text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

The presence of a negative cosmological constant is enough to invalidate the classical theorems  in which it is proven that at any given time black-hole horizons are always topologically spheres: asymptotically anti-De Sitter ($`aaDS`$) black-hole solutions are known such that the constant-time sections of their event horizons are not topologically spheres . In particular, $`aaDS`$ Schwarzschild black holes with horizons with the topology of Riemann surfaces of arbitrary genus (henceforth called topological black holes) were given in Ref. , the charged generalization in the framework of the Einstein-Maxwell theory with a negative cosmological constant (topological $`aaDS`$ Reissner-Nordström (RN-$`aDS`$) black holes) was studied in Ref. . The generalization to the rotating case (topological $`aaDS`$ Kerr-Newman (KN-$`aDS`$) black holes) was found and studied in Ref.  using the general Petrov type D solution of Plebanski and Demianski (PD solution) Ref.  (which contains in different limits all these topological black-hole solutions) and other methods. $`aaDS`$ black holes with exotic horizons with topologies are also known in higher dimensions , in theories with dilaton  and Lovelock gravity .

The supersymmetry properties of $`aaDS`$ black holes were first studied by Romans in the context of $`N=2,d=4`$ gauged supergravity  for RN-$`aDS`$ black holes with spherical horizons. Later on, Kostelecký and Perry studied the supersymmetry properties of KN-$`aDS`$ black holes . Recently, Caldarelli and Klemm extended Romans’ results to the case of topological RN-$`aDS`$ black holes and extended and corrected Kostelecký and Perry’s in the spherical KN-$`aDS`$ case in Ref. .

The supersymmetry properties known are far from being understood. In the recent years we have learned how to interpret many supersymmetric solutions as intersections of “elementary” supersymmetric solutions preserving half of the supersymmetries. Each additional object in the intersection breaks an additional half of the remaining supersymmetry 444Except in Hanany-Witten-like cases in which one can add one more object to an intersection without breaking any further supersymmetry. Needless to say that here we use “object” in a loose and general way that may include gravitational instantons, certain kinds of singularities, etc.. Thus, in $`N=2,d=4`$ ungauged supergravity there is essentially one kind of object which is point-like and that breaks a half of the available supersymmetry and one can either break all the supersymmetry or just one half or nothing at all.

In $`N=2,d=4`$ gauged supergravity, however, Romans discovered solutions that preserve just $`1/4`$ of the supersymmetry, characterized by a magnetic charge inversely proportional to the coupling constant. The simplest of those solutions only has magnetic charge (zero mass and electric charge) equal to the minimal amount of magnetic charge allowed by Dirac’s quantization condition. It is really difficult to understand this fact using the paradigm of intersection of elementary objects.

Our goal in this paper is to try to gain some insight into this problem by examining more general cases an calculating, if possible, the amount of supersymmetries preserved by the solutions. Thus, in this letter we first present topological Kerr-Newman-Taub-NUT-$`aDS`$ solutions and cosmological generalizations of the Robinson-Bertotti solution and then study their supersymmetry properties together with those of the general Plebanski-Demianski solution from which all of them can be obtained through different contractions. We will see that, generically, these solutions preserve only $`1/4`$ of the available supersymmetries in presence of angular momentum. Our second main result will be the identification of a sort of electric-magnetic duality symmetry of the supersymmetric Plebanski-Demianski solutions that involves the mass and NUT charge.

This paper is organized as follows: in Section 1 we describe $`N=2,d=4`$ gauged Supergravity. In Section 2 we describe the solutions whose supersymmetry properties we are going to study. In Section 3 we study the integrability conditions of the Killing spinor equation for the topological KN-TN-$`aDS`$ solutions. In Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 we perform the same analysis for RB-$`aDS`$ and the general PD solutions respectively. Section 4 contains our conclusions.

## 1 Cosmological EM Theory and $`N=2,d=4`$ Gauged Supergravity

The $`N=2,d=4`$ supergravity multiplet consists of the Vierbein, a couple of real gravitini and a vector field

$$\{e_\mu {}_{}{}^{a},\psi _\mu =\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _\mu ^1\\ \psi _\mu ^2\end{array}\right),A_\mu \},$$
(1.1)
respectively. With this multiplet one can construct two different supergravity theories: “pure” $`N=2,d=4`$ supergravity and “gauged” $`N=2,d=4`$ supergravity. The former can be understood as the zero-coupling limit of the latter and the second as the theory one obtains by gauging the $`SO(2)`$ symmetry that rotates the gravitini. The gauged $`N=2,d=4`$ supergravity action for these fields in the 1.5 formalism is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill S_g& =& d^4xe\{R(e,\omega )+6g^2+2e^1ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\overline{\psi }_\mu \gamma _5\gamma _\nu (\widehat{𝒟}_\rho +igA_\rho \sigma ^2)\psi _\sigma ^2\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +𝒥_{(m)}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }(𝒥_{(e)\mu \nu }+𝒥_{(m)\mu \nu })\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.2)
where $`\widehat{𝒟}`$ is the $`SO(2,3)`$ gauge covariant derivative

$$\widehat{𝒟}_\mu =𝒟_\mu \frac{i}{2}g\gamma _\mu ,$$
(1.3)
$`F`$ is the standard vector field strength, $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is the supercovariant field strength and we also define for convenience $``$ by

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill F_{\mu \nu }& =& 2_{[\mu }A_{\nu ]},\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }& =& F_{\mu \nu }+𝒥_{(e)\mu \nu },\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill _{\mu \nu }& =& \stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }+𝒥_{(m)\mu \nu },\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.4)
where we have also defined

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝒥_{(e)\mu \nu }& =& i\overline{\psi }_\mu \sigma ^2\psi _\nu ,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill 𝒥_{(m)\mu \nu }& =& \frac{1}{2e}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\overline{\psi }_\rho \gamma _5\sigma ^2\psi _\sigma .\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.5)
We see that the gauge coupling constant $`g`$ is related to the cosmological constant by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=3g^2.$$
(1.6)
The equation of motion for $`\omega _\mu ^{ab}`$ implies that it is given by

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \omega _{abc}& =& \mathrm{\Omega }_{abc}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{bca}\mathrm{\Omega }_{cab},\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }^a& =& \mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{a}(e)+\frac{1}{2}T_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{a},\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Omega }_{abc}(e)& =& e^\mu {}_{a}{}^{}e_{}^{\nu }{}_{b}{}^{}_{[\mu }^{}e_{\nu ]c},\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill T_{\mu \nu }^a& =& i\overline{\psi }_\mu \gamma ^a\psi _\nu .\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.7)
It is assumed that this equation has been used everywhere (1.5 formalism).

The Maxwell equation and Bianchi identity are

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _\mu (e^{\mu \nu })& =& \frac{ig}{2}ϵ^{\nu \lambda \rho \sigma }\overline{\psi }_\lambda \gamma _5\gamma _\rho \sigma ^2\psi _\sigma ,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill _\mu (e{}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\mu \nu })& =& 0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.8)
Observe that the divergences of $`𝒥_e`$ and $`𝒥_m`$ are two topologically conserved currents that appear as electric-like and magnetic-like sources for the vector field in the Maxwell equation

$$_\mu (eF^{\mu \nu })=+_\mu (e𝒥_e^{\nu \mu })+_\mu (e𝒥_m^{\nu \mu })+\frac{ig}{2}ϵ^{\nu \lambda \rho \sigma }\overline{\psi }_\lambda \gamma _5\gamma _\rho \sigma ^2\psi _\sigma .$$
(1.9)
They are naturally associated to the electric and magnetic central charges of the $`N=2,d=4`$ supersymmetry algebra. The third term in the r.h.s. of the above equation is associated to the gravitino electric charge and it is, therefore, proportional to the gauge constant. Finally, the Einstein and Rarita-Schwinger equations are

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 0& =& G_a{}_{}{}^{\mu }3g^2e_a{}_{}{}^{\mu }2T(\psi )_a{}_{}{}^{\mu }2\stackrel{~}{T}(A)_a{}_{}{}^{\mu },\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill 0& =& e^1ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\gamma _5\gamma _\nu \left(\widehat{𝒟}_\rho +igA_\rho \sigma ^2\right)\psi _\sigma i\left(\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }+i{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_{}^{\mu \nu }\gamma _5\right)\sigma ^2\psi _\nu ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.10)
where the equation of motion for $`\omega _\mu ^{ab}`$ has been used and where

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill T(\psi )_a^\mu & =& \frac{1}{2e}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\overline{\psi }_\nu \gamma _5\gamma _a\left(\widehat{𝒟}_\rho +igA_\rho \sigma ^2\right)\psi _\sigma \hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{ig}{4e}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\overline{\psi }_\nu \gamma _5\gamma _{\rho a}\psi _\sigma ,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{T}(A)_a^\mu & =& \stackrel{~}{F}_a{}_{}{}^{\rho }\stackrel{~}{F}_{}^{\mu }{}_{\rho }{}^{}\frac{1}{4}e_a{}_{}{}^{\mu }\stackrel{~}{F}_{}^{2}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.11)
Apart from invariance under general coordinate and local Lorentz transformations the theory is invariant under $`U(1)`$ gauge transformations

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill A_\mu ^{}& =& A_\mu +_\mu \chi ,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \psi _\mu ^{}& =& e^{ig\chi \sigma ^2}\psi _\mu ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.12)
and local $`N=2`$ supersymmetry transformations

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \delta _ϵe_\mu ^a& =& i\overline{ϵ}\gamma ^a\psi _\mu ,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \delta _ϵA_\mu & =& i\overline{ϵ}\sigma ^2\psi _\mu ,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \delta _ϵ\psi _\mu & =& \stackrel{~}{\widehat{𝒟}}_\mu ϵ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.13)
where the $`\stackrel{~}{\widehat{𝒟}}_\mu `$ is the supercovariant derivative defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{\widehat{𝒟}}_\mu =\widehat{𝒟}_\mu +igA_\mu \sigma ^2+\frac{1}{4}\overline{)}\stackrel{~}{F}\gamma _\mu \sigma ^2.$$
(1.14)
In the ungauged case, the theory enjoys chiral-dual invariance which interchanges the Maxwell and Bianchi equations and the topologically conserved electric and magnetic charges (and, therefore, the associated central charges). In the gauged theory, the gauge coupling breaks this invariance.

We are going to work with purely bosonic solutions of this theory. They obey the bosonic equations of motion

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _\mu F^{\mu \nu }& =& 0,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill _\mu {}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{\mu \nu }& =& 0,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill R_{\mu \nu }& =& 2T_{\mu \nu }(A)3g^2g_{\mu \nu },\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.15)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }(A)`$ is just the standard energy-momentum tensor for an Abelian gauge field:

$$T_{\mu \nu }(A)=F_\mu {}_{}{}^{\rho }F_{\rho \nu }^{}\frac{1}{4}g_{\mu \nu }F^2.$$
(1.16)
These equations of motion are duality-invariant. However, the gravitino supersymmetry rule (even with fermionic fields set to zero) is not duality-invariant and the supersymmetry properties of duality-related bosonic solutions are not, in general, the same.

## 2 Topological RN-TN-$`aDS`$, KN-TN-$`aDS`$ and RB-$`aDS`$ and PD Solutions

In this section we display and describe the solutions whose supersymmetry properties will later be studied. For simplicity we start with the unrotating RN-TN-$`aDS`$ although they are included in the general KN-TN-$`aDS`$ case.

### 2.1 Topological RN-TN-$`aDS`$ Solutions

These solutions generalize, by including NUT charge $`N`$, the topological RN-$`aDS`$ black hole solutions found in Ref. . There are three cases labeled by the parameter $`\mathrm{}`$ whose value is essentially the sign of one minus the genus of the horizon and therefore takes the values $`1,0,1`$ for the sphere (genus zero), the torus (genus 1) and higher genus Riemann surfaces, respectively. In the three cases the metric can be written in this form

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill ds^2& =& \frac{\lambda }{R^2}\left(dt+\omega _{\mathrm{}}d\phi \right)^2\frac{R^2}{\lambda }dr^2R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}^2,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \lambda & =& \left[g^2R^4+(\mathrm{}+4g^2N^2)(r^2N^2)2Mr+|Z|^2\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill R^2& =& r^2+N^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.1)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ is the metric of the unit sphere, the plane and the upper half plane respectively

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}^2=\{\begin{array}{cccc}d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2,\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{}& =& +1,\hfill \\ & & & \\ d\theta ^2+d\phi ^2,\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{}& =& 0,\hfill \\ & & & \\ d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta d\phi ^2,\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{}& =& 1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.2)
$`\omega _{\mathrm{}}`$ is the function

$$\omega _{\mathrm{}}=\{\begin{array}{cccc}2N\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{}& =& +1,\hfill \\ & & & \\ 2N\theta ,\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{}& =& 0,\hfill \\ & & & \\ 2N\mathrm{cosh}\theta ,\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{}& =& 1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.3)
and the vector potential is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill A_t& =& \left(QrNP\right)/R^2,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill A_\phi & =& \{\begin{array}{ccccc}\mathrm{cos}\theta \left[P(r^2N^2)+2NQr\right]/R^2,\hfill & \mathrm{for}& \hfill \mathrm{}& =& +1,\hfill \\ & & & & \\ \theta \left[P(r^2N^2)+2NQr\right]/R^2,\hfill & \mathrm{for}& \hfill \mathrm{}& =& 0,\hfill \\ & & & & \\ \mathrm{cosh}\theta \left[P(r^2N^2)+2NQr\right]/R^2,\hfill & \mathrm{for}& \hfill \mathrm{}& =& 1.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.4)
It is understood that one has to take the equation of the last two spacetimes by a discrete group in order to get a torus or a Riemann surface of arbitrary genus.

These solutions are valid in the $`g=0`$ case. In that limit (with $`N=0`$) so we can speak of black holes, only the $`\mathrm{}=+1`$ ones can have a regular event horizon, in agreement with . With $`g0`$ (still with $`N=0`$) and we recover the solutions of Ref.  in which $`M`$ is the mass, $`Q`$ the electric charge, $`P`$ the magnetic charge and $`Z=Q+iP`$ some of which are black holes with regular horizons of different topologies.

For $`g=0,N0`$ we recover the standard RN-TN solutions in which those parameters are still the physical parameters555A definition of the mass of Taub-NUT spaces cannot be given in the standard form because these solutions do not go asymptotically to any other vacuum solution. The same happens in the 5-dimensional KK monopole solution, studied in Refs. . However, as different from the KK monopole, the TN solution is not ultrastatic and the tricks used in those references to define and calculate the mass of the KK monopole do not seem to apply to this case. A definition inspired in the AdS/CFT correspondence, has, however, been recently given in Refs. . and $`N`$ is the NUT charge. When the product $`gN0`$ it is no longer clear that $`M,Q,P`$ are the true mass, electric and magnetic charges that appear in the superalgebra. This is similar to what happens in the rotating case  in which the true charges are combinations of the parameters $`M,P,Q`$ appearing in the solution with the product $`ga`$.

It is useful to have a general form of the solutions valid for the three cases $`\mathrm{}=1,0,1`$. To have such a general expression we define the coordinate $`u`$

$$u\{\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{cos}\theta ,\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{}& =& +1,\hfill \\ & & & \\ \theta ,\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{}& =& 0,\hfill \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{cosh}\theta ,\hfill & \hfill \mathrm{}& =& 1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.5)
and then

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill ds^2& =& \frac{\lambda }{R^2}\left(dt2Nud\phi \right)^2\frac{R^2}{\lambda }dr^2\frac{R^2}{S(u)}du^2R^2S(u)d\phi ^2,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill A_t& =& \left(QrNP\right)/R^2,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill A_\phi & =& u\left[P\left(r^2N^2\right)+2NrQ\right]/R^2,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill S(u)& =& \mathrm{}(1u^2)+1\mathrm{}^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.6)
where $`\lambda `$ and $`R`$ are as above.

### 2.2 Topological KN-TN-$`aDS`$ Solutions

These solutions generalize the topological KN-$`aDS`$ solutions given in Ref.  to the non-zero NUT charge case. In the $`t,r,u,\phi `$ coordinate system (which is Boyer-Lindquist-type) they can be written as follows:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill ds^2& =& \frac{\lambda }{R^2(r,u)}\left\{dt\left[2Nua\left(\mathrm{}^2u^2\right)\right]d\phi \right\}^2\frac{R^2(r,u)}{\lambda }dr^2\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \frac{R^2(r,u)}{𝒮(u)}du^2\frac{𝒮(u)}{R^2(r,u)}\left[\left(r^2+N^2+\mathrm{}^2a^2\right)d\phi +adt\right]^2.\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill A_t& =& \left[QrP(N+au)\right]/R^2(r,u),\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill A_\phi & =& \frac{1}{a}\sqrt{r^2+N^2+\mathrm{}^2a^2}\left[QrP(N+au)\right]/R^2(r,u),\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \lambda & =& g^2r^4+\left(\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}^2a^2g^2+6g^2N^2\right)r^22Mr+|Z|^2\hfill \\ & & \\ & & N^2\left(\mathrm{}3\mathrm{}^2a^2g^2+3g^2N^2\right)+a^2\left(1+\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^2\right),\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill 𝒮(u)& =& S(u)+\left(a^2g^2u^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}ag^2Nu\right)\left(u^2\mathrm{}^2\right),\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill R^2(r,u)& =& r^2+\left(N+au\right)^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.7)
with $`S(u)`$ as above.

In Appendix A it is explained how this metric can be obtained from the general solution of Plebanski and Demianski . The above form of the potentials is valid for $`a0`$. The $`a0`$ limit of the field strength is perfectly well defined.

### 2.3 Topological RB Solutions

In ungauged $`N=2,d=4`$ Supergravity, the extremal RN black hole can be seen as a soliton interpolating between two supersymmetric vacua: Minkowski spacetime at infinity and RB in the near-horizon limit. The RB spacetime is the product $`aDS_2\times S^2`$ where both factors are maximally symmetric spaces with opposite curvatures that cancel each other. The same thing occurs with other $`p`$-branes in higher dimensions  where the role of the RB spacetime is played by $`aDS_{p+2}\times S^{8p}`$. Here we present a generalization of the RB spacetime to the case of gauged $`N=2,d=4`$ Supergravity (cosmological E-M theory) whose supersymmetry properties we will study later. They are the product of $`aDS_2`$ with a sphere $`S^2`$, a torus $`T^2`$ or a higher-genus Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_g`$ in which now the curvature of the $`aDS_2`$ spacetime is not completely canceled by the other factor space but they add up to the 4-dimensional cosmological constant

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill ds^2& =& K^2r^2dt^2\frac{1}{K^2r^2}dr^2L^2S(u)^1du^2L^2S(u)d\phi ^2,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill F_{01}& =& \alpha \hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill F_{23}& =& \beta ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.8)
where the constants $`K,L,\alpha ,\beta `$ satisfy

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill g^2& =& \frac{1}{6}\left\{K^2\mathrm{}L^2\right\},\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \alpha ^2+\beta ^2& =& \frac{1}{2}\left(K^2+\mathrm{}L^2\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.9)
The field strength is covariantly constant and in this coordinate system has constant components which correspond to the vector potential components

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill A_t& =& \alpha r,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill A_\phi & =& \beta /L^2u.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.10)
The $`\mathrm{}=1,K^2=2L^2`$ solution, which has special supersymmetry properties has been also given in .

### 2.4 PD Solutions

Plebanski and Demianski found most general Petrov type D solution of the cosmological E-M theory. This general solution contains as limiting cases all the known solutions, and, in particular the topological KN-TN-$`aDS`$ solutions presented above (which in their turn, also contain the RN-TN-$`aDS`$ solutions presented at the beginning). This is shown in Appendix A.

The PD solution depends on the constants666These constants are different from the constants $`M,N,Q,P`$ that appear in the previous solutions. $`𝖬,𝖭,𝖰,𝖯,𝖤,\alpha `$ and, of course, $`g`$, and, in Boyer coordinates $`\tau ,\sigma ,p,q`$, reads

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill ds^2& =& \frac{𝒬(q)}{p^2+q^2}\left(d\tau p^2d\sigma \right)^2\frac{p^2+q^2}{𝒬(q)}dq^2\frac{p^2+q^2}{𝒫(p)}dp^2\frac{𝒫(p)}{p^2+q^2}\left(d\tau +q^2d\sigma \right)^2,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill F_{01}& =& (q^2+p^2)^2\left[𝖰(q^2p^2)2𝖯pq\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill F_{23}& =& (q^2+p^2)^2\left[𝖯(q^2p^2)+2𝖰pq\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill 𝒬(q)& =& g^2q^4+𝖤q^22𝖬q+𝖰^2+\alpha ,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill 𝒫(p)& =& g^2p^4𝖤p^2+2𝖭p𝖯^2+\alpha .\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.11)
This class of solutions has a scaling invariance given by

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\hfill q& & \kappa q,\hfill & \hfill 𝖬& & \kappa ^3𝖬,\hfill & \hfill 𝖭& & \kappa ^3𝖭,\hfill \\ & & & & & & & & \\ \hfill p& & \kappa p,\hfill & \hfill 𝖰& & \kappa ^2𝖰,\hfill & \hfill 𝖯& & \kappa ^2𝖯,\hfill \\ & & & & & & & & \\ \hfill \tau & & \kappa ^1\tau ,\hfill & \hfill 𝖤& & \kappa ^2𝖤,\hfill & \hfill \alpha & & \kappa ^4\alpha ,\hfill \\ & & & & & & & & \\ \hfill \sigma & & \kappa ^3\sigma ,\hfill & & & & & & \end{array}$$
(2.12)
which can be used to bring one of the charges to a given value. It is clear that this scaling freedom remains if one of the charges happens to be nil.

The curvature is determined by $`𝖬`$, $`𝖭`$, $`𝖰`$ and $`𝖯`$ and one can see that when they are zero, the Weyl tensor vanishes. This then means that in that case, the solution is locally $`aDS_4`$.

## 3 Supersymmetry and Integrability Conditions

The bosonic part of the supercovariant derivative for gauged $`N=2`$ supergravity is

$$\stackrel{~}{\widehat{𝒟}}_\mu =\widehat{}_\mu +gA_\mu i\sigma ^2\frac{i}{4}\overline{)}F\gamma _\mu i\sigma ^2,$$
(3.1)
where $`\widehat{}_\mu `$ is the $`SO(2,3)`$ gauge-covariant derivative. The Killing spinor equation is

$$\stackrel{~}{\widehat{D}}_\mu ϵ=0,$$
(3.2)
and a necessary condition for it to have solutions is the integrability condition

$$[\stackrel{~}{\widehat{𝒟}}_\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\widehat{𝒟}}_\nu ]ϵ=0.$$
(3.3)
One finds

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill [\stackrel{~}{\widehat{𝒟}}_\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\widehat{𝒟}}_\nu ]ϵ& =& \frac{1}{4}\{C_{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{ab}\gamma _{ab}^{}+2i\overline{)}(F_{\mu \nu }+i{}_{}{}^{}F_{\mu \nu }^{}\gamma _5)i\sigma ^2\hfill \\ & & \\ & & +\frac{g}{2}F_{ab}(3\gamma ^{ab}\gamma _{\mu \nu }+\gamma _{\mu \nu }\gamma ^{ab})i\sigma ^2\}ϵ=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.4)
We study first the non-rotating case RN-TN-$`aDS`$ case.

### 3.1 Supersymmetry of Topological RN-TN-$`aDS`$ Solutions

Introducing the Vierbein 1-forms

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill e^0& =& \lambda ^{1/2}/R\left(dt+\omega _{\mathrm{}}d\phi \right),\hfill & \hfill e^1& =& \lambda ^{1/2}Rdr,\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ \hfill e^2& =& Rd\theta ,\hfill & \hfill e^3& =& R\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{}}d\phi ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.5)
we find

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill F_{01}& =& \left(Q(r^2N^2)2NPr\right)/R^4,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill F_{23}& =& \left(P(r^2N^2)+2NQr\right)/R^4,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.6)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _1F_{01}& =& 2\lambda ^{1/2}/R^7\left[Q(r^33rN^2)P(3r^2NN^3)\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill _1{}_{}{}^{}F_{01}^{}& =& 2\lambda ^{1/2}/R^7\left[P(r^33rN^2)+Q(3r^2NN^3)\right],\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.7)
(the remaining components of $`_aF_{bc}`$ can be found using the Bianchi identities or the Maxwell equations, which are satisfied) and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{1}{2}C_{01}^{01}& =& C_{02}{}_{}{}^{02}=C_{03}{}_{}{}^{03}=C_{12}{}_{}{}^{12}=C_{13}{}_{}{}^{13}=\frac{1}{2}C_{23}{}_{}{}^{23}=C_1,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill C_{02}^{13}& =& C_{03}{}_{}{}^{12}=C_{12}{}_{}{}^{03}=C_{13}{}_{}{}^{02}=\frac{1}{2}C_{23}{}_{}{}^{01}=C_2,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill C_1& =& [Mr^3(3N^2(\mathrm{}4g^2N^2)+|Z|^2)r^2\hfill \\ & & \\ & & 3N^2Mr+N^2(N^2(\mathrm{}4g^2N^2)+|Z|^2)]/R^6,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill C_2& =& N[(\mathrm{}4g^2N^2)r^3+3Mr^2\hfill \\ & & \\ & & (3N^2(\mathrm{}4g^2N^2)+2|Z|^2)rMN^2]/R^6,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.8)
Plugging all this into the integrability conditions we get the following conditions on the parameters:

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`g\left[MP+QN(\mathrm{}+4g^2N^2)\right],`$ (3.9)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`_+_{},`$ (3.10)
where we have defined

$$_\pm (MgNQ)^2+N^2(\mathrm{}\pm gP+4g^2N^2)^2(\mathrm{}\pm 2gP+5g^2N^2)|Z|^2.$$
(3.12)
The first condition plays the role of a constraint which is automatically satisfied in the well-known $`g=0`$ case, while the second implies $`_\pm =0`$ which should be the (saturated) Bogomol’nyi bound of gauged $`N=2,d=4`$ supergravity and actually it reduces to the well-known Bogomol’nyi bound of ungauged $`N=2,d=4`$ supergravity in asymptotically flat spaces ($`\mathrm{}=+1`$) generalized so as to include NUT charge (see Refs. ) $`M^2+N^2=Q^2+P^2`$. For $`g=0`$ and arbitrary $`\mathrm{}`$ we get

$$M^2+\mathrm{}^2N^2=\mathrm{}(Q^2+P^2).$$
(3.13)
A detailed analysis of the different cases in which the constrains is satisfied and the Bogomol’nyi bound is saturated gives as a result the four cases represented in Table 1.

The first corresponds evidently to $`aDS_4`$ itself in standard spherical coordinates, which is maximally supersymmetric and preserves all supersymmetries. The second case can be shown to describe, at least locally, $`aDS_4`$ as well (the Weyl tensor vanishes and the space is maximally symmetric). There are, thus, two different values of the parameter $`N`$ that correspond to the same spacetime.

In the third and fourth cases we have taken for the sake of convenience $`Q`$ and $`N`$ as independent parameters. The third case is a generalization to $`gN0`$ of the standard $`M=|Q|`$ case of ungauged $`N=2,d=4`$ supergravity where $`Q`$ is arbitrary which preserves $`1/2`$ of the supersymmetries. Here a non-vanishing magnetic charge proportional to $`N`$ is induced. As a matter of fact, it admits the limits $`g0`$ and/or $`N0`$ with the same amount of supersymmetry preserved.

There are two particularly interesting limits: the often neglected $`g=0,\mathrm{}=0`$ case which (setting $`N=0`$ for simplicity and rescaling the coordinates $`\theta ,\phi `$ which do not represent angles anymore) corresponds to the solution

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill ds^2& =& \frac{Q^2}{r^2}dt^2\frac{r^2}{Q^2}\left(dr^2+d\theta ^2+d\phi ^2\right),\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill A_t& =& \frac{Q}{r}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.14)
This solution belongs to the Papapetrou-Majumdar class

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill ds^2& =& H^2dt^2H^2d\stackrel{}{x}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}},\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill A_t& =& \pm H^1,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill _{\underset{¯}{i}}_{\underset{¯}{i}}H& =& 0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.15)
where the harmonic function $`H`$ has been chosen to depend on only one coordinate $`H=|Q|x`$ and not on $`y,z`$.

The second interesting limit $`Q0`$ also gives a supersymmetric configuration that preserves $`1/2`$ of the supersymmetries with only magnetic and NUT charge and zero mass.

The fourth case in Table 1 preserves only $`1/4`$ of the supersymmetries and only exists for $`g0`$. It is a generalization to $`N0`$ of Romans’ global monopole solution . We see that the presence of both NUT and electric charge implies that the mass parameter has to be finite. On the other hand, it admits the limits $`Q0`$ and/or $`N0`$ with the same amount of supersymmetry preserved.

### 3.2 Supersymmetry of KN-TN-$`aDS`$ Solutions

We choose the Vierbein 1-forms

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill e^0& =& \frac{\lambda ^{1/2}}{R(r,u)}\left[dt\left(2Nua(\mathrm{}^2u^2)\right)d\phi \right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill e^1& =& \frac{R(r,u)}{\lambda ^{1/2}}dr,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill e^2& =& \frac{R(r,u)}{𝒮^{1/2}(u)}du,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill e^3& =& \frac{𝒮^{1/2}(u)}{R(r,u)}\left[(r^2+N^2+\mathrm{}^2a^2)d\phi +adt\right],\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.16)
on which the field strength components read

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill F_{01}& =& R(r,u)^4\left[Q(r^2(N+au)^2)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}Pr(N+au)\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill F_{23}& =& R(r,u)^4\left\{P(r^2(N+au)^2)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}Qr(N+au)\right\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.17)
We only need to calculate

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill C_{0101}& =& 2R^6\left[M(r^33rX^2)+N(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^2a^2g^2+4g^2N^2)(3r^2XX^3)Z^2(r^2X^2)\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill C_{0123}& =& 2R^6\left[M(3r^2XX^3)+N(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^2a^2g^2+4g^2N^2)(3rX^2r^3)2Z^2rX\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill _1F_{01}& =& 2R^7\lambda ^{1/2}\left[Q(r^33rX^2)P(3r^2XX^3)\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill _2F_{01}& =& 2aR^7𝒮^{1/2}\left\{P(r^33rX^2)+Q(3r^2XX^3)\right\},\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.18)
where we used the abbreviation $`X=N+au`$. As in the RN-TN-$`aDS`$ case the other components of the integrability condition turn out to be proportional to the $`01`$ component. From this one obtains the constraint and generalization of the Bogomol’nyi bound

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 0& =& g\left[MP+NQ(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^2a^2g^2+4g^2N^2)\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill 0& =& _+_{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.19)
where now

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _\pm & & M^2+N^2(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^2a^2g^2+4g^2N^2)[(\mathrm{}+\mathrm{}^2a^2g^2+6g^2N^2)\hfill \\ & & \\ & & \pm 2g\sqrt{a^2(1+\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^2)N^2\left(\mathrm{}3\mathrm{}^2a^2g^2+3g^2N^2\right)}]Z^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.20)
The fact that the bound factorizes into the product $`_+_{}`$ is difficult to see directly from the calculation but easy to deduce from the results we will find in the general PD case. It can be checked that the (saturated) bound obtained is exactly the same, when $`N=0`$, as the one given by Caldarelli and Klemm in Ref. .

We can now try to analyze different solutions to these two equations. This is a very complex problem and it would only make sense to explain in detail a classification of the solutions if the different classes had different amounts of unbroken supersymmetry. However, in all the cases that we have been able to analyze we have not found any single supersymmetric solution with $`a0`$ preserving $`1/2`$ of the supersymmetries. In fact, adding angular momentum to the RN-TN-$`aDS`$ solutions that do preserve $`1/2`$ of the supersymmetries always seems to break an another half leaving only $`1/4`$ unbroken.

For instance, the solution with $`M=Q=0,P=\pm (2g)^1(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^2a^2g^2+4g^2N^2),\mathrm{}=\pm 1`$ preserves $`1/2`$ with $`a=0`$ and only $`1/4`$ with $`a0`$. The same effect takes place in all the instances studied.

### 3.3 Supersymmetry of Topological RB Solutions

To check supersymmetry of the topological RB solutions we only need

$$C_{0101}=\frac{1}{3}\left\{K^2\mathrm{}L^2\right\}=2g^2,$$
(3.21)
since the vector field strengths is covariantly constant.

The integrability condition then reads

$$g\left[g𝕀\alpha \gamma ^{01}i\sigma ^2+\beta \gamma ^{23}i\sigma ^2\right]ϵ=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(3.22)
Obviously, for $`g=0`$ one finds Robinson-Bertotti which will not break any supersymmetry. When $`g0`$ however, one finds, just by taking the determinant of the above equation, that one has to satisfy

$$(g\pm \beta )^2+\alpha ^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\{\begin{array}{ccc}\alpha \hfill & =& 0\hfill \\ \beta \hfill & =& \pm g\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.23)
which then break half of the available supersymmetry. Plugging the above equations into Eq. (2.9), one finds that

$$\mathrm{}=1,K^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}L^2,$$
(3.24)
which means that $`K^2=4g^2`$ and $`L^2=2g^2`$. This is the solution found in Ref. .

We could have found this solution also as the near-horizon limit of the $`\mathrm{}`$ generalization of Romans’ global monopole . In that case we have $`P=\frac{\pm \mathrm{}}{2g}`$ and with $`\mathrm{}=1`$ and all other charges vanishing we find that there is a horizon at $`2g^2r^2=1`$. At this radius the solution can be approximated by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill ds^2& =& 4g^2r^2dt^2\frac{1}{4g^2r^2}dr^2\frac{1}{2g^2}\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2(\theta )d\varphi ^2\right),\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill F_{23}& =& \frac{\pm 1}{2g}\left(\frac{1}{2g^2}\right)^1=g.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.25)
which is just the supersymmetric RB-like solution discussed above. We then see that we have supersymmetry enhancement at the horizon from $`1/4`$ to $`1/2`$. Observe that he presence of electric charge would have meant the complete annihilation of supersymmetry at the horizon.

### 3.4 Supersymmetry of the PD General Solution

As in the foregoing cases, one finds that all the components of the integrability condition are equivalent, so we will only write down the components of the Weyl tensor and the covariant derivative of the vector field strength to calculate the integrability condition in the $`01`$ direction.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill C_{1010}& =& \frac{2(p+q)^3}{(1+p^2q^2)^3}\left[𝖬(13p^2q^2)+𝖭(3pqp^3q^3)+𝖹^2(pq)(1p^2q^2)\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill C_{1023}& =& \frac{2(p+q)^3}{(1+p^2q^2)^3}\left[𝖬(3pq3p^3q^3)𝖭(13p^2q^2)+𝖹^22pq(pq)\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill _1F_{01}& =& \frac{2(p+q)^2𝒬^{1/2}}{(1+p^2q^2)^{7/2}}\left[𝖰(13p^3q+p^5q^33p^2q^2)+𝖯(3pqp^3q^3+p^23p^4q^2)\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill _2F_{01}& =& \frac{2(p+q)^2𝒫^{1/2}}{(1+p^2q^2)^{7/2}}\left[𝖯(13p^3q+p^5q^33p^2q^2)𝖰(3pqp^3q^3+p^23p^4q^2)\right],\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.26)
Plugging these expressions into the integrability condition and calculating the determinant, one finds that the following conditions need to be satisfied in order for the solution to be supersymmetric

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 0& =& g\left[\mathrm{𝖬𝖯}+\mathrm{𝖭𝖰}\right],\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill 0& =& _+_{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.27)
where, now

$$_\pm 𝖶^2(𝖤\pm 2g\alpha ^{1/2})𝖹^2,$$
(3.28)
and we have defined $`𝖶^2=𝖬^2+𝖭^2`$ and $`𝖹^2=𝖰^2+𝖯^2`$. One can check that these conditions are invariant under the scalings in Eq. (2.12) and they give the integrability equations of the RN-TN-$`aDS`$ and KN-TN-$`aDS`$ cases after the redefinitions (A.2).

Again we find a constraint on the charges and a generalization of the (saturated) Bogomol’nyi bound $`_\pm =0`$. The advantage of the parameterization of the PD solution is, first of all, that the second integrability condition factorizes completely and that $`_\pm `$ is extremely simple and is almost identical to the standard bound for asymptotically flat, ungauged, $`N=2,d=4`$ supergravity solutions, being electric-magnetic duality-invariant and invariant under gravito-electric-magnetic duality that rotates $`𝖬`$ into $`𝖭`$ and vice-versa. These duality invariances are broken by the constraint $`g\left[\mathrm{𝖬𝖯}+\mathrm{𝖭𝖰}\right]=0`$ which is, nevertheless invariant under simultaneous rotations with the same angle

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝖬^{}& =& \mathrm{cos}\theta 𝖬\mathrm{sin}\theta 𝖭,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill 𝖭^{}& =& \mathrm{sin}\theta 𝖬+\mathrm{cos}\theta 𝖭,\hfill \end{array}\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝖰^{}& =& \mathrm{cos}\theta 𝖰+\mathrm{sin}\theta 𝖯,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill 𝖯^{}& =& \mathrm{sin}\theta 𝖰+\mathrm{cos}\theta 𝖯.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.29)
Actually, assuming that $`g0`$ one can eliminate completely the constraint, getting a pair of equations

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝖬^2& =& (𝖤\pm 2g\alpha ^{1/2})𝖰^2,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill 𝖭^2& =& (𝖤\pm 2g\alpha ^{1/2})𝖯^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.30)
which hold even if some of these charges (but not $`g`$) vanish. These equations rotate into each other under the above duality transformations.

The rotation parameter is always bounded above:

$$\alpha ^{1/2}\pm 𝖤/2g.$$
(3.31)
When this bound is saturated, then both $`𝖬=0`$ and $`𝖭=0`$, while $`𝖰`$ and $`𝖯`$ remain arbitrary. This is always the case when $`𝖤=0`$.

Finally, the only supersymmetric solution with $`𝖹=0`$ is $`aDS_4`$.

A calculation of the rank of the integrability condition shows that all these configurations will generically break three-fourths of the available supersymmetries. This was to be expected from our results in the KN-TN-$`aDS`$ case. On the other hand we have not been able to find any combination preserving up to $`1/2`$ of the available supersymmetry which is not the RN-TN-$`aDS`$ solution.

## 4 Conclusions

In this letter we have presented new solutions which generalize the already known topological black holes and the standard Robinson-Bertotti solution. We have explored their supersymmetry properties finding that generically they preserve only $`1/4`$ of the supersymmetry. The only solutions that preserve $`1/2`$ are non-rotating ones and the addition of angular momentum seems to break a further half of the remaining supersymmetries.

A somewhat surprising result that deserves further study is the fact that the most general family of supersymmetric solutions of this theory (i.e. the supersymmetric Plebanski-Demianski solutions) is invariant under a continuous $`SO(2)`$ group of electric-magnetic duality transformations. Had we not included in our study NUT charge the existence of that symmetry would have passed completely unnoticed. Its meaning is, however, obscure. After all, the charges that undergo the duality rotation in its simplest, linear form, are not the physical charges. In terms of the physical charges, the duality transformations are very nonlinear.

## Acknowledgments

The work of N.A.-A., P.M. and T.O. have been supported in part by the European Union TMR program FMRX-CT96-0012 Integrability, Non-perturbative Effects, and Symmetry in Quantum Field Theory and by the Spanish grant AEN96-1655. P.M. would like to thank Iberdrola and the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid for their support.

## Appendix A Obtaining the Topological KN-TN-aDS Metric from PD’s

Performing in Eq. (2.11) the coordinate change (see the analogous discussion in )

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill q& =& r,\hfill & \hfill \tau & =& t+\left[a^1N^2+a\mathrm{}^2\right]\phi ,\hfill \\ & & & & & \\ \hfill p& =& N+au,\hfill & \hfill \sigma & =& a^1\varphi ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(A.1)
and the following redefinitions of the parameters $`𝖬=M`$, $`𝖰=Q`$, $`𝖯=P`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝖤& =& \mathrm{}+\mathrm{}^2a^2g^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}g^2N^2,\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill 𝖭& =& N\left(\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^2a^2g^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}g^2N^2\right),\hfill \\ & & \\ \hfill \alpha & =& a^2\left(1+\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^2\right)N^2\left(\mathrm{}3\mathrm{}^2a^2g^2+3g^2N^2\right)+P^2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(A.2)
we go from the PD metric to the KN-TN-aDS metric as written down in Eqs. (2.7).

Note that the choice of the redefinitions is largely dictated by the factorizability of $`𝒫`$.


format: text

text:
# Fermion masses in a model for spontaneous parity breaking

## I Introduction

The origin of the left-right asymmetry in weak interactions is a longstanding problem in elementary particle physics. One possible way to understand this asymmetry is to enlarge the standard model into a left-right symmetric structure and then, by some spontaneously broken mechanism, to recover the low energy asymmetric world. Many models were developed, based on grand unified groups , superstring inspired models , a connection between parity and the strong CP problem , left-right extended standard models . All these approaches imply the existence of some new intermediate physical mass scale, well bellow the unification or the Planck mass scale. The increasing experimental evidence on neutrino oscillations and non zero masses has also motivated a renewed interest on mechanisms for parity breaking.

Left-right models starting from the gauge group $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_RU(1)_{BL}`$ were developed by many authors  and are well known to be consistent with the standard $`SU(2)_LU(1)_Y`$ predictions for fundamental interactions and imply new heavy gauge bosons, not yet observed. However, for the fermion mass spectrum there is no unique choice of the Higgs sector that can reproduce the observed values for both charged and neutral fermions, neither the fundamental fermionic representation is uniquely defined.

In this paper we present a model that starts by the simple gauge structure of $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_RU(1)`$ and investigate a minimal Higgs sector that breaks the left-right symmetry. The fermion mass spectrum is studied for several choices of the Higgs sector. This paper is organized as follows: in section II we present our main assumptions for a left-right model; in section III we review the properties of new gauge interactions; in section IV we present a number of possibilities for the Higgs sector of fermion masses; in section V we show some phenomenological consequences for testing the models here proposed and in section VI we give our conclusions.

## II The model

The fundamental fermionic transformation under parity is very simple in the context of QED: it is done by the transformation between the right and left components of the same fundamental fields. Weak interactions indicates new elements in the parity transformation mechanism since the right and left components have different isospin assignments and there is no deeper understanding of this asymmetry. As the parity asymmetry is clearly displayed only in the weak isospin doublet of the fundamental fermionic representation, we take as a minimal gauge sector the left-right symmetric group $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_RU(1)_Y`$, with generators $`(T,T^{},Y)`$. The $`U(1)`$ quantum number could be gauged as B-L. This group can be considered as a sub-group of many unification groups like the superstring inspired $`E_8E_8^{}`$ or the SUSY - $`SO(10)SO(10)^{}`$. Earlier left-right models  were based on the hypothesis of a symmetric world with fundamental fermions at the same mass scale of the presently known standard quarks and leptons. Some recent models propose a duplication of the full standard model gauge sector $`SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$. More recently other models  were proposed with different left and right mass scales. We consider a particular choice that avoids the introduction of a second photon, which is known to present difficulties with the positronium decay rate . We will assume this starting point and introduce new mirror fermions with the following assignment:

$$\mathrm{}_L=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\nu }{e}\right)_L,\nu _R,e_R\stackrel{\mathrm{P}}{}L_R=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{E}\right)_R,N_L,E_L$$
(II.1)
$$(\frac{1}{2},0,1);(0,0,0);(0,0,2)(0,\frac{1}{2},1);(0,0,0);(0,0,2)$$

The other lepton and quark families follow a similar pattern. This fundamental representation clearly is anomaly free. In this model the parity operation transforms the $`SU(2)_L\stackrel{\mathrm{P}}{}SU(2)_R`$ sectors, including the vector gauge bosons. This symmetry property can be used to reduce the three group constants $`g_L;g_R;g^{}`$ to only two, with $`g_L=g_R`$. For the other leptonic and quark families a similar structure is proposed. The charge generator is given by $`Q=T_3+T_3^{}+Y/2`$.

In order to break $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_RU(1)_Y`$ down to $`U(1)_{em}`$ we introduce two Higgs doublets that under parity are transformed as $`\chi _L\chi _R`$. Their quantum numbers are:

$$\chi _L\stackrel{\mathrm{P}}{}\chi _R$$
(II.2)
$$(\frac{1}{2},0,1)(0,\frac{1}{2},1)$$

and the corresponding symmetry breaking is realized through the vacuum parameters $`v_L`$ and $`v_R`$. The model includes a Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the mixed representation (1/2,1/2,0). The symmetry breaking is done by the neutral components, with parameters $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$. Finally we consider scalar fields in the representation (0,0,0), broken at $`s_{GUT}`$ or at lower scales. In the standard model, and also in some of its extentions, Higgs doublets are responsible for the gauge boson masses as well as for the fermion masses. For the gauge bosons this hypothesis is strongly confirmed by the experimental result $`\rho =1`$. For the fermion masses the standard model requires adjusting by hand the Yukawa couplings in order to reproduce the observed mass spectrum. Although this procedure is consistent in the sense that all couplings satisfy $`g_i<1`$, there is no direct experimental confirmation for this hypothesis. One of the main points of our work is to show that Higgs singlets in left-right models can give a consistent charged and neutral fermion mass spectrum. We are also supposing the symmetry breaking hierarchy $`s_{GUT}>>v_R>>v_L,k,k^{}`$.

## III The gauge bosons

In order to make our presentation more complete we briefly review in this section the main properties of the gauge sector in the $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_RU(1)_Y`$ model.

The symmetry breaking mechanism follows the standard model procedure and, with the above hierarchy, we readily find for the charged vector bosons the masses (for $`v_L>>k,k^{}`$):

$`M_{W_L}^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_L^2v_L^2`$ (III.1)
$`M_{W_R}^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_R^2v_R^2`$ (III.2)
We call attention to the fact that the above Higgs field in the mixed representation (1/2,1/2,0) implies a mixing between $`W_L`$ and $`W_R`$. This mixing is given by $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _M=kk^{}/v_R^2`$. It is well known that this mixing is strongly suppressed, as required by the absence of right-handed currents . From the first equation III.1, we have the identification $`v_L=v_{Fermi}`$ and the charged current interactions of standard fermions must be according to $`(1/2;0;Y)W_L`$ and for the new mirror fermions $`(0;1/2;Y)W_R`$. There are alternatives to this scheme. We can also have $`v_L=0`$ and the Fermi scale is given by $`v_{Fermi}^2k^2+k^2`$  with a small mixing between $`W_L`$ and $`W_R`$.

Before proceeding to the neutral sector it is convenient to introduce the notation,

$`sin^2\theta _W`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_R^2g^2}{g_R^2g_L^2+g_R^2g^2+g_L^2g^2}}`$ (III.3)
$`sin^2\beta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{g_R^2+g^2}}`$ (III.4)
This is a change from ($`g_L`$; $`g_R`$; $`g^{}`$) to the basis $`(g_L;\mathrm{sin}\theta _W;\mathrm{sin}\beta )`$. The condition $`g_L=g_R`$ implies $`\mathrm{sin}\beta =\mathrm{tan}\theta _W`$. We also introduce the ratio $`\omega =v_L/v_R`$, which is supposed to satisfy $`\omega ^21`$ due to the non observation of any new physical scale with energies up to 1 TeV.

For the neutral vector boson sector we find, after diagonalization and expanding in powers of $`\omega `$,

$`M_\gamma `$ $``$ $`0`$ (III.5)
$`M_Z^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{v_L^2g_L^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}}\{1\omega ^2\mathrm{sin}^4\beta \}`$ (III.6)
$`M_Z^{}^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}v_R^2g_L^2\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _W\mathrm{tan}^2\beta \{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2sin^22\beta }{4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}\}`$ (III.7)
The unification condition for the electromagnetic interaction is the same as in the standard model,

$$e=g_L\mathrm{sin}\theta _W,$$
(III.8)
and the $`\rho `$ parameter is changed to

$$\rho =\frac{M_{WL}^2}{M_Z^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}\{1\omega ^2\mathrm{sin}^4\beta \}$$
(III.9)
In order to compare the model with the experimental data, we must develop the neutral current interactions. First we recall that the gauge sector of the model has five input parameters $`g_L`$; $`g_R`$; $`g^{}`$; $`v_L`$; $`v_R`$. The condition $`g_L=g_R`$ reduces them to four. We take as experimental inputs  $`M_W=80.4`$ GeV; $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.2230`$ and $`\alpha (M_Z)=1/128`$. The W mass is much less precise than the Z mass, but we have taken this procedure since from equation III.1 the determination of the fundamental parameters is much more transparent. If we start from the Z mass there is no significative changes in our conclusions. With the values above we readily obtain $`v_L=248`$ GeV and $`g_L=0.6635`$ as in the standard model and

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\beta =0.286$$
(III.10)
Then the only unknown in the gauge sector of the model is $`v_R`$ which is supposed to be higher than $`v_L`$.

The neutral currents coupled to the massive vector bosons Z and Z’ are given by:

$`J_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_L}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}}\gamma _\mu \{(1\omega ^2\mathrm{sin}^4\beta )T_3\omega ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta \mathrm{cos}^2\beta T_3^{}`$ (III.11)
$``$ $`Q\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(1{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2\mathrm{sin}^4\beta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}})\}`$ (III.12)
$`J_\mu ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`g_L\mathrm{tan}\theta _W\mathrm{tan}\beta \gamma _\mu \{(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\beta \mathrm{cos}^2\beta }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}})T_3`$ (III.13)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }}T_3^{}Q(1+\omega ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\beta \mathrm{sin}^2\beta )\}`$ (III.14)
From the first of the preceding equations we clearly recover the standard model result for $`J_\mu (Z)`$ in the limit $`\omega ^20`$. The new neutral fermion’s coupling with the standard Z is suppressed by a factor $`\omega ^2`$. However, the standard fermion’s couplings with the new Z’ are not suppressed, according to the second of equations III.7. The main question at this point is how small $`\omega `$ can be in order that the model agrees with present data. It is well known that the presently known high precision data requires the inclusion of the standard model quantum corrections, in order to make a consistent comparison between theory and experiment. To compare the model with data we have considered that the new terms in equations III.7 are small corrections to the standard model predictions and at least of the same order of the quantum corrections. We have computed the corrections to the Z couplings to standard fermions and found

$`g_V^{L,R}`$ $`=`$ $`g_V^{SM}(\omega ^2\mathrm{sin}^4\beta )\{T_3^L2Q\}`$ (III.15)
$`g_A^{L,R}`$ $`=`$ $`g_A^{SM}(\omega ^2\mathrm{sin}^4\beta )\{T_3^L\}`$ (III.16)
The Particle Data Group, in their 2000 edition , summarizes the present data from low energy lepton interaction, lepton-hadron collisions and the high precision data from LEP and SLAC. They also present the experimental averages for the $`g_V`$ and $`g_A`$ couplings for charged and neutral leptons. The most stringent bounds comes from the effective coupling of the Z to the electron neutrino $`g_{exp}^{\nu e}=0.528\pm 0.085`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{exp}^{inv}(Z)=498.8\pm 1.5`$ MeV, to be compared with the standard model predictions $`g_{SM}=0.5042`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{SM}^{inv}(Z)=501.65\pm 0.15`$ MeV. For the muon neutrino coupling with the Z boson, the Particle Data Group quotes $`g_{exp}^{\nu \mu }=0.502\pm 0.017`$. We have performed a fit to this data, using the standard model predictions, and we find that deviations from the standard model must be bounded, at $`95\%`$ confidence level by:

$$(\omega ^2\mathrm{sin}^4\beta )<10^4$$
(III.18)
This bound is consistent with the present experimental constraint on the $`\rho `$ parameter. With the value for $`\mathrm{sin}\beta `$ given in equation III.6, we have the bound

$$v_R>30v_L$$
(III.19)
For the new Z’ mass we have

$$M_Z^{}>800GeV$$
(III.20)
This value is a little above the present experimental bounds on new gauge bosons searches done by the CDF and D0 collaborations  at Fermilab.

## IV The fermion masses

The fermion mass spectrum depends both on the Higgs choice of the model and on the fundamental fermionic representation. A particular property of the model is the presence of left and right handed singlets in the fundamental representation. This means that we can add to the mass lagrangian new bare terms or new Higgs scalars which have no consequences on the vector gauge boson masses. We consider two new Higgs singlets, one that is coupled to Dirac terms in the mass lagrangian - $`S_D`$ \- and the other that couples to Majorana terms - $`S_M`$. After spontaneous symmetry breaking they develop vacuum parameters $`s_D`$ and $`s_M`$, respectively.

The most general Yukawa lagrangian is given by,

$``$ $`=`$ $`f\{\overline{\mathrm{}_L}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_L\nu _R+\overline{L_R}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_RN_L\}+f^{}\{\overline{\mathrm{}_L}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_LN_L^C+\overline{L_R}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_R\nu _R^C\}`$ (IV.1)
$`+`$ $`gS_M\{\overline{N_L^C}N_L+\overline{\nu _R^C}\nu _R\}+g^{}S_D\{\overline{\nu _R}N_L\}`$ (IV.2)
$`+`$ $`f\mathrm{"}\{\overline{\mathrm{}_L}\mathrm{\Phi }L_R\}+g^{}S_D\{\overline{e_R}E_L\}+h.c.`$ (IV.3)
For the neutral fermions, the mass lagrangian after symmetry breaking is given by

$``$ $`=`$ $`fv_L\overline{\nu _L}\nu _R+f^{}v_L\overline{\nu _L^c}N_L+fv_R\overline{N_R}N_L+f^{}v_R\overline{N_R^C}\nu _R+`$ (IV.4)
$`+`$ $`gs_M\overline{N_L^C}N_L+gs_M\overline{\nu _R^C}\nu _R+`$ (IV.5)
$`+`$ $`g^{}s_D\overline{\nu _R}N_L+g\mathrm{"}k\overline{\nu _L}N_R,`$ (IV.6)
For the charged fermions we have a similar lagrangian, except for the conjugated terms. The generalization for the other families is straightforward. The diagonalization is most easily done  by introducing the self conjugated fields

$`\chi _i`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{iL}+\psi _{iL}^C`$ (IV.7)
$`\omega _j`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{jR}+\psi _{jR}^C`$ (IV.8)
with $`i,j=\nu ,N`$.

We will consider in this paper that the order of magnitude of the fermionic mass spectrum is given by the symmetry breaking scales and their combinations. This is a departure from the standard model procedure of adjusting the coupling constants in the Yukawa interactions. So we are supposing that all coupling constants are of order one.

In the basis $`(\chi _\nu ;\omega _N;\chi _N;\omega _\nu )`$ the general neutrino mass matrix is:

$$M_{\nu ,N}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \frac{k}{2}& v_L& \frac{v_L}{2}\\ \frac{k}{2}& 0& \frac{v_R}{2}& v_R\\ v_L& \frac{v_R}{2}& s_M& \frac{s_D}{2}\\ \frac{v_L}{2}& v_R& \frac{s_D}{2}& s_M\end{array}\right)$$

and the charged fermion mass matrix is:

$$M_{e,E}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& k^{}& 0& v_L\\ k^{}& 0& v_R& 0\\ 0& v_R& 0& s_D\\ v_L& 0& s_D& 0\end{array}\right)$$

For this last case, we recover the Dirac formalism by the standard  $`\pi /4`$ rotations over the Majorana fields.

After the results of the Super Kamiokande collaboration  there are strong experimental evidence that neutrinos oscillate and have non-zero mass . Atmospheric neutrino experiments are consistent with $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations with a large mixing and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=(1.56)10^3`$ $`eV^2`$. Solar neutrino evidence still allow some alternative solutions like vacuum oscillations and large and small angle MSW mechanism. If one considers the LSND results  then the solution for the neutrino parameters seems to indicate the need of a forth sterile neutrino, but so far there is no confirmation of this result. In phenomenological models for quark and lepton masses we have a number of possibilities for fermion mass textures in models such as $`SO(10)`$ . In view of the present experimental situation we will not proceed to fit all the neutrino masses and mixings but we will look for solutions which could accommodate neutrinos with masses in the $`10^210^3`$ eV range. We present three possible solutions, which differ in the choice of the symmetry breaking parameters.

$``$ Model I

In this model we consider that the mixed Higgs field do not break the vacuum symmetry ($`k=k^{}=0`$) and that the Higgs singlets are both broken at $`s_{GUT}`$. For neutrinos we have the following masses

$`m_{\nu 1}`$ $`=`$ $`v_L^2/s_{GUT}`$ (IV.9)
$`m_{\nu 2}`$ $`=`$ $`v_R^2/s_{GUT}`$ (IV.10)
$`m_{N1}`$ $``$ $`m_{N2}s_{GUT}`$ (IV.11)
and for the charged fermions

$`m_e`$ $`=`$ $`v_Lv_R/s_{GUT}`$ (IV.13)
$`m_E`$ $`=`$ $`s_{GUT}`$ (IV.14)
In this model we have the ”universal see-saw” mass relation  $`m_{\nu 1}m_{\nu 2}=m_e^2`$. Using $`v_L=v_{Fermi}`$ and $`s_{GUT}=10^{16}`$ GeV, we must have $`v_R=10^{10}`$ in order to obtain the correct value for the electron mass. The first generation mass spectrum is then given by $`m_{\nu 1}10^2`$ eV ; $`m_{\nu 2}10`$ TeV ; $`m_{N1}m_{N2}10^{16}`$ GeV; $`m_e1`$ MeV; $`M_E10^{16}`$ GeV. The smallness of the electron mass is a consequence of a ”see-saw” mass relation given by equation IV.5. This is a departure for the standard model mechanism for fermion masses. There is no mixing between $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ and we have an example of a sterile neutrino coming from a new exotic doublet. The presently observed neutrino mixing must come from a possible generation mixing in the general neutrino mass lagrangian. Standard charged quarks are also found to be in the MeV mass range, with $`m_q=v_Lv_R/s_{GUT}`$. With this high value for $`v_R`$ we have no experimental accessible accelerator possibilities for new gauge vector bosons. For the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) it has recently been shown  that heavy neutrino production is limited to masses of a few hundreds of GeV. Heavy neutrinos with masses in the TeV region can be produced in the next generation  of $`e^+e^{}`$ or $`e^{}\mu ^+`$ colliders.

The $`v_R`$ value consistent with the electron mass is of the order of the Peccei-Quinn symmetry breaking scale  and we can have a possible explanation of the small value for the $`\theta `$-angle of the strong CP problem, as shown in references . In order to generate the other families mass spectrum we have two possibilities. The first one, following the standard model procedure, is simply to adjust the coupling constants in the general mass lagrangians. The other possibility is to enlarge the Higgs singlet sector, postulating one new field for each family. In this last case we have an hierarchy for neutrino masses.

$``$ Model II

In this model we impose explicit lepton number conservation and $`k=k^{}=0`$.The Majorana mass terms must be zero, except for the Higgs singlet coupled to Majorana mass terms in the neutrino sector that can have two units of leptonic number. Lepton number is then spontaneously broken by this term at a scale $`s_Ms_{GUT}`$ and the Higgs singlet coupled to Dirac mass terms is allowed to be broken at a lower scale. The neutrino mass spectrum is given by

$`m_{\nu 1}`$ $`=`$ $`v_L^2/s_M`$ (IV.15)
$`m_{\nu 2}`$ $`=`$ $`v_R^2/s_M`$ (IV.16)
$`m_{N_1,N_2}`$ $`=`$ $`s_M\pm s_D/2`$ (IV.17)
and for the charged fermions

$`m_e`$ $`=`$ $`v_Lv_R/s_D`$ (IV.19)
$`m_E`$ $`=`$ $`s_D`$ (IV.20)
If we take $`v_L=v_{Fermi}`$ and $`s_M=s_{GUT}`$, then the electron and quark masses allow a solution given by $`v_R10^4`$ GeV and $`s_D10^{10}`$ GeV. Here again we have a ”see-saw” mechanism for the electron mass. In this model we could have an experimentally accessible new neutral current, as shown in Fig. 1. One light neutrino has a mass in the $`10^210^3`$ eV range and the other is in the $`10.1`$ eV region. These neutrinos are orthogonal and again we have a new sterile neutrino. The Peccei-Quinn symmetry breaking scale reappears in the Higgs singlet sector. Family replication can be recovered with different Dirac singlets and for only one Majorana mass scale we can have a degenerate neutrino mass spectrum.

$``$ Model III

We consider the same Higgs sector as in Model I, except for the mixed representation, with a small value for $`k^{}`$. The electron mass is changed to $`m_e=k^{}+v_Lv_R/s_{GUT}`$. If we adjust $`k^{}=m_e`$ then there is no need to a large $`v_R`$ as in the first model. The down-quark mass is given by the same value of $`k^{}`$. However, for the up-quark mass we need a new $`kk^{}`$ in the mixed representation and this will not give a correct neutrino mass. An alternative to this difficulty is to consider that neutrinos are massless at tree level and acquire masses through quantum corrections . As this mechanism involves new additional hypothesis we will not develop the full solution here. We can recover the bound $`v_R=10^310^4`$ GeV and we have the possibility to test this model through the new $`Z^{}`$ interactions.

The generalization for the other families can be easily extended from the above arguments. However, the mixing angle pattern is not so simple. A first approach is to generalize the see-saw mechanism, with mixing angles given by the mass ratios $`\theta _{mix}m_\nu /m_N`$, which are very small numbers. There are many models that avoid such a restriction: the introduction of an arbitrary number of right-handed neutrinos ; some fine-tuning in the neutrino mass matrix  and any general singular neutrino mass matrix can disconnect mixing parameters from mass ratios. So we will take mixing angles and neutrino masses as independent parameters. The high precision experimental data from LEP and SLC gives the bound  $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{mix}^2<10^210^3`$.

## V Phenomenological consequences

Let us now turn our attention to some of the phenomenological consequences of the models developed in the preceding section. For Model I the high value of $`v_R`$ makes new gauge bosons out of reach even for the next generation of accelerators. The model can be tested via the new mirror fermions, coupled to the standard model neutral current according to equation III.7. New charged leptons are coupled to the Z proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and their phenomenology was extensively studied by many authors . The new neutral heavy lepton’s coupling to Z is suppressed by a factor $`\omega ^2\mathrm{sin}^4\beta <10^4`$ and can be detected only if heavy neutrinos are mixed with light neutrinos. This introduces a new mixing parameter that it is also known to be small , of the order of $`\alpha _{mix}^210^210^3`$. The $`N\overline{N}`$ coupling to Z is suppressed by $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _{mix}`$ and the light-to-heavy neutrino coupling to Z is given by a single power of $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha _{mix}`$. This means that single heavy neutrino production is favored relative to pair production .

In Fig. 1 we show the total cross section for pair and single Dirac heavy neutrino production in $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions at a new Next Linear Collider (NLC) at $`\sqrt{s}=2`$ TeV. For a single heavy neutrino production we can identify the signal by it’s decay in $`e^\pm W^{}`$. These processes can be readily calculated by using high energy algebraic programs such as CompHep .

In Fig. 2 we show the $`eW`$ invariant mass distribution for both the signal and standard model background for $`e^+e^{}e^\pm \nu _eW^{}`$ and $`M_{Ne}=`$ 400 GeV. In this process we have 6 diagrams from the new heavy lepton and 12 from the standard model background . Here again we can separate the signal from the standard model background, if we take the upper bound $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _{mix}<0.0052`$ .

In Model II we can have the production of new heavy neutral gauge bosons with mass scales accessible at hadron colliders. Dilepton production in hadron-hadron collisions give a very clear signal for a new Z’. The new facilities at the Tevatron proton-antiproton collider, with $`\sqrt{s}=2`$ TeV and a luminosity of 1000 pb<sup>-1</sup>, will allow the search of the new Z’ with masses in the 800-1000 GeV region. For $`p\overline{p}Z^{}\mathrm{}^\pm \mathrm{}^{}`$, with $`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$, we expect 20 events for a Z’ mass of 800 GeV. We have employed the parton distribution functions CTEQ4m by .

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) facilities using proton-proton collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV, will attain higher Z’ masses in the 1-4 TeV region. We show in Fig. 3 the invariant mass distribution for the $`Z^{}`$ decay at the LHC, with $`M_Z^{}=2`$ TeV in the leptonic channel $`Z^{}\mathrm{}^\pm \mathrm{}^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{}=e,\mu `$. For an integrated luminosity at LHC of 100 fb<sup>-1</sup> and cuts of $`E_{\mathrm{}}>20`$ GeV and $`|\eta |<2,5`$ we expect 1000 events for $`M_Z^{}=1`$ TeV and only one event for $`M_Z^{}=4`$ TeV. New heavy neutrinos can also be coupled to new heavy neutral gauge bosons and can be produced at the new large hadron collider. A detailed study of these possibilities was done in Ref. .

## VI Conclusions

In conclusion we have shown that spontaneously broken parity models with a consistent fermion mass spectrum can be built at intermediate scales ranging from $`10^3`$ to $`10^{10}`$ GeV. New mirror fermions are present and can be connected to ordinary fermions through neutral currents. We propose a simple Higgs sector for the model that allows several physically interesting solutions. The charged fermion masses can be generated by a ”see-saw” mass relation, analogous to the neutrino sector. Various scenarios for neutrino masses are possible and a more clear experimental definition on neutrino masses will allow to test their reality. Neutral heavy gauge bosons Z and Z’, coupled to ordinary and new mirror fermions, are expected to play a fundamental role in the understanding of the left-right symmetry. This is a departure from other models  that propose gravitation as the connection between the left and right sectors. Experimental consequences of the model could be found at the next generation of colliders.

Acknowledgments: This work was partially supported by the following Brazilian agencies: CNPq, FUJB, FAPERJ and FINEP.

Figure Captions

1. Total cross section for pair and single heavy neutrino production for $`e^+e^{}`$ collisions at NLC collider with $`\sqrt{s}=2`$ TeV. $`N_e`$ corresponds to a heavy neutrino of the electron family.
2. Invariant $`eW`$ mass distribution in the process $`e^+e^{}e^+\nu _eW^{}`$ at NLC with $`\sqrt{s}=2`$ TeV and $`M_{Ne}=400`$ GeV. The flat part of the curve is the standard model background.
3. The invariant mass distribution for $`ppZ^{}\mathrm{}^\pm \mathrm{}^{}`$ (where $`\mathrm{}=`$e or $`\mu `$) for pp collisions at LHC with $`\sqrt{s}=14`$ TeV, $`E>20`$ GeV and $`|\eta |<2,5`$ and $`M_Z^{}=2`$ TeV.