text:
# Most Bell Operators do not Significantly Violate Locality

## Abstract

The worst violation of Bell’s inequality for $`n`$ qbits is of size $`2^{\frac{n1}{2}}`$ and it is obtained by a specific operator acting on a specific state. We show, to the contrary, that for a vast majority of Bell operators the worst violation is bounded by $`O((n\mathrm{log}n)^{\frac{1}{2}})`$, below experimental detection. With respect to the extremal operators, introduced by Werner and Wolf \[Phys. Rev. A 64, 032112 (2001)\], we show that a large majority of them have a norm bounded by $`O(n^{\frac{1}{2}})`$.

It is commonly believed that a quantum system that is composed of a large number of particles behaves “nearly classically”. A dramatic example to the contrary is the violation of a Bell-type inequality by a system of $`n`$ qbits. Mermin  showed that the violation not only persists as $`n`$ grows, but actually increases exponentially. Mermin’s result has since been strengthened in various respects . Meanwhile, further sets of Bell inequalities have been determined, most notably, the set of all inequalities for $`n`$-partite systems with two dichotomic observable each. .

However, the question still remains how prevalent Mermin’s phenomenon is. In other words, how crucially it depends on the use of an exotic quantum state (the generalized Greenberger Horne Zeilinger GHZ state) and a specific operator (the Mermin Klyshko MK operator, or one of its variants). Here we show that Mermin’s phenomenon is the exception, not the rule, and it becomes more isolated as $`n`$ grows.

Consider $`r\times n`$ directions in physical space

$$\begin{array}{c}a_1^1,a_2^1,\mathrm{},a_r^1\\ a_1^2,a_2^2,\mathrm{},a_r^2\\ .\\ a_1^n,a_2^n,\mathrm{},a_r^n\end{array}$$
(1)
Let $`c(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n)`$, $`1k_jr`$, be real, non-negative numbers such that $`c^2(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n)=1`$. Consider the operator

$$Q=\underset{k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n}{}\pm c(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n)\sigma (a_{k_1}^1)\sigma (a_{k_2}^2)\mathrm{}\sigma (a_{k_n}^n)$$
(2)
Where $`\sigma (a)`$ is the spin operator in the $`a`$-direction (with eigenvalues $`1`$ and $`+1`$), and the $`\pm `$ signs of the coefficients $`c(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n)`$ have been chosen randomly. We shall call such $`Q`$ a random Bell operator. Let $`Q`$ be the norm of $`Q`$, that is, the maximum over the absolute values of its eigenvalues. We shall prove the following results:

###### Proposition 1

For a vast majority of choices of signs $`\pm `$ in (2) we have $`\mathrm{max}Q9(rn\mathrm{log}n)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Where the maximum is taken over directions in (1) such that for each $`1jn`$ the directions $`a_k^j`$, $`k=1,2\mathrm{},r`$ are in the same plane.

Note that for $`r=2`$, the restriction on the directions to be in the same plane does not limit the generality of the Bell operator in (2), since any two directions determine a plane. In this case the set of all Bell inequalities has been derived in a particularly convenient form by Werner and Wolf . We shall see later (proposition 3) how this allows a more stringent estimation of $`Q`$ than that given in proposition 1.

The next result does not involve any restrictions.

###### Proposition 2

Let $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a fixed arbitrary $`n`$ qbits state. Then for a vast majority of choices of $`\pm `$ signs in (2) we have $`\mathrm{max}\left|\mathrm{\Phi }\left|Q\right|\mathrm{\Phi }\right|36(rn\mathrm{log}n)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. The maximum is taken over all choices of directions $`a_k^j`$.

Let me make precise what I mean by “vast majority”. There are $`L=2^{r^n}`$possible choices of signs $`\pm `$ to the coefficients $`c(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n)`$. Consider $`\{1,1\}^L`$ as a probability space with each sequence having identical probability $`L^1=2^{r^n}`$. Denote the probability measure in this space by $`𝒫`$, and assume that $`\pm `$ are assigned independently and with identical distribution. The magnitude $`\mathrm{max}Q`$ can then be considered as a random variable on the probability space (as we vary the $`\pm `$ signs in (2)). We shall prove the following estimation on the distribution of $`Q`$:

$$𝒫\left(\mathrm{max}Q9(rn\mathrm{log}n)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)>1\frac{1}{n^2e^{rn}}$$
(3)
And a similar expression for proposition 2.

The bound $`9(n\mathrm{log}n)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ should be compared with the maximum $`2^{\frac{n1}{2}}`$which is achieved by the MK operator in the generalized GHZ state . The bound should also be compared with the predictions of local hidden variable theories. In such theories we replace (2) with the expression

$$C=\underset{k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n}{}\pm c(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n)X_{k_1}^1X_{k_2}^2\mathrm{}X_{k_n}^n$$
(4)
Where the $`X_k^j`$ are $`r\times n`$ variables, each with two possible values $`\pm 1`$. The quantum value $`Q`$ is then compared with the classical value $`C_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{max}\left|C\right|`$, where the maximum is taken over all $`2^{rn}`$ values of the $`X_k^j`$. We shall see that for a large majority of choices of $`\pm `$signs in (4) the unmber $`9(n\mathrm{log}n)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is also an upper bound for $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$. This means that for most choices of signs, $`Q`$ violates the conditions of local realism only slightly, if at all. Such violation cannot have an observable significance in the presence of small noise or measurement error.

The two propositions are direct consequences of a theorem in Fourier analysis due to Salem, Zygmund and Kahane (chapter 6 in ). Consider the multivariable trigonometric polynomial $`P(t_1,t_2,\mathrm{},t_s)=b(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_s)e^{i(k_1t_1+,k_2t_2+\mathrm{}+k_st_s)}`$, where the sum is taken over all negative and nonnegative integers $`k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_s`$ which satisfy $`\left|k_1\right|+\left|k_2\right|+\mathrm{}+\left|k_s\right|N`$. The integer $`N`$ is called the degree of the polynomial. Denote $`P_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{t_1,\mathrm{},t_s}{max}\left|P(t_1,t_2,\mathrm{},t_s)\right|`$. Now, consider the random polynomial $`R=_{jJ}\pm c_jP_j(t_1,t_2,\mathrm{},t_s)`$ where the sum is taken over a finite index set $`J`$, the $`c_j`$’s are real or complex, the $`\pm `$ signs are chosen at random in the sense explained above, and each $`P_j`$ is a trigonometric polynomial of degree $`N`$. Then

$$𝒫\left(R_{\mathrm{}}9\left(s\underset{jJ}{}\left|c_j\right|^2P_j_{\mathrm{}}^2\mathrm{log}N\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right)1\frac{1}{N^2e^s}$$
(5)
Consider the random operator $`Q`$ in (2) with the restriction that the directions in each raw in (1) are in the same plane. In this case we can calculate explicitly the eigenvalues of $`Q`$ using the technique in . (Scarani and Gisin assume that $`r=2,`$ but their argument depends just on coplanarity). Let $`z_j`$ be the direction orthogonal to the vectors in the $`j`$-th row of (1). Denote by $`|1_j`$ and $`|1_j`$ the states spin-down and spin-up in the $`z_j`$ direction. Let $`x_j`$ be orthogonal to $`z_j`$ and let $`t_k^j`$ be the angle between $`a_k^j`$ and $`x_j`$. Then the vectors $`|\omega _1,\omega _2,\mathrm{},\omega _n`$, $`\omega =(\omega _1,\omega _2,\mathrm{},\omega _n)\{1,1\}^n`$ form a basis for the $`n`$-qbits space. The eigenvectors of $`Q`$ then have the form

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(\omega )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e^{i\theta (\omega )}|\omega _1,\omega _2,\mathrm{},\omega _n+|\omega _1,\omega _2,\mathrm{},\omega _n)$$
(6)
with the corresponding eigenvector

$$\lambda (\omega )=e^{i\theta (\omega )}\underset{k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n}{}\pm c(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n)\mathrm{exp}i\left(\omega _1t_{k_1}^1+\omega _2t_{k_2}^2+\mathrm{}+\omega _nt_{k_n}^n\right)$$
(7)
where the angle $`\theta (\omega )`$ in the phase factor of (7) makes $`\lambda (\omega )`$ real. Hence we have

$$\mathrm{max}Q\mathrm{max}\left|\underset{k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n}{}\pm c(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n)\mathrm{exp}i\left(t_{k_1}^1+t_{k_2}^2+\mathrm{}+t_{k_n}^n\right)\right|$$
(8)
Where the maximum is taken over all values of $`t_k^j`$ , $`k=1,2,..,r`$, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. Now, apply (5) to (8). We take the index set $`J=\{1,2,\mathrm{},r\}^n`$, the trivial polynomials $`P_{(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n)}=\mathrm{exp}i\left(t_{k_1}^1+t_{k_2}^2+\mathrm{}+t_{k_n}^n\right)`$ considered as polynomials in (a part of ) the $`rn`$ variables $`t_k^j`$. We have $`P_{(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n)}_{\mathrm{}}=1`$, $`s=rn`$, $`N=n`$. Proposition 1 follows since $`c^2(k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n)=1`$.

Now, consider the classical local hidden variable expression (4). The value of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ is certainly bounded by the right hand side of (8). Hence, with high probability, $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`9(rn\mathrm{log}n)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Therefore, this bound does not give us any information about the likelihood of (a slight) violation of locality by $`Q`$. In any case, even if such a violation exists, it is too small to be detected by any real experiment.

Let us relax the assumption of coplanarity of the directions and assume that the $`a_k^j`$’s are arbitrary. In a fixed polar coordinates assume $`a_k^j=(\theta _k^j,\varphi _k^j)`$. Let $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be an arbitrary unit vector in the $`n`$ qbits space. We have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\left|Q\right|\mathrm{\Phi }=\underset{𝐤}{}\pm c(𝐤)P_𝐤(\theta _{k_1}^1,\mathrm{},\theta _{k_n}^n,\varphi _{k_1}^1,\mathrm{},\varphi _{k_n}^n)$$
(9)
where $`P_𝐤=\mathrm{\Phi }\left|\sigma (a_{k_1}^1)\sigma (a_{k_2}^2)\mathrm{}\sigma (a_{k_n}^n)\right|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is considered as a trigonometric polynomial in (a part of) the $`2rn`$ variables $`\theta _k^j,\varphi _k^j`$. The degree of $`P_𝐤`$ is $`2n`$ and $`P_𝐤_{\mathrm{}}1`$ Hence we can use (5) with $`s=2rn`$, $`N=2n`$ to obtain proposition 2.

In the case $`r=2`$ we can derive a better bound than indicated by proposition 1. In this case the complete set of inequalities has been derived . The set is complete in the sense that all other valid Bell inequalities for that case are convex combinations of elements of this set. Finding such a set for larger $`r`$ is highly unlikely, as the problem becomes intractable . I shall use the characterization of Werner and Wolf. For convenience, let the row indices in (1) range over $`0`$ and $`1`$ (instead of $`1`$ and $`2`$). Then the classical inequalities are

$$1\underset{s_1,\mathrm{},s_n=0,1}{}\beta _f(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)X_{s_1}^1X_{s_2}^2\mathrm{}X_{s_n}^n1$$
(10)
There are $`2^{2^n}`$ such inequalities, each determined by an arbitrary function $`f:\{0,1\}^n\{1,1\}`$ by

$$\beta _f(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)=\frac{1}{2^n}\underset{\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _n=0,1}{}(1)^{\epsilon _1s_1+\mathrm{}+\epsilon _ns_n}f(\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _n)$$
(11)
For each choice of function $`f`$ there corresponds a choice of coefficients $`\beta _f`$. Since $`\beta _f`$ is the inverse Fourier transform of $`f`$ on the group $`_2^n`$ we have by Plancherel’s theorem :

$$\left|\beta _f(𝐬)\right|^2=\frac{1}{2^n}\left|f(\epsilon )\right|^2=1$$
(12)
The set of quantum operators corresponding to the functions in (10) are the Werner Wolf operators

$$W_f=\underset{𝐬}{}\beta _f(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)\sigma (a_{s_1}^1)\mathrm{}\sigma (a_{s_n}^n)$$
(13)
and, as above, their eigenvalues have the form

$$\lambda _f=\underset{𝐬}{}\beta _f(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)\mathrm{exp}i\left(\theta _{s_1}^1+\theta _{s_2}^2+\mathrm{}+\theta _{s_n}^n\right)$$
(14)
Substituting in (14) the values of $`\beta _f`$ from (11) we get after changing the order of summation

$`\lambda _f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^n}}{\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon }{}}f(\epsilon ){\displaystyle \underset{𝐬}{}}(1)^{^{\epsilon _1s_1+\mathrm{}+\epsilon _ns_n}}\mathrm{exp}i\left(\theta _{s_1}^1+\theta _{s_2}^2+\mathrm{}+\theta _{s_n}^n\right)`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^n}}{\displaystyle \underset{\epsilon }{}}f(\epsilon ){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(\mathrm{exp}i\theta _0^j+(1)^{\epsilon _j}\mathrm{exp}i\theta _1^j\right)`$ (16)
Assume that the $`\theta _s^j`$ are arbitrary and fixed and denote $`c(\epsilon )=2^n_j\left(\mathrm{exp}i\theta _0^j+(1)^{\epsilon _j}\mathrm{exp}i\theta _1^j\right)`$, then $`_\epsilon \left|c(\epsilon )\right|^2=1`$. To see that note that $`\left|c(\epsilon )\right|^2=2^{2n}\left|_j\left(1+(1)^{\epsilon _j}\mathrm{exp}i\varphi _j\right)\right|^2`$, $`\varphi _j=\theta _1^j\theta _0^j`$. Now, $`\left|1+\mathrm{exp}i\varphi _j\right|^2=4\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{\varphi _j}{2}\right)`$ and $`\left|1\mathrm{exp}i\varphi _j\right|^2=4\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\varphi _j}{2}\right)`$ and therefore $`_\epsilon \left|c(\epsilon )\right|^2=_j\left(\mathrm{cos}^2\left(\frac{\varphi _j}{2}\right)+\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\frac{\varphi _j}{2}\right)\right)=1`$. Consider $`\lambda _f=_\epsilon f(\epsilon )c(\epsilon )`$, the signs $`f(\epsilon )=\pm 1`$ are completely arbitrary and we can take them as independent, identically distributed random variables on $`\{1,1\}^{2^n}`$. Put $`n(\epsilon )=_j\epsilon _j2^{j1}`$ and define the random trigonometric polynomial in a single variable $`t`$

$$R(t)=\underset{\epsilon }{}\pm c(\epsilon )\mathrm{exp}(in(\epsilon )t)$$
(17)
From the previous discussion we know that $`W_f=\mathrm{max}\left|\lambda _f\right|R_{\mathrm{}}`$, with $`f`$ corresponding to the choice of signs in $`R`$. The degree of $`R`$ is $`2^n`$ and therefore by a straightforward application of (5) we get.

###### Proposition 3

For each choice of directions in (13) a vast majority of the resulting Werner Wolf operators satisfy $`W_f13\sqrt{n}`$.

Conclusion As the number of particles grows the violation of Bell’s inequality increaces exponentially. If this is the case why don’t we observe entanglement on the macroscopic scale? Initially there are two possible answers. The first, which puts the blame on us, states that our thermodynamic observables are so crude that they cancel all interesting interference effects (this crudeness is assumed to include decoherence). The second possible answer is that the Mermin type violations require very exotic quantum states and very specific operators; we are very unlikely to run into them by chance. Here we have shown that the second answer is true, so the blame is not entirely on us.

Acknowledgment This research is supported by the Israel Science Foundation, grant number 787/99.


format: text

text:
# References

One of the fundamental problems in particle physics is to understand the observed masses and mixing angles of quarks and leptons. There have been, in fact, proposed many models of the mass matrices for quarks and leptons. Among them the hypothesis of democratic mass matrix  is very interesting not only theoretically, but also phenomenologically. Here, the three families of quarks and leptons are treated in an equal footing, i.e. a permutation symmetry S$`{}_{3}{}^{}\times `$S3 is imposed among three families. The democratic mass matrix has been known very successful in explaining the observed masses and mixing angles for quarks . This approach has been extended to the charged lepton and neutrino sectors, and it has been found that the observed large mixings of neutrinos can be rather easily understood due to the nearly diagonal neutrino mass matrix .111Ref.  considers Dirac or Majorana neutrinos. Thus, their model does not have a group theoretical reason for the family-diagonal and degenerate neutrino masses. Surprisingly, the model also accounts for the small mixing angle Ue3, required from the CHOOZ experiment , although other two mixing angles are large . Furthermore, this scheme yields almost degenerate Majorana masses for neutrinos ant it predicts neutrinoless double beta decays accessible in near future experiments, such as GENIUS , CUORE , MOON , XMASS  and EXO .

In this letter, we discuss the leptogenesis  in the framework of the democratic mass matrix. We show that the baryon asymmetry in the present universe can be generated via the decay of heavy right-handed neutrinos. Here, the right-handed neutrinos are assumed to be produced nonthermally through inflaton decay .

Democratic mass matrix

Let us start by giving a brief review on the work in Ref. , which imposes a permutation symmetry S$`{}_{3}{}^{}(L)\times `$ S$`{}_{3}{}^{}(R)`$ on the three families of left-handed lepton doublets ($`l_{Li}`$) and right-handed charged leptons ($`e_{Ri}`$). We assume that $`l_{Li}`$ transform as $`\mathrm{𝟑}_L=\mathrm{𝟐}_L+\mathrm{𝟏}_L`$ under S$`{}_{3}{}^{}(L)`$, and $`e_{Ri}`$ transform as $`\mathrm{𝟑}_R=\mathrm{𝟐}_R+\mathrm{𝟏}_R`$ under S$`{}_{3}{}^{}(R)`$. Then the mass matrix for charged leptons which is invariant under the S$`{}_{3}{}^{}(L)\times `$ S$`{}_{3}{}^{}(R)`$ is uniquely determined as follows:

$`M_l^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{_l}{3}}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right].`$ (4)
This mass matrix is often called “democratic” mass matrix . Two mass eigenvalues of this mass matrix vanish. Thus, we introduce a small symmetry-breaking mass term as perturbations with a diagonal mass matrix

$`M_l^{(1)}=_l\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\epsilon _l& 0& 0\\ 0& \epsilon _l& 0\\ 0& 0& \delta _l\end{array}\right].`$ (8)
Then the matrix $`M_l=M_l^{(0)}+M_l^{(1)}`$ is diagonalized as

$`V_l^{}M_lV_l=\mathrm{diag}(m_1^l,m_2^l,m_3^l),`$ (9)
where

$`m_1^l=_l\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta _l}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _l}{6}}\right),m_2^l=_l\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta _l}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _l}{6}}\right),m_3^l=_l\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _l}{3}}\right),`$ (10)
with

$`\xi _l=2\left(\delta _l^2+3\epsilon _l^2\right)^{1/2},`$ (11)
where terms with higher order of $`\delta _l`$ and $`\epsilon _l`$ have been ignored. The unitary matrix $`V_l`$ which diagonalizes the mass matrix $`M_l`$ is given by $`V_l=AB_l`$, where

$`A=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{6}& 1/\sqrt{3}\\ 1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{6}& 1/\sqrt{3}\\ 0& 2/\sqrt{6}& 1/\sqrt{3}\end{array}\right],`$ (15)
and

$`B_l=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _l& \mathrm{sin}\theta _l& \lambda _l\mathrm{sin}2\theta _l\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _l& \mathrm{cos}\theta _l& \lambda _l\mathrm{cos}2\theta _l\\ \lambda _l\mathrm{sin}3\theta _l& \lambda _l\mathrm{cos}3\theta _l& 1\end{array}\right],\mathrm{tan}2\theta _l{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}\epsilon _l}{\delta _l}},\lambda _l{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _l}{3\sqrt{2}}}.`$ (19)
The empirical masses for the charged leptons ($`m_1^l=m_e`$, $`m_2^l=m_\mu `$ and $`m_3^l=m_\tau `$) are given by adjusting appropriately the parameters $`_l`$, $`\epsilon _l`$ and $`\delta _l`$ as

$$_l=1719[\mathrm{MeV}],\epsilon _l=0.00665,\delta _l=0.095,$$
(20)
which leads to $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _l0.066`$.

Let us turn to the neutrino sector. Before introducing heavy right-handed neutrinos, we discuss the mass matrix for the light Majorana neutrinos in the effective non-renormalizable operator:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{ij}}{2M}}ł_{Li}Hł_{Lj}H,`$ (21)
where $`H`$ denotes the Higgs doublet. There are two independent mass matrices that are invariants under S$`{}_{3}{}^{}(L)`$ symmetry :

$`\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right],\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 1\\ 1& 0& 1\\ 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right].`$ (28)
Here we take the first form for the time being, since it automatically leads to the large mixing angles for both of the solar and the atmospheric neutrinos. (We will add the second mass matrix later.) Then, the neutrinos are degenerate in mass. With symmetry breaking terms in diagonal elements, the neutrino mass matrix is given by

$`M_\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{fH^2}{M}}=_\nu \left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& & \\ & 1+\epsilon _\nu & \\ & & 1+\delta _\nu \end{array}\right].`$ (32)
The neutrino-mixing matrix in the basis where the mass matrix for the charged leptons is diagonal is given by $`U=(V_l)^{}`$ as 222 Here, we have neglected the small mixing angle $`\theta _l`$ of charged leptons.

$`U=(AB_l)^{}A^{}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1/\sqrt{2}& 1/\sqrt{2}& 0\\ 1/\sqrt{6}& 1/\sqrt{6}& 2/\sqrt{6}\\ 1/\sqrt{3}& 1/\sqrt{3}& 1/\sqrt{3}\end{array}\right].`$ (36)
As denoted, this indicates nearly bi-maximal neutrino oscillations, i.e.,

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}1,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}},`$ (37)
where $`\theta _{12}`$ and $`\theta _{23}`$ are the solar and the atmospheric neutrino mixing angles, respectively. Furthermore, the Ue3 element automatically vanishes, U$`{}_{\mathrm{e3}}{}^{}0`$. The mass squared differences for solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations are given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{solar}}^22_\nu ^2\epsilon _\nu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^22_\nu ^2\delta _\nu `$, and hence the breaking parameters should satisfy $`\epsilon _\nu /\delta _\nu \mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{solar}}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2`$. The experimentally observed values for these quantities are given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=\{(1.06.0),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3.2}\}\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{solar}}^2=\{(250),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4.9}\}\times 10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}=\{(0.831),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\}`$
$`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}=\{(0.20.8),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.37}\},`$ (38)
where the last numbers in the parentheses denote the best fit values. Here, we have taken the large mixing MSW (LMA) solution to the solar neutrino problem, which is the most preferable in the present experiments .

Recently, a positive indication for neutrinoless double beta decay has been reported, with $`\nu _e`$-$`\nu _e`$ component of the neutrino mass matrix $`|m_{\nu _e\nu _e}|0.05`$$`0.84\mathrm{eV}`$ . Therefore, it might be interesting to consider the degenerate neutrinos of mass of order $`𝒪(0.1\mathrm{eV})`$. Hereafter, we take $`m_i^\nu _\nu 0.1\mathrm{eV}`$ as a representation. In this case the breaking parameters in the neutrino mass matrix are obtained as $`\epsilon _\nu =\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{solar}}^2/(2_\nu ^2)0.001`$$`0.025`$ and $`\delta _\nu =\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2/(2_\nu ^2)0.05`$$`0.3`$. We see that their orders of magnitudes are just around those of the breaking parameters in charged lepton mass matrix, $`\epsilon _l=0.00665`$ and $`\delta _l=0.095`$, in Eq. (20).

One may worry about that the predicted value of the mixing angle for the solar neutrino $`\theta _{12}`$ in Eq. (37) is too large to fit the experimental value. Even if we include the effect of nonzero $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _l0.066`$, the mixing angle of the solar neutrino oscillation is only slightly reduced to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}0.99`$. However, a deviation from the nearly maximal mixing for solar neutrino oscillation can be easily implemented by introducing small off-diagonal elements $`\kappa _\nu `$ in the neutrino mass matrix Eq (32):

$`M_\nu =_\nu \left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& \kappa _\nu & \kappa _\nu \\ \kappa _\nu & 1+\epsilon _\nu & \kappa _\nu \\ \kappa _\nu & \kappa _\nu & 1+\delta _\nu \end{array}\right].`$ (42)
Notice that the matrix of the off-diagonal elements has the form of the second matrix in Eq. (28), which is also invariant under the S$`{}_{3}{}^{}(L)`$ as noted before. The mixing matrix of neutrino-oscillations is then given by $`U=(V_l)^{}V_\nu `$. Here, $`V_\nu `$ is defined as

$$V_\nu ^{}M_\nu V_\nu =\mathrm{diag}(m_1^\nu ,m_2^\nu ,m_3^\nu ),$$
(43)
where $`m_1^\nu _\nu `$, $`m_2^\nu _\nu (1+\epsilon _\nu )`$, $`m_3^\nu _\nu (1+\delta _\nu )`$. Here and hereafter, we require $`\kappa _\nu <\epsilon _\nu `$ in order to ensure the nearly bi-large mixing for neutrino oscillations.

The neutrino mass matrix given in Eq. (42) has another interesting prediction on the size of the Ue3. When the neutrino mass matrix is diagonal as in Eq. (32), the neutrino mixing matrix U is entirely determined by $`V_l`$ given in Eqs. (15) and (19). In this case, we can immediately obtain the Ue3 element as

$$\mathrm{U}_{e3}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _l+\frac{\lambda _l}{\sqrt{3}}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}\theta _l0.05.$$
(44)
In the case of the general neutrino mass matrix, the above prediction on the Ue3 is shifted by the non-zero elements of the $`V_\nu `$. The leading deviation of the Ue3 from the value presented in Eq. (44) is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{U}_{e3}\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta _l}{\sqrt{2}}(V_{\nu 13}V_{\nu 23}).$$
(45)
We now consider the specific case where the neutrino mass matrix is given by Eq. (42). One might naively imagine that the deviation of the Ue3 is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{U}_{e3}=𝒪\left(\frac{\kappa _\nu }{\delta _\nu }\right)10^{(12)}$$
(46)
from the above general argument. If this is true, we can have no precise prediction on the size of the Ue3. Interestingly, however, this is not the case. Because of the symmetric form of the neutrino mass matrix in Eq. (42), the leading contribution given in Eq. (45) beautifully cancel out. Actually, the leading terms in $`V_{\nu 13}`$ and $`V_{\nu 23}`$ are given by

$`V_{\nu 13}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\nu }{\delta _\nu }},`$
$`V_{\nu 23}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\nu }{\delta _\nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _\nu \kappa _\nu }{\delta _\nu ^2}}.`$ (47)
Hence, the deviation of the Ue3 in this model is highly suppressed, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{U}_{e3}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}10^3`$, which allows us to have a precise prediction, $`|\mathrm{U}_{e3}|0.05`$.333 In fact, $`V_{\nu 13}=V_{\nu 23}`$ in the limit of the vanishing $`\epsilon _\nu `$.  This will be clearly shown in the numerical calculations presented in this letter. In the future, this prediction on the size of the Ue3 will be tested in the long baseline experiments, such as JHF .

The most natural way to explain small neutrino masses is the “see-saw” mechanism . In this case, the mass matrix $`M_\nu `$ for the light neutrinos is given by

$$M_\nu =m_{\nu D}^TM_R^1m_{\nu D}$$
(48)
after integrating out the heavy right-handed Majorana neutrinos $`N_{Ri}`$. Here, $`M_R`$ and $`m_{\nu D}`$ are the mass matrices of the right-handed Majorana neutrinos $`N_{Ri}`$ and the Dirac mass for $`l_{Li}`$ and $`N_{Rj}`$, respectively. In terms of the Yukawa couplings, the Dirac neutrino mass matrix is given by $`(m_{\nu D})_{ij}=(h_D)_{ij}H`$, where $`(h_D)_{ij}`$ is defined as $`=(h_D)_{ij}N_{Ri}l_{Lj}H`$. The S3 invariant matrices of $`M_R`$ and $`h_D`$ are uniquely determined as

$`M_R=_R\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& \kappa _R& \kappa _R\\ \kappa _R& 1& \kappa _R\\ \kappa _R& \kappa _R& 1\end{array}\right],h_D=k_D\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& \kappa _D& \kappa _D\\ \kappa _D& 1& \kappa _D\\ \kappa _D& \kappa _D& 1\end{array}\right],`$ (55)
where we have assumed that the $`N_{Ri}`$ transform as $`\mathrm{𝟑}_L=\mathrm{𝟐}_L+\mathrm{𝟏}_L`$ under the S$`{}_{3}{}^{}(L)`$ symmetry.444If $`N_{Ri}`$ transform as $`\mathrm{𝟑}_R=\mathrm{𝟐}_R+\mathrm{𝟏}_R`$ under the S$`{}_{3}{}^{}(R)`$, the Dirac Yukawa matrix becomes democratic one as in Eq. (4), which invalidates the almost diagonal mass matrix for light neutrinos in Eq. (42). One can easily imagine that the assumption of $`\kappa _R\kappa _D(\kappa _\nu )`$ for the off-diagonal elements is the simplest and natural way to obtain the mass matrix for the light neutrinos in Eq (42) with $`\epsilon _\nu =\delta _\nu =0`$. In order to induce the symmetry breaking parameters $`\epsilon _\nu `$ and $`\delta _\nu `$ in the neutrino mass matrix in Eq. (42), we introduce breaking parameters $`\epsilon _D`$ and $`\delta _D`$ in diagonal elements of Yukawa matrix $`h_D`$, as in charged leptons:

$`h_D=k_D\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& \kappa _D& \kappa _D\\ \kappa _D& 1+\epsilon _D& \kappa _D\\ \kappa _D& \kappa _D& 1+\delta _D\end{array}\right].`$ (59)
Then, we can obtain the required mass matrix of the light neutrinos by taking the following pattern of the perturbations:

$`\kappa _R\kappa _D(\kappa _\nu )<\epsilon _D(\epsilon _\nu )𝒪(0.01)<\delta _D(\delta _\nu )𝒪(0.1).`$ (60)
The above breakings of the S3 symmetries might be understood as follows. Suppose that the S3 breakings are originated only from the Yukawa coupling of Higgs field $`H`$, as in mass matrices for quarks and charged leptons. Then, the S$`{}_{3}{}^{}(L)`$ symmetry is broken in the neutrino Dirac Yukawa matrix by the parameters $`\epsilon _D`$ and $`\delta _D`$ as in charged lepton sector, since it comes from the coupling of Higgs field. On the other hand, the mass matrix of the right-handed neutrinos $`M_R`$ in Eq. (55) is assumed to be S3 invariant since it is decoupled from the Higgs field $`H`$.

The mass matrix $`M_R`$ for the heavy right-handed neutrino leads to two exactly degenerate right-handed neutrinos and a slightly heavier/lighter one, with masses $`M_{Ri}=\{_R(1\kappa _R),_R(1\kappa _R),_R(1+2\kappa _R)\}`$. As we will see in the remainder of this letter, the off-diagonal elements $`\kappa _R`$ and $`\kappa _D`$, which are required to explain the neutrino oscillation experiments, play a crucial role in the leptogenesis.

leptogenesis

Now let us discuss the leptogenesis in the present model. Notice that the conventional leptogenesis scenario where the right-handed neutrinos are produced by thermal scatterings after the inflation is somewhat difficult in the case of the degenerate neutrinos of $`m_1^\nu m_2^\nu m_3^\nu 𝒪(0.1)\mathrm{eV}`$. This is because the out-of-equilibrium condition cannot be satisfied in this case and the amount of produced lepton asymmetry is strongly suppressed . (See Appendix.) Therefore, we consider the leptogenesis via decays of the right-handed neutrinos $`N_{Ri}`$ which are produced non-thermally. A natural mechanism of such a non-thermal production of $`N_{Ri}`$ is the decays of the inflaton $`\phi `$ into the $`N_{Ri}`$ . Hereafter, we will consider the supersymmetry (SUSY) theory, although the following discussion does not change much in the non-supersymmetric case.

If $`CP`$ is not conserved in the Yukawa matrix $`h_D`$, the interference between decay amplitudes of tree and one-loop diagrams results in the lepton-number production . The lepton-number asymmetry per a decay of right-handed neutrino $`N_{Ri}`$ is given by

$`ϵ_i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_j\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_{Ri}l_{Lj}+H)_j\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_{Ri}\overline{l_{Lj}}+\overline{H})}{_j\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_{Ri}l_{Lj}+H)+_j\mathrm{\Gamma }(N_{Ri}\overline{l_{Lj}}+\overline{H})}}`$ (61)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(h_Dh_D^{})_{ii}}}{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}Im\left[\{\left(h_Dh_D^{}\right)_{ik}\}^2\right]\left[_V\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_k^2}{M_i^2}}\right)+_S\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_k^2}{M_i^2}}\right)\right],`$
where $`N_{Ri}`$, $`l_{Lj}`$, and $`H`$ ($`\overline{l_{Lj}}`$ and $`\overline{H}`$) symbolically denote fermionic or scalar components of corresponding supermultiplets (and their anti-particles), and $`_V(x)`$ and $`_S(x)`$ represent the contributions from vertex and self-energy diagrams, respectively. In the case of the SUSY theory, they are given by

$`_V(x)=\sqrt{x}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\right),_S(x)={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{x}}{x1}}.`$ (62)
Here, we have assumed that the mass difference of the right-handed neutrinos is large enough compared with their decay widths, so that the perturbative calculation is ensured. (We will justify this assumption later.)

In the present model, the masses $`M_{Ri}`$ are almost degenerate, $`M_{Ri}=\{_R(1\kappa _R),_R(1\kappa _R),_R(1+2\kappa _R)\}`$. Thus, $`x1`$ and the self-energy contribution $`_S(x)`$ is much larger than the vertex contribution $`_V(x)`$.555If we take into account the effect of the finite decay width, $`_S(x)`$ vanishes for $`x1`$. Thus, $`_S(M_k^2/M_i^2)`$ in Eq. (61) vanish for $`i=1,k=2`$ and $`i=2,k=1`$. See also footnote 6. In the leading order in perturbation, the asymmetry parameters are given by

$`ϵ_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12\pi }}k_D^2{\displaystyle \frac{Im(\kappa _D)}{Re(\kappa _R)}}\epsilon _D^2,ϵ_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{9\pi }}k_D^2{\displaystyle \frac{Im(\kappa _D)}{Re(\kappa _R)}}\delta _D^2,ϵ_3=ϵ_1+ϵ_2,`$ (63)
where we have neglected higher order terms in the expansions of $`\epsilon _D`$, $`\delta _D`$, $`\kappa _D`$, $`\kappa _R`$ and $`\epsilon _D/\delta _D`$. As for the $`CP`$ phase, we have assumed that the complex phase exists only in the off-diagonal elements $`\kappa _D`$ and $`\kappa _R`$ for simplicity, and have taken the other parameters to be real. Notice that all the decays of $`N_{Ri}`$ generate the lepton asymmetry with the same sign, namely, they contribute in a constructive way.666One might wonder if this fact might conflict with the argument that the generated lepton asymmetry must vanish in the limit of exactly degenerate masses. However, if the mass differences of the right-handed neutrinos become smaller than the decay widths of them, the perturbative formula $`_S(x)`$ in Eq. (62) no longer holds and we should take into account the effect of finite widths of $`N_{Ri}`$. Actually, it was shown that $`_S(x)`$ vanishes in the limit of exactly degenerate right-handed neutrino masses if the finite decay widths are appropriately taken into account .

The ratio of the lepton number density $`n_L`$ to the entropy density $`s`$ produced by the inflaton decay is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_L}{s}}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}ϵ_iB_r^{(i)}{\displaystyle \frac{T_R}{m_\varphi }},`$ (64)
where $`T_R`$ is the reheating temperature after the inflation, $`m_\varphi `$ the mass of the inflaton, and $`B_r^{(i)}`$ the branching ratio of the decay channel of the inflaton to $`N_{Ri}`$, i.e., $`B_r^{(i)}=B_r(\varphi N_{Ri}N_{Ri})`$. Here, we have assumed that the inflaton decays into a pair of right-handed neutrinos, and $`M_{Ri}>T_R`$ in order to make the generated lepton asymmetry not washed out by lepton-number violating processes after the $`N_{Ri}`$’s decay. Notice that the inflaton mass $`m_\varphi `$ should satisfy $`m_\varphi >2_R`$ in order to make the decay ($`\varphi N_{Ri}N_{Ri}`$) kinematically allowed.777In this letter, we assume a perturbative decay of the inflaton. After being produced, a part of the lepton asymmetry is immediately converted  into the baryon asymmetry via the “sphaleron” effect , since the decays of $`N_{Ri}`$ take place much before the electroweak phase transition:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_B}{s}}=C{\displaystyle \frac{n_L}{s}},`$ (65)
where $`C`$ is given by $`C0.35`$ in the minimal SUSY standard model (MSSM) .

Therefore, the amount of the baryon asymmetry in the present model is estimated as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_B}{s}}`$ $``$ $`0.3\times 10^{10}\times \left(B_r^{(2)}+B_r^{(3)}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_R}{10^8\mathrm{GeV}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{2_R}{m_\varphi }}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{_\nu }{0.1\mathrm{eV}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta _D}{0.1}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{Im(\kappa _D)}{Re(\kappa _R)}},`$
(66)
where we have used the see-saw formula $`_\nu k_D^2H^2/_R`$.888In the MSSM, $`H=174\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}\times \mathrm{sin}\beta `$, where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =H/H^{}`$ and $`H^{}`$ is the Higgs field which couples to the down-type quarks (and charged leptons). In Eq. (66), we have taken $`\mathrm{sin}\beta 1`$. We see that the empirical baryon asymmetry $`n_B/s(0.4`$$`1)\times 10^{10}`$  is obtained with a reheating temperature $`T_R10^8`$$`10^{10}\mathrm{GeV}`$, for a natural choice of the parameters, say, $`B_r^{(2)}+B_r^{(3)}0.1`$$`1`$, $`2_R(0.1`$$`1)m_\varphi `$, $`\delta _D0.1`$ and $`Im(\kappa _D)/Re(\kappa _R)1`$.

Notice that the mass differences of the right-handed neutrinos, $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_R3Re(\kappa _R)_R`$ is much larger than the decay widths of them, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_{Ri}}(k_D^2/4\pi )_R`$, as long as $`\kappa _Rk_D^2/12\pi 10^6\times (_\nu /0.1\mathrm{eV})(_R/10^{10}\mathrm{GeV})`$, so that the perturbative formula $`_S(x)`$ in Eq. (62) is justified. The assumption $`M_{Ri}>T_R`$ is also easily satisfied for $`M_{Ri}>10^{10}\mathrm{GeV}`$.

In Fig. 1, we show the histograms of the $`n_B/s`$, $`|\mathrm{U}_{e3}|`$ and $`_\nu `$ for the LMA solution. Here, we randomly generate the small perturbations as in Eq. (60) and collect the data set of $`n_B/s`$, $`|\mathrm{U}_{e3}|`$ and $`_\nu `$ if the generated mass spectrum and mixing angles satisfy the conditions obtained from the neutrino oscillation experiments given in Eq. (38). Then we plot the frequencies of these quantities in the vertical axes. We also present a plot of the obtained mass differences and mixing angles for the solar neutrino oscillation in $`\{\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12},\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{solar}}^2\}`$ plane. We take the range of the perturbations as follows:

$`\delta _D=(0.251.5)\times 10^1,\epsilon _D=\delta _D10^{(0.32.5)},`$
$`\kappa _D=\epsilon _D10^{(00.7)}e^{i(02)\pi },\kappa _R=|\kappa _D|e^{i(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2})\pi },`$ (67)
where we take $`\epsilon _D`$ and $`\delta _D`$ to be real, for simplicity. If we randomly generate the perturbations within the above range, the neutrino mass spectrum and mixing angles satisfy the conditions given in Eq. (38) with the rate of nearly $`20\%`$. The baryon asymmetry $`n_B/s`$ is calculated with the normalization

$$(B_r^{(2)}+B_r^{(3)})\left(\frac{T_R}{10^8\mathrm{GeV}}\right)\left(\frac{2_R}{m_\varphi }\right)=1.$$
(68)
One can see that the analytic estimation explains the numerical result quite well and that the required amount of the baryon asymmetry can be easily obtained in the democratic model with the natural scale of perturbations. Another interesting prediction can be seen from the upper-right figure. The amplitude of Ue3 is accurately predicted as $`|\mathrm{U}_{e3}|0.049`$, as denoted in the first part of this letter.

In Fig. 2, we show the histogram of the the $`n_B/s`$, $`|\mathrm{U}_{e3}|`$ and $`_\nu `$ for the LOW solution. In this case, we take the range of perturbations as follows:

$`\delta _D=(0.251.5)\times 10^1,\epsilon _D=\delta _D10^{(3.75.8)},`$
$`\kappa _D=\epsilon _D10^{(00.7)}e^{i(02)\pi },\kappa _R=|\kappa _D|e^{i(\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2})\pi }.`$ (69)
Other conventions are the same as those in Fig 1. The resultant baryon asymmetry is almost the same as in the LMA solution, which is easily understood from the Eq. (66). In the case of the LOW solution, the off diagonal elements in the light neutrino mass matrix are much smaller than those in the LMA solution $`\kappa _\nu \epsilon _\nu \delta _\nu \times 10^{(46)}`$, which results in the much more precise prediction on the amplitude of the Ue3.

Conclusions

In this letter we have investigated leptogenesis with almost degenerate neutrinos, in the framework of democratic mass matrix, which explains very successfully the observed large mixings of the neutrinos as well as quark masses and mixings. The almost degenerate Majorana neutrinos with masses of order $`m_i^\nu 𝒪(0.1)\mathrm{eV}`$ induce a considerable rate of the neutrinoless double beta decays, which is accessible in near future experiments. We have shown that the empirical baryon asymmetry is well explained by the decays of the right-handed neutrinos produced in the inflaton decay.

In this model, the Ue3 component of the mixing matrix for neutrino oscillations is predicted as $`|\mathrm{U}_{e3}|0.05`$, which is a direct consequence of the nearly S3 symmetric form of the neutrino mass matrix. Such a value of Ue3 will be also tested in the long baseline experiments, such as JHF .

Appendix

In this appendix, we show that if the light neutrinos are degenerate in masses of $`m_i^\nu 𝒪(0.1)\mathrm{eV}`$, the produced lepton asymmetry is highly suppressed in the case of the leptogenesis scenario where the right-handed neutrinos are produced by thermal scatterings. We should stress that the following discussion is a generic consequence of the almost degenerate light neutrinos, independent of the specific models.

The wash-out effect of the lepton asymmetry in the leptogenesis by the decays of thermally produced right-handed neutrino $`N_{Ri}`$ crucially depends on the following parameter $`K_i`$:

$`K_i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{N_{Ri}}}{H(T=M_{Ri})}},`$ (70)
where $`H(T=M_{Ri})`$ is the Hubble parameter when the temperature $`T`$ becomes as low as the mass of the decaying right-handed neutrino, $`M_{Ri}`$. The so-called out-of-equilibrium condition is roughly given by $`K_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}1`$, and the final lepton asymmetry is strongly suppressed for $`K_i1`$ . The parameter $`K_i`$ can be rewritten in terms of a mass parameter $`\stackrel{~}{m_i}`$ :

$`K_i{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m_i}}{0.001\mathrm{eV}}},`$ (71)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{m_i}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}|\stackrel{~}{h}_{ik}|^2{\displaystyle \frac{H}{M_{Ri}}}.`$ (72)
We use the Yukawa couplings $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{ik}`$ defined in the basis where the both mass matrices of right-handed neutrinos and light neutrinos are diagonal:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}\stackrel{~}{h}_{ik}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{M_{Ri}}}=m_j^\nu \delta _{jk}.`$ (73)
Let us define a matrix $`X_{ij}`$ as follows:

$`X_{ij}\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{\sqrt{M_{Ri}m_j^\nu }}}.`$ (74)
Then from Eq. (73) one can show

$`\left(X^TX\right)_{ij}=\delta _{ij}=\left(XX^T\right)_{ij}.`$ (75)
Thus, we see that the $`\stackrel{~}{m_i}`$ parameter in Eq. (72) is bounded from below as follows:

$`\stackrel{~}{m_i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}m_k^\nu \left|X_{ik}\right|^2`$ (76)
$`>`$ $`\underset{j}{\mathrm{min}}\{m_j^\nu \}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\left|X_{ik}\right|^2`$
$``$ $`\underset{j}{\mathrm{min}}\{m_j^\nu \}\left|{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}X_{ik}^2\right|`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{j}{\mathrm{min}}\{m_j^\nu \}.`$
In the last equation, we have used Eq. (75). Therefore, if the light neutrinos are degenerate as $`m_1^\nu m_2^\nu m_3^\nu 𝒪(0.1)\mathrm{eV}`$, the $`K`$ parameter becomes at least as large as $`K>𝒪(100)`$ \[see Eq. (71)\], which leads to a strong suppression of the lepton asymmetry generated by the decays of thermally produced right-handed neutrinos.


text:
# Rapid rotation of ultra-Li-depleted halo stars and their association with blue stragglers 1footnote 11footnote 1Based on observations obtained with the University College London échelle spectrograph (UCLES) on the Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT) and with the Utrecht échelle spectrograph (UES) on the William Herschel Telescope (WHT). To appear in The Astrophysical Journal, tentatively v. 571 (20 May 2002)

## 1 Introduction

The lithium content of halo stars near the main-sequence turnoff is of great importance for several reasons. The near-constancy of the Li abundances, which are broadly independent of metallicity or effective temperature, led Spite & Spite (1982) to conclude that these were hardly altered from the primordial value. That discovery prompted numerous studies over the ensuing two decades, with the aim of using the inferred primordial abundance as a constraint on the baryon density of the Universe, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}`$ (e.g. Ryan et al. (2000)).

Lithium is also important because it is a sensitive probe of mixing below the stellar surface. Since Li is destroyed in stars at the relatively low temperature of 2.5$`\times 10^6`$ K, it survives in halo main-sequence turnoff stars only in a thin surface layer making up a few percent of the stellar mass. Its destruction in cooler dwarfs (e.g. Ryan & Deliyannis (1998), Cayrel, Lebreton & Morel (1999)), and subgiants (Pilachowski, Sneden, & Booth, 1993; Ryan & Deliyannis, 1995) provides constraints on stellar structure and evolution models that cannot at present be obtained by any other means. By combining observations with stellar evolutionary models, Pinsonneault et al. (2001) infer that even main-sequence turnoff Pop II stars have destroyed $`0.2`$ dex of their Li, though Ryan, Norris & Beers (1999) infer only $`<`$0.1 dex. The difference in these values depends on (A) the frequency of the few stars with Li abundances significantly lower than the rest, (B) the distribution of their levels of Li deficiency, and (C) whether the deviations are in fact due to the proposed mechanism (rotationally-induced mixing) and not some other. These constraints directly impact on the inferred primordial abundance. Small amounts of Li production may also be present in the stars that formed more recently from nucleosynthetically enriched material. This can be tracked analogously to the way He production is tracked by d$`Y`$/d$`Z`$.

In stars where some Li is clearly post-primordial, such as where 6Li indicates Galactic production, or where elevated 7Li abundances argue strongly for post-big bang production, Li provides important constraints on a range of nucleosynthesis mechanisms and their associated sites. These include cosmic ray spallation (and fusion) reactions, production in supernovae via the $`\nu `$-process, and production in stellar sources such as asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars, novae, and red-giants (e.g. Romano et al. (1999), Ryan et al. (2001b) and references therein).

Although the majority of halo main-sequence turnoff stars have almost identical Li abundances, about 7% have very low (thus far undetected) Li abundances at least a factor of five below the plateau values expected for their temperatures and metallicities (Spite, Maillard & Spite, 1984; Hobbs & Mathieu, 1991; Hobbs, Welty & Thorburn, 1991; Thorburn, 1992; Spite et al., 1993; Ryan et al., 2001a). Likewise, a similar fraction of disk stars appears to be anomalously Li-deficient (Lambert, Heath, & Edvardsson, 1991; Ryan et al., 2001a). It has been unclear why these small numbers of stars should differ so significantly from the Li-normal stars. Their evolutionary states (Thorburn, 1994), and the presence (or lack) of abundance anomalies for other elements (Norris et al., 1997; Ryan, Norris & Beers, 1998) have thus far failed to provide unambiguous evidence of their origin. Citing the common features of Li deficiency and a clustering towards the main-sequence turnoff, Ryan et al. (2001a) suggested a common origin with field blue stragglers. They proposed that the same mechanism may produce both classes of objects, and that the different names which have been assigned historically — blue stragglers and ultra-Li-deficient stars— depend only on whether they have super-turnoff or sub-turnoff masses. In this and what follows, a distinction is made between cluster blue stragglers and their field counterparts, because while the former are believed to arise predominantly from collisions, possibly leading to stellar mergers, the latter are more likely the result of mass transfer (Ferraro, Fusi Pecci, & Bellazini, 1995; Mateo, et al., 1990; Preston & Sneden, 2000).

Ryan et al. (2001b) analysed the Li abundances of 18 halo main-sequence turnoff stars, and found that four of them are ultra-Li-deficient objects. During detailed spectral analysis of other elements (Ford et al., 2002) we recognised that three of the Li-depleted stars, but none of the Li-normal stars, exhibit unusually broad absorption lines. We believe this is due to rotational broadening. In this paper we present measurements of the projected rotation velocities and discuss the implications of this discovery for the origin of these systems and their possible link with field blue stragglers.

## 2 Observations and Measurements

### 2.1 Spectra

The observational programme has been described already by Ryan et al. (2001b), so only key details will be repeated here. We had noted previously that studies of the possible dependence of the halo Li abundance on metallicity and effective temperature (a surrogate for mass) were potentially weakened by a non-uniform sampling of these parameters. We set out to improve the situation by observing halo stars with higher than average metallicity and effective temperature, since these were the types of stars that had been overlooked. The program stars were selected on the basis of effective temperatures and metallicities estimated from photometric colours and in some cases 1 Å-resolution blue spectra. Nothing was known about their Li abundances. They were expected to have 6000 K $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}`$ $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}`$ 6400 K and $`2_{}^<`$ \[Fe/H\] $`{}_{}{}^{<}1`$, and hence provide a supplemental sample of metal-deficient turnoff stars that probed a region of metallicity and temperature space that had been poorly investigated.

Spectra with typical S/N = 50-90 per 0.05 Å pixel were obtained with the University College London échelle spectrograph (UCLES) on the Anglo-Australian Telescope at a resolving power $`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =43000`$ ($`FWHM`$ = 7.0 km s-1) and with the Utrecht échelle spectrograph (UES) on the William Herschel Telescope at a resolving power $`\lambda /\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =50000`$ ($`FWHM`$ = 6.0 km s-1). The quoted velocity widths are from measurements of ThAr lines. Importantly, we used observations of ThAr lamps to confirm that the spectrograph resolution was stable through the night.

The spectra included the Li I 6707 Å line, and extended to shorter wavelengths where lines of heavier metals could be observed. Equivalent widths $`W_\mathrm{G}`$ were measured by fitting Gaussian profiles using IRAF’s splot “kk” facility, and are tabulated by Ford et al. (2002). In the same operation, the fitted Gaussian’s $`FWHM`$ was also recorded.

### 2.2 Line profiles

The measurements of Fe I lines were scrutinised for potential blends by examining the dependence of $`FWHM`$ on $`W_\mathrm{G}`$. The expectation was that lines formed from the blending of two or more components would have unusually large Gaussian widths for their equivalent widths. However, comparison of the data for the various stars showed that the Li-deficient objects had systematically broader line profiles than the normal stars.

Figure 1 shows $`FWHM`$ of the Fe I lines of Li-normal stars as a function of the measured equivalent width. Lines with equivalent widths in the range 30 $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}`$ $`(W_\mathrm{G}/\mathrm{m}\mathrm{\AA })`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}`$ 120 exhibit a slight increase of $`FWHM`$ from 9 to 10 km s-1 as the spectral lines strengthen and their Gaussian cores saturate. The intrinsic $`FWHM`$ of the lines due to natural, thermal, microturbulent, and collisional broadening is only 3-4 km s-1, so the observed value is dominated by the finite spectral resolution of the adopted spectrograph setup (6.0 and 7.0 km s-1), plus a contribution from macroturbulence which we discuss below. Note that the UCLES and UES data are just distinguishable, consistent with the slightly better spectral resolution employed with UES. Lines weaker than 30 mÅ are considerably affected by noise, such that the diagram fans out to higher and lower $`FWHM`$.

For the weakest lines, $`FWHM`$ should depend only weakly on $`W_\mathrm{G}`$, but it is likely that a selection bias de-populates the top-left of the diagram. Lines whose errors conspire to produce shallow lines would give rise to small equivalent widths and large $`FWHM`$, but these are more likely to be overlooked in the measurement process. Lines with the same equivalent width but smaller $`FWHM`$ will be deeper and more likely to be measured. There is some evidence for such a bias in the figure. Because of this and the increasing relative errors in the weakest lines, we do not rely on the profile measurements of lines weaker than 30 mÅ in the subsequent analysis.

Figure 2 extends Figure 1 with the inclusion of the four ultra-Li-poor stars. CD$``$3119466 is indistinguishable from Li-normal stars similarly observed with UCLES, but the other three, all observed with UES, have broader lines than Li-normal UES stars. The figure also shows linear least-squares fits to the subset of lines with equivalent widths $`W_\mathrm{G}>30`$ mÅ. The fits are listed in Table 1. Clearly an additional broadening mechanism is at work in three of the stars. The fact that three out of four Li-poor stars show this broadening, whereas zero out the sixteen Li-normal stars show the effect, strongly suggests that the broadening is related to the extreme Li deficiency of these objects.

## 3 Analysis

### 3.1 Line broadening mechanisms

In this subsection we consider mechanisms that might be capable of producing the excess broadening in the Li-poor stars. If it was produced by a Gaussian mechanism, then the additional broadening required, $`FWHM`$+, could be estimated as the difference (in quadrature) between the Gaussian $`FWHM`$ measured for the Li-depleted stars and that for the Li-normal stars. By evaluating the difference in the least-squares fits at $`W_\mathrm{G}=50`$ mÅ we obtain the broadening velocities listed in Table 1.

One Gaussian broadening mechanism is microturbulence, but we note at the outset that extreme values of microturbulence are not responsible. Quite apart from the uncommonly large velocities that would be required, the abundance analysis (Ford et al., 2002) resulted in normal microturbulent velocities being derived for these stars, $`\xi 1`$ km s-1.

An alternative mechanism is macroturbulence. The radial-tangential assumption for macroturbulence produces a non-Gaussian broadening function having a sharp core and non-zero wings that are less pronounced than those of a Gaussian (e.g. Gray (1992)). Measurements of macroturbulence have rarely been made in halo stars, since the values are so low that very high resolving powers are essential. However, they have been measured in analyses of the 6Li/7Li isotope ratio in a few stars. In their analysis of HD 76932, Nissen, Lambert & Smith (1994) used a 1D model atmosphere to derive a radial-tangential macroturbulent component with $`FWHM`$ = 4.7 km s-1. For a larger sample of halo turnoff stars, Smith, Lambert & Nissen (1998) derived Gaussian macroturbulent values, $`FWHM`$Γ, in the range 4.4-6.1 km s-1. In their analysis of G271-162, Nissen et al. (2000) derived two measures separately for 1D and 3D model atmospheres. The former required $`FWHM`$Γ = 5.9$`\pm `$0.1 km s-1. In the 3D hydrodynamical model, the microturbulent and macroturbulent velocity fields are inherent in the model, and only a small rotational component ($`v`$sin$`i`$ = 2.9$`\pm `$0.1 km s-1) needed to be added.

The observed $`FWHM`$ values for the Li normal stars could be explained by macroturbulence of the magnitude found by Smith, Lambert & Nissen (1998). For example, if lines with $`W_\mathrm{G}`$ = 50 mÅ have intrinsic widths with $`FWHM_{\mathrm{int}.}`$ = 3.5 km s-1, experience Gaussian macroturbulence with $`FWHM_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = 6.0 km s-1, and encounter Gaussian instrumental profiles with $`FWHM_{\mathrm{inst}.}`$ = 6.0 and 7.0 km s-1, then we would expect to observe $`FWHM`$ = 9.2 and 9.9 km s-1 respectively. This is consistent with the values observed for the Li-normal stars. In contrast, very large $`FWHM`$Γ values would be required to match the Li-poor ones. Li-poor stars with intrinsic widths of $`FWHM`$ = 3.5 km s-1, and observed on UES at an instrumental $`FWHM_{\mathrm{inst}.}`$ = 6.0 km s-1 would require $`FWHM_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = 8.5 km s-1 to reach an observed value $`FWHM`$ = 11.0 km s-1, and would require $`FWHM_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = 11.6 km s-1 to reach an observed value $`FWHM`$ = 13.5 km s-1. Although these values are large compared with ones found previously, we should bear in mind that Li-depleted stars are not normal, so we should remain open to the possibility that they may have unusually turbulent atmospheres. It would be valuable to obtain higher S/N spectra to test whether the line profiles could be fit by macroturbulence. If they could, the turbulence may be related to a mixing process which led to the destruction of the surface Li. That is, if large scale motions in the stellar atmosphere have carried surface Li to depths great enough to destroy it, then perhaps we are seeing that motion directly. It would remain, however, to identify the mechanism responsible for driving that motion, and how it might be sustained to the present in halo stars with ages $``$12-14 Gyr.

Another alternative, which we consider more likely, is that the broadening is due to rotation. Normal halo dwarfs do not rotate perceptibly. There are few measurements of rotation in halo main-sequence stars, again because it is generally below the level of detectability at the resolving power $`R<40000`$ at which these stars are typically observed. It is for this reason that we are forced to use the fourteen Li-normal stars in our sample as the non-rotating reference stars. However, Smith, Lambert & Nissen (1998) do provide guideline measurements for nine halo stars, for which they find $`v`$sin$`i`$ $``$ 2–3 km s-1. The reason for the low rotation of halo dwarfs is that they have presumably spun down by magnetic breaking over their long lifetimes. However, the Li-depleted stars clearly are peculiar, and it is quite possible that three of them have high rotation velocities.

A rotational broadening profile is non-Gaussian, so the rotation velocity cannot be derived as easily as the Gaussian broadening velocity $`FWHM`$+ above, but nevertheless, it must be of the same order of magnitude. Rotation estimates are made below. We defer our discussion of the implications of measured rotation velocities to Section 4, and instead continue here by explaining how velocity measurements were made from the broadened spectral lines.

### 3.2 Rotational broadening measurements

Gray (1992) derives an analytic broadening function for the case where rotational broadening dominates a line profile. Gray suggests a value $`v`$sin$`i`$ $`>`$ 15 km s-1 for this condition to be satisfied. Although for our stars we infer slower rotation than this, $``$ 5.5-8.3 km s-1, spectrum synthesis suggests that the non-rotating intrinsic line width, $`FWHM_{\mathrm{int}.}`$, is only 3-4 km s-1, so rotation apparently does dominate. It is possible that our derived rotation velocities are slightly in error because of this simplification, but the resulting (small) discrepancy should not affect our conclusions.

The broadening profile due to stellar rotation has two components, one elliptical and one parabolic. In contrast to Gaussian, Lorentzian, Voigt and macroturbulent profiles, the rotational profile has no wings beyond $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ = $`\pm `$ $`\lambda v`$sin$`i`$/$`c`$, so the resulting profile is a sharp U-shape, scaled in wavelength by the projected equatorial rotation velocity $`v`$sin$`i`$. The relative contribution of the two parts of the profile depends on the limb darkening of the star, which enters Gray’s formula via a parameter $`\eta `$, which we set equal to 0.6. The model assumes no differential rotation of the stellar surface layers.

The rotation velocities of the Li-deficient stars were calculated as follows. Synthetic spectra were computed using code that originated with Cottrell & Norris (1978). The stellar atmosphere parameters and models were the same as adopted by Ryan et al. (2001b), and the line list was the same set of Fe I lines measured by Ford et al. (2002) and used in Figure 2.

The synthetic spectra were first broadened by Gaussian profiles intended to match the instrumental and macroturbulent broadening, and then the spectral lines were measured using the same IRAF Gaussian-fitting routine as was used for the observed spectra. In this way, $`FWHM`$ and $`W_\mathrm{G}`$ values were obtained for the synthetic spectra that could be compared with those from the observations.

The $`FWHM`$ of the synthesised lines is not uniquely a function of $`W_\mathrm{G}`$, but also depends slightly on the lower excitation potential $`\chi _{\mathrm{low}}`$ of the transition. This dependence reflects the greater depths at which lines of higher excitation potential form (e.g. Gray 1992, his Fig. 13.2 and 13.3). Because of this depth dependence, two lines having the same equivalent width $`W`$ but different excitation potentials will have different profiles and hence different values of $`W_\mathrm{G}`$ (which is the Gaussian approximation to the equivalent width $`W`$). It is for these reasons that it is important to use the same spectral lines in the synthetic spectra as in the observations.222This dependence of the line profile on $`\chi _{\mathrm{low}}`$ as well as $`W`$ is of course important to consider when constraining the instrumental and macroturbulent broadening of other line profiles, for example of Li and Ba when attempting to constrain their isotopic composition. Note that the range in $`FWHM`$ brought about by the $`\chi _{\mathrm{low}}`$ dependence is less than the observed spread, which is to say that random errors in line measurements dominate the observed spread and could be reduced with higher S/N data.

The Gaussian broadening was varied until the run of $`FWHM`$ vs $`W_\mathrm{G}`$ matched that seen in Figure 2 for the Li-normal stars. Specifically, a least-squares fit was performed on the measurements of the synthesised lines, just as had been done for the real data, and the two least-squares fits were compared at $`W=50`$ mÅ. This choice of line strength was made because such lines are strong enough to avoid much of the noise that affects weaker lines in the observed spectra, and are central enough in the distributions of both $`W_\mathrm{G}`$ and $`FWHM`$ to avoid being grossly affected by outlying data.

The Gaussian FWHM required to achieve this match was 8.1$`\pm `$0.1 km s-1 for the UCLES spectrum and 7.8$`\pm `$0.1 km s-1 for the UES spectrum. Subtracting (in quadrature) the known underlying instrumental values implies average macroturbulent values $`FWHM_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ = 4.1 km s-1 for the UCLES sample and 5.0 km s-1 for the UES sample. The stated 1$`\sigma `$ uncertainties reflect the standard error in the mean of the observed $`FWHM`$ values, based on the scatter about the least-squares fit. These instrumental and macroturbulent components supplement the natural, thermal, collisional, and microturbulent broadening incorporated in the synthesis.

Once the line broadening of the Li-normal stars was reproduced, the Gaussian components were frozen and the rotational broadening was increased from zero to determine what value of $`v`$sin$`i`$ was required to reproduce the run of $`FWHM`$ vs $`W_\mathrm{G}`$ in the Li-depleted stars. The set of lines synthesised was tuned from star to star to match the list of lines actually observed. The synthesised lines were then measured using the same Gaussian fitting routine as for the observations, and a least-squares fit was made to the run of $`FWHM`$ vs $`W_\mathrm{G}`$ for the lines with $`W_\mathrm{G}>30`$ mÅ. Figure 3 shows the least-squares fits for the synthetic spectra, along with the observational data for the Li-poor stars. The match between the observed and synthesized fits was again made at $`W_\mathrm{G}=50`$ mÅ. The derived $`v`$sin$`i`$ velocities are given in column (6) of Table 1. The tabulated uncertainty is the change in $`v`$sin$`i`$ required to alter $`FWHM`$ (at $`W_\mathrm{G}=50`$ mÅ) by three times the value $`RMS/\sqrt{n}`$, where $`n`$ is the number of spectral lines in the least-squares fit and $`RMS`$ is the scatter about the fit. Similarly, the upper limit on $`v`$sin$`i`$ for CD$`31^{}19466`$ is the change in $`v`$sin$`i`$ required to alter $`FWHM`$ (at $`W_\mathrm{G}=50`$ mÅ) by three times the value $`RMS/\sqrt{n}`$.

We note for completeness that the run of $`FWHM`$ vs $`W_\mathrm{G}`$ for the synthetic spectra was slightly steeper than for the observed lines. The origin of this mismatch could be a combination of the effects of errors near the 30 mÅ cutoff and imperfections in the line profiles used in the synthetic spectra, such as deficiencies in the various broadening functions used. This is unlikely to have had a major impact on the derived velocities because the action of matching the observed and theoretical least-squares fits at a “central” value of the range of parameters (i.e. 50 mÅ) will minimise the impact of errors in the slope.

As a final illustration of the broadening, we show in Figure 4 a sample of spectra around two Fe I lines. The spectrum of Wolf 550 is overlaid by two synthetic spectra having $`v`$sin$`i`$ = 5.0 and 5.5 km s-1. The difference between the two line profiles is very difficult to discern on any single absorption line, but Figure 3 indicates that the $`FWHM`$ values are nevertheless very sensitive to this small change. It is because we have used data for a large number of Fe I lines that we have been able to achieve this level of sensitivity. Moreover, even though rotation velocities this small are challenging to measure, the key implications of this work follow from the fact that they are rotating significantly at all, rather than from the precise value of the velocity that should be assigned.

The spectrum of G202-65 in Figure 4 is also overlaid by two synthetic spectra, the deeper one having a Gaussian broadening of $`FWHM`$ = 7.8 km s-1 but no rotation broadening, and the shallow one having the same Gaussian broadening and $`v`$sin$`i`$ = 8.5 km s-1. These same synthetic spectra are also overlaid on the spectrum of the Li-normal star BD+174708 which has similar line strengths to G202-65, but has no discernible rotation broadening. The differences in the non-rotating and rotating profiles are clear.

A similar comparison is made in the case of BD+511817, where the deeper spectrum again has Gaussian broadening of $`FWHM`$ = 7.8 km s-1 but no rotation broadening, and the shallow profile has the same Gaussian broadening and $`v`$sin$`i`$ = 7.5 km s-1. These synthetic spectra are overlaid on the spectrum of the Li-normal star G75-31, which has similar line strengths to BD+511817 but no discernible rotation broadening. The comparison makes clear that the profiles give reasonable fits to the spectra, but we emphasise again that the greatest sensitivity comes from measuring the FWHM of a larger number of lines, as shown in Figures 2 and 3.

We note that independently, Carney et al. (2001) have assigned “marginally significant detections” of rotation velocities for these stars between 6 and 10 km s-1. Their data, taken with S/N from 7-50 per resolution element (5-35 per pixel?), did not allow them to achieve the same precision as here, but the similarity of their “marginal” detections to the more precise results derived here verify their ability to identify the presence of rotational broadening and derive approximate rotation velocities even from low S/N spectra.

### 3.3 Metallicities

The metallicities of the stars estimated from photometry and low-resolution spectroscopy (Ryan et al., 2001b) have been improved using the high-resolution spectra. That analysis is discussed more fully by Ford et al. (2002). When the original photometric estimates of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and surface gravities log $`g`$ = 4.2 were adopted, the calculated metallicities were in good agreement with those originally inferred. For the 18 stars in the original programme, the mean difference was $``$\[Fe/H\]$`{}_{\mathrm{new}}{}^{}`$\[Fe/H\]$`{}_{\mathrm{old}}{}^{}`$ = $`0.02`$ dex, with a standard deviation 0.14 dex, consistent with the error estimates presented originally. Both the old and new values are listed for the Li-poor stars in Table 1, columns (8) and (9).

### 3.4 Effective temperatures

Calculations were also made of the effective temperatures that would be inferred for each star by nulling the dependence of derived abundance on excitation potential. For the 18 stars, $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ increased by on average 246 K from this process, though with a broad standard deviation of 179 K. The inferred metallicities increased accordingly. However, for two of the hot Li-depleted stars the inferred $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ increased by more than 500 K, implying $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}6900`$ K. Such high temperatures would push those stars clear of the main sequence turnoff, and would greatly strengthen their association with traditional blue stragglers. If their temperatures are that high, they would almost certainly be genuine blue stragglers and not correctly be associated with sub-turnoff-mass objects. However, even in that case we would have two new problems to consider: why the photometric colours of these stars would be incompatible with their effective temperatures, and how many other super-turnoff-mass blue stragglers might also be masquerading as sub-turnoff-colour stars. We note that the photometric effective temperatures derived by us (Ryan et al., 2001b) are consistent with those of Carney et al. (2001), though both are based on similar photometry.

Alternative diagnostics of the effective temperature may help resolve this problem. Two of the Li-poor stars have available 1–2 Å resolution spectroscopy obtained during the course of the HK survey of Beers and colleagues (see Beers et al. (1999) and references therein). A calibration of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ based on the strength of a Balmer-line index (HP2), and tied to the infra-red flux method (IRFM) scale of Alonso, Arribas & Martinez-Roger (1996), yields temperature estimates $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=6223\pm 125`$ K for BD+511817, and $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=6286\pm 125`$ K for Wolf 550. Furthermore, Wolf 550 (= G66-30) is one of the stars measured by Alonso, Arribas & Martinez-Roger (1996), who report $`T_{eff}=6211\pm 107`$ K. All of these results are consistent with the temperatures we derived from photometric measurements, thus strengthening our belief that they, rather than the spectroscopic determinations, are appropriate. Nevertheless, the higher effective temperatures and corresponding metallicities that would be inferred from the spectral analysis are also given in the table (columns (10) and (11)).

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Characterising the stars

Besides rotation, there is one additional difference, and possibly two, between the three broadened Li-depleted stars and the one non-broadened one. First, the three broadened stars are very close to the halo main-sequence turnoff, having $`6269`$ K $``$ $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$(photometric) $``$ 6390 K, whereas CD$``$3119466 is cooler, with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ = 5986 K (Ryan et al., 2001a). Second, Carney et al. (1994), Carney et al. (2001) and Latham (2000, private communication) list all three of the hot group as confirmed binaries. Their periods $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ (where only the last digit is uncertain) and eccentricities $`e`$ are listed in Table 1. The binary status of the non-rotating Li-depleted star is not yet known.

As the $`v`$sin$`i`$ measurements are lower limits on the equatorial rotation velocities $`v`$, we can derive upper limits on the rotation periods. The sidereal period of the Sun is 25.4 days, giving $`v_{}`$ = 2.0 km s-1. The projected surface velocities of the rotating Li-poor stars are typically three times higher, and their zero-age main-sequence (ZAMS) radii can be estimated for inferred masses of 0.8 M as $`R_{\mathrm{ZAMS}}0.8`$R, assuming Pop I structures. Halo stars, having lower opacity, will be slightly more compact than Pop I stars for a given mass. On the other hand, stars at the turnoff will have larger radii than ZAMS objects, being more evolved. The ZAMS radius would lead to rotation periods of typically only 7 days; even a factor-of-two increase in radius would increase the rotation periods to only 14 days. These rotation periods are well below the current orbital periods, and hence the orbits are not currently tidally synchronised.

### 4.2 Evolutionary histories and spin-up

If rotation is responsible for the broadening, then one of two histories may be invoked: (a) these stars formed with unusually high rotation velocities $``$14 Gyr ago and have not yet spun down, or (b) they have acquired angular momentum during their lifetimes.

Option (a) is rather ad hoc; while the details of the way stars spin down is not understood completely (e.g. Sills, Pinsonneault & Terndrup (2000)), it is unclear how a small fraction of the halo population could avoid the spin down that every other halo dwarf seems to have experienced.

Option (b), on the other hand, could result from a range of mechanisms which are already well studied, such as mass transfer onto the star from a companion, an event which also transfers angular momentum, or via spin up in a merger. These mechanisms have already been proposed by Ryan et al. (2001a) as possibly responsible for the formation of the ultra-Li-deficient stars; that work preceded the detection of rotation.

The three rotating stars we have investigated are similar in many respects to the thick-disk, binary blue straggler HR 4657 identified by Fuhrmann & Bernkopf (1999). Fuhrmann & Bernkopf (1999) likewise drew a connection between rapid rotation, Li depletion, and mass transfer from a companion. Our present results strengthen the evidence for this connection, which we now make in three additional cases, and which we explore in more detail below. We note that our sample also extends this connection from the thick disk to the halo, since the space velocities of G202-65 and Wolf 550 are indisputably those of halo stars, even if BD+511817 might be more correctly associated with the thick disk (Ryan et al. (2001b), their Table 2).

The possibility that the broadened stars acquired additional angular momentum via mass transfer seems particularly plausible given the confirmed binary status of all three of these objects, since we can then point to a likely mass donor. Moreover, Carney et al. (2001) infer projected companion masses $`M_2`$sin$`i`$ $`<`$ 0.55 $`M_{}`$, compatible with their being the white-dwarf remnants of stars initially more massive than the 0.8 $`M_{}`$ normally associated with the halo main-sequence turnoff.

The current rotation velocities of the three stars are well below the high values that are initially obtained during mergers. Calculations by Webbink (1976) showed velocities $`>100`$ km s-1 maintained throughout the main-sequence lifetime of a merger product, dropping only to $`v_{\mathrm{rot}}`$ = 89.4 km s-1 by the time it reached the base of the giant branch. More recent work (Sills et al., 1997; Leonard & Livio, 1995) raised the possibility that such objects would spin down during hydrogen burning if the merger product goes through a period of expansion and subsequent re-contraction that resembles pre-main-sequence evolution, which is when most of the spin-down of single low-mass stars occurs (Sills, Pinsonneault & Terndrup, 2000). The low velocities offer no support for an unrelaxed merger of the type studied by Webbink, but cannot rule out a merger which subsequently spins down as modelled by Leonard & Livio. However, the need for a merger history is obviated by the existence of a present companion, which is an alternative angular-momentum donor.

Han et al. (1995) examine four binary evolutionary channels by which matter could be transferred onto stars. Investigating Ba and CH stars, they find that mass transfer via Roche-lobe overflow leads to $`10^2`$ to $`10^3`$ day periods. (They studied both stable and unstable transfer, the latter involving common-envelope ejection.) On the other hand, accretion from a stellar wind (“wind accretion” and “wind exposure”) leads to periods $`10^3`$ to $`10^5`$ days. Stars that experience Roche-lobe overflow are expected to circularize their orbits on a short timescale. However, Carney et al. (2001) find significantly non-zero eccentricities for two of the three binary systems, Wolf 550 and G202-65, which makes it unlikely that Roche-lobe overflow occurred in these systems. If the initially more-massive companion was always well inside its Roche lobe, tidal circularisation would have been ineffective (e.g. Zahn (1977)), and the observed eccentricities would effectively be primordial.

An alternative possibility is that the orbits were circularized in the past, but the sudden mass loss from the system in a subsequent supernova explosion caused non-zero present-day eccentricities. In this case, the invisible companion would be a neutron star, and its likely mass would be $`1.4M_{\mathrm{}}`$, since most measured neutron-star masses sit very close to this value (e.g. Charles (1999)). However, the measured mass functions would then imply uncomfortably-small inclination angles for at least two of the three systems (see column (15) of Table 1). As any Type II supernova explosion is likely to have ejected more than twice the current binary mass ($`2M_{\mathrm{}}`$), the system could not have survived a spherically-symmetric explosion where the post–supernova orbital speed is larger than the escape speed. However, survival would be possible if the neutron star received a suitably-directed kick velocity at birth. Such kicks are inferred from the observed proper motions of pulsars, e.g. (Kalogera, 1996).

A phase of Roche-lobe overflow may have occurred in BD+511817, whose eccentricity is much lower. The present system parameters are consistent with the remnant configuration of a stable mass-transfer phase with a low–mass giant donor. In that case the companion would be a white dwarf, and the orbital period should be consistent with an approximate orbital-period–white-dwarf-mass relation (e.g. Webbink, Rappaport & Savonije (1983)) that reflects the radius ($`R_2`$) – core mass ($`M_c`$) relation of low–mass giant stars. For moderate Population II metallicity $`Z=0.001`$ this is

$$\frac{R_2}{R_{\mathrm{}}}=10^{3.36}\times \left(\frac{M_c}{M_{\mathrm{}}}\right)^{4.17}$$
(1)
(e.g. Ritter (1999)). Combining this with Kepler’s third law for a semi-detached system

$$\mathrm{log}_{10}\frac{P_{\mathrm{orb}}}{\mathrm{days}}=1.5\times \mathrm{log}_{10}\left(\frac{R_2}{R_{\mathrm{}}}\right)0.5\times \mathrm{log}_{10}\left(\frac{M_2}{M_{\mathrm{}}}\right)0.433$$
(2)
we can express the orbital period of a Roche lobe-filling giant in terms of its mass and core mass. Assuming mass transfer removes the entire envelope (so that $`M_2=M_c`$) gives the white-dwarf-remnant mass $`M_20.47M_{\mathrm{}}`$, consistent with the mass function measured by Carney et al. (2001). This mass would imply an orbital inclination $`i48^{}`$.

The progenitor of BD+511817 could have escaped unstable mass transfer only if the initial mass ratio was not far from unity, so that the initially more massive star can shed enough mass in a wind on the AGB to become the less massive component at Roche-lobe contact. This is required because convective stars such as giants expand upon mass loss, and only if the mass ratio $`q=M_{\mathrm{donor}}/M_{\mathrm{accretor}}`$ is sufficiently small can the Roche lobe expand fast enough to keep the expanding star in check. For conservative mass transfer from a fully-convective star this stability limit is $`q2/3`$, e.g. Webbink (1985).

We can estimate an upper limit on the transferred mass $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ in the phase of stable Roche-lobe overflow by assuming that the evolution was conservative, i.e. proceeded with constant binary mass and constant orbital angular momentum. In that case the product $`M_1^3M_2^3P_{\mathrm{orb}}`$ is constant throughout the evolution ($`M_1`$ is the accretor mass). If the mass ratio at the beginning of Roche-lobe overflow was close to the critical value 2/3, the current masses ($`M_1=0.90M_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`M_2=0.47M_{\mathrm{}}`$) then imply initial masses $`M_{1,i}=0.82M_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`M_{2,i}=0.55M_{\mathrm{}}`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }M0.08M_{\mathrm{}}`$. (Of course, the donor would have been even more massive during its main-sequence lifetime, before non-conservative mass loss via winds set in.)

If on the other hand the mass ratio at Roche-lobe contact was larger than the critical value, the progenitor of BD+511817 would have experienced dynamically-unstable mass transfer from a giant star, leading to a short–lived common-envelope phase. The orbit tightens as orbital energy is used to eject the envelope of the giant star (e.g. Iben & Livio (1993) for a review). In this scenario, the fact that the post–common-envelope orbit is still fairly wide implies that the binding energy of the giant immediately before Roche-lobe contact was small.

Given these possibilities for the evolutionary history, the three Li–depleted halo stars could have accreted mass and thus acquired angular momentum. The circular orbit of BD+511817 allows this to have occurred during Roche-lobe overflow or a common-envelope phase, whereas the other stars with non-zero eccentricities are more compatible with accretion from a stellar wind.

Although it is clear that the stars are not tidally synchronised in their present orbits, we briefly considered the possibility that the rapid spin of these binary components could be left over from earlier tidal synchronisation when the orbital separation was much less. This would require that the stars once had orbital periods as short as 7-14 days, were synchronized at that time, and subsequently migrated apart. Clearly this is not possible for BD+511817 if the companion is a white dwarf. If there was stable Roche-lobe overflow the initial orbital period must have been longer than 400 days; if there was a common enevelope phase the initial period must have been even longer than the current period. Wind losses could have increased the orbital period, but not by such a large factor. If the angular momentum per unit mass in the wind is the specific orbital angular momentum of the corresponding star, the orbital period increases as $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}1/M^2`$ (where $`M`$ is the total binary mass). Hence, to increase the binary period from $`14`$ days to the current values, the total binary mass must have decreased by a factor between 3 and 7, i.e. by more than $`5M_{\mathrm{}}`$. Stars are thought to lose that much mass only in the late stages of their evolution when they are large — too large to fit inside the small orbit that corresponds to $`P_{\mathrm{orb}}=14`$ days. If, on the other hand, the present companion of either of the three systems considered here is a neutron star, then the orbital period could have been as short as 14 days after a common-envelope phase that removed the hydrogen envelope of the progenitor of the neutron star. However, such a tight system would then not be able to increase its orbital separation through the supernova, as even in the presence of kick velocities the orbital separation cannot increase by more than a factor 2 (Kalogera (1996)). We conclude that none of the three systems discussed here ever had an orbital period as short as 14 days.

### 4.3 Mass and angular momentum estimates

#### 4.3.1 Roche-lobe overflow

In the case of Roche-lobe overflow, an accretion disc would form since the circularisation radius is typically a tenth of the orbital separation and hence larger than the likely stellar radius of the accretor in most cases. If the Keplerian disc extends down to the surface of the accretor, the disc material carries the angular momentum per unit mass, $`j`$, given by

$$j=\sqrt{GM_1R_1}$$
(3)
where $`M_1`$ and $`R_1`$ is the mass and radius of the accretor. Then the gain of angular momentum, $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$, is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }J=\dot{M}_1jdt=jdM_1.$$
(4)
Assuming a simple main–sequence mass–radius relation

$$\frac{R_1}{R_{\mathrm{}}}=r_0\frac{M_1}{M_{\mathrm{}}}$$
(5)
(where $`r_01`$) this becomes

$$\mathrm{\Delta }J=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{GR_1}{M_1}}\left(M_1^2M_{1,i}^2\right),$$
(6)
where $`M_{1,i}`$ is the initial accretor mass. Writing the accretor’s moment of inertia as $`k^2M_1R_1^2`$ (where $`k^20.1`$) and assuming that the initial spin is zero gives

$$\frac{M_{1,i}}{M_1}=\left(12k^2\frac{P_k}{P}\right)^{1/2},$$
(7)
where $`P`$ is the current spin period, and $`P_k`$ the “break–up” spin period

$$P_k=\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{GM_1/R_1^3}}0.1\mathrm{days}.$$
(8)
Expression 7 shows that the accretion of only $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=M_1M_{1,i}10^3M_{\mathrm{}}`$ spins up the accretor to rates comparable to the currently observed spin period $`P7`$ days. If the rapid rotation is restricted to the convective envelope of the accretor, the required accreted mass is only $`10^4M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (with $`k^20.01`$ in the expression for the moment of inertia, from e.g. our own Population II stellar models, calculated with Mazzitelli’s stellar code; Mazzitelli (1989)).

As we measure only the projected velocity $`v`$sin$`i`$, the actual velocities may be greater; the periods may then be shorter than $`P7`$ days. If the period were only $`P12`$ days, as would also be the case if the companion is a neutron star at low inclination (see Table 1), we would infer $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=10^2M_{\mathrm{}}`$.

It is clear from these analyses that accretion of quite small masses would be sufficient to spin up these objects.

#### 4.3.2 Slow wind accretion

In the case of accretion from a sufficiently slow wind of a companion that is not too far from its Roche lobe an accretion disc may still form, so that the same estimate for $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ applies.

#### 4.3.3 Fast wind accretion

In the case of a fast wind the accretion flow can be described as Bondi–Hoyle accretion. Here the specific angular momentum $`j`$ of the accreted material is difficult to estimate; 3-D hydrodynamical simulations (Ruffert 1999) show that $`j`$ is a fraction $`f00.7`$ of the total angular momentum per unit mass available in the accretion cylinder. If the accretion radius is of order the stellar radius this translates into a relation similar to (7), but with a coefficient $`k^2/f`$ instead of $`k^2`$. So, for example, if $`f=0.1`$ the accreted mass would have to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }M10^2M_{\mathrm{}}`$. Given the small capture efficiency and short lifetime of phases with large wind loss rates the total wind–accreted mass is typically $`0.1M_{\mathrm{}}`$, which is adequate, but could be much smaller (e.g. King & Kolb (1999)).

#### 4.3.4 Common-envelope phase

In the case of a common-envelope phase the net mass gain is probably small, perhaps $`10^2M_{\mathrm{}}0.1M_{\mathrm{}}`$ (Hjellming & Taam, 1991). The specific angular momentum of the accreted material is presumably similar to the Bondi–Hoyle case.

#### 4.3.5 Caveats

The calculations above assume that the stars have not spun down significantly following the mass-transfer event. If the currently observed spin is due to an episode of mass accretion several Gyrs ago it is likely that the stars have spun down significantly via magnetic stellar-wind braking. Hence our estimates for the accreted mass must be seen as lower limits.

### 4.4 Li depletion in a mass-transfer binary

The link between Li depletion and rapid rotation is easy to envisage in a mass-transfer scenario. Revisiting discussions by Norris et al. (1997) and Ryan et al. (2001a), at least three possibilities exist if the rapid rotation reflects angular-momentum transfer onto the turnoff star via mass accretion. (1) Triggered mixing: depending on how the surface of the accretor is disturbed by the accreting plasma, additional mixing may be induced that carries the surface Li to depths where it is destroyed. (2) Prior destruction: even if no substantial mixing was triggered in the accretion event, both stars may have been devoid of Li already once mass transfer began. In this scenario, the donor would destroy its original Li during its giant branch evolution (or earlier), and/or the accretor may have initially been of sufficiently low mass ($`M`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{<}`$ 0.7 $`M_{}`$) that it too had already destroyed its Li by conventional means. (3) Accretion-dominated surface: if the mass accreted is higher than the the mass of the accretor’s surface convection zone, then the composition of the material now observed may reflect solely that of the donor, which had already destroyed its Li as in the previous case. Estimates by Norris et al. (1997) (their Figure 3) show that only a few $`\times 10^2M_{\mathrm{}}`$ of Li-free material need be accreted to produce a Li-free surface convective zone. This quantity is compatible with the mass ranges estimated above.

### 4.5 The non-rotating Li-poor star

Although this explanation may work for the three line-broadened stars, how should we interpret the unbroadened one? It is of course possible that this star is rotating rapidly, but with a low inclination $`i`$ that renders it unobservable. The same explanation could account for the lack of evidence for radial velocity variations, since the angular momentum acquired during the accretion process would be aligned with the orbital angular momentum. Detection of a companion to the fourth star would provide support for our hypothesis. However, in view of the temperature differences between the hottest three and the unbroadened fourth one, we echo the warning of Ryan et al. (2001a) that more than one explanation may be required for the formation of the ultra-Li-depleted stars. It is clearly important to continue the investigation of the remaining sample of ultra-Li-depleted objects to determine whether or not they have a common origin. The chemical signatures of this class of stars, already explored initially by Norris et al. (1997) and Ryan, Norris & Beers (1998), will be pursued elsewhere (Ford et al., 2002).

### 4.6 Constraints on Li-processing in single stars

Most single halo stars have spun down to extremely low velocities over their long histories, so the existence of high rotation in such old stars requires that a torque has been exerted on them by some means. Mass transfer is one of the most effective ways of achieving this. The compelling evidence for mass transfer having occurred in three of the four Li-depleted stars in our sample emphasises that these stars can tell us nothing about the primordial Li abundance. If cooler examples of Li-depleted stars (distributed over the range of temperatures encompassing the Spite plateau) are also found to exhibit evidence of past mass-transfer episodes that might be responsible for the destruction of their surface Li, it becomes clear that such objects cannot be viewed as the high-depletion tail of the same processes that are invoked to account for the long-term evolution of surface Li abundances in single stars (e.g., Pinsonneault et al. (2001)). In that case, efforts to study the way single stars destroy Li as they age will have to avoid incorporating such objects in their samples.

## 5 Summary and concluding remarks

The discovery of line broadening, and its likely origin in the rapid rotation of three of the four ultra-Li-depleted stars, strongly suggests that these stars have acquired angular momentum from a companion star. This possibility is made more plausible by the observation that all three are single-lined spectroscopic binaries with lower-mass companions. The angular momentum transfer will have been effected by mass transfer, by stable Roche-lobe overflow or by a common-envelope phase in the case of the circularized system, and wind accretion for the eccentric systems. Estimates of the specific angular momentum of accreted material indicate that quite small transfer masses could have been involved, though the unknown subsequent spin-down of the accretor prevents us from assigning definitive values for each star. In these cases the Li-deficiency could be explained by three mechanisms: (1) mixing induced by the accretion event; (2) prior destruction where both stars may have been devoid of Li already when mass transfer began; and (3) the likelihood that we now observe a surface dominated by accreted material, which reflects the surface composition of the donor, which had destroyed its own Li prior to the mass transfer event.

These findings add weight to the suggestion of Ryan et al. (2001a) that the ultra-Li-depleted stars, or at least the hottest subset of them, may be sub-turnoff-mass counterparts of traditional field blue stragglers. Although binarity alone does not provide evidence of mass transfer, high angular momentum in systems too wide to be tidally synchronised does.

## 6 Acknowledgements

The authors thank the UK Panel for the Allocation of Telescope Time (PATT) and the Director and staff of the Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT) and William Herschel Telescope (WHT) for the provision of research facilities. S.G.R. was supported by PPARC grant PPA/O/S/1998/00658. T.C.B. acknowledges partial support from NSF grants AST 00-98549 and AST 00-58508. U.C.K. acknowledges partial support from PPARC grant PPA/G/S/1999/00127.

NOTE TO EDITOR: PLEASE SET TABLE 1 IN LANDSCAPE MODE OCCUPYING A SINGLE COLUMN, OR IN PORTRAIT MODE ACROSS TWO-COLUMN WIDTH. THANKS.