, Volume 62, Issue 2, pp 513–522 | Cite as

Links between neutrino oscillations, leptogenesis, and proton decay within supersymmetric grand unification

  • Jogesh C. Pati


Evidence in favor of supersymmetric grand unification including that based on the observed family multiplet-structure, gauge coupling unification, neutrino oscillations, baryogenesis, and certain intriguing features of quark-lepton masses and mixings is noted. It is argued that attempts to understand (a) the tiny neutrino masses (especially Δm 2(v 2 – v3)), (b) the baryon asymmetry of the Universe (which seems to need leptogenesis), and (c) the observed features of fermion masses such as the ratiom b/mτ, the smallness ofV cb and the maximality of\(\Theta _{\nu _\mu \nu _\tau }^{OSC} \) seem to select out the route to higher unification based on an effective string-unifiedG(224) =SU(2)L ×SU(2)R ×SU(2)c orSO(10)-symmetry that should be operative in 4D, as opposed to other alternatives. A predictiveSO(10)/G(224)-framework possessing supersymmetry is presented that successfully describes the masses and mixings of all fermions including neutrinos. It also accounts for the observed baryon asymmetry of the Universe by utilizing the process of leptogenesis, which is natural to this framework. It is argued that a conservative upper limit on the proton lifetime within thisSO(10)/G(224)-framework, which is so far most successful, is given by\(\frac{1}{3} - 2\) x 1034 years. This in turn strongly suggests that an improvement in the current sensitivity by a factor of five to ten (compared to SuperK) ought to reveal proton decay. Implications of this prediction for the next-generation nucleon decay and neutrino-detector are noted.


Supersymmetry proton decay neutrino oscillation leptogenesis 




Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1a]
    Y Fukudaet al (Super-Kamiokande),Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562 (1998); hep-ex/9807003CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  2. [1b]
    K Nishikawa (K2K) Talk at Neutrino 2002, Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  3. [2a]
    Q R Ahmadet al (SNO),Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 011301 (2002)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  4. [2b]
    B T Clevelandet al (Homestake),Astrophys. J. 496, 505 (1998)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  5. [2c]
    W Hampelet al (GALLEX),Phys. Lett. B447, 127 (1999)ADSGoogle Scholar
  6. [2d]
    J N Abdurashitovet al (SAGE) (2000), astroph/0204245Google Scholar
  7. [2e]
    M Altmannet al (GNO),Phys. Lett. B490, 16 (2000)ADSGoogle Scholar
  8. [2f]
    S Fukudaet al (SuperKamiokande),Phys. Lett. B539, 179 (2002)ADSGoogle Scholar
  9. [2g]
    Disappearance of -ve ’s produced in earth-based reactors is established by the Kam-LAND dataGoogle Scholar
  10. [2h]
    K Eguchiet al, hep-ex/0212021Google Scholar
  11. [3a]
    For a historical overview of theoretical calculations of expected solar neutrino flux, see J Bahcall, astro-ph/0209080Google Scholar
  12. [3b]
    See, e.g., S Weinberg,Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1566 (1979);Proc. XXVI Int. Conf. on High Energy Physics, Dallas, TX, 1992CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  13. [3c]
    E Akhmedov, Z Berezhiani and G Senjanovic,Phys. Rev. D47, 3245 (1993). Assuming that quantum gravity could induce violation of lepton number, one may allow for an effective non-renormalizable operator of the form λLLLLHH/Mpl + h.c, scaled by Mpl = 1.2 x 1019 GeV with(H) ≈ 250 GeV. Such an operator would, however, yield a rather small Majorana massm(vL) ~ 10-5 eV for the left-handed neutrinos, even for a maximal λL ~ 1, as mentioned in the textADSGoogle Scholar
  14. [4]
    J C Pati,Implications of the SuperKamiokande result on the nature of new physics, in Neutrino 98, Takayama, Japan, June 98, hep-ph/9807315;Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)77, 299 (1999)Google Scholar
  15. [5a]
    J C Pati and Abdus Salam,Phys. Rev. D8, 1240 (1973)ADSGoogle Scholar
  16. [5b]
    J C Pati and Abdus Salam,Phys. Rev. Lett. 31, 661 (1973);Phys. Rev. D10, 275 (1974)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  17. [6]
    H Georgi and S L Glashow,Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 438 (1974)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  18. [7]
    H Georgi, H Quinn and S Weinberg,Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 451 (1974)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  19. [8a]
    Y A Golfand and E S Likhtman,JETP Lett. 13, 323 (1971)ADSGoogle Scholar
  20. [8b]
    J Wess and B Zuimino,Nucl. Phys. B70, 139 (1974)Google Scholar
  21. [8c]
    D Volkov and V P Akulov,JETP Lett. 16, 438 (1972)ADSGoogle Scholar
  22. [9]
    E Witten,Nucl. Phys. B188, 513 (1981)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  23. [9]
    R K Kaul,Phys. Lett. B109, 19 (1982)ADSGoogle Scholar
  24. [10a]
    S Dimopoulos, S Raby and F Wilczek,Phys. Rev. D24, 1681 (1981)ADSGoogle Scholar
  25. [10b]
    W Marciano and G Senjanovic,Phys. Rev. D25, 3092 (1982)ADSGoogle Scholar
  26. [10c]
    M Einhorn and D R T Jones,Nucl. Phys. B196, 475 (1982)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  27. [10d]
    For work in recent years, see P Langacker and M Luo,Phys. Rev. D44, 817 (1991)ADSGoogle Scholar
  28. [10e]
    U Amaldi, W de Boer and H Furtenau,Phys. Rev. Lett. B260, 131 (1991)Google Scholar
  29. [10f]
    F Anselmo, L Cifarelli, A Peterman and A Zichichi,Nuovo. Cimento A104, 1817 (1991)Google Scholar
  30. [11]
    K S Babu, J C Pati and F Wilczek, hep-ph/981538V3;Nucl. Phys. B (to appear)Google Scholar
  31. [12]
    M Fukugita and T Yanagida,Phys. Lett. B174, 45 (1986)ADSGoogle Scholar
  32. [12g]
    M A Luty,Phys. Rev. D45, 455 (1992)ADSGoogle Scholar
  33. [12h]
    W Buchmuller and M Plumacher, hep-ph/9608308Google Scholar
  34. [13]
    V Kuzmin, V Rubakov and M Shaposhnikov,Phys. Lett. BM155, 36 (1985)ADSGoogle Scholar
  35. [14a]
    H Georgi, inParticles and fields edited by C Carlson (AIP, NY, 1975) p. 575Google Scholar
  36. [14b]
    H Fritzsch and P Minkowski,Ann. Phys. 93, 193 (1975)CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  37. [15a]
    J C Pati, hep-ph/9811442;Int. J. Mod. Phys. A14, 2949 (1999)ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. [15b]
    Sections 2–5 of the full-length article giving details of these discussions and derivation of the results, presented in this introduction, are not included in these proceedings, owing to length restrictions. They will, however, appear in the article in the archivesGoogle Scholar
  39. [16a]
    I Antoniadis, G Leontaris and J Rizos,Phys. Lett. B245, 161 (1990)ADSGoogle Scholar
  40. [16b]
    G K Leontaris,Phys. Lett. B372, 212 (1996); hep-ph/9601337ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  41. [16c]
    A Murayama and T Toon,Phys. Lett. B318, 298 (1993)ADSGoogle Scholar
  42. [16d]
    Z Kakushadze,Phys. Rev. D58, 101901 (1998)ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  43. [16e]
    G Aldazabal, L I Ibanez and F Quevedo, hep-th/9909172 C Kokorelis, hep-th/0203187; hep-th/0209202Google Scholar
  44. [16f]
    M Cvetic, G Shiu and A M Uranga,Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 201801 (2001); hep-th/0107143;Nucl. Phys. B615, 3 (2001); hep-th/0107166CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  45. [16g]
    M Cvetic and I Papadimitrious, hep-th/0303197Google Scholar
  46. [16h]
    R Blumenhagen, L Gorlich and T Ott, hep-th/0211059Google Scholar
  47. [16i]
    L I Everett, G L Kane, S F King, S Rigolin and L T Wang, hep-th/0202100Google Scholar
  48. [17a]
    R Dermisek and A Man,Phys. Rev. D65, 055002 (2002); hep-ph/0108139ADSGoogle Scholar
  49. [17b]
    Q Shan and Z Tavartkiladze, hep-ph/0108247; hep-ph/0303150Google Scholar
  50. [17c]
    C H Albright and S M Barr, hep-ph/0209173Google Scholar
  51. [17d]
    H D Kim and S Raby, hep-ph/0212348Google Scholar
  52. [17e]
    I Gogoladze, Y Mimura and S Nandi, hep-ph/0302176Google Scholar
  53. [17f]
    B Kyae and Q Shan, hep-ph/0211059Google Scholar
  54. [17g]
    H Baeret al, hep-ph/0204108Google Scholar
  55. [17h]
    T Blazek, S F King and J K Perry, hep-ph/0303192 and also references thereinGoogle Scholar
  56. [18a]
    J C Pati and Abdus Salam,Phys. Rev. D10, 275 (1974)ADSGoogle Scholar
  57. [18b]
    R N Mohapatra and J C Pati,Phys. Rev. D11, 566, 2558 (1975)Google Scholar
  58. [18c]
    G Senjanovic and R N Mohapatra,Phys. Rev. D12, 1502 (1975)ADSGoogle Scholar
  59. [18d]
    Without a protection by a local symmetry,vR/′s (being singlets of the SM) are likely to acquire Majorana masses of the order string or Planck scale through effects of quantum gravity. Such ultraheavyvR masses would, however, lead via the see-saw mechanism (see later), to too small masses for the light neutrinos (<-10-5 eV) and thereby to too small a value for Δm23/2 compared to observation. Hence the need forB —L as an effective local symmetry in 4D near the string scaleGoogle Scholar
  60. [19a]
    M Gell-Mann, P Ramond and R Slansky, in:Supergravity edited by F van Nieuwen-huizen and D Freedman (Amsterdam, North Holland, 1979) p. 315Google Scholar
  61. [19b]
    T Yanagida, inWorkshop on the Unified Theory and Baryon Number in the Universe edited by O Sawada and A Sugamoto (KEK, Tsukuba, 1979) p. 95Google Scholar
  62. [19c]
    R N Mohopatra and G Senjanovic,Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 912 (1980)CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  63. [20]
    F Gursey, P Ramond and P Sikivie,Phys. Lett. B60, 177 (1976)ADSGoogle Scholar
  64. [21a]
    J C Pati, hep-ph/0209160Google Scholar
  65. [21b]
    The lightestN1 may be produced either thermally after reheating or non-thermally through inflaton-decay during reheating. Both possibilities are considered in [21]Google Scholar
  66. [22]
    B D Fields and S Sarkar,Phys. Rev. D66, 010001 (2002), which yields:Y BBNB ≈(3.7-9) x 10-11 Google Scholar
  67. [23]
    Most recently, the WMAP surveying the entire celestial sphere with high sensitivity yields: (YB)WMAP ≈ (8.7 ±0.4) × 10-11 (WMAP Collaboration, astro-ph/0302207-09-13-15, 17, 18, 20, 22-25)Google Scholar
  68. [24]
    M Dine and A Kusenko, hep-ph/0303065Google Scholar
  69. [25a]
    F Gursey, P Ramond and R Slansky,Phys. Lett. B60, 177 (1976)ADSGoogle Scholar
  70. [25b]
    Y Achiman and B Stech,Phys. Lett. B77, 389 (1978)ADSGoogle Scholar
  71. [25c]
    Q Shan,Phys. Lett. B79, 301 (1978)ADSGoogle Scholar
  72. [25d]
    A de Rujula, H Georgi and S L Glashow,5th Workshop on Grand Unification edited by K Kanget al (World Scientific, 1984) p. 88Google Scholar
  73. [26a]
    J C Pati and A Salam,Phys. Rev. D10, 275 (1974)ADSGoogle Scholar
  74. [26b]
    R N Mohapatra and J C Pati,Phys. Rev. D11, 566, 2558 (1975)Google Scholar
  75. [27a]
    S M Barr,Phys. Lett. B112, 219 (1982)ADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  76. [27b]
    J P Derendinger, J E Kim and D V Nanopoulos,Phys. Lett. B139, 170 (1984)ADSGoogle Scholar
  77. [27c]
    I Antoniadis, J Ellis, J Hagelin and D V Nanopoulos,Phys. Lett. B194, 231 (1987)ADSGoogle Scholar
  78. [28]
    J C Pati, hep-ph/0204240; To appear in the Proceedings of the ICTP, Trieste School and Proceedings of the DAE Meeting, Allahabad, India (2002)Google Scholar
  79. [29]
    K S Babu, J C Pati and F Wilczek,Phys. Lett. B423, 337 (1998)ADSGoogle Scholar
  80. [30]
    UNO Proposal: See the talk by C K Jung inNext generation nucleon decay and neutriono detector, AIP Conference Proceedings (Sept. 1999) edited by M Diwan and C K JungGoogle Scholar
  81. [31]
    Y Totsuka, Plans for Hyperkamiokande (Private communications) [31a]See also talks by M Shiozawa and Y Suzuki,AIP Conf. Proceedings om|UNO Proposal: See the talk by C K Jung inNext generation nucleon decay and neutriono detector, AIP Conference Proceedings (Sept. 1999) edited by M Diwan and C K Jung(ref. [30])Google Scholar
  82. [32]
    International Workshop on Neutrino and Subterranean Science (NeSS 2002 Meeting, Washington, DC, September, 2002). For transparencies of various talks, see Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jogesh C. Pati
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations