text:
# Prospects of measuring sin²{2Θ₁₃} and the sign of Δ𝑚² with a massive magnetized detector for atmospheric neutrinos

## 1 Introduction

The very long baselines available with atmospheric neutrinos offer the possibility to search for Earth-induced matter effects. In that endeavour, atmospheric neutrino experiments are not contested by current and planned accelerator beam experiments – whose baselines are too short for a significant effect – and offer the opportunity to test the neutrino mass hierarchy. The observation of matter effects might also be possible with upgraded conventional neutrino beams  and at neutrino factories .

Matter effects can play an important role if there are significant contributions of $`\nu _e`$ or $`\nu _{\mathrm{sterile}}`$ to atmospheric neutrino oscillations. The non-observation of large matter effects has been already exploited by Super-Kamiokande to exclude a large contribution of $`\nu _\mu \nu _{\mathrm{sterile}}`$ oscillations to atmospheric neutrinos . For a contribution of non-maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _{\mathrm{sterile}}`$ oscillations, matter effects would also manifest themselves in differences in the oscillation patterns for neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. These differences could be measured with a magnetized detector with the capability to identify the muon charge .

Matter effects could be detectable even in standard three flavour oscillation scenarios . A sub-dominant $`\nu _e`$ mixing could sizeably modify the $`\nu _\mu `$ transition probability in particular regions of phase space where the $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ transition becomes resonant in matter. Depending on the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, these effects occur either for neutrinos or for anti-neutrinos only. By comparing the neutrino and anti-neutrino distributions, the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, and therefore the neutrino mass hierarchy, could be determined if a signal were observed. The size of this effect would measure the admixture of electron neutrinos.

In this work, the sensitivity to matter effects of a massive magnetized detector for atmospheric neutrinos is discussed in the framework of a three flavour scenario with one mass scale dominance for atmospheric neutrinos (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=m_3^2m_{1,2}^2`$). The full simulation of the MONOLITH detector  is used for a realistic description of resolution and reconstruction effects. About 200 kty of MONOLITH exposure (6 y) will be sufficient to explore regions not yet ruled out by the bound on $`\nu _e\nu _x`$ oscillations derived by CHOOZ results . The potential sensitivity of a detector (or array of detectors) with masses significantly larger than MONOLITH will be described.

## 2 Three neutrino oscillations with one mass scale dominance for atmospheric neutrinos

The current phenomenology of neutrino oscillation cannot be reconciled with a three-neutrino oscillation scenario, unless one of the experimental evidences for neutrino flavour conversion is disregarded111Technically oscillations have not been observed yet.. In the “one mass scale dominance” for atmospheric neutrino scenario , the choice is made to disregard the LSND result  and describe the $`\nu _\mu `$ disappearance observed with atmospheric neutrinos as oscillations of $`\nu _\mu `$ into $`\nu _\tau `$, which are (almost) pure admixtures of two mass eigenstates (say $`\nu _2`$ and $`\nu _3`$) with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{Atm}^2`$. Solar neutrino involve oscillations between $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{Sun}^2`$ $`<<\mathrm{\Delta }m_{Atm}^2`$.

In this scheme, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{Sun}^2`$ is too small to affect oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{Sun}^2L/E<<1`$) and can be approximated to zero. In this limit and up to terms proportional to the identity, the Hamiltonian for the time evolution of neutrinos propagating in matter of constant density reads:

$$H=\frac{1}{2E}\left\{U\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& & \\ & 0& \\ & & \mathrm{\Delta }m^2\end{array}\right)U^++\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2E\sqrt{2}G_FN_e& & \\ & 0& \\ & & 0\end{array}\right)\right\},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=\mathrm{\Delta }m_{13}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$, $`\sqrt{2}G_FN_e`$ is the effective potential for the scattering of electron neutrinos off the external field due to electrons of volume density $`N_e`$ and $`U`$ is the flavour mixing matrix in vacuum222The corresponding Hamiltonian for anti-neutrinos is obtained by changing $`UU^{}`$ and the sign of the effective potential..

For a given baseline $`L`$ and constant matter density,

$$\nu (L)=S(L)\nu (0)$$
(2)
with

$$S(L)=\stackrel{~}{U}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& & \\ & e^{i\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{m}_2^2}{2E}L}& \\ & & e^{i\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{m}_3^2}{2E}L}\end{array}\right)\stackrel{~}{U}^+,$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$ describes the energy-level spacings in matter and $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ the effective mixings. The transition amplitudes for $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta `$ are given by $`S`$ matrix elements:

$$A(\alpha \beta ;L)=S(L)_{\beta \alpha },$$
(4)
from which the transition probabilities may be calculated. The exact expressions for the effective mass differences and mixings in matter of constant density after diagonalization of the Hamiltonian of equation (1) are given in .

Equation (1) implies that the (1,2) sector is inoperative in atmospheric neutrinos, the CP phase of the mixing matrix is unobservable and the oscillations are entirely described by three parameters: $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{23}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$ measures the admixture of electron neutrinos to atmospheric neutrino oscillations and is related to $`U_{e3}`$ of the mixing matrix by $`|U_{e3}|^2=\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$. This parameter is bound to be small by CHOOZ results ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}0.1`$ at 90% C.L.  for large $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ ), but the (1,3) transition can become resonant in matter and sizeably modify the oscillation probabilities of electron and muon neutrinos.

In a medium of constant density, the resonant energy and the resonance width are given by

$`E_R`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \mathrm{cos}2\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2\sqrt{2}G_FN_e}},`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{2\sqrt{2}G_FN_e}},`$ (6)
where the $`+`$ (-) sign in eq. (5) is referred to neutrinos (anti-neutrinos). Thus the resonance occurs either for neutrinos or for anti-neutrinos only, depending on the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. In the limit of small mixing angles, the resonance width shrinks like $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$ and the effect will eventually become unobservable when sharper than the experiment resolution.

On the other hand, the resonant energy is practically independent of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$ and only depends on the mass difference of neutrino states and on the medium density. Thus, the position of the resonance can be predicted accurately when $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is known. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=0.003`$ eV2, the resonant energy is around 3 GeV, 7 GeV and 10 GeV in the Earth core, mantle and external mantle respectively, well within the MONOLITH acceptance (see below). These values give only a qualitative indication of the energy region of interest for matter effects with atmospheric neutrinos. A more precise prediction of the effects requires that the exact density profile along the neutrino path be considered.

The explicit computation of transition probabilities has been addressed numerically. The Earth density profile of the Preliminary Reference Earth Model  has been approximated with eleven shells of constant density (see Fig. 1) and neutrino propagation has been computed from the (time ordered) product of evolution operators in matter of constant density:

$`\nu (L)`$ $`=`$ $`S(L)\nu (0)`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`S_n(L_n)S_{n1}(L_{n1})\mathrm{}S_1(L_1)\nu (0).`$
where $`S_i(L_i)`$ describes the neutrino propagation along the path $`L_i`$ in the $`i`$-th shell and $`n`$ is the total number of shells crossed, which both depend on the neutrino angle.

The $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ conversion probabilities as a function of $`L/E`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{Nadir}`$ are shown in figure 2 for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=+0.003`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}=0.1`$. These values of oscillation parameters sit at the border of the 90% C.L. region excluded by CHOOZ. As a positive sign for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ was chosen, the $`L/E`$ pattern typical of vacuum oscillation is practically unaffected by matter effects for anti-neutrinos, while it is clearly modified for neutrinos. For neutrinos crossing the Earth’s core (i.e. $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{Nadir}>0.85`$), sharp structures appear in the oscillation pattern. For lower values of $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{Nadir}`$, the distortion with respect to the vacuum $`L/E`$ pattern for muon neutrinos is broader and most relevant around the first maximum, with a suppression of about 50%, and the second minimum of the conversion probability. Electron neutrino oscillations into muon neutrinos are correspondingly enabled in the same region of the $`L/E`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{Nadir}`$ plane. The energy and angular regions of interest for these effects range from 4 GeV to 15 GeV and from $`40^o`$ to $`60^o`$, corresponding to a baseline of about 9000 km.

For smaller values of the mixing angle $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$, the energy and angular positions of this distortion are almost independent of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$, but the distortion becomes sharper, in agreement with the expectations for neutrino propagation through a constant density medium (like the Earth’s mantle in first approximation).

The MONOLITH detector (see below) is optimized to reconstruct muon neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, the expected distribution of which is a combination of the conversion probabilities for $`\nu _\mu \nu _\mu `$ ($`P_{\mu \mu }`$) and $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ ($`P_{e\mu }`$) weighted by the corresponding neutrino fluxes. The probability of observing muon neutrinos is thus given by $`P_{\mu \mu }+1/rP_{e\mu }`$, where $`r`$ is the $`\nu _\mu `$ to $`\nu _e`$ flux ratio. Over the region where relevant matter effects occur, $`r`$ ranges between 2 and 3 and the disappearance of muon neutrinos through matter effects is only partly compensated by $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transitions. This is shown in the lower panels of the figure for both neutrinos and anti-neutrinos: the flux suppression with respect to pure $`\nu _\mu `$$`\nu _\tau `$ oscillations is still about 30% around the first maximum of the reappearance probability. The detailed simulation is addressed in the following.

## 3 Experiment simulation

The differential distribution of the atmospheric neutrino fluxes at Gran Sasso has been generated according to the predictions of the 1-D Bartol model . Neutrino interactions have been calculated with GRV94 parton distributions  with explicit inclusion of the contribution of quasi-elastic scattering and of single pion production to the neutrino cross-sections .

Events have been processed through the full simulation and reconstruction programs of the MONOLITH detector described in . The proposed detector for MONOLITH is a massive tracking calorimeter with a coarse structure and intense magnetic field. The detector has a large modular structure (figure 3). One module consists in a stack of 120 horizontal 8 cm thick iron planes with a surface area of $`14.5\times 15\mathrm{m}^2`$, interleaved with 2 cm planes of sensitive elements. The total mass of the detector for two modules is about 34 kt. The magnetic field configuration is also shown in figure 3; iron plates are magnetized at a magnetic induction of $`1.3`$ T.

The active elements (Resistive plate chambers with glass electrodes ) provide two coordinates with a pitch of 3 cm and a time resolution of order 1 ns

After reconstruction, some minimal requests have been applied to select a pure sample of muon neutrino charged current interactions:

* a muon candidate firing at least 7 layers is required;
* the muon energy must exceed 1.5 GeV;
* the event is required to be either fully contained in a fiducial volume defined by requiring no hits in the first/last 4 layers and no hits in the first/last 10 strips in $`X`$ and $`Y`$, or to have a single outgoing track (muon) with a reconstructed range greater than 4 metres.
* the $`L/E`$ resolution of the event, determined from the angular and energy resolution and estimated from the event kinematic, is required to be better than 50% FWHM.

These selections guarantee a relatively high efficiency for an adequate resolution in the reconstruction of the neutrino energy and direction in the region of interest for matter effects. They result in an effective threshold around 3 GeV of neutrino energy and in a fairly constant efficiency between 50% and 55% from 5 GeV onwards. The neutrino angle is estimated from the muon direction with a resolution of about 15 degrees at 3 GeV and then improving with a $`E_\nu ^{0.5}`$ power law. The neutrino energy, estimated from the muon and hadron energy, shows a resolution of about 15-20% in the energy region where resonant effects are expected (4-15 GeV), smoothly broadening to 25% at very high energies, reflecting the worsening of the muon momentum resolution from track curvature. Charge assignment is correct in more than 95% of the cases, without additional requests on the track fit quality. The background due to internal and external sources is estimated to be negligible. More details on the MONOLITH performance can be found in .

Only internal events are selected and, in the energy region of interest for resonant effects, about 75% of these are fully contained in the detector. External events (up-going muons from neutrino interactions in the rock below the detector) are of little use in this study. Their average neutrino energy is much higher than the resonant energy and the resolution in the reconstruction of the neutrino energy is insufficient to resolve the typical resonance width.

## 4 Analysis and results

Although matter effects make the $`L/E`$ variable not sufficient for oscillation studies, an optimized analysis can be performed in the $`L/E`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{Nadir}`$ plane. The energy of the resonance and the oscillation phase in vacuum scale both with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and the main distortion to the vacuum oscillation pattern always occurs around the first maximum of the reappearance probability. As visible in figure 2, the $`L/E`$ pattern is only marginally modified over the first oscillation period by matter effects. This difference is even less evident when resolution and detector efficiency effects are considered (see Fig. 4). For $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=+0.003`$ eV2 and the largest values of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$ allowed by CHOOZ results, the distortion on the $`L/E`$ pattern (integrated over all neutrino baselines) is barely visible and located beyond the first minimum in the survival probability. As demonstarated in figure 5, this distortion is mainly due to neutrinos crossing the Earth’s mantle and in any case no distortions are predicted over the first half-period of oscillation. It follows that the measurement of the oscillation frequency from the position of the first minimum in the $`L/E`$ pattern is marginally affected by the presence of matter effects. The analysis of the $`L/E`$ pattern, assuming that no matter effects are present, will therefore precisely measure $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and tell where such effects have to be searched for in a two dimensional analysis (bin optimization).

The analysis of simulated data has been based on a binned maximum likelihood fit. The expected $`L/E`$ distributions for neutrino and anti-neutrino events have been fitted to the reconstructed data from simulation in five $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{Nadir}`$ bins of width 0.2. The binning in $`L/E`$ has been tuned according to the estimated value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ from a preliminary fit of the $`L/E`$ distribution.

The expected number of events in each bin is a function of the oscillation parameters ($`\mathrm{\Theta }_{13},\mathrm{\Theta }_{23},\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)`$ and of the neutrino fluxes of all the flavours. In the real experiment, down-going neutrinos will constitute a reference sample of “unoscillated” neutrinos to check the muon neutrino and anti-neutrino rates. The rate of muon neutrinos originating from electron neutrino conversions will have to be predicted by flux calculations of electron neutrinos. These predictions will be constrained both by the measurement of the correlated rate of down-going muon neutrinos in the same detector and by the direct measurement of the electron neutrino to muon neutrino flux ratio in other experiments (Super-Kamiokande). A detailed study to quantify the related amount of systematic uncertainty has not been performed and an overall uncertainty of 10% in the predicted rates of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos has been assumed for a preliminary estimate of the experiment sensitivity.

The likelihood function has been defined as:

$$\mathrm{ln}=\mathrm{ln}\underset{i,q}{}\left[\frac{e^{A_q\mu _{i,q}}(A_q\mu _{i,q})^{U_{i,q}}}{U_{i,q}!}\right]\underset{q}{}\frac{1}{2}\frac{(A_q1)^2}{\sigma _A^2}$$
(8)
where the subscripts $`i`$ and $`q`$ are referred to bins in the ($`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{Nadir}`$, $`L/E`$) plane and of muon charge respectively; $`U_{i,q}`$ and $`A_q\mu _{i,q}`$ are the observed and expected number of up-going neutrino events in the $`i,q`$-th bin and the last term in the likelihood accounts for flux, cross-section and selection efficiency uncertainties for neutrinos and anti-neutrinos separately.

Two different analyses have been performed to determine the sensitivity to the mixing parameter and to the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$.

### 4.1 Sensitivity to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$

In this analysis it has been assumed that the mixing in the (2,3) sector be maximal ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{23}=1`$). This corresponds to the best current estimate from Super-Kamiokande data. Individual experiments of high statistics have been generated for different values of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and tested with a likelihood ratio analysis against the pure $`\nu _\mu /\nu _\tau `$ oscillation scenario (i.e. $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}=0`$), assumed as null hypothesis. From this procedure, the values of the oscillation parameters that would give an experimental result incompatible with the null hypothesis have been determined. The likelihood ratio is defined by:

$$\lambda =\frac{(A_q,\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{23},\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}|\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}=0)}{(A_q,\mathrm{\Delta }m^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{23},\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13})},$$
(9)
representing the ratio of the maximum likelihood over the parameter space of the null hypothesis to the maximum likelihood over the entire parameter space. The test statistics $`2\mathrm{ln}\lambda `$ asymptotically behaves as a $`\chi ^2(1)`$ distribution, whence the iso-probability curves have been calculated. The expected and observed rates of events in the likelihood function of equation (8) have been normalized to represent experiments of finite statistics.

The expected sensitivities (exclusion regions at 90% C.L. if no effect is observed) after 200 kty of exposure (about 6 y for 34 kt) are shown in Fig. 6. Since the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is not known a͡ priori the curves for both positive (continuous line) and negative (dashed line) sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ are given. The expected exclusion region for positive sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is about two times larger than for negative sign. This follows from the difference in neutrino and anti-neutrino cross sections, fluxes and selection efficiencies, which make the event rate of atmospheric neutrinos about two times larger than the rate of anti-neutrinos.

The sensitivity achievable in a long-term run (or with a larger detector), corresponding to an exposure of 400 kty, is also shown in the figure.

For comparison, the region excluded by CHOOZ results  and allowed by Super-Kamiokande data  are displayed. Also displayed are the expected sensitivities of neutrino oscillation programs with conventional neutrino beams in the short/medium term. The region covered by MONOLITH will be partly accessible to the MINOS experiment at NuMI  and fully accessible to the JHF beam to Super-Kamiokande . The latter is expected to achieve this sensitivity around 2012 after 5 y of operation.

### 4.2 Sensitivity to the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$

Experiments at NuMI and JHF search directly for the sub-dominant $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ transition and have too short baselines to exploit matter effects. Thus, they cannot measure the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$.

With atmospheric neutrinos, if an effect is observed, the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ can also be determined. Assuming no prior knowledge on $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$, this happens at the 90% C.L. on the right-hand side of the dashed curves of figure 6, irrespectively of the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, and on the right-hand side of the continuous curves, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is positive.

However, as discussed in the previous analysis, provided that the mixing $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$ be large enough, there is a fair chance that it will be measured in the next generation of long base-lines experiments. In that case, this information can be used to constrain the maximum likelihood fit and and determine the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ from the muon/anti-muon rate asymmetry.

The likelihood function of eq. (8) can be modified as:

$$\mathrm{ln}^{}=\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{2}\frac{(\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}<\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}>)^2}{\sigma _{13}^2}$$
(10)
In this analysis, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{23}`$ has been assumed to be maximal and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$ has been assumed to be known with an accuracy of 30%, representing the observation of a 3$`\sigma `$ effect at accelerator beams. Similarly to the analysis outlined in the previous section, individual experiments have been generated for different values of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. For each (absolute) value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, the minimum value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$ for which the best fit to data with the wrong sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is incompatible with data has been determined.

Figure 7 (upper panel) shows the expected region of oscillation parameters over which the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ can be determined at the 90% C.L. after 200 kty of MONOLITH exposure (i.e. the wrong sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is excluded at the 90% C.L.). The sensitivity achievable in a long-term run, corresponding to an exposure of 400 kty, is also shown. For comparison, the region excluded by CHOOZ  and the region allowed by Super-Kamiokande at 90% C.L. are displayed. On the same figure, the regions over which the the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ can be determined after 200 kty of exposure without any prior knowledge of the (1,3) mixing are shown for comparison. The 3$`\sigma `$ discovery limit for the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is shown in the lower panel of the figure.

As expected, the additional constraint on the mixing parameter widen the sensitivity region and an exposure of 200 kty would be sufficient to evade the CHOOZ exclusion region. This is because in this case one has only to discriminate a positive from a negative asymmetry, while assuming no prior knowledge of the (1,3) mixing, an asymmetry of any sign should be discriminated from the no-asymmetry case.

## 5 Systematic uncertainties

Several sources of systematic uncertainties might affect the precision of this measurement.

The likelihood ratio method described by eq. (9) implies that no prior knowledge on the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{23}`$ is assumed. These parameters can be measured in MONOLITH with an accuracy of about 5% with 200 kty exposure and reaching 1% for very large exposures. Since this would represent a substantial improvement with respect to the present knowledge, these parameters are not constrained in the fitting procedure.

The limited knowledge of the electron density profile in the Earth is also a source of systematic uncertainty. However, the sensitivity to matter effects with atmospheric neutrinos is dominated by the resonant behaviour of neutrinos crossing the bulk of the Earth’s mantle, whose density and chemical composition are known with sufficient precision. The matter density of the mantle is strongly constrained by the knowledge of the Earth’s mass and moment of inertia, combined with minimal information from seismic wave measurements of the density profile. The electron density is related to the matter density by the $`Z/A`$ ratio, which is very nearly 1/2 for all reasonable chemical compositions of the Earth’s mantle.

As discussed in section 4, the effects related to the limited knowledge of neutrinos and anti-neutrino fluxes and cross sections have been preliminary accounted for in this analysis by assigning an uncertainty of 10% to the predicted rates for neutrinos and anti-neutrinos separately. For an exact knowledge of these rates, the sensitivity regions shown in figure 6 would have to be extended by about 10%.

In a real experiment, the sample of down-going neutrino events can be exploited to constrain the neutrino and anti-neutrino event rate predictions. The precision of this procedure might be expected to scale with the square root of the exposure and will not be a fundamental limitation to the sensitivity to matter effects with atmospheric neutrinos. This is further discussed in the next section.

## 6 Very large exposures

The dependence of the experiment sensitivity on the exposure has been studied. The number of years of MONOLITH exposure has been increased up to represent a collected statistics of 2 Mty. Since selection and reconstruction efficiencies are the ones of MONOLITH, this simulation describes a detector (or array of detectors) of modular structure, with each single module comparable to MONOLITH in acceptance and performance.

Figure 8 shows the expected sensitivity to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$ as a function of the exposure for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=+0.003`$. For negative sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ the sensitivity is about two times worse.

In this study, the systematic uncertainty related to the knowledge of the expected neutrino rates has been assumed to be 10% up to 400 kty and scaled with the square root of the exposure at the other points. Indeed, in a real experiment, down-going neutrino events will provide a reference sample of “unoscillated” neutrinos to check the expected muon neutrinos and anti-neutrinos rates with statistically increasing precision.

The sensitivity to matter effects would be expected to improve linearly with the exposure, if it were limited only by statistical fluctuations. In the region around the resonance, matter effects determine a $`\nu /\overline{\nu }`$ asymmetric variation in the event rate with respect to pure $`\nu _\mu /\nu _\tau `$ oscillations, that scales as the width of the resonance, i.e. $`\mathrm{sin}2\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}=\sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}}`$. This has to exceed the statistical fluctuations in the same region, which decrease as $`1/\sqrt{T}`$, where $`T`$ is the total exposure. Thus the expected exclusion limit on $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$ should scale as $`1/T`$.

As shown in the figure, this scaling law holds up to an exposure of around 1 Mty, corresponding to a sensitivity around 0.02 on the mixing parameter. Beyond that limit, the width of the resonance in the Earth mantle becomes comparable to the energy resolution of the experiment and the resonance cannot be fully resolved. An improvement in the energy resolution would thus be necessary to further push the sensitivity to matter effects for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$ below 0.01.

Following the discussion given in , for values of the mixing parameter this low, the observation of the resonance should also be inhibited by other reasons. A sizeable distortion of the oscillation pattern can be observed only when an overlap between the resonance in the effective mixing and the oscillation factor occurs. According to this argument, in a medium of constant density the observability of the resonance requires a minimum baseline, whose length scales as $`1/\mathrm{tan}2\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$. For mixings as small as 0.01, this baseline exceeds the Earth’s diameter.

## 7 Conclusions

A study of the sensitivity of a massive magnetized detector for atmospheric neutrinos (MONOLITH) to matter effects in the framework of a three flavour scenario with one mass scale dominance for atmospheric neutrinos has been reported.

A sub-dominant component of $`\nu _e`$ mixing could give rise to resonant $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ transitions in matter, which occur either for neutrinos or for anti-neutrinos only, depending on the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. This can be exploited in a magnetized detector to determine the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and therefore the neutrino mass hierarchy. The size of this effect would also measure the mixing of electron neutrinos.

About 200 kty of MONOLITH exposure will be sufficient to explore regions not yet ruled out by the bound on $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillations derived by CHOOZ results . These regions will be partly accessible to MINOS and JHF , which, however, can not measure the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$.

The sensitivity achievable in a high statistics run has also been discussed. The ultimate sensitivity which can be achieved with exposures of 1-2 Mty would be $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}0.01`$. In order to go below this limit, the energy resolution would have to be improved. For values of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\mathrm{\Theta }_{13}`$ this low, the observability of the resonance is also compromised by the fact that the maximum of the effective mixing is somehow compensated by a minimum in the oscillation factor over the Earth’s dimension.

## Acknowledgements

Stefano Ragazzi is gratefully acknowledged for his encouragement, for critical comments and suggestions during the entire development of this study. Comments and suggestions of G. Barenboim, J. Bernabeu, A. Curioni, A.Geiser and A. Marchionni are warmly thanked. Stimulating questions of F. Dydak and J.J. Gomez–Cadenaz are acknowledged. I am indebted to G. Battistoni and P. Lipari for the simulation of atmospheric neutrino fluxes and neutrino interactions and to several colleagues, who have made important contributions to the development of the MONOLITH software, and in particular F. Pietropaolo, P. Antonioli, A. Curioni, M. Selvi, F. Terranova and A. Tonazzo.


format: text

text:
# Strong and Electroweak Interactions, and Their Unification with Noncommutative Space-Time

## Abstract

Quantum field theories based on noncommutative space-time (NCQFT) have been extensively studied recently. However no NCQFT model, which can uniquely describe the strong and electroweak interactions, has been constructed. This prevents consistent and systematic study of noncommutative space-time. In this work we construct a NCQFT model based on the trinification gauge group $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$. A unique feature of this model, that all matter fields (fermions and Higgses) are assigned to (anti-)fundamental representations of the factor $`SU(3)`$ groups, allows us to construct a NCQFT model for strong and electroweak interactions and their unification without ambiguities. This model provides an example which allows consistent and systematic study of noncommutative space-time phenomenology. We also comment on some related issues regarding extensions to $`E_6`$ and $`U(3)_C\times U(3)_L\times U(3)_R`$ models.

Noncommutative quantum field theory (NCQFT), based on modification of the space-time commutation relations, provides an alternative to the ordinary quantum field theory. A simple way to modify the space-time properties is to change the usual space-time coordinate $`x`$ to noncommutative coordinate $`\widehat{X}`$ such that

$`[\widehat{X}^\mu ,\widehat{X}^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu },`$ (1)
where $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is a real anti-symmetric matrix. We will consider the case where $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is a constant and commutes with $`\widehat{X}^\mu `$.

NCQFT based on the above commutation relation can be easily studied using the Weyl-Moyal correspondence replacing the product of two fields $`A(\widehat{X})`$ and $`B(\widehat{X})`$ with noncommutative coordinates by product of the same fields but ordinary coordinate $`x`$ through the star “$``$” product,

$`A(\widehat{X})B(\widehat{X})A(x)B(x)=Exp[i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }_{x,\mu }_{y,\nu }]A(x)B(y)|_{x=y}.`$ (2)
Properties related to NCQFT have been studied extensively recently. NCQFT for a pure $`U(1)`$ group is easy to study. Related phenomenology have been studied recently. But it is more complicated for non-abelian groups. Due to the “$``$” product nature, there are fundamental differences between ordinary and noncommutative gauge theories and cause many difficulties to construct a unique and consistent model for strong and electroweak interactions based on $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ gauge group. One of the main problems is that $`SU(N)`$ group can not be simply gauged with “$``$” product as will be explain in the following. Another problem is that, naively, the charges of any $`U(1)`$ gauge group with “$``$” product are quantized to only three possible values, 1, 0, -1 which cannot accommodate all the hypercharges for matter fields in the SM.

In this work we construct a NCQFT model based on the trinification gauge group $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$. We show that NCQFT model for strong and electroweak interactions and their unification can be consistently constructed. This model therefore provides an example which allows a consistent and systematic study of noncommutative space-time phenomenology.

With noncommutative space-time there are modifications to the fields compared with the ordinary ones. We indicate the fields in NCQFT with a hat and the ordinary ones without hat. The definition of gauge transformation $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ of a gauge field $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ for a $`SU(N)`$ is similar to the ordinary one but with usual product replaced by the “$``$” product. For example

$`\delta _\alpha \widehat{\varphi }=i\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\varphi },`$ (3)
where $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ is a fundamental representation of $`SU(N)`$. We use the notation $`\widehat{A}_\mu =\widehat{A}_\mu ^aT^a`$, $`\widehat{\alpha }=\alpha ^aT^a`$ with $`T^a`$ being the $`SU(N)`$ generator normalized as $`Tr(T^aT^b)=\delta ^{ab}/2`$.

Due to the noncommutativity of the space-time, two consecutive local transformations $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ and $`\widehat{\beta }`$ of the type in the above,

$`(\delta _\alpha \delta _\beta \delta _\beta \delta _\alpha )=(\widehat{\alpha }\widehat{\beta }\widehat{\beta }\widehat{\alpha }),`$ (4)
cannot be reduced to the matrix commutator of the generators of the Lie algebra due to the noncommutativity of the space-time. They have to be in the enveloping algebra

$`\widehat{\alpha }=\alpha +\alpha _{ab}^1:T^aT^b:+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{a_1\mathrm{}a_n}^{n1}:T^{a_1}\mathrm{}T^{a_n}:+\mathrm{}`$ (5)
where $`:T^{a_1}\mathrm{}T^{a_n}:`$ is totally symmetric under exchange of $`a_i`$. This poses a difficulty in constructing non-abelian $`SU(N)`$ gauge theories.

Seiberg and Witten have shown that the fields defined in noncommutative coordinate can be mapped on to the ordinary fields, the Seiberg-Witten mapping. In Ref. it was shown that this mapping actually can be applied to the “$``$” product with any gauge groups. It is possible to study non-abelian gauge group theories. Using the above enveloping algebra, one can obtain the noncommutative fields in terms of the ordinary fields with corrections in powers of the noncommutative parameter, $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, order by order. To the first order in $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ noncommutative fields can be expressed as

$`\widehat{\alpha }=\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\{_\mu \alpha ,A_\nu \}+c\theta ^{\mu \nu }[_\mu \alpha ,A_\nu ],`$ (6)
$`A_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\{A_\alpha ,_\beta A_\mu +F_{\beta \mu }\}+c\theta ^{\alpha \beta }([A_\alpha ,_\mu A_\beta ]+i[A_\alpha A_\beta ,A_\mu ]),`$ (7)
$`\widehat{\varphi }=a\theta ^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }A_\mu _\nu \varphi +i({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+c)\theta ^{\mu \nu }A_\mu A_\nu \varphi ,`$ (8)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ig_N[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$. The term proportional to $`a`$ can be absorbed into the redefinition of the matter field $`\varphi `$. The parameter $`c`$ can not be removed by redefinition of the gauge field. It must be a purely imaginary number from the requirement that the gauge field be self conjugate.

Using the above noncommutative fields, one can construct a gauge theory for $`SU(N)`$ group. The action $`S`$ of a $`SU(N)`$ NCQFT, to the leading order in $`\theta `$, is given by,

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle Ld^4x},`$ (9)
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr(F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_N\theta ^{\mu \nu }Tr(F_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }F^{\rho \sigma }4F_{\mu \rho }F_{\nu \sigma }F^{\rho \sigma })`$ (10)
$`+`$ $`\overline{\varphi }(i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu m)\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\overline{\varphi }F_{\alpha \beta }(i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu m)\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\overline{\varphi }\gamma ^\mu F_{\mu \alpha }iD_\beta \varphi ,`$ (11)
where $`D_\mu =_\mu ig_NT^aA_\mu ^a`$. We note that the parameter $`c`$ does not appear in the Lagrangian. The Lagrangian is uniquely determined to order $`\theta `$. We will therefore work with a simple choice $`c=0`$ from now on. In the above, if $`\varphi `$ is a chiral field, $`m=0`$.

To obtain a theory which can describe the strong and electroweak interactions such as the Standard Model (SM), one also needs to solve the $`U(1)`$ charge quantization problem, namely only three possible values, 1, 0, -1 for $`U(1)`$ charges, as mentioned earlier. It has been shown that this difficulty can also be overcome with the use of the Seiberg-Witten mapping .

To solve the $`U(1)`$ charge quantization problem, one associates each charge $`gq^{(n)}`$ of the nth matter field a gauge field $`\widehat{A}_\mu ^{(n)}`$. In the commutative limit, $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }0`$, $`\widehat{A}_\mu ^{(n)}`$ becomes the single gauge field $`A_\mu `$ of the ordinary commuting space-time $`U(1)`$ gauge theory. But at non-zero orders in $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, $`\widehat{A}_\mu ^{(n)}`$ receives corrections. In doing so, the kinetic energy of the gauge boson will, however, be affected. Depending on how the kinetic energy is defined (weight over different field strength of $`\widehat{A}_\mu ^{(n)}`$), the resulting kinetic energy will be different even though the proper normalization to obtain the correct kinetic energy in the commutative limit is imposed.

In the SM there are six different matter field multiplets for each generation, i.e. $`u_R`$, $`d_R`$, $`(u,d)_L`$, $`e_R`$, $`(\nu ,e)_L`$ and $`(H^0,H^{})`$, a priori one can choose a different $`g_i`$ for each of them. After identifying three combinations with the usual $`g_3`$, $`g_2`$ and $`g_1`$ couplings for the SM gauge groups, there is still a freedom to choose different gauge boson self interaction couplings at non-zero orders in $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$. This leads to ambiguities in self interactions of gauge bosons when non-zero order terms in $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ are included. This problem needs to be resolved. A way to solve this problem is to have a theory without the use of $`U(1)`$ factor group.

There are many groups without $`U(1)`$ factor group which contain the SM gauge group and may be used to describe the strong and electroweak interactions. However not all of them can be easily extended to a full NCQFT using the formulation described above. For example one can easily obtain unique gauge boson self interactions in $`SU(5)`$ theory. But the matter fields require more than one representations 5 and 10 which causes additional complications and will reintroduce the uniqueness problem for kinetic energy. One way of obtaining a consistent NCQFT is to have a theory in which all matter and Higgs fields are in the same representation such that once Seiberg-Witten mapping is used to solve the problem of gauging a $`SU(N)`$ group, there is no problem with unique determination of kinetic energy. To this end we propose to use the trinification gauge group, $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$ with a $`Z_3`$ symmetry.

This theory leads to unification of strong and electroweak interactions. An important feature of this theory is that the matter and Higgs fields are assigned to (anti-)fundamental representations of the factor $`SU(3)`$ groups and therefore the formalism described earlier can be readily used.

In the trinification model, the gauge fields are in the adjoint representation,

$`24=A^C+A^L+A^R=(8,1,1)+(1,8,1)+(1,1,8),`$ (12)
which contains 24 gauge bosons. $`A^C`$ contains the color gluon bosons, a linear combination of component fields of $`A^L`$ and $`A^R`$ forms the $`U(1)_Y`$ gauge boson, and $`A^L`$ contains the $`SU(2)_L`$ gauge bosons. The rest are integrally charged heavy gauge bosons which do not mediate proton decays.

Each generation of fermions is assigned to a 27,

$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`\psi ^{LR}+\psi ^{RC}+\psi ^{CL}=(1,3,\overline{3})+(\overline{3},1,3)+(3,\overline{3},1),`$ (13)
$`\psi ^{LR}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}E^0\hfill & E^{}\hfill & e^{}\hfill \\ E^+\hfill & \overline{E}^0\hfill & \nu \hfill \\ e^+\hfill & N_1\hfill & N_2\hfill \end{array}\right),\psi ^{RC}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{u}_1\hfill & \overline{u}_2\hfill & \overline{u}_3\hfill \\ \overline{d}_1\hfill & \overline{d}_2\hfill & \overline{d}_3\hfill \\ \overline{B}_2\hfill & \overline{B}_2\hfill & \overline{B}_2\hfill \end{array}\right),\psi ^{CL}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}u_1\hfill & d_1\hfill & B_1\hfill \\ u_2\hfill & d_2\hfill & B_2\hfill \\ u_3\hfill & d_3\hfill & B_3\hfill \end{array}\right).`$ (23)
In the above we have written the fermions in left-handed chiral fields. The $`B`$ field is a heavy particle.

The Higgs fields which break the trinification to the SM gauge group are also assigned to 27 representations. In order to have correct mass patterns, at least two 27 Higgs representations are needed. We indicate them by

$`\varphi _i=\varphi _i^{LR}+\varphi _i^{RC}+\varphi _i^{CL}=(1,3,\overline{3})_i+(\overline{3},1,3)_i+(3,\overline{3},1)_i.`$ (24)
The $`Z_3`$ symmetry operates in the following way. If $`(C,L,R)`$ is a representation under the $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$, the effect of $`Z_3`$ is to symmetrize it to

$`Z_3(C,L,R)=(C,L,R)+(R,C,L)+(L,R,C).`$ (25)
Requirement of the Lagrangian to be invariant under $`Z_3`$ relates the gauge couplings $`g^{C,L,R}`$ of the gauge groups to be equal, $`g^C=g^L=g^R=g^U`$, at a scale which is the unification scale of the model.

The vacuum expectation values of the Higgs scalars break the symmetry to $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ have the following form

$`<\varphi _1^{LR}>=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{0}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \widehat{0}\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & 0\hfill & v_1\hfill \end{array}\right),<\varphi _2^{LR}>=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{0}\hfill & 0\hfill & 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \widehat{0}\hfill & \widehat{0}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & v_2\hfill & \widehat{0}\hfill \end{array}\right).`$ (32)
Non-zero values of $`v_{1,2}`$ break the symmetry to the SM group. The scale of $`v_{1,2}`$ are at the unification scale. At this stage 12 of the gauge bosons, and $`B`$, $`E_i`$ and $`N_i`$ particles receive masses. They are therefore very heavy. The entries indicated by $`\widehat{0}`$ can develop VEV’s of order $`m_W`$. These VEV’s break the SM group to $`SU(3)_C\times U(1)_{em}`$ and provide masses for the ordinary quarks and leptons.

In this model $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=3/8`$ at the unification scale. Using the present electroweak precision test data for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, $`\alpha _s`$ and $`\alpha _{em}`$ at the $`Z`$ mass pole, the unification scale is determined to be $`10^{14}`$ GeV. A unification scale as low as $`10^{14}`$ GeV in a $`SU(5)`$ theory, for example, would induce rapid proton decays and be ruled out. However, as have been mentioned previously that in the trinification theory, gauge bosons do not mediate proton decays. Therefore the theory would not have problem with proton decays. Mediation of heavy Higgs particles can produce proton decays. However in this case, there are many free parameters in the Yukawa and the Higgs potential couplings to make the theory to be consistent with data.

It is clear that the trinification model can provides an easy framework for building a phenomenologically acceptable and consistent NCQFT model for strong and electroweak interactions. To the first order in $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, the noncommutative gauge fields are the same form for the gauge fields as in eq. (8). The fermion and Higgs fields are in the same representation and are all (anti-)fundamental representations $`\varphi `$ of the type $`(3,\overline{3})`$ under the subgroups $`SU(3)\times SU(3)`$. The noncommutative fields expressed in the ordinary fields are given by

$`\widehat{\varphi }=\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }(A_\mu _\nu \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}A_\mu A_\nu \varphi +_\nu \varphi A_\mu ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\varphi A_\nu ^{}A_\mu ^{}),`$ (33)
where $`A_\mu `$ and $`A_\mu ^{}`$ are the gauge fields of the first $`SU(3)`$ and the second $`SU(3)`$ gauge groups, respectively.

The first order in $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ corrections to the Lagrangian $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ for gauge and fermion kinetic energy terms are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g^C\theta ^{\mu \nu }Tr(F_{\mu \nu }^CF_{\alpha \beta }^CF^{C\alpha \beta }4F_{\alpha \mu }^CF_{\beta \nu }^CF^{C\alpha \beta })+(CL)+(CR)]`$ (34)
$``$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }Tr(\overline{\psi }^{LR}F_{\mu \nu }^L\gamma ^\alpha D_\alpha \psi ^{LR}+F_{\mu \nu }^R\overline{\psi }^{LR}\gamma ^\alpha D_\alpha \psi ^{LR}`$ (35)
$`+`$ $`2\overline{\psi }^{LR}F_{\alpha \mu }^L\gamma ^\alpha D_\nu \psi ^{LR}+2F_{\alpha \mu }^R\overline{\psi }^{LR}\gamma ^\alpha D_\nu \psi ^{LR})+(LRLC)+(LRCR)],`$ (36)
where $`D_\mu \psi ^{LR}=_\mu \psi ^{LR}ig_LA_\mu ^L\psi ^{LR}+ig_R\varphi ^{LR}A_\mu ^R`$.

The above Lagrangian uniquely determine interactions due to noncommutative space-time correction to the first order in $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ without the problems pointed out earlier. We emphasis that although the resulting theory at low energies appears to have $`U(1)`$ factor group(s), the corresponding gauge self-interactions are fixed because of the choice of trinification group which dictates how gauge bosons interact. From the above Lagrangian one can easily study new interactions due to noncommutative space-time and test the model by experimental data. For illustration, we present the neutral gauge boson self interactions and its interactions with the SM fermions. Expanding the above Lagrangian we obtain

$`L_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g^C\theta ^{\mu \nu }Tr(G_{\mu \nu }G_{\alpha \beta }G^{\alpha \beta }4G_{\alpha \mu }G_{\beta \nu }G^{\alpha \beta })`$ (37)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }g_Y[c_W({\displaystyle \frac{7}{15}}c_W^2+s_W^2)(F_{\mu \nu }F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }4F_{\alpha \mu }F_{\beta \nu }F^{\alpha \beta })`$ (38)
$``$ $`s_W({\displaystyle \frac{7}{15}}s_W^2+c_W^2)(Z_{\mu \nu }Z_{\alpha \beta }Z^{\alpha \beta }4Z_{\alpha \mu }Z_{\beta \nu }Z^{\alpha \beta })`$ (39)
$`+`$ $`c_W(c_W^2{\displaystyle \frac{23}{15}}s_W^2)(F_{\mu \nu }Z_{\alpha \beta }Z^{\alpha \beta }+2Z_{\mu \nu }Z_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }4(Z_{\alpha \mu }Z_{\beta \nu }F^{\alpha \beta }+2F_{\alpha \mu }Z_{\beta \nu }Z^{\alpha \beta }))`$ (40)
$``$ $`s_W(s_W^2{\displaystyle \frac{23}{15}}c_W^2)(Z_{\mu \nu }F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }+2F_{\mu \nu }Z_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }4(F_{\alpha \mu }F_{\beta \nu }Z^{\alpha \beta }+2Z_{\alpha \mu }F_{\beta \nu }F^{\alpha \beta }))]`$ (41)
where $`c_w=\mathrm{cos}\theta _W`$, $`s_W=\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$. $`G_{\mu \nu }`$, $`F_{\mu \nu }`$, $`Z_{\mu \nu }=_\mu Z_\nu _\nu Z_\mu `$ are the field strengths for the gluon, photon and Z particles, respectively. Note that the above interactions are obtained at the unification scale where $`g_Y=\sqrt{3/5}g^U`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=3/8`$, and $`g^C=g^L=g^R=g^U`$.

From the above we see that the triple neutral gauge boson interactions are uniquely determined unlike the case with SM gauge group studied in Ref. . These interactions are also different from those predicted by $`SU(5)`$ model. This can be used to test the model.

The fermion-gauge boson interactions can readily be obtained by expanding eq. (36). The Yukawa coupling terms and Higgs potential terms can also be obtained using results in eqs. (8) and (33).

We have constructed a NCQFT unification model of strong and electroweak interactions based on $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R\times Z_3`$ group. In this model all interactions are determined. New gauge boson self- and fermion-gauge interactions are predicted. If the noncommutative scale turns out to be low, the model can be tested experimentally. This model provides an example which can consistently describe the strong and electroweak interactions and their unification, and allows a systematic investigation of the hypothesis of noncommutative space-time.

Before closing we would like to make two comments on some possible extensions of the model discussed here. One of them concerns about $`E_6`$ extension of the model. The $`SU(3)_C\times SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$ group can be embedded into $`E_6`$ group. One therefore can try to construct a NCQFT based on $`E_6`$. With this group the gauge bosons are in the $`78`$ adjoint representation and the fermions and Higgses are in the $`27`$ fundamental representations. A NCQFT model can be constructed following the procedures discussed earlier. This model is very similar to the trinification model with the advantage that no additional $`Z_3`$ symmetry is needed. There are however differences and complications. In addition to the gauge bosons in the trinification model, there are also $`54`$ colored gauge bosons. These particles mediate proton decays. Therefore they have to be made heavy. To achieve this more Higgs representations will have to be introduced which complicate the theory. The trinification model is simpler in terms of particle contents.

The other comment concerns another approach to construct trinification model with noncommutative space-time without the use of Seiberg-Witten mapping adopted in Ref.. In this approach one first constructs fields in $`U(N)`$ product groups and then break the symmetry spontaneously to $`SU(N)`$ product group. For the trinification model, one can extend the group to $`U(3)_C\times U(3)_L\times U(3)_R`$. The gauge field representation is

$`27=(9,1,1)+(1,9,1)+(1,1,9).`$

In Ref. the symmetry breaking of $`U(N)`$ to $`SU(N)`$ is assumed to be achieved by non-zero VEV’s of representations $`S_i`$ which transform as singlets under the $`SU(N)`$ but with non-zero charge for $`U(1)`$ subgroup of $`U(N)`$. Following Ref.  one can introduce three $`S_i`$ fields for each of the factor $`U(N)`$ group. The VEV’s of these fields break the group to the trinification group discussed earlier producing three heavy gauge bosons. However it has been shown that models based on such approach violates unitarity. This approach may not lead to a realistic model.

This work was supported in part by National Science Council under grants NSC 89-2112-M-002-058 and NSC 89-2112-M-002-065, and in part by the Ministry of Education Academic Excellence Project 89-N-FA01-1-4-3. I would like to thank hospitality provided by the Institute of Theoretical Sciences at the University of Oregon where part of this work was done.

Note Added: Another consistent noncommutative grand unified model based on $`SO(10)`$ has been constructed by P. Aschieri et al. (hep-th/0205214), three months after this work.