Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 38

Connecting Neutrino Mass and

Warm Dark Matter in Inverse


See-Saw Framework
(Project report submitted to Department of Physics, Tezpur University in the partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the completion of M.Sc degree)

Submitted by
Manoranjan Dutta
Roll No:PHY15001
M.Sc 4th Semester
Dept. of Physics

Supervised by
Dr Mrinal Kumar Das
Associate Professor
Dept. of Physics
Tezpur University
(A Central University established by an act of Parliament in 1994)
Department of Physics, Tezpur University, Napaam-784028, Assam, India

Certificate

This is to certify that the Project work entitled “Connecting Neutrino Mass and
Warm Dark Matter in Inverse See-Saw Framework” is a record of project work
carried out by Manoranjan Dutta ( bearing Roll No. PHY15001) under my supervision
and is submitted to the Department of Physics as the students MSc. 4th Semester Core
Project.

He has been very hard working throughout the project and I wish him success in life.

(Dr Mrinal Kumar Das)


Associate Professor
Deptt. of Physics
Tezpur University
Date:...................
Acknowledgement

Working on the project entitled “ Connecting Neutrino Mass and Warm Dark
Matter in Inverse See-Saw Framework” was a source of immence knowledge to
me. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my project supervisor respected Dr.
Mrinal Kumar Das for his invaluable support and guidance throughout the project work.
I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to Ananya Mukherjee and Happy Borgohain
from theoretical neutrino physics laboratory for their help and support. I am grateful to
Department of Physics, Tezpur University for giving me the opportunity for bringing out
this project.

i
Abstract

The Standard Model is the most successful theory of particle physics after discovery of its
last piece i.e. Higg’s boson in 2012. However, in spite of its many successes, it is unable
to explain the phenomena like the origin of neutrino mass, matter-antimatter asymme-
try of the universe and dark matter etc. The origin of neutrino mass and the nature of
dark matter are two of the most pressing open questions of high energy and astropar-
ticle physics. We consider the possibility of simultaneosly addressing the dark matter
and neutrino mas generation in the Inverse See-Saw realisation. We phenomenologically
studied the neutrino mass under the framework of (3,3) Inverse See-Saw Mechanism as
an extension of the Standard model by three right handed neutrinos and three additional
sterile fermionic states. Then we explored the possibility of light sterile neutrinos added
to the model being a candidate for Warm dark Matter (WDM) of the universe, trying to
solve partially the long sought after candidature problem for dark matter by the physics
community.

ii
Contents

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Neutrino as a Standard Model Fermion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 The Mystery of Dark Matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.3 Classification of dark matter: cold, warm and hot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE 5

3 CURRENT STATUS OF NEUTRINO 6

3.1 History of Neutrino Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.2 Neutrino Oscillations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3.3 Neutrino mass Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.4 The Neutrino Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.4.1 Massless Neutrino in Standard Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.4.2 Massive Neutrinos: Dirac vs. Majorana Particles . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.4.3 Dirac Mass term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.4.4 Majorana Mass Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.4.5 Mixed Mass Term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

iii
3.5 Neutrino Mass Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.5.1 The See-Saw Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.5.2 Extension to See-Saw to Three Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.5.3 The Inverse See-Saw (ISS) Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

3.6 The (3,3) ISS Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4 STERILE NEUTRINO AS DARK MATTER 18

4.1 Stability and Indirect Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4.2 DM Generation Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

4.3 Limits from Structure Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5 DARK MATTER PRODUCTION IN (3,3) ISS 19

6 METHODOLOGY 20

6.1 Diagonalization of the Mass Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

6.2 µs from Neutrino oscillation Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

6.3 Calcutaion of dark Matter Relic abundance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

7 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 23

8 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE OUTLOOK 30

iv
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Neutrino as a Standard Model Fermion

The standard model of particle physics divides particles up into three categories: quarks,
leptons, and force carrying bosons. The first two categories make up the matter that we
observe and are further divided into three generations. Each generation consists of two fla-
vors and there are many similar properties shared by the different generations. The three
different generations of leptons are electronic, muonic, and tauonic generations. Each of
these generations consists of two particles: (electron, electron neutrino), (muon, muon
neutrino) and (tauon, tauon neutrino). Neutrinos are spin-half, left-handed, electrically
neutral elementary particles which are assumed to have zero mass and travel at the speed
of light in the standard model and as such they are able to pass through ordinary matter
almost undisturbed. This makes neutrino extremely difficult to detect. There are three
types of neutrinos:

• Electron Neutrino (νe )

• Muon Neutrino (νµ )

• Tau Neutrino (ντ )

They are electrically neutral leptons and therefore can interact only via weak interaction.
The only property that differentiates between neutrinos and antineutrinos is their helic-
ity.It is from this helicity that we observe that only left-handed neutrinos and right-handed
antineutrinos interact with the weak force.This fact makes the question of determining
the mass of the neutrinos interesting and leads to the study of neutrino oscillations.

Neutrinos were first postulated by W. E. Pauli in 1930 as a desperate remedy to the long
standing problems related to angular momentum and energy conservation in nuclear beta
decay with the name neutrino meaning ‘the neutral one’. After Pauli suggestion, Enrico
Fermi wrote the first theory of nuclear beta decay in 1934. He formulated a quantitative
theory of weak particle interactions in which the neutrino played a fundamental role.
They are created as a result of certain types of radioactive decay or nuclear reactions as
those in the sun, in nuclear reactors or when cosmic rays hit molecules.

According to the Standard Model,neutrinos are massless.But with the recent experimen-
tal confirmation of neutrino flavor oscillation, now it is established that for this oscillation

1
to happen,neutrinos must have mass. Furthermore, we know that the masses of the three
Standard Model neutrinos are quite small compared to that of the other leptons.One at-
tractive Standard Model modification that can give neutrinos non-zero mass, and also
predict a rough scale of the observed neutrino masses which is called the see-saw mecha-
nism.

1.2 The Mystery of Dark Matter

Dark matter is an unidentified type of matter distinct from dark energy, baryonic matter
(ordinary matter), and neutrinos whose existence would explain a number of otherwise
puzzling astronomical observations. The name refers to the fact that it does not emit or
interact with electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible to the entire
electromagnetic spectrum. Although dark matter has not been directly observed, its
existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects such as the motions of
visible matter, gravitational lensing, its influence on the universe’s large-scale structure,
on galaxies, and its effects in the cosmic microwave background.

The standard model of cosmology indicates that the total mass-energy of the universe
contains 4.9 percent ordinary matter, 26.8 percent dark matter and 68.3 percent dark
energy [1]. Thus, dark matter constitutes 84.5 percent of total mass, while dark energy
plus dark matter constitute 95.1 percent of total mass-energy content [2]. The great
majority of ordinary matter in the universe is also unseen, since visible stars and gas inside
galaxies and clusters account for less than ten percent of the ordinary matter contribution
to the mass-energy density of the universe. The dark matter hypothesis plays a central role
in current modeling of cosmic structure formation and galaxy formation and evolution and
on explanations of the anisotropies observed in the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
All these lines of evidence suggest that galaxies, galaxy clusters, and the universe as a
whole contain far more matter than that which is observable via electromagnetic signals
[3]. Many experiments to detect proposed dark matter particles through non-gravitational
means are under way; however, no dark matter particle has been conclusively identified.

The physics community is yet to be sure about the exact constituents of dark matters,
but some things are quit certain. For example, dark matter cannot consist of baryons.
There are two lines of evidence for this. First, if baryons made up all the dark matter, the
cosmic microwave background and cosmic web of structure would look radically different.
Second, the abundance of light elements created during big-bang nucleosynthesis depends
strongly on the baryon density (more precisely, on the baryon-to-photon ratio) of the
Universe. Observed abundances of deuterium and 4 He constrain give similar constraints
on the baryon density in the Universe as those coming from cosmic microwave background

2
observations. These lines of evidence imply that a once-popular class of baryonic dark-
matter candidate, the Massive Compact Halo Object (MaCHO) class (e.g., brown dwarfs,
stellar remnants) is cosmologically insignificant. Dark matter cannot consist of light (sub-
keV-mass) particles unless they were created via a phase transition in the early Universe
(like QCD axions). This is because light particles are relativistic at early times, and thus
fly out of small-scale density perturbations.

Candidates for nonbaryonic dark matter are hypothetical particles such as axions, sterile
neutrinos or WIMPs (e.g. supersymmetric particles). The three neutrino types already
observed are indeed abundant, and dark, and matter, but because their individual masses
however uncertain they may be are almost certainly tiny, they can only supply a small
fraction of dark matter, due to limits derived from large-scale structure and high-redshift
galaxies. Unlike baryonic matter, nonbaryonic matter did not contribute to the formation
of the elements in the early universe “Big Bang nucleosynthesis” and so its presence is
revealed only via its gravitational effects. In addition, if the particles of which it is com-
posed are supersymmetric, they can undergo annihilation interactions with themselves,
possibly resulting in observable by-products such as gamma rays and neutrinos (“indirect
detection”).

1.3 Classification of dark matter: cold, warm and hot

Dark matter can be divided into three categories namely cold, warm and hot .[86] These
categories refer to velocity rather than an actual temperature, indicating how far corre-
sponding objects moved due to random motions in the early universe, before they slowed
due to cosmic expansion this is an important distance called the “free streaming length”
(FSL). Primordial density fluctuations smaller than this length get washed out as parti-
cles spread from overdense to underdense regions, while larger fluctuations are unaffected;
therefore this length sets a minimum scale for later structure formation. The categories
are set with respect to the size of a protogalaxy (an object that later evolves into a dwarf
galaxy): dark matter particles are classified as cold, warm, or hot according as their FSL;
much smaller (cold), similar (warm), or much larger (hot) than a protogalaxy [4].

Cold Dark Matter:

Cold dark matter offers the simplest explanation for most cosmological observations. It
is dark matter composed of constituents with an FSL much smaller than a protogalaxy.
This is the focus for dark matter research, as hot dark matter does not seem to be
capable of supporting galaxy or galaxy cluster formation, and most particle candidates
slowed early. The constituents of cold dark matter are unknown. Possibilities range from

3
large objects like MACHOs (such as black holes) or RAMBOs (such as clusters of brown
dwarfs), to new particles such as WIMPs and axions. Studies of Big Bang nucleosynthesis
and gravitational lensing convinced most cosmologists that MACHOs cannot make up
more than a small fraction of dark matter. The 1997 DAMA/NaI experiment and its
successor DAMA/LIBRA in 2013, claimed to directly detect dark matter particles passing
through the Earth, but many researchers remain skeptical, as negative results from similar
experiments seem incompatible with the DAMA results. Many supersymmetric models
offer dark matter candidates in the form of the WIMPy Lightest Supersymmetric Particle
(LSP). Separately, heavy sterile neutrinos exist in non-supersymmetric extensions to the
standard model that explain the small neutrino mass through the seesaw mechanism.

Warm Dark Matter:

Warm dark matter refers to particles with an FSL comparable to the size of a protogalaxy.
Predictions based on warm dark matter are similar to those for cold dark matter on
large scales, but with less small-scale density perturbations. This reduces the predicted
abundance of dwarf galaxies and may lead to lower density of dark matter in the central
parts of large galaxies; some researchers consider this to be a better fit to observations.
A challenge for this model is the lack of particle candidates with the required mass in
sub keV or keV scale. No known particles can be categorized as warm dark matter.
A postulated candidate is the sterile neutrino: a heavier, slower form of neutrino that
does not interact through the weak force, unlike other neutrinos. Some modified gravity
theories, such as scalar-tensor-vector gravity, require “warm” dark matter to make their
equations work.

Hot Dark Matter:

Hot dark matter consists of particles whose FSL is much larger than the size of a
protogalaxy. The neutrino qualifies as such particle. They were discovered independently,
long before the hunt for dark matter: they were postulated in 1930, and detected in 1956.
Neutrinos’ mass is less than 106 that of an electron. Neutrinos interact with normal
matter only via gravity and the weak force, making them difficult to detect (the weak
force only works over a small distance, thus a neutrino triggers a weak force event only if
it hits a nucleus head-on). This makes them ‘weakly interacting light particles’ (WILPs),
as opposed to WIMPs. The three known flavours of neutrinos are the electron, muon,
and tau. Their masses are slightly different. Neutrinos oscillate among the flavours as
they move. It is hard to determine an exact upper bound on the collective average mass
of the three neutrinos (or for any of the three individually). For example, if the average
neutrino mass were over 50 eV/c2 (less than 105 of the mass of an electron), the universe
would collapse. CMB data and other methods indicate that their average mass probably
does not exceed 0.3 eV/c2. Thus, observed neutrinos cannot explain dark matter [5].

4
2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVE

The origin of the neutrino mass is one of the important question in modern astrophysics
and particle physics. A Knowledge of the origin of neutrino mass will help us to complete
our understanding of neutrino physics, which in turn will help to address some of the
very fundamental questions of the universe. With the ideas within the physics of neutrino
oscillations along with some key properties of neutrinos, we can gain information as to
why we observe a universe made of matter as opposed to one of anti-matter, or why at
all, the universe exists. Similarly, we are still a way behind to have a strong candidate for
the dark matter. However, dark matter is most likely to be dominated by a non-baryonic
component, which is likely composed of a new fundamental particle. Possible candidates
for non-baryonic dark matter are hypothetical particles such as sterile neutrinos, axions
or Weekly Intecting Massive Particles (WIMPs) e.g. supersymmetric particles.

The main objective of the project is to study the neutrino mass beyond the Standard
Model, specifically how we can get massive neutrinos with slight modifications to the
Standard Model and then to address the origin of neutrino mass and dark matter si-
multaneously. To do this, we first studied the Standard Model of Particle Physics. We
explored how particles, specifically leptons, are given mass within the current standard
model and studied why a similar mass term for neutrino is not possible in the Stanadard
Model. Then we extended the Standard Model with an addition of right handed neutrino
externally to look at how can we get a massive neutrino. We then explored the see-saw
mechanism and identify why this proposed theory is favorable to describe the masses of
neutrinos with relevant experimental data. Then the neutrino mass has been studied phe-
nomenologically within the framework of Type I and Type II See-Saw Mechanism. But
as the see-saw mechanism demands the existance of a very heavy right handed neutrino
with a mass beyond the mass range that can be probed by current experiments like Large
Hadron Collider (LHC), we extanded our study to yet another interseting model- the
Inverse See-Saw (ISS) model, which brings the neutrino mass to experimentally testable
region.

After exploring the (3,3) Inverse See-Saw realisation which extends the Standard Model
by three right handed neeutrinos and three additional sterile fermionic states, we address
the prospects of the lightest sterile state that were accomodated within the model as
a viable Warm Dark Matter (WDM) candidate. These prospects are stability, indirect
detection and the dark matter generation mechanism. Lastly, we investigate in detail the
aforesaid possibility by conducting a thorough analysis of the relic abundance of the warm
dark matter candidate, taking into account all available phenomenological, astrophysical
and cosmological constraints.

5
3 CURRENT STATUS OF NEUTRINO

3.1 History of Neutrino Physics

After Fermi’s theory of beta decay, H. A. Bethe and R. E. Peierls calculated the neutrino-
nucleon scattering cross-section. They obtained a value smaller than 10−44 cm2 and the
scientific community concluded that there was no practical way to detect these particles.
In 1942 K. C. Wang first proposed to use beta-capture to experimentally detect neutrinos.
In 1956 C. Cowan, F. Reines and co-workers detected neutrinos for the first time and
published the article Detection of the Free Neutrino: a Confirmation [6]. This result was
rewarded with the 1995 Nobel Prize.

In 1957 Lee and Yang suggested that the neutrinos could be massless Dirac particles. This
hypothesis was confirmed in 1958 by the experiment at Brookhaven National Laboratory
(BNL) performed by M. Goldhaber et al., that showed clearly how neutrinos were produced
with negative helicity [7]. In the same year Bruno Pontecorvo proposed the hypothesis
that the existence of neutrino masses could allow for neutrino ↔ antineutrino transitions
[8].

In 1962 L. M. Lederman, M. Schwartz and J. Steinberger showed that more than one type
of neutrino exists by first detecting interactions of the muon neutrino [9], which earned
them the 1988 Nobel Prize.The first evidence for this third neutrino type came from the
observation of missing energy and momentum in τ -decays. This led to the discovery of the
τ neutrino. The first observation of tau neutrino interactions was announced in summer of
2000 by the DONUT (Direct Observation of NU Tau) collaboration at the Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL, Fermilab). It was the last missing particle in the Standard
Model and its existence had already been inferred both based on theoretical consistency
and from experimental data of the LEP collider at CERN.

In the late 1960’s the Homestake Experiment, headed by the astrophysicists R. Davis Jr.
and J. N. Bahcall, collected and counted neutrinos emitted in nuclear fusion reactions
taking place in the Sun (solar neutrino). Bahcall did the theoretical calculations and
Davis designed the experiment. The discrepancy between the expected number of solar
neutrinos and the detected one originated the Solar Neutrino Problem: only one-third
of the expected neutrinos was detected. In 1998 Super-K experiment showed a deficit in
the flux of solar neuytrinos. An anomalous number of muon neutrino events compared to
electron neutrino events was measured: it was the first evidence for neutrino oscillations .

In 1985 S. Mikheyev and A. Smirnov [10] (expanding on 1978 work by L. Wolfenstein

6
[11]) noted that flavor oscillations can be modified when neutrinos propagate through
matter. This so-called MSW effect is important to understand neutrinos emitted by the
Sun, which traverse its dense atmosphere on their way to detectors on Earth.

The SNO (Sudbury Neutrino Observatory) experiment was the first detector able to detect
neutrino oscillations, solving the solar (and atmospheric) neutrino problem. The results of
the experiment, published in 2002, revealed the three neutrino flavors (νe , νµ and ντ ) can
oscillate into each other. The precedent detectors were sensitive to only one. In the 2003
the KamLAND experiment (Kamioka Liquid Scintillator Antineutrino Detector, Kamioka
Observatory, Japan) detected the disappearance of the electron antineutrinos produced
by nuclear reactors.

In 2002 Raymond Davis Jr. and Masatoshi Koshiba were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize
in Physics. Ray Davis for his pioneer work on solar neutrinos and Koshiba for the first
real time observation of supernova neutrinos.

3.2 Neutrino Oscillations

A phenomenological consequence of neutrino mass is the possibility of neutrino flavor


oscillations.This phenomenon was first predicted by Bruno Pontecorvo in 1957 while the
possibility of arbitrary mixing between two massive neutrino states was first introduced
by Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, S. Sakata in 1962 [12].If neutrinos have masses the neutrino
state produced by electroweak interactions is generally not a mass eigenstate.The weak
eigenstates να with α = e, µ, τ , produced in weak interactions are, in general, linear
combinations of the mass eigenstates νi with i = 1, 2, 3:
n=3
X

|να i = Uαi |νi i (1)
i=1

where U represents the PMNS matrix (Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix also


called MNS matrix, Neutrino Mixing Matrix ), a mixing matrix analogue of the CKM
matrix [13] for quarks. Using the L. L. Chau et al. [14] parameterization one has:

     
νe Ue1 Ue2 Ue3 ν1
 νµ  =  Uµ1 Uµ2 Uµ3  ·  ν2  (2)
ντ Uτ 1 Uτ 2 Uτ 3 ν3

where:

7
s13 e−iδ
 
c12 c13 s12 c13
U =  −s12 c23 − c12 s23 s13 eiδ c12 c23 − s12 s23 s13 eiδ s23 c13  ·
iδ iδ
s12 s23 − c12 c23 s13 e −c12 s23 − s12 c23 s13 e c23 c13

 
1 0 0
·  0 eiα 0 
0 0 eiβ

0 s13 e−iδ
   
1 0 0 c13 c12 s12 0
=  0 c23 s23   0 1 0   −s12 c12 0  ·
−iδ
0 −s23 c23 −s13 e 0 c13 0 0 1

 
1 0 0
·  0 eiα 0  where, cij = cos θij , sij = sin θij (3)
0 0 eiβ

The mixing is a function of three mixing angles (θ12 , θ23 and θ13 ). The Majorana phase
factors α and β are non-zero only if neutrinos are Majorana particles, and do not enter
into oscillation phenomena regardless. The phase factor δ is non-zero only if neutrino
oscillation violates the CP symmetry. If experiment shows this 3 × 3 matrix to be not
unitary, a sterile neutrino or some other new physics is required.

The probability that a neutrino originally of flavor α will later be observed as having
flavor β is given by:

!
X 
∗ ∗
 ∆m2ij L
Pα→β = δαβ − 4 < Uαi Uβi Uαj Uβj sin2 (4)
i>j
4E
!
X 
∗ ∗
 ∆m2ij L
+2 = Uαi Uβi Uαj Uβj sin (5)
i>j
2E

where ∆m2ij ≡ m2i − m2j with i, j = 1, 2, 3. Restoring c and h̄ the oscillation phase, that
is responsible for oscillation, is often written as:

8
L[Km]
Φij = 1.27∆m2ij [eV2 ] (6)
E[GeV]

where L = ct ' t is the distance between the source of να and the detector (i.e. the
detection point of νβ ). The transition probability Pα→β has an oscillatory behavior, with
oscillation length:

4πE
Losc = . (7)
∆m2ij
The transition amplitude is proportional to the elements present in the mixing matrix.
Thus, in order to have oscillations, neutrinos must have different masses (∆m2ij 6= 0) and
they must mix (Uαi Uβi 6= 0), since flavor oscillation is due to interference between different
mass eigenstates.

For a two neutrino case, the mixing matrix depends on a single parameter θ and there is
a single mass-squared difference ∆m2 .
!
2
 
cos θ sin θ ∆m L
U= ⇒ Pα→β = δαβ − (2δαβ − 1) sin2 (8)
− sin θ cos θ 4E

3.3 Neutrino mass Hierarchy

The combined information on neutrino oscillations and the upper mass limit from tritium
decays show that the heaviest active neutrino state is nine to eleven orders of magnitude
lighter than the other fermions in the third family. The oscillations experiments measure
only mass squared differences and the mixing parameters (table 1), so cannot give infor-
mation about the absolute neutrino mass. The hierarchy scale among the eigenvalues mi
is still unknown. We used the following two hierarchy patterns:

9
Parameter Best fit 2σ 3σ 4σ
∆m221 [10−5 eV2 ] 7.9 7.3− 8.5 7.1− 8.9 6.8− 9.3
∆m231 [10−3 eV2 ] 2.6 2.2− 3.0 2.0− 3.2 1.8− 3.5
sin2 θ12 0.30 0.26−0.36 0.24−0.40 0.22−0.44
sin2 θ23 0.50 0.38−0.63 0.34−0.68 0.31−0.71
sin2 θ13 0.0218 ≤0.025 0.017−0.025 ≤ 0.058

Table 1: Best-fit values, 2σ, 3σ, and 4σ intervals for the three-flavour neutrino oscilla-
tion parameters from global data including solar, atmospheric, reactor (KamLAND and
CHOOZ) and accelerator (K2K and MINOS) experiments [15]. The values are updated at
2013.

1. Normal Hierarchy (NH)


 2
 ∆21 = ∆m2




∆231 = ∆m2atm







 p
m1  (<)m2  m3 : m1 = mmin << ∆m2 (9)



 p p
m2 = m2min + ∆m2 ' ∆m2







 p p
m3 = m2min + ∆m2atm ' ∆m2atm

where mmin is the lightest neutrino mass.

2. Inverted Hierarchy (IH)


 2
 ∆21 = ∆m2




∆232 = ∆m2atm







 p
m3  m1 m2 : m3 = mmin << ∆m2atm (10)



 p p
2 2 2
m = m + ∆m − ∆m ' ∆m2atm



 1 min atm



 p p
m2 = m2min + ∆m2atm ' ∆m2atm

The discovery of neutrino oscillations implies a non-vanishing neutrino mass, and this
calls for a physics beyond the Standard Model. Neutrino oscillation experiments can only
measure the differences between the neutrino mass-values but not the absolute scale of
neutrino masses.

10
3.4 The Neutrino Mass

3.4.1 Massless Neutrino in Standard Model

In the Standard Model, massive spin half particles all have corresponding Dirac mass
terms in the total Lagrangian.These terms always couple the left handed and right handed
fields of the massive particle. It is assumed in the Standard Model that only left handed
neutrinos exist, and therefore there can be no Dirac mass terms for neutrinos.

Let us consider a neutrino traveling at subluminal speeds and an observer traveling along-
side of it. If the observer is traveling slower than the neutrino, it will observe a momentum
of p~, a spin of S ~ and a helicity of h.However, when the observer increases its speed to
faster than that of the neutrino, the momentum will appear to switch direction, while
the spin will stay the same.With a momentum now of −~p and the same spin, the helicity
will switch to −h, rendering the neutrino an antineutrino from the observer’s reference
frame. However, since the neutrino and the antineutrino interact differently, the observer
would expect to see different interactions in both reference frames.This appears to form
a contradiction, as the laws of physics should be the same in all reference frames.

The original response to this was to require that neutrinos be massless. If neutrinos have
no mass, then they must travel at the speed of light. Because we now cannot switch to
a faster, valid reference frame, this adjustment prevents this apparent contradiction from
occurring.

However, recent observations such as neutrino oscillations provide evidence that neutrinos
must have masses, while several beta decay experiments have shown that if neutrinos do
have masses, they must be very small in comparison to other standard model particles.

3.4.2 Massive Neutrinos: Dirac vs. Majorana Particles

To discuss the nonzero masses of neutrinos, it is first necessary to differentiate between two
different types of particles.The first type is known as a Majorana particle and describes
a particle that is the same as its antiparticle (this includes photons, for example).The
second type is known as a Dirac particle, and describes the more familiar case in which
particles and antiparticles are distinct, such as for electrons.Since it is not currently known
whether neutrinos are Majorana or Dirac particles, it is necessary to discuss both cases,
as they lead to slightly different results.It is sufficient to say that a Majorana neutrino

11
is a superposition of a Dirac neutrino and antineutrino of equal mass. This causes the
two different types of neutrinos to behave slightly differently due to a phase that can be
introduced in the superposition of the two Dirac superpositions of the Majorana neutrino.

3.4.3 Dirac Mass term

Although it is assumed in the Standard Model that only left handed neutrinos exist,if
we were, however to introduce three right handed, singlet fields similar to those of the
charged leptons, we can still generate mass via the Higg’s mechanism.The Lagragian mass
terms describe transitions between right (R) and left (L)-handed states.A Dirac mass
term, which conserves lepton number, involves transition between two different neutrinos,
namely νL and νR and is given by [16]:

LDirac = MD [ν L νR + ν R νL ] = MD νν with ν = νL + νR (11)

3.4.4 Majorana Mass Term

If we insist that these right handed singlet fields do not take part in the weak interaction
(we are actually forced to assume this unless we wish to completely re-formalize how the
weak interaction works), there is nothing preventing the right handed singlets from having
a Majorana mass term. So, with only the addition of three right handed neutrino singlets
we are able to generate both a standard Dirac mass term and a right chiral Majorana
mass term for neutrinos.This procedure is the most widely accepted route to a see-saw
mechanism.

In the case of Majorana mass, which violates lepton number by two units (∆L = 2),
is used a single right-handed antineutrino (νRc ).This it can be viewed as the creation or
annihilation of two neutrinos, and, if present, it can therefore lead to neutrinoless double
beta decay (0νββ). The form of a Majorana mass term is [17]:
1 1 1
−LMajorana = MM [ν L νLc + νRc ν R ] = MM [ν L Cν TL + h.c] = MM νν (12)
2 2 2

12
3.4.5 Mixed Mass Term

It is also possible to consider mixed models in which both Majorana and Dirac mass terms
are present. In this case in the neutrino Lagrangian the Lorentz-invariant mass term can
appear in three forms [18]:


 MM,T : triplet Majorana mass matrix (Higgs triplet)
Majorana ⇒
MM,S : Dirac mass matrix (Higgs doublet) (13)

Dirac ⇒ MD : singlet Majorana mass matrix (Higgs singlet)

The Dirac mass term (with the mass parameter MD ) requires the existence of both
chirality eigenstates νR and νL and conserves the lepton quantum number. The Majorana
mass terms violate the lepton number and can be present even without νR (for the term
with mass parameter MM,T ) or νL (for the term with mass parameter MM,S ). Assuming
that the states are respectively active and sterile, these terms transform as weak triplets
(MM,T ) and singlets (MM,S ).

The most general Lorentz-invariant mass term of the neutrino Lagrangian has the form:
 c   
1 c νL ML MDT
Lm = − (ν L ν R )M + h.c where M = (14)
2 νR MD MR

where M is the Dirac-Majorana neutrino mass matrix.

3.5 Neutrino Mass Models

3.5.1 The See-Saw Mechanism

We will see how we can use the mass terms obtained from the standard model modifi-
cations to get light left handed neutrinos (the trade off for which is heavy right handed
neutrinos).

13
We can diagonalize the mass matrix with an orthogonal transformation:
M = OmOT (15)

with the diagonal elements of m given by:with the diagonal elements of m given by:
1
q
m22 (11 ) = (mR + mL + (mR − mL )2 + 4m2D ) (16)
2

We can express the mass terms as:


1
Lmass = (ν M mνM ) + h.c (17)
2

and we immediately see that:


c
νM = νM (18)
So, we can conclude that we have two Majorana neutrino fields with masses m11 and m22 .

The most accepted version of the see-saw mechanism, usually referred to as a Type I
see-saw mechanism [19], works under the following assumptions:

• There is no left chiral Majorana mass term.


• We generate the Dirac mass terms through the standard Higgs mechanism.
• MR >> MD

Then the Mass matrix becomes


 
0 MDT
M= (19)
MD MR

Considering the Seesaw mechanism, the Majorana mass is comparable to the GUT scale
(MGUT ' (1011 − 1016 ) GeV) whereas the Dirac mass is of order of the electroweak scale.
Under this hypothesis one has MR >> MD (electroweak symmetry breaking)) and ML ' 0
(from phenomenological constraint). This model produces two Majorana neutrinos, the
former corresponds to the three known neutrino flavors while the latter is a very heavy
undiscovered neutrino not interacting. Their respective masses are:


M2
 m1 ' D << MD ⇒ light neutrino (left-handed)


MR


m2 ' MR ⇒ heavy neutrino (right-handed)

14
Thus, there is one heavy neutrino and one neutrino much lighter than the typical Dirac
scale. Such model represent the popular and natural way of generating neutrino masses
much smaller than the other fermion masses. The Seesaw mechanism is used to explain
why the neutrino masses are so small.

We can summarize what we have seen here. If we adopt the above see-saw mechanism in
our description of neutrinos, we see that:

• Neutrinos are Majorana particles

• We can get a neutrino mass that is much smaller than that of the charged leptons

• For each light neutrino, we have a heavy, see-saw counterpart neutrino.

3.5.2 Extension to See-Saw to Three Families

It is straightforward,however tedious to generalize See-Saw mechanism to three families


[20]. The mass terms ML , MR and MD become 3 × 3 matrices, and then the process
proceeds in exactly the same fashion.Once three generations are included, it can be shown
that the orthogonal transformation can be directly related via a unitary transformation
to the PMNS matrix of neutrino oscillation physics.We can think of a see-saw mechanism
where one of the right chiral neutrinos is sufficiently light so that it dominates in the
see-saw mechanism.It is assumed that the MR is diagonal,and leaves Dirac mass matrix
MD as general.  
Y 0 0
MR =  0 X 0  (20)
0 0 Y

d a a0
 

MD =  e b b0  (21)
f c c0

15
3.5.3 The Inverse See-Saw (ISS) Model

Seesaw mechanisms is considered as the most elegant way of explaining the smallness of
the neutrino masses. Their essence lies in the fact that lepton number must be explicitly
violated at a high energy scale. As a result, left-handed neutrinos gain small masses at
sub-eV scale. In spite of providing an interesting explanation for the smallness of the
neutrino masses, such mechanisms are not phenomenologically testable because the new
physics engendered by them will manifest at 1014 GeV scale which is completely out of the
range of the current and next accelerator experiments. A radically complete realization of
the seesaw mechanism is the so-called inverse seesaw mechanism (ISS) [21], where small
neutrino masses arise as a result of new physics at TeV scale which may be probed at the
Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiments.

In [22], it was shown that it is possible to construct several minimal distinct ISS scenarios
that can reproduce the correct neutrino mass spectrum while fulfilling all phenomeno-
logical constraints. Based on a perturbative approach, this study also showed that the
mass spectrum of these minimal ISS realisations is characterised by either 2 or 3 different
mass scales, corresponding to the one of the light active neutrinos mν ,that corresponding
to the heavy states MR ,and an intermediate scale µ only relevant when the number od
sterile staes are equal to or greater than the right handed states. However, these scenarios
are severely constrained: any (inverse) seesaw realisation must comply with a number of
bounds. In addition to accommodating neutrino data (masses and mixings), they must
fulfil unitarity bounds, laboratory bounds, electroweak (EW) precision tests, LHC con-
straints, bounds from rare decays, as well as cosmological constraints.The mass of the
lightest sterile neutrino can vary over a large interval.

According to the original idea, the implementation of the ISS mechanism requires the
addition of three right-handed neutrinos NiR and three extra standard model singlet
neutral fermions SiL to the three active neutrinos νL , with i = 1, 2, 3. The mechanism
arises when we make use of extra symmetries in order to allow that these nine neutrinos
develop exactly the following bilinear terms:

1
L = −[ν L mD NR − S L M NL ] − S L µSLc + h.c. (22)
2

where mD , M, µ are generic 3 × 3 complex mass matrices.

16
3.6 The (3,3) ISS Model

As is customary to the implementation of inverse seesaw mechanism, we add three fermion


singlets to each generation of the SM, with or without supersymmetry. While we call the
first type of singlet a RH neutrino (NR ), the second type of singlet is named as a sterile
neutrino (SL ) and, in the (νL , NRc , SL ) basis, the 9 × 9 neutrino mass matrix is [23]:

 
0 mTD 0
Mν =  mD 0 M T  (23)
0 M µ

Here mD is the Dirac mass term of neutrino,which is 3 × 3 complex in flavour space,M is


3 × 3 heavy Dirac mass matrix relating to νR and SL and µS is a 3 × 3 complex symmetric
matrix.

On cosidering the hiearchy µ << mD << M the diagonalisation of this 9 × 9 matrix


provides the following effective neutrino mass matrix [24] for the standard neutrino.

−1
mν = mTD (M T ) µM −1 mD (24)

The double suppression by the mass scale connected with M turns it possible to have such
scale much below than that one involved in the canonical seesaw mechanism. It happens
that standard neutrinos with mass at sub-eV scale are obtained for mD at electroweak
scale, M at TeV scale and µ at keV scale. In this case all the six RH neutrinos may develop
masses around TeV scale and their mixing with the standard neutrinos is modulated by the
ratio Mm−1
D
. The core of the ISS is that the smallness of the neutrino masses is guaranteed
by assuming that the µ scale is small and, in order to bring the RH neutrino masses down
to TeV scale, it has to be at the keV scale.

17
4 STERILE NEUTRINO AS DARK MATTER

4.1 Stability and Indirect Detection

The most basic requirement for a DM candidate is its stability (at least on cosmological
scales). All the extra neutrinos of the ISS model have a non zero mixing with ordi-
nary matter. As a consequence, the lightest one is not totally stable and can decay into
an active neutrino and a photon. On the other hand, its very small mixing makes the
decay rate negligible with respect to cosmological scales. Nonetheless, a residual popu-
lation of particles can decay at present times producing the characteristic signature of a
monochromatic line in X-rays. This kind of signature is within reach of satellite detectors
like CHANDRA and XMN which have put strong limits on the couplings between sterile
and active neutrinos

4.2 DM Generation Mechanism

The second issue to address is to provide a DM generation mechanism accounting for the
experimental value of its abundance. In the pioneering work by Dodelson-Widrow (DW)
[25], it has been shown that the DM abundance can be achieved through active-sterile
neutrino transitions. This kind of production is always present provided that there is a
non-vanishing mixing between active and sterile neutrinos; as a consequence, it is possible
to constrain the latter as function of the neutrino mass by imposing that the DM relic
abundance does not exceed the observed value.

4.3 Limits from Structure Formation

Sterile neutrinos in the mass range relevant for the “(3,3) ISS” model are typically clas-
sified as warm dark matter. This class of candidates is subject to strong constraints from
structure formation, which typically translate into lower bounds on the DM mass. We
notice however, that the warm nature of the DM is actually related to the production
mechanism determining the DM distribution function. Sterile neutrinos - with masses at
the keV scale - produced by the DW mechanism can be considered as WDM; this may
not be the case for other production mechanisms. In the next section we will investigate
whether the “(3,3) ISS” can provide a viable DM candidate.

18
5 DARK MATTER PRODUCTION IN (3,3) ISS

In this section we address the impact of the combination of three kinds of requirements
on the DM properties on the “(3,3) ISS” parameter space. The results presented below
rely on the following hypothesis: a standard cosmological history is assumed with the ex-
ception of possible effects induced by the decays of heavy neutrinos; only the interactions
and particle content of the “(3,3)” ISS” extension of the SM are assumed. Regarding DM
production we will not strictly impose that the relic abundance reproduces the observed
relic abundance ΩDM h2 = 0.12 [26], but rather determine the maximal allowed DM frac-
tion fW DM within the framework of “(3,3) ISS” parameter space. The main production
mechanism for DM is the DW, which is present as long as mixing with ordinary matter
is switched on. In addition, the DM could also be produced by the decays of the pseudo-
Dirac neutrinos. However, a sizeable contribution can only be obtained if at least one of
the pseudo-Dirac states lies in the mass range 130 GeV - 1 TeV.

We proceed to present the constraints from dark matter on the “(3,3) ISS” model, always
under the hypothesis that heavy neutrinos do not influence DM phenomenology. Regard-
ing the relic density, for masses of the lightest-sterile neutrino with mass ms > 0.1 keV,
we use the results of [27]:

ms 2
ΩDM h2 = 1.1 × 10−1 ΣCα (ms )|Uαs |2 ( ) (25)
KeV

Here α = e, µ, τ

Cα are active flavour-dependent coefficients6 which can be numerically computed by solv-


ing suitableBoltzmann equations. In the case of a sterile neutrino with mass ms ≤ 0.1
keV, we have instead used the simpler expression [28]:

sin2 2θ ms 2
ΩDM h2 = 0.3( )( ) (26)
10−10 100KeV

where sin2 2θ = 4Σ|Uαs |2 ,with |Uαs | being the active-sterile leptonic mixing matrix ele-
ment.

19
6 METHODOLOGY

6.1 Diagonalization of the Mass Matrix

Transformation from flavor to mass basis and diagonalization are achieved through

|ν >f = V ∗ |ν >m (27)

V † Mν V ∗ = Diag(Mn u) = Diag{mν i , Mcj } (28)

where |ν >m represents the three light and six heavy mass states, and i and j run over
the light and heavy mass eigenstates respectively. With µS << mD << M , the matrix
Mν in eqn. (23) can be block diagonalized to light and heavy sectors

−1
mν ' mTD (M T ) µM −1 mD (29)

 
0 MT
mH ' (30)
0 µS

where mν is the well known inverse seesaw formula and mH is the mass matrix for heavy
pseudo-Dirac pairs of comparable masses with splitting of the order of µS . The µS term in
the Lagrangian breaks the leptonic global symmetry, U (1)L , which is otherwise preserved
in the standard model in the limit µS → 0 rendering all the LH neutrinos to be massless.
Hence the small µS should be a natural parameter in this theory. The above block
diagonalized matrices are further diagonalized through the PMNS matrix Uν , and a 6 × 6
unitary matrix UH respectively, so that

1 − 21 B ∗ B T B∗
   
Uν 0
V ' × (31)
−B T 1 − 21 B T B ∗ 0 UH

20
where,
−M ∗ −1 µ∗S (MD M −1 )†
   
T 0
B ' ' (32)
(MD M −1 )† X†

Hence, in the leading order approximation, V can be written as,

1 − 12 XX † 0
 
X  
U ν 0
V ' 0 1 0 × (33)
† 1 † 0 UH
−X 0 1 − 2X X

where X = (MD M −1 ), and all the elements in the first block are 3 × 3 matrices.

6.2 µs from Neutrino oscillation Data

The see-saw formula in eqn.(25) predicts light neutrino mass matrix in terms of three
other matrices MD , M , µs . At first we take MD ' Ml , the charged lepton mass ma-
trix, which may arise if the SM originates from high scale Left-Right gauge symmetry
<M >
SU (2)L × SU (2)R × U (1)B−L × SU (3)C −−−R−→ SM , where MR >> MW . Assuming the
matrix M to be diagonal for the sake of simplicity and using MD = diag{me , mµ , mτ } =
diag{0.0005, 0.1, 1.7}GeV , we obtain S from global fits to the neutrino oscillation data
given in Table 1 using the following equation.

−1
µS (GeV ) = χ−1 N mν N T (χT ) (34)

where N = (1 − η)Uν and η = 21 χχ† is a measure of unitarity violation. The following


particular structure of µS has been derived using, as an example, the normal hierarchical
(NH) light neutrino masses mdiag
ν = diag{0.00127eV, 0.00885eV, 0.0495eV } and nondegen-
erate eigenvalues of M = diag{0.2, 2.6, 23.7} GeV.

 
0.671 + 0.196i −0.0117 − 0.0322i −0.0371 − 0.0203i
µs (keV ) =  −0.0117 − 0.0322i 0.0153 − 0.0222i 0.007 − 0.00283i  (35)
−0.0371 − 0.0203i 0.007 − 0.00283i −0.00550 + 0.0000526i

21
Similar analysis predicts somewhat different structures of S for inverted hierarchical (IH).
Our ansatz with M = diag{M 1, M 2, M 3} gives,

1.25 × 107 0.005 1.35


η = diag{ , , } (36)
M12 M22 M32

where all masses on the right hand side are in GeV.

6.3 Calcutaion of dark Matter Relic abundance

We then calculated the DM relic abundance using eqn.(27) for a set of ISS configu-
rations satisfying data from neutrino oscillation experiment and laboratory constraints
using Mathematica 10. Instead of using the direct result from cosmology ΩDM h2 = 0.12,
here we have imposed [29] the following condition for the sterile neutrinos to satisfy the
dark matter phenomenology:

fW DM = ΩDM /ΩPDM
lanck
≤1 (37)

We have considered as viable the points of the “(3,3) ISS” model with ms ≤ 0.1KeV , fea-
turing a value fW DM ≤ 1 which corresponds approximatively to the current experimental
uncertainty in the determination of the DM relic density. Then we made a correlation
plot of the ΩDM and fW DM putting ms , the mass of lightest sterile neutrino along the
x-axis and sin2 2θ, (θ being the active-sterile mixing angle) along the y-axis. The colours
in the plot correspond to different fW DM values according to the scale.

22
7 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

We have considered different sets of data each for Normal Hierarchy (NH) and Inverted
Hierarchy (IH) satisfying the mass ordering in both the cases in order to determine the
mass matrix for the sterile neutrino using eqn.(35). The different structures for neurino
mass matrix is obtained by taking different values of lightest neutrino mass namely m1
for NH and m3 for IH. By assigning a specific value for the lightest mass, we can get the
values of other two masses according to the hierarchy mass spectrum stated in (9) and
(10) along with the cosmological bound Σmνi ≤ 0.23 eV ( the mass of three neutrinos
should not exeed 0.23 eV ), a result from the Planck Collaboration. The neutrino mass
matrices being considered are:

1. For Normal Hierarchy (NH):

a)Diagonal mass matrix

b)Neutrino mass matrix with m1 = 0.065 eV.

c) Neutrino mass matrix with m1 = 0.001 eV.

d)Neutrino mass matrix with m1 = 0.0001 eV.

e)Neutrino mass matrix with m1 = 0.08 eV.

2. For Inverted Hierarchy (IH):

a)Neutrino mass matrix with m3 = 0.07 eV.

b)Neutrino mass matrix with m3 = 0.001 eV.

c)Neutrino mass matrix with m3 = 0.0001 eV.

d)Neutrino mass matrix with m3 = 0.00001 eV.

e)Neutrino mass matrix with m3 = 0.08 eV.

23
For justification, we listed here one example from each of the data sets of our calculations
showing the neutrino mass matrix under consideration, the resultant mass matrix µs for
sterile neutrino and the mass of lightest sterile neutrino ms upoun diagonalization of the
matrix.

Normal Hierarcy:

1. (a): mdiag
ν = diag{0.00127eV, 0.00885eV, 0.0495eV } ,

 
0.671 + 0.196i −0.0117 − 0.0322i −0.0371 − 0.0203i
µs (keV ) =  −0.0117 − 0.0322i 0.0153 − 0.0222i 0.007 − 0.00283i 
−0.0371 − 0.0203i 0.007 − 0.00283i −0.00550 + 0.0000526i

ms = 0.0121215, 0.0349821, 0.14712 (keV)

1. (b): m1 = 0.065 eV

 
0.06317 + 0.00168i 0.001248 + 0.01319i 0.000736 + 0.011533i
mν (eV ) =  0.001248 + 0.01319i 0.073515 − 0.000728i 0.007133 − 6.68 × 10−4 i 
0.000736 + 0.011533i 0.007133 − 0.000666i 0.07162 − 0.0006i

 
−0.03524 − 0.0459i 0.006301 + 0.00900i 0.015280 − 0.027864i
µs (keV ) =  0.006301 + 0.00900i −0.017369 − 0.017498i −0.29067 + 0.036536i 
0.015280 − 0.027864i −0.029067 + 0.036536i −0.013503 + 0.040327i

ms = 0.0983247, 0.0110168, 0.03467 (keV)

1. (c) m1 = 0.001 eV

 
0.061985 − 0.000259i 0.000037 + 0.016194i −0.000321 + 0.0141537i
mν (keV ) =  0.00003776 + 0.016194i 0.073263 + 0.000155i 0.006887 + 0.000096i 
−0.000321 + 0.014153i 0.006887 + 0.000096i 0.0713966 + 0.000049i

24
 
−0.04624 − 0.0369i 0.005311 + 0.09014i 0.01545 − 0.027869i
µs (keV ) =  0.005311 + 0.09014i −0.017369 − 0.0174988i −0.29105 + 0.036146i 
0.01545 − 0.027869i −0.29105 + 0.036146i −0.01346 + 0.040321i

ms = 0.096175, 0.0219031, 0.016690 (keV)

1. (d) m1 = 0.0001 eV

 
0.002327 − 0.000159i 0.001979 + 0.005955i −0.003024 + 0.005205i
mν (eV ) =  0.001979 + 0.005955i 0.030872 − 0.000065i 0.021490 − 0.000534i 
−0.003024 + 0.005205 0.021490 − 0.000534i 0.07162 − 0.0006i

 
−0.3075 + 0.07163i 0.63012 − 0.071098i 0.03518 − 0.010804i
µs (keV ) =  0.063012 − 0.071098i −0.01356 − 0.01909i −0.023158 + 0.036536i 
0.03518 − 0.010804ii −0.023158 + 0.036536i −0.023803 + 0.140139i

ms = 0.083247, 0.046793, 0.031782 (keV)

1. (e) m1 = 0.08 eV

 
0.076360 + 0.000298i 0.000026 + 0.019181i −0.000265 + 0.016764i
mν (eV ) =  0.000026 + 0.019181i 0.086346 − 0.000174i 0.0052789 − 0.000120i 
−0.000265 + 0.016764i 0.005278 − 0.000120i 0.084915 − 0.000076i

 
0.01952 − 0.0309i −0.04321 + 0.00300i 0.032971 − 0.157642i
µs (keV ) =  −0.04321 + 0.00300i −0.076574 − 0.084675i 0.417361 − 0.013842i 
0.032971 − 0.157642i 0.417361 − 0.013842i −0.014968 + 0.0364385i

ms = 0.0093242, 0.0079135, 0.0132802 (keV)

25
Inverted Hierarchy:

2. (a) m3 = 0.07 eV

 
0.082377 − 0.00022i 0.000258 + 0.017079i −0.000043 + 0.014927i
mν (eV ) =  0.000258 + 0.017079i 0.074967 + 0.000182i −0.009555 + 0.000129i 
−0.000043 + 0.01492i −0.009555 + 0.000129i 0.077544 + 8.67 × 10−5

 
0.562 + 0.0183i −0.0215 − 0.0391i −0.0143 + 0.0341i
µs (keV ) =  −0.0215 − 0.0391i 0.0236 − 0.00117i −0.0092 + 0.00912i 
−0.0143 + 0.00341i −0.0092 + 0.00912i −0.004592 + 0.0000713i

ms = 0.046596, 0.0099364, 0.023654 (keV)

2. (b) m3 = 0.001 eV

 
0.048448 − 0.000259i 0.000037 + 0.016194i −0.000321 + 0.0141537i
mν (keV ) =  0.00003776 + 0.016194i 0.073263 + 0.000155i 0.006887 + 0.000096i 
−0.000321 + 0.014153i 0.006887 + 0.000096i 0.0713966 + 0.000049i

 
−0.3524 − 0.459i 0.63012 + 0.090048i 0.015280 − 0.0278647i
µs (keV ) =  0.0063012 + 0.0090048i −0.017369 − 0.001749i −0.029067 + 0.003653i 
0.015280 − 0.002786i −0.0290674 + 0.003653i −0.013347 + 0.004215i

ms = 0.006869, 0.003472, 0.008965 (keV)

2. (c) m3 = 0.0001 eV

 
0.048458 − 3.14 × −7i 0.0006238 + 0.00544iI 0.000079 + 0.004757i
mν (eV ) =  0.000623 + 0.005443i 0.020969 + 0.00013i −0.025157 + 0.0000702i 
0.000079 + 0.00475i −0.025157 + 0.0000702i 0.027809 + 0.000015i

 
−0.6852 − 0.0372i 0.00453 + 0.040012i 0.06746 − 0.028585i
µs (keV ) =  0.00453 + 0.040012i −0.087236 − 0.0174988i −0.024367 + 0.003653i 
0.06746 − 0.0285852i −0.002436 + 0.0036536i −0.0135039 + 0.0003272i

26
ms = 0.0023857, 0.0035897, 0.034340 (keV)

2. (d)m3 = 0.00001 eV

 
0.048459 − 3.14 × −8i 0.0006245 + 0.005433i 0.000079 + 0.004774i
mν (eV ) =  0.0006245 + 0.005433i 0.020969 + 0.000139i −0.02520 + 0.0000702i 
−0.025201 + 7.02 × 10 i −0.025157 + 0.000070i 0.027771 + 1.56 × 10−5 i
−5

 
−0.05672 − 0.03467i 0.53012 + 0.04233i 0.0665 − 0.08632i
µs (keV ) =  0.53012 + 0.04233i −0.05465 − 0.04576i −0.54686 + 0.025656i 
0.0665 − 0.08632i −0.54686 + 0.025656i −0.01947 − 0.010275i

ms = 0.021387, 0.034658, 0.08792 (keV)

2. (e) m3 = 0.08 eV

 
0.090320 + 0.000251i 0.000233 + 0.019090i −0.000041 + 0.016685i
mν (eV ) =  0.000233 + 0.019090i 0.084015 + 0.000194i −0.008923 + 0.000143i 
−0.000041 + 0.016685i −0.008923 + 0.000143i 0.08642 + 0.000100i

 
−0.0524 − 0.0459i 0.02348 + 0.04561i 0.01734 − 0.01237i
µs (keV ) =  0.02348 + 0.00451i −0.002382 + 0.003526i −0.02665 + 0.06671i 
0.01734 − 0.00127i −0.02665 + 0.06671i −0.000764 + 0.006467i

ms = 0.001247, 0.005476, 0.01487 (keV).

In the above calculations, we used M = diag{0.2, 2.6, 23.7} GeV and MD = diag{me , mµ , mτ } =
diag{0.0005, 0.1, 1.7}GeV along with the diferent structures of neutrino mass matrix in
eqn. (35) to determine µs .

Then using eqn.(27) and applying condition (38), we calculated the ΩDM and fW DM . We
made a correlation plot of fW DM = ΩDM /ΩPDM lanck
taking sin2 2θ along y-axis and ms , the
mass of lightest sterile neutrino along the x-axis and looked for the regions where fW DM ≤
1 fulfilling the dark matter phenomenology where we use the limit 10−11 ≤sin2 2θ≤10−8
[30]. Calculations were carried out using Mathematica 10 and the plots for all the different
cases are shown in fig 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d) for NH and 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d) for IH. The
colour in the plots indicates the values of fW DM in the (ms , sin2 2θ) parameter space.

27
Plots for Normal Hierarchy:

a) 1(a) 1(b)

1(c) 1(d)

24

1(e)
Fig 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e): Plots for fWDM vs mS and sin22θ for Normal Hierarchy.

28
Plots for Inverted Hierarchy:

2(a) 2(b)

2(c)
2(d)

2(e)
Fig 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e): Plots for fWDM vs mS and sin22θ for Inverted Hierarchy.

29
2(c)
From the plots in both the caes of NH and IH, we found that,-

• The equation (35) for all the structures of neutrino mass matrix yeilds sterile neu-
trinos mostly in the sub keV scale and few in the keV scale with the the heaviest
being only some tens of keV.

• To take into account the sterile neutrinos with mass ms ≤ 0.1 keV, we made use of
the equation (27) and it was found maximum proportions of the regions in the plots
are represents fW DM ≤ 1, which is our criterion for the satisfying the dark matter
phenomenology indicating that the sterile neutrinos can be a viable candidate for
warm dark matter.

• Though very less in amount, but there are certain regions where fW DM 6< 1, indi-
cating that sterile neutrinos alone can not solve the dark matter puzzle or extension
of the moddel is needed.

• There are regions in the plots where our calculations do not yield fruitful results
leaving the plots blank showing certain combinations of the mass of the sterile
neutrino and the active-sterile mixing are not viable for dark matter phenomenology.

• As we go beyond the masses for lightest usual neutrino higher than 0.065 in case
of NH and 0.007 in case of IH, regions where fW DM ≤ 1 become very less indicat-
ing that lightest usual neutrino masses should not exceed these value in order to
simultaneously address the origin of neutrino mass and dark matter phenomenlogy.

8 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE OUTLOOK

We have seen that,by making some very simple modifications to the Standard Model,we
can generate neutrino mass.Furthermore,via the see-saw mechanism,we can predict the
smallness of the observed left chiral neutrino masses without disturbing the current un-
derstanding of the weak interaction at low energy scales.We have seen that in order for
all of this to work, neutrinos are Majorana fermions.The right handed, see-saw counter
part neutrinos are very heavy, explaining why we have not observed them at the energy
scales probed by current experiments. However, via the ISS mechanism, we can supress
the right handed neutrino mass below the experimentally probable limit and also predicts
the existance of another kind of neutrino with no gauge interactions- the ‘sterile neutrino’
which might be a viable candidate for warm dark matter.

30
In this study we have considered the possibility of simultaneously addressing the the
neutrino mass generation mechanism and the dark matter problem. We have focused on
the inverse seesaw realisation - the “(3,3) ISS” model- fulfilling all phenomenological and
cosmological requirements and which provides a Warm Dark Matter candidate (for a mass
of the lightest sterile state around the keV).

We are yet to have a complete theory of neutrino mass. In the near future one big step
in deciding experimentally whether or not the see-saw mechanisms are viable, will be
determining if neutrinos are in fact Majorana particles. There are several current efforts
to measure neutrino-less double beta decay. Should this process be observed, we will have
observed that neutrinos are in fact their own anti-particles, and the see-saw mechanism
may seem even more attractive. Also the conventional DM production mechanism, the so
called Dodelson-Widrow mechanism, results in a tension with observational constraints
from DM Indirect Detection (ID) and structure formation, since it can only account for
at most half of the total DM abundance. A sizeable DM density can nonetheless be
achieved when one considers the decay of the heavy pseudo-Dirac neutrinos. However
this possibility is realised only in a restricted region of the parameter space. An extension
of the model is thus needed in order to account for a viable DM in a broader portion of
the parameter space.

References

[1] Ade P. A. R., Aghanim N., Armitage-Caplan C. et al., [Planck Collaboration], Astron.
Astrophys (2014) [arXiv:1303.5076 [astro-ph.CO]].

[2] Jarosik N. et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series192 (2011) 14.

[3] Copi C. J., Schramm D. N, Turner M. S., Science 267 (5195) 192.

[4] Umemura et.al., Astrophysical Journal 299 (2005) 583.

[5] K.A. Olive, arXiv:astro-ph/9407126, vol.3, p.12, (1998).

[6] C.L. Cowan, Science 124 (1956) 105.

[7] M. Goldhaber et.al,Helicity of Neutrinos, Phys. Rev. 109 (1958) 1059.

[8] S. M. Bilenky and B. Pontecorvo, Yadernaya Fizika 3 (1976) 519.

[9] M. Schwartz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4 (1960) 306.

[10] S.P. Mikheev and A.Y. Smirnov, Sov. J., Nucl. Phys. 42 (1985) 913.

[11] L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D 17 (1978) 2369.

31
[12] Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys. 28 (1962) 820.

[13] N.Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 (1963) 531.

[14] L.L. Chau and W.Y. Keung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53 (1984) 1802.

[15] M. Maltoni et.al, New J.Phys. 6 (2004) 122.

[16] S. F. King, Rept. Prog. Phys, 67 (2003) 107.

[17] S. F. King, Nucl. Phys.B 908 (2016) 456.

[18] B. Kayser, Phys. Rev. D 26 (1962) 1982.

[19] S. F. King, J. Phys G:Nucl. Part. Phys. 42 (2015) 123.

[20] R. N. Mahapatra, Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 165.

[21] R. N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56 (1986) 567.

[22] A.Abada, M. Luente, Nucl. Phys. B 885 (2014) 651

[23] A. G. Dias, C. A. de S. Pires, P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, A. Sampieri, Phys. Rev. D


86 (2012) 035007.

[24] A. G. Dias, C. A. de S. Pires, P. S. Rodrigues da Silva, A. Sampieri, Phys. Rev. D


86 (2012) 035007.

[25] S. Dodelson and L. M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72 (1994) 17 [hep-ph/9303287].

[26] P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck Collaboration), Astron. Astrophys (2014) [arXiv:1303.5076


[astro-ph.CO]]

[27] T. Asaka, M. Laine and M. Shaposhnikov, JHEP 0701 (2007) 091 [hep-ph/0612182].

[28] K. Abazajian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 161303 [arXiv:1403.0954 [astro-ph.CO]].

[29] A. Abada, Michele Lucente, Giorgio Arcadib, Nucl. Phys. B 885 (2014) 651
[arXiv:1401.1507 [hep-ph]].

[30] A. Abada, Giorgio Arcadib, Michele Lucente, Nucl. Phys. B 885 (2014) 651
[arXiv:1401.1507 [hep-ph]].

32