1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
2: \usepackage{geometry}
3: \include {epsf}
4: \oddsidemargin=0mm
5: \evensidemargin=0mm
6: \topmargin=0mm
7: \headheight=0mm
8: \headsep=0mm
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10: \def\a{\alpha}
11: \def\b{\beta}
12: \def\g{\gamma}
13: \def\d{\delta}
14: \def\D{\Delta}
15: \def\ka{\kappa}
16: \def\e{\epsilon}
17: \def\th{\theta}
18: \def\om{\omega}
19: \def\vp{{\varphi}}
20: \def\l{\lambda}
21: \def\G{{\rm GeV}}
22: \def\Me{{\rm MeV}}
23: \def\eV{{\rm eV}}
24: \def\Im{{\rm Im}}
25: \def\dmsq{\D m^2}
26: \def\simgt{\stackrel{>}{\small{\sim}}}
27: \def\t{\tilde}
28: \def\o{\over}
29: \def\Ar{\rightarrow}
30: \def\bar{\overline}
31: \def\un{\underline}
32: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
33: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
34: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
35: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
36: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
37: \begin{document}
38: \begin{flushright}
39: Lund-MPh-01/06
40: \end{flushright}
41: \vspace{0.3 cm}
42: \centerline{\Large\bf Probing {\it CPT} violation with atmospheric neutrinos}
43: \vskip 1 cm
44: \begin{center}
45: \bf Solveig Skadhauge
46: \footnote{Email address: Solveig.Skadhauge@matfys.lth.se}
47: \end{center}
48: \centerline{ \it{Department of Mathematical Physics, LTH,
49: Lund University, S-22100 Lund, Sweden}}
50: \vskip 1 cm
51: \centerline{\bf ABSTRACT}\par
52: \vskip 0.5 cm
53: We investigate the recently suggested scheme of independent
54: mass matrices for neutrinos and antineutrinos.
55: Such a {\it CPT} violating scheme is able to account for all neutrino
56: data with the three known flavors.
57: For atmospheric neutrinos this means that it is possible to
58: have different mass squared differences driving the oscillation
59: for neutrinos and antineutrinos. We analyze the atmospheric and K2K
60: data within the simplest scheme of two neutrino oscillation,
61: neglecting electron neutrino oscillation.
62: We find that the preferred region is close to the {\it CPT} conserving
63: mass spectra. However the spectra with the antineutrino mass squared
64: difference about or larger than 0.1 eV$^2$ and the neutrino
65: mass squared difference
66: about $2 \times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ is not significantly disfavored.
67: In this parameter region the atmospheric data are
68: independent of the antineutrino mass squared difference.
69: Therefore no useful constraint can be put on {\it CPT} violation
70: effects contributing to different masses for the neutrinos
71: and antineutrinos. \\
72:
73: {\it Keywords:} Neutrino physics, atmospheric neutrinos,
74: {\it CPT} violation.
75: \vskip 1 cm
76: \section{Introduction}
77: Many elementary particles, like the electron and the kaons, provide
78: tight bounds on possible {\it CPT} violating effects contributing to
79: different masses for the particle and its antiparticle.
80: For instance for the electron
81: and the positron we have \cite{pgd}
82: \begin{equation}
83: \frac{|m_{\rm e^+} - m_{\rm e^-}|}{m_{\rm average}} <
84: 8 \times 10^{-9} \;, \qquad {\rm CL}=90\% \;.
85: \end{equation}
86: As is well known, {\it CPT} conservation implies the equality of the
87: neutrino and antineutrino survival probabilities in vacuum \cite{petcov},
88: though matter effects can produce fake {\it CPT} violating effects
89: \cite{langacker}.
90: The atmospheric neutrino data involve both the particle and
91: the antiparticle channels and are therefore suitable for a study
92: of possible {\it CPT} violation in the neutrino sector.
93: The idea to use neutrino oscillation to search for {\it CPT} violation
94: was first proposed in Ref.\cite{bigi}.
95: Naturally as the atmospheric neutrino experiments are probing
96: mass squared differences and not the absolute neutrino mass,
97: these will be the quantities which might be restricted by the data.
98: The interest in {\it CPT} violation arises due to a recently
99: suggested scheme which is capable of solving all neutrino anomalies
100: without the use of a light sterile neutrino \cite{yan,gabriela}.
101:
102: At present three neutrino anomalies (atmospheric \cite{SKevi},
103: solar \cite{SKsolar} and LSND \cite{LSND}) exist, all requiring
104: different $\dmsq$'s when interpreted in terms of
105: neutrino oscillation. Therefore a {\it CPT} conserving three
106: neutrino framework cannot account for all anomalies.
107: This has also been explicitely shown in theoretical fits of the atmospheric
108: data \cite{nosb,sol2}. Consequently one has to go beyond
109: standard explanations to solve all anomalies.
110:
111: A possible solution could be the existence of a light sterile neutrino.
112: Several studies of such four neutrino models have been performed and the
113: current situation has been presented in Ref.\cite{schwetz}. The
114: four neutrino models give an acceptable fit when fitting
115: all available data. However, each of the different solutions
116: faces problems within a particular subset of the data.
117: The '3+1' mass spectra are in disagreement with the short-baseline
118: experiments and the '2+2' mass spectra conflict with either the
119: atmospheric or the solar neutrino data. Therefore the four neutrino models,
120: though not completely ruled out at present, seem highly disfavored.
121:
122: In the absence of a sterile neutrino, Yanagida and Murayama
123: have recently suggested a another possibility to solve all of the known
124: neutrino anomalies \cite{yan}.
125: The Yanagida-Murayama scheme preserves Lorentz invariance\footnote{It has been
126: argued that the scheme also violate Lorentz invariance \cite{lor}} but
127: involve {\it CPT} violation by invoking independent masses
128: for neutrinos and antineutrinos.
129: Hence there is
130: a total of four independent $\dmsq$'s.
131: Schematically we can represent the masses for the neutrino and
132: antineutrino as in Fig.\ref{masses}.
133: The solar neutrino problem only concerns the disappearance of
134: $\nu_e$ and the LSND experiment sees $\bar \nu_e$ appearance in a
135: $\bar\nu_\mu$ beam. These experiments can be separately explained by
136: $\dmsq_\odot$ and $\dmsq_{\rm LSND}$ in the Yanagida-Murayama scheme.
137: The atmospheric neutrinos data involve both $\nu_\mu$ and
138: $\bar\nu_\mu$ and allowing for {\it CPT} violation the two $\dmsq$'s are
139: no longer constrained to be identical as also considered in
140: Refs.\cite{pakvasa,gabriela}. It is therefore clear that all the data can
141: be explained within this model.
142: \begin{figure}\label{masses}
143: \begin{picture}(300,120)(-100,0)
144: \put(40,20){\line(40,0){30}}
145: \put(40,50){\line(40,0){30}}
146: \put(40,65){\line(40,0){30}}
147: \put(200,20){\line(130,0){30}}
148: \put(200,80){\line(130,0){30}}
149: \put(200,110){\line(130,0){30}}
150: \put(50,0){\Large{$m_{\nu}$}}
151: \put(205,0){\Large{$m_{\overline\nu}$}}
152: \put(75,52){\large{$\D m_{\odot}$}}
153: \put(75,30){\large{$\D m_{\nu,\rm atm}$}}
154: \put(235,45){\large{$\D m_{\rm LSND}$}}
155: \put(235,90){\large{$\D m_{\bar\nu, \rm atm}$}}
156: \end{picture}
157: \caption{Schematic view of the masses of neutrinos and antineutrinos}
158: \end{figure}
159:
160: To invoke {\it CPT} violation is indeed a very drastic solution.
161: Therefore it is important to discuss physical models for generating
162: {\it CPT} violation in the Yanagida-Murayama scheme.
163: In Ref.\cite{gabriela} a definite model
164: of {\it CPT} violation is introduced that can account for all available
165: neutrino data. It was argued that {\it CPT} violation in the
166: neutrino sector can be motivated from string theory via the
167: extra dimensions. The right-handed neutrinos, like the
168: graviton, are free to propagate in the bulk, whereas the Standard Model
169: fields are constrained within a four dimensional brane.
170: This gives rise to non-locality for the neutrinos and thereby
171: generating {\it CPT} violation.
172: This {\it CPT} violating scheme is also able to account for
173: baryogenesis in a natural way \cite{gabriela}.
174: %%%CHECK
175: Furthermore non-commutative
176: geometry can generate {\it CPT} violation \cite{noncom,yan}.
177:
178: In this paper we will study the atmospheric neutrino anomaly
179: within a two family neutrino scheme with {\it CPT} violation.
180: The electron neutrinos are assumed not to oscillate on the
181: atmospheric scale. We include the data from the K2K long baseline
182: experiment, that further constrain the neutrino parameters.
183: The atmospheric neutrino problem is by now well established and can be
184: accounted for primarily by a two neutrino $\nu_{\mu}\Ar \nu_{\tau}$
185: oscillation \cite{SKevi}. However, sub-dominant oscillations are
186: still possible and maybe even welcome \cite{subdominant,sol2}.
187: Having different mass matrices for neutrinos and antineutrinos
188: naturally gives different mixing matrices; $U_\nu$ for the neutrino
189: sector and $U_{\bar\nu}$ for the antineutrino sector.
190: We will investigate whether the mixing parameters can be constrained
191: by the atmospheric and K2K data.
192: A most relevant parameter is the difference
193: in mass squared difference for neutrinos and antineutrinos.
194: Let us define the parameter
195: $\epsilon$ to describe the amount of {\it CPT} violation
196: \begin{equation}\label{epsilon}
197: \epsilon = | \dmsq_{\nu ,{\rm atm}} - \dmsq_{\bar\nu,{\rm atm}}| \;.
198: \end{equation}
199: Using the latest data, we will show that $\epsilon$ is only weakly
200: constrained.
201:
202: Let us finally mention that the LSND result, which has not yet been confirmed,
203: will be scrutinized by the Mini-BooNE experiment \cite{Mini}.
204: However, as has been noted before, unless this experiment is done also with
205: antineutrinos the Yanagida-Murayama scheme cannot be ruled out.
206: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
207: \section{Analysis of the atmospheric data}
208: A number of experiments have measured the atmospheric neutrino fluxes.
209: Here we will only consider the contained events of the
210: Super-Kamiokande (SK) experiment \cite{SKdata}.
211: The justification for leaving out other
212: data sets is the superior statistics of the SK data.
213: Furthermore, the high energy upward through-going muon events \cite{SKup}
214: are less affected by antineutrinos. For the average energy of 100 GeV of
215: these events the $\nu_{\mu}/\bar\nu_\mu$ flux ratio is about 1.5,
216: thus decreasing the influence of the antineutrinos. Also the
217: statistics is lower and we do not expect large effects from the inclusion
218: of this sample.
219:
220: We use the following simple two-family survival probability
221: relations for neutrinos and antineutrinos
222: \begin{equation}
223: P_{\nu_\mu\rightarrow \nu_\mu}=1-
224: \sin^2(2\theta_{\nu})\sin^2 \left(\frac{L\dmsq_\nu}{4E}\right) \;,
225: \end{equation}
226:
227: \begin{equation}
228: P_{\bar\nu_{\mu}\rightarrow \bar\nu_{\mu}}= 1 -
229: \sin^2(2\theta_{\bar\nu})\sin^2 \left(\frac{L\dmsq_{\bar\nu}}{4E} \right)\;.
230: \end{equation}
231: We assume that the oscillation is into $\tau$-neutrinos, whereby
232: the electron survival probability is taken to be one for both neutrinos and
233: antineutrinos. As we only consider $\nu_\mu$ to $\nu_\tau$
234: oscillation there are no matter effects.
235: The pathlength of the neutrino, $L$, is calculated using an
236: average production point in the atmosphere of 15km. $E$ is the neutrino
237: energy.
238:
239:
240: The data are divided into sub-GeV and multi-GeV energy ranges
241: and can be represented as the ratio, $R^{\rm exp}$,
242: between the measured fluxes and the theoretical Monte Carlo
243: prediction in the case of no oscillation.
244: We define $\chi^2$ as
245: \be
246: \chi^2= \sum_{M, S}\sum_{\alpha=e,\mu}\sum_{i=1}^{10}
247: \frac{(R_{\alpha,i}^{\rm exp}-
248: R_{\alpha,i}^{\rm th})^2}{\sigma_{\alpha i}^2} + \chi^2_\beta \;,
249: \ee
250: where $\sigma_{\alpha,i}$ are the statistical errors
251: and $M,S$ stand for the multi-GeV and sub-GeV data respectively and $i$
252: denotes the zenith angle bin.
253: For the details of the $\chi^2$ definition we refer to Ref.\cite{sol2},
254: except that we here use a smearing of the sub-GeV events with an angle
255: $50^\circ /\sqrt{E_\nu/{\rm GeV}}$ \cite{learned}.
256: %The visible energy is roughly half the neutrino energy.
257: The overall normalization of the neutrino fluxes is allowed to vary freely.
258: Hence we minimize with respect to $\alpha$, where the neutrino flux is
259: given by $\Phi=(1+\alpha )\Phi^0$. The theoretically predicted neutrino
260: flux $\Phi^0$ is taken from \cite{subflux,mulflux}.
261: The $\chi^2_\beta$ term takes into account the error in
262: the $\nu_\mu/\nu_e$ flux ratio.
263: The SK Collaboration estimate the error to be $8\%$ in the sub-GeV
264: range and $12\%$ in the multi-GeV range. We renormalize the neutrino
265: fluxes as
266: \begin{equation}
267: \tilde\Phi_{\mu}^{S,M}=(1-\b_{S,M}/2)\Phi_{\mu}^{S,M} \; , \qquad
268: \tilde\Phi_{e}^{S,M}=(1+\b_{S,M}/2)\Phi_{e}^{S,M}
269: \end{equation}
270: where the symbols $S,M$ stands for sub-GeV and multi-GeV respectively
271: and minimize the total $\chi^2$ function with respect to $\b_S$ and $\b_M$.
272: The $\chi^2_\beta$ function is given by
273: \begin{equation}
274: \chi^2_{\beta}=\left( \frac{\beta_S}{0.08}\right) ^2
275: +\left( \frac{\beta_M}{0.12}\right) ^2 \;.
276: \end{equation}
277: For the best fit point obtained by the SK Collaboration the values used
278: are $\beta_S=6\%$ and $\beta_M=12\%$, implying that while scaling
279: the electron ratios down one simultaneously scales the muon ratios up.
280:
281: We also include the recent data from the K2K long baseline
282: experiment \cite{k2k}.
283: The beam is almost pure $\nu_\mu$ and we will neglect the small contamination
284: of $\bar\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_e$. We use the same method as in
285: Ref.\cite{foglik2k} and only fit to total number of observed events.
286: In total we have five parameters ($\dmsq_{\nu},\; \dmsq_{\bar\nu},\;
287: \theta_\nu,\; \theta_{\bar\nu},\;\alpha$) and 41 data points.
288:
289:
290: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
291: \begin{figure}[t]
292: \begin{center}
293: \mbox{
294: \epsfysize=9cm
295: \epsffile{con.eps}
296: }
297: \end{center}
298: \vspace{-0.4cm}
299: \caption{The 68.3\% (90\%) CL regions for parameters $\dmsq_{\nu}$ and
300: $\dmsq_{\bar\nu}$ for the contained SK events and the total number
301: of events in K2K (5 d.o.f).
302: }
303: \label{conlev}
304: \end{figure}
305: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
306: The minimum is $\chi^2_{\rm min}=33$ at $\alpha=1\%$,
307: $\beta_S=8\%$, $\beta_M=10\%$ and
308: \begin{equation}\label{bcpt}
309: \dmsq_{\nu}=2.5 \times 10^{-3} \:{\rm eV}^2 \;, \;\;
310: \dmsq_{\bar \nu} = 2.0 \times 10^{-3} \:{\rm eV}^2 \; , \;\;
311: \sin^2(2\theta_{\nu})=1.0 \; , \;\;
312: \sin^2(2\theta_{\bar\nu})=1.0
313: \end{equation}
314: with 36 degrees of freedom.
315: This is very close to the {\it CPT} conserving case.
316: In Fig.\ref{conlev} we show the 68.27\% and 90\% confidence levels
317: as obtained by $\Delta \chi^2 <5.9,\; 9.2$, respectively,
318: for five degrees of freedom. At 90\% C.L.
319: the mass squared difference for neutrinos is
320: constrained within $4.5 \times 10^{-4}$ eV$^2-5 \times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$,
321: while the antineutrino mass squared difference is only bounded from below
322: ($>2\times 10^{-4}$ eV$^2$).
323: At 90\% C.L. the mixing angles are bounded, $\sin^2(2\theta_\nu)>0.8$ and
324: $\sin^2(2\theta_{\bar\nu})>0.5$, but maximal mixing is preferred for both
325: angles.
326:
327: The correlation between the lepton and the neutrino angle in the sub-GeV
328: range is very weak and the data is smeared compared to the multi-GeV
329: sample \cite{review}. The exact calculation method
330: can therefore change the results slightly as the effect of a
331: large $\dmsq_{\bar\nu}$ is similar to a smearing. For smaller effective
332: smearing the best fit point will move toward larger values
333: of $\dmsq_{\bar\nu}$. The same considerations apply to the mixing angles
334: which also effectively flatten the zenith angle curve.
335:
336: One should note that a point with values of $\dmsq_{\bar\nu} \simeq$
337: 0.1 eV$^2$ and $\dmsq_\nu \simeq 2 \times 10^{-3}$ is not significantly
338: disfavored. The SK contained data become independent of $\dmsq_{\bar\nu}$ in
339: this region as the oscillation probabilities are averaged to 1/2 for all
340: pathlengths. K2K is obviously independent of $\dmsq_{\bar\nu}$ as they measure
341: neutrinos.
342: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
343: \begin{figure}[t]
344: \mbox{
345: \input{ratio_s.ps}
346: }
347: \mbox{
348: \input{ratio_m.ps}
349: }
350: \caption{Predicted ratios as a function of the zenith angle for mixing
351: parameters; $\dmsq_{\nu}=2\times 10^{-2}$ eV$^2$,
352: $\dmsq_{\bar\nu}=0.1$ eV$^2$ and maximal mixing, and
353: the data with statistical errors. The upper
354: curves are the $\nu_e$ ratios and the lower curves are the $\nu_\mu$ ratios.
355: The triangles are the $\nu_e$ experimental ratios and the circles are the
356: $\nu_\mu$ experimental ratios. Note that the experimental ratios are
357: plotted using $\tilde \Phi$ and not $\Phi^0$.
358: }
359: \label{ratio}
360: \end{figure}
361: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
362: The predicted ratios of this mass spectra are shown in
363: Fig.\ref{ratio} along with the data points. The predicted
364: ratio of around 0.85 for the downward going multi-GeV
365: muon neutrinos can be easily understood.
366: In this energy range the flux of neutrinos is roughly the same as
367: the flux of antineutrinos. But the antineutrino cross section is
368: less than half that of neutrinos. The $\sin^2(L\dmsq/4E)$
369: is averaged to one half for antineutrinos and to one for neutrinos
370: and the ratio is estimated to
371: \begin{equation}
372: R_{\mu,\downarrow}
373: \simeq \frac{\Phi_{\nu_\mu}P_{\nu_\mu \Ar \nu_\mu} \sigma_{\nu_\mu}
374: +\Phi_{\bar\nu_\mu} P_{\bar\nu_\mu \Ar \bar\nu_\mu} \sigma_{\bar\nu_\mu}}
375: {\Phi_{\nu_\mu} \sigma_{\nu_\mu} + \Phi_{\bar\nu_\mu}\sigma_{\bar\nu_\mu}}
376: \simeq 0.85\;,
377: \end{equation}
378: where $\sigma$ is the cross section. The reason that this mass spectra
379: is not strongly disfavored is because it agrees very well with the well
380: known double ratio. The measured value is
381: \begin{equation}\label{double}
382: R=\frac{(\mu/e)_{\rm DATA}}{(\mu/e)_{\rm MC}} = 0.675^{+0.034}_{-0.032}\pm0.080
383: \end{equation}
384: in the multi-GeV range \cite{SKdata}.
385: The prediction double ratio for $\dmsq_\nu \simeq 2 \times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$
386: and $\dmsq \simeq 0.1$ eV$^2$ are $R \simeq 0.68$, whereas for both
387: $\dmsq$'s around $3 \times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ we get $R \simeq 0.75$.
388: In both cases we have assumed maximal mixing.
389: For sub-GeV events the double ratio is $0.638\pm 0.017 \pm 0.050$.
390: In other word the advantage of the {\it CPT} violating mass spectra is that
391: it for a flux normalization that diminishes the excess of in particular
392: sub-GeV $\nu_e$ events also agrees well with the muon ratios.
393: In fact in the case that the overall normalization is
394: varied freely, but the $\mu/e$ ratio is kept fixed, the best fit point
395: is for $\dmsq_{\bar\nu} \gg \dmsq_\nu$. Although such a mass spectra
396: does not fit the up-down asymmetries that well as seen from Fig.\ref{ratio}.
397: It must be remembered that the measured values quoted in
398: Eq.(\ref{double}) is dependent on the theoretical predictions for
399: the $\nu_\mu/\nu_e$ flux ratio. The double ratio basically describes
400: the average gap between the $\nu_e$ and the $\nu_\mu$ ratios and
401: this gap is somewhat too large to be fitted very well by a {\it CPT}
402: conserving two family $\nu_{\mu}\Ar \nu_\tau$ oscillation.
403: However if the theoretically predicted $\nu_\mu/\nu_e$ flux
404: ratio is decreased by 6-12\% this provides a very good fit to the data.
405: Furthermore the low value of the double ratio could be due to
406: an excess of $\nu_e$ events which is not accounted for by the two
407: family scheme.
408: The $\chi^2$ value for the point in Fig.\ref{ratio} is 39 and therefore
409: barely outside the $1\sigma$ region. When using 2 d.o.f. as in
410: Ref.\cite{strumia} this would be a $2\sigma$ exclusion. We remark that there
411: is a local maximum of the $\chi^2$ function for values of $\dmsq_{\bar\nu}$
412: between $10^{-2}-10^{-1}$ eV$^2$. The main differences between our results and
413: those in Ref.\cite{strumia} are due to the fact that we use the
414: theoretical predicted fluxes, whereas the normalization in each type of
415: events are varied freely in Ref.\cite{strumia}.
416:
417: For almost all mixing parameters a rise of the theoretical fluxes are
418: needed. New calculations suggest instead a lower flux,
419: by about 10\% \cite{newflux}, mainly due to the primary flux being lower
420: than obtained in earlier measurements.
421: The new normalization results in a large excess of $\nu_e$ events
422: which seems to be difficult to obtain theoretically. In the conventional
423: {\it CPT} conserving case the SK Collaboration obtains $\alpha=20\%$
424: for the best fit point using the new flux predictions \cite{lipari},
425: which roughly amount to putting the normalization back to the old value.
426: Therefore we find the error of the overall normalization is large
427: and a rise can not be excluded.
428:
429: In the {\it CPT} violating scheme the electron ratios can be considerably
430: away from one. A relatively large LSND angle \cite{sol2} as well as
431: the solar mass squared difference \cite{smirnov} can influence these ratios.
432: Though the LSND angle is constrained to be small by the BUGEY results.
433: Also the two angles $\theta_{e\mu}^\nu$ and $\theta_{e\mu}^{\bar\nu}$,
434: describing the oscillation of $\nu_e$ driven by the atmospheric mass squared
435: difference, can have effects.
436: In particular $\theta_{e\mu}^\nu$ is not constrained by the CHOOZ
437: \cite{chooz} and Palo Verde \cite{palo} results as these experiments are
438: measuring anti neutrinos. Moreover $\theta_{e\mu}^{\bar\nu}$ can be large if
439: $\dmsq_{\bar\nu}$ is below the CHOOZ sensitivity of $10^{-3}$ eV$^2$, which
440: is not ruled out by the present data (see Fig.\ref{conlev}).
441: The influence of some of these extra mixing parameters has been studied in
442: Ref.\cite{gabriela2}, where however the systematic errors in the SK data
443: have been ignored.
444:
445: As we have shown the limits on {\it CPT} violation in the neutrino sector
446: are rather weak at present. There are nevertheless good prospects for a much
447: stronger bound in the near future. The results from the KamLAND experiment
448: \cite{kamland} could likely disprove the Yanagida-Murayama scheme. The
449: experiment will test the currently favored large mixing angle MSW (LMA)
450: solution to the solar neutrino problem,
451: by detecting anti electron neutrinos from nearby nuclear reactors.
452: For the most favored region of the LMA solution
453: ($\dmsq_{\odot} < 2 \times 10^{-4}$ eV$^2$)
454: the detected energy spectrum at KamLAND will quite precisely determine
455: the value of the mass squared difference and this signal would rule out the
456: Yanagida-Murayama scheme. However for $\dmsq > 2 \times 10^{-4}$ eV$^2$
457: the oscillations are averaged out and KamLAND can only put a lower bound
458: on the anti neutrino mass squared difference \cite{barger}.
459: In this case the situation becomes more problematic as there are two different
460: possible explanations.
461: A large value of $\dmsq_{\odot}$ is not ruled out, though disfavored by the
462: present data.
463: The signal could also be explained within the Yanagida-Murayama scheme by
464: having a small $\dmsq_{\bar\nu, atm}$ along with a large
465: $\theta_{e\mu}^{\bar\nu}$. Borexino detecting solar neutrinos will not be
466: able to pin down the true solution.
467: Hence, if an averaged oscillation with a large angle
468: is observed, one would most likely have to wait for the results of the
469: MiniBooNE experiment. In the case that KamLAND does confirm the LMA
470: solution to the solar neutrino problem, much better
471: limits on {\it CPT} violation could be obtained as discussed
472: in Ref.\cite{bahcall}. If Kamland does not observe a suppression of the anti
473: neutrino flux there are different possibilities to test {\it CPT} violation
474: as discussed in Refs.\cite{strumia,gabriela2}.
475: Indirect limits can also be obtained by studying how radiative corrections
476: communicate the large amount of {\it CPT} violation in the neutrino sector
477: to the charged lepton sector \cite{irina}.
478:
479: In conclusion we have analyzed the Super-Kamiokande contained events
480: and the K2K data in a {\it CPT} violating two neutrino
481: $\nu_{\mu},\,\nu_{\tau}$ framework.
482: The best fit area is close to the {\it CPT} conserving case.
483: However at present the {\it CPT} violation parameter $\epsilon$,
484: defined in Eq.(\ref{epsilon}), cannot be usefully constrained.
485:
486: \vskip 1.0cm
487: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
488: {\bf Acknowledgment}\\
489: The author expresses her thanks to Gabriela Barenboim and Amol Dighe for
490: collaboration when developing the program used in this analysis.
491: Furthermore the author is grateful to Cecilia Jarlskog for discussions
492: and encouragements.
493: \vskip 0.5cm
494: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
495: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
496: \bibitem{pgd}
497: D. E Groom {\it et al.} (Particle Data Group),
498: Euro. Phys. Jour {\bf C15} 1 (2000).
499:
500: \bibitem{petcov}
501: S.M. Bilenkii, J. Hosek, S.T. Petcov, Phys. Lett. {\bf B94}, 495 (1980).
502:
503: \bibitem{langacker}
504: P. Langacker {\it et al}, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B282}, 589 (1987).
505:
506: \bibitem{bigi}
507: I.I.Y. Bigi, Z. Phys. {\bf C12}, 235 (1982).
508:
509: \bibitem{yan}
510: H. Murayama , T. Yanagida, Phys. Lett. {\bf B520}, 263 (2001).
511: %hep-ph/0010178.
512:
513: \bibitem{gabriela}
514: G. Barenboim, L. Borissov, J. Lykken, A. Yu Smirnov, hep-ph/0108199.
515:
516: \bibitem{SKevi}
517: Y. Fukuda {\it et al.} (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration),
518: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81} 1562 (1998). \\
519: S.~Fukuda {\it et al.} (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration),
520: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 85} 3999 (2000).
521:
522: \bibitem{SKsolar}
523: S.~Fukuda {\it et al.} (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration),
524: {\it ibid.} {\bf 86}, 5656 (2001). \\
525: J. N. Abdurashitov {\it et al.} (SAGE Collaboration), Phys. Lett {\bf B447},
526: 127 (1999).\\
527: W. Hampel (GALLEX Collaboration) {\it et al.}, Phys.Lett. {\bf B388}, 364
528: (1996).\\
529: B.T. Cleveland {\it et al.}, Astrophys.J. {\bf 496}, 505 (1998); \\
530: Q. R. Ahmad {\it et al.} (SNO Collaboration), Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 87},
531: 071301 (2001).
532:
533: \bibitem{LSND}
534: C. Athanassopoulos {\it et al.} (LSND Collaboration).
535: Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 81}, 1774,(1998).
536: A. Aguilar {\it et al.} (LSND Collaboration), hep-ex/0104049.
537:
538: \bibitem{nosb}
539: G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, G. Scioscia, hep-ph/9906450.
540:
541: \bibitem{sol2}
542: G. Barenboim, A. Dighe, S. Skadhauge, Phys.Rev. {\bf D65} 053001 (2002).
543:
544: \bibitem{schwetz}
545: M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, J. W. F. Valle, hep-ph/0112103.
546:
547: \bibitem{lor}
548: O.W. Greenberg, hep-ph/0201258.
549:
550: \bibitem{pakvasa}
551: V. Barger, S. Pakvasa, T. J. Weiler, K. Whisnant, Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 85}
552: (2000) 5055, hep-ph/0005197.
553: [The section with independent mass matrices is only present in the preprint.]
554:
555: \bibitem{noncom}
556: I. Mocioiu, M. Pospelov, R. Roiban, hep-ph/0108136.
557:
558: \bibitem{subdominant}
559: G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, Phys.Rev. {\bf D64} 093005 (2001).
560:
561: \bibitem{Mini}
562: A. Bazarko (MiniBooNE Collaboration), Nucl.Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.)
563: {\bf 41}, 210 (2000).
564:
565: \bibitem{SKdata}
566: Toshiyuki Toshito, the Super-Kamiokande collaboration, hep-ex/0105023.
567: To be published in the proceedings of XXXVI th Rencontres de Moriond
568: Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories.
569:
570: \bibitem{SKup}
571: Y. Fukuda {\it et al.} (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration),
572: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82} 2644 (1999).
573:
574: \bibitem{learned}
575: J. G. Learned, hep-ex/0007056.
576:
577: \bibitem{subflux}
578: M. Honda, Kajita, K. Kasahara, S. Midorikawa,
579: Phys. Rev. {\bf D52}, 4985 (1995).
580:
581: \bibitem{mulflux}
582: V. Agrawal, T. K. Gaisser, P. Lipari, T. Stanev,
583: Phys.Rev. {\bf D53}, 1314 (1996).
584:
585: \bibitem{k2k}
586: K2K Collaboration, S.H. Ahn {\it et al.}, Phys.Lett {\bf B511}, 178 (2001).
587:
588: \bibitem{foglik2k}
589: G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, hep-ph/0110089.
590:
591: \bibitem{review}
592: T.Kajita, Y. Totsuka, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 73}, 85 (2001).
593:
594: \bibitem{strumia}
595: A. Strumia, hep-ph/0201134.
596:
597: \bibitem{smirnov}
598: O. L. G. Peres, A. Yu. Smirnov, Phys.Lett. {\bf B456} 204 (1999).
599:
600: \bibitem{chooz}
601: M.~Apollonio {\it et al.} (CHOOZ Collaboration),
602: Phys.Lett.{\bf B466}, 415 (1999).
603:
604: \bibitem{palo}
605: F. Boehm {\it et al.} (Palo Verde Collaboration),
606: Phys.Rev. {\bf D64} (2001) 112001.
607:
608: \bibitem{newflux}
609: G. Fiorentini, V. Naumov and F. Villante, hep-ph/0103322.\\
610: G. Battistoni, A. Ferrari, P. Lipari, T. Montaruli, P. R. Sala, T. Rancati,
611: Astropart.Phys. {\bf 12}, 315 (2000).
612:
613: \bibitem{lipari}
614: P. Lipari, Talk at NOON2001, Kashiwa, Japan.
615:
616: \bibitem{gabriela2}
617: G. Barenboim, L. Borissov, J. Lykken, hep-ph/0201080.
618:
619: \bibitem{kamland}
620: The KamLAND proposal, Stanford-HEP-98-03.
621:
622: \bibitem{barger}
623: V. Barger, D. Marfatia, B. P. Wood, Phys.Lett. {\bf B498} 53 (2001). \\
624: R. Barbieri, A. Strumia, JHEP 0012 (2000) 016.
625:
626: \bibitem{bahcall}
627: J.N. Bahcall, V. Barger, D. Marfiatia, hep-ph/0201211.
628:
629: \bibitem{irina}
630: I. Mocioiu, M. Pospelov, hep-ph/0202160.
631: \end{thebibliography}
632: \end{document}
633:
634:
635:
636:
637:
638:
639:
640:
641:
642:
643:
644:
645:
646:
647: