1: \documentstyle[12pt,fleqn,psfig]{article}
2: \oddsidemargin=-6pt
3: \topmargin=-1.25in
4: \textwidth=6.5in
5: \textheight=9.4in
6: %\def\baselinestretch{1.8}
7: \voffset=0.75in
8: \mathindent 0pt
9:
10: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
11: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
12: \newcommand{\bd}{\begin{displaymath}}
13: \newcommand{\ed}{\end{displaymath}}
14: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
15: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
16: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
17: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
18: \newcommand{\Rsl}{{\not \! \!{R}}}
19:
20: % Bra-Kets:
21: \def\bra{\langle}
22: \def\ket{\rangle}
23:
24: % Greek letters:
25: \def\a{\alpha}
26: \def\b{\beta}
27: \def\g{\gamma}
28: \def\d{\delta}
29: \def\e{\epsilon}
30: \def\ve{\varepsilon}
31: \def\l{\lambda}
32: \def\m{\mu}
33: \def\n{\nu}
34: \def\G{\Gamma}
35: \def\D{\Delta}
36: \def\L{\Lambda}
37: \def\s{\sigma}
38: \def\p{\pi}
39: \def\pr{\prime}
40:
41:
42: \begin{document}
43:
44:
45: \begin{flushright}
46: %\tt{CUPP-01/01} \\
47: \tt{hep-ph/0105119}
48: \end{flushright}
49: \vskip 5pt
50: \begin{center}
51: {\Large {\bf A new three flavor oscillation solution of the solar
52: neutrino deficit in $R$-parity violating supersymmetry}}
53: \vskip 20pt
54:
55: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
56:
57: {\sf Rathin Adhikari $^{a,b,\!\!}$
58: \footnote{E-mail address: rathin@cubmb.ernet.in}},
59: {\sf Arunansu Sil $^{a,\!\!}$
60: \footnote{E-mail address: arun@cubmb.ernet.in}},
61: and
62: {\sf Amitava Raychaudhuri $^{a,\!\!}$
63: \footnote{E-mail address: amitava@cubmb.ernet.in}}
64: \vskip 10pt
65: $^a${\it Department of Physics, University of Calcutta, 92
66: Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, \\ Kolkata 700009, India.}\\
67: $^b${\it Department of Physics, Jadavpur University,
68: Kolkata 700032, India.}\\
69: \vskip 15pt
70: {\bf Abstract}
71: \end{center}
72:
73:
74: {\small
75: We present a solution of the solar neutrino deficit using three
76: flavors of neutrinos within the R-parity non-conserving
77: supersymmetric model. In vacuum, mass and mixing is restricted
78: to the $\nu_\mu$-$\nu_\tau$ sector only, which we choose in
79: consistency with the requirements of the atmospheric neutrino
80: anomaly. The $\nu_e$ is massless and unmixed. The flavor changing
81: and flavor diagonal neutral currents present in the model and an
82: energy-dependent resonance-induced $\nu_e$-$\nu_\mu$ mixing in
83: the sun result in the new solution to the solar neutrino
84: problem. The best fit to the solar neutrino rates and spectrum
85: (1258-day $SK$ data) requires a mass square difference $\sim
86: 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$ in vacuum between the two lightest neutrinos.
87: This solution cannot accommodate a significant day-night effect
88: for solar neutrinos.}
89:
90: \vskip 20pt
91:
92: \begin{center}
93: PACS NO. 14.60.Pq, 26.65.+t, 12.60.Jv, 13.15.+g
94: \end{center}
95:
96: %\newpage
97:
98: \vskip 30pt
99:
100: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
101: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
102: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
103:
104: Neutrino oscillation is the most popular solution of the solar
105: neutrino problem \cite{bahc,solar1} and the atmospheric
106: neutrino anomaly \cite{atm}. Oscillation in vacuum or in matter,
107: through the MSW resonance mechanism, posits that neutrinos have
108: non-vanishing, non-degenerate masses and that the basis defined
109: by these eigenstates does not coincide with the flavor basis.
110:
111: Supersymmetry (SUSY) with $R$-parity non-conservation is an
112: extension of the Standard Model (SM) which is consistent with all
113: particle physics experiments and is phenomenologically rich
114: \cite{review}. It carries within it new interactions between
115: leptons and quarks which violate baryon ($B$) and lepton ($L$)
116: number. In this work we show that the flavor changing neutral
117: currents (FCNC) and flavor diagonal neutral currents (FDNC) due
118: to the $L$-violating interactions induce mixing amongst neutrinos
119: in matter, the key feature in this alternative solution of the
120: solar neutrino discrepancy, even though, in vacuum, the $\nu_e$
121: state is massless and does not mix with the other neutrinos. We
122: also indicate how in this model the parameters can be chosen to
123: address the atmospheric neutrino anomaly, solving the solar
124: neutrino problem at the same time.
125:
126:
127: Origins of neutrino oscillation other than mass-mixing, notable
128: among them being non-standard interactions of neutrinos with
129: matter, like FCNC, were examined by Wolfenstein \cite{wolf}. It
130: is noteworthy that FCNC and FDNC interactions can drive neutrino
131: oscillations even for massless neutrinos without any vacuum
132: mixing through an energy-independent resonance effect
133: \cite{masi}. However, these solutions require large
134: $L$-violating couplings near their present experimental upper
135: bounds \cite{guzzo,atf}. This has been examined earlier in
136: connection with the solar \cite{masi,guzzo,bbk} and atmospheric
137: neutrino data \cite{atf,atf1} in the {\em two} flavor oscillation
138: framework. The new explanation of the solar neutrino deficit
139: that we propose, in contrast, relies on an interplay between the
140: $\Rsl$-interactions for {\em three} flavors of neutrinos with
141: matter and their masses, keeping {\em vacuum mixing restricted to
142: the $\nu_\mu-\nu_\tau$ sector only}.
143:
144: Imposing baryon number conservation, we focus on the
145: following $L$-violating terms in the superpotential:
146: \be
147: W={1 \over 2} \l_{ijk} \; L_i \, L_j \, E_k^c + \l_{ijk}^{\pr} \;
148: L_i \, Q_j \, D_k^c,
149: \label{eq:spot}
150: \ee
151: assuming that bilinear terms have been rotated away with
152: appropriate redefinition of superfields. Here, $i$,$j$, and $k$
153: are generation indices, $L$ and $Q$ are chiral superfields
154: containing left-handed lepton and quark doublets and $E$ and $D$
155: are chiral superfields containing right-handed charged-lepton and
156: $d$-quark singlets. There are nine $\l$ (antisymmetric in
157: $(ij)$) and twenty-seven $\l^{\pr}$ couplings, only a few of which
158: will be relevant for this analysis.
159:
160:
161: The interaction of neutrinos with the electrons and $d$-quarks in
162: matter induces transitions (i) $\n_i + e \rightarrow \n_j +e$,
163: and (ii) $\n_i + d \rightarrow \n_j + d$. (i) can proceed {\em via}
164: $W$ and $Z$ exchange for $i=j$, as well as {\em via} $\l$
165: couplings for all $i,j$, while process (ii) is possible through
166: $\l^{\pr}$ couplings and squark exchange. Here we concentrate
167: only on the $\lambda$-induced contributions.
168:
169: The time evolution of the neutrino flavor eigenstates ($\n_i, \;
170: i = e, \m , \tau $) is governed by
171: \bea
172: H&=&H^0 + h^{matter}
173: \nonumber \\
174: &=&\left(
175: \begin{array}{ccc} E &
176: 0& 0 \\ 0 & E+ S_+ - T_1 & T_2 \\ 0 & T_2
177: & E + S_+ + T_1 \end{array}
178: \right) + \left(
179: \begin{array}{ccc}
180: R_{11} +A_1 - A_2 & 0 &R_{13}\\ 0 & -A_2 & 0 \\
181: R_{13} & 0 & R_{33} - A_2
182: \end{array}
183: \right),
184: \label{eq:H}
185: \eea
186: where $S_{\pm} = (m^2_3 \pm m^2_2)/4E$, $T_1 = S_- \cos
187: 2\theta_{23v}$, $T_2 = S_- \sin 2\theta_{23v}$, $A_1 =
188: \sqrt{2}G_F n_e $, $A_2 = G_F n_N/\sqrt{2}$, and $R_{ij} =
189: \l_{ik1}\l_{jk1}n_e/4{\tilde m}^2$. $E$ is the
190: neutrino energy and $\theta_{23v}$ the vacuum mixing angle in
191: the $\n_{\mu}-\n_{\tau}$ sector. $n_N$ and $n_e$ are the neutron
192: and electron number densities in matter and ${\tilde m}$ is the
193: slepton mass. $A_1$ and $A_2$ in $h^{matter}$ arise from SM charged
194: and neutral current interactions, respectively. In vacuum,
195: $h^{matter} = 0$ and $H$ contains mixing only in the $\nu_\mu -
196: \nu_\tau$ sector. In $h^{matter}$, we choose\footnote{In view of the
197: antisymmetry of $\l_{ijk}$ in ($i,j$), in order to generate the
198: mixing of the $\nu_e$ with the other neutrinos we have to choose
199: $k$ = 2 or 3. For the latter choice, mixings due to $\Rsl$
200: interactions are very small; for example, $\l_{131}\l_{23 1}$ is
201: highly constrained from $\mu \rightarrow 3 e$ decay
202: \cite{review}.} $k=2$ in the matter-induced contributions
203: $R_{ij}$. For anti-neutrinos, the time evolution is determined by
204: a similar total hamiltonian $\bar{H} = H^0 - h^{matter}$.
205:
206:
207:
208: To obtain the mass eigenstates, first we rotate by $U^{\pr} =
209: U_{23} U_{13}$ (where $U_{ij}$ is the standard rotation matrix)
210: and write the effective mass squared matrix, ${\widetilde{M}^2 \over
211: 2 E } = H - E - A_1 - A_2$, in the new basis as
212: \be
213: {{\widetilde {M}}^2 \over 2 E } \approx \left(
214: \begin{array}{ccc}
215: R_{11} c_{13}^2- 2 R_{13} c_{23} s_{13} c_{13} + \Lambda_+ s_{13}^2 &
216: -R_{13} s_{23} c_{13} & 0 \nonumber \\ -R_{13} s_{23} c_{13} &
217: \Lambda_- & -R_{13} s_{23} s_{13} \nonumber \\ 0 & -R_{13} s_{23}
218: s_{13} & R_{11} s_{13}^2 + 2 R_{13} c_{23} s_{13} c_{13} +
219: \Lambda_+ c_{13}^2
220: \end{array}
221: \right),
222: \label{eq:mass1}
223: \ee
224: where
225: \be
226: \Lambda_\pm = \left[S_+ - A_1 + \frac{R_{33}}{2}\right] \pm \left[S_-
227: \cos 2(\theta_{23\nu} - \theta_{23}) + \frac{R_{33}}{2}\cos
228: 2\theta_{23}\right]
229: \ee
230: and $c_{ij} \equiv \cos \theta_{ij}$ and $s_{ij} \equiv \sin
231: \theta_{ij}$.
232: Furthermore,
233: \bea
234: \tan 2 \theta_{23} = 2T_2/(2T_1 + R_{33});\;\;\; \tan 2
235: \theta_{13}= 2 R_{13} c_{23}/D_1;\;\;\; D_1 = \Lambda_+ - R_{11}.
236: \label{eq:mixang1}
237: \eea
238: Note that $\theta_{23} \approx \theta_{23v}$ while\footnote{This
239: follows as $\Lambda_+ -R_{11} \sim m_3^2/(2 E)$ is very large with
240: respect to $R_{13}$ in the sun.} $\theta_{13}\approx 0$ except near a
241: possible resonance, when $D_1 = 0$. We show below that this resonance
242: condition cannot be achieved in the sun. Consequently, to a good
243: approximation, the third state in this basis decouples in eq.
244: (\ref{eq:mass1}). The upper left $2\times 2$ block is readily
245: diagonalised, resulting in three effective masses ${\tilde{m}}_i$ as:
246: \bea
247: {\tilde {m}}_1^2/(2 E)
248: =c_{12}^2 \left( R_{11} c_{13}^2 - R_{13} c_{23} \sin 2\theta_{13} + \Lambda_+ s_{13}^2
249: \right) + R_{13}
250: s_{23} c_{13} \sin 2 \theta_{12} + \Lambda_- s_{12}^2
251: \nonumber
252: \eea
253: \bea
254: {\tilde {m}}_2^2/(2 E)= s_{12}^2 \left(
255: R_{11} c_{13}^2 - R_{13} c_{23} \sin 2\theta_{13} + \Lambda_+ s_{13}^2
256: \right) - R_{13}
257: s_{23} c_{13} \sin 2 \theta_{12} + \Lambda_- c_{12}^2
258: \nonumber
259: \eea
260: \bea
261: {\tilde {m}}_3^2/(2 E)=
262: R_{11} s_{13}^2 + R_{13} c_{23} \sin 2\theta_{13} + \Lambda_+ c_{13}^2,
263: \label{eq:eigen1}
264: \eea
265: where
266: \be
267: \tan 2 \theta_{12} = {-2 R_{13} s_{23} c_{13} \over D_2};\;\; D_2 =
268: \Lambda_- - R_{11} c_{13}^2 + R_{13} c_{23} \sin 2 \theta_{13} -\Lambda_+
269: s_{13}^2.
270: \label{eq:mixang2}
271: \ee
272: A resonant enhancement of $\theta_{12}$ occurs when $D_2 = 0$.
273:
274: The neutrino flavor eigenstates $\nu_{\alpha} = \nu_{e, \mu,
275: \tau}$ are related to the mass eigenstates $\nu_i = \nu_{1,2,3} $
276: by
277: \be
278: \nu_{\alpha} = \sum_{i} U_{\a i} \; \n_i,
279: \label{eq:massflav}
280: \ee
281: \noindent
282: where $U_{\a i}$ are elements of the unitary mixing matrix
283: \bea
284: U&=&\left(
285: \begin{array}{ccc} c_{12} c_{13}&s_{12} c_{13}
286: & s_{13}
287: \\
288: -s_{12} c_{23} -c_{12} s_{23} s_{13}
289: & c_{12} c_{23} - s_{12}
290: s_{23} s_{13}& s_{23} c_{13}
291: \\
292: s_{12} s_{23} - c_{12} c_{23} s_{13}& - c_{12} s_{23} -
293: s_{12} c_{23} s_{13} & c_{23} c_{13}
294: \end{array}
295: \right).
296: \label{eq:tmix}
297: \eea
298: We have chosen real $L$ violating couplings and as such there is
299: no $CP$ violating phase in the above mixing matrix. Further, in
300: order to satisfy $0 \leq \theta_{12} \leq \pi/2$ in eq.
301: (\ref{eq:tmix}) for convenience, we take $\l_{121} \l_{321} <
302: 0$.
303:
304: As noted above, level crossings and resonance behavior, which are
305: energy dependent due to neutrino masses, can occur in two situations,
306: namely, (a) when $D_1 = 0$, and (b) when $D_2 = 0$. Of these, only the
307: latter can be satisfied inside the sun, as we now discuss. The sub-GeV
308: and multi-GeV zenith angle dependence of atmospheric neutrinos as well
309: as the energy dependence of the up-down asymmetry require $\Delta
310: m_{32} \approx m^2_3 \approx 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ with maximal vacuum mixing
311: in the $\n_{\mu}-\n_{\tau}$ sector \cite{atm}. The presence of $L$
312: violating interactions does not alter this significantly (see later).
313: On the other hand, $n_e$ at the core of the sun is about $1.13 \times
314: 10^{12}$ eV$^3$. Thus even for $E$ as high as 20 MeV, it is not
315: possible to satisfy the (a) resonance condition and hence we consider
316: only the (b) resonance in the subsequent discussion of the solar
317: neutrino data. At resonance, $\theta_{12} = \pi/4$, while the
318: other mixing angles are $\theta_{13} \sim 0$ and $\theta_{23} =
319: \theta_{23v}$. Recall that away from resonance, $\theta_{12}
320: \sim 0$ and for vacuum propagation only $\theta_{23} =
321: \theta_{23v}$ is non-zero in eq. (\ref{eq:tmix}). At first
322: glance, one might think that if $U_{13}$ in vacuum is very small
323: then solar neutrinos will be almost unaffected by the mass of
324: $\n_{\tau}$ and analysis with three neutrino flavors may not be
325: essential. However, unlike in the SM, where only $\n_e$
326: interactions with matter are relevant for neutrino oscillation,
327: in the $\Rsl$ supersymmetric Model, FCNC and FDNC interactions of
328: all three flavors of neutrinos turn out to be important. In fact,
329: one can see from eqs. (\ref{eq:H}) and (\ref{eq:mixang2}) that
330: $R_{13}$, arising from FCNC interactions, appears in $\tan 2
331: \theta_{12}$ and plays a pivotal role.
332:
333: We now turn to the oscillation of solar neutrinos due to their
334: interaction with matter inside the sun. As already discussed,
335: $\n_e$ in the sun can experience only one of the two resonances.
336: $s_{13}$ in eq. (\ref{eq:tmix}) is very small as noted
337: earlier and we use the survival probability of $\n_e$ valid
338: for a two flavor analysis:
339: \bea
340: P_{{\n}_e \rightarrow {\n}_e}= {1 \over 2}+ \left( {1 \over 2} -
341: P_{jump} \right) \cos 2 \theta_{12} (x_1) \cos 2 \theta_{12}
342: (x_0),
343: \label{eq:prob}
344: \eea
345: where $x_0$ is the production point inside the sun and $x_1$ the
346: detection point at earth\footnote{Notice that $\cos 2\theta_{12}(x_1) =
347: 1$, corresponding to $\theta_{12} = 0$ in vacuum.}. The jump
348: probability is $P_{jump} \approx \exp[- \pi \gamma_{res} F /2 ]$,
349: $\gamma_{res}$ being the adiabaticity parameter. $F =1$ for the
350: exponential density profile since the vacuum mixing angle is zero and
351: \bea
352: \gamma_{res} = {{\tilde {m}}_2^2 - {\tilde {m}}_1^2 \over 4 E
353: \dot{\theta}_{12} } \simeq \frac{m_2^2}{E} \left(\frac{p}{\kappa}\right)^2
354: \left( {n_e \over \dot{n}_e} \right)_{res},
355: \label{eq:adia}
356: \eea
357: where $\kappa = \left(2 \l_{121}^2 - \l_{321}^2 \right) /
358: (8 {\tilde{m}_{\mu}}^2) + \sqrt{2} G_F \sim \sqrt{2} G_F$
359: \footnote{$\l_{121}$ and $\l_{321}$ are tightly constrained \cite{review}.
360: Besides significant cancellation between these terms is possible if
361: they are of same order.} and $p = |{\l_{121} \l_{321}\over 4 m_{\tilde
362: \mu}^2}|$.
363:
364: In order to obtain the best-fit values of $\Delta m_{12} \approx
365: m_2^2$ and $p$, we have performed a $\chi^2$ analysis using the
366: Standard Solar Model (SSM) \cite{bah} and the solar neutrino
367: rates from the Homestake ($Cl$), Gallex, Sage, and Kamiokande
368: ($K$) experiments \cite{solar1}. We have also used the latest
369: $SK$ rates and spectrum data for 1258 days \cite{SK1258}. Taking
370: into account the production point distributions of neutrinos from
371: the different reactions ({\em e.g.}, $pp$, $pep$, $^7Be$, $^8B$
372: {\em etc.})\footnote{We have dropped a small contribution
373: from the $hep$ process.}, we have calculated the averaged
374: survival probabilities using eq. (\ref{eq:prob}). Here, we
375: include a parameter $X_B$ to take into account a possible
376: deviation of the overall normalization of the $^8B$ flux from its
377: SSM value. We set $\theta_{23v} = \pi /4$. The best-fit values of
378: the parameters are presented in Table 1 along with
379: $\chi^2_{min}$, the goodness of fit ($gof$), and the calculated
380: rates using these values of the parameters. Case (1) is a fit to
381: the total rates. Note that the best-fit parameters result in an
382: unusually good fit to the $Cl$ rate and the $Ga$ prediction is
383: right near the average of the Sage and Gallex data. We have
384: found that the fit improves even more if the $K$-rate is
385: excluded. In case (2) we have fitted the $SK$ spectrum while (3)
386: is a fit to the total rates and the $SK$ spectrum\footnote{We
387: have checked that the fit (3) is essentially unchanged if the
388: $SK$ rate is excluded from the fit.}. In Fig. 1 is shown the
389: calculated spectrum for $SK$ for the best-fit parameters along
390: with the experimental data. Also shown is the charged current
391: spectrum expected at SNO for one sample case, the best-fit values
392: in case (3)\footnote{For these best-fit values, the prediction
393: for the neutral and charged current rates at SNO, normalized to
394: the SSM, are 0.56 and 0.44, respectively.}.
395:
396: \begin{center}
397: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
398: \hline
399: &\multicolumn{5}{|c|}{Best-fit
400: Values}&\multicolumn{5}{|c|}{Corresponding Rates}\\ \cline{2-11}
401: &$p$&$ m_2^2$&$$ & & $\chi^2$ & $Cl$
402: & $Gallex$ & $Sage$ & $K$ & $SK$ \\
403: Case&$(10^{-24}$&$(10^{-5}$&$X_B$&$dof$&$(gof)$ & ($0.33 \pm$
404: &($0.52 \pm$ &($0.60 \pm$ &($0.54 \pm$ &($0.451 \pm$ \\
405: &eV$^{-2}$)&eV$^2$)&& &&$0.029$)&$0.06$)&$0.06$)&$
406: 0.07$)&$ 0.016$) \\
407: \hline
408: 1&$0.595$&$1.063 $&0.845 & 2 & 1.71 & 0.326
409: & 0.561 & 0.561 & 0.478 & 0.455 \\
410: & & & & & (42.5) & & & & & \\
411: \hline
412: 2&0.009&0.01&0.446&16 &18.76&0.582&0.947&0.947&0.446&0.446\\
413: & & & & & (28.1) & & & & & \\
414: \hline
415: 3&0.360&0.980&0.560 & 21 & 25.53 & 0.364 &
416: 0.558 & 0.558 & 0.456 & 0.447 \\
417: & & & & & (22.5) & & & & & \\
418: \hline
419: \end{tabular}
420: \end{center}
421: \begin{description}
422: \item{\small \sf Table 1:} {\small \sf The best-fit values of
423: the parameters, $p= |{\l_{121} \l_{321} \over 4 m_{\tilde
424: \mu}^2}|$, $m_2^2$, and $ X_{B}$ from fits to (1) all
425: rates, (2) the $SK$ spectrum, and (3) rates and $SK$ spectrum.
426: The rates for the different experiments obtained using these
427: best-fit parameters are also shown.}
428: \end{description}
429:
430:
431:
432: The best-fit values of $\Rsl$ couplings in Table 1 are
433: consistent with the existing constraints. For example, in case
434: (3), choosing $m_{\tilde\mu} \sim 100$ GeV, we get $\l_{121}
435: \l_{321} \approx 0.0144$. $\l_{121}$ is constrained from $\mu
436: \rightarrow e \bar{\n_e} \n_{\mu}$ decay (with selectron exchange tree
437: level diagram apart from the SM $W$ exchange diagram). The
438: bound on $\l_{321}$ is from $R \equiv \Gamma(\tau
439: \rightarrow e \n \bar{\n}) /\Gamma(\tau \rightarrow \mu \n
440: \bar{\n})$ which gets a contribution from a selectron exchange
441: diagram. For $m_{\tilde e} \sim 200$ GeV or more, the
442: requirements are easily satisfied \cite{review}.
443:
444: Turning now to atmospheric neutrinos \cite{atm}, for a
445: simple-minded analysis we can consider the earth to be a slab of
446: a single density. $n_e$ in earth lies in the range $(3-6) N_A$
447: cm$^{-3}$. So the resonance condition, $D_2 = 0$, cannot be met
448: for atmospheric neutrinos having energy near the GeV range. In
449: order to explain the observed zenith angle dependence, we must
450: choose $\Delta m_{32} \sim 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$. This precludes the
451: occurrence of the other resonance, $D_1 = 0$. Since neither
452: resonance condition can be satisfied, there will be almost no
453: effect on atmospheric neutrino oscillation due to the $L$
454: violating interactions as the associated couplings are very
455: small. So one can consider the mixing matrix in eq.
456: (\ref{eq:tmix}) valid for vacuum for which only $\theta_{23v}$ is
457: non-zero. Thus the solution to the atmospheric neutrino anomaly
458: is just the standard two neutrino mass-mixing one.
459:
460: The neutrino masses and mixing pattern in vacuum required in this
461: solution can naturally arise in many models. For example, the
462: trilinear couplings in eq. (\ref{eq:spot}) contribute to the
463: neutrino mass matrix at the one-loop level through slepton or
464: squark exchange diagrams \cite{hall}. In particular, from the
465: $\l^{\pr}$ couplings one obtains:
466: \be
467: m_{ij}^{loop}= {3 \, m_b^2 \; ( A_b + \m \tan \b \, ) \over 8 \p^2 \;
468: {\tilde
469: m_b}^2} \; \l^{\pr}_{i33} \, \l^{\pr}_{j33}.
470: \label{eq:mrpar}
471: \ee
472: where $A_b$ and $\m$ are soft SUSY-breaking parameters, ${\tilde
473: m_b}$ is the $b$-squark mass and $\tan\b$ is the ratio of two
474: Higgs vacuum expectation values. The last two generation indices
475: in $\l^{\pr}$ have been chosen as 3 for which the loop
476: contributions are enhanced {\em via} the $b-$quark mass. We
477: remark that $m_{ij}$ is very small when $i = 1$ and/or $j = 1$
478: because of the more stringent constraint \cite{review} on
479: $\l^{\pr}_{133}$. Notice that this mass matrix can correspond to
480: almost maximal mixing for $\n_{\m}$ and $\n_{\tau}$ if
481: $\l^{\pr}_{233} \approx \l^{\pr}_{333}$, with two neutrino masses
482: very small and one neutrino having significantly higher mass
483: $m_3 \approx 2 \; m_{33}^{loop}$, which can be suitably chosen by
484: taking appropriate values of the different parameters in
485: (\ref{eq:mrpar}). It should be borne in mind that $m_2$ depends
486: on the difference of $\l^{\pr}_{233}$ and $\l^{\pr}_{333}$ and
487: can be several orders less than the mass of the heavier neutrino
488: while there will be almost maximal mixing. The remaining
489: neutrino mass is $m_1 \approx 0$. Thus masses and vacuum mixings
490: can be as required in the model under consideration.
491:
492: This neutrino mixing pattern also satisfies the bound ${U_{13}}^2
493: \leq 0.04$ in vacuum from the CHOOZ reactor experiment
494: \cite{chooz}. In fact, in vacuum ${U_{13}}^2 = 0$.
495:
496:
497: A comment about the earth regeneration effect for solar neutrinos
498: is pertinent. The $\nu_e$ is unmixed with the other neutrinos in
499: vacuum. As $n_e$ in earth is about two orders less than that near
500: the core of the sun, no resonance condition will be
501: satisfied\footnote{Except for neutrinos with $E > 10$ MeV
502: passing very near the centre of the earth.}. Hence, there will
503: not be an earth effect for solar neutrinos. In comparison with
504: the small angle MSW fits \cite{barg1}, the somewhat larger
505: best-fit $\Delta m_{12}$ and the zero value of $\theta_{12}$ in
506: vacuum here, result in a smaller day-night effect.
507:
508:
509: Though our discussion has been within the framework of $R$-parity
510: violating SUSY, there are other models \cite{otmod} where FCNC
511: and FDNC interactions are present. Our results can be adapted to
512: these scenarios in a straight-forward manner.
513:
514: \vskip 10pt
515:
516: %{\bf Acknowledgements}
517: %%%%%%%%%%%
518: \section*{Acknowledgements}
519: %%%%%%%%%%%
520: RA is supported by D.S.T., India, A.S. enjoys a fellowship from
521: U.G.C., India while AR has been supported in part by C.S.I.R.
522: and D.S.T., India.
523:
524:
525: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
526: \bibitem{bahc}J.N. Bahcall, {\em Neutrino Astrophysics,}
527: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1989);
528: N. Hata and P. Langacker, Phys. Rev. {\bf D56}, 075014, (1999);
529: Y. Suzuki, Talk given at the XIX International
530: Conference on Neutrino Physics \& Astrophysics,
531: http://nu2000.sno.laurentian.ca/Y.Suzuki.
532: \bibitem{solar1}Y. Fukuda {\em et al.}, (The Super-Kamiokande
533: collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1158 (1998), {\em
534: ibid.} {\bf 82}, 2430 (1999); B.T. Cleveland {\em et al.},
535: Astrophys. J. {\bf 496}, 505 (1998); Nucl. Phys. (Proc.
536: Suppl.) {\bf B38}, 47 (1995); W. Hampel {\em et al.}, (The Gallex
537: collaboration), Phys. Lett. {\bf B447}, 127 (1999); J.N.
538: Abdurashitov {\em et al.}, (The SAGE collaboration), Phys. Rev.
539: {\bf C60}, 055801 (1999); Y. Fukuda {\em et al.}, (The
540: Kamiokande collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 1683
541: (1996).
542: \bibitem{atm} Y. Fukuda {\em et al.}, (The Super-Kamiokande
543: collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1562 (1998).
544: \bibitem{review} For recent reviews, see G. Bhattacharyya, Nucl.
545: Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 52A}, 83 (1997); hep-ph/9709395;
546: R. Barbier {\em et al.}, Report of the Group on $R$-parity violation,
547: hep-ph/9810232; B.C. Allanach, A. Dedes, and H.K. Dreiner, Phys.
548: Rev. {\bf D60}, 075014, (1999).
549: \bibitem{wolf} L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. {\bf D17}, 2369 (1978).
550: \bibitem{masi} M.M. Guzzo {\em et al.}, Phys.
551: Lett. {\bf B260}, 154 (1991); E. Roulet, Phys. Rev. {\bf D44},
552: 935 (1991).
553: \bibitem{guzzo} M.M. Guzzo, H. Nunokawa, P.C. de Holanda, and
554: O.L.G. Peres, hep-ph/0012089.
555: \bibitem{atf} N. Fornengo, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and J.W.F.
556: Valle, JHEP {\bf 0007}, 006 (2000); S. Bergmann, Y. Grossman, and
557: D.M. Pierce, Phys. Rev. {\bf D61}, 053005 (2000).
558: \bibitem{bbk} V. Barger {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D44},
559: 1629 (1991); S. Bergmann {\em et al.}, {\em ibid.} {\bf D62},
560: 073001 (2000); P.I. Krastev and J.N. Bahcall, hep-ph/9703267.
561: \bibitem{atf1} M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev.
562: Lett. {\bf 82}, 3202 (1999); R. Foot, C.N. Leung, and O. Yasuda,
563: Phys. Lett. {\bf B443}, 185 (1998); P. Lipari and M. Lusignoli,
564: Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, 073005 (1998); G.L. Fogli {\em et al.},
565: {\em ibid.} {\bf D60}, 053006 (1999); M.M. Guzzo {\em et al.},
566: Nucl. Phys. (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf B87}, 2015 (2000).
567: \bibitem{bah}J. N. Bahcall, S. Basu, and M. H. Pinsonneault, Phys.
568: Lett. {\bf B433}, 1 (1998).
569: \bibitem{SK1258} S. Fukuda {\em et al.}, (The Super-Kamiokande
570: collaboration), hep-ex/0103032.
571: \bibitem{hall} L.J. Hall and M. Suzuki, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B231}, 419
572: (1984); I.H. Lee, Phys. Lett. {\bf B138}, 121 (1984).
573: \bibitem{chooz} M. Appolonio {\em et al.}, (The CHOOZ collaboration), Phys.
574: Lett. {\bf B420}, 397 (1998).
575: \bibitem{barg1} See, for example, S. Goswami, D. Majumdar, and A.
576: Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, 013003 (2001); V. Barger {\em
577: et al.}, hep-ph/0104095.
578: \bibitem{otmod} See, for example, F. Pisano and V. Pleitez,
579: Phys. Rev. {\bf D46}, 410 (1992); P. Frampton, Phys. Rev.
580: Lett. {\bf 69}, 2889 (1992).
581: \end{thebibliography}
582: \vskip 30pt
583: %\newpage
584: \begin{figure}[hb]
585: %\begin{center}
586: \vskip -1.00in
587: %\hskip -1.15in
588: %\psfig{figure=fig1.ps,xsize=0.5,ysize=0.5} \vskip -6.10in
589: \psfig{figure=fig1.ps,width=14.0cm,height=22.0cm}
590: \vskip -5.10in
591: %\hskip -4.00in
592: \caption{\sf \small
593: The calculated SK solar neutrino spectrum for the best-fit
594: parameters $\Delta m_{12}$, $p$, and $X_{B}$ from (1) rates, (2)
595: SK spectrum, and (3) rates and spectrum. The SK 1258-day data
596: \cite{SK1258} and the predicted SNO charged current
597: spectrum for the best-fit (3) are also shown. } %\end{center}
598: \end{figure}
599: \end{document}
600:
601:
602: