text:
# References

Geometric quantization of time-dependent completely integrable Hamiltonian systems

E.Fiorani111Electronic mail: fiorani@mat.unimi.it

Dipartimento di Matematica ”F.Enriques”, Universitá di Milano, 20133, Milano, Italy

G.Giachetta222Electronic mail: giachetta@campus.unicam.it,

Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Universitá di Camerino, 62032 Camerino (MC), Italy

G. Sardanashvily333Electronic mail: sard@grav.phys.msu.su; URL: http://webcenter.ru/$``$sardan/

Department of Theoretical Physics, Moscow State University, 117234 Moscow, Russia

A time-dependent completely integrable Hamiltonian system is quantized with respect to time-dependent action-angle variables near an instantly compact regular invariant manifold. Its Hamiltonian depends only on action variables, and has a time-independent countable energy spectrum.

I. INTRODUCTION

A time-dependent Hamiltonian system of $`m`$ degrees of freedom is called a completely integrable system (henceforth CIS) if it admits $`m`$ independent first integrals in involution. Choosing appropriate dynamic variables, one may hope to quantize a time-dependent CIS so that its quantum Hamiltonian and first integral operators possess time-independent spectra.1 Time-dependent action-angle variables introduced below are of this type. Written relative to these variables, a Hamiltonian of a time-dependent CIS is a function only of the action coordinates. It follows that, if time-dependent action-angle coordinates hold fixed, a time-dependent CIS can be quantized just as an autonomous one, and its energy spectrum is time-independent.

In order to introduce time-dependent action-angle variables, we use the fact that a time-dependent CIS of $`m`$ degrees of freedom can be extended to an autonomous one of $`m+1`$ degrees of freedom where the time is regarded as a dynamic variable.2-4 By virtue of the classical Arnold–Liouville theorem,5,6 an autonomous CIS admits the action-angle coordinates around a regular connected compact invariant manifold. The problem is that invariant manifolds of a time-dependent CIS are not compact because of the time axis. Therefore, we first generalize the above mentioned theorem to noncompact invariant manifolds. Then we show that, if a regular connected invariant manifold $`N`$ of a time-dependent CIS is compact at each instant, it admits an open neighbourhood in the ambient momentum phase space which is isomorphic to the product

$$W=R\times T^m\times V$$
(1)
of the time axis $`R`$, an $`m`$-dimensional torus $`T^m`$ and an open domain $`VR^m`$. This product is equipped with the coordinates

$$(t,\varphi ^i,I_i),i=1,\mathrm{},m,$$
(2)
where $`t`$ is the Cartesian coordinate on $`R`$ and $`\varphi ^i`$ are cyclic coordinates on $`T^m`$. Written with respect to these coordinates, a Hamiltonian and first integrals of a time-dependent CIS are functions only of action coordinates $`I_i`$. The corresponding Hamilton equation on $`W`$ reads

$`\dot{I}_i=0,\dot{\varphi }^i=^i(I_j).`$
A glance at this equation shows shows that, given action-angle coordinates (2), a time-dependent CIS can be seen as an autonomous CIS on the symplectic annulus

$$P=V\times T^m,$$
(3)
equipped with the action-angle coordinates $`(\varphi ^i,I_i)`$ and provided with the symplectic form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_P=dI_id\varphi ^i.$$
(4)
Therefore, we can quantize a time-dependent CIS with respect to action-angle variables similarly to that of an autonomous CIS. Of course, the choice of time-dependent action-angle coordinates by no means is unique. They are changed by canonical transformations. Therefore, we employ the geometric quantization technique7-9 which remains equivalent under such kind transformations. At the same time, geometric quantization essentially depends on the choice of polarization.10,11

Geometric quantization of an autonomous CIS has been studied with respect to polarization spanned by Hamiltonian vector fields of first integrals.12 In fact, the Simms quantization of the harmonic oscillator9 is also of this type. The problem is that the associated quantum algebra includes functions which are not defined on the whole momentum phase space, and elements of the carrier space fail to be smooth sections of the quantum bundle. Indeed, written with respect to the action-angle variables, this quantum algebra consists of functions which are affine in angle coordinates.

We choose a different polarization spanned by almost-Hamiltonian vector fields $`^k`$ of angle variables. The associated quantum algebra $`𝒜`$ consists of smooth functions which are affine in action variables. Note that this quantization of the symplectic annulus $`P`$ (3) is equivalent to geometric quantization of the cotangent bundle $`T^{}T^m`$ of the torus $`T^m`$ with respect to the familiar vertical polarization. As is well-known, the vertical polarization of a cotangent bundle leads to its Schrödinger quantization. We show that $`𝒜`$ possesses a set of nonequivalent representations in the separable pre-Hilbert space $`C^{\mathrm{}}(T^m)`$ of smooth complex functions on $`T^m`$. In particular, the action operators read

$$\widehat{I}_k=i_k\lambda _k,$$
(5)
where $`\lambda _k`$ are real numbers which specify different representations of $`𝒜`$. By virtue of the multidimensional Fourier theorem, an orthonormal basis for $`C^{\mathrm{}}(T^m)`$ consists of functions

$$\psi _{(n_r)}=\mathrm{exp}[i(n_r\varphi ^r)],(n_r)=(n_1,\mathrm{},n_m)Z^m.$$
(6)
With respect to this basis, the action operators (5) are countable diagonal matrices

$$\widehat{I}_k\psi _{(n_r)}=(n_k\lambda _k)\psi _{(n_r)}.$$
(7)
Given the representation (5), any polynomial Hamiltonian $`(I_k)`$ of a CIS is uniquely quantized as a Hermitian element $`\widehat{}(I_k)=(\widehat{I}_k)`$ of the enveloping algebra $`\overline{𝒜}`$ of $`𝒜`$. It has the countable time-independent spectrum

$$\widehat{}(I_k)\psi _{(n_r)}=E_{(n_r)}\psi _{(n_r)},E_{(n_r)}=(n_k\lambda _k),n_k(n_r).$$
(8)
Similarly, polynomial first integrals are quantized. Since $`\widehat{I}_k`$ are diagonal, one can also quantize Hamiltonians $`(I_j)`$ and first integrals $`F(I_j)`$ which are analytic functions on $`R^m`$.

Note that, because geometric quantization is equivalent under canonical transformations, quantization of a time-dependent CIS with respect to action-angle variables induces its quantization with respect to initial variables near an invariant manifold in the ambient momentum phase space. However, its Hamiltonian need not be represented in terms of first integrals and need not belong to the quantum algebra $`\overline{𝒜}`$ because it fails to be a scalar under time-dependent transformations. Moreover, this induced quantization can not be in general extended to the whole momentum phase space because of the topological obstructions to the existence of global action-angle coordinates.13,14

For instance, one usually mentions a harmonic oscillator as the simplest CIS whose quantization in the action-angle variables looks notoriously difficult.15 However, a harmonic oscillator written relative to action-angle coordinates $`(\varphi ,I)`$ is located in the momentum phase space $`R^2\{0\}`$, but it is not the standard oscillator on $`R^2`$. Namely, there is a monomorphism, but not an isomorphism of the Poisson algebra of smooth complex functions on $`R^2`$ to that on $`R^2\{0\}`$. In particular, the angle polarization on $`R^2\{0\}`$ is not extended to $`R^2`$. As a consequence, the quantum algebra associated to this polarization is not extended to $`R^2`$, and so is its carrier space $`C^{\mathrm{}}(T^m)`$.

In conclusion, let us remark that, since Hamiltonians depend only on action variables and possess time-independent countable spectra, quantum CISs look especially promising for holonomic quantum computation, based on driving degenerate eigenstates of a Hamiltonian over a parameter space.16-18 We will construct the corresponding quantum control operator.

II. CLASSICAL COMPLETELY INTEGRABLE SYSTEMS

Recall that the configuration space of time-dependent mechanics is a fiber bundle $`QR`$ over the time axis $`R`$ equipped with the bundle coordinates $`(t,q^k)`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},m`$. The corresponding momentum phase space is the vertical cotangent bundle $`V^{}Q`$ of $`QR`$ endowed with holonomic coordinates $`(t,q^k,p_k)`$.19,20 The cotangent bundle $`T^{}Q`$, coordinated by $`(q^\lambda ,p_\lambda )=(t,q^k,p_0,p_k)`$, plays a role of the homogeneous momentum phase space. It is provided with the canonical Liouville form $`\mathrm{\Xi }=p_\lambda dq^\lambda `$, the symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }=d\mathrm{\Xi }`$, and the corresponding Poisson bracket

$$\{f,f^{}\}_T=^\lambda f_\lambda f^{}_\lambda f^\lambda f^{},f,f^{}C^{\mathrm{}}(T^{}Q).$$
(9)
There is the one-dimensional trivial affine bundle

$$\zeta :T^{}QV^{}Q.$$
(10)
Given its global section $`h`$, one can equip $`T^{}Q`$ with the global bundle coordinate $`r=p_0h`$.

The fiber bundle (10) provides the vertical cotangent bundle $`V^{}Q`$ with the canonical Poisson structure $`\{,\}_V`$ such that

$`\zeta ^{}\{f,f^{}\}_V=\{\zeta ^{}f,\zeta ^{}f^{}\}_T,f,f^{}C^{\mathrm{}}(V^{}Q),`$ (11)
$`\{f,f^{}\}_V=^kf_kf^{}_kf^kf^{}.`$ (12)
Its characteristic symplectic foliation coincides with the fibration $`V^{}QR`$. However, the Poisson structure (12) fails to set any dynamic equation on the momentum phase space $`V^{}Q`$ because Hamiltonian vector fields

$`\vartheta _f=^kf_k_kf^k,\vartheta _fdf^{}=\{f,f^{}\}_V,f,f^{}C^{\mathrm{}}(V^{}Q),`$
of functions on $`V^{}Q`$ are vertical.

A Hamiltonian of time-dependent mechanics is defined as a global section

$`h:V^{}QT^{}Q,p_0h=(t,q^j,p_j),`$
of the affine bundle $`\zeta `$ (10).19,20 It yields the pull-back Hamiltonian form

$$H=h^{}\mathrm{\Xi }=p_kdq^kdt$$
(13)
on $`V^{}Q`$. Then there exists a unique vector field $`\gamma _H`$ on $`V^{}Q`$ such that

$`\gamma _Hdt=1,\gamma _HdH=0,`$
$`\gamma _H=_t+^k_k_k^k.`$ (14)
Its trajectories obey the Hamilton equation

$$\dot{q}^k=^k,\dot{p}_k=_k.$$
(15)
A first integral of the Hamilton equation (15) is a smooth real function $`F`$ on $`V^{}Q`$ whose Lie derivative

$`𝐋_{\gamma _H}F=\gamma _HdF=_tF+\{,F\}_V`$
along the vector field $`\gamma _H`$ (14) vanishes, i.e., $`F`$ is constant on trajectories of $`\gamma _H`$. A time-dependent Hamiltonian system $`(V^{}Q,H)`$ is said to be completely integrable if the Hamilton equation (15) admits $`m`$ first integrals $`F_k`$ which are in involution with respect to the Poisson bracket $`\{,\}_V`$ (12) and whose differentials $`dF_k`$ are linearly independent almost everywhere, i.e., the set of points where this condition fails is nowhere dense in $`V^{}Q`$. One can associate to this system an autonomous CIS on $`T^{}Q`$ as follows.

Let us consider the pull-back $`\zeta ^{}H`$ of the Hamiltonian form $`H`$ (13) onto the cotangent bundle $`T^{}Q`$. It is readily observed that

$$^{}=_t(\mathrm{\Xi }\zeta ^{}h^{}\mathrm{\Xi })=p_0+$$
(16)
is a function on $`T^{}Q`$. Let us regard $`^{}`$ as a Hamiltonian of an autonomous Hamiltonian system on the symplectic manifold $`(T^{}Q,\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Its Hamiltonian vector field

$$\gamma _T=_t_t^0+^k_k_k^k$$
(17)
is projected onto the vector field $`\gamma _H`$ (14) on $`V^{}Q`$ so that

$`\zeta ^{}(𝐋_{\gamma _H}f)=\{^{},\zeta ^{}f\}_T,fC^{\mathrm{}}(V^{}Q).`$
An immediate consequence of this relation is the following.

Proposition 1: (i) Given a time-dependent CIS $`(V^{}Q,H;F_k)`$ on $`V^{}Q`$, the Hamiltonian system $`(T^{}Q;^{},\zeta ^{}F_k)`$ on $`T^{}Q`$ is completely integrable. (ii) Let $`N`$ be a connected regular invariant manifold of $`(V^{}Q,H;F_k)`$. Then $`h(N)T^{}Q`$ is a connected regular invariant manifold of the autonomous CIS $`(T^{}Q;^{},\zeta ^{}F_k)`$.

Hereafter, the vector field $`\gamma _H`$ (14) is assumed to be complete. In this case, the Hamilton equation (15) admits a unique global solution through each point of the momentum phase space $`V^{}Q`$, and trajectories of $`\gamma _H`$ define a trivial bundle $`V^{}QV_t^{}Q`$ over any fiber $`V_t^{}Q`$ of $`V^{}QR`$. Without loss of generality, one can choose the fiber $`i_0:V_0^{}QV^{}Q`$ at $`t=0`$. Since $`N`$ is an invariant manifold, the fibration

$$\xi :V^{}QV_0^{}Q$$
(18)
also yields the fibration of $`N`$ onto $`N_0=NV_0^{}Q`$ such that $`NR\times N_0`$ is a trivial bundle.

III. TIME-DEPENDENT ACTION-ANGLE COORDINATES

Let us introduce the action-angle coordinates around an invariant manifold $`N`$ of a time-dependent CIS on $`V^{}Q`$ by use of the action-angle coordinates around the invariant manifold $`h(N)`$ of the autonomous CIS on $`T^{}Q`$ in Proposition 1. Since $`N`$ and, consequently, $`h(N)`$ are noncompact, we first prove the following.

Proposition 2: Let $`M`$ be a connected invariant manifold of an autonomous CIS $`\{F_\lambda \}`$, $`\lambda =1,\mathrm{},n`$, on a symplectic manifold $`(Z,\mathrm{\Omega }_Z)`$, and let the Hamiltonian vector fields of the first integrals $`F_\alpha `$ on $`M`$ be complete. Let $`U`$ be a neighbourhood of $`M`$ such that $`\{F_\lambda \}`$ have no critical points in $`U`$ and the submersion $`\times F_\lambda :UR^n`$ is a trivial bundle of Lagrangian invariant manifolds over a domain $`V^{}R^n`$. Then $`U`$ is isomorphic to the symplectic annulus

$$W^{}=R^{nm}\times T^m\times V^{}$$
(19)
provided with the generalized action-angle coordinates

$$(x^1,\mathrm{},x^{nm},\varphi ^{nm+1},\mathrm{},\varphi ^n,I_1,\mathrm{},I_n)$$
(20)
such that the symplectic form on $`W^{}`$ reads

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_Z=dI_adx^a+dI_kd\varphi ^k,`$
and the first integrals $`F_\lambda `$ depend only on the action coordinates $`(I_\alpha )`$.

Proof: In accordance with the well-known theorem,5,21 the invariant manifold $`M`$ is diffeomorphic to the product $`R^{nm}\times T^m`$, provided with coordinates $`(y^\lambda )=(s^a,\phi ^i)`$ where $`\phi ^i`$ are linear functions of parameters $`s^\lambda `$ along the integral curves of Hamiltonian vector fields of first integrals $`F_\lambda `$ on $`M`$. Let $`(J_\lambda )`$ be coordinates on $`V^{}`$ which are values of first integrals $`F_\lambda `$. Since $`W^{}V^{}`$ is a trivial bundle, $`(y^\lambda ,J_\lambda )`$ are bundle coordinates on the annulus $`W^{}`$ (19). It should be emphasized that, since group parameters are given up to a shift, the coordinates $`y^\lambda `$ on $`W^{}`$ are determined up to a shift by functions of coordinates $`J_\lambda `$. Written relative to these coordinates, the symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Z`$ on $`W^{}`$ reads

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_Z=\mathrm{\Omega }^{\alpha \beta }dJ_\alpha dJ_\beta +\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ^\alpha dJ_\alpha dy^\beta .$$
(21)
By the definition of coordinates $`(y^\lambda )`$, the Hamiltonian vector fields $`\vartheta _\lambda `$ of first integrals take the coordinate form $`\vartheta _\lambda =\vartheta _\lambda ^\alpha (J_\mu )_\alpha `$ where

$$\vartheta _a=_a+\vartheta _a^i(J_\lambda )_i,\vartheta _i=\vartheta _i^k(J_\lambda )_k,$$
(22)
and they obey the relations

$$\vartheta _\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }_Z=dJ_\lambda ,\mathrm{\Omega }^\alpha _\beta \vartheta ^\beta _\lambda =\delta ^\alpha _\lambda .$$
(23)
It follows that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ^\alpha `$ is a nondegenerate matrix and $`\vartheta _\lambda ^\alpha =(\mathrm{\Omega }^1)_\lambda ^\alpha `$, i.e., the matrix functions $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\beta ^\alpha `$ depend only on coordinates $`J_\lambda `$. In Appendix A, we obtain the desired coordinates

$$x^a=s^a,\varphi ^a(s^b,\phi ^i,J_\lambda ),I_a=J_a,I_i(J_k).$$
(24)
Note that, if $`M`$ is a compact invariant manifold, the conditions of Proposition 1 always hold.6

Of course, the generalized action-angle coordinates (20) by no means are unique. For instance, let $`_a`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},nm`$ be an arbitrary smooth function on $`R^m`$. Let us consider the canonical coordinate transformation

$$x^a=x^a,\varphi ^i=\varphi ^i+x^a^i_a(I_j),I_a^{}=I_a(I_j),I_k^{}=I_k.$$
(25)
Then $`(x^a,\varphi ^k,I_a^{},I_k^{})`$ also generalized action-angle coordinates on the symplectic annulus which differs from $`W^{}`$ (19) in another trivialization.

Now, we apply Proposition 1 to the CISs in Proposition 1.

Proposition 3: Let $`N`$ be a connected regular invariant manifold of a time-dependent CIS $`(V^{}Q,H;F_k)`$, and let the image $`N_0`$ of its projection $`\xi `$ (18) be compact. Then the invariant manifold $`h(N)`$ of the autonomous CIS $`(T^{}Q;^{},\zeta ^{}F_k)`$ has an open neighbourhood $`U`$ obeying the condition of Proposition 1.

The proof is in Appendix B. In accordance with Proposition 1, the open neighbourhood $`U`$ of the invariant manifold $`h(N)`$ in Proposition 1 is isomorphic to the symplectic annulus

$$W^{}=R\times T^m\times V^{},$$
(26)
provided with the generalized action-angle coordinates $`(t,\varphi ^1,\mathrm{},\varphi ^m,I_0,\mathrm{},I_m)`$ such that the symplectic form on $`W^{}`$ reads

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=dI_0dt+dI_kd\varphi ^k.`$
A glance at the Hamiltonian vector field $`\vartheta _0=\gamma _T`$ (17) and the relation (23) - (24), shows that $`I_0=J_0=^{}`$ and the corresponding generalized angle coordinate is $`x^0=t`$, while the first integrals $`J_k=\zeta ^{}F_k`$ depend only on the action coordinates $`I_i`$.

Since the action coordinates $`I_i`$ are independent of the coordinate $`J_0`$, the symplectic annulus $`W^{}`$ (26) inherits the fibration (10) which reads

$`\zeta :W^{}(t,\varphi ^i,I_0,I_i)(t,\varphi ^i,I_i)W=R\times T^m\times V.`$
By the relation similar to (11), the product $`W`$ is provided with the Poisson structure

$$\{f,f^{}\}_W=^if_if^{}_if^if^{},f,f^{}C^{\mathrm{}}(W).$$
(27)
Therefore, one can regard $`W`$ with coordinates $`(t,\varphi ^i,I_i)`$ as the momentum phase space of the time-dependent CIS in question around its invariant manifold $`N`$.

It is readily observed that the Hamiltonian vector field $`\gamma _T`$ of the autonomous Hamiltonian $`^{}=I_0`$ is $`\gamma _T=_t`$, and so is its projection $`\gamma _H`$ (14) on $`W`$. Consequently, the Hamilton equation (15) with respect to the action-angle coordinates take the form $`\dot{I}_i=0`$, $`\dot{\varphi }^i=0`$. Hence, $`(t,\varphi ^i,I_i)`$ are the initial date coordinates. One can introduce such coordinates as follows. Given the fibration $`\xi `$ (18), let us provide $`N_0\times VV_0^{}Q`$ in Proposition 1 with action-angle coordinates $`(\overline{\varphi }^i,\overline{I}_i)`$ for the CIS $`\{i_0^{}F_k\}`$ on the symplectic leaf $`V_0^{}Q`$. Then, it is readily observed that $`(t,\overline{\varphi }^i,\overline{I}_i)`$ are time-dependent action-angle coordinates on $`W`$ (1) such that the Hamiltonian $`(\overline{I}_j)`$ of a time-dependent CIS relative to these coordinates vanishes, i.e., $`^{}=\overline{I}_0`$. Using the canonical transformations (25), one can consider time-dependent action-angle coordinates besides the initial date ones. Given a smooth function $``$ on $`R^m`$, let us further provide $`W`$ with the action-angle coordinates

$`\varphi ^i=\overline{\varphi }^i+t^i(\overline{I}_j),I_0=\overline{I}_0(\overline{I}_j),I_i=\overline{I}_i`$
such that $`(I_i)`$ is the Hamiltonian.

Thus, action-angle coordinates for a time-dependent CIS provide a particular solution of the problem of a representation of its Hamiltonian in terms of first integrals.22,23 However, this representation need not hold with respect to the initial bundle coordinates on $`V^{}Q`$ because a Hamiltonian fails to be a scalar under time-dependent transformations.

IV. QUANTUM COMPLETELY INTEGRABLE SYSTEMS

In order to quantize a time-dependent CIS on the Poisson manifold $`(W,\{,\}_W)`$, one may follow the general procedure of instantwise geometric quantization of time-dependent Hamiltonian systems in Ref. 24. As was mentioned above, it however can be quantized as an autonomous CIS on the symplectic annulus $`(P,\mathrm{\Omega }_P)`$ (3) with respect to fixed time-dependent action-angle coordinates.

In accordance with the standard geometric quantization procedure,7,8 since the symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P`$ (4) is exact, the prequantum bundle is defined as a trivial complex line bundle $`C`$ over $`P`$. Since the action-angle coordinates are canonical for the symplectic form (4), the prequantum bundle $`C`$ need no metaplectic correction. Let its trivialization

$$CP\times C$$
(28)
hold fixed. Any other trivialization leads to equivalent quantization of $`P`$. Given the associated bundle coordinates $`(\varphi ^k,I_k,c)`$, $`cC`$, on $`C`$ (28), one can treat its sections as smooth complex functions on $`P`$.

The Konstant–Souriau prequantization formula associates to each smooth real function $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(P)`$ on $`P`$ the first order differential operator

$$\widehat{f}=i_{\vartheta _f}+f$$
(29)
on sections of $`C`$, where $`\vartheta _f=^kf_k_kf^k`$ is the Hamiltonian vector field of $`f`$ and $``$ is the covariant differential with respect to a suitable $`U(1)`$-principal connection on $`C`$. This connection preserves the Hermitian metric $`g(c,c^{})=c\overline{c}^{}`$ on $`C`$, and its curvature form obeys the prequantization condition $`R=i\mathrm{\Omega }_P`$. It reads

$$A=A_0+icI_kd\varphi ^k_c,$$
(30)
where $`A_0`$ is a flat $`U(1)`$-principal connection on $`CP`$. The equivalence classes of flat principal connections on $`C`$ are indexed by the set $`R^m/Z^m`$ of homomorphisms of the de Rham cohomology group

$`H^1(P)=H^1(T^m)=R^m`$
of $`P`$ to the cycle group $`U(1)`$.9 We choose their representatives of the form

$`A_0[(\lambda _k)]=dI_k^k+d\varphi ^k(_k+i\lambda _kc_c),\lambda _k[0,1).`$
Then the connection (30) up to gauge transformations reads

$$A[(\lambda _k)]=dI_k^k+d\varphi ^k(_k+i(I_k+\lambda _k)c_c).$$
(31)
For the sake of simplicity, we will assume that the numbers $`\lambda _k`$ in the expression(31) belong to $`R`$, but will bear in mind that connections $`A[(\lambda _k)]`$ and $`A[(\lambda _k^{})]`$ with $`\lambda _k\lambda _k^{}Z`$ are gauge conjugated. Given a connection (31), the prequantization operators (29) read

$$\widehat{f}=i\vartheta _f+(f(I_k+\lambda _k)^kf).$$
(32)
Let us choose the above mentioned angle polarization $`V\pi `$ which is the vertical tangent bundle of the fibration $`\pi :PT^m`$, and is spanned by the vectors $`^k`$. It is readily observed that the corresponding quantum algebra $`𝒜C^{\mathrm{}}(P)`$ consists of affine functions

$$f=a^k(\varphi ^j)I_k+b(\varphi ^j)$$
(33)
of action coordinates $`I_k`$. The carrier space of its representation by operators (32) is defined as the space $`E`$ of sections $`\rho `$ of the prequantum bundle $`C`$ of compact support which obey the condition $`_\vartheta \rho =0`$ for any Hamiltonian vector field $`\vartheta `$ subordinate to the distribution $`V\pi `$. This condition reads

$`_kf^k\rho =0,fC^{\mathrm{}}(T^m).`$
It follows that elements of $`E`$ are independent of action variables and, consequently, fail to be of compact support, unless $`\rho =0`$. This well-known problem of Schrödinger geometric quantization is solved as follows.24,25

Fix a slice $`i_T:T^mT^m\times V`$. Let $`C_T=i_T^{}C`$ be the pull-back of the prequantum bundle $`C`$ (28) over the torus $`T^m`$. It is a trivial complex line bundle $`C_T=T^m\times C`$ provided with the pull-back Hermitian metric $`g(c,c^{})=c\overline{c}^{}`$. Its sections are smooth complex functions on $`T^m`$. Let

$`\overline{A}=i_T^{}A=d\varphi ^k(_k+i(I_k+\lambda _k)c_c)`$
be the pull-back of the connection $`A`$ (31) onto $`C_T`$. Let $`𝒟`$ be a metalinear bundle of complex half-forms on the torus $`T^m`$. It admits the canonical lift of any vector field $`\tau `$ on $`T^m`$, and the corresponding Lie derivative of its sections reads

$`𝐋_\tau =\tau ^k_k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_k\tau ^k.`$
Let us consider the tensor product

$$Y=C_T𝒟T^m.$$
(34)
Since the Hamiltonian vector fields

$`\vartheta _f=a^k_k(I_r_ka^r+_kb)^k`$
of functions $`f`$ (33) are projectable onto $`T^m`$, one can associate to each element $`f`$ of the quantum algebra $`𝒜`$ the first order differential operator

$$\widehat{f}=(i\overline{}_{\pi \vartheta _f}+f)\mathrm{Id}+\mathrm{Id}𝐋_{\pi \vartheta _f}=ia^k_k\frac{i}{2}_ka^ka^k\lambda _k+b$$
(35)
on sections of $`Y`$. A direct computation shows that the operators (35) obey the Dirac condition

$`[\widehat{f},\widehat{f}^{}]=i\widehat{\{f,f^{}\}}.`$
Sections $`\rho _T`$ of the quantum bundle $`YT^m`$ (34) constitute a pre-Hilbert space $`E_T`$ with respect to the nondegenerate Hermitian form

$`\rho _T|\rho _T^{}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\right)^m{\displaystyle \underset{T^m}{}}\rho _T\overline{\rho }_T^{},\rho _T,\rho _T^{}E_T.`$
Then it is readily observed that $`\widehat{f}`$ (35) are Hermitian operators in $`E_T`$. In particular, the action operators take the form (5).

Of course, the above quantization depends on the choice of a connection $`A[(\lambda _k)]`$ (31) and a metalinear bundle $`𝒟`$. The latter need not be trivial. If $`𝒟`$ is trivial, sections of the quantum bundle $`YT^m`$ (34) obey the transformation rule

$`\rho _T(\varphi ^k+2\pi )=\rho _T(\varphi ^k)`$
for all indices $`k`$. They are naturally complex smooth functions on $`T^m`$. In this case, $`E_T`$ is the above mentioned pre-Hilbert space $`C^{\mathrm{}}(T^m)`$ of complex smooth functions on $`T^m`$ whose basis consists of functions (6). The action operators $`\widehat{I}`$ (5) with respect to this basis are represented by countable diagonal matrices (7), while functions $`a(\varphi )`$ are decomposed into the pull-back functions $`\psi _{(n_r)}`$ which act on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(T^m)`$ by multiplications

$$\psi _{(n_r)}\psi _{(n_r^{})}=\psi _{(n_r)}\psi _{(n_r^{})}=\psi _{(n_r+n_r^{})}.$$
(36)
If $`𝒟`$ is a nontrivial metalinear bundle, sections of the quantum bundle $`YT^m`$ (34) obey the transformation rule

$$\rho _T(\varphi ^j+2\pi )=\rho _T(\varphi ^j)$$
(37)
for some indices $`j`$. In this case, the orthonormal basis of the pre-Hilbert space $`E_T`$ can be represented by double-valued complex functions

$$\psi _{(n_i,n_j)}=\mathrm{exp}[i(n_i\varphi ^i+(n_j+\frac{1}{2})\varphi ^j)]$$
(38)
on $`T^m`$. They are eigenvectors

$`\widehat{I}_i\psi _{(n_i,n_j)}=(n_i\lambda _i)\psi _{(n_i,n_j)},\widehat{I}_j\psi _{(n_i,n_j)}=(n_j\lambda _j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\psi _{(n_i,n_j)}`$
of the operators $`\widehat{I}_k`$ (5), and the functions $`a(\varphi )`$ act on the basis (38) by the above law (36). It follows that the representation of $`𝒜`$ determined by the connection $`A[(\lambda _k)]`$ (31) in the space of sections (37) of a nontrivial quantum bundle $`Y`$ (34) is equivalent to its representation determined by the connection $`A[(\lambda _i,\lambda _j\frac{1}{2})]`$ in the space $`C^{\mathrm{}}(T^m)`$ of smooth complex functions on $`T^m`$.

Therefore, one can restrict the study of representations of the quantum algebra $`𝒜`$ to its representations in $`C^{\mathrm{}}(T^m)`$ associated to different connections (31). These representations are nonequivalent, unless $`\lambda _k\lambda _k^{}Z`$ for all indices $`k`$.

Now, in order to quantize the Poisson manifold $`(W,\{,\}_W)`$, one can simply replace functions on $`T^m`$ with those on $`R\times T^m`$.7,24 Let us choose the angle polarization of $`W`$ spanned by the vectors $`^k`$. The corresponding quantum algebra $`𝒜_WC^{\mathrm{}}(W)`$ consists of affine functions

$$f=a^k(t,\varphi ^j)I_k+b(t,\varphi ^j)$$
(39)
of action coordinates $`I_k`$, represented by the operators (35) in the space $`C^{\mathrm{}}(R\times T^m)`$ of smooth complex functions on $`R\times T^m`$. This space is provided with the structure of the pre-Hilbert $`C^{\mathrm{}}(R)`$-module with respect to the nondegenerate $`C^{\mathrm{}}(R)`$-bilinear form

$`\psi |\psi ^{}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\right)^m{\displaystyle \underset{T^m}{}}\psi \overline{\psi }^{},\psi ,\psi ^{}C^{\mathrm{}}(R\times T^m).`$
Its basis consists of the pull-backs onto $`R\times T^m`$ of the functions $`\psi _{(n_r)}`$ (6).

Since the Poisson structure (27) defines no dynamics on the momentum phase space $`W`$ (1), we should quantize the homogeneous momentum phase space $`W^{}`$ (26) in order to describe evolution of a quantum time-dependent CIS. Following the general scheme in Refs. 25,26, one can provide the relevant geometric quantization of the symplectic annulus $`(W^{},\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$. The corresponding quantum algebra $`𝒜_W^{}C^{\mathrm{}}(W^{})`$ consists of affine functions

$`f=a^\lambda (t,\varphi ^j)I_\lambda +b(t,\varphi ^j)`$
of action coordinates $`I_\lambda `$. It suffices to consider its subalgebra consisting of the elements $`f`$ and $`I_0+f`$ for all $`f𝒜_W`$ (39). They are represented by the operators $`\widehat{f}`$ (35) and $`I_0=i_t`$ in the pre-Hilbert module $`C^{\mathrm{}}(R\times T^m)`$. If a Hamiltonian $`(I_j)`$ of the time-dependent CIS is a polynomial (or analytic) function in action variables, the Hamiltonian $`^{}`$ of the associated autonomous CIS is quantized as

$`\widehat{}^{}=i_t+(\widehat{I}_j).`$
Then we obtain the Schrödinger equation

$`\widehat{}^{}\psi =i_t\psi +(i_k\lambda _k)\psi =0,\psi 𝐂^{\mathrm{}}(R\times T^m).`$
Its solutions are the series

$`\psi ={\displaystyle \underset{(n_r)}{}}B_{(n_r)}\mathrm{exp}[iE_{(n_r)}t]\psi _{(n_r)},B_{(n_r)}C,`$
where $`E_{(n_r)}`$ are the eigenvalues (8) of the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{}`$.

In conclusion, bearing in mind applications to holonomic quantum computation, let us choose action-angle coordinates such that a Hamiltonian $``$ of a CIS is independent of action variables $`I_a`$ ($`a,b,c=1,\mathrm{},l`$). Then its eigenvalues are countably degenerate. Let us consider the perturbed Hamiltonian

$`^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }(s^\mu ,\varphi ^b,I_a)+(I_j),`$
where the perturbation term $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ depends on the action-angle coordinates with the above mentioned indices $`a,b,c,\mathrm{}`$ and on some time-dependent parameters $`s^\mu (t)`$ by the law

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^a(s^\mu ,\varphi ^b)_ts^\beta I_a.$$
(40)
The Hamiltonian $`^{}`$ characterizes a CIS with time-dependent parameters.20,26,27 Being affine in action variables, the perturbation term $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (40) is represented by the operator

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}=(i\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^a_a+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}_a\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^a+\lambda _a\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^a)_ts^\beta .`$
Since the operators $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and $`\widehat{}`$ mutually commute, the total quantum evolution operator falls into the product

$`T\mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}}\widehat{}^{}dt^{}\right]=T\mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}}\widehat{}dt^{}\right]T\mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}dt^{}\right].`$
The first factor in this product is the dynamic evolution operator of the quantum CIS. The second one acts in the eigenspaces of the dynamic Hamiltonian $`\widehat{}`$ and reads

$`T\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{t}{}}}\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^a(\varphi ^b,s^\mu (t^{}))_a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_a\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^a(\varphi ^b,s^\mu (t^{}))+i\lambda _a\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^a(\varphi ^b,s^\mu (t^{}))\}_ts^\beta dt^{}\right]`$
$`=T\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{s([0,t])}{}}\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^a(\varphi ^b,\sigma ^\mu )_a{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_a\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^a(\varphi ^b,\sigma ^\mu )+i\lambda _a\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta ^a(\varphi ^b,\sigma ^\mu )\}d\sigma ^\beta \right].`$ (41)
It is readily observed that this operator depends on the curve $`s([0,1])S`$ in the parameter space $`S`$. One can treat it as an operator of parallel displacement along the curve $`s`$.26-28 For instance, if $`s([0,1])`$ is a loop in $`S`$, the operator (41) is the geometric Berry factor, and it can be treated as a holonomy control operator.26,29

APPENDIX A

In order to complete the proof of Proposition 1, let us first apply the relation (23) to the Hamiltonian vector fields $`\vartheta _a`$ and $`\vartheta _i`$ (22). We obtain

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_b^a=\delta _b^a,\vartheta _a^\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^i=0,`$ (42)
$`\vartheta _i^k\mathrm{\Omega }_k^j=\delta _i^j,\vartheta _i^k\mathrm{\Omega }_k^a=0.`$ (43)
The first of the equalities (43) shows that the matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k^j`$ is nondegenerate, and so is $`\vartheta _i^k`$. Then the second one results in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k^a=0`$.

Using the well-known Künneth formula for the de Rham cohomology of a product, one can easily justify that the closed form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Z`$ on $`W^{}`$ (19) is exact. Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Z=d\mathrm{\Xi }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ takes the form

$`\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Xi }^\alpha (J_\lambda ,y^\lambda )dJ_\alpha +\mathrm{\Xi }_i(J_\lambda )d\phi ^i.`$
Of course, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is determined up to an exact form. Using the fact that components of $`d\mathrm{\Xi }=\mathrm{\Omega }_Z`$ are independent of $`y^\lambda `$ and obey the equalities (42) – (43), we obtain the following.

(i) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^a=_i\mathrm{\Xi }^a+^a\mathrm{\Xi }_i=0`$. It follows that $`_i\mathrm{\Xi }^a`$ is independent of $`\phi `$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Xi }^a`$ is affine in $`\phi `$ and, consequently, is independent of $`\phi `$ since $`\phi `$ is a cyclic coordinate. Hence, $`^a\mathrm{\Xi }_i=0`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Xi }_i`$ is a function only of coordinates $`J_j`$.

(ii) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^k=_i\mathrm{\Xi }^k+^k\mathrm{\Xi }_i`$. Similarly, one shows that $`\mathrm{\Xi }^k`$ is independent of $`\phi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i^k=^k\mathrm{\Xi }_i`$, i.e., $`^k\mathrm{\Xi }_i`$ is a nondegenerate matrix.

(iii) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b^a=_b\mathrm{\Xi }^a=\delta _b^a`$. Hence, $`\mathrm{\Xi }^a=D^a(J_\lambda )+s^a`$.

(iv) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b^i=_b\mathrm{\Xi }^i`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Xi }^i`$ is affine in $`s^a`$.

In view of items (i) – (iv), the Liouville form $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ reads

$`\mathrm{\Xi }=x^adJ_a+[D^i(J_\lambda )+B_a^i(J_\lambda )s^a]dJ_i+\mathrm{\Xi }_i(J_j)d\phi ^i,`$
where $`x^a=s^a+D^a(J_\lambda )`$. Since the matrix $`^k\mathrm{\Xi }_i`$ is nondegenerate, one can introduce new coordinates $`I_i=\mathrm{\Xi }_i(J_j)`$, $`I_a=J_a`$. We obtain

$`\mathrm{\Xi }=x^adI_a+[D^i(I_\lambda )+B_a^i(I_\lambda )s^a]dI_i+I_id\phi ^i.`$
Finally, put

$`\varphi ^i=\phi ^i[D^i(I_\lambda )+B_a^i(I_\lambda )s^a]`$
in order to obtain the desired coordinates (24).

APPENDIX B

In order to prove Proposition 1, we first show that functions $`i_0^{}F_k`$ make up a CIS on the symplectic leaf $`(V_0^{}Q,\mathrm{\Omega }_0)`$ and $`N_0`$ is its invariant manifold without critical points. Clearly, the functions $`i_0^{}F_k`$ are in involution, and $`N_0`$ is their connected invariant manifold. Let us show that the set of critical points of $`\{i_0^{}F_k\}`$ is nowhere dense in $`V_0^{}Q`$ and $`N_0`$ has none of these points. Let $`V_0^{}Q`$ be equipped with some coordinates $`(\overline{q}^k,\overline{p}_k)`$. Then the trivial bundle $`\xi `$ (18) is provided with the bundle coordinates $`(t,\overline{q}^k,\overline{p}_k)`$ which play a role of the initial date coordinates on the momentum phase space $`V^{}Q`$. Written with respect to these coordinates, the first integrals $`F_k`$ become time-independent. It follows that

$$dF_k(y)=di_0^{}F_k(\xi (y))$$
(44)
for any point $`yV^{}Q`$. In particular, if $`y_0V_0^{}Q`$ is a critical point of $`\{i_0^{}F_k\}`$, then the trajectory $`\xi ^1(y_0)`$ is a critical set for the first integrals $`\{F_k\}`$. The desired statement at once follows from this result.

Since $`N_0`$ is compact and regular, there is an open neighbourhood of $`N_0`$ in $`V_0^{}Q`$ isomorphic to $`N_0\times V`$ where $`VR^m`$ is a domain, and $`N_0\times \{v\}`$, $`vV`$, are also invariant manifolds in $`V_0^{}Q`$.6 Then

$$W^{\prime \prime }=\xi ^1(N_0\times V)N\times V$$
(45)
is an open neighbourhood in $`V^{}Q`$ of the invariant manifold $`N`$ foliated by invariant manifolds $`\xi ^1(N_0\times \{v\})`$, $`vV`$, of the time-dependent CIS on $`V^{}Q`$. By virtue of the equality (44), the first integrals $`\{F_k\}`$ have no critical points in $`W^{\prime \prime }`$. For any real number $`r(\epsilon ,\epsilon )`$, let us consider a section

$`h_r:V^{}QT^{}Q,p_0h_r=(t,q^j,p_j)+r,`$
of the affine bundle $`\zeta `$ (10). Then the images $`h_r(W^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`W^{\prime \prime }`$ (45) make up an open neighbourhood $`U`$ of $`h(N)`$ in $`T^{}Q`$. Because $`\zeta (U)=W^{\prime \prime }`$, the pull-backs $`\zeta ^{}F_k`$ of first integrals $`F_k`$ are free from critical points in $`U`$, and so is the function $`^{}`$ (16). Since the coordinate $`r=p_0h`$ provides a trivialization of the affine bundle $`\zeta `$, the open neighbourhood $`U`$ of $`h(N)`$ is diffeomorphic to the product

$`h(W^{\prime \prime })\times (\epsilon ,\epsilon )h(N)\times V\times (\epsilon ,\epsilon )`$
which is a trivialization of the fibration

$`^{}\times (\times \zeta ^{}F_k):UV\times (\epsilon ,\epsilon ).`$
It remains to prove that the Hamiltonian vector fields of $`^{}`$ and $`\zeta ^{}F_k`$ on $`U`$ are complete. It is readily observed that the Hamiltonian vector field $`\gamma _T`$ (17) of $`^{}`$ is tangent to the manifolds $`h_r(W^{\prime \prime })`$, and is the image $`\gamma _T=Th_r\gamma _H\zeta `$ of the vector field $`\gamma _H`$ (14). The latter is complete on $`W^{\prime \prime }`$, and so is $`\gamma _T`$ on $`U`$. Similarly, the Hamiltonian vector field

$`\gamma _k=_tF_k^0+^iF_k_i_iF_k^i`$
of the function $`\zeta ^{}F_k`$ on $`T^{}Q`$ with respect to the Poisson bracket $`\{,\}_T`$ (9) is tangent to the manifolds $`h_r(W^{\prime \prime })`$, and is the image $`\gamma _k=Th_r\vartheta _k\zeta `$ of the Hamiltonian vector field $`\vartheta _k`$ of the first integral $`F_k`$ on $`W^{\prime \prime }`$ with respect to the Poisson bracket $`\{,\}_V`$ (12). The vector fields $`\vartheta _k`$ on $`W^{\prime \prime }`$ are vertical relative to the fibration $`W^{\prime \prime }R`$, and are tangent to compact manifolds. Therefore, they are complete, and so are the vector fields $`\gamma _k`$ on $`U`$. Thus, $`U`$ is the desired open neighbourhood of the invariant manifold $`h(N)`$.


format: text

text:
# hep-ph/0202064 A predictive scheme for neutrino masses

Abstract

The solar and atmospheric data and possibly large value for the effective neutrino mass in neutrinoless double beta decay experiment together indicate that all the three neutrinos are nearly degenerate. A verifiable texture for the neutrino mass matrix is proposed to accommodate these results. This texture allows almost degenerate neutrino masses two of which are exactly degenerate at tree level. The standard model radiative corrections lift this degeneracy and account for the solar deficit. The solar scale is correlated with the effective neutrino mass $`m_{ee}`$ probed in neutrinoless double beta decay experiments. The model can accommodate a large value ($`𝒪(\mathrm{eV})`$) for $`m_{ee}`$. Six observables corresponding to three neutrino masses and three mixing angles are determined in terms of only three unknown parameters within the proposed texture.

Introduction: Measurement of neutrinoless double beta decay is of considerable theoretical importance on two counts. Positive result would provide an unambiguous evidence for the non-conservation of lepton number. It would also give direct information on neutrino masses rather than on neutrino (mass)2 differences which are probed in neutrino oscillation experiments.

Neutrinoless double beta decay experiments measure absolute value of an effective mass $`m_{ee}`$ for the electron neutrino defined as:

$$m_{ee}U_{ei}^2m_{\nu _i}.$$
(1)
$`U`$ denotes here the neutrino mixing matrix and $`m_{\nu _i}(i=1,2,3)`$ are neutrino mass values which can take either sign. The $`m_{ee}`$ is given by the $`11`$ element of neutrino mass matrix in the basis with diagonal charged lepton masses.

The experimental bound on $`m_{ee}`$ is given by

$$|m_{ee}|0.38h\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{at}95\%\mathrm{CL},$$

where $`h0.62.8`$ denotes the uncertainty in nuclear matrix element . Recent analysis  claims a positive evidence

$$|m_{ee}|0.050.86\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{at}95\%\mathrm{CL}$$
(2)
taking account of uncertainty in the relevant nuclear matrix element.

The value of $`m_{ee}`$ in this range if established in future  can have very important implications for particle physics and cosmology . The implications of neutrinoless double beta decay measurements on neutrino mass hierarchies have been worked out in detail in a number of papers . If there are only three light neutrinos with hierarchical masses then the result on the atmospheric neutrino deficit ($`m_{\nu _3}0.07\mathrm{eV}`$) and the negative results from CHOOZ  $`|U_{e3}|0.12`$ together imply $`m_{ee}10^3\mathrm{eV}`$, which is substantially lower than the value quoted in eq.(2). The inverted mass hierarchy $`m_{\nu _1}m_{\nu 2}m_{\nu _3}`$ would be allowed for $`m_{ee}`$ less than or close to the atmospheric mass scale. In contrast, one would need almost degenerate masses  for all the three neutrinos if $`m_{ee}`$ is substantially higher than the atmospheric scale.

The combined inference from the solar and atmospheric deficit and a possible large $`m_{ee}`$ is a neutrino spectrum in which the common mass of any two neutrinos is much larger than their (mass)2 difference. One can distinguish two theoretical schemes which allow this . Either two neutrinos have the same CP in which case they form two almost degenerate Majorana neutrinos or they have opposite CP and together form a pseudo-Dirac state.

A pseudo-Dirac neutrino corresponds to either of the following structures in case of two generations, $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _x(x=\mu `$ or $`\tau `$):

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta & m\\ m& \delta ^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
or

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b& a\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
with $`\delta ,\delta ^{}m`$ and $`ab`$. These two textures differ from each other both conceptually and phenomenologically. For $`\delta ,\delta ^{}=0`$, both of them lead to neutrinos with equal and opposite masses. The former is invariant under a global $`L_eL_x`$ symmetry which needs to be broken by non-zero $`\delta ,\delta ^{}`$ in order to generate splitting . In contrast, the texture (4) is not invariant under any combination of $`L_e`$ and $`L_x`$. As a result, there does not exist any symmetry to protect degeneracy and the standard charged current interactions automatically introduce  radiative splitting among neutrinos. At the phenomenological level, the texture in (3) implies almost maximal mixing while the mixing implied by (4) is arbitrary ($`\mathrm{tan}2\theta =\frac{b}{a}`$). Finally, the neutrinoless double beta decay amplitude implied by eq.(3) is much smaller than the common mass (for $`\delta m`$) while it is comparable to the neutrino mass ($`\sqrt{a^2+b^2}`$) in case of eq.(4).

It follows from above that the texture in eq.(4) leads to almost degenerate pair of neutrinos with large neutrinoless double beta decay amplitude and very small splitting. It seems ideal for the description of neutrino masses if the latest result  are correct. The splitting introduced by the standard model radiative correction is of $`𝒪(\frac{m_{ee}m_\tau ^2}{16\pi ^2M_Z^2})`$. This would be in the correct range for the description of the solar neutrino scale. One needs to generalize the basic texture in eq.(4) to three generations in order to incorporate a solution to the atmospheric neutrino problem as well. In the following, we suggest an economical and very predictive scheme which provides a natural and coherent understanding of neutrino properties required on phenomenological ground.

Proposed Texture: Let us consider a CP conserving theory specified by a general $`3\times 3`$ real symmetric neutrino mass matrix $`M_\nu `$. We require that above $`M_\nu `$ leads to a pseudo Dirac neutrino. General conditions on $`M_\nu `$ under which this happens were discussed in . In particular, the $`M_\nu `$ should satisfy

$$tr(M_\nu )\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_i=detM_\nu ,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ represents the determinant of the $`2\times 2`$ block of $`M_\nu `$ obtained by blocking the $`i^{th}`$ row and column. While many solutions to this constraint are possible , we study here a specific solution which meets the requirement demanded by the observed features of neutrino masses and mixing. The proposed solution to the above constraint corresponds to the following neutrino mass matrix in the basis with diagonal charged leptons:

$$M_{0\nu }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}s& t& u\\ t& s& 0\\ u& 0& s\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
This ansatz is a direct generalization of eq.(4) and contains all the features mentioned in the $`2\times 2`$ case. It is given in terms of only three parameters $`s,t,u`$ which after the known radiative corrections lead to three neutrino masses and three mixing angles making the scheme very predictive.

The $`M_{0\nu }`$ in eq.(5) is diagonalized to obtain

$$U_0^TM_{0\nu }U_0=Diag.(m,m,s)$$

with

$$m=\sqrt{s^2+t^2+u^2}.$$

The tree level mixing matrix $`U_0`$ is given by

$$U_0=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_1& s_1& 0\\ s_1c_2& c_2c_1& s_2\\ s_1s_2& s_2c_1& c_2\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
$`s_i=\mathrm{sin}\theta _i`$ and $`c_i=\mathrm{cos}\theta _i`$. The mixing angles are given by

$`\mathrm{tan}\theta _1`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{ms}{m+s}}},`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{tan}\theta _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{t}}.`$ (8)
The above mass matrix contains many desirable features at the tree level itself.

* The effective neutrino mass probed in the neutrinoless double beta decay is given by

$$m_{ee}^0=s$$
* At the tree level, there is only one $`(\mathrm{mass})^2`$ difference which provides the atmospheric scale

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{0A}=m^2s^2.$$
(9)
The corresponding mixing angle ($`\theta _{0A}`$) coincides with $`\theta _2`$ and is large when $`tu`$:

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{0A}=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _2.$$
(10)
* Eq.(5) already incorporates the constraint of CHOOZ  since it predicts $`(U_0)_{e3}=0.`$ This prediction would receive a calculable radiative correction making it possible to predict $`U_{e3}`$.
* There is no solar splitting at this stage but the would-be solar mixing angle is given by

$$\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{0S}=\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _1=\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_{0A}+(m_{ee}^0)^2}m_{ee}^0}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_{0A}+(m_{ee}^0)^2}+m_{ee}^0},$$
(11)
It is seen that the solar mixing angle is determined in terms of the atmospheric scale and the effective neutrino mass $`m_{ee}^0`$ at tree level. We will see that the radiative corrections generate the solar splitting but do not change the above angle appreciably.

The presence of equal and opposite neutrino masses implies a Dirac neutrino and hence a $`U(1)`$ symmetry at tree level. This symmetry is however broken by the standard charged current interactions as can be seen from the general expressions given in . Thus the degenerate pair would split due to radiative interactions. This splitting can be easily obtained  using the relevant renormalization group equations . The consequences of these equations have been discussed in a number of papers .

The radiatively corrected neutrino mass matrix is given by

$$M_\nu =I_gI_t\left(\begin{array}{ccc}I_e^{\frac{1}{2}}& 0& 0\\ 0& I_\mu ^{\frac{1}{2}}& 0\\ 0& 0& I_\tau ^{\frac{1}{2}}\end{array}\right)M_{0\nu }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}I_e^{\frac{1}{2}}& 0& 0\\ 0& I_\mu ^{\frac{1}{2}}& 0\\ 0& 0& I_\tau ^{\frac{1}{2}}\end{array}\right),$$
(12)
where

$$I_\alpha ^{\frac{1}{2}}1+\delta _a,$$

with

$$\delta _\alpha c\left(\frac{m_\alpha }{4\pi v}\right)^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_X}{M_Z}.$$
(13)
$`M_X`$ here corresponds to a large scale, $`c=\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}^2\beta }`$ in respective cases of the standard model and the minimal supersymmetric standard model  and $`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$. $`I_{g,t}`$ are calculable coefficients summarizing the effect of the gauge and the top quark corrections.

Apart from the overall factor $`I_gI_t`$, the radiative corrections are largely dominated by the $`\tau `$ Yukawa couplings and it is easy to determine neutrino mixing angle and masses keeping only $`\delta _\tau `$ corrections and working to the lowest order in $`\delta _\tau `$. We now have

$$U^TM_\nu U=Diag.(m_{\nu _1},m_{\nu _2},m_{\nu _3}),$$

with

$`m_{\nu _1}`$ $``$ $`I_gI_t(m+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _\tau u^2}{m+s}}),`$ (14)
$`m_{\nu _2}`$ $``$ $`I_gI_t(m{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _\tau u^2}{ms}}),`$ (15)
$`m_{\nu _3}`$ $``$ $`I_gI_t(s{\displaystyle \frac{2\delta _\tau st^2}{m^2s^2}}).`$ (16)
The tree level mixing matrix $`U_0`$ gets modified to a general $`U`$:

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_1c_3& s_1c_3& s_3\\ c_1s_2s_3+c_2s_1& c_2c_1s_1s_2s_3& s_2c_3\\ c_1c_2s_3+s_1s_2& s_1s_3c_2+s_2c_1& c_2c_3\end{array}\right),$$
(17)
As before the angles, $`\theta _1,\theta _2`$ respectively correspond to the solar and atmospheric mixing angles. These are now given by

$`\mathrm{tan}\theta _A`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{0A}(1\delta _\tau ),`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _S`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{0S},`$ (19)
where $`\theta _{0A}`$ (eq.(10) and $`\theta _{0S}`$(eq.(11))denote the tree level solar mixing angle. The effective neutrino mass $`m_{ee}^0`$ is now corrected to

$$m_{ee}=I_gI_ts.$$
(20)
The atmospheric scale also receives radiative corrections and is now given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_A\frac{1}{2}(m_{\nu _1}^2+m_{\nu _2}^2)m_{\nu _3}^2=I_g^2I_t^2(\mathrm{\Delta }_{0A}+\delta _\tau (2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{0A}\mathrm{\Delta }_{0A}m_{ee}^{02}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{0A})).$$
(21)
It is seen that all the tree level predictions receive small radiative corrections. Hence the basic ansatz is stable against radiaiative corrections unlike some of the ansatz considered in . The non-trivial effect of the radiative corrections is generation of the solar splitting and a non-zero $`U_{e3}`$:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ $``$ $`m_{\nu _2}^2m_{\nu _1}^22\delta _\tau m_{ee}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_A+m_{ee}^2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{0A},`$ (22)
$`s_3`$ $``$ $`U_{e3}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _\tau m_{ee}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_A}}}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{0A}.`$ (23)
Both $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ and $`U_{e3}`$ are correlated with the effective neutrino mass $`m_{ee}`$. This correlation is easy to understand. The neutrino mass matrix in eq.(5) coincides with $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ symmetric structure proposed in many works  when $`s`$ (and hence $`m_{ee}`$) is zero. Since this symmetry is also preserved by the diagonal charged lepton masses one cannot generate the solar splitting radiatively in this case. The presence of $`s`$ in the ansatz simultaneously leads to non-zero $`m_{ee}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ resulting in their correlation.

Phenomenology: It is possible to subject our ansatz to stringent phenomenological tests since three basic parameters predict six observables namely, $`m_{ee}`$, $`U_{e3}`$, ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_A,\theta _A)`$ and ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_S,\theta _S)`$. The oscillation interpretation of the atmospheric neutrinos constrain $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_A,\theta _A)`$ over a narrow range

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_A(1.55.0)10^3\mathrm{eV}^2;\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _A0.81$$

The presently available results on solar neutrinos allow various possibilities . The most preferred solution based on the global analysis of data corresponds to large mixing angle solution (LMA) which involves relatively larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ and $`\theta _S`$. The next best one corresponds to LOW and quasi-vacuum oscillation (QVO) region. The small mixing solution is least preferred. The standard model restricted fit to all the solar data rules out this solution at 99.73% CL but this it is still allowed in a more general analysis including variations in the boron and/or hep neutrino fluxes. We summarize below inference based on the analysis of the observed rates in various experiments .

| No | Solution | $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ | $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _S`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | LMA | $`(150)10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$ | $`0.20.7`$ |
| 2 | SMA | $`(510)10^6\mathrm{eV}^2`$ | $`(820)10^4`$ |
| 3 | LOW-QVO | $`(310^9310^7)\mathrm{eV}^2`$ | 0.6-2.0 |
| 4 | VAC | $`(12)10^{10}\mathrm{eV}^2`$ | 0.2-0.6; 1.2-1.5 |

Table: The allowed ranges in parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _S`$ following from analysis of the solar rates . All the quoted ranges are at 95% CL.

Note that the angle $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _S`$ is required to be less than one for most solutions. This is crucial in distinguishing two cases namely the standard model and the MSSM. These two cases give different signs for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ due to difference in signs of the radiative corrections in these cases. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ is positive (negative) in case of the SM (MSSM) when $`m_{ee}`$ is positive. Conventionally, the $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _S`$ is allowed to be greater than one in the analysis of the solar data but $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ is assumed positive. In the case of MSSM, positive values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ correspond ***For positive $`m_{ee}`$ one needs to reverse the role of $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$. The relevant $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _S`$ is inverse of eq.(11) and is also greater than 1. to $`m_{ee}<0`$ and negative $`m_{ee}`$ implies $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _S>1`$ from eq.(11). Because of this reason, the radiative corrections in MSSM are not suitable in describing the solar data and we will restrict ourselves to the case of the SM in the following.

We show in Fig. 1 the predicted values for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _S`$ and $`|U_{e3}|`$ as a function of the effective mass $`m_{ee}`$ for maximal atmospheric neutrino mixing and for two extreme values for the atmospheric mass scale. The numerical predictions include sub-dominant corrections from the electron and muon couplings also. We have varied $`m_{ee}`$ from the maximum value of $`𝒪(\mathrm{eV})`$ to the value $`10^3`$ which the future experiment  will probe. There are two regions corresponding to $`m_{ee}0.0010.05\mathrm{eV}`$ and $`m_{ee}0.051.0\mathrm{eV}`$. The former region corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S10^910^7\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _S0.71.0`$. This region encompasses the LOW-QVO and vacuum oscillation solutions. The other region of $`m_{ee}`$ corresponds to the range reported in . In this region only the SMA solution can be realized. As follows from eqs.(11,22), $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ ($`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _S`$) decreases (increases) with decreasing $`m_{ee}`$. As a result, there does not exist a value for $`m_{ee}`$ which can simultaneously reproduce the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _S`$ required to realize the most preferred LMA solution. The predicted values for $`U_{e3}`$ is below the expected experimental sensitivity for the entire range in $`m_{ee}`$.

Summary: Possibly large value for the effective majorana mass for the electron neutrino observed  in the neutrinoless double beta decay experiment points to non-hierarchical neutrino masses which do not arise in many of the conventional schemes such as the seesaw model or supersymmetric model with $`R`$ parity violation. We have proposed an economical ansatz for the neutrino mass matrix to describe almost degenerate neutrino masses . Justification of this ansatz from simple symmetry may require an elaborate model. The proposed ansatz differs in spirit from many textures discussed recently . Unlike in these works, we discuss a well-defined mechanism built into our ansatz and leading to generation of the solar scale and $`U_{e3}`$ through the standard model radiative corrections. This makes the ansatz testable. The ansatz has stringent predictions for the solar neutrino solution which can be used to rule it out. These predictions correspond to SMA solution if $`m_{ee}`$ is in the range reported in  or to vacuum or the LOW-QVO solution if $`m_{ee}`$ is much smaller. Observation of sizable $`U_{e3}>10^3`$  would also go against the ansatz.