2
of the interaction terms in the Lagrangian, computing the decay width for two different models (‘model I’ and ‘model
II’ [25]). These two models corresponded to the ‘second example’ and ‘fourth example’ of Ref. [27] (while the ‘first
example’ corresponded to the Cohen and Glashow result), where the dependence of decay rates on the choice of the
dynamical matrix elements was also examined. Moreover, Ref. [27] considered different choices of modified dispersion
relation for neutrinos, going beyond the case of an energy-independent velocity.
The choice of the ‘model II’ in Ref. [25] and of the ‘fourth example’ in Ref. [27] was motivated by a gauge invariance
argument, which, as we will explain, is not satisfactory. There are in fact some concerns about the theoretical
consistency of an scenario where all the effects of LIV are restricted to the neutrino sector. In the extension of the SM
within the effective field theory framework [1], one considers all possible terms involving the SM fields compatible with
the gauge symmetry of the SM. This would lead to gauge covariant derivatives, instead of usual derivatives, acting
on the SU (2) doublet of left handed fields, including the neutrino and charged lepton fields. Then, one would have,
in principle, together with the LIV corrections on neutrinos, a similar correction on the charged leptons, which may
be incompatible with the above mentioned constraints in the charged lepton sector. It is a technical curiosity that, as
explained in Ref. [28], one can have different LIV parameters for a charged lepton and its neutrino in gauge-invariant
models under a restricted set of gauge transformations, within the SU (2)Lgauge group, if the models only involve the
interaction with the Z0(so that the interaction Lagrangian is diagonal in SU(2)Lspace). The ‘model II’ in Ref. [25]
and the ‘fourth example’ in Ref. [27] are precisely examples of this situation. Indeed, a limitation of all the above
mentioned calculations of decay rates of superluminal neutrinos is that they were made considering only the neutral
weak current. The complete model, however, contains the charged weak current, which means that the introduction
of a LIV term at the level of the covariant derivatives is not a way to reconcile gauge invariance with a LIV affecting
differently neutrinos and charged leptons.
There remain two possibilities to escape the argument that the LIV corrections should affect equally neutrinos as
charged leptons. The first one is to assume that LIV corrections involve the lepton fields only through the gauge
invariant product of the Higgs doublet and the lepton doublet [27]. Then, one can use derivatives of the invariant
product and, when one replaces the Higgs doublet by its vacuum expectation value, the invariant product reduces to
the neutrino field multiplied by a constant and one can obtain a LIV term involving only the neutrino field. This is
one way to generate LIV effects affecting only the neutrino sector consistently with the gauge invariance of the SM.
A more speculative alternative is the possibility that, together with the loss of Lorentz invariance, one had also to
consider a departure from the gauge symmetries defining the Lorentz invariant SM. Indeed, as argued in [29], LIV
violates gauge invariance within general relativity. Lacking a well defined origin of the (possible) corrections to the
SM, and also taking into account the very special role that neutrinos play within the SM, one should keep an open
mind on the possibility of a relation between the violation of the Lorentz and the gauge symmetries of the SM, as
previously pointed out in [29, 30]. Any of these two possibilities leads to the introduction of LIV terms at the level
of the free Lagrangian for the neutrino fields, and exclude these terms at the level of the interaction with the gauge
fields.
As indicated above, LIV effects motivated by quantum gravity are expected to become more relevant as the energy
increases, which means a velocity of superluminal neutrinos which depends on the energy, or, more precisely, on
(E/Λ)n, where Λis the quantum-gravity-motivated LIV scale, and nthe order of the correction. The linear case,
n= 1, corresponds to d= 5 operators in the Lagrangian, and the quadratic case, n= 2, to d= 6 operators. Besides
this motivation, a correction due to LIV in the neutrino energy-momentum relation increasing with the energy provides
a natural mechanism for the suppression of LIV effects at low energies, where one has the more precise tests of Lorentz
invariance.
In [31], a first attempt to consider n= 2 Planck-scale suppressed LIV effects on the cosmogenic neutrino spectrum
was presented. An estimate of the decay width of a superluminal neutrino into three neutrinos (neutrino splitting),
based on a rough approximation of the integral over the phase-space volume of the three particles in the final state,
led to the prediction that one would have a cutoff at an energy in the interval (1018 eV,1019 eV), preceded by a bump
in the cosmogenic neutrino spectrum. Motivated by a hint of a suppression in the final part of the flux of astrophysical
neutrinos detected by IceCube [32], a study of the possible effects of n= 1 and n= 2 LIV in the neutrino astrophysical
spectrum at energies around the PeV scale was pursued in [33, 34], using the expressions of the decay width which
had been obtained by the explicit calculations of Ref. [27]. The numerical results in Ref. [33] contained, however,
some uncertainties, because of two facts: the computation of Ref. [27] only included the pair-creation process, and
only through the Z0exchange. Neutrino splitting had been the subject of a detailed calculation in Ref. [35], but only
in the energy-independent (but flavor-dependent) velocity case.
The aim of this work is to go beyond the previous limitations and present a calculation that allows one to include
both the neutrino splitting process and the charged weak bosons exchange in the computation of the decay width for
a generic n > 0 (n∈N)neutrino superluminal case. We will do that by considering systematically the three body
decay of a superluminal particle and will use this approach to determine the energy distribution of neutrinos in the
decay of a superluminal neutrino. This may be useful for more detailed studies of the possible effects of this kind