text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There exist at present strong model independent evidences in favor of neutrino oscillations, obtained in the atmospheric  and in the solar  neutrino experiments. The direct evidence for oscillations of atmospheric neutrinos is the significant up-down asymmetry of the high-energy muon events, observed in the atmospheric Super-Kamiokande (S-K) experiment . The three-sigma proof of the presence of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ in the flux of the solar neutrinos on the earth that stems from the comparison of the results of the SNO  and S-K  solar neutrino experiments is the direct evidence for the oscillation of solar neutrinos.

Indications in favor of $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ oscillations were obtained in the accelerator LSND experiment  . This result requires confirmation and it will be checked by the MiniBooNE experiment , started recently. We will not consider LSND result here.

The data of the S-K atmospheric neutrino experiment are perfectly described if we assume that the two-neutrino $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations take place. From the analysis of the data of the S-K experiment the following best-fit values for the neutrino oscillation parameters were found

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=2.510^3\mathrm{eV}^2;\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}=1.$$
(1)
The data of all solar neutrino experiments can be described if we assume that the probability of solar $`\nu _e`$ to survive has the two-neutrino form is characterized by two parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{sol}`$. From the global analysis of all solar neutrino data several allowed regions in the plane of the oscillation parameters were found . For the most favorable LMA MSW region the best-fit values of the parameters are

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2=3.710^5\mathrm{eV}^2;\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}=3.710^1.$$
(2)
Let us note that for other allowed regions the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2`$ are significantly smaller than for the LMA region. Thus, from the analysis of the existing neutrino oscillation data it follows that neutrino mass squared differences, relevant for the oscillations of the solar and atmospheric neutrinos, satisfy the hierarchy relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2.$$
(3)
## 2 Neutrino mixing

Neutrino oscillations are driven by the neutrino mixing

$$\nu _{\alpha L}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}U_{\alpha i}\nu _{iL},(\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau )$$
(4)
where $`\nu _{\alpha L}`$ is the flavor neutrino field, $`\nu _i`$ is the field of neutrino (Dirac or Majorana) with mass $`m_i`$ and $`U`$ is the unitary mixing matrix.

From the data of the SLC and LEP experiments on the measurement of the width of the decay of the $`Z`$-boson into neutrino-antineutrino pairs it follows that only three flavor neutrinos exist in nature. In the latest LEP experiments, for the number of the flavor neutrinos the value

$$n_{\nu _f}=3.00\pm 0.06$$

was obtained.

The minimal number of massive neutrinos is equal to the number of flavor neutrinos (three). If the number of massive neutrinos $`n`$ is larger than three, in this case $`n3`$ sterile neutrinos must exist (see, for example, ).

The data of the solar and atmospheric neutrino experiments can be described in the framework of the minimal scheme with the number of massive neutrinos being equal to the measured number of flavor neutrinos. Let us note, that if LSND data will be confirmed, it would mean that a third independent mass-squared difference must exist and the minimal number of massive neutrinos must be equal to four.

From (4) for the state of the flavor neutrino with momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ we have

$$|\nu _\alpha =\underset{i}{}U_{\alpha i}^{}|\nu _i,$$
(5)
where $`|\nu _i`$ is the state of neutrino with momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and energy $`E_i=\sqrt{p^2+m_i^2}p+\frac{m_i^2}{2p}`$.

The relation (5) is the basic one. We will make a few relevant comments. Let us consider a decay

$$ab+l^++\nu _l,$$
(6)
in which together with a lepton $`l^+`$ a flavor neutrino $`\nu _l`$ is produced. For the state of neutrinos with momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ we have from relation (4)

$$|\nu >_\stackrel{}{p}=\underset{i}{}|\nu _iibl^+|S|a,$$
(7)
where $`|\nu _i`$ is the state of neutrino with momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and energy $`E_i`$.

Taking into account that neutrino mass-squared differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ are much smaller than the square of neutrino energy ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2/E^210^{15}`$), we have

$$ibl^+|S|aU_{li}^{}\nu _lbl^+|S|a_{SM}.$$
(8)
Here $`\nu _lbl^+|S|a_{SM}`$ is the Standard Model matrix element of the process (6), calculated under the assumption that the mass of $`\nu _l`$ is equal to the minimal neutrino mass $`m_1`$. This matrix element does not depend on $`i`$. From Eq.(7) and Eq.(8) we obtain relation (5) for the normalized state of the flavor neutrino. 222 Due to the uncertainty relation, the emission (absorption) of neutrinos with different masses and very small mass-squared differences can not be resolved. This is the reason, why flavor neutrinos are described by the coherent superposition of states of neutrinos with definite masses (see ).

We will consider next the standard parameterization of the neutrino mixing matrix $`U`$. If $`\nu _i`$ are Dirac particles, the unitary n $`\times `$ n mixing matrix is characterized by $`n_\theta =n(n1)/2`$ angles and $`n_\varphi =(n1)(n2)/2`$ phases. If $`\nu _i`$ are Majorana particles, the mixing matrix is characterized by $`n_\theta =n(n1)/2`$ angles and $`n_\varphi =n(n1)/2`$ phases. The additional $`n1`$ phases in the Majorana case do not enter, however, into the expressions for the neutrino transition probabilities . Thus, in the case of three massive neutrinos the neutrino mixing matrix in the expression for the neutrino transition probability both in the Dirac and in the Majorana cases is characterized by three mixing angles and one phase.

In order to parameterize the 3$`\times `$3 PMNS (Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata) mixing matrix 333 B.Pontecorvo considered neutrino oscillations in 1958 after the $`VA`$ theory of the weak interaction was proposed. At that time only one type of neutrino was known. In his first pioneering paper  B.Pontecorvo discussed transitions of active neutrino into sterile state. He considered neutrino oscillations as a phenomenon analogous to the oscillations of neutral kaons. Later, after the second neutrino was discovered, it was not difficult for him  to generalize the idea of oscillations for the case of two flavor neutrinos . Maki, Nakagawa and Sakata  in 1962 proposed the mixing of two massive neutrinos. we will construct three vectors $`|\nu _e`$, $`|\nu _\mu `$ and $`|\nu _\tau `$, that satisfy the condition

$$\nu _\alpha ^{}|\nu _\alpha =\delta _{\alpha ^{};\alpha }.$$
(9)
Let us start with $`|\nu _e`$. Taking into account that

$$\underset{i=1,2}{}|U_{ei}|^2=1|U_{e3}|^2$$

we will introduce the angle $`\theta _{12}`$ in the following way

$$U_{e1}=\sqrt{1|U_{e3}|^2}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12};U_{e2}=\sqrt{1|U_{e3}|^2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}.$$
(10)
For the vector $`\nu _e`$ we have

$$|\nu _e=\sqrt{1|U_{e3}|^2}|n_{12}+U_{e3}|3,$$
(11)
where

$$|n_{12}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12}|1+\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}|2.$$

The CP violating phase $`\delta `$ is introduced as follows

$$U_{e3}=|U_{e3}|exp(i\delta ).$$
(12)
Two unit vectors

$$|n_{12}^{}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}|1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12}|2$$

and

$$|n_3=U_{e3}^{}|n_{12}+\sqrt{1|U_{e3}|^2}|3$$

are orthogonal to $`|\nu _e`$. We will introduce now the angle $`\theta _{23}`$ in the following way

$$|\nu _\mu =\mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}|n_{12}^{}+\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}|n_3$$
(13)
and

$$|\nu _\tau =\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}|n_{12}^{}+\mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}|n_3.$$
(14)
Using (11), (13) and (14), we can easily express all elements of the mixing matrix through the mixing angles and the CP-violating phase . For the elements of the first row and the third column we have

$$U_{e1}=\sqrt{1|U_{e3}|^2}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12};U_{e2}=\sqrt{1|U_{e3}|^2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}.$$
(15)
and

$$U_{\mu 3}=\sqrt{1|U_{e3}|^2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23};U_{\tau 3}=\sqrt{1|U_{e3}|^2}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{23}.$$
(16)
From the analysis of the atmospheric neutrino data it follows that the angle $`\theta _{23}\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ is large (close to $`\pi /4`$). In the case of the most plausible LMA MSW fit of the solar neutrino data the angle $`\theta _{12}\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}`$ is also large. As we will see later, from the analysis of the data of the long baseline reactor experiments CHOOZ  and Palo Verde  it follows that the element $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ is small.

## 3 Neutrino oscillations

Let us now turn to neutrino oscillations. From the basic relation (5) we obtain for the amplitude of the transition $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{}`$ in vacuum the following relation (see, for example, )

$$A_{\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{}}(t)=\nu _\alpha ^{}|\mathrm{exp}(iH_0t)|\nu _\alpha =\underset{i}{}U_{\alpha ^{}i}e^{iE_it}U_{\alpha i}^{}.$$
(17)
where $`t`$ is the transition time.

We will numerate neutrino masses in such a way that

$$m_1<m_2<m_3.$$

From (17) we have for the probability of the transitions $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{}`$

$$P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=\left|\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}U_{\alpha ^{}i}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m_{i1}^2\frac{L}{2E}}U_{\alpha i}^{}\right|^2,$$
(18)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ik}^2=m_i^2m_k^2`$, $`Lt`$ is the distance between neutrino source and neutrino detector, $`E`$ is the energy of the neutrinos.

Using the unitarity of the mixing matrix, we can rewrite this expression in the following form

$$P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=\left|\delta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}+\underset{i=2,3}{}U_{\alpha ^{}i}\left(e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m_{i1}^2\frac{L}{2E}}1\right)U_{\alpha i}^{}\right|^2.$$
(19)
We will assume that $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ is relevant for the oscillations of the solar neutrinos and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ is relevant for the oscillations of atmospheric neutrinos. 444Another possibility, the so-called inverted hierarchy, we will discuss later. As we have seen before, from the analysis of the existing solar and atmospheric neutrino data follows that neutrino mass-squared differences satisfy the hierarchy

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2.$$
(20)
Let us first consider oscillations in the atmospheric and long baseline (LBL) experiments. In these experiments $`\frac{L}{E}10^3\frac{km}{\mathrm{GeV}}`$ and the inequality

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\frac{L}{2E}1$$

is satisfied. Thus, the contribution of the $`i=2`$ term to the expression (19) for the transition probability can be neglected. For the probability of the transition $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{}`$ ($`\alpha \alpha ^{}`$) we have (see, for example, )

$$P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha }(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\frac{L}{2E}),$$
(21)
where the oscillation amplitude $`\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha }=\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ;\alpha ^{}}=4|U_{\alpha ^{}3}|^2|U_{\alpha 3}|^2.$$
(22)
The $`\nu _\alpha `$ survival probability can be obtained from (21) and the condition of the conservation of the probability

$$P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha )=1\underset{\alpha ^{}\alpha }{}P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{}).$$

We have

$$\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha )=1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{B}_{\alpha ;\alpha }(1\mathrm{cos}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2L}{2E}),$$
(23)
where the oscillation amplitude $`\mathrm{B}_{\alpha ;\alpha }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{B}_{\alpha ;\alpha }=\underset{\alpha ^{}\alpha }{}\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha }=4|U_{\alpha 3}|^2(1|U_{\alpha 3}|^2)$$
(24)
It is obvious from (24) that for the oscillation amplitudes we have

$$0\mathrm{B}_{\alpha ;\alpha }1;0\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha }1$$

.

Thus, due to the hierarchy relation (20), the probabilities of the transition $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{}`$ in the atmospheric and LBL experiments are determined by the largest neutrino mass- squared difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ and by the elements $`|U_{\alpha 3}|^2`$, which connect the flavor neutrino fields $`\nu _{\alpha L}`$ with the field of the heaviest neutrino $`\nu _{3L}`$. Every oscillation channel is characterized by its own oscillation amplitude. 555Let us notice that in the case of oscillations between two types of neutrinos from unitarity of the mixing matrixit follows that oscillation amplitudes are connected by the relations $`\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha }=\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ;\alpha ^{}}=\mathrm{B}_{\alpha ;\alpha }=\mathrm{B}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha ^{}}=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta (\alpha ^{}\alpha )`$.  Oscillation amplitudes in appearance and disappearance channels are connected by the relation (24).

From the unitarity of the mixing matrix follows that $`_\alpha |U_{\alpha 3}|^2=1`$. Thus, in the leading approximation, we are considering, all oscillation channels are characterized by three parameters. We can choose the parameters

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{23},|U_{\alpha 3}|^2$$

The oscillation amplitudes in the appearance and disappearance channels are given by the expressions

$$\mathrm{A}_{\tau ;\mu }=(1|U_{e3}|^2)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23};\mathrm{A}_{e;\mu }=4|U_{e3}|^2(1|U_{e3}|^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}$$
(25)
and

$$\mathrm{B}_{\mu ;\mu }=\mathrm{A}_{\tau ;\mu }+\mathrm{A}_{e;\mu }\mathrm{B}_{e;e}=4|U_{e3}|^2(1|U_{e3}|^2).$$
(26)
Let us note that the following relation exists between the oscillation amplitudes

$$\mathrm{A}_{e;\mu }=\mathrm{B}_{e;e}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}$$

The CP-violating phase $`\delta `$ does not enter into the expressions (21) and (22) for the transition probabilities. Thus, in the leading approximation with the dominance of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ term the relations

$$P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=P(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\alpha ^{})$$

are satisfied independently of the value of the CP-violating phase. This means that the effect of CP violation in the lepton sector can not be revealed if only one neutrino mass squared difference is relevant for neutrino oscillations.

## 4 Atmospheric neutrinos

We will discuss now the results of the atmospheric S-K experiment . In this experiment a significant up-down asymmetry of the high-energy muon events was observed. If there are no neutrino oscillations, the dependence of the number of the high energy muon (electron) events on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _z`$ must satisfy the relation

$$N_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta _z)=N_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta _z)(l=e,\mu ),$$
(27)
where $`\theta _z`$ is the zenith angle.

The measured dependence of the number of electron events on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _z`$ is in good agreement with (27). For the muon events in the Multi-GeV region ($`E1.3\mathrm{GeV}`$) a strong $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _z`$ asymmetry was observed. For the ratio of the total number $`U`$ of up-going muons ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta _z0`$) to the total number $`D`$ of down-going muons ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta _z0`$) was obtained

$$\left(\frac{U}{D}\right)_\mu =0.54\pm 0.04\pm 0.01.$$

The $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _z`$ dependence of the number of muon events, observed in the Super-Kamiokande experiment, is in a agreement with the disappearance of muon neutrinos due to neutrino oscillations. The data are perfectly described if the survival probability has the two-neutrino form

$$P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )=1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2\frac{L}{2E})$$
(28)
From the analysis of the S-K data the best-fit values (1) of the neutrino oscillation parameters were obtained.

These values are directly connected with the observed zenith angle dependence. In fact, for the high-energy neutrinos the distance $`L`$ between the region, where neutrinos are produced in the atmosphere, and the detector is determined by the zenith angle $`\theta _z`$. Down-going neutrinos with $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _z=1`$ travel a distance of about 20 km and up-going neutrinos with $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _z=1`$ travel a distance of about 13000 km. For the down-going neutrinos the argument of the cosine in the expression (28) for the survival probability is small and

$$P^{down}(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )1.$$
(29)
For the up-going neutrinos the argument of the cosine in Eq. (28) is large and due to averaging over neutrino energies and distances the cosine term in Eq. (28) vanishes. For the averaged survival probability we have

$$P^{up}(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}.$$
(30)
The number of muon events with $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _z1`$, observed in the S-K experiment, is about two times larger than the number of the muon events with $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _z1`$. Thus, $`P^{up}(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )0.5`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}1`$.

All data of the S-K experiment are in a good agreement with the assumption of $`|U_{e3}|^2=0`$ and two-neutrino $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations. From the analysis of the data the following ranges were obtained for the oscillation parameters

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}0.88;1.610^3\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2410^3\mathrm{eV}^2.$$

The three-neutrino analysis of S-K atmospheric neutrino data allows to obtain an upper bound for the parameter $`|U_{e3}|^2`$. In Ref.  it was found that

$$|U_{e3}|^20.35.$$

## 5  The upper bound of the parameter $`|U_{e3}|^2`$

The most direct and stringent bound on the parameter $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ can be obtained from the results of the LBL reactor experiments CHOOZ  and Palo Verde  which are sensitive to the atmospheric range of neutrino mass-squared differences. In these experiments, $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s from the reactors at a distance of about 1 km from the detectors were recorded via the observation of the process

$$\overline{\nu }_e+pe^++n.$$

.

No indications in favor of a disappearance of the reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s were found. For the ratio $`R`$ of the total number of the detected and expected events was obtained

$$R=1.01\pm 2.8\%(\mathrm{stat})\pm 2.7\%(\mathrm{syst})\mathrm{CHOOZ}$$

and

$$R=1.01\pm 2.4\%(\mathrm{stat})\pm 5.3\%(\mathrm{syst})\mathrm{Palo}\mathrm{Verde}.$$

In the leading approximation (neglecting the contribution of the $`i=2`$ term in Eq.(19)), we have for the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ survival probability

$$\mathrm{P}(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)=1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{B}_{e;e}(1\mathrm{cos}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2L}{2E}),$$
(31)
where

$$\mathrm{B}_{e;e}=4|U_{e3}|^2(1|U_{e3}|^2).$$

From the exclusion plot, obtained from the analysis of the data of the CHOOZ (or Palo Verde) experiment at a fixed value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ for the allowed values of the oscillation amplitude we have the bound

$$\mathrm{B}_{e;e}\mathrm{B}_{e;e}^0.$$
(32)
This bound depends on the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$. From (31) and (32) follows

$$|U_{e3}|^2\frac{1}{2}\left(1\sqrt{1\mathrm{B}_{e;e}^0}\right)$$
(33)
or

$$|U_{e3}|^2\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{1\mathrm{B}_{e;e}^0}\right).$$
(34)
We are interested in the region of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$. In this region the amplitude $`\mathrm{B}_{e;e}^0`$ is small. Thus, $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ can be small (inequality (33)) or large, close to one (inequality (34)). This last possibility is excluded by the solar neutrino data. In fact, as we will see later, the heaviest neutrino $`\nu _3`$ (both in the case of vacuum and in the case of matter ) gives an incoherent contribution $`|U_{e3}|^4`$ to the survival probability of the solar $`\nu _e`$. If $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ is large, the probability of solar neutrinos to survive will be close to one. As we will see in the next section this possibility is excluded in a model independent way by S-K and SNO data.

Thus, taking into account solar neutrino data, we can conclude from the results of the LBL reactor experiments that the parameter $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ is small. From the CHOOZ exclusion curve at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2=2.510^3\mathrm{eV}`$ (the S-K best-fit value) we have

$$|U_{e3}|^23.710^2.$$
(35)
This bound was obtained under the assumption that the contribution of the $`i=2`$ term to the expression for the transition probability in Eq.(19) can be neglected in the LBL region. This is a good approximation for the LMA best-fit value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ given by Eq. (2). However, the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ in the LMA region (which is the preferable fit to the solar neutrino data) can be as large as $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2610^4\mathrm{eV}^2`$ (see, for example, ). In the CHOOZ experiment the average value of the parameter $`\frac{L}{E}`$ is approximately equal to 300 m/MeV. If, for example, At $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2=210^4\mathrm{eV}^2`$, for example, for the average value of the parameter $`\frac{L}{E}`$ in the CHOOZ experiment we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2\frac{L}{2E}1.510^1.$$

Thus, the i=2 term in Eq.(19) at the relatively large values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$, belonging to the LMA region, could give a sizable contribution to the survival probability.

From Eq. (19), taking into account all terms, we obtain the following expression for the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ survival probability

$`P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)`$
$`=12|U_{e3}|^2\left(1|U_{e3}|^2\right)\left(1\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2L}{2E}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1|U_{e3}|^2)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}\left(1\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2L}{2E}}\right)`$
$`+2|U_{e3}|^2(1|U_{e3}|^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}\left(\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2L}{2E}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2L}{2E}}\right)\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2L}{2E}}\right),`$
where we put $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ and $`\theta _{12}=\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}`$.

The second term in the right-hand part of this expression comes from the main i = 3 term in Eq.(19), the third one from the i = 2 term and the fourth one from the interference of the i =3 and i = 2 terms.

Let us note that in the LMA region the angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}`$ is large. Thus, the coefficient in front of the bracket of the third “solar term” in Eq.(5) is large and the coefficient in front of the bracket of the interference term is of the same order as the coefficient in front of the bracket of the second term.

Up to now we have assumed that the mass-squared difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ of the lightest neutrinos $`\nu _2`$ and $`\nu _1`$ is relevant for the oscillations of the solar neutrinos and hierarchy (20) is valid. The existing data do not exclude, however, the possibility that the mass-squared difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ between the squares of the masses of the heaviest neutrinos $`\nu _3`$ and $`\nu _2`$ is relevant for the oscillations of the solar neutrinos and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ is relevant for the oscillations of the atmospheric neutrinos. In this case the so-called inverted hierarchy

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2$$
(37)
takes place.666Recall that we numerate neutrino masses in such a way that $`m_1<m_2<m_3`$.

We will consider now the case of the inverted neutrino mass spectrum. The probability of the transition $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{}`$ in vacuum can be written in the form

$$P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=\left|\delta _{\alpha \alpha ^{}}+\underset{i=1,2}{}U_{\alpha ^{}i}\left(e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m_{3i}^2\frac{L}{2E}}1\right)U_{\alpha i}^{}\right|^2.$$
(38)
Let us consider neutrino oscillations in the atmospheric and LBL experiments. Neglecting the contribution of the small $`i=2`$ term in the expression (38), for the transition probabilities we will obtain expressions (21) and (23). The oscillation amplitudes $`\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha }`$ and $`\mathrm{B}_{\alpha ;\alpha }`$ are given by the expressions (22) and (24) after applying the change $`|U_{\alpha 3}|^2|U_{\alpha 1}|^2`$. Thus, in the case of the inverted hierarchy, in the leading approximation, the transition probabilities in the atmospheric and LBL experiments are determined by the largest neutrino mass-squared difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ and the elements $`|U_{\alpha 1}|^2`$, connecting the field of the flavor neutrino $`\nu _{\alpha L}`$ with the field of the lightest neutrino $`\nu _{1L}`$. In order to obtain the three-neutrino expression for the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ survival probability in the case of the inverted hierarchy it is necessary to change $`|U_{e3}|^2|U_{e1}|^2`$ and $`\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}\pi /2\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}`$ in Eq.(5).

The expression (5) and similarly the expression for the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ survival probability in the case of the inverted hierarchy were used in Ref.  in order to obtain from the CHOOZ data new exclusion plots in the plane of the parameters $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ \- $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ (and $`|U_{e1}|^2`$ \- $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ in the case of inverted hierarchy) at fixed values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}`$, belonging to the LMA allowed region.

In Table 1 we present the upper bounds of the parameter $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ ($`|U_{e1}|^2`$) at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2=2.510^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2=10^2\mathrm{eV}^2`$. As can be seen from Table 1, at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2210^4\mathrm{eV}^2`$ the bounds on $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ ($`|U_{e1}|^2`$) in the three-neutrino case are practically the same as in the leading approximation which corresponds to the two-neutrino case. At the larger values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ the limits on $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ ($`|U_{e1}|^2`$) are more stringent in the three-neutrino case than in the two-neutrino case. For example, at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2=610^4\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}=0.27`$ at the S-K best-fit point $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2=2.510^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ we have

$$|U_{e3}|^2210^2.$$
(39)
This bound is about 2 times smaller that the upper bound (35), obtained in the two-neutrino case.

New data of the solar neutrino exeriments (SNO, GNO, BOREXINO ) and data of the reactor experiment KamLAND  will allow to determine the values of the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}`$ with better accuracy than today. That will permit to obtain from the results of the CHOOZ and Palo Verde experiments more precise upper bounds of the parameter $`|U_{e3}|^2`$. Let us stress that the exact value of the parameter $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ is very important for the future Super Beam (see ) and Neutrino Factory (see ) experiments, in which $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations and effects of the three-neutrino mixing, in particular effects of CP violation in the lepton sector, will be investigated in detail.

## 6 Solar neutrinos

We now come to the discussion of solar neutrinos. The energy of the sun is generated in the reactions of the thermonuclear pp and CNO cycles. From a thermodynamical point of view the energy of the sun is produced in the transition of four protons and two electrons into 4He and two electron neutrinos

$$4p+2e^{}{}_{}{}^{4}He+2\nu _e.$$
(40)
The energy, which is released in this transition, is equal to

$$Q=4m_p+2m_em_{{}_{}{}^{4}He}26.7MeV.$$

Thus, the production of the energy of the sun is accompanied by the emission of $`\nu _e`$’s.

From (40) we can obtain a model independent relation that connects the fluxes of neutrinos with the luminosity of the sun $`L_{}`$. In fact, from (40) it follows that the luminous energy per one neutrino with energy $`E`$ is equal to $`\frac{1}{2}(Q2E)`$. Thus, the total luminosity of the sun is given by

$$\frac{1}{2}(Q2E)N(E)𝑑E=L_{},$$
(41)
where $`N(E)`$ is the total number of neutrinos with the energy $`E`$, produced by the sun in 1 sec.

We have

$$N(E)=4\pi R^2\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_i(E)$$
(42)
where $`R`$ is the distance between the sun and the earth and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i(E)`$ is the flux of $`\nu _e`$ from the source $`i`$ (in the case of neutrino oscillations $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i(E)`$ is the total flux of all types of neutrinos, including sterile neutrinos).

From (41) and (42) we obtain the luminosity relation

$$\underset{i}{}(\frac{1}{2}Q\overline{E}_i)\mathrm{\Phi }_i^0=\frac{L_{}}{4\pi R^2},$$
(43)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^0`$ is the total flux and $`\overline{E}_i`$ is the average energy of neutrinos from the source $`i`$.

Let us note that in the derivation of the luminosity relation (43) we assumed that the sun is in a stable state. 777 It takes about $`710^5`$ years for the photons, produced in the central zone of the sun, to reach the surface (see ).

The main source of solar neutrinos is the $`pp`$ reaction

$$p+pd+e^{}+\nu _e.$$
(44)
This reaction is the source of the low energy neutrinos with a maximum energy of 0.42 MeV. The total flux of $`pp`$ neutrinos, predicted by the Standard Solar Model BP00 (SSM BP00) , is determined mainly by the luminosity relation (43) and is equal to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{pp}=5.9510^{10}cm^2s^1`$.

The reaction

$$e^{}+^7\mathrm{Be}^7\mathrm{Li}+\nu _\mathrm{e}.$$
(45)
is the source of the monochromatic neutrinos with an energy of 0.86 MeV. The flux of 7Be neutrinos, predicted by the SSM, is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{{}_{}{}^{7}Be}=4.810^9cm^2s^1`$

In the Super-Kamiokande and the SNO experiments, mainly high energy neutrinos from the decay

$${}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}^8\mathrm{Be}^{}+\mathrm{e}^++\nu _\mathrm{e}.$$
(46)
are detected (high energy thresholds). The maximum energy of the 8B neutrinos is approximately equal to 15 MeV and the flux, predicted by the SSM BP00, is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{{}_{}{}^{8}B}=5.910^6cm^2s^1`$.

At present results of six solar neutrino experiments (Homestake , GALL-EX-GNO , Kamiokande  , Super-Kamiokande  and SNO) are available. The event rates, measured in all solar neutrino experiments, are significantly smaller that the rates predicted by the SSM.

In the Homestake experiment solar neutrinos are detected by the radiochemical method through the observation of the reaction

$$\nu _e+^{37}\mathrm{Cl}\mathrm{e}^{}+^{37}\mathrm{Ar}.$$

The threshold of this process is $`E_{th}=0.81\mathrm{MeV}`$. Thus, in this experiments mainly $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}`$ neutrinos are detected. The observed event rate is equal to 8881 SNU = $`10^{36}`$events atom -1 s-1.

$$R_{Cl}=(2.56\pm 0.16\pm 0.16)SNU$$

The rate, predicted by SSM BP00, is

$$R_{Cl}^{SSM}=(8.59\begin{array}{c}+1.1\\ 1.2\end{array})SNU$$

In the GALLEX-GNO and SAGE experiments solar neutrinos are detected through the observation of the reaction

$$\nu _e+^{71}\mathrm{Ga}\mathrm{e}^{}+^{71}\mathrm{Ge}.$$

The threshold of this reaction is $`E_{th}=0.23\mathrm{MeV}`$. Thus, in the Gallium experiments neutrinos from all reactions in the sun are detected. The combined event rate of the GNO and the GALLEX experiment is

$$R_{Ga}=(74.1\pm 6.7\pm 6.8)SNU;GALLEXGNO$$

The event rate measured in the SAGE experiment is

$$R_{Ga}=(77\pm 6\pm 3)SNU;SAGE$$

The rate, predicted by SSM BP00 for the Gallium experiments, is

$$R_{Ga}^{SSM}=(130\begin{array}{c}+9\\ 7\end{array})SNU.$$

## 7 Comparison of the results of the SNO and the S-K experiments

The Kamiokande, Super-Kamiokande and SNO are direct counting experiments. In the Kamiokande and S-K experiments the solar neutrinos are observed through the detection of the recoil electrons in the elastic (ES) neutrino-electron scattering

$$\nu +e\nu +e.$$
(47)
We will discuss the results of the S-K experiment . In this experiment the large 50 kton water Cherenkov detector is used. During 1258 days of running, in the S-K experiment $`18464\begin{array}{c}+677\\ 590\end{array}`$ events with the energy of the recoil electrons in the range 5-20 $`\mathrm{MeV}`$ were observed.

As the energy of the recoil electrons is much larger than the electron mass, the direction of the recoil electron momentum practically coincides with the direction of the neutrino momentum. In the S-K experiment, in the distribution of the events on $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{sun}`$ ($`\theta _{sun}`$ is the angle between the recoil electron momenta and the direction to the sun) a sharp peak at $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{sun}=1`$ was observed. The observation of such a peak is a clear demonstration that the recorded events are due to solar neutrinos.

All flavor neutrinos $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ are detected in the S-K experiment. However, the cross section of the (NC) $`\nu _\mu `$ ($`\nu _\tau `$) - $`e`$ scattering is about six times smaller than the cross section of the (CC+NC) $`\nu _ee`$ scattering. Thus, the S-K sensitivity to $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ is much lower than the sensitivity to $`\nu _e`$.

In the SNO experiment  a heavy water Cherenkov detector is used (1 kton of $`\mathrm{D}_2\mathrm{O}`$). Solar neutrinos were detected in the experiment via the observation of the CC reaction

$$\nu _e+de^{}+p+p$$
(48)
and the elastic scattering reaction

$$\nu +e\nu +e.$$
(49)
The electron kinetic energy threshold in the SNO experiment is $`T_{th}`$=6.75 MeV. Thus, in the SNO experiment, like in the S-K experiment, only high energy $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ neutrinos are detected.999 High energy neutrinos from the hep reaction ($`p+^3\mathrm{He}^4\mathrm{He}+\mathrm{e}^++\nu _\mathrm{e}`$) give a very small contribution to the event rate. From November 1999 till January 2001 $`975.4\pm 39.7`$ CC events and $`106.1\pm 15.2`$ ES events were observed.

The measured ES event rate is consistent with the more precise S-K event rate. The detection of the solar neutrinos via the observation of the CC reaction (48) allowed to determine the flux of the solar $`\nu _e`$ on the earth. In fact, the total event rate, measured in the SNO experiment, via the observation of the CC reaction is given by

$$R^{CC}=_{E_0}\sigma _{\nu _ed}(E)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}(E)𝑑E,$$
(50)
where $`\sigma _{\nu _ed}(E)`$ is the total cross section of the CC process 101010This quantity depends on $`T_{th}`$ and on the resolution of the detector., $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}(E)`$ is the flux of the $`\nu _e`$ on the earth and $`E_0=T_{th}+1.44\mathrm{MeV}`$.

The flux of $`\nu _e`$ on the earth is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}(E)=P(\nu _e\nu _e)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0(E),$$
(51)
where $`P(\nu _e\nu _e)`$ is the probability of the solar $`\nu _e`$ to survive and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0(E)`$ is the initial flux of $`\nu _e`$ (the flux that would be observed if there would be no neutrino oscillations).

The flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0(E)`$ can be presented in the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0(E)=X(E)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0,$$
(52)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0`$ is the total initial flux of the $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ neutrinos and $`X(E)`$ is a normalized function ($`X(E)𝑑E=1`$). The function $`X(E)`$ characterizes the spectrum of $`\nu _e`$ from the decay $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}^8\mathrm{Be}^{}+\mathrm{e}^++\nu _\mathrm{e}`$. This function is known.

Let us determine the function $`\rho _{\nu _ed}(E)`$ by the relation

$$\sigma _{\nu _ed}(E)X(E)=<\sigma _{\nu _ed}>\rho _{\nu _ed}(E),$$
(53)
where

$$<\sigma _{\nu _ed}>=_{E_0}\sigma _{\nu _ed}(E)X(E)𝑑E$$

is the averaged cross section of the CC process (48). It is obvious that

$$_{E_0}\rho _{\nu _ed}𝑑E=1.$$

From Eq.(50) and Eq.(53) for the CC event rate we have

$$R^{CC}=<\sigma _{\nu _ed}>\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{CC},$$
(54)
where the average flux of $`\nu _e`$ on the earth $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{CC}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{CC}=
_{\nu _ed}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0$$
(55)
In this equation

$$
_{\nu _ed}=_{E_0}P(\nu _e\nu _e)\rho _{\nu _ed}𝑑E$$
(56)
is the averaged survival probability.

In the SNO experiment the spectrum of the produced electrons was measured. No significant deviations from the predicted spectrum were found. Thus the results of the SNO experiment are compatible with the assumption that the $`\nu _e`$ survival probability in the SNO energy region is constant. We have in this case

$$
_{\nu _ed}P(\nu _e\nu _e).$$
(57)
From the data of the SNO experiment for the averaged flux of $`\nu _e`$ on the earth the following value was found

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{CC})_{SNO}=(1.75\pm 0.07\pm 0.12\pm 0.05(\mathrm{theor}))10^6\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1.$$
(58)
Let us now discuss the results of the S-K experiment. In this experiment solar neutrinos are detected via the observation of the ES process (47). The total S-K event rate is given by

$$R^{ES}=_{E_0}\sigma _{\nu _ee}(E)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}(E)𝑑E+_{E_0}\sigma _{\nu _\mu e}(E)\underset{l=\mu ,\tau }{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _l}(E)dE,$$
(59)
where $`\sigma _{\nu _le}(E)`$ is the cross section of $`\nu _le`$ scattering, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _l}(E)`$ is the flux of $`\nu _l`$ on the earth ($`l=e,\mu ,\tau `$ ) and $`E_0`$ is given by

$$E_0=\frac{T_{th}}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{1+\frac{2m}{T_{th}}}\right).$$
(60)
The total energy threshold in the S-K experiment is $`E_{th}=5\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$.

For the flux of $`\nu _l`$ on the earth we have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _l}(E)=P(\nu _e\nu _l)\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0(E),$$
(61)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0(E)`$ is the initial flux of $`\nu _e`$. This flux is given by Eq.(52).

Let us determine the normalized functions $`\rho _{\nu _le}(E)`$ ($`l=e,\mu `$) as follows:

$$\sigma _{\nu _le}(E)X(E)=<\sigma _{\nu _le}>\rho _{\nu _le}(E),$$
(62)
where

$$_{E_0}\sigma _{\nu _le}(E)X(E)𝑑E=<\sigma _{\nu _le}>,$$
(63)
and

$$_{E_0}\rho _{\nu _le}𝑑E=1.$$

From (60)-(62) it follows that the total S-K event rate can be written in the form

$$R^{ES}=<\sigma _{\nu _ee}>\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{ES},$$
(64)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{ES}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{ES}+\frac{<\sigma _{\nu _\mu e}>}{<\sigma _{\nu _ee}>}\underset{l=\mu ,\tau }{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _l}^{ES}.$$
(65)
Here

$$\frac{<\sigma _{\nu _\mu e}>}{<\sigma _{\nu _ee}>}0.154$$
(66)
and the averaged fluxes of $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ on the earth are given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{ES}=
_{\nu _ee}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0;\underset{l=\mu ,\tau }{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _l}^{ES}=\underset{l=\mu ,\tau }{}
_{\nu _\mu e}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0.$$
(67)
From the data of the S-K experiment for the effective flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{ES}`$ it was obtained the value

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{ES})_{SK}=(2.32\pm 0.03\pm 0.08)10^6cm^2s^1.$$
(68)
In the S-K experiment the spectrum of the recoil electrons was measured. No deviation from the predicted spectrum was observed. Thus, both the S-K and the SNO data are compatible with the assumption of a constant $`\nu _e\nu _e`$ survival probability. We have in this case

$$
_{\nu _ee}P(\nu _e\nu _e).$$
(69)
Using (55), (57), (67), and (69) we conclude that 111111It was shown in  that it is possible to choose the S-K and the SNO thresholds in such a way that these quantities will be practically equal at any $`P(\nu _e\nu _e)`$.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{SNO}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{ES}$$
(70)
From the comparison of the fluxes, measured in the S-K and SNO experiments we can determine the flux of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ on the earth. From (58), (65), (68) and (70), we have

$$\underset{l=\mu ,\tau }{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _l}^{ES}=(3.69\pm 1.13)10^6cm^2s^1$$
(71)
Thus, the results of the SNO and the S-K experiments give us the first model independent evidence (at $`3\sigma `$ level) of the presence of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ in the flux of solar neutrinos on the earth. The flux of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ on the earth is approximately two times larger than the flux of $`\nu _e`$.

For the total flux of the flavor neutrinos on the earth we obtain from (58), (70) and (71)

$$\underset{l=e,\mu ,\tau }{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _l}^{ES}=(5.44\pm 0.99)10^6cm^2s^1.$$
(72)
The SSM BP00 value of the total flux of 8B neutrinos is

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0)_{SSM}=(5.93\pm 0.89)10^6cm^2.$$

Thus, the total flux of the flavor neutrinos, obtained from the results of the SNO and S-K experiments, is in a good agreement with the value of the total flux of $`\nu _e`$ predicted by the SSM BP00.

Let us note that in the region of energies we are interested in we have

$$\rho _{\nu _\mu e}(E)\rho _{\nu _ee}(E).$$

Taking this relation into account we find for the total flux of flavor neutrinos on the earth

$$\underset{l=e,\mu ,\tau }{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _l}^{ES}=\underset{l=e,\mu ,\tau }{}
_{\nu _ee}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0,$$
(73)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0`$ is the total initial flux of $`\nu _e`$. Thus, if there are no transitions of the solar $`\nu _e`$ into sterile states, we have

$$\underset{l=e,\mu ,\tau }{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _l}^{ES}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0.$$
(74)
## 8 Solar neutrino oscillations in the framework of three-neutrino mixing

The data of all solar neutrino experiments are well described by the two- neutrino transition probability, which is characterized by the two parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}`$. We will now discuss the oscillations observed in the solar neutrino experiments in the framework of three neutrino mixing.

The probability of the transition $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{}`$ in vacuum (see (Eq.18)) can be presented in the form

$$P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=\left|\underset{i=1,2}{}U_{\alpha ^{}i}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m_{i1}^2\frac{L}{2E}}U_{\alpha i}^{}+U_{\alpha ^{}3}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\frac{L}{2E}}U_{\alpha 3}^{}\right|^2.$$
(75)
We are interested in the probability, averaged over the region where neutrinos are produced, over the neutrino spectrum, etc. Because of the hierarchy (20), in the expression for the averaged transition probability the interference term does not enter. For the averaged transition probability we have

$$\overline{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=\left|\underset{i=1,2}{}U_{\alpha ^{}i}e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m_{i1}^2\frac{L}{2E}}U_{\alpha i}^{}\right|^2+\left|U_{\alpha ^{}3}\right|^2\left|U_{\alpha 3}\right|^2.$$
(76)
Using the unitarity of the mixing matrix, it is easy to show that the averaged transition probabilities satisfy the relation

$$\underset{\alpha ^{}=e,\mu ,\tau }{}\overline{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=1.$$
(77)
Using Eq.(10), the averaged probability of solar $`\nu _e`$ to survive can be presented in the form

$$\overline{P}(\nu _e\nu _e)=|U_{e3}|^4+(1|U_{e3}|^2)^2P^{(1,2)}(\nu _e\nu _e),$$
(78)
where

$$P^{(1,2)}(\nu _e\nu _e)=1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\frac{L}{2E}).$$
(79)
The probability $`P^{(1,2)}(\nu _e\nu _e)`$ has the same form as the two-neutrino survival probability and depends on the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$. Let us stress, however, that in the case of three-neutrino mixing, solar $`\nu _e`$ transfer into $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$.

The expression Eq.(78) is valid also in the case of matter . In this case $`P^{(1,2)}(\nu _e\nu _e)`$ is the two-neutrino survival probability in matter. In the calculation of this quantity the density of the electrons $`\rho _e(x)`$ in the effective Hamiltonian of the interaction of neutrino with matter must be changed to $`(1|U_{e3}|^2)\rho _e(x)`$.

As we have seen before, from the data of the long baseline reactor experiments CHOOZ and Palo Verde follows that the element $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ is small. Thus we see from Eq. (78) that in the framework of three-neutrino mixing the survival probability of the solar $`\nu _e`$ (up to corrections not larger than a few % ) has the two neutrino form

$$\overline{P}(\nu _e\nu _e)P^{(1,2)}(\nu _e\nu _e)$$
(80)
and is characterized by two parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{12}=\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}`$. Let us stress that the reasons for this aproximate decoupling  of the oscillations of solar neutrinos from oscillations of neutrinos in atmospheric and LBL experiments are the hierarchy of the neutrino mass-squared differences and the smallness of $`|U_{e3}|^2`$.

If the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}`$ are in the MSW LMA region, the solar range of neutrino mass-squared differences can be reached in reactor experiments. Such an experiment is KamLAND . In this experiment $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s from several reactors in Japan at an average distance of about 170 km from the detector will be recorded via the observation of the process

$$\overline{\nu }_e+pe^++n.$$

The KamLAND detector is a tank filled with a liquid scintillator (1000$`m^3`$) and covered by PMT’s. About 700 events/kt/year are expected. After three years of running the whole LMA region will be investigated in this experiment.

## 9 Conclusion

In the last years significant progress in the investigation of the phenomenon of neutrino oscillations, envisaged by B.Pontecorvo many years ago, has been reached. The significant $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _z`$-asymmetry of the Multi-GeV muon atmospheric neutrino events, observed by the Super-Kamiokande collaboration, constitutes convincing evidence for neutrino oscillations driven by the neutrino mixing.

The comparison of the solar neutrino event rates, measured in the Super-Kamiokande and in the SNO experiments, allowed to conclude in a model independent way that solar $`\nu _e`$ on the way from the sun to the earth transfer into $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$.

There exist, however, several fundamental questions to which future experiments will be addressed:

1. How many massive neutrinos exist in nature?

The minimal number that corresponds to three flavor neutrinos is equal to three. If, however, the LSND result  will be confirmed, in order to describe all neutrino oscillation data we need three different neutrino mass-squared differences and (at least) four massive neutrinos. The experiment MiniBooNE , started in 2002, plans to check the LSND claim in about two years.
2. What is the nature of the massive neutrinos. Are they Dirac or Majorana particles?

The answer to this question can be obtained from experiments on the search for neutrinoless double $`\beta `$ decay. The best lower bound for the lifetime of this process was obtained in the 76Ge Heidelberg-Moscow experiment  ($`T_{1/2}1.910^{25}y;90\%CL`$). From this result for the effective Majorana mass $`|<m>|=|_iU_{ei}^2m_i|`$ the bound

$$|<m>|(0.20.6)\mathrm{eV}$$
(81)
can be obtained.121212 The bound on $`|<m>|`$ depends on the value of the corresponding nuclear matrix element; the bound (81) takes into account different calculations. Future experiments on the search for neutrinoless double $`\beta `$ decay  will have a sensitivity $`|<m>|10^2\mathrm{eV}`$.
3. What is the value of the minimal neutrino mass $`m_1`$?

In the experiments on the investigation of the effects of neutrino masses by the measurement of the high energy part of the $`\beta `$ spectrum of 3H it was found that $`m_12.2\mathrm{eV}`$  and $`m_12.5\mathrm{eV}`$ . In the future KATRIN experiment  a sensitivity $`m_1(0.30.4)\mathrm{eV}`$ is planned to be reached.

The precise measurement of the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$, $`\theta _{23}`$, $`|U_{e3}|^2`$, the investigation of the character of the neutrino mass spectrum (hierarchy or reversed hierarchy), the search for effects of CP violation in the lepton sector etc. constitute the programs for long baseline experiments with neutrinos from Super Beam facilities  and Neutrino Factories .

The small neutrino masses could be a signature of a new large scale at which the lepton number is violated . There exist, however, other possible explanations for the smallness of neutrino masses (e.g., large extra dimensions and others).

It is obvious that a lot of new experimental and theoretical efforts are required in order to reveal the true origin of the newly discovered phenomenon of small neutrino masses and neutrino mixing.

It is a pleasure for me to thank W.Potzel for valuable suggestions.


format: text

text:
# Causality in quantum teleportation: information extraction and noise effects in entanglement distribution

## I Introduction

Quantum teleportation is one of the most fundamental applications of entanglement between well separated physical systems . The transmission of a quantum state through local measurements and classical communications illustrates some of the essential features of quantum physics. It is therefore of great interest to analyze the transmission processes in detail, especially in realistic circumstances where entanglement may not be maximal . In this paper, the principles of quantum teleportation are reviewed and a representation of the teleportation process emphasizing the precise causality implied by maximal entanglement is proposed. This representation is especially useful to investigate the transfer of effects on the entanglement distribution channels to the teleported output state. The general theory of this transfer is formulated and the results are applied to measurements on the entangled signal sent from the source of entanglement to the sender. Such measurements could be used by a third party to extract information during the teleportation process, e.g. for the purpose of eavesdropping. Moreover, the effects of this measurement illustrate the distribution of information and noise in the teleportation process, providing insights into the dynamics of quantum information processes.

## II Properties of entanglement

Entanglement is the quantum mechanical property that makes teleportation possible. As was already pointed out by Schrödinger , the essential feature of entanglement is that all of the relative properties of two systems can be defined with precision if the individual properties are maximally uncertain. In teleportation, the quantum state in the input can therefore be reconstructed in the output by exclusively referring to these precise relations between the systems, while avoiding any direct measurement of individual properties.

In order to express entanglement in terms of the relation between physical properties in the two systems, it is useful to write the maximally entangled state in a common basis $`n`$. Maximal entanglement between two N-level systems, $`R`$ and $`B`$, can then be expressed by the quantum state

$$E_{\text{max.}}_{R,B}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\left(\widehat{U}_0n\right)_Rn_B.$$
(1)
The precise properties of this quantum state are defined by the unitary transformation $`\widehat{U}_0`$. Specifically, any observable property $`\widehat{O}_B`$ of system $`B`$ corresponds to an observable $`\widehat{O}_R`$ in system $`R`$, such that the measurement values obtained for $`\widehat{O}_B`$ will always be equal to the measurement values obtained for $`\widehat{O}_R`$. $`\widehat{U}_0`$ defines the relation between $`\widehat{O}_B`$ and $`\widehat{O}_R`$ as

$$\widehat{O}_R=\widehat{U}_0\widehat{O}_B^T\widehat{U}_0^1,$$
(2)
where the transpose $`\widehat{O}_B^T`$ is defined with respect to the basis $`n`$. It is then possible to formulate the unusual properties of entanglement in the spirit of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox  as an apparent violation of local uncertainty relations by non-local correlations. Given two non-commuting properties of system $`B`$, $`\widehat{X}_B`$ and $`\widehat{Y}_B`$, measurement results for both of these two properties can be predicted by an observer in $`R`$ from measurements of the corresponding properties $`\widehat{X}_R`$ and $`\widehat{Y}_R`$ since the maximally entangled state is an eigenstate of the two operator properties

$`(\widehat{X}_B\widehat{X}_R)E_{\text{max.}}_{R,B}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (3)
$`\text{and}(\widehat{Y}_B\widehat{Y}_R)E_{\text{max.}}_{R,B}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (4)
$`\text{with}\widehat{X}_R`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{U}_0\widehat{X}_B^T\widehat{U}_0^1`$ (5)
$`\text{and}\widehat{Y}_R`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{U}_0\widehat{Y}_B^T\widehat{U}_0^1.`$ (6)
Any measurement result of $`\widehat{X}_R`$ in $`R`$ must be equal to the measurement result for $`\widehat{X}_B`$ in $`B`$, and any measurement result of $`\widehat{Y}_R`$ in $`R`$ must be equal to the measurement result for $`\widehat{Y}_B`$ in $`B`$. Interestingly, this property has a quite intuitive classical interpretation. Effectively, the reference system $`R`$ is a mirror image of system $`B`$. In classical physics, this property is not unusual, since all properties of both systems can be defined with precision: uncertainty is a specifically non-classical feature of quantum mechanics. Entanglement is only difficult to understand because we cannot explain the connection between the local uncertainty expressed by product states and the non-local uncertainty expressed by inseparable entangled states. Using the precisely defined relation between physical properties in systems $`R`$ and $`B`$, it is therefore possible to explain quantum teleportation without using any purely quantum mechanical terminology.

## III Principles of quantum teleportation

In quantum teleportation, entanglement is applied to establish a well-defined relation between an unknown input $`A`$ and an output $`B`$ via the reference $`R`$. Initially, the output $`B`$ and the reference $`R`$ are maximally entangled. This means that there exists a well-defined relation between the properties of $`R`$ and of $`B`$, while the individual properties of the two systems are completely unknown. The relation between the unknown input $`A`$ and the reference $`R`$ is then obtained from the joint measurement (also referred to as a Bell measurement) of $`A`$ and $`R`$ at the location of the sender. The sender communicates the information obtained on the previously unknown relation between $`A`$ and $`R`$ to the receiver, and the receiver obtains the exact relation of the unknown input in $`A`$ and the quantum system $`B`$ by linking the measured relation between $`A`$ and $`R`$ with the previously known relation between $`R`$ and $`B`$. Figure 1 illustrates this analysis of teleportation. The letters $`A`$, $`R`$, and $`B`$ denote a complete set of operator properties of the respective systems, while $`f_{\text{in}}`$ and $`f_m`$ represent the well defined relations established by the entanglement resource and the joint measurement.

The main problem with this intuitive approach to quantum teleportation is that it does not explicitly include the statistical properties of the quantum state. To express these aspects of quantum teleportation, one should start with an input state $`\psi _{\text{in}}_A`$ in $`A`$ and the entangled state $`E_{\text{max.}}_{R,B}`$ in $`R`$ and $`B`$. This product state is then measured in the subspace of $`A`$ and $`R`$. If a perfect Bell measurement is performed, the systems are projected into a maximally entangled quantum state $`P(m)_{A,R}`$, where $`m`$ denotes the measurement result obtained. This maximally entangled state can be conveniently expressed in terms of the $`\widehat{U}_0n`$ basis in $`R`$. It then reads

$$P(m)_{A,R}=\sqrt{\frac{\chi (m)}{N}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}\left(\widehat{U}(m)n\right)_A\left(\widehat{U}_0n\right)_R.$$
(7)
The normalization factor $`\chi (m)`$ is necessary to provide the correct probability for measuring $`m`$ if a complete set of non-orthogonal measurements is considered. The relation between properties in $`R`$ and properties in $`A`$ is expressed by the combination of the unitary transformations $`\widehat{U}_0`$ and $`\widehat{U}(m)`$. Since $`\widehat{U}_0`$ represents the relation between $`R`$ and $`B`$, the unitary transformation $`\widehat{U}(m)`$ effectively describes the relation between $`A`$ and $`B`$ necessary for the reconstruction of the quantum state. This can be verified by applying the measurement projection to the input state of the quantum teleportation.

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\text{Initial state}\hfill & \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}_n& \psi _{\text{in}}_A& & \widehat{U}_0n_R& & n_B\\ \text{Measurement}\hfill & \sqrt{\frac{\chi (m)}{N}}_n^{}& \left(n^{}\widehat{U}^1(m)\right)_A& & \left(n^{}\widehat{U}_0^1\right)_R& & \\ \text{Conditional output}\hfill & \frac{\sqrt{\chi (m)}}{N}_n& \multicolumn{3}{c}{n\widehat{U}^1(m)\psi _{\text{in}}}& & n_B\\ & \multicolumn{6}{c}{=\widehat{U}^1(m)\underset{\text{Teleported state}}{\underset{}{\frac{\sqrt{\chi (m)}}{N}\psi _{\text{in}}_B}}}\end{array}$$
(8)
The unitary transformation $`\widehat{U}(m)`$ therefore describes the relation between the unknown input in $`A`$ and the fluctuating output $`B`$, even though there has been no interaction or other connection between $`A`$ and $`B`$. To understand this effect, it is useful to compare the calculation with the explanation of teleportation illustrated in figure 1. This analysis indicates that the measurement performed on $`A`$ and $`R`$ merely obtains information about the previously unknown state in $`B`$. This information can be represented by a decomposition of the density matrix in $`B`$ into subensembles corresponding to the different measurement results $`m`$. The quantum mechanical features then arise from the non-classical properties of density matrix decompositions. In the present case, it is possible to consider a complete Bell measurement with

$$\underset{m}{}P(m)P(m)_{A,R}=\widehat{1}_{A,R}.$$
(9)
If this condition is fulfilled, the initial density matrix at $`B`$ can be decomposed into a mixture of unitary transformations of the input state $`\psi _{\text{in}}`$ with

$$\widehat{\rho }_B=\underset{m}{}\frac{\chi (m)}{N^2}\left(\widehat{U}^1(m)\psi _{\text{in}}\psi _{\text{in}}\widehat{U}(m)\right)_B=\frac{1}{N}\widehat{1}_B.$$
(10)
Because of the properties of $`\widehat{U}(m)`$ associated with the completeness relation (9), this decomposition is valid for any input state $`\psi _{\text{in}}`$.

By obtaining the measurement information $`m`$, the receiver identifies the subensemble of the density matrix according to its relation with the teleported state. This selection process can be understood entirely in analogy with classical physics. In quantum mechanics however, there is no fundamental decomposition of the density matrix simultaneously valid for all possible input states. The selection of a subensemble density matrix therefore appears to be a choice between mutually exclusive possibilities. Interpretational problems arise if one tries to reconcile different decompositions with each other. Quantum teleportation provides an input state dependent decomposition of the maximally mixed density matrix in $`B`$. It is this dependence of the decomposition of the density matrix in $`B`$ on the quantum state in $`A`$ which appears to introduce a non-local effect beyond the classical non-locality of statistical correlations between remote objects. Nevertheless, each subensemble is always potentially contained in the initial mixed state of $`B`$, and an observer in $`B`$ will not be able to identify a specific decomposition without information about the measurement performed on $`R`$.

In the case of ideal quantum teleportation described in this section, no information whatsoever is obtained about the properties of the teleported state. Both the information initially available and the information obtained in the Bell measurement is about relations between the systems, none is about individual systems. However, this condition is only fulfilled if maximal entanglement is available. Any modification to the entangled state of $`R`$ and $`B`$ changes the dynamics of teleportation by modifying the information about the individual systems $`R`$ and $`B`$, as well as the implications of the Bell measurement for system $`A`$. In the following, the effects of such modifications will be investigated.

## IV Transfer of effects from entanglement distribution to the output state

The entanglement distribution channels may be subject to a variety of effects, such as measurements, decoherence, or unitary transformations . Such effects can be described by operators $`\widehat{E}_R`$ and $`\widehat{F}_B`$ acting on the quantum states of these channels. $`\widehat{E}_R`$ and $`\widehat{F}_B`$ can represent any combination of unitary operations and measurement projections. Decoherence effects can be represented by random mixtures of such operators. The general transfer properties derived in the following therefore apply to all kinds of interactions with the entanglement distribution channels.

As shown in figure 2, the effects on the entanglement distribution channels will be transferred to a single effect on the output state, described by the output operator $`\widehat{T}_{\text{out}}`$. This output operator can be obtained by an analysis similar to the one applied to the ideal teleportation case in equation (8),

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\text{Initial state}\hfill & \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}_n& \psi _{\text{in}}_A& & \widehat{E}_R\widehat{U}_0n_R& & \widehat{F}_Bn_B\\ \text{Measurement}\hfill & \sqrt{\frac{\chi (m)}{N}}_n^{}& \left(n^{}\widehat{U}^1(m)\right)_A& & \left(n^{}\widehat{U}_0^1\right)_R& & \\ \text{Output}\hfill & \frac{\sqrt{\chi (m)}}{N}_{n,n^{}}& n^{}\widehat{U}^1(m)\psi _{\text{in}}& & n^{}\widehat{U}_0^1\widehat{E}_R\widehat{U}_0n& & \widehat{F}_Bn_B\\ & \multicolumn{6}{c}{=\widehat{U}^1(m)\underset{\widehat{T}_{\text{out}}}{\underset{}{\frac{\sqrt{\chi (m)}}{N}\widehat{U}(m)\widehat{F}_B\left(\widehat{U}_0^1\widehat{E}_R\widehat{U}_0\right)^T\widehat{U}^1(m)}}\psi _{\text{in}}_B.}\end{array}$$
(11)
The total effect on the teleported state can be separated into contributions from $`\widehat{F}_B`$ and from $`\widehat{E}_R`$. The effect of $`\widehat{F}_B`$ is only modified by the unitary transformation $`\widehat{U}(m)`$, since this transformation represents the only physical change of the output $`B`$ after the application of $`\widehat{F}_B`$. The effect $`\widehat{E}_R`$ on the reference channel $`R`$ is transferred to $`B`$ by the properties of entanglement since there is no direct physical interaction between $`R`$ and $`B`$. The contribution of $`\widehat{E}_R`$ to $`\widehat{T}_{\text{out}}`$ is equal to the operator $`\widehat{E}_B`$ in $`B`$ corresponding to $`\widehat{E}_R`$ according to equation (2). The effects on $`R`$ are thus transferred to $`B`$ by the precise correlations between the two systems. Effectively, any modification of the reference $`R`$ can be understood as a change in the relation between $`R`$ and $`B`$. Since nothing is known about the individual systems, it does not matter whether the effect really acts on $`R`$ or on $`B`$. The effect on the teleported state can then be written as a sequence of effects on $`B`$ transformed by $`\widehat{U}(m)`$,

$$\widehat{T}_{\text{out}}=\frac{\sqrt{\chi (m)}}{N}\widehat{U}(m)\widehat{F}_B\underset{\widehat{E}_B}{\underset{}{\left(\widehat{U}_0^1\widehat{E}_R\widehat{U}_0\right)^T}}\widehat{U}(m)$$
(12)
It may be interesting to note that $`\widehat{E}_B`$ acts before $`\widehat{F}_B`$, indicating that entanglement always connects the past of system $`B`$ to system $`R`$, regardless of the actual sequence of $`\widehat{E}_R`$ and $`\widehat{F}_B`$ in time.

The mathematical properties of the formalism clearly show that actions on $`R`$ and actions on $`B`$ have equivalent effects. However, the entanglement distribution channels are usually well separated in space, and sometimes even in time. It is therefore interesting to trace the causality connecting actions on $`R`$ to the output in $`B`$ in more detail. Since the most important aspect of quantum teleportation is the distribution of information, it is convenient to focus this discussion on the possibility of extracting information in the reference channel $`R`$ by minimal back-action measurements.

## V Measurements on an entanglement distribution channel

In ideal quantum teleportation, no information about the teleported quantum state is obtained in the process. Since any quantum measurement has a corresponding back-action, changing the original state unless it happens to be an eigenstate of the measurement operator, this lack of information about the teleported state is a necessary requirement for the precise transfer of any unknown quantum state. As discussed in section III, this requirement is fulfilled because neither the original entanglement nor the Bell measurement reveals any information on the individual systems. Instead, there is a perfect connection of precise relations between the systems defined by entanglement properties. However, this perfect connection can be broken at any point. For example, an eavesdropper might decide to ”listen in” on the teleportation by tapping the entanglement distribution line for the reference $`R`$. Since the density matrix of $`R`$ is completely random, the information initially obtained is pure noise. However, the measurement result provides information on the reference used in the Bell measurement. By combining the measurement information $`m`$ with the noisy result from the entanglement distribution line, information on the teleported quantum state is obtained. At the same time, the measurement back-action has changed the relation between $`R`$ and $`B`$, making it impossible to reconstruct the exact input state. The output state is therefore modified by a measurement back-action equal to the effects of a direct measurement performed on the input state.

Figure 3 illustrates this eavesdropping scheme. The measurement performed on the entanglement distribution channel is represented by the self-adjoint operators $`\widehat{E}_R(l)`$ corresponding to the measurement results $`l`$ of a minimal back-action measurement . According to equation (12), the effect of this measurement on the output state of the teleportation is described by the output operator

$$\widehat{P}(l,m)=\frac{\sqrt{\chi (m)}}{N}\widehat{U}(m)\left(\widehat{U}_0^1\widehat{E}_R(l)\widehat{U}_0\right)^T\widehat{U}^1(m).$$
(13)
This operator is also self-adjoint, indicating that $`\widehat{P}(l,m)`$ also represents a minimal back-action measurement. Effectively, the operator acting on the teleported state is a unitary transformation of the original measurement operator $`\widehat{E}_R(l)`$. The measurement performed on the entanglement distribution channel $`R`$ therefore converts the teleportation process into a measurement of the unknown input state. The information obtained in this measurement is described by the dependence of the probability of the measurement results $`l`$ and $`m`$ on the input state,

$`p(l,m)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{\text{in}}\widehat{P}^2(l,m)\psi _{\text{in}}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\chi (m)}{N^2}}\psi _{\text{in}}\widehat{U}(m)\left(\widehat{U}_0^1\widehat{E}_R^2(l)\widehat{U}_0\right)^T\widehat{U}^1(m)\psi _{\text{in}}.`$ (15)
Equation (14) describes the information extraction achieved by the measurement on the entanglement distribution channel $`R`$ by combining the information $`l`$ obtained from $`R`$ with the information $`m`$ obtained in the Bell measurement. Specifically, $`\widehat{P}^2(l,m)`$ is the positive operator valued measure of the eavesdropping process, and different input states may be distinguished by the eavesdropper according to the relative statistical weight assigned to them by this measure .

Equation (13) shows that the back-action on the teleported state is minimal. It is therefore possible to realize an optimal eavesdropping scheme by performing minimal back-action measurements on the entanglement distribution channels. The precise effect of eavesdropping on the teleported state is given by

$$\psi _{\text{out}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{p(l,m)}}\widehat{P}(l,m)\psi _{\text{in}}.$$
(16)
The eavesdropping attempt thus modifies the output state, reducing the fidelity of quantum teleportation. A quantitative expression for this loss of fidelity is given by the overlap between the input state and the output state,

$$F(l,m)=|\psi _{\text{out}}\psi _{\text{in}}|^2=\frac{|\psi _{\text{in}}\widehat{P}(l,m)\psi _{\text{in}}|^2}{p(l,m)}.$$
(17)
In general, this overlap may strongly depend on the measurement outcome. Equation (17) is therefore a conditional fidelity . If the measurement results are not known, the total fidelity is given by the average over all possible outcomes,

$$F_{\text{total}}=\underset{l,m}{}|\psi _{\text{in}}\widehat{P}(l,m)\psi _{\text{in}}|^2.$$
(18)
Thus the measurement operators $`\widehat{P}(l,m)`$ given in equation (13) fully characterize the loss of fidelity due to the eavesdropping attempt.

Two particularly interesting features of this scheme are the distribution of information about the teleported state between the two measurement results $`m`$ and $`l`$, and the origin of the measurement back-action on the teleported quantum state from a lack of information concerning the the actual relation between the input state in $`A`$ and the output $`B`$. In the next section, these features will be analyzed in greater detail.

## VI Distribution of information and noise

Equation (14) describes the information extracted from the teleported state in terms of the joint probability $`p(l,m)`$ of obtaining a measurement result of $`l`$ in $`R`$, followed by a Bell measurement result of $`m`$. The individual probabilities for measuring $`l`$ and $`m`$ can be determined from this joint probability by

$`p(l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}p(l,m)`$ (19)
$`\text{and}p(m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}p(l,m).`$ (20)
It is obvious that $`p(l)`$ should not depend on the input state, since there is no relation between the entangled state in $`R,B`$ and the input state in $`A`$ before the Bell measurement is performed. This independence of $`p(l)`$ from input state properties can be verified by applying the completeness relation in equation (10) to the sum over $`m`$,

$`p(l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi (m)}{N^2}}\psi _{\text{in}}\widehat{U}(m)\left(\widehat{U}_0^1\widehat{E}_R^2(l)\widehat{U}_0\right)^T\widehat{U}^1(m)\psi _{\text{in}}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`\text{Tr}\left\{\left(\widehat{U}_0^1\widehat{E}_R^2(l)\widehat{U}_0\right)^T\left({\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi (m)}{N^2}}\widehat{U}^1(m)\psi _{\text{in}}\psi _{\text{in}}\widehat{U}(m)\right)\right\}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\text{Tr}\{\widehat{E}_R^2(l)\}.`$ (23)
Note that this probability may also be derived directly from the local density matrix in $`R`$ before the measurements. This density matrix may also be expressed in terms of the mixture given for $`\widehat{\rho }_B`$ in equation (10). Therefore, the sum over $`m`$ restores the situation before the Bell measurement in $`R`$, providing the input independent probability $`p(l)`$.

The probability $`p(m)`$ can be derived by making use of the completeness relation of the minimal back-action measurement of $`l`$,

$$\underset{l}{}\widehat{E}_R^2(l)=\widehat{1}_R.$$
(24)
In terms of the measurement back-action on the quantum state in $`R`$, this completeness relation implies that the density matrix in $`R`$ after the measurement of $`l`$ is still equal to $`\widehat{1}_R/N`$ if the measurement result is unknown. Therefore, the statistics of the Bell measurement is unchanged and the probability $`p(m)`$ does not depend on the input state either. In accordance with this observation, the result of the summation over $`l`$ reads

$$p(m)=\frac{\chi (m)}{N^2}\psi _{\text{in}}\widehat{U}(m)\left(\widehat{U}_0^1\left(\underset{l}{}\widehat{E}_R^2(l)\right)\widehat{U}_0\right)^T\widehat{U}^1(m)\psi _{\text{in}}=\frac{\chi (m)}{N^2}.$$
(25)
Since the measurement in $`R`$ does not change the overall statistics of the Bell measurement, an eavesdropping attempt using a minimal back-action measurement on $`R`$ cannot be detected by the sender, even if some statistical properties of the input states are known. By itself, the measurement result $`m`$ does not provide any information on the input state. Such information is only obtained by combining the measurement results $`m`$ with the measurement results $`l`$ from the entanglement distribution channel $`R`$.

As shown in equation (10), the main effect of the Bell measurement is the decomposition of the maximally mixed density matrix in $`B`$ in terms of unitary transformations of the unknown input state. For a maximally entangled state, this decomposition is equally possible for any input state. However, the measurement of $`l`$ in $`R`$ provides information about the decomposition of $`\widehat{\rho }_B`$ which is independent of the input state. It is therefore interesting to analyze the decomposition of $`\widehat{\rho }_B`$ in the presence of the measurement on $`R`$. The total decomposition can be obtained from $`\widehat{P}(l,m)`$ if the conditional unitary transformation $`\widehat{U}(m)`$ of the output is reversed. It then reads

$$\widehat{\rho }_B=\underset{l,m}{}\widehat{U}^1(m)\widehat{P}(l,m)\psi _{\text{in}}\psi _{\text{in}}\widehat{P}(l,m)\widehat{U}(m)=\frac{1}{N}\widehat{1}_B.$$
(26)
The decomposition into contributions with different $`l`$ represents the information obtained through the measurement of $`R`$, while the teleportation effects are represented by the decomposition into different $`m`$. This sequence of the decomposition can be expressed by writing $`\widehat{\rho }_B`$ as

$$\widehat{\rho }_B=\underset{l}{}\left(\widehat{U}_0^1\widehat{E}_R(l)\widehat{U}_0\right)^T\underset{=\widehat{1}_B/N}{\underset{}{\left(\underset{m}{}\frac{\chi (m)}{N^2}\widehat{U}^1(m)\psi _{\text{in}}\psi _{\text{in}}\widehat{U}(m)\right)_B}}\left(\widehat{U}_0^1\widehat{E}_R(l)\widehat{U}_0\right)^T$$
(27)
Thus the measurement of $`l`$ first decomposes the density matrix in $`B`$ according to the information obtained from $`R`$ only. The measurement of $`m`$ then decomposes the components of each result $`l`$ according to the same statistical weights previously obtained for ideal teleportation in equation (10). However, this decomposition is now modified according to the measurement information provided by $`l`$, resulting in a distortion of the transformed input state components $`\widehat{U}^1(m)\psi _{\text{in}}`$. This distortion reflects the reduction of entanglement caused by obtaining information on the local systems $`R`$ and $`B`$. The local uncertainty introduced into $`R`$ by the measurement back-action is thus transferred to the output state.

It is possible to vary the measurement operators $`\widehat{E}_R(l)`$ continuously between the unit operator $`\widehat{1}_R`$ representing no interaction and precise projections onto a complete orthonormal set of eigenstates $`l`$ of a self-adjoint operator $`\widehat{L}_R`$. In the latter case, the entanglement is completely removed by the measurement. It is therefore a particularly simple example and may help to illustrate some of the general features of the information distribution caused by the measurement in $`R`$. The projective measurement in $`R`$ decomposes the density matrix in $`B`$ into eigenstates $`\varphi _l`$ of the variable $`\widehat{L}_B`$ corresponding to $`\widehat{L}_R`$ according to (2). The measurement in $`m`$ cannot subdivide this decomposition any more, so it merely provides measurement probabilities,

$`\widehat{\rho }_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\varphi _l\varphi _l{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}p(l,m),`$ (28)
with $`p(l,m)={\displaystyle \frac{\chi (m)}{N^2}}|\varphi _l\widehat{U}^1(m)\psi _{\text{in}}|^2.`$ (29)
As the measurement probability $`p(l,m)`$ shows, the Bell measurement now projects the input states onto unitary transforms $`\widehat{U}(m)\varphi _l`$ of the eigenstates of $`\widehat{L}_B`$. This corresponds to a precise measurement of the property $`\widehat{U}(m)\widehat{L}_B\widehat{U}^1(m)`$ in $`A`$. Only this property can then be reproduced in the output state. The measurement back-action randomizes the relation between properties that do not commute with $`\widehat{L}_R`$ in $`R`$ and their corresponding properties in $`B`$. Therefore, the Bell measurement does not provide any information on such variables. This simple example also illustrates the role of $`l`$ and $`m`$ in defining the effective measurement performed on the teleported state. Knowledge of $`m`$ determines the actual variable $`\widehat{U}(m)\widehat{L}_B\widehat{U}^1(m)`$ defined by the measurement of $`m`$, while $`l`$ provides the measurement outcome for that variable. The measurement result $`l`$ initially provides only information about a physical property of the reference system $`R`$, and the measurement result $`m`$ is necessary to establish the relation between this property in $`R`$ and a corresponding property of the input $`A`$. Thus, the Bell measurement randomly selects the physical property $`\widehat{U}(m)\widehat{L}_B\widehat{U}^1(m)`$ measured in $`A`$ after the measurement result $`l`$ has been obtained in $`R`$.

## VII Conclusions

Quantum teleportation is an application of the extremely precise correlations possible between two entangled systems. The discussion presented in this paper shows how these correlations can be identified in the quantum mechanical formalism using unitary operations and density matrix decompositions. The resulting formulation is especially convenient for tracing the transfer of effects from entanglement distribution channels to the output state.

In the case of a measurement on an entanglement distribution channel, the measurement back-action introduces noise into the teleportation by reducing the precision in the correlation between the entangled systems. The information obtained in the measurement distribution channel may then be combined with the result of the Bell measurement to provide information about the teleported quantum state. This example thus illustrates how the quantum information in the original input state is distributed between the two measurement results and the teleported quantum state in the output.