Transcript Document
III. Neutrinos
•
Open questions in physics
•
: mechanism & EFT
New “Periodic Table”
Not physical
states
Courtesy: R.D. McKeown
Missing Solar Neutrinos…
Courtesy: R.D. McKeown
Neutrino Oscillations: What We’ve
Learned & What’s Unknown
The status of the
present knowledge
of the neutrino
oscillation phenomena
is schematically
depicted in this slide.
Three quantities are
unknown at present:
a) The mass m1
b) The angle q13
c) Whether the
normal or inverted
hierarchy is
realized.
Courtesy: P. Vogel
Neutrino Masses and Mixing: Scales
Courtesy: R.D. McKeown
Maki – Nakagawa – Sakata Matrix
Future Reactor
Experiment!
CP violation
Courtesy: R.D. McKeown
The Mass Puzzle
Familiar
light
neutrino
“Seesaw mechanism”
L
R
mD
Very
heavy
neutrino
mD L
M R
m D2
m
m D
M
M
Courtesy: R.D. McKeown
The Mixing Angle Puzzle
Why so different???
Courtesy: R.D. McKeown
Open Questions
•
What is the absolute value of m ?
Why is m so tiny ?
•
What is the mass hierarchy ?
•
Is the neutrino its own antiparticle?
•
What is q13 ?
•
Do neutrinos violate CP?
•
How do neutrinos affect/reflect
astrophysical phenomena ?
-Decay: LNV? Mass Term?
Dirac
Majorana
EFF &
m
Long
See-saw
baseline
neutrino
mechanism
spectrum
-decay
?
H
Theory Challenge:
matrix
e
e
elements+ mechanism
H
MU ek mk e2i
1000
EFF
L R
GERDA
L
Effective Mass (meV)
100
Degenerate
CUORE
Inverted
Leptogenesis
10
e
Normal
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
1
2
to see this picture.
Ue1are
= needed
0.866
m s ol = 70 meV
Ue2 = 0.5
m
2
atm
= 2000 meV
Ue3 = 0
u
2
2
0.1
2
3
4
5 6 7
2
3
4
5 6 7
2
3
4
5 6 7
Lepton
Asym -> Baryon
Asym
Normal
Inverted
EXO
Majorana
?
1
10
100
Minimum Neutrino Mass (meV)
2
mW
1000
W
M
AZ,N
d
e
u
u
d
W
e
W
k
e˜
e
0
u
AdZ 2,N 2
d
e˜
Majorana or Dirac
Or equivalently, is the total lepton number conserved?
Courtesy: P. Vogel
& Lepton Number Violation
Whatever processes cause , its observation would
imply the existence of a Majorana mass term:
Schechter and Valle,82
e–
()R
W
e–
0
u
d d
u
L
W
By adding only Standard model interactions we obtain
()R ()L Majorana mass term
Courtesy: P. Vogel
Decay vs. Decay
virtual state of the intermediate nucleus
virtual state of the intermediate nucleus
Courtesy: P. Vogel
Decay vs. Decay
30
x10
-6
2.0
dN/d(K
e /Q)
1.5
20
ratio
1:106
10
0
0.90 1.00 1.10
Ke /Q
1.0
assumed 2%
resolution
0.5
ratio
1:100
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
Ke /Q
0.8
1.0
Courtesy: P. Vogel
-Decay: Theoretical Challenges
Dirac
Majorana
Light M exchange:
can we determine m
Theory Challenge: matrix
elements+Vogel
mechanism
et al: reduce
QRPA spread by
EFF
2
calibrating
g
to T2e2i
m
U PP m
ek
k
k
e
Shell Model vs. QRPA
Configs near
Fermi surface
Levels above
Fermi surface
u
M
W
u
u
d
e
W
d
e
e˜
e
0
d
d
e˜
u
Decay Matrix Elements
Why it is difficult to calculate
the matrix elements accurately?
Contributions of different
angular momenta J of the
neutron pair that is transformed
in the decay into the proton pair
with the same J.
Note the opposite signs, and thus
tendency to cancel, between the
J = 0 (pairing) and the J 0
(ground state correlations) parts.
Courtesy: P. Vogel
The same restricted s.p. space
is used for QRPA and NSM.
There is a reasonable agreement
between the two methods
Decay Matrix Elements
Full estimated range of M within QRPA framework and comparison
with NSM (higher order currents now included in NSM)
Courtesy: P. Vogel
-Decay: Theoretical Challenges
Dirac
Majorana
Mechanism: does light M
exchange dominate ?
Theory Challenge: matrix
elements+ mechanism
m
EFF
U ek mk e 2i
2
k
e
O(1) for L ~ TeV
How to calc effects reliably ?
How to disentangle H & L ?
u
M
W
u
u
d
e
W
d
e
e˜
e
0
d
d
e˜
u
-Decay: Mechanism & m
1000
signal equivalent to
Degenerate
100
Effective Mass (meV)
degenerate hierarchy
Inverted
10
Normal
Loop contribution to m of
inverted hierarchy scale
m
Ue1 = 0.866
1
Ue2 = 0.5
m
2
2
atm
s ol
= 70 meV
= 2000 meV
2
2
Ue3 = 0
0.1
2
1
3
4
5 6 7
2
3
4
5 6 7
10
100
Minimum Neutrino Mass (meV)
2
3
4
5 6 7
1000
-Decay: Theoretical Challenges
Dirac
Majorana
Mechanism: does light M
exchange dominate ?
Theory Challenge: matrix
Prezeau, R-M, Vogel: EFT
elements+ mechanism
e
u
m
e
EFF
e
2i
U ek m
e
k
d
O(1) for L ~ TeV
How to calc effects reliably ?
How to disentangle H & L ?
u
d
e
e
e
2
N
k
N
e
e
Does operator power counting
M
0
W
W
u suffice?
e˜
e˜
u n nu
ˆ
d
d
O0L
p
d
d
p
u
- decay Mechanism: EFT
How do we compute & separate
heavy particle exchange effects?
e e
u
d
AZ,N
e
e e
u
u
AZ 2,Nd 2
4 quark operator:
low energy EFT
M
W
e
u
W
d
e
e˜
d
e
0
e˜
d
u
d
u
- decay in EFT I
We have a clear separation of scales
L L kF
L-violating
new physics
Non-perturbative
QCD
Nuclear dynamics
Effective Field Theory
Systematically and effectively
organizing our ignorance
Power counting
Scale separation
LEFF
GF
2
C (L ) p
j
L
j
Weak: MW
Hadronic: L
Nuclear: kF
“Low-energy constants”
parameterizing nonperturbative QCD
Nuclear operators
reflecting symmetries of
short distance physics
j
- decay in EFT II
e
e
e
e
e
e
N
N
N
N
N
Tractable nuclear operators
Systematic operator classification
N
- decay in EFT III
e
e
e
e
e
e
N
N
K p
2
N
N
1
K NN p
N
N
K NNNN p
K , KNN , KNNNN can be O ( p0 ), O ( p1 ), etc.
0
- decay in EFT IV
Operator classification
L(q,e)
MWEAK
L,N,e
M HAD
Spacetime &
chiral
transformation properties
- decay in EFT V
Operator classification
L(q,e) =
e.g.
GF2
L
MWEAK
14
c
ˆ
C
(
)
O
e
e
j
j
j
j1
ab
a
b
ˆ
O1 qL qL qR qR
- decay: a = b = +
h.c.
- decay in EFT VI
Operator classification
MWEAK
ab
a
b
ˆ
O1 qL qL qR qR
Chiral transformations: SU(2)L x SU(2)R
qL LqL
qR RqR
expiqL PL
R
R 2 R
L
Parity transformations: qL
- decay: a = b = +
Oˆ1ab (3L , 3R )
qR
ˆ O
ˆ
O
1
1
- decay in EFT VI
Hadronic basis
X Ra a , X La a , exp i 2
Chiral transformations
2
ˆ
O1 ~ Tr X R X L ~ 2
F
No derivatives
K ~ O (p0)
- decay in EFT VIII
Hadronic basis
ˆO q q q q q q q q
3
L
L L
L
R
R R
R
Chiral transformations
5L ,1R 1L ,5R
2
ˆ
O3 ~ Tr D X L D X L L R ~ 2
F
Two derivatives
K ~ O (p2)
- decay in EFT: Implications
e
u
e
d
u
W
L(q,e)
=
d
e˜
Oˆ1 (3L , 3R )
u
e
W
N
N
Kˆ NN p1
e
N
K NNNN p 0 No WR - WL
u
Oˆ (3
h.c.
L , 3R )
G d
c
ˆ
C j () O j 1e j e
L j1
2
F
14
RPV SUSY
N
O3 (5L , 1R ) (1L ,5R )
M
e
e
d
N
e 2
e
K p
e
0
e˜
N
e
mixing
R-M,
WPrezeau,
R - WL mix
& Vogel
Chiral properties of Oj++
determine p-dependence
of K ,KNN , KNNNN
Oˆ1 (3L , 3R )
K ~ O (p0)
Oˆ 3
(5, 1) (1, 5)
K ~ O (p2)
An open question
Is the power counting of operators sufficient to
understand weak matrix elements in nuclei ?
g
9 2
2
n
n
Oˆ 0L
p p
p , f
32
76Ge
76Se
0, ,9
0, ,5
2
52
2
An open question
Is the power counting of operators sufficient to
understand weak matrix elements in nuclei ?
L
ˆ
O0
0, ,9
0, ,5
Oˆ 0L0
M fi
~
p0
0
2, 0
M fi
~ p 4
0,
2
Oˆ 0L2
M fi
~ p0
4,
0
L 4
ˆ
O0 etc.
e.g.
M fi
~
p0
Oˆ 0L2
-Decay: Interpretation
Dirac
Majorana
Theory
Challenge:
matrix
If the existence
of the
decay
elements+ mechanism
is established:
1000
Degenerate
2
ek
mk e 2i
k
• Which additional
isotopes ?
100
Effective Mass (meV)
EFF
• What
m mechanism?
U
Inverted
e
10
Normal
m
Ue1 = 0.866
1
Ue2 = 0.5
m
2
2
atm
s ol
= 70 meV
= 2000 meV
Ue3 = 0
2
u
2
0.1
2
1
3
4
5 6 7
2
3
4
5 6 7
10
100
Minimum Neutrino Mass (meV)
2
3
4
5 6 7
1000
M
W
u
u
d
e
W
d
e
e˜
e
0
d
d
e˜
u
-Decay: Mechanism & m
Be = (e)/(ee)
Be =
(Z,A) e- + (Z,A))
(Z,A) + (Z,A))
- SM extensions with low ( TeV) scale LNV
Left-right symmetric model,
R-parity violating SUSY, etc.
possibly unrelated to m2
**
R = Be/Be» 10-2
R ~ O(a/~ 13 1
** In
absence of fine-tuning or hierarchies
in flavor couplings. Important caveat!
See: V. Cirigliano et al., PRL93,231802(2004)
Lepton Flavor & Number Violation
e
Present universe
Early universe
a Y1
MEG: B->e ~ 5 x
e
AZ,N
R=
10-14
AZ,N
Mu2e: B->e ~ 5 x 10-17
Also PRIME
B->e
a 1
L
B->e
a 1
S
?
?
log 10 ( / 0 )
Weak scale
Planck scale
Lepton Flavor & Number Violation
0decay
e
W
u
d
MEG:
LightBM
~ 5 x 10-14?
!eexchange
u
e
e
M
u W
d
Raidal, Santamaria;
Cirigliano, Kurylov, RM, Vogel
LFV Probes of RPV: ->e
e
AZ,N
e˜
e˜
e
u
AZ,N
d
Heavy particle exchange
?
-17
Mu2e:
B
~
5
x
10
!e
˜
0
d
e
e
lk11/ ~ 0.008
0.09 for
formm
TeV
SUSY
SUSY~~11TeV
e
e
e
e
*
Logarithmic enhancements of R
Low scale LFV: R ~ O(1)
*
e
GUT scale LFV: R ~ Oa
Open Questions
•
What is the absolute value of m ?
Why is m so tiny ?
•
What is the mass hierarchy ?
•
Is the neutrino its own antiparticle?
•
What is q13 ?
•
Do neutrinos violate CP?
•
How do neutrinos affect/reflect
astrophysical phenomena ?
Precision Neutrino Property Studies
Neutrino Mass: Terrestrial vs Cosmological
New interactions
KATRIN, Mare
WMAP & Beyond
1000
Degenerate
Effective Mass (meV)
100
Inverted
10
Normal
m
Ue1 = 0.866
1
Ue2 = 0.5
m
2
2
atm
s ol
= 70 meV
= 2000 meV
2
2
Ue3 = 0
0.1
Energy
Density
1
10
2
3
4
5 6 7
2
3
4
5 6 7
100
Minimum Neutrino Mass (meV)
2
3
4
Power
Spectrum
1000
5 6 7
Beacom, Bell,
Dodelson
Precision Neutrino Property Studies
Mixing, hierarchy, & CPV
Daya Bay
U e1 U e2 U e 3
U U 1 U 2 U 3
U1 U 2 U 3
1
0
0 cos q13
0 ei CP sin q13 cosq12 sin q12 0 1 0
0
ia / 2
0 cosq 23 sin q23
0
1
0
0
sin q12 cos q12 0 0 e
i CP
ia / 2i
cosq13 0
0
1 0 0 e
0 sin q 23 cosq 23 e sin q13 0
Double
Chooz
Long baseline
oscillation studies:
CPV?
Normal or Inverted ?
Mini Boone
T2K
Precision Neutrino Property Studies
High energy solar s
Solar Neutrinos
DM +
EWB
Ice Cube
EM vs. luminosity: MNSP
KamLAND
Borexino
unitarity?
Solar model?
SNO+
LENS