1: % VERSION 1.0

2: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,groupedaddress]{revtex4}

3: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

4: \documentclass[aps,prd,twocolumn,groupedaddress,showpacs,preprintnumbers,draft]

5: {revtex4}

6: %\documentclass[aps,prd,groupedaddress,showpacs,preprintnumbers,draft]{revtex4}

7: \usepackage{epsf} 

8: %\usepackage{graphicx} 

9: \begin{document}

10: \preprint{MCGILL-22-05}

11: %---------------------------------------------------------------------  

12: % User definitions  

13: %--------------------------------------------------------------------  

14: \def\Box{\nabla^2}  

15: %---------------------------  

16: \def\ie{{\em i.e.\/}}  

17: \def\eg{{\em e.g.\/}}  

18: \def\etc{{\em etc.\/}}  

19: \def\etal{{\em et al.\/}}  

20: %----------------------------  

21: \def\S{{\mathcal S}}  

22: \def\I{{\mathcal I}}  

23: \def\mL{{\mathcal L}}  

24: \def\H{{\mathcal H}}  

25: \def\M{{\mathcal M}}  

26: \def\N{{\mathcal N}} 

27: \def\O{{\mathcal O}} 

28: \def\cP{{\includegraphics[]

29: \mathcal P}} 

30: \def\R{{\mathcal R}}  

31: \def\K{{\mathcal K}}  

32: \def\W{{\mathcal W}} 

33: \def\mM{{\mathcal M}} 

34: \def\mJ{{\mathcal J}} 

35: \def\mP{{\mathbf P}} 

36: \def\mT{{\mathbf T}} 

37: \def\mR{{\mathbf R}}

38: \def\mS{{\mathbf S}}

39: \def\mX{{\mathbf X}}

40: \def\mZ{{\mathbf Z}}

41: %-----------------------------  

42: \def\eff{{\mathrm{eff}}}  

43: \def\Newton{{\mathrm{Newton}}}  

44: \def\bulk{{\mathrm{bulk}}}  

45: \def\brane{{\mathrm{brane}}}  

46: \def\matter{{\mathrm{matter}}}  

47: \def\tr{{\mathrm{tr}}}  

48: \def\nr{{\mathrm{normal}}}  

49: \def\implies{\Rightarrow}  

50: \def\half{{1\over2}}  

51: %------------------------------

52: \newcommand{\da}{\dot{a}}

53: \newcommand{\db}{\dot{b}}

54: \newcommand{\dn}{\dot{n}}

55: \newcommand{\dda}{\ddot{a}}

56: \newcommand{\ddb}{\ddot{b}}

57: \newcommand{\ddn}{\ddot{n}}

58: %------------------------------

59: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}

60: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}

61: \def\be{\begin{equation}}

62: \def\ee{\end{equation}}

63: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}

64: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}

65: \def\bs{\begin{subequations}}

66: \def\es{\end{subequations}}

67: \def\g{\gamma}

68: \def\G{\Gamma}

69: \def\vp{\varphi}

70: \def\mpl{M_{\rm P}}

71: \def\ms{M_{\rm s}}

72: \def\ls{\ell_{\rm s}}

73: \def\lp{\ell_{\rm pl}}

74: \def\l{\lambda}

75: \def\gs{g_{\rm s}}

76: \def\d{\partial}

77: \def\co{{\cal O}}

78: \def\sp{\;\;\;,\;\;\;}

79: \def\spa{\;\;\;}

80: \def\r{\rho}

81: \def\dr{\dot r}

82: \def\dt{\dot\varphi}

83: \def\e{\epsilon}

84: \def\k{\kappa}

85: \def\m{\mu}

86: \def\n{\nu}

87: \def\om{\omega}

88: \def\tn{\tilde \nu}

89: \def\p{\phi}

90: \def\vp{\varphi}

91: \def\P{\Phi}

92: \def\r{\rho}

93: \def\s{\sigma}

94: \def\t{\tau}

95: \def\x{\chi}

96: \def\z{\zeta}

97: \def\a{\alpha}

98: \def\b{\beta}

99: \def\de{\delta}

100: \def\bra#1{\left\langle #1\right|}

101: \def\ket#1{\left| #1\right\rangle}

102: \newcommand{\stt}{\small\tt}

103: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\arabic{section}.\arabic{equation}}

104: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{equation~(\ref{#1})}

105: \newcommand{\eqs}[2]{equations~(\ref{#1}) and~(\ref{#2})}

106: \newcommand{\eqto}[2]{equations~(\ref{#1}) to~(\ref{#2})}

107: \newcommand{\fig}[1]{Fig.~(\ref{#1})}

108: \newcommand{\figs}[2]{Figs.~(\ref{#1}) and~(\ref{#2})}

109: \newcommand{\GeV}{\mbox{GeV}}

110: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------   

111: \def\ricci{R_{\m\n} R^{\m\n}}

112: \def\riemann{R_{\m\n\l\s} R^{\m\n\l\s}}

113: \def\triemann{\tilde R_{\m\n\l\s} \tilde R^{\m\n\l\s}}

114: \def\tricci{\tilde R_{\m\n} \tilde R^{\m\n}}

115: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

116: %Title of paper

117: \title{Scale dependence of the UHECR neutrino flux in extra-dimension models}

118: %

119: \author{K.R.S. Balaji$^1$ \email[Email:]{balaji@hep.physics.mcgill.ca}

120: and Jukka Maalampi$^2$ \email[Email:]{maalampi@cc.jyu.fi}}

121: %

122: \affiliation{ $^1$ Department of Physics, McGill University, Montr\'eal, QC, 

123: Canada H3A 2T8}

124: %

125: \affiliation { $^2$ Department of Physics, Jyv\"askyla University, Jyv\"askyl\"a,

126: Finland}

127: \affiliation { Helsinki Institute of Physics, Helsinki, Finland}

128: \begin{abstract}

129: Ultra high energy cosmic ray (UHECR) neutrino fluxes measured in a fixed target 

130: detector can have a scale dependence. In the usual standard model or any 

131: extensions of this model (which are renormalizable),  the effect is 

132: observationally very small.  However, this need not be the case in models with  

133: extra-spatial dimensions, where the neutrino mass parameter can receive large 

134: corrections due to a power-law running. Hence, the scale dependence may lead to a 

135: measurable deviation from  the standard prediction for the neutrino flux ratio. 

136: \end{abstract}

137: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next ctline

138: \pacs{98.80.Cq.}

139: % insert suggested keywords - APS authors don't need to do this

140: %\keywords{}

141: %\maketitle must follow title, authors, abstract, \pacs, and \keywords

142: \maketitle

143: % body of paper here - Use proper section commands

144: \section{Introduction}

145: In the last two decades, one of the significant success of particle physics has 

146: been 

147: the 

148: confirmation of a neutrino anomaly, both in the solar and atmospheric sector 

149: \cite{sk}. 

150: The most likely solution to the anomaly is to introduce a small neutrino

151: mass and hence the notion of neutrino oscillation \cite{ponty} which is similar in 

152: spirit to

153: quark sector. Recent atmospheric neutrino data has indeed shown an observable dip 

154: in its 

155: zenith 

156: angle spectra as expected for massive neutrino oscillation \cite{atm}. In a 

157: realistic three 

158: flavor analysis,  an important part of the solution amounts to finding the allowed 

159: parameter space for the

160: the mixing angles; the solar $(\theta_S)$, the atmospheric $(\theta_A)$ and a

161: reactor angle $(\theta_R)$. The best fit values for these three mixing parameters 

162: seem to

163: indicate a pattern spanning from almost being negligible to moderate to maximal 

164: \cite{nuph}. 

165: In the case of solar neutrinos, the mixing of $\nu_e$ with active neutrinos has 

166: the central

167: value such that $\tan \theta_S \approx 0.7$ (moderate). In contrast, the 

168: atmospheric

169: mixings involving largely of $\nu_\mu$ prefers $\tan\theta_A \approx 1$ (maximal) 

170: while the

171: reactor angle, which determines the relative proportion of $\nu_e$ in the heaviest 

172: mass 

173: eigenstate, is consistent with zero mixings, $\tan\theta_R \ll 1$ \cite{chooz}. 

174: 

175: The fact that $\tan\theta_A \approx 1$ has an important consequence for

176: the neutrino fluxes which are ultra-relativistic in energies. It has long been 

177: realized

178: that UHECR neutrinos (which are expected to be sourced by cosmic objects such as 

179: AGNs) when

180: measured by ground based detectors, the expected flavor 

181: ratio $\phi_e:\phi_\mu:\phi_\tau=1:1:1$ 

182: \cite{jukka}. Henceforth, we shall call this expectation as the {\em bench mark} 

183: value. 

184: This prediction is important for at least three fundamental reasons: (i) it forms 

185: an 

186: independent verification of the neutrino parameters which are phenomenologically 

187: extracted

188: from solar, atmospheric and reactor data, (ii) it is has been realized to be a 

189: test bed for 

190: some interesting new physics predictions (decay, pseudo-Dirac splittings, 

191: active-sterile

192: mixings) which are not yet

193: resolved \cite{jb} and (iii) it could provide further opportunity in our 

194: understanding of 

195: fermion mixings and masses; for instance, are there any fundamental symmetries in 

196: the

197: $\mu-\tau$ block which leads to maximal mixings. It is expected that several of 

198: the upcoming neutrino telescopes \cite{nutel} will be tuned to verify the {\em 

199: bench mark}

200: value besides looking for many of the new signatures mentioned here. 

201: 

202:  In the present analysis, we point out that the scale dependence of the neutrino 

203: parameters

204:  can also be a source which alters the {\em bench mark} expectations. In 

205: scattering processes

206:  involving UHECR neutrinos, the momentum transfer square $\mu$ is expected to 

207: saturate at $10^4$ GeV$^2$ beyond which point there is a strong energy suppression 

208: \cite{reno}. It is well known that at this scale, the effects of running on 

209: neutrino mixings are very small \cite{rge}. However, this need not be the case in 

210: models with extra-spatial dimensions, thereby, leading to modifications to the 

211:  {\em bench mark} values. This forms the main theme of our analysis. 

212: \section{standard lore}

213:    It is instructive to first review the standard {\em bench mark} expectations. 

214: Massive

215:  neutrinos,

216: similar to quarks, have two eigenbasis, the flavor $(\nu_\alpha)$ and mass 

217: eigenbasis 

218: $(\nu_i)$ with corresponding mass eigenvalues, $m_i$.

219: A unitary matrix relates the two basis, such that $\nu_\alpha = U_{\alpha i} 

220: \nu_i$ 

221: where, the summation over the mass eigenstates is assumed. In the limit of small

222: mixings, one could define the angles in the following manner. $\theta_S$ mixes

223: states $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$, $\theta_A$ mixes $\nu_2$ and $\nu_3$ and $\theta_R$ 

224: mixes $\nu_1$ and $\nu_3$. In this notation, without loss of generality, we can 

225: assume 

226: a hierarchy of states, where, $m_1 < m_2 < m_3$ and the relevant solar and 

227: atmospheric 

228: splittings, 

229: are $\Delta_S = m_2^2 -m_1^2$ and $\Delta_A = m_3^2 - m_2^2$ respectively. In the 

230: case of UHECR neutrinos which travel astronomical distances,  the coherence 

231: between the various mass eigenstates is averaged out. As a result, once these 

232: neutrinos 

233: are produced, they essentially travel (galactic distances) as individual mass 

234: eigenstate, until at the point of detection. In a ground based detector, the 

235: probability of 

236: measuring a UHECR neutrino of a given flavor is then given as

237: \bea

238: \phi_e &=& 1 + 2x(2c_A^2-1)~;~x=(s_Sc_S)^2~,\nonumber\\

239: \phi_\mu &=& 2xc_A^2 + 2(c_A^4(1-2x) +s_A^4)~,\nonumber\\

240: \phi_\tau &=& s_{2A}^2 + 2xs_A^2(1-c_A^2)~,

241: \label{flux}

242: \eea

243: where $s$ and $c$ denote sine and cosine, respectively. It is clear from the above 

244: expression, 

245: that maximal atmospheric mixing leads to the conclusion that all neutrino flavors

246: must be detected with the same weight factor. In deriving this result, we have 

247: disregarded

248: the mixing corresponding to reactor experiments, which is consistent with zero 

249: \cite{chooz}. 

250: Given this result, we shall consider the modifications that may alter the 

251: prediction in

252: (\ref{flux}) for $\theta_A \neq \pi/4$.

253: %

254: \section{ renormalization group effects}

255: %

256: UHECR neutrinos incident on a target material can undergo both charged and neutral 

257: current scattering processes. The individual neutrino flavor states $\nu_\alpha$  

258: are derived by folding the matrix element $U_{\alpha i}$ corresponding to the 

259: incident mass eigenstate $\nu_i$. In a scattering process, which involves large 

260: momentum transfers, the mixing matrix element $U_{\alpha i}$ can pick up a scale 

261: dependence. However, in practice, the momentum transfer square $(\mu)$ saturates  

262: at $\mu \sim 10^4$ GeV$^2$ beyond which the cross section is damped \cite{reno}. It 

263: is well known that for scales around 

264: this value, the effects of neutrino mass running is negligible \cite{rge}. As 

265: mentioned earlier, this need not be the case if we consider models with 

266: extra-space dimensions. Furthermore, in this case, depending on the the mass of KK 

267: excitation for the gauge boson $\mu$ can saturate at a much higher value. Present 

268: collider bounds suggest that the lowest KK excited state can have a mass $\sim few 

269: ~100$ GeV \cite{gl} leading to $\mu \sim 1$ TeV as the scale of extra-dimension.

270: 

271: In the following, we consider a class of models where the neutrinos are localized 

272: in the brane, such that for $\delta$ extra spatial dimensions and for scales 

273: $\Lambda > \tilde \Lambda$  (electroweak scale) we have the evolution equation  

274: for the mass parameter \cite{dudas}

275: \bea

276: 16 \pi^2 \frac{d\kappa}{d \ln \Lambda} &=& (-3 g_2^2 + 2 \lambda + 2S) t_\delta

277: \nonumber\\ &-&\frac{3t_\delta \kappa}{2}[(Y_l^\dagger Y_l) + (Y_l^\dagger 

278: Y_l)^T]~,

279: \nonumber\\

280: S &=& \mbox{Tr}(3Y_u^\dagger Y_u +3Y_d^\dagger Y_d +Y_l^\dagger Y_l)~,\nonumber\\

281: t_\delta &=& (\frac{\Lambda}{\tilde\Lambda})^{\delta}X_\delta~;~X_\delta = 

282: \frac{2}{\delta}

283: \pi^{\delta/2}\Gamma(\delta/2)  ~.

284: \label{edrun1}

285: \eea

286:  In (\ref{edrun1}) $Y_{u,d,l}$ are the up-quark, down-quark 

287: and charged lepton Yukawa couplings. For our purposes, we will focus on the 

288: contributions due to the charged lepton Yukawa couplings such that integrating 

289: (\ref{edrun1}) yields

290: \bea

291: \ln (\frac{\kappa}{\tilde\kappa}) 

292: &=& \frac{3Y_l^2}{16\pi^2}(1-(\frac{\Lambda}{\tilde\Lambda})^\delta) 

293: \frac{X_\delta}{\delta}

294:  \equiv \eta_l~.

295: \label{edrun2}

296: \eea

297: \begin{figure}

298: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3.0 in \epsfbox{d4.eps}}

299: %\includegraphics[width=3cm]{sm.eps}

300: \caption{Variation of the flux ratio $R$ with scale for $\delta = 4$.}

301: \label{fig1}

302: \end{figure}

303:  It is important to note that in (\ref{edrun2}) the 

304: nature of  running depends strongly on the value for $\delta$. As a result, the 

305: mixings can run significantly even for a small variation in the scales. This 

306: arises from the power law running which can compensate for the energy suppression 

307: in the propagator for an off-shell neutrino.   Alternatively, the energy 

308: enhancement is due to the  multiplicity factor (which is 

309: $(\Lambda/\tilde\Lambda)^\delta$ ) and arises from the number of  Kaluza-Klein 

310: states, which for a given $\Lambda$ and $\delta$ can be large.

311:  

312:  The running of the masses translates to a running of the neutrino mixings. We 

313: estimate the corrections to the leading order in the enhancement (essentially

314: $t_\delta$) although this expansion need not be perturbative, especially for large 

315: $\mu$ and/or

316: $\delta$. Also, we do not write down the corrections other than due to $Y_l$ since 

317: it is not relevant to our discussion. Following (\ref{edrun2})  up to  $O(\eta_l)$  

318: the change in mass matrix element as a function of scale is obtained to be

319: 

320: \be

321: \kappa_{\alpha\beta}(\Lambda) \simeq \tilde\kappa_{\alpha \beta} (\tilde\Lambda)(1 

322: + \eta_l) 

323: \equiv \tilde \kappa_{\alpha\beta} (1+\eta_l)~.

324: \label{edmatele}

325: \ee 

326: 

327: In (\ref{edmatele}) $\tilde\kappa_{\alpha \beta}(\tilde\Lambda)$ is taken to be 

328: the value of the element at the electroweak scale. In the limit of two flavor 

329: mixing (which can be arranged

330: if $U_{e3}=0$)  following (\ref{edmatele}) the mixing angle depends on scale in 

331: the form

332: 

333: \be

334: \tan\theta_{\alpha \beta}(\Lambda) = 

335: \frac{2\kappa_{\alpha \beta}(\Lambda)}{\kappa_{\alpha \alpha}(\Lambda) - 

336: \kappa_{\beta \beta}(\Lambda)}~ \approx 

337: \tan\tilde\theta_{\alpha\beta}(\tilde\Lambda) 

338: (1- \eta_l)~.

339: \label{edmixang}

340: \ee

341:  Having obtained this change in the mixing angle (up to first order in $\eta_l$) 

342: we can consider

343: the change in $\theta_A$ for which case, we identify $\alpha = \mu$ and $\beta = 

344: \tau$ and

345: take $Y_l = Y_\tau$. We plot the modification to the flavor fluxes as shown in 

346: Fig.1 where we choose $\delta =4$.  To be specific, we have assumed MSSM Yukawa 

347: couplings for the tau lepton at $\tan\beta=50$. In the plot, we show the variation 

348: for flux $R$ with scale and as $\Lambda$ increases, $\theta_A \to 0$. As we should 

349: expect, in this limit, the muon flux approaches a value which is consistent with 

350: no $\nu_\mu \leftrightarrow \nu_\tau$ mixing. Infact, at this energy scale, an 

351: observation  (if done) of the muon flux will

352: constitute a direct measurement of the flux at the point of production (modulo the 

353: small errors due

354: to $U_{e3}\neq 0$.) In this simple exercise, our choice for $\delta$ is purely for 

355: illustrative purposes since, it is a free parameter and can be fixed depending on 

356: the cross section strength required for an observable effect.

357:  \subsection{An example of a $2\to 3$ scattering process}

358:   We now consider a physical process where it might be possible to have a 

359: measurement of the scale dependence along with a unique signature. Essentially, we 

360: are considering a $2\to 3$ tree level scattering process whose  Feynman graph is 

361: shown in Fig.2. In this process, a deeply virtual neutrino $(\nu^*)$ eventually 

362: fragments to a gauge boson $(G)$ and an accompanying lepton: $\nu^* \to G + 

363: ~\mbox{leptons}$. 

364: The final state gauge bosons can be identified via their decay jets. This process 

365: is very similar to the electroproduction of heavy Majorana neutrinos considered 

366: earlier by 

367: Buchm\"uller and Greub \cite{buch}. We remind that in our case, the state $G$ can 

368: also include KK excitations, hence, unlike in the standard model case, $\mu $ can 

369: saturate at values larger than $10^4$ GeV$^2$. 

370: \begin{figure}

371: \centerline{\epsfxsize=3.0 in \epsfbox{feyn.eps}}

372: %\includegraphics[width=3cm]{sm.eps}

373: \caption{Feynman graph showing an incident neutrino scattering off the detector 

374: $D$  followed by a  virtual neutrino state fragmenting in to a gauge boson (wiggly 

375: line) and a final state lepton.}

376: \label{fig2}

377: \end{figure}

378: 

379: In the following, we outline the feasibility of measuring the process, while, a 

380: detailed calculation is beyond the scope of this paper. In principle, we wish to 

381: show that the process may not encounter the usual propagator suppression for $\mu 

382: \gg 1$. Let us examine the off-shell neutrino propagator in this energy regime. 

383: The relevant part of interest in the  propagator reads as

384:  \bea

385:  D(\mu) = \frac{\kappa_{\alpha\beta}}{\mu-\kappa_{\alpha\beta}^2 } &\simeq 

386: &\tilde\kappa_{\alpha\beta}

387:  (\frac{\Lambda}{\tilde\Lambda }) ^\delta  \frac{1}{\mu - 

388: \kappa_{\alpha\beta}^2}+...~,\nonumber\\

389:  &\simeq& \tilde\kappa_{\alpha\beta}

390:  (\frac{\Lambda}{\tilde\Lambda })^{\delta}\frac{\tilde\Lambda^{\delta}}{\mu 

391: \tilde\Lambda ^{\delta}- \Lambda^{\delta} \tilde\kappa_{\alpha\beta}^2 } +...~.

392:  \label{edprop}

393:  \eea

394: where $...$ denote higher order corrections to $\kappa_{\alpha\beta}$.  We 

395: consider the possibility where the scale of extra-dimensions is within the range 

396: of experimental reach such that for some allowed $\mu$ we have  $\Lambda \sim 

397: \sqrt{|\mu|}$. In this case, depending on the value of $\delta$ we should expect 

398: the cross section to  grow with energy. Clearly, from (\ref{edprop})  we find 

399: \be

400:  D(\mu \gg 1)  \sim \frac{\tilde\kappa_{\alpha\beta}}{\tilde\Lambda ^\delta} 

401:  |\mu|^{\delta/2 -1}~.

402:   \label{edprop1}

403:  \ee

404: Note that from (\ref{edprop1}) for $\delta =0$ we reproduce the expected energy 

405: suppression as in conventional non-extra-dimensional models. Thus, in all such 

406: theories, neutrinos which are emitted off the gauge boson vertex will always 

407: prefer to be on-shell.  For $\delta \neq 0$ we find that the theory shows the 

408: usual pathology of cross section growing with energy \cite{maltoni}. This becomes 

409: severe as $\delta$ increases. Therefore, as $\delta$  increases, even for scales 

410: not too far from $\tilde\Lambda$ the cross section can grow significantly with 

411: energy. This also reflects the fact that the theory is unitarity violating. 

412: However, we also need to ensure that there are no low-energy anomalous processes 

413: which might be in conflict with the standard model results \cite{sandip}. For 

414: instance, neutrino-nucleon cross sections which violate unitarity can have

415: observable anomalous cross sections in the corresponding low-energy elastic 

416: processes \cite{goldberg}. Alternatively, one can examine the effects of new 

417: physics on final state 

418: interactions for a given process. If new physics occurs at the TeV scale, then an 

419: observable deviation of $\sim (0.01\%)$ is expected for scattering processes at 

420: the 

421: electroweak scale \cite{domo}. Currently, this small deviation is consistent with 

422: the

423: LEP limits. However, we note that isolating any anomalous events 

424: may be an experimental challenge, especially, due to a lack of knowledge on the

425: parton distribution functions involving states in the continuum.

426: 

427: 

428:  In conclusion, the present analysis does demonstrate a possible window to observe 

429: the scale dependence of UHECR neutrino fluxes. We have taken a representative set 

430: of low energy neutrino parameters and analyzed the evolution of the mixing with 

431: scale. It might be of

432: interest perform a more general analysis where we also consider the running of the 

433: CP phases 

434: and the solar mixing as well. An important ingredient in estimating the running is 

435: the value of neutrino parameters at the electroweak scale. Fortunately, we already 

436: have a good idea about the neutrino parameters $(\theta_{S,A},~\Delta_{S,A})$ from 

437: some very accurate phenomenological

438: analysis

439: of the solar and atmospheric data \cite{nuph}. Contrary to non-extra dimensional 

440: models where neutrino mass degeneracy is an important ingredient; 

441: extra-dimensional models

442: may relax this requirement since power-law running can account for large radiative 

443: corrections. 

444: As we have shown, the variation to the {\em bench mark} values could already occur 

445: for scales

446: not too far from the electroweak scale.

447: This implies that if the scale of extra-dimensions is within the reach of the 

448: neutrino telescopes, (then independent of the nature of the neutrino spectra), the 

449: effect which we predict should be observed.  In addition, a measurement of scale 

450: dependence can also carry some unique and interesting signals, like the one 

451: described in the $2 \to 3$ scattering process.

452: 

453: {\bf Acknowledgements}:

454: The work of KB is funded by NSERC (Canada) and by the Fonds de Recherche sur la 

455: Nature 

456: et les Technologies du Qu\'ebec. He also thanks the support and hospitality at JU 

457: ( Finland)

458:  where this work was completed. JM is supported by funds from the Academy of 

459: Finland under contract 104915 and 107293. We thank Rabi Mohapatra, Harry Lam, Guy 

460: D. Moore, Sandip Pakvasa and Kimmo Kainulainen for useful discussions.

461:  \begin{thebibliography}{99}%

462: \bibitem{sk}

463: Super--Kamiokande Collaboration, Y.~Fukuda, Phys.~Rev.~Lett.

464: {\bf 81}, 1562 (1998); GALLEX Collaboration, 

465: W.~Hampel {\it et al.}, Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B447}, 127 (1999); 

466: SAGE Collaboration, J.~N.~Abdurashitov {\it et al.} Phys.~Rev.~{\bf 

467: C60}, 055801 (1999); Homestake Collaboration, B.T.~Cleveland {\it et al.}, 

468: Astrophys.~J.~{\bf 496} 505 (1998); 

469: GNO Collaboration, M.~Altmann {\it et al.}, Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B490} 16 (2000);

470: SNO Collaboration, Q.R.~Ahmad {\it et al.}, 

471: Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 87}, 071301 (2001):

472: S. Fukuda {\em et al.,} Super--Kamiokande Collaboration, 

473: Phys.Lett. {\bf B539}, 197 (2002);

474: S.N. Ahmed {\em et al.,} SNO Collaboration, arXiv:nucl-ex/0309004;

475: Super--Kamiokande Collaboration, Y. Ashie {\em et al.}, hep-ex/0404034.

476: \bibitem{ponty}

477: B. Pontecarvo, J.Exptl.Theoret.Phys. {\bf 33}, 549 (1957) [Sovt.Phys.JETP {\bf 6},

478: 429 (1958).

479: \bibitem{atm}

480: See talk by M. Ishitsuka at NOON04, http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/noon2004/

481: \bibitem{nuph} 

482: For a recent analysis see

483: M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M.A. Tortola, J.W.F. Valle, hep-ph/0405172 and references 

484: therein.

485: \bibitem{chooz}

486: The CHOOZ collaboration, M.~Apollonio {\it et al.},

487: Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B466}, 415 (1999); F.~Boehm {\it et al.}, 

488: Phys. Rev. Lett.  {\bf 84}, 3764 (2000); Phenomenological implications for CHOOZ 

489: data on 

490: active three flavor oscialltions was first examined by 

491: Mohan Narayan, G. Rajasekaran, S. Uma Sankar, Phys.Rev. {\bf D58}, 031301 (1998).

492: \bibitem{jukka}

493:  J. Learned, S. Pakvasa, Astropar. Phys. {\bf 3}, 267 (1995);

494:  H. Athar, M. Jezabek, O. Yasuda, Phys.Rev. {\bf D62}, 103007 (2000);

495:  Luis Bento, Petteri Ker\"anen, Jukka Maalampi, Phys.Lett. {\bf B476}, 205 (2000);

496:  \bibitem{jb}

497: John F. Beacom , Nicole F. Bell, Dan Hooper, John G. Learned, Sandip Pakvasa, 

498: Thomas J. Weiler, Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 92}, 011101 (2004);

499: John F. Beacom, Nicole F. Bell, Dan Hooper, Sandip Pakvasa, Thomas J. Weiler,

500: Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 90}, 181301 (2003); P. Ker\"anen, J. Maalampi, M. 

501: Myyryl\"ainen, 

502: J. Riittinen, Phys.Lett. {\bf B574}, 162 (2003).

503: \bibitem{nutel}

504: J. Ahrens {\em et al.,} IceCube Collaboration, Astropart.Phys. {\bf 20}, 507 

505: (2004);

506: Teresa Montaruli {\em et al.,}ANTARES Collaboration, proceedings of 28th 

507: International 

508: Cosmic Ray Conferences (ICRC 2003), Tsukuba, Japan, 31 Jul - 7 Aug 2003,

509:  arXiv::physics/0306057; S.E. Tzamarias (for the collaboration), NESTOR 

510: Collaboration,

511: Nucl.Instrum.Meth. {\bf A502}, 150 (2003); M. Takeda {\em et al.,} Astrophys.J. 

512: {\bf 522}, 

513: 225 (1999); D.J. Bird {\em et al.,} HIRES, Astrophys.J. {\bf 424}, 491 (1994).

514: \bibitem{reno}

515: Raj Gandhi, Chris Quigg, Mary Hall Reno, Ina Sarcevic, Phys.Rev. {\bf D58}, 093009 

516: (1998); Mary Hall Reno,  hep-ph/0412412.

517: \bibitem{rge}

518: K.S. Babu, C.N. Leung, J. Pantaleone, Phys.Lett. {\bf B319}, 191 (1993);

519: J.A. Casas, J.R. Espinosa, A. Ibarra, I. Navarro, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B569}, 82 

520: (2000);

521: K.R.S. Balaji, Amol S. Dighe, R.N. Mohapatra, M.K. Parida,

522: Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 84}, 5034 (2000); K.R.S. Balaji, R.N. Mohapatra, M.K. Parida, 

523: E.A. Paschos, Phys.Rev. {\bf D63}, 113002 (2001); Piotr H. Chankowski, Stefan 

524: Pokorski, Int.J.Mod.Phys. {\bf A17}, 575 (2002); Stefan Antusch, Joern Kersten, 

525: Manfred Lindner, Michael Ratz, 

526: Nucl.Phys. {\bf B674}, 401 (2003); Walter Grimus, Luis Lavoura, hep-ph/0409231.

527:  \bibitem{maltoni}

528: Shmuel Nussinov, Robert Shrock, Phys.Rev. {\bf D64}, 047702 (2001);

529: F. Maltoni, J.M. Niczyporuk, S. Willenbrock, Phys.Rev. {\bf D65}, 033004 (2002).

530:  \bibitem{gl}

531: Greg Landsberg for the CDF and DO collab., hep-ex/0412028; Laurent Vacavant for 

532: the ATLAS and CMS collab., 

533: Eur.Phys.J. {\bf C33}, S924 (2004).

534: \bibitem{dudas}

535: Keith R. Dienes, Emilian Dudas, Tony Gherghetta, Nucl.Phys. {\bf B537}, 47 (1999);

536: Gautam Bhattacharya, Srubabati Goswami, Amitava Raychaudhuri,  Phys.Rev. {\bf 

537: D67}, 113001 (2003).

538: \bibitem{buch}

539: W. Buchmuller, C. Greub, Phys.Lett. {\bf B256}, 465 (1991).

540: \bibitem{sandip} 

541: We thank Sandip Pakvasa for pointing this out to us.

542: \bibitem{goldberg}

543:  Haim Goldberg, Thomas J. Weiler, Phys.Rev. {\bf D59}, 113005 (1999). 

544: \bibitem{domo}

545: G. Domokos, S. Kovesi-Domokos, Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 82}, 1366 (1999).

546: \end{thebibliography}

547: \end{document}

548: 

549: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

550: