text:
# Can the Wigner function be determined by properties for translation and parity transformation on lattice phase space?

## I Introduction

The expectation values for mixed state with density matrix $`\widehat{\rho }`$ are expressed as the averages over phase space quasiprobability $`W(q,p)`$ defined by

$$W(q,p)=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\left[e^{ipr/\mathrm{}}q+\frac{r}{2}\left|\widehat{\rho }\right|q\frac{r}{2}\right],$$
(1)
which is well known as the Wigner function, where $`|q\pm \frac{r}{2}`$ is eigenvector with eigenvalue $`q\pm \frac{r}{2}`$ for the coordinate operator. We can check that this function satisfies the following conditions

(A) We can obtain the marginal distribution along the coordinate and momentum axes,

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}W(q,p)𝑑p`$ $`=`$ $`q|\widehat{\rho }|q,`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}W(q,p)𝑑q`$ $`=`$ $`p|\widehat{\rho }|p.`$
(B) The Wigner function is a real valued function,

$`W^{}(q,p)=W(q,p).`$

(C) The Wigner function includes the same information as the density matrix.

Here, $`|q`$ and $`|p`$ are eigenvectors for coordinate operator $`\widehat{Q}`$ and momentum operator $`\widehat{P}`$, respectively,

$`\widehat{Q}|q=q|q,\widehat{P}|p=p|p`$

Inversely, it is pointed out that the Wigner function is not determined uniquely under these conditions by many physicists  $``$ . From tomographic point of view, Bertrand and Bertrand  and Leonhardt impose an additional condition which gives the connection between rotations of quantum variables $`(\widehat{Q},\widehat{P})`$ and of the point $`(q,p)`$ in phase space on which the Wigner function is defined,

$`q|R_\theta \widehat{\rho }R_\theta ^1|q={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}W(q\mathrm{cos}\theta +p\mathrm{sin}\theta ,q\mathrm{sin}\theta +p\mathrm{sin}\theta )𝑑p,`$

where $`R_\theta `$ is unitary operator for rotation of quantum variables $`(\widehat{Q},\widehat{P})`$,

$`R_\theta \widehat{Q}R_\theta ^1=\widehat{Q}\mathrm{cos}\theta \widehat{P}\mathrm{sin}\theta ,R_\theta \widehat{P}R_\theta ^1=\widehat{P}\mathrm{cos}\theta +\widehat{Q}\mathrm{sin}\theta .`$

And they show that there is only one solution satisfying it for one dimensional quantum system.

In the previous paper , we rewrote this condition using the Fano operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p)`$ defined by

$`W(q,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}[\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p)\widehat{\rho }],`$ (2)
$`\widehat{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}W(q,p)\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}(q,p)𝑑q𝑑p.`$ (3)
Namely, we assumed that

$$R_\theta \widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p)R_\theta ^1=\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q\mathrm{cos}\theta +p\mathrm{sin}\theta ,q\mathrm{sin}\theta +p\mathrm{sin}\theta ),$$
(4)
and showed that there is only one solution satisfying this condition. For the lattice phase space with $`N^2`$ sites, we could discuss it in the same manner and we found the unique solution, which is equivalent to the one given by Cohendet, for the case where $`N`$ is odd, but no solution for the case where $`N`$ is even. Naively, we are interested in whether the Wigner function is determined uniquely under the assumption for the properties of simpler transformation than rotation. In this paper, we assume the behavior of the Fano operator$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p)`$ in equation(2) under the translation and parity transformation and try to determine the Fano operator. For one dimensional quantum system, we can find out only one Fano operator which satisfies the conditions corresponding to the above ones (A) $``$ (C) and new conditions. But, for systems with lattice phase space, we cannot determine it uniquely.

## II the Wigner function on one dimensional system

In this section, we study the Fano operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p)`$ defined by equations (2) and (3). In terms of the Fano operator, we can rewrite the conditions (A) $``$ (C) in the preceding section,

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p)𝑑p`$ $`=`$ $`|qq|,`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p)𝑑q`$ $`=`$ $`|pp|,`$ (6)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}(q,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p),`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{})_{q_1q_2}(q,p)(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }})_{q_3q_4}(q,p)𝑑p𝑑q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}\delta (q_1q_4)\delta (q_3q_2).`$ (8)
where $`|q`$ and $`|p`$ are eigenvectors of the coordinate operator $`\widehat{Q}`$ and the momentum operator $`\widehat{P}`$ with eigenvalues $`q`$ and $`p`$, respectively, as stated previously and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{q_1q_2}(q,p)=q_1|\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p)|q_2`$ is a matrix element of the Fano operator between eigenvectors of the operator $`\widehat{Q}`$ for eigenvalues $`q_1`$ and $`q_2`$. When we expand the Fano operator in terms of complete set $`e^{i𝒬\widehat{P}/\mathrm{}}e^{i𝒫\widehat{Q}/\mathrm{}}`$,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p)=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑𝒬𝑑𝒫a(q,p;𝒬,𝒫)e^{i𝒬\widehat{P}/\mathrm{}}e^{i𝒫\widehat{Q}/\mathrm{}},$$
(9)
the coefficients $`a(q,p;𝒬,𝒫)`$ should satisfy the conditions

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}a(q,p;𝒬,𝒫)𝑑p`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (𝒬)e^{iq𝒫/\mathrm{}},`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}a(q,p;𝒬,𝒫)𝑑q`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (𝒫)e^{ip𝒬/\mathrm{}},`$
$`a^{}(q,p;𝒬,𝒫)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i𝒬𝒫/\mathrm{}}a(q,p;𝒬,𝒫),`$
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}a^{}(q,p:𝒬,𝒫)a(q,p:𝒬^{},𝒫^{})dqdp`$ $`=`$ $`\delta (𝒬𝒬^{})\delta (𝒫𝒫^{}),`$
because of conditions (5) $``$ (8). Using the Fourier transformed coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;𝒬,𝒫)`$

$$\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;𝒬,𝒫)=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}a(q,p;𝒬,𝒫)e^{i(qspt)/\mathrm{}}𝑑q𝑑p,$$
(10)
these conditions can be described in simpler forms;

$`\stackrel{~}{a}(s,0;𝒬,𝒫)=\delta (𝒬)\delta (𝒫s),`$ (11)
$`\stackrel{~}{a}(0,t;𝒬,𝒫)=\delta (𝒬t)\delta (𝒫),`$ (12)
$`\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;𝒬,𝒫)^{}=\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;𝒬,𝒫)e^{i𝒬𝒫/\mathrm{}},`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s𝑑t\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;𝒬^{},𝒫^{})^{}\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;𝒬,𝒫)=\delta (𝒬𝒬^{})\delta (𝒫𝒫^{}).`$ (14)
### A New conditions arising from translation and parity transformation

For the classical theory, the distribution function $`\rho (q,p)`$ on phase space is transformed by the following way;

$`\rho ^{}(q^{},p^{})=\rho (q,p)=\rho (q^{}a,p^{}b),`$

under the translation on phase space,

$`qq^{}=q+a,pp^{}=p+b.`$

And under the parity transformation on phase space

$`qq^{}=q,pp^{}=p,`$

the distribution function is changed into $`\rho ^{}(q^{},p^{})`$

$`\rho ^{}(q^{},p^{})=\rho (q,p)=\rho (q^{},p^{}).`$

Thus, in the quantum theory, we hope that the Fano operator is transformed as follows;

$$U_{\mathrm{cont}}(a,b)\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_(q,p)U_{\mathrm{cont}}^1(a,b)=\mathrm{\Delta }(qa,pb),$$
(15)
and

$$T_{\mathrm{cont}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p)T_{\mathrm{cont}}^1=\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p).$$
(16)
Here, $`U_{\mathrm{cont}}(a,b)`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{cont}}`$ are unitary operators which are defined by

$`U_{\mathrm{cont}}(a,b)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{P}a\widehat{Q}b}{\mathrm{}}}\right],`$ (17)
$`T_{\mathrm{cont}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{Q}^2+\widehat{P}^2}{2\mathrm{}}}\right].`$ (18)
It is easily shown that these unitary operators $`U_{\mathrm{cont}}(a,b)`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{cont}}`$ induce the translation and parity transformation, respectively,

$`U_{\mathrm{cont}}(a,b)\widehat{Q}U_{\mathrm{cont}}^1(a,b)=\widehat{Q}+a,`$ $`U_{\mathrm{cont}}(a,b)\widehat{P}U_{\mathrm{cont}}^1(a,b)=\widehat{P}+b`$ (19)
$`T_{\mathrm{cont}}\widehat{Q}T_{\mathrm{cont}}^1=\widehat{Q},`$ $`T_{\mathrm{cont}}\widehat{P}T_{\mathrm{cont}}^1=\widehat{P}`$ (20)
For the coefficients in the expansion (9), these conditions (15) and (16) become

$`a(q,p;𝒬,𝒫)e^{i𝒬b/\mathrm{}}e^{ia𝒫/\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`a(qa,pb;𝒬,𝒫),`$ (21)
$`a(q,p;𝒬,𝒫)`$ $`=`$ $`a(q,p;𝒬𝒫).`$ (22)
Using the Fourier transformed coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;𝒬,𝒫)`$, these conditions are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;𝒬,𝒫)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i(𝒬t)b/\mathrm{}}e^{ia(𝒫s)/\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;𝒬,𝒫)`$ (23)
$`\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;𝒬,𝒫)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;𝒬,𝒫)`$ (24)
Thus, we have simple equations from the assumptions (15) and (16). In the next subsection we try to find the Fano operator satisfying conditions (11) $``$ (14), (23) and (24).

### B the Fano operator under the new conditions

From the equation (23), we have

$$\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;𝒬,𝒫)=F(s,t)\delta (𝒬t)\delta (𝒫s)$$
(25)
where $`F(s,t)`$ is a function of $`s`$ and $`t`$ which is determined by other conditions.

Taking account of the condition (24), we obtain the condition for the function $`F(s,t)`$

$$F(s,t)=F(s,t).$$
(26)
From conditions (26) and (13), the function $`F(s,t)`$ should satisfy

$`F^{}(s,t)=e^{its/\mathrm{}}F(s,t)=e^{its/\mathrm{}}F(s,t).`$

So that we get

$`F(s,t)=R(s,t)e^{ist/2\mathrm{}},`$

where $`R(s,t)`$ is a real function of $`s`$ and $`t`$. The value of the square of this function $`R(s,t)`$ is restricted to unity by the condition (14)

$`R^2(s,t)=1\mathrm{or}R(s,t)=\pm 1.`$

Because of the condition (11), we should choose $`+1`$ as $`R(s,t)`$ and we have unique solution

$`\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;𝒬,𝒫)=e^{i𝒬𝒫/\mathrm{}}\delta (𝒬t)\delta (𝒫s).`$

Here we assumed that the function $`R(s,t)`$ is continuous.

## III the Wigner function on lattice phase space

In this section, we try to determine the Fano operator by the similar method to the one we adopted in the preceding section. For lattice phase space with $`N^2`$ sites, we can obtain the conditions corresponding to the conditions (A) $``$ (C) by replacing the integration by summation over $`Z_N`$ in the equations (11), (12), (13) and (14),

$`{\displaystyle \underset{pZ_N}{}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p)`$ $`=`$ $`|qq|,`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{qZ_N}{}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p)`$ $`=`$ $`|pp|,`$ (28)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{}(q,p)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p),`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{q,pZ_N}{}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{})_{q_1q_2}(q,p)(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }})_{q_3q_4}(q,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\delta _{q_1q_4}^{(N)}\delta _{q_3q_2}^{(N)}.`$ (30)
where $`|q`$ and $`|p`$ are eigenvectors of “coordinate” and “momentum” operators with eigenvalue $`q(qZ_N)`$ and $`p(pZ_N)`$, respectively and $`\delta _{q_1q_2}^{(N)}`$ is Kronecker’s delta on $`Z_N`$,

$`\delta _{q_1q_2}^{(N)}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1& (q_1\mathrm{mod}N=q_2)\\ 0& (q_1\mathrm{mod}Nq_2)\end{array}.`$

We decompose the Fano operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p)`$ into matrices $`S^nP^m(n,m=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N1),`$

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p)=\underset{n,mZ_N}{}a(q,p;n,m)S^nP^m$$
(31)
where the matrices $`S`$ and $`P`$ are defined by

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& 1\\ 1& & & 0\end{array}\right)`$ (36)
$`P`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& & & \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& & \omega ^n& & \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& & & \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& & & 0& \omega ^{(N1)}\end{array}\right)`$ (42)
and $`\omega `$ is a primitive N-th root of unity,

$`\omega =e^{\frac{2\pi i}{N}}.`$

These matrices satisfy commutation relation

$$S^nP^m=\omega ^{nm}P^mS^n,(n,m=\mathrm{integer})$$
(43)
This commutation relation appears similar to the commutation relation between operators $`e^{i𝒫\widehat{Q}/\mathrm{}}`$ and $`e^{i𝒬\widehat{P}/\mathrm{}}`$ used in the preceding section

$`e^{i𝒬\widehat{P}/\mathrm{}}e^{i𝒫\widehat{Q}/\mathrm{}}=e^{i𝒫𝒬/\mathrm{}}e^{i𝒫\widehat{Q}/\mathrm{}}e^{i𝒬\widehat{P}/\mathrm{}},`$

and we can think that matrices $`P`$ and $`S`$ correspond to $`e^{i\widehat{Q}/\mathrm{}}`$ and $`e^{i\widehat{P}/\mathrm{}}`$, respectively. It is natural that the eigenvector $`|q`$ and $`|p`$ are regarded as the eigenvectors with respect to the matrices $`P`$ and $`S`$, respectively:

$`P|q`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^q|q,`$ (44)
$`S|p`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^p|p.`$ (45)
So, the eigenvector $`|p`$ is expressed as the linear combination of the eigenvector $`|q`$,

$`|p={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{Z_Nq}{}}\omega ^{pq}|q.`$

We will use this correspondence of $`P`$ and $`S`$ to $`e^{i\widehat{Q}/\mathrm{}}`$ and $`e^{i\widehat{P}/\mathrm{}}`$ in order to define the translation and parity transformation in lattice phase space.

Using the coefficients $`a(q,p;n,m)`$, the conditions (27) $``$ (30) become

$`{\displaystyle \underset{pZ_N}{}}a(q,p;n,m)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\omega ^{qm}\delta _{n,0},`$ (46)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{qZ_N}{}}a(q,p;n,m)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\omega ^{pn}\delta _{m,0},`$ (47)
$`a(q,p;n,m)=\omega ^{nm}a(q,p:Nn,Nm),`$ (48)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{q,pZ_N}{}}a(q,p;n,m)a(q,p;k,l)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}\delta _{m,k}^{(N)}\delta _{n,l}^{(N)},`$ (49)
In order to obtain the equation (49), we used the relation,

$`\delta _{a,a^{}}^{(N)}\delta _{b,b^{}}^{(N)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,mZ_N}{}}(S^nP^m)_{ab}(S^nP^m)_{a^{}b^{}}.`$

We introduce the Fourier transformed coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;n,m)`$

$$\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;n,m)=\frac{1}{N^2}\underset{q,pZ_N}{}\omega ^{qs}\omega ^{pt}a(q,p;n,m).$$
(50)
The above conditions (46) $``$ (49) become

$`\stackrel{~}{a}(s,0;n,m)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}\delta _{n,0}^{(N)}\delta _{m,s}^{(N)},`$ (51)
$`\stackrel{~}{a}(0,t;n,m)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}\delta _{n,t}^{(N)}\delta _{m,0}^{(N)},`$ (52)
$`\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;n,m)=\omega ^{nm}\stackrel{~}{a}^{}(s,t;n,m),`$ (53)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{s,tZ_N}{}}\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;n,m)^{}\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;k,l)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^4}}\delta _{n,k}^{(N)}\delta _{m,l}^{(N)}.`$ (54)
### A New conditions arising from translation and parity transformation

As we explained in the preceding subsection, since we consider that the matrices $`P`$ and $`S`$ as $`e^{i\widehat{Q}/\mathrm{}}`$ and $`e^{i\widehat{P}/\mathrm{}}`$, from the definition (17) of $`U_{\mathrm{cont}}(a,b)`$, the unitary matrices $`U_{\mathrm{dis}}(a,b)`$ for the translation in lattice phase space is obtained,

$$U_{\mathrm{cont}}(a,b)=\mathrm{exp}\left[i\frac{\widehat{P}a\widehat{Q}b}{\mathrm{}}\right]U_{\mathrm{dis}}(a,b)=P^bS^a,$$
(55)
From commutation relation (43), we obtain

$$\{\begin{array}{c}PP^{}=U_{\mathrm{dis}}(a,b)PU_{\mathrm{dis}}^1(a,b)=\omega ^aP,\\ SS^{}=U_{\mathrm{dis}}(a,b)SU_{\mathrm{dis}}^1(a,b)=\omega ^bS,\end{array}$$
(56)
This transformation is similar to the transformation of $`e^{i\widehat{Q}/\mathrm{}}`$ and $`e^{i\widehat{P}/\mathrm{}}`$ by unitary operator $`U_{\mathrm{cont}}(a,b)`$.

Imitating the equation (15), we assume that the Fano operator satisfies

$$U_{\mathrm{dis}}(a,b)\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_(q,p)U_{\mathrm{dis}}^1(a,b)=\mathrm{\Delta }(qa,pb).$$
(57)
Similarly, for the parity transformation, we assume as follows

$$T_{\mathrm{dis}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p)T_{\mathrm{dis}}^1=\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p),$$
(58)
where $`T_{\mathrm{dis}}`$ is the unitary matrix for the parity transformation, which is given by

$`T_{\mathrm{dis}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (65)
$`\mathrm{or}(T)_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\alpha ,N\beta }^{(N)}.`$ (66)
It is checked that this unitary matrix $`T_{\mathrm{dis}}`$ transforms matrices $`P`$ and $`S`$ into inverse matrices $`P^1`$ and $`S^1`$, respectively,

$$\{\begin{array}{c}PP^{}=T_{\mathrm{dis}}PT_{\mathrm{dis}}^1=P^1,\\ SS^{}=T_{\mathrm{dis}}ST_{\mathrm{dis}}^1=S^1,\end{array}$$
(67)
For the coefficients $`a(q,p;n,m)`$ in the expansion (31), these conditions (57) and (58) become,

$`a(q,p;n,m)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^{ma+nb}a(qa,pb;n,m),`$
$`a(q,p;n,m)`$ $`=`$ $`a(q,p;n,m),`$
and the coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;n,m)`$ in equation (50) satisfy

$`\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;n,m)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^{a(sm)}\omega ^{b(tn)}\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;n,m),`$ (68)
$`\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;n,m)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;n,m).`$ (69)
### B the Fano operator under the new conditions

In order that the coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;n,m)`$ satisfy the condition (68) for arbitrary integers $`a`$ and $`b`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;n,m)`$ should be proportional to $`\delta _{t,n}^{(N)}\delta _{s,m}^{(N)}`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;n,m)=F(s,t)\delta _{t,n}^{(N)}\delta _{s,m}^{(N)},$$
(70)
where $`F(s,t)`$ is a complex valued function. And, from the condition(69), the function $`F(s,t)`$ should be a symmetric function under the reflection $`ss,tt`$

$$F(s,t)=F(s,t).$$
(71)
The condition (53) with the above equation determines the phase factor up to sign,

$$F(s,t)=\omega ^{st/2}R(s,t),$$
(72)
where $`R(s,t)`$ is a real function. Substituting this equation (72) into the condition (54), we can see that

$`R(s,t)^2=1.`$

Thus, we obtain the same condition as we did for one dimensional quantum system in the preceding section. In that case, we could determine the $`R(s,t)`$ since we assumed that it is a continuous function. However, we have many ways of assigning $`\pm 1`$ to each site on a lattice phase space. For example, in the case where $`N`$ is odd, if we choose

$`R(s,t)=(1)^{st}=\omega ^{Nst/2},`$

we get the Fano operator which is given by Cohendet et al..

## IV Summary and Discussion

We tried to determine the Fano operator uniquely under the assumptions for translation and parity transformation. For one dimensional quantum system, we found out only one Fano operator satisfying these conditions and three original conditions. Contrary to this case, for the lattice phase space which includes $`N^2`$ sites, we could not determine the Fano operator uniquely.

We considered the map from a point on phase space to the point rotated about the original point $`(q,p)=(0,0)`$ by $`\pi `$ as the parity transformation. However, there are quantum systems where we had better consider the rotation about another point, instead of the origin, as the parity transformation. For example, in spin systems, the parity transformation is corresponding to exchanging between eigenstates for eigenvalues $`\omega ^k`$ and $`\omega ^{N1k}`$ of matrix $`S`$. This transformation is equivalent to the rotation about the point $`(\frac{N1}{2},\frac{N1}{2})`$. The rotation $`T_{\mathrm{cont}}(c,d)`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{dis}}(c,d)`$ about the point $`(c/2,d/2)`$ by $`\pi `$ for continuous and discrete phase space can be described in terms of combination of translation and the rotation about the origin;

$$(q,p)\stackrel{U^1(\frac{c}{2},\frac{d}{2})}{}(q\frac{c}{2},p\frac{d}{2})\stackrel{T}{}(\frac{c}{2}q,\frac{d}{2}p)\stackrel{U(\frac{c}{2},\frac{d}{2})}{}(cq,dp),$$
(73)
and we have

$$T(c,d)=U(c,d)T.$$
(74)
Hereafter, the subscripts “cont” and “dis” are dropped, as we have the same equations for both continuous and discrete phase spaces. From the equation (74), we can expect that the assumptions for this transformation do not give rise to essentially different conditions from the ones we considered in the preceding sections. Indeed, if we assume the behaviors

$$T(c,d)\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q,p)T^1(c,d)=\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(cq,dp),$$
(75)
we have

$`\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;𝒬,𝒫)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{id(𝒬t)/\mathrm{}}e^{ic(𝒫s)/\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;𝒬,𝒫),`$ (76)
$`\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;n,m)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega ^{c(sm)}\omega ^{d(tn)}\stackrel{~}{a}(s,t;n,m).`$ (77)
Owing to the delta functions or Kronecker’s delta in equation(25) and (70), the factors $`e^{id(𝒬t)/\mathrm{}}e^{ic(𝒫s)/\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\omega ^{c(sm)}\omega ^{d(tn)}`$ are vanished, so that these conditions reduce to the ones (24) and (69) we considered.


format: text

text:
# Particle velocity in noncommutative space-time

## I Introduction

It is believed that general relativity describes the large scale structure of space-time, and it has revealed the history and present states of our universe. The direct evidence for the validity of general relativity in strong gravitational regime will be obtained by the observations of gravitational waves from inspiraling binaries in near future. While little is known about the small scale structure of space-time because gravity should be also quantized consistently, which is not completed yet, in such a regime. The physics of small scale structure is important because there are some phenomena in our universe which such physics may be needed to describe, e.g., the birth of the universe, space-time singularity and ultra-high energy cosmic rays. The last one is one of the main topics of this paper.

Although we do not have the coherent theory of small scale structure, several attempts have been made to extract its information and effects. Among them, the simplest way is modifying the dispersion relation that leads to the violation of Lorentz invariance. We call the theories obtained by this method modified dispersion relation (MDR) models.

The violation of Lorentz invariance appears in the context of string/M theories, where the space-time structure is modified to include the space-time noncommutativity. The space-time noncommutativity also arises as a result of deformation quantization. By using the MDR models, the robustness of the spectrum of a black hole evaporation and of the fluctuation generated in an inflationary cosmology were discussed. Remarkably enough, it was discussed that the anomalous detection of the ultra-high energy cosmic rays beyond the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin cutoff may be observational evidence for the violation of Lorentz invariance.

It has been discussed that there is a severe constraint on the energy scale where the Lorentz invariance might be violated, i.e., the scale of quantum gravity as $`E_{QG}\stackrel{>}{}7.2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV by the detection of $`\gamma `$-rays from Markarian (Mk) 421 as pointed out in Refs. . They examined the energy dependence of the arrival time of photons and compared it with the observations of Mk 421 to obtain this constraint.

In general, however, it is plausible that not only a dispersion relation but also other relations such as energy-momentum conservation laws might be altered in a Planck scale physics. A particle velocity in such models may have qualitative difference from that in the MDR models. To investigate these features, we employ a model called $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time, where noncommutativity is introduced as $`[x^i,t]=i\lambda x^i`$ , and compare a group velocity in the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time evaluated in our previous paper with that in the MDR models. The properties of this group velocity were also investigated in Ref. .

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we review the previous discussion in the MDR models. After introducing the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time in Sec. III, we discuss the particle velocity in this model in Sec. IV. In Sec. V, we consider the observational possibilities of time delay by comparing a particle velocity in the usual Minkowski space-time with that in the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time and MDR models. We show that the space-time noncommutativity does not affect the velocity of massless particles, which implies that the arrival time analysis by $`\gamma `$-rays is not useful to detect the space-time noncommutativity. We also discuss a possibility that the space-time noncommutativity might be detected by using low-energy massive particles. In Sec. VI, we summarize our results and mention future work. We use the signature $`(,+,+,+)`$ and units in which $`c=\mathrm{}=1`$ below.

## II Modified Dispersion Relation Models

Although there are various ways to modify the dispersion relation, we consider here the form in Ref.  as $`p^2+m^2=E^2[1+f(E/E_{QG})]`$, where $`f`$ is a model-dependent function and $`E_{QG}`$ is the effective energy scale of quantum gravity. For simplicity, we assume that $`f`$ is an analytic function. Although in general, $`f`$ and $`E_{QG}`$ may depend on the species and properties of the particles, we do not consider this possibility, which implies that the effects of quantum gravity originate from the space-time structure. In the low-energy limit, $`EE_{QG}`$, the above dispersion relation becomes

$`p^2+m^2=E^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi E^n}{E_{QG}^{n2}}},`$ (1)
up to the lowest correction. We have chosen $`\xi =\pm 1`$ and $`n3`$ is the integer, which is determined by the form of the function $`f`$. Note that $`E<m`$ for $`\xi =1`$ in the low-momentum limit. This type of dispersion relation also appears in the Liouville string approach to quantum gravity.

The velocity $`v_{MDR}`$ in this model is obtained by differentiating the dispersion relation (1) with respect to $`p`$,

$`v_{MDR}:={\displaystyle \frac{dE}{dp}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{E^2m^2+\xi E^n/E_{QG}^{n2}}}{2E+n\xi E^{n1}/E_{QG}^{n2}}}.`$ (2)
It should be noted that $`v_{MDR}`$ depends on the energy even for massless particles because of the correction term. We can make use of the energy dependence to restrict $`E_{QG}`$.

Let us consider a $`\gamma `$-ray from the distant source. We approximate the velocity of the $`\gamma `$-ray by expanding Eq. (2) by $`E/E_{QG}`$ to

$`v_{MDR}`$ $``$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\xi (n1)}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{E_{QG}}}\right)^{n2}.`$ (3)
Although the correction term may be very small, the difference of arrival time depending on the energy of the photons may become large enough to measure if the $`\gamma `$-rays travel a very long distance . The time delay is evaluated as

$`\delta t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{v_{MDR}(E_1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{v_{MDR}(E_2)}}`$ (4)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(n1)\xi L}{2E_{QG}^{}{}_{}{}^{n2}}}(E_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{n2}E_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{n2}),`$ (5)
where $`L`$, $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are the distance from the source to the Earth, amounts of the energy of particles $`1`$ and $`2`$, respectively.

One of the examples of this kind of analyses is the arrival time analysis by $`\gamma `$-rays from Mk 421 ($`150`$ Mpc from the Earth). It was reported that $`\gamma `$-rays in the energy range between 1 and 2 TeV arrived at the Earth within the time difference $`200`$ seconds. Then, $`E_{QG}`$ is constrained to $`E_{QG}`$ $`\left[3.6\times (n1)(n2)\times 10^{13}\right]^{1/(n2)}\times 10^3`$ GeV. Since the value of $`n`$ has been assumed to be 3 in most of the previous works, it has been concluded that $`E_{QG}7.2\times 10^{16}`$ GeV. We should note, however, that $`n`$ may be 4 or larger. In this case, the constraint becomes $`E_{QG}1.5\times 10^{10}`$ GeV for $`n=4`$ and $`E_{QG}7.6\times 10^7`$ GeV for $`n=5`$. Hence the constraint may become quite loose compared with the previous reports.

## III $`\kappa `$-Poincarè algebra and $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time

Here, we review the $`\kappa `$-Poincarè algebra, which has the structure of a Hopf algebra (quantum group). The generators of the $`\kappa `$-Poincarè algebra $`𝒫_\kappa `$ satisfy the following commutation relations:

$`[M_{\mu \nu },M_{\rho \sigma }]`$ $`=`$ $`i\left(\eta _{\mu \sigma }M_{\nu \rho }\eta _{\mu \rho }M_{\nu \sigma }+\eta _{\nu \rho }M_{\mu \sigma }\eta _{\nu \sigma }M_{\mu \rho }\right),`$ (6)
$`[M_i,p_0]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (7)
$`[M_i,p_j]`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ_{ijk}p_k,`$ (8)
$`[N_i,p_0]`$ $`=`$ $`ip_i,`$ (9)
$`[N_i,p_j]`$ $`=`$ $`i\delta _{ij}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\lambda }}\left(1e^{2p_0\lambda }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}𝒑^2\right]+i\lambda p_ip_j,`$ (10)
$`[p_\mu ,p_\nu ]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (11)
where $`M_i\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}M_{jk},N_iM_{0i}`$ and $`p_\mu `$ are generators of rotation, boost and translation, respectively. The Greek and Roman indicies take the values from $`0`$ to $`3`$ and from $`1`$ to $`3`$, respectively. We abbreviate $`_ip_i^2`$ as $`𝒑^2`$. We can recover the ordinary commutation relations of the Poincarè algebra in the limit $`\lambda 0`$. The dispersion relation is determined by the eigenvalue of the Casimir operator that commutes with all elements in $`𝒫_\kappa `$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{cosh}(\lambda p_0)}{\lambda ^2}}𝒑^2e^{\lambda p_0}={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{cosh}(\lambda m)}{\lambda ^2}},`$ (12)
where the rest mass $`m`$ is defined as the energy with $`p_i=0`$. The coproducts $`\mathrm{\Delta }:𝒫_\kappa 𝒫_\kappa 𝒫_\kappa `$ of the basic generators are

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(M_i)`$ $`=`$ $`M_i1+1M_i,`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(N_i)`$ $`=`$ $`N_i1+e^{p_0\lambda }N_i\lambda ϵ_{ijk}p_jM_k,`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_0)`$ $`=`$ $`p_01+1p_0,`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(p_i)`$ $`=`$ $`p_i1+e^{p_0\lambda }p_i.`$ (16)
The above coproducts of $`p_\mu `$, (15) and (16), are interpreted as the non-Abelian addition law of energy-momenta for particles 1 and 2 as

$`(E_1,𝒑_1)\widehat{+}(E_2,𝒑_2):=(E_1+E_2,𝒑_1+e^{\lambda E_1}𝒑_2),`$ (17)
where we identify $`p_0`$ with energy $`E`$. Note that the associativity of the addition law is given by the coassociativity $`(\mathrm{\Delta }id)\mathrm{\Delta }=(id\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The coproducts of other elements in $`𝒫_\kappa `$ are extended as $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1)=11`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(MM^{})=\mathrm{\Delta }(M)\mathrm{\Delta }(M^{}),M,M^{}𝒫_\kappa `$. We can check the consistency between this extension of the coproducts as an algebra homomorphism and the commutation relation, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }[M,M^{}]=[\mathrm{\Delta }M,\mathrm{\Delta }M^{}]`$. This consistency guarantees that the $`\kappa `$-Poincarè algebra is form-invariant for multi-particle systems.

The asymmetry of the coproducts for the permutation of particles is called noncocommutativity. The noncocommutativity of the coproducts for the translation sector $`T𝒫_\kappa `$ has two important meanings. One is that the noncommutativity of the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time is a direct consequence of the noncocommutativity. Elements in the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time are defined as linear functionals on the translation sector, $`T^{}:T𝐂`$. The products in $`T^{}`$ is defined in terms of coproducts in $`T`$, i.e., $`x,yT^{}`$ and $`pT`$,

$`xy,p:=`$ $`xy,\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}x,p_{a(1)}y,p_{a(2)},`$ (19)
where we write the coproducts as $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p)=_ap_{a(1)}p_{a(2)}`$. With the duality relations $`x^\mu ,p_\nu =i\delta _\nu ^\mu `$, this leads to the following commutation relations:

$`[x^i,x^0]`$ $`=`$ $`i\lambda x^i,`$ (20)
$`[x^0,x^0]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (21)
$`[x^i,x^j]`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (22)
The other is that the noncocommutativity leads to a deformed group velocity formula, which is different from the usual velocity formula $`dE/d𝒑`$ as will be shown in the next section.

We can also define differentiation, integration and Fourier transformation. The plane wave $`\psi _{(E,𝒑)}=e^{i𝒑𝒙}e^{iEt}`$ in the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time introduced in  respects the non-Abelian addition law of energy-momenta in the sense

$`\psi _{(E_1,𝒑_1)}\psi _{(E_2,𝒑_2)}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i𝒑_1𝒙}e^{iE_1t}e^{i𝒑_2𝒙}e^{iE_2t}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`\psi _{(E_1+E_2,𝒑_1+e^{\lambda E_1}𝒑_2)}.`$ (24)
## IV Velocity formula

From the properties in the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time in Sec III, we can establish group velocity formulae. For this purpose, we consider infinitesimal changes $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒑`$ in $`E`$ and $`𝒑`$, respectively, as a result of adding ($`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{},\mathrm{\Delta }𝒑^{}`$) as

$`(E,𝒑)\widehat{+}(\mathrm{\Delta }E^{},\mathrm{\Delta }𝒑^{})=(E+\mathrm{\Delta }E,𝒑+\mathrm{\Delta }𝒑).`$ (25)
By the addition law (17), we have

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }E^{},\mathrm{\Delta }𝒑^{})=(\mathrm{\Delta }E,{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }𝒑}{e^{\lambda E}}}).`$ (26)
Next, we construct a wave packet by superposing plane waves. Here we only consider two waves for simplicity, whose momenta and amounts of energy are different infinitesimally from each other.

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{(E\mathrm{\Delta }E,𝒑\mathrm{\Delta }𝒑)}+\psi _{(E+\mathrm{\Delta }E,𝒑+\mathrm{\Delta }𝒑)}`$ (27)
$``$ $`2e^{i𝒑𝒙}e^{iEt}\mathrm{cos}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }𝒑}{e^{\lambda E}}}\left(𝒙+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\lambda E}\mathrm{\Delta }Et}{\mathrm{\Delta }𝒑}}\right)\right],`$ (28)
where we neglected the terms that vanish in the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒑0`$. The group velocity $`𝒗_l`$ of this wave packet can be written as

$`𝒗_l:=e^{\lambda E}{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{d𝒑}}.`$ (29)
There remains ambiguity in constructing the wave packet because of the noncommutativity of the space-time. Another possibility is

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }E^{},\mathrm{\Delta }𝒑^{})\widehat{+}(E,𝒑)=(E+\mathrm{\Delta }E,𝒑+\mathrm{\Delta }𝒑).`$ (30)
In this case, the corresponding group velocity $`𝒗_r`$ is

$`𝒗_r:=\left(1\lambda 𝒑{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{d𝒑}}\right)^1{\displaystyle \frac{dE}{d𝒑}}.`$ (31)
These velocities can be expressed explicitly in terms of the functions of $`E`$ and $`m`$ by using the dispersion relation. By the definitions of $`𝒗_l`$ and $`𝒗_r`$, we find

$`𝒗_l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\lambda E/2}\sqrt{2[\mathrm{cosh}(\lambda E)\mathrm{cosh}(\lambda m)]}}{|e^{\lambda E}\mathrm{cosh}(\lambda m)|}}𝒆,`$ (32)
$`𝒗_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\lambda E/2}\sqrt{2[\mathrm{cosh}(\lambda E)\mathrm{cosh}(\lambda m)]}}{|e^{\lambda E}\mathrm{cosh}(\lambda m)|}}𝒆,`$ (33)
where $`𝒆:=𝒑/|𝒑|`$. We find that the velocities have the same direction as that of the momenta. Note also that there is a correspondence between the transformations $`\lambda \lambda `$ and $`𝒗_l𝒗_r`$.

These velocities were also investigated by Lukierski and Nowicki and the following facts were pointed out in Ref. : (i) $`v_l:=|𝒗_l|`$, $`v_r:=|𝒗_r|1`$ for all energies, (ii) $`dv_l/dE>0`$, $`dv_r/dE>0`$, and (iii) $`v_r`$ has a classical velocity addition law, i.e., the addition of parallel velocities $`v_{r1}`$ and $`v_{r2}`$ becomes

$`v_{r12}={\displaystyle \frac{v_{r1}+v_{r2}}{1+v_{r1}v_{r2}}}.`$ (34)
If the boost generator $`N_i`$ was an even function for $`\lambda `$, this addition law would hold even for $`v_l`$ because of the correspondence mentioned above. However, this is not the case. We postpone the interpretation of this asymmetry as future work.

Next, we discuss the application of the above velocity formulae. In the MDR models, since the energy scale of quantum gravity $`E_{QG}`$ is introduced perturbatively (see Eq (3)), it is reasonable to apply the velocity formulae under the condition on $`EE_{QG}`$. While if we apply the velocity formulae in the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time, the energy range is not restricted.

Let us examine the case beyond the quantum gravity scale, i.e., $`|\lambda E|1`$. Since we can obtain the information about $`v_r`$ by using the transformation $`\lambda \lambda `$ to $`v_l`$, we only examine $`v_l`$ below. We evaluate the velocity $`v_l`$ in the following limits (see Table I.). When $`\lambda >0`$ and $`E/m1`$, we can find that the velocity of massive particles approaches $`1`$ much faster than that in the Minkowski space-time as the energy of the particle increases. However, for $`\lambda <0`$ and $`E/m1`$, the difference of the velocity from $`1`$ becomes large as the mass of the particle increases. Note that if $`|\lambda (Em)|1`$, we obtain $`|\lambda m|1`$ by using the condition $`|\lambda E|1`$. Since $`Em`$ is written as $`m(1/\sqrt{1v_M^2}1)`$ in the Minkowski space-time, where $`v_M`$ is the velocity in the Minkowski space-time, we can rewrite the condition $`|\lambda (Em)|1`$ as $`|\lambda m(1/\sqrt{1v_M^2}1)|1`$, which leads to $`v_M1`$ because of $`|\lambda m|1`$. Then, we find $`v_lv_M\sqrt{2\lambda m}`$ and $`v_le^{\lambda m}v_M\sqrt{2\lambda m}`$ for $`\lambda >0`$ and for $`\lambda <0`$, respectively. Thus, we find that $`v_l`$ for the case $`|\lambda m|1`$ is quite different from $`v_M`$, which is a good approximation for describing a velocity of macroscopic bodies in our world under the conditions we are considering. To describe a velocity of macroscopic bodies in the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time, we must consider carefully what are the energy and the momentum, since these quantities are obtained by a total sum of those of elementary particles according to the addition law (17). The above discrepancy may be explained in this reason. Below, we only consider elementary particles and restrict the discussion to the case $`|\lambda m|1`$.

## V Measurements of the effective scale of “Quantum Gravity” by massive particles

In this section, we compare $`v_l`$ with $`v_{MDR}`$ and discuss the possibility of detection of effective scale of quantum gravity by observations and experiments. The behavior of the velocities is quite different depending on the mass and energy of the particle. Hence, we consider two limiting cases: (i) the “relativistic” case ($`mE`$) and (ii) “non-relativistic” case ($`mE`$).

In the relativistic case, $`mE`$, and under the assumptions, $`EE_{QG}`$ and $`E|\lambda ^1|`$, $`v_{MDR}`$ and $`v_l`$ are

$`v_{MDR}`$ $``$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{E}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\xi (n1)}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{E_{QG}}}\right)^{n2},`$ (35)
$`v_l`$ $``$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{E}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda m^2}{2E}},`$ (36)
at the lowest order of $`m/E`$ and $`E/E_{QG}`$ in the MDR models and $`\lambda E`$ in the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time, respectively. When $`m=0`$ in the MDR models, $`E_{QG}`$ can be constrained by the $`\gamma `$-rays from the Mk 421 as mentioned in Sec. II. However, since $`v_l=1`$ for massless particles, (we can confirm this is also true for all order of $`\lambda m`$ and $`\lambda E`$), $`\lambda `$ is not constrained by massless particles. This is an important result since the result notices us that there are a wide variety of candidates for the theory of quantum gravity, some of which the scale of quantum gravity is not constrained by present observations. The situation changes for massive particles since the lowest order correction appears in the coupled form with the mass of the particle in the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time, while that of the MDR models does not depend on the mass of the particle.

First, we consider neutrinos from supernovae with energy $`E_\nu 10^{10}`$ eV to detect space-time noncommutativity. We assume that the mass of an electron neutrino and all the parameters necessary to describe neutrino physics are determined by other experiments and observations, and use the delay of the arrival time between the neutrinos and gravitational waves to evaluate the scale of quantum gravity. In this case, the delay of the arrival time is

$`\delta t{\displaystyle \frac{Lm_\nu ^2}{2E_\nu }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{E_\nu }}+\lambda \right).`$ (37)
Since neutrinos are emitted continuously during about $`10`$ s, it is impossible to determine the time when the neutrino is emitted more accurate than that time scale. For this reason, $`\delta t\stackrel{>}{}10`$ s is necessary to detect the effect of quantum gravity. As for $`\lambda `$, since there is no restriction from the arrival time analysis of $`\gamma `$-rays, $`\lambda `$ may take a large value. However, by considering reaction processes by collider experiments, we can restrict $`|\lambda |\stackrel{<}{}10^{12}`$ eV-1 since the threshold of the reaction will change drastically for $`|\lambda |>1/E_{th}`$, where $`E_{th}`$ is the threshold energy in the Minkowski space-time. Then, $`L`$ becomes far longer than the horizon scale in the present universe even if $`|\lambda |=10^{12}`$ eV-1. Thus, it is difficult to detect this effect in this phenomena.

Neutrinos from $`\gamma `$-ray bursts in fireball models have a different energy scale. In the bursts, neutrinos with energy $`10^{14}`$ eV and $`\gamma `$-rays are expected to be radiated away in $`1`$ s. We show that we cannot detect space-time noncommutativity even if we neglect the dissipation of the $`\gamma `$-ray. In the $`E1/|\lambda |`$ case, we can evaluate the delay of the arrival time of neutrinos compared with the $`\gamma `$-rays from Table I as

$`\delta t`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}e^{2\lambda E}\left[1+2(\lambda m_\nu )^2\right]\mathrm{for}\lambda >0,`$ (38)
$`\delta t`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}(\lambda m_\nu )^2\mathrm{for}\lambda <0,`$ (39)
where we have used the conditions $`E/m1`$ and $`|\lambda m|1`$. If we assume $`\delta t1`$ s and $`|\lambda |=10^{12}`$ eV-1, the path of the particle’s travel becomes far longer than the horizon scale in the present universe. In the $`E1/|\lambda |`$ case, the arrival time delay cannot be described in a simple way. There is, however, no qualitative difference from the above case. Hence, it is difficult to detect space-time noncommutativity by this method.

Next, we examine the non-relativistic case, $`mEE_{QG}`$ (or $`|\lambda ^1|`$). The velocity in each model are

$`v_{MDR}`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{1\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{E}}\right)^2}\times `$ (41)
$`\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E^2(1n)+nm^2}{E^2m^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{E_{QG}}}\right)^{n2}\right],`$
$`v_l`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{1\left({\displaystyle \frac{m}{E}}\right)^2}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda m^2}{2E}}\right).`$ (42)
Note that the absolute value of the correction for the velocity in the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time decreases with the energy, while that in the MDR model increases. Although, in the low-energy limit, the dispersion relation in the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time has the same form as that in the MDR models, the correction for the velocity is quite different.

Because of the above difference in the correction terms, there is a possibility that the evidence for space-time noncommutativity can be detected in use of the low-energy massive particles. Here, we consider the ultra-cold neutrons with energy $`E_nm_n10^2`$ eV. Since the mass of a neutron $`m_n`$ is measured with high accuracy, we can estimate the time interval in which the neutron travels the interval $`L`$ in the Minkowski space-time. If a time lag is obtained in an experiment, it can be interpreted as the effect of space-time noncommutativity. This time lag is calculated in the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time as

$`\delta t={\displaystyle \frac{L}{v_l}}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{v_M}}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{v_M}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda m_n^2}{2E_n}}.`$ (43)
By substituting the value of the apparatus, $`L100`$ m, we have

$`\delta t10^1\lambda m_n.`$ (44)
If the resolution for the measurement of the time lag is $`10^{10}`$ s and $`|\lambda |10^{18}`$ eV-1, we can detect space-time noncommutativity.

## VI Conclusion

We have investigated what are the qualitative differences of the velocity formula in the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time from that in the MDR models. Most of the previous papers had adopted the MDR models since the MDR models are among the simplest ones of quantum gravity. However, many of the MDR models do not have physical foundation in how the correction terms of naturally arise in the dispersion relation. For example, since the usual Lorentz transformation had been used in the previous work, one could not have avoided the existence of a preferred frame as a result. Since we have taken the standpoint that the existence of a preferred frame is not favorable, we have considered the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time where the deformed Lorentz transformation and the deformed dispersion relation arise as a result of the deformation quantization.

We have found that since massless particles move in a constant speed in the $`\kappa `$-Minkowski space-time, the arrival time analyses by $`\gamma `$-rays are not capable to detect the difference from the Minkowski space-time. This example shows that it is difficult to constrain all kinds of Lorentz invariance by a single experiment. Therefore, we need to investigate specific models individually. We have also considered the possibility to detect space-time noncommutativity by low-energy massive particles. In our model, if the resolution for the measurement of the time lag is given by $`10^{10}`$ s, it is possible to constrain $`\lambda `$ to $`|\lambda |10^{18}`$ eV-1. Although these features had not been investigated so far, it may be important.

## Acknowledgments:

Special thanks to Kei-ichi Maeda for continuous encouragement. This work was supported partly by the Grant-in-Aid (No.05540) from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, and partly by the Waseda University Grant for Special Research Projects.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recent SuperKamiokande data appear to confirm the existence of both atmospheric  and solar  neutrino oscillations. From the atmospheric data the preferred oscillation parameters are

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mu \tau }1,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2310^3\mathrm{eV}^2,$$
(1)
while for solar neutrinos the preferred oscillation scenario is a large angle MSW solution with

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{e\mu ,\tau }0.8,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^210^4\mathrm{eV}^2.$$
(2)
In attempting to simultaneously accommodate the atmospheric and solar neutrino data, one should provide a reasonable theoretical background for understanding the origin of large (in one case even maximal!) mixings in (1) and (2). At the same time, the origin of hierarchies between charged fermion masses and their CKM mixing angles must be explained. Finally, one also must find an explanation of how the third mixing angle $`\theta _{13}`$ in the neutrino sector appears to be small($`\stackrel{<}{_{}}0.2`$) . For a unified description of quark-lepton sector, one well motivated idea is that of flavor symmetries, with an abelian $`𝒰(1)`$ being the simplest possibility. A variety of models for obtaining the desirable fermion mass pattern with $`𝒰(1)`$ have been considered , . The $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry also can be promising in the neutrino sector -, especially for generating nearly maximal mixings between the flavors -. While the atmospheric neutrino data strongly suggests maximal mixing, for the solar neutrinos there is significant deviation from maximal value ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{e\mu ,\tau }0.8`$). Because of this, textures leading to bi-maximal neutrino mixings - need to be modified appropriately. This is not always easy in the presence of a flavor symmetry such as $`𝒰(1)`$, and one should look for alternative ways for building up the neutrino sector. One alternative (to the maximal mixing texture) is the so called democratic approach , in which lepton doublets of different families have the same $`𝒰(1)`$ charge. That is, the $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry does not distinguish them from each other and one could naturally expect large neutrino mixings. By the same token, however, the masses of all neutrinos might be of similar magnitude, which would be problematic for obtaining the distinct mass scales relevant for atmospheric and solar neutrinos. This is easily avoided , however, through a careful choice of the singlets (right handed neutrino sector) , .

In contrast with the left handed lepton doublets, the remaining lepton and quark superfields should have distinct transformation properties under $`𝒰(1)`$ in order to obtain desirable hierarchies between their masses and mixings. Following this strategy, we start our considerations with MSSM and show that the democratic approach works out neatly, because MSSM does not provide stringent constraints on the $`𝒰(1)`$ charge assignments. However, for GUTs the situation can be drastically changed. Namely, we demonstrate that for $`SU(5)`$ GUT \[with $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry\], the democratic approach gives an unacceptably small Cabibbo angle. The root of this problem lies in the unified multiplets and therefore can be shared by other GUTs unless some additional elements are introduced. While in $`SU(5)`$ it may be difficult to realize the democratic approach in a natural way, we consider a flipped $`SU(5)`$ scheme in which the democratic approach for large neutrino mixings is nicely consistent with the hierarchies in the charged fermion sector. We conclude with a brief remark about the third neutrino mixing angle $`\theta _{13}`$.

## 2 $`𝒰(1)`$ Flavor Symmetry: Fermion Masses
And Neutrino Oscillations

Let us start our considerations with the MSSM augmented with $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry. In addition, we introduce a singlet superfield $`X`$ with $`𝒰(1)`$ charge $`Q(X)=1`$ and assume that its scalar component has a VEV

$$\frac{X}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}}ϵ0.2.$$
(3)
$`ϵ`$ plays the role of an expansion parameter and is crucial for the explanation of hierarchies among the charged fermion masses and their mixings. With the following assignment of $`𝒰(1)`$ charges for the quark-lepton superfields

$$Q[q^{(1)}]=3,Q[q^{(2)}]=2,Q[q^{(3)}]=0,Q[u_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(1)}]=4,Q[u_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(2)}]=1,Q[u_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(3)}]=0,$$

$$Q[d_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(1)}]=n+2,Q[d_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(2)}]=Q[d_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(3)}]=n$$
(4)
$$Q[l^{(1)}]=nn_3+n_2+n_1,Q[l^{(2)}]=nn_3+n_2,Q[l^{(3)}]=nn_3,$$

$$Q[e_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(1)}]=n_3n_2n_1+5,Q[e_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(2)}]=n_3n_2+2,Q[e_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(3)}]=n_3,$$
(5)
($`n`$, $`n_{1,2,3}`$ are some integers and superscripts stand for generation indices) and the pair of higgs doublets $`Q(h_u)=Q(h_d)=0`$, the relevant couplings generating the up, down quark and charged lepton masses respectively are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}u_1^c& u_2^c& u_3^c\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}q_1\\ q_2\\ q_3\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^7& ϵ^4& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^6& ϵ^3& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^4& ϵ& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)h_u,& \end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}d_1^c& d_2^c& d_3^c\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}q_1\\ q_2\\ q_3\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^5& ϵ^3& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^4& ϵ^2& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)ϵ^nh_d,& \end{array}$$
(6)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}e_1^c& e_2^c& e_3^c\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}l_1\\ l_2\\ l_3\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^5& ϵ^{n_1+2}& ϵ^{n_1+n_2}\\ ϵ^{5n_1}& ϵ^2& ϵ^{n_2}\\ ϵ^{5n_1n_2}& ϵ^{2n_2}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)ϵ^nh_d.& \end{array}$$
(7)
Note that the entries in textures such as (6) and (7) are real and accompanied by factors of order unity. We will not be concerned with CP violating phases in this work. Upon diagonalization of (6), (7), for the Yukawa couplings we obtain

$$\lambda _t1,\lambda _u:\lambda _c:\lambda _tϵ^7:ϵ^3:1,$$
(8)
$$\lambda _b\lambda _\tau ϵ^n,\lambda _d:\lambda _s:\lambda _bϵ^5:ϵ^2:1,$$
(9)
$$\lambda _e:\lambda _\mu :\lambda _\tau ϵ^5:ϵ^2:1,$$
(10)
while for the CKM matrix elements:

$$V_{us}ϵ,V_{cb}ϵ^2,V_{ub}ϵ^3.$$
(11)
Thus, the $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry nicely explains the hierarchies between the charged fermion masses and CKM mixing angles.

As far as the lepton mixing matrix is concerned, from (5) and the form of (7), one expects333We do not expect possible enhancements from the right handed neutrino sector, because it would need either specific arrangement or some fine tunings. $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mu \tau }\frac{4ϵ^{2n_2}}{(1+ϵ^{2n_2})^2}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{e\mu ,\tau }\frac{4ϵ^{2n_1}}{(1+ϵ^{2n_1})^2}`$. With $`n_1=n_2=0`$ which means $`Q[l^{(1)}]=Q[l^{(2)}]=Q[l^{(3)}]`$, one expects $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mu \tau }1`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{e\mu ,\tau }1`$.

To realize oscillations we have to generate neutrino masses. Introducing an MSSM singlet neutrino $`𝒩`$ with $`𝒰(1)`$ charge $`Q(𝒩)=p`$, with couplings

$$ϵ^{n+p}(l_1+l_2+l_3)𝒩h_u+ϵ^{2p}M_𝒩𝒩^2,$$
(12)
(we assume all entries of order unity) and integrating out $`𝒩`$ leads to a massive state $`m_{\nu _3}\frac{ϵ^{2n}h_u^2}{M_𝒩}`$. For $`M_𝒩/ϵ^{2n}10^{14}`$ GeV, $`m_{\nu _3}0.1`$ eV, which is relevant for atmospheric neutrinos. Including a second singlet state $`𝒩^{}`$ with charge $`Q(𝒩^{})=q`$ and couplings $`ϵ^{n+q}(l_1+l_2+l_3)𝒩^{}h_u+ϵ^{2q}M_{𝒩}^{}{}_{}{}^{}𝒩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, taking $`M_{𝒩}^{}{}_{}{}^{}/ϵ^{2n}310^{15}`$ GeV, and integrating out $`𝒩^{}`$ will introduce into the neutrino mass matrix the deviations $`\frac{ϵ^{2n}h_u^2}{M_{𝒩}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}310^3`$ eV. This will create a similar order mass for the second light neutrino state. This mass scale guarantees the large angle MSW oscillations of solar neutrinos. Thus, with this setting the desirable neutrino mass scales can be obtained , . Note that large lepton mixings are obtained due to the same $`𝒰(1)`$ charge assignments for the left handed lepton doublets, possible in MSSM because there were no constraints on $`n_{1,2,3}`$ and $`n`$ in (5).

One would naturally wish to extend this mechanism to SUSY GUTs. However, it turns out that due to unified multiplets it is not a straighforward task. For example, in $`SU(5)`$ GUT each family of quark-lepton superfields is embedded in an anomaly free $`10+\overline{5}`$ superfields, where $`10=(q,u^c,e^c)`$ and $`\overline{5}=(l,d^c)`$. Therefore $`Q[q^{(\alpha )}]=Q[u_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}]=Q[e_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}]`$ and $`Q[l^{(\alpha )}]=Q[d_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}]`$ ($`\alpha `$ is a generation index). With universal $`𝒰(1)`$ charges for $`l^{(\alpha )}`$ states, one also has the same charges for $`d_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}`$ superfields. For obtaining the desirable hierarchies in (10) for charged leptons, one has to take $`Q[e_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(3)}]=0`$, $`Q[e_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(2)}]=2`$, $`Q[e_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(1)}]=5`$. But this means that $`Q[q^{(3)}]=0`$, $`Q[q^{(2)}]=2`$, $`Q[q^{(1)}]=5`$. Although this gives a good estimate for $`V_{cb}`$($`ϵ^2`$), the expected value of Cabibbo angle is $`ϵ^3`$, which is smaller by factor $`25`$ than the measured value ($`\mathrm{sin}\theta _c0.2`$). Thus, in the framework of minimal SUSY $`SU(5)`$, it seems difficult to realize the democratic approach discussed above. The reason is the unified multiplets which provide constraints on the $`𝒰(1)`$ charge assignments of the MSSM chiral superfields. Of course, one can think of a possible extension such that the light $`q^{(\alpha )}`$ and $`e_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}`$ states originate from different unified multiplets. By introducing some additional states it might be possible to realize this. However, it is hard to imagine such a splitting among leptonic and colored states. Note that this situation closely resembles the doublet-triplet (DT) splitting problem in the scalar sector and whose resolution in SUSY $`SU(5)`$ requires a rather complicated extensions . However, there are GUTs in which DT splitting is acheaved in an elegant way and flipped $`SU(5)`$ GUT is one example . From experience in obtaining a natural DT splitting in the scalar sector of $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ through the missing partner mechanism, with introduction of additional vector-like matter we can manage to split the unified matter multiplets in such a way that the democratic approach to neutrino mixings nicely works out. In the next section we present the flipped $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ model and its extension.

## 3 Flipped $`SU(5)`$ GUT

The ’matter’ sector of minimal flipped $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ GUT consists of anomaly free $`\overline{5}_3+10_1+1_5`$ supermultiplets per generation, where the subscripts denote $`U(1)`$ charges and

$$\overline{5}_3=(l,u^c),10_1=(q,d^c,\nu ^c),1_5=e^c.$$
(13)
The ’higgs’ sector contains the following supermultiplets

$$H10_1,\overline{H}\overline{10}_1,\varphi 5_2,\overline{\varphi }\overline{5}_2.$$
(14)
$`H`$, $`\overline{H}`$ are responsible for $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ breaking to $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_YG_{321}`$. $`\varphi `$ and $`\overline{\varphi }`$ contain the MSSM doublet-antidoublet pair $`h_d`$ and $`h_u`$ respectively.

Let us first show that the $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$ model, supplemented with $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry and with minimal fermion content (13) neither yilds the desirable hierarchies between charged fermion masses and mixings, nor the two large neutrino mixings. For the CKM mixing angles we need the hierarchies in (11). Taking into account (13) we conclude that

$$Q[10_1^{(1)}]=3,Q[10_1^{(2)}]=2,Q[10_1^{(3)}]=0.$$
(15)
The down quark masses emerge from $`10_1^{(\alpha )}10_1^{(\beta )}\varphi `$ couplings, and with $`Q(\varphi )=Q(\overline{\varphi })=0`$ and (15) we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}10_1^{(1)}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}_1^{(2)}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}10}_1^{(3)}\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}10_1^{(1)}\\ 10_1^{(2)}\\ 10_1^{(3)}\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^6& ϵ^5& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^5& ϵ^4& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^3& ϵ^2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)\varphi ,& \end{array}$$
(16)
which gives the unacceptable ratio $`\frac{m_s}{m_b}ϵ^4`$ (a reasonable value for the latter would be $`ϵ^2`$).

Morever, the observed hierarchies for up quark masses in (8) (generated through $`10_1^{(\alpha )}\overline{5}_3^{(\beta )}\overline{\varphi }`$ couplings) dictates the following assignment

$$Q[\overline{5}_3^{(1)}]=4,Q[\overline{5}_3^{(2)}]=1,Q[\overline{5}_3^{(3)}]=0.$$
(17)
Since the $`l`$ states also come from $`\overline{5}_3`$-plets \[see (13)\], according to (17) we will have $`Q[l^{(1)}]=4`$, $`Q[l^{(2)}]=1`$, $`Q[l^{(3)}]=0`$. For the lepton mixing elements this gives $`V_{23}^lϵ`$ and $`V_{12}^lϵ^3`$, both of which are in contradiction with observations. We therefore conclude that the matter sector of flipped $`SU(5)`$ model must be extended if $`𝒰(1)`$ flavor symmetry is invoked.

### 3.1 Extended Flipped $`SU(5)`$

In the fermion sector we introduce three families of vector like states $`(F+\overline{F})^{(\alpha )}`$ ($`\alpha =1,2,3`$), where

$$F5_2,\overline{F}\overline{5}_2.$$
(18)
In terms of $`G_{321}`$ they decompose as

$$F(5_2)=(l,\overline{d}^c)_F,\overline{F}(\overline{5}_2)=(\overline{l},d^c)_{\overline{F}}.$$
(19)
With these states and including specific couplings one can arrange that the physical light $`l`$ and $`d^c`$ states will come from multiplets different from $`\overline{5}_3`$ and $`10_1`$ respectively. This is realized through a way resembling the missing partner mechanism operative in the higgs sector of $`SU(5)\times U(1)`$. Let us show this in a one generation example first. Generalization to three families will be straightforward. With couplings

$$H\overline{5}_3\overline{F}+H10_1F+M_F\overline{F}F,$$
(20)
and assuming that $`HM_F`$, one can easily verify that $`l_{\overline{5}_3}`$ and $`\overline{l}_{\overline{F}}`$ form a state with mass $`HM_G`$. Therefore, the light left handed doublet state resides in $`F`$. At the same time, $`d_{10_1}^c`$ and $`\overline{d}_F^c`$ end up getting mass $`H`$, and therefore the light $`d^c`$ state comes from $`\overline{F}`$. This gives us the possibility to build a realistic fermion sector with two large neutrino mixings.

Let us then turn to the realistic case of three generations. The $`𝒰(1)`$ charge prescriptions for $`10_1^{(\alpha )}`$ and $`\overline{5}_3^{(\alpha )}`$ remain the same as in (15) and (17) respectively. For the other states let us make the assignments

$$Q[1_5^{(1)}]=5,Q[1_5^{(2)}]=2,Q[1_5^{(3)}]=0,Q[F^{(1)}]=Q[F^{(2)}]=Q[F^{(3)}]=0,$$

$$Q[\overline{F}^{(1)}]=2,Q[\overline{F}^{(2)}]=Q[\overline{F}^{(3)}]=0.$$
(21)
From (15), (17), (21) the couplings responsible for the decoupling of appropriate states are schematically

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}\overline{F}^{(1)}& \overline{F}^{(2)}& \overline{F}^{(3)}\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}\overline{5}_3^{(1)}\\ \overline{5}_3^{(2)}\\ \overline{5}_3^{(3)}\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^6& ϵ^4& ϵ^4\\ ϵ^3& ϵ& ϵ\\ ϵ^2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)H,& \end{array}\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}F^{(1)}& F^{(2)}& F^{(3)}\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}10_1^{(1)}\\ 10_1^{(2)}\\ 10_1^{(3)}\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^3& ϵ^3& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^2& ϵ^2& ϵ^2\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right)H,& \end{array}$$
(22)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}\overline{F}^{(1)}& \overline{F}^{(2)}& \overline{F}^{(3)}\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}F^{(1)}\\ F^{(2)}\\ F^{(3)}\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& 1\\ ϵ^2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& 1\\ ϵ^2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& 1\end{array}\right)M_F.& \end{array}$$
(23)
Let us assume now that $`M_FHϵ^4`$. From the couplings in (22), (23) we realize that the light $`l^{(\alpha )}`$ and $`d_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}`$ states respectively come from $`F^{(\alpha )}`$ and $`\overline{F}^{(\alpha )}`$

$$F^{(\alpha )}l^{(\alpha )},\overline{F}^{(\alpha )}d_{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(\alpha )}.$$
(24)
With prescription (21) all $`F^{(\alpha )}`$ states have the same $`𝒰(1)`$ charges, and according to (24) the light left handed lepton doublets also have identical (democratic) transformation properties under $`𝒰(1)`$. The latter guarantee the two neutrino mixings we are after. At the same time, the charged fermion masses and mixings have desirable hierarchies. Namely, the relevant couplings generating up, down quark and charged lepton masses respectively are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}\overline{5}_3^{(1)}& \overline{5}_3^{(2)}& \overline{5}_3^{(3)}\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}10_1^{(1)}\\ 10_1^{(2)}\\ 10_1^{(3)}\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^7& ϵ^4& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^6& ϵ^3& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^4& ϵ& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)\overline{\varphi },& \end{array}$$
(25)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}\overline{F}^{(1)}& \overline{F}^{(2)}& \overline{F}^{(3)}\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}10_1^{(1)}\\ 10_1^{(2)}\\ 10_1^{(3)}\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^5& ϵ^3& ϵ^3\\ ϵ^4& ϵ^2& ϵ^2\\ ϵ^2& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)\frac{\overline{H}}{M}\varphi ,& \end{array}$$
(26)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \begin{array}{ccc}F^{(1)}& F^{(2)}& F^{(3)}\end{array}& \\ \begin{array}{c}1_5^{(1)}\\ 1_5^{(2)}\\ 1_5^{(3)}\end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ^5& ϵ^5& ϵ^5\\ ϵ^2& ϵ^2& ϵ^2\\ \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}& \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}\end{array}\right)\frac{\overline{H}}{M}\varphi ,& \end{array}$$
(27)
where $`M`$($`\stackrel{>}{_{}}M_G`$) is some cut off scale. Substituting appropriate VEVs in (25) and upon diagonalization we find the hierarchies in (8), while diagonalization of (26), (27) yield the hierarchies in (9), (10). Note that (25), (26) also give rise to the CKM mixing angles in (11). At the same time, from (27), one expects

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{e\mu ,\tau }1,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mu \tau }1.$$
(28)
Dirac and Majorana couplings $`\nu ^clh_u`$ and $`M_R\nu ^c\nu ^c`$ respectively are generated through $`10_1F\overline{H}\overline{\varphi }`$ and $`(10_1\overline{H})^2`$ type couplings. In our scenario all $`l^{(\alpha )}`$ ($`F^{(\alpha )}`$) states have the same $`𝒰(1)`$ charges, and to avoid the same mass scales for atmospheric and solar neutrinos, we will decouple $`\nu _{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(1)}`$, $`\nu _{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(2)}`$ states (from $`10_1^{(1,2)}`$). Introducing two singlets $`N_{1,2}`$ with charges $`Q(N_{1,2})=3,2`$, through the couplings $`(10_1^{(1)}N_1+10_1^{(2)}N_2)\overline{H}`$ after substituting $`\overline{H}`$’s VEV, the states $`\nu _{}^{c}{}_{}{}^{(1,2)}`$ decouple with $`N_{1,2}`$, and at this stage $`\nu _{1,2}`$ are massless. From the couplings

$$\frac{1}{M}10_1^{(3)}F^{(\alpha )}\overline{H}\overline{\varphi }+M_R10_1^{(3)}10_1^{(3)}\left(\frac{\overline{H}}{M}\right)^2,$$
(29)
$`\nu _3`$ obtains a mass $`m_{\nu _3}\frac{h_u^2}{M_R}`$ which, for $`M_R10^{14}`$ GeV, gives $`0.1`$ eV as needed for resolving the atmospheric anomaly. As far as the solar neutrino scale is concerned, introducing an additional singlet $`𝒩`$ with zero $`𝒰(1)`$ charge, the relevant couplings will be $`F^{(\alpha )}𝒩\overline{\varphi }+M_𝒩𝒩^2`$. With $`M_𝒩310^{15}`$ GeV, this gives the desired mass $`\frac{h_u^2}{M_𝒩}310^3`$ eV.

To summarize, an extension of flipped $`SU(5)`$ GUT by three vector-like $`(F+\overline{F})^{(\alpha )}`$ and some singlet states allows us to exploit the $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry to generate acceptable masses and mixings both in the charged fermion and neutrino sectors.

## 4 Conclusions

We have shown that the democratic approach for understanding solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations can be nicely implemented within the MSSM framework and in a suitably extended flipped $`SU(5)`$ model through the use of flavor $`𝒰(1)`$ symmetry. It may be possible to extend our approach to $`SO(10)`$ which contains flipped $`SU(5)`$. In the democratic approach described here the small value of the third mixing angle $`\theta _{13}(\stackrel{<}{_{}}0.2ϵ)`$ is due to accidental cancellations occurring between quantities that have magnitudes of order unity. In other words, the democratic approach would have to be modified if $`\theta _{13}`$ turns out to be much smaller than $`ϵ`$.

Acknowledgments

Q.S. would like to thank Michael Schmidt and Christof Wetterich for their hospitality during his stay at their Institute in Heidelberg, where this work was initiated. We also acknowledge the support of NATO Grant PST.CLG.977666. This work is partially supported in part by DOE under contract DE-FG02-91ER40626.