1: \documentclass[fleqn,twoside]{article}
2: \usepackage{espcrc2,cite,graphicx,amsmath,amsfonts,amssymb,mathrsfs}
3: \usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}
4:
5: \newcommand{\ie}{{\it i.e.}}
6: \newcommand{\Ie}{{\it I.e.}}
7: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.}}
8: \newcommand{\Eg}{{\it E.g.}}
9: \newcommand{\cf}{{\it cf.}}
10: \newcommand{\etc}{{\it etc.}}
11: \newcommand{\eq}{Eq.}
12: \newcommand{\eqs}{Eqs.}
13: \newcommand{\Def}{Definition}
14: \newcommand{\fig}{Figure}
15: \newcommand{\Fig}{Figure}
16: \newcommand{\figs}{Figures}
17: \newcommand{\Figs}{Figures}
18: \newcommand{\Ref}{Ref.}
19: \newcommand{\Refs}{Refs.}
20: \newcommand{\Sec}{Section}
21: \newcommand{\Secs}{Sections}
22: \newcommand{\App}{Appendix}
23: \newcommand{\Apps}{Appendices}
24: \newcommand{\Tab}{Table}
25: \newcommand{\Tabs}{Tables}
26:
27: % Scenarios:
28: \newcommand{\JHFSK}{\mbox{\sf T2K}}
29: \newcommand{\JHFHK}{\mbox{\sf T2HK}}
30: \newcommand{\NuFactII}{\mbox{\sf NuFact-II}}
31: \newcommand{\BetaBeam}{\mbox{\sf $\beta$-Beam}}
32: \newcommand{\NUMI}{\mbox{\sf NO$\nu$A}}
33: \newcommand{\MINOS}{\mbox{\sf MINOS}}
34: \newcommand{\ICARUS}{\mbox{\sf ICARUS}}
35: \newcommand{\OPERA}{\mbox{\sf OPERA}}
36: \newcommand{\CHOOZII}{\mbox{\sf D-Chooz}}
37: \newcommand{\DChooz}{\mbox{\sf Double-Chooz}}
38: \newcommand{\ReactorII}{\mbox{\sf Reactor-II}}
39: \newcommand{\TEN}{\JHFSK +\NUMI +\ReactorII}
40:
41: \newcommand{\abr}[1]{{\sc\lowercase{#1}}}
42: \newcommand{\thEff}{(\sin^22\theta_{13})_\mathrm{eff}}
43:
44: % WW editing:
45: \newcommand{\stheta}{\sin^22\theta_{13}}
46: \newcommand{\deltacp}{\delta_\mathrm{CP}}
47: \newcommand{\ldm}{\Delta m_{31}^2}
48: \newcommand{\sdm}{\Delta m_{21}^2}
49: \newcommand{\equ}[1]{\eq~(\ref{equ:#1})}
50: \newcommand{\figu}[1]{\fig~\ref{fig:#1}}
51: \newcommand{\tabl}[1]{\Tab~\ref{tab:#1}}
52: \newcommand{\bi}{\begin{itemize}}
53: \newcommand{\ei}{\end{itemize}}
54: \newcommand{\ra}{\rightarrow}
55:
56: \newcommand{\capdef}{}
57: \newcommand{\mycaption}[2][\capdef]{\renewcommand{\capdef}{#2}%
58: \caption[#1]{{\footnotesize #2}}}
59:
60:
61: \begin{document}
62:
63: \title{
64: {\bf Direct test of the MSW effect by the solar appearance term
65: in beam experiments}}
66:
67: \author{
68: {\large Walter Winter}\address[IAS]{{\it School of Natural Sciences,
69: Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA}}\thanks{E-mail:
70: {\tt winter@ias.edu}}}
71:
72: \begin{abstract}
73: \noindent {\bf Abstract}
74: \vspace{2.5mm}
75:
76: We discuss if one can verify the MSW effect in neutrino oscillations at a high confidence
77: level in long-baseline experiments.
78: %
79: We demonstrate that for long enough baselines
80: at neutrino factories, the matter effect sensitivity is, as opposed to the mass hierarchy sensitivity, not suppressed by $\stheta$ because it is driven by the solar oscillations
81: in the appearance probability. Furthermore, we show that for the parameter independent direct verification of the MSW effect at long-baseline experiments, a neutrino factory with a baseline of at least $6 \, 000 \, \mathrm{km}$ is needed. For superbeams, we do not find a $5\sigma$ discovery potential of the MSW effect independent of $\stheta$. We
82: finally summarize different methods to test the MSW effect.
83:
84: \vspace*{0.2cm}
85: \noindent {\it PACS:} 14.60.Pq \\
86: \noindent {\it Key words:} Neutrino oscillations, Matter effects, MSW effect,
87: long-baseline experiments
88: \end{abstract}
89:
90: \maketitle
91:
92:
93: \section{Introduction}
94:
95: It is now widely believed that neutrino oscillations are modified by matter effects, which is
96: often referred to as the Mikheev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW) effect~\cite{Mikheev:1985gs,Mikheev:1986wj,Wolfenstein:1978ue}.
97: %
98: In this effect, the coherent forward scattering
99: in matter by charged currents results in phase shifts in neutrino oscillations.
100: Since ordinary matter consists of electrons, but no muons or taus, the
101: $W$ boson exchange causes a
102: relative phase shift of the electron neutrino flavor. This relative phase shift
103: then translates into changes of the neutrino oscillation probabilities.
104:
105: The establishment of the LMA (Large Mixing Angle) solution in solar neutrino oscillations
106: by the combined knowledge from SNO~\cite{Ahmad:2002ka}, KamLAND~\cite{Eguchi:2002dm},
107: and the other solar neutrino experiments has lead to ``indirect'' evidence for the MSW effect
108: within the sun. A more direct test of these matter effects would be the
109: ``solar day-night effect'' (see \Ref~\cite{Blennow:2003xw} and references therein), where the solar neutrino flux can (during the night) be enhanced through matter effects in the Earth due to regeneration effects~\cite{Carlson:1986ui}.
110: So far, the solar day-night effect has not been
111: discovered at a high confidence level by Super-Kamiokande and SNO solar neutrino measurements~\cite{Fukuda:1998rq,deHolanda:2002pp}. A future very large water Cherenkov
112: detector used for proton decay ($\sim 7$ $\times$ Super-Kamiokande) could establish this
113: effect at the $4 \sigma$ confidence level within ten years~\cite{Bahcall:2004mz}.
114: Similar tests could be performed with
115: supernova neutrinos~\cite{Lunardini:2001pb}, which, however, have a strong
116: (neutrino flux) model, detector position(s), and $\theta_{13}$ dependence~\cite{Dighe:2003jg}. In addition, strong matter effects can also occur in atmospheric neutrino oscillations
117: in the Earth~\cite{Akhmedov:1998ui,Petcov:1998su}. Since the muon neutrino disappearance
118: probability is, to first order in $\alpha \equiv \sdm/\ldm$ and $\sin
119: \theta_{13}$, not affected by Earth matter effects~\cite{Akhmedov:2004ny}, testing the
120: matter effects in atmospheric neutrinos is very difficult. However,
121: the appearance signal of
122: future long-baseline experiments is supposed to be very sensitive towards matter effects in atmospheric neutrino oscillations (see, for example, \Refs~\cite{Krastev:1990gz,Freund:1999gy,Mocioiu:2000st,Ota:2000hf,Freund:2000ti}). This
123: makes the long-baseline test one natural candidate to directly discover the MSW effect at
124: a very high confidence level.
125:
126: Since the direct verification of the MSW effect would be another consistency check for our picture of neutrino oscillations, we
127: study the potential of future long-baseline experiments to test matter versus vacuum oscillations. A similar measurement based upon matter
128: effects in neutrino oscillations is the mass hierarchy sensitivity, which assumes that
129: the matter effect is present and then tests the difference between the normal and inverted
130: mass hierarchies.
131: We will use this measurement in some cases for comparison in order to show the
132: similarities and differences to the matter effect sensitivity. Note that the
133: direct test of the MSW effect at neutrino factories was, for example, studied in \Ref~\cite{Freund:1999gy}. Since at that time the parameter
134: $\alpha \equiv \sdm/\ldm$ was very small
135: for the LMA best-fit values, the contributions from the solar terms in the appearance
136: probability were neglected and the MSW effect sensitivity was therefore
137: determined to be strongly suppressed by $\stheta$. We will show that the
138: now larger best-fit value of $\sdm$ (and thus $\alpha$) does not justify this assumption anymore.
139:
140: \section{Analytical motivation and qualitative discussion}
141: \label{sec:analytical}
142:
143: For long-baseline beam experiments, the electron or muon neutrino appearance probability $P_{\mathrm{app}}$ (one of the probabilities $P_{e \mu}$, $P_{\mu e}$, $P_{\bar{e} \bar{\mu}}$, $P_{\bar{\mu} \bar{e}}$) is very sensitive to matter effects, whereas the disappearance probability
144: $P_{\mu \mu}$ (or $P_{\bar{\mu} \bar{\mu}}$) is, to first order, not. The appearance probability can be expanded in the small hierarchy parameter $\alpha \equiv \Delta m_{21}^2/\Delta m_{31}^2$ and the small $\sin 2 \theta_{13}$ up to the second order as~\cite{Cervera:2000kp,Freund:2001pn,Akhmedov:2004ny}:
145: \begin{eqnarray}
146: P_{\mathrm{app}} & \simeq & \sin^2 2\theta_{13} \, \sin^2 \theta_{23} \, \frac{\sin^2[(1- \hat{A}){\Delta}]}{(1-\hat{A})^2}
147: \nonumber \\
148: &\pm& \alpha \sin 2\theta_{13} \, \sin \delta_{\mathrm{CP}} \,
149: \sin({\Delta}) \, \xi(\hat{A},\Delta)
150: \nonumber \\
151: &+& \alpha \sin 2\theta_{13} \, \cos \delta_{\mathrm{CP}} \, \cos({\Delta}) \, \xi(\hat{A},\Delta)
152: \nonumber \\
153: &+& \alpha^2 \, \cos^2 \theta_{23} \, \sin^2 2\theta_{12} \, \frac{\sin^2(\hat{A}{\Delta})}{\hat{A}^2}. \nonumber \\
154: \label{equ:PROBMATTER}
155: \end{eqnarray}
156: Here $\Delta \equiv \Delta m_{31}^2 L/(4 E)$, $\xi(\hat{A},\Delta) = \sin 2\theta_{12} \cdot \sin 2\theta_{23} \cdot \sin(\hat{A}{\Delta})/\hat{A} \cdot \sin[(1-\hat{A}){\Delta}] / (1-\hat{A})$,
157: and $\hat{A} \equiv \pm (2 \sqrt{2} G_F n_e E)/\Delta m_{31}^2$ with $G_F$ the Fermi coupling constant and $n_e$ the electron density in matter. The sign of the second term is positive for $\nu_{e} \rightarrow \nu_{\mu}$ or
158: $\nu_{\bar{\mu}} \rightarrow \nu_{\bar{e}}$ and negative for $\nu_{\mu} \rightarrow \nu_{e}$ or
159: $\nu_{\bar{e}} \rightarrow \nu_{\bar{\mu}}$. The sign of $\hat{A}$ is determined by the sign of $\Delta m_{31}^2$ and choosing neutrinos (plus) or antineutrinos (minus). Note that the matter effect in \equ{PROBMATTER} enters via the matter potential $\hat{A}$, where the
160: equation reduces to the vacuum case for $\hat{A} \rightarrow 0$ (\cf, \Ref~\cite{Akhmedov:2004ny}).
161:
162: Since $\stheta>0$ has not yet been established, any suppression by $\stheta$ would be a major disadvantage for a measurement. Therefore, let us first investigate the interesting limit $\stheta \rightarrow 0$. In this limit, only the fourth term in \equ{PROBMATTER} survives, which is often referred to as the ``solar term'', since the appearance signal in the limit $\theta_{13} \rightarrow 0$ corresponds to the contribution from the solar neutrino oscillations. It would
163: vanish in the two-flavor limit (limit $\alpha \rightarrow 0$) and would grow proportional to $\left( \sdm L/(4E) \right)^2$ in vacuum (limit $\hat{A} \rightarrow 0$),
164: as one expects from the solar neutrino contribution in the atmospheric limit. Note that
165: this term is equal for the normal and inverted mass hierarchies, which means that it cannot be used for the mass hierarchy sensitivity. In order to show its effect
166: for the matter effect sensitivity compared to vacuum, we use $\Delta P \equiv P_{\mathrm{app}}^{\mathrm{matter}} - P_{\mathrm{app}}^{\mathrm{vac}} $.
167: We find from \equ{PROBMATTER}
168: \begin{eqnarray}
169: \Delta P^{\theta_{13} \rightarrow 0}
170: & \simeq & \alpha^2 \, \cos^2 \theta_{23} \, \sin^2 2\theta_{12} \nonumber \\
171: & & \times \Delta^2 \left( \frac{\sin^2(\hat{A}{\Delta})}{\hat{A}^2 \Delta^2} - 1 \right) \, .
172: \label{equ:matter3}
173: \end{eqnarray}
174: Thus, this remaining effect does not depend on $\stheta$ and strongly increases with the baseline. In particular, the function $\sin^2(\hat{A}{\Delta})/(\hat{A}^2 \Delta^2)$ is maximal
175: (\ie, unity) for $\hat{A} \Delta \rightarrow 0$ and has its first root for $\hat{A}\Delta = \pi$ at the ``magic baseline'' $L \sim 7 \, 500 \, \mathrm{km}$.\footnote{At the magic baseline~\cite{Huber:2003ak}, the condition $\sin(\hat{A}{\Delta}) = 0$ makes all terms but the first in \equ{PROBMATTER} disappear
176: in order to allow a ``clean'' (degeneracy-free) measurement of $\stheta$. Note that the argument $\hat{A}\Delta$ evaluates to $\sqrt{2}/2 G_F n_e L$ independent of $E$ and $\ldm$, which means that it only depends on the baseline $L$. This also implies that the MSW effect in the
177: limit $\theta_{13} \rightarrow 0$ actually modifies the solar oscillation frequency, because the argument $\hat{A}\Delta$ in \equ{matter3} does not depend on $\ldm$.}
178: In the Earth, where \equ{PROBMATTER} is valid because of the
179: approximation $\Delta m_{21}^2 L/(4 E) \ll 1$,
180: we therefore have $\Delta P^{\theta_{13} \rightarrow 0} < 0$. This means that the matter effects will suppress the appearance probability, where maximal suppression is obtained at the magic baseline. For short baselines, the expansion in
181: $\Delta$ shows that $\Delta P^{\theta_{13} \rightarrow 0} \propto L^4$
182: strongly grows with the baseline, and for very long baselines, the bracket in \equ{matter3} becomes close to $-1$, which means that $\Delta P^{\theta_{13} \rightarrow 0} \propto L^2$
183: compensated the $1/L^2$-dependence of the flux. Thus, we expect to be able to test the matter effect even for vanishing $\theta_{13}$ if the baseline is long enough.
184:
185: There is, however, another important ingredient in these qualitative considerations: The statistics has to be good enough to detect the term suppressed by $\alpha^2$.
186: For the current best-fit values, $\alpha^2$ evaluates to $\sim 10^{-3}$.
187: One can easily estimate that the statistics of superbeams will normally be too low to measure the solar term for this value of $\alpha^2$ to a high accuracy: Let us compare the first and fourth terms in \equ{PROBMATTER}, which are suppressed by $\stheta$ and $\alpha^2$, respectively.
188: If one assumes that the other factors in the first and fourth terms are of order unity
189: (at least for $\Delta \sim \pi/2$ close to the first oscillation maximum),
190: one can estimate for a specific experiment that the contribution from the $\alpha^2$-term
191: only becomes significant if the $\stheta$-sensitivity limit of this experiment
192: is much better than $\alpha^2$. This condition is,
193: in general, not satisfied for the proposed superbeams\footnote{In fact, for superbeams, the background from the intrinsic (beam) electron neutrinos limits the
194: performance, which means that increasing the luminosity would not solve this problem.} and could only be circumvented by a very long baseline, where the probability difference in \equ{matter3} grows $\propto L^2$.
195: For example, the \NUMI\ superbeam in the simulation of \Ref~\cite{Huber:2004ug} would only
196: lead to about four events with almost no dependence on the matter effect for $\theta_{13} \rightarrow 0$ (dominated by the intrinsic beam background). For neutrino factories,
197: however, this order of $\alpha^2$ should be accessible
198: for long enough baselines. For example, for the neutrino factory \NuFactII\ of \Ref~\cite{Huber:2002mx} at a baseline of $6 \, 000 \, \mathrm{km}$, we find for $\theta_{13} \rightarrow 0$ about 90 events in matter compared to 421 in vacuum.
199:
200: Another interesting limit is the one of large values of $\stheta$, where
201: the first term in \equ{PROBMATTER} dominates, \ie, for $\sin 2 \theta_{13} \gg \alpha$, which
202: is equivalent to $\stheta \gg 10^{-3}$. It is strongly enhanced close to the matter resonance, where the resonance condition is given by $\hat{A} \rightarrow +1$. This condition evaluates to
203: a resonance energy of $\sim 9 \, \mathrm{GeV}$ (for $\rho = 3.5 \, \mathrm{g/cm^3}$ and $\ldm = 2.5 \cdot 10^{-3} \, \mathrm{eV}^2$) in the Earth's mantle, which is usually covered by a neutrino factory energy spectrum. Therefore,
204: neutrino factories are supposed to be very sensitive to matter effects, which are in this
205: limit driven by the atmospheric $\ldm$. Since the sign
206: of $\hat{A}$ depends on the mass hierarchy (and using neutrino or antineutrinos), it leads to
207: a strong enhancement (+) or suppression (-) of the appearance probability. One
208: therefore expects a very good sensitivity to the mass hierarchy for large enough $\stheta$ and
209: long enough baselines.
210: %
211: Similarly, one would expect a very good sensitivity to the matter
212: effect itself compared to the vacuum case, since the appearance probability in matter
213: becomes for long baselines very different from the vacuum case~\cite{Freund:1999gy}.
214: However, at least in the limit of small $\Delta$ or $\hat{A}$, the difference between the
215: matter and vacuum probabilities is by
216: about a factor of two smaller than the one between the normal and inverted hierarchy matter probabilities,
217: since the vacuum probability lies in between the other two. One can easily understand this
218: in terms of the matter potential which ``pulls'' the probabilities in two different directions apart from the vacuum case. In addition,
219: it is well known that the correlation with $\deltacp$ highly affects the mass hierarchy sensitivity in large regions of the parameters space (see, \eg, \Refs~\cite{Minakata:2001qm,Huber:2002mx}). Similarly, one can expect this correlation will destroy the matter effect sensitivity, too. Therefore, for large values of $\stheta$,
220: it is natural to assume that the test of the matter effect will be harder than the one of the mass hierarchy.
221:
222: \section{Analysis methods and experiment simulation}
223:
224: In general, we use a three-flavor analysis of neutrino oscillations, where we take into account
225: statistics, systematics, correlations, and degeneracies~\cite{Burguet-Castell:2001ez,Minakata:2001qm,Fogli:1996pv,Barger:2001yr}.
226: The analysis is performed with the $\Delta \chi^2$ method using the GLoBES software~\cite{Huber:2004ka}.
227:
228: For the sensitivity to the matter effect, we test the hypothesis
229: of vacuum oscillations, \ie, we compute the simulated event rates for vacuum and a normal mass hierarchy. Note that there is not a large dependence on the mass hierarchy in vacuum, though the event rates depend (even in vacuum) somewhat on the mass hierarchy by the third term in \equ{PROBMATTER} (if one is far enough off the oscillation maximum). We then test this hypothesis
230: of vacuum oscillations by switching on the (constant) matter density profile and fit the
231: rates to the simulated ones using the $\Delta \chi^2$ method. In order to take into
232: account correlations, we marginalize over all the oscillation parameters and test both the
233: normal and inverted hierarchies. As a result, we obtain the minimum $\Delta \chi^2$
234: for the given set of true oscillation parameters which best fit the vacuum case.
235:
236: For the mass hierarchy sensitivity, we compute the simulated rate vector for the chosen
237: mass hierarchy and fit it with the opposite sign of $\ldm$. Thus, it is determined by the minimum $\Delta \chi^2$ at the $\mathrm{sgn}(\ldm)$-degeneracy~\cite{Minakata:2001qm}. Note that for neutrino factories
238: this minimum at the opposite sign of $\ldm$ might be very difficult to find because of
239: mixed degeneracies. Since we assume maximal mixing, the only relevant mixed degeneracy here is the $(\deltacp,\theta_{13})$-degeneracy~\cite{Burguet-Castell:2001ez} for the inverted $\ldm$.
240: The correlations originate in the minimization of the six-dimensional fit manifold at the
241: position of the $\mathrm{sgn}(\ldm)$-degeneracy, \ie, any solution with the opposite sign of
242: $\ldm$ fitting the original solution destroys the mass hierarchy sensitivity~\cite{Huber:2002mx}.
243: In addition, we assume a constant matter density profile with 5\% uncertainty,
244: which takes into account matter density uncertainties as well as matter profile
245: effects~\cite{Geller:2001ix,Ohlsson:2003ip,Pana}.
246:
247: For all measurements, we assume that each experiment will provide the best measurement of the leading atmospheric oscillation parameters at that time, \ie, we use the information from the disappearance channels simultaneously. However, we have tested for this study that the disappearance channels do not significantly contribute to the matter effect sensitivity.\footnote{In fact, the disappearance channels alone could resolve the matter
248: effects for very large $L$ and large $\stheta$. However, in this region, the relative contribution of the disappearance $\Delta \chi^2$ to the total one is only at the percent level.} Furthermore, for the leading solar parameters, we take into account that the ongoing KamLAND experiment will improve the errors down to a level of about $10\%$ on each $\sdm$ and $\sin2\theta_{12}$~\cite{Gonzalez-Garcia:2001zy,Barger:2000hy}.
249:
250: As experiments, we will mainly use neutrino factories based upon the representative \NuFactII\
251: from \Ref~\cite{Huber:2002mx}.
252: In its standard configuration, it uses muons with an energy of $50 \, \mathrm{GeV}$,
253: $4 \, \mathrm{MW}$ target power ($5.3 \cdot 10^{20}$
254: useful muon decays per year), a baseline of
255: $3 \, 000 \, \mathrm{km}$, and a magnetized iron detector with a fiducial
256: mass of $50 \, \mathrm{kt}$. We choose a symmetric operation with $4 \, \mathrm{yr}$ in
257: each polarity. For the oscillation parameters, we use, if not stated otherwise, the current best-fit values $\ldm = 2.5 \cdot 10^{-3} \, \mathrm{eV}^2$,
258: $\sin^2 2 \theta_{23} = 1$, $\sdm = 8.2 \cdot 10^{-5} \, \mathrm{eV}^2$, and $\sin^2 2 \theta_{12} = 0.83$~\cite{Fogli:2003th,Bahcall:2004ut,Bandyopadhyay:2004da,Maltoni:2004ei}. We only allow values for $\stheta$ below
259: the CHOOZ bound $\stheta \lesssim 0.1$~\cite{Apollonio:1999ae} and do not make any
260: special assumptions about $\deltacp$. However, we will show in some cases the results
261: for chosen selected values of $\deltacp$.
262:
263: \section{Quantitative results}
264:
265: \begin{figure}[t]
266: \begin{center}
267: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{mswsens}
268: \end{center}
269: \vspace{-1cm}
270: \mycaption{\label{fig:mswsens} Sensitivity to the MSW effect for \NuFactII\ as function
271: of the true value of $\stheta$ and the baseline $L$. For the simulated oscillation parameters,
272: the current best-fit values, $\deltacp=0$, and a normal mass hierarchy are assumed, whereas
273: the fit parameters are marginalized. Sensitivity is given at the shown confidence level on the
274: upper sides of the curves.}
275: \end{figure}
276:
277: We show in \figu{mswsens} the sensitivity to the MSW effect for \NuFactII\
278: as function of the true values of $\stheta$ and the baseline $L$, where
279: $\deltacp=0$ and a normal mass hierarchy are assumed. The sensitivity
280: is given above the curves at the shown confidence levels. Obviously, the
281: experiment can verify the MSW effect for long enough baselines even for
282: $\stheta = 0$. The vertical dashed line separates the region where this
283: measurement is dominated by the first term ($\theta_{13}$-dominated) and the
284: fourth term (solar-dominated) in \equ{PROBMATTER}. It is drawn for $\stheta=10^{-3} \sim \alpha^2$, \ie, in this region all the terms of \equ{PROBMATTER} have similar magnitudes.
285: Obviously, the performance in the $\theta_{13}$-dominated (atmospheric oscillation-dominated) regime is much better than the one in the solar-dominated regime, because the $\theta_{13}$-terms provide information on the matter effects in addition to the solar term.
286: In this figure, the curves are shown for different selected confidence levels.
287: However, in order to really establish the effect, a minimum $5 \sigma$ signal will be
288: necessary. Therefore, we will only use the $5 \sigma$ curves below.
289:
290: In order to discuss the most relevant parameter dependencies and to compare the
291: matter effect and mass hierarchy sensitivities, we show in \figu{mswsign} these
292: sensitivities for two different values of $\deltacp$. As we have tested, the true
293: value of $\deltacp$ is one of the major impact factors for these measurements. In addition,
294: the mass hierarchy sensitivity is modified by a similar amount for a simulated inverted instead of normal mass hierarchy, whereas the matter effect sensitivity does not
295: show this dependence (because the reference rate vector is computed for vacuum). As far as
296: the dependence on $\sdm$ is concerned, we have not found any signficant dependence of the
297: MSW effect sensitivity within the current allowed $3 \sigma$ range
298: $7.4 \cdot 10^{-5} \, \mathrm{eV}^2 \lesssim \sdm \lesssim 9.2 \cdot 10^{-5} \, \mathrm{eV}^2$~\cite{Bahcall:2004ut}.
299: Hence, we show in \figu{mswsign} the selected two values of $\deltacp$
300: for estimates of the (true) parameter dependencies, since there are no major qualitative differences.
301:
302: \begin{figure*}[t]
303: \begin{center}
304: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{mswsign}
305: \end{center}
306: \vspace{-1cm}
307: \mycaption{\label{fig:mswsign} The sensitivity to the MSW effect (black curves) and to
308: the mass hierarchy (gray curves) for \NuFactII\ as function
309: of the true value of $\stheta$ and the baseline $L$ ($5 \sigma$ only).
310: For the simulated oscillation parameters,
311: the current best-fit values, $\deltacp=0$ (left) or $\deltacp=\pi/2$ (right), and a normal mass hierarchy are assumed, wheras the fit parameters are marginalized over (solid curves).
312: Sensitivity to the respective quantity is given on the
313: upper/right side of the curves. The dashed curves correspond to the MSW effect sensitivity
314: without correlations, \ie, for all the fit parameters fixed.}
315: \end{figure*}
316:
317: As one can see from this figure, the behavior of the MSW sensitivity for
318: short baselines and large $\stheta$ is qualitatively similar to the one of the mass hierarchy sensitivity, because both measurements are dominated by the $\theta_{13}$-terms of \equ{PROBMATTER}. However,
319: as we have indicated in \Sec~\ref{sec:analytical}, the difference between the normal and
320: inverted hierarchy matter rates is about a factor of two larger than the one between vacuum and matter rates (for any mass hierarchy). Thus, for large $\stheta$, the mass hierarchy sensitivity is better than the MSW sensitivity (better means that it works for shorter baselines). Note that the solar (fourth) term in \equ{PROBMATTER} is not dependent
321: on the mass hierarchy, which means that there is no mass hierarchy sensitivity for small
322: values of $\stheta$. In general, there are three regions for the MSW effect sensitivity
323: in \figu{mswsign}:
324: \begin{description}
325: \item[$\boldsymbol{\stheta \lesssim 10^{-5}}$:] Only the solar term in \equ{PROBMATTER}
326: is present. The MSW effect sensitivity therefore does not depend on $\deltacp$ or the
327: mass hierarchy.
328: \item[$\boldsymbol{\stheta \gtrsim 10^{-2}}$:] The measurement is dominated by the
329: first term in \equ{PROBMATTER} with some contribution of the second and third terms,
330: which means that there is some dependence on $\deltacp$.
331: % Since the third term is not present close to the oscillation maximum,
332: % one expects for large $\stheta$ (where the error bars are small) because of the $\sin \deltacp$-dependence of the second term a better performance close to $\deltacp = 0$ and $\pi$ than $\deltacp = \pi/2$ and $3 \pi/2$.\footnote{Note that one does not have this behavior
333: % for the mass hierarchy sensitivity because the event rates at neutrino factory are
334: % double-amplified/suppressed at $\deltacp=\pm \pi/2$ by the sign before the
335: % second term in \equ{PROBMATTER}.} Thus, the right shoulder is somewhat lifted
336: % for $\deltacp = \pi/2$ compared to $\deltacp = 0$.
337: \item[$\boldsymbol{10^{-5} \lesssim \stheta \lesssim 10^{-2}}$:] In the intermediate region,
338: these two effects are competing, which leads to the ``bump'' in the right panel of \figu{mswsign}. In particular, the relative contribution of the CP terms in \equ{PROBMATTER}
339: is quite large, which means that one expects the strongest $\deltacp$-dependence there.
340: \end{description}
341:
342: For the MSW effect sensitivity, one can easily see from both panels of \figu{mswsign}
343: that for $\stheta \gtrsim 0.05$ a baseline of $3 \, 000 \, \mathrm{km}$ would be sufficient, because in this case the $\theta_{13}$-signal is
344: strong enough to provide information on the matter effects. However, in this case,
345: $\stheta$ will be discovered by a superbeam and it is unlikely that a neutrino factory
346: will be built. For smaller values $\theta_{13} < 0.01$, longer baselines will be necessary. In particular, to have sensitivity to the matter effect independent of the true parameter values, a neutrino factory baseline $L \gtrsim 6000 \, \mathrm{km}$ is a prerequisite. Therefore, this
347: matter effect test is another nice argument for at least one very long neutrino factory baseline.
348: Note that one can read off the impact of correlations with the oscillation parameters
349: from the comparison between the dashed and solid black curves in \figu{mswsign}.
350: If one just fixed all the oscillation parameters, one would obtain the dashed curves.
351: In this case, one could come to the conclusion that a shorter baseline would be sufficient,
352: which is not true for the complete marginalized analysis.
353:
354: \begin{table*}[t]
355: \begin{center}
356: \begin{tabular}{lccp{6cm}}
357: \hline
358: Source/Method (where tested) & $\theta_{13}$-suppr. & Reach [Ref.] & Comments/Assumptions \\
359: \hline
360: Solar $\nu$/Sun & No & $6 \sigma$~\cite{Fogli:2004zn} & MSW effect in sun; by comparison
361: between vacuum and matter (existing solar $\nu$ experiments) \\
362: Solar $\nu$/Earth (``day-night'') & No & $4\sigma$~\cite{Bahcall:2004mz} & By large Water Cherenkov detector used for proton decay \\
363: SN $\nu$/Earth, one detector & No & n/a~\cite{Dighe:2003jg} & Observation as ``dips'' in
364: spectrum, but no observation guaranteed (because of flux uncertainties); effects depend on $\stheta$; HyperK-like detector needed \\
365: SN $\nu$/Earth, two detectors & No & $4\sigma -5 \sigma$~\cite{Lunardini:2001pb} & For SN distance $10 \, \mathrm{Kpc}$, $E_B = 3 \cdot 10^{53} \, \mathrm{ergs}$; at least two Super-K size detectors, depends on their positions \\
366: Atmospheric $\nu$/Earth & {\bf Yes} & $4\sigma$~\cite{Gandhi:2004bj} & Estimate for $100 \, \mathrm{kt}$ magn. iron detector computed for $\stheta=0.1$ \\
367: Superbeam/Earth $L \lesssim 5 \, 500 \, \mathrm{km}$ & {\bf Yes} & $2 \sigma$ & Estimate for \JHFHK -like setup for $\stheta \gtrsim 0.05$ at $L=3 \, 000 \, \mathrm{km}$; strongly depends on $\stheta$ and $\deltacp$ \\
368: Superbeam/Earth $L \gtrsim 5 \, 500 \, \mathrm{km}$ & No & $\sim 3\sigma-4 \sigma$ & Estimate for \JHFHK -like setup independent of $\stheta$ \\
369: $\nu$-factory/Earth $L \lesssim 6 \, 000 \, \mathrm{km}$ & {\bf Yes} & $5 \sigma$ & Reach for $\stheta \gtrsim 0.05$ at $L=3 \, 000 \, \mathrm{km}$ ($\deltacp=\pi/2$); strongly depends on $\stheta$ and $\deltacp$ \\
370: $\nu$-factory/Earth $L \gtrsim 6 \, 000 \, \mathrm{km}$ & No & $5\sigma -8 \sigma$ & Range depending on $\deltacp$ for $L=6 \, 000 \, \mathrm{km}$;
371: for $L \gg 6 \, 000 \, \mathrm{km}$ much better reach, such as
372: $\sim 12 \sigma$ for $L = 7 \, 500 \, \mathrm{km}$ \\
373: \hline
374: \end{tabular}
375: \end{center}
376: \mycaption{\label{tab:summary} Different methods to test the MSW effect: Source and method (in which medium the MSW effect is tested), the suppression of the effect by
377: $\theta_{13}$, the potential confidence level reach (including reference, where applicable), and comments/assumptions which have led to this estimate.}
378: \end{table*}
379:
380: As we have discussed in \Sec~\ref{sec:analytical}, the MSW test is very difficult for superbeams.
381: For the combination of \JHFSK , \NUMI , and \ReactorII\ from \Ref~\cite{Huber:2004ug}, it is not
382: even possible at the $90\%$ confidence level for $\stheta =0.1$ at the CHOOZ bound.
383: However, for a very large superbeam upgrade
384: at very long baselines, there would indeed be some sensitivity to the matter effect even for
385: vanishing $\theta_{13}$. For example, if one used the \JHFHK\ setup from \Ref~\cite{Huber:2002mx} and (hypothetically) put the
386: detector to a longer baseline, one would have some matter effect sensitivity at the
387: $3 \sigma$ confidence level for selected baselines $L \gtrsim 5 \, 500 \, \mathrm{km}$. For the
388: ``magic baseline'' $L \sim 7 \, 500 \, \mathrm{km}$, one could even have a $4 \sigma$ signal,
389: but $5 \sigma$ would hardly be possible.
390:
391: \section{Summary and discussion}
392:
393: We have investigated the potential of long-baseline experiments to test the matter
394: effect (MSW effect) in neutrino oscillations. In particular, we have discussed under
395: what conditions one can directly verify this MSW effect compared to vacuum oscillations
396: at a high confidence level.
397:
398: Though it is generally known that beam experiments are, for sufficiently
399: long baselines, very sensitive to matter effects, we have demonstrated that the
400: $\theta_{13}$-terms in the appearance signal have much less matter effect sensitivity
401: than one may expect. Especially, the comparison with another matter effect-dominated
402: measurement, \ie, the mass hierarchy sensitivity, has shown that the MSW effect
403: sensitivity is much weaker for short baselines $L \lesssim 5 \, 000 \, \mathrm{km}$.
404: Note that both of these measurements suffer from correlations and degeneracies
405: especially for intermediate $\stheta$.
406:
407: However, for long enough baselines $L \gtrsim 6 \, 000 \, \mathrm{km}$ and good
408: enough statistics, the solar term in the appearance probability is sensitive to
409: matter effects compared to vacuum, which means that the MSW effect sensitivity is not suppressed by $\stheta$ anymore. Note that the solar term is not sensitive to the mass
410: hierarchy at all, but it is reduced in matter compared to vacuum. In summary, we have
411: demonstrated that a neutrino factory with a sufficiently long baseline would have good enough statistics for a $5 \sigma$ MSW effect discovery independent of $\stheta$, where the solar term becomes indeed statistically
412: accessible. However, a very long baseline superbeam upgrade, such as a
413: \JHFHK -like experiment at the ``magic baseline'' $L \sim 7 \,500 \, \mathrm{km}$,
414: could have some sensitivity to the solar appearance term at the $4 \sigma$ confidence level.
415:
416: This result has three major implications: First, it is another argument for at least one
417: very long neutrino factory baseline, where the other purposes of such a baseline could be
418: a ``clean'' (correlation- and degeneracy-free) $\stheta$-measurement at the ``magic baseline''~\cite{Huber:2003ak} and a very good mass hierarchy sensitivity for large
419: enough $\stheta$. The verification of the MSW effect would be a little ``extra''
420: for such a baseline. In addition, note that
421: the mass hierarchy sensitivity assumes that the matter effects are present,
422: which means that some more evidence for the MSW effect
423: would increase the consistency of this picture.
424:
425: Second, the absence of the $\stheta$-suppression in the solar
426: appearance term means that the direct MSW test at a beam experiment
427: could be competitive with others methods, for a summary, see \Tab~\ref{tab:summary}.
428: However, it could be also partly complementary: If $\stheta$ turned out to be large,
429: it is the atmospheric oscillation frequency which would be modified by matter effects
430: and not the solar one.
431: In addition, the MSW effect in Earth matter could be a more ``direct'' test under
432: controllable conditions, because the Earth's mantle has been extensively studied by
433: seismic wave geophysics. Note that for atmospheric neutrinos, this test is much harder,
434: an example can be found in \Ref~\cite{Gandhi:2004bj}.
435:
436: Third, we have demonstrated that the solar term in the appearance probability can really provide statistically significant information, which may also be useful for other applications.
437: For example, the dependence of the solar appearance term on $\cos \theta_{23}$ instead of $\sin^2 2 \theta_{23}$ in the disappearance probability could, for properly chosen
438: baselines, be useful to resolve the $(\theta_{23},\pi/2-\theta_{23})$-degeneracy~\cite{Diwan:2004bt}. Thus, the formerly
439: unwanted background term affecting any $\theta_{13}$ measurement could indeed be
440: useful for other applications.
441:
442: \section*{Acknowledgments}
443:
444: I would like to thank John Bahcall, Manfred Lindner,
445: and Carlos Pe$\tilde{\mathrm{n}}$a-Garay for useful
446: discussions and comments. This work has been supported by the W.~M.~Keck Foundation
447: and the NSF grant PHY-0070928.
448:
449: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
450:
451: \bibitem{Mikheev:1985gs}
452: S.P. Mikheev and A.Y. Smirnov,
453: \newblock Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 42 (1985) 913.
454:
455: \bibitem{Mikheev:1986wj}
456: S.P. Mikheev and A.Y. Smirnov,
457: \newblock Nuovo Cim. C9 (1986) 17.
458:
459: \bibitem{Wolfenstein:1978ue}
460: L. Wolfenstein,
461: \newblock Phys. Rev. D17 (1978) 2369.
462:
463: \bibitem{Ahmad:2002ka}
464: SNO, Q.R. Ahmad et~al.,
465: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 011302, nucl-ex/0204009.
466:
467: \bibitem{Eguchi:2002dm}
468: KamLAND, K. Eguchi et~al.,
469: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 (2003) 021802, hep-ex/0212021.
470:
471: \bibitem{Blennow:2003xw}
472: M. Blennow, T. Ohlsson and H. Snellman,
473: \newblock Phys. Rev. D69 (2004) 073006, hep-ph/0311098.
474:
475: \bibitem{Carlson:1986ui}
476: E.D. Carlson,
477: \newblock Phys. Rev. D34 (1986) 1454.
478:
479: \bibitem{Fukuda:1998rq}
480: Super-Kamiokande, Y. Fukuda et~al.,
481: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 1810, hep-ex/9812009.
482:
483: \bibitem{deHolanda:2002pp}
484: P.C. de~Holanda and A.Y. Smirnov,
485: \newblock Phys. Rev. D66 (2002) 113005, hep-ph/0205241.
486:
487: \bibitem{Bahcall:2004mz}
488: J.N. Bahcall and C. Pena-Garay,
489: \newblock New J. Phys. 6 (2004) 63, hep-ph/0404061.
490:
491: \bibitem{Lunardini:2001pb}
492: C. Lunardini and A.Y. Smirnov,
493: \newblock Nucl. Phys. B616 (2001) 307, hep-ph/0106149.
494:
495: \bibitem{Dighe:2003jg}
496: A.S. Dighe, M.T. Keil and G.G. Raffelt,
497: \newblock JCAP 0306 (2003) 006, hep-ph/0304150.
498:
499: \bibitem{Akhmedov:1998ui}
500: E.K. Akhmedov,
501: \newblock Nucl. Phys. B538 (1999) 25, hep-ph/9805272.
502:
503: \bibitem{Petcov:1998su}
504: S.T. Petcov,
505: \newblock Phys. Lett. B434 (1998) 321, hep-ph/9805262.
506:
507: \bibitem{Akhmedov:2004ny}
508: E.K. Akhmedov et~al.,
509: \newblock JHEP 04 (2004) 078, hep-ph/0402175.
510:
511: \bibitem{Krastev:1990gz}
512: P.I. Krastev,
513: \newblock Nuovo Cim. A103 (1990) 361.
514:
515: \bibitem{Freund:1999gy}
516: M. Freund et~al.,
517: \newblock Nucl. Phys. B578 (2000) 27, hep-ph/9912457.
518:
519: \bibitem{Mocioiu:2000st}
520: I. Mocioiu and R. Shrock,
521: \newblock Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 053017, hep-ph/0002149.
522:
523: \bibitem{Ota:2000hf}
524: T. Ota and J. Sato,
525: \newblock Phys. Rev. D63 (2001) 093004, hep-ph/0011234.
526:
527: \bibitem{Freund:2000ti}
528: M. Freund, P. Huber and M. Lindner,
529: \newblock Nucl. Phys. B585 (2000) 105, hep-ph/0004085.
530:
531: \bibitem{Cervera:2000kp}
532: A. Cervera et~al.,
533: \newblock Nucl. Phys. B579 (2000) 17, hep-ph/0002108.
534:
535: \bibitem{Freund:2001pn}
536: M. Freund,
537: \newblock Phys. Rev. D64 (2001) 053003, hep-ph/0103300.
538:
539: \bibitem{Huber:2003ak}
540: P. Huber and W. Winter,
541: \newblock Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 037301, hep-ph/0301257.
542:
543: \bibitem{Huber:2004ug}
544: P. Huber et~al.,
545: \newblock Phys. Rev. D70 (2004) 073014, hep-ph/0403068.
546:
547: \bibitem{Huber:2002mx}
548: P. Huber, M. Lindner and W. Winter,
549: \newblock Nucl. Phys. B645 (2002) 3, hep-ph/0204352.
550:
551: \bibitem{Minakata:2001qm}
552: H. Minakata and H. Nunokawa,
553: \newblock JHEP 10 (2001) 001, hep-ph/0108085.
554:
555: \bibitem{Burguet-Castell:2001ez}
556: J. Burguet-Castell et~al.,
557: \newblock Nucl. Phys. B608 (2001) 301, hep-ph/0103258.
558:
559: \bibitem{Fogli:1996pv}
560: G.L. Fogli and E. Lisi,
561: \newblock Phys. Rev. D54 (1996) 3667, hep-ph/9604415.
562:
563: \bibitem{Barger:2001yr}
564: V. Barger, D. Marfatia and K. Whisnant,
565: \newblock Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 073023, hep-ph/0112119.
566:
567: \bibitem{Huber:2004ka}
568: P. Huber, M. Lindner and W. Winter,
569: \newblock Comp. Phys. Comm. 167 (2005) 195, hep-ph/0407333,
570: \newblock {\tt http://www.ph.tum.de/ $^\sim$globes}.
571:
572: \bibitem{Geller:2001ix}
573: R.J. Geller and T. Hara,
574: \newblock Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (2001) 98, hep-ph/0111342.
575:
576: \bibitem{Ohlsson:2003ip}
577: T. Ohlsson and W. Winter,
578: \newblock Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 073007, hep-ph/0307178.
579:
580: \bibitem{Pana}
581: S.V. Panasyuk,
582: \newblock {REM} (reference earth model) web page,
583: \newblock {\tt http://cfauvcs5.harvard.edu/ lana/rem/index.htm}, 2000.
584:
585: \bibitem{Gonzalez-Garcia:2001zy}
586: M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia and C. Pe$\tilde{\mathrm{n}}$a-Garay,
587: \newblock Phys. Lett. B527 (2002) 199, hep-ph/0111432.
588:
589: \bibitem{Barger:2000hy}
590: V.D. Barger, D. Marfatia and B.P. Wood,
591: \newblock Phys. Lett. B498 (2001) 53, hep-ph/0011251.
592:
593: \bibitem{Fogli:2003th}
594: G.L. Fogli et~al.,
595: \newblock Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 093006, hep-ph/0303064.
596:
597: \bibitem{Bahcall:2004ut}
598: J.N. Bahcall, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia and C. Pena-Garay,
599: \newblock JHEP 08 (2004) 016, hep-ph/0406294.
600:
601: \bibitem{Bandyopadhyay:2004da}
602: A. Bandyopadhyay et~al.,
603: \newblock Phys. Lett. B608 (2005) 115, hep-ph/0406328.
604:
605: \bibitem{Maltoni:2004ei}
606: M. Maltoni et~al.,
607: \newblock New J. Phys. 6 (2004) 122, hep-ph/0405172.
608:
609: \bibitem{Apollonio:1999ae}
610: CHOOZ, M. Apollonio et~al.,
611: \newblock Phys. Lett. B466 (1999) 415, hep-ex/9907037.
612:
613: \bibitem{Fogli:2004zn}
614: G. Fogli and E. Lisi,
615: \newblock New J. Phys. 6 (2004) 139.
616:
617: \bibitem{Gandhi:2004bj}
618: R. Gandhi et~al.,
619: \newblock (2004), hep-ph/0411252.
620:
621: \bibitem{Diwan:2004bt}
622: M.V. Diwan,
623: \newblock (2004), hep-ex/0407047.
624:
625: \end{thebibliography}
626:
627: \end{document}
628: