1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \textheight=24 true cm
3: \textwidth=16.5 true cm
4: \oddsidemargin=-0.5cm
5: \topmargin=-.8in
6: \usepackage{graphicx}
7: \usepackage{psfig}
8: \usepackage{epsf}
9: %\usepackage{axodraw}
10: \usepackage{amssymb}
11: %\usepackage{rotate}
12: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.4}
13: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{array}}
14: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{array}}
15: \newcommand{\bd}{\begin{displaymath}}
16: \newcommand{\ed}{\end{displaymath}}
17: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
18: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
19: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
20: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
21: \newcommand{\Rsl}{{\not \! \!{R}}}
22:
23: % Bra-Kets:
24: \def\bra{\langle}
25: \def\ket{\rangle}
26:
27:
28: \def\ltap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$<$}}
29: \def\gtap{\raisebox{-.4ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}} \raisebox{.4ex}{$>$}}
30:
31: % Greek letters:
32: \def\a{\alpha}
33: \def\b{\beta}
34: \def\g{\gamma}
35: \def\d{\delta}
36: \def\e{\epsilon}
37: \def\ve{\varepsilon}
38: \def\l{\lambda}
39: \def\m{\mu}
40: \def\n{\nu}
41:
42: %\def\l {\bf }
43: \def\dis{\displaystyle}
44: \def\ie {{\em i.e.,\ }}
45: \def\eg {{\em e.g.,\ }}
46: \def\etal {{\em et al.,\ }}
47: \def\th13 {\theta_{13}}
48: \def\enu {E_{\bar\nu}}
49: \def\en {E_{\nu}}
50: \def\enus {{E_{\bar\nu}^\ast}}
51: \def\ens {{E_{\nu}^\ast}}
52: \def\costh {\cos\theta}
53: \def\cosths {\cos\theta^\ast}
54:
55: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
56: \begin{document}
57: \thispagestyle{empty}
58: \begin{flushright}
59: \texttt{hep-ph/0608034}\\
60: \texttt{HRI-P-06-08-001}\\
61: \texttt{CU-PHYSICS-14/2006}\\
62: \end{flushright}
63: \vskip 15pt
64: %\parindent 0pt
65:
66: \begin{center}
67: {\Large {\bf Can R-parity violating supersymmetry
68: be seen in long baseline beta-beam
69: experiments?}}
70:
71:
72: \vskip 15pt
73: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\alph{footnote}}
74:
75: \large{\bf{
76: Rathin Adhikari $\footnote{E-mail address:
77: rathin\_adhikari@yahoo.com}^{\dagger}$,
78: Sanjib Kumar Agarwalla$\footnote{
79: E-mail address: sanjib@mri.ernet.in}^{\ddagger}$
80: }}\\
81: \large{\bf{ and Amitava
82: Raychaudhuri$^{\ddagger}$}}
83: \end{center}
84: \begin{center}
85: \small$\phantom{i}^{\dagger}${\em Jagadis Bose National Science
86: Talent Search,\\ 1300 Rajdanga Main Road, Kasba, \\
87: Kolkata - 700107, India }\\
88: %{\em and} \\
89: \vskip 10pt
90: \small$\phantom{i}^{\ddagger}${\em Harish-Chandra Research Institute,\\
91: Chhatnag Road, Jhunsi, Allahabad - 211019, India \\
92: and\\
93: Department of Physics,
94: University of Calcutta, \\ Kolkata - 700009, India}
95: \vskip 30pt
96:
97: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
98: {\bf ABSTRACT}
99:
100: \vskip 0.5cm
101:
102: \end{center}
103:
104: Long baseline oscillation experiments may well emerge as test
105: beds for neutrino interactions as are present in R-parity
106: violating supersymmetry. We show that flavour diagonal (FDNC)
107: and flavour changing (FCNC) neutral currents arising therefrom
108: prominently impact a neutrino $\beta$-beam experiment with the
109: source at CERN and the detector at the proposed India-based
110: Neutrino Observatory. These interactions may preclude any
111: improvement of the present limit on $\theta_{13}$ and cloud the
112: hierarchy determination unless the upper bounds on ${\not
113: \!\!R}$ couplings, particularly $\lambda^{\prime}$, become
114: significantly tighter. If ${\not\! \!R}$ interactions are independently
115: established then from the event rate a lower bound on
116: $\theta_{13}$ may be set. We show that there is scope to see a
117: clear signal of non-standard FCNC and FDNC interactions,
118: particularly in the inverted hierarchy scenario and also
119: sometimes for the normal hierarchy. In favourable cases, it may
120: be possible to set lower and upper bounds on $\lambda^{\prime}$
121: couplings. FCNC and FDNC interactions due to $\lambda$ type
122: ${\not\! \!R}$ couplings are unimportant.
123:
124: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
125:
126:
127: \newpage
128:
129: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Roman{section}}
130: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
131: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\arabic{footnote}}
132: %\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
133:
134: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
135: \section{Introduction}
136: Neutrino physics, a bit player on the physics stage in
137: yesteryears, has now donned a central role. Various experiments
138: on atmospheric \cite{atm}, solar \cite{solar}, reactor
139: \cite{reac}, and long baseline neutrinos \cite{base} not only
140: indicate oscillation but also pin down most neutrino mass and
141: mixing parameters -- two mass-square differences and two mixing
142: angles. The best-fit \cite{bestfit} values with $3\sigma$ error
143: from atmospheric neutrinos are $|\Delta m^{2}_{23}|\simeq
144: 2.12^{+1.09}_{-0.81}\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$, $\theta_{23}\simeq$
145: ${45.0^\circ}^{+10.55^\circ}_{-9.33^\circ}$ and from solar
146: neutrinos $\Delta m^{2}_{12} \simeq 7.9^{+1.0}_{-0.8} \times
147: 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$, $\theta_{12}\simeq$ ${33.21^\circ
148: }^{+4.85^\circ}_{-4.55^\circ}$. Here $\Delta m^{2}_{ij}$=
149: $m^{2}_{j} - m^{2}_{i}$. The sign of $\Delta m^{2}_{23}$ is yet
150: unknown and the neutrino mass spectrum will be referred here
151: as normal (inverted) hierarchical if it is positive (negative).
152: Using reactor antineutrinos \cite{bestfit,reac,theta13}, an upper
153: bound has been set on the third mixing angle at $3\sigma$ level
154: as $\sin^2\theta_{13} < 0.044$ resulting in $\theta_{13} <
155: 12.1^\circ$. The phase $\delta$ in the neutrino mixing matrix is
156: not known.
157:
158:
159: Research in this area is now poised to move into the precision
160: regime. Can we use upcoming neutrino experiments to probe
161: non-standard interactions like $\Rsl$ supersymmetry? If present,
162: can they become spoilers in attempts to further sharpen the
163: neutrino properties? We attempt to address these issues with a
164: specific experiment as our laboratory.
165:
166: Long baseline neutrino oscillation experiments using neutrino
167: factories \cite{md} and $\beta$-beams
168: \cite{bb1, bb2, bb3, bb4} hold promise of refining our
169: knowledge of $\theta_{13}, \; \delta,$ and the sign of
170: $\Delta m_{23}^2$. A possible experiment in this category would
171: use neutrinos from a $\beta$-beam from CERN to the proposed
172: India-based Neutrino Observatory \cite{ino} (INO), a baseline of
173: $\sim$ 7152 Km. This is the set-up which we
174: consider here. For such an experiment the $\beta$-beam is
175: required to be boosted to high $\gamma$.
176:
177:
178:
179: Interaction of neutrinos with matter affect
180: long baseline experiments and this becomes more prominent
181: at higher values of $\theta_{13}$.
182: Various authors \cite{matter} have considered this effect for
183: atmospheric neutrinos.
184:
185: Apart from the electroweak effects, there may well be
186: non-standard interactions leading to flavour changing as well as
187: flavour diagonal neutral currents (FCNC and FDNC). Here we have
188: in mind interactions with quarks and leptons involving an initial
189: and a final neutrino. If there is no change in the neutrino
190: flavour -- as, for example, in $Z^0$ exchange -- this is
191: classified as an FDNC process, while it would be FCNC otherwise.
192: R-parity violating supersymmetric models (RPVSM)
193: \cite{rparity}, which have such interactions already
194: built-in\footnote{{\em e.g.} through squark ($\lambda^\prime$-type
195: couplings) or slepton ($\lambda$-type couplings) exchange.},
196: will be the main focus of our work. Very recently a model in
197: which couplings associated with FCNC and FDNC can be quite a bit
198: higher than permitted in RPVSM has also been considered
199: \cite{david, fcnc1}. Naturally, here the
200: matter effect will be further enhanced. However, as RPVSM is a
201: well-studied, renormalizable model which can satisfy all
202: phenomenological constraints currently available, we shall
203: restrict our main analysis only to it and shall make
204: qualitative remarks about the other model,
205: for which our results can be easily extended.
206:
207: Consequences of FCNC and FDNC for solar and atmospheric neutrinos
208: \cite{solar1, atm1}, and neutrino factory experiments \cite{fac1}
209: have been looked into. Our focus is on $\beta $-beam
210: experiments, particularly over a long distance (7152 Km)
211: baseline. Our analysis encompasses both normal and inverted
212: hierarchies and we also incorporate all relevant trilinear
213: R-parity violating couplings leading to FCNC and FDNC. Huber {\em
214: et al} \cite{huber} have a somewhat similar analysis using
215: neutrino beams obtained from muon decays.
216:
217:
218: The very long baseline from CERN to INO will capture a
219: significant matter effect and offers a scope to signal
220: non-standard interactions. We examine whether the presence of
221: $\Rsl $ interactions will come in the way of constraining the
222: mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ or unraveling the neutrino mass
223: hierarchy. The possiblity to obtain bounds on some
224: R-parity violating couplings is also probed.
225:
226: \section{$\beta$-beams}
227:
228: A beta-beam \cite{bb1}, is a pure, intense, collimated beam of
229: electron neutrinos or their antiparticles produced {\em via} the
230: beta decay of completely ionized, accelerated radioactive ions
231: circulating in a storage ring \cite{jacques}. It has been
232: proposed to produce $\nu_e$ beams through the decay of highly
233: accelerated $^{18}$Ne ions and ${\bar \nu_e}$ from $^6$He
234: \cite{jacques}. More recently, $^{8}$B and $^{8}$Li \cite{rubbia}
235: with much larger end-point energy have been suggested as
236: alternate sources since these ions can yield higher energy
237: $\nu_e$ and $\bar\nu_e$ respectively, with lower values of the
238: Lorentz boost $\gamma$. It may be possible to have both beams in
239: the same ring, an arrangement which will result in a $\nu_e$ as
240: well as a $\bar\nu_e$ beam pointing towards a distant target.
241: In such a set-up the ratio between the boost factors of the two
242: ions is fixed by the $e/m$ ratios of the ions. Here, we will
243: present our results with the $^{8}$B ion ($Q = 13.92$ MeV and
244: $t_{1/2} = 0.77 s$) taking $\gamma = 350$. As we show, $\gamma
245: \sim 350$ may permit a distinction between matter effects due to
246: Standard Model interactions and those from R-parity violating
247: supersymmetry (SUSY). Details of the neutrino flux from such a
248: $\beta$-beam can be found in \cite{bb4}.
249:
250: Using the CERN-SPS at its maximum power, it will be possible to
251: access $\gamma$ $\sim$ 250\footnote{$\gamma$ = 250 yields too few
252: events in this experiment for the extraction of interesting physics.}
253: \cite{gamma_250}. For a medium $\gamma$ $\sim$ 500, a
254: refurbished SPS with super-conducting magnets or an acceleration
255: technique utilizing the LHC
256: \cite{gamma_250,burguet,LHC_upgrade} would be required. In the
257: low-$\gamma$ configuration, $1.1\times 10^{18}$ useful decays per
258: year can be obtained with $^{18}$Ne ions
259: \cite{autin,terr}. We have used this same luminosity for $^{8}$B
260: and higher $\gamma$ \cite{donini}. This issue is being examined in an on-going
261: dedicated machine study at CERN.
262:
263:
264: \section{R-parity violating Supersymmetry}
265:
266: In supersymmetric theories \cite{rparity}, gauge invariance does
267: not imply baryon number (B) and lepton number (L) conservation
268: and, in general, R-parity (defined as R $= (-1)^{3B + L + 2S}$
269: where $S$ is the spin) is violated. To maintain consistency with
270: non-observation of fast proton decay etc, in the R-parity violating
271: Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (imposing baryon number
272: conservation) one may consider the following superpotential
273: \bea
274: W_{\not L} =
275: \sum_{i,j,k} \frac{1}{2}\lambda_{ijk} {L}_i {L}_j {E}_k^c +
276: \lambda_{ijk}' {L}_i {Q}_j {D}_k^c + \mu_i {L}_i {H}_u ,
277: \label{super}
278: \eea
279: (suppressing colour and $SU(2)$ indices) where $i,\;j,\;k$ are
280: generation indices. Here ${L}_i$ and ${Q}_i$ are $SU(2)$-doublet lepton
281: and quark superfields respectively; ${E}_i$, ${D}_i$ denote the
282: right-handed $SU(2)$-singlet charged lepton and down-type quark
283: superfields respectively; ${H}_u$ is the Higgs superfield which
284: gives masses to up-type quarks. Particularly, $\lambda_{ijk}$ is
285: antisymmetric under the interchange of the first two generation
286: indices. We assume that the bilinear terms have been rotated away
287: with appropriate redefinition of superfields and focus on the
288: two trilinear L-violating terms with $\lambda$ and
289: $\lambda^\prime$ couplings. Expanding those in standard
290: four-component Dirac notation, the quark-neutrino interaction
291: lagrangian can be written as:
292: \bea
293: {\cal {L_{\lambda'}}} = \lambda'_{ijk} ~\big[ ~\tilde d^j _L \,\bar d ^k _R \nu^i _L
294: + (\tilde d ^k_R)^\ast ( \bar \nu ^i_L)^c d^j _L \big] +
295: h.c.
296: \label{lag_1}
297: \eea
298: Above, the sfermion fields are characterized by the tilde sign. The
299: charged lepton interacts with the neutrino {\em via}
300: \bea
301: {\cal {L_{\lambda}}} &=& \frac{1}{2}\lambda_{ijk} ~\big[ ~\tilde
302: e^j _L \,\bar e ^k _R \nu^i _L + (\tilde e ^k_R)^\ast (\bar \nu
303: ^i _L)^c e^j _L - (i \leftrightarrow j) \big] + h.c,
304: \label{lag_2}
305: \eea
306: In what follows, we
307: shall consider these couplings as real but will entertain both positive
308: and negative values. The interactions of neutrinos with electrons and
309: $d$-quarks in matter induce transitions
310: (i) $\n_i + d \rightarrow \n_j + d $
311: and (ii)
312: $\n_i + e \rightarrow \n_j
313: +e $. (i) is possible through $\lambda^{\prime}$ couplings {\em via}
314: squark exchange for all $i, j$
315: and through $Z$ exchange for $ i = j$
316: while (ii) can proceed {\em via} $W$ and $Z$ exchange for $i = j$,
317: as well as through $\lambda$ couplings {\em via} slepton
318: exchange for all $i, j$.
319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
320:
321: \section{Neutrino oscillation probabilities \& matter effect}
322:
323: In a three neutrino framework, the neutrino flavour states $|\nu_\alpha
324: \rangle$, $\alpha = e, \mu, \tau$, are related to
325: the neutrino mass eigenstates $|\nu_i\rangle$, $i=1,2,3$, with
326: masses $m_i$:
327: \begin{equation}
328: \vert\nu_\alpha \rangle = \sum_i U_{\alpha i} \vert\nu_i\rangle~,
329: \end{equation}
330: where $U$ is a $3 \times 3$ unitary matrix which can be
331: expressed as:
332: \be
333: U = V_{23} V_{13} V_{12} ,
334: \ee
335: where
336: \bea
337: V_{23} = \left(
338: \begin{array}{ccc}
339: 1 & 0 & 0 \\
340: 0 & c_{23}
341: & s_{23}\\
342: 0 & - s_{23} & c_{23}
343: \end{array} \right) ;\;\;
344: V_{13} = \left(
345: \begin{array}{ccc}
346: c_{13} & 0 & s_{13}e^{-i\delta} \\
347: 0 & 1
348: & 0 \\
349: s_{13}e^{i\delta} & 0
350: & c_{13} \end{array} \right)
351: ; \;\; V_{12} = \left(
352: \begin{array}{ccc}
353: c_{12} & s_{12} & 0 \\
354: - s_{12} & c_{12}
355: & 0\\
356: 0 & 0 & 1
357: \end{array} \right) .
358: \label{e:mns}
359: \eea
360: $c_{ij}=\cos\theta_{ij}$, $s_{ij}=\sin\theta_{ij}$ and
361: $\delta$
362: denotes the $CP$ violating (Dirac) phase. There may be a diagonal
363: phase matrix on the right containing two more Majorana phases.
364: These are not considered below. Apart from
365: some qualitative remarks, we present our result considering
366: $\delta = 0$ corresponding to the $CP$ conserving case. In the
367: mass basis of neutrinos
368:
369: \be
370: M^2 = {\rm{diag}}(m_1^2,m_2^2,m_3^2) = U^\dagger M_\nu^+ M_\nu U,
371: \label{e:m1}
372: \ee
373: where $M_\nu$ is the neutrino mass matrix in the flavour basis and $m_1,
374: m_2$, and
375: $m_3$ correspond to masses of three neutrinos in the ascending
376: order of magnitudes respectively for the normal hierarchy. If
377: $m_2 > m_3$, we have an inverted hierarchy.
378:
379: The neutrino flavour eigenstates evolve in time as:
380:
381: \bea
382: i\frac{d}{d t}\left(
383: \begin{array}{c}
384: \n_e(t)\\
385: \n_{\mu}(t)\\
386: \n_{\tau}(t) \end{array} \right)
387: =
388: H \left(
389: \begin{array}{c}
390: \n_e(t)\\
391: \n_{\mu}(t)\\
392: \n_{\tau}(t) \end{array} \right),
393: \eea
394: where
395: \be
396: H = E \times {\bf 1}_{3 \times 3} +
397: U \left( { M^2 \over 2 E} \right)
398: U^\dagger
399: + R .
400: \label{e:m2}
401: \ee
402: Here $E$ is the neutrino energy while ${\bf 1}_{3 \times 3}$ is the
403: identity matrix.
404: $R$ is a $3 \times 3$ matrix reflecting the matter effect,
405: absent for propagation in vacuum.
406: \be
407: R_{ij} = R_{ij}(SM) + R_{ij}(\lambda^{\prime}) + R_{ij}(\lambda).
408: \ee
409: Specifically,
410: \be
411: R_{ij}(SM) = \sqrt{2} G_F n_e \delta_{ij} (i,j=1)+ {G_F n_n \over \sqrt{2}}
412: \delta_{ij} ,
413: \label{e:rsm}
414: \ee
415: \be
416: R_{ij}(\lambda^{\prime}) = \sum_m \left( {\lambda_{im1}^\prime \lambda_{jm1}^{\prime}
417: \over 4 m^2 ({\tilde d_m})} n_d + {\lambda_{i1m}^{\prime } \lambda_{j1m}^{\prime}
418: \over 4 m^2({\tilde d_m}) } n_d \right) ,
419: \label{e:rlp}
420: \ee
421: \be
422: R_{ij}( \lambda ) =
423: \sum_{k \neq i, j} { \lambda_{ik1} \lambda_{jk1} \over
424: 4 m^2 ({\tilde { l^{\pm}_k}}) } n_e
425: + \sum_n { \lambda_{i1n} \lambda_{j1n} \over
426: 4 m^2 ({\tilde { l^{\pm}_n}}) } n_e ,
427: \label{e:rl}
428: \ee
429: where $G_F$ is the Fermi constant, $n_e$, $n_n$, and $n_d$,
430: respectively, are the electron, neutron, and down-quark densities in
431: earth matter. Note that $R$ is a symmetric matrix and also that
432: antineutrinos will have an overall opposite sign for $R_{ij}$.
433: Assuming earth matter to be isoscalar, $ n_e = n_p =n_n $ and $
434: n_d = 3 n_e $. The current bounds on the $\Rsl$ couplings
435: \cite{rparity} imply that the $\lambda^\prime$ induced contributions
436: to $R_{11}$, $R_{12}$ and $R_{13}$ are several orders less than
437: $\sqrt{2} G_F n_e$. We neglect those terms in our analysis. The
438: upper bounds on all couplings in $R_{ij}(\lambda)$ are also very
439: tight \cite{rparity} in comparison to $\sqrt{2} G_F n_e$ and
440: their effect will be discussed later.
441: So, first we consider, in addition
442: to the Standard Model contribution, only
443: \bea
444: R_{23} &=& R_{32}= {n_d \over 4 m^2 ( {\tilde d_m} )}
445: \left( \lambda_{2m1}^{\prime }
446: \lambda_{3m1}^{\prime} +
447: \lambda_{21m}^{\prime}
448: \lambda_{31m}^{\prime} \right) , \nonumber \\
449: R_{22} &=& {n_d \over 4 m^2 ( {\tilde d_m} )}
450: \left( \lambda_{2m1}^{\prime \; 2}
451: + \lambda_{21m}^{\prime \; 2} \right) \; ,\;\;
452: R_{33} = {n_d \over 4 m^2 ( {\tilde d_m})}
453: \left( \lambda_{3m1}^{\prime \; 2}
454: + \lambda_{31m}^{\prime \; 2} \right) ,
455: \label{e:R1}
456: \eea
457: which are comparable to $\sqrt{2} G_F n_e$. One can see from
458: eq. (\ref{e:R1}) that $R_{23} \neq 0$ implies both $R_{22}$ and
459: $R_{33}$ are non-zero\footnote{However,
460: in other models \cite{david} this may not be the case.}.
461:
462: The current bounds on the relevant couplings are as follows \cite{rparity}:
463: \be
464: |\lambda_{221}^{\prime}, \lambda_{231}^{\prime}| < 0.18 ; \;
465: |\lambda_{21m}^{\prime}| < 0.06 ; \; |\lambda_{331}^{\prime}| <
466: 0.58 ; \; |\lambda_{321}^{\prime}| < 0.52 ; \;
467: |\lambda_{31m}^{\prime}| < 0.12 ,
468: \label{e:lim}
469: \ee
470: for down squark mass $m_{\tilde d} = 100$ GeV. The chosen
471: limits on $\lambda_{21m}^{\prime}$ and $\lambda_{31m}^{\prime}$
472: do not conflict with the ratio $R_{\tau
473: \pi}=\Gamma (\tau \rightarrow \pi \nu_{\tau})/\Gamma (\pi
474: \rightarrow \mu \bar{\nu}_{\mu} ) $ \cite{rparity}. However, the
475: recently published BELLE bound on the mode $\tau
476: \rightarrow \mu \pi^0$ \cite{belltau} tightly constrains
477: precisely those products of the $\lambda^\prime$ couplings which
478: enter in $R_{23} = R_{32}$ in eq.
479: (\ref{e:R1}). It has been shown that $|{\lambda'_{21m}
480: \lambda'^{\ast} _{31m}}|$ and $|{\lambda'_{2m1}
481: \lambda'^{\ast} _{3m1}}|$ both must be $< 1.8 \times 10^{-3}
482: (\frac{\tilde m}{100~{\rm GeV}})^2$ \cite{rpartau}. This
483: effectively makes $R_{23}$ negligible
484: for our purposes.
485:
486: In general, it is cumbersome to write an analytical form of the
487: probability of neutrino oscillation in the three-flavour scenario
488: with matter effects. However, under certain reasonable
489: approximations it is somewhat tractable. Firstly, a constant
490: matrix can be extracted from $M^2$ in eqs. (\ref{e:m1}) and
491: (\ref{e:m2}). Also for the energies and baselines under
492: consideration, $\Delta m_{12}^2 L/E << 1 $.
493: Under this approximation, the $V_{12}$ part of $U$ drops out from
494: eq. (\ref{e:m2}). With these modifications, the effective mass squared
495: matrix is:
496: \be
497: {{\tilde M}^2 \over 2E}
498: = H - (E + {G_F n_n \over \sqrt{2}}) {\bf 1}_{3 \times 3}.
499: \ee
500: In the special case
501: where $R_{22} = R_{33}$, if one uses the best-fit value of the
502: vacuum mixing angle $\theta_{23} = \pi/4$ then the neutrino mass
503: squared eigenvalues are:
504: \be
505: \left( {\tilde M_2}^2 \over 2E\right) = R_{22} - R_{23}, \;\;
506: %\ee
507: %\be
508: \left( {\tilde M_{1,3}}^2 \over 2E\right) = {1 \over 2}
509: \left( {\Delta m_{13}^2 \over 2E} +R_{11} + R_{22} + R_{23} \mp
510: A \right) ,
511: \label{e:Msq}
512: \ee
513: where
514: \be A = {\left[ {\left( {\Delta m_{13}^2 \over 2E} \right) }^2
515: + {\left( -R_{11} + R_{22} + R_{23} \right)}^2 - 2 {\Delta
516: m_{13}^2 \over 2E} \cos 2 \theta_{13}\left( R_{11} - R_{22}
517: -R_{23} \right) \right]}^{1/2} .
518: \ee
519: The matter induced neutrino mixing matrix is given by
520: \be
521: U^m = \left(
522: \begin{array}{ccc}
523: U_{11}^m & 0 & U_{13}^m\\
524: N_1 & -{1 \over \sqrt{2}} & N_3 \\
525: N_1 & {1 \over \sqrt{2}} & N_3
526: \end{array}
527: \right).
528: \label{e:U}
529: \ee
530: Here
531: \be
532: N_{1,3} = {\left[ {2 {\left (
533: -R_{11} + R_{22} + R_{23} + {\Delta m_{13}^2 \over 2E} \cos 2\theta_{13}
534: \pm A \right)}^2
535: \over {\left( {\Delta m_{13}^2 \over 2E} \right) }^2 \sin^2 2 \theta_{13} } +
536: 2 \right]}^{-1/2} ,
537: \ee
538: where $N_1$ ($N_3$) corresponds to +(--) sign in the above expression.
539: Neglecting the $CP$ phase in
540: the standard parametrization of $U^m$, one may write $U_{13}^m =
541: \sin \theta_{13}^m$ and $U_{23}^m =
542: \sin \theta_{23}^m \cos \theta_{13}^m$. From eq. (\ref{e:U}) it follows
543: that $\theta_{23}^m = \theta_{23}$, the vacuum mixing angle.
544: $\theta_{13}^m$, on the other hand, changes from its vacuum value
545: and it is $\pi/4$ for
546: \be
547: R_{11} - R_{22} -R_{23} = {\Delta m_{13}^2 \over 2E} \cos 2 \theta_{13}.
548: \label{e:mmax}
549: \ee
550: In the absence of non-standard interactions, $R_{22} = R_{23}
551: =R_{33} =0$ and $R_{11} = \sqrt{2} G_F n_e$, this is the well-known
552: condition for matter induced maximal mixing. Since in eq. (\ref{e:U})
553: $U_{12}^m = 0$, in the
554: $\n_e $ to $\n_{\mu}$ oscillation probability the terms involving
555: $({\tilde M_2}^2 - {\tilde M_1}^2)$
556: and $({\tilde M_3}^2 - {\tilde M_2}^2)$
557: will not survive and we get:
558: \be
559: P_{\n_e \rightarrow \n_{\mu}} = 4 \;\;{\left(U_{13}^m\right)}^2\;\;
560: {\left(U_{23}^m\right)}^2 \;\;\sin^2 \left( 1.27 \;A \;L \right),
561: \ee
562: where $E$, $\Delta m_{13}^2$ and $L$ are expressed in GeV, eV$^2$, and
563: Km, respectively. This expression is also valid
564: for antineutrinos.
565: Using eqs. (\ref{e:Msq}) and (\ref{e:U}) one can easily obtain
566: the oscillation probabilities for other channels.
567:
568:
569: \begin{figure}[htb]
570: \hskip -0.4cm
571: %\vskip 1.0cm
572: \hskip 8.63cm
573: \psfig{figure=prob_inv.eps,width=8.0cm,height=7.0cm,angle=0}
574: \vskip -7.0cm
575: \psfig{figure=prob_nor.eps,width=8.0cm,height=7.0cm,angle=0}
576: \caption{ \sf \small
577: $P_{\n_e \rightarrow \n_{\mu} }$
578: for the normal and inverted mass hierarchies. SM corresponds
579: to only standard electroweak interactions. The values of
580: $\lambda^{\prime}$ are given in parantheses. $m$ can take any
581: value, $n =$ 2 or 3.}
582: \label{f:osc}
583: \end{figure}
584:
585:
586: We use the above analytical formulation as a cross-check on our
587: numerical results. For example, Fig. \ref{f:osc}, which shows the variation
588: of $P_{\n_e \rightarrow \n_{\mu} }$ as a function of the energy,
589: is obtained using the full matter-induced three-flavour neutrino
590: propagation including non-standard interactions. The
591: range of energy is chosen in line with the discussions in the
592: rest of the paper. The probability falls with decreasing $\theta_{13}$ and,
593: for illustration, we have chosen a value in the middle of its
594: permitted range. The purpose of Fig. \ref{f:osc} is twofold: (a) to show
595: how the distinguishability between the normal and inverted
596: hierarchies may get blurred by the RPVSM interactions, and (b) how
597: irrespective of the hierarchy chosen by Nature the results may be
598: completely altered by the presence of these interactions. Each
599: panel of Fig. \ref{f:osc} has three curves: the solid line (only electroweak
600: interactions), dot-dashed line (in addition, $R_{33}$ gets a
601: non-zero RPVSM contribution), and dashed line
602: ($R_{22} = R_{33}$ are nonzero, in addition to the
603: electroweak contribution). Only in the
604: last case is the analytical formula we have presented above
605: applicable. We find excellent agreement. Two aspects of the results
606: are worth pointing out.
607:
608:
609: First, in the absence of non-Standard interactions, for an
610: inverted hierarchy the resonance condition eq. (\ref{e:mmax}) is not
611: satisfied and the oscillation probability is negligible (right
612: panel solid line). This could be altered prominently by the RPVSM
613: interactions (dot-dashed curve) so that the distinguishability
614: between the two hierarchy scenarios may well get marred by $\Rsl$
615: SUSY.
616:
617: Secondly, for the normal hierarchy, it is seen that the peak in
618: the probability may shift to a different energy in the presence of the
619: RPVSM interactions. This is because the condition for maximal
620: mixing in eq. (\ref{e:mmax}) is affected by the $\Rsl$
621: interactions. For the inverted hierarchy, the oscillation
622: probability is considerably enhanced for some energies. Thus,
623: physics expectations for both hierarchies will get affected by
624: RPVSM.
625:
626: In the following section we dwell on the full impact of this
627: physics on a long baseline $\beta$-beam experiment.
628:
629: \section{Results}
630:
631: We consider a long baseline experiment with a $\nu_e$ $\beta$-beam
632: source. $\beta$-beams producing $\bar{\nu}_e$ are also very
633: much under consideration. Broadly speaking, the results obtained
634: for a $\nu_e$ beam with a normal (inverted) hierarchy are similar
635: to that with a $\bar{\nu}_e$ beam for an inverted (normal)
636: hierarchy but details do differ.
637:
638:
639: The average energy of the $\nu_e$ beam in the lab frame is
640: $\langle E \rangle = 2 \gamma E_{cms}$, where $E_{cms}$ is the
641: mean center-of-mass neutrino energy. With $\gamma = 350 $ and
642: $Q$ = 13.92 MeV for an $^8$B source, $\langle E
643: \rangle \simeq$ 5 GeV. The proposed ICAL detector at INO
644: \cite{ino} consists of magnetized iron slabs with
645: glass resistive plate chambers as interleaved active detector
646: elements. We present results for a 50 Kt iron detector with
647: energy threshold 2 GeV. As signature of $\n_e \rightarrow
648: \n_{\mu}$ oscillation, prompt muons will appear\footnote{The
649: $\nu_e \rightarrow \nu_\tau
650: \rightarrow \tau \rightarrow \mu$ route is suppressed by phase space
651: for $\tau$ production and the branching ratio for the
652: decay. It contributes at a few per cent level to the signal.}. Their track
653: reconstruction will give the direction and energy of the
654: incoming neutrino. ICAL has good charge identification
655: efficiency ($\sim 95 \% $) and a good energy resolution $\sim$
656: 10\% above 2 GeV. Details about the detector and neutrino
657: nucleon cross sections may be found in \cite{bb4}. For the
658: cross section we include contributions from quasi-elastic, single
659: pion, and deep inelastic channels. For our chosen high threshold (2
660: GeV), the contribution from the deep inelastic channel is
661: relatively large. For the CERN-INO baseline, the averaged matter
662: density is 4.21 g cm$^{-3}$. We use best-fit values of vacuum
663: neutrino mixing parameters as mentioned in the Introduction. All
664: the presented results are based on a five-year ICAL data
665: sample\footnote{ Backgrounds can be eliminated by imposing
666: directionality cuts. The detector is assumed to be of perfect
667: efficiency.}.
668:
669: At the production and detection levels, FCNC and
670: FDNC effects can change the spectrum and detection cross sections
671: by a small (\raisebox{-.6ex}{\rlap{$\sim$}}\raisebox{.6ex}{$<$}
672: 0.1\%) amount but this would not alter the conclusions. At the
673: source and detector, they may also mimic the oscillation signal
674: itself, but these effects are tiny\footnote{This is due to the
675: very tight constraints from $\mu \rightarrow e$ transition limits
676: in atoms \cite{mu2e}.} ($\sim {\cal O}(10^{-14})$). Here we
677: discuss how FCNC and FDNC may significantly modify the
678: propagation of neutrinos through matter over large distances.
679:
680: \subsection{Extraction of $\theta_{13}$ and determination of hierarchy}
681:
682: If neutrinos have only Standard Model interactions
683: then the expected number of muon events is fixed\footnote{Recall
684: we assume that, but for $\theta_{13}$ and the mass hierarchy, the
685: other neutrino mass and mixing parameters are known.} for a
686: particular value of $\theta_{13}$ with either normal or inverted
687: hierarchy as may be seen from the solid lines in Fig.
688: \ref{f:lpno}. The vast difference for the alternate hierarchies
689: picks out such long baseline experiments as good laboratories for
690: addressing this open question of the neutrino mass spectrum.
691:
692: If non-standard interactions are present then, depending on their
693: coupling strength, the picture can change dramatically. In Fig.
694: \ref{f:lpno}, the shaded region corresponds to the allowed values
695: when SUSY FCNC and FDNC interactions are at play. It is obtained
696: by letting the $\lambda^{\prime}$ couplings\footnote{In fact, we have
697: chosen the subscript $m$ in the $\lambda^{\prime}$ couplings in eq.
698: (\ref{e:R1}) to be any one of 1,2, or 3.} vary over their entire
699: allowed range -- both positive and negative -- given in eq.
700: (\ref{e:lim}), subject to the further constraints on particular
701: products.
702:
703: \begin{figure}[thb]
704: %\hskip -0.4cm
705: \psfig{figure=lp_nor.eps,width=8.0cm,height=7.0cm,angle=0}
706: \vskip -7.00cm
707: \hskip 8.43cm
708: \psfig{figure=lp_inv.eps,width=8.0cm,height=7.0cm,angle=0}
709: \caption{\sf \small
710: Number of muon events for normal and inverted mass hierarchies as
711: a function of $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ for a five-year ICAL run.
712: The solid lines correspond to the absence of any non-Standard
713: neutrino interaction. The shaded area is covered if
714: the $ \lambda^{\prime}$ couplings are varied over
715: their entire allowed range. }
716: \label{f:lpno}
717: \end{figure}
718:
719: It is seen that to a significant extent the distinguishability of
720: the two hierarchies is obstructed by the $\Rsl$ interactions
721: unless the number of events is more than about 60. Also, the
722: one-to-one correspondence is lost between $\theta_{13}$ and the
723: number of events and, at best, a lower bound can now be placed on
724: $\theta_{13}$ from the observed number. Of course, if the
725: neutrino mass hierarchy is known from other experiments, then
726: this lower bound can be strengthened, especially for the inverted
727: hierarchy.
728:
729: It is also noteworthy that for some values of
730: $\lambda^{\prime}$-couplings there may be more events than can be
731: expected from the Standard Model interactions, no matter what the
732: value of $\theta_{13}$. Thus, observation of more than 161 (5)
733: events for the normal (inverted) hierarchy would be a clear
734: signal of new physics.
735:
736:
737:
738:
739: \subsection{Constraining $\lambda^{\prime}$ }
740:
741:
742: If $\theta_{13}$ is determined from other experiments then it
743: will be easier to look for non-standard signals from this
744: $\beta$ beam experiment. However, even if the precise value
745: remains unknown at the time, considering the upper bound on
746: $\theta_{13}$ one may tighten the constraints on the
747: $\lambda^{\prime}$ couplings. Fig. \ref{f:lpno} reflects the
748: overall sensitivity of the event rate to the $\Rsl$ interactions
749: obtained by letting all RPVSM couplings vary over their entire
750: allowed ranges. In this subsection, we want to be more specific
751: and ask how the event rate depends on any chosen
752: $\lambda^{\prime}$ coupling.
753:
754: At the outset, it may be worth recalling that the BELLE bound on
755: $\tau \rightarrow \mu \pi^0$ \cite{belltau} severely limits the
756: products $\lambda^{\prime}_{2m1} \lambda^{\prime}_{3m1}$ and
757: $\lambda^{\prime}_{21m} \lambda^{\prime}_{31m}$. Thus, $R_{23}$
758: can be dropped in the effective neutrino mass matrix eq.
759: (\ref{e:m2}). If only $\lambda^{\prime}_{2m1}$ and/or
760: $\lambda^{\prime}_{21m}$ ($\lambda^{\prime}_{3m1}$ and/or
761: $\lambda^{\prime}_{31m}$) is non-zero, then $R_{22}$ ($R_{33}$)
762: alone receives an RPVSM contribution. Both $R_{22}$ and $R_{33}$
763: can be simultaneously non-zero if $\lambda^{\prime}_{21m}$ and
764: $\lambda^{\prime}_{3m1}$ (or $\lambda^{\prime}_{2m1}$ and
765: $\lambda^{\prime}_{31m}$) are non-zero at the same time.
766:
767:
768:
769:
770:
771: \begin{figure}[thb]
772: \hskip -0.4cm
773: \vskip 1.85cm
774: \psfig{figure=con_nor.eps,width=8.0cm,height=7.0cm,angle=0}
775: \vskip -7.0cm
776: \hskip 8.63cm
777: \psfig{figure=con_inv.eps,width=8.0cm,height=7.0cm,angle=0}
778: \caption{\sf \small
779: The number of events as a function of a coupling $|\lambda^{\prime}|$,
780: present singly, for the
781: normal (left panel) and inverted (right panel)
782: hierarchies. The thick (thin) lines are for
783: $|\lambda^{\prime}_{331}|$ ($|\lambda^{\prime}_{2m1}|$,
784: $m=$2,3).The chosen $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$ are indicated next to
785: the curves.}
786: \label{f:bndl3}
787: \end{figure}
788:
789:
790:
791:
792:
793: In the light of this, we consider the situation where only of the
794: above $\Rsl$ coupling is non-zero. In such an event, only one of
795: $R_{22}$, $R_{33}$ is non-zero. The dependence of the number of
796: events on a non-zero $\lambda^{\prime}_{331}$ or
797: $\lambda^{\prime}_{2m1}$, for a chosen $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$, can
798: be seen from Fig.
799: \ref{f:bndl3}. In this figure, we use the fact that if only one
800: of these $\Rsl$ couplings is non-zero, it appears in the results
801: through $|\lambda^{\prime}|$. For the normal hierarchy, the
802: curves for $\lambda^{\prime}_{2m1}$, for $m =$ 2,3, are
803: terminated at the maximum allowed value of 0.18. Fig.
804: \ref{f:bndl3} can also be used for
805: $\lambda^{\prime}_{321}$,
806: $\lambda^{\prime}_{31m}$ and $\lambda^{\prime}_{21m}$, bearing in mind
807: their different upper bounds.
808: For the inverted hierarchy, the number of events is
809: small for $\lambda^{\prime}_{2m1}$ and
810: $\lambda^{\prime}_{21m}$ and insensitive to the magnitude of the
811: coupling. These are not shown. It is seen that for the
812: normal hierarchy there is a good chance to determine the $\Rsl$
813: couplings from the number of events. In fact, if the number of
814: events is less than about 50 there is a disallowed region for
815: $|\lambda^{\prime}|$, while for larger numbers there is only an upper
816: bound. For the inverted hierarchy, more than about five events
817: will set a lower bound on the coupling.
818:
819: %\newpage
820:
821: \subsection{Effect of $\lambda$} The $\lambda$ couplings which can
822: contribute in eq. (\ref{e:rl}) have strong existing bounds
823: \cite{rparity} and their contribution to $R$ is rather small in
824: comparison to $\sqrt{2} G_F n_e$. Among them, the bounds
825: $\lambda_{121} < 0.05 $ and $\lambda_{321} < 0.07 $ for
826: $m_{\tilde l} = 100$ GeV are relatively less stringent
827: \cite{rparity}. We show their very modest impact in Fig.
828: \ref{f:lno}. It is clear from this figure that (a) the
829: $\lambda$-type couplings cannot seriously deter the extraction of
830: $\theta_{13}$ or the determination of the neutrino mass
831: hierarchy, and (b) when $\theta_{13}$ is known in future it will
832: still not be possible to constrain these couplings through long
833: baseline experiments.
834:
835:
836: \begin{figure}[hbt]
837: \hskip -0.4cm
838: \vskip -0.00cm
839: \psfig{figure=l_nor.eps,width=8.0cm,height=7.0cm,angle=0}
840: \vskip -7.00cm
841: \hskip 8.63cm
842: \psfig{figure=l_inv.eps,width=8.0cm,height=7.0cm,angle=0}
843: \caption{\sf \small
844: Number of muon events for normal and inverted mass hierarchies as
845: a function of $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$ for a five-year ICAL run.
846: The solid lines correspond to the absence of any non-Standard
847: neutrino interaction. The shaded area is covered if
848: the $ \lambda$ couplings are varied over
849: their entire allowed range. }
850: %\vskip 1.0cm
851: \label{f:lno}
852: \end{figure}
853:
854:
855:
856:
857:
858: \section{Conclusions}
859:
860:
861: R-parity violating supersymmetry is among several
862: extensions of the Standard Model crying out for experimental
863: verification. The model has flavour diagonal and flavour changing
864: neutral currents which can affect neutrino masses and mixing and
865: can leave their imprints in long baseline experiments. This is
866: the focus of this work.
867:
868:
869: We consider a $\beta$-beam experiment with the source at CERN and
870: the detector at INO. We find that the $\Rsl$ interactions may
871: obstruct a clean extraction of the mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ or
872: determination of the mass hierarchy unless the bounds on the
873: $\lambda^{\prime}$ couplings are tightened. On the other hand, one
874: might be able to see a clean signal of new physics. Here, the
875: long baseline comes as a boon over experiments like MINOS which
876: cover shorter distances. Two experiments of these contrasting
877: types, taken together, can expose the presence of a non-standard
878: interaction like RPVSM.
879:
880: There are other non-standard models \cite{david} where
881: four-fermion neutrino couplings with greater strength
882: have been invoked. The signals we consider
883: will be much enhanced in such cases.
884:
885:
886: Our results are presented for the $CP$ conserving case. As
887: $\theta_{13}$ is small, the $CP$ violating effect is expected to
888: be suppressed. We have checked this for the Standard Model,
889: where the `magic' nature of the baseline \cite{magic} also plays
890: a role.
891:
892:
893:
894: Finally, in this paper we have restricted ourselves to a
895: $\beta$-beam neutrino source. Much the same could be done for
896: antineutrinos as well; then the signs of all terms in $R$ -- see
897: eq. (\ref{e:m2}) -- will be reversed. It follows from eq. (\ref{e:mmax})
898: that $\theta_{13}^m$ can then be maximal only for the
899: inverted hierarchy and as such more events are expected here than
900: in the normal hierarchy. Broadly, results similar to the ones
901: presented here with neutrinos can be obtained with antineutrinos
902: if normal hierarchy is replaced by inverted hierarchy and
903: {\em vice-versa}.
904:
905:
906:
907:
908: \vskip 1.0cm
909:
910: \noindent
911: {\large{\bf {Acknowledgments}}}\\
912:
913: R. Adhikari acknowledges hospitality of the Harish-Chandra
914: Research Institute under the DAE X-th plan project on collider
915: physics while this work was done. \\
916:
917:
918: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
919:
920: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
921:
922: \bibitem{atm}
923: Y.~Ashie {\em et al.} (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration),
924: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 93} 101801 (2004);
925: M. Ishitsuka (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration),
926: NOON2004, The 5th Workshop on ``Neutrino Oscillations and their
927: origin'', 11-15 February, 2004, Tokyo, Japan; Y.~Ashie {\em et
928: al.} (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration), Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 71},
929: 112005 (2005).
930:
931: \bibitem{solar}
932: Y. Fukuda {\em et al.} (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration),
933: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1158 (1998);
934: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 1810 (1999);
935: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 2430 (1999);
936: S. Fukuda {\em et al.} (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration),
937: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 5651 (2001);
938: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 5656 (2001);
939: Phys. Lett. {\bf B
940: 539}, 179 (2002);
941: Q. R. Ahmad {\em et al.} (SNO Collaboration),
942: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87},
943: 071301 (2001);
944: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 011301 (2002);
945: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 011302 (2002);
946: S. N. Ahmed {\em et al.} (SNO Collaboration),
947: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 181301 (2004);
948: G. Giacomelli
949: {\em et al} (MACRO Collaboration),
950: Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. {\bf 145}, 116 (2005).
951:
952: \bibitem{reac} K. Eguchi {\em et al.} (KamLAND Collaboration),
953: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 021802 (2003); M. Apollonio {\em et al.}
954: (CHOOZ Collaboration), Eur.
955: Phys. J. C {\bf 27}, 331 (2003).
956:
957: \bibitem{base} M. H. Ahn {\em et al.} (K2K Collaboration), Phys.
958: Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 041801 (2003).
959:
960: \bibitem{bestfit}
961: M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M. A. Tortola and J. W. F. Valle, New J. Phys.
962: {\bf 6}, 122 (2004);
963: G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone and A. Palazzo,
964: Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 57}, 742 (2006).
965:
966: \bibitem{theta13}
967: A. Bandyopadhyay \etal Phys. Lett. B {\bf 608}, 115 (2005);
968: S.~Choubey,
969: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 138}, 326 (2005).
970: \bibitem{md} S. Geer, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 57}, 6989 (1998); for
971: recent reviews see M. Apollonio \etal hep-ph/0210192; A.
972: De R\'{u}jula, M. B. Gavela and P. Hern\'{a}ndez, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf
973: 547}, 21 (1999); J. J. G\'{o}mez-Cadenas and D. A. Harris, Ann.
974: Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. {\bf 52}, 253 (2002);
975: C. Albright \etal hep-ex/0008064.
976:
977: \bibitem{bb1} P. Zucchelli, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 532}, 166 (2002).
978:
979: \bibitem{bb2} M. Mezzetto, J. Phys. G {\bf 29}, 1771 (2003).
980:
981: \bibitem{bb3} J. Burguet-Castell \etal
982: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 695}, 217 (2004).
983:
984: \bibitem{bb4}
985: S.~K.~Agarwalla, A.~Raychaudhuri and A.~Samanta,
986: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 629}, 33 (2005).
987:
988: \bibitem{ino} See http://www.imsc.res.in/$\sim$ino.
989:
990: \bibitem{matter}
991: G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, D. Montanino and G. Scioscia, Phys. Rev. D {\bf
992: 55}, 4385 (1997);
993: E. K. Akhmedov \etal Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 542}, 3
994: (1999);
995: P. Huber, M. Maltoni and T. Schwetz, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71},
996: 053006 (2005);
997: D. Choudhury and A. Datta,
998: JHEP {\bf 0507}, 058 (2005);
999: D. Indumathi and M. V. N. Murthy, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 71}, 013001 (2005);
1000: R. Gandhi \etal
1001: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73}, 053001 (2006);
1002: S.~Choubey and P.~Roy,
1003: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 013006 (2006).
1004:
1005: \bibitem{rparity}
1006: R.~Barbier {\em et al.},
1007: Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 420}, 1 (2005).
1008:
1009: \bibitem{david} S. Davidson {\em et al.}, JHEP {\bf 0303}, 011 (2003).
1010:
1011: \bibitem{fcnc1}
1012: N.~Kitazawa, H.~Sugiyama and O.~Yasuda,
1013: hep-ph/0606013; A. Friedland and C. Lunardini, hep-ph/0606101.
1014:
1015: \bibitem{solar1} L. Wolfenstein, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 17}, 2369 (1978); S. P.
1016: Mikheev and A. Y. Smirnov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 42}, 913 (1985); J. W. F.
1017: Valle, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 199}, 432 (1987) ; M.
1018: Guzzo, A. Masiero and S. Petcov, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 260}, 154
1019: (1991); E. Roulet, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 44}, 935 (1991); V. Barger, R. J.
1020: N. Phillips and K. Whisnant, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 44}, 1629 (1991); S.
1021: Bergmann, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 515}, 363 (1998); E. Ma and P. Roy, Phys. Rev.
1022: Lett. {\bf 80}, 4637 (1998); S. Bergmann {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62},
1023: 073001 (2000);
1024: M. Guzzo {\em et al.}, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 629}, 479 (2002);
1025: R.~Adhikari, A.~Sil and A.~Raychaudhuri,
1026: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 25}, 125 (2002).
1027:
1028: \bibitem{atm1} M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett {\bf 82},
1029: 3202 (1999); G. L. Fogli {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 60}, 053006 (1999);
1030: S. Bergmann {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 053005 (2000);
1031: N. Fornengo {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 013010 (2002).
1032:
1033: \bibitem{fac1} P. Huber and J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 523}, 151
1034: (2001); A. Datta, R. Gandhi, B. Mukhopadhyaya and P. Mehta, Phys.
1035: Rev. D {\bf 64}, 015011 (2001); A. Bueno {\em et al.}, JHEP {\bf 0106},
1036: 032 (2001).
1037:
1038: \bibitem{huber}
1039: P.~Huber, T.~Schwetz and J.~W.~F.~Valle,
1040: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 66}, 013006 (2002).
1041:
1042: \bibitem{jacques}
1043: J.~Bouchez, M.~Lindroos and M.~Mezzetto,
1044: AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ {\bf 721}, 37 (2004).
1045:
1046: \bibitem{rubbia}
1047: C.~Rubbia, A.~Ferrari, Y.~Kadi and V.~Vlachoudis,
1048: hep-ph/0602032.
1049:
1050: \bibitem{gamma_250}
1051: J.~Burguet-Castell, D.~Casper, E.~Couce, J.~J.~Gomez-Cadenas and P.~Hernandez,
1052: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 725}, 306 (2005).
1053:
1054: \bibitem{burguet}
1055: J.~Burguet-Castell, D.~Casper, J.~J.~Gomez-Cadenas, P.~Hernandez
1056: and F.~Sanchez, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 695}, 217 (2004).
1057:
1058: \bibitem{LHC_upgrade}
1059: A.~Donini, E.~Fernandez, P.~Migliozzi, S.~Rigolin, L.~Scotto
1060: Lavina, T.~Tabarelli de Fatis and F.~Terranova, hep-ph/0511134.
1061:
1062: \bibitem{autin}
1063: B.~Autin {\em et al.},
1064: J.\ Phys.\ G {\bf 29}, 1785 (2003).
1065:
1066: \bibitem{terr}
1067: F.~Terranova, A.~Marotta, P.~Migliozzi and M.~Spinetti,
1068: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 38}, 69 (2004).
1069:
1070: \bibitem{donini}
1071: A.~Donini and E.~Fernandez-Martinez,
1072: hep-ph/0603261.
1073:
1074: \bibitem{belltau}
1075: Y. Enari {\em et al.} (Belle Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B {\bf
1076: 622}, 218 (2005).
1077:
1078: \bibitem{rpartau}
1079: W. Li, Y. Yang and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 73},
1080: 073005 (2006).
1081:
1082: \bibitem{mu2e}
1083: P. Wintz (on behalf of SINDRUM II Collaboration),
1084: Proc. of the 14th
1085: Intl. Conf. on Particles and Nuclei (PANIC96),
1086: (World Scientific 1997, Eds. C. E. Carlson and J. J. Domingo) 458;
1087: J. E. Kim, P. Ko and D. G. Lee,
1088: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 56},
1089: 100 (1997).
1090:
1091:
1092:
1093:
1094:
1095:
1096:
1097: \bibitem{magic}
1098: %P. Huber, W. Winter, \PRD(68,037301,2003).
1099: % BREAKING EIGHT FOLD DEGENERACIES IN NEUTRINO CP VIOLATION, MIXING,
1100: %AND MASS HIERARCHY.
1101: V. Barger, D. Marfatia and K. Whisnant, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65},
1102: 073023 (2002);
1103: %MATTER EFFECTS IN LONG BASELINE EXPERIMENTS, THE FLAVOR CONTENT OF THE
1104: %HEAVIEST (OR LIGHTEST) NEUTRINO AND THE SIGN OF DELTA M**2.
1105: P. Lipari, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 61}, 113004 (2000);
1106: % Neutrino Factories and Magic baseline
1107: P. Huber and W. Winter, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 68}, 037301 (2003).
1108:
1109:
1110: \end{thebibliography}
1111:
1112:
1113:
1114: \end{document}
1115: