1: \documentclass[prd,nofootinbib,preprint,floatfix]{revtex4}

2: 

3: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb}

4: \usepackage[normalem]{ulem}

5: \usepackage{graphicx}

6: \usepackage{array}

7: \usepackage{color}

8: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}

9: 

10: % Command definitions

11: \newcommand{\eVq}{\ensuremath{\text{eV}^2}}

12: \newcommand{\Dmq}{\Delta m^2}

13: \newcommand{\Dlt}{\Delta\delta}

14: \newcommand{\Eps}{{\varepsilon}}

15: \newcommand{\Epp}{{\varepsilon'}}

16: \newcolumntype{C}{>{~$}c<{$~}}

17: \newcolumntype{R}{>{~$}r<{$~}}

18: 

19: \definecolor{red}{cmyk}{0,1,1,0.4}

20: \newcommand{\xxx}[1]{{\bf\color{red} #1}\marginpar{$\bullet$}}

21: 

22: % Begin document

23: 

24: \preprint{\vbox{%

25: \hbox{\bf YITP-SB-05-06}}}

26: %

27: \begin{document}

28: \vspace*{.25in}

29: \title{Mass Varying Neutrinos in the Sun}

30: %

31: \author{Marco Cirelli}

32: \email{marco.cirelli@yale.edu}

33: \affiliation{

34: Physics Dept. - Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA}

35: %

36: \author{M.C.~Gonzalez-Garcia}

37: \email{concha@insti.physics.sunysb.edu}

38: \affiliation{

39: C.N.~Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics,

40: SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794-3840, USA

41: \\

42: IFIC, Universitat de Val\`encia - C.S.I.C., Apt 22085, 

43: E-46071 Val\`encia, Spain}

44: %

45: \author{Carlos Pe\~na-Garay}

46: \email{penya@ias.edu}

47: \affiliation{

48: School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study,

49: Princeton, NJ 08540, USA

50: \vspace*{.25in}}

51: %

52: 

53: \begin{abstract}

54: In this work we study the phenomenological consequences of the

55: dependence of mass varying neutrinos on the neutrino density in the Sun, 

56: which we precisely compute in each point along the neutrino trajectory.

57: We find that a generic characteristic of these scenarios 

58: is that they establish a

59: connection between the effective $\Delta m^2$ in the Sun and the

60: absolute neutrino mass scale. This does not lead to any new 

61: allowed region in the oscillation parameter space. On the contrary, 

62: due to this effect, the

63: description of solar neutrino data worsens for large absolute mass.  

64: As a consequence a lower bound on the level of degeneracy

65: can be derived from the combined analysis of the solar and KamLAND data. 

66: In particular  this implies that the analysis favours normal over inverted 

67: mass orderings. These results, in combination with a positive independent 

68: determination of the  absolute neutrino mass, can be used

69: as a test of these scenarios together with a precise determination 

70: of the energy dependence of  the survival probability  of solar neutrinos, 

71: in particular for low energies. 

72: \end{abstract}

73: \maketitle

74: \section{Introduction}

75: \label{sec:intro}

76: 

77: Ref.~\cite{dark1} recently discussed the possibility that mass varying

78: neutrinos (MaVaNs) can behave as a negative pressure fluid which

79: contributes to the origin of the cosmic acceleration.  In

80: particular the authors consider a scenario in which the neutrino mass

81: arises from the interaction with a scalar field, the acceleron ${\cal

82: A}$, whose effective potential changes as a function of the neutrino

83: density. This establishes a very intriguing connection between

84: two recent pieces of evidence for New Physics --the indirect

85: observation of Dark Energy and the confirmation of neutrino masses and

86: oscillations-- that are both suggestively characterized by a similar

87: mass scale.

88: Besides the possible interesting cosmological

89: effects~\cite{dark1,cosmo consequences},

90: from the point of view of neutrino oscillation phenomenology the

91: unavoidable consequence of this scenario is that the neutrino mass

92: depends on the local neutrino density and therefore can be different

93: in media with high neutrino densities such as the Sun.

94: 

95: A subsequent work Ref.~\cite{dark2} also investigated the possibility

96: that neutrino masses depend on the visible matter 

97: density as well. Such a dependence would be induced by  

98: non-renormalizable operators which would couple the acceleron also to the 

99: visible matter and could lead to interesting phenomenological consequences

100: for neutrino oscillations~\cite{dark2,Zurek,Barger}. However,  

101: unlike the dependence on the local neutrino density, 

102: which is an unavoidable consequence of the proposed 

103: MaVaNs mechanism,  the possible dependence on the visible matter density 

104: is strongly model-dependent.

105: In principle it could be vanishingly small since  so far the only information 

106: on the effective acceleron-matter couplings are upper bounds from 

107: tests on the gravitational inverse square law. 

108: 

109: Consequently, in this work we concentrate on the phenomenological 

110: consequences associated to the unavoidable dependence of MaVaNs 

111: on the neutrino density in the Sun. 

112: We find that a generic feature of these scenarios is that they establish a

113: connection between the effective $\Delta m^2$ in the Sun and the

114: absolute neutrino mass scale $m_{01}$. Due to this effect, the

115: description of solar neutrino data worsens for large $m_{01}$.

116: In other words,

117: a lower bound on the level of degeneracy

118: $\Delta m^2_{21,0}/m^2_{01}$ can be derived from the

119: combined analysis of the solar~\cite{chlorine,sagegno,gallex,sk,sno}

120: and KamLAND data~\cite{kamland}. For the realization

121: considered in this work, the 3$\sigma$ bound is 

122: $\Delta m^2_{21,0}/m^2_{01}> 1 $ 

123: from the analysis of solar plus KamLAND data. 

124: In particular this implies that these scenarios 

125: favour normal mass orderings as for  inverse mass orderings   

126: $m_{01}^2\simeq \Delta m^2_{\rm ATM} \gtrsim 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ which 

127: already implies

128: $\Delta m^2_{21,0}/m^2_{01}\lesssim 0.1$. Conversely, 

129: the constraint on $m_{01}$ will allow a test of the validity of 

130: these scenarios in the event of a positive determination of the 

131: absolute neutrino mass scale from independent means.

132: 

133: 

134: The outline of the paper is as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:mass} we

135: evaluate the density profile of neutrinos in the Sun in the SSM and

136: discuss the results on the expected size of the neutrino mass shift

137: induced for different forms of the scalar potential.  Section

138: ~\ref{sec:osc} contains our results for the effective neutrino mass

139: splitting in the Sun and the modification of the solar neutrino

140: survival probability. Finally in Sec.~\ref{sec:analysis} we illustrate

141: the generic quantitative consequences of these scenarios by presenting

142: the results of an analysis of solar (plus KamLAND) data for a

143: particular realization.

144: 

145: 

146: \section{Mass Varying Solar Neutrinos}

147: \label{sec:mass}

148: 

149: For most purposes in this section, the derivation of the effective

150: neutrino mass in the presence of the solar neutrino background  

151: can be made in a model independent way  using the neutrino mass 

152: $m_\nu$ as the dynamical field (without making explicit use of the 

153: dependence of $m_\nu$ on  the acceleron field ${\cal A}$). 

154: 

155: In this approach  at low energies the effective 

156: Lagrangian for $m_\nu$ is   

157: \begin{equation} 

158: \mathcal{L}= m_\nu \bar\nu^c

159: \nu + 

160: V_{tot}(m_\nu) \, ,

161: \end{equation}

162: where 

163: $V_{tot}(m_\nu)=V_\nu(m_\nu)+V_0(m_\nu)$ contains the contribution to the 

164: energy density both from the neutrinos as well as from the scalar potential. 

165: The condition of minimization of $V_{tot}$ determines the physical 

166: neutrino mass.

167: 

168: The contribution of a neutrino background to the energy density is given by 

169: \begin{equation} 

170: V_\nu = 

171: \int

172: \frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3} {\sqrt{k^2 + m_\nu^2}}\ f(k)\ ,

173: \label{eq:deltav}

174: \end{equation} 

175: where $f(k)$ is the sum of the neutrino and antineutrino

176: occupation numbers for momentum $k$. $V_\nu$ receives contribution 

177: from the cosmological Big Bang remnant neutrinos as well as from 

178: any other neutrinos that might be present in the medium. Thus in general

179: \begin{equation}

180: \label{Vnu}

181: V_{\nu}(m_\nu) = 

182: V_{C\nu B} + V_{\nu, \rm medium}

183: = 

184: m_\nu \ n^{C\nu B} + V_{\nu, \rm medium}\, ,

185: \end{equation}

186: where we have used that in the present epoch relic neutrinos are 

187: non relativistic. $n^{C\nu B}=112$ cm$^{-3}$  for each neutrino species.

188: In 

189: %general for 

190: a medium like the Sun, which

191: contains an additional background of  relativistic neutrinos, 

192: $V_{\nu,\rm medium}$  is given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:deltav}).

193: Notice that in writing Eq.~(\ref{eq:deltav}) we have neglected 

194: the possible dependance of the neutrino mass on the ordinary matter 

195: density, mediated by the acceleron field~\cite{dark2}. In the language 

196: of~\cite{dark2}, this implies that we are assuming that $\lambda_{B} \ll 

197: 10^{-3}$, where  $\lambda_{B}$ is the coupling of the scalar field with 

198: baryonic matter.

199: 

200: Thus in the Sun, the condition of minimum of the effective potential 

201: reads

202: \begin{equation}

203: \frac{\partial V_{tot}(m_\nu)}{\partial m_\nu}\rfloor_{m_\nu} = 0

204: \quad \Rightarrow 

205: \quad  V'_0(m_\nu) +n^{C\nu B}(1+ m_\nu \,A)=0 \, ,

206: \label{eq:minimization}

207: \end{equation}

208: where we have defined the average inverse energy parameter normalized

209: to the CMB neutrino density

210: \begin{equation}

211: A\equiv 

212: \frac{1} {n^{C\nu B}} 

213: \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{\sqrt{k^2 + m_\nu^2}} \,

214: f_{\rm Sun}(k)\, .

215: \label{eq:a}

216: \end{equation} 

217: 

218: In the SSM the 

219: distribution of relativistic electron neutrino sources 

220: in the Sun is assumed to be spherically symmetric and it

221: is described in terms of radial distributions $p_i(r)$  

222: for $i=pp$, $^7$Be, $N$, $O$, $pep$, $F$, and $^8$B fluxes.  

223: As a consequence, the density of neutrinos in the Sun 

224: is only a function of the distance from the center of the Sun, $x$. 

225: It is computed integrating over the contributions at point $x$ due to the

226: neutrinos isotropically emitted by each point source, as:

227: \begin{equation}

228: n^{\rm Sun} (x) ~=~ \sum_i K_i \frac{2\pi}{x} \int dr ~ r ~

229: \log \frac{x+r}{|x-r|}p_i(r)~.

230: \label{eq:density2}

231: \end{equation}

232: $K_i$  are constants determined by normalization  

233: to the observed neutrino fluxes at the location of the Earth as:  

234: \begin{eqnarray}

235: n^{\rm Sun} (x) ~&=&

236: ~ \sum_i 

237: \frac{(1 AU)^2}{2 R_\odot ^2} 

238: \frac{1}{x}~\frac{\Phi_{\nu,i}}{c} \int d r ~ 4\pi 

239:  r ~\log \frac{x+ r}{|x- r|}   p_i( r)\nonumber\\

240: &=&

241: 4.6 \times 10^4\, {\rm cm^{-3}}\,

242: \frac{1}{x} \sum_i \alpha_i\int d r ~ 4\pi 

243:  r ~\log \frac{x+ r}{|x- r|}   p_i( r)\, .

244: \label{eq:density7}

245: \end{eqnarray}

246: Both $r$ and $z$ are given in units of $R_\odot$ 

247: so $\int_0^1 4\pi r^2 p_i(r)=1$ and $\alpha_i=\Phi_{\nu,i}/\Phi_{\nu,pp}$.

248: We use in our calculations the fluxes from 

249: Bahcall, Serenelli and Basu 2005

250: BS05(OP)~\cite{BS05}, 

251:  and the corresponding production point distributions

252: $p_i(r)$~\cite{jnbwebpage}.

253:  

254: Altogether we get the density of relativistic

255: neutrinos in the Sun shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:nudens}. 

256: As seen in the figure the neutrino density is maximum at the center of

257: the Sun where it reaches $2.2\times 10^7$/cm$^3$.

258: It decreases by over two orders of magnitude at 

259: the edge of the Sun.

260: 

261: Correspondingly we find their average inverse energy parameter normalized

262: to the CMB neutrino density (\ref{eq:a})

263: \begin{equation}

264: A(x)~=~ 0.00186~{\rm eV^{-1}}\, \frac{1} {x} ~\sum ~f_i~ 

265: \int d r ~ 4\pi 

266:  r ~\log \frac{x+ r}{|x-r|}~  p_i( r) \; ,

267: \label{eq:asun}

268: \end{equation}

269: where we have used 

270: \begin{equation}

271: \int dE \frac{1}{E}  \frac{d\Phi_{pp}}{dE}(E)= 

272: 2.7 \times 10^{5} {\rm cm^{-2} s^{-1} eV^{-1}}\, , 

273: \end{equation}

274: and $f_i= \frac{\int dE \frac{1}{E}

275: ~\frac{d \Phi_{\nu,i}}{dE}}{\int dE \frac{1}{E}

276: ~\frac{d \Phi_{\nu,pp}}{dE}}=2.3\times 10^{-2},2\times 10^{-3},

277:  1\times 10^{-3},3.6\times 10^{-4},2.7\times 10^{-5}$, and $

278: 4\times 10^{-6}$ give the small relative contribution from 

279: the $^7$Be, $N$, $O$, $pep$, $F$, and $^8$B fluxes.  

280: In deriving Eq.(\ref{eq:asun}) we have neglected the neutrino mass 

281: with respect to its characteristic energy in the Sun.

282: 

283: In Fig.~\ref{fig:nudens} we plot the factor $A(x)$ in    

284: Eq.(\ref{eq:asun}). As seen in the figure 

285: $A(x)\sim {\cal O}(1)$ eV$^{-1}$ in the region of maximum density,

286: as expected, since $A \sim (n^{\rm sun}/n^{C\nu B} )(1/\langle E_\nu\rangle)$

287: with  $\langle E_\nu\rangle\sim 0.1$~MeV being the characteristic

288: $pp$ neutrino energy.  The size of $A$ is what makes the effect so

289: relevant for solar neutrinos. Let us comment that Eq.(\ref{eq:asun})

290: is obtained under the approximation

291: that the energy spectrum of the neutrinos is independent

292: of the production point. This is a very good approximation since

293: the temperature inside the production region is known to vary

294: only within a factor $\sim 3$ ($T\sim$ 5--15 $10^{6} K$) 

295: which corresponds to energy variations 

296: of the order of keV. An extreme upper bound to the expected corrections

297: due to departures from this approximation can be obtained from 

298: the results of Ref.~\cite{jb91}. In that work the shapes of the 

299: different neutrino spectra in the solar interior and in the 

300: laboratory were compared and the corrections found were of the order

301: ${\cal O}(10^{-5})$ for beta decay neutrino spectra and at most 1\% 

302: for the pp neutrino spectrum.

303: 

304: 

305: 

306: \begin{figure}[ht]

307: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{nudens_bs05.ps}

308: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{a_bs05.ps}

309: \caption{Density of relativistic neutrinos in the Sun 

310: and the corresponding $A$ factor as a function of the 

311: distance from the center of the Sun.}  

312: \label{fig:nudens}

313: \end{figure}

314: 

315: Solving Eq.~(\ref{eq:minimization}) with the $A(x)$ term above 

316: one finds the effective value 

317: of the  neutrino mass as a function of the solar neutrino density,

318: while the vacuum neutrino mass $m_\nu^0$ can be found from

319: the corresponding condition outside of any non-relic neutrino 

320: background

321: \begin{equation}

322: \frac{\partial V_{tot}(m^0_\nu)}{\partial m_\nu}\rfloor_{m_\nu^0} = 0

323: \quad \Rightarrow 

324: \quad  V'_0(m^0_\nu) +n^{C\nu B}=0 \, .

325: \label{eq:minimization0}

326: \end{equation}

327: It is clear from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:minimization}) and (\ref{eq:minimization0})

328: that the precise shift induced in the neutrino mass by the presence of

329: an additional neutrino density depends on the exact form of the 

330: scalar potential $V_0(m_\nu)$. In general one can parametrize the 

331: scalar potential as

332: \begin{equation}

333: V_{0}(m_\nu) = \Lambda^4 \ f\left(\frac{m_\nu}{\mu} \right)\, , 

334: \end{equation}

335: factoring out an overall scale $\Lambda^4$ 

336: which would set the scale of the

337: cosmological constant in a

338: standard scenario and a function $f$ which

339: depends on the dimensionless ratio $m_\nu/\mu$, where $\mu$ is an

340: accessory mass scale which will have no particular role for our discussion.

341:  

342: The observation that  the equation of state for the dark energy, 

343: \begin{displaymath}

344: \omega +1 = -\frac{m^0_\nu \ V'_{0}(m^0_\nu)}{V_{tot}(m^0_\nu)}\, ,

345: \end{displaymath}

346: must  have $\omega \approx -1$  

347: (e.g. $-1.21 <\omega < -0.88$ at 68\% c.l. 

348: combining the cosmological data sets~\cite{omega})

349: implies that the scalar potential must be fairly flat

350: \begin{equation}

351: \frac{dV_{0}(m_\nu)}{dm_\nu} \ll 1 \, .

352: \label{eq:flatness}

353: \end{equation}

354: Furthermore Eq.~(\ref{eq:minimization0}) implies 

355: \begin{equation}

356: \frac{dV_{0}(m_\nu)}{dm_\nu} <0\, ,

357: \label{eq:mono}

358: \end{equation}

359: this is,  the potential must be a monotonically decreasing

360: function of $m_\nu$. 

361: 

362: Given the requirements (\ref{eq:flatness}) and (\ref{eq:mono}) 

363: three suitable paradigmatic 

364: forms of the function $f(m_\nu/\mu)$ have been proposed

365: \cite{dark1, cosmo consequences}.\\

366: %\begin{itemize}

367: %\item {\bf logarithm} 

368: (i) A {\it logarithmic} form

369: \begin{equation} f

370: \left(\frac{m_\nu}{\mu}\right) =

371: \log\left(\frac{\mu}{m_\nu} \right).

372: \end{equation}

373: In this case  from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:minimization}) and (\ref{eq:minimization0})

374: one gets the equation for the neutrino mass shift

375: \begin{equation}

376: m_\nu-m^0_\nu=-A\ m^2_\nu 

377: \label{eq:logeq}

378: \end{equation}

379: whose solution in the  limit of small  $A$ is

380: \begin{equation}

381: m_\nu = m^0_\nu -A (m^0_\nu)^2 + \ldots 

382: \label{eq:logsolution}

383: \end{equation}

384: Eq.~(\ref{eq:logeq}) shows explicitly that  the relative shift

385: in the neutrino mass due to the additional neutrino background 

386: $(m_\nu-m^0_\nu)/m_\nu$ grows in magnitude with the neutrino mass scale.

387: %

388: 

389: %\item {\bf power law} 

390: \noindent (ii) A {\it power law} with a small fractionally power 

391: \begin{equation}

392: f\left(\frac{m_\nu}{\mu}\right) =

393: \left(\frac{m_\nu}{\mu}\right)^{-\alpha} \qquad  (\alpha >0) .

394: \end{equation}

395: The condition $\omega

396: \approx -1$ implies $\alpha \ll 1 $ and one gets

397: \begin{equation}

398: m_\nu-(m^0_\nu)^{\alpha+1}m_\nu^{-\alpha}=-A\ m^2_\nu  \, ,

399: \end{equation} 

400: which for  $\alpha \ll 1$ is the same as Eq.(\ref{eq:logeq}).

401: %

402: 

403: %\item {\bf inverse exponential} 

404: \noindent(iii) An {\it inverse exponential}

405: \begin{equation} f\left(\frac{m_\nu}{\mu}\right) =

406: e^{\frac{\mu}{m_\nu}}\, , 

407: \end{equation} 

408: implies 

409: \begin{equation} 

410: m_\nu -m^0_\nu \left( \frac{m^0_\nu}{m_\nu} \exp \left[-\frac{\omega +

411: 1}{\omega}\left(\frac{m^0_\nu}{m_\nu}-1\right)\right] \right) =-A\

412: m^2_\nu \, ,

413: \end{equation}

414: which in the limit $\omega \rightarrow -1$ gives a cubic

415: equation in $m_\nu$ 

416: \begin{equation} m_\nu^2 - (m^0_\nu)^2 = -A\ m_\nu^3 \, , 

417: \end{equation} 

418: whose exact solution for small $A$ is 

419: \begin{equation} m_\nu 

420: =m^0_\nu -\frac{A}{2} (m^0_\nu)^2 + \ldots \ , 

421: \end{equation}

422: to be compared with Eq.(\ref{eq:logsolution}).

423: %\end{itemize}

424: 

425: In summary within choices of the scalar potential which verify 

426: the conditions of flatness and monotony the relative shift in the neutrino

427: mass value due to the solar neutrino density background grows

428: with the neutrino mass while  

429: the exact value of the shift is only moderately model dependent. 

430: 

431: \section{Mass Varying Neutrino Oscillations in the Sun}

432: \label{sec:osc}

433: %

434: %So far, 

435: The discussion in the previous section applies to one 

436: neutrino species. In order to determine the effect of the

437: scenario on the solar neutrino oscillations we need to 

438: extend it to two or more neutrinos. This rises the issue of 

439: how many neutrino states do acquire a contribution to their mass

440: via the coupling to the acceleron field. In principle with 

441: one acceleron field, only one combination of the different 

442: $m_{\nu_i}\equiv m_i$ has to be taken to be the dynamical field 

443: for the purpose of analyzing the minimal energy density.

444: 

445: Notwithstanding, in the following discussion we are going to 

446: assume that all neutrinos acquire a contribution to their mass via the

447: couplings to the dark sector and that such contributions 

448: are independent\footnote{A trivial realization of such scenario 

449: is to introduce several stable acceleron fields which couple independently

450: to the different neutrino states.}. 

451: 

452: In this case we can simply write the effective Lagrangian for

453: the neutrinos as

454: \begin{equation} 

455: \mathcal{L}= \sum_i m_i \bar\nu^c_{i}

456: \nu_{i} + \sum_i\left[ m_i \ n^{C\nu B}_i + V_{\nu_i, \rm medium}

457: + V_0(m_i)\right]\, , 

458: \end{equation}

459: and the condition of minimum of the effective potential 

460: implies that it has to be  verified that  

461: \begin{equation}

462: \frac{dV_0(m_i)}{dm_i}+ 

463: n^{C\nu B}_i + m_i\int 

464: \frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{\sqrt{k^2 + m_i^2}} 

465: f_{\rm Sun,i}(k)=0\, ,

466: \label{eq:min3}

467: \end{equation}

468: for each $m_i$ independently. Under this assumption, the coupling

469: to the dark sector leads to a shift of the neutrino masses but does

470: not alter the leptonic flavour structure which is determined either

471: by other non-dark contributions to the neutrino mass or from 

472: the charged lepton sector of the theory. We will go back to this point 

473: after presenting the results.

474: 

475: For the sake of concreteness we will present our results on  

476: solar neutrinos oscillations for the case of a logarithmic 

477: potential $V_0(m_i)=\Lambda^4\log\left(\mu/m_i\right)$. 

478: In this case Eqs.(\ref{eq:min3}) lead to  

479: three (one for each neutrino) independent equations for the mass shifts

480: \begin{equation}  

481: (m_i-m^0_i)=-m_i^2~ A_i\, , 

482: \end{equation}

483: where 

484: \begin{equation}

485: A_i=\frac{1} {n^{C\nu B}_i} 

486: \int \frac{d^3 k}{(2\pi)^3} \frac{1}{\sqrt{k^2 + m_i^2}} \,

487: f_{\rm Sun,i}(k) \, .

488: \end{equation}

489: So even in this case of no leptonic mixing from the scalar potential, 

490: there is a generation dependence of the $A$ factor from the flavour

491: dependence of the background neutrino density.

492: 

493: We assume that all massive neutrinos have the

494: same contribution to the cosmic density,  

495: $n^{C\nu B}_i=112$ cm$^{-3}$ for all $i$. 

496: In this case the generation dependence comes from the fact

497: that in the Sun only  $\nu_e$'s are produced. Using the standard labeling of

498: the massive neutrino states and neglecting $\theta_{13}$ 

499: we find only the states $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$ 

500: have their masses modified by the presence of the solar 

501: neutrino background as given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:logeq}) with  

502: \begin{equation}

503: \begin{array}{l}

504: n_1(x)~=~\cos^2\theta^V_{12}~n_{\nu_e}(x)~\Rightarrow~ A_1(x)~=

505: ~\cos^2\theta^V_{12}~ A(x)\, ,\\

506: n_2(x)~=~\sin^2\theta^V_{12}~n_{\nu_e}(x)~\Rightarrow~ 

507: A_2(x)~=~\sin^2\theta^V_{12}~ A(x)\, ,

508: \end{array}

509: \end{equation} 

510: where $\theta^V_{12}$ is the vacuum mixing angle and $A(x)$ is

511: given in Eq.(\ref{eq:asun}). 

512: 

513: Altogether this implies that the effective ``kinetic'' (we label it

514: kinetic to make it explicit that it does not contain the MSW potential) 

515: mass difference in the Sun is

516: \begin{equation}

517: \Delta m^2_{\rm kin}(x)= m^2_2(x)-m_1^2(x)\simeq 

518: \Delta m^2_{21,0}[1- 3 A_2(x) m_{01}] + 2 [A_1(x)-A_2(x)] m_{01}^3 +\dots

519: \label{eq:deltam}

520: \end{equation}

521: where, for clarity, we have given the explicit expression when 

522: expanded in powers of $A(x)$ and the neutrino mass scale $m_{01}$.

523: $\Delta m^2_{21,0}=m_{02}^2-m_{01}^2$ and

524: $\theta^V_{12}$ are ``vacuum'' mass difference and mixing angle. 

525: These are the parameters measured with reactor antineutrinos at KamLAND

526: \footnote{We estimate an $A$ factor from the background density of 

527: reactor antineutrino and geoneutrinos to be of the order of 

528: ${\cal O}(10^{-11}{\rm eV}^{-1})$. This includes geoneutrinos from 

529: radioactive elements yielding (anti)neutrinos that are under 

530: the threshold of running experiments but actually give the dominant 

531: contribution to this $A$ factor.}. 

532: In Fig.~\ref{fig:prob} we plot the effective $\Delta m^2_{\rm kin}(x)$ 

533: as a function of the distance from the center of the Sun for different

534: values of the neutrino mass scale $m_{01}$. In this figure, and it what

535: follows the results with  $m_{01}=0$  are obtained by zeroing the

536: dark-energy contributions so $\Delta m^2_{\rm kin}(x)=\Delta m^2_{21,0}$. 

537: Strictly speaking our derivation of $\Delta m^2_{\rm kin}(x)$ assumes

538: that all CMB neutrinos are non-relativistic in the present epoch,

539: an assumption which does not hold for the lightest neutrino if $m_{01}=0$.

540: But as long as the behaviour is continuous, the contribution 

541: will be negligible small for this case.

542:  

543: From Eq.(\ref{eq:deltam}) we read that, as long as the different massive

544: neutrinos have different projections over $\nu_e$ ($A_1\neq A_2$),  

545: $\Delta m^2_{\rm kin}(x)$ receives a contribution from the solar 

546: neutrino background which rapidly grows with the neutrino mass scale 

547: $m_{01}$. For the particular scenario that we are studying 

548: $A_1(x)-A_2(x)=\cos 2\theta^V_{12}\, A(x)>0$ so

549: the effective kinetic mass splitting is positive and 

550: larger than the vacuum one in the resonant side for neutrinos .

551: 

552: \begin{figure}[ht]

553: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{dmdark_bs05.ps}

554: \includegraphics[width=3.2in]{darkprob.ps}

555: \caption{(Left) Effective mass difference in the Sun.

556: (Right) Survival probability of solar $\nu_e$'s as a function

557: of the neutrino energy. This survival probability has been 

558: obtained for neutrinos produced around $x=0.05$ as it is characteristic

559: of $^8$B neutrinos.}

560: \label{fig:prob}

561: \end{figure}

562: 

563: Next we evaluate the corresponding survival probability for solar 

564: MaVaNs  by solving the evolution  equations 

565: \begin{equation}  

566: i{\displaystyle\frac{d}{dx}}  

567: \left( \begin{array}{c} \nu_e \\ \nu_\mu

568:  \end{array} \right) 

569: =  

570: \left[ \frac{1}{2E}\, U 

571: \left(\begin{array}{cc} 0 & 0 \\

572: 0 & \Delta m_{\rm kin}^2 (x)

573: \end{array} \right) 

574: U^\dagger +

575: \left( \begin{array}{cc} 

576: V(x) & 0 \\

577: 0 & 0 

578: \end{array} \right) \right]

579: \left( \begin{array}{c} 

580: \nu_e \\ \nu_\mu 

581: \end{array} \right).

582: \label{eq:evol} 

583: \end{equation}

584: where $V(x)=\sqrt{2} \,G_F N_e(x)$ is the MSW potential~\cite{MSW}.

585: We need not include MSW-like modifications 

586: induced by an effective one loop coupling neutrino-electron 

587: mediated by the acceleron, because these can be seen to be 

588: negligibly small under mild assumptions, as discussed 

589: in~\cite{dark1,dark2}. 

590: $U$ is the mixing matrix of angle $\theta^V_{12}$. We solve

591: this equation by numerical integration  along the neutrino trajectory.

592: However in most of the parameter space the evolution of the neutrino

593: system is adiabatic and the survival probability is very well reproduced

594: by the standard formula

595: \begin{equation}

596: P_{ee}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2} \cos2\tilde\theta_{12,0}\cos2\theta^V_{12}\, ,

597: \end{equation}

598: where $\tilde\theta_{12,0}$ is the effective mixing angle at the neutrino

599: production point $x_0$. It includes both the effect of the point dependent

600: kinetic mass splitting  as well as the effect of the MSW potential. 

601: \begin{equation}

602: \cos2\tilde\theta_{12,0}=

603: \frac{\Delta m^2_{\rm kin}(x_0)\cos 2\theta^V_{12}-A_{\rm MSW}(x_0)}

604: {\sqrt{(\Delta m^2_{\rm kin}(x_0)\cos 2\theta^V_{12}-A_{\rm MSW}(x_0))^2

605: +(\Delta m^2_{\rm kin}(x_0)\sin 2\theta^V_{12})^2}}

606: \label{eq:mixing}

607: \end{equation}

608: where $A_{\rm MSW}(x_0)=2 E V(x_0)$.

609: 

610: We plot in Fig.~\ref{fig:prob} the survival probability as a function

611: of the neutrino energy for $\Delta m^2_{21,0}=8\times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$ and

612: $\tan^2\theta^V_{12}=0.4$ and different values of the neutrino mass

613: scale $m_{01}$.  As can be seen in the figure, due to the different

614: contributions of the solar neutrino background to the two mass

615: eigenstates, the energy dependence of the survival probability is 

616: rapidly damped even for mildly degenerated neutrinos. 

617: As a consequence, in these cases,  it is not  possible to  simultaneously 

618: accommodate the observed event rates in solar neutrino 

619: experiments~\cite{chlorine,sagegno,gallex,sk,sno}

620: and in KamLAND ~\cite{kamland} as we quantify next.

621:  

622: 

623: 

624: \section{Constraints From Solar Neutrino Observables}

625: %

626: \begin{figure}[ht]

627: \includegraphics[width=5.5in]{region.ps}

628: \caption{Allowed regions from the global analysis of solar 

629: and solar plus KamLAND data in the 

630: $(\Delta m^2_{21,0},\tan^2\theta_{12}^V, m_{01})$ parameter space, shown

631: for 4 sections at fixed values of $m_{01}$. 

632: The different contours corresponds to 90\%, 95\%, 99\%, and 3$\sigma$ CL

633: for 3dof. The global minima are marked with a star.} 

634: \label{fig:regions}

635: \end{figure}\label{sec:analysis}

636: 

637: We present in this section the results of the global analysis of

638: solar and KamLAND data in the framework of MaVaNs 

639: for the specific 

640: realization discussed in the previous section. 

641: 

642: Details of our solar neutrino analyses have been described in previous

643: papers~\cite{oursolar,ourkland}. The solar neutrino data we

644: use includes the Gallium~\cite{sagegno,gallex} (averaged to 1 data point)

645: and Chlorine~\cite{chlorine} (1 data point)

646: radiochemical rates, the Super-Kamiokande~\cite{sk} zenith spectrum (44 bins),

647: and SNO data previously reported for phase 1 and phase 2.  The SNO

648: data used consists of the total day-night spectrum

649: measured in the pure D$_2$O phase (34 data points), plus the total

650: charged current (CC, 1 data point), electron scattering (ES, 1 data

651: point), and neutral current (NC, 1 data point) rates measured in the

652: salt phase~\cite{sno}. The main difference with respect to previous

653: analysis is that we use the solar fluxes from 

654: Bahcall, Serenelli and Basu 2005~\cite{BS05} but we still 

655: allow the normalization  of the $^8$B flux to be a free parameter 

656: to be fitted to the data.

657: 

658: The analysis of solar neutrino depends then of 4 parameters

659: $\Delta m^2_{21,0}, \tan^2\theta^V_{12}, m_{01}$, and $f_{\rm B}$

660: (the reduced flux $f_{\rm B}$, is defined as the $^8$B solar neutrino flux

661: divided by the corresponding value predicted by the BS05 standard

662: solar model).

663: 

664: We show in the left panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:regions} the result of the

665: global analysis of solar data in the form of the allowed

666: regions in the 3-dimensional parameter space of 

667: $\Delta m^2_{21,0}, \tan^2\theta^V_{12}, m_{01}$,

668: after marginalization over the  $f_{\rm B}$. 

669: The regions have been defined by the conditions 

670: $\Delta\chi^2_{\rm sol}(\Delta m^2_{21,0},\theta^V_{21},m_{01})\equiv

671: \chi^2_{\rm min,f_{\rm B}}(\Delta m^2_{21,0},\theta^V_{21},m_{01})

672: -\chi^2_{\rm min}\leq \Delta\chi^2 \mbox{(C.L., 3~d.o.f.)}$ , 

673: where $\Delta\chi^2(\mbox{C.L., 3~d.o.f.}) = 6.25$, $7.81$, $11.34$, and

674: $14.16$ for C.L.~= 90\%, 95\%, 99\% and 99.73\% ($3\sigma$)

675: respectively, and $\chi^2_{\rm min}$ 

676: is the global minimum which is

677: obtained for the totally hierarchical case $m_{01}=0$ eV and

678: $\Delta m^2_{21,0}=6.9\times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$, 

679: $\tan^2\theta^V_{12}=0.4$ and $f_{\rm B}=0.92$.

680: 

681: In the figure we plot sections of the 3-dimensional allowed regions 

682: at fixed values of $m_{01}$. As seen in the figure, as $m_{01}$

683: increases the allowed region of the solar analysis shifts to

684: lower values of $\Delta m^2_{21,0}$ to compensate for  the increase of

685: $\Delta m^2_{\rm kin}$ and the fit to solar data worsens.

686: The worsening is driven by two main effects. First, 

687: the increase of the survival probability of $^8$B 

688: neutrinos makes more difficult to accommodate the observed 

689: CC/NC ratio (and CC/ES) at SNO. In principle the CC rate 

690: could be cured by the free $^8$B flux $f_{\rm B}$,  

691: but the NC constrains the allowed values of $f_{\rm B}$.

692: Second, shifting to lower values of $\Delta m^2_{21,0}$  

693: increases the expected day-night asymmetry. This eventually makes

694: the agreement with the data impossible for high enough values of

695: $m_{01}$ since the neutrino density in the Earth is too small

696: to induce any additional effect on the day-night asymmetry. 

697: Consequently, we find that the  3-dimensional region  at 3$\sigma$  

698: extends only to $m_{01}\leq 0.05$ eV.  

699:  

700: It is clear from these results, that the fit for large values of

701: $m_{01}$ will become worse after combination with the KamLAND data. 

702: In the present framework the analysis of KamLAND only depends on the 

703: ``vacuum'' parameters $\Delta m^2_{21,0}$ and $\tan^2\theta^V_{21}$.

704: We include here the results of a likelihood analysis  

705: to the unbinned KamLAND data~\cite{klandhp}. Details of this

706: analysis will be presented elsewhere~\cite{carloskland}.

707: 

708: We show in the right panels of Fig.~\ref{fig:regions} the result of the

709: combined analysis of solar plus KamLAND. 

710: The global minimum is obtained for the totally hierarchical 

711: case $m_{01}=0$ eV and $\Delta m^2_{21,0}=7.9\times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$, 

712: $\tan^2\theta^V_{12}=0.4$ and $f_{\rm B}=0.90$.

713: As seen in the figure as $m_{01}$ increases the allowed region becomes

714: smaller. As a matter of fact, due to the shift of the solar region to

715: lower values of $\Delta m^2_{21,0}$, the local best fit point of the 

716: combined analysis moves to the  LMA0 region~\cite{carlosnsi} 

717: for ``intermediate'' values of $m_{01}\sim {\cal O}(10^{-2})$ eV.  

718: In other words, for

719: those values, LMA0 becomes less disfavoured than in the hierarchical

720: case. For example for $m_{01}=0$ the LMA0 region lies at

721: $\Delta\chi^2=37.5$, which implies that it would be part of

722: the 3-dim allowed region at 5.5$\sigma$, while for $m_{01}=0.01$ eV the 

723: LMA0 region  lies at $\Delta\chi^2=15.3$ and it would be part of the 

724: 3-dim region at  allowed at 3.15$\sigma$. 

725: 

726: The result of the previous discussion is that generically MaVaN's 

727: imply that the description of solar data worsens with the degree

728: of degeneracy of the neutrinos. In order to quantify this statement

729: in the present scenario, we define the ``degeneracy parameter'', 

730: $x_{\rm deg}\equiv\Delta m^2_{21,0}/m^2_{01}$, and study the dependence of 

731: $\chi^2$ on this parameter after marginalization over all others:

732: \begin{equation}

733: \Delta\chi^2_{\rm sol(glob)}(x_{\rm deg})=

734: {\rm min}\chi^2_{\rm sol(glo)}(\Delta m^2_{21,0},\theta_{12}^V,

735: m_{01},f_{\rm B}|x_{\rm deg}=\Delta m^2_{21,0}/m^2_{01})-

736: \chi^2_{\rm min, sol(glob)}\, .

737: \end{equation}

738: %

739: \begin{figure}[ht]

740: \includegraphics[width=4in]{deg.ps}

741: \caption{Dependence of $\Delta\chi^2$ on the degeneracy parameter

742: $\Delta m^2_{21,0}/ m_{01}$ from the global analysis of 

743: analysis of solar  and solar plus KamLAND data after marginalization

744: in all other parameters.}  

745: \label{fig:deg}

746: \end{figure}

747: 

748: In Fig.~\ref{fig:deg} we plot  $\Delta\chi^2_{\rm sol(glob)}(x_{\rm deg})$.

749: Within the present bounds on the absolute neutrino 

750: mass~\cite{numass}, 

751: $2\times 10^{-5} \lesssim x_{\rm gen}<\infty$. 

752: As discussed above, we find that for the considered scenario of MaVaN's, 

753: the best fit occurs for hierarchical neutrinos $x_{\rm deg}=\infty$ 

754: while the fit becomes worse as the neutrinos become more degenerate.

755: As seen in the figure, the curve for the solar plus KamLAND analysis 

756: is not monotonic but presents a secondary minimum around 

757: $x_{\rm deg}=0.1$. This is due to

758: the migration of the local best fit point to the LMA0 region for  

759: values of $m_{01}\sim {\cal O}(10^{-2})$ eV. 

760:  

761: Quantitatively, we find  the lower bound at 3$\sigma$:

762: \begin{equation}

763: x_{\rm deg}> 2\times 10^{-2}\, (1) \, ,

764: \end{equation}

765: from the analysis of solar (solar plus KamLAND) data. 

766: In particular, this bound implies that in this scenario 

767: inverted mass ordering is disfavoured since in this

768: case  $m_{01}^2\simeq \Delta m^2_{\rm ATM} \gtrsim 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ 

769: which implies $x_{\rm deg}\lesssim 0.1$. 

770: 

771: Finally we want to comment on the possible model-dependence of these

772: results.  As discussed in the previous sections there are two main 

773: sources of arbitrariness in our derivations: the choice of the functional

774: form of the scalar potential, and the assumption that all neutrinos

775: acquire an independent contribution to their mass via the couplings to

776: the dark sector with no generation mixing.

777: 

778: As shown in our discussion in Sec.~\ref{sec:mass} the choice of the

779: potential may affect the exact form of the equation relating

780: $\Delta m^2_{21,0}$ to $\Delta m^2_{kin}(x)$ but it will not alter

781: the fact that  $\Delta m^2_{kin}(x)$ grows with the neutrino mass

782: scale. In particular choosing a  power law potential 

783: with a small fractionally power $\alpha\ll 1$ yields the same results 

784: while the results for an inverse exponential potential 

785: are very similar but for a slightly higher value of $m_{01}$.

786: 

787: Concerning the assumption of no generation mixing from the dark sector

788: contribution to the neutrino mass, its effect can be understood as

789: follows.  In general, if the couplings to the dark sector are not

790: ``mass--diagonal'' they will induce an additional source of rotation

791: between the flavour eigenstates and the effective mass

792: eigenstates. This would imply that the mixing angle in

793: Eq.(\ref{eq:deltam}) would not be $\theta_{12}^V$ but some

794: $\theta_{12}^{\rm kin}(x)$.  In general the qualitative features of

795: the results will still be valid although the quantitative 

796: bounds will obviously vary.  In particular, the bounds will

797: become tighter if the mixing could be such that the mass eigenstates 

798: were inverted ($\theta_{12}^{\rm kin}(x)> \pi/4$).  

799: 

800: A possible exception to this general argument would be the special

801: case in which the flavour structure of the potential is such that

802: $A_2(x)\simeq A_1(x)$ without a substantial modification of

803: $\theta_{12}$. In this case the $A_2(x)-A_1(x)$ term in

804: Eq.~(\ref{eq:deltam}) would be suppressed and the shift on $\Delta

805: m^2$ would be small even for $m_{01}\sim 2$ eV. This would imply $\Delta

806: m^2_{kin}(x)<\Delta m^2_{21,0}$, this effect being mostly relevant for

807: neutrinos which are produced nearer the center of the Sun.  As a

808: consequence the survival probability for $^7$B neutrinos can be

809: slightly lower and a slightly better fit to the data could be

810: achieved.  

811: 

812: Summarizing, in this work we have studied the phenomenological 

813: consequences of the dependence of MaVaNs  on the neutrino density 

814: in the Sun. We have evaluated the density profile of neutrinos in the 

815: Sun in the SSM and the expected size of the neutrino mass shift

816: induced for different forms of the scalar potential.  We find that 

817: generically these scenarios establish a connection between the 

818: effective mass splitting in the Sun and the absolute neutrino mass scale.

819: We have analyzed the quantitative consequences of this effect, by

820: performing a global analysis to solar and KamLAND data for a particular

821: realization of this mechanism. Our results show that the description of solar 

822: neutrino data worsens for large neutrino mass scale and an upper

823: bound on the absolute neutrino mass scale can be derived. 

824: Equivalently, we derive  a lower bound on the level of degeneracy

825: $\Delta m^2_{21,0}/m^2_{01}> 2\times 10^{-2}\, 

826: (1)$ from the analysis of solar (solar plus KamLAND) data. 

827: A straightforward consequence of this is that 

828: normal mass orderings are favoured over inverse mass orderings.    

829: 

830: These results, in combination with a positive determination of the 

831: absolute neutrino mass scale from independent means, can be used

832: as a test of these scenarios. Ultimately, these scenarios will

833: be tested by the precise determination of the energy dependence of 

834: the survival probability  of solar neutrinos, in particular

835: for low energies~\cite{lowe,oursolar}. 

836: 

837: 

838: \acknowledgments

839: We thank John Bahcall, Maurizio Piai, Aldo Serenelli, and 

840: Neal Weiner for useful conversations. We are particularly indebted to

841: A. Serenelli for discussions on the detailed production point

842: distributions of neutrinos in the BS05 model.

843: The work of M.C. is supported in part by the

844: USA Department of Energy under contract DE-FG02-92ER-40704.

845: CPG acknowledges support from the Keck Foundation and 

846: NSF grant No.~PHY0354776.

847: MCG-G is supported by  National Science Foundation

848: grant PHY0098527 and by Spanish Grant No FPA-2004-00996.

849: 

850:  

851: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

852: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

853: \bibitem{dark1} R.~Fardon, A.~E.~Nelson and N.~Weiner,

854: %``Dark energy from mass varying neutrinos,''

855: JCAP {\bf 0410}, 005 (2004)

856: [astro-ph/0309800]. 

857: See also

858:  P.~Gu, X.~Wang and X.~Zhang,

859:   %``Dark energy and neutrino mass limits from baryogenesis,''

860:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 68}, 087301 (2003)

861:   [hep-ph/0307148].

862:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0307148;%%

863: %

864: %

865: \bibitem{cosmo consequences}

866: R.~D.~Peccei,

867: %``Neutrino models of dark energy,''

868: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71}, 023527 (2005)

869: [hep-ph/0411137]; 

870: %

871: P.~Q.~Hung and H.~Pas, 

872: %``Cosmo MSW effect for mass varying neutrinos,''

873: [astro-ph/0311131];

874: %

875: X.~J.~Bi, P.~h.~Gu, X.~l.~Wang and X.~m.~Zhang,

876:   %``Thermal leptogenesis in a model with mass varying neutrinos,''

877:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 69}, 113007 (2004)

878:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0311022];

879:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0311022;%%

880: %

881: X.~J.~Bi, B.~Feng, H.~Li and X.~m.~Zhang,

882:   %``Cosmological evolution of interacting dark energy models with mass varying

883:   %neutrinos,''

884:   arXiv:hep-ph/0412002;

885:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0412002;%%

886: %

887: P.~h.~Gu and X.~j.~Bi,

888:   %``Leptogenesis with triplet Higgs boson,''

889:   Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 70}, 063511 (2004)

890:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0405092].

891:   %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0405092;%%

892: %

893: %

894: \bibitem{dark2}

895: D.~B.~Kaplan, A.~E.~Nelson and N.~Weiner,

896: %``Neutrino oscillations as a probe of dark energy,''

897: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 93}, 091801 (2004)

898: [hep-ph/0401099].

899: %

900: %

901: \bibitem{Zurek}

902: K.~M.~Zurek,

903: %``New matter effects in neutrino oscillation experiments,''

904: JHEP {\bf 0410}, 058 (2004)

905: [arXiv:hep-ph/0405141].

906: %

907: \bibitem{Barger}

908: V.~Barger, P.~Huber and D.~Marfatia,

909: %``Solar mass-varying neutrino oscillations,''

910: [arXiv:hep-ph/0502196.]

911: %

912: \bibitem{chlorine}

913: B.T. Cleveland et al., 

914: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 496} (1998) 505.

915: %

916: \bibitem{sagegno}C. Cattadori, {\it Results from radiochemical solar neutrino

917: experiments}, talk at XXIst International Conference on Neutrino

918: Physics and Astrophysics (NU2004), Paris, June 14--19, 2004.

919: %

920: \bibitem{gallex}GALLEX collaboration, 

921: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B 447} (1999) 127.

922: %

923: \bibitem{sk}Super-Kamiokande Collaboration,

924: S.~Fukuda et al., 

925: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86} (2001) 5651.

926: %

927: \bibitem{sno} SNO Collaboration, Q.R. Ahmad et al., 

928: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 87} (2001) 071301;

929: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89} (2002); 

930: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89} (2002) 011302;

931: SNO Collaboration, S.N.~Ahmed et al., 

932: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 92} (2004), 181301.

933: %

934: \bibitem{kamland} 

935: KamLAND Collaboration, T.~Araki {\it et al.},

936:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 94}, 081801 (2005), hep-ex/0406035;

937: KamLAND Collaboration, K.~Eguchi {\it et al.},

938:   Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 90}  (2003) 021802, hep-ex/0212021.

939: %

940: \bibitem{klandhp}

941: http://www.awa.tohoku.ac.jp/KamLAND/datarelease/2ndresult.html

942: %

943: \bibitem{BS05} 

944: J.~N.~Bahcall, A.~M.~Serenelli and S.~Basu,

945:   %``New solar opacities, abundances, helioseismology, and neutrino fluxes,''

946:   Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 621}, L85 (2005)

947:   [arXiv:astro-ph/0412440].

948:   %%CITATION = ASTRO-PH 0412440;%%

949: %

950: \bibitem{jnbwebpage}

951: http://www.sns.ias.edu/$\sim$jnb

952: %

953: \bibitem{jb91}

954: J.~N.~Bahcall, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D 44},1644 (1991).

955: %

956: \bibitem{omega}

957: A.~G.~Riess {\it et al.}  [Supernova Search Team Collaboration],

958:   %``Type Ia Supernova Discoveries at z>1 From the Hubble Space Telescope:

959:   %Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark Energy Evolution,''

960:   Astrophys.\ J.\  {\bf 607}, 665 (2004)

961:   [astro-ph/0402512].

962: %

963: \bibitem{MSW}

964: L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 17}, 2369 (1078).

965: Mikheyev, S.P., and A.Y. Smirnov, 

966: Yad. Fiz. {\bf 42}, 1441 (1985) [Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 42}, 913 (1985)].

967: %

968: %\bibitem{adiab}

969: %H.~A.~Bethe,  Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 56}, 1305 (1986);

970: %S.~J.~Parke, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\  {\bf 57}, 1275 (1986).

971: %

972: \bibitem{oursolar}

973: J.N. Bahcall, M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia and C. Pe\~na-Garay,

974: %{\it Solar neutrinos before and after KamLAND}, 

975: JHEP {\bf 02} (2003) 009 [hep-ph/0212147];

976: J.N.~Bahcall and C.~Pe\~na-Garay, 

977: %{\it Global analyses as a road map to solar neutrino fluxes and 

978: %oscillation parameters}, 

979: JHEP. {\bf 11} (2003) 004.

980: %

981: \bibitem{ourkland}

982: J.~N.~Bahcall, M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia and C.~Pena-Garay,

983: %``Solar neutrinos before and after KamLAND,''

984:   JHEP {\bf 0302}, 009 (2003)

985: %

986: \bibitem{carloskland}

987:  C.~Pena-Garay and A. Ianni in preparation.

988: %

989: \bibitem{carlosnsi}

990:  A.~Friedland, C.~Lunardini and C.~Pena-Garay,

991:   %``Solar neutrinos as probes of neutrino - matter interactions,''

992:   Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 594}, 347 (2004)

993:   [arXiv:hep-ph/0402266].

994: %

995: \bibitem{numass}

996: J.~Bonn, {\em et al.}, 

997: Nucl.\, Phys.\, Proc.\, Suppl.\, {\bf 91}, 273 (2001);

998: V.~M.~Lobashev, {\em et al.}

999: Nucl.\, Phys.\, Proc.\, Suppl.\, {\bf 91}, 280 (2001);

1000: H.~V.~Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, {\em et al.},

1001: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ A {\bf 12}, 147 (2001).

1002: %

1003: \bibitem{lowe} 

1004: {\it Low Energy Solar Neutrino Detection (LowNu2)},

1005: ed. by Y. Suzuki, M. Nakahata, and S. Moriyama, World Scientific,

1006: River Edge, NJ, 2001.

1007: 

1008: \end{thebibliography}

1009: 

1010: \end{document}