1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2:
3: \usepackage{graphicx,floatflt,amssymb}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: \usepackage{graphics}
6: \usepackage{psfrag}
7: \textwidth=17cm
8: \textheight=22.5cm
9: \oddsidemargin -0.3cm
10: \topmargin -1.5cm
11: \parskip 0.3cm
12: \tolerance=10000
13: \parindent 0pt
14:
15: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
16: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
17: \newcommand{\bd}{\begin{displaymath}}
18: \newcommand{\ed}{\end{displaymath}}
19: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
20: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
21: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
22: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
23:
24:
25: \def\ltap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}}
26: \def\gtap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}}
27:
28:
29: \newcommand{\sun}{\Delta m^2_{\rm sol}}
30: \newcommand{\atm}{\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}}
31: \newcommand{\lsnd}{\Delta m^2_{\rm LSND}}
32: \newcommand{\nonu}{(0\nu\beta\beta)}
33: \newcommand{\meff}{|m_{ee}|}
34: \newcommand{\angsun}{\sin^2 2\theta_{\rm sol}}
35: \newcommand{\angchz}{\sin \theta_{13}}
36: %\newcommand{\l}{\el}
37:
38: %less than or order of
39: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathchoice {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil
40: $\displaystyle##$\hfil\cr<\cr\sim\cr}}}
41: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\textstyle##
42: $\hfil\cr<\cr\sim\cr}}}
43: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptstyle##
44: $\hfil\cr<\cr\sim\cr}}}
45: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptscriptstyle##$
46: \hfil\cr<\cr\sim\cr}}}}}
47: % greater than or order of \ga
48: \def\ga{\mathrel{\mathchoice {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil
49: $\displaystyle##$\hfil\cr>\cr\sim\cr}}}
50: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\textstyle##
51: $\hfil\cr>\cr\sim\cr}}}
52: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptstyle##
53: $\hfil\cr>\cr\sim\cr}}}
54: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptscriptstyle##$
55: \hfil\cr>\cr\sim\cr}}}}}
56:
57:
58: \begin{document}
59: \vspace*{-0.5in}
60: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
61: \begin{flushright}
62: LPT Orsay/03-13 \\
63: SINP/TNP/03-10\\
64: \texttt{hep-ph/0304159}
65: \end{flushright}
66: \vskip 5pt
67: \begin{center}
68: {\Large {\bf Impact of CP phases on neutrinoless double beta decay}}
69: %\\in the light of WMAP data}}
70: \vskip 25pt
71: {\bf Asmaa Abada $^{1}$}
72: %\footnote{E-mail address: abada@lyre.th.u-psud.fr}
73: ~and~
74: {\bf Gautam Bhattacharyya $^{2}$}
75: %\footnote{E-mail address: gb@theory.saha.ernet.in}
76: \vskip 10pt
77: $^{1)}${\it Laboratoire de Physique Th\'eorique,
78: Universit\'e de Paris XI, B\^atiment 210, \\ 91405 Orsay Cedex,
79: France} \\
80: $^{2)}${\it Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, 1/AF Bidhan Nagar,
81: Kolkata 700064, India}
82: \vskip 20pt
83: {\bf Abstract}
84: \end{center}
85:
86: \begin{quotation}
87: {\noindent\small We highlight in a model independent way the
88: dependence of the effective Majorana mass parameter, relevant for
89: neutrinoless double beta decay, on the CP phases of the PMNS matrix,
90: using the most recent neutrino data including the cosmological WMAP
91: measurement. We perform our analysis with three active neutrino
92: flavours in the context of three kinds of mass spectra:
93: quasi-degenerate, normal hierarchical and inverted hierarchical. If a
94: neutrinoless double beta decay experiment records a positive signal,
95: then assuming that Majorana masses of light neutrinos are responsible
96: for it, we show how it might be possible to discriminate between the
97: three kinds of spectra.
98:
99:
100: \vskip 5pt
101: \noindent
102: PACS number(s):~14.60.Pq, 23.40.-s.
103: }
104:
105: \end{quotation}
106:
107: \vskip 15pt
108:
109: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
110: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
111:
112:
113: The importance of looking for neutrinoless double beta decay $\nonu$
114: lies in the fact that, if observed, it would establish a violation of
115: the total lepton number, which is otherwise a conserved quantum number
116: in the standard model. Any nonvanishing amplitude for this decay may
117: be inferred as a signal for an effective Majorana mass of the electron
118: neutrino. This way it is sensitive to some kind of an absolute mass of
119: the neutrino, contrary to the oscillation experiments, which can fix
120: only the neutrino mass squared differences. An evidence for this
121: decay has recently been claimed on the basis of results from
122: Heidelberg-Moscow experiments \cite{db_klap}. This claim has been
123: criticized by authors in \cite{criticism}, which has subsequently been
124: followed by a reply to the criticism made \cite{klap_reply}. In any
125: case, the currently running NEMO3 experiment \cite{nemo3} and future
126: \cite{future_db} (Majorana, EXO, CUORICINO, CUORE, GENIUS) $\nonu$
127: experiments would either confirm this evidence or would put a stronger
128: bound on the amplitude of this decay. The rate of $\nonu$ is
129: proportional to the square of the ($ee$)-element of the neutrino mass
130: matrix, often called the effective mass parameter $m_{ee}$. This
131: parameter depends on the absolute neutrino masses, the solar and CHOOZ
132: mixing angles, and two CP phases. A detailed discussion of the
133: dependence of $m_{ee}$ on different parameters may be found, {\em
134: e.g.}, in \cite{kps,petcov02}.
135:
136: {\em The purpose of this short note} is to highlight in a model
137: independent way the dependence of $m_{ee}$ on the CP phases,
138: using the most recent oscillation data on mass square splittings and
139: mixing angles \cite{solar_expt,solar,atm_expt,atm,chooz,pv}, as well
140: as the recent cosmological bound from WMAP on the sum of all neutrino
141: masses \cite{wmap} in conjunction with data from 2dF galaxy redshift
142: survey (2dFGRS) \cite{2df}. We base our analysis on the three
143: possible kinds of mass spectra: quasi-degenerate, hierarchical and
144: inverted hierarchical, in the context of three neutrino generations.
145: The $\nonu$ experiment in a sense serves to distinguish between the
146: spectra: due to the present sensitivity, its observation in the
147: ongoing $\nonu$ experiment, as it would turn out, would only establish
148: a nearly degenerate mass spectrum.
149:
150:
151: We stress at this point that even though the $\nonu$ amplitude does
152: depend on the CP phases, this decay does not correspond to a
153: manifest CP-violating phenomenon. The rate of this decay is indeed
154: affected by the phases. But the effect is CP-even, {\em i.e.}, the
155: rate of this decay in a nucleus will be the same, in principle, to
156: that in an antinucleus. The CP-odd effect that these Majorana phases
157: might cause have been studied in the context of neutrino
158: $\leftrightarrow$ antineutrino oscillation, rare leptonic decays of
159: the $K$ and $B$ mesons, and leptogenesis (for a recent discussion on
160: this issue, see \cite{gkm}).
161:
162:
163: Let us now set up our notations in a scenario with three active
164: neutrino flavours. In other words, we keep the LSND results
165: \cite{lsnd}
166: out of our consideration.\footnote{Indeed,
167: we know now that miniBoone \cite{miniboone} will either
168: confirm or rule out the LSND signal earliest by 2006,
169: see \cite{Green}.}
170: We recall that observation of neutrino
171: oscillation
172: implies mixing between the flavours due to the fact that the flavour
173: basis is not parallel to the mass basis.
174: The flavour basis is written as $\nu_{\ell L}$
175: where $\ell = e, \mu, \tau$, and the mass basis is expressed as
176: $\nu_{iL}$ where $i = 1, 2,
177: 3$ ($L$ stands for left-handed).
178: The two bases are related to each other by
179: \be \nu_{\ell L} =
180: \sum_{i=1}^3 U_{\ell i} \nu_{iL},
181: \ee
182: where the unitary matrix $U$ is called the
183: Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata (PMNS) matrix \cite{pmns}. A useful
184: parametrization of $U$ is given by \cite{C-K}
185: \bea\label{mix}
186: U = \left(
187: \begin{array}{ccc}
188: c_{12}\ c_{13}&s_{12}\ c_{13}& s_{13} e^{-i \delta}\\
189: -s_{12}\ c_{23}-c_{12}\ s_{23}\ s_{13}e^{i \delta}
190: &c_{12}\ c_{23}-s_{12}\ s_{23}\
191: s_{13}e^{i \delta}&s_{23}\ c_{13}\\
192: s_{12}\ s_{23}-c_{12}\ c_{23}\ s_{13}e^{i \delta}
193: &-c_{12}\ s_{23}-s_{12}\ c_{23}\ s_{13}e^{i \delta}&
194: c_{23}\ c_{13}
195: \end{array}
196: \right)\ {\mathrm{diag}}\left\{e^{i \alpha_1},e^{i \alpha_2} ,
197: 1\right\},
198: \eea
199: where $c_{ij}=\cos (\theta_{ij})$ and $s_{ij}=\sin (\theta_{ij})$,
200: $\delta$ is the Dirac CP phase and $\alpha_{1,2}$ are the Majorana
201: phases.
202:
203:
204:
205: If the $\nonu$ amplitude is indeed generated by a $(V-A)$ weak charged
206: current interaction via Majorana neutrino exchange, and if the masses
207: of those neutrinos are less than a typical Fermi momentum ($\sim 100$
208: MeV) of the nucleons inside a nucleus, then the $\nonu$ amplitude is
209: proportional to the effective mass $m_{ee}$ defined as \cite{bp_rev}
210: \be
211: \label{master}
212: \meff = \left|U_{ei}^2 m_i\right| = \left|m_1 |U_{e1}|^2 + m_2
213: |U_{e2}|^2 e^{2i\alpha_{_{M}}} + m_3 |U_{e3}|^2 e^{2i\alpha_{_{MD}}}
214: \right|, \ee where $\alpha_{_{M}} = (\alpha_2 - \alpha_1)$ is a pure
215: Majorana type and $\alpha_{_{MD}} = -(\delta + \alpha_1)$ is a mixture
216: of the Majorana and Dirac type CP phases. Without any loss
217: of generality, we can take the mass eigenvalues $(m_1, m_2, m_3)$ to
218: be positive. The effective mass parameter depends on the solar angle
219: $\theta_{12}$, the CHOOZ angle $\theta_{13}$, the masses $m_i$ and the
220: CP phases. The solar angle measurement has become increasingly precise
221: particularly after the SNO results came out. As regards $\theta_{13}$,
222: there exists only an upper limit from the CHOOZ \cite{chooz} and Palo
223: Verde \cite{pv} neutrino disappearance reactor
224: experiments. The latter angle links
225: the solar and the atmospheric sectors in the PMNS matrix. This angle
226: is also important in the context of future CP violation measurements
227: in the long baseline experiments. For an observable impact of CP
228: violation $\theta_{13}$ should not be smaller than $0.2^\circ$ (the
229: other necessity is a large solar angle which has already been
230: established anyway). More specifically, the future first generation
231: superbeams JHF-SK \cite{jhf} and NuMI \cite{numi} long baseline
232: experiments (JHF-SK to start taking data in 2007) along with possible
233: large reactor experiments will measure $\sin^2 \theta_{13}$ to a few
234: $10^{-3}$ level \cite{huber} and, if luck permits, will also determine
235: some CP asymmetries. Now we turn our attention to the CP phases. As
236: yet, these phases are completely unknown. Only the $\nonu$ amplitude
237: offers a unique and direct probe to them. These phases take an active
238: r\^{o}le in determining the size of the $\nonu$ amplitude, and the
239: possibility of a likely signal for this decay in the current and
240: foreseeable experiments hangs crucially on the amount of destructive
241: interferences created by these phases.
242:
243:
244: We now briefly summarize the experimental data which concern the
245: effective mass calculation related to neutrinoless double beta decay.
246: \begin{itemize}
247: \item The post-KamLAND analysis \cite{solar} constrain
248: the solar angle, $\theta_{\rm {sol}}$ or $\theta_{12}$, as
249: (b.f. means best fit)
250: \be
251: \label{solarang}
252: 0.70~\ltap~\angsun~\ltap~0.96 ~~(95\%~{\rm CL});
253: ~~~\angsun~({\rm b.f.}) = 0.82.
254: \ee
255:
256: \item The CHOOZ experiment \cite{chooz} constrains the $\theta_{13}$
257: angle as
258: \be
259: \label{chooz}
260: \angchz~\ltap~0.22 ~~(95\%~{\rm CL})\ ,
261: \ee
262: and a global analysis by Fogli {\em et al.} \cite{Fogli} led to
263: $|U_{e3}|^2 < 5.0\cdot 10^{-2}~~(99.7$\%~{CL}).
264: \item The solar \cite{solar} and atmospheric \cite{atm} squared mass
265: differences are constrained as (95\% CL)
266: \bea
267: \label{splitt}
268: 5.8 \cdot 10^{-5}~\ltap~\sun~({\rm eV}^2) ~\ltap~ 9.1 \cdot 10^{-5} \;
269: ~~~
270: \sun~({\rm b.f.}) = 7.2 \cdot 10^{-5} ~({\rm eV}^2) \; \\
271: 1 \cdot 10^{-3}~\ltap~\atm~({\rm eV}^2) ~\ltap~ 5.0 \cdot 10^{-3} \;
272: ~~~
273: \atm~({\rm b.f.}) = 2.5 \cdot 10^{-3} ~({\rm eV}^2) .
274: \eea
275:
276: \item The WMAP result \cite{wmap} in conjunction with the 2dFGRS data
277: \cite{2df} constrain the total mass of the active neutrino species
278: (with
279: the assumption that these neutrinos have decoupled while still being
280: relativistic) as
281: \be
282: \label{wmap}
283: \sum_i m_i ~\ltap~ 0.71 ~{\rm eV} ~~(95\% ~{\rm CL}).
284: \ee
285: Implicitly, the limit in Eq.~(\ref{wmap}) uses the Ly-$\alpha$ forest
286: data \cite{forest}
287: whose interpretation is still controversial. Excluding the
288: latter, one obtains a more robust and conservative bound
289: $ \sum_i m_i ~\ltap~ 1.01 ~{\rm eV}$ \cite{hannestad}.
290:
291:
292: \item The Heidelberg-Moscow claim on evidence of $\nonu$ translates
293: into an effective Majorana mass \cite{db_klap,criticism,klap_reply}
294: \be 0.11~\ltap~ \meff~({\rm eV}) ~\ltap~0.56 ~~(95\% ~{\rm CL}); ~~~
295: \meff~({\rm b.f.}) = 0.39 ~{\rm eV}. \ee
296:
297:
298: \item The Mainz \cite{mainz} and Troitsk \cite{troitsk} Tritium beta
299: decay experiments have put the bound
300: $m_{\nu_e} ~\ltap~ 2.2$ eV
301: on the electron-type
302: neutrino mass. The future KATRIN Tritium beta decay experiment
303: \cite{katrin}, planned to be operative from 2007, has the possibility
304: to probe $m_{\nu_e}$ down to 0.35 eV level.
305: \end{itemize}
306:
307: We perform our analysis on the basis of the usual three kinds of mass
308: hierarchy, and we discuss them one by one. But, before that, we
309: observe that the WMAP limit automatically sets an {\em upper
310: limit} for the effective mass parameter in neutrinoless double beta
311: decay. In other words, keeping in mind Schwarz inequality, it follows
312: from Eq.~(\ref{master}) that $\meff ~\ltap~ 0.71 $ eV
313: (or a more conservative upper limit of 1.01 eV {\em a la} Hannestad
314: \cite{hannestad}). A similar conclusion was also drawn in \cite{am}.
315:
316: \begin{enumerate}
317: \item \underline{Quasi-degenerate}:~ The three eigenvalues are $m_1
318: \simeq m_2 \simeq m_3 \equiv m_0$. The absolute scale can be made
319: large enough to saturate the WMAP bound, i.e. $m_0 \simeq 0.23$ eV. In
320: this case, Eq.~(\ref{master}) turns out to be \be
321: \label{deg}
322: \meff \simeq m_0 \left|c_{12}^2 c_{13}^2+ s_{12}^2 c_{13}^2
323: e^{2i\alpha_{_M}} + s_{13}^2 e^{2i\alpha_{_{MD}}}\right|.
324: \ee
325:
326: Since CHOOZ data constrain $s_{13}$ to be small, one would naively
327: throw away the third term in Eq.~(\ref{deg}), as has been the usual
328: practice. But the effect of this term can be significant when there
329: is a cancellation between the first two terms. For $s_{13} = 0$, we
330: obtain
331: \be
332: m_0 |\cos 2\theta_{\rm sol}| ~\ltap~ \meff ~\ltap~ m_0\ .
333: \label{deg-lim}
334: \ee
335: As a matter of fact, the upper bound $m_0$ in Eq.~(\ref{deg-lim})
336: holds, thanks to the Schwartz inequality, irrespective of the value
337: of $s_{13}$. The r\^{o}le of the
338: destructive interference can be seen in Fig.~1 where we have plotted
339: the effective mass parameter for both $s_{13} = 0$ (left panel) and
340: the maximum allowed value $s_{13} = 0.22$ (right panel). We point out
341: here that the lowest value of $\meff/m_0$ in the plots of Fig.~1 is
342: not zero but $|\cos 2\theta|_{\rm sol}$. The relative importance of
343: the two phases and also the impact of nonvanishing $\sin \theta_{13}$
344: (right panel) are apparent from Fig.~1. Comparing the left and right
345: panels, we infer that a non-vanishing $s_{13}$ (we put the CHOOZ upper
346: limit of 0.22) somewhat suppreses (by something like 10\%)
347: the maximum value $m_0$ can attain
348: for $\alpha_M = 0$ compared to the $s_{13} = 0$ scenario.
349:
350:
351: \item \underline{Normal Hierarchy}:~ In this case, $m_1 < m_2 \ll
352: m_3$. As an illustrative example, we can take $m_1 \simeq 0$, $m_2
353: \simeq \sqrt{\sun}$, and $m_3 \simeq \sqrt{\atm}$. Then one can
354: effectively get rid of one of the two CP phases in Eq.~(\ref{master}),
355: and can write ($\alpha \equiv \alpha_{_{MD}} - \alpha_{_{M}}$)
356: \be
357: \label{nh}
358: \meff = \left|\sqrt{\sun}~ s_{12}^2 c_{13}^2+ \sqrt{\atm}~ s_{13}^2
359: ~e^{2i\alpha}\right|.
360: \ee
361:
362: In Fig.~2, we have plotted ${\meff/\sqrt{\sun}}$ against the
363: CP phase $\alpha$. We observe that even in the
364: case of maximum cancellation
365: ($\alpha=\pi/2$) the effective mass never vanishes (see the zoom in
366: Fig.~2) and thus corresponds to
367: a lower bound, which is unfortunately much
368: below the present and foreseeable experimental sensitivity. Putting
369: numbers, we obtain within the 95\% confidence level from the data
370: \be
371: \meff ~\ltap~ 0.007
372: ~{\rm eV}\ .
373: \ee
374: A non-zero $m_1$ (but small enough to satisfy $m_1
375: \ll \sqrt{\sun}$) can however push $\meff$ to slightly higher values.
376:
377: \item \underline{Inverted Hierarchy}:~ In this case, $m_1 > m_2 \gg
378: m_3$. One can take $m_1 \simeq m_2 \simeq \sqrt{\atm}$ and $m_3
379: \simeq
380: 0$. Again, only one CP phase, the pure Majorana one,
381: enters into the expression for $\meff$,
382: given by
383: \be
384: \label{ih}
385: \meff = \sqrt{\atm} c_{13}^2\left|c_{12}^2 + s_{12}^2
386: ~e^{2i\alpha_{_{M}}}\right|.
387: \ee
388: This case is very similar to the
389: quasi-degenerate scenario, except that the overall mass scale is
390: suppressed by $\sqrt{\atm}/m_0$ and that the third term in
391: Eq.~(\ref{master}) is even further suppressed. This case is
392: illustrated in Fig.~3 where we have plotted ${\meff/\sqrt{\atm}}$ as a
393: function of the CP phase $\alpha_{_{M}}$. The maximum cancellation
394: holds for $\alpha_{_{M}}=\pi/2$, as it was
395: for the quasi-degenerate
396: case.
397: When $\alpha_M = 0$, which does not necessarily mean that the original
398: Majorana phases $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ in the PMNS matrix
399: individually vanish,
400: we obtain the maximum
401: amplitude. Again putting numbers, we obtain at 95\% CL
402: from experimental data
403: \be
404: 0.006 ~{\rm eV} ~\ltap~ \meff ~\ltap~ 0.07 ~{\rm eV}\ .
405: \ee
406:
407: \end{enumerate}
408:
409: Thus we may observe that a measurement of $\meff$ may serve to
410: distinguish between the spectra. As an example, any measurement of
411: $\meff$ reasonably above the maximum $\sqrt{\atm} \simeq 0.07$ eV will
412: conclusively rule in favour of the quasi-degenerate spectrum,
413: irrespective of the present uncertainty over the absolute mass upper
414: limit. In the future experiments, if the effective mass is found
415: between 0.007 eV and 0.07 eV, then the spectrum would correspond to
416: inverted hierarchy pattern, while an observation of $\meff$ below
417: 0.006 eV would imply a normal hierarchical pattern. But if $\meff$ is
418: observed between 0.006 and 0.007 eV, then the two kinds of hierarchies
419: cannot be discriminated. These divisions are based on the basis of
420: accepting the experimentally allowed regions at 95\% CL. If, instead,
421: one employs 99\% CL criterion, the lower bound of $\meff$ in the case
422: of inverted hierarchy enters {\em more} into the zone admitted by
423: normal hierarchy. Another point to note is that in future if the
424: KATRIN Tritium beta decay experiment confirms a large ($\gtap~0.35$
425: eV) absolute mass, then a measurement of $\meff$ in an ongoing
426: neutrinoless double beta decay experiment would provide an idea about
427: the CP phases. The Heidelberg-Moscow and NEMO3 experiments have been
428: designed to reach a sensitivity of a few $10^{-1}$ eV. Thus a positive
429: signal in these experiments will only imply a degenerate spectrum.
430: Among the future short term projects, CUORICINO will have a
431: sensitivity of a few $10^{-1}$ eV, but the Majorana, EXO, and CUORE
432: experiments are expected to attain a sensitivity of few $10^{-2}$
433: eV. Therefore, we will be able to distinguish between the inverted
434: hierarchical and the degenerate spectra. On the other hand, if the
435: spectrum is normal hierarchical then we will have to wait for the long
436: term projects, which are expected to reach a sensitivity of few
437: $10^{-3}$ eV ({\em e.g.} 10t GENIUS). We refer to ref.~\cite{future}
438: for a general discussion about the future direct neutrino mass
439: measurements.
440:
441: A word of caution is relevant here. Nonzero Majorana masses of light
442: neutrinos are not necessarily the only source behind a nonvanishing
443: $\nonu$. Heavy Majorana neutrinos or doubly charged scalars may also
444: contribute to $\nonu$, where the contributions are suppressed by their
445: heavy masses. In fact, in the context of left-right symmetric ${\rm
446: SU(2)}_L \times{\rm SU(2)}_R \times {\rm U(1)}_{B-L}$ model, the
447: see-saw generated light Majorana neutrinos, the heavy Majorana
448: neutrino, the doubly charged scalar, all contribute to $\nonu$;
449: additionally, there is a fourth contribution arising out of light and
450: heavy neutrino mixing. Non-observation of $\nonu$ can therefore be
451: translated into lower bounds on the relevant heavy masses in the range
452: of a few hundred GeV to a few TeV. In supersymmetric models with
453: broken R-parity, the trilinear $\lambda'_{111}$ coupling or the
454: product couplings $\lambda'_{11j} \cdot \lambda'_{1j1}$ also drive
455: $\nonu$, and again stringent bounds emerge on those couplings. The
456: R-parity violating couplings will have distinct collider signals. So
457: before one interprets a nonzero signal of $\nonu$ as a {\em direct}
458: consequence of light neutrino Majorana masses, one must ensure that
459: all other lepton number violating contributions are comparatively
460: dwarfed. It should, however, be noted that regardless of whatever
461: mechanism is responsible for $\nonu$, once there is a lepton number
462: violating interaction, neutrino Majorana masses will be definitely
463: generated at higher loops, even if it is forbidden at tree level. Thus
464: a nonvanishing $\nonu$ amplitude effectively implies a nonvanishing
465: neutrino Majorana mass, directly or indirectly. For an illustrative
466: discussion on different kinds of lepton number violating processes and
467: their contributions to $\nonu$, see ref.~\cite{Mohapatra_Pal}.
468:
469: In conclusion, assuming that the Majorana masses of light neutrinos
470: are mainly responsible for $\nonu$, the major ingredients for the
471: prediction of $\meff$ are the solar and atmospheric mass splittings
472: (for normal and inverted hierarchical cases), the absolute mass scale
473: (for degenerate case), the solar mixing angle, the CHOOZ angle and the
474: CP phases. The ongoing oscillation experiments provide mass squared
475: splittings and mixing angles. In the near future the precision of all
476: the oscillation parameters will be significantly enhanced, which will
477: sharpen the $\meff$ prediction. Then the chances of getting a
478: positive signal in the $\nonu$ experiments will depend crucially on
479: the CP phases. It was our aim to demonstrate the r\^{o}le of these
480: phases in this context. Here we have not indulged ourselves in the
481: discussion of theoretical uncertainties associated with $\meff$
482: prediction. The uncertainty in the nuclear matrix element calculations
483: is estimated to be roughly ${\cal{O}} (2)$ (for a recent analysis on
484: theoretical and experimental uncertainties associated with $\meff$,
485: see, {\em e.g.}, \cite{petcov02}). Eventually, if a non-zero $\nonu$
486: signal is observed in experiment, then its size will give a hint on
487: the nature of the spectrum. This is an advantage over the oscillation
488: experiments. Additionally, such an event will give us a handle on the
489: magnitude of the CP phases, which might lead to CP odd effects at an
490: observable level \cite{gkm}. Finally, we point out that following the
491: WMAP results \cite{wmap} a lot of enthusiasm has been generated
492: towards a close scrutiny of neutrinoless double beta decay (some of
493: these references are contained in \cite{postwmap}).
494:
495:
496:
497: {\bf \underline{Acknowledgments}:} We thank C. Augier and S. Jullian
498: from NEMO3 collaboration, and also J.-P. Leroy for a useful discussion
499: and for suggesting improvements of the manuscript. GB acknowledges
500: hospitality of LPT, Univ. de Paris XI, Orsay, where the work has been
501: initiated. GB's research has been supported, in part, by the DST,
502: India, project number SP/S2/K-10/2001.
503:
504: %%%%%%%%%%%
505: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
506: %%%%%%%%%%%
507: \bibitem{db_klap} H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, A. Dietz, H.L. Harney,
508: I.V. Krivosheina, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16 (2001) 2409.
509:
510: \bibitem{criticism} C.E. Aalseth {\it et al.}, hep-ex/0202018 and
511: F. Feruglio, A. Strumia, F. Vissani, hep-ph/0201291; H.L. Harney,
512: hep-ph/0205293.
513:
514: \bibitem{klap_reply} H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, hep-ph/0205228;
515: H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, A. Dietz, I.V. Krivosheina,
516: Found. Phys. 32 (2002) 1181.
517:
518: \bibitem{nemo3} NEMO3 Collaboration, C. Marquet {\em et al.},
519: Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 87 (2000) 298; L. Simard for the NEMO
520: collaboration, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 110 (2002) 372.
521:
522: \bibitem{future_db} H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus {\em et al.} (GENIUS),
523: J. Phys. G 24 (1998) 483; M. Danilov {\em et al.}, (EXO) Phys. Lett. B
524: 480 (2000) 12; L. Braeckeleer (for Majorana Collaboration), {\em
525: Proceedings of the Carolina Conference on Neutrino Physics}, Columbia
526: SC USA, March 2000; E. Ejiri {\em et al.} (MOON), Phys. Rev. Lett. 85
527: (2000) 2917; see also, S.R. Elliot, P. Vogel,
528: Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci, 52 (2002).
529:
530: \bibitem{kps} H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, H. P\"{a}s, A.Y. Smirnov,
531: Phys. Rev D 63 (2001) 073005, and references therein.
532:
533: \bibitem{petcov02} S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov, W. Rodejohann,
534: Phys. Lett. B 558 (2003) 141; {\em ibid.} B 549 (2002) 177. See also,
535: {\em e.g.}, S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov, Phys. Lett. B 544 (2002) 239;
536: S. Pascoli, S.T. Petcov, L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Lett. B 524 (2002) 319;
537: S.M. Bilenky {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 053010;
538: W. Rodejohann, hep-ph/0203214.
539:
540:
541: \bibitem{solar_expt} SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad {\em et al.},
542: Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 011301; KamLAND Collaboration, K. Eguchi
543: {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 021802.
544:
545: \bibitem{solar}
546: M.~Maltoni, T.~Schwetz, J.~W.~Valle,
547: hep-ph/0212129;
548: A. Bandyopadhyay {\em et al.}, hep-ph/0212146;
549: J.~N.~Bahcall, M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia, C.~Pena-Garay,
550: hep-ph/0212147;
551: V. Barger and D. Marfatia, Phys.\ Lett.\ B555, 144 (2003);
552: P.C. de Holanda, A.Y. Smirnov, hep-ph/0212270; H. Nunokawa {\em et
553: al.}, hep-ph/0212202; P. Aliani {\em et al.}, hep-ph/0212212.
554:
555: \bibitem{atm_expt} Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Y. Fukuda {\em et
556: al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 1562; M. Shiozawa, talk given at
557: ``Neutrino'02'', Munich, Germany, 2002.
558:
559: \bibitem{atm}
560: N.~Fornengo, M.~Maltoni, R.~T.~Bayo, J.~W.~Valle,
561: Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 013010.
562:
563: \bibitem{chooz} CHOOZ collaboration, M. Appolonio {\em et al.}, Phys.
564: Lett. B 466 (1999) 415.
565:
566: \bibitem{pv} Palo Verde experiment, F. Boehm {\em et al.},
567: Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 (2000) 3764.
568:
569: \bibitem{wmap} D.N. Spergel {\em et al.}, astro-ph/0302209.
570:
571: \bibitem{2df}
572: O. Elgaroy et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 061301 (2002).
573:
574: \bibitem{gkm} A. de Gouv\^{e}a, B. Kayser, R. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D
575: 67 (2003) 053004.
576:
577: \bibitem{lsnd} LSND Collaboration, A. Aguilar {\em et al.},
578: Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 112007.
579:
580: \bibitem{miniboone} E.D. Zimmerman, hep-ex/0211039, Invited talk at
581: the Seventh International Workshop on Tau Lepton Physics (TAU02),
582: Santa Cruz, Ca, USA, Sept 2002.
583:
584: \bibitem{Green} A. Green, Invited talk at 38th Rencontres de Moriond:
585: Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs, France,
586: 15-22 Mar 2003.
587:
588: \bibitem{pmns} B. Pontecorvo, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 33 (1957) 549 and
589: {\em ibid.} 34 (1958) 247; Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, S. Sakata,
590: Prog. Theor. Phys. 28 (1962) 870.
591:
592: \bibitem{C-K} L.L. Chau and W.Y. Keung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53 (1984)
593: 1802.
594:
595: \bibitem{bp_rev} S.M. Bilenky, S.T. Petcov, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59 (1987)
596: 671.
597:
598: \bibitem{jhf} Y. Itow {\em et al.}, hep-ex/0106019.
599:
600: \bibitem{numi} D. Ayres {\em et al.}, hep-ex/0210005.
601:
602: \bibitem{huber} P. Huber, M. Lindner, T. Schwetz, W. Winter,
603: hep-ph/0303232.
604:
605: \bibitem{Fogli} G.L. Fogli {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 093008.
606:
607: \bibitem{forest} R.A. Croft {\em et al.} Astrophys. J. 581 (2002) 20;
608: U. Seljak, P. McDonald, A. Makarov, astro-ph/0302571.
609:
610:
611: \bibitem{hannestad} S. Hannestad, astro-ph/0303076.
612:
613: \bibitem{mainz} C. Weinheimer {\em et al.}, Phys. Lett. B 460 (1999)
614: 219.
615:
616: \bibitem{troitsk} V.M. Lobashev {\em et al.}, Phys. Lett. B 460 (1999)
617: 227.
618:
619: \bibitem{katrin} KATRIN Collaboration, A. Osipowicz {\em et al.},
620: hep-ex/0109033 (letter of intent for next generation Tritium beta
621: decay experiment).
622:
623: \bibitem{am} A. Abada, M. Losada, Nucl. Phys. B 585 (2000) 45.
624:
625: \bibitem{future} J.L. Vuilleumier, Invited talk at 38th Rencontres de
626: Moriond: Electroweak Interactions and Unified Theories, Les Arcs,
627: France, 15-22 Mar 2003.
628:
629: \bibitem{Mohapatra_Pal} `Massive Neutrinos in Physics and
630: Astrophysics', R.N. Mohapatra and P.B. Pal (World Scientific, 2nd
631: Edition, 1998).
632:
633: \bibitem{postwmap} K. Matsuda, T. Fukuyama, H. Nishiura,
634: hep-ph/0302254; K. Cheung, hep-ph/0302265; G. Bhattacharyya,
635: H. P\"{a}s, L. Song, T. Weiler, hep-ph/0302191;
636: H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, U. Sarkar, hep-ph/0304032.
637:
638:
639:
640:
641:
642: \end{thebibliography}
643:
644: \begin{figure}[ht]
645: \hspace*{-1.8cm}
646: \begin{center}
647: \begin{tabular}{cc}
648: \psfrag{zz}{}
649: \psfrag{xx}{\small${\alpha_{_{M}}}$}
650: \psfrag{yy}{\small${\alpha_{_{MD}}}$}
651: \psfrag{AA}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 2}$}
652: \psfrag{BB}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 4}$}
653: \psfrag{vv}{\tiny$0$}
654: \psfrag{CC}{\tiny${\pi\over 4}$}
655: \psfrag{DD}{\tiny${\pi\over 2}$}
656: \psfrag{ee}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 2}$}
657: \psfrag{ff}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 4}$}
658: \psfrag{ww}{\tiny$0$}
659: \psfrag{gg}{\tiny${\pi\over 4}$}
660: \psfrag{hh}{\tiny${\pi\over 2}$}
661: \includegraphics[scale=0.70]{3dbest-0ch.eps} &
662: \psfrag{zz}{}
663: \psfrag{xx}{\small${\alpha_{_{M}}}$}
664: \psfrag{yy}{\small${\alpha_{_{MD}}}$}
665: \psfrag{AA}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 2}$}
666: \psfrag{BB}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 4}$}
667: \psfrag{vv}{\tiny$0$}
668: \psfrag{CC}{\tiny${\pi\over 4}$}
669: \psfrag{DD}{\tiny${\pi\over 2}$}
670: \psfrag{ee}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 2}$}
671: \psfrag{ff}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 4}$}
672: \psfrag{ww}{\tiny$0$}
673: \psfrag{gg}{\tiny${\pi\over 4}$}
674: \psfrag{hh}{\tiny${\pi\over 2}$}
675: \includegraphics[scale=0.70]{3dbest-ch.eps}
676: \\
677: \psfrag{zz}{}
678: \psfrag{xx}{\small${\alpha_{_{M}}}$}
679: \psfrag{yy}{\small${\alpha_{_{MD}}}$}
680: \psfrag{AA}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 2}$}
681: \psfrag{BB}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 4}$}
682: \psfrag{vv}{\tiny$0$}
683: \psfrag{CC}{\tiny${\pi\over 4}$}
684: \psfrag{DD}{\tiny${\pi\over 2}$}
685: \psfrag{ee}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 2}$}
686: \psfrag{ff}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 4}$}
687: \psfrag{ww}{\tiny$0$}
688: \psfrag{gg}{\tiny${\pi\over 4}$}
689: \psfrag{hh}{\tiny${\pi\over 2}$}
690: \includegraphics[scale=0.70]{3dhigh-0ch.eps}
691: &
692: \psfrag{zz}{}
693: \psfrag{xx}{\small${\alpha_{_{M}}}$}
694: \psfrag{yy}{\small${\alpha_{_{MD}}}$}
695: \psfrag{AA}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 2}$}
696: \psfrag{BB}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 4}$}
697: \psfrag{vv}{\tiny$0$}
698: \psfrag{CC}{\tiny${\pi\over 4}$}
699: \psfrag{DD}{\tiny${\pi\over 2}$}
700: \psfrag{ee}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 2}$}
701: \psfrag{ff}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 4}$}
702: \psfrag{ww}{\tiny$0$}
703: \psfrag{gg}{\tiny${\pi\over 4}$}
704: \psfrag{hh}{\tiny${\pi\over 2}$}
705: \includegraphics[scale=0.70]{3dhigh-ch.eps}
706: \\
707: \psfrag{zz}{}
708: \psfrag{xx}{\small${\alpha_{_{M}}}$}
709: \psfrag{yy}{\small${\alpha_{_{MD}}}$}
710: \psfrag{AA}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 2}$}
711: \psfrag{BB}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 4}$}
712: \psfrag{vv}{\tiny$0$}
713: \psfrag{CC}{\tiny${\pi\over 4}$}
714: \psfrag{DD}{\tiny${\pi\over 2}$}
715: \psfrag{ee}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 2}$}
716: \psfrag{ff}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 4}$}
717: \psfrag{ww}{\tiny$0$}
718: \psfrag{gg}{\tiny${\pi\over 4}$}
719: \psfrag{hh}{\tiny${\pi\over 2}$}
720: \includegraphics[scale=0.70]{3dlow-0ch.eps}
721: &\psfrag{zz}{}
722: \psfrag{xx}{\small${\alpha_{_{M}}}$}
723: \psfrag{yy}{\small${\alpha_{_{MD}}}$}
724: \psfrag{AA}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 2}$}
725: \psfrag{BB}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 4}$}
726: \psfrag{vv}{\tiny$0$}
727: \psfrag{CC}{\tiny${\pi\over 4}$}
728: \psfrag{DD}{\tiny${\pi\over 2}$}
729: \psfrag{ee}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 2}$}
730: \psfrag{ff}{\tiny$-{\pi\over 4}$}
731: \psfrag{ww}{\tiny$0$}
732: \psfrag{gg}{\tiny${\pi\over 4}$}
733: \psfrag{hh}{\tiny${\pi\over 2}$}
734: \includegraphics[scale=0.70]{3dlow-ch.eps}
735: \\
736: \end{tabular}
737:
738: \end{center}
739: \caption{\small The quasi-degenerate case is represented with the
740: minimum and maximum allowed values for the CHOOZ angle. The left panel
741: corresponds to $\sin \theta_{13}=0$ and the right panel to $\sin
742: \theta_{13}=0.22$. The z axis represents ${\meff/m_0}$ in terms of
743: the two CP phases. The lowest value of $\meff/m_0$ is not zero but
744: $|\cos 2\theta|_{\rm sol}$. The first, second and third rows
745: correspond to $\angsun =$ 0.96 (95\% CL upper limit), 0.82 (best fit)
746: and 0.70 (95\% CL lower limit), respectively.} \label{fig:degenerate}
747: \end{figure}
748: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
749: \begin{figure}
750: \centering
751: % \begin{center}
752: \psfrag{xx}{\small ${\alpha}$}
753: \psfrag{yy}{}
754: \psfrag{AA}{$0$}
755: \psfrag{BB}{\tiny${\pi\over 4}$}
756: \psfrag{CC}{\tiny${\pi\over 2}$}
757: \psfrag{DD}{\tiny${3\pi\over 4}$}
758: \psfrag{EE}{\tiny${\pi}$}
759: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{2dbest-nor.eps}
760: %\end{center}
761: \hspace{0.5in}%
762: \fbox{\begin{minipage}{2.5in}
763: \psfrag{xx}{\small ${\alpha}$}
764: \psfrag{yy}{}
765: \psfrag{AA}{$0$}
766: \psfrag{BB}{\tiny${23\pi\over 48}$}
767: \psfrag{CC}{\tiny${\pi\over 2}$}
768: \psfrag{DD}{\tiny${25\pi\over 48}$}
769: \psfrag{EE}{\tiny${26\pi\over 48}$}
770: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{2dbest-nor-zoom.eps}
771: %\caption{\small Zoom }
772: \end{minipage}}
773: \caption{\small The normal hierarchy case: the effective mass
774: normalized as ${\meff/\sqrt{\sun}}$ is plotted against the only CP
775: phase $\alpha$ (see text). We have used the best fit value for the
776: solar angle. In the right panel we zoom the part where there is an
777: extreme cancellation. } \end{figure}
778: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
779: \begin{figure} [t] \begin{center} \psfrag{XX}{\small
780: ${\alpha_{\mbox{\tiny {\sc M}}}}$} \psfrag{YY}{} \psfrag{AA}{$0$}
781: \psfrag{BB}{\tiny${\pi\over 6}$} \psfrag{CC}{\tiny${2\pi\over 6}$}
782: \psfrag{DD}{\tiny${\pi\over 2}$} \psfrag{EE}{\tiny${4\pi\over 6}$}
783: \psfrag{FF}{\tiny${5\pi\over 6}$} \psfrag{GG}{\tiny${\pi}$}
784: \includegraphics[width=4in]{2dbest-inv.eps} \caption{\small The
785: inverted hierarchy case: the effective mass normalized as
786: ${\meff/\sqrt{\atm}}$ is plotted against the only CP phase
787: $\alpha_{_{M}}$ (see text). We have used the best fit value for the
788: solar angle. } \end{center} \end{figure}
789:
790:
791: \end{document}
792: