1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %% lp2003ws-procs11x85.tex: 30 June 2003 %%
3: %% Latex file for use with ws-procs11x85.cls written in Latex2e. %%
4: %% This file is a modified version of ws-procs11x85.tex for the 2003 %%
5: %% Lepton Photon Symposium proceedings, to be published by World %%
6: %% Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. The original header is below: %%
7: %% %%
8: %% ws-procs11x85.tex : 23 January 2003 %%
9: %% Text file to use with ws-procs11x85.cls written in Latex2e. %%
10: %% The content, structure, format and layout of this style file is the %%
11: %% property of World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. %%
12: %% Copyright 1995, 2003 by World Scientific Publishing Co. %%
13: %% All rights are reserved. %%
14: %% %%
15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
16:
17: \documentclass{ws-procs11x85}
18: %\usepackage{balance}
19:
20: % A useful Journal macro
21: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
22:
23: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
24: % BEGINNING OF TEXT %
25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26: \makeindex
27: \begin{document}
28:
29: \title{NEUTRINO PHYSICS:
30: OPEN THEORETICAL QUESTIONS}
31:
32: \author{A. Y. SMIRNOV}
33:
34: \address{International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Strada Costiera 11,
35: 31014 Trieste, Italy \\and\\
36: Institute for Nuclear Research, Russian Academy of Sciences,Moscow, Russia
37: \\E-mail: smirnov@ictp.trieste.it}
38:
39:
40: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
41: % You may repeat \author \address as often as necessary %
42: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
43:
44: \twocolumn[\maketitle\abstract{We know that
45: neutrino mass and mixing provide a window to physics beyond the Standard Model.
46: Now this window is open, at least partly. And the questions are: what do we see,
47: which kind of new physics, and how far ``beyond"?
48: I summarize the present knowledge of neutrino mass and mixing,
49: and then formulate the main open questions. Following the bottom-up approach,
50: properties of the neutrino mass matrix are considered. Then
51: different possible ways to uncover the underlying physics are discussed.
52: Some results along the line of: see-saw, GUT and SUSY GUT are reviewed.}]
53:
54: \baselineskip=13.07pt
55: \section{Introduction}
56:
57: This review~\footnote{Talk given at {\it the XXI International
58: Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions at
59: High Energies, ``Lepton Photon 2003"}, August 11-16, 2003 - Fermilab, Batavia, IL USA.}
60: is devoted to neutrino masses and mixing. It covers
61: experimental results, their interpretation and implications.
62: It is in this area that enormous progress has been achieved
63: during the last few years.
64:
65: The field develops fast, and already after the Symposium a number of important
66: results have been published
67: including the SNO salt phase data, new analysis of the
68: Heidelberg-Moscow experimental results, {\it etc.}.
69:
70: In Sec. 2 the main achievements in reconstruction of the neutrino mass and mixing
71: spectrum are summarized. The open theoretical questions are formulated in Sec. 3.
72: In Sec. 4, following the bottom-up approach, the neutrino mass matrix is reconstructed
73: and its properties are studied. In Sec. 5 the ways we may go in answering
74: the open questions are outlined.
75:
76:
77: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
78: \section{What Have We Learned?}
79: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
80:
81:
82: \subsection{\it \bf Solar Neutrinos}
83: \label{subsec:sol}
84: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
85:
86: The latest SNO salt phase results\cite{salt}
87: have further confirmed the correctness of the Standard Solar Model (SSM) neutrino
88: fluxes\cite{ssm} and the realization of the MSW large mixing (LMA) conversion
89: mechanism\cite{msw}
90: inside the Sun.\cite{balan}$^{-}$\cite{pedro3}
91: %~\cite{salt,balan,fogli,valle2,alia,crem,choubey,pedro3}.
92: In Fig.~\ref{allowed} we show the allowed region of the oscillation
93: parameters $\tan^2 \theta_{12}$ and $\Delta m^2_{12}$ from the
94: $2\nu$ combined analysis of the solar neutrino and KamLAND\cite{KL} results.
95: The best-fit values of the parameters are
96: \begin{equation}
97: \Delta m^2_{12} = 7.1 \times 10^{-5} {\rm eV}^2, ~~
98: \tan^2 \theta_{12} = 0.4.
99: \label{eq:bf}
100: \end{equation}
101:
102: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff1%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
103: \begin{figure}[h!]
104: \begin{center}
105: \hspace{-0.1cm} \epsfxsize7cm\epsffile{predictions.ps}
106: \vspace{-3mm}
107: \caption{The allowed regions of oscillation parameters from the combined fit of the solar
108: neutrino data and the KamLAND spectrum at $1\sigma$, $2\sigma$, $3\sigma$ CL.$^{10}$
109: Shown are also the contours of constant CC/NC
110: ratio (dotted lines) and the Day-Night asymmetry (dashed lines)
111: at SNO (numbers on the curves in \%).}
112: \label{allowed}
113: \end{center}
114: \end{figure}
115: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
116: \vspace{-5mm}
117:
118: Combined fit of the solar, KamLAND\cite{KL} and CHOOZ\cite{chooz} results favors nearly
119: zero 1-3 mixing: $\sin^2 \theta_{13} \sim 0$\rlap{.}\,\cite{choubey,pedro3}
120: Basically the data have selected the l-LMA
121: region with $\Delta m^2_{12} < 10^{-4}$
122: ${\rm eV}^2$ (the h-LMA region is accepted now at $3\sigma$ only),
123: and strongly disfavored maximal 1-2 mixing. The upper bound is
124: \begin{equation}
125: \tan^2 \theta_{12} < 0.64 ~~~~~(3 \sigma).
126: \label{eq:up12}
127: \end{equation}
128: As a result of these improvements, the
129: physics of the conversion is now even determined quantitatively\rlap{.}\,\cite{fogli,pedro3}
130: In particular, recent results show relevance of the notion of resonance, they fix
131: the relative strength of the effects of the adiabatic conversion
132: and the oscillations as function of the neutrino energy\rlap{.}\,\cite{pedro3}
133:
134: In Fig.~\ref{allowed} we show also the contours of constant CC/NC ratio and
135: Day-Night asymmetry of the CC-events at SNO. They allow one to evaluate an impact of future SNO measurements.
136: The KamLAND operation will allow one to eventually determine
137: $\Delta m^2_{12}$ with about 10\% accuracy.
138: %Next (expected soon) KamLAND data release
139: %is important for understanding stability of the results,
140: %backgrounds and contribution of the geo neutrinos.
141:
142: Are there any data which indicate deviation from the LMA picture?
143: In this connection we consider two generic features
144: of the LMA-MSW solution:
145: \begin{itemize}
146:
147: \item
148: the predicted Ar-production rate,
149: $Q_{Ar} = 2.96 \pm 0.25$ SNU, is
150: about $2\sigma$ higher than the Homestake\cite{Cl} result; and
151:
152: \item
153: the upturn of the spectrum at low energies,
154: that is, the increase of the ratio $N^{obs}/N^{SSM}$ with decrease of energy,
155: is expected which can be as large as 10\,--\,15\%. However, the latest
156: SNO as well as the previous SNO and SuperKamiokande\cite{SKs}
157: spectral data do not show the upturn, being in agreement
158: with the absence of distortion.
159:
160: \end{itemize}
161:
162: %Also there are statements about possible short period
163: %time variations of the neutrino signals\cite{} which can not be
164: %explained in the context of the LMA solution.
165:
166:
167: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff2%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
168: \begin{figure}[h!]
169: \begin{center}
170: \hspace{-0.1cm} \epsfxsize7.5cm\epsffile{probratessk3b.ps}
171: \caption{The survival probabilities of the electron neutrino (solid line) and the active
172: neutrinos (dashed line) for different values of the sterile-active mixing.$^{15}$
173: The panels correspond to three different values of
174: $R_{\Delta} \equiv \Delta m_{01}^2/\Delta m_{21}^2$.
175: Vertical dashed line indicates the position of the 1-2 resonance.
176: }
177: \label{dip}
178: \end{center}
179: \end{figure}
180: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
181:
182:
183: Both problems can be resolved simultaneously, if a light sterile neutrino exists with
184: very small active-sterile mixing:\,\cite{ster}
185: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
186: \begin{equation}
187: %R_{\Delta} \equiv
188: \frac{\Delta m_{01}^2}{\Delta m_{21}^2} = 0.05 - 0.2, ~~~ \sin^2 2\alpha =
189: 10^{-5} - 10^{-3}.
190: \label{eq:it}
191: \end{equation}
192: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
193: Such a mixing produces a dip in the survival probability (Fig.~\ref{dip}) which suppresses
194: both the Ar-production rate and the upturn of spectrum.
195: %or even leads to the turn of the spectrum down.
196: The best description of the data would correspond
197: to the dip at relatively high energies
198: (panel for $R_{\Delta} = 0.10$) when the CNO- and pep-neutrino fluxes
199: and the low energy part of the boron neutrino spectrum are suppressed.
200:
201: Such a possibility can be tested in the future low energy neutrino experiments:
202: BOREXINO\rlap{,}\,\cite{bor} KamLAND, MOON, {\it etc.}\rlap{,}\,\cite{moon} as well as in further
203: measurements of the spectrum by SNO and SK.
204:
205:
206: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
207: \subsection{\bf Atmospheric Neutrinos}
208: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
209:
210: A recent refined analysis of the SuperKamiokande data in terms
211: of $\nu_{\mu} - \nu_{\tau}$ oscillations gives\cite{atm} at 90 \% C.L.
212: \begin{equation}
213: \Delta m^2_{13} = (1.3 - 3.0) \times 10^{-3} {\rm eV}^2, ~~
214: \sin^2 2\theta_{23} > 0.9 ~
215: \label{eq:atm}
216: \end{equation}
217: with the best fit at $\Delta m^2_{12} = 2.0 \times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ and $\sin^2 2\theta_{12} = 1.0$.
218: Combined analysis of the CHOOZ and the atmospheric neutrino data puts the upper bound
219: on the 1-3 mixing\cite{atmfo}
220: \begin{equation}
221: \sin^2 \theta_{13} < 0.067 ~~~~(3\sigma).
222: \label{eq:atm}
223: \end{equation}
224: The open question is whether oscillations of the
225: atmospheric $\nu_e$ exist? There are two possible sources of these oscillations:
226: (i) non-zero 1-3 mixing and ``atmospheric" $\Delta m^2_{13}$, and
227: (ii) solar oscillation parameters in Eq.~(\ref{eq:bf}).
228: Also their interference should exist\rlap{.}\,\cite{PS-L} After confirmation of the
229: LMA-MSW solution we can definitely say that oscillations driven by the LMA parameters
230: (the LMA oscillations) should show up at some level.
231: Relative modification of the $\nu_e$ flux due to the LMA oscillations can be
232: written as\cite{PS-L}
233: \begin{equation}
234: \frac{F_e}{F_e^0} - 1 = P_2 (r \cos^2 \theta_{23} - 1),
235: \label{eq:atm-e}
236: \end{equation}
237: where $P_2(\Delta m^2_{12}, \theta_{12})$ is the $2\nu$ transition probability and
238: $r \equiv {F_{\mu}^0}/{F_e^0}$ is the ratio of the original $\nu_{\mu}$ and $\nu_e$ fluxes.
239: In the sub-GeV region, where $P_2$ can be of the order 1, the ratio equals $r \approx 2$, so that
240: the oscillation effect is proportional to the deviation of the 2-3 mixing from the
241: maximal value: $D_{23} \equiv 1/2 - \sin^2 \theta_{23}$.
242: In Fig.~\ref{atm}
243: %(from \cite{PS-L})
244: we show the ratio of numbers of the $e$-like events with and without oscillations
245: as function of the zenith angle of the electron.
246: For the allowed range of $\sin^2 \theta_{23}$ and the present best-fit value of
247: $\Delta m^2_{12}$ the excess can be as large as 5 - 6\%.
248: The excess increases with decreasing energy.
249: \vskip 0.7cm
250: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff3%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
251: \begin{figure}[h!]
252: \begin{center}
253: \hspace{-0.1cm} \epsfxsize8cm\epsffile{fig6.ps}
254: \vskip -6cm
255: \caption{The ratio of numbers of the $e$-like events with and without oscillations
256: as function of the zenith angle of the electron for different values of $\sin^2 \theta_{23}$.$^{20}$
257: Other parameters are $\sin^2 2\theta_{12} = 0.82$, $\sin \theta_{13} = 0$ and
258: $\Delta m^2_{12} = 7.3 \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$. Also shown are the
259: SuperKamiokande experimental points. }
260: \label{atm}
261: \end{center}
262: \end{figure}
263: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
264:
265: \vskip -0.5cm
266:
267: Future searches for the excess can be used to restrict or measure $D_{23}$.
268: In fact, the latest analysis,
269: (without renormalization of the original fluxes) shows some excess of the $e$-like events at
270: low energies and the absence of excess in the multi-GeV sample, thus giving a
271: hint of non-zero $D_{23}$.
272: Establishing this deviation has important consequences for understanding the origins
273: of neutrino masses and mixing.
274:
275: Non-zero 1-3 mixing generates the interference effect
276: between the LMA oscillations amplitudes\rlap{.}\,\cite{PS-L}
277: The interference contribution does not contain the ``screening" factor,
278: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:atm-e}), and can reach 2\,--\,4\% for the allowed values of $\sin \theta_{13}$.
279: This produces an uncertainty in the determination of $D_{23}$.
280: So, $D_{23}$ can be measured if either a large excess is found or/and a stronger bound on
281: the 1-3 mixing is established.
282:
283: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
284: \subsection{\bf Mass Spectrum and Mixing}
285: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
286:
287: Information obtained
288: from the oscillation experiments
289: allows us to make significant progress in the reconstruction of the neutrino mass and flavor
290: spectrum (Fig.~\ref{sp}).
291: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff4%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
292: \begin{figure}[h!]
293: \begin{center}
294: \hspace{-0.1cm} \epsfxsize8cm\epsffile{sp.eps}
295: \caption{Neutrino mass and flavor spectra for the normal (left) and inverted (right)
296: mass hierarchies. The distribution of flavors (colored parts of boxes) in the mass eigenstates
297: corresponds to the best-fit values of mixing parameters and $\sin^2 \theta_{13} = 0.05$.
298: }
299: \label{sp}
300: \end{center}
301: \end{figure}
302: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
303:
304: The unknowns are:
305:
306: (i) admixture of $\nu_e$ in $\nu_3$: $U_{e3}$;
307:
308: (ii) type of mass spectrum:
309: hierarchical; non-hierarchical with certain ordering; degenerate,
310: which is related to the value of the absolute mass scale, $m_1$; and
311:
312: (iii) type of mass hierarchy (ordering): normal, inverted.
313:
314: Using a global fit of the oscillation data one can find intervals for the
315: elements of the PMNS mixing matrix $||U_{\alpha i}||$:
316: \begin{equation}
317: \left(
318: \begin{tabular}{lll}
319: 0.79 - 0.86 & 0.50 - 0.61 & 0.0 - 0.16\\
320: 0.24 - 0.52 & 0.44 - 0.69 & 0.63 - 0.79\\
321: 0.26 - 0.52 & 0.47 - 0.71 & 0.60 - 0.77\\
322: \end{tabular}
323: \right),
324: \label{eq:it}
325: \end{equation}
326: where columns correspond to the flavor index and rows to the mass index\rlap{.}\,\cite{concha}
327:
328: Now we are in a position to construct the leptonic unitarity triangle, although
329: the finite size of one angle is still unknown. For practical
330: reason (no intensive $\nu_{\tau}$ beams) we consider the triangle which employs the
331: $e$- and $\mu$- rows of the mixing matrix (Fig.~\ref{tri}).
332: %It corresponds to the condition:
333: %\begin{equation}
334: %U_{e1} U_{\mu 1}^* + U_{e2} U_{\mu 2}^* + U_{e3} U_{\mu 3}^* = 0.
335: %\label{eq:it}
336: %\end{equation}
337: %In Fig.~\ref{tri} we show possible triangle constructed for the best fit
338: %values of the 1-2 and 2-3 mixings and $U_{e3} = 0.16$ - near the present upper bound.
339: The triangle is not degenerate in spite of the strong bound on the 1-3 mixing.
340:
341: Is it possible to reconstruct the triangle using results from future
342: experiments? Can we use the triangle to determine the CP-violation phase, $\delta$?
343: The area of the triangle is related to the Jarlskog invariant
344: $J_{CP} \equiv Im[{U_{e1} U_{\mu2} U_{e2}^* U_{\mu1}^*}]$:
345: $S = J_{CP}/2$. Reconstruction of the triangle is complementary
346: to measurements of the neutrino-antineutrino asymmetries in oscillations.
347: Interestingly, the main problem here is the coherence: the same coherence
348: which leads to the oscillations. For the triangle method we need to
349: study interactions of the mass eigenstates, whereas in practice we deal with
350: flavor (coherent) states. So, breaking of the coherence,
351: averaging of oscillations, experiments with the beams of mass eigenstates and measurements of the
352: survival (rather than transition) probabilities are the key elements of the
353: method\rlap{.}\,\cite{yasaman}
354:
355: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff5%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
356: \begin{figure}[h!]
357: \begin{center}
358: \hspace{-0.1cm} \epsfxsize7.5cm\epsffile{tri.eps}
359: \caption{Possible leptonic unitarity triangle. We take the best-fit values of
360: $\theta_{12}$, and $\theta_{23}$ and $\sin \theta_{13} = 0.16$.}
361: \label{tri}
362: \end{center}
363: \end{figure}
364: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
365:
366:
367: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
368: \subsection{\bf Neutrinos from SN1987A}
369: \label{subsec:sol}
370: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
371:
372: After confirmation of the LMA-MSW solution we can definitely say that the
373: effect of flavor conversion has already been observed in 1987.
374: One must take into account the conversion effects in analysis of
375: SN1987A\cite{sn87a} and future supernova neutrino data.
376:
377: In terms of the original fluxes of the electron and muon antineutrinos,
378: $F^0(\bar \nu_e)$ and $F^0(\bar \nu_{\mu})$, the electron antineutrino
379: flux at the detector can be written as
380: \begin{equation}
381: F(\bar \nu_e) = F^0(\bar \nu_e) + \bar{p} \Delta F^0,
382: \label{flu}
383: \end{equation}
384: where $\Delta F^0 \equiv F(\bar \nu_{\mu}) - F(\bar \nu_e)$,
385: and $\bar{p}$ is the permutation factor. In assumptions of the normal mass hierarchy
386: (ordering) and the absence of new neutrino states, $\bar{p}$ can be calculated
387: precisely: $\bar{p} = 1 - P_{1e}$, where $P_{1e}$ is
388: the probability of $\bar{\nu}_1 \rightarrow \bar{\nu}_e$ transition
389: inside the Earth\rlap{.}\,\cite{DS,LS-87}
390: It can be written as $\bar{p} = \sin^2 \theta_{12} + f_{reg}$, where $f_{reg}$ describes the effect of
391: oscillations (regeneration of the $\bar{\nu}_e$ flux) inside the Earth.
392: Due to the difference in distances traveled by neutrinos to
393: Kamiokande, IMB and Baksan detectors inside the Earth:
394: 4363~km, 8535~km and 10449~km correspondingly, the permutation factors differ
395: for these detectors (Fig.~\ref{sn87}).
396: The Earth matter effect can partially explain the difference between the
397: Kamiokande and the IMB spectra of events\rlap{.}\,\cite{LS-87}
398:
399: In contrast to $\bar p$, the original fluxes, and consequently $\Delta F^0$,
400: are not well known, and one can not make precise predictions of the flux modification
401: in Eq.~(\ref{flu}).
402: %%%
403: \vskip -1cm
404: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff6%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
405: \begin{figure}[h!]
406: \begin{center}
407: \hspace{-0.1cm} \epsfxsize8.5cm\epsffile{fig1b.eps}
408: \vskip -0.5cm
409: \caption{The permutation factor $\bar p = 1 - P_{1e}$ as a function of neutrino energy for
410: Kamiokande II, IMB and Baksan detectors.$^{26}$ }
411: \label{sn87}
412: \end{center}
413: \end{figure}
414: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
415: %%
416: For the inverted mass hierarchy and $\sin^2 \theta_{13} > 10^{-5}$
417: one would get a stronger permutation,
418: $\bar{p} = 1$, and therefore a harder $\bar\nu_e$ spectrum,
419: as well as the absence of the Earth matter effect. This is disfavored by the
420: data\rlap{,}\,\cite{sn-inv}
421: though in view of small statistics and uncertainties in the original fluxes
422: it is not possible to make a firm statement.
423:
424: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
425: \subsection{\bf Absolute Scale of Mass}
426: \label{subsec:abs}
427: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
428:
429:
430: {}From the oscillation results we can put only a lower limit on the heaviest
431: neutrino mass:
432: \begin{equation}
433: m_h \geq \sqrt{\Delta m^2_{13}} > 0.04~ {\rm eV},
434: \label{eq:ab1}
435: \end{equation}
436: where $m_h = m_3$ for the normal mass hierarchy, and $m_h = m_1 \approx m_2$ for the
437: inverted hierarchy.
438: The neutrinoless double beta decay is determined by the combination
439: \begin{equation}
440: m_{ee} = |\sum_k U_{ek}^2 m_k e^{i\phi(k)}|,
441: \label{eq:it}
442: \end{equation}
443: where $\phi(k)$ is the phase of the $k$ eigenvalue.
444: Figure~\ref{bb} summarizes the present knowledge of the absolute mass scale.
445: Shown are the allowed regions in the plane of $m_{ee}$ probed by $\beta\beta_{0\nu}$ decay
446: and the mass of
447: lightest neutrino probed by the direct kinematical methods and cosmology.
448: The best present bound on $m_{ee}$ is given by the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment:
449: $m_{ee} < 0.35 - 0.50$ eV\rlap{,}\,\cite{HM-neg} part of collaboration claims evidence of a positive signal\rlap{.}\,\cite{HM-pos}
450: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff7%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
451: \begin{figure}[h!]
452: \begin{center}
453: \hspace{-0.1cm} \epsfxsize7.5cm\epsffile{0n2ballsalt.eps}
454: \caption{The 90\% CL range for $m_{ee}$ as a function of the lightest neutrino mass
455: for the normal ($\Delta m_{23}^2 > 0$) and inverted ($\Delta m_{23}^2 < 0$) mass hierarchies.$^{28}$
456: The darker regions show how the allowed range for the present best-fit values of the parameters
457: with negligible errors.
458: }
459: \label{bb}
460: \end{center}
461: \end{figure}
462: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
463: Interestingly, the present double beta decay measurements and
464: cosmology have similar sensitivities $m_{ee} \sim m_1 \sim (0.2 - 0.5)$ eV.
465: The latter corresponds to the degenerate mass spectrum:
466: $m_{1} \approx m_2 \approx m_3 \equiv m_0$.
467: Analyses of cosmological data (with WMAP) result in the 95\% C.L.
468: upper bounds $m_0 < 0.23$ eV\rlap{,}\,\cite{cosm}
469: $m_0 < 0.6$ eV\cite{cosm1} and $m_0 < 0.34$ eV\rlap{.}\,\cite{cosm2}
470: Independent analysis which includes the X-ray galaxy cluster data gives
471: non-zero value $m_0 = 0.20 \pm 0.10$ eV\rlap{.}\,\cite{cosm3}
472:
473:
474: %The present upper limit from the direct measurements (tritium decay) will be improved
475: %by future KATRIN experiment down to $m \sim 0.25$ eV.
476:
477: Future improvements of the upper bound on $m_{ee}$ have the potential to distinguish between the
478: hierarchies: According to Fig.~\ref{bb}, if the bound $m_{ee} < 0.012$ eV is established,
479: the inverted hierarchy will be excluded at 90 \% C.L..
480: %Similar bound from:\,\cite{mura} $m_{ee} < 0.015$ eV.
481:
482: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
483: \subsection{\bf LSND}
484: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
485:
486: The situation with this ultimate neutrino anomaly\cite{LSND}
487: is really dramatic: all suggested
488: physical (not related to the LSND methods)
489: solutions are strongly or very strongly disfavored now.
490: At the same time, being confirmed, the oscillation interpretation of
491: the LSND result may change our understanding the neutrino
492: (and in general fermion) masses.
493: %it may lead us far beyond the standard model.
494:
495: %Even very exotic possibilities are disfavored.
496: A recent analysis performed by the KARMEN collaboration\cite{KARMEN}
497: has further disfavored a scenario\cite{BaP}
498: in which the $\bar{\nu}_e$ appearance is explained by the
499: anomalous muon decay $\mu^+ \rightarrow \bar{\nu}_e \bar{\nu}_{i} e^+$
500: $(i = e , \mu, \tau)$.
501:
502: The CPT-violation scheme\cite{BLyk} with different mass spectra
503: of neutrinos and antineutrinos
504: is disfavored by the atmospheric neutrino data\rlap{.}\,\cite{stru} No compatibility of LSND and
505: ``all but LSND" data have been found below $3\sigma$\rlap{.}\,\cite{coCPT}
506:
507: The main problem of the (3 + 1) scheme with
508: $\Delta m^2 \sim 1$ eV$^2$ is that the predicted LSND signal,
509: which is consistent with the results of other short base-line experiments
510: (BUGEY, CHOOZ, CDHS, CCFR, KARMEN) as well as the atmospheric neutrino data, is too small:
511: the $\bar{\nu}_{\mu} \rightarrow \bar{\nu}_e$ probability is about $3\sigma$ below the
512: LSND measurement.
513:
514: Introduction of the second sterile neutrino
515: with $\Delta m^2 > 8$ eV$^2$ may help\rlap{.}\,\cite{PS31}
516: It was shown\cite{sorel} that a new neutrino with
517: $\Delta m^2 \sim 22$ eV$^2$ and mixings $U_{e5} = 0.06$, $U_{\mu5} = 0.24$
518: can enhance the predicted LSND signal by (60\,--\,70)\% .
519: The (3 + 2) scheme has, however, problems with cosmology and astrophysics.
520:
521: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff8%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
522: \begin{figure}[h!]
523: \begin{center}
524: \hspace{-0.1cm} \epsfxsize8cm\epsffile{boone1.eps}
525: \caption{The allowed regions of parameters of the (3 + 1) scheme,
526: $\Delta m^2_{14}$ and $\sin^2 2\theta_{\mu \mu} \approx 4|U_{\mu 4}|^2$,
527: at different confidence levels. Shown are the 90\% sensitivity limits of the
528: MiniBooNE and the MiniBooNE+FINeSE experiments.
529: %From\cite{}.
530: }
531: \label{boon}
532: \end{center}
533: \end{figure}
534: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
535:
536:
537: The generic prediction of (3 + n) schemes is the $\nu_{\mu}$ oscillation
538: disappearance at the level of existing
539: upper bouds from CDHS\rlap{,},\cite{CDHS} CCFR\rlap{,},\cite{CCFR} and NOMAD\cite{NOMAD} experiments.
540: New searches of $\nu_{\mu}$ disappearance are being performed by the MiniBooNE
541: experiment\cite{mini} and planned by the proposed experiment FINeSE\cite{fine}
542: (see Fig.~\ref{boon}, where the sensitivity region of these searches
543: is shown\cite{fine}).
544:
545: The combination of the two described solutions, namely the $3 + 1$
546: scheme with CPT-violation, has been considered\rlap{.}\,\cite{barger3}
547:
548: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
549: \subsection{\bf Known and Unknown}
550: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
551:
552: Information described in the previous sections
553: can be summarized in the following way.
554:
555: 1. The observed ratio of the mass squared differences,
556: $\Delta m^2_{12}/\Delta m^2_{23} = 0.01 - 0.15$,
557: implies that there is no strong hierarchy of masses:
558: \begin{equation}
559: \frac{m_2}{m_3} > \sqrt{\frac{\Delta m^2_{12}}{\Delta m^2_{23}}} = 0.18^{+ 0.22}_{-0.08}.
560: \label{eq:hie1}
561: \end{equation}
562: For charge leptons the corresponding ratio is 0.06.
563:
564: 2. There is the bi-large or large-maximal mixing between the neighboring families
565: (1 - 2) and (2 - 3). Still rather significant deviation of the 2-3 mixing
566: from the maximal one is possible.
567: %and it is not excluded that 1-2 and 2-3 are equal.
568:
569: 3. Mixing between remote (1-3) families is weak.
570:
571: Several key elements are unknown yet leading to a variety of possible interpretations.
572:
573: Knowledge of the absolute mass scale, type of mass spectrum, and type of mass
574: hierarchy is of the highest priority.
575: The 1-3 mixing has important phenomenological consequences;
576: its value is a test of the mechanisms of the
577: lepton mixing enhancement.
578: The CP-violating Majorana phases are extremely important for the structure
579: of neutrino mass matrices.
580: Deviations of the 2-3 and 1-2 mixings from maximal values play a crucial role
581: in understanding the origins of neutrino masses.
582: The existence of new neutrino states (their search should be a permanent
583: item in the scientific agenda) may change completely our approaches to the
584: underlying theory.
585:
586: These are phenomenological and experimental questions we will deal with during the next
587: 20\,--\,30 years.
588:
589:
590: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
591: \section{Open Theoretical Questions}
592: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
593:
594: What does all this (results on neutrino masses and mixing) mean?
595:
596: Among old, still open, questions are the following:
597: Why are neutrino masses so small
598: in comparison with the charged lepton and quark masses?
599: What is the origin of neutrino mass? Is it the same as the one for quarks and
600: charged leptons?
601:
602: What are the relations between neutrino masses and other mass/energy scales in nature,
603: e.g. the scale of cosmological constant or dark energy?
604:
605: Why is the lepton mixing large? Why is it so different from quark mixing?
606: Is the 2-3 mixing exactly maximal?
607: What are the relations between different mixing angles (if any)?
608: How is the observed pattern of lepton mixing is generated?
609:
610: In the quark sector the smallness of mixing is related to the
611: strong mass hierarchy.
612: What are the relations between the lepton masses and lepton mixing?
613:
614: Do neutrinos show certain flavor or horizontal symmetry?
615: If so, is this symmetry consistent with the
616: pattern of quark masses and mixing?
617:
618: Are the results of neutrino masses and lepton mixing consistent with
619: the quark-lepton symmetry and Grand Unification?
620:
621: If new light sterile neutrinos exist
622: %(this is the experimental and phenomenological question),
623: what is their nature and why are they light?
624:
625: What are the implications of the neutrino results for GUT, SUSY, models with extra dimensions, and strings?
626: {\it Vice versa:} what can these beyond the SM theories tell us about neutrinos?
627:
628: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
629: \section{Bottom-Up}
630: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
631:
632: One can try the ``top-down" approach confronting immediately a proposed
633: model with experimental results.
634: Inversely, to get some hints in answering the above questions,
635: it may be worthwhile to try to move bottom-up.
636:
637: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
638: \subsection{\bf Neutrino mass matrix}
639: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
640:
641: There are several steps in the bottom-up approach.
642:
643: 1). Take the results on $\Delta m^2_{ij}$, $\theta_{ij}$, $m_{ee}$, {\it etc.}.
644:
645: 2). Reconstruct the neutrino mass matrix in the flavor basis
646: (where the charge lepton mass matrix is diagonal) assuming also that neutrinos
647: are Majorana particles. Notice that the mass matrix unifies information contained in masses
648: and mixing angles and this may provide some more hints toward the underlying theory.
649:
650: 3). Identify the symmetry basis (which may differ from the flavor basis)
651: and the symmetry scale. Take into account the renormalization
652: group effects.
653:
654: 4). Identify the symmetry (as well as mechanism of symmetry violation, if needed)
655: and underlying dynamics.
656: %And this is probably what we
657: %will call the theory of neutrino mass and mixing.
658: %(Ask question: is this program misleading?)
659:
660: Let us make the first step in the bottom-up approach.
661: The mass matrix in the flavor basis can be written as
662: \begin{equation}
663: m = U^* m^{diag} U^+,
664: \label{eq:mass}
665: \end{equation}
666: where $U = U(\theta_{ij}, \delta)$
667: is the mixing matrix, $\delta$ is the Dirac CP-violating phase,
668: and
669: \begin{equation}
670: m^{diag} = diag (m_1 e^{-2i\rho},~ m_2,~ m_3 e^{-2i\sigma}).
671: \label{eq:mass}
672: \end{equation}
673: Here $\rho$ and $\sigma$ are the Majorana phases.
674: The mass eigenvalues equal $m_2 = \sqrt{m_1^2 + \Delta m^2_{12}}$, and
675: $m_3 = \sqrt{m_1^2 + \Delta m^2_{13}}$.
676:
677: The results of reconstruction of the mass matrix\cite{alta,matrix} are shown in
678: Figs.~\ref{norm5},~\ref{deg1}, and~\ref{inv01}
679: as the $\rho - \sigma$ plots for the absolute values of the
680: 6 independent matrix elements. They correspond to three
681: extreme cases: normal mass hierarchy, quasi-degenerate spectrum
682: and inverted mass hierarchy.
683: The figures illustrate a variety of possible structures. In particular,
684: for the normal mass hierarchy (Fig.~\ref{norm5}) there is clear structure with the
685: dominant $\mu - \tau$ block.
686: %for the most part of the parameter space.
687: Interesting parameterizations of the mass matrix
688: (up to an overall mass factor) are
689: \begin{equation}
690: \left(
691: \begin{tabular}{lll}
692: 0 & 0 & $\lambda$ \\
693: 0 & 1 & 1\\
694: $\lambda$ & 1 & 1
695: \end{tabular}
696: \right),~~~~~
697: \left(
698: \begin{tabular}{lll}
699: $\lambda^2$ & $\lambda$ & $\lambda$\\
700: $\lambda$ & 1 & 1\\
701: $\lambda$ & 1 & 1\\
702: \end{tabular}
703: \right),
704: \label{eq:nhier}
705: \end{equation}
706: where $\lambda \sim 0.2$. Also the matrix similar to the first one
707: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:nhier}) with $m_{12} \sim \lambda$ and $m_{13} \approx 0$ is possible.
708: %%%
709: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff9%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
710: \begin{figure}[h!]
711: \begin{center}
712: \hspace{-0.1cm} \epsfxsize8cm\epsffile{ratio5.eps}
713: \caption{The Majorana mass matrix for the
714: normal mass hierarchy: $m_3/m_2=5$,
715: $m_1\approx 0.006$ eV.
716: We show contours of constant mass in
717: the $\rho-\sigma$ plots for the moduli of mass matrix elements.
718: We take for other parameters $\Delta m^2_{12}=7 \times 10^{-5}
719: {\rm eV}^2$, $\Delta m^2_{13}= 2.5 \times 10^{-3} {\rm eV}^2$,
720: $\tan^2\theta_{12}=0.42$, $\tan\theta_{23}=1$, $\sin \theta_{13}=0.1$, and $\delta=0$.}
721: \label{norm5}
722: \end{center}
723: \end{figure}
724: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
725: %%
726: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff10%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
727: \begin{figure}[h!]
728: \begin{center}
729: \hspace{-0.1cm} \epsfxsize8cm\epsffile{ratio101.eps}
730: \caption{The same as in Fig. \ref{norm5} for the quasi-degenerate spectrum:
731: $m_3/m_2 = 1.01$, $m_1\approx 0.35$ eV.}
732: \label{deg1}
733: \end{center}
734: \end{figure}
735: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
736:
737: In the case of a quasi-degenerate spectrum, the interesting dominant structures are
738: \begin{equation}
739: \left(
740: \begin{tabular}{lll}
741: 1 & 0 & 0\\
742: 0 & 1 & 0\\
743: 0 & 0 & 1\\
744: \end{tabular}
745: \right),~~~~~~
746: \left(
747: \begin{tabular}{lll}
748: 1 & 0 & 0\\
749: 0 & 0 & 1\\
750: 0 & 1 & 0\\
751: \end{tabular}
752: \right).
753: \label{eq:degen}
754: \end{equation}
755: These matrices are realized for values of phases in the corners of the plots:
756: $\rho, \sigma = 0, \pi$ (the first matrix) or at $\rho = 0, \pi$,
757: $\sigma = \pi/2$ (the second one) which corresponds to definite CP-parities of
758: the mass eigenstates.
759: Also the ``democratic" structure with equal moduli of elements is possible for the non-trivial
760: values of phases\rlap{.}\,\cite{demo}
761: Changing the phases one can get any
762: intermediate structure between those in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:nhier}) and (\ref{eq:degen}).
763: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff11%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
764: \begin{figure}[h!]
765: \begin{center}
766: \hspace{-0.1cm} \epsfxsize8cm\epsffile{ratio01.eps}
767: \caption{The same as in Fig.~\ref{norm5} for the inverted mass hierarchy:
768: $m_3/m_2 = 0.1$, $m_3\approx 0.005$ eV.
769: }
770: \label{inv01}
771: \end{center}
772: \end{figure}
773: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
774:
775: In the case of the inverted hierarchy, generically the $ee$- element is not small.
776: Among interesting examples are
777: \begin{equation}
778: \left(
779: \begin{tabular}{lll}
780: 0.7 & 1 & 1\\
781: 1 & 0.1 & 0.1\\
782: 1 & 0.1 & 0.1\\
783: \end{tabular}
784: \right), ~~~~~~~
785: \left(
786: \begin{tabular}{lll}
787: 1 & $0.1$ & $0.1$\\
788: $0.1$ & 0.5 & 0.5\\
789: $0.1$ & 0.5 & 0.5 \\
790: \end{tabular}
791: \right).
792: \label{eq:ihier}
793: \end{equation}
794: %Notice that the dominance of $e\mu$ and $e\tau$ elements (the first matrix)
795: %is not necessarily for the inverted hierarchy (second matrix).
796:
797: In the SM and MSSM the renormalization group effects do not change the
798: structure of the mass matrix: the corrections to a given element are
799: proportional to the element itself. Furthermore, the corrections are
800: small even in the SUSY case (below $0.1\%$).
801: So, unless some new interactions exist, the mass matrix determined at low energies
802: does not change structure when running up to
803: the scale where the corresponding mass operators are formed or up to the symmetry scale.
804:
805: In contrast to the matrix structure,
806: the radiative corrections are important for the oscillation observables in the case of partially
807: or quasi degenerate mass spectra.
808:
809: Scanning the $\rho-\sigma$ plots shown in
810: Figs.~\ref{norm5},~\ref{deg1}, and~\ref{inv01}, one can make the
811: following observations.
812:
813: 1). A large variety of different structures is still possible, depending strongly on
814: the unknown $m_1$, type of mass hierarchy and Majorana phases. The dependence on $\sin \theta_{13}$ and $\delta$
815: is weak.
816:
817: 2). Generically the hierarchy of elements is not strong: within 1 order of magnitude.
818: At the same time matrices with one or two exact zeros are not excluded\rlap{.}\,\cite{zero}
819:
820: 3). Matrices are possible with:
821:
822: - dominant (i) diagonal elements $(\sim I)$, (ii) $\mu \tau$-block,
823: (iii) $e$-row elements, (iv) $ee-, \mu\tau-, \tau\mu-$ elements (triangle structure),
824:
825: - democratic structure,
826:
827: - flavor alignment,
828:
829: - non-hierarchical structures with all elements of the same order,
830:
831: - flavor disordering,
832:
833: - zeros at different places, and
834:
835: - equalities of various element.
836:
837: 4). Typically, the hierarchical structures appear for the Majorana phases near 0 , $\pi/2$, or
838: $\pi$.
839:
840: 5). Matrices can be parameterized in terms of powers of small parameter $\lambda = 0.2 - 0.3$
841: consistent with the Cabibbo mixing.
842:
843: In a significant part of the parameter space the matrix does not show any regularities, and
844: relative values of its elements appear as random numbers which spread within one order of
845: magnitude. This supports
846: the idea of ``Anarchy"\rlap{.}\,\cite{anarc,anarc1} Consideration of the anarchy of elements is
847: a test of the possible complexity of the neutrino mass matrix.
848: The case of anarchy can be imitated if
849: neutrino masses have several different contributions, and even if each of them
850: has well defined structure or symmetry, the sum may show up as a matrix with disorder.
851: In this connection one can consider representations of the mass matrix as the sum of
852: matrices, given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:degen}), as well as the democratic matrix with certain coefficients\rlap{.}\,\cite{decomp}
853:
854: What is more fundamental: oscillation observables or neutrino mass matrix in some basis?
855: The answer may depend on the type of mass spectrum. In the case of hierarchical spectrum
856: the observables are visibly imprinted into the structure of the mass matrix. In contrast,
857: for the quasi-degenerate spectrum they are just very small perturbations of the dominant structure
858: which is determined by the non-oscillatory parameters: the absolute mass scale and
859: the Majorana CP-violating phases. Then the oscillation parameters
860: can be a result of interplay of some small,
861: in particular, radiative corrections.
862:
863: In the case of Majorana neutrinos, the elements
864: of the mass matrix are physical parameters: they can be immediately measured in the
865: neutrinoless beta decay and, in principle, in other similar processes.
866: In practice, it is not possible to reconstruct the mass matrix from experiment completely.
867: Even in the most optimistic case the phase $\sigma$ will be undetermined and
868: Figs.~\ref{norm5},~\ref{deg1}, and~\ref{inv01}, give an idea of the remaining uncertainty. Only in
869: the case of the g mass hierarchy does the dependence on $\sigma$ disappear.
870: The hope is that even without complete reconstruction of the mass matrix
871: we will be able to uncover the underlying physics.
872:
873: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
874: \subsection{\bf Neutrino Mass and Horizontal Symmetry}
875: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
876:
877:
878: Do the results on neutrino masses and mixing indicate certain regularities or symmetry?
879: Can the dominant structures of the mass matrix be explained by a symmetry with
880: the sub-dominant elements appearing as a result of violations of the symmetry?
881: Is the neutrino mass matrix consistent with symmetries suggested for quarks?
882:
883: The following symmetries have been considered.
884:
885:
886: 1). $L_e - L_{\mu} - L_{\tau}$\rlap{.}\,\cite{emt} This symmetry supports, in particular,
887: the structure with an inverted mass hierarchy. However, the rather large element
888: $m_{ee}$ (Fig. \ref{inv01}) shows strong violation of this symmetry.
889:
890: 2). Discrete symmetries: $A_4$\rlap{,}\,\cite{A4} $S_3$\rlap{,}\,\cite{S3}
891: $Z_4$\rlap{,}\,\cite{Z4}, and $D_4$\rlap{.}\,\cite{D4}
892: They reproduce successfully the dominant structures
893: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:degen}) as well as the ``democratic" matrix.
894:
895: However, both classes of symmetries 1) and 2) typically treat quarks and leptons differently.
896:
897:
898: 3). $U(1)$\rlap{.}\,\cite{u1} In the Froggatt-Nielsen context\cite{FN} this symmetry can describe mass
899: matrices of both
900: quarks and leptons. However, the claimed predictability of this approach can
901: be questioned: the $U(1)$ charges should be considered as
902: discrete free parameters. Furthermore, precise description of data usually requires
903: coefficients (prefactors) of the order 1 (1/2 - 2) in front of powers of the expansion parameter.
904: The outcome is that the mixing pattern depends substantially on values of these unknown prefactors.
905:
906:
907: 4). $SU(2)$\rlap{,}\,\cite{su2} $SO(3)$\rlap{,}\,\cite{so3}, and $SU(3)$\cite{su3} require a complicated
908: Higgs sector to break the symmetry.
909: Often models are too restrictive and predictions are on the borders of allowed regions.
910:
911:
912: The question is still open.
913: Different symmetries are consistent with
914: the neutrino data.
915: But realizations of these symmetries in specific models are not simple. The hope is
916: that future neutrino data (better knowledge of the mass matrix) can discriminate
917: among possibilities.
918:
919: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
920: \section{How We May Go...}
921: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
922:
923:
924: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
925: \subsection{\bf Neutrality and Mass}
926: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
927:
928: In answering the questions of Sec. 3 one can
929: implement the ``minimalistic" approach,
930: %introducing as small as possible
931: %number of new concepts.
932: that is, to try to relate features of the neutrino masses
933: and mixings with already known differences of characteristics of
934: neutrinos and other fermions.
935:
936: The main feature of neutrinos is neutrality:
937: \begin{equation}
938: Q_{\gamma} = Q_c = 0.
939: \label{eq:mass}
940: \end{equation}
941: It leads to the following possibilities:
942:
943: \begin{itemize}
944:
945: \item
946: neutrinos can be Majorana particles;
947: %(have Majorana mass term),
948:
949: \item
950: they can mix with singlets of the SM symmetry group; and
951:
952: \item
953: the right-handed components (RH), if they exist, are singlets of
954: $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$. So, their masses are unprotected by the symmetry
955: and therefore can be large.
956:
957: \end{itemize}
958:
959: In turn, properties of the RH components open two other possibilities. The RH neutrinos can:
960:
961: \begin{itemize}
962:
963: \item
964: have large Majorana masses: $M_R \gg V_{EW}$
965: (which leads to the see-saw); and
966:
967: \item
968: propagate in (large, or warped, or infinite) extra dimensions,
969: or be located on the ``hidden" (not ours) brane in contrast to other fermions.
970:
971: \end{itemize}
972:
973: Introduction of the RH neutrino has a number of attractive features\rlap{,}\,\cite{right} in particular,
974: it allows one to extend the electroweak symmetry to the gauged
975: $SU(2)_L \times SU(2)_R \times U(1)_{B-L}$.
976:
977: Is this enough to explain the properties of the mass spectrum and mixings?
978:
979: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
980: \subsection{\bf Effective Operator}
981: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
982:
983: Suppose the SM particles are the only light degrees of freedom.
984: Then at low energies (after integrating out the heavy degrees of freedom)
985: one can get the operator:\,\cite{eff}
986: \begin{equation}
987: \frac{\lambda_{ij}}{M} (L_i H)^T(L_j H), ~~~ i,j = e, \mu, \tau ,
988: \end{equation}
989: where $L_i$ is the lepton doublet,
990: $\lambda_{ij}$ are the dimensionless couplings and ${M}$ is the
991: cut-off scale. After EW symmetry breaking it generates the neutrino
992: masses
993: \begin{equation}
994: m_{ij} = \frac{\lambda_{ij} \langle H \rangle^2}{M}.
995: \end{equation}
996:
997: For $\lambda_{ij} \sim 1$ and $ M = M_{Pl}$ we find $m_{ij} \sim 10^{-5}$~eV\rlap{.}\,\cite{planck}
998: Three important conclusions immediately follow from this
999: consideration.
1000:
1001: 1). The Planck scale (gravitational) interactions are not enough to
1002: generate the observed values of the masses. So, new scales of physics
1003: below $M_{Pl}$ should exist.
1004:
1005: 2). Contributions to the neutrino masses of the order $\sim 10^{-5}$ eV are
1006: still relevant for phenomenology. Sub-dominant structures of the
1007: mass matrix can be generated by the Planck scale interactions\rlap{.}\,\cite{BerV}
1008:
1009: 3). The neutrino mass matrix can get observable contributions
1010: from all possible energy/mass scales from the EW scale to the Planck
1011: scale. As a consequence, the structure of the mass matrix can be rather complicated.
1012:
1013:
1014: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1015: \subsection{\bf See-saw}
1016: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1017:
1018: The see-saw (type I) mechanism\cite{sees} implements the neutrality
1019: in full strength (Majorana nature, heavy RH components).
1020: Introducing the Dirac mass matrix, $m_D = Y v_{EW}$,
1021: where $Y$ is the matrix of Yukawa couplings and
1022: $v_{EM}$ is the electroweak VEV, we have
1023: \begin{equation}
1024: m = - m_D^T M_R^{-1} m_D~~~~~ (type I).
1025: \label{eq:seesaw}
1026: \end{equation}
1027:
1028: If the $SU(2)$ triplet, $\Delta_L$, exists which develops a VEV $\langle \Delta_L \rangle$,
1029: the left-handed neutrinos can get a direct mass $m_L$ via the interaction $f_{\Delta} L^T L \Delta_L$.
1030: If $\Delta_L$ is very heavy, it can develop the induced VEV from interactions with a doublet:
1031: $\langle \Delta_L \rangle = v_{EW}^2/M$. So that
1032: \begin{equation}
1033: m_L = f_{\Delta}\frac{v_{EW}^2}{M}~~~~~(type II),
1034: \label{eq:mass}
1035: \end{equation}
1036: and here we deal with the see-saw of VEV's\rlap{.}\,\cite{sees2}
1037:
1038: In $SO(10)$ with $126_H$-plet of Higgses we have $M_R = f v_R$, where $f$ is the Yukawa coupling
1039: of the matter 16-plet with
1040: $126_H$ and $v_R$ is the VEV of the $SU(5)$ singlet component of $126_H$. Now
1041: $f_{\Delta} = f$, and the general mass term which contains both types of contributions
1042: can be written as
1043: \begin{equation}
1044: m = \frac{v_{EM}^2}{v_R} (f \lambda - Y^T f^{-1} Y).
1045: \label{eq:mass}
1046: \end{equation}
1047: Here $\lambda$ is the coupling of 10- and 126-plets.
1048: According to this expression the flavor structure of the two contributions may partially
1049: correlate.
1050:
1051:
1052: The number of RH neutrinos can differ from 3. Two possibilities have been explored:
1053:
1054: ``{\it ... less than 3~}": which corresponds to the $3\times2$ see-saw
1055: in the case of two RH neutrinos\rlap{.}\,\cite{less}
1056: Such a possibility can be realized in the limit when one of the RH neutrinos is very heavy:
1057: $M \sim M_{Pl}$, being, e.g. unprotected by the $SU(2)_H$ horizontal symmetry.
1058: It leads to one exactly massless LH neutrino and smaller number of free parameters.
1059:
1060: One can further reduce the number of unknown
1061: parameters postulating zeros in the Dirac matrix
1062: $m_D$\rlap{.}\,\cite{zero} This can lead to the predictions for $\sin \theta_{13}$,
1063: $m_{ee}$, as well as for relations between $\delta$ and the phase responsible for leptogenesis.
1064:
1065:
1066: ``{\it ... more than 3~}": additional singlets of the SM may not be related
1067: to the family structure. Alternatively, three additional singlets, $S$,
1068: which belong to families,
1069: can couple to the RH neutrinos. In the latter case the double see-saw can be realized\rlap{.}\,\cite{dsees}
1070: In the basis $(\nu, \nu^c, S)$, the mass matrix may have the form
1071: \begin{equation}
1072: \left(
1073: \begin{tabular}{lll}
1074: 0 & $m_D$ & 0\\
1075: $m_D^T$ & 0 & M\\
1076: 0 & $M^T$ & $\mu$ \\
1077: \end{tabular}
1078: \right)
1079: \label{eq:ihier}
1080: \end{equation}
1081: which leads to the light neutrino masses:
1082: \begin{equation}
1083: m = - m_D^T (M^{-1})^T \mu M^{-1} m_D .
1084: \label{eq:mass}
1085: \end{equation}
1086: Two interesting limits are:
1087: (i) $\mu \ll M$, it allows one to reduce all high mass scales
1088: for the same values of the light neutrino masses, (ii)
1089: $\mu \gg M$, {\it e.g.}
1090: $\mu = M_{Pl}$, and $M = M_{GU}$: in this case the intermediate mass scale,
1091: $M_{GU}^2/M_{Pl} = 10^{12} - 10^{14}$ GeV for the masses of RH neutrinos can be obtained.
1092:
1093:
1094: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1095: \subsection{\bf Grand Unification and Neutrino Mixing}
1096: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1097:
1098: GU theories provide a large mass scale comparable to the scale of RH neutrino masses\rlap{.}\,\cite{GUT}
1099: Furthermore, one can argue that GUT + see-saw can naturally lead to the large lepton mixing
1100: in contrast to the quark mixing.
1101: %or inversely, one can say that the large lepton mixing testifies for Grand
1102: %Unification.
1103: The arguments go like this:
1104:
1105: 1. Suppose that all quarks and leptons of a given family are in a single multiplet $F_i$
1106: (as 16 of SO(10)).
1107:
1108: 2. Suppose that all Yukawa couplings are of the same order thus
1109: producing matrices with generically large mixing.
1110:
1111: 3. If the Dirac masses are generated by an unique Higgs multiplet, say $10_H$ of SO(10),
1112: the mass matrices of the up and down components of the weak doublets have
1113: identical structures, and so, will be diagonalized by the same rotations. As a result:
1114:
1115: - no mixing appears for quarks, and
1116:
1117: - masses of up and down components will be equal to each other
1118: (this needs to be corrected).
1119:
1120: 4. In contrast to other fermions, the RH neutrinos acquire Majorana masses via the additional Yukawa couplings
1121: (with $126_H$ of SO(10)).
1122:
1123: 5. If those (Majorana type) Yukawa couplings are also of the generic form,
1124: they produce $M_R$ with large mixing which
1125: leads then to large lepton mixing.
1126:
1127: %%Can such a scenario be used as a basis which then should be slightly corrected?
1128: The problem of this scenario is the strong hierarchy of the quark and lepton masses.
1129: Indeed, taking the neutrino Dirac masses as $m_D = diag(m_u, m_c, m_t)$ in a spirit of GU, we find
1130: that for generic $M_R$ the see-saw type I
1131: formula (\ref{eq:seesaw}) produces strongly hierarchical mass matrix with small mixings.
1132: Possible solutions are:
1133:
1134: \begin{enumerate}
1135:
1136: \item
1137: a special structure of $M_R$ which compensates the strong hierarchy in $m_D$;
1138:
1139: \item
1140: a substantial difference in the Dirac matrices of quarks and leptons:
1141: $m_D(q) \neq m_D(l)$; or
1142:
1143: \item
1144: a type II see-saw for which there is no relation to $m_D$.
1145:
1146: \end{enumerate}
1147:
1148: In what follows we will comment on these three possibilities.
1149:
1150: {\it See-Saw enhancement of mixing\rlap{.}\,\cite{senhan}} Can the same mechanism (see-saw) which explains the smallness of
1151: the neutrino mass also explain the large lepton mixing? So, that the large mixing appears as an artifact of
1152: the see-saw?
1153:
1154: The idea is that due to the (approximate) quark-lepton symmetry, the Dirac mass matrices
1155: of the quarks and leptons have
1156: the same (similar) structure
1157: $m_D \sim m_{up}$, $m_l \sim m_{down}$ leading to small mixing in the Dirac sector. However,
1158: the special structure of $M_R$ (which has no analogue in the quark sector) leads to an enhancement of
1159: lepton mixing. Two different possibilities have been found:\,\cite{}
1160:
1161: \begin{itemize}
1162:
1163:
1164: \item
1165: strong (nearly quadratic) hierarchy of the RH neutrino masses:
1166: $M_{iR} \sim (m_{i up})^2$; and
1167:
1168: \item
1169: strong interfamily connection (pseudo Dirac structures) like
1170: \begin{equation}
1171: M_R = \left(
1172: \begin{tabular}{lll}
1173: A & 0 & 0\\
1174: 0 & 0 & B\\
1175: 0 & B & 0 \\
1176: \end{tabular}
1177: \right).
1178: \label{eq:}
1179: \end{equation}
1180:
1181: \end{itemize}
1182:
1183: In the three neutrino context both possibilities can be realized simultaneously,
1184: so that the pseudo Dirac structure leads to maximal 2-3 mixing, whereas the strong hierarchy
1185: $A \ll B$ enhances the 1-2 mixing.
1186:
1187: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff12%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1188: \begin{figure}[h!]
1189: \begin{center}
1190: \hspace{-0.65cm} \epsfxsize8.5cm\epsffile{rightmasses.eps}
1191: \caption{The masses of the RH neutrinos in GeV as functions of the lightest neutrino
1192: mass $|m_1|$ in eV (solid lines) for different values of the Majorana phases of light neutrinos.$^{75}$
1193: We take $\sin\theta_{13} = 0$ and the best-fit values of other oscillation parameters.
1194: Shown is also the dependence of $m_{ee}$ (in eV) on $|m_1|$ (thin dashed line).
1195: }
1196: \label{rhmass}
1197: \end{center}
1198: \end{figure}
1199: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1200:
1201: In Fig.~\ref{rhmass} we show dependences of the RH neutrino masses
1202: reconstructed from the low energy data on the lightest neutrino mass
1203: for different values of the Majorana phases.
1204: According to this figure
1205:
1206: 1). In the largest part of the parameter space ($m_1$, $\rho$, $\sigma$) there is a very
1207: strong (4 - 5 orders of magnitude) mass hierarchy of the RH neutrinos.
1208:
1209: 2). The lightest mass is typically below $10^{5}$ GeV, thus
1210: strongly violating the lower bound on the mass
1211: from the condition of successful leptogenesis: $M_1 > 4 \times 10^8$ GeV\rlap{.}\,\cite{buch}
1212:
1213: 3). At certain points the level crossings occur. At these points
1214: (i) there is a strong degeneracy of mass eigenstates: in particular, $M_1 = M_2$,
1215: (ii) the lightest mass can be as large as $10^8$ GeV and
1216: (iii) the lepton asymmetry can be resonantly enhanced\cite{reslep} up to the required value.
1217:
1218:
1219: {\it Large mixing and type II see-saw}. In general, the structure of neutrino mass
1220: matrix generated by the type II (triplet) see-saw is not related to structures
1221: of matrices of other fermions.
1222: %so the explanation of difference is that the masses of neutrinos have another
1223: %origin: independent yukawa interactions with different higgs multiplets.
1224:
1225: In some particular cases, however, the relations can appear leading to
1226: interesting consequences.
1227: In the SO(10) model the $126_H$ Higgs multiplet can play a double role:
1228: (i) generate neutrino masses $m_L = Y_{126} v_{\Delta}$, where $v_{\Delta}$ is
1229: the VEV of the SU(2) triplet in $126_H$; and (ii) give contributions
1230: to the quark and charged lepton masses (if doublets contained in 126 get VEV's)
1231: reproducing the Georgi-Jarlskog mass relation for the first and second generations.
1232:
1233: Since $m_b - m_{\tau} \propto (Y_{126})_{33}$,
1234: the contribution of $126_H$ destroys the $b - \tau$ unification
1235: unless $(Y_{126})_{33} \leq (Y_{126})_{23}$. The latter leads to large
1236: (but not necessarily maximal) 2-3 lepton mixing.
1237: In this context, the $b - \tau$ unification implies large 2-3 mixing\rlap{.}\,\cite{btau}
1238:
1239: In models of this type a successful leptogenesis is possible with participation of the
1240: scalar triplet\rlap{.}\,\cite{HS}
1241: The model has been generalized also to 3 generations, leading typically to 1-2 mixing
1242: at the larger side of the allowed region\rlap{.}\,\cite{3gen}
1243:
1244: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1245: {\it Single RH neutrino dominance\rlap{.}\,\cite{sdom}} The
1246: large neutrino mixing and relatively strong mass hierarchy
1247: implied by the solar and atmospheric neutrino data can be reconciled if only
1248: one RH neutrino gives the dominant contribution to the see-saw.
1249: (This leads to the submatrix of $m_L$ with nearly zero determinant.)
1250: There are two different realizations of this possibility.
1251: In one case the large mixing originates from the large mixing in the
1252: Dirac neutrino mass matrix $m_D$:
1253: two LH neutrinos have nearly equal couplings to the dominating RH component.
1254: Suppose that $(m_D)_{23} \approx (m_D)_{33} = m$, $(m_D)_{13} =
1255: \lambda m$ ($\lambda \approx 0.2$) and all other elements of $m_D$ are much smaller. Then if
1256: only $(M^{-1})_{33}$ is large in the inverted matrix, the
1257: see-saw leads to the mass matrix which reproduces the second structure in Eq.~(\ref{eq:nhier}).
1258:
1259: In another version, the dominance is realized when two RH neutrinos are much heavier
1260: than the third (dominating) one and no large mixing in $m_D$ appears.
1261: This is equivalent to the strong mass hierarchy case
1262: of the see-saw enhancement mechanism.
1263: A realization requires $(m_D)_{22} \approx (m_D)_{23} \ll (m_D)_{33}$,
1264: and $(M^{-1})_{22}$ being the dominant element.
1265:
1266:
1267: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1268: {\it Lopsided models\rlap{.}\,\cite{lops}}
1269: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1270: Large lepton mixing follows from the charge lepton mass matrix
1271: which should be non-symmetric (no left-right symmetry).
1272: This does not contradict the Grand Unification: in SU(5) the LH components of leptons are unified
1273: with the RH components of quarks: $5 = (d^c, d^c, d^c, l, \nu)$. Therefore large
1274: mixing of the LH leptonic components is accompanied by large mixing
1275: of the RH $d$-quarks which is unobservable. Introducing the
1276: Dirac mass matrix of the charged leptons with the only large elements
1277: $(m_l)_{33} \sim (m_l)_{23}$, one can obtain the large 2-3 lepton mixing.
1278: This scenario can also be realized in $SO(10)$, if the symmetry is broken via $SU(5)$.
1279: A double lopsided matrix for both large mixing is also possible.
1280:
1281: %One can construct the hybrid models where large 2-3 mixing appears from the charged lepton
1282: %mass matrix, whereas $1-2$ mixing follows from the neutrino mass matrix.
1283:
1284: {\it Radiative enhancement of mixing}\rlap{.}\,\cite{rad} The idea is
1285: that the difference between the quark and lepton mixings is a result of different renormalization group
1286: effects. The lepton mixing is small
1287: (similar to quark mixing) at the GU scale but running to
1288: low energies leads to its enhancement.
1289:
1290: The main requirement of such an enhancement is that the neutrino mass
1291: spectrum is quasi-degenerate (and this is the key point which distinguishes quarks and leptons).
1292: The enhancement
1293: occurs when neutrinos become even more
1294: degenerate at low energies.
1295: For instance, running of the 2-3 mixing is described by
1296: \begin{equation}
1297: \frac{d \sin\theta_{23}}{dt} \sim (\sin\theta_{12} U_{\tau1} D_{31} -
1298: \cos\theta_{12} U_{\tau2} D_{32}),
1299: \label{eq:evol}
1300: \end{equation}
1301: where $t \equiv 1/8\pi^2 log (q/M)$, $D_{ij} \equiv (m_i + m_j)/( m_i - m_j)$, and
1302: $m_i$ are the mass eigenvalues. The minus sign in the denominators of $D_{ij}$ plays the key
1303: role.
1304:
1305: The mechanism requires fine tuning of the initial mass splittings and radiative
1306: corrections.
1307: In principle, in the MSSM both the 1-2 and 2-3 mixings can be enhanced in this way.
1308: In the SM only 1-2 mixing can be enhanced.
1309:
1310: The fine-tuning problem can be avoided
1311: if the masses are generated from the K\"ahler potential. In this case large mixing appears as
1312: the infrared fixed point\rlap{.}\,\cite{casas}
1313:
1314: Another possible application of the radiative effects is the generation of small oscillation
1315: parameters like $\Delta m_{12}^2$, and $\sin\theta_{13}$\rlap{.}\,\cite{small} Again this can be realized
1316: only in the case of a mass spectrum with degeneracy.
1317:
1318: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1319: \subsection{\bf How To Test the See-Saw Mechanism?}
1320: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1321:
1322: This is the key question which implies essentially the test of existence of the heavy Majorana RH
1323: neutrinos. There are two (known) possibilities.
1324:
1325: 1). Leptogenesis\rlap{.}\,\cite{FY} For the hierarchical RH neutrino spectrum
1326: and in assumption of the type I see-saw, it gives bounds on
1327: (i) the mass of the lightest RH neutrino $M_{R1}$, (ii) the effective parameter
1328: $\tilde m_1$ which determines the washout effect. Notice that
1329: the leptogenesis probes the combination of the Yukawa couplings $(Y Y^{\dagger})_{ii}$.
1330:
1331: 2). The RH neutrinos can produce renormalization effects above
1332: the scale of their masses: between $M_R$ and, say, the GUT scale.
1333: In particular, they can renormalize the $m_b - m_{\tau}$ mass
1334: relation\cite{radbtau} which leads to the observable effect
1335: in the assumption of $m_b - m_{\tau}$ unification at the GUT scale.
1336:
1337: Another possibility is that the renormalization due to RH neutrinos modifies
1338: masses and mixing of the light neutrinos, e.g. enhances the lepton
1339: mixing\rlap{.}\,\cite{massre}
1340:
1341: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1342: \subsection{\bf SUSY See-Saw}
1343: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1344:
1345: Additional possibilities to test the see-saw mechanism appear if SUSY is realized.
1346: The part of superpotential relevant for the see-saw can be written as
1347: \begin{equation}
1348: W_{lep} = l^{cT} Y_l L H_1 + \nu^{cT} Y L H_2 +
1349: \frac{1}{2} \nu^{cT} M_R \nu^{c}.
1350: \label{wpot}
1351: \end{equation}
1352: Structures relevant for the see-saw are imprinted into
1353: properties of the slepton sector. So, studying the properties of sleptons
1354: (masses, decay rates, etc.) one can get information about the neutrino mass generation.
1355:
1356: Certain predictions can be made in the assumptions of
1357: universal soft SUSY breaking masses
1358: ($m_0$, $A_0$) at high (GUT ?) scale $M_X$, and the absence of new
1359: particles/interactions up to $M_X$.
1360:
1361: Due to renormalization group effects
1362: %in the leading log approximation,
1363: the Yukawa couplings (\ref{wpot}) give
1364: contributions to the masses of left sleptons at low
1365: energies:\,\cite{borz}
1366: \begin{equation}
1367: (m_S^2)_{ab} =
1368: m_a^2 \delta_{ab} - \frac{3 m_0^2 + A_0^2}{8\pi^2}
1369: (Y^{\dagger})_{ai}(Y)_{ib}log\left(\frac{M_X}{M_{iR}}\right).
1370: \label{slepton}
1371: \end{equation}
1372: The contribution splits masses of sleptons of different flavors and
1373: sleptons-antisleptons as well as leading to
1374: mixing of sleptons (the off-diagonal terms in Eq.~(\ref{slepton}))
1375: which is related to the mixing of neutrinos.
1376:
1377: In turn, these contributions to the slepton masses
1378: produce a number of observable effects:
1379:
1380: 1. rare leptonic decays: the one-loop mixing of sleptons of different flavors induces
1381: the flavor violating decays:
1382: $\mu \rightarrow e \gamma$, $\tau \rightarrow \mu \gamma$,
1383: $\tau \rightarrow e \gamma$;\,\cite{borz}
1384:
1385: 2. sneutrino flavor oscillations;\,\cite{flos}
1386:
1387: 3. slepton decays;\,\cite{sdec}
1388:
1389: 4. sneutrino-antisneutrino oscillations;\,\cite{sas} and
1390:
1391: 5. contribution to the electric dipole moments of charged leptons\rlap{.}\,\cite{de}
1392:
1393:
1394: Up to a log factor these effects are determined by the combination $\sim (Y^{\dagger}Y)$.
1395: Notice that another combination: $(Y^T M^{-1} Y) $ enters the see-saw
1396: (type I) formula. It was shown\cite{ID} that knowledge of these combinations allows,
1397: in principle, one to reconstruct parameters of the RH neutrino sector (masses, phases).
1398: For this, in turn, one needs to reconstruct completely
1399: the mass matrix of light neutrinos, discover SUSY and
1400: measure rare processes with high enough accuracy. This looks
1401: practically impossible, at least now.
1402:
1403: Partial tests of the see-saw can be done by studying the
1404: rare decays induced by the slepton mixing. The branching ratio equals
1405: \begin{equation}
1406: B(\mu \rightarrow e \gamma) =
1407: \frac{\alpha^3}{G_F^2 m_{SUSY}^8} |(m_S^2)_{\mu e}|^2 \tan^2\beta ,
1408: \label{bratio}
1409: \end{equation}
1410: where $m_{SUSY} = m_{SUSY}(m_0, m_{1/2})$ is the effective SUSY mass parameter,
1411: $m_{1/2}$ is the gaugino mass, $\tan \beta$ is the ratio of MSSM Higgs
1412: doublet VEV's, and $(m_S^2)_{\mu e}$ is given in Eq.~(\ref{slepton}).
1413:
1414:
1415: If the large lepton mixing originates from the Dirac mass matrix
1416: (lopsided models, versions of the single RH neutrino dominance), the
1417: Yukawa couplings $Y_{\mu i}$, $Y_{e i}$ are large and
1418: for $m_{SUSY} \sim 200$ GeV the branching ratio in Eq.~(\ref{bratio}) turns out to be
1419: $10^{-12} - 10^{-11}$ - at the level of the present experimental bound.
1420: Determination of $m_{SUSY}$ in terms of
1421: $m_0$ and $m_{1/2}$ beyond the leading log approximation has further enhanced
1422: the branching ratio\rlap{.}\,\cite{pet}
1423:
1424: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1425: \subsection{\bf Other Mechanisms}
1426: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1427:
1428: What are other possibilities apart from the see-saw? The incomplete list includes.
1429:
1430: 1. Various radiative mechanisms: The Zee (one loop) mechanism\cite{zee}
1431: is essentially excluded in its minimal version by data\rlap{.}\,\cite{zeeH}
1432: One loop generation also occurs in the SUSY models with
1433: trilinear R-parity violating couplings.
1434: %\cite{trili}
1435: Neutrino masses can be generated in two loops as suggested by Zee\cite{zee} and Babu\rlap{.}\,\cite{babu}
1436:
1437: 2. Neutrino mass generation by the bi-linear R-parity violation terms\rlap{.}\,\cite{bili}
1438: This mechanism is a combination of the see-saw and radiative effects:
1439: neutrino mass appears as the see-saw due to mixing of neutrinos with
1440: neutralinos (Higgsino) and the latter is generated by running from the high mass scales.
1441:
1442: 3. Mechanisms related to the existence of extra dimensions. There are different
1443: scenarios: (i) large extra dimensions (ADD)\cite{add} where the Dirac neutrino mass
1444: is suppressed by the large volume of extra dimensions,
1445: (ii) warped extra dimensions (RS), where the RH neutrinos can be zero
1446: modes localized on the hidden brane, thus leading again
1447: to the small Dirac neutrino mass\rlap{,}\,\cite{RS} and (iii)
1448: infinite extra dimensions\rlap{.}\,\cite{DGP}
1449:
1450: 4). There are several new proposals which implement various
1451: realizations of the see-saw mechanism.
1452:
1453: Models with dynamical symmetry breaking\cite{dyn} reproduce the low scale
1454: see-saw mechanism with the RH neutrino masses below the symmetry breaking scale, and correspondingly,
1455: with small Dirac masses (much smaller than the masses of quarks and charged leptons).
1456:
1457: Also in models with ``Little Higgs'' \cite{little} the neutrinos get masses via
1458: the low scale see-saw.
1459: %The mixing pattern can be reproduced without any fine tuning.
1460:
1461: In models with dimensional deconstruction\cite{deconst}
1462: the see-saw scale (masses of the RH neutrinos) is determined by the inverse lattice spacing.
1463: The Dirac mass matrix is nearly diagonal and the large (maximal)
1464: mixing follows from the pseudo-Dirac structures in the RH mass matrix
1465: which correspond to $L_e - L_{\mu} - L_{\tau}$ symmetry.
1466: Essentially, the maximal mixing appears because
1467: different lepton families belong to different sites of the lattice
1468: and the link scalar fields (singlets of SM) couple with
1469: the RH components of neutrinos, thus producing the off-diagonal
1470: (in flavor space) Majorana mass terms.
1471:
1472:
1473: These alternative mechanisms imply deviation from
1474: minimality. They can accommodate the neutrino masses and produce some interesting features.
1475: However, they do not really lead to a better understanding of the
1476: experimental results and require introduction of additional elements (physics)
1477: beyond the Standard Model with RH neutrinos.
1478:
1479: Turning the arguments: the neutrino data can be used to put limits on the
1480: suggested alternative mechanisms, and consequently, on physics beyond the SM.
1481: In such a way the neutrinos can probe extra dimensions, dynamical
1482: symmetry breaking, etc..
1483:
1484:
1485: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1486: \section{Conclusions}
1487: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1488:
1489:
1490: During last several years enormous progress has been achieved in
1491: the determination of the neutrino masses and mixings and in studies of the neutrino mass matrix.
1492: Still, large freedom exists in the possible structures of the mass matrix which
1493: leads to very different interpretations of the results.
1494: There are no definite hints from the bottom-up approach yet, and more information is needed,
1495: in particular, on the type of mass spectrum.
1496:
1497: The main question (still open) is: what is behind the obtained results?
1498: What is the underlying physics?
1499: Preference? Probably, the see-saw associated to the Grand Unification.
1500: The context of $SO(10)$ looks rather appealing in spite of known problems.
1501: Other mechanisms (being in a less advanced stage of development)
1502: are not excluded and can give leading or sub-leading
1503: contributions to neutrino mass.
1504:
1505: How can ideas about neutrinos be checked? Future experiments will perform
1506: precision measurements of neutrino parameters. Apart from this
1507: to understand the underlying physics we will
1508: certainly need results from the non-neutrino experiments:
1509:
1510: - astrophysics and cosmology;
1511:
1512: - searches for rare processes like
1513: flavor violating lepton decays, proton decay, etc.; and
1514:
1515: - future high energy colliders.
1516:
1517:
1518: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1519: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1520:
1521: I am grateful to E. Kh. Akhmedov, P. de Holanda, M. Frigerio, C. Lunardini
1522: and O. Peres for fruitful discussions
1523: and help in preparation of this talk.
1524:
1525: %\section{First Appendix}
1526:
1527: \renewcommand{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}}
1528:
1529: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1530:
1531: %\balance
1532:
1533: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1534:
1535: \bibitem{salt} SNO collaboration (Q. R. Ahmad {\it et al.}),
1536: nucl-ex/0309004.
1537:
1538: \bibitem{ssm} J. N. Bahcall, M.H. Pinsonneault and S. Basu,
1539: {\it Astrophys. J.} {\bf 555}, 990 (2001).
1540:
1541:
1542: \bibitem{msw} L. Wolfenstein, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 17},
1543: 2369 (1978); in {\it ``Neutrino-78"}, Purdue Univ., C3, (1978).
1544: S. P. Mikheyev and A. Yu. Smirnov, {\it Yad. Fiz.} {\bf 42}, 1441 (1985);
1545: {\it Nuovo Cim.} C {\bf 9}, 17 (1986); {\it Sov. Phys. JETP}, {\bf 64}, 4 (1986).
1546:
1547: \bibitem{balan} A. B. Balantekin and H. Y\"uksel, hep-ph/0309079.
1548:
1549: \bibitem{fogli} G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, A. Palazzo,
1550: hep-ph/0309100.
1551:
1552: \bibitem{valle2} M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M. A. Tortola, J.W.F. Valle,
1553: hep-ph/0309130 (v.2).
1554:
1555: \bibitem{alia} P. Aliani, V. Antonelli, M. Picariello,
1556: E. Torrente-Lujan, hep-ph/0309156.
1557:
1558: \bibitem{crem} P. Creminelli, G. Signorelli, A. Strumia, hep-ph/0102234, v.5,
1559: Sept. 15 (2003).
1560:
1561:
1562: \bibitem{choubey}
1563: A. Bandyopadhyay, S. Choubey, S. Goswami, S. T. Petcov, D.P. Roy,
1564: hep-ph/0309174.
1565:
1566: \bibitem{pedro3}P. C. de Holanda, A.Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0309299.
1567:
1568: \bibitem{KL} K. Eguchi {\it et al.}, (KamLAND), {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 90}, 021802 (2003).
1569:
1570: \bibitem{chooz}
1571: CHOOZ Collaboration, M. Apollonio {\it et al.}, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 466},
1572: 415 (1999); {\it Eur. Phys. J.} , C {\bf 27}, 331 (2003).
1573:
1574: \bibitem{Cl} B. T. Cleveland {\it et al.}, {\it Astroph. J.} {\bf 496}, 505 (1998).
1575:
1576: \bibitem{SKs} Y. Fukuda {\it et al.},
1577: (Super-Kamiokande) {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 86}, 5651 (2001), {\it ibidem}, {\bf 82}, 5656
1578: (2001), {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 539}, 179 (2002); hep-ex/0309011.
1579:
1580: \bibitem{ster} P. C. de Holanda, A.Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0307266.
1581:
1582: \bibitem{bor}BOREXINO Collaboration, G. Alimonti {\it et. al.,}
1583: {\it Astropart. Phys.} {\bf 16}, 073022 (2002).
1584:
1585: \bibitem{moon}See talks at Low 4Nu
1586: {\it 4th International Workshop on Low Energy and Solar Neutrinos}, Paris, France,
1587: May 19-21 (2003), http://cdfpc53.in2p3.fr/LowNu2003/.
1588:
1589: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%atm %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1590:
1591: \bibitem{atm} Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Y. Hayato, talk given at {\it the HEP2003
1592: International Europhysics Conference}
1593: (Aachen, Germany, 2003), website: eps2003.physik.rwth-aachen.de .
1594:
1595: \bibitem{atmfo} G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, D. Montanino,
1596: A. Palazzo, A.M. Rotunno, hep-ph/0308055.
1597:
1598: \bibitem{PS-L} O. L. G. Peres, A.Yu. Smirnov, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 456}, 204 (1999);
1599: hep-ph/0309312.
1600:
1601: \bibitem{concha}M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, C. Pena-Garay, hep-ph/0306001.
1602:
1603: \bibitem{yasaman}Y. Farzan, A.Yu. Smirnov, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 65}, 113001 (2002).
1604:
1605: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1606:
1607: \bibitem{sn87a}
1608: K. Hirata {\it et al.,} {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 58}, 1490 (1987);
1609: R. M. Bionta {\it et al.,} {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 58}, 1494 (1987);
1610: E. N. Alekseev, {\it et al.,} {\it JETP Lett.} {\bf 45}, 589 (1987).
1611:
1612: \bibitem{DS} A. S. Dighe, A. Yu. Smirnov, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 62}, 033007 (2000).
1613:
1614: \bibitem{LS-87} C. Lunardini, A.Yu. Smirnov, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 63}, 073009, (2001);
1615: M. Kachelriess {\it et al.,} {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 65}, 073016 (2002).
1616:
1617: \bibitem{LS-87a} C. Lunardini, A.Yu. Smirnov, (in preparation).
1618:
1619: \bibitem{sn-inv}A. Yu. Smirnov, D. N. Spergel, J. N. Bahcall,
1620: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 49}, 1389 (1994);
1621: H. Minakata, H. Nunokawa, {\it Phys. Lett. } B {\bf 504}, 301 (2001).
1622: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%beta %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1623:
1624: \bibitem{vissani} F. Feruglio, A. Strumia, F. Vissani,
1625: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 637}, 345 (2002), {\it Addendum-ibid.}, B {\bf 659}, 359 (2003).
1626:
1627: \bibitem{HM-neg} H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus {\it et al.}, {\it Eur. Phys. J.} A {\bf 12}, 147 (2001),
1628: A. M. Bakalyarov {\it et al.,}
1629: talk given at {\it the 4th International Conference on Non-accelerator New Physics} (NANP 03), Dubna,
1630: Russia, 23-28 Jun. 2003, hep-ex/0309016.
1631:
1632: \bibitem{HM-pos} H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus {\it et al.,} {\it Mod. Phys. Lett.} A {\bf 16}, 2409 (2001).
1633:
1634: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% cosmology %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1635:
1636: \bibitem{cosm}D. N. Spergel {\it et al.}, {\it Astrophys. J. Suppl.}, {\bf 148}, 175 (2003),
1637: [astro-ph/0302209].
1638:
1639: \bibitem{cosm1} O. Elgaroy, O. Lahav, {\it JCAP} {\bf 0304}, 004 (2003).
1640:
1641: \bibitem{cosm2} S. Hannestad, {\it JCAP} {\bf 0305}, 004 (2003).
1642:
1643: \bibitem{cosm3} S. W. Allen, R. W. Schmidt and S. L. Bridle, astro-ph/0306368.
1644:
1645: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% lsnd %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1646: \bibitem{LSND}A. Aguilar {\it et al.}, (LSND Collaboration) {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 64}, 112007 (2001).
1647:
1648: %\bibitem{KARMEN1} B. Armbruster {\it et al.}, (KARMEN),
1649: %{\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 65}, 112001 (2002).
1650:
1651: \bibitem{KARMEN} B. Armbruster, {\it et al.}, (KARMEN), {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}
1652: {\bf 90}, 181804 (2003).
1653:
1654: \bibitem{BaP} K. S. Babu and S. Pakwasa, hep-ph/0204226.
1655:
1656: \bibitem{BLyk} G. Barenboim, L. Borissov, J. Lykken, hep-ph/0212116.
1657:
1658: \bibitem{stru} A. Strumia, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 539}, 91 (2002).
1659:
1660: \bibitem{coCPT}M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni
1661: T. Schwetz, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 68}, 053007 (2003).
1662:
1663: \bibitem{PS31} O. L. G. Peres, A.Yu. Smirnov,
1664: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 599}, 3 (2001).
1665:
1666: \bibitem{sorel} M. Sorel, J. Conrad, M. Shaevitz, hep-ph/0305255.
1667:
1668: \bibitem{CDHS} F. Dydak {\it et al.,} {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 134}, 218 (1984).
1669:
1670: \bibitem{CCFR} A. Romosan {\it et al.,} {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 78}, 2912 (1997).
1671:
1672: \bibitem{NOMAD} P. Astier {\it et al.,} [NOMAD Collaboration]
1673: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 611}, 3 (2001).
1674:
1675: \bibitem{mini} A. Bazarko, hep-ex/0210020.
1676:
1677: \bibitem{fine} J. Conrad, private communication.
1678:
1679: \bibitem{barger3} V. Barger, D. Marfatia, K. Whisnant, hep-ph/0308299.
1680: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1681:
1682: %%%%%%%%%%%matrix%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1683:
1684:
1685: \bibitem{alta}See for review: G. Altarelli, F. Feruglio, {\it Phys. Rept.} {\bf 320}, 295 (1999),
1686: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 439}, 112 (1998).
1687:
1688: \bibitem{matrix} M. Frigerio, A. Yu. Smirnov,
1689: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 640}, 233 (2002), {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 67}, 013007 (2003).
1690:
1691:
1692: \bibitem{demo}H. Fritzsch and Z. Z. Xing, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 372},
1693: 265 (1996), {\it ibidem} {\bf 440}, 313 (1998); G.C. Branco, J.I. Silva-Marcos,
1694: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 526}, 104 (2002).
1695:
1696:
1697:
1698: \bibitem{zero}P. H. Frampton, S. L. Glashow and D. Marfatia,
1699: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 536}, 79 (2002).
1700:
1701: \bibitem{anarc} L. J. Hall, H. Murayama and N. Weiner,
1702: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 84}, 2572 (2000);
1703: N. Haba and H. Murayama, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 63}, 053010 (2001);
1704: A. de Gouvea and H. Murayama, hep-ph/0301050;
1705: J. R. Espinosa, hep-ph/0306019.
1706:
1707:
1708: \bibitem{anarc1} F. Vissani, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 508}, 79 (2001);
1709: M. Hirsch and S. F. King, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 516}, 103 (2001);
1710: G. Altarelli, F. Feruglio and I. Masina, {\it JHEP} {\bf 0301}, 035 (2003).
1711:
1712: \bibitem{decomp}P.F. Harrison, W.G. Scott, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 557}, 76 (2003);
1713: E. Ma, hep-ph/0308282.
1714:
1715: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%horizon %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1716: \bibitem{emt} S. T. Petcov, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 110}, 245 (1982), R. Barbieri {\it et al.},
1717: {\it JHEP} {\bf 9812}, 017 (1998).
1718:
1719: \bibitem{A4}E. Ma, G. Rajasekaran, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\it 64} 113012, (2001);
1720: K.S. Babu, E. Ma, J.W.F. Valle,
1721: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 552}, 207 (2003).
1722:
1723: \bibitem{S3}J. Kubo {\it et al.}, {\it Prog. Theor. Phys.} {\bf 109}, 795 (2003).
1724:
1725: \bibitem{Z4}E. Ma, G. Rajasekaran, hep-ph/0306264.
1726:
1727: \bibitem{D4} W. Grimus, L. Lavoura, hep-ph/0305046.
1728:
1729: \bibitem{u1}
1730: J. Bijnens C. Wetterich, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 292}, 443 (1987);
1731: M. Leurer, Y. Nir and N. Seiberg, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 398}, 319 (1993),
1732: {\it ibidem}, {\bf 420}, 468 (1994); L. E. Ibanez and
1733: G.G. Ross, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 332}, 100 (1994); P. Binetruy and P. Ramond,
1734: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 350}, 49 (1995), for references and recent discussion see
1735: G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, hep-ph/0306265.
1736:
1737: \bibitem{FN}C. D. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 147}, 277 (1979).
1738:
1739: \bibitem{su2} R. Kuchimanchi and R. N. Mohapatra, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 66}, 051301 (2002).
1740:
1741: \bibitem{so3} R. Barbieri, L. J. Hall, G. L. Kane and G. G. Ross, hep-ph/9901228.
1742:
1743: \bibitem{su3} G. Kribs, hep-ph/0304256; S. F. King, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 520}, 243 (2001);
1744: S.F. King, G.G. Ross, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 574}, 239 (2003).
1745:
1746: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% see-saw %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1747: \bibitem{right} R. E. Marshak and R. N. Mohapatra, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 91}, 222 (1980).
1748:
1749: \bibitem{eff} S. Weinberg, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 43}, 1566 (1979).
1750:
1751: \bibitem{planck}
1752: R. Barbieri, J. Ellis and M. K. Gaillard, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 90} 249 (1980);
1753: E. Kh. Akhmedov, Z. G. Berezhiani, G. Senjanovi\'c, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 69}, 3013 (1992).
1754:
1755: \bibitem{BerV} F. Vissani, M. Narayan, V. Berezinsky, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 571}, 209 (2003).
1756:
1757: \bibitem{sees} M. Gell-Mann, P. Ramond and R. Slansky, in {\it Supergravity}, eds P. van Niewenhuizen and
1758: D. Z. Freedman (North Holland, Amsterdam 1980);
1759: P. Ramond, {\it Sanibel talk}, retroprinted as hep-ph/9809459;
1760: T. Yanagida, in {\it Proc. of Workshop on Unified Theory and Baryon
1761: number in the Universe}, eds. O. Sawada and A. Sugamoto, KEK, Tsukuba, (1979);
1762: S. L. Glashow, in {\it Quarks and Leptons}, Carg\`ese lectures, eds M. L\'evy,
1763: (Plenum, 1980, New York) p. 707;
1764: R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi\'c, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 44}, 912 (1980).
1765:
1766:
1767: \bibitem{sees2} R. N. Mohapatra and G. Senjanovi\'c, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 23}, 165 (1981),
1768: C. Wetterich, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 187}, 343 (1981).
1769:
1770: \bibitem{less} P. H. Frampton, S. L. Glashow, T. Yanagida,
1771: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 548}, 119 (2002).
1772:
1773: \bibitem{dsees}R. N. Mohapatra and J. W. F. Valle, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 34}, 1642 (1986).
1774:
1775: \bibitem{GUT}For recent review of neutrino masses in GUT see
1776: M-C. Chen and K. T. Mahanthappa, hep-ph/0305088.
1777:
1778: \bibitem{senhan} A. Yu. Smirnov, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 48} 3264 (1993);
1779: M. Tanimoto, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 345}, 477 (1995);
1780: T.K. Kuo, Guo-Hong Wu, Sadek W. Mansour, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 61}, 111301 (2000);
1781: G. Altarelli F. Feruglio and I. Masina, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 472}, 382 (2000);
1782: S. Lavignac, I. Masina, C. A. Savoy, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 633}, 139 (2002).
1783: A. Datta, F. S. Ling and P. Ramond, hep-ph/0306002;
1784: M. Bando, {\it et al.,} hep-ph/0309310.
1785:
1786: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1787:
1788: \bibitem{rhma} E. K. Akhmedov, M. Frigerio, A. Yu. Smirnov,
1789: {\it JHEP} {\bf 0309}, 021 (2003).
1790:
1791: \bibitem{buch}W. Buchmuller, P. Di Bari and M. Pl\"umacher,
1792: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 643}, 367 (2002).
1793:
1794: \bibitem{reslep}A. Pilaftsis, T. E. J. Underwood, hep-ph/0309342.
1795:
1796: \bibitem{btau}B. Bajc, G. Senjanovi\'c, F. Vissani, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 90}, 051802 (2003).
1797:
1798: \bibitem{HS}T. Hambye, G. Senjanovi\'c, hep-ph/0307237.
1799:
1800: \bibitem{3gen} H. S. Goh, R. N. Mohapatra and S-P. Ng, hep-ph/0303055.
1801:
1802: \bibitem{sdom}S. F. King, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 439}, 350 (1998),
1803: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 562}, 57 (1999);
1804: S. Davidson and S. F. King, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 445}, 191 (1998);
1805: for recent discussion see S. F. King, hep-ph/0310204.
1806:
1807: \bibitem{lops}K. S. Babu and S. M. Barr, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 381}, 202 (1996);
1808: S. M. Barr, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 55}, 1650 (1997).
1809: C. H. Albright and S. M. Barr, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 58}, 013002 (1998);
1810: G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 439}, 112 (1998),
1811: {\it JHEP} {\bf 9811}, 021 (1998).
1812:
1813: \bibitem{rad}K. S. Babu, C. N. Leung and J. Pantaleone,
1814: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 319}, 191 (1993);
1815: J. R. Ellis and S. Lola, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 458}, 310 (1999);
1816: N. Haba, {\it et al.,} {\it Eur. Phys. J.} {\bf C10}, 677 (1999);
1817: N. Haba, N. Okamura, M. Sugiura, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 103}, 367 (2000);
1818: J. A. Casas {\it et al.,}
1819: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 556}, 3 (1999), {\it ibidem}, {\bf 569}, 82 (2000),
1820: {\it ibidem} {\bf 573}, 659 (2000);
1821: P.H. Chankowski, W. Krolikowski, S. Pokorski, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 472}, 109 (2000);
1822: K. R. Balaji {\it et al.,} {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 84}, 5034 (2000);
1823: T. K. Kuo J. Pantaleone and G. H. Wu, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 518}, 101 (2001);
1824: S. Antusch, M. Drees, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, M. Ratz,
1825: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 519}, 238 (2001).
1826:
1827: \bibitem{casas}J. A. Casas, J. R. Espinosa and I. Navarro, hep-ph/0306243.
1828:
1829: \bibitem{small}S.T. Petcov, A.Yu. Smirnov, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 322}, 109 (1994);
1830: A. S. Joshipura, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 543}, 276 (2002); A. S. Joshipura, S. D. Rindani
1831: {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 67}, 073009 (2003),
1832: {\it ibidem}, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 67}, 091302 (2003);
1833: S. Antusch, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, M. Ratz, hep-ph/0305273.
1834:
1835:
1836: \bibitem{FY} M. Fukugita and T. Yanagida, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 147}, 45 (1986).
1837:
1838: \bibitem{radbtau} F. Vissani, A. Yu. Smirnov, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 341}, 173 (1994).
1839: A. Brignole, H. Murayama, R. Rattazzi, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 335}, 345 (1994).
1840:
1841:
1842: \bibitem{massre} M. Lindner, S. Antusch, J. Kersten, M. Lindner, M. Ratz,
1843: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 544}, 1 (2002).
1844:
1845:
1846: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% susy %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1847: \bibitem{borz}F. Borzumati and A. Masiero, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 57}, 961 (1986).
1848:
1849: \bibitem{flos}N. Arkani-Hamed, H-C. Cheng, J. L. Feng, L. J. Hall,
1850: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 77}, 1937 (1996).
1851:
1852: \bibitem{sdec}I. Hinchliffe, F.E. Paige, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 63}, 115006 (2001).
1853:
1854: \bibitem{sas}Y. Grossman, H. E. Haber, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 78}, 3438 (1997).
1855:
1856: \bibitem{de}A. Romanino, A. Strumia, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 622}, 73 (2002);
1857: J. R. Ellis, J. Hisano, S. Lola (CERN), M. Raidal,
1858: {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 621}, 208 (2002);
1859: for recent discussion see I. Masina, hep-ph/0304299.
1860:
1861: \bibitem{ID}S. Davidson, A. Ibarra, {\it JHEP} {\bf 0109}, 013 (2001).
1862:
1863: \bibitem{pet}S. T. Petcov, {\it et al.,} hep-ph/0306195.
1864:
1865:
1866: \bibitem{zee} A. Zee, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 93}, 389 (1980),
1867: {\it ibidem} {\bf 161}, 141 (1985);
1868:
1869: \bibitem{zeeH} For the latest discussion see, {\it e.g.}
1870: X. G. He hep-ph/0307172.
1871:
1872: %\bibitem{trili} For recent discussion see ...
1873:
1874: \bibitem{babu}K. S. Babu, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 203}, 132 (1988).
1875:
1876: \bibitem{bili} L. J. Hall and M. Suzuki, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 231},
1877: 419 (1984), A. Joshipura, M. Nowakowski, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 51}, 2421 (1995);
1878: A. Yu. Smirnov, F. Vissani, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 460}, 37 (1996);
1879: R. Hempfling, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 478}, 3 (1996);
1880: for the latest discussion see M. A. Diaz, {\it et al.,} hep-ph/0302021.
1881:
1882:
1883: \bibitem{add} N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. R. Dvali and J.
1884: March-Russell, {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 65}, 02432 (2002); K. R. Dienes, E. Dudas and T.
1885: Ghergetta, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B {\bf 557}, 25 (1999).
1886:
1887: \bibitem{RS} Y. Grossman and M. Neubert, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 474},
1888: 361 (2000).
1889:
1890: \bibitem{DGP}G. R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, M. Porrati,
1891: {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 485}, 208 (2000).
1892:
1893: \bibitem{dyn} T. Appelquist and R. Shrock, {\it Phys. Lett.} B {\bf 548},
1894: 204 (2002); T. Appelquist, M. Piai, R. Shrock, hep-ph/0308061.
1895:
1896: \bibitem{little}F. Bazzocchi {\it et al.,} hep-ph/0306184.
1897:
1898: \bibitem{deconst} G. Seidl, hep-ph/0301044; K. S. Balaji, M. Lindner and G. Seidl,
1899: {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 91}, 161803 (2003).
1900:
1901:
1902: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1903:
1904:
1905: \end{thebibliography}
1906:
1907: \end{document}
1908:
1909: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1910: % Question and Answer Section %
1911: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1912: % Use clear page to make sure everything is flush and a new
1913: % page is started (not just a new column)
1914: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1915: \clearpage
1916: \twocolumn[
1917: \section*{DISCUSSION}
1918: ]
1919:
1920: \begin{description}
1921: \item[William Lois] (LANL):
1922: Can some type of SEE-SAW model explain a light sterile neutrino that
1923: would influence the solar neutrino data?
1924:
1925:
1926: \item[Alexei Smirnov{\rm :}]
1927: We have not studied this question. However, I think there is no problem
1928: in constructing a kind of singular see-saw model which accommodates a sterile neutrino with
1929: the proposed properties.
1930:
1931:
1932: \end{description}
1933:
1934: \end{document}
1935:
1936:
1937: %
1938: \bibitem{pedKL} P. de Holanda, A.Yu. Smirnov, JCAP 0302:001, (2003).
1939:
1940: %\bibitem{spec} see J. N. Bahcall, M. Gonzalez-Garcia, C. Pena-Garay,
1941: %astro-ph/0212331 for recent discussion.
1942:
1943:
1944: \bibitem{SKa}S. Fukuda, {\it et al.} (Super-Kamiokande),
1945: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 3999 (2000).
1946:
1947: \bibitem{MACRO} M. Ambrosio {\it et al.} (MACRO), Phys. Lett. B {\bf 517}, 59 (2001).
1948:
1949: \bibitem{SOUDAN} W. W. Allison {\it et al.} (SOUDAN-2), Phys. Lett. B {\bf 449}, 137
1950: (1999).
1951:
1952: \bibitem{K2K} M. H. Ahn et al. (K2K Collaboration),
1953: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90} 041801 (2003).
1954:
1955:
1956: \bibitem{ADLS} E. K. Akhmedov, {\it et al.},
1957: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 542}, 3 (1999).
1958:
1959: \bibitem{PSint} O. Peres, A. Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/0201069.
1960:
1961: \bibitem{bal} K.R.S. Balaji, A. Perez-Lorenzana, A.Yu. Smirnov,
1962: Phys. Lett. {\bf B509} (2001).
1963:
1964:
1965: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1966: \begin{enumerate}
1967: \item
1968: {\em lp2003procs-readme.txt} -- the preliminary guide.
1969: \item
1970: {\em lp2003procs-instructions.txt} -- Instructions for producing a proceedings
1971: contribution using Latex2e.
1972:
1973: \end{enumerate}
1974: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1975:
1976: \begin{table*}[t]
1977: \begin{equation}
1978: U = D(\delta_1 , \delta_2 , \delta_3 , \delta_4)
1979: R_{12}(a,\delta_5)R_{13}(b,\delta_6)R_{14}(c,\delta_7)R_{23}(d,\delta_8)
1980: R_{24}(e,\delta_9)R_{34}(f,\delta_{10})
1981: \label{eq:murnf}
1982: \end{equation}
1983: \end{table*}
1984:
1985:
1986: \begin{table}
1987: \begin{center}
1988: \caption{This is a Small Table.\label{tab:smtab}} \vspace{0.2cm}
1989: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
1990: \hline
1991: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{Title} &
1992: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{$\epsilon^{\prime}$} &
1993: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{$\lambda$} &
1994: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{$\gamma$} \\
1995: \hline
1996: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{3.5687} &
1997: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{3.4567} &
1998: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{3.8746} &
1999: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{2.8934} \\
2000: \cline{1-2}
2001: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{Trans Process
2002: for Decay}} & &\\
2003: \cline{1-2}
2004: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{6.8977} &
2005: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{8.9087} &
2006: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{2.8989} &
2007: \raisebox{0pt}[12pt][6pt]{4.2928} \\
2008: \hline
2009: \end{tabular}
2010: \end{center}
2011: \end{table}
2012:
2013: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2014: \begin{table*}[t]
2015: \caption{Experimental Data bearing on $\Gamma(K \rightarrow \pi \pi \gamma)$
2016: for the $K^0_S$, $K^0_L$ and $K^-$ mesons.\label{tab:exp}}
2017: \vspace{0.2cm}
2018: \begin{center}
2019: \tablefont{
2020: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|l|}
2021: \hline
2022: \raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{Meson} &
2023: \raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\Gamma(\pi^+\pi^-)\; s^{-1}$} &
2024: \raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\Gamma(\pi^+\pi^-\gamma)\; s^{-1}$} &{} \\
2025: \hline
2026: $K^0_S$ &
2027: $0.769 \times 10^{10}$ &
2028: $5.46 \times 10^7$ &
2029: \begin{minipage}{3in}
2030: \phantom{xxx}
2031: No DE observed, not even (IB)-E1
2032: interference, despite large statistics, for $E^{\ast}_{\gamma} >
2033: 20$~MeV.
2034: \end{minipage} \\[17pt]
2035: \hline
2036: \raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$K^0_L$} &
2037: \raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$3.93 \times 10^4$} &
2038: \raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$0.90 \times 10^3$} &
2039: \begin{minipage}{3in}
2040: \phantom{xxx}
2041: DE prominent, exceeding IB over the
2042: range of measurement $20 < E^{\ast}_{\gamma} < 160$~MeV.
2043: \end{minipage} \\
2044: & & (DE $= 0.62 \times 10^3)$ & \\ [5pt]
2045: \hline\hline
2046: & \raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\Gamma(\pi^- \pi^0)\; s^{-1}$} &
2047: \raisebox{0pt}[13pt][7pt]{$\Gamma(\pi^- \pi^0 \gamma)\; s^{-1}$} &\\
2048: \hline
2049: & & & \\[-10pt]
2050: $K^-$ & $1.711 \times 10^7$ & $2.22 \times 10^4$ &
2051: \begin{minipage}{3in}
2052: \phantom{xxx}
2053: No (IB)-E1 interference seen but data shows
2054: excess events relative to IB over
2055: $E^{\ast}_{\gamma} = 80$ to $100$~MeV
2056: \end{minipage} \\
2057: & & (DE $= 1.46 \times 10^3)$ & \\ [5pt]
2058: \hline
2059: \end{tabular}
2060: }
2061: \end{center}
2062: \end{table*}
2063:
2064:
2065: In Sec.~\ref{sec:four} the connection between invariants (of form
2066:
2067:
2068:
2069: \begin{eqnarray}
2070: T &=& \Im[V_{11} {V_{12}}^* {V_{21}}^* V_{22}] \nonumber \\
2071: \noalign{\vskip 3pt} &&{} + \Im[V_{12} {V_{13}}^* {V_{22}}^* V_{23}]
2072: \nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip 3pt} &&{} - \Im[V_{12} {V_{13}}^*
2073: {V_{22}}^* V_{23}] \nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip 3pt} &&{} - \Im[V_{33}
2074: {V_{31}}^* {V_{13}}^* V_{11}].
2075: \label{eq:sp}
2076: \end{eqnarray}
2077:
2078:
2079:
2080: \begin{equation}
2081: \begin{array}{rcl}
2082: \bf{K} & = & \Im[V_{j, \alpha} {V^*_{j,\alpha + 1}}
2083: {V^*_{j + 1,\alpha}} V_{j + 1, \alpha + 1}] \\
2084: &&{} + \Im[V_{k, \alpha + 2} {V^*_{k,\alpha + 3}}
2085: {V^*_{k + 1,\alpha + 2}} V_{k + 1, \alpha + 3}] \\
2086: &&{} + \Im[V_{j + 2, \beta} {V^*_{j + 2,\beta + 1}}
2087: {V^*_{j + 3,\beta}} V_{j + 3, \beta + 1}] \\
2088: &&{} + \Im[V_{k + 2, \beta + 2} {V^*_{k + 2,\beta + 3}}
2089: {V^*_{k + 3,\beta + 2}} V_{k + 3, \beta + 3}] \\
2090: & & \\
2091: \bf{L} & = & \Im[V_{j + 1,\alpha} {V^*_{j + 1, \alpha + 1}}
2092: {V^*_{k, \alpha + 2}} V_{k,\alpha + 3}] \\
2093: &&{} - \Im[V_{j, \alpha} {V^*_{j,\alpha + 1}}
2094: {V^*_{k + 1,\alpha + 2}} V_{k + 1, \alpha + 3}] \\
2095: &&{} + \Im[V_{j + 3,\beta} {V^*_{j + 3, \beta + 1}}
2096: {V^*_{k + 2, \beta + 2}} V_{k + 2,\beta + 3}] \\
2097: &&{} - \Im[V_{j + 2, \beta} {V^*_{j + 2,\beta + 1}}
2098: {V^*_{k + 3,\beta + 2}} V_{k + 3, \beta + 3}] \\
2099: & & \\
2100: \bf{M} & = & \Im[V_{j,\alpha + 1} {V^*_{j, \alpha}}
2101: {V^*_{j + 1, \alpha + 1}} V_{j + 1,\alpha}] \\
2102: &&{} + \Im[V_{k, \alpha + 2} {V^*_{k,\alpha + 3}}
2103: {V^*_{k + 1,\alpha + 2}} V_{k + 1, \alpha + 3}] \\
2104: &&{} + \Im[V_{j + 2,\beta + 1} {V^*_{j + 2, \beta}}
2105: {V^*_{j + 3, \beta + 1}} V_{j + 3,\beta}] \\
2106: &&{} + \Im[V_{k + 2, \beta + 2} {V^*_{k + 2,\beta + 3}}
2107: {V^*_{k + 3,\beta + 2}} V_{k + 3, \beta + 3}],
2108: \\ & &
2109: \end{array}\label{eq:spa}
2110: \end{equation}
2111:
2112:
2113:
2114: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2115: \begin{figure}
2116: \center
2117: %\rule{2cm}{0.2mm}\hfill \rule{2cm}{0.2mm}
2118: %\vskip 6cm
2119: %\rule{2cm}{0.2mm}\hfill \rule{2cm}{0.2mm}
2120: \psfig{sp.eps,width=8.0truecm}
2121: \caption{Vertex constraint (example illustration).}
2122: \label{fig:radk}
2123: \end{figure}
2124:
2125:
2126: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ffff%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2127: \begin{figure*}[t]
2128: %\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}\hfill\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}
2129: %\vskip 4cm
2130: %\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}\hfill\rule{5cm}{0.2mm}
2131: \psfig{probratessk3b.ps,width=6.6truein,height=3.0truein}
2132: \caption{Prophecy for 2010: Con
2133: arrows rather than just by different colors.
2134: \label{fig:radish} \vspace*{12pt}}
2135: \end{figure*}
2136:
2137: