text:
# Generalizations of Kijowski’s time-of-arrival distribution for interaction potentials

## I Introduction

In many experiments, the observed quantities are the instants of occurrence of certain events, or the durations of processes. However, the standard quantum formalism does not provide, at least in an obvious manner, a working rule for time observables. In spite of the difficulties and objections to consider time as a quantum observable (by Pauli , Allcock , and other authors), many researchers have sporadically tried to fill this theoretical lacuna. The effort in that direction has become more intense and systematic in recent years. In particular, much attention has been devoted to the quantum description of the “arrival time” , see  for a recent review. In its simplest form, the problem is to define an ideal quantum arrival time distribution for a wave packet moving freely in one dimension. By imposing a number of classically motivated conditions (normalization, positivity, minimum variance, and a certain symmetry with respect to the arrival point $`X`$) this is solved uniquely by Kijowski’s distribution . This distribution may also be associated with the positive operator valued measure (POVM) generated by the improper eigenstates of the time-of-arrival maximally symmetric operator of Aharonov and Bohm , $`\widehat{T}_{AB}`$,

$$\widehat{T}_{AB}=\frac{mX}{\widehat{p}}\frac{m}{2}\left(\widehat{x}\frac{1}{\widehat{p}}+\frac{1}{\widehat{p}}\widehat{x}\right),$$
(1)
where $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ are position and momentum operators and $`m`$ is the mass. Aside from the discussion of remaining interpretational puzzles, an important pending question is its generalization for particles affected by interaction potentials . However, Kijowski’s set of conditions cannot be applied in the general case , where, classically, not all particles necessarily arrive, or multiple arrivals may have to be considered. Neither can the simple symmetrization rule leading to $`\widehat{T}_{AB}`$ be used . Thus a generalization of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_K`$ required some novel approach and it is only very recently that some of them have been explored, following different heuristic and/or formal arguments. Their physical content must be analyzed in order to select one that does fit into the proposed objective (although several might be adequate). This is the aim of the present paper, where we shall examine three possible generalizations of Kijowski’s distribution. The unifying framework is provided by the concept of “crossing state” introduced in , and inspired by Wigner’s formalization of the time-energy uncertainty principle . In all the proposals examined here the (candidate) time-of-arrival distribution at point $`X`$ may be obtained from the overlap of the time dependent wave function and the crossing states $`|u^\beta (X)`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(T)=\underset{\beta }{}\mathrm{\Pi }^\beta (T)=\underset{\beta }{}|\psi (T)|u^\beta (X)|^2,$$
(2)
where $`\beta =L,R`$ is an index for “left” and “right”; its exact meaning will vary in the different generalizations. We shall use a unified notation that will differ in general from that of the original papers to facilitate the common presentation and comparison. Incidentally, all distributions defined in this manner are automatically covariant with respect to time translations, namely, the arrivals predicted for a given fixed instant are independent of the choice made for the origin of time .

## II Different crossing states

### A Free motion

Kijowski’s distribution is obtained from the general expression (2) with the following crossing states (their coordinate representation, time evolution, and wave packets peaked around them have been studied in ),

$$|u^\beta (X)_K=(|\widehat{p}|/m)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Theta }(\alpha \widehat{p})|X,$$
(3)
where

$$\alpha =\{\begin{array}{cc}+\hfill & \mathrm{if}\beta =L\hfill \\ \hfill & \mathrm{if}\beta =R\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
$`|\widehat{p}|^{1/2}`$ is defined by its action on plane waves,

$$|\widehat{p}|^{1/2}|p=|p|^{1/2}|p,$$
(5)
(the positive root is taken), and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the Heaviside distribution.

Now we can write Kijowski’s distribution in operator form as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_K(T)=\underset{\alpha }{}\psi (T)|\left[\mathrm{\Theta }(\alpha \widehat{p})(|\widehat{p}|/m)^{1/2}\delta (X\widehat{x})(|\widehat{p}|/m)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Theta }(\alpha \widehat{p})\right]|\psi (T).$$
(6)
Each of the operators in brackets (with $`\alpha =+`$ or $``$ respectively) corresponds classically, i.e., disregarding the lack of commutativity between $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$, to the classical dynamical variable

$$\delta (xX)\frac{\alpha p}{m}\mathrm{\Theta }(\alpha p),$$
(7)
whose average $`\mathrm{}._{cl}`$ over a classical phase space density gives the flux due to particles arriving from the left, $`J_{cl}^L`$, or minus the flux due to particles arriving from the right, $`J_{cl}^R`$ (which is a positive quantity, $`J_{cl}^R>0`$),

$$\alpha J_{cl}^\beta =\delta (xX)\frac{\alpha p}{m}\mathrm{\Theta }(\alpha p)_{cl},$$
(8)
in other words, the modulus of the flux of particles of the classical ensemble that arrive from one side at a given time . The addition of these two contributions is the classical time-of-arrival distribution,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{cl}(T)=J_{cl}^LJ_{cl}^R$$
(9)
### B Interacting case: first proposal

The previous discussion motivates the first generalization of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_K`$ considered here for independent particles affected by an arbitrary interaction potential. Since (9) is valid regardless of the presence of a potential, and the dynamical variables for the two flux contributions are always given by (7), it was proposed in  that the quantum time-of-arrival distribution in the general case be given by the same expression used in the free motion case, Eq. (6), and by the same crossing states, $`|u^\beta _1=|u^\beta _K`$, as they lead to operators in correspondence with the classical expression (7). In other words, the proposed distribution is given by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_1(T)=\underset{\beta }{}|\psi (T)|u^\beta _K|^2,$$
(10)
where now $`\psi `$ evolves with the full Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+\widehat{V}`$ which includes a kinetic term, $`\widehat{H}_0`$, and a potential term, $`\widehat{V}`$. We are thus extending to the quantum domain the fact that in classical mechanics the expressions for dynamical variables representing the partial fluxes do not vary from the free-motion case to the interacting case. Here, the state ($`\psi (T)`$ quantally, and the evolved phase space density classically), rather than the dynamical variable, contains the information which is specific to each particular Hamiltonian. At the very least, this generalization of Kijowski’s distribution has the merit of being simple, arguably the simplest one. Further properties were commented in the original paper . In particular, note that (10) need not be normalized, and in fact may be not normalizable, as may also be the case classically, e.g. because of periodic crossings in a harmonic potential. It can also be defined even if the system is not classically integrable.

### C Interacting case: second proposal

The other two definitions discussed here are applicable to “scattering potentials” where Möller operators exist,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\pm =\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}e^{i\widehat{H}t/\mathrm{}}e^{i\widehat{H}_0t/\mathrm{}}.$$
(11)
We shall assume that the potential operator $`\widehat{V}`$ has a local coordinate representation

$$x|\widehat{V}|x^{}=\delta (xx^{})V(x),$$
(12)
with potential function $`V(x)`$ vanishing at long distances from the interaction region so that the (strong) limits in Eq. (11) exist. As usual, we shall also consider, with the same notation, extensions of these Hilbert space operators that can be applied to plane waves,

$$|p_\pm =\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\pm |p|p+\underset{\epsilon 0^+}{lim}\frac{1}{E_p\pm i\epsilon \widehat{H}}\widehat{V}|p,E_p=p^2/2m.$$
(13)
The Lippmann-Schwinger states $`|p_\pm `$ are improper (not square integrable) eigenstates of $`\widehat{H}`$ with eigenvalue $`E_p`$. $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\pm `$ are in general only isometric, i.e., they conserve norm, but in the absence of bound states they become also unitary. We shall limit ourselves to this later case hereafter. The physical meaning of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\pm `$ is best understood with the aid of “asymptotic” incoming and outgoing states, $`\varphi _{in}`$ and $`\varphi _{out}`$, to which the actual state $`\psi `$ tends in a strong sense in the infinite past and future, respectively. These asymptotic states evolve freely, with $`\widehat{H}_0`$. Whereas $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_+`$ provides the scattering state by acting on the incoming asymptote, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}`$ does the same job acting on the outgoing one,

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_+|\varphi _{in}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`|\psi (t),`$ (14)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}|\varphi _{out}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`|\psi (t),`$ (15)
for all $`t`$.

Without bound states, the resolution of unity can be written equivalently as

$$\widehat{1}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p|pp|=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p|p_\pm p_\pm |,$$
(16)
and the Hamiltonians $`\widehat{H}_0`$ and $`\widehat{H}`$ may be related by the unitary transformation

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\pm \widehat{H}_0\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\pm ,$$
(17)
with a similar relation holding for functions of $`\widehat{H}_0`$ and $`\widehat{H}`$. This suggests using the crossing states

$$|u_\pm ^\beta (X)_2=\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\pm |u^\beta (X)_K.$$
(18)
Note the additional subscript in the crosssing state, $`+`$ or $``$, due to the possibility to act with either one of the two Möller operators on $`|u^\beta _K`$. Thus, this procedure generates two different distributions labelled by $`+`$ or $``$,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{2,\pm }=\underset{\beta }{}|\psi (T)|u_\pm ^\beta (X)_2|^2.$$
(19)
These distributions previously appeared in  (later superseded by ). It is important to notice that this is not the way in which the original distributions in  were presented; they have been adapted here to the unified notation we are using in order to achieve a better handle for comparison. Their physical content is made evident by making use of (14), (15), and the isometry of the Möller operators,

$`\psi (T)|\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_+|u^\beta (X)_K`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{in}(T)|\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_+|u^\beta (X)_K=\varphi _{in}(T)|u^\beta (X)_K,`$ (20)
$`\psi (T)|\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}|u^\beta (X)_K`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{out}(T)|\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}|u^\beta (X)_K=\varphi _{out}(T)|u^\beta (X)_K.`$ (21)
This means that the generated distributions, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2,+}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2,}`$ are nothing but the Kijowski distributions corresponding to the incoming and outgoing free-motion asymptotes, respectively. These may be useful objects before ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2,+}`$) and after ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2,}`$) the collision, but not in the midst of it.

### D Interacting case: Third proposal

A different, more complex proposal is based on the following crossing states,

$$|u_\pm ^\beta (X)_3=\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\pm \mathrm{\Theta }(\alpha \widehat{p})(|\widehat{p}|/m)^{1/2}\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\pm }^{}{}_{}{}^{}|X,$$
(22)
which lead again to two different distributions,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,\pm }(T)=\underset{\beta }{}|\psi (T)|u_\pm ^\beta (X)_3|^2.$$
(23)
These distributions were first introduced and discussed by León et al. in , as justified by quantization through quantum canonical transformations of the classical time of arrival (see also  for further analysis of this proposal). As previously stated, the rewriting in terms of crossing states is intended to clarify the physical consequences of these distributions. To analyze their meaning, let us first study the amplitudes corresponding to $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_+`$, by inserting $`\widehat{1}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_+`$, and rewriting them as

$$\psi (T)|\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_+\mathrm{\Theta }(\alpha \widehat{p})\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right]\left[\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_+(|\widehat{p}|/m)^{1/2}\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right]|X.$$
(24)
The operators involved have been separated in two brackets that can be interpreted physically. The first one is a projector that selects the part of a wave function that had positive ($`\alpha =+`$) or negative momentum ($`\alpha =`$) in the infinite past,

$$\widehat{F}_+^\beta \widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_+\mathrm{\Theta }(\alpha \widehat{p})\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=\alpha _0^\alpha \mathrm{}𝑑p|p_+p_+|;$$
(25)
the second group of operators is

$$(2\widehat{H}/m)^{1/4}m^{1/2}\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_+|\widehat{p}|^{1/2}\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑p|p_+(2E_p/m)^{1/4}p_+|,$$
(26)
where the positive root is taken. For the case in which the incoming asymptote is restricted to positive momenta,

$`\psi (T)|\widehat{F}_+^L`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (T)|,`$ (27)
$`\psi (T)|\widehat{F}_+^R`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (28)
so that the proposed distribution takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,+}(T)=\mathrm{\Pi }_3^L(T)=\psi (T)|(2\widehat{H}/m)^{1/4}\delta (\widehat{x}X)(2\widehat{H}/m)^{1/4}|\psi (T).$$
(29)
The resulting operator is a quantum symmetrization of the classical phase space dynamical variable

$$(2E/m)^{1/2}\delta (xX),$$
(30)
$`E`$ being the total energy, to be compared with the classical variables of the first generalization which lead to the positive and minus negative fluxes,

$`(|p|/m)\mathrm{\Theta }(p)\delta (xX),`$ (31)
$`(|p|/m)\mathrm{\Theta }(p)\delta (xX).`$ (32)
Note that, for an $`X`$ such that $`V(X)=0`$, the (classical) average of (30) is equal to the average of the sum of (31) and (32), i.e. to the time of arrival distribution,

$$(2E/m)^{1/2}\delta (xX)_{cl}=J_{cl}^LJ_{cl}^R,\mathrm{if}V(X)=0.$$
(33)
However, in the interaction region, it is in fact proportional to the local square root of the total energy. This may lead to significant differences with the actual time-of-arrival distribution, which classically is always given by $`J_{cl}^LJ_{cl}^R`$ irrespective of the value of $`V(X)`$. In particular, for a potential barrier such that the initial (asymptotic) momenta of the particles slow down on its top to a smaller value, (30) will overestimate the value of the true arrival time distribution, since for each trajectory the square root $`(2mE)^{1/2}`$ is used, instead of the smaller local momentum that determines the partial fluxes. Note also that the superscript $`L`$ in (29) does not make reference here to actual crossing from the left in the classical limit, but to motion from the left in the infinite past. In this respect, (30) equally counts right or left crossings at a given time.

A similar analysis may be carried out for a state with incoming asymptote in the subspace of negative momenta. Thus, for an arbitrary initial state with positive and negative momentum components, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,+}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,+}^L+\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,+}^R`$ provides a quantum version of the distribution that corresponds to the classical dynamical variable (30). Repeating the same steps with $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,}^\beta `$ may be interpreted as the quantum versions of the classical distributions of (30) for particles that will have positive or negative momenta in the infinite future.

## III Numerical example

We shall illustrate the results of the previous section with the collision of a wave packet for a particle of mass $`m=1`$ with a square barrier. The initial state (at $`t=0`$) is chosen as a minimum-uncertainty-product Gaussian with negligible negative momentum components. Its average position, average momentum, and standard deviation are for the first four figures, in atomic units,

$$\widehat{x}=6,\widehat{p}=6,\mathrm{\Delta }x=1,$$
(34)
whereas the barrier energy, initial and final points are

$$V_0=10,x_i=0,x_f=10.$$
(35)
With these parameters the barrier is rather opaque. This prevents tunneling and makes the collision predominantly classical. The figures combine variously the different distributions, their components, and the flux for the three points, $`X=2,5,12`$, corresponding to positions before, in, and after the barrier respectively. The evaluation of the integrals requires explicit representations of the states $`|p_\pm `$ that can be found elsewhere .

Fig. 1 represents Kijowski’s distribution for the case in which the wave packet evolves freely, without interaction with the barrier, as well as $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2,+}`$ in the interacting case. Since the fraction of negative momenta in the initial state is negligible, it may be considered essentially equal to the corresponding incoming asymptotic state for the numerical accuracy of the figures. Thus $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2,+}`$ (or $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2,+}^L`$) and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_K`$ are indistinguishable for the three values of $`X`$.

Fig. 2 shows $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2,}^L`$ and the flux $`J`$, before, in, and after the barrier, which is now present. They coincide after the barrier, for $`X=12`$, but differ otherwise. This is to be expected since $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2,}^L`$ is a free-motion Kijowski distribution for the positive momentum part of the outgoing asymptotic state.

At $`X=2`$, where the potential vanishes, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,+}`$ are in essential agreement, see Fig. 3. The second, smaller bump corresponds to the period of negative flux due to a small reflection. This smaller bump is due to a contribution of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1^R`$ only, with no contribution from $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1^L`$, since this negative flux is associated with crossing from the right. However, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,+}^L`$ alone (which in the figure is indistinguishable from the total $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,+}`$) provides incident and reflected bumps even though they are associated with different crossing directions. Recall in this respect that the superscript $`L`$ in $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,+}^L`$ means “motion from the left (positive momentum) in the infinite past”. (The reflected part will be seen in more detail in a different collision described in Fig. 5 below.) The difference $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1^L\mathrm{\Pi }_1^R`$ has also been depicted; note its agreement with the flux.

At $`X=12`$ there is only transmission and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,+}`$ and $`J`$ are indistinguishable. However, for $`X=5`$, i.e. in the barrier, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,+}`$ is clearly larger than $`J`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$, which essentially coincide, see Fig. 4. A simple estimate of the ratio between the peaks follows from the classical limit discussed in the previous section: $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ must be to a good approximation proportional to an average local momentum; with the current parameters this entails $`[2(1810)]^{1/2}=4`$. It is important to notice that the relevant quantity is the total energy (taken as $`18`$ from the initial value of the momentum) minus the potential barrier energy. On the other hand, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,+}`$ is proportional to the square root of the total energy, $`(2\times 18)^{1/2}=6`$. The ratio of the two peaks in the figure is indeed 6:4.

As a complement to Figure 3, we have lowered the average momentum of the initial wave packet to $`\widehat{p}=3`$, while keeping $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=1`$, so that the whole packet is now reflected. We evaluate $`J`$ and all distributions at $`x=5`$ for an initial average position $`\widehat{x}=9`$. The flux, as portrayed in Fig. 5, shows clearly a positive part during the incidence and a negative part corresponding to reflection. Since several combinantions of the different distributions and their components match with adequately the two bumps of $`|J|`$ or just one of those, we have in fact only represented $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,+}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,+}^L`$, with a dashed line. $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ is barely distinguishable from it. The incidence bump on the left is also reproduced by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2,+}`$, or by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1^L`$, whereas the reflection bump is reproduced by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{2,}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1^R`$.

## IV Conclusion

We have examined three different generalizations for Kijowski’s time-of-arrival distribution in the interacting case, both formally and numerically. This exam has yielded the result that, among these three, there is only one, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$, in fact the simplest, that satisfies the correspondence principle in the sense of recovering the classical expression for the time of arrival when the effects of non-commutativity of the operators involved may be neglected. The other two proposals provide the correct classical limit in certain cases, but not in general. The numerical analysis of these distributions supports these formal considerations.

In order to make an adequate comparison between these three proposals, it has proved convenient to write them in the unified formalism of the “crossing states”. The formalism itself suggests further generalizations, by considering alternative crossing states. An open question is whether the crossing state formalism is indeed the most adequate one for the description of times of arrival, or whether other presentations are more suitable. What is assured is both that the crossing state formalism guarantees covariance and positivity, and its power for comparing widely diverging previous proposals, this being a property that we would expect to hold more generally.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to Juan León, Jaime Julve, and Fernando de Urríes for comments and for checking independently the numerical results for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{3,+}`$. This work has been supported by Ministerio de Educación y Cultura (Grants PB97-1482 and AEN99-0315), The University of the Basque Country (Grant UPV 063.310-EB187/98), and the Basque Government (Grant PI-1999-28). A. D. Baute acknowledges an FPI fellowship by Ministerio de Educación y Cultura.


format: text

text:
# 1 Photoemission from Stripe Arrays

## 1 Photoemission from Stripe Arrays

Generically, any phase separation model of stripes has three characteristic features: (i) termination of the stripe phase at some finite doping, $`x_0`$; (ii) a crossover at a lower doping, $`x_{cr}x_0/2`$ from magnetic-dominated ($`x<x_{cr}`$) to charge-dominated ($`x>x_{cr}`$) stripe arrays; (iii) some interaction on the charged stripes which stabilizes the particular doping $`x_0`$. Recent evidence suggests that the stripes and pseudogap terminate at the same doping, while superconductivity persists?. A consistent picture yields $`x_00.25`$, so the crossover can be identified with the 1/8 anomaly, where both charged and magnetic stripes have their minimal width (2 Cu atoms). Then, at optimal doping in, e.g., YBa2Cu3O7-δ (YBCO), $`x_{opt}=16/19\times 0.25=0.21`$?, while the width of the charged stripes $`N`$ satisfies $`N/(N+2)=16/19`$, or $`N=32/310`$ Cu wide.

Hence, models of isolated quasi-one-dimensional charged stripes are likely to be valid only in the far underdoped regime. To study the doping dependence of stripes, and particularly of the wider stripes present near optimal doping, we developed a model of ordered stripe arrays (tight-binding calculations including Coulomb charging effects) and applied it to the study of photoemission (PE)?. (Earlier studies of the effects of stripes on PE?,? were limited to a single doping.) We found (1) the PE consists of separate components for the magnetic stripes (upper and lower Hubbard bands) and charged stripes (filling in midgap states with doping); (2) the charged stripe PE consists of several subbands associated with quantum size effects (QSE) on the finite width stripes. The two PE components are clearly resolved in La2-xSrxCuO4 (LSCO)? and constitute the peak (charged stripes) and hump (magnetic stripes) features in superconducting Ba2Sr2CaCu2O8 (BSCCO). The main difference between the two materials is that the lower Hubbard band in BSCCO is considerably closer to the Fermi level, presumably an effect of stronger stripe fluctuations. The doping dependence of the QSE is consistent with that of the pseudogap, while the intensity of the peak feature is found?,? to scale with doping $`x`$, maximizing at the point where the stripe phase terminates, confirming that the peak is a property of the charged stripes. A map of the intensity distribution near the Fermi level, Fig. 1 is in qualitatively good agreement with experiment?.

## 2 Nature of Charged Stripes

For the stripe phase to exist, the doping $`x_0`$ must be particularly stable. This can arise via an electronic instability, which opens up a gap over much of the Fermi surface, making the electronic phase nearly incompressible. This ‘Stability from Instability’ is a fairly general feature, underlying, e.g., Hume-Rothery alloys?. \[This is a modification of an argument due to Anderson?.\] Here, we explore a number of candidates for the predominant electronic instability. To simplify the calculation, we note that the PE from the charged stripes in an array is well modelled by the PE from an isolated charged ladder of the same width, Fig. 2. \[Note from the dos that the Van Hove singularity remains well defined on a stripe.\] Hence, we need only study instabilities on ladders.

We explored the competition between a charge-density wave (CDW) and d-wave superconductivity on a ladder in a weak coupling calculation similar to Ref. ?,?. For wide stripes, the bulk results are recovered. As the stripe width decreases, quantum confinement rapidly eliminates the CDW gap, by $`N8`$. Superconductivity is less affected, but is still suppressed by $`N=2`$. \[If the doping on the stripe were not fixed, there would be a large superconducting gap when the Fermi level coincides with the one-dimensional VHS of a stripe subband.\]

Strong correlations can be included by incorporating some kind of spin ordering on the stripes. At the mean-field level, we have found a low-energy, phase separated solution to the Hubbard model? which closely resembles a White-Scalapino (WS) stripe?. In a one-band Hubbard model with mean-field magnetization $`m_q`$, the quasiparticle dispersion is

$$E_\pm =\frac{ϵ_k+ϵ_{k+q}}{2}\pm \sqrt{(\frac{ϵ_kϵ_{k+q}}{2})^2+U^2m_q^2},$$
(1)
with

$$ϵ_k=2t(c_x+c_y)4t^{}c_xc_y,$$
(2)
and $`c_i=\mathrm{cos}k_ia`$. For the cuprates, we expect? $`t325meV`$, $`U/t6`$ and $`t^{}/t0.276`$. For $`q`$ = $`\stackrel{}{Q}(\pi ,\pi )`$, this is the dispersion we assumed for the antiferromagnetic (AFM) stripes. A linear antiferromagnetic (LAF) phase arises when $`q`$ = $`(\pi ,0)`$; in general its properties closely resemble those of the WS stripes. For instance, 2-Cu wide LAF stripes act as antiphase boundaries for AFM stripes, a finite $`t^{}`$ destabilizes the LAF phase, and the hole doping on an LAF stripe is close to that on a WS stripe?. The Fermi surfaces for AFM-LAF stripe arrays are even closer to experiment? than those of Fig. 1.

Ordered phases are much more stable on LAF ladders. For instance, near $`x=0.5`$ there is a CDW phase stabilized by near neighbor Coulomb repulsion $`V`$, which is highly stable, essentially independent of ladder width. For this strongly correlated CDW, the hole density varies from $`0`$ to 1, not 2, Fig. 3. An attractive $`V`$ can stabilize a d-wave-like superconductor on a ladder, with an anisotropic gap Fig. 4 which actually increases for the narrowest stripes. The optimum superconducting gap corresponds to the Fermi level at the LAF saddle point.

## 3 Chemical Potential Shifts in a Stripe Phase

While stripes persist up to $`x_0=0.25`$ in LSCO, the chemical potential is independent of doping? only between half filling ($`x=0`$) and $`x=0.125`$, Fig. 5a. Actually, the same anomaly is found in La2-xSrxNiO4 (LSNO)?, Fig. 5b, which has long-range charge order up to at least $`x=0.5`$, although $`\mu (x)`$ is constant only up to $`x_c=0.33`$. By rescaling the LSNO $`x_c`$ to that of the cuprates (circles in Fig. 5a), it can be seen that the dependence $`\mu (x/x_c)`$ is quite similar in the two compounds. This also suggests an explanation: the break in slope for $`\mu `$ above $`x_c`$ is associated with commensurability effects. Each commensurate configuration has a well defined Madelung energy due to charge inhomogeneity. Between two commensurate configurations this charging energy changes linearly with doping (the intermediate states are presumed to be mixtures of the commensurate phases), but crossing over a commensurate phase leads to a different mixed phase, and a change in slope of the charging energy. In a layered compound, this charging energy contributes to the chemical potential of the layer involved. Thus, in the nickelates, the break is near 1/3 doping, and the 1/3 stripes are found to be stable over an extended doping range. In the cuprates, a similar effect at 1/8 is very plausible, since the charging energy is minimized at that doping?. In fact, we can estimate the charging energy, since this Coulomb interaction also raises the chemical potential of the charged stripes with respect to the magnetic stripes, as found in our earlier calculation?. These two charging effects should be proportional. The diamonds in Fig. 5a plot the calculated? band-edge shift of the charged stripes with respect to the magnetic stripes, showing a reasonable agreement with the CuO2 plane chemical potential shift.

Acknowledgements

These computations were carried out using the facilities of the Advanced Scientific Computation Center at Northesatern University (NU-ASCC). Their support is gratefully acknowledged. We thank M.A.H. Vozmediano and Z.-X. Shen for stimulating conversations. Publication 788 of the Barnett Institute.

References


text:
# A New Fit to Solar Neutrino Data in Models with Large Extra Dimensions

## I Introduction

At present there appear to be three classes of experiments that provide evidence for neutrino oscillations: solar neutrino searches, atmospheric neutrino data and an accelerator search for oscillations by the LSND experiment. A simultaneous understanding of all these data seems to require the existence of an ultralight neutrino (beyond the three known ones: $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$), which must be sterile with respect to weak interactions. Within this four-neutrino scheme, the solar $`\nu _e`$ deficit is explained by $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ (where $`\nu _s`$ is a sterile neutrino), the atmospheric $`\nu _\mu /\nu _e`$ anomaly is attributed to $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$, and the LSND results are explained by the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillation predicted in the model. The heavier near-degenerate $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ are required by the LSND results to be in the eV range and can therefore share the role of hot dark matter. Exactly this same pattern of neutrino masses and mixings appears necessary to allow production of heavy elements (A $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ 100) by type II supernovae . While qualitatively this neutrino scheme seems to explain all existing neutrino phenomena, solar neutrino observations are now sufficiently constraining that the small-angle MSW $`\nu _e\nu _s`$ explanation appears to be in some difficulty, and seemingly one must go to some length  in order to try to rescue this scheme. Although providing better fits to the solar data, even active-active transitions in a three-neutrino scheme do not give a quantitatively good explanation of all those data. The theoretical and phenomenological challenge then is to find a scheme which has an ultralight sterile neutrino and at the same time provides a fit to the solar neutrino data.

Recently, motivated by string inspired brane models with large extra dimensions, we pointed out that there appears to be a way to achieve an excellent fit and rescue the apparently needed four-neutrino scheme by including a singlet, sterile neutrino in the bulk. The method provides nearly maximal $`\nu _e`$ vacuum oscillation with the lightest pair of KK modes, and also has MSW transitions to several of the other modes. We also pointed out that the model has its characteristic predictions for the $`\nu _e`$ survival probability and can be tested as new solar neutrino data on the neutrino energy distribution accumulates. It is the goal of this paper to elaborate on this proposal and discuss theoretical schemes that can lead to the desired parameters for the neutrinos.

In section II we discuss the examples of brane-bulk models which lead to light neutrinos and the questions of naturalness of an ultralight sterile neutrino; in sections III and IV we consider two examples of models which have neutrino spectra desirable from the point of view of understanding neutrino data. In section V, we provide a fit to solar neutrino observations in the context of these models, taking matter effects into account exactly. We present our predictions for the recoil energy distribution for the Super-K data and annual variation of the flux. In section VI we summarize our conclusions. In Appendices A, B we provide some more details on the TeV scale as well as the local B-L models, and in Appendix C we comment further on the naturalness of ultralight sterile neutrinos in bulk-brane models.

## II Neutrino masses in models with large extra dimensions

One of the important predictions of string theories is the existence of more than three space dimensions. For a long time, it was believed that these extra dimensions are small and are therefore practically inconsequential as far as low energy physics is concerned. However, recent progress in the understanding of the nonperturbative aspects of string theories have opened up the possibility that some of these extra dimensions could be large without contradicting observations. In particular, models where some of the extra dimensions have sizes as large as a millimeter and where the string scale is in the few TeV range have attracted a great deal of phenomenological attention in the past two years. The basic assumption of these models, inspired by the D-branes in string theories, is that the space-time has a brane-bulk structure, where the brane is the familiar (3+1) dimensional space-time, with the standard model particles and forces residing in it, and the bulk consists of all space dimensions where gravity and other possible gauge singlet particles live. One could of course envision (3+d+1) dimensional D-branes where d-space dimensions have miniscule ($`TeV^1`$) size. The main interest in these models has been due to the fact that the low string scale provides an opportunity to test them using existing collider facilities.

A major challenge to these theories comes from the neutrino sector, the first problem being how one understands the small neutrino masses in a natural manner. The conventional seesaw explanation which is believed to provide the most satisfactory way to understand this, requires that the new physics scale (or the scale of $`SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{BL}`$ symmetry) be around $`10^9`$ to $`10^{12}`$ GeV or higher, depending on the Dirac masses of the neutrinos whose magnitudes are not known. If the highest scale of the theory is a TeV, clearly the seesaw mechanism does not work, so one must look for alternatives. The second problem is that if one considers only the standard model group in the brane, operators such as $`LHLH/M_{}`$ could be induced by string theory in the low energy effective Lagrangian. For TeV scale strings this would obviously lead to unacceptable neutrino masses.

One mechanism suggested in Ref. is to postulate the existence of one or more gauge singlet neutrinos, $`\nu _B`$, in the bulk which couple to the lepton doublets in the brane. After electroweak symmetry breaking, this coupling can lead to neutrino Dirac masses, which are suppressed by the ratio $`M_{}/M_P\mathrm{}`$, where $`M_P\mathrm{}`$ is the Planck mass and $`M_{}`$ is the string scale. This is sufficient to explain small neutrino masses and owes its origin to the large bulk volume that suppresses the effective Yukawa couplings of the Kaluza-Klein (KK) modes of the bulk neutrino to the brane fields. In this class of models, naturalness of small neutrino mass requires that one must assume the existence of a global B-L symmetry in the theory, since that will exclude the undesirable higher dimensional operators from the theory.

An alternative possibility is to consider the brane theory to have an extended gauge symmetry which contains B-L symmetry as a subgroup. Phenomenological considerations, however, require that the local $`BL`$ scale and hence the string scale be of order of $`10^9`$ GeV or so. The extra dimensions in these models could also be large. Indeed, it is interesting that if there were only one large extra dimension, R (and all small extra dimensions are $`M_{}^1`$), the formula

$`M_P\mathrm{}^2M_{}^3R`$ (1)
leads to $`M_{}10^9`$ GeV if R$``$ mm. While in these models, there is no strict need to introduce the bulk neutrinos to understand the small masses of known neutrinos, if we wanted to include the sterile neutrinos, one must add the $`\nu _B`$. The high scale models may also have certain other advantages which we will see as we proceed.

Regardless of which path one chooses for understanding small neutrino masses, a very desirable feature of these models is that if the size of extra dimensions is of order a millimeter, the KK excitations of the bulk neutrino have masses of order $`10^3`$ eV, which is in the range needed for a unified understanding of oscillation data, as already noted.

## III TeV scale models

To discuss the mechanisms in a concrete setting, let us first focus on TeV scale models. Here, one postulates a bulk neutrino, which is a singlet under the electroweak gauge group. Let us denote the bulk neutrino by $`\nu _B(x^\mu ,y)`$. The bulk neutrino is represented by a four-component spinor and can be split into two chiral Weyl 2-component spinors as $`\nu _B^T=(\chi ^T,i\varphi ^{}\sigma _2)`$. The 2-component spinors $`\chi `$ and $`\varphi `$ can be decomposed in terms of 4-dimensional Fourier components as follows:

$`\chi (x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2R}}}\chi _{+,0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{R}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(\chi _{+,n}cos{\displaystyle \frac{n\pi y}{R}}+i\chi _{,n}sin{\displaystyle \frac{n\pi y}{R}}\right).`$ (2)
There is a similar expression for $`\varphi `$. It has a five dimensional kinetic energy term and a coupling to the brane field $`L(x^\mu )`$. The full Lagrangian involving the $`\nu _B`$ is

$$=i\overline{\nu }_B\gamma _\mu ^\mu \nu _B+\kappa \overline{L}H\nu _{BR}(x,y=0)+i𝑑y\overline{\nu }_{BL}(x,y)_5\nu _{BR}(x,y)+h.c.,$$
(3)
where $`H`$ denotes the Higgs doublet, and $`\kappa =h\frac{M_{}}{M_P\mathrm{}}`$ is the suppressed Yukawa coupling. This leads to a Dirac mass for the neutrino given by:

$`m={\displaystyle \frac{hv_{wk}M_{}}{M_P\mathrm{}}},`$ (4)
where $`v_{wk}`$ is the scale of $`SU(2)_L`$ breaking. In terms of the 2-component fields, the mass term coming from the fifth component of the kinetic energy connects the fields $`\chi _+`$ with $`\varphi _{}`$ and $`\chi _{}`$ with $`\varphi _+`$, whereas it is only the $`\varphi _+`$ (or $`\nu _{B,R,+}`$) which couples to the brane neutrino $`\nu _{e,L}`$. Thus as far as the standard model particles and forces go, the fields $`\varphi _{}`$ and $`\chi _+`$ are totally decoupled, and we will not consider them here. The mass matrix that we will write below therefore connects only $`\nu _{eL}`$, $`\varphi _{+,n}`$ and $`\chi _{,n}`$.

From Eq. 4, we conclude that for $`M_{}10`$ TeV, this leads to $`m10^4h`$ eV. It is encouraging that this number is in the right range to be of interest in the discussion of solar neutrino oscillation if the Yukawa coupling $`h`$ is appropriately chosen. Furthermore, this neutrino is mixed with all the KK modes of the bulk neutrino, with a mixing mass $`\sqrt{2}m`$; since the nth KK mode has a mass $`nR^1n\mu `$, the mixing angle is given by $`\sqrt{2}mR/n`$. Note that for $`R0.1mm`$, this mixing angle is of the right order to be important in MSW transitions of solar neutrinos.

It is worth pointing out that this suppression of $`m`$ is independent of the number and radius hierarchy of the extra dimensions, provided that our bulk neutrino propagates in the whole bulk. For simplicity, we will assume that there is only one extra dimension with radius of compactification as large as a millimeter, and the rest with much smaller compactification radii. The smaller dimensions will only contribute to the relationship between the Planck and the string scale, but their KK excitations will be very heavy and decouple from the neutrino spectrum. Thus, all the analysis can be done as in five dimensions.

In order to make this model applicable to resolving the observed oscillation phenomena, we have to extend the model as has been noted in . Even if one wanted to understand the solar neutrino oscillation using this picture, one would have difficulty fitting all the rates in Gallium, Chlorine and the water Cherenkov data while simultaneously explaining the recoil energy distribution in the Super-Kamiokande data.

One way to do this would be to include new physics in the brane. We parameterize this in terms of an effective Majorana neutrino mass matrix in the brane:

$`=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\delta _{ee}& \delta _{e\mu }& \delta _{e\tau }\\ \delta _{e\mu }& \delta _{\mu \mu }& m_0\\ \delta _{e\tau }& m_0& \delta _{\tau \tau }\end{array}\right).`$ (8)
The origin of this pattern of brane neutrino masses will be discussed in Appendix A. In this section we concentrate on the effect of this matrix on the mixing of the bulk neutrinos with the brane ones. For this we will assume that $`m_0\delta _{ij}`$; as a result, the $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ decouple and do not affect the mixing between the bulk neutrino modes and the $`\nu _e`$, and in the subsequent analysis we consider the remaining modes. Their mass matrix in the basis $`(\nu _e,\nu _{BR,+}^{(0)},\nu _{BL,}^{(1)},\nu _{BR,+}^{(1)},\nu _{BL,}^{(2)},\nu _{BR,+}^{(2)},)`$ is given by:

$`=_{TeV}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}\delta _{ee}& m& 0& \sqrt{2}m& 0& \sqrt{2}m& & \\ m& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& & \\ 0& 0& 0& \mu & 0& 0& & \\ \sqrt{2}m& 0& \mu & 0& 0& 0& & \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 2\mu & & \\ \sqrt{2}m& 0& 0& 0& 2\mu & 0& & \\ & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & \end{array}\right).`$ (17)
One can evaluate the eigenvalues and the eigenstates of this matrix. The former are the solutions of the transcendental equation:

$`m_n=\delta _{ee}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi m^2}{\mu }}cot\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi m_n}{\mu }}\right).`$ (18)
The equation for eigenstates is

$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_n}}\left[\nu _e+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{m_n}}\nu _{B,+}^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\sqrt{2}m\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_n}{m_n^2k^2\mu ^2}}\nu _{B,}^{(k)}+{\displaystyle \frac{k\mu }{m_n^2k^2\mu ^2}}\nu _{B,+}^{(k)}\right)\right],`$ (19)
where we have used the notation $`\pm `$ for the left- and right-handed parts of the KK modes of the bulk neutrino in the two-component notation and dropped the $`L,R`$ subscripts, the sum over $`k`$ runs through the KK modes, and $`N_n`$ is the normalization factor given by

$$N_n^2=1+m^2\pi ^2R^2+\frac{(m_n\delta _{ee})^2}{m^2}.$$
(20)
From Eq. 18 we see that there are two eigenvalues $`m_\pm `$ near $`m`$ when $`\delta _{ee}m\mu `$, and these are given by $`m_\pm \frac{\delta _{ee}}{2}\pm m`$. These are the lowest two levels, and their mass difference square is given by $`2m\delta _{ee}`$ eV2. From Eq. 19, we see that they are maximally mixed. Therefore, if $`\delta _{ee}10^7`$ eV, then the transition between these levels can lead to vacuum oscillation (“VO”) of the solar neutrinos. This will be one of the ingredients of our new solution, as we see below.

## IV Local $`BL`$ symmetry models:

A second way to achieve the same phenomenology is possible using a much higher string scale. In this class of models , one postulates that the theory in the brane is left-right symmetric so that it contains the B-L as a local symmetry. The gauge group of the model is $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{BL}`$ with field content for leptons given by left and right doublets $`\psi _{L,R}(\nu ,\mathrm{})_{L,R}`$ and in the Higgs sector bidoublet $`\varphi =(2,2,0)`$, doublets $`\chi _{L,R}`$. As in the previous case we choose a single bulk neutrino. We then impose the following $`Z_2`$ symmetry on the Lagrangian under which $`\chi _L\chi _L`$, $`\nu _{B,R}\nu _{B,R}`$ and all other fields are invariant. Note that under this symmetry, the 5th coordinate $`yy`$. The invariant Lagrangian is

$`=h_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\psi _R\chi _R)^2+(\psi _L\chi _L)^2}{M_{}}}+\overline{\psi }_L\varphi \psi _R+{\displaystyle \frac{f}{M_{}^{1/2}}}[\overline{\psi }_{eR}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_R+\overline{\psi }_{eL}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_L]\nu _B(x,y=0)`$ (21)
$`+i{\displaystyle 𝑑y\overline{\nu }_{BL}(x,y)_5\nu _{BR}(x,y)}+h.c.,`$ (22)
where $`f`$ and $`h_{\mathrm{}}`$ are Yukawa couplings and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{L,R}=i\tau _2\chi _{L,R}^{}`$. We then break the right-handed symmetry with $`\chi _R^0=v_R`$, while at the same time keeping $`\chi _L=0`$. We expect $`v_R`$ to be of order of the string scale, $`M_{}`$. The Lagrangian involving the electron neutrino and the bulk neutrinos then becomes

$`=f{\displaystyle \frac{v_R^2}{M_{}}}\nu _R\nu _R+m\overline{\nu }_{eL}\nu _{eR}+\alpha \overline{\nu }_{eR}\nu _{BL}(x,y=0)+i{\displaystyle 𝑑y\overline{\nu }_{BL}(x,y)_5\nu _{BR}(x,y)}+h.c.,`$ (23)
where $`\alpha \frac{h_{\mathrm{}}M_{}v_R}{M_P\mathrm{}}`$ and $`m=h_{\mathrm{}}v_{wk}`$. In this section we discuss only the $`\nu _e\nu _B`$ sector and address the full three generation mixing in Appendix B. In what follows, the Majorana mass of the $`\nu _R`$ is denoted by $`M`$, i.e., $`M=f\frac{v_R^2}{M_{}}`$. This leads to the mass matrix of Eq. 32 which mixes the brane neutrinos with the KK modes of $`\nu _B`$. For $`\chi _R^0=v_R\varphi ,\mu `$, which we assume, $`\nu _{eR}`$ has a Majorana mass, $`M`$, which is much bigger than any other masses in the theory (ignoring real superheavy KK modes), and $`\nu _{eR}`$ decouples. One can then write an effective Lagrangian at low energies (i.e., $`Ev_R`$) using the seesaw mechanism. The effective mass matrix for the light modes can be written down using the same notation for the KK modes of $`\nu _B`$ as in the previous section. In the basis $`(\nu _{eL},\nu _{BL,+}^{(0)},\nu _{BL,+}^{(1)},\nu _{BR,}^{(1)},\nu _{BL,+}^{(2)},\nu _{BR,}^{(2)},,)`$ it is given by:

$`=_{BL}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}m^2& \alpha m& \sqrt{2}m\alpha & 0& \sqrt{2}m\alpha & 0& & \\ \alpha m& \alpha ^2& \sqrt{2}\alpha ^2& 0& \sqrt{2}\alpha ^2& 0& & \\ \sqrt{2}\alpha m& \sqrt{2}\alpha ^2& 2\alpha ^2& M\mu & 2\alpha ^2& 0& & \\ 0& 0& M\mu & 0& 0& 0& & \\ \sqrt{2}\alpha m& \sqrt{2}\alpha ^2& 2\alpha ^2& 0& 2\alpha ^2& 2M\mu & & \\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 2M\mu & 0& & \\ & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & \end{array}\right).`$ (32)
It is easy to see that the lowest eigenvalue of this matrix is zero. The transcendental equation describing the rest of the eigenvalues is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi m_n}{\mu }}cot{\displaystyle \frac{\pi m_n}{\mu }}=m_n.`$ (33)
The next lowest eigenvalue solution of this equation is $`m_1\frac{m^2+\alpha ^2}{M}`$. For $`m,\alpha 15`$ MeV (similar to the first generation fermion mass) and $`M10^9`$ GeV, we get this eigenvalue to be of order $`10^62.5\times 10^5`$ eV. Its square is therefore in the range where the VO solution to the solar neutrino puzzle can be applied. Also for $`m\alpha `$, the mixing angle between the zero eigenvalue mode and this mode is maximal.

In the diagonalization, we have ignored the radiative corrections that allow us to extrapolate to the weak scale the above mass matrix which is valid at the string scale. Going to the weak scale, $`M_Z`$ $`=`$ mass of the $`Z^0`$ meson, there are two kinds of contributions that dominate the radiative corrections: one arising from the top quark coupling to the standard model Higgs doublet in the effective $`LHLH`$ operator induced by the seesaw mechanism, and a second one which can arise from self couplings of the Higgs fields (for the nonsupersymmetric version of the model). The top quark contribution replaces the parameter $`m`$ in the matrix in Eq. 32 by $`m\left(1+\frac{6h_t^2}{16\pi ^2}ln(M_{}/M_Z)\right)`$ in the off-diagonal terms, whereas the self-scalar coupling contributes only to the $`m^2`$ term. Thus the $`m^2`$ term in Eq. 32 is replaced by $`m^2\left(1+\frac{6h_t^2}{16\pi ^2}ln(M_{}/M_Z)+\frac{2\lambda }{16\pi ^2}ln(M_{}/M_Z)\right)^2`$. (This expression will have more terms involving extra scalar self couplings if there is more than one Higgs doublet in the low energy theory). Let us denote the rest of the radiative corrections by $`ϵ`$ in the $`m^2`$ term and $`ϵ^{}`$ in the off-diagonal ones. Such radiative corrections could come from one loop contributions at the scale $`M`$ itself. The magnitude of the radiative corrections also could increase if the low energy theory below $`M_{}`$ has more than one Higgs doublet, as noted. It is therefore not implausible to assume that the radiative corrections are significant. With redefinition of the off-diagonal $`m`$ terms, $``$ takes the same form as in Eq. 32, except the $`m^2`$ term is replaced with $`m^2+\mathrm{\Delta }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(m^2/16\pi ^2)(24h_t^2\lambda +4\lambda ^2+ϵϵ^{})ln(M_{}/M_Z)`$. The characteristic equation for the $`m_n`$ becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m^2+\mathrm{\Delta }}{M}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\pi (m_n\mathrm{\Delta }/M)}{M\mu }}cot{\displaystyle \frac{\pi m_n}{\mu }}=m_n.`$ (34)
It is now easy to see that if $`\mathrm{\Delta }<<(\alpha ^2+m^2)`$, the zero eigenvalue is replaced by $`\frac{\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Delta }}{M(\alpha ^2+m^2)}`$. Clearly, we want $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ closer to $`m^2,\alpha ^2`$ to obtain our desired parameters. For this purpose, we choose parameters $`\lambda `$ and the other radiative corrections (i.e., $`ϵ,ϵ^{}`$) appropriately, so that the two lowest eigenvalues are of almost equal magnitude, and the parameters of the next section can be reproduced. This situation can be realized more easily if the theory is nonsupersymmetric all the way to the string scale. If there is supersymmetry all the way down to the TeV scale, then the scalar self coupling contributions “kick” in only below $`M_{SUSY}`$ and one has to stretch parameters and perhaps require a two-Higgs doublet model below the SUSY scale to realize the parameters used below.

Let us now turn to the determination of the mixing angles. For this we need the explicit form of the eigenvector $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ for the n-th mass eigenstate:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_n}}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ a_n\\ b_1^n\\ b_1^n^{}\\ \\ \\ b_k^n\\ b_k^n^{}\\ \end{array}\right),`$ (44)
where

$`a_n={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{m}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu \mathrm{\Delta }}{m_n}}\right),`$ (45)
$`b_k^n={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}a_n}{1\frac{k^2\mu ^2}{m_n^2}}},`$ (46)
and

$`b_k^n^{}={\displaystyle \frac{k\mu }{m_n}}b_k^n.`$ (47)
The normalization of the state is given by

$`N_n^2=1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi m_na_n}{\mu sin\frac{\pi m_n}{\mu }}}\right)^2.`$ (48)
The mixing of the $`\nu _e`$ with the bulk modes is essentially given by the $`1/N_n`$, which for the n-th eigen mode (with $`m_nn\mu `$) is$`\frac{m\alpha }{Mn\mu }`$. For $`m\alpha /M10^5`$ eV and $`\mu 10^3`$ eV, this mixing is of order of a percent and is therefore in the interesting range for a possible MSW transition of the solar neutrinos.

## V Solar neutrino data fit by a combination of vacuum and MSW oscillations

In this section, we discuss the question of how to understand the solar neutrino data in these models, while at the same time explaining the atmospheric as well as the LSND data. There have been several recent papers that have addressed the issue of explaining observed oscillation data in models with large extra dimensions . In particular, in Ref. it has been shown that while the overall features of the solar and atmospheric data can be accommodated in minimal versions of these models with three bulk neutrinos, it is not possible to explain simultaneously the LSND observation for the $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillation probability, and one must incorporate new physics in the brane.

In the models presented here, the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mass difference responsible for atmospheric oscillation data is generated via the radiative corrections in the TeV scale models, and the seesaw mechanism in the local B-L models. Since we arrange the models so that the mass of the $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ pair is in the eV range, this provides a way to accomodate the LSND results. Let us therefore focus on the solar data. We will present our discussions using the parameters of the TeV scale model. The discussion also applies to the local B-L models, with only the labels of the parameters changed.

A first glance at the values of the parameters of the model such as $`m`$ in Eq.(3) and $`R^110^3`$ eV suggests that perhaps one should seek a solution of the solar neutrino data in these models using the small-angle MSW mechanism. However, the present Super-Kamiokande recoil energy distribution seems to disfavor such an interpretation, although any definitive conclusion should perhaps wait till more data accumulates. In any case if the present trend of the data near the higher energy region of the solar neutrino spectrum from Super-Kamiokande persists, it is likely to disfavor the small-angle MSW solution and tend to favor a vacuum oscillation. However, the latter does not give correct rates for the three types of solar neutrino experiments. Note that for sterile neutrinos the large-mixing-angle MSW solution does not work.

As discussed in , our solution to the solar neutrino data consists of two components: one involving the vacuum oscillation of $`\nu _e`$ to $`\nu _B^0`$ and the second one involving the MSW transition of the higher energy $`\nu _e`$’s to higher KK modes of the $`\nu _B`$. The vacuum oscillation part is straightforward, and in order to get a better fit we have to adjust the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\nu _e\nu _B^0}^2`$. On the other hand, to discuss the MSW effect for the case of bulk neutrinos, we need to include the effect of solar matter on the infinite dimensional neutrino mass matrix.

To have a physical understanding of our strategy, note that the simplest way to reconcile the rates for the three classes of solar experiments is to “kill” the 7Be neutrinos, reduce the 8B neutrinos by half and leave the pp neutrinos alone. To achieve this using pure vacuum oscillation, one may put a node of the survival probability function $`P_{ee}`$ around $`0.86`$ MeV. However, for an arbitrary node number, the oscillatory behaviour of $`P_{ee}`$ before and after $`0.86`$ MeV cannot in general satisfy the other two requirements mentioned above; specifically, if there are more nodes prior to $`0.8`$ MeV, the Gallium pp neutrinos get suppressed. If one uses the first node to “kill 7Be”, then for 8B neutrino energies the $`P_{ee}`$ is close to one and not half as would be desirable. The strategy generally employed is not to have a node at the precise $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be`$ energy but rather somewhat away so that it reduces 7Be to a value above zero. This requires that one must reduce the 8B neutrinos by much more than 50%, so one can fit Chlorine data. The water data then requires an additional contribution, which, in the case of active vacuum oscillation (VO), is provided by the neutral current cross section, amounting to about 16% of the charged current one. Thus in a pure two-neutrino oscillation picture, VO comes close to working for oscillation to active neutrinos but certainly does not work for active to sterile oscillation. It is here that the large extra dimensions come to the rescue.

In our model, both vacuum oscillations and MSW oscillations are important. This is because the lowest mass pair of neutrinos is split by a very small mass difference, whereas the KK states have to be separated by $`>10^3`$ eV because of the limits from gravity experiments. We can then use the first node of $`P_{ee}`$ to suppress the 7Be. Going up in energy toward 8B neutrinos, the survival probability, which in the VO case would have risen to very near one, is now suppressed by the small-angle MSW transitions to the different KK excitations of the bulk neutrino. This is the essence of our new way to fit the solar neutrino observations.

In order to compute the effect of solar matter on neutrinos produced deep in the sun, we begin with how neutrinos propagate. Eigenvectors of the neutrino mass matrix, $``$, evolve according to $`e^{i(pxEt)}`$, where for a state of mass $`m`$, $`pxEtE(xt)tm^2/2E`$. Neutrino oscillations happen because different mass states interfere with each other. When the neutrino of a particular energy is detected at a particular point, $`E(xt)`$ is independent of which mass state contributes. The common phase factor $`e^{iE(xt)}`$ can be factored out of all states, because we are concerned only with relative phases when considering interference terms. Each mass state evolves separately in a vacuum according to

$$i\frac{d\stackrel{}{a}}{dt}=\frac{m^2}{2E}\stackrel{}{a}.$$
(49)
The electron neutrino is an eigenstate of neutrino interactions with matter, but is not an eigenstate of the mass matrix, $``$. In the basis of eigenstates of neutrino interaction with matter, an arbitrary state evolves through a vacuum according to

$$i\frac{d\stackrel{}{a}}{dt}=\frac{^{}}{2E}\stackrel{}{a}.$$
(50)
In matter the squared mass matrix, $`^{}`$, is replaced by $`^{}+2EH_1`$, where $`H_1`$ is $`\rho _e=\sqrt{2}G_F(n_e0.5n_n)`$ when acting on $`\nu _e`$ and is zero on sterile neutrinos. The survival probability, $`P_{ee}`$, is the probability that an initially pure $`\nu _e`$ is still a $`\nu _e`$ after the neutrino state propagates from its origin in the sun to its detection on the earth. For the TeV scenario, $`P_{ee}`$ depends on $`E`$ and the parameters used in $`_{TeV}`$ of Eq. 17: $`P_{ee}=P_{ee}^{TeV}(E,\delta _{ee},m,\mu )`$. But since the propagation depends only on $`^{}/2E+H_1`$, the survival probability must be unchanged whenever $`/\sqrt{E}`$ is unchanged. The amount of computation required could therefore be greatly reduced by use of the scaling rule

$$P_{ee}^{TeV}(E,\delta _{ee},m,\mu )=P_{ee}^{TeV}(1,\frac{\delta _{ee}}{\sqrt{E}},\frac{m}{\sqrt{E}},\frac{\mu }{\sqrt{E}}).$$
(51)
Similarly, there is a scaling rule for $`P_{ee}=P_{ee}^{BL}(E,M,m,\mathrm{\Delta },\alpha ,\mu )`$ of the local B-L scenario:

$$P_{ee}^{BL}(E,M,m,\mathrm{\Delta },\alpha ,\mu )=P_{ee}^{BL}(1,1,\frac{m}{\sqrt{M\sqrt{E}}},\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{M\sqrt{E}},\frac{\alpha }{\sqrt{M\sqrt{E}}},\frac{\mu }{\sqrt{E}}).$$
(52)
To discuss the MSW effect for an infinite component system, we first diagonalize the matrix $`^{}+2EH_1`$ for both models. We give the results for the TeV scale model first, and in a subsequent paragraph present the result for the local B-L case.

TeV scenario and matter effect:

When $`=_{TeV}`$, to express the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of $`^{}+2EH_1`$, define

$$w_k=\frac{E\rho _e}{\stackrel{~}{m}_k\delta _{ee}}+\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{E\rho _e}{\stackrel{~}{m}_k\delta _{ee}}\right)^2};$$
(53)
$`w_k=1`$ in vacuum. The characteristic equation becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_k=w_k\delta _{ee}+\frac{\pi m^2}{\mu }cot\frac{\pi \stackrel{~}{m}_k}{\mu },$$
(54)
The eigenvectors are as in Eq. 19, except the coefficients of $`\nu _{0B}`$ and $`\nu _{B,}^{}`$ acquire an additional factor $`1/w_n`$, the $`m_k^2`$ is replaced by $`\stackrel{~}{m}_k^2`$, and the normalization becomes

$$N_n^2=1+\frac{(1+\frac{1}{w_n^2})}{2}\left(\pi ^2m^2R^2+\frac{(m_nw_n\delta _{ee})^2}{m^2}\right)\frac{(1\frac{1}{w_n^2})}{2}\frac{(m_nw_n\delta _{ee})}{m}.$$
(55)
Note that in the presence of a dense medium, very crudely speaking, the $`\rho _e`$ term in Eq. 53 will dominate over the rest of the terms, and when $`\stackrel{~}{m}_n^2k^2\mu ^2`$ for any of the KK levels, that particular coefficient in Eq. 19 dominates, and the MSW resonant condition is satisfied.

Matter effect in the local B-L case:

Following the same procedure, we get for the local B-L case the following eigenvalue equation in the presence of matter effects (where we will ignore the radiative corrections since they do not affect the results materially):

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_k^2={\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{M^2}}\left[(m^2+\rho _e)+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2\pi \stackrel{~}{m}_k}{\mu }}cot{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \stackrel{~}{m}_k}{\mu }}\left[2{\displaystyle \frac{2\rho _e}{\stackrel{~}{m}_k^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _e}{m^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _e}{\stackrel{~}{m}_k^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\pi \stackrel{~}{m}_k}{\mu }}cot{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \stackrel{~}{m}_k}{\mu }}\right]\right].`$ (56)
If we denote the eigenvector of the matter-affected mass matrix as

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }_k}=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ \stackrel{~}{b}\\ \stackrel{~}{b}_1\\ \stackrel{~}{b}_1^{}\\ \\ \end{array}\right),`$ (63)
we find that

$`\stackrel{~}{b}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (\stackrel{~}{m}_k^2\rho _e)}{m\stackrel{~}{m}_k^2}}`$ (64)
$`\stackrel{~}{b}_1={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\alpha /m}{\stackrel{~}{m}_k^2\mu ^2}}(\stackrel{~}{m}_k^2\rho _e)`$ (65)
$`\stackrel{~}{b}_1^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\alpha m\mu /M}{\stackrel{~}{m}_k^2\mu ^2}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{m^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _e}{\stackrel{~}{m}_k^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\pi \stackrel{~}{m}_k}{\mu }}cot{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \stackrel{~}{m}_k}{\mu }}\right]`$ (66)
$`\stackrel{~}{b}_n={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_k^2\mu ^2}{\stackrel{~}{m}_k^2n^2\mu ^2}}\stackrel{~}{b}_1`$ (67)
$`\stackrel{~}{b}_n^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_k^2\mu ^2}{\stackrel{~}{m}_k^2n^2\mu ^2}}n\stackrel{~}{b}_1^{}.`$ (68)
Here again we see that when the density term dominates $`\stackrel{~}{m}_k^2`$, there can be an MSW transition to the nth level when $`\stackrel{~}{m}_k^2n^2\mu ^2`$.

To carry out the fit, we studied the time evolution of the $`\nu _e`$ state using a program that evolved from one supplied by W. Haxton. The program was updated to use the solar model of BP98 and modified to do all neutrino transport within the sun numerically. For example, no adiabatic approximation was used. Changes were also necessary for oscillations into sterile neutrinos and to generalize beyond the two-neutrino model. Up to 16 neutrinos were allowed, but no more than 14 contribute for the solutions we considered. While we explored the parameter space using BP98, the more recent BP2000 solar model gave almost identical results where the two models were compared.

For comparison with experimental results, tables of detector sensitivity for the Chlorine and Gallium experiments were taken from Bahcall’s web site. Neutrino spectra from the various solar reactions were taken from the same site, except for the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ spectrum, which comes from a more recent determination. The Super-Kamiokande detector sensitivity was modeled using , where the percent resolution in the signal from Cherenkov light, averaged over the detector for various total electron energies, is provided. To within the number of digits accuracy given, the fractional resolution is $`(.443+.0038E)/\sqrt{E}`$, where $`E`$ is the total electron energy. Combined with knowledge of the relation between amount of Cherenkov light and the true electron energy, this gives an energy resolution of $`\sigma _E=\frac{E(EE_{th})(0.443+0.0038E)}{(E+E_{th})\sqrt{E}}`$. The response of Super-K to neutrinos of energy $`E_\nu `$ is given by smearing the differential cross section given by ’t Hooft (including radiative corrections accounted for by modifications of $`g_A`$ and $`g_V`$) with a Gaussian resolution function of standard deviation $`\sigma _E`$, and restricting the integration to measured energy within an energy bin, or within the range of the total flux measurement (5.0-20 MeV).

Calculations of electron neutrino survival probability, averaged over the response of detectors, were compared with measurements. While theoretical uncertainties in the solar model and detector response were included in the computation of $`\chi ^2`$ as described in Ref. , the measurement results given here include only experimental statistical and systematic errors added in quadrature. The Chlorine survival probability, from Homestake, is $`0.332\pm 0.030`$. Gallium results for SAGE, GALLEX and GNO were combined to give a survival probability of $`0.579\pm 0.039`$. The $`5.020`$ MeV 1258 day Super-K experimental survival probability is $`0.451\pm 0.016`$. The best fits were with $`R58\mu m`$, $`mR`$ around $`0.0094`$, and $`\delta _{ee}0.84\times 10^7`$ eV, corresponding to $`\delta m^20.53\times 10^{11}`$ eV2. These parameters give average survival probabilities for Chlorine, Gallium, and water of 0.383, 0.533, and 0.450, respectively. They give a $`\nu _e`$ survival probability whose energy dependence is shown in Fig. 1. For two-neutrino oscillations, the coupling between $`\nu _e`$ and the higher mass neutrino eigenstate is given by $`sin^22\theta `$, whereas here the coupling between $`\nu _e`$ and the first KK excitation replaces $`sin^22\theta `$ by $`4m^2R^2=0.00035`$.

Vacuum oscillations between the lowest two mass eigenstates nearly eliminate electron neutrinos with energies of 0.63 MeV/(2n+1) for n = 0, 1, 2, … . Thus Fig. 1 shows nearly zero $`\nu _e`$ survival near 0.63 MeV, partly eliminating the $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be`$ contribution at $`0.862`$ MeV, and giving a dip at the lowest neutrino energy. Increasing $`\delta _{ee}`$ moves the low energy dip to the right into Gallium’s most sensitive pp energy range, making the fit worse. Decreasing $`\delta _{ee}`$ increases Gallium, but hurts the Chlorine fit by moving the higher energy vacuum oscillation dip further to the left of the $`{}_{}{}^{7}Be`$ peak. Note that the pattern of two eigenstates very close in mass persists for the Kaluza-Klein excitations as well. These MSW resonances start causing the third and fourth eigenstates to be significantly occupied above $`0.8`$ MeV, the fifth and sixth eigenstates above $`3.7`$ MeV, the 7’th and 8’th above $`8.6`$ MeV, and the 9’th and 10’th above $`15.2`$ MeV. Fig. 1 shows dips in survival probability just above these energy thresholds. The typical values of the survival probability within the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ region ($`6`$ to $`14`$ MeV) are quite sensitive to the value of $`mR`$. As can be seen from Eq. 20, higher $`mR`$ increases $`1/N_nm/m_nmR/n`$ for various $`n`$, and thereby increases $`\nu _e`$ coupling to higher mass eigenstates, strengthens MSW resonances, and lowers $`\nu _e`$ survival probability.

The expected energy dependence of the $`\nu _e`$ survival probability is compared with Super-K data in Fig. 2. The uncertainties are statistical only. The parameters used in making Fig. 2 were chosen to provide a good fit ($`\chi ^2=3.4`$) to the total rates only; they were not adjusted to fit this spectrum. But combining spectrum data with rates using the method described in Ref.  gives $`\chi ^2=14.0`$ for the spectrum predicted from the fit to total rates. With 18 degrees of freedom, the probability of $`\chi ^2>14.0`$ is 73%. If instead the fit were to an undistorted energy spectrum, the $`\chi ^2`$ would be 19.0.

One may also seek fits with $`\delta _{ee}`$ constrained to be very small, thereby eliminating vacuum oscillations. We found $`\chi ^2=4.4`$ for the best such fit to the total rates only. The same parameters then used with the Super-K spectrum gave $`\chi ^2=18.7`$, corresponding to a probability of $`41\%`$.

The seasonal effect was computed for a few points on the earth’s orbit. If $`r`$ is the distance between the earth and the sun,

$$\frac{r_0}{r}=1+ϵcos(\theta \theta _0),$$
(69)
where $`r_0`$ is one astronomical unit, $`ϵ=0.0167`$ is the orbital eccentricity, and $`\theta \theta _02\pi (tt_0)`$, with $`t`$ in years and $`t_0=`$ January 2, 4h 52m. Table I shows very small seasonal variation.

## VI Consequences and comments

While the seasonal effect is too small to be observable soon, and day-night effects would also be difficult to see, the characteristic energy spectrum of Fig. 1 should be observable by SNO, the first results from which will be available shortly. Whereas the characteristic dips in energy are nearly washed out in the neutrino-electron scattering results of Super-Kamiokande shown in Fig. 2, they should be seen clearly with the far better resolution of SNO’s charged-current interaction. If that confirmation of the fit presented here eventuates, then the resulting 0.06 mm extra dimension size should be directly detectable by gravity experiments in the not too distant future, since the present best limit on such effects is less than a factor of four from that value.

In contrast, the mass of the electron neutrino, which consists mainly of eigenstates of mass $`3\times 10^5`$ eV, is undetectable directly by such means as tritium endpoint experiments. Whle neutrinoless double beta decay measures an effective neutrino mass, the additional contributions from $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ are probably so small as to make that process unlikely to be observed, although there are conjectured mechanisms other than neutrino mass to produce neutrinoless double beta decay.

If the relatively large dimension size is confirmed by SNO, this will raise issues about cosmological and supernova limits from the effects of high Kaluza-Klein states of both sterile neutrinos and gravitons. These constaints are much stronger than those from new contributions to low energy weak processes, but are somewhat suspect because the two regimes, the early universe and the supernova core, are very complex and not yet fully understood. Also, for sterile neutrino limits, the phenomenology presented here is aided by there being a single Kaluza-Klein tower based on an exceedingly small mass, the VO $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is an order of magnitude smaller than usual, and for MSW the equivalent sin$`{}_{}{}^{2}2\theta `$ is more than an order of magnitude smaller than for standard fits. For the global B-L model, the universe re-heat temperature could be very low, since anything above 0.7 MeV has cosmological validity, reducing production of high KK states. The high string scale of the local B-L model appears to avoid all these constraints, however. This suggests that more complete investigation of the constraints may provide a means of choosing between these quite different models both of which can provide this new way to give a simultaneous fit to the solar, atmospheric, and LSND data, possibly giving the first evidence for an extra large dimension.

The work of R.N.M. is supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation No. PHY-9802551. The work of D.O.C. and S.J.Y. is supported by a grant from the Department Of Energy No. DE-FG03-91ER40618.

Appendix A:
Model for the Majorana mass matrix for the brane neutrinos

In this appendix, we seek a possible theoretical origin of the neutrino mass pattern used in the TeV scale model. We will keep the standard model gauge group and attempt to extend the higgs sector in such a way that one generates the neutrino masses at loop levels. The basic idea will be to consider $`L_e+L_\mu L_\tau `$ symmetry for neutrinos, with $`L_e=1`$ for $`\nu _B`$. On general symmetry grounds, the allowed mass matrix for $`(\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau )`$ can be written as

$`_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \delta _{e\tau }\\ 0& 0& m_0\\ \delta _{e\tau }& m_0& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (73)
The remaining terms are assumed to arise after we turn on the symmetry breaking so that those elements are small.

For an explicit realization, we augment the standard model by the singlet charged Higgs field $`h^{++}`$, which is blind with respect to lepton number, $`h_e^{}`$, and which carries $`L_e=2`$, and $`SU(2)_L`$ triplet fields, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{e,\mu ,\tau }`$, with $`Y=2`$, which carry two negative units of lepton numbers $`L_{e,\mu ,\tau }`$, respectively. The Lagrangian involving these fields consists of two parts: $`_0`$ and $`_1`$. $`_0`$ is invariant under $`(L_e+L_\mu L_\tau )`$ number and is given by:

$`_0=f_{e\tau }h^{++}e_R^{}\tau _R^{}+f_{\mu \tau }h^{++}\mu _R^{}\tau _R^{}+f_{ee}^{}h^{++^{}}e_R^{}e_R^{}`$ (74)
$`+g_eL_eL_e\mathrm{\Delta }_e+g_\mu L_\mu L_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\mu +g_\tau L_\tau L_\tau \mathrm{\Delta }_\tau +h.c.`$ (75)
We assume the Higgs potential to contain the $`L_e+L_\mu L_\tau `$ invariant terms

$`V^{}={\displaystyle \underset{a=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}M_0h^{++}(\mathrm{\Delta }_a^2).`$ (76)
The soft breaking of the symmetry of $`L_e+L_\mu L_\tau `$ is achieved by the following terms in the Lagrangian:

$`_1=h^{++}({\displaystyle \underset{i=e,\mu ,\tau }{}}M_{ii}\mathrm{\Delta }_i^2+M_{0\mu }\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\tau +M_{0\tau }\mathrm{\Delta }_e\mathrm{\Delta }_\tau )+\mu ^2h^{++}h^{++^{}}+h.c.`$ (77)
With these couplings, the neutrino Majorana masses arise from two-loop effects (similar to the mechanism of ref.), and we have the $`L_e+L_\mu L_\tau `$ violating entries $`\delta _{ij}cm_{e_i}m_{e_j}`$. Using $`\delta _{ee}10^8`$ eV, then $`\delta _{\tau \tau }10^2`$, as would be required to understand the atmospheric neutrino data. In Fig. 3, we give a typical two loop diagram that leads to neutrino masses.

Appendix B:
Neutrino mixings in the local B-L model

In this section, we discuss the details of neutrino mixing in the local B-L model described in the text (section 3). In the text we considered only the $`\nu _e\nu _B`$ sector. However, in order to explain LSND results, we have to generate the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ mixing and make sure that its presence does not affect the considerations in the text.

For this purpose, we consider a model based on the gauge group $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)_{BL}`$ with quark, $`Q(u,d)`$ and lepton $`L(\nu _e,e)`$ doublets assigned as usual in a left-right symmetric manner and Higgs fields belonging to bidoublet field $`\varphi (2,2,0)`$ and $`BL=1`$ doublets $`\chi _{L,R}`$. In addition, we require the theory to respect a softly broken global $`L^{}=L_eL_\mu +L_\tau `$ symmetry. The $`U(1)_L^{}`$ invariant part of the Lagrangian can be written as:

$`\begin{array}{cc}& =h_{ab}\frac{(\psi _{a,R}\chi _R)(\psi _{b,R}\chi _R)+(RL)}{M_{}}+h_{ee}\frac{[(\psi _{e,R}\chi _R)(\psi _{e,R}\chi _R)+(RL)]\delta }{M_{}^2}\\ & +_a\overline{\psi }_{a,L}\varphi \psi _{a,R}+\frac{f}{M_{}^{1/2}}[\overline{\psi }_{eR}\chi _R+\overline{\psi }_{eL}\chi _L]\nu _B(x,y=0)\\ & +𝑑y\overline{\nu }_{BL}(x,y)_5\nu _{BR}(x,y)+h.c.,\end{array}`$ (81)
where the form of the matrix $`h_{ab}`$ is determined by the $`U(1)_L^{}`$ symmetry. After symmetry breaking, i.e. $`\delta \chi _R0`$, Eq. 81 leads to a right-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix of the form:

$`M_R=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}M_{ee}& M_{e\mu }& 0\\ M_{e\mu }& 0& M_{\mu \tau }\\ 0& M_{\mu \tau }& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (85)
The complete mass matrix for $`(\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau ,N_e,N_\mu ,N_\tau ,\nu _B)`$ is given by

$`=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}0& 0& 0& m_1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& m_2& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& m_3& 0& 0\\ m_1& 0& 0& M_{ee}& M_{e\mu }& 0& m& 0\\ 0& m_2& 0& M_{e\mu }& 0& M_{\mu \tau }& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& m_3& 0& M_{\mu \tau }& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& m& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ & & & & & & & \end{array}\right).`$ (94)
Let us now consider a hierarchical form for the Dirac masses i.e. $`m_1m_2m_3`$. Looking at the “non-bulk” part of this mass matrix, one can see that if we choose $`M_{e\mu }M_{ee}\frac{m_2M_{\mu \tau }}{10m_3}`$ and $`m_2m_3/10100`$ MeV, then one gets the right value for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ATMOS}^2`$ and the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ mixing angle needed for understanding the LSND results. Furthermore, one can decouple all the heavy neutrinos as well as the $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ from the spectrum and obtain the same equation as in 32 and all the considerations in the B-L model described in the text go through.

Appendix C:
Naturalness of ultra light sterile neutrinos in brane-bulk models

The bulk neutrino “self mass” terms are constrained by the geometry of the bulk and could therefore under certain circumstances be zero. If that happens, the only mass of the KK states of the $`\nu _B`$ will arise from the kinetic energy terms such as $`\overline{\nu }_B\mathrm{\Gamma }^I_I\nu _B`$, where $`I=5,6\mathrm{}`$ and will be given by $`n/R`$ for $`R`$ the radius of the extra dimensions. In such a situation, an ultralight $`\nu _{B,KK}`$ arises naturally.

The key to naturalness of the ultralight bulk neutrino is the geometry that forbids both Dirac and Majorana mass terms. Let us give a few examples. In five dimensions, if we impose the $`Z_2`$ orbifold symmetry ($`yy`$), then it follows that the Dirac mass vanishes. Now if we impose lepton number symmetry in the brane, the Majorana mass vanishes, leaving us with no mass term for the bulk neutrino in 5-dimensions.

Another interesting example is the 10-dimensional bulk, where the bulk neutrino is a 16-component spinor which, when reduced to four dimensions, leads to eight 2-component spinors. The interesting point is that for a 16-dimensional spinor, one cannot write a Dirac or Majorana mass term consistent with 10-dimensional Lorentz invariance. In this case, there is no need for assuming lepton number symmetry to get an ultralight sterile neutrino. A similar situation is also expected in six dimensions, if we choose the bulk neutrino to be a 4-component complex chiral spinor.