Model independent analysis of New Physics interactions and implications for long baseline experiments. Osamu Yasuda. Tokyo Metropolitan University. INTERNATIONAL NEUTRINO FACTORY AND SUPERBEAM SCOPING STUDY MEETING 26 April 2006 @RAL.
Model independent analysis of NewPhysics interactions and implications for long baseline experiments
Tokyo Metropolitan University
INTERNATIONAL NEUTRINO FACTORY AND SUPERBEAM SCOPING STUDY MEETING
26 April 2006 @RAL
Based on a work with Hiroaki Sugiyama(KEK) & Noriaki Kitazawa (TMU)
Without referring to specific models, assuming the maximum values of the New Physics parameters which are currently allowed by all the experimental data, the values of oscillation probabilities are estimated for future long baseline experiments.
NP effects in propagation(NP matter effect)
additional potential Aeab
the same f (f=e, u, d)
potential due to CC int
NP effects at source and detector (Charged Current)
flavor eigenstate to energy eigenstate
propagation in energy eigenstate
energy eigenstate to flavor eigenstate
For simplicity, here we discuss the case where Us=Ud=1,i.e.,NP exists only in propagation.
For simplicity, we’ll also neglect all complex phases.
n Our starting point: two constraints on eab
Davidson et al (’03): Constraints from various n experiments
Friedland-Lunardini (’05): Constraints from atmospheric neutrinos
With some modifications:
: Points used as reference values
Large values, if any, come from, eee , eet, ett:
n Phenomenology with eee , eet, ett ~ O(1)
In high energy limit (|DEjk |<< A), it reduces to Nn=2 case
In low energy limit (|DEjk |>> A), reduces to vacuum oscillation
~a few 10GeV
In between ( |DEjk |~ A ), analytical treatment is difficult
if this factor~1, Pet~ O(1) !!
Plot for SM+mn has k30% uncertainty because 0.9<sin22q23<1.0. NeverthelessNPeffects can be distinguishable even with this uncertainty, except for T2K.
MINOS may see NP!
Future work (in progress)
In case of Nn=2 using Grossman’s notation