1: \documentclass[draft,numberedheadings]{aipproc}

2: \layoutstyle{8x11single}

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%   begin local macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun <}}

8: \def\ga{\mathrel{\mathpalette\fun >}}

9: \def\fun#1#2{\lower3.6pt\vbox{\baselineskip0pt\lineskip.9pt

10:   \ialign{$\mathsurround=0pt#1\hfil##\hfil$\crcr#2\crcr\sim\crcr}}}

11: \def\ss{{\hbox{\boldmath$\sigma$}}}

12: \def\mm{{\hbox{\boldmath$\mu$}}}

13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

14: %%%%%%%%%%%%        end local macros      %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

15: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

16: %\setlength{\parindent}{0em}

17: %\def\lambdabar{\lambda\hspace{-2.25mm}^-}

18: \begin{document}

19: \title{Lectures on Astroparticle Physics}

20: 

21: \author{G\"unter Sigl}

22: {address={GReCO, Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, C.N.R.S.\\

23: 98 bis boulevard Arago, F-75014 Paris, France\\

24: F\'{e}d\'{e}ration de Recherche Astroparticule et Cosmologie, 

25: Universit\'{e} Paris 7\\

26: 2 place Jussieu, 75251 Paris Cedex 05, France}}

27: 

28: \begin{abstract}

29: These are extended notes of a series of lectures given at the XIth

30: Brazilian School of Cosmology and Gravitation. They provide a selection

31: of topics at the intersection of particle and astrophysics. The first part

32: gives a short introduction to the theory of electroweak interactions,

33: with specific emphasize on neutrinos. In the second part we apply

34: this framework to selected topics in astrophysics and cosmology,

35: namely neutrino oscillations, neutrino hot dark dark matter, and big bang

36: nucleosynthesis. The last part is devoted to ultra high energy

37: cosmic rays and neutrinos where again particle physics aspects

38: are emphasized. The often complementary role of laboratory experiments

39: is also discussed in several examples.

40: \end{abstract}

41: 

42: \maketitle

43: 

44: \newpage

45: \tableofcontents

46: \newpage

47: 

48: \section{Introduction and Reminder: Fermi Theory of Weak Interactions}

49: Good introductory texts on particle physics are contained in

50: Ref.~\cite{perkins} (more phenomenologically and experimentally

51: oriented) and in Refs.~\cite{weinberg1,weinberg2,weinberg3}.

52: Here we will only recall the most essential facts.

53: 

54: We will usually use natural units in which $\hbar=c=k=1$, unless

55: these constants are explicitly given.

56: 

57: Neutrinos only have weak interactions. Historically, experiments

58: with neutrinos obtained from decaying pions and kaons have shown

59: that charged and neutral leptons appear in three doublets:

60: 

61: \begin{table}[ht]

62: \caption{The lepton doublets}\label{tab1}

63: \begin{tabular}{cccc}

64: q & $L_e=1$ & $L_\mu=1$ & $L_\tau=1$ \\

65: \hline \\

66: $\matrix{0\cr -1}$ & $\left(\matrix{\nu_e\cr e^-}\right)$ &

67: $\left(\matrix{\nu_\mu\cr \mu^-}\right)$ &

68: $\left(\matrix{\nu_\tau\cr \tau^-}\right)$ \\

69: \end{tabular}

70: \end{table}

71: Charge $q$ and lepton numbers $L_e$, $L_\mu$, and $L_\tau$ are

72: conserved separately. There are corresponding doublets

73: of anti-leptons with opposite charge and lepton numbers, denoted

74: by $\bar{\nu}_i$ for the anti-neutrinos and by the respective

75: positively charged anti-leptons.

76: 

77: Therefore, allowed reactions include $n\to p e^-\bar{\nu}_e$ (nuclear

78: $\beta$-decay), $\bar{\nu}_e p\to n e^+$ (inverse neutron decay)

79: $\pi^+\to\mu^+\nu_\mu$, $\nu_\mu n\to p\mu^-$, but exclude

80: $\nu_\mu p\to n\mu^+$, $\mu^+\to e^+\gamma$.

81: 

82: The ``neutrino'' is thus defined as the neutral particle emitted

83: together with positrons in $\beta^+$-decay or following K-capture

84: of electrons. The ``anti-neutrino'' accompanies negative electrons in

85: $\beta^-$-decay.

86: 

87: Lifetimes for weak decays are long compared to lifetimes associated

88: with electromagnetic ($\sim10^{-19}\,$s) and strong ($\sim10^{-23}\,$s)

89: interactions. A weak interaction cross section at $\sim1\,$GeV

90: interaction energy is typically $\sim10^{12}$ times smaller than

91: a strong interaction cross section.

92: 

93: Weak interactions are classified into leptonic, semi-leptonic,

94: and non-leptonic interactions.

95: 

96: {\it Fermi's golden rule} yields for the rate $\Gamma$ of a reaction

97: from an initial state $i$ to a final state $f$ the expression

98: \begin{equation}

99:   \Gamma=\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}|M_{if}|^2\frac{dN}{dE_f}\,,

100:   \label{golden_rule}

101: \end{equation}

102: where $M_{if}\equiv\left\langle f|H_{\rm int}\right\rangle$

103: is the matrix element between initial and final states $i$ and $f$

104: with $H_{\rm int}$ the interaction energy, and $dN/dE_f$ is the final

105: state number density evaluated at the conserved total energy

106: of the final states.

107: 

108: As an example, we compute the rate $\Gamma$ for inverse $\beta$-decay

109: \begin{equation}

110:   \bar{\nu}_e+p\to n+e^+\,.\label{inverse_beta}

111: \end{equation}

112: We use the historical {\it Fermi theory} after which such

113: interactions are described by point-like couplings of four

114: fermions, symbolically $H_{\rm int}=G_{\rm F}\int d^3{\rm x}\psi^4$,

115: with Fermi's coupling constant $G_{\rm F}$. This yields

116: \begin{equation}

117:   \Gamma=\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}G_{\rm F}^2|M|^2\frac{dN}{dE_f}\,,

118:   \label{golden_rule2}

119: \end{equation}

120: where symbolically $M=\int d^3{\bf x}\psi^4$ which incorporates the

121: detailed structure of the interaction. If we normalize the volume $V$

122: to one, $M$ is dimensionless and of order unity, otherwise $M$ scales

123: as $V^{-1}$. In fact, it is

124: roughly the spin multiplicity factor, such that $|M|^2\simeq1$ if

125: the total leptonic angular momentum is 0, thus involving no

126: change of spin in the nuclei ("Fermi transitions"), whereas $|M|^2\simeq3$

127: if the total leptonic angular momentum is 1, thus involving

128: a change of spin in the nuclei ("Gamow-Teller transitions").

129: The final state density of a free particle is

130: \begin{equation}

131:   \frac{Vd^3{\bf p}}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}\,.

132: \end{equation}

133: Therefore, taking into account energy-momentum conservation, we get

134: in the center of mass (CM) frame the phase space factor for the two body

135: final state

136: \begin{equation}

137:   \frac{dN}{dE_f}=\int\frac{Vd^3{\bf p}_e}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}

138:   \frac{Vd^3{\bf p}_n}{(2\pi\hbar)^3}

139:   \frac{(2\pi)^3\delta^3({\bf p}_e+{\bf p}_n)}{V}

140:   \delta(E_e+E_n-E_0)\,,

141: \end{equation}

142: where ${\bf p}_e$, ${\bf p}_n$, $E_e$, $E_n$,

143: are momenta and kinetic energies of the electron and the

144: final state nucleus, respectively, and

145: $E_0$ is the total initial energy. Integrating out one of

146: the momenta gives $p_f\equiv p_e=p_n$ so that energy conservation

147: $E_0=(p_f^2+m_e^2)^{1/2}+(p_f^2+m_n^2)^{1/2}$ gives the factor

148: $dp_f/dE_0=(p_f/E_e+p_f/E_n)^{-1}=v_f^{-1}$ with $v_f$

149: being the relative velocity of the two final state particles.

150: This yields

151: \begin{equation}

152:   \frac{dN}{dE_f}=\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\frac{p_f^2}{v_f}\,.\label{phase_space3}

153: \end{equation}

154: 

155: We are now interested in the {\it cross section} $\sigma$ of the

156: two-body reaction Eq.~(\ref{inverse_beta}) defined by

157: \begin{equation}

158:   \Gamma=\sigma n_iv_i\,,\label{cross}

159: \end{equation}

160: where $n_i=V^{-1}$ and $v_i$ are density and velocity, respectively,

161: of one of the incoming particles in the frame where the other one

162: is at rest. Putting this together with Eqs.~(\ref{golden_rule2})

163: and (\ref{phase_space3}) finally yields

164: \begin{equation}

165:   \sigma(\bar{\nu}_ep\to ne^+)=\frac{G_{\rm F}^2}{\pi}|M_{if}|^2

166:   \frac{p_f^2}{v_iv_f}\,.\label{cross2}

167: \end{equation}

168: For $p_f\simeq1\,$MeV this cross section is $\sim10^{-43}\,{\rm cm}^2$.

169: In a target of proton density $n_p$ this gives a mean free path

170: defined by $l_\nu n_p\sigma(\bar{\nu}_ep\to ne^+)\sim1$. For water

171: this turns out to be $\sim30\,$pc which demonstrates the experimental

172: challenge associated with detection of neutrinos.

173: 

174: The first detections of this reaction was made by Reines and

175: Cowan in 1959. The source were neutron rich fission products

176: undergoing $\beta$-decay $n\to p e^-\bar{\nu}_e$. A 1000 MW reactor

177: gives a flux of $\sim10^{13}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}\,{\rm s}^{-1}$

178: $\bar{\nu}_e$s which they observed with a target of CdCl$_2$ and

179: water. Observed are fast electrons Compton scattered by annihilation

180: photons from the positrons within $\sim10^{-9}\,$s of the reaction

181: ("prompt pulse") $\gamma-$rays from the neutrons captured by the

182: cadmium about $10^{-6}\,$s after the reaction ("delayed pulse").

183: 

184: \section{Dirac Fermions and the V--A Interaction}

185: Given the experimentally established fact that electroweak interactions

186: only involve left-handed neutrinos we now want to work out the

187: detailed structure of these interactions. In order to

188: do that we first have to introduce the Dirac fermion.

189: 

190: \subsection{Dirac Fermions as Representations of Space-Time Symmetries}

191: The {\it Poincar\'e group} is the symmetry group of special relativity

192: and consists of all transformations leaving invariant the metric

193: \begin{equation}

194:   ds^2=-(dx^0)^2+(dx^1)^2+(dx^2)^2+(dx^3)^2\,,\label{ds2}

195: \end{equation}

196: where $x^0$ is a time coordinate and $x^1$, $x^2$, and $x^3$ are

197: Cartesian space coordinates. These transformations are of the

198: form

199: \begin{equation}

200:   x^{\prime\mu}=\Lambda^\mu_\nu x^\nu+a^\mu\,,\label{poincare}

201: \end{equation}

202: where $a^\mu$ defines arbitrary space-time translations, and the

203: constant matrix $\Lambda^\mu_\nu$ satisfies

204: \begin{equation}

205:   \eta_{\mu\nu}\Lambda^\mu_\rho\Lambda^\nu_\sigma=\eta_{\rho\sigma}

206:   \,,\label{trafo_lambda}

207: \end{equation}

208: where $\eta_{\mu\nu}={\rm diag}(-1,1,1,1)$.

209: The unitary transformations on fields and physical states $\psi$ induced

210: by Eq.~(\ref{poincare}) satisfy the composition rule

211: \begin{equation}

212:   U(\Lambda_2,a_2)U(\Lambda_1,a_1)=U(\Lambda_2\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2a_1+a_2)

213:   \,.\label{composition}

214: \end{equation}

215: Important subgroups are defined by all elements with

216: $\Lambda=1$ (the commutative group of translations), and

217: by all elements with $a^\mu=0$ [the {\it homogeneous Lorentz

218: group} $SO(3,1)$ of matrices $\Lambda^\mu_\nu$ satisfying

219: Eq.~(\ref{trafo_lambda})]. The latter contains the subgroup

220: $SO(3)$ of all rotations for which $\Lambda^0_0=1$,

221: $\Lambda^\mu_0=\Lambda^0_\mu=0$ for $\mu=1,2,3$.

222: 

223: The general infinitesimal transformations of this type are characterized

224: by an anti-symmetric tensor $\omega^\mu_\nu$ and a vector $\epsilon^\mu$,

225: \begin{equation}

226:   \Lambda^\mu_\nu=\delta^\mu_\nu+\omega^\mu_\nu\,\quad

227:   a^\mu=\epsilon^\mu

228:   \,.\label{lambda}

229: \end{equation}

230: Any element $U(1+\omega,\epsilon)$ of the Poincar\'e group which is

231: infinitesimally close to the unit operator can then be expanded into

232: the corresponding hermitian generators $J^{\mu\nu}$ and $P^\mu$,

233: \begin{equation}

234:   U(1+\omega,\epsilon)=1+\frac{1}{2}i\omega_{\mu\nu}J^{\mu\nu}

235:   -i\epsilon_\mu P^\mu

236:   \,.\label{trafo1}

237: \end{equation}

238: It can be shown that these generators satisfy the commutation

239: relations

240: \begin{eqnarray}

241:   i\left[J^{\mu\nu},J^{\rho\sigma}\right]&=&\eta^{\nu\rho}J^{\mu\sigma}

242:   -\eta^{\mu\rho}J^{\nu\sigma}-\eta^{\sigma\mu}J^{\rho\nu}

243:   +\eta^{\sigma\nu}J^{\rho\mu}\nonumber\\

244:   i\left[P^\mu,J^{\rho\sigma}\right]

245:   &=&\eta^{\mu\rho}P^\sigma-\eta^{\mu\sigma}P^\rho

246:   \label{poincare_comm}\\

247:   \left[P^\mu,P^\nu\right]&=&0\,.\nonumber

248: \end{eqnarray}

249: The $P^\mu$ represent the energy-momentum vector, and since the

250: Hamiltonian $H\equiv P^0$ commutes with the spatial pseudo-three-vector

251: ${\bf J}\equiv(J^{23},J^{31},J^{12})$, the latter represents the

252: angular-momentum which generates the group of rotations $SO(3)$.

253: 

254: The homogeneous Lorentz group implies that the dispersion relation

255: of free particles is of the form

256: \begin{equation}

257:   E^2(p)={\bf p}^2+M^2\,.\label{omegak}

258: \end{equation}

259: for a particle of mass $M$, momentum ${\bf p}$, and energy $E$.

260: If one now expands a free charged quantum field $\psi(x)$ into its

261: energy-momentum eigenfunctions

262: and interprets the coefficients $a({\bf p})$ of the positive energy solutions

263: as annihilator of a particle in mode ${\bf p}$, then the coefficients

264: $b^\dagger({\bf p})$ of the negative energy contributions have to be

265: interpreted as creators of anti-particles of opposite charge,

266: \begin{equation}

267:   \psi(x)=\sum_{{\bf p},E(p)>0}a({\bf p})u({\bf p})

268:   e^{-iE(k)t+i{\bf p}\cdot{\bf x}}

269:   +\sum_{{\bf p},E(p)<0}b^\dagger({\bf p})v({\bf p})

270:   e^{iE(p)t-i{\bf p}\cdot{\bf x}}\,.\label{expansion}

271: \end{equation}

272: Canonical quantization, shows that the creators and annihilators

273: indeed satisfy the relations,

274: \begin{equation}

275:   \left[a_i({\bf p}),a^\dagger_{i^\prime}({\bf p^\prime})\right]_\pm=

276:   \left[b_i({\bf p}),b^\dagger_{i^\prime}({\bf p^\prime})\right]_\pm=

277:   \delta_{ii^\prime}\delta({\bf p}-{\bf p^\prime})\,,\label{create_annihi}

278: \end{equation}

279: where $i,i^\prime$ now denote internal degrees of freedom such as spin,

280: and $[.,.]_\pm$ denotes the commutator for bosons, and the

281: anti-commutator for fermions, respectively.

282: 

283: Fields and physical states can thus be characterized by their

284: energy-momentum and spin, which characterize their transformation

285: properties under the group of translations and under the

286: rotation group, respectively. Let us first focus on fields and states

287: with non-vanishing mass. In this case one can perform a Lorentz boost

288: into the rest frame where $P^\mu=(M,0,0,0)$ with $M$ the mass of the

289: state. $P^\mu$ is then invariant under the rotation group $SO(3)$.

290: The irreducible unitary representations of this group are characterized

291: by a integer- or half-integer valued spin $j$ such that the $2j+1$ states are

292: characterized by the eigenvalues of $J_i$ which run over

293: $-j,-j+1,\cdots,j-1,j$. Note that an eigenstate with eigenvalue

294: $\sigma$ of $J_i$ is multiplied by a phase factor $e^{2\pi i\sigma}$

295: under a rotation around the $i-$axis by $2\pi$, and a half-integer

296: spin state thus changes sign. Given the fact that a rotation by

297: $2\pi$ is the identity this may at first seem surprising. Note,

298: however, that normalized states in quantum mechanics are only

299: defined up to phase factors and thus a general unitary {\it

300: projective representation} of a symmetry group on the Hilbert

301: space of states can in general include phase factors in the

302: composition rules such as Eq.~(\ref{composition}). This is indeed

303: the case for the rotation group $SO(3)$ which is isomorphic

304: to $S_3/Z_2$, the three-dimensional sphere in Euclidean four-dimensional

305: space with opposite points identified, and is thus {\it doubly

306: connected}. This means that closed curves winding $n$ times

307: over a closed path are continuously contractible to a point

308: if $n$ is even, but are not otherwise. Half-integer spins then

309: correspond to representations for which $U(\Lambda_1)U(\Lambda_2)=

310: (-)^nU(\Lambda_1\Lambda_2)$, where $n$ is the winding number

311: along the path from $1$ to $\Lambda_1$, to $\Lambda_1\Lambda_2$

312: and back to $1$, whereas integer spins do not produce a phase factor.

313: 

314: With respect to homogeneous Lorentz transformations, there are then

315: two groups of representations. The first one is formed by the tensor

316: representations which transform just as products of vectors,

317: \begin{equation}

318:   W^{\prime\mu\cdots}_{\nu\cdots}=\Lambda^\mu_\rho\Lambda_\nu^\sigma

319:   \cdots W^{\rho\cdots}_{\sigma\cdots}

320:   \,.\label{tensor}

321: \end{equation}

322: These represent bosonic degrees of freedom with maximal integer spin $j$

323: given by the number of indices. The simplest case is a complex

324: spin-zero scalar $\phi$ of mass $m$ whose standard free Lagrangian

325: \begin{equation}

326:   {\cal L}_\phi=-\frac{1}{2}

327:   \left(\partial_\mu\phi^\dagger\partial^\mu\phi-m^2\phi^\dagger\phi\right)

328:   \,,\label{L_phi}

329: \end{equation}

330: leads to an equation of motion known as {\it Klein-Gordon equation},

331: \begin{equation}

332:   \left(\partial_\mu\partial^\mu-m^2\right)\phi=0

333:   \,.\label{klein_gordon}

334: \end{equation}

335: In the static case $p^0=0$ this leads to an interaction potential

336: \begin{equation}

337:   V(r)=g_1g_2\frac{e^{-mr}}{r}\,,\label{potential}

338: \end{equation}

339: between two ``charges'' $g_1$ and $g_2$ which correspond to

340: sources on the right hand side of Eq.~(\ref{klein_gordon}). The

341: potential for the exchange of bosons of non-zero spin involve some

342: additional factors for the tensor structure. Note that the {\it range}

343: of the potential is given by $\simeq m^{-1}$. In the general case

344: $p^0\neq0$ the Fourier transform of Eq.~(\ref{klein_gordon}) with

345: a delta-function source term on the right hand side is

346: $\propto-i/(p^2+m^2)$. A four-fermion point-like interaction

347: of the form $G_{\rm F}\psi^4$ can thus be interpreted as the

348: low-energy limit $p^2\ll m^2$ of the exchange of a boson of

349: mass $m$. Later we will realize that the modern theory of

350: electroweak interactions is indeed based on the exchange of

351: heavy charged and neutral "gauge bosons". In the absence of

352: sources, Eq.~(\ref{klein_gordon}) gives the usual dispersion

353: relation $E^2=p^2+m^2$ for a free particle.

354: 

355: The second type of representation of the homogeneous Lorentz group

356: can be constructed from any set of {\it Dirac matrices} $\gamma^\mu$

357: satisfying the anti-commutation relations

358: \begin{equation}

359:   \left\{\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu\right\}=2\eta^{\mu\nu}

360:   \,,\label{clifford}

361: \end{equation}

362: also known as {\it Clifford algebra}. One can then show that

363: the matrices

364: \begin{equation}

365:   J^{\mu\nu}\equiv-\frac{i}{4}\left[\gamma^\mu,\gamma^\nu\right]

366:   \label{jmunu_spinor}

367: \end{equation}

368: indeed obey the commutation relations in Eq.~(\ref{poincare_comm}).

369: The objects on which these matrices act are called {\it Dirac spinors}

370: and have spin $1/2$. In 3+1 dimensions, the smallest representation

371: has four complex components, and thus the $\gamma^\mu$ are $4\times4$

372: matrices. A possible representation of Eq.~(\ref{clifford}) is

373: \begin{equation}

374:   \gamma_i=\left(\matrix{0& -i\sigma_i\cr i\sigma_i& 0}\right)

375:   \,,\quad i=1,2,3\,,

376:   \quad\gamma_0=i\left(\matrix{1& 0\cr 0& -1}\right)\,,\label{gammamunu}

377: \end{equation}

378: where $\sigma_i$ are the Pauli matrices.

379: 

380: The standard free Lagrangian for a spin-$1/2$ Dirac spinor

381: $\psi$ of mass $m$,

382: \begin{equation}

383:   {\cal L}_\psi=-\bar\psi(\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu+m)\psi\,,\label{L_psi}

384: \end{equation}

385: where $\bar\psi\equiv\psi^\dagger i\gamma^0$,

386: leads to an equation of motion known as {\it Dirac equation},

387: \begin{equation}

388:   \left(\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu+m\right)\psi=0

389:   \,.\label{dirac}

390: \end{equation}

391: Its free solutions also satisfy the Klein-Gordon equation

392: Eq.~(\ref{klein_gordon}) and are of the form Eq.~(\ref{expansion})

393: where, up to a normalization factor $N$,

394: \begin{equation}

395:   u({\bf p})=N

396:   \left({\matrix{\tilde{u}\cr\frac{\ss\cdot{\bf p}}{E+m}\tilde{u}}}\right)

397:   \,,\quad

398:   v({\bf p})=N

399:   \left({\matrix{\frac{\ss\cdot{\bf p}}{E+m}\tilde{v}\cr\tilde{v}}}\right)

400:   \,.

401: \end{equation}

402: Here, $u$ and $v$ are 4-spinors, whereas $\tilde{u}$ and $\tilde{v}$

403: are two-spinors.

404: 

405: It is easy to see that the matrix

406: \begin{equation}

407:   \gamma_5\equiv-i\gamma^0\gamma^1\gamma^2\gamma^3=

408:   -\left(\matrix{0&1\cr1&0}\right)\label{gamma_5}

409: \end{equation}

410: is a pseudo-scalar because the spatial $\gamma^i$ change sign under

411: parity transformation, and satisfies

412: \begin{equation}

413:   \gamma_5^2=1\,\quad\{\gamma^\mu,\gamma_5\}=0\,

414:   \quad [J^{\mu\nu},\gamma_5]=0\,.\label{gamma_5_prop}

415: \end{equation}

416: A four-component Dirac spinor $\psi$ can then be split into two inequivalent

417: {\it Weyl representations} $\psi_L$ and $\psi_R$ which are called

418: left-chiral and right-chiral,

419: \begin{equation}

420:   \psi=\psi_L+\psi_R\equiv\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\psi+\frac{1-\gamma_5}{2}\psi

421:   \,.\label{chirality}

422: \end{equation}

423: Note that according to Eqs.~(\ref{gamma_5_prop}) and~(\ref{chirality})

424: the mass term in the Lagrangian Eq.~(\ref{L_psi}) flips chirality,

425: whereas the kinetic term conserves chirality.

426: 

427: The general irreducible representations of the

428: homogeneous Lorentz group are then given by arbitrary direct

429: products of spinors and tensors. We note that massless states

430: form representations of the group $SO(2)$ leaving invariant $P^\mu$,

431: instead of of $SO(3)$. The group $SO(2)$ has only one generator

432: which can be identified with {\it helicity}, the projection of spin onto

433: three-momentum. For fermions this is the chirality defined by $\gamma_5$

434: above.

435: 

436: In the presence of mass the relation between chirality and helicity

437: $H\equiv\ss\cdot{\bf p}/p$ is more complicated:

438: \begin{eqnarray}

439:   \frac{1\pm\gamma_5}{2}u({\bf p})&=&\frac{N}{2}

440:   \left(1\mp\frac{\ss\cdot{\bf p}}{E+m}\right)

441:   \left(\matrix{\tilde{u}\cr\mp\tilde{u}}\right)\label{chirhel}\\

442:   &=&\frac{N}{2}

443:   \left[\left(1\mp\frac{p}{E+m}\right)

444:   \frac{1+H}{2}+\left(1\pm\frac{p}{E+m}\right)\frac{1-H}{2}\right]

445:   \left(\matrix{\tilde{u}\cr\mp\tilde{u}}\right)

446:   \nonumber\\

447:   \frac{1\pm\gamma_5}{2}v({\bf p})&=&

448:   \mp\frac{N}{2}

449:   \left[\left(1\mp\frac{p}{E+m}\right)

450:   \frac{1+H}{2}+\left(1\pm\frac{p}{E+m}\right)\frac{1-H}{2}\right]

451:   \left(\matrix{\tilde{v}\cr\mp\tilde{v}}\right)

452:   \,.\nonumber

453: \end{eqnarray}

454: From this follows that in a chiral state $u_{L,R}$ the helicity

455: polarization is given by

456: \begin{equation}

457:   P_{L,R}=\frac{I_+^{L,R}-I_-^{L,R}}{I_+^{L,R}+I_-^{L,R}}=

458:   \mp\frac{p}{E}\,,\label{chirhel2}

459: \end{equation}

460: where $I_\pm^{L,R}$ are the intensities in the $H=\pm1$ states for

461: given chirality $L$ or $R$. Note that

462: due to Eq.~(\ref{expansion}) the physical momentum of

463: anti-particles described by the $v$ spinor is $-{\bf p}$ in this

464: convention, and therefore the helicity polarization for anti-particles

465: in pure chiral states are opposite from Eq.~(\ref{chirhel2}):

466: Left chiral particles are predominantly left-handed and left-chiral

467: anti-particles are predominantly right-handed in the relativistic

468: limit. Furthermore, helicity and chirality commute exactly only in the

469: limit $p\gg m$, $v\to1$. The experimental fact that observed electron

470: and neutrino helicities are $\mp v$ for particles and anti-particles,

471: respectively, where $v$ is the particle velocity, now implies

472: that both electrons and neutrinos and their anti-particles are fully

473: left-chiral.

474: 

475: \subsection{The $V$--$A$ Coupling}

476: Since Dirac spinors have 4 independent components, there are

477: 16 independent bilinears listed in Tab.~\ref{tab2}. Using the

478: equality

479: \begin{equation}

480:   \gamma_\mu^\dagger=\gamma_0\gamma_\mu\gamma_0\,,\label{dagger}

481: \end{equation}

482: which can easily be derived from Eq.~(\ref{gammamunu}), one

483: sees that the phase factors of the bilinears in Tab.~\ref{tab2}

484: are chosen such that their hermitian conjugate is the same

485: with $\psi_1\leftrightarrow\psi_2$.

486: 

487: \begin{table}[ht]

488: \caption{The Dirac bilinears. For $\psi_1=\psi_2$ these are real.}

489: \label{tab2}

490: \begin{tabular}{ccc}

491: $\bar\psi_1\psi_2$ & scalar & $S$ \\

492: $i\bar\psi_1\gamma_\mu\psi_2$ & 4-vector & $V$ \\

493: $i\bar\psi_1\gamma_\mu\gamma_\nu\psi_2$ & tensor & $T$ \\

494: $i\bar\psi_1\gamma_\mu\gamma_5\psi_2$ & axial 4-vector & $A$ \\

495: $i\bar\psi_1\gamma_5\psi_2$ & pseudo-scalar & $P$ \\

496: \end{tabular}

497: \end{table}

498: 

499: Lorentz invariance implies that the matrix element of a general

500: $\beta$-interaction is of the form

501: \begin{equation}

502:   M=G_{\rm F}\sum_{i=S,V,T,A,P}C_i(\bar\psi_1{\cal O}_i\psi_2)

503:   (\bar\psi_3{\cal O}_i\psi_4)\,,\label{mew}

504: \end{equation}

505: such that only the same types of operators ${\cal O}_i$ from

506: Tab.~\ref{tab2} couple and common Lorentz indices are contracted

507: over.

508: 

509: Eq.~(\ref{mew}) is a Lorentz scalar. However, we know that electroweak

510: interactions violate parity and thus we have to add pseudo-scalar

511: quantities to Eq.~(\ref{mew}). Equivalently, we can substitute

512: any lepton spinor $\psi$ in Eq.~(\ref{mew}) by

513: $\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma_5)\psi$. This is correct at least for the

514: interactions with charge exchange, the so called {\it charged current}

515: interactions, for which we know experimentally that both neutrinos and

516: charged leptons are fully left-chiral. Using Eq.~(\ref{gamma_5_prop}),

517: this leads to terms of the form

518: \begin{equation}

519:   \overline{l_{i,L}^-}{\cal O}\nu_{i,L}=

520:   \overline{l_i^-}(1-\gamma_5){\cal O}(1+\gamma_5)\nu_i\,,\quad l=e,\mu,\tau\,,

521:   \label{dirac_bilin}

522: \end{equation}

523: which implies that only the $V$ and $A$ type interactions from

524: Tab.~\ref{tab2} can contribute. The general form of charged

525: current interactions involving neutrinos is therefore usually

526: written as

527: \begin{equation}

528:   M_{\rm cc}^\nu=\frac{G_{\rm F}}{\sqrt2}

529:   \left[\bar\psi_1\gamma^\mu(C_V+C_A\gamma_5)\psi_2\right]

530:   \left[\overline{l_i^-}\gamma_\mu(1+\gamma_5)\nu_i\right]\,,\label{mcc}

531: \end{equation}

532: 

533: \section{Divergences in the Weak Interactions and Renormalizability}

534: \label{sec_renorm}

535: A incoming plane wave $\psi_i\equiv e^{ikz}$ of momentum $k$ in the

536: $z$-direction can be

537: expanded into incoming and outgoing radial modes $e^{-ikr}$ and

538: $e^{ikr}$, respectively, in the following way

539: \begin{equation}

540:   e^{ikz}=\frac{i}{2kr}\sum_l(2l+1)\left[(-1)^l e^{-ikr}-e^{ikr}\right]

541:   P_l(\cos\theta)\,,\label{planewave}

542: \end{equation}

543: where $P_l(x)$ are the Legendre polynomials and $\cos\theta=z/r$.

544: Scattering modifies the outgoing modes by multiplying them with a

545: phase $e^{2i\delta_l}$ and an amplitude $\eta_l$ with $0\leq\eta_l\leq1$.

546: The scattered outgoing wave thus has the form

547: \begin{equation}

548:   \psi_{\rm scatt}=\frac{e^{ikr}}{kr}\sum_l(2l+1)

549:   \frac{\eta_l e^{2i\delta_l}-1}{2i}\,P_l(\cos\theta)

550:   \equiv\frac{e^{ikr}}{r}\,F(\theta)\,,\label{psiscatt}

551: \end{equation}

552: where $F(\theta)$ is called the scattering amplitude.

553: 

554: Let us now imagine elastic scattering in the CM frame, where momentum

555: $p_*$ and velocity $v$ are equal before and after scattering. The incoming

556: flux is then $v|\psi_i|^2=v$ and the outgoing flux through a solid angle

557: $d\Omega$ is $v|\psi_{\rm scatt}|^2 r^2d\Omega=v|F(\theta)|^2d\Omega$.

558: The definition Eq.~(\ref{cross}) of the scattering cross section then yields

559: \begin{equation}

560:   \left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)_{\rm el}=|F(\theta)|^2\,.\label{elcross}

561: \end{equation}

562: Using orthogonality of the Legendre polynomials,

563: $\int d\Omega P_l(\Omega)P_{l^\prime}(\Omega)=4\pi\delta_{ll^\prime}/(2l+1)$,

564: in Eq.~(\ref{psiscatt}), we obtain for the total elastic scattering

565: cross section

566: \begin{equation}

567:   \sigma_{\rm el}=\frac{4\pi}{p_*^2}\sum_l(2l+1)

568:   \left|\frac{\eta_le^{2i\delta_l}-1}{2i}\right|^2\,.\label{elcrosstot}

569: \end{equation}

570: For scattering of waves of angular momentum $l$ this results in the upper

571: limit

572: \begin{equation}

573:   \sigma_{{\rm el},l}\leq\frac{4\pi}{p_*^2}(2l+1)

574:   \,,\label{unitarity}

575: \end{equation}

576: which is called {\it partial wave unitarity}.

577: 

578: On the other hand, in Fermi theory typical cross sections grow with $p_*$

579: as in Eq.~(\ref{cross2}) and violate Eq.~(\ref{unitarity}) for s-waves

580: ($l=0$) for

581: \begin{equation}

582:   \frac{4G_{\rm F}^2p_*^2}{\pi}\ga\frac{4\pi}{p_*^2}\,,\label{swave}

583: \end{equation}

584: where we used $\sum|M_{if}|^2\simeq4$ for the sum over polarizations.

585: This occurs for $p_*\ga(\pi/G_{\rm F})^{1/2}\simeq500\,$GeV. Such energies

586: are nowadays routinely achieved at accelerators such as in the Tevatron

587: at Fermilab. As will be seen in the next section, this is ultimately

588: due to the fact that the coupling constant $G_{\rm F}$ has negative

589: energy dimension and corresponds to a {\it non-renormalizable} interaction.

590: This will be cured by spreading the contact interaction with the propagator

591: of a gauge boson of mass $M\simeq G_{\rm F}^{-1/2}\sim300\,$GeV. This

592: corresponds to multiplying the l.h.s. of Eq.~(\ref{swave}) with

593: the square of the propagator, $\simeq(1+p_*^2/M^2)^{-2}$, which thus

594: becomes $4/(\pi p_*^2)$ for $p_*\to\infty$. This scaling with $p_*$

595: is of course a simple consequence of dimensional analysis.

596: As a result, partial wave

597: unitarity is not violated any more at high energies, at least within

598: this rough order of magnitude argument. The gauge theory of electroweak

599: interactions discussed below is {\it renormalizable}.

600: 

601: Theories which contain only coupling terms of non-negative mass

602: dimension lead to

603: only a finite number of graphs diverging at large energies. It turns

604: out that these divergences can be absorbed into the finite number of parameters

605: of the theory which is why they are called {\it renormalizable}.

606: 

607: Good examples of non-renormalizable interaction terms are

608: given by

609: \begin{equation}

610:   \frac{ie}{2M}\bar{\psi}[\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\nu]\psi F^{\mu\nu}\,,

611:   \quad

612:   \frac{e}{2M}\bar{\psi}\gamma_5[\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\nu]\psi F^{\mu\nu}

613:   \,,\label{moments}

614: \end{equation}

615: where $M$ is some large mass scale presumably related to grand

616: unification and $e$ is the (positive) electric

617: charge unit. The gauge invariant field strength tensor

618: $F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu A_\nu-\partial_nu A_\mu$ in terms of

619: the gauge potential Eq.~(\ref{var_A}) below represents the electric

620: field strength $E^i=-\partial_0 A^i-\partial_i A^0=F^{0i}$ and

621: magnetic field strength $B^i=\epsilon^{ijk}\partial_j A_k=\epsilon^{ijk}F_{jk}$

622: where Latin indices represent spatial indices and $\epsilon^{ijk}$ is

623: totally anti-symmetric with $\epsilon^{123}=1$. As a consequence,

624: in the non-relativistic limit, Eq.~(\ref{moments}) reduce to a

625: magnetic and electric dipole moment of the $\psi$ field, respectively,

626: of size $4e/M$. Note that these are even and odd, respectively,

627: under parity and time reversal.

628: 

629: Other non-renormalizable terms may arise from Lorentz symmetry violation

630: by physics close to the grand unification scale $M$. In Sect.~\ref{sec_vli}

631: we will see how high energy astrophysics can constrain such terms and

632: thus physics beyond the Standard Model to precisions greater than

633: laboratory experiments.

634: 

635: \section{Gauge Symmetries and Interactions}

636: \subsection{Symmetries of the Action}

637: Lorentz invariance suggests that the action should be the space-time

638: integral of a scalar function of the fields $\psi_i({\bf x},t)$ and

639: their space-time derivatives $\partial_\mu\psi_i({\bf x},t)$,

640: and thus that the Lagrangian should be the space-integral of a scalar

641: called the {\it Lagrangian density} ${\cal L}$,

642: \begin{equation}

643:   S[\psi]=\int d^4x{\cal L}[\psi_i(x),\partial_\mu\psi_i(x)]\,,

644:   \label{lagrangian}

645: \end{equation}

646: where $x\equiv({\bf x},t)$ from now on. In this case, the equations

647: of motion read

648: \begin{equation}

649:   \partial_\mu\frac{\partial{\cal L}}{\partial(\partial_\mu\psi_i)}=

650:   \frac{\partial{\cal L}}{\partial\psi_i}\,,\label{eq_motion2}

651: \end{equation}

652: which are called {\it Euler-Lagrange equations} and are obviously

653: Lorentz invariant if ${\cal L}$ is a scalar.

654: 

655: Symmetries can be treated in a very transparent way in the Lagrangian

656: formalism. Assume that the action is invariant, $\delta S=0$, independent

657: of whether $\psi_i(x)$ satisfy the field equations or not,

658: under a global symmetry transformation,

659: \begin{equation}

660:   \delta\psi_i(x)=i\epsilon{\cal F}_i[\psi_j(x),\partial_\mu\psi_j(x)]

661:   \,,\label{global_sym}

662: \end{equation}

663: for which $\epsilon$ is independent of $x$. Here and in the following

664: explicit factors of $i$ denote the imaginary unit, and not an index.

665: Then, for a space-time dependent $\epsilon(x)$, the variation must be

666: of the form

667: \begin{equation}

668:   \delta S=-\int d^4x J^\mu[x,\psi_j(x),\partial_\mu\psi_j(x)]

669:   \partial_\mu\epsilon(x)\,.\label{delta_S}

670: \end{equation}

671: But if the fields satisfy their equations of motion, $\delta S=0$,

672: and thus

673: \begin{equation}

674:   \partial_\mu J^\mu[x,\psi_j(x),\partial_\mu\psi_j(x)]=0

675:   \,,\label{noether}

676: \end{equation}

677: which implies Noethers theorem, the existence of one conserved

678: current $J^\mu$ for each continuous global symmetry.

679: If Eq.~(\ref{global_sym}) leaves the Lagrangian density itself

680: invariant, an explicit formula for $J^\mu$ follows immediately,

681: \begin{equation}

682:   J^\mu=-i\frac{\partial{\cal L}}{\partial(\partial_\mu\psi_i)}

683:   {\cal F}_i\,,\label{j_explicit}

684: \end{equation}

685: where we drop the field arguments from now on.

686: 

687: As opposed to a global symmetry, Eq.~(\ref{global_sym}), which

688: leaves a theory invariant under a transformation that is the

689: same at all space-time points, a gauge symmetry is more powerful

690: as it leaves invariant a theory, i.e. $\delta{\cal L}=\delta S=0$,

691: under transformations that can

692: be chosen independently at each space-time point. Gauge symmetries

693: are usually also linear in the (fermionic) matter fields which we represent

694: here by one big spinor $\psi(x)$ that in general contains Lorentz

695: spinor indices as well as some internal group indices on which the

696: gauge transformations act. For real infinitesimal $\epsilon^\alpha(x)$

697: we write

698: \begin{equation}

699:   \delta\psi(x)=i\epsilon^\alpha(x)t_\alpha\psi(x)

700:   \,,\label{gauge_sym1}

701: \end{equation}

702: where $\alpha$ labels the different independent generators $t_\alpha$

703: of the gauge group. A finite gauge transformation would be written

704: as $\psi(x)\to\exp(i\Lambda^\alpha(x)t_\alpha)\psi(x)$ and reduces to

705: Eq.~(\ref{gauge_sym1}) in the limit

706: $\Lambda^\alpha(x)=\epsilon^\alpha(x)\to0$. The hermitian matrices

707: $t_\alpha$ form a {\it Lie algebra} with commutation relations

708: \begin{equation}

709:   [t_\alpha,t_\beta]=iC^\gamma_{\alpha\beta}t_\gamma

710:   \,,\label{commutation}

711: \end{equation}

712: where the real constants $C^\gamma_{\alpha\beta}$ are called

713: structure constants of the Lie algebra, and are anti-symmetric in

714: $\alpha\beta$.

715: 

716: \subsection{Gauge Symmetry of Matter Fields}

717: If the Lagrangian contained no field derivatives, but only terms

718: of the form $\psi(x)^\dagger\cdots\psi(x)$, there would be no

719: difference between global and local gauge invariance. However,

720: dynamical theories contain space-time derivatives $\partial_\mu\psi$

721: which transform differently under Eq.~(\ref{gauge_sym1}) than

722: $\psi$, and thus would spoil local gauge invariance. One can

723: cure this by introducing new vector {\it gauge fields} $A^\alpha_\mu(x)$

724: and defining {\it covariant derivatives} by

725: \begin{equation}

726:   D_\mu\psi(x)\equiv\partial_\mu\psi(x)-iA^\alpha_\mu(x)t_\alpha\psi(x)

727:   \,.\label{covariant}

728: \end{equation}

729: The gauge variation of this from the variation of $\psi$ alone (i.e. assuming

730: $A^\alpha_\mu$ constant for the moment) reads

731: \begin{equation}

732:   \delta_\psi D_\mu\psi(x)=i\epsilon^\alpha(x)t_\alpha D_\mu\psi(x)

733:   +i\left[\partial_\mu\epsilon^\alpha(x)+

734:   C^\alpha_{\beta\gamma}A^\beta_\mu(x)\epsilon^\gamma(x)\right]

735:   t_\alpha\psi(x)\,,\label{var_covariant}

736: \end{equation}

737: where we have used Eq.~(\ref{commutation}). The new term proportional to

738: the structure constants $C^\alpha_{\beta\gamma}$ results from moving

739: the gauge variation of $\psi$ in Eq.~(\ref{covariant}) to the

740: left of the matrix gauge field $A^\alpha_\mu(x)t_\alpha$ and is

741: only present in {\it non-abelian gauge theories} for which the

742: $t_\alpha$ do not all commute. The variation

743: $\delta_\psi S_{\rm m}$ of the matter action $S_{\rm m}$ can then

744: be obtained from Eq.~(\ref{delta_S}), generalized to several

745: $\epsilon^\alpha$, and with $\partial_\mu\epsilon^\alpha(x)$ substituted

746: by the corresponding first factor of the second term in

747: Eq.~(\ref{var_covariant}),

748: \begin{equation}

749:   \delta_\psi S_{\rm m}=-\int d^4x J^\mu_\alpha(x)

750:   \left[\partial_\mu\epsilon^\alpha(x)+

751:   C^\alpha_{\beta\gamma}A^\beta_\mu(x)\epsilon^\gamma(x)\right]

752:   \,,\label{var_Sm}

753: \end{equation}

754: where the {\it gauge currents}

755: Eq.~(\ref{j_explicit}) now read [compare Eqs.~(\ref{global_sym})

756: and~(\ref{gauge_sym1})]

757: \begin{equation}

758:   J^\mu_\alpha=-i\frac{\partial{\cal L}_{\rm m}}

759:   {\partial(\partial_\mu\psi)}t_\alpha\psi\label{gauge_current}

760: \end{equation}

761: in terms of the matter Lagrangian ${\cal L}_{\rm m}$. Realizing now that

762: $[\partial S_{\rm m}/\partial A^\alpha_\mu(x)]=[\partial{\cal L}_{\rm m}/

763: \partial(\partial_\mu\psi)](-it_\alpha\psi)=J^\mu_\alpha$, we

764: see that $\delta S_{\rm m}=\delta_\psi S_{\rm m}+

765: [\partial S_{\rm m}/\partial A^\alpha_\mu(x)]\delta A^\alpha_\mu(x)$

766: vanishes identically if we adopt the gauge transformation

767: \begin{equation}

768:   \delta A^\alpha_\mu(x)=\partial_\mu\epsilon^\alpha(x)+

769:   C^\alpha_{\beta\gamma}A^\beta_\mu(x)\epsilon^\gamma(x)

770:   \,,\label{var_A}

771: \end{equation} 

772: for the gauge field $A^\alpha_\mu(x)$.

773: 

774: The standard gauge-invariant term for fermions is then given by

775: the matter Lagrange density

776: \begin{equation}

777:   {\cal L}_{\rm m}=-\bar\psi(\gamma^\mu D_\mu+m)\psi

778:   =-\bar\psi(\gamma^\mu\partial_\mu+m)\psi+A^\alpha_\mu J^\mu_\alpha

779:   \,,\label{L_matter}

780: \end{equation}

781: where $m$ is the fermion mass matrix. The second equality shows

782: how the matter Lagrangian splits into the free part quadratic

783: in the fields, Eq.~(\ref{L_psi}), and the fundamental coupling

784: of the gauge field to the gauge current Eq.~(\ref{gauge_current}).

785: Since ${\cal L}_{\rm m}$ is real and the gauge current is hermitian,

786: $J_{\mu\alpha}=J^\dagger_{\mu\alpha}$, the gauge fields $A^\alpha_\mu$

787: are also real.

788: 

789: \subsection{Gauge Theory of the Electroweak Interaction}

790: In the electroweak Standard Model the elementary fermions are arranged

791: into three families or generations which here are labeled with the index $i$.

792: Each family consists of a left-chiral doublet of leptons,

793: $\left(\matrix{\nu_i\cr l^-_i}\right)_L$, a left-chiral doublet of quarks,

794: $\left(\matrix{u_i\cr d_i}\right)_L$, and the corresponding

795: right-chiral singlets $l^-_{iR}$, $u_{iR}$, and $d_{iR}$. Here,

796: left- and right-chiral is understood

797: as in Eq.~(\ref{chirality}), and each quark species comes in three

798: colors corresponding to the three-dimensional representations

799: of the strong interaction gauge group $SU(3)$ whose index is suppressed

800: here. The three known leptons are the electron, muon, and tau

801: with their corresponding neutrinos. The three up-type quarks

802: are called up, charm-, and top-quark, and the down-type quarks

803: are the down-, strange-, and bottom-quarks. The fermion masses

804: rise steeply with generation from about 1 MeV for the first generation

805: to up to $\simeq175\,$GeV for the top-quark whose direct discovery

806: occurred as late as 1995 at Fermilab in the USA.

807: 

808: Note that no right-handed neutrino appears and thus neutrino mass terms of

809: the form $\overline{\nu_L}\nu_R+$h.c. (h.c. denotes hermitian conjugate

810: here and in the following) are absent in the Standard Model.

811: Implications of recent experimental evidence for neutrino masses

812: for modifications of the Standard Model will not be discussed here.

813: To simplify the notation we assemble all fields into lepton and quark

814: doublets, $l_i\equiv\left(\matrix{\nu_i\cr l^-_i}\right)$, and

815: $q_i\equiv\left(\matrix{u_i\cr d_i}\right)$, including the right-handed

816: components. We will also use the

817: Pauli matrices

818: \begin{eqnarray}

819:   (\tau_0,\mbox{\boldmath$\tau$})&=&(\tau_0,\tau_1,\tau_2,\tau_3)

820:   \label{pauli}\\

821:   &\equiv&\left\{\left(\matrix{1 & 0\cr 0 & 1}\right),

822:   \left(\matrix{0 & 1/2\cr 1/2 & 0}\right)\,,

823:   \left(\matrix{0 & -i/2\cr i/2 & 0}\right)\,,

824:   \left(\matrix{1/2 & 0\cr 0 & -1/2}\right)\right\}\,.\nonumber

825: \end{eqnarray}

826: 

827: The electroweak gauge group is given by

828: \begin{equation}

829:   G=SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\,,\label{ew}

830: \end{equation}

831: where the first factor only acts on the left-handed doublets. Denoting

832: the dimensionless coupling constants corresponding to these two factors

833: with $g$ and $g^\prime$, we write the four generators in the leptonic

834: and quark sector as

835: \begin{eqnarray}

836:   {\bf t}_l={\bf t}_q&\equiv&(t_1,t_2,t_3)

837:   \equiv g\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\,\mbox{\boldmath$\tau$}\nonumber\\

838:   t_{Yl}&=&g^\prime\left[\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\frac{\tau_0}{2}+

839:   \frac{1-\gamma_5}{2}\tau_0\right]\label{t_ew}\\

840:   t_{Yq}&=&g^\prime\left[-\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\frac{\tau_0}{6}

841:   -\frac{1-\gamma_5}{2}\left(\frac{\tau_0}{6}+\tau_3\right)\right]

842:   \,.\nonumber

843: \end{eqnarray}

844: These correspond to the generators $t_\alpha$ from the previous

845: section, and we denote the corresponding gauge fields by

846: ${\bf A}_\mu$ and $B_\mu$. It is easy to see that the electric charge

847: operator is then given by the combination

848: \begin{equation}

849:   q=\frac{e}{g}\,t_3-\frac{e}{g^\prime}\,t_Y\,,\label{echarge}

850: \end{equation}

851: where $e$ is the (positive) electric charge unit.

852: 

853: We are here only interested in the part of the Lagrangian involving

854: matter fields. This is then given by Eq.~(\ref{L_matter}) where

855: $\psi$ now represents all lepton and quark multiplets $l_i$ and $q_i$.

856: Using Eq.~(\ref{covariant}), where, from comparing Eq.~(\ref{t_ew})

857: with Eq.~(\ref{commutation}),

858: $C^\alpha_{\beta\gamma}=g\epsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma}$ for $SU(2)_L$,

859: and zero for $U(1)$, we can write the matter part of the electroweak

860: Lagrangian as

861: \begin{eqnarray}

862:   {\cal L}_{\rm ew,m}&=&-\sum_{i=1}^3\bar{l}_i\gamma^\mu\left(\partial_\mu

863:   -i{\bf A}_\mu\cdot{\bf t}-iB_\mu t_{Yl}\right)l_i\label{L_ew}\\

864:   &&-\sum_{i=1}^3\bar{q}_i\gamma^\mu\left(\partial_\mu

865:   -i{\bf A}_\mu\cdot{\bf t}-iB_\mu t_{Yq}\right)q_i

866:   \,.\nonumber

867: \end{eqnarray}

868: 

869: It will be more convenient to use charge eigenstates as basis of

870: the electroweak gauge bosons and to identify the photon $A_\mu$ as

871: carrier of the electromagnetic interactions. There is then one other

872: neutral gauge boson $Z_\mu$ and two gauge bosons $W^\pm$ of charge

873: $\pm e$. They are defined by

874: \begin{eqnarray}

875:   A^1_\mu&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt2}\left(W^-_\mu+W^+_\mu\right)\nonumber\\

876:   A^2_\mu&=&\frac{1}{\sqrt2}\left(W_\mu^--W^+_\mu\right)\label{wwza}\\

877:   A^3_\mu&=&\cos\theta_{\rm ew}Z_\mu-\sin\theta_{\rm ew}A_\mu\nonumber\\

878:   B_\mu&=&\sin\theta_{\rm ew}Z_\mu+\cos\theta_{\rm ew}A_\mu\,,\nonumber\\

879: \end{eqnarray}

880: where the {\it electroweak angle} $\theta_{\rm ew}$ is defined by

881: \begin{equation}

882:   g=\frac{e}{\sin\theta_{\rm ew}}\,,\quad

883:   g^\prime=\frac{e}{\cos\theta_{\rm ew}}\,.\label{theta_ew}

884: \end{equation}

885: The interaction terms in Eq.~(\ref{L_ew}) can then be written as

886: \begin{eqnarray}

887:   {\bf A}_\mu\cdot{\bf t}+B_\mu t_Y&=&\frac{g}{\sqrt2}\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}

888:   \left(W^+_\mu\tau^++W^-_\mu\tau^-\right)\label{wwza2}\\

889:   &&-\frac{g}{2\cos\theta_{\rm ew}}

890:   Z_\mu\left(\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\tau_3

891:   -q\sin^2\theta_{\rm ew}\right)+A_\mu q\,,\nonumber

892: \end{eqnarray}

893: where $\tau^\pm\equiv\tau_1\pm i\tau_2$ are the weak isospin

894: raising and lowering operators, respectively.

895: 

896: Up to this point all fields are massless. Mass terms for gauge bosons

897: and for fermions, whether Dirac or Majorana (see below), are inconsistent

898: with gauge invariance. The standard way to introduce them is by

899: {\it spontaneously broken gauge symmetries}. Without going into

900: any detail here, we just mention that this is done by introducing

901: a scalar {\it Higgs} field coupling to gauge boson and fermion

902: bilinears in a gauge-invariant way and making it adopt a vacuum

903: expectation value due to a suitably chosen potential.

904: 

905: Let us now consider processes involving the exchange of a

906: $W^\pm$ or $Z$ boson with energy-momentum transfer $q$ much

907: smaller than the gauge boson mass, $|q^2|\ll m^2_{W,Z}$, such that

908: the boson propagator can be approximated by $-i\eta_{\mu\nu}/m^2_{W,Z}$.

909: In this case the second order terms in the perturbation series

910: give rise to {\it effective interactions} of the form

911: \begin{equation}

912:   \frac{1}{m^2_W}J^\mu_{\rm cc}J^\dagger_{\mu{\rm cc}}+

913:   \frac{1}{m^2_Z}J^\mu_{\rm nc}J_{\mu{\rm nc}}

914:   \,.\label{ccnc}

915: \end{equation}

916: Here, the {\it charged current} and {\it neutral current}

917: are gauge currents given by comparing Eq.~(\ref{L_matter}) with

918: Eq.~(\ref{L_ew}), and using Eq.~(\ref{wwza2}),

919: \begin{eqnarray}

920:   J^\mu_{\rm cc}&=&i\frac{g}{\sqrt2}\sum_{i=1}^3\left[

921:   \bar{l}_i\gamma^\mu\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\tau^+l_i

922:   +\bar{q}_i\gamma^\mu\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\tau^+q_i\right]\label{ccnc2}\\

923:   J^\mu_{\rm nc}&=&-i\frac{g}{2\cos\theta_{\rm ew}}\sum_{i=1}^3

924:   \biggl[\bar{l}_i\gamma^\mu\left(

925:   \frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\tau_3-q\sin^2\theta_{\rm ew}\right)l_i\nonumber\\

926:   &&\hspace{2.6cm}+\bar{q}_i\gamma^\mu\left(\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\tau_3

927:   -q\sin^2\theta_{\rm ew}\right)q_i

928:   \biggr]\,.\nonumber

929: \end{eqnarray}

930: Eqs.~(\ref{ccnc}) and~(\ref{ccnc2}) provide an effective description

931: of all low energy weak processes. This is an instructive example

932: of how a more fundamental renormalizable description of interactions

933: at high energies, in this case electroweak gauge theory, can reduce to

934: an effective non-renormalizable description of interactions at low

935: energies which are suppressed by a large mass scale, in this case

936: $m_W$ or $m_Z$. In fact, the latter is identical in form with the

937: historical ``V--A'' theory Eq.~(\ref{mcc}) which, for example, for

938: the muon decay $\mu^-\to e^-\bar\nu_e\nu_\mu$ reads

939: \begin{equation}

940:   \frac{G_{\rm F}}{\sqrt2}\left[\overline{e^-}\gamma^\mu(1+\gamma_5)

941:   \nu_e\right]

942:   \left[\bar{\nu}_\mu\gamma_\mu(1+\gamma_5)\mu^-\right] +\mbox{h.c.}

943:   \,,\label{v_a}

944: \end{equation}

945: where the {\it Fermi constant} $G_{\rm F}$ by comparison with

946: Eqs.~(\ref{ccnc}) and~(\ref{ccnc2}) is given by

947: \begin{equation}

948:   G_{\rm F}=\frac{g^2}{4\sqrt2 m^2_W}=

949:   1.16637(1)\times10^{-5}\,{\rm GeV}^{-2}\,.\label{gf}

950: \end{equation}

951: 

952: Radioactive $\beta-$decay processes are described by the terms in

953: Eq.~(\ref{ccnc}) containing $\overline{e^-}\gamma_\mu(1+\gamma_5)\nu_e$

954: or its hermitian conjugate for one of the charged currents

955: $J_{\mu\rm cc}$ or $J^\dagger_{\mu\rm cc}$, and a quark term

956: for the other current. For example, neutron decay, $n\to pe^-\bar\nu_e$

957: is due to the contribution $\bar{u}\gamma^\mu(1+\gamma_5)d$ to

958: $J^\mu_{\rm cc}$, which causes one of the d-quarks in the neutron

959: to transform into a u-quark under emission of a $W^-$ boson

960: which in turn decays into $e^-\bar\nu_e$, $(udd)\to(uud)e^-\bar\nu_e$.

961: 

962: Inverting Eq.~(\ref{wwza}) to $Z_\mu=\cos\theta_{\rm ew}A_\mu^3+

963: \sin\theta_{\rm ew}B_\mu$ and writing out the mass term of the

964: neutral gauge boson sector $\frac{1}{2}m_Z^2Z_\mu Z^\mu$ implies

965: \begin{equation}

966: m_W=m_Z\cos\theta_{\rm ew}\label{ewmass}\,,

967: \end{equation}

968: because the mass term of $A_\mu^3$ has to be identical to the

969: one for $W_\mu^\pm$. From this it follows immediately that the

970: neutral current part of Eqs.~(\ref{ccnc}), (\ref{ccnc2}) involving

971: neutrinos can be written as

972: \begin{equation}

973:   \frac{G_{\rm F}}{\sqrt2}\left[\bar{\nu}_i\gamma^\mu(1+\gamma_5)

974:   \nu_i\right]

975:   \left[\bar{\psi}\gamma_\mu\left(g_L(1+\gamma_5)+g_R(1-\gamma_5)\right)

976:   \psi\right]\,,\label{v_a2}

977: \end{equation}

978: where $\psi$ stands for quarks and leptons and

979: \begin{eqnarray}

980:   g_L&=&\tau_3-q\sin^2\theta_{\rm ew}\nonumber\\

981:   g_R&=&-q\sin^2\theta_{\rm ew}\,.\label{glr}

982: \end{eqnarray}

983: 

984: \section{Neutrino Scattering}

985: 

986: \begin{figure}

987: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig1.eps}

988: \caption{From Ref.~\cite{Gandhi:1998ri}. Cross sections for

989: $\nu_{\ell} N$ interactions at high

990: energies, according to the CTEQ4--DIS parton distributions: dashed 

991: line, $\sigma(\nu_{\ell} N \rightarrow \nu_{\ell}+\hbox{anything})$; 

992: thin line, $\sigma(\nu_{\ell} N \rightarrow 

993: \ell^{-}+\hbox{anything})$; thick line, total (charged-current plus 

994: neutral-current) cross section.}

995: \label{fig1}

996: \end{figure}

997: 

998: Imagine a neutrino of energy $E_\nu$ scattering on a parton $i$

999: carrying a fraction $x$ of the 4-momentum $P$ of a state $X$ of mass

1000: $M$. Denoting the fractional recoil energy of $X$ by

1001: $y\equiv E_X^\prime/E_\nu$ and the distribution of parton type $i$ by

1002: $f_i(x,Q)$, in the relativistic limit $E_\nu\gg m_X$ the contribution to

1003: the $\nu X$ cross section turns out to be

1004: \begin{equation}

1005:   \frac{d\sigma^{\nu X}}{dxdy}=\frac{2G_{\rm F}^2ME_\nu x}{\pi}

1006:   \left(\frac{M_{W,Z}^2}{2ME_\nu xy+M_{W,Z}^2}\right)^2

1007:   \sum_i f_i(x,Q)\left[g_{i,L}^2+g_{i,R}^2(1-y)^2\right]\,.\label{nuX}

1008: \end{equation}

1009: Here, $g_{i,L}$ and $g_{i,R}$ are the left- and right-chiral couplings

1010: of parton $i$, respectively, given by Eq.~(\ref{glr}). Eq.~(\ref{nuX})

1011: applies to both charged and neutral currents, as well as to the

1012: case where $X$ represents an elementary particle such as the

1013: electron, in which case $f_i(x,Q)=\delta(x-1)$.

1014: 

1015: \begin{figure}

1016: \includegraphics[height=0.9\textwidth,clip=true,angle=270]{fig2.ps}

1017: \caption{A scenario from Ref.~\cite{ss,dima} where neutrinos are produced as

1018: secondaries of UHE cosmic rays (data with error bars above $10^{15}\,$eV) by

1019: interactions with the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Theoretical

1020: fluxes of protons, $\gamma-$rays, and neutrinos (per flavor) are as indicated.

1021: Also shown are the atmospheric neutrino flux~\cite{atm-nu}, as well as

1022: existing upper limits on the diffuse neutrino fluxes from MACRO~\cite{MACRO},

1023: AMANDA II~\cite{amandaII}, BAIKAL~\cite{baikal_limit},

1024: AGASA~\cite{agasa_nu}, the Fly's Eye~\cite{baltrusaitis} and

1025: RICE~\cite{rice_new} experiments, and the limits obtained with the

1026: Goldstone radio telescope (GLUE)~\cite{glue} and the FORTE

1027: satellite~\cite{forte}, as indicated. The cosmic ray data are

1028: from the AGASA~\cite{agasa} and HiRes~\cite{hires} experiments

1029: To the left the newest estimate of

1030: the diffuse GeV $\gamma-$ray background from EGRET data is

1031: shown~\cite{egret_new}.

1032: Since most of the electromagnetic energy ends up in this energy

1033: range and since pion production produces comparable amounts of

1034: $\gamma-$rays and neutrinos, predicted neutrino fluxes cannot

1035: considerably overshoot the horizontal line on the level of the

1036: EGRET estimate marked $\gamma-$ray bound. If the sources are transparent

1037: to produced cosmic rays, the more restrictive but less general

1038: ``Waxman-Bahcall bound''~\cite{wb-bound}, marked ``WB bound'', results.

1039: This will be discussed in more detail in Sect.~\ref{sec_egret}.}

1040: \label{fig2}

1041: \end{figure}

1042: 

1043: As usual, if the four-momentum transfer $Q$ becomes comparable to

1044: the electroweak scale, $Q^2\gg m_{W,Z}^2$, the weak gauge boson

1045: propagator effects, represented by the factor

1046: $M_{W,Z}^2/(Q^2+M_{W,Z}^2)$ in Eq.~(\ref{nuX}), become important.

1047: We have used that in the limit $|Q^2|\gg M^2$ one has

1048: $0\simeq-M^2=(xP+Q)^2\simeq Q^2+2P\cdot Qx$ with

1049: $P\cdot Q\simeq-ME_X^\prime=-ME_\nu y$ evaluated in the laboratory

1050: frame, i.e. the rest frame of $X$ before the interaction.

1051: $Q^2\simeq2ME_\nu xy$ is also called the {\it virtuality}

1052: because it is a measure for how far the exchanged gauge boson

1053: is form the mass shell $Q^2=-M^2$.

1054: 

1055: We will not derive Eq.~(\ref{nuX}) in detail, but it is easy to

1056: understand its structure: First, the overall normalization is

1057: analogous to Eq.~(\ref{cross2}), using the fact that for $E_\nu\gg M$

1058: the CM momentum $p_*\simeq M E_\nu/2$. Second, if the helicities of

1059: the parton and the neutrino are equal, the total spin is zero

1060: and the scattering is spherically symmetric in the CM frame.

1061: In contrast, if the parton is right-handed, the total spin is

1062: 1 which introduces an angular dependence: After a rotation by

1063: the scattering angle $\theta_*$ in the CM frame the particle

1064: helicities are unchanged for the outgoing final state particle

1065: and one has to project back onto the original helicities in order

1066: to conserve spin. If a left-handed particle originally

1067: propagated along the positive z-axis, its left-handed component

1068: after scattering by $\theta_*$ in the $x-z$ plane is

1069: \begin{equation}

1070:   \frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{\ss\cdot{\bf p}}{p}\right)

1071:   \left(\matrix{0\cr1}\right)

1072:   =\frac{1}{2}\left(\matrix{-\sin\theta_*\cr1+\cos\theta_*}\right)\,,

1073: \end{equation}

1074: giving a projection $[(1+\cos\theta_*)/2]^2$. Now, Lorentz transformation

1075: from the CM frame to the lab frame gives $E_\nu^\prime/E_\nu=

1076: (1+v_X\cos\theta_*)/2\simeq(1+\cos\theta_*)/2$ in the relativistic

1077: limit and thus the projection factor equals $(E_\nu^\prime/E_\nu)^2=

1078: (1-E_X^\prime/E_\nu)^2=(1-y)^2$, as in Eq.~(\ref{nuX}) for the

1079: right-handed parton contribution. Integrated over $0\leq y\leq1$

1080: this gives $1/3$, corresponding to the fact that only one of

1081: the three projections of the $J=1$ state contributes.

1082: 

1083: \subsection{Neutrino-Nucleon Scattering and Applications}\label{sec_nuN}

1084: We now briefly consider neutrino-nucleon interaction.

1085: From Eq.~(\ref{nuX}) it is obvious that at ultra-high energies

1086: $2E_\nu M\gg M_{W,Z}^2$, the dominant contribution comes

1087: from partons with

1088: \begin{equation}

1089:   x\sim\frac{M_{W,Z}^2}{2E_\nu M}\,.

1090: \end{equation}

1091: Since, very roughly, $xf_i(x,Q)\propto x^{-0.3}$ for $x\ll1$, it follows

1092: that the neutrino-nucleon cross section grows roughly $\propto E_\nu^{0.3}$.

1093: This is confirmed by a more detailed evaluation of Eq.~(\ref{nuX})

1094: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.

1095: 

1096: \begin{figure}

1097: \includegraphics[height=0.9\textwidth,clip=true,angle=270]{fig3.ps}

1098: \caption{ From Ref.~\cite{ss}. Similar to Fig.~\ref{fig2}, but showing

1099: expected sensitivities of the currently being constructed

1100: Pierre Auger project to tau-neutrinos~\cite{auger_nu},

1101: the planned projects Telescope Array (TA)~\cite{ta_nu}, the

1102: fluorescence/\v{C}erenkov detector NUTEL~\cite{mount}, the

1103: space based EUSO~\cite{euso_nu}, the water-based Baikal~\cite{baikal_limit}

1104: and ANTARES~\cite{antares} (the NESTOR sensitivity for 1 tower would

1105: be similar to AMANDA-II and for 7 towers similar to ANTARES~\cite{nestor}),

1106: the ice-based AMANDA-II~\cite{amandaII} and ICECUBE~\cite{icecube}

1107: (similar to the intended Mediterranean km$^3$ project~\cite{katz}), and

1108: the radio detectors RICE~\cite{rice} and ANITA~\cite{anita}, as indicated.

1109: All sensitivities except for ANITA and RICE refer to one year running

1110: time. For comparison, the $\gamma-$ray bound derived from the EGRET GeV

1111: $\gamma-$ray flux~\cite{egret_new} is also shown.}

1112: \label{fig3}

1113: \end{figure}

1114: 

1115: Let us use this to do a very rough estimate of event rates

1116: expected for extraterrestrial ultra-high energy (UHE) neutrinos

1117: in neutrino telescopes.

1118: Such neutrinos are usually produced via pion production by

1119: accelerated UHE protons interacting within their source or

1120: with the cosmic microwave background (CMB) during propagation to

1121: Earth. The threshold for the reaction $N\gamma\to N\pi$, for

1122: a head-on collision of a nucleon $N$ of energy $E$ with a photon

1123: of energy $\varepsilon$ is given by the condition

1124: $s=(E+\varepsilon)^2-\left[(E^2-m_N^2)^{1/2}-\varepsilon\right]^2\geq

1125: (m_N+m_\pi)^2$, or

1126: \begin{equation}

1127:   E\geq\frac{m_\pi(m_N+m_\pi/2)}{2\varepsilon}\simeq

1128:   3.4\times10^{19}\left(\frac{\varepsilon}{10^{-3}\,{\rm eV}}\right)^{-1}

1129:   \,{\rm eV}\,,\label{gzk}

1130: \end{equation}

1131: where $\varepsilon\sim10^{-3}\,$eV represents the energy of a typical

1132: CMB photon. At these energies, the secondary

1133: neutrino flux should therefore be very roughly comparable with

1134: the primary UHE cosmic ray flux, within large margins. Fig.~\ref{fig2}

1135: shows a scenario where neutrinos are produced by the primary cosmic

1136: ray interactions with the CMB. Using that the neutrino-nucleon

1137: cross section from Fig.~\ref{fig1} roughly scales as

1138: $\sigma_{\nu N}\propto E_\nu^{0.363}$ for

1139: $10^{16}\,{\rm eV}\la E_\nu\la10^{21}\,$eV, and assuming

1140: water or ice as detector medium, we obtain the rate

1141: \begin{eqnarray}

1142:   \Gamma_\nu&\sim&

1143:   \sigma_{\nu N}(E_\nu)2\pi E_\nu j(E_\nu)n_N V_{\rm eff}\nonumber\\

1144:   &\sim&0.03\left(\frac{E_\nu}{10^{19}\,{\rm eV}}\right)^{-0.637}

1145:   \left(\frac{E_\nu^2 j(E_\nu)}

1146:   {10^2\,{\rm eV}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm sr}^{-1}{\rm s}^{-1}}\right)

1147:   \left(\frac{V_{\rm eff}}{{\rm km}^3}\right)\,{\rm yr}^{-1}\,,\label{nurate}

1148: \end{eqnarray}

1149: where $n_N\simeq6\times10^{23}\,{\rm cm}^{-3}$ is the nucleon

1150: density in water/ice, $V_{\rm eff}$ the effective detection volume,

1151: and $j(E_\nu)$ is the differential neutrino flux in units of

1152: ${\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm eV}^{-1}{\rm sr}^{-1}{\rm s}^{-1}$.

1153: 

1154: Eq.~(\ref{nurate}) indicates that at $E_\nu\ga10^{18}\,$eV,

1155: effective volumes $\ga100\,{\rm km}^3$ are necessary. Although

1156: impractical for conventional neutrino telescopes, big air

1157: shower arrays such as the Pierre Auger experiment can achieve

1158: this. In contrast, if there are sources such as active galactic

1159: nuclei emitting at $E_\nu\sim10^{16}\,$eV at a level

1160: $E_\nu^2 j(E_\nu)\sim10^2\,{\rm eV}{\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm sr}^{-1}{\rm s}^{-1}$,

1161: km-scale neutrino telescopes should detect something. Such fluxes

1162: are consistent with general considerations, see Fig.~\ref{fig2}.

1163: 

1164: Finally, Fig.~\ref{fig3} shows more detailed neutrino flux

1165: sensitivities expected from future experiments.

1166: 

1167: \section{Dirac and Majorana Neutrinos}\label{sec_dirana}

1168: Up to now we have assumed that neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are

1169: separate entities. This is true if lepton number is conserved,

1170: see Tab.~\ref{tab1}, and corresponds to pure "Dirac neutrinos".

1171: However, lepton number may be violated in the neutrino sector

1172: and neutrinos may be indistinguishable from anti-neutrinos.

1173: In order to elucidate this, let us first study some symmetries

1174: of the Dirac equation~(\ref{dirac}). From Eqs.~(\ref{clifford}),

1175: (\ref{gammamunu}) one can easily show that

1176: \begin{equation}

1177:   \gamma_\mu^*=\gamma_2\gamma_\mu\gamma_2\,.\label{complexconj}

1178: \end{equation}

1179: Complex conjugating the Dirac equation (\ref{dirac}) and multiplying

1180: it with $\xi^*\gamma_2$ from the left, it then follows that it is

1181: invariant under the "charge conjugation transformation"

1182: \begin{equation}

1183:   C\psi(x)C^{-1}\equiv\psi^c\equiv\xi^*\gamma_2\psi^*

1184:   \,,\label{chargeconj}

1185: \end{equation}

1186: where $\xi$ is an arbitrary complex number with $|\xi|=1$. This

1187: transformation exchanges particles and anti-particles and satisfies

1188: $(\psi^c)^c=\psi$. Note that $\gamma_2$ appears because according

1189: to Eq.~(\ref{complexconj}) it is the only real Dirac matrix in this

1190: convention.

1191: 

1192: A {\sl Majorana neutrino} satisfies the reality condition

1193: \begin{equation}

1194:   \phi(x)=\gamma_2\phi^*(x)\,,\quad\mbox{or}\quad\phi^c=\xi^*\phi\,.

1195:   \label{majorana}

1196: \end{equation}

1197: These spinors are of the form

1198: \begin{equation}

1199:   \phi=\left(\matrix{-i\sigma_2\chi^*\cr\chi}\right)\,,

1200:   \label{majorana2}

1201: \end{equation}

1202: where $\chi$ is a two-spinor. This implies that for any Dirac spinor

1203: $\psi$ one can construct a Majorana spinor by

1204: \begin{equation}

1205:   \phi\equiv\psi+\xi\psi^c\,.

1206: \end{equation}

1207: Note that this spinor is not an eigenstate of lepton number

1208: because under a phase transformation $\psi\to\psi e^{i\alpha}$

1209: one has $\psi^c\to\psi^c e^{-i\alpha}$. Defining

1210: \begin{equation}

1211:   \psi^c_{L,R}\equiv(\psi^c)_{L,R}=\frac{1\pm\gamma_5}{2}\psi^c=

1212:   \left(\frac{1\mp\gamma_5}{2}\psi\right)^c\,,

1213: \end{equation}

1214: one can define left- and right-handed Majorana fields

1215: \begin{equation}

1216:   \phi_\pm\equiv\psi_{L,R}+(\psi_{L,R})^c=

1217:   \psi_{L,R}+\psi_{R,L}^c\,.\label{phipm}

1218: \end{equation}

1219: Note that both these fields now contain both left and right-handed

1220: fields. What before experimentally was called neutrino and anti-neutrino

1221: now is called left- and right-handed neutrino, respectively.

1222: We can now introduce Majorana mass terms of the form

1223: \begin{eqnarray}

1224:   {\cal L}_{\rm M}&=&-\frac{1}{2}\left(m_L\overline{\phi_+}\phi_+

1225:   +m_R\overline{\phi_-}\phi_-\right)\label{majoranamass}\\

1226:   &=&-\frac{1}{2}m_L\left(\overline{\psi_L}\psi_R^c+\overline{\psi_R^c}\psi_L

1227:   \right)

1228:   -\frac{1}{2}m_R\left(\overline{\psi_R}\psi_L^c+\overline{\psi_L^c}\psi_R

1229:   \right)\,,\nonumber

1230: \end{eqnarray}

1231: where $m_L$ and $m_R$ are real.

1232: Together with the Dirac mass term this can be written as

1233: \begin{equation}

1234:   {\cal L}_{\rm M}+{\cal L}_{\rm D}=-\frac{1}{2}

1235:   \left(\overline{\psi_L},\overline{\psi_L^c}\right)

1236:   \left(\matrix{m_L&m_{\rm D}\cr m_{\rm D}&m_R}\right)

1237:   \left(\matrix{\psi_R^c\cr\psi_R}\right)+{\rm h.c.}\,,\label{mdmass}

1238: \end{equation}

1239: where we have used $(\overline{\psi_1}\psi_2)^\dagger=

1240: \overline{\psi_2}\psi_1$, see around Tab.~\ref{tab2} and

1241: (using $\gamma_2^\dagger=\gamma_2$ and

1242: the fact that $\psi$ anti-commutes)

1243: \begin{eqnarray}

1244:   \overline{\psi_L^c}\psi_R^c&=&\left[(\psi_R)^c\right]^\dagger

1245:   i\gamma^0\frac{1-\gamma_5}{2}\xi^*\gamma_2\psi^*=

1246:   \psi_R^T\gamma_2^\dagger i\gamma^0\frac{1-\gamma_5}{2}\gamma_2\psi^*

1247:   \nonumber\\

1248:   &=&-i\psi_R^T\frac{1-\gamma_5}{2}\gamma^0\psi^*=

1249:   i\left[\psi_R^T\frac{1-\gamma_5}{2}\gamma^0\psi^*\right]^T=

1250:   \overline{\psi_L}\psi_R\nonumber

1251: \end{eqnarray}

1252: for any Dirac spinors $\psi_{1,2}$ and $\psi$. Note that under

1253: $\psi\to\psi e^{i\alpha}$ Dirac terms are invariant, whereas

1254: Majorana terms pick up the phase $e^{\pm2i\alpha}$, according to

1255: lepton number conservation and non-conservation, respectively.

1256: Furthermore, we see that for $m_R\gg m_{\rm D}$, $m_L\simeq0$, the

1257: two mass eigenvalues in Eq.~(\ref{mdmass}) are $\simeq m_R$ and

1258: $m_{\rm D}^2/m_R$. The latter are very small and thus may explain

1259: the sub-eV masses involved in left-chiral neutrino oscillations.

1260: This is called the {\it see-saw mechanism} which would imply that the

1261: mass eigenstates are Majorana in nature. The existence of one heavy

1262: right-handed Majorana neutrino per lepton generation is motivated

1263: by Grand Unification extensions of the electroweak gauge group

1264: to $SO(10)$ which has 16-dimensional representations that could

1265: fit 15 Standard Model lepton and quark states plus one new state,

1266: see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{mohapatra}.

1267: 

1268: Finally, in the exactly massless case, Dirac and Majorana particles

1269: are exactly equivalent, since the two fields Eq.~(\ref{phipm})

1270: completely decouple, see Eq.~(\ref{mdmass}). We also mention

1271: that in supersymmetric extensions of the Standard Model, the

1272: fermionic super-partners of the gauge bosons are Majorana fermions.

1273: As a consequence, they can self-annihilate which plays an important

1274: role to their being candidates for {\it cold dark matter}.

1275: 

1276: For $n>1$ neutrino flavors, mass eigenstates $\left|\nu_i\right>$

1277: of mass $m_i$ and interaction eigenstates $\left|\nu_\alpha\right>$

1278: in general are not identical, but related by a unitary $n\times n$

1279: matrix $U$:

1280: \begin{equation}

1281:   \left|\nu_\alpha\right>=\sum_i U_{\alpha i}\left|\nu_i\right>\,,

1282:   \label{U}

1283: \end{equation}

1284: where for anti-neutrinos $U$ has to be replaced by $U^*$. Such

1285: a matrix in general has $n^2$ real parameters. Subtracting

1286: $2n-1$ relative phases of the $n$ neutrinos in the two bases,

1287: one ends up with $(n-1)^2$ physically independent real parameters.

1288: Of these, $n(n-1)/2$ are mixing angles, and the remaining

1289: $(n-1)(n-2)/2$ are "$CP$-violating phases". In order to have $CP$-violation

1290: in the Dirac neutrino sector thus requires $n\geq3$. Once the relative

1291: phases of the different flavors have been fixed, for non-vanishing

1292: Majorana masses there will in general be $n-1$ Majorana phases

1293: that can not be projected out by $\psi\to\psi e^{i\alpha}$ in

1294: Eq.~(\ref{majoranamass}). Thus, the number of independent real

1295: parameters is larger, namely $n(n-1)$, in this case. Note that the

1296: corresponding {\it Cabibbo Kobayashi Maskawa (CKM)} matrix

1297: in the quark sector is pure Dirac because Majorana terms

1298: would violate electric charge conservation in the quark sector.

1299: 

1300: If at time $t=0$ a flavor eigenstate $\left|\nu_\alpha\right>=

1301: \sum_i U_{\alpha i}\left|\nu_i\right>$ is produced in an interaction,

1302: in vacuum the time development will thus be

1303: \begin{equation}

1304:   \left|\nu(t)\right>=\sum_i U_{\alpha i}e^{-iE_it}\left|\nu_i\right>=

1305:   \sum_{i,\beta} U_{\alpha i}U_{\beta i}^*e^{-iE_it}\left|\nu_\beta\right>\,.

1306:   \label{nuosc}

1307: \end{equation}

1308: Since masses and energies of anti-particles are equal according

1309: to the $CPT$ theorem, from this we obtain the following transition

1310: probabilities

1311: \begin{eqnarray}

1312:   P(\nu_\alpha\to\nu_\beta)&=&\left|\sum_i U_{\alpha i}U^*_{\beta i}

1313:   \exp(-iE_it)\right|^2\nonumber\\

1314:   P(\bar\nu_\alpha\to\bar\nu_\beta)&=&\left|\sum_i U^*_{\alpha i}U_{\beta i}

1315:   \exp(-iE_it)\right|^2\label{tranprob}\,.

1316: \end{eqnarray}

1317: From this follows immediately

1318: \begin{equation}

1319:   P(\nu_\alpha\to\nu_\beta)=P(\bar\nu_\beta\to\bar\nu_\alpha)\,,

1320: \end{equation}

1321: which is due to the $CPT$ theorem. Furthermore, if the mixing matrix

1322: satisfies a reality condition of the form

1323: \begin{equation}

1324:   U_{\alpha i}=U^*_{\alpha i}\eta_i\,,

1325: \end{equation}

1326: with $\eta_i$ phases, corresponding to $CP$-conservation, one also

1327: has

1328: \begin{equation}

1329:   P(\nu_\alpha\to\nu_\beta)=P(\bar\nu_\alpha\to\bar\nu_\beta)\,.

1330: \end{equation}

1331: 

1332: We mention two other important differences between Dirac and Majorana

1333: neutrinos:

1334: 

1335: \begin{itemize}

1336: \item Neutrino-less double beta-decay is only possible in the presence

1337: of Majorana masses because the final state $e^-e^-$ violates lepton

1338: number. In this case the rate is proportional to the square of

1339: \begin{equation}

1340:   m_{ee}=\left|\sum_i|U_{ei}|^2m_ie^{i\alpha_i}\right|\,,

1341: \end{equation}

1342: see Eq.~(\ref{mdmass}),

1343: where only one of the Majorana phases $\alpha_i$ can be projected out.

1344: Apart from these phases, this equation results from Eq.~(\ref{nuosc})

1345: for $\alpha=\beta=e$. There is even evidence claimed for this kind of decay,

1346: and thus for an electron neutrino Majorana mass around 0.4 eV,

1347: see Ref.~\cite{klapdor}. The issue is expected to be settled by

1348: next generation experiments such as CUORE~\cite{cuore}.

1349: 

1350: In contrast, in $\beta-$decay with neutrinos, the electron spectra

1351: are influenced by the individual eigenstates of real mass $m_i$, and

1352: not by any phases. The current best experimental upper limit

1353: is given by the Mainz experiment based on tritium $\beta-$decay

1354: $^3{\rm H}\to^3{\rm He}e^-\bar\nu_e$~\cite{mainz},

1355: \begin{equation}

1356:   m_{\nu_e}=\sqrt{\sum_i|U_{ei}|^2m^2_i}\la 2.2\,{\rm eV}\label{nudirect}

1357: \end{equation}

1358: at 95\% confidence level (CL).

1359: The KATRIN experiment~\cite{katrin} aims at a sensitivity down to $0.2\,$eV

1360: within the next few years.

1361: 

1362: \item Majorana neutrinos cannot have magnetic dipole moments

1363: between equal neutrino flavors, as seen from the following identity

1364: using Eqs.~(\ref{majorana}), (\ref{complexconj}), (\ref{dagger}), and

1365: the reality of the spinors in Tab.~\ref{tab2}:

1366: \begin{eqnarray}

1367:   &&i\overline{\psi_1}[\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\nu]\psi_2=

1368:   -\psi_1^T\gamma_2\gamma^0[\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\nu]\gamma_2\psi_2^*=

1369:   -\psi_1^T\left(\gamma^0[\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\nu]\right)^*\psi_2^*=\nonumber\\

1370:   &&=-\left(\psi_1^\dagger\gamma^0[\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\nu]\psi_2\right)^*=

1371:   \left(\psi_1^\dagger\gamma^0[\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\nu]\psi_2\right)^\dagger=

1372:   -i\overline{\psi_2}[\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\nu]\psi_1\,,\nonumber

1373: \end{eqnarray}

1374: where in the second-last identity we have used that transposition changes

1375: the order of the fermionic fields, thus picking up a minus sign. As a

1376: consequence, only {\it transition magnetic moments} between different

1377: flavors are possible for Majorana neutrinos.

1378: \end{itemize}

1379: 

1380: \section{Neutrino Oscillations}

1381: Let us now restrict to two-neutrino oscillations, $n=2$, between

1382: $\left|\nu_e\right>$ and $\left|\nu_\mu\right>$, say, and write

1383: \begin{equation}

1384:   U=\left(\matrix{\cos\theta_0&

1385:   \sin\theta_0\cr-\sin\theta_0&\cos\theta_0}\right)\label{U2}

1386: \end{equation}

1387: for the {\it mixing matrix} in Eq.~(\ref{U}) which is characterized

1388: by one real vacuum mixing angle $\theta_0$. Since

1389: $id\left|\nu_i\right>/dt=E_i\left|\nu_i\right>$ for $i=1,2$ in the

1390: mass basis, and since $E_i=(m_i^2+p^2)^{1/2}\simeq p+m_i^2/(2p)\simeq

1391: E+m_i^2/(2E)$

1392: in the relativistic limit $p\gg m_i$, using the trigonometric identities

1393: $\cos^2\theta_0-\sin^2\theta_0=\cos2\theta_0$,

1394: $2\cos\theta_0\sin\theta_0=\sin2\theta_0$, it follows from Eqs.~(\ref{U}),

1395: (\ref{U2}) that

1396: \begin{equation}

1397:   i\frac{d}{dt}\left(\matrix{\nu_e\cr\nu_\mu}\right)_E=

1398:   \left[\left(E+\frac{m_1^2+m_2^2}{4E}\right)+

1399:   \frac{\Delta m^2}{4E}

1400:   \left(\matrix{\cos2\theta_0&-\sin2\theta_0\cr-\sin2\theta_0&-\cos2\theta_0}

1401:   \right)\right]\left(\matrix{\nu_e\cr\nu_\mu}\right)_E\,,\label{oscvac}

1402: \end{equation}

1403: where we consider a given momentum mode ${\bf p}$, and

1404: $\Delta m^2\equiv m_1^2-m_2^2$. From now on we will consider the

1405: relativistic limit with $p\simeq E$.

1406: The first term in Eq.~(\ref{oscvac}) is a common phase factor and

1407: can be ignored.

1408: 

1409: The integrated version of this is Eq.~(\ref{nuosc}). Then applying

1410: Eq.~(\ref{tranprob}), one can show that this has the solution

1411: \begin{equation}

1412:   P(\nu_\alpha\to\nu_\beta)=\frac{1}{2}\sin^22\theta_0

1413:   \left(1-\cos\Delta m^2\frac{L}{2E}\right)\,\quad\mbox{for}

1414:   \quad\alpha\neq\beta\,,\label{nuosc2}

1415: \end{equation}

1416: for oscillations over a length $L$. The oscillation length in

1417: vacuum is thus

1418: \begin{equation}

1419:   L_0=4\pi\frac{E}{|\Delta m^2|}\simeq2.48\,\left(\frac{E}{{\rm MeV}}\right)

1420:   \left(\frac{|\Delta m^2|}{{\rm eV}^2}\right)^{-1}\,{\rm m}

1421:   \,.\label{osclength}

1422: \end{equation}

1423: 

1424: Neutrino oscillations are modified by forward scattering amplitudes

1425: in matter. Since neutral currents are by definition flavor-neutral,

1426: they only contribute to the common phase factor which in the following

1427: will be ignored. The charged current interaction is diagonal in flavor

1428: space and, according to Eqs.~(\ref{ccnc}),~(\ref{ccnc2}), and~(\ref{gf}),

1429: the low-energy limit of its forward scattering part for $\nu_e({\bf p})$

1430: has the form

1431: \begin{equation}

1432:   2\sqrt2G_{\rm F}\sum_{{\bf p}^\prime}

1433:   \left[e({\bf p}^\prime)^\dagger\gamma^0

1434:   \gamma^\mu\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\nu_e({\bf p})\right]

1435:   \left[\nu_e({\bf p})^\dagger\gamma^0

1436:   \gamma_\mu\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}e({\bf p}^\prime)\right]\,,\label{msw}

1437: \end{equation}

1438: where we have used $\bar\psi=\psi^\dagger i\gamma^0$. We need to

1439: express this in terms of Dirac bilinears of the form Tab.~\ref{tab2}

1440: for electrons and neutrinos separately. In order to do that we

1441: use the fact that every $4\times4$ matrix ${\cal O}$ can be expanded

1442: according to

1443: \begin{equation}

1444:   {\cal O}=\sum_i\frac{{\rm tr}({\cal O}{\cal O}_i)}{{\rm tr}({\cal O}_i^2)}

1445:   {\cal O}_i\,,

1446: \end{equation}

1447: where ${\cal O}_i$ are the 16 matrices appearing in Tab.~\ref{tab2}

1448: which satisfy ${\rm tr}({\cal O}_i{\cal O}_j)=0$ for $i\neq j$.

1449: Using this one can show that

1450: \begin{eqnarray}

1451:   &&\left(\gamma^0\gamma^\mu\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\right)_{\alpha\beta}

1452:   \left(\gamma^0\gamma_\mu\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\right)_{\gamma\delta}=

1453:   \nonumber\\

1454:   &&\left(\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\right)_{\gamma\beta}

1455:   \left(\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\right)_{\alpha\delta}+

1456:   \frac{1}{8}\left(\left[\gamma^\lambda,\gamma^\kappa\right]

1457:   \frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\right)_{\gamma\beta}

1458:   \left(\left[\gamma_\lambda,\gamma_\kappa\right]\right)_{\alpha\delta}

1459:   \,.\label{diracexp}

1460: \end{eqnarray}

1461: Applying this to Eq.~(\ref{msw}) and noting that the last term in

1462: Eq.~(\ref{diracexp}) does not contribute in the rest frame of the

1463: electron plasma, one obtains

1464: \begin{equation}

1465:   -2\sqrt2G_{\rm F}

1466:   \left[\nu_e({\bf p})^\dagger\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\nu_e({\bf p})\right]

1467:   \sum_{{\bf p}^\prime}

1468:   \left[e({\bf p}^\prime)^\dagger\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}e({\bf p}^\prime)\right]

1469:   \,,\label{msw2}

1470: \end{equation}

1471: where we have picked up an extra minus from the anti-commutation of

1472: fermionic fields. The electron and neutrino fields have the form

1473: Eq.~(\ref{expansion}). The matter-dependent part of the sum in

1474: Eq.~(\ref{msw2}) thus takes the form $\sum_{\bf p}(a_{e,L}^\dagger({\bf p})

1475: a_{e,L}({\bf p})-b_{e,L}^\dagger({\bf p}) b_{e,L}({\bf p})$. When tracing

1476: out the charged lepton density matrix, this reduces to the density of

1477: left-chiral electrons minus the density of left-chiral positrons.

1478: Thus, for an unpolarized plasma, the contribution to the

1479: $\left|\nu_e\right>$ self-energy finally is $-\sqrt2G_{\rm F}N_e$,

1480: where $N_e$ is the electron-number

1481: density, i.e. the electron minus the positron density, and analogously

1482: for the other active flavors. The non-trivial

1483: part of Eq.~(\ref{oscvac}) is thus modified to

1484: \begin{equation}

1485:   i\frac{d}{dt}\left(\matrix{\nu_e\cr\nu_\mu}\right)_E=

1486:   \left(\matrix{\frac{\Delta m^2\cos2\theta_0}{4E}-\sqrt2G_{\rm F}N_e&

1487:   -\frac{\Delta m^2\sin2\theta_0}{4E}\cr-\frac{\Delta m^2\sin2\theta_0}{4E}&

1488:   -\frac{\Delta m^2\cos2\theta_0}{4E}-\sqrt2G_{\rm F}N_\mu}\right)

1489:   \left(\matrix{\nu_e\cr\nu_\mu}\right)_E\,.\label{oscmat}

1490: \end{equation}

1491: 

1492: It is illustrative to write this in terms of the hermitian density matrix

1493: $\rho_{\bf p}(t)\equiv\left.|\nu_{\bf p}(t)\right\rangle\left\langle\nu_{\bf p}(t)\right.|$.

1494: If we expand this into an occupation number $n_{\bf p}$ and polarization

1495: ${\bf P_p}$, $\rho_{\bf p}=\frac{1}{2}\left(n_{\bf p}+

1496: {\bf P_p}\cdot\ss\right)$, one can easily show that Eq.~(\ref{oscmat})

1497: is equivalent to

1498: \begin{equation}

1499:   \dot{\bf P}_{\bf p}={\bf B_p}\times{\bf P_p}\,,\label{denseq}

1500: \end{equation}

1501: where the precession vector ${\bf B_p}\equiv{\bf B}({\bf p})$

1502: \begin{eqnarray}

1503:   B_1({\bf p})&=&\frac{\Delta m^2}{2E}\sin2\theta_0\,,\nonumber\\

1504:   B_3({\bf p})&=&\frac{\Delta m^2}{2E}\cos2\theta_0-\sqrt2 G_{\rm F}N\,,

1505:   \label{precession}

1506: \end{eqnarray}

1507: where $N=N_e-N_{\mu,\tau}$ for $\nu_e-\nu_{\mu,\tau}$ mixing and

1508: $N=N_{e,\mu,\tau}-N_n$ for active-sterile mixing, with $N_n$ a

1509: combination of nucleon densities.

1510:  Thus, neutrino oscillations are

1511: mathematically equivalent to the precession of a magnetic moment

1512: in a variable external magnetic field.

1513: 

1514: Eq.~\ref{precession}) shows immediately that at the {\it resonance density}

1515: \begin{equation}

1516:   N_r\equiv\frac{\Delta m^2\cos2\theta_0}{2\sqrt2 G_{\rm F}E}

1517: \end{equation}

1518: the two diagonal entries in Eq.~(\ref{oscmat}) become equal or,

1519: equivalently, $B_3({\bf p})=0$. More generally,

1520: Eqs.~(\ref{oscmat}), (\ref{denseq}), (\ref{precession}) are diagonalized

1521: by a mixing matrix Eq.~(\ref{U2}) where $\theta_0$ is replaced by

1522: the mixing angle in matter $\theta_E$ given by

1523: \begin{equation}

1524:   \tan2\theta_E=\frac{\tan2\theta_0}{1-N/N_r}\,.

1525: \end{equation}

1526: Maximum mixing, $\theta_E=\pi/4$, thus occurs at the so-called

1527: {\it Michaev-Smirnow-Wolfenstein (MSW) resonance} at $N=N_r$.

1528: For $N\ll N_r$ one thus has vacuum mixing, $\theta_E\simeq\theta_0$,

1529: whereas for $N\gg N_r$ one has $\theta_E\ll\theta_0$. Eq.~(\ref{denseq})

1530: now shows that propagation from $N\gg N_r$ to $N\ll N_r$ can lead to

1531: an efficient transition from one flavor to another, as long as

1532: $|\dot{\bf B}_{\bf p}|\la|{\bf B_p}|^2$. Such transitions

1533: are called {\it adiabatic}. Note that since masses of anti-particles

1534: and particles are

1535: equal, whereas the lepton numbers $N_{e,\mu,\tau}$ change sign

1536: under charge conjugation, resonances in matter occur either for

1537: neutrinos or for anti-neutrinos.

1538: 

1539: In subsequent sections we will apply this to various observational

1540: evidence for neutrino oscillations.

1541: 

1542: \section{Selected Applications in Astrophysics and Cosmology}

1543: \subsection{Stellar Burning and Solar Neutrino Oscillations}\label{sec_sol}

1544: Weak interactions are crucial in cosmology and stellar physics.

1545: In main sequence stars the first stage of hydrogen fusion into

1546: helium is the weak interaction

1547: \begin{equation}

1548:   p+p\to\mbox{$^2$H}+e^++\nu_e\,.

1549: \end{equation}

1550: The subsequent reactions $^2$H$+p\to^3$He$+\gamma$ and

1551: $^3$He$+^3$He$\to^4$He$+p+p$ lead to the net reaction

1552: \begin{equation}

1553:   4p\to\mbox{$^4$He}+2e^++2\nu_e+26.73\,{\rm MeV}\,.

1554: \end{equation}

1555: For many more details see Ref.~\cite{raffelt}.

1556: 

1557: When normalized to the solar energy flux arriving at Earth,

1558: one can calculate the expected neutrino fluxes within the

1559: so-called Standard Solar Model. The resulting fluxes in this ``pp'' channel

1560: as well as in other reaction channels are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig4}

1561: 

1562: \begin{figure}

1563: \includegraphics [width=0.8\textwidth,angle=270]{fig4.ps}

1564: \caption{The predicted solar neutrino energy spectrum from Ref.~\cite{bp04}.

1565: For continuum sources, the neutrino

1566: fluxes are given in number per ${\rm cm^{-2} sec^{-1} MeV^{-1}}$

1567: at the Earth's surface. For line sources, the units are number per

1568: ${\rm cm^{-2} sec^{-1}}$. The total theoretical uncertainties

1569: are shown. The CNO neutrino fluxes are not shown.\label{fig4}}

1570: \end{figure}

1571: 

1572: However, less than half of the expected solar electron-neutrino flux

1573: at a few MeV has been observed. On the other hand, neutral current

1574: experiments with the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO)~\cite{sno} have

1575: shown that the sum of the electron, muon- and

1576: tau neutrino flux coincides with the expected electron neutrino

1577: flux. This can be explained by an MSW transition of $\nu_e$ into

1578: $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$ within the Sun with a

1579: $\Delta m^2_{\rm solar}\sim10^{-5}\,{\rm eV}^2$.

1580: Note that this corresponds to a vacuum oscillation length

1581: Eq.~(\ref{osclength}) of a few hundred kilometers.

1582: Recently this has been confirmed independently by the KamLAND

1583: experiment~\cite{kamland} which

1584: measured the disappearance of the $\bar\nu_e$ neutrinos produced

1585: by nuclear reactors a few hundred kilometers from the detector.

1586: The best fit parameters for the parameters of mixing of two neutrinos

1587: in vacuum from all solar and reactor data are~\cite{bahcall}

1588: \begin{equation}

1589:   \Delta m^2_{\rm solar}\simeq8.2^{+0.3}_{-0.3}(^{+1.0}_{-0.8})

1590:   \times10^{-5}\,{\rm eV}^2\,;\quad

1591:   \tan^2\theta_{\rm solar}\simeq0.39^{+0.05}_{-0.04}(^{+0.19}_{-0.11})

1592:   \,,\label{solar}

1593: \end{equation}

1594: where $1\sigma$ and $3\sigma$ errors are given.

1595: The relevant contour plots are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig5}.

1596: It is interesting to note that maximal mixing is strongly excluded,

1597: $\tan\theta_{\rm solar}\leq1.0$ at $5.8\sigma$.

1598: 

1599: \begin{figure}

1600: \includegraphics [width=0.9\textwidth]{fig5.ps}

1601: \caption{From Ref.~\cite{bahcall}. Allowed oscillation parameters:

1602: Solar vs KamLAND.

1603: The two left panels show the 90\%, 95\%, 99\%, and 3$\sigma$

1604: allowed regions for oscillation parameters that are obtained by a

1605: global fit of all the available solar data.

1606: The two right panels show the 90\%, 95\%, 99\%, and 3$\sigma$

1607: allowed regions for oscillation parameters that are obtained by a

1608: global fit of all the reactor data from KamLAND and

1609: CHOOZ. The two upper (lower) panels

1610: correspond to the analysis of all data available before (after)

1611: the Neutrino 2004 conference, June 14-19, 2004 (Paris). The new

1612: KamLAND data are sufficiently precise that

1613: matter effects discernibly break the degeneracy between the two

1614: mirror vacuum solutions in the lower right panel.

1615: \label{fig5}}

1616: \end{figure}

1617: 

1618: Finally, since solar and reactor neutrino experiments deal

1619: with $\nu_e$ and $\bar\nu_e$, respectively, comparison of

1620: the two corresponding oscillations parameters allows to

1621: set limits on $CPT$-violation in the neutrino sector.

1622: 

1623: \subsection{Atmospheric Neutrinos}\label{sec_atm}

1624: \begin{figure}

1625: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig6.eps}

1626: \caption{From Ref.~\cite{maltoni}.

1627: Allowed ($\sin^2\theta_{\rm atmos}$,~$\Delta m^2_{\rm atmos}$)

1628: regions at 90\%, 95\%, 99\%, and 3$\sigma$ CL for two

1629: degrees of freedom. The regions

1630: delimited by the lines correspond to atmospheric data only, while for the

1631: colored regions also K2K data are added. The best fit point of

1632: atmospheric (atmospheric + K2K) data is marked by a triangle

1633: (star). Also shown is the $\Delta \chi^2$ as a function of

1634: $\sin^2\theta_{\rm atmos}$ and $\Delta m^2_{\rm atmos}$,

1635: minimized with respect to the

1636: undisplayed parameter.\label{fig6}}

1637: \end{figure}

1638: 

1639: Cosmic rays interact in the atmosphere and produce, among

1640: other particles, pions and kaons whose decay products

1641: contain neutrinos.

1642: The observed ratio of upcoming to down-going atmospheric muon

1643: neutrinos is about 0.5 in the GeV range. Since upcoming neutrinos

1644: travel several thousand kilometers, this can be interpreted as

1645: vacuum oscillations between muon and tau-neutrinos. The best fit

1646: parameters are

1647: \begin{equation}

1648:   \Delta m^2_{\rm atmos}\simeq2.1\times10^{-3}\,{\rm eV}^2\,;\quad

1649:   \sin^2\theta_{\rm atmos}\simeq0.5\,,\label{atmospheric}

1650: \end{equation}

1651: consistent with maximal mixing. The corresponding contours

1652: resulting from atmospheric and long baseline neutrino oscillation

1653: data from K2K~\cite{k2k} are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig6}. Recently, the

1654: $L/E$ dependence, see Eq.~(\ref{nuosc2}), characteristic for neutrino

1655: oscillations has been confirmed by the Superkamiokande

1656: experiment~\cite{superk},

1657: thereby strongly constraining alternative explanations of

1658: muon neutrino disappearance such as neutrino decay~\cite{ashie}.

1659: In addition, oscillations into sterile neutrinos are strongly

1660: disfavored over oscillations into tau-neutrinos via the following

1661: discriminating effects: Neutral currents would be non-diagonal

1662: for oscillations into sterile states, thus modifying oscillation

1663: amplitudes and total scattering rates, and charged current

1664: interactions of tau-neutrinos imply $\tau$ appearance.

1665: 

1666: In 3-neutrino oscillation schemes $\theta_{\rm solar}$ and

1667: $\theta_{\rm atmos}$ are usually identified with $\theta_{12}$

1668: and $\theta_{23}$, respectively  (we here assume the ``normal mass

1669: hierarchy'' $m_1,m_2\ll m_3$ which seems the most natural for

1670: neutrino mass modeling in Grand Unification scenarios~\cite{altarelli}).

1671: According to the discussion around

1672: Eq.~(\ref{U}), there is one more mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ and

1673: at least one Dirac $CP$-violating phase called $\delta$. Note that

1674: solar and atmospheric neutrinos only decouple exactly for

1675: $\theta_{13}=0$ in which case $CP$ would also be conserved.

1676: Whereas there are at most weak indications for leptonic

1677: $CP$-violations yet~\cite{klinkhamer}, the third mixing angle is

1678: constrained at 3$\sigma$ CL by Ref.~\cite{maltoni}

1679: \begin{equation}

1680:   \sin^2\theta_{13}\leq0.061\,.

1681: \end{equation}

1682: 

1683: We finally stress that neutrino oscillations are sensitive

1684: only to differences of squared masses, not to absolute mass

1685: scales. To probe the latter requires laboratory experiments

1686: discussed earlier such as $\beta-$decay, the study of cosmological

1687: effects such as the influence of neutrino mass on the power spectrum,

1688: see Sect.~\ref{sec_hdm}, or measuring time delays

1689: of astrophysical neutrino bursts from $\gamma-$ray bursts and

1690: supernovae relative to the speed of light.

1691: 

1692: \subsection{Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN)}\label{sec_bbn}

1693: For more detailed introductions to the following three topics

1694: we refer the reader to standard text books~\cite{kt,mohapatra}.

1695: 

1696: The early universe consisted of a mixture of protons, neutrons,

1697: electrons, positrons, photons and neutrinos. Their relative abundances

1698: were determined

1699: by thermodynamic equilibrium until the weak interactions "froze out"

1700: once the temperature of the expanding universe dropped below

1701: $T_f\sim1\,$MeV where their rates became smaller

1702: than the expansion rate. For example, according to Eqs.~(\ref{cross})

1703: and~(\ref{cross2}) the interaction rates of nucleons

1704: $\overline{\nu}_e p\leftrightarrow ne^+$ and

1705: $e^- p\leftrightarrow n\nu_e$ are

1706: \begin{equation}

1707: \Gamma\sim n\sigma\propto G_{\rm F}^2T^5\label{ewrates}

1708: \end{equation}

1709: at temperatures $100\,{\rm GeV}\ga T\ga1\,$MeV where the neutron-proton

1710: mass difference $m_n-m_p=1.293\,$MeV and the electron mass are negligible and

1711: the $e^\pm$ and electron neutrino densities $n\sim T^3$. This

1712: becomes indeed comparable to the expansion rate

1713: \begin{equation}

1714: H\sim\rho^{1/2}/m_{\rm P}\sim g_*^{1/2}T^2/m_{\rm P}\,,\label{H}

1715: \end{equation}

1716: where $\rho$ is the total energy density and $g_*$ the number of

1717: relativistic degrees of freedom, once $T$ approaches $T_f\simeq1\,$MeV.

1718: The equilibrium neutron to proton ratio at that temperature is given by

1719: thermodynamics as

1720: \begin{equation}

1721:   \frac{n_n}{n_p}=\exp\left[-(m_n-m_p)/T_f\right]

1722: \end{equation}

1723: At that time, the free neutrons were

1724: quickly bound into helium which could not be broken up any more

1725: by the cooling thermal radiation. The helium abundance was thus

1726: determined by the freeze out of electroweak interactions. Since

1727: equating Eq.~(\ref{ewrates}) with Eq.~(\ref{H}) yields

1728: $T_f\propto g_*^{1/6}$ we also see that the helium abundance

1729: should increase with $g_*$. Since the number $N_\nu$ of stable neutrino

1730: species with mass below $\sim1\,$MeV contributes to $g_*$, this

1731: number is constrained by the observed helium abundance. More

1732: generally, in the absence of a significant asymmetry between

1733: neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, elemental abundances depend only

1734: on the effective number of relativistic neutrinos $N_\nu$ and

1735: the baryon to photon ratio

1736: \begin{equation}

1737:   \eta_{10}\equiv10^{10}\frac{n_B}{n_\gamma}\,.

1738: \end{equation}

1739: Predictions for standard big bang nucleosynthesis (SBBN) with

1740: $N_\nu=3$, the number of active neutrinos consistent with the

1741: $Z$ boson width, are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig7}. A detailed comparison

1742: of measured and predicted abundances shown in Fig.~\ref{fig7}

1743: with $\eta_{10}$ and $N_\nu$ free parameters yields the following:

1744: The universal density of baryons $\eta_{10}$ inferred from SBBN 

1745: and the measured deuterium abundance, $\eta_{10}({\rm SBBN}) = 

1746: 6.10^{+0.67}_{-0.52}$, is in excellent agreement with the baryon 

1747: density derived largely from CMB

1748: data~\cite{spergel}, $\eta_{10}({\rm CMB}) = 6.14 \pm 0.25$.

1749: However, there is a $\simeq2\sigma$ tension between the $^4$He

1750: abundance predicted by SBBN with this concordance $\eta_{10}$

1751: and the observed one. This tension can be mitigated if $N_\nu$ is

1752: allowed to be smaller than the canonical $N_\nu=3$.

1753: If {\it both} the baryon density $\eta_{10}$ and $N_\nu$, or

1754: equivalently, the expansion rate, are allowed to be free parameters,

1755: BBN (D, $^3$He, and $^4$He) and the CMB (WMAP) agree

1756: at 95\% CL for $5.5 \leq \eta_{10} \leq 6.8$

1757: ($0.020 \leq \Omega_{\rm B}h^{2} \leq 0.025$ for the baryon density

1758: in terms of the critical density) and

1759: $1.65 \leq$~N$_{\nu} \leq 3.03$~\cite{steigman}.

1760: Are these hints for new physics ?

1761: 

1762: \begin{figure}

1763: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{fig7.eps}

1764: \caption{From Ref.~\cite{steigman}. The SBBN-predicted primordial

1765: abundances of D, $^3$He, and 

1766: $^7$Li by number with respect to hydrogen, and the $^4$He mass fraction 

1767: Y$_{\rm P}$, as a function of the nucleon (baryon) abundance parameter 

1768: $\eta_{10}$.  The bands reflect the theoretical uncertainties 

1769: ($\pm 1\sigma$) in the BBN predictions.

1770: \label{fig7}}

1771: \end{figure}

1772: 

1773: \subsection{Neutrino Hot Dark Matter}\label{sec_hdm}

1774: Finally, massive neutrinos in the eV range contribute to the density

1775: of non-relativistic matter in today's universe,

1776: \begin{equation}

1777:   \Omega_\nu h^2=\frac{\sum m_\nu}{92.5\,{\rm eV}}\label{omeganu}

1778: \end{equation}

1779: in terms of the critical (closure) density for $m_\nu\gg10^{-4}\,$eV,

1780: today's temperature. Eq.~(\ref{omeganu}) results from the fact that

1781: neutrinos have been relativistic at decoupling at $T\sim1\,$MeV,

1782: thus constituting {\it hot dark matter}, and their number density is

1783: simply determined by the redshifted number density at freeze-out, in

1784: analogy to Sect.~\ref{sec_bbn}.

1785: 

1786: Since neutrinos are

1787: freely streaming on scales of many Mpc, the matter power spectrum

1788: is reduced by a relative amount $\Delta P_m/P_m=-8\Omega_\nu/\Omega_m$, where

1789: $\Omega_m$ is the total matter density. A combination of data on the

1790: large scale structure and the CMB then leads to the limit~\cite{hannestad}

1791: \begin{equation}

1792:   \sum m_\nu\la 1.0\,{\rm eV}\,.\label{nucosmo}

1793: \end{equation}

1794: There was even a claim for a positive detection with~\cite{allen}

1795: \begin{equation}

1796:   \sum m_\nu\simeq 0.56\,{\rm eV}\,,

1797: \end{equation}

1798: but newest analyses suggest upper bounds even slightly below this~\cite{lya}.

1799: 

1800: It is intriguing that direct experimental bounds Eq.~(\ref{nudirect})

1801: and cosmological bounds Eq.~(\ref{nucosmo}) have reached

1802: comparable sensitivities. In addition, both a combination

1803: of future CMB data from the Planck satellite with large scale

1804: structure surveys~\cite{hannestad} and next generation laboratory

1805: experiments such as KATRIN will probe the 0.1 eV regime.

1806: 

1807: Assuming three active neutrino oscillations with the parameters

1808: discussed in Sects.~\ref{sec_sol} and~\ref{sec_atm} has an interesting

1809: cosmological consequence: Flavor equilibrium is reached before

1810: the BBN epoch and the asymmetry parameter $\xi_\nu=\mu_\nu/T$,

1811: where $\mu_\nu$ is the common neutrino chemical potential, is

1812: constrained by~\cite{dhpprs}

1813: \begin{equation}

1814:   \left|\xi_\nu\right|\la0.07\,.\label{xinu}

1815: \end{equation}

1816: As a consequence, neutrino degeneracy is unobservable in the

1817: large scale structure and the CMB.

1818: 

1819: \subsection{Leptogenesis and Baryogenesis}

1820: Neutrino masses may also play a key role in explaining the fact that

1821: we live in a universe dominated by matter rather than anti-matter.

1822: The heavy right-handed Majorana neutrinos involved in the seesaw

1823: mechanism discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec_dirana} could have been produced in the

1824: early Universe and their out-of-equilibrium

1825: decays could give rise to a non-vanishing net lepton number $L$.

1826: Non-perturbative quantum effects related to the non-abelian character

1827: of the electroweak interactions can translate this into a net baryon

1828: number $B$ while conserving $B-L$. The amount of baryon number

1829: $n_B$ created in this scenario is related to the low-energy

1830: leptonic $CP$-violation phase $\delta$~\cite{buchmueller}. Its

1831: compatibility with the observed value for the

1832: baryon per photon number $n_B/n_\gamma\simeq6\times10^{-10}$ implies

1833: a lower bound $m_R\ga{\rm few}\,10^{10}\,$GeV. Via the see-saw relation

1834: $m_\nu\simeq m_D^2/m_R$ for the light neutrino mass, this

1835: corresponds to an optimal range $10^{-3}\,{\rm eV}\la m_\nu\la 0.1\,$eV,

1836: in remarkable agreement with the observed atmospheric and solar neutrino

1837: mass scales~\cite{buchmueller}. In general baryogenesis requires

1838: violation of baryon number $B$, charge conjugation $C$, combined

1839: charge and parity conjugation $CP$, and a departure from thermal

1840: equilibrium, usually caused by the expansion of the Universe.

1841: These conditions are known as the Sakharov conditions~\cite{sakharov}.

1842: For more details see Refs.~\cite{mohapatra} and~\cite{kt}.

1843: 

1844: \section{Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Radiation}

1845: In the final part we discuss some current theoretical issues around

1846: ultra-high energy cosmic rays, $\gamma-$rays and neutrinos.

1847: We will see how some of the topics discussed in the previous

1848: two parts play an important role in this subject.

1849: 

1850: \subsection{Introduction}

1851: High energy cosmic ray (CR) particles are shielded

1852: by Earth's atmosphere and reveal their existence on the

1853: ground only by indirect effects such as ionization and

1854: showers of secondary charged particles covering areas up

1855: to many km$^2$ for the highest energy particles. In fact,

1856: in 1912 Victor Hess discovered CRs by measuring ionization from

1857: a balloon~\cite{hess}, and in 1938 Pierre Auger proved the existence of

1858: extensive air showers (EAS) caused by primary particles

1859: with energies above $10^{15}\,$eV by simultaneously observing

1860: the arrival of secondary particles in Geiger counters many meters

1861: apart~\cite{auger_disc}.

1862: 

1863: \begin{figure}[ht]

1864: \includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth,clip=true]{fig8.ps}

1865: \caption{From Ref.~\cite{rpp}. The cosmic ray all particle spectrum.

1866: \label{fig8}}

1867: \end{figure}

1868: 

1869: After almost 90 years of research, the origin of cosmic rays

1870: is still an open question, with a degree of uncertainty

1871: increasing with energy~\cite{crbook}: Only below 100 MeV

1872: kinetic energy, where the solar wind shields protons coming

1873: from outside the solar system, the sun must give rise to

1874: the observed proton flux. Above that energy the CR spectrum

1875: exhibits little structure and is approximated

1876: by broken power laws $\propto E^{-\gamma}$:

1877: At the energy $E\simeq4\times 10^{15}\,$eV

1878: called the ``knee'', the flux of particles per area, time, solid angle,

1879: and energy steepens from a power law index $\gamma\simeq2.7$

1880: to one of index $\simeq3.0$. The bulk of the CRs up to at least

1881: that energy is believed to originate within the Milky Way Galaxy,

1882: typically by shock acceleration in supernova remnants.

1883: The spectrum continues with a further steepening to $\gamma\simeq3.3$

1884: at $E\simeq4\times 10^{17}\,$eV, sometimes called the ``second knee''.

1885: There are experimental indications that the chemical composition

1886: changes from light, mostly protons, at the knee to domination by

1887: iron and even heavier nuclei at the second knee~\cite{kascade}.

1888: This is in fact expected in any scenario where acceleration and

1889: propagation is due to magnetic fields whose effects only depend

1890: on rigidity, the ratio of charge to rest mass, $Z/A$. This is true

1891: as long as energy losses and interaction effects, which in general depend

1892: on $Z$ and $A$ separately, are small, as is the case in the Galaxy, in

1893: contrast to extra-galactic cosmic ray propagation at ultra-high energy.

1894: Above the so called ``ankle'' or ``dip'' at $E\simeq5\times10^{18}\,$eV, the

1895: spectrum flattens again to a power law of index $\gamma\simeq2.8$.

1896: This latter feature

1897: is often interpreted as a cross over from a steeper Galactic

1898: component, which above the ankle cannot be confined by the Galactic

1899: magnetic field, to a harder component of extragalactic origin.

1900: The dip at $E\simeq5\times10^{18}\,$eV could also be partially due

1901: to pair production by extra-galactic protons, especially

1902: if the extra-galactic component already starts to dominate below

1903: the ankle, for example, around the second-knee~\cite{bgh}. This

1904: latter possibility appears, however, less likely in light of

1905: a rather heavy composition up to the ankle suggested by several

1906: experiments~\cite{kascade}. In any case, an eventual cross over

1907: to an extra-galactic component is also in line with experimental

1908: indications for a chemical composition becoming again lighter above

1909: the ankle, although a significant heavy component is not

1910: excluded and the inferred chemical composition above

1911: $\sim10^{18}\,$eV is sensitive to the model of air shower interactions

1912: and consequently uncertain presently~\cite{watson}.

1913: In the following we will restrict our discussion on ultra-high

1914: energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) above the ankle where the spectrum seems

1915: to continue up to several hundred EeV

1916: (1 EeV$\equiv10^{18}\,$eV)~\cite{agasa,hires}, corresponding to about

1917: 50 Joules. The all-particle spectrum is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig8}.

1918: 

1919: We note that until the 1950s the energies achieved with experiments

1920: at accelerators

1921: were lagging behind observed CR energies which explains why many

1922: elementary particles such as the positron, the muon, and the

1923: pion were first discovered in CRs~\cite{battiston}. Today, where the

1924: center of mass (CM) energies observed in collisions with atmospheric nuclei

1925: reach up to a PeV, we have again a similar situation. In addition,

1926: CR interactions in the atmosphere predominantly occur in the extreme

1927: forward direction which allows to probe non-perturbative effects of

1928: the strong interaction. This is complementary to collider experiments

1929: where the detectors can only see interactions with significant

1930: transverse momentum transfer.

1931: 

1932: Although statistically meaningful information about the UHECR energy

1933: spectrum and arrival direction distribution has been accumulated, no

1934: conclusive picture for the nature and distribution of the sources

1935: emerges naturally from the data. There is on the one hand the approximate

1936: isotropic arrival direction distribution~\cite{bm} which indicates that we are

1937: observing a large number of weak or distant sources. On the other hand,

1938: there are also indications which point more towards a small number of

1939: local and therefore bright sources, especially at the highest energies:

1940: First, the AGASA ground array claims statistically significant multi-plets of

1941: events from the same directions within a few degrees~\cite{teshima1,bm},

1942: although this is controversial~\cite{fw} and has not been seen so far

1943: by the fluorescence experiment HiRes~\cite{finley}.

1944: The spectrum of this clustered component is $\propto E^{-1.8}$ and thus

1945: much harder than the total spectrum~\cite{teshima1}.

1946: Second, nucleons above $\simeq70\,$EeV suffer heavy energy losses due to

1947: photo-pion production on the cosmic microwave background

1948: --- the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin (GZK) effect~\cite{gzk} already

1949: mentioned in Sect.~\ref{sec_nuN} ---

1950: which limits the distance to possible sources to less than

1951: $\simeq100\,$Mpc~\cite{stecker}. For a uniform source distribution

1952: this would predict a ``GZK cutoff'', a drop in the spectrum.

1953: However, the existence of this ``cutoff'' is not established yet

1954: from the observations~\cite{bergman} and may even depend on the

1955: part of the sky one is looking at: The ``cutoff' could be mitigated

1956: in the northern hemisphere where more nearby accelerators related

1957: to the local supercluster can be expected. Apart from the SUGAR array

1958: which was active from 1968 until 1979 in Australia, all UHECR detectors

1959: completed up to the present were situated in the northern hemisphere.

1960: Nevertheless the situation is unclear even there: Whereas a cut-off

1961: seems consistent with the few events above $10^{20}\,$eV recorded

1962: by the fluorescence detector HiRes~\cite{hires}, it is not compatible

1963: with the 11 events above $10^{20}\,$eV measured by the AGASA ground

1964: array~\cite{agasa}. It can be remarked, however, that analysis of

1965: data based on a single fluorescence telescope, the so-called

1966: monocular mode in which most of the HiRes data were obtained, is complicated

1967: due to atmospheric conditions varying from event to event~\cite{cronin}.

1968: The solution of this problem may have to await more analysis and,

1969: in particular, the completion of the Pierre Auger project~\cite{auger}

1970: which will combine the two complementary detection techniques

1971: adopted by the aforementioned experiments and whose southern site

1972: is currently in construction in Argentina.

1973: 

1974: This currently unclear experimental situation could easily be solved if it

1975: would be possible to follow the UHECR trajectories backwards to their

1976: sources. However, this may be complicated by the possible presence of

1977: extragalactic magnetic fields, which would deflect the particles during

1978: their travel. Furthermore, since the GZK-energy losses are of stochastic

1979: nature, even a detailed knowledge of the extragalactic magnetic fields would

1980: not necessarily allow to follow a UHECR trajectory backwards to its source

1981: since the energy and therefor the Larmor radius of the particles

1982: have changed in an

1983: unknown way. Therefore it is not clear if charged particle astronomy with

1984: UHECRs is possible in principle or not. And even if possible, it remains

1985: unclear to which degree the angular 

1986: resolution would be limited by magnetic deflection. This topic

1987: will be discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec_egmf}.

1988: 

1989: \subsection{Severe Constraints on Scenarios producing more photons

1990: than hadrons}\label{sec_egret}

1991: 

1992: The physics and astrophysics of UHECRs are also intimately linked with

1993: the emerging field of neutrino astronomy (for reviews see

1994: Refs.~\cite{nu_review}) as well as with the already

1995: established field of $\gamma-$ray astronomy (for reviews see, e.g.,

1996: Ref.~\cite{gammarev}). Indeed, all

1997: scenarios of UHECR origin, including the top-down models, are severely

1998: constrained by neutrino and $\gamma-$ray observations and limits.

1999: In turn, this linkage has important consequences for theoretical

2000: predictions of fluxes of extragalactic neutrinos above about a TeV

2001: whose detection is a major goal of next-generation

2002: neutrino telescopes: If these neutrinos are

2003: produced as secondaries of protons accelerated in astrophysical

2004: sources and if these protons are not absorbed in the sources,

2005: but rather contribute to the UHECR flux observed, then

2006: the energy content in the neutrino flux can not be higher

2007: than the one in UHECRs, leading to the so called Waxman-Bahcall

2008: bound for transparent sources with soft acceleration

2009: spectra~\cite{wb-bound,mpr}. This bound is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}.

2010: If one of these assumptions does not apply, such as for acceleration

2011: sources with injection spectra harder than $E^{-2}$ and/or opaque

2012: to nucleons, or in the top-down scenarios where X particle decays

2013: produce much fewer nucleons than $\gamma-$rays and neutrinos,

2014: the Waxman-Bahcall bound does not apply, but the neutrino

2015: flux is still constrained by the observed diffuse $\gamma-$ray

2016: flux in the GeV range which is marked ``EGRET'' in Figs.~\ref{fig2}

2017: and~\ref{fig9}. This bound whose implications will be discussed in

2018: the following section is marked ``$\gamma-$ray bound'' in

2019: Figs.~\ref{fig2} and~\ref{fig3}.

2020: 

2021: Electromagnetic (EM) energy injected above the threshold for

2022: pair production on the CMB at

2023: $\sim10^{15}/(1+z)\,$eV at redshift $z$ (to a lesser extent

2024: also on the infrared/optical background, with lower threshold) leads

2025: to an EM cascade, an interplay between pair production followed

2026: by inverse Compton scattering of the produced electrons. This

2027: cascade continues until the photons fall below the pair production

2028: threshold at which point the universe becomes transparent for them.

2029: In todays universe this happens within just a few Mpc for injection

2030: up to the highest energies above $10^{20}\,$eV. All EM energy

2031: injected above $\sim10^{15}\,$eV and at distances beyond a few

2032: Mpc today is therefore recycled to lower energies where it gives

2033: rise to a characteristic cascade spectrum $\propto E^{-2.1}$ down

2034: to fractions of a GeV~\cite{bere}. The universe thus acts as a calorimeter

2035: where the total EM energy injected above $\sim10^{15}/(1+z)\,$eV

2036: is measured as a diffuse isotropic $\gamma-$ray flux in the GeV regime.

2037: This diffuse flux is not very sensitive to the somewhat uncertain

2038: infrared/optical background~\cite{ahacoppi}.

2039: Any observed diffuse $\gamma-$ray background acts as an upper limit

2040: on the total EM injection.

2041: Since in any scenario involving pion production the EM energy fluence

2042: is comparable to the neutrino energy fluence, the constraint

2043: on EM energy injection also constrains allowed neutrino fluxes.

2044: 

2045: This diffuse extragalactic GeV $\gamma-$ray background can be

2046: extracted from the total $\gamma-$ray flux measured by EGRET by

2047: subtracting the Galactic contribution. Since publication of the

2048: original EGRET limit in 1995~\cite{egret}, models for this high

2049: latitude Galactic $\gamma-$ray foreground were improved

2050: significantly. This allowed the authors of Ref.~\cite{egret_new}

2051: to reanalyze limits on the diffuse extragalactic background

2052: in the region 30 MeV-10 GeV and to lower it by a factor 1.5-1.8

2053: in the region around 1 GeV. There are even lower

2054: estimates of the extragalactic diffuse $\gamma-$ray flux~\cite{kwl}.

2055: In this article, however, we will use the more conservative 

2056: limits from Ref.\cite{egret_new}.

2057: 

2058: The energy in the extra-galactic $\gamma-$ray background estimated

2059: in Ref.~\cite{egret_new} is slightly more than one hundred times the

2060: energy in UHECR above the GZK cutoff. The range of such trans-GZK

2061: cosmic rays is about $\simeq30\,$Mpc, roughly one hundredth the

2062: Hubble radius, and only sources within that GZK range contribute

2063: to the trans-GZK cosmic rays. Therefore, any mechanism involving

2064: sources distributed roughly uniformly on scales of the GZK energy

2065: loss length $\simeq30\,$Mpc and producing a comparable amount of energy

2066: in trans-GZK cosmic rays and photons above the pair production threshold

2067: can potentially explain this energy flux ratio. The details depend

2068: on the exact redshift dependence of source activity and other

2069: parameters and in general have to be verified by numerically solving

2070: the relevant transport equations, see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{ss}. Such

2071: mechanisms include shock acceleration in powerful objects such as

2072: active galactic nuclei~\cite{ta}.

2073: 

2074: On the other hand, any mechanism producing considerably {\it more}

2075: energy in the EM channel above the pair production threshold than

2076: in trans-GZK cosmic rays tend to predict a ratio of the diffuse

2077: GeV $\gamma-$ray flux to the trans-GZK cosmic ray flux too high

2078: to explain both fluxes at the same time. As a consequence, if

2079: normalized at or below the observational GeV $\gamma-$ray background, such

2080: scenarios tend to explain at most a fraction of the observed

2081: trans-GZK cosmic ray flux. Such scenarios include particle physics

2082: mechanisms involving pion production by quark fragmentation, e.g.

2083: extra-galactic top-down mechanisms where UHECRs are produced by

2084: fragmenting quarks resulting from decay of superheavy relics~\cite{bs-rev}.

2085: Most of these quarks would fragment into pions rather than nucleons

2086: such that more $\gamma-$rays (and neutrinos) than cosmic rays

2087: are produced. Overproduction of GeV $\gamma-$rays can be avoided

2088: by assuming the sources in an extended Galactic halo with a high $\ga10^3$

2089: overdensity compared to the average cosmological source density, which

2090: would also avoid the GZK cutoff~\cite{bkv}.

2091: These scenarios, however, start to be constrained by the anisotropy

2092: they predict because of the asymmetric position of the Sun

2093: in the Galactic halo for which there are no indications in present

2094: data~\cite{ks2003}. Scenarios based on quark fragmentation also become

2095: problematic in view of a possible heavy

2096: nucleus component and of upper limits on the photon fraction of

2097: the UHECR flux~\cite{watson}.

2098: 

2099: As a specific example for scenarios involving quark fragmentation,

2100: we consider here the case of decaying

2101: Z-bosons. In this ``Z-burst mechanism'' Z-bosons are produced by

2102: UHE neutrinos interacting with the relic neutrino

2103: background~\cite{zburst1}. If the relic neutrinos

2104: have a mass $m_\nu$, Z-bosons can be resonantly produced by UHE

2105: neutrinos of energy

2106: $E_\nu\simeq M_Z^2/(2m_\nu)\simeq4.2\times10^{21}\,{\rm eV}\,({\rm eV}/m_\nu)$.

2107: The required neutrino

2108: beams could be produced as secondaries of protons accelerated

2109: in high-redshift sources. The fluxes predicted in these scenarios

2110: have recently been discussed in detail, for example, in Refs.~\cite{fkr,ss}.

2111: In Fig.~\ref{fig9} we show an optimistic example taken from Ref.~\cite{ss}.

2112: It is assumed that the relic neutrino background has no significant

2113: local overdensity. Furthermore, the sources

2114: are assumed to not emit any $\gamma-$rays, otherwise the Z-burst

2115: model with acceleration sources over-produces the diffuse GeV $\gamma-$ray

2116: background~\cite{kkss}. We note that no known

2117: astrophysical accelerator exists that meets the requirements

2118: of the Z-burst model~\cite{kkss,gtt2003}.

2119: 

2120: \begin{figure}[ht]

2121: \includegraphics[angle=270,width=.9\textwidth,clip=true]{fig9.ps}

2122: \caption{From Ref.~\cite{ss}. Flux predictions for a Z-burst model

2123: averaged over flavors and

2124: characterized by a neutrino injection flux per comoving volume

2125: $\propto E^{-1}$ up to $3\times10^{22}\,$eV and for redshifts between

2126: 0 and 3. The sources are assumed to be exclusive neutrino emitters. All

2127: neutrino masses were assumed equal with $m_\nu=0.33$~eV and we again

2128: assumed maximal mixing between all flavors. The data and upper limits

2129: are as in Fig.~\ref{fig2}.

2130: \label{fig9}}

2131: \end{figure}

2132: 

2133: However, a combination of new constraints discussed in the

2134: previous sections allows to rule out that the Z-burst mechanism

2135: explains a dominant fraction of the observed UHECR flux, even for

2136: pure neutrino emitting sources: As discussed in Sect.~\ref{sec_hdm},

2137: a combination of cosmological data including the WMAP experiment limit

2138: the sum of the masses of active neutrinos to $\la1\,$eV~\cite{hannestad}.

2139: In Sects.~\ref{sec_sol},~\ref{sec_atm} we have seen that solar and

2140: atmospheric neutrino oscillations indicate that individual

2141: neutrino masses are nearly degenerate on this scale~\cite{maltoni}, and thus

2142: the neutrino mass per flavor must satisfy $m_\nu\la0.33\,$eV.

2143: However, for such masses phase space constraints limit the possible

2144: over-density of neutrinos in our Local Group of galaxies to

2145: $\la10$ on a length scale of $\sim1\,$Mpc~\cite{sm}. Since

2146: this is considerably smaller than the relevant UHECR loss lengths,

2147: neutrino clustering will not significantly reduce the necessary UHE neutrino

2148: flux compared to the case of no clustering.

2149: For the maximal possible value of the neutrino

2150: mass $m_\nu \simeq 0.33\,$eV, the neutrino flux required for the Z-burst

2151: mechanism to explain the UHECR flux is only in marginal conflict with the

2152: FORTE upper limit~\cite{forte}, and factor 2 higher than the new GLUE

2153: limit~\cite{glue}, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig9}. For all other

2154: cases the conflict with both the GLUE and FORTE limits is

2155: considerably more severe. 

2156: Also note that this argument does not depend on the shape of the low energy

2157: tail of the primary neutrino spectrum which could thus be even

2158: mono-energetic, as could occur in exclusive tree level decays

2159: of superheavy particles into neutrinos~\cite{gk}. However, in addition

2160: this possibility has been ruled out by overproduction of GeV

2161: $\gamma-$rays due to loop effects in these particle decays~\cite{bko}.

2162: 

2163: The possibility that the

2164: observed UHECR flux is explained by the Z burst scenario involving

2165: normal astrophysical sources which produce both neutrinos and photons

2166: by pion production is already ruled out by the former EGRET limit:

2167: In this case the GeV $\gamma-$ray flux level would have roughly

2168: the height of the peak of the neutrino flux multiplied with the

2169: squared energy in Fig.~\ref{fig9}, thus a factor $\sim100$ higher

2170: than the EGRET level.

2171: 

2172: Any further reduction in the estimated contribution of the true diffuse

2173: extra-galactic $\gamma-$ray background to the observed flux, therefore,

2174: leads to more severe constraints on the total EM injection.

2175: For example, future $\gamma-$ray detectors such as GLAST~\cite{glast}

2176: will test whether the diffuse extragalactic GeV $\gamma-$ray background

2177: is truly diffuse or partly consists of discrete sources that could

2178: not be resolved by EGRET. Astrophysical discrete contributions such

2179: as from intergalactic shocks are in fact expected~\cite{astrocontr}.

2180: This could further improve the cascade limit

2181: to the point where even acceleration scenarios may become seriously

2182: constrained.

2183: 

2184: \subsection{New Primary Particles}

2185: 

2186: A possible way around the problem of missing counterparts

2187: within acceleration scenarios is to propose primary

2188: particles whose range is not limited by interactions with

2189: the CMB. Within the Standard Model the only candidate is the neutrino,

2190: whereas in extensions of the Standard Model one could think of

2191: new neutrals such as axions or stable supersymmetric elementary

2192: particles. Such options are mostly ruled out by the tension

2193: between the necessity of a small EM coupling to avoid the GZK cutoff and

2194: a large hadronic coupling to ensure normal air showers~\cite{ggs}.

2195: Also suggested have been

2196: new neutral hadronic bound states of light gluinos with

2197: quarks and gluons, so-called R-hadrons that are heavier than

2198: nucleons, and therefore have a higher GZK threshold~\cite{cfk},

2199: as can be seen from Eq.~(\ref{gzk}).

2200: Since this too seems to be disfavored by accelerator

2201: constraints~\cite{gluino} we will here focus on neutrinos.

2202: 

2203: In both the neutrino and new neutral stable particle scenario

2204: the particle propagating over extragalactic distances would have

2205: to be produced as a secondary in interactions of a primary proton

2206: that is accelerated in a powerful active galactic nucleus

2207: which can, in contrast to the case of EAS induced by nucleons,

2208: nuclei, or $\gamma-$rays,

2209: be located at high redshift. Consequently, these scenarios predict

2210: a correlation between primary arrival directions

2211: and high redshift sources. In fact, possible evidence

2212: for a correlation of UHECR arrival directions with compact radio

2213: quasars and BL-Lac objects, some of them possibly too far away to

2214: be consistent with the GZK effect, was recently reported~\cite{bllac}.

2215: The main challenge in these correlation studies is the choice

2216: of physically meaningful source selection criteria and the avoidance

2217: of a posteriori statistical effects. However, a moderate increase

2218: in the observed number of events will most likely confirm or

2219: rule out the correlation hypothesis. Note, however, that

2220: these scenarios require the primary proton to be accelerated

2221: up to at least $10^{21}\,$eV, demanding a very powerful

2222: astrophysical accelerator.

2223: 

2224: \subsection{New Neutrino Interactions}

2225: 

2226: Neutrino primaries have the advantage of being well established

2227: particles. However, within the Standard Model their interaction cross

2228: section with nucleons shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1} falls short by about

2229: five orders of magnitude to produce air showers starting high in

2230: the atmosphere as observed. Electroweak instantons could change

2231: this but this possibility is speculative~\cite{ew_instanton}.

2232: The neutrino-nucleon cross section, $\sigma_{\nu N}$, however, can

2233: be enhanced by new physics beyond the electroweak scale in the

2234: CM frame, or above about a PeV in the nucleon rest frame.

2235: Note that the CM energy reached by an UHECR nucleon of energy

2236: $E$ interacting with an atmospheric nucleon at rest is

2237: $\sqrt s\simeq0.4(E/10^{20}\,{\rm eV})\,$PeV.

2238: Neutrino induced air showers may therefore rather directly

2239: probe new physics beyond the electroweak scale.

2240: 

2241: One possibility consists of a large increase

2242: in the number of degrees of freedom above the electroweak 

2243: scale~\cite{kovesi-domokos}. A specific instance

2244: of this idea appears in theories with $n$ additional large

2245: compact dimensions and a quantum gravity scale $M_{4+n}\sim\,$TeV

2246: that has recently received much attention in the literature~\cite{tev-qg}

2247: because it provides an alternative solution to the hierarchy problem

2248: in grand unifications of gauge interactions without a need

2249: of supersymmetry. The idea is to dimensionally reduce the

2250: $n+4$ dimensional gravitational action

2251: \begin{equation}

2252:   S_g=-\frac{M_{4+n}^{2+n}}{16\pi}\int d^{4+n}x\sqrt{-g}R\,,\label{eh}

2253: \end{equation}

2254: with $g$ the determinant of the metric and $R$ the Ricci scalar,

2255: to four dimensions by integrating out the $n$ compact dimensions.

2256: This yields the relation

2257: \begin{equation}

2258:   M_{\rm Pl}^2=V_n M_{4+n}^{2+n}\,,

2259: \end{equation}

2260: where $M_{\rm Pl}$ and $V_n$ are the four-dimensional Planck mass

2261: and the volume of the $n$ extra dimensions, respectively. The

2262: weakness of gravity can now be understood as a consequence of the

2263: fact that it is the only force that propagates into the extra

2264: dimensions: Their large volume dilutes gravitational interactions

2265: between the Standard Model particles which are confined to a

2266: 3-brane representing our world. For compact extra dimensions,

2267: gravity would only be modified at scales below

2268: \begin{equation}

2269:   r_n\simeq M^{-1}_{4+n}\left(\frac{M_{\rm Pl}}{M_{4+n}}\right)^{2/n}

2270:   \simeq2\times10^{-17}\left(\frac{{\rm TeV}}{M_{4+n}}\right)

2271:   \left(\frac{M_{\rm Pl}}{M_{4+n}}\right)^{2/n}\,{\rm cm}

2272:   \,,\label{rextra}

2273: \end{equation}

2274: which is $r_n\la1\,$mm for $n\geq2$, $M_{4+n}\ga\,$TeV, and thus

2275: consistent with gravity tests at small distances. In contrast,

2276: non-gravitational interactions are

2277: confined to the 3-brane and thus the Standard Model is not modified.

2278: 

2279: The neutrino-nucleon cross section in these frameworks is obtained

2280: by substituting the new fundamental cross section $\sigma_i(xs,Q)$

2281: for the electroweak cross section at the parton level in Eq.~(\ref{nuX}),

2282: \begin{equation}

2283:   \frac{d\sigma^{\nu X}}{dxdy}=

2284:   \sum_i f_i(x,Q)\sigma_i(xs,Q)\,.\label{nuXnew}

2285: \end{equation}

2286: One of the largest contributions to the neutrino-nucleon

2287: cross section turns out to be the production on our 3-brane

2288: of microscopic black holes which are solutions of $4+n$-dimensional

2289: gravity described by Eq.~(\ref{eh}).

2290: These cross sections scale as $(s/M_{4+n}^2)^{1/(n+1)}$

2291: for $s\ga M_{4+n}^2$. Their UV-divergence is due to the non-renormalizable,

2292: classical character of the gravitational interaction Eq.~(\ref{eh}) in

2293: the sense of Sect.~\ref{sec_renorm}. The production of

2294: compact branes, completely wrapped around the extra dimensions,

2295: may provide even larger contributions~\cite{aco}. The resulting

2296: total cross sections can be larger than in the Standard Model by up to

2297: a factor $\sim100$ if $M_{4+n}\sim\,$TeV~\cite{fs}. However, extra

2298: dimensions with a flat geometry are severely constrained by

2299: astrophysics: Core collapse of massive stars would lead to

2300: production of gravitational excitations in the large compact

2301: extra dimensions, mostly by nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung. These so called

2302: Kaluza-Klein gravitons of mass $m_g$ are then gravitationally

2303: trapped around the newly born neutron star during their livetime

2304: $\tau\sim M_{\rm Pl}^2/m_g^3\sim10^{13}(10\,{\rm MeV}/m_g)^3\,$yr.

2305: Their subsequent decay into two $\gamma-$rays

2306: would make neutron stars shine in $\gamma-$rays. The non-observation

2307: of such emission leads to lower bounds on $M_{4+n}$ which

2308: decrease with increasing $n$, starting with $M_5\ga10^5\,$TeV and going

2309: down to $M_9\ga1\,$TeV and still lower values for larger

2310: $n$~\cite{hannestad1,casse}, for flat compact extra dimensions.

2311: This implies that significant contributions to the neutrino-nucleon

2312: cross section in these extra dimension scenarios require

2313: either $n\geq5$ extra dimensions or a warped geometry.

2314: 

2315: Whereas the sub-hadronic scale cross sections obtained in

2316: some extra dimension scenarios are still too small to be consistent

2317: with observed air showers and thus to explain

2318: the observed UHECR events~\cite{kp}, they can still have

2319: important phenomenological consequences. This is because

2320: UHECR data can be used to put constraints on cross sections

2321: satisfying $\sigma_{\nu N}(E\ga10^{19}\,{\rm eV})

2322: \la10^{-27}\,{\rm cm}^2$. Particles with such cross

2323: sections would give rise to horizontal air showers which have

2324: not yet been observed. Resulting upper limits on their fluxes

2325: assuming the Standard Model cross section Eq.~(\ref{cross}) are

2326: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}. Comparison with the ``cosmogenic'' neutrino flux

2327: produced by UHECRs interacting with the CMB then results in upper

2328: limits on the cross section which are about a factor 1000 larger

2329: than Eq.~(\ref{cross}) in the energy range between $\simeq10^{17}\,$eV

2330: and $\simeq10^{19}\,$eV~\cite{mr,tol,afgs}. The projected sensitivity of

2331: future experiments shown in Fig.~\ref{fig3} indicate that these limits

2332: could be lowered down to the Standard Model cross section~\cite{afgs}. In case

2333: of a detection of penetrating events the degeneracy of the cross

2334: section with the unknown neutrino flux could be broken by comparing the rates

2335: of horizontal air showers with the ones of Earth skimming events~\cite{kw}.

2336: This would allow to ``measure'' the neutrino-nucleon cross section

2337: at energies unreachable by any forseeable terrestrial accelerator !

2338: 

2339: \subsection{Violation of Lorentz Invariance}\label{sec_vli}

2340: The most elegant solution to the problem of apparently missing nearby

2341: sources of UHECRs and for their putative correlation with high redshift

2342: sources would be to speculate that the GZK effect does not exist theoretically.

2343: A number of authors pointed out~\cite{vli_others,cg} that this may be possible

2344: by allowing violation of Lorentz invariance

2345: (VLI) by a tiny amount that is consistent with all current

2346: experiments. At a purely theoretical level, several quantum gravity models

2347: including some based on string theories do in fact predict non-trivial

2348: modifications of space-time symmetries that also imply VLI at extremely

2349: short distances (or equivalently at extremely high energies); see e.g., 

2350: Ref.~\cite{amelino-piran} and references therein. These theories 

2351: are, however, not yet in forms definite enough to allow precise

2352: quantitative predictions of the exact form of the possible VLI. 

2353: Current formulations of the effects of a possible VLI on high energy

2354: particle interactions relevant in the context of UHECR, therefore, adopt a 

2355: phenomenological approach in which the form of the possible

2356: VLI is parametrized in various

2357: ways. VLI generally implies the existence of a universal preferred frame

2358: which is usually identified with the frame that is

2359: comoving with the expansion of the Universe, in which the CMB

2360: is isotropic. 

2361: 

2362: A direct way of introducing VLI is through a modification

2363: of the standard {\it dispersion relation},

2364: $E^2-p^2=m^2$, between energy $E$ and momentum $p=|\vec{p}|$ of particles, $m$

2365: being the invariant mass of the particle. Currently there is no 

2366: unique way of parameterizing the possible modification of this relation in

2367: a Lorentz non-invariant theory. We discuss here a parameterization

2368: of the modified dispersion relation which covers most of the qualitative

2369: cases discussed in the literature and, for certain parameter values,

2370: allows to completely evade the GZK limit,

2371: \begin{equation}

2372:   E^2-p^2-m^2\simeq-2dE^2-\xi\frac{E^3}{M_{\rm Pl}}-

2373:   \zeta\frac{E^4}{M^2_{\rm Pl}}\,.\label{vli1}

2374: \end{equation}

2375: Here, the Planck mass $M_{\rm Pl}$ characterizes non-renormalizable effects

2376: with dimensionless coefficients $\xi$ and $\zeta$, and the dimensionless

2377: constant $d$ exemplifies VLI effects due to renormalizable terms

2378: in the Lagrangian, see the discussion in Sect.~\ref{sec_renorm}. The standard

2379: Lorentz invariant dispersion relation is recovered in the limit

2380: $\xi,\zeta,d\to0$.

2381: 

2382: The constants $d\neq0$ can break Lorentz invariance spontaneously when

2383: certain Lorentz tensors $c_{\mu\nu}$ have couplings to fermions of the form

2384: $d_{\mu\nu}\bar\psi\gamma^\mu\partial^\nu\psi$, and acquire

2385: vacuum expectation values of the form

2386: $\langle d_{\mu\nu}\rangle=d\delta_\mu^0\delta_\nu^0$. If rotational

2387: invariance and gauge symmetry are preserved, such renormalizable

2388: Lorentz invariance breaking terms in the Lagrangian, whose Lorentz

2389: invariant part is given by Eq.~(\ref{L_matter}),

2390: are characterized by a single time-like vector $u^\mu$, with

2391: $u^\mu u_\mu=-1$, which defines

2392: a preferred reference frame~\cite{ck}.

2393: The dimensionless terms can be interpreted as

2394: a change of the maximal particle velocity~\cite{cg}

2395: $v_{\rm max}=\partial E/\partial p|_{E,p\gg m}\simeq1-d$. At a fixed

2396: energy $E$ one has the correspondence $d\to(\xi/2)(E/M_{\rm Pl})+

2397: (\zeta/2)(E/M_{\rm Pl})^2$, as can be seen from Eq.~(\ref{vli1}).

2398: 

2399: Within effective field theory, effects of first order in $M^{-1}_{\rm Pl}$,

2400: $\xi\neq0$, arise from the most general terms of the form

2401: \begin{equation}

2402:   \frac{\kappa}{2M_{\rm Pl}}u^\mu F_{\mu\nu}(u\cdot\partial)u_\lambda

2403:   \tilde{F}^{\lambda\nu}+

2404:   \frac{1}{2M_{\rm Pl}}u^\mu\bar\psi\gamma_\mu(\lambda_1+\lambda_2\gamma_5)

2405:   (u\cdot\partial)^2\psi\,,\label{vlifirst}

2406: \end{equation}

2407: where $\tilde{F}$ denotes the dual of the field strength $F$. For

2408: photons and electrons this leads to $\xi=\pm\kappa$ and\

2409: $\xi=\lambda_1\pm\lambda_2$, respectively, in Eq.~(\ref{vli1}),

2410: where $\pm$ refers to helicity which remains conserved in the

2411: presence of the terms Eq.~(\ref{vlifirst})~\cite{pospelov}. These

2412: terms also violate $CPT$. Effects of first order in $M^{-1}_{\rm Pl}$,

2413: $\xi\neq0$, are possible, for example, in non-critical Liouville

2414: string theory due to recoiling D-branes~\cite{emn}. Finally, in

2415: critical string theory,

2416: effects second order in $M^{-1}_{\rm Pl}$, $\zeta\neq0$, can be induced

2417: due to quantum gravity effects.

2418: 

2419: Interestingly, it has been pointed out recently that in the

2420: supersymmetric Standard

2421: Model VLI terms must be non-renormalizable and do not lead to

2422: modifications of any dispersion relations~\cite{nibbelink}.

2423: 

2424: Now, consider the GZK photo-pion production process in

2425: which a nucleon of energy $E$, momentum $p$ and mass $m_N$ collides

2426: head-on with a CMB photon of energy $\epsilon$ producing a pion and a

2427: recoiling nucleon. The threshold initial momentum of the nucleon for this

2428: process according to standard Lorentz invariant kinematics is 

2429: \begin{equation}

2430: p_{{\rm th},0}=(m_{\pi}^{2}+2m_{\pi}m_N)/4\epsilon\,,\label{gzk-th} 

2431: \end{equation}

2432: where $m_\pi$ and $m_N$ are the pion and nucleon masses, respectively.

2433: Assuming exact energy-momentum conservation but using the modified

2434: dispersion relation given above, in the

2435: ultra-relativistic regime $m\ll p\ll M$, and neglecting sub-leading terms,

2436: the new nucleon threshold momentum $p_{\rm th}$ under the modified

2437: dispersion relation Eq.~(\ref{vli1}) for $d=0$ satisfies~\cite{aloisio} 

2438: \begin{equation} 

2439: -\beta x^4-\alpha x^3 + x - 1 = 0\,,

2440: \label{vli2} 

2441: \end{equation}

2442: where $x=p_{\rm th}/p_{{\rm th},0}$, and 

2443: \begin{eqnarray} 

2444: \alpha&=&\frac{2\xi p_{{\rm th},0}^{3}}{(m_{\pi}^{2}+2m_\pi m_N)M_{\rm Pl}}

2445:  \frac{m_\pi m_N}{(m_\pi + m_N)^2}\,,\label{vli3}\\

2446: \beta&=&\frac{3\zeta p_{{\rm th},0}^{4}}{2(m_{\pi}^{2}+2m_\pi m_N)M^2_{\rm Pl}}

2447:  \frac{m_\pi m_N}{(m_\pi + m_N)^2}\,.\nonumber

2448: \end{eqnarray} 

2449: One can show that the same modified dispersion

2450: relation Eq.~(\ref{vli1}) leads to the same condition Eq.~(\ref{vli2})

2451: for absorption of high energy gamma rays through $e^+e^-$ pair production

2452: on the infrared, microwave or radio backgrounds, if one substitutes

2453: $p_{{\rm th},0}=m^2_e/\epsilon$,

2454: $\alpha=\xi p_{{\rm th},0}^3/(8m^2_e M_{\rm Pl})$,

2455: $\beta=3\zeta p_{{\rm th},0}^4/(16m^2_e M^2_{\rm Pl})$, where $m_e$

2456: is the electron mass.

2457: 

2458: If $\xi,\zeta\simeq1$, there is no real positive solution of

2459: Eq.~(\ref{vli2}), implying that the GZK process does not take place and

2460: consequently the GZK cutoff effect disappears completely. Thus UHE

2461: nucleons and/or photons will be able to reach Earth from any distance. 

2462: On the other hand, if future UHECR data confirm the presence of a GZK

2463: cutoff at some energy then that would imply upper limits on the

2464: couplings $\xi$ and $\zeta$, thus probing specific

2465: Lorentz non-invariant theories. If $p_{\rm th}\simeq p_{{\rm th},0}$,

2466: one could conclude from Eq.~(\ref{vli2}) that $\alpha,\beta\la1$,

2467: which translates into $|\xi|\la10^{-13}$ for the first order effects,

2468: and $|\zeta|\la10^{-6}$ for the second order

2469: effects, $\xi=0$~\cite{aloisio}. These values correspond to values

2470: $|d|\la10^{-23}$ for the paremeters of renormalizable VLI.

2471: Confirmation of a cut-off for

2472: TeV photons with next-generation $\gamma-$ray observatories

2473: would lead to somewhat weaker constraints~\cite{tev}.

2474: 

2475: More generally, modification of reaction kinematics or new

2476: reaction channels are expected whenever the terms on the right hand

2477: side of Eq.~(\ref{vli1}) become comparable to $m^2$, in rough numbers,

2478: \begin{eqnarray}

2479:   d&\ga&\frac{m^2}{2E^2}\simeq5\times10^{-23}

2480:   \left(\frac{m}{{\rm GeV}}\right)^2

2481:   \left(\frac{E}{10^{20}{\rm eV}}\right)^{-2}\,,\nonumber\\

2482:   \xi&\ga&\frac{M_{\rm Pl}m^2}{E^3}\simeq10^{-14}

2483:   \left(\frac{m}{{\rm GeV}}\right)^2

2484:   \left(\frac{E}{10^{20}{\rm eV}}\right)^{-3}\,,\label{vlirough}\\

2485:   \zeta&\ga&\frac{M_{\rm Pl}^2m^2}{E^4}\simeq10^{-6}

2486:   \left(\frac{m}{{\rm GeV}}\right)^2

2487:   \left(\frac{E}{10^{20}{\rm eV}}\right)^{-4}\,.\nonumber

2488: \end{eqnarray}

2489: Note that by far the smallest parameter values would be probed

2490: by particles with the smallest mass, specifically the neutrino,

2491: $m\la\,$eV at the highest energies. This makes the prospects of

2492: future detections of cosmogenic neutrinos, see, e.g., Fig.~\ref{fig2},

2493: very exciting also for VLI constraints.

2494: 

2495: In addition, the non-renormalizable terms in the dispersion relation

2496: Eq.~(\ref{vli1}) imply a change in the group velocity which for the

2497: first-order term leads to time delays over distances $r$ given by

2498: \begin{equation}

2499:   \Delta t\simeq\xi r\frac{E}{M_{\rm Pl}}\simeq\xi

2500:   \left(\frac{r}{100\,{\rm Mpc}}\right)\left(\frac{E}{{\rm TeV}}\right)

2501:   \,{\rm sec}\,.\label{delay} 

2502: \end{equation}

2503: For $|\xi|\sim1$ such time delays could be measurable, for example,

2504: by fitting the arrival times of $\gamma-$rays arriving from

2505: $\gamma-$ray bursts to the predicted energy dependence.

2506: 

2507: We mention that if VLI is due to modification of the

2508: space-time structure expected in some theories of quantum gravity,

2509: for example, then the strict energy-momentum conservation assumed in the above

2510: discussion, which requires space-time translation invariance, 

2511: is not guaranteed in general, and then the calculation of the modified

2512: particle interaction thresholds becomes highly non-trivial and

2513: non-obvious. Also, it is possible that a Lorentz non-invariant

2514: theory while giving a  modified dispersion relation also imposes

2515: additional kinematic structures such as a modified law of addition

2516: of momenta. Indeed, Ref.~\cite{amelino-piran} gives an example of

2517: a so-called $\kappa$-Minkowski non-commutative space-time in which the modified

2518: dispersion relation has the same form as in Eq.~(\ref{vli1}) but there is also

2519: a modified momentum addition rule which compensates for the effect of the

2520: modified dispersion relation on the particle interaction thresholds

2521: discussed above leaving the threshold momentum unaffected and consequently  

2522: the GZK problem unsolved. In scenarios where the relativity of

2523: inertial frames is preserved by a non-linear representation of the

2524: Poincar\'e group, thresholds are in general significantly modified

2525: only if the effective mass scale $M_{\rm Pl}/\xi$ is of the order

2526: of the unmodified threshold energy in the laboratory frame~\cite{ms}.

2527: 

2528: There are several other fascinating effects of allowing a small VLI,

2529: some of which are relevant for the question of origin and propagation

2530: of UHECR. For example, any movement relative to the preferred frame

2531: defined by $u^\mu$ in Eq.~(\ref{vlifirst}) gives rise to spatial

2532: anisotropy. Clock comparison and spin precession experiments then

2533: lead to limits on the dimensionless parameters in Eq.~(\ref{vlifirst})

2534: between ${\cal O}(1)$ and ${\cal O}(10^{-8})$, depending on the

2535: particle~\cite{pospelov}. Similar limits result from astrophysical

2536: arguments: The observation of polarized MeV synchrotron radiation

2537: from electrons in the Crab nebula implies the absence of vacuum

2538: \v{C}erenkov radiation $e\to e\gamma$ for electrons up to energies

2539: $E\sim1.5\,$PeV~\cite{jlms,jlm}. This process can become possible

2540: if the electron speed becomes larger than the speed of light at

2541: high energies and leads to limits on VLI of size comparable to the

2542: before mentioned laboratory constraints~\cite{jlms,jlm}.

2543: These constraints basically rule out effects of order $E/M_{\rm Pl}$

2544: which might be a challenge for certain quantum gravity scenarios~\cite{pr}.

2545: Note that these current constraints on VLI parameters still allow

2546: strong modification of GZK kinematics by VLI parameters of the order

2547: given in Eq.~(\ref{vlirough}).

2548: 

2549: \subsection{Cosmic Magnetic Fields and Their Influence on Ultra-High

2550: Energy Cosmic Ray Propagation}\label{sec_egmf}

2551: 

2552: Cosmic magnetic fields are inextricably linked with cosmic rays

2553: in several respects. First, they play a central role in Fermi

2554: shock acceleration. Second, large scale extra-galactic magnetic

2555: fields (EGMF) can cause significant deflection of charged cosmic

2556: rays during propagation and thus obviously complicate the relation

2557: between observed UHECR distributions and their sources.

2558: 

2559: Magnetic fields are omnipresent in the Universe, but their

2560: true origin is still unclear~\cite{bt_review}. Magnetic fields

2561: in galaxies are observed with typical strengths of a few

2562: micro Gauss, but there are also some indications for fields correlated

2563: with larger structures such as galaxy clusters~\cite{bo_review}.

2564: Magnetic fields as strong as

2565: $\simeq 1 \mu G$ in sheets and filaments of the large scale galaxy

2566: distribution, such as in our Local Supercluster, are compatible with

2567: existing upper limits on Faraday rotation~\cite{bo_review,ryu,blasi}.

2568: It is also possible that fossil cocoons of former radio galaxies,

2569: so called radio ghosts, contribute significantly to the isotropization

2570: of UHECR arrival directions~\cite{mte}.

2571: 

2572: To get an impression of typical deflection angles one can characterize the

2573: EGMF by its r.m.s. strength $B$ and a coherence length $l_c$.

2574: If we neglect energy loss processes for the moment, then

2575: the r.m.s. deflection angle over a distance $r\ga l_c$ in such a field

2576: is $\theta(E,r)\simeq(2rl_c/9)^{1/2}/r_L$~\cite{wm}, where the Larmor

2577: radius of a particle of charge $Ze$ and energy $E$ is

2578: $r_L\simeq E/(ZeB)$. In numbers this reads

2579: \begin{equation}

2580:   \theta(E,r)\simeq0.8^\circ\,

2581:   Z\left(\frac{E}{10^{20}\,{\rm eV}}\right)^{-1}

2582:   \left(\frac{r}{10\,{\rm Mpc}}\right)^{1/2}

2583:   \left(\frac{l_c}{1\,{\rm Mpc}}\right)^{1/2}

2584:   \left(\frac{B}{10^{-9}\,{\rm G}}\right)\,,\label{deflec}

2585: \end{equation}

2586: for $r\ga l_c$. This expression makes it immediately obvious

2587: that fields of fractions of micro Gauss lead to strong deflection

2588: even at the highest energies.

2589: This goes along with a time delay $\tau(E,r)\simeq r\theta(E,d)^2/4

2590: \simeq1.5\times10^3\,Z^2(E/10^{20}\,{\rm eV})^{-2}

2591: (r/10\,{\rm Mpc})^{2}(l_c/{\rm Mpc})(B/10^{-9}\,{\rm G})^2\,$yr

2592: which can be millions of years. A source visible in UHECRs today

2593: could therefore be optically invisible since many models involving,

2594: for example, active galaxies as UHECR accelerators, predict

2595: variability on shorter time scales.

2596: 

2597: Quite a few simulations of the effect of extragalactic magnetic fields

2598: (EGMF) on UHECRs exist in the literature, but usually idealizing

2599: assumptions concerning properties and distributions of sources

2600: or EGMF or both are made: In Refs.~\cite{slb,ils,lsb,sse,is} sources

2601: and EGMF follow a pancake profile mimicking the local supergalactic

2602: plane. In other studies EGMF have been approximated

2603: in a number of fashions: as negligible~\cite{sommers,bdm},

2604: as stochastic with uniform statistical properties~\cite{bo,ynts,ab},

2605: or as organized in spatial cells with a given coherence length and a strength

2606: depending as a power law on the local density~\cite{tanco}.

2607: Only recently attempts have been made to simulate UHECR propagation

2608: in a realistically structured universe~\cite{sme,dolag}. For

2609: now, these simulations are limited to nucleons.

2610: 

2611: In Ref.~\cite{sme} the magnetized extragalactic environment used

2612: for UHECR propagation is produced by a simulation of the large scale

2613: structure of the Universe. The simulation was carried out

2614: within a computational box of $50\,h^{-1}\,$Mpc length on a side, 

2615: with normalized Hubble constant 

2616: $h\equiv H_0/(100$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1})$ = 0.67, and using

2617: a comoving grid of 512$^3$ zones and 256$^3$ dark matter

2618: particles. The EGMF was initialized to zero at simulation start 

2619: and subsequently its seeds were

2620: generated at cosmic shocks through the Biermann battery

2621: mechanism~\cite{kcor97}. Since cosmic shocks form

2622: primarily around collapsing structures including filaments, the above

2623: approach avoids generating EGMF in cosmic voids.

2624: 

2625: In Ref.~\cite{dolag} constrained simulations of the local large

2626: scale structure were performed and the magnetic smoothed particle

2627: hydrodynamics technique was used to follow EGMF evolution. The

2628: EGMF was seeded by a uniform seed field of maximal strength compatible

2629: with observed rotation measures in galaxy clusters.

2630: 

2631: The questions considered in these two works were somewhat different,

2632: however. In Ref.~\cite{dolag} deflections of UHECR above

2633: $4\times10^{19}\,$eV were computed as a function of the direction

2634: to their source which were assumed to be at cosmological distances.

2635: This made sense, because (i) the constrained simulations gives a

2636: viable model of our local cosmic neighborhood within about 100 Mpc,

2637: at least on scales beyond a few Mpc and (ii) the deflections typically

2638: were found to be smaller than a few degrees. Concrete source distributions

2639: were not considered.

2640: 

2641: \begin{figure}[ht]

2642: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth,clip=true]{fig10.ps}

2643: \caption{Log-scale two-dimensional cut through

2644: magnetic field total strength in Gauss (color

2645: scale in Gauss) for a scenario

2646: in good agreement with UHECR data studied in Ref.~\cite{sme}.

2647: The observer is in the center of the figures and is marked by a star.

2648: The EGMF strength at the observer is $\simeq10^{-11}\,$G.}

2649: \label{fig10}

2650: \end{figure}

2651: 

2652: In contrast, Ref.~\cite{sme} was not concerned with concrete sky

2653: distributions or deflection maps because the simulation was unconstrained

2654: and thus only gave a typical large scale structure model and not our

2655: concrete local neighborhood. Instead, the question was asked which

2656: observer positions and source distributions and characteristics

2657: lead to UHECR distributions whose spherical multi-poles for $l\leq10$

2658: and auto-correlation at angles $\theta\la20^\circ$ are consistent

2659: with observations. As a result it was found that (i) the observed

2660: large scale UHECR isotropy requires the neighborhood within a few Mpc

2661: of the observer is characterized by weak magnetic fields below $0.1\,\mu$G,

2662: and (ii) once that choice is made, current data do not strongly

2663: discriminate between uniform and structured source distributions

2664: and between negligible and considerable deflection. Nevertheless,

2665: current data moderately favor a scenario in which (iii) UHECR

2666: sources have a density $n_s\sim10^{-5}\,{\rm Mpc}^{-3}$ and follow the matter

2667: distribution and (iv) magnetic fields are relatively pervasive within the large

2668: scale structure, including filaments, and with a strength of order of a $\mu$G

2669: in galaxy clusters. A two-dimensional cut through the

2670: EGMF environment of the observer in a typical such scenario is

2671: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig10}.

2672: 

2673: It was also studied in Ref.~\cite{sme} how future data of considerably

2674: increased statistics can be used to learn more about EGMF and source

2675: characteristics. In particular, low auto-correlations at

2676: degree scales imply magnetized sources quite independent of

2677: other source characteristics such as their density. The latter can

2678: only be estimated from the auto-correlations halfway reliably

2679: if magnetic fields have negligible impact on propagation.

2680: This is because if sources are immersed

2681: in considerable magnetic fields, their images are smeared out,

2682: which also smears out the auto-correlation function over several

2683: degrees. For a sufficiently high source density, individual images

2684: can thus overlap and sensitivity to source density is consequently

2685: lost. The statistics expected from next generation experiments

2686: such as Pierre Auger~\cite{auger} and EUSO~\cite{euso} should

2687: be sufficient to test source magnetization by the auto-correlation

2688: function~\cite{sme}.

2689: 

2690: \begin{figure}[ht]

2691: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth,clip=true]{fig11.ps}

2692: \caption{The cumulative distribution of UHECR deflection

2693: angles $\alpha$ with respect to the line of sight to the sources.

2694: This is for a scenario from Ref.~\cite{sme} in good agreement with

2695: UHECR data, where the sources follow the baryon density and have average

2696: density $n_s=2.4\times10^{-5}\,{\rm Mpc}^{-3}$, and the EGMF included in

2697: the large scale structure simulation reaches several micro Gauss in

2698: the most prominent galaxy cluster. Shown are the average (middle,

2699: histogram) and 1-$\sigma$ variations (upper and lower curves) above

2700: $4\times10^{19}\,$eV, over 24 realizations varying in the positions

2701: and luminosities $Q_i$ of individual sources,

2702: the latter assumed to be distributed as $dn_s/dQ_i\propto Q_i^{-2.2}$

2703: with $1\leq Q_i\leq100$ in arbitrary units. Also given on top

2704: of the figure are average and variances of the distributions.}

2705: \label{fig11}

2706: \end{figure}

2707: 

2708: Interestingly, however, there is a considerable quantifiable difference

2709: in the typical deflection angles predicted by the two EGMF scenarios

2710: in Refs.~\cite{sme,dolag} that can {\it not} be compensated by

2711: specific source distributions: Even for homogeneous source distributions,

2712: the average deflection angle for UHECRs above $4\times10^{19}\,$eV

2713: obtained in Ref.~\cite{sme} is much larger than in Ref.~\cite{dolag},

2714: as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig11}. In fact, even if the magnetic field

2715: strength is reduced by a factor 10 in the simulations of Ref.~\cite{sme},

2716: the average deflection angle above $4\times10^{19}\,$eV is still

2717: $\sim30^\circ$, only a factor $\simeq2.2$ smaller. This non-linear

2718: behavior of deflection with field normalization is mostly due to the

2719: strongly non-homogeneous character of the EGMF.

2720: 

2721: \begin{figure}[ht]

2722: \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth,clip=true]{fig12.ps}

2723: \caption{The cumulative filling factors for EGMF strength

2724: in the simulations used in Ref.~\cite{sme} above (decreasing curve)

2725: and below (increasing curve) a given threshold, as a function of

2726: that threshold.}

2727: \label{fig12}

2728: \end{figure}

2729: 

2730: Most of these differences are probably due to the different 

2731: numerical models for the magnetic fields.

2732: Although Ref.~\cite{dolag} start with uniform seed fields,

2733: whereas in Ref.~\cite{sme} seed fields are injected

2734: at shocks, by itself, this difference

2735: should not influence the resulting EGMF very

2736: much at late times, at least inside galaxy clusters~\cite{ryu}.

2737: It should be noted, however, that in the filaments, where 

2738: the gas motions are more uniform, the simulated magnetic fields may

2739: depend to a certain extent on the initial seed fields although 

2740: that is not trivial to quantify in general terms. 

2741: In addition, numerical resolution

2742: may play an important role because it affects the amplification and

2743: the topological structure of the 

2744: magnetic fields, both of which are important for the normalization

2745: procedure, see below. The resolution

2746: in Ref.~\cite{sme} is constant and much better in filaments and

2747: voids but worse in the core of galaxy clusters than the (variable) 

2748: resolution in Ref.~\cite{dolag}. If in both simulations the magnetic

2749: fields are normalized to (or reproduce) the same ``observed'' values 

2750: in the core of rich clusters then obviously their values 

2751: in the filaments will be very different for the reasons outlined above.

2752: This may partly explain why the contribution

2753: of filaments to UHECR deflection is more important in Ref.~\cite{sme},

2754: although a more detailed analysis and comparison are required to settle 

2755: the issue. In any case, the magnetic fields obtained

2756: in Ref.~\cite{sme} seem to be quite extended, as can be seen in

2757: Fig.~\ref{fig12}: About 10\% of the volume is filled with fields

2758: stronger than 10 nano Gauss, and a fraction of $10^{-3}$ is

2759: filled by fields above a micro Gauss. Furthermore, typical deflection

2760: angles change at most by a factor of 2 if magnetic field normalization

2761: is decreased by a factor 10 or seed fields are chosen as uniform

2762: in these simulations. The different amounts of

2763: deflection obtained in the simulations of Refs.~\cite{sme,dolag} show

2764: that the distribution of EGMF and their effects on UHECR propagation

2765: are currently rather uncertain.

2766: 

2767: Finally we note that these studies should be extended to include

2768: heavy nuclei~\cite{prepa} since there are indications that a fraction

2769: as large as 80\% of iron nuclei may exist above $10^{19}\,$eV~\cite{watson}.

2770: As a consequence, even in the EGMF scenario of Ref.~\cite{dolag}

2771: deflections could be considerable and may not allow particle astronomy

2772: along many lines of sight: The distribution of deflection angles in

2773: Ref.~\cite{dolag} shows that deflections of protons above

2774: $4\times10^{19}\,$eV of $\ga1^\circ$ cover a considerable fraction

2775: of the sky. Suppression of deflection along typical lines of sight

2776: by small filling factors of deflectors is thus unimportant in this

2777: case. The deflection angle of any

2778: nucleus at a given energy passing through such areas will therefore

2779: be roughly proportional to its charge as long as energy loss

2780: lengths are larger than a few tens of Mpc~\cite{bils}. Deflection angles of

2781: $\sim20^\circ$ at $\sim4\times10^{19}\,$eV should thus be the rule

2782: for iron nuclei. In

2783: contrast to the contribution of our Galaxy to deflection which

2784: can be of comparable size but may be corrected for within sufficiently

2785: detailed models of the galactic field, the extra-galactic contribution

2786: would be stochastic. Statistical methods are therefore likely to

2787: be necessary to learn about UHECR source distributions and

2788: characteristics. In addition, should a substantial heavy composition

2789: be experimentally confirmed up to the highest energies, some sources would

2790: have to be surprisingly nearby, within a few Mpc, otherwise only

2791: low mass spallation products would survive propagation~\cite{er}.

2792: 

2793: The putative clustered component of the UHECR flux whose fraction

2794: of the total flux seems to increase with energy~\cite{teshima1} may

2795: play a key role in this context. It could be caused by discrete sources

2796: in directions with small deflection. Spectrum and composition of the

2797: flux from such sources could still by modified considerably by

2798: magnetic fields concentrated around the source~\cite{sse,sigl}.

2799: For example, since, apart from energy losses, cosmic rays

2800: of same rigidity $Z/A$ are deflected similarly by cosmic magnetic

2801: fields, one may expect that the composition of the clustered component

2802: may become heavier with increasing energy. Indeed, in Ref.~\cite{teshima}

2803: it was speculated that the AGASA clusters may be consistent with

2804: consecutive He, Be-Mg, and Fe bumps.

2805: 

2806: It thus seems evident that the influence of large

2807: scale cosmic magnetic fields on ultra-high energy cosmic ray propagation

2808: is currently hard to quantify and may not allow to do ``particle

2809: astronomy'' along most lines of sight, especially if a significant

2810: heavy nucleus component is present above $10^{19}\,$eV.

2811: 

2812: \begin{theacknowledgments}

2813: The material presented here is based on a university course on neutrino

2814: physics taught by the author and on research work with various

2815: collaborators of whom I would especially like to thank Torsten Ensslin,

2816: Francesco Miniati and Dmitry Semikoz. Finally, I would like to thank

2817: the organizers of the XIth Brazilian School of Cosmology and Gravitation

2818: for a terrific school.

2819: \end{theacknowledgments}

2820: 

2821: \newpage

2822: 

2823: \bibliographystyle{aipprocl}

2824: 

2825: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2826: 

2827: \bibitem{perkins}

2828: D.~H.~Perkins (1987). {\it Introduction to High Energy Physics},

2829: Addison-Wesley.

2830: 

2831: \bibitem{weinberg1}

2832: S.~Weinberg (1972). {\it Gravitation and Cosmology}, New York: John Wiley

2833: \& Sons. [A detailed exposition of general relativity and its

2834: applications].

2835: 

2836: \bibitem{weinberg2}

2837: S.~Weinberg (1995). {\it The Quantum Theory of Fields},

2838: volume 1: {\it Foundations}, Cambridge: Cambridge University

2839: Press. [Basic concepts of relativistic quantum field theory

2840: with special emphasize on how its general form is determined

2841: by symmetry principles: scattering theory, Feynman rules,

2842: quantum electrodynamics, path integrals, renormalization].

2843: 

2844: \bibitem{weinberg3}

2845: S.~Weinberg (1996). {\it The Quantum Theory of Fields},

2846: volume 2: {\it Modern Applications}, Cambridge: Cambridge University

2847: Press. [Introduction to non-abelian gauge theories: renormalization

2848: group, spontaneous symmetry breaking, anomalies, non-perturbative

2849: field configurations].

2850: 

2851: %\cite{Gandhi:1998ri}

2852: \bibitem{Gandhi:1998ri}

2853: R.~Gandhi, C.~Quigg, M.~H.~Reno and I.~Sarcevic,

2854: %``Neutrino interactions at ultrahigh energies,''

2855: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 093009 (1998)

2856: [arXiv:hep-ph/9807264].

2857: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807264;%%

2858: 

2859: %\cite{Semikoz:2003wv}

2860: \bibitem{ss}

2861: D.~V.~Semikoz and G.~Sigl,

2862: %``Ultra-high energy neutrino fluxes: New constraints and implications,''

2863: JCAP {\bf 0404}, 003 (2004)

2864: [arXiv:hep-ph/0309328].

2865: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309328;%%

2866: 

2867: \bibitem{dima} I acknowledge Dmitry Semikoz for updating this figure.

2868: 

2869: \bibitem{atm-nu} see, e.g.,

2870: {\sl http://ast.leeds.ac.uk/~workshop/halzen\_leeds.ppt}.

2871: 

2872: \bibitem{MACRO} For general information see

2873: {\sf http://wsgs02.lngs.infn.it:8000/macro/}; see also

2874: %\cite{Ambrosio:2002ma}

2875: %\bibitem{Ambrosio:2002ma}

2876: M.~Ambrosio {\it et al.}  [MACRO Collaboration],

2877: %``Search for diffuse neutrino flux from astrophysical sources with MACRO,''

2878: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 19}, 1 (2003)

2879: [arXiv:astro-ph/0203181].

2880: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0203181;%%

2881: 

2882: \bibitem{amandaII}

2883: P.~Niessen  [the AMANDA Collaboration],

2884: %``Recent results from the AMANDA experiment,''

2885: arXiv:astro-ph/0306209;

2886: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0306209;%%

2887: For the energy range

2888: $2.5\times10^{15}\,{\rm eV}\la E\la5.6\times10^{18}\,$eV

2889: we rescaled the AMANDA-B10 limit from

2890: {\sf http://www-rccn.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/icrc2003/PROCEEDINGS/PDF/326.pdf}

2891: to AMANDA-II exposure.

2892: 

2893: %\cite{Balkanov:2001br}

2894: \bibitem{baikal_limit}

2895: V.~Balkanov {\it et al.}  [BAIKAL Collaboration],

2896: %``Baikal experiment: Status report,''

2897: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 110}, 504 (2002)

2898: [arXiv:astro-ph/0112446];

2899: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0112446;%%

2900: for general information see

2901: {\sf http://www-zeuthen.desy.de/baikal/baikalhome.html}

2902: 

2903: \bibitem{agasa_nu} S.~Yoshida for the AGASA Collaboration,

2904: Proc. of 27th ICRC (Hamburg) {\bf 3},  1142 (2001).

2905: %%CITATION = NONE;%%

2906: 

2907: \bibitem{baltrusaitis}

2908: R.~M.~Baltrusaitis {\it et al.},

2909: Astrophys.~J. {\bf 281}, L9 (1984) ;

2910: %%CITATION = NONE;%%

2911: %``Limits On Deeply Penetrating Particles In The > 10**17-Ev Cosmic Ray Flux,''

2912: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 31}, 2192 (1985).

2913: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D31,2192;%%

2914: 

2915: %\cite{Kravchenko:2002mm}

2916: \bibitem{rice_new}

2917: I.~Kravchenko {\it et al.},

2918:  %``Limits on the ultra-high energy electron neutrino flux from the RICE

2919: %experiment,''

2920: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 20}, 195 (2003)

2921: [arXiv:astro-ph/0206371];

2922: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0206371;%%

2923: %\cite{Kravchenko:2003tc}

2924: I.~Kravchenko,

2925: %``Recent results from the RICE experiment at the South Pole,''

2926: arXiv:astro-ph/0306408.

2927: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0306408;%%

2928: 

2929: \bibitem{glue}

2930: P.~W.~Gorham, K.~M.~Liewer and C.~J.~Naudet,

2931: %``Initial Results from a Search for Lunar Radio Emission from Interactions of >= 10^{19} eV Neutrinos and Cosmic Rays,''

2932: astro-ph/9906504;

2933: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9906504;%%

2934: %\cite{Gorham:2001aj}

2935: %\bibitem{Gorham:2001aj}

2936: P.~W.~Gorham, K.~M.~Liewer, C.~J.~Naudet, D.~P.~Saltzberg and D.~R.~Williams,

2937: %``Radio limits on an isotropic flux of >100 EeV cosmic neutrinos,''

2938: arXiv:astro-ph/0102435;

2939: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0102435;%%

2940: %in Ref.~\cite{radhep};

2941: %\cite{Gorham:2003da}

2942: %\bibitem{Gorham:2003da}

2943: P.~W.~Gorham, C.~L.~Hebert, K.~M.~Liewer, C.~J.~Naudet, D.~Saltzberg and D.~Williams,

2944: %``Experimental Limit on the Cosmic Diffuse Ultra-high Energy Neutrino Flux,''

2945: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 93}, 041101 (2004)

2946: [arXiv:astro-ph/0310232].

2947: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0310232;%%

2948: 

2949: %\cite{Lehtinen:2003xv}

2950: \bibitem{forte}

2951: N.~G.~Lehtinen, P.~W.~Gorham, A.~R.~Jacobson and R.~A.~Roussel-Dupre,

2952: %``FORTE satellite constraints on ultra-high energy cosmic particle fluxes,''

2953: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 013008 (2004)

2954: [arXiv:astro-ph/0309656].

2955: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0309656;%%

2956: 

2957: %\cite{Takeda:1998ps}

2958: \bibitem{agasa}

2959: M.~Takeda {\it et al.},

2960:  %``Extension of the cosmic-ray energy spectrum beyond the predicted

2961: %Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin cutoff,''

2962: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 81}, 1163 (1998)

2963: [arXiv:astro-ph/9807193];

2964: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9807193;%%

2965: %\cite{Takeda:1999sg}

2966: %\bibitem{Takeda:1999sg}

2967: M.~Takeda {\it et al.},

2968:  %``Small-scale anisotropy of cosmic rays above 10**19-eV observed with  the

2969: %Akeno Giant Air Shower Array,''

2970: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 522}, 225 (1999)

2971: [arXiv:astro-ph/9902239];

2972: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9902239;%%

2973: %\cite{Hayashida:2000zr}

2974: %\bibitem{Hayashida:2000zr}

2975: N.~Hayashida {\it et al.},

2976: %``Updated AGASA event list above 4*10**19-eV,''

2977: arXiv:astro-ph/0008102;

2978: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0008102;%%

2979: see also {\sf http~://www-akeno.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/AGASA/}.

2980: 

2981: %\cite{Abbasi:2002ta}

2982: \bibitem{hires}

2983: R.~U.~Abbasi {\it et al.}  [High Resolution Fly's Eye Collaboration],

2984: %``Measurement of the flux of ultrahigh energy cosmic rays from monocular

2985: %observations by the High Resolution Fly's Eye experiment,''

2986: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 92}, 151101 (2004)

2987: [arXiv:astro-ph/0208243];

2988: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0208243;%%

2989: %\cite{Abu-Zayyad:2002sf}

2990: %\bibitem{Abu-Zayyad:2002sf}

2991: T.~Abu-Zayyad {\it et al.}  [High Resolution Fly's Eye Collaboration],

2992:  %``Measurement of the spectrum of UHE cosmic rays by the FADC detector of the

2993: %HiRes experiment,''

2994: arXiv:astro-ph/0208301;

2995: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0208301;%%

2996: %\cite{Bergman:2004bk}

2997: %\bibitem{Bergman:2004bk}

2998: D.~R.~Bergman  [The HiRes Collaboration],

2999: %``Fitting the HiRes Spectra and Monocular Composition,''

3000: arXiv:astro-ph/0407244.

3001: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0407244;%%

3002: 

3003: %\cite{Strong:2003ex}

3004: \bibitem{egret_new}

3005: A.~W.~Strong, I.~V.~Moskalenko and O.~Reimer,

3006: %``A new estimate of the extragalactic gamma-ray background from EGRET  data,''

3007: arXiv:astro-ph/0306345.

3008: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0306345;%%

3009: 

3010: %\cite{Waxman:1998yy}

3011: \bibitem{wb-bound}

3012: E.~Waxman and J.~N.~Bahcall,

3013: %``High energy neutrinos from astrophysical sources: An upper bound,''

3014: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 023002 (1999)

3015: [arXiv:hep-ph/9807282];

3016: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807282;%%

3017: %\cite{Bahcall:1999yr}

3018: %\bibitem{Bahcall:1999yr}

3019: J.~N.~Bahcall and E.~Waxman,

3020: %``High energy astrophysical neutrinos: The upper bound is robust,''

3021: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 023002 (2001)

3022: [arXiv:hep-ph/9902383].

3023: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9902383;%%

3024: 

3025: \bibitem{auger_nu}

3026: J.~J.~Blanco-Pillado, R.~A.~Vazquez and E.~Zas,

3027: %``Limits on topological defect neutrino fluxes from horizontal air shower  measurements,''

3028: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 78}, 3614 (1997)

3029: [astro-ph/9612010];

3030: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9612010;%%

3031: K.~S.~Capelle, J.~W.~Cronin, G.~Parente and E.~Zas,

3032: %``On the detection of ultra high energy neutrinos with the Auger  Observatory,''

3033: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 8}, 321 (1998)

3034: [astro-ph/9801313];

3035: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9801313;%%

3036: A.~Letessier-Selvon,

3037: %``Neutrinos and the highest energy cosmic rays,''

3038: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 91}, 473 (2000)

3039: [astro-ph/0009416];

3040: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0009416;%%

3041: X.~Bertou, P.~Billoir, O.~Deligny, C.~Lachaud and A.~Letessier-Selvon,

3042: %``Tau neutrinos in the Auger observatory: A new window to UHECR sources,''

3043: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 17}, 183 (2002)

3044: [astro-ph/0104452].

3045: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0104452;%%

3046: 

3047: %\cite{Sasaki:2002eg}

3048: \bibitem{ta_nu}

3049: M.~Sasaki and M.~Jobashi,

3050: %``Detecting very high energy neutrinos by the Telescope Array,''

3051: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 19}, 37 (2003)

3052: [arXiv:astro-ph/0204167].

3053: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0204167;%%

3054: 

3055: %\cite{Hou:2002bh}

3056: \bibitem{mount}

3057: G.~W.~S.~Hou and M.~A.~Huang,

3058: %``Expected performance of a neutrino telescope for seeing AGN/GC behind a

3059: %mountain,''

3060: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 118}, 425 (2003)

3061: [arXiv:astro-ph/0204145].

3062: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0204145;%%

3063: 

3064: %\cite{Bottai:2002nn}

3065: \bibitem{euso_nu} see S.~Bottai and S.~Giurgola,

3066: {\sf http://www-rccn.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/icrc2003/PROCEEDINGS/PDF/279.pdf}.

3067: 

3068: \bibitem{antares} For general information see

3069: {\sf http://antares.in2p3.fr}; see also

3070: ANTARES Collaboration, e-print astro-ph/9907432;

3071: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9907432;%%

3072: %\cite{Montaruli:2003bc}

3073: %\bibitem{Montaruli:2003bc}

3074: T.~Montaruli {\it et al.}  [ANTARES Collaboration],

3075: %``ANTARES status report,''

3076: arXiv:physics/0306057.

3077: %%CITATION = PHYS-ICS 0306057;%%

3078: 

3079: \bibitem{nestor} For general information see

3080: {\sf http://www.nestor.org.gr }. See also L.~Resvanis, Proc.

3081: Int.Workshop on Neutrino Telescopes, Venice 1999, vol. II, 93.

3082: 

3083: \bibitem{icecube} For general information see

3084: {\sf http://icecube.wisc.edu/}; see also

3085: F.~Halzen: Am.~Astron.~Soc. Meeting 192, \# 62 28 (1998);

3086: %%CITATION = NONE;%%

3087: AMANDA collaboration: astro-ph/9906205, Proc. {\it 8$^{th}$

3088: International Workshop on Neutrino Telescopes}, Venice, Feb. 1999.

3089: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9906205;%%

3090: 

3091: \bibitem{katz} see, e.g., talk by U. Katz on HENA 2003 workshop,

3092: {\sf http://antares.in2p3.fr/antares/stolar/km3/program.htm}.

3093: 

3094: %\cite{Kravchenko:2002mm}

3095: \bibitem{rice}

3096: I.~Kravchenko {\it et al.},

3097: %``Limits on the ultra-high energy electron neutrino flux from the RICE

3098: %experiment,''

3099: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 20}, 195 (2003)

3100: [arXiv:astro-ph/0206371];

3101: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0206371;%%

3102: for general information on

3103: RICE see {\sf http://kuhep4.phsx.ukans.edu/~iceman/index.html}.

3104: 

3105: \bibitem{anita} P.~Gorham et al. (ANITA collaboration),

3106: {\sf http://www.ps.uci.edu/~barwick/anitaprop.pdf}.

3107: 

3108: \bibitem{mohapatra}

3109: R.~N.~Mohapatra, P.~B.~Pal (2004). {\it Massive Neutrinos in Physics

3110: and Astrophysics}, Imperial College Press.

3111: 

3112: %\cite{Klapdor-Kleingrothaus:gs}

3113: \bibitem{klapdor}

3114: H.~V.~Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, A.~Dietz, I.~V.~Krivosheina, C.~Dorr and C.~Tomei

3115:                   [Heidelberg-Moscow-Genius collaborations],

3116: %``Support Of Evidence For Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay,''

3117: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 578}, 54 (2004)

3118: [arXiv:hep-ph/0312171].

3119: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0312171;%%

3120: 

3121: %\cite{Arnaboldi:2003tu}

3122: \bibitem{cuore} see, e.g.,

3123: C.~Arnaboldi {\it et al.}  [CUORE Collaboration],

3124: %``Physics potential and prospects for the CUORICINO and CUORE  experiments,''

3125: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 20}, 91 (2003)

3126: [arXiv:hep-ex/0302021];

3127: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0302021;%%

3128: %\cite{Arnaboldi:2002du}

3129: %\bibitem{Arnaboldi:2002du}

3130: C.~Arnaboldi {\it et al.}  [CUORE Collaboration],

3131: %``CUORE: A cryogenic underground observatory for rare events,''

3132: Nucl.\ Instrum.\ Meth.\ A {\bf 518}, 775 (2004)

3133: [arXiv:hep-ex/0212053].

3134: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0212053;%%

3135: 

3136: %\cite{Weinheimer:2003fj}

3137: \bibitem{mainz}

3138: C.~Weinheimer,

3139: %``Direct neutrino mass experiments: Present and future,''

3140: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 118} (2003) 279.

3141: %%CITATION = NUPHZ,118,279;%%

3142: 

3143: \bibitem{katrin} see {\sl http://www-ik1.fzk.de/tritium/}.

3144: 

3145: \bibitem{raffelt} G.~G.~Raffelt (1996). {\it Stars as Laboratories for

3146: Fundamental Physics}, University of Chicago Press.

3147: 

3148: %\cite{Bahcall:2004fg}

3149: \bibitem{bp04}

3150: J.~N.~Bahcall and M.~H.~Pinsonneault,

3151: %``What do we (not) know theoretically about solar neutrino fluxes?,''

3152: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 92}, 121301 (2004)

3153: [arXiv:astro-ph/0402114].

3154: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0402114;%%

3155: 

3156: \bibitem{sno} see {\sl http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/}.

3157: 

3158: \bibitem{kamland} see {\sl http://www.awa.tohoku.ac.jp/KamLAND/}.

3159: 

3160: %\cite{Bahcall:2004ut}

3161: \bibitem{bahcall}

3162: J.~N.~Bahcall, M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia and C.~Pena-Garay,

3163: %``Solar neutrinos before and after Neutrino 2004,''

3164: arXiv:hep-ph/0406294.

3165: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406294;%%

3166: 

3167: %\cite{Maltoni:2004ei}

3168: \bibitem{maltoni}

3169: M.~Maltoni, T.~Schwetz, M.~A.~Tortola and J.~W.~F.~Valle,

3170: %``Status of global fits to neutrino oscillations,''

3171: arXiv:hep-ph/0405172.

3172: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405172;%%

3173: 

3174: \bibitem{k2k} see {\sl http://neutrino.kek.jp/}.

3175: 

3176: \bibitem{superk} see {\sl http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/doc/sk/}.

3177: 

3178: %\cite{Ashie:2004mr}

3179: \bibitem{ashie}

3180: Y.~Ashie {\it et al.}  [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],

3181: %``Evidence for an oscillatory signature in atmospheric neutrino oscillation,''

3182: arXiv:hep-ex/0404034.

3183: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0404034;%%

3184: 

3185: %\cite{Altarelli:2004za}

3186: \bibitem{altarelli} see, e.g.,

3187: G.~Altarelli and F.~Feruglio,

3188: %``Models of neutrino masses and mixings,''

3189: arXiv:hep-ph/0405048.

3190: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405048;%%

3191: 

3192: %\cite{Klinkhamer:2004zn}

3193: \bibitem{klinkhamer}

3194: F.~R.~Klinkhamer,

3195: %``Lorentz-noninvariant neutrino oscillations: Model and predictions,''

3196: arXiv:hep-ph/0407200.

3197: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407200;%%

3198: 

3199: \bibitem{kt}

3200: E.~W.~Kolb and M.~S.~Turner (1990). {\it The Early Universe},

3201: Addison-Wesley.

3202: 

3203: %\cite{Spergel:2003cb}

3204: \bibitem{spergel}

3205: D.~N.~Spergel {\it et al.},

3206: %``First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations:

3207: %Determination of Cosmological Parameters,''

3208: Astrophys.\ J.\ Suppl.\  {\bf 148}, 175 (2003)

3209: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302209].

3210: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302209;%%

3211: 

3212: %\cite{Steigman:2003gy}

3213: \bibitem{steigman}

3214: G.~Steigman,

3215: %``Forensic cosmology: Probing baryons and neutrinos with BBN and the CBR,''

3216: arXiv:hep-ph/0309347.

3217: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0309347;%%

3218: 

3219: %\cite{Hannestad:2004nb}

3220: \bibitem{hannestad}

3221: S.~Hannestad,

3222: %``Neutrinos in cosmology,''

3223: arXiv:hep-ph/0404239;

3224: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404239;%%

3225: %\cite{Hannestad:2003xv}

3226: S.~Hannestad,

3227: %``Neutrino masses and the number of neutrino species from WMAP and  2dFGRS,''

3228: JCAP {\bf 0305}, 004 (2003)

3229: [arXiv:astro-ph/0303076].

3230: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0303076;%%

3231: 

3232: %\cite{Allen:2003pt}

3233: \bibitem{allen}

3234: S.~W.~Allen, R.~W.~Schmidt and S.~L.~Bridle,

3235: %``A preference for a non-zero neutrino mass from cosmological data,''

3236: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\  {\bf 346}, 593 (2003)

3237: [arXiv:astro-ph/0306386].

3238: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0306386;%%

3239: 

3240: %\cite{Seljak:2004xh}

3241: \bibitem{lya}

3242: U.~Seljak {\it et al.},

3243:  ``Cosmological parameter analysis including SDSS Ly-alpha forest and galaxy

3244: %bias: Constraints on the primordial spectrum of fluctuations, neutrino mass,

3245: %and dark energy,''

3246: arXiv:astro-ph/0407372.

3247: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0407372;%%

3248: 

3249: %\cite{Dolgov:2002ab}

3250: \bibitem{dhpprs}

3251: A.~D.~Dolgov, S.~H.~Hansen, S.~Pastor, S.~T.~Petcov, G.~G.~Raffelt and D.~V.~Semikoz,

3252: %``Cosmological bounds on neutrino degeneracy improved by flavor

3253: %oscillations,''

3254: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 632}, 363 (2002)

3255: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201287].

3256: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201287;%%

3257: 

3258: %\cite{Buchmuller:2004tu}

3259: \bibitem{buchmueller}

3260: W.~Buchmuller, P.~Di Bari and M.~Plumacher,

3261: %``Some aspects of thermal leptogenesis,''

3262: arXiv:hep-ph/0406014.

3263: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0406014;%%

3264: 

3265: %\cite{Sakharov:1967dj}

3266: \bibitem{sakharov}

3267: A.~D.~Sakharov,

3268: %``Violation Of CP Invariance, C Asymmetry, And Baryon Asymmetry Of The

3269: %Universe,''

3270: Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 5}, 32 (1967)

3271: [JETP Lett.\  {\bf 5}, 24 (1967\ SOPUA,34,392-393.1991\ UFNAA,161,61-64.1991)].

3272: %%CITATION = ZFPRA,5,32;%%

3273: 

3274: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3275: 

3276: \bibitem{hess} V.~F.~Hess, Phys.~Z. {\bf 13} (1912) 1084.

3277: 

3278: \bibitem{auger_disc} P.~Auger, R.~Maze, T.~Grivet-Meyer,

3279: {\it Acad\'emie des Sciences} {\bf 206} (1938) 1721; P.~Auger, R.~Maze,

3280: {\it ibid.} {\bf 207} (1938) 228.

3281: 

3282: \bibitem{crbook} for a general introduction on cosmic rays

3283: see, e.g., V.~S.~Berezinsky, S.~V.~Bulanov, V.~A.~Dogiel,

3284: V.~L.~Ginzburg, V.~S.~Ptuskin, {\it Astrophysics of Cosmic

3285: Rays} (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990); T.~K.~Gaisser, {\it

3286: Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics}, Cambridge University Press

3287: (Cambridge, 1998).

3288: 

3289: %\cite{Hoerandel:2004gv}

3290: \bibitem{kascade}

3291: J.~R.~Hoerandel,

3292: %``Models of the knee in the energy spectrum of cosmic rays,''

3293: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 21}, 241 (2004)

3294: [arXiv:astro-ph/0402356].

3295: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0402356;%%

3296: 

3297: %\cite{Berezinsky:2004wx}

3298: \bibitem{bgh}

3299: V.~S.~Berezinsky, S.~I.~Grigorieva and B.~I.~Hnatyk,

3300:  %``Extragalactic UHE proton spectrum and prediction for iron-nuclei flux at

3301: %10^8 - 10^9 GeV,''

3302: arXiv:astro-ph/0403477.

3303: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0403477;%%

3304: 

3305: %\cite{Watson:2004rg}

3306: \bibitem{watson}

3307: A.~A.~Watson,

3308: %``The mass composition of cosmic rays above 10**17-eV,''

3309: arXiv:astro-ph/0408110, and references therein.

3310: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0408110;%%

3311: 

3312: \bibitem{rpp} from the review of particle physics,

3313: {\sl http://pdg.lbl.gov/2004/reviews/cosmicrayrpp.ps}.

3314: 

3315: \bibitem{battiston} for a recent overview see, e.g.,

3316: %\cite{Battiston:2002ws}

3317: %\bibitem{Battiston:2002ws}

3318: R.~Battiston,

3319: %``Astro particle physics from space,''

3320: arXiv:astro-ph/0208108.

3321: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0208108;%%

3322: 

3323: %\cite{Burgett:2003yg}

3324: \bibitem{bm}

3325: W.~S.~Burgett and M.~R.~O'Malley,

3326: %``Hints of energy dependences in AGASA EHECR arrival directions,''

3327: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 092002 (2003)

3328: [arXiv:hep-ph/0301001].

3329: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301001;%%

3330: 

3331: \bibitem{teshima1} M.~Teshima et al., Proc. 28th International Cosmic Ray

3332: Conference, Tsukuba, Japan, {\bf 1} (2003) 437, see

3333: {\sl http://www-rccn.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/icrc2003/PROCEEDINGS/PDF/110.pdf}.

3334: 

3335: %\cite{Finley:2003ur}

3336: \bibitem{fw}

3337: C.~B.~Finley and S.~Westerhoff,

3338: %``On the evidence for clustering in the arrival directions of AGASA's ultrahigh

3339: %energy cosmic rays,''

3340: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 21}, 359 (2004)

3341: [arXiv:astro-ph/0309159].

3342: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0309159;%%

3343: 

3344: \bibitem{finley} C.~B.~Finley et al., Proc. 28th International Cosmic Ray

3345: Conference, Tsukuba, Japan, {\bf 1} (2003) 433, see

3346: {\sl http://www-rccn.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/icrc2003/PROCEEDINGS/PDF/109.pdf}.

3347: 

3348: %\cite{Greisen:1966jv}

3349: \bibitem{gzk}

3350: K.~Greisen,

3351: %``End To The Cosmic Ray Spectrum?,''

3352: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 16}, 748 (1966);

3353: %%CITATION = PRLTA,16,748;%%

3354: %\cite{Zatsepin:1966jv}

3355: %\bibitem{Zatsepin:1966jv}

3356: G.~T.~Zatsepin and V.~A.~Kuzmin,

3357: %``Upper Limit Of The Spectrum Of Cosmic Rays,''

3358: JETP Lett.\  {\bf 4}, 78 (1966)

3359: [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 4}, 114 (1966)].

3360: %%CITATION = JTPLA,4,78;%%

3361: 

3362: %\cite{Stecker:1968uc}

3363: \bibitem{stecker}

3364: F.~W.~Stecker,

3365:  %``Effect Of Photomeson Production By The Universal Radiation Field On

3366: %High-Energy Cosmic Rays,''

3367: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 21}, 1016 (1968).

3368: %%CITATION = PRLTA,21,1016;%%

3369: 

3370: \bibitem{bergman} D.~R.~Bergman, Proc. 28th International Cosmic Ray

3371: Conference, Tsukuba, Japan, {\bf 1} (2003) 397, see

3372: {\sl http://www-rccn.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/icrc2003/PROCEEDINGS/PDF/100.pdf}.

3373: 

3374: %\cite{Cronin:2004ye}

3375: \bibitem{cronin}

3376: J.~W.~Cronin,

3377: %``The highest-energy cosmic rays,''

3378: arXiv:astro-ph/0402487.

3379: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0402487;%%

3380: 

3381: \bibitem{auger} J.~W.~Cronin, Nucl.~Phys.~B (Proc.~Suppl.) {\bf 28B} (1992)

3382: 213; The Pierre Auger Observatory Design Report (ed.~2), March 1997;

3383: see also {\sf http://www.auger.org}.

3384: 

3385: %\cite{Halzen:2002pg}

3386: \bibitem{nu_review} for recent reviews see, e.g.,

3387: F.~Halzen and D.~Hooper,

3388: %``High-energy neutrino astronomy: The cosmic ray connection,''

3389: Rept.\ Prog.\ Phys.\  {\bf 65}, 1025 (2002)

3390: [arXiv:astro-ph/0204527];

3391: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0204527;%%

3392: A.~B.~McDonald, C.~Spiering, S.~Schonert, E.~T.~Kearns and T.~Kajita,

3393: %``Astrophysical neutrino telescopes,''

3394: Rev.\ Sci.\ Instrum.\  {\bf 75}, 293 (2004)

3395: [arXiv:astro-ph/0311343].

3396: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0311343;%%

3397: 

3398: \bibitem{gammarev} for recent short reviews see, e.g.,

3399: H.~J.~V\"olk,

3400: %``High energy gamma-ray astronomy,''

3401: arXiv:astro-ph/0401122;

3402: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0401122;%%

3403: H.~J.~V\"olk,

3404: %``TeV gamma-ray observations and the origin of cosmic rays. III,''

3405: arXiv:astro-ph/0312585.

3406: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0312585;%%

3407: 

3408: %\cite{Mannheim:1998wp}

3409: \bibitem{mpr}

3410: K.~Mannheim, R.~J.~Protheroe and J.~P.~Rachen,

3411: %``On the cosmic ray bound for models of extragalactic neutrino  production,''

3412: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 023003 (2001)

3413: [arXiv:astro-ph/9812398];

3414: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9812398;%%

3415: %\cite{Rachen:1998ci}

3416: %\bibitem{Rachen:1998ci}

3417: J.~P.~Rachen, R.~J.~Protheroe and K.~Mannheim,

3418:  %``The relation of extragalactic cosmic ray and neutrino fluxes: The logic  of

3419: %the upper bound debate,''

3420: arXiv:astro-ph/9908031.

3421: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9908031;%%

3422: 

3423: \bibitem{bere} V.~S.~Berezinsky and A.~Yu.~Smirnov, Ap.~Sp.~Sci. {\bf 32},

3424: 461 (1975).

3425: 

3426: %\cite{Coppi:1996ze}

3427: \bibitem{ahacoppi}

3428: P.~S.~Coppi and F.~A.~Aharonian,

3429:  %``Constraints on the very high energy emissivity of the universe from  the

3430: %diffuse GeV gamma-ray background,''

3431: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 487}, L9 (1997)

3432: [arXiv:astro-ph/9610176].

3433: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9610176;%%

3434: 

3435: \bibitem{egret}

3436: P.~Sreekumar {\it et al.},

3437: Astrophys.~J. {\bf 494},  523 (1998)

3438: %``EGRET observations of the extragalactic gamma ray emission,''

3439: [astro-ph/9709257].

3440: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9709257;%%

3441: 

3442: %\cite{Keshet:2003xc}

3443: \bibitem{kwl}

3444: U.~Keshet, E.~Waxman and A.~Loeb,

3445: %``The Case for a Low Extragalactic Gamma-ray Background,''

3446: JCAP {\bf 0404}, 006 (2004)

3447: [arXiv:astro-ph/0306442].

3448: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0306442;%%

3449: 

3450: %\cite{Torres:2004hk}

3451: \bibitem{ta}

3452: D.~F.~Torres and L.~A.~Anchordoqui,

3453: %``Astrophysical origins of ultrahigh energy cosmic rays,''

3454: Rept.\ Prog.\ Phys.\  {\bf 67}, 1663 (2004)

3455: [arXiv:astro-ph/0402371].

3456: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0402371;%%

3457: 

3458: \bibitem{bs-rev} for a review see, e.g.,

3459: %\cite{Bhattacharjee:1998qc}

3460: %\bibitem{Bhattacharjee:1998qc}

3461: P.~Bhattacharjee and G.~Sigl,

3462: %``Origin and propagation of extremely high energy cosmic rays,''

3463: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 327}, 109 (2000)

3464: [arXiv:astro-ph/9811011].

3465: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9811011;%%

3466: 

3467: %\cite{Berezinsky:1997hy}

3468: \bibitem{bkv}

3469: V.~Berezinsky, M.~Kachelriess and A.~Vilenkin,

3470: %``Ultra-high energy cosmic rays without GZK cutoff,''

3471: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 79}, 4302 (1997)

3472: [arXiv:astro-ph/9708217].

3473: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9708217;%%

3474: 

3475: %\cite{Kachelriess:2003rv}

3476: \bibitem{ks2003}

3477: M.~Kachelriess and D.~V.~Semikoz,

3478: %``Superheavy dark matter as UHECR source versus the SUGAR data,''

3479: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 577}, 1 (2003)

3480: [arXiv:astro-ph/0306282];

3481: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0306282;%%

3482: %\cite{Kim:2003th}

3483: %\bibitem{Kim:2003th}

3484: H.~B.~Kim and P.~Tinyakov,

3485: %``Constraining superheavy dark matter model of UHECR with SUGAR data,''

3486: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 21}, 535 (2004)

3487: [arXiv:astro-ph/0306413].

3488: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0306413;%%

3489: 

3490: \bibitem{zburst1}

3491: T.~J.~Weiler,

3492: %``Resonant Absorption Of Cosmic Ray Neutrinos By The Relic Neutrino Background,''

3493: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 49}, 234 (1982).

3494: %%CITATION = PRLTA,49,234;%%

3495: %

3496: %``Big Bang Cosmology, Relic Neutrinos, And Absorption Of Neutrino Cosmic Rays,''

3497: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 285}, 495 (1984).

3498: %%CITATION = ASJOA,285,495;%%

3499: %

3500: %``Cosmic ray neutrino annihilation on relic neutrinos revisited:  A mechanism for generating air showers above the  Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin cut-off,''

3501: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 11}, 303 (1999)

3502: [hep-ph/9710431].

3503: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9710431;%%

3504: D.~Fargion, B.~Mele and A.~Salis,

3505: %``Ultrahigh energy neutrino scattering onto relic light neutrinos in  galactic halo as a possible source of highest energy extragalactic  cosmic

3506: rays,''

3507: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 517}, 725 (1999)

3508: [astro-ph/9710029].

3509: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9710029;%%

3510: S.~Yoshida, G.~Sigl and S.~j.~Lee,

3511: %``Extremely high energy neutrinos, neutrino hot dark matter, and the  highest energy cosmic rays,''

3512: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 81}, 5505 (1998)

3513: [hep-ph/9808324].

3514: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9808324;%%

3515: 

3516: \bibitem{fkr}

3517: Z.~Fodor, S.~D.~Katz and A.~Ringwald,

3518: %``Determination of absolute neutrino masses from Z-bursts,''

3519: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 88}, 171101 (2002)

3520: [hep-ph/0105064];

3521: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105064;%%

3522: hep-ph/0105336;

3523: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105336;%%

3524: %``Relic neutrino masses and the highest energy cosmic rays,''

3525: JHEP {\bf 0206}, 046 (2002)

3526: [arXiv:hep-ph/0203198];

3527: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0203198;%%

3528: A.~Ringwald,

3529: %``Possible detection of relic neutrinos and their mass,''

3530: hep-ph/0111112.

3531: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0111112;%%

3532: 

3533: %\cite{Kalashev:2001sh}

3534: \bibitem{kkss}

3535: O.~E.~Kalashev, V.~A.~Kuzmin, D.~V.~Semikoz and G.~Sigl,

3536: %``Ultra-high energy cosmic rays from neutrino emitting acceleration  sources?,''

3537: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 103003 (2002)

3538: [arXiv:hep-ph/0112351].

3539: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112351;%%

3540: 

3541: \bibitem{gtt2003}

3542: D.~S.~Gorbunov, P.~G.~Tinyakov and S.~V.~Troitsky,

3543: %``Constraints on ultra-high energy neutrinos from optically thick  astrophysical accelerators,''

3544: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 18}, 463 (2003)

3545: [arXiv:astro-ph/0206385].

3546: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0206385;%%

3547: 

3548: %\cite{Singh:2002de}

3549: \bibitem{sm}

3550: S.~Singh and C.~P.~Ma,

3551: %``Neutrino clustering in cold dark matter halos: Implications for ultra high energy cosmic rays,''

3552: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 023506 (2003)

3553: [arXiv:astro-ph/0208419].

3554: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0208419;%%

3555: 

3556: \bibitem{gk}

3557: G.~Gelmini and A.~Kusenko,

3558: %``Unstable superheavy relic particles as a source of neutrinos  responsible for the ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays,''

3559: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 84}, 1378 (2000)

3560: [arXiv:hep-ph/9908276].

3561: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9908276;%%

3562: 

3563: %\cite{Berezinsky:2002hq}

3564: \bibitem{bko}

3565: V.~Berezinsky, M.~Kachelriess and S.~Ostapchenko,

3566: %``Electroweak jet cascading in the decay of superheavy particles,''

3567: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 89}, 171802 (2002)

3568: [arXiv:hep-ph/0205218].

3569: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205218;%%

3570: 

3571: \bibitem{glast} For general information

3572: see {\sf http://www-glast.stanford.edu}

3573: 

3574: %\cite{Loeb:2000na}

3575: \bibitem{astrocontr}

3576: A.~Loeb and E.~Waxman,

3577: %``Gamma-Ray Background from Structure Formation in the Intergalactic Medium,''

3578: Nature {\bf 405}, 156 (2000)

3579: [arXiv:astro-ph/0003447];

3580: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0003447;%%

3581: %\cite{Miniati:2002hs}

3582: F.~Miniati,

3583: %``Inter-galactic Shock Acceleration and the Cosmic Gamma-ray Background,''

3584: Mon.\ Not.\ Roy.\ Astron.\ Soc.\  {\bf 337}, 199 (2002)

3585: [arXiv:astro-ph/0203014].

3586: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0203014;%%

3587: 

3588: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3589: 

3590: %\cite{Gorbunov:2001gc}

3591: \bibitem{ggs}

3592: D.~S.~Gorbunov, G.~G.~Raffelt and D.~V.~Semikoz,

3593: %``Axion-like particles as ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays?,''

3594: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 096005 (2001)

3595: [arXiv:hep-ph/0103175].

3596: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0103175;%%

3597: 

3598: %\cite{Farrar:1996rg}

3599: \bibitem{cfk}

3600: G.~R.~Farrar,

3601: %``Detecting Gluino-Containing Hadrons,''

3602: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 76}, 4111 (1996)

3603: [arXiv:hep-ph/9603271];

3604: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9603271;%%

3605: %\cite{Chung:1997rz}

3606: %\bibitem{Chung:1997rz}

3607: D.~J.~H.~Chung, G.~R.~Farrar and E.~W.~Kolb,

3608: %``Are ultrahigh energy cosmic rays signals of supersymmetry?,''

3609: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 57}, 4606 (1998)

3610: [arXiv:astro-ph/9707036].

3611: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9707036;%%

3612: 

3613: \bibitem{gluino}

3614: %\cite{Albuquerque:1994xi}

3615: %\bibitem{Albuquerque:1994xi}

3616: I.~F.~Albuquerque {\it et al.}  [E761 Collaboration],

3617: %``A search for light super-ymmetric baryons,''

3618: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 78}, 3252 (1997)

3619: [arXiv:hep-ex/9604002];

3620: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9604002;%%

3621: %\cite{Alavi-Harati:1999gp}

3622: %\bibitem{Alavi-Harati:1999gp}

3623: A.~Alavi-Harati {\it et al.}  [KTeV Collaboration],

3624: %``Search for light gluinos via decays containing pi+ pi- or pi0 from a  neutral

3625: %hadron beam at Fermilab,''

3626: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 83}, 2128 (1999)

3627: [arXiv:hep-ex/9903048].

3628: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9903048;%%

3629: 

3630: \bibitem{bllac}

3631: %\cite{Tinyakov:2004bb}

3632: %\bibitem{Tinyakov:2004bb}

3633: P.~G.~Tinyakov and I.~I.~Tkachev,

3634: %``Cuts and penalties: Comment on 'Clustering of ultrahigh energy cosmic rays

3635: %and their sources',''

3636: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 128301 (2004);

3637: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D69,128301;%%

3638: %\cite{Gorbunov:2002hk}

3639: %\bibitem{Gorbunov:2002hk}

3640: D.~S.~Gorbunov, P.~G.~Tinyakov, I.~I.~Tkachev and S.~V.~Troitsky,

3641: %``Evidence for a connection between gamma-ray and highest-energy cosmic  ray

3642: %emissions by BL Lacs,''

3643: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 577}, L93 (2002)

3644: [arXiv:astro-ph/0204360];

3645: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0204360;%%

3646: %\cite{Tinyakov:2001ir}

3647: %\bibitem{Tinyakov:2001ir}

3648: P.~G.~Tinyakov and I.~I.~Tkachev,

3649: %``Tracing protons through the galactic magnetic field: A clue for charge

3650: %composition of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays,''

3651: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 18}, 165 (2002)

3652: [arXiv:astro-ph/0111305];

3653: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0111305;%%

3654: %\cite{Tinyakov:2001nr}

3655: %\bibitem{Tinyakov:2001nr}

3656: P.~G.~Tinyakov and I.~I.~Tkachev,

3657: %``BL Lacertae are sources of the observed ultra-high energy cosmic rays,''

3658: JETP Lett.\  {\bf 74}, 445 (2001)

3659: [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\  {\bf 74}, 499 (2001)]

3660: [arXiv:astro-ph/0102476].

3661: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0102476;%%

3662: 

3663: %\cite{Fodor:2003bn}

3664: \bibitem{ew_instanton}

3665: Z.~Fodor, S.~D.~Katz, A.~Ringwald and H.~Tu,

3666: %``Electroweak instantons as a solution to the ultrahigh energy cosmic ray

3667: %puzzle,''

3668: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 561}, 191 (2003)

3669: [arXiv:hep-ph/0303080].

3670: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303080;%%

3671: 

3672: %\cite{Domokos:1998ry}

3673: \bibitem{kovesi-domokos}

3674: G.~Domokos and S.~Kovesi-Domokos,

3675: %``Strongly interacting neutrinos and the highest energy cosmic rays,''

3676: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 82}, 1366 (1999)

3677: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812260].

3678: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812260;%%

3679: 

3680: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998rs}

3681: \bibitem{tev-qg}

3682: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,

3683: %``The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,''

3684: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 429}, 263 (1998)

3685: [arXiv:hep-ph/9803315];

3686: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9803315;%%

3687: %\cite{Antoniadis:1998ig}

3688: %\bibitem{Antoniadis:1998ig}

3689: I.~Antoniadis, N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,

3690: %``New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and superstrings at a TeV,''

3691: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 436}, 257 (1998)

3692: [arXiv:hep-ph/9804398];

3693: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9804398;%%

3694: %\cite{Arkani-Hamed:1998nn}

3695: %\bibitem{Arkani-Hamed:1998nn}

3696: N.~Arkani-Hamed, S.~Dimopoulos and G.~R.~Dvali,

3697: %``Phenomenology, astrophysics and cosmology of theories with  sub-millimeter

3698: %dimensions and TeV scale quantum gravity,''

3699: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 086004 (1999)

3700: [arXiv:hep-ph/9807344].

3701: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9807344;%%

3702: 

3703: %\cite{Ahn:2002mj}

3704: \bibitem{aco}

3705: E.~J.~Ahn, M.~Cavaglia and A.~V.~Olinto,

3706: %``Brane factories,''

3707: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 551}, 1 (2003)

3708: [arXiv:hep-th/0201042].

3709: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0201042;%%

3710: 

3711: %\cite{Feng:2001ib}

3712: \bibitem{fs}

3713: J.~L.~Feng and A.~D.~Shapere,

3714: %``Black hole production by cosmic rays,''

3715: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 88}, 021303 (2002)

3716: [arXiv:hep-ph/0109106].

3717: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0109106;%%

3718: 

3719: %\cite{Hannestad:2003yd}

3720: \bibitem{hannestad1}

3721: S.~Hannestad and G.~G.~Raffelt,

3722: %``Supernova and neutron-star limits on large extra dimensions reexamined,''

3723: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 125008 (2003)

3724: [Erratum-ibid.\ D {\bf 69}, 029901 (2004)]

3725: [arXiv:hep-ph/0304029].

3726: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0304029;%%

3727: 

3728: %\cite{Casse:2004cn}

3729: \bibitem{casse}

3730: M.~Casse, J.~Paul, G.~Bertone and G.~Sigl,

3731: %``Gamma rays from the galactic bulge and large extra dimensions,''

3732: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 92}, 111102 (2004)

3733: [arXiv:hep-ph/0309173].

3734: %%CITATION = PRLTA,92,111102;%%

3735: 

3736: %\cite{Kachelriess:2000cb}

3737: \bibitem{kp}

3738: M.~Kachelriess and M.~Plumacher,

3739: %``Ultrahigh energy neutrino interactions and weak-scale string theories,''

3740: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 103006 (2000)

3741: [arXiv:astro-ph/0005309].

3742: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0005309;%%

3743: 

3744: %\cite{Morris:1993wg}

3745: \bibitem{mr}

3746: D.~A.~Morris and A.~Ringwald,

3747: %``Cosmic ray signatures of multi - W processes,''

3748: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 2}, 43 (1994)

3749: [arXiv:hep-ph/9308269].

3750: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9308269;%%

3751: 

3752: %\cite{Tyler:2000gt}

3753: \bibitem{tol}

3754: C.~Tyler, A.~V.~Olinto and G.~Sigl,

3755: %``Cosmic neutrinos and new physics beyond the electroweak scale,''

3756: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 055001 (2001)

3757: [arXiv:hep-ph/0002257].

3758: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0002257;%%

3759: 

3760: \bibitem{afgs} see, e.g.,

3761: %\cite{Anchordoqui:2001cg}

3762: %\bibitem{Anchordoqui:2001cg}

3763: L.~A.~Anchordoqui, J.~L.~Feng, H.~Goldberg and A.~D.~Shapere,

3764: %``Black holes from cosmic rays: Probes of extra dimensions and new limits  on

3765: %TeV-scale gravity,''

3766: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 124027 (2002)

3767: [arXiv:hep-ph/0112247];

3768: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112247;%%

3769: %\cite{Anchordoqui:2002vb}

3770: %\bibitem{Anchordoqui:2002vb}

3771: L.~A.~Anchordoqui, J.~L.~Feng, H.~Goldberg and A.~D.~Shapere,

3772: %``Neutrino bounds on astrophysical sources and new physics,''

3773: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 103002 (2002)

3774: [arXiv:hep-ph/0207139].

3775: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0207139;%%

3776: 

3777: %\cite{Kusenko:2001gj}

3778: \bibitem{kw}

3779: A.~Kusenko and T.~J.~Weiler,

3780: %``Neutrino cross sections at high energies and the future observations of

3781: %ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays,''

3782: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 88}, 161101 (2002)

3783: [arXiv:hep-ph/0106071].

3784: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106071;%%

3785: 

3786: \bibitem{vli_others} H.~Sato and T.~Tati, Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 47},

3787: 1788 (1972);

3788:  D.~A.~Kirzhnits and V.~A.~Chechin, Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\

3789: {\bf 15}, 585 (1972);

3790: %\cite{Gonzalez-Mestres:2002hf}

3791: %\bibitem{Gonzalez-Mestres:2002hf}

3792: L.~Gonzalez-Mestres,

3793: %``Deformed Lorentz symmetry and high-energy astrophysics. II,''

3794: arXiv:hep-th/0208064.

3795: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0208064;%%

3796: 

3797: \bibitem{cg}

3798: %\cite{Coleman:1997xq}

3799: %\bibitem{Coleman:1997xq}

3800: S.~R.~Coleman and S.~L.~Glashow,

3801: %``Cosmic ray and neutrino tests of special relativity,''

3802: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 405}, 249 (1997)

3803: [arXiv:hep-ph/9703240];

3804: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9703240;%%

3805: %\cite{Coleman:1998ti}

3806: %\bibitem{Coleman:1998ti}

3807: S.~R.~Coleman and S.~L.~Glashow,

3808: %``High-energy tests of Lorentz invariance,''

3809: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 116008 (1999)

3810: [arXiv:hep-ph/9812418].

3811: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9812418;%%

3812: 

3813: %\cite{Amelino-Camelia:2000ev}

3814: \bibitem{amelino-piran}

3815: %.~Amelino-Camelia and T.~Piran,

3816: %``Cosmic rays and TeV photons as probes of quantum properties of  space-time,''

3817: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 497}, 265 (2001)

3818: [arXiv:hep-ph/0006210].

3819: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0006210;%%

3820: 

3821: %\cite{Colladay:1998fq}

3822: \bibitem{ck}

3823: D.~Colladay and V.~A.~Kostelecky,

3824: %``Lorentz-violating extension of the standard model,''

3825: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 58}, 116002 (1998)

3826: [arXiv:hep-ph/9809521].

3827: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9809521;%%

3828: 

3829: %\cite{Myers:2003fd}

3830: \bibitem{pospelov}

3831: R.~C.~Myers and M.~Pospelov,

3832: %``Experimental challenges for quantum gravity,''

3833: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 90}, 211601 (2003)

3834: [arXiv:hep-ph/0301124].

3835: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0301124;%%

3836: 

3837: \bibitem{emn} see, e.g.,

3838: %\cite{Ellis:2000sx}

3839: %\bibitem{Ellis:2000sx}

3840: J.~R.~Ellis, N.~E.~Mavromatos and D.~V.~Nanopoulos,

3841: %``Dynamical formation of horizons in recoiling D-branes,''

3842: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 084019 (2000)

3843: [arXiv:gr-qc/0006004].

3844: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0006004;%%

3845: 

3846: %\cite{Nibbelink:2004za}

3847: \bibitem{nibbelink}

3848: S.~G.~Nibbelink and M.~Pospelov,

3849: %``Lorentz violation in supersymmetric field theories,''

3850: arXiv:hep-ph/0404271.

3851: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0404271;%%

3852: 

3853: %\cite{Aloisio:2000cm}

3854: \bibitem{aloisio}

3855: R.~Aloisio, P.~Blasi, P.~L.~Ghia and A.~F.~Grillo,

3856: %``Probing the structure of space-time with cosmic rays,''

3857: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 053010 (2000)

3858: [arXiv:astro-ph/0001258].

3859: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0001258;%%

3860: 

3861: \bibitem{tev} see, e.g.,

3862: %\cite{Protheroe:2000hp}

3863: %\bibitem{Protheroe:2000hp}

3864: R.~J.~Protheroe and H.~Meyer,

3865: %``An infrared background TeV gamma ray crisis?,''

3866: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 493}, 1 (2000)

3867: [arXiv:astro-ph/0005349];

3868: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0005349;%%

3869: %\cite{Jacobson:2001tu}

3870: %\bibitem{Jacobson:2001tu}

3871: T.~Jacobson, S.~Liberati and D.~Mattingly,

3872: %``TeV astrophysics constraints on Planck scale Lorentz violation,''

3873: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 081302 (2002)

3874: [arXiv:hep-ph/0112207].

3875: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0112207;%%

3876: 

3877: %\cite{Magueijo:2002am}

3878: \bibitem{ms}

3879: J.~Magueijo and L.~Smolin,

3880: %``Generalized Lorentz invariance with an invariant energy scale,''

3881: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 67}, 044017 (2003)

3882: [arXiv:gr-qc/0207085].

3883: %%CITATION = GR-QC 0207085;%%

3884: 

3885: %\cite{Jacobson:2003bn}

3886: \bibitem{jlms}

3887: T.~A.~Jacobson, S.~Liberati, D.~Mattingly and F.~W.~Stecker,

3888: %``New limits on Planck scale Lorentz violation in QED,''

3889: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 93}, 021101 (2004)

3890: [arXiv:astro-ph/0309681].

3891: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0309681;%%

3892: 

3893: %\cite{Jacobson:2004rj}

3894: \bibitem{jlm}

3895: T.~Jacobson, S.~Liberati and D.~Mattingly,

3896: %``Astrophysical bounds on Planck suppressed Lorentz violation,''

3897: arXiv:hep-ph/0407370.

3898: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0407370;%%

3899: 

3900: \bibitem{pr} for a non-technical overview see M.~Pospelov and

3901: M.~Romalis, Physics Today July 2004, p.~40.

3902: 

3903: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

3904: 

3905: %\cite{Kronberg:1993vk}

3906: \bibitem{bt_review}

3907: for reviews see, e.g., P.~P.~Kronberg,

3908: %``Extragalactic magnetic fields,''

3909: Rept.\ Prog.\ Phys.\  {\bf 57}, 325 (1994);

3910: %%CITATION = RPPHA,57,325;%%

3911: %\cite{Grasso:2000wj}

3912: %\bibitem{Grasso:2000wj}

3913: D.~Grasso and H.~R.~Rubinstein,

3914: %``Magnetic fields in the early universe,''

3915: Phys.\ Rept.\  {\bf 348}, 163 (2001)

3916: [arXiv:astro-ph/0009061].

3917: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0009061;%%

3918: 

3919: \bibitem{bo_review} J.~P.~Vall{\'e}e, Fundamentals of Cosmic

3920: Physics {\bf 19} (1997) 1;

3921: %\cite{Han:2002ns}

3922: %\bibitem{Han:2002ns}

3923: J.~L.~Han and R.~Wielebinski,

3924: %``Milestones in the Observations of Cosmic Magnetic Fields,''

3925: arXiv:astro-ph/0209090.

3926: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0209090;%%

3927: 

3928: \bibitem{ryu} D.~Ryu, H.~Kang, and P.~L.~Biermann,

3929: Astron.~Astrophys. {\bf 335} (1998) 19.

3930: 

3931: %\cite{Blasi:1999hu}

3932: \bibitem{blasi}

3933: P.~Blasi, S.~Burles and A.~V.~Olinto,

3934: %``Cosmological Magnetic Fields Limits in an Inhomogeneous Universe,''

3935: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 514}, L79 (1999)

3936: [arXiv:astro-ph/9812487].

3937: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9812487;%%

3938: 

3939: %\cite{Medina-Tanco:sc}

3940: \bibitem{mte}

3941: G.~A.~Medina-Tanco and T.~A.~Ensslin,

3942:  %``Isotropization Of Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Ray Arrival Directions By  Radio

3943: %Ghosts,''

3944: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 16}, 47 (2001)

3945: [arXiv:astro-ph/0011454].

3946: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0011454;%%

3947: 

3948: %\cite{Waxman:1996zn}

3949: \bibitem{wm}

3950: E.~Waxman and J.~Miralda-Escude,

3951:  %``Images of bursting sources of high-energy cosmic rays: Effects of  magnetic

3952: %fields,''

3953: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 472}, L89 (1996)

3954: [arXiv:astro-ph/9607059].

3955: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9607059;%%

3956: 

3957: %\cite{Sigl:1998dd}

3958: \bibitem{slb}

3959: G.~Sigl, M.~Lemoine and P.~Biermann,

3960: %``Ultra-high energy cosmic ray propagation in the local supercluster,''

3961: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 10}, 141 (1999)

3962: [arXiv:astro-ph/9806283].

3963: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9806283;%%

3964: 

3965: %\cite{Isola:2001ng}

3966: \bibitem{ils}

3967: C.~Isola, M.~Lemoine and G.~Sigl,

3968: %``Centaurus A as the source of ultra-high energy cosmic rays?,''

3969: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 023004 (2002)

3970: [arXiv:astro-ph/0104289].

3971: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0104289;%%

3972: 

3973: %\cite{Lemoine:1999ys}

3974: \bibitem{lsb}

3975: M.~Lemoine, G.~Sigl and P.~Biermann,

3976:  %``Supercluster Magnetic Fields and Anisotropy of Cosmic Rays above 10**(19)

3977: %eV,''

3978: arXiv:astro-ph/9903124.

3979: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9903124;%%

3980: 

3981: %\cite{Stanev:2003hg}

3982: \bibitem{sse}

3983: T.~Stanev,

3984: %``On the luminosity of the ultra high energy cosmic rays sources,''

3985: arXiv:astro-ph/0303123;

3986: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0303123;%%

3987: %\cite{Stanev:2001rr}

3988: %\bibitem{Stanev:2001rr}

3989: T.~Stanev, D.~Seckel and R.~Engel,

3990:  %``Propagation of ultra-high energy protons in regular extragalactic  magnetic

3991: %fields,''

3992: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 103004 (2003)

3993: [arXiv:astro-ph/0108338];

3994: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0108338;%%

3995: %\cite{Stanev:2000fb}

3996: %\bibitem{Stanev:2000fb}

3997: T.~Stanev, R.~Engel, A.~Mucke, R.~J.~Protheroe and J.~P.~Rachen,

3998: %``Propagation of ultra-high energy protons in the nearby universe,''

3999: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 62}, 093005 (2000)

4000: [arXiv:astro-ph/0003484].

4001: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0003484;%%

4002: 

4003: %\cite{Isola:2002ei}

4004: \bibitem{is}

4005: C.~Isola and G.~Sigl,

4006:  %``Large scale magnetic fields and the number of cosmic ray sources above

4007: %10**19-eV,''

4008: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 083002 (2002)

4009: [arXiv:astro-ph/0203273].

4010: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0203273;%%

4011: 

4012: %\cite{Sommers:2000us}

4013: \bibitem{sommers}

4014: P.~Sommers,

4015: %``Cosmic Ray Anisotropy Analysis with a Full-Sky Observatory,''

4016: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 14}, 271 (2001)

4017: [arXiv:astro-ph/0004016].

4018: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0004016;%%

4019: 

4020: %\cite{Blasi:2003vx}

4021: \bibitem{bdm}

4022: P.~Blasi and D.~De Marco,

4023:  %``The small scale anisotropies, the spectrum and the sources of ultra high

4024: %energy cosmic rays,''

4025: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 20}, 559 (2004)

4026: [arXiv:astro-ph/0307067].

4027: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0307067;%%

4028: 

4029: %\cite{Blasi:1998xp}

4030: \bibitem{bo}

4031: P.~Blasi and A.~V.~Olinto,

4032:  %``A magnetized local supercluster and the origin of the highest energy  cosmic

4033: %rays,''

4034: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 59}, 023001 (1999)

4035: [arXiv:astro-ph/9806264].

4036: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9806264;%%

4037: 

4038: %\cite{Yoshiguchi:2002rb}

4039: \bibitem{ynts}

4040: H.~Yoshiguchi, S.~Nagataki, S.~Tsubaki and K.~Sato,

4041:  %``Small scale clustering in isotropic arrival distribution of ultra-high

4042: %energy cosmic rays and implications for their source candidate,''

4043: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 586}, 1211 (2003)

4044: [Erratum-ibid.\  {\bf 601}, 592 (2004)]

4045: [arXiv:astro-ph/0210132];

4046: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0210132;%%

4047: %\cite{Yoshiguchi:2003vs}

4048: %\bibitem{Yoshiguchi:2003vs}

4049: H.~Yoshiguchi, S.~Nagataki and K.~Sato,

4050:  %``Arrival distribution of ultra-high energy cosmic rays: Prospects for  the

4051: %future,''

4052: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 592}, 311 (2003)

4053: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302508];

4054: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302508;%%

4055: %\cite{Yoshiguchi:2003mc}

4056: %\bibitem{Yoshiguchi:2003mc}

4057: H.~Yoshiguchi, S.~Nagataki and K.~Sato,

4058:  %``A new method for calculating arrival distribution of ultra-high energy

4059:  cosmic rays above 10**19-eV with modifications by the galactic magnetic

4060: %field,''

4061: Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 596}, 1044 (2003)

4062: [arXiv:astro-ph/0307038].

4063: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0307038;%%

4064: 

4065: %\cite{Aloisio:2004jd}

4066: \bibitem{ab}

4067: R.~Aloisio and V.~Berezinsky,

4068: %``Diffusive propagation of UHECR and the propagation theorem,''

4069: arXiv:astro-ph/0403095.

4070: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0403095;%%

4071: 

4072: \bibitem{tanco}

4073: G.~Medina Tanco, ``Cosmic magnetic fields from the perspective

4074: of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays propagation'', Lect.~Notes~Phys.

4075: {\bf 576} (2001) 155.

4076: 

4077: \bibitem{sme}

4078: %\cite{Sigl:2003ay}

4079: G.~Sigl, F.~Miniati and T.~A.~Ensslin,

4080: %``Ultra-high energy cosmic rays in a structured and magnetized universe,''

4081: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 043002 (2003)

4082: [arXiv:astro-ph/0302388];

4083: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0302388;%%

4084: %\cite{Sigl:2003cc}

4085: G.~Sigl, F.~Miniati and T.~A.~Ensslin,

4086:  %``Signatures of magnetized large scale structure in ultra-high energy cosmic

4087: %rays,''

4088: arXiv:astro-ph/0309695;

4089: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0309695;%%

4090: G.~Sigl, F.~Miniati and T.~A.~Ensslin,

4091:  %``Ultra-high energy cosmic ray probes of large scale structure and magnetic

4092: %fields,''

4093: arXiv:astro-ph/0401084; to appear in Phys.\ Rev.\ D.

4094: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0401084;%%

4095: 

4096: \bibitem{dolag}

4097: K.~Dolag, D.~Grasso, V.~Springel and I.~Tkachev,

4098:  %``Mapping deflections of Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays in Constrained

4099: %Simulations of Extragalactic Magnetic Fields,''

4100: JETP.\ Lett.\ {\bf 79}, 583 (2004)

4101: [arXiv:astro-ph/0310902].

4102: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0310902;%%

4103: 

4104: \bibitem{kcor97} R. M. Kulsrud, R. Cen, J. P. Ostriker and D. Ryu,

4105: Astrophys.~J. {\bf 480} (1997) 481.

4106: 

4107: \bibitem{euso} For general information see {\sf http://www.euso-mission.org}.

4108: 

4109: \bibitem{prepa} E.~Armengaud, F.~Miniati, G.~Sigl et al., in preparation.

4110: 

4111: %\cite{Bertone:2002ks}

4112: \bibitem{bils}

4113: G.~Bertone, C.~Isola, M.~Lemoine and G.~Sigl,

4114:  %``Ultra-high energy heavy nuclei propagation in extragalactic magnetic

4115: %fields,''

4116: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 103003 (2002)

4117: [arXiv:astro-ph/0209192].

4118: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0209192;%%

4119: 

4120: %\cite{Epele:1998ia}

4121: \bibitem{er} see, e.g.,

4122: L.~N.~Epele and E.~Roulet,

4123: %``On the propagation of the highest energy cosmic ray nuclei,''

4124: JHEP {\bf 9810}, 009 (1998)

4125: [arXiv:astro-ph/9808104].

4126: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 9808104;%%

4127: 

4128: %\cite{Sigl:2004ff}

4129: \bibitem{sigl}

4130: G.~Sigl,

4131: %``Ultra-high energy cosmic ray nuclei from individual magnetized sources,''

4132: arXiv:astro-ph/0405549; to appear in JCAP.

4133: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0405549;%%

4134: 

4135: %\cite{Yamamoto:2003tn}

4136: \bibitem{teshima}

4137: T.~Yamamoto, K.~Mase, M.~Takeda, N.~Sakaki and M.~Teshima,

4138:  %``Signatures of ultra-high energy cosmic ray composition from propagation of

4139: %nuclei in intergalactic photon fields,''

4140: Astropart.\ Phys.\  {\bf 20}, 405 (2004)

4141: [arXiv:astro-ph/0312275].

4142: %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0312275;%%

4143: 

4144: \end{thebibliography}

4145: 

4146: \end{document}

4147: