1/34

Hiroaki Sugiyama(Theory group, KEK)

⋆ In this talk, no unitarity violationno specific model2/34

Introductionz Theoretical view
Neutrinos have already presented
new physics
h i beyondbd th
the standard
t d d modeld lneutrino masst
twolargelmixings
i i

Neutrinos showed thatnature does not hate large
g flavor violation

More new physics with flavor violation for neutrinos?
ex. Non-Standard Interaction
z Experimental view
Precise measurements of oscillations
for tiny
and leptonic CP-violation etc.
Some signatures in oscillation experiments?

3/34

Places ofN SNon-Standard
d d Int.
Ifor Osci.
Osci Exp.
ExpSource, Matter, Detector

4/34

NSI in Source and Detectorz In source

Y. Grossman, PLB 359, 141 (1995)

Q: large NSI ()??

5/34

z In detector

6/34

NSI in Matterz Standard matter effectCharged lepton in matter is only electron
extra potential (charged-current)
for e-flavor neutrinos only
Neutral-current gives overall (flavor-blind)phase for propagation … irrelevant: electron number density (left+right)

7/34

z Non-standard matter effectSchrödinger eq. in flavor basis

8/34

Some Examplesof Effects of NSI

9/34

Confusion between Oscillation and NSI
z Naive expectation

oscillation
non-standard effect

Roughly,sensitivity atfactory

We have
Whonlyl upper bbounddon and even if
experiments observes
non-zeroneeds combined analysis

10/34z Confusion with NSI in Matter
P. Huber et.al,, PRL 88,, 101804 ((2002))

setup:

no phases
almost indep. of@3000km, 99%CL

ffoursamples
lsensitivity tolarge loss of sensitivity
How to improve?

11/3499%CL@3000km@700kmnott so badb d

combining two baselines is usefulspectral information

z Confusion with Non-Standard Interaction
in Source and Matter

12/34

P. Huber, et.al, PRD 66, 013006 (2002)

setup:no phases★ situation is the same for
Ifandadca
can be largera ge tthanawe can not reject

also,

even with spectral information

lloss
off sensitivity
iti it on

How to improve?

13/34appears for any experiments in principle
can be negligible for experimentswith short baseline or low energy
It will be better to constrain firstescape from the condition

14/34▲short baseline (near detector)
no effect

same int.

ex. super-beamreactornu-factory
nufactory
Q: How to distinguish

and??

LSND? … next slide▲low energy
is simple

ex. reactor (far detector)

Q: How to distinguishand??

15/34

LSND Result with Non-Standard Interaction
S. Bergman et.al, PRD 59,093005 (1999)

LSND:
result:disfavored
KARMEN:MiniBooNE: if no signal
other constraints? …next16/34

Constraint
Ci on NSI
from Non-Osci.
Non Osci Exp.
ExpDecay Scattering
Decay,

17/34

Constraints on NSI withPDG2006
table in A. Ibarra, NPB 715, 523 (2005)

assumption: no cancellation
zfor LSND

standard model like (def. of??)

Q: interaction with right-handed charged-lepton ()??

18/34zfor LSND

standard model like(LSND:)

Non-standard interaction can not explain LSND result

Z. Berezhiani et al., PLB 535, 207 (2002)z

standard model likesummary of constraints withOnly

andcan be rather large

19/34

20/34

Constraints on NSI without
S. Davidson et al., JHEP 0303, 011 (2003)

ex. dim
dim-8
8 op. with higgs
indep.
cf.

NSI for neutrinos can be constrainedby experiments with neutrinos
in principle…
Q: explicit model??

21/34assumption: no cancellation
zLEP

LSND

CHARM II

22/34

z

CHARM

NuTeV

23/34

CHARM

NuTeV

24/34z
Q: explain LSND??
zsummary of constraints without
can be large (especiallyno strong constraint for non-standard)
decay??

25/34

NSI and Osci. Exp.

Atm.

and K2K

Solar

and KamLAND

Long baseline26/34

Atmospheric, K2K, and NSI with Matter

A. Friedland et al., PRD 72, 053009 (2005)2-flavor casepure NSI
osc + NSI
osc.
N. Fornengo et al., PRD 65, 013010 (2002)

3 flavor case
3-flavor
large ‘s are allowed

setup:
tbound onread off27/34atm.
measured values with NSI
as pure oscillation
largercomparisonbound on
K2K
true values

MINOS
minor change
A. Friedland et al
Aal.,
PRD 74, 033012 (2006)

is constrained by 2
2-flavor
flavor analysis(?)
N. Fornengo et al., PRD 65, 01301 (2002)

28/34

Solar, KamLAND, and NSI with Matter
O.G. Miranda et al., JHEP 0610, 008 (2006),[hep-ph/0406280]

no NSI

solar+NSI

setup: 2-flavor, NSI withsolar+KL+NSI

diff. in low energy29/34fixed oscillation parameters

almost no constraint from solarand KamLAND

30/34

Long Baseline Experiments and NSIzappearance in nu-fact
P. Huber et.al, PRL 88, 101804 (2002)z

appearance in nu-fact
A.M. Gagog et al., PRD 64, 073003 ((2001))

setup: NSI with matter ( or▲setup:
If true values exist within
the region, we can rejectsensitivity:)

previous slides

31/34▲
setup:
If true values exist within
the region, we can rejectsensitivity:

fforforz

32/34

in MINOS and NSI with matter
Kitazawa et al,. hep-ph/0606013
pp
A N.
S.H., talk in Joint Meeting (APS-DPF2006+JPS2006…), Hawaii, Oct. 2006
B M. Blennow et al,. hep-ph/0702059
setup for A:
excludedcurrent
improve
MINOS can put a bounddep. only on

setup for B:
MINOS can put a boundneed stringent bound on

33/34zin T2KK and NOvA
similar baseline length to MINOS
better sensitivity on

with offoff-axis
axis beam than MINOS

neutrino mode + anti-neutrino mode

muchhbbettertt sensitivity
iti it on NSI ththan MINOS??
z Others?
Oth ?
ex. Okamura-san’s talk34/34

Summaryz Sensitivity on
is made much worse by introducing NSI
We need more study on effects of NSI
There are several open questionsz NSI hash bbeen constrainedt i d stringently
titl
by charged-leptons stringently with
Only

and

can be rather largez Large NSI is possible in the case without
can be large
No strong constraint for?

z MINOS and nu-fact have some sensitivity on NSI ()Backupneutral current likeneutral-current-likeFierz transformation
charged-current-like

: number density of(left+right)

short baseline

vacuum osc.

osc. in matter