text:
# Primordial nucleosynthesis with a varying fine structure constant: An improved estimate

## I Introduction

The recent literature contains claims for time variation in the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ at a level of one part in $`10^5`$ since a redshift of 2, based on observations of metal ions backlit by distant quasars webb99 ; murphy ; murphy01b ; webb01 . Regardless of theoretical prejuduce for or against these claims donoghue ; banks , it is of interest to examine other constraints on $`\alpha `$ variation. In particular, changing the fine structure constant would influence the abundances of light nuclides produced during big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). BBN took place at redshifts $`10^8z10^{10}`$, ending minutes after the big bang, and it is the earliest cosmological test for which the basic physical laws are well-understood. The physics is less certain in varying-$`\alpha `$ scenarios, but BBN remains the earliest reasonable probe of variations in $`\alpha `$. It thus provides a large lever arm in the sense that if $`\alpha `$ varies with time, larger variations may plausibly (though not necessarily bekenstein ; barrowetal ) be observed over longer times.

Past BBN calculations for varying-$`\alpha `$ models focused on the abundance of $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ Kolb86 ; Barrow87 ; campbellolive . In some ways, this keeps the physics simple, because $`\alpha `$ should affect the 4He mass fraction $`Y_P`$ only through the neutron/proton ratio at freezeout of weak interactions before BBN – any effect on the rates of subsequent nuclear reactions is irrelevant because essentially all neutrons are gathered into 4He nuclei by the end of BBN. The likely size of the effect on $`Y_P`$ is also large compared with observational errors if $`|\delta |>0.05`$, where $`\delta (\alpha \alpha _0)/\alpha _0`$ and subscript zero denotes the present value of a quantity.

More recently, Bergström, Iguri and Rubinstein Bergstrom99  (hereafter BIR) extended the varying-alpha calculation to include other light nuclides by estimating the dependence of the charged-particle reaction rates on Coulomb barrier penetration and hence on $`\alpha `$. However, they chose to neglect several places where $`\alpha `$ enters the rates (from both barrier penetration and other considerations), under the assumption that the exponential $`\alpha `$ dependence in the Gamow factor will dominate all other $`\alpha `$ dependence. Our work corrects these omissions, most importantly those arising from barrier penetration and from coupling of photons to nuclear currents. We also estimate the effects of final-state barrier penetration and the $`\alpha `$ dependence of the nuclear masses. We use more elaborate models for the $`\alpha `$ dependences of the mass-7 radiative captures, and we correct BIR’s use of reaction rates that were already out of date when they did their work.

Finally, we elaborate the BIR discussion of BBN constraints on $`\alpha `$, examining the region of the $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2,\alpha )`$ plane allowed by each of the observed light-nuclide abundances. ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ is the universal baryon density in units of the critical density; $`h`$ is the Hubble constant in units of $`100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1/\mathrm{Mpc}`$.) We then discuss the prospects for producing a consistent solution, given systematic uncertainties in the observed abundances. We leave aside the question of how (or whether) other parameters of the standard model of particle physics vary as $`\alpha `$ varies calmet02 ; langacker ; dent ; Kolb86 ; campbellolive ; beane02 , though this may also affect BBN.

## II Light nuclei and the fine structure constant

The BBN light-element abundances, apart from 4He, depend on the fine structure constant through nuclear reaction rates. Calculating how these rates depend on $`\alpha `$ is the main task undertaken by BIR.

Charged particles must tunnel through a Coulomb barrier to react at low energies, and this produces most of the energy dependence in the cross section. Changing $`\alpha `$ raises or lowers the Coulomb barrier, altering the reaction rates. To describe laboratory results and compute thermally-averaged rates, it is useful to separate out the Coulomb part of the energy dependence by writing the low-energy cross section as

$$\sigma (E)=\frac{S(E)}{E}e^{2\pi \eta }.$$
(1)
Here, $`\eta =\alpha Z_1Z_2\sqrt{\mu /2E}`$, $`\mu `$ is the reduced mass, and $`Z_1`$, $`Z_2`$ are the charges of the incoming nuclei. The astrophysical $`S`$-factor $`S(E)`$ is then usually a slowly-varying function of energy.

BIR calculate the $`\alpha `$ dependences of the thermal reaction rates that result if the $`S`$-factors are assumed to be independent of $`\alpha `$; i.e., if all of the $`\alpha `$ dependence is expressed in Eqn. 1 and the definition of $`\eta `$. We have verified that their results are correct, given this assumption. However, Eqn. 1 does not explicitly contain all of the expected $`\alpha `$ dependence, even if the only effect of changing alpha is to change the Coulomb barrier. Moreover, BBN takes place at relatively high energies (a few hundred keV) and $`Z_1Z_2`$ is only in the range 1–4 in BBN, so the exponential does not dominate sufficiently to make $`\alpha `$ dependence of the $`S`$-factor completely negligible by comparison. If BBN involved energies a factor of two lower or nuclei with only slightly larger charges, corrections to the BIR treatment would be negligible.

The first source of $`\alpha `$ dependence in $`S(E)`$ is Coulomb barrier penetration. Cross sections are proportional to the barrier penetration factor $`v_l`$:

$$v_l=\frac{1}{F_l^2(\eta ,kR)+G_l^2(\eta ,kR)}.$$
(2)
Here, $`F_l`$ and $`G_l`$ are the regular and irregular Coulomb wave functions, respectively abramowitz , $`l`$ is orbital angular momentum of the entrance channel, $`k`$ is the wavenumber in the entrance channel, and $`R`$ is the nuclear interaction radius. (A clear derivation of Eqn. 2 may be found in Chapter VIII of Blatt and Weisskopf blatt52 ). Assuming $`l=0`$ (a reasonable assumption at very low energies), $`v`$ is nonzero even when $`R=0`$. For small $`k`$, it is reasonable to approximate the barrier-penetration part of the cross section as

$`\sigma (E)`$ $``$ $`v_l`$
$`=`$ $`[G_0(\eta ,0)]^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \eta }{e^{2\pi \eta }1}}`$
$``$ $`2\pi \alpha Z_1Z_2\sqrt{\mu /2E}e^{2\pi \eta }.`$ (4)
We have thus “derived” the heuristic expression in Eqn. 1, and found that $`S(E)`$ is proportional to $`\alpha `$. If the entrance channels of all reactions are reasonably approximated as $`S`$ waves penetrating to zero separation, it follows that the charged-particle rates in BIR should be multiplied by an additional factor of $`\left(1+\delta \right)=\alpha _{\mathrm{BBN}}/\alpha _0`$ (where $`\alpha _{\mathrm{BBN}}`$ is the value of $`\alpha `$ at the time of BBN). When $`R>0`$ or $`l>0`$, Eqn. 4 almost always provides an overestimate of the sensitivity of Eqn. 2 to $`\alpha `$. (Exceptions with $`10\%`$ underestimates of $`dv_l/d\alpha `$ occur at $`E>100`$ keV for reactions with $`Z_1Z_2=1`$.)

The pedagogical literature usually motivates Eqn. 1 by a WKB approximation. Even where WKB provides a quantitatively good approximation (not the usual case blatt52 ), the factor of $`\alpha `$ on the front of Eqn. 4 enters the WKB barrier penetration factor through the normalization that matches solutions across the classical turning point.

When a reaction produces two charged particles, they must escape from a Coulomb barrier, and this introduces more $`\alpha `$ dependence in the rates. The cross section is again suppressed by a factor of the form shown in Eqn. 2, but with $`EQ+E`$ and appropriate charges. The effect is weak because $`Q`$ (the energy released) is generally much larger than the Coulomb barrier, but there are two exceptions, $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}(n,p)^3\mathrm{H}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}(n,p)^7\mathrm{Li}`$. These two cases are very interesting, because their $`Q`$ values depend strongly on $`\alpha `$ (see below), and this introduces $`\alpha `$ dependence in the final-state barrier penetration that almost cancels the dependence due to the changing barrier height.

The generally high $`Q`$-values in BBN invalidate the approximation in Eqn. 4 for final states. In fact, the final-state barrier penetration factors for the BBN reactions are almost independent of energy over the BBN energy range. Even Eqn. II badly overestimates the effect because $`k`$ is larger for the final states. We estimate the final-state suppression by assuming $`R=2`$ fm and $`l=0,1,2`$, computing logarithmic derivatives of $`v_l`$ with respect to alpha, and looking for the largest effect. The results should be rough but reasonable upper limits to the size of the effect. To keep thermal rates simple, we exploit the weak energy dependence of these derivatives and multiply the rates by energy-independent factors $`\left(1+a\delta \right)`$ which model their $`\alpha `$ dependence. In these factors, $`a`$ is estimated to be slightly larger in magnitude than $`\alpha v_l^1dv_l/d\alpha `$ for all $`l`$ considered, and the adopted values are shown in Table 1. In the cases of $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}(n,p)^3\mathrm{H}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}(n,p)^7\mathrm{Li}`$, the low $`Q`$-value leads us to include in $`a`$ the complete dependence of final-state channel widths on $`Q`$. (Channel widths are proportional to the product of channel velocity and $`v_l`$ blatt52 , both of which vary with $`Q`$.) This adjustment is based on our estimate of the electromagnetic contribution to the masses (see below) and takes the corresponding numbers in Table 1 from slightly negative to slightly positive.

The matrix elements for radiative captures – photon-emitting processes – are proportional to $`\alpha `$ because $`\alpha `$ is the strength of the coupling between the photon and nuclear currents. Therefore, all radiative capture rates should be multiplied by an additional factor of $`\left(1+\delta \right)`$.

Some of the radiative captures \[$`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}(\alpha ,\gamma )^7\mathrm{Li}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}(\alpha ,\gamma )^7\mathrm{Be}`$\] are also external reactions (e.g. christyduck ; nollett2001 ), so particles need not penetrate the Coulomb barrier all the way to the nuclear surface; the reaction matrix elements contain large contributions from outside the nuclear interaction radius. Further, Coulomb forces govern the forms of the final states ($`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}`$ bound states) at these distances. Most importantly, the electrostatic energies of the bound states are also large fractions of the reaction $`Q`$ values, so that variations in $`\alpha `$ change the outgoing photon energy significantly. This energy enters the cross sections as $`\sigma E_\gamma ^3`$. We used a simple radiative capture model to estimate the combined size of these three effects, though we found that the last one dominates.

We assume the following: 1) These reactions can be treated as direct captures in which the bound states consist of smaller clusters: $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}`$ in the case of $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$, or $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ in the case of $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}`$. 2) Wave functions can be generated from potential models; we use the potential of Buck et al. buck85 . 3) The only effect of changing $`\alpha `$ is to change the charges in the Coulomb term of this potential. There is no question that the assumptions numbered 1 and 2 are reasonable descriptions of laboratory data. It is plausible that assumption number 3 is no worse than other assumptions we have made implicitly in modelling BBN with varying $`\alpha `$. We estimate the variation of the thermal reaction rates with $`\alpha `$ from this model. We find the effect on the thermal rates (beyond the effect in Eqn. 1) to be roughly independent of temperature, and we characterize it by fits to the computed variation beyond the corrections already discussed,

$$f=\left(\frac{\alpha }{\alpha _0}\right)^2\frac{\sigma (\alpha )v}{\sigma (\alpha _0)v}$$
(5)
(with $`\sigma v`$ the thermally-averaged rate). These fits give estimates of the rates at $`\alpha \alpha _0`$ that are accurate to 20% in the additional effect beyond the exponential factor and two powers of $`\alpha `$ already considered (at temperatures less than $`10^{10}`$ K), and they are shown in Table 2. We assume that this $`\alpha `$ dependence holds relative to the reaction rates computed from laboratory measurements. (See Sec. III for the baseline $`\alpha =0`$ rates.)

Nuclear masses depend on $`\alpha `$ through electromagnetic interactions between nucleons. In turn, differences between initial-state and final-state masses are used in nucleosynthesis calculations to determine the rates of reverse reactions (by detailed balance). BIR report that reverse reactions have essentially no effect on the BBN yields, but we find that when we alter the masses, the yields change at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2>0.025`$.

We adopt electromagnetic contributions $`M_{EM}`$ to nuclear masses based on quantum Monte Carlo calculations pudliner ; wiringa , where all electromagnetic contributions (including magnetic-moment interactions) are computed explicitly. We then multiply $`M_{EM}`$ by $`\left(1+\delta \right)`$ to vary $`\alpha `$, and adjust the Q-values accordingly to obtain $`Q=Q_0+\mathrm{\Delta }M_{EM}\delta `$. The adopted values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{EM}`$ are given in Table 3.

In summary, to calculate BBN yields for an altered fine structure constant, first apply the changes described in BIR. Then apply these additional corrections:

* Coulomb normalization factor: Multiply all charged-particle rates by a factor of $`\left(1+\delta \right)`$.
* Radiative captures: Multiply rates for radiative captures by another factor of $`\left(1+\delta \right)`$. Multiply the rates for $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}(\alpha ,\gamma )^7\mathrm{Be}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}(\alpha ,\gamma )^7\mathrm{Li}`$ by the additional factors $`f`$ in Table 2.
* Final-state Coulomb interactions: Multiply rates with two charged particles in the final state by a factor $`\left(1+a\delta \right)`$, using the values of $`a`$ given for each reaction in Table 1.
* Masses: Adjust the reaction $`Q`$-values using the electromagnetic contributions shown in Table 3: $`Q=Q_0+\mathrm{\Delta }M_{EM}\delta `$.

Most of these effects have the opposite sign from the exponential factor considered in BIR. We consequently expect a weaker dependence on $`\alpha `$ for the reaction rates and resulting BBN yields.

The uncertainty in this improved treatment is difficult to assess. The adjustment of the $`Q`$-values is relatively model-independent. Adjustment of the rates, on the other hand, is less certain because we have used approximations to the Coulomb penetrabilities, and also because we have neglected everything happening inside the nucleus. The result is certainly better (and closer to self-consistency) than the overestimate that results from assuming that $`S`$-factors are independent of $`\alpha `$. Our approximations to barrier penetrabilities almost always overestimate the effect of varying $`\alpha `$. The overestimates are generally 5–10% of the variation, except where $`Z_1Z_2=1`$; here, they may be underestimates by up to 10% of the variation. These percentages are relative to barrier penetration factors for $`R=2`$ fm and $`l<2`$, and not relative to the (unknown and perhaps unknowable) total change in the cross section when $`\alpha `$ changes. The most extreme limit to the validity of the method is where states become unbound, i.e, $`Q=Q_0+\mathrm{\Delta }M_{EM}\delta =0`$. This occurs at about $`\delta =0.5`$ for the first excited state of 7Be, although our radiative capture calculation fails for numerical reasons beyond about $`\delta =0.3`$. Our treatment of final-state barrier penetration also assumes that $`\delta `$ is “small” (being based on first derivatives), but these corrections turn out to be relatively unimportant. We assume symmetric limits to the validity of our analysis, $`0.3<\delta <0.3`$, with less-questionable validity at $`0.1<\delta <0.1`$.

## III Laboratory Rates

We note finally that BIR used reaction rates that were already out of date, and they did not cite sources for the rates they did use. All of their important rates come from the evaluation by Smith, Kawano, and Malaney (SKM) skm  (and the others trace to the Caughlan and Fowler compilations cf88 ). In the time since SKM (1993), some of the most uncertain cross sections have been re-measured. Newer, better rates exist for the processes $`d(p,\gamma ){}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ dpg-schmid ; dpg-ma , $`t(\alpha ,\gamma ){}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ tag-brune , and $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}(n,p){}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}`$ he3np-brune . The revised rate for the first reaction has the usual functional form derived by the $`S`$-factor formalism (though its parameters are actually fitted to a numerical integration), and the expression from BIR, as corrected in Sec. II, may plausibly provide its $`\alpha `$ dependence. We have thus substituted the coefficients from Ref. dpg-ma  into the BIR expression.

For the second reaction, the revised rate is again a fit to a numerical integration, but the functional form used does not show up in the BIR calculation. Since we have a physical model for the variation of this rate with $`\alpha `$, and the BIR formalism does in fact account for much of the $`\alpha `$ dependence in this model, we adopt the following somewhat convoluted procedure: we first computed a fitting formula for the ratio of the revised rate to the SKM rate. In our BBN code, we multiply the BIR $`\alpha `$-dependent rate by this fitting formula. We then apply the corrections from Sec. II. The result provides both the correct, up-to-date rate at $`\alpha =\alpha _0`$, and the $`\alpha `$ dependence computed from our direct capture model. The SKM $`S`$-factor contains a term of the form

$$S(E)=S(0)q(E)e^{\beta E},$$
(6)
which we drop in this procedure to more accurately reproduce the $`\alpha `$ dependence computed in our model. This is not a problem with the SKM rate evaluation, but rather a question of producing simple, adequate fitting functions for the $`\alpha `$ dependence of the rate. (Note that in principle, this term arises from the external-capture nature of the reaction, so that $`\beta `$ should almost certainly depend on $`\alpha `$ – a possibility not considered in BIR.)

Finally, we updated the rate for $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}(n,p){}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{H}`$, which does not need the BIR treatment because of the neutron in the entrance channel. In summary, our calculations used the SKM rates, with $`\alpha `$ variation estimated as described above, and with updates from Refs. dpg-ma ; tag-brune ; he3np-brune . We compared a calculation using these rates and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{BBN}}=\alpha _0`$ with the corresponding results from the NACRE nacre  and Nollett & Burles nb2k  evaluations of the rates (which are not suited to computing $`\alpha `$ variation). The results were in agreement within the uncertainties.

To compare our calculation with observed abundances, it will be necessary to take uncertainties on the laboratory measurements into account. The effects of these uncertainties on the computed abundances can, in general, only be estimated by Monte Carlo methods. Since we compute a large grid of models in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ and $`\alpha `$, such a procedure would be time-consuming. Instead, we make very simple, conservative estimates of the uncertainties. The uncertainties on the computed helium mass fraction $`Y_P`$ have been estimated by Lopez & Turner lopezturner  to be $`\pm 0.0004`$ from experiment and $`\pm 0.0002`$ from theory. We have not included their elaborate treatment of small effects in our calculation, and we will assume an error of $`0.0005`$ on the calculation. For $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2>0.011`$, the uncertainty in D/H arises mainly from the rate for $`d(p,\gamma )^3\mathrm{He}`$; we use an estimate of 9% here, based on the uncertainty in D/H at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.036`$, its maximum in Ref. nb2k . Similarly, the uncertainty in 7Li/H at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2>0.011`$ is governed by the uncertainty in the rate for $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}(\alpha ,\gamma )^7\mathrm{Be}`$. We take as the uncertainty in 7Li/H its maximum of 0.05 dex at $`\delta =0`$ from Ref. nb2k . We will see below that 3He/H depends only weakly on $`\alpha _{\mathrm{BBN}}`$. Moreover, the identification of the observed 3He/H with the primordial value rood  seems to us problematic, so we will not use 3He in our examination of the evidence for varying $`\alpha `$.

## IV Results

We incorporated all of the $`\alpha `$ dependence discussed above into the standard BBN code kawano ; kawano2  and computed yields. Figure 1 shows the resulting light-element abundances for $`\delta =0`$, $`\pm 0.05`$, compared with a calculation applying the BIR formalism to updated laboratory rates. For D/H and 7Li/H, we find that the $`\alpha `$ dependence is weaker than that found by BIR, though the effect still works in the same direction. This can be understood as follows: the strongest $`\alpha `$ dependence in their calculation is in the suppression of charged-particle rates by the negative exponential in those rates. In our calculation, positive powers of $`\alpha `$ from current coupling and careful treatment of the barrier penetration partially cancel this suppression. The 7Li also receives a somewhat smaller contribution from adjustments in outgoing photon energy which we modelled. Effects of the changing $`Q`$ values on the reverse reactions become important for 7Li/H at large $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$, making our estimate coincidentally equal to that of BIR at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2>0.065`$. Our estimate of final-state effects makes a much smaller contribution to the yields than any of the other corrections we have added to the calculation.

Our results for the $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ abundance agree with BIR. This abundance depends on $`\alpha `$ primarily through the neutron-proton mass difference $`m_nm_p`$ which governs the neutron/proton ratio at the start of BBN. Like BIR, we use the phenomenological prescription of Gasser and Leutwyler Gasser82  to model the $`\alpha `$ dependence of the nucleon mass splitting:

$$m_nm_p=1.3\left(1+c\delta \right)\mathrm{MeV},$$
(7)
where $`c=0.59`$. As pointed out in BIR, this model is plausible, but certainly not definitive, so the $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ yields are less certain than those of other light nuclides. We use the Gasser & Leutwyler value because we did not find competing, explicit values of $`c`$ in the literature. The abundances of the other nuclides are for the most part affected only weakly by this uncertainty, but the nucleon mass splitting makes an important contribution to the $`\alpha `$ dependence of 7Li/H at low $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^20.010`$. We show the dependences of D/H, 3He/H, and 7Li/H on $`\delta `$ at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.0204`$ in Fig. 2.

## V Observational constraints

Given observationally-inferred primordial abundances, our calculations can be used to constrain possible combinations of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ and $`\delta `$. In principle, two abundances suffice to fix values of the two parameters, and a third abundance provides a check on the result. In reality, there are systematic errors associated with both the measurements and the varying-$`\alpha `$ calculation, and we find no solution which satisfies the D, 4He, and 7Li observations simultaneously. (3He/H shows relatively weak dependence on $`\alpha `$; it may in principle help constrain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ so that $`\alpha `$ may be extracted from other abundances, given the primordial ratio.) We now examine the constraints provided by the present observations. This discussion is in large part supplementary to those in BIR and in Avelino et al. Avelino01  (who used the BIR rates, but also applied statistical error estimation to a subset of the data). However, we also draw upon our improved estimation of the yields. The reader should keep in mind that the primordial light-nuclide abundances require difficult observational work and are by no means settled questions; we will attempt to point out the most serious problems, but the reader is referred to recent reviews of the topic for critical discussion of the uncertainties and appropriate caveats dns\_vol ; tytler-review . It what follows, we assume Gaussian distributions for all uncertainties and include the roughly-estimated yield uncertainties of Sec. III.

A value for a single light-nuclide abundance specifies one constraint relating $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ and $`\delta `$, and therefore defines a curve in the $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2,\delta )`$ plane. As a first example, we show in Fig. 3 the constraint in the $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2,\delta )`$ plane provided by an average of the extragalactic D/H measurements of Tytler and collaborators, $`(3.0\pm 0.4)\times 10^5`$ omeara . (There exist measurements by other groups, which we exclude because of concerns about signal-to-noise pettini  and complex velocity structure dodorico ; levshakov ; these tend to increase the scatter.) The largest weakness of D/H as a probe of BBN is the difficulty of obtaining large enough numbers of high-quality data to be confident in their analysis. Because there is uncertainty in the observations, there is uncertainty in specifying the curve; this is indicated by shaded regions delimiting 1, 2, and $`3\sigma `$ confidence levels. We note that the error estimate of Ref. omeara  is rather conservative.

The analogous curves based on halo-star observations of 7Li are shown in Fig. 4. We derive these curves from the primordial 7Li abundance advocated by Ryan ryan00  and Ryan et al. ryanetal00 , $`\mathrm{log}_{10}(^7\mathrm{Li}/\mathrm{H})=9.91_{0.13}^{+0.19}`$. It should be kept in mind that there could be factor-of-two effects associated with Li destruction in the observed stars vauclair ; pinsonneault ; salaris  and with the stellar atmosphere models used to derive abundances asplund . There are two curves for 7Li/H, reflecting the two paths for its production in BBN: a low-$`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ case in which 7Li is produced directly, and a high-$`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ case in which 7Li is produced as 7Be, followed by beta decay. Again, confidence intervals are indicated by the shaded regions. Comparison of Figs. 3 and 4 shows one point where the D/H and 7Li results can be reconciled. This point occurs at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.034`$ and $`\delta =0.23`$. Although we consider the range of validity of our treatment to be $`0.3<\delta <0.3`$, there does appear to be a second solution at lower $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ and an extreme negative $`\delta `$. Note that the best-fit model for D and 7Li with $`\delta =0`$ is rejected at 98% confidence. The joint constraint is shown in Fig. 5.

How seriously should this result be taken? A solution can always be found for two abundances \[assuming that the curves in the $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2,\alpha )`$ plane intersect\], so its validity must be checked with a third abundance. The other abundance at our disposal is that of 4He, as observed in extragalactic Hii regions. Here, we confront unavoidable systematic problems associated with the extraction of abundances from spectral-line data. The two largest compilations of data yield discrepant values for the primordial 4He mass fraction: Olive, Skillman, and Steigman (OSS) find $`Y_P=0.234\pm 0.002`$ OSS98  while Izotov and Thuan (IT) find $`Y_P=0.244\pm 0.002`$ Izotov98 . The two resulting curves are shown in Fig. 6. It seems clear from these curves that if agreement could be reached concerning the value of $`Y_P`$, quite stringent constraints could be placed on $`\delta `$ irrespective of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$. However, this impression is illusory because such constraints involve the size of the electromagnetic contribution to the nucleon mass splitting. As discussed above, this number is difficult to calculate, and subject to large uncertainty. The confidence intervals shown include allowances for a 30% Gaussian uncertainty in this parameter (the source of the asymmetric intervals).

Comparing Figs. 5 and 6, we see that the D+7Li solution above fails the consistency check with 4He. Making this solution work would require either $`Y_P`$=0.354 – substantially larger than even the solar value of 0.275 – or else $`c=0.045`$ (at $`Y_P=0.244`$) or $`c=0.10`$ (at $`Y_P=0.234`$), compared to the current best guess of $`c=0.59`$. While $`c`$ is very uncertain, it cannot be positive if the electromagnetic force contributes to the baryon masses only through self-energies and interactions among constituent quarks Gasser82 . Put another way, a $`\chi ^2`$ fit including all three abundances gives a minimum $`\chi ^2`$ far from the D/H + 7Li solution (because of the small error bars on $`Y_P`$), but the likelihood at this minimum is low: a fit using the IT $`Y_P`$ is rejected at 97.5% confidence (actually worse than if $`\delta =0`$ is assumed, since the extra parameter removes a degree of freedom), while a fit using the OSS $`Y_P`$ is rejected at 98.0% confidence. The exact numerical values of these confidence limits are probably not meaningful, since the $`Y_P`$ error bars in particular are smaller than the systematic uncertainties, but the indication is in any case that varying $`\alpha `$ does not describe the data significantly better than leaving it fixed.

There is thus no solution favored by all three observed primordial abundances, even at $`\delta =0`$. Perhaps one of the pairwise combinations of abundances provides an acceptable solution that requires only plausible systematic problems with the third observed abundance. Because the D+7Li solution requires such a stretch to match the 4He observations, we can probably rule it out. The D+4He case is interesting because it does not require an “extreme” value for $`\delta `$. This is in the sense that existing claims for time variation in $`\alpha `$ based on metal lines in quasar absorption systems are on the order of $`10^5`$. The best fits for BBN with D and 4He only are at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.020\pm 0.005`$, $`\delta =0.007_{0.017}^{+0.010}`$ (IT) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.020_{0.004}^{+0.005}`$, $`\delta =0.03_{0.04}^{+0.01}`$ (OSS; all errors $`2\sigma `$). These solutions have the advantage of agreeing with the value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ derived from observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). However, 7Li/H is discrepant by a factor of 2–3, so this is no better than the standard $`\alpha _{\mathrm{BBN}}=\alpha _0`$ case in its need for a greatly underestimated primordial 7Li/H.

The final pair of abundances available is 4He+7Li. Any 4He constraint crosses both curves defined by the 7Li constraint, and either of the two 4He data sets could be correct. There are thus four different solutions we could consider, but it should suffice to say that they all favor $`|\delta |<0.02`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2<0.017`$. The solution least discrepant from the D/H data requires D/H=$`7.3\times 10^5`$, more than twice the current best observational average and greater than the highest value presently claimed.

Thus, given the present observational data for light-element abundances, allowing $`\alpha `$ to vary does not allow BBN to fit the data in a way that is convincingly better than in the simplest $`\alpha _{\mathrm{BBN}}=\alpha _0`$ case. The existing discrepancies between the light-nuclide abundances and the detailed predictions of BBN are better-explained in terms of systematic effects than in terms of varying $`\alpha `$. The above analysis produces two plausible constraints on $`\alpha _{\mathrm{BBN}}`$: one based on deuterium that derives its strength from the simplicity of the D/H measurement (Fig. 3), and one based on 4He that derives its strength from the presumptive strong dependence of $`Y_P`$ on $`\alpha _{\mathrm{BBN}}`$ (Fig. 6). The constraint based on 4He which was derived in BIR remains the best that one can do to constrain $`\alpha _{\mathrm{BBN}}`$ independent of any other parameter, with the caveat that the nucleon mass splitting is not well-understood, and so the constraint could be much weaker than it appears. The constraint based on D/H is perhaps more secure because the varying-$`\alpha `$ D/H yields depend on relatively well-understood physics and because the D/H measurement is in principle relatively free of systematic pitfalls: it involves demonstrably pristine material, and it does not depend on radiative transfer or ionization corrections. The deuterium constraint may be expressed as $`\mathrm{log}_{10}\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2\delta =1.68\pm 0.07`$ at $`2\sigma `$, but it has the disadvantage that one can obtain large variations in $`\alpha `$ merely by adjusting $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$. Given the large regions of high confidence level in Fig. 4, 7Li does not provide a useful constraint by itself.

We note that the joint constraint from D/H and the IT value of $`Y_P`$ was also examined in Ref. Avelino01 . These authors obtained a result of $`\delta =0.007\pm 0.009`$ (compared with our $`\delta =0.007_{0.017}^{+0.010}`$ for this case), and identical limits on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ to those found here. One would expect differing values of $`\delta `$ between their analysis and ours: in our calculation, D/H depends more weakly on $`\delta `$, and the updated laboratory cross section for the crucial $`d(p,\gamma )^3\mathrm{He}`$ cross section is lower than what they used. It appears that these two effects have cancelled by chance at the best-fit solution. (4He should behave the same way in both calculations, because we have used the same value of $`c`$). The differing error limits result from a combination of the weaker dependence of $`d(p,\gamma )^3\mathrm{He}`$ on $`\delta `$ in our treatment, the inclusion of a 9% cross section uncertainty on our predicted D/H, and the 30% uncertainty that we have assigned to $`c`$.

Finally, an independent constraint on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ now exists from measurements of CMB anisotropies. The current results are $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.022\pm 0.003`$ from BOOMERANG newboom , $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.022_{0.003}^{+0.004}`$ from DASI dasi , and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.033\pm 0.007`$ from MAXIMA maxima  (all $`1\sigma `$ errors). A single direct measurement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ is a vertical line in Figs. 36. Values of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{BBN}}`$ based on these measurements and the individual light-nuclide abundances are shown in Table 4. A firm value of $`\delta `$ may not be derived from this table, because the relative reliabilities of the inferred primordial abundances are not known. However, a general trend is clear: only the combination 7Li/H + MAXIMA or the combination of OSS 4He with any of the CMB data provides any strong indication of $`\delta 0`$. For all other data, the $`2\sigma `$ limits either include $`\delta =0`$ or nearly include it (missing by 10% or less of the best-fit value).

In principle, the estimation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ from CMB measurements also depends on the value of $`\alpha `$ at matter-radiation decoupling Kaplinghat99 ; Hannestad99 ; Battye00 , $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CMB}}`$. This may be included among the parameters to be determined jointly from the CMB, or some value may be assumed as a prior. The results quoted above and used to derive Table 4 are based on the assumption that $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CMB}}=\alpha _0`$. The values of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CMB}}`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{BBN}}`$ may have nothing to do with each other: $`\alpha `$ may evolve between these events. However, barring entropy increases after BBN, the same $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ today should be inferred from both BBN and the CMB. After marginalizing over $`\alpha `$, Avelino et al. Avelino01  find from a combination of the BOOMERANG, DASI, and COBE data that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.019_{0.002}^{+0.004}`$ at $`1\sigma `$. For each BBN nuclide, Table 4 shows the effects of combining the BBN constraint with this value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$. The results are not markedly different than for the DASI and BOOMERANG results independently. This is not surprising, because Avelino et al. Avelino01  find $`\alpha _{\mathrm{CMB}}=\alpha _0`$, within the uncertainties.

## VI Conclusions

We have improved the calculation of primordial abundances in varying-$`\alpha `$ scenarios by including corrections previously neglected: normalization of initial-state Coulomb penetrabilities, final-state Coulomb interactions, photon coupling to nuclear currents, photon energy and barrier penetration in external direct captures, and electromagnetic contributions to the nuclear masses. These affect the interactions between composite nuclei, so they affect all of the BBN abundances except that of 4He. In sum, these corrections can amount to half of the effect previously computed for 7Li/H and about 1/3 of the previous effect on D/H. The most important corrections are the initial-state penetrability and current-coupling contributions. The nuclear mass modifications become important only for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2>0.036`$. BBN is less sensitive to $`\alpha `$ than previous calculations indicated, but the sign of the dependence remains the same.

Applying our calculation to the data, the most secure constraint we arrive at is $`\mathrm{log}_{10}\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2\delta =1.68\pm 0.07`$ ($`2\sigma `$), based on the D/H measurements of Tytler and collaborators omeara . Combining this constraint with a constraint $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.022\pm 0.003`$ from CMB anisotropies yields $`\delta =0.03\pm 0.07`$ ($`1\sigma `$). A separate constraint, subject to both theoretical and astronomical uncertainties which are difficult to assess, is provided by 4He measurements: the BIR result of approximately $`|\delta |<0.1`$ stands as the best that can be done here, about the same as the D/H + CMB constraint.

Other recent work on time-varying $`\alpha `$ suggests that between redshifts 1 and 3, $`\alpha `$ is smaller than $`\alpha _0`$ by $`\delta =(0.72\pm 0.18)\times 10^5`$ murphy ; murphy01b ; webb01 . Sensitivity to deviations from zero at this level cannot be reached with BBN, for both astronomical and nuclear-physics reasons. Combining this with the large difference in redshifts between BBN ($`z10^9`$) and the observed absorption systems ($`1<z<3`$), it is doubtful that BBN can shed much light on this claim without a specific model for variation of $`\alpha `$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Richard Battye and Marc Kamionkowski for helpful conversations, and R. B. Wiringa for providing the EM contributions to the light-nuclide masses. REL was funded by a PPARC Advanced Fellowship. KMN was supported by DoE grant DE-FG03-92-ER40701 and NASA grant NAG5-11725.


format: text

text:
# Lepton flavor violating 𝑍→𝑙_𝑖𝑙_𝑗 in flavor-universal topcolor-assisted technicolor

## Abstract

In the context of flavor-universal topcolor-assisted technicolor (TC2) models, we calculate the lepton flavor violating (LFV) $`Zl_il_j`$ decays. We find that the extra $`U(1)`$ gauge boson $`Z^{}`$ can give significant contributions to these LFV processes. With reasonable values of the parameters, the branching ratios of the processes $`Z\tau \mu `$ and $`Z\tau e`$ can approach the experimental upper limits. The indirect bound on the process $`Z\mu e`$ can give a severe constraint on the flavor-universal TC2 models.

The high statistic results of the Superkamiokande(SK) atmospheric neutrino experiment and the solar neutrino experiment have made one to believe that neutrinos are massive and oscillate in flavor and are of interest in the lepton flavor violating (LFV) processes. Among them, the LFV $`Z`$ decays, such as $`Z\tau e,Z\tau \mu `$, and $`Z\mu e`$ are important for the search of neutrinos and the physics beyond the standard model(SM). The Giga $`Z`$ option of the TESLA linear collider project will work at the $`Z`$ resonance and increase the production rate of $`Z`$ boson at resonance. This force one to study the LFV $`Z`$ decays more precisely.

It is well known that the lepton numbers are automatically conserved and the tree level LFV $`Z`$ decays are absent in the SM. Thus, one needs an extended theory to describe the LFV $`Z`$ decays. The $`\nu SM`$, which takes neutrinos massive and permits the lepton mixing mechanism, is one of the possibility. Ref. has studied the LFV $`Z`$ decays in the context of $`\nu SM`$. However, the branching ratios($`BR^{}s`$) are very small, i.e., $`BR(Ze\mu )BR(Ze\tau )10^{54}`$ and $`BR(Z\mu \tau )<4\times 10^{60}`$. The $`BR^{}s`$ of $`Z`$ decays can be increased in the framework of the $`\nu SM`$ with heavy neutrino. Recently, the LFV $`Z`$ decays are studied in the context of the Zee model and the general 2HDM type III . Ref. has shown that, with the model parameters in the restriction region, the $`BR^{}s`$ can be highly enhanced which can reach $`7\times 10^{11}`$ and $`2.5\times 10^9`$ for $`BR(Z\mu e)`$ and $`BR(Z\tau e)`$, respectively.

The aim of this letter is to point out that the $`BR^{}s`$ of the LFV $`Z`$ decays can be significantly enhanced in the flavor-universal topcolor assisted technicolor(TC2) models, which may approach the present experimental upper limits:

$`BR(Z\tau e)<9.8\times 10^6\text{[10, 11]},`$ (1)
$`BR(Z\tau \mu )<1.2\times 10^6\text{[10, 12]},`$ (2)
$`BR(Z\mu e)<1.7\times 10^6\text{[10]}.`$ (3)
and with the improved sensitivity at Giga-Z, these numbers could be pulled down to :

$$BR(Z\tau e)<f\times 1.5\times 10^8,BR(Z\tau \mu )<f\times 2.2\times 10^8,BR(Z\mu e)<2\times 10^9.$$
(4)
with $`f=0.21.0`$.

Given the large value of the top quark mass and the sizable splitting between the masses of the top and bottom quarks, it is natural to wonder whether $`m_t`$ has a different origin from the masses of the other quarks and leptons. There may be a common origin for electroweak symmetry breaking(EWSB) and top quark mass generation. Much theoretical work has been carried out in connection to the top quark and EWSB. The TC2 models and the flavor-universal TC2 models are two of such examples. All of these models suppose that top quark condensation contribute to some of EWSB. The strong $`U(1)_y`$ structure is required to tilt the chiral condensation in the $`t\overline{t}`$ direction and not form a $`b\overline{b}`$ condensation. Thus, this kind of models generally predict the existence of the extra $`U(1)`$ gauge boson $`Z^{}`$, which has flavor changing coupling vertices, such as $`Z^{}tc`$, $`Z^{}\tau \mu `$, $`Z^{}\tau e`$. The new gauge boson $`Z^{}`$ may have significant contributions to some flavor changing neutral current processes. Thus, in this letter, we calculate the contributions of the gauge boson $`Z^{}`$ to the LFV $`Z`$ decays.

In the flavor-universal TC2 models, the gauge group is the same as in the traditional TC2 models:

$$G_{ETC}\times SU(3)_1\times SU(3)_2\times SU(2)\times U(1)_1\times U(1)_2.$$
(5)
At an energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the color sector ($`SU(3)_1\times SU(3)_2`$) breaks to its diagonal subgroup $`SU(3)_c`$ and the hypercharge groups break in the pattern $`U(1)_1\times U(2)_2U(1)_y`$. Thus these models also predict the existence of two additional gauge bosons : colorons and $`Z^{}`$. However, the fermion charge assignments are significantly different from those in TC2 models. In quark sector, all quarks are $`SU(3)_1`$ triplets and $`SU(3)_2`$ singlets. In the hypercharge sector, the third generation of fermions transforms under the stronger $`U(1)_1`$ and the others transform under the weaker $`U(1)_2`$. All of the quarks and leptons have the same weak charge assignments as in the SM, which are showed in Table 1 of Ref..

The flavor-diagonal couplings of $`Z^{}`$ to leptons can be written as:

$`\mathrm{\pounds }_Z^{}^{FD}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_1\mathrm{cot}\theta _yZ_\mu ^{}(\overline{\tau }_L\gamma ^\mu \tau _L+2\overline{\tau }_R\gamma ^\mu \tau _R)`$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_1\mathrm{tan}\theta _yZ_\mu ^{}(\overline{\mu }_L\gamma ^\mu \mu _L+2\overline{\mu }_R\gamma ^\mu \mu _R+\overline{e}_L\gamma ^\mu e_L+2\overline{e}_R\gamma ^\mu e_R),`$
where $`g_1`$ is the ordinary hypercharge gauge coupling constant, $`\theta _y`$ is the mixing angle with $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _y=\frac{g_1}{(2\sqrt{\pi K_1})}`$. To obtain the top quark condensation, there must be $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _y1`$. The flavor changing couplings of $`Z^{}`$ to leptons can be written as:

$`\mathrm{\pounds }_Z^{}^{FC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_1Z_\mu ^{}[K_{\tau \mu }(\overline{\tau }_L\gamma ^\mu \mu _L+2\overline{\tau }_R\gamma ^\mu \mu _R)`$ (9)
$`+K_{\tau e}(\overline{\tau }_L\gamma ^\mu e_L+2\overline{\tau }_R\gamma ^\mu e_R)+K_{\mu e}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _y(\overline{\mu }_L\gamma ^\mu e_L+2\overline{\mu }_R\gamma ^\mu e_R)],`$
where $`K_{ij}`$ are the flavor mixing factors. In the following estimation, we will assume $`K_{\tau \mu }=K_{\tau e}=K_{\mu e}=K=\lambda `$, where $`\lambda =0.22`$ is the Wolfenstein parameter.

From Eq.(4) and Eq.(5), we can see that the extra gauge boson $`Z^{}`$ exchange can indeed induce the LFV $`Z`$ decays $`Zl_il_j`$. The relevant diagrams are depicted in Fig.1. Similar to Ref., we can calculate these diagrams. In our calculation , we have taken $`m_\mu 0,m_\tau 0`$, and $`m_e0`$. It is easy to see that, relative to the contributions of Fig.1(a), the contributions of Fig.1(b) and Fig.1(c) to $`Z\tau \mu `$ decay are suppressed by the factors $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _y`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^3\theta _y`$, respectively. The conclusions are also apply to $`Z\tau e`$ and $`Z\mu e`$ decays. Then, the LFV couplings of $`Z`$ arised from the gauge boson $`Z^{}`$ exchange can be written as:

$$\delta g_L^{\tau \mu }=\delta g_L^{\tau e}\frac{K_1\mathrm{tan}\theta _y}{6\pi }g_L^lK[\frac{m_Z^2}{M_Z^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_Z^2}{m_Z^2}],$$
(10)
$$\delta g_R^{\tau \mu }=\delta g_R^{\tau e}\frac{2K_1\mathrm{tan}\theta _y}{3\pi }g_R^lK[\frac{m_Z^2}{M_Z^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_Z^2}{m_Z^2}],$$
(11)
$$\delta g_L^{\mu e}\frac{K_1\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _y}{6\pi }g_L^lK^2[\frac{m_Z^2}{M_Z^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_Z^2}{m_Z^2}],$$
(12)
$$\delta g_R^{\mu e}\frac{2K_1\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _y}{3\pi }g_R^lK^2[\frac{m_Z^2}{M_Z^2}\mathrm{ln}\frac{M_Z^2}{m_Z^2}],$$
(13)
with

$$g_L^l=\frac{e}{S_WC_W}(\frac{1}{2}+S_W^2),g_R^l=\frac{e}{S_WC_W}(S_W^2),$$
(14)
where $`g_L^l(g_R^l)`$ is the left(right)-handed $`Zll`$ coupling constant in the SM.

In general, the partial widths of the LFV $`Z`$ decays can be written as:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(Zl_il_j)=\frac{G_Fm_Z^3}{3\sqrt{2}\pi }[(\delta g_L^{ij})^2+(\delta g_R^{ij})^2]$$
(15)
To obtain numerical results, we take $`m_Z=91.18`$GeV, $`G_F=1.1664\times 10^5`$GeV<sup>-2</sup>, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Z=2.495`$GeV, $`S_W^2=0.2322`$. To obtain proper vacuum tilting (the topcolor interactions only condense the top quark but not the bottom quark), the coupling constant $`K_1`$ should satisfy certain constraint, i. e. $`K_11`$. Ref. has given the lower bounds on the $`Z^{}`$ mass from precision electroweak fits, which range from $`500`$GeV to $`2`$TeV depending on the value of $`K_1`$. Recently, Simmons  has shown that the B-meson mixing can given lower bound. The results are $`M_Z590`$GeV if ETC does not contribute to $`ϵ`$ which is the CP-violation parameter and $`M_Z>910`$GeV if it does. In the following calculation, we will take the $`Z^{}`$ mass $`M_Z`$ and $`K_1`$ as free parameters.

In Fig.2, we plot the branching ratios of the LFV $`Z`$ decay processes $`Z\tau \mu `$, $`Z\tau e`$ as function of the $`Z^{}`$ mass $`M_Z`$ for three values of the parameter $`K_1`$. From Fig.2 we can see that the branching ratios decrease with $`M_Z`$ increasing and increase with $`K_1`$ increasing. In most of the parameter space of the flavor-universal TC2 models, the branching ratios of the processes $`Z\tau \mu `$ and $`Z\tau e`$ are larger than $`1\times 10^{10}`$. For $`K_1=1`$ and $`M_Z=500`$GeV, we have $`BR(Z\tau \mu ,\tau e)=7.0\times 10^9`$, which can approach the future experimental upper limits: $`BR(Z\tau e)<f\times 1.5\times 10^8`$ and $`BR(Z\tau \mu )<f\times 2.2\times 10^8`$ with $`f=0.21.0`$ . We plot the branching ratio $`BR(Z\mu e)`$ versus $`M_Z`$ in Fig. 3 for the three values of the parameter $`K_1`$. One can see from Fig. 3 that $`BR(Z\mu e)`$ is smaller than $`BR(Z\tau \mu `$ or $`\tau e)`$. For $`K_1=0.6,BR(Z\mu e)`$ varies between $`3.8\times 10^{10}`$ and $`1.2\times 10^{11}`$ for $`M_Z`$ in the range of 500GeV - 1500GeV.

Using the current upper bound on the process $`\mu 3e`$ and other data pertaining to the $`e^+e^{}`$ widths of the electroweak gauge boson $`Z`$, Ref. gives a set of bounds for the LFV $`Z`$ decays:

$$BR(Z\mu e)5\times 10^{13},BR(Z\tau l)3\times 10^6,$$
(16)
with $`l=e`$ or $`\mu `$. From Fig.2 and Fig.3, we can see that these bounds can not give any constraint on the flavor-universal TC2 models via the LFV processes $`Z\tau \mu `$ and $`Z\tau e`$. However, it is not this case for the process $`Z\mu e`$. To see how the bound $`BR(Z\mu e)5\times 10^{13}`$ constrains the flavor-universal TC2 models, we give the contour line of $`BR(Z\mu e)=5\times 10^{13}`$ in the ($`K_{\mu e},M_Z`$) plane for $`500`$GeV $`M_Z1500`$GeV and three values of $`K_1`$ in Fig.4. We can see from Fig.4 that the constraints on the flavor mixing factor $`K_{\mu e}`$ from the indirect bound $`BR(Z\mu e)5\times 10^{13}`$ are very strong. If we take $`K_1=0.2`$, $`M_Z1500`$GeV, there must be $`K_{\mu e}0.17`$.

Similar to the flavor-universal TC2 models, TC2 models predict the existence of an extra $`U(1)_y`$ gauge boson $`Z^{}`$, which can also induce the tree-level flavor changing couplings. Thus, the $`Z^{}`$ can also give contributions to the LFV $`Z`$ decays $`Zl_il_j`$. However, Ref. has shown that $`B\overline{B}`$ mixing provides lower bounds on the mass of the gauge boson $`Z^{}`$ predicted by TC2 models, i. e., it must be larger than 4TeV. So the contributions of the TC2 models to the LFV $`Z`$ decays are much smaller than those of the flavor-universal TC2 models. In most of the parameter space of the TC2 models, we have $`BR(Z\tau \mu )=BR(Z\tau e)<1\times 10^{11}`$ and $`BR(Z\mu e)<1\times 10^{13}`$.

To completely avoid the problems, such as triviality and unnaturalness arising from the elementary Higgs in the SM, various kinds of dynamical EWSB theories have been proposed and among which the strong top dynamical EWSB theories are very interesting. This type of models generally predict the existence of an extra $`U(1)_y`$ gauge boson $`Z^{}`$ which can induce the flavor changing coupling vertices, such as $`Z^{}\tau \mu ,Z^{}\tau e,Z^{}\mu e`$. Thus, the gauge boson $`Z^{}`$ may have significant contributions to the LFV $`Z`$ decays $`Zl_il_j`$. In this letter, we calculate the contributions of the $`Z^{}`$ predicted by the flavor-universal TC2 models to these decay processes. We find that the branching ratios of the LFV $`Z`$ decays indeed can be significantly enhanced by the $`Z^{}`$ exchange. With reasonable values of the parameters, the branching ratios of the processes $`Z\tau \mu `$ and $`Z\tau e`$ can reach $`1\times 10^8`$ which can approach the future experimental upper limits. We further consider whether the indirect bound of the process $`Z\mu e`$ given by Ref.  can give severe constraint on the flavor-universal TC2 models. Our results show that it is indeed this case. For $`K_1=1`$, there must be $`M_Z5.2`$TeV for $`K_{\mu e}=0.22`$ and $`K_{\mu e}0.038`$ for $`M_Z=500`$GeV.

Figure captions

The diagrams of $`Z\tau \mu `$ decay due to $`Z^{}`$ exchange in the flavor-universal TC2 models. The diagrams of $`Z\tau e`$ and $`Z\mu e`$ decays can be obtained by appropriate replacement of the internal fermion.

The branching ratios of the LFV $`Z`$ decays $`Z\tau \mu `$ and $`Z\tau e`$ as function of $`M_Z`$.

The branching ratios of the LFV $`Z`$ decay $`Z\mu e`$ as a function of $`M_Z`$.

The contour line of $`BR(Z\mu e)=5\times 10^{13}`$ in the ($`K_{\mu e},M_Z`$) plane for $`K_1=0.1`$
( solid line ), 0.5 ( dashed line ) and 1 ( dotted line ).

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Evidence for neutrino flavor oscillations have been mounting over the years. A variety of solar neutrino experiments  which have consistently detected fewer $`\nu _e`$’s from the sun than expected now seem to converge on the large angle MSW solution as the preferred explanation for the discrepancy . The deficit in the flux of atmospheric muon neutrinos  and especially the observed zenith angle dependence are compelling evidences in favor of $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations. The LSND collaboration observes an anomaly in the flux of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ detected , which can be interpreted as evidence for $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ oscillations.

As it turns out, it is not possible to explain all of these observations in terms of neutrino oscillations with just three flavors of neutrinos ($`\nu _e,\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$). The reason is that the characteristic oscillation length scales inferred from the three types of experiments are quite different having no overlap: $`\lambda _{}200\mathrm{km},\lambda _{atm}6000\mathrm{km}`$ and $`\lambda _{LSND}60`$ m. The oscillation length is given by $`\lambda =(4E)/\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=m_1^2m_2^2`$ etc, with $`m_i`$ being the mass of the $`i`$th neutrino mass eigenstate, and where $`E`$ denotes the neutrino energy. In three neutrino oscillation schemes there are only two independent mass–splittings, which therefore excludes a simultaneous explanation of all three observations.

Two approaches have been adopted in the literature to address this conundrum. In the first, one of the three observations is simply discarded. In the second approach, a fourth “sterile” neutrino ($`\nu _s`$) – sterile so that it does not affect the number of neutrinos that couples to the $`Z^0`$ bososn – is introduced. Both of these approaches are not very satisfactory. The first one is clearly without justification. The second, introduction of a sterile neutrino, has some serious theoretical difficulties, in addition to a possible problem with the standard Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. Its lightness cannot be explained in any simple way, unlike that of the “active” neutrino which follows very naturally from the seesaw mechanism . Even taking a light sterile neutrino for granted, some potential experimental difficulties have emerged over the last year. When the recent SNO results on solar neutrinos are combined with the results of SuperKamiokande, the allowed parameter space is tightly constrained for oscillations involving a sterile neutrino. In fact, a two–flavor $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ oscillation scenario no longer provides a good fit to the solar neutrino data. Atmospheric neutrino oscillation results from SuperKamiokande also disfavor oscillations of $`\nu _\mu `$ with a $`\nu _s`$. Somewhat more involved four neutrino oscillation schemes would be necessary, conforming to either a (3+1)  scheme or a mixed 2+2 scheme . Although both appear to be viable presently, neither gives a really satisfactory global fit to all the data . There is also a proposal to account for the LSND results in the three neutrino framework by invoking CPT violation .

The purpose of this paper is to provide a simultaneous solution to the three neutrino anomalies without introducing a sterile neutrino. It will be achieved by small non–standard interactions of the leptons instead. Since the flavor conversion probabilities are of order unity for both the solar and the atmospheric neutrino experiments, we shall focus on non–standard lepton interactions explaining the LSND anomaly, which calls for a smaller probability: $`P_{\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e}=(0.264\pm 0.067\pm 0.045)\%`$ . Specifically, we shall show that lepton number violating $`(\mathrm{\Delta }L=2)`$ muon decays can account for the LSND events. The new decay mode of the muon is

$$\mu ^+e^++\overline{\nu }_e+\overline{\nu }_i,$$
(1)
where $`\overline{\nu }_i`$ stands for any one of $`\overline{\nu }_e,\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ or $`\overline{\nu }_\tau `$. Consistent gauge models will be presented where such decays occur with the desired strength.

It is crucial that the non–standard decays of the muon are lepton number violating . Attempts to explain the LSND data in terms of lepton number conserving four–fermion interaction  will lead to inconsistencies with other experiments. One can make an $`SU(2)_L`$ transformation on such effective operators which would invariably generate lepton number violating processes such as $`\mu 3e`$ decay, muonium–antimuonium transition, $`\tau \mu ee`$ decay, etc, which are highly constrained by experiments . In contrast, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2`$ processes that we find will not admit an $`SU(2)_L`$ transformation to generate one of these highly forbidden processes, primarily because there is no charged current counterpart to the anomalous muon decays.111We shall see shortly that the anomalous muon decay is mediated by neutral current. Since the new physics affects only $`\mu ^\pm `$ decays, and not that of $`\pi ^\pm `$, our interpretation of the LSND results would predict that no oscillation signal should be seen at the Fermilab mini–BOONE experiment. We have identified two $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2`$ effective operators which are invariant under the Standard Model symmetries that can induce the decay of Eq. (1) without generating any other effects. These effective operators can be realized from underlying renormalizable theories which are extensions of the Standard Model involving additional scalar multiplets. The masses of these scalar bosons are bounded by about 500 GeV, in order that the signal at LSND is significant. Since the scale of new physics, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, is relatively low, the particles at the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ do not decouple entirely and have an impact on low energy observables. We highlight the processes that would succumb to the new physics most easily. They include small but observable deviations in $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}\nu \nu \gamma `$ cross sections, observable corrections to the muon $`g2`$, and lepton number violating $`Z^0`$ decays with branching ratios of order $`10^7`$.

## 2 Lepton number violating muon decay

The decay $`\mu ^+e^++\overline{\nu }_e+\overline{\nu }_i`$ with $`i=e\mu `$ or $`\tau `$, if allowed by the theory, can explain the LSND neutrino anomaly. Recall that the usual $`\mu `$ decay $`\mu ^+e^++\overline{\nu }_\mu +\nu _e`$ has no $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ which the LSND detector registers. The new decay of $`\mu ^+`$ produces $`\overline{\nu }_e`$, which will then be detected. The branching ratio for the new decay should be about $`(1.53)\times 10^3`$, as can be inferred from the LSND analysis of the $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ oscillation probability.

We have found two effective operators invariant under the symmetries of the Standard Model  that can induce the desired $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2`$ muon decays. They are

$`𝒪_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^5}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mu e_R\mathrm{\Phi })(\mathrm{\Psi }_e^TC^1\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi })`$
$`𝒪_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^5}}(\overline{\mu }_R\mathrm{\Psi }_e\mathrm{\Phi }^{})(\mathrm{\Psi }_e^TC^1\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }).`$ (2)
Here $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu =(\nu _\mu ,\mu )_L^T`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_e=(\nu _e,e)_L^T`$, etc denote the left–handed lepton doublets, while $`e_R,\mu _R`$ denote the right–handed singlets. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the Standard Model Higgs doublet with its hypercharge normalized to be $`+1/2`$.

Note that both $`𝒪_1`$ and $`𝒪_2`$ are non–renormalizable operators of dimension 9, and hence are suppressed by fifth power of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which characterizes the scale of new physics. As we shall see, these operators will arise from integrating out scalar fields which have lepton number violating interactions. Operator $`𝒪_1`$ has a unique $`SU(2)_L`$ contraction, owing to Bose symmetry in the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ field. Although $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mu e_R\mathrm{\Phi })`$ in $`𝒪_1`$ contracts to form an $`SU(2)_L`$ singlet, it will not induce a $`\overline{\mu }_Le_R`$ mass term (see below). Similarly, no $`d=5`$ neutrino mass term will arise from these operators. Note also that there is a unique Lorentz contraction of fermionic fields in $`𝒪_1`$, if we limit ourselves to obtaining these operators by integrating out scalar fields. Similar remarks apply to operator $`𝒪_2`$ as well. In this case, there is a minor variant, obtained by contracting $`(\overline{\mu }_R\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$ rather than $`(\overline{\mu }_R\mathrm{\Psi }_e\mathrm{\Phi }^{})`$, which is somewhat different for the case when $`ie`$.

When the vacuum expectation value $`\mathrm{\Phi }^0=v`$ is inserted in Eq. (2), it would generate the four–fermion operators

$`𝒪_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^5}}(\overline{\mu }_Le_R)(\nu _e^TC^1\nu _i)`$
$`𝒪_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{v^3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^5}}(\overline{\mu }_Re_L)(\nu _e^TC^1\nu _i).`$ (3)
These operators will lead to the decay $`\mu ^+e^++\overline{\nu }_e+\overline{\nu }_i`$. The branching ratio for the $`L`$–violating $`\mu ^+`$ decay is given by

$$Br(\mu ^+e^+\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_i)=\left[\frac{v^3}{4\sqrt{2}G_F\mathrm{\Lambda }^5}\right]^2.$$
(4)
Inserting the numerical value of $`v246`$ GeV, and demanding that the branching ratio for this decay is in the range $`Br(\mu ^+e^+\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_i)=(0.00150.0025)`$, we find that the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(360340)`$ GeV. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not very large, the particles that have masses of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ will not entirely decouple and will affect low energy observables.

An important point about operators $`𝒪_1`$ and $`𝒪_2`$ of Eq. (2) is that they induce only the terms given in Eq. (3) and nothing more. This is because of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2`$ nature of these operators and the fact that there is only one Higgs scalar in the theory. This proves that the effective operators of Eq. (2) generate the desired interactions that can explain the LSND events, and nothing else. Unlike in the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=0`$ muon decays, there is no conflict with processes such as $`\mu 3e`$, $`\tau \mu ee`$, etc.

KARMEN experiment  has set severe limits on lepton number violating decays of the muon. These limits however, depend sensitively on the assumed decay distribution. The anomalous muon decay arising from Eq. (2) in our models has a different distribution compared to that of the usual (V-A) decay of the muon. We find that operators $`𝒪_1`$ and $`𝒪_2`$ lead to the prediction $`\rho =0`$ for the Michel parameter for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=2`$ decay. (The other decay asymmetry parameters for the $`L`$–violating $`\mu `$ decay are found to be: $`\eta =0,\xi =3/4,`$ and $`\delta =0`$ .) The limit from KARMEN for the branching ratio for the decay $`\mu ^+e+\overline{\nu }_e+\overline{\nu }_i`$ corresponding to the case where $`\rho =0`$ is Br $`(0.00150.002)`$ . This limit is somewhat weaker than KARMEN’s published limit corresponding to the case of $`\rho =3/4`$ . Thus, the KARMEN results appear to be just about consistent with LSND observations, in our interpretation of the data. A joint analysis of the LSND and the KARMEN data in our framework will be desirable.

All new phenomena in the model will arise from particles with masses of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. To see these additional new effects, we have to generate operators of Eq. (2) from renormalizable Lagrangian densities. We now turn to this task.

## 3 Gauge models for Lepton number violating muon decays

We shall now present renormalizable gauge models that induce the effective operators of Eq. (2). These models are obtained by extending the scalar sector of the Standard Model. The new interaction Lagrangian for the first model which induces $`𝒪_1`$ is given by

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`h_{\mu e}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\mu e_RH+f_{ei}\mathrm{\Psi }_e^TC^1\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`_0H^{}\chi \mathrm{\Phi }+\lambda ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\chi \mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+H.C.`$
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }(3,1),\chi (3,0)`$ and $`H(1,1/2)`$ are scalar fields (their $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ quantum numbers are as indicated) which do not acquire any vacuum expectation value.

Figure 1 will induce the effective operator $`𝒪_1`$ from Eq. (5). Notice that the intermediate scalar particles are electrically neutral, so the anomalous muon decay is a neutral current process. It is not possible to make an $`SU(2)_L`$ transformation in Fig. 1 to convert some of the external fermions, without also transforming the external Higgs field to its charged component, which of course is unphysical.

The strength of the effective four–fermion coupling arising from Fig. 1, in the approximation of small scalar mixing, is

$$G_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{h_{\mu e}f_{ei}\lambda ^{}_0v^3}{(m_{\chi ^0}^2m_{H^0}^2m_{\mathrm{\Delta }^0}^2)}.$$
(6)
If all the mass parameters are equal and if $`h_{\mu e},f_{ei}`$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$ are equal to one, LSND data would require the scalar masses to be in the range $`(340360)`$ GeV. Actually, we can make this statement more precise. Let us denote the scalar mass–squared matrix involving the mixing of $`(H^0,\chi ^0,\mathrm{\Delta }^0)`$ to be $`^2`$. Let $`K`$ be the unitary matrix that diagonalizes $`^2`$: $`K^{}^2K=diag.(M_1^2,M_2^2,M_3^2)`$ with $`M_1M_2M_3`$. Then by making use of the unitarity of $`K`$ and the fact that $`(^2)_{13}=0`$, we can write down the branching ratio to be

$$Br(\mu ^+e^+\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_i)=\frac{|h_{\mu e}f_{ei}|^2|K_{12}K_{32}^{}|^2}{32M_1^4G_F^2}\left(1\frac{M_1^2}{M_2^2}\right)^2\left(1\frac{M_2^2}{M_3^2}\right)^2.$$
(7)
Noting that $`|K_{12}K_{32}^{}|1/2`$, and demanding that $`Br`$ is in the range $`(0.00150.002)`$, we obtain an upper limit on the lightest neutral scalar mass $`M_1`$: $`M_1(442412)`$ GeV. If $`|K_{12}K_{32}^{}|`$ is less than $`1/2`$, $`M_1`$ will have to be even lighter. The heavier masses $`M_2`$ and $`M_3`$ cannot be very much larger, or else the mixing angle $`|K_{12}K_{32}^{}|`$ will be suppressed. We estimate $`M_{2,3}`$ to be not larger than $`M_1`$ by about a factor of 2. While these limits hold for the neutral scalars, their charged partners should also have comparable masses. Any splitting between the masses of the neutral and charged scalars will be $`SU(2)_L`$–breaking, and is limited by the electroweak $`\rho `$ parameter.

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$ in Eq. (5) can be $`\mathrm{\Psi }_e,\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu `$ or $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau `$. Consider the case when $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i=\mathrm{\Psi }_e`$. In this case, the Lagrangian of Eq. (5) conserves two combinations of leptons numbers, viz., $`(L_e+3L_\mu )`$ and $`L_\tau `$. A $`Z_3`$ subgroup of electron number is also preserved. It is not required that these symmetries be broken, so they may be used to prevent rare processes at undesirable rates.222We have in mind a scenario where the solar and the atmospheric neutrino oscillations arise from neutrino masses and mixings induced by the seesaw mechanism. Lepton flavor violation that arises from the seesaw mechanism is too tiny to be observable in any processes other than neutrino oscillations themselves.

If $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i=\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu `$ in Eq. (5), then muon and tau lepton numbers are unbroken. Also unbroken is a $`Z_2`$ subgroup of electron number. If $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i=\mathrm{\Psi }_\tau `$, then $`(L_e+2L_\mu )`$ and $`(L_\mu +L_\tau )`$ are unbroken, as is $`Z_2`$ subgroup of $`L_e`$. These symmetries guarantee that potentially dangerous lepton number violating processes remain small.

The scalar fields $`\mathrm{\Delta },\chi `$ and $`H`$ carry lepton number symmetries (or a discrete subgroup of these symmetries), so that they do not acquire VEVs. This can be ascertained by choosing the mass–squared of these scalars to be positive. The lepton number symmetries will forbid possible tadpole contributions to their VEVs. Thus, these new interactions do not induce neutrino masses at all. The only source of neutrino mass in these models is through the seesaw mechanism.

One may worry about the compatibility of the lepton number symmetries present in Eq. (5) and the neutrino oscillation data, which calls for the breaking of all such symmetries. We shall present a concrete example to demonstrate the consistency. Consider Eq. (5) with $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i=\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu `$. Let us impose $`L_\mu `$ and $`L_\tau `$ symmetries as well as a $`Z_2`$ subgroup of $`L_e`$. Under these symmetries the scalar fields $`(H,\chi ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ have charges $`(1,0)_{}`$, $`(1,0)_{}`$ and $`(1,0)_{}`$ respectively. The charged lepton mass matrix as well as the Dirac neutrino mass matrix will be diagonal due to these symmetries. Neutrino mixings can still arise from the superheavy Majorana mass matrix of the $`\nu _R`$ fields. The charges of $`(\nu _{eR},\nu _{\mu R},\nu _{\tau R})`$ under these symmetries are $`\{(0,0)_{};(1,0)_+;(0,1)_+\}`$ respectively. If scalar fields with charges $`(0,0)_+`$, $`(0,1)_{}`$, $`(1,1)_+`$ and $`(0,2)_+`$ are introduced and given large vaccum expectation values, all neutrino flavors will mix with one another. These superheavy scalars will have no couplings to the $`(H,\chi ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ fields and thus will not spoil the symmetry, except through small neutrino mass terms.

The exchange of the new scalars with masses of order 500 GeV can lead to new processes. We list below the most significant of these.

1. The effective Michel parameter $`\rho `$ in $`\mu `$ decay is modified in our scenario: $`(\rho =0.7485)`$. The deviation from $`3/4`$ arises because of the rare $`\mu `$ decay mode we have introduced here to explain the LSND data. Currently the uncertainty in the measurement of $`\rho `$ is $`\pm 0.0026`$, but the TWIST experiment at TRIUMF  will have a sensitivity of $`10^4`$ in $`\rho `$, which can test this scenario. There will also be a small shift in $`G_F`$ extracted from $`\mu `$ decay by $`(0.150.2)`$%, compared to the Standard Model value. Such a shift is currently consistent with radiative corrections in muon decay (parametrized by $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$), which has an uncertainty of about $`0.2`$% arising from the $`\pm 5`$ GeV uncertainty in the top quark mass alone.
2. The neutral component $`H^0`$ from the scalar $`H`$ can mediate the process $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. The total cross section as well as the forward–backward asymmetry measured away from the $`Z^0`$ pole give useful constraints. The most stringent one arises from LEP experiments run at $`130\sqrt{s}<189`$ GeV. L3 collaboration has quoted lower limits on contact interaction  at these energies. The exchange of $`H^0`$ induces the following effective contact interaction:

$$=\frac{|h_{\mu e}|^2}{2m_{H^0}^2}(\overline{\mu }_L\gamma _\mu \mu _L)\overline{e}_R\gamma ^\mu e_R).$$
(8)
This corresponds to the case of $`\eta _{LR}=1`$ and all other $`\eta _{ij}=0`$ in the notation of Ref. . The limit on compositeness scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}>1.9`$ TeV  implies

$$m_{H^0}/|h_{\mu e}|379GeV.$$
(9)
The constraints from forward–backward asymmetry measurements, which have uncertainty of a few % will be satisfied once Eq. (9) is met.

The exchange of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ partner of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$ will also contribute to the process $`e^+e^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. The effective Lagrangian for this process is

$$=\frac{|f_{ei}|^2}{2m_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}^2}(\overline{e}_L\gamma _\mu e_L)(\overline{\mathrm{}}_{iL}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{}_{iL}).$$
(10)
The constraint on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+>\{3.8,7.3,3.9\}`$ TeV for $`\mathrm{}_i=(e,\mu ,\tau )`$ . This would lead to the following limits:

$$\frac{m_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}}{|f_{ee}|}>758\mathrm{GeV},\frac{m_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}}{|f_{e\mu }|}>1456\mathrm{GeV},\frac{m_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}}}{|f_{e\tau }|}>778\mathrm{GeV},$$
(11)
corresponding to $`\mathrm{}_i`$ being $`e,\mu ,`$ or $`\tau `$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ cannot be split much in mass from $`\mathrm{\Delta }^0`$, explaining the LSND result at the suggested rate would require $`f_{ei}`$ to be somewhat smaller than one and simultaneously one of the neutral scalar masses to be lower than about 300 GeV (see Eqs. (6) and (7)).
3. The charged member $`H^+`$ from $`H`$ scalar will mediate the process $`e^+e^{}\nu \nu \gamma `$. This process has been studied at LEP as a way to count the number of light neutrino species. L3 collaboration quotes $`N_\nu =3.05\pm 0.11\pm 0.04`$ from single photon measurements carried out at $`130\mathrm{GeV}\sqrt{s}189`$ GeV . (Measurements very close to the $`Z^0`$ pole are less useful for our purpose.) Using the 3 sigma limit we obtain (following the procedure outlined in Ref. )

$$m_{H^0}/|h_{\mu e}|375GeV.$$
(12)
We see that the predicted deviation from the Standard model is in the observable range, once the LSND data is explained.
4. The neutral $`H^0`$ will contribute to the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. The shift in $`a_\mu `$ compared to the Standard model prediction is given by $`\delta a_\mu |h_{\mu e}|^2(m_\mu /m_{H^0})^2/(24\pi ^2)47\times 10^{10}|h_{\mu e}|^2(100\mathrm{GeV}/m_{H^0})^2`$. This is in the experimentally interesting range for $`|h_{\mu e}|`$ being order one and $`m_{H^0}=(100300)`$ GeV, as needed by the LSND data.
5. $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ can mediate $`e^+e^{}\nu \nu \gamma `$ for the case where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i=\mathrm{\Psi }_e`$, with a branching ratio very close to the current limits. In the case where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i=\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu `$, there is new contribution to ordinary muon decay from the exchange of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. We obtain $`m_{\mathrm{\Delta }^+}/|f_{e\mu }|525`$ GeV using $`\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }r)0.003`$. This limit, for the case where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i=\mathrm{\Psi }_\mu `$, while consistent, will force some of the other scalars to be lighter than 400 GeV.
6. At a future linear collider running in the $`e^{}e^{}`$ mode, it is possible to produce the doubly charged scalar $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{++}`$ as an s-channel resonance in the process $`e^{}+e^{}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}^{}`$, which will provide a spectacular signal.
7. In the dimension 9 operator of Eq. (4), if we insert VEVs to the external Higgs fields, it becomes a $`d=6`$ operator. Then we can attach a $`Z^0`$ boson line on the effective four–fermion operator. That would lead to rare $`Z^0`$ decays such as $`Z^0e^+\mu ^{}\nu \nu `$. A quick estimate gives the branching ratio for this decay to be of order $`(10^710^8)`$, which may be observable.
8. The $`Z^0`$ boson can decay into a virtual $`H\overline{H}`$ pair, which can lead to $`Z^0e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ signal. This branching ratio is smaller than $`10^6`$ .

### 3.1 Model for Operator $`𝒪_2`$

The gauge model that induces operator $`𝒪_2`$ in Eq. (2) can be obtained in analogous fashion. The Lagrangian of this model is taken to be

$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`h_{e\mu }\overline{\mu }_R\mathrm{\Psi }_eH^{}+f_{ei}\mathrm{\Psi }_e^TC^1\mathrm{\Psi }_i\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`_0H^{}\chi \mathrm{\Phi }+\lambda ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\chi \mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+H.C.`$
The main difference from $`_1`$ is that the helicities of $`e`$ and $`\mu `$ have been switched. The diagram of Fig. 2 will induce the decay $`\mu ^+e^++\overline{\nu }_e+\overline{\nu }_i`$. The phenomenological implications of the model are very similar to Model 1. The only significant difference is that the exchange of $`H^+`$ now cannot induce the process $`e^+e^{}\nu \nu \gamma `$, and so the constraint from that process would not apply.

## 4 Conclusions

We have presented a class of models where the LSND neutrino anomaly can be explained in terms of the lepton number violating decay $`\mu ^+e^++\overline{\nu }_e+\overline{\nu }_i`$. There are two effective operators that can lead to this decay. These operators do not cause any problem with other rare processes such as $`\mu 3e`$, unlike the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=0`$ decays. We have presented gauge models where these operators are derived from renormalizable interactions. All models predict the existence of additional scalar fields with masses below about 500 GeV. Observable deviations in the scattering processes $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{},e^+e^{}\nu \nu \gamma `$ and lepton number violating $`Z^0`$ decays are expected with strengths not much smaller than the current experimental limits.

Mini–BOONE experiment at Fermilab is expected to go on line in the near future. Our scenario predicts that mini–BOONE should see no signal. This is because the new interactions only affect $`\mu ^\pm `$ decays in our scheme, and not $`\pi ^\pm `$ decays. Hence, a null result in Mini-Boone does not invalidate the LSND results. The proposed ORLaND experiment  or experiments at a neutrino factory  using neutrinos from $`\mu `$ decays  can confirm or rule out the existence of such a lepton number violating decay mode; with the additional prediction that there be no $`L/E`$ dependence. The TWIST experiment at TRIUMF  can test for the shift in the effective Michel parameter that is predicted in our model.

## Acknowledgments

We wish to thank K. Eitel for very helpful discussions on issues related to the analyses of LSND and KARMEN experiments. It is a pleasure to thank D. Caldwell, P. Herczeg, W. Louis, A. Rubbia and X. Tata for illuminating discussions. The work of KSB is supported in part by DOE Grant # DE-FG03-98ER-41076, a grant from the Research Corporation and by DOE Grant # DE-FG02-01ER-45684. The work of SP is supported in part by DOE Grant # DE-FG03-94ER40833. We thank the (Department of Energy’s) Institute for Nuclear Theory at the University of Washington for its hospitality and the Department of Energy for its partial support during the completion of this work.