^{12}`$, respectively. We are thus led to conclude that the assumed fine–tuning condition is not really met in this case.

If we now consider the case $`\tau e`$, i.e. the processes $`\tau e\gamma `$ and $`\tau eee`$, the neutrino oscillation experiments indicate that the mixing is almost zero: $`\theta 0`$ in Eq. (28). If we assume that the zero mixing condition is fulfilled independently of the heavy Majorana sector, we obtain the relations $`ac=0`$ and $`bd=0`$. The cases where $`a=b=0`$ or $`c=d=0`$ give us $`(s_L^{\nu _e})^2=0`$ and $`(s_L^{\nu _\tau })^2=0`$, respectively, and thus extremely suppressed branching ratios. The cases where $`a=d=0`$ or $`b=c=0`$ give: $`(s_L^{\nu _e})^2(s_L^{\nu _\tau })^2<m_\nu /M_1<3\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}/100\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}=3\times 10^{11}`$, i.e., as in case 1 discussed previously we obtain extremely suppressed branching ratios.

### B Model II

The neutrino mass matrix has the form of Eq. (5). In the considered two–generation case ($`N_L=2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{N}_R=4`$) for LFV $`\tau `$ decays, the submatrices $`m_D`$ and $`m_M`$ can be taken in the form

$$m_D=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& be^{i\xi }\\ ce^{i\xi }& d\end{array}\right),m_M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_1& 0\\ 0& M_2\end{array}\right).$$
(34)
In the two–generation scheme of Model II there is only one CP–violating phase $`\xi `$ .

Since the ($`N_L`$) light neutrinos in the model are massless, the LFV $`\tau `$ decay rates will neither be affected by the experimental light neutrino mass bounds, nor by the solar and atmospheric neutrino experiments and their requirements of the maximal ($`\nu _\mu `$$`\nu _\tau `$, $`\nu _e`$$`\nu _\mu `$) or minimal ($`\nu _e`$$`\nu _\tau `$) mixing. Nonetheless, it is possible to obtain nonzero light neutrino masses in Model II to accommodate neutrino oscillation experiments. Introduction of small mass terms for the neutral singlets $`S_{Li}`$ gives non-zero and non-degenerate masses of the light neutrinos, thus the possibility to accommodate $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ without significantly affecting the presented LFV rates. However, the rates will be affected by the PUB restrictions (23), as well as by the mixing parameter bounds (22) as the rates are proportional to $`(s_L^{\nu _\tau })^2(s_L^{\nu _\mu })^2`$ or $`(s_L^{\nu _\tau })^2(s_L^{\nu _e})^2`$. The $`\tau \mu `$ rates are suppressed in comparison to $`\tau e`$ rates, because the upper bound for $`(s_L^{\nu _\mu })^2`$ is smaller than that for $`(s_L^{\nu _e})^2`$ \[cf. Eq. (22)\]. Therefore, we will consider $`\tau e\gamma `$ and $`\tau 3e`$ LFV rates.

Similarly as in Model I, we first find the Dirac parameters in Model II such that the LFV branching ratios, at fixed Majorana masses $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, are maximal. This occurs when inequality (A.3) in the Appendix becomes equality, and the values of the mixing parameters $`(s_L)^2`$ are maximized, i.e., saturated according to Eq. (22). In the case of no CP violation ($`\xi =0`$), the requirement (A.4) for the inequality (A.3) to become an equality gives the relation $`ad=bc`$, while the saturation of the values of $`(s_L^{\nu _\tau })^2`$ and $`(s_L^{\nu _e})^2`$ gives two other conditions, for the four Dirac parameters $`a,b,c,d`$. This still allows us the freedom of fixing one of the four Dirac parameters without affecting the rates. We can, for example, require the symmetry of the (real) $`m_D`$ matrix: $`b=c`$. All of the above results in the following approximately “optimized” choice of $`m_D`$ parameters (when $`\xi =0`$):

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_2}{\sqrt{(M_2/M_1)^2+(s_{2m}/s_{1m})^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{1m}}{\sqrt{1s_{1m}^2s_{2m}^2}}},`$ (35)
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`c=a\times (s_{2m}/s_{1m}),d=a\times (s_{2m}/s_{1m})^2,`$ (36)
where $`s_{1m}^2=(s_L^{\nu _e})_{\mathrm{max}}^2=0.005`$ and $`s_{2m}^2=(s_L^{\nu _\tau })_{\mathrm{max}}^2=0.010`$, according to the bounds of Eq. (22).\**\**\** In contrast to Model I, we do not have the requirement of $`(s_L^{\nu _\tau })^2=(s_L^\nu _{\mathrm{}})^2`$ which followed there from the maximal ($`\nu _{\mathrm{}}`$$`\nu _\tau `$) mixing condition ($`\mathrm{}=\mu `$ there), so that in Model II we can saturate each of the two upper bounds (22) separately. In Fig. 2 we present the two branching ratios $`Br(\tau e\gamma )`$ and $`Br(\tau 3e)`$ as functions of $`M_2`$, for two fixed ratios $`M_1/M_2=0.1`$ and $`0.5`$, and for the CP phase $`\xi =0`$. We see from Fig. 2 that the LFV branching ratios in Model II are $`Br(\tau e\gamma )\stackrel{<}{}10^8`$ and $`Br(\tau 3e)\stackrel{<}{}10^9`$. These values decrease relatively slowly when the parameters of the Dirac sector ($`a,b,c,d;\xi `$) are moved away from the “optimal” values. This contrasts with Model I, where the maximal rates are reached only in a finely tuned region of parameter space. Our maximal values of $`Br(\tau e\gamma )`$ agree with those of Ilakovac  – ours are by about factor three lower only because we took a different upper bound $`(s_L^{\nu _\tau })^2<0.010`$ (22).

Fig. 3 shows the T-odd asymmetry $`A_T`$ of Eq. (21) for the same choices of mass matrix parameters as in Fig. 2(b), but for $`\xi =\pi /4`$ (solid line) and $`\xi =3\pi /4`$ (dashed line) (maximal CP violation). When all four heavy Majorana neutrinos are degenerate, there is no CP violation  and $`A_T=0`$. Also $`A_T=0`$ if $`\xi =0`$ or $`\pi /2`$. Notice that the maximal $`Br`$’s are reached for $`\xi =0`$, thus no CP violation; in the cases of Fig. 3 ($`\xi =\pi /4,3\pi /4`$) the values of $`Br`$’s are about one half of the corresponding ones in Fig. 2(b) ($`\xi =0`$). The searches for maximal rates and for CP violation are in this sense complementary in their most optimistic cases.

In the $`\tau \mu `$ processes, the maximal branching ratios in Model II are suppressed by an additional factor of $`(s_L^{\nu _\mu })_{\mathrm{max}}^2/(s_L^{\nu _e})_{\mathrm{max}}^2=0.002/0.0050.4`$ \[cf. Eq. (22)\]. The approximate maximal branching ratios for the $`\mu e`$ LFV processes in Model II are obtained from the corresponding $`\tau e`$ branching ratios by multiplying them with $`(s_L^{\nu _\mu })_{\mathrm{max}}^2/(s_L^{\nu _\tau })_{\mathrm{max}}^2=0.2`$ and dividing by $`Br(\tau \mu \overline{\nu }_\mu \nu _\tau )0.174`$. Thus, $`Br(\mu e\gamma )\stackrel{<}{}10^8`$ and $`Br(\mu 3e)\stackrel{<}{}10^9`$, which is above the present experimental bounds $`1.2\times 10^{11}`$ and $`1.0\times 10^{12}`$. Therefore, the maximizing conditions (35)–(36) cannot be met in this case.

### C Expected numbers of events

The explicit numbers of expected events in the considered processes depend on the way the $`\tau `$ leptons are produced and on the luminosities involved. For example, the $`\tau `$ pairs could be produced via $`e^+e^{}\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ close to the production threshold, or by sitting on a specific vector meson resonance $`V`$: $`e^+e^{}V\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. In this case, $`\sigma (e^+e^{}V)`$ as a function of the CMS energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ can be approximated as a Breit-Wigner function

$$\sigma (s;e^+e^{}V)=K\frac{1}{\left[(\sqrt{s}M_V)^2+(\mathrm{\Gamma }_V/2)^2\right]},$$
(37)
where $`M_V`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_V`$ are the mass and the total decay width of the resonance. Constant $`K`$ in Eq. (37) can be fixed by invoking the narrow width approximation (nwa) formula

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{nwa}}(s;e^+e^{}V)=\frac{12\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ee}(V)}{M_V}\delta (sM_V^2),$$
(38)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ee}(V)`$ is the partial decay width for $`Ve^+e^{}`$. Integration of (38) over the variable $`s`$ gives $`12\pi ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ee}(V)/M_V`$, fixing the constant $`K`$ in (37): $`K=3\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{ee}(V)\mathrm{\Gamma }_V/M_V^2`$. The production cross section is maximal on the top of the resonance $`\sqrt{s}=M_V`$:

$$\sigma (e^+e^{}V\tau ^+\tau ^{})^{\mathrm{max}}=\sigma (e^+e^{}V)^{\mathrm{max}}\times \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\tau \tau }(V)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_V}12\pi \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ee}(V)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_V}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\tau \tau }(V)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_V}\frac{1}{M_V^2}.$$
(39)
Multiplying this cross section by twice the branching ratio $`Br(\tau e\gamma (eee))`$ we obtain the cross section for the process $`e^+e^{}V\tau ^+\tau ^{}e\gamma (eee)+\tau `$. These branching ratios are $`\stackrel{<}{}10^8(10^9)`$ in Model II, as shown in Figs. 2. For example, if the resonance is taken to be $`V=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ ($`M_V=9.46`$ GeV; $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ee}(V)/\mathrm{\Gamma }_V\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\tau \tau }(V)/\mathrm{\Gamma }_V0.025`$), then $`\sigma (e^+e^{}V\tau ^+\tau ^{}e\gamma (eee)+\tau )`$ would be about $`2.`$ ($`0.2`$) fb. For a luminosity of $`10\mathrm{fb}^1/\mathrm{yr}`$, this corresponds to 20 (2) events per year. Increased luminosities would give correspondingly larger numbers of events.

## V Conclusions and Summary

We investigated and compared heavy Majorana neutrino effects on lepton flavor violating (LFV) decay rates of tau leptons, in two popular models: (I) the interfamily seesaw-type model realized in the SM with right–handed neutrinos, and (II) the SM with left–handed and right–handed neutral singlets. Further, we calculated a T–odd asymmetry $`A_T`$ for $`\tau 3l^{}`$. Model I is severely constrained in most of its parameter space by the actual eV–scale experimental upper bound on the light neutrino masses. It can give maximal LFV branching ratios $`Br(\tau \mu \gamma )10^9`$ and $`Br(\tau 3\mu )10^{10}`$ in a very restricted region of parameter space (where, incidentally, the CP-violating asymmetry $`A_T`$ is zero), but otherwise it gives branching ratios many orders of magnitude smaller. On the other hand, in Model II the LFV branching ratios can be larger over a wide range of parameter values, $`Br(\tau e\gamma )10^8`$ and $`Br(\tau 3e)10^9`$, and $`A_T`$ can reach values up to $`5\%`$. The results in Model II are insignificantly affected by the experimental bounds on the light neutrino masses. Model II can predict large enough LFV branching ratios ($`Br`$’s) to be tested with near future experiments. The maximal LFV $`Br`$’s in Model II are obtained when $`A_T=0`$, and are reduced by about a factor of two when $`A_T5\%`$. Model II thus indicates a certain complementarity in the searches of the LFV decay rates and of the associated T–violation.

###### Acknowledgements.

The work of G.C. was supported by FONDECYT (Chile), Grants No. 1010094 and No. 7010094. C.D. received support in part from FONDECYT (Chile), Grant No. 8000017 and Fundacion Andes (Chile), Grant C-13680/4. G.C. and C.D. also acknowledge partial support from the program MECESUP FSM9901 of the Chilean Ministry of Education. The work of C.S.K. was supported in part by CHEP-SRC Program and Grant No. 20015-111-02-2, R03-2001-00010 of the KOSEF, in part by BK21 Program and Grant No. 2001-042-D00022 of the KRF, and in part by Yonsei Research Fund, Project No. 2001-1-0057. The work of J.D.K was supported by the Korea Research Foundation Grant (2001-042-D00022). We wish to thank S. Kovalenko and A. Pilaftsis for helpful discussions.

## Appendix A Approximate maximization of the branching ratios

The amplitude squared for the $`ll^{}\gamma `$ LFV process is, according to Eq. (6), approximately proportional to

$`|A|^2`$ $``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{N_L}{}}}B_l\mathrm{}^{}B_l^{}\mathrm{}\times f(0)+{\displaystyle \underset{h=N_L+1}{\overset{N_L+\stackrel{~}{N}_R}{}}}B_{lh}^{}B_{l^{}h}\times f(m_h^2)\right|^2,`$ (A.1)
where the first sum runs over the light, practically massless, intermediate neutrinos, and the second sum over the heavy neutrinos with masses $`m_h`$ ($`M_1M_2`$). The function $`f`$ depends of the mass of the exchanged neutrino; in the specific case, it is the loop function $`G_\gamma `$ appearing in Eq. (10). We now approximate the second sum by assuming that all the heavy neutrinos eigenmasses $`m_h`$ are the same: $`m_h=M`$. Then this, together with the unitarity of the matrix $`U`$ (note: $`B_{li}=U_{il}^{}`$), implies

$`|A|^2`$ $``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{h=N_L+1}{\overset{N_L+\stackrel{~}{N}_R}{}}}U_{h2}U_{h1}^{}\right|^2\times |f(M^2)f(0)|\left|{\displaystyle \underset{h=N_L+1}{\overset{N_L+\stackrel{~}{N}_R}{}}}U_{h2}U_{h1}^{}\right|^2.`$ (A.2)
Here we denoted the flavor index $`l`$ of the heavier charged lepton as $`2`$ and the index $`l^{}`$ of the lighter one as $`1`$.

The amplitude squared for the $`l3l^{}`$ LFV process is, according to Eqs. (7)–(9) and (10)–(13), more complicated. However, in the leading order in $`m_Dm_M^1`$, and when there is no CP violation (when matrix $`U`$ is real), it is straightforward to show that $`|A|^2`$ is proportional to the same kind of combination (A.1). Thus, the proportionality (A.2) is approximately satisfied also for the $`l3l^{}`$ LFV process.

The above proportionality can be supplemented by the Schwarz inequality

$`|A|^2`$ $``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{h}{}}U_{h2}U_{h1}^{}\right|^2{\displaystyle \underset{h}{}}|U_{h2}|^2\times {\displaystyle \underset{h^{}}{}}|U_{h^{}1}|^2(s_L^{\nu _2})^2(s_L^{\nu _1})^2.`$ (A.3)
The equality is achieved only when there is a proportionality:

$$\frac{U_{h2}}{U_{h1}}|_{h=N_L+1}=\frac{U_{h2}}{U_{h1}}|_{h=N_L+2}=\mathrm{}=\frac{U_{h2}}{U_{h1}}|_{h=N_L+\stackrel{~}{N}_R}$$
(A.4)
Thus, the approximate maximal value of $`|A|^2`$, and thus of the LFV branching ratios, is achieved when the values of the heavy–to–light mixing parameters $`(s_L^{\nu _2})^2`$ and $`(s_L^{\nu _1})^2`$ are saturated according to the upper bounds (22) and, at the same time, the mixing matrix $`U`$ elements in the heavy–to–light sector satisfy the equalities (A.4).

In the seesaw Model I (with $`N_L=\stackrel{~}{N}_R=2`$), the mixing matrix $`U`$ elements in the heavy–to–light sector are $`U_{h2}=(m_M^1m_D^{})_{h^{}2}`$ and $`U_{h1}=(m_M^1m_D^{})_{h^{}1}`$, where $`h^{}h2`$. In our specific case of maximal mixing ($`a=c`$, $`b=d`$, $`\delta _1=\delta _2=\pi /2`$) we have: $`U_{31}=a/M_1`$, $`U_{41}=ib/M_2`$, $`U_{32}=ia/M_1`$, $`U_{42}=b/M_2`$; the equality (A.4) is fulfilled; and $`(s_L^{\nu _1})^2=(s_L^{\nu _2})^2=(a^2/M_1^2+b^2/M_2^2)`$.

In Model II (with $`N_L=2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}_R=4`$), with $`\xi =0`$, it can be shown, e.g. by using Mathematica, that the equality (A.4) is satisfied when $`ad=bc`$. If in this case also the values of $`(s_L^{\nu _2})^2=_h|U_{h2}|^2`$ and $`(s_L^{\nu _1})^2=_h|U_{h1}|^2`$ are saturated by the corresponding upper bounds of Eq. (22), then the approximate maximal branching LFV ratios are achieved.


text:
# Dilatonic monopoles from (4+1)- dimensional vortices

## 1 Introduction

In the 1920s, Kaluza and Klein studied the $`5`$-dimensional version of the Einstein equations  by introducing a $`5`$-dimensional metric tensor. When one dimension is compactified, the equations of $`4`$-dimensional Einstein gravity plus Maxwell’s equations are recovered. One of the new fields appearing in this model is the dilaton, a scalar companion of the metric tensor. In an analog way, this field arises in the low energy effective action of superstring theories and is associated with the classical scale invariance of these models .

In recent years, a number of classical field theory models coupled to a dilaton have been studied. It was found that if the solutions of SU(2) Yang-Mills-Higgs (YMH) theory, namely the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole  and its higher winding number generalisations , are coupled to a massless dilaton , remarkable similarities to the qualitative features of Einstein-Yang-Mills-Higgs (EYMH) monopoles  arise. Especially, it was observed that similarly to gravity the dilaton can render attraction between like charged monopoles and thus bound multimonopole states are possible.

Recently, the YMH system coupled to both gravity and the dilaton has been studied . It was found that in the full Einstein-Yang-Mills-Higgs-dilaton (EYMHD) model, a simple relation between the $`tt`$-component of the metric and the dilaton exists. The abelian solutions to which the configurations tend in the limit of critical coupling are the extremal Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton (EMD) solutions. These have definite expressions for the energy and the value of the $`rr`$-component of the metric at the origin which only depend on the fundamental couplings.

Volkov argued recently  that if $`\frac{}{x_4}`$ is a symmetry of the Einstein-Yang-Mills (EYM) system in ($`4+1`$) dimensions, where $`x_4`$ is the coordinate associated with the $`5`$th dimensions, then the ($`4+1`$)-dimensional EYM system reduces effectively to a ($`3+1`$)-dimensional EYMHD system with a specific coupling between the dilaton field and the Higgs field.

In this paper, we study both the spherically and axially symmetric solutions of the ($`3+1`$)-dimensional EYMHD model deduced from the ($`4+1`$)-dimensional EYM system. In Section 2, we give the EYMHD Lagrangian and review how the specific coupling arises. In Sections 3 und 4, we give the Ansatz and present our numerical results for the spherically and axially symmetric solutions, respectively. In both these Sections emphasis is placed on the flat space limit and on the limit in which our system of equations reduces to the one in . The summary and conclusions are presented in Section 5.

## 2 SU(2) Einstein-Yang-Mills-Higgs-dilaton theory

The Lagrangian and the particular coupling of the dilaton field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to the SU(2) gauge fields $`A_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}`$ and Higgs fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ ($`a=1,2,3`$), respectively, arise effectively from the Lagrangian of ($`4+1`$)-dimensional EYM theory. If both the matter functions and the metric functions are independent on $`x_4`$, the $`5`$-dimensional fields can be parametrized as follows (with $`M,N=0,1,2,3,4`$) :

$$g_{MN}^{(5)}dx^Mdx^N=e^\zeta g_{\mu \nu }^{(4)}dx^\mu dx^\nu e^{2\zeta }(dx^4)^2,\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3$$
(1)
and

$$A_M^adx^M=A_\mu ^adx^\mu +\mathrm{\Phi }^adx^4,a=1,2,3$$
(2)
where $`g^{(4)}`$ is the $`4`$-dimensional metric tensor and $`\zeta `$ plays the role of the dilaton. Introducing a new coupling $`\kappa `$ to study the influence of the dilaton systematically, we set $`\zeta =2\kappa \mathrm{\Psi }`$ and obtain the following action of the effective $`4`$-dimensional EYMHD theory:

$$S=S_G+S_M=L_G\sqrt{g^{(4)}}d^4x+L_M\sqrt{g^{(4)}}d^4x.$$
(3)
The gravity Lagrangian $`L_G`$ is given by

$$L_G=\frac{1}{16\pi G}R,$$
(4)
where $`G`$ is Newton‘s constant, while the matter Lagrangian $`L_M`$ reads:

$$L_M=\frac{1}{4}e^{2\kappa \mathrm{\Psi }}F_{\mu \nu }^aF^{\mu \nu ,a}\frac{1}{2}_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }\frac{1}{2}e^{4\kappa \mathrm{\Psi }}D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^aD^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^ae^{2\kappa \mathrm{\Psi }}V(\mathrm{\Phi }^a),$$
(5)
with Higgs potential

$$V(\mathrm{\Phi }^a)=\frac{\lambda }{4}(\mathrm{\Phi }^a\mathrm{\Phi }^av^2)^2,$$
(6)
the non-abelian field strength tensor

$$F_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a+e\epsilon _{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c,$$
(7)
and the covariant derivative of the Higgs field in the adjoint representation

$$D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^a=_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^a+e\epsilon _{abc}A_\mu ^b\mathrm{\Phi }^c.$$
(8)
Here, $`e`$ denotes the gauge field coupling constant, $`\lambda `$ the Higgs field coupling constant and $`v`$ the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field.

## 3 Spherically symmetric solutions

For the metric, the spherically symmetric Ansatz in Schwarzschild-like coordinates reads :

$$ds^2=g_{\mu \nu }^{(4)}dx^\mu dx^\nu =A^2(r)N(r)dt^2+N^1(r)dr^2+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d^2\phi ,$$
(9)
with

$$N(r)=1\frac{2m(r)}{r}.$$
(10)
In these coordinates, $`m(\mathrm{})`$ denotes the (dimensionful) mass of the field configuration.

For the gauge and Higgs fields, we use the purely magnetic hedgehog ansatz

$$A_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=A_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=0,$$
(11)
$$A_{\theta }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=\frac{1K(r)}{e}e_{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{a},A_{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=\frac{1K(r)}{e}\mathrm{sin}\theta e_{\theta }^{}{}_{}{}^{a},$$
(12)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }^a=vH(r)e_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}.$$
(13)
The dilaton is a scalar field depending only on $`r`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }(r).$$
(14)
Inserting the Ansatz into the Lagrangian and varying with respect to the matter fields yields the Euler-Lagrange equations, while variation with respect to the metric yields the Einstein equations.

With the introduction of dimensionless coordinates and fields

$$x=evr,\mu =evm,\varphi =\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{v},\psi =\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }}{v}.$$
(15)
the Lagrangian and the resulting set of differential equations depend only on three dimensionless coupling constants, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$,

$$\alpha =\sqrt{G}v=\frac{M_W}{eM_{\mathrm{Pl}}},\beta =\frac{\sqrt{\lambda }}{e}=\frac{M_H}{\sqrt{2}M_W},\gamma =\kappa v=\frac{\kappa M_W}{e},$$
(16)
where $`M_W=ev`$, $`M_H=\sqrt{2\lambda }v`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}=1/\sqrt{G}`$. With the rescalings (15) and (16), the dimensionless mass of the solution is given by $`\frac{\mu (\mathrm{})}{\alpha ^2}`$.

With (15) and (16) the Euler-Lagrange equations read:

$$(e^{2\gamma \psi }ANK^{})^{}=A(e^{2\gamma \psi }\frac{K(K^21)}{x^2}+e^{4\gamma \psi }H^2K),$$
(17)
$$(e^{4\gamma \psi }x^2ANH^{})^{}=AH(2e^{4\gamma \psi }K^2+\beta ^2x^2e^{2\gamma \psi }(H^21)),$$
(18)
$`(x^2AN\psi ^{})^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2\gamma A[e^{2\gamma \psi }(N(K^{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(K^21)^2}{2x^2}})`$ (19)
$``$ $`e^{2\gamma \psi }{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2x^2}{4}}(H^21)^22e^{4\gamma \psi }({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N(H^{})^2x^2+H^2K^2)],`$
where the prime denotes the derivative with respect to $`x`$, while we use the following combination of the Einstein equations

$$G_{tt}=2\alpha ^2T_{tt}=2\alpha ^2A^2NL_M,$$
(20)
$$g^{xx}G_{xx}g^{tt}G_{tt}=4\alpha ^2N\frac{L_M}{N}$$
(21)
to obtain two differential equations for the two metric functions:

$$\mu ^{}=\alpha ^2(e^{2\gamma \psi }N(K^{})^2+\frac{1}{2}Nx^2(H^{})^2e^{4\gamma \psi }+\frac{1}{2x^2}(K^21)^2e^{2\gamma \psi }+K^2H^2e^{4\gamma \psi }$$

$$+\frac{\beta ^2}{4}x^2(H^21)^2e^{2\gamma \psi }+\frac{1}{2}Nx^2(\psi ^{})^2),$$
(22)
$$A^{}=\alpha ^2xA\left(\frac{2(K^{})^2}{x^2}e^{2\gamma \psi }+e^{4\gamma \psi }(H^{})^2+(\psi ^{})^2\right).$$
(23)
Since we are looking for globally regular, finite energy solutions which are asymptotically flat, we impose the following set of boundary conditions:

$$K(0)=1,H(0)=0,_x\psi |_{x=0}=0,\mu (0)=0.$$
(24)
$$K(\mathrm{})=0,H(\mathrm{})=1,\psi (\mathrm{})=0,A(\mathrm{})=1,$$
(25)
### 3.1 Numerical results

We have restricted our numerical calculations for the spherically as well as for the axially symmetric solutions to $`\beta =0`$.

#### 3.1.1 The $`\alpha =0`$ limit

For $`\alpha =0`$, the gravitational field equations (22) and (23) decouple from the rest of the system and we are left with the YMHD model in flat space, $`N(x)1`$ and $`A(x)1`$. In  it was observed that (in analogy to the EYMH system) the monopoles exist up to a maximal value of the dilaton coupling $`\gamma =\gamma _{max}`$ and from there on a second branch of solutions tend to the abelian solution for $`\gamma \gamma _{cr}<\gamma _{max}`$ with $`\psi (0)`$ monotonically decreasing to $`\mathrm{}`$. Our numerical results indicate that no such $`\gamma _{max}`$ exists in the model studied here. We have integrated the equations for $`\gamma ϵ[0:10]`$ and found the solutions to exist for all these values of $`\gamma `$. The profiles of the functions suggest that for $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$ the solutions tend to the vacuum solution with $`K(x)1`$, $`H(x)0`$ and $`\psi (x)0`$. This is indicated by the fact that the mass of the field configurations progressively tends to zero for rising $`\gamma `$ and that the matter fields are equal to their vacuum values on increasing intervals of the coordinate $`x`$. To demonstrate this, we give below the values of $`x_K`$ and $`x_H`$, where the gauge field $`K(x)`$ and the Higgs field $`H(x)`$, respectively, reach the value $`0.5`$, i.e. $`K(x_K)=0.5`$ and $`H(x_H)=0.5`$ :

| $`\gamma `$ | $`x_K`$ | $`x_H`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`0.1`$ | $`2.2`$ | $`1.8`$ |
| $`1.0`$ | $`3.3`$ | $`2.1`$ |
| $`5.0`$ | $`11.2`$ | $`5.1`$ |
| $`10.0`$ | $`22.4`$ | $`8.9`$ |

Moreover, we find that $`\psi (0)0`$ for all $`\gamma `$. Since for $`\gamma =0`$, the BPS monopole solution is recovered, the curve for $`\psi (0)`$ starts from zero at $`\gamma =0`$. From there it increases to a maximal value at $`\gamma 1.38`$ and then slowly decreases to zero for $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$. Together with (25) our results strongly suggest that $`\psi (x)`$ tends to zero on the full interval $`xϵ[0:\mathrm{}[`$.

The difference between the model studied here and the one studied in  is that in the standard case of the Yang-Mills-Higgs-dilaton system, the equations are effectively the equations of an Einstein-Yang-Mills-Higgs model with metric

$$ds^2=e^{2\kappa \mathrm{\Psi }(r)}dt^2+e^{2\kappa \mathrm{\Psi }(r)}dr^2+e^{2\kappa \mathrm{\Psi }(r)}r^2d\theta ^2+e^{2\kappa \mathrm{\Psi }(r)}r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d^2\phi $$
(26)
The components of the Einstein tensor then read:

$$G_{tt}=\kappa e^{4\kappa \mathrm{\Psi }(r)}\left[2\mathrm{\Psi }^{^{\prime \prime }}+4\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }^{^{}}}{r}\kappa (\mathrm{\Psi }^{^{}})^2\right],G_{rr}=\frac{G_{\theta \theta }}{r^2}=\frac{G_{\phi \phi }}{r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }=\kappa ^2(\mathrm{\Psi }^{^{}})^2$$
(27)
The following combination of the Einstein equations

$$G_t^tG_r^rG_\theta ^\theta G_\phi ^\phi =8\pi G(T_t^tT_r^rT_\theta ^\theta T_\phi ^\phi )$$
(28)
exactly gives the dilaton equation in the standard case with $`\gamma ^2=\kappa ^2v^2Gv^2`$. Equally, the Euler-Lagrange equations for the gauge and Higgs field functions are obtained using the metric (26). Thus the dilaton can be viewed as a metric field. Since we know that gravity leads to a critical value of the coupling constant, this is also true in the standard Yang-Mills-Higgs-dilaton case. A horizon forms for $`g_{tt}0`$ which implies $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{}`$. This is exactly the limiting solution found previously.

Now, for the equations studied here, this is not possible. We cannot introduce a $`4`$-dimensional metric which makes the equations in the limit of $`A=N=1`$ reduce to a set of Einstein-Yang-Mills-equations. yThus, no critial $`\gamma `$ can be expected on the basis of the above argument. This is confirmed by our numerical results.

The form of the Lagrangian (5) suggests that for $`\gamma `$ getting bigger and bigger, the only possibility to fulfill the requirement of finite energy is that $`\psi (x)0`$ on the full interval of $`x`$.

#### 3.1.2 The Volkov limit $`\alpha ^2=3\gamma ^2`$

In  only one fundamental coupling is given, the gravitational coupling $`G`$. Comparing the $`(4+1)`$-dimensional EYM system with the EYMHD system studied in this paper, we conclude that for

$$\alpha ^2=3\gamma ^2$$
(29)
our system of equations reduces to the one in .

Studying the full system of equations, we were particularly interested in reobtaining the results with a different numerical method  and in studying some of the features of the solutions in greater detail.

Volkov observed a spiraling behaviour of the parameters for the EYM vortices. As expected and shown in Fig. 1, we observe this feature as well. Our numerical results suggest that a number of branches exist, on which the minimum of the metric function $`N`$, $`N_m`$, and the value of the metric function $`A`$ at the origin, $`A(0)`$, monotonically decrease. In the limit of critical coupling, the $`rr`$-component of the corresponding $`5`$-dimensional metric tensor, expressed in $`4`$ dimensions through the function $`g(x):=e^{2\gamma \psi }N(x)=e^{\frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}\alpha \psi }N(x)`$ develops a double zero at a value $`x_m>0`$ of the dimensionless coordinate $`x`$ . Our numerical results indicate that $`x_mϵ]0:0.082]`$.

There exist several local maximal and minimal values of $`\alpha `$, $`\alpha _{max}^{(ij)}`$ and $`\alpha _{min}^{(ij)}`$, respectively. By $`\alpha _{max,min}^{(ij)}`$ we denote the value of $`\alpha `$, at which the $`i`$-th and the $`j`$-th branch join. We find:

$$\alpha _{max}^{(12)}=1.268,\alpha _{min}^{(23)}=0.312,\alpha _{max}^{(34)}=0.419,\alpha _{min}^{(45)}=0.395$$
(30)
Apparantly, the difference between $`\alpha _{max}`$ and its corresponding $`\alpha _{min}`$ decreases, i.e. the branches get smaller and smaller. We thus conjecture that the limiting solution is reached for a value of $`\alpha `$ close to $`\alpha _{min}^{(45)}=0.395`$.

Progressing on the branches, the qualitative behaviour of the functions changes . This is shown for the gauge field function $`K(x)`$ in Fig. 2. While for all values of $`\alpha `$ on the first branch (as an example, we show $`K(x)`$ for $`\alpha =1.267`$ close to $`\alpha _{max}^{(12)}`$) and most of the values of $`\alpha `$ on the second branch (see the profile for $`\alpha =0.8`$) $`K(x)`$ decreases monotonically from its value at the origin $`K(0)=1`$, to its value at infinity $`K(\mathrm{})=0`$, oscillations of the gauge field start to occur on the second branch for $`\alpha 0.4185`$. For $`\alpha _{min}^{(23)}=0.312`$ the local minimum and maximum, respectively, are already quite pronounced, while for $`\alpha _{min}^{(45)}=0.395`$, the location of both the minimum and maximum has moved to smaller values of $`x`$. We are convinced that in analogy to  the number of oscillations increases when proceeding on further branches. In Fig. 3, we show the value of the dilaton function $`\psi `$ at the origin (multiplied by $`1`$), $`\psi (0)`$, and the mass of the solutions on the different branches as functions of $`\alpha `$. $`\psi (0)`$ is equal to zero for $`\alpha =0`$ (since this implies $`\gamma =0`$), increases to a maximal value of $`\psi (0)=0.174`$ at $`\alpha 1.0`$ and from there decreases first to zero at $`\alpha =1.220`$ on the second branch and further decreases to a minimal value of $`\psi (0)=5.274`$ at $`\alpha =0.314`$ on the third branch. From there it starts to increase to $`\psi (0)=4.847`$ at $`\alpha =0.395`$ and then decreases again to $`\psi (0)=7.164`$ at $`\alpha _{min}^{(45)}=0.395`$.

The function $`\psi (x)`$ itself decreases monotonically from $`\psi (0)`$ to its value $`\psi (\mathrm{})=0`$ for all values of $`\gamma `$ on the first branch and for $`\alpha 1.24`$ on the second branch, staying positive for all values of $`x`$. For $`\alpha >1.24`$ on the second branch, a minimum (which has negative value) starts to form and dips down deeper to negative values when progressing on the branches. In the limit of critical coupling $`\alpha _{cr}`$, the dilaton function $`\psi _{EMD}`$ of the corresponding EMD solution

$$\psi _{EMD}=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{4\alpha _{cr}}\mathrm{ln}(1\frac{X_{}}{X}),X_{}=(\frac{4}{3})^{1/4}$$
(31)
where the dimensionless coordinate $`x`$ is given in terms of $`X`$ ,

$$x=\alpha _{cr}X(1\frac{X_{}}{X})^{1/4}$$
(32)
is reached for $`xx_m`$, while it stays finite for $`xϵ[0:x_m[`$.

It has to be remarked here, though, that in the limit of critical coupling, the gauge and Higgs field functions $`K(x)`$ and $`H(x)`$ don’t reach there abelian values $`0`$ and $`1`$ at $`x=x_m`$, respectively, but tend to the fixed point described in .

The mass of the solution stays close to one on the first branch and increases monotonically on the second branch. On the third and fourth branch it differs only little from the corresponding mass on the second branch and thus the three different branches can barely be distinguished in Fig. 3. In the limit of critical coupling $`\alpha _{cr}`$, the mass tends to the mass $`\frac{\mu _{EMD}}{\alpha ^2}`$ of the corresponding EMD solution:

$$\frac{\mu }{\alpha ^2}\frac{\mu _{EMD}}{\alpha _{cr}^2}=\sqrt{\frac{3}{4}}\frac{1}{\alpha _{cr}}$$
(33)
Let us finally investigate the Einstein-Yang-Mills-Higgs (EYMH) system with the usual coupling of the dilaton considered in  in the Volkov limit $`\alpha ^2=3\gamma ^2`$ . This model doesn’t contain the prefactor of the covariant derivative involving the dilaton studied here. In the BPS limit ($`\beta =0`$), the equation for the Higgs field doesn’t involve the dilaton field directly and vice versa, while in the model studied here it does even for $`\beta =0`$ (see (18) and (19)). In Fig. 1, we show the values of $`N_m`$ and $`A(0)`$ for the model studied in  for the Volkov limit $`\alpha ^2=3\gamma ^2`$. The recalculation of the configurations for this specific relation between $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ exactly confirms the results obtained in . The solutions exist for $`\alpha <\alpha _{max}=1.216`$, which fulfills the condition (48) of

$$\sqrt{\alpha _{max}^2+\gamma ^2}=\sqrt{\frac{4}{3}}\alpha _{max}1.4.$$
(34)
From there, on a second branch of solutions, the Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton (EMD) solution is reached at $`\alpha _{cr}`$ with the minimum of the metric function $`N`$, $`N_m`$, tending to the value $`N(x=0)`$ of the corresponding EMD solution :

$$N_mN_{EMD}(0)=(\frac{\gamma ^2}{\alpha ^2+\gamma ^2})^2=\frac{1}{16}$$
(35)
This is demonstrated in Fig. 1. $`A(0)`$ decreases to zero, while $`N_m>0`$, indicating that the extremal EMD solutions have a singularity at $`x=0`$ not hidden by an horizon.

## 4 Axially symmetric solutions

Since the $`n=1`$ monopole was shown to be the unique spherically symmetric solution in SU(2) YMH theory , we need to impose an axially symmetric Ansatz (or one with even less symmetry) to construct higher winding number solutions. The axially symmetric Ansatz for the metric in isotropic coordinates reads:

$$ds^2=fdt^2+\frac{m}{f}\left(d\stackrel{~}{r}^2+\stackrel{~}{r}^2d\theta ^2\right)+\frac{l}{f}\stackrel{~}{r}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2,$$
(36)
The functions $`f`$, $`m`$ and $`l`$ now depend on $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ and $`\theta `$. If $`l=m`$ and $`f`$ only depend on $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$, this metric reduces to the spherically symmetric metric in isotropic coordinates and comparison with the metric in (9) yields the coordinate transformation :

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{r}}{\stackrel{~}{r}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N(r)}}\frac{dr}{r}$$
(37)
For the gauge fields we choose the purely magnetic Ansatz :

$$A_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=0,A_{\stackrel{~}{r}}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=\frac{H_1}{e\stackrel{~}{r}}v_{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{a},$$
(38)
$$A_{\theta }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=\frac{1H_2}{e}v_{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{a},A_{\phi }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}=\frac{n}{e}\mathrm{sin}\theta \left(H_3v_{\stackrel{~}{r}}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}+(1H_4)v_{\theta }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\right).$$
(39)
while for the Higgs field, the Ansatz reads

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^a=v(\mathrm{\Phi }_1v_{\stackrel{~}{r}}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}+\mathrm{\Phi }_2v_{\theta }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}).$$
(40)
The vectors $`\stackrel{}{v}_{\stackrel{~}{r}}`$,$`\stackrel{}{v}_\theta `$ and $`\stackrel{}{v}_\phi `$ are given by:

$`\stackrel{}{v}_{\stackrel{~}{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}n\phi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}n\phi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$
$`\stackrel{}{v}_\theta `$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}n\phi ,\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}n\phi ,\mathrm{sin}\theta ),`$
$`\stackrel{}{v}_\phi `$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{sin}n\phi ,\mathrm{cos}n\phi ,0).`$ (41)
The dilaton field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ now depends on $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ and $`\theta `$ :

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{~}{r},\theta )$$
(42)
For $`H_1=H_3=\mathrm{\Phi }_2=0`$, $`H_2=H_4=K(\stackrel{~}{r})`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1=H(\stackrel{~}{r})`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{~}{r})`$ and $`n=1`$, this Ansatz reduces to the spherically symmetric Ansatz in isotropic coordinates.

The Euler-Larange equations arise by varying the Lagrangian with respect to the matter fields, while we use the following combinations of the Einstein equations

$$g_{\stackrel{~}{r}\stackrel{~}{r}}(G_\mu ^\mu 2G_t^t)=16\pi G\frac{m}{f}(L_M+g^{tt}\frac{L_M}{g^{tt}}g^{\stackrel{~}{r}\stackrel{~}{r}}\frac{L_M}{g^{\stackrel{~}{r}\stackrel{~}{r}}}g^{\theta \theta }\frac{L_M}{g^{\theta \theta }}g^{\phi \phi }\frac{L_M}{g^{\phi \phi }})$$
(43)
$$g_{\stackrel{~}{r}\stackrel{~}{r}}(G_{\stackrel{~}{r}}^{\stackrel{~}{r}}+G_\phi ^\phi )=16\pi G\frac{m}{f}(L_Mg^{\stackrel{~}{r}\stackrel{~}{r}}\frac{L_M}{g^{\stackrel{~}{r}\stackrel{~}{r}}}g^{\phi \phi }\frac{L_M}{g^{\phi \phi }})$$
(44)
$$g_{\stackrel{~}{r}\stackrel{~}{r}}(G_{\stackrel{~}{r}}^{\stackrel{~}{r}}+G_\theta ^\theta )=16\pi G\frac{m}{f}(L_Mg^{\stackrel{~}{r}\stackrel{~}{r}}\frac{L_M}{g^{\stackrel{~}{r}\stackrel{~}{r}}}g^{\theta \theta }\frac{L_M}{g^{\theta \theta }})$$
(45)
to obtain $`3`$ differential equations for the metric functions $`f`$, $`l`$ and $`m`$, which are diagonal with respect to the set of derivatives ($`f_{,\stackrel{~}{r},\stackrel{~}{r}}`$, $`m_{,\stackrel{~}{r},\stackrel{~}{r}}`$, $`l_{,\stackrel{~}{r},\stackrel{~}{r}}`$, $`l_{,\theta ,\theta }`$, $`l_{,\stackrel{~}{r},\theta }`$). With an analog rescaling as in (15), the set of $`10`$ partial differential equations again depends only on the three fundamental coupling constants introduced in (16).
At the origin, the boundary conditions read (with $`_{\stackrel{~}{x}}=\frac{1}{ev}_{\stackrel{~}{r}}`$):

$$_{\stackrel{~}{x}}f(0,\theta )=_{\stackrel{~}{x}}l(0,\theta )=_{\stackrel{~}{x}}m(0,\theta )=0,_{\stackrel{~}{x}}\psi (0,\theta )=0$$
(46)
$$H_i(0,\theta )=0,i=1,3,H_i(0,\theta )=1,i=2,4,\varphi _i(0,\theta )=0,i=1,2$$
(47)
At infinity, the requirement for finite energy and asymptotically flat solutions leads to the boundary conditions:

$$f(\mathrm{},\theta )=l(\mathrm{},\theta )=m(\mathrm{},\theta )=1,\psi (\mathrm{},\theta )=0$$
(48)
$$H_i(\mathrm{},\theta )=0,i=1,2,3,4,\varphi _1(\mathrm{},\theta )=1,\varphi _2(\mathrm{},\theta )=0$$
(49)
In addition, boundary conditions on the symmetry axes (the $`\rho `$\- and $`z`$-axes) have to be fulfilled. On both axes:

$$H_1=H_3=\varphi _2=0$$
(50)
and

$$_\theta f=_\theta m=_\theta l=_\theta H_2=_\theta H_4=_\theta \varphi _1=_\theta \psi =0$$
(51)
### 4.1 Numerical results

Constructing the axially symmetric solutions numerically , we were mainly interested whether bound multimonopoles are possible in this model and if so, how the strength of attraction compares to that in .

#### 4.1.1 The $`\alpha =0`$ limit

Since gravity itself is known to be attractive, we first studied the influence of the dilaton alone. Constructing the $`n=2`$ solutions, we obtain the same qualitative feature as for the $`n=1`$ case. The configurations exist for all values of $`\gamma `$, tending to the vacuum solution $`H_1=H_3=\varphi _1=\varphi _2=\psi 0`$, $`H_2=H_41`$ for $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$. Again, we find that $`\psi (0)0`$ and that the curve for $`\psi (0)`$, starting from zero at $`\gamma =0`$, develops a maximum at $`\gamma =1.38`$ (which coincides with the corresponding value for $`n=1`$). From there it monotonically decreases to zero for $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$.

In Fig. 4, we show the difference between the mass of the $`n=1`$ solution and the mass per winding number of the $`n=2`$ solution $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E(n=1)E(n=2)/2`$. The sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ indicates whether like charged monopoles attract or repell each other, the modulus of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ indicates the strength of attraction and repulsion, respectively. We find that for all values of $`\gamma `$ we have studied, the monopoles are in an attractive phase and that with increasing $`\gamma `$ the strength of attraction grows. For the model studied in , the maximal $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ was found to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{max}0.0082`$ at $`\gamma =1.2`$. From there $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ decreases since the spherically as well as the axially symmetric monopoles are tending to an essentially abelian, spherically symmetric solution in the limit of critical coupling. In the model studied here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is smaller for the same values of $`\gamma `$ (e.g. we find that $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(\gamma =1.2)0.0069`$), but since no critical coupling exists, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ grows with increasing $`\gamma `$. For e.g. $`\gamma =5.0`$, we find $`\mathrm{\Delta }E0.0167`$, which is more that twice the maximal possible value for the model in . For large enough values of $`\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ should decrease, because both the spherically and axially symmetric solution are tending to the vacuum. Since the absolute value of the mass is decreasing to zero, the same should happen for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$.

#### 4.1.2 The Volkov limit $`\alpha ^2=3\gamma ^2`$

Studying the $`n=2`$ axially symmetric monopoles, we find the same qualitative features as in the spherically symmetric case. We obtain:

$$\alpha _{max}^{(12)}=1.279,\alpha _{min}^{(23)}=0.295$$
(52)
These values are slightly bigger and smaller, respectively, than the corresponding values for the $`n=1`$ solution. It has already been observed previously, that the branches for the $`n=2`$ solutions exist for higher values of the maximal coupling . We find here that an analog holds true for the minimal coupling, namely that the $`n=2`$ solutions exist for smaller minimal values than in the $`n=1`$ case.

The behaviour of $`\psi (0)`$ is completely analog to the $`n=1`$ case : starting from zero at $`\alpha =0`$, it increases to a maximal value of $`\psi (0)0.178`$ at $`\alpha 1.0`$, then decreases to zero at $`\alpha 1.19`$ and reaches $`\psi (0)5.324`$ at $`\alpha _{min}^{(23)}=0.295`$. The dilaton function, which has only a weak angle-dependence, is positive and monotonically decreasing on the first branch and starts to form a negative valued minimum on the second branch. Proceeding on the second branch, the solutions are less and less angle dependent and the maximum of the function $`H_1`$, $`H_3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ decreases. We didn’t manage to construct further branches with our numerical routine (since these branches are rather small), but believe that in analogy to the $`n=1`$ solutions, the $`n=2`$ solutions develop a double zero, which is now (because of the choice of isotropic coordinates) located at $`\stackrel{~}{x}=0`$.

Comparing $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ for the model studied here and for that in , we find that the different values don’t deviate very much from each other. However, in the model studied in  the parameter space, in which solutions exist, is limited by $`\sqrt{\alpha ^2+\gamma ^2}1.4`$. This means that in the Volkov limit solutions only exist for $`\alpha \alpha _{max}1.21`$. Here, the solutions exist for bigger values of $`\alpha =\sqrt{3}\gamma `$ and thus the maximum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is slightly bigger with $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{max}0.011`$. This is reached on the first branch of solutions as demonstrated in Fig. 4. The second branch starts from a value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ well below the corresponding one on the first branch and from there decreases. For all values of $`\gamma =\frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{3}}`$, the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ on the first branch exceeds the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ on the second branch.

## 5 Conclusion and Summary

We have studied spherically and axially symmetric solutions of SU(2) EYMHD theory. The specific coupling between the dilaton and the Higgs field in this model arises from a ($`4+1`$)-dimensional EYM model studied recently in . We find that in the flat space limit ($`\alpha =0`$), the solutions exist for all values of $`\gamma `$ tending to the vacuum solution for $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$. This contrasts to the situation in the usual YMHD model studied in , where the solutions only exist for $`\gamma \gamma _{max}`$ tending to an abelian solution in the limit of critical coupling $`\gamma _{cr}`$. In both models, the dilatonic monopoles are in an attractive phase. Since no critical coupling exists in the model studied here, much stronger bound monopoles are possible.

Apparently, unlike the YMHD model with the usual coupling, the YMHD system studied here doesn’t have analog features than the EYMH system. Moreover, the relation between the $`tt`$-component of the metric and the dilaton found in , doesn’t exist

When in addition gravity is coupled, our equations agree with those in  for a specific relation between the gravitational coupling $`\alpha `$ and the dilaton coupling $`\gamma `$, namely $`\alpha ^2=3\gamma ^2`$. Studying the spherically and axially symmetric solutions of these equations in this limit, we observe the same spiraling behaviour of the parameters found in . Several branches exist differing from the situation in the model with the usual dilaton coupling studied in , where maximally two branches exist. Like in  the dilatonic monopoles can form bound multimonopole states.

In , non-abelian black holes of the EYMHD model were studied giving further evidence that the ”No-hair” conjecture doesn’t hold in models involving non-abelian fields. It would be interesting to construct the analogs in this system, especially the axially symmetric non-abelian black holes. Their existence would show that Israel’s theorem cannot be extended to EYMHD theory, like it has previously been observed in EYMH theory .

Finally, since in the low energy effective action of string theory, further corrections to the equations of standard physics, such as higher order corrections to gravity in form of Gauss-Bonnet terms or new fields like the axion field arise, it would be interesting to study their influence on the solutions constructed here.

Acknowledgements B. H. was supported by the EPSRC.