# References

UCRHEP-T259

July 1999

Stability of Neutrino Mass Degeneracy   
Ernest Ma   
Department of Physics   
University of California   
Riverside, California 92521   

## Abstract

Two neutrinos of Majorana masses $`m_{1,2}`$ with mixing angle $`\theta `$ are unstable against radiative corrections in the limit $`m_1=m_2`$, but are stable for $`m_1=m_2`$ (i.e. opposite $`CP`$ eigenstates) with $`\theta =45^{}`$ which corresponds to an additional symmetry.

Pick two neutrinos, say $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$. Assume their mass eigenstates to be

$$\nu _1=\nu _e\mathrm{cos}\theta \nu _\mu \mathrm{sin}\theta ,\nu _2=\nu _e\mathrm{sin}\theta +\nu _\mu \mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(1)   
with eigenvalues $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ respectively. Neutrino oscillations may then occur if both $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=m_2^2m_1^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ are nonzero. However, it is entirely possible that the hierarchy

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2<<m_{1,2}^2$$
(2)   
actually exists, so that the smallness of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ for neutrino oscillations does not necessarily preclude a much larger common mass for the two neutrinos. In fact, this idea is often extended to all three neutrinos. On the other hand, since the charged-lepton masses are all different, radiative corrections to $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ will tend to change $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ as well as $`\theta `$. This is especially important for the vacuum oscillation solution to the observed solar neutrino deficit which requires $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^{10}`$ eV<sup>2</sup> and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 1`$. In the following I show that whereas the limit $`m_1=m_2`$ is unstable against radiative corrections, the limit $`m_1=m_2`$ and $`\theta =45^{}`$ is stable because it is protected by an additional symmetry. \[A negative mass here means that the corresponding Majorana neutrino is odd under $`CP`$ after a $`\gamma _5`$ rotation to remove the minus sign.\]

Consider the $`2\times 2`$ mass matrix spanning $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$:

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ B& C\end{array}\right).$$
(3)   
It has eigenvalues

$$m_{1,2}=\frac{1}{2}(C+A)\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(CA)^2+4B^2}$$
(4)   
where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`m_1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +m_2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,`$ (5)   
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`(m_2m_1)\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$ (6)   
$`C`$ $`=`$ $`m_1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +m_2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta .`$ (7)   
The mixing angle $`\theta `$ is related to $``$ according to

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta =\frac{2B}{(CA)+\sqrt{(CA)^2+4B^2}},$$
(8)   
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=(C+A)\sqrt{(CA)^2+4B^2}.$$
(9)   
In the above, I have used the convention $`m_2>|m_1|`$ and $`0\theta 45^{}`$.

With radiative corrections, the mass matrix is changed:

$$AA(1+2\delta _e),BB(1+\delta _e+\delta _\mu ),CC(1+2\delta _\mu ).$$
(10)   
If both $`e`$ and $`\mu `$ have only gauge interactions, then $`\delta _e=\delta _\mu `$ and $``$ is simply renormalized by an overall factor, resulting in

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{\Delta }m^2(1+2\delta )^2,$$
(11)   
and $`\mathrm{tan}\theta `$ is unchanged. However, because $`e`$ and $`\mu `$ have Yukawa interactions proportional to their masses, nontrivial changes do occur in $``$. Let

$$\delta =(\delta _\mu +\delta _e)/2,\mathrm{\Delta }\delta =\delta _\mu \delta _e,$$
(12)   
then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2[(m_2+m_1)(1+2\delta )+(m_2m_1)\mathrm{\Delta }\delta \mathrm{cos}2\theta ]D,$$
(13)   
and

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta \frac{(m_2m_1)\mathrm{sin}2\theta (1+2\delta )}{(m_2m_1)\mathrm{cos}2\theta (1+2\delta )+(m_2+m_1)\mathrm{\Delta }\delta +D},$$
(14)   
where

$$D=\sqrt{(m_2m_1)^2(1+2\delta )^2+2\mathrm{\Delta }m^2(1+2\delta )\mathrm{\Delta }\delta \mathrm{cos}2\theta +(m_2+m_1)^2(\mathrm{\Delta }\delta )^2}.$$
(15)   
There are two ways for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ to approach zero:

$$(1)m_2m_1<<m_2+m_1=2m,$$
(16)   
and

$$(2)m_2+m_1<<m_2m_1=2m.$$
(17)   
In Case (1),

$$D2m\sqrt{\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{4m^2}\right)^2+2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{4m^2}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\delta \mathrm{cos}2\theta +(\mathrm{\Delta }\delta )^2}.$$
(18)   
Hence if $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta >>\mathrm{\Delta }m^2/4m^2`$, then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^24m^2\mathrm{\Delta }\delta ,\mathrm{tan}\theta 0,$$
(19)   
i.e. this situation is unstable. Of course, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2/4m^2>>\mathrm{\Delta }\delta `$, there is no problem. For example, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^3`$ eV<sup>2</sup> for atmospheric neutrino oscillations and $`m1`$ eV, then this is easily satisfied. The model-independent contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta `$ from the renormalization of the neutrino wavefunctions is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\delta =\frac{G_F(m_\mu ^2m_e^2)}{16\pi ^2\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_W^2},$$
(20)   
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the scale at which the original mass matrix $``$ is defined. Other model-dependent contributions to the mass terms themselves may be of the same order. If $`m_\mu `$ is replaced by $`m_\tau `$ in Eq. (20), $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta `$ is of order 10<sup>-5</sup>. In that case, only the small-angle matter-enhanced solution to the solar neutrino deficit appears to be stable for $`m1`$ eV.

In Case (2),

$$D2m(1+2\delta )\left[1+\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{4m^2}\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\delta \mathrm{cos}2\theta }{(1+2\delta )}\right],$$
(21)   
hence

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{\Delta }m^2(1+2\delta )^2+4m^2\mathrm{\Delta }\delta \mathrm{cos}2\theta (1+2\delta ),$$
(22)   
and

$$\mathrm{tan}\theta \mathrm{tan}\theta \left[1\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{4m^2}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\delta \right].$$
(23)   
This means that $`\theta `$ is stable and that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is also stable if $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta 0`$, i.e. $`\theta 45^{}`$. More precisely, the condition

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\delta \mathrm{cos}2\theta <<\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{4m^2}$$
(24)   
is required.

Whereas the general form of $``$ given by Eq. (3) has no special symmetry for the entire theory, the limit $`m_1=m_2`$ and $`\theta =45^{}`$, i.e.

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& m\\ m& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(25)   
is a special case which allows the entire theory to have the additional global symmetry $`L_eL_\mu `$. Hence small deviations are protected against radiative corrections, as shown by Eqs.(22) and (23).

The zero $`\nu _e\nu _e`$ entry of Eq. (25) also has the well-known virtue of predicting an effective zero $`\nu _e`$ mass in neutrinoless double beta decay. This means that $`m`$ may be a few eV even though the above experimental upper limit is one order of magnitude less. Hence neutrinos could be candidates for hot dark matter in this scenario.

In conclusion, neutrino mass degeneracy is theoretically viable and phenomenologically desirable provided that $`m_1m_2`$ and $`\theta 45^{}`$.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I thank V. Berezinsky and J. W. F. Valle for discussions. This work was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-94ER40837.