1:
2: \documentstyle[11pt]{article}
3: \topmargin -1.6 cm
4: \textheight 22 cm
5: \textwidth 15.5cm
6: \oddsidemargin -0.01in
7: \evensidemargin -0.01in
8: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.26}
9: \pagestyle{plain}
10: \begin{document}
11: \begin{titlepage}
12: \parindent 0.7cm
13: \centerline{\large\bf About the Mixing and CP Violation
14: in Neutrino System }
15:
16: \vspace{1cm}
17: \centerline{ Yong Liu$^{1,2}$ and Utpal Sarkar$^3$ }
18: \vspace{0.5cm}
19: \centerline{1. Laboratory of Numeric Study for Heliospheric Physics }
20: \centerline{Chinese Academy of Sciences}
21: \centerline{P. O. Box 8701, Beijing 100080, P.R.China}
22: \centerline{2. Physics Department, National University of Singapore}
23: \centerline{Kent Ridge, Singapore 119260}
24: \centerline{E-mail: phyliuy@nus.edu.sg }
25: \centerline{3. Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad 380 009, India }
26: \vspace{2cm}
27:
28: \centerline{\large\bf Abstract}
29: \vspace{0.6cm}
30:
31: Suppose the geometrical explaination to the weak CP phase in quark
32: sector is also valid for neutrinos, the mixing and CP violation in
33: neutrino system are discussed. We find a larger $J_{CP}$ than $3
34: \times 10^{-3}$ implys the large-mixing solution for solar neutrino
35: problem. In case of bi-maximal mixing, we predict relative large CP
36: violation with $J_{CP}$ larger than $10^{-3}$ in neutrino system,
37: except the third mixing angle approachs to $0$ or $\pi/2$ very
38: closely.
39: \\\\
40: PACS number(s): 11.30.E, 14.60.P, 12.15.F
41:
42: \end{titlepage}
43:
44: \centerline{\bf 1. Introduction}
45:
46: In the Standard Model, photon and neutrino have no masses. However,
47: the masslessness of photon is ensured by gauge invariance while the
48: masslessness of neutrinos is only an artificial supposition. Since
49: it is found that, the observed solar neutrino fluxes are all below
50: the predictions based on the Standard Solar Model (SSM)
51: \cite{bahcall1}, and it is very difficult to explain these flux
52: deficits by modifying the SSM \cite{bahcall2}, people began to
53: guess that neutrinos may have non-zero masses, and can oscillate
54: from one flavor to another like that occuring in the sector of
55: quarks.
56:
57: Recently, the Super-Kamiokande experiment has provided a strong
58: evidence for non-zero masses and oscillations of neutrinos
59: \cite{super1,super2}. Because it is the first sign for new physics
60: beyond the Standard Model, it has brought up a turbulent shock in
61: the research field of particle physics after the announcement of
62: the Super-Kamiokande result.
63:
64: In analogy to the quark mixing in the Standard Model, it is expected
65: that,
66: the mixing matrix of the neutrino sector has the similar structure to
67: that of quark sector. Then, it remind us to discuss the problem of
68: mixing
69: and CP violation in neutrino system naturally
70: \cite{sarkar,schubert,gago,barger}.
71:
72: Based on the postulation put forward by one of us and the collaborators
73: \cite{cgll,liu}, we investigate the mixing and CP violation in neutrino
74: system in this work. Here, we suppose that
75:
76: A. The postulation on the relation between weak CP phase and the other
77: three mixing angles in Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix for quark
78: sector
79: be also available for neutrino system. Due to the similarity between
80: quark
81: sector and lepton sector, we take this supposition as reasonable.
82:
83: B. Neutrinos come in three families with no additional species, sterile
84: etc., and their masses are hierarchical with $m_{\nu_e}$ being smallest
85: and $m_{\nu_\tau}$ largest \cite{fishbane}.
86:
87: C. Due to the confirmation of the Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector
88: (LSND) results at Los Alamos awaiting future experiments \cite{athana},
89: in the simplest explanation, solar neutrino data can be understood in
90: terms of $\nu_e-\nu_{\mu}$ oscillation with a small mass splitting not
91: to influence atmospheric data, and atmospheric data can be explained in
92: terms of $\nu_{\mu}-\nu_{\tau}$ large mixing with a large mass
93: splitting
94: compared to the $\nu_e-\nu_{\mu}$ case \cite{barbieri}.
95:
96: In fact, supposition A is necessary in this paper, while the other two
97: suppositions are only for the convenience. Although we need two mixing
98: angles precisely here, we need not limit which two of the three mixing
99: angles. The suppositions B and C are helpful to draw a clear physical
100: picture.
101:
102:
103: \vspace{0.5cm}
104: \centerline{\bf 2. The postulation on the weak CP phase}
105:
106: In previous works \cite{cgll,liu}, we have postulated that, the weak CP
107: phase $\delta_{13}$ and the other three mixing angles $\theta_{12},
108: \theta_{23}$ and $\theta_{13}$ satisfy
109: \begin{equation}
110: \label{angle}
111: \sin\delta_{13}=\frac{ (1+s_{12}+s_{23}+s_{13})
112: \sqrt{1-s_{12}^2-s_{23}^2-s_{13}^2+
113: 2 s_{12} s_{23} s_{13}} }{(1+
114: s_{12}) (1+s_{23}) (1+s_{13})}
115: \end{equation}
116: where, the convention $s_{ij}=\sin\theta_{ij}, c_{ij}=\cos\theta_{ij}$
117: (the "generation" labels $i,j=1,2,3$) are used and, $\delta_{13}$ and
118: $\theta_{ij}$ are those present in the standard parametrization of
119: the Cabibbo-Kaboyashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix
120: \begin{equation}
121: V_{KM}= \left (
122: \begin{array}{ccc}
123: c_{12} c_{13} & s_{12} c_{13}& s_{13} e^{-i \delta_{13}} \\
124: -s_{12} c_{23}-c_{12} s_{23} s_{13} e^{i \delta_{13}} &
125: c_{12} c_{23}-s_{12} s_{23} s_{13} e^{i \delta_{13}} &
126: s_{23} c_{13}\\
127: s_{12} s_{23}-c_{12} c_{23} s_{13} e^{i \delta_{13}} &
128: -c_{12} s_{23}-s_{12} c_{23} s_{13} e^{i \delta_{13}} &
129: c_{23} c_{13}
130: \end{array}
131: \right )
132: \end{equation}
133: with the real
134: angles $\theta_{12}, \theta_{23}$ and $\theta_{13}$ can all be made to
135: lie in the first quadrant. The phase $\delta_{13}$ lies in the range
136: $0<\delta_{13}<2 \pi$. In following, we will fix the three angles
137: $\theta_{12}, \theta_{23}$ and $\theta_{13}$ in the first quadrant.
138:
139: The geometry meaning of Eq.(\ref{angle}) is evident.
140: $\delta_{13}$ is the solid
141: angle enclosed by $(\pi/2 -\theta_{12}), (\pi/2-\theta_{23})$ and
142: $(\pi/2-\theta_{13})$ standing
143: on a same point, or, the area to which the solid angle
144: corresponding on a unit spherical surface.
145:
146: Hence, to make $(\pi/2 -\theta_{12}), (\pi/2-\theta_{23})$ and
147: $(\pi/2-\theta_{13})$ be able to enclose a solid angle, the following
148: relation must be hold.
149: \begin{equation}
150: \label{tri}
151: (\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta_{ij})+(
152: \frac{\pi}{2}-\theta_{jk}) \geq (
153: \frac{\pi}{2}-\theta_{ki}) \;\;\;\;\;\;
154: (i\not=j\not=k\not=i=1,2,3. \;\;\;\theta_{ij}=\theta_{ji})
155: \end{equation}
156:
157: Eq.(\ref{tri}) and Eq.(\ref{angle}) are the most important constraints
158: in this work, on which the following discussions are based.
159:
160:
161: \vspace{0.5cm}
162: \centerline{\bf 3. The relevant experimental results
163: on neutrino masses and mixing}
164:
165: The recent analysis made by Hata and Langacker \cite{hata2} gives
166: viable
167: solutions for the BAHCALL SSM \cite{bahcall3,PDG}. With the
168: Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW) mechanism being
169: considered \cite{wolf,mikh}, they give the small-mixing solution
170: \begin{equation}
171: \label{emu1}
172: \delta m_{sol}^2 \sim 5\times 10^{-6} eV^2 \;\;\;\;\;\;
173: sin^2 2\theta_{sol} \sim 8\times 10^{-3}
174: \end{equation}
175: and the large-mixing solution
176: \begin{equation}
177: \label{emu2}
178: \delta m_{sol}^2 \sim 1.6\times 10^{-5} eV^2 \;\;\;\;\;\;
179: sin^2 2\theta_{sol} \sim 0.6.
180: \end{equation}
181: Vacuum oscillation also provide solutions
182: \begin{equation}
183: \label{emu3}
184: \delta m_{sol}^2 = (5\sim 8)\times 10^{-11} eV^2 \;\;\;\;\;\;
185: sin^2 2\theta_{sol} = 0.65 \sim 1.
186: \end{equation}
187:
188: The atmospheric neutrino data from Super-Kamiokande etc. imply that the
189: parameters of the $\nu_{\mu}-\nu_{\tau}$ oscillation of the atmospheric
190: neutrinos are \cite{super1,super2,PDG}
191: \begin{equation}
192: \label{mutau}
193: 10^{-4} \leq \delta m_{atm}^2 \leq 10^{-2} eV^2 \;\;\;\;\;\;
194: sin^2 2\theta_{atm} \approx 1.
195: \end{equation}
196:
197: We have known that, the small-mixing solution causes the
198: energy-spectrum
199: distortion while the large-mixing solution causes the day-night flux
200: difference, and, the vacuum-oscillations cause seasonal variation of
201: the $^7B_e$ solar neutrino flux \cite{PDG}.
202:
203: In the next section, we will see that, with the Super-Kamiokande
204: results about the $\nu_{\mu}-\nu_{\tau}$ oscillation being
205: admitted, the small-mixing solution differents from the
206: large-mixing solution in CP violation greatly. Because the
207: discussions here are only related to the mixing angles, and the MSW
208: large-mixing solution gives about the same mixing as that given by
209: the vacuum oscillation solution, so, we only discuss the two cases
210: of small- and large-mixing as indicated by the MSW solutions.
211:
212:
213: \vspace{0.5cm}
214: \centerline{\bf 4. Some predictions on the mixing and CP violation
215: in neutrino system}
216:
217: Let us return to the constraint Eq.(\ref{tri}) and recall the clear
218: geometry meaning of Eq.(\ref{angle}), what can we extract from them?
219: As we have supposed in section 1, Eq.(\ref{mutau}) tells us
220: \begin{equation}
221: \label{pi4}
222: \theta_{\mu \tau}\approx \pi/4.
223: \end{equation}
224: Keep this point in mind, then, by the use of Eq.(\ref{tri}),
225: Eq.(\ref{emu1}-\ref{emu3}) will give restriction on the mixing
226: angle between $\nu_e$ and $\nu_\tau$. In the meantime, Eq.(\ref{angle})
227: tell us some information on the CP violation in neutrino system. Let
228: us talk more detail about these two problems.
229:
230: (1) About the mixing angle between $\nu_e$ and $\nu_\tau$.
231:
232: From Eq.(\ref{tri}), we have
233: \begin{equation}
234: \label{atr}
235: |(\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta_{e \mu})-(
236: \frac{\pi}{2}-\theta_{\mu \tau})| \leq (
237: \frac{\pi}{2}-\theta_{e \tau}) \leq
238: Min ( \pi/2, \;\; (\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta_{e \mu})+(
239: \frac{\pi}{2}-\theta_{\mu \tau}) )
240: \end{equation}
241: Note that, Eqs.(\ref{emu1}-\ref{emu2}) imply
242: for small- and large-mixing solutions
243: $$
244: \theta_{e \mu}\sim 0.045 \;\;\; {\rm or} \;\;\; \pi/2-0.045
245: $$
246: and
247: $$
248: \theta_{e \mu}\sim 0.443 \;\;\; {\rm or} \;\;\; \pi/2-0.443
249: $$
250: respectively.
251: Considering Eq.(\ref{pi4}), then we obtain
252: \begin{equation}
253: \label{etau1}
254: 0 \leq \theta_{e \tau} \leq \pi/4+0.045
255: \end{equation}
256: or
257: \begin{equation}
258: \pi/4-0.045 \leq \theta_{e \tau} \leq \pi/4+0.045
259: \end{equation}
260: for the case of small-mixing solution. And
261: \begin{equation}
262: 0 \leq \theta_{e \tau} \leq \pi/4+0.443
263: \end{equation}
264: or
265: \begin{equation}
266: \label{etau2}
267: \pi/4-0.443 \leq \theta_{e \tau} \leq \pi/4+0.443
268: \end{equation}
269: for the case of large-mixing solution.
270: Eq.(\ref{etau1}-\ref{etau2}) are the constraints on the mixing angle
271: $\theta_{e \tau}$.
272:
273: (2) About the CP violation in neutrino system.
274:
275: Now, we discuss the CP violation in neutrino system. As is well known,
276: all the CP violated observables are proportional to the Jarlskog
277: invariant
278: \cite{jarlskog,paschos}
279: \begin{equation}
280: \label{jarl}
281: J_{CP}=s_{12} s_{13} s_{23} c_{12} c_{13}^2 c_{23} s_{\delta_{13}}
282: \end{equation}
283: where, $s_{\delta_{13}}\equiv sin \delta_{13}$ with $\delta_{13}$
284: the weak CP phase presenting in the CKM matrix of the lepton
285: sector. And, we instead $\theta_{12}, \theta_{13}$ and
286: $\theta_{23}$ by $\theta_{e \mu},
287: \theta_{e \tau}$ and $\theta_{\mu \tau}$ respectively in following.
288:
289: With $\theta_{\mu \tau}$ given by the Super-Kamiokande data
290: definately, the small- and large-mixing solutions and the vacuum
291: oscillation will give the pemitted ranges for $\theta_{e \tau}$
292: correspondingly. Substitute Eq.(\ref{angle}) into Eq.(\ref{jarl}),
293: we obtain $J_{CP}$ as a function of $\theta_{e \tau}$. Then, we can
294: draw the curve which $J_{CP}$ versus $\theta_{e \tau}$. The results
295: are shown in Fig.(1). From the figure, we find that, the
296: small-mixing solution corresponds to small CP violation while the
297: large-mixing solution corresponds to large CP violation.
298:
299: For the small-mixing solution, $J_{CP}$ is very small. The maximum of
300: $J_{CP}$ is about $5\times 10^{-3}$ when $\theta_{e \mu}$ nearing to
301: $0$, and $1.5\times 10^{-4}$ when $\theta_{e \mu}$ nearing to $\pi/2$.
302:
303: For the large-mixing solution, $J_{CP}$ is relative large. The
304: maximum of $J_{CP}$ is about $1.5\times 10^{-2}$ when $\theta_{e
305: \mu}$ nearing to $0.443$, and $3.2\times 10^{-2}$ when $\theta_{e
306: \mu}$ nearing to $\pi/2-0.443$.
307:
308: Now, it is evident that, if the future experiments on the CP
309: violation in neutrino system tell us that $J_{CP}$ is larger than
310: $5\times 10^{-3}$, the mixing between $\nu_e$ and $\nu_\mu$ must be
311: large. Recalling the same observable in quark sector obtained via
312: $K^0-\overline{K^0}$ system is about $10^{-4}$, if it is the same
313: order of magnitude in the neutrino system, then, the mixing between
314: $\nu_e$ and $\nu_\tau$ is either around $0.8$ with a relative
315: narrow window or nearing to $0$ or $(\pi/4+0.443)$ very closely.
316:
317: On the other hand, either $\theta_{e \mu}$ takes $\sim 0.443$ or it
318: takes $\sim (\pi/2-0.443)$ for large-mixing solution can also be
319: distingushed to some extent. For example, if experiment tells us
320: $J_{CP}>0.015$, it must be $\theta_{e \mu} \sim 0.443$.
321:
322: Finally, with the CHOOZ result \cite{chooz} being considered, that
323: is, ${\rm sin}^2 2 \theta_{e \tau}< 0.2$, then we have
324: $$
325: 0<\theta_{e \tau}<0.23 \;\;\;\; {\rm or} \;\;\;\;
326: \pi/2-0.23<\theta_{e \tau}<\pi/2.
327: $$
328: Based on the above constraint, we can see from Fig.(1), firstly,
329: the small-mixing solution with $\theta_{e \mu} \sim (\pi/2-0.045)$
330: and the large-mixing solution with $\theta_{e
331: \mu} \sim (\pi/2-0.443)$ have been excluded. Secondly, the possible
332: domain $\pi/2-0.23<\theta_{e \tau}<\pi/2$ should also be
333: eliminated. Thirdly, $J_{CP}$ can still be large to about $0.02$ in
334: the case of large-mixing solution with $\theta_{e \mu} \sim 0.443$,
335: especially, the larger $J_{CP}$ than $3 \times 10^{-3}$ will
336: exclude the possibility of small-mixing solution finally.
337:
338: Maybe, the most interesting conclusion is about the bi-mixmal mixing
339: \cite{bpww,tanimoto}.
340: From the above analysis, we can see that, in most of the permitted
341: range
342: of the third angle - $\theta_{e \tau}$, there will be a relative
343: large CP violation.
344:
345: Suppose that $\theta_{e \mu}=\theta_{\mu \tau}=\pi/4$, similarly,
346: we can draw the curve which $J_{CP}$ versus $\theta_{e \tau}$ in
347: the permitted range of $\theta_{e \tau}$. The result is shown in
348: Fig.(2). We find that, except for $\theta_{e \tau}$ nearing to $0$
349: or $\pi/2$, $J_{CP}$ is larger than $10^{-3}$ in most of the
350: permitted range of $\theta_{e \tau}$. And, the maximum of $J_{CP}$
351: can reach to about $0.018$ when the CHOOZ result is considered.
352:
353:
354: \vspace{0.5cm}
355: \centerline{\bf 5. Conclusions}
356:
357: Starting from the postulation on the relation between weak CP phase
358: and the other three mixing angles in the CKM matrix, we have
359: investigated
360: the mixing and CP violation in the neutrino system.
361:
362: We suppose that, the solar neutrino problem be understood in terms
363: of $\nu_e-\nu_{\mu}$ oscillation with a small mass splitting. With
364: the definite large mixing between $\nu_{\mu}-\nu_{\tau}$ indicated
365: by the Super-Kamiokande data, and the CHOOZ result being
366: considered, we obtain the relevant constraints on the mixing
367: between $\nu_e$ and $\nu_\tau$. We find, $0 \leq \theta_{e
368: \tau} \leq 0.23$ is permitted by the small- and the large-mixing
369: solutions.
370:
371: Besides, the mixing between $\nu_e$ and $\nu_\mu$ is limited as
372: $\theta_{e \mu} \sim 0.045$ for the small-mixing solution or
373: $\theta_{e \mu} \sim 0.443$ for the large-mixing solution. And, a
374: larger $J_{CP}$ than $3 \times 10^{-3}$ will finally exclude the
375: possibility of small-mixing solution.
376:
377: Furthermore, if the suppositions B and C in section {\bf 1} holds,
378: a $J_{CP}$ larger than $3 \times 10^{-3}$ implys the large-mixing
379: solution for solar neutrino problem. And, if it takes the same
380: order for $J_{CP}$ in the neutrino system as the one in quark
381: system, the mixing between $\nu_e$ and $\nu_\mu$ will be very small
382: $(\sim 10^{-2} {\rm \; or \;less})$.
383:
384: For the case of bi-maximal mixing, we predict a large
385: CP violation in neutrino system with $J_{CP}$ larger than $10^{-3}$,
386: except the third mixing angle approachs to $0$ or $\pi/2$ very closely.
387:
388: Finally, although we have made some suppositions in this work, the
389: basis and the method used here is actually valid for a more general
390: discussion.\\\\
391: {\bf Notes}: In fact, this work has been finished and submitted
392: before the last July. Due to some reason, we have not put it on the net
393: in time. Just two days ago, when we noted the paper hep-ph/0004020 by
394: Sin Kyu Kang, C. S. Kim and J. D. Kim and found their results are almost
395: the same as those of us, although they based on some concrete model while
396: we only started out from our postulation, we are encouraged to post this
397: short paper.
398:
399:
400: \vspace{0.5cm}
401:
402: \begin{thebibliography}{30}
403: \bibitem{bahcall1} J. Bahcall, S. Basu and M. Pinsonneault, Phys. Lett.
404: {\bf B} 433, 1(1998).
405: \bibitem{bahcall2} J. Bahcall and H. Bethe, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 65},
406: 2233(1990) and Phys. Rev. D{\bf 44}, 2962(1991). N.
407: Hata and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 56},
408: 6107(1997).
409: \bibitem{super1} Super-Kamiokande Collaboration : Y. Fukuda {\em et
410: al},
411: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1562 (1998);
412: hep-ex/9805006;
413: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 433}, 9 (1998); T. Kajita,
414: hep-ex/9810001.
415: \bibitem{super2} Super-Kamiokande Collaboration: Y. Fukuda {\em et al},
416: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1158 (1998); Talk by Y.
417: Suzuki at
418: Neutrino'98, Takayama, Japan (1998).
419: \bibitem{sarkar} Utpal Sarkar and R. Vaidya, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 442},
420: 243(1998). C. S. Kim, J. D. Kim, Phys. Rev. {\bf D 61},
421: 057302(2000). Sin Kyu Kang, C. S. Kim and J. D. Kim,
422: hep-ph/0004020. A. Mondragon and E. Rodri Guez-Jourgui,
423: Phys. Rev. {\bf D 59}, 093009(1999).
424: \bibitem{schubert} K. R. Schubert, May we expect CP- and T-violation
425: effects in neutrino oscillation ? hep-ph/9902215. De Rujula, M. B. Gavela
426: and P. Hernandez, hep-ph/9811390, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B 547}, 21(1999).
427: A. Donini, M. B. Gavela, P. Hernandez and S. Rigolin, hep-ph/9909254.
428: A. Cervera, A. Donini, M. B. Gavela, J. J. Gomez Cadenas, P. Hernandez,
429: O. Mena and S. Rigolin, hep-ph/0002108.
430:
431: \bibitem{gago} A. M. Gago, V. Pleitez and R. Zukanovich Funchal, CP
432: violation
433: in vacuum neutrino oscillation experiments,
434: hep-ph/9810505.
435: \bibitem{barger} V. Barger, K. Whisnant and R. J. N. Phillips,
436: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 45}, 2084(1980).
437: \bibitem{cgll} Jing-Ling Chen, Mo-Lin Ge, Xue-Qian Li and Yong Liu,
438: A Possible Hidden Symmetry and Geometrical Source of
439: The
440: Phase in The CKM Matrix. Eur. Phys. J. C {\bf 9},
441: 437(1999).
442: \bibitem{liu} Yong Liu, hep-ph/9910234. Phys. Rev. {\bf D 61}, 033010(2000).
443: \bibitem{fishbane} P. M. Fishbane and P. Kaus, On neutrino masses and
444: leptonic mixing, hep-ph/9810233.
445: \bibitem{athana} C. Athanassopoulos et al. (LSND Collaboration), Phys.
446: Rev.
447: Lett. {\bf 75}, 2650(1995); ibid. {\bf 77},
448: 3082(1996).
449: \bibitem{barbieri} R. Barbieri et al., hep-ph/9807235. E. Malkawi,
450: Common
451: hierarchical lepton mass textures for atmospheric
452: and
453: solar neutrino oscillations, hep-ph/9810542.
454: \bibitem{hata2} N. Hata and P. Langacger, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 56},
455: 6107(1997).
456: \bibitem{bahcall3} J. N. Bahcall and M. H. Pinsonneault, Rev. Mod.
457: Phys.
458: {\bf 67}, 781(1995).
459: \bibitem{PDG} Particle Data Group, The Europ. Phys. J. C{\bf 3}, 310
460: -329(1998).
461: \bibitem{wolf} L.Wolfenstein, Phys.Rev.D 17(1978)2369; 20(1979)2634.
462: \bibitem{mikh} S.P.Mikheyev and A.Yu.Smirnov, Yad.Fiz. 42(1985)1441(
463: Sov.J.Nucl.Phys.42(1985)913); Nuov.Cimento.C 17(1986)9.
464: \bibitem{jarlskog} {\it CP Violation} Ed. C. Jarlskog, World Scientific
465: Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd 1989.
466: \bibitem{paschos} E. A. Paschos and U. Turke, Phys. Rept.{\bf 4},
467: 145(1989).
468: \bibitem{chooz} CHOOZ Collaboration : M. Appollonio et al,
469: hep-ex/9711002.
470: \bibitem{bpww} V. Barger, S. Pakvasa, T. J. Weiler and K. Whisant,
471: Phys. Lett. {\bf B 437}, 107(1998). C. Giunti,
472: hep-ph/9810272. D. V. Ahluwalia, Mod. Phys. Lett.
473: {\bf A 13}, 2249(1998).
474: \bibitem{tanimoto} M. Tanimoto, Phys. Rev. D{\bf 59}, 017304(1999).
475: I. Stancu and D. V. Ahluwalia, Phys. Lett. {\bf B 460}, 431(1999).
476:
477: \end{thebibliography}
478:
479: \newpage
480:
481: \begin{figure}[htb]
482: \mbox{}
483: \vskip 7in\relax\noindent\hskip -1 in\relax
484: \special{psfile=fig1.eps}
485: \caption{
486: $J_{CP}$ versus $\theta_{e \tau}$. Where,
487: $\theta_{\mu \tau}=\pi/4$. The curves s1, s2, l1 and l2 corresponds to
488: the cases of
489: $\theta_{e \mu}=0.045,\; (\pi/2-0.045),
490: \; 0.443$ and $(\pi/2-0.443)$ respectively.
491: }
492: \end{figure}
493:
494: \begin{figure}[htb]
495: \mbox{}
496: \vskip 7in\relax\noindent\hskip -1 in\relax
497: \special{psfile=fig2.eps}
498: \caption{
499: $J_{CP}$ versus $\theta_{e \tau}$. Where,
500: $\theta_{e \mu}=\theta_{\mu \tau}=\pi/4$. So, the
501: permitted range for $\theta_{e \tau}$ is $0\sim \pi/2$.
502: }
503: \end{figure}
504:
505: \end{document}
506:
507: