text:
# On the Emergence of Nonextensivity at the Edge of Quantum Chaos

## 1 Introduction

Classical chaotic dynamics is identified by extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. Under chaotic dynamics, two arbitrarily close points in phase space diverge at an exponential rate, quantified by the Lyapunov exponent L+L . Non-chaotic dynamics does not show this extreme dependence on initial conditions, hence, the Lyapunov exponent is equal to zero. However, it has been conjectured, that, though the Lyapunov exponent may vanish, the system may have a positive generalized Lyapunov coefficient C3  describing power-law, rather than exponential, divergence of classical trajectories. This is the case, at the border between chaotic and non-chaotic dynamics (the ‘edge of chaos’) where the Lyapunov exponent goes to zero, but there remains a positive generalized Lyapunov coefficient.

This paper identifies a characteristic signature for the edge of quantum chaos. Quantum states maintain a constant overlap fidelity (heretofore referred to as the overlap or fidelity) , or distance, under all quantum dynamics, regular and chaotic. One way to characterize quantum chaos is to compare the evolution of an initially chosen state under the chaotic dynamics with the same state evolved under a perturbed dynamics P1 ; P2 ; SC . When the initial state is in a regular region of a mixed phase space system, a system whose phase space has regular and chaotic regions, the overlap remains close to one. When the initial state is in a chaotic region, the overlap decay is exponential. This paper explores the edge of quantum chaos, a region of polynomial overlap decay YSW1 .

This paper is structured as follows, we first give a short review of the Lyapunov description of chaotic dynamics and the lack of correspondence between this description and quantum dynamics. We then discuss suggested characteristics of quantum chaos (known as signatures of quantum chaos), concentrating on the overlap decay first introduced by Peres P1 ; P2  . Overlap decay proves to be a useful signature of quantum chaos from which to explore the border between regular and chaotic quantum dynamics. Next, we will review the nonextensive entropy form introduced in C1  and discuss its relevance to the edge of chaos phenomenon. Finally, we locate the ‘edge of quantum chaos’ in a mixed phase space system and, using the nonextensive entropy formalism, show how the overlap decay at the edge of quantum chaos depends on perturbation strength and Hilbert space dimension.

## 2 Classical Chaos

The Lyapunov exponent description of classical chaos is as follows L+L . Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ be the distance between two points on phase space. We define $`\xi =lim_{\mathrm{\Delta }x(0)0}(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x(t)}{\mathrm{\Delta }x(0)})`$, to describe how far apart two initially arbitrarily close points on phase space become at some time $`t`$. Generally, $`\xi (t)`$ is the solution to the differential equation

$$\frac{d\xi (t)}{dt}=\lambda _1\xi (t),$$
(1)
giving the solution

$$\xi (t)=e^{\lambda _1t}$$
(2)
where $`\lambda _1`$ is the Lyapunov exponent (the use of the subscript will become clear later on). As seen from the above equation when the Lyapunov exponent is positive two arbitrarily close points on phase space diverge at an exponential rate. Thus, the dynamics described by $`\xi (t)`$ is strongly sensitive to initial conditions and we have chaotic dynamics.

## 3 Quantum Chaos

While the Lyapunov exponent description of chaos works well for points on a classical phase space it cannot hold true for quantum mechanical states or wavefunctions. A measure of distance between quantum wavefunctions is the overlap

$$O_i=\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(3)
However, the overlap between two quantum wavefunctions remains unchanged under unitary evolution governed by the linear Schrödinger equation. This is seen from

$$O(n)=\mathrm{\Psi }(U^n)^{}U^n|\mathrm{\Phi }=O_i,$$
(4)
where $`U`$ is the unitary system evolution. Hence, the distance between two arbitrarily close quantum mechanical wavefunctions, like the distance between two Liouville probability densities, does not diverge and cannot be described by the Lyapunov exponent picture. This seeming lack of correspondence has led to the study of ‘quantum chaos,’ the search for characteristics of quantum dynamics that manifest themselves as chaotic in the classical realm B1 ; B2 ; H1 ; BGS .

Many such characteristics, quantum signatures of chaos, have been detailed in the literature and tested for quantum analogs of classically chaotic systems. These signatures can be divided into two broad categories, static signatures and dynamic signatures. Static signatures look at characteristics of the Hamiltonian or unitary operator governing the system. The conjecture is that the evolution operator of quantum chaotic systems have statistical properties similar to those of random matrices. Hence, quantum analogs of classically chaotic systems show level repulsion, that is, if the energy eigenvalues of the system are ordered, the difference between nearest neighbors would result in a histogram with a Wigner-Dyson distribution BGS  and not of a Poisonnian distribution expected for regular systems. In addition, the magnitude of the elements of the eigenvectors of quantum chaotic operators follow $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ distributionsZyc  from appropriate random matrix ensemble.

Dynamic signatures of quantum chaos look at the evolution of a state under the quantum chaotic operator compared to the same evolution with some additional perturbation. An example of a dynamic signature of chaos is hypersensitivity to perturbation. For chaotic systems (both classical and quantum), the amount of information necessary to track the state of a system when the dynamics is interrupted by an unknown perturbation grows at an exponential rate with increasing time SC . Other signatures of quantum chaos look at the entropy growth of chaotic systems versus regular systems ZP1 .

## 4 Overlap Decay

Overlap decay as a signature of quantum chaos was first introduced by Peres P1 ; P2 ; P3  as a quantum analog of initial state sensitivity. Rather than look at two slightly different states and see how they evolve under a certain dynamics, Peres suggested looking at one state, $`|\psi _i`$, and see how it evolves under under two slightly different dynamics, an unperturbed Hamiltonian $`H`$, and the same Hamiltonian with a small perturbation $`H+\delta V`$, where $`\delta `$ is the perturbation strength. The overlap at time $`t`$ is

$$O(t)=|\psi _u(t)|\psi _p(t)|.$$
(5)
where $`|\psi _u(t)=e^{iHt}|\psi _i`$ and $`|\psi _p(t)=e^{i(H+\delta V)t}|\psi _i`$ are the unperturbed and perturbed states, respectively. The initial behavior of the overlap shows different behavior depending on whether or not $`H`$ is chaotic. Recently, the study of overlap decay has seen a revival of interest which has served to identify several regimes of overlap decay behavior based on whether the system is chaotic or regular, the type and strength of perturbation, and the type of initial state. We note that many of the works cited use $`O^2`$ as the fidelity. Here, we follow Prosen  and simply use the overlap, $`O`$.

For quantum chaotic systems, quantum versions of classically chaotic maps or random matrix models, there are several regions of behavior based on the strength of the perturbation. Perturbation strength is characterized by the size of a typical off diagonal element, $`\sigma `$, of the perturbation operator when the perturbation operator is written in the ordered eigenbasis of the unperturbed dynamics, $`H`$. If $`\sigma `$ is less than the average level spacing of the unperturbed system, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the perturbation is weak. If $`\sigma >\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the perturbation is in the Fermi Golden Rule (FGR) regime Jacq ; Cerruti . The average level spacing is equal to $`2\pi /N`$ where $`N`$ is the dimension of the system Hilbert space. A typical off diagonal element of the perturbation operator in the ordered eigenbasis of the unperturbed system (where the unperturbed system is assumed to have eigenvector statistics of a random matrix see J ) is equal to $`\sqrt{\delta ^2\overline{V_{mn}^2}}`$, where $`\overline{V_{mn}^2}`$ is the second moment of the matrix elements of the perturbation Hamiltonian.

For short enough time, the overlap decay is quadratic for any perturbation strength P1 . After this time, weak perturbations lead to a Gaussian overlap decay as expected from first order perturbation theory P3 . Perturbations in the FGR regime lead to an exponential decay of overlap whose rate, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, increases with perturbation strength. For many systems, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ increases as the perturbation strength squared Jacq , however, some systems do not show this exact dependence W1 . For systems with a classical analog, initial coherent states, and classical perturbations, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will increase with perturbation strength until the decay rate reaches a value given by the Lyapunov exponent of the analog classical system Jacq ; Jala ; Cas . This is a wonderful example of a dynamical property of the classical system emerging in quantum mechanics. The increase $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ may also saturate at the bandwidth of $`H`$ Jacq .

For initial states that are coherent or random states, the Gaussian or exponential behavior continues until the fidelity reaches a saturation point at $`1/N`$. For initial states that are system eigenstates, there is no decay in the weak perturbation regime, and in the FGR regime there is an exponential decay of overlap which saturates at $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ W1 ; YSW2 .

Regular, non-chaotic, systems have a Gaussian decay in the FGR regime Prosen . The Gaussian decay is faster then the exponential decay of chaotic states. This result has been explained using correlation functions and may be understood as follows: a perturbation to a chaotic system is quickly spread out to the entire Hilbert space of the system. Repetition of the same perturbation does not lead to a compounded error (the correlation time is short). Regular systems, however, do not have this mechanism to spread out the perturbation. The same perturbation compounds the error (there is a long correlation time) leading to a faster fidelity decay. For some more complex regular systems, a power-law decay has also been observed Been .

Here we study a mixed system, a system with both chaotic and regular regimes. Coherent states within the regular regime are practically eigenstates of the system and the overlap of these states oscillates close to unity P2 ; Prosen , as shown in figure 1. Coherent states in the chaotic regime behave like other chaotic systems, they show exponential overlap decay in the FGR regime and Gaussian overlap decay for weak perturbations. We explore the border between the regular and chaotic regions and show that, in both the FGR and weak perturbation regimes, coherent states near this border have a polynomial overlap decay YSW1 .

## 5 Nonextensive Entropy

The Boltzmann-Gibbs formulation of statistical mechanics is one of the pillars of modern day physics. However, its applicability, indeed its formulation, is only for systems with short range interactions. Self-gravitating systems and other systems such as those with long range forces, long range memories (non-Markovian), or multifractal structures present significant difficulties for the application of the Boltzmann-Gibbs formulation. In 1988, in an attempt to understand the nature of some of these systems, one of us C1  proposed the generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs statistical mechanics on the basis of a generalized non-extensive entropy, $`S_q`$. When $`q=1`$, $`S_q`$ recovers the usual Boltzmann-Gibbs entropy.

The generalized entropy is given as follows:

$$S_q=k\frac{1_{i=1}^Wp_i^q}{q1}$$
(6)
where $`k`$ is a positive constant, $`p_i`$ is the probability of finding the system in microscopic state $`i`$, and $`W`$ is the number of possible microscopic states of the system; $`q`$ is the entropic index which characterizes the degree of the system nonextensivity. In the limit $`q1`$ we recover the usual Boltzmann entropy

$$S_1=k\underset{i=1}{\overset{W}{}}p_ilnp_i.$$
(7)
To demonstrate how $`q`$ characterizes the degree of nonextensivity of a system, we present the $`S_q`$ entropy addition rule C2 . If $`A`$ and $`B`$ are two independent systems such that the probability $`p(A+B)=p(A)p(B)`$, the entropy of the total system $`S_q(A+B)`$ is given by the following:

$$\frac{S_q(A+B)}{k}=\frac{S_q(A)}{k}+\frac{S_q(B)}{k}+(1q)\frac{S_q(A)S_q(B)}{k^2}.$$
(8)
From the above equation one can see that $`q<1`$ corresponds to superextensivity, the combined system entropy is more then the sum of the two independent systems; $`q>1`$ corresponds to subextensivity, the combined system entropy is less then the two independent systems. Using this entropy to generalize statistical mechanics and thermodynamics has helped to explain many natural phenomena in a wide range of fields.

One application of nonextensive entropy occurs in one dimensional dynamical maps. As explained above, when the Lyapunov exponent of a system is positive, the system dynamics is strongly sensitive to initial conditions and is called chaotic. When the Lyapunov exponent goes to zero it has been conjectured C3  (and proven for the logistic map robledo ) that the distance between two initially arbitrarily close points can be described by $`\frac{d\xi }{dt}=\lambda _{q_{sen}}\xi ^{q_{sen}}`$ leading to $`\xi =[1+(1q_{sen})\lambda _{q_{sen}}t]^{1/(1q_{sen})}`$ (sen stands for sensitivity). This requires the introduction of $`\lambda _{q_{sen}}`$ as a generalized Lyapunov coefficient. The Lyapunov coefficient scales inversely with time as a power law instead of the characteristic exponential of a Lyapunov exponent. Thus, there exists a regime, $`q_{sen}<1,\lambda _1=0,\lambda _{q_{sen}}>0`$, which is weakly sensitive to initial conditions and is characterized by having power law, instead of exponential, mixing. This regime is called the edge of chaos.

The polynomial overlap decay found for initial states of a mixed system near the chaotic border are at the ‘edge of quantum chaos’, the border between regular and chaotic quantum dynamics. This region is the quantum analog of the classical region characterized by the generalized Lyapunov coefficient.

## 6 The Quantum Kicked Top

The system studied in this work is the quantum kicked top (QKT) H2  defined by the operator:

$$U_{QKT}=e^{i\pi J_y/2\mathrm{}}e^{i\alpha J_z^2/2J\mathrm{}}.$$
(9)
$`J`$ is the angular momentum of the top and $`\alpha `$ is the ‘kick’ strength. The representation is such that $`J_z`$ is diagonal. The classical version of the kicked top has either regular, mixed, or fully chaotic dynamics depending upon the kick strength. We work with a QKT of $`\alpha =3`$ whose classical analog has a mixed phase space, with clearly defined regions of chaotic and regular dynamics. The perturbed operator is simply a QKT with a stronger kick strength $`\alpha ^{}`$. Hence, the perturbation operator, $`V=\delta \pi J_z^2/2J`$ where $`\delta \alpha ^{}\alpha `$.

When $`J`$ is even the QKT has three invariant, dynamically independent subspaces P2 ; H2 . We can write basis functions for the invariant subspaces in terms of the eigenvectors of $`J_z`$ which, following Peres P2 , we will denote as $`|m`$. The ee subspace is even under a $`180^{}`$ rotation about $`x`$ and even under a $`180^{}`$ rotation about $`y`$ and has a Hilbert space dimension of $`N=J/2+1`$. The basis functions of the ee subspace are $`|0`$ and $`(|2m+|2m)/\sqrt{2}`$, where $`m`$ ranges from 1 to $`J/2`$. The oo subspace is even under a $`180^{}`$ rotation about $`x`$ and odd under a $`180^{}`$ rotation about $`y`$ and $`N=J/2`$. Its basis functions are $`(|2m1|12m)/\sqrt{2}`$. The oe subspace is odd under a $`180^{}`$ rotation about $`x`$, $`N=J`$, and has basis functions $`(|2m|2m)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`(|2m1+|12m)/\sqrt{2}`$. All of the numerical simulations in this work were done in the oo subspace of the QKT. This is to say, we construct the complete QKT and transform it into a basis such that it is block diagonal with the dimensions of the three blocks mentioned above. The columns of the transformation matrix $`T`$ to get the QKT operator into block diagonal form are the states which form the bases of the invariant subspaces. We take only the block corresponding to the oo subspace and use that as our map. The initial angular momentum coherent states are also transformed into this basis and, again, only the part of the state corresponding to the oo subspace is used.

The phase space of the classical kicked top is the unit sphere, $`x^2+y^2+z^2=1`$ and the resulting action of the map is:

$`\begin{array}{cc}x^{}=& z\\ y^{}=& xsin(\alpha z)+ycos(\alpha z)\\ z^{}=& xcos(\alpha z)+ysin(\alpha z).\end{array}`$ (13)
For $`\alpha =3`$ there are two fixed points of order one at the center of the regular regions. They are located at

$$x_f=z_f=\pm 0.6294126,y_f=0.4557187.$$
(14)
The regular and chaotic regions of the kicked top are clearly seen in the classical maps phase space shown in the figure 2.

Hence, we expect quantum coherent states centered near the classical periodic point to exhibit significantly different behavior than coherent states centered in the classically chaotic region of the map. This is indeed seen in figure 1.

## 7 Locating the Edge of Quantum Chaos

To locate the edge of quantum chaos we use initial angular momentum coherent states keeping $`y`$ equal to $`y_f`$ of the positive fixed point for the classical kicked top and changing $`z`$ until a state which has a power-law overlap decay is found. The state which gives this behavior depends on the angular momentum of the QKT, $`J`$, but, given a fixed $`J`$, the power law emerges for perturbations in both the weak perturbation and FGR regimes. Examples of edge of quantum chaos behavior in both regimes is shown in figure 3 for a QKT of $`J=240`$. As seen in the figure, the power-law overlap decay is transitory between the quadratic and exponential behavior of the overlap decay. This transitory region does not appear for chaotic states (as shown in figure 1) or states close to the fixed point of the map, it is a signature of the ‘edge of quantum chaos.’

The overlap decay for the edge of quantum chaos state is very well fit by the solution of the differential equation

$$dO/d(t^2)=O^{q_{rel}}/\tau _{q_{rel}}^2.$$
(15)
In the above equation, rel stands for relaxation which is an appropriate description of a $`q>1`$ phenomenon. In classical systems, $`q_{rel}`$ characterizes the relaxation of initial states towards an attractor. Although we do not know how to derive this differential equation from first principles, the numerical agreement is remarkable (see also borges ). A time-dependent $`q`$-exponential expression analogous to the one shown here has recently been proved for the edge of chaos and other critical points of the classical logistic map robledo .

The values of $`q_{rel}`$ and $`\tau _{q_{rel}}`$ depend on the perturbation strength, $`J`$, and on whether the perturbation strength is in the weak perturbation or in the FGR regime. For perturbation strengths below the FGR regime, $`\delta `$ is less than some $`\delta _c`$, $`q_{rel}`$ remains constant at a value of $`q_{rel}^c`$. The transition into the FGR regime arises when the typical off diagonal elements of $`V`$ are larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We can approximate $`\delta _c\sqrt{2\pi /N^3}`$ Jacq  where, in the $`oo`$ subspace of the kicked top $`N=J/2`$. Values for $`\delta _c`$ are shown in the above table. In the FGR regime $`q_{rel}`$ continues to increase with perturbation strength until a saturation perturbation, $`\delta _s`$, after which $`q_{rel}=q_{rel}^s`$ remains constant. As the top becomes more classical, with increased $`J`$, there is a decrease in $`q_{rel}^c`$ while in the weak perturbation regime, but an increase in the rate of increase of $`q_{rel}`$ while in the FGR regime. Because of this larger rate of increased $`q_{rel}`$ in the FGR regime, $`q_{rel}^s`$ increases with increasing $`J`$. However, we see that this is not the case for the $`J=120`$ case. For $`J=120`$, $`q_{rel}`$ increases beyond the expected saturation point. This may be due because the $`J=120`$ coherent state is so large that, at stronger perturbations, it leaks out of the regular region of the map in more than one place due to the odd shape of the regular region (see figure 6). The value of $`\tau _{q_{rel}}`$ decreases with perturbation strength and is well fit by a line of slope approximately -1 on a log-log plot; $`\tau _{q_{rel}}`$ also decreases with increasing $`J`$ at a fixed perturbation strength. The values of $`q_{rel}`$ and $`\tau _{q_{rel}}`$ for a number of different perturbation strengths can be seen in the figure 4.

The location of states exhibiting edge of quantum chaos behavior is not the same as the edge of chaos for the classical kicked top. This is due to the finite size of the coherent states. Though the coherent state may be centered at a point that is classically regular, some of the state may ’leak out’ into the chaotic region of the map. As $`J`$ increases the coherent state gets smaller and the quantum edge approaches the classical one. The location of the edge and the size of the coherent state compared to the regular regions of the map are shown in figure 6.

In conclusion, we have explored the region at the between chaotic and non-chaotic quantum dynamics, the edge of quantum chaos. Coherent states located at this border exhibit a power-law decrease in overlap as opposed to practically no decay for coherent states near the periodic point of the classical map and exponential overlap decay exhibited by fully chaotic quantum dynamics. This region is the quantum parallel of the classical region at the border between regular and chaotic classical dynamics where the Lyapunov exponent goes to zero and the mixing is characterized by the generalized Lyapunov coefficient. Further studies of this rich system are certainly welcome.

One of us (C.T.) acknowledges warm hospitality by H.-T. Elze and the organizers during the interesting meeting.


format: text

text:
# INVERTING THE SEESAW FORMULA

## I Introduction

The seesaw mechanism ss  is a simple framework which can explain the smallness of neutrino mass. It requires only a modest extension of the minimal standard model, namely the inclusion of the heavy right-handed neutrino, but can be well realized within left-right models lrm , partial unified models pum , and grand unified $`SO(10)`$ theories gut , where the right-handed neutrino does exist. Then the effective neutrino mass matrix $`M_L`$ is given by the seesaw formula

$$M_LM_\nu M_R^1M_\nu ^T,$$
(1)
where $`M_R`$ is the mass matrix of the right-handed neutrino and $`M_\nu `$ is the Dirac neutrino mass matrix. The master formula (1) is valid when the eigenvalues of $`M_R`$ are much larger than the elements of $`M_\nu `$ and in such a case the eigenvalues of $`M_L`$ come out very small with respect to those of $`M_\nu `$. Indeed, unlike $`M_\nu `$, the generation of $`M_R`$ is not related to the electroweak symmetry breaking and thus its scale may be very large. Moreover, $`M_R`$ is a Majorana mass matrix, and as a consequence also $`M_L`$ is a Majorana mass matrix of left-handed neutrinos (see for example bgg ). This fact is related to the violation of total lepton number at high scale wein , which should produce important phenomena such as the baryogenesis via leptogenesis fy  and the neutrinoless double beta decay furry . Lepton flavors are also violated, but in the nonsupersymmetric theory, due to the smallness of neutrino mass, such processes are so suppressed to be unobservable pet , apart from neutrino oscillations. The situation is different in the supersymmetric theory, even with universal soft breaking terms, where some of these processes may be observable bm .

Both lepton number and lepton flavor violations depend on the mass matrices $`M_\nu `$ and $`M_R`$. On the other hand, we have several informations on the effective neutrino mass matrix, coming from neutrino oscillations and more generally from neutrino experiments. Therefore, it is reasonable, relating $`M_\nu `$ to the charged fermions mass matrices, to obtain informations on $`M_R`$ by inverting the seesaw formula,

$$M_RM_\nu ^TM_L^1M_\nu .$$
(2)
As a consequence, we should be able to determine also the impact on the baryogenesis via leptogenesis, the neutrinoless double beta decay, and for example the radiative lepton decays in some supersymmetric models. The seesaw formula is valid above the $`M_R`$ scale, so that one should determine $`M_L`$ at that scale. Although in several case the effect is not relevant, we must take care of the renormalization issue (see the recent paper frismi ).

In section II we discuss the Dirac mass matrices of quarks and leptons. In section III we describe the effective neutrino mass matrix and in particular its element $`M_{ee}`$, related to neutrinoless double beta decay. In section IV we determine the mass matrix of right-handed neutrinos. In section V and VI, respectively, we study the consequences for the baryogenesis via leptogenesis and the radiative lepton decays in supersymmetry. Finally, we present a discussion.

## II Dirac mass matrices

A symmetric form of the quark mass matrices, in agreement with the phenomenology of quark masses and mixings, is described in Refs.cf ; nmf , and given by

$$M_d\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \sqrt{m_dm_s}& 0\\ \sqrt{m_dm_s}& m_s& \sqrt{m_dm_b}\\ 0& \sqrt{m_dm_b}& m_b,\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
$$M_u\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \sqrt{m_um_c}& 0\\ \sqrt{m_um_c}& m_c& \sqrt{m_um_t}\\ 0& \sqrt{m_um_t}& m_t\end{array}\right).$$
(4)
Moreover, in Ref.cf , the charged lepton mass matrix has an analogous form,

$$M_e\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \sqrt{m_em_\mu }& 0\\ \sqrt{m_em_\mu }& m_\mu & \sqrt{m_em_\tau }\\ 0& \sqrt{m_em_\tau }& m_\tau \end{array}\right).$$
(5)
Since the hierarchy and scale of charged lepton masses are similar to the hierarchy and scale of down quark masses (see for example bs ), one has also the relation $`M_eM_d`$. Then a natural assumption is $`M_\nu M_u`$, in which case the Dirac neutrino mass matrix can be written in the form

$$M_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& a& 0\\ a& b& c\\ 0& c& 1\end{array}\right)m_t,$$
(6)
where $`abc1`$. The relation $`bc`$ in quark mass matrices is discussed in Ref.fx . We take $`b`$ and $`c`$ different but of the same order. In fact, also matrices (3) and (5) can be written in the form (6), with overall scales $`m_b`$ and $`m_\tau `$, respectively.

## III Neutrino phenomenology

Neutrino oscillation data imply that the lepton mixing matrix is given by

$$U\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& ϵ\text{e}^{\text{i}\delta }\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right)\text{diag}(\text{e}^{\text{i}\phi _1/2},\text{e}^{\text{i}\phi _2/2},1),$$
(7)
where $`ϵ<0.16`$, and the square mass differences among effective neutrino masses $`m_1,m_2,m_3`$ are

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2=m_3^2m_2^2310^3\text{eV}^2,$$
(8)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=m_2^2m_1^2710^5\text{eV}^2.$$
(9)
In the basis where $`M_e`$ is diagonal, $`M_L`$ is obtained by the transformation

$$M_L=U^{}D_LU^{},$$
(10)
with $`D_L=\text{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3)`$. The presence of phases $`\phi _1`$, $`\phi _2`$ in the mixing matrix (7) is due to the Majorana nature of effective neutrinos. In the lepton mixing matrix, $`U_{\mu 3}`$ is maximal, $`U_{e2}`$ is large, and $`U_{e3}`$ is small. This is in contrast to the small quark mixings.

Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$, we may consider four kinds of neutrino spectra: the normal hierarchy $`m_1m_2m_3`$, with $`m_3^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ and $`m_2^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$, the partial degeneracy $`m_1m_2m_3`$, with $`m_3^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$, the inverse hierarchy $`m_1m_2m_3`$, with $`m_{1,2}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$, and the almost degenerate spectrum $`m_1m_2m_31`$ eV. The elements of $`M_L`$ are given by

$$M_{ee}ϵ^2m_3+\frac{m_2}{3}+2\frac{m_1}{3}$$

$$M_{e\mu }ϵ\frac{m_3}{\sqrt{2}}+\frac{m_2}{3}\frac{m_1}{3}$$

$$M_{e\tau }ϵ\frac{m_3}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{m_2}{3}+\frac{m_1}{3}$$

$$M_{\mu \tau }\frac{m_3}{2}\frac{m_2}{3}\frac{m_1}{6}$$

$$M_{\mu \mu }M_{\tau \tau }\frac{m_3}{2}+\frac{m_2}{3}+\frac{m_1}{6}$$

where phases are inserted by $`ϵϵ\text{e}^{\text{i}\delta }`$, $`m_1m_1\text{e}^{\text{i}\phi _1}`$, $`m_2m_2\text{e}^{\text{i}\phi _2}`$, and the relation $`M_{\mu \mu }M_{\tau \tau }`$ leads to the nearly maximal mixing $`U_{\mu 3}`$.

Let us consider in particular the element $`M_{ee}`$, which is related to neutrinoless double beta decay. For the normal hierarchy we obtain (values in eV) $`10^3<M_{ee}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2}<10^2`$, for the partial degeneracy $`10^3<M_{ee}10^1\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2}<10^2`$, for the inverse hierarchy $`10^2<M_{ee}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2}<10^1`$, and for the degenerate spectrum $`10^1<M_{ee}<1`$. Hence, different spectra give quite distinct prediction for $`M_{ee}`$. There is a claim of evidence for the process kdhk , with $`M_{ee}=0.050.86`$ eV, in agreement with the degenerate spectrum and also the inverse hierarchy. However, this result is controversial.

## IV The heavy neutrino mass matrix

In this section we determine the right-handed neutrino mass matrix by means of the inverse seesaw formula (2). We need $`M_L^1`$, which is easily achieved, since $`M_L^1=UD_L^1U^T`$. We stress that the difference of $`U_{e2}`$ from the maximal mixing could be ascribed to $`M_e`$ gt  and/or to renormalization run . Therefore, at the high scale and in the basis where $`M_e`$ is given by Eqn.(5), we use the nearly bimaximal mixing in the seesaw,

$$U\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& ϵ\text{e}^{\text{i}\delta }\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right)\text{diag}(\text{e}^{\text{i}\phi _1/2},\text{e}^{\text{i}\phi _2/2},1),$$
(11)
with $`ϵ0`$. Then the elements of $`M_L^1`$ are given by

$$M_{ee}^1\frac{1}{2m_1}+\frac{1}{2m_2}+\frac{ϵ^2}{m_3}$$

$$M_{e\mu }^1\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}m_1}+\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}m_2}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{ϵ}{m_3}$$

$$M_{e\tau }^1\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}m_1}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}m_2}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{ϵ}{m_3}$$

$$M_{\mu \tau }^1\frac{1}{4m_1}\frac{1}{4m_2}+\frac{1}{2m_3}$$

$$M_{\mu \mu }^1M_{\tau \tau }^1\frac{1}{4m_1}+\frac{1}{4m_2}+\frac{1}{2m_3}$$

where phases are inserted by $`m_1m_1\text{e}^{\text{i}\phi _1}`$, $`m_2m_2\text{e}^{\text{i}\phi _2}`$, $`ϵϵ\text{e}^{\text{i}\delta }`$. Now, we determine the forms of $`M_R`$ according to the four kinds of mass spectra for the effective neutrinos. We consider two extreme cases, that is $`\phi _2\phi _1`$ and $`\phi _2\phi _1+\pi `$. The other cases should be intermediate between those two.

For the normal hierarchy we obtain

$$M_R\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a^2& a(bc)& a\\ a(bc)& (bc)^2& (bc)\\ a& (bc)& 1\end{array}\right)\frac{m_t^2}{4m_1}.$$
(12)
An overall phase $`\text{e}^{\text{i}\phi _1}`$ will be always absorbed. The corresponding approximate form of $`M_L`$ at the low scale is given by

$$M_L\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_2& m_2& m_2\\ m_2& m_3& m_3\\ m_2& m_3& m_3\end{array}\right).$$

For the partial degeneracy, the case $`\phi _2\phi _1`$ leads to $`M_R`$ the double of that in Eqn.(12). Instead, $`\phi _2\phi _1+\pi `$ leads to the special form

$$M_R\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& a& 0\\ a& 2(cb)& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)\frac{am_t^2}{2\sqrt{2}m_1}.$$
(13)
The corresponding approximate forms of $`M_L`$ at the low scale are given by

$$M_L\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_{1,2}& m_2m_1& m_2m_1\\ m_2m_1& m_3& m_3\\ m_2m_1& m_3& m_3\end{array}\right),$$

with $`m_2m_1\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2/m_{1,2}`$, and

$$M_L\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_{1,2}& m_{1,2}& m_{1,2}\\ m_{1,2}& m_3& m_3\\ m_{1,2}& m_3& m_3\end{array}\right).$$

For the inverse hierarchy both cases $`\phi _2\phi _1`$ and $`\phi _2\phi _1+\pi `$ give

$$M_R\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a^2& a(b+c)& a\\ a(b+c)& (b+c)^2& (b+c)\\ a& (b+c)& 1\end{array}\right)\frac{m_t^2}{2m_3}.$$
(14)
Note that while for the normal hierarchy the difference $`(bc)`$ appears, for the inverse hierarchy, instead, the sum $`(b+c)`$ appears. At the low scale we have

$$M_L\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_{1,2}& m_2m_1& m_2m_1\\ m_2m_1& m_{1,2}& m_{1,2}\\ m_2m_1& m_{1,2}& m_{1,2}\end{array}\right),$$

with $`m_2m_1\mathrm{\Delta }m_{2,1}^2/m_{1,2}`$, and a form of $`M_L`$ with all entries of the order of $`m_{1,2}`$.

For the degenerate spectrum we get in the case $`\phi _2\phi _1`$

$$M_R\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a^2& ab& ac\\ ab& b^2+c^2& c\\ ac& c& 1\end{array}\right)\frac{m_t^2}{m_3}.$$
(15)
For $`\phi _2\phi _1+\pi `$ we have the same form as Eqn.(14). At the low scale $`M_L`$ is of the same kind as the inverse hierarchy case.

In the following sections we will consider, in a simplified approach, the impact of $`M_\nu `$ and $`M_R`$ on the baryogenesis via leptogenesis and the radiative lepton decays in some supersymmetric models. We first take $`M_\nu M_u`$, so that bs

$$M_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \lambda ^6& 0\\ \lambda ^6& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^4\\ 0& \lambda ^4& 1\end{array}\right)m_t,$$
(16)
where $`\lambda =0.22`$ is the Cabibbo parameter. Since $`bc`$, we take only two forms for $`M_R`$, one for the normal, inverse and degenerate case, and the other for the partial degenerate case (13), that is

$$M_R\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{12}& \lambda ^{10}& \lambda ^6\\ \lambda ^{10}& \lambda ^8& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^6& \lambda ^4& 1\end{array}\right)\frac{m_t^2}{m_k},$$
(17)
with eigenvalues $`M_1/M_2\lambda ^4`$, $`M_1/M_3\lambda ^{12}`$, and

$$M_R\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \lambda ^6& 0\\ \lambda ^6& \lambda ^4& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)\lambda ^6\frac{m_t^2}{m_1},$$
(18)
with eigenvalues $`M_1/M_2\lambda ^6`$, $`M_1/M_3\lambda ^6`$. Notice that the scale of matrix (18) is smaller by several orders with respect to the scale of matrix (17). Defining $`M_D=M_\nu U_R`$, where $`U_R`$ diagonalizes $`M_R`$ ($`M_D`$ is the Dirac mass matrix in the basis where $`M_R`$ is diagonal), we obtain $`M_D^{}M_D`$, which appears both in the formula for leptogenesis and in that for radiative decays in supersymmetry,

$$M_D^{}M_D\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{12}& \lambda ^{10}& \lambda ^6\\ \lambda ^{10}& \lambda ^8& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^6& \lambda ^4& 1\end{array}\right)m_t^2,$$
(19)
$$M_D^{}M_D\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{12}& \lambda ^{10}& \lambda ^{10}\\ \lambda ^{10}& 1& 1\\ \lambda ^{10}& 1& 1\end{array}\right)m_t^2.$$
(20)
In the first case, matrix (17), we have $`U_R`$ near the identity and $`M_D^{}M_DM_Rm_k`$. In the other case, matrix (18), $`U_R`$ is nearly unimaximal. Therefore, in the matrix model made of (16) and (17), $`M_\nu `$ and $`M_R`$ give small mixings, so that large mixings in $`M_L`$ are produced through a matching between $`M_\nu `$ and $`M_R`$ within the seesaw formula. Instead, in the matrix model made of (16) and (18), the maximal mixing in $`M_L`$ comes from $`M_R`$. The structures (17) and (18) agree with the results of Ref.ayu , where it was realized that the seesaw enhancement of lepton mixing can be achieved by strong mass hierarchy or large offdiagonal elements in the heavy neutrino mass matrix.

## V Baryogenesis via leptogenesis

The baryogenesis via leptogenesis mechanism fy  is a well-known mechanism for baryogenesis, related to the seesaw mechanism, where the decays of heavy right-handed neutrinos produce a lepton asymmetry which is partly transformed in a baryon asymmetry by electroweak sphaleron processes krs . The amount of baryon asymmetry is then given by the expression

$$Y_B\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{g^{}}dϵ_1,$$
(21)
where $`ϵ_1`$ can be written as

$$ϵ_1\frac{3}{16\pi }\left[\frac{(Y_D^{}Y_D)_{12}^2}{(Y_D^{}Y_D)_{11}}\frac{M_1}{M_2}+\frac{(Y_D^{}Y_D)_{13}^2}{(Y_D^{}Y_D)_{11}}\frac{M_1}{M_3}\right],$$
(22)
see for instance Ref.ft . In these formulas $`Y_D`$ are Yukawa matrices, $`g^{}100`$, and $`d<1`$ is a dilution factor, which depends especially on the quantity

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_1=\frac{(M_D^{}M_D)_{11}}{M_1}.$$
(23)
Moderate dilution is present when $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1`$ is in the range of the effective neutrino masses bp . The allowed value for the baryon asymmetry is $`Y_B910^{11}`$, see Ref.cfo . Yukawa matrices are obtained by dividing mass matrices by their overall scale.

For the two matrix models described in the previous section we get, respectively,

$$ϵ_1\frac{3}{16\pi }\left(\frac{\lambda ^{20}}{\lambda ^{12}}\lambda ^4+\frac{\lambda ^{12}}{\lambda ^{12}}\lambda ^{12}\right)\frac{3}{16\pi }\lambda ^{12}10^{10},$$
(24)
with $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1m_k`$, and

$$ϵ_1\frac{3}{16\pi }\left(\frac{\lambda ^{20}}{\lambda ^{12}}\lambda ^6+\frac{\lambda ^{20}}{\lambda ^{12}}\lambda ^6\right)\frac{3}{16\pi }\lambda ^{14}10^{12},$$
(25)
with $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1m_1`$. Note that the two terms are comparable. Moreover, it is clear that both models cannot provide a sufficient amount of baryon asymmetry.

## VI Radiative lepton decays

In supersymmetric seesaw models with universality above the heavy neutrino mass scale, lepton flavor violations are produced by running effects from the universality scale $`M_U`$ to the scale $`M_R`$ bm . The branching ratio for radiative lepton decays is given by the approximate formula casas

$$\text{Br}(l_il_j\gamma )\frac{\alpha ^3}{G_F^2m_S^8}\left(\frac{3m_0^2+A_0^2}{8\pi ^2}\text{log}\frac{M_U}{M_R}\right)^2(Y_D^{}Y_D)_{ij}^2\text{tan}^2\beta ,$$
(26)
with $`l_1=e`$, $`l_2=\mu `$, $`l_3=\tau `$. Here, $`m_0`$ is the universal scalar mass, $`A_0`$ the universal trilinear coupling, and $`m_S`$ is the average slepton mass at the weak scale, which can be quite different from $`m_0`$. The experimental upper bounds are: $`\text{Br}(\mu e\gamma )<1.210^{11}`$, $`\text{Br}(\tau e\gamma )<2.710^6`$, $`\text{Br}(\tau \mu \gamma )<1.110^6`$. The first and third results are expected to be lowered by almost three orders in the future.

Assuming $`m_0=m_S=100`$ GeV, $`A_0=0`$ and $`\text{tan}\beta =50`$, we obtain for the first matrix model the values $`10^{18}`$, $`10^{12}`$, $`10^9`$, and for the second matrix model the values $`10^{18}`$, $`10^{18}`$, $`10^3`$. Due to large uncertainties in supersymmetric parameters, we cannot make definite predictions, so that previous numbers represent the effect of distinct matrix models, which is our main interest here. However, the element $`(Y_D^{}Y_D)_{32}1`$ in matrix (20) seems critical.

## VII Discussion

By inverting the seesaw formula we have calculated the heavy neutrino mass matrix, and the implications for baryogenesis via leptogenesis and radiative lepton decays in certain supersymmetric models. The analysis leads to two distinct matrix forms, that is a nearly diagonal model and a nearly offdiagonal model, which cannot provide sufficient baryon asymmetry. For recent related studies, see Ref.other .

We have assumed $`M_\nu M_u`$. However, this assumption can be changed. Indeed, the main feature of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix within the seesaw mechanism is that its overall scale is of the order of $`m_t`$. For example, we can take $`M_\nu M_dm_t/m_b`$, which means that it has the same overall scale of $`M_u`$, but the internal hierarchy of $`M_d`$,

$$M_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \lambda ^3& 0\\ \lambda ^3& \lambda ^2& \lambda ^2\\ 0& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)m_t.$$
(27)
In this case, sufficient baryon asymmetry is achieved, especially for

$$M_R\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^6& \lambda ^5& \lambda ^3\\ \lambda ^5& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^3& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)\frac{m_t^2}{m_k}.$$
(28)
The branching ratios of lepton decays are also enhanced to $`10^{10}`$, $`10^7`$, $`10^6`$. However, these strongly depend on the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking. In fact, in the previous section we have adopted a gravity mediated breaking, where $`M_U>M_R`$, while for a gauge mediated breaking $`M_U<M_R`$ and running effects are not induced.

An indication towards the existence of the seesaw mechanism would be the evidence for neutrinoless double beta decay. For the moment we predict (in eV) $`10^3<M_{ee}<0.86`$. While the upper part of this range will be checked rather soon, the lower part is more difficult to reach.

In conclusion, assuming baryogenesis from leptogenesis, we are led towards a Dirac neutrino mass hierarchy similar to the down quark and charged lepton mass hierarchy. In some supersymmetric scenarios, this model may be checked by measurements of radiative lepton decays.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 Context

The key components of the context in which the mechanism of resonance flavor conversion has been proposed include

* Neutrino mixing and oscillations invented by B. Pontecorvo (1957, 1958) (neutrino-antineutrino oscillations, maximal mixing)  and $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ (flavor) mixing as well as the “virtual $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transmutation” proposed by Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, S. Sakata  (1962).
* Spectroscopy of solar neutrinos: the program put forward by J. N. Bahcall  and independently by G. Zatsepin and V. Kuzmin  to study interior of the Sun by measuring fluxes of all components of the solar neutrino spectrum. It was proposed to perform several experiments with different energy thresholds.
* The results of the Homestake experiment : they led to formulation of the solar neutrino problem which has triggered major experimental and theoretical developments in neutrino physics in the last 30 years. In fact, the problem was predicted by B. Pontecorvo , who also suggested its vacuum oscillation solution  (averaged vacuum oscillations with maximal or near maximal mixing).
* Matter effects on neutrino oscillations introduced by L. Wolfenstein .

### 1.2 References

Here I give (with some comments) references to the early papers on the MSW effect written by W. and M.-S..

L. Wolfenstein:
 “Neutrino oscillations in matter”, Phys. Rev. D17:2369-2374, 1978. Topics include: neutrino refraction, mixing in matter, eigenstates for propagation in matter, evolution equation, modification of vacuum oscillations.

 “Effect of Matter on Neutrino Oscillations”, in “Neutrino -78”, Purdue Univ. C3 - C6, 1978. The adiabatic formula has been given for massless neutrino conversion in varying density.

 “Neutrino oscillations and stellar collapse”, Phys. Rev. D20:2634-2635, 1979. Suppression of oscillations in matter of the star is emphasized.

We started to work in the beginning of 1984, when Stas Mikheyev had shown me the Wolfenstein’s paper . The question was about validity of the results and necessity to use them in the oscillation analysis of the atmospheric neutrino data from the Baksan telescope.

S.P. Mikheev, A.Yu. Smirnov:
 “Resonant amplification of neutrino oscillations in matter and spectroscopy of solar neutrinos”, Yad. Fiz. 42:1441-1448, 1985 \[Sov.J. Nucl. Phys. 42:913-917, 1985.\]
 “Resonant amplification of neutrino oscillations in matter and solar neutrino spectroscopy”, Nuovo Cim. C9:17-26, 1986. Appearance of these two papers with very close but not identical content (e.g., in  we comment on the effect in the three neutrino context) is a result of problems with publications.

 “Neutrino oscillations in a variable density medium and neutrino bursts due to gravitational collapse of stars”, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.91:7-13, 1986, \[Sov. Phys. JETP 64:4-7,1986.\]. Theory of the adiabatic neutrino conversion is presented. Here formulas for adiabatic probabilities can be found. To “cheat” editors and referees and to avoid a fate of previous papers we have removed the term “resonance” and “solar neutrinos” as well as references to our previous papers  . The paper had been submitted to JETP Letters in the fall of 1985 and successfully … rejected. It has been resubmitted to JETP in December of 1985. The theory is applied, of course, to solar neutrinos and the paper was reprinted in “Solar Neutrinos: The first Thirty Years”, Ed. J. N. Bahcall, et al., Addison-Wesley 1995.

 “Neutrino oscillations in Matter with Varying density”, Proc. of the 6th Moriond Workshop on Massive Neutrinos in Astrophysics and Particle Physics (Tignes, Savoie, France) January 25 - February 1, 1986, eds. O. Fackler and J. Tran Thanh Van, p. 355 - 372. In two talks at Moriond, I have summarized all our results (excluding solar neutrinos) obtained in 1985. The paper contains (apart from theory of the adiabatic conversion) calculations of the Earth matter effect on the solar and atmospheric neutrinos, the graphic representation of oscillations and adiabatic conversion, some attempts to apply the matter effects to neutrinos in the Early Universe etc..

One important contribution both to physics of effect and to its promotion: in Summary talk of Savonlinna workshop, where our results have been presented for the first time, N. Cabibbo  has given interpretation of the effect in terms of eigenvalues and level crossing phenomenon (complementary to our description in terms of eigenstates). A possibility of such an interpretation was mentioned before by V. Rubakov (private communication) and later has been developed independently by H. Bethe .

What was in between 1979 and 1985? Several papers has been published on neutrino oscillations in matter with constant density . In particular, in the paper by V. Barger et al,  and S. Pakvasa , it was shown that matter can enhance oscillations and for certain energy the mixing can become maximal. Furthermore, matter distinguishes neutrinos and antineutrinos and resolves the ambiguity in the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. In  the index of refraction of neutrinos has been derived for moving and polarized medium, correct sign of the matter potential obtained.

## 2 Flavors, masses, mixing and oscillations

### 2.1 Introducing mixing

The flavor neutrino states: $`\nu _f=(\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau )`$ are defined as the states which correspond to certain charge leptons: $`e`$, $`\mu `$ and $`\tau `$. The correspondence is established by interactions: $`\nu _l`$ and $`l`$ ($`l=e,\mu ,\tau `$) interact in pairs, forming the charged currents. It is not excluded that additional neutrino states, the sterile neutrinos, $`\nu _s`$, exist. The neutrino mass states, $`\nu _1`$, $`\nu _2`$, and $`\nu _3`$, with masses $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$, $`m_3`$ are the eigenstates of mass matrix as well as the eigenstates of the total Hamiltonian in vacuum.

The vacuum mixing means that the flavor states do not coincide with the mass eigenstates. The flavor states are combinations of the mass eigenstates:

$$\nu _l=U_{li}\nu _i,l=e,\mu ,\tau ,i=1,2,3,$$
(1)
where the mixing parameters $`U_{li}`$ form the P-MNS mixing matrix.

In the case of two neutrino mixing $`\nu _e\nu _a`$, where $`\nu _a`$ is the non-electron neutrino state, we can write:

$`\nu _e=\mathrm{cos}\theta \nu _1+\mathrm{sin}\theta \nu _2,\nu _a=\mathrm{cos}\theta \nu _2\mathrm{sin}\theta \nu _1.`$ (2)
Here $`\theta `$ is the vacuum mixing angle. In the three neutrino context $`\nu _e`$ mixes with $`\nu _a`$ in the mass eigenstates $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ relevant for the solar neutrinos, and $`\nu _a`$ is maximal or nearly maximal mixture of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$.

### 2.2 Two aspects of mixing. Portrait of electron neutrino

There are two important physical aspects of mixing. According to (2) the flavor neutrino states are combinations of the mass eigenstates. One can think in terms of wave packets. Propagation of $`\nu _e`$ ($`\nu _a`$) is described a system of two wave packets which correspond to $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$.

In fig. 1a). we show representation of $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _a`$ as the combination of mass states. The lengths of the boxes, $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, give the admixtures  of $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ in $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _a`$.

The key point is that the flavor states are coherent mixtures (combinations) of the mass eigenstates. The relative phase or phase difference of $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ in, $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _a`$ is fixed: according to (2) it is zero in $`\nu _e`$ and $`\pi `$ in $`\nu _a`$. Consequently, there are certain interference effects between $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ which depend on the relative phase.

The relations (2) can be inverted:

$$\nu _1=\mathrm{cos}\theta \nu _e\mathrm{sin}\theta \nu _a,\nu _2=\mathrm{cos}\theta \nu _a+\mathrm{sin}\theta \nu _e.$$
(3)
They determine the flavor composition of the mass states (eigenstates of the Hamiltonian), or shortly, the flavors of eigenstates. According to (3) a probability to find the electron flavor in $`\nu _1`$ is given by $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$, whereas the probability that $`\nu _1`$ appears as $`\nu _a`$ equals $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$. This flavor decomposition is shown in fig. 1b). by colors.

Inserting the flavor decomposition of mass states in the representation of the flavors states, we get the “portraits” of the electron and non-electron neutrinos fig. 1c). According to this figure, $`\nu _e`$ is a system of the two mass eigenstates which in turn have a composite flavor. On the first sight the portrait has a paradoxical feature: there is the non-electron (muon and tau) flavor in the electron neutrino! The paradox has a simple resolution: in the $`\nu _e`$\- state the $`\nu _a`$-components of $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ are equal and have opposite phases. Therefore they cancel each other and the electron neutrino has pure electron flavor as it should be. The key point is interference: the interference of the non-electron parts is destructive in $`\nu _e`$. The electron neutrino has a “latent” non-electron component which can not be seen due to particular phase arrangement. However during propagation the phase difference changes and the cancellation disappears. This leads to an appearance of the non-electron component in propagating neutrino state which was originally produced as the electron neutrino. This is the mechanism of neutrino oscillations. Similar consideration holds for the $`\nu _a`$ state.

### 2.3 Neutrino oscillation in vacuum

In vacuum the neutrino mass states are the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian. Therefore dynamics of propagation has the following features:

* Admixtures of the eigenstates (mass states) in a given neutrino state do not change. In other words, there is no $`\nu _1\nu _2`$ transitions. $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ propagate independently. The admixtures are determined by mixing in a production point (by $`\theta `$, if pure flavor state is produced).
* Flavors of the eigenstates do not change. They are also determined by $`\theta `$. Therefore the picture of neutrino state (fig. 1c) does not change during propagation.
* Relative phase (phase difference) of the eigenstates monotonously increases.

Due to difference of masses, the states $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ have different phase velocities

$$\mathrm{\Delta }v_{phase}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2E},\mathrm{\Delta }m^2m_2^2m_1^2,$$
(4)
and the phase difference changes as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\mathrm{\Delta }v_{phase}t.$$
(5)
The phase is the only operating degree of freedom here.

Increase of the phase leads to oscillations. Indeed, the change of phase modifies the interference: in particular, cancellation of the non-electron parts in the state produced as $`\nu _e`$ disappears and the non-electron component becomes observable. The process is periodic: when $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\pi `$, the interference of non-electron parts is constructive and at this point the probability to find $`\nu _\mu `$ is maximal. Later, when $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =2\pi `$, the system returns to its original state: $`\nu (t)=\nu _e`$. The oscillation length is the distance at which this return occurs:

$$l_\nu =\frac{2\pi }{v_{phase}}=\frac{4\pi E}{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}.$$
(6)
The depth of oscillations is determined by the mixing angle. It is given by maximal probability to observe the “wrong” flavor $`\nu _a`$. From the fig. 1c. one finds immediately (summing up the parts with the non-electron flavor in the amplitude)

$$depthofoscillations=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta .$$
(7)
The oscillations are the effect of the phase increase which changes the interference pattern. The depth of oscillations is the measure of mixing.

## 3 Matter effect.

### 3.1 Refraction

In matter, neutrino propagation is affected by interactions. At low energies the elastic forward scattering is relevant only (inelastic scattering can be neglected) . It can be described by the potentials $`V_e`$, $`V_a`$. In usual medium a difference of the potentials for $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _a`$ is due to the charged current scattering of $`\nu _e`$ on electrons ($`\nu _ee\nu _ee`$) :

$$V=V_eV_a=\sqrt{2}G_Fn_e,$$
(8)
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi coupling constant and $`n_e`$ is the number density of electrons. Equivalently, one can describe the effect of medium in terms of the refraction index:

$$n_{ref}1=\frac{V}{p}.$$
(9)
The difference of the potentials leads to an appearance of additional phase difference in the neutrino system: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _{matter}(V_eV_a)t`$. The difference of potentials (or refraction indexes) determines the refraction length:

$$l_0\frac{2\pi }{V_eV_a}=\frac{\sqrt{2}\pi }{G_Fn_e}.$$
(10)
$`l_0`$ is the distance over which an additional “matter” phase equals $`2\pi `$.

In the presence of matter the Hamiltonian of system changes:

$$H_0H=H_0+V,$$
(11)
where $`H_0`$ is the Hamiltonian in vacuum. Correspondingly, the eigenstates and the eigenvalues change:

$`\nu _1,\nu _2\nu _{1m},\nu _{2m},`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2}{2E}},{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2}{2E}}H_{1m},H_{2m}.`$ (13)
The mixing in matter is determined with respect to the eigenstates in matter $`\nu _{1m}`$ and $`\nu _{2m}`$. Similarly to (2) the mixing angle in matter, $`\theta _m`$, gives the relation between the eigenstates in matter and the flavor states:

$$\nu _e=\mathrm{cos}\theta _m\nu _{1m}+\mathrm{sin}\theta _m\nu _{2m},\nu _a=\mathrm{cos}\theta _m\nu _{2m}\mathrm{sin}\theta _m\nu _{1m}.$$
(14)
Furthermore, in matter both the eigenstates and the eigenvalues, and consequently, the mixing angle depend on matter density and neutrino energy. It is this dependence activates new degrees of freedom of the system and leads to qualitatively new effects.

### 3.2 Resonance. Level crossing

In fig. 2 we show dependence of the effective mixing parameter in matter, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _m`$, on ratio of the oscillation and refraction lengths:

$$x\frac{l_\nu }{l_0}=\frac{2EV}{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}En_e$$
(15)
for two different values of vacuum mixing angle.

The dependence in fig. 2 has a resonance character. At

$$l_\nu =l_0\mathrm{cos}2\theta (\mathrm{resonance}\mathrm{condition})$$
(16)
the mixing becomes maximal: $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _m=1`$. For small vacuum mixing the condition (16) reads:

$$OscillationlengthRefractionlength.$$
(17)
That is, the eigen-frequency which characterizes a system of mixed neutrinos, $`1/l_\nu `$, coincides with the eigen-frequency of medium, $`1/l_0`$.

For large vacuum mixing (for solar LMA: $`\mathrm{cos}2\theta =0.40.5`$) there is a significant deviation from the equality. Large vacuum mixing corresponds to the case of strongly coupled system for which, as usual, the shift of frequencies occurs.

The resonance condition (16) determines the resonance density:

$$n_e^R=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2E}\frac{\mathrm{cos}2\theta }{\sqrt{2}G_F}.$$
(18)
The width of resonance on the half of the height (in the density scale) is given by

$$2\mathrm{\Delta }n_e^R=2n_e^R\mathrm{tan}2\theta ,$$
(19)
Similarly, one can introduce the resonance energy and the width of resonance in the energy scale. The width (19) can be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n_e^R=n_0\mathrm{sin}2\theta ,n_0\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2\sqrt{2}EG_F}.$$
(20)
When the vacuum mixing approaches maximal value, the resonance shifts to zero density: $`n_e^R0`$, the width of the resonance increases converging to fixed value: $`\mathrm{\Delta }n_e^Rn_0`$.

In medium with varying density, the layer where the density changes in the interval

$$n_e^R\pm \mathrm{\Delta }n_e^R$$
(21)
is called the resonance layer.

In fig. 3 we show dependence of the eigenvalues $`H_{im}`$ on the ratio $`l_\nu /l_0`$ (level crossing scheme) . In resonance, the level splitting is minimal and therefore the oscillation length being inversely proportional the level spitting, is maximal.

The resonance has physical meaning both for small and for large mixing. Independently of vacuum mixing in the resonance

* the flavor mixing is maximal;
* the level splitting is minimal; correspondingly, in uniform medium the oscillation length is maximal;

When the density changes on the way of neutrinos, it is in the resonance layer the flavor transition mainly occurs.

### 3.3 Degrees of freedom. Two effects

An arbitrary neutrino state can be expressed in terms of the instantaneous eigenstates of the Hamiltonian, $`\nu _{1m}`$ and $`\nu _{2m}`$, as

$$\nu (t)=\mathrm{cos}\theta _a\nu _{1m}+\mathrm{sin}\theta _a\nu _{2m}e^{i\varphi },$$
(22)
where

* $`\theta _a=\theta _a(t)`$ determines the admixtures of eigenstates in $`\nu (t)`$;
* $`\varphi (t)`$ is the phase difference between the two eigenstates (phase of oscillations):

$$\varphi (t)=_0^t\mathrm{\Delta }H𝑑t^{}+\varphi (t)_T,$$
(23)
here $`\mathrm{\Delta }HH_{1m}H_{2m}`$. The integral gives the adiabatic phase and $`\varphi (t)_T`$ is the rest which can be related to violation of adiabaticity. It may also have a topological contribution (Berry phase) in more complicated systems;
* $`\theta _m(n_e(t))`$ determines the flavor content of the eigenstates: $`\nu _e|\nu _{1m}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _m`$, etc..

Different processes are associated with these three different degrees of freedom. In what follows we will consider two of them:

1. The resonance enhancement of neutrino oscillations which occurs in matter with constant density. It is induced by the relative phase of neutrino eigenstates.

2. The adiabatic (partially adiabatic) conversion which occurs in medium with varying density and is related to the change of mixing or flavor of the neutrino eigenstates.

In general, an interplay of the oscillations and the resonance conversion occurs.

## 4 The MSW effect

### 4.1 Oscillations in matter. Resonance enhancement of oscillations

In medium with constant density the mixing is constant: $`\theta _m(E,n)=const`$. Therefore

* The flavors of the eigenstates do not change.
* The admixtures of the eigenstates do not change. There is no $`\nu _{1m}\nu _{2m}`$ transitions, $`\nu _{1m}`$ and $`\nu _{2m}`$ are the eigenstates of propagation.
* Monotonous increase of the phase difference between the eigenstates occurs: $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _m=(H_{2m}H_{1m})t`$.

This is similar to what happens in vacuum. The only operative degree of freedom is the phase. Therefore, as in vacuum, the evolution of neutrino has a character of oscillations. However, parameters of oscillations (length, depth) differ from the parameters in vacuum. They are determined by the mixing in matter and by the effective energy splitting in matter:

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \mathrm{sin}^22\theta _m,l_\nu l_m=\frac{2\pi }{H_{2m}H_{1m}}.$$
(24)
For a given density of matter the parameters of oscillations depend on the neutrino energy which leads to a characteristic modification of the energy spectra. Suppose a source produces the $`\nu _e`$\- flux $`F_0(E)`$. The flux crosses a layer of length, $`L`$, with a constant density $`n_e`$ and then detector measures the electron component of the flux at the exit from the layer, $`F(E)`$.

In fig. 4 we show dependence of the ratio $`F(E)/F_0(E)`$ on energy for thin and thick layers. The ratio has an oscillatory dependence. The oscillatory curve (green) is inscribed in to the resonance curve $`(1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _m)`$ (red). The frequency of the oscillations increases with the length $`L`$. At the resonance energy, the oscillations proceed with maximal depths. Oscillations are enhanced in the resonance range:

$$E=E_R\pm \mathrm{\Delta }E_R,\mathrm{\Delta }E_R=\mathrm{tan}2\theta E_R=\mathrm{sin}2\theta E_R^0,$$
(25)
where $`E_R^0=\mathrm{\Delta }m^2/2\sqrt{2}G_Fn_e`$. Several comments: for $`EE_R`$, matter suppresses the oscillation depth; for small mixing the resonance layer is narrow, and the oscillation length in the resonance is large. With increase of the vacuum mixing: $`E_R0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_RE_R^0`$.

The oscillations in medium with nearly constant density are realized for neutrinos crossing the mantle of the Earth.

### 4.2 MSW: adiabatic conversion

In non-uniform medium, density changes on the way of neutrinos: $`n_e=n_e(t)`$. Correspondingly, the Hamiltonian of system depends on time: $`H=H(t)`$. Therefore,

(i). the mixing angle changes in the course of propagation: $`\theta _m=\theta _m(n_e(t))`$;

(ii). the (instantaneous) eigenstates of the Hamiltonian, $`\nu _{1m}`$ and $`\nu _{2m}`$, are no more the “eigenstates” of propagation: the transitions $`\nu _{1m}\nu _{2m}`$ occur.

However, if the density changes slowly enough (the adiabaticity condition) the transitions $`\nu _{1m}\nu _{2m}`$ can be neglected. This is the essence of the adiabatic condition: $`\nu _{1m}`$ and $`\nu _{2m}`$ propagate independently, as in vacuum or uniform medium. Therefore dynamical features can be summarized in the following way:

* The flavors of the eigenstates change according to density change. The flavor composition of the eigenstates is determined by $`\theta _m(t)`$.
* The admixtures of the eigenstates in a propagating neutrino state do not change (adiabaticity: no $`\nu _{1m}\nu _{2m}`$ transitions). The admixtures are given by the mixing in production point, $`\theta _m^0`$.
* The phase difference increases; the phase velocity is determined by the level splitting (which in turn, changes with density (time)).

Now two degrees of freedom become operative: the relative phase and the flavors of neutrino eigenstates. The MSW effect is driven by the change of flavors of the neutrino eigenstates in matter with varying density. The change of phase produces the oscillation effect on the top of the adiabatic conversion.

Let us comment on the adiabaticity condition. If external conditions (density) change slowly, the system (mixed neutrinos) has time to adjust this change. In general, the adiabaticity condition can be written as

$$\gamma =\left|\frac{\dot{\theta }_m}{H_{2m}H_{1m}}\right|1.$$
(26)
As follows from the evolution equation for the neutrino eigenstates , $`|\dot{\theta }_m|`$ determines the energy of transition $`\nu _{1m}\nu _{2m}`$ and $`|H_{2m}H_{1m}|`$ gives the energy gap between levels. The condition (26) means that the transitions $`\nu _{1m}\nu _{2m}`$ can be neglected and the eigenstates propagate independently (the angle $`\theta _a`$ (22) is constant).

The adiabaticity condition is crucial in the resonance layer where (i) the level splitting is small and (ii) the mixing angle changes rapidly. If the vacuum mixing is small, the adiabaticity is critical in the resonance point. It takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }r_R>l_R,$$
(27)
where $`l_R=l_\nu /\mathrm{sin}2\theta `$ is the oscillation length in resonance, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_R=n_R/(dn_e/dr)_R\mathrm{tan}2\theta `$ is the spatial width of resonance layer. According to (27) for the adiabatic evolution at least one oscillation length should be obtained in the resonance layer. The adiabaticity condition has been considered outside the resonance and in the non-resonance channel in .

In the case of large vacuum mixing the point of maximal adiabaticity violation  is shifted to densities $`n_e(av)`$ larger than the resonance density: $`n_e(av)n_B>n_R`$. Here $`n_B=\mathrm{\Delta }m^2/2\sqrt{2}G_FE`$ is the density at the border of resonance layer for maximal mixing.

Let us describe pattern of the adiabatic conversion. According to the dynamical conditions, the admixtures of eigenstates are determined by the mixing in neutrino production point. This mixing in turn, depends on the density in the initial point, $`n_e^0`$, as compared to the resonance density. Consequently, a picture of the conversion depends on how far from the resonance layer (in the density scale) a neutrino is produced.

Three possibilities can be identified. They are shown in fig. 5. and correspond to large vacuum mixing which is relevant for the solar neutrinos. We show propagation of the state produced as $`\nu _e`$ from large density region to zero density. Due to adiabaticity the sizes of boxes which correspond to the neutrino eigenstates do not change.

1). $`n_e^0n_e^R`$ \- production far above the resonance (the upper panel). The initial mixing is strongly suppressed, consequently, the neutrino state, $`\nu _e`$, consists mainly of one ($`\nu _{2m}`$) eigenstate, and furthermore, one flavor dominates in a given eigenstate. In the resonance (its position is marked by the yellow line) the mixing is maximal: both flavors are present equally. Since the admixture of the second eigenstate is very small, oscillations (interference effects) are strongly suppressed. So, here we deal with the non-oscillatory flavor transition when the flavor of whole state (which nearly coincides with $`\nu _{2m}`$) follows the density change. At zero density we have $`\nu _{2m}=\nu _2`$, and therefore the probability to find the electron neutrino (survival probability) equals

$$P=|\nu _e|\nu (t)|^2|\nu _e|\nu _{2m}(t)|^2=|\nu _e|\nu _2|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta .$$
(28)
The value of final probability, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, is the feature of the non-oscillatory transition. Deviation from this value indicates a presence of oscillations.

2). $`n_e^0>n_e^R`$ production above the resonance (middle panel). The initial mixing is not suppressed. Although $`\nu _{2m}`$ is the main component, the second eigenstate, $`\nu _{1m}`$, has appreciable admixture; the flavor mixing in the neutrino eigenstates is significant. So, the interference effect is not suppressed. As a result, here an interplay of the adiabatic conversion and occurs.

3). $`n_e^0<n_e^R`$: production below the resonance (lower panel). There is no crossing of the resonance region. In this case the matter effect gives only corrections to the vacuum oscillation picture.

The resonance density is inversely propotional to the neutrino energy: $`n_e^R1/E`$. So, for the same density profile, the condition 1) is realized for high energies, regime 2) for intermediate energies and 3) – for low energies. As we will see all three case are realized for solar neutrinos.

### 4.3 Universality

The adiabatic transformations show universality: The averaged probability and the depth of oscillations in a given moment of propagation are determined by the density in a given point and by initial condition (initial density and flavor). They do not depend on density distribution between the initial and final points. In contrast, the phase of oscillations is an integral effect of previous evolution and it depends on a density distribution.

Universal character of the adiabatic conversion can be further generalized in terms of variable

$$n=\frac{n_e^Rn_e}{\mathrm{\Delta }n_e^R}$$
(29)
which is the distance (in the density scale) from the resonance density in the units of the width of resonance layer. In terms of $`n`$ the conversion pattern depend only on initial value $`n_0`$.

In fig. 6 we show dependences of the average probability and depth of oscillations, that is, $`\overline{P}`$, $`P^{max}`$, and $`P^{min}`$, on $`n`$. The probability itself is the oscillatory function which is inscribed into the band shown by solid lines. The average probability is shown by the dashed line. The curves are determined by initial value $`n_0`$ only, in particular, there is no explicit dependence on the vacuum mixing angle. The resonance is at $`n=0`$ and the resonance layer is given by the interval $`n=1÷1`$. The figure corresponds to $`n_0=5`$, i.e., to production above the resonance layer; the oscillation depth is relatively small. With further decrease of $`n_0`$, the oscillation band becomes narrower approaching the line of non-oscillatory conversion. For zero final density we have

$$n_f=\frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}2\theta }.$$
(30)
So, the vacuum mixing enters final condition. For the best fit LMA point, $`n_f=0.450.50`$, and the evolution should stop at this point. The smaller mixing the larger final $`n_f`$ and the stronger transition.

### 4.4 Adiabaticity violation

In the adiabatic regime the probability of transition between the eigenstates is exponentially suppressed $`P_{12}exp(\pi /2\gamma )`$ and $`\gamma `$ is given in (26) . One can consider such a transition as penetration through a barrier of the height $`H_{2m}H_{1m}`$ by a system with the kinetic energy $`d\theta _m/dt`$.

If density changes rapidly, so that the condition (26) is not satisfied, the transitions $`\nu _{1m}\nu _{2m}`$ become efficient. Therefore admixtures of the eigenstates in a given propagating state change. In our pictorial representation (fig. 5) the sizes of boxes change. Now all three degrees of freedom of the system become operative.

Typically, adiabaticity breaking leads to weakening of the flavor transition. The non-adiabatic transitions can be realized inside supernovas for the very small 1-3 mixing.

## 5 Solar Neutrinos. Large Angle MSW solution

The first KamLAND result  has confirmed the large mixing MSW (LMA) solution of the solar neutrino problem. Both the total rate of events and the spectrum distortion are in a very good agreement with predictions made on the basis of LMA .

According to the large angle MSW solution, inside the Sun the initially produced electron neutrinos undergo adiabatic conversion. Adiabaticity condition is fulfilled with very high accuracy for all relevant energies. Inside the Sun several thousands of oscillation lengths are obtained.

On the way from the Sun to the Earth the coherence of neutrino state is lost and at the surface of the Earth, incoherent fluxes of the mass states $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ arrive. In the matter of the Earth $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ oscillate producing partial regeneration of the $`\nu _e`$-flux.

In fig. 7 from  we show the best fit point and the allowed regions of oscillation parameters from (a) analysis of the solar neutrino data and (b) combined analysis of the solar and KamLAND results (in assumption of the CPT invariance). The best fit point is at

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m^2710^5\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta 0.4.$$
(31)
For these parameters, the energy “profile of the effect” - the dependence of the survival probability on the neutrino energy is shown in fig. 8. In fig. 9 we present conversion patterns for different neutrino energies.

There are three energy ranges with different features of transition:

1. In the high energy part of spectrum, $`E>10`$ MeV ($`x>2`$), the adiabatic conversion with small oscillation effect occurs. The spatial evolution (in $`n`$-scale) is shown in the upper left panel of fig. 9. At the exit, the resulting averaged probability is slightly larger than $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ expected from the non-oscillatory transition. Pictorial representation of the conversion is shown in fig. 9. With decrease of energy the initial density approaches the resonance density, and the depths of oscillations increases.

2. Intermediate energy range $`E(210)`$ MeV ($`x=0.32`$ ) the oscillation effect is significant. The interplay of the oscillations and conversion takes place (fig. 9).

For $`E2`$ MeV neutrinos are produced in resonance (bottom left panel). Initial depth of oscillations is maximal and $`\overline{P}=0.5`$.

3. At low energies: $`E<2`$ MeV ($`x<0.3`$), the vacuum oscillations with small matter corrections occur.

Notice that without matter effect for all energies one would get the pattern of evolution close to that in the bottom-right panel.

Basically this is what was called the “adiabatic solution” in the early days: the boron neutrino spectrum is “sitting” on the adiabatic edge of the suppression pit. An absence of observable spectrum distortion allows now only the large mixing part of the adiabatic solution.

As a specific example, let us consider neutrinos with $`E=10`$ MeV produced in the center of the Sun. For these neutrinos the resonance density equals $`n_RY_e=20`$ g/cc, where $`Y_e`$ is the number of electrons per nucleon. The resonance layer is in the central parts of the Sun: $`R_R=0.24R_{sun}`$. In the production point: $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _m=0.94`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _m=0.06`$, so indeed, $`\nu _{2m}`$ dominates. At the surface of the Sun the state $`\nu _{2m}`$ appears as $`\nu _2`$ and then arrives at the Earth loosing the coherence with $`\nu _1`$. Entering the Earth the state $`\nu _2`$ splits in two matter eigenstates:

$$\nu _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _m^{}\nu _{2m}+\mathrm{sin}\theta _m^{}\nu _{1m}.$$
(32)
It oscillates regenerating the $`\nu _e`$-flux. With the Earth matter effect taken into account, the survival probability at high energies can be written as

$$P\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +f_{reg},$$
(33)
where the regeneration factor equals

$$f_{reg}=0.5\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \frac{l_\nu }{l_0}.$$
(34)
Notice that the oscillations of $`\nu _2`$ are pure matter effect and for the presently favored value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ this effect is small. According to (34), $`f_{reg}1/\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and the expected day-night asymmetry of the charged current signal equals

$$A_{DN}=f_{reg}/P(35)\%.$$
(35)
## 6 Beyond LMA

Is the solar neutrino problem solved? In assumption of the CPT, the large angle MSW effect is indeed the dominant mechanism of the solar neutrino conversion, and all other possible mechanisms could give the sub-dominant effects only.

What is the next? First of all, even accepting the LMA solution one needs better determination of the oscillation parameters. In particular, further improvements of the upper bounds on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$ (deviation from maximal mixing) are of great importance. These improvements have implications for both phenomenology (future long baseline experiments, double beta decay searches, etc.) and theory. The improvements are also needed for better understanding of physics of the solar neutrino conversion. In sect. 6 we have described the picture which corresponds to the oscillation parameter near the best fit point (31). Physics, in particular relative importance of the vacuum oscillations and the matter effect, changes with parameters within the presently allowed region (fig. 7).

Is large mixing MSW sufficient to describe the data? If there are observations which may indicate some deviations from LMA? According to recent analysis, LMA describes all the data very well: pulls of predictions from results of measurements are below $`1\sigma `$ for all but one experiment ). High Ar-production rate, $`Q_{Ar}3`$ SNU, is a generic prediction of LMA. The predicted rate is about $`2\sigma `$ above the Homestake result. This difference can be statistical fluctuation or some systematics which may be related to the claimed time variations of the Homestake signal.

Another generic prediction is the “turn up of spectrum” (spectrum distortion) at low energies. According to LMA the survival probability should increase with decrease of energy (fig. 8): for the best fit point the turn up can be as large as 10 - 15% between 8 and 5 MeV . Neither SuperKamiokande nor SNO show any turn up although the present sensitivity is not enough to make any statistically significant statement.

Are these observations related? Do they indicate some new physics at low energies? It happens that both the lower $`Ar`$-production rate and absence of (or weaker) turn up of the spectrum can be explained by the effect of new (sterile) neutrino .

Suppose that on the top of usual pair of states with the LMA parameters (31) new light neutrino state, $`\nu _s`$, exists which

\- mixes weakly with the lightest state $`\nu _1`$: $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{01}(10^410^3)`$,

\- has the mass difference with $`\nu _1`$: $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{01}^2=(210)10^6`$ eV<sup>2</sup>. If $`\nu _1`$ is very light, the mass of $`\nu _0`$ equals $`(23)10^3`$ eV.

It can be shown, that the presence of such a neutrino does not change the survival probability in the non-oscillatory and vacuum ranges but do change it in the transition region. In general, it leads to appearance of a dip in the adiabatic edge: at $`E=(0.52)`$ MeV and flattening of spectrum distortion at higher energies. The dip produces suppression of the $`Be`$-neutrino flux as well as other fluxes at the intermediate energies, and consequently, suppression of the $`Ar`$-production rate. It also diminishes or eliminates completely (depending on the angle and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{01}^2`$) the turn up of spectrum. This scenario predicts low rate in BOREXINO: it can be as low as $`\mathrm{sin}^4\theta 0.1`$ of the SSM rate. The scenario implies also smaller 1-2 mixing, $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta `$, (to compensate decrease of the $`Ge`$-production rate) and larger boron neutrino flux (to reproduce the high energy data). For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2>(12)10^5`$ eV<sup>2</sup> the turn up can be changed without diminishing the $`Be`$\- neutrino flux.

Smallness of mixing of the sterile neutrino allows to avoid the nucleosynthesis bound: such a neutrino does not equilibrate in the Early Universe.

## 7 Summary

1. We have described here two matter effects:

The resonance enhancement of oscillations in matter with constant density.

The adiabatic (quasi-adiabatic) conversion in medium with varying density (MSW).

2. Adiabatic (quasi-adiabatic) conversion is related to the change of the mixing in matter on the way of neutrino, or equivalently, to the change of flavors of the neutrino eigenstates. In contrast, oscillations are related to change of the relative phase of the eigenstates.

3. The large mixing MSW effect provides the solution of the solar neutrino problem. The solar neutrino data allow to determine the oscillation parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$ and $`\theta _{12}`$ and therefore to make next important step in reconstruction of the neutrino mass and flavor spectrum.

Now we can say how the mechanism of conversion of the solar neutrinos works. A picture of the conversion depends on neutrino energy. It has a character of

\- nearly non-oscillatory transition for $`E>10`$ MeV,

\- interplay of the adiabatic conversion and oscillations for $`E=210`$ MeV,

\- oscillations with small matter corrections for $`E<2`$ MeV.

4. The large angle MSW effect is the dominant mechanism of the solar neutrino conversion. Although more precise determination of parameters is needed to identify completely the physical picture of the effect. All other suggested mechanisms can produce sub-leading effects. With the available data we know rather well what happens with high energy neutrinos ($`E>5`$ MeV). Still some physics beyond LMA may show up in the low energy part of spectrum. The low $`Ar`$ -production rate and absence of the turn up of the spectrum distortion in the range $`E<8`$ MeV can be due to an additional effect of the light sterile neutrino with very small mixing. BOREXINO  and KamLAND can test this possibility in future.

## 8 Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Milla Baldo-Ceolin for invitation to give this talk and for hospitality during my stay in Rome and Venice.


text:
# Surface Junction in Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+d Single Crystals

## Abstract

As nature junction geometry of the $`d`$-wave cuprate superconductor/insulator/the mixture of $`s`$-wave and $`d`$-wave cuprate superconductor, the upmost surface junction of intrinsic Josephson junction stack fabricated on Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+d single crystals was measured and discussed. We successfully observed half-integral microwave induced steps as well as integral steps with resistively shunting technology, which shows the evidence of second order supercurrent, consistent with Tanaka’s theory.

Pairing symmetry in the cuprate superconductor is an important and controversial topic. The recent development of phase-sensitive test, combined with the refinement of several other symmetry-sensitive techniques, has for the most part settled this controversy in favor of predominantly $`d`$-wave symmetry for a number of optimally hole- and electron-doped cuprates Tsuei00 . Especially for Bi2Sr2CaCu2O8+d (BSCCO), the phase-sensitive test results suggest that the $`s`$-wave component of the order parameter should be vanishingly small Kirtley96 . Considering the crystal structure of BSCCO, $`s`$-wave and $`d`$-wave pair states correspond to two distinct irreducible representations and therefore are not allowed to mix Klemm98 . As a result, BSCCO should be pure $`d`$-wave pairing symmetry. However, a few $`c`$-axis tunneling experiments between BSCCO and $`s`$-wave superconductor Pb (BSCCO/Pb junction) consistently unveiled the finite supercurrent of first order. The results show $`s`$-wave component in BSCCO should be small but nonzero Kleiner97 ; Mossle99 . However, the evidence of $`s`$-wave is proven only in the upmost cuprate layer which couples to Pb. The question raised from the contradiction is: Is the $`s`$-wave component intrinsic or induced from $`d`$-wave state under some specific condition? Theoretical studies suggest that $`s`$-wave paring symmetry may be induced in a d-wave superconductor, under certain conditions, by spatial inhomogeneities such as surfaces, interfaces, or defects Alvarez96 ; Zapotocky97 ; Martin98 ; Zhu98 . Reasonable explanation is that the $`s`$-wave component of pairing state exists only in the surface cuprate layer of BSCCO, which is induced from $`d`$-wave state by the surface effects.

According to a theory by Tanaka, second order $`c`$-axis pair tunneling is possible for a junction between $`c`$-axis $`s`$-wave and pure $`d`$-wave superconductors Tanaka94 . In other words, half-integer Shapiro steps should be observable in such a junction under microwave irradiation. In the results of $`c`$-axis BSCCO/Pb junctions so far reported, the observed supercurrent is dominantly of first order, and microwave induced Shapiro steps only occur at voltages $`V=nf\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. Same results have also been observed in other junctions of similar type Sun94 ; Kleiner96 ; Lesueur97 ; Woods99 . In essence, all the junctions mentioned above are coupled by the $`c`$-axis pairing tunneling between $`s`$-wave conventional superconductor and the cuprate superconductor with the mixture of $`s`$-wave and $`d`$-wave pairing symmetry (s/I/s+$`i`$d), which was discussed theoretically in detail Tanaka97 . Nevertheless, the $`c`$-axis pairing tunneling between the $`d`$-wave cuprate superconductor and the cuprate superconductor with the mixture of $`s`$-wave and $`d`$-wave pairing symmetry (d/I/s+$`i`$d) has not been discussed yet both in theory and experiment. Natural geometry of d/I/s+$`i`$d junction, noteworthy but neglected, is the upmost surface junction of intrinsic Josephson junction (IJJ) stack fabricated on BSCCO single crystals, which was discussed in a few papers without consideration of the mixture of $`s`$-wave states and $`d`$-wave states Kim99 ; Doh00a ; Doh00b . In this letter, we report and discuss the measurements of the surface junction and the observation of microwave induced steps with resistively shunting method.

BSCCO single crystals were grown using floating zone technique in a four lamp arc-imaging furnace. After cleaving from a bulk crystal, the fresh surface was deposited with a 70 nm layer of gold to obtain a clean surface between single crystal and normal electrode as well as to protect the surface from any contamination during further process of fabrication and measurements. To make the contact resistance ohmic, the cleaved flake was annealed in fresh O2 flow for 10 minutes at 6000C, then it was fixed on Si substrate by Polyimide. With conventional photolithography and Ar ion etching, one mesa with $`a`$-$`b`$ plane sizes of $`6\times 6\mu m^2`$ covered with gold and photoresist was formed. The junction number in the stack is controlled by the etching time and rate. Finally a layer of SiO was deposited as insulator to protect and separate the mesa. After lift-off, one electrode was connected to the top gold of the mesa, while two other electrodes were connected to the ground plane of the mesa. All the transport measurements described below were carried out with three-probe configuration.

In our experiments, the samples were measured in a liquid helium Dewar flask. Shown in Fig. 1 is the typical $`IV`$ curve of the samples. The multiple quasi-particle branches were developed with the increase of bias current. The junction number is counted as 20 corresponding to the number of the branches. The critical current Ic of most junctions is nearly 1.5 mA at 9.2 K except one, the critical current I$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{}`$ of which is only 0.11 mA, one magnitude order smaller than the majority. The $`IV`$ curve of this novel junction is magnified and shown as the inset of main figure. Its supercurrent is a little slantwise due to the linear contact resistance. This junction disappeared when the temperature rose to T$`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{c}{}^{}`$=30K (35%Tc, Tc is the critical temperature of the bulk crystal.) Doh etc. proved by progressively ion-beam etching experiment that the novel junction is the upmost surface junction which forms by the upmost two cuprate layers Doh00a . The d-wave states in cuprate superconductor may induce to $`s`$-wave states by spatial inhomogeneities such as surfaces, interfaces, or defects. As a result, the pairing symmetry of the upmost cuprate layer changes from $`d`$-wave states to s+$`i`$d mixed states with broken time-reversal symmetry due to the effect of surface. Moreover, the superconductivity of the upmost cuprate layer is also suppressed. Consequently, the critical temperature and critical current of the surface junction with the structure of d/I/s+$`i`$d are greatly suppressed in comparison with the conventional d/I/d IJJ.

The characteristics of critical current of the surface junction varied with temperature $`I_cT`$ was measured and shown in Fig. 2. As comparison, $`I_cT`$ of conventional IJJ is also shown as the inset of Fig. 2. the solid line in the inset is theoretical calculation of $`I_cT`$ for $`c`$-axis d/I/d junction by Tanaka etc Tanaka97 . The experimental result is consistent with it. However, the evident deviation was found in the surface d/I/s+$`i`$d junction. It can be fitted by abnormal temperature dependence $`I_c(T_cT)^2`$ instead of $`I_cT_cT`$ when the temperature is close to Tc.

To investigate the detailed feature of the surface d/I/s+$`i`$d junction, the microwave response was measured. However, with microwave irradiation at $`80100`$ GHz and lower frequency, no microwave-induced steps were observed. Because Shapiro steps are only observable when $`f_{rf}f_p`$ in heavy under-damped Josephson junction Kautz81 ; Wang01a . And the plasma oscillation frequency $`f_p`$ of the surface junction is estimated to be 100 GHz from $`f_p=(\frac{eJ_cd}{\pi h\epsilon _r\epsilon _0})^{1/2}`$, where the critical current density $`J_c`$ is about 300 A/cm2, the thickness of inter-layer d is 12 Å for BSCCO, and the relative dielectric constant $`\epsilon _r`$ is 3.5 Walkenhorst97 . To observe microwave-induced steps, resistively shunted technology was adopted. It has been well established that Shapiro steps can be observable in resistively shunted IJJ Wang00 ; Wang01b . In this letter, we use a gold stripe to shunt the mesa, the inset of Fig. 3 is the schematic figure of the resistively shunted IJJ. For the critical current of the surface junction is lowest in the stack, the surface junction will be firstly shunted. Detailed discussion of resistively shunting theory was published elsewhere Wang01b . I-V curves shown in Fig. 3 shows typical behavior of RSJ model with a linear contact resistor about $`6\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in series. The resistance is subtracted in the following figures. With microwave irradiation at 99.3 GHz, the Microwave-induced steps up to second order were observed and shown in Fig. 4. The interval between the first order steps is 410 $`\mu `$V, which fits the Josephson voltage-frequency relationship $`V=f\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ very well. It proves the microwave-induced steps are of the first order supercurrent, which derives from the pair coupling between $`d`$-wave component in the surface layer and inner $`d`$-wave layer. Fig. 5 shows the microwave response of the resistively shunted surface junction when the frequency of microwave irradiation changed to 89 GHz. Only two steps were obtained, the interval between them is about 185 $`\mu `$V, which fits exactly at $`V=0.5f\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. The half-integral steps prove the existence of the second order supercurrent, which originates from the pair coupling between $`s`$-wave component in the surface layer and $`d`$-wave in the inner cuprate layer. It is consistent with the prediction of Tanaka Tanaka94 . When the power of microwave source increases, the half-integral steps disappear and conventional Shapiro steps appear. It suggests that the second order supercurrent is more sensitive to microwave irradiation than first order supercurrent derived from $`c`$-axis pair tunneling between d-wave states. However, because of the low content of $`s`$-wave states in the mixture s+$`i`$d states, the microwave induced half-integral steps were concealed by the conventional Shapiro steps with the increase of the microwave power.

In summary, as natural geometry of d/I/s+$`i`$d junction, the surface junction in intrinsic Josephson junctions stack was measured and discussed. The temperature dependence of critical current shows a significantly difference from the intrinsic d/I/d Josephson junction and follows abnormal temperature dependence $`I_c(TcT)^2`$ when the temperature is close to Tc. With resistively shunting method, the surface junction shows typically RSJ model, the half-integral microwave induced steps were observed as well as conventional integral Shapiro steps, which shows the existence of second order supercurrent and supports strongly Tanaka’s theory.

We thank W. Y. Zhang, J. Li for valuable discussions, H. B. Wang for his technical instruction. This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (Grant No. G19990646), partially carried out at Laboratory of Electronic Intelligent Systems, Research Institute of Electronic Communication, Tohoku University, Japan.