This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Journal of Theoretical and Computational Studies
M. Satriawan J. Theor. Comput. Stud. 7 (2008) 0402 Received: ; Accepted for publication:
Indonesian Theoretical Physicist Group http://www.opi.lipi.go.id/situs/gfti/ Indonesian Computational Society http://www.opi.lipi.go.id/situs/mki/
Journal of Theoretical and Computational Studies
Journal devoted to theoretical study, computational science and its cross-disciplinary studies URL : http://www.jurnal.lipi.go.id/situs/jtcs/ Editors A. Purwanto (ITS) A. S. Nugroho (BPPT) A. Sopaheluwakan (LabMath) A. Sulaksono (UI) B. E. Gunara (ITB) B. Tambunan (BPPT) F.P. Zen (ITB) H. Alatas (IPB) I.A. Dharmawan (UNPAD) I. Fachrudin (UI) Honorary Editors B.S. Brotosiswojo (ITB) M. Barmawi (ITB) M.S. Ardisasmita (BATAN) Guest Editors H. Zainuddin (UPM) T. Morozumi (Hiroshima)
Coverage area 1. Theoretical study : employing mathematical models and abstractions of a particular ﬁeld in an attempt to explain known or predicted phenomenon. E.g. : theoretical physics, mathematical physics, biomatter modeling, etc. 2. Computational science : constructing mathematical models, numerical solution techniques and using computers to analyze and solve natural science, social science and engineering problems. E.g. : numerical simulations, model ﬁtting and data analysis, optimization, etc. 3. Cross-disciplinary studies : inter-disciplinary studies between theoretical study and computational science, including the development of computing tools and apparatus. E.g. : macro development of Matlab, paralel processing, grid infrastructure, etc. Types of paper 1. 2. 3. 4. Regular : an article contains an original work. Comment : an article responding to another one which has been published before. Review : an article which is a compilation of recent knowledges in a particular topic. This type of article is only by invitation. Proceedings : an article which has been presented in a scientiﬁc meeting.
J.M. Tuwankotta (ITB) L.T. Handoko (LIPI) M. Nurhuda (UNIBRAW) M. Sadly (BPPT) M. Satriawan (UGM) P. Nurwantoro (UGM) P. W. Premadi (ITB) R.K. Lestari (ITB) T. Mart (UI) Y. Susilowati (LIPI) Z. Su’ud (ITB) M.O. Tjia (ITB) P. Anggraita (BATAN) T.H. Liong (ITB) K. Yamamoto (Hiroshima)
A The submitted paper should be written in English using the L TEX template provided in the web. All communication thereafter should be done only through the online submission page of each paper.
Referees All submitted papers are subject to a refereeing process by an appropriate referee. The editor has an absolute right to make the ﬁnal decision on the paper. Reprints Electronic reprints including covers for each article and content pages of the volume are available from the journal site for free.
Indonesian Theoretical Physicist Group Indonesian Computational Society Secretariat Oﬃce : c/o Group for Theoretical and Computational Physics, Research Center for Physics LIPI, Kompleks Puspiptek Serpong, Tangerang 15310, Indonesia http://www.opi.lipi.go.id/situs/gfti/ http://www.opi.lipi.go.id/situs/mki/ c ⃝ 2008 GFTI & MKI ISSN 1979-3898
J. Theor. Comput. Stud. Volume 7 (2008) 0402
M. Satriawan Research Group on Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, Department of Physics, Gadjah Mada University, Bulaksumur Yogyakarta 55281, Indonesia
Abstract : I present the possibility to have very small neutrino masses even if the neutrino is Dirac particles. The
very small mass of neutrinos is generated through the usual symmetry breaking of certain Higgs potential coupled with a Yukawa terms that leads to a (type II) seesaw-like mechanism. The whole scenario is based on the old left-right symmetry models, where the right weak current is suppressed due to a very high mass of the WR , together with a Higgs potential employing one bidoublet and two left-right doublets.
Keywords : neutrino mass, seesaw mechanism, left-right symmetry E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org
Received: ; Accepted for publication:
Since the positive result of the neutrino oscillation experiment, it is almost certain that neutrino do have masses and that they have large mixing angles. But neutrino oscillation experiment can not distinguish whether the mass is of Dirac mass or Majorana mass. The standard model, due to the non detection of the right handed neutrino, only have a left weak current and the neutrino was assumed to be massless Weyl particles. When the possibility that the neutrino could have a very small non zero mass, it is then natural if many physicist started to assume that neutrino is a Majorana particle. Having a Majorana mass, neutrino thus violates lepton number conservation (though the smallness of the neutrino masses make this violation is also small). To explain the smallness of the neutrino masses, many model have been proposed, and one of them is the seesaw mechanism. In seesaw mechanism neutrino gain a small mass due to the existence of very heavy right handed neutrinos (type-I see-saw mechanism, see for example ) or due to the existence of a very heavy Higgs triplet (type-II see-saw mechanism, see for example ). In both model, it is assumed that the neutrino is a Majorana particle. Somehow the possibility of having a very small masses but with neutrino as (only) a Dirac particle, through a kind of see-saw mechanism, is not being considered. Up to now we do not have any result from the experiment that can make us conclude for certain the c ⃝ 2008 GFTI & MKI
type of mass that the neutrinos have? Even though it is known that if the neutrino is a Majorana particle, then we could have a neutrino-less double beta decay. But due to the smallness of the neutrino masses, the probability for this decay to occur (which is proportional to the neutrino masses) is also very small. The current negative result on the neutrino-less double beta decay is not enough to exclude the possibility that neutrino is a Majorana particle. If it turns out that neutrino is not a Majorana particle, then the current seesaw mechanism model has to be revised or rejected. There has to be some other mechanism that can explain the smallness of the neutrino masses but with the neutrino as a Dirac particle. Also at the same time the mechanism should give explanation for a not to small masses for the charged leptons. This paper was intended toward that direction, and here we start with the assumption that neutrinos are Dirac particles. 2 THE OLD LEFT-RIGHT SYMMETRY MODEL
If neutrinos are Dirac particle then we have to have their right handed counterpart. In compensate, there has to be some mechanism to explain the nondetection of these right handed neutrinos. There are two explanations that have been proposed in the past for this. First is by assuming that the right handed neutrinos have a very large masses, thus it does not existed at the current energy level. Second is by assum0402-1
ing that the right handed weak current is suppressed due to the very large right handed weak gauge boson, WR ’s masses. Both explanations need some kind of mechanism that gives diﬀerent masses for the left and right handed particles. Because we have assumed that neutrinos are Dirac particles, then the ﬁrst assumption can not be used, neutrinos could not have diﬀerent left and right handed masses. Thus we use the second assumption, which means we have to have two diﬀerent W ’s, the WL and the WR for the left and right current respectively. As gauge particles, the W ’s only gain masses through the symmetry breaking mechanism. We are then led to the old left-right symmetry model, SU(2)L ×SU(2)R ×U(1)B−L , introduced by Pati, Salam and Mohapatra (for reference on this ole model you can see [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]). In this model we have the leptons and quarks each comes as left and right handed doublets,
l ψL/R =
For this to be really left-right symmetry, then µL = µR and λL = λR . The bidoublet and the doublets could have vacuum expectation values given by, Φ= (a 0 (e) (f ) 0) , ϕL = , ϕR = , d 0 0 (5)
where a, d, e, and f in general are complex numbers, but we can choose it to be real. The absolute minimum of the Higgs potential is attained if, µ µL µ2 a=d= √ , e= √ , f=√ R , 2ΛL 2ΛR 2λ (6)
q , ψL/R =
where i denotes the e, µ, τ and j = 1, 2, 3 is the quark generation. In order to gain masses for the fermions, we cannot ¯ use the usual term mψψ because it is not invariant under the gauge. Thus we need a Yukawa terms to generate masses for the fermions. Thus we have to introduce a bidoublet Higgs that transform under the gauge as (2,2,0) (where the last term is the B − L number) and the Yukawa term for generating fermion masses, given by, ¯ −g ψL ΦψR + h.c. . (2)
In this form, certainly the upper and lower part of the √ fermion doublets will obtain the same mass m = gµ/ 2λ. This could be the case for the (ﬁrst generation) up-down quark, but it is not the case for the leptons. In order to give the right masses for the leptons (especially the neutrino) we, some how has to make a = 0, d ̸= 0 and generate the neutrino masses not directly form the Yukawa term. We thus add the following term to the Higgs potential in (4) ηϕ† ΦϕR + h.c . L (7)
To give diﬀerent masses for the WL and WR and to break the gauge down to the U(1)EM , there has to be at least two doublet Higgs ϕL and ϕR that transform as (2,1,-1) and (1,2,-1) respectively (It is for a certain reason that will be clear later, why we choose the doublets to have B-L equal -1). The bidoublet and the doublets, with their charge assignment, are denoted as follows, Φ= ( Φ0
1 Φ− 3
Certainly, once we change the potential, the vacuum expectation values in Eq. (6) is no longer valid. The additional term will add the value of the potential. For a certain range of the value of the parameters in Eq. (4) the absolute minimum of the potential is attained when a is vanishes but d remains not zero. This could be understood as follows: the additional term will increase the potential, so when a ̸= 0 we have a negative contribution from Eq. (4) but a positive contribution from the additional term. But when a = 0 we have zero contributions from both. Thus there is a certain range of parameters in which the second case has lower absolute potential than the ﬁrst case. Thus we can have a = 0 and d ̸= 0. Moreover, now this term together with the Yukawa term in Eq. (2) will give the following eﬀective term, if µ is very large, ηg ϕ† ϕR ¯ L ψL ψR + h.c. . µ2 (8)
Φ+ ) 2 , Φ0 4
( ϕ0 )
L1 ϕ− L2
, ϕR =
R1 ϕ− R2
A Higgs potential is then being introduce to instigate a symmetry breaking. First we will just put the Higgs potential in its simpler form without interaction between the bidoublet and the doublets, V (Φ, ϕL , ϕR ) = −µ2 Tr|Φ|2 − µ2 |ϕL |2 L −µ2 |ϕR |2 + λTr|Φ|4 R +λL |ϕL |4 + λR |ϕR |4 . (4)
This eﬀective terms, which is a kind of type II seesawlike mechanism, will give - upon the symmetry breaking - the following very small masses for the neutrinos ηg ef . µ2 (9)
To give diﬀerent mass for the WL and WR we have to make e ≪ f , but neither of both should be zero. Otherwise the neutrino masses will be zero. Without
additional term in the Higgs potential, we always get e = f . Let’s add the following term ζ|ϕL |2 |ϕR |2 . (10)
This term will increase the Higgs potential, thus similar to the previous addition, there will be a certain range of the value of the Higgs potential parameters in which the solution will have absolute minimum when one of the doublet has vanishing vacuum expectation value (VEV). Unfortunately it is not possible, either by this addition or any modiﬁcation of the Higgs potential, to make asymmetric VEV for doublets without one of them being zero. But there is a certain value of the Higgs potential parameters, in which both the symmetric and the asymmetric VEV of the doublets lead to the same minimum value of the potential. I will assume that this is the case, where the doublets has two possible VEV’s, that is either, ϕL = with f =, or ϕL = (f ) 0 , ϕR = (f ) 0 . (12) (0) 0 , ϕR = (f ) 0 , (11)
mass if we want to have asymmetric mass for the WL and WR are resolved by choosing the solution where both the asymmetric and the symmetric VEV of the doublets occur. The extension to the case of quark masses is also possible.
REFERENCES  M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, Physics of Neutrinos, Springer (2003).  J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D10 (1974) 275.  R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, Phys. Rev. D11 (1975) 566.  R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, Phys. Rev. D11 (1975) 2558.  G. Senjanovic and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D12 (1975) 1502.  R. N. Mohapatra, F. E. Paige and D. P. Sidhu, Phys. Rev. D17 (1978) 2462.  G. Senjanovic, Nucl. Phys. B153 (1979) 334.  P. Duka, J. Gluza and M. Zralek, Ann. Phys. 280 (2000) 336.
The ﬁrst one will be used to break the left and right symmetry, and give diﬀerent mass for the WL and WR , while the second one will be used to generate neutrino masses through the above mechanism. I would not go into details about how the W ’s can obtain their masses, because this has been covered in many papers about left-right symmetry model. Lastly, the same above mechanism can be used also to explain the quark masses, only this time we may need the case when the Φ has the following VEV, Φ= (a 0 0) . d (13)
where additional term similar like in (7) will make a ̸= d. A seesaw-like mechanism also could take place to give diﬀerences in masses for the up and down sector of the quark masses. 3 CONCLUSION
I have elaborate the possibility to explain a very small mass for the neutrino, but with the neutrino as just a Dirac particle. In the same time, the mass of the charged lepton is not very small. The mechanism is based on an old model, the left-right symmetry model, but with slightly diﬀerent Higgs sector and potential. A possible problem of having a vanishing neutrino 0402-3
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.