text:
# The mode trapping properties of full DA white dwarf evolutionary models

## 1 Introduction

Since photometric variations were detected in the white dwarf HL Tau 76 (Landolt 1968), astronomers have been observing multimode pulsations in an increasing number of these objects. Of particular interest are the variable white dwarfs characterized by hydrogen-rich atmospheres. These variable stars, known in the literature as ZZ Ceti or DAV stars, constitute the most numerous group amongst degenerate pulsators. Other class of pulsating white dwarfs are the DBV, with helium-rich atmospheres, and the pre-white dwarfs DOVs and PNNVs, which show spectroscopically pronounced carbon, oxygen and helium features (for reviews of the topic, see Winget 1988 and Kepler & Bradley 1995). In particular, ZZ Ceti stars are found in a narrow interval of effective temperature ($`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$) ranging from 12500 K $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ 10700 K. Their brightness variations, which reach up to 0.30 magnitudes, are interpreted as being caused by spheroidal, non-radial g(gravity)-modes of low degree ($`\mathrm{}2`$) and low and intermediate overtones $`k`$ (the number of zeros in the radial eigenfunction), with periods ($`P_k`$) between 2 and 20 minutes. Radial modes, although found overstables in a number of theoretical studies of pulsating DA white dwarfs (see, e.g. Saio et al. 1983), have been discarded as the cause of variability in such stars. This is so because the periods involved are shorter than 10 seconds. Observationally these high-frequency signatures have not been detected thus far. With regard to the mechanism that drives pulsations, the $`\kappa \gamma `$ mechanism is the traditionally accepted one (Dolez & Vauclair 1981 and Winget et al. 1982). Nonetheless, Brickhill (1991) proposed the convective driving mechanism as being responsible for the overstability of g-modes in DAVs (see also Goldreich & Wu 1999). Although both mechanisms predict roughly the observed blue edge of the instability strip, none of them are capable to yield the red edge, where pulsations of DA white dwarfs seemingly cease in a very abrupt way (Kanaan 1996).

A longstanding problem in the study of pulsating DA white dwarfs is to find the reason of why only a very reduced number of modes are observed, as compared with the richness of modes predicted by theoretical studies. Indeed, it has been long suspected that some filtering mechanism must be acting quite efficiently. The explanation commonly proposed is that of “mode trapping” phenomenon 111Other physically plausible mechanism of mode filtering is related to the interaction of convection with pulsation (see Gautschy et al. 1996). (Winget et al. 1981; Brassard et al. 1992a; Bradley 1996). According to this mechanism, those modes (the trapped ones) having a local radial wavelength comparable with the thickness of the hydrogen envelope, require low kinetic energy to reach observable amplitudes. Then, most of the observed periods should correspond to trapped modes. Nevertheless, in a recent asteroseismological study of the ZZ Ceti star G117-B15A (Bradley 1998), the observed period of 215 s, which has the larger amplitude in the power spectrum, does not correspond to the trapped mode predicted by the best fitting model.

The exploration of these very important aspects requires the construction of detailed DA white dwarf evolutionary models, particularly regarding the treatment of the chemical abundance distribution. Work in this direction has recently begun to be undertaken. In fact, Althaus et al. (2002) have carried out full evolutionary calculations which take into account time dependent element diffusion, nuclear burning and the history of the white dwarf progenitor in a self-consistent way. Specifically, these authors have followed the evolution of an initially 3 Mstellar model all the way from the stages of hydrogen and helium burning in the core through the thermally pulsing and mass loss phases till the white dwarf state. Althaus et al. (2002) find that the shape of the Ledoux term (an important ingredient in the computation of the Brunt-Väisälä frequency; see Brassard et al. 1991, 1992ab) is markedly different from that found in previous detailed studies of white dwarf pulsations. This is due partly to the effect of smoothness in the chemical abundance distribution caused by element diffusion, which gives rise to less pronounced peaks in the Ledoux term. This, in turn, leads to a substantially weaker mode trapping effect, as it has recently been found by Córsico et al. (2001). These authors have presented the first results regarding the trapping properties of the Althaus et al. (2002) evolutionary models.

The present work is designed to explore at some length the pulsation properties of the Althaus et al. (2002) evolutionary models and to compare our predictions with those of others investigators. In addition, the work is intended to bring some more insight to the phenomenon of mode trapping in the frame of these new evolutionary models. In particular, we shall restrict ourselves to analyse the same stellar model as that studied in Córsico et al. (2001). Specifically, the model, which belongs to the ZZ Ceti instability strip, is analyzed in the frame of linear, non-radial stellar pulsations in the adiabatic approximation. Emphasis will be placed on assessing the role played by the internal chemical stratification in the behaviour of eigenmodes, and the expectations for the full spectrum of periods. Specifically, we shall explore the effects of the chemical interfaces on the kinetic energy distribution of the modes and their ability to modify the properties of the g-mode propagation throughout the star interior. We want to mention that, because of the high computational demands involved in the evolutionary calculations in which white dwarf cooling is assessed in a self-consistent way with element diffusion and the history of the pre-white dwarf, we are forced to restrict our attention to only one value for the stellar mass.

The article is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we briefly describe our evolutionary and pulsational codes. In this section we also discuss some aspects concerning the evolutionary properties of our models. In Sect. 3 we present in detail the pulsation results. Finally, Sect. 4 is devoted to summarizing our findings.

## 2 Details of computations

Our selected ZZ Ceti model on which the pulsational results are based has been calculated by means of an evolutionary code developed by us at La Plata Observatory. The code, which is based on a detailed and up-to-date physical description, has enabled us to compute the white dwarf evolution in a self-consistent way with the predictions of time dependent element diffusion, nuclear burning and the history of the white dwarf progenitor. The constitutive physics includes: new OPAL radiative opacities for different metallicities, conductive opacities, neutrino emission rates and a detailed equation of state. In addition, a network of 30 thermonuclear reaction rates for hydrogen burning (proton-proton chain and CNO bi-cycle) and helium burning has been considered. Nuclear reaction rates are taken from Caughlan & Fowler (1988) and Angulo et al. (1999) for the $`{}_{}{}^{12}\mathrm{C}(\alpha ,\gamma )^{16}\mathrm{O}`$ reaction rate. This rate is about twice as large as that of Caughlan & Fowler (1988). Abundance changes resulting from nuclear burning are computed by means of a standard implicit method of integration. In particular, we follow the evolution of the chemical species 1H, 3He, 4He, 7Li, 7Be, 12C, 13C, 14N, 15N, 16O, 17O, 18O and 19F. Convection has been treated following the standard mixing length theory (Böhm-Vitense 1958) with the mixing-length to pressure scale height parameter of $`\alpha =`$1.5. The Schwarzschild criterium was used to determine the boundaries of convective regions. Overshooting and semi-convection were not considered. Finally, the various processes relevant for element diffusion have also been taken into account. Specifically, we considered the gravitational settling, and the chemical and thermal diffusion of nuclear species 1H, 3He, 4He, 12C, 14N and 16O. Element diffusion is based on the treatment for multicomponent gases developed by Burgers (1969). It is important to note that by using this treatment of diffusion we are avoiding the widely used trace element approximation (see Tassoul et al. 1990). After computing the change of abundances by effect of diffusion, they are evolved according to the requirements of nuclear reactions and convective mixing. Radiative opacities are calculated for metallicities consistent with the diffusion predictions. This is done during the white dwarf regime in which gravitational settling leads to metal-depleted outer layers. In particular, the metallicity is taken as two times the abundance of CNO elements. For more details about this and other computational details we refer the reader to Althaus et al. (2002) and Althaus et al. (2001).

We started the evolutionary calculations from a 3 M stellar model at the zero-age main sequence. The adopted initial metallicity is $`Z`$= 0.02 and the initial abundance by mass of hydrogen and helium are, respectively, $`X_\mathrm{H}`$= 0.705 and $`X_{\mathrm{He}}`$= 0.275. Evolution has been computed at constant stellar mass all the way from the stages of hydrogen and helium burning in the core up to the tip of the asymptotic giant branch where helium thermal pulses occur. After experiencing 11 thermal pulses, the model is forced to evolve towards the white dwarf state by invoking strong mass loss episodes. The adopted mass loss rate was $`10^4`$ Myr-1 and it was applied to each stellar model as evolution proceeded. After the convergence of each new stellar model, the total stellar mass is reduced according to the time step used and the mesh points are appropriately adjusted. As a result of mass loss episodes, a white dwarf remnant of 0.563 M is obtained. The evolution of this remnant is pursued through the stage of planetary nebulae nucleus till the domain of the ZZ Ceti stars on the white dwarf cooling branch.

As well known, the shape of the composition transition zones plays an important role in the pulsational properties of DAV white dwarfs. In this sense, an important aspect of these calculations concerns the evolution of the chemical abundance during the white dwarf regime. In particular, element diffusion makes near discontinuities in the chemical profile at the start of the cooling branch be considerably smoothed out by the time the ZZ Ceti domain is reached (see Althaus et al. 2002). The chemical profile throughout the interior of our selected white dwarf model is depicted in the upper panel of Fig. 1. Only the most abundant isotopes are shown. In particular, the inner carbon-oxygen core emerges from the convective helium core burning and from the subsequent stages in which the helium-burning shell propagates outwards. Note also the flat profile of the carbon and oxygen distribution towards the centre. This is a result of the chemical rehomogenization of the innermost zone of the star due to Rayleigh-Taylor instability (see Althaus et al. 2002). Above the carbon-oxygen interior there is a shell rich in both carbon ($``$ 35%) and helium ($``$ 60%), and an overlying layer consisting of nearly pure helium of mass 0.003 M. The presence of carbon in the helium-rich region below the pure helium layer is a result of the short-lived convective mixing which has driven the carbon-rich zone upwards during the peak of the last helium pulse on the asymptotic giant branch. We want to mention that the total helium content within the star once helium shell burning is eventually extinguished amounts to 0.014 M and that the mass of hydrogen that is left at the start of the cooling branch is about $`1.5\times 10^4`$ M, which is reduced to $`7\times 10^5`$ M due to the interplay of residual nuclear burning and element diffusion by the time the ZZ Ceti domain is reached. Finally, we note that the inner carbon-oxygen profile of our models is somewhat different from that of Salaris et al. (1997). In particular, we find that the size of the carbon-oxygen core is smaller than that found by Salaris et al. (1997) with the consequent result that the drop in the oxygen abundance above the core is not so pronounced as in the case found by these authors. We suspect that this different behaviour could be a result of a different treatment of the convective boundary during the core helium burning.

For the pulsation analysis we have employed the code described in Córsico & Benvenuto (2002). We refer the reader to that paper for details. Here we shall describe briefly our strategy of calculation and mention the pulsation quantities computed that are relevant in this study. The pulsational code is based on the general Newton-Raphson technique (like the Henyey method employed in stellar evolution studies). The code solves the differential equations governing the linear, non-radial stellar pulsations in the adiabatic approximation (see Unno et al. 1989 for details of their derivation). The boundary conditions at the stellar centre and surface are those given by Osaki & Hansen (1973) (see Unno et al. 1989 for details). Following previous studies of white dwarf pulsations, the normalization condition adopted is $`\delta r/r=1`$ at the stellar surface. After selecting a starting stellar model we choose a convenient period window and the interval of interest in $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. The evolutionary code computes the white dwarf cooling until the hot edge of the $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$-interval is reached. Then, the program calls the set of pulsation routines to begin the scan for modes. In order to obtain the first approximation to the eigenfunctions and the eigenvalue of a mode we have applied the method of the discriminant (Unno et al. 1989). Specifically, we adopt the potential boundary condition (at the surface) as the discriminant function (see Córsico & Benvenuto 2002). When a mode is found, the code generates an approximate solution which is iteratively improved to convergence (of the eigenvalue and the eigenfunctions simultaneously) and then stored. This procedure is repeated until the period interval is covered. Then, the evolutionary code generates the next stellar model and calls pulsation routines again. Now, the previously stored modes are taken as initial approximation to the modes of the present stellar model and iterated to convergence.

For each computed mode we obtain the eigenperiod $`P_k`$ ($`P_k=2\pi /\sigma _k`$, being $`\sigma _k`$ the eigenfrequency) and the dimensionless eigenfunctions $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_4`$ (see Unno et al. 1989 for their definition). With these eigenfunctions and the dimensionless eigenvalue $`\omega _k^2=\sigma _k^2(GM_{}/R_{}^3)^1`$ we compute for each mode considered the oscillation kinetic energy, $`(E_{\mathrm{kin}})_k`$, given by:

$$(E_{\mathrm{kin}})_k=\frac{1}{2}(GM_{}R_{}^2)\omega _k^2_0^1x^2\rho \left[x^2y_1^2+x^2\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}{(C_1\omega _k^2)^2}y_2^2\right]𝑑x,$$
(1)
and the first order rotation splitting coefficient, $`C_{\mathrm{},k}`$,

$$C_{\mathrm{},k}=\frac{(GM_{}R_{}^2)}{2(E_{\mathrm{kin}})_k}_0^1\frac{x^2\rho }{C_1}\left[2x^2y_1y_2+\frac{x^2}{C_1\omega _k^2}y_2^2\right]𝑑x,$$
(2)
where $`M_{}`$ and $`R_{}`$ are the stellar mass and the stellar radius respectively, $`G`$ is the gravitation constant, $`C_1=(r/R_{})^3(M_{}/M_r)`$ and $`x=r/R_{}`$. In addition, we compute the weight functions, $`WF`$, and the variational period, $`P_k^\mathrm{V}`$, as given by Kawaler et al. (1985). Finally, for each model computed we derive the asymptotic spacing of periods, $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_\mathrm{A}`$, given by (Tassoul 1980; Tassoul et al. 1990):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }P_\mathrm{A}=\frac{P_0}{\sqrt{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}},$$
(3)
and $`P_0`$ is defined as

$$P_0=2\pi ^2\left[_0^{x_2}\frac{N}{x}𝑑x\right]^1,$$
(4)
where $`x_2`$ correspond to the location of the base of the outer convection zone. The Brunt-Väisälä frequency ($`N`$), a fundamental quantity of white dwarf pulsations, is computed employing the “modified Ledoux” treatment. This treatment explicitly accounts for the contribution to $`N^2`$ from any change in composition in the interior of model (the zones of chemical transition) by means of the Ledoux term $`B`$ (see Brassard et al. 1991). We want to mention that we have also employed a numerical differentiation scheme for computing $`N^2`$ directly from its definition. We found that this scheme yields the same results as those derived from the modified Ledoux treatment.

As mentioned, for the pulsation analysis in this study we have selected a white dwarf model representative of the ZZ Ceti instability band. Specifically, we have picked out a 0.563 $`\mathrm{M}_{}`$ model at $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ 12000 K. In Table 1 we show the main characteristics of our template model. In the interests of comparison, the same quantities corresponding to a similar model of P. Bradley (2002) (private communication) are shown. The Brunt-Väisälä frequency and the Ledoux term ($`B`$) corresponding to our template model are shown in the middle and bottom panels of Fig. 1 in terms of the outer mass fraction. Note the particular shape of $`B`$, which is a

Table 1.

|  | Our template | Bradley’s model |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | model |  |
| $`M_{}/\mathrm{M}_{}`$ | 0.563 | 0.560 |
| $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ \[K\] | 11996 | 12050 |
| $`\mathrm{log}(L_{}`$/L$`{}_{}{}^{})`$ | -2.458 | -2.462 |
| $`\mathrm{log}(R_{}`$/R$`{}_{}{}^{})`$ | -1.864 | -1.866 |
| $`\mathrm{log}(M_\mathrm{H}/M_{})`$ | -3.905 | -3.824 |
| $`\mathrm{log}(M_{\mathrm{He}}/M_{})`$ | -1.604 | -1.824 |
| $`\mathrm{log}(\rho _c)`$ \[g cm-3\] | 6.469 | 6.466 |
| $`\mathrm{log}(T_c)`$ \[106 K\] | 7.086 | 7.087 |

direct consequence of the chemical profile. In turn, the features of $`B`$ are reflected in the Brunt-Väisälä frequency. As a result of element diffusion, the chemical profiles of our evolutionary models are very smooth in the interfaces (see upper panel of Fig. 1), and this explains the presence of extended tails in the shape of $`B`$. Also, note that our model is characterized by a chemical interface in which three ionic species in appreciable abundances coexists: helium, carbon and oxygen (see early in this section). This transition region gives two contributions to $`B`$, one of them of relatively great magnitude, placed at $`\mathrm{log}q1.4`$, and the other, more external and of very low height at $`\mathrm{log}q2.2`$. As a last remark, the contribution of the hydrogen-helium interface to $`B`$ is less than that corresponding to the helium-carbon-oxygen transition. Note that the contributions from the Ledoux term are translated into smooth bumps on $`N^2`$. The characteristics of $`B`$ and $`N^2`$ as predicted by our models are markedly different from those found in previous studies in which the white dwarf evolution is treated in a simplified way, particularly regarding the chemical abundance distribution in the outer layers (e.g., Tassoul et al. 1990; Brassard et al. 1991, 1992ab; Bradley 1996). For more details see Althaus et al. (2002).

## 3 Results

For our template model we have computed g-modes with $`\mathrm{}=1,2`$ and $`3`$ (we do this because geometric cancellation effects grow progressively for larger $`\mathrm{}`$ in non-radial oscillations; see Dziembowski 1977), with periods in the range of 50 s $`P_k`$ 1300 s. Let us quote that for mode calculations we have employed up to 5000 mesh points. For all of our pulsation calculations, the relative difference between $`P_k`$ and $`P_k^\mathrm{V}`$ remains lower than $`10^3`$. This gives an indication of the accuracy of our calculations.

We begin by examining Figs. 2 to 4, the upper panels of which show the logarithm of the oscillation kinetic energy of modes with, respectively, $`\mathrm{}=1,2`$ and $`3`$ in terms of computed periods. Middle panels depict the values for the forward period spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_k`$ ($`P_{k+1}P_k`$) together with the asymptotic value $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_\mathrm{A}`$ as given by dotted lines 222Strictly speaking, $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_\mathrm{A}`$ as given by Eq. (3) corresponds to the asymptotic (high $`k`$) separation of periods for chemically homogeneous and radiative stars. However, it is very close to the mean period spacing even for chemically stratified white dwarfs. See Tassoul et al. (1990) for details.. Finally, in the bottom panel of these figures we depict the $`C_{\mathrm{},k}`$ values as well as the asymptotic values (dotted lines) that these coefficients adopt for high overtones, that is $`C_{\mathrm{},k}1/\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)`$ (Brickhill 1975). An inspection of plots reveals some interesting characteristics. To begin with, the quantities plotted exhibit two clearly different trends. Indeed, for $`P_k500600`$ s and irrespective of the value of $`\mathrm{}`$, the distribution of oscillation kinetic energy is quite smooth. Note that the $`\mathrm{log}(E_{\mathrm{kin}})_k`$ values of adjacent modes are quite similar, which is in contrast with the situation found for lower periods. On the other hand, the period spacing diagrams show appreciable departures of $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_k`$ from the asymptotic prediction (Eq. 3) for $`P_k500600`$ s. As well known, this is due mostly to the presence of chemical abundance transitions in DA white dwarfs. In contrast, for higher periods the $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_k`$ of the modes tend to $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_\mathrm{A}`$. Also, note that the $`C_{\mathrm{},k}`$ values tend to the asymptotic value for $`P_k500600`$ s.

An important aspect of the present study is related to the mode trapping and confinement properties of our models. For the present analysis we shall employ the weight functions, $`WF`$. We elect $`WF`$ because this function gives the relative contribution of the different regions in the star to the period formation (Kawaler et al. 1985; Brassard et al. 1992ab). We want to mention that we have also carefully examined the density of kinetic energy (the integrand of Eq. 1) for each computed mode. For our purposes here, this quantity gives us basically the same information that provided by $`WF`$. We show in Fig. 5 to 7 the $`WF`$ for all of the computed modes corresponding to $`\mathrm{}=1`$. In addition, we include in each plot of these figures the Ledoux term in arbitrary units (dotted lines) in order to make easier the location of the chemical transition regions of the model. In the interests of a proper interpretation of these figures, we suggest the reader to see also Fig. 2. For low periods, a variety of behaviour is encountered. For instance, the g1 mode is characterized by a $`WF`$ corresponding to the well known mode trapping phenomenon, that is, g1 is formed in the very outer layers irrespective of the details of the deeper chemical profile, as previously reported by previous studies (see Brassard et al. 1992ab). In contrast, it is the helium-carbon-oxygen transition that mostly contributes to the formation of the g2 mode, whilst the hydrogen-helium transition plays a minor role. This mode would be representative of the “confined modes” according to Brassard et al. (1992ab). $`WF`$ for modes g3 and g4 is qualitatively similar to that of g1, except that they are not exclusively formed in the hydrogen-rich envelope, but also in the helium-carbon-oxygen interface. On the other hand, the high-density zone underlying the helium-carbon-oxygen transition plays a major role in the formation of mode g5. From Eq. (1) is clear that the $`(E_{\mathrm{kin}})_k`$ values are proportional to the integral of the squared eigenfunctions, weighted by $`\rho `$. As a result, the g5 mode is characterized by a high oscillation kinetic energy value (see Fig. 2). Note that the helium-carbon-oxygen transition region also contributes to the formation of modes g6 and g10. The g10 mode is particularly interesting, because it is formed over a wide range of the stellar interior, thus being also a high kinetic energy mode. The $`WF`$s corresponding to remaining modes do not differ appreciably amongst them. They exhibit contributions mainly from the outer layers of the model, though they also show small amplitudes in deeper regions. Note that for all of the modes shown in Figs. 5 to 7 there is a strong contribution to $`WF`$s from the hydrogen-helium transition region. This indicate that, as found in previous studies, this chemical interface plays a fundamental role in the period formation of modes. We want to mention that we have elected for this analysis the dipolar modes ($`\mathrm{}=1`$) for brevity; the results for $`\mathrm{}=2,3`$ are qualitatively similar to those of $`\mathrm{}=1`$.

From the analysis performed above based on the weight functions, we can clearly appreciate that for $`P_k500600`$ s the outer layer of the model appreciably contribute to the $`WF`$s. This is expected, because, as well known, $`g`$-modes in white dwarfs are envelope modes. As mentioned, the $`WF`$s of high order modes are very similar, indicating that these modes have essentially the same characteristics. At this point, we could, in principle, classify these modes either like trapped or partially trapped in the outer envelope or like “normal” modes (in the terminology of Brassard et al. 1992), that is, without enhanced or diminished oscillation kinetic energies as in the case of eigenmodes corresponding to chemically homogeneous stellar models. In fact, the curves $`\mathrm{log}(E_{\mathrm{kin}})_kP_k`$ depicted in Figs. 2 to 4, in particular for periods exceeding $`500600`$ s, strongly resemble the kinetic energy distribution corresponding to a model in which there no exist chemical interfaces. With the aim of solving such an ambiguity, we have performed pulsation calculations arbitrarily setting $`B=0`$ in the computation of the Brunt-Väisälä frequency. As mentioned, the modified Ledoux treatment employed in the computation of the Brunt-Väisälä frequency bears explicitly the effect from changes in chemical composition by means of the Ledoux term $`B`$. So, by forcing $`B=0`$ the effects of the chemical transitions are strongly minimized (but not completely eliminated; see inset of Fig. 1c) on the whole pulsational pattern. In this way we obtain an approximate chemically homogeneous white dwarf model (see Brassard et al. 1992b for a similar numerical experiment). The oscillation kinetic energy values resulting for this simulated “homogeneous” model are shown in Fig. 8 with dotted lines. In the interests of a comparison, we show the results corresponding to our (full) template model with solid lines. It is clear from the figure that the distribution of $`(E_{\mathrm{kin}})_k`$ values for both sets of computations (and for each value of $`\mathrm{}`$) is very similar in the region of long periods. However, note that the curves corresponding to the modified model are shifted to higher energies (by $`0.2`$ dex) as compared with the situation of the full model. We have carefully compared the $`WF`$ for each mode of the full model with the corresponding mode of the “homogeneous” model (i.e. modes which have closest period values although generally for different radial order $`k`$). We found that, for modes with periods exceeding $`600`$ s, the $`WF`$s are almost identical in both cases at the regions above the hydrogen-helium transition. However, below this interface the $`WF`$s corresponding to the “homogeneous” model show larger amplitudes as compared with the case of the full model. Thus, we can conclude that for the full model, all the modes corresponding to the long period region of the pulsational spectrum must be considered as partially trapped in the hydrogen-rich envelope. In others words, the chemical distribution at the hydrogen-helium transition has noticeable effect on each mode, but this effect is the same for all modes. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the first order rotation splitting coefficients ($`C_{\mathrm{},k}`$) for the full model adopt higher values as compared with those corresponding to the “homogeneous” model (not shown here for brevity), thus lying nearest to the asymptotic prediction. As found by Brassard et al. (1992ab), it is an additional characteristic feature of trapped modes in the hydrogen-rich outer region of white dwarfs.

An important finding of this work is the effect of chemical abundance distribution resulting from time dependent diffusion on the mode trapping properties in DA white dwarfs. In fact, as shown in Fig. 2 to 4, for periods exceeding $`500600`$ s, the distribution of $`(E_{\mathrm{kin}})_k`$ is smooth, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_k`$ values tend to the asymptotic value. This is quite different from that found in previous studies. Our calculations reveal that the capability of mode filtering due to mode trapping effects virtually vanish for high periods when account is made of white dwarf models with diffusively evolving chemical stratifications (see Córsico et al. 2001). In order to make a detailed comparison of the predictions of our models with those found in previous studies we have carried out additional pulsational calculations by assuming diffusive equilibrium in the trace element approximation at the hydrogen-helium interface (see Tassoul et al. 1990). This treatment has been commonly invoked in most of the pulsation studies to model the composition transition regions. The resulting hydrogen chemical profile and the corresponding Ledoux term and Brunt-Väisälä frequency $`N`$ are shown in Fig. 9, together with the predictions of time dependent element diffusion. The trace element assumption leads to an abrupt change in the slope of the chemical profile which is responsible for the pronounced peak in the Brunt-Väisälä frequency at $`\mathrm{log}(1M_r/M_{})4`$. As can be clearly seen in Fig. 10 for $`\mathrm{}=1`$ to 3, the diffusive equilibrium in the trace element approximation gives rise to an oscillation kinetic energy spectrum and period spacing distribution that are substantially different from those given by the full treatment of diffusion (see Figs. 2 to 4), particularly for high periods. The most outstanding feature depicted by Fig. 10 is the trapping signatures exhibited by certain modes both in the $`\mathrm{log}(E_{\mathrm{kin}})_k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_k`$ values. This is in agreement with other previous results (see Brassard et al. 1992b, particularly their figures 20a and 21a for the case of $`M_\mathrm{H}=10^4M_{}`$)333Note that, as found by Brassard et al. (1992a), the contrast between the kinetic energies values of the trapped modes and those of the non-trapped ones is not very large for massive hydrogen envelopes (like that presented in this work), due to the fact that the hydrogen-helium interface is located in a deep, highly degenerate region, where the amplitudes of eigenfunctions are very small.. As well known, trapped modes correspond to those modes which are characterized by minima in their oscillation kinetic energy values and local minima in the period spacing having the same $`k`$-value or differing by 1. For the purpose of illustration, we compare in Fig. 11 and 12 the predictions of equilibrium diffusion in the trace element approximation and time-dependent element diffusion, respectively, for $`WF`$ corresponding to the modes g38 and g39 with $`\mathrm{}=2`$. Clearly, in the case of diffusive equilibrium in the trace element approximation, mode g39 corresponds to a trapped mode characterized by small values of the weight function below the hydrogen-helium transition, as compared with the adjacent, non-trapped mode g38. By contrast, such modes show very similar amplitudes of their $`WF`$ when account is taken of a full diffusion treatment to model the composition transition regions (see Fig. 12). We would also like to comment on the fact that the diffusive equilibrium condition is far from being reached at the bottom of the hydrogen envelope of our model. In Althaus et al. (2002) we argued that the situation of diffusive equilibrium in the deep layers of a DAV white dwarf is not an appropriate one for describing the shape of the chemical composition at the hydrogen-helium transition zone. In fact, during the ZZ Ceti stage time-dependent diffusion modifies the spatial distribution of the elements, particularly at the chemical interfaces (see also Iben & MacDonald 1985). In addition, for the case of thick hydrogen envelopes, we have recently found that under the assumption of diffusive equilibrium, a white dwarf does not evolve along the cooling branch, but rather it experiences a hydrogen thermonuclear shell flash (see Córsico et al. 2002). This is so because if diffusion had plenty of time to evolve to an equilibrium situation then the tail of the hydrogen distribution would have been able to reach hot enough layers to be ignited in a flash fashion.

To place some of the results of the foregoing paragraph in a more quantitative basis, we list in Tables 2 and 3 the values for $`P_k`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_k`$ and $`\mathrm{log}(E_{\mathrm{kin}})_k`$ for modes corresponding to $`\mathrm{}=`$ 1 and $`\mathrm{}=`$ 2, in the case of equilibrium diffusion and time dependent element diffusion. In Table 2, the “m” corresponds to minima, and “M” stands for maxima. We have labeled the minima of $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_k`$ and the minima and maxima of $`\mathrm{log}(E_{\mathrm{kin}})_k`$, in correspondence with Fig. 10. Note that for the case with $`\mathrm{}=1`$ there is a direct correlation (indicated by arrows) between minima in $`\mathrm{log}(E_{\mathrm{kin}})_k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{k1}`$ for most of high order modes, whereas for the case with $`\mathrm{}=`$ 2 this correspondence is between minima in $`\mathrm{log}(E_{\mathrm{kin}})_k`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_k`$. The modes with minima in kinetic energy are classified as trapped (T) ones. In contrast to the case of equilibrium diffusion, the results corresponding to the time dependent element diffusion treatment do not show clear minima or maxima in kinetic energy, as can be appreciated in Figs. 2 to 4 and Table 3. We have compared the periods of our model with those kindly provided by Bradley corresponding to his 0.560 $`M_{}`$ white dwarf model, and we find that our periods are typically 6 % shorter. In part, this difference is due to the somewhat smaller mass of the Bradley’s model and the different input physics characterizing both stellar models.

On the basis of our results, we claim that the treatment of the chemical profile at the chemical transitions is a key ingredient in the computation of the g-spectrum. This is particularly true regarding the mode trapping properties, which are considerably altered when a physically sound treatment of the chemical evolution is incorporated in such calculations. This conclusion is valid at least for massive hydrogen envelopes as predicted by our full evolutionary calculations. To get a deeper insight into these aspects, we examine the node distribution of the eigenfunctions (Figs. 13 and 14). According to Brassard et al. (1992a), this is an useful diagnostic for mode trapping. Here, a mode is trapped above the hydrogen-helium interface when its eigenfunction $`y_1`$ has a node just above of such an interface, and the corresponding node in $`y_2`$ lies just below that interface. Note that this statement is clearly satisfied by our model with diffusive equilibrium in the trace element approximation, as shown in Fig. 13. In this figure, the vertical dotted line at $`r=0.927R_{}`$ indicate the location of the pronounced peak in the Brunt-Väisälä frequency (see Fig. 9). However, the node distribution becomes markedly different in the sequence with non-equilibrium diffusion and does not seem possible to find a well defined interface in that case (see Fig. 14). Thus, it does not seem to be clear that the above-mentioned trapping rule can be directly applied to this case. In fact, because the hydrogen-helium interface becomes very smooth in our models, the peak in the Brunt-Väisälä frequency is not very pronounced. Accordingly, the capability of mechanical resonance of our model turns out to be weaker. This causes the node distribution in the eigenfunctions to be quite different from that corresponding to the diffusive equilibrium approach.

## 4 Conclusions

In this work we have explored the pulsational properties of detailed evolutionary models recently developed by Althaus et al. (2002). Attention has been focused on a ZZ Ceti model in the frame of linear, non-radial oscillations in the adiabatic approximation. White dwarf cooling has been computed in a self-consistent way with the evolution of the chemical abundances resulting from the various diffusion processes and nuclear burning. Element diffusion is based on a multicomponent gas treatment; so, the trace element approximation is avoided in our calculations. In addition, the evolutionary stages prior to the white dwarf formation have been considered. In particular, element diffusion causes near discontinuities in the chemical profile at the start of the cooling branch to be considerably smoothed out by the time the ZZ Ceti domain is reached.

An important aspect of this work has been to assess the role played by the internal chemical stratification of these new models in the behaviour of the eigenmodes, and the expectations for the full g-spectrum of periods. We have analyzed mainly the mode weight functions, which show the regions of the star that mostly contribute to the period formation. Our study suggests the existence of a much wider diversity of eigenmodes for periods shorter than $`500600`$ s than found in previous works (Brassard et al. 1992ab). An important finding of this study is the effect of time-dependent element diffusion on the mode trapping properties in DA white dwarfs. We conclude that for periods longer than $`500600`$ s all of the modes seem to be partially trapped in the hydrogen-rich envelope of the star. This conclusion, based on the fact that the weight functions of these modes show low amplitudes ($`WF0.1`$) below the hydrogen-helium transition (even lower as compared with the case of a simulated chemically homogeneous model), implies that the capability of mode selection due to mode trapping effects vanishes for high periods when account is made of white dwarf models with diffusively evolving stratifications. This conclusion is valid at least for massive hydrogen envelopes as predicted by our full evolutionary calculations. This behaviour is markedly different from that found in other studies based on the assumption of diffusive equilibrium in the trace element approximation. This assumption leads to a pronounced peak in the Ledoux term at the hydrogen-helium interface, which is responsible for the trapping of modes in the outer hydrogen-rich layers. We have verified this fact by performing additional pulsation calculations on a model in which the chemical profile at the hydrogen-helium transition is given by equilibrium diffusion in the trace element approximation. Finally, the prediction of both diffusion treatments for the node distribution of the eigenfunctions has been compared. We found that node distribution at the hydrogen-helium chemical interface is very sensitive to the treatment of the chemical profile at that interface.

On the basis of these new results, we are forced to conclude that for high periods, trapping mechanism in massive hydrogen envelopes of stratified DA white dwarfs is not an appropriate one to explain the fact that all the modes expected from theoretical models are not observed in ZZ Ceti stars. Interestingly, a weaker trapping effect on the periodicities in DB white dwarfs has also been reported (Gautschy & Althaus 2001). We think that the results presented in this work deserves further exploration from the point of view of a non-adiabatic stability analysis. Work in this direction is in progress.

###### Acknowledgements.

We warmly acknowledge Paul Bradley for providing us with his pulsational results about ZZ Ceti star models. We also acknowledge our referee, M. H. Montgomery, whose comments and suggestions strongly improved the original version of this paper.


format: text

text:
# DO–TH 02/01 hep-ph/0203214 Measuring leptonic 𝐶𝑃 Violation in Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay

## 1 Introduction

Evidence for lepton flavor violation has been collected in large amounts, courtesy of neutrino oscillation experiments . An explanation of the smallness of the implied neutrino masses is given by the see–saw mechanism , which introduces Majorana neutrinos and thus lepton number violation to the theory. In recent years, the search for this phenomenon has concentrated on neutrinoless double beta decay (0$`\nu \beta \beta `$). The decay width of this process is proportional to the square of the so–called effective mass of the electron neutrino,

$$m=U_{ei}^2m_i,$$
(1)
where $`U`$ is the leptonic Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata (MNS) mixing matrix . Since $`m`$ depends on the neutrino masses, the two mixing angles connected with solar and reactor experiments and two phases in $`U`$, any measurement or non–measurement of 0$`\nu \beta \beta `$ can in principle answer some of the open questions of neutrino physics, a topic which in the past has been addressed by a number of authors . For example, by combining oscillation experiments and 0$`\nu \beta \beta `$, one can investigate the solution of the solar neutrino problem, the mass scheme, the value of the smallest mass eigenstate or the presence of leptonic $`CP`$ violation. In this note we shall concentrate on the latter point. For Majorana neutrinos there are three phases in $`U`$, two of which can in principle be measured through 0$`\nu \beta \beta `$. These two additional phases  are parameters of an extended Standard Model (SM) and are of interest e.g. regarding the stability of the neutrino mass matrix under radiative corrections  or in governing the magnitude of the baryon asymmetry of the universe via the leptogenesis mechanism . Regarding the latter it has recently been shown in two quite different models  that even for vanishing $`CP`$ violation in oscillation experiments, there can still be a sufficient baryon asymmetry generated. The amount of $`CP`$ violation found in neutrinoless double beta decay is then crucial in testing different leptogenesis models. In contrast to the quark sector, there are four $`CP`$ conserving possibilities for Majorana neutrinos, all of which have different aspects. We shall discuss them in some detail, finding that in many cases they can be classified into two groups, sometimes even one single case can be identified. We decided to ignore the recently announced controversial indication for 0$`\nu \beta \beta `$ . See  for a criticism of the statistical methods used in that analysis and  for replies. We shall only quote the measurement of the life–time limit on the neutrinoless double beta decay of 76Ge, which is $`1.510^{25}`$ y . Using different calculations for the nuclear matrix elements (NME), a limit on the effective mass of

$$m<(0.30\mathrm{}0.97)\mathrm{eV}$$
(2)
can be set. See  for a discussion of the different calculations. As future limits are concerned, several proposals for new experiments exist, such as CUORE , EXO , MOON , Majorana , or GENIUS , see  for a recent overview. As possible landmark limits we will assume 0.01 and $`210^3`$ eV, where the latter corresponds to the 10t GENIUS project. The expected uncertainty of the result is estimated to be around 20 to 30 $`\%`$ .

The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 the required formalism is briefly reviewed and in Section 3 the results are presented for some special mass hierarchies and then in Section 4 the general case is analyzed, including the current and future uncertainty in the knowledge of the oscillation parameters. Section 5 summarizes our conclusions.

## 2 Formalism

Since $`m`$ is the absolute value of a sum of three complex numbers, it depends on two phases. The neutrino mixing matrix $`U`$ can be parameterized in a very convenient form, which treats these two phases as the two additional Majorana phases:

$$\begin{array}{c}U=U_{\mathrm{CKM}}\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{i\alpha },e^{i(\beta +\delta )})\\ =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_1c_3& s_1c_3& s_3e^{i\delta }\\ s_1c_2c_1s_2s_3e^{i\delta }& c_1c_2s_1s_2s_3e^{i\delta }& s_2c_3\\ s_1s_2c_1c_2s_3e^{i\delta }& c_1s_2s_1c_2s_3e^{i\delta }& c_2c_3\end{array}\right)\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{i\alpha },e^{i(\beta +\delta )}),\end{array}$$
(3)
where $`c_i=\mathrm{cos}\theta _i`$ and $`s_i=\mathrm{sin}\theta _i`$. Within the parameterization (3), $`m`$ depends on $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. The third phase $`\delta `$ can be probed in oscillation experiments . For $`CP`$ conservation, different relative signs of the masses $`m_i`$ are possible, corresponding to the intrinsic $`CP`$ parities of the neutrinos . Four situations are possible, with $`m_i=\eta _i|m_i|`$ one can write these cases as $`(+++)`$ , $`(+)`$ , $`(+)`$ and $`(+)`$ , where the $`(\pm \pm \pm )`$ correspond to the relative signs of the mass states. Special values of the phases correspond to these sign signatures ,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(+++)& \eta _1=\eta _2=\eta _3=1& \alpha =\beta =\pi \\ (+)& \eta _1=\eta _2=\eta _3=1& \alpha =\beta =\frac{\pi }{2}\\ (+)& \eta _1=\eta _2=\eta _3=1& \alpha =\frac{\beta }{2}=\frac{\pi }{2}\\ (+)& \eta _1=\eta _2=\eta _3=1& \alpha =2\beta =\pi \end{array}.$$
(4)
The neutrino mass itself is bounded by the result from the tritium spectrum ,

$$m_0=|U_{ei}|^2m_i<2.2\mathrm{eV}.$$
(5)
Next generation laboratory  as well as satellite  experiments will be able to probe neutrino masses down to $``$0.4 eV. Finally, two possible mass schemes exist, the normal and inverse scheme can be written as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\text{ }\text{NORMAL}& & \text{ }\text{INVERSE}\\ m_3=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }+m_1^2}& & m_1=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }+m_3^2}\\ m_2=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\text{ }+m_1^2}& & m_2=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\text{ }+m_1^2}.\\ m_1=0\mathrm{}2.2\text{ eV}& & m_3=0\mathrm{}2.2\text{ eV}\end{array}$$
(6)
Regarding the mixing angles and the mass squared differences, the best–fit points of the atmospheric oscillation parameters are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }=2.510^3\mathrm{eV}^2,& \mathrm{tan}^2\theta _2=1\end{array}.$$
(7)
The maximal $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ is about $`510^3`$ eV2. As far as the solar solution is concerned, the Large Mixing Angle (LMA) solution is favored over the low $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ (LOW) solution by the latest data, especially after the recent SNO results . The other possibilities are the vacuum solution (VAC) and the Small Mixing Angle (SMA) solution, which are currently highly disfavored. We will therefore concentrate mainly on LMA and LOW. Typical best–fit points are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\text{ }=4.510^5\mathrm{eV}^2,& \mathrm{tan}^2\theta _1=0.4& \mathrm{LMA}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\text{ }=1.010^7\mathrm{eV}^2,& \mathrm{tan}^2\theta _1=0.7& \mathrm{LOW}\\ \mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\text{ }=4.610^{10}\mathrm{eV}^2,& \mathrm{tan}^2\theta _1=2.4& \mathrm{VAC}\end{array}.$$
(8)
The allowed ranges at 95 $`\%`$ C.L. of $`t_1^2\mathrm{tan}_1^2`$ go from about 0.2 to 0.8 for LMA and 0.5 to 1 for LOW. In fact, the upper value of $`t_1^2`$ for LMA differs in the different available analyses, which appeared after the new SNO results . We shall take 0.8 as an illustrative example. In case of the VAC solution, one may assume that $`t_1^2`$ lies between 0.4 and 3, i.e. also on the “dark side” of the parameter space. One may however safely state that maximal mixing is disallowed for the LMA solution, which will later on allow us to make some useful statements. See  for a detailed analysis of the consequences of this fact. The mass scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ is lower than about $`310^4`$ eV2 for LMA and $`310^7`$ ($`310^{11}`$) eV2 for LOW (VAC). The third angle $`\theta _3`$ is constrained to be

$$\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _3t_3^2<0.08.$$
(9)
In the future, it will be possible to reduce the error of the atmospheric parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _2`$ to about $`10\%`$ by the MINOS, ICARUS and OPERA experiments . The SNO, KAMLAND and BOREXINO collaborations are able to reduce the errors on $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _1`$ to about $`5\%`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ will be known to a precision of a few $`\%`$ for LMA, about $`10\%`$ for LOW and a few ‰for VAC . Long baseline experiments can make precision measurements of the atmospheric parameters on the few $`\%`$ level , neutrino factories even at a 1 $`\%`$ level . Regarding $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _3^2`$, the experiments for the atmospheric scale as well as future reactor experiments  can probe values of few$`10^3`$, long baseline experiments values of few$`10^5`$.

## 3 $`CP`$ violation in special hierarchies

### 3.1 Hierarchical scheme

This scheme is realized for $`m_3m_2m_1`$. The form of $`m`$ neglecting $`m_1`$ but including terms proportional to $`s_3`$ reads

$$m\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\text{ }c_3^4s_1^4+\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }s_3^4+2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\text{ }\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }}s_1^2s_3^2c_3^2c_{2\varphi }},$$
(10)
where $`\varphi =\alpha \beta `$. The maximal $`m`$ for $`t_3^2=0`$ is about $`7.710^3`$ eV for a maximal $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ of about $`310^4`$ eV2 in case of the LMA solution. For the other solutions it is around or below $`10^4`$ eV. For the maximally allowed $`t_3^2=0.08`$ the effective mass can be at most $`1.310^2`$ ($`5.510^3`$, $`5.210^3`$) for LMA (LOW, VAC). For LMA and small $`s_3`$ the first term in Eq. (10) dominates, for larger $`s_3`$ the third term can cancel the first two when $`\varphi \pi /2`$. For $`\alpha \beta =\pi /4`$ the solar and atmospheric contributions to $`m`$ are just summed up. From values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ smaller than about $`10^7`$ eV2 on, the second term dominates in Eq. (10), $`m`$ is then proportional to $`s_3^2`$ and the dependence on $`\varphi `$ practically vanishes. This can be seen in Fig. 1, where $`m`$ is shown as a function of $`\varphi `$ for different $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ , $`s_3^2`$ and $`t_1^2`$. From (10), one can infer the phase difference as

$$\mathrm{cos}2(\alpha \beta )=\frac{m^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\text{ }s_1^4\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }s_3^4}{2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\text{ }\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }}s_1^2s_3^2}.$$
(11)
As well known, it will be very difficult to measure $`m`$ in the hierarchical scheme when LMA is not the solar solution, because in order to give an accessible $`m`$, $`s_3^2`$ has to be very close to its current limit. For the LMA solution, $`m`$ can lie above $`210^3`$ eV even for vanishing $`s_3`$, which however requires large $`t_1^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ . If the two phases conspire to fulfill $`\alpha \pi /2+\beta `$, then cancellation occurs and $`m`$ can vanish. This happens also for the $`(+)`$ and $`(+)`$ configurations, i.e. when the second and third mass eigenstates have opposite signs. The $`(+++)`$ and $`(+)`$ cases correspond to $`\varphi =0`$.

Therefore, in case of the LMA solution and if $`s_3^2`$ is sizable (i.e. larger than about 0.03) and $`m`$ lies below the GENIUS limit, then $`\varphi `$ is located around $`\pi /2`$. The $`(+++)`$ and $`(+)`$ configurations are then ruled out. Values of $`m`$ considerably larger than 0.001 eV would show that $`\varphi `$ is close to zero, which corresponds to the $`(+++)`$ or $`(+)`$ signatures. For solutions with lower $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ and $`t_3^2<0.03`$ no statements can be made because the predicted $`m`$ is below the GENIUS limit. In addition, there is practically no dependence on the phases, even for sizable $`t_3^2`$.

### 3.2 Inverse hierarchical scheme

This scheme is realized if in the inverse scheme it holds $`m_1m_2m_3`$. Thus, neglecting $`m_3s_3^2`$, the effective mass reads

$$m\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }}\sqrt{14s_1^2c_1^2s_\alpha ^2}=\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }}}{1+t_1^2}\sqrt{(1+t_1^2)^24t_1^2s_\alpha ^2}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }}c_\alpha ,$$
(12)
where the latter approximation holds for $`t_1^21`$. Note that it is not a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ . It allows for complete cancellation only for $`t_1^2=1`$, i.e. in the LMA solution there should be a non–vanishing effective mass (larger than about $`510^3`$ eV), whereas LOW allows for complete cancellation. For the best–fit points given in the previous section the effective mass is predicted to be smaller than 0.07 eV, independent of the solar solution. Fig. 2 shows $`m`$ as a function of $`\alpha `$ for different $`t_1^2`$. One finds indeed very few dependence on $`s_3^2`$, $`\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2`$ . It is seen that for non–maximal solar mixing, $`m`$ can be probed regardless of the phase. From Eq. (12), $`\alpha `$ can be calculated for given $`t_1^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ and $`m`$:

$$s_\alpha ^2\frac{1}{4t_1^2}(1+t_1^2)^2\left(1\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }}\right)1\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }},$$
(13)
where the last approximation holds again for $`t_1^21`$. If e.g. $`m=0.04(0.03)`$ eV, then one gets $`s_\alpha ^20.4(0.8)`$ for the best–fit point of the LMA solution and $`s_\alpha ^20.2(0.6)`$ for the LOW case. With $`s_\alpha ^21`$ it is possible to find the condition

$$\frac{m}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }}}\frac{1t_1^2}{1+t_1^2},$$
(14)
under which the inverse hierarchical scheme is valid222In the following, we will use positive $`m`$. For $`t_1^2>1`$ it is understood that the absolute value of the right–hand side of (14) is taken.. The number on the right–hand side lies between 1/9 and 2/3 for the LMA solution, between zero and 1/3 for the LOW case and zero and 1/2 for VAC. For instance, if $`t_1^2=0.4(0.7,2.4)`$, then $`m>0.02(0.009,0.02)`$ eV. In this scenario, the best–fit points of the LMA and VAC solar solutions do not make any difference since they yield identical results for $`m`$.

Therefore, maximal solar mixing and $`m`$ above 0.01 eV means that $`\alpha `$ is small or close to $`\pi `$, which corresponds also to the $`(+++)`$ and $`(+)`$ cases. A value of $`m`$ below the GENIUS limit implies that $`\alpha \pi /2`$, which is also possible for the $`(+)`$ and $`(+)`$ signatures. However, for such a small $`m`$ a solar mixing angle very close to $`\pi /4`$ is required, i.e. if the LMA solution and the inverse scheme are verified, but $`m`$ lies below the GENIUS bound, the inverse hierarchical scheme is ruled out. For non–maximal mixing, the dependence on $`\alpha `$ becomes smaller. Values of $`m`$ below 0.01 eV are only possible for $`\alpha \pi /2`$ and $`\theta _1\pi /4\pm 0.1`$. Since in the inverse hierarchy the phase $`\beta `$ is connected with the smallest mass state $`m_3`$ as well as with the small quantity $`s_3^2`$, a determination of this parameter is very questionable. However, two of the four $`CP`$ conserving possibilities may be ruled out. The $`(+++)`$ and $`(+)`$ cases as well as the $`(+)`$ and $`(+)`$ configurations give the same values because of the smallness of $`m_3s_3^2`$.

### 3.3 Degenerate scheme

This scheme is realized for $`m_1^2m_2^2m_3^2m_0^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }`$. It is then useful to define an “averaged mass” $`\stackrel{~}{m}=m/m_0`$, which reads

$$\stackrel{~}{m}\frac{m}{m_0}=c_3^2\sqrt{c_1^4+s_1^4+t_3^4+2(s_1^2t_3^2c_{2(\alpha \beta )}+c_1^2(s_1^2c_{2\alpha }+t_3^2c_{2\beta }))}.$$
(15)
No dependence on the solar $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ exists. The four $`CP`$ conserving configurations can be written as

$$\stackrel{~}{m}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1& (+++)\\ \frac{1}{1+t_1^2}\left(1t_1^22s_3^2\right)& (+)\\ \frac{1}{1+t_1^2}\left(1t_1^2(12s_3^2)\right)& (+)\\ 12s_3^2& (+)\end{array}.$$
(16)
Note that the $`(+++)`$ and $`(+)`$ cases have an averaged mass independent on the solar solution. For the $`(+++)`$ configuration, $`m=m_0`$ and for the $`(+)`$ case $`m=m_0(12s_3^2)`$, which is identical to the result for $`(+++)`$ for vanishing $`\theta _3`$. In the same limit, as well as for maximal solar mixing, the $`(+)`$ and $`(+)`$ cases are identical. In general, the $`(+)`$ and $`(+)`$ cases are connected via $`\theta _1\pi /2\theta _1`$. Therefore, e.g. $`t_1^2=0.5`$ in the $`(+)`$ case is identical to $`t_1^2=2.0`$ in the $`(+)`$ configuration. This is however only interesting for the VAC solution, since the other ones have $`t_1^21`$. If $`t_1^2<1`$, then the minimal $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ occurs for the $`(+)`$ configuration, if $`t_1^2>1`$, then in the $`(+)`$ case.

Cancellation can only occur for the $`(+)`$ and $`(+)`$ signatures, which however requires that $`t_1^2`$ is very close to one. In fact, for the $`(+)`$ case only $`t_1^2=1`$ together with $`s_3^2=0`$ can give full cancellation, whereas for $`(+)`$ also close to maximal solar mixing with non–vanishing $`\theta _3`$ is sufficient for complete cancellation. The minimal $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ for the $`(+)`$ signature is 0.84, in the LMA solution the range of $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ is 0.022 to 0.67 (0.11 to 0.69) for the $`(+)`$ ($`(+)`$ ) case, respectively. In the LOW solution, $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ ranges from zero to 1/3 (zero to 0.44) for $`(+)`$ ($`(+)`$ ) and the VAC solution predicts $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ to lie between zero and 0.54 (zero and 1/2) for $`(+)`$ ($`(+)`$ ).

We give a few examples for possible statements: for $`t_1^2<1`$ the minimal $`m`$ is obtained for the $`(+)`$ signature, thus, if $`\stackrel{~}{m}<0.02`$, then the LMA solution is ruled out. For $`\stackrel{~}{m}>0.7(0.6)`$, the $`(+++)`$ or $`(+)`$ case has to be realized for the LMA (LOW, VAC) solution. For $`\stackrel{~}{m}>0.84`$ the $`(+)`$ and $`(+)`$ cases are ruled out.

In analogy to Eq. (12) one can in the degenerate scheme write an equation for $`m`$ when $`s_3^2`$ is neglected:

$$mm_0\sqrt{14s_1^2c_1^2s_\alpha ^2}=\frac{m_0}{1+t_1^2}\sqrt{(1+t_1^2)^24t_1^2s_\alpha ^2}m_0c_\alpha ,$$
(17)
from which one obtains a formula for the phase $`\alpha `$,

$$s_\alpha ^2\frac{1}{4t_1^2}(1+t_1^2)^2\left(1\stackrel{~}{m}^2\right)1\stackrel{~}{m}^2,$$
(18)
where the last approximation holds again for $`t_1^21`$. The corresponding equation (13) for the inverse hierarchy should be a more appropriate relation since there the small quantity $`s_3^2`$ is multiplied with the smallest mass. In the degenerate scheme it contributes together with $`m_0`$, which for sizable $`s_3^2`$ could be a non–negligible number. In general, an area in $`\alpha `$$`\beta `$ space can be identified, when a limit or value of $`m_0`$ or $`m`$ is known . The smaller $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ is, i.e. the more cancellation occurs, the closer $`\alpha `$ is to $`\pi /2`$. This however is equivalent to the $`(+)`$ and $`(+)`$ signatures. Since (17) allows cancellation only for $`t_1^2=1`$, a vanishing $`m`$ in the LMA case for a neutrino mass of $`m_0^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }`$ would mean that $`s_3^2`$ is not zero. The consistency relation for the scenario in this section reads

$$\stackrel{~}{m}\frac{1t_1^2}{1+t_1^2}.$$
(19)
Violation of this condition implies sizable $`s_3^2`$, which, from (16), can be obtained for $`t_1^2<1`$ as

$$s_3^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(1t_1^2\stackrel{~}{m}(1+t_1^2)\right).$$
(20)
For $`t_1^2>1`$ the $`(+)`$ case gives the minimal $`m`$, and $`s_3^2`$ is obtained in this case as

$$s_3^2=\frac{1}{2t_1^2}\left(\stackrel{~}{m}(1+t_1^2)(1t_1^2)\right).$$
(21)
We finally comment on a small possibility to calculate the phase $`\beta `$ for the SMA solution. Since $`s_1^20`$, $`m`$ does hardly depend on the phase $`\alpha `$. If in Eq. (15) $`c_11`$, then one gets

$$s_\beta ^2\frac{1\stackrel{~}{m}^2}{4s_3^2c_3^2}.$$
(22)
The condition under which this is possible can be obtained from $`s_\beta ^21`$ and reads

$$\stackrel{~}{m}>\sqrt{14s_3^2c_3^2}>0.84.$$
(23)
When $`m`$ is close to 0.4 eV then this situation seems unlikely, since $`s_3^2`$ has to be close to its current limit and in addition $`m_0`$ must be close to the lowest experimentally accessible value in order to probe $`\beta `$.

### 3.4 Partial hierarchical schemes

These schemes are realized when the smallest mass state is of order of $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }}`$, say, between 0.01 and 0.1 eV.

#### 3.4.1 Normal scheme

In the “normal partial hierarchical scheme” one can define again an averaged mass $`m/m_1`$. In this scenario it can be obtained from Eq. (15) with the replacement

$$\frac{m}{m_1}=\stackrel{~}{m}\left(m_0m_1,s_3^2s_3^2\sqrt{1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }}{m_1^2}}\right).$$
(24)
Again, no dependence on the solar $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is present. Depending on the value of $`m_1`$, the dependence on $`t_3^2`$ is more or less strengthened through the presence of the square root $`w_n=\sqrt{1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }}{m_1^2}}`$. The maximal $`m`$ is given by $`mm_1(1+s_3^2w_n)<0.11`$ eV. For vanishing $`t_3^2`$ complete cancellation is again only possible for $`t_1^2=1`$, i.e. not for the LMA solution. The situation is then equivalent to the one for the inverse hierarchical scheme. For vanishing $`t_3^2`$ one can write an equation for $`\alpha `$ in analogy to (13), with the replacement $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }m_1^2`$.

For $`t_1^2=0.4`$, $`m`$ lies below 0.01 eV only for $`\alpha \pi /2`$ and $`m_1<0.02`$ eV. If also $`\beta \pi /2`$ and $`t_3^2>0.02`$, then $`m`$ can lie below the GENIUS bound. With increasing $`t_1^2`$, the minimal value of $`m_1`$, for which this happens, is increasing. Values below $`210^3`$ eV are only possible if $`m_1`$ and $`t_1^2`$ are small and $`t_3^2`$ is sizable or if the mixing is close to maximal and $`t_3^2`$ is small. When $`t_1^2>1.5`$, similar statements hold, however, $`\beta 0`$ is now required in order to allow for large cancellations. Thus, for large $`t_1^2<1`$ ($`t_1^2>1`$), sizable $`t_3^2`$ and $`m<210^3`$ eV, then $`m_1`$ has to be small, $`\alpha `$ around $`\pi /2`$ and $`\beta `$ around $`\pi /2`$ ($`\pi `$). This situation corresponds to the $`(+)`$ ($`(+)`$ ) configuration. For close to maximal solar mixing and $`m<210^3`$ eV, $`\alpha `$ is around $`\pi /2`$. If $`t_3^2`$ is sizable, then in addition $`m_1`$ has to be small. When $`m`$ is around 0.01 eV, the phase $`\alpha `$ has to be small, which corresponds to the $`(+)`$ or $`(+)`$ signature.

#### 3.4.2 Inverse scheme

In the “inverse partial hierarchical scheme” $`m/m_3`$ can be obtained from Eq. (15) with the replacement

$$\frac{m}{m_3}=\stackrel{~}{m}\left(m_0m_3,c_1^2c_1^2\sqrt{1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }}{m_3^2}},s_1^2s_1^2\sqrt{1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }}{m_3^2}}\right),$$
(25)
which has a slightly weaker dependence on $`t_3^2`$ than in the normal hierarchy, because the contributions of $`c_1^2`$ and $`s_1^2`$ are enhanced by the factor $`w_i=\sqrt{1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }}{m_3^2}}`$. The maximal $`m`$ is given by $`mm_3(w_i+s_3^2)<0.12`$ eV. For vanishing $`t_3^2`$ one can obtain $`\alpha `$ via Eq. (13) and the replacement $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }w_i^2m_3^2=m_3^2+\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }`$. For $`t_1^2<0.6`$ and $`t_1^2>1.5`$, $`m`$ lies always above 0.01 eV. For closer to maximal (but not exactly maximal) mixing it can lie below 0.01 eV for large $`t_3^2`$ and low $`m_3`$ or only for small $`t_3^2`$ as long as $`\alpha \pi /2`$ and $`\beta \pi /2`$ (0) for $`t_1^2<1`$ ($`t_1^2>1`$). Thus, values below 0.01 eV are possible when the solar mixing is maximal and $`\alpha \pi /2`$ (which is equivalent to the $`(+)`$ or $`(+)`$ signature) or if for $`t_1^2<1`$ the second phase $`\beta `$ is around $`\pi /2`$, which is the $`(+)`$ configuration. For $`t_1^2>1`$, $`\beta `$ should be close to $`\pi `$, which corresponds to the $`(+)`$ case.

Once we finished now the discussion of the special hierarchies, we can order them with respect to the maximal $`m`$ they predict:

$$\text{degenerate}>\text{partial inverse}>\text{partial normal}>\text{inverse}>\text{normal}.$$
(26)
## 4 General case

We shall use the best–fit oscillation parameters as given in Eqs. (7,8) and assume the following uncertainties of the solar $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$: 5 $`\%`$ for LMA, 10 $`\%`$ for LOW and 5 $`\mathrm{}`$ for VAC. For $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2`$ we assume an uncertainty of 5 and 10 $`\%`$, respectively. The effective mass is analyzed as a function of the smallest mass state for different $`t_3^2`$. What results with these assumptions is an area in parameter space, which denotes the region between the maximal and minimal $`m`$. Unless otherwise stated, the area for the $`(+++)`$ case is so small that it appears as a line.

### 4.1 Normal scheme

For the normal hierarchy, the result is shown in Figs. 3 to 5. The structure of the “$`CP`$–violating” area is the less complicated the smaller $`t_3^2`$ is. From $`t_3^2`$ smaller than about $`10^3`$ ($`10^4`$) on, the $`(+)`$ and $`(+)`$ signatures become indistinguishable for the LMA (LOW, VAC) solution. Up to six separated areas exist, for $`t_3^2<10^3`$ they merge into one, which area is smaller than the sum of the areas for sizable $`t_3^2`$. For the LOW solution the area is significantly larger than for LMA and for VAC. In case of VAC the area is smallest.

In Fig. 6 the consequences of different uncertainties of the oscillation parameters are shown. We concentrate on the LMA solution, $`t_3^2=0.01`$ and start with a typical allowed parameter space, which is $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_\mathrm{A}^2\text{ }=(1.5\mathrm{}4)10^3`$ eV2, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{}^2\text{ }=(1\mathrm{}12)10^5`$ eV2 and $`t_1^2=0.2\mathrm{}0.8`$, which is denoted as “everything”. Then it is allowed for uncertainties of the solar and atmospheric parameters around the best–fit values of Eqs. (7,8), which are indicated in the figure. The lower right plot is for exact measurements, which coincides with the situation analyzed in . Similar plots have been presented first in , where the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ have been allowed to vary within their $`90\%`$ C.L. values and different $`t_1^2`$ and $`t_3^2`$ have been taken. The situation under study in the present paper is more accurate with respect to the expected future uncertainty of the oscillation parameters. Now an area for the $`(+++)`$ case can be identified. For an uncertainty of $`5\%`$ and $`10\%`$ for the solar and atmospheric parameters (as used in Fig. 3), the area becomes again a line and consequently is not shown anymore. Currently, there is only a small $`CP`$–violating area, between the minimal $`(+)`$ and the maximal $`(+)`$ line, although it exists at large $`m`$ and $`m_1`$. The area grows with decreasing uncertainty and takes the complicated form known from the previous figures when the solar parameters are known to a precision better than 10 $`\%`$. These additional areas appear however around or below the maximal GENIUS limit.

### 4.2 Inverse scheme

The plots with the $`CP`$–violating areas are shown in Figs. 7, 8 and 9 for the LMA, LOW and VAC solution. The situation is now much simpler, $`CP`$ violation occurs only between the minimal $`(+)`$ and the maximal $`(+)`$ line. There is also a small area between the minimal $`(+)`$ and the maximal $`(+)`$ line, which disappears for $`t_3^2<0.01`$. The $`(+)`$ and $`(+)`$ signatures become indistinguishable for $`t_3^2<0.01`$. With the chosen oscillation parameters there is no complete cancellation and therefore all expected $`m`$ values lie above 0.01 (0.006) eV for the LMA and VAC (LOW) case. Again, the LOW case provides the largest $`CP`$–violating area, the LMA and VAC areas are of comparable size.

As for the normal scheme, large part of the areas cover a range of $`m`$ that is larger than the expected $`20\%`$ uncertainty of the experimental results. This is negligible with respect to the uncertainty stemming from the NME calculations. Consequently, these have to be overcome in order to make reasonable statements (not only) about the presence of $`CP`$ violation in 0$`\nu \beta \beta `$.

## 5 Final remarks and summary

The presence of leptonic $`CP`$ violation especially in 0$`\nu \beta \beta `$ can strengthen our believe in leptogenesis, the creation of a baryon asymmetry through out–of–equilibrium decays of heavy Majorana neutrinos. These heavy neutrinos are also responsible for the light neutrino masses through the see–saw mechanism, linking thus neutrino oscillations with leptogenesis. Baryon number and $`CP`$ violation are necessary conditions for creating a baryon asymmetry. Given that in most models the heavy Majorana neutrinos are too heavy ($`>10^{10}`$ GeV) to be produced at realistic collider energies, the demonstration of lepton number violation and leptonic $`CP`$ violation could be the only possibility to validate leptogenesis. A general feature of models presented in the literature is the dependence of the baryon asymmetry $`Y_B`$ on the Majorana phases $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. For example, in the left–right symmetric model presented in , a sufficient $`Y_B`$ can be generated without the “Dirac phase” $`\delta `$. This has also been observed in the minimal $`SO(10)`$ model analyzed in . The presence of $`CP`$ violation in 0$`\nu \beta \beta `$ is required there to produce the correct amount of $`Y_B`$. This is why $`CP`$ violation in 0$`\nu \beta \beta `$ plays an important role.

In the light of recent data we analyzed the presence of $`CP`$ violation in neutrinoless double beta decay. The observed non–maximality of the solar mixing in case of the LMA solution allowed to make some statements about possible cancellations. The four $`CP`$ conserving sign signatures can in many cases be grouped into two pairs, in some cases even one unique solution can be identified. In the hierarchical scheme the $`(+++)`$ and $`(+)`$ cases are equivalent because $`m`$ depends on the difference of two phases. In the inverse hierarchical scheme only one phase can be probed, which leads to identical results for the $`(+++)`$ and $`(+)`$ cases as well as for the $`(+)`$ and $`(+)`$ cases. Due to the large solar mixing and the smallness of $`s_3^2`$, these two pairs also exist for the degenerate and partial hierarchical schemes. Simple formulas for the Majorana phases and consistency relations for these hierarchies have been collected and the different situation for values of $`t_1^2`$ smaller or bigger than one has been commented on. The $`CP`$ violating areas including present and future uncertainties of the mixing parameters were identified. The LOW solution provides the best opportunity to establish the presence of leptonic $`CP`$ violation, since the relevant area in parameter space is largest in this case, regardless of the mass scheme. Obviously, in the inverse scheme, where for small neutrino masses the predicted $`m`$ is considerably higher, the situation is better. However, the uncertainty stemming from the calculation of the nuclear matrix elements will remain the big drawback for this possibility.

Acknowledgments

I thank S.T. Petcov for helpful comments. This work has been supported in part by the “Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie”, Bonn under contract No. 05HT9PEA5.


text:
# The cosmological origin of Higgs particles

## Abstract

A proposal of the cosmological origin of Higgs particles is given. We show, that the Higgs field could be created from the vacuum quantum conformal fluctuation of Anti-de Sitter space-time, the spontaneous breaking of vacuum symmetry, and the mass of Higgs particle are related to the cosmological constant of our universe,especially the theoretical estimated mass mH of Higgs particles is m$`{}_{H}{}^{}=\sqrt{2\mu ^2}`$ =$`\sqrt{|\mathrm{\Lambda }/\pi }`$.

we know, Higgs field is so important in modern field theory, the spontaneous breaking of vacuum symmetry of it, and the associated Higgs mechanism are essential in the establishment of a physical reasonable modern gauge field theory. However now after 37 years of Higgs’ et al pioneer work, Higgs field is still some thing put in ’by hand’ in field theory, no one knows the origin of it, no one knows how to give a theoretical estimation of it’s mass, etc. So a possible proposal of the origin of it might have fundamental significance in modern physics.

We shall show in this short report that Higgs field could be created from vacuum quantum conformal fluctuation (VQCF) of anti-de Sitter space-time.

Let the VQCF of certain background space-time $`g_{ab}`$, devoid of matter is $`\overline{g}_{ab}`$, i.e.

$$\overline{g}_{ab}=0\left|\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right|0g_{ab}\varphi ^2g_{ab}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an operator, $`\varphi ^20\left|\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right|0`$ is the vacuum expectation value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ in certain vacuum quantum state $`|`$0$``$ of space-time $`g_{ab}`$. Then the Einstein-Hilbert action $`\overline{I}\left(\overline{g}_{ab}\right)`$ of VQCF of the Einstein-Hilbert action $`I\left(g_{ab}\right)`$ will be

$`\overline{I}\left(\overline{g}_{ab}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle \left(\overline{R}2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\left(\overline{g}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑x^4}`$

$$=\overline{I}(\phi ,g_{ab})=\frac{1}{16\pi G}\left(6\varphi _{;a}\varphi _{;b}g^{ab}+R\varphi ^22\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi ^4\right)\left(g\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑x^4$$
(2)
in signature $`(2)`$ . No doubt, this action is a physical reasonable Einstein-Hilbert action of the conformal equivalent space-time $`\overline{g}_{ab}`$, but if one tries to look upon Eq. (2) as the action of $`\lambda \phi ^4`$ scalar field in certain background space-time $`g_{ab}`$, we shall find there is a wrong minus sign in the kinetic term as is evident by comparing Eq. (2) with that of $`\lambda \phi ^4`$ scalar Higgs field

$`I(\phi ,g_{ab})={\displaystyle \left(\frac{1}{2}\phi _{;a}\phi _{;b}g^{ab}\frac{\mu ^2}{2}\phi ^2\frac{\lambda }{4}\phi ^4\right)\left(g\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑x^4}`$

where $`\mu ^2<0,\lambda >0`$ and the signature is (-2). Such situation implies, though Eq. (2) is really a physical reasonable gravity theory for the conformal equivalent space-time $`\overline{g}_{ab}`$, it isn’t a physical reasonable action of $`\lambda \phi ^4`$ scalar field in background space-time $`g_{ab}`$.

Now we shall show there exists a modified action other than Eq. (2) that can give the same gravitational field equation as Eq. (2) does, moreover, it can simultaneously give a physical reasonable meaning to the action of the $`\lambda \phi ^4`$ scalar field in background space-time $`g_{ab}`$.

The modified action satisfied the above two demands is simply the action obtained by changing the sign of Eq. (2) to minus, i.e.

$`L\left(\varphi \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G}}\left(6\varphi _{;a}\varphi _{;b}g^{ab}R\varphi ^2+2\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi ^4\right)`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi G}}\right)\varphi _{;a}\varphi _{;b}g^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{R}{16\pi G}}\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}}\varphi ^4`$ (4)
Put

$$\frac{R}{16\pi G}=\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2or\mu ^2=\frac{R}{8\pi G}$$
(5)
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{8\pi G}=\frac{\lambda }{4}or\lambda =\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2\pi G}$$
(6)
then Eq. (3) becomes

$`L\left(\varphi \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi G}}\right)\varphi _{;a}\varphi _{;b}g^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^2\varphi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}\varphi ^4={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4\pi G}}\right)\varphi _{;a}\varphi _{;b}g^{ab}U\left(\varphi \right)`$ (7)
$`U\left(\varphi \right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^2\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}\varphi ^4`$ (8)
Here $`\mu ^2<0,\lambda >0`$ if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0,R=4\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$. Clearly Eq.(6) is exactly the Lagrangian of $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ Higgs field, except there is an extra factor $`\left(\frac{3}{4\pi G}\right)`$ in the kinetic term.

Thus at last we find that Higgs field is just the vacuum quantum conformal fluctuation of the background anti-de Sitter space-time, the imaginary mass $`\mu `$ and the self-interaction constant $`\lambda `$ are determined solely by the gravitational constant and the cosmological constant of the background anti-de Sitter space-time.

Especially, it is interesting to note that the spontaneous breaking of vacuum symmetry is just a result of vacuum quantum conformal fluctuation of anti-de Sitter space-time.

Now, a comment should be given, as our universe is certainly not an anti-de Sitter (AdS) universe, so the VQCF of it and all the above associated conclusion may be nonsense. However we would like to point out, according to the description of the dynamics of superbrane theory, superbrane may be propagated in the background of Anti-de Sitter space-time.

Also, we will show in the Appendix that anti-de Sitter space-time of $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ might be created through quantum process or phase transition from de Sitter space-time of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

At last, as in conventional gauge field theory, one can easily give the following modified masses $`m_H`$, $`m_l`$, and $`m_g`$ of Higgs particle, lepton and gauge particles respectively in c=$`\mathrm{}`$=G=1 unit

$$m_H=\sqrt{2\mu ^2}=\sqrt{\frac{R}{4\pi G}}=\sqrt{\frac{\left|\mathrm{\Lambda }\right|}{\pi }}$$
(9)
$$m_l=G_l\sigma =G_l$$
(10)
$$m_g=\sqrt{\frac{3}{4\pi G}g^2\sigma ^2}=\sqrt{\frac{3}{4\pi }}g\sigma $$
(11)
note, $`\sigma =\sqrt{\frac{\mu ^2}{\lambda }}=\sqrt{\frac{R}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=1`$ from vacuum Einstein equation with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-term. $`G_l`$, g are the Yukawa coupling constant and gauge coupling constant respectively. Eq. (9) and Eq. (10) show that the masses of leptons and gauges particles are of the same order as that in conventional gauge field theory, but the mass of Higgs particle is related to the cosmological constant of our universe from Eq. (8), so if we know $`\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ we can determine mH and vice versa.

As was shown by S. Perlmutter et al in 1999, , a best-fit flat cosmology to the observed Hubble constant $`H_0`$ and cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ from the red-shift of $`I_a`$-type supernova, that is

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (12)
$`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{M,}\text{ }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda })}`$ $`=`$ $`(0.28,0.72)`$ (13)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M,\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{\rho _{M,\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{\rho _c},\rho _c=\frac{3H_0^2}{8\pi G}`$is the critical mass density of our universe. It is straightforward to show from (11), $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H_0^2}`$ and $`H_0\left(5080\right)kms^1\left(Mpc\right)^1`$ to get the recent value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(6.6617\right)\times 10^{58}cm^2.`$So the recent value $`m_H(0.391)\times 10^{33}ev`$ from Eq. (8) which is about 10-27 times the mass of electron! That is too small as expected by particle physicists.

However, we should point out, until now, no one can give an universal agreed lower limit of mH. S. Weinberg in 1996 concluded that two groups in 1995 could only give an upper limit of m$`{}_{H}{}^{}`$ 225Gev. The LEP group seems to obtain in 1996-2000 a lower limit m$`{}_{H}{}^{}`$108Gev or 114Gev$``$m$`{}_{H}{}^{}`$ 118Gev. But the works of four groups following them in LEP got nothing to confirm the above results, as we know this leads to the final close of LEP. As we know there is an inflationary phase in the very early evolution of our universe, when the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or the vacuum energy density $`\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }C^4}{8\pi G}`$ may be very large as compared to the nowadays’ value $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ $`10^{58}cm^2`$,e.g. Linde estimated $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ may be as large as 3$`\times 10^{40}cm^2`$. the corresponding Higgs’ mass from Eq. (8) will be $``$10$`{}_{}{}^{7}Gev`$. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$1034 $`cm^2,`$the corresponding Higgs’ mass from Eq. (8) will be just the above mentioned lower limit 108$`Gev`$, as the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is really a slowly decreasing quantity in the inflationary era, so it seems that the Higgs particles with masses in Gev range may be the relics of the VQCF of Anti-de Sitter space in inflationary phase of our very early universe. This is a very interesting result.

Appendix

First, let the Euclidean section of de Sitter instanton reads

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{H^2}\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right)$$
(14)
where

$`H^2={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}},\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$ is the unit 3-sphere.

We perform first a analytical continuation at the equatorial space-like hypersurface of $`S^4`$ or Eq. (A-1) where the second fundamental form vanishes.

$$\theta \frac{\pi }{2}i\chi $$
(14)
we obtain then a Lorentzian inflationary closed universe

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{H^2}\left(d\chi ^2+\mathrm{cosh}^2\chi d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right)$$
(15)
or an Euclidean closed space

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{H^2}\left(d\overline{\chi }^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\overline{\chi }d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right)$$
(16)
After putting

$`\chi i\overline{\chi }`$

The second step analytical continuation is performed at $`\overline{\chi }=\frac{\pi }{2}`$. or

$`\overline{\chi }{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}i\mathrm{\Phi }`$

we then obtain from Eq. (11) an AdS space

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{H^2}\left(d\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\mathrm{\Phi }d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right)$$
(17)
where

$`H^2=H^2={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}<0`$

so if we are now live in an inflating de Sitter bubble of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$, AdS spaces of $`\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)<0`$ may be created through quantum process or phase transition from de Sitter space, and then Higgs fields created from the VQCF of AdS space.

we should note, the boundary $`\overline{\chi }=\frac{\pi }{2}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ between space (A-4) and space (A-5) is a null surface, which is really a Cauchy horizon separating the causal de Sitter region (A-4) from the acausal AdS region (A-5), here the junction problem exists on this surface, as was shown in references, no junction trouble exists on time-like and space-like boundary, as the null surface may be looked upon as the limiting case of non-null surface, we may conjecture no junction trouble exists also in the above second step continuation, though a rigorous proof is required.

This paper is supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 19473003. The authors wish to thank Dr. B. B. Wang, and Dr. Y. G. Ma for helpful discussions.

E-mail address: LiuLiao1928@yahoo.com.cn