1: \documentclass[preprint,aps,showpacs]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: %\usefont{U}{dsrom}{m}{n}
4: \oddsidemargin=0.0in
5: \evensidemargin=0.0in
6: \topmargin=0.25in
7: \textwidth=6.45in
8: \textheight=8.95in
9: \headheight=15pt
10: \newcommand{\Be}{\begin{equation}}
11: \newcommand{\Ee}{\end{equation}}
12: \newcommand{\Bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
13: \newcommand{\Eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
14: \newcommand{\nonum}{\nonumber}
15: \newcommand{\NL}{\nonumber \\} %%
16: \newcommand{\mtxfnt}{\usefont{U}{dsss}{m}{n} \selectfont} %useSpecialFont
17: \setcounter{page}{0}
18:
19: \begin{document}
20:
21: \setcounter{page}{0}
22:
23: \title{Large Mixing from Small: \\
24: Pseudo-Dirac Neutrinos and the Singular Seesaw}
25: \author{G.J. Stephenson, Jr.}\email{ GJS@baryon.phys.unm.edu}
26: \affiliation{Department of Physics and Astronomy,
27: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131}
28: \author{T. Goldman}\email{ tgoldman@lanl.gov}
29: \affiliation{Theoretical Division, MS-B283,
30: Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM 87545}
31: \author{B.H.J. McKellar}\email
32: { b.mckellar@physics.unimelb.edu.au}
33: \author{M. Garbutt}\email{ mgarbutt@treasury.gov.au}
34: \affiliation{University of Melbourne
35: Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia}
36:
37: \begin{flushright}
38: \vspace{-1.5in}
39: {LA-UR-04-1736}\\
40: \vspace{-0.1in}
41: {hep-ph/0404015}\\
42: \vspace*{0.2in}
43: \end{flushright}
44:
45: \begin{abstract}
46:
47: If the sterile neutrino mass matrix in an otherwise conventional
48: seesaw model has a rank less than the number of flavors, it is
49: possible to produce pseudo-Dirac neutrinos. In a two-flavor,
50: sterile rank 1 case, we demonstrate analytic conditions for large
51: active mixing induced by the existence of (and coupling to) the
52: sterile neutrino components. For the three-flavor, rank 1 case,
53: ``3+2'' scenarios with large mixing also devolve naturally as we
54: show by numerical examples. We observe that, in this approach,
55: small mass differences can develop naturally without any requirement
56: that masses themselves are small. Additionally, we show that
57: significant three channel mixing and limited experimental resolution
58: can combine to produce extracted two channel mixing parameters at
59: variance with the actual values.
60:
61: \end{abstract}
62:
63: \pacs{14.60.Pq, 14.60.St, 14.60.Lm, 23.40.Bw}
64: \maketitle
65:
66: \section{Introduction}
67:
68: Conventional wisdom holds that neutrinos ought to be Majorana
69: particles with very small masses, due to the action of a
70: ``seesaw'' mechanism\cite{see-saw}, which is built on the
71: concept of quark-lepton symmetry\cite{GSMcK}. Alternatively,
72: there have been theoretical suggestions regarding pseudo-Dirac
73: neutrinos in the past\cite{wolfm2,oldref}, and again more
74: recently\cite{GSMcK,CHM,othr}, i.e., that neutrinos may well be
75: Majorana particles occuring in nearly degenerate pairs. These
76: can occur within the framework of the so-called ``singular''
77: see-saw where the rank of the mass matrix describing the
78: (presumed to be) heavy neutrinos, which have no interactions
79: (often referred to as ``sterile'' neutrinos) in the standard
80: model~(SM), is less than maximal.
81:
82: Recent results from Kamiokande\cite{superK} on atmospheric
83: neutrinos, from Sudbury\cite{SNO} on solar neutrinos, and from
84: KamLand\cite{KamL} on long baseline reactor neutrinos, appear
85: to require oscillations between nearly maximally mixed (active
86: neutrino) mass eigenstates. Each of these analyses, however,
87: argues that this mixing cannot be dominantly to sterile states
88: such as are found in pseudo-Dirac pairs. On the other hand, the
89: concatenation of the data from these experiments with that from
90: LSND\cite{LSND} and other short baseline data does not appear
91: to fit into a theoretical structure which only includes mixing
92: among three active Majorana neutrinos. Many have therefore
93: been motivated to consider the effects of additional (sterile,
94: Majorana) neutrino states, the existence of which is accepted
95: in the conventional ``see-saw'' extension of the SM, although
96: there the actual states are generally precluded from appearing
97: directly in experiments by an assumption that the masses of the
98: sterile states are very large.
99:
100: We investigate here how small flavor mixing effects in the
101: sterile sector can lead to large mixing among active neutrinos
102: in the presence of a singular see-saw. (In Ref.\cite{CHM},
103: large mixing was achieved by means of a mass hierarchy in
104: the Dirac mass sector.) Paralleling a convention in the quark
105: sector, we assume the mass and flavor bases for the charged
106: leptons are simultaneously diagonal, so that all flavor violations
107: and oscillation phenomena are described as arising from the
108: neutrino mixing angles alone.
109:
110: It should be noted that there is no accepted principle
111: that specifies the flavor space structure of the mass
112: matrix assumed for the sterile sector. Some early
113: discussions\cite{see-saw,wolfm2} implicitly assume that
114: a mass term in the sterile sector should be proportional
115: to the unit matrix. This has the pleasant prospect,
116: in terms of the initial argument for the see-saw, that
117: all active neutrino flavors have small masses on the
118: scale of other fermions. However, since there is no
119: obvious requirement that Dirac masses in the neutral
120: lepton sector are the same as Dirac masses in any
121: other fermionic sector, this result is not compelling.
122: Indeed, Goldhaber has argued for a view of family
123: structure and self-energy based masses that naturally
124: produces small neutrino masses\cite{Maurice}. We
125: discuss here a more conventional possibility which
126: arises from a minimal modification of the standard see-saw,
127: namely that the rank of the mass matrix for the sterile
128: sector is less than the number of flavors. Note that
129: this does not conflict with quark-lepton symmetry which
130: applies only to the number and character of states.
131:
132: In this paper, which is an extension of reference\cite{hep},
133: we shall concentrate on the case of a rank $1$ sterile matrix,
134: relegating the rank $2$ case to some remarks at the end. (The
135: analysis of short baseline data by Sorel, Conrad and
136: Shaevitz\cite{Sorel} suggests that the rank $2$ case may not
137: actually occur in Nature.) We note in passing that some Grand
138: Unified Theories include more than $3$ fermions that are
139: neutral under all of the interactions in the SM; a $4\times4$
140: or larger, rank $1$ sterile mass matrix could lead to $3$
141: pseudo-Dirac pairs of neutrinos involving all of the active
142: neutrinos of the SM.
143:
144: Concentrating on a $3$-dimensional sterile space, we consider
145: rank $1$ to be a natural case because whatever spontaneous
146: symmetry breaking produces mass in that flavor space necessarily
147: defines a specific direction. Before including the effects of the
148: sterile mass, we assume three non-degenerate Dirac neutrinos, with
149: Dirac masses, $m_1~<~m_2~<~m_3$, (although this is not essential,)
150: which are each constructed from one Weyl spinor which is active
151: under the $SU(2)_W$ of the SM and one Weyl spinor which is sterile
152: under that interaction. (Being neutrinos, both Weyl fields have no
153: interactions under the $SU(3)_C$ or the $U(1)$ of the SM.) There
154: is then an MNS matrix\cite{MNS} which relates these Dirac mass
155: eigenstates to the flavor eigenstates in a manner completely
156: parallel to that of the CKM matrix\cite{ckm} for quarks. Note,
157: however, that these matrix elements are not the ones extracted
158: directly from experiment, as the mass matrix in the sterile sector
159: induces additional mixing.
160:
161: We next use the Dirac mass ($m_{D}$) eigenstates to define
162: bases in both the $3$-dimensional active flavor space and the
163: $3$-dimensional sterile flavor space\cite{fn1}. Following the
164: spirit of the original see-saw, we exclude any initial Majorana
165: mass term in the active space. If the Majorana mass matrix in
166: the sterile space were to vanish also, the three flavors of
167: Dirac neutrinos would be a mixture of (Dirac) mass eigenstates
168: in a structure entirely parallel to that of the quarks.
169:
170: A rank $1$ sterile mass matrix may be represented as a vector
171: of length $M$ oriented in some direction in the $3$-dimensional
172: sterile space. If that vector lies along one of the axes, then
173: the Dirac neutrino that would have been formed from it and its
174: active neutrino partner partake of the usual see-saw
175: structure (one nearly sterile Majorana neutrino with mass
176: approximately $M$ and one nearly purely active neutrino with
177: mass approximately $m_D^2/M$) and the other two mass eigenstates
178: remain Dirac neutrinos. If that vector lies in a plane
179: perpendicular to one axis, the eigenstate associated with that
180: axis will remain a pure Dirac neutrino, and the other two pairs
181: of states form one pseudo-Dirac pair and a pair displaying the
182: usual see-saw structure. Both of these pairs are mixtures of the
183: $4$ Weyl fields associated with the two mixing Dirac neutrinos.
184: In general, the structure consists of $2$ pseudo-Dirac pairs and
185: one see-saw pair, all mixed.
186:
187: As we implied above, the very large mixing required by the
188: atmospheric neutrino measurements could have been taken to be
189: evidence for a scheme involving pseudo-Dirac neutrinos. (This,
190: after all, follows Pontecorvo's initial suggestion\cite{BP}.)
191: However, pure mixing into the sterile sector is now strongly
192: disfavored\cite{nsm}. It is evident from the discussion above
193: that there is a region of parameter space (directions of the
194: vector) in which the two pseudo-Dirac pairs are very nearly
195: degenerate, giving rise to the possibility of strong mixing in
196: the active sector coupled with strong mixing into the sterile
197: sector. We explore this point here.
198:
199: The organization of the remainder of the paper is as follows:
200: In the next section we discuss a two flavor, $4\times 4$ neutrino
201: mass matrix analytically. In Sec.\ref{genmass}, we present
202: the general $6\times 6$ mass matrix and discuss the parameterization
203: of the sterile mass matrix and various limiting cases. We show
204: the spectrum for a general case. In Sec.\ref{2pds}, we apply
205: our analysis to the case where the plane in question is
206: perpendicular to the axis for the middle value ($m_2$) Dirac
207: mass eigenstate, raising the possibility of near degeneracy
208: between pseudo-Dirac pairs. Moving away from that plane produces
209: large mixing amongst the members of those pseudo-Dirac pairs.
210: In Sec.\ref{example}, we show an example of the oscillation
211: patterns that are produced and how limited experimental resolution
212: can lead to errors in the extraction of physical parameters if
213: the data analysis assumes only two channel mixing. Finally, we
214: remark on the structures expected for a rank $2$ sterile matrix
215: and then reiterate our conclusions.
216:
217: \section{Two flavor case}\label{2flavor}
218:
219: In our examination of the consequences of assuming a rank $1$
220: mass matrix in the sterile subspace, we will show below that
221: there are certain parameter ranges for which there is very
222: large mixing induced in the active subspace, even though there
223: is no explicit mixing among the original Dirac bispinors. To
224: see how this arises, it is useful to look at the two flavor
225: model for which we can obtain an analytic description of the
226: mass eigenvalues as a power series in $\frac{1}{M}$. We then
227: can find the eigenfunctions, again as a power series in
228: $\frac{1}{M}$, and look at the ratio of the coefficients for
229: the two active components. We examine the conditions which
230: allow for large active mixing when there is no mixing in the
231: original Dirac space.
232:
233: In the next section we shall discuss the case where two
234: pseudo-Dirac pairs are nearly degenerate and follow
235: the mixing patterns as we move away from that region of
236: parameter space. To facilitate that discussion, we explore
237: this subsystem where analytic approximations are available,
238: i.e., the limit where one Dirac mass eigenstate remains
239: uncoupled from all of the other states. Anticipating the
240: following section, we decouple what is there $m_2$. That
241: is, we examine a two flavor system in which the Dirac mass
242: eigenvalues are $m_1$ and $m_3$.
243:
244: It is useful to define:
245: \Bea
246: m_0^2 & = & m_1^2 \cos^2 \theta + m_3^2 \sin^2 \theta \label{1} \\
247: a & = &\frac{ \left(m_1^2 - m_3^2\right)\sin\theta \cos
248: \theta}{m_0\sqrt{2}} \label{2} \\
249: b & = & \frac{m_1m_3}{m_0} \label{3}
250: \Eea
251: and $c = \cos\theta$, $s = \sin\theta$. Note the additional
252: $1/\sqrt{2}$ factor in $a$. These refer to the mass matrix
253: \Be
254: {\cal{M}}_{1} =
255: \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
256: 0 & 0 & m_{1} & 0 \\
257: 0 & 0 & 0 & m_{3} \\
258: m_{1} & 0 & Ms^{2} & Mcs \\
259: 0 & m_{3} & Mcs & Mc^{2}
260: \end{array}
261: \right) \label{mass4}
262: \Ee
263: where $m_1, m_3$ are Dirac masses for the two neutrino flavors
264: and $M$ is the single nonzero mass eigenvalue in the sterile
265: sector. The angle $\theta$ defines the deviation of the direction
266: in the sterile subspace of the eigenvector for this nonzero mass
267: from one of the flavor axes defined by the Dirac mass eigenstates.
268: Note that the structure in Eq.(\ref{mass4}) is equivalent to the
269: assumption that the MNS\cite{MNS} analog of the CKM\cite{ckm}
270: matrix for the quarks is the unit matrix.
271:
272: It is useful to transform ${\cal{M}}_{1}$ into the form
273: \Be
274: \cal{M} =
275: \left(\begin{array}{cccc}
276: m_0 & 0 & 0 & a \\
277: 0 & -m_0 & 0 & -a \\
278: 0 & 0 & 0 & b \\
279: a & -a & b & M
280: \end{array}
281: \right)
282: \Ee
283: in order to see that, to lowest order, the three small eigenvalues
284: are $\pm m_0, 0$. (Note the minus sign on the $a$ in the (2,4) and
285: (4,2) positions.) The matrix effecting the transformation ${\cal{M}}
286: = \Omega^{\dag} {\cal{M}}_{1} \Omega$ is
287: \Be
288: \Omega =
289: m_{0}^{-1}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
290: m_{1}s/\sqrt{2} & -m_{1}s/\sqrt{2} & m_{3}c & 0 \\
291: -m_{3}c/\sqrt{2} & m_{3}c/\sqrt{2} & m_{1}s & 0 \\
292: m_{0}s/\sqrt{2} & m_{0}s/\sqrt{2} & 0 & m_{0}c \\
293: -m_{0}c/\sqrt{2} & - m_{0}c/\sqrt{2} & 0 & m_{0}c
294: \end{array} \right)
295: \Ee
296:
297: This suggests writing the characteristic equation as:
298: \Be
299: \mu \left(m_{0}^{2} - \mu^{2}\right)\mu(M - \mu) =
300: 2 \mu^{2} a^{2} - \left(m_{0}^{2} - \mu^{2}\right) b^{2}
301: \Ee
302: which is convenient for iterative solution in a series in $M^{-1}$.
303: The usual equation obtained directly from $\left| {\cal{M}}_{1} -
304: \mu \right. ${\mtxfnt 1}$\left. \right| = 0$,
305: \Be
306: \mu^{4} - \mu^{3}M - \mu^{2}\left(m_{1}^{2} + m_{3}^{2}\right) + \mu
307: m_{0}^{2} M + m_{1}^{2} m_{3}^{2} = 0,
308: \Ee
309: is just the same equation.
310:
311: The solutions to order $M^{-2}$ are
312: \Bea
313: \mu_1 & = & m_0 - \frac{a^{2}}{M} -
314: \frac{a^{2}}{m_{0}M^{2}}\left(m_{0}^{2} - \frac{a^{2}}{2} -
315: b^{2}\right) \label{4solns1} \\
316: \mu_2 & = & -m_0 - \frac{a^{2}}{M} +
317: \frac{a^{2}}{m_{0}M^{2}}\left(m_{0}^{2} - \frac{a^{2}}{2} -
318: b^{2}\right) \label{4solns2} \\
319: \mu_3 & = & - \frac{b^2}{M} + {\cal O}(M^{-3}) \label{4solns3} \\
320: \mu_4 & = & M +\frac{b^2}{M} +2 \frac{a^2}{M} +{\cal O}(M^{-3})
321: \Eea
322:
323: Notice that the eigenvalues sum to $M$ as they must and that
324: the $\pm m_{0}$ eigenvalues are shifted in opposite directions
325: at $O(M^{-2})$ but in the same direction at $O(M^{-1})$, which
326: is a small amount for sufficiently large $M$. The latter shift
327: is why these form a pseudo-Dirac pair rather than simply a
328: Dirac bispinor. Note also that $\mu_{3}$ and $\mu_{4}$, do
329: not acquire $O(M^{-2})$ corrections; their next correction
330: is at the next higher order.
331:
332: Having obtained the eigenvalues, we now solve for the eigenvectors.
333: Since our interest is in the mixing in the active sector, it is useful
334: to carry this exercise out in the original representation, that of
335: ${\cal{M}}_{1}$. In this representation, we define the $i^{th}$
336: eigenvector as
337: \Be
338: \phi_i = \left( \begin{array}{c} \alpha_i \\ \beta_i \\ \gamma_i
339: \\ \delta_i \end{array} \right),
340: \Ee
341: where $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_i$ are the two active components and
342: $\gamma_i$ and $\delta_i$ are the two sterile components.
343:
344: Picking three equations, we find
345: \Bea
346: -\mu_i \alpha_i + m_1 \gamma_i & = & 0 \nonumber \\
347: -\mu_i \beta_i + m_3 \delta_i & = & 0 \nonumber \\
348: m_3 \beta_i + M s c \gamma_i +(M c^2 - \mu_i) \delta_i & = & 0 \label{3eqs}
349: \Eea
350: A number of points are immediately clear from Eqs.(\ref{3eqs}):
351: Since $\mu_{4} \sim M$, $\beta_{4}$ and $\alpha_{4}$ are small
352: (${\cal O}(m_{D}/M)$) so the fourth eigenstate is almost entirely
353: decoupled from the active sector. Conversely, since $\mu_{3}
354: \sim {\cal O}(m_{D}^2/M)$, $\gamma_{3}$ and $\delta_{3}$ are
355: small (${\cal O}(m_{D}/M)$) so the third eigenstate resides almost
356: entirely in the active sector. Finally, since $\mu_{1}$ and $\mu_{2}$
357: are of order ${\cal O}(m_{D})$, $\gamma_{1,2}$ and $\delta_{1,2}$
358: are comparable with $\beta_{1,2}$ and $\alpha_{1,2}$ so these two
359: eigenstates are generally strongly mixed between the active and
360: sterile sectors, i.e., they form a pseudo-Dirac pair.
361:
362: Substituting for $\gamma_i$ and $\delta_i$ gives an equation for the
363: ratio
364: \Bea
365: \frac{\beta_i}{\alpha_i} & = & -\frac{M \mu_i s c}{[\mu_i (M c^2 -
366: \mu_i) + m_3^2]} \nonumber \\ & = & -\frac{s c}{[c^2 -
367: \frac{\mu_i}{M} + \frac{m_3^2}{M \mu_i}]}. \label{ratio}
368: \Eea
369: Note that if either $s = 0$ or $c = 0$, one pair of states forms
370: a purely Dirac bispinor and the other becomes the usual see-saw
371: pair of Majorana states.
372:
373: For the light mass eigenstates, the ratio $\beta_{i}/\alpha_{i}$
374: is a measure of mixing in the active sector. Solving Eq.(\ref{ratio}),
375: we find that
376: \Be
377: | \frac{\beta_{1}}{\alpha_{1}} | \,\,\, =
378: | \frac{\beta_{2}}{\alpha_{2}} | \,\,\, =
379: | \frac{\alpha_{3}}{\beta_{3}} | \,\,\, =
380: \frac{m_{3}}{m_{1}} {\rm tan}(\theta), \label{lrgmx}
381: \Ee
382: where the last equality is correct to ${\cal O}(m_{D}^2/M^2)$
383: and the first two are correct to ${\cal O}(m_{D}/M)$. It is
384: apparent that, in all three states, the mixing of the active
385: components can be large simultaneously.
386:
387: Turning back to the amplitudes of the sterile components,
388: we see from the first two lines of Eq.(\ref{3eqs}) that
389: \Bea
390: \frac{\gamma_{i}}{\alpha_{i}} & = & \frac{\mu_{i}}{m_{1}} \NL
391: \frac{\delta_{i}}{\beta_{i}} & = & \frac{\mu_{i}}{m_{3}} .
392: \Eea
393: Hence, for a large range of values of ($m_{1}$, $m_{3}$,
394: $\theta$), these ratios are ${\cal O}(1)$ for $i=1$ and
395: $2$, which is, of course, characteristic of a pseudo-Dirac
396: pair. As long as $M$ is large, $\gamma$, $\delta$ are small
397: for $i=3$ since $\mu_{3} \sim 0$, and huge for $i=4$ since
398: $\mu_{4} \sim M$. This reiterates the fact that the massive
399: sterile state is quite decoupled, while the light sterile
400: can be strongly coupled into the active states and the
401: pseudo-Dirac states significantly mixed across all four
402: components.
403:
404: %\subsection{Two Flavor Conclusion}
405:
406: Thus, in this simple, two flavor model, we have demonstrated
407: that a misalignment of the direction vector for the heavy
408: sterile mass with the axes determined by the Dirac mass
409: eigenstates necessarily induces mixing in the active sector
410: for all of the light Majorana mass eigenstates, even with a
411: unit MNS matrix for the Dirac mass matrix. This point has
412: been raised previously in Ref.\cite{rabi} in a different context.
413:
414: Moreover, large mixing of active states results over a region
415: of the $(m_1, m_3, \theta)$ parameter space where the mass ratio
416: and the deviation angle of the sterile components from flavor
417: alignment approximately compensate, i.e., near the line determined
418: by setting the rightmost quantity in Eq.(\ref{lrgmx}) to one.
419: Mixing in the Dirac sector by an MNS matrix should not alter the
420: general feature of achieving large mixing "naturally".
421:
422: Finally, we note explicitly the difference in oscillation structure
423: between this $4\times4$ neutrino mass matrix and the $2\times2$
424: Majorana (or Dirac) mixing usually applied to interpret experiments.
425: As shown by Eqs.(\ref{3}) or Eqs.(\ref{4solns1}, \ref{4solns2},
426: \ref{4solns3}), instead of one mass difference, here
427:
428: \pagebreak
429:
430: \noindent there are at least two
431: independent mass differences, even in the limit of large sterile
432: mass ($M$). Thus, simple two channel analyses are not guaranteed
433: to extract the true physical oscillation parameters from experimental
434: results. This problem is exacerbated in the $6\times6$ case that
435: we discuss in the next Section, in which at least four independent
436: mass differences appear where it has been conventionally assumed that
437: there can only be two.
438:
439: \section{General mass matrix}\label{genmass}
440:
441: The flavor basis for the active neutrinos and the pairing to
442: sterile components defined by the (generally not diagonal)
443: Dirac mass matrix could be used to specify the basis for the
444: sterile neutrino mass matrix, $M_S$. Instead we take the basis
445: in the $3\times 3$ sterile subspace to allow the convention
446: described below. This implies a corresponding transformation
447: of the Dirac mass matrix, which is irrelevant at present
448: since the entries in that matrix are totally unknown.
449:
450: We define our convention for the choice of axes in the $3\times 3$
451: sterile subspace as follows. Denote the nonzero mass eigenvalue
452: of the rank $1$ by $M$ and choose its eigenvector initially
453: in the third direction. Then rotate this vector, first by
454: an angle of $\theta$ in the $1-3$ plane and then by $\phi$
455: in the $1-2$ plane. The rotation is chosen so that the
456: Dirac mass matrix which couples the active and sterile
457: neutrinos becomes diagonal, i.e., the basis is defined by
458: Dirac eigenstates. This produces a $3 \times 3$ mass matrix
459: in the sterile sector denoted by
460: \Be
461: M_S = M \left[
462: \begin{array}{ccc}
463: \cos^2 \phi \sin^2 \theta & \cos \phi \sin \phi \sin^2 \theta &
464: \cos \phi \sin \theta \cos \theta \\ \cos \phi \sin \phi \sin^2 \theta &
465: \sin^2 \phi \sin^2 \theta & \sin \phi \sin \theta \cos \theta \\
466: \cos \phi \sin \theta \cos \theta & \sin \phi \sin \theta \cos \theta &
467: \cos^2 \theta \end{array} \right].
468: \Ee
469:
470: In this representation, the Dirac mass matrix is diagonal
471: by construction
472: \Be
473: m_D = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
474: m_1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & m_2 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & m_3
475: \end{array} \right].
476: \Ee
477:
478: Note that there are special cases. For $\theta = 0$ and any
479: value for $\phi$,
480: \Be
481: M_S = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
482: 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & M \end{array} \right] .
483: \Ee
484: For $\theta = \pi / 2$ and $\phi = 0$,
485: \Be
486: M_S = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc}
487: M & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right],
488: \Ee
489: and, for $\theta = \pi / 2$ and $\phi = \pi / 2$,
490: \Be
491: M_S = \left[ \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & M & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0
492: \end{array} \right].
493: \Ee
494: These are equivalent under interchanges of the definition
495: of the third axis.
496:
497: The $6 \times 6$ submatrix\cite{fn2} of the full $12 \times
498: 12$ is, in block form,
499: \Be
500: {\cal M} = \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & m_D \\ m_D &
501: M_S \end{array} \right].
502: \Ee
503: Since we are ignoring CP violation here, no adjoints or
504: complex conjugations of the mass matrices appear.
505:
506: Note that, in the chiral representation, the full $12 \times 12$ matrix is
507: \Be
508: \left[ \begin{array}{cc} 0 & {\cal M} \\
509: {\cal M} & 0 \end{array} \right]. \nonumber
510: \Ee
511: Thus the full set of eigenvalues will be $\pm$ the eigenvalues of
512: ${\cal M}$. Where it matters for some analysis we keep track of
513: the signs of the eigenvalues, however for most results we present
514: positive mass eigenvalues.
515:
516: After some algebra, we obtain the secular equation
517: \Bea
518: 0 & = & \lambda^6 -M \lambda^5 -(m_1^2 + m_2^2 + m_3^2) \lambda^4 \nonumber \\
519: & & + M [m_3^2 \sin^2 \theta + m_2^2 (\sin^2 \theta \cos^2 \phi + \cos^2 \theta)]
520: \lambda^3 \nonumber \\ & & + (m_1^2 m_2^2 + m_2^2 m_3^2 + m_3^2 m_1^2)
521: \lambda^2 \\
522: & & - M (m_1^2 m_2^2 \cos^2 \theta + m_2^2 m_3^2 \cos^2 \phi \sin^2 \theta
523: \nonumber \\
524: & & + m_3^2 m_1^2 \sin^2 \phi \sin^2 \theta) \lambda \nonumber \\
525: & & - m_1^2 m_2^2 m_3^2. \nonumber
526: \Eea
527:
528: \pagebreak
529:
530: This may be rewritten as
531: \Bea
532: 0 & = & (\lambda^2 - m_1^2) (\lambda^2 - m_2^2)
533: (\lambda^2 - m_3^2) \nonumber \\ & &
534: - \lambda M \left( \lambda^4 -\left[ m_3^2 \sin^2 \theta
535: + m_2^2 (\sin^2 \theta \cos^2 \phi + \cos^2 \theta ) \right. \right. \nonumber \\
536: & & \left. \left. + m_1^2 ( \sin^2 \theta \sin^2 \phi + \cos^2 \theta)
537: \right] \lambda^2 \right. \\
538: & & \left. +m_1^2 m_2^2 \cos^2 \theta + m_2^2 m_3^2 \sin^2 \theta
539: cos^2 \phi \right. \nonumber \\
540: & & \left. + m_3^2 m_1^2 \sin^2 \theta \sin^2 \phi \right). \nonumber
541: \Eea
542:
543: The special cases follow directly. For $\theta = 0$, we find
544: \Be
545: (\lambda^2 - m_1^2) (\lambda^2 - m_2^2)
546: (\lambda^2 - M \lambda - m_3^2) = 0,
547: \Ee
548: for $\theta = \pi / 2$ and $ \phi = 0$
549: \Be
550: (\lambda^2 - m_2^2) (\lambda^2 - m_3^2)
551: (\lambda^2 - M \lambda - m_1^2) = 0,
552: \Ee
553: and for $\theta = \pi / 2$ and $\phi = \pi / 2$
554: \Be
555: (\lambda^2 - m_3^2) (\lambda^2 - m_1^2)
556: (\lambda^2 - M \lambda - m_2^2) = 0.
557: \Ee
558:
559: If $m_1^2 = m_2^2 = m_3^2 = m^2$, then we find
560: \Be
561: (\lambda^2 - m^2)^2 (\lambda^2 - M \lambda - m^2) = 0.
562: \Ee
563:
564: Due to the wide range of possibilities inherent in the system,
565: it is useful to examine specific numerical examples. For the
566: immediate exercise, we have picked the following parameters:
567: $m_1 = 1$, $m_2 = 2$, $m_3 = 3$ and $M = 1000$. The relatively
568: small value of $M$ is chosen so that the splittings are not so
569: tiny as to be difficult to discern.
570:
571: For this choice, the eigenvalues have a definite pattern
572: for all values of $\theta$ and $\phi$. There are two very
573: close pairs, with mass eigenvalues between $1$ and $3$.
574: There is one very small eigenvalue, of order $10^{-3}$
575: reflecting the ratio of $m_D$ to $M$, and one large eigenvalue
576: of order $10^{3}$ (i.e., of order $M$). Treating the last
577: two as a pair despite their disparity in mass allows us to
578: present results in tabular form, one for each pair, for sets
579: of angles $\theta , \phi = \pi / 8, \pi / 4, 3 \pi / 8 $.
580:
581: First, for the lower mass close pair, we have
582: \Be
583: \begin{array}{lccc}
584: \theta \backslash \phi & \pi /8 & \pi /4 & 3 \pi / 8 \\
585: & & & \\
586: \pi / 8 & 1.398125 & 1.230175 & 1.068477 \\
587: & 1.394934 & 1.228025 & 1.067688 \\
588: & & & \\
589: \pi / 4 & 1.809478 & 1.478863 & 1.151936 \\
590: & 1.808183 & 1.477134 & 1.150941 \\
591: & & & \\
592: 3 \pi / 8 & 1.877166 & 1.562977 & 1.18999 \\
593: & 1.876742 & 1.561911 & 1.189146 \end{array}
594: \Ee
595:
596: Then, for the next mass pair with close eigenvalues,
597: we find
598: \Be
599: \begin{array}{lccc}
600: \theta \backslash \phi & \pi / 8 & \pi / 4 & 3 \pi / 8 \\
601: & & & \\
602: \pi / 8 & 2.038992 & 2.107688 & 2.158044 \\
603: & 2.038729 & 2.107156 & 2.157407 \\
604: & & & \\
605: \pi / 4 & 2.347974 & 2.46348 & 2.529128 \\
606: & 2.346047 & 2.462176 & 2.52809 \\
607: & & & \\
608: 3 \pi / 8 & 2.816525 & 2.847539 & 2.868607 \\
609: & 2.815691 & 2.846972 & 2.868186
610: \end{array}
611: \Ee
612:
613: \pagebreak
614:
615: Finally, even though it does not directly impact the
616: argument, we display the remaining pair in order to
617: present a complete set.
618: \Be
619: \begin{array}{lccc}
620: \theta \backslash \phi & \pi / 8 & \pi / 4 & 3 \pi / 8 \\
621: & & & \\
622: \pi / 8 & 1000.008 & 1000.008 & 1000.008 \\
623: & 0.00444 & 0.005366 & 0.006778 \\
624: & & & \\
625: \pi / 4 & 1000.005 & 1000.006 & 1000.006 \\
626: & 0.001997 & 0.002717 & 0.004248 \\
627: & & & \\
628: 3 \pi / 8 & 1000.003 & 1000.003 & 1000.004 \\
629: & 0.001289 & 0.001819 & 0.003092
630: \end{array}
631: \Ee
632:
633: \section{Two nearly degenerate pseudo-Dirac pairs}\label{2pds}
634:
635: Applying the techniques of the last section, we find the angle
636: $\theta$ such that $m_2$ and the eigenvalue for the pseudo-Dirac
637: pair above, $m_0$, are approximately degenerate. We then vary
638: $\phi$ away from $0$ and display the eigenfunctions. To
639: illustrate the general nature of the result, we have changed
640: the Dirac masses from the even spacing used above.
641:
642: In Table I, the Dirac masses are taken to be $m_1 = 1$, $m_2
643: = 1.1$, and $m_3 = 3$. The value for $m_2$ has been changed
644: from above so that we can demonstrate that small angles in the
645: sterile sector can lead to large mixing in the active sector.
646: Again, in order to display the structure of the spectrum, we have
647: chosen $M = 1000$, rather than a larger value, expected to be more
648: realistic, but which would suppress the difference scale between
649: the pairs. The angles are given in degrees.
650:
651: Table I represents only a small part of the available parameter
652: space; the values of the angles are chosen to display some
653: interesting possible features. First, $\theta$ has been chosen so
654: that, at $\phi = 0$, the Dirac pair at $m_2$ is bracketed by the
655: pseudo-Dirac pair. Such a value of $\theta$ exists for any pattern
656: of the Dirac masses. Then, for small values of $\phi$, there are
657: always two nearly degenerate pseudo-Dirac pairs.
658:
659: Note that, for $\phi = 0$, there is no mixing between the
660: field labelled by $2$ and the remaining fields, while for
661: the next entry at $\phi = 2.25$ degrees there is considerable
662: mixing. That mixing increases with $\phi$ as the difference
663: bewteen the eigenvalues increases. The pattern described by
664: the centroids of the pseudo-Dirac pairs is fixed by the angles
665: $\theta$ and $\phi$. If $M$ is increased, that pattern hardly
666: changes. The primary effect of increasing $M$, consistent
667: with the analysis in Sec.\ref{2flavor}, is to decrease the
668: separation of the two members of each pseudo-Dirac pair while
669: producing the usual see-saw behavior for the remaining pair.
670: Thus, tiny differences in mass between masses that are not
671: especially small themselves, are, in the usual sense of the
672: term, natural in this approach.
673:
674: The implication for oscillation phenomena is clear. A given
675: weak interaction produces an active flavor eigenstate which
676: is some linear combination of the three active components
677: listed in Table I. That then translates into a linear
678: combination of the six mass eigenstates. From Table I, it
679: is clear that the involvement of the heavy Majorana see-saw
680: state is minimal, so the system effectively consists of the
681: light Majorana see-saw state and the four Majorana states
682: arising from the two pseudo-Dirac pairs. These five states
683: include all three active neutrinos, generating a natural
684: 3+2 scenario.
685:
686: Since these five mass eigenstates have both active and
687: sterile components, the subsequent time evolution will
688: involve both flavor changing oscillations and oscillation
689: into (and back out of) the sterile sector. This can lead
690: to very complex oscillation patterns, as there are $10$
691: mass differences, $4$ of which are independent. A specific
692: example is discussed in the next section.
693:
694: Finally, inspection of the column labelled ``1active'' for
695: $\phi = 2.25$ or $\phi = 4.5$, for example, shows that
696: the presence of a rank $1$ sterile mass matrix can
697: seriously change any mixing pattern of the MNS type\cite{MNS},
698: from that which would have obtained with purely Dirac neutrinos.
699:
700: \section{example}\label{example}
701:
702: In Figs.1 to 3, we plot the oscillation patterns that appear for
703: the parameters set by the second entry in Table I. Fig.1 gives
704: an overview of the case where an active neutrino (labelled $1$)
705: is produced initially. The plot is given versus $L/E$, where $L$
706: is the distance from the neutrino source and $E$ is the energy
707: (bin) of the neutrino observed. (As shown in the Appendix, $L/p$,
708: where $p$ is the momentum of the neutrino, might well be the
709: more correct variable to use, but the difference is certainly
710: irrelevant in all conceivable neutrino experiments.)
711:
712: The (compressed scale) Fig.1 shows rapid oscillations between
713: active neutrinos $1$ and $3$ with a later appearance of the
714: active neutrino $2$. Note the large mixing among all three
715: channels of active neutrinos. The mixing to sterile neutrinos
716: is large also, but occurs on a much larger $L/E$ scale,
717: corresponding to the much smaller mass difference (approximate
718: degeneracy) of the pseudo-Dirac pairs.
719:
720: Fig.2 extracts from Fig.1 the appearance of active neutrino
721: $2$ at small $L/E$ (short baseline experiments). Clearly,
722: attempting to fit this highly nonsinusoidal behavior with two
723: channel sinusoidal mixing will generally not yield physical
724: mixing parameters in good agreement with the actual three
725: channel case.
726:
727: Fig.3 emphasizes how such an error may be magnified by limited
728: resolution in an experiment. The heavy black curve is the average
729: over 100 $L/E$ units of the probability for finding the initial
730: neutrino flavor. It approximates the shape of the {\bf envelope}
731: of the high frequency oscillations. A two channel analysis would
732: clearly find a small difference between the squared masses for
733: the mixing from active neutrino $1$ to active neutrino $3$
734: despite the obviously larger value demonstrated by the rapid
735: oscillation cycles. A similar conclusion follows from the
736: cycle-averaged curve for appearance of active neutrino $3$.
737: Finally, one would be tempted to conclude that the mixing to
738: active neutrino $2$ is small or negligible, when in fact it
739: is about as large as any other mixing in the full case.
740:
741: Labelling active neutrino $1$ as the muon neutrino, active neutrino
742: $3$ as the tau neutrino and active neutrino $2$ as the electron
743: neutrino illustrates our concerns about the strong conclusions
744: drawn from atmospheric and accelerator neutrino experiments by
745: means of two channel mixing analyses. Similar concerns\cite{tw}
746: have also been raised in the literature previously.
747:
748: \section{Rank $2$}
749:
750: We have not discussed the case of rank $2$ matrices explicitly,
751: although the pattern is obvious. In such a case, there would
752: be two see-saw pairs and one pseudo-Dirac pair, leading to
753: three active and one sterile light neutrino. While this pattern
754: has been analyzed in the literature, we do not find any compelling
755: pattern for it in the sterile sector. Furthermore, the current
756: consistency of all neutrino oscillation data can be accomodated
757: much more easily (and perhaps only, as indicated by Ref.\cite{Sorel},)
758: in the rank $1$ case discussed in this paper. Therefore we do
759: not discuss rank $2$ at this time.
760:
761: \section{Conclusions}
762:
763: We have considered here the effects on neutrinos in the SM of the
764: recurrently successful and conventional constraint of quark-lepton
765: symmetry, namely, the existence of six independent Weyl spinor
766: fields of neutrinos, three corresponding to active and three
767: corresponding to sterile neutrinos. In the now venerable see-saw
768: approach, the latter three effectively disappear from the excitation
769: spectrum, leaving small Majorana masses for the active states as a
770: residuum. We have examined the effect on this system of a rank less
771: than three character of the $3 \times 3$ mass matrix in the sterile
772: sector and studied the rank $1$ case, in particular.
773:
774: In the rank $1$ case on which we have focused, we find that
775: the neutrino fields naturally form into two pseudo-Dirac
776: pairs, leaving only one almost pure Majorana active neutrino
777: and one conventionally very heavy sterile Majorana neutrino.
778: More importantly, we also find a naturally strong mixing
779: between the active and sterile parts of the two pseudo-Dirac
780: pairs. Further, we find that this can easily affect the
781: mixing between active neutrinos even if it is otherwise small.
782: That is, even if the Dirac mass matrix induced mixing analogous
783: to what is known to occur in the quark sector is small or absent,
784: mixing between active neutrinos can develop with large values.
785: In a two flavor case, we demonstrated analytically that this
786: strong mixing can develop over a wide range of parameters.
787:
788: We have chosen a limited relative value of the sterile neutrino
789: mass scale, $M$, that allows for easy discernment of the nature
790: of the effects. It should be noted, however, that the primary
791: effect of increasing $M$ is to decrease the separation of the
792: two members of each pseudo-Dirac pair while producing the usual
793: see-saw behavior for the remaining pair. Thus, tiny differences
794: in mass between masses that are not especially small themselves
795: are, in the usual sense of the term, natural in this approach.
796: This is contrary to the general expectation that the small mass
797: differences responsible for the observed neutrino oscillation
798: phenomena presage small absolute masses for all of the neutrinos.
799: Furthermore, increasing the value of $M$ without altering the
800: Dirac masses retains the features and scales of the oscillations
801: essentially unchanged; the only significant change is that the
802: appearance of the sterile components is delayed to even greater
803: values of $L/E$.
804:
805: The features described above are most easily discerned in the
806: case when the Dirac mass terms for the neutrinos are well separated
807: in value. It remains conceivable that, if their differences are
808: small for some other reason, then the splitting between the pseudo-Dirac
809: pairs may be larger than that between flavors. In this case, it
810: is still true that large flavor mixing is naturally induced.
811:
812: Finally, we presented a specific model which raises concerns
813: about the conclusions drawn from analyses of neutrino oscillation
814: experiments in terms of two channel mixing: Such analyses may
815: be misleading regarding the true values of physical parameters.
816: After the completion of this work, we learned of papers\cite{ernst}
817: which have independently suggested that such a concern may well be
818: justified.
819:
820: \vspace*{-0.1in}
821: \section{Acknowledgments}
822: \vspace*{-0.1in}
823: This research is supported in part by the Department of Energy under
824: contract W-7405-ENG-36, in part by the National Science Foundation
825: under NSF Grant \# PHY0099385 and in part by the Australian Research
826: Council.
827:
828: \newpage
829: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
830: \bibitem{see-saw} M.\ Gell-Mann, P.\ Ramond and R.\ Slansky,
831: in {\it Supergravity}, Proceedings of the Workshop,
832: Stony Brook, New York, 1979, ed. by P.\ van
833: Nieuwenhuizen and D.\ Freedman (North-Holland,
834: Amsterdam, 1979), p. 315; T.\ Yanagida, in {\it
835: Proceedings of the Workshop on the Unified Theories
836: and Baryon Number in the Universe}, Tsukuba, Japan,
837: 1979, edited by O.\ Sawada and A.\ Sugamoto (KEK
838: Report No. 79-18, Tsukuba, 1979), p.95; R.N.\
839: Mohapatra and G.\ Senjanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett.
840: {\bf 44} (1980) 912; S.L.\ Glashow, in {\it Quarks
841: and Leptons}, Cargese (July 9-29, 1979), eds. M.\
842: Levy {\it et al.} (Plenum, 1980, New York), p. 707.
843: \bibitem{GSMcK} T.\ Goldman, G.J.\ Stephenson Jr.\ and
844: B.H.J.\ McKellar, Mod. Phys. Lett. A{\bf 15} (2000)
845: 439; nucl-th/0002053.
846: \bibitem{wolfm2} L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Lett. {\bf B107}
847: (1981) 77; Nucl. Phys. {\bf B186} (1981) 147.
848: \bibitem{oldref} M.\ Kobayashi, C.S.\ Lim and M.M.\ Nojiri,
849: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 67} (1991) 1685.
850: \bibitem{CHM} Y.\ Chikira, N.\ Haba and Y.\ Mimura, Eur.
851: Phys. J. C {\bf 16} (2000) 701; hep-ph/9808254.
852: \bibitem{othr} E.J.\ Chun, C.W.\ Kim and U.W.\ Lee, Phys.
853: Rev. D~{\bf 58} (1998) 093003; hep-ph/9802209;
854: Kevin Cahill, hep-ph/9912416; hep-ph/9912508.
855: \bibitem{superK} Y.\ Fukuda {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett.
856: {\bf 81} (1998) 1562; {\bf 82} (1999) 2644; Phys.
857: Lett. B {\bf 476} (1999) 185; W.W.\ Allison {\it et al.},
858: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 449} (1999) 137.
859: \bibitem{SNO} Q.R.\ Ahmad {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett.
860: {\bf 89} (2002) 011301; {\bf 87} (2001) 071301; S.\
861: Fukuda {\it et al.} Phys. Lett. B {\bf 539} (2002)
862: 179.
863: \bibitem{KamL} K.\ Eguchi {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett.
864: {\bf 90} (2003) 021802.
865: \bibitem{LSND} C.\ Athanassopoulos {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev.
866: Lett. {\bf 77} (1996) 3082; A. Aguilar {\it et al.},
867: Phys. Rev. D{\bf 64} (2001) 112007.
868: \bibitem{Maurice} M.\ Goldhaber, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., USA
869: {\bf 99} (2002) 33; hep-ph/0201208.
870: \bibitem{hep} B.H.J.\ McKellar, G.J.\ Stephenson, Jr., T.\
871: Goldman and M.\ Garbutt, contributed paper at the
872: XXth Int. Symp. on Lepton and Photon Interactions at
873: High Energies, Rome, July 2001, and the Int. Europhys.
874: Conf. on High Energy Physics, Budapest, July 2001;
875: hep-ph/0106121. For an earlier version of this paper,
876: see also, G.J.\ Stephenson, Jr., T.\ Goldman, B.H.J.\
877: McKellar and M.\ Garbutt, ``3+2 neutrinos in a see-saw
878: variation'', hep-ph/0307245.
879: \bibitem{Sorel} M.\ Sorel, J.\ Conrad and M.\ Shaevitz, ``A
880: combined analysis of short-baseline neutrino experiments
881: in the (3+1) and (3+2) sterile neutrino oscillation
882: hypotheses'', hep-ph/0305255.
883: \bibitem{MNS} Z.\ Maki, M.\ Nakagawa and S.\ Sakata, Prog.
884: Theor. Phys. {\bf 28} (1962) 870.
885: \bibitem{ckm} N. Cabibbo, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 10} (1963) 531;
886: M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf 49}
887: (1973) 652.
888: \bibitem{fn1} {In much of the literature, the sterile space is
889: referred to as ``Right-handed'' (or just R) and the
890: active space as ``Left-handed'' (or just L), which
891: follows from the behavior of the components of a Dirac
892: neutrino where the neutrino is defined as that neutral
893: lepton emitted along with a positively charged lepton.
894: Since we are dealing with mass matrices, which necessarily
895: all couple left-handed representations to right-handed
896: representations, we choose to refer to the Weyl neutrino
897: representations as active and sterile. ``Sterile'' refers
898: only to the SM; these neutrino states may have non-SM
899: interactions.}
900: \bibitem{BP} B.\ Pontecorvo, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. {\bf 33}
901: (1957) 549; {\bf 34} (1958) 247.
902: \bibitem{nsm} S.\ Fukuda {\it et al.} Phys. Rev. Lett.
903: {\bf 85} (2000) 3999.
904: \bibitem{fn2}{We use the states rather than the field operators
905: to define the mass matrix; see, for example, the
906: discussion in the review article on double beta decay
907: by W.C. Haxton and G.J. Stephenson, Jr., Prog. Part.
908: Nucl. Phys. (Sir Denys Wilkinson, ed.) {\bf 12}, p. 409,
909: Permagon Press, New York, 1984.}
910: \bibitem{rabi} K.S. Babu, B. Dutta and R.N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D
911: {\bf 67} (2003) 076006; hep-ph/0211068.
912: \bibitem{tw} H. P\"{a}s, L. Song and T.J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 67}
913: (2003) 073019; hep-ph/0209373.
914: \bibitem{ernst}{D.C. Lattimer and D.J. Ernst, ``Three-neutrino model
915: analysis of the world's oscillation data'', nucl-th/0310083;
916: See also, D.C. Lattimer and D.J. Ernst, ``Bounds on the angles
917: for the parameterization of three neutrino mixing'',
918: nucl-th/0402019.}
919: \end{thebibliography}
920:
921: \newpage
922:
923: \section{APPENDIX: Two Mass Eigenstate Oscillations}
924:
925: There has been some confusion and discussion in the literature
926: regarding the space and time dependence of neutrino oscillations.
927: We briefly present here an argument in the rest frame of a state
928: of a given flavor that demonstrates the time dependence unequivocally.
929: By boosting the observer instead of the state, we demonstrate the
930: equivalence of the usual $L/E_{\nu} \approx L/p_\nu$ dependence,
931: derived in several ways, to the time dependence in the rest frame.
932: Hence the figures in the main sections of this paper can be viewed
933: as either variation with $L/E_{\nu}$, $L/p_\nu$ or time.
934:
935: We begin with a flavor eigenstate composed of two different mass
936: eigenstate contributions, in their common rest frame. Let
937: \Bea
938: c \equiv cos(\theta) & ; & s \equiv sin(\theta) \NL
939: |\nu_{f}> & = & \;\;\, c \, |\nu_1> + s \, |\nu_2> \NL
940: |\nu_{g}> & = & -s \, |\nu_1> + c \, |\nu_2>
941: \Eea
942: to fix conventions for neutrino flavors $f$ and $g$ composed
943: in two channel mixing from neutrino mass eigenstates $\nu_1$
944: with mass $m_1$ and $\nu_2$ with mass $m_2$. The time evolution
945: of the state initially in flavor $f$ in this common rest frame
946: is given by
947: \Bea
948: & & |\nu(t)> = e^{-\imath {\bf H} t} \, |\nu(0) \equiv \nu_{f}> \NL
949: & = & c \, e^{-\imath m_1 t} |\nu_1> + s \, e^{-\imath m_2 t} |\nu_2>
950: \Eea
951: The probability of appearance of ${\nu}_{g}$ from the ${\nu}_{f}$
952: source is given by
953: \Bea
954: & & |<\nu_{g}|\nu(t)>|^2 = |e^{-\imath\frac{(m_1+m_2)t}{2}}|^2 \NL
955: & \times & c^{2}s^{2} \, | -e^{\imath\frac{(m_2-m_1)t}{2}} +
956: e^{-\imath\frac{(m_2-m_1)t}{2}}|^2 \NL
957: & = & sin^{2}(2\theta) \, sin^{2}(\frac{\Delta m\, t}{2})
958: \Eea
959: Viewed from a frame moving past these states with velocity $\beta$,
960: the relation between position $L$ in the moving frame and the
961: time is affected both by the velocity and by time dilatation, i.e.,
962: \Be
963: t = L/[{\beta \gamma}] \sim L m_{{av}}/p_{{\nu}} ,
964: \Ee
965: where we choose the motion of the frame to be consistent with
966: the ratio of the average neutrino mass and mean neutrino momentum.
967: Hence
968: \Be
969: |<\nu_{g}|\nu(t)>|^2 \sim sin(2\theta) \, sin^2({\Delta m^2}
970: L/[4 p_{{\nu}}])
971: \Ee
972: As usual, the units are determined by the relation
973: \Be
974: {1.27} \frac{\Delta m^2}{eV^2} \frac{L_{osc}}{km}
975: \frac{GeV/c}{p_{\nu}} = \pi
976: \Ee
977: consistent with all conventional analyses and expectations.
978:
979: It should be noted that different energy (mass) eigenstates do
980: not interefere with each other. The effect derives entirely
981: from the independent phase advance of the individual states and
982: their translation relative to the laboratory rest frame.
983:
984: \newpage
985:
986: \noindent TABLE I: Eigenmasses for various values of $\theta$ and
987: $\phi$ for cases of two approximately degenerate pseudo-Dirac pairs.
988: \begin{verbatim}
989: __________________________________________________________________________
990: \end{verbatim}
991: $\theta = 9.324078$, $\phi = 0$
992:
993: \begin{verbatim}
994: mass 1active 2active 3active 1sterile 2sterile 3sterile
995:
996: 1.099328 0.635032 0.000000 -0.310533 0.698108 0.000000 -0.113793
997: 1.100680 -0.633620 0.000000 0.314383 0.697413 0.000000 -0.115345
998: 1.100000 0.000000 0.707107 0.000000 0.000000 0.707107 0.000000
999: 1.100000 0.000000 -0.707107 0.000000 0.000000 0.707107 0.000000
1000: 0.007438 0.441883 0.000000 0.897064 -0.003287 0.000000 -0.002224
1001: 1000.008789 0.000162 0.000000 0.002960 0.162017 0.000000 0.986784
1002: \end{verbatim}
1003:
1004: $\theta = 9.324078$, $\phi = 2.25$
1005:
1006: \begin{verbatim}
1007: mass 1active 2active 3active 1sterile 2sterile 3sterile
1008:
1009: 1.095953 0.479130 -0.468214 -0.225940 0.525106 -0.466489 -0.082539
1010: 1.096608 0.437964 -0.514829 -0.208027 -0.480274 0.513243 0.076041
1011: 1.103359 0.416946 0.529767 -0.212981 0.460041 0.531383 -0.078333
1012: 1.104056 -0.458049 -0.484588 0.235669 0.505710 0.486376 -0.086730
1013: 0.007438 0.441553 0.015769 0.897088 -0.003285 -0.000109 -0.002224
1014: 1000.008789 0.000162 0.000007 0.002960 0.161892 0.006361 0.986784
1015: \end{verbatim}
1016:
1017: $\theta = 9.324078$, $\phi = 4.5$
1018:
1019: \begin{verbatim}
1020: mass 1active 2active 3active 1sterile 2sterile 3sterile
1021:
1022: 1.092254 0.479875 -0.471453 -0.217491 0.524155 -0.468127 -0.079183
1023: 1.092888 -0.458763 0.495815 0.209390 0.501371 -0.492614 -0.076279
1024: 1.107010 0.416602 0.526536 -0.221472 0.461189 0.529886 -0.081725
1025: 1.107726 0.437718 0.503654 -0.234323 -0.484866 -0.507196 0.086521
1026: 0.007439 0.440571 0.031517 0.897156 -0.003273 -0.000217 -0.002226
1027: 1000.008789 0.000162 0.000014 0.002960 0.161517 0.012712 0.986784
1028: \end{verbatim}
1029:
1030: $\theta = 9.324078$ $\phi = 22.5$
1031:
1032: \begin{verbatim}
1033: mass 1active 2active 3active 1sterile 2sterile 3sterile
1034:
1035: 1.062925 0.550356 -0.405921 -0.179528 0.584987 -0.392239 -0.063608
1036: 1.063381 0.546548 -0.411257 -0.179609 -0.581185 0.397574 0.063663
1037: 1.134871 0.337840 0.568726 -0.249457 0.383405 0.586755 -0.094367
1038: 1.135731 0.341702 0.564710 -0.254038 -0.388074 -0.583058 0.096172
1039: 0.007475 0.409265 0.154109 0.899298 -0.003058 -0.001048 -0.002241
1040: 1000.008789 0.000150 0.000068 0.002960 0.149684 0.062001 0.986784
1041: \end{verbatim}
1042:
1043: $\theta = 9.324078$ $\phi = 45$
1044:
1045: \begin{verbatim}
1046: mass 1active 2active 3active 1sterile 2sterile 3sterile
1047:
1048: 1.030458 0.632073 -0.290233 -0.127244 0.651329 -0.271878 -0.043708
1049: 1.030692 -0.630801 0.292859 0.127989 0.650162 -0.274406 -0.043972
1050: 1.163620 0.226485 0.612428 -0.270973 0.263544 0.647849 -0.105102
1051: 1.164612 0.227955 0.610618 -0.274587 -0.265472 -0.646488 0.106595
1052: 0.007566 0.315141 0.286490 0.904762 -0.002384 -0.001969 -0.002282
1053: 1000.008789 0.000115 0.000126 0.002960 0.114563 0.114563 0.986784
1054: ________________________________________________________________________
1055: \end{verbatim}
1056:
1057: \begin{figure*}[h]
1058: \includegraphics[height=4.0in]{2K.eps}
1059: \caption{ Oscillations for all six channels commencing
1060: from one active flavor with appearance probabilities for
1061: the two other actives and the steriles using the second
1062: set of angle parameters in Table I.}
1063: \label{2K}
1064: \end{figure*}
1065:
1066: \begin{figure*}[h]
1067: \includegraphics[height=4.0in]{appear.eps}
1068: \caption{ Appearance probability for one neutrino
1069: flavor using the second set of angle parameters
1070: in Table I. The arbitrary units of the abscissa may
1071: be viewed as time in the rest frame or $L/E$ in the
1072: laboratory. See Appendix.}
1073: \label{appear}
1074: \end{figure*}
1075:
1076: \begin{figure*}[h]
1077: \includegraphics[height=4.0in]{runavs.eps}
1078: \caption{ Effects of limited resolution in $L/E$.
1079: Running averages over 100 units have been taken for
1080: each of the active curves. (The curves for the sterile
1081: neutrinos remain as in Fig.1.)}
1082: \label{runavs}
1083: \end{figure*}
1084:
1085: \end{document}
1086:
1087: