text:
# 1 Diagram mediating neutrinoless double beta decay.

Implications of observed neutrinoless double beta decay

H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus  and U. Sarkar†,‡
Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, P.O. 10 39 80, D-69029 Heidelberg, Germany

Physics Department, Visva-Bharati University, Santiniketan 731 235, India

## Abstract

Recently a positive indication of the neutrinoless double beta decay has been announced. We study the implications of this result taking into consideration earlier results on atmospheric neutrinos and solar neutrinos. We also include in our discussions the recent results from SNO and K2K. We point out that on the confidence level given for the double beta signal, the neutrino mass matrices are now highly constrained. All models predicting Dirac masses are ruled out and leptogenesis becomes a natural choice. Only the degenerate and the inverted hierarchical solutions are allowed for the three generation Majorana neutrinos. In both these cases we find that the radiative corrections destabilize the solutions and the LOW, VO and Just So solutions of the solar neutrinos are ruled out. For the four generation case only the inverted hierarchical scenario is allowed.

Recent evidence of non-zero neutrino mass in the atmospheric neutrino anomaly , strong constraints from the solar neutrinos  and some positive indications from Laboratory experiments  have already restricted the possible neutrino mass matrices to only a few possible choices . The atmospheric neutrino result is consistent with an oscillation between the $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ with maximal mixing.111Even though the $`L/E`$ flatness of the electron-like event ratio in the full three-flavor framework suggests a bi-maximal mixing , here we shall restrict to the simplest scenario in which one explains the atmospheric neutrino anomaly via $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations. In addition, in our analysis we shall not incorporate the quantum gravity effects that may induce additional modifications to neutrino oscillations . There are several allowed regions in the parameter space of the mass squared differences and mixing angles of the neutrinos, which can explain the solar neutrino problem . But none of these results could tell us about the absolute value of the neutrino mass and whether the neutrinos are Majorana or Dirac particles, i.e., whether the neutrino mass conserves lepton number or not.

A positive signal of the neutrinoless double beta decay has recently been announced . The $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay describes a process in which two electrons are released (with lepton number two) without any associated antineutrinos, and hence lepton number is broken .

This process can be mediated by a light virtual electron neutrino $`\nu _e`$ (as shown in figure 1), whose effective Majorana mass

$$_{Maj}=m_{ee}\nu _e\nu _e$$

breaks the lepton number. This physical electron neutrino state $`\nu _e`$ is the neutrino which couples to the physical electron. So, $`m_{ee}`$ is the $`(11)`$ element of the neutrino mass matrix $`M_{\alpha \beta }^\nu `$, ($`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$) in the basis in which the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal. The physical state $`|\nu _\alpha >`$ is related to the mass eigenstates $`\nu _i`$ (with eigenvalues $`m_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$) by the mixing matrix $`U_{\alpha i}`$ by

$$|\nu _\alpha >=U_{\alpha i}|\nu _i>$$
(1)
so that the mass matrix in the flavour basis is related to the diagonal mass matrix through

$$M_{\alpha \beta }^\nu =U_{\alpha i}M_{ij}^{\mathrm{diag}}U_{\beta j}^T$$
(2)
where $`M_{ij}^{\mathrm{diag}}=m_i\delta _{ij}`$. The $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay rate depends on this effective Majorana mass

$$m_{ee}=M_{ee}^\nu =\underset{i}{}|U_{ei}|^2m_i.$$
(3)
Taking care of the nuclear matrix elements and other factors, the present signal for the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay amounts to an effective Majorana mass of the electron neutrino in the range of

$$m_{ee}=(0.050.86)\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{at}95\%\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{l}.$$
(4)
with a best value of $`0.4`$ eV. This is the first indication of lepton number violation in nature and the fact that Majorana fermions can exist in nature. This result establishes that a fermion can be its own antiparticle, violating lepton number by two units. There are several other consequences of this new result for physics beyond the standard model . Here we study some of the implications for the neutrino masses.

In the standard model neutrinos are massless. One may extend the model with one singlet right-handed neutrino $`N_{aR}`$ per generation. Then the interaction $`h_{ia}\overline{\mathrm{}}_{iL}N_{aR}\varphi `$ can give a Dirac mass, where $`h_{ia}`$ are the Yukawa couplings, $`\mathrm{}_{iL}`$ are left-handed leptons and $`\varphi `$ is the usual Higgs doublet. For the neutrino mass to be of the order of eV, the Yukawa couplings have to be extremely small, $`h10^{12}`$. Although such small numbers are not natural, this is surely a possibility. If this is the only source of neutrino mass, then the contribution to the neutrinoless double beta decay will come from two diagrams, one from an exchange of $`\nu _e`$ and the other from an exchange of $`N_R`$. These two diagrams will cancel each other exactly . A naive way of understanding this result is to consider the lepton number. Since $`\mathrm{}_{iL}`$ and $`N_{aR}`$ both carry lepton number one, the above Dirac mass term does not violate lepton number. So this term cannot allow a lepton number violating process like $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay. Thus the new result rules out this unnatural possibility of Dirac neutrinos with unnaturally tiny Yukawa couplings completely.

A natural choice for small neutrino mass is to consider an effective five dimensional operator  with only the left-handed leptons

$$_{eff}=\frac{f_{ij}}{M}\mathrm{}_{iL}\mathrm{}_{jL}\varphi \varphi .$$
(5)
For any large lepton number violating scale $`M`$, this operator would then give a very small Majorana mass to the neutrinos. Within the context of the standard model this is the only effective term allowed, which can give a neutrino mass. However, since this is not a renormalizable term, this term cannot originate from the standard model alone. There has to be some higher theory at the cut-off scale $`M`$, which is the lepton number violating scale in this case. So, this already indicates the nature of physics beyond the standard model.

This operator has several possible realizations. In the see-saw mechanism  one breaks lepton number with a Majorana mass of the right-handed neutrinos

$$_N=M_{Nab}N_{aR}N_{bR}$$

The interplay of the Dirac mass term and this term then induces a lepton number violating effective neutrino mass term

$$_\nu =\frac{h_{ai}h_{bj}^T<\varphi >^2}{M_{Nab}}\nu _{iL}\nu _{jL},$$

which can give rise to the neutrinoless double beta decay.

In another realization of the effective dimension five operator a triplet Higgs is introduced . In one version of the model , lepton number was broken with a vacuum expectation value ($`vev`$) of the triplet Higgs, resulting in a Majoron. These scenarios are ruled out from the Z-width at LEP. A newer version of the model now breaks lepton number explicitly at a very high scale $`MM_\xi \mu `$ through the couplings of the triplet Higgs $`\xi `$

$$_\xi =M_\xi ^2\xi ^{}\xi +f_{ij}\mathrm{}_{iL}\mathrm{}_{jL}\xi +\mu \xi ^{}\varphi \varphi .$$

The minimization of the complete potential for $`\mu 0`$ then gives a small $`vev`$ to the triplet Higgs $`<\xi >\frac{\mu <\varphi >^2}{M_\xi ^2}`$, which generates a Majorana mass of the neutrino.

If one extends the standard model to a larger left-right symmetric model, then in the left-right symmetric model neutrinos can acquire mass from both the see-saw mechanism and the triplet Higgs mechanism . Then there are radiative mechanisms  with a low lepton number violating scale.

If we now consider the dimension five operator, the effective Majorana neutrino mass is $`m_{ee}f_{11}<\varphi >^2/M`$. For $`f_{11}0.01`$ the present result of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay implies a lepton number violating scale of $`M10^{10}`$ GeV. This lepton number violating scale can then address another important question of the baryon asymmetry of the universe . In both the see-saw  and the triplet Higgs models , with lepton number violating scale it is possible to generate a lepton asymmetry of the universe.

In the see-saw mechanism, when the right-handed neutrinos decay into leptons and antileptons, letpon number is violated at the temperature $`T=M_{Nab}`$. The Majorana phases of the right-handed neutrinos give enough CP violation in these decays and the out-of-equilibrium condition is naturally satisfied at this scale. This would then generate a lepton asymmetry of the universe. In the triplet Higgs models the decays of the triplet Higgs to Higgs doublets and the leptons violate lepton number at the temperature $`T=M_\xi `$. The coupling of the triplet Higgs, $`f_{ij}`$ and $`\mu `$, contains the required CP violation. Before the electroweak phase transition this lepton asymmetry would then get converted to the baryon asymmetry of the universe in the presence of the sphalerons .

Recently a new possibility of TeV scale gravity with extra dimensions has become very promising phenomenologically . In these models all the standard model particles are confined only in our 4-dimensional world, while gravity can propagate in all the directions, including the extra dimensions forming most of the bulk of space-time. Although gravity is strong in the extra dimensions, the small overlap of our world with the extra dimensions makes gravity weak in our world. In these models of extra dimensions one includes a right-handed neutrino field in the bulk . The overlap of the right-handed neutrino in our world will then be small and this can make the Yukawa coupling $`h_{ia}`$ in $`h_{ia}\overline{\mathrm{}}_{iL}N_{aR}\varphi `$ naturally small, so that now there can be a very small Dirac mass of the neutrinos. The Yukawa coupling $`h_{ia}`$ is naturally suppressed by the volume of the extra dimensions. There are several new phenomena associated with these scenarios including new predictions for neutrino oscillations . All these models are now ruled out by the new observation.

The $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay would now allow only a few possible choices for the neutrino mass in these theories of large extra dimensions . In one possibility  lepton number is broken in a distant brane and the effect shines in our world to give a small lepton number violating coupling of a Triplet Higgs scalar, which then generates a small neutrino mass. In this scenario the triplet Higgs will have definite same sign dilepton signals in the next generation colliders, which should be observed . Of course one may consider an effective operator in the higher dimensions and can consider a Majorana mass, or break lepton number in the bulk to generate Majorana masses , details of realization of such models are yet to be studied.

Given the model of generating a small Majorana mass, the exact structure of the mass matrix may be such that there are two contributions from different mass eigenstates, which cancel each other forbidding $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay. Thus the present observation of the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay would rule out a class of models where this cancellation takes place partially or fully. Moreover constraints from the atmospheric and solar neutrinos and Lab limits could be used in conjunction with the present limit on $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay to discriminate some of the possible mass spectra following the analysis of  and with one new consideration that in some cases electroweak radiative corrections destabilize the LOW, VO and Just So solutions of the solar neutrinos.

Taking the latest analysis of the solar neutrino data, including SNO, eight solutions are allowed . For three generation of neutrinos the solutions are categorised as (LMA) large mixing angle MSW solution; (SMA) small mixing angle MSW solution; (LOW) low probability low mass solution; (VO) vacuum oscillation solutions; (Just So) very low mass squared difference vacuum oscillation solutions. For our analysis, the three solutions LOW, VO and Just So, will not make much difference, so we call them together VAC solution. With sterile neutrinos only the SMA, VO and Just So solutions are allowed. The atmospheric neutrino anomaly and the initial results from K2K determine the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing and mass squared difference . These results are summarized in table 1. Several of these solutions will now be ruled out by the new neutrinoless double beta decay result as mentioned in table 1.

First consider only three generations of neutrinos. The mixing matrix of equation  may be parametrized as

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_1c_3& s_1c_3& s_3\\ s_1c_2c_1s_2s_3& c_1c_2+s_1s_2s_3& c_3s_2\\ s_1s_2+c_1c_2s_3& c_1s_2s_2c_2s_3& c_2c_3\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
where, $`s_i=\mathrm{sin}\theta _i`$ and $`c_i=\mathrm{cos}\theta _i`$. $`s_2`$ represents $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing and is determined by the atmospheric neutrino anomaly, $`s_3`$ gives $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ mixing and is constrained by the CHOOZ result and $`s_1`$ is related to the solar neutrinos. Then the contribution to the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay is given by

$$m_{ee}=\underset{i}{}|U_{ei}|^2m_i=m_1c_1^2c_3^2+m_2s_1^2c_3^2+m_3s_3^2.$$
(7)
$`m_i`$ are complex and contain the Majorana phases, which can contribute to the lepton number violating $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay. The phase in the mixing matrix $`U`$ may only show up in the neutrino oscillation experiments and does not contribute to the lepton number violating $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay.

The contributions of the different mass patterns to the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay may now be estimated for the allowed values of the mixing angles ($`s_2`$ and $`s_3`$) and the mass eigenvalues ($`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ and $`m_3`$). We allow possible variation of the phases in the masses to check for cancellation. This gives a range for $`m_{ee}`$, which is similar to the values obtained in an earlier analysis . There are some changes, which come due to the new input from SNO. Since the mixing angle $`s_2`$ does not enter the expression \[equation (7)\], new results from K2K do not affect the analysis. In addition we consider electroweak radiative corrections and point out that they may destabilize the very small mass differences required for some of the solar neutrino solutions.

The different three generation models of the neutrino masses may be classified as:

> Hierarchical The masses satisfy a hierarchical pattern
>
> $$m_1m_2m_3,$$
>
> $$\mathrm{so}\mathrm{that}m_3=m_{atm}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2}\mathrm{and}m_2=m_{sol}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2}.$$
>
> Degenerate All the three masses are of the same order
>
> $$m_1m_2m_3=m_0.$$
>
> Atmospheric neutrinos require $`m_0>0.042`$ eV, hot dark matter prefers $`m_0`$eV, but the neutrinoless double beta decay imposes $`m_0<0.8`$ eV. The mass squared differences are much smaller
>
> $$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2$$
>
> Partially Degenerate The lighter masses are almost degenerate and their mass squared difference explains solar neutrinos
>
> $$m_1m_2<m_3m_{atm}=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2},$$
>
> with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}.`$
> Inverted Hierarchical $`\nu _e`$ is part of the heavier states and the mass splitting between $`m_2`$ and $`m_3`$ explains the solar neutrino puzzle
>
> $$m_1^2m_3^2m_2^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2.$$

In the hierarchical scenario for SMA solution the largest contribution to $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay comes from $`m_3`$ inspite of the small mixing angle $`s_3`$ constrained by CHOOZ, so that $`m_3s_3^2<0.002`$ eV. For the LMA solution there is another contribution from $`m_2m_{sol}0.005`$, which is comparable and bounded by $`0.0004<m_2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta <0.0015`$. Since there is no lower bound on $`m_3`$ contribution, both these contributions can cancel each other and again there is no lower bound. The upper bound is now $`m_{ee}<0.0035`$. Thus the contribution to the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay is much smaller than that allowed by the present observation for all the hierarchical solutions to the solar neutrino problem. Another possibility (triple) with hierarchical mass matrix is to consider all elements of the mixing matrix to be equal, which has a definite prediction for the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay $`m_{ee}0.02`$ and is also ruled out. For the different solutions of the hierarchical scenario, the predictions differ slightly, but all of them fall below the allowed region. This is shown in the summary figure 2.

For partially degenerate neutrino masses, $`0.005\mathrm{eV}<m_1<0.042\mathrm{eV}`$ restricts the amount of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay. For SMA the main contribution comes from $`m_1`$ and hence $`m_{ee}`$ is bounded by the value of $`m_1`$. For the LMA solar neutrino solution the contribution from $`m_2`$ is comparable but smaller, so considering the bound on the mixing angle, the bound becomes $`0.042>m_{ee}>0.0015`$. For the VAC solutions the mixing angle could be maximal and the contributions from $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ can cancel, so there is no lower bound. In all the cases the prediction for $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay comes out to be smaller than the presently acceptable range for all the solutions of the solar neutrinos and hence all these solutions are ruled out. In ref.  the authors included the transition region (which is $`m_1m_2m_3`$) in their definition of the partial degenerate solution. As a result they find an overlap of the partial degenerate solution with the present result of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay. But we have included the transition region in the degenerate mass spectrum and defined out partially degenerate solution as $`m_1<m_3`$, so that the upper bound on $`m_1`$ gives the bound $`m_{ee}<m_3=m_{atm}=0.042`$.

The degenerate mass spectrum can be realized, simultaneously providing a solution to the solar and atmospheric neutrinos, with $`0.042\mathrm{eV}m_11`$ eV. In this case the contribution to $`m_{ee}`$ comes mostly comes from $`m_1`$ for the SMA. But for the LMA both $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ contribute and there is also a possibility of partial cancellation. Considering $`s_1<0.93`$ the lower bound comes out to be $`m_1c_1^2m_2s_2^2>0.015`$. Both the SMA and the LMA solutions are thus allowed by the present observation of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay. But the VAC solutions for solar neutrinos, which require $`m_1^2m_2^2<10^8`$ eV, are ruled out by the following argument.

In the basis in which the charged lepton masses are diagonal, the diagonal terms in the neutrino mass matrices $`M_\nu `$ will receive a contribution from higher order weak interaction corrections . Consider for simplicity a mass matrix in the basis $`[\nu _e\nu _\tau ]`$

$$M_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b& c\end{array}\right).$$

The degeneracy of the eigenvalues requires (1) $`a=c=0`$ or (2) $`a=c=m_0`$. In case 1, the radiative correction does not change the eigenvalues and we have a Dirac neutrino. But in case 2, the radiative corrections break the degeneracy and give us a pseudo-Dirac neutrino . The present result on $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay requires $`a=m_{ee}0`$, so we are forced to consider case 2. In this case there is a mass splitting between the two degenerate states, given by the mass squared difference

$$\left(m_2^2m_1^2\right)_{rad}\alpha _Wm_0^2\left(\frac{m_\tau ^2m_e^2}{m_W^2}\right)1.7\times 10^5m_0^2\mathrm{eV}^2.$$
(8)
$`\alpha _W`$ is the weak fine structure constant.

To explain the atmospheric neutrino anomaly, the degenerate mass should be $`m_0>0.042`$ eV. Then the radiative corrections modify the tree level mass squared difference by $`\left(m_2^2m_1^2\right)_{rad}>1.5\times 10^8\mathrm{eV}^2.`$ With this correction it will not be possible to maintain the mass squared difference required for the VAC solutions and hence these VAC solutions are ruled out in the degenerate mass scenarios. Although we demonstrated with two generation example, this result is applicable to three generation case. When we discuss the specific textures we shall prove this generality.

This is true for the inverted hierarchy scenario as well. In this case the radiative correction comes out to be the same as above, with $`m_0=m_2m_3`$. Thus the radiative correction would give a mass squared difference, larger than acceptable by the VAC solutions. So, even if there is a model to predict such small mass squared difference required by the VAC solutions, after including the weak radiative correction the model cannot maintain the required mass squared difference.

To demonstrate this result let us now work with one example. We assume a mass matrix in the basis with diagonal charged leptons

$$M_\nu =m_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1/2& 1/2\\ 0& 1/2& 1/2\end{array}\right).$$
(9)
which can be diagonalised to

$$M^{diag}=\mathrm{Diag}\{m_3,m_2,m_1\}=m_0\mathrm{Diag}\{1,1,0\}.$$

This predicts maximal mixing between $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$. Inclusion of the radiative corrections would change this mass matrix to

$$M_\nu =m_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+ϵ_e& 0& 0\\ 0& (1+ϵ_\mu )/2& 1/2\\ 0& 1/2& (1+ϵ_\tau )/2\end{array}\right)$$
(10)
where $`ϵ_i=\alpha _W(m_i^2/m_W^2)`$. After diagonalisation the new mass eigenvalues will become $`m_\nu ^{diag}\mathrm{Diag}m_0\{1+ϵ_e,1+ϵ_\mu +ϵ_\tau ,ϵ_\mu +ϵ_\tau \}`$, so that the mass squared difference between the two degenerate states has become $`m_2^2m_3^21.7\times 10^5m_0^2\mathrm{eV}^2`$. For $`m_0m_{atm}>0.042`$ this is too large for the VAC solutions.

In this inverted hierarchical case the LMA and SMA solutions of solar neutrinos are still allowed by the present result of the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay. Since the heavier states $`\nu _2`$ and $`\nu _3`$ contain the $`\nu _e`$, they contribute to the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay. But the mass is now restricted by the solution to the atmospheric neutrino anomaly, since $`m_2m_{atm}`$, we get $`0.063>m_{ee}>0.042`$. For the LMA solution for solar neutrinos there can be cancellation but with the present limit  on mixing for the LMA solution the cancellation can only be partial and the bound is $`0.063>m_{ee}>0.015`$.

Thus for the three generations of neutrinos, the LOW, VO and the Just So solutions of the solar neutrinos are not allowed. The hierarchical and partially degenerate mass spectrum for all solutions of the solar neutrinos are ruled out. Only the degenerate and inverted hierarchical mass spectrum are allowed which can provide SMA and LMA solutions for solar neutrinos. There are some theoretical problems with these cases. If one starts from a grand unified theory and tries to evolve the Yukawa couplings in supersymmetric models, it becomes difficult to maintain the degeneracy of two or three states . It has been pointed out that if there is some symmetry which protects some of the texture zeroes in the mass matrix, then these zeroes are protected against the renormalization group evolution . There could be another possibility to this problem of protecting the degeneracy. In models of large extra dimensions the evolution of the Yukawa couplings can allow degenerate solutions.

Considering this model building point of view, it is convenient to study some textures of the neutrino mass matrix. Earlier they were considered to explain the atmospheric neutrino problem assuming that the mass squared difference required by the solar neutrino would come as perturbation to these texture mass matrices. Since the solar neutrino requires small mass squared difference, this assumption is justified.

In the degenerate and the inverted hierarchical scenarios, which are now allowed by the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay result, all the zeroth order neutrino mass matrices ($`M_\nu `$) with texture zeroes can be listed

$`M_\nu ^{B1}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1/2& 1/2\\ 0& 1/2& 1/2\end{array}\right)M_\nu ^{\mathrm{diag}}=\mathrm{Diag}\{m_0,m_0,0\}`$
$`M_\nu ^{B2}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1/2& 1/2\\ 0& 1/2& 1/2\end{array}\right)M_\nu ^{\mathrm{diag}}=\mathrm{Diag}\{m_0,m_0,0\}`$
$`M_\nu ^{C0}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)M_\nu ^{\mathrm{diag}}=\mathrm{Diag}\{m_0,m_0,m_0\}`$
$`M_\nu ^{C1}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)M_\nu ^{\mathrm{diag}}=\mathrm{Diag}\{m_0,m_0,m_0\}`$
$`M_\nu ^{C2}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)M_\nu ^{\mathrm{diag}}=\mathrm{Diag}\{m_0,m_0,m_0\}`$
$`M_\nu ^{C3}`$ $`=`$ $`m_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)M_\nu ^{\mathrm{diag}}=\mathrm{Diag}\{m_0,m_0,m_0\}`$
where the $`B`$ solutions are for inverted hierarchical scenario and $`C`$ solutions are for degenerate cases. For $`B`$ solutions, $`m_0^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ and for $`C`$ solutions $`m_0^2>\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$. In case $`C2`$ and $`C3`$ it may appear that the radiative corrections may be small. But in case $`C2`$ it is not possible to have a solution to solar neutrinos with maximal mixing, so the vacuum solutions are not possible. This mass matrix allows only a small mixing angle solution.

Let us now discuss case $`C3`$ in little details, which will demonstrate how the radiative correction destabilize the vacuum solutions for three generation case. Let us say $`m_0m_{atm}`$. To generate a mass difference $`aO(m_{atm})`$ between $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ (with $`m_{\nu _\mu }<m_{\nu _\tau }`$) without disturbing the degeneracy between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\tau `$, we need to introduce a term $`a`$ in the (33) element of the mass matrix. This will introduce a mass difference between $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ radiatively, which is $`m_0aϵ_\tau >10^8`$ eV, destabilizing the VAC solutions in this case. Thus for all mass textures and degenerate solutions, the VAC solutions are ruled out.

In all textures the mixing for the atmospheric neutrinos is considered to be maximal, $`s_2=c_2=1/\sqrt{2}`$. It is also assumed that the electron neutrino does not take part ($`s_3=0`$) in atmospheric neutrino anomaly. Thus the mixing matrix can be parametrized only in terms of the solar neutrino mixing angle $`s=s_1`$ ($`c=c_1`$)

$$U=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\sqrt{2}c& \sqrt{2}s& 0\\ s& c& 1\\ s& c& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(11)
For complete solutions suitable small perturbations need to be added. But if at this level the $`(11)`$ element vanishes, then with small perturbation it will not be possible to predict the required amount of $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay. This criterion rules out several of the mass matrices with texture zeroes .

Let us now include sterile neutrinos in the discussion. The latest result from Super-Kamiokande rules out sterile neutrino mixing for only two generations . In a more general analysis with four generations it has been shown that it is not ruled out, but the allowed parameter space is restricted . On the other hand the main motivation of introducing the sterile neutrino is to explain the LSND result , which is in partial conflict with the KARMEN result . Considering all this we shall not give much details with sterile neutrinos.

One possibile mass spectrum could be hierarchical, where the sterile neutrino has a mass of the order of eV to explain LSND and the other neutrinos have similar structure as the three generation hierarchical case. The sterile neutrino mixes very weakly with other generations. So the contributions to the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay coming from all the states are small, and taking the maximum allowed values for the different mixing angles this scenario predicts $`m_{ee}<0.03`$ eV. This possibility is thus not allowed by the present $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay result. Another possibility is that two of the heavier states are composed of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$, whose mass difference explains the atmospheric neutrino problem. $`\nu _e`$ is the lightest and its mixing with $`\nu _\mu `$ explains LSND. This scenario is also ruled out, since it predicts $`m_{ee}<0.01`$.

The inverted hierarchical scenarios are not ruled out, where $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _s`$ \[or $`\nu _\tau `$\] have mass to explain LSND and small mass squared difference to explain solar neutrinos. The reason is that the mass difference between $`\nu _\mu `$ and the fourth neutrino is such that they explain the atmospheric neutrino problem. For large mixing there will be cancellation and the contribution to the $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay will be small. So only a very restricted parameter space is now allowed by the new $`0\nu \beta \beta `$ decay result.

In summary, we studied the implications of the first evidence for the neutrinoless double beta decay. This is the first evidence for lepton number violation and for a Majorana particle. So models of Dirac neutrinos are now ruled out and the models of Majorana neutrinos can generate a lepton asymmetry of the universe. The structure of the Majorana mass matrix also gets more constrained. For the three generation case the hierarchical and partially degenerate neutrino mass matrices are not allowed. Only the degenerate and inverted hierarchical models are allowed. Even in these two cases, if one considers electroweak radiative corrections, the small mass solutions of the solar neutrinos become difficult to accomodate. For the allowed scenarios possible texture mass matrices are mentioned. In the four generation scenario, only the inverted hierarchical models are allowed.

Acknowledgement

U.S. wants to thank the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik, Heidelberg, Germany for hospitality.


format: text

text:
# Space time and rotations

## I Introduction

Rotational motion has a peculiarity on its own since it appears to be absolute, unlike translational motion, which is purely relative. This absoluteness of rotation posed a principle problem since the very time of Newton with his rotating bucket example, which led precisely to the conclusion that rotational motion was absolute. A couple of decades after Newton’s Principia, George Berkeley questioned his notion of an absolute space and successively Ernst Mach, looking for the origin of inertia, stuck to the idea that even rotations are relative. Mach’s approach was one of the ideas that inspired Einstein in developing the general theory of relativity, although the incorporation of Mach’s principle into the theory is not entirely satisfactory. In general, rotation is rather poorly treated in general relativity. Its effect is essentially reduced to affecting the dynamical mass of the rotating body, exactly as the translational motion does, and the space time geometry through gravitomagnetic effects, mediated again by the mass of the source. This is the case of the Lense-Thirring effect and of the gravitomagnetic clock effects. However the treatment of the translational motion incorporates the very notion of inertial reference frames and inertial observers, whereas rotating systems do not identify any class of equivalent observers. The rotation state itself is usually identified with respect to the asymptotic flatness of space time, or more specifically to the constraint that the metric tensor far away from the source assumes the Minkowski form. The rotation is confronted with a non rotating (Minkowskian) space time, which serves as an (absolute) reference frame.

The study of exact vacuum solutions of the Einstein equations has produced many metric tensors, which are stationary and endowed with axial symmetry. These solutions include situations which correspond to rotating sources in an asymptotically flat space time. The most renowned is of course the Kerr metric, which contains two independent parameters characterizing the source: the asymptotic mass and the asymptotic angular momentum per unit mass. The latter quantity is interesting because it actually does not depend on the mass itself, rather expresses a sort of purely rotational property. Unfortunately however up to now it proved impossible to link the vacuum Kerr solution to a satisfying internal metric of a given matter distribution.

From general relativity we know that a mass curves space time around. If the mass rotates, the peculiar motion introduces further warps in space time. Suppose now that the influence of the very mass becomes weak (as it is normally the case within the Solar system, for instance), but the rotation stays important: would there be a residual effect on space time? In fact the condition in which mass is negligible and rotation is not is rather easy to obtain.

This is the problem this paper will address. The first step will be to identify the physical parameters describing the body and its rotation state. Then the metric tensor outside the spinning body will be found, in the form of an inverse powers of the distance development. Next will come the metric tensor inside the rotating matter distribution and finally the source tensor corresponding to the internal metric tensor and generating the external one. As we shall see, a complete consistent solution will be found, producing expectedly measurable effects on space time.

## II General form of the approximated external metric tensor

We start from the empty space-time line element in polar coordinates:

$`ds^2=c^2dt^2dr^2r^2d\theta ^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2`$

Let us assume that the presence of an axially symmetric steadily rotating mass at the origin introduces a perturbation such that the metric becomes

$$ds^2=c^2\left(1+𝔥_{00}\right)dt^2\left(1+𝔥_{rr}\right)dr^2r^2\left(1+𝔥_{\theta \theta }\right)d\theta ^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \left(1+𝔥_{\varphi \varphi }\right)d\varphi ^2+2𝔥_{t\varphi }r\mathrm{sin}\theta cdtd\varphi $$
(1)
with the condition

$`𝔥_{\mu \nu }<<1`$

The elements of the perturbation tensor, because of the assumed symmetries, depend geometrically on $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ only. Physically the perturbation must depend on two quantities, which characterize the body and its motion: the mass $`M`$ and the angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, or its combination with the mass into the angular momentum $`J`$. Both $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`J`$ are defined from the viewpoint of an inertial observer at rest with respect to the rotation axis of the body, thus coinciding with the components of the corresponding three-vectors on that axis. Expressing the mass and the angular momentum as lengths it is possible to introduce the quantities $`\mu =GM/c^2`$ and $`a=J/Mc`$; $`a`$, apart from a factor depending on the shape of the body and the matter distribution inside it, is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and does not depend on $`M`$ any more.

Once the reference frame has been fixed, the sign of the parameter $`a`$ varies according to the two directions of rotation: $`a`$ is odd for reversal of time. The line element (1) must of course be even in time; this implies that the diagonal terms of the metric tensor must be even in time too, i.e. must contain even powers of $`a`$ only. In order to have the mixed term in the line element being even in time, since it contains $`dt`$, we must impose to the off diagonal term of the metric tensor to be odd, which means to contain odd powers of $`a`$ only and no pure powers of $`\mu `$.

In practice, introducing the dimensionless variables $`\epsilon =\mu /r`$ and $`\alpha =a/r`$ and expressing the $`r`$ dependence in the form of an inverse powers development leads to:

$`𝔥_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`A_0\epsilon +B_0\alpha ^2+\mathrm{}`$
$`𝔥_{rr}`$ $`=`$ $`A_1\epsilon +B_1\alpha ^2+\mathrm{}`$
$`𝔥_{\theta \theta }`$ $`=`$ $`A_2\epsilon +B_2\alpha ^2+\mathrm{}`$
$`𝔥_{\varphi \varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`A_3\epsilon +B_3\alpha ^2+\mathrm{}`$
$`𝔥_{t\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`A_4\alpha +B_4\epsilon \alpha +\mathrm{}`$
The $`A`$ and $`B`$ coefficients are functions of $`\theta `$ only, which in turn is the physical angle between the position three-vector and the angular velocity axial three-vector.

Considering $`𝔥_{t\varphi }`$ we see that the linear term (in $`\alpha `$), when introduced in (1), produces a constant, which means that the metric would not be flat at infinity. To avoid this it must be $`A_4=0`$. Finally, considering and comparing the orders of magnitude of the different terms, we assume that, in general, the mass contributions ($`\epsilon `$ terms) are negligible with respect to the rest; as said in the introduction this condition is rather simple to obtain. Under this assumption the approximated line element will be

$`ds^2=c^2\left(1+B_0\alpha ^2\right)dt^2\left(1+B_1\alpha ^2\right)dr^2r^2\left(1+B_2\alpha ^2\right)d\theta ^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \left(1+B_3\alpha ^2\right)d\varphi ^2`$or, more explicitly,

$$ds^2=c^2\left(1+B_0\frac{a^2}{r^2}\right)dt^2\left(1+B_1\frac{a^2}{r^2}\right)dr^2r^2\left(1+B_2\frac{a^2}{r^2}\right)d\theta ^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \left(1+B_3\frac{a^2}{r^2}\right)d\varphi ^2$$
(2)
### A Conditions to be imposed on the metric tensor

From the metric tensor corresponding to (2) one can calculate the Ricci tensor up to terms in $`a^2`$. Since, by hypothesis, we are in empty space time, all the elements of the Ricci tensor must vanish. This condition corresponds to the following equations for the $`B`$’s (a  denotes differentiation with respect to $`\theta `$):

$`\left(2B_0^{\prime \prime }+4B_0\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta +2B_0^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\left(4B_3^{}+2B_1^{}+6B_0^{}\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta +4\left(B_3B_2\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\left(4B_3+4B_2+2B_1^{\prime \prime }+8B_1+12B_0\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta +2B_1^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\left(2B_3^{\prime \prime }4B_3+4B_2+2B_1^{\prime \prime }+2B_0^{\prime \prime }4B_0\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta +2\left(2B_3^{}B_2^{}\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\left(2B_3^{\prime \prime }4B_0\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta +\left(4B_3^{}2B_2^{}+2B_1^{}+2B_0^{}\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ $`=`$ $`0`$
Only four out of these equations can be independent since the Ricci tensor is symmetric and consequently it can be diagonalized at any moment and place in space time. The number of independent equations is further reduced because of the rotation symmetry of the body and steadiness of the motion. Solving for the $`B`$ functions one obtains:

$`B_0`$ $`=C_0\mathrm{cos}\theta +D_0\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta }}\right)\right)`$
$`B_1`$ $`=2f\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 3C_0\mathrm{cos}\theta +C_1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$
$`B_2`$ $`=2f\mathrm{sin}^2\theta C_1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 4\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \right)f^{}+\left(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right)f^{\prime \prime }`$
$`B_3`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^3\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}f^{}`$
where $`f=f\left(\theta \right)`$ is an arbitrary function. $`C_0`$, $`C_1`$and $`D_0`$ are constants. Actually only finite solutions can be accepted (in order the development to be consistent all the $`B`$ functions must be $`1`$), consequently it must be $`D_0=0`$.

$`B_0`$ $`=C_0\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (3)
$`B_1`$ $`=2f\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 3C_0\mathrm{cos}\theta +C_1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ (4)
$`B_2`$ $`=2f\mathrm{sin}^2\theta C_1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 4\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \right)f^{}+\left(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \right)f^{\prime \prime }`$ (5)
$`B_3`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^3\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}f^{}`$ (6)
If it is $`C_00`$ the correction to the $`g_{00}`$ term of the metric has the form of a dipolar potential, consistent with the axial character of the angular velocity three-vector.

Now we can calculate the non zero terms of the Riemann tensor, which are

$`\begin{array}{cc}R_{rtr}^t=3C_0\frac{a^2}{r^4}\mathrm{cos}\theta \hfill & R_{rt\theta }^t=\frac{3}{2}C_0\frac{a^2}{r^3}\mathrm{sin}\theta \hfill \\ R_{\theta t\theta }^t=\frac{3}{2}C_0\frac{a^2}{r^2}\mathrm{cos}\theta \hfill & R_{\varphi t\varphi }^t=\frac{3}{2}C_0\frac{a^2}{r^2}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta \hfill \\ R_{\theta r\theta }^r=\frac{3}{2}C_0\frac{a^2}{r^2}\mathrm{cos}\theta \hfill & R_{\varphi r\varphi }^r=\frac{3}{2}C_0\frac{a^2}{r^2}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta \hfill \\ R_{\varphi \theta \varphi }^r=\frac{3}{2}C_0\frac{a^2}{r}\mathrm{sin}^3\theta \hfill & R_{\varphi \theta \varphi }^\theta =3C_0\frac{a^2}{r^2}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta \hfill \end{array}`$The presence of these terms indicates the existence of real physical effects depending solely on the rotation of the body. As it is seen they are there only when $`C_00`$.

Though in the form of a power series the metric corresponding to (5) belongs to Weyl’s class of axially symmetric stationary vacuum solutions of the Einstein field equations.

## III Determining the source tensor

In order to find the source tensor for the metric corresponding to (5) it is convenient to proceed as it is usually done in the linearized theory of gravity, writing the metric tensor as the sum of the Minkowski metric tensor (written in polar coordinates, in our case) $`g_{{}_{flat}{}^{}\mu \nu }`$ and a small correcting tensor $`h_{\mu \nu }`$.

$`g_{\mu \nu }=g_{{}_{flat}{}^{}\mu \nu }+h_{\mu \nu }`$The explicit expressions for the perturbations are

$`h_{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}B_0\frac{a^2}{r^2}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& B_1\frac{a^2}{r^2}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& B_2a^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& B_3a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \end{array}\right)`$

The trace $`h=h_\mu ^\mu `$ is

$`h={\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{r^2}}\left(B_0+B_1+B_2+B_3\right)`$Following the standard method, let us define the auxiliary tensor $`\overline{h}_{\mu \nu }=h_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{{}_{flat}{}^{}\mu \nu }h`$. It is

$`\overline{h}_0^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{r^2}}\left(B_0B_1B_2B_3\right)`$ (7)
$`\overline{h}_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{r^2}}\left(B_0B_1+B_2+B_3\right)`$ (8)
$`\overline{h}_\theta ^\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{r^2}}\left(B_0+B_1B_2+B_3\right)`$ (9)
$`\overline{h}_\varphi ^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{r^2}}\left(B_0+B_1+B_2B_3\right)`$ (10)
The determinant of the metric tensor will be assumed to coincide with the one of flat space time, since all corrections are of order $`a^4`$: $`g=g_{_{flat}}=c^2r^4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$.

Under the hypothesis of a weak field and considering that the metric tensor is stationary, one can write

$`^2\overline{h}_\mu ^\nu =16\pi S_\mu ^\nu `$whence

$`\overline{h}_\mu ^\nu =4{\displaystyle \frac{S_\mu ^\nu }{\left|\overline{r}\overline{r}^{}\right|}\sqrt{\gamma }d^3x^{}}`$The square root of the determinant of the space part of the Minkowski metric tensor is written as $`\sqrt{\gamma }`$. Developing in multipolar components and keeping the lowest order contributions, one has

$`\overline{h}_\mu ^\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{4}{r}}{\displaystyle S_\mu ^\nu \sqrt{\gamma }d^3x^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{cos}\theta }{r^2}}{\displaystyle S_\mu ^\nu r^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}\sqrt{\gamma }d^3x^{}}`$Looking at the (8) we see that there is no $`1/r`$ term. This means that $`S_\mu ^\nu `$ must be odd with respect to an odd number of integration variables. Considering the independence from $`\varphi `$ (invariance for rotation) and the nature of $`r`$, only $`\theta `$ is left. Let us assume that

$`S_{\mu \nu }=𝒮_{\mu \nu }w\left(\theta \right)`$with $`𝒮_{\mu \nu }`$ depending at most on $`r`$ and $`w\left(\theta \right)`$ an odd function of $`\theta `$ (odd with respect to the equatorial plane of the body), so that in general

$`\overline{h}_\mu ^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{cos}\theta }{r^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }{\displaystyle _0^{}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝒮_\mu ^\nu r^3w\left(\theta ^{}\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}dr^{}d\theta ^{}d\varphi ^{}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`8\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{r^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }{\displaystyle _0^{}}𝒮_\mu ^\nu r^3w\left(\theta ^{}\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}dr^{}d\theta ^{}`$ (12)
The result of the integration depends of course also on the shape of the body and in particular on the shape of the meridian section of the body expressed through the function $`r^{}=\left(\theta ^{}\right)`$ representing the border of that section. A further assumption may be that the body is homogeneous so that $`𝒮_\mu ^\nu `$ is not depending on $`r^{}`$ either (or we can refer to the average value of $`𝒮_\mu ^\nu `$ along the radius). So one has

$$\overline{h}_\mu ^\nu =2\pi \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{r^2}𝒮_\mu ^\nu _0^\pi ^4\left(\theta ^{}\right)w\left(\theta ^{}\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}d\theta ^{}=2\pi F\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{r^2}𝒮_\mu ^\nu $$
(13)
where $`F`$ is a constant depending on the shape of the section of the body.

Comparing this result with (8) we see that it must be

$`𝒮_0^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{F}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(B_0B_1B_2B_3\right)}{\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ (14)
$`𝒮_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{F}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(B_0B_1+B_2+B_3\right)}{\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ (15)
$`𝒮_\theta ^\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{F}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(B_0+B_1B_2+B_3\right)}{\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ (16)
$`𝒮_\varphi ^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{F}}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(B_0+B_1+B_2B_3\right)}{\mathrm{cos}\theta }}`$ (17)
The left hand side does not depend on $`\theta `$, so of course the same should happen to the right hand side. This fact poses constraints on the $`f`$ function appearing in (5). Equating all (15) to constants one obtains that it must be

$`f={\displaystyle \frac{W}{\mathrm{cos}\theta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_1}{2}}`$Now $`W`$ is a constant. Consequently the $`B`$ functions are

$`B_0`$ $`=C_0\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (18)
$`B_1`$ $`=\left(2W+3C_0\right)\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (19)
$`B_2`$ $`=W\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (20)
$`B_3`$ $`=W\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (21)
and the source tensor is

$`S_0^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{F}}C_0w\left(\theta \right)`$ (22)
$`S_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{F}}\left(C_0+W\right)w\left(\theta \right)`$ (23)
$`S_\theta ^\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{F}}\left(C_0+W\right)w\left(\theta \right)`$ (24)
$`S_\varphi ^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{F}}\left(C_0+W\right)w\left(\theta \right)`$ (25)
Of course the source tensor must satisfy also the zero divergence condition. Considering the symmetries and the fact that the weak field approximation holds supposedly also inside the body (use of the flat space time Christoffel symbols for the covariant derivatives), the null four-divergence condition reduces to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\left(𝒮_\theta ^\theta w\left(\theta \right)\right)}{d\theta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}w\left(\theta \right)\left(𝒮_\theta ^\theta 𝒮_\varphi ^\varphi \right)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (26)
$`2𝒮_r^r𝒮_\theta ^\theta 𝒮_\varphi ^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (27)
If $`w(\theta )`$ must be odd through the equatorial plane, eq.s (26) can be satisfied only with $`𝒮_r^r=𝒮_\theta ^\theta =𝒮_\varphi ^\varphi =0`$. This fact in turn implies that

$`W=C_0`$The general forms of the $`B`$’s and of the source tensor are then

$`B_0`$ $`=C_0\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (28)
$`B_1`$ $`=C_0\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (29)
$`B_2`$ $`=C_0\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (30)
$`B_3`$ $`=C_0\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (31)
and

$`S_0^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{F}}C_0w\left(\theta \right)`$ (32)
$`S_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (33)
$`S_\theta ^\theta `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (34)
$`S_\varphi ^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (35)
## IV The internal metric tensor

The next step is to determine a consistent metric tensor inside the matter distribution. As in the case of the external solution it is convenient to use the physical dimensionless variables

$`\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Gm}{c^2r}}`$
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{r}}`$
where now both $`m`$ and $`a`$ depend on $`r`$. For an homogeneous, rigidly rotating sphere it would be $`m=\frac{4}{3}\pi \rho r^3`$ and $`a=\frac{2}{5}\frac{r^2}{c}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`\rho `$ is the matter density and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the angular velocity. In general $`a`$ would be expressed as a numerical factor depending on the shape, size and kind of matter distribution multiplying the angular velocity of the body and the square of some characteristic distance from the axis. On the basis of these considerations the dimensionless variables inside the body can be written as

$`\epsilon `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G\rho }{c^2}}r^2`$
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }r}{c}}`$
transferring all shape effects into the coefficients that will multiply the variables.

Here again we assume that

$`\epsilon <<\alpha `$

Now let us write the internal line element as a power expansion in $`r`$ where the same general symmetries as in the external case should hold. In practice the extra-diagonal term is negligible, as well as the mass terms.

The proposed line element is then

$$ds^2=c^2(1+\beta _0\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}r^2)dt^2\left(1+\beta _1\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}r^2\right)dr^2r^2\left(1+\beta _2\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}r^2\right)d\theta ^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \left(1+\beta _3\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}r^2\right)d\varphi ^2$$
(36)
where the $`\beta `$’s are functions of $`\theta `$ only. From there one can straightforwardly calculate the Einstein tensor

$`G_t^t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\beta _3^{\prime \prime }+8\beta _3+10\beta _2+\beta _1^{\prime \prime }6\beta _1)\mathrm{sin}\theta +(2\beta _3^{}\beta _2^{}+\beta _1^{})\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2\mathrm{sin}\theta }}`$
$`G_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\beta _3^{\prime \prime }+2\beta _3+4\beta _22\beta _1+\beta _0^{\prime \prime }+4\beta _0)\mathrm{sin}\theta +(2\beta _3^{}\beta _2^{}+\beta _0^{})\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2\mathrm{sin}\theta }}`$
$`G_r^\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2\beta _3^{}\beta _1^{}+\beta _0^{})\mathrm{sin}\theta +2(\beta _3\beta _2)\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2r\mathrm{sin}\theta }}`$
$`G_\theta ^r`$ $`=`$ $`r{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2\beta _3^{}\beta _1^{}+\beta _0^{})\mathrm{sin}\theta +2(\beta _3\beta _2)\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2\mathrm{sin}\theta }}`$
$`G_\theta ^\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(6\beta _32\beta _1+4\beta _0)\mathrm{sin}\theta +(\beta _1^{}+\beta _0^{})\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2\mathrm{sin}\theta }}`$
$`G_\varphi ^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(6\beta _2+\beta _1^{\prime \prime }2\beta _1+\beta _0^{\prime \prime }+4\beta _0)}{2}}`$
Imposing the four-divergence of $`G_\mu ^\nu `$ to be zero produces the two equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _1^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _0^{\prime \prime }\beta _3^{\prime \prime }+\beta _3\beta _2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\left(2\beta _3^{}\beta _2^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _0^{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _1^{}}{2}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _1^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta _0^{}\beta _3^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\beta _3+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\beta _2`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
These equations are not independent from each other since differentiating the second one, then subtracting it from the first one, the second equation is obtained again. A solution is found when $`\beta =\beta _0=\beta _1=\beta _2=\beta _3`$. This same solution brings all the $`G_i^j`$’s to $`0`$ too.

The Einstein tensor must be proportional to (33); let us call $`\chi `$ the proportionality constant. The equality condition reduces to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\beta _3^{\prime \prime }+8\beta _3+10\beta _2+\beta _1^{\prime \prime }6\beta _1)\mathrm{sin}\theta +(2\beta _3^{}\beta _2^{}+\beta _1^{})\mathrm{cos}\theta }{2\mathrm{sin}\theta }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\chi {\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{F}}C_0w\left(\theta \right)`$i.e.

$$\frac{(\beta ^{\prime \prime }+6\beta )\mathrm{sin}\theta +\beta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }=\frac{1}{\pi }\chi \frac{a^2c^2}{F\mathrm{\Omega }^2}C_0w\left(\theta \right)$$
(37)
Eq. (37) may be rewritten as ($`K=\frac{1}{\pi }\chi \frac{a^2c^2}{F\mathrm{\Omega }^2}C_0`$)

$$\frac{d^2\beta }{d\theta ^2}+\frac{d\beta }{d\theta }\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }+6\beta =Kw\left(\theta \right)$$
(38)
Further conditions to be imposed are related to the continuity of the metric tensor at the border of the rotating body. These conditions reduce in practice to

$$\beta \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}^2=B_0\frac{a^2}{^2}$$
(39)
from where one has

$`\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{a^2c^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2^4}}C_0\mathrm{cos}\theta `$Introducing this $`\beta `$ into (38) gives

$$\frac{1}{^4}\mathrm{cos}\theta +2\frac{^{}}{^5}\mathrm{sin}\theta +5\frac{\left(^{}\right)^2}{^6}\mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{^{\prime \prime }}{^5}\mathrm{cos}\theta \frac{^{}}{^5}\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{\mathrm{sin}\theta }=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{\chi }{F}w\left(\theta \right)$$
(40)
Once $``$ is chosen (40) gives the expression for $`w\left(\theta \right)`$.

### A The case of a rotating sphere

Let us assume our rotating body is a solid homogeneous sphere. In this case it is

$`=R=\text{constant}`$and

$`a={\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{c}}R^2`$

From (40) we see that

$`w\left(\theta \right)=\mathrm{cos}\left(\theta \right)`$On the other hand one has from (13)

$`F={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}R^4`$Then, again from (40)

$$\chi =\frac{8}{3}\pi $$
(41)
Finally we can list the explicit expressions for the line elements and the source tensor.

Internal line element:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`c^2(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{25}}C_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}}r^2\mathrm{cos}\theta )dt^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{25}}C_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}}r^2\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)dr^2`$ (43)
$`r^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{25}}C_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}}r^2\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)d\theta ^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{25}}C_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}}r^2\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)d\varphi ^2`$
External line element

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`c^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{25}}C_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2R^4}{c^2r^2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)dt^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{25}}C_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2R^4}{c^2r^2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)dr^2`$ (45)
$`r^2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{25}}C_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2R^4}{c^2r^2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)d\theta ^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{25}}C_0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2R^4}{c^2r^2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)d\varphi ^2`$
Source tensor

$`S_0^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{25\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}}C_0\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (46)
$`S_r^r`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (47)
$`S_\theta ^\theta `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (48)
$`S_\varphi ^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (49)
## V Interpretation of the source tensor

To interpret the tensor and to conjecture a value of $`C_0`$ let us consider what happens to the line element in a weak field approximation inside a homogeneous sphere when considering the pure effect of mass. In that case we expect the $`g_{00}`$ element of the metric tensor to be corrected by the local Newtonian potential in the form

$`c^2h_{00}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}{\displaystyle G\rho \sqrt{\gamma }d^3x^{}}`$Suppose now that the same role is played by the centrifugal potential inside the body. That potential at a given point is $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\frac{r^3}{r}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$. Suppose you want to write it in the form of a volume integral up to a given $`r`$ and a given $`\theta `$; it could be:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{r}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\theta }{\displaystyle _0^r}\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}\sqrt{\gamma }d^3x^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2r^2{\displaystyle _0^\theta }\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}d\theta ^{}`$In this way, recalling also the ’coupling constant’ (41), the same role as $`G\rho /c^2`$ before, is now played by

$`4{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta `$In the case of a pure mass effect the $`T_0^0`$ term of the stress energy tensor would contain precisely $`G\rho /c^2`$. Continuing on the same line of thought and looking at (47) we expect

$`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{25\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}}C_0\mathrm{cos}\theta =4{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta `$that implies

$`C_0={\displaystyle \frac{50}{3}}\pi 10^2`$

## VI Zero mass limit

Assuming a rigidly rotating body one must allow for some kind of force keeping the whole thing together against centrifugal forces. This force, when self gravitation is negligible, is provided by elasticity. To account for it the elastic energy momentum tensor should be added to the source tensor (33). A simpler approach is to think of an elastic membrane constraining the body and balancing the centrifugal push on the surface. In that case there would be a pure surface tension. If furthermore we assume that the membrane is indeed made of a big number of independent rings than the stress is purely directed along the ’parallels’ of the membrane. Its value, if the interior is purely passive but nonetheless remains homogeneous, is

$`\sigma _{\varphi \varphi }={\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{3l}}\mathrm{\Omega }^2R^3\mathrm{sin}^3\theta `$The density of the inner material is $`\rho `$, while $`l`$ is the thickness of the membrane. There will be a contribution to the source tensor only at the membrane.

The presence of the elastic tensor, even in the simplified version of a surface tension, is necessary, from the mathematical point of view, to insure the continuity of the radial derivatives of the metric tensor at the boundary of the body. In fact from (45) and (43) the derivatives of the metric at the boundary turn out to be (considering the $`00`$ and $`rr`$ components) $`\frac{2}{R}\beta `$ on the internal side and $`\frac{2}{R}B_0`$ on the external side. A $`\frac{4}{R}\beta `$ term is needed on the left to restore the equality. The additional surface term corresponds to the elastic force originated by the elastic stress in the membrane (per unit mass and dividing by $`c^2`$).

The stress affordable by the membrane has an upper limit $`\sigma _m`$, not depending on the density of the membrane by itself. This puts an upper limit to the angular velocity of the body too. The origin of the elastic resistance is in molecular interactions, i.e. in electromagnetic interaction. At the scale of the laboratory electromagnetic forces are far greater than the gravitational force. This is why gravitational effects can be neglected while rotation effects, whose limit is determined by elastic stresses, can not. Increasing the size of the body the gravitational effect keeps growing, while the molecular forces, which are short ranged, stay more or less the same: this is the reason why for big bodies gravity overtakes again and eventually rotational effects become secondary and more or less negligible.

However it is important to remark that no zero mass limit can produce any paradox since there are no electric charges without a mass and relativistically the electromagnetic field also contributes to the mass. So any zero mass limit is also a zero electromagnetic interaction limit. Sending the mass to zero implies turning the elastic interaction off and the weaker this is the smaller is the maximum possible angular velocity, then the limit for $`\rho `$ going to zero is also an $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ going to zero limit.

## VII Experimental verification

Let us refer to (45) and suppose to send light along a closed optical fiber at constant $`r`$ and constant $`\theta `$. The corresponding line element would be

$$0=c^2\left(1+\frac{8}{3}\pi \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}\frac{R^4}{r^2}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)dt^2r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \left(1\frac{8}{3}\pi \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}\frac{R^4}{r^2}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)d\varphi ^2$$
(50)
The coordinate time of flight along the whole loop would be

$`t_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{c}}r\mathrm{sin}\theta \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1\frac{8}{3}\pi \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}\frac{R^4}{r^2}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)}{\left(1+\frac{8}{3}\pi \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}\frac{R^4}{r^2}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)}}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{c}}r\mathrm{sin}\theta \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{r^2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)`$
Let us now do the same using an identical loop at $`\theta ^{}=\pi \theta `$. The time of flight would be

$`t_2{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{c}}r\mathrm{sin}\theta \left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{r^2}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)`$The difference between the two times is of course

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t={\displaystyle \frac{32}{3}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2R^4}{c^3r}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta `$This difference would not be there if the body was not rotating. The maximum effect is produced when $`\theta =\frac{\pi }{4}`$.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t_M={\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2R^4}{c^3r}}{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2R^2}{c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{R}{c}}`$The value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_M`$ in laboratory conditions ($`R1`$ m, $`\mathrm{\Omega }R10^3`$ m/s) is $`10^{18}`$ s. It could be measured by interferometric techniques.

## VIII Conclusion

Summarizing the results of this paper, we have shown that:

1) there exists a metric tensor in the vicinity of a weakly gravitating and rotating body which can be expressed, at the chosen level of approximation, as depending only on the square of the angular velocity of the body as viewed by a static (with respect to the rotation axis) inertial observer and on the shape of the body (here weakly gravitating means that the mass terms are negligible with respect to rotation terms);

2) the Riemann tensor calculated from the external metric has non zero terms, hence corresponding to physical and not only coordinate effects;

3) there exists an internal metric tensor matching the external one, provided an elastic force is allowed to resist the centrifugal force within the matter distribution;

4) the external metric tensor can be deduced from a source symmetric and conserved (in the sense of null four-divergence) tensor, which turns out to be proportional to the Einstein tensor calculated from the internal metric tensor;

5) the relevant term in the source tensor as well as in the metric tensors has the properties and appearance respectively of a dipolar density and dipolar potential, whose magnitude is given by the square of the angular velocity of the body;

6) considering the zero mass limit one sees that a vanishing mass corresponds to a vanishing elastic force, then vanishing allowed angular velocity too and eventually purely flat space time;

7) the numerical size of the various terms in ”laboratory” conditions is such that physical effects can be measured by light interferometry;

8) studying the structure of space time, rotation effects should be accounted for adding to the energy momentum tensor a rotation source tensor.

## IX Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank the GPB group of the Stanford University for kind hospitality and financial support during the elaboration of the present paper and is particularly grateful to Alex Silbergleit for precious advise and for spotting out the frequent computation mistakes which accompanied the evolution of the work, and Francis Everitt, Ron Adler, Mac Keysen and Bob Wagoner for many stimulating discussions.


text:
# Distribution of EAS arrival times according to data of the EAS–1000 prototype array1footnote 11footnote 1 Proc. 27th International Conference on Cosmic Rays, Hamburg, 2001, 1, 195–196.

## I Introduction

Distribution of arrival times of extensive air showers (EAS) has been studied by methods of classical statistics by different research groups (see, e.g., Chikawa et al. (1991) and Tsuji et al. (1993)). In this paper, we present some of the results of a similar investigation performed with the experimental data obtained with the EAS–1000 prototype array. This installation operates at the Institute of Nuclear Physics of Moscow State University (Fomin et al., 1999).

The EAS–1000 prototype array consists of eight detector units (DU) placed in the central part of the EAS MSU array and covers the area of $`67\times 22`$ m. The array is designed for registration of extensive air showers produced by cosmic rays with energy more than $`10^{14}`$ eV.

When an EAS arrives, the corresponding signals from DU are transmitted to a PC for the preliminary program analysis of information quality and for EAS event verification. The shower selection criterion is the triggering of any four adjacent detectors in the course of time gate less than 3.2 ns.

## II Analysis of experimental data

203 days of twenty-four hour regular operation during the period from August 1997 to February 1999 were selected for the analysis. The total number of showers in this data set is about $`1.7\times 10^6`$. The average time interval between successive showers is 10.5 s. The discreteness of EAS arrival times is about 0.055 s (one tic of computer clock).

The first step of verification of the hypothesis that a certain data sample obeys some definite distribution law is a test of homogeneity of the given sample (see, e.g., Bendat and Piersol (1986)). There are numerous non-parametric criteria of homogeneity hypothesis. To begin, we have chosen the series criterion, which is based on the analysis of the number of groups (series) of successive time intervals in the sample under consideration that have lengths greater than the median value and less than median value (Bol’shev and Smirnov, 1983; Bendat and Piersol, 1986).

Using this criterion, we have verified a hypothesis about homogeneity of data grouped into samples of 100, 200, 500, and 1000 showers, into samples of 24 hour duration, into samples of all continuous intervals of the array running (duration from 2 to 21 days) and a sample formed for the total data set. The analysis was performed in two ways: with the barometric effect taken into account, and without considering this effect (see Fomin et al. (1999) for the details). The homogeneity hypothesis was checked for confidence levels equal to 0.1, 0.05, 0.02, and 0.01.

It was found that among samples of 100 and 200 showers there exist several samples for which the homogeneity assumption cannot be accepted even for the smallest confidence level. It is interesting to mention that we have found certain groups of days (e.g., in May 1998) such that the number of non-homogeneous samples grows at the beginning of the period and then decreases. We did not manage to reveal any methodical reasons of this behavior. Moreover, we have not found any correlation between non-homogeneous data samples and EAS clusters; no correlation has also been revealed between non-homogeneous samples and sequences of showers with large delays (more that 1.5 min) (see Fomin et al., (2001a)). This allows us to conjecture that this effect reflects some astrophysical phenomena.

Next, it was found out that the homogeneity assumption cannot be accepted (with the confidence level 0.01) for certain samples of 3 and more days of regular observation and also for the sample constructed of total data. In particular, the series number for the total data set is equal to 829841, while the upper and low boundaries of series number that allow one to accept the homogeneity hypothesis with the given confidence level are 832580 and 835910 respectively. But if we study the same data sample taking into account the barometric effect, then we may accept the homogeneity assumption with the confidence level equal to 0.05.

For homogeneous samples, we have studied whether intervals between successive arrival times obey the exponential distribution. This was performed by means of the $`\chi ^2`$–test. We have studied separately time intervals with lengths $`30,`$ 40, 50, 60, 90, and 120 s. Data samples were grouped into bins of lengths 1, 2, 5, and 10 s. It was found that for all homogeneous data sets there exists a time scale (as a rule, $`90`$ s) such that the hypothesis under consideration may be accepted at least at the confidence level 0.005. In particular, we have analysed a set of EAS obtained during 51 days of the array running for which the average atmospheric pressure was within 740–745 mm Hg, and daily variation did not exceed 10 mm. It was obtained that this sample (416998 showers) agrees with the homogeneity assumption at the confidence level 0.05, and the distribution of time intervals that are not longer than 55 s is exponential with the confidence level 0.9 (see Fig. 1).

In addition, we have studied EAS arrival times by methods of cluster analysis. This investigation has revealed that there are definite sequences of EAS that can be identified as clusters. The results will be reported in details elsewhere (Fomin et al., 2001a). We have also applied certain methods of nonlinear time series analysis to the data sets that contain clusters. It was found out that the time series under consideration demonstrate chaotic dynamics (Fomin et al., 2001b). Finally, we have begun to study a more complete set of experimental data, which covers the period up to November 1999 and contains $`3.5\times 10^6`$ EAS.

## III Conclusion

It should be noted that our results do not contradict the conclusions of other research groups (Chikawa et al., 1991; Tsuji et al., 1993). However, it is necessary to increase shower statistics and to use other non-parametric methods of hypothesis verification since different criteria may give different results for the homogeneity assumption test (Bendat and Piersol, 1986).

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was done with financial support of The Federal Scientific-Technical Program for 2001, “Research and design in the most important directions of science and techniques for civil applications,” subprogram “High Energy Physics,” and grant of RFBR 99–02–16250.