Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

Nuclear Physics B209 (1982) 157-173

North-Holland Publishing Company


Graciela B. GELMINI*

Sektion Physik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitlit, Munich, FRG

Shmuel NUSSINOV** and Marco RONCADELLI***

Max-Planck-Institut fiir Physik und Astrophysik Munich, FRG

Received 16 November 1981
(Revised 16 July 1982)
We analyze further implications of the existence of a massless boson - the Majoron - mainly
coupled to left-handed neutrinos. Finalleptonspectrum in pion leptonic decay is affected by Majoron
bremsstrahlung, yieldinga bound on Maj oron-neutrinocouplingfrom experimental data. Supernova
dynamics is another issue discussed here. We address possible effects of the frequent
neutrino-neutrinocollisions, neutrino interconversion and light boson bremsstrahlung in neutrino
scattering. In particular, we focus on the question of lepton number non-conservation. We find that
deleptonization of the core and high-entropy collapse can occur, via a subtle interplay of neutrino
interconversion and light boson bremsstrahlung. Then, we propose an unorthodox solution to the
missing mass problem in the universe. Finally, we address the problem of galaxy formation, which
appears in a new perspective within our model.

1. Introduction
A m o d e l for l e f t - h a n d e d n e u t r i n o mass g e n e r a t i o n via n o n - v a n i s h i n g v a c u u m
e x p e c t a t i o n v a l u e ( V E V ) of an isotriplet Higgs field has b e e n r e c e n t l y suggested,
a n d s o m e of its c o n s e q u e n c e s were e x p l o r e d [1-12]. O n e of its m a i n f e a t u r e s is
the existence of massive c h a r g e d scalar particles, X , X , with masses of the o r d e r
of the s t a n d a r d W e i n b e r g - S a l a m gauge b o s o n s a n d in the ratio ~/2, a n e u t r a l light
Higgs b o s o n pt., a n d a truly massless G o l d s t o n e b o s o n - the M a j o r o n M - associated
with t h e s p o n t a n e o u s b r e a k i n g of a global, n o n - a n o m a l o u s c u r r e n t , B - L . All these
particles m a y m a n i f e s t t h e m s e l v e s in Z decays, a n d ee - or e e collisions.
T h e n e u t r i n o mass matrix has the form:


(i,/" = e,/~, ~-),


w h e r e v is the v a c u u m e x p e c t a t i o n v a l u e of the n e w Higgs triplet ~ . A possibility

is that the i n t e r g e n e r a t i o n a l mixings are small, in which case eq. (1) takes the
* Present address: ICTP, Trieste, Italy. Address after 1st January 1983: CERN, Geneva, Switzerland.
** On leave from Tel-Aviv University, Ramat-Aviv, Tel-Aviv, Israel. Work supported in part by Israeli
Academy of Science.
***Associato INFN, Pavia, Italy. Address after 1st November 1982: Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa,


G.B. Gelmini et al. / Bounds and prospects for Majoron model

approximate form:
ml = gllv.


Alternatively, all gii elements can be comparable. Correspondingly, the neutrino

mixing angles are large. The astrophysics of the cores of red giant stars [2] yields
the bound*
v < 100 keV.
Due to eqs. (1)-(3), it follows that all neutrinos m u s t be lighter t h a n a b o u t 100 k e V
in this model.

With respect to the cosmological implications of the model, the annihilation

/'~L/-'L ~ MM decimates the ith neutrino species, as soon as the radiation temperature
T equals the mass of ui. This prevents neutrinos of any mass from playing any r61e
in the solution of the missing mass puzzle [15], even if neutrino masses larger than
30 eV are confirmed via end of /3-decay spectrum [16] or double [3-decay [17]
measurements. The last process yields the further bound:

gee ~< 10 -3.


Amusingly, eqs. (2), (3) and (4) together imply already

mvo ~ ge~v < 100 eV,


as long as intergenerational mixings are neglected. No cosmological restrictions

exist on g,~, or g,,, since the bound [18] Zimv, ~ 5 0 - 1 5 0 eV is not valid in this
model. Further constraints on g~j could in principle be inferred from the bounds
on rare decays, such as/z ~ eel, if it were not because of the strong dependence
of these processes on the unknown integenerational mixing angles. Incidentally, in
order to simplify the following discussion we shall often ignore mixing effects.
Our goals in the present paper are the following:
(a) We point out that distortions of charged lepton spectra due to Majoron
bremsstrahlung of v~ or v~ are expected in processes such as 7r ~ txv~,, ~ - -~ v~,~e-,
r ~ ~ru,, 7 - ~ u,u~e , r -~ u , ~ , t z - . This implies direct bounds on g~,, ( g , , ~< 10 -z) and
much weaker ones on g,,, because of lack of data. Therefore g,, is only restricted
by the trivial bound g,, < 1.
(b) We discuss the possible impact of our Majoron model on supernova astrophysics. In particular, we point out the relevance of frequent neutrino-neutrino
collisions, neutrino interconversion and light boson bremsstrahlung in neutrino
scatterings. Then, we address the important issue of lepton number nonconservation. This has been emphasized in a recent paper by Kolb et al. [5]. Although lepton
n u m b e r is c o n s e r v e d in s u p e r n o v a cores and the process considered by Kolb, Tubbs
and Dicus vanishes, we find that the effect of core deleptonization and high-entropy
collapse envisaged by these authors m a y still h a p p e n ! This requires a subtle interplay
* Very recently, a more careful analysis has been performed by Fukugita et al. [13, 14]. F r o m the
sun, they get v < 600 keV, whereas from the red giants they obtain v < 60 keV. T h e b o u n d eq. (3)
is consistent with these results.

G.B. Gelminiet al. / Boundsand prospectsfor Majoronmodel


of neutrino interconversion and light boson bremsstrahlung, and furthermore can

occur only if some lower bounds on the Yukawa couplings in the neutrino sector
are met.
(c) We add a few remarks on the long range forces due to Majoron and light
Higgs exchanges, whose effects turn out however to be negligible.
(d) A small mass for the Majoron might be generated if the global symmetry
B - L is explicitly broken by a small term in the lagrangian. With a mass of
approximately 10-20 eV, this could account for the missing mass of the Universe.
(e) We briefly comment on the possible connection between galaxy formation
and the density fluctuations induced by the late phase transition at which lepton
number is spontaneously broken. This last point will be only superficially treated
The results obtained in the present paper apply also to the various extensions
of our model due to Schechter and Valle [4], Barbieri and Mohapatra [19] and
Mohapatra and Senjanovic [20].

2. Majoron


and bounds on the couplings

High precision measurements for ~r a n d / z decays have been successfully compared with theoretical calculations including radiative corrections. The pseudoscalar
Majoron couples, with strength g . . , to the u. in the final states of these decays.
The produced Majorons cannot be directly detected because of their extremely
weak coupling to any charged fermion F

hFF~--VmF<~1 0 -12.


(u - 300 G e V is the standard V E V of the Weinberg-Salam model, mF ~ 1 MeV).

However, the distortion induced in the final charged lepton spectra can be observable. Its absence - within a given level of accuracy - leads to an upper bound on g...
We focus now our attention on the decays ~r ~ / x v . , zr ~ tzu.y and ~r-~/xv.M*.
In the absence of Majoron and photon radiation, the tz spectrum consists - i n the
7r rest f r a m e - o f one single sharp line, at E m } = ( r n 2 ~ + m . 2- r n ~ . )2/ 2 m ~ .
integrated weight of this &function is just

2[ 1 --~-~
_F'(Tr+ I~v~,) = -ff--~

= 3.8. 10 7 sec -1.


The Majoron bremsstrahlung diagram yields the spectrum

G ~ m,,E~,-2E~,+m~,
2 2
Fi = cos 2 0c (
32r 3
E~, m,,/ m , ~ + m u - 2 m , ~ E ~


* Also the emission of the light Higgs PL should be included. It doubles the total new bremsstrahlung


G.B. Gelmini et al. / Bounds and prospectsfor Majoron model

and the total rate


.,",,2 1'2
~r, COS2 0c
1 ~ - ~ 3 g 2m,t.rFf
~m 3~ 2,


Z ~-~g-I-~Og
1, 3 2 - - 7 0 / 3 - t - 0 / 4 + 0 ~ 5 - - 7 0 t 6 + 0 1 2 ( 1

--0t2) 2

In ( l - a z) 2 ,


where a - - m . / m = and e -~rn*/rn,. m * being effectively the bound on the mass as

fixed by the experimental resolution (e >~0.1 MeV). This rate has to be compared
with the ordinary photon bremsstrahlung, whose branching ratio [21] is
F(rr ~ txv~y) = (1.24+0.25) 10 -4 .
F(~" -, ~v~)


Requiring F ( ~ r ~ t z v ~ M ) not to exceed the uncertainty in F(Tr-~/xv~y), F(Tr-*

I z v . M ) / F ( T r ~ t~v.) <~0.125 10 .4* yields
g,~, ~< 10 -2 .


A more conservative estimate would only require F ( I r ~ txv~,M) ~<F(~" ~ t~v,y)

yielding g~,~ ~<2 . 3 . 1 0 -2. Taking the intergenerational mixings into account, we
g.e2 "~gtxtx2 + g ~ . < ~ 5 . 3 " 1 0 - 4 ,


which is almost as strong as the bounds deduced after submission of the present
p a p e r for publication [3, 9]. A more stringent bound could result from comparing
the actual shape of the observed/x spectrum. Considerable i m p r o v e m e n t could be
achieved using future high statistic zr + tz experiments planned for searching my. # 0.
Imperfect tx polarization in rr + I z v . , distortion of the three body spectrum in
/x ~ v.~Tee- and apparent deviation from e - tx universality in rr- decay, could supply
independent bounds.
Also, the M-bremsstrahlung leads to a VL-~ V[ flip, with the consequent production of the wrong-sign charged leptons in deep inelastic neutrino scattering. We
believe, however, that the bounds on g . . obtained here are m o r e restrictive. (This
turned out to be actually the case [3].) With respect to v. bremsstrahlung we have
no way of achieving stringent bounds on g.., because of the scarcity of data.
So far we have been concerned just with the bounds on the coupling parameters
g~., g... It is necessary however to emphasize the reverse aspect. If rnv~ turns out
to be of order 30 eV, and the intergenerational mixings are small, then g ~ . >~ 1 0 - 7 .
This is so because mv~ = g . . v and v < 100 keV [2]. Finding a small distortion of
the Iz spectrum in 7r ~ v .
decay, which cannot be accounted for by photon
bremsstrahlung, would confirm the basic ingredient of the present a p p r o a c h - the
See p r e v i o u s footnote.

G.B. Gelmini et al. / Bounds and prospectsfor Ma/oron model


existence of low mass scalars c o u p l e d p r i m a r i l y to n e u t r i n o s . I n particular, an

e x p e r i m e n t a l a r r a n g e m e n t v e t o i n g p h o t o n s could b e e x t r e m e l y useful.

3. Neutrino-neutrino scattering. Where is it important?

O n e of the characteristics of o u r m o d e l is the striking p r e d i c t i o n of large neutrinoneutrino cross sections, d u e to M a j o r o n e x c h a n g e a n d p r o d u c t i o n * . T h e i n t e r c o n v e r sion VeVe-" VHVrI, for e x a m p l e , has a cross section**:


t r ( v ~ v ~ vi-iVla)~- 24IrE~



cm ,


with t o ~ - E v / 1 M e V (H stands for " h e a v y " , i.e., /z, r). T o get a n idea a b o u t the
m a g n i t u d e of cr(v~v~ ~ VHvH), we can c o m p a r e it to the typical cross sections of the
s t a n d a r d weak i n t e r a c t i o n s , for e x a m p l e the cross section for coherent n e u t r i n o n u c l e o n s c a t t e r i n g [22]:


2 .
~ l va t e - 4 5 ~A 2 oJvcm



A s is clear, ~r(V~V~UHVH) exceeds o'(vN)coh b y a factor of 10 8gHH,

for oo~ ~ 20,
A ~ 50 a n d g 2 ~ 1 0 - 6 . W i t h the b o u n d g,~, ~< 10 a n d g,, ~ 0(1) m e n t i o n e d above,
this factor r u n s o v e r 1 0 4 t o 1 0 8 . This p r e d o m i n a n c e should b e c o n t r a s t e d with the
negligible role of the M a j o r o n e x c h a n g e in v F * * * o r F F (F ~ v) processes, s t e m m i n g
f r o m the smallness of the hFF couplings (see eq. (6)).
H o w e v e r , the net effect of a given interaction depends on the number of collisions
per unit length ~ 1/h ~nar, w h e r e A is the m e a n free p a t h (m.f.p.), n is the n u m b e r
d e n s i t y a n d tr the cross section c o n s i d e r e d . U n d e r m o s t c i r c u m s t a n c e s the n e u t r i n o
n u m b e r density, n,, is very small in c o m p a r i s o n with the n u m b e r d e n s i t y of n u c l e o n s
a n d e l e c t r o n s nN ~ ne = N A (NA b e i n g the A v o g a d r o n u m b e r ) . T h e resulting m.f.p.
for n e u t r i n o - n e u t r i n o collisions

A~, ~ - n,zr,,~,


* When the temperature T is higher than the non-standard VEV., i.e., T ~> v, the mixing between the
triplet and doublet Higgs fields does not exist. Since the global symmetry B-L is restored, no
Goldstone boson exists either (see sect. 4). In this case, M and PL are replaced by ~o, the neutral
component of the triplet, with light mass ~ T. The contribution of ~o introduces a factor 4 in the
cross sections for all new unconventionalneutrino-neutrinoscatterings.
** The differential cross section does peak for/3 ~ 1 (super-relativistic neutrinos) near 0 = 0 and the
integrated area of the peak behaves as In (1 -/3). Such small angle scatterings do not contribute to
the diffusion and can be ignored. Hence the simple expression given by eq. (14) is applicable.
***For example, the contribution of M and PL exchange to the neutrino-electron scattering cross section
is about eleven orders of magnitude smaller than the gauge boson exchange contribution for
Ev = 1 MeV and my = 1 eV [1].


G.B. Gelmini et al. / Bounds and prospects for Majoron model

is then much bigger than the characteristic size of the system R, and the system
and the neutrinos hardly scatter from each other before escaping.
As an example, consider the solar core for which R ~- 101 cm. The total neutrino
flux @v can be inferred from the solar luminosity and the average neutrino energy
coy = 1 to be qbv ~1039 u/sec. The neutrino density in the core is n ~ - ~ @ j R 2 c ~109/cm 3. Hence, even for grin -- 1 we find, from eqs. (14) and (16): A~v >>1020 cm >>
R. We can likewise verify that no significant neutrino-neutrino scatterings occur
for neutrinos in reactors or in accelerator beams.
We do expect strong new effects in those special circumstances when A~ - R system.
An example is the fate of massive (say mv ~- 100 eV) cosmological neutrinos, as the
radiation t e m p e r a t u r e drops down to T~ = m~, [2]. Neutrinos interconvert and annihilate with cross sections [2] like those of eq. (14): o - = 10 -27 cm 2 for gii ~ 10-3
(required if m,, = 100 eV). The neutrino n u m b e r density scales with T 3 and at
100 eV is n~ ~ 3 1019 cm -3. The corresponding m.f.p, for annihilation is Av~-,MM'~
108 cm to be c o m p a r e d with the horizon c t . = 3 10 TM cm, where t . ~ 108 sec is the
age of the universe when T =my, ~ 100 eV. Equivalently, one can compare the
annihilation rate with the expansion rate of the universe = t 1. This is the reason
why all cosmological neutrinos annihilate at temperatures T ~<m~, in the present
model, even if g, ~ 10 - 6 - 10 -5.
Our quest for dense neutrino "targets" leads us to supernova cores. As we will
next show, it is here that we finally have n~ ~- nN,n~, i.e., neutrino n u m b e r densities
approaching those of the nucleons (or electrons) in the medium.
Some aspects of supernovae, for exainple, the nucleosynthesis of heavier elements, are qualitatively well understood. There are however several puzzles such
as the mechanism of the " b o u n c e " , required to eject the star mantle, leaving the
core as a remnant neutron star [23]. Several years ago, it was pointed out [22] that
the neutrino diffraction via Z exchange on nuclei produces a m o m e n t u m transfer
of the order of the energy of the neutrinos, A p ~ E ~ ~ 20 MeV. The coherence of
these low energy scatterings implies a quick rise of the cross s e c t i o n - given just
by eq. ( 1 5 ) - w i t h the atomic number A. It has been suggested [22, 24] that the
coherent neutrino diffraction on the Fe-Ni shell surrounding the core accounts for
the bounce (A = 56 for Fe). This hypothesis has been extensively tested numerically
[25] and appears to fall a bit shorter. More recently, another scenario for supernova
dynamics due to Bethe, Brown, Applegate and Lattimer (BBAL) [26] has become
much more favoured. In this scenario, the bounce comes from a stiff equation of
state and is in the form of a mechanical shock wave. Peculiar to this picture is a
collapse with s m a l l specific entropy, controlled to a large extent by the degenerate
Fermi energy of neutrinos and electrons.
The basic reaction triggering the collapse is e - + p ~ n + u~. It converts all protons
within a core of mass ~ 1.4 MG -~3. 1033g into the neutrons constituting the
remnant neutron star. The total n u m b e r of neutrinos emitted in a fairly short

G.B. Gelmini et al. / Bounds and prospects for Ma]oron model


collapse time to~lap~ is therefore

N~ = NA" 3 ' 1033 ~ 1057 .


Let tr be the average time that a typical m e m b e r of this gigantic neutrino population
remains inside the core before escaping. If t~ ~ tco~lap~, the emitted neutrinos stay
in the core throughout the whole collapse. Since we have practically one neutrino
emitted per nucleon, this would imply comparable n u m b e r densities n~ = nN. In
general tr < tcollapse. The neutrinos stay in the core only a fraction f=- tr/tcollapse < 1
of the effective neutrino-emitting period, i.e., t~ol~ap~, and therefore their density
is correspondingly reduced:

n~, ~'fnN ~ - -




The important point is that in all collapse scenarios, f is not much smaller than 1,
f - 1 0 - l - 10 -3 being a typical range. The effective neutrino-emitting p e r i o d during which say 50% of the neutrinos are e m i t t e d - c a n be read off from fig. 6
of ref. [24], which represents the results obtained by Wilson [25] for a core density
2 . 1 0 a l g / c m 3. This time, tcollapse--~0.02-0.04sec. For a mass of 3 . 1033g, the
corresponding size is R ~ 31/3 107 cm --~ 1.2 107 cm.
Clearly, the minimal period that a neutrino stays in the core is R / c , i.e.,
4 . 1 0 -4 sec. This corresponds to the fastest (collisionless) escape. Thus tr>~R/c,
i.e., try>4 10 -4 sec. and for the case at hand f = tJtcoHapse ~ (0.5-1) 10 -2.
D u e to scattering of the outgoing neutrinos on the electrons and nucleons in the
core, tr m a y exceed R / c . If the scattering is completely isotropic, and the neutrino
scatters S times before leaving the core, then from standard r a n d o m walk estimates
R ~ x/S hv,


S ~ (R/A~) 2,


tr ~ total v path length/c



For the above core p a r a m e t e r s (p = 2.1011 g cm -3, T = 3 MeV) and for neutrino
energies ~ 16 MeV, the m.f.p, for neutrino-electron and neutrino-nucleon collisions
Ave--~ 8 " 106 c m , A.N--~ 4 " 105 c m are comparable to, even somewhat smaller (by
about a factor of 10) than the core radius. F r o m eq. (19c) we find that tr could
exceed its minimal value R / c by - 1 0 and


f -~ /collapse

10 R


0.1 - 0.05



G.B. Gelmini et al. / Bounds and prospects for Ma/oron model

A lower b o u n d on tconapse is offered by the free fall time:

tf~ = (24 "rrGNp) - 1 / 2 = 10 -3 sec.


T h e radial thermal n e u t r o n velocity (v~)l/E=x/-~=x/-1/300c~-O.06c also

yields a r o u g h estimate of too.apse = 1 0 - 2 s e c . * very close to ( 0 . 5 - 1) 1 0 - 2 s e c . the
values used above. Thus in conclusion
n~ ~ (10 -1 -- 10-3)nN


as a conservative estimate.
W e n o w turn to the novel element of n e u t r i n o - n e u t r i n o scattering. Since in the
standard m o d e l o-w = c r ~ and nv < n~ (or nN), these are safely neglected in any
scenario based on standard weak interaction models. H o w e v e r , in the present model
n e u t r i n o - n e u t r i n o scatterings are predominant. Specifically, f r o m eqs. (15) (used
for a cross section per nucleon) and (14) we find the ratio of the interconversion
cross section ~r(v~v~+v~v~) (used here since g~ is least restricted by previous
analysis) to the standard n e u t r i n o - n u c l e o n cross section


102 2 2
= - -tO
7 -v g ~ g ~ ,


Multiplying by n~/nN of eq. (23) we finally arrive at

h . . . . -, . . . .


60 v q t U
-- 10 -17)

2 2



Thus, unless g~g~ ~ 10 - 7 5 - 10 65, the m.f.p, for the new process is smaller than
the standard one for E~ ~ 10 M e V , the typical e n e r g y considered. If g ~ ~ 10 -6 and
g ~ ~ 1, the factor is 10 _9 - 10 -7, since, as we have seen above, A~ ~/~vN O ( R / 1 0 ) ,
we certainly have A~ <<R (Av~/R ~ 10 - m in the case g~ ~ 1, n. ~ 0.1 n N and A ~ / R
10 -2 in the other extreme case g~ ~ 10 -3, n~ ~ 1 0 - 3 n N ) . T h e relevance of these
strong n e u t r i n o - n e u t r i n o scatterings for s u p e r n o v a astrophysics will be analyzed
in the next section.

4. Supernova astrophysics in the Majoron model

T h e effects of frequent n e u t r i n o - n e u t r i n o collisions, interconversion of the
neutrino species and light b o s o n bremsstrahlung in neutrino processes on s u p e r n o v a
physics d e p e n d s on the specific scenario assumed for s u p e r n o v a collapse and
explosion. W e envision three kinds of effects:
the neutrino transport can be affected;
the interconversion of neutrino species will lower the original t,~ density;
* If we had a free gas of nucleons, then (v2) = 3{v~)= 3kT/mN. What we are implicitly assuming in
the estimate is that the net radial influx of the nucleons, i.e., the actual collapse under gravity has
a velocity which is smaller than, but still comparable to, (v ~}l/z.

G.B. Gelmini et al. / Bounds and prospects for Majoron model


lepton number violating processes can convert neutrinos into anti-neutrinos,

leading eventually to almost complete deleptonization of the core and high-entropy

We will now elaborate on these points.


It is clear from the discussion of sect 3 that neutrino-neutrino scatterings are

here much more frequent than in the standard weak interaction models.
Since radial m o m e n t u m is conserved in these processes, the outward neutrino
flow from the core is unhindered even by the most frequent neutrino-neutrino
collisions. The large number of neutrino self-interactions makes the outstreaming
neutrino flux much more coherent. Suppose an outgoing neutrino is turned back
by a hard collision with a nucleon. In the usual scenario it would follow its new
direction for a long time until escaping or suffering a subsequent collision. In the
present model it will share however its momentum with all neighbouring outgoing
neutrinos. It turns back again and continues to follow the outstreaming motion.
Thus, instead of behaving like a dilute gas, the neutrinos flow like a relativistic fluid.


A second effect of the large neutrino-neutrino cross sections is that the initially
present ve will be immediately interconverted into v,, u, and light Higgs bosons
4 . As a consequence, the core contains an equal number of all neutrino species
and light Higgs mesons in thermal equilibrium. The presence of v, and q~0 will be
of crucial importance for the physics of supernovae. Deferring the discussion of
the major issue to subsect. 4.3, we note here that, even if the total lepton number
is c o n s e r v e d - which is indeed the case (see b e l o w ) - the neutrino number density
for each species in the core is reduced by about a factor of four with respect to
the ve density in the usual scenario. This fact can have several implications.
The rate of the reaction ve + n ~ p + e - (the reverse of the basic neutronization
reaction) is reduced and possible effects of neutrino degeneracy are suppressed.
The cross sections of v~, and v, on electrons are different from those of v~, since
the corresponding charged current amplitudes are lacking. Also, the light neutral
bosons qb have fourfold enhanced Z cross sections, due to the double SU(2) U(1)
quantum numbers (with respect to neutrinos).


We come now to the most delicate and most powerful implication of the Majoron
theory in supernovae: the effect of lepton number violation [5].


G.B. Gelmini et al. / Bounds and prospects" for Majoron model

We first elucidate the nature of lepton n u m b e r violation in the model. The basic
feature is that total lepton n u m b e r is broken only s p o n t a n e o u s l y by the vacuum
expectation value of a Higgs triplet qO carrying two units of lepton number. The
separate e,/x and r lepton numbers are broken explicitly, since we introduce only
one triplet qb. Therefore, processes like VeVe ~ v~v~ are allowed and occur with cross
sections like eq. (14). However, AL = 4 processes, like v e v ~ v~-v~, must have an
explicit factor of v2 in the amplitude, so that their cross sections go to zero like v4
as v vanishes. This aspect was overlooked in ref. [5], where it was assumed that
b ' L / J L ' ~ / , ) ~ / - ~ also proceeds with a cross section like eq. (14). To get the right result,
one has to consider the two diagrams involving the exchange of M and 0L, which
cancel exactly up to the M - - p L m a s s difference. Now, in the case v = 0, rnoL = m M
since PL and M are respectively the real and imaginary parts of the neutral
c o m p o n e n t qb of the Higgs triplet, so that or(/-'L/.PL ''~ /.-'~/J~) = 0, as expected since
total lepton n u m b e r is now conserved. Alternatively, if v # 0, m M = 0 and so we
obtain the following order-of-magnitude estimate:
c c
O.(FLk, L....) VLVL)

g rn.oL

8~'s 3 ,


where g is the relevant Yukawa coupling and moL = a v [1, 2]. Hence, O" (/,'L/.-' L "-) /J ~//~_)
goes like v 4, as expected from the above general argument. Recalling the bound
v < 1 0 0 k e V , we expect m o L < v since a is naturally less than one [2]. Taking
typically x/s = 10 MeV, we obtain at the very least an extra suppression by about
10 -8 with respect to the estimate of ref. [5],
However, even this is not the end of the story! The core t e m p e r a t u r e ~ 1-10 M e V
considerably exceeds the triplet V E V v < 100 keV. It is well known [28] that under
such circumstances a spontaneously broken symmetry is restored. Therefore, inside
the core v = 0 and no lepton n u m b e r violation at all is present. In particular, the
c c
process /JL/-'L~ VL/JL has vanishing cross section.
The bounds on v were derived from considerations of stellar o b j e c t s - t h e sun,
red giants and white d w a r f s - w h o s e core temperatures are lower than the bound
The supernovae are the first system where necessarily T > v over the core region.
Hence, we have here a nice two-phase system: the symmetric phase inside the
core where total lepton n u m b e r is conserved, surrounded by the cooler mantle
where v # 0 and lepton n u m b e r is spontaneously broken. Since this is a second-order
phase transition, we do not necessarily expect very dramatic effects arising from
superheating of the core during the contraction of the star. We think however that
this delicate and interesting point should deserve a more thorough investigation.
Finally, we come to the m a j o r point of this section. Notwithstanding all the
above, the results obtained by Kolb et al. [5] may still be true! The basic reason
is that although lepton n u m b e r is conserved, we may have generation of electron-

G.B. Gelmini et al. / Bounds and prospects for Majoron model




Fig. 1. A l t h o u g h lepton n u m b e r is conserved in a supernova core, anti-neutrinos can be produced in

v4, scatterings via 4 ,0 bremsstrahlung, as shown in the above diagram.

antineutrinos via processes like (see diagram in fig. 1):

vT + q b ~ v~ + ~ + q b .


We recall from subsect. 4.2 that vT and @0 are indeed available in the supernova
core. We consider v, because its coupling g,, to qt, is least restricted by bounds
deduced from available data.
Once v~ is produced, the key reaction:
v-~+p~n+e +


can occur. This leads to a large number of free neutrons dominating the pressure
and, most importantly, to depletion of electrons via e+e - annihilation. Therefore,
the deleptonization of the core envisioned by Kolb et al. [5] can still occur, provided
however that the new reaction (26) has a sufficiently large cross section. A rough
estimate of that cross section can be obtained by viewing such a process as elastic
v~qb scattering followed by qb bremsstrahlung. We have then:

c.~o.~o~ ge'~g~
v~'v 'v ) ~ .

, .~o


Since the following bound holds [3]:


g ~ + g~, + get < 4 . 5 . 1 0 -5


the results by Kolb et al. [5] about a high-entropy collapse as opposed to the B B A L
scenario can be true, provided:
g,, ~>3 10 .3 .


Clearly, the interconversion of neutrino species plays, a crucial role, since for the
originally present ve we have the bound ge~ ~< 1 0 - 3 which is in disagreement with
eq. (30).
To sum up, we have seen several new aspects of supernova physics in the
f r a m e w o r k of the M a j o r o n model. It would require however a much m o r e concerted
and coordinated effort of particle and astrophysicists to carefully assess the
significance of the new features brought up in our discussion.


G.B. Gelmini et al. / Bounds and prospects for Majoron model

5. Long-range forces
The exchange of the Majoron and the light Higgs between nonrelativistic particles
generates the spin-dependent ( o l . o ' 2 - 3 t r l , fir2. f ) / r 3 and Yukawa potentials
e-mpLr/r. However, due to the smallness of the couplings to charged fermions (eq.
(6)), the effects of such potentials are practically unobservable.
On the other hand, the couplings to neutrinos, in particular g~, could be fairly
large (g~ ~ 1 is not excluded). Nonetheless, it turns out that also for dense neutrino
systems, potentials of the above form play no role.
Sufficiently large neutrino (and u~ in particular) densities occur only at high
temperatures T ~>MeV > v. At such high temperatures the spontaneously broken
symmetry is restored. It is meaningless to talk about the massless M or the light
Higgs PL in this context where masslessness as a source for long range forces is all
important. In fact, the Higgs bosons do have under such circumstances effective
masses of order T. The neutrino-neutrino interactions have therefore a range of
order 1 / T and only the noncoherent large angle neutrino-neutrino scatterings
(discussed in detail in sect. 3) need to be considered.

6. Explicit B - L breaking, massive majorons and the missing mass problem

The essential idea of the present model is that B - L is broken spontaneously. It
would appear rather artificial to break B - L spontaneously, and in addition to a
smaller extent also explicitly. However, in the following we will consider exactly
this case.
The cosmological implications of a tiny mass for the Majoron (ram << v ~< 100 keV
is still assumed to hold) are far reaching. The possibility that the missing mass in
galaxies is accounted for by the lightest (mvo= 10-20 eV) neutrino species is again
revived [15].
A small Majoron mass rnM = (10-20) eV modifies the arguments of ref. [2] (briefly
repeated in sect. 3 above). It vitiates the conclusion that all neutrino species
annihilate u~ui ~ MM when the temperature drops to T = rn~, so that neither they,
nor their decay products, can make any significant contribution to the present
energy density.
What still remains true is that all neutrino species, the light Higgs PL and the
Majoron M will all interconvert (or annihilate or decay*) into the lightest species.
mvo < tara ~ 10-20 eV

(3 la)

all species will convert into ue. Also, the argument of ref. [2] and sect. 3 can be
now repeated verbatim but in the reverse sense: light Higgs particles and the
Majorons will annihilate into ~e once the temperature drops below tool or mM,
* In particular, the decay PL~ MM occurs at tree level, provided tool > 2raM.

G.B. Gelmini et al. / Bounds and prospects for Majoron model


respectively. The equally likely other alternative that

mvo>mM-~ 10-20 eV


is still consistent with the direct experimental upper bounds on m vo. In this case
all neutrino species and the PL will convert into Majorons*.
The first case is almost identical to the standard scenario in which no Majoron
effects exist at a l l - with, however, one rather important difference. The neutrinos
(and PL and M) still decouple f r o m photons and electrons at the same t e m p e r a t u r e
To as in the standard model, To ~ 1 M e V [23, 29]. At this decoupling point the
t e m p e r a t u r e of the " n e u t r i n o " plasma is, by definition, equal to that of the photons,
and we have the same n u m b e r of particles per degree of f r e e d o m in both plasmas.
In the usual scenario, the photons heat up slightly (from 1.9 K to 2.7 K) at
electron-positron recombination [23, 29], so that the n u m b e r d e n s i t y ~ 100 cm -3
of each neutrino species at present is smaller than that of the photons ~ 4 0 0 cm -3.
In the present scenario, however, a similar reheating and increase of n u m b e r density
occurs also for the v~, since all neutrino species, the M a j o r o n M and PL annihilate
into re. Thus, even if m~e is only 10-20 eV, it could have in the present scenario
an effect equivalent to that of one species of mass roughly four times heavier, i.e.,
4 0 - 8 0 eV. This would certainly imply a crucial role in the missing mass problem,
and depending on the H u b b l e constant, it may suffice to m a k e P(Ve)~'Pcritical,
allowing us to close the universe with neutrinos.
The second case is m o r e subtle. All degrees of freedom convert into M. If the
M a j o r o n had a lifetime longer than the present age of the universe
J-M ~>J-u ~ 3 1017 sec.,


they might supply the solution to the missing mass problem! T o m a k e s u r e that
this does indeed happen, we have checked that the annihilation process MM--> 3'3'
via a triangle loop of X , X :~ yields a cross section smaller than ~r(~v ~ M M ) [2]
by about 1028 .
The only possible decay of M is M + 3"3". Precisely because M is the Goldstone
boson of the n o n - a n o m a l o u s B - L current, the triangular anomaly and the low
energy expression for the decay amplitude vanish**. Furthermore, it turns out that
the contribution to this decay amplitude from the charged Higgs boson loop (see
fig. 2) also vanishes. The reason is that the relevant MX+X - and MX*+X - - couplings
via the vacuum tadpole are absent in the Higgs potential. The extreme suppression
of M ~ 3"3" is important because of the following considerations.
If the mass of a typical galaxy, M - 1 0 1 X M - 1 0 4 4 g , is accounted for by
Majorons, with mass 10 e V - - 10 -32 g, then such a galaxy contains -1076 Majorons.
See previous footnote.
* Actually, one can explicitly compute the contribution of the lowest order graphs with a triangle loop
of charged fermions. It turns out that they are finite and the various contributions cancel exactly
for each generation of quarks and leptons. We thank T. Yanagida and M. Yoshimura for an
illuminating discussion on this point.


G.B. Gelmini et al. / Bounds and prospects for Majoron model



Fig. 2. A priori leading contribution to the decay M-~ 73', which would rule out the possibility of
accounting for the missing mass by massive Majorons. It vanishes due to the structure of the Higgs

Therefore 1076/J'M Majorons decay every second. The total resulting luminosity
in that energy range (Ev =~mM
= 5 - 1 0 eV), particularly from the galactic halo,
would much exceed observed limits, unless the stringent bound
J ' M ~ 101~r'u ~ 1028 sec.


is imposed. Similar constraints would result if the Majorons were not clustered in
Before concluding this section we would like to m a k e one more c o m m e n t which
is relevant if there is either a neutrino or Majoron background. The idea that a
sharp neutrino pulse emitted (presumably!) in the supernova collapse will be
detectable on the earth has been entertained by m a n y physicists [30]. In particular,
the separation of the ~'e, ~'~ wave packets [31] could generate two pulses, and the
time delay between these will be a direct measure of Am 2.
However, in the present model the neutrinos in the pulse will interact quite
strongly with the ambient neutrinos or Majorons in the galaxy (or in the intergalactic
space if detection of a supernova in another galaxy is envisioned.) The relevant
c.m. energy for the b'pulsePbackg. . . . d ( o r /~pulseMbackg . . . . d) collision is to 2 M e V 2 ~
E~punse" m~o(or E~p.... m M ) ~ 10 -4 M e V 2. Therefore, neutrinos in the pulse may
scatter quite strongly off the background: cr - g 2~g 2ee 10--19 cm 2, or ~r ~ g 4~, 4~--19
cm 2,
in the case of M background. If neutrinos (or Majorons) are clustered in the galaxies
and account for the missing mass, then their density there is =108 cm -3 [32]. The
m.f.p, for the v pulse in the galaxy is then 1/n~o" -~ 1011 cm/gT~g~e2
2 (or 1011 cm/g~,4
in the second case). The radius of the galaxy is ~ 2 0 k p c ~ 1023 cm. Hence we
expect complete dispersal of the pulse. The unique chance of measuring Am 2 in a
manner which is completely independent of neutrino mixing may thus be completely
2 2
spoiled once g~g~T
(or g,~)
exceeds 10-12!
Detecting a neutrino pulse from a supernova would be a scientific event of m a j o r
consequence. It would rule out the possibility of Majorons with masses in the
2 2
cosmologically relevant range for g~eg,, or g,, greater than 10-12!

G.B. Gelmini et al. / Bounds and prospects for Majoron model


7. Galaxy formation in the Majoron model

A long standing problem in astrophysics is the understanding of the source,
nature and subsequent growth of the fluctuations which conspired to transform an
initially fairly smooth density into the observed stars, galaxies, clusters and even
larger scale inhomogeneities observed recently [33].
One or more stable neutrino species with masses in the 10-100 eV range could
account for the missing mass puzzle. However, in so far as the above problem is
concerned, the "streaming" out of the light noninteracting neutrinos tends to
smooth initial fluctuations, making clustering on any scale smaller than M - 1015M
extremely unlikely [34]. In this section we will briefly discuss the possible impact
of the present model on this issue.
(i) Various ingenious standard weak interaction scenarios for galaxy formation
in a neutrino dominated universe have been recently suggested [35].
One intriguing possibility utilizes a hierarchical mv~ >>my, >>rn~o= 30 eV mass
pattern. The heavier species (say v~) forms first a pre-galaxy at roughly the desired
scale, M - M j . . . . . The lighter neutrino species are then trapped along with baryons
into the potential well generated by the pregalaxy. The heavy species should
disappear shortly thereafter, so as to ensure that neither ~,~, nor its decay products
overdominate the energy density of the universe. This finally leaves behind the
proper-size present-day galaxies.
Evidently such a scenario would be drastically modified, and most likely will
have to be abandoned, if the present triplet Majoron model is correct. Just recall
that once T ~ my, the heavy neutrinos immediately interconvert into the lighter
species and no time is left for pregalaxy formation.
(ii) It has been suggested [29] that the phase transitions involved in the quark
confinement into hadrons naturally lead to large fluctuations which are the source
of the presently observed large scale inhomogeneities (galaxies, etc.).
The phase transition of the present model is unique, being the latest*. It occurs
at T = T ~ = v ~< 100 keV, a temperature which is 3-4 orders of magnitude lower
than T quark (that corresponding to quark confinement) and 6-7 orders lower than
the T w s = u = 300 GeV. In particular, it happens relatively near the recombination
temperature T F ~ 1 eV, at which galaxies are conventionally believed to form. It
is therefore conceivable that in the interim period between T = T cM~ 10-100 keV
and T F - the temperature at which galaxies are supposed to form - these fluctuations
will not dissipate but rather will continue to grow.
This in particular would be the case if over most of the interim period between
t M (defined as the time when the temperature equals T M) and t F (which is the time
when the temperature equals T ~) the universe is matter dominated. First, the
heaviest neutrino dominates the energy density and then (due to interconversion
and annihilation) the lighter ones take over.
* One of us (S.N.) would like to thank E. Witten for emphasizingthis point.


G.B. Gelmini et al. / Bounds and prospects for Majoron model

The original large fluctuations in the neutral component of the isotriplet scalar
field 4 could reflect eventually also as fluctuations in neutrino number density,
energy density and - via gravitational capture - also in baryon density.
We would like to thank A. De Rujula, D.Z. Freedman, S.L. Glahsow, M. Livio,
M. Milgron and M. Yoshimura for helpful discussions. Especially, we wish to
express our sincere gratitude to E.W. Kolb and D.L. Tubbs for their comments on
an early version of this paper. Finally, one of us (M.R.) would like to thank Dr.
K. Riedl for the invitation from the Maximilianeum Stiftung.




G.B. Gelmini and M. Roncadelli, Phys. Lett. 99B (1981) 411

H. Georgi, S.L. Glashow and S. Nussinov, Nucl. Phys. B193 (1981) 297
V. Barger, W.Y. Keung and S. Pakvasa, Phys. Rev. D25 (1982) 907
J. Schechter and J.W.F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D25 (1982) 774
E.W. Kolb, D.L. Tubbs and D.A. Dicus, Astrophys. J. Lett. 225 (1982) L57
G.M. Fuller, E.W. Kolb and D.L. Tubbs, (1981), in preparation
A.M. Cooper et al., Ruthertord Laboratory preprint, RL-81-055 (1981)
V. Barger, H. Baer, W.Y. Keung and R.J.N. Phillips, University of Wisconsin preprint,
MAD/PH/37 (1982), Phys. Rev. D, to appear
T. Goldman, E.W. Kolb and G.L. Stephenson, Jr., Los Alamos Laboratory preprint, LA-UR-821401 (1982), Phys. Rev. D, to appear
F. Buccella, G.B. Gelmini, A. Masiero and M. Roncadelli, Max-Planck-Institut preprint, MPIPAE/PTh 21/82 (1982)
S.L. Glashow, talk given at the Second Workshop on Grand Unification, (Ann Arbor, Michigan,
April 1981); lectures given at the "Cargese Summer Institute" (July 1981)
H. Georgi, lectures given at the "Fourth Kyoto Summer School" (July 1981)
M. Fukugita, S. Watamura and M. Yoshimura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48 (1982) 1522
M. Fukugita, S. Watamura and M. Yoshimura, KEK preprint, KEK-TH-41 (1982)
D.M. Schramm and G. Steigman, Gen. Rel. Grav. 13 (1981)101;
E. Witten, talk given at the First Workshop on Grand Unification, (New Hampshire, April'1980);
H. Sato, Kyoto preprint, RIFP-423 (1981);
A. Dolgov and Ya.B. Zeldovich, Rev. Mod. Phys. 53 (1981) 1;
G. Steigman, talk given at Neutrino '81 (Maui, Hawaii, July 1981)
V.A. Lyubimov et al., Phys. Lett. 94B (1980) 266;
A. De Rujula, Nucl. Phys. B188 (1981) 414
M. Doi et al., Osaka preprints, OS-GE 80/27 (1980), OS-GE 81/28, 29 (1981);
W.C. Haxton, G.J. Stephenson, Jr. and D. Strotteman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 (1981) 153; Phys. Rev.
D25 (1982) 2360;
P. Minkowski, Bern University preprint, BUTP-15/81 (1981);
M. Doi and T. Kotani, talk given at Neutrino '81 (Maui, Hawaii, July 1981);
S.P. Rosen, talk given at Neutrino '81 (Maui, Hawaii, July 1981)
R. Cowsik and J. MeClelland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29 (1972) 669; Astrophys. J. 180 (1973) 6;
B. Lee and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977) 165
R. Barbieri and R.N. Mohapatra, Z. Phys. C l l (1981) 175
R.N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 7
Review of particle properties, Rev. Mod. Phys. 52 (1980)
D.Z. Freedman, Phys. Rev. D9 (1974) 1389
S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology (J. Wiley, New York, 1972)

G.B. Gelmini et al. / Bounds and prospects for Majoron model




D.Z. Freedman, D.N. Schramm and D.L. Tubbs, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Sci. 27 (1977) 167
J.R. Wilson, (1976), private communication to the authors of ref. [24]
H.A. Bethe, G.E. Brown, J. Applegate and J.M. Lattimer, Nucl. Phys. A324 (1979) 487
W. Feller, An Introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications, vols. 1 and 2 (J. Wiley,
New York, 1966)
S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D9 (1974) 3537;
L. Dolan and R. Jackiw, Phys. Rev. D9 (1974) 2904;
A.D. Linde, Rep. Progr. Phys. 42 (1979) 389
A. Dolgov and Ya.B. Zeldovich, Rev. Mod. Phys. 53 (1981) 1
D. Fargion, Nuov. Cim. Lett. 31 (1981) 499 and references therein.
S. Nussinov, Phys. Lett. 63B (1976) 201
S. Tremaine and J.E. Gunn, Phys. Rev, Lett. 42 (1979) 407
P.J.E. Peebles, The Large Scale Structure of the Universe, (Princeton University Press, Princeton,
N.J., 1980)
J.R. Bond, G. Efstathiou and J.Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45 (1980) 1980
M. Davis, M. Lecar, C. Pryor and E. Witten, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Harvard
College Observatory preprint, 1482 (1981)