Neutrino oscillation

Neutrino oscillation is a quantum mechanical phenomenon whereby a neutrino created with a specific lepton flavour (electron, muon, or tau) can later be measured to have a different flavour. The probability of measuring a particular flavour for a neutrino varies periodically as it propagates through space.^[1]

First predicted by Bruno Pontecorvo in 1957,^[2] neutrino oscillation has since been observed by a multitude of experiments in several different contexts. Also, it turned out to be the resolution to the long-standing solar neutrino problem.

Neutrino oscillation is of great theoretical and experimental interest, since observation of the phenomenon implies that the neutrino has a non-zero mass, which was not included as part of the original Standard Model of particle physics.^[1] The discovery of proof for neutrino oscillation, and thus neutrino mass by Takaaki Kajita at the Super-Kamiokande Observatory and Arthur McDonald at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory won them the 2015 Nobel Prize for Physics.^[3]

Observations

A great deal of evidence for neutrino oscillation has been collected from many sources, over a wide range of neutrino energies and with many different detector technologies.^[4] The 2015 Nobel Prize in Physics was shared by Takaaki Kajita and Arthur B. McDonald for their early pioneering observations of oscillations.

Solar neutrino oscillation

The first experiment that detected the effects of neutrino oscillation was Ray Davis's Homestake Experiment in the late 1960s, in which he observed a deficit in the flux of solar neutrinos with respect to the prediction of the Standard Solar Model, using a chlorine-based detector.^[5] This gave rise to the Solar neutrino problem. Many subsequent radiochemical and water Cherenkov detectors confirmed the deficit, but neutrino oscillation was not conclusively identified as the source of the deficit until the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory provided clear evidence of neutrino flavour change in 2001.^[6]

Solar neutrinos have energies below 20 MeV and travel approximately 1 A.U. between the source in the Sun and detector on the Earth. At energies above 5 MeV, solar neutrino oscillation actually takes place in the Sun through a resonance known as the MSW effect, a different process from the vacuum oscillation described later in this article.^[1]

Atmospheric neutrino oscillation

Large detectors such as IMB, MACRO, and Kamiokande II observed a deficit in the ratio of the flux of muon to electron flavour atmospheric neutrinos (see muon decay). The Super Kamiokande experiment provided a very precise measurement of neutrino oscillation in an energy range of hundreds of MeV to a few TeV, and with a baseline of the diameter of the Earth; the first experimental evidence for atmospheric neutrino oscillations was announced in 1998.^[7]

Reactor neutrino oscillation

Many experiments have searched for oscillation of electron anti-neutrinos produced at nuclear reactors. Such oscillations give the value of the parameter θ₁₃. The KamLAND experiment, started in 2002, has made a high precision observation of reactor neutrino oscillation. Neutrinos produced in nuclear reactors have energies similar to solar neutrinos, of around a few MeV. The baselines of these experiments have ranged from tens of meters to over 100 km.

In 2012, Chinese Daya Bay team announced a discovery that θ₁₃ ≠ 0 at 5.2σ significance.^[8] RENO soon confirmed the result.^[9]

Beam neutrino oscillation

Neutrino beams produced at a particle accelerator offer the greatest control over the neutrinos being studied. Many experiments have taken place which study the same neutrino oscillations which take place in atmospheric neutrino oscillation, using neutrinos with a few GeV of energy and several hundred km baselines. The MINOS, K2K, and Super-K experiments have all independently observed muon neutrino disappearance over such long baselines.^[1]

Data from the LSND experiment appear to be in conflict with the oscillation parameters measured in other experiments. Results from the MiniBooNE appeared in Spring 2007 and contradicted the results from LSND, although they could support the existence of a fourth neutrino type, the sterile neutrino.^[1]

In 2010, the INFN and CERN announced the observation of a tau particle in a muon neutrino beam in the OPERA detector located at Gran Sasso, 730 km away from the source in Geneva.^[10]

The currently-running T2K experiment uses a neutrino beam directed through 295 km of earth, and will measure the parameter θ₁₃. The experiment uses the Super-K detector. NOνA is a similar effort. This detector will use the same beam as MINOS and will have a baseline of 810 km.

Theory

Neutrino oscillation arises from a mixture between the flavour and mass eigenstates of neutrinos. That is, the three neutrino states that interact with the charged leptons in weak interactions are each a different superposition of the three neutrino states of definite mass. Neutrinos are created in weak processes in their flavour eigenstates^{[nb 1]}. As a neutrino propagates through space, the quantum mechanical phases of the three mass states advance at slightly different rates due to the slight differences in the neutrino masses. This results in a changing mixture of mass states as the neutrino travels, but a different mixture of mass states corresponds to a different mixture of flavour states. So a neutrino born as, say, an electron neutrino will be some mixture of electron, mu, and tau neutrino after traveling some distance. Since the quantum mechanical phase advances in a periodic fashion, after some distance the state will nearly return to the original mixture, and the neutrino will be again mostly electron neutrino. The electron flavour content of the neutrino will then continue to oscillate as long as the quantum mechanical state maintains coherence. Since mass differences between neutrino flavours are small in comparison with long coherence length for neutrino oscillations this microscopic quantum effect becomes observable over macroscopic distances.

On July 19, 2013 the results from the T2K experiment presented at the European Physical Society Conference on High Energy Physics in Stockholm, Sweden, confirmed the theory.^[12][13]

Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata matrix

The idea of neutrino oscillation was first put forward in 1957 by Bruno Pontecorvo, who proposed that neutrino-antineutrino transitions may occur in analogy with neutral kaon mixing.^[2] Although such matter-antimatter oscillation has not been observed, this idea formed the conceptual foundation for the quantitative theory of neutrino flavour oscillation, which was first developed by Maki, Nakagawa, and Sakata in 1962^[14] and further elaborated by Pontecorvo in 1967.^[15] One year later the solar neutrino deficit was first observed,^[16] and that was followed by the famous paper of Gribov and Pontecorvo published in 1969 titled "Neutrino astronomy and lepton charge".^[17]

The concept of neutrino mixing is a natural outcome of gauge theories with massive neutrinos and its structure can be characterized in general.^[18] In its simplest form it is expressed as a unitary transformation relating the flavor and mass eigenbasis can be written

$\left| \nu_\alpha \right\rangle = \sum_{i} U^{*}_{\alpha i} \left| \nu_i \right\rangle\,$

$\left| \nu_i \right\rangle = \sum_\alpha U_{\alpha i} \left| \nu_\alpha \right\rangle,$

where

• $\left| \nu_\alpha \right\rangle$ is a neutrino with definite flavor. α = e (electron), μ (muon) or τ (tauon).
• $\left| \nu_i \right\rangle$ is a neutrino with definite mass $m_i$, $i =$ 1, 2, 3.
• The asterisk (${}^*$) represents a complex conjugate. For antineutrinos, the complex conjugate should be dropped from the first equation, and added to the second.

$U_{\alpha i}$ represents the Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata matrix (also called the PMNS matrix, lepton mixing matrix, or sometimes simply the MNS matrix). It is the analogue of the CKM matrix describing the analogous mixing of quarks. If this matrix were the identity matrix, then the flavor eigenstates would be the same as the mass eigenstates. However, experiment shows that it is not.

When the standard three neutrino theory is considered, the matrix is 3×3. If only two neutrinos are considered, a 2×2 matrix is used. If one or more sterile neutrinos are added (see later) it is 4×4 or larger. In the 3×3 form, it is given by:^[19]

$\begin{align} U &= \begin{bmatrix} U_{e 1} & U_{e 2} & U_{e 3} \\ U_{\mu 1} & U_{\mu 2} & U_{\mu 3} \\ U_{\tau 1} & U_{\tau 2} & U_{\tau 3} \end{bmatrix} \\ &= \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & c_{23} & s_{23} \\ 0 & -s_{23} & c_{23} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} c_{13} & 0 & s_{13} e^{-i\delta} \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ -s_{13} e^{i\delta} & 0 & c_{13} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} c_{12} & s_{12} & 0 \\ -s_{12} & c_{12} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} e^{i\alpha_1 / 2} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & e^{i\alpha_2 / 2} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \end{bmatrix} \\ &= \begin{bmatrix} c_{12} c_{13} & s_{12} c_{13} & s_{13} e^{-i\delta} \\ - s_{12} c_{23} - c_{12} s_{23} s_{13} e^{i \delta} & c_{12} c_{23} - s_{12} s_{23} s_{13} e^{i \delta} & s_{23} c_{13}\\ s_{12} s_{23} - c_{12} c_{23} s_{13} e^{i \delta} & - c_{12} s_{23} - s_{12} c_{23} s_{13} e^{i \delta} & c_{23} c_{13} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} e^{i\alpha_1 / 2} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & e^{i\alpha_2 / 2} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ \end{bmatrix} \end{align}$

where c_ij = cos θ_ij and s_ij = sin θ_ij. The phase factors α₁ and α₂ are physically meaningful only if neutrinos are Majorana particles — i.e. if the neutrino is identical to its antineutrino (whether or not they are is unknown) — and do not enter into oscillation phenomena regardless. If neutrinoless double beta decay occurs, these factors influence its rate. The phase factor δ is non-zero only if neutrino oscillation violates CP symmetry. This is expected, but not yet observed experimentally. If experiment shows this 3×3 matrix to be not unitary, a sterile neutrino or some other new physics is required.

Propagation and interference

Since $\left| \nu_{i} \right\rangle$ are mass eigenstates, their propagation can be described by plane wave solutions of the form

$|\nu_{i}(t)\rangle = e^{ -i ( E_i t - \vec{p}_i \cdot \vec{x}) }\mid \nu_i(0)\rangle,$

where

• quantities are expressed in natural units $(c = 1, \hbar = 1)$
• $E_{i}$ is the energy of the mass-eigenstate $i$,
• $t$ is the time from the start of the propagation,
• $\vec{p}_{i}$ is the three-dimensional momentum,
• $\vec{x}$ is the current position of the particle relative to its starting position

In the ultrarelativistic limit, $|\vec{p}_i| = p_i \gg m_i$, we can approximate the energy as

$E_i = \sqrt{p_i^2 + m_i^2 }\simeq p_i + \frac{m_i^2}{2 p_i} \approx E + \frac{m_i^2}{2 E},$

where E is the total energy of the particle.

This limit applies to all practical (currently observed) neutrinos, since their masses are less than 1 eV and their energies are at least 1 MeV, so the Lorentz factor γ is greater than 10⁶ in all cases. Using also t ≈ L, where L is the distance traveled and also dropping the phase factors, the wavefunction becomes:

$|\nu_i(L)\rangle = e^{ -i m_i^2 L/2E }| \nu_i(0)\rangle.$

Eigenstates with different masses propagate at different speeds. The heavier ones lag behind while the lighter ones pull ahead. Since the mass eigenstates are combinations of flavor eigenstates, this difference in speed causes interference between the corresponding flavor components of each mass eigenstate. Constructive interference causes it to be possible to observe a neutrino created with a given flavor to change its flavor during its propagation. The probability that a neutrino originally of flavor α will later be observed as having flavor β is

$P_{\alpha\rightarrow\beta}=\left|\left\langle \nu_\beta(t)|\nu_\alpha\right\rangle \right|^2=\left|\sum_i U_{\alpha i}^{*}U_{\beta i}e^{ -i m_i^2 L/2E }\right|^2.$

This is more conveniently written as

$\begin{align} P_{\alpha\rightarrow\beta}=\delta_{\alpha\beta} & {} - 4 \sum_{i>j} {\rm Re}(U_{\alpha i}^{*} U_{\beta i} U_{\alpha j} U_{\beta j}^{*}) \sin^2 \left(\frac{\Delta m_{ij}^2 L}{4E}\right) \\ & {} + 2\sum_{i>j}{\rm Im}(U_{\alpha i}^{*}U_{\beta i}U_{\alpha j} U_{\beta j}^{*}) \sin\left(\frac{\Delta m_{ij}^2 L}{2E}\right), \end{align}$

where $\Delta m_{ij}^2 \ \equiv m_i^2 - m_j^2$. The phase that is responsible for oscillation is often written as (with c and $\hbar$ restored)

$\frac{\Delta m^2\, c^3\, L}{4 \hbar E} = \frac{{\rm GeV}\, {\rm fm}}{4 \hbar c} \times \frac{\Delta m^2}{{\rm eV}^2} \frac{L}{\rm km} \frac{\rm GeV}{E} \approx 1.27 \times \frac{\Delta m^2}{{\rm eV}^2} \frac{L}{\rm km} \frac{\rm GeV}{E},$

where 1.27 is unitless. In this form, it is convenient to plug in the oscillation parameters since:

• The mass differences, Δm², are known to be on the order of 1×10⁻⁴ eV²
• Oscillation distances, L, in modern experiments are on the order of kilometers
• Neutrino energies, E, in modern experiments are typically on order of MeV or GeV.

If there is no CP-violation (δ is zero), then the second sum is zero. Otherwise, the CP asymmetry can be given as

$A^{(\alpha\beta)}_{\text{CP}}=P(\nu_\alpha \rightarrow\nu_\beta)-P(\bar{\nu}_{\alpha}\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_{\beta}) =4\sum_{i>j}\mathrm{Im}\big(U^*_{\alpha i} U_{\beta i}U_{\alpha j} U^*_{\beta j}\big) \sin\Big(\tfrac{\Delta m^2_{ij}L}{2E}\Big)$

In terms of Jarlskog invariant

$\mathrm{Im}\big(U_{\alpha i}U^*_{\beta i}U^*_{\alpha j}U_{\beta j}\big)=J\sum_{\gamma,k}\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma}\varepsilon_{ijk}$,

the CP asymmetry is expressed as

$A^{(\alpha\beta)}_{\text{CP}} = 16J\sum_{\gamma}\varepsilon_{\alpha\beta\gamma} \sin\Big(\tfrac{\Delta m^2_{21}L}{4E}\Big) \sin\Big(\tfrac{\Delta m^2_{32}L}{4E}\Big) \sin\Big(\tfrac{\Delta m^2_{31}L}{4E}\Big)$

Two neutrino case

The above formula is correct for any number of neutrino generations. Writing it explicitly in terms of mixing angles is extremely cumbersome if there are more than two neutrinos that participate in mixing. Fortunately, there are several cases in which only two neutrinos participate significantly. In this case, it is sufficient to consider the mixing matrix

$U = \begin{pmatrix} \cos\theta & \sin\theta \\ -\sin\theta & \cos\theta \end{pmatrix}.$

Then the probability of a neutrino changing its flavor is

$P_{\alpha\rightarrow\beta, \alpha\neq\beta} = \sin^2(2\theta) \sin^2 \left(\frac{\Delta m^2 L}{4E}\right)\, \text{(natural units)}.$

Or, using SI units and the convention introduced above

$P_{\alpha\rightarrow\beta, \alpha\neq\beta} = \sin^2(2\theta) \sin^2 \left( 1.27 \frac{\Delta m^2 L}{E} \frac{\rm [eV^{2}]\,[km]}{\rm [GeV]}\right).$

This formula is often appropriate for discussing the transition ν_μ ↔ ν_τ in atmospheric mixing, since the electron neutrino plays almost no role in this case. It is also appropriate for the solar case of ν_e ↔ ν_x, where ν_x is a superposition of ν_μ and ν_τ. These approximations are possible because the mixing angle θ₁₃ is very small and because two of the mass states are very close in mass compared to the third.

Classical analogue of neutrino oscillation

Spring-coupled pendulums

Time evolution of the pendulums

Lower frequency normal mode

Higher frequency normal mode

The basic physics behind neutrino oscillation can be found in any system of coupled harmonic oscillators. A simple example is a system of two pendulums connected by a weak spring (a spring with a small spring constant). The first pendulum is set in motion by the experimenter while the second begins at rest. Over time, the second pendulum begins to swing under the influence of the spring, while the first pendulum's amplitude decreases as it loses energy to the second. Eventually all of the system's energy is transferred to the second pendulum and the first is at rest. The process then reverses. The energy oscillates between the two pendulums repeatedly until it is lost to friction.

The behavior of this system can be understood by looking at its normal modes of oscillation. If the two pendulums are identical then one normal mode consists of both pendulums swinging in the same direction with a constant distance between them, while the other consists of the pendulums swinging in opposite (mirror image) directions. These normal modes have (slightly) different frequencies because the second involves the (weak) spring while the first does not. The initial state of the two-pendulum system is a combination of both normal modes. Over time, these normal modes drift out of phase, and this is seen as a transfer of motion from the first pendulum to the second.

The description of the system in terms of the two pendulums is analogous to the flavor basis of neutrinos. These are the parameters that are most easily produced and detected (in the case of neutrinos, by weak interactions involving the W boson). The description in terms of normal modes is analogous to the mass basis of neutrinos. These modes do not interact with each other when the system is free of outside influence.

When the pendulums are not identical the analysis is slightly more complicated. In the small-angle approximation, the potential energy of a single pendulum system is $\tfrac12\tfrac{mg}{L} x^2$, where g is the standard gravity, L is the length of the pendulum, m is the mass of the pendulum, and x is the horizontal displacement of the pendulum. As an isolated system the pendulum is a harmonic oscillator with a frequency of $\sqrt{g/L}$. The potential energy of a spring is $\tfrac12 k x^2$ where k is the spring constant and x is the displacement. With a mass attached it oscillates with a period of $\sqrt{k/m}$. With two pendulums (labeled a and b) of equal mass but possibly unequal lengths and connected by a spring, the total potential energy is

$V = \frac{m}{2} \left( \frac{g}{L_a} x_a^2 + \frac{g}{L_b} x_b^2 + \frac{k}{m} (x_b - x_a)^2 \right).$

This is a quadratic form in x_a and x_b, which can also be written as a matrix product:

$V = \frac{m}{2} \begin{pmatrix} x_a & x_b \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \tfrac{g}{L_a} + \tfrac{k}{m} & -\tfrac{k}{m} \\[8pt] -\tfrac{k}{m} & \tfrac{g}{L_b} + \tfrac{k}{m} \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} x_a \\ x_b \end{pmatrix}.$

The 2×2 matrix is real symmetric and so (by the spectral theorem) it is "orthogonally diagonalizable". That is, there is an angle θ such that if we define

$\begin{pmatrix} x_a \\ x_b \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \cos \theta & \sin \theta \\ -\sin \theta & \cos \theta \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} x_1 \\ x_2 \end{pmatrix}$

then

$V = \frac{m}{2} \begin{pmatrix} x_1 \ x_2 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} \lambda_1 & 0 \\ 0 & \lambda_2 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} x_1 \\ x_2 \end{pmatrix}$

where λ₁ and λ₂ are the eigenvalues of the matrix. The variables x₁ and x₂ describe normal modes which oscillate with frequencies of $\sqrt{\lambda_1}$ and $\sqrt{\lambda_2}$. When the two pendulums are identical (L_a = L_b), θ is 45°.

The angle θ is analogous to the Cabibbo angle (though that angle applies to quarks rather than neutrinos).

When the number of oscillators (particles) is increased to three, the orthogonal matrix can no longer be described by a single angle; instead, three are required (Euler angles). Furthermore, in the quantum case, the matrices may be complex. This requires the introduction of complex phases in addition to the rotation angles, which are associated with CP violation but do not influence the observable effects of neutrino oscillation.

Theory, graphically

Two neutrino probabilities in vacuum

In the approximation where only two neutrinos participate in the oscillation, the probability of oscillation follows a simple pattern:

The blue curve shows the probability of the original neutrino retaining its identity. The red curve shows the probability of conversion to the other neutrino. The maximum probability of conversion is equal to sin²2θ. The frequency of the oscillation is controlled by Δm².

Three neutrino probabilities

If three neutrinos are considered, the probability for each neutrino to appear is somewhat complex. Here are shown the probabilities for each initial flavor, with one plot showing a long range to display the slow "solar" oscillation and the other zoomed in to display the fast "atmospheric" oscillation. The oscillation parameters used here are consistent with current measurements, but since some parameters are still quite uncertain, these graphs are only qualitatively correct in some aspects. These values were used:

• sin²2θ₁₃ = 0.10 (Controls the size of the small wiggles.)
• sin²2θ₂₃ = 0.97.
• sin²2θ₁₂ = 0.861.
• δ = 0 (If it is actually large, these probabilities will be somewhat distorted and different for neutrinos and antineutrinos.)
• Δm2
  12 = 7.59×10⁻⁵ eV².
• Δm2
  32 ≈ Δm2
  13 = 2.32×10⁻³ eV².
• Normal mass hierarchy.

Electron neutrino oscillations, long range. Here and in the following diagrams black means electron neutrino, blue means muon neutrino and red means tau neutrino.	Electron neutrino oscillations, short range
Muon neutrino oscillations, long range	Muon neutrino oscillations, short range
Tau neutrino oscillations, long range	Tau neutrino oscillations, short range

^[20]

Observed values of oscillation parameters

• sin²(2θ₁₃) = 0.093±0.008.^[21] PDG combination of Daya Bay, RENO, and Chooz results.
• sin²(2θ₁₂) = 0.846+0.021
  −0.021.^[21] This corresponds to θ_sol (solar), obtained from KamLand, solar, reactor and accelator data.
• sin²(2θ₂₃) > 0.92 at 90% confidence level, corresponding to θ₂₃ ≡ θ_atm = 45±7.1° (atmospheric)^[22]
• Δm2
  21 ≡ Δm2
  sol = 7.53+0.18
  −0.18×10⁻⁵ eV^2[21]
• |Δm2
  31| ≈ |Δm2
  32| ≡ Δm2
  atm = 2.44+0.06
  −0.06×10⁻³ eV² (normal mass hierarchy)^[21]
• δ, α₁, α₂, and the sign of Δm2
  32 are currently unknown

Solar neutrino experiments combined with KamLAND have measured the so-called solar parameters Δm2
sol and sin²θ_sol. Atmospheric neutrino experiments such as Super-Kamiokande together with the K2K and MINOS long baseline accelerator neutrino experiment have determined the so-called atmospheric parameters Δm2
atm and sin²θ_atm. The last mixing angle, θ₁₃, has been measured by the experiments Daya Bay, Double Chooz and RENO as sin²2θ₁₃.

For atmospheric neutrinos (where the relevant difference of masses is about Δm² = 2.4×10⁻³ eV² and the typical energies are ~1 GeV), oscillations become visible for neutrinos traveling several hundred km, which means neutrinos that reach the detector from below the horizon.

The mixing parameter θ₁₃ is measured using electron anti-neutrinos from nuclear reactors. The rate of anti-neutrino interactions is measured in detectors sited near the reactors to determine the flux prior to any significant oscillations and then it is measured in far detectors (sited km from the reactors). The oscillation is observed as an apparent disappearance of electron anti-neutrinos in the far detectors (i.e. the interaction rate at the far site is lower than predicted from the observed rate at the near site).

From atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillation experiments, it is known that two mixing angles of the MNS matrix are large and the third is smaller. This is in sharp contrast to the CKM matrix in which all three angles are small and hierarchically decreasing. Nothing is known about the CP-violating phase of the MNS matrix.

If the neutrino mass proves to be of Majorana type (making the neutrino its own antiparticle), it is possible that the MNS matrix has more than one phase.

Since experiments observing neutrino oscillation measure the squared mass difference and not absolute mass, one can claim that the lightest neutrino mass is exactly zero, without contradicting observations. This is however regarded as unlikely by theorists.

Origins of neutrino mass

The question of how neutrino masses arise has not been answered conclusively. In the Standard Model of particle physics, fermions only have mass because of interactions with the Higgs field (see Higgs boson). These interactions involve both left- and right-handed versions of the fermion (see chirality). However, only left-handed neutrinos have been observed so far.

Neutrinos may have another source of mass through the Majorana mass term. This type of mass applies for electrically-neutral particles since otherwise it would allow particles to turn into anti-particles, which would violate conservation of electric charge.

The smallest modification to the Standard Model, which only has left-handed neutrinos, is to allow these left-handed neutrinos to have Majorana masses. The problem with this is that the neutrino masses are surprisingly smaller than the rest of the known particles (at least 500,000 times smaller than the mass of an electron), which, while it does not invalidate the theory, is widely regarded as unsatisfactory as this construction offers no insight into the origin of the neutrino mass scale.

The next simplest addition would be to add into the Standard Model right-handed neutrinos that interact with the left-handed neutrinos and the Higgs field in an analogous way to the rest of the fermions. These new neutrinos would interact with the other fermions solely in this way, so are not phenomenologically excluded. The problem of the disparity of the mass scales remains.

Seesaw mechanism

The most popular conjectured solution currently is the seesaw mechanism, where right-handed neutrinos with very large Majorana masses are added. If the right-handed neutrinos are very heavy, they induce a very small mass for the left-handed neutrinos, which is proportional to the inverse of the heavy mass.

If it is assumed that the neutrinos interact with the Higgs field with approximately the same strengths as the charged fermions do, the heavy mass should be close to the GUT scale. Note that, in the Standard Model there is just one fundamental mass scale (which can be taken as the scale of SU(2)_L × U(1)_Y breaking) and all masses (such as the electron or the mass of the Z boson) have to originate from this one.

There are other varieties of seesaw^[23] and there is currently great interest in the so-called low-scale seesaw schemes, such as the inverse seesaw mechanism.^[24]

The addition of right-handed neutrinos has the effect of adding new mass scales, unrelated to the mass scale of the Standard Model, hence the observation of heavy right-handed neutrinos would reveal physics beyond the Standard Model. Right-handed neutrinos would help to explain the origin of matter through a mechanism known as leptogenesis.

Other sources

There are alternative ways to modify the standard model that are similar to the addition of heavy right-handed neutrinos (e.g., the addition of new scalars or fermions in triplet states) and other modifications that are less similar (e.g., neutrino masses from loop effects and/or from suppressed couplings). One example of the last type of models is provided by certain versions supersymmetric extensions of the standard model of fundamental interactions, where R parity is not a symmetry. There, the exchange of supersymmetric particles such as squarks and sleptons can break the lepton number and lead to neutrino masses. These interactions are normally excluded from theories as they come from a class of interactions that lead to unacceptably rapid proton decay if they are all included. These models have little predictive power and are not able to provide a cold dark matter candidate.

Oscillations in the early universe

During the early universe when particle concentrations and temperatures were high, neutrino oscillations can behave differently.^[25] Depending on neutrino mixing-angle parameters and masses, a broad spectrum of behavior may arise including vacuum-like neutrino oscillations, smooth evolution, or self-maintained coherence. The physics for this system is non-trivial and involves neutrino oscillations in a dense neutrino gas.

See also

• MSW effect
• Majoron
• Neutral kaon mixing
• Neutral particle oscillation
• Neutrino astronomy

Notes

1. More formally, the neutrinos are emitted in an entangled state with the other bodies in the decay or reaction, and the mixed state is properly described by a density matrix. However, for all practical situations, the other particles in the decay may be well localized in time and space (e.g. to within a nuclear distance), leaving their momentum with a large spread. When these partner states are projected out, the neutrino is left in a state that for all intents and purposes behaves as the simple superposition of mass states described here. See ^[11] for more information.

References

1. Barger, Vernon; Marfatia, Danny; Whisnant, Kerry Lewis (2012). The Physics of Neutrinos. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-12853-7.
2. B. Pontecorvo (1957). "Mesonium and anti-mesonium". Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 33: 549–551. reproduced and translated in Sov. Phys. JETP 6: 429. 1957. Missing or empty |title= (help) and B. Pontecorvo (1967). "Neutrino Experiments and the Problem of Conservation of Leptonic Charge". Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 53: 1717. reproduced and translated in Pontecorvo, B. (1968). "Neutrino Experiments and the Problem of Conservation of Leptonic Charge". Sov. Phys. JETP 26: 984. Bibcode:1968JETP...26..984P.
3. Webb, Jonathan (6 October 2015). "Neutrino 'flip' wins physics Nobel Prize". BBC News. Retrieved 6 October 2015.
4. M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia and Michele Maltoni (2008). "Phenomenology with Massive Neutrinos". Physics Reports 460: 1–129. arXiv:0704.1800. Bibcode:2008PhR...460....1G. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2007.12.004.
5. Davis, Raymond; Harmer, Don S.; Hoffman, Kenneth C. (1968). "Search for Neutrinos from the Sun". Physical Review Letters 20 (21): 1205–1209. Bibcode:1968PhRvL..20.1205D. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.20.1205.
6. Ahmad, Q. R.; et al. (SNO Collaboration) (2001). "Measurement of the Rate of ν_e + d → p + p + e⁻ Interactions Produced by ⁸B Solar Neutrinos at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory". Physical Review Letters 87 (7). arXiv:nucl-ex/0106015. Bibcode:2001PhRvL..87g1301A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.071301.
7. Y. Fukudae; et al. (Super-Kamiokande Collaboration) (1998). "Evidence for Oscillation of Atmospheric Neutrinos". Physical Review Letters 81 (8): 1562–1567. arXiv:hep-ex/9807003. Bibcode:1998PhRvL..81.1562F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.1562.
8. F. P. An; et al. (Daya Bay Collaboration) (2012). "Observation of Electron-Antineutrino Disappearance at Daya Bay". Physical Review Letters 108 (17). arXiv:1203.1669. Bibcode:2012PhRvL.108q1803A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.171803.
9. Kim, Soo-Bong (2012). "Observation of Reactor Electron Antineutrino Disappearance in the RENO Experiment". arXiv:1204.0626v2 [hep-ex].
10. N. Agafonova; et al. (OPERA Collaboration) (2010). "Observation of a first ντ candidate event in the OPERA experiment in the CNGS beam". Physics Letters B 691 (3): 138–145. arXiv:1006.1623. Bibcode:2010PhLB..691..138A. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2010.06.022.
11. Andrew G. Cohen, Sheldon L. Glashow, and Zoltan Ligeti (2009). "Disentangling neutrino oscillations". Physics Letters B 678 (2): 191. arXiv:0810.4602. Bibcode:2009PhLB..678..191C. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.06.020.
12. "Neutrino shape-shift points to new physics" Physics News, 19 July 2013.
13. "Neutrino 'flavour' flip confirmed" BBC News, 19 July 2013.
14. Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, and S. Sakata (1962). "Remarks on the Unified Model of Elementary Particles". Progress of Theoretical Physics 28 (5): 870. Bibcode:1962PThPh..28..870M. doi:10.1143/PTP.28.870.
15. B. Pontecorvo (1967). "Neutrino Experiments and the Problem of Conservation of Leptonic Charge". Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 53: 1717. reproduced and translated in Pontecorvo, B. (1968). "Neutrino Experiments and the Problem of Conservation of Leptonic Charge". Sov. Phys. JETP 26: 984. Bibcode:1968JETP...26..984P.
16. Raymond Davis Jr., Don S. Harmer, and Kenneth C. Hoffman (1968). "Search for Neutrinos from the Sun". Physical Review Letters 20 (21): 1205. Bibcode:1968PhRvL..20.1205D. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.20.1205.
17. V. Gribov and B. Pontecorvo (1969). "Neutrino astronomy and lepton charge". Physics Letters B 28 (7): 493. Bibcode:1969PhLB...28..493G. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(69)90525-5.
18. . J. Schechter, J.W.F. Valle; Valle (1980). "Neutrino Masses in SU(2) x U(1) Theories". Physical Review D 22 (9): 2227. Bibcode:1980PhRvD..22.2227S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.22.2227.
19. S. Eidelman; et al. (2004). "Particle Data Group - The Review of Particle Physics". Physics Letters B 592 (1): 1. arXiv:astro-ph/0406663. Bibcode:2004PhLB..592....1P. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2004.06.001. Chapter 15: Neutrino mass, mixing, and flavor change. Revised September 2005.
20. Meszéna, Balázs. "Neutrino Oscillations". Wolfram Demonstrations Project. Retrieved October 8, 2015. Images in this section were created with Mathematica. The demonstration allows exploration of the parameters.
21. K.A. Olive; et al. (Particle Data Group) (2014). "2014 Review of Particle Physics".
22. K. Nakamura; et al. (2010). "Review of Particle Physics". Journal of Physics G 37 (7A): 1. Bibcode:2010JPhG...37g5021N. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/37/7a/075021.
23. J. W. F. Valle (2006). "Neutrino physics overview". Journal of Physics: Conference Series 53 (1): 473. arXiv:hep-ph/0608101. Bibcode:2006JPhCS..53..473V. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/53/1/031.
24. R.N. Mohapatra and J. W. F. Valle (1986). "Neutrino Mass and Baryon Number Nonconservation in Superstring Models". Physical Review D 34 (5): 1642. Bibcode:1986PhRvD..34.1642M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.34.1642.
25. Kostelecký, Alan; Samuel, Stuart (1994). "Nonlinear neutrino oscillations in the expanding universe". Phys. Rev. D 49 (4): 1740–1757. Bibcode:1994PhRvD..49.1740K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.49.1740.

Further reading

• Gonzalez-Garcia; Nir (2002). "Neutrino Masses and Mixing: Evidence and Implications". Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2): 345–402. arXiv:hep-ph/0202058. Bibcode:2003RvMP...75..345G. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.75.345.
• Maltoni; Schwetz; Tortola; Valle (2004). "Status of global fits to neutrino oscillations". New Journal of Physics 6: 122. arXiv:hep-ph/0405172. Bibcode:2004NJPh....6..122M. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/6/1/122.
• Fogli; Lisi; Marrone; Montanino; Palazzo; Rotunno (2012). "Global analysis of neutrino masses, mixings, and phases: Entering the era of leptonic CP violation searches". Physical Review D 86 (1): 013012. arXiv:1205.5254. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.013012.
• Forero; Tortola; Valle (2012). "Global status of neutrino oscillation parameters after Neutrino-2012". Physical Review D 86 (7): 073012. arXiv:1205.4018. Bibcode:2012PhRvD..86g3012F. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.073012.

External links

• Maury Goodman, "The Neutrino Oscillation Industry" (2006). (Provides links to many other neutrino oscillation websites.)
• Review Articles on arxiv.org