PHYSICAL REVIEW D VOLUME 23, N UMBER 1 1 JAN UAR Y 1981

Neutrino masses and mixings in gauge models with spontaneous parity violation
Rabindra N. Mohapatra*
Department of Physics, The City Collegeof the City Uniuersity of Nehru York, New York, Ne~ York 10031

Goran Senjanovic
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, Illinois 60510
and Department of Physics, Uniuersity of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742
(Received 8 August 1980)
Unified electroweak gauge theories based on the gauge group SU(2)~ )& SU(2)„y, U(1)~ L, in which the breakdown
of parity invariance is spontaneous, lead most naturally to a massive neutrino, Assuming the neutrino to be a
Majorana particle, we show that smallness of its mass can be understood as a result of the observed maximality of
parity violation in low-energy weak interactions. This result is shown to be independent of the number of
generations and unaffected by renormalization effects. Phenomenological consequences of this model at low energies
are studied. Observation of neutrinoless double-P decay will provide a crucial test of this class of models.
Implications for rare decays such as p ~y,p —+eee, etc. are also noted. It is pointed out that in the realm of neutral-
current phenomena, departure from the predictions of the standard model for polarized-electron — hadron scattering,
forward-backward asymmetry in e+e ~p+p, and neutrino interactions has a universal character and may be
therefore used as a test of the model.

I. INTRODUCTION -
where Z, ~ = Z~(y, -y, ) and W~ and W~ are the left-
and right-handed gauge bosons, respectively. The
noninvariance of the vacuum under space reflec-
The nature of weak interactions appears to be tion results in yyzw» ypzw and, as a result, all
Sg Wg
intimately connected with the properties of the low-energy weak processes appear the same as in
neutrino. The celebrated P-Q theory' of charged- the SU(2)~ x U(1) theory, with small corrections
current weak interactions, which enjoys resound- [proportional to (@pe~ /pyz~ )'J, undetectable in ex-
ing phenomenological success at low energies, was periments performed to date.
motivated on the basis of y, invariance of the Weyl In the left-right-symmetric models, ' since both
equation of a massless neutrino and its generaliza- left- and right-handed helicities of the neutrino
tion to charged fermions. The standard SU(2)~ are included, the neutrino naturally has a mass. '
x U(l) gauge model of weak and electromagnetic The important question can then be raised as to
interactions' provides a sound mathematical basis why the neutrino mass is so small.
' There appears
for the (V-A) theory of charged-current weak to be a growing conviction among many physicists
interactions and predicts the existence of neutral- that a satisfactory understanding of small neutrino
current weak interactions which have also been
conf irmed' within present experimental accura- ticle. ' "
mass requires the neutrino to be a Majorana par-
This point of view was, in the context
cies. In the standard electroweak model, as in of left-right-symmetric theories, advocated by
the current-current p-A. theories, a massless us in a previous paper, ' where we have shown
neutrino and a maximally parity-violating weak that for neutrino being a Majorana particle, one
Lagrangian seem to go hand in hand. can obtain the following qualitative relation:
In recent years, an alternative approach4 to
electroweak interactions has been proposed ac-
cording to which the basic weak Lagrangian is
invariant under space reflections, as are electro-
magnetic and strong-interactions. It therefore The precise form of (1.1) depends, as we shall
involves both p-A. as well as &+A. charged cur- see, on the unknown, free parameters of the Lag-
rents. The observed predominance of left-handed rangian. We suggest a class of models where Eq.
weak interactions4 at low energies is understood (1.1) takes naturally an interesting form
as a consequence of the fact that vacuum is not '
symmetric under space reflection. More pre- ygp = const x m,
(1.2)
cisely, the weak Lagrangian prior to symmetry
breakdown is given by relating the mass of the neutrino to the mass of
the electron. We believe, however, that the im-
g I, =~2 (J„W" + Z„„Wg), portance of Eq. (1.1) [and (1.2)J lies not so much in
the precise value of pyz„but rather in the fact

I65 1981 The American Physical Society

166 RABINDRA N. 'MOHAPATRA
that it provides a deeper physical insight into the
connection between the small neutrino mass and
the maximality of parity violation. In particular,
note that in the limit of mz —~, m, - 0 and weak
interactions 6econze pure V-A type. If the recent
experimental results from Irvine" and the Soviet
Union" indicating a nonvanishing neutrino mass
are confirmed, they would provide a support for
the line of reasoning presented above.
In this paper, we analyze in detail the question
of small neutrino masses and mixings in the left-
right-symmetric models in which Eq. (1.1) holds
true. We study the naturalness of Eq. (1.1) and
extend it to include the neutrinos at higher gener-
ations, i. e. , v„and v„. We also study the impli-
cations of our model for various low-energy weak
interactions. In particular, we discuss the pre-
dictions for rare decays such as p, —ey and —eee
and for neutrinoless double-p decay, " )L(,
whose ob-
servation, we argue, would be a crucial test of
the model.
The rest of this paper is then organized as fol-
lows: Section II describes the basic ideas behind
this work, i. e. , emergence of neutrino masses
and their natural smallness in the particular SU(2)~
x SU(2)zx U(1) gauge theory. In Sec. III we discuss
the phenomenology of the model, paying special
attention to the realm .of neutral-current pheno-
mena. Section IV deals with the generalization of
the model to the case of three generations of fer-
mions. Section V presents the estimates for rare
processes that violate lepton number, in particu-
lar neutrinoless double-P decay, p, —ey, and
p, — eee decays. It turns out that neutrinoless dou-
ble-P decay is the most interesting prediction of
the model, since its observability requires two
main features of our model to hold true: MBjorana
character of the neutrino and reasonably small
value for gg~R . Finally, we summarize our work
in Sec. VI. Some of the technical details of the
paper are left for two appendices: in Appendix A
we show how the particular choice of the Higgs
sector forces neutrinos to be two-component Maj-
orana particles. In Appendix B we discuss a major
aspect of symmetry breaking in our model; we
show how parity gets broken spontaneously, and
more than that, how the vacuum expectation values
of left-handed Higgs scalars which give masses
to neutrinos are necessarily small (-m~ '). That
in turn leads to the main conclusion of this paper:
in the limit m~ —~, neutrino nzasses vanish natur-
ally.
II. LEFT-RIGHT SYMMETRY AND SMALL NEUTRINO
MASS
In this section, we will derive Eq. (1.1) relating
the small neutrino mass with the strength of the
AND GORAN SEN JANOVIC
V+A charged currents in left-right-symmetric
work in an SU(2)~ x SU(2)~ x U(1)~ ~ model. '"
models. For the purpose of simplicity, we will
Here, we have used the recent observation" that
in contrast with the U(1) generator of the standard
model, that of the left-right-symmetric models
can be interpreted as the B- L quantum number.
As we show below, this observation provides phys-
ical insight"'" into Eq. (1.1). To see this, note
that in left-right-symmetric models, the formula
for the electric charge reads as follows:
B-L
'Q Isz. + Isa+
(2. 1)
Since AQ= 0 and if we are above 100—200 GeV,
b. i~= 0, Eq. (2. 1) leads to
EI~~ = —24 (B L)- (2. 2)
This implies that breakdown of parity and breaking
of local B-L symmetry are related. Since for
the neutrino B= 0, Eq. (2. 2) makes it clear why the
neutrino ought to be a Majorana particle (since
then aL w0) and in particular why its mass must
have something to do with gag~Wp . An explicit reali-
zation of this intuitive picture is provided by spec-
ifying the Higgs-particle and fermion content of
the left-right-symmetric model. We illustrate
our procedure with one generation of fermions and
extend it subsequently to include higher genera-
tions.
Fermions are assigned to left-right-symmetric
representations' of the group as follows:
(2. 3)
Q
f ll (& 0 &)
Q
To implement the physical picture outlined in
Eq. (2. 2) we will choose a particular set of Higgs
multiplets, ' some of which carry B-L quantum
numbers. The minimal set with this property is
(see Appendix B for a detailed discussion of the
Higgs sector)
(2. 4)
Note, incidentally, that the above Higgs multiplets
have the same representation content as the follow-
ing bilinears in fermionic fields: P — = p~g~ or @~Q~
There-.
and a~,. :-g Cr, T, )~ and &„,. ==psCr, v, g~
fore, the conclusions of this paper are likely to
remain valid even if symmetry breaking is dynam-
ical and there are no elementary Higgs scalars.
The various stages of symmetry breaking are
 NEUTRINO MASSES AND MIXINGS IN GAUGE MODELS WITH. . . 167

SU(2)~xSU(2)~x UB ~(1) zz, )~o (~ z 0SU(2)~x U(1). sector to Sec. III and go directly to fermions, pay-
ing of course special attention to neutrinos. The
At this stage parity as well as local p- L symme- most general Yukawa couplings are given by
try are broken. The subsequent breakdown of
SU(2)~x U(1) down to U, „(1) is achieved via (zt) g0.
Switching an (p) g 0 induces a nonzeroz7 value " &r »zzj-zr, 44R+ izA'i44R+»3@rpQ~'iz4QikQ~

for (s~), but as we show in Appendix B, (~ ) +i»„(zjz Ct 6 +p"Cz, h p )+ H. c. , (2. 7)

p
=0((zjz)'/y~) «(p) (also see Ref. 17). where g —
= z;p*y, and C is the Dirac charge-conju-
We now proceed to discuss the fermion spec» gation matrix. This gives rise to the following
trum, paying special attention to neutrinos. One masses for charged fermions:
can imagine two, physically distinct situations:
(i) There is only one p inthetheory, whose vacuum fg8 —QyK +$2 K ~
expectation value sets the mass scale for both m„=h, IC +kg~ z', (2. 8)
left-handed gauge mesons and fermions. One then
attributes tiny fermion mass (mz «zzz~ ) to the m„=A, K +(24K.
arbitrarily chosen small Yukawa couptings. Al- Por the v~, v„sector, we obtain
though being the simplest alternative, we don' t
find this particularly appealing. As we shall see Ll'»«, =», [vJ(vzCvz, + vLC zz*;)+ zzzz(vzzCvzz+ zzz C vg)]
later, neutrino mass then tends to be somewhat + (»a +», zz') (v~ R+ z v~ v, ) . (2.9)
larger than acceptable for reasonably light ~~ .
(ii) It has been speculated that the small fermion The Eq. (2.9) looks like a mixture of Majorana and
mass may originate from a different mass scale Dirac mass terms. The situation becomes much
than the masses of gauge bosons. This is achieved simpler if we rewrite (2. 9) in terms of two-com-
by simply postulating the existence of two P's, ponent spinors z —
= z~ and N= C(v„) r. U—
sing the
with one of them coupling to the fermions and pro- properties of charge-conjugation matrix
viding their small masses through its small vac-
) C 1
uum expectation value. We would then have g„
and P~ with (g~)-zzz~/g providing the gauge-meson and (2. 10)
mass and (Pz) -mz/» giving the masses to fermions.
In this case, we can imagine (Pf) =100 MeV, so
Cy„C = -y„
that Pg. need not be much smaller thang. Of course, we easily obtain
if such models are right one still would have to -N
vz~C v~ = CN, (2. 11)
explain why (pz) «(zjz~). In this case, however, we
obtain more reasonable values for the neutrino vzvi= N Cv= v CN,
mass, on the order of yn, '/m~ . so that Eq. (2.9) can be rewritten as
Below we analyze the implications of these two
cases on the neutrino-mass question. 2"„, =», (zzz;v Cv —zzzzN CN)
Case (i) The pa.ttern of symmetry breaking that + (», zz+», w')vr CN + H. c. (2. 12)
follows from the minimization of the potential
takes the form (see Appendix B for details) The above expression is a significant simplifica-
tion: now all the mass terms are of the Majorana
)=(' 'l (,. )=(' 'l(, type; remember that v and N are effectively two-
—
0z component complex spinors that is most simply
zzzz (vz Oj
(2. 5) seen in the representation of Dirac matrices where

(0 zz'i
with g'«g in order to suppress g~-W„mixing" We now summarize the situation with the following
and AS = 2 Higgs-particle-induced processes" form of mass matrix:
5g» K,
2 „, =(v N )MC +H. c. ,
(2.6)
K N
where
where y is the ratio of Higgs-particle self-coup-
lings determined from (B13) in Appendix B.
We postpone the discussion of the gauge-meson
 RABINDRA N. MOHAPATRA AND GORAN SEN JANOVIC

and Now, even if we choose m~ —-1 GeV, in order to

a h5v—t, r b — -h, v„, c —5(h, tc+h, v ). (2. 13)

obtain e~~10 eV one requires ~~ ~10~m~ . This
is admittedly a rather large value of gyes~ . How-
I'he eigenstates of this matrix are therefore given ever, this still leads to interestiv~ predictions for
by fry ~ oscillations" (i. e. , t„„-=10' sec, which is
well within the accessible range of present exper-
v, = vcos & + trt sin (,
iments) .
Q, = —v sin)+& cos $-, In conclusion, in this case, for reasonably light
with m~ (m5, ~ 3m5, ~), the natural value for neutrino
mass tends to be quite larger than experimentally
2|" allowed. We should mention, though, that if y is
tan 2(= = 2c/b. (2. 14)
b-a small (more precisely if y«h, '/h5') and if h, -h„
we would obtainm„-m, /m~, which is definitely
In Appendix A we show that p, and pf, are Majorana ve
a reasonable value. For example, if m~ ~ 3m~
spinors, i. e. , they satisfy the equations that the
spinors defined through the abbreviation g'=—C(g) r
(a safe lower bound)" we would obtain m, ~ 1 eV.
=|jr do. "
There we also discuss some of the useful
Next we turn to case (ii), which, as we shall
see, predicts naturally more reasonable values
properties of Majorana fields (the discussion there
for the neutrino mass.
is presented in terms of manifest two-component
Case (ii). This is the case where gauge-boson
spinors).
and fermion masses originate from different mass
We now study the eigenvalues of (2. 13), assuming
as before &'«&, only for the purpose of simplicity. scales. Now,
Now, since Q»a, c, we obtain

m, = a —c'/b,
(2. 15)
mN e ~~

Using Eqs. (2.6) and (2. 13) one obtains for the (~w
light and heavy Majorana neutrino masses, (4W) r/~r
~q0
( 1 ~h'& ~'
where R~- m~ L /g and y-mz/h (we assume for sim-
h5) vR
(2. 16) plicity z' «z, although now it is not needed since
mN e hi; Ug. (rtr~)«(rjr~)). The fact that in this case p~ doesn' t
couple to the fermions; means that the form of
We remindthe rea. der that R-m5, /gandvR m& /g
neutrino mass matrix [Eq. (2. 13)] is unchanged,
An important feature of the above expression is
-~ since v~-g'/vR as before (see Appendix B). The
noteworthy stressing: in the limit m~ (i.e. ,
vR-~), obviously mR -~
and m„-0, in which
main difference from the previous case is that a
natural value for g is now in the 100 MeV region,
case the weak interactions become purely left-
and will therefore lead to much smaller values for
handed. That is the main result of our pa. per,
promised in the introduction: the V-A limit of e
For example, if we assume h, =h, =h, =—h in
order to be specific, we obtain
this theory leads naturally to vanishing neutrino
mass, thus providing (at least qualitatively) a h
rational for the smallness of the neutrino mass. e mgz 9
g
Unfortunately, the quantitative character of Eq. ' (2. 18)
h m,
(2. 16) is definitely less clear: h„h„and y are n%. =
free para, meters of the Lagrangian. Namely, y g m@1~
is an unknown ratio of various Higgs-particle self- If h/g= 1, substituting again m~ ~ 3m~, leads to
couplings tsee Eq. (B.13)], h, is not determined the predictions
by the electron mass (m, =h, R in the limit z» w'),
andh, would only be determined by the value of m~e ~230 GeV, m,Ve s1 eV. (2. 19)
' To be specific, let us for simplicity assume
Se
the natural value y-—1 and h, ~ Q, . In this case it Clearly, this ca,se leads naturally to a small m, .
e
is easy to show that the ratio of m, e and m„N~ is Also, the value for m~ is safe concerning the
somewhat stringent bounds coming from the neu-
approximately given by
trinoless double-P decay (see Sec. V).
Before closing this section, we rewrite the new
(2. 17) left- and right-handed doublets in terms of physi-
cal fields (mass eigenstates) v, and N„
 NEUTRINO MASSES AND MIXINGS IN GAUGE MODELS %1TH. . . 169

~v — N l) A~= si n8~(W~„+W„'~) +(c os2 8~)'~ B„)

~
(left-handed doublet),
(2. 20) Z~„= cos L9~g ~„-sin g~ tan (9~/ ~„
~N, + vl
(r ight -handed doublet), —tan 8~(cos 28~)"'B„, (3.3)

where we have assumed lVlajorana condition. (cos 28 )'~'

N=C(N)r (since N satisfies Majorana equation) cos 6)~
and the tiny mixing between p, and &, is given by where tan 8~=g'/(g'+g")'~' and
((= tan $«1)
e i h,1a
b 2 h5v~ (2. 21) m '= g 1
(K'+K"+4m ') (3.4)
2 eos Og
It is clear from (2. 20) that the right-handed cur-
rents are very small until very high energies mz„' —-2(g'+ g")v~'.
P & ppz„. Thus, the analysis at low-energy charged- In the above expression 8~ has been defined in
current data" ceases to be useful in determining such a way that it can be identified with the Wein-
bounds on ~~ . We would like to add that in this berg angle of SU(2)~ x U(1) (hence, the subscript
model, since the right-handed neutrino is extreme- W) i. e. , e'=g'sin' 8~. Also, note that the cele-
ly heavy, the astrophysical considerations" do brated relation of the standard model '~~ I '= pyg~Zg '
not restrict the mass of the right-handed charged x cos 2 8~ is preserved to the lowest order [compare
gauge boson. (3.2) and (3.4)]; it gets corrections of order K'/
v„' and ~~'/K', but these corrections will be small.
Now, let us proceed to analyze the structure of
III. NEUTRAL-CURRENT SIGNALS OF THE MODELS effective neutral-current Hamiltonian in this mod-
AND CONSTRAINTS ON m g ~ AND mzg el. We will show that there exists a remarkable
feature of universality of strength in various neu-
Whether our approach can be experimentally tral-current processes, which may be used as
distinguished from the standard model in the near a test of the model, once the desired accuracy of
future depends on the right-handed gauge-boson experiments is reached. .
masses. In this section, we therefore analyze
the mass spectrum for W~, Z~, , W~, and Z~, the
To make computations simpler, we employ the
method of Georgi and Weinberg. Let us briefly"
eigenstates of the gauge-boson mass matrices recall their result. The effective neutral-current
and remark on the constraints that follow from Hamiltonian ean be written in the following form:
the available neutral-current data. As we men-
tioned before, charged-current data does not prove (3.5)
helpful in this regard due to t.he large mass of the
heavy neutral leptons (N), which is the right-hand-
ed counterpart of p.
where f, f' stands for any fermions; i, counts all j
the neutral generators but one (arbitrary) corres-
Below we give the gauge-meson eigenstates and
ponding to any U(1) subgroup of hn original gauge
their masses. First, in the charged sector,
gr oup~
W, =S"~cos e +g„sin e, (3.1) n; =
— ~ —
C;P,. — 2C;
2
(3.6)
W, = —W~ sin ~+pecos &,
where C,. are defined from the expression for the
with charge.

(3.2)
q=+C. T„. (3.7)
mtl 2 —2g (K +K + 2@a ). In (3.7) IT/ = ITo, T,.'I (T, being left out of compu-
tations) .
We shall, in what follows, assume negligible We are now equipped to present our results. We
g~ -W~ mixing(i. e. , e «1
or K' «K). In that ap- will apply the above method to the three distinct, im-
proximation, g~ and g~ become the eigenstates portant classes of neutral-current phenomena: neu-
of the mass matrix. trino interactions, parity violation in electron-quark
As for the neutral-gauge-meson sector, we ob- scattering (applicable to polarized-electron-hadron
tRill (ill the llllllt K« va) scattering and parity violation in atoms), and
IVO RABINDRA N. MOHAPATRA AND GORAN SENJANOVIC

forward-backward. asymmetry in e+e - g+ p, pro- complicated and it depends on whether case (i) or
cesses. case (ii) introduced in Sec. II are realized. Name-
ly, in ca, se (i) g - m~ /g and so v~/x again mea, —
A. Neutrino scattering sures the ratio of m~ /m~„. (Recall that v~-x'/vs}.
In case (ii), however, x-m&/h and therefore is ex-
In this case one obtains for the relevant piece
pected to be of order 1 —100 MeV and therefore
of the neutral-current Hamiltonian
completely negligible and so v~ -x'/v~ can be
taken practically to be vanishing.
K = v 2Gpvyp(1+ys)&
Let us now, in passing, describe the situation
x[(1+ n)qy" (T, —2Q sin'g)p in terms of heavy right-handed gauge-meson
eigenstates. From (3.4) we have the following
+ (1+ P)Py" y, r, y], (3.8) relation between WR and Z~ masses (we ignore
where for simplicity the tiny mixing between W~ and W~):

+
K2
s~
2V
(3.9) ~n
~z
'= 2 —
cos g~~m
cos20~ (3.12)
K 2VR K

(recall that we work in the approximation w'«x). Analysis of the neutral-current state including
these effects have been carried out by several
groups. Ecker" gives the following bound (using
B. Parity-violating electron-quark scattering amplitude 1 standard deviation):

Using the same technique, we find that a piece m /m -029. (3.13)

of the Hamiltonian responsible for parity viola- Taking ma =90 GeV, (3.13) implies m~ ~ 300 GeV.
tion in atoms and in the SLAC experiment on po- Now, for sin'0~= 0. 22, from (3.12) we obtain
larized-electron-hadron scattering can be written
as m~ = 0.7mz R' (3.14)
Xpv = ~ (1+ P)[ey„(-1+ 4 sin 0~)eqy" ysTsq which then gives a lower bound onm~,
lVR &

—ey y, eqy" (T, —2Q sin'9~)qI. m W~ ~180 GeV (3.15)

or ~ 2.2 5&i ~
(3.10) tpl}y
R L

Note that (I+P) denotes the departure from the

predictions of the standard model and is the same IV. HIGHER LEPTON GENERATIONS
AND LEPTON MIXING
factor as the one accompanying the axial-vector
piece in neutrino scattering [Eq. (3.8)]. In Sec. II,
we discussed the neutrino mass for
one generation only and showed that its small-
ness is related to the smallness of V+A charged-
C. Forward-backward asymmetry in e+e ~p p current couplings. In this section, we extend this
result for neutrinos of all three generations and
Inthis case, the relevant piece is theey„y, eI(Ly"ysp,
discuss the implications of neutrino mixing. To
four -fermion interaction. A simple calculation
begin we denote the leptonic doublets, which are
gives
weak eigenstates,
=
2~2
(1+ P}eYp YseI Y.
ys'P '~' (3.11}
(4 1)
Again, the same departure from the standard-
Working with the same set of Higgs mesons (i.e. ,
model prediction.
It is therefore clear that once the desired ex- a~, b, R, and Q), we obtain the following most gen-
eral Yukawa coupling allowed by renormalizabil-
perimental accuracy is reached, the above uni-
versality of coupling strength may be used as a ity:
test of left-right-symmetric models. Let us now
analyze it slightly more quantitatively. We have Zr — sh;;(g;z~saiCgg~+ $;R~sb'RCg;R)
=1
seen that the departures from the standard model
are of the form v~'/x' and v'/vR'. The latter ratio + ij iI. jz + ij ii, .~ +H. C. 4.2
is directly related to the ratio of left-handed and i~ j=1
right-handed gauge-meson masses, and so its Notice that nothing would change if there are both
measure would determine the relevant parameter g and P~, as in the case (ii) of Sec. II, since only
of the model. The situation v~/x term is more P& couples to the fermions and so (4.2} follows
 NEUTRINO MASSES AND MIXINGS IN GAUGE MODELS WITH. . . ]71

again. we assume w'«g and introduce fields

Ef where
v, =
—v,. and N,. =C(v,.„)r as before, one obtains the
i
following mass matrix for the (v, , v„, v, ) sector:
Ij 2 N
vs vN
(4.3)
M„q '.IItt,'g

where m„, M, ~, and Slt» are 3&3matrices givenby (4. j}

N »w„. . Since we
K Of course, in our models„. ~
ex-
Imvv)i j p
~R
@i j &
pect X,.j and U,.j to be, in general, of order 1 (or
at least not small), Eq. (4.6) then implies that
9 xfij (4.4)
IZ, , ~0 Jm, )IXijl, IU„I »d lr,.jl~tt, rm„)IU, jl,
uN)ij &

(5itiiw). j = vjih . . where', is a typical parameter in the mass ma-

Again, we see that all three neutrino masses vanish
separately in the limit vs (or m -~
This is
the generalization of the main result of this paper
for higher generations. This, in particular, im-
plies that the predominant left-handed nature of
the leptonic weak currents as well as the corres-
ponding hadronic currents at low energies is due to
the smallness of neutrino masses.
%'e now give the general method for diagonaliz-
ing" Eq. (4.3) and present rough estimates of the
various mixing angles in our case. To do this,
we write the mass eigenstates as
s
( Vjj) (for three generations)
IN) N,
N2
trix of charged leptons, expected to be of order
-~). g„m„orm, ). As a result, in general, we expect
very small mixing between the heavy and the light
Majorana lepton.
V. LEPTON-NUMBER-VIOLATING PROCESSES
In this section we discuss the rare processes
which do not conserve the lepton number. We
divide such processes in two categories: pro-
cesses which violate the total lepton number and
those which conserve the total lepton number, but
violate electron, muon, or 7 lepton number. The
example of the first class of processes is the
neutrinoless double-p decay (ji+n-p+p+e +e)
in which the lepton number is charged by two units,
and the second class of processes are the often
. discussed muon decays: p-ey, p. -3e, etc. for
which b, L(total) =0. We shall discuss both classes
i.n some detail.

N3 A. Neutrinoless double-P decay [{PP) process I

They are related to the weak eigenstates, des- This process can take place in the second order
cribed by in the Fermi coupling if neutrinos are Majorana
"e particles (see Fig. 1). To see this we write the
charged-weak-current Lagrangian in terms of
physical lepton fields (for simplicity we first
fvw'}
discuss the case of one generation and generalize
it subsequently)

Np (5.1)

P
as follows WL(WR )
e
Ij (N),'(
(4. 5)
WL(WR)
Using Eq. (4.3), we can write P

mX+MZ = XD„, FIG. 1. The dominant diagrams which lead to neutri-

noless double-P decay through exchange of Wi and v;
mY+MU = PD~, {i=e,p, v) or W& and N;. The cross on a neutrino intern-
(4.6)
IX+HZ = ZD. , al line denotes a (Majorana) mass insertion, since it is
clearly a term v z(N N ) which can lead to a production
MY+'mU = UD~, of two electrons in a final state.
172 RABIN D RA N. MO HAPATRA
where
where (=m, /m„ |see (2.22)] and e is W~ —W„mix-
ing, i.e., lV, = W~ + eW» W, = —~W~ + R'~.
We first note that in the lowest order the (PP)0
process has to go through mass insertions of the
type v'v or N'N or through currents of opposite
chirality. From (5. 1} and (5.2) it is immediately
clear that the latter type of contributions are
proportional to e$. Now, from the usual P and g
decay, we know that e is small (e & 10 ') in order
not to conflict with the predominantly left-handed
character of such processes. We will present
our estimates in terms of the usual parametri-
zation of the (PP)' process, that is, in terms of
the admixture of left- and right-handed neutrino-
electron currents (denoted q hereafter), i.e.,
ey&[(1+y, )/2+ q(1-y, )/2]v. We then obtain for
the contribution involving W~ —W~ and v-N mixing
for m„~100 GeV. To compare this with experi-
ment, we use the analysis of Halprin et al. who "
obtain
' limits onm„. Vi
g ~5x10
on the basis of the present data in "Ca-~'Ti,
Ge- 6Se and Se seKr For illustration, note
that the bound in (5.4) corresponds to the half-
life of "Se: T~~g~ ~4x10""
years. Clearly then,
such effects are extremely small in our model
and in what folIows, we ignore the tiny W~ —WR (e)
and v-N($) mixing.
As we shall see next, the situation is quite dif-
ferent with the first type of processes which go
through v' v and N'N, mass insertions. It turns out
that the model predicts amplitudes which ought
to be observable in the next generation of experi-
ments. Due to the tiny neutrino masses, the ex-
change of heavy right-handed leptons N, (i =e, g, v)
will obviously dominate and we discuss it first.
It can be shown that in this case q will be given
by"
Alga pf
where f, "
is the nuclear factor, estimated by
Halprin et al. for A =100 (3P) nuclei to be about
',
0.35QeV. If we take (m~ /m~ )2s —, as experi-
AN D GORAN SEN JANOVIC
ment dictates, and m„& 100 GeV, Eq. (5.5) then
yields
~ &(3.5) x10-'. (5.6)
Detection of this effect would require measuring
T,ceo to
~~~ an accuracy better than 10""
years,
which can hopefully be reached in the next genera-
tion of experiments. In all fairness we should
(5.2}
admit that the above estimate depends sensitively
.
onrn z' However, ' if m~wz is light, as we believe,
then the estimation is fairly good, since N cannot
be much heavier than what we take; otherwise
Yukawa couplings would be too large and the per-
turbation theory would break down. Namely,
using m~ =hvar, m~ = gm~, we obtainm„=h/gm
Requiring h ~1 leads to the estimatem~~2mw,
since g —240 GeV, then clearly m~ S480 GeV and
we have a strict bound q ~7x 10"'. In conclusion we
have shown that for low mw our model predicts
neutrinoless double-P decay withe =(10 —10 '}. '
We believe that it makes future experiments even
more called for.
In passing, we comment on the upper bounds on
neutrino masses which can follow from the analy-
sis of (8P}' decay. Namely, the requirement that
q ~ 5x 10 can be shown" to lead to the bound
(5.3) g(0„,.)'m„. & 1 kev, (5.7)
where 0~ is the Cabibbo-type rotation in left-
handed leptonic currents. To see what (5.V) im-
plies, let us first recall the laboratory upper
"
' rn„&35
Ve eV, m Vlf &500 keV, and
(5.4) m, &250 MeV. We should also mention the cos-
mological bounds which result from the require-
ment that neutrinos do not dominate the matter
content of the universe: Zm„~50 eV, where the
above limit (quoted somewhat conservatively)
applies to stable (r„.& 10' sec) neutrinos only.
Now one can easily be convinced that v„ is practi-
cally stable. Namely, from m„& "P 500 keV,
it' s
possible decay v&- v, +y leads to at least 7, &10"
sec. Therefore the cosmological bound app/ies
to v& and we conclude thatm„&40 eV, in which
case (PP)0 doesn't provide any new limit onm„.
V
However, since v, could be rather heavy (250
MeV), it can sufficiently fast decay into v, ee, so
that the cosmological bound doesn't apply to it.
Therefore, we can conclude that
(0~„)'m„& 1 keV, (5.8)
which for heavy v, then implies a rather small
mixing angle with the first generation of leptons.
(5.5)
B. Electron- and muon-number-nonconserving
We present here simple order-of-magnitude esti-
processes
mates of the various muon- and electron-number-
 NEUTRINO MASSES AND MIXINGS IN GAUGE MODELS WITH. . . 173

changing processes: p-e y, p, -3e, muon capture sector introduced in Eq. (5.1). For example, for
by nucleus, etc.
'
%'e start the discussion by the case of only two generations
-
analyzing p. ey decay. The dominant diagrams mV 2
.
—m
P~
2
for such processes are depicted in Fig. 2. To 5„= sinOL cos8L
mw
set up the notation, we write the most general L
(5.13)
form of the amplitude for p. -ey, mN
2
~m 2
5„= sinOR cos9R—
m(p. ey-) =e (f + f y, )inc„v ~„q"pe (5.9) mw
R
where m„ is the muon mass. From (5.9) one de- since in this case
( cos9, , sin9, „)
rives the decay width
rn„5
&(I -ey}= 6„" (lfl'+ Ifsl'}. (5. 10) &- sin 9~ s cos 9~ R)
Our task is then to estimate the leading expres- (we ignore the tiny mixings between v's and Ã's,
f
sions for and f, We. separate the neutrino and since it doesn't affect the generality of our re-
heavy-lepton contributions. By the analogy with sults). The result stated in (5.12) and (5.13) is
previous models and computations the well-known statement of the GIM mechanism:
the amplitude vanishes for vanishing neutral-lep-
&v &Sv 2 ton masses or vanishing mixing angles.
16+2 8
L (5.11) Using the formula for the usual lepton-number-
e —g' changing muon decay
fv fsN

where 5„and
(GIM) factors"
16
5„are the
2
6
R
Glashow-Iliopoulos-Maiani "."}= 2
G~ m„
192
.

'
5
(5.14)

we obtain for the branching ratio B(p -ey) =—&(g

" —,
p(o, ), , (o, ),, —, ey)/r-(~ ev„v-.),
(5.12) B(p ey) = B-"(p-ey) +BN(p. -ey)
g (o„),,(0,),,
m2
+ B""(p, ey), - (5.15)
where
where i = e, p,, 7 is the generation index and OL and B"(p, -ey)= —5„',
OR are the Cabibbo-type rotations in the leptonic

B (p, -ey)=— (5.16)

v( (N)) e ]u. v)(N) ) e ~R
I
WL(W (WR) GL(GR II GL(GR )
B""(p ey) = —mw
(y 2
5 5

From the limit in (5.2) coming from double-P de-

cay it is clear that 5, is desperately small, so that
clearly either B"(p -ey) dominates in the above
equation or the whole amplitude is negligible.
Continuing our assumption that 5~ is reasonably
v. (N e (N() e light, we present some estimates for B(p -ey)

I
I
)
I
jul, Vj
-
= B~(p. ey}. Its precise value is obviously ob-
NL( 'GL (GR) GL (GR) (WR)
scured by the lack of knowledge of the GIM factor
5„even if mw R is of order of a few hundred GeV.
Taking for definiteness 5„= 10 '-10 ', Eq. (5.16)
then gives

"
FIG. 2. The leading diagram for. a lepton-flavor-
—
changing process p ep. Again, the process goes
through the exchange of v; and 5& or and W&. In
addition, due to the GIM mechanism, the Goldstone-
boson exchanges (denoted by 6& and G& in-obvious nota-
¹, m

mw
2

2
100
1
'
10' B(g -ey)= 10 —10

B(p ey) =]0 &&

10
(5.1V)

tion) are comparable in strength to gauge-boson-media-

ted amplitudes, We ignore the physical-Higgs-particle Needless to say, varying 5~ would produce dif-
exchanges, by assuming mH» mw. ferent values for B(y, -ey}. The above estimate
174 RABINDRA N. MOHAPATRA
can, therefore, at best be taken as suggestive.
We now briefly comment on some other muon-
and electron-number -changing proces se s. The
interesting possible decay model in our model
is obviously p. -eee. This process is suppressed
by additional power in the coupling constant, as
is clear from a typical graph as depicted in Fig.
3. When compared to the p, -ey process, the
branching ratio B{p, -eee) = I'(p, -eee)/I'(p, -ev„v, )
becomes free of any uncertainties and one simply
obtains the order -of-magnitude estimate
A
-eee)= —. B(V, -ey).
sin ,
B(u
9~
For sin e~= 0.22, this
" would give
-ey) =(1 —10)%. This is an important prediction
B(p-eee, )/B(p
of our model: p, -ey and p. -eee are tiedup to
each other and the simultaneous observation of
both could be used as a crucial test of the ideas
discussed in this paper. Lacking the hint from
experiment, we satisfied ourselves by order-of-
magnitude estimate given in (5.18). It is clear,
however, that a calculation of B(g -eee)/B(p —ey)
is called for.
Other possible muon-number-changing pr ocesses
are eg -
p, e and muon capture by the nucleus: p,
+ g, g)-e + (A, S). It can be readily checked that
their evaluation is similar to p. -eee and the am-
plitude for all three processes are of the same
order of magnitude.
In conclusion, the model we suggest predicts
muon-number-changing processes. In particular
we estimated that B(p, -ey) =10 '-10 for rea-
sonable values of
R
m:
10&m~WR'/m~ 'S100 and
(somewhat arbitrary) input 6„=10 '-10 Other
processes such as p. -eee are also possible, with
v) (N))
W, (WR)
v) {NI) e we predict B(p, -ey) =10 ' —10 "and B(p, -eee)
(WR)
FIG. 3. Some typical diagrams leading to a decay
—
p eee. Clearly, there are quite a few more graphs
involving Goldstone bosons, which we didn' t display
here.
AN D GORAN SEN JANOVIC
typical ratios B(p, -eee)/B(p-, ey)=a few /0 (a fea-
ture typical of models involving heavy neutral
leptons as sources of muon-number-changing
decays). Hopefully, future searches for such de-
cays (with improved sensitivity} will be able to
serve as a test of this and similar models.
VI. COMMENTS AND CONCLUSION
The main result of our work, as we emphasized
repeatedly, is the explicit connection between the
smallness of neutrino mass and the maximality of
parity violation in low-energy weak interaction.
(5.18}
Precisely, ue have shown that the neutrino grass
is inversely proportional to the mass of the right-
handed cha~ged gauge boson R~, zohich means that
the V- A /imit of left right sy-mmet-ric theories
corresponds to the vanishing of neutrino mass.
The crucial ingredient which was responsible for
our result is the Maj orana character of neutrinos,
i.e. , the fact that the left-handed and right-handed
neutrinos acquire very small and very large Ma-
jorana mass, respectively. That in turn is dictated
by the choice of the Higgs sector, which reduces the
amount of arbitrariness in the theory. The same
choice of Higgs multiplets leads to definite pheno-
menological predictions in the realm of neutral-cur-
rent phenomena and therefore ties the nature of neu-
trino states and the value of their masses with the
properties of gauge bosons. We have discussed at
length the experimental implications of our model and
concluded that the most interesting ones, which also
" characterize the model most uniquely, are the pro-
'.
cesses which violate the lepton-number conser-
vation. In particular, the neutrinoless double-p
decay (with t I. = 2) turns out to be the definite
prediction of the theory. We found that the rela-
tively small m~ (m~„~ 3m~ ) leads to appreciable
vi (N;) values for such amplitudes which ought to be ob-
servable in the. next generation of experiments.
(WR) Our analysis also showed that the strength of neu-
trinoless double-P decay is tied up to the strength
of various lepton-flavor-changing processes (with
total lepton number conserved), such as p. —ey,
p, -eee, and others. Again, it is the mass of W~
which aff ects such processes most and for low R~
= (a few%) B(p, —ey). The experiments now in
preparation" are likely to be able to observe the
amplitudes of such strength and combined with
neutrinoless double-p decay can serve as crucial
tests of the ideas presented in this paper.
Now, what about the actual values for neutrino
masses? As we have discussed at length in Sec.
II, the precise quantitative predictions of our
model are still lacking at this point, mainly due
to our lack of knowledge of the values of various
 NEUTRINO MASSES AND MIXINGS IN GAUGE MODELS %ITH. . .
Yukama couplings and Higgs-particle self-cou-
plings. It turned out that typically expected values
of m, 's depend crucially on whether there is only
one mass scale in the theory from which both
left-handed gauge bosons and charged fermions
receive their mass (in which case the small val-
ues of m, , m„, m„, m&, m, is attributed to very
small Yukawa couplings) or maybe it is the ex-
istence of hierarchy of mass scales which is re-
sponsible for rather different values of fermion
masses. "
masses in different generations and gauge-boson
The latter case admittedly requires a
rather complicated Higgs sector with probably
four Q's: Q, , Q„, Q„and P~ with subscripts e,
p. , 7, and Wdenoting the fact that they give the
mass to the first, second, and third generation
of fermions, and W~ and Z~ bosons, respectively
Homever, we find it more appealing on several
grounds. First, the smallness of first-generation
fermion masses is not attributed to arbitrarily
chosen small Yukawa couplings, but rather would
be related to the smallness of mass scales (Q, ).
It is not inconceivable that one may eventually
construct natural hierarchies, in which case the
«(
situation (P, ) «( P„) Q„) «( Q~) would emerge
as a prediction of the theory, rather than to be
postulated adhac. Also, from the point of view of
our work, this case leads to much more plausible
predictions for neutrino masses as compared to
the case of single Q, when their natural values
tend to get larger than experimentally allowed.
Finally, we should add that in this case the Cab-
ibbo-type angles which characterize quark -flavor
mixings are necessarily small. Take, for exam-
ple, the case of two generations and let us for
simplicity, concentrate on d and s quarks only.
We then expect the folloming mass matrix:
Since m, =(P, ), m, =(Q„), then clearly the Ca-
bibbo angle is bound to be very small (the reason-
able value for 6P~ ean be obtained using the sug-
gestion which forbids the term dd).
In summary, we have shown how left-right-
symmetric theories naturally lead to small m „,
linking it to the parity violation in nature. These
models agree with the predictions of the standard
theory at low energies, while at the same time
predict small and universal departures in the
neutral- current processes. The main character-
istic of the model is the Majorana character of
neutrinos (dictated by the proposed Higgs sector)
175
which leads to the prediction of neutrinoless
double-P decay. We believe, in view of our re-
sults, that the experiments devised to search in-
directly for low-mass W~ are even more called
for.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Tony Kennedy, R. E. Marshak, and
Riazuddin for useful discussions. The work of
R. N. M. was supported by a National Science
Foundation grant and CUNY-PSC-BHE Research
Award No. RS13406. The work of G. S. was sup-
ported by a grant from the National Science
Foundation.
APPENDIX A: MAJORANA MASS OF NEUTRINO
In this appendix, we briefly recapitulate some
salient features of the theory of a Majorana mass"
and also remind the reader how in the limit of
zero-neutrino mass, both a Majorana and Weyl
neutrino are identical. As is mell known, for a
given four-component spinor g transforming under
Lorentz transformations as $-8(, where S
pv pv (wi'th g&~ = g&„and q&~ = (-) &q(-} "4
c„, ) there exist two possible Lorentz-invariant
bilinears involving the g: (a) g'y, g and (b)grC 'g
mhere C is the Dirac charge-conjugation matrix,
which satisfies the property Cy„C '= —y„. [In
our basis,
f0 - i~,. ) (0 I ~
'
(io,. 0 f' (I 0)'
and
(i o
.
C = y, y, ] The important difference between the
type (a) and (b) mass terms is that case (a) term
is invariant under a phase transformations of g:
g-e'"&, whereas case (b) is not. Therefore, for
a spin--,' particle without any kind of conserved
charge associated with it, one may choose either
(a) or (b) and in particular it is more economical
to choose (b). The reason this is so is that one
may then mork with only two-component spinors.
The reduction from four components to two is
usually done by requiring the Majorana condition
gc =— C(g)r=g in which case (a) and (b) become
identical. The above condition yields
176 RABINDRA N. MOHAPATRA AND GORAN SEN JANOVIC

where Q is a two-component complex spinor. The number as a conserved quantity. From this it also
free-particle equation satisfied by @ is" follows that, for the massive Majorana neutrino,
the violation of lepton number is always proportion-
(o ~ V —Bt ) Q —mo, f* = 0, al to the factor (m„/E, ). This in particular implies
(A2) that"
(8 V + at)o, y~+my= 0 . (T(v+ ~e + ). !/m p! 10
These two equations have been analyzed in detail in
o(v+ -e + ) (E„]
(A7)

Ref. 31 and the Majorana field Q quantized in

The present experimental bound on the ratio of
this paper. The decomposition in terms of the
creation and annihilation operators can be written corresponding cross sections obtained by Davis"
as follows: is at the level of 10k.
The discussion of this appendix also makes it
(1/V)' '[Ag(k)Ug(k)e' '" clear why double p-decay amplitudes (see Sec. V)
X=y, 2 are also proportional to the lepton mass.
Next, we would like to show that v, and N, in-
+ 4 ~ (k) V~(k) e "' " ] (A3)
troduced in Sec. II satisfy Majorana equation (A2).
%e remind the reader that we have defined v= v~
and N —= C(Ns) r. In turn, that leads us [see (2. 13)]
where Aq and A. are annihilation
~z and creation
to the following Lagrangian for v and 6/:
operators, respectively, satisfying the canonical
antic ommutation relation v 'I
2 = vy&a" v+Ny~s "N'+ (vrN r)MC l
! + H. c.
(&~(k)~ &*,~(k')] = ~~~ ~T. u (A4) Nf
(A8)
Uz and Vz are two-component spinors which can
be expressed in terms of the orthonormal basis: In obtaining the above form we had to use the sim-
o, (k), P(k) satisfying the relations: nto. =PtP =1 ple equality N~y&8„~~ =N which follows from
and ntp =0 and the properties of the charge-conjugation matrix
stated before: C = —C = C ', Cy„C y„. Since =;
M is symmetric and real, it can be diagonalized by
ao orthogonal. transformation
In terms of n and P, we can write
/v ) /'cos] sin()/v, &

U, (k) = V, (k) = [N(k) ]' 'o. (k) '

Pp E-sin( cosg)lN, )

That in turn diagonalizes the kinetic part of the

m[N(k)] '~'p (k)
( potential, so that we get
k, +!k!

2= vy„e" v+ 2m, (vrC v+ v Ct v*)

—m[N(k) '~2p(k)
+N y„s "N+ ~m„(N CN +N C N*) . (A9)
k. + Ik!
where The peculiar factor of —; is just a definition of m„
m2
and m„at the moment; its meaning will be clear
N(k) '=1+ „0+!k! from the discussion we now present. Obviously
8 will satisfy the same equations of motion, so
From Eqs. (A3), (A4), and (A5), it is.clear that we will analyze just one of them, say v. From
in the limit of m0, we have v= v~, where

P=+ (I/V)[A, (k) U, (k)e' '"

/1 0)
=-'(1+r,) =( !
+&,*(t )V, (k)e-*""] . (A6) )
It is clear that in this case, particle and antipar- in our representation, we obtain v= (&), where Q
ticle states are different and they restore lepton is a two-component spinor. Therefore
 NEUTRINO MASSES AND MIXINGS IN GAUGE MODELS %ITH. . . 177

with the numbers in brackets denoting SU(2)~,

1) (0 -zo,-) (0 I) SU(2)z, and U~ z, (1) quantum numbers, respect-
1 0) ~io& 0 ~ '
(1 Oj
' (0 ively. We give their transformation properties
under SU(2)~ and SU(2)„, choosing the matrix form
t'0 for h~ and 6„,
(b, =- 1/v 2 w, 6, )
+—
'm„(pt0)~ . ~+H. c. . (A10)
~ ~ ~

ULb L UL, b, R URER UR,

It is then a simple exercise to arrive at the follow-
ing form of the free Lagrangian for Q: (a2)

" (pro, Q+ /to, Q*), Q-U~QU~, Q-Ul QU„.

2&= Qtg&8" Q+ (A11)

where 0, are the usual Pauli matrices and a4=-i Their charge decomposition is easily shown to be
as before. Varying the Lagrangian in Q*, we ob-
tain the equation that Q satisfies
1 ~+
0'~s "Q = m „o2$* . (A12)
L~ R
. 1
This completes our proof: v, and N, obviously I, B
satisfy the Majorana equation (A2), i.e. , free-

gc =g."
particle equation satisfied by spinors for which
We went through the little exercise des-
go+
cribed above with an aim to show that we do, not
impose the conditions that neutrinos are Majorana
particles, but rather that such a condition is the
consequence of the particular Higgs sector and the
pattern of symmetry breaking. Namely, choosing
triplets of Higgs scalars hL and hR to break left- We present first the analysis of symmetry break-
right symmetry led automatically to the physics of ing for thecase of single g [i.e. , case (i) of Sec.
neutrinos as described in this paper. II]. Towards the end of this section we shall see
how the analysis given below simply carries to the
APPENDIX B: THE HIGGS POTENTIAL case of two @'s [case (ii) of Sec. II]: g~ and pz,
AND THE PATTERN OF SYMMETRY BREAKING with Q~ providing the gauge-boson masses and on-
ly Q& coupling to the fermions and being respons-
As we saw in Sec. II, the Higgs sector in our
model consists of the following types of multiplets:
ible for their. masses.
Now, consistent with the transformation proper-
ties of h~, b, „; Q and P and left-right symmetry
h~(1, 0, 2), 6„(0, 1, 2),
(for simplicity and without losing generality we
(a1) forbid the trilinear couplings by an appropriate
A(2, 2*, 0), g =- ~.g*~.(2, -'*, o), discrete symmetry)

2 2 2
V= — Q p. , ~trQ;
i j=j.
~
Q~+ Q
i~ jsky =1
/
&q~q, tr(Q; Q~)tr(QqQ, + Q
ig j, kgl =1
~'~qitrQ) (j)J Qq Q, —p, tr(bi6i+n, b, )

+ p, ((trb ~b ~)'+ (trb, „bz)']+ p, (trEJdlb ~h~+ tr6sb zbzb, „)+pstrhJAIEzhz

2 2 2

+
iy
Qj=l Qg)trig Q)(trh~bg+trdsbs)+
ie j=l
t
P))(trb ~6~(j)) Q~+trbshsQ; Q))+
iy
~j=l y'g(trb~Q;b~Q),
(a4)
I
where Q, = Q and Q, =— Q. The symmetry of the tential):
potential under parity conjugation (left-right) sym- Pi j= I jit ~1212 ~2121& ~ii jk iikj~
metry is recovered by the following constraints on
Ai jkl = Xti jk —Akli j =
I
Xijkk= A jikkl fkki~ (a5)
the Higgs-particle couplings (some of them being
equivalent to conditions for hermicity of the po- lj=+y~l j gi P~» ~&I
1 78 RABINDRA N. MOHAPATRA AND GORAN SEN JANOVIC
2

The most general form of vacuum expectation %e shall assume, for simplicity in what follows,
values of. the above fields consistent with U, (1) that all the vacuum expe ctation values are real
electromagnetic invariance is (it can always be made true for a proper range of
free parameters of the potential)
Our aim here is to show the relationship be-
(0 0) (0 0)
tween v~ and v&, without entering the lengthy but
vz f p~ 0 otherwise straightforward exercise of proving that
(B6)
the extremizing solution is also an absolute min-
- imum (that was discussed before). We then ob-
(K 0& (K' 01
viously need to discuss the potentiaI as a function,
(0 K'f (0 K j of v~, v&, K, and K' only. We obtain

+vs )+ —
I
V(&» &s~ K~ K ) = P(vz—+Vs') + (vz v~ v~

(VI. VB )( 11 22 P11) K ( 11 22 P22)K (4 12 P12)KK ]

+2v~v„[(y»+y22)KK'+y»(K'+K")]+terms which depend on K K only, (B7)
I

where local maximum]. That is a solution which we

p=4(p1+p2),
—
seek we wanted f rom the beginning parity to be
p =2p2 ~

spontaneously broken. The relevance of (B13) is

As previously, we will work in the approximation now manifest, if we write
K'«K, so that (B7) becomes
= — 'P(v v„') + +—
V(n, ~, &s, K) z+ (v~ vs')
VL, =y —,
K

va
(B14)
I
+ vs + 2 (V2, +V~ )K + pvzvf2K
2
Vz
L
2
where y =-iI/(p —p'). Clearly, when vz v„-", -0
(B9) and so also rn„-0 (since m„~ vz)
with
Finally, we want to offer some discussion of
case (ii) discussed in Sec. II. It is a case of two
2( 11 22 P11)) p's; pf and Q, with only 111f coupling to the fer-
(B10)
mions, which enable s us to imagine an interesting
P = 2y
situation: (1t1f) «(Q ). We claimed in Sec. II that
From the extremizing conditions 0 = SV/Svf one can still arrange that vz, -(1t1f) /v~, e. , vI i.
= sV/sv„, we obtain does not depend on large mass scale (P„). We
+P I vzvs 2 + 12'K 2 now prove that statement. From (Bl1) and (B13)
P vI, =Pvz, vf +PK v»
it is easy to see how to go about it: we should
I
(Bll) forbid the term P~K11, vzvs (if such a term was ab-
2
v~=pv~ 3 + p vgvg 2 + +K 2 vg+PK 2 vg .
sent for a single 1t1, we would have obtained vz
It is a simple exercise [we multiply the first =0). Now, p11, =2(p~)12 so we need only forbid the
equation (B11) by V22 and second by v2, and then to term (y )12trn, z1t1 &„Q„( tnioecthat we cannot
subtract them] to obtain forbid tr&~P~&sf~ term, but it is proportional to
K2K1I and so can be made arbitarily small). Let
[(P —P') vzv„- PK'](vz' —vs') = 0 . (B12)
us therefore impose the symmetry &:
It is clear that the possible solutions to (812) are
2
(a) vz 2
$11 iQ Q i(f1
(b) vz 4 vs, in which ca,se
~f 1t'f' 1t1f ~f ' (B15)
p
VIVE= IK (B13)
P P ~a-&a .
Now, under a choice of the parameters of the
Lagrangian one can show that solution (b) is a In this case, the potenti al is going to have the
minimum [in that case solution (a) becomes a general form (K» K K » K )
 NEUTRINO MASSES AND MIXINGS IN GAUGE MODELS WITH. . .
l 2
U(&L, &R, K, KI) p vL, =pvt. +p vg vL,
+(&K + OtyK~ )VL + PK VR
(B17)
tt (VI, + VR ) (VL VR ) VL VR p
2 3
vg=pvR + p v~ vz
I 2

+(&K + &~KM )VR+ pK VL ~

+ 2(VL + VR )("K + O'~K~')+PVLVRK' Similarly as before, it is easy to show that

2
v~v&=yv , (B18)
+ terms which depend on ~, v only. where y= p/(p —p') (o'~ term drops out, as ex-
pected). That is a. useful result: it justified our
(B16) claim in subsection (ii) of Sec. ff, that m„mf /
m~, since K-mt/ft, rather than being-m~ L '/
Pl Q/
The main point is that (B11) now becomes
~

*Address through March 31, 1981: Max-Planck Inst. fur published).

Physik und Astrophysik, Fohringer Ring 6, D-8 Mun-
chen-40, W. Germany.
/Present address: Dept. of Physics, Brookhaven Na-
tional Laboratory, Upton, N. Y. 11973.
R. E. Marshak and E. G. G. Sudarshan, Phys. Rev. 109,
1860 (1958); R. Feynman and M. Gell-Mann, ibid. 109,
193 (1958).
S. L. Glashow, Nucl. Phys. 22, 579 (1961); S. Wein-
berg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1264 (1967); A. Salam, in
Elementary Particle Theory; Relativistic Groups and
Anatyticity GVobel Symposium IVo. 8), edited by
N. Svartholm (Wiley, New York, 1968).
See, for example, C. Baltay, in Proceedings of the
XIX International Conference on High Energy Physics,
Tokyo, 1978, edited by S. Homa, M. Kawaguchi, and
H. Miyazawa (Phys. Soc. of Japan, Tokyo, 1979).
J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D 10, 275 (1974);
. R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, ibid. 11, 566; 11,
2558 (1975); G. Senjanovic and R. N. Mohapatra, ibid.
12, 1502 (1975).
5
For a review and references see R. N. Mohapatra, in
&eau Frontiers in High-Energy Physics, proceedings
of Qrbis Scientiae 1978, Coral Gables, edited by
A. Perlmutter and L. Scott (Plenum, New York, 1978).
See also G. Senjanovic, Nucl. Phys. B153, 334 (1979).
6For the possibility of vanishing neutrino masses, see
G. C. Branco and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. D 18, 1621
(1978); P. Ramond and D. Reiss, Caltech report, 1978
(unpublished).
The present experimentat. upper limits on neutrino
masses are given as follows: m 35 eV, E. F. Tret-
yakov et al. , in Proceedings of the International
Neutrino Conference, Aachen, 1976, edited by
H. Faissner, H. Reithler, and P. Zerwas (Vieweg,
Braunschweig, West Germany, 1977); m„„&0.56 MeV,
M. Daum et al. ,
Phys. Lett. 74B, 126 {1976);and
m„&250 MeV, J. Kirkby,
in Proceedings of the 1979
International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interac-
tions at High Energies, Fermilab, edited by T. B. W.
Kirk and H. D. I. Abarbanel (Fermilab, Batavia, Illin-
ois, 1980).
M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky {unpublished).
See also, T. Yanagida, KEK lecture notes, 1979 {un-
E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B91, 81 (1980); also invited
talk given at The First Workshop on Grand Unification,
1980 [Harvard Report No. HUTP-80-A031 (unpublish-
ed)].
R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett.
44, 912 (1980),
F. Reines, H. %. Sobel, and E. Pasierb, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 45, 1307 {1980).
V. A. Lyubimov et al. , Report No. ITEP-62, 1980 (un-
published).
For a review of the present experimental situation in
double-P decay, see E. Fiorini, Rev. Nuovo Cimento
2, 1 (1971).
R. E. Marshak and R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Lett. B91,
222 (1980).
R. N. Mohapatra and R. E. Marshak, Phys. Rev. Lett.
44, 1316 (1980).
|8We stress
that the present choice of Higgs multiplets
is essential if we want to extract the full content of
-
local B L symmetry breaking. In earlier papers,
Higgs multiplets of type gL, =
—{~, 0, 1) and gz —={0,i, 1)
were chosen [see Refs. 4 and 5 and also R. N. Moha-
patra, F. Paige, and D. P. Sidhu, Phys. Rev. D 17,
2462 (1978)]. As a result, exact global U(1) symme-
tries identifiable with baryon and lepton number were
present in the theory, thereby making the neutrino a
Dirac particle. In such cases the connection between
{B-L) breaking and parity violation was not apparent.
R. Barbieri, D. V. Nanopoulos, and F. Strocchi, CERN
report (unpublished).
"%. Maag and C. Wetterich, CERN report, 1980 (unpub-
lished).
~~M. A. B. Beg, R. V. Budny, R. N. Mohapatra, and
A. Sirliri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1252 {1977); 39, 54 (E)
(1977) and references therein.
G. Senjanovic and P. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. D 21,
3253 (1980).
2~G. Ecker, University of Vienna report, 1979 (unpub-
lished).
22
G. Steigman, K. Olive, and D. Schramm, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 43, 239 (1979).
23H. Georgi arid S. Weinberg, Phys, Rev. D 17, 275
(1978). For applications of this method, see G. Senjan-
180 RABINDRA N. MOHAPATRA AND GORAN SEN JANOVIC

ovic, Ref. 5; G. Costa, M. D'Anna, and P. Marcolungo, 67B, 309 (1977); J. D. Bjorken, K. Lane, and S. Wein-
Nuovo Cimento 50A, 177 (1979). berg, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1474 (1977); B. %'. Lee and
24As this paper was being prepared for publication, we R. Shrock, ibid. 16, 1444 (1977).
received a paper by V. Barger, P. Langacker, J. Le- J. Iliopoulos, S. L. Glashow, and L. Maiani, Phys.
veille, and S. Pakvasa fPhys. Rev. Lett. 45, 692 (1980)] Rev. D 2, 1285 (1970).
which also discusses the mixings of Majorana neutri- K. Gotow, invited talk given at the Workshop on Weak
nos. Interactions, held at VPI, 1979 (unpublished).
5A. Halprin, P. Minkowski, H. Primakoff, and J. P. H. E. Haber, G. L. Kane, and T. S. Sterling, Nucl.
Rosen, Phys. Rev. D 13, 2567 (1976). See also, R. E. Phys. B161, 493 (1979); P. Ramond and G. G. Ross,
Marshak, R. N. Mohapatra, and Riazuddin, VPI report, Phys. Lett. 81B, 61 (1979).
3i For the detailed
1980 (unpublished). analysis of the properties of Majorana
26R. Cowsik and J. McLelland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 669 spinors, see K. M. Case, Phys. Rev. 107, 307 (1957).
3 R.
(1972). Davis, in Proceedings of the International Confer-
—
27For earlier work on p, ey see, for example, T. P. ence on Radioisotopes in Scientific Research, Paris,
Cheng and L. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1425 (1977); 1957 (Pergamon, London, 1958), Vol. I.
S. Bilenky, S. Petcov, and B. Pontecorvo, Phys. Lett.