Table Of ContentInternational JournalofModernPhysicsA hep-ph/0407200
(cid:13)c WorldScientificPublishingCompany
6
0
LORENTZ-NONINVARIANT NEUTRINO OSCILLATIONS:
0
MODEL AND PREDICTIONS
2
n
a
J FRANSR.KLINKHAMER
6 Institute for Theoretical Physics, Universityof Karlsruhe (TH), 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany
[email protected]
5
v
Received8December 2004
0
0
2 We present a three-parameter neutrino-oscillation model for three flavors of massless
7 neutrinos with Fermi-point splitting and tri-maximal mixing angles. One of these pa-
0 rameters is the T–violating phase ǫ, for which the experimental results from K2K and
4 KamLAND appear to favor a nonzero value. In this article, we give further model pre-
0 dictionsforneutrinooscillations.Upcomingexperiments willbeabletotestthissimple
/ model and the general idea of Fermi-point splitting. Possible implications for proposed
h experiments andneutrinofactoriesarealsodiscussed.
p
- Keywords: Nonstandardneutrinos;Lorentznoninvariance; quantum phasetransition
p
e PACSnumbers:14.60.St, 11.30.Cp,73.43.Nq
h
:
v
1. Introduction
i
X
Severalexperiments ofthe lastfew years1–9 have presented(indirect) evidence for
r
a neutrino oscillations over a travel distance L & 100km. No evidence for neutrino
oscillations has been seen at L.1km.10,11
The standard explanation for neutrino oscillations invokes the mass-difference
mechanism; see, e.g., Refs. 12–16 for a selection of researchpapers and Refs. 17–18
for two recent reviews. Another possibility, based on an analogy with condensed-
matter physics,19 is the Fermi-point-splitting mechanism suggestedby Volovik and
the present author. The idea is that a quantum phase transition could give rise to
LorentznoninvarianceandCPTviolationvia the splitting ofa multiply degenerate
Fermi point; see Ref. 20 for an introduction and Ref. 21 for details. Regardless of
the origin, it may be worthwhile to study modifications of the neutrino dispersion
law other than mass terms, Fermi-point splitting being one of the simplest such
modifications.
A first comparison of this Lorentz-noninvariant mechanism for neutrino oscil-
lations with the current experimental data from K2K and KamLAND (with addi-
tional input from Super–Kamiokande) was presented in Ref. 22. Rough agreement
wasfoundforatwo-parametermodelwithtri-maximalmixingangles.Thecompar-
ison with the experimental data indicated a scale of the order of 10−12 eV for the
Fermi-point splitting of the neutrinos and showed a preference for a nonzero value
1
2 Frans R. Klinkhamer
of the T–violating phase ǫ. (Note that this phase ǫ differs, in general, from the one
associated with mass terms, which will be denoted by δ in the following.)
In this article, we discuss in detail a three-parameter model with tri-maximal
mixing,whichisa directextensionofthe previoustwo-parametermodel.We, then,
try to make specific predictions for possible futurea experiments, e.g., MINOS,23,24
ICARUS,25 OPERA,26 T2K,27,28 NOνA,29 BNL–ν,30 beta beams,31 neutrino
factories,32,33 and reactor experiments.34
Let us emphasize, right from the start, that the model considered is only one
of the simplest possible. It could very well be that the mixing angles are not tri-
maximal and that there are additional mass-difference effects. However, with both
mass differences and Fermi-point splittings present, there is a multitude of mixing
angles and phases to consider. For this reason,we study in the present article only
the simple Fermi-point-splitting model with tri-maximal mixing and zero mass dif-
ferences, which, at least, makes the predictions unambiguous. Also, it is not our
goal to give the best possible fit to all the existing experimental data on neutrino
oscillations but, rather, to look for qualitatively new effects (e.g., T and CPT vio-
lation).
Theoutlineofthisarticleisasfollows.InSection2,wediscussthegeneralformof
thedispersionlawwithFermi-pointsplitting.InSection3,wepresentasimplethree-
parameter model for three flavors of massless neutrinos with Fermi-point splitting
and tri-maximal mixing angles. In Section 4, we calculate the neutrino-oscillation
probabilitiesforthemodelconsidered.InSection5,weobtainpreliminaryvaluesfor
the three parameters of the model and make both general and specific predictions
(the latter are for MINOS and T2K in particular). In Section 6, finally, we sketch
a few scenarios of what future neutrino-oscillation experiments could tell us about
the relevance of the Fermi-point-splitting model.
2. Fermi-Point Splitting
Inthe limitofvanishingYukawacouplings,the StandardModelfermions aremass-
less Weyl fermions, which have the following dispersion law:
2
E (p) 2 = c p +b(f) , (1)
a,f | | 0a
for three-momentum p, vel(cid:0)ocity of(cid:1)light(cid:16)c, and param(cid:17)eters b(f) = 0. Here, a labels
0a
thesixteentypesofmasslessleft-handedWeylfermionsintheStandardModel(with
a hypothetical left-handed antineutrino included) and f distinguishes the three
known fermionfamilies. For right-handedWeyl fermions and the same parameters,
the plus sign inside the square on the right-hand side of Eq. (1) becomes a minus
sign; cf. Refs. 21, 35.
TheWeylfermionsoftheoriginalStandardModelhaveallb(f)inEq.(1)vanish-
0a
ing, which makes for a multiply degenerate Fermi point p=0. [Fermi points (gap
aSpeakingabout“current”and“future”experiments,areferencedateofJuly2004hasbeenused,
whichcorrespondstotheoriginalversionofthepresentarticle[arXiv:hep-ph/0407200v1].
Lorentz-Noninvariant Neutrino Oscillations 3
nodes) p are points in three-dimensional momentum space at which the energy
n
spectrum E(p) of the fermionic quasi-particle has a zero, i.e., E(p )=0.]
n
Negativeparametersb(f) inthedispersionlaw(1)splitthis multiplydegenerate
0a
Fermi point into Fermi surfaces. [Fermi surfaces S are two-dimensional surfaces
n
in three-dimensionalmomentum space on which the energy spectrum E(p) is zero,
i.e., E(p) = 0 for all p S .] Positive parameters b(f) make the respective Fermi
∈ n 0a
points disappearaltogether,the absolute valueofthe energybeing largerthanzero
for all momenta. See Refs. 20, 21 for a discussion of the quantum phase transition
associatedwithFermi-pointsplitting.Notethatthedispersionlaw(1)withnonzero
parameters b(f) selects a class of preferred reference frames; cf. Refs. 35–37.
0a
PossibleeffectsofFermi-pointsplittingincludeneutrinooscillations,21,22aslong
as the neutrinos are not too much affected by the mechanism of mass generation.
Thehope isthatmassless(ornearlymassless)neutrinosprovideawindowon“new
physics,”withLorentzinvarianceperhapsasemergentphenomenon.19 Letus,then,
turn to the phenomenology of massless neutrinos with Fermi-point splittings.
We start from the observation that the Fermi-point splittings of the Stan-
dard Model fermions may have a special pattern tracing back to the underly-
ing physics, just as happens for the so-called α–phase of spin-triplet pairing in
superconductors.20,21 Asanexample,considerthe followingfactorizedAnsatz21 for
the timelike splittings of Fermi points:
b(f) =Y b(f), (2)
0a a 0
for a = 1,...,16 and f = 1,2,3. Given the hypercharge values Y of the Standard
a
Model fermions, there is only one arbitrary energy scale b per family.
0
The motivation of the particular choice (2) is that the induced electromagnetic
Chern–Simons-like term cancels out exactly (the result is directly related to the
absence ofperturbativegaugeanomaliesin the StandardModel). This cancellation
mechanism allows for b(f) values larger than the experimental upper limit on the
0a
Chern–Simons energy scale,37 which is of the order of 10−33 eV. Other radiative
effects from nonzero b(f) remain to be calculated; cf. Ref. 38.
0a
The dispersion law of a massless left-handed neutrino (hypercharge Y = 1)
νL −
is now given by
2
E (p) 2 = c p b(f) , (3)
νL,f | |− 0
with f = 1,2,3, for three(cid:0)neutrinos(cid:1). The(cid:16)correspondi(cid:17)ng right-handed antineutrino
is taken to have the following dispersion law:
2
E (p) 2 = c p +σb(f) , (4)
ν¯R,f | | 0
with σ = 1. Starting (cid:0)from Dira(cid:1)c fer(cid:16)mions, the na(cid:17)tural choice would be σ =
±
1; cf. Refs. 21, 35. But, in the absence of a definitive mechanism for the Fermi-
−
point splitting, we keep both possibilities open. We do not consider the further
generalization of having σ in Eq. (4) depend on the family index f.
4 Frans R. Klinkhamer
Thedispersionlaws(3)and(4)canbeconsideredindependentlyoftheparticular
splitting pattern for the other Standard Model fermions, of which Eq. (2) is only
one example.The parametersb(f) in these neutrino dispersionlaws actas chemical
0
potentials.Thismaybecomparedtotheroleofrestmassinageneralizeddispersion
law:
E(p) 2 = c p b 2+m2c4 c p b + m2c4 2, (5)
| |± 0 ∼ | |± 0 2c p
(cid:0) (cid:1) (cid:16) (cid:17) (cid:18) | |(cid:19)
for p max (b /c,mc). The energy change froma nonzero b always dominates
0 0
| |≫ | |
theeffectfrommc2forlargeenoughmomenta p.InordertosearchforFermi-point
| |
splitting,itis,therefore,preferableto use neutrinobeams withthe highestpossible
energy.
3. Neutrino Model
Now define three flavor states A , B , C in terms of the left-handed propagation
| i | i | i
states 1 , 2 , 3 , which have dispersion law (3) with parameters b(f), f = 1,2,3.
| i | i | i 0
With a unitary 3 3 matrix U, the relation between these states is
×
A 1
| i | i
B = U 2 . (6)
| i | i
C 3
| i | i
The matrix U can be parametrized17,18 by three mixing angles, χ ,χ ,χ
13 21 32
∈
[0,π/2], and one phase, ǫ [0,2π]:
∈
1 0 0 c 0 +s e+iǫ c s 0
13 13 21 21
U 0 c s 0 1 0 s c 0 , (7)
32 32 21 21
≡0 s c · s e−iǫ 0 c ·−0 0 1
32 32 13 13
− −
using the standard notation s and c for sinχ and cosχ .
ij ij ij ij
Inthisarticle,wegeneralizetheAnsatz ofRef.22byallowingforunequal(r =1)
6
(ji) (j) (i)
energysteps∆b b b betweenthefirstandsecondfamilies(i,j =1,2)and
0 ≡ 0 − 0
betweenthesecondandthird(i,j =2,3).Specifically,weintroducetheparameters
B ∆b(21) b(2) b(1), r ∆b(32)/∆b(21) b(3) b(2) /B , (8)
0 ≡ 0 ≡ 0 − 0 ≡ 0 0 ≡ 0 − 0 0
which are assumedto be nonnegative.The overallenergy(cid:0) scale of th(cid:1)e three param-
eters b(f) is left unspecified. Note, however,that positiveb(f) in Eq.(3) give rise to
0 0
Fermi surfaces, which may or may not be topologically protected; cf. Refs. 19, 21.
The mixing angles are again taken to be tri-maximal,22
χ =arctan 1/2 π/5, χ =χ =arctan1=π/4. (9)
13 21 32
≈
Theseparticularvaluesmpaximize,forgivenphaseǫ,thefollowingT–violation(CP–
nonconservation) measure:
1
J cosχ sin2χ sin2χ sin2χ sinǫ, (10)
13 13 21 32
≡ 8
Lorentz-Noninvariant Neutrino Oscillations 5
which is independent of phase conventions.39 For this reason, we prefer to use the
values (9) rather than the ad hoc values χ =χ =χ =π/4.
13 21 32
In one of the first articles on neutrino oscillations, Bilenky and Pontecorvo13
emphasized the essential difference between leptons and quarks, where the latter
havequantumnumberswhichareconservedbythestronginteractions.Theyargued
that,fortwoflavors,theonlynaturalvalueoftheneutrinomixingangleχis0orπ/4.
But, at this moment, we do not know of a physical mechanism which convincingly
explains the tri-maximal values (9) and we simply use these values as a working
hypothesis.
In short, the model (6)–(9), for dispersion law (3), has three parameters: the
basic energy-difference scale B ∆b(21), the ratio r of the consecutive energy
0 ≡ 0
steps ∆b(21) and∆b(32), andthe T–violating phaseǫ. This model will be called the
0 0
“simple” Fermi-point-splitting model in the following (a more general Fermi-point-
splitting model would have arbitrary mixing angles).
4. Neutrino-Oscillation Probabilities
The calculation of neutrino-oscillation probabilities is technically straightforward
but conceptually rather subtle; cf. Refs 14–16. It may be the simplest to considera
stationary mono-energetic beam of left-handed neutrinos originating from a speci-
fiedinteractionregionandpropagatingoveradistanceLtoanappropriatedetector.
That is, the neutrinos start out with a definite flavor (here, labeled A,B,C) and
have a spread in their momenta (from the finite size of the interaction region and
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, ∆x ∆p δ ~/2).
m n mn
≥
Fordispersionlaw(3)andlargeenoughneutrinoenergy(E max[b(f)]),the
ν ≥ 0
tri-maximal model (6)–(9) gives the following neutrino-oscillationprobabilities:
2 ∆ ∆ ∆
P(A B, ǫ)= sin2 21 + 1+√3c sin2 31 + 1 √3c sin2 32
ǫ ǫ
→ 9 2 2 − 2
(h1/2)√3s si(cid:0)n∆ si(cid:1)n∆ +sin∆(cid:0) , (cid:1) (11a)
ǫ 21 31 32
− −
P(A C, ǫ)= 2 sin2 ∆21 +(cid:0) 1 √3c sin2 ∆31 + 1(cid:1)+i√3c sin2 ∆32
ǫ ǫ
→ 9 2 − 2 2
+(h1/2)√3s si(cid:0)n∆ si(cid:1)n∆ +sin∆(cid:0) , (cid:1) (11b)
ǫ 21 31 32
−
P(A A, ǫ)= 1 P(A B(cid:0), ǫ) P(A C, ǫ), (cid:1)i (11c)
→ − → − →
2 ∆ ∆ ∆
P(B C, ǫ)= (1/2) 3s 2 1 sin2 21 + sin2 31 + sin2 32
ǫ
→ 9 − 2 2 2
(h1/2)√3(cid:0)s sin∆(cid:1) sin∆ +sin∆ , (11d)
ǫ 21 31 32
− −
P(B A, ǫ)= 2 sin2 ∆21 +(cid:0) 1+√3c sin2 ∆31 + 1(cid:1)i√3c sin2 ∆32
ǫ ǫ
→ 9 2 2 − 2
+(h1/2)√3s si(cid:0)n∆ si(cid:1)n∆ +sin∆(cid:0) , (cid:1) (11e)
ǫ 21 31 32
−
P(B B, ǫ)= 1 P(B C(cid:0), ǫ) P(B A, ǫ), (cid:1)i (11f)
→ − → − →
6 Frans R. Klinkhamer
2 ∆ ∆ ∆
P(C A, ǫ)= sin2 21 + 1 √3c sin2 31 + 1+√3c sin2 32
ǫ ǫ
→ 9 2 − 2 2
(h1/2)√3s s(cid:0)in∆ si(cid:1)n∆ +sin∆(cid:0) , (cid:1) (11g)
ǫ 21 31 32
− −
P(C B, ǫ)= 2 (1/2) 3s(cid:0)2 1 sin2 ∆21 + sin2 ∆31(cid:1)+isin2 ∆32
ǫ
→ 9 − 2 2 2
+(h1/2)√3(cid:0)s sin∆(cid:1) sin∆ +sin∆ , (11h)
ǫ 21 31 32
−
P(C C, ǫ)= 1 P(C A(cid:0), ǫ) P(C B, ǫ), (cid:1)i (11i)
→ − → − →
with s sinǫ, c cosǫ, and
ǫ ǫ
≡ ≡
L
(f) (g)
∆ b b . (12)
fg ≡ 0 − 0 ~c
(cid:16) (cid:17)
Specifically, the Fermi-point-splitting Ansatz has
∆ =2πl, ∆ =2πlr, ∆ =2πl(1+r), (13)
21 32 31
in terms of the dimensionless distance
l B L/(hc) (14)
0
≡
and parameters B and r from Eq. (8).
0
The probabilities for right-handed antineutrinos (flavors X,Y A,B,C ) are
∈{ }
given by
P(X¯ Y¯, ǫ)=P(X Y, σǫ), (15)
→ →
asfollowsbychangingǫ ǫandB σB inEqs.(11a)–(11i),wherethelatter
0 0
→− →−
transformation corresponds to the change from (3) to (4) with σ = 1. Note that
±
the survival probability of right-handed antineutrinos equals that of left-handed
neutrinos,
P(X¯ X¯, ǫ)=P(X X, ǫ), (16)
→ →
independent of the choice of σ in the antineutrino dispersion law (4).
Thetime-reversalasymmetryparameterforoscillationprobabilitiesbetweenX–
type and Y–type neutrinos (X =Y) is defined by
6
P(Y X, ǫ) P(X Y, ǫ)
a(T) → − → . (17)
XY ≡ P(Y X, ǫ)+P(X Y, ǫ)
→ →
Formodelprobabilities(11),thisasymmetryparameterisproportionaltosinǫ.The
corresponding CP asymmetry parameter is given by
P(X¯ Y¯, ǫ) P(X Y, ǫ)
a(CP) → − → . (18)
XY ≡ P(X¯ Y¯, ǫ)+P(X Y, ǫ)
→ →
For model probabilities (11) and (15), this last asymmetry parameter vanishes for
σ = +1 and equals a(T) for σ = 1. In other words, the oscillation probabilities
XY −
(11) and (15) of the neutrino model with sinǫ=0 violate T and CPT for the case
6
of σ = +1 and violate T and CP (but keep CPT invariance intact) for the case
Lorentz-Noninvariant Neutrino Oscillations 7
of σ = 1. In the absence of a definitive theory, it is up to experiment to decide
−
between the options σ = 1.
±
For completeness, we recall that the standard mass-difference mechanism gives
the following oscillation probabilities17,18 for fixed ratio L/E and small enough
ν
mass-square difference ∆m2 m2 m2 :
| 21|≡| 2− 1|
Pmass−oscill(νµ →νe)∼sin2(2θ13) sin2θ32 sin2Ω32, (19a)
Pmass−oscill(νµ →ντ)∼cos4θ13 sin2(2θ32) sin2Ω32, (19b)
with Ω ∆m2 c4L/(4E ~c). The mixing angles θ are associated with the
ij ≡ ij ν ij
masstermsintheactionandare,ingeneral,differentfromthosedefinedbyEqs.(6)–
(7); cf. Ref. 36. In fact, the underlinedparametersrefer to the pure mass-difference
model with all Fermi-point-splittings strictly zero. Observe that the T–violating
phase δ has dropped out in Eqs. (19ab) because of the limit ∆m2 0.
21 →
For ∆m2 ∆m2 and considering L to be an average distance, one has
| 32| ≫ | 21|
effectively
Pmass−oscill(νe νe)=Pmass−oscill(ν¯e ν¯e)
→ →
1 (1/2) sin2(2θ ) cos4θ sin2(2θ ) sin2Ω , (20)
∼ − 13 − 13 21 21
with the Ω and Ω terms averagedover.
13 32
The expressions (19ab) have been used to analyze the data from K2K4,5 and
the expression (20) for the data from KamLAND,6,7 all three theoretical expres-
sions being independent of the phase δ. In the next section, we will use instead
the expressions (11)–(16) from the simple Fermi-point-splitting model, which are
dependent on the T–violating phase ǫ. But, for brevity, we will drop the explicit ǫ
dependence, just writing P(X Y) and P(X¯ Y¯).
→ →
5. Model Parameters and Predictions
In order to make unambiguous predictions, we assume in the main part of this
article that the neutrino mass differences are strictly zero. It could, however, be
that Eqs. (3)–(4) are modified by having (small) mass-square terms on their right-
hand-sides, as in Eq. (5), which possibility will be briefly discussed in Sec. 6.
5.1. General model predictions
The most general prediction of the Fermi-point-splitting mechanism of neutrino
oscillations is that the oscillation properties are essentially independent of the
neutrino energies. This implies undistorted energy spectra for the reconstructed
ν energies in, for example, the current K2K experiment4,5 and the future MI-
µ
NOS experiment.23,24 [As argued in Ref. 22, the energy spectra from K2K4 and
KamLAND6,7 arecertainlysuggestiveofthemass-differencemechanismbutdonot
ruleouttheFermi-point-splittingmechanismyet.Thesameconclusionholdsforthe
8 Frans R. Klinkhamer
zenith-angledistributions ofupwardstopping orthrough-goingmuons fromSuper–
Kamiokande (SK); cf. Fig. 39 of Ref. 3, which appears to have a relatively large
uncertainty on the calculated flux of upward through-going muons.]
Assuming that the energy splittings (12) are responsible for the neutrino-
oscillationresults of SK, K2K,andKamLAND (see below), another prediction22 is
thatany reactorexperimentatL=ℓ 1km(cf.Refs.10,11,34)willhavesurvival
probabilities close to 1, at least up to≈an accuracy of order (∆b ℓ/~c)2 10−4 for
0
∆b 2 10−12 eV. ≈
0
| |≈ ×
Bothpredictionshold,ofcourse,onlyifmass-differenceeffectsfromthegeneral-
izeddispersionlaw(5)arenegligiblecomparedto Fermi-point-splittingeffects with
∆b =O(10−12 eV). This corresponds to ∆m2 .10−6eV2/c4 for (anti)neutrino
0
| | | |
energies in the MeV range. For larger mass differences, the corresponding mixing
angles may need to be small, for example θ .0.2 for ∆m2 =2 10−3 eV2/c4;
13 | 13| ×
seeRefs.10,11.Asmentionedinthepreambleofthissection,ourmodelpredictions
will be for ∆m2 = 0 and ∆b(ij) = 0, with mixing angles χ defined by Eqs. (6),
ij 0 6 ij
(7) and (9).
5.2. Preliminary parameter values
We now present model probabilities at three dimensionless distances l which have
ratios 250:180:735corresponding to the baselines of the K2K, KamLAND and MI-
NOS experiments, but, initially, we focus on the first two distances. [The dimen-
sionlessdistance l has been defined inEq.(14).]In Table 1,model probabilitiesare
calculated starting from an appropriate dimensionless distance ˜l, for a fixed phase
ǫ=π/4 and different values of the parameter r as defined by Eq. (8). The ˜l values
are chosen so that the following inequality holds: P(C C) 65% for 0 l ˜l.
→ ≥ ≤ ≤
Fixing the ratio r to the value 1/2, Table 2 gives model probabilities for dif-
ferent values of the phase ǫ. The ǫ range can be restricted to ( π/2,π/2] without
−
loss of generality, because the probabilities (11) are invariant under the combined
transformations ǫ ǫ+π and (A,B,C) (A,C,B).
→ →
The last rows of Tables 1 and 2 give the experimental results from K2K4,5 and
KamLAND.6,7 The K2K numbers are deduced from the expected total number of
events 80 6 and the observed numbers of ν and ν events, respectively 56 and 1
µ e
±
(background?). The latest KamLAND value for the averageν¯ survival probability
e
is 0.658 0.044(stat) 0.047(syst).
± ±
Regarding the comparison of the model values and the K2K data in Table 1,
recall that the normalized Poisson distribution p(n;µ) exp( µ)µn/n! gives
≡ −
p(1;6) 1%andp(1;3) 15%.Thissuggeststhatthebestvalueforrissomewhere
∼ ∼
between 1/8 and 2. Similarly, Table 2 shows a preference for a value of ǫ around
π/4 (or 5π/4 with trivial relabelings).
The basic energy-difference scale B of the model is determined by identifying
0
the ˜l value of one particular row in Table 1 or 2 with the K2K baseline of 250km.
Lorentz-Noninvariant Neutrino Oscillations 9
Table 1. Model probabilities (P)|ǫ,r for different values of the energy-splitting ratio r and
l
dimensionless distance l, with fixed phase ǫ = π/4. The probabilities P are calculated from
Eqs.(11a)–(11i)andaregiveninpercent,witharoundingerrorof1.Thelastrowgivestheex-
perimentalresultsfor(Pνµ→νµ,Pνµ→νe,Pνµ→ντ)atL=250kmfromK2K4,5andfor(Pν¯e→ν¯e)
atL≈180kmfromKamLAND.6,7Therelativeerrorontheseexperimentalnumbersisoftheor-
derof10%.AlsoshownarepossibleresultsforMINOS23fromstandardmass-differenceneutrino
oscillations,wherethevaluesfor(Pνµ→νµ,Pνµ→νe,Pνµ→ντ)arecalculatedfromEqs.(19ab)for
L=735km,Eν =3GeV,|∆m232|=2×10−3eV2/c4,sin2(2θ32)=1,andsin2(2θ13)=0.2.
r˜ ˜l PC→C,PC→A,PC→B ˜lπ4,r˜ PA¯→A¯ ˜lπ4×,r1˜28500 PC→C,PC→A,PC→B ˜lπ4×,r˜723550
(cid:0) (cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:12) (cid:0) (cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:12) (cid:0) (cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:12)
(cid:12) (cid:12) (cid:12)
1/8 0.250 (75,6,19) (71) (74, 9,17)
1/8 0.320 (65,7,28) (57) (89, 8, 3)
1/4 0.230 (75,3,22) (72) (58,17,25)
1/4 0.260 (70,3,27) (65) (64,23,13)
1/4 0.290 (65,3,32) (59) (66,26, 8)
1/2 0.190 (75,1,24) (74) (27,29,44)
1/2 0.210 (70,1,29) (69) (26,43,31)
1/2 0.230 (65,1,34) (64) (25,56,19)
1 0.130 (75,2,23) (79) ( 6,28,66)
1 0.145 (70,2,28) (74) ( 2,44,54)
1 0.160 (65,2,33) (69) ( 1,61,38)
2 0.080 (74,6,20) (81) ( 5,27,68)
2 0.095 (65,7,28) (74) (10,40,50)
– – K2K: (70,≤1,29) KamLAND: (66) MINOS: (66?,3?,31?)
Using Eq. (14), one has
250km ˜l
B =hc ˜l/L =1.04 10−12 eV . (21)
0 K2K
× (cid:18) LK2K (cid:19) 0.210!
From the numbers in Tables 1 and 2, the combined K2K and KamLAND results
then give the following “central values” for the parameters of the model (6)–(9):
B 10−12 eV, r 1/2, ǫ π/4(mod π), (22)
0
≈ ≈ ≈
with identifications
ǫ≈π/4
A , B , C = ν , ν , ν , (23a)
e τ µ
| i | i | i | i | i | i
(cid:16) (cid:17) (cid:16) (cid:17)(cid:12)
(cid:12)ǫ≈5π/4
A , B , C = ν , ν , ν (cid:12) . (23b)
e µ τ
| i | i | i | i | i | i
(cid:16) (cid:17) (cid:16) (cid:17)(cid:12)
(cid:12)
(cid:12)
10 Frans R. Klinkhamer
Table2. Modelprobabilities(P)|ǫ,rfordifferentvaluesofthephaseǫanddimensionless
l
distance l,withfixed energy-splittingratio r=1/2. TheprobabilitiesP arecalculated
fromEqs.(11a)–(11i) andaregiveninpercent,witharoundingerrorof1.Fordifferent
values of ǫ and l, {X,Y,Z} stands for a permutation of the basic flavors {A,B,C}.
Forǫ=+π/2,thesameprobabilitiesholdforcyclicpermutations of{C,A,B},thatis,
{X,Y,Z}canbe{C,A,B},{A,B,C},or{B,C,A}.Thelastlinegivestheexperimental
resultsfromK2KandKamLAND;seeTable1forfurtherdetails.
ǫ˜ ˜l {X,Y,Z} PX→X,PX→Y,PX→Z ǫ˜l˜,12 PY¯→Y¯ ǫ˜l˜×,12215800
(cid:0) (cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:12) (cid:0) (cid:1)(cid:12)(cid:12)
(cid:12) (cid:12)
−π/4 0.135 {A,C,B} (75, 1,24) (92)
−π/4 0.160 {A,C,B} (66, 1,33) (90)
0 0.135 {A,C,B} (75, 1,24) (96)
0 0.160 {A,C,B} (66, 1,33) (94)
+π/4 0.190 {C,A,B} (75, 1,24) (74)
+π/4 0.230 {C,A,B} (65, 1,34) (64)
+π/2 0.135 {C,A,B}cycl. (75, 9,16) (86)
+π/2 0.160 {C,A,B}cycl. (66,11,23) (81)
– – – K2K: (70,≤1,29) KamLAND: (66)
Note that it is quite remarkable that the K2K and KamLAND data can be fitted
at all by such a simple model.
Only interactions can distinguish between the options (23ab). If, for example,
theflavorstates A¯ and C appearinthedominantdecaymodeµ− e+ν¯ ν ,one
e µ
| i | i →
wouldhaveǫ π/4.If,ontheotherhand,theflavorstates A¯ and B appear,one
≈ | i | i
would have ǫ 5π/4. Alternatively, the dominant decay mode π+ µ+ν would
µ
≈ →
imply ǫ = π/4 if a C–type neutrino is found and ǫ = 5π/4 for a B–type neutrino.
Henceforth, we focus on the ǫ = π/4 case, but our conclusions are independent of
this choice.
5.3. Specific model predictions
In order to prepare for the discussion of new experiments, we give in Figs. 1–3 the
ǫ=π/4 probabilities P(C X) andP(A X) as a function ofthe dimensionless
→ →
traveldistance l,for three representativevalues of the energy-splitting ratio r. The
probabilitiesP(B X)equal1 P(C X) P(A X)andaregiveninFig.4.
→ − → − →
These ǫ = π/4 probabilities P(B X) are, of course, of less direct experimental
→
relevanceif B = ν assuggestedby the identifications(23a).Figure4 illustrates
τ
| i | i
rather nicely the r–dependence of the probabilities. The curves from Fig. 1 and
those from the top panel of Fig. 4 are relevant to the two-parameter(r 1) model
≡
of Ref. 22
