text:
# Optimized phonon approach for the diagonalization of electron-phonon problems

Problems of electrons or spins interacting with lattice degrees of freedom play an important role in condensed matter physics. To name only a few, consider for instance polaron and bi-polaron formation in various transition metal oxides such as tungsten oxide or high-$`T_c`$ cuprates , Jahn-Teller effects in colossal magnetoresistance manganites , or Peierls and spin-Peierls instabilities in quasi one-dimensional materials .

As a generic model for such systems the Holstein-Hubbard model,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}(c_{i,\sigma }^{}c_{i+1,\sigma }+\text{H.c.})+U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_{i,}n_{i,}`$ (2)
$`+g\omega {\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}(b_i^{}+b_i)c_{i,\sigma }^{}c_{i,\sigma }+\omega {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}b_i^{}b_i,`$
is frequently considered, where $`c_i^{()}`$ and $`b_i^{()}`$ describe fermions and bosons on a site $`i`$, respectively. In many physically relevant situations the energy scales of all the subsystems – electrons ($`t,U`$), phonons ($`\omega `$) and their interaction ($`g\omega `$) – are of the same order of magnitude, causing analytic methods, and especially adiabatic techniques, to fail in most of these cases. Even for numerical methods strong interactions are a demanding task, since they require some cut-off in the phonon Hilbert space. Starting with the work of White  in 1993, during the last years a class of algorithms became very popular, which based on the use of a so called density matrix for the reduction of large Hilbert spaces to manageable dimensions. Considerable focus has been placed on renormalization methods for one-dimensional systems in the thermodynamic limit. However, exact diagonalization of finite clusters also benefit substantially from these ideas, as we will demonstrate in the present paper.

Optimized phonon approach: First we recapitulate the connection between density matrices and optimized basis states. Starting with an arbitrary normalized quantum state

$$|\psi =\underset{r=0}{\overset{D_r1}{}}\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{D_\nu 1}{}}\gamma _{\nu r}|\nu |r$$
(3)
expressed in terms of the basis $`\{|\nu |r\}`$ of the direct product space $`H=H_\nu H_r`$, we wish to reduce the dimension $`D_\nu `$ of the space $`H_\nu `$ by introducing a new basis,

$$|\stackrel{~}{\nu }=\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{D_\nu 1}{}}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{\nu }\nu }|\nu ,$$
(4)
with $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }=0\mathrm{}(D_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}1)`$ and $`D_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}<D_\nu `$. We call $`\{|\stackrel{~}{\nu }\}`$ an optimized basis, if the projection of $`|\psi `$ on the corresponding subspace $`\stackrel{~}{H}=H_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}H_rH`$ is as close as possible to the original state. Therefore we minimize $`|\psi |\stackrel{~}{\psi }^2`$ with respect to the $`\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{\nu }\nu }`$ under the condition $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }^{}|\stackrel{~}{\nu }=\delta _{\stackrel{~}{\nu }^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$, where

$$|\stackrel{~}{\psi }=\underset{r=0}{\overset{D_r1}{}}\underset{\stackrel{~}{\nu }=0}{\overset{D_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}1}{}}\underset{\nu ,\nu ^{}=0}{\overset{D_\nu 1}{}}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{\nu }\nu }\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{\nu }\nu ^{}}^{}\gamma _{\nu ^{}r}|\nu |r$$
(5)
is the projected state. Since we find

$`|\psi |\stackrel{~}{\psi }^2`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{D_r1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{~}{\nu }=0}{\overset{D_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,\nu ^{}=0}{\overset{D_\nu 1}{}}}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{\nu }\nu }\gamma _{\nu r}^{}\gamma _{\nu ^{}r}\alpha _{\stackrel{~}{\nu }\nu ^{}}^{}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`1\text{Tr}(𝜶𝝆𝜶^{}),`$ (7)
where $`𝝆=_{r=0}^{D_r1}\gamma _{\nu r}^{}\gamma _{\nu ^{}r}`$ is called the density matrix of the state $`|\psi `$, we observe immediately that the states $`\{|\stackrel{~}{\nu }\}`$ are optimal if they are elements of the eigenspace of $`𝝆`$ corresponding to its $`D_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$ largest eigenvalues $`w_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$.

Following Zhang et al. , we apply these features to construct an optimized phonon basis for the eigenstates of an interacting electron/spin-phonon system. Consider a system composed of $`N`$ sites, each contributing a phonon degree of freedom $`|\nu _i,\nu _i=0\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, and some other (spin or electronic) states $`|r_i`$. Hence, the Hilbert space of the model under consideration is spanned by the basis $`\{_{i=0}^{N1}|\nu _i|r_i\}`$. Of course, to numerically diagonalize an Hamiltonian operating on this space, we need to restrict ourselves to a finite-dimensional subspace. To calculate, for instance, the lowest eigenstates of the Holstein-Hubbard model (2), we could limit the phonon space spanned by $`|\nu _i=(\nu _i!)^{1/2}(b_i^{})^{\nu _i}|0`$ by allowing only the states $`\nu _i<D_i`$. Most simply we can choose $`D_i=Mi`$ yielding $`D_{\mathrm{ph}}=M^N`$ for the dimension of the total phonon space. However, if we think of the states $`\{_{i=0}^{N1}|\nu _i\}`$ as eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{ph}}=\omega _{i=0}^{N1}b_i^{}b_i`$, it is more suitable for most problems to choose an energy cut-off instead. Thus we used the condition $`_{i=0}^{N1}\nu _i<M`$, leading to $`D_{\mathrm{ph}}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+M1}{N}\right)`$, for most of our previous numerical work (see e.g. Ref. ). For weakly interacting systems already a small number $`M`$ of phonon states is sufficient to reach very good convergence for ground states and low lying excitations. However, with increasing coupling strength most systems require a large number of the above ’bare’ phonons, thus exceeding capacities of even large supercomputers. In some cases one can avoid these problems by choosing an appropriate unitary transformation of the Hamiltonian, but in general it is desirable to find an optimized basis automatically.

The present density-matrix algorithm  for the construction of an optimal phonon basis considered the phonon subsystem as a product of one large and a number of small sites. Each site except the large one uses the same optimized basis $`\{|\mu _i\}=\{|\stackrel{~}{\nu }\}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }=0\mathrm{}(m1)`$, while the basis of the large site consists of the states $`\{|\stackrel{~}{\nu }\}`$ plus some bare states $`\{|\nu \}`$, $`\{|\mu _0\}=\text{ON}(\{|\stackrel{~}{\nu }\}\{|\nu \})`$, where $`\text{ON}(\mathrm{})`$ denotes orthonormalization. After a first initialization the optimized states are improved iteratively through the following steps

1. calculating the requested eigenstate $`|\psi `$ of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ in terms of the actual basis,
2. replacing $`\{|\stackrel{~}{\nu }\}`$ with the most important (i.e. biggest eigenvalues $`w_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$) eigenstates of the density matrix $`𝝆`$, calculated with respect to $`|\psi `$ and $`\{|\mu _0\}`$,
3. changing the additional states $`\{|\nu \}`$ in the set $`\{|\mu _0\}`$,
4. orthonormalizing the set $`\{|\mu _0\}`$, and returning to step (1).

A simple way to proceed in step (3) is to sweep the bare states $`\{|\nu \}`$ through a sufficiently large part of the infinite dimensional phonon Hilbert space. One can think of the algorithm as ’feeding’ the optimized states with bare phonons, thus allowing the optimized states to become increasingly perfect linear combinations of bare phonon states. Of course the whole procedure converges only for eigenstates of $`H`$ at the lower edge of the spectrum, since usually the spectrum of a Hamiltonian involving phonons has no upper bound. The applicability of the algorithm was demonstrated in Ref.  with the Holstein model (i.e. $`U=0`$ in Eq. (2)) as an example.

When we implemented the above algorithm together with a Lanczos exact diagonalization method for our systems of interest, we found two objections against the above choice of an optimized basis: (i) the basis is not symmetric under the symmetry operations of the Hamiltonian (e.g. translations), and (ii) the phonon Hilbert space is still large ($`D_{\mathrm{ph}}=Mm^{N1}`$, where $`M`$ is the dimension at the large site), since we usually need more than one optimized state per site.

The first problem is solved by including all those states into the phonon basis that can be created by symmetry operations, and by calculating the density matrix in a symmetric way, i.e. by adding the density matrices generated with respect to every site, not just site $`i=0`$. Concerning the second problem we note that the eigenvalues $`w_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$ of the density matrix $`𝝆`$ decrease approximately exponentially, see Figure 1. If we interpret $`w_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}\xi ^{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}`$ as the probability of the system to occupy the corresponding optimized state $`|\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$, we immediately find that the probability for the complete phonon basis state $`_{i=0}^{N1}|\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i`$ is proportional to $`\xi ^{_{i=0}^{N1}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i}`$. This is reminiscent of the energy cut-off discussed above, and we therefore propose the following choice of phonon basis states at each site,

$`i:\{|\mu _i\}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{ON}(\{|\mu \})`$ (8)
$`|\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\text{opt. state }|\stackrel{~}{\nu },0\mu <m}{\text{bare state }|\nu ,m\mu <M}},`$ (9)
and for the complete phonon basis $`\left\{_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_i\mu _i<M}|\mu _i\right\}`$, yielding $`D_{\mathrm{ph}}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N+M1}{N}\right)`$. Implementation of this optimization procedure together with our existing Lanczos diagonalization code  allows the study of interacting electron/spin-phonon systems in a much larger parameter space without reaching the limits of available supercomputers.

To demonstrate the power of the method, in the following we adress two frequently discussed problems: bi-polaron formation in the Holstein-Hubbard model, and Luttinger liquid characteristics of a 1D polaronic metal.

(a) Bi-polarons in the Holstein-Hubbard model have been the subject of numerous studies over the last decades, stimulated for instance by the discovery of high-$`T_c`$ cuprates, and the belief that the interplay between strong electron-phonon and electron-electron interactions plays a significant role in these highly correlated materials . Nevertheless the influence of the Hubbard interaction $`U`$ on bi-polaron formation is still not completely understood. Beside bi-polaron formation itself, an interesting open question is the transition between two bi-polaronic regimes, namely the inter-site and the on-site bi-polaron. Since the Hubbard interaction $`U`$ and the electron-phonon interaction compete, we usually need to consider intermediate to strong electron-phonon coupling $`g`$, or $`\lambda :=g^2\omega /(2t)`$, making the problem a good testing ground for our optimized phonon algorithm.

In a recent work Bonča et al.  studied mobile bi-polarons in the Hubbard model with the aid of a variational technique. Their focus is mainly on the $`U`$ dependence of the transition from unbound polarons to inter-site bi-polarons and from inter-site to on-site bi-polarons at intermediate frequencies. These transitions also show a significant $`\omega `$ dependence. Here the adiabatic frequency range is of special interest, since there are no appropriate analytic methods for small but finite frequencies.

Using the optimized phonon approach on lattices sizes up to $`N=12`$, we calculated the phase diagram for the transition from unbound polarons to inter-site bi-polarons at fixed $`U`$. The critical coupling $`\lambda _c`$ was determined by the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the energy difference between the two-particle ground state and twice the one-particle ground state, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }=E_b2E_p`$. As indicated in Figure 2, the critical interaction $`\lambda _c`$ increases with frequency, reaching $`U/(4t)`$ as the limiting value. The density-density correlation (see inset) signals a second transition from inter-site to on-site bi-polarons, which also causes a distinct feature in the kinetic energy , shown in Figure 3 for different frequencies and system sizes. For $`\omega =0.4t`$ there is a sharp drop in $`E_{\mathrm{kin}}`$ at about $`\lambda =1.6`$. Near this critical coupling we observe another striking effect if we study the bi-polaron band dispersion: Namely, it is almost a perfect cosine at the critical coupling, but deviates from this simple tight-binding dispersion for other couplings. That means in the vicinty of $`\lambda _c`$ the residual bi-polaron-phonon interaction vanishes. At present we have no clear explanation for this free-particle like behaviour. As an example we plot the rescaled dispersion for different system sizes and diagonalization methods in the inset of Figure 3.

(b) Luttinger liquid behaviour. The Holstein model of spinless fermions is defined by omitting the electron spin $`\sigma `$ and consequently the Coulomb interaction $`U`$ in Hamiltonian (2). In one dimension and at half filling, depending on the coupling strength $`g`$, this model undergoes a transition from a gapless metallic phase to a Peierls distorted phase with a gap between the ground-state and lowest excitations. Details of this transition and the properties of the different phases were studied with several methods over the last years (see Refs. ). One interesting aspect is the description of the metallic phase in terms of an effective Luttinger model, which, according to the ‘Luttinger liquid hypothesis’ of Haldane , should be an universal picture for the low temperature properties of all one-dimensional metals. The two parameters of the Luttinger model, the renormalized Fermi velocity $`u_\rho `$ and effective coupling constant $`K_\rho `$, can be determined through the scaling behaviour of the ground-state energy $`E_0`$ and the energy of charge excitations $`E_{\pm 1}`$ with respect to the system size $`N`$:

$$\frac{E_0(N)}{N}=ϵ_{\mathrm{}}\frac{\pi u_\rho }{6N^2},E_{\pm 1}(N)E_0(N)=\frac{\pi u_\rho }{2K_\rho N}.$$
(10)
In a recent work  we used a variational method to calculate eigenstates and the resulting Luttinger parameters for the Holstein model at half filling. Unfortunately the method failed to give consistent results especially for $`K_\rho `$ in the anti-adiabatic regime of large frequencies $`\omega t`$ where the Holstein model can be well described by second order perturbation theory, leading to an effective XXZ spin model  with known Luttinger parameters. For large frequencies the XXZ model, as well as Monte Carlo  and DMRG  calculations for the Holstein model, yield $`K_\rho <1`$ corresponding to a repulsive interaction. If $`K_\rho `$, starting with the value $`1`$ for the noninteracting case, reaches $`\frac{1}{2}`$ with increasing coupling strength, the model undergoes a Kosterlitz-Thouless transition to a gapped phase. In contrast, with our variational technique we found $`K_\rho >1`$, corresponding to an attractive interaction, for all frequencies. Since it was not possible to calculate the required eigenstates with sufficient precision for the various system sizes needed for finite size scaling, this unsatisfying situation could not be resolved with our ‘traditional’ Lanczos diagonalization procedure.

We therefore reconsidered the problem with a more sophisticated variant of the above phonon optimization algorithm, using two different sets of optimized phonon states, one for each possible fermion occupation number (cf. Ref. ). Together with the cut-off, this results in a further reduction of the Hilbert space, which is required for the diagonalization of larger systems. It is worth noting that this advantage is gained at the expense of a much more complicated fermionic Hamiltonian, since every hopping is connected with the projection of the actual phonon state onto the other basis set. Hence, for other models with a more difficult structure, like Jahn-Teller problems with two or three phonon modes per site, this procedure is not recommended.

In Figure 4 we show the Luttinger parameters we found by scaling the energies for system sizes up to $`N=10`$. In the anti-adiabatic frequency range the renormalized Fermi velocity $`u_\rho `$ is drastically supressed within the metallic phase, while for low phonon frequencies it remains almost unchanged up to the phase transition. A very interesting result is the changing character of the interaction below $`\omega t`$. For small frequencies the effective fermion-fermion interaction is attractive, while it is repulsive for large frequencies. Possibly there is a transition point, depending on $`g`$ and $`\omega `$, where the model is free in lowest order. Further analytical studies of this behaviour will be reported elsewhere.

In conclusion, we have proposed an advanced phonon optimization algorithm for application in Lanczos diagonalization, and demonstrated its reliability for two strongly interacting electron-phonon systems.

We acknowledge valuable discussion with J. Bonča, H. Büttner, E. Jeckelmann, F. Göhmann, J. Loos, and S.A. Trugman as well as the provision of computer resources by NIC Jülich, HLR Stuttgart and LRZ München. Work at Los Alamos is performed under the auspices of the US DOE.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

CARDINAL INVARIANTS $`b_\kappa `$ AND $`t_\kappa `$

$`\text{Saharon Shelah}^{\mathrm{}}`$

Department of Mathematics

Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA

$`\text{Zoran Spasojević}^{\mathrm{}}`$

Department of Mathematics

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Cambridge, MA 02139, USA

ABSTRACT: This paper studies cardinal invariants $`b_\kappa `$ and $`t_\kappa `$, the natural generalizations of the invariants $`b`$ and $`t`$ to a regular cardinal $`\kappa `$.

§1. Introduction

Cardinal invariants $`b`$ and $`t`$ were introduced by Rothberger . They are cardinals between $`\omega _1`$ and $`2^\omega `$ and have been extensively studied over the years. The survey paper  contains much information about these two invariants as well as many other cardinal invariants of the continuum.

The goal of this paper is to study the natural generalizations of $`b`$ and $`t`$ to higher regular cardinals, namely $`b_\kappa `$ and $`t_\kappa `$ respectively, where $`\kappa `$ is a regular cardinal. The results presented here are that the relationship $`tb`$ (shown by Rothberger ) also holds for $`b_\kappa `$ and $`t_\kappa `$ and that, under certain cardinal arithmetic assumption, if $`\kappa \mu <t_\kappa `$ then $`2^\kappa =2^\mu `$. These results are then used as constraints in the forcing construction of model in which $`b_\kappa `$ and $`t_\kappa `$ can take on essentially any preassigned regular value.

§2 Conventions and elementary facts

For cardinals $`\lambda `$ and $`\kappa `$ let $`[\kappa ]^\lambda =\{X\kappa :X=\lambda \}`$ and $`\kappa ^\lambda =\{f:f:\lambda \kappa \}`$. The symbol $`\kappa ^\lambda `$ is also used to denote the cardinality of the set $`\{f:f:\lambda \kappa \}`$ but the intended meaning will be clear from the context. For $`A,B[\kappa ]^\kappa `$ let $`A^{}B`$ iff $`AB<\kappa `$ and $`A^{}B`$ iff $`AB<\kappa BA=\kappa `$. For $`f,g\kappa ^\kappa `$ let $`f<^{}g`$ iff $`\beta <\kappa \alpha >\beta (f(\alpha )<g(\alpha ))`$. Then $`\kappa ^\kappa `$ is unbounded in $`(\kappa ^\kappa ,<^{})`$ if $`f\kappa ^\kappa g(g^{}f)`$. Let

$`b_\kappa =\mathrm{min}\{:\text{ }\kappa ^\kappa \text{ and }\text{ is }<^{}\text{-unbounded in }\kappa ^\kappa \text{ }\}`$,

$`t_\kappa =\mathrm{min}\{𝒯:\text{ }𝒯[\kappa ]^\kappa \text{}𝒯\kappa \text{}𝒯\text{ is well ordered by }^{}\text{,}`$

$`\text{ }C[\kappa ]^\kappa (\kappa C=\kappa A𝒯(AC=\kappa ))\text{ }\}`$.

In this notation $`b=b_\omega `$ and $`t=t_\omega `$. An equivalent formulation of $`t_\kappa `$ is obtained if $`^{}`$ is used instead of $`^{}`$. Standard arguments show that $`\kappa ^+b_\kappa ,t_\kappa 2^\kappa `$ and that in the definition of $`b_\kappa `$, $``$ may be assumed to be well ordered by $`<^{}`$ and consisting only of strictly increasing functions. Thus, both $`b_\kappa `$ and $`t_\kappa `$ are regular cardinals.

† Partially supported by the NSF and Israel Science Foundation, founded by the Israel Academy of Sciences. Pub. 643

‡ Supported by the NSF Grant No. DMS-9627744

Lemma 1. $`t_\kappa b_\kappa `$

Proof: The case $`\kappa =\omega `$ was established in . So assume $`\kappa >\omega `$ and by way of contradiction assume $`b_\kappa <t_\kappa `$. Let $`\{f_\alpha :\alpha <b_\kappa \}\kappa ^\kappa `$ be $`<^{}`$-unbounded in $`(\kappa ^\kappa ,<^{})`$ and such that $`\alpha <\beta f_\alpha <^{}f_\beta `$. For each $`\alpha <b_\kappa `$ let $`C_\alpha =\{\xi <\kappa :\eta <\xi (f_\alpha (\eta )<\xi )\}`$. Then each $`C_\alpha `$ is closed unbounded in $`\kappa `$ and $`\alpha \beta C_\beta ^{}C_\alpha `$. Since $`b_\kappa <t_\kappa `$, $`A[\kappa ]^\kappa \alpha <b_\kappa (A^{}C_\alpha )`$. Let $`f:\kappa A`$ be such that $`\xi <\kappa (\xi <f(\xi ))`$. Fix $`\alpha <b_\kappa `$ and let $`i_\alpha `$ be such that $`Ai_\alpha C_\alpha i_\alpha `$. Let $`\xi \kappa i_\alpha `$ and $`\eta =\mathrm{min}(C_\alpha (\xi +1))`$ and note that $`f_\alpha (\xi )<\eta `$. However, $`A\xi C_\alpha \xi `$, and $`\xi <f(\xi )`$, so $`\eta f(\xi )`$. In other words, $`\xi \kappa i_\alpha (f_\alpha (\xi )<f(\xi ))`$ so that $`f`$ is a bound for $`\{f_\alpha :\alpha <b_\kappa \}`$. This is a contradiction and the lemma is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

The cardinal $`b_\kappa `$ was studied in  where it was shown that the value of $`b_\kappa `$ does not have any influence on the value of $`2^\mu `$ for $`\kappa \mu <b_\kappa `$ even if $`GCH`$ is assumed to hold below $`\kappa `$. However, the same does not hold for $`t_\kappa `$ as it is shown in the next section.

§3 Combinatorics

The goal of this section is to show that if $`\kappa ^{<\kappa }=\kappa `$ then $`2^\mu =2^\kappa `$ for any regular $`\mu `$ with $`\kappa \mu <t_\kappa `$. The idea behind the proof is essentially the same as that of the proof of $`\omega \mu <t2^\mu =2^\omega `$, namely to use $`\mu <t_\kappa `$ to construct a binary tree in $`(𝒫(\kappa ),^{})`$ of hight $`\mu `$. However, unlike in the case $`\kappa =\omega `$, when $`\kappa `$ is uncountable a difficulty arises in the construction at limit stages of cofinality less than $`\kappa `$. The difficulty comes from the fact that the intersection of a $`^{}`$-decreasing sequence in $`[\kappa ]^\kappa `$ of limit length less than $`\kappa `$ may be empty. To deal with this difficulty, a notion of a closed subset of $`\kappa `$ with respect to a certain parameter is introduced next.

Let $`D`$ be a filter on a regular cardinal $`\kappa `$ and $`A,B[\kappa ]^\kappa `$. Then $`A=_D0`$ if $`\kappa AD`$ and $`A=_DB`$ if $`(AB)(BA)=_D0`$. Let $`D^+`$ be the collection of all sets $`A\kappa `$ such that $`\kappa AD`$. If $`A,BD^+`$ then $`A_D^{}B`$ if $`AB=_D0`$ and $`BAD^+`$. For each $`i<\kappa `$ let $`A_i^\kappa \kappa (i+1)`$ be such that $`3(i+1)A_i^\kappa `$, $`A_i^\kappa =\kappa `$, $`_{i<\kappa }A_i^\kappa =\kappa \{0\}`$, and if $`i<j<\kappa `$ then $`A_i^\kappa A_j^\kappa =\mathrm{}`$. Let $`E`$ be the set of all limit ordinals $`\delta <\kappa `$ such that $`\delta `$ is a cardinal or it is a multiple of $`\delta ^\omega `$ (ordinal exponentiation) and for each $`\alpha <\delta `$, $`A_\alpha ^\kappa \delta `$ is unbounded in $`\delta `$. Let $`D^\delta `$ be the collection of all subsets $`X`$ of $`\delta `$ such that for some $`\alpha <\delta `$, $`([\alpha ,\delta )_{i<\alpha }A_i^\kappa )X`$ (we are interested in the cases when $`\delta E`$). And let $`D(\kappa )`$ be the collection of all subsets $`A`$ of $`\kappa `$ such that for some $`\alpha <\kappa `$, $`([\alpha ,\kappa )_{i<\alpha }A_i^\kappa )A`$. Let $`A^\kappa =\{A_\delta ^\kappa :\delta E\}`$ and for $`\zeta A^\kappa `$ choose $`D_\zeta `$ and $`\delta _\zeta `$ such that $`\zeta A_{\delta _\zeta }^\kappa `$, $`D_\zeta `$ is a filter on $`\delta _\zeta `$ generated by less than $`\kappa `$ sets which extends $`D^{\delta _\zeta }`$, and for any $`\delta E`$ and any filter $`D`$ on $`\delta `$ which extends $`D^\delta `$ and which is generated by less than $`\kappa `$, $`\{\zeta A_\delta ^\kappa :D=D_\delta \}=\kappa `$. Let $`\overline{D}=D_\zeta :\zeta A^\kappa `$.

Definition 2. A subset $`A`$ of $`\kappa `$ is $`(E,\overline{D})`$-closed if for every $`\delta E`$ and $`\zeta A_\delta ^\kappa `$ then $`\zeta A`$ whenever $`A\delta D_\zeta `$. Let $`cl^0(A)=A`$, $`cl^1(A)=A\{\zeta A^\kappa :A\delta _\zeta D_\zeta \}`$ and $`cl^\alpha (A)=A\{cl^1(cl^\beta (A)):\beta <\alpha \}`$. Let $`(E,\overline{D})`$-closure of $`A`$, $`cl(A)`$, be the set $`cl^\alpha (A)`$ for every $`\alpha `$ large enough.

The above definition formulates the notion of a closed set with respect to a parameter $`(E,\overline{D})`$. The following sequence of observations gives some elementary properties of the closure operations which will be needed in the sequel.

Observation 3. Let $`AB\kappa `$. Then

$`(a)`$ $`\kappa `$ is an $`(E,\overline{D})`$-closed subset of $`\kappa `$,

$`(b)`$ $`\alpha (cl^\alpha (A)cl^\alpha (B)\kappa )`$,

$`(c)`$ $`cl(A)`$ is the minimal $`(E,\overline{D})`$-closed set which contains $`A`$,

$`(d)`$ $`A=_{D(\kappa )}0`$ iff $`cl(A)=_{D(\kappa )}0`$,

$`(e)`$ if for some $`\zeta A_\delta ^\kappa `$, $`\zeta cl^1(\delta A)`$ then $`cl(A)A_\delta ^\kappa =\kappa `$,

The next lemma is used in the construction of the successor levels of the binary tree.

Lemma 4. If $`A`$ is $`(E,\overline{D})`$-closed and from $`D^+(\kappa )`$ then there are two disjoint $`(E,\overline{D})`$-closed subsets of $`A`$ in $`D^+(\kappa )`$.

Proof: By induction on $`i<\kappa `$ choose distinct ordinals $`\alpha _i,\beta _iAcl(\mathrm{sup}\{\alpha _j+1,\beta _j+1:j<i\})`$. Then $`cl(\{\alpha _i:i<\kappa \})`$ and $`cl(\{\beta _i:i<\kappa \})`$ are as desired. $`\mathrm{}`$

The following lemma is used in the construction of the limit levels of the tree whose cofinality is less than $`\kappa `$.

Lemma 5 Let $`\tau <\kappa `$ be a regular cardinal. Let $`A_iD^+(\kappa )`$ $`(i<\tau )`$ be $`(E,\overline{D})`$-closed such that $`i<j<\kappa A_j_{D(\kappa )}^{}A_i`$. Then $`_{i<\tau }A_iD^+(\kappa )`$ and is $`(E,\overline{D})`$-closed.

Proof: For each $`i<\tau `$ let $`C_iE`$ be closed unbounded in $`\kappa `$ such that $`\delta C_i(A_i\delta _{D^\delta }0)`$. Then $`C=_{i<\tau }C_i`$ is also closed unbounded in $`\kappa `$. For each $`\delta C`$ let $`D_\delta ^{}`$ be the filter on $`\delta `$ generated by $`D^\delta \{A_I\delta :i<\tau \}`$. Clearly $`\delta Ci<\tau A_i\delta D_\delta ^{}`$, hence $`B_\delta =\{\zeta :\zeta A_\delta ^\kappa D_\zeta =D_\delta ^{}\}`$ is an unbounded subset of $`A_\delta ^\kappa `$ and is a subset of $`A_i`$ for each $`i<\tau `$, since each $`A_i`$ is $`(E,\overline{D})`$-closed. Then $`_{\delta C}B_\delta D^+(\kappa )`$ witnesses that $`_{i<\tau }A_i`$ is as required. $`\mathrm{}`$

And the final lemma of this section will aid in the construction of the limit levels of the tree of cofinality greater than or equal to $`\kappa `$.

Lemma 6. Let $`\tau `$ be a regular cardinal with $`\kappa \tau <t_\kappa `$ and $`A_i:i<\tau D^+(\kappa )`$ such that each $`A_i`$ is $`(E,\overline{D})`$-closed and $`i<j<\tau A_j_{D(\kappa )}^{}A_iA_i_{D(\kappa )}^{}A_j`$. Then there is an $`(E,\overline{D})`$-closed $`BD^{}(\kappa )`$ such that $`i<\tau (B_{D(\kappa )}^{}A_i)`$.

Proof: For each $`i<j<\tau `$ let $`C_{ij}E`$ be closed unbounded in $`\kappa `$ such that $`A_i\delta `$, $`A_j\delta `$, $`(A_iA_j)\delta (D^\delta )^+`$ for each $`\delta C_{ij}`$. Let $`g_{ij}`$ be the function enumerating $`C_{ij}`$ in the increasing order. Since $`t_\kappa b_\kappa `$ let $`g:\kappa E`$ be a strictly increasing function such that $`g_{ij}<^{}g`$ for each $`i,j<\tau `$. Let $`C`$ be the collection of all limit points of $`\mathrm{ran}(g)`$. Then $`CE`$ is closed unbounded in $`\kappa `$ and $`C^{}C_{ij}`$ for each $`i,j<\tau `$. Now, for $`i,j<\tau `$, define $`f_{ij}:C\kappa `$ by: $`f_{ij}(\delta )`$ is the least $`\zeta A_\delta ^\kappa `$ such that $`(A_iA_j)\delta D_\zeta `$ if such $`\zeta `$ exists (and it does exist whenever $`\delta C_{ij}`$) and zero otherwise. And again, since $`t_\kappa b_\kappa `$, let $`f:C\kappa `$ be such that for each $`i<j<\tau `$, $`f_{ij}<^{}f`$. Now let $`X=\{f(\delta )A_\delta ^\kappa :\delta C\}`$ and $`A_i^{}=A_iX`$ for $`i<\tau `$ and note that $`A_i^{}`$ is an unbounded subset of $`\kappa `$ and $`i<j<\tau A_j^{}^{}A_i^{}A_i^{}^{}A_j^{}`$. Then, by the definition of $`t_\kappa `$, since $`\tau <t_\kappa `$, there is a $`B^{}\kappa `$, an unbounded subset of $`X`$, such that $`i<\tau B^{}^{}A_i^{}`$. In addition, $`B^{}D^+(\kappa )`$ and by the choice of $`X`$ and $`B^{}A_{i+1}^{}A_{i+1}_{D(\kappa )}^{}A_i`$ for each $`i<\tau `$. Hence, by Observation 3(b), $`B=cl(B^{})_{D(\kappa )}^{}cl(A_{i+1})=A_{i+1}_{D(\kappa )}^{}A_i`$ is as desired and the lemma is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

At this point enough preliminary work is completed for the proof of the main result of this section.

Theorem 7. Let $`\kappa `$ and $`\mu `$ be a regular cardinals such that $`\kappa ^{<\kappa }=\kappa `$ and $`\kappa \mu <t_\kappa `$. Then $`2^\mu =2^\kappa `$.

Proof: By induction on $`\zeta \mu `$, for every sequence $`\eta `$ of zeros and ones of length $`\zeta `$, choose a set $`A_\eta `$ such that

$`(a)`$ $`A_\eta D^+(\kappa )`$,

$`(b)`$ $`A_\eta `$ is $`(E,\overline{D})`$-closed,

$`(c)`$ if $`\rho `$ is an initial segment of $`\eta `$ then $`A_\eta A_\rho =_{D(\kappa )}0`$ and $`A_\rho A_\eta D^+(\kappa )`$,

$`(d)`$ $`A_{\eta ^{}0}A_{\eta ^{}1}=\mathrm{}`$.

Let $`A_{\mathrm{}}=\kappa `$. For the successor step suppose $`\eta `$ is a sequence of zeros and ones and $`A_\eta `$ has been constructed. By Lemma 4, let $`B`$ and $`C`$ be two disjoint $`(E,\overline{D})`$-closed subsets of $`A_\eta `$ from $`D^+(\kappa )`$. Let $`A_{\eta ^{}0}=B`$ and $`A_{\eta ^{}1}=C`$. This takes care of the successor stages of the construction.

Now suppose $`\eta `$ is a sequence of zeros and ones such that $`\mathrm{dom}(\eta )=\lambda \mu `$ is a limit ordinal with $`\mathrm{cf}(\lambda )=\tau <\kappa `$, and for each $`\alpha <\lambda `$, $`A_{\eta \alpha }`$ has been constructed. Let $`\alpha _i:i<\tau `$ be an increasing sequence of ordinals with limit $`\lambda `$. By Lemma 5, $`_{i<\tau }A_{\eta \alpha _i}D^+(\kappa )`$ and is $`(E,\overline{D})`$-closed. Let $`A_\eta =_{i<\tau }A_{\eta \alpha _i}`$. This takes care of limit stages of cofinality less than $`\kappa `$.

Finally suppose $`\eta `$ is a sequence of zeros and ones such that $`\mathrm{dom}(\eta )=\lambda \mu `$ is a limit ordinal with $`\kappa \mathrm{cf}(\lambda )=\tau `$ and for each $`\alpha <\lambda `$, $`A_{\eta \alpha }`$ has been defined. Let $`\alpha _i:i<\tau `$ be an increasing sequence of ordinals with limit $`\lambda `$. By Lemma 6, there is an $`(E,\overline{D})`$-closed $`BD^+(\kappa )`$ such that $`i<\tau (B_{D(\kappa )}^{}A_{\eta \alpha _i})`$. Let $`A_\eta =B`$. Now $`\{A_\eta :\eta 2^\mu \}`$ is a family of $`2^\mu `$ distinct subsets of $`\kappa `$ so that $`2^\mu 2^\kappa `$ and the proof is finishes. $`\mathrm{}`$

§4 Forcing

Let $`\kappa `$ be a regular uncountable cardinal and let $`\lambda `$, $`\mu `$, $`\theta `$ be cardinals such that $`\kappa <\lambda \mu \theta `$ with $`\lambda `$, $`\mu `$ regular and $`\mathrm{cf}(\theta )>\kappa `$. This section deals with the construction of a model for $`t_\kappa =\lambda `$, $`b_\kappa =\mu `$ and $`2^\kappa =\theta `$. The idea behind the construction is as follows: Start with a countable transitive model (c.t.m.) $`N`$ for $`ZFC+GCH`$. Expend $`N`$ to a model $`M`$ by using the standard partial order for adding $`\theta ^+`$ many subsets of $`\lambda `$ (see below). Then

$$M\text{ “ }\xi <\lambda (2^\xi =\xi ^+2^\lambda =\theta ^+)\text{ ”}.$$

In $`M`$, perform an iterated forcing construction with $`<\kappa `$-supports of length $`\theta \mu `$ (ordinal product) with $`\kappa `$-closed and $`\kappa ^+`$-cc partial orders as follows: At stages which are not of the form $`\theta \xi `$ ($`\xi <\mu `$) towers in $`(𝒫(\kappa ),^{})`$ of hight $`\eta `$ are destroyed for $`\kappa <\eta <\lambda `$. At stages of the form $`\theta \xi `$ a function from $`\kappa `$ to $`\kappa `$ is added to eventually dominate all the functions from $`\kappa `$ to $`\kappa `$ constructed by that stage. The bookkeeping is arranged in such a way that by the end of the construction all towers of hight $`\eta `$ for $`\kappa <\eta <\lambda `$ are considered so that in the final model $`t_\kappa \lambda `$. However, in the final model

$$\xi ((\xi <\kappa 2^\xi =\xi ^+)(\kappa \xi <\lambda 2^\xi =\theta ))2^\lambda =\theta ^+$$

so that, by the previous section, $`t_\kappa =\lambda `$. By virtue of adding dominating functions at stages of the form $`\theta \xi `$, the final model has a scale in $`(\kappa ^\kappa ,<^{})`$ of order type $`\mu `$ so that $`b_\kappa =\mu `$.

The rest of this section deals with the details of the construction. In showing that the final model has the desired properties it is important to know that cardinals are not collapsed. A standard way of proving this is to show that the final partial order obtained by the iteration is $`\kappa `$-closed and has the $`\kappa ^+`$-cc. And to show that the final partial order has the two properties, the names for the partial orders used in the iteration must be carefully selected. The discussion here will be analogous to the discussion in the final section of  which deals with countable support iterations. Also many proofs are omited here since they are analogous to the proofs of the corresponding facts in .

Definition 8. Let $`P`$ be a partial order and $`\pi `$ a $`P`$-name for a partial order. $`\pi `$ is full for $`<\kappa `$-sequences iff whenever $`\alpha <\kappa `$, $`pP`$, $`\rho _\xi \mathrm{dom}(\pi )`$ ($`\xi <\alpha `$) and for each $`\xi <\zeta <\alpha `$

$$p\text{“ }\rho _\zeta ,\rho _\xi \pi \rho _\zeta \rho _\xi \text{ ”}$$

then there is a $`\sigma \mathrm{dom}(\pi )`$ such that $`p\text{“ }\sigma \pi \text{ ”}`$ and $`p\text{“ }\sigma \rho _\xi \text{ ”}`$ for all $`\xi <\alpha `$.

The reason for using names which are full for $`<\kappa `$-sequences is because of the following

Lemma 9. Let $`M`$ be a c.t.m. for $`ZFC`$ and in $`M`$ let

$$P_\xi :\xi \alpha ,\pi _\xi :\xi <\alpha $$

be a $`<\kappa `$-support iterated forcing construction and suppose that for each $`\xi `$, the $`P_\xi `$-name $`\pi _\xi `$ is full for $`<\kappa `$-sequences. Then $`P_\alpha `$ is $`\kappa `$-closed in $`M`$.

The next few paragraphs show how to select names for partial orders in the construction so that they are full for $`<\kappa `$-sequences. First consider the partial order which destroys a tower in $`(𝒫(\kappa ),^{})`$. Let $`ϵ`$ be a regular cardinal with $`\kappa <ϵ<\lambda `$ and $`a=a_\xi :\xi <ϵ`$ a tower in $`(𝒫(\kappa ),^{})`$. In the following subsets of $`\kappa `$ are identified with their characteristic functions.

Definition 10. $`T_a=\{(s,x):\text{ }s\text{ is a function}\mathrm{dom}(s)\kappa \mathrm{ran}(s)2x[ϵ]^{<\kappa }\}`$

with $`(s_2,x_2)(s_1,x_1)`$ iff

1) $`s_1s_2x_1x_2`$,

2) $`\xi x_1\eta \mathrm{dom}(s_2)\mathrm{dom}(s_1)(a_\xi (\eta )s_2(\eta ))`$.

Then $`T_a`$ is a partial order and it is $`\kappa `$-closed and $`\kappa ^+`$-cc (assuming $`\kappa ^{<\kappa }=\kappa `$). Let $`G`$ be $`T_a`$-generic over $`M`$ and $`b=\{s:x((s,x)G)\}`$. Since $`G`$ intersects suitably chosen dense subsets of $`T_a`$ in $`M`$, then $`b\kappa `$, $`b=\kappa b=\kappa `$ and $`\xi <ϵ(a_\xi ^{}b)`$ so that $`a`$ ceases to be a tower in $`M[G]`$.

Since the $`<\kappa `$-support iteration is sensitive to the particular names used for the partial orders, a suitable name for $`T_a`$ is formulated next.

Definition 11. Assume that $`PM`$, $`(P\text{ is }\kappa \text{-closed})^M`$ and

$$\mathrm{𝟏}\text{ “ }\tau \text{ is an }\stackrel{ˇ}{ϵ}\text{-tower in }(𝒫(\kappa ),^{})\text{ ”}.$$

A standard name for $`T_\tau `$ is $`\sigma ,_\sigma ,\mathrm{𝟏}_\sigma `$, where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \sigma =\{op(\stackrel{ˇ}{s},\rho ),\mathrm{𝟏}_P:& \text{ }s\text{ is a function }\text{ }\mathrm{dom}(s)\kappa \text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{ran}(s)2\text{ }\hfill \\ & \text{ }\mathrm{𝟏}\text{ “ }\rho \tau \rho <\kappa \text{ ”}\text{ }\text{ }\rho \text{ is a nice name for a subset of }\tau \text{ }\}\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`\mathrm{𝟏}_\sigma =op(\stackrel{ˇ}{0},\stackrel{ˇ}{0})`$.

Here $`op`$ is the invariant name for the ordered pair and $`\rho `$ is a nice name for a subset of $`\tau `$ if

$$\rho =\{\{\pi \}\times A_\pi :\pi \mathrm{dom}(\tau )$$

and each $`A_\pi `$ is an antichain in $`P`$. It is irrelevant what type of name we use for $`_\sigma `$ as long as it is forced by $`\mathrm{𝟏}_P`$ to be the correct partial order on $`T_\tau `$.

In $`M`$, let $`P`$, $`\tau `$, and $`\sigma `$ be as in the definition above. Let $`G`$ be $`P`$-generic over $`M`$ and $`a=\tau _G`$. Then in $`M[G]`$, $`\sigma _G=T_a`$. In addition, $`\sigma `$ is full for $`<\kappa `$-sequences.

The dominating function partial order is considered next. Let $`F\kappa ^\kappa `$. In the final construction $`F`$ will be equal to $`\kappa ^\kappa `$, but for the general discussion $`F`$ is any subset of $`\kappa ^\kappa `$.

Definition 12. $`D_F=\{(s,x):\text{ }s\text{ is a function }\text{ }\mathrm{dom}(s)\kappa \text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{ran}(s)\kappa \text{ }\text{ }x[F]^{<\kappa }\}`$

where $`(s_2,x_2)(s_1,x_1)`$ iff

1) $`s_1s_2x_1x_2`$,

2) $`fx_1\alpha \mathrm{dom}(s_2)\mathrm{dom}(s_1)(f(\alpha )<s_2(\alpha ))`$.

Then $`D_F`$ is a partial order and is $`\kappa `$-closed and $`\kappa ^+`$-cc (assuming $`\kappa ^{<\kappa }=\kappa `$). Let $`G`$ be $`D_F`$-generic over $`M`$ and $`g=\{s:x((s,x)G)\}`$. Then since $`G`$ intersects suitably chosen dense subsets of $`D_F`$ in $`M`$, $`g`$ is a function from $`\kappa `$ to $`\kappa `$ which eventually dominates every function in $`F`$, i.e. $`fF(f<^{}g)`$.

Definition 13. Assume that $`PM`$, $`(\text{ }P\text{ is }\kappa \text{-closed})^M`$, and $`\mathrm{𝟏}\text{ “ }\phi \kappa ^\kappa \text{ ”}`$. The standard $`P`$-name for $`D_\phi `$ is $`\psi ,_\psi ,\mathrm{𝟏}_\psi `$, where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \psi =\{op(\stackrel{ˇ}{s},\varphi ),\mathrm{𝟏}_P:& \text{ }s\text{ is a function }\text{ }\mathrm{dom}(s)\kappa \text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{ran}(s)\kappa \text{ }\hfill \\ & \text{ }\mathrm{𝟏}_P\text{ “ }\varphi \phi \varphi <\kappa \text{ ” }\text{ }\text{ }\varphi \text{ is a nice name for a subset of }\phi \text{ }\}\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`\mathrm{𝟏}_\psi =op(\stackrel{ˇ}{0},\stackrel{ˇ}{0})`$.

The choice of the $`P`$-name $`_\psi `$ is, once again, irrelevant as long as it is forced by $`\mathrm{𝟏}_P`$ to be the correct partial order on $`D_\phi `$.

In $`M`$, let $`P`$, $`\phi `$, $`\psi `$, be as above. Let $`G`$ be $`P`$-generic over $`M`$ and $`F=\phi _G`$. Then, in $`M[G]`$, $`\psi _G=D_F`$. In addition, $`\psi `$ is full for $`<\kappa `$-sequences. The use of full names for $`<\kappa `$-sequences will guarantee, as indicated earlier, that the iteration is $`\kappa `$-closed. The use of standard names will imply that the iteration also satisfies the $`\kappa ^+`$-cc so that all the cardinals are preserved in the final model.

Now follows the main result of this section.

Theorem 14. Let $`N`$ be a c.t.m. for $`ZFC+GCH`$ and, in $`N`$, let $`\kappa <\lambda \mu \theta `$ be cardinals such that $`\kappa ,\lambda ,\mu `$ are regular and $`\mathrm{cf}(\theta )>\kappa `$. Then there is a cardinal preserving extension $`M[G]`$ of $`N`$ such that

$$M[G]\text{“ }t_\kappa =\lambda b_\kappa =\mu 2^\kappa =\theta \text{ ”}.$$

Proof: Let $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ be cardinals with $`\alpha `$ regular, $`\alpha <\beta `$, and $`\mathrm{cf}(\beta )>\alpha `$. Then $`Fn(\beta \times \alpha ,2,\alpha )`$ is the standard partial order for adding $`\beta `$-many subsets of $`\alpha `$ (see ). It is $`\alpha `$-closed and $`\alpha ^+`$-cc (assuming $`\alpha ^{<\alpha }=\alpha `$), so it preserves cardinals.

Let $`N`$ be a c.t.m. for $`ZFC+GCH`$. In $`N`$, let $`\kappa <\lambda \mu \theta `$ be cardinals such that $`\kappa `$, $`\lambda `$, $`\mu `$ are regular and $`\mathrm{cf}(\theta )>\kappa `$. The goal is to produce an extension of $`N`$ in which $`t_\kappa =\lambda `$, $`b_\kappa =\mu `$ and $`2^\kappa =\theta `$. Let $`H`$ be $`Fn(\theta ^+\times \lambda ,2,\lambda )`$-generic over $`N`$ and let $`N[H]=M`$. Then

$$M\text{“ }ZFC+\xi <\lambda (2^\xi =\xi ^+)+2^\lambda =\theta ^+\text{ ”}$$

$`\kappa `$, $`\lambda `$, $`\mu `$ are still regular and all the cardinals are preserved. Now, in $`M`$, perform an iterated forcing construction of length $`\theta \mu `$ (ordinal product) with $`<\kappa `$-supports, i.e. build an iterated forcing construction

$$P_\xi :\xi \theta \mu ,\pi _\xi :\xi <\theta \mu $$

with supports of size less than $`\kappa `$.

Given $`P_\xi `$, if $`\xi `$ is not of the form $`\theta \xi `$, list all the $`P_\xi `$-names for towers in $`(𝒫(\kappa ),^{})`$ of size $`\eta `$ for all $`\kappa <\eta <\lambda `$; for example, let $`\sigma _\gamma ^\xi :\gamma <\theta `$ enumerate all $`P_\xi `$-names $`\sigma `$ such that for some $`\eta `$, with $`\kappa <\eta <\lambda `$, $`\sigma `$ is a nice $`P_\xi `$-name for a subset of $`(\eta \times \kappa )\stackrel{ˇ}{}`$ with the property that there is a name $`\tau _\gamma ^\xi `$ such that

$$\mathrm{𝟏}\text{“ }\tau _\gamma ^\xi =\{x\kappa :\zeta <\eta (x=\{\nu :(\zeta ,\nu )\sigma _\gamma ^\xi \})\}\text{ is a tower in }(𝒫(\kappa ),^{})\text{ of size }\eta \text{ ”}.$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }=(\theta \mu )\{\theta \xi :\xi <\mu \}`$ and let $`f:\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta \mu )\times \theta `$ be a bookkeeping function such that $`f`$ is onto and $`\xi ,\beta ,\gamma (f(\xi )=(\beta ,\gamma )\beta <\xi )`$. If $`f(\xi )=(\beta ,\gamma )`$, let $`\tau _\xi `$ be a $`P_\xi `$-name for the same object for which $`\tau _\gamma ^\beta `$ is a $`P_\beta `$-name. Let $`\pi _\xi `$ be the standard $`P_\xi `$-name for $`T_{\tau _\xi }`$. And if $`\xi `$ is of the form $`\theta \zeta `$, let $`\phi _\xi `$ be a $`P_\xi `$-name for $`\kappa ^\kappa `$ and let $`\pi _\xi `$ be the standard $`P_\xi `$-name for $`D_{\phi _\xi }`$. This finishes the iteration.

By Lemma 9 $`P_{\theta \mu }`$ is $`\kappa `$-closed in $`M`$. In fact, $`P_{\theta \mu }`$ has the property that each decreasing sequence of length $`<\kappa `$ has a greatest lower bound so that the set $`P^{}`$ of elements $`pP_{\theta \mu }`$ with the property that the first coordinate of $`p(\gamma )`$, for $`\gamma \mathrm{dom}(p)`$, is a real object and not just a $`P_\gamma `$-name, is dense in $`P_{\theta \mu }`$. Therefore, to show that $`P_{\theta \mu }`$ also has the $`\kappa ^+`$-cc in $`M`$ it suffices to show that $`P^{}`$ has the $`\kappa ^+`$-cc in $`M`$. So, in $`M`$, let $`p^\gamma P^{}`$ for $`\gamma <\kappa ^+`$. By $`\kappa ^{<\kappa }=\kappa `$, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-system lemma (see Theorem II 1.6 in ) implies that there is an $`X[\kappa ^+]^{\kappa ^+}`$ such that $`\{\mathrm{support}(p^\gamma ):\gamma <\kappa ^+\}`$ for a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-system with root $`r`$. Let $`p^\gamma =\rho _\xi ^\gamma :\xi <\theta \mu `$, and let $`\rho _\xi ^\gamma =op(\stackrel{ˇ}{s}_\xi ^\gamma ,\sigma _\xi ^\gamma )`$. By $`\kappa ^{<\kappa }=\kappa `$, there is a $`Y[X]^{\kappa ^+}`$ such that for all $`\xi r`$, the $`s_\xi ^\gamma `$ for $`\gamma Y`$ are all the same; say $`s_\xi ^\gamma =s_\xi `$ for $`\xi r`$ and $`\gamma Y`$. But then the $`p^\gamma `$ for $`\gamma Y`$ are pairwise compatible; to see this observe that if $`\gamma ,\delta Y`$, then $`p^\gamma `$, $`p^\delta `$ have as a common extension $`p_\xi :\xi <\theta \mu `$, where $`\rho _\xi `$ is

$`(a)`$ $`\rho _\xi ^\gamma `$ if $`\xi \mathrm{support}(p^\delta )`$,

$`(b)`$ $`\rho _\xi ^\delta `$ if $`\xi \mathrm{support}(p^\gamma )`$,

$`(c)`$ $`op(\stackrel{ˇ}{s}_\xi ,\sigma _\xi )`$ if $`\xi r`$,

where $`\sigma _\xi `$ is a nice name which satisfies $`\mathrm{𝟏}_\xi \text{“ }\sigma _\xi =\sigma _\xi ^\gamma \sigma _\xi ^\delta \text{ ”}`$. So $`P_{\theta \mu }`$ has the $`\kappa ^+`$-cc and together with being $`\kappa `$-closed preserves all the cardinal numbers. Let $`G`$ be $`P_{\theta \mu }`$-generic over $`M`$. Since at each stage of the form $`\theta \xi `$, a function from $`\kappa `$ to $`\kappa `$ is added which eventually dominates all the functions in $`\kappa ^\kappa `$ constructed by that stage, it follows that, in $`M[G]`$, there is a scale in $`(\kappa ^\kappa ,<^{})`$ of order type $`\mu `$ so that $`b_\kappa =\mu `$. In addition, since at each stage of the iteration a new element to $`\kappa ^\kappa `$ or $`𝒫(\kappa )`$ is added, it follows that $`M[G]\text{“ }2^\kappa =\theta \mu =\theta \text{ ”}`$. Finally, $`M[G]`$ contains no towers in $`(𝒫(\kappa ),^{})`$ of order type $`\eta `$ for $`\kappa <\eta <\lambda `$ since by the bookkeeping device all such towers are considered and eventually destroyed at some stage of the iteration, so that $`t_\kappa \lambda `$. However, $`M[G]\text{“ }\xi (\kappa \xi <\lambda 2^\xi =\theta )\text{ ”}`$ and $`M[G]\text{ “ }2^\lambda =\theta ^+\text{ ”}`$ since $`M\text{“ }2^\lambda =\theta ^+\text{ ”}`$ so that by the previous section $`t_\kappa =\lambda `$. This finishes the proof of this theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

References

 J. Cummings and S. Shelah, Cardinal Invariants above the Continuum, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 75 no. 3 (1995) 251–268.

 K. Kunen, Set Theory. An introduction to independence proofs, North Holland (1980).

 F. Rothberger, Sur un ensemble toujours de premiere categorie qui est depourvu de la propriété $`\lambda `$, Fundamenta Mathematicae, 32 (1939) 294–300.

 F. Rothberger, On some problems of Hausdorff and Sierpiński, Fundamenta Mathematicae, 35 (1948) 29–46.

 E. K. van Douwen, Integers in Topology, Handbook of Set-Theoretic Topology, eds. K. Kunen and J.E. Vaughan, North Holland (1984).


text:
# Seesaw model and its Lorentz group formulation

## Abstract

For two flavors, the seesaw matrix can be identified with a two dimensional representation of the Lorentz group. This analogy facilitates the computation of physical neutrino parameters, while giving an intuitive understanding of the results. It is found that the induced mixing angle exhibits resonance behavior. For maximal mixing, we derive a precise relation among the right-handed mixing angle, the Majorana mass ratio, and their phase.

*1. Introduction.—* Although the seesaw model  offers a nice explanation for small neutrino masses, its implied pattern of neutrino mixings is far from clear. In fact, the effective neutrino mass matrix, given by

$$m_{\text{eff}}=m_DM_R^1m_D^T,$$
(1)
depends on the unknown matrices $`m_D`$ and $`M_R^1`$ in a rather complicated fashion. The very structure of $`m_{\text{eff}}`$, $`m_{\text{eff}}=m_{\text{eff}}^T`$, which is a reflection of its Majorana character, introduces further difficulties in its analysis. Thus, we are accustomed to diagonalizing the mass matrix with a biunitary transformation $`m_D=U_Dm_D^{\text{diag}}V_D`$. For $`m_{\text{eff}}`$, even if we have $`M_R^1I`$, unless the right-handed (RH) matrix $`V_D`$ is real and orthogonal, $`m_Dm_D^T`$ depends non-trivially on $`V_D`$, which will actually contribute to the left-handed (LH) physical neutrino mixing matrix.

Now, it is generally believed that $`m_D`$ is similar to the quark mass matrix, so that $`U_DI`$. One therefore hopes that $`V_D`$, combined with $`M_R^1`$, can contribute significantly to the LH neutrino mixing, especially since there is strong evidence  for maximal mixing amongst $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$. A number of papers \[3-9\] have been devoted to this goal. In this paper we first establish the mathematical equivalence of the seesaw matrix, in two flavors, with a two dimensional representation of the Lorentz group. This analogy enables us to get simple, exact, solutions relating the physical neutrino parameters to those of $`m_D`$ and $`M_R^1`$. These solutions also elucidate the nature of the problem, as well as offer physical insight into the results.

*2. Connection to the Lorentz group.—* We start with Eq.(1), with all matrices being $`2\times 2`$. The mass matrices $`m_D`$ and $`M_R^1`$ can be diagonalized,

$$m_D=U_D\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_1& \\ & m_2\end{array}\right)V_D,$$
(2)
$$M_R^1=V_M\left(\begin{array}{cc}R_1^2& \\ & R_2^2\end{array}\right)V_M^T,$$
(3)
where $`U_D`$, $`V_D`$ and $`V_M`$ are general SU(2) rotations. We have written the eigenvalues of $`M_R^1`$ as $`R_i^2`$, so that $`R_1^2=1/M_1,R_2^2=1/M_2`$. Also, without loss of generality, we take $`m_i`$ and $`R_i`$ to be real and positive. Let us introduce the variables:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\xi =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(m_2/m_1),& & \eta =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(R_1/R_2),\hfill \end{array}`$ (5)
$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_1& \\ & m_2\end{array}\right)=\sqrt{m_1m_2}e^{\xi \sigma _3},$$
(6)
$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}R_1^2& \\ & R_2^2\end{array}\right)=(R_1R_2)e^{2\eta \sigma _3}.$$
(7)
In this parametrization, $`m_{\text{eff}}`$ is a product of matrices of the form $`\mathrm{exp}(i\theta _j\sigma _j)`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(\zeta \sigma _3)`$. Since the two dimensional representations of the Lorentz group are $`J_i=\sigma _i/2`$ (rotations) and $`K_i=i\sigma _i/2`$ (boosts), $`m_{\text{eff}}`$ itself represents a Lorentz transformation. The parameters $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ correspond to the rapidity variables. Our results will be conveniently expressed in the variables:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cosh}2\xi =\frac{m_1^2+m_2^2}{2m_1m_2},& & \mathrm{sinh}2\xi =\frac{m_1^2+m_2^2}{2m_1m_2},\hfill \end{array}`$ (9)
$`\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cosh}2\eta =\frac{M_1+M_2}{2\sqrt{M_1M_2}},& & \mathrm{sinh}2\eta =\frac{M_1+M_2}{2\sqrt{M_1M_2}}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (11)
*3. Two flavor seesaw model and its exact solutions.—* Having established the correspondence between the Lorentz transformation and the two flavor seesaw model, we proceed to use this analogy to obtain its exact solutions.

Using Eqs.(2) and (3), Eq.(1) is given by

$$m_{\text{eff}}=U_Dm_D^{\text{diag}}V_R(M_R^{\text{diag}})^1V_R^Tm_D^{\text{diag}}U_D^T,$$
(12)
$$V_R=V_DV_M.$$
(13)
We will assume that $`U_DI`$. Thus, we consider

$$m_{\text{eff}}^{}=U_D^{}m_{\text{eff}}U_D^{}=NN^T,$$
(14)
$$N=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_1& \\ & m_2\end{array}\right)V_R\left(\begin{array}{cc}R_1& \\ & R_2\end{array}\right),$$
(15)
$$W^Tm_{\text{eff}}^{}W=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\mu }_1& \\ & \overline{\mu }_2\end{array}\right),$$
(16)
where the LH matrix $`W`$ gives the induced neutrino mixing due to the RH sector of the seesaw model, $`V_R`$ and $`(M_R^{\text{diag}})^{1/2}`$. A common goal for model builders is to find those matrices which can give rise to large mixing angles in $`W`$. Note that, since $`W`$ is a general SU(2) matrix, care must be taken to define the mixing angle. If we use the Euler parametrization, $`W=\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _1\sigma _3)\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _2\sigma _2)\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _3\sigma _3)`$, then it is not hard to verify that $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ do not contribute to neutrino oscillations. Thus, this parametrization defines a unique physical mixing angle, $`\varphi _2`$.

For $`V_R`$, we also choose the Euler parametrization

$$V_R=e^{i\alpha \sigma _3}e^{i\beta \sigma _2}e^{i\gamma \sigma _3}.$$
(17)
Combined with the Lorentz parametrization Eq.(5) and Eq.(6), we see that the angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ can be absorbed into $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ as their imaginary part. Thus, we can also interpret $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ as the phases for complex mass eigenvalues. In particular, $`\gamma =\pi /4`$ yields

$$e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}\sigma _3}M_R^{\text{diag}}e^{i\frac{\pi }{4}\sigma _3}=e^{i\frac{\pi }{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_1& \\ & M_2\end{array}\right),$$
(18)
corresponding to Majorana masses with opposite signs. We define

$$\overline{N}=(m_1m_2)^{1/2}(R_1R_2)^{1/2}N=e^{\overline{\xi }\sigma _3}e^{i\beta \sigma _2}e^{\overline{\eta }\sigma _3},$$
(19)
where, with $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ defined in Eq.(4),

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\xi }=\xi i\alpha ,& & \overline{\eta }=\eta +i\gamma .\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
For clarity, let’s first concentrate on the case $`\alpha =\gamma =0`$,

$$\overline{N}_0=e^{\xi \sigma _3}e^{i\beta \sigma _2}e^{\eta \sigma _3}.$$
(21)
It is clear, in the Lorentz transformation language, that $`\overline{N}_0e^{i\beta \sigma _2}`$ corresponds to the combination of two boosts:

$$\overline{N}_0e^{i\beta \sigma _2}=e^{\xi \sigma _3}e^{\eta (\mathrm{cos}2\beta \sigma _3+\mathrm{sin}2\beta \sigma _1)}.$$
(22)
As in the addition of velocities in special relativity, the result is a boost plus a rotation,

$`\overline{N}_0e^{i\beta \sigma _2}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\lambda (\mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Theta }\sigma _3+\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Theta }\sigma _1)}e^{i\psi \sigma _2}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }\sigma _2}e^{\lambda \sigma _3}e^{i(\mathrm{\Theta }+\psi )\sigma _2}.`$ (24)
The resultant boost is along the $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ direction with rapidity parameter $`\lambda `$, while  the Thomas precession angle is given by $`\psi `$. Thus, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the induced LH physical neutrino mixing angle while $`e^{4\lambda }`$ is the mass ratio of the physical neutrinos.

To evaluate $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\lambda `$, we can by-pass the computation of $`\psi `$ by diagonalizing $`\overline{N}\text{ }\overline{N}^T`$. Since the procedure is valid whether $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ are complex or real, we will consider the general case. We find (for complex $`\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\mathrm{\Theta }_R+i\mathrm{\Theta }_I`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }=\lambda _R+i\lambda _I`$)

$`\overline{N}\text{ }\overline{N}^T`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\sigma _2}e^{2\overline{\lambda }\sigma _3}e^{i\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\sigma _2}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`e^{\overline{\xi }\sigma _3}e^{2\overline{\eta }(\mathrm{cos}2\beta \sigma _3+\mathrm{sin}2\beta \sigma _1)}e^{\overline{\xi }\sigma _3}`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cosh}2\overline{\xi }\mathrm{cosh}2\overline{\eta }\mathrm{cos}2\beta \mathrm{sinh}2\overline{\xi }\mathrm{sinh}2\overline{\eta }+`$ (29)
$`[\mathrm{sinh}2\overline{\xi }\mathrm{cosh}2\overline{\eta }+\mathrm{cos}2\beta \mathrm{cosh}2\overline{\xi }\mathrm{sinh}2\overline{\eta }]\sigma _3`$
$`+[\mathrm{sin}2\beta \mathrm{sinh}2\overline{\eta }]\sigma _1.`$
It follows that

$$\mathrm{tan}2\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\beta \mathrm{sinh}2\overline{\eta }}{\mathrm{cosh}2\overline{\eta }\mathrm{sinh}2\overline{\xi }+\mathrm{cos}2\beta \mathrm{sinh}2\overline{\eta }\mathrm{cosh}2\overline{\xi }},$$
(30)
$$\mathrm{cosh}2\overline{\lambda }=\mathrm{cosh}2\overline{\xi }\mathrm{cosh}2\overline{\eta }\mathrm{cos}2\beta \mathrm{sinh}2\overline{\xi }\mathrm{sinh}2\overline{\eta }.$$
(31)
Eqs.(22) and (23) form the complete solution of the seesaw model. In terms of the definitions in Eq.(13), the neutrino parameters ($`\mu _i=|\overline{\mu }_i|`$) are given by

$`\begin{array}{ccc}W=e^{i\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}\sigma _2},& & e^{4\lambda _R}=\mu _1/\mu _2,\hfill \end{array}`$ (33)
with $`\mu _1\mu _2=(m_1^2m_2^2)/(M_1M_2)`$. Thus, Eqs.(22) and (23) constitute a pair of concise relations between the physical neutrino parameters ($`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and $`\lambda `$) with those of the Majorana sector ($`\beta `$, $`M_1/M_2`$ and the phase $`\gamma `$).

In the approximation $`U_D=I`$, the phase matrix (Eq.(14)) $`\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha \sigma _3)`$ can be absorbed by the charged leptons. More generally, we have $`U_D\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha \sigma _3)=\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha \sigma _3)U_D^{}`$, with $`U_D^{}=\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha \sigma _3)U_D\mathrm{exp}(i\alpha \sigma _3)`$. If we assume that all angles in $`U_D`$ are small, then so are the angles in $`U_D^{}`$. Thus, the phase $`\alpha `$ can be chosen arbitrarily for our analysis, with the understanding that we should replace $`U_D`$ by $`U_D^{}`$. The physical neutrino mixing matrix is given by $`U_D^{}W`$, which is approximately $`W`$.

*4. Detailed analysis and numerical results.—* We now turn to studying the implications of Eqs.(22-23). In Eq.(22), the $`\overline{\eta }`$ dependence is in terms of

$`\mathrm{coth}2\overline{\eta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1(M_1/M_2)^22i(M_1/M_2)\mathrm{sin}4\gamma }{1+(M_1/M_2)^22(M_1/M_2)\mathrm{cos}4\gamma }}`$ (34)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_R+i\mathrm{\Sigma }_I.`$ (35)
We can choose $`\alpha `$ to make $`\mathrm{tan}2\overline{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ real,

$$\mathrm{tan}2\alpha =\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_I}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_R\mathrm{coth}2\xi \mathrm{cos}2\beta },$$
(36)
$$\mathrm{tan}2\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\beta /(\mathrm{cos}2\alpha \mathrm{cosh}2\xi )}{\mathrm{cos}2\beta \mathrm{\Sigma }_R\mathrm{tanh}2\xi \mathrm{\Sigma }_I\mathrm{tan}2\alpha }$$
(37)
We will now consider special cases of Eq.(27) in more detail. For $`\gamma =0`$, so that $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_I=0`$, corresponding to same sign Majorana masses, we have

$$\mathrm{tan}2\mathrm{\Theta }_0=\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\beta /\mathrm{cosh}2\xi }{(\mathrm{tanh}2\xi /\mathrm{tanh}2\eta )+\mathrm{cos}2\beta }.$$
(38)
When $`\gamma =\pi /4`$, again $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Sigma }_I=0`$, corresponding to opposite sign Majorana masses (Eq.(15)), we obtain

$$\mathrm{tan}2\mathrm{\Theta }_{\pi /4}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\beta /\mathrm{cosh}2\xi }{(\mathrm{tanh}2\xi \mathrm{tanh}2\eta )+\mathrm{cos}2\beta }.$$
(39)
Eqs.(28-29) are just like the well-known formulae of phase shift for resonance scattering , $`\delta =\mathrm{tan}^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }/(EE_0))`$, with ($`M_1/M_2`$) playing the role of $`E`$. Given $`\xi `$, for $`\gamma =0`$, the denominator of $`\mathrm{tan}2\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$ (Eq.(28)) can vanish only if $`\mathrm{cos}2\beta >\mathrm{tanh}2\xi `$. For $`\gamma =\pi /4`$, $`\mathrm{tanh}2\mathrm{\Theta }_{\pi /4}`$ can become infinite only if $`\mathrm{cos}2\beta <\mathrm{tanh}2\xi `$. We have thus the resonance conditions for the physical neutrino mixing angle ($`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi /4`$)

$$\mathrm{tanh}2\eta =\frac{\mathrm{tanh}2\xi }{\mathrm{cos}2\beta },\text{ }(\mathrm{cos}2\beta >\mathrm{tanh}2\xi ,\gamma =0);$$
(40)
$$\mathrm{tanh}2\eta =\frac{\mathrm{cos}2\beta }{\mathrm{tanh}2\xi },\text{ }(\mathrm{cos}2\beta <\mathrm{tanh}2\xi ,\gamma =\pi /4).$$
(41)
When we assume lepton quark symmetry $`(m_1/m_2)1`$, so that $`\mathrm{tanh}2\xi 12(m_1/m_2)^2`$, with $`\mathrm{tanh}2\eta =(1M_1/M_2)/(1+M_1/M_2)`$, these resonance conditions become

$$\frac{M_1}{M_2}(\frac{m_1}{m_2})^2\beta ^2,\text{ }(\mathrm{cos}2\beta >\mathrm{tanh}2\xi ),$$
(42)
$$\frac{M_1}{M_2}\frac{1\mathrm{cos}2\beta }{1+\mathrm{cos}2\beta },\text{ }(\mathrm{cos}2\beta <\mathrm{tanh}2\xi ).$$
(43)
Note that the condition $`\mathrm{cos}2\beta >\mathrm{tanh}2\xi `$ is a very stringent constraint on $`\beta `$, since one usually assumes ($`m_1/m_2)^210^4`$.

These results are illustrated numerically in Fig.1, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is plotted versus $`M_1/M_2`$. Positive (negative) values for $`M_1/M_2`$ correspond to the cases $`\gamma =0`$ $`(\gamma =\pi /4)`$, respectively. The resonance behavior of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is obvious. The widths of the resonances are narrow, being proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta /\mathrm{cosh}2\xi `$. This means that if $`\mathrm{\Theta }\pi /4`$, as is suggested by experimental data, the value of $`M_1/M_2`$ is determined by $`\xi `$ and $`\beta `$ rather precisely. Furthermore, this conclusion is not compromised by the original LH mixing matrix $`U_D`$(Eq.(11)), as long as the angles in $`U_D`$ are reasonably small.

For arbitrary $`\gamma `$, we turn to Eq.(27). Here, the behavior of $`\mathrm{tan}2\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is quite intriguing. Let us use the approximation $`\mathrm{tanh}2\xi 1`$ and define

$$X=\mathrm{cos}2\beta \mathrm{\Sigma }_R.$$
(44)
Then $`\mathrm{tan}2\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_I/X`$. In this approximation,

$$\mathrm{tan}2\mathrm{\Theta }(\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\beta }{\mathrm{sin}2\alpha \mathrm{cosh}2\xi })\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_I}{X^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }_I^2}.$$
(45)
Thus, $`\mathrm{tan}2\mathrm{\Theta }`$ exhibits a typical Lorentzian shape with width $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_I`$ and peaks at $`X=0`$, or

$$\mathrm{cos}2\beta =\mathrm{\Sigma }_R=\frac{1(M_1/M_2)^2}{1+(M_1/M_2)^22(M_1/M_2)\mathrm{cos}4\gamma }.$$
(46)
Given $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$, we can find a solution of Eq.(36) for $`M_1/M_2`$, which gives the location of the peak value of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_I`$ is small ($`\gamma \pi /4`$), $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ can almost attain its maximum ($`\mathrm{\Theta }=\pi /4`$). For large $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_I`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ remains small. There is one final subtlety. It seems that the transition from $`\gamma =\pi /4`$ to $`\gamma <\pi /4`$ is discontinuous, since the behavior of $`\mathrm{tan}2\mathrm{\Theta }`$, at $`\gamma =\pi /4`$, is $`1/X`$. However, the sign of $`\mathrm{tan}2\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is not physical. This corresponds to the unobservable rotation $`\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{\pi }{2}\sigma _3)`$. The transition of $`\mathrm{tan}2\mathrm{\Theta }1/|X|`$ at $`\gamma =\pi /4`$ to Eq.(35) is “smooth”.

The above approximation is not valid if $`\mathrm{cos}2\beta \mathrm{tanh}2\xi `$. In this case, one can show numerically that $`\mathrm{tanh}2\mathrm{\Theta }`$ remains large for a wide range of $`\gamma `$ values, provided that $`M_1/M_2`$ is very small ($`M_1/M_21\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$). Summarizing, if $`m_1/m_21`$, for most part of the parameter region, the angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is small. There are two narrow regions in which $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is large: 1) $`\mathrm{cos}2\beta \mathrm{tanh}2\xi `$, $`M_1/M_21\mathrm{cos}2\beta `$, $`0\gamma <\pi /4`$; 2) $`\mathrm{cos}2\beta <\mathrm{tanh}2\xi `$, $`M_1/M_2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$, $`\gamma \pi /4`$.

We now turn to a discussion of the effective neutrino masses ($`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$). Eq.(23) yields both the ratio ($`\mu _1/\mu _2`$) and the relative phase of the eigenvalues. Given the parameters $`\xi `$ and $`\beta `$, $`\overline{\eta }`$ (or ($`M_1/M_2`$) and the phase $`\gamma `$) determines not only the mixing angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, but also the masses.

In Fig. 2, we plot the physical neutrino mixing angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ versus $`\mathrm{cosh}2\lambda _R`$, for real Majorana masses ($`\gamma =0`$ or $`\pi /4`$). In Fig. 2a we choose $`\mathrm{cosh}2\beta >\mathrm{tanh}2\xi `$, so that $`\mathrm{\Theta }\pi /4`$ for very small values of $`M_1/M_2`$. We see that $`\mathrm{cosh}2\lambda _R`$ can be large (i.e., $`\mu _2/\mu _11`$). This corresponds to the approximate result obtained earlier in reference . The case $`\mathrm{cos}2\beta <\mathrm{tanh}2\xi `$ is depicted in Fig. 2b. Here, it is seen that near $`\mathrm{\Theta }\pi /4`$, $`\mathrm{cosh}2\lambda _R1`$ ($`\mu _1\mu _2`$). Thus, for the solution in Eq.(29), with opposite sign Majorana masses, the effective neutrino masses are nearly degenerate (and of opposite sign).

*5. Discussions.—* In this paper, the two flavor seesaw matrix is shown to form a two dimensional representation of the Lorentz group. This property enables one to diagonalize the seesaw matrix concisely in terms of the Lorentz parameters. Mass ratios correspond to rapidity parameters, while phases for complex mass eigenvalues are associated with rotations along the third axis. The neutrino mixing angle corresponds to the direction of the combined boost from all of the seesaw components. It is thus not surprising that RH rotations contribute to the LH physical mixing. Also, Majorana CP phases, interpreted as rotations, can and do impact directly on the physical neutrino mixing and mass eigenvalues. In fact, our result shows that the phase ($`\gamma `$) should be treated on the same footing as the mixing angle ($`\beta `$).

Our main result is that the physical parameters at low energies are precisely related to those at high energies. It is found that, as a function of $`M_1/M_2`$ and assuming $`m_1/m_21`$, the neutrino mixing angle ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }`$) exhibits the shape of a spectral line. The position and width are precisely determined by $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\xi `$. To get maximal mixing, one solution is $`M_1/M_2(m_1/m_2)^2`$ and $`\gamma =0`$. However, the angle $`\beta `$ must be extremely small. Another solution requires $`(M_1/M_2)\mathrm{tan}^2\beta `$ and $`\gamma =\pi /4`$. This solution implies almost degenerate physical neutrinos. In between these $`(M_1/M_2)`$ and $`\gamma `$ values we can also have large mixing, with decreasing angles as $`\gamma `$ moves away from the two end points. All of these resonance conditions dictate very stringent correlations between the Dirac and Majorana sectors. This poses a severe challenge to model building—any successful model would have to find a way to knit the two sectors tightly together.

In this work we did not treat the three flavor problem. To find an exact solution is quite a technical challenge. Fortunately, we believe that most of the essential physics is already covered by the two flavor model. In fact, many of the three flavor models in the literature correspond to two flavor models with small mixings to the third flavor. They can be solved approximately by our method. We hope to return to a systematic analysis of the three flavor in the future.

*6. Acknowledgments.—* We would like to thank our colleagues, Louis Balazs, Tom Clark, and Sadek Mansour, for helpful discussions. We also thank Prof. B. Stech for a useful correspondence. T. K. K. is supported in part by DOE grant No. DE-FG02-91ER40681. G. H. W. is supported in part by DOE grant No. DE-FG03-96ER40969. S. H. C. is supported by the Purdue Research Foundation.


text:
# 1 Allowed region of the unitarity triangle at 95% C.L.

## Acknowledgments

This talk was based on work done in collaboration with Boris Kayser. I thank the organizers of PASCOS ’99 for a stimulating conference. This work was financially supported by NSERC of Canada.