Massvarying neutrino oscillations Danny Marfatia University of Kansas

Why mass-varying neutrinos? R. Fardon, A. Nelson, N. Weiner • quintessence without extremely light

Parameterize an element of the mass-squared matrix as Assume as density dependence for the

Ma. Va. Ns can explain all post-Mini. Boo. NE data 3 positive signals for

Framework 3+1 Ma. Va. N model Assumptions: • No vacuum mixing between active and

Mixing matrix that connects flavor and mass eigenstates in vacuum

Sterile mixing angle diagonalizes M 2 Mixing matrix between flavor and mass eigenstates in

Spectrum relevant to Kam. LAND, K 2 K, LSND

Constraints from other experiments? At the atmospheric scale: Weaker Palo Verde bound applies At

LSND oscillation amplitude Look for solutions with sin 2 « 1 2) Kam. LAND

CDHSW bound Gosgen/Krasnoyarsk bound Need only consider the CDHSW bound

Constraints from atmospheric data Atmospheric neutrinos do not pass only through the Earth’s crust

If is small, sterile mixing will not upset atmospheric neutrino fits.

What if Mini. Boo. NE reports a null result? New allowed region comfortably explained

Still need to show that the model gives the correct m for K 2

• Model is insensitive to k and r • Model will fit atmospheric

Solar neutrinos? • density in sun » density in earth

Signatures • 3+1 Ma. Va. N model explains all oscillation data includin LSND and

Slides: 26

Download presentation

Mass-varying neutrino oscillations Danny Marfatia University of Kansas with V. Barger and K. Whisnant (hep-ph/0509163)

Why mass-varying neutrinos? R. Fardon, A. Nelson, N. Weiner • quintessence without extremely light scalars (10 -33 e. V) Consequenc es • neutrino masses vary with their number density • neutrino masses vary with matter density if the scalar couples to matter • new matter effects in neutrino oscillations…

Parameterize an element of the mass-squared matrix as Assume as density dependence for the Mij

Ma. Va. Ns can explain all post-Mini. Boo. NE data 3 positive signals for neutrino path in Earth’s crust: Kam. LAND, K 2 K, LSND • Need 3 independent mass-squared differences • 3 -Ma. Va. N model is insufficient

Framework 3+1 Ma. Va. N model Assumptions: • No vacuum mixing between active and sterile neutrin • Sterile neutrino massless in vacuum

Mixing matrix that connects flavor and mass eigenstates in vacuum

Sterile mixing angle diagonalizes M 2 Mixing matrix between flavor and mass eigenstates in matter

Spectrum relevant to Kam. LAND, K 2 K, LSND

Constraints from other experiments? At the atmospheric scale: Weaker Palo Verde bound applies At the LSND scale:

LSND oscillation amplitude Look for solutions with sin 2 « 1 2) Kam. LAND and solar oscillation probabilities are approximately the same as in the 3 -neutrino

CDHSW bound Gosgen/Krasnoyarsk bound Need only consider the CDHSW bound

Constraints from atmospheric data Atmospheric neutrinos do not pass only through the Earth’s crust M 2 and V vary with path

If is small, sterile mixing will not upset atmospheric neutrino fits.

What if Mini. Boo. NE reports a null result? New allowed region comfortably explained

Still need to show that the model gives the correct m for K 2 K and atmospheric neutrinos Largest oscillation signal occurs for core-crossing upward events

• Model is insensitive to k and r • Model will fit atmospheric data well

Not enough!

Solar neutrinos? • density in sun » density in earth

Consistency with Bugey and CHOOZ?

Signatures • 3+1 Ma. Va. N model explains all oscillation data includin LSND and a null-Mini. Boo. NE result - Underground reactor experiments (Angra, Braidwood Daya Bay, KASKA) should see a signal The above-ground Double-CHOOZ should not see a si