# Constraints on mixing angles of Majorana neutrinos

## Abstract

By combining the inputs from the neutrinoless double beta decay and the fits of cosmological models of dark matter with solar and atmospheric neutrino data, we obtain constraints on two of the mixing angles of Majorana neutrinos, which become stronger when coupled with the reactor neutrino data. These constraints are strong enough to rule out Majorana neutrinos if the small angle solution of solar neutrino puzzle is borne out.

preprint: IMSC-98/12/57   

26 November, 1998

It is well known  that unless neutrinos are very massive and nonrelativistic, or interact through both left and right-handed currents, experimental data on neutrino-induced reactions cannot distinguish between Dirac and Majorana neutrinos. Neutrinoless double beta decay remains as the only feasible tool to probe this question. Although experiments  have so far provided only upper limits on the rate of this decay, recent limits  combined with other inputs on neutrino physics might already lead to important information on whether neutrinos are Dirac or Majorana particles. These other inputs are indications from the analysis of the cosmic microwave background for the presence of a hot dark matter component which is presumably neutrinos of mass $`1`$ eV  and the indications  from the analysis of solar and atmospheric neutrinos that neutrinos do oscillate and that the mass differences among the three neutrinos are much smaller than this scale of 1 eV.

We show in this note that if neutrinos are Majorana particles, a combined study of all the above pieces of data leads to rather stringent restrictions on two of the mixing angles that occur for three flavors of neutrinos. If these results are then confronted with the values of these mixing angles allowed by solar, atmospheric and reactor neutrino data, the allowed regions are further narrowed and in fact, in a few cases, one is already close to contradiction, thus leading to the conclusion that neutrinos are not Majorana particles.

In the three flavor mixing scheme the neutrino flavor eigenstates $`\nu _\alpha =\nu _{e,\mu ,\tau }`$ are related to the mass eigenstates $`\nu _i=\nu _{1,2,3}`$ by

$$\nu _\alpha =\underset{i}{}U_{\alpha i}\nu _i$$
(1)   
where $`U_{\alpha i}`$ are the elements of the unitary mixing matrix $`U`$. We note that for Majorana neutrino  there are three $`CP`$ violating phases in contrast to the case of Dirac neutrino which has only one phase. We use the parametrization :

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_\omega c_\varphi & s_\omega c_\varphi e^{i\delta _1}& s_\varphi e^{i\delta _2}\\ s_\omega c_\psi e^{i\delta _1}c_\omega s_\psi s_\varphi e^{i\left(\delta _2+\delta _3\right)}& c_\omega c_\psi s_\omega s_\psi s_\varphi e^{i\left(\delta _3+\delta _2\delta _1\right)}& s_\psi c_\varphi e^{i\delta _3}\\ s_\omega s_\psi e^{i\left(\delta _1\delta _3\right)}c_\omega c_\psi s_\varphi e^{i\delta _2}& c_\omega s_\psi e^{i\delta _3}s_\omega c_\psi s_\varphi e^{i\left(\delta _2\delta _1\right)}& c_\psi c_\varphi \end{array}\right).`$ (5)   
where $`\delta _1,\delta _2`$ and $`\delta _3`$ are the three $`CP`$-violating phases and $`c`$ and $`s`$ stand for sine and cosine of the associated mixing angle $`\omega `$, $`\varphi `$ or $`\psi `$ placed as subscript.

The rate for the neutrinoless double beta decay depends on the following combination of the neutrino parameters :

$`m_{0\nu \beta \beta }=\left|{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2,3}{}}\eta _iU_{ei}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m_{\nu _i}\right|`$ (7)   
where $`m_{\nu _i}`$ are the Majorana neutrino masses, $`U_{ei}`$ the elements of the first row of the mixing matrix given in equation (2), $`\eta _i=\left(1/i\right)\eta _i^{CP}=\pm 1`$ and $`\eta _i^{CP}`$ is the $`CP`$ parity of Majorana neutrino $`\nu _i`$. Although neutrinoless double beta decay has not yet been seen experimentally, the experimental upper limits on this rate have recently improved to a significant extent. In particular one may refer to the results of the Tellurium  and Germanium experiments . The strongest upper limit so far comes from the Germanium experiment  and it is

$`m_{0\nu \beta \beta }`$ $`<`$ $`0.56\text{eV}(99\%\text{ confidence level})`$ (8)   
$`<`$ $`0.46\text{eV}(90\%\text{confidence level})`$ (9)   
These numbers have been obtained using the nuclear matrix elements calculated in . We shall take into account the uncertainties in this calculation (see below). Using the conservative number 0.56 eV we have

$`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2,3}{}}\eta _iU_{ei}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}m_{\nu _i}\right|<0.56\text{eV}`$ (10)   
Next we consider the fits to the recent data on the anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background radiation  and the large scale structure of the universe . Best fit  requires a mixture of $`10\%`$ ordinary baryonic matter, $`70\%`$ cold and $`20\%`$ hot dark matter with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$. If the hot component is identified with neutrinos , the model implies 

$$\underset{i=1,2,3}{}m_{\nu _i}5\text{eV}.$$
(11)   
Right hand side of (6) is not expected to be less than 3 eV for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=1`$  as otherwise there is too much small scale power . On the other hand, solar and atmospheric neutrino data suggest that the two mass-squared differences among the three neutrinos are very small  : $`m_2^2m_1^210^5\text{eV}^2`$ or smaller and $`m_3^2m_1^210^310^2\text{eV}^2`$. Hence we take all three neutrinos as almost degenerate in mass and using (6),

$$m_{\nu _i}m_\nu 1.7\text{eV}$$
(12)   
We shall allow $`m_\nu `$ to vary over a range around 1.7 eV. This will take care of the uncertainties of cosmological models as well as those of the calculations of the nuclear matrix elements in double beta decay, since only the ratio $`0.56/m_\nu `$ enters into our analysis. Any possible improvement in the neutrinoless double beta decay limit can also be incorporated by scaling $`m_\nu `$ appropriately.

Combining all the inputs, we have the basic inequality

$`\left|\left(\eta _1\mathrm{cos}^2\omega +\eta _2\mathrm{sin}^2\omega e^{i2\delta _1}\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi +\eta _3\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi e^{i2\delta _2}\right|<{\displaystyle \frac{0.56}{m_\nu }}`$ (13)   
where $`m_\nu `$ is expressed in eV. One can rewrite this inequality in terms of two effective phases by combining $`\eta _i`$ and $`\delta _i`$. However, to make our discussion on $`CP`$ conserving and $`CP`$ violating cases more transparent we have kept both $`\eta _i`$ and $`\delta _i`$ above. We proceed to extract the bounds on the mixing angles $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ implied by this inequality for various choices of $`\eta _i`$ , $`\delta _i`$ and typical values of $`m_\nu `$ favored by the cosmological models. It is to be noted that in contrast to the usual oscillation phenomena studied in neutrino physics, $`CP`$ violation plays an important role in neutrinoless double beta decay.

We shall first consider $`\delta _1=\delta _2=0`$ in (8). Out of eight possible combinations for different values of $`\eta _i`$ in (8), four combinations are equivalent to the other four, as only the overall magnitude in the left hand side of this inequality is constrained. So we shall analyse (8) on the basis of four cases : Case I : $`\eta _1=\eta _2=\eta _3=\pm 1`$ ; Case II : $`\eta _1=\eta _2=\eta _3=\pm 1`$; Case III : $`\eta _1=\eta _2=\eta _3=\pm 1`$ and Case IV: $`\eta _1=\eta _2=\eta _3=\pm 1`$. Case I is the natural choice for $`\eta _i`$, if there exists a symmetry linking the three generations. But then the left hand side of (8) is unity and so unless $`m_\nu 0.56`$ eV, the inequality cannot be satisfied . Since such low values of $`m_\nu `$ are not expected in the cosmological models, we conclude that the case of equal intrinsic $`CP`$ parities for the three Majorana neutrinos is not favored. The allowed regions in $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ for cases II, III and IV are plotted in figures 1, 2 and 3 respectively for $`m_\nu =1.7`$ eV. For both II and III, small $`\varphi (\varphi 0)`$ requires $`\omega `$ to be in the region of $`45^{}`$. Whereas small $`\omega `$ in II is not allowed at all, small $`\omega `$ in III requires large $`\varphi `$. Case IV leads to a constraint condition on $`\varphi `$, that is independent of $`\omega `$ and requires $`\varphi `$ to be in the region of $`45^{}`$. Figures 4 and 5 show the total allowed regions for all possible combinations of $`\eta _i`$ (i.e., all the cases I, II, III and IV) for $`m_\nu =6`$ eV and 0.64 eV respectively. One may note that for $`m_{0\nu \beta \beta }/m_\nu 0`$, the allowed values of $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ are constrained to lie on the three curves : $`\mathrm{tan}^2\varphi =\pm \mathrm{cos}2\omega ,1`$. Our figure 4 (where $`m_{0\nu \beta \beta }/m_\nu =0.093`$) gives a small width to these curves.

We next consider $`CP`$ violating case. Now, the choice $`\eta _1=\eta _2=\eta _3=\pm 1`$ , is not ruled out. Thus $`CP`$ violation is capable of changing the conclusions dramatically. Figures 6-8 show the allowed regions in $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$ for a few choices of the parameters $`\delta _1`$ and $`\delta _2`$.

We have not considered “maximal” $`CP`$ violation $`\delta _1=\pi /2`$ and/or $`\delta _2=\pi /2`$ since these cases are subsumed by the choices of relative negative $`\eta _i`$, as far as our inequality (8) is concerned. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that our figures (1-5) are relevant for such “maximal” $`CP`$-violating cases also. In particular, figure 1 and figure 2 can be considered to be the “maximally” $`CP`$-violating case of $`\delta _1=\pi /2`$ and $`\delta _2=0`$.

Let us now compare the above bounds on the mixing angles with the results of the analysis of data from reactor, solar and atmospheric neutrino experiments. Before we make this comparison, we must comment on the role of $`CP`$ violation in these experiments. We note that even for Majorana neutrinos, the oscillation phenomena are controlled by a single $`CP`$-violating phase $`\delta `$ .

The CHOOZ reactor experiment  interpreted within a three flavor framework  leads to the constraint

$$\varphi 12.5^{}$$
(14)   
Although $`CP`$ violation was neglected in reference , it is easy to see that (9) is valid even if $`CP`$ is violated. Comparing (9) with figure 3, we see that case IV is ruled out, while comparisons with figures 1 and 2 rule out all values of $`\omega `$ except those in the region of $`45^{}`$. These are for $`m_\nu =1.7`$ eV. The results are weakened for $`m_\nu =0.64`$ eV (figure 5) and are further strengthened for $`m_\nu =6`$ eV (figure 4). If $`CP`$ is violated, with $`\delta _1=0`$ and $`\delta _20`$ (figure 6), the above conclusion is still valid. But for $`m_\nu =1.7`$ eV, $`\pi /8\stackrel{>}{}\delta _1\stackrel{<}{}3\pi /8`$ and $`\delta _2=0`$, ( figure 7) as well as $`\pi /8\stackrel{>}{}\delta _1,\delta _2\stackrel{<}{}3\pi /8`$ (figure 8) there is no allowed region at all after using (9).

It is important to note that as a consequence of (9), the effect of $`CP`$ violation in all the neutrino-oscillation phenomena is much reduced since the $`CP`$ violating phase factors $`e^{\pm i\delta }`$ always occur in combination with $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$, as $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi e^{\pm i\delta }`$. Hence it is legitimate to compare with the results of analyses of solar and atmospheric neutrinos even though $`CP`$ violation is usually ignored in those analyses.

Analysis of solar neutrino data on the basis of the MSW effect  leads to the allowed $`\omega `$ values of either $`2^{}3^{}`$ or $`20^{}40^{}`$ for $`\varphi 12.5^{}`$. So comparing with the above result, we conclude that the result of the present analysis contradicts the small $`\omega `$ MSW solution ($`\omega 2^{}3^{}`$ ), but there exists some overlap with the large $`\omega `$ MSW solution ($`\omega 20^{}40^{}`$). Also there is no contradiction with the vaccuum oscillation as a solution of the solar neutrino problem since this also requires large $`\omega `$ . Finally there is no contradiction with the results of the atmospheric neutrino analysis  since this does not involve $`\omega `$.

So far we have used the information on $`m_\nu `$ from cosmology to get results on the mixing angles which were then compared with the results of reactor, solar and atmospheric neutrinos. In view of the uncertainties of cosmological models, one can ask what kind of information on the quasi-degenerate mass for Majorana neutrinos can be obtained from our analysis, if we drop the cosmological input completely. It is clear from our figure 5, that for the small $`\omega `$ MSW solution of the solar neutrino problem, we get an upper bound on $`m_\nu `$ of about 0.7 eV and we have checked that this upper bound becomes 4 eV for the large $`\omega `$ MSW solution.

The quantitative results of our analysis are contained in figures 1-8 in the form of restrictions in $`\omega `$ and $`\varphi `$. We may also state two qualitative conclusions that emerge from our analysis.

1. If neutrinos are Majorana fermions and $`CP`$ is conserved, all the three neutrinos cannot have same $`CP`$ parities. This conclusion (which perhaps is well-known and is included here only for the sake of completeness) may be important for model building.

2. If neutrinos are Majorana fermions, the mixing angle $`\omega `$ cannot be small. Hence, if the small $`\omega `$ solution turns out to be the only correct solution of the solar neutrino problem, then neutrinos cannot be Majorana fermions. This will have serious consequences for models intended to explain small neutrino masses.

The above results and conclusions are based on the present indications that the experiments on the neutrinoless double beta decay require $`m_{0\nu \beta \beta }`$ to be less than a fraction of an eV while models with neutrinos as the hot component of dark matter require $`m_\nu `$ to be higher than about 1 eV. The restrictions become more severe and the conclusions become stronger if the upper limit on $`m_{0\nu \beta \beta }`$ decreases  and/or $`m_\nu `$ increases.

After the first submission of our manuscript, we came across the papers of Georgi and Glashow  and of Branco, Rebelo and Silva-Marcos  whose contents have partial overlap with our work. Our analysis is more general than both these works in which $`\varphi `$ is put zero and further we have considered the $`CP`$-violating cases in detail.

Acknowledgment

We thank Raj Gandhi, Mohan Narayan and S. Uma Sankar for discussions and Sandip Pakvasa for a useful communication. We thank Rahul Sinha for an important discussion that clarified the role of $`CP`$ violation in neutrino oscillations.