1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: %\bibliographystyle{unsrt}
3: % for BibTeX - sorted numerical labels by order of
4: % first citation.
5:
6:
7: \usepackage{a4}
8: \usepackage{epsfig}
9: \usepackage{a4wide}
10: \usepackage{wasysym}
11: %A useful Journal macro
12:
13: \def\Jo#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
14: \def\bi#1{#1}
15: % Some useful journal names
16: \def\NPB{{Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B}}
17: \def\NPBP{{Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B} (Proc. Suppl.)}
18: \def\PLB{{Phys. Lett.} {\bf B}}
19: \def\PRL{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
20: \def\PRD{{Phys. Rev.} {\bf D}}
21: \def\EPC{{Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C}}
22: \def\EPA{{Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf A}}
23: \def\IJMP{Int. J. of Mod. Phys. {\bf A}}
24: \def\JHEP{JHEP}
25: \def\PTP{Prog. Theo. Phys.}
26: \def\MPLA{{Mod. Phys. Lett} {\bf A}}
27: \def\PPNP{Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.}
28: \def\NIMA{{Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}
29: \def\NPPS{Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.}
30:
31: % Some other macros used in the sample text
32: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
33: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
34: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
35: \def\gs{\mathrel{
36: \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$>$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}
37: \def\ls{\mathrel{
38: \rlap{\raise 0.511ex \hbox{$<$}}{\lower 0.511ex \hbox{$\sim$}}}}
39: \newcommand{\obb}{0\mbox{$\nu\beta\beta$}}
40: \newcommand{\onbb}{neutrinoless double beta decay }
41: \newcommand{\Slash}[1]{\mbox{$#1\hspace{-.6em}/$}}
42: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}{c}}
43: \newcommand{\baz}{\begin{array}{cc}}
44: \newcommand{\bad}{\begin{array}{ccc}}
45: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{equation} \begin{array}{c}}
46: \newcommand{\eea}{ \end{array} \end{equation}}
47: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
48: \newcommand{\D}{\displaystyle}
49: \newcommand{\dms}{\mbox{$\Delta m^2_{\odot}$ }}
50: \newcommand{\dma}{\mbox{$\Delta m^2_{\rm A}$ }}
51: \newcommand{\meff}{\mbox{$\langle m \rangle$}}
52: \newcommand{\imeff}{\mbox{$\langle \frac{\D 1}{\D m} \rangle$ }}
53: \newcommand{\mab}{\mbox{$\langle m_{\alpha \beta} \rangle $}}
54: \newcommand{\tm}{\mbox{$\tilde{m}$}}
55: \def\ra{\rightarrow}
56: \newcommand{\ppp}{\mbox{$(+++)$ }}
57: \newcommand{\pmm}{\mbox{$(+--)$ }}
58: \newcommand{\mpm}{\mbox{$(-+-)$ }}
59: \newcommand{\mmp}{\mbox{$(--+)$ }}
60:
61:
62:
63:
64: \setcounter{secnumdepth}{3}
65:
66: \sloppy
67: \begin{document}
68: \newpage
69: \title{\hfill { {\small DO--TH 02/01}}\\
70: \hfill { {\small hep-ph/0203214}}\\ \vskip 1cm
71: {\bf Measuring leptonic $CP$ Violation in Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay}}
72: {\it
73: \author{Werner Rodejohann\footnote{Email address:
74: rodejoha@xena.physik.uni-dortmund.de}\\
75: {\normalsize Lehrstuhl f\"ur Theoretische Physik III,}\\
76: {\normalsize Universit\"at Dortmund, Otto--Hahn--Str. 4,}\\
77: {\normalsize 44221 Dortmund, Germany}}
78: }
79: \date{}
80: \maketitle
81: \thispagestyle{empty}
82: \begin{abstract}
83: We investigate under which circumstances one can show
84: the existence of leptonic $CP$ violation with the help of a
85: positive or negative signal in neutrinoless double beta decay.
86: The possibilities of cancellations are investigated for
87: special mass hierarchies and the different solar solutions.
88: The possibility that the mixing angle connected with the solar
89: neutrino problem is smaller or larger than $\pi/4$ is taken into
90: account. The non--maximality of that angle in case of the LMA solution
91: allows to make several useful statements.
92: The four different $CP$ conserving
93: possibilities are analyzed.
94: It is implemented how precisely the oscillation parameters will be known
95: after current and future experiments have taken data.
96: The area in parameter space, in which $CP$
97: violation has to take place, is largest for the LOW solution and in general
98: larger for the inverse mass scheme.
99:
100: \end{abstract}
101: {\small Keywords: Neutrino Oscillation, Double Beta Decay,
102: Majorana Neutrinos, $CP$ violation}\\
103: {\small PACS: 14.60.Pq, 23.40.-s}
104:
105: \newpage
106: \section{\label{sec:eins}Introduction}
107: Evidence for lepton flavor violation has been collected
108: in large amounts, courtesy of neutrino oscillation
109: experiments \cite{nuexp,SNOnew}. An explanation of the smallness of the
110: implied neutrino masses is given by the see--saw mechanism \cite{seesaw},
111: which introduces Majorana neutrinos and thus lepton number violation
112: to the theory. In recent years, the search for this phenomenon has
113: concentrated on \onbb (\obb). The decay width of this process
114: is proportional to the square of the so--called effective mass
115: of the electron neutrino,
116: \be \label{eq:meff}
117: \meff = \sum U_{ei}^2 m_i \; ,
118: \ee
119: where $U$ is the leptonic Maki--Nakagawa--Sakata (MNS) mixing
120: matrix \cite{MNS}.
121: Since \meff{} depends on the neutrino masses, the two mixing angles
122: connected with solar and reactor experiments and two phases in $U$,
123: any measurement or non--measurement of \obb{} can in principle answer some
124: of the open questions of neutrino physics, a topic which in the past
125: has been addressed by a number of authors
126: \cite{others0vbb,viss,petwol,petpas}.
127: For example, by combining
128: oscillation experiments and \obb, one can investigate
129: the solution of the solar neutrino problem,
130: the mass scheme, the value of the smallest mass eigenstate or
131: the presence of leptonic $CP$ violation.
132: In this note we
133: shall concentrate on the latter point. For Majorana neutrinos there
134: are three phases in $U$, two of which can in principle be measured
135: through \obb.
136: These two additional phases
137: \cite{scheval1} are parameters of an extended Standard Model (SM)
138: and are of interest e.g.\ regarding the stability of the neutrino mass
139: matrix under radiative corrections \cite{stab}
140: or in governing the magnitude of the baryon asymmetry
141: of the universe via the leptogenesis mechanism \cite{leptogenesis}.
142: Regarding the latter
143: it has recently been shown in two quite different models
144: \cite{wir,branco} that even for vanishing $CP$
145: violation in oscillation experiments, there can still be a sufficient
146: baryon asymmetry generated. The amount of $CP$ violation found in
147: \onbb is then crucial in testing different leptogenesis models.
148: In contrast to
149: the quark sector, there are four $CP$ conserving possibilities for
150: Majorana neutrinos, all of which have different aspects.
151: We shall discuss them in some detail, finding that in many cases
152: they can be classified into two groups, sometimes even one single
153: case can be identified.
154: We decided to ignore the
155: recently announced controversial indication for \obb{} \cite{evid}.
156: See \cite{viss,comment} for a criticism of the statistical
157: methods used in that analysis and \cite{reply} for replies.
158: We shall only quote the measurement of the
159: life--time limit on the \onbb of $^{76}$Ge, which is
160: $1.5 \cdot 10^{25}$ y \cite{hemo}. Using different calculations
161: for the nuclear matrix elements (NME), a limit on the effective mass
162: of
163: \be \label{eq:mefflimit}
164: \meff < (0.30 \ldots 0.97) \; \rm eV
165: \ee
166: can be set. See \cite{NME} for a discussion of the different calculations.
167: As future limits are concerned, several proposals for new
168: experiments exist, such as
169: CUORE \cite{CUORE}, EXO \cite{EXO}, MOON \cite{MOON},
170: Majorana \cite{MAJORANA}, or GENIUS \cite{GENIUS}, see
171: \cite{rev} for a recent overview.
172: As possible landmark limits we will assume 0.01 and $2 \cdot 10^{-3}$ eV,
173: where the latter corresponds to the 10t GENIUS project.
174: The expected uncertainty of the result is estimated to be
175: around 20 to 30 $\%$ \cite{rev}.\\
176:
177: The paper is organized as follows: in Section \ref{sec:form} the
178: required formalism is briefly reviewed and in Section \ref{sec:CPC} the
179: results are presented for some special mass hierarchies and
180: then in Section \ref{sec:gen}
181: the general case is analyzed, including the current and future
182: uncertainty in the knowledge of the
183: oscillation parameters.
184: Section \ref{sec:sum} summarizes our conclusions.
185:
186:
187:
188:
189: \section{\label{sec:form}Formalism}
190: Since \meff{} is the absolute value of a sum of three complex numbers,
191: it depends on two phases.
192: The neutrino mixing matrix $U$ can be parameterized in a very
193: convenient form, which treats these two phases as the
194: two additional Majorana phases:
195: \bea \label{eq:Upara}
196: U = U_{\rm CKM} \;
197: {\rm diag}(1, e^{i \alpha}, e^{i (\beta + \delta)}) \\[0.3cm]
198: = \left( \bad
199: c_1 c_3 & s_1 c_3 & s_3 e^{-i \delta} \\[0.2cm]
200: -s_1 c_2 - c_1 s_2 s_3 e^{i \delta}
201: & c_1 c_2 - s_1 s_2 s_3 e^{i \delta}
202: & s_2 c_3 \\[0.2cm]
203: s_1 s_2 - c_1 c_2 s_3 e^{i \delta} &
204: - c_1 s_2 - s_1 c_2 s_3 e^{i \delta}
205: & c_2 c_3\\
206: \ea \right)
207: {\rm diag}(1, e^{i \alpha}, e^{i (\beta + \delta)}) \, ,
208: \eea
209: where $c_i = \cos\theta_i$ and $s_i = \sin\theta_i$.
210: Within the parameterization (\ref{eq:Upara}), \meff{} depends on $\alpha$
211: and $\beta$. The third phase $\delta$ can be probed in oscillation
212: experiments \cite{osccpv}.
213: For $CP$
214: conservation, different relative signs of the masses $m_i$ are
215: possible, corresponding to the intrinsic $CP$ parities of the
216: neutrinos \cite{phaalt,ichNPB}. Four situations are possible,
217: with $m_i = \eta_i |m_i|$ one can write these cases
218: as \ppp$\!\!$, \pmm$\!\!$, \mpm and \mmp$\!\!$, where the
219: $(\pm\pm\pm)$ correspond to the relative signs of the mass states.
220: Special values of the phases correspond to these
221: sign signatures \cite{ichNPB},
222: \be \label{eq:CPV}
223: \bad (+++) &
224: \eta_1 = \eta_2 = \eta_3 = 1
225: & \leftrightarrow \alpha = \beta = \pi \\[0.2cm]
226: (+--) &
227: \eta_1 = - \eta_2 = - \eta_3 = 1
228: & \leftrightarrow \alpha = \beta = \frac{\pi}{2}\\[0.2cm]
229: (-+-) &
230: \eta_1 = - \eta_2 = \eta_3 = -1
231: & \leftrightarrow \alpha = \frac{\beta}{2} = \frac{\pi}{2}\\[0.2cm]
232: (--+) &
233: \eta_1 = \eta_2 = - \eta_3 = -1
234: & \leftrightarrow \alpha = 2 \beta = \pi
235: \ea \, .
236: \ee
237: The neutrino mass itself is bounded by the result from the tritium spectrum
238: \cite{me},
239: \be \label{eq:me}
240: m_0 = \sum |U_{ei}|^2 m_i < 2.2 \, \rm eV \, .
241: \ee
242: Next generation laboratory \cite{KATRIN} as well as satellite
243: \cite{PLANCK} experiments will be able to probe neutrino masses
244: down to $\sim$0.4 eV\@.
245: Finally, two possible mass schemes exist, the normal and inverse scheme
246: can be written as follows:
247: \be \label{eq:noin}
248: \bad \mbox{ \bf NORMAL} & & \mbox{ \bf INVERSE}\\[0.5cm]
249: m_3 = \sqrt{\dma + m_1^2} & & m_1 = \sqrt{\dma + m_3^2} \\[0.3cm]
250: m_2 = \sqrt{\dms + m_1^2} & & m_2 = \sqrt{-\dms + m_1^2} \; \; . \\[0.3cm]
251: m_1 = 0 \ldots 2.2 \mbox{ eV} & & m_3 = 0 \ldots 2.2 \mbox{ eV} \\
252: \ea
253: \ee
254: Regarding the mixing angles and the mass squared differences, the
255: best--fit points of the atmospheric oscillation parameters are \cite{atmBF}
256: \be \label{eq:atmBF}
257: \baz
258: \dma \!\! = 2.5 \cdot 10^{-3} \; {\rm eV^2}, & \tan^2 \theta_2 = 1
259: \ea \, .
260: \ee
261: The maximal \dma is about $5 \cdot 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$.
262: As far as the solar solution is concerned, the Large Mixing Angle (LMA)
263: solution is favored over the low \dms (LOW) solution
264: by the latest data, especially after the recent
265: SNO results \cite{SNOnew}.
266: The other possibilities are the vacuum solution (VAC) and the
267: Small Mixing Angle (SMA) solution, which are
268: currently highly disfavored. We will therefore concentrate mainly
269: on LMA and LOW\@.
270: Typical best--fit points are \cite{solBF}
271: \be \label{eq:solBF}
272: \bad
273: \dms \!\! = 4.5 \cdot 10^{-5} \; {\rm eV^2}, & \tan^2 \theta_1 = 0.4
274: & {\rm LMA} \\[0.4cm]
275: \dms \!\! = 1.0 \cdot 10^{-7} \; {\rm eV^2}, & \tan^2 \theta_1 = 0.7
276: & {\rm LOW} \\[0.4cm]
277: \dms \!\! = 4.6 \cdot 10^{-10} \; {\rm eV^2}, & \tan^2 \theta_1 = 2.4
278: & {\rm VAC} \\
279: \ea \; .
280: \ee
281: The allowed ranges at 95 $\%$ C.L. of $t_1^2 \equiv \tan_1^2$ go from
282: about 0.2 to 0.8 for LMA and
283: 0.5 to 1 for LOW\@. In fact, the upper value of $t_1^2$ for LMA
284: differs in the different available analyses, which appeared after
285: the new SNO results \cite{diffan}.
286: We shall take 0.8 as an illustrative example.
287: In case of the VAC solution, one may assume that
288: $t_1^2$ lies between 0.4 and 3, i.e.\ also on the ``dark side'' of
289: the parameter space.
290: One may however safely state that maximal mixing is
291: disallowed for the LMA solution, which will later on allow us to make
292: some useful statements. See \cite{petnew} for a detailed
293: analysis of the consequences of this fact.
294: The mass scale \dms is lower than about $3 \cdot 10^{-4}$ eV$^2$ for
295: LMA and $3 \cdot 10^{-7}$ ($3 \cdot 10^{-11}$) eV$^2$ for LOW (VAC).
296: The third angle $\theta_3$ is constrained to be \cite{petbil}
297: \be
298: \tan^2 \theta_3 \equiv t_3^2 \ls 0.08 \, .
299: \ee
300: In the future, it will be possible to reduce the error of the atmospheric
301: parameters \dma and $\sin^2 2 \theta_2$
302: to about $10 \%$ by the MINOS, ICARUS and OPERA experiments
303: \cite{barfut}. The SNO, KAMLAND and BOREXINO collaborations are
304: able to reduce the errors
305: on $\sin^2 2 \theta_1$ to about $5 \%$ and \dms
306: will be known to a precision of a few $\%$ for LMA, about
307: $10 \%$ for LOW and a few \permil for VAC \cite{visfut}. Long baseline
308: experiments can make precision measurements of the atmospheric
309: parameters on the few $\%$ level \cite{atmconv}, neutrino factories
310: even at a 1 $\%$ level \cite{atmnufac}. Regarding $\tan \theta_3^2$,
311: the experiments
312: for the atmospheric scale as well as future reactor experiments
313: \cite{futrea} can probe values of few$\cdot 10^{-3}$,
314: long baseline experiments values of few$\cdot 10^{-5}$.
315:
316:
317:
318:
319: \section{\label{sec:CPC}$CP$ violation in special hierarchies}
320: \subsection{\label{sec:hie}Hierarchical scheme}
321: This scheme is realized for $m_3 \gg m_2 \gg m_1$.
322: The form of \meff{} neglecting $m_1$ but
323: including terms proportional to $s_3$ reads
324: \be \label{eq:meffhie}
325: \meff \simeq \sqrt{\dms c_3^4 \; s_1^4 + \dma s_3^4 + 2 \;
326: \sqrt{\dms \dma} s_1^2 \; s_3^2 \; c_3^2 \; c_{2\phi} } \, ,
327: \ee
328: where $\phi = \alpha - \beta$.
329: The maximal \meff{} for $t_3^2 = 0$ is
330: about $7.7 \cdot 10^{-3}$ eV for a maximal \dms of about
331: $3 \cdot 10^{-4}$ eV$^2$ in case of the LMA solution. For the other
332: solutions it is around or below $10^{-4}$ eV\@.
333: For the maximally allowed $t_3^2 = 0.08$ the effective mass can be
334: at most $1.3 \cdot 10^{-2}$ ($5.5 \cdot 10^{-3}$,
335: $5.2 \cdot 10^{-3}$) for LMA (LOW, VAC).
336: For LMA and small $s_3$ the first term in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:meffhie})
337: dominates, for larger $s_3$ the third term can cancel the
338: first two when $\phi \simeq \pi/2$. For $\alpha - \beta = \pi/4$ the
339: solar and atmospheric contributions to \meff{} are just summed up.
340: From values of \dms smaller than about $10^{-7}$ eV$^2$ on,
341: the second term dominates in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:meffhie}),
342: \meff{} is then proportional to $s_3^2$ and the dependence on $\phi$
343: practically vanishes. This can be seen in
344: Fig.\ \ref{fig:meffhie}, where \meff{} is shown as a function of $\phi$
345: for different $\dms\!\!$, $s_3^2$ and $t_1^2$.
346: From (\ref{eq:meffhie}), one can infer the phase difference as
347: \be \label{eq:meffhiealbe}
348: \cos 2(\alpha - \beta) = \frac{\meff^2 - \dms s_1^4 - \dma s_3^4}
349: {2\, \sqrt{\dms \dma} s_1^2 \, s_3^2} \, .
350: \ee
351: As well known, it will be very difficult to measure \meff{}
352: in the hierarchical scheme when LMA is not the solar solution, because
353: in order to give an accessible \meff, $s_3^2$ has to be very
354: close to its current limit. For the LMA solution, \meff{} can lie
355: above $2 \cdot 10^{-3}$ eV even for vanishing $s_3$, which however
356: requires large $t_1^2$ and \dms$\!\!$. If
357: the two phases conspire to fulfill
358: $\alpha \simeq \pi/2 + \beta$, then cancellation occurs and
359: \meff{} can vanish.
360: This happens also for the \mmp and \mpm configurations, i.e.\
361: when the second and third mass eigenstates have opposite signs.
362: The \ppp and \mmp cases correspond to $\phi=0$.\\
363:
364: Therefore, in case of the LMA solution and
365: if $s_3^2$ is sizable (i.e.\ larger than
366: about 0.03) and \meff{} lies below the GENIUS limit, then $\phi$
367: is located around $\pi/2$. The \ppp and \mmp configurations
368: are then ruled out. Values of \meff{} considerably larger than 0.001 eV
369: would show that $\phi$ is close to zero, which corresponds to the
370: \ppp or \mmp signatures. For solutions with lower \dms and
371: $t_3^2 \ls 0.03$ no
372: statements can be made because the predicted \meff{} is below the GENIUS
373: limit. In addition, there is practically no
374: dependence on the phases, even for sizable $t_3^2$.
375:
376:
377:
378: \subsection{\label{sec:meffinv}Inverse hierarchical scheme}
379: This scheme is realized if in the inverse scheme it holds
380: $m_1 \simeq m_2 \gg m_3$. Thus, neglecting
381: $m_3 s_3^2$, the effective mass reads
382: \be \label{eq:meffinv}
383: \meff \simeq \sqrt{\dma} \sqrt{1 - 4 \, s_1^2 \, c_1^2 \, s_\alpha^2}
384: = \frac{\sqrt{\dma}}{1 + t_1^2}
385: \sqrt{(1 + t_1^2)^2 - 4 \; t_1^2 \; s_\alpha^2}
386: \simeq \sqrt{\dma} c_\alpha\, ,
387: \ee
388: where the latter approximation holds for $t_1^2 \simeq 1$.
389: Note that it is not a function of \dms$\!\!$.
390: It allows for complete cancellation only for $t_1^2= 1$, i.e.\ in the
391: LMA solution there should be a non--vanishing effective
392: mass (larger than about $5 \cdot 10^{-3}$ eV), whereas
393: LOW allows for complete cancellation.
394: For the best--fit points given in the previous section
395: the effective mass is predicted to be smaller than 0.07 eV, independent
396: of the solar solution.
397: Fig.\ \ref{fig:meffinv} shows \meff{} as a function of $\alpha$
398: for different $t_1^2$. One finds indeed very few
399: dependence on $s_3^2$, $\beta$ and \dms$\!\!$. It is seen that for
400: non--maximal solar mixing, \meff{} can be
401: probed regardless of the phase.
402: From Eq.\ (\ref{eq:meffinv}), $\alpha$ can be calculated for
403: given $t_1^2$, \dma and \meff:
404: \be \label{eq:meffinval}
405: s_\alpha^2 \simeq \frac{1}{4 \, t_1^2}(1 + t_1^2)^2
406: \left(1 - \frac{\meff^2}{\dma}\right)
407: \simeq 1 - \frac{\meff^2}{\dma} \, ,
408: \ee
409: where the last approximation holds again for $t_1^2 \simeq 1$.
410: If e.g.\ $\meff = 0.04 \, (0.03)$ eV, then one gets
411: $s_\alpha^2 \simeq 0.4 \, (0.8)$ for the best--fit point of the LMA
412: solution and $s_\alpha^2 \simeq 0.2 \, (0.6)$ for the LOW case.
413: With $s_\alpha^2 \le 1$ it is possible to find the condition
414: \be \label{eq:consinv}
415: \frac{\meff}{\sqrt{\dma}} \ge \frac{1 - t_1^2}{1 + t_1^2} \, ,
416: \ee
417: under which the inverse hierarchical scheme is
418: valid\footnote{In the following, we will use positive \meff.
419: For $t_1^2 > 1$ it is understood that the absolute value of the
420: right--hand side of (\ref{eq:consinv}) is taken.}. The number on
421: the right--hand side lies
422: between 1/9 and 2/3 for the LMA solution, between
423: zero and 1/3 for the LOW case and zero and 1/2 for VAC\@.
424: For instance, if $t_1^2 = 0.4 \; (0.7, 2.4)$,
425: then $\meff \gs 0.02 \; (0.009, 0.02)$ eV\@. In this scenario,
426: the best--fit points of the LMA and VAC solar solutions
427: do not make any difference since they yield identical results for \meff.\\
428:
429: Therefore, maximal solar mixing and \meff{} above 0.01 eV means that
430: $\alpha$ is small or close to $\pi$, which corresponds also to the
431: \ppp and \mmp cases. A value of \meff{} below the GENIUS limit
432: implies that
433: $\alpha \simeq \pi/2$, which is also possible for the
434: \pmm and \mpm signatures. However, for such a small \meff{}
435: a solar mixing angle very close to $\pi/4$
436: is required, i.e.\ if the LMA solution and the inverse
437: scheme are verified, but \meff{} lies below the GENIUS bound, the inverse
438: hierarchical scheme is ruled out.
439: For non--maximal mixing, the dependence on
440: $\alpha$ becomes smaller. Values of \meff{}
441: below 0.01 eV are only possible for $\alpha \simeq \pi/2$ and
442: $\theta_1 \simeq \pi/4 \pm 0.1$.
443: Since in the inverse hierarchy the
444: phase $\beta$ is connected with the smallest mass state $m_3$ as well as
445: with the small quantity $s_3^2$, a determination of this parameter
446: is very questionable. However, two of the four $CP$ conserving
447: possibilities may be ruled out. The \ppp and \mmp cases as well as
448: the \pmm and \mpm configurations give the same values
449: because of the smallness of $m_3 \, s_3^2$.
450:
451:
452:
453:
454:
455: \subsection{\label{sec:meffdeg}Degenerate scheme}
456: This scheme is realized for
457: $m_1^2 \simeq m_2^2 \simeq m_3^2 \equiv m_0^2 \gg \dma\!\!$.
458: It is then useful to define an ``averaged mass''
459: $\tm = \meff/m_0$, which reads
460: \be \label{eq:tmCPV}
461: \tm \equiv \frac{\meff}{m_0} =
462: c_3^2 \, \sqrt{c_1^4 + s_1^4 + t_3^4
463: + 2 (s_1^2 \, t_3^2 \, c_{2(\alpha - \beta)}
464: + c_1^2 (s_1^2 \, c_{2 \alpha} + t_3^2 \, c_{2 \beta} ))} \; .
465: \ee
466: No dependence on the solar $\Delta m^2$ exists.
467: The four $CP$ conserving configurations can be written as
468: \be \label{eq:tmCPC}
469: \tm =
470: \left\{
471: \baz
472: 1 & (+++) \\[0.2cm]
473: \frac{\D 1}{\D 1 + t_1^2}
474: \left(1 - t_1^2 - 2 \, s_3^2\right) & (+--) \\[0.2cm]
475: \frac{\D 1}{\D 1 + t_1^2}
476: \left(1 - t_1^2 (1 - 2 \, s_3^2)\right) & (-+-) \\[0.2cm]
477: 1 - 2 \, s_3^2 & (--+)
478: \ea \right. .
479: \ee
480: Note that the \ppp and \mmp cases have an averaged mass independent on the
481: solar solution. For the \ppp configuration, $\meff = m_0$ and for the
482: \mmp case $\meff = m_0 (1 - 2 s_3^2)$, which is identical to the result for
483: \ppp for vanishing $\theta_3$. In the same limit, as well as for
484: maximal solar mixing, the \pmm and \mpm cases are identical.
485: In general, the \pmm and \mpm cases are connected via
486: $\theta_1 \ra \pi/2 - \theta_1 $. Therefore, e.g.\
487: $t_1^2 = 0.5$ in the \pmm case is identical to
488: $t_1^2 = 2.0$ in the \mpm configuration. This is however only interesting for
489: the VAC solution, since the other ones have $t_1^2 \le 1$.
490: If $t_1^2 < 1$, then the minimal \tm{} occurs for the
491: \pmm configuration, if $t_1^2 > 1$, then in the \mpm case.\\
492:
493: Cancellation can only occur for the \pmm and \mpm signatures, which
494: however requires that $t_1^2$ is very close to one. In fact,
495: for the \mpm case only $t_1^2 = 1$ together with $s_3^2 = 0$
496: can give full cancellation, whereas for \pmm also close to
497: maximal solar mixing with non--vanishing $\theta_3$ is sufficient for
498: complete cancellation. The minimal \tm{} for the \mmp signature
499: is 0.84, in the LMA solution the range of \tm{} is 0.022 to 0.67
500: (0.11 to 0.69) for the \pmm (\mpm$\!\!$) case, respectively.
501: In the LOW solution, \tm{} ranges from zero to 1/3 (zero to 0.44) for
502: \pmm (\mpm$\!\!$) and the VAC solution predicts \tm{} to lie
503: between zero and 0.54 (zero and 1/2) for
504: \pmm (\mpm$\!\!$).\\
505:
506: We give a few examples for possible statements:
507: for $t_1^2 < 1$ the minimal \meff{} is obtained for the
508: \pmm signature, thus, if $\tm \ls 0.02$, then the LMA solution is ruled
509: out. For $\tm \gs 0.7 \, (0.6)$, the \ppp or \mmp case has to
510: be realized for the LMA (LOW, VAC) solution. For $\tm \gs 0.84$ the
511: \pmm and \mpm cases are ruled out.\\
512:
513: In analogy to Eq.\ (\ref{eq:meffinv}) one can in the degenerate scheme
514: write an equation for \meff{} when $s_3^2$ is neglected:
515: \be \label{eq:meffdeg}
516: \meff \simeq m_0 \sqrt{1 - 4 \, s_1^2 \, c_1^2 \, s_\alpha^2}
517: = \frac{m_0}{1 + t_1^2}
518: \sqrt{(1 + t_1^2)^2 - 4 \; t_1^2 \; s_\alpha^2} \simeq m_0 c_\alpha \, ,
519: \ee
520: from which one obtains a formula for the phase $\alpha$,
521: \be \label{eq:meffdegal}
522: s_\alpha^2 \simeq \frac{1}{4 \, t_1^2}(1 + t_1^2)^2
523: \left(1 - \tm^2\right)
524: \simeq 1 - \tm^2 \, ,
525: \ee
526: where the last approximation holds again for $t_1^2 \simeq 1$.
527: The corresponding equation (\ref{eq:meffinval})
528: for the inverse hierarchy should be a more appropriate
529: relation since there the small quantity $s_3^2$ is multiplied with
530: the smallest mass. In the degenerate scheme it contributes together
531: with $m_0$, which for sizable $s_3^2$ could be a non--negligible number.
532: In general, an area in $\alpha$--$\beta$ space can be identified, when
533: a limit or value of $m_0$ or \meff{} is known \cite{phases,ichNPB}.
534: The smaller \tm{} is, i.e.\ the more cancellation occurs, the closer
535: $\alpha$ is to $\pi/2$. This however is equivalent to the
536: \pmm and \mpm signatures.
537: Since (\ref{eq:meffdeg}) allows cancellation only for $t_1^2 = 1$,
538: a vanishing \meff{} in the LMA case
539: for a neutrino mass of $m_0^2 \gg \dma\!\!$ would mean
540: that $s_3^2$ is not zero.
541: The consistency relation for the scenario in this section reads
542: \be
543: \tm \ge \frac{1 - t_1^2}{1 + t_1^2} \, .
544: \ee
545: Violation of this condition implies sizable $s_3^2$, which,
546: from (\ref{eq:tmCPC}), can be obtained for $t_1^2 < 1$ as
547: \be
548: s_3^2 = \frac{1}{2} \left(1 - t_1^2 - \tm (1 + t_1^2)\right) \, .
549: \ee
550: For $t_1^2 > 1$ the \mpm case gives the minimal \meff, and
551: $s_3^2$ is obtained in this case as
552: \be
553: s_3^2 = \frac{1}{2 t_1^2} \left(\tm (1 + t_1^2) - (1 - t_1^2) \right) \, .
554: \ee\\
555:
556: We finally comment on a small possibility to calculate the phase $\beta$
557: for the SMA solution.
558: Since $s_1^2 \simeq 0$, \meff{} does hardly depend on the phase $\alpha$.
559: If in Eq.\ (\ref{eq:tmCPV}) $c_1 \simeq 1$, then one gets
560: \be \label{eq:SMAbe}
561: s_\beta^2 \simeq \frac{\D 1 - \tm^2}{\D 4 \, s_3^2 \, c_3^2} \, .
562: \ee
563: The condition under which this is possible can be obtained from
564: $s_{\beta}^2 \le 1$ and reads
565: \be
566: \tm \gs \sqrt{1 - 4 \, s_3^2 \, c_3^2 } \gs 0.84 \, .
567: \ee
568: When \meff{} is close to 0.4 eV then
569: this situation seems unlikely,
570: since $s_3^2$ has to be close to its current limit and in addition
571: $m_0$ must be close to the lowest experimentally accessible value in order
572: to probe $\beta$.
573:
574:
575: \subsection{Partial hierarchical schemes}
576: These schemes are realized when the smallest mass state is
577: of order of $\sqrt{\dma}$, say, between 0.01 and 0.1 eV\@.
578:
579: \subsubsection{Normal scheme}
580: In the ``normal partial hierarchical scheme''
581: one can define again an averaged mass $\meff/m_1$. In this scenario it
582: can be obtained from Eq.\ (\ref{eq:tmCPV}) with the replacement
583: \be
584: \frac{\meff}{\; m_1} = \tm\left(m_0 \rightarrow m_1,
585: s_3^2 \rightarrow s_3^2 \sqrt{1 + \frac{\dma}{\D m_1^2}}\right) \, .
586: \ee
587: Again, no dependence on the solar $\Delta m^2$ is present.
588: Depending on the value of $m_1$, the dependence on $t_3^2$
589: is more or less strengthened through the presence of the
590: square root $w_n = \sqrt{1 + \frac{\dma}{\D m_1^2}}$. The maximal
591: \meff{} is given by $\meff \! \simeq m_1 (1 + s_3^2 \, w_n) \ls 0.11$ eV\@.
592: For vanishing $t_3^2$ complete cancellation is again only
593: possible for $t_1^2 = 1$, i.e.\ not for the LMA solution.
594: The situation is then equivalent to the one for the inverse hierarchical
595: scheme. For vanishing $t_3^2$ one can write an equation for
596: $\alpha$ in analogy to (\ref{eq:meffinval}), with the
597: replacement $\dma \!\! \rightarrow m_1^2$.\\
598:
599: For $t_1^2 = 0.4$, \meff{} lies below 0.01 eV only for $\alpha \simeq \pi/2$
600: and $m_1 \ls 0.02$ eV\@. If also $\beta \simeq \pi/2$ and
601: $t_3^2 \gs 0.02$, then \meff{} can lie below the GENIUS bound.
602: With increasing $t_1^2$, the minimal
603: value of $m_1$, for which this happens, is increasing.
604: Values below $2 \cdot 10^{-3}$ eV are only possible if
605: $m_1$ and $t_1^2$ are small and $t_3^2$ is sizable or if
606: the mixing is close to maximal and $t_3^2$ is small.
607: When $t_1^2 \gs 1.5$, similar statements hold, however, $\beta \simeq 0$
608: is now required in order to allow for large cancellations.
609: Thus, for large $t_1^2 < 1$ ($t_1^2 > 1$), sizable $t_3^2$ and
610: $\meff < 2 \cdot 10^{-3}$ eV, then $m_1$ has to be small,
611: $\alpha$ around $\pi/2$ and
612: $\beta$ around $\pi/2$ ($\pi$). This situation corresponds to the
613: \pmm ($\mpm \!\!$) configuration.
614: For close to maximal solar mixing and $\meff < 2 \cdot 10^{-3}$ eV,
615: $\alpha$ is around $\pi/2$.
616: If $t_3^2$ is sizable, then in addition $m_1$ has to be small.
617: When \meff{} is around 0.01 eV, the phase $\alpha$ has to be small,
618: which corresponds to the \pmm or \mpm signature.
619:
620:
621:
622: \subsubsection{Inverse scheme}
623: In the ``inverse partial hierarchical scheme'' $\meff/m_3$
624: can be obtained from
625: Eq.\ (\ref{eq:tmCPV}) with the replacement
626: \be
627: \frac{\meff}{\; m_3} = \tm\left(m_0 \rightarrow m_3,
628: c_1^2 \rightarrow c_1^2 \sqrt{1 + \frac{\dma}{\D m_3^2}},
629: s_1^2 \rightarrow s_1^2 \sqrt{1 + \frac{\dma}{\D m_3^2}}
630: \right) \, ,
631: \ee
632: which has a slightly weaker dependence on $t_3^2$ than in the normal
633: hierarchy, because the contributions of $c_1^2$ and $s_1^2$
634: are enhanced by the
635: factor $w_i = \sqrt{1 + \frac{\dma}{\D m_3^2}}$. The maximal \meff{}
636: is given by $\meff \simeq m_3 \, (w_i + s_3^2) \ls 0.12$ eV\@. For vanishing
637: $t_3^2$ one can obtain $\alpha$ via Eq.\ (\ref{eq:meffinval}) and
638: the replacement $\dma \!\! \rightarrow w_i^2 \, m_3^2 = m_3^2 + \dma\!\!$.
639: For $t_1^2 \ls 0.6$ and $t_1^2 \gs 1.5$,
640: \meff{} lies always above 0.01 eV\@. For closer to maximal
641: (but not exactly maximal)
642: mixing it can lie below 0.01 eV for large $t_3^2$ and low $m_3$ or only for
643: small $t_3^2$ as long as $\alpha \simeq \pi/2$ and $\beta \simeq \pi/2$ (0)
644: for $t_1^2 < 1$ ($t_1^2 > 1$).
645: Thus, values below 0.01 eV are possible when the solar mixing is maximal
646: and $\alpha \simeq \pi/2$ (which is equivalent to the \pmm or \mpm signature)
647: or if for $t_1^2 < 1$ the second phase $\beta$ is around $\pi/2$, which
648: is the \pmm configuration. For $t_1^2 > 1$, $\beta$ should be close to
649: $\pi$, which corresponds to the \mpm case.\\
650:
651: Once we finished now the discussion of the special hierarchies,
652: we can order them with respect to the maximal \meff{} they predict:
653: \be
654: \mbox{degenerate} > \mbox{partial inverse} > \mbox{partial normal} >
655: \mbox{inverse} > \mbox{normal} \; .
656: \ee
657:
658:
659:
660: \section{\label{sec:gen}General case}
661: We shall use the best--fit
662: oscillation parameters as given in Eqs.\ (\ref{eq:atmBF},\ref{eq:solBF})
663: and assume the following uncertainties of the solar $\Delta m^2$:
664: 5 $\%$ for LMA, 10 $\%$ for LOW and 5 $\permil$ for VAC\@.
665: For $\tan^2 \theta_1$ and \dma we assume an uncertainty of 5 and 10 $\%$,
666: respectively. The effective mass is analyzed as a function of the
667: smallest mass state for different $t_3^2$. What results with these
668: assumptions is an area in parameter space, which denotes
669: the region between the maximal and minimal \meff.
670: Unless otherwise
671: stated, the area for the \ppp case is so small that it appears as a line.
672:
673:
674: \subsection{Normal scheme}
675: For the normal hierarchy, the result is shown in
676: Figs.\ \ref{fig:LMAn1} to \ref{fig:VACn1}. The structure of the
677: ``$CP$--violating'' area is the less complicated the smaller
678: $t_3^2$ is. From $t_3^2$ smaller than about $10^{-3}$ ($10^{-4}$)
679: on, the \mpm and \pmm signatures become indistinguishable for the LMA
680: (LOW, VAC) solution. Up to six separated areas exist,
681: for $t_3^2 \ls 10^{-3}$ they merge into one, which area is smaller than
682: the sum of the areas for sizable $t_3^2$.
683: For the LOW solution the area is significantly larger than for LMA and for
684: VAC\@. In case of VAC the area is smallest.\\
685:
686: In Fig.\ \ref{fig:un} the consequences of different uncertainties
687: of the oscillation parameters are shown. We concentrate on the
688: LMA solution, $t_3^2 = 0.01$ and start with a typical allowed
689: parameter space, which is
690: $\dma \!\! = (1.5 \ldots 4) \cdot 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$,
691: $\dms \!\! = (1 \ldots 12) \cdot 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$ and
692: $t_1^2 = 0.2 \ldots 0.8$, which is denoted as ``everything''.
693: Then it is allowed for uncertainties of the solar and atmospheric
694: parameters around the best--fit values of
695: Eqs.\ (\ref{eq:atmBF},\ref{eq:solBF}), which
696: are indicated in the figure.
697: The lower right plot
698: is for exact measurements, which coincides with the situation
699: analyzed in \cite{petwol}. Similar plots have been presented first
700: in \cite{petpas}, where the $\Delta m^2$ have been allowed to vary within
701: their $90 \%$ C.L. values and different $t_1^2$ and $t_3^2$ have been
702: taken. The situation under study in the present paper is more
703: accurate with respect to the expected future uncertainty of the
704: oscillation parameters. Now an area for the \ppp case can be
705: identified. For an uncertainty of $5 \%$ and $10 \%$ for the solar
706: and atmospheric parameters (as used in Fig.\ \ref{fig:LMAn1}), the area
707: becomes again a line and consequently
708: is not shown anymore. Currently, there is
709: only a small $CP$--violating area, between the minimal \mmp and
710: the maximal \mpm line,
711: although it exists at large \meff{} and $m_1$.
712: The area grows with decreasing
713: uncertainty and takes the complicated form known from
714: the previous figures when the solar parameters are known
715: to a precision better than 10 $\%$.
716: These additional areas appear however around or below the
717: maximal GENIUS limit.
718:
719:
720:
721: \subsection{Inverse scheme}
722: The plots with the $CP$--violating areas are shown in
723: Figs.\ \ref{fig:LMAi1}, \ref{fig:LOWi1} and \ref{fig:VACi1} for the LMA,
724: LOW and VAC solution. The situation is now much simpler, $CP$ violation
725: occurs only between the minimal \mmp and the maximal \mpm line.
726: There is also a small area between the minimal \mpm and the
727: maximal \pmm line, which disappears for $t_3^2 \ls 0.01$.
728: The \pmm and \mpm signatures become indistinguishable
729: for $t_3^2 \ls 0.01$.
730: With the chosen oscillation parameters there
731: is no complete cancellation and therefore all expected \meff{} values
732: lie above 0.01 (0.006) eV for the LMA and VAC (LOW) case. Again,
733: the LOW case provides the largest $CP$--violating area, the LMA
734: and VAC areas are of comparable size.\\
735:
736: As for the normal scheme, large part of the areas cover a range of \meff{}
737: that is larger than the expected $20 \%$ uncertainty of the experimental
738: results. This is negligible with respect to the uncertainty stemming
739: from the NME calculations. Consequently, these have
740: to be overcome in order to make reasonable statements (not only)
741: about the presence of $CP$ violation in \obb.
742:
743:
744:
745:
746: \section{\label{sec:sum}Final remarks and summary}
747: The presence of leptonic $CP$
748: violation especially in \obb{} can strengthen our believe in leptogenesis,
749: the creation of a baryon asymmetry through
750: out--of--equilibrium decays of heavy
751: Majorana neutrinos. These heavy neutrinos are also responsible
752: for the light neutrino masses through the see--saw mechanism,
753: linking thus neutrino oscillations with leptogenesis.
754: Baryon number and
755: $CP$ violation are necessary conditions for creating a baryon asymmetry.
756: Given that in most models the heavy Majorana neutrinos are too heavy
757: ($\gs 10^{10}$ GeV) to
758: be produced at realistic collider energies, the demonstration of
759: lepton number violation and leptonic $CP$ violation could be
760: the only possibility to validate leptogenesis.
761: A general feature of models presented in the literature
762: is the dependence of the
763: baryon asymmetry $Y_B$ on the Majorana phases $\alpha$ and $\beta$.
764: For example, in the left--right symmetric model presented in
765: \cite{wir}, a sufficient $Y_B$ can be
766: generated without the ``Dirac phase'' $\delta$.
767: This has also been observed in the minimal $SO(10)$
768: model analyzed in \cite{branco}. The presence of $CP$ violation in
769: \obb{} is required there to produce the correct amount of $Y_B$.
770: This is why $CP$ violation in \obb{} plays an important role.\\
771:
772: In the light of recent data we analyzed the presence of $CP$
773: violation in neutrinoless double beta decay. The observed non--maximality
774: of the solar mixing in case of the LMA solution allowed to make
775: some statements about possible cancellations.
776: The four $CP$ conserving sign signatures can in many cases
777: be grouped into two pairs, in some cases even one unique
778: solution can be identified.
779: In the hierarchical scheme the \ppp and \pmm cases are
780: equivalent because \meff{} depends on the difference of two phases.
781: In the inverse hierarchical scheme only one phase can be probed,
782: which leads to identical results for the
783: \ppp and \mmp cases as well as for the \pmm and \mpm cases.
784: Due to the large solar mixing and the smallness of $s_3^2$, these
785: two pairs also exist for the degenerate and partial hierarchical schemes.
786: Simple formulas for the Majorana phases and
787: consistency relations for these hierarchies
788: have been collected and the different situation for values of $t_1^2$
789: smaller or bigger than one has been commented on.
790: The $CP$ violating areas including present and future uncertainties
791: of the mixing parameters were identified. The LOW solution provides
792: the best opportunity to establish the presence of leptonic $CP$
793: violation, since the relevant area in parameter
794: space is largest in this case, regardless of the mass scheme.
795: Obviously, in the inverse scheme, where for small neutrino masses
796: the predicted \meff{} is considerably higher, the situation is better.
797: However, the uncertainty stemming from the calculation of the
798: nuclear matrix elements will remain the big drawback for this
799: possibility.
800:
801:
802: \hspace{3cm}
803: \begin{center}
804: {\bf \large Acknowledgments}
805: \end{center}
806: I thank S.T.~Petcov for helpful comments.
807: This work has been supported in part by the
808: ``Bundesministerium f\"ur Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und
809: Technologie'', Bonn under contract No. 05HT9PEA5.
810:
811:
812:
813: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
814: \bibitem{nuexp}SuperKamiokande Collaboration, S. Fukuda {\it et al.},
815: \Jo{\PRL}{85}{3999}{2000};
816: SuperKamiokande Collaboration, S. Fukuda {\it et al.},
817: \Jo{\PRL}{86}{5651}{2001};
818: SNO Collaboration, Q.R.~Ahmad {\it et al.}, \Jo{\PRL}{87}{071301}{2001}.
819: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0009001;%%
820: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0103032;%%
821: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0106015;%%
822: \bibitem{SNOnew}SNO Collaboration, Q.R.~Ahmad {\it et al.},
823: \Jo{\PRL}{89}{011301}{2002} and \Jo{\PRL}{89}{011302}{2002}.
824: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0204008;%%
825: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 0204009;%%
826: \bibitem{seesaw}M. Gell--Mann, P. Ramond, and R. Slansky in {\it Supergravity},
827: p. 315, edited by F. Nieuwenhuizen and D. Friedman, North Holland,
828: Amsterdam, 1979;
829: T. Yanagida, Proc. of the {\it Workshop on Unified Theories and the Baryon
830: Number of the Universe}, edited by O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto, KEK, Japan 1979;
831: R.N. Mohapatra, G. Senjanovic, \Jo{\PRL}{44}{912}{1980}.
832: %%CITATION = PRLTA,44,912;%%
833: \bibitem{MNS}Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, and S. Sakata,
834: \Jo{\PTP}{28}{870}{1962}.
835: %%CITATION = PTPKA,28,870;%%
836: \bibitem{others0vbb}S.M. Bilenky {\it et al.}, \Jo{\PRD}{54}{1881}{1996},
837: \Jo{\PRD}{54}{4432}{1996}, \Jo{\PLB}{465}{193}{1999};
838: V. Barger, K. Whisnant, \Jo{\PLB}{456}{194}{1999};
839: F. Vissani, \Jo{\JHEP}{06}{022}{1999};
840: M. Czakon, J. Gluza, and M. Zralek, \Jo{\PLB}{465}{211}{1999};
841: H.V. Klapdor--Kleingrothaus, H. P\"as, and A.Yu. Smirnov,
842: \Jo{\PRD}{63}{073005}{2001};
843: D. Falcone, F. Tramontano, \Jo{\PRD}{64}{077302}{2001};
844: S.M. Bilenky, S. Pascoli, and S.T. Petcov, \Jo{\PRD}{64}{053010}{2001};
845: P. Osland, G. Vigdel, \Jo{\PLB}{520}{143}{2001};
846: M. Czakon {\it et al.}, \Jo{\PRD}{65}{053008}{2002};
847: H. Minakata, H. Sugiyama, \Jo{\PLB}{526}{335}{2002};
848: V. Barger {\it et al.}, \Jo{\PLB}{532}{15}{2002}.
849: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9604364;%%
850: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9602216;%%
851: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907234;%%
852: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904281;%%
853: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906525;%%
854: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906381;%%
855: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0003219;%%
856: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102136;%%
857: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102265;%%
858: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107161;%%
859: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110166;%%
860: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111269;%%
861: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201262;%%
862: \bibitem{viss}F. Feruglio, A. Strumia, and F. Vissani,
863: \Jo{\NPB}{637}{345}{2002}.
864: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201291;%%
865: \bibitem{petwol}S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov, and L. Wolfenstein,
866: \Jo{\PLB}{524}{319}{2002}.
867: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110287;%%
868: \bibitem{petpas}S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov, hep-ph/0111203.
869: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111203;%%
870: \bibitem{scheval1}S.M. Bilenky, J. Hosek, and S.T. Petcov,
871: \Jo{\PLB}{94}{495}{1980};
872: J.~Schechter, J.W.F.~Valle,
873: \Jo{\PRD}{22}{2227}{1980}; \Jo{\PRD}{23}{1666}{1981}.
874: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B94,495;%%
875: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D22,2227;%%
876: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,1666;%%
877: \bibitem{stab}N. Haba, Y. Matsui, and N. Okamura,
878: \Jo{\EPC}{17}{513}{2000}.
879: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005075;%%
880: \bibitem{leptogenesis}
881: For recent reviews see, e.g.\ A.~Pilaftis, \Jo{\IJMP}{14}{1811}{1999};
882: W.~Buchm\"uller, M.~Pl\"umacher, \Jo{\IJMP}{15}{5047}{2000}.
883: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812256;%%
884: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007176;%%
885: \bibitem{wir}A.S.~Joshipura, E.A.~Paschos and W.~Rodejohann,
886: \Jo{\JHEP}{08}{029}{2001}; K.R.S. Balaji, W.~Rodejohann,
887: \Jo{\PRD}{65}{093009}{2002}.
888: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105175;%%
889: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201052;%%
890: \bibitem{branco}G. Branco {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0202030.
891: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202030;%%
892: \bibitem{evid}H.V. Klapdor--Kleingrothaus {\it et al.},
893: \Jo{\MPLA}{16}{2409}{2001}.
894: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201231;%%
895: \bibitem{comment}C.E. Aalseth {\it et al.}, hep-ex/0202018.
896: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0202018;%%
897: \bibitem{reply}H.V. Klapdor--Kleingrothaus, hep-ph/0205228;
898: H.L. Harney, hep-ph/0205293.
899: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205228;%%
900: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205293;%%
901: \bibitem{hemo}H.V. Klapdor--Kleingrothaus {\it et al.},
902: \Jo{\EPA}{12}{147}{2001}.
903: %%CITATION = EPHJA,A12,147;%%
904: \bibitem{NME}A. Morales, \Jo{\NPBP}{77}{335}{1999};
905: W.C. Haxton, G.J. Stephenson, \Jo{\PPNP}{12}{409}{1984}.
906: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9809540;%%
907: %%CITATION = PPNPD,12,409;%%
908: \bibitem{CUORE}S. Pirro {\it et al.}, \Jo{\NIMA}{444}{71}{2000}.
909: %%CITATION = NUIMA,A444,71;%%
910: \bibitem{EXO}M. Danilov {\it et al.}, \Jo{\PLB}{480}{12}{2000}.
911: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0002003;%%
912: \bibitem{MOON}H. Ejiri {\it et al.}, \Jo{\PRL}{85}{2917}{2000}.
913: %%CITATION = NUCL-EX 9911008;%%
914: \bibitem{MAJORANA}C.E. Aalseth {\it et al.}, hep-ex/0202026.
915: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0202026;%%
916: \bibitem{GENIUS}H.V.~Klapdor--Kleingrothaus {\it et al.},
917: hep-ph/9910205.
918: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9910205;%%
919: \bibitem{rev}S.R. Elliot, P. Vogel, hep-ph/0202264.
920: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0202264;%%
921: \bibitem{osccpv}M. Freund, P. Huber, and M. Lindner,
922: \Jo{\NPB}{615}{331}{2001}; Y. Farzan, A. Yu. Smirnov,
923: \Jo{\PRD}{65}{113001}{2002};
924: P. Huber, M. Lindner, and W. Winter, hep-ph/0204352
925: and references therein.
926: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105071;%%
927: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201105;%%
928: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204352;%%
929: \bibitem{phaalt}L. Wolfenstein, \Jo{\PLB}{107}{77}{1981};
930: S.M. Bilenky, N.P. Nedelcheva, and S.T. Petcov, \Jo{\NPB}{247}{61}{1984}.
931: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B107,77;%%
932: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B247,61;%%
933: \bibitem{ichNPB}W. Rodejohann, \Jo{\NPB}{597}{110}{2001}.
934: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008044;%%
935: \bibitem{me}Mainz Collaboration, C. Weinheimer {\it et al.},
936: \Jo{\NPBP}{91}{273}{2001}.
937: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,91,273;%%
938: \bibitem{KATRIN}KATRIN Collaboration, A. Osipowicz {\it et al.},
939: hep-ex/0109033.
940: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0109033;%%
941: \bibitem{PLANCK}MAP project, {\tt http://map.gsfc.gov}; PLANCK project
942: {\tt http://astro.estec.esa.ne/SA-general/Projects/Planck}.
943: \bibitem{atmBF}T. Toshito for the SuperKamiokande collaboration,
944: hep-ex/0105023.
945: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0105023;%%
946: \bibitem{solBF}J.N.~Bahcall, M.C.~Gonzalez--Garcia, and
947: C.~Pe$\tilde{\textrm{n}}$a--Garay, \Jo{\JHEP}{08}{014}{2001}.
948: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106258;%%
949: \bibitem{diffan}
950: A. Bandyopadhyay, S. Choubey, and S. Goswami, hep-ph/0204173;
951: J.N. Bahcall, M.C.~Gonzalez--Garcia, and
952: C.~Pe$\tilde{\textrm{n}}$a--Garay, hep-ph/0204194;
953: V. Barger {\it et al.}, \Jo{\PLB}{537}{179}{2002};
954: A. Bandyopadhyay {\it et al.}, \Jo{\PLB}{540}{14}{2002};
955: P. Aliani {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0205053;
956: P.C. de Holanda, A. Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0205241.
957: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204173;%%
958: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204194;%%
959: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204253;%%
960: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204286;%%
961: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205053;%%
962: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205241;%%
963: \bibitem{petnew}S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov, hep-ph/0205022.
964: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205022;%%
965: \bibitem{petbil}S.M. Bilenky, S.T. Petcov, and D. Nicolo,
966: \Jo{\PLB}{538}{77}{2002}.
967: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112216;%%
968: \bibitem{barfut}V. Barger {\it et al.}, \Jo{\PRD}{65}{053016}{2002}.
969: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110393;%%
970: \bibitem{visfut}V. Barger, D. Marfatia, and B.P. Wood,
971: \Jo{\PLB}{498}{53}{2001};
972: A. Strumia, F. Vissani, \Jo{\JHEP}{11}{048}{2001}.
973: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011251;%%
974: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109172;%%
975: \bibitem{atmconv}Y. Itow {\it et al.}, hep-ex/0106019.
976: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0106019;%%
977: \bibitem{atmnufac}
978: A. Bueno, M. Campanelli, and A. Rubbia, \Jo{\NPB}{589}{577}{2000};
979: see also M. Freund, P. Huber, and M. Lindner in \cite{osccpv}
980: and references therein.
981: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0005007;%%
982: \bibitem{futrea}Yu. Kozlov, L. Mikaelyan, and V. Sinev,
983: hep-ph/0109277; S. Schoenert, \Jo{\NPPS}{110}{277}{2002}.
984: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109277;%%
985: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0202021;%%
986: \bibitem{phases}H. Minakata and O. Yasuda, \Jo{\PRD}{56}{1692}{1997};
987: T. Fukuyama, K. Matsuda, and N. Nishura,
988: \Jo{\PRD}{57}{5844}{1998}; \Jo{\MPLA}{13}{2279}{1998};
989: R. Adhikari and G. Rajasekaran, \Jo{\PRD}{61}{031301}{2000};
990: K. Matsuda {\it et al.}, \Jo{\PRD}{64}{013001}{2001}.
991: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9609276;%%
992: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9711415;%%
993: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804262;%%
994: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812361;%%
995: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012357;%%
996: \end{thebibliography}
997:
998:
999:
1000:
1001:
1002:
1003: \begin{center}
1004: \begin{figure}[hp]
1005: \begin{center}
1006: \epsfig{file=meffhie.ps,width=17cm,height=22cm}
1007: \end{center}
1008: \vspace{-2.cm}
1009: \caption{\label{fig:meffhie}The effective mass \meff{} in the
1010: hierarchical scheme
1011: as a function of $\phi = \alpha - \beta$ for different $\tan^2 \theta_3$,
1012: $\tan^2 \theta_1$ and \dms$\!\!$.
1013: The smallest mass is $m_1 = 10^{-5}$ eV\@,
1014: $\dma \!\! = 2.5 \cdot 10^{-3} \, {\rm eV}^2$
1015: and $\beta$ is chosen to be zero.}
1016: \end{figure}
1017:
1018:
1019: \begin{figure}[hp]
1020: \begin{center}
1021: \epsfig{file=meffinv.ps,width=13cm,height=8cm}
1022: \end{center}
1023: \caption{\label{fig:meffinv}The effective mass \meff{} in the
1024: inverse hierarchical scheme
1025: as a function of $\alpha$ for different $t_1^2$.
1026: The smallest mass is $m_3 = 10^{-5}$ eV\@,
1027: $\dma \!\! = 2.5 \cdot 10^{-3} \, {\rm eV}^2$,
1028: $\dms \!\! = 4.5 \cdot 10^{-5} \, {\rm eV}^2$,
1029: $s_3^2 = 0.01$ and $\beta = 0$.}
1030: \end{figure}
1031: \end{center}
1032:
1033: \pagestyle{empty}
1034:
1035: \begin{center}
1036: \begin{figure}[hp]
1037: \vspace{-3cm}
1038: \hspace{-20mm}
1039: \epsfig{file=LMAn1.ps,width=21cm,height=24cm}
1040: \caption{\label{fig:LMAn1}The range of \meff{} in the normal scheme
1041: for the LMA solution and an uncertainty of the oscillation parameters
1042: as described in the text.
1043: The ``$CP$ violating'' area is indicated by the hatched area.}
1044: \end{figure}
1045:
1046: \begin{figure}[hp]
1047: \vspace{-3cm}
1048: \hspace{-20mm}
1049: \epsfig{file=LOWn1.ps,width=21cm,height=24cm}
1050: \caption{\label{fig:LOWn1}The range of \meff{} in the normal scheme
1051: for the LOW solution and an uncertainty of the oscillation parameters
1052: as described in the text.
1053: The ``$CP$ violating'' area is indicated by the hatched area.}
1054: \end{figure}
1055:
1056: \begin{figure}[hp]
1057: \vspace{-3cm}
1058: \hspace{-20mm}
1059: \epsfig{file=VACn1.ps,width=21cm,height=24cm}
1060: \caption{\label{fig:VACn1}The range of \meff{} in the normal scheme
1061: for the VAC solution and an uncertainty of the oscillation parameters
1062: as described in the text.
1063: The ``$CP$ violating'' area is indicated by the hatched area.}
1064: \end{figure}
1065:
1066: \begin{figure}[hp]
1067: \vspace{-3cm}
1068: \hspace{-20mm}
1069: \epsfig{file=un.ps,width=21cm,height=24cm}
1070: \caption{\label{fig:un}The range of \meff{} in the normal scheme
1071: for the LMA solution, $t_3^2 = 0.01$ and different
1072: uncertainties of the oscillation parameters
1073: as described in the text.
1074: The ``$CP$ violating'' area is indicated by the hatched area.}
1075: \end{figure}
1076:
1077:
1078: \begin{figure}[hp]
1079: \vspace{-3cm}
1080: \hspace{-20mm}
1081: \epsfig{file=LMAi1.ps,width=18cm,height=25cm}
1082: \vspace{-5cm}
1083: \caption{\label{fig:LMAi1}The range of \meff{} in the inverse scheme
1084: for the LMA solution and an uncertainty of the oscillation parameters
1085: as described in the text.
1086: The ``$CP$ violating'' area is indicated by the hatched area.}
1087: \end{figure}
1088:
1089: \begin{figure}[hp]
1090: \vspace{-3cm}
1091: \hspace{-20mm}
1092: \epsfig{file=LOWi1.ps,width=18cm,height=25cm}
1093: \vspace{-5cm}
1094: \caption{\label{fig:LOWi1}The range of \meff{} in the inverse scheme
1095: for the LOW solution and an uncertainty of the oscillation parameters
1096: as described in the text.
1097: The ``$CP$ violating'' area is indicated by the hatched area.}
1098: \end{figure}
1099:
1100: \begin{figure}[hp]
1101: \vspace{-3cm}
1102: \hspace{-20mm}
1103: \epsfig{file=VACi1.ps,width=18cm,height=25cm}
1104: \vspace{-5cm}
1105: \caption{\label{fig:VACi1}The range of \meff{} in the inverse scheme
1106: for the VAC solution and an uncertainty of the oscillation parameters
1107: as described in the text.
1108: The ``$CP$ violating'' area is indicated by the hatched area.}
1109: \end{figure}
1110:
1111:
1112: \end{center}
1113:
1114:
1115:
1116: \end{document}
1117: