1: \documentstyle[prd,aps,preprint,tighten,epsfig]{revtex}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \draft
6:
7: \title{No Hope to Kinematically Detect the Effective Masses \\
8: of Muon and Tau Neutrinos}
9: \author{{\bf Zhi-zhong Xing}}
10: \address{Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, \\
11: P.O. Box 918 (4), Beijing 100039, China \\
12: ({\it Electronic address: xingzz@mail.ihep.ac.cn}) }
13: \maketitle
14:
15: \begin{abstract}
16: We show that the recent WMAP data can impose a generous upper bound
17: on the effective masses of electron, muon and tau neutrinos defined
18: in the kinematic measurements:
19: $\langle m\rangle^2_e + \langle m\rangle^2_\mu +
20: \langle m\rangle^2_\tau = m^2_1 + m^2_2 + m^2_3 < 0.5 ~ {\rm eV}^2$,
21: or $\langle m\rangle_\alpha < 0.71$ eV (for $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$).
22: When current neutrino oscillation data are taken into account,
23: we obtain $\langle m\rangle_e <0.24$ eV and
24: $\langle m\rangle_\mu \approx \langle m\rangle_\tau < 0.24$ eV.
25: Thus there is no hope to kinematically detect
26: $\langle m\rangle_\mu$ and $\langle m\rangle_\tau$ in any realistic
27: experiments.
28: \end{abstract}
29:
30: \pacs{PACS number(s): 14.60.Pq, 13.10.+q, 25.30.Pt}
31:
32:
33: Thanks to the recent Super-Kamiokande \cite{SK}, K2K \cite{K2K},
34: SNO \cite{SNO} and KamLAND \cite{KM} experiments, we are
35: now convinced that the deficit of atmospheric $\nu_\mu$ neutrinos
36: and the deficit of solar $\nu_e$ neutrinos are both due to
37: neutrino oscillations, a quantum phenomenon which can naturally
38: happen if neutrinos are massive and lepton flavors are mixed.
39: Furthermore, current experimental data indicate that solar and
40: atmospheric neutrino oscillations are dominated respectively by
41: $\nu_e\rightarrow \nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\mu\rightarrow \nu_\tau$
42: transitions. The neutrino mass-squared differences associated
43: with solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations are thus
44: defined as
45: \begin{eqnarray}
46: \Delta m^2_{\rm sun} & \equiv & \left | m^2_2 ~ - ~ m^2_1 \right | \; ,
47: \nonumber \\
48: \Delta m^2_{\rm atm} & \equiv & \left | m^2_3 ~ - ~ m^2_2 \right | \; ,
49: % (1)
50: \end{eqnarray}
51: where $m_i$ (for $i=1,2,3$) denote the physical masses of three
52: neutrinos. Although a strong hierarchy between
53: $\Delta m^2_{\rm sun}$ and $\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}$ has been
54: observed, the absolute values of $m_1$, $m_2$ and $m_3$ remain
55: unknown. The kinematic limits on the effective masses of electron,
56: muon and tau neutrinos can be obtained from the tritium $\beta$-decay
57: $^3_1{\rm H} \rightarrow$$^3_2{\rm He} + e^- + \overline{\nu}_e$,
58: the $\pi^+ \rightarrow \mu^+ + \nu_\mu$ decay and the
59: $\tau \rightarrow 5\pi + \nu_\tau$
60: (or $\tau \rightarrow 3\pi + \nu_\tau$) decay, respectively. Today's
61: results are \cite{PDG02}
62: \begin{eqnarray}
63: \langle m\rangle_e & < & 3 ~ {\rm eV} \; ,
64: \nonumber \\
65: \langle m\rangle_\mu & < & 0.19 ~ {\rm MeV} \; ,
66: \nonumber \\
67: \langle m\rangle_\tau & < & 18.2 ~ {\rm MeV} \; .
68: % (2)
69: \end{eqnarray}
70: One can see that the experimental sensitivity for
71: $\langle m\rangle_\mu$ is more than four orders of magnitude
72: smaller than that for $\langle m\rangle_e$, and the experimental
73: sensitivity for $\langle m\rangle_\tau$ is two orders of
74: magnitude lower than that for $\langle m\rangle_\mu$ \cite{Vogel}.
75: Is there any hope to detect $\langle m\rangle_\mu$ and
76: $\langle m\rangle_\tau$ or to constrain them to a meaningful
77: level of sensitivity? The answer to this question relies on how
78: small $\langle m\rangle_\mu$ and $\langle m\rangle_\tau$ are.
79:
80: The main purpose of this short note is to calculate $\langle m\rangle_e$,
81: $\langle m\rangle_\mu$ and $\langle m\rangle_\tau$ with the help
82: of the recent WMAP data \cite{WMAP} and neutrino oscillation data.
83: While $\langle m\rangle_e$ has been extensively studied in the
84: literature \cite{Giunti}, a detailed analysis of $\langle m\rangle_\mu$
85: and $\langle m\rangle_\tau$ has not been done. It is therefore
86: worthwhile to work out the upper bounds on $\langle m\rangle_\mu$ and
87: $\langle m\rangle_\tau$ from currently available data, such that
88: one may definitely answer the afore-raised question. Independent of
89: the neutrino oscillation data, a generous upper limit
90: $\langle m\rangle^2_e + \langle m\rangle^2_\mu +
91: \langle m\rangle^2_\tau = m^2_1 + m^2_2 + m^2_3 <
92: 0.5 ~ {\rm eV}^2$ can be achieved from the
93: WMAP observation. Hence $\langle m\rangle_\alpha < 0.71$ eV holds for
94: $\alpha = e, \mu$ or $\tau$. Such an upper bound for
95: $\langle m\rangle_\alpha$ will be reduced by a factor of three, if
96: current neutrino oscillation data are taken into account. In
97: particular, $\langle m\rangle_\mu \approx \langle m\rangle_\tau$
98: is a good approximation and both of them are insensitive to the
99: Dirac $CP$-violating phase of the lepton flavor mixing matrix. We
100: conclude that there is no hope to kinematically detect the effective
101: masses of muon and tau neutrinos.
102:
103: \vspace{0.3cm}
104:
105: Direct neutrino mass measurements are based on the analysis of
106: the kinematics of charged particles produced together with
107: neutrino flavor eigenstates $|\nu_\alpha\rangle$
108: (for $\alpha =e,\mu,\tau$), which are superpositions of neutrino
109: mass eigenstates $|\nu_i\rangle$ (for $i=1,2,3$):
110: \begin{equation}
111: \left ( \matrix{
112: \nu_e \cr
113: \nu_\mu \cr
114: \nu_\tau \cr} \right ) =
115: \left ( \matrix{
116: V_{e1} & V_{e2} & V_{e3} \cr
117: V_{\mu 1} & V_{\mu 2} & V_{\mu 3} \cr
118: V_{\tau 1} & V_{\tau 2} & V_{\tau 3} \cr} \right )
119: \left ( \matrix{
120: \nu_1 \cr
121: \nu_2 \cr
122: \nu_3 \cr} \right ) \; .
123: % (3)
124: \end{equation}
125: The unitary matrix $V$ is just the lepton flavor mixing matrix.
126: The effective masses of electron, muon and tau neutrinos in the
127: kinematic measurements can then be defined \cite{Vogel}:
128: \begin{equation}
129: \langle m\rangle^2_\alpha \equiv
130: |V_{\alpha 1}|^2 m^2_1 + |V_{\alpha 2}|^2 m^2_2 +
131: |V_{\alpha 3}|^2 m^2_3 \; ,
132: % (4)
133: \end{equation}
134: for $\alpha =e,\mu$ and $\tau$. The unitarity of $V$ leads
135: straightforwardly to a simple sum rule between
136: $\langle m\rangle^2_\alpha$ and $m^2_i$:
137: \begin{equation}
138: \langle m\rangle^2_e + \langle m\rangle^2_\mu +
139: \langle m\rangle^2_\tau \; = \; m^2_1 + m^2_2 + m^2_3 \; .
140: % (5)
141: \end{equation}
142: Note that this sum rule allows us to derive an upper bound on
143: $\langle m\rangle^2_\alpha$ independent of any neutrino oscillation
144: data. This point can clearly be seen from the inequality
145: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
146: \footnote{It is worthwhile to mention that the sum
147: $\overline{m}^2 \equiv m^2_1 + m^2_2 + m^2_3$ is a crucial quantity
148: in the thermal leptogenesis mechanism \cite{FY}, because it
149: controls an important class of washout processes \cite{Buch}.}
150: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
151: \begin{equation}
152: m^2_1 ~ + ~ m^2_2 ~ + ~ m^2_3 \; <
153: \left (m_1 + m_2 + m_3 \right )^2 ,
154: % (6)
155: \end{equation}
156: in which the sum of three neutrino masses has well be constrained
157: by the recent WMAP data \cite{WMAP}:
158: $m_1 + m_2 + m_3 < 0.71$ eV at the $95\%$ confidence level.
159: Therefore,
160: \begin{equation}
161: \langle m\rangle^2_e ~ + ~ \langle m\rangle^2_\mu ~ + ~
162: \langle m\rangle^2_\tau \;\; < \;\; 0.50 ~ {\rm eV}^2 \;\; .
163: % (7)
164: \end{equation}
165: This generous upper bound implies that
166: $\langle m\rangle^2_\alpha < 0.50 ~ {\rm eV}^2$ or
167: $\langle m\rangle_\alpha < 0.71 ~ {\rm eV}$ holds for
168: $\alpha = e,\mu$ and $\tau$. Two comments are then in order.
169: \begin{enumerate}
170: \item The cosmological upper bound of $\langle m\rangle_\mu$
171: is more than five orders of magnitude smaller than its kinematic
172: upper bound given in Eq. (2). In comparison, the upper limit of
173: $\langle m\rangle_\tau$ set by the WMAP data is more than seven
174: orders of magnitude smaller than its kinematic upper limit.
175: It seems hopeless to improve the sensitivity of the kinematic
176: measurements to the level of 0.71 eV.
177: \item The cosmological upper bound of $\langle m\rangle_e$
178: is about four times smaller than its kinematic upper bound given
179: in Eq. (2). The former may be accessible in the future KATRIN
180: experiment \cite{KATRIN}, whose sensitivity is expected to be
181: about 0.35 eV.
182: \end{enumerate}
183: If current data on neutrino oscillations are taken into account,
184: however, more stringent upper limits can be obtained for the
185: effective neutrino masses $\langle m\rangle_e$,
186: $\langle m\rangle_\mu$ and $\langle m\rangle_\tau$.
187:
188: \vspace{0.3cm}
189:
190: To see how $\langle m\rangle_\alpha$ may be related to the parameters
191: of neutrino oscillations, we make use of Eq. (1) to express $m_1$ and
192: $m_2$ in terms of $m_3$, $\Delta m^2_{\rm sun}$ and
193: $\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}$. The results are
194: \begin{eqnarray}
195: m_1 & = & \sqrt{m^2_3 + p \Delta m^2_{\rm atm} +
196: q \Delta m^2_{\rm sun}} \;\; ,
197: \nonumber \\
198: m_2 & = & \sqrt{m^2_3 + p \Delta m^2_{\rm atm}} \;\; ,
199: % (8)
200: \end{eqnarray}
201: where $p=\pm 1$ and $q=\pm 1$ stand for four possible patterns of the
202: neutrino mass spectrum. For example,
203: $p = q = +1$ corresponds to $m_1 > m_2 > m_3$, and so on.
204: The present solar neutrino oscillation data favor $q = -1$ or
205: $m_1 < m_2$ \cite{Fit}, but the sign of $p$ has not been fixed.
206: Substituting Eq. (8) into Eq. (4), we obtain
207: \begin{equation}
208: \langle m\rangle_\alpha \; =\; \sqrt{m^2_3 +
209: p \left (1 - |V_{\alpha 3}|^2 \right ) \Delta m^2_{\rm atm} +
210: q |V_{\alpha 1}|^2 \Delta m^2_{\rm sun}} \; \; .
211: % (9)
212: \end{equation}
213: Taking account of $|V_{e3}|^2 \ll 1$ \cite{CHOOZ} and
214: $\Delta m^2_{\rm sun} \ll \Delta m^2_{\rm atm}$, we arrive at the
215: following approximation for $\langle m\rangle_e$:
216: \begin{equation}
217: \langle m\rangle_e \; \approx \; \sqrt{m^2_3 + p
218: \Delta m^2_{\rm atm}} \;\; .
219: % (10)
220: \end{equation}
221: Taking account of the observed (nearly) maximal mixing factor of
222: atmospheric neutrino oscillations \cite{SK}, which is equivalent to
223: $|V_{\mu 3}| \approx |V_{\tau 3}| \approx 1/\sqrt{2}$ for
224: $|V_{e3}| \ll 1$, we obtain
225: \begin{eqnarray}
226: \langle m\rangle_\mu & \approx & \sqrt{m^2_3 + \frac{p}{2}
227: \Delta m^2_{\rm atm}} \;\; ,
228: \nonumber \\
229: \langle m\rangle_\tau & \approx & \sqrt{m^2_3 + \frac{p}{2}
230: \Delta m^2_{\rm atm}} \;\; .
231: % (11)
232: \end{eqnarray}
233: One can see that $\langle m\rangle_\mu \approx \langle m\rangle_\tau$
234: is a natural consequence of current neutrino oscillation data.
235: In addition, Eqs. (10) and (11) tell us that $\langle m\rangle_e$ is
236: slightly larger than $\langle m\rangle_\mu$ and $\langle m\rangle_\tau$
237: for $p=+1$ or $m_2 > m_3$; and it is slightly smaller than
238: $\langle m\rangle_\mu$ and $\langle m\rangle_\tau$ for $p=-1$ or
239: $m_2 < m_3$.
240:
241: In general, one may analyze the correlation between
242: $\langle m\rangle_\alpha$ and $m_3$ by use of Eq. (9), only if
243: $|V_{\alpha 1}|$ and $|V_{\alpha 3}|$ are already measured.
244: Since the mixing angles of solar, atmospheric
245: and CHOOZ (or Palo Verde) reactor \cite{CHOOZ} neutrino oscillations
246: read as
247: \begin{eqnarray}
248: \sin^2 2\theta_{\rm sun} & = & 4 |V_{e1}|^2 |V_{e2}|^2 \; ,
249: \nonumber \\
250: \sin^2 2\theta_{\rm atm} & = & 4 |V_{\mu 3}|^2
251: \left ( 1 - |V_{\mu 3}|^2 \right ) \; ,
252: \nonumber \\
253: \sin^2 2\theta_{\rm chz} & = & 4 |V_{e3}|^2
254: \left ( 1 - |V_{e3}|^2 \right ) \; ,
255: % (12)
256: \end{eqnarray}
257: we reversely obtain \cite{Xing02}
258: \begin{eqnarray}
259: |V_{e1}| & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} \sqrt{ \cos^2\theta_{\rm chz} +
260: \sqrt{\cos^4\theta_{\rm chz} - \sin^2 2\theta_{\rm sun}}} \;\; ,
261: \nonumber \\
262: |V_{e2}| & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt 2} \sqrt{ \cos^2\theta_{\rm chz} -
263: \sqrt{\cos^4\theta_{\rm chz} - \sin^2 2\theta_{\rm sun}}} \;\; ,
264: \nonumber \\
265: |V_{e3}| & = & \sin\theta_{\rm chz} \; ,
266: \nonumber \\
267: |V_{\mu 3}| & = & \sin\theta_{\rm atm} \; ,
268: \nonumber \\
269: |V_{\tau 3}| & = & \sqrt{\cos^2\theta_{\rm chz} -
270: \sin^2\theta_{\rm atm}} \;\; .
271: % (13)
272: \end{eqnarray}
273: The other four matrix elements of $V$ (i.e., $|V_{\mu 1}|$, $|V_{\mu 2}|$,
274: $|V_{\tau 1}|$ and $|V_{\tau 2}|$) are unable to be determined from the
275: afore-mentioned neutrino oscillation experiments. They can be derived
276: from Eq. (13), however, if the Dirac $CP$-violating phase in the standard
277: parametrization of $V$ \cite{FX01} is taken into account.
278: The explicit expressions of $|V_{\mu 1}|$, $|V_{\mu 2}|$,
279: $|V_{\tau 1}|$ and $|V_{\tau 2}|$ are given in Appendix A.
280: We see that $\langle m\rangle_\mu$ and $\langle m\rangle_\tau$
281: depend on the Dirac phase $\delta$ in the chosen
282: parametrization of $V$. However, the sensitivity of
283: $\langle m\rangle_\mu$ or $\langle m\rangle_\tau$ to $\delta$
284: is negligibly weak. The reason is simply that the contribution of
285: $\cos\delta$ to $|V_{\mu 1}|$ (or $|V_{\tau 1}|$) is suppressed
286: by $|V_{e3}|$ or $\sin\theta_{\rm chz}$, and the contribution of
287: $|V_{\mu 1}|$ (or $|V_{\tau 1}|$) to $\langle m\rangle_\mu$
288: (or $\langle m\rangle_\tau$) is further suppressed by
289: $\Delta m^2_{\rm sun}$. It is therefore hopeless to probe the
290: $CP$-violating phase $\delta$, even if $\langle m\rangle_\mu$ and
291: $\langle m\rangle_\tau$ could be measured.
292:
293: To numerically determine the upper bound of $\langle m\rangle_\alpha$,
294: we need first of all work out the upper limit of $m_3$ set by
295: the WMAP and neutrino oscillation data. In FIG. 1, we show the
296: dependence of $m_1 + m_2 + m_3$ on $m_3$, where the best-fit
297: values $\Delta m^2_{\rm sun} = 7.3 \times 10^{-5} ~ {\rm eV}^2$
298: and $\Delta m^2_{\rm atm} = 2.5 \times 10^{-3} ~ {\rm eV}^2$
299: \cite{Fit} have typically been input. Note that only the
300: $m_1 < m_2$ case, which is supported by current solar neutrino
301: oscillation data, is taken into account. For the $m_2 < m_3$
302: case, $m_3$ has an lower bound
303: $m_3 \geq \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{\rm atm} + \Delta m^2_{\rm sun}}
304: \approx 0.051$ eV; but for the $m_2 > m_3$ case, even $m_3 =0$ is
305: allowed (inverted hierarchy). We see that these two cases become
306: indistinguishable for $m_3 \geq 0.2$ eV, implying the near
307: degeneracy of three neutrino masses. Once the WMAP limit
308: $m_1 + m_2 + m_3 < 0.71$ eV is included, we immediately get
309: $m_3 < 0.24$ eV. Then we have $m_i < 0.24$ eV for
310: $i=1,2$ or $3$. This result is apparently
311: consistent with those obtained in Ref. \cite{MAP}.
312:
313: Next we evaluate $\langle m\rangle_\alpha$ by using the best-fit
314: values $\theta_{\rm sun} \approx 33^\circ$ and
315: $\theta_{\rm atm} \approx 45^\circ$ \cite{Fit} in addition to taking
316: $\theta_{\rm chz} \approx 5^\circ$ as a typical input, which is
317: compatible with $\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm chz} <0.1$ extracted from
318: the CHOOZ reactor neutrino experiment \cite{CHOOZ}
319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
320: \footnote{Note that $\theta_{\rm chz} \sim 5^\circ$ is also favored
321: in a number of phenomenological models of lepton mass matrices.
322: See Ref. \cite{Review} for a review with extensive references.}.
323: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
324: Our numerical results for $\langle m\rangle_e$,
325: $\langle m\rangle_\mu$ and $\langle m\rangle_\tau$ changing
326: with $m_3$ are shown in FIG. 2. Once again, it is impossible
327: to distinguish between the $m_2 < m_3$ case and the
328: $m_2 > m_3$ case for $m_3 \geq 0.2$ eV. We find that the
329: dependence of $\langle m\rangle_\alpha$ on $m_3$ is very
330: similar to the dependence of $m_1 + m_2 + m_3$ on $m_3$.
331: As expected in Eqs. (10) and (11),
332: $\langle m\rangle_e > \langle m\rangle_\mu \approx
333: \langle m\rangle_\tau$ holds for $m_3 < m_2$ (curves a and
334: b in FIG. 2); and
335: $\langle m\rangle_e < \langle m\rangle_\mu \approx
336: \langle m\rangle_\tau$ holds for $m_3 > m_2$ (curves c and d
337: in FIG. 2).
338: In view of the upper limit $m_3 \leq 0.24$ eV obtained
339: above, we arrive at $\langle m\rangle_\alpha \leq 0.24$ eV for
340: $\alpha = e, \mu$ or $\tau$. This upper bound is suppressed by
341: a factor of three, compared to the upper bound obtained from
342: Eq. (7) which is independent of the neutrino oscillation data.
343:
344: The result
345: $\langle m\rangle_\mu \approx \langle m\rangle_\tau < 0.24$ eV
346: implies that there is no hope to kinematically detect the
347: effective masses of muon and tau neutrinos. As the WMAP upper
348: bound is in general valid for a sum of the masses of all
349: possible relativistic neutrinos (no matter whether they are
350: active or sterile), it seems unlikely to loosen the upper
351: limit of $\langle m\rangle_\alpha$ obtained above in the
352: assumption of only active neutrinos. Therefore, the kinematic
353: measurements of $\langle m\rangle_\mu$ and $\langle m\rangle_\tau$
354: have little chance to reveal the existence of any exotic
355: neutral particles with masses much larger than the light
356: neutrino masses.
357:
358: \vspace{0.3cm}
359:
360: The author is grateful to W.L. Guo for some discussions. This work
361: was supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China.
362:
363: \newpage
364:
365: \appendix
366: \section{}
367:
368: This Appendix is devoted to the calculation of $|V_{\mu 1}|$,
369: $|V_{\mu 2}|$, $|V_{\tau 1}|$ and $|V_{\tau 2}|$, which are entirely
370: unrestricted by current neutrino oscillation data.
371: Taking account of the Dirac $CP$-violating phase in the standard
372: parametrization of $V$ \cite{FX01}, we find
373: \begin{eqnarray}
374: |V_{\mu 1}| & = & \frac{\sqrt{|V_{e2}|^2 |V_{\tau 3}|^2
375: + |V_{e1}|^2 |V_{e3}|^2 |V_{\mu 3}|^2 +
376: 2 |V_{e1}| |V_{e2}| |V_{e3}| |V_{\mu 3}| |V_{\tau 3}| \cos\delta}}
377: {1 - |V_{e3}|^2} \;\; ,
378: \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
379: |V_{\mu 2}| & = & \frac{\sqrt{|V_{e1}|^2 |V_{\tau 3}|^2
380: + |V_{e2}|^2 |V_{e3}|^2 |V_{\mu 3}|^2 -
381: 2 |V_{e1}| |V_{e2}| |V_{e3}| |V_{\mu 3}| |V_{\tau 3}| \cos\delta}}
382: {1 - |V_{e3}|^2} \;\; ,
383: \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
384: |V_{\tau 1}| & = & \frac{\sqrt{|V_{e2}|^2 |V_{\mu 3}|^2
385: + |V_{e1}|^2 |V_{e3}|^2 |V_{\tau 3}|^2 -
386: 2 |V_{e1}| |V_{e2}| |V_{e3}| |V_{\mu 3}| |V_{\tau 3}| \cos\delta}}
387: {1 - |V_{e3}|^2} \;\; ,
388: \nonumber \\ \nonumber \\
389: |V_{\tau 2}| & = & \frac{\sqrt{|V_{e1}|^2 |V_{\mu 3}|^2
390: + |V_{e2}|^2 |V_{e3}|^2 |V_{\tau 3}|^2 +
391: 2 |V_{e1}| |V_{e2}| |V_{e3}| |V_{\mu 3}| |V_{\tau 3}| \cos\delta}}
392: {1 - |V_{e3}|^2} \;\; .
393: % (A1)
394: \end{eqnarray}
395: The explicit expressions of $|V_{\mu 1}|$, $|V_{\mu 2}|$,
396: $|V_{\tau 1}|$ and $|V_{\tau 2}|$ in terms of $\theta_{\rm sun}$,
397: $\theta_{\rm atm}$, $\theta_{\rm chz}$ and $\delta$ can then
398: be obtained from Eq. (13) and Eq. (A1):
399: \begin{eqnarray}
400: |V_{\mu 1}| & = & \left [ \frac{\cos^2\theta_{\rm atm}}{2} ~ - ~
401: \frac{\cos^2\theta_{\rm chz} - \sin^2\theta_{\rm atm}
402: \left (1 + \sin^2\theta_{\rm chz} \right )}{2\cos^4\theta_{\rm chz}}
403: \sqrt{\cos^4\theta_{\rm chz} - \sin^2 2\theta_{\rm sun}}
404: \right .
405: \nonumber \\
406: & & \left . + ~ \frac{\sin 2\theta_{\rm sun} \sin\theta_{\rm atm}
407: \sin\theta_{\rm chz} \cos\delta}{\cos^4\theta_{\rm chz}}
408: \sqrt{\cos^2\theta_{\rm chz} - \sin^2\theta_{\rm atm}}
409: \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
410: % (A2)
411: \end{eqnarray}
412: \begin{eqnarray}
413: |V_{\mu 2}| & = & \left [ \frac{\cos^2\theta_{\rm atm}}{2} ~ + ~
414: \frac{\cos^2\theta_{\rm chz} - \sin^2\theta_{\rm atm}
415: \left (1 + \sin^2\theta_{\rm chz} \right )}{2\cos^4\theta_{\rm chz}}
416: \sqrt{\cos^4\theta_{\rm chz} - \sin^2 2\theta_{\rm sun}}
417: \right .
418: \nonumber \\
419: & & \left . - ~ \frac{\sin 2\theta_{\rm sun} \sin\theta_{\rm atm}
420: \sin\theta_{\rm chz} \cos\delta}{\cos^4\theta_{\rm chz}}
421: \sqrt{\cos^2\theta_{\rm chz} - \sin^2\theta_{\rm atm}}
422: \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
423: % (A3)
424: \end{eqnarray}
425: \begin{eqnarray}
426: |V_{\tau 1}| & = & \left [ \frac{\sin^2\theta_{\rm atm} +
427: \sin^2\theta_{\rm chz}}{2} ~ - ~
428: \frac{4 \sin^2\theta_{\rm atm} \left (1 + \sin^2\theta_{\rm chz} \right )
429: - \sin^2 2\theta_{\rm chz}}{8\cos^4\theta_{\rm chz}}
430: \sqrt{\cos^4\theta_{\rm chz} - \sin^2 2\theta_{\rm sun}}
431: \right .
432: \nonumber \\
433: & & \left . - ~ \frac{\sin 2\theta_{\rm sun} \sin\theta_{\rm atm}
434: \sin\theta_{\rm chz} \cos\delta}{\cos^4\theta_{\rm chz}}
435: \sqrt{\cos^2\theta_{\rm chz} - \sin^2\theta_{\rm atm}}
436: \right ]^{1/2} \; ,
437: % (A4)
438: \end{eqnarray}
439: \begin{eqnarray}
440: |V_{\tau 2}| & = & \left [ \frac{\sin^2\theta_{\rm atm} +
441: \sin^2\theta_{\rm chz}}{2} ~ + ~
442: \frac{4 \sin^2\theta_{\rm atm} \left (1 + \sin^2\theta_{\rm chz} \right )
443: - \sin^2 2\theta_{\rm chz}}{8\cos^4\theta_{\rm chz}}
444: \sqrt{\cos^4\theta_{\rm chz} - \sin^2 2\theta_{\rm sun}}
445: \right .
446: \nonumber \\
447: & & \left . + ~ \frac{\sin 2\theta_{\rm sun} \sin\theta_{\rm atm}
448: \sin\theta_{\rm chz} \cos\delta}{\cos^4\theta_{\rm chz}}
449: \sqrt{\cos^2\theta_{\rm chz} - \sin^2\theta_{\rm atm}}
450: \right ]^{1/2} \; .
451: % (A5)
452: \end{eqnarray}
453: These results are useful for a numerical analysis of $V$ by use of
454: current experimental data on neutrino oscillations, if $\delta$ is
455: allowed to vary from 0 to $\pi$.
456:
457: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
458:
459: \bibitem{SK} Y. Fukuda {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1562
460: (1998); {\it ibid.} {\bf 81}, 4279 (1998);
461: http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/dpc/sk/.
462: For a review, see: C.K. Jung, C. McGrew, T. Kajita,
463: and T. Mann, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 51}, 451 (2001).
464:
465: \bibitem{K2K} K2K Collaboration, M.H. Ahn {\it et al.},
466: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 041801 (2003).
467:
468: \bibitem{SNO} SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad {\it et al.},
469: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 011301 (2002); Phys. Rev. Lett.
470: {\bf 89}, 011302 (2002).
471:
472: \bibitem{KM} KamLAND Collaboration, K. Eguchi {\it et al.},
473: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 021802 (2003).
474:
475: \bibitem{PDG02} Particle Data Group, K. Hagiwara {\it et al.},
476: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 66}, 010001 (2002).
477:
478: \bibitem{Vogel} P. Vogel and A. Piepke, in Ref. \cite{PDG02}.
479:
480: \bibitem{WMAP} C.L. Bennett {\it et al.}, astro-ph/0302207;
481: D.N. Spergel {\it et al.}, astro-ph/0302209.
482:
483: \bibitem{Giunti} For a recent review with extensive references, see:
484: S.M. Bilenky, C. Giunti, J.A. Grifols, and E. Masso, hep-ph/0211462.
485: See, also, Y. Farzan and A.Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0211341 (to appear
486: in Phys. Lett. B).
487:
488: \bibitem{FY} M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida,
489: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 174}, 45 (1986).
490:
491: \bibitem{Buch} W. Buchm$\rm\ddot{u}$ller, P. Di Bari, and
492: M. Pl$\rm\ddot{u}$macher, hep-ph/0302092.
493:
494: \bibitem{KATRIN} KATRIN Collaboration, A. Osipowicz {\it et al.},
495: hep-ex/0109033.
496:
497: \bibitem{Fit} V. Barger and D. Marfatia, hep-ph/0212126;
498: G.L. Fogli {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0212127;
499: M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, and J.W.F. Valle, hep-ph/0212129;
500: J.N. Bahcall, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, and C. Pena-Garay,
501: hep-ph/0212147;
502: P. Aliani, V. Antonelli, M. Picariello, and E. Torrente-Lujan,
503: hep-ph/0212212;
504: P.C. de Holanda and A.Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0212270;
505: G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, and D. Montanino,
506: hep-ph/0303064.
507:
508: \bibitem{CHOOZ} CHOOZ Collaboration, M. Apollonio {\it et al.},
509: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 420}, 397 (1998);
510: Palo Verde Collaboration, F. Boehm {\it et al.},
511: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 3764 (2000).
512:
513: \bibitem{Xing02} Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 077302 (2002);
514: W.L. Guo and Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}, 053002 (2003).
515:
516: \bibitem{FX01} See, e.g., H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing,
517: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 517}, 363 (2001);
518: Z.Z. Xing, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 113010 (2002).
519:
520: \bibitem{MAP} A. Pierce and H. Murayama, hep-ph/0302131;
521: C. Giunti, hep-ph/0302173;
522: A.S. Joshipura and S. Mohanty, hep-ph/0302181;
523: G. Bhattacharyya, H. P$\rm\ddot{a}$s, L. Song, and T.J. Weiler,
524: hep-ph/0302191;
525: K. Matsuda, T. Fukuyama, and H. Nishiura, hep-ph/0302254;
526: K. Cheung, hep-ph/0302265;
527: S. Hannestad, astro-ph/0303076;
528: O. Elgaroy and O. Lahav, astro-ph/0303089.
529:
530: \bibitem{Review} H. Fritzsch and Z.Z. Xing,
531: Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 45}, 1 (2000).
532:
533: \end{thebibliography}
534:
535: \newpage
536:
537: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
538: \begin{figure}
539: \vspace{-0.2cm}
540: \epsfig{file=fig1.ps,bbllx=0.5cm,bblly=8cm,bburx=17cm,bbury=30cm,%
541: width=15.5cm,height=22cm,angle=0,clip=}
542: \vspace{-9.3cm}
543: \caption{Illustrative dependence of $m_1 + m_2 + m_3$ on $m_3$.
544: The WMAP result sets an upper limit on $m_3$; i.e.,
545: $m_3 < 0.24$ eV for both $m_3 > m_2$ and $m_3 < m_2$ cases.}
546: \end{figure}
547: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
548:
549: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Fig. 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
550: \begin{figure}
551: \vspace{-0.2cm}
552: \epsfig{file=fig2.ps,bbllx=0.5cm,bblly=8cm,bburx=17cm,bbury=30cm,%
553: width=15.5cm,height=22cm,angle=0,clip=}
554: \vspace{-9.3cm}
555: \caption{Illustrative dependence of $\langle m\rangle_\alpha$
556: (for $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$)
557: on $m_3$. Curve {\bf a}: $\langle m\rangle_e$ with $m_3 < m_2$;
558: Curve {\bf b}: $\langle m\rangle_\mu \approx \langle m\rangle_\tau$
559: with $m_3 < m_2$;
560: Curve {\bf c}: $\langle m\rangle_\mu \approx \langle m\rangle_\tau$
561: with $m_3 > m_2$; and
562: Curve {\bf d}: $\langle m\rangle_e$ with $m_3 > m_2$. The WMAP
563: result leads to $\langle m\rangle_\alpha <0.24$ eV.}
564: \end{figure}
565: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
566: \end{document}
567: