1: \documentclass[11pt,fleqn]{article}
2: \usepackage{multicol}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \newcommand\feature[1]{\vskip2.7mm
5: \noindent\underline{\em #1}\vskip2.3mm\nobreak}
6:
7: \oddsidemargin 0mm
8: \evensidemargin 0mm
9: \topmargin=-0mm
10: \textwidth=16cm
11: \textheight=22cm
12: \parskip2.8pt
13: \def\baselinestretch{1.03}
14:
15:
16: % \oddsidemargin -8mm
17: % \evensidemargin -3mm
18: % \topmargin=-2mm
19: % \textwidth=17.4cm
20: % \textheight=24cm
21: % \parskip2.0pt
22: % \def\baselinestretch{0.93}
23:
24:
25: \begin{document}
26: \sf
27: %\centerline{\tt LNGS/TH-01/... \hfill \tt hep-ph/yymmxxx}
28: %\vspace{11mm}
29:
30: \centerline{\Huge $U_{\! e 3}$ from physics above the GUT scale}
31:
32: \vspace{7mm}
33:
34: \centerline{\large
35: Francesco Vissani,
36: Mohan Narayan,
37: Veniamin Berezinsky
38: }
39: \centerline{\em INFN, Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso,
40: I-67010 Assergi (AQ), Italia}
41: \vspace{8mm}
42:
43: \centerline{\large\sc Abstract}
44: \begin{quote}
45: \small
46: We consider non-renormalizable $1/M_X$
47: interaction terms as a perturbation of the
48: conventional neutrino mass matrix.
49: Particular attention is given to the gravitational
50: interaction with $M_X=M_{\rm Pl}$.
51: %In this case we
52: We find that for the degenerate
53: neutrino mass spectrum, the considered perturbation generates a
54: non-zero $U_{e 3}$ which is within reach of the high
55: performance neutrino factories and just on the
56: borderline to be of interest for supernova physics. For the hierarchical
57: mass spectrum this effect is small. For $1/M_X$ interaction terms with
58: $M_X$ about the GUT scale,
59: a detectable $U_{e3}$ term is induced
60: for the hierarchical mass spectra also.
61: Numerical estimates are given for all the above mentioned cases
62: and renormalization effects are considered.
63:
64: \end{quote}
65: \rm
66:
67: \section*{Introduction}
68: One of most important issues in neutrino physics is the
69: magnitude of $U_{e 3}$ or equivalently of the mixing angle $\theta_{13}$.
70: The actual value of this parameter is of great interest to various
71: aspects of neutrino physics:
72: To theory,
73: to the search for CP violation in the next generation
74: of long baseline oscillation experiments,
75: to interpret supernova neutrino signals, {\em etc}.
76: The only solid information we have on this
77: parameter is the upper bound that is
78: based on the CHOOZ experiment \cite{CHOOZ},
79: that is $\theta_{13} \leq 7^\circ$ at 1
80: sigma ($13^\circ$ at 3 sigma).
81:
82: In this paper, we point out that a tentative lower bound on
83: this parameter arises from physics above the grand unified
84: theory (GUT) scale, in particular from the
85: gravitational interaction of neutrinos.
86: Let us describe this idea.
87: Most probably, grand unified dynamics generates the main part
88: of the neutrino mass matrix. However, contributions from other sources
89: are likely to exist. Specifically,
90: gravitational interactions
91: \cite{planck1,planck2,planck4} can produce
92: additional terms in the mass of neutrinos,
93: and these can affect the size of $\theta_{13}$.
94:
95: The relevant gravitational dimension-5 operator for the spinor
96: $SU(2)_L$ isodoublets,\footnote{Here and everywhere below we
97: use Greek letters $\alpha,\beta,$... for the flavor states
98: and Latin letters $i,j,k$... for the mass states.}
99: $\psi_\alpha=(\nu_\alpha,\ell_\alpha)$
100: and the scalar one, $\varphi=(\varphi^+,\varphi^0)$,
101: can be written with the operators
102: introduced by Weinberg \cite{d=5} as
103: \begin{equation}
104: {\cal L_{\rm grav}} = \frac{\lambda}{M_{\rm Pl}}
105: ({\psi}_{Aa\alpha}\: \epsilon_{AC}\: \varphi_C)\: C_{ab}^{\scriptscriptstyle -1}\:
106: ({\psi}_{Bb\beta}\: \epsilon_{BD}\: \varphi_D) +h.c.,
107: \label{grav}
108: \end{equation}
109: where $M_{\rm Pl}= 1.2\times 10^{19}$~GeV is the Planck mass,
110: and $\lambda$ is a number ${\cal O}(1)$.
111: In eq.(\ref{grav}),
112: all indices are explicitly shown:
113: the Lorentz indices $a,b=1,2,3,4$
114: are contracted with the charge conjugation matrix $C$,
115: the $SU(2)_L$ isospin indices $A,B,C,D=1,2$
116: are contracted with $\epsilon=i\sigma_2$;
117: $\sigma_m$ ($m=1,2,3$) are the Pauli matrices.
118: After spontaneous electroweak
119: symmetry breaking, the Lagrangian~(\ref{grav})
120: generates additional terms of neutrino mass:
121: ${\cal L_{\rm mass}}= \lambda\: {v^2}/{M_{\rm Pl}}\ \nu_{\alpha}
122: C^{\scriptscriptstyle -1}\nu_{\beta}$,
123: where $v$=174~GeV is the vev of electroweak
124: symmetry breaking. We assume that the
125: gravitational interaction is ``flavour blind'',
126: {\em i.e.}~$\lambda$ does not
127: contain $\alpha,\beta$ indices.
128: In tis case, the contribution to the neutrino
129: mass matrix is of the order of:
130: \begin{equation}
131: \mu \textstyle
132: \left( \begin{array}{lcr}
133: 1 & \!1\! & 1 \\[-.5ex]
134: 1 & \!1\! & 1 \\[-.5ex]
135: 1 & \!1\! & 1
136: \end{array} \right),
137: \label{textm}
138: \end{equation}
139: where the scale $\mu$ (`scale of perturbation') is
140: \begin{equation}
141: \mu=v^2/M_{\rm Pl}= 2.5 \times 10^{-6}~\mbox{eV}.
142: \label{mu}
143: \end{equation}
144: In our calculations, we take
145: eq.(\ref{textm}) as a `contribution of perturbation' to the
146: main part of neutrino mass matrix, that is generated by GUT.
147: In other words, our results are normalized to
148: the case $\lambda=1/2$; more discussion on $\lambda$
149: follows.
150:
151:
152: However, there might be some other interactions of the form (\ref{grav})
153: with a scale $M_X$ less than $M_{\rm Pl}$, {\em e.g.}\
154: from string
155: compactification, non-perturbative dynamics,
156: flavor physics or simply higher
157: GUT scales. These interactions are not necessarily
158: flavor blind. This implies not only a different scale of perturbation
159: $\mu= v^2/M_X$, but also a modified structure for
160: the matrix of perturbation, that we denote by
161: $\lambda_{\alpha\beta}$ henceforth. In the case of quantum gravity,
162: $\lambda_{\alpha\beta}=\lambda$.
163:
164: In this paper, we evaluate the effects of such operators
165: on the conventional neutrino mass matrix, given for example by the
166: seesaw mechanism \cite{d=5,seesaw1,seesaw2,seesaw10}.
167: We demonstrate that the gravitational perturbation
168: generates a non-zero $U_{e 3}$ even if the
169: unperturbed
170: mass matrix has $U_{e 3}=0$. This non-zero value
171: of $U_{e 3}$ can be considered
172: as a lower bound imposed by gravitational effects
173: and can be translated into a lower
174: bound for the angle $\theta_{13}$.
175: The operators with the scale $M_X < M_{\rm Pl}$,
176: but higher than the GUT scale (string scales etc.)
177: provides much stronger effects
178: which are of potential interest to present
179: and future observations. For reference and for definiteness we
180: recall that the supersymmetric
181: unification scale is $M_{GUT}\sim 2\times 10^{16}$ GeV. However
182: the considerations outlined below are not tied to any
183: particular value of $M_{GUT}$.
184:
185: Before passing to the calculations, we
186: discuss in more detail the coefficient $\lambda$ in eq.(\ref{grav}).
187: The operator in eq.(\ref{grav}) is a term of the
188: effective Lagrangian produced in quantum gravity,
189: thus the coefficient $\lambda$ could be calculated
190: if the details of this theory were fixed;
191: but this is not the case at present.
192: There is another way to see
193: that the coefficient $\lambda$ is
194: defined with considerable uncertainty.
195: Indeed, an $SU(2)$ Fiertz transformation yields
196: $(\psi^t\: \sigma_2 \vec{\sigma}\: \psi)
197: (\varphi^t\: \sigma_2 \vec{\sigma}\: \varphi) =
198: -2(\psi^t\: \sigma_2\: \varphi) (\psi^t\:\sigma_2\: \varphi)$.
199: Thus, eq.(\ref{grav}) can be recast in the form
200: \begin{equation}
201: {\cal L_{\rm grav}} = -\frac{1}{2}\times \frac{\lambda}{M_{\rm Pl}}
202: ({\psi}_{\alpha}\: \epsilon\: \vec{\sigma}\:
203: \varphi)\: C^{\scriptscriptstyle -1}\:
204: ({\psi}_{\beta}\: \epsilon\: \vec{\sigma} \: \varphi) +h.c.,
205: \label{grav1}
206: \end{equation}
207: (suppressing all indices except those in flavor space).
208: Here, the reader readily recognizes the operator
209: introduced in Ref.\cite{planck2}, but with a
210: factor $-1/2$ in front of it.
211: In other words, if we knew that quantum gravity
212: yielded the first operator with a coefficient equal to 1,
213: the second one would be generated with a
214: coefficient $-1/2$, not 1.
215: In summary, we have to live with an uncertainty
216: in the coefficient $\lambda$, and this in turn
217: reflects into an uncertainty ${\cal O}(1)$
218: in our results for $U_{e3}$.
219:
220:
221:
222:
223:
224: \section*{Perturbative expansion}
225: A natural assumption is that
226: the unperturbed ($0^{th}$-order) mass matrix ${\cal M}$,
227: \begin{equation}
228: {\cal M}=U^*\ {\rm diag}(M_i)\ U^\dagger,\mbox{ where }
229: U=\left(
230: \begin{array}{ccc}
231: U_{e1} & U_{e2} & U_{e3} \\
232: U_{\mu 1} & U_{\mu 2} & U_{\mu 3} \\
233: U_{\tau 1} & U_{\tau 2} & U_{\tau 3},
234: \end{array}
235: \right)
236: \label{zordM}
237: \end{equation}
238: (where $U_{\alpha i}$ is the usual mixing matrix,
239: and $M_i$ the neutrino masses) is
240: generated by grand unified dynamics.\footnote{For
241: instance, the complete
242: seesaw formula in minimal
243: $SO(10)$ \cite{seesaw10} is:
244: ${\cal M}=\frac{v^2}{V}\ (Y_\nu\, Y^{-1}\, Y_\nu^t + \xi\, Y)$
245: where $M_X=V$ is the vev of the singlet contained in the 126-plet,
246: of the order of or somewhat smaller than the supersymmetric grand
247: unification scale.
248: Here $Y_\nu$ is the neutrino Yukawa coupling,
249: $Y$ the 126-plet coupling to the fermions and
250: $\xi\; v^2/V$ is the
251: effective vev of the triplet in the 126-plet
252: (these two give the noncanonical, or type II seesaw).}
253: Most of the parameters related to neutrino
254: oscillations are known, the major exception is given by the
255: mixing element $U_{e3}$. We adopt the usual parameterization:
256: $|U_{e2}/U_{e1}|=\tan\theta_{12}$, $|U_{\mu2}/U_{\mu3}|=\tan\theta_{23}$
257: and $|U_{e3}|=\sin\theta_{13}$, or equivalently
258: $\theta_{12}=\omega$, $\theta_{23}=\psi$
259: and $\theta_{13}=\phi$. Note that in our approach
260: $M_i$ are real and non-negative and
261: we include all possible phases in the mixing matrix:
262: \begin{equation}
263: U=
264: {\rm diag}(e^{if_{i}}) \
265: R(\theta_{23}) \
266: \Delta\
267: R(\theta_{13}) \
268: \Delta^*\
269: R(\theta_{12})\
270: {\rm diag}(e^{ia_{i}}) .
271: \label{umatr}
272: \end{equation}
273: The phase $\delta$ appearing in
274: $\Delta={\rm diag}(e^{i\delta/2},1,e^{-i\delta/2})$
275: is the one that affects oscillations.
276: $a_{i}$ are the so called Majorana phases
277: and $f_{i}$ are usually considered as a
278: part of the definition of the neutrino field.
279: It is possible to rotate away the phases $f_{i}$, if the mass matrix
280: (\ref{zordM}) {\em is the complete mass matrix}.
281: However, since we are going to add another contribution to this
282: mass matrix, the phases $f_{i}$ of the zeroth order mass matrix
283: have an impact on the complete mass matrix and thus must be retained.
284: By the same token, the Majorana phases which are usually redundant
285: for oscillations have a dynamical role to play now.
286:
287: Non-GUT effects related to a larger mass scale $M_X>M_{GUT}$
288: will add other contributions to the mass matrix and
289: in particular will affect
290: the magnitude of $U_{e3}$. Thus, let us assume
291: that the mass matrix is modified as:
292: \begin{equation}
293: {\cal M}\to {\cal M}+\mu\ \lambda,
294: \label{eq6}
295: \end{equation}
296: with $ \mu=\frac{v^2}{M_X}$
297: and $\lambda$ being a matrix of dimensionless
298: terms as discussed in the introduction (\ref{textm}).
299: The impact of the new terms on the mixing can
300: be seen by forming the hermitian matrix
301: $({\cal M}+\mu\lambda)^\dagger ({\cal M}+\mu\lambda)$, which is the
302: matrix relevant for oscillation physics.
303: To first order in the small parameter $\mu$, the above matrix is
304: ${\cal M}^\dagger {\cal M}
305: +\mu \lambda^{\dagger} {\cal M}
306: + {\cal M}^\dagger \mu\lambda$.
307: Now by using eq.(\ref{zordM}) and the fact that this new mass squared
308: matrix must be diagonalized by a new mixing matrix resulting in corrected
309: eigenvalues, one can write,
310: \begin{equation}
311: U (M^2+m^\dagger M +M m) U^\dagger\equiv U' {M'}^2 {U'}^\dagger,
312: \mbox{ with } m=\mu\ U^t\ \lambda\ U .
313: \label{tech}
314: \end{equation}
315: Here $M$ and $M'$ are the diagonal matrices with
316: neutrino masses at
317: $0^{th}$ and at $1^{st}$ order in $\mu$.
318: It is clear from eq.(\ref{tech}) that the new mixing matrix
319: can be written as
320: \begin{equation}
321: U'=U\ (1+i\delta\theta) ,
322: \label{eq8}
323: \end{equation}
324: where $\delta\theta$ is a hermitian
325: matrix that appears at first order in $\mu$.
326:
327: {}From eq.(\ref{tech}) one obtains
328: \begin{equation}
329: M^2+m^\dagger M +M m =
330: {M'}^2 + [ i\delta\theta, M^{'2}].
331: \label{tech1}
332: \end{equation}
333: %On the right hand side of eq.(\ref{tech1}) we have used
334: %$M$ instead of $M'$ in the commutator since we are working
335: %to first order in $\mu$.
336: %This is a very convenient
337: %form since the first term is diagonal and the
338: %second off-diagonal.
339: Therefore to
340: %it follows from eq.(\ref{tech1}) that, at
341: first order in $\mu$,
342: the mass squared differences $\Delta M^2_{ij}=M_i^2-M_j^2$
343: get modified as:
344: \begin{equation}
345: \Delta M^{'2}_{ij} = \Delta M^2_{ij} + 2\; (M_i \mbox{Re}[m_{ii}]
346: -M_j \mbox{Re}[m_{jj}])
347: \label{dms}
348: \label{eq9}
349: \end{equation}
350: and the new contributions to the mixing matrix are:
351: \begin{equation}
352: \delta \theta_{ij} =
353: \frac{i\; \mbox{Re}[m_{ij}](M_i+M_j)}{\Delta M^{'2}_{ij}} -
354: \frac{\mbox{Im}[m_{ij}](M_i-M_j)}{\Delta M^{'2}_{ij}} .
355: \label{interm}
356: \label{eq10}
357: \end{equation}
358: The diagonal elements of $\delta \theta_{ii}$ are
359: undetermined, as follows from the
360: phase invariance of eq.(\ref{tech}).
361: %The reasonable choice that we adopt is thus to
362: Thus we set them to zero.
363: Putting together eq.(\ref{interm}) and the
364: definition of $m$ in eq.(\ref{tech}),
365: we obtain the contribution to $U_{e3}$
366: at ${\cal O}(\mu)$:
367: \begin{equation}
368: \delta U_{e3}=\begin{array}[t]{l}\displaystyle
369: {\mu(M_3+M_1) }/{\Delta M_{31}^{'2}} \times
370: U_{e1}\ \mbox{Re}(U^t \lambda U)_{13}\\[1pt]
371: \displaystyle -i\ {\mu(M_3-M_1)}/{\Delta M_{31}^{'2}} \times
372: U_{e1}\ \mbox{Im}(U^t \lambda U)_{13}
373: + (1\to 2) .
374: \end{array}
375: \label{Main}
376: \label{eq11}
377: \end{equation}
378: One observes that it is the atmospheric neutrino mass difference
379: $\Delta M_{31}^{'2}$ that enters into the final expression for $\delta U_{e3}$.
380: The solar neutrino mass difference has no role in determining
381: the magnitude of this effect. If the corrected
382: mass squared difference $\Delta M^{'2}_{31}$ is almost
383: the same as the original mass squared difference $\Delta M^{2}_{31}$
384: (as is true for Planck scale effects), then
385: the above formula simplifies to the one given
386: below:
387: \begin{equation}
388: \delta U_{e3}=
389: {\mu }\ U_{e1} \left( \frac{\mbox{Re}(U^t \lambda U)_{13}}{M_3-M_1}
390: -i \
391: \frac{\mbox{Im}(U^t \lambda U)_{13}}{M_3+M_1} \right)
392: + (1\to 2) .
393: \label{main}
394: \end{equation}
395: Eq.(\ref{Main}) should be used to calculate the contribution
396: for scales less than the Planck scale.
397: Eqs.(\ref{Main}) and (\ref{main}) are our main results.
398: They describe the contribution to $U_{e3}$ coming from
399: a perturbation above the GUT scale.\newline
400: %and we will discuss it below.\newline
401: {}From eqs.(\ref{dms}) and (\ref{interm})
402: one can also obtain the size of the deviations
403: of $\theta_{12}$ and $\theta_{23}$ from maximal values and study
404: the stability of the $\Delta M^2_{ij}$ under effects due
405: to physics above the grand unified scale. In this paper however,
406: we focus on $U_{e3}$.
407:
408:
409:
410:
411: \section*{Numerical results}
412: To estimate $\delta U_{e3}$ numerically from eq.(\ref{main}) we need
413: to know the
414: mixing terms $U_{\alpha j}$, the mass squared
415: differences $\Delta M^2_{ij}$
416: and the absolute neutrino masses $M_1$, $M_2$ and $M_3$.
417: While the former two
418: can be taken either from experimental data (except for the
419: phases that at present remain unknown) or from
420: a specified theoretical model, the `absolute' neutrino masses
421: cannot be obtained from oscillation experiments. See
422: for instance \cite{vissa}.
423: We take the solar neutrino mass difference $\Delta M^2_{21} =
424: 7.1 \times 10^{-5}$~eV$^2$ and the solar mixing angle
425: $\theta_{12} = 34^\circ$.
426: The atmospheric neutrino mass
427: difference is taken to be $\Delta M^2_{31} = 2.8 \times 10^{-3} \mbox{eV}^2$
428: and the mixing angle $\theta_{23}$ to be $45^\circ$.
429: The usual CP violating phase can be taken as~$\delta=0$.
430:
431: To get a numerical estimate for $\delta U_{e3}$
432: we should consider what we know on `absolute' neutrino masses.
433: More precisely there are a certain number of masses:\\
434: {1)} The mass of the lightest neutrino $M$,
435: equal to either $M_1$ or to $M_3$ for the
436: normal and the inverted hierarchy
437: respectively.\\
438: {2)} The ``cosmological'' mass $M_{\rm cosm}=M_1+M_2+M_3$, which can be
439: determined from the distribution of matter on large-scales and
440: the anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background
441: radiation. From the first paper in \cite{WMAP}, we quote
442: $M_{\rm cosm}<0.71$~eV
443: at 95 $\%$ CL.
444: This bound is valid under the simplest
445: cosmological assumptions and depends on them rather crucially.
446: See {\em e.g.}\ \cite{disc}.\\
447: {3)} The effective mass of the electron neutrino coming
448: from the tritium
449: experiment
450: $M_{\nu_e}^2=\sum |U_{ei}^2| M_i^2$ $< (2.2\mbox{ eV})^2$
451: at 95 $\%$ CL \cite{trit}.\\
452: {4)} Neutrinoless double beta decay
453: constrains $m_{ee}=|\sum_i U_{ei}^2 M_i|
454: <0.38\; h$~eV at 95 $\%$ CL \cite{hm}
455: ($h=0.6-2.8$ quantifies the
456: uncertainty in nuclear matrix elements).
457: If the Majorana phases are the same, {\em e.g.}\ zero,
458: there is no cancellation of the 3 contributions and
459: the bound implies
460: $M_1 \approx M_{\nu_{e}} \approx M_{\rm cosm}/3<0.38\; h$~eV.
461: If the Majorana phases produce the largest possible
462: cancellation, this relaxes to $< 1.2\; h$~eV \cite{vissa}.
463:
464:
465:
466: The introduction of these unknown (although constrained) quantities
467: results in uncertainties in the values of $U_{e3}$ that we obtain
468: in our framework.
469: In particular, we see that the second term between brackets
470: in eq.(\ref{main}) {\em decreases} when the scale $M$
471: increases, while the first term becomes instead {\em larger}.
472: In other words the contribution of new physics at the scale $M_X$
473: to $U_{e3}$ can be rather large in the case of
474: degenerate neutrinos, although it is possible to diminish this effect
475: by certain choices of
476: the phases. It should be noted that
477: the relative phases between the GUT
478: contribution (phases $f_{i}$)
479: and the perturbative
480: contribution influence the magnitude of $U_{e3}$.
481:
482:
483:
484: \begin{figure}[t]
485: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth,angle=270]{phases.eps}}
486: %\vskip-5mm
487: \caption{\em Impact of the Majorana phases on calculated
488: $\sin^2\! 2\theta_{13}$ values for
489: Planck scale effects and a degenerate
490: (tritium mass) spectrum, for $a_1,a_2=0- 180^\circ$.
491: For illustration we show the contours where the value is:
492: $1\cdot 10^{-5}$, dotted line;
493: $4\cdot 10^{-5}$, dashed line;
494: $1\cdot 10^{-4}$, long dashed line.
495: The value at the peak (innermost region) is $1\times 10^{-4}$.
496: The value at the lower left corner (where $a_1=a_2=0$)
497: is $3 \times 10^{-6}$. \label{fig1}}
498: \end{figure}
499:
500:
501:
502:
503: \feature{Planck scale effects}
504: When we focus on Planck scale effects, we
505: assume that $\lambda_{\alpha\beta}=\lambda$ for each $\alpha$ and $\beta$.
506: Let us set in the unperturbed mass matrix
507: the mixing $\theta_{13}=0$ and also
508: $f_{i}=a_{i}=0$.
509: From eq.(\ref{main}) one observes that
510: the surviving contribution to $U_{e3}$ is given by the first term.
511: All our
512: results can be easily modified to include
513: a specific GUT model for the unperturbed
514: mass matrix ${\cal M}$, or for different
515: experimental inputs and phases.
516: The dimensional factors
517: $\mu (M_3+M_1)/\Delta M^2_{31}$ and $\mu (M_3+M_2)/\Delta M^2_{32}$
518: are equal with good accuracy and they are
519: multiplied by $\cos\theta_{23}+\sin\theta_{23}\approx \sqrt{2}$
520: \cite{atm}.
521: Note also that
522: the dependence on the solar mixing angle in this case
523: disappears.
524: Finally from eq.(\ref{main}) we get the range of values
525: for~$U_{e3}$ :
526: \begin{equation}
527: \left. U_{e3}\right|_{\rm Planck}=
528: 7\times 10^{-5} - 6\times 10^{-3} ,
529: \label{range}
530: \end{equation}
531: where the lower limit corresponds to the normal hierarchy
532: for $M_1=0$ ($\Delta M^2_{32}\approx \Delta M^2_{31}=2.8
533: \times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ \cite{atm})
534: and the upper limit
535: corresponds to the kinematical
536: limit from tritium decay search, $M<2.2 \mbox{ eV}$.
537: This corresponds to what is usually called the ``quasi degenerate''
538: spectrum, where the common mass scale is much higher than the splittings
539: between the masses.
540:
541: Some remarks are in order:\\
542: $(i)$~For the case of the inverted hierarchy, the numbers are practically
543: the same as that for the normal hierarchy.
544: $(ii)$~If one takes the cosmological limit on neutrino
545: mass, $M<0.71$ eV into account, then the upper
546: limit becomes $5 \times 10^{-4}$,
547: which is a order of magnitude
548: lower than the one in eq.(\ref{range}).
549: $(iii)$~The range in eq.(\ref{range}) can be alternatively written as:
550: \begin{equation}
551: \sin^2 2\theta_{13} = 2\times 10^{-8} - 1\times 10^{-4}, \mbox{ or as }
552: \theta_{13} = 0.004^\circ - 0.3^\circ.
553: \label{s2th13}
554: \end{equation}
555: $(iv)$~When the cosmological
556: constraint is used, the upper
557: limit of $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ is
558: $1 \times 10^{-6}$, corresponding to
559: an angle $\theta_{13}$ of $0.03^\circ$.
560:
561: These numbers can be regarded as
562: lower limits to $U_{e3}$ from
563: Planck scale physics. They are admittedly small for a
564: hierarchical spectrum, but large for degenerate neutrinos.
565:
566:
567:
568:
569: \feature{The impact of phases}
570: For arbitrary values of the left and the right phases
571: these numbers will change. Note that $a_3$ can always be taken
572: as $0$.
573: Putting arbitrary values of phases for the hierarchical spectrum
574: gives values ranging between
575: $1.6-1.9 \times 10^{-8}$ for $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$.
576: So one observes that the phases have only a mild influence on the
577: value of $U_{e3}$.
578:
579: For a degenerate spectrum,\footnote{For degenerate
580: neutrinos the value of $U_{e3}$ usually scales as
581: $\mu\times M$. So the results in fig.(\ref{fig1}) can be
582: easily scaled to other values of $M$.
583: This applies also when $\mu > v^2/M_{\rm Pl}$---see next item.}
584: phases can affect the bound significantly.
585: For illustration in fig.(\ref{fig1}) we give $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$ as a
586: function of the right phases $a_1$ and $a_2$ as a contour plot, for
587: fixed arbitrary values of $f_1 = 66^\circ$, $f_2=20^\circ$
588: and $f_3= 48^\circ$. Observe that the maximum value of $1 \times 10^{-4}$
589: given in eq.(\ref{s2th13}) is reached for some combination of the
590: phases. We also see that some particular choice of phases can heavily
591: suppress $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$ and make it vanishingly small.
592:
593:
594:
595: \begin{table}
596: \begin{center}
597: \begin{tabular}{|c|||r|r|r|||r|r|r|}
598: \hline
599: Mass spectrum &$U_{e3}$
600: & $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$
601: & $\theta_{13}$ & $U_{e3}$
602: & $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$
603: & $\theta_{13}$ \\ \hline\hline
604: hierarchical & $7 \cdot 10^{-4} $ & $2 \cdot 10^{-6}$ &
605: $0.04^\circ$ & $7 \cdot 10^{-3} $ & $2 \cdot 10^{-4}$ &
606: $0.4^\circ$\\ \hline
607: degen.\ (cosm.) & $5 \cdot 10^{-3} $ & $1 \cdot 10^{-4}$ &
608: $0.3 ^\circ$ & $5 \cdot 10^{-2} $ & $1 \cdot 10^{-2}$ &
609: $2.8 ^\circ$\\ \hline
610: %%%% degen.\ (trit.) & $5 \cdot 10^{-2}$ & $1 \cdot 10^{-2}$ &
611: %%%% $3^\circ$ & $0.35$ & $0.4$ &
612: %%%% $21^\circ$ \\ \hline
613: \end{tabular}
614: \end{center}
615: \caption{\em Impact on $U_{e3}$ of a flavor blind
616: mass matrix of perturbation
617: at the scale $M_{X}= 10^{18}$ GeV (left)
618: and at the scale $M_{X}= 10^{17}$ GeV (right), for the two
619: types of mass spectra (first column).\label{tab1}}
620: \end{table}
621:
622:
623:
624: \feature{Effect of scales below $M_{\rm Pl}$}
625: The lower bounds we obtained
626: increase if the scale of new physics decreases
627: (as it is clear from eq.(\ref{main})).
628: In other words any model that needs
629: a scale $M_X$ above $M_{GUT}$ but below the Planck mass,
630: can lead to a potentially interesting contribution to the still
631: unknown mixing parameter $U_{e3}$.
632: In this manner the scale $M_X$ can lead to
633: a significant $U_{e 3}$ {\it even for non-degenerate spectra},
634: in contrast to the case for Planck scale effects.
635:
636: We illustrate this in
637: table~(\ref{tab1}) for two scales, each successively one order of
638: magnitude less than the Planck scale. Here we set again all the phases
639: to zero. We would also like to point out that for scales lower than
640: the Planck scale and for a degenerate neutrino spectrum, the corrections
641: to the solar neutrino mass difference become large (as can be seen
642: from eq.(\ref{dms}))
643: and fine tuning of the
644: phases becomes unavoidable to control the corrections. This can be taken to
645: suggest that for scales below the Planck scale, the degenerate spectrum is
646: unnatural for such effects. Equivalently one can also say that if the
647: degenerate spectrum is hinted at by some other phenomena, then it strongly
648: constrains the scale of such flavor blind contributions.
649:
650:
651:
652:
653: \section*{Comparison with renormalization effects}
654: The neutrino mass matrix
655: is renormalized from the GUT scale to the electroweak scale
656: $M_Z\sim M_{higgs}$,
657: already due to the couplings
658: of the standard model. This renormalization
659: modifies $U_{e3}$ and
660: possibly contributes to make it non-zero.
661: The purpose of this section is to evaluate
662: quantitatively this effect.
663:
664:
665:
666:
667: At one-loop, renormalization in the standard model is described by,
668: \begin{equation}
669: {\cal M}_{\alpha\beta}\to
670: \eta_\alpha\ {\cal M}_{\alpha\beta}\ \eta_\beta,
671: \ \mbox{ with }\ \eta_\alpha=\eta\cdot \exp\left[\frac{b}{(4\pi)^2}
672: \int^{M_{GUT}}_{M_Z}\!\!\! y_\alpha^2(Q) \frac{dQ}{Q}\right] .
673: \label{wsx}
674: \end{equation}
675: The indices $\alpha$, $\beta$ should be not summed over.
676: The coefficient $\eta$ (mostly due to gauge and top Yukawa couplings)
677: modifies the 3 masses, {\em i.e.}\ $M_i\to \eta^2 M_i$, but leaves
678: the texture of the mixing matrix
679: untouched since it is flavor blind.
680: The other contribution is different for the 3 flavors.
681: Thus it changes the texture and the mixing angles.
682: It arises since the Yukawa couplings $y_\alpha$ of the
683: charged leptons are different and the numerical
684: coefficient $b$ is not zero. For instance, in the
685: standard model $b=1/2$, while in its supersymmetric
686: version, $b=-1$~\cite{babu} (here and below, we consider
687: supersymmetry at the electroweak scale).
688: The largest part of this correction
689: is due to $\tau$ Yukawa coupling $y_\tau$. When this
690: renormalization is small we can apply the perturbative
691: expansion
692: developed above. In fact, including the effect of
693: $\eta$ in ${\cal M}$
694: (by redefining $\eta^2 {\cal M} \to {\cal M}$, so that
695: $\eta^2 M_i \to M_i$ and $U\to U$)
696: we get an expression
697: similar to~eq.(\ref{eq6}):
698: \begin{equation}
699: {\cal M}\to {\cal M} + \varepsilon\cdot
700: {\textstyle \left(\begin{array}{ccc}
701: 0 & 0 & {\cal M}_{e\tau} \\
702: 0 & 0 & {\cal M}_{\mu\tau} \\
703: {\cal M}_{e\tau}\! & \! {\cal M}_{\mu\tau} \! & \! 2 {\cal M}_{\tau\tau}
704: \end{array}\right)},
705: \mbox{ when }\varepsilon\equiv{\eta_\tau}/{\eta}-1 \ll 1 .
706: \label{ijn}
707: \end{equation}
708: In the basis where the unperturbed mass matrix
709: (the first one in eq.(\ref{ijn}))
710: is diagonal,
711: the components of the term of perturbation
712: (the second term) are,
713: \begin{equation}
714: m_{ij}=\varepsilon\cdot [
715: M_i\ U_{\tau i}^*\ U_{\tau j} +
716: U_{\tau i}\ U_{\tau j}^*\ M_j ] .
717: \end{equation}
718: The results of eqs.(\ref{tech}-\ref{main}) still
719: apply, when we replace the matrix $m$
720: introduced in eq.(\ref{tech}) with the one given here
721: (this is the reason why we use the same symbol).
722:
723:
724: Let us focus now on the case of interest
725: when the mixing $U_{e3}$ is $0$ at the GUT scale. Hence we have
726: $U_{\tau 1}=\sin\theta_{12}\sin\theta_{23} e^{ia_1}$,
727: $U_{\tau 2}=-\cos\theta_{12}\sin\theta_{23} e^{ia_2}$
728: and $U_{\tau 3}=\cos\theta_{23}$
729: (from eq.(\ref{wsx}) we see that the phases $f_i$ do not
730: play any role in these considerations
731: and can be set to zero). The contribution
732: to $U_{e3}$ from renormalization is:
733: \begin{equation}
734: \delta U_{e3}=\frac{\varepsilon}{4}\cdot \sin2\theta_{12}\sin2\theta_{23}
735: (f_1-f_2 )
736: \to \varepsilon\cdot \left( \frac{M}{0.35\ \mbox{eV}}\right)^2,
737: \label{edc}
738: \end{equation}
739: where $f_j=e^{i a_j} [ \cos a_j (M_3+M_j)^2 -
740: i \sin a_j (M_3-M_j)^2] /\Delta {M}^{'2}_{3j}$.
741: A crucial point to be noted is that we use this equation
742: taking the values of $\theta_{12}$ and $\theta_{23}$ from
743: low energy data. This is correct
744: when the considered renormalization is a perturbation.
745: The limiting expression given above is obtained
746: with two other simplifying assumptions:
747: Firstly we assume a degenerate mass spectrum $M_1\sim M_2\sim M$
748: at the GUT scale and
749: secondly the Majorana phases $a_1$ and $a_2$ are set to~$0$.
750:
751:
752:
753: Note in passing that the contribution to
754: the solar splitting $\Delta M^2_{21}$
755: from $y_\tau$ renormalization is
756: $2 \varepsilon \sin^2\theta_{23}$ $[(M_1^2+M_2^2)\cos2\theta_{12}
757: + \Delta M^2_{21}]$.
758: Thus the smallest splitting will get a contribution from the absolute neutrino
759: mass $M$ \cite{lola}, unless $\theta_{12}=45^\circ$ \cite{brs}.
760: This value of $\theta_{12}$ is however disfavored at $\sim 3 \sigma$
761: by combined analyses of solar and reactor neutrino data \cite{ale}.
762: This suggests a `naturalness' criterion, {\em viz}
763: the correction should not exceed $\Delta M^2_{21}$, that means:
764: $\varepsilon< {\cal O}(1)\: (0.01\mbox{ eV}/M)^2$.
765:
766:
767:
768: \begin{table}
769: \begin{center}
770: \begin{tabular}{|c|||r|r|r|||r|r|r|}
771: \hline
772: Mass spectrum &$U_{e3}$
773: & $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$
774: & $\theta_{13}$ & $U_{e3}$
775: & $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$
776: & $\theta_{13}$ \\ \hline\hline
777: hierarchical & $6 \cdot 10^{-6} $ & $2 \cdot 10^{-10}$ &
778: $0.0004^\circ$ & $1 \cdot 10^{-4} $ & $7\cdot 10^{-8}$ &
779: $0.01^\circ$\\ \hline
780: degen.\ (cosm.) & $3 \cdot 10^{-5} $ & $5 \cdot 10^{-9}$ &
781: $0.002^\circ$ & $7 \cdot 10^{-4} $ & $2 \cdot 10^{-6}$ &
782: $0.04^\circ$\\ \hline
783: %%% degen.\ (trit.) & $1 \cdot 10^{-2}$ & $5 \cdot 10^{-4}$ &
784: %%% $0.6^\circ$ & $0.2$ & $0.2$ &
785: %%% $14^\circ$ \\ \hline
786: \end{tabular}
787: \end{center}
788: \caption{\em Impact of renormalization on $U_{e3}$
789: for the two
790: types of mass spectra (first column)
791: in the supersymmetric standard model.
792: The value of $\tan\beta$ is equal to $\sqrt{3}$ in the left
793: part of the table and to $10$ in the right part.\label{tab2}}
794: \end{table}
795:
796:
797:
798: In order to describe the impact
799: of renormalization on $U_{e3}$,
800: the key quantity is~$\varepsilon$, given in eq.(\ref{ijn}).
801: To be specific, we consider the case of the supersymmetric model
802: where the grand unification program is most commonly implemented
803: for a variety of reasons.
804: The tau Yukawa coupling is given by $y_\tau=m_\tau/(v \cos\beta)$
805: and we take the range
806: $\beta=60^\circ-89^\circ$, to have perturbative
807: Yukawa couplings till $M_{GUT}$
808: (note that this Yukawa coupling is always
809: larger than the standard model one, $m_\tau/v\sim 10^{-2}$).
810: A numerical integration of the one-loop
811: system of equations as in \cite{nn} yields:
812: \begin{equation}
813: -\varepsilon=7\cdot 10^{-5}- 0.15, \mbox{ when }
814: \beta=60^\circ- 89^\circ .
815: \end{equation}
816: The naive
817: estimate $-\varepsilon\sim y_\tau^2(M_Z)\cdot \log(M_{GUT}/M_Z)/(4\pi)^2$
818: would give $10^{-4}- 7\cdot 10^{-2}$.
819:
820:
821:
822: At this point we have all the ingredients to
823: evaluate the contribution to $U_{e3}$ from eq.(\ref{edc}).
824: The result is given in table~(\ref{tab2}) for two values of $\beta$.
825: This shows that renormalization effects are not necessarily
826: large, even though they lead us to expect
827: that {\em $U_{e3}$ is non-zero at the electroweak scale}.
828: Some remarks are in order:\newline
829: (a)~The Majorana phases affect the result. For simplicity and also
830: for the sake of argument, we focused the discussion
831: on the case $a_1=a_2=0$.\newline
832: (b)~The result depends rather dramatically on the
833: unknown parameter $\beta$.\newline
834: (c)~The naturalness criterion on the absolute mass scale
835: mentioned above is satisfied for the lowest
836: values of $\beta$ and also for the largest value
837: of the common neutrino mass considered.\newline
838: (d)~The largest values of $\beta$ and of $M$
839: taken together, produce inaccurate estimates in perturbation
840: theory and should be considered only for illustration.
841:
842:
843:
844:
845:
846: \section*{Discussion}
847: A priori, there is no strong reason to believe
848: that $\theta_{13}$ is exactly zero.
849: In the literature there are a number
850: of theoretical models for $U_{e3}$.
851: Some of them have large values, close to the
852: present CHOOZ bound (for instance some minimal
853: $SO(10)$ models \cite{f,m} or
854: models with $U(1)$~selection rules \cite{vissa2,altr}
855: where $\theta_{13}\sim \theta_C$ -- $\theta_C=13^\circ$
856: being the Cabibbo angle).
857: More possibilities are reviewed in~\cite{aff},
858: and there are also works where
859: $U_{e3}$ is generated at the weak scale via radiative
860: corrections to some texture defined at the high scale \cite{anjan}.
861:
862:
863:
864: However, the experimental indications
865: of an almost maximal mixing angle
866: ({\em i.e.}\ $\theta_{23}\approx 45^\circ$),
867: could suggest the view
868: that the mixing angles take very special values
869: and perhaps $\theta_{13}$ is really very small.
870: More generally we believe that it is
871: appealing to speculate on the possibility
872: that $U_{e3}$ has an anomalously small value,
873: say $\theta_{13}<\theta_C^2\approx 3^\circ$.
874: In the present paper we have argued
875: that such a small value might be
876: a window for physics above the grand unification
877: scale. In this sense even a {\em negative} result from
878: future search of $\theta_{13}$ could be of great interest.
879:
880: Our analysis concerns the aforementioned case.
881: We assumed that $U_{e3}$ is zero at the GUT scale
882: and we addressed the question on whether the physics above the GUT scale
883: can be responsible for a non-zero value of $U_{e3}$.
884: The outcome is
885: not discouraging, especially if neutrinos are mass degenerate,
886: or if the neutrino masses receive contributions
887: from other scales below $M_{\rm Pl}$.
888: In fact, a
889: sizable part of the range of values of $\theta_{13}$ obtained here
890: is within reach of the high performance neutrino
891: factories. See for instance \cite{geer}.
892: The largest values
893: of $\theta_{13}$ can have an effect on supernova neutrino fluxes
894: via the MSW effect \cite{msw}. Indeed, the 'flip probability' in
895: the supernova mantle due to the atmospheric neutrino $\Delta M^2$
896: is approximatively given by
897: $ P_f\approx \exp [- \xi\:
898: (U_{e3}^2/10^{-5}) ] $ where $\xi=(15\mbox{ MeV}/E_\nu)^{2/3}$.
899: The tentative lower limit we discussed
900: suggest that $\theta_{13}$ could well be
901: at the border of the region of adiabaticity and hence can lead to
902: a distortion in the spectrum of supernova neutrinos \cite{ca}.
903:
904:
905:
906:
907:
908:
909: %\newpage
910:
911:
912:
913: \footnotesize
914: \frenchspacing
915: \begin{multicols}{2}
916:
917: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
918: \bibitem{CHOOZ}
919: %M.~Apollonio {\it et al.} [CHOOZ Collaboration],
920: CHOOZ Collaboration,
921: %``Limits on neutrino oscillations from the {\em CHOOZ experiment}'',
922: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 466} (1999) 415
923: %[arXiv:hep-ex/9907037].
924: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9907037;%%
925:
926: \bibitem{planck1}
927: R.~Barbieri, J.R.~Ellis and M.K.~Gaillard,
928: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 90} (1980) 249
929: %%CITATION = PHLTA,B90,249;%%
930:
931: \bibitem{planck2}
932: E.K.~Akhmedov, Z.G.~Berezhiani and G.~Senjano\-vi\'c,
933: %``Planck scale physics and neutrino masses'',
934: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 69} (1992) 3013;
935: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9205230].
936: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9205230;%%
937: E.K.~Akhmedov, Z.G.~Berezhiani and G.~Senjanovi\'c and Z.~Tao,
938: %``Planck scale effects in neutrino physics'',
939: Phys.\ Rev.\ D.\ {\bf 47} (1993) 3245
940: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9208230].
941: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9208230;%%
942:
943: \bibitem{planck4}
944: A.~de Gouvea and J.W.F.~Valle,
945: %``Minimalistic neutrino mass model'',
946: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 501} (2001) 115
947: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0010299].
948: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0010299;%%
949:
950:
951: \bibitem{d=5}
952: S.~Weinberg,
953: %``Baryon and lepton nonconserving processes'',
954: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 43} (1979) 1566
955: %%CITATION = PRLTA,43,1566;%%
956:
957: \bibitem{seesaw1}
958: T. Yanagida,
959: in ``Proceeding of the workshop
960: on unified theory and baryon number in the universe'',
961: KEK, March 1979, eds. O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto
962:
963: \bibitem{seesaw2}
964: R.N.~Mohapatra and G.~Senjanovi\'c,
965: %``Neutrino mass and spontaneous parity nonconservation'',
966: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 44} (1980) 912
967: %%CITATION = PRLTA,44,912;%%
968:
969: \bibitem{seesaw10}
970: M.Gell-Mann,~P.Ramond,~R.Slansky,~in~``Super\-gravity'',
971: Stony~Brook,~1979,~eds.~D.Freedman,
972: P. van Nieuwenhuizen; R.N.~Mohapatra and G.~Senjanovi\'c,
973: %``Neutrino masses and mixings in gauge models with
974: %spontaneous parity violation'',
975: Phys.Rev.D {\bf 23} (1981) 165
976: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D23,165;%%
977:
978:
979: \bibitem{WMAP}
980: D.N.~Spergel {\it et al.},
981: %``First year WMAP observations: Determination of cosmological parameters,''
982: astro-ph/0302209.
983: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302209;%%
984: Other relevant data and
985: analyses are in \O.~Elgaroy {\it et al.},
986: %``A new limit on the total neutrino mass from the 2dF
987: %galaxy redshift survey,''
988: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89} (2002) 061301 and
989: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0204152].
990: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0204152;%%
991: A.~Lewis and S.~Bridle,
992: %``Cosmological parameters from CMB and other data: a Monte-Carlo approach,''
993: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66} (2002) 103511
994: %[arXiv:astro-ph/0205436].
995: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0205436;%%
996:
997: \bibitem{disc}
998: \O.~Elgaroy and O.~Lahav,
999: %``The role of priors in deriving upper limits on
1000: %neutrino masses from the 2dFGRS and WMAP,''
1001: JCAP {\bf 04} (2003) 004;
1002: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0303089;%%
1003: S.L.~Bridle, O.~Lahav, J.P.~Ostriker and P.J.~Steinhardt,
1004: %``Precision Cosmology? Not Just Yet,''
1005: Science {\bf 299} (2003) 153
1006: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0303180;%%
1007:
1008:
1009: \bibitem{trit}
1010: J.~Bonn {\it et al.},
1011: %``The {\em Mainz neutrino mass} experiment'',
1012: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 91} (2001) 273;
1013: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,91,273;%%
1014: V.M.~Lobashev {\it et al.},
1015: %``Direct search for neutrino mass and anomaly in the tritium
1016: %beta-spectrum: status of {\em Troitsk neutrino mass} experiment'',
1017: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 91} (2001) 280
1018: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,91,280;%%
1019:
1020:
1021: \bibitem{hm}
1022: Heidelberg-Moscow Collaboration,
1023: H.V. Klapdor\-Kleingrothaus {\em et al.},
1024: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ A {\bf 12} (2001) 147
1025: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103062;%%
1026:
1027: \bibitem{vissa}
1028: F.~Feruglio, A.~Strumia and F.~Vissani,
1029: %``Neutrino oscillations and signals in $\beta$ and $0\nu 2\beta$
1030: %experiments'',
1031: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 637} (2002) 345
1032: and {\em ibid.} {\bf 659} (2003) 359
1033: (addendum)
1034: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0201291].
1035: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201291;%%
1036:
1037: \bibitem{atm}
1038: Super-Kamiokande Collaboration,
1039: %``Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos,''
1040: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81} (1998) 1562;
1041: %[arXiv:hep-ex/9807003]
1042: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9807003;%%
1043: MACRO Collaboration,
1044: %``Measurement of the atmospheric neutrino-induced upgoing muon flux using MACRO,''
1045: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 434} (1998) 451;
1046: %[arXiv:hep-ex/9807005].
1047: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9807005;%%
1048: Soudan Collaboration,
1049: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 449} (1999) 137;
1050: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9901024;%%
1051: K2K Collaboration,
1052: %``Indications of neutrino oscillation in a 250-km long-baseline experiment,''
1053: hep-ex/0212007
1054: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0212007;%%
1055:
1056:
1057:
1058:
1059: \bibitem{babu}
1060: K.S.~Babu, C.N.~Leung and J.~Pantaleone,
1061: %``Renormalization Of The Neutrino Mass Operator,''
1062: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 319} (1993) 191
1063: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9309223;%%
1064:
1065: \bibitem{lola}
1066: J.R.~Ellis and S.~Lola,
1067: %``Can neutrinos be degenerate in mass?,''
1068: Phys.Lett.B {\bf 458} (1999) 310;
1069: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904279;%%
1070: J.A.~Casas, J.R.~Espinosa, A.~Ibarra and I.~Navarro,
1071: %``Naturalness of nearly degenerate neutrinos,''
1072: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 556} (1999) 3
1073: %[arXiv:hep-ph/9904395]
1074: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9904395;%%
1075:
1076:
1077:
1078: \bibitem{brs}
1079: R.~Barbieri, G.G.~Ross and A.~Strumia,
1080: %``Vacuum oscillations of quasi degenerate solar neutrinos,''
1081: JHEP {\bf 9910} (1999) 020
1082: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9906470;%%
1083:
1084: \bibitem{ale}
1085: P.~Creminelli, G.~Signorelli and A.~Strumia,
1086: %``Frequentist analyses of solar neutrino data,''
1087: JHEP {\bf 0105} (2001) 052 and updates of
1088: hep-ph/0102234;
1089: G.L.~Fogli, E.Lisi, A.~Marrone, D.~Montanino, A.~Palazzo and A.M.~Rotunno,
1090: %``Solar neutrino oscillation parameters after first KamLAND results,''
1091: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 073002
1092: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0212127].
1093: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212127;%%
1094: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102234;%%
1095:
1096: \bibitem{nn}
1097: B.~Bajc, G.~Senjanovi\'c and F.~Vissani,
1098: JHEP {\bf hep2001/198} (Budapest 2001)
1099: hep-ph/0110310,
1100: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110310;%%
1101: and
1102: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90} (2003) 051802
1103: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0210207].
1104: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210207;%%
1105:
1106: \bibitem{aff}
1107: S.M.~Barr, I.~Dorsner,
1108: %$U_{e3}$'',
1109: Nucl.Phys.B {\bf 585} (2000) 79;
1110: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0201291].
1111: G.~Altarelli, F.~Feruglio, hep-ph/0206077;
1112: %``Theoretical models of neutrino masses and mixings'',
1113: %To appear in "Neutrino Mass", Springer Tracts in Modern Physics,
1114: %ed. by G.~Altarelli and K.~Winter.
1115: R.N.~Mohapatra, hep-ph/0211252;
1116: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211252;%%
1117: M.C.Chen, K.T.~Mahanthappa, hep-ph/0305088
1118: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0305088;%%
1119:
1120: \bibitem{anjan}
1121: A.S.~Joshipura and S.D.~Rindani,
1122: %``Radiatively generated $\nu_{e}$ oscillations: General analysis,
1123: %textures and models'' ,
1124: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67} (2003) 073009 and references therein
1125: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0211404].
1126:
1127: \bibitem{f}
1128: For canonical seesaw, see
1129: T.~Fukuyama and N.~Okada,
1130: JHEP {\bf 0211} (2002) 011
1131: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0205066].
1132: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205066;%%
1133:
1134:
1135: \bibitem{m}
1136: For noncanonical seesaw,
1137: as advocated in \cite{nn},
1138: see
1139: H.S.~Goh, R.N.~Mohapatra and S.P.~Ng,
1140: hep-ph/0303055
1141: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303055;%%
1142:
1143:
1144: \bibitem{vissa2}
1145: F. Vissani, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 508} (2001) 79.~J. Sato, T. Yanagida,
1146: %``Expected properties of massive neutrinos for mass
1147: %matrices with a dominant block and random coefficients order unity'',
1148: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102236;%%
1149: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 430} (1998) 127; F.Vissani,
1150: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710516;%%
1151: JHEP {\bf 9811} (1998) 025;
1152: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9810435;%%
1153: Y. Grossman, Y. Nir, Y. Shadmi,
1154: JHEP {\bf 9810} (1998) 007;
1155: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808355;%%
1156: F.S. Ling, P. Ramond,
1157: %``Family hierarchy and large neutrino mixings,''
1158: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 543} (2002) 29
1159: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206004;%%
1160:
1161:
1162:
1163: \bibitem{altr}
1164: R.Kitano, Y.Mimura,
1165: Phys.Rev.D~{\bf 63} (2001) 016008;
1166: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0008269;%%
1167: N.~Maekawa,
1168: Prog. Theor. Phys.\ {\bf 106} (2001) 401
1169: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0104200;%%
1170:
1171:
1172: \bibitem{geer}
1173: S.~Geer,
1174: ``Neutrino factories: Physics potential'',
1175: hep-ph/0210113;
1176: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0210113;%%
1177: P.~Huber, M.~Lindner, T.~Schwetz and W.~Winter,
1178: %``Reactor neutrino experiments compared to superbeams,''
1179: hep-ph/0303232
1180: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303232;%%
1181:
1182:
1183: \bibitem{msw}
1184: L.~Wolfenstein,
1185: %``Neutrino oscillations in matter,''
1186: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 17} (1978) 2369;
1187: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D17,2369;%%
1188: S.P.~Mikheev and A.Yu.~Smirnov,
1189: %``Resonance enhancement of
1190: %oscillations in matter and solar neutrino spectroscopy'',
1191: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 42} (1985) 913
1192: %%CITATION = SJNCA,42,913;%%
1193:
1194: \bibitem{ca}
1195: C.~Lunardini, A.Yu.~Smirnov, hep-ph/0302033
1196: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302033;%%
1197:
1198:
1199:
1200:
1201: \end{thebibliography}
1202: \end{multicols}
1203: \end{document}
1204:
1205: