text:
# Untitled Document

IFT–01/07

Toward neutrino texture dominated by

Majorana lefthanded mass matrix***Supported in part by the Polish KBN–Grant 5 P03B 119 20 (2001–2002).

Wojciech Królikowski

Institute of Theoretical Physics, Warsaw University

Hoża 69, PL–00–681 Warszawa, Poland

Abstract

A form of mixing matrix for three active and three sterile, conventional Majorana neutrinos is proposed. Its Majorana lefthanded part arises from the popular bimaximal mixing matrix for three active neutrinos that works satisfactorily in solar and atmospheric experiments if the LSND effect is ignored. One of three sterile neutrinos, effective in the Majorana righthanded and Dirac parts of the proposed mixing matrix, is responsible perturbatively for the possible LSND effect by inducing one of three extra neutrino mass states to exist actively. The corresponding form of neutrino mass matrix is derived. If all three extra neutrino mass states get vanishing masses, the neutrino mass matrix is dominated by its specific Majorana lefthanded part. Then, the observed qualitative difference between mixings of neutrinos and down quarks may be connected with this Majorana lefthanded dominance realized for neutrinos.

PACS numbers: 12.15.Ff , 14.60.Pq , 12.15.Hh .

March 2001

1. Introduction

Although the recent experimental results for atmospheric $`\nu _\mu `$’s as well as solar $`\nu _e`$’s are in favour of excluding the hypothetical sterile neutrinos from neutrino oscillations , the problem of the third neutrino mass difference manifested in the possible LSND effect for accelerator $`\nu _\mu `$’s still exists , implying a further discussion on mixing of sterile neutrinos with three active flavors $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$. In the present note we contribute to this discussion by constructing a particular $`6\times 6`$ texture involving three active and three sterile, conventional Majorana neutrinos. The construction extends (or rather adapts) the familiar bimaximal $`3\times 3`$ texture  working in a satisfactory way for three active neutrinos in solar and atmospheric experiments if the LSND effect is ignored. Then, one of three sterile neutrinos is responsible perturbatively  for the possible LSND effect by inducing one of three extra neutrino mass states to exist actively.

As is well known, three sterile Majorana neutrinos

$$\nu _\alpha ^{(s)}=\nu _{\alpha R}+\left(\nu _{\alpha R}\right)^c(\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau )$$
(1)
can be always constructed in addition to three active Majorana neutrinos

$$\nu _\alpha ^{(a)}=\nu _{\alpha L}+\left(\nu _{\alpha L}\right)^c(\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau )$$
(2)
if there are righthanded neutrino states $`\nu _{\alpha R}`$ beside their familiar lefthanded partners $`\nu _{\alpha L}`$ participating in Standard Model gauge interactions \[of course, $`\nu _{\alpha L}^{(a)}=\nu _{\alpha L}`$ and $`\nu _{\alpha L}^{(s)}=(\nu _{\alpha R})^c`$\]. Whether such sterile neutrino states are physically realized depends on the actual shape of the neutrino mass term whose generic form is

$`_{\mathrm{mass}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}(\overline{\nu _\alpha ^{(a)}},\overline{\nu _\alpha ^{(s)}})\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{\alpha \beta }^{(L)}& M_{\alpha \beta }^{(D)}\\ M_{\beta \alpha }^{(D)}& M_{\alpha \beta }^{(R)}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _\beta ^{(a)}\\ \nu _\beta ^{(s)}\end{array}\right)`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}\left(M_{\alpha \beta }^{(D)}+M_{\alpha \beta }^{(D)}\right)\left(\overline{\nu _{\alpha L}}\nu _{\beta R}+\overline{\nu _{\beta R}}\nu _{\alpha L}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}M_{\alpha \beta }^{(L)}\left[\overline{\nu _{\alpha L}}(\nu _{\beta L})^c+\overline{(\nu _{\alpha L})^c}\nu _{\beta L}\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}M_{\alpha \beta }^{(R)}\left[\overline{\nu _{\alpha R}}(\nu _{\beta R})^c+\overline{(\nu _{\alpha R})^c}\nu _{\beta R}\right],`$
where$`M_{\beta \alpha }^{(L,R)}=M_{\alpha \beta }^{(L,R)}`$, but $`M_{\beta \alpha }^{(D)}M_{\alpha \beta }^{(D)}`$ in general. The $`6\times 6`$ neutrino mass matrix

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}M^{(L)}& M^{(D)}\\ M^{(D)}& M^{(R)}\end{array}\right)$$
(9)
appearing in Eq. (3) is hermitian, $`M^{}=M`$. Here, $`M^{(D,L,R)}=\left(M_{\alpha \beta }^{(D,L,R)}\right)`$ are $`3\times 3`$ neutrino mass matrices: Dirac, Majorana lefthanded and Majorana righthanded, respectively. Further on, for six neutrino flavor states we will use the notation $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{(a)}`$ and $`\nu _{\alpha _s}\nu _\alpha ^{(s)}`$ with $`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau `$ and then pass to $`\nu _\alpha =\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau ,\nu _{e_s},\nu _{\mu _s},\nu _{\tau _s}`$ where $`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau ,e_s,\mu _s,\tau _s`$. Six neutrino mass states will be denoted as $`\nu _i=\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3,\nu _4,\nu _5,\nu _6`$ where $`i=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}`$.

2. Proposal of a $`6\times 6`$ neutrino mixing matrix

Starting from the phenomenologically useful bimaximal mixing matrix for three active neutrinos

$$U^{(3)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right),$$
(10)
we propose the following form of the $`6\times 6`$ neutrino mixing matrix:

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}U^{(3)}& 0\\ 0& 1^{(3)}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}C& S\\ S& C\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}U^{(3)}C& U^{(3)}S\\ S& C\end{array}\right),$$
(11)
where

$$C=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_1& 0& 0\\ 0& c_2& 0\\ 0& 0& c_3\end{array}\right),S=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}s_1& 0& 0\\ 0& s_2& 0\\ 0& 0& s_3\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}^{(3)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(12)
with $`c_i=\mathrm{cos}\theta _i0`$ and $`s_i=\mathrm{sin}\theta _i0(i=1,2,3)`$. One may also denote $`s_1s_{14},s_2s_{25},s_3s_{36}`$, while $`s_{12}=1/\sqrt{2},s_{23}=1/\sqrt{2},s_{13}=0`$. Explicitly,

$$U=\left(U_{\alpha i}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\frac{c_1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{c_2}{\sqrt{2}}& 0& \frac{s_1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{s_2}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ \frac{c_1}{2}& \frac{c_2}{2}& \frac{c_3}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{s_1}{2}& \frac{s_2}{2}& \frac{s_3}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{c_1}{2}& \frac{c_2}{2}& \frac{c_3}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{s_1}{2}& \frac{s_2}{2}& \frac{s_3}{\sqrt{2}}\\ s_1& 0& 0& c_1& 0& 0\\ 0& s_2& 0& 0& c_2& 0\\ 0& 0& s_3& 0& 0& c_3\end{array}\right),$$
(13)
where $`\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau ,e_s,\mu _s,\tau _s`$ and $`i=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}`$. The relation

$$\nu _\alpha =\underset{i}{}U_{\alpha i}\nu _i$$
(14)
describes the mixing of six neutrinos.

In the representation where the mass matrix of three charged leptons $`e^{},\mu ^{},\tau ^{}`$ is diagonal, the $`6\times 6`$ neutrino mixing matrix $`U`$ is at the same time the diagonalizing matrix for the $`6\times 6`$ neutrino mass matrix $`M=\left(M_{\alpha \beta }\right)`$:

$$U^{}MU=\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4,m_5,m_6),$$
(15)
where we put $`m_1^2m_2^2m_3^2`$ and either $`m_3^2m_4^2`$ or $`m_4^2m_1^2`$. Then, evidently, $`M_{\alpha \beta }=_iU_{\alpha i}m_iU_{i\beta }^{}`$. From this formula, we obtain with the use of proposal (8) the following particular form of $`6\times 6`$ neutrino mass matrix (4):

$`M`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}M^{(L)}& M^{(D)}\\ M^{(D)}& M^{(R)}\end{array}\right)=\left(M_{\alpha \beta }\right)`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}M_{ee}& M_{e\mu }& M_{e\mu }& M_{ee_s}& M_{e\mu _s}& 0\\ M_{e\mu }& M_{ee}+M_{\mu \tau }& M_{\mu \tau }& M_{ee_s}/\sqrt{2}& M_{e\mu _s}/\sqrt{2}& M_{\mu \tau _s}\\ M_{e\mu }& M_{\mu \tau }& M_{ee}+M_{\mu \tau }& M_{ee_s}/\sqrt{2}& M_{e\mu _s}/\sqrt{2}& M_{\mu \tau _s}\\ M_{ee_s}& M_{ee_s}/\sqrt{2}& M_{ee_s}/\sqrt{2}& M_{e_se_s}& 0& 0\\ M_{e\mu _s}& M_{e\mu _s}/\sqrt{2}& M_{e\mu _s}/\sqrt{2}& 0& M_{\mu _s\mu _s}& 0\\ 0& M_{\mu \tau _s}& M_{\mu \tau _s}& 0& 0& M_{\tau _s\tau _s}\end{array}\right),`$ (25)
where

$`M_{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(c_1^2m_1+c_2^2m_2+s_1^2m_4+s_2^2m_5),`$
$`M_{\mu \mu }=M_{\tau \tau }=M_{ee}+M_{\mu \tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(c_1^2m_1+c_2^2m_2+2c_3^2m_3+s_1^2m_4+s_2^2m_5+2s_3^2m_6),`$
$`M_{e\mu }=M_{e\tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}\left(c_1^2m_1+c_2^2m_2s_1^2m_4+s_2^2m_5\right),`$
$`M_{\mu \tau }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(c_1^2m_1c_2^2m_2+2c_3^2m_3s_1^2m_4s_2^2m_5+2s_3^2m_6\right)`$ (26)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}M_{ee_s}=M_{\mu e_s}=M_{\tau e_s}={\displaystyle \frac{c_1s_1}{2}}\left(m_1+m_4\right)`$ , $`M_{e_se_s}=s_1^2m_1+c_1^2m_4,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}M_{e\mu _s}=M_{\mu \mu _s}=M_{\tau \mu _s}={\displaystyle \frac{c_2s_2}{2}}\left(m_2+m_5\right)`$ , $`M_{\mu _s\mu _s}=s_2^2m_2+c_2^2m_5,`$
$`M_{\mu \tau _s}=M_{\tau \tau _s}={\displaystyle \frac{c_3s_3}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(m_3+m_6\right)`$ , $`M_{\tau _s\tau _s}=s_3^2m_3+c_3^2m_6,`$ (27)
while

$$M_{e\tau _s}=0,M_{e_s\mu _s}=M_{e_s\tau _s}=M_{\mu _s\tau _s}=0$$
(28)
(of course, $`M_{\alpha \beta }=M_{\beta \alpha }`$ for all $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$). Hence,

$`M_{ee}M_{e\mu }\sqrt{2}\pm M_{e_se_s}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}m_1+m_4\hfill \\ (c_1^2s_1^2)(m_1m_4)\hfill \end{array},`$ (31)
$`M_{ee}+M_{e\mu }\sqrt{2}\pm M_{\mu _s\mu _s}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}m_2+m_5\hfill \\ (c_2^2s_2^2)(m_2m_5)\hfill \end{array},`$ (34)
$`M_{\mu \mu }+M_{\mu \tau }\pm M_{\tau _s\tau _s}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}m_3+m_6\hfill \\ (c_3^2s_3^2)(m_3m_6)\hfill \end{array},`$ (37)
where $`M_{\mu \mu }=M_{ee}+M_{\mu \tau }`$. After a simple calculation we get from Eqs. (15)

$$m_{1,4}=\frac{M_{ee}M_{e\mu }\sqrt{2}+M_{e_se_s}}{2}\pm \sqrt{\left(\frac{M_{ee}M_{e\mu }\sqrt{2}M_{e_se_s}}{2}\right)^2+2M_{ee_s}^2}$$
(38)
and analogical formulae for $`m_{2,5}`$ and $`m_{3,6}`$ (note that $`m_1>m_4`$, but not always $`m_4>0`$, and similarly for $`m_{2,5}`$ and $`m_{3,6}`$).

In the $`6\times 6`$ matrix (11) there are generally nine independent nonzero matrix elements. If $`s_2=0`$ and $`s_3=0`$ (what implies complete decoupling of two sterile neutrinos $`\nu _{\mu _s}`$ and $`\nu _{\tau _s}`$), this number is reduced to seven. In this case, Eqs. (13) and (15) give

$$M_{e\mu _s}=M_{\mu \mu _s}=M_{\tau \mu _s}=0,M_{\mu \tau _s}=M_{\tau \tau _s}=0,M_{\mu _s\mu _s}=m_5,M_{\tau _s\tau _s}=m_6$$
(39)
and

$$M_{ee}+M_{e\mu }\sqrt{2}=m_2,M_{\mu \mu }+M_{\mu \tau }=m_3,$$
(40)
but the formulae (16) for $`m_1`$ and $`m_4`$ are not much simplified (unless $`M_{ee_s}=0`$ i.e., $`c_1s_1=0`$). Then, from Eq. (11)

$$M^{(D)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \frac{c_1s_1}{\sqrt{2}}(m_1m_4)& 0& 0\\ \hfill \frac{c_1s_1}{2}(m_1m_4)& 0& 0\\ \hfill \frac{c_1s_1}{2}(m_1m_4)& 0& 0\end{array}\right),M^{(R)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}s_1^2m_1+c_1^2m_4& 0& 0\\ 0& m_5& 0\\ 0& 0& m_6\end{array}\right)$$
(41)
and $`M_{ee}^{(L)}=M_{ee}=\frac{1}{2}(c_1^2m_1+s_1^2m_4+m_2)`$, etc. If $`c_1>s_1\sqrt{2}`$ and $`s_1^2m_1c_1^2|m_4|`$ (i.e., $`m_1|m_4|`$) and, in addition, $`m_5`$ and $`m_6`$ are vanishing, the texture is in a way of a type opposite to the see–saw (now, symbolically $`(L)>(D)>(R)`$ or even $`(L)(D)(R)`$ if $`c_1^2s_1^2`$ and $`m_4=0`$).

At any rate, the active existence of extra massive neutrino $`\nu _4`$ (in addition to the massive $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$) is induced by the sterile neutrino $`\nu _{e_s}`$ mixing with the active $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$. Of course, two completely decoupled sterile neutrinos $`\nu _{\mu _s}`$ and $`\nu _{\tau _s}`$ (with $`s_2=0`$ and $`s_3=0`$) induce trivially the passive existence of two massive neutrinos $`\nu _5=\nu _{\mu _s}`$ and $`\nu _6=\nu _{\tau _s}`$ with masses $`m_5`$ nad $`m_6`$ which, most naturally, ought to be put zero. However, another point of view is not excluded that there is still a tiny mixing of $`\nu _{\mu _s}`$ and $`\nu _{\tau _s}`$ with the rest of six neutrino flavors, caused by spontaneously breaking a GUT symmetry at a high mass scale and so, accompanied by large masses $`|m_5|`$ and $`|m_6|`$. If instead of $`|m_4|m_1`$ there is $`m_1|m_4|`$, such an inequality may be not so impressive as in the familiar see-saw referring to the GUT mass scale: it may happen, for instance, that $`|m_4|1`$ eV and $`m_110^4`$ eV; cf. Eq. (33) as an alternative to the more natural Eq. (35).

3. Six–neutrino oscillations

Due to mixing of six neutrino fields described by Eq. (9), neutrino states mix according to the relation

$$|\nu _\alpha =\underset{i}{}U_{\alpha i}^{}|\nu _i.$$
(42)
This implies the following familiar formulae for probabilities of neutrino oscillations $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta `$ on the energy shell:

$$P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )=|\beta |e^{iPL}|\alpha |^2=\delta _{\beta \alpha }4\underset{j>i}{}U_{\beta j}^{}U_{\beta i}U_{\alpha j}U_{\alpha i}^{}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{ji},$$
(43)
being valid if the quartic product $`U_{\beta j}^{}U_{\beta i}U_{\alpha j}U_{\alpha i}^{}`$ is real, what is certainly true when the tiny CP violation is ignored. Here,

$$x_{ji}=1.27\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ji}^2L}{E},\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ji}^2=m_j^2m_i^2$$
(44)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ji}^2`$, $`L`$ and $`E`$ measured in eV2, km and GeV, respectively ($`L`$ and $`E`$ denote the experimental baseline and neutrino energy, while $`p_i=\sqrt{E^2m_i^2}Em_i^2/2E`$ are eigenvalues of the neutrino momentum $`P`$).

With the use of proposal (8) for the $`6\times 6`$ neutrino mixing matrix and under the assumption that $`s_2=0`$ and $`s_3=0`$ the oscillation formulae (21) give

$`P(\nu _e\nu _e)`$ $`=`$ $`1c_1^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{21}(c_1s_1)^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{41}s_1^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{42},`$
$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{c_1^2}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{21}{\displaystyle \frac{c_1^2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{31}{\displaystyle \frac{(c_1s_1)^2}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{41}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{32}{\displaystyle \frac{s_1^2}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{42}{\displaystyle \frac{s_1^2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{43}`$
$`=`$ $`P(\nu _\tau \nu _\tau ),`$
$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_1^2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{21}{\displaystyle \frac{(c_1s_1)^2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{41}+{\displaystyle \frac{s_1^2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{42}=P(\nu _\tau \nu _e),`$
$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_1^2}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{21}+{\displaystyle \frac{c_1^2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{31}{\displaystyle \frac{(c_1s_1)^2}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{41}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{32}{\displaystyle \frac{s_1^2}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{42}+{\displaystyle \frac{s_1^2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{43},`$
$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _{e_s})`$ $`=`$ $`(c_1s_1)^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{41}=P(\nu _\tau \nu _{e_s}),`$
$`P(\nu _e\nu _{e_s})`$ $`=`$ $`2(c_1s_1)^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{41},`$
$`P(\nu _{e_s}\nu _{e_s})`$ $`=`$ $`14(c_1s_1)^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{41}.`$ (45)
Hence, the probability summation rules

$`P(\nu _e\nu _e)+P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )+P(\nu _e\nu _\tau )+P(\nu _e\nu _{e_s})`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)+P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )+P(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )+P(\nu _\mu \nu _{e_s})`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`P(\nu _\tau \nu _e)+P(\nu _\tau \nu _\mu )+P(\nu _\tau \nu _\tau )+P(\nu _\tau \nu _{e_s})`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`P(\nu _{e_s}\nu _e)+P(\nu _{e_s}\nu _\mu )+P(\nu _{e_s}\nu _\tau )+P(\nu _{e_s}\nu _{e_s})`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (46)
hold, as it should be, for two sterile neutrinos $`\nu _{\mu _s}`$ and $`\nu _{\tau _s}`$ are completely decoupled due to $`s_2=0`$ and $`s_3=0`$.

With the conjecture that $`m_1^2m_2^2`$, implying $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{41}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{42}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$, the first three Eqs. (23) can be rewritten approximately as

$`P(\nu _e\nu _e)`$ $``$ $`1c_1^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{21}(1+c_1^2)s_1^2\mathrm{sin}^2x_{42},`$
$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )`$ $``$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1+c_1^2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{32}{\displaystyle \frac{c_1^2}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{21}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+c_1^2)s_1^2}{4}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{42}{\displaystyle \frac{s_1^2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{43},`$
$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c_1^2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{21}+{\displaystyle \frac{s_1^4}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2x_{42}.`$ (47)
If $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2||\mathrm{\Delta }m_{42}^2|`$ and

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2|=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2(10^5\mathrm{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}10}^7\mathrm{or}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}10}^{10})\mathrm{eV}^2$$
(48)
(for LMA or LOW or VAC solar solution, respectively) , then under the conditions of solar experiments the first Eq. (25) gives

$$P(\nu _e\nu _e)_{\mathrm{sol}}1c_1^2\mathrm{sin}^2(x_{21})_{\mathrm{sol}}\frac{(1+c_1^2)s_1^2}{2},c_1^2=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}\stackrel{<}{}1.$$
(49)
If $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2||\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2||\mathrm{\Delta }m_{42}^2|,|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{43}^2|`$ and

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^23.5\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,$$
(50)
then for atmospheric experiments the second Eq. (25) leads to

$$P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )_{\mathrm{atm}}1\frac{1+c_1^2}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2(x_{32})_{\mathrm{atm}}\frac{(3+c_1^2)s_1^2}{8},\frac{1+c_1^2}{2}=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}1.$$
(51)
Eventually, if $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2||\mathrm{\Delta }m_{42}^2|`$ and

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{42}^2|=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{LSND}}^21\mathrm{eV}^2(e.g.),$$
(52)
then in the LSND experiment the third Eq. (25) implies

$$P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)_{\mathrm{LSND}}\frac{s_1^4}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2(x_{42})_{\mathrm{LSND}},\frac{s_1^4}{2}=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{LSND}}10^2(e.g.).$$
(53)
Thus,

$$s_1^20.141,c_1^20.859,\frac{1+c_1^2}{2}0.929,\frac{(1+c_1^2)s_1^2}{2}0.131,\frac{(3+c_1^2)s_1^2}{8}0.0682,$$
(54)
if the LNSD effect really exists and gets the amplitude $`s_1^4/210^2`$.

If the value $`c_1^2=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}0.8`$ or 0.9 or 0.7 (corresponding to LMA or LOW or VAC solar solution, respectively)  is accepted, then the amplitudes $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}=(1+c_1^2)/20.9`$ or 0.95 or 0.85 and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{LSND}}=s_1^4/2(2`$ or 0.5 or 4.5)$`\times 10^2`$ are predicted for atmospheric and LSND experiments.

Concluding, we can say that Eqs. (27), (29) and (31) are not inconsistent with solar, atmospheric and LSND experiments, respectively. Note that in Eqs. (27) and (29) there are constant terms that modify moderately the usual two–flavor formulae. The above equations, valid for $`s_2=0`$ and $`s_3=0`$, follow from the first three oscillation formulae (23), if either

$$m_1^2m_2^2m_3^2m_4^2$$
(55)
with

$$m_3^21\mathrm{eV}^2,m_4^21\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2(10^510^{10})\mathrm{eV}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^210^3\mathrm{eV}^2$$
(56)
or

$$m_4^2m_1^2m_2^2m_3^2$$
(57)
with

$$m_3^21\mathrm{eV}^2,m_4^21\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2(10^510^{10})\mathrm{eV}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^210^3\mathrm{eV}^2.$$
(58)
Here, we must have $`m_2^2m_3^2m_4^21\mathrm{eV}^2`$ or $`m_4^2m_2^2m_3^21\mathrm{eV}^2`$, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^210^3\mathrm{eV}^2|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{42}^2|1\mathrm{eV}^2`$. The second case $`m_4^2m_1^2m_2^2m_3^21\mathrm{eV}^2`$, where the neutrino mass state $`\nu _4`$ induced by the sterile neutrino $`\nu _{e_s}`$ gets a vanishing mass, seems to be more natural than the first case $`m_1^2m_2^2m_3^2m_4^21\mathrm{eV}^2`$, where such a state gains a considerable amount of Majorana righthanded mass "for nothing". (This is so, unless one believes in the liberal maxim "whatever is not forbidden is allowed": the Majorana righthanded mass is not forbidden by the electroweak SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) symmetry, in contrast to Majorana lefthanded and Dirac masses requiring this symmetry to be broken, say, by a combined Higgs mechanism that becomes then the origin of these masses.) In the second case if, in addition, the masses $`m_5`$ and $`m_6`$ connected with two decoupled sterile neutrinos are vanishing, the specific Majorana lefthanded mass matrix $`M^{(L)}`$ dominates over the whole neutrino mass matrix $`M`$. Such a Majorana lefthanded dominance may be the reason, why neutrino mixing appears to be qualitatively different from the more familiar down-quark mixing implied by the interplay of up- and down-quark Dirac mass matrices. Note also that, when looking for too close analogies between textures of neutrinos and charged leptons, one fails to describe adequately the observed neutrino oscillation effects (including the possible LSND effect) .

If $`s_2=s_3=0`$ and $`m_4=m_5=m_6=0`$, then writing $`m_1=m,m_2=m+\delta m_{21},m_3=m+\delta m_{21}+\delta m_{32}`$ we can present the neutrino mass matrix (11) in the form $`M=M^{(0)}+\delta M`$, where

$$M^{(0)}=m\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\frac{1}{2}(1+c_1^2)& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}_{}}s_1^2& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}_{}}s_1^2& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}_{}}c_1s_1& 0& 0\\ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}_{}}s_1^2& \frac{1}{4}(3+c_1^2)& \frac{1}{4}s_1^2& \frac{1}{2}c_1s_1& 0& 0\\ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}_{}}s_1^2& \frac{1}{4}s_1^2& \frac{1}{4}(3+c_1^2)& \frac{1}{2}c_1s_1& 0& 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}_{}}c_1s_1& \frac{1}{2}c_1s_1& \frac{1}{2}c_1s_1& s_1^2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(59)
is slightly modified by

$$\delta M=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\frac{1}{2}\delta m_{21}& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}_{}}\delta m_{21}& \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}_{}}\delta m_{21}& 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}_{}}\delta m_{21}& \frac{1}{4}(3\delta m_{21}+2\delta m_{32})& \frac{1}{4}(\delta m_{21}+2\delta m_{32})& 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}_{}}\delta m_{21}& \frac{1}{4}(\delta m_{21}+2\delta m_{32})& \frac{1}{4}(3\delta m_{21}+2\delta m_{32})& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(60)
In fact, $`\delta m_{21}m\delta m_{21}/\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2/2\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}0.5\times (10^5`$ or $`10^7`$ or $`10^{10}`$) eV and $`\delta m_{32}m\delta m_{32}/\mathrm{eV}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2/2\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}1.5\times 10^3`$ eV, while $`m1`$ eV. In the formal limit of $`s_10`$, we obtain $`M^{(0)}`$ diagonal and degenerated in active and sterile neutrinos separately,

$$M^{(0)}\mathrm{diag}(m,m,m,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}),$$
(61)
and so, from Eqs. (10) and (8) we infer that

$$U^{}\delta MU\mathrm{diag}(0,\delta m_{21},\delta m_{21}+\delta m_{32},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})$$
(62)
as $`U^{}M^{(0)}U`$ diag$`(m,m,m,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$. Note from Eq. (8) that (with $`s_2=s_3=0`$) in this limit we get bimaximal mixing matrix $`U`$ in spite of the fact that in a good approximation the mass matrix $`MM^{(0)}`$ is diagonal (here, of course, the degeneracy of $`lim_{s_10}M^{(0)}`$ in active neutrinos works).

In the approximation used before to derive Eqs. (27), (29) and (31) there are true also the relations

$`P(\nu _e\nu _e)_{\mathrm{sol}}`$ $``$ $`1P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )_{\mathrm{sol}}P(\nu _e\nu _\tau )_{\mathrm{sol}}(c_1s_1)^2,(c_1s_1)^20.121,`$
$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )_{\mathrm{atm}}`$ $``$ $`1P(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )_{\mathrm{atm}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+c_1^2)s_1^2}{4}},{\displaystyle \frac{(1+c_1^2)s_1^2}{4}}0.0654,`$ (63)
as well as

$$P(\nu _\mu \nu _e)_{\mathrm{LSND}}\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{s_1}{c_1}\right)^2P(\nu _\mu \nu _{e_s})_{\mathrm{LSND}},\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{s_1}{c_1}\right)^20.0824.$$
(64)
The second relation (41) demonstrates a leading role of the appearance mode $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ in the disappearance process of atmospheric $`\nu _\mu `$’s, while the relation (42) indicates a direct interplay of the appearance modes $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu \nu _{e_s}`$. In the case of the first relation (41), both appearance modes $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ contribute equally to the disappearance process of solar $`\nu _e`$’s, and the role of the appearance mode $`\nu _e\nu _{e_s}`$ (responsible for the constant term) is also considerable.

Finally, for the Chooz experiment , where $`(x_{ji})_{\mathrm{Chooz}}(x_{ji})_{\mathrm{atm}}`$ for any $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ji}^2`$, the first Eq. (25) predicts

$$P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)_{\mathrm{Chooz}}P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)_{\mathrm{atm}}1\frac{(1+c_1^2)s_1^2}{2},\frac{(1+c_1^2)s_1^2}{2}0.131,$$
(65)
if there is the LSND effect with the amplitude $`s_1^4/210^2`$ as written in Eq. (31). Here, $`(1+c_1^2)s_1^2\mathrm{sin}^2(x_{42})_{\mathrm{Chooz}}(1+c_1^2)s_1^2/2`$. In terms of the usual two–flavor formula, the Chooz experiment excludes the disappearance process of reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s for moving $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{Chooz}}\stackrel{>}{}0.1`$, when the range of moving $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{Chooz}}^2\stackrel{>}{}3\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ is considered. In our case $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{Chooz}}(1+c_1^2)s_1^2/2`$ for $`\mathrm{sin}^2x_{\mathrm{Chooz}}1`$. Thus, the Chooz effect for reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s should appear at the edge (if the LSND effect really exists).

References

 For a review cf. E. Kearns, Plenary talk at ICHEP 2000 at Osaka; C. Gonzales–Garcia, Talk at ICHEP 2000 at Osaka.

 G. Mills, Talk at Neutrino 2000; R.L. Imlay, Talk at ICHEP 2000 at Osaka; and references therein.

 For a review cf. F. Feruglio, Acta Phys. Pol. B 31, 1221 (2000); J. Ellis, Summary of Neutrino 2000, hep-ph/0008334; and references therein.

 W. Królikowski, hep–ph/0102016.

 W. Królikowski, hep–ph/0007255.

 W. Królikowski, Nuovo Cim. A 111, 1257 (1998); Acta Phys. Pol. B 31, 1759 (2000).

 M. Appolonio et al., Phys. Lett. B 420, 397 (1998); B 466, 415 (1999).


format: text

text:
# Observational Evidence for Two Cosmological Predictions Made by Bit-String Physics

## Comparison of Bit-String Predictions of Coupling Constants and Mass Ratios with Experiment

$$G_N^1\frac{\mathrm{}c}{m_p^2}=[2^{127}+136]\times \left[\mathrm{𝟏}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}\right]=\mathrm{1.693\; 31}\mathrm{}\times 10^{38}$$

$$\text{experiment}=1.693\mathbf{58}(21)\times 10^{38}$$

$$\alpha ^1(m_e)=137\times \left[\mathrm{𝟏}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑𝟎}\times \mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟕}}\right]^1=137.0359\mathbf{674}\mathrm{}.$$

$$\text{experiment}=\mathrm{137.0359\; 895}(61)$$

$$G_Fm_p^2/\mathrm{}c=[256^2\sqrt{2}]^1\times [[\mathrm{𝟏}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathrm{𝟕}}]=1.02\mathbf{758}\mathrm{}\times 10^5$$

$$\text{experiment}=\mathrm{1.02\; 682}(2)\times 10^5$$

$$sin^2\theta _{\mathrm{Weak}}=0.25\left[\mathrm{𝟏}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟑}\mathrm{𝟕}}\right]^2=0.2267\mathrm{}$$

$$\text{experiment}=0.22\mathrm{𝟓𝟗}(46)$$

$$\frac{m_p}{m_e}=\frac{137\pi }{x(1x)\frac{1}{y}}=\frac{137\pi }{\left(\frac{3}{14}\right)\left[1+\frac{2}{7}+\frac{4}{49}\right]\left(\frac{4}{5}\right)}=1836.15\mathbf{1497}\mathrm{}$$
(1)
$$\text{experiment}=\mathrm{1836.15\; 2701}(37)$$

$$m_\pi ^\pm /m_e=275\left[\mathrm{𝟏}\frac{\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathrm{𝟕}}\right]=273.12\mathbf{92}\mathrm{}$$

$$\text{experiment}=\mathrm{273.12\; 67}(4)$$

$$m_{\pi ^0}/m_e=274\left[\mathrm{𝟏}\frac{\mathrm{𝟑}}{\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathrm{𝟐}}\right]=264.2\mathbf{143}\mathrm{}$$

$$\text{experiment}=\mathrm{264.1\; 373}(6)]$$

$$m_\mu /m_e=3710\left[1\frac{3}{3710}\right]=207$$

$$\text{experiment}=\mathrm{206.768\; 26}(13)$$

$$G_{\pi N\overline{N}}^2=\left[\left(\frac{2M_N}{m_\pi }\right)^21\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}=[195]^{\frac{1}{2}}=13.96\mathrm{}.$$

$$\text{experiment}=13.3(3),\text{ or greater than }13.9$$

Making the case that these constructions give us the quantum numbers of the standard model of quarks and leptons with exactly 3 generations has only been sketched .A tentative bit-string representation of the quantum numbers of the (three generation) standard model of quarks and leptons using bit-string labels of length sixteen is given in Fig. 3.

Fortunately we do not require the completely worked out scheme to make interesting cosmological predictions. The ratio of dark to “visible” (i.e. electromagnetically interacting) matter is the easiest to see. The electromagnetic interaction first comes in when we have constructed the first three levels giving 3+7+127 =137 dcss, one of which is identified with electromagnetic interactions because it occurs with probability $`1/137e^2/\mathrm{}c`$. But the construction must first complete the first two levels giving $`3+7=10`$ dcss. Since the construction is “random” and this will happen many, many times as program universe grinds along, we will get the 10 non-electromagnetically interacting labels 127/10 times as often as we get the electromagnetically interacting labels. Our prediction of $`M_{DM}/M_B=12.7`$ is that naive.

The $`1/256^4`$ prediction for $`N_B/N_\gamma `$ is comparably naive. Our partially worked out scheme of relating bit-string events to particle physics , makes it clear that photons, both as labels (which communicate with particle-antiparticle pairs) and as content strings will contain equal numbers of zeros and ones in appropriately specified portions of the strings. Consequently they can be readily identified as the most probable entities in any assemblage of strings generated by whatever pseudo-random number generator is used to construct the arbitrary actions and bit-strings needed in actually running program universe. This scheme also makes the simplest representation of fermions and anti-fermions contain one more “1” and one less “0” than the photons (or *visa versa*). (Which we call “fermions” and which “anti-fermions” is, to begin with, an arbitrary choice of nomenclature.) Since our dynamics insures conventional quantum number conservation by construction, the problem is to show how program universe introduces a bias between “0” ’s and “1” ’s once the full interaction scheme is developed; this problem is analogous to the corresponding problem in conventional theories. However, our theory requires no “fine tuning”.

We saw above that program universe has to start out with two one’s and one zero. Subsequent PICKs and TICKs are sufficiently “random” to insure that (at least statistically) we will generate an equal number of zeros and ones, apart from the initial bias giving an extra one. Once the label length of 256 is reached, which is the label length required by the combinatorial hierarchy mapping scheme discussed above, and sufficient space-time structure (“content strings”) generated and interacted to achieve thermal equilibrium, this label bias for a 1 compared to equal numbers of zeros and ones will persist for 1 in 256 labels. We must now count the number of equilibrium processes leading to baryon-photon scattering relative to the number leading to photon-photon scattering.

We start from the most probable and the next most probable classes of scattering processes, which are presented in Figure 4. Because baryon number is conserved, and the even-odd character of the labels is conserved by discrimination, we interpret the bias as specifying baryon number for one of the 256 labels in the initial (or equivalently the final) state. This requires the baryon bias of 1 to appear in one and only one of the four initial (or final, because of baryon number conservation) state labels of length 256. Then, simple case counting gives the baryon to photon ratio as $`1/256^4`$ for any representational scheme which requires photons to have equal numbers of zero’s and ones, and assigns baryon number to any one of the 256 slots in the label. Of course this conclusion rests on the interpretation of the strings causing observable TICK’s as four-leg Feynman diagrams; that interpretation still needs some work on the details. As a trivial example of how this could work for labels of much shorter length take the baryon-antibaryon-photon vertex to be $`𝐁\overline{𝐁}\gamma =\mathrm{𝟎}`$ with $`𝐁=(1110)`$, $`\overline{𝐁}=(0010)`$ and $`\gamma =(1100)`$. We conclude that, in the absence of further information, $`1/256^4`$ is the program universe prediction for the baryon-photon ratio at the time of big bang nucleosynthesis.

We now demonstrate that our two predictions can be compared with observation, by showing that, together with the currently accepted value of the Hubble constant, they allow us to predict the normalized matter density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ with reasonable precision. We recall that the predictions are that (a) the ratio of baryons to photons was $`\eta =1/256^4=2.328\mathrm{}\times 10^{10}=10^{10}\eta ^{10}`$ at the time of nucleogenesis and that (b) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{DM}/\mathrm{\Omega }_B=127/10=12.7`$. Comparison of prediction (a) with observation is straightforward, as is illustrated in Figure 5.

Comparison with observation of prediction (b) that the ratio of dark to baryonic matter is *not* straightforward, as was clear at DM98. This question remained unresolved at DM2000. However, according to the standard cosmological model, the baryon-photon ratio remains fixed *after* nucleogenesis. In the theory I am relying on, the same is true of the of the dark matter to baryon ratio. Consequently, *if* we know the Hubble constant, *and* assume that only dark and baryonic matter contribute, the normalized matter parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ can  *also* be predicted, as we now demonstrate.

We know from the currently observed photon density (calculated from the observed $`2.728^{}`$K cosmic background radiation) that the normalized baryon density is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_B=3.67\times 10^3\eta _{10}h_0^2$$
(2)
and hence, from our prediction and assumptions about dark matter, that the total mass density will be 13.7 times as large. Therefore we have that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.117h_0^2.$$
(3)
Hence, for $`0.8h_00.6`$ , $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ runs from $`0.183`$ to $`0.325`$. This clearly puts no restriction on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Our second constraint comes from integrating the scaled Friedman-Robertson-Walker (FRW) equations from a time after the expansion becomes matter dominated with no pressure to the present. Here we assume that this initial time is close enough to zero on the time scale of the integration so that the lower limit of integration can be approximated by zero . Then the age of the universe as a function of the current values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given by

$`t_0`$ $`=`$ $`9.78h_0^1f(\mathrm{\Omega }_M,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })Gyr`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`9.78h_0^1f(0.117h_0^2,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })\text{Gyr}`$
where

$$f(\mathrm{\Omega }_M,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })=_0^1𝑑x\sqrt{\frac{x}{\mathrm{\Omega }_M+(1\mathrm{\Omega }_M\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })x+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }x^3}}.$$
(5)
For the two limiting values of $`h_0`$, we see that

$`h_0`$ $`=`$ $`0.8,t_0=12.2f(0.183,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })\text{Gyr}`$
$`h_0`$ $`=`$ $`0.6,t_0=16.3f(0.325,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })\text{Gyr}.`$ (6)
The results are plotted in Figure 6 in comparison with data available in 1998. We emphasize that these predictions were made and published over a decade ago when the observational data were vague and the theoretical climate of opinion was very different from what it is now. The figure reproduced here was presented at ANPA20 (Sept. 3–8, 1998, Cambridge, England) and given wider circulation in . The calculation that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.6`$ included in the figure and briefly discussed below was made by E.D. Jones before there was any observational evidence for a cosmological constant, let alone a positive one .

The precision of the relevant observational results had improved considerably by DM2000,where the preliminary version of this paper was presented . Using an analysis due to Lineweaver , our prediction was still in excellent agreement with observation. Thanks to still more recent analyses of the BOOMERANG data and other observations , we now face a still more stringent test, as shown in Figure 7.

As in 1998, we find it useful to make use of an unpublished prediction of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by E.D. Jones . In contrast to the situation then, he is now prepared to set definite limits on his prediction based on considerations of his calculation made while preparing his paper for publication. Further, the estimate given above ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.6\pm 0.1`$), which was made before and independent of our calculations reported above, falls squarely in the middle of the region allowed in 1998, and continues to do so despite the remarkable observational progress made in the interim.

The Jones calculation depends only on self-consistency arguments and requires the external input of an astrophysical quantity, such as the mass of the universe in Planck units, to calibrate the parameters. As a model-independent argument, it can not calculate the needed input from some first principles. Thus, the argument presumably can be improved by combining it with the bit-string physics model. Research in that direction is in progress.

We find it remarkable that the four epistemological principles with which we start seem to lead to (a) the overall structure of elementary particle physics together with a number of the basic constants calculated using no free parameters and (b) the gross cosmological state of the universe as measured by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We hope that these facts will motivate others to investigate how this might come about.


text:
# References

Using Symmetry to Count Rational Curves

Aaron Bertram111Supported in part by NSF Research Grant DMS-9970412

Dedicated to Herb Clemens

The recent “close encounter” between enumerative algebraic geometry and theoretical physics has resulted in many new applications and new techniques for counting algebraic curves on a complex projective manifold. For example, string theorists demonstrated that generating functions built from counting curves can have completely unexpected relationships with other geometric constructions, via mirror symmetry . In this paper, I want to focus on generating functions built from counting rational curves, and another insight inspired by physicists – the existence of hidden symmetries in the generating functions themselves.

By “counting rational curves,” I mean producing numbers such as:

$``$ the number of lines in $`𝐏^n`$ through two general points $`(1)`$

$``$ the number of lines in $`𝐏^3`$ meeting $`4`$ general lines $`(2)`$

$``$ the number of rational quartics in $`𝐏^2`$ through $`11`$ general points $`(620)`$

$``$ the expected number of twisted cubic curves on a general quintic in $`𝐏^6`$ passing through $`2`$ general points $`(2,088,000)`$

The first number is basic, the second is “classical”, but the last two were not known until quite recently. There are now several methods for computing them , but the goal of this paper is to show how easily such computations follow from considerations of symmetry. More precisely, I will review WDVV symmetry and the reconstruction theorem of Kontsevich and Manin, then introduce an analogous family of new symmetries and corresponding reconstruction theorem recently discovered in joint work together with Holger Kley .

Let $`X`$ be a complex projective manifold, and define:

$`V=H^{}(X,𝐐)`$ with the Poincaré pairing $`\gamma _1\gamma _2_X\gamma _1\gamma _2`$

$`C_{eff}H_2(X,𝐙)`$, the set of positive linear combinations of classes $`f_{}[C]`$, where $`C`$ is a Riemann surface and $`f:CX`$ is a morphism. Since $`C_{eff}`$ has the property that for each $`\beta C_{eff}`$:

$$C_{eff}(\beta C_{eff})=\{\alpha C_{eff}|\beta \alpha C_{eff}\}\text{is finite}$$

it follows that the “Novikov ring” $`𝐐[[q]]`$, which is the set of (infinite) sums $`_{\beta C_{eff}}a_\beta q^\beta `$ with $`a_\beta 𝐐`$, has a well-defined multiplication with $`q^\alpha q^\beta =q^{\alpha +\beta }`$.

All the generating functions will be defined in terms of $`V`$ and $`𝐐[[q]]`$.

1. WDVV Symmetry. The Gromov-Witten invariant $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n_\beta `$, for given $`\beta C_{eff}`$ and $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _nV`$, counts the expected number of rational curves of class $`\beta `$ “meeting” the classes $`\gamma _i`$ (as in the earlier examples). We will show below how this definition is made rigorous by means of an explicit symmetric element $`c_{0,n}^\beta (X)V^nH^{}(X^n,𝐐)`$ with the definition:

$$\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n_\beta :=_{X^n}c_{0,n}^\beta (X)\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _n$$

Think of $`Sym^{}V`$ as the permutation-invariant sub-algebra of the tensor algebra, and define:

$$c_0(X):=\underset{\beta }{}\underset{n3}{}c_{0,n}^\beta (X)q^\beta Sym^{}V[[q]]=Sym^{}V_𝐐𝐐[[q]]$$

This starts with $`n=3`$ because of the impossibility of finding a good definition for the $`c_{0,n}^0(X)`$ for $`n<3`$ (but all $`c_{0,n}^\beta (X)`$ do have good definitions when $`\beta 0`$).

So far, $`c_0(X)`$ is just a convenient means of packaging the Gromov-Witten invariants, but a key insight coming from string theory is the hidden:

WDVV Symmetry: For the contraction “$``$” defined below,

$$c_0(X)c_0(X)Sym^{}VV^4[[q]]$$

is invariant under the permutation action of the symmetric group $`S_4`$ on $`V^4`$.

The contraction is defined by partially desymmetrizing, thinking of:

$$c_0(X)Sym^{}VV^3[[q]]$$

then isolating the last copy of $`V`$ from each $`V^3`$ and contracting them via:

$$V[[q]]V[[q]]𝐐[[q]];\gamma _1q^{\alpha _1}\gamma _2q^{\alpha _2}\left(_X\gamma _1\gamma _2\right)q^{\alpha _1+\alpha _2},$$

and finally partially symmetrizing via the map: $`Sym^{}VSym^{}VSym^{}V`$.

Example: The coefficient of $`q^0`$ in $`c_0(X)`$ is the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3V^3`$, and:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_3\mathrm{\Delta }_3=\mathrm{\Delta }_4V^4$$

is symmetric. On the other hand, an arbitrary symmetric element of $`V^3`$ does not result in a symmetric element of $`V^4`$. For instance, if $`X=𝐏^1`$, then:

$$(1^3+H^3)(1^3+H^3)=1^2H^2+H^21^2$$

is symmetric under the subgroup of $`S_4`$ generated by $`(12),(34)`$ and $`(13)(24)`$ (These symmetries always hold.) The extra $`(\mathrm{2\; 3})`$ symmetry is the novel one.

At this point, a word is in order on the construction of the $`c_{0,n}^\beta (X)`$.

Definition: A pointed rational curve $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_nC`$ is stable if $`C`$ is a tree of smooth rational curves with nodes, the $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_nC`$ are distinct smooth points, and the automorphism group Aut$`(C;p_i)`$ of $`C`$, fixing the $`p_i`$, is finite.

Theorem: (Mumford-Knudsen) If $`n3`$, a fine moduli space of stable pointed rational curves exists. It is projective, smooth of dimension $`n3`$, denoted $`\overline{M}_{0,n}`$.

Examples: $`\overline{M}_{0,3}=`$ point, $`\overline{M}_{0,4}𝐏^1`$.

Inspired by this, Kontsevich-Manin made the following definition :

Definition: A map $`f:(C;p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)X`$ from a tree of smooth rational curves with distinct smooth points is stable if the automorphism group Aut$`(C;p_i;f)`$ of $`C`$, fixing the $`p_i`$ and the map $`f`$, is finite.

Examples: All maps with finite fibers are stable. A constant map is stable if and only if the pointed curve is stable.

Theorem: (Kontsevich-Manin) A proper, Deligne-Mumfod stack of stable maps, denoted $`\overline{M}_{0,n}(X,\beta )`$, exists for each fixed $`\beta `$. It is smooth of dimension $`\text{dim}(X)K_X\beta +n3`$ when $`X`$ is nice enough (e.g. a homogeneous space).

Moreover, the moduli space comes equipped with “structure” maps:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{M}_{0,n}(X,\beta )& \stackrel{ev}{}& X^n\\ \pi & & \\ \overline{M}_{0,n}& & \end{array}$$

where $`ev(f)=(f(p_1),\mathrm{},f(p_n))`$ and $`\pi (f)`$ is the “stabilization” of $`(C;p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)`$. Of course, $`\pi `$ is only defined when $`n3`$. Finally, there is a diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{M}_{0,n+1}(X,\beta )& \stackrel{e}{}& X\\ f& & \\ \overline{M}_{0,n}(X,\beta )& & \end{array}$$

where $`f`$ forgets the marked point $`p_{n+1}`$ and stabilizes, and $`e(f)=f(p_{n+1})`$. This exhibits an isomorphism between $`\overline{M}_{0,n+1}(X,\beta )`$ and the “universal curve” $`𝒞`$.

When $`X`$ is a “nice enough” (see the theorem), then we define:

$$c_{0,n}^\beta (X)=ev_{}(1)$$

Otherwise, the “right” definition for $`c_{0,n}^\beta (X)`$ has been found by Li-Tian and Behrend-Fantechi via the “virtual” fundamental class on $`\overline{M}_{0,n}(X,\beta )`$ . Here I will ignore these subtleties, referring to these classes only as $`ev_{}(1)`$ and using the properties listed in  wherever convenient.

A couple of key relations among Gromov-Witten invariants follow:

Basic Axioms: (a) (Easy String) $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n,1_\beta =0`$ unless $`n=2,\beta =0`$.

(b) (Easy Divisor) If $`DV`$ is the class of a divisor on $`X`$, then

$$\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n,D_\beta =(D\beta )\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n_\beta \text{unless }n=2,\beta =0$$

Proof: Apply the projection formula to the commuting diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{M}_{0,n+1}(X,\beta )& \stackrel{ev}{}& X^{n+1}\\ f& & \\ \overline{M}_{0,n}(X,\beta )& \stackrel{ev}{}& X^n\end{array}$$

together with the fact that $`f_{}1=0`$ and $`f_{}e^{}D=(D\beta )1`$.

The proof of WDVV requires the additional map to $`\overline{M}_{0,n}`$. Given a subset $`S\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ of cardinality $`m`$ and $`\alpha C_{eff}`$, there is a gluing morphism:

$$\delta _{S,\alpha }:\overline{M}_{0,m+1}(X,\alpha )\times _X\overline{M}_{0,nm+1}(X,\beta \alpha )\overline{M}_{0,n}(X,\beta )$$

sending a pair of maps $`f:(C;p_1,\mathrm{},p_m,p)X`$ and $`g:(B;q_1,\mathrm{},q_{nm},q)X`$ satisfying $`f(p)=g(q)`$ to the single map $`h:(C_{p=q}B;p_i,q_j)X`$. To give the ordering of the points on $`CB`$, apply the permutation $`\sigma _S`$ to $`\{p_i,q_j\}`$ given by:

$$\sigma _S(i)=s_i,\sigma _S(m+i)=s_i^c\text{where}S=\{s_1<\mathrm{}<s_m\},S^c=\{s_1^c<\mathrm{}<s_{nm}^c\}$$

The gluing maps have two important properties:

$``$ $`ev_{}\delta _{S,\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{}(1)=\sigma _S(c_{0,m+1}^\alpha c_{0,nm+1}^{\beta \alpha })`$ where $`\sigma _S`$ permutes the factors of $`V^n`$.

$``$ $`\pi ^{}\delta _{S}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(1)=_\alpha \delta _{S,\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{}(1)`$ for $`\delta _S:\overline{M}_{0,m+1}\times \overline{M}_{0,nm+1}\overline{M}_{0,n}`$.

In addition, one easily checks that:

$``$ $`cr^{}\delta _{\{ij\}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(1)=_S\delta _{S\{n+i,n+j\}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(1)`$ for $`i,j4`$ and the forgetful cross-ratio map $`cr:\overline{M}_{0,n+4}\overline{M}_{0,4}`$ But $`\delta _{\{ij\}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(1)`$ is the class of a point on $`\overline{M}_{0,4}=𝐏^1`$, so is independent of $`i,j`$, and all together, we get:

$$\underset{m}{}\underset{|S|=m}{}\underset{\alpha }{}\sigma _{S\{n+1,n+2\}}(c_{0,m+3}^\alpha c_{0,nm+3}^{\beta \alpha })=ev_{}\pi ^{}cr^{}\delta _{\{12\}}_{}(1)=$$

$$=ev_{}\pi ^{}cr^{}\delta _{\{13\}}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(1)=\underset{m}{}\underset{|S|=m}{}\underset{\alpha }{}\sigma _{S\{n+1,n+3\}}(c_{0,m+3}^\alpha c_{0,nm+3}^{\beta \alpha })$$

which are precisely the coefficients of $`q^\beta `$ in $`c_0(X)c_0(X)`$ and the pull-back of $`c_0(X)c_0(X)`$ under the $`(\mathrm{2\; 3})`$ transposition, respectively.

Remark: Checking these properties of the gluing maps with virtual classes is the major technical point in the work of Behrend-Fantechi and Li-Tian.

2. Kontsevich-Manin Reconstruction. This is generally understood to be the following consequence of the WDVV relations (and the basic axioms):

Theorem: (Kontsevich-Manin ) If $`V`$ is generated by divisor classes, then $`c_0(X)`$ can be explicitly reconstructed from the classes $`c_{0,2}^\beta (X)`$ and $`c_{0,3}^0(X)=\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$.

Proof: Choose generating divisor classes $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_k`$, and choose a basis $`\{D_J=D_i^{j_i}\}V`$ consisting of monomials in the divisors $`D_j`$. For $`n0`$,$`\beta >0`$ and $`|K|2`$, we use WDVV to solve for Gromov-Witten invariants of the form:

$$\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{n+2},D_K_\beta $$

in terms of invariants involving either:

$`(i)`$ smaller $`\beta `$ (and either the same or smaller $`n`$) or

$`(ii)`$ the same $`\beta `$ and $`n`$ but smaller $`|K|`$.

Since the basic axioms allow us to eliminate $`D_K`$ in case $`|K|=0`$ or $`1`$, the theorem then follows by induction.

Let $`(g^{IJ})`$ be the inverse of the intersection matrix defined by:

$$g_{IJ}:=_XD_ID_J$$

and choose $`D_L,D_M`$ so that $`D_LD_M=D_K`$ with $`|L|,|M|<|K|`$. Then the coefficient of $`q^\beta `$ in the expression:

$$_{X^{n+4}}c_0(X)c_0(X)\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _{n+2}D_LD_M$$

is, explicitly,

$$(1)\underset{S}{}\underset{I,J}{}\gamma _{s_1},\mathrm{},\gamma _{s_m},\gamma _{n+1},\gamma _{n+2},D_I_\alpha g^{IJ}D_J,\gamma _{s_1^c},\mathrm{},\gamma _{s_{nm}^c},D_L,D_M_{\beta \alpha }$$

whereas after the $`(\mathrm{2\; 3})`$ permutation, we obtain:

$$(2)\underset{S}{}\underset{I,J}{}\gamma _{s_1},\mathrm{},\gamma _{s_m},\gamma _{n+1},D_L,D_I_\alpha g^{IJ}D_J,\gamma _{s_1^c},\mathrm{},\gamma _{s_{nm}^c},\gamma _{n+2},D_M_{\beta \alpha }$$

Only the terms $`\alpha =0,S=\mathrm{}`$ or $`\alpha =\beta `$, $`S=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ do not satisfy $`(i)`$. But these terms can be computed using the fact that $`c_{0,3}^0(X)=\mathrm{\Delta }_3`$. They are:

$`(1)\gamma _{n+1}\gamma _{n+2},\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n,D_L,D_M_\beta +\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{n+2},D_K_\beta `$ and

$`(2)\gamma _{n+1}D_L,\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n,\gamma _{n+2},D_M_\beta +\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{n+1},D_L,\gamma _{n+2}D_M_\beta `$

The theorem follows since we are solving for the second of the terms in $`(1)`$ and the other three of these “special” terms satisfy $`(ii)`$.

Examples: (a) For $`X=𝐏^3`$ and $`\beta =1`$, there are only the special terms, and taking $`\gamma _1=H^2,\gamma _2=H^2,\gamma _3=H^2,D_L=H,D_M=H`$ gives:

$$H^4,H^2,H,H_1+H^2,H^2,H^2,H^2_1=H^3,H^2,H^2,H_1+H^2,H^2,H,H^3_1$$

from which one concludes using the divisor axiom that:

$$H^2,H^2,H^2,H^2_1=2H^3,H^2,H^2_1$$

and letting $`\gamma _1=H^3,\gamma _2=H^2,D_L=H,D_M=H`$ gives:

$$H^5,H,H_1+H^3,H^2,H^2_1=H^4,H^2,H_1+H^3,H,H^3_1$$

which gives $`H^3,H^2,H^2_1=H^3,H^3_1=1`$ and $`H^2,H^2,H^2,H^2_1=2`$.

(b) For a more interesting example, let let $`n_d`$ be the number of rational plane curves of degree $`d`$ through $`3d1`$ general points of $`𝐏^2`$. That is,

$$n_d=H^2,\mathrm{}.,H^2_d$$

Let $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{3d2}=H^2`$ and $`D_L=D_M=H`$. Then:

$$(1)0+n_d+\underset{0<e<d}{}\underset{|S|=3e3}{}H^2,\mathrm{},H^2,H^2,H^2,H_eH,H^2,\mathrm{},H^2,H,H_{de}$$

$$(2)0+0+\underset{0<e<d}{}\underset{|S|=3e2}{}H^2,\mathrm{},H^2,H^2,H,H_eH,H^2,\mathrm{},H^2,H^2,H_{de}$$

and this, together with the divisor equation, gives the recursive formula:

$$n_d=\underset{e=1}{\overset{d1}{}}n_en_{de}\left(e^2(de)^2\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{3d4}{3e2}\right)e(de)^3\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{3d4}{3e3}\right)\right)$$

from which (together with the a priori $`n_1=1`$) one computes:

$$n_2=1,n_3=12,n_4=620(\text{as in the introduction})$$

Remarks: The reconstruction theorem applies in a more general situation. If we can write $`V=W+W^{}`$ so that $`W`$ is generated by divisor classes and every Gromov-Witten invariant invariant of the form $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n,\lambda _\beta `$ is zero when $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _nW`$ and $`\lambda W^{}`$, then every Gromov-Witten invariant of the form $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n_\beta `$ (for all $`\gamma _iW`$) can be reconstructed from the $`n=2`$ invariants. The same proof gives this result, as well.

This applies, for example, to the case of a hypersurface $`X𝐏^n`$. Which begs the question: What are the $`c_{0,2}^\beta (X)`$ in that case? Holger Kley and I found a way to reconstruct these, too, using other hidden symmetries.

3. A Symmetry of $`J`$-functions. The universal curve:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒞& & \\ f& & \\ \overline{M}_{0,n}(X,\beta )& & \end{array}$$

with universal sections (the marked points) $`\rho _i:\overline{M}_{0,n}(X,\beta )𝒞`$ determine the “Morita classes” $`\psi _i:=c_1(N_{\rho _i}^{})`$, where $`N_{\rho _i}^{}`$ is the conormal bundle of the section. The following strange-looking definition is inspired by mirror symmetry (as interpreted by Givental , Lian-Liu-Yau  and others):

$$J_{0,n}^\beta (X):=ev_{}\left(\frac{1}{_{i=1}^nt_i(t_i\psi _i)}\right)Sym^n(V[t^1])$$

where $`t`$ (or rather $`t_i`$) is a variable, and the denominator is formally inverted. Note that the coefficient of $`t_i^2`$ is $`c_{0,n}^\beta (X)`$.

These seem to have better properties than the $`c_{0,n}^\beta (X)`$. For example, the $`n=1`$ (mirror conjecture) case has some very interesting “functorial” properties and is often amenable to computations.

Theorem: (Bertram/Behrend ) If $`\beta C_{eff}(X\times Y)`$, let $`\beta _1C_{eff}(X)`$ and $`\beta _2C_{eff}(Y)`$ be the two projections. Then:

$$J_{0,1}^\beta (X\times Y)=J_{0,1}^{\beta _1}(X)_{𝐐[t^1]}J_{0,1}^{\beta _2}(Y)$$

(there is a product formula for $`c_{0,2}^\beta (X)`$ classes, but it is much more complex)

Theorem: (Givental ) Let $`H`$ be the hyperplane class in $`H^2(𝐏^n,𝐙)`$. Then:

$$J_{0,1}^d(𝐏^n)=\frac{1}{_{k=1}^d(H+kt)^{n+1}}$$

If $`X𝐏^n`$ is a complete intersection of type $`(l_1,\mathrm{},l_r)`$ of dimension $`3`$ with $`l_1+\mathrm{}+l_r<n`$, then:

$$J_{0,1}^d(X)=\frac{_{i=1}^r_{k=1}^{dl_i}(l_iH+kt)}{_{k=1}^d(H+kt)^{n+1}}$$

and if$`l_1+\mathrm{}+l_r=n`$ or $`n+1`$, then $`J_{0,1}^d(X)`$ is computed from the $`J_{0,1}^d(𝐏^n)`$ by an explicit “mirror transformation” (see ).

This generalizes to complete intersections in (Fano) toric varieties, but it is even more general, as pointed out first by Kim and proved by Lee :

Quantum Lefschetz Hyperplane Theorem: If $`XY`$ is a Fano or Calabi-Yau very ample hypersurface of dimension at least $`3`$, then the $`J_{0,1}^\beta (X)`$ are explicitly determined by the $`J_{0,1}^\beta (Y)`$.

The following computation:

$$J_{0,n}^0(X)=\mathrm{\Delta }_nt_i^2\left(t_i^1\right)^{n3}$$

follows from the well-known intersection numbers on $`\overline{M}_{0,n}`$:

$$_{\overline{M}_{0,n}}\psi _1^{a_1}\mathrm{}\psi _n^{a_n}=\frac{(n3)!}{a_1!\mathrm{}a_n!}$$

whenever $`n3`$ and $`a_i=n3`$. We argue by analogy that:

$$J_{0,1}^0(X)=1\text{and}J_{0,2}^0(X)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_2}{t_1t_2(t_1+t_2)}$$

are good definitions (though the second one does not belong to $`Sym^2(V[t^1])`$).

With these definitions, we put together the generating function:

$$J_0(X):=\underset{\beta }{}\underset{n1}{}J_{0,n}^\beta (X)q^\beta Sym^{}(V[t^1])[[q]]$$

(with a little extra room for $`J_{0,2}^0(X)`$), and by analogy with WDVV, we have:

Theorem 1: (Bertram-Kley ) The $`J_0(X)`$ invariants have the symmetry:

$$J_0(X)J_0(X)=0$$

defined as follows. Let $`U=V[t^1]`$ and extend Poincaré duality to:

$$U[[q]]U[[q]]𝐐[t^1][[q]];\gamma _1t^kq^\alpha \gamma _2t^lq^\beta \left(_X\gamma _1\gamma _2\right)t^k(t)^lq^{\alpha +\beta }$$

Partially desymmetrize, writing $`J_0(X)`$ as an element of $`Sym^{}(U)U[[q]]`$, and:

$$J_0(X)J_0(X)=0Sym^{}(U)[t^1][[q]]$$

is a collection of identities on the coefficients of the $`t^k`$.

The Extra Term: Contracting with $`J_{0,2}^0(X)`$ does not fit the pattern above, at least not in the obvious way. Instead, we extend the Poincaré duality to:

$$\gamma _1t^k\frac{\gamma _2t^l}{t_i+t}\left(_X\gamma _1\gamma _2\right)\frac{t^kt_i^k}{t_it}(t)^l$$

so that $`J_{0,2}^0(X)`$ acts as a difference operator, and similarly,

$$\frac{\gamma _1t^k}{t_i+t}\gamma _2t^l\left(_X\gamma _1\gamma _2\right)\frac{(t)^lt_i^l}{t_i+t}t^k$$

As an example, we use Theorem 1 to prove the:

String Equation: Define the generalized Gromov-Witten invariants by:

$$\psi ^{a_1}(\gamma _1),\mathrm{},\psi ^{a_n}(\gamma _n)_\beta :=_{X^n}ev_{}(\psi _1^{a_1}\mathrm{}\psi _n^{a_n})\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _n$$

if each $`a_i0`$, and zero if some $`a_i<0`$. Then unless $`n=1`$ or $`2`$ and $`\beta =0`$,

$$\psi ^{a_1}(\gamma _1),\mathrm{},\psi ^{a_n}(\gamma _n),1_\beta =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\psi ^{a_1}(\gamma _1),\mathrm{},\psi ^{a_i1}(\gamma _i),\mathrm{},\psi ^{a_n}(\gamma _n)_\beta $$

Proof: The $`U^nq^\beta `$ coefficient of $`J_0(X)J_0(X)`$ is:

$$\underset{\alpha }{}\underset{m}{}\underset{|S|=m}{}\sigma _S(J_{0,m+1}^\alpha (X)J_{0,nm+1}^{\beta \alpha }(X))$$

and we say that a summand involving $`J_{0,1}^0(X)`$ or $`J_{0,2}^0(X)`$ is special. Let $`\{e_i\}`$ be a basis of $`V`$ with intersection matrix $`g_{ij}`$, and consider the $`q^\beta `$ coefficient of:

$$_{X^n}J_0(X)J_0(X)\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _n$$

The non-special summands produce terms of the form:

$$\sigma _S\frac{\gamma _1}{t_1(t_1\psi )},\mathrm{},\frac{e_i}{t(t\psi )}_\alpha g^{ij}\frac{e_j}{t(t\psi )},\mathrm{},\frac{\gamma _n}{t_n(t_n\psi )}_{\beta \alpha }$$

where we formally set $`\frac{\gamma }{t(t\psi )}=t^2\gamma +t^3\psi (\gamma )+t^4\psi ^2(\gamma )+\mathrm{}`$

On the other hand, the special summands produce:

$$(m=n,\alpha =\beta )\frac{\gamma _1}{t_1(t_1\psi )},\mathrm{},\frac{\gamma _n}{t_n(t_n\psi )},\frac{1}{t(t\psi )}_\beta \text{and}$$

$$(m=n1,\alpha =\beta )\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\gamma _1}{t_1(t_1\psi )},\mathrm{},f_{t,t_i}(\gamma _i),\mathrm{},\frac{\gamma _n}{t_n(t_n\psi )}_\beta $$

where

$$f_{t,t_i}=\frac{(t(t\psi ))^1(t_i(t_i\psi ))^1}{t_i(t)(t_it)}$$

and the $`\alpha =0`$ terms, which are the same functions, but of $`t`$ instead of $`t`$.

Setting the coefficient of $`t^2`$ to zero (using Theorem 1) gives:

$$\frac{\gamma _1}{t_1(t_1\psi )},..,\frac{\gamma _n}{t_n(t_n\psi )},1_\beta =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\gamma _1}{t_1(t_1\psi )},\mathrm{},\frac{\gamma _i}{t_i^2(t_i\psi )},\mathrm{},\frac{\gamma _n}{t_n(t_n\psi )}_\beta $$

which is the string equation!

4. More Symmetries of $`J`$-Functions. Theorem $`1`$ is a consequence of a family of symmetries of $`J`$-functions, which will occupy the rest of this paper.

Definition: Let $`J_0^{}(X)Sym^{}UU^2[[q]]`$ be the desymmetrization of $`J_0(X)`$.

(this notation distinguishes it from $`J_0(X)Sym^{}UU[[q]]`$)

Theorem 2: (Bertram-Kley )

$$J_0^{}(X)J_0(X)=0Sym^{}UU[t^1][[q]]$$

There are more symmetries, but first I want to give a:

Stringy Corollary: Every (generalized) Gromov-Witten invariant of the form:

$$\psi ^{a_0}(\gamma _0),\psi ^{a_1}(\gamma _1),\mathrm{},\psi ^{a_n}(\gamma _n),\psi ^{a_{n+1}}(1)_\beta $$

can be explicitly expressed in terms of “simpler” invariants.

Consider the $`q^\beta `$ coefficient of:

$$_{X^{n+1}}J_0^{}(X)J_0(X)\gamma _0\mathrm{}\gamma _n$$

(where we index the distinguished factor of $`Sym^{}UU`$ with the zero subscript).

This consists of special terms:

$$\frac{\gamma _0}{t_0(t_0\psi )},\mathrm{},\frac{\gamma _n}{t_n(t_n\psi )},\frac{1}{t(t\psi )}_\beta +f_{t,t_0}(\gamma _0),\frac{\gamma _1}{t_1(t_1\psi )}\mathrm{},\frac{\gamma _n}{t_n(t_n\psi )}_\beta $$

$$+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\gamma _0}{t_0(t_0\psi )},\mathrm{},f_{t,t_i}(\gamma _i),\frac{\gamma _n}{t_n(t_n\psi )},\frac{1}{t(t\psi )}_\beta $$

where $`f_{t,t_i}`$ is the divided difference of $`(t_i(t_i\psi ))^1`$ defined earlier.

In addition, there are the non-special terms, of the form:

$$\sigma _{\{0\}S}\frac{\gamma _0}{t_0(t_0\psi )},\mathrm{},\frac{e_i}{t(t\psi )}_\alpha g^{ij}\frac{e_j}{t(t\psi )},,\mathrm{},\frac{\gamma _n}{t_n(t_n\psi )}_{\beta \alpha }$$

But Theorem 2 says that the sum of all the terms is zero. So since the first special term generates all the Gromov-Witten invariants of the corollary, and all the other terms are simpler, the corollary is proved.

Examples: As before, we get the string equation from the coefficient of $`t^2`$. From the coefficient of $`t^3`$, we obtain the Dilaton Equation:

$$\psi ^{a_0}(\gamma _0),\mathrm{},\psi ^{a_n}(\gamma _n),\psi (1)_\beta =(n1)\psi ^{a_0}(\gamma _0),\mathrm{},\psi ^{a_n}(\gamma _n)_\beta $$

Fix divisor classes $`H_1,\mathrm{},H_nV`$ and a polynomial $`p(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$. For each $`\beta C_{eff}`$, let $`b_i=H_i\beta `$, and define:

$$p(H\beta t)=p(H_1b_1t,\mathrm{},H_nb_nt)$$

Then we have the following:

Theorem 3: (Bertram-Kley ) For any polynomial $`p`$ as above:

$$J_0^{}(X)_pJ_0(X)Sym^{}(U)U[[q]]t^1𝐐[t]$$

where “$`_p`$” is the contraction defined using the pairing:

$$\gamma _1t^kq^\alpha \gamma _2t^lq^\beta \left(_X\gamma _1\gamma _2p(H\beta t)\right)t^k(t)^l𝐐[t,t^1]q^{\alpha +\beta }$$

Remark: Theorem 3 $``$ Theorem 2 ($``$ Theorem 1) taking $`p=1`$.

Example: The Divisor Equation is obtained from $`p(x)=x`$. The special terms of:

$$_{X^{n+1}}J_0^{}(X)_xJ_0(X)\gamma _0\mathrm{}\gamma _n$$

are:

$$\frac{\gamma _0}{t_0(t_0\psi )},\mathrm{},\frac{H}{t(t\psi )}_\beta +f_{t,t_0}(\gamma _0(Hbt)),\frac{\gamma _1}{t_1(t_1\psi )}\mathrm{},\frac{\gamma _n}{t_n(t_n\psi )}_\beta $$

$$+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\gamma _0}{t_0(t_0\psi )},\mathrm{},f_{t,t_i}(\gamma _iH),\frac{\gamma _n}{t_n(t_n\psi )},\frac{1}{t(t\psi )}_\beta $$

and non-special terms do not contribute to the coefficient of $`t^2`$, which gives:

$$\psi ^{a_0}(\gamma _0),\mathrm{},\psi ^{a_n}(\gamma _n),H_\beta =b\psi ^{a_0}(\gamma _0),\mathrm{},\psi ^{a_n}(\gamma _n)_\beta $$

$$+\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\psi ^{a_0}(\gamma _0),\mathrm{},\psi ^{a_i1}(\gamma _iH),\mathrm{},\psi ^{a_n}(\gamma _n)_\beta $$

Reconstruction Corollary: If $`V`$ is generated by divisor classes, then $`J_0(X)`$ can be explicitly reconstructed from the $`J_{0,1}^\beta (X)`$ classes.

Proof: When we pair $`J_0^{}(X)_pJ_0(X)`$ with $`\gamma _0\mathrm{}\gamma _n`$, then the first special term is of the form:

$$\frac{\gamma _0}{t_0(t_0\psi )},\mathrm{},\frac{\gamma _n}{t_n(t_n\psi )},\frac{p(H)}{t(t\psi )}_\beta $$

and all the other terms are “simpler.” Since this only involves powers $`t^2,t^3,\mathrm{}`$, it is inductively determined by the $`J_{0,1}^\beta (X)`$ using Theorem 3 and the fact that $`V`$ is generated by divisor classes.

Remark: As with Kontsevich-Manin reconstruction, this holds in greater generality. Let $`WV`$ be the subalgebra generated by divisor classes. If the coefficients of $`J_{0,1}^\beta (X)`$ all belong to $`W`$, then all generalized invariants involving only classes coming from $`W`$ (i.e. the projection of $`J_0(X)`$ to $`Sym^{}(W[t^1])[[q]]`$) can be explicitly reconstructed from the $`J_{0,1}^\beta (X)`$.

If we only consider the $`t_i^2`$ terms, then by Theorem 3, the coefficients of $`t^2,t^3,\mathrm{}`$ vanish in each of the following expressions:

$$\gamma _0,\mathrm{},\gamma _n,\frac{p(H)}{t(t\psi )}_\beta +\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\gamma _0,..,\frac{\gamma _ip(H)}{t^2(t\psi )},..,\gamma _n_\beta +\frac{\gamma _0p(Hbt)}{t^2(t\psi )},\mathrm{},\gamma _n_\beta $$

$$+\underset{\alpha }{}\underset{m}{}\underset{|S|=m}{}\sigma _{\{0\}S}\gamma _0,\mathrm{},\gamma _m,\frac{e_i}{t(t\psi )}_{\beta \alpha }g^{ij}\frac{e_jp(Hat)}{t(t\psi )},\gamma _{m+1},\mathrm{},\gamma _n_\alpha $$

and this leads to very efficient algorithms for reconstructing ordinary invariants, provided $`J_{0,1}^\beta (X)`$ are known and the conditions of the remark above are satisfied. Note that in order to reconstruct ordinary invariants, we can stay within the realm of invariants with at most one “gravitational descendant” $`\psi ^a`$.

Example: Another look at rational plane curves. Let $`X=𝐏^2`$ and:

$$n_d^{(a)}:=H^2,\mathrm{},H^2,\psi ^a(H^2)_d\text{ (the total number of terms is }3d1a\text{)}$$

Then it follows from our relations that:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}n_d\hfill & =& d^2n_d^{(1)}_{e=1}^{d1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{3d3}{3e1}\right)(de)e^3n_{de}n_e\hfill \\ n_d^{(1)}\hfill & =& d^2n_d^{(2)}_{e=1}^{d1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{3d4}{3e1}\right)(de)e^3n_{de}^{(1)}n_e_{e=1}^{d1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{3d4}{3e2}\right)e^2n_{de}n_e\hfill \\ n_d^{(2)}\hfill & =& d^2n_d^{(3)}_{e=1}^{d1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{3d5}{3e1}\right)(de)e^3n_{de}^{(2)}n_e_{e=1}^{d1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{3d5}{3e2}\right)e^2n_{de}^{(1)}n_e\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & & \\ n_d^{(3d3)}\hfill & =& d^2n_d^{(3d2)}=\frac{1}{d(d1!)^3}\text{(from Givental)}\hfill \end{array}$$

In case $`d3`$, this gives: $`n_1=n_1^{(1)}=1;n_2=n_2^{(1)}=n_2^{(2)}=1,n_2^{(3)}=\frac{1}{2},n_2^{(4)}=\frac{1}{8};`$

$$n_3=12,n_3^{(1)}=10,n_3^{(2)}=7,n_3^{(3)}=3,n_3^{(4)}=1,n_3^{(5)}=\frac{1}{4},n_3^{(6)}=\frac{1}{24},n_3^{(7)}=\frac{1}{216}$$

It is amusing to note that $`d=1`$ “proves” there is one line through $`2`$ points. But seriously, the “mirror data” $`J_{0,1}^\beta (X)`$ does appear in general to be more basic and a better starting point for inductions than the two-point invariants $`c_{0,2}^\beta (X)`$. On the other hand, if one is only interested in ordinary invariants, it is probably more efficient to compute the $`c_{0,2}^\beta (X)`$ first and then to apply Kontsevich-Manin reconstruction. This is easy to implement as an algorithm when $`X`$ is a Fano hypersurface in $`𝐏^n`$ (see the appendix in ).

5. Localization. The proof of Theorem 3 relies on the localization theorem of Atiyah-Bott, as adapted by Graber and Pandharipande  to apply to virtual classes on the moduli stacks of stable maps. The idea of using localization to compute Gromov-Witten invariants was introduced by Kontsevich , but the key insight, described below, belongs to Givental .

Recall that in order to prove WDVV, one considered the map:

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{M}_{0,n}(X,\beta )\\ \\ \overline{M}_{0,n}\end{array}$$

and relations in $`H^{}(\overline{M}_{0,n},𝐐)`$ gave relations among Gromov-Witten invariants.

Here, the key insight is to consider the embedding:

$$i:\overline{M}_{0,n}(X,\beta )\overline{M}_{0,0}(X\times (𝐏^1)^n,(\beta ,1^n))$$

replacing each marked point with a curve mapping isomorphically to $`𝐏^1`$, with the node mapping to $`0`$ (see ). In this way, $`\overline{M}_{0,n}(X,\beta )`$ is one of the (many!) connected components of the locus of fixed points for the natural action of the torus $`T=(𝐂^{})^n`$ on the “graph space” $`\overline{M}_{0,0}(X\times (𝐏^1)^n,(\beta ,1^n))`$.

The localization theorem says that an equivariant cohomology (or Chern) class $`c`$ on the graph space can be recovered from the total fixed-point locus $`i:F\overline{M}_{0,0}(X\times (𝐏^1)^n,(\beta ,1^n))`$ via the localization formula:

$$ci_{}\frac{i^{}c}{e_T(F)}\text{mod torsion}$$

($`e_T(F)`$ is the equivariant Euler class) and one can compute fairly easily that:

$$e_T(\overline{M}_{0,n}(X,\beta ))=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}t_i(t_i\psi _i)$$

where $`H^{}(BT,𝐐)=𝐐[t_1,\mathrm{},t_n]`$.

One could conceivably use this idea to compute Gromov-Witten invariants, since all the components of $`F`$ are fiber products of lower-degree stable map spaces, and the Euler classes are always expressible in terms of the $`t_i`$ and $`\psi _i`$. But the combinatorial problem of enumerating the components of $`F`$ is a nightmare (see ). Instead, Kley and I use forgetful maps among these graph spaces:

$$f:\overline{M}_{0,0}(X\times (𝐏^1)^{n+1},(\beta ,1^{n+1}))\overline{M}_{0,0}(X\times (𝐏^1)^n,(\beta ,1^n))$$

and

$$g:\overline{M}_{0,0}(X\times (𝐏^1)^{n+1},(\beta ,1^{n+1}))\overline{M}_{0,0}(𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1,(1,1))𝐏^3$$

to cobble together a birational $`T`$-equivariant map:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:M_{0,0}(X\times (𝐏^1)^{n+1},(\beta ,1^{n+1}))\overline{M}_{0,0}(X\times (𝐏^1)^n,(\beta ,1^n))\times 𝐏^3$$

The advantage of this map is that the connected components of the total fixed locus $`i^{}:F^{}M_{0,0}(X\times (𝐏^1)^{n+1},(\beta ,1^{n+1}))`$ lying in the preimage of $`j:M_{0,n}(X,\beta )M_{0,0}(X\times (𝐏^1)^n,(\beta ,1^n))\times 𝐏^3`$ are not hard to enumerate. And from the more refined localization formula:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(\frac{i^{}c}{e_T(F^{})})=\frac{j^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}c}{e_T(\overline{M}_{0,n}(X,\beta )}=\frac{j^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}c}{t_1t_{n+1}(t_1+t_{n+1})t_i(t_i\psi _i)}$$

we were able to deduce Theorem 3, by further pushing forward to $`X^n`$ via $`ev`$ and choosing suitable equivariant Chern classes $`c`$ on the graph space.

This approach does have its limitations, however. It does not suggest a “reason” for the particularly nice organization of the relations in Theorem 3. In particular, the same approach yields many relations among $`J`$-functions for higher genus curves, which ought to be organized and analyzed in the context of the many conjectures about generating functions made up of higher-genus Gromov-Witten invariants. Perhaps the physicists can come to our rescue again.

email: bertram@math.utah.edu


text:
# Solar 8B and hep Neutrino Measurements from 1258 Days of Super-Kamiokande Data

## Abstract

Solar neutrino measurements from 1258 days of data from the Super-Kamiokande detector are presented111This preprint is almost identical to the report submitted to Physical Review Letter. We have added to this preprint a few tables of numerical values that were omitted from the PRL draft.. The measurements are based on recoil electrons in the energy range 5.0–20.0 MeV. The measured solar neutrino flux is $`2.32\pm 0.03`$ (stat.) $`{}_{0.07}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.08}`$ (sys.) $`\times 10^6`$ cm-2 s-1, which is 45.1 $`\pm `$ 0.5 (stat.) $`{}_{1.4}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.6}`$ (sys.)% of that predicted by the BP2000 SSM. The day vs night flux asymmetry $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_n\mathrm{\Phi }_d)/\mathrm{\Phi }_{average}`$ is $`0.033\pm 0.022`$ (stat.) $`{}_{0.012}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.013}`$ (sys.). The recoil electron energy spectrum is consistent with no spectral distortion ($`\chi ^2/d.o.f.=19.0/18`$). The seasonal variation of the flux is consistent with that expected from the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit ($`\chi ^2/d.o.f.=3.7/7`$). For the hep neutrino flux, we set a 90% C.L. upper limit of $`40\times 10^3`$ cm-2 s-1, which is 4.3 times the BP2000 SSM prediction.

Solar neutrinos have been detected using chlorine-, gallium-, and water-based detectors homestake-results ; kamIII-results ; sage-results ; gallex-results ; sk-flux-300 ; all have measured significantly lower solar neutrino flux than predicted by Standard Solar Models (SSMs) bp2000 ; bp98 ; other\_ssm . This disagreement between the measured and expected solar neutrino flux, known as the “solar neutrino problem”, is generally believed to be due to neutrino flavor oscillations. Signatures of neutrino oscillations in Super-Kamiokande (SK) might include distortion of the recoil electron energy ($`E_{\mathrm{recoil}}`$) spectrum, difference between the night-time solar neutrino flux relative to the day-time flux, or a seasonal variation in the neutrino flux. Observation of these effects would be strong evidence in support of solar neutrino oscillations independent of absolute flux calculations. Conversely, non-observation would constrain oscillation solutions to the solar neutrino problem. We describe here solar neutrino measurements from 1258 days of SK data.

SK, located at Kamioka Observatory, Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo, is a 22.5 kton fiducial volume water Cherenkov detector that detects solar neutrinos via the elastic scattering of neutrinos off atomic electrons. The scattered recoil electron is detected via Cherenkov light production, allowing both the direction and total energy to be measured. These quantities are related to the original neutrino direction and energy. Detailed descriptions of SK can be found elsewhere sk-flux-300 ; linac ; sk-espectrum-500 ; sk-dn-500 .

The 1258-day solar neutrino data were collected in four periods with different trigger thresholds between May 31, 1996 and October 6, 2000 (table 1). The analysis threshold has been at 5.0 MeV except for the first 280 days where the data were analyzed with a threshold of 6.5 MeV. The analysis threshold is determined by the level of irreducible background events and the event trigger threshold. An event is triggered when the sum of PMTs registering a hit in a 200 nsec time window ($`N_{hit}`$) is above a threshold (table 1). This threshold should be sufficiently low that the trigger efficiency at the analysis threshold is nearly 100%. The lowering of the trigger threshold in periods 2–4 was made possible by the addition of a software filter to the data acquisition system that removes a large portion of background events. This removal is accomplished by reconstructing the event vertex and rejecting events with vertices within 2 m of the inner detector wall, most of which are due to external radioactivity. Each lowering of the trigger threshold in the course of the experiment was made possible by increasing the number of computers that run the filter program.

There are $`2.0\times 10^9`$ events in the raw data sample before background reduction. After removing cosmic ray muon events, the sample in the 22.5 kton fiducial volume with energy between 5.0–20.0 MeV contains $`3.0\times 10^7`$ events. The dominant background sources in the low-energy region ($`E6.5`$ MeV) are 222Rn in the water and external radioactivity; in the high-energy region ($`E6.5`$ MeV), radioactive decay of muon-induced spallation products accounts for most of the background. Background reduction takes place in the following steps: first reduction, spallation cut, second reduction, and external gamma-ray cut. The first reduction includes cuts that remove events due to electronic noise and arcing PMTs. In addition, a cut on the goodness of the reconstructed vertex is used to remove obvious background events originating from various non-physical sources. The number of remaining events after the first reduction is $`1.5\times 10^7`$. The spallation cut has been improved compared to that used in earlier publications sk-flux-300 ; sk-espectrum-500 ; sk-dn-500 . We have improved the likelihood functions used in removing spallation events and introduce a new cut for 16N events that originate from absorption of cosmic ray stopped $`\mu ^{}`$ on 16O. The number of events in the high-energy region (6.5–20 MeV) before and after spallation cut is $`1.6\times 10^6`$ and $`3.3\times 10^5`$, respectively. The spallation cut is 79% efficient for solar neutrino events. The second reduction removes events with poor vertex fit quality or with blurred Cherenkov ring patterns, characteristics of low-energy background events and external gamma rays. This newly introduced reduction step has improved the signal-to-noise ratio in the low-energy region by almost an order of magnitude. The number of events before and after the second reduction in the 5.0–6.5 MeV region are $`1.0\times 10^7`$ and $`1.4\times 10^6`$ events, respectively. In addition, the gamma-ray cut, which removes external events, has been tightened for those events with $`E<6.5`$ MeV. The combined efficiency of the first reduction, second reduction, and the external gamma ray cut for solar neutrino events is $`73\%`$ for $`E6.5`$ MeV, and $`52`$% for $`E<6.5`$ MeV. After these reduction steps, 236,140 events remain in the fiducial volume above 5 MeV, with $`S/N1`$ in the solar direction.

The SK detector simulation is based on GEANT 3.21 geant . The energy scale was measured using a larger sample of data from an in situ electron linear accelerator linac  (LINAC) compared to that used in earlier results. The detector simulation’s reliability was tested using the well-known $`\beta `$ decay of 16N, which is produced in situ by an $`(n,p)`$ reaction on 16O. Fast neutrons for this reaction are produced using a portable deuterium-tritium neutron generator (DTG) dt-paper . The energy scale measured by the DTG agrees with that from the LINAC within $`\pm 0.3`$%. The total systematic uncertainty in the absolute energy scale, including possible long term variation and direction dependence, is $`\pm 0.6`$%.

We compare our solar neutrino measurements against reference fluxes and neutrino spectra in order to search for signatures of neutrino oscillations. For $`E_{\mathrm{recoil}}5.0`$ MeV, solar neutrinos are expected to come almost exclusively from the $`\beta `$ decay of 8B, with a slight admixture of neutrinos from 3He-proton (hep) fusion. For the absolute flux of 8B and hep neutrinos, we take the BP2000 bp2000  SSM as our reference. The $`\beta `$ decay spectrum of the 8B neutrinos is dominated by the transition to a broad excited state of 8Be, which decays immediately to two $`\alpha `$ particles. Bahcall et al. b8-jnb  use a neutrino spectrum deduced from a comparison of world data on 8Be $`\alpha `$ decay b8-fc ; b8-wa ; b8-dbw  with the direct measurement of the positron spectrum from 8B decay measured by Napolitano, Freedman, and Camp b8-freedman . Energy-dependent systematic errors are deduced from a combination of experimental uncertainties and the theoretical uncertainties in radiative and other corrections that must be made to convert the charged particle data into a neutrino spectrum b8-jnb . Recently, Ortiz et al. b8-ortiz  have made an improved measurement of the 8B spectrum based on 8Be $`\alpha `$ decay in which some of the major sources of systematic errors present in previous measurements were reduced or eliminated. We have adopted the neutrino spectral shape and experimental uncertainties from this measurement. These experimental uncertainties were then added in quadrature with the theoretical uncertainties given by Bahcall et al. b8-jnb .

The solar neutrino signal is extracted from the data using the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ distribution (Fig. 1).

The angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ is that between the recoil electron momentum and the vector from the sun to the Earth. The solar neutrino flux is obtained by a likelihood fit of the signal and background shapes to the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ distribution in data. The signal shape is obtained from the known angular distribution and detector simulation, while the background shape is nearly flat in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$. In the 8B flux measurement, the data are subdivided into 19 energy bins in the range 5.0–20.0 MeV (binning as in Fig. 3). The likelihood function is defined as follows:

$$=\underset{j=1}{\overset{19}{}}\frac{e^{\left(Y_jS+B_j\right)}}{N_j!}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_j}{}}\left[B_jF_b(\mathrm{cos}\theta _i,E_i)+Y_jSF_s(\mathrm{cos}\theta _i,E_i)\right]$$
(1)
S is the total number of signal events, while $`N_j`$, $`B_j`$, and $`Y_j`$ represent the number of observed events, the number of background events, and the expected fraction of signal events in the $`j`$-th bin, respectively. $`F_b`$ and $`F_s`$ are the probability for the background and signal events as a function of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ and energy ($`E_i`$) of each event. The likelihood function is maximized with respect to $`S`$ and $`B_j`$. For the energy spectrum measurement, each term in the product over bins is maximized separately.

The best-fit value of $`S`$ is $`18,464\pm 204(\mathrm{stat}.)_{554}^{+646}(\mathrm{sys}.)`$, which is 45.1 $`\pm `$ 0.5 (stat.) $`{}_{1.4}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.6}`$ (sys.)% of the reference prediction. The corresponding 8B flux is:

$$2.32\pm 0.03(\mathrm{stat}.)_{0.07}^{+0.08}(\mathrm{sys}.)\times 10^6\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1.$$

The total systematic error is $`{}_{3.0\%}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+3.5\%}`$, with the largest sources coming from the reduction cut efficiency ($`{}_{1.7\%}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+2.2\%}`$), energy scale and resolution ($`\pm 1.4\%`$), systematic shifts in the event vertex ($`\pm 1.3\%`$), and the angular resolution of the recoil electron momentum ($`\pm 1.2\%`$).

Fig. 2 shows the solar neutrino flux as a function of the solar zenith angle $`\theta _z`$ (the angle between the vertical axis at SK and the vector from the sun to the Earth). Numerical values are shown in Table 2.

The day-time solar neutrino flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_d`$ is defined as the flux of events when $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _z0`$, while the night-time flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ is that when $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _z>0`$. The measured fluxes are:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_d`$ $`=`$ $`2.28\pm 0.04(\mathrm{stat}.)_{0.07}^{+0.08}(\mathrm{sys}.)\times 10^6\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ $`=`$ $`2.36\pm 0.04(\mathrm{stat}.)_{0.07}^{+0.08}(\mathrm{sys}.)\times 10^6\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$
Some neutrino oscillation parameters predict a non-zero difference between $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_d`$ due to the matter effect in the Earth’s mantle and core matter-effect . The degree of this difference is measured by the day-night asymmetry, defined as $`𝒜=(\mathrm{\Phi }_n\mathrm{\Phi }_d)/\mathrm{\Phi }_{average}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{average}=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Phi }_n+\mathrm{\Phi }_d)`$. We find:

$$𝒜=0.033\pm 0.022(\mathrm{stat}.)_{0.012}^{+0.013}(\mathrm{sys}.)$$

Including systematic errors, this is $`1.3\sigma `$ from zero asymmetry. Many sources of systematic errors cancel out in the day-night asymmetry measurement. The largest sources of error in the asymmetry are the energy scale and resolution ($`{}_{0.011}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+0.012}`$) and the non-flat background shape of the $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ distribution ($`\pm 0.004`$).

Fig. 3 shows the measured recoil electron energy spectrum relative to the Ortiz et al. spectrum normalized to BP2000. (See Table 3 for numerical values.)

A fit to an undistorted energy spectrum gives $`\chi ^2/d.o.f.=19.0/18`$. Energy-correlated systematic errors are considered in the definition of $`\chi ^2`$ sk-espectrum-500 . The energy-correlated systematic error (shown in Fig. 3 as a band around the total flux) is due to uncertainties that could cause a systematic shift in the energy spectrum. The sources of this error are uncertainties in the energy scale, resolution, and the reference 8B spectrum against which the data are compared.

The seasonal dependence of the solar neutrino flux is shown in Fig. 4. (See Table 4 for numerical values.)

The points represent the measured flux, and the curve shows the expected variation due to the orbital eccentricity of the Earth (assuming no neutrino oscillations, and normalized to the measured total flux). The data are consistent with the expected annual variation ($`\chi ^2/d.o.f.=3.7/7`$). Systematic errors are included in the calculation of $`\chi ^2`$. The total systematic error on the relative flux values in each seasonal bin is $`\pm 1.3\%`$, the largest sources coming from energy scale and resolution ($`{}_{1.1\%}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.2\%}`$) and reduction cut efficiency ($`\pm 0.6\%`$).

The hep neutrino flux given by BP2000 is $`9.3\times 10^3`$ cm-2 s-1 bp2000 , which is three orders of magnitude smaller than the 8B neutrino flux. Although the theoretically calculated hep flux is highly uncertain because of many delicate cancellations in calculating the astrophysical $`S`$ factor, a recent calculation by Marcucci, et al. hep-marcucci  shows that the flux is unlikely to be drastically larger than the value given in BP2000. The effect of hep neutrinos on solar neutrino measurements at SK is expected to be small. However, since the end-point of the hep neutrino spectrum is 18.77 MeV compared to about 16 MeV for the 8B spectrum, the high energy end of the $`E_{\mathrm{recoil}}`$ spectrum should be relatively enriched with hep neutrinos. An unexpectedly large hep flux may distort the $`E_{\mathrm{recoil}}`$ spectrum. In our measurement of the hep flux, we extract the number of events in the window $`E_{\mathrm{recoil}}`$ = 18–21 MeV from a $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{sun}}`$ distribution like the one shown in Fig. 1. This window was chosen because it optimizes the significance of the hep flux measurement in MC assuming BP2000 8B and hep fluxes. We find $`1.3\pm 2.0`$ events in the chosen window. Assuming that all of these events are due to hep neutrinos, the 90% confidence level upper limit of the hep neutrino flux is $`40\times 10^3`$ cm-2 s-1 (4.3 times the BP2000 prediction). Fig. 5 shows the expected energy spectra with various hep contributions.

In summary, SK has lowered the analysis energy threshold to 5.0 MeV, collected more than twice the data previously reported, and reduced systematic errors through refinements in data analysis and extensive detector calibrations. With those improvements, and with the 18,464 observed solar neutrino events, SK provides very precise measurements of the recoil electron energy spectrum, day-night flux asymmetry, and the absolute solar neutrino flux. The measured flux is 45.1 $`\pm `$ 0.5 (stat.) $`{}_{1.4}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+1.6}`$ (sys.)% of the BP2000 prediction. We found no statistically significant energy spectrum distortion ($`\chi ^2/d.o.f.=19.0/18`$ relative to the predicted 8B spectrum), and the day-night flux difference of 3.3% of the average flux is 1.3 $`\sigma `$ from zero. However, the precision of these measurements should provide strong and important constraints on the neutrino oscillation parameters. The seasonal dependence of the flux shows the expected 7% annal variation due to the eccentricity of the Earth’s orbit. This is the first neutrino-based observation of the Earth’s orbital eccentricity. A stringent limit on the hep neutrino flux ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_{hep}<40\times 10^3`$ cm-2 s-1) was obtained, which corresponds to 4.3 times the predicted value from BP2000.

The authors acknowledge the cooperation of the Kamioka Mining and Smelting Company. The Super-Kamiokande detector has been built and operated from funding by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. National Science Foundation. This work was partially supported by the Korean Research Foundation (BK21) and the Korea Ministry of Science and Technology.


text:
# Energy Loss of Hard Partons in Nuclear Matter

## 1 Introduction

At this conference, the PHENIX and STAR Collaborations have presented hadronic transverse momentum spectra in central Au+Au collisions at $`\sqrt{s_{\mathrm{NN}}}=130`$ GeV. In comparison to rescaled $`p+\overline{p}`$ UA1 reference data, these spectra show a depletion at high transverse momentum ($`2`$ GeV $`<p_{}<6`$ GeV). This may be the first experimental indication for jet quenching , predicted by Gyulassy and Wang  a decade ago.

In general, hadronic transverse momentum spectra contain both a soft and a hard physics component. The hard component, which dominates at sufficiently high $`p_{}`$, can be calculated by convoluting the incoming parton distributions with partonic cross sections. Parton fragmentation functions parametrize how the partons produced in hard processes translate into final state hadrons. Thus, the origin of any medium-dependence of high-$`p_{}`$ transverse momentum spectra has to be traced back to either i) nuclear modifications of the initial state (e.g. nuclear shadowing) or ii) medium-induced changes of the final state parton fragmentation. While information about nuclear shadowing can be obtained from other observables (e.g. DIS in e-A), the study of the medium-dependence of parton fragmentation functions $`D_q^h(z)`$ is still in its infancy. Here, we review recent calculations  of the radiative energy loss off hard partons which aim at describing the medium-induced shift in the energy of the fragmenting parton. For a complementary approach, see Ref. .

## 2 Medium-induced Gluon radiation

Fig. 1(a) shows a typical building block of the DGLAP evolution equation. This gluon radiation shifts the energy of the quark by a factor $`1x`$. To describe medium-induced changes of such partonic fragmentation patterns, we consider multiple scattering contributions, see Fig. 1(b). For the Gyulassy-Wang model which mimicks the nuclear medium by a set of static coloured scattering potentials, these scattering contributions were calculated recently by several groups . All published results are limiting cases of the following expression for the medium-induced gluon radiation cross section off a hard quark :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma }{d(\mathrm{ln}x)d𝐤_{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega ^2}}N_CC_F\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y_l{\displaystyle _{y_l}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\overline{y}_le^{ϵ|y_l|ϵ|\overline{y}_l|}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }d𝐮e^{i𝐤_{}𝐮}e^{\frac{1}{2}_{\overline{y}_l}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\xi n(\xi )\sigma (𝐮)}{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐲}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝐮}}𝒦(𝐲=0,y_l;𝐮,\overline{y}_l|\omega ).`$ (1)
Here, $`x`$ denotes the energy fraction of the hard quark, carried away by the gluon, and $`𝐤_{}`$ its transverse momentum. Information about the nuclear medium enters via the combination $`n(\xi )\sigma (𝐫)`$, where $`n(\xi )`$ determines the density of scattering centers in the medium, and the dipole cross section $`\sigma (𝐫)𝑑𝐪_{}|a_0(𝐪_{})|^2\left(1e^{i𝐪_{}𝐫}\right)`$ contains configuration space information on the strength of a single elastic differential scattering cross section $`|a_0(𝐪_{})|^2`$. $`𝒦`$ denotes the two-dimensional path-integral

$$𝒦(𝐫(y_l),y_l;𝐫(\overline{y}_l),\overline{y}_l|\omega )=𝒟𝐫\mathrm{exp}\left[_{y_l}^{\overline{y}_l}𝑑\xi \left(i\frac{\omega }{2}\dot{𝐫}^2\frac{1}{2}n(\xi )\sigma \left(𝐫\right)\right)\right],$$
(2)
## 3 Opacity Expansion

In relativistic heavy ion collisions, hard partons typically propagate over distances $`L=110\times \lambda _{\mathrm{mfp}}`$ inside the excited nuclear medium. To access this region, we expand the radiation spectrum (1) in powers of opacity $`\left(\alpha _s_0^L𝑑\xi n(\xi )\right)^N`$ which is related to an expansion in the number of scattering centers. For arbitrary $`N`$, it can be shown that the radiation spectrum (1) interpolates between the classically expected $`N`$-fold scattering results in both the coherent ($`L0`$) and incoherent ($`L\mathrm{}`$) limiting cases . For example, up to first order

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3\sigma (N=0,1)}{d(\mathrm{ln}x)d𝐤_{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi ^2}}N_CC_F\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝐤_{}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\omega ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_{}𝐪_{}}{QQ_1}}n_0{\displaystyle \frac{LQ_1\mathrm{sin}(LQ_1)}{Q_1}}\right)`$
$`_{lim_L\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{\pi ^2}}N_CC_F\left[(1w_1)H(𝐤_{})+n_0L{\displaystyle _{𝐪_1}}\left[H(𝐤_{}+𝐪_{})+R(𝐤_{},𝐪_{})\right]\right].`$ (3)
Here, $`Q=\frac{𝐤_{}^2}{2\omega }`$, $`Q_1=\frac{(𝐤_{}+𝐪_{})^2}{2\omega }`$ are transverse energies, the “hard” term $`\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi ^2}N_CC_FH(𝐤_{})`$, $`H(𝐤_{})=\frac{1}{𝐤_{}^2}`$, is the medium-independent contribution of Fig. 1(a) and $`_{𝐪_1}`$ is a shorthand for integrating over the elastic scattering cross section. Eq. (3) is the incoherent “classical” parton cascade limit of (1): the medium-independent hard term $`H(𝐤_{})`$ is reduced by the probability $`w_1`$ of an additional scattering. With the probability for this scattering, the hard term is shifted in transverse momentum to $`H(𝐤_{}+𝐪_{})`$, and the medium-induced gluon radiation off the hard quark leads to a Gunion-Bertsch radiation term $`R(𝐤_{},𝐪_{})=\frac{𝐪_{}^2}{𝐤_{}^2(𝐤_{}+𝐪_{})^2}`$. The $`𝐤_{}`$-integral of the medium-dependent part of (3) is the GLV-radiation cross section . This lowest order opacity approximation was compared to RHIC data at this conference .

## 4 Dipole Approximation

For large in-medium path length $`L\lambda _{\mathrm{mfp}}`$, the integrand of the radiation cross section (1) is dominated by small transverse distances $`𝐮`$ for which $`\sigma (𝐮)C𝐮^2`$ up to logarithmic accuracy. In this quadratic approximation, the path-integral $`𝒦`$ is that of a harmonic oscillator, and (1) can be reduced to a two-dimensional integral which has to be evaluated numerically . The medium dependence enters then via the rescattering parameter $`n_0C`$ which parametrizes the average squared transverse momentum picked up by a hard parton per unit pathlength, $`n_0C=\frac{𝐪_{}^2}{L}`$. This is a measure of the transverse colour field strength seen by a hard parton . In cold nuclear matter, 0.1 fm-3 $`<n_0C<`$ 0.5 fm-3 while in heavy ion collisions, one expects $`n_0C>`$ 1.0 fm-3 . In what follows, we consider the medium-induced deviation of the radiation spectrum, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{med}}(n_0C)=\sigma (n_0C)\sigma (n_0C=0)`$. The radiative energy loss $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ is

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{E}(n_0C,L,E,\chi )=_0^1𝑑xx_{|𝐤_{}|\chi \omega }𝑑𝐤_{}\frac{d^3\sigma _{\mathrm{med}}}{d(\mathrm{ln}x)d𝐤_{}}.$$
(4)
For $`\chi =1`$, the $`𝐤_{}`$-integral goes up to the kinematical boundary $`𝐤_{}=\omega `$ and (4) gives the total radiative energy loss. For typical spatial extensions in heavy ion collisions, $`L<10`$ fm, we find that the radiative energy loss is very sensitive to the rescattering properties $`n_0C`$ of the medium, see Fig. 2. Its $`L`$-dependence satisfies approximately the $`L^2`$-law discovered by BDMPS. However, the destructive interference between hard and medium-induced radiation, leads to a delayed onset of any radiative energy loss: $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ in Fig. 2 turns negative for $`L<2`$ fm. This increases the fraction of hard partons whose in-medium path length is too small to result in a significant medium-dependence (“corona effect”).

The $`\chi `$-dependence of (4) translates into an opening angle and allows to calculate radiative energy loss inside a finite jet cone. While the total energy radiated outside a finite angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ decreases monotonously with increasing opening angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, this is not the case for the medium-induced deviation obtained from (4) and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{med}}(n_0C)=\sigma (n_0C)\sigma (n_0C=0)`$. Medium-induced multiple scattering broadens the medium-independent term $`\sigma (n_0C=0)\frac{1}{𝐤_{}^2}\frac{1}{(𝐤_{}+𝐪_{})^2}`$. This leads to a maximum of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ for finite opening angle. As a consequence, the $`𝐤_{}`$-integrated energy loss expressions $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(\mathrm{\Theta }=0)`$ presented in previous works are not necessarily upper bounds for the energy lost outside a realistic jet cone.