text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The suggestion that, by analogy with $`K^o,\overline{K}^o`$ oscillations, there could be neutrino oscillations (i.e., that there could be neutrino-antineutrino oscillations $`\nu \overline{\nu }`$) was considered by Pontecorvo  in 1957. It was subsequently considered by Maki et al.  and Pontecorvo  that there could be mixings (and oscillation) of neutrinos of different aromas (i.e., $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transitions).

The problem of solar neutrinos arose after the first experiment performed to measure the flux of neutrinos from the Sun by the $`{}_{}{}^{37}Cl^{37}Ar`$  method. The flux was found to be several times smaller than expected from calculations made in accordance with the standard solar model (SSM) . It was suggested in  that the solar neutrino deficit could be explained by neutrino oscillations. Subsequently, when the result of the experiment at Kamiokande  confirmed the existence of the deficit relative to the SSM calculations, one of the attractive approaches to the explanation of the solar neutrino deficit became resonant enhancement of neutrino oscillations in matter . Resonant enhancement of neutrino oscillations in matter was obtained from Wolfenstein’s equation for neutrinos in matter . It was noted in Ref.  that Wolfenstein’s equation for neutrinos in matter is an equation for neutrinos in matter in which they interact with matter not through the weak but through a hypothetical weak interaction that is left-right symmetric. Since in the standard weak interactions participate only left components of neutrinos the results obtained from Wolfenstein’s equation have no direct relation to real neutrinos.

Later experimentalists obtained the first results on the Gran Sasso $`{}_{}{}^{71}Ga^{71}Ge`$ experiment , that within a $`3\sigma `$ limit did not disagree with the SSM calculations. The new data from the SAGE experiment  are fairly close to the Gran Sasso results.

In Ref. , the author of this article proposed a new mechanism of enhancement of neutrino oscillations in matter that is realized through the weak interaction of oscillation neutrinos with matter if the thickness of this matter is sufficiently great. Later in works  it was shown that since the standard weak interactions cannot generate masses, the resonance enhancement of neutrino oscillations in matter cannot be realized without violation of the energy-momentum conservation law.

Besides the experimental devices marked above, at present there are working Super-Kamiokande \[15-17\] and SNO  detectors. The experimental results obtained with SNO detector present a great interest since they can be used for modelness analysis of neutrino oscillations.

After the discovery of neutrino oscillations on Super-Kamiokande  (by non direct method) and on SNO  (by direct method) it is necessary to analyze the situation which arises in the problem of neutrino oscillations.

In this work theoretical schemes of neutrino oscillations and their analyses are considered. Also the experimental data obtained on Super-Kamiokande (Japan) and SNO (Canada) are given. Comparison of these data with consequences in the theoretical schemes has been carried out.

## 2 Theory

2.1 Distinguishing Features of Weak Interactions

The strong and electromagnetic interaction theories are left-right systemic theories (i.e. all components of the spinors participate in these interactions symmetrically). In contrast to this only the left components of fermions participate in the weak interaction. We will consider some consequences deduced from this specific feature of the weak interaction.

The local conserving current $`j^{\mu i}`$ of the weak interaction has the following form:

$$j^{\mu i}=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L\tau ^i\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_L,$$
$`\left(1\right)`$
where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_L,\mathrm{\Psi }_L`$ are lepton or quark doublets

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}e\\ \nu _e\end{array}\right)_{iL}$$
$`\left(2\right)`$
$$\left(\begin{array}{c}q_1\\ q_2\end{array}\right)_{iL},i=13,$$

where $`i`$ is aromatic number of quarks or leptons.

The currents $`S_i^\mu `$ obtained from the global abelian transformation by using Neuter theorem  are

$$S_i^\mu =i\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_i\right),$$
$`\left(3\right)`$
(where $`i`$ characterizes the type of the gauge transformation) and the corresponding conserving current (the forth component of $`S_i^\mu `$) is

$$I_i=S_i^0d^3x=ϵ\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_i\mathrm{\Psi }_id^3x,$$
$`\left(4\right)`$
where $`ϵ`$ is the energy of fermion $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i`$.

Since we cannot switch off the weak interactions, then while the particle is moving in vacuum all the effects connected with these interactions will be realized.

If now we take into account that the right components of fermions $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{iR},\mathrm{\Psi }_{iR}`$ do not participate in the weak interaction, then from (4) for abelian currents we get

$$I_i=ϵ\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{iL}\mathrm{\Psi }_{iL}d^3x0,$$
$`\left(5\right)`$
i.e. (in contrast to the strong and electromagnetic interactions) no conserving additive numbers appear in the weak interaction. However, we can see from experiments that the hierarchical violation of these additive numbers takes place here (see  and references there).

2.2 About Neutrino mass

a) Hypothesis: A massless free particle cannot have a charge. An example of this case is photon (carrier of the electromagnetic interactions), which has no charge. To gluons, which are in the confining state, this hypothesis cannot be applied. In application to neutrino having a weak charge, this hypothesis drives to a conclusion: the neutrino participating in weak interactions cannot be massless. In work  this hypothesis at sufficiently common suppositions was proved.

b) The discovery of neutrino oscillations is an additional confirmation of the conclusion that it is a massive particle.

2.3 Theory of Neutrino Oscillations

In the old theory of neutrino oscillations , constructed in the framework of Quantum theory in analogy with the theory of $`K^o,\overline{K}^o`$ oscillation, it is supposed that mass eigenstates are $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$ neutrino states but not physical neutrino states $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$, and that the neutrinos $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ are created as superpositions of $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$ states. This means that the $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ neutrinos have no definite mass, i.e. their masses may vary in dependence on the $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$ admixture in the $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ states. Naturally, in this case the law of conservation of the energy and the momentum of the neutrinos is not fulfilled. Besides, every particle must be created on its mass shell and it will be left on its mass shell while passing through vacuum. It is clear that this picture is incorrect.

In the modern theory on neutrino oscillations -, constructed in the framework of the particle physics theory it is supposed that:

1) The physical states of the $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ neutrinos are eigenstates of the weak interaction and, naturally, the mass matrix of $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ neutrinos is diagonal. All the available, experimental results indicate that the lepton numbers $`l_e,l_\mu ,l_\tau `$ are well conserved, i.e. the standard weak interactions do not violate the lepton numbers.

2) Then, to violate the lepton numbers, it is necessary to introduce an interaction violating these numbers. It is equivalent to introducing nondiagonal mass terms in the mass matrix of $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$. Diagonalizing this matrix we go to the $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$ neutrino states. Exactly like the case of $`K^o`$ mesons created in strong interactions, when mainly $`K^o,\overline{K}^o`$ mesons are produced, in the considered case $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$, but not $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$, neutrino states are mainly created in the weak interactions (this is so, because the contribution of the lepton numbers violating interactions in this process is too small). And in this case no oscillations take place.

3) Then, when the $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ neutrinos are pass through vacuum, they will be converted into superpositions of the $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$ owing to the presence of the interactions violating the lepton number of neutrinos and will be left on their mass shells. And, then, oscillations of the $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ neutrinos will take place according to the standard scheme \[24-26\]. Whether these oscillations are real or virtual, it will be determined by the masses of the physical neutrinos $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$.

i) If the masses of the $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ neutrinos are equal, then the real oscillation of the neutrinos will take place.

ii) If the masses of the $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ are not equal, then the virtual oscillation of the neutrinos will take place. To make these oscillations real, these neutrinos must participate in the quasielastic interactions, in order to undergo transition to the mass shell of the other appropriate neutrinos by analogy with $`\gamma \rho ^o`$ transition in the vector meson dominance model. In case ii) enhancement of neutrino oscillations will take place if the mixing angle is small at neutrinos passing through a bulk of matter .

So, the mixings (oscillations) appear since at neutrinos creating eigenstates of the weak interaction are realized (i.e. $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ neutrinos) but not the eigenstates of the weak interaction violating lepton numbers (i.e. $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$ neutrinos) and then, when passing through vacuum, they are converted into superpositions of $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$ neutrinos. If $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$ neutrinos were originally created, then the mixings (oscillations) would not have taken place since the weak interaction conserves the lepton numbers.

Now we come to a more detailed consideration of the oscillations. For simplification we consider the oscillation of two types of neutrinos $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu `$ having $`l_{\nu _e},l_{\nu _\mu }`$ numbers which can transit each into the other. We can use the mass matrix of $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu `$ neutrinos to consider transitions between these particles in the framework of the quantum theory (or particle physics) since the mass matrix is an eigenstate of the type of interaction which creates these particles (see below).

The mass matrix of $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ neutrinos has the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\nu _e}& 0\\ 0& m_{\nu _\mu }\end{array}\right).$$
$`\left(6\right)`$
Due to the presence of the interaction violating the lepton numbers, a nondiagonal term appears in this matrix and then this mass matrix is transformed into the following nondiagonal matrix ($`CP`$ is conserved):

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\nu _e}& m_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }\\ m_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}& m_{\nu _\mu }\end{array}\right),$$
$`\left(7\right)`$
then the lagrangian of mass of the neutrinos takes the following form ($`\nu \nu _L`$):

$$\begin{array}{c}_M=\frac{1}{2}\left[m_{\nu _e}\overline{\nu }_e\nu _e+m_{\nu _\mu }\overline{\nu }_\mu \nu _\mu +m_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }\left(\overline{\nu }_e\nu _\mu +\overline{\nu }_\mu \nu _e\right)\right]\\ \frac{1}{2}(\overline{\nu }_e,\overline{\nu }_\mu )\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\nu _e}& m_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }\\ m_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}& m_{\nu _\mu }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \end{array}\right)\end{array},$$
$`\left(8\right)`$
which is diagonalized by turning through the angle $`\theta `$ and (see ref. in ) and then this lagrangian (8) transforms into the following one:

$$_M=\frac{1}{2}\left[m_1\overline{\nu }_1\nu _1+m_2\overline{\nu }_2\nu _2\right],$$
$`\left(9\right)`$
where

$$m_{1,2}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(m_{\nu _e}+m_{\nu _\mu }\right)\pm \left(\left(m_{\nu _e}m_{\nu _\mu }\right)^2+4m_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}^2\right)^{1/2}\right],$$

and angle $`\theta `$ is determined by the following expression:

$$tg2\theta =\frac{2m_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }}{\left(m_{\nu _\mu }m_{\nu _e}\right)},$$
$`\left(10\right)`$
$$\begin{array}{c}\nu _e=cos\theta \nu _1+sin\theta \nu _2,\\ \nu _\mu =sin\theta \nu _1+cos\theta \nu _2.\end{array}$$
$`\left(11\right)`$
From eq.(10) one can see that if $`m_{\nu _e}=m_{\nu _\mu }`$, then the mixing angle is equal to $`\pi /4`$ independently of the value of $`m_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }`$:

$$sin^22\theta =\frac{\left(2m_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }\right)^2}{\left(m_{\nu _e}m_{\nu _\mu }\right)^2+\left(2m_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }\right)^2},$$
$`\left(12\right)`$
$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\nu _1}& 0\\ 0& m_{\nu _2}\end{array}\right).$$

It is interesting to remark that expression (12) can be obtained from the Breit-Wigner distribution

$$P\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\right)^2}{\left(EE_0\right)^2+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }/2\right)^2},$$
$`\left(13\right)`$
by using the following substitutions:

$$E=m_{\nu _e},E_0=m_{\nu _\mu },\mathrm{\Gamma }/2=2m_{\nu _e,\nu _\mu },$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/2W\left(\mathrm{}\right)`$ is a width of $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transition, then we can use a standard method  for computing this value.

The expression for time evolution of $`\nu _1,\nu _2`$ neutrinos (see (9), (11)) with masses $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ is

$$\nu _1\left(t\right)=e^{iE_1t}\nu _1\left(0\right),\nu _2\left(t\right)=e^{iE_2t}\nu _2\left(0\right),$$
$`\left(14\right)`$
where

$$E_k^2=\left(p^2+m_k^2\right),k=1,2.$$

If neutrinos are propagating without interactions, then

$$\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\left(t\right)=cos\theta e^{iE_1t}\nu _1\left(0\right)+sin\theta e^{iE_2t}\nu _2\left(0\right),\\ \nu _\mu \left(t\right)=sin\theta e^{iE_1t}\nu _1\left(0\right)+cos\theta e^{iE_2t}\nu _2\left(0\right).\end{array}$$
$`\left(15\right)`$
Using the expression for $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ from (11), and putting it into (15), one can get the following expression:

$$\nu _e\left(t\right)=\left[e^{iE_1t}cos^2\theta +e^{iE_2t}sin^2\theta \right]\nu _e\left(0\right)+$$

$$+\left[e^{iE_1t}e^{iE_2t}\right]sin\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \nu _\mu \left(0\right),$$
$`\left(16\right)`$
$$\nu _\mu \left(t\right)=\left[e^{iE_1t}sin^2\theta +e^{iE_2t}cos^2\theta \right]\nu _\mu \left(0\right)+$$

$$+\left[e^{iE_1t}e^{iE_2t}\right]sin\theta cos\theta \nu _e\left(0\right).$$

The probability that neutrino $`\nu _e`$ created at the time $`t=0`$ will be transformed into $`\nu _\mu `$ at the time $`t`$ is an absolute value of amplitude $`\nu _\mu \left(0\right)`$ in (16) squared, i. e.

$$\begin{array}{c}P\left(\nu _e\nu _\mu \right)=\left(\nu _\mu \left(0\right)\nu _e\left(t\right)\right)^2=\\ =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \left[1cos\left(\left(m_2^2m_1^2\right)/2p\right)t\right],\end{array}$$
$`\left(17\right)`$
where it is supposed that $`pm_1,m_2;E_kp+m_k^2/2p`$.

The expression (17) presents the probability of neutrino aroma oscillations. The angle $`\theta `$ (mixing angle) characterizes value of mixing. The probability $`P\left(\nu _e\nu _\mu \right)`$ is a periodical function of distances where the period is determined by the following expression:

$$L_o=2\pi \frac{2p}{m_2^2m_1^2}.$$
$`\left(18\right)`$
And probability $`P\left(\nu _e\nu _e\right)`$ that the neutrino $`\nu _e`$ created at time $`t=0`$ is preserved as $`\nu _e`$ neutrino at time $`t`$ is given by the absolute value of the amplitude of $`\nu _e\left(0\right)`$ in (16) squared. Since the states in (16) are normalized states, then

$$P\left(\nu _e\nu _e\right)+P\left(\nu _e\nu _\mu \right)=1.$$
$`\left(19\right)`$
So, we see that aromatic oscillations caused by nondiagonality of the neutrinos mass matrix violate the law of the $`\mathrm{}_e`$ and $`\mathrm{}_\mu `$ lepton number conservations. However in this case, as one can see from exp. (19), the full lepton numbers $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}_e+\mathrm{}_\mu `$ are conserved.

We can also see that there are two cases of $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu `$ transitions (oscillations) , .

1. If we consider the transition of $`\nu _e`$ into $`\nu _\mu `$ particle, then

$$sin^22\beta \frac{4m_{\nu _e,\nu _\mu }^2}{\left(m_{\nu _e}m_{\nu _\mu }\right)^2+4m_{\nu _e,\nu _\mu }^2},$$
$`\left(20\right)`$
if the probability of the transition of $`\nu _e`$ particles into $`\nu _\mu `$ particles through the interaction (i.e. $`m_{\nu _e,\nu _\mu }`$) is very small, then

$$sin^22\beta \frac{4m_{\nu _e,\nu _\mu }^2}{\left(m_{\nu _e}m_{\nu _\mu }\right)^2}0.$$
$`\left(21\right)`$
How can we understand this $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transition?

If $`2m_{\nu _e,\nu _\mu }=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}`$ is not zero, then it means that the mean mass of $`\nu _e`$ particle is $`m_{\nu _e}`$ and this mass is distributed by $`sin^22\beta `$ (or by the Breit-Wigner formula) and the probability of the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transition differs from zero and it is defined by masses of $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ particles and $`m_{\nu _e,\nu _\mu }`$, which is computed in the framework of the standard method, as pointed out above.

So, this is a solution of the problem of the origin of mixing angle in the theory of vacuum oscillations.

In this case the probability of $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transition (oscillation) is described by the following expression:

$$P\left(\nu _e\nu _\mu ,t\right)=sin^22\beta sin^2\left[\pi t\frac{m_{\nu _1}^2m_{\nu _2}^2}{2p_{\nu _e}}\right],$$
$`\left(22\right)`$
where $`p_{\nu _e}`$ is a momentum of $`\nu _e`$ particle.

Originally it was supposed  that these oscillations are real oscillations. However we see that these oscillations are virtual because when $`\nu _e`$ really transits into $`\nu _\mu `$, then it can decay into electron neutrino plus something, i.e. we gain the energy from vacuum, which is equal to the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=m_{\nu _\mu }m_{\nu _e}`$ (momenta of $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu `$ are equal at oscillations). Then it is clear that at real $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transition the law of energy conservation is violated. This law can be fulfilled only at virtual $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transitions.

2. If we consider the virtual transition of $`\nu _e`$ into $`\nu _\mu `$ neutrino at $`m_{\nu _e}=m_{\nu _\mu }`$ (i.e. without changing the mass shell), then

$$tg2\beta =\mathrm{},$$

$`\beta =\pi /4`$, and

$$sin^22\beta =1.$$
$`\left(23\right)`$
In this case the probability of the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transition (oscillation) is described by the following expression:

$$P\left(\nu _e\nu _\mu ,t\right)=\left[\pi t\frac{4m_{\nu _e,\nu _\mu }^2}{2p_a}\right].$$
$`\left(24\right)`$
To make these virtual oscillations real, their participation in quasielastic interactions is necessary for the transitions to their own mass shells .

It is clear that the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transition is a dynamical process.

Now let us consider the common case. In this case the mass lagrangian has the following form:

$$\begin{array}{c}_M=\overline{\nu }_RM\nu _L+H.c.\\ _{l,l^{}=e,\mu ,\tau }\nu _{l^{}R}M_{l^{}l}\nu _{lL}+H.c.,\end{array}$$
$`\left(25\right)`$
$`M`$ is a complex $`3\times 3`$ matrix. It is necessary to remark that the $`\nu _R`$ is absent in the weak interactions lagrangian. By using the expression

$$M=VmU^+,$$
$`\left(26\right)`$
(where $`V,U`$ \- unitary matrices) we transform $`_M`$ to a diagonal form

$$\begin{array}{c}_M=\overline{\nu }_Rm\nu _L+H.c.\\ _{k=1}^3m_k\overline{\nu }_k\nu _k+H.c.,\end{array}$$
$`\left(27\right)`$
where

$$m_{ik}=m_k\delta _{ik},$$

and

$$\nu _L^{^{}}=U^+\nu _L,\nu _R^{^{}}=V^+\nu _R,\nu ^{^{}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1\\ \nu _2\\ \nu _3\end{array}\right).$$
$`\left(28\right)`$
We can see that the lagrangian (25) is invariant at the global gauge transformation

$$\nu _k\left(x\right)e^\mathrm{\Lambda }\nu _k\left(x\right)$$
$`\left(29\right)`$
or $`l\left(x\right)e^\mathrm{\Lambda }l\left(x\right),l=e,\mu ,\tau `$ , i.e. lepton numbers are not conserved separately (i.e. neutrino is mixed) but there appears a lepton number $`l`$ related with the common gauge transformation which is conserved.

2.4 Schemes of Neutrino Oscillations

Let us consider different schemes of neutrino oscillations.

2.4.a. Neutrino-Antineutrino Oscillations

The suggestion that, by analogy with $`K^o,\overline{K}^o`$ oscillations, there could be $`\nu ,\overline{\nu }`$ oscillations, was considered by B. Pontecorvo in work .

In this case the mass lagrangian of neutrinos has the following form:

$$\begin{array}{c}_M^{^{}}=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\nu }_e,\nu _e)\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\nu _e\nu _e}& m_{\overline{\nu }_e\nu _e}\\ m_{\nu _e\overline{\nu }_e}& m_{\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \overline{\nu }_e\end{array}\right)\end{array}.$$
$`\left(30\right)`$
Diagonalizing this mass matrix by standard methods one obtains the following expression:

$$\begin{array}{c}_M^{^{}}=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\nu }_1,\overline{\nu }_2)\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\nu _1}& 0\\ 0& m_{\overline{\nu }_2}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1\\ \nu _2\end{array}\right)\end{array},$$
$`\left(31\right)`$
where

$$\nu _1=cos\theta \nu _esin\theta \overline{\nu }_e,$$

$$\nu _2=sin\theta \nu _e+cos\theta \overline{\nu }_e.$$

These neutrino oscillations are described by expressions (14)-(19) with the following substitution of $`\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$.

It is necessary to remark that if these neutrinos are Dirac ones, then the probability to observe $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ is much smaller than the probability to observe $`\nu _e`$ (such neutrinos can be named the ”sterile” neutrinos (see ref. ). It is clear that in this case the lepton numbers are not conserved, i.e. gauge invariance is violated since the particle transforms into antiparticle in contrast to the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ transitions where only aromatic numbers are violated.

2.4.b. Oscillations of aromatic neutrinos

In the work  Maki et al. supposed that there could exist transitions between aromatic neutrinos $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu `$. Afterwards $`\nu _\tau `$ was found and then $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ transitions could be possible. The author of this work has developed this direction (see ). It is necessary to remark that only this scheme of oscillations is realistic for neutrino oscillations (see also this work). The expressions which described neutrino oscillations in this case are given above in expressions (14)-(19).

2.4.c. Majorana neutrino oscillations

Before discussion of neutrino oscillations in this scheme we give definitions of Majorana neutrinos (more common consideration, in a formal form, of this question is given in ). Majorana fermion in Dirac representation has the following form :

$$\chi ^M=\frac{1}{2}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }\left(x\right)+\eta _C\mathrm{\Psi }^C\left(x\right)\right],$$
$`\left(32\right)`$
$$\mathrm{\Psi }^C\left(x\right)\eta _CC\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}^T\left(x\right),$$

where $`\eta _C`$ is a phase, $`C`$ is a charge conjunction, $`T`$ is a transposition.

From Exp. (32) we see that Majorana fermion $`\chi ^M`$ has two spin projections $`\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ and then the Majorana spinor can be rewritten in the following form:

$$\chi ^M\left(x\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _{+\frac{1}{2}}\left(x\right)\\ \chi _{\frac{1}{2}}\left(x\right)\end{array}\right).$$
$`\left(33\right)`$
The mass Lagrangian of Majorana neutrinos in the case of two neutrinos $`\chi _e,\chi _\mu `$ ($`\frac{1}{2}`$ components of Majorana neutrinos, and $`\overline{\chi }_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the same Majorana fermion with the opposite spin projection) in the common case has the following form:

$$\begin{array}{c}_M^{^{}}=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\chi }_e,\overline{\chi }_\mu )\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\chi _e}& m_{\chi _e\chi _\mu }\\ m_{\chi _\mu \chi _e}& m_{\chi _\mu }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\chi _e\\ \chi _\mu \end{array}\right)\end{array}.$$
$`\left(34\right)`$
Diagonalizing this mass matrix by standard methods one obtains the following expression:

$$\begin{array}{c}_M^{^{}}=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\nu }_1,\overline{\nu }_2)\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\nu _1}& 0\\ 0& m_{\nu _2}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1\\ \nu _2\end{array}\right)\end{array},$$
$`\left(35\right)`$
where

$$\nu _1=cos\theta \chi _esin\theta \chi _\mu ,$$

$$\nu _2=sin\theta \chi _e+cos\theta \chi _\mu .$$

These neutrino oscillations are described by expressions (14)-(19) with the following substitution of $`\nu _{e\mu }\chi _{e\mu }^M`$ .

The standard theory of weak interactions is constructed on the base of local gauge invariance of Dirac fermions. In this case Dirac fermions have the following lepton numbers $`l_{l,}`$ which are conserved (however, see Sect. 2.1),

$$l_l,l=e,\mu ,\tau ,$$
$`\left(36\right)`$
and Dirac antiparticles have lepton numbers with the opposite sign

$$\overline{l}=l_l.$$
$`\left(37\right)`$
Gauge transformation of Majorana fermions can be written in the form:

$$\chi _{}^{}{}_{+\frac{1}{2}}{}^{}\left(x\right)=exp\left(i\beta \right)\chi _{+\frac{1}{2}}\left(x\right),$$

$$\chi _{}^{}{}_{\frac{1}{2}}{}^{}\left(x\right)=exp\left(+i\beta \right)\chi _{\frac{1}{2}}\left(x\right).$$
$`\left(38\right)`$
Then lepton numbers of Majorana fermions are

$$l^M=\underset{i}{}l_i^M\left(+1/2\right)=\underset{i}{}l_i^M\left(1/2\right),$$

i. e., antiparticle of Majorana fermion is the same fermion with the opposite spin projection.

Now we come to discussion of the problem of the place of Majorana fermion in the standard theory of weak interactions .

To construct the standard theory of weak interactions  Dirac fermions are used. The absence of contradiction of this theory with the experimental data confirms that all fermions are Dirac particles. And in this theory there are numbers which can be connected with conserving currents. As it is stressed above these numbers are violated (Sect. 2.1).

Now, if we want to include the Majorana fermions into the standard theory we must take into account that, in the common case, the gauge charges of the Dirac and Majorana fermions are different (especially it is well seen in the example of Dirac fermion having an electrical charge since it cannot have a Majorana charge (it is worth to remind that in the weak currents the fermions are included in the couples form)). In this case we cannot just include Majorana fermions in the standard theory of weak interactions by gauge invariance manner. Then in the standard theory the Majorana fermions cannot appear.

2.4.d. Neutrino Oscillations in the case of Dirac-Majorana

mixing type

We do not discuss this mechanism due to the reason mentioned above. Consideration of this mechanism can be found in .

2.4.e. Neutrino Oscillation Enhancement in Matter

At present there exist two mechanisms of neutrino oscillation enhancement in matter. A short consideration of these mechanisms is given below.

2.4.e.1. Resonant Mechanism of Neutrino Oscillation

Enhancement in Matter

In strong and electromagnetic interactions the left-handed and right-handed components of spinors participate in a symmetric manner. In contrast to these interactions only the left-handed components of spinors participate in the weak interactions as it is mentioned above. This is a distinctive feature of the weak interactions.

In the ultrarelativistic limit, the evolution equation for the neutrino wave function $`\nu _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in matter has the form ,

$$i\frac{d\nu _{Ph}}{dt}=\left(p\widehat{I}+\frac{\widehat{M}^2}{2p}+\widehat{W}\right)\nu _{Ph},$$
$`\left(39\right)`$
where $`p,\widehat{M}^2,\widehat{W}`$ are, respectively, the momentum, the (nondiagonal) square mass matrix in vacuum, and the matrix, taking into account neutrino interactions in matter,

$$\nu _{Ph}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \end{array}\right),\widehat{I}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$

$$\widehat{M}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\nu _e\nu _e}^2& m_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }^2\\ m_{\nu _\mu \nu _e}^2& m_{\nu _\mu \nu _\mu }^2\end{array}\right).$$

If we suppose that neutrinos in matter behave analogously to the photon in matter and the neutrino refraction indices are defined by the expression

$$n_i=1+\frac{2\pi N}{p^2}f_i\left(0\right)=1+2\frac{\pi W_i}{p},$$
$`\left(40\right)`$
(where $`i`$ is a type of neutrinos $`(e,\mu ,\tau )`$, $`N`$ is density of matter, $`f_i\left(0\right)`$ is a real part of the forward scattering amplitude), then $`W`$ characterizes polarization of matter by neutrinos (i.e. it is the energy of matter polarization).

The electron neutrino ($`\nu _e`$) in matter interacts via $`W^\pm ,Z^0`$ bosons and $`\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ interact only via $`Z^0`$ boson. These differences in interactions lead to the following differences in the refraction coefficients of $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n=\frac{2\pi N}{p^2}\mathrm{\Delta }f\left(0\right),$$
$`\left(41\right)`$
$$\mathrm{\Delta }f\left(0\right)=\sqrt{2}\frac{G_F}{2\pi },$$

where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant.

Therefore the velocities (or effective masses) of $`\nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ in matter are different. And at the suitable density of matter this difference can lead to a resonance enhancement of neutrino oscillations in ”matter” .

As we can see from the form of Eq. (39), this equation holds the left-right symmetric neutrinos wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(x\right)=\mathrm{\Psi }_L\left(x\right)+\mathrm{\Psi }_R\left(x\right)`$. This equation contains the term $`W`$, which arises from the weak interaction (contribution of $`W`$ boson) and which contains only a left-side interaction of the neutrinos, and is substituted in the left-right symmetric equation (39) without indication of its left-side origin. Then we see that equation (39) is an equation that includes term $`W`$ which arises not from the weak interaction but from a hypothetical left-right symmetric interaction (see also works ). Therefore this equation is not the one for neutrinos passing through real matter. The problem of neutrinos passing through real matter has been considered in .

In three different approaches: by using mass Lagrangian , by using the Dirac equation , and using the operator formalism , the author of this work has discussed the problem of the mass generation in the standard weak interactions and has come to a conclusion that the standard weak interaction cannot generate masses of fermions since the right-handed components of fermions do not participate in these interactions. Also it is shown  that the equation for Green function of the weak-interacting fermions (neutrinos) in the matter coincides with the equation for Green function of fermions in vacuum and the law of conservation of the energy and the momentum of neutrino in matter will be fulfilled  only if the energy $`W`$ of polarization of matter by the neutrino or the corresponding term in Wolfenstein equation, is zero (it means that neutrinos cannot generate permanent polarization of matter). These results lead to the conclusion: resonance enhancement of neutrino oscillations in matter does not exist.

The simplest method to prove the absence of the resonance enhancement of neutrino oscillations in matter is:

If we put an electrical (or strong) charged particle in matter, there arises polarization of matter. Since the field around the particle is spherically symmetrical, the polarization must also be spherically symmetrical. Then the particle will be left at rest and the law of energy and momentum conservation is fulfilled.

If we put a weakly interacting particle (a neutrino) in matter then, since the field around the particle has a left-right asymmetry (weak interactions are left interactions with respect to the spin direction), polarization of matter must be nonsymmetrical, i.e. on the left side there arises maximal polarization and on the right there is zero polarization. Since polarization of the matter is asymmetrical, there arises asymmetrical interaction of the particle (the neutrino) with matter and the particle cannot be at rest and will be accelerated. Then the law of energy momentum conservation will be violated. The only way to fulfil the law of energy and momentum conservation is to demand that polarization of matter be absent in the weak interactions. The same situation will take place in vacuum.

It is interesting to remark that in the gravitational interaction the polarization does not exist either .

2.4.e.2. Enhanced Oscillation of Neutrinos of Different

Masses in Matter

The oscillation probability is estimated for neutrinos of different masses in their passing through matter of different thickness, including the Sun .

1) So, if neutrinos of different types have equal masses, real oscillations are possible for different types of neutrinos by analogy with $`K^o,\overline{K}^o`$ oscillation;

2) if neutrino masses are different for different neutrino types, only virtual neutrino oscillations are possible while real oscillations require participation of neutrinos in interactions for their transition to the respective mass shells by analogy with transition of a $`\gamma `$-quantum to the $`\rho `$ -meson in the vector dominance model.

We shall estimate the probability for neutrinos to change from one type $`\nu _l`$ to another $`\nu _l^{}\left(m_{\nu _l}m_{\nu _l^{}}\right)`$ in passing through matter. Neutrino transition to the mass shell will occur via the weak neutrino-matter interaction (by analogy with the $`\gamma \rho ^o`$ transition or $`K_1^o,\overline{K}_2^o`$ oscillation). We shall assume that difference in mass of $`\nu _l,\nu _l^{}`$ neutrinos is small enough to consider $`\nu _l^{}`$ the probability of transition to the mass shell proportional to the total elastic cross section $`\sigma ^{el}\left(p\right)`$ for the weak interaction (for simplicity we shall deal with the oscillation of two types of neutrinos). Then the length of the elastic interaction of the neutrino in the matter of density charge $`Z`$, atomic number $`A`$ and momentum $`p`$ will be defined as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\frac{1}{\sigma ^{el}\left(p\right)\rho \left(z/A\right)}.$$

If the neutrino mass difference is fairly large, it can be taken into account by the methods of the vector dominance model . As pointed out above, we shall assume that this difference is very small and employ above formula.

The real part of forward scattering amplitude $`Ref_i(p,0)`$ is responsible for elastic neutrino scattering in matter (it is supposed that at low energies the coherent process takes place). It is related to the exponential phase term $`exp\left(p\mathrm{\Delta }_ir\right)`$ (as factor to momentum) in the wave function of particle $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\mathrm{})`$ and has the following form:

$$p\mathrm{\Delta }_i\frac{2\pi N_ef_i(p,0)}{p},i=\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau .$$
$`\left(42\right)`$
Keeping in mind that

$$f_i(p,0)\sqrt{2}G_Fp\left(\frac{M_W^2}{M_i^2}\right),$$
$`\left(43\right)`$
if $`i=\nu _e,M_i^2=M_W^2`$ ,

if $`i=\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau ,M_i^2=M_{Z^0}^2`$ ,

we obtain

$$p\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_i\right)\sqrt{2}G_FN_e\left(\frac{M_W^2}{M_i^2}\right).$$

The phase of the elastic scattering amplitude changes by $`2\pi `$ over the length

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i0}\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{2}G_F\rho \left(z/A\right)\left(\frac{M_W^2}{M_i^2}\right)}=2\pi L_{i0}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0.$$
$`\left(44\right)`$
For simplification further we will suppose that $`M_e^2M_\mu ^2M_\tau ^2`$ and then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. (Absorption or the imaginary part of the forward scattering amplitude can be ignored for low-energy neutrinos.)

Knowing that the length of elastic neutrino-matter interaction is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, we must estimate the oscillation probability for the neutrino passing through the matter of thickness $`L`$. The probability of the elastic $`\nu _l`$ interaction in matter of thickness $`L`$ is

$$P\left(L\right)=1exp\left(2\pi L/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\right).$$
$`\left(45\right)`$
Then, using formulae (44), (45), we can find the neutrino oscillation probability $`\rho _{\nu _l\nu _l^{}}\left(L\right)`$ at different thickness $`L`$. Averaging the expression for neutrino oscillation probability  over $`R`$

$$P_{\nu _l\nu _l^{}}\left(R\right)=\frac{1}{2}sin^22\theta _{\nu _l\nu _l^{}}\left(1cos2\pi \frac{R}{L_0}\right),$$
$`\left(46\right)`$
where $`L_0=\frac{4\pi p}{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}`$ ,

then we obtain

$$\overline{P}_{\nu _l\nu _l^{}}\left(R\right)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\nu _l\nu _l^{}}.$$

Then the oscillation probability $`\rho _{\nu _l\nu _l^{}}\left(L\right)`$ or the mixing angle $`\beta `$ at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0L_0`$ will be defined by the expressions (for simplicity it is supposed that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }_e=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau `$):

a) for $`L`$ comparable with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$,

$$\rho _{\nu _l\nu _l^{}}\left(L\right)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\beta \overline{P}_{\nu _l\nu _l^{}}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\nu _l\nu _l^{}},$$
$`\left(47\right)`$
where $`\beta \theta _{\nu _l\nu _l^{}}`$ ;

b) for very large $`L,\frac{L}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}>\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\nu _l\nu _l^{}}}1`$,

$$\rho _{\nu _l\nu _l^{}}\left(L\right)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\beta \frac{1}{2},$$
$`\left(48\right)`$
and $`\beta \frac{\pi }{4}`$ ;

c) for intermediate L,

$$\rho _{\nu _l\nu _l^{}}\left(L\right)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\nu _l\nu _l^{}}\rho _{\nu _l\nu _l^{}}\left(L\right)\frac{1}{2},$$
$`\left(49\right)`$
and $`\theta _{\nu _l\nu _l^{}}\beta \frac{\pi }{4}`$ .

If $`L_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ the expressions like (47)-(49) are also true, but $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ should be replaced by $`L_0`$ and the thickness of matter will be determined in units of $`L_0`$. Also, since the oscillation length $`L_0`$ increases with the neutrino momentum (see (46)), the number of oscillation lengths $`n=L/L_0`$ fitting in the given thickness $`L`$ decreases with increasing neutrino momentum as, accordingly, the neutrino oscillation probability $`\rho _{\nu _l\nu _l^{}}\left(L\right)`$ does.

Let us consider the neutrino oscillation probability for intermediate interaction numbers $`n`$. The distribution probability of $`n`$-fold elastic neutrino interaction for thickness $`L`$ with the mean value $`\overline{n}=L/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ at not very large $`\overline{n}`$ is determined by the Poisson distribution

$$f(n,\overline{n})=\frac{\left(\overline{n}\right)^n}{n!}e^{\overline{n}}.$$
$`\left(50\right)`$
At large $`\overline{n}`$ it changes to the Gaussian distribution:

$$f(n,\overline{n},\overline{n})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi \overline{n}}}e^{\frac{\left(n\overline{n}\right)^2}{2\overline{n}}}.$$
$`\left(51\right)`$
The probability of neutrino conversion from $`\nu _l`$ to $`\nu _l`$ and $`\nu _l^{}`$ $`n`$-fold elastic interaction is determined by recursion relations (where $`\theta \theta _{\nu _l\nu _l^{}}`$) given in works .

Here we give the expression for probability for neutrino conversion at $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 1`$ for two types of neutrinos ($`\nu _e,\nu _\mu `$)

$$\rho \left(\nu _e\nu _e\right)=1\overline{n}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta ,$$
$`\left(52\right)`$
$$\rho \left(\nu _e\nu _\mu \right)=\overline{n}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta .$$

Then enhancement of neutrino oscillation in matter will take place, i.e. $`\nu _e`$ neutrinos will transit in $`\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ neutrinos, but it is necessary to take into account that mean numbers of interaction lengths $`L_\mu ^o,L_\tau ^o`$ of $`\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ will be $`\delta `$ times less and then, correspondingly, $`\overline{n}`$ in (52) will be changed for $`\overline{n}_\mu ,\overline{n}_\tau `$.

$$\delta =\overline{n}_e/\overline{n}_\mu =\overline{n}_e/\overline{n}_\tau 2.49.$$
$`\left(53\right)`$
The mean number of elastic interactions of electron neutrinos produced in the Sun is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{Sun}1.710^7m,\overline{n}_e^{Sun}40,\overline{n}_\mu ^{Sun}16,\overline{n}_\tau ^{Sun}16.$$

It is necessary to mention that the considered mechanisms of enhancement of neutrino oscillation in matter lead only to changing the mixing angles and for their realizations the vacuum mixing angle of neutrino oscillations must differ from zero.

2.4.f. Neutrino Oscillations in Supersymmetrical Models

Neutrino oscillation in supersymmetrical models is considered in works (and see references there) \[40-42\]. Here we do not fulfil detailed considerations of these schemes but want to remark that in these schemes side by side the neutrino oscillations the superpartner of the fermions and bosons must be observed.

## 3  Experimental Data

3.a. Neutrino Experimental Data from SNO (Canada)

The SNO detector , containing 1000 tons of heavy water ($`D_2O`$), is placed in a shaft in Sudbury at depth 6010 m water equivalent (Sudbury Neutrino Observatory).

The neutrinos are detected in the following reactions:

| 1. $`\nu _x+e^{}\nu _x+e^{}`$, | $`E_{thre}`$ 6 MeV (ES), |
| --- | --- |
| 2. $`\nu _e+dp+p+e^{}`$ , | $`E_{thre}`$ 1.45 MeV (CC), |
| 3. $`\nu _x+dp+n+\nu _x`$ , | $`E_{thre}`$ 2.23 MeV (NC), |
| $`x=e,\mu ,\tau `$ . |  |

Reaction 1 goes through charged and neutral currents, if $`x=e`$, and neutral if $`x=\mu ,\tau `$; reaction 2 goes through charged current, and reaction 3 through neutral current. Using any couple of the reactions we can find the primary flux of the Sun neutrinos. Sudbury reported first results in . These results are obtained for the Sun neutrinos with threshold $`E_{eff}6.75MeV`$.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of $`cos\theta `$ (a), and kinetic energy spectrum with a statistical error (b) with the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ spectrum  scaled to the data. The ratio of the data to the prediction  is shown in (c). The bands represent the $`1\sigma `$ uncertainties derived from the most significant energy-dependent systematic errors. There is no evidence for a deviation of the spectral shape from the predicted shape on the non-oscillation hypothesis.

Normalized to the integrated rates above the energy $`E_{eff}=6.75`$ MeV, the flux of neutrinos is (from reactions 2 and 1):

$$\varphi _{SNO}^{CC}\left(\nu _e\right)=1.75\pm 0.07(stat.)+0.12(0.11)(syst.)$$
$`\left(54\right)`$
$`\pm 0.05(theor.)\times 10^6cm^2s^1`$ ,

$$\varphi _{SNO}^{ES}\left(\nu _x\right)=2.39\pm 0.34(stat.)+0.16(0.14)(sys.)\times 10^6cm^2s^1,$$
$`\left(55\right)`$
where the theoretical uncertainty is the CC cross section uncertainty. The neutrinos flux (55) measured on SNO is consistent with the same flux measured on Super-Kamiokande (58).

Figure 1: Distributions of (a) $`cos\theta _{sun}`$, and (b) extracted kinetic energy spectrum for CC events with $`R5.50`$ m and $`T_{eff}`$ 6.75 MeV. The Monte Carlo simulations for an undistorted $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ spectrum are shown as histograms. The ratio of the data to the expected kinetic energy distribution with correlated systematic errors is shown in (c). The uncertainties in the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ spectrum have not been included

The difference between $`\nu `$ flux deduced from the ES rate and that deduced from the CC rate is

$$\varphi _{SNO}=0.64\pm 0.40\times 10^6cm^2s^1.$$

It is the $`\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ flux measured through NC.

The best fit to the $`\varphi _{SNO}\left(\nu _{\mu \tau }\right)`$ flux is:

$$\varphi _{SNO}\left(\nu _{\mu \tau }\right)=3.69\pm 1.13\times 10^6cm^2s^1.$$
$`\left(56\right)`$
The ratio of the SNO CC flux to the solar model \[44 \] is

$$\frac{\varphi _{SNO}^{CC}}{\varphi _{BPB00}}=0.347\pm 0.029.$$

The total flux of active $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ neutrinos is determined to be:

$$\varphi _{SNO}\left(\nu _x\right)=5.44\pm 0.99\times 10^6cm^2s^1.$$
$`\left(57\right)`$
This result is in a good agreement with prediction of the standard solar models .

The SNO results are the first direct indication of the non-electron flavor components in the solar neutrino fluxes, and it is, practically , the total flux of $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ neutrinos generated by the Sun.

3.b. Neutrino Experimental Data from Super-Kamiokande

(Japan)

The Super-Kamiokande detector  is a cylindrically-sharped water Cherenkov detector with 50000 ton of ultra-pure water. It is located about 1000m (2700 m.w.e.) underground in the Kamioka mine. Super-Kamiokande is a multipurpose experiment, and solar and atmospheric neutrino physics is one of its main topics.

i). The Sun neutrino fluxes measured in Super-Kamiokande detector  through the electron scattering reaction 1. $`\nu _x+e^{}\nu _x+e^{}`$ $`{}_{thre}{}^{}`$ 5 MeV are as follows:

$$\varphi _{SK}^{ES}\left(\nu _e\right)=2.32\pm 0.03(stat.)+0.08(0.07)(syst.)\times 10^6cm^2s^1.$$
$`\left(58\right)`$
These fluxes are in a good consistence with the Sun neutrino fluxes measured in SNO.

Figure 2: Zenith angle distribution of Super-Kamiokande 1289 days FC, PC and UPMU samples. Dots, solid and dashed lines correspond to data, MC with no oscillation and MC with best fit oscillation parameters, respectively

The day-night asymmetry $`A`$ is

$$A=\frac{\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_n\mathrm{\Phi }_d\right)}{\left(\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_n+\mathrm{\Phi }_d\right)/2\right)}=0.033\pm 0.022(stat.)+0.013(0.012)(syst.).$$

This is $`1.3\sigma `$ from the zero asymmetry.

ii). Atmospheric neutrinos are produced by the interactions of the primary cosmic rays on nuclei of the Earth atmosphere. The atmospheric neutrinos at a few GeV have ratio 2 $`\left(\nu _\mu +\overline{\nu }_\mu \right)/\left(\nu _e+\overline{\nu }_e\right)`$. The events observed in Super-Kamiokande are categorized into four types: (1) Fully Contained (FC) events, which have their vertex in the detector and all visible particles contained in the detector. (2) Partially Contained (PC) events, which have their vertex in the detector and at least one visible particle exits from the detector. (3) Upward through-going muons which are produced by the $`\nu _\mu `$ charged current interaction in the rock surrounding the detector and go through the detector. (4) Upward stopping muons which are produced by the $`\nu _\mu `$ charged current interaction in the rock surrounding the detector but stop in the detector. The primary neutrino ($`\nu _e`$-like and $`\nu _\mu `$-like) energy are divided in two regions: (1) $`E_\nu 1.33`$ GeV sub-GeV, (2) $`E_\nu >1.33`$GeV multi GeV.

Figure 2 gives the zenith angle distribution of Super-Kamiokande 1289 days samples . Dots, solid and dashed lines correspond to the data, MC with no oscillation and MC best oscillation parameters , respectively ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m=2.5\times \left(10\right)^3eV^2`$, $`sin^22\theta =1.00`$) . These data are well explained by $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ 2-flavor oscillations and are consistent with $`\nu _\tau `$ appearance roughly at the two-sigma level.

## 4 Conclusions from Comparison of the Experimental Data with Theoretical Scheme Predictions on Neutrino Oscillations

1. In the Super-Kamiokande experiment on atmospheric neutrinos the deficit of muonic neutrinos is detected. The analysis shows that they can transit only in $`\nu _\tau `$ neutrinos. The $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ transition in this experiment is not observed. From this fact we can conclude (taking into account SNO results) that the length of $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ transitions is of the order of the Earth diameter, and the angle $`\theta `$ of $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ transitions is near to the maximal mixing angle $`\theta \pi /4`$. Then the length of $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ transitions is much more than the Earth diameter. The SNO experimental data also confirm, through neutral current registration, $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ transitions with the same mixing angle.

2. From the SNO experimental data on straight registration neutrinos (by neutral and charge currents in case $`\nu _e`$ and neutral current in the case $`\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$) we can come to the following conclusion: the primary $`\nu _e`$ neutrinos transit in equally proportions in $`\mu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ neutrinos, i. e., mixing angles $`\theta _{\left(\mathrm{}\right)}`$ of $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ are equal to the maximal angles of mixing. The length of $`\nu _e\nu _\mu ,\mu _\tau `$ oscillations is less than the distance to the Sun.

Come to comparison of these results with the predictions in the above-considered theoretical schemes on neutrino oscillations.

4.a. Neutrino-Antineutrino Oscillations

In the existing experimental results the neutrinos disappearance has not been detected (see above), i. e., this mechanism is not confirmed.

4.b. Aromatic Neutrino Oscillations

This scheme was confirmed by experiments.

Pontecorvo-Gribov type oscillations for aromatic neutrinos maximal mixing angle can be realized only at neutrino masses equality $`m_{\nu _e}=m_{\nu _\mu }=m_{\nu _\tau }`$. It is hardly probable that the neutrino masses are equal. The length of $`\mu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations nearly is equal to the Earth diameter, and the length of $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ oscillations is more much than the Earth diameter. Then more probable is the type of oscillations suggested by the author , $`\theta _{\left(\mathrm{}\right)}=\pi /4`$ (see Sect. 2 and below) and the transition between oscillating neutrinos is virtual. Here neutrino oscillations can take place in the charge mixings scheme . It is supposed that the neutrinos are mixed via weak interactions and therefore if we consider charge mixings of two neutrinos-$`a,b`$, then the mixing angles must be

$$sin\theta \frac{g_w\left(a\right)}{\sqrt{g_w^2\left(a\right)+g_w^2\left(b\right)}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},$$

since $`g_w\left(a\right)g_w\left(b\right)`$, where $`g_w\left(a\right),g_w\left(b\right)`$ are weak couple constants of $`a,b`$ neutrinos.

4.c. Majorana Neutrino Oscillations

From the above-considered discussion (see Sect. 2.4.c) we can come to a conclusion that the Dirac and Majorana gauge charges are different and therefore we cannot put Majorana fermions in the Dirac theory. Then it is obvious that this scheme of neutrino oscillations cannot be realized.

4.d. Neutrino Oscillations in the Scheme of Majorana-

Dirac Mixing Type

We do not discuss this scheme for the reason given above (see Sect. 2.4.c). It is clear that this scheme cannot be realized in the experiment either.

4.e. Mechanisms of Neutrino Oscillations Enhancement

in Matter

4.e.1 Mechanism of Resonance Enhancement of Neutrino

Oscillations in Matter

The experimental data on energy spectrum and day-night effect obtained in Super-Kamiokande (energy spectrum of neutrinos is not distorted, day-night effect is within the experimental mistakes) and the results obtained in SNO have not confirmed this effect. Besides, this effect can be realized only at the violation of the law of the energy-momentum conservation (see Section 2.4.e.1. in this work and Ref. ).

4.e.2. Mechanism of Accumulation of the Neutrino

Different Masses in Matter

This mechanism effectively works only at small mixing angles. Since the mixing angles discovered in SNO and Super-Kamiokande are maximal, then we can neglect the contribution of this mechanism to the neutrino oscillations.

4.f. Neutrino Oscillation in Supersymmetric Models

This type of oscillations can be confirmed only in case of discovery of the superpartners of fermions and bosons besides the neutrino oscillations.

## 5 Conclusion

The theoretical schemes on neutrino oscillations are considered. The experimental data on neutrino oscillations from Super-Kamiokande (Japan) and SNO (Canada) are given. The comparison of these data with theoretical schemes has been done. We have come to a conclusion: The experimental data confirm only the scheme with transitions (oscillations) between aromatic $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ neutrinos with maximal mixing angles. This scheme was suggested by Z. Makki et al., in 1962  and repeated by B. Pontecorvo in 1967  and subsequently is developed by Kh. Beshtoev (see references in this work). Besides, this mechanism of a neutrino oscillations is the only one which is theoretically substantiated.

References

1. Pontecorvo B. M., Soviet Journ. JETP, 1957, v. 33, p.549;

JETP, 1958, v.34, p.247.

2. Maki Z. et al., Prog.Theor. Phys., 1962, vol.28, p.870.

3. Pontecorvo B. M., Soviet Journ. JETP, 1967, v. 53, p.1717.

4. Davis R. et al., Phys. Rev. Letters, 1968, vol.20, p.1205.

5. Bahcall J. et al., Phys. Lett.B, 1968, vol.26, p.1;

Bahcall J., Bahcall N., Shaviv G., Phys. Rev. Lett. 1968, vol.20,

p.1209;

S. Turck-Chiere et al., Astrophys.J. 335 (1988), p.415.

6. Gribov V., Pontecorvo B.M., Phys. Lett. B, 1969, vol.28, p.493.

7. Hirata K.S. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 1989, vol.63,p.16.

8. Mikheyev S.P., Smirnov A.Ju., Nuovo Cimento, 1986, vol.9,p.17.

9. Wolfenstein L., Phys. Rev.D, 1978, vol.17, p.2369.

10. Beshtoev Kh.M., JINR Commun. E2-91-183, Dubna, 1991;

Proceedings of III Int. Symp. on Weak and Electromag. Int. in

Nucl. (World Scient., Singapoure, P. 781, 1992);

13th European Cosmic Ray Symp. CERN, Geneva, HE-5-13.

11. Anselmann P. et al., Phys. Lett. B, 1992,

vol.285, p.376; 1992, vol.285, p.391;

Hampel W. et al., Phys. Lett. B, 1999, v.447, p. 127.

12. Abdurashitov J.N. et al., Phys. Lett.B, 1994, vol.328,

p.234; Phys. Rev. Lett., 1999, v.83, p.4683.

13. Beshtoev Kh.M., JINR Commun, E2-93-297, Dubna, 1993;

JINR Commun. E2-94-46; Hadronic Journal, 1995, vol 18, p.165.

14. Beshtoev Kh.M., JINR Commun. E2-96-458, Dubna, 1996;

JINR Commun. E2-97-360, Dubna, 1997;

Report at International Conf. ”Neutrino98”, Japan, 1998.

15. Totsuka Y., Proc. Intern. Symp. on Underground Exp. (ed.K.

Nakamura), Tokyo, 1990, p.129.

16. Suzuki Y., Report at Intern. Conf. ”Neutrino98”, Japan,

June, 1998; Phys. Rev. Lett. 1998, v.81 p.1158;

Fukuda Y. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 1999, v.82, p.2430;

1999, v.82, p.1810.

17. Kajita T., Report on Intern. Conf. ”Neutrino98” Japan,

June, 1998;

Fukuda Y. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 1999,

v.82, p.2644.

18. Aardsma et al., Phys. Lett. B, 1987, vol.194, p.321.

19. Kameda J., Proceedings of ICRC 2001, August 2001, Germany,

Hamburg, p.1057.

20. Ahmad Q. R. et al., Internet Pub. nucl-ex/0106015, June 2001.

21. Bogolubov N.N., Shirkov D.V., Introd. to the Quantum Field

Theory, M.: Nauka, 1986;

Kane G., Modern Elementary Particle Physics,

Add. W. P.C., 1987.

22. Beshtoev Kh.M., JINR Commun. E2-99-81, Dubna, 1999;

hep-ph/99 .

23. Beshtoev Kh. M., INR AC USSR Preprint -577, Moscow, 1988.

24. Bilenky S.M., Pontecorvo B.M., Phys. Rep., C41(1978)225;

Boehm F., Vogel P., Physics of Massive Neutrinos: Cambridge

Univ. Press, 1987, p.27, p.121;

Bilenky S.M., Petcov S.T., Rev. of Mod. Phys., 1977, v.59,

p.631.

25. Beshtoev Kh.M., JINR Commun. E2-92-318, Dubna, 1992;

JINR Rapid Communications, N3-95.

26. Beshtoev Kh.M., Internet Pub. hep-ph/9911513;

The Hadronic Journal, v.23, 2000, p.477;

Proceedings of 27th Intern. Cosmic Ray Conf., Germany,

Hamburg, 7-15 August 2001, v.3, p. 1186.

27. Beshtoev Kh.M., Hadronic Journal, 1995, vol.18, p.165.

28. Blatt J.M., Waiscopff V.F., The Theory of Nuclear Reactions,

INR T.R. 42.

29. Beshtoev Kh.M., JINR Commun. E2-99-307, Dubna, 1999;

JINR Commun. E2-99-306, Dubna, 1999.

30. Beshtoev Kh.M., Phys. of Elem. Part. and Atomic Nucl.

(Particles and Nuclei), 1996, v.27, p.53.

31. Rosen S.P., Lectore Notes on Mass Matrices, LASL preprint,

1983.

32. Beshtoev Kh.M., JINR Commun. E2-92-195, Dubna, 1992.

33. Glashow S.L.- Nucl. Phys., 1961, vol.22, p.579 ;

Weinberg S.- Phys. Rev. Lett., 1967, vol.19, p.1264 ;

Salam A.- Proc. of the 8th Nobel Symp., edited by

N. Svarthholm (Almgvist and Wiksell, Stockholm) 1968, p.367.

34. Mikheyev S. P., Smirnov A. Yu., Yad. Fiz. 1986, v.42, p.1441;

Sov. Phys. JETP, 1986, v.91, p.7;

Mikheyev S. P., Smirnov A. Yu, Nuovo Cimento C 9, 1986, p.17;

Boucher J. et al., Z. Phys. C 32, 1986, p.499.

35. Beshtoev Kh. M., JINR Communication E2-93-167, Dubna,

1993; JINR Communication P2-93-44, Dubna, 1993;

36. Beshtoev Kh.M., HEP-PH/9912532, 1999;

Hadronic Journal, 1999, v.22, p.235.

37. Beshtoev Kh.M., JINR Communication E2-2000-30, Dubna,

2000; Internet Publ. hep-ph/0003274.

38. Beshtoev Kh.M., JINR Communication P2-2001-65, Dubna,

2001.

39. Sakurai J.J., Currents and Mesons. The Univ. of Chicago

Press, 1967.

40. Haug et al., Nucl. Phys. B565, 2000, p.3848.

41. Bednyakov V. et al., Nucl. Phys. B442, 1998, p.203.

42. Dib C. et al., hep-ph/0011213.

43. C. Waltham, Proceedings of ICRC 2001, August 2001,

Hamburg, Germany, v.4, p.3167.

44. Ortz C.E. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 2000, v.85, p.2909.

45. Bahcall J.N. et al., astro-ph/0010346.

46 Turck-Chieze S. et al., Ap. J. Lett., v.555 July 1, 2001.

47. Fukuda S. et al., Phys Rev. Lett., 2001, v.86, p.5651.

48. Toshito T., hep-ex/0105023;

Kameda J., Proceeding of 27th ICRC, August 2001,

Hamburg, Germany, v.2, p.1057.

49. Honda M. et al., Phys Rev. D52, 1995, p.4985; Phys. Rev. D53,

1996, p.1313.

50. Beshtoev Kh. M., JINR Communication E2-2000-229, Dubna,

2000.


format: text

text:
# Particle number fractionization of an atomic Fermi-Dirac gas in an optical lattice

## Abstract

We show that a dilute 2-species gas of Fermi-Dirac alkali-metal atoms in a periodic optical lattice may exhibit fractionization of particle number when the two components are coupled via a coherent electromagnetic field with a topologically nontrivial phase profile. This results in fractional eigenvalues of the spin operator with vanishing fluctuations. The fractional part can be accurately controlled by modifying the effective detuning of the electromagnetic field.

PACS: 03.75.Fi,05.30.Jp,11.27.+d

Particle number fractionization is a remarkable phenomenon in both relativistic quantum field theory and condensed matter systems . Jackiw and Rebbi  showed that for a fermionic field coupled to a bosonic field with a topologically nontrivial soliton profile, the fermion number can be fractional. The noninteger particle number eigenvalues may be understood in terms of the deformations of the Dirac sea (or the hole sea) due to its interaction with the topologically nontrivial environment. In this paper we propose a manifestation of this phenomenon in the atomic regime, using an optically trapped Fermi-Dirac (FD) atomic gas . Fractional fermion number has been demonstrated previously in the condensed matter regime in 1D conjugated polymers by Su, Schrieffer and Heeger . Fractionally charged excitations are also fundamental to the fractional quantum Hall effect , but the fractionization mechanism is very different from that in the polymers and in the atomic gas in this paper. Our dilute atomic gas has a possible advantage, compared to condensed matter systems, in the sense that the interatomic interactions are weak and well-understood, and there now exists a wide range of atomic physics technology to detect, manipulate, and control atoms by means of electromagnetic (em) fields.

We study a two-species atomic FD gas in a 1D optical lattice, coupled to an em field with topological properties similar to a soliton, or a phase kink. We show that this topologically nontrivial coherent background field results in fractionization of the particle number operator eigenvalues for the fermionic atoms. Also, the spin operator has fractional eigenvalues with vanishing fluctuations.

The background field is generated by means of a coherent em field inducing transitions between the two fermionic components occupying different internal levels, e.g., by using experimentally realized technology of rapidly rotating laser beams . In the low energy limit we demonstrate the one-to-one correspondence of the Hamiltonian for the FD atoms to the Jackiw-Rebbi relativistic Dirac Hamiltonian describing fractionization in quantum field theory. This is related to fractionization in the polyacetylene polymer systems, where the linearized lattice vibrations are coupled to the electron dynamics which becomes analogous to that for a relativistic Dirac equation exhibiting fractional particle number. We also show how our proposed system could be generalized to higher spatial dimensions to represent the fractionization in relativistic 2+1 and 3+1 D quantum field theories.

Tremendous progress in experiments on cold trapped alkali-metal atomic gases has allowed numerous studies with Bose-Einstein condensates and the cooling of a FD gas to the quantum degenerate regime . Recently, condensates have been loaded to a periodic optical lattice , a system which is expected to exhibit interesting dynamical phenomena . Similar experimental progress is anticipated for FD gases.

The vacuum state in an atomic condensate can support topological excitations including defects, such as solitons  and vortices , as well as SU(2) Skyrmion textures . In this paper we show that in atomic gases also the vacuum state itself may display nontrivial topological quantum numbers with a strong analogy to the vacua encountered in relativistic quantum field theories.

The phenomenon of fractional fermion number is best illustrated by the following 1+1 dimensional Dirac hamiltonian  for a 2-component spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$ coupled to a bosonic condensate $`\phi (x)`$, which can be taken to be a static classical background field:

$$H=𝑑x[c\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\sigma ^2\frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }}{idx}+\mathrm{}g\phi \mathrm{\Psi }^{}\sigma ^1\mathrm{\Psi }+mc^2\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\sigma ^3\mathrm{\Psi }].$$
(1)
Here $`\sigma ^i`$ denote the Pauli spin matrices, $`g`$ the coupling coefficient, $`m`$ the fermionic mass, and $`c`$ the velocity of light. We show below that the atomic FD hamiltonian can be written in this form.

We assume the bosonic field has a doubly-degenerate ground state with constant field $`\phi (x)=\pm \gamma `$. The vacuum then exhibits a spontaneously broken reflection symmetry $`\phi \phi `$. For $`m=0`$, the Dirac Hamiltonian has a charge conjugation symmetry, so that for every eigenvalue $`ϵ`$ there exists an eigenvalue $`ϵ`$, and the corresponding eigenfunctions are paired according to $`\mathrm{\Psi }_ϵ=\sigma ^3\mathrm{\Psi }_ϵ^{}`$. The fermion particle number operator is

$$N\frac{1}{2}𝑑x[\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x),\mathrm{\Psi }(x)].$$
(2)
In the free vacuum, the fermion particle number vanishes.

The soliton background $`\phi (x)`$ interpolates between the two vacua: $`\phi (\mathrm{})=\phi (\mathrm{})=\gamma `$. For $`m=0`$, charge conjugation symmetry is preserved, so that positive and negative energy states are paired, but in addition to continuum modes there is now also a zero-energy bound state localized at the soliton jump. This state is charge self-conjugate and results in a doubly-degenerate soliton sector vacuum. The number operator in the presence of the soliton reads :

$$N=a^{}a1/2+𝑑k(b_k^{}b_kc_k^{}c_k),$$
(3)
where $`b_k`$ and $`c_k`$ denote annihilation operators for continuum fermion and antifermion modes (respectively), while the operators $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$ couple the two degenerate zero-energy ground states. The ground-state soliton states possess fractional fermion numbers $`\pm 1/2`$. The Hamiltonian is diagonal in the number representation and all the fermion eigenstates display half integral eigenvalues with vanishing fluctuations. The fractional part of the fermion number has a topological character: it is insensitive to local deformations of the bosonic field, depending only on its asymptotic behavior. For $`m0`$, charge conjugation symmetry of the Dirac Hamiltonian (1) is broken and the positive and negative energy states are no longer coupled in a simple way. The particle number of the soliton vacuum is $`0|N|0=1/\pi \mathrm{arctan}(\mathrm{}g\gamma /mc^2)`$ and may exhibit arbitrary fractional eigenvalues .

In our scheme to realize particle number fractionization in atomic gases we consider neutral FD atoms loaded in a periodic optical lattice. The confining optical potential is induced by means of the ac Stark effect of the off-resonant laser beams . We assume a FD gas with two internal levels $``$ and $``$ coupled via an em-induced transition. The coupling could be a far-detuned optical Raman transition via an intermediate atomic level, a microwave, or a rf transition. Furthermore, we assume that the two species experience optical potentials which are shifted relative to each other by $`\lambda /4`$, where $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength of light of the confining optical lattice. This is realized, e.g., when the laser beam is blue-detuned from the internal transition of the atoms in level $``$, and red-detuned by the same amount from the internal transition of the atoms in level $``$. A simple example 1D lattice potential in that case is $`V_{}(x)=V_0\mathrm{sin}^2(kx)`$, and $`V_{}(x)=V_0\mathrm{sin}^2(kx)`$. The neighboring lattice sites represent atoms in different internal levels and are separated by a distance $`\lambda /4`$. The Hamiltonian for this two-species FD gas is

$`H/\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(\alpha _i^{}\alpha _i\beta _i^{}\beta _i){\displaystyle \underset{k\mathrm{odd}}{}}(\kappa \alpha _k^{}\beta _{k+1}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.)`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l\mathrm{even}}{}}(\kappa \alpha _{l+1}^{}\beta _l+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.).`$
Here $`\alpha _i`$ and $`\beta _j`$ denote annihilation operators for atoms in levels $``$ and $``$, at lattice sites $`i`$ and $`j`$, respectively. The em-induced coupling between the two internal states is described by $`\kappa =d^3r\psi _{}^{}(𝐫𝐫_k)\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐫)\psi _{}(𝐫𝐫_{k\pm 1})`$, and $`\delta `$ stands for the effective detuning between the levels. The em-coupled terms are the analogues of the hopping terms in the corresponding polymer hamiltonian . The mode functions of the individual lattice sites (Wannier functions) are denoted by $`\psi _j(𝐫𝐫_i)`$. We assume that the em coupling between the internal levels with frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐫)`$ is the only transition mechanism for the atoms between neighboring lattice sites and therefore we ignored the direct tunneling. For simplicity, we also ignore the $`s`$-wave scattering between the two FD species.

To produce fermion number fractionization, we propose to take the coupling frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐫)`$ to be a phase-coherent superposition of a standing em field along the $`x`$ axis and a field with the spatial profile $`\phi (x)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐫)=i𝒱(𝐫)[\mathrm{sin}(2kx)+\phi (x)],$$
(6)
with $`k2\pi /\lambda `$ . We show that such a coupling frequency converts the atomic lattice Hamiltonian (5) into the Dirac Hamiltonian (1) in the continuum limit. This is similar to the 1D polymer case , but the physics is very different: in our atomic system the kink $`\phi (x)`$ appears in the em-induced coupling between the internal atomic states, and not as a physical domain wall kink.

For simplicity, we assume that $`\eta (x)d^3r\psi _{}^{}(𝐫𝐫_k)𝒱(r)\psi _{}(𝐫𝐫_{k\pm 1})`$ does not change its sign over the length of the lattice. The purpose of the standing wave in Eq. (6) is to introduce an alternating sign between the neighboring lattice sites. Such a coupling may be prepared by a two-photon optical Raman transition (Fig. 1). The strength of an off-resonant two-photon Rabi frequency in the limit of large detuning, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, from the intermediate state is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1_2/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`_i`$ denote the Rabi frequencies in the individual transitions . For two standing-wave one-photon couplings displaced from one another by $`\lambda /4`$, the two-photon Rabi frequency is $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}(kx)\mathrm{cos}(kx)\mathrm{sin}(2kx)`$.

We choose the field profile $`\phi (x)`$ to exhibit a phase jump of $`\pi `$ at $`x=0`$. The phase jump represents a topological phase singularity, or a phase kink. This type of a coupling might be produced either by making use of the (rf or microwave) transition between the spin states, or by means of an optical Raman transition other than the one used to produce the $`\mathrm{sin}(2kx)`$ standing wave. A phase profile with topological properties similar to $`\phi (x)`$ could be prepared, e.g., by means of a standing microwave $`\mathrm{sin}(qx)`$ with $`qk`$. It should also be possible to shape the wave fronts of the coupling lasers to produce a two-photon transition with a desired phase jump. To avoid rapid phase variation at the length scale $`\lambda `$, one could use either laser beams co-propagating along the $`x`$ axis, or beams with the wave vectors nearly perpendicular to $`x`$. Alternatively, the coupling could possibly also be obtained by a dc magnetic field $`B(x)x`$ as explained in Ref. . An em field, topologically similar to $`\phi (x)`$, was also used to create solitons in atomic condensates . Unlike in Ref.  we could assume that the coupling field itself is formed by two rapidly rotating em fields resulting in a desired time-averaged phase profile.

We assume that $`\mathrm{sin}(2kx)`$ and $`\phi (x)`$ in Eq. (6) are approximately constant over the spatial overlap area of neighboring lattice site atom wavefunctions. Then the sine function is approximately $`\pm 1`$ at each overlap area:

$$\kappa i\eta [(1)^n+\phi (x)].$$
(7)
For notational simplicity, we take $`\kappa ^{}=\kappa `$, and $`\eta `$ real.

In this paper we study the Hamiltonian (5) \[with $`\mathrm{\Omega }(𝐫)`$ defined in Eqs. (6) and (7)\] only in the continuum limit, where it can be transformed to the relativistic Dirac Hamiltonian (1) exhibiting fractional charge . It may be shown that the fractional eigenvalues also emerge in a more general case, but the continuum field theory is amenable to a simpler description. The continuum limit corresponds to the linearization of the fermionic band structure and becomes accurate in the dilute gas limit, where the atomic correlation length is much larger than the lattice spacing. In the continuum limit we write the fermionic annihilation operators as continuous functions of the lattice spacing $`d\lambda /4`$:

$$\alpha _j\sqrt{2d}u(jd),\beta _j\sqrt{2d}v(jd).$$
(8)
Then the continuum limit proceeds exactly as in the polymer case . To leading order in small $`d`$ we obtain

$`H/\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`2id^2\eta {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}[u^{}(nd)v^{}(nd)+v^{}(nd)u^{}(nd)]`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta d}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}[u^{}(nd)u(nd)v^{}(nd)v(nd)]`$
$`+2i\eta d{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\phi (nd)[u^{}(nd)v(nd)+v^{}(nd)u(nd)].`$
Here $`u^{}(nd)`$ denotes a discrete spatial derivative of $`u`$. In the continuum limit we replace $`ndx`$ and $`d_n𝑑x`$. By introducing the spinor $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)[u(x)v(x)]^T`$ and the transformation: $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{exp}(i\pi \sigma ^3/4)\mathrm{\Psi }`$, we may express Eq. (11) as the relativistic Dirac Hamiltonian (1), when we identify $`c=\lambda \eta /2`$, $`g=2\eta `$, and $`m=2\mathrm{}\delta /(\lambda ^2\eta ^2)`$. In this case the spinor components refer to the two internal atomic levels. Note that for nonzero detuning $`\delta `$ the system is not charge conjugation symmetric, and the eigenvalues can have any fractional value. The ratio between the coupling strength $`\gamma \eta `$ and $`\delta `$ therefore determines the fractional part of the particle number. In experiments this could be engineered accurately, allowing a controlled way of preparing the fractional part of the eigenvalues.

The crucial part of our proposal for fractional particle number is the em field $`\phi (x)`$ in Eq. (6). This is very different from the fermion particle number fractionization in polymers, as our fermionic fields are not coupled to a bosonic matter field with a domain-wall soliton. Instead, the coherent em field with a topologically appropriate phase profile is coupled to the FD atoms via internal transitions. This results in the quantization of the FD atomic gas with nontrivial topological quantum numbers corresponding to the soliton sector of the relativistic 1+1 quantum field theory models of fractionization. On the other hand, a spatially constant phase profile $`\phi (x)`$ represents the FD vacuum sector exhibiting integer particle numbers and no bound state.

The normalizable bound state, which plays an important role in the fractionization, belongs to only one of the two fermionic components, independently of the shape or the position of the phase kink: for the solitonlike phase kink, $`\phi (h)=\phi (h)=\gamma `$, for all $`hd`$, only level $``$ is occupied, and for the antisolitonlike phase kink, $`\phi (h)=\phi (h)=\gamma `$, only level $``$ is occupied . When $`m=0`$, the bound state has zero energy. Its spatial profile $`\mathrm{exp}(\gamma |x|/d)`$ (for a sharp kink at $`x=0`$) depends on the relative strength of the superposed em fields, according to Eq. (6), determining $`\gamma `$. Unlike in the polymer case, where the size of the bound state is fixed, in the atomic case this could be varied experimentally.

Because the local density of states is conserved, a zero-energy mode creates a fractional deficit of states in both the valence and the conduction bands. In the presence of charge conjugation symmetry, the density of states is a symmetric function of the energy, and both bands have a decifit of one-half a state. By assigning the atoms in the conduction and valence bands as “particles” and “antiparticles”, respectively, we can interpret the fractional particle number operator as the occupation number difference between the bands. However, because the zero-mode always occupies only one spin component at a time, also the spin is fractionized. As an example, the two species may correspond to the eigenstates of a single-particle spin operator along the $`z`$ axis, $`\sigma _z`$, with eigenvalues $`\pm 1`$. Then the eigenvalues of the many-particle operator $`S_z_n\sigma _z^{(n)}`$, localized around the soliton, are fractional with vanishing fluctuations.

The total number of atoms, of course, must remain an integer and any realistic optical lattice has a finite size. For every fractional particle number located at the phase kink (forming a soliton), some fractional charge is distributed at the boundary of the atomic cloud, or is associated with an antikink. Although the fluctuations of the fractional eigenvalues do not then in a finite lattice exactly vanish, it can be shown that the fluctuations decay exponentially as a function of the size of the system and can be considered negligible, if the size is much larger than the atomic correlation length . Therefore, every localized measurement of the particle number around the phase kink can yield a fractional result.

In experiments on fractional fermion number we may detect the bound state or measure a fractional expectation value and determine its fluctuations to ascertain that they are compatible with fractionization. The FD gas exhibits a gap $`2\eta `$ in the excitation spectrum. The phase kink creates a bound mode at the center of the gap, hence excitations at half the gap energy . These midgap transitions  could be probed in resonance spectroscopy. The bound state also alters the dynamical structure factor, which may be observed via light scattering . The optical signal may be magnified by simultaneously preparing many phase kinks. The fractional particle number could be detected by measuring the occupation numbers of the individual lattice sites. For instance, a magnetic field gradient may be introduced that causes a detectable change in the spin flip frequency from site to site . Finally, an off-resonance optical probe couples to atom density . Fluctuations in the scattered light should therefore convey information about not only the particle number, but also about its fluctuations.

We can also generalize the proposed scheme to particle number fractionization in higher dimensional models in 2D or 3D optical lattices with atoms coupled to em fields exhibiting phase profiles similar to topological defects or textures . In relativistic 2+1 D quantum field theory, a fermionic field coupled to a bosonic field exhibiting a vortex profile results in fermion particle number fractionization . In our approach this would correspond to a 2D optical lattice of FD atoms coupled by an em field with a nonvanishing phase winding around any closed loop circulating the axis of a vanishing field amplitude. This is also similar to the Raman field used in the JILA experiments to couple two atomic condensates in order to create vortices . We may find an analogy to relativistic 3+1 D quantum field theory in the presence of a nonvanishing SU(2) topological charge of the bosonic field by means of the em field configurations proposed in Ref.  to engineer Skyrmion textures in Bose-Einstein condensates. Analogous techniques could possibly also be used to couple FD atoms to em fields with the structure of 3D monopole defects .

We have considered the em background field as a coherent classical field. This is consistent with the adiabatic approximation in the fermionic particle number fractionization, in which case the quantum fluctuations of the bosonic soliton are ignored . For a two-photon optical Raman coupling between the two species, the decoherence rate per atom is determined by the Rayleigh scattering rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{max}(|_1|^2,|_2|^2)/\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denotes the natural linewidth. This can be reduced by increasing the detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, provided that at the same time a sufficient laser intensity for the required tunneling rate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1_2/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is available. In the case of a rf coupling the quantum effects of the em field can be safely ignored on the time scale of the experiments.

This work was financially supported by the EPSRC, the U.S. DOE., the U.S. NSF, and NASA. We acknowledge discussions with M. Kasevich and C.M. Savage.