1:
2: \documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb,prd,citeautoscript,epsf]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5:
6:
7: %------------------------------------------------------
8:
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10: % %
11: % BEGINNING OF TEXT %
12: % %
13: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
14: \begin{document}
15: % \eqsec % uncomment this line to get equations numbered by (sec.num)
16:
17: \title{Conditions for detecting CP violation via neutrinoless double beta
18: decay}
19: \author{A. \surname{Joniec}}
20: \author{M. \surname{Zralek}}
21: \affiliation{Institute of Physics, University of Silesia
22: \\Uniwersytecka 4, 40-007 Katowice, Poland}
23: \begin{abstract}
24: Neutrinoless double beta decay data together with information on
25: the absolute neutrino masses obtained from the future KATRIN
26: experiment and/or astrophysical measurements give a chance to
27: find CP violation in the lepton sector with
28: Majorana neutrinos. We derive and discuss necessary conditions
29: which make discovery of such CP violation possible for the future
30: neutrino oscillation and mass measurements data.
31: \end{abstract}
32: \pacs{14.60.Pq, 26.65.+t, 95.85.Ry}
33: \maketitle
34: %%% ----------------------------------------------------
35: \section{Introduction}
36: Information on CP violation in the lepton sector is very
37: important for building the future theories which go beyond the Standard
38: Model \cite{Aalseth}. As CP violation is probably
39: predominantly connected with lepton masses and observed neutrinos
40: are very light, an experimental measurement of the
41: effect is a serious challenge. For three Dirac neutrinos there is one
42: CP violating phase $(\delta)$ and
43: additional two phases $(\alpha_1, \alpha_2)$ exist for Majorana
44: neutrinos. The charged current state $(\nu_{\alpha})$ is related to
45: mass states $(\nu_{i})$ by an unitary transformation
46: \begin{equation}
47: |\nu_{\alpha}\rangle=\sum_i U^*_{\alpha i}|\nu_i\rangle
48: \end{equation}
49: where
50: \begin{equation}\label{param}
51: \begin {array}{c}
52: U_{\alpha i}=\left(
53: \begin{array}{ccc}
54: c_{12}c_{13} & s_{12}c_{13} & s_{13}e^{-i\delta} \\
55: -s_{12}c_{23}-c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta} &
56: c_{12}c_{23}-s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta} & s_{23}c_{13} \\
57: s_{12}s_{23}-c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta} &
58: -c_{12}s_{23}-s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta} & c_{23}c_{13}
59: \end{array}
60: \right) \times \\ \\ \left(
61: \begin{array}{ccc}
62: e^{i\alpha_1} & 0 & 0 \\
63: 0 & e^{i\alpha_2} & 0 \\
64: 0 & 0 & 1
65: \end{array}
66: \right).
67: \end{array}
68: \end{equation}
69: $c_{ij}$ and $s_{ij}$ are cosines and sines of the $\theta_{ij}\:
70: (ij=12, 13, 23)$ angles. The second matrix in (\ref{param}) appears
71: only for Majorana neutrinos.
72: \par It is commonly believed that CP violation owing to Dirac phase
73: $\delta$ will be discovered in the future superbeam or neutrino
74: factory experiments \cite{Geer,Geer2} where oscillations of
75: neutrinos and antineutrinos will be observed. From the
76: parametrization of the mixing matrix (Eq.\ref{param}) we can see that
77: $\sin\theta_{13}$ and $e^{\pm i\delta}$ always appear in a
78: combination. So, any CP breaking effect for Dirac neutrinos will
79: be proportional to $\sin\theta_{13}\sin\delta$ and disappear for
80: $\sin\theta_{13}\rightarrow 0$. From the present fits it follows that
81: this mixing angle is small ($\sin^2\theta_{13}<0.05$ for $99.7\%$
82: C.L. \cite{Bandy,CHOOZ,PaloVerde}) and the assumption that
83: $\theta_{13}=0$ agrees with the data equally well. Such a tendency,
84: if outlives in the future when more precise data will be available,
85: effects in a very small or
86: vanishing CP breaking signal. It was shown that for
87: $\delta=\pm\frac{\pi}{2}$ effects of CP violation will be seen in
88: the future experiments if $\sin^2\theta_{13}$ is not smaller than
89: $10^{-4}$ \cite{Lindner}.
90: \par If neutrinos are Majorana particles, in addition to the phase
91: $\delta$, two other phases can also be responsible for CP symmetry
92: breaking. Many different processes are, in principle, sensitive to
93: these Majorana phases and can generate both CP-even and CP-odd
94: effects \cite{Matsuda,Gouvea}. Admittedly, most of them are much
95: beyond an observable limit. The only experiment
96: which could provide evidence for Majorana phases is the
97: search for neutrinoless double beta decay $(\beta\!\beta)_{0\nu}$.
98: Such a possibility has been discussed many times
99: \cite{Barger2,Barger3,Bilenky,Bilenky2,Bilenky3,Czakon,Czakon2,Falcone,Klapdor,Osland2,Minakata,Vissani,Rodejohann,Abada}
100: but, to our knownledge, detailed conditions concerning the future
101: experimental results and
102: their necessary precision to discover CP violation has not been
103: discussed. The exception is where Ref. \cite{Barger4} authors consider the
104: future anticipated precision of all relevant neutrino
105: experiments, and formulate a very pessimistic 'no-go' conclusion.
106: They state that even under a very optimistic assumption about
107: sensitivity of the future experiments it will be impossible to detect
108: neutrino CP violation in the $(\beta\!\beta)_{0\nu}$ decay. We agree
109: with such a statement, but we would like to go a step further.
110: We propose a
111: set of conditions for neutrino masses and mixing angles (best fit
112: values = b.f.v) altogether with conditions on experimental and theoretical
113: precision for
114: their determination, such that discovery of CP violation arising
115: from Majorana phases in the $(\beta\!\beta)_{0\nu}$ decay will be
116: possible. We formulate sufficient conditions when CP violation
117: could be observed. We should mention that our conditions are completely
118: general. Contrary to Ref. \cite{Barger4} we do not assume from the
119: beginning that the $\theta_{13}$ angle vanishes. Similar
120: consideration has been done in \cite{Pascoli,Pascoli3,Petcov}. Here we
121: concentrate on the degenerate neutrino mass spectrum where CP
122: violation has a clear meaning. We investigate in more details the
123: problem of theoretical determination of the nuclear matrix
124: elements, mechanism responsible for $(\beta\beta)_{0\nu}$ and the
125: future experimental error of nuclei decay lifetime.
126: \par We found that under a very optimistic assumption on the sensitivity of
127: the future experiments considered in Ref. \cite{Barger4}, independently
128: of measured b.f.v., it is really impossible to detect CP
129: violation. However, such a possibility is 'just around the corner'.
130: A little better precision will give a chance to make a decisive
131: statement about CP Majorana breaking. Even if required precision for today
132: is estimated to be very optimistic value, we hope that the problem of
133: lepton CP violation is so important that it is worth to have it in
134: mind.
135: \par Other important result of our investigation concerns the $\theta_{13}$ and
136: $\theta_{12}$ mixing angles. In contrary to neutrino oscillation
137: experiments, smaller $\theta_{13}$ angle gives better prospect of
138: CP symmetry breaking measurement. Similar situation take place for solar mixing
139: angle $\theta_{12}$. The maximal $\theta_{12}$,
140: $\sin2\theta_{12}\rightarrow1$, is the best scenario for CP
141: symmetry breaking discovery, contrary to the prospects of finding
142: the neutrino mass bound from $(\beta\beta)_{0\nu}$ decay
143: \cite{Joniec}, where $\theta_{12}\rightarrow\frac{\pi}{4}$ brings
144: such a possibility to ruin.
145: \par In the next chapter we discuss how CP symmetry braking could be
146: determined from neutrinoless double beta decay. Then, in Chapter
147: III, we describe the present situation and we predict how
148: precisely all parameters (oscillation mixing angles, effective
149: mass $\langle m_\nu\rangle$ measured in $(\beta\beta)_{0\nu}$ and
150: $m_\beta$ measured in e.g. tritium beta decay) should be determined
151: in order to discover CP symmetry breaking. Two kinds of
152: presentations are given. The first one, very visual, where
153: correlations between errors are not included. And the second,
154: where more sophisticated analysis which answer at which value of
155: confidence level the probes of CP violation could be carried on. Finally,
156: Chapter IV contains our conclusions.
157:
158: \section{CP symmetry breaking and the $(\beta\beta)_{0\nu}$ decay.}
159:
160: \par
161: The neutrinoless double beta decay $(\beta\beta)_{0\nu}$ of nuclei measures
162: the effective neutrino mass $\langle m_{\nu}\rangle$ \cite{Doi}:
163: \begin{equation}\label{M_mass}
164: \langle m_{\nu}\rangle=|\sum_{i=1}^3 U_{ei}^2 m_i|=|c_{12}^2
165: c_{13}^2 m_1 + s_{12}^2 c_{13}^2 m_2 e^{2i\phi_2} + s_{13}^2 m_3
166: e^{2i\phi_3}|,
167: \end{equation}
168: where $\phi_2=\alpha_2-\alpha_1$ and $\phi_3=-\delta-\alpha_1$.
169: \par As we will see, the possible precision of the future experiments will give
170: a chance to look for CP violation only for higher neutrino masses
171: $(m_1\gtrsim 0.1\: eV)$. For this case the mass spectrum starts to be
172: degenerated and we will consider only such a spectrum. Then
173: the effective neutrino mass $m_{\beta}$ measured in tritium beta
174: decay, independently of its definition \cite{Alberico}, is just
175: equal to neutrino masses
176: \begin{equation}
177: m_{\beta}= \left[\sum^3_{i=1} |U_{ei}|^2 m^2_i\right]^{1/2}=\sum^3_{i=1} |U_{ei}|^2
178: m_i = m_1\approx m_2 \approx m_3.
179: \end{equation}
180: For Majorana neutrinos CP symmetry holds if $\alpha_i$ and $
181: \delta$ take one of the values $0, \pm \frac{\pi}{2}, \pm \pi$.
182: Then from Eq. (\ref{M_mass}) four conserving CP values of $\langle
183: m_{\nu}\rangle$ are obtained:
184: \begin{eqnarray}
185: \langle m_{\nu}\rangle_{(1)} & = & m_{\beta}, \nonumber \\
186: \langle m_{\nu}\rangle_{(2)} & = & m_{\beta}\cos 2\theta_{13}, \nonumber \\
187: \langle m_{\nu}\rangle_{(3)} & = & m_{\beta}\left(\cos^2\theta_{13}|\cos2\theta_{12}|+
188: \sin^2\theta_{13}\right), \\
189: \langle m_{\nu}\rangle_{(4)} & = & m_{\beta}\left(\cos^2\theta_{13}|\cos2\theta_{12}|-
190: \sin^2\theta_{13}\right). \nonumber
191: \end{eqnarray}
192: In all cases, the relation between $ \langle m_{\nu}\rangle$ and
193: $m_{\beta}$ is linear with different slopes $(i=1,2,3,4)$
194: \begin{equation}\label{linear}
195: \langle m_{\nu}\rangle_{(i)}=c_i m_{\beta}.
196: \end{equation}
197: First we would like to present very visual method of finding a region of
198: parameters where CP violation can be probe. Lately we will present a result
199: with the correct statistical analysis.
200: Let us assume that $\theta_{ij}$ mixing angles are known with definite precision,
201: \begin{equation}
202: \sin^2\theta_{ij}\in ((\sin^2\theta_{ij})_{min}, (\sin^2\theta_{ij})_{max})
203: \end{equation}
204: with central value
205: \begin{equation}
206: (\sin^2\theta_{ij})_{best fit}.
207: \end{equation}
208: For each $c_i\; (i=2,3,4)$ we can calculate the maximal and minimal values
209: \begin{eqnarray}
210: c^{max}_2=(\cos 2\theta_{13})_{max}, \nonumber \\
211: c^{min}_2=(\cos 2\theta_{13})_{min}, \nonumber \\
212: c^{max}_3=(\cos^2\theta_{13})_{max}(\cos 2\theta_{12})_{max}+
213: (\sin^2\theta_{13})_{max}, \nonumber \\
214: c^{min}_3=(\cos^2\theta_{13})_{min}(\cos 2\theta_{12})_{min}+
215: (\sin^2\theta_{13})_{min}, \\
216: c^{max}_4=(\cos^2\theta_{13})_{max}(\cos 2\theta_{12})_{max}-
217: (\sin^2\theta_{13})_{min}, \nonumber \\
218: c^{min}_4=(\cos^2\theta_{13})_{min}(\cos 2\theta_{12})_{min}-
219: (\sin^2\theta_{13})_{max}. \nonumber
220: \end{eqnarray}
221: We can see that localization of the $\langle m_{\nu}\rangle_{(i)}$
222: lines is fully determined by the oscillation parameters, namely
223: $\theta_{13}$ and $\theta_{12}$ angles.
224: \begin{figure}
225: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{cp1.eps}
226: \caption{A localization of the $R=\left(\Delta m_\beta ,\Delta
227: \langle m_\nu\rangle \right)$ rectangle between $c_2^{min}$ and
228: $c_3^{max}$ lines which indicates that CP symmetry is broken.}
229: \label{fig}
230: \end{figure}
231: \par Let us now assume that in the future experiments $m_{\beta}$
232: and $\langle m_{\nu}\rangle$ masses are determined with precision
233: $\Delta m_{\beta}$ and $\Delta \langle m_{\nu}\rangle$:
234: \begin{eqnarray}
235: \langle m_\nu\rangle_{exp}&\pm&\Delta\langle m_\nu\rangle, \\
236: (m_\beta)_{exp}&\pm&\Delta m_\beta.
237: \end{eqnarray}
238: Then localization of the rectangle $R=(\Delta
239: m_\beta,\Delta\langle m_\nu\rangle)$ between the lines $c_1=1$ and
240: $c_4^{min}$ (see Fig.\ref{fig}) decides about CP symmetry
241: breaking. If $R$ crosses the error region between the
242: $(c_i^{min}, c_i^{max})$ lines $i=2,3,4$, we do not know anything
243: about CP symmetry. But, in opposite, if $R$ is located outside the
244: $c_i$ error region then there is indication that CP symmetry is
245: broken as at least one of the angles $\delta, \alpha_1,\alpha_2$
246: is not equal to its CP conserving value.
247: \begin{figure}
248: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{cp2.eps}
249: \caption{A localization of the ($c_i^{min}\; c_i^{max})$ regions for
250: the present $\theta_{13}$ and $\theta_{12}$ angles precision. To
251: see CP violation a precision of $m_\beta$ and $\langle
252: m_\nu\rangle$ measurements should be very good. For smaller
253: $m_\beta$ (and $\langle m_\nu\rangle$) a region where CP
254: violation can be search for is smaller, so a precision of their
255: measurements should be even better.} \label{present}
256: \end{figure}
257: \begin{figure}
258: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{cp3.eps}
259: \caption{The CP conserving regions (hatched areas) which follow from
260: the future neutrino oscillation experiments. We assume that
261: central values of $\theta_{13}$ and $\theta_{12}$ are in agreement with present data but their error estimation is suppose to be much better
262: ($\sin^2\theta_{12}=0.28\pm 0.01$ and $\sin^2\theta_{13}=0.005\pm
263: 0.0001$). The region between $c_2^{min}$ and $c_3^{max}$ lines is
264: larger, giving more space for the rectangle ($\Delta m_\beta,\;\Delta\langle
265: m_\nu\rangle$) (see text for more details).
266: }\label{future}
267: \end{figure}
268: \par Possible localization of the present and prospective $\langle
269: m_\nu\rangle_i=c_i m_\beta$ lines is presented in Fig.
270: \ref{present} and \ref{future}, respectively. We can see that
271: localization of $R$ between $c_3^{max}$ and $c_2^{min}$ lines is
272: only interesting for CP violation search. If the rectangle $R$
273: with $\Delta m_\beta$ and $\Delta\langle m_\nu\rangle$ sides is
274: fully located between two lines with the $c_3^{max}$ and
275: $c_2^{min}$ slopes then CP symmetry is broken (see Fig.\ref{fig}).
276: So first conditions for detecting CP violation are:
277: \begin{equation}\label{KL}
278: \Delta m_{\beta}<L,\; \; \; \; \; \; \Delta\langle
279: m_{\nu}\rangle<K.
280: \end{equation}
281: L and K can be find in a easy way
282: \begin{equation}\label{K}
283: K= (m_{\beta})A-(\Delta m_{\beta}) B,
284: \end{equation}
285: and
286: \begin{equation}\label{L}
287: L=\langle m_{\nu}\rangle C-\Delta \langle m_{\nu}\rangle D,
288: \end{equation}
289: where
290: \begin{eqnarray}
291: A=c_2^{min}-c_3^{max}, \nonumber \\
292: B=\frac{c_2^{min}+c_3^{max}}{2}, \nonumber \\
293: C=\frac{A}{c_2^{min}c_3^{max}}, \label{ABCD}\\
294: D=\frac{B}{c_2^{min}c_3^{max}}. \nonumber
295: \end{eqnarray}
296: for any $m_{\beta}$ and $\langle m_{\nu}\rangle$ values inside the two lines
297: $c_2^{min}$ and $c_3^{max}$.
298: \par If conditions (Eq. \ref{KL}) are satisfied for some central values
299: $(m_{\beta})_{exp}$ and $\langle m_{\nu}\rangle_{exp}$ determined
300: from experiments (and theory) then there are further two possibilities. The
301: rectangle $R$ located in the point $\left((m_{\beta})_{exp},
302: \:\langle m_{\nu}\rangle_{exp}\right)$ can
303: \begin{enumerate}
304: \item be fully inside two bounding lines $c_2^{min}$ and $c_3^{max}$, or
305: \item be located partly on the first or the second line.
306: \end{enumerate}
307: In the first case we can conclude that CP symmetry is broken, in
308: the second the problem is unresolved. The first condition is
309: satisfied if:
310: \begin{equation}\label{inside}
311: c_3^{max}\left( (m_{\beta})_{exp}+\frac{\Delta
312: m_{\beta}}{2}\right)<\left(\langle
313: m_{\nu}\rangle_{exp}-\frac{\Delta\langle
314: m_{\nu}\rangle}{2}\right),
315: \end{equation}
316: and
317: \begin{equation}\label{inside2}
318: \left(\langle m_{\nu}\rangle_{exp}+\frac{\Delta\langle
319: m_{\nu}\rangle}{2}\right)<\left( (m_{\beta})_{exp}-\frac{\Delta
320: m_{\beta}}{2}\right)c_2^{min}.
321: \end{equation}
322: The inequalities given by Eqs.(\ref{KL}), (\ref{inside}) and
323: (\ref{inside2}) form the set of necessary conditions for CP
324: symmetry breaking. Of course we are not able to
325: prove in this way that CP symmetry holds.
326: \par Let us parameterize
327: \begin{equation}
328: \Delta\langle m_{\nu}\rangle=2x\langle m_{\nu}\rangle, \; \; \; \;
329: \Delta m_{\beta} = 2y\, m_{\beta},
330: \end{equation}
331: where $2x$ is the relative error which measures the theoretical
332: nuclear matrix elements uncertainty and experimental decay lifetime of the $\langle m_\nu\rangle $ matrix element.
333: Similarly, $2y$ measures the
334: relative error of the effective mass e.g. from tritium beta decay.
335: As both $K$ and $L$ (in Eq. (\ref{K}) and (\ref{L})) must be
336: larger than zero, we have two consistency conditions. Both $x$ and
337: $y$ must satisfy the same inequality
338: \begin{equation}\label{xy}
339: x,\, y \leq \frac{1-\cos2\theta_{12
340: \mathrm{\;\mathrm{min}}}-3\sin^2\theta_{13\;
341: \mathrm{\;\mathrm{max}}}+ \sin^2\theta_{13\;
342: \mathrm{min}}\cos2\theta_{12\; \mathrm{min}}} {1+\cos2\theta_{12\;
343: \mathrm{min}}-\sin^2\theta_{13\; \mathrm{max}}-\sin^2\theta_{13\;
344: \mathrm{min}}\cos2\theta_{12\; \mathrm{min}}}.
345: \end{equation}
346: These inequalities impose sharp conditions concerning a precision
347: of the $m_{\beta}$ and $\langle m_{\nu} \rangle$ determination. As
348: the r.h.s. of Eq. (\ref{xy}) is a decreasing function of
349: $\sin^2\theta_{13}$ and $\cos2\theta_{12}$, the best circumstances
350: arise for $\sin^2\theta_{13}\rightarrow 0$ and $\sin^2\theta_{12}
351: \rightarrow \frac{1}{2}$. In this case lines $c_2^{min}
352: \rightarrow 1$ and $c_3^{max}\rightarrow 0$ give the largest
353: region for localization of $\langle m_{\nu}\rangle_{exp}$ and
354: $(m_{\beta})_{exp}$ where symmetry is broken. As we know, the
355: condition $\theta_{13}\rightarrow 0$ ruins the Dirac $\delta$
356: phase determination in oscillation experiments. We can see that both
357: methods, $(\beta\beta)_{0 \nu}$ decay and long baseline experiment
358: which could detect $\delta$ are complementary for detecting CP
359: violation \cite{Pascoli2}. Also the other condition, the large solar
360: mixing angle ($\theta_{12}\rightarrow\frac{\pi}{4}$) is not
361: favourable for Majorana mass determination from the
362: $(\beta\beta)_{0\nu}$ decay [7-18].
363: %\cite{Barger2,Barger3,Bilenky,Bilenky2,Bilenky3,Czakon,Czakon2,Falcone,Klapdor,Osland2,Minakata,Vissani}.
364: \par The case $\sin^2\theta_{13}=0$ has been considered in Ref.\cite{Barger4}.
365: Then Eq.(\ref{xy}) gives
366: \begin{equation}\label{mixang}
367: x<\tan^2\theta_{12}
368: \end{equation}
369: which is exactly the condition given by Eq. (14) in
370: Ref.\cite{Barger4}.
371: \par From Eqs. (\ref{K}) and (\ref{L}) for given
372: relative errors $x$ and $\Delta m_\beta $ we can
373: also find the lower limit for the $m_\beta$ and $\langle
374: m_\nu\rangle $ effective masses for which measurements are still possible
375: \begin{equation}\label{lowlimn}
376: \langle m_\nu\rangle > \frac{\Delta m_\beta}{C-2xD},
377: \end{equation}
378: and
379: \begin{equation}\label{lowlimb}
380: m_\beta > \frac{\Delta m_\beta}{A}\left(B+\frac{2x}{C-2xD}\right).
381: \end{equation}
382: Now, using present and expected in the future precision of the neutrino
383: oscillation data we can estimate how well $m_\beta$ and
384: $\langle m_\nu\rangle$ should be determined to discover CP
385: symmetry breaking.
386: \section{Numerical results}
387: Using presently determined $\theta_{12}$ and $\theta_{13}$
388: mixing angles \cite{Bahcall,Gonzales,Goswami,Maltoni2,Fogli2} (with
389: $3\sigma$ precision)
390: \begin{eqnarray}\label{data}
391: 0.22\leqslant & \sin^2\theta_{12} & \leqslant0.37, \nonumber \\
392: 0\leqslant & \sin^22\theta_{13} & \leqslant 0.048,
393: \end{eqnarray}
394: from Eq.(\ref{xy}) we obtain:
395: \begin{equation}\label{x-nes}
396: x<0.2.
397: \end{equation}
398: It will be a serious challenge to get such a precision. Let us check
399: it for the isotope of Germanium $^{76}Ge$ where evidence for the
400: $(\beta\beta)_{0\nu}$ decay is claimed to have been obtained
401: \cite{Klapdor2}. If we assume that only one standard mechanism,
402: the exchange of Majorana neutrinos with masses $m_i$, is
403: responsible for the $(\beta\beta)_{0\nu}$ decay, the effective mass
404: $\langle m_\nu\rangle$ is calculated from decay rate $T(^{76}Ge)$
405: \cite{Elliott}:
406: \begin{equation}\label{lifetime}
407: T^{-1}(^{76}Ge)=G|M|^2\langle m_\nu\rangle^2,
408: \end{equation}
409: where $G$ is accurately calculable phase space integral and
410: $M$ is calculated Nuclear Matrix Element (NME). Unfortunately, this
411: calculation is a complicated job, and different methods of
412: calculation give different results. For the isotope $^{76}Ge$ the
413: results differ by one order of magnitude. If we parameterize
414: \begin{equation}
415: T(^{76}Ge)=b\times 10^{24}\;\mathrm{y},
416: \end{equation}
417: then for $\langle m_\nu\rangle=1$ eV eleven different results have
418: been obtained
419: \cite{Joniec}:
420: \begin{figure}
421: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{cp4.eps}
422: \caption{The lines for the full uncertainty of $\langle
423: m_\nu\rangle$, $x=\frac{\Delta\langle m_\nu\rangle}{2\langle
424: m_\nu\rangle}$ as a function of both, theoretical uncertainty in
425: NME calculations $a=\frac{b_{max}}{b_{min}}$ (see text) and
426: experimental relative error $(x_T)$ for the decay lifetime of
427: $^{76}Ge$.} \label{fig4}
428: \end{figure}
429: \begin{center}
430: \begin{tabbing}
431: cccccccccccccccccccccc \= cccccccccccc \= cccccccccccc \= cccccccccccc \= cccccccccccc \= cccccccccccc \kill
432: % \> for next tab, \\ for new line...
433: $b=1.7 (=b_{min})$ \cite{Haxton1}, \> 2.16 \cite{Tomoda}, \> 2.3 \cite{Engel}, \>
434: 2.33 \cite{Staudt}, \> 3.15 \cite{Feassler}, \> 3.2 \cite{Feassler}, \\ 3.6
435: \cite{Pantis},
436: \> 4.06 \cite{Suhonen}, \> 8.95 \cite{Simkovic}, \> 14.0 \cite{Engel1}, \> 17.7 $(=b_{max})$ \cite{Caurier}. \>
437: \end{tabbing}
438: \end{center}
439: However, we would like to stress, that method used in Ref.
440: \cite{Haxton1,Tomoda, Engel, Staudt, Feassler, Pantis, Suhonen, Simkovic, Engel1, Caurier}
441: are completely independent, different nuclear models are used, and generally
442: models are not calibrated against nuclear properties.
443: If we assume that relative experimental error for $T(^{76}Ge)$
444: measurements is defined by $2x_{T}$
445: \begin{equation}
446: \frac{\Delta T(^{76}Ge)}{\langle T(^{76}Ge)\rangle}=2x_T,
447: \end{equation}
448: then the full relative uncertainty of $\langle m_\nu\rangle$
449: ($2x=\frac{\Delta \langle m_\nu\rangle}{\langle m_\nu\rangle}$) is
450: given by ($x_T<1$)
451: \begin{eqnarray}\label{x}
452: x=x(a,x_T)=\frac{\sqrt{(1+x_T)a}-\sqrt{1-x_T}}{\sqrt{(1+x_T)a}+\sqrt{1-x_T}},
453: \end{eqnarray}
454: where $a=\frac{b_{max}}{b_{min}}$. In Fig.4 we can see the relation
455: between the NME precision $(a)$ and the expected uncertainties for
456: effective neutrino mass $\langle m_\nu\rangle$ $\left(
457: x=\frac{\Delta \langle m_\nu\rangle} {2\langle m_\nu\rangle}
458: \right)$ for various future experimental errors of the decay lifetime
459: of $^{76}Ge$.
460: \par We can see, that taking seriously present discrepancy in the NME determination
461: $(a\thickapprox 10)$ we obtain $x\thickapprox 0.52$, much larger than necessary
462: (see Eq.(\ref{x-nes})).
463: The new calculation of NME \cite{Rodin}, where the observed
464: $(\beta\beta)_{2\nu}$ decay has been used to fix relevant
465: parameters, has shown the great stability of the final results.
466: For the $^{76}Ge$ two methods of calculation,
467: RQRPA and QRPA (see \cite{Rodin} for more details) have given
468: almost the same results, and then:
469: \begin{equation}
470: a\thickapprox 1.4.
471: \end{equation}
472: With such a precision of the NME determination we obtain ($x_T\thickapprox 0.3$)
473: \begin{equation}
474: x\thickapprox 0.24,
475: \end{equation}
476: still above the present necessary precision (see Eq.(\ref{x-nes})), but within
477: reach of the future oscillation experiments.
478: \par We should also mention the other
479: uncertainty in the $\langle m_\nu \rangle$ determination - the
480: possible different physical mechanism for the
481: $(\beta\beta)_{0\nu}$ decay. If the lepton number is violated at TeV
482: scale we can expect the other processes which give equally strong,
483: as light Majorana neutrinos exchange, contributions to
484: $(\beta\beta)_{0\nu}$. Then the relation between decay lifetime
485: and $\langle m_\nu\rangle$ is not given by
486: Eq.(\ref{lifetime}). To answer a question at which scale
487: lepton number is violated, information from higher energy
488: colliders (e.g. LHC) and other lepton processes is necessary. In
489: Ref. \cite{Cirigliano} it was shown that a study of
490: two lepton flavor violating processes $\mu\rightarrow e$
491: conversion and $\mu\rightarrow e +\gamma$ decay will give
492: important insight to the mechanism of the $(\beta\beta)_{0\nu}$ decay.
493: \par From Eqs.(\ref{lowlimn}) and (\ref{lowlimb}) we can find
494: conditions for $m_\beta$ and $\langle m_\nu\rangle$ effective
495: masses for which CP symmetry breaking could be seen (see
496: Fig(\ref{present})). For example, if $x\thickapprox 0.15$ with the
497: present $3\sigma$ precision of mixing angles Eq.(\ref{data}) and for
498: $\Delta m_\beta=0.03,0.02,0.015$ eV, the CP symmetry breaking is
499: testable for $\langle m_\nu\rangle>0.24, 0.16,0.12$ eV and
500: $m_\beta>0.32, 0.21,0.16$ eV, respectively. There is some chance
501: that in the future experiments such $\Delta m_\beta$ precision can
502: be reached, but relative error for $\langle m_\nu\rangle$,
503: $x\thickapprox0.15$ is much beyond the present possibilities.
504: \par From Eq. (\ref{lowlimn}) for a given central value of
505: $\langle m_\nu\rangle$, we can find relation between the $x$ and
506: $\Delta m_\beta$ required for probing the CP symmetry breaking.
507: Let us assume that a value of $\langle m_\nu\rangle$ is really
508: in an interval given by the Heidelberg group \cite{Klapdor2}
509: \begin{equation}\label{HM}
510: \langle m_\nu\rangle_{exp }\thickapprox(0.1-0.9)\; \mathrm{eV}.
511: \end{equation}
512: If $\langle m_\nu\rangle_{exp}\thickapprox0.1$ $(0.9)$ eV, $\Delta
513: m_\beta$ should be smaller than $0.002, 0.013, 0.026$ ($0.014,
514: 0.11, 0.24$) eV for $x\thickapprox 0.19, 0.15$ and $0.1$,
515: respectively, with the central value $m_\beta\thickapprox0.13$
516: ($1.2$) eV.
517: \begin{figure}
518: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{cp5.eps}
519: \caption{The regions of relative error of $m_\nu$ versus
520: $m_\beta$, where CP is violated with confidence level (CL) equal
521: to: 90\%, 95\%, 99\% and 99.97\% (3$\sigma$). To find CP symmetry
522: breaking, $\langle m_\nu\rangle$ and $m_{\beta}$ should be determined
523: with extremly difficult to reach precision.} \label{fig5}
524: \end{figure}
525: \par More careful analysis, taking into account the present precision of
526: the mixing angle determination \cite{Gonzales} can give a region
527: in the $\left( \langle m_\nu\rangle, m_\beta\right)$ plane where CP
528: violation can be probe with various CL. The regions of relative
529: errors $\frac{\Delta m_\nu}{m_\nu}$ and $\frac{\Delta
530: m_\beta}{m_\beta}$ for which CP violation could be seen are
531: presented in Fig. 5. We see that even for 90\% CL the $x$
532: parameter should be smaller than $x<0.15$, so it is completely out
533: of reach with present experimental and theoretical possibilities.
534: \par How a better determination of the
535: $\theta_{12}$ and $\theta_{13}$ mixing angles affects the $x$ and
536: $\Delta m_\beta$ uncertainties? Let us assume that during next
537: years the precision of experiments will be strongly improved. Let
538: us also assume that the best values of mixing angles will not
539: change but only precision will be much better:
540: \begin{enumerate}
541: \item The KamLAND and Borexino experiments determine the solar
542: mixing angle with precision $\sin^2\theta_{12}\approx 0.28\pm
543: 0.01$ \cite{Barger5} \item The IHF-Kamioka neutrino experiment or the
544: future neutrino factories \cite{Itow} will measure the $\theta_{13}$
545: with the precision $\Delta \theta_{13}=0.01$ (so
546: $\sin^2\theta_{13}= 0.005\pm 0.0001$).
547: \par \noindent End assume finally that:
548: \item Weak lensing of galaxies by large scale structure together
549: with CMB data measure the sum of neutrino masses
550: $\sum=m_1+m_2+m_3$ to an uncertainty of $0.04\: eV$. So we can
551: expect that each individual mass is known with the precision
552: $\Delta m_{\beta}= 0.015\:eV$ \cite{Hu}.
553: \end{enumerate}
554: Now from Eq.(\ref{xy}) we get the required precision of $\Delta
555: m_{\beta}$ and $\Delta \langle m_{\nu}\rangle$
556: \begin{equation}\label{xy2}
557: x,\:y<0.36.
558: \end{equation}
559: \begin{figure}
560: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{cp6.eps}
561: \caption{Regions in the $\langle m_\nu\rangle\Leftrightarrow
562: m_\beta$ plane where CP symmetry is broken with various CL for
563: equal relative errors of $\langle m_\nu\rangle$ and $m_\beta$
564: (x=y).} \label{fig6}
565: \end{figure}
566: In Fig. 4 we present for this value of $x$ a necessary
567: precision of NME for different relative errors of the
568: $T(^{76}Ge)$ measurements. If the last estimation of NME is
569: confirmed $(a\thickapprox 1.4)$ and the decay lifetime of
570: $^{76}Ge$ is found with $x_T\leq 0.5$ then necessary precision of
571: $\langle m_\nu\rangle$ will be obtained. Such a scenario is not only a
572: pure fantasy. More precise estimation will give a region of
573: $\langle m_\nu\rangle$ and $m_\beta$ where a probe of CP
574: violation could be possible (Fig. 6). We have assumed the same
575: relative uncertainties for $\langle m_\nu\rangle$ and $m_\beta$
576: $(x=y)$. For $x=y=0.07$ there is no region where CP could be find
577: with $CL>99\%$. This region appears if $x=y$ are smaller.
578: \begin{figure}
579: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{cp7.eps}
580: \caption{The regions of relative errors of $\langle m_\nu\rangle$
581: versus $m_\beta$ where CP is violated with CL equal to: 90\%,
582: 95\%, 99\% and 99.97\% ($3\sigma$). If $y=0.05$ then to determine CP
583: violation, at $99\%$ CL we have to know the effective Majorana
584: mass with precision $x=0.09$.}
585: \label{fig7}
586: \end{figure}
587: In Fig. 7 a region of $x$ and $y$ relative errors is presented for
588: a given level of CL. We can see that if we want to probe CP violation
589: with $CL\thickapprox90\%$ $x$ must
590: be smaller than $x\leq 0.22$ for very well determined $m_\beta$
591: ($y\rightarrow0$) and vice versa, $y\leq 2$ for $x\rightarrow0$. Correlations
592: between quantities give
593: more stringent requirements for relative errors (see Eq.
594: (\ref{xy2})). We can see from Fig.4 that to get $x\sim 0.1$, parameter
595: $a$ must be smaller than $1.3$ and $x_T$ better than $10\%$.
596: Knownledge of NME on a $30\%$ level has been postulated recently \cite{Zuber}
597:
598: \section{Conclusions}
599: \par From presented estimations it follows that measurement for CP violation
600: for Majorana neutrinos in neutrinoless double beta decay could be
601: possible for almost degenerate spectrum of their masses ($m_\beta>0.1$ eV).
602: However, several conditions should be satisfied:
603: \begin{enumerate}
604: \item oscillation mixing angles should be measured with better
605: precision e.g. $\Delta (\sin\theta_{13}\thickapprox0.01$ and
606: $\Delta(\sin\theta_{12} \thickapprox0.1)$ which are within the future
607: experimental range (see e.g.\cite{Barger5, Itow}).
608: \item absolute neutrino masses $m_\beta$ should be measured with precision
609: $\Delta m_\beta\thickapprox0.02$ eV with the central value in the range
610: $m_\beta>0.15$ eV, which is also not a fully fantastic dream \cite{Hu}.
611: \item neutrinoless double beta decay is discovered and the decay
612: lifetime $T$ is measured with precision better than $10\%$. It is
613: difficult to say at the moment anything about the future precision of
614: T. If we give a credit to the last Heidelberg group news about
615: $(\beta\beta)_{0\nu}$ decay of $^{76}Ge$, then the error of $T$ is
616: much higher. They derived from the full data taken until May 2003
617: that \cite{Klapdor2}
618: \begin{equation}
619: T(^{76}Ge)=(0.69-4.18)\times10^{25}\;\mathrm{y},
620: \end{equation}
621: with the best value $T(^{76}Ge)=1.19\times10^{25}$ y, so the
622: relative error $x_T=\frac{\Delta T}{T}\sim 2.9$. To get $x_T<0.1$
623: will be probably a very difficult task. \item nuclear matrix
624: elements of decaying isotopes are calculated with much better
625: precision.
626: Future uncertainties for $a=\frac{b_{max}}{b_{min}}$ should be smaller
627: than $a<1.3$. During the last years some improvement in NME calculation has
628: been obtained. The last result where $a\approx1.4$ has been presented is a
629: very good step forward \cite{Rodin}. The model of NME calculation can also
630: be tested via comparison of the results of calculation for three (or more)
631: nuclei with experimental data \cite{Bilenky4,Bilenky5,Bilenky6}. This test
632: can be acomplished if $(\beta\beta)_{0\nu}$ decay of several nuclei is
633: observed. \item there should be
634: independent information about a full mechanism of the
635: $(\beta\beta)_{0\nu}$ decay. We should know that two electrons are
636: produced by two W-bosons and Majorana neutrino exchange virtual process.
637: Any other mechanism should give negligible contribution to
638: the neutrinoless electrons production. The future LHC data and
639: observation of other lepton violating processes give some chance to clarify this issue.
640: \cite{Cirigliano}.
641: \end{enumerate}
642: \begin{acknowledgments}
643: This research was supported by Polish Ministry of Science under
644: Grant 1 P03 B 049 26.
645: \end{acknowledgments}
646:
647: %%% -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
648:
649: \bibliography{bib}
650:
651: \end{document}
652: