Right Handed Neutrinos and Leptogenesis
Muhammad Adeel Ajaib
Department of Physics
and
National Center for Physics
QuaidiAzam University
Islamabad, Pakistan
June 2008
III
This work is submitted as a dissertation
in partial fulfillment of
the requirement for the degree of
MASTER OF PHILISOPHY
IN
PHYSICS
Department of Physics
QuaidiAzam University
Islamabad, Pakistan
June 2008
IV
Certificate
Certified that the work contained in this dissertation was carried
out by Mr. Muhammad Adeel Ajaib under my supervision.
(Prof. Dr. Riazuddin)
Supervisor
National Center for Physics
QuaidiAzam University
Islamabad, Pakistan.
Submitted through:
(Prof. Dr. Pervez A Hoodbhoy)
Chairperson
QuaidiAzam University
Islamabad, Pakistan.
V
Dedicated to my Parents, my loving Nani ma
and Mamoos
VI
Acknowledgments
All praise be to ALLAH (SWT) for providing me with this great
opportunity to ponder over the Universe which is filled with his signs. His
blessings and benevolence be on our Prophet (SAW) who was chosen by
Him to guide us.
My special thanks to my supervisor and teacher, Dr. Riazuddin, who has
guided me throughout the period of my research. It has really been a great
honor working under his supervision.
I am obliged to the teachers of Physics Department who have provided
me quality education and have really triggered my critical faculty. These
teachers include Dr. Riazuddin, Dr. Fayyazuddin, Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, Dr
Khurshid Hasanain, Dr. A. H. Nayyar and Dr. Faheem Hussain.
I really acknowledge the help of my seniors, Jamil bhai, Ishtiaq bhai
and Paracha bhai, in the Particle Physics theory group. They were always
there for me when I needed their help. I would also like to express my
gratitude to my friends Mudassir Naeem, Imran Malik, Babar shabeer,
Nadeem, Jahan zeb, Nauman khurshid, Mehtab and Ahsan zeb, who have
helped me one way or another.
Finally, my thanks to my parents, brothers, sisters and especially Amir
and Waqar mamoo who have always been there for their financial and moral
support.
Muhammad Adeel Ajaib
VII
Abstract
The Universe was created with equal amount of matter and
antimatter, but, hitherto we don't have any evidence of anti
matter from the early Universe. The mechanism by which this
was asymmetry generated is still not known. One of the most
promising scenarios employs right handed neutrinos. We
consider this scenario by considering SU
L
(2) singlet right
handed neutrinos which are ȝĲ symmetric and then calculate
the ȝĲ symmetric form of the neutrino mass matrix. We then
look at the implications of our model for leptogenesis by
calculating the CPasymmetry for the case when two of the
right handed neutrinos are quasidegenerate M̈́ѤMͅ. We show
that the asymmetry is not zero and comes out to be of the
correct order to generate leptogenesis.
Contents
1 Introduction to NeutrinosA history: 4
1.1 Discovery of the Neutrino: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2 Fermi’s Theory of Beta Decay: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 Detection of Neutrinos: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4 Parity violation in weak interactions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.5 Helicity of the neutrino: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.6 Discovery of more neutrinos: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.7 Neutrino Oscillations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.8 Number of neutrinos: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2 Properties of Neutrinos: 15
2.1 Helicity and Chirality: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.2 Charge Conjugation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3 Parity transformation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.4 Dirac and Majorana masses: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.5 Lepton number violation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.6 Neutrino Oscillations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.7 The case of three avor oscillation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.8 Type II seesaw mechanism: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3 Neutrinos in Cosmology: 34
3.1 A Brief Introduction to Cosmology: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1
3.2 The Big Bang model: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.3 Energy and number density: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.4 Neutrinos in the early universe: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.5 Neutrino mass limits from cosmology: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.6 Neutrinos as Dark matter: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.6.1 Hot dark matter (HDM): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.6.2 Cold dark matter (CDM): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4 Baryogenesis via Leptogenesis: 42
4.1 Size of the Baryon asymmetry: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.2 Sakharov’s Condition: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.2.1 B violation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.2.2 C and CP nonconservation: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.2.3 Out of Thermal equilibrium: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.3 Scenarios for Baryogenesis: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.3.1 GUT baryogenesis: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.3.2 Electroweak Baryogenesis: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.3.3 Baryogenesis via Leptogenesis: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
5 Right Handed Neutrino, j t symmetry and leptogenesis: 55
5.1 What is j t symmetry? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.2 Our model: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2
List of Figures
11 Continuous spectrum of beta rays emitted from
210
Bi nucleus. . . . . . . . . . . . 5
12 (a) QED picture which includes interaction via mediating photon.(b) Fermi’s
point interaction theory of Beta decay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
13 (a) Right Handed (H = +1 ) (b) Left Handed (H = 1 ) . . . . . . . . 11
14 Ruled out 2+2 and 3+1 scenarios of LSND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
21 Plot of 1(i
h
$i
) as a function of r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
22 Normal and Inverted mass hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
41 Decays of the X boson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
42 The potential energy of the gauge eld as a function of Chern Simons number. . 49
43 The decays and inverse decays of Majorana neutrinos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
44 Contributions from vertex and self energy which give CP violation. . . . . . . . . 53
3
Chapter 1
Introduction to NeutrinosA history:
We have seen many new particles discovered during the 20th century and the quest to under
stand the universe at the most fundamental level goes on. At the beginning of the 20th century
we only knew about the electron, the alpha particle, Xrays and gamma ray (later identied as
photons). Later, and especially after 1950, a whole zoo of new particles was discovered. Among
one of the most important and fundamental of them is the neutrino. Since there discovery,
neutrinos have opened new chapters in the eld of high energy physics and are still a subject
of intense research.
1.1 Discovery of the Neutrino:
The neutrino was discovered in a somewhat dierent way from other particles. Particles like
electron, proton and neutron were detected during experimentation and were later given their
respective names. Neutrino, however, was rst suggested by Pauli to explain the conservation
of energy in the beta decay process.
In the early 1900’s natural radioactivity [1] was studied in detail and the radiation coming
out of the nuclei was called c, , and rays depending on their specic properties. The
c particle emitted from a specic nucleus at rest always has the same kinetic energy and a
discrete energy spectrum. Same was the case for rays. Therefore, the same was expected for
4
Figure 11: Continuous spectrum of beta rays emitted from
210
Bi nucleus.
the spectrum of rays. Surprisingly, some of the early studies favored this, but after using
advanced detection techniques James Chadwick in 1914 concluded that the beta rays emitted
from the nucleus had a continuous spectrum as shown in Fig 1.
Even after Chadwick’s discovery it took about thirty years for this to rmly establish that
the rays had a continuous spectrum, since there was a bias towards a discrete one. No one at
that time knew why this should be the case, because considering the spectrum to be continuous
lead to the violation energy conservation.
Now in order to illustrate this consider the following beta decay of a neutron at rest
: $j +c
3
+i
h
(1.1)
The energy conservation requires
5
:
q
= 1
s
+1
h
(1.2)
1
h
= :
q
1
s
(1.3)
1
h
= :
q
q
:
2
s
+p
2
s
(1.4)
and momentum conservation requires
p
q
= 0 = p
s
+p
h
(1.5)
=, p
s
= p
h
 (1.6)
, 1
h
=
j
2
h
2:
h
=
j
2
s
2:
h
(1.7)
1
h
=
1
2
h
+:
2
q
2:
q
1
h
:
2
s
2:
h
(1.8)
1
h
=
1
2
h
2:
h
1
h
+:
2
q
:
2
s
2:
q
(1.9)
1
h
=
:
2
h
+:
2
q
:
2
s
2:
q
(1.10)
Where 1
h
is the energy of the emitted electron. Placing in the numbers we get
1
h
= 1.29'c\ (1.11)
So the energy of the emitted electron should be xed, but, this is not the case and we
have a range of energies for it. In order to explain this energy decit following suggestions were
made at that time:
1. At rst it was suggested that the remaining energy is emitted in form of gamma rays
but this suggestion was rejected after experimental conrmation.
2. Some people, Niels Bohr being one of them, went to the extent of proposing the
violation of the conservation of energy in this case. Niels Bohr suggested that the electron
in the nucleus behaved peculiarly in a way that resulted in the violation of the energy and
6
momentum.
3. Pauli in December 1930, in a letter to the participants of a nuclear physics conference
in Tubingen, Germany, suggested the emission of a particle which he called neutron. He wrote
that this particle would have mass of the order of the mass of the electron. This would explain
the energy decit and also solve the wrong spin statistics
1
of
14
Ni and
7
Li. At that time the
neutron was not discovered and the nucleus was supposed to be made of protons and electrons.
Pauli in this letter assumed the neutrons (later called neutrino) as part of the nucleus.
Not much later, in 1932, Chadwick discovered the neutron and the problem of the nuclear
structure was solved. Fermi called Pauli’s particle neutrino meaning “the small neutron” (ino
in Italian is used to refer to something small).
1.2 Fermi’s Theory of Beta Decay:
Two years after Chadwick’s discovery Fermi developed a quantum mechanical theory for the
beta decay which included Pauli’s hypothetical particle. Surprisingly, including the neutrino,
Fermi was able to explain the experimental results. Fermi proposed a point interaction for the
beta decay of a neutron
: $j +c
3
+i
h
(1.12)
The amplitude for the point interaction being
M = G
I
(n
q
n
s
)(n
h
j
n
c
) (1.13)
Where G
1
,called the fermi constant, characterizes the strength of the interaction. This
was in analogy with the electromagnetic interaction but without the propogator signifying the
exchange of a virtual photon. For example, the amplitude for electron proton scattering is
1
Lithium, for example, was considered to be made of protons and electrons and was turning out to be a
fermion, whereas, molecular spectroscopy experiments indicated that it was a boson.
7
Figure 12: (a) QED picture which includes interaction via mediating photon.(b) Fermi’s point
interaction theory of Beta decay.
M = (cn
j
j
n
j
)
µ
1
c
2
¶
(n
c
j
n
c
) (1.14)
Fermi assumed the beta decay as a vector interaction.
With Fermi’s theory nucleus was now pictured as made of protons and neutrons. The fermi
theory gives good description of processes at tree level. Fermi’s choice of the vector form for
the coupling was very specic and many other combinations of the bilinear covariants were
possible. The amplitude (1.14) was able to explain some features of the beta decay but not
all. It was found in 1957 that weak interactions violated parity and in order to appreciate this
fact in theory vector coupling was replaced by VA (VectorAxial vector) coupling, i.e.,
j
was
replaced by
j
(1
5
). The spinors used in Fermi’s theory were quantised elds making his
theory as one of the earliest triumphs of Quantum Field Theory.
1.3 Detection of Neutrinos:
In 1956 Cowan and Reines [2] along with their experimental group, working on a project called
the Project Poltergeist, successfully detected antineutrinos for the rst time. The source of
the antineutrinos was a nuclear ssion reactor and the emitted antineutrinos were targeted at
a water tank with dissolved CdCl
2
surrounded by liquid scintillators. The following reaction
was to take place
8
i
c
+j $c
+
+: (1.15)
and its conrmation was a burst of gamma rays containing 0.5 MeV photons resulting from
the annihilation of an electron and positron. An additional gamma ray burst resulted in the
capture of the neutron by the proton. The energy averaged cross section for these experiments
was coming out to be of the same order as calculated by Beithe and Peirels in 1934, i.e.
10
344
. This experiment was performed in dierent congurations and at dierent reactors
thereby conrming the existence of neutrinos.
1.4 Parity violation in weak interactions:
As neutrinos interact via weak interactions the evolution in the study of neutrinos played a
vital role in our understanding weak interactions. The beta decay was one of the rst steps
in identifying the weak interactions as a dierent type of interaction than the strong and
electromagneitc. When Fermi postulated his theory a debate started thereof about the possible
interactions that would lead to the explaination of the beta decay results. In fermi’s theory
there are ve types of interactions scalar (S), vector (V), tensor (T), axial vector (A), and
pseudoscalar (P) [3]. Fermi’s theory gives the same electron spectrum for whichever interaction
we consider, but does not explain all known beta decays. It was noted, however, that the
inclusion of SV or TA interactions leads to uctuations in the electron energy spectrum. So the
possible ones were ST, SA, VT or VA, where P may or may not exist. Later on VT, SA and
AP were also rejected leaving only ST and VA in the picture. Before 1956, there was su!cient
experimental evidence that ST was the correct combination, but the t 0 puzzle emerged and
changed everything.
The t 0 puzzle [4] emerged from the observation that the K meson (parity=) could also
decay into two pions ¬
+
¬
0
(parity=+1) and three pions ¬
+
¬
+
¬
3
(parity=1) other than ¬
0
j
+
i.
At rst there was a suggestion that there are two dierent particles, called the t and 0 particles,
with the charge and mass of K meson. Lee and Yang published two papers (1956) suggesting
the violation of parity in this decay. But there were no experiments carried out at that time to
9
check this. Therefore, in order to check whether parity is violated or not, Wu along with her
group carried out a historic experiment at the National Bureau of Standards in Washington, in
which they proved that parity is indeed violated in the beta decay of a nuclei. Wu aligned the
spins of
60
Cobalt with a magnetic eld and measured the direction of the electrons emitted in
the following beta decay
60
Co
27
$
60
·i
28
+c
3
+i
c
(1.16)
The electrons in this beta decay were emitted upward in the direction of the nuclear spin.
But, if we examine the mirror image of the nucleus, in which its spin points in the opposite
direction, the electrons are still emitted in the upward direction. This was a clear indication
that parity is violated in weak interactions.
The two component Theory of the Neutrinos: After the results of the cobalt exper
iment it was suggested that the neutrino has two components rather than four, as expected
if the neutrino is massless. This possibility was considered by Weyl in 1929, but was rejected
by Pauli and others as it violates parity. But, the weak force was soon found to violate parity
itself, as it acts only on left handed leptons and quarks. Left handedness is an intrinsic property
of the weak force rather the neutrino.
1.5 Helicity of the neutrino:
The spin of a particle can be measured along any particular direction. Helicity is a measurement
of the spin of a particle along the direction of its momentum denoted by H. Mathematically,
H =
.p
 p 
(1.17)
where o is the spin of the particle. A particle having helicity +1 is referred to as right
handed and a helicity 1 particle is called a left handed particle. Helicity commutes with the
hamiltonian and hence is a good quantum number [5], [6]. However, it is not Lorentz invariant
10
Figure 13: (a) Right Handed (H = +1 ) (b) Left Handed (H = 1 )
for a massive particle. For a particle moving with · < c we can nd a faster reference frame in
which its helicity will get inverted.
It is an experimental fact that all neutrinos are left handed and anti neutrinos are right
handed. As the neutrino is not easy to detect, it is di!cult to measure its helicity. The helicity
of the neutrino was experimentally measured for the rst time by the Goldhaber in 1958.
Goldhaber and his coworkers studied the capture of the neutrino by europium152 nucleus
which produces a samarium152 nucleus and a neutrino [2].
152
Sm* than decays by emitting a
gamma ray.
152
1n +c
3
$i
c
+
152
o:
W
$
152
o:+ (1.18)
Now, J(
152
Eu)=0, initial spin is only due to the electron, i.e., J
jajtjo
= ±1´2 and in the
nal state J(i)=1/2 and J()=1. So J
;jao
= ±1´2 , which can be possible with the nal spin
congurations (+1/2,1) or (1/2,+1). Since 1n decays at rest, momentum conservation gives
p
~
=p
ih
.So the helicity of the photon and neutrino are opposite. The helicity of the photon
was measured using compton scattering.
There is, however, also an indirect way of measuring the helicity of the neutrino. If we
observe the decay of the pion ¬
+
at rest
¬
+
$j
+
+i
j
(1.19)
11
The pion has zero intrinsic spin and is at rest, the two product partciles are emitted in
opposite directions with opposite spins. This means that H(j
+
) = H(i
j
) = 1, since s and p
are opposite for both particles. This and several other experiments showed that the neutrino
has a helicity 1.
1.6 Discovery of more neutrinos:
In 1937 the muon was discovered and after its discovery it was proposed that there were two
dierent types of neutrinos. The reason this issue came out was that a muon was observed
to decay into j
3
$ c
3
i
c
i
j
but not into j
3
$ c
3
. So it was proposed that the muon
and electron lepton numbers, i.e. 1
j
and 1
i
were seperately conserved. To verify this Leon
Lederman and his colleagues at Brookhaven National Labs performed an experiment in 1962,
the muon neutrino was proved to be distinct from the electron neutrino. Leon Lederman and
his team were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1988 for their discovery.
In 1976 the tau lepton was discovered by Martin Perl (Nobel Prize 1995) at SLAC in
stanford. It was immediately seen that this lepton has its own neutrino in its decay, called the
tau neutrino.
1.7 Neutrino Oscillations:
In 1957 pontecorvo suggested neutrinoantineutrino oscillation analogous to 1
0
1
0
oscillation,
which occur because quarks undergo avor oscillations. When the muon neutrino was discov
ered the possibility that neutrinos also undergo these sort of oscillations grew strong. Since
the Sun is a natural and abundant source of neutrinos. In 1964 Ray Davis performed an ex
periment to detect the ux of solar neutrinos coming from the Sun [7]. The result showed
that the detected ux was 30%50% of what was expected. At rst, this decit of the mea
sured ux from prediction was thought to be caused by some problem with the experiment or
theoretical calculations. But, further experiments like the Kamiokande in Japan gave similar
results. These were the neutrinos coming from the Sun, in the 1980’s similar conclusions were
drawn when experiments were done to detect atmospheric neutrinos produced in the upper
12
atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays and oxygen (or nitrogen) nuclei. So it seemed
obvious from these experiments that neutrinos changed avors as they travelled from the Sun
to the Earth or from the upper atmosphere to the surface. Several suggestions were made
to explain this decit of muon neutrinos. To test the various explanations for this decit the
SuperKamiokande experiment was designed. It was an improved and enhanced version of the
Kamiokande experiment. The results from the SuperK experiment clearly showed that the
muon neutrinos were changing avor.
The most plausible scenario which explains the data from these experiments requires the
neutrino to have some mass. This was a clear indication that the Standard model of Parti
cle Physics was incomplete, since it assumes neutrinos to be massless.We shall return to the
theoretical analysis of neutrino oscillations in the next chapter.
1.8 Number of neutrinos:
If there are sterile neutrinos than how many ? The LSND (Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detec
tor) experiment was setup to detect oscillations of neutrinos produced from a source. We know
that there are three active neutrinos. The results from LSND seemed to suggest the existence
of a fourth neutrino which will be a sterile neutrino having mass c\ [8]. However, this sce
nario of 1 sterile neutrino added to the 3 active ones was ruled out by results from MiniBoone
(Booster Neutrino Experiment). These results ruled out both the 2+2 scheme (two pairs of
neutrinos close in mass seperated by a large gap) and the 3+1 scheme (three active neutrinos
seperated by a large gap from the sterile one) as shown in g.
The next possibilities are the 3+2 and 3+3 scenarios which are being studied extensively.
The 3+2 scenario provide a good t between the LSND and MiniBoone experiments but there
are severe tensions between the appearence and dissappearence experiments
2
. The 3+3 scheme
does not exhibit new eects and the inconsistency between appearence and dissappearence data
remains.
2
Appearence experiments look for neutrino avors not present at the source, whereas the dissappearence
experiments look for a reduction in the number of a particular neutrino avor. LSND was an appearence
experiment [9].
13
Figure 14: Ruled out 2+2 and 3+1 scenarios of LSND.
If we add two sterile neutrinos to the three active ones we get eight possible mass orderings
combined with the normal and inverted mass hierarchy of the active ones. Following are the
possible mass orderings
• 2+3: two sterile neutrinos heavier than the active ones.
• 3+2: two sterile neutrinos lighter than the active ones.
• 1+3+1: one sterile neutrino is heavier and the other is lighter than the active ones.
14
Chapter 2
Properties of Neutrinos:
We have discussed some of the properties of the neutrino in the preceding chapter while tra
versing their history. In this chapter we will look at the theoretical foundations of some of their
interesting properties.
When angular momentum was conserved in the beta decay process, neutrinos came out
to be spin 1/2 particles, i.e. fermions. The equation that describes spin 1/2 particles is the
relativistic Dirac equation given by
(i
j
0
j
:)c(r) = 0 (2.1)
The general solution of this equation is
c(r) = c
3jj.a
n(j. :) (Particles) (2.2)
c(r) = c
jj.a
·(j. :) (Antiparticles) (2.3)
And
0
= =
3
C
1 0
0 1
4
D
and
j
= c
j
=
3
C
0 o
j
o
j
0
4
D
are 4 × 4 matrices.
o
j
correspond to 2 × 2 pauli matrices and the matrix
5
is given by
15
5
= i
0
1
2
3
=
3
C
0 1
1 0
4
D
(2.4)
{
j
.
i
} = 2o
ji
(2.5)
{
j
.
5
} = 0 (2.6)
c(r) in the above equation is a four component spinor and is a quantum eld. The four
components of c(r) describe particles and antiparticles with spin projections o
:
= ±1´2.
These spinors can be obtained by using the spin projection operator 1
1.1
=
1
2
(1 ±
5
). Since
it is an experimental fact that only left handed neutrinos take part in known interactions, we
can neglect the two spinors with helicity +1.
2.1 Helicity and Chirality:
In order to see what is the helicity of the neutrino consider the Dirac eq
(
j
j
j
:)c(r) = 0 (2.7)
Multiplying [2] the above equation from left by
0
(i
0
2
0
0
+i
0
j
0
j
:
0
)c(r) = 0 (2.8)
and using
j
=
0
5
o
j
we get
(i0
0
+i
5
o
j
0
j
:
0
)c(r) = 0 (2.9)
Again multiplying equation (2.9) with
5
from the left gives
(i0
0
5
+i
2
5
o
j
0
j
:
5
0
)c(r) = 0 (2.10)
16
(i0
0
5
+io
j
0
j
:
5
0
)c(r) = 0 (2.11)
adding and subtracting (2.9) and (2.11) and using
5
o
j
= o
j
5
we get
¡
i0
0
(1 +
5
) +i(1 +
5
)o
j
0
j
:
0
(1
5
)c(r)
¢
= 0
¡
i0
0
(1
5
) i(1
5
)o
j
0
j
:
0
(1 +
5
)c(r)
¢
= 0 (2.12)
placing 1
1.1
=
1
2
(1 ±
5
) and c(r) = c
1
(r) +c
1
(r) the above equations reduce to
(i0
0
+io
j
0
j
) c
1
(r) = :
0
c
1
(r) (2.13)
(i0
0
io
j
0
j
) c
1
(r) = :
0
c
1
(r) (2.14)
Both equations decouple for : = 0
i0
0
c
1
= io
j
0
j
c
1
(2.15)
i0
0
c
1
= io
j
0
j
c
1
(2.16)
These two are just the Schrodinger’s time dependent equations
i
0
0t
c
1.1
= ±io
j
0
0r
j
c
1.1
(2.17)
which in momentum space (i
0
0t
= 1. i
0
0a
l
= j) can be written as
1c
1.1
= o
j
j
j
c
1.1
(2.18)
Since 1 = 
$
j  for massless particles
17
.p
p
c
1.1
= c
1.1
(2.19)
which shows that c
1.1
(r) is also an eigen state of the helicity operator
H =
.p
p
(2.20)
The helicity of c
1
for particles is 1 and for an antiparticles is +1. Similarly for spinor c
1
helicity is +1 for particles and 1 for antiparticles.
Chirality is dened by noting that
1
1
c
1
=
1
2
(1
5
)c
1
= 0
=,
5
c
1
= c
1
(2.21)
also
1
1
c
1
=
1
2
(1 +
5
)c
1
= 0
=,
5
c
1
= c
1
(2.22)
Therefore, c
1
and c
1
are also eigen states of
5
, called the chirality operator and the
corresponding spinors are called chirality projections of c.
We can see that chirality and helicity are identical for massless particles. For : 0
equations (2.13) and (2.14) no longer decouple and c
1
and c
1
are no longer eigen states of H
and helicity is no longer a good quatum number.
2.2 Charge Conjugation:
The charge conjugation operator amounts to replacing a particle with an antiparticle. Neutrino
is the only fermion for which we cannot say for sure whether it is dierent from its antiparticle
or the same. In the former case it will be a Dirac particle whereas in the latter it will be a
Majorana particle.
18
If c is a quantum eld than it transforms under charge conjugation as
c
c
CcC
31
= i
2
c
W
A possible representation for C is i
0
2
. Using the projection operator 1
1.1
.
1
1.1
c = c
1.1
C
$C
¡
c
1.1
¢
C
31
= C (1
1.1
c) C
31
= 1
1.1
(CcC
31
)
= 1
1.1
c
c
= (c
c
)
1.1
= 1
1.1
i
2
c
W
= i
2
(1
1.1
c
W
) =
¡
c
1.1
¢
c
in short
c
1.1
C
$(c
c
)
1.1
=
¡
c
1.1
¢
c
We can see that charge conjugation transforms a left (right) handed particle into a left
(right) handed antiparticle thereby keeping the helicity intact.
2.3 Parity transformation:
The parity is just space inversion [10]
1 : t $t
0
= t
r $r
0
= r
Parity operation on a spinor
c(x. t) $1c(x. t)1
31
= c
jc
0
c(x. t)
where c
jc
is phase factor.
19
It inverts the momentum of a particle
1n(p. :) $n(p. :)
So parity transforms r $ r. j $ j and  = r × j to  = r × j.Since the intrinsic
angular momentum of the particle remains same, therefore under parity
c
1
(x. t)
1
#$c
1
(x. t)
c
c
1
(x. t)
1
#$c
c
1
(x. t)
So a left handed particle (antiparticle) under parity transformation becomes a right handed
particle and vice versa.
The time reversal operation is
T : t $t
0
= t
r $r
0
= r
It changes the direction of momentum as well as spin
Tn(p. :) $n(p. :)
Whereas physics remains invariant under combined CPT.
2.4 Dirac and Majorana masses:
The Dirac equation can be deduced from the following lagrangian
L =c(i
j
0
j
:
1
)c
The rst term is the Kinetic energy term and the second term is the mass term. The Dirac
20
mass term is, therefore,
L =:
1
cc
The product cc has to be Lorentz invariant and hermitian in order to ensure this for the
lagrangian and mass :
1
has to be real. The above lagrangian can be written in terms of left
and right handed spinors.
L = :
1
(c
1
+ c
1
)(c
1
+c
1
)
= :
1
(c
1
c
1
+ c
1
c
1
) (2.23)
Since c
1
c
1
= c
1
c
1
= 0. So if we consider neutrinos as Dirac particles we have to consider
both left handed and right handed neutrinos. Whereas in the standard model there are only
left handed neutrinos and they are massless.
Therefore, we need to look at more possibilities for mass of a neutrino to be added to the
standard model so that we only have a mass term involving left handed (LH) neutrinos or right
handed (RH) antineutrinos. In order to do this let us consider other combinations of Dirac
spinors that are lorentz invariant as well as hermitian. These are c
c
c
c
. c
c
c and cc
c
. c
c
c
c
is
hermitian and equivalent to cc, i.e. [2]
c
c
c
c
= c
c†
0
c
c
=
¡
C
0
c
W
¢
†
0
c
c
= c
T
0†
C
†
0
C
0
c
W
= c
T
0
C
†
Cc
W
= c
T
0
C
2
c
W
= c
T
0
c
W
= (c
W†
0†
c
W
)
†
= (c
W
c
W
)
†
= (cc)
†
= cc
and c
c
c and cc
c
are hermitian conjugates, i.e.
21
(c
c
c)
†
= c
†
³
c
c†
0
´
†
= c
†
³
c
T
0†
C
†
0
´
†
= c
†
0†
C
0
c
W
= c
†
0
(C
0
c
W
)
= cc
c
With this, a possible mass term called the Majorana mass term is
L =
1
2
(:
A
cc
c
+ :
W
A
c
c
c)
=
1
2
:
A
cc
c
+ /.c. (2.24)
Again using the chiral projection operators
c
c
1.1
= (c
1.1
)
c
= (c
c
)
1.1
Lagrangian (2.24) becomes
L =
1
2
:
A
{c
1
(c
1
)
c
+ c
1
(c
1
)
c
+ c
1
(c
1
)
c
+c
1
(c
1
)
c
} + /.c.
L =
1
2
:
A
(c
1
c
c
1
+c
1
c
c
1
+ c
1
c
c
1
+ c
1
c
c
1
) +/.c. (2.25)
In this Lagrangian
c
1
(c
1
)
c
= (1
1
c)
†
0
C
0
(1
1
c)
W
= c
†
1
1
C1
1
c
W
= c
†
1
1
1
1
Cc
W
= 0
Similarly, c
1
(c
1
)
c
= 0
L =
1
2
:
A
(c
1
c
c
1
+ c
1
c
c
1
+ /.c.) (2.26)
So we get two hermitian mass terms from this lagrangian
L
1
=
1
2
:
1
(c
1
c
c
1
+ c
c
1
c
1
) =
1
2
:
1
(c
1
c
c
1
+ /.c.) (2.27)
L
1
=
1
2
:
1
(c
c
1
c
1
+ c
1
c
c
1
) =
1
2
:
1
(c
c
1
c
1
+/.c.) (2.28)
22
Since neutrino is charge less, colorless and has zero value for all conserved internal numbers,
we can describe it using a eld which is its own conjugate. Let us dene two Majorana elds
.
1
= c
1
+ c
c
1
.
2
= c
1
+ c
c
1
Using these we can write equations (2.27) and (2.28) as
L
1
=
1
2
:
1
.
1
.
1
(left Majorana mass term)
L
1
=
1
2
:
1
.
2
.
2
(right Majorana mass term)
.
1
and .
2
are mass eigenstates corresponding to mass :
1
and :
1
.
The most general mass term involving Dirac and Majorana masses is the sum of eqs (2.23),
(2.27) and (2.28)
L =
1
2
:
1
(c
1
c
1
+ c
c
1
c
c
1
) +
1
2
:
1
c
1
c
c
1
+
1
2
:
1
c
c
1
c
1
+ /.c.
2L = (c
1
. c
c
1
)
3
C
:
1
:
1
:
1
:
1
4
D
3
C
c
c
1
c
1
4
D
+ /.c.
=
1
'
c
1
+
1
'
c
1
(2.29)
Where, ' =
3
C
:
1
:
1
:
1
:
1
4
D
.
1
=
3
C
c
1
c
c
1
4
D
=
3
C
c
1
(c
1
)
c
4
D
The elements of the mass matrix M are real if their is no CP violation. We know that
the neutrinos taking part in interactions are (LH) neutrinos (c
1
) and RH antineutrinos (c
c
1
),
whereas, RH neutrinos and LH antineutrinos are sterile, i.e. they do not participate in weak
interaction. Let’s make a change to a commonly used notation; placing i = c for active
23
neutrinos · = c for sterile neutrinos, equations (2.29) become
2L = :
1
(i
1
·
1
+ ·
c
1
i
c
1
) + :
1
i
1
i
c
1
+:
1
·
c
1
·
1
+/.c. (2.30)
2L = (i
1
. ·
c
1
)
3
C
:
1
:
1
:
1
:
1
4
D
3
C
i
c
1
·
1
4
D
+ /.c.
In order to obtain physical mass eigen states we need to diagonalize the mass matrix M
' =
3
C
:
1
:
1
:
1
:
1
4
D
to nd the eigen values we need to solve the equation
' `1 = 0
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
:
1
` :
1
:
1
:
1
`
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
= 0
(:
1
`) (:
1
`) :
2
1
= 0
=,
` = e :
1.2
=
1
2
(:
1
+ :
1
) ±
q
(:
1
+ :
1
)
2
4:
2
1
¸
(2.31)
are the corresponding mass eigen values.
The mass eigenstates are
3
C
c
11
c
21
4
D
=
3
C
cos 0 sin0
sin0 cos 0
4
D
3
C
c
1
c
c
1
4
D
3
C
c
c
11
c
c
21
4
D
=
3
C
cos 0 sin0
sin0 cos 0
4
D
3
C
c
c
1
c
1
4
D
where 0 is called the mixing angle. It is a measurement of the amount of mixing between
24
the avour and mass eigen states and is given by
tan20 =
2:
1
:
1
:
1
Seesaw mechanism: The Majorana mass term we have introduced violates gauge sym
metry, i.e. c $ c
jc
c, which means that there are no conserved charges (electric charge,
leptonic charge, etc.). So the presence of this mass term breaks all symmetries. Let us consider
the case where :
1
<< :
1
and :
1
= 0. eq (2.31) becomes
:
1.2
= :
i
=
1
2
"
:
1
±:
1
s
1 4
:
2
1
:
2
1
#
=
1
2
:
1
1 ±
µ
1 2
:
2
1
:
2
1
¶¸
Now
:
1
= :
i
=
:
2
1
:
1
. :
2
= :
.
= :
1
1
:
2
1
:
2
1
¸
:
1
(2.32)
The reason for considering this case is because the :
1
is not constrained by the standard
model symmetries and we can take it to be very large in order to make the mass of the active
neutrino very small.
The seesaw mechanism gives a robust explanation for the smallness of the mass of neutrinos.
Both the Dirac and Majorana masses are obtained by placing in the expectation value of the
higgs eld, but the Dirac mass is normally of the electroweak scale and in order to make it small
we would have to make the value of the Yukawa coupling very small which would be something
very unnatural to do.
Generalization to n avors: So far we have considered only one avor and found that
the see saw mechanism requires us to introduce one sterile neutrino per generation. Since we
have more than one avors for neutrinos (c. t. j), we need to write the matrix M for n avors.
In that case the elements :
1
. :
1
and :
1
of the matrix M are : × : matrices '
1
. '
1
and
'
1
with complex elements and '
1
= '
T
1
. '
1
= '
T
1
(due to fermi statistics).
' =
3
C
'
1
'
1
'
T
1
'
1
4
D
(2.33)
25
The most general mass term (2.30) is
2L = i
1
'
1
·
1
+ ·
c
1
'
T
1
i
c
1
+ i
1
'
1
i
c
1
+ ·
c
1
'
1
·
1
+ /.c.
2L = (i
1
. ·
c
1
)
3
C
'
1
'
1
'
T
1
'
1
4
D
3
C
i
c
1
·
1
4
D
+ /.c. (2.34)
In analogy with :
i
in (2.32) the mass matrix for the light neutrinos is given by
'
i
= '
1
'
31
1
'
T
1
(2.35)
2.5 Lepton number violation:
In particle interactions there are certain quantum numbers that have to be conserved and are
associated with underlying symmetries. Lepton and Baryon numbers are such types of quantum
numbers. These have not yet been associated with particular symmetries and are motivated by
experimental results. A lepton is dened to have a lepton number 1 = +1 and an antilepton
has 1 = 1. Moreover, each generation of neutrinos has its own lepton number 1
c
. 1
j.
1
t
with
1 = 1
c
+ 1
j
+ 1
t
. In neutrino oscillation a muon neutrino, say, has a probability of decaying
into a tau neutrino, therefore individual lepton number can be violated.
The Dirac mass term cc is invariant under a global symmetry transformation c $c
jc
c
which can be associated with the conservation of lepton number. So fermions which are Dirac
particles cannot violate lepton number in transitions. The Dirac mass term permits transitions
 $ and  $, for which 1 = 0. Whereas the Majorana mass term c
c
c has no invariance
under such a transformation and thereby violates lepton number. This term allows transitions
of the form  $  and  $  for which 1 = ±2. The lepton number violation of the
Majorana mass term has profound implicaitions in cosmology. As we will discuss later in Ch.
4, L violation for Majorana neutrinos gives a possible scenario for Baryogenesis via leptogenesis
and might explain the matterantimatter asymmetry of the Universe.
26
2.6 Neutrino Oscillations:
Neutrino oscillation is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which the neutrino avor eigen
states are mixtures of the mass eigen states. These two basis are related by a unitary trans
formation. A neutrino born in a weak interaction, say i
c
, travelling through space or matter
has a certain probability to transform into i
t
. i
j
. The weak eigenstates are the one detected
through experiment. A weak interaction eigenstate can be written as the superposition of mass
eigen states [1].
i
c
i =
P
j
l
cj
i
j
i (2.36)
Where c is the avor index, U is a unitary matrix and sum is over all possible mass eigen
states. This is the state at t=0, when the neutrino is produced. The state at any time t can
be written by using the time evolution operator exp(iH
0
t).
i
c
(t)i =
P
j
c
3j1
0
t
l
cj
i
j
i =
P
j
c
3j1
l
t
l
cj
i
j
i (2.37)
Where H
0
is free hamiltonian. If neutrinos are relativistic, we can write
1
j
=
q
j
2
j
+:
2
j
= j
s
1 +
:
2
j
j
2
j +
:
2
j
2j
(2.38)
Here it is assumed that mass eigenstates have the same momentum j
j
j.
i
c
(t)i = c
3jjt
P
j
c
3j
p
2
l
2s
t
l
cj
i
j
i (2.39)
27
The probability to observe oscillation between avor c and is
1(i
c
$i
o
) = hi
o
i
c
(t)i
2
=
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
c
3jjt
P
j.;
c
3j
p
2
l
2s
t
l
cj
l
W
o;
hi
;
i
j
i
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
2
1(i
c
$i
o
) =
¯
¯
¯
¯
P
j
c
3j
p
2
l
2s
t
l
cj
l
W
oj
¯
¯
¯
¯
2
1(i
c
$i
o
) =
µ
P
j
c
3j
p
2
l
2s
t
l
cj
l
W
oj
¶
Ã
P
;
c
j
p
2
m
2s
t
l
W
c;
l
o;
!
1(i
c
$i
o
) =
P
j
l
cj

2
l
oj

2
+ Re
P
j.;
P
;6=j
l
cj
l
W
oj
l
W
c;
l
o;
c
3j
(p
2
l
3p
2
m
)
2s
t
1(i
c
$i
o
) =
P
j
l
cj

2
l
oj

2
+ 2
P
;j
l
cj
l
W
oj
l
W
c;
l
o;
cos
(:
2
j
:
2
;
)
2j
t (2.40)
For the case of two neutrinos (say i
c
and i
j
) the mixing matrix is of the form
l =
3
C
cos 0 sin0
sin0 cos 0
4
D
3
C
i
c
i
j
4
D
=
3
C
cos 0 sin0
sin0 cos 0
4
D
3
C
i
1
i
2
4
D
For time t,
i
c
(t)i = cos 0c
3j1
1
t
i
1
i sin0c
3j1
2
t
i
2
i
i
c
(t)i = (cos
2
0c
3j1
1
t
+c
3j1
2
t
sin
2
0) i
c
i sin0 cos 0(c
3j1
2
t
c
3j1
1
t
) i
j
i
The probabilty to see i
j
i = sin0 i
1
i + cos 0 i
2
i in the original beam is then
1(i
c
$i
j
) = hi
c
i
j
(t)i
2
=
¯
¯
sin0 cos 0(c
3j1
2
t
c
3j1
1
t
)
¯
¯
2
= 2 sin
2
0 cos
2
0[1 cos(1
1
1
2
)t]
= 2 sin
2
0 cos
2
0[1 cos
(:
2
1
:
2
2
)
2j
t]
28
Now since the neutrinos are moving close to the speed of light. The time travelled t =
a
·
=
a
c
r and 1 j.
1(i
c
$ i
j
) = 2 sin
2
0 cos
2
0[1 cos
µ
:
2
21
r
¶
]
1(i
c
$ i
j
) = sin
2
20 sin
2
µ
:
2
41
r
¶
(2.41)
Since the argument of sine is dimensionless
1
1
1
2
/
=
1
2/c
:
2
1
r = 2.543
:
2
c\
2
r´:
1´'c\
(2.42)
In the above equation x (meters) is the distance between the neutrino source and detector,
E (MeV) is the energy of the neutrino and :
2
= :
2
1
:
2
2
(i: (c\ )
2
).The probabilty to see
the original neutrino in the beam is
1(i
c
$i
c
) = 1 1(i
c
$i
j
) = 1 sin
2
20 sin
2
µ
:
2
41
r
¶
(2.43)
The oscillatory term can then be expressed as
sin
2
µ
:
2
41
r
¶
= sin
2
¬
r
r
0
Where r
0
is the oscillation length.
r
0
= 4¬
1
:
2
= 2.48
1´'c\
:
2
´c\
2
:
29
Figure 21: Plot of 1(i
c
$i
j
) as a function of r.
2.7 The case of three avor oscillation:
A more realistic situation is the case of three neutrinos. In that case the weak and mass eigen
states are connected by a 3 ×3 matrix U called the MNS (MakiNakagavaSakata) matrix:
3
E
E
E
C
i
c
i
j
i
t
4
F
F
F
D
=
3
E
E
E
C
l
c1
l
c2
l
c3
l
j1
l
j2
l
j3
l
t1
l
t2
l
t3
4
F
F
F
D
3
E
E
E
C
i
1
i
2
i
3
4
F
F
F
D
i
c
i = l
A.S
i
j
i c = c. j. t; i = 1. 2. 3.
Where the MNS matrix is given by
l
A.S
=
3
E
E
E
C
1 0 0
0 c
23
:
23
0 :
23
c
23
4
F
F
F
D
3
E
E
E
C
c
13
0 :
13
c
3jc
0 1 0
:
13
c
jc
0 c
13
4
F
F
F
D
3
E
E
E
C
c
12
:
12
0
:
12
c
12
0
0 0 1
4
F
F
F
D
3
E
E
E
C
c
j~
1
/2
0 0
0 c
j~
2
/2
0
0 0 1
4
F
F
F
D
l
A.S
=
3
E
E
E
C
c
12
c
13
c
13
:
12
:
13
c
3jc
c
23
:
12
c
12
:
13
:
23
c
jc
c
12
c
23
:
12
:
13
:
23
c
jc
c
13
:
23
:
12
:
23
c
12
c
23
:
13
c
jc
c
12
:
23
c
23
:
12
:
13
c
jc
c
13
c
23
4
F
F
F
D
3
E
E
E
C
c
j~
1
/2
0 0
0 c
j~
2
/2
0
0 0 1
4
F
F
F
D
(2.44)
Where c
j;
= cos 0
j;
and :
j;
= sin0
j;
.
1
and
2
are Majorana phases and play no role in
30
Figure 22: Normal and Inverted mass hierarchy
neutrino oscillations. c is the CP violating phase. The neutrino mass states i
1
and i
2
are
members of the solar pair with :
2
:
1
and i
3
is isolated.
The mass dierences :
2
12
and :
2
23
are known through neutrino oscillation experiments.
The mixing angle 0
12
controls the solar neutrino oscillations (i
c
$i
j.t
)and is approximately
35
0
. The angle 0
23
determines the probability amplitude of atmospheric oscillation (i
j
$i
t
)
and is consistent with maximal mixing (0
otn
0
23
45
0
) although its quark counterpart is
just 2
0
. This value of 0
23
is indicative of some avor symmety between the second and third
generations. As for the angle 0
13
, the limits are available from reactor neutrino oscillations,
0
13
< 9
0
. Presently nothing is known about the complex phase c.
The solar neutrino experiments have determined the sign of :
2
12
because of the involvement
of an additional MSW eect which involves avor conversion enhancement due to interaction
with matter. The sign of :
2
23
is not yet known which implies that we don’t know whether
:
2
:
3
or :
2
< :
3
. The possible mass hierarchies for neutrinos is then :
1
< :
2
< :
3
(normal hierarchy) or :
3
< :
1
< :
2
(inverted hierarchy).
Tribimaximal mixing: In the light of above mentioned values of the mixing angles and
their limits from experiment, we can consider the following values
0
23
' 45
o
, 0
13
' 0
o
and 0
12
' 35
0
31
These values of the mixing angles indicate a symmetry in the neutrino sector. The rst two
values imply a j t symmetry which will be discussed in the last chapter. The third limit
along with the other two is called the Tribimaximal limit [11] of the PMNS matrix and in this
limit (2.44) becomes
l
SPQV
=
3
E
E
E
C
q
2
3
1
I
3
0
1
I
6
1
I
3
1
I
2
1
I
6
1
I
3
1
I
2
4
F
F
F
D
(2.45)
The neutrino Majorana mass matrix which is diagonalized by the above matrix is
'
=
3
E
E
E
C
a / /
/ a c / + c
/ / + c a c
4
F
F
F
D
(2.46)
We can easily conrm this by the following equation
l
W
SPQV
'
l
SPQV
= '
gldj
where '
gldj
is a diagonal matrix with the eigen values of '
as the diagonal elements,
the eigen values of '
being a /. a + 2/. a / 2c. Attempts have been made to explain
this limit by applying the o
3
symmetry to the Dirac and Majorana mass terms to generate the
Tribimaximal form of the neutrino mass matrix [12].
2.8 Type II seesaw mechanism:
The see saw formula we discussed in (2.35) is called the type I seesaw formula. In type II see
saw mechanism we add a higgs triplet
O
to the standard model [13]. The interaction being of
the form
L
O
\
=
1
2
1
W
d
1
de
1
e
O
+ /.c. (2.47)
where
O
=
3
E
E
E
C
0
+
++
4
F
F
F
D
and no RH neutrinos in this case. When the neutral component of
32
the higgs eld acquires a VEV
0
®
= ·
O
the neutrino acquires a mass
:
= ·
O
1 '
O
and the see saw formula for this case is
'
= '
O
'
W
G
'
31
U
'
G
(2.48)
and '
G
<< '
U
.
33
Chapter 3
Neutrinos in Cosmology:
Neutrinos, being the most abundant particles in the Universe after radiation, also play an impor
tant role in cosmology. Cosmological considerations of neutrinos lead to a possible background
radiation for neutrinos and neutrinos as candidates for the missing matter of the Universe.
3.1 A Brief Introduction to Cosmology:
When Einstein presented his General theory of relativity the accepted model for the Universe
was that of a stationary one. Einstein introduced the famous cosmological constant to yield
a stationary solution from his eld equations. In 1922 Friedman examined the nonstationary
solutions of Einstein’s equations and predicted a huge explosion at the beginning of the Universe.
Hubble in 1929 experimentally veried the expansion of the Universe giving strength to the
idea of an explosion in the beginning of the Universe. Furthermore, the discovery of the Cosmic
Micrwave Background radiation and the accurate prediction of abundances of light elements in
the Universe established the idea of a big bang as a standard model of cosmology.
3.2 The Big Bang model:
In standard big bang model of cosmology the Universe is homogenous and isotropic [15]. By
homogenous we mean that on very large scales ( 100 Mpc) the Universe has uniform density
averaged over large volumes and by isotropy we mean that the universe has no preferred di
34
rection, it looks the same in whatever direction one looks. These two assumptions are referred
to as the cosmological principle. Einstein, in 1917, rst made these two assumptions in or
der to simply the mathematics of general relativity with out observational evidence. However,
later evidence from the observations of microwave background radiation proved that these
assumptions are quite robust.
In three dimensions the distance between two points in space is given by the line element
d:
2
= dr
2
1
+ dr
2
2
+ dr
2
3
When we are dealing with four dimensions this invariant interval is given by
d:
2
= dt
2
(dr
2
1
+ dr
2
2
+ dr
2
3
)
which can also be written as
d:
2
= o
dr
dr
where j. i = 0. 1. 2. 3 and repetition of indices implies summation. o
is the metric tensor
and describes the curvature of spacetime. For at space time
o
=
3
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1
4
F
F
F
F
F
F
D
(3.1)
Friedman, Robertson and Walker proposed the following metric for a homogenous and
istoropic space which our Universe is
d:
2
= dt
2
a
2
(t)
dr
2
1 /r
2
+ r
2
d0
2
+ r
2
sin
2
0dc
2
¸
(3.2)
(t. r. 0. c) are the coordinates, a(t) is the scale factor which determines the distance between
two points in a coordinate system which expands with the Universe. / is the curvature para
meter, it takes values +1, 0, 1 for spaces having positive, zero and negative curvature. The
35
metric tensor is obtained by solving Eintein’s eld equations in general relativity
1
1
2
1o
= 8¬GT
+o
(3.3)
where 1
is the Ricci tensor, 1 1
o
is the Ricci scalar both of which are specic
functions of o
. On the righthand side, is the cosmological constant and T
is the energy—
momentum tensor. We can assume to a good approximation that our Universe is at so that
the metrix tensor be given by eq (3.1). The energy momentum tensor will also be diagonal as
o
. An isotropic and homogenous Universe implies T
to be of the form
T
= diao(j. j. j. j) (3.4)
j is the energy density and j is the pressure of the uid. The j = i = 0 component of the
Einstein’s equations (3.3) along with (3.4) constitute the Friedmann’s Equation
b
1
2
1
2
+
/
1
2
=
8¬
3
Gj +
3
(3.5)
The value of the cosmological constant from observation is much smaller than would have
been required during ination. Einstein added this constant to force steady state solutions to
his equations. After some time of ignorance its importance revived after progress in quantum
eld theory and the prediction of a vacuum energy for all particles and elds in the ground
state [16]. However, theoretical predictions of the constant is 120 orders of magnitude higher
than the observed value. We can dene a vacuum energy density j
Y
in the above equation so
that
b
1
2
1
2
+
/
1
2
=
8¬
3
G(j + j
Y
) (3.6)
where j
Y
=
\
8J
. and we will absorb this in j to include this in the total energy density of
the Universe.
Now let’s write the Freidmann’s equation as
H
2
=
b
1
2
1
2
=
8¬
3
Gj
/
1
2
(3.7)
36
where H =
b
1´1 is the hubble’s parameter and measures the expansion rate of the Universe.
For at Universe / = 0
H
2
=
8¬
3
Gj (3.8)
So the above equation compares the expansion rate of the Universe with the total energy
density. One can dene from the above equation the critical energy density for a at Universe
j =
3H
2
8¬G
= j
f
(3.9)
it is also usefull to dene the ratio
=
j
j
f
(3.10)
so that (3.7) can be written as
/ = 1
2
( 1) H
2
(3.11)
• if < 1, i.e., density of the Universe is less than the critical density and / < 0, implying
the Universe if open.
• for 1, the Universe is closed, H 2 1
31
, and as 1 increases H becomes zero and then
negative.
• when = 1, H is constant and the Universe is at.
3.3 Energy and number density:
In the limit where particles are relativistic (T :) the energy density of a particular species
is given by
j =
¬
2
30
oT
4
for bosons (3.12)
=
7
8
¬
2
30
oT
4
for fermions
and the number densities are
37
: =
.(3)
¬
2
oT
3
for bosons (3.13)
=
3
4
.(3)
¬
2
oT
3
for fermions
where .(3) = 1.202 .... is the Riemann zeta function and T is the photon temperature. In
the nonrelativistic limit the energy density for both fermions and bosons is given by
j = :: (3.14)
where m is the mass and : is the non relativistic number density given by
: = o
µ
:T
2¬
¶
3@2
c
3p@W
(3.15)
The total energy density is the sum of the individual energy densities.
j =
X
l=ervrqv
¬
2
30
o
l
T
4
+
X
m=ihuplrqv
7
8
¬
2
30
o
m
T
4
(3.16)
The sum only includes relativistic particles. We have ignored the contribution of non
relativistic matter since it is very small and suppressed by factor c
3p@W
. The above expression
can also be written as
j =
¬
2
30
o
W
T
4
(3.17)
where o
W
is the eective number of degrees of freedom dened as
o
W
=
X
l=ervrqv
o
l
+
X
m=ihuplrqv
7
8
o
m
(3.18)
placing eq (3.17) in (3.8) and using G = 1´:
2
so
we get
H =
r
8¬
3
o
W
90
T
2
:
so
1.6
s
o
W
T
2
:
so
(3.19)
38
where :
so
is the planck mass.
3.4 Neutrinos in the early universe:
In the early Universe the neutrinos are kept in thermal equilibrium with the electron positron
plasma by the following reaction [15], [17]
c
+
+ c
3
$i
h
+ i
h
However, as the Universe expands and cools, this reaction freezes out at t 1:cc when the
temperature drops to about 10
10
1 1'c\ . The muon and tau neutrinos decouple completely
from the rest of the plasma while the electron neutrino keeps on interacting through the process
i
h
+ : #$j + c
3
: + c
+
#$j + i
h
As the temperature drops below 1'c\ the reaction rate becomes slower than the expansion
rate of the Universe and the neutrons "freeze out" with the neutrinos.
For T :
h
0.5'c\ the reaction c
+
c
3
$ proceeds in both directions. As the
temperature drops below :
h
the photons do not have enough energy to create c
+
c
3
pair.
After the decoupling of the neutrinos their temperature decreases as inverse of the scale factor
(1´1), whereas the energy released by the c
+
c
3
annihilation increases the temperature of the
radiation. Therefore the temperature of the radiation must be larger than that of the neutrinos.
Similar to the 2.7
0
1 Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation left by the big bang we
expect a Cosmic neutrino Background (CiB) at a lower temperature (' 1.9
0
1) than that of
the photons.
39
3.5 Neutrino mass limits from cosmology:
The energy density of the neutrino is constrained by the fact that it should not be greater than
the total energy density of the Universe [15]. The total energy density of the Universe, j, which
includes all forms of energies is given by
j = j
cv
where j
cv
is the critical energy density of the Universe as discussed earlier, and is given by
j
cv
=
3H
2
0
8¬G
where H
0
= 100/ kms
31
Mpc
31
. Substituting H
0
in the above equation
j = 10
4
/
2
c\´c:
3
Now
j
i
j
The present mean density of neutrinos including all families is [18]
:
i
= 112 neutrinos per cm
3
So the mean density of the neutrinos is j = :
i
:
i
.
:
i
:
i
10
4
/
2
c\´c:
3
:
i
92/
2
c\
3.6 Neutrinos as Dark matter:
Present inationary models predict that 90% of the matter in the Universe is in the form of
nonluminous or dark matter. Since neutrinos are neutral, have a nonzero mass and are so
40
abundant in the Universe, they qualify as being the possible candidates for dark matter. All
other candidates for the role of dark matter are hypothetical. There are two distinct classes of
dark matter– hot dark matter and cold dark matter.
3.6.1 Hot dark matter (HDM):
Hot dark matter is assumed to be made up of ultra relativistic particles, i.e, particle moving
very close to the speed of light. Light neutrinos might form an essential part of HDM. The
possiblities that neutrinos might be the missing dark matter was studied intensely in the 1980s
[19], [20]. Computer similations of the Universe lled with massive neutrinos were made and
it was concluded that a Universe dominated by neutrinos would have a dierent large scale
structure than the present one. Further insights into this matter showed that if neutrinos are
part of hot dark matter than they constitute about 30% of it.
Neutrinos being part of dark matter have several problems. First, since they are relativistic
only very large clumps of neutrinos could hold together graviationally. These would be regions
of the size of thousands of galaxies. In our Universe matter has clumped on a very small scale
as compared to a neutrino dominated Universe. So in a neutrino dominated Universe galaxies
of the size of our own would be washed out completely. Secondly, since neutrinos are fermions
they follow the FermiDirac statistics, they have a maximum phase space density and therefore
a maximum space density. Some galaxies have higher dark matter densities, which means that
the neutrino cannot be the dark matter in these galaxies. So hot dark matter is denitely made
up of some other particles.
3.6.2 Cold dark matter (CDM):
Cold dark matter is made of particles moving with subrelativistic velocities. The collective
name given to the particles consituting CDM is WIMP (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles).
These are slow moving particles and can clump together at a much smaller scale to form galaxies.
Right handed or sterile neutrinos are one of the candidates for it as they do not interact via
the weak force and come out to be very massive particles from the seesaw mechanism.
41
Chapter 4
Baryogenesis via Leptogenesis:
The Universe we live in is matter dominated. The most plausible theory describing the begin
ning of the Universe is the BigBang theory discussed in the previous chapter. A proportion
of this pure energy was then converted into an equal amount of matter and antimatter. Why
and how was this asymmetry between matter and antimatter produced is a very important
question under investigation nowadays. The scenario in which the Universe evolved from a
state of zero baryon number to a non vanishing one is called baryogenesis.
Paul Dirac in 1930 predicted the existence of antimatter and Carl Anderson detected it in
1932 while studying cosmic rays, thereby, rmly establishing the existence of antimatter. There
is not much dierence between a particle and its antiparticle except that they have opposite
charges. Yet the Universe is drastically short of antimatter. The only evidence of antimatter we
have are from particle acclerators and cosmic rays. The antiprotons in the cosmic rays are in very
small proportions (1:10
4
) compared to cosmic ray protons. The number of these antiprotons
are consistent with their secondary production in accelerator like processes j + j $ 3j + j.
So their is no evidence of antimatter left from the big bang.
Another possibilty is that their might be seperated domains of matter and antimatter, and
we live in the former one. If this was true than we would expect a detectable ux of gamma
rays resulting from nucleonantinucleon annihilation at the interface of these domains. No such
gamma ray ux is observed so we conclude that their is negligible antimatter in our Universe.
Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that the dominance of matter is only local and
is realized within a nite volume and far away their are domains of antimatter well seperated
42
from them. This would make the Universe globally symmetric in matter and antimatter. Even
if this is true it is more natural for now to consider a matter asymmetric Universe because
we don’t know of any mechanism by which these large domains could have been seperated.
Moreover, the knowledge of such a mechanism would still not rule out baryon nonconservation
within in our own Universe.
4.1 Size of the Baryon asymmetry:
The baryon asymmetry is quantied by the following parameter [21]
:
1
=
:
1
:
1
:
~
:
1
:
~
:
1(1)
= baryon (antibaryon) number density.
:
~
=the number density of the photon=
2c(3)
¬
2
T
3
~
The WMAP has measured the value of :
1
= 6.1 ±0.3 ×10
310
with great precision and the
value is found resonably close to the one predicted by big bang neucleosynthesis with primordial
deuterium abundance :
1
= (5.1 ±0.5) ×10
310
.
The magnitude of :
1
has been constant since primordial nucleosynthesis. The dierence
:
1
:
1
remains the same in the comoving volume, i.e., the volume which expands with the
Universe. Since T
~
1´a(t). :
~
1´a
3
(t), however, in the early Universe :
~
a
3
(t) was not
constant, since the annihilation of particles after the temperature dropped below their masses
caused an increase in the photon number density. Therefore it is more convenient to dene the
baryon asymmetry using entropy density s,
:
c
=
:
1
:
1
:
where : = (j + j)´T =
2¬
2
45
o
c
(T)T
3
remains constant in the comoving volume if thermal
equilibrium is maintained.
The standard cosmological model cannot explain the observed value of :
1
. Since annihila
tions are not perfect after freeze out, we can use standard cosmology to estimate the abundance
43
of baryons and antibaryons
:
1
:
~
=
:
1
:
~
' 10
318
which is very small as compared to the value predicted by nucleosynthesis. So, we need to
look at other possibilities which enhance this asymmetry.
4.2 Sakharov’s Condition:
In 1967 Sakharov, assuming that the Universe was created in a B symmetric state, derived the
three necessary conditions that any theory, which explains the measured value of :
1
. has to
satisfy:
4.2.1 B violation:
This condition is obvious since we want to start with a Universe with 1 = 0 to a state
1 6= 0. For example, the decay of the following species violates B
A $ cc 1 = 2´3
A $ c 1 = 1´3
However, the non conservation of B has not yet been proved through experiment. The only
evidence we have of B violation is the baryon asymmetry of the Universe itself.
4.2.2 C and CP nonconservation:
If C and CP are conserved the rates of any process that generates an excess of baryons will be
equal to the rate of the conjugate process that generates antibaryons, thereby keeping the net
baryon number zero. Consider a process A $¹+1 and its conjugate A $¹+1. If C is
a symmetry then
(A $¹+1) = (A $¹+1)
Therefore, we need C violation, but that is not enough. We also need CP violation. Since
the action of C (charge conjugation) and CP (charge conjugation combined with parity) changes
particles with antiparticles, it changes the sign of B. Therefore, if a state is C and CP invariant,
44
its baryon number must be zero. If the Universe was initially matter antimatter symmetric
and without a preferred direction of time, as in the standard cosmological model, then it is
represented by a state which is C and CP invariant implying 1 = 0. Hence C and CP violating
processes are necessary for a net baryon number to be generated even if we have baryon number
violation required by the rst condition.
Unlike the baryon number violation, CP asymmetry is experimentally veried in the decay
of neutral kaons and C is violated in weak interactions.
4.2.3 Out of Thermal equilibrium:
This condition requires to restrict the reverse of a process to take place. Because if a process
violates B then its reverse process will cause the net baryon number to vanish. For example,
consider a process
A $Y +7
then its reverse process is Y +7 $A. The process is in thermal equilibrium if
(A $Y +7) = (Y +7 $A)
So in thermal equilibrium the net baryon number of the Universe remains zero. Another
way to look at this condition is to calculate the thermal average of the baryon number as
h1i
T
= Tr(c
3o1
1) = Tr[(C1T)(C1T)
31
c
3o1
1)]
= Tr(c
3o1
(C1T)
31
1(C1T)] = Tr(c
3o1
1).
Since the Hamiltonian commutes with CPT. Therefore, h1i
T
= 0 and there is no net
generation of B number in thermal equilibrium. Also, in order for local thermal equilibrium
to be maintained in the early Universe the reaction rate of a process must be greater than the
expansion rate of the Universe, i.e.
H
and to depart from thermal equilibrium H.
45
4.3 Scenarios for Baryogenesis:
We will now discuss various scenarios available for baryogenesis to take place. After briey
discussing some other scenarios we will dwell in the one where neutrinos come into play, i.e.
baryogenesis via leptogenesis.
4.3.1 GUT baryogenesis:
Grand unication theories (GUTs) attempt to unify the strong and electroweak interactions
at some high energy scale. The rst and the simplest GUT was the SU(5) model proposed by
Georgi and Glashow in 1974. In this framework fermions (leptons and quarks) are multiplets
of a single irreducible representation of a gauge group. Leptons and quarks transform into one
another via the exchange of leptoquark bosons X and Y, thereby violating B [22]. The X boson
can decay through the following B violating channels
A $ cc 1 = 2´3
A $ c 1 = 1´3
with decay rates r
1
and r
2
. Let A denote its antiparticle with analogous decay channels
having decay rates r
1
and r
2
. C and CP violation imply r
1
6= r
1
. Infact, if we consider the
coupling constants to be complex then CP violation is obtained from the interference of tree
level [29] and one loop diagrams as shown in gure.
Finally, we also require the out of equilibrium condition. At temperatures greater than :
A
.
the A and A bosons are in thermal equilibrium and :
A
= :
A
. As the temperature drops
the number density freezes out and the out of equilibrium decay of X generates a net baryon
number.
The picture sketched above seems to be palusible but, in fact, GUT baryogenesis has some
problems to be a viable scenario for baryogenesis.
• First of all it cannot be tested because of the high energy scale involved 10
16
Gc\.
• In the simplest GUT based on SU(5) their is a B+L asymmetry with a vanishing BL
46
Figure 41: Decays of the X boson
asymmetry. The B+L asymmetry is later washed out by the sphaleron processes.
• To generate su!cient baryon asymmetry requires a large reheating temperature which
inturn leads to the dangerous production of particles as gravitinos.
4.3.2 Electroweak Baryogenesis:
Another possibility is that baryogenesis occurs at the electroweak phase transition. The stan
dard model has all conditions required for baryogenesis to take place. The baryon and lepton
number is conserved in the classical lagrangian. Consider the fermionic lagrangian
L = c
1
1
j
j
c
1
the global transformation implies that at the classical level
0
j
,
j
1
= 0
where ,
j
1
= c
1
j
c
1
and similarly for the baryons.
0
j
,
j
1
= 0
In Quantum Mechanics a conserved current such as above is associated with the symmetry
47
of a system. However, in Relativistic Field Theory there are phenomenon known as anomaly
due to which a classically conserved axial vector current associated with fermions may turn out
to be not conserved due to quantization [24]. The baryonic and leptonic currents suer from
this anomaly at quantum level, i.e.
0
j
,
j
1
= 0
j
,
j
1
=
:
;
8¬
³
c
W
\
o
ji
f
\
oji
c
Y
1
ji
e
1
ji
´
(4.1)
c
W
=
j
2
Z
4¬
. c
Y
=
j
2
\
4¬
are SU(2)
1
and U(1)
Y
couling constants
:
;
= number of families
\
ji
= SU(2) eld strength
f
\
ji
=
1
2
c
jico
\
co
.
e
1
ji
=
1
2
c
jico
1
co
\
o
ji
= 0
j
\
o
i
0
i
\
o
j
1
ji
= 0
j
¹
i
0
i
¹
j
Therefore,
0
j
(,
j
1
,
j
1
) = 0
j
,
j
131
= 0
0
j
,
j
1+1
6= 0
=,(1 +1) 6= 0
which shows that the B+L asymmetry is anomalously broken at the quantum level, whereas
BL is preserved.
Now the Vacua of the theory may be labelled by the ChernSimons number, dened by
·
CS
(t) =
o
2
W
96¬
2
Z
d
3
rc
j;I
Tr
µ
¹
j
0
;
¹
I
+
2
3
io¹
j
¹
;
¹
I
¶
A nonabelian gauge theory like weak interaction SU(2)
1
has an innite number of
degenerate ground states being numbered by the Chern Simons number. The ground states
are seperated by an energy barrier and anomalous processes are thus tunneling events. The
sphaleron process takes the vacua from one ground state to the other and in this B and L
48
Figure 42: The potential energy of the gauge eld as a function of Chern Simons number.
are violated whereas BL remains conserved. A transition from one vacuum state to the other
changes ·
CS
by one step whereas B and L change by three steps. This process is rare at low
temperature, but, may occur frequently at temperatures above or comparable to the electroweak
phase transition .
CP violation is not an exact symmetry of the standard model due to the complex phase in
the CKM (CabibboKobayashiMaskawa) matrix which describes quark mixing. CP violation
has been experimentally observed in the decays of K mesons. However, the CP violation is
not strong enough ( 10
320
) to generate the required asymmetry and hence requires us to go
beyond the standard model.
The third of the Sakharov’s condition, i.e., the departure from thermal equilibrium may be
provided by the electroweak phase transition (EWPT), i.e., from the high temperature phase
where ol(2)×l(1) is an exact symmetry of the EW interactions to the low temperature phase
where this asymmetry is broken via the Higgs mechanism. But, for that the EWPT has to be
strongly rst order which means that the vacuum expectation value must change nonsmoothly
during the phase transition. If the EWPT is second order than everything goes smoothly,
thermal equilibirium is not disturbed and the asymmetry is not generated. Such a mechanism
crucially depends on the mass of the higgs boson and requires a light higgs for a rst order
transition and a heavy one for second order. The rst order requirement is seriously against
the mass limit for the higgs provided by LEP, :
1
115 Gc\ again indicating that we need
to go beyond the standard model to explain baryogenesis.
It seem that the experimental mass limit of the higgs boson and the low value of the CP
49
violation has almost ruled out the possibility that the standard model will explain baryogenesis.
However, supersymmetric extensions to the standard model might solve these problems, but,
supersymmetry is yet to be explored through experiment.
4.3.3 Baryogenesis via Leptogenesis:
This is one of the most interesting and widely studied scenarios nowadays. It is also relatively
simple from the two scenarios we just studied. First proposed by Fukugita and Yanagida in
1986, the idea is to generate a lepton asymmetry rst through Majorana or sterile neutrinos and
then convert this asymmetry into baryon asymmetry through sphaleron processes. In article
2.5 we noticed that the Majorana mass term allows transitions that violate lepton number by
±2.
Yukawa Interaction: Let’s briey review how can we add the Majorana mass term to the
standard model. Recall the Dirac mass term is
L = :
1
(c
1
c
1
+c
1
c
1
)
where c
1
=
µ
c
3
i
c
¶
1
is ol(2)
1
doublet and c
1
= c
3
1
is a singlet.
We cannot add this mass term to the lagrangian of the electroweak theory which is ol(2) ×
l(1) invariant, where as the above mass term is not, since c
1
is a doublet and c
1
is a singlet
under ol(2). However, we can introduce a higgs doublet to make the lagrangian invariant
under ol(2) and also give mass to the fermions.
L
Y
= /(c
1
c
1
. +c
1
c
1
.
†
) (4.2)
where / is an arbitrary coupling constant, the strength of which determines the mass of the
particle. This sort of term which couples a boson to a fermion and is not the result of a gauge
symmetry is called Yukawa interaction term. By placing the expectation value of the higgs
eld we get the required mass
:
1
= /h.i
0
where .
0
=
1
I
2
µ
0
·
¶
50
Figure 43: The decays and inverse decays of Majorana neutrinos.
and this breaks the symmetry of the lagrangian.
In a similar way the Majorana mass term can also be added to the standard model by
writing the Yukawa interaction term. From 2.12 the Majorana mass term for active neutrinos
is
L
1
=
1
2
:
1
(c
1
c
c
1
+c
c
1
c
1
) =
1
2
:
1
(c
1
c
c
1
+/.c.)
This c
1
is a doublet and c
c
1
is a singlet, so the Yukawa interaction for this involves a higgs
which is an ol(2) doublet .
L
1
Y
= 1(c
1
c
c
1
+/.c.) (4.3)
Also the Majorana mass term for the sterile neutrinos is generated by the following
L
1
Y
= o(c
c
1
c
1
. +/.c.) (4.4)
and in this case . is an SU(2) singlet since c
c
1
and c
1
are singlets.
The Yukawa interaction term allows the right handed neutrino to decay into a lepton and
a higgs or their CP conjugates violating lepton number by ±2 as shown in Fig 43.
51
The three conditions:
(i) We discussed that B+L is violated that by the sphaleron processes, whereas BL is preserved.
We can write B as [14], [22], [24]
1 =
1 +1
2
+
1 1
2
Due to the sphaleron processes we have
(1 1)
;
= (1 1)
j
(1 +1)
;
= 0
Therefore,
1 =
1 1
2
So half of the initial lepton asymmetry is converted into lepton asymmetry. Infact, after
careful considerations as in [25] it turns out that 1
1
3
(1 1).
(ii) This condition is satised when the decay rates of the RH neutrino into . and its CP
conjugate . are not equal
(·
1
$
j
+.) 6= (·
1
$
j
+.)
The decay asymmetry is measured by
c
1
=
X
j6=I
(·
1
$
j
+.) (·
1
$
j
+.)
(·
1
$
j
+.) +(·
1
$
j
+.)
(4.5)
At tree level
(·
1
$
j
+.) = (·
1
$
j
+.) =
¡
//
†
¢
11
16¬
'
1
The lowest order processes cannot contribute to the CP asymmetry. The rst nonzero
contribution to c comes from the interference of the tree level graphs with oneloop vertex and
self energy corrections [23] as shown in g.
52
Figure 44: Contributions from vertex and self energy which give CP violation.
The self energy and vertex contributions are often referred in literature as ctype and c
0
types
of CP violation. In particular the CP violation due to the self energy graphs is considerably
enhanced for the case of quasidegenerate RH neutrinos. The CP asymmetry (4.5) comes out
to be
c
1
'
1
8¬·
2
X
j=2.3
1
(//)
11
Im
½
(//
†
)
2
1j
1
µ
'
2
j
'
2
1
¶
+o
µ
'
2
j
'
2
1
¶¸¾
(4.6)
 · = 174 Gc\ is the electroweak symmetry breaking scale
 1(r) is the contribution to the vertex correction term given by
1(r) =
s
r
1 (1 +r) ln
µ
1 +r
r
¶¸
(4.7)
 o(r) of the self energy part is
o(r) =
s
r
1 r
(4.8)
The asymmetry c must be & 10
36
for succesful baryogenesis.
(iii) The out of equilibrium condition, as discussed earlier requires the following constraint
on the decay rate of the RH neutrino
H (T ' '
1
) (4.9)
with
H = 1.66
p
o
W
T
2
'
j
(4.10)
53
where mass of the RH neutrino T '
1
10
10
Gc\ and o
W
= 100 in the standard model.
The scenario of baryogenesis via leptogenesis seems to be attractive. The Majorana neutri
nos naturally come out to be very heavy through the seesaw mechanism 10
10
Gc\ and also
give good results for the asymmetry. But, our present reach of energies is 14 TeV, which is way
less than the energies we need to reach in order to test this theory. Attempts are being made
to develop models for leptogenesis at low energy scales of the order 110 TeV, so that we can
test them in near future [26].
54
Chapter 5
Right Handed Neutrino,
symmetry and leptogenesis:
5.1 What is symmetry?
As mentioned earlier that experiments indicate that the atmospheric mixing angle is maximal,
i.e.
0
23
' 45
o
and 0
13
' 0
o
These values may be due to a symmetry in the neutrino sector which is not present in the
quark sector. We need to write the neutrino mass matrix which leads to this maximal value of
0
23
.
Let’s dene the neutrino mass matrix as
'
i
=
3
E
E
E
C
'
cc
'
cj
'
ct
'
cj
'
jj
'
jt
'
ct
'
jt
'
tt
4
F
F
F
D
(5.1)
The j t symmetry [27] requires the avor mass terms in the lagrangian to be invariant
55
transformation i
j
$i
t
or i
j
$i
t
. As a result of which we get
'
cj
= '
ct
(5.2)
'
jj
= '
tt
for i
j
$i
t
and
'
cj
= '
ct
(5.3)
'
jj
= '
tt
for i
j
$i
t
. We use the sign factor o = ±1 so that for the j t symmetry we require
the following invariance of the lagrangian
'
cj
= o'
ct
for i
j
#$i
t
Since sin0
13
6= 0, j t symmetry is expected to be an approximate rather than an exact
symmetry. We will employ this symmetry in our model in the preceding section.
5.2 Our model:
In our model we consider the gauge group ol
1
(2) × l
j3t
(1) × l
c
(1) and employ the j t
symmetry in it [28]. Next we will calculate the CP asymmetry in our model and check whether
it is of the right magnitude for leptogenesis. Now let’s write the Yukawa couplings for these
neutrinos as in eq (4.2) and (4.4)
L
Y
= /
11
1
c
·
c
.
(2)
+ [/
22
1
j
(·
j
+·
t
) +/
32
1
t
(·
j
+·
t
)].
(1)
+1
11
·
T
c
C·
c
0
+1
12
·
T
c
C(·
j
+·
t
) +1
22
[(·
T
j
C·
j
+·
T
j
C·
t
+·
T
t
C·
j
+·
T
t
C·
t
)
0
] +/.c. (5.4)
Our Lagrangian clearly has jt interchange symmetry for right handed neutrinos. We are
applying this symmetry only to the RH neutrino sector, because simultaneous application of
this symmetry to neutrinos and charged leptons leads to problems [29]. The j t symmetry
56
for the charged leptons (1
j
#$1
t
) implies :
j
= :
t
, which is not the case. So the leptonic
j t symmetry is part of a larger symmetry which is broken independent of the symmetry for
the neutrinos.
The quantum numbers of the elds are as follows
1
c
=
µ
c
3
i
c
¶
1
: (2. 1. 0). ·
c
1
: (1. 1. 1)
c
1
: (1. 2. 0), ·
j3t
1
: (1. 1. 1)
1
j3t
: (2. 0. 1). .
(1)
: (2. 1. 0)
j
1
. t
1
: (1. 0. 2) .
(2)
: (2. 0. 1)
: (1. 0. 0)
0
: (1. 2. 2)
Placing in the expectation value of the higgs elds
D
.
(1)
E
= ·
1
D
.
(2)
E
= ·
2
hi =
0
®
=
0
the Dirac and Majorana mass terms are
L
1
= /
11
·
2
i
c
·
c
+·
1
(/
22
i
j
+/
32
i
t
)(·
j
+·
t
) +/.c. (5.5)
L
A
= 1
12
¡
·
T
c
C(·
j
+·
t
)
¢
+/.c. +
0
©
1
11
·
T
c
C·
c
+1
22
(·
T
j
+·
T
t
)C(·
j
+·
t
)
ª
+/.c. (5.6)
Now let’s write eq (5.3) and (5.4) in matrix form
L
1
= (i
c
i
j
i
t
)
3
E
E
E
C
/
11
·
2
0 0
0 /
22
·
1
/
22
·
1
0 /
32
·
1
/
32
·
1
4
F
F
F
D
 {z }
3
E
E
E
C
·
c
·
j
·
t
4
F
F
F
D
+/.c. (5.7)
:
1
57
L
A
=
¡
·
T
c
·
T
j
·
T
t
¢
3
E
E
E
C
1
11
0
1
12
1
12
1
12
1
22
0
1
22
0
1
12
1
22
0
1
22
0
4
F
F
F
D
 {z }
3
E
E
E
C
C·
c
C·
j
C·
t
4
F
F
F
D
+/.c. (5.8)
'
1
In the (·
c
, ·
+
=
.+.
I
2
) basis
L
A
=
s
21
12
¡
·
T
c
C·
+
¢
+/.c. +
0
©
1
11
·
T
c
C·
c
+ 21
22
·
T
+
C·
+
ª
+/.c. (5.9)
=
¡
·
T
c
·
T
+
¢
3
C
1
11
0
s
21
12
s
21
12
21
22
0
4
D
 {z }
3
C
C·
c
C·
+
4
D
+/.c. (5.10)
f
'
1
We diagonalize '
1
in eq (5.6) by the unitary matrix \
3
E
E
E
C
·
c
·
j
·
t
4
F
F
F
D
= \
3
E
E
E
C
·
1
·
2
·
3
4
F
F
F
D
(5.11)
·
1
. ·
2
and ·
3
are mass eigen states of the sterile neutrinos. The two conditions in (5.2)
imply :
23
=
1
I
2
and :
13
= 0 in the MNS matrix in eq 2.44. So the most general 3 ×3 unitary
matrix, consistent with j t symmetry, is
\ =
3
E
E
E
C
c
0
:
0
0
c
0
I
2
c
0
I
2
1
I
2
c
0
I
2
c
0
I
2
1
I
2
4
F
F
F
D
1() (5.12)
where now c
12
c
0
, the angle 0
12
remains arbitrary in this matrix. 1() is the diagonal phase
matrix. Then
\
T
'
1
\ =
c
'
1
= diao('
1
. '
2
. '
3
) (5.13)
58
where '
1
. '
2
and '
3
are the eigen values of '
1
. We can calculate them the same way as
discussed in section (2.4) and eq (2.31). Now
'
3
= c
2j~
3
[1
22
1
23
]
0
(5.14)
Now (5.7) in
³
·
1
·
2
·
3
´
3
E
E
E
C
i
c
i
j
i
t
4
F
F
F
D
basis is
b :
†
1
= \
T
:
†
1
or
b :
1
= :
1
\
W
(5.15)
placing in the :
1
and \ from (5.7) and (5.12), we get
b :
1
=
3
E
E
E
C
c
0
c
3j~
1
(/
11
·
2
) :
0
c
3j~
2
(/
11
·
2
)
c
0
I
2
(2/
22
·
1
)
c
0
I
2
c
3j~
1
(2/
22
·
1
)
c
0
I
2
(2/
32
·
1
)
c
0
I
2
c
3j~
1
(2/
32
·
1
)
4
F
F
F
D
1 = b :
†
1
b :
1
(5.16)
=
3
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
c
02
/
11

2
·
2
2
+
c
02
2
[2/
22

2
·
2
1
+2/
32

2
·
2
1
]
c
0
:
0
[/
11

2
·
2
2
1
2
(2/
22

2
·
2
1
+2/
32

2
·
2
1
)c
j(~
1
3~
2
)
]
c
0
:
0
(/
11

2
·
2
2
1
2
(2/
22

2
·
2
1
+2/
32

2
·
2
1
)c
3j(~
1
3~
2
)
:
02
/
11

2
·
2
2
+
c
02
2
[2/
22

2
·
2
1
+2/
32

2
·
2
1
]
4
F
F
F
F
F
F
D
(5.17)
where we have taken out the third coloumn from the above matrix as it was zero. The
eective Majorana mass matrix for light neutrinos is
'
i
= b :
1
c
'
31
1
b :
T
1
=
b
¹ (5.18)
59
where
b
¹ is 3 ×3 matrix with matrix elements
a
11
= /
2
11
·
2
2
¹
s
2a
12
= /
11
(2/
22
)·
1
·
2
1
s
2a
13
= /
11
(2/
32
)·
1
·
2
1
a
22
=
1
2
(4/
2
22
·
2
1
)C (5.19)
a
23
=
1
2
(2/
22
)(2/
32
)·
2
1
C
a
33
=
1
2
(4/
2
32
)·
2
1
C
Here
¹ = c
32j~
1
[
c
02
'
1
+
:
02
'
2
c
2j(~
1
3~
2
)
]
1 = c
32j~
1
c
0
:
0
[
1
'
1
1
'
2
c
2j(~
1
3~
2
)
]
C = c
32j~
1
[
:
02
'
1
+
c
02
'
2
c
2j(~
1
3~
2
)
] (5.20)
In order to diagonalize '
i
as given in Eq. (5.18) we now make the assumption of maximal
atmospheric mixing and zero l
c3
. This requires the 3 ×3 unitary matrix for diagonalization to
be
l =
3
E
E
E
C
c : 0
c
I
2
c
I
2
1
I
2
c
I
2
c
I
2
1
I
2
4
F
F
F
D
diao(c
jo
1
. c
jo
3
. c
jo
3
) (5.21)
so that
l
T
'
i
l = diao(:
1
:
2
:
3
) (5.22)
This gives
a
12
= a
13
= /. a
22
= a
33
= d. :
3
= 2c
jo
3
(a
22
a
23
)
For our case these relations in turn imply [c.f. Eq. (5.19)] /
22
= /
32
so that a
22
= a
23
= d.
60
Finally then we have
'
i
=
3
E
E
E
C
a / /
/ d d
/ d d
4
F
F
F
D
(5.23)
where
a a
11
= c
32jo
1
[c
2
:
1
+:
2
:
2
c
j{
]
2d = c
32jo
1
[:
2
:
1
+c
2
:
2
c
j{
]
s
2/ = c:c
32jo
1
[:
1
:
2
c
j{
] (5.24)
:
3
= 0
= 2(
1
2
)
We wish to emphasize that form (5.23) for '
i
is a consequence of j t symmetry for right
handed ol
1
(2)singlet neutrinos, and maximal atmospheric mixing and vanishing of l
c3
.
Taking out the state corresponding to eigenvalue zero. i.e. in (i
c1
. i
+1
) basis
'
i
=
3
C
a
s
2/
s
2/ 2d
4
D
(5.25)
We now list some useful relations, which we shall be using. Calculating Im[(
s
2/)
2
a
W
2d
W
] from
Eqs.(5.19) and (5.25) and equating them, we obtain
c
02
:
02
sin[2(
1
2
)] =
1
/
11
·
2

4
2/
22
·
1

4
[c
2
:
2
:
1
:
2
(:
2
2
:
2
1
)
('
2
2
'
2
1
)
]'
3
2
'
3
1
sin (5.26)
Further from Eqs. (5.24) and (5.26)
det '
i
 =
¯
¯
¯a(2d) (
s
2/)
2
¯
¯
¯ = :
1
:
2
(5.27)
Calculating
¯
¯
a(2d) (
s
2/)
2
¯
¯
from Eqs. (5.19) and (5.20), we obtain
/
11
·
2

2
2/
22
·
1

2
1
'
1
'
2
(5.28)
61
giving
/
11
·
2

2
2/
22
·
1

2
= '
1
'
2
:
1
:
2
(5.29)
so that from Eq. (5.26)
c
02
:
02
sin[2(
1
2
)] = c
2
:
2
:
2
2
:
2
1
('
2
2
'
2
1
)
'
1
'
2
:
1
:
2
(5.30)
Another useful relation comes from calculating
¯
¯
s
2/
¯
¯
2
from Eqs. (5.19), (5.20) and (5.24) and
equating them
c
2
:
2
[(:
2
:
1
)
2
+ 4:
1
:
2
sin
2
2
] = c
02
:
02
:
1
:
2
'
1
'
2
[('
2
'
1
)
2
+ 4'
1
'
2
sin
2
(
1
2
)] (5.31)
Finally we have to express /
11
·
2

2
and 2/
22
·
1

2
in terms of observables :
2
ccov
and :
2
otn
and sin
2
0
12
[we have already employed 0
13
= 0 and sin
2
0
23
=
1
2
].
Equating the expressions for a in Eqs. (5.19), (5.20) and (5.24) and using the relation
(5.31), we obtain
/
11
·
2

2
= [(c
2
:
1
+:
2
:
2
)
2
4c
2
:
2
:
1
:
2
sin
2
2
]
1
2
×
{
c
02
'
2
1
+
:
02
'
2
2
c
2
:
2
'
1
'
2
:
1
:
2
[(:
2
:
1
)
2
+ 4:
1
:
2
sin
2
2
]}
3
1
2
(5.32)
2/
22
·
1

2
can then be obtained from Eq. (5.29)
2/
22
·
1

2
= :
1
:
2
[(c
2
:
1
+ :
2
:
2
)
2
4c
2
:
2
:
1
:
2
sin
2
2
]
3
1
2
×
{c
02
'
2
2
+ :
02
'
2
1
c
2
:
2
'
1
'
2
:
1
:
2
[(:
2
:
1
)
2
+ 4:
1
:
2
sin
2
2
]}
1
2
(5.33)
Now let us see the implications of our analysis for leptogenesis. Here we consider the quasi
degeneracy case, '
1
' '
2
. The case ('
2
'
1
) has been considered in [28].
Dening
c =
'
2
'
1
1 (5.34)
where
c << 1 (5.35)
62
The asymmetry in (4.6) has major contribution from the self energy part (4.8) for this case
and negligible from the vertex part (r $1. 1(r) $0. o(r) $4). The asymmetry for '
1
and '
2
is
c
1
=
1
8¬
1
·
2
1
1
11
Im
(1
12
)
2
o
µ
'
2
2
'
2
1
¶¸
(5.36)
c
2
=
1
8¬
1
·
2
2
1
22
Im
(1
21
)
2
o
µ
'
2
1
'
2
2
¶¸
(5.37)
placing (5.34) in (5.36) and (5.37)
c
1
=
1
8¬
1
·
2
1
1
11
Im
h
(1
12
)
2
o (1 + c)
2
i
(5.38)
c
2
=
1
8¬
1
·
2
2
1
22
Im
h
(1
21
)
2
o (1 + c)
32
i
(5.39)
for c << 1, o (1 + c) can be approximated [30]
o (1 + c)
±2
'
1
2c
(5.40)
therefore equation (5.38) becomes
c
1
=
1
8¬
1
·
2
1
1
11
Im
(1
12
)
2
1
2c
¸
(5.41)
c
1
=
1
16¬
1
·
2
1
1
11
1
c
Im
£
(1
12
)
2
¤
(5.42)
Similarly (5.39) becomes
c
2
=
1
16¬
1
·
2
2
1
22
1
c
Im
£
(1
21
)
2
¤
(5.43)
from Eq. (5.17) [ with /
22
= /
32
]
1
11
= c
02
 /
11

2
·
2
2
+ :
02
 2/
22

2
·
2
1
(5.44)
1
12
= c
0
:
0
( /
11

2
·
2
2
 2/
22

2
·
2
1
)c
j(
1
3
2
)
(5.45)
1
2
12
= c
02
:
02
[ /
11

2
·
2
2
 2/
22

2
·
2
1
]
2
c
2l(
1
3
2
)
(5.46)
63
Im(1
12
)
2
= c
02
:
02
[ /
11

2
·
2
2
 2/
22

2
·
2
1
]
2
sin2i(
1
2
) (5.47)
We get another constraint from (4.9)
1
=
1
11
'
1
8¬·
2
1
H (5.48)
where H is the Hubble constant at temperature T = '
1
:
H = 1.66o
W
1
2
T
2
'
so
' 17
'
2
1
'
so
(5.49)
in a radiation dominated Universe. Here we have used o
W
(the eective number of relativistic
degrees of freedom) ' 100. The constraint (5.49) gives, for '
1
' 10
10
Gc\.
1
11
< 4.3 ×10
37
·
2
1
(5.50)
Using (5.30), (5.47) becomes
Im(1
12
)
2
= [ /
11

2
·
2
2
 2/
22

2
·
2
1
]
2
c
2
:
2
:
2
2
:
2
1
'
2
2
'
2
1
'
1
'
2
:
1
:
2
sin
Now (5.42) becomes
c
1
=
1
16¬
1
c
2.3 ×10
6
·
4
1
c
2
:
2
[ /
11
·
2

2
 2/
22
·
1

2
]
2
:
2
2
:
2
1
'
2
2
'
2
1
'
1
'
2
:
1
:
2
sin (5.51)
Now from (5.32)
 /
11
·
2

2
= [(c
2
:
1
+ :
2
:
2
)
2
4c
2
:
2
:
1
:
2
sin
2
2
]
1@2
(5.52)
×
½
c
02
'
2
1
+
:
02
'
2
2
c
2
:
2
'
1
'
2
:
1
:
2
[(:
2
:
1
)
2
+ 4:
1
:
2
sin
2
2
]
¾
31@2
Writing : =
p
1
+p
2
2
, : =
p
2
3p
1
2
, (:
2
2
:
2
1
) = 4:: = :
2
vrodu
, the rst expression
in the bracket
64
[(c
2
:
1
+:
2
:
2
)
2
4c
2
:
2
:
1
:
2
sin
2
2
]
1@2
=
½
[c
2
(::) + :
2
(: +:)]
2
sin
2
20(:
2
:
2
) sin
2
2
¾
1@2
=
½
[::cos 20]
2
sin
2
20(:
2
:
2
) sin
2
2
¾
1@2
= :
1 2
:
:
cos 20 sin
2
20 sin
2
2
¸
1@2
(neglecting
µ
:
:
¶
2
)
and the second term in the parenthesis
½
c
02
'
2
1
+
:
02
'
2
2
c
2
:
2
'
1
'
2
:
1
:
2
[(:
2
:
1
)
2
+ 4:
1
:
2
sin
2
2
]
¾
31@2
=
µ
1
'
2
1
¶
31@2
½
c
02
+
:
02
(c + 1)
2
c
2
:
2
(c + 1):
1
:
2
[(:
2
:
1
)
2
+ 4:
1
:
2
sin
2
2
]
¾
31@2
= '
1
½
1
c
2
:
2
(c + 1)(:
2
:
2
)
[4:
2
+ 4(:
2
:
2
) sin
2
2
]
¾
31@2
= '
1
(
1
c
2
:
2
(c + 1):
2
(1
{p
2
p
2
)
µ
4:
2
sin
2
2
¶
)
31@2
= '
1
½
1
4c
2
:
2
(c + 1)
sin
2
2
¾
31@2
' '
1
Therefore, (5.52) becomes
 /
11
·
2

2
' :'
1
[1 2 cos 20
:
:
sin
2
20 sin
2
2
]
1@2
(5.53)
Now consider (5.33)
 2/
22
·
1

2
= :
1
:
2
[(c
2
:
1
+ :
2
:
2
)
2
4c
2
:
2
:
1
:
2
sin
2
2
]
31@2
×
½
c
02
'
2
2
+ :
02
'
2
1
c
2
:
2
'
1
'
2
:
1
:
2
[(:
2
:
1
)
2
+ 4:
1
:
2
sin
2
2
]
¾
1@2
 2/
22
·
1

2
= :
1 2
:
:
cos 20 sin
2
20 sin
2
2
¸
31@2
'
2
½
c
02
+ :
02
'
2
1
'
2
2
4c
2
:
2
'
1
'
2
sin
2
2
¾
1@2
65
 2/
22
·
1

2
= :
1 2
:
:
cos 20 sin
2
20 sin
2
2
¸
31@2
'
2
½
1
4c
2
:
2
1 + c
sin
2
2
¾
1@2
 2/
22
·
1

2
' :'
2
1 2
:
:
cos 20 sin
2
20 sin
2
2
¸
31@2
(5.54)
Equation (5.51)
c
1
=
1
16¬
1
c
2.3 ×10
6
·
4
1
c
2
:
2
[:'
1
:'
2
]
2
:
2
2
:
2
1
'
2
2
'
2
1
'
1
'
2
:
1
:
2
sin
c
1
=
1
16¬
1
c
2.3 ×10
6
·
4
1
c
2
:
2
:
2
['
1
'
2
]
2
4::
'
2
2
'
2
1
'
1
'
2
:
2
:
2
sin
c
1
=
1
16¬
1
c
2.3 ×10
6
·
4
1
c
2
:
2
['
2
'
1
]
:
2
vrodu
'
1
'
2
('
2
+ '
1
)
sin
c
1
=
1
16¬
1
c
2.3 ×10
6
·
4
1
c
2
:
2
'
1
[
'
2
'
1
1]
:
2
vrodu
'
1
'
2
'
2
(1 +
P
1
P
2
)
sin
c
1
=
1
16¬
1
c
2.3 ×10
6
·
4
1
c
2
:
2
'
1
c
:
2
vrodu
'
1
'
2
'
2
(1 +
P
1
P
2
)
sin
c
1
=
1
16¬
2.3 ×10
6
·
4
1
c
2
:
2
'
2
1
:
2
vrodu
2 c
sin
c
1
=
2.3 ×10
6
16¬
µ
174Gc\
·
1
¶
4
c
2
:
2
µ
'
1
10
10
Gc\
¶
2
1
2 c
sin
0.14
:
2
vrodu
8 ×10
35
c\
2
10
20
×0.14×
1
(174)
4
×8×10
35
c
1
=
1.27 ×10
38
2 c
µ
174Gc\
·
1
¶
4
µ
'
1
10
10
Gc\
¶
2
sin
0.14
:
2
vrodu
8 ×10
35
c\
we get a similar expression for c
2
so that the total asymmetry
c ' 10
38
which can be viable for leptogenesis. Our asymmetry comes out to be almost independent
of the degeneracy factor c. The result for the asymmetry when ('
2
'
1
), considered in
[28], comes out of the same order and enhanced by a factor of 3.
66
Bibliography
[1] 2004 TASI lectures on Neutrino Physics by Andr´e de Gouvea, [arXiv: hepph/0411274];
"Neutrino Physics: A selective overview", [arXiv.org: hepex/0604021]
[2] Kai Zuber "Neutrino Physics", Institute of Physics Publishing, 2003.
[3] Fukugita and Yanagida "Physics of Neutrinos and Applications to Astrophysics", Springer
Verlag Berlin Heidleberg, 2003.
[4] Greiner W., Muller B. "Gauge Theory of Weak Interactions", (Springer2000).
[5] D. J. Gri!ths, "Introduction to Elementary Particles", Wiley.
[6] Paolo Franzini, Lecture notes Elementary Particle Physics, Spring 2002, University of
Rome.
[7] "The Oscillating Neutrino: An introduction to neutrino masses and mixings", Los Alamos
Science, Number 25, 1995.
[8] Srubabati Goswamia and Werner Rodejohann, JHEP 0710 (2007) 073 [arXiv:0706.1462].
[9] Ranjan Laha and Sudhir K. Vempati [arXiv:0711.2378].
[10] Heinrich Pas, "Lectures at the International University Bremen",
www.phys.hawaii.edu/~paes/.
[11] R.N. Mohapatra et el. [hepph/0510213].
[12] R.N. Mohapatra, S. Nasri and HaiBo Yu, Phys.Lett. B639 (2006) 318321 [arXiv:hep
ph/0605020].
67
[13] Pierre Hosteins [arXiv:hepph/0606250].
[14] Paul Langacker, Jens Erler, and Eduard Peinado, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 18 (2005) 154187
[arXiv: hepph/0506257]; Petteri Keranen, "Aspects of Massive Neutrinos Astrophysics
and Cosmology", Report series in Physics, University of Helsinki.
[15] Grupen C., Astroparticle Physics (Springer 2005); R. N. Mohapatra, Palash B. Pal Massive
Neutrinos in Physics and Astrophysics, Third Edition (World Scientic Lecture Notes in
Physics, Vol. 72).
[16] Robert R Caldwell, Dark energy, http://physicsworld.com
[17] Raine, Thomas. An introduction to the science of cosmology (IOP 2001).
[18] Peebles P.J.E. Principles of physical cosmology (Princeton, 1993).
[19] A.D. Dolgov, Neutrinos in cosmology, Phys. Rept. 370 (2002) 333535 [arXiv: hep
ph/0202122].
[20] Allday J. Quarks, Leptons and the Big Bang (2ed., IOP 2002).
[21] W. Buchmuller, R. D. Peccei, T. Yanagida, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 55 (2005)
311355 [arXiv:hepph/0502169]; Antonio Riotto, CERNTH/98204, [arXiv: hep
ph/9807454];Werner Bernreuther, Lect. Notes Phys. 591 (2002) 237293 [arXiv: hep
ph/0205279]; James M. Cline [arXiv:hepph/0609145].
[22] Mukhanov V.F. Physical foundations of cosmology (CUP, 2005); MuChun Chen, TASI
2006 Lectures on Leptogenesis, [arXiv:hepph/0703087]; Raghavan Rangarajan, Baryoge
nesis in the early Universe, Pranama journal of physics, Vol. 53, No. 6 (Indian Academy
of Sciences, 1999).
[23] Kolb E.W., Turner M.S. The early universe (AW, 1988).
[24] Antonio Riotto and Mark Trodden, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 49 (1999) 3575 [arXiv:hep
ph/9901362]; Mark Trodden [arXiv:hepph/9805252]; Koichi Funakubo, Prog. Theor. Phys.
96 (1996) 475520 [arXiv:hepph/9608358]; Nicholas Petropoulos [arXiv:hepph/0304275];
U. A. Yajnik [arXiv:hepph/9508331].
68
[25] J. Harvey and M. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 42, 3344 (1990).
[26] S. Dar, S. Huber, V. N. Senoguz, Q. Sha, Phys.Rev. D69 (2004) 077701, [arXiv:hep
ph/0311129]; Salah Nasri, Mark Trodden, Nucl.Phys. B633 (2002) 171192 [arXiv:hep
ph/0107215].
[27] Kenichi Fuki, Phys.Rev. D73 (2006) 055014 [arXiv:hepph/0601118]; C.S. Lam, Phys.Lett.
B507 (2001) 214218 [arXiv:hepph/0104116]
[28] Riazuddin, Phys. Rev. D77 013005 (2008).
[29] C.S. Lam [arXiv:hepph/0503159], Anjan S. Joshipura [arXiv:hepph/0512252].
[30] G. C. Branco, R. Gonzalez Felipe, F. R. Joaquim, I. Masina, M. N. Rebelo and C. A. Savoy
Phys. Rev. D 67, 073025 (2003).
[31] Vvedensky D. Group theory in physics (lecture notes, 2001).
[32] S. F. King [arXiv:hepph/0208270].
69