text:
# Neutrinos in 5D SO(10) Unification

## 1 Introduction

In a recent paper , we considered gauge coupling unification in a five dimensional supersymmetric $`SO(10)`$ model compactified on an orbifold $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$. We obtained an excellent prediction for gauge coupling unification with a cutoff scale $`M_{}3\times 10^{17}`$ GeV and a compactification scale $`M_c1.5\times 10^{14}`$ GeV. We also showed that our results are mathematically equivalent to a four dimensional supersymmetric grand unified theory \[SUSY GUT\] analysis with the color triplet Higgs mass given by $`M_c`$ . However, unlike the 4D case, it was shown that proton decay due to dimension 5 operators may be completely eliminated. Therefore, in this 5D framework, the unification of gauge couplings is elegantly explained. At the same time all the nice features of grand unified theories, such as charge quantization and Yukawa unification, are maintained. Unfortunately, the proton decay rate in these models, due to dimension 6 operators, is sensitive to the placement of matter multiplets in the 5th dimension, as well as to the unknown physics above the cutoff scale.

In this paper we study neutrino masses within this same 5D orbifold framework. We consider the See-Saw mechanism for neutrino masses  and evaluate the effective right-handed Majorana mass in different scenarios. We find that the “natural” scale for the Majorana mass of right-handed neutrinos depends critically on whether the right-handed neutrinos are located in the bulk or localized on a brane. In the former case, the effective Majorana mass $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is “naturally” of order the compactification scale $`M_c1.5\times 10^{14}`$ GeV. Hence, the left-handed $`\tau `$ neutrino mass is of order $`m_t(m_t)^2/3M_c0.06\mathrm{eV}`$111The factor of 3 in the denominator approximately takes into account the different RG running of the top Yukawa coupling and the effective neutrino mass operator. (for $`m_t(m_t)165`$ GeV) which is just right (assuming hierarchical neutrino masses) to explain atmospheric neutrino oscillations and the K2K data.

On the other-hand when the right-handed neutrino is localized on the brane, the effective Majorana mass is typically larger than $`M_c`$. Nevertheless with small parameters of order 1/10 – 1/30, $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}M_c`$ can be accommodated. We also discuss the constraints on model building resulting from the different scenarios for locating the right-handed neutrinos. Of course, in order to complete the analysis of neutrino oscillations we would need to construct a three neutrino model. Finally, we note other recent papers on 5D $`SO(10)`$ SUSY GUTs within a similar orbifold framework  \- . Also an alternate mechanism for obtaining small neutrino masses in 5D GUTs is given in .

## 2 See-Saw and Double See-Saw Mechanism in 4D

### 2.1 See-Saw Mechanism

Quarks and charged leptons have mass ranging from $`𝒪(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{MeV}`$ to $`175\mathrm{GeV})`$, which is determined theoretically in terms of a dimensionless Yukawa coupling, $`𝒪(10^6`$ to 1), times a Higgs vev $`v246\mathrm{GeV}`$. The heaviest neutrino mass $`\text{ }<\mathrm{eV}`$ requires a neutrino - Higgs Yukawa coupling $`𝒪(10^{12})`$ which is unnaturally small. The GRSY See-Saw mechanism, on the other hand, provides a natural explanation for such small neutrino masses with order one Yukawa couplings . Since the right-handed neutrino $`\nu _R`$ (necessary for a Dirac neutrino mass) has zero charge under all SM gauge interactions, it can have a Majorana mass $`M`$ much larger than the electroweak scale.

The simple See-Saw mass matrix for the neutrino is given by

$`M_\nu \left(\begin{array}{c}\nu \\ \nu ^c\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& m_D\\ m_D& M\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu \\ \nu ^c\end{array}\right)`$ (7)
where $`\nu ^c\nu _R^{}`$. The natural scale for $`M`$ (in a 4D GUT) is of order the GUT or cutoff scale with $`Mm_D`$. Hence the two eigenvalues are very different with

$`m_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_D^2}{M}},`$ (8)
$`m_2`$ $``$ $`M,`$
$`m_1`$ $``$ $`m_Dm_2.`$
Thus the largeness of $`M`$ naturally explains the smallness of the left-handed neutrino mass. The problem is that in order to explain the low energy neutrino data, $`M`$ must be at least two orders of magnitude smaller than the SUSY GUT scale.

### 2.2 Double See-Saw Mechanism

In SO(10) GUTs, all quarks and leptons in one generation belong to a single spinor representation $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}[=\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}+\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}+\mathrm{𝟏}`$ of SU(5)\]. Unlike SU(5) where the minimal matter content includes only $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$s and $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$s with no right-handed neutrinos, SO(10) has a right-handed neutrino, neutral under the standard model gauge group, which is contained in the (minimal) $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ representation. Hence the simple See-Saw mechanism is not applicable in an SO(10) model, since the right-handed neutrino is not a singlet under SO(10); thus making it impossible to have a renormalizable Majorana mass.

For the See-Saw mechanism to work in an SO(10) model, we need to give the right-handed neutrino a Majorana mass of order the GUT scale. There are two methods for obtaining this:

* using a higher dimension operator

$$\frac{\overline{16}16\overline{16}16}{M_{}},\mathrm{or}$$
(9)
* adding an $`SO(10)`$ singlet $`N`$ and the renormalizable interactions

$$\lambda _N\overline{16}16N+\frac{1}{2}M_2NN$$
(10)

where $`M_{}`$ is the cutoff scale of the theory. In both cases we assume a non-zero vacuum expectation value \[vev\]

$$\lambda _N\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}=M_10$$

in the right-handed neutrino direction. In the first case, the product of fields has, in general, several inequivalent SO(10) invariant combinations. One particularly simple combination in the first case, with the first two fields combined to make an SO(10) singlet, can be obtained as an effective interaction after integrating out $`N`$ in the second case. Note that the effective See-Saw mass $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, in either case, can be lower than the cutoff scale of the theory. In this paper we consider the latter method.

We now include the usual, electroweak scale, Dirac mass coming from the Yukawa term $`\lambda 16_310_H16_3`$ (with 3 denoting the third generation). After electroweak symmetry breaking we have

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`m_D\nu \nu ^c`$ (11)
(with $`m_D=\lambda \frac{v}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\beta `$) and we obtain a $`3\times 3`$ neutrino mass matrix, rather than a $`2\times 2`$ matrix,222This is similar to the double see-saw mechanism suggested by Mohapatra and Valle . given by

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu \\ \nu ^c\\ N\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& m_D& 0\\ m_D& 0& M_1\\ 0& M_1& M_2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu \\ \nu ^c\\ N\end{array}\right).`$ (21)
Note, $`|\mathrm{Det}|=m_D^2M_2`$, Tr $`=M_2`$ and $`m_DM_1,M_2`$. Hence the effective See-Saw scale $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in this case may be obtained by evaluating the inverse of the heavy $`2\times 2`$ mass matrix

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& M_1\\ M_1& M_2\end{array}\right)`$ (24)
in the $`\nu ^c`$ direction. We find $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}=M_1^2/M_2`$. Note, the result is independent of the mass ordering, i.e. $`M_1M_2`$, $`M_1M_2`$ or $`M_1M_2`$. Finally, we obtain the light neutrino mass given by

$`m_\nu `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_D^2M_2}{M_1^2}},`$ (25)
irrespective of the ratio $`M_1/M_2`$, as long as $`m_DM_1,M_2`$. The question now is how to obtain an effective See-Saw scale $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}=M_1^2/M_210^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$.

## 3 Setup – SO(10) on $`_4\times S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$

We consider a five dimensional supersymmetric $`SO(10)`$ GUT compactified on an
$`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ orbifold. One orbifolding, $`Z_2`$, reduces $`N=2`$ supersymmetry to $`N=1`$, and the other, $`Z_2^{}`$, breaks $`SO(10)`$ to the Pati-Salam \[PS\] gauge group $`SU(4)_C\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$. The space time in the 5th direction is the line segment $`y:[0,\pi R/2]`$ with an $`SO(10)`$ symmetry in the bulk and on the brane at $`y=0`$, but only $`SU(4)_C\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ symmetry on the brane at $`y=\pi R/2`$. We call these two fixed points respectively, “SO(10)” and “Pati-Salam” branes. The brane describes a $`3+1`$ dimensional spacetime and the gauge group is the maximal gauge symmetry surviving on each brane. Further breaking to the standard model gauge group is accomplished via the Higgs mechanism on the PS brane .

We are interested in obtaining the Majorana mass scale for right-handed neutrino masses. The natural candidates for this scale are the cutoff scale $`M_{}3\times 10^{17}`$ GeV and the compactification scale $`M_c1.5\times 10^{14}`$ GeV. Let us consider just one family of quarks and leptons (including the top, bottom and tau) which we consider locating either on the PS brane or in the bulk. Quarks and leptons of one SM family are contained in two irreducible representations given by the left-handed Weyl spinors,

$`\psi `$ $`\{Q,L\}`$ $`(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏}),`$
$`\psi ^c`$ $`\{\left(\begin{array}{c}t^c\\ b^c\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _\tau ^c\\ \tau ^c\end{array}\right)\}`$ $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}},\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}}),`$ (30)
where $`Q=\left(\begin{array}{c}t\\ b\end{array}\right)`$ and $`L=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _\tau \\ \tau \end{array}\right)`$ are left-handed electroweak doublets. There are also brane fields $`\chi ^c`$ in $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}},\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}})`$ and $`\overline{\chi }^c`$ in $`(\mathrm{𝟒},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ which break Pati-Salam down to the Standard Model gauge group by getting vacuum expectation values \[vev\]s along the right-handed neutrino direction. Note, we assume that the vev of $`\chi ^c`$ and $`\overline{\chi }^c`$ and all the parameters appearing in the model are of order one in an appropriate unit set by the cutoff scale $`M_{}`$.

With regards to gauge coupling unification, whether one has bulk matter fields and/or brane localized matter fields does not make a difference as long as one has complete SO(10) multiplets at every KK level. However, once there are additional hypermultiplets in the bulk, the 5D gauge theory rapidly approaches a strong coupling regime. In our previous work  it was shown that the unification of gauge couplings is only achieved with a moderate hierarchy between the unification scale $`M_{}`$ and the compactification scale $`M_c=\frac{1}{R}`$ with $`M_{}R10^3`$. This moderately large ratio of $`M_{}/M_c`$ is self-consistent only if a non-trivial fixed point exists in the 5D super-Yang-Mills theory. The condition for such a strongly coupled fixed point in 5D is satisfied only when the number of SO(10) hypermultiplets in the bulk with $`n_{10}`$ in vector and $`n_{16}`$ in spinor representations satisfies $`n_{10}6`$ and $`n_{16}2`$ . Therefore, in order to maintain self-consistency, we assume that at most one generation of matter fields, requiring two $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}`$ hypermultiplets of SO(10), are in the bulk. This restriction does not, however, apply to SO(10) singlets. We introduce the SO(10) singlet, bulk fields $`N`$ and $`N^c`$ which form a hypermultiplet in 5D.

There are two choices for the orbifold parity of $`N`$ and $`N^c`$.333We use $`N`$ and $`N^c`$ for both superfields and their fermionic components. Here they are superfields.

* $`N_{(+,+)}`$ and $`N_{(,)}^c`$

$`N^c`$ vanishes on both SO(10) and Pati-Salam fixed points.
* $`N_{(+,)}`$ and $`N_{(,+)}^c`$

$`N`$ vanishes on Pati-Salam fixed point and $`N^c`$ vanishes on SO(10) fixed point. The Fourier expansions of $`N`$ and $`N^c`$ are given by

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}N_n\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{(2n+1)y}{R}}),`$ (31)
$`N^c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi R}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}N_n^c\mathrm{sin}({\displaystyle \frac{(2n+1)y}{R}}).`$

From now on, we consider the second case in which the zero modes of $`N`$ and $`N^c`$ are already projected out by the orbifolding.

## 4 Different Mass Terms in 5D

For $`\nu `$, $`\nu ^c`$, $`N`$ and $`N^c`$, we have various mass terms either in the bulk or on the brane. For $`N`$ and $`N^c`$, we can have both bulk mass terms and brane mass terms. Furthermore, they have 5D kinetic terms with $`_5`$ which behave as 4D mass terms. The fields $`\nu `$ and $`\nu ^c`$ can have brane localized mass terms by themselves or with $`N`$ and $`N^c`$. Since some fields reside only on the Pati-Salam brane and we have 5D $`N=1`$ supersymmetry in the bulk, not all mass terms are allowed. Let us thus discuss the allowed neutrino mass terms in a 5D $`N=1`$ supersymmetric theory with orbifold fixed points.

### Dirac Mass

* Bulk Kaluza-Klein mass for $`N`$ and $`N^c`$

There are Kaluza-Klein mass terms for $`N,N^c`$ which come from a 5D kinetic term,

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑yW}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑yN_5N^c}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N_{}}{}}}(2n+1)M_cN_nN_n^c`$
Note, consistent with the cutoff scale $`M_{}`$, we truncate KK modes at $`N_{}`$ satisfying $`2N_{}M_cM_{}`$.
* Kink mass for $`N`$ and $`N^c`$

We can write a Dirac mass term for $`N`$ and $`N^c`$ in the bulk,

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\mathrm{kink}}NN^c,`$ (33)
where $`M_{\mathrm{kink}}`$ must be odd under $`Z_2\times Z_2^{}`$; hence a kink mass. Depending on the sign of $`M_{\mathrm{kink}}`$, there can appear two new light modes localized at opposite fixed points. In this paper we do not consider this possibility and set $`M_{\mathrm{kink}}=0`$
* SM Yukawa couplings

We can write down the usual Yukawa couplings on the Pati-Salam brane.

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \psi \psi ^c\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}})`$ (34)
When $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ acquires a vev $`v246`$ GeV at the electroweak scale with $`F_{}=0`$, we obtain the usual Dirac mass terms between the left-handed $`\nu `$ and the right-handed $`\nu ^c`$,

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`m\nu \nu ^c\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}})`$ (35)
with $`m=\lambda \frac{v}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{sin}\beta `$.
* Pati-Salam Yukawa couplings

Both bulk and brane fields can have interactions on the brane. The PS gauge symmetry and the orbifold parity restrict the possible interactions.

We consider two cases: i) $`\psi _3^c`$ in the bulk and ii) $`\psi _3^c`$ on the brane.

+ $`\psi _3^c`$ in the bulk

    If $`\psi _3^c`$ is in the bulk, the relevant interaction is given by

    $`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6\pi ^2}{M_{}}}\lambda _D\overline{\chi }^c\psi ^cN^c\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}}).`$ (36)
    The coefficient is determined such that $`\lambda _D=1`$ corresponds to the result from naive dimensional analysis with a strong coupling assumption.444You can easily obtain this result by having an overall factor of $`1/(16\pi ^2)`$ and then multiply by $`4\pi `$ for each brane field and $`(24\pi ^3)^{1/2}`$ for each bulk field in the expression . We consider $`\lambda _D=1`$ as a “natural” value of the coupling. When $`\overline{\chi }^c`$ develops a vev at the cutoff scale with $`F_{\overline{\chi }^c}=0`$ and $`\overline{\chi }^c\frac{M_{}}{4\pi }`$, we get

    $`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{2}}\lambda _D\nu ^cN^c\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}}).`$ (37)
    We then decompose it into KK modes,

    $`{\displaystyle 𝑑yW}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{22^{\delta _{n,0}}}}}\lambda _DM_c{\displaystyle \underset{n,m=0}{\overset{N_{}}{}}}(1)^{n+m}\nu _n^cN_m^c`$
    $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2^{\delta _{n,0}}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m=0}{\overset{N_{}}{}}}(1)^{n+m}M_D\nu _n^cN_m^c.`$
    Finally the Dirac neutrino mass for $`\nu ^c`$ and $`N_n`$ is given by

    $`M_D`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}}\lambda _DM_c,`$ (39)
    For $`\lambda _D=1`$, we have the “natural” value for $`M_D=\sqrt{\frac{3}{4}}M_cM_c`$, using, as stated above, naive dimensional analysis.
    + $`\psi _3^c`$ on the PS brane

    If $`\psi _3^c`$ is on the PS brane, the interaction is555Note $`\lambda _D`$ defined in Eqn. 40 is not the same quantity defined in Eqn. 36, although we use the same notation. This should not cause any confusion, since we never use both at the same time.

    $`W`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{24\pi ^3}{M_{}}}}\lambda _D\overline{\chi }^c\psi ^cN^c\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}}).`$ (40)
    With $`\overline{\chi }^c\frac{M_{}}{4\pi }`$, we get

    $`W`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi M_{}}{2}}}\lambda _D\nu ^cN^c\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}}).`$ (41)
    KK decomposition gives

    $`{\displaystyle 𝑑yW}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3M_{}M_c}{2}}}\lambda _D{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N_{}}{}}}(1)^n\nu ^cN_n^c`$
    $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N_{}}{}}}(1)^nM_D\nu ^cN_n^c.`$
    The Dirac mass $`M_D`$ for $`\nu ^c`$ and $`N_n`$ is then given by

    $`M_D`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3M_{}}{2M_c}}}\lambda _DM_c.`$ (43)
    In this case, for $`\lambda _D=1`$, we have $`M_D=\sqrt{\frac{3M_{}}{2M_c}}M_c\sqrt{\frac{M_{}}{M_c}}M_c30M_c`$ for $`M_{}/M_c10^3`$.

Note, although the term

$`W^{}`$ $`=`$ $`C\lambda _D^{}\overline{\chi }^c_5N\psi ^c\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}})`$ (44)
is also possible, with $`C=\frac{6\pi ^2}{M_{}^2}`$ for $`\psi ^c`$ in the bulk and $`C=\sqrt{\frac{24\pi ^3}{M_{}^3}}`$ for $`\psi ^c`$ on the PS brane, it is subleading compared to the term without the derivative $`_5`$ and is suppressed by $`M_c/M_{}`$. We do not consider this term further in the paper.

### Majorana Mass

* Majorana Mass in the bulk

A Majorana mass is allowed in the bulk for gauge singlet fields,

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_N(NN+N^cN^c).`$ (45)
A 5D Majorana mass has a relative minus sign when it is expressed in terms of two 4D Weyl spinors.666It is possible to redefine $`\stackrel{~}{N}=iN`$ such that the Majorana mass does not have a relative minus sign, $`W=\frac{1}{2}M_N(\stackrel{~}{N}\stackrel{~}{N}+N^cN^c)`$. In this case the Dirac (KK) mass term becomes $`W=i\stackrel{~}{N}_5N^c`$. In this paper, we use the Dirac (KK) mass term $`W=N_5N^c`$. We consider all possible values of $`M_NM_{}`$. (See the appendix for a detailed discussion of Majorana masses in 5D.)
* Majorana Mass on the brane

It is possible to have a brane Majorana mass,

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a_1NN+{\displaystyle \frac{d_1}{M_{}^2}}_5N^c_5N^c)\delta (y)`$ (46)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(a_2N^cN^c+{\displaystyle \frac{d_2}{M_{}^2}}_5N_5N)\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}}).`$
However, brane Majorana mass terms are volume suppressed compared to the bulk Majorana mass by a factor $`M_c/M_{}`$. In addition, terms with $`_5`$ are suppressed by extra powers of $`M_c/M_{}`$. Therefore, we set the brane Majorana mass terms to zero in our analysis when considering a bulk Majorana mass. However, when there is no bulk Majorana mass, the brane Majorana mass plays an important role.

Let us now summarize the mass terms in our setup. We have a bulk Dirac mass for $`N_{(+,)}`$ and $`N_{(,+)}^c`$ coming from the 5D kinetic term (Eqn. 4) and also a bulk (Eqn. 45) or brane (Eqn. 46) Majorana mass. We also have a Dirac mass coupling $`N`$ to $`\nu ^c`$ on the PS brane. This takes different values depending on whether $`\psi _3^c`$ is located in the bulk (Eqns. 36 \- 39) or for $`\psi _3^c`$ on the brane (Eqns. 40 \- 43). As a consequence of these mass terms, we obtain an effective Majorana mass for $`\nu ^c`$. The fields $`\nu ,\nu ^c`$ then obtain a Dirac mass, at the electroweak scale via the Higgs doublet vev (Eqns. 34 \- 35).

## 5 Neutrino Mass Matrix

We now calculate the eigenvalues of the neutrino mass matrix. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the left-handed tau neutrino mass using the See-Saw mechanism. We do this in two steps. Step 1: Calculate the effective Majorana mass for the right-handed tau neutrino $`\nu _\tau ^c`$. Since the electroweak Dirac neutrino mass ($`m`$) is extremely small compared to all other scales ($`M_{}`$ or $`M_c`$), we first deal with the mass matrix for $`\nu ^c`$, $`N`$ and $`N^c`$. Step 2: We then calculate the mass of $`\nu _\tau `$. We use techniques similar to those discussed in . Note, in the following the left- (right)-handed tau neutrino are simply denoted by $`\nu (\nu ^c)`$.

There are two possibilities for the Majorana mass of $`N`$ and/or $`N^c`$. It can come from either a bulk Majorana mass or from a brane Majorana mass. We consider both possibilities here. We also consider the two choices of locating $`\nu ^c`$ either in the bulk or on the PS brane. We show that the final result is independent of whether we use a bulk or brane mass for $`N`$ and/or $`N^c`$. However the result depends critically on whether the field $`\nu ^c`$ is located in the bulk or on the PS brane. In the former case we show that $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}M_c`$ “naturally?” In the latter case, we describe how to obtain this result with minimal tuning of parameters.

### 5.1 Bulk Majorana Mass for $`N`$ and $`N^c`$

The most general superpotential has the mass terms as

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`N_5N^c+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_N(NN+N^cN^c)+C\lambda _D\nu ^cN^c\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}}),`$ (47)
which is decomposed into KK modes as

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N_{}}{}}}\left[(2n+1)M_cN_nN_n^c+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_N(N_nN_n+N_n^cN_n^c)+(1)^nM_D\nu ^cN_n^c\right].`$ (48)
Note, the constant $`C=\frac{3\pi }{2}(\sqrt{\frac{3\pi M_{}}{2}})`$ for $`\nu ^c`$ in the bulk (on the PS brane).

#### 5.1.1 Brane localized $`\nu ^c`$ case

The above formula applies to both the bulk $`\nu ^c`$ and the brane localized $`\nu ^c`$. In the following discussion we first consider the case of a brane localized $`\nu ^c`$, however our discussion below applies equally well to the zero mode of a bulk field with the identification $`\nu ^c\nu _0^c`$. Later we will add the tower of KK modes for the bulk $`\nu ^c`$ case.

We now define

$`𝒩`$ $`=`$ $`(\nu ^c,N_0,N_0^c,N_1,N_1^c,\mathrm{},N_n,N_n^c,\mathrm{}).`$ (49)
Then

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒩^T\widehat{}𝒩`$ (50)
with

$`\widehat{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& 0& M_D& 0& M_D& \mathrm{}& 0& (1)^nM_D& \mathrm{}\\ 0& M_N& M_c& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ M_D& M_c& M_N& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& M_N& 3M_c& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ M_D& 0& 0& 3M_c& M_N& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& M_N& (2n+1)M_c& \mathrm{}\\ (1)^nM_D& 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& (2n+1)M_c& M_N& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right).`$ (60)
The effective right-handed neutrino mass is obtained by finding $`(\widehat{}^1)_{\nu ^c\nu ^c}`$. Let $``$ be the matrix without $`\nu ^c`$ which has one less column and row compared to $`\widehat{}`$.

$`(\widehat{}^1)_{\nu ^c\nu ^c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Det}}{\mathrm{Det}\widehat{}}}.`$ (61)
$`\mathrm{Det}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N_{}}{}}}(M_N^2((2n+1)M_c)^2).`$ (62)
Using the formulae in the appendix we obtain

$`\mathrm{Det}\widehat{}`$ $`=`$ $`M_D^2M_N{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N_{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_N^2+((2n+1)M_c)^2}}\mathrm{Det}`$ (63)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi M_D^2}{4M_c}}\mathrm{tanh}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi M_N}{2M_c}})\mathrm{Det}.`$
Then

$`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\widehat{}^1)_{\nu ^c\nu ^c}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi M_D^2}{4M_c}}\mathrm{tanh}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi M_N}{2M_c}})`$ (64)
is the effective Majorana mass for the right-handed neutrino. Note, the limit $`N_{}\mathrm{}`$ is finite and the equality is obtained in this limit.

We now consider two possible limits for the bulk Majorana mass $`M_N`$, i.e. \[Case (1)\] $`M_cM_NM_{}`$ and \[Case (2)\] $`M_NM_c`$. In case (1), the answer is insensitive to the size of $`M_N`$. We obtain the effective right-handed neutrino mass

$`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi M_D^2}{4M_c}}.`$ (65)
In case (2), we have

$`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2M_D^2M_N}{8M_c^2}}.`$ (66)
In order to further determine the size of $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ we now consider the natural size of the Dirac mass $`M_D`$. It is in the calculation of $`M_D`$ that the location of $`\nu ^c`$ becomes relevant.

We first consider case (1). When $`\nu ^c`$ is on the PS brane, the natural size of $`M_D=\sqrt{\frac{3M_{}}{2M_c}}\lambda _DM_c`$ (Eqn. 43) with $`\lambda _D`$ “naturally” O(1). Hence the “natural” value for $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}M_{}`$. In order to obtain the correct size for the right-handed Majorana mass we need $`\lambda _D\sqrt{\frac{M_c}{M_{}}}\frac{1}{30}`$. This is not a particularly onerous amount of fine-tuning. However, this may be achieved “naturally” by adding a brane localized SO(10) singlet field $`S`$ and replacing the Dirac mass term (Eqn. 40) by the mass term

$`W=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{24\pi ^3}{M_{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{M_{}}}\overline{\chi }^c\psi ^cN^c\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}}).`$ (67)
Note, the leading term, $`W=\overline{\chi }^c\psi ^cN^c`$ can be forbidden by a U(1) symmetry under which $`S`$ and $`\psi ^c`$ carry charges $`1,1`$ respectively. In this case, the fundamental Yukawa coupling $`\lambda _D`$ is replaced by the ratio $`\frac{4\pi S}{M_{}}`$. The suppression factor O($`\frac{1}{30}`$) is now obtained “naturally” by a U(1) symmetry breaking vev for $`\frac{4\pi S}{M_{}}`$, i.e. one order of magnitude less than its “natural” value.

In case (2), where

$`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2M_D^2M_N}{8M_c^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{3\pi ^2}{16}}\lambda _D^2{\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{M_c}}M_N,`$ (68)
we need $`\lambda _D^2M_N\frac{M_c}{M_{}}M_c10^3M_c`$. This can be obtained with either a small Majorana mass $`M_N10^3M_c`$, or a small Yukawa coupling $`\lambda _D\frac{1}{30}`$ or some linear combination thereof such as $`\lambda _D\frac{M_N}{M_c}\frac{1}{10}`$. In any case the desired value for $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}M_c`$ can be accommodated.

#### 5.1.2 Bulk $`\nu ^c`$ case : Inclusion of $`\nu ^c`$ KK modes

We now show that in the case of $`\nu ^c`$ in the bulk, although the formula for $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ (Eqn. 64) is unchanged, the “natural” value for the Dirac mass $`M_DM_c`$.

In the previous case we assumed $`\nu ^c`$ is a brane field without KK modes. Now, when $`\nu ^c`$ (i.e. $`\psi ^c`$) is in the bulk, the mass matrix becomes much larger, but the analysis remains the same. The mass term is given by

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒩^T\widehat{}𝒩,`$ (69)
with an extended definition of $`𝒩`$,

$`𝒩`$ $`=`$ $`(\nu _0^c,N_0,N_0^c,N_1,N_1^c,\mathrm{},\nu _1^c,\overline{\nu ^c}_1,\nu _2^c,\overline{\nu ^c}_2,\mathrm{}),`$ (70)
and the mass matrix is

$`\widehat{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}0& 0& M_D& 0& M_D& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& M_N& M_c& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ M_D& M_c& M_N& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \sqrt{2}M_D& 0& \sqrt{2}M_D& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& M_N& 3M_c& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ M_D& 0& 0& 3M_c& M_N& \mathrm{}& \sqrt{2}M_D& 0& \sqrt{2}M_D& 0& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \sqrt{2}M_D& 0& \sqrt{2}M_D& \mathrm{}& 0& 2M_c& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 2M_c& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \sqrt{2}M_D& 0& \sqrt{2}M_D& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0& 4M_c& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 4M_c& 0& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right).`$ (82)
The effective right-handed neutrino mass is obtained by finding $`(\widehat{}^1)_{\nu _n^c\nu _n^c}`$ for $`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. We find

$`M_{\nu _0^\mathrm{c}\nu _0^\mathrm{c}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\widehat{}^1)_{\nu _0^c\nu _0^c}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi M_D^2}{4M_c}}\mathrm{tanh}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi M_N}{2M_c}}),`$ (84)
$`(\widehat{}^1)_{\nu _n^c\nu _n^c}`$ $`=`$ $`0(n=1,2,\mathrm{}).`$ (85)
We note two interesting facts about this result. Firstly, this result is identical to the effective right-handed neutrino Majorana mass found for the previous case with $`\nu ^c`$ localized on the brane (Eqn. 64). Secondly, the effective Majorana mass is generated only for the zero mode of $`\nu ^c`$ and is independent of KK modes of $`\nu ^c`$. You can easily check this using the above mass matrix by adding or subtracting $`\sqrt{2}\times \nu _0^c`$ column (row) to the $`\nu _n^c`$ column (row) which makes the mass matrix block diagonal form for $`\nu _n^c`$ for $`n1`$. This operation does not change the determinant. We find

$`\mathrm{Det}\widehat{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Det}\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}0& 0& M_D& 0& M_D& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& M_N& M_c& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ M_D& M_c& M_N& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& M_N& 3M_c& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ M_D& 0& 0& 3M_c& M_N& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 2M_c& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 2M_c& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 0& 4M_c& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& 4M_c& 0& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right).`$ (97)
We then easily find the $`\nu _n^c\nu _n^c`$ component of the inverse which is just the inverse of each $`2\times 2`$ matrix and it is zero.

For the most natural values of $`M_D`$ ($`=\sqrt{\frac{3}{4}}M_c`$) (Eqn. 39) and for any value of $`M_N`$ satisfying $`M_{}M_NM_c`$, we get the effective right-handed Majorana mass

$`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi }{16}}M_c.`$ (98)
Therefore in this case, the effective Majorana mass for the right-handed neutrino is “naturally” given by the compactification scale $`M_c10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$.

### 5.2 Brane Majorana Mass for $`N`$

It is possible to imagine $`M_N=0`$. Suppose there is an additional U(1) symmetry (lepton number) under which $`N(N^c),\overline{\chi }^c`$ carries a charge $`1(1),3`$. The bulk Majorana mass is forbidden. Then if there is a brane localized field $`S`$, carrying U(1) charge $`2`$, we can write down the Majorana mass term on the brane.777It is not clear whether it would be better to have $`S`$ in the bulk or on the brane. For definiteness here we consider $`S`$ localized on the brane. We consider the case of both a brane localized and bulk field $`\psi ^c\nu ^c`$. As before we first consider $`\nu ^c`$ localized on the brane.

The most general superpotential has the mass terms given by

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`N_5N^c+{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi ^2}{M_{}}}\lambda _NSNN\delta (y)+4\pi \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{24\pi ^3}{M_{}^3}}}\lambda _DS\overline{\chi }^c\psi ^cN^c\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}}),`$ (99)
which is decomposed into KK modes as

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[(2n+1)M_cN_nN_n^c+{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(M_NN_nN_m\right)+(1)^nM_D\nu ^cN_n^c\right]`$ (100)
with

$`M_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\pi S}{M_{}}}\lambda _NM_c`$ (101)
and

$`M_D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{24\pi ^2}S}{M_{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \overline{\chi }^c}{M_{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{M_c}}}\lambda _DM_c{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{24\pi ^2}S}{M_{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{M_c}}}M_c`$ (102)
where the last term is the “natural” value (see for comparison Eqn. 43).

We now define

$`𝒩`$ $`=`$ $`(\nu ^c,N_0,N_0^c,N_1,N_1^c,\mathrm{},N_n,N_n^c,\mathrm{}).`$ (103)
Then

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒩^T\widehat{}𝒩`$ (104)
with

$`\widehat{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& 0& M_D& 0& M_D& \mathrm{}& (1)^nM_D& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 2M_N& M_c& 2M_N& 0& \mathrm{}& 2M_N& 0& \mathrm{}\\ M_D& M_c& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 2M_N& 0& 2M_N& 3M_c& \mathrm{}& 2M_N& 0& \mathrm{}\\ M_D& 0& 0& 3M_c& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ (1)^nM_D& 2M_N& 0& 2M_N& 0& \mathrm{}& 2M_N& (2n+1)M_c& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& (2n+1)M_c& 0& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right).`$ (114)
The effective right-handed neutrino mass is obtained similarly by finding $`(\widehat{}^1)_{\nu ^c\nu ^c}`$ where

$`(\widehat{}^1)_{\nu ^c\nu ^c}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Det}}{\mathrm{Det}\widehat{}}}.`$ (115)
We obtain

$`\mathrm{Det}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(((2n+1)M_c)^2)`$ (116)
and

$`\mathrm{Det}\widehat{}`$ $`=`$ $`2M_NM_D^2\left[{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{(2n+1)M_c}}\right]^2\mathrm{Det}`$ (117)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2M_NM_D^2}{8M_c^2}}\mathrm{Det}.`$
Therefore we obtain the effective Majorana mass for the right-handed neutrino given by the expression

$`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|(\widehat{}^1)_{\nu ^c\nu ^c}|}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2M_NM_D^2}{8M_c^2}}.`$ (118)
Note, this result is the same as in the case of the bulk Majorana mass, when $`M_NM_c`$ (see Eqn. 66). Finally, we have $`M_N\frac{3\pi S}{M_{}}M_c`$ (Eqn 101). Thus $`M_N`$ is “naturally” $`𝒪(\frac{3}{4}M_c)`$ for $`\frac{4\pi S}{M_{}}1`$.

We now obtain the following results for the effective right-handed neutrino mass. When $`\nu ^c`$ is localized on the brane, we have $`M_D\frac{\sqrt{24\pi ^2}S}{M_{}}\sqrt{\frac{M_{}}{M_c}}M_c`$ (Eqn. 102). Hence we can get $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}M_c`$, but only if we take $`4\pi S/M_{}1/10`$. However if we now take $`\nu ^c`$ in the bulk, using the “natural” values for $`M_D\sqrt{\frac{3}{4}}M_c`$ (see Eqn. 39) and $`M_N\frac{3}{4}M_c`$, we get $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}\frac{9\pi ^2}{128}M_c`$. In both cases, we find results very similar to the case of bulk Majorana mass. In summary, for $`\nu ^c`$ localized on the brane an effective right-handed neutrino mass of order $`M_c`$ can be accommodated, while for $`\nu ^c`$ in the bulk we “naturally” obtain $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}M_c`$.

### 5.3 Left-Handed Tau Neutrino Mass

Let us now complete the picture. As discussed above, the effective Majorana mass for $`\nu ^c`$ (or its zero mode $`\nu _0^c`$ if it is a bulk field) is given by $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}\gamma M_c`$ where the parameter $`\gamma =`$ $`𝒪(1)`$ depends on the details of the model. Note, only the zero mode of $`\nu ^c`$ is effective in the See-Saw mechanism. We now construct the effective $`2\times 2`$ mass matrix for $`(\nu ,\nu _0^c)`$. We have

$`_{22}^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& m\\ m& \gamma M_c\end{array}\right)`$ (121)
with $`m=m_t`$ at the GUT scale.

We now consider the most general possibilities for having $`\psi ^c`$($`\nu ^c`$) in the bulk or on the PS brane. Similarly, $`\psi `$($`\nu `$) can be either in the bulk or on the PS brane. Note, gauge coupling unification can be affected by the splitting of the left-handed $`\psi `$ and the right-handed $`\psi ^c`$ matter fields, if all KK modes are not in complete SO(10) multiplets.

There are three possibilities for the third generation matter fields configurations. In all cases, the condition for the nontrivial fixed points is satisfied.

* $`\psi `$ and $`\psi ^c`$ in the bulk:

Gauge coupling unification works fine and the See-Saw scale is naturally of order $`M_c`$. However, there is a serious problem. The natural value for the top quark Yukawa coupling has a volume suppression with $`\lambda =\lambda _t\frac{(24\pi ^3)^{3/2}}{16\pi ^2}(\frac{M_c}{M_{}})^{3/2}`$. Hence obtaining an order one coupling is difficult. At the very least, we would need to localize the Higgs towards the PS brane. However this would destroy the success of gauge coupling unification. As a result we are forced to place the third generation on the PS brane.888Note, we could ameliorate the large suppression factor $`(\frac{M_c}{M_{}})^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ by decreasing the ratio $`M_{}/M_c`$. In our previous paper  we showed that this ratio is fixed by the GUT threshold correction $`ϵ_3(\alpha _3(M_{GUT})\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{GUT})/\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{GUT}0.04`$ required to fit the precision electroweak data in the equivalent 4D theory \[where $`\alpha _1(M_{GUT})=\alpha _2(M_{GUT})=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{GUT}`$\]. We also note that the precise value of $`ϵ_3`$ depends on the squark, slepton and gaugino spectrum through electroweak threshold corrections. It has recently been noted by Dermisek  that as the universal GUT value of the squark and slepton mass - $`m_{16}`$ \- increases, with $`m_{16}M_{1/2}`$, the value of $`ϵ_3`$ approaches zero. Moreover using the results of Ref.  we see that $`M_{}/M_c\mathrm{exp}(7|ϵ_3|/0.04)`$ with $`M_cM_{GUT}\mathrm{exp}(5|ϵ_3|/0.04)`$. Hence as $`|ϵ_3|`$ decreases the compactification scale increases and the ratio $`M_{}/M_c`$ decreases. For example, with $`ϵ_3=0.02`$ we have $`M_{}/M_c33`$ and $`M_c2.5\times 10^{15}`$ GeV. In this case we could put the third generation in the bulk, without suffering any volume suppression in the Yukawa coupling, with the See-Saw scale determined naturally by $`M_c`$ which is moderately larger than before. Thus whether the third generation should be a bulk field or a brane field is somewhat model dependent.  The first two families however can be bulk fields with a welcome suppression of their Higgs Yukawa coupling.
* $`\psi ^c`$ in the bulk and $`\psi `$ on the PS brane:

Again, the See-Saw scale is naturally of order $`M_c`$, however now gauge couplings get a threshold correction which makes the prediction worse. The anomaly generated by massive KK modes of $`\psi ^c`$ is cancelled by a 5D Chern-Simons term .
* $`\psi `$ in the bulk and $`\psi ^c`$ on the PS brane:

The gauge coupling unification goes in the right direction. We get a precise unification with a smaller ratio of $`M_{}/M_c`$. The effective right-handed neutrino mass needs an additional suppression by $`\frac{4\pi S}{M_{}}`$ of order $`\frac{1}{10}`$ to give a See-Saw scale at $`M_c`$. Again there is an anomaly inflow with a 5D Chern-Simons term.
* $`\psi `$ and $`\psi ^c`$ on the PS brane:

Gauge coupling unification works fine. However, as above, the See-Saw scale needs a suppression from $`\frac{4\pi S}{M_{}}`$ of order $`\frac{1}{10}`$.

With the above caveats it is possible to obtain a light tau neutrino mass $`m_{\nu _\tau }m^2/M_c`$. Each one of the above choices, however, makes specific constraints on 5D SO(10) model building.

## 6 Conclusion

There are now several physics issues related to the compactification scale $`M_c10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$.

* Gauge coupling unification

In 4D, SUSY GUTs require a threshold correction $`ϵ(\frac{\alpha _3(M_{GUT})\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{GUT}}{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{GUT}})0.04`$ in order to achieve a perfect gauge coupling unification. In minimal SU(5), this results from a color triplet Higgs mass $`m_{H_3}10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$. The same result would be necessary in any SUSY GUT with an assumption that there is no other threshold correction from the GUT breaking sector.

In 5D, Orbifold SUSY GUTs determine the threshold correction as a function of $`M_c`$ and $`M_{}`$. There are no other free parameters. Now the threshold correction requires the Higgs to be in the bulk and determines the compactification scale $`M_c10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$. In this framework, the 4D GUT scale is fictitious, however it is related to the compactification and cutoff scales by the approximate expression $`M_{GUT}(\frac{M_{}}{M_c})^{2/3}M_c`$. This relation determines the cutoff scale $`M_{}10^{17}\mathrm{GeV}`$.
* Neutrino mass

In 4D, the natural size of the right-handed tau neutrino Majorana mass is determined from the higher dimensional operator $`\frac{1}{M_{Pl}}\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}\mathbf{16}\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}}\mathbf{16}`$ (or similarly $`\frac{1}{M_{Pl}}\overline{\chi }^𝐜\psi ^𝐜\overline{\chi }^𝐜\psi ^𝐜`$ in PS). By replacing $`\overline{16}M_{GUT}`$ one obtains $`M_{\nu ^c}\frac{M_{GUT}^2}{M_{Pl}}10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$.

In 5D, if $`\nu ^c`$ is localized on the PS brane, we can accommodate an effective right-handed neutrino mass of order $`M_c`$ either using a U(1) symmetry with a symmetry breaking vev $`\frac{4\pi S}{M_{}}1/10`$ to suppress the natural scale for the heavy Dirac neutrino mass999This is the Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism  applied to neutrino masses. or with a small Majorana neutrino mass with $`M_N/M_c1`$ (or a bit of both).

On the other hand, for $`\nu ^c`$ in the bulk, the volume suppression naturally gives $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}M_c10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$ even for $`\overline{\chi }^cM_{}`$. Unfortunately, the same volume suppression would naturally give a top Yukawa coupling $`\lambda _t\frac{(24\pi ^3)^{3/2}}{16\pi ^2}(\frac{M_c}{M_{}})^{3/2}1`$. This is a serious problem which can be ameliorated by decreasing the volume factor $`(\frac{M_{}}{M_c})^{3/2}`$. One particular solution is testable at the electroweak scale. As discussed in Footnote 8, changing the universal squark and slepton mass $`m_{16}`$ directly affects gauge coupling threshold corrections at the electroweak scale and indirectly at the GUT scale. Moreover, increasing $`m_{16}`$ has the effect of increasing the compactification scale $`M_c`$, decreasing the cutoff scale $`M_{}`$, hence decreasing the ratio $`(M_{}/M_c)^{3/2}`$. It is encouraging that the scale necessary for the atmospheric neutrino oscillations (which is the tau neutrino mass in SO(10)) can be the same as the compactification scale $`M_c10^{1415}`$ GeV, necessary for a successful unification of gauge couplings.

Finally, it is interesting to note that part of this result could simply have been obtained using an effective higher dimensional right-handed neutrino mass operator on the PS brane given by

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{2M_{}^n}}\overline{\chi }^𝐜\psi ^𝐜\overline{\chi }^𝐜\psi ^𝐜\delta (𝐲{\displaystyle \frac{\pi 𝐑}{\mathrm{𝟐}}})`$ (122)
with $`n`$ = 1, $`C=16\pi ^2c`$ (for $`\psi ^c`$ on the PS brane) or $`n`$ = 2, $`C=24\pi ^3c`$ (for $`\psi ^c`$ in the bulk). Thus when $`4\pi \overline{\chi }^cM_{}`$ in the right-handed neutrino direction and $`c1`$ (i.e. the “natural” values) we find a right-handed neutrino mass

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_{\mathrm{eff}}\nu ^c\nu ^c`$ (123)
with

$`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}M_{}\\ \frac{3}{4}M_c\end{array}\right)\mathrm{for}\psi ^c\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{on}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{PS}\mathrm{brane}\\ \mathrm{in}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{bulk}\end{array}\right).`$ (128)
Once again we find that the value of $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for $`\psi ^c`$ in the bulk is of order $`M_c`$, but for $`\psi ^c`$ on the PS brane we can only obtain this desired value with a small value of $`c10^3`$. However note, with this effective operator analysis we cannot realize the possibility of suppressing $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ (for $`\psi ^c`$ on the PS brane) with a small Majorana mass.
* 5D Planck scale

There is another very interesting relation between the 5D Planck scale $`M_{5\mathrm{D}}`$ and the cutoff scale $`M_{}`$. In the presence of the extra dimension, the 4D Planck scale is a derived scale which is determined by the 5D Planck scale $`M_{5\mathrm{D}}`$ and the compactification scale $`M_c`$. The relation is $`M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2=\frac{M_{5\mathrm{D}}^3}{M_c}`$. Now for $`M_c10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$, we get $`M_{5\mathrm{D}}10^{17}\mathrm{GeV}`$. Note, this is the same as the cutoff scale $`M_{}`$ determined assuming gauge coupling unification.

In conclusion, in this paper we have discussed several different possible frameworks for obtaining a See-Saw mechanism in 5D SUSY SO(10). If the right-handed tau neutrino is in the bulk then we find that the “natural” value of the See-Saw scale is given by the compactification scale $`M_c10^{14}`$ GeV. As noted in the text, this scenario has a serious problem with a very small top quark Yukawa coupling. This problem can be overcome, however, with the bottom line effect of moderately increasing $`M_c`$ to about $`10^{15}`$ GeV. On the other hand, if the right-handed tau neutrino is on the Pati-Salam brane, then the “natural” value for the See-Saw scale is greater than the compactification scale. However, using a Froggatt-Nielsen like mechanism and/or a small Majorana neutrino mass $`M_N1`$, a See-Saw scale of order $`M_c`$ can be obtained.

Note, the values of the compactification scale $`M_c`$ and the cutoff scale $`M_{}`$ are determined by gauge coupling unification . In addition, we note that the cutoff scale is the same as the 5D Planck scale determined using the observed the 4D Planck scale and the compactification scale. This triple significance for a scale around $`10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$ is either an amazing coincidence or very profound.

Finally, we have only discussed the effective right-handed Majorana mass appropriate for one family of quarks and leptons in this paper. Further discussion of neutrino mixing angles within this framework must wait until a three family model is constructed.

###### Acknowledgments.

Partial support for this work came from DOE grant# DOE/ER/01545-842. S.R. would also like to acknowledge the support from the Institute for Advanced Study through a grant in aid from the Monell Foundation.

## Appendix A 5D Fermion Mass Operator

### A.1 5D Mass in terms of 4D Weyl spinors

To express 5D mass terms in terms of 4D Weyl spinor, we summarize our spinor convention and charge conjugation (especially for the 5D Majorana mass).

Dirac $`\gamma `$ matrix in 5D is

$`\gamma _0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\gamma _i=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _i\\ \sigma _i& 0\end{array}\right),\widehat{\gamma _5}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i& 0\\ 0& i\end{array}\right),`$ (135)
where $`\sigma _i`$ with $`i=1,2,3`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ Pauli matrix. Each element is thus a $`2\times 2`$ matrix. Note that $`\widehat{\gamma _5}=i\gamma _5`$ for the usual $`\gamma _5`$ defined in 4D theory. Now $`\gamma _M=\{\gamma _\mu ,\widehat{\gamma _5}\}`$ with $`M=0,1,2,3,5`$ forms a Clifford algebra in 5D

$`\{\gamma _M,\gamma _N\}`$ $`=`$ $`2g_{MN}.`$ (136)
Generators of Lorentz transformations for 5D spinors are given by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{MN}`$ $``$ $`i[\gamma _M,\gamma _N].`$ (137)
A 5D spinor and its complex conjugate is given by

$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _1\\ i\sigma _2\chi _2^{}\end{array}\right),\psi ^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _1^{}\\ i\sigma _2\chi _2\end{array}\right).`$ (142)
Let us consider charge conjugation. The Dirac $`\gamma `$ matrices have the property that $`\gamma _M^{}=\gamma _M`$ for $`M=0,1,3`$ and $`\gamma _M^{}=\gamma _M`$ for $`M=2,5`$. For $`C=\gamma _2\widehat{\gamma _5}`$, we have

$`C\gamma _M^{}C^1=\gamma _M,`$ (143)
with $`C^1=C`$.

Charge conjugation is defined as

$`\psi _c`$ $``$ $`C\psi ^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _2\\ i\sigma _2\chi _1^{}\end{array}\right).`$ (146)
It is easy to check that $`\psi _c`$ transforms as the same as $`\psi `$ under the 5D Lorentz transformation.

Using the property $`\gamma _0\gamma _M^{}\gamma _0=\gamma _M`$, we get

$`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ $`=`$ $`(\chi _1^{}\chi _2^Ti\sigma _2)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _1\\ i\sigma _2\chi _2^{}\end{array}\right)`$ (152)
$`=`$ $`\chi _2^T(i\sigma _2)\chi _1+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$
$`\chi _2\chi _1+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,`$
$`\overline{\psi }\psi _c`$ $`=`$ $`(\chi _1^{}\chi _2^Ti\sigma _2)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _2\\ i\sigma _2\chi _1^{}\end{array}\right)`$ (158)
$`=`$ $`\chi _2^T(i\sigma _2)\chi _2+\chi _1^{}(i\sigma _2)\chi _1^{}`$
$`\chi _2\chi _2\chi _1\chi _1+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..`$
We use $`\chi _1N`$ and $`\chi _2N^c`$. The corresponding Dirac mass in a supersymmetric theory is given by

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`M_DNN^c,`$ (159)
and the Majorana mass is

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_N(NN+N^cN^c).`$ (160)
### A.2 Equivalence of 5D Dirac Mass and Majorana Mass

Since a 5D Majorana mass term requires two 4D Weyl spinors, it is natural to ask whether there is a transformation which changes a 5D Dirac Mass to a 5D Majorana Mass, and vice versa.

Let us start from the theory with one hypermultiplet composed of two 4D chiral multiplets $`N_+`$ and $`N_{}`$ with a 5D Dirac mass. Neglecting the boundaries, in 5D, we have

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`N_+_5N_{}+mN_+N_{},`$ (161)
which is the same as

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(N_+_5N_{}N_{}_5N_+)+mN_+N_{},`$ (162)
up to a total derivative. We can re-define the fields,

$`N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(N_+N_{}),`$
$`N^c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(N_++N_{}).`$ (163)
The 5D superpotential is then expressed in terms of $`N`$ and $`N^c`$ by

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`W_{\mathrm{bulk}}+W_{\mathrm{boundary}}`$ (164)
$`W_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(N_5N^cN^c_5N)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m(NN+N^cN^c)`$
$`W_{\mathrm{boundary}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}_5(NN+N^cN^c).`$
Hence, we obtain the Majorana mass from the Dirac mass by the field re-definitions, except for the last term which is a total derivative in 5D. Therefore, it is shown that the Dirac mass and the Majorana mass are equivalent in 5D up to boundary terms. Finally, in the presence of the boundaries, specifically for the orbifold compactification, the Majorana mass term can be re-expressed in terms of the Dirac mass term plus the residual effects given by

$`W_{\mathrm{boundary}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(NN+N^cN^c)\left[\delta (y)+\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}})\right]`$ (165)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[NN\delta (y)+N^cN^c\delta (y{\displaystyle \frac{\pi R}{2}})\right],`$
for $`N_+`$ and $`N_+^c`$.

### A.3 Useful formulae

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x+n}}`$ $`=`$ $`\pi \mathrm{cot}(\pi x).`$ (166)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x+n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{xn}}\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}+\pi \mathrm{cot}(\pi x).`$ (167)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{x^2+(2n+1)^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\mathrm{tanh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi x}{2}}\right).`$ (168)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{2n+1}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}.`$ (169)


format: text

text:
# Microcanonical Thermodynamic Properties of Helium Nanodroplets

## I Introduction

Spectroscopy of atoms and molecules dissolved in superfluid helium nanodroplets has become a field of intense activity. Such nanodroplets rapidly cool by evaporation, reaching final temperatures of $`0.37`$ K Hartmann95 . There is a long history of their formation and study by mass spectroscopic methods Becker61 ; Northby01 . Vibrational Goyal92 ; Hartmann95 ; Callegari01 , electronic Stienkemeier95 ; Hartmann96a ; Stienkemeier01 , and rotational Reinhard99 ; Callegari00c ; Grebenev00a  transitions have been observed. Part of the interest in this field is that helium droplets provide a nearly ideal matrix Lehmann98  for isolation of highly unstable compounds. Many novel compounds and clusters have been synthesized and spectroscopically studied in this unique environment Goyal93 ; Hartmann96 ; Higgins96 ; Nauta99b ; Nauta01c .

There have been several previously reported calculations of the evaporative cooling of helium nanodroplets Gspann82 ; Brink90 , and these have predicted a terminal temperature in excellent agreement with that later observed experimentally Hartmann95 . These calculations, however, have not considered angular momentum conservation, which obviously imposes constraints on droplet cooling in a high vacuum environment. In order to address the question of the possible trapping of angular momentum in a cooling droplet, we have undertaken a new study of the evaporative cooling of the nanodroplets, but including angular momentum conservation, using methods analogous to “Phase Space Theory” calculations of unimolecular dissociation Baer96 . Necessary inputs to such calculations are the density of states and integrated density of states of helium nanodroplets, over the energy and angular momentum range sampled in the evaporative cooling trajectories of nanodroplets.

The angular momentum resolved density of states of helium nanodroplets is not available in the literature. While the calculation of this quantity is largely based upon straightforward extensions of standard convolution methods, there is one particular point that was not. The distribution of angular momentum states produced by excitation of an arbitrary number of quanta in a $`(2L+1)`$ degenerate vibrational state of angular momentum quantum number $`L`$ was required. This distribution is provided by the reduction of the $`n`$’th symmetric product of the $`L`$’th irreducible representation of the group of transformations of a sphere, $`K`$. While the equivalent reduction for common molecular point groups is well known Wilson55 , the present author could not locate the general result for $`K`$, and has derived a recursion relationship that provides the needed reduction. This is presented in the present paper, along with a derived asymptotic expression, which is of the same form as the thermal distribution of a rigid spherical top.

The density of both ripplon and phonon modes are considered separately. In each case, the simple scaling of the excitation spectrum with droplet size (and thus number of helium atoms), allows the density of states to be derived as a unique function of a reduced energy. These functions have been fit to simple analytical expressions which provide excellent approximations over the range of energy and angular momentum of interest. In particular, it is found that the distribution of angular momentum quantum states is of the form of the thermal distribution of rotation for a rigid spherical top, with a reduced energy dependent effective inverse “temperature” that changes slowly with energy.

## II Ripplon Excitations

The lowest energy excitations of a pure droplet are ripplons, which are quantized capillary waves on the surface of the droplets. The properties of such waves on spherical drops are thoroughly described in the classic text on hydrodynamics by Lamb Lamb . Classically, each ripplon mode involves a modulation of the surface of the droplet, with

$$r(\theta ,\varphi )=r_0+\underset{L,M}{}Re\left(A_{LM}Y_{LM}(\theta ,\phi )e^{i\omega _Lt}\right)$$
(1)
where $`L2`$ and

$$\omega _L=\sqrt{L(L1)(L+2)}\omega _0$$
(2)
$$\omega _0=\sqrt{\frac{\sigma }{m\rho R^3}}=\sqrt{\frac{4\pi \sigma }{3mN}}$$
(3)
and $`\sigma `$ is the helium surface tension (approximated by the bulk zero temperature value of 0.363 mJ/m2), $`m`$ is the atomic mass of helium, $`\rho `$ is the number density of helium (approximated by the bulk zero temperature value of 0.0218 Å-3), and $`R=\sqrt[3]{\frac{3N}{4\pi \rho }}=2.22N^{1/3}`$ Å with $`N`$ equal to the number of helium atoms in the droplet. Given that the spectrum of ripplon modes is proportional to a common factor that contains the size dependence, the thermodynamic functions of the ripplon modes are universal functions of a reduced energy which has unit value equal to $`E_\text{r}=\mathrm{}\omega _0=3.77/\sqrt{N}k_\text{B}`$K.

The integrated total state count, $`N_E`$, and the total density of states, $`\rho _E`$, can be calculated from the spectrum of ripplon mode frequencies using the Beyer-Swinehart direct count method Baer96 . In addition to the spectrum, one needs the degeneracy of a state with $`n_L`$ quanta in the ripplon mode with quantum number L. This is equal to the number of distinct ways of putting $`n_L`$ identical objects into $`2L+1`$ bins and is equal to $`g(n_L,L)=\frac{(n_L+2L)!}{(2L)!n_L!}`$ Reif65 . Define $`N_E(E,L)`$ to be the integrated density of states calculated using only ripplon modes with angular momentum quantum numbers less than or equal to $`L`$. We can recursively calculate the total integrated density of states by using:

$`N_E(E,L=2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_2}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(E\mathrm{}\omega _2n_2)g(n_2,2)`$ (4)
$`N_E(E,L)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_L}{}}N(E\mathrm{}\omega _Ln_L,L1)g(n_L,L)`$ (5)
where the unit step function is defined by $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=1(0)`$ for x greater or equal to (or less than) zero. In the Beyer-Swinehart algorithm, the above are calculated using an energy bin size, $`\delta E`$ sufficiently small that each $`\omega _L/\delta E`$ can be approximated by an integer. A step size of $`0.1`$ reduced energy unit was used in this work. The calculated values of $`N_E`$ and $`\rho _E`$ are plotted on figure 1. We have fitted the calculated integrated density of states to the expression

$$N_E=\mathrm{exp}\left(aE^{4/7}+bE^{1/7}\right)$$
(6)
Values of a = 2.5118 and b= -3.4098 minimized the root mean squared fractional errors over the interval $`E=502500`$. Changing the step size in the calculation and refitting the integrated density of states gave values of a = 2.5118 and b = -3.4110. The leading power of $`4/7`$ can be derived by equating the high temperature limit of the microcanonical and canonical ensemble values of energy and entropy (which is proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(\rho _E)`$ in the microcanonical case). The power of $`1/7`$ for the correction term was selected based upon the slope, on a log-log plot, of $`N_EE^{4/7}`$ vs. $`E`$. The expression for $`N_E`$ given in Eq. 6 agrees with the Beyer-Swinehart direct count to within $`\pm 5`$% while $`N_E`$ increases by more than 83 order of magnitude over the reduced energy range $`502500`$. Using standard expressions McQuarrieText  for the thermodynamic functions of a microcanonical ensemble, we can derive the following:

$`\rho _E(E)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}N_E}{\text{d}E}}\right)=N_E(E)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{7}}aE^{3/7}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{7}}bE^{6/7}\right]`$ (7)
$`S_E(E)`$ $`=`$ $`k_\text{B}\mathrm{ln}(\rho _E(E))=k_\text{B}\left[aE^{4/7}+bE^{1/7}+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{7}}aE^{3/7}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{7}}bE^{6/7}\right)\right]\stackrel{E1}{}k_\text{B}aE^{4/7}`$ (8)
$`T_E(E)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}S}{\text{d}E}}\right)^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_\text{B}}}{\displaystyle \frac{28aE^{10/7}+7E}{16a^2E+8abE^{4/7}12aE^{3/7}+b^2E^{1/7}6b}}\stackrel{E1}{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_\text{B}}}{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4a}}E^{3/7}`$ (9)
$`C_V`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}T}{\text{d}E}}\right)^1=`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{k_\text{B}\left(16a^2E+8abE^{4/7}12aE^{2/7}6b\right)^2}{6\left(32a^3E^{10/7}+32a^2bE56a^2E^{6/7}+10ab^2E^{4/7}48abE^{3/7}+b^3E^{1/7}7b^2\right)}}`$
$`\stackrel{E1}{}k_\text{B}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{4}}E^{4/7}`$
$`S_E`$, $`T_E`$, and $`C_V`$ are the microcannonical values of the entropy, temperature, and heat capacity due to the droplet modes as a function of reduced rippon energy. The density of states, $`\rho _E`$, can be compared with $`0.311E^{5/7}\mathrm{exp}(2.49E^{4/7})`$ derived by Brink and Stringari Brink90  through inverse Laplace Transformation of the high temperature canonical partition function using the stationary phase approximation. (Their reported results have been converted to the normalized roton energy units used in this work). It can be seen that the exponential dependence of the density of states is almost identical, but there is a slight difference in the power of the energy dependence of the exponential prefactor.

For isolated helium nanodroplets, angular momentum as well as energy is a conserved quantity, and thus the proper statistical ensemble is one that sums only over states of the same energy and total angular momentum. As a first step in the calculation of the properties of this ensemble, we have derived a regression expression that determines $`N_J(J,n_L,L)`$ which is the number of states of total angular momentum quantum number $`J`$ that are generated from placing $`n_L`$ quanta in a ripplon mode with angular momentum $`L`$. We “count” such that each “state” is an irreducible representation with $`2J+1`$ values of the projection quantum number. This recursion expression and its derivation is given in the Appendix to this paper.

The individual values of $`N_J(J,n_L,L)`$ are quite irregular and do not appear to derive from any simple expression. However, the sum of states, of course, gives the simple expression:

$$\underset{J}{}(2J+1)N_J(J,n_L,L)=g(n_L,L)=\frac{(n+2L)!}{(2L)!n_L!}$$
(11)
Also, the mean value of the squared angular momentum has been empirically found to be given by a simple expression:

$$<J(J+1)>_{n_L,L}=n_L\left[L(L+1)+\frac{1}{2}L(n_L1)\right]$$
(12)
If we ignored the Bose symmetry (i.e. treated the angular momenta of different quanta in the same Ripplon mode as uncorrelated), we would not have the last term on the right hand side. The Bose symmetry increases the mean squared angular momentum because ripplon excitations have a greater probability of being in the same direction than if they where distinguishable. This closed form expression can be used to sum a thermal distribution of ripplons as a function of inverse temperature in reduced energy units, $`\beta =E_\text{r}/k_\text{B}T`$.

$`<J(J+1)>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_L,L}{}}<J(J+1)>_{n_L,L}g(n_L,L)\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta n_L\sqrt{L(L1)(L+2)}\right)`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{L}{}}L(L+1)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2L+1}{e^{\beta \sqrt{L(L1)(L+2)}}1}}\right]\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L\left(e^{\beta \sqrt{L(L1)(L+2)}}1\right)}}\right]`$
If we neglect the correlations induced by the Bose symmetry of the ripplon modes, we get the same result as above but with the last term on the right hand side omitted.

In a previous paper,the present author used the uncorrelated expression to calculate the root mean squared averaged angular ripplon angular momentum as a function of droplet size Lehmann99b . Figure 2 shows a plot of the thermally averaged value of $`𝐉^2`$ calculated both neglecting the Bose symmetry and by explicit thermal average over the present Microcanonical results. It is seen that the exact calculation is modestly higher than for the uncorrelated prediction, but by a nearly constant factor of approximately 20%.

Given $`N_J(J,n_L,L)`$, the $`J`$ restricted state count and density of states can be computed using a modification of the Beyer-Swinehart direct count. Define $`N_{EJ}(E,J,L)`$ to the integrated density of states with total angular momentum $`J`$, but including excitation only in ripplon modes up to angular momentum quantum number $`L`$. The following recursion relation is easily derived by using the triangle rule:

$`N_{EJ}(E,J,L=2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_2}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(E\mathrm{}\omega _2n_2)N_J(J,n_2,2)`$ (14)
$`N_{EJ}(E,J,L)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_L,J^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{J^{\prime \prime }=|JJ^{}|}{\overset{J+J^{}}{}}}N_{EJ}(E\mathrm{}\omega _Ln_L,J^{\prime \prime },L1)N_J(J^{},n_J,L)`$ (15)
for each $`E`$, we need to iterate on $`L`$ until $`\mathrm{}\omega _L>E`$ to get the complete integrated density of states, $`N_{EJ}(E,J)`$, with total angular momentum $`J`$. We have explicitly calculated $`N_{EJ}(E)`$ for $`E200.`$ by this procedure. It was found that for each $`E>50`$, $`N_{EJ}(E,J)`$ has a distribution that accurately fits the functional form:

$$N_{EL}(E,J)=N_E(E)(2J+1)\sqrt{\frac{\beta _L(E)^3}{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta _L(E)(J+1/2)^2\right)$$
(16)
which is the form of the thermal distribution for a spherical rigid rotor. Figure 3 shows plots of the calculated distributions compared to the fitted “thermal” form for several values of the reduced energy.

Assuming this “thermal” distribution of states with different rotational quantum numbers, The value of $`\beta _L(E)`$ can be calculated if we know the mean value of total angular momentum, $`<J(J+1)>`$, over all states up to a given energy by using $`<J(J+1)>=\frac{3}{2}\beta _L^1`$. Using the relationship given in Eq. 12, we have derived a recursion relationship to calculate this quantity without having to explicitly enumerate all the states as a function of $`J`$. Let $`A(E)`$ be the average of the total angular momentum quantum numbers for all states up to reduced energy $`E`$, and $`A(E,L)`$ the same quantity, but calculated only using ripplon modes with quantum numbers up to $`L`$. Since angular momentum in different modes are uncorrelated, the total angular momentum is just the sum of angular momentum in each individual mode. It is straightforward to derive that

$`N_E(E,L)A(E,L)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_L}{}}g(n_L,L)N_E(E\mathrm{}\omega _Ln_L,L1)\times `$ (17)
$`\left(A(E\mathrm{}\omega _Ln_L,L1)+n_L\left[L(L+1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}L(n_L1)\right]\right)`$
The inverse “rotational temperature”, $`\beta _L(E)`$, can be calculated by using the standard spherical top relation $`A(E)=3/(2\beta _L(E))`$. Using this procedure, $`\beta _L(E)`$ has been calculated for $`E=102500.`$. The values of $`\beta _L(E)`$ are plotted in figure 4 along with a fit through the points to a power law in energy:

$$\beta _L(E)=cE^{8/7}+dE^{13/7}$$
(18)
with $`c=0.8680`$ and $`d=0.9639`$. A fit the the values calculated using an energy bin of 0.01 reduced units gave $`c=0.8679`$ and $`0.9759`$. The $`\beta _L`$ values from this fit are also displayed on figure 4, but cannot be distinguished on the scale of the plot. The $`\beta _L(E)`$ calculated with Eq. 18 agrees with the calculated values to within 0.1% for $`E=1002500`$ and to within 1% for $`E=50100`$. The reduction in accuracy in this domain is because the calculated values of $`\beta _L(E)`$ oscillate around the value predicted by Eq. 18. The leading power of -8/7 in $`\beta _L(E)`$ can be derived by equating the high temperature limit for the mean value of the total angular momentum squared for the canonical and microcanonical ensemble.

Using the standard relationships, we can use calculate the thermodynamic quantities as a function of reduced ripplon energy and total angular momentum of the droplet as:

$`\rho _{EJ}(E,J)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_E}{E}}\right)_J=N_{EJ}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{7}}aE^{3/7}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{7}}bE^{6/7}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\beta _L}}\left(J+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)^2\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\beta _L}{dE}}\right)\right]`$ (19)
$`S_{EJ}(E,J)`$ $`=`$ $`k_b\mathrm{ln}\left(\rho _{EJ}\right)=k_b[aE^{4/7}+bE^{1/7}+\mathrm{ln}(2J+1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _L^3}{\pi }}\right)\beta _L(J+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})^2`$ (20)
$`+\mathrm{ln}[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{7}}aE^{3/7}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{7}}bE^{6/7}+({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\beta _L}}(J+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})^2)\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\beta _L}{dE}}\right)]]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_bT_{EJ}(E,J)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_b}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S_{SJ}}{E}}\right)_J={\displaystyle \frac{4}{7}}aE^{3/7}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{7}}bE^{6/7}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\beta _L}}\left(J+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)^2\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\beta _L}{dE}}\right)`$ (21)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{12}{49}aE^{10/7}\frac{6}{49}bE^{13/7}+\left(\frac{3}{2\beta _L}\left(J+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2\right)\left(\frac{d^2\beta _L}{dE^2}\right)\frac{3}{2\beta _L^2}\left(\frac{d\beta _L}{dE}\right)^2}{\left[\frac{4}{7}aE^{3/7}+\frac{1}{7}bE^{6/7}+\left(\frac{3}{2\beta _L}\left(J+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2\right)\left(\frac{d\beta _L}{dE}\right)\right]}}`$
If we neglect $`\frac{3}{2\beta _L^2}\left(\frac{d\beta _L}{dE}\right)^2`$ in Eq. 21 (which $`3.2E^{4/7}`$ times $`\frac{12}{49}aE^{10/7}`$ that it is added to), then the equation for $`T_{EJ}`$ can be shown to reduce in the high energy limit to:

$$T_{EJ}(E,J)=T_E(E)+0.48E^{9/7}\left(\frac{3}{2\beta _L}\left(J+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2\right)+O\left(\frac{3}{2\beta _L}\left(J+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2\right)^2$$
(22)
$`T_{EJ}`$ decreases monotonically with $`J`$ for fixed $`E`$. $`T_{EJ}(E,0)=T_E(E)+0.83E^{1/7}`$, while for the RMS value of $`J`$, $`T_{EJ}(E,J)=T_E(E)`$. However, for $`J1.2E^{6/7}`$, $`T_{EJ}1.01E^{15/7}J^2`$, values much below $`T_E(E)`$ for the same value of $`E`$.

## III Phonon Excitations

Starting at higher energy than the surface ripplon modes are phonon (compressional) excitations of the helium droplets. These normal modes are characterized by two quantum numbers, $`n,L`$, where $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ is the number of radial nodes and $`L`$ is the angular momentum quantum number. Each normal node can be characterized by a wavenumber $`k_{n,L}`$ which is determined by $`k_{n,L}=r_{n,L}/R`$ where $`r_{n,L}`$ is the $`n`$’th root of the spherical bessel function $`j_L`$ Tamura96 . For $`k_{n,L}1`$ Å-1 (i.e. much smaller than the wavenumber of a roton), the excitation angular frequency of each mode is given by $`\omega _{n,L}=uk_{n,L}`$, where $`u=236`$ m/s is the speed of sound in helium Tamura96 . We define a reduced energy $`E_\text{p}`$ with an energy unit equal to the excitation energy of the lowest ($`n=1,L=0`$) phonon which is $`\mathrm{}u\pi /R=h534N^{1/3}`$ GHz $`=25.5N^{1/3}`$ K $`k_\text{B}`$.

We have calculated the density of states using similar methods as for the ripplon density of states. The integrated density of states was fit to the functional form

$$\mathrm{ln}(N_E)=aE^{3/4}+bE^{1/4}+f$$
(23)
The values $`a=3.3306`$, $`b=3.5941`$, and $`f=1.7786`$ reproduces the recursively calculated values of $`N_E`$ to an accuracy of better than $`\pm 0.09\%`$ while $`N_E`$ varies by more than 130 orders of magnitude over the reduced energy interval $`E_\text{p}=25500`$.

We have assumed that the distribution of total angular momentum states will again be well approximated by the spherical top thermal distribution expression 16. Values of $`\beta _L(E)`$ have been calculated using the recursion relationship for $`A(E)`$, Eq. 17. These were found to be well approximated by the expression

$$\beta _L(E)=cE^{5/4}+dE^{7/4}$$
(24)
Values of $`c=0.2545`$ and $`d=0.2929`$ reproduce the calculated values of $`\beta _L(E)`$ to a fractional accuracy of better than $`0.2\%`$ over the reduced energy interval $`E_\text{p}=25500`$. Given these expressions for $`N_E(E)`$ and $`\beta _L(E)`$, expressions for the various microcanonical thermodynamic quantities can be derived, both with and without angular momentum constraints, analogous the expressions given above for the ensemble of ripplon modes.

The same procedure can be used to calculate the density of states without the restriction $`k_{n,L}1`$ Å, if the values of $`\nu _{n,m}`$ are calculated using the elementary excitation energy of liquid helium for wavenumber $`k_{n,L}`$. However, this no longer results in a density of states that is a function only of a reduced energy, $`E_\text{p}`$, and thus would have to explicitly calculated for each droplet size. This has not been pursued in the present work.

## IV Conclusions

In this work, we have presented simple numerical procedures that allows the calculation of the density of states of both ripplon and phonon excitations of a helium nanodroplet as a function of both reduced energy and total angular momentum quantum numbers. It is found that these can well approximated by simple analytical expressions. It has been found that the distribution of rotational total angular momentum, for each energy, closely follows that of rigid spherical top. The microcanonical expressions for the ripplon density of states has been used by the author and collaborator for statistical evaporative cooling calculations of both pure and doped helium nanodroplets, conserving angular momentum. That work will be presented in a future publication.

## V Acknowledgements

###### Acknowledgements.

The author would like to acknowledge the advice and assistance of his Princeton University collaborations Adriaan Dokter, Roman Schmied, and Giacinto Scoles. This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation.

*

## Appendix A Appendix: Reduction of Symmetric Products of the Rotation Group

In order to compute the density of ripplon states as a function of both energy and total angular momentum quantum number, one needs to determine the distribution of states of different angular momentum generated by $`n_L`$ quanta in each ripplon mode with mode angular momentum quantum number $`L`$. We use the fact that a set of states with total angular moment quantum number $`L`$ and with projection $`M=L,L+1\mathrm{}L`$ is an irreducible representation of the rotation group of the sphere, K (or the double group of rotations is half integer angular momentum is allowed for). Below, when we speak of a “state” with a given total angular momentum quantum number, $`J`$, it will be implicit we mean a degenerate set of $`(2J+1)`$ eigenstates with the allowed range of projection quantum numbers. For the states generated by multiple excitations in different modes, the total angular momentum distribution is found by reduction of the direct product representation of the distributions in each mode. The reduction of a direct product representation for the sphere gives the well known triangle rule, i.e. products of states with quantum numbers $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$ give one state each with $`J=|J_1J_2|,|J_1J_2|+1,\mathrm{},J_1+J_2`$. The triangle rule can be applied recursively to determine the total number of states with each total $`J`$ once we know the distribution of number of states with each $`J`$ quantum number for excitation of $`n_L`$ quanta in a harmonic ripplon mode with angular momentum quantum number $`L`$.

The distribution of states produced by multiple excitation in a degenerate mode is not give by the direct product of that mode with itself $`n_L`$ times, but by the states given from the reduction of the symmetric $`n_L`$ power product of that mode. This is the meaning of the widely cited statement that vibrational quanta are “Bosons”. For the point groups relevant to the spectra of rigid molecules, the reduction of such symmetric products can be found in a standard text on vibrational spectroscopy Wilson55 . However, the author has not been able to locate equivalent expressions for the reduction of general symmetric powers of the rotation group. In this appendix, we give a recursion relation that has been used to calculate these up to high values of $`L`$ and $`n_L`$.

Each state produced by the symmetric direct product of $`n_L`$ quanta in mode with total angular momentum quantum number $`L`$ can be represented by a set of $`m_\text{i}`$ quantum numbers (integer or half integer depending upon $`L`$) such that

$$Lm_1m_2\mathrm{}m_{n_L}L$$
(25)
We will calculate a recursive relationship for $`N_M(M,n_L,L)`$ which is the number of $`n_L`$’th power symmetric product states of mode $`L`$ such that the sum of the quantum numbers $`m_\text{i}`$ equals $`M`$. For $`n_L=1`$, $`N_M(M,1,L)=1`$ if $`|M|L`$ and zero otherwise. Note that if we restrict $`m_{n_L}=L`$, then the total number of such states that contribute to $`N_M(M,n_L,L)`$ is equal to $`N_M(ML,n_L1,L)`$. If $`m_{n_L}=L1`$, then because the rest of the quantum numbers are restricted to only $`2L`$ values, the number of states that contribute to $`N_M(M,n_L,L)`$ is equal to $`N_M(M(L1)+(n1)/2,n_L1,L1/2)`$. The last term in the first argument arises from the “shift” in the projection quantum number when mapping the sum over the $`2n_L`$ values to the symmetric direct product for a mode with angular momentum quantum number $`L1/2`$. For the general case of $`m_{n_L}=Lk`$, the number of such states contributing to $`N_M(M,n_L,L)`$ is equal to $`N_M(M(Lk)+k(n_L1)/2,n_L1,Lk/2)`$. Taking these contributions into account as well as that $`0k2L`$ and that $`N_M(M,n_L,L)=0`$ if $`|M|>n_LL`$ we can write:

$$N_M(M,n_L,L)=\underset{k=k_{min}}{\overset{k_{max}}{}}N_M(ML+k(n_L+1)/2,n_L1,Lk/2)$$
(26)
Where $`k_{min}`$ is the maximum value of 0 and $`M+2Ln_LL`$ and $`k_{max}`$ is the minimum value of $`2L`$ and $`L(M/n_L)`$. We can then calculate $`N_J(J,n_L,L)`$, the number of states with total angular momentum quantum number $`J`$ by $`N_J(J,n_L,L)=N_M(J,n_L,L)N_M(J+1,n_L,L)`$, as is done in many introductory Quantum texts when calculating the terms produced by a given atomic configuration. It is apparent, since all terms in Eq. 26 shift in their first argument by one when the first argument on the left shifted by one that exactly the same recursion relationship can be applied to directly calculate the $`N_J(J,n_L,L)`$ values. However, in such a calculation, one must replaces $`N_J(J,n_L,L)`$ by $`N_J(J1,n_L,L)`$ and $`N_J(1/2,n_L,L)=0`$ when these negative argument values arise in the recursion. Also, the recursion is started by using $`N_J(J,1,L)=\delta (J,L)`$. It is also easily demonstrated that $`N_J(J,2,L)=(1/2)\left(1+(1)^{J+2L}\right)`$ for $`J2L`$ (the factor of $`2L`$ is included to make the result correct even in the case of half integer quantum numbers). Note that it is possible to calculate each successive value of $`n_L`$ by replacement in a single stored two dimensional matrix by looping down from the highest $`L`$ value.

The calculation of the $`N_J(J,n_L,L)`$ values becomes quite memory demanding for large values of $`n_L,L`$. This is in part because they must be generated with increasing values of $`n_L`$, but must be used in the calculation of the density of states in order of increasing $`L`$, thus requiring a three dimensional matrix with $`\frac{1}{2}(n_{\text{max}}L_{\text{max}})^2`$ elements, where $`n_{\text{max}}`$ and $`L_{\text{max}}`$ are the highest values of $`n_L`$ and $`L`$ needed. However, it has been found that for large $`n_L`$ and $`L`$ values the distribution of $`N_J(J,n_L,L)`$ approaches that of a rotational distribution of a spherical top, i.e.

$$N_J(J,n_L,L)g(n_L,L)(2J+1)\sqrt{\frac{\beta (n_L,L)^3}{\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta (n_L,L)(J+1/2)^2\right)$$
(27)
where $`g(n_L,L)=\frac{(n_L+2L)!}{(2L)!n_L!}`$ is the total number of states (including the 2J+1 degeneracies) generated with $`J=0\mathrm{}n_LL`$. This functional form can be justified when it is recognized that the central limit theorem Reif65  suggests that $`N_M(M,n_L,L)`$ should approach a Gaussian distribution in $`M`$ for large $`n_L`$ values and that $`N_J(J,n_L,L)`$ is the derivative of $`N_M(J,n_L,L)`$ in that limit. We can determine the dependence of $`\beta (n_L,L)`$ by equating the “thermal average” value of $`J(J+1)`$ to the exact expression, Eq. 12, which gives

$$\beta (n_L,L)=\frac{3}{2n_L\left[L(L+1)+\frac{1}{2}L(n_L1)\right]}$$
(28)
For $`n_L=14`$ and $`L10`$, the maximum error in this approximation to $`N_J(J,n_L,L)`$ is less than 5% of the peak value for each $`L`$.