A model of electroweak-scale right-handed neutrino mass

P.Q. Hung
Dept. of Physics, University of Virginia, 382 McCormick Road, P. O. Box 400714, Charlottesville, Virginia 22904-4714, USA (Dated: February 2, 2008) If neutrino masses are realized through the see-saw mechanism, can the right-handed neutrinos be produced and detected at present and future colliders? The answer is negative in the most popular see-saw scenarios for the simple reason that they are too heavy in these models. However, a simple extension of the Standard Model (SM) particle content, including mirror fermions, two SU (2)L triplet and one singlet Higgs elds, leads to a scenario in which the see-saw mechanism is realized with the Majorana mass MR of the right-handed neutrino being of the order of the electroweak scale or smaller. A custodial SU (2) symmetry arising from the two triplet Higgs elds ensures that = 1 at tree level even when their vacuum expectation values (VEV) which determine the value of MR , Z can be as large as the electroweak scale. MR is found to obey the bound M MR < 246 GeV 2 which makes it accessible experimentally (Tevatron, LHC or ILC) since, in our scenario, R s can couple directly to the Standard Model (SM) gauge bosons.

arXiv:hep-ph/0612004v4 28 Mar 2007

Two of the most important experimental discoveries in the last decade are undoubtedly neutrino oscillations and the accelerating universe. Although the knowledge of individual neutrino masses is yet to be determined experimentally, the most plausible explanation for the oscillation data is the assumption that neutrinos have masses. When combined with cosmological constraints, the picture that emerges is one in which those masses are tiny of O(< 1 eV ) [1]. However, its nature- Dirac or Majorana- is unknown at the present time. By far, the most popular scenario for neutrino masses is the celebrated see-saw mechanism [2] where neutrinos are of Majorana types. It is well-known that in this class of scenario, small neutrino masses arise because of a large hierarchy between between a Dirac mass mD (typically of the order of a charged lepton mass) which is intrinsically linked to the electroweak scale and a Majorana mass MR mD , in the form m2 D /MR , where MR , the Majorana mass of the right-handed neutrino, is typically some Grand Unied (GUT) mass scale or at least several orders of magnitude larger than the electroweak scale. The high value of MR makes this sector inaccessible experimentally. One has to resort to indirect methods such as neutrinoless double beta decays to probe the Majorana nature of the light neutrino. If MR can be found to be of the order of the electroweak scale, one could directly look for its signatures at future colliders through the production and detection of right-handed neutrinos. This possibility is realized in a model presented below. It is not unreasonable to ask the following question: Could one obtain the see-saw mechanism strictly within the SM SU (3)c SU (2)L U (1)Y by just extending its particle content? If it is possible to do so, what would be the constraints on the Dirac and Majorana mass scales? What would the theoretical and experimen-

[email protected]

tal consequences be other than providing a model for the size of the neutrino masses? It is argued in this paper that such a model can be constructed, with interesting implications: MR cannot be larger than EW 246 GeV and the Dirac mass is unrelated to EW . What is the most economical way to accomplish this? The presentation will be organized as follows. It will be shown below that one can construct the see-saw mechanism by just staying within the SM gauge group and by simply extending the SM particle content to include mirror fermions, two additional triplet and one singlet Higgs elds. (It should be emphasized that what we mean by mirror fermions are simply fermions that behave like the SM ones but have opposite chiralities.) MR is found to come from the VEVs of the triplet Higgs elds which can be as large as the electroweak scale because of the existence of a custodial SU (2) symmetry which ensures that = 1. The paper ends with a brief discussion of the possible signatures of our scenario such as the production of the right-handed neutrinos through the process q+q Z R + R with R decays being characteristic of their Majorana nature. As we will show at the end of the paper, the characteristic signatures are like-sign dilepton events: a high energy equivalent of the neutrinoless double beta decay. Although the model presented here stands on its own, it can be seen to t into a grand unied model based on the group E6 which is designed to embed the SM and a new unbroken gauge group SU (2)Z [3] as described in [4] which necessitates the introduction of the aforementioned heavy mirror fermions [5]. At this point, it is worthwhile to emphasize the fact that the main results of this paper rest on the assumption that right-handed neutrinos belong to SU (2)L doublets but not on the details of the so-called mirror fermions. In particular, the possible observation of the light right-handed neutrinos does not depend on the existence of heavy mirror quarks for example, although anomaly cancellation will require their existence despite the fact that they play no role in the

2 subsequent discussion. Let us rst start out with the following SM particle content: lL and , which are respectively the lepton doublet and the SM Higgs eld. In addition, one has eR which is SU (2)L singlet. The product lL or lL contains an SU (2)L singlet. Since eR and R are both SU (2)L singlets, the respective Yukawa couplings to the above products are allowed giving rise to the normal Dirac mass terms. If, however, R is not a singlet of SU (2)L (nor a triplet for that matter), it follows that cannot couple to R . For deniteness, let us take lL R as belonging to an SU (2)L right-handed doublet -the so-called mirror leptons- as follows:
M lR =

(2). The diagonalization of (6) gives the following eigenvalues for the charged lepton and its mirror counterpart
2 (mD ) m lM m l

m l = ml

(7a)

m lM = m lM +

2 (mD ) . m lM m l

(7b)

R eM R

(1)

where the superscript M stands for mirror fermions. Just as with eR which is SU (2)L singlet, let us also assume the existence of a charged left-handed SU (2)L singlet mirror lepton, eM L (the mirror counterpart of eR ). Notice that, in this case, anomaly cancellation operates entirely within the lepton sector (normal and mirror) as well as within the quark sector. A bilinear such as M lL lR = L R + e L eM R transforms either as a singlet or as a triplet of SU (2)L . Let us for the moment assume the existence of a singlet scalar eld S which can couple to that fermion bilinear. We have
M lL S lR + H.c. LS = gSl = gSl ( L R + e L eM R ) S + H.c.

(2)

We will assume that mlM ml . Furthermore, it will be seen below that mD mlM , ml and one can easily see that the mass mixing in (6) is negligible giving m l ml and m lM m lM . Before turning to the subject of this paper which is neutrino masses, we wish to mention that the coupling to S which mixes SM fermions to their mirror counterparts, also applies to the quark sector. Although the results of this paper do not depend on the existence of mirror quarks, anomaly cancellation requires it. The following short paragraph is written simply for the purpose of completeness. It is straightforward to generalize Eq. (6) to include the quarks. First, let us denote the quarks by qL = (uL , dL ), uR , dR , and their mirror counM M M M terparts by qR = (uM R , dR ), uL , dL . Replacing gSl by gSq in Eq. (2) for the quark sector and noticing that M mq = gq v2 / 2 and mqM = gq v2 / 2, Mq is obtained from (6) by the replacements: ml mq , mlM mqM , and m m (gSq /gSl ). The eigenvalues are now m q = (We will assume mqM > mq .) Again, one has m q mq , m qM mqM . One can straightforwardly generalize the above discussions to three families. The above exercise shows that the neutrino Dirac mass can be independent of the electroweak scale in this simple model. If this were the whole story, one could simply make the Dirac mass naturally small by having a small vS which is not constrained by any other considerations. However, the total width of the Z boson rules out that option because the addition of the right-handed neutrinos to the coupling would increase the neutrino contribution by a factor of 2. Therefore, in our scenario, the righthanded neutrinos have to be heavier that half the Z mass. This statement is rather general in the sense that, if R transforms non trivially under SU (2)L U (1)Y , a small pure neutrino Dirac mass term is forbidden. (This is not the case if R is SU (2)L U (1)Y singlet in which case one should ne tune the Yukawa coupling, i.e. g 1011 , in order for m O( eV ).)
M,T M Since lR 2 lR (fermion bilinear for R Majorana mass term) transforms as (1 + 3, Y /2 = 1) under SU (2)L U (1)Y , the appropriate Higgs eld cannot be a singlet which carries a charge +1 since its VEV would break charge conservation. This leaves us with the option of a triplet Higgs eld = (3, Y /2 = +1). Explicitly,

The SM Yukawa couplings are given by lL eR + H.c. , LY 1 = gl

mq

2 2 (mD ) (gSq /gSl ) , mq M mq

m q M = mq M +

2 2 (mD ) (gSq /gSl ) . mq M mq

(3a) (3b)

With the following VEVs: S = vS , = (0, v2 / 2) , (4a) (4b)

one obtains from Eqs. (2, 3a, 3b) the following masses and matrices mD = gSl vS , for the Dirac neutrino and Ml = ml mD mD m lM , (6) (5)

for the charged SM and mirror leptons. The Dirac neutrino mass in (5) is obtained from (2) and, in (6), M ml = gl v2 / 2, mlM = gl v2 / 2, with the o-diagonal mixing being identical to the Dirac neutrino mass from

3 is given as 1 = . = 2
1 2

+
0

++ 1 + 2

(8)

One can have a gauge invariant Yukawa coupling of the form LM = With 0 = vM , (10)
M,T g M lR M 2 2 lR

such NG boson as we shall see below. Also, in the aforementioned model with a Higgs triplet, a very small VEV is given to that triplet in order to maintain the approximate relationship = 1. For a larger VEV, a custodial symmetry is required to guarantee = 1 at tree-level, a topic to be discussed below. The Majorana mass matrix is given by M= M L mD mD MR , (14)

(9)

one can see from (9) that the right-handed neutrino acquires a Majorana mass MR given by MR = gM vM . (11)

Notice that the use of an SU (2)L triplet had been made before in the context of the left-right symmetric model [6] and is very dierent from the present model. Here it is responsible for the Majorana mass of the right-handed neutrino. Without further restrictions, one could also have a T Yukawa coupling of the type gL lL 2 2 lL which would give a Majorana mass gL vM to the left-handed neutrino. Unless gL is unnaturally ne-tuned to be very small, the presence of this term would destroy the motivation for the see-saw mechanism. To forbid its presence at tree level, one could impose the following global symmetry U (1)M under which we have
M M M M , S ei M S , , eL , e 2 i M lR , eL ei M lR (12) with all other particles being U (1)M singlets. In consequence, this symmetry only allows the Yukawa couplings listed in (2), (3a), (3b), and (9). Furthermore, there will be no coupling of the triplet to the fermion bilinear M lL lR because of U (1)M . In consequence, the neutrino Dirac mass comes solely from the VEV of S as in (2). Although this symmetry forbids the left-handed neutrino to acquire a Majorana mass at tree level, it arises at the one-loop level as given by 2 1 mD MR ln , 2 16 MR M S

where mD , MR and ML are given by (5), (11) and (13) respectively. If gSl O(gM ) and vM vS , 2 the eigenvalues are approximately ML (mD ) /MR = 2 (gSl /gM ) (vS /vM ) vS (1 ) (with < 102 ) and MR . What would be the consequences of the assumption vM EW ? Before discussing the constraint from the parameter which would require a custodial symmetry, let us estimate the scale vS by using the aforementioned as2 /gM ) O(1), the constraint m 1 eV sumption. If (gSl gives In this scenario, the singlet VEV is seen to be about six orders of magnitude smaller than the electroweak scale. One might ask about the hierarchy between the singlet VEV and the electroweak scale, namely the question about which mechanism that can exist to protect the smallness of the singlet VEV. First, let us notice that vS /EW 106 . This hierarchy is not as severe as the one that one encounters in a generic Grand Unied Theory where at least 13 to 14 orders of magnitude dierence exists between the GUT scale and the electroweak scale. One could for instance ne-tune the cross coupling between the singlet and triplet Higgs elds to be less than 1012 , although this may appear unnatural. A more interesting possibility might be a scenario in which the eective Dirac mass of the neutrino is proportional to the present value of the singlet Higgs eld S (t0 ) 105 eV whose eective potential might be of the slow-rolling type. This type of scenario was proposed in a massvarying neutrino model of the rst reference of [9]. The true minimum might be characterized by vS 105 eV . This possibility is under investigation. It is well-known that an introduction of Higgs representations other than SU (2)L doublets without making sure that there is a remaining SU (2) custodial symmetry would spoil the tree-level result = 1. One of such representations is the SU (2)L triplet scalar which has been widely studied [10] for various reasons. With only one triplet, e.g. , one would obtain = 2 [11]. However, it is shown in [11] that the custodial symmetry is preserved, i.e. = 1, if one has two triplets, one with (3, Y /2 = 1) and = (3, Y /2 = 0). The two triplets, when combined, form the (3, 3) representation under the global SU (2)L SU (2)R symmetry as follows 0 + ++ = 0 + . (16) 0 vS vM 1 eV O(105 eV ) . (15)

ML =

(13)

where is the quartic coupling of S , MS is the mass of S and mD and MR are given by Eq.(5) and Eq.(11) respectively. Notice that ML as given by (13) is at most two orders of magnitude smaller than a typical see-saw 2 light mass mD /MR for < 1. To be general, we shall keep it in the mass matrix below. Another important remark is in order here. Unlike scenarios in which neutrino Majorana masses arise either from a singlet [7] or triplet Higgs eld [8] and where there is an appearance of a massless Nambu-Goldstone (NG) boson- the so-called Majoron- with severe constraints, our model entails no

4 The VEV of , namely where S (1) is an E6 singlet. The Majorana mass term coming from (9) can be seen to arise from 27T L 2 27L . Since 27T 27 27 + 351 + 351 , one can see that L L 2 the Higgs representation that contains an SU (2)L triplet which is SU (3)c and SU (2)Z singlet is (351 ) with 351 (1, 105 ), where 105 (1, 6) (1, 3) under SU (3)c SU (3)L U (1) SU (3)c SU (2)L U (1)Y . The rst immediate experimental implication of an electroweak scale MR is the possibility of directly detecting the right-handed Majorana neutrino at colliders (Tevatron, LHC, or ILC). One should notice: 1) R interacts with the W and Z bosons since it is part of an SU (2)L doublet; 2) both R and eM R interact with L and eL respectively through the singlet scalar eld S . In particular, since S is expected to have a mass of O(105 eV ), one would have the following interesting decay modes: R L + S and eM R eL + S . If the mass of R is close to but less than that of eM R, one could have, for instance, eM + e + folR L L R lowed by R L + S . Also, the heaviest R could be pair-produced through q + q Z R + R with each R decaying into a lighter eM R plus a real or virtual W followed by eM e + L S at a displaced verR tex. Since R is a Majorana particle, one could have e.g. + + eM, + W + + eM, + W + e R R L + eL + W + W + 2 S , a like-sign dilepton event which is distinctively dierent from the Dirac case. This would constitute a high energy equivalent of the well-known neutrinoless double beta decay. The details of the phenomenology are under investigation. One might ask whether or not the lightest R might pose a problem with the total energy density. Fortunately, it is unstable because of the decay mode R L + S . S , in turns, can annihilate each other when L . The remnants of these T < mS as in S + S L + processes are the light L s and the sum of the masses of the latter is constrained by cosmology to be less than 1 eV . Furthermore, by the time when nuclesynthesis was supposed to take place at T M eV , the only neutrinos that remained were the light L s whose number is restricted to be around three. The electroweak-scale righthanded neutrinos have practically disappeared by then and therefore do not aect the big bang nucleosynthesis. There is a possibility that the decays of the triplet Higgs particles with masses close to the electroweak scale can wash out existing lepton asymmetry when T M . If that happens then one might need a new mechanism for generating the required baryon asymmetry. Whether or not this is a problem will depend on the details of the decays of the triplet Higgs elds. This is under investigation. Since neutrino masses, in our scenario, come from from an entirely dierent source (SU (2)L singlet and triplet Higgs elds instead of the SM doublet), one might expect the leptonic CKM matrix to be quite dierent from the quark CKM matrix, which appears to be the case experimentally. Since the (small) neutrino Dirac mass scale is associated with a singlet scalar, it might be tempting to

breaks the global symmetry SU (2)L SU (2)R down to the custodial SU (2) and thus guaranteeing = 1. As shown in [11], the W and Z masses have the standard expressions MW = g v/2 and MZ = MW / cos W , 2 + 8 v 2 and where = v / 2 and with v = v2 2 M 0 = 0 = vM . This scenario can accommodate even the case when vM > v2 . As [11] already discussed, the U (1)M symmetry in (12) is broken explicitly by terms in the potential which mix with since does not carry U (1)M quantum numbers. Furthermore, such an explicit breaking term is needed in order to have a proper vacuum alignment. As a result, the massless NG bosons are absent in this model. Our model also contains a singlet S which carries a U (1)M quantum number. Unlike the Majoron case, our model does not generate a NG boson from the singlet since U (1)M is already explicitly broken. The discussion of the Higgs potential and its associated implications is beyond the scope of this paper and will be presented elsewhere. (As noted in [11], the Yukawa coupling (9) breaks the custodial symmetry but its contribution to can be small when R and eM R are near degenerate.) Let us notice also that there is no Majorana term similar to (9) involving . The two-triplet scenario is particularly relevant to our model because it can preserve the custodial symmetry while allowing for vM to be of the order of the electroweak scale. It is worth noticing at this point that the S parameter can be made small in models with mirror fermions and more than one Higgs doublet [4]. Also it is worth mentioning that that the would-be Majoron has a mass higher than the Z boson mass and therefore does not aect the Z width. We conclude that the right-handed neutrino mass MR is restricted to a rather narrow range MZ MR < 246 GeV , 2 (18)

vM 0 0 = 0 vM 0 , 0 0 vM

(17)

where the lower bound comes from the experimental Zwidth requirement and the upper bound is discussed above. As a result, this model is quite predictive in terms of detection of the right-handed neutrino. The SM fermions and their mirror counterparts are contained the following E6 representations: 27L and 27c L . The details of the organization of the SM and mirror particles in these two representations are given in [4]. For our purpose here, one needs just the parts M that are relevant to the above discussions. First lR , as M,c dened in (1), which is equivalent to lL is grouped in 27L while the SM doublet lL is put in 27c L . First, the neutrino Dirac mass term as written in (2) can be c,T seen to come from 27c,T L 2 27L . Since 27L 2 27L 1 + 78 + 650, the above fermion bilinear can couple to a singlet Higgs eld as follows: 27c,T L 2 27L S (1),

5 connect it with scenarios of mass-varying neutrinos [9]. In summary, a model is constructed in which the Majorana mass of the right-handed neutrinos coming from the VEVs of SU (2)L -triplet Higgs elds is found to obey MZ 2 MR < 246 GeV , without violating the constraint = 1 at tree level because of the presence of a custodial symmetry. Its interest lies in the possibility of producing and detecting the right-handed neutrinos at current and future colliders, a prospect that is not present with a generic see-saw scenario where MR is typically of the order of the GUT scale.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Goran Senjanovic, Vernon Barger and Paul Frampton for discussions. This work is supported in parts by the US Department of Energy under grant No. DE-A505-89ER40518.

[1] See D. Spergel et al (WMAP3), arXiv:astro-ph/0603449, and references therein. [2] P. Minkowski, Phys. Lett. B 67, 421 (1977); M. GellMann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, in Supergravity, eds. P. van Niewenhuizen and D. Z. Freedman (North Holland 1979); T. Yanagida, in Proceeding of Workshop on Unied Theory and Baryon Number in the Universe, eds. O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto (KEK 1979); S. L. Glashow, The future of elementary particle physics, in Proceedings of the 1979 Cargese Summer Institute on quarks and leptons (M. Levy, J. -L. Basdevant, D. Speiser, J. Speiser, R. Gatsmans, and M. Jacob, eds.) Plenum Press, New York, 1980, p. 687; R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanov c, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980); J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2227 (1980). For recent reviews, see V. Barger, D. Marfatia, and K. Whisnant, Int, J,. Mod. Phys. E12, 569 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0308123]; R. N. Mohapatra et al, arXiv:hep-ph/0510213; G. Altarelli, arXiv:hep-ph/0611117, and references therein. [3] P. Q. Hung, arXiv:hep-ph/0504060. P. Q. Hung, Nucl. Phys. B747, 55 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0512282]. [4] P. Q. Hung and Paola Mosconi, arXiv:hep-ph/0611001. [5] For a review, see J. Maalampi and M. Roos, Phys. Rept.

186, 53 (1990). [6] J. C. Pati and A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D 10, 275 (1974); R. N. Mohapatra and J. C. Pati, ibid. 11, 2558 (1975); R. N. Mohapatra and G. Sejanov c, Phys. Rev. D 12, 1502 (1975); ibid, Phys. Rev. D 23, 165 (1981), and references therein. [7] Y. Chikashige, R. N. Mohapatra, and R. D. Peccei, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 1926 (1980); ibid, Phys. Lett. B 98, 265 (1981). [8] G. B. Gelmini and R. Roncadelli, Phys. Lett. B 99, 411 (1981). See also J. Schechter and J. W. F. Valle in [2]. [9] P. Q. Hung, arXiv:hep-ph/0010126; P. Gu, X. Wang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D68, 087301 (2003); R. Fardon, A. E. Nelson, and N. Weiner, JCAP 0410, 005 (2004). [10] H. Georgi and M. Machacek, Nucl. Phys. B262, 463 (1985); R. S. Chivukula and H. Georgi, Phys. Lett. B 182, 181 (1986); P. H. Frampton, M. C. Oh, and T. Yoshikawa, Phys. Rev. D66, 033007 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0204273]. For a recent use of a Higgs triplet, see E. Ma and U. Sarkar, Phys. Lett. B 638, 356 (2006) [arXiv:hep-ph/0602116]. [11] M. S. Chanowitz and M. Golden, Phys. Lett. B 165, 105 (1985).