text:
# 1 Prologue: Intense muon sources

## 1 Prologue: Intense muon sources

In recent years there has been much interest in the possibility of developing a new generation of very intense muon sources capable of producing a millimole of muons per year. This interest is well motivated. A very intense muon source producing a bright beam that can be rapidly accelerated to high energies would provide a new tool for particle physics. At present the beam toolkit available for physicists interested in particle interactions at the highest energies is limited to beams of charged stable particles: electrons, positrons, protons, and antiprotons. The development of intense bright $`\mu ^+`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ beams would extend this toolkit in a significant way, opening the door for multi-TeV muon colliders, lower energy muon colliders (Higgs factories), muon–proton colliders, etc. In addition, all of the muons decay to produce neutrinos. Hence a new breed of high energy and high intensity neutrino beams would become possible. Finally, there is the prospect of using the low energy (or stopped) muons to study rare processes with orders of magnitude more muons than currently available.

In response to the seductive vision of a millimole muon source an R&D collaboration was formed in the US in 1995, initially motivated by the desire to design a multi-TeV muon collider, and more recently by the desire to design a “neutrino factory” as a step towards a muon collider. The design concepts for a neutrino factory facility are described in the accompanying article written by Andrew Sessler . The motivation for neutrino factories is two-fold. First, the neutrino physics that could be pursued at a neutrino factory is compelling: the subject of this article. Second, a neutrino factory would provide a physics-driven project that would facilitate the development of millimole muon sources: the enabling technology for so many other goodies, including muon colliders.

## 2 Why do we need a new neutrino source ?

Results from the Superkamiokande experiment  (SuperK) have yielded convincing evidence for a deficit of muon-type neutrinos ($`\nu _\mu `$) in the atmospheric neutrino flux. This deficit varies with the zenith angle of the incident neutrinos, and hence varies with the distance between the source and the detector. The natural interpretation of this result is that the missing $`\nu _\mu `$ have oscillated into $`\nu _X`$ as they traversed the distance $`L`$ between their point of production in the atmosphere and the detector. The final state flavor $`\nu _X`$ is currently believed to be $`\nu _\tau `$ since (i) the appropriate region of parameter space for $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations is already excluded by the CHOOZ experiment , and (ii) oscillations into a sterile neutrino $`\nu _S`$ are excluded at the 99% Confidence Level by other SuperK measurements.

The SuperK results open a new and exciting era in neutrino physics. Neutrino oscillation experiments are no longer searches for a phenomenon that may or may not exist. The experimental sensitivity required to measure oscillations is now known, and the great thing is that $`\nu _\mu \nu _X`$ oscillations are within reach of the next generation of accelerator based experiments. Why is this exciting ? The reason is that, since neutrinos oscillate, they must have mass, requiring either the existence of right handed neutrinos (Dirac masses) or lepton number violation (Majorana masses), or both. Hence, neutrino oscillations cannot be accommodated within the Standard Model. The origin of neutrino masses must arise from physics beyond the Standard Model. Theories that describe physics beyond the Standard Model at Grand Unified scales (GUTs) predict patterns of oscillation parameters (mixing angles and neutrino masses). Comprehensive measurements of neutrino oscillations can therefore discriminate between GUTs. Note that GUTs also “predict” the number of quark and lepton generations. Perhaps neutrino oscillation measurements will help us understand why there are three families. In addition, precision neutrino oscillation measurements can determine, or put stringent limits on, CP violation in the lepton sector. So it appears that we now have, within reach of a new generation of accelerator based experiments, an exciting window on physics at the GUT scale, CP violation in the lepton sector, the origin of neutrino masses and, perhaps, the origin of quark and lepton flavors.

As if this were not motivation enough for detailed neutrino oscillation studies, there is more. First, there is the long standing solar neutrino problem: a deficit of neutrinos from the sun compared to the predictions of the Standard Solar Model. This discrepancy might also be due to neutrino oscillations, in this case the oscillations $`\nu _e\nu _x`$. In the next few years results from the SNO  and KamLAND  experiments are expected to strengthen the evidence for (or reject) solar neutrino oscillations. If accelerator based experiments can subsequently measure all of the parameters associated with neutrino oscillations we may very well resolve the solar neutrino problem. Second, there is evidence for $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$ oscillations from an accelerator experiment (LSND ) at Los Alamos. The problem here is that the splittings between the participating neutrino mass eigenstates needed to explain the atmospheric neutrino deficit, the solar neutrino deficit, and the LSND result, are all different. If all three results are due to neutrino oscillations we need three different mass splittings. However, we know of only three neutrino flavors, which can accommodate at most two mass splittings. There is the shocking possibility that there are additional neutrino flavors: sterile neutrinos. This leads us to a further motivation for detailed neutrino oscillation studies, namely to determine whether light sterile neutrinos exist.

With all of these incentives, we can ask: What neutrino beams will be needed in the future to determine all of the oscillation parameters, constrain GUT scale theories, learn about CP violation in the lepton sector, resolve the solar neutrino problem, and determine whether there are light sterile neutrinos? In the following sections we will see that we will certainly need higher intensity beams than already foreseen. We will also need beams propagating through the Earth over baselines of several thousand kilometers, and it is probably essential, and certainly highly desirable, that we have $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ beams in addition to $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ beams.

## 3 Why neutrino factories ?

Conventional neutrino beams are produced from a beam of charged pions decaying in a long (typically several hundred meters) decay channel. If positive (negative) pions are selected, the result is an almost pure $`\nu _\mu `$ ($`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$) beam from $`\pi ^+\mu ^+\nu _\mu `$ ($`\pi ^{}\mu ^{}\overline{\nu }_\mu `$) decays, with a small O(1%) component of $`\nu _e`$ from three body kaon decays. The $`\nu _e`$ component is not large enough to be useful for $`\nu _e\nu _X`$ measurements. Hence, if we want $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ beams we will need a different sort of neutrino source.

An obvious way to try to get $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ beams is to exploit the decays $`\mu ^+e^+\nu _e\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ and $`\mu ^{}e^{}\nu _\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$. To create a neutrino beam with sufficient intensity for a new generation of oscillation experiments will require a very intense muon source. With a millimole of muons per year we can imagine producing high energy beams containing O($`10^{20}`$) neutrinos and antineutrinos per year. However, to achieve this a large fraction $`f`$ of the muons must decay in a channel that points in the desired direction. Muons live 100 times longer than charged pions. Since the decay fraction $`f`$ must be large we cannot use a linear muon decay channel unless we are prepared to build one that is tens of kilometers long. A more practical solution is to inject the muons into a storage ring with long straight sections. The useful decay fraction $`f`$ is just the length of the straight section divided by the circumference of the ring. It has been shown that $`f0.3`$ is achievable . The resulting muon storage ring is sufficiently compact that it can be tilted downwards at a large angle so that the neutrino beam can pass through the Earth , and very long baseline experiments ($`LO(10^4)`$ km) can be imagined.

Thus the “neutrino factory” concept  is to create a millimole/year muon source, rapidly accelerate the muons to the desired storage ring energy, and inject them into a storage ring with a long straight section that points in the desired direction. For discussion it is useful to define two types of neutrino factory: “entry–level” and “high–performance”. An entry–level neutrino factory  can be thought of as a “low” intensity “low” energy neutrino factory that we may (or may not) wish to build as a step towards the high–performance machine. We will take as typical parameters for an entry–level scenario a 20 GeV or 30 GeV storage ring delivering $`O(10^{19})`$ muon decays per year in the beam forming straight–section. With a 50 kt detector having a detection efficiency of 50% an effective entry–level data sample would be $`O(10^{21})`$ kt–decays after a few years of running. Typical parameters for a high–performance scenario would be a 50 GeV ring delivering $`O(10^{20})`$ muon decays per year in the beam forming straight–section, yielding data samples $`O(10^{22})`$ kt–decays after a few years of running.

Neutrino factories would provide :

(i) $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ beams, as well as $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ beams !

(ii) High event rates. With $`2\times 10^{20}`$ muon decays per year in the beam–forming straight section of a 50 GeV neutrino factory the $`\nu _\mu `$ event rates in a distant detector would be about a factor of 60 higher than the corresponding rates for the next generation of conventional beams (NUMI at FNAL for example). These neutrino factory rates would yield tens of thousands of $`\nu _\mu `$ events per year within a reasonable sized detector on the other side of the Earth ($`L10000`$ km). In addition, a near–detector a few hundred meters from the end of the beam–forming straight section of a 50 GeV neutrino factory would measure of the order of a million events per year per kg ! This fantastic rate would enable a revolution in non–oscillation neutrino experiments, which could be based on silicon pixel targets, polarized hydrogen targets, and detectors with fine segmentation and good particle identification.

(iii) Narrow $`\nu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }`$ energy spectra. Neutrinos from a neutrino factory have a much narrower energy spectrum than provided by a conventional “wide–band” beam. Hence, a neutrino factory beam can be thought of as being “narrow band”.

(iv) Low systematic uncertainties. Since the muon decay spectrum is very well known, the systematic uncertainties on the flux and spectrum of neutrinos at a distant experiment are expected to be significantly less than the corresponding uncertainties for a conventional beam. This would be expected to improve the ultimate precision of $`\nu _\mu `$ disappearance measurements.

(v) Polarization. In the forward direction the $`\nu _e`$ flux at a neutrino factory is sensitive to the polarization of the muons in the storage ring. Hence, by controlling the polarization the $`\nu _e`$ component within the initial beam can be varied. In principle this could be very useful, although a compelling case for muon polarization has yet to be demonstrated in a detailed analysis.

Thus, compared with the next generation of conventional neutrino beams, neutrino factories offer the prospect of higher intensity neutrino and antineutrino beams containing $`\nu _e`$ as well as $`\nu _\mu `$, lower systematic uncertainties, a narrower beam energy distribution, and perhaps beam composition control via polarization. In addition the intensity increase would initiate a revolution in non–oscillation experiments. Its easy, therefore, to understand the current interest in neutrino factories.

## 4 Neutrino oscillations

Before we can discuss the physics potential of oscillation experiments at a neutrino factory we must first consider the theoretical framework used to describe neutrino oscillations. We know of three neutrino flavors: $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$, and $`\nu _\tau `$. Within the framework of three–neutrino oscillations, the flavor eigenstates are related to the mass eigenstates by a $`3\times 3`$ unitary matrix $`U_{MNS}`$ :

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \\ \nu _\tau \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}U_{e1}& U_{e2}& U_{e3}\\ U_{\mu 1}& U_{\mu 2}& U_{\mu 3}\\ U_{\tau 1}& U_{\tau 2}& U_{\tau 3}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1\\ \nu _2\\ \nu _3\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
In analogy with the CKM matrix, $`U_{MNS}`$ can be parameterized in terms of three mixing angles $`\theta _{ij}`$ and a complex phase $`\delta `$:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \\ \nu _\tau \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}& s_{13}e^{i\delta }\\ s_{12}c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& s_{23}c_{13}\\ s_{12}s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1\\ \nu _2\\ \nu _3\end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$. If the neutrinos are Majorana, there are two extra phases, but these do not affect oscillations. The evolution of the neutrino flavor states in vacuum is described by:

$$i\frac{d\nu _\alpha }{dt}=\underset{\beta }{}\left(\underset{j}{}U_{\alpha j}U_{\beta j}^{}\frac{m_j^2}{2E_\nu }\right)\nu _\beta .$$
(3)
Hence, the flavor oscillations are driven by the differences in the squares of the masses $`m_j`$. It is convenient to define:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2m_i^2m_j^2.$$
(4)
Oscillation probabilities depend upon the time–of–flight (and hence the baseline $`L`$), the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2`$, and $`U_{MNS}`$ (and hence $`\theta _{12},\theta _{23},\theta _{13}`$, and $`\delta `$).

The oscillation probabilities inferred from the atmospheric neutrino, solar neutrino, and LSND measurements can be used to constrain the oscillation parameters. For the time being we set aside the LSND oscillation results (which have not yet been confirmed by other experiments), and identify $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ as respectively the splittings that drive the solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations. The atmospheric neutrino measurements imply that $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|=`$ (1.5 - 7) $`\times 10^3`$ eV2 with an oscillation amplitude $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}>0.8`$. There are four regions of parameter space consistent with the solar neutrino measurements: (a) MSW Small Mixing Angle (SMA): $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2|=(410)\times 10^6`$ eV2 with amplitude $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}=0.0010.01`$, (b) MSW Large Mixing Angle (LMA): $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2|=(1.510)\times 10^5`$ eV2 with amplitude $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}0.8`$, (c) MSW Long Wavelength (LOW): $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2|=(720)\times 10^8`$ eV2 with amplitude $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}0.9`$, and (d) Vacuum oscillations (VO): $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2|=(0.58)\times 10^{10}`$ eV2 with amplitude $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}0.9`$. Recent preliminary solar neutrino results from SuperK seem to favor the LMA solution , but it is perhaps too early to draw strong conclusions from this. In any event, it is evident that $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2||\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|`$. However, we don’t know whether $`m_3`$ is greater than or less than $`m_2`$, and hence there are two viable patterns for the neutrino mass spectrum (Fig. 1).

How are neutrino oscillation measurements used to determine the oscillation parameters? To gain some insight it is useful to consider the oscillation probabilities $`P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )`$ using the approximation that oscillations driven by the small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ are neglected. This approximation is valid for long–baseline accelerator experiments. The resulting leading–oscillation probabilities for neutrinos of energy $`E_\nu `$ (GeV) propagating a distance $`L`$ (km) in vacuum are

$`P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}^2(1.267\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2L/E_\nu ),`$ (5)
$`P(\nu _e\nu _\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}^2(1.267\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2L/E_\nu ),`$ (6)
$`P(\nu _\mu \nu _\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^2(1.267\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2L/E_\nu ).`$ (7)
The $`L/E_\nu `$ dependence of the oscillation probabilities can be used to determine $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|`$. However, the oscillating factors $`\mathrm{sin}^2(1.267\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2L/E_\nu )`$ depend only on the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ and not on its sign. Hence measurements of neutrino oscillations in vacuum cannot distinguish between the two viable mass eigenstate patterns shown in Fig. 1. Fortunately the oscillation probabilities for transitions with a $`\nu _e`$ or $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ in the initial or final state do depend on the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ if the neutrinos propagate through matter. We will return to this later. Note that the oscillation amplitudes in Eqs. 57 depend upon two mixing angles. It is clearly necessary to measure several oscillation modes to extract all of the mixing angles. Hence $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ (as well as $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ beams) are desirable.

## 5 What can we learn from $`\nu `$ oscillations ?

The CHOOZ reactor ($`\overline{\nu }_e`$ disappearance) experiment places a limit on the $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ oscillation amplitude, yielding $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}<0.1`$. Interpreting the atmospheric neutrino results as evidence for $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations gives $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}>0.8`$. The solar neutrino measurements constrain $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}4|U_{e1}|^2|U_{e2}|^2`$, to be $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$ 0.8 – 1 (LMA, LOW, VO) or $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=`$ 0.001 – 0.01 (SMA). Hence we are on the threshold of measuring the three mixing angles, and learning something about the mixing matrix elements that govern neutrino oscillations.

This is exciting because there is a deep connection between the parameters that govern neutrino oscillations and physics at very high mass scales. The first clue to this connection comes from the smallness of the apparent neutrino masses. Direct limits on the electron neutrino mass from the tritium beta decay end point, together with cosmological constraints on the sum of the neutrino masses and the magnitude of the mass splittings obtained from the neutrino oscillation data, imply that all three neutrinos have masses $`<2`$ eV, and are perhaps much smaller than this. If for example the masses are of the same order as the mass splittings, then the heaviest neutrino mass might be O(0.01–0.1) eV. The well known seesaw mechanism  provides a natural explanation for the smallness of these masses. If there exist right handed neutrinos $`\nu _R`$ (required by all GUT groups larger than SU(5)), and if lepton number is violated, there will be both Dirac mass ($`m_D`$) terms and Majorana mass ($`m_M`$) terms in the Lagrangian. The seesaw mechanism then generates light neutrino masses of order $`m_D^2/m_M`$. With $`m_D`$ at the electroweak scale \[$`m_DO(100`$ GeV)\] and $`m_M`$ at the Grand Unification scale ($`10^{1516}`$ GeV) neutrino masses in the desired range are natural.

Specific GUT models yield constraints on the neutrino mass eigenstates ($`m_1,m_2,m_3`$), and predict the pattern of entries in the mass matrix $`M`$ (the so called “‘texture” of the mass matrix). The effective light neutrino mass matrix $`M_\nu `$ is related by the seesaw formula to the Dirac mass matrix $`M_N`$ (connecting $`\nu _L`$ and $`\nu _R`$) and the right–handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix $`M_R`$ (connecting $`\nu _R`$ and $`\nu _R`$):

$$M_\nu =M_N^TM_R^1M_N.$$
(8)
The matrices $`M_N`$ and $`M_R`$ (and hence $`M_\nu `$) are predicted by GUT models in their corresponding flavor bases. The light neutrino masses are found by diagonalization of $`M_\nu `$, where the transformation matrix $`U_\nu `$ between the two bases is just $`U_{MNS}`$ :

$$U_{MNS}^{}M_\nu U_{MNS}=\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3),$$
(9)
with the charged lepton mass matrix diagonal in its flavor basis (more generally $`U_{MNS}=U_L^{}U_\nu `$). Clearly in the lepton sector $`U_{MNS}`$ plays the role of the CKM matrix $`V_{CKM}`$ in the quark sector. Neutrino oscillation measurements constrain the pattern of the elements of $`U_{MNS}`$ and the pattern of the mass eigenstates $`(m_1,m_2,m_3)`$, and hence constrain the texture of the mass matrix $`M_\nu `$ which is predicted by GUT models.

We are familiar with the pattern of the CKM matrix elements, as parametrized by Wolfenstein :

$$V_{CKM}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\lambda ^2/2& \lambda & \lambda ^3\\ \lambda & 1\lambda ^2/2& \lambda ^2\\ \lambda ^3& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(10)
where $`\lambda V_{us}0.22`$. The atmospheric neutrino measurements, which yield $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}>0.8`$, imply that $`U_{\mu 3}`$ is large, and hence that $`U_{MNS}`$ has a different pattern to $`V_{CKM}`$. Although this was not a priori expected, in recent months the large $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ has provoked a plethora of papers that demonstrate that large mixing in the (23) block of $`U_{MNS}`$ is not unnatural within the frameworks of a variety of specific GUT models. If $`U_{MNS}`$ can be completely determined by further oscillation measurements, the resulting constraints on the texture of $`M_\nu `$ will hopefully discriminate between GUT models (or maybe eliminate all of them). These same GUT models also predict proton decay rates and neutrinoless double beta decay rates. Hence, the presence or absence of proton decay and/or neutrinoless double beta decay can be used to further pin down the GUT alternatives.

Neutrino oscillation measurements offer a way of making a direct assault on our understanding of physics at high mass scales. With this in mind, it is difficult to think of neutrino experiments as merely a side–show to the high energy collider experimental program focussed on the origin of electroweak symmetry breaking. Rather, the neutrino oscillation program appears to be the corner stone of an attack on physics at the GUT scale. Over the next ten years the next generation of accelerator based neutrino oscillation experiments are expected to confirm the oscillation interpretation of the atmospheric neutrino deficit measurements, measure $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|`$ with precisions of about 10%, and find evidence (via $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations) for a finite $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ if its value exceeds $`0.01`$. In addition, in the near future further solar neutrino measurements are expected to reduce the viable number of regions of parameter space to one (or none?). This progress will almost certainly keep neutrino oscillations in the limelight for the coming decade. However, to discriminate between GUT models (or point the way to an alternative theoretical framework) we will want to know more. In particular we will want to be sure we have the right oscillation framework (three–flavor?), precisely measure (or put stringent limits on) all of the $`U_{MNS}`$ elements, and determine whether there is significant CP violation in the lepton sector.

## 6 Which measurements are important ?

Once $`U_{MNS}`$ has been measured we may find that it conforms to some recognizable pattern. With what precision will we want to measure $`U_{MNS}`$? We will clearly want to know which elements are approximately 0 or 1. Since GUT predictions have uncertainties associated with the evolution from high mass scales to low mass scales, the difference between 0 and some sufficiently small number $`ϵ`$, or between 1 and $`(1ϵ)`$, is unlikely to discriminate between GUTs. Lacking any guidance for the size of the GUT uncertainties $`ϵ`$ we will recklessly seek guidance from $`V_{CKM}`$ on the required precision with which we want to know $`U_{MNS}`$. Noting that some elements of $`V_{CKM}`$ differ from unity by as little as O(0.01) and some elements differ from 0 by as little as O(0.01), we are motivated to measure all elements of $`U_{MNS}`$ with a precision O(0.01). With this goal in mind, in ten years time the big neutrino oscillation GUT questions that will need to be answered to pin down $`U_{MNS}`$ and the pattern of neutrino masses, and hence discriminate between GUT models, are likely to be:

(Q1) If $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ has not been observed, then how small is $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ ? Is it $`O(10^2)`$ ? Is it smaller than $`10^3`$ ? If $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ has been observed, then precisely how big ($`\pm 10`$%) is $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ ?

(Q2) What is the pattern of neutrino masses (Fig. 1 scheme A or scheme B) ?

(Q3) Is there CP violation in the lepton sector, and how big is the phase $`\delta `$ ?

(Q4) How close ($`\pm `$ few %) is $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ to 1 ?

(Q5) If we are left with the SMA solar solution, then precisely how big ($`\pm 10`$%) is $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$ ? If we are left with the LMA, LOW, or VO solar solutions, then how close ($`\pm `$ few %) is $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$ to 1 ?

(Q6) Do neutrino oscillations involve only 3 flavors, or are there light sterile neutrinos ? If in a few years time the totality of the solar, atmospheric, and accelerator data suggests the participation of sterile neutrinos, this question goes to the top of the list.

The following describes how experiments at a neutrino factory can answer these questions.

## 7 Determining $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$

The next generation of long baseline accelerator experiments  are expected to observe $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ if $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}>0.01`$, about an order of magnitude below the presently excluded region. If $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ is smaller than this, then $`|U_{e3}|<0.05`$. The question will then be, is $`U_{e3}`$ just small, or is it very small \[$`|U_{e3}|<O(0.01)`$ in which case $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}4U_{e3}^2O(10^4)`$\] ? To address this question we would need to improve the $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ sensitivity by about two orders of magnitude. Hence we would like to be able to observe $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ or $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillations if $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}>0.0001`$

At a neutrino factory $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillations are the preferred mode for probing small $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$. Consider a neutrino factory in which positive muons are stored. The initial neutrino beam contains $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ and $`\nu _e`$. In the absence of oscillations charged current (CC) interactions of the $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ in a far detector will produce positive muons, i.e. muons of the same sign as those stored in the ring. In the presence of $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillations there will also be $`\nu _\mu `$ CC interactions in the detector, producing negative muons, i.e. muons of opposite charge to those stored in the ring. Hence, the experimental signature for $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillations is the appearance of “wrong–sign” muons.

In a long baseline neutrino factory experiment the expected number of wrong–sign muon events will depend on the oscillation amplitude which, to a good approximation, is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ (Eq. 5). The other relevant oscillation parameters ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|`$) will be known ($`\pm 10`$%) after the next generation of accelerator based experiments. The $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ sensitivity depends upon the number of muons that have decayed in the beam–forming straight section $`N_{dec}`$, the muon energy $`E_\mu `$, the baseline $`L`$, the detector mass $`M_{det}`$, and the detector efficiency, resolutions, and backgrounds. Detailed simulations that include detector efficiencies, resolutions, and backgrounds, have explored the sensitivity as a function of $`N_{dec}\times M_{det}`$, $`E_\mu `$, and $`L`$.

To illustrate the anticipated limiting $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ sensitivity at a neutrino factory consider a 30 GeV muon storage ring pointing at a detector at $`L=7400`$ km, and let $`N_{dec}\times M_{det}=2\times 10^{21}`$ kt–decays (corresponding to an entry–level scenario). It has been shown  that, for values of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|`$ in the center of the preferred SuperK range, the absence of a wrong–sign muon signal in this entry–level scenario would result in an upper limit on $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ of a few $`\times 10^3`$. Similar results have been obtained for $`L=2800`$ km . The limiting sensitivity is shown for $`L=2800`$ km as a function of neutrino factory energy in Fig. 2. The limiting $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ sensitivity at a 30 GeV neutrino factory delivering a factor of 10 more muon decays/year improves to better than $`2\times 10^4`$. At a high performance 50 GeV neutrino factory the limiting $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ sensitivity would be better than $`10^4`$ .

We conclude that, if no $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ signal is observed by the next generation of long baseline experiments, and therefore $`|U_{e3}|<O(0.05)`$, a search for $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillations at an entry–level neutrino factory would facilitate an order of magnitude improvement in the sensitivity to a finite $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$, probing $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ at the $`10^3`$ level. Hence, the entry–level experiment would either make a first observation of $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillations or significantly improve the limits on $`|U_{e3}|`$. In either case we would want to upgrade the performance of the neutrino factory to precisely measure, or probe smaller values of, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$. A 50 GeV high performance neutrino factory would enable $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillations to be observed for values of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ as small as $`10^4`$.

What if the next generation of long baseline accelerator experiments observes a $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ signal ? In this case, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}>0.01`$, and depending on its exact value the experiments would be expected to have observed from a few to a few tens of signal events. The question then becomes, what is the precise value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ ($`\pm 10`$%)? To address this question will require O(100) signal events (or more if there is significant background). An entry–level neutrino factory, providing an order of magnitude improvement in sensitivity with negligible backgrounds, would be expected to determine $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ with the desired precision, and would be able to exploit the substantial signal to determine the pattern of neutrino masses !

## 8 The pattern of neutrino masses

How can we distinguish between the two mass splitting patterns in Fig. 1? Fortunately the oscillation probabilities for transitions involving a $`\nu _e`$ or $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ are modified if the neutrinos propagate through matter, and the modification depends upon the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ .

In the leading oscillation approximation the probability for $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillations in matter of constant density $`\rho (x)`$ and electron fraction $`Y_e(x)`$, is given by:

$$P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )=s_{23}^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}^m\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{32}^m,$$
(11)
where

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}^m=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}}{\left(\frac{A}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}\right)^2+\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}}$$
(12)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{32}^m=\frac{1.27\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2(\mathrm{eV}^2)L(\mathrm{km})}{E_\nu (\mathrm{GeV})}\sqrt{\left(\frac{A}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _{13}\right)^2+\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}},$$
(13)
and $`A`$ is the matter amplitude:

$$A=2\sqrt{2}G_FY_e\rho E_\nu =1.52\times 10^4\mathrm{eV}^2Y_e\rho (\mathrm{g}/\mathrm{cm}^3)E_\nu (\mathrm{GeV}).$$
(14)
For $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ oscillations, the sign of $`A`$ is reversed in Eqs. (12) and (13). For $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}1`$ and $`A\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2>0`$ ($`A\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2<0`$), $`P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )`$ is enhanced (suppressed) and $`P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\mu )`$ is suppressed (enhanced) by matter effects. Thus a comparison of the $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ CC rate with the $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ CC rate discriminates between the two signs of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$.

To illustrate how well the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ can be determined at a neutrino factory, consider an experiment downstream of a 20 GeV neutrino factory. Let half of the data taking be with $`\mu ^+`$ stored, and the other half with $`\mu ^{}`$ stored. In Fig. 3 the predicted ratio of wrong sign muon events $`RN(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\mu )/N(\nu _e\nu _\mu )`$ is shown as a function of baseline for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2=+0.0035`$ eV2 and $`0.0035`$ eV2, with $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ set to the small value 0.004. The figure shows two bands. The upper (lower) band corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2<0`$ ($`>0`$). Within the bands the CP phase $`\delta `$ is varying (more on this later). At short baselines the bands converge, and the ratio $`R=0.5`$ since the antineutrino CC cross-section is half of the neutrino CC cross-section. At large distances matter effects enhance $`R`$ if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2>0`$ and reduce $`R`$ if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2<0`$, and the bands diverge. Matter effects become significant for $`L`$ exceeding about 2000 km. The error bars indicate the expected statistical uncertainty on the measured $`R`$ with a data sample of $`5\times 10^{22}`$ kt-decays. With these statistics, the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ is determined with very high statistical significance. With an order of magnitude smaller data sample (entry level scenario) or with an order of magnitude smaller $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ the statistical uncertainties would be $`\sqrt{10}`$ larger, but the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ could still be determined with convincing precision in a long baseline experiment.

A more detailed analysis  has shown that the pattern of neutrino masses could be determined at a 20 GeV neutrino factory delivering a few times $`10^{19}`$ ($`10^{20}`$) decays per year provided $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}>0.01`$ ($`0.001`$). This ‘$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ “reach” improves with neutrino factory energy ($`E_\mu ^{3/2}`$), and a higher energy neutrino factory could therefore probe the mass pattern for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ smaller than 0.001.

## 9 CP violation in the lepton sector

The oscillation probabilities $`P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )`$ can be written in terms of CP–even and CP–odd contributions:

$$P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )=P_{\mathrm{CP}\mathrm{even}}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )+P_{\mathrm{CP}\mathrm{odd}}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta ),$$
(15)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P_{\mathrm{CP}\mathrm{even}}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )=& P_{\mathrm{CP}\mathrm{even}}(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\beta )\hfill \\ \hfill =& \delta _{\alpha \beta }4_{i>j}Re(U_{\alpha i}U_{\beta i}^{}U_{\alpha j}^{}U_{\beta j})\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2L}{4E_\nu })\hfill \\ \hfill P_{\mathrm{CP}\mathrm{odd}}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )=& P_{\mathrm{CP}\mathrm{odd}}(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\beta )\hfill \\ \hfill =& 2_{i>j}Im(U_{\alpha i}U_{\beta i}^{}U_{\alpha j}^{}U_{\beta j})\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2L}{2E_\nu })\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
Hence, if there is CP violation in the lepton sector it might be observable at a neutrino factory  by comparing $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ with $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ probabilities, which we have seen can be done by measuring wrong–sign muon production when respectively $`\mu ^+`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ are stored (Fig. 3). However, CP violation requires that (at least) two mass splittings contribute to the oscillations. This is why the sensitivity to CP violation (shown by the bands in Fig. 3) vanishes at $`L7000`$ km, the distance at which $`\mathrm{sin}^2(1.267\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2L/E_\nu )0`$ for neutrinos from a 20 GeV storage ring. The baseline must be chosen carefully! The modification to $`R`$ also becomes harder to measure in a long baseline experiment as the contribution from the sub–leading scale decreases (i.e. for small $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ or small oscillation amplitude). Within the framework of three–flavor oscillations with the two $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ scales defined by the atmospheric and solar neutrino deficits, CP violation is only likely to be observable at a neutrino factory if the LMA solar solution defines the correct region of parameter space and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2|`$ is not too small. Interestingly, the LMA solution seems to be favored by the most recent SuperK data, but we must wait a little longer to see whether this is confirmed. Finally, to have an observable CP violating rate $`P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )`$ must not be too small, which means that $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ must not be too small.

In the example shown in Fig. 3, with $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}=0.004`$, it is apparent that if $`L`$ is chosen to be 3000–4000 km, the predicted ratio $`R`$ varies significantly as the value of $`\delta `$ varies from 0 to $`\pm \pi /2`$. We might therefore suspect that with this value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ a high–performance neutrino factory would enable us to observe CP violation and determine $`\delta `$. However, before we can conclude this we must consider backgrounds and systematics, including the correlations between the fitted oscillation parameters that arise when all parameters are allowed to vary. Fortunately detailed studies have been made , including backgrounds and global fits to all of the observed neutrino and antineutrino distributions. For $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ as small as 0.005, a 50 GeV high–performance neutrino factory could distinguish $`\delta =0`$ from $`\pi /2`$ provided $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2|>2\times 10^5`$ eV2. With larger $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2|`$ a reasonable measurement of $`\delta `$ can be made ($`\sigma _\delta \pm 15^{}`$ if $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=1\times 10^4`$ eV2 and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}=0.005`$, for example).

We conclude that if the LMA solution turns out to be the correct solution to the solar neutrino deficit problem and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2|>2\times 10^5`$ then CP violation would be observable at a high performance neutrino factory provided $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ is larger than $`0.005`$.

## 10 Precise measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|`$

How close is $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ to 1 ? In a long baseline experiment using a $`\nu _\mu `$ beam, if the baseline $`L`$ is close to the first oscillation maximum, the oscillations $`\nu _\mu \nu _x`$ will produce a dip in the observed $`\nu _\mu `$ spectrum. The position of the dip is determined by $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|`$, and its depth is determined by $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$. A fit to the spectra measured by the next generation of long baseline accelerator experiments, with $`L=730`$ km, is expected to yield $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ with precisions of about 10% .

It has been shown  that a few years of running at an entry–level 30 GeV neutrino factory with $`L=7400`$ km would (i) yield a comparable statistical precision on the determination of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$, with a smaller systematic uncertainty arising from the uncertainty on the neutrino flux, and (ii) improve the precision on $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|`$ to about 1%. A high-performance 30 GeV neutrino factory would enable $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ to be measured with a precision of about 5%. A systematic study to optimize $`L`$ and $`E_\mu `$ for these measurements has not been performed, and hence it may be possible to improve on these precisions with optimal choices.

## 11 Determining $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2|`$

It will be a challenge to directly measure the sub–leading oscillation parameters $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2|`$ in long–baseline accelerator experiments since the associated oscillation probabilities tend to be very small. For example, with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=10^5`$ eV2, $`L=10^4`$ km, and $`E_\nu =1`$ GeV, the oscillating factor in the transition probabilities is given by $`\mathrm{sin}^2(1.267\mathrm{\Delta }m^2L/E_\nu )=0.016`$. Hence oscillations driven by the leading scale ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$) tend to dominate unless the associated amplitude is very small. This could be the case for $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillations if $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ is very small or zero. As an example, with $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}=0`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=0.8`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2=5\times 10^5`$ eV2, it has been shown  that $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillations might be observed at a high performance neutrino factory with $`L3000`$ km, but would require background levels to be no larger than $`O(10^5)`$ of the total CC rate. If $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}<<1`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2<10^5`$ eV2 the oscillation rate would appear to be too low to observe even at a high–performance neutrino factory.

We conclude that, within the framework of three flavor oscillations that give rise to the atmospheric and solar neutrino deficits, direct observation of oscillations driven by the sub–leading scale, and hence direct measurement of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2|`$, might be feasible at a high–performance neutrino factory, but only if the LMA solution correctly describes the solar neutrino deficit and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ is zero (or very small).

## 12 The potential for surprises

So far we have considered only three–neutrino oscillations with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2`$ chosen to account for the solar and atmospheric neutrino deficits. What if:

(i) The LSND oscillation results are confirmed?

(ii) The solar neutrino deficit has nothing to do with oscillations?

(iii) There are more than three flavors participating in the oscillations (light sterile neutrinos)?

(iv) Neutrino oscillation dominates the solar and atmospheric deficit results, but is not the whole story (e.g. neutrino decay, … )?

Although it is tempting to apply Occam’s razor, and neglect these exciting possibilities, we must remember that neutrino oscillations require physics beyond the Standard Model, and we might be in for some surprises.

The best way of ensuring that we have the right oscillation framework, and are not missing any additional new physics, is to measure, as a function of $`L/E_\nu `$, all of the oscillation modes (appearance and disappearance, neutrinos and antineutrinos) that we can, and then check for overall consistency of the oscillation parameters. With a conventional neutrino beam the modes that can in principle be measured are (a) $`\nu _\mu `$ disappearance, (b) $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ disappearance, (c) $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$, (d) $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_\tau `$ (e) $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$, and (f) $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$. At a neutrino factory all of these can be measured, plus the additional modes: (g) $`\nu _e`$ disappearance, (h) $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ disappearance, (i) $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$, (j) $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\tau `$ (k) $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$, and (l) $`\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\mu `$.

To illustrate the power of the additional measurements at a neutrino factory we consider one example: suppose the LSND oscillation results have been confirmed and we wish to discriminate between three–neutrino oscillations (describing the LSND and atmospheric results, with the solar neutrino deficit due to something else) or four–neutrino oscillations with three active flavors and one sterile neutrino (describing LSND, atmospheric, and solar neutrino results). It has been shown that  in the four–neutrino case, if three-neutrino oscillations are incorrectly assumed the parameters $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ and $`\delta `$ determined by short baseline $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ and $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ measurements at a neutrino factory would be inconsistent with the same parameters determined from $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ measurements. Hence, the additional oscillation modes that can be probed at a neutrino factory offer discrimination between different hypotheses. Note that in both these three–flavor and four–flavor cases CP violation might be observable in both $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations at a short baseline neutrino factory experiment, even at an entry level neutrino facility !

In general any surprise that forces us to depart from the minimal three–neutrino (solar plus atmospheric neutrino deficit) oscillation framework will increase the need to explicitly measure (or place stringent limits on) all of the appearance and disappearance channels. Hence surprises are likely to strengthen, rather than weaken, the already strong case for a neutrino factory!

## 13 Questions about staging

We hope that in a few years time the R&D needed for a neutrino factory will be complete. What neutrino–factory should we then propose? The physics potentials for entry–level and high–performance neutrino factories are compared in Table 1 with the corresponding potential for the next generation of long–baseline oscillation experiments. There appears to be a strong physics case for a high–performance facility that can deliver a few $`\times 10^{20}`$ useful muon decays per year. If we believe we can obtain the required resources for this, and can build a high performance factory without first building a more modest facility to climb the technical learning curve, then that is what we should propose to do. However, cost and/or technical considerations may make staging necessary.

Fortunately there are a variety of possible staging options. As an intermediate step towards a high–performance neutrino factory we can consider (i) a proton accelerator system of the type needed for a neutrino factory, but used to drive a conventional neutrino “superbeam”, or (ii) an entry–level neutrino factory. The superbeam facility might also include the neutrino factory target station and pion decay channel, providing an intense stopped muon source and, downstream of the decay channel, an intense low energy neutrino beam.

The pros and cons for any given staging strategy will depend upon the results from the next generation of neutrino oscillation experiments. This dependence is illustrated in Fig. 4 which shows a first “strawman” attempt at constructing a physics scenario dependent decision tree. If the LSND oscillation results are confirmed by the MiniBooNE experiment  the immediate big questions are likely to be: What is the oscillation framework? Do light sterile neutrinos participate in the oscillations? Is there significant CP violation in the lepton sector? These questions can be addressed by an entry–level neutrino factory, and hence if LSND results are confirmed then neutrino factories will hit the physics jackpot! Beyond an entry–level facility there will probably be so much to measure and sort out that a high–performance factory would be desired. Superbeams might also be proposed to try to make some progress even before a neutrino factory could be built, although whether these high intensity conventional beams can address any of the central questions requires further study.

If the LSND oscillation results are not confirmed it seems likely that three–flavor oscillations will be accepted as the right phenomenological framework. In this case, the preferred staging strategy will probably depend upon whether the next generation of long baseline accelerator experiments observe, or do not observe, $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations, and whether SNO and KamLAND results select, or do not select, the LMA solar neutrino solution. If $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillations are observed, then $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}>0.01`$. If in addition the LMA solution correctly describes the solar neutrino deficit, then a high–performance neutrino factory hits the physics jackpot, addressing the pressing questions: Is there significant CP violation in the lepton sector? What is the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$? What is the precise value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$? In this scenario it might also be possible to make some progress with superbeams, but this requires further study.

In the remaining scenarios (the LMA solution does not describe the solar neutrino deficit and/or $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}<0.01`$) progress on determining the mixing matrix elements and neutrino mass spectrum will be harder, but neutrino factories still offer the possibility of learning more, and may indeed offer the only way of probing very small values of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$.

## 14 Non-Oscillation Physics

Although neutrino oscillations provide the primary motivation for the development of a neutrino factory, we should not neglect the other neutrino physics that could be pursued at a very intense high energy neutrino source. A high–performance neutrino factory would produce beams a few hundred meters downstream of the storage ring that are a factor O($`10^4`$) more intense than existing conventional neutrino beams! This would have a tremendous impact on non–oscillation neutrino physics. For example, we can imagine the use of silicon pixel targets, or hydrogen and deuterium polarized targets, together with compact high–granularity detectors with good particle identification. Some examples of experiments that might be attractive at a neutrino factory have been discussed in Ref. :

* Precise measurements of the detailed structure of the nucleon for each parton flavor, including the changes that occur in a nuclear environment.
* A first measurement of the nucleon spin structure with neutrinos.
* Charm physics with several million tagged particles. Note that charm production becomes significant for neutrino factory energies above 20 GeV.
* Precise measurements of Standard Model parameters: $`\alpha _s`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, and the $`V_{CKM}`$ matrix elements.
* Searches for exotic phenomena such as neutrino magnetic moments, anomalous couplings to the tau–lepton, and additional neutral leptons.

The physics opportunities at neutrino factories are clearly not limited to neutrino oscillations.

## 15 Final remarks

In the next few years the particle physics community must decide which neutrino physics facilities should be proposed for the era beyond the next generation of experiments. The recent evidence for neutrino oscillations vastly increases the motivation for a large scale endeavor. Neutrino factories offer the possibility of completely determining the mixing matrix and the pattern of neutrino masses, determining whether there is significant CP violation in the lepton sector, clarifying the oscillation framework, determining whether there are light sterile neutrinos, and consolidating or changing our understanding of solar neutrino oscillations. We can hope, although not guarantee, that neutrino factory measurements will enable us to discriminate between GUTs, or point the way to alternative theories that lead us to an understanding of the origin of quark and lepton flavors. Finally, since neutrino oscillations require physics beyond the Standard Model, there is the very real possibility that something unexpected will be discovered at a neutrino factory.

### Acknowledgments

I am indebted to all those who have contributed to the extensive literature on physics at a neutrino factory, and in particular to the many participants of the recent 6 months physics study at Fermilab, and to Mike Shaevitz who requested and encouraged the study. I am particularly indebted to Vernon Barger, Rajendran Raja, and Kerry Whisnant, with whom I have collaborated on a sequence of calculations. Special thanks to Carl Albright for providing invaluable feedback on the manuscript. Finally, much credit goes to the Neutrino Factory and Muon Collider Collaboration without which there would be little prospect of developing muon sources with the intensity required for a neutrino factory. This work was supported at Fermilab under grant US DOE DE-AC02-76CH03000.


format: text

text:
# References

August 2000

AdS/CFT correspondence in cosmology

Shin’ichi NOJIRI111email: nojiri@cc.nda.ac.jp and Sergei D. ODINTSOV222 email: odintsov@ifug5.ugto.mx, odintsov@itp.uni-leipzig.de,

Department of Applied Physics
National Defence Academy, Hashirimizu Yokosuka 239, JAPAN

$`\mathrm{}`$ Tomsk State Pedagogical University, 634041 Tomsk,RUSSIA and Instituto de Fisica de la Universidad de Guanajuato
Apdo.Postal E-143, 37150 Leon, Gto., MEXICO

ABSTRACT

The attempt to understand if AdS/CFT correspondence may be realized as the one between some AdS-like cosmological space and CFT living on the boundary is made. In order to obtain such cosmology we exchange the time and radial coordinates in d5 Schwarzschild-anti de Sitter (S-AdS) BH (with corresponding signature change). The test on proportionality of free energies from such d5 cosmological space (after AdS/CFT identification of parameters) and from $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ super Yang-Mills quantum theory is successfully passed.

AdS/CFT correspondence  in its simplest version may be understood as duality between 5d gravity and quantum CFT living on its boundary (for a review, see ). One remarkable feature of this duality is that calculations in classical gravity on d5 AdS background may provide the answers for dual quantum CFT. Very beatiful example of this sort is given by calculation of free energy for d5 S-AdS BH  which turns out to be almost equal to free energy of maximally SUSY Yang-Mills theory in the leading approximation on large $`N`$. The natural question is: can we extend above test (or, more generally whole AdS/CFT correspondence) to cosmology and how it could be realized on practice? In the present note we try to answer this question working with specific AdS-like cosmological model obtained by exchange of radial and time coordinates in S-AdS BH. Calculating analog of free energy for such cosmological model one can show that it gives (almost) free energyof maximally SUSY Yang-Mills theory but with another mismatch factor than in S-AdS BH case.

We start with the following action of 5-dimensional gravity with negative cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{12}{L^2}<0`$:

$$S=\frac{1}{\kappa ^2}d^5x\left(R+\frac{12}{L^2}\right).$$
(1)
In the AdS/CFT correspondence , for above SG dual of $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ or $`U(N)`$ super Yang-Mills theory, we have the following identification

$$\frac{L^3}{\kappa ^2}=\frac{2N^2}{\left(4\pi \right)^2}.$$
(2)
Let us present brief review on S-AdS BH solution and its thermodynamic properties. This will be necessary below in attempting to find the variant of cosmological AdS/CFT correspondence. A solution of the equation of motion defined by the action (1) is Schwarzschild-anti de Sitter space, whose metric is given by

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{2\rho }dt^2+\mathrm{e}^{2\rho }dr^2+r^2{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\widehat{g}_{ij}dx^idx^j`$
$`\mathrm{e}^{2\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}\left(\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{k^2r^2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r^4}{L^2}}\right).`$ (3)
Here $`\widehat{g}_{ij}`$ is the metric of 3 dimensional Einstein manifold ME, which is defined by

$$\widehat{R}_{ij}=k\widehat{g}_{ij}.$$
(4)
Here $`\widehat{R}_{ij}`$ is the Ricci tensor constructed on $`\widehat{g}_{ij}`$ and $`k`$ is a constant. In (S0.Ex1), $`\mu `$ is the parameter corresponding to the mass of black hole. If we define the parameters $`r_h`$ and $`r_b`$ by,

$`r_h^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mu }{L^2}}}\right)`$
$`r_b^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mu }{L^2}}}\right).`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{e}^{2\rho }`$ in (S0.Ex1) can be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{e}^{2\rho }=\frac{1}{L^2r^2}\left(r^2r_h^2\right)\left(r^2+r_b^2\right).$$
(6)
We should note $`r_h^2`$, $`r_b^2>0`$. The horizon is given by $`r=r_h`$. The Hawking temperature $`T`$ is given by

$$T=\frac{r_h^2+r_b^2}{2\pi L^2r_h}=\frac{2r_h^2+\frac{kL^2}{2}}{2\pi L^2r_h}.$$
(7)
The free energy $`F`$ would be evaluated by substituting the metric given in (19) into the action (1):

$$F=TS$$
(8)
after Wick-rotation $`tit`$. In order to avoid the conical singularity, Wick-rotated $`t`$ should be regarded as an angle variable and has a period of $`\frac{1}{T}`$. Using the Einstein equation

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu \nu }=\frac{6}{L^2}g_{\mu \nu }.$$
(9)
one gets

$$R=\frac{20}{L^2}.$$
(10)
Substituting (10) into the action corresponding to (1), one finds the action diverges. Therefore we need to regularize the action by introducing a cutoff parameter $`r_{\mathrm{max}}`$:

$$S=\frac{V_3L^2}{\kappa ^2T}_{r_h}^{r_{\mathrm{max}}}r^3\left(\frac{8}{L^2}\right).$$
(11)
Here $`V_3`$ is the volume of the 3 dimensional Einstein manifold ME:

$$V_3d^3x\sqrt{\widehat{g}},$$
(12)
and $`\frac{1}{T}`$ appears due to the periodicity of $`t`$. Subtracting the contribution $`S_0`$ of the background (AdS5)

$$S_0=\frac{V_3L^2}{\kappa ^2T}\sqrt{\frac{\left(r_{\mathrm{max}}^2r_h^2\right)\left(r_{\mathrm{max}}^2+r_b^2\right)}{r_{\mathrm{max}}^2\left(r_{\mathrm{max}}^2+r_b^2r_h^2\right)}}_0^{r_{\mathrm{max}}}r^3\left(\frac{8}{L^2}\right),$$
(13)
one obtains the following expression of the free energy $`F`$

$`F`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{r_{\mathrm{max}}+\mathrm{}}{lim}T\left(SS_0\right)`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_3}{L^2\kappa ^2}}\left(r_h^4{\displaystyle \frac{kL^2}{2}}r_h^2\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_3}{L^2\kappa ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\{\pi L^2T+\sqrt{\left(\pi L^2T\right)^2kL^2}\}^4`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{kL^2}{8}}\{\pi L^2T+\sqrt{\left(\pi L^2T\right)^2kL^2}\}^2).`$
Here Eq.(7) is solved with respect to $`r_h`$:

$$r_h=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\pi L^2T\pm \sqrt{\left(\pi L^2T\right)^2kL^2}\right\}.$$
(15)
In order to reproduce the standard result when $`k=0`$,

$$F_{k=0}=\frac{V_3}{L^2\kappa ^2}\left(\pi L^2T\right)^4,$$
(16)
the sign $`\pm `$ in (15) should be $`+`$. Using AdS/CFT table (2), the free energy $`F`$ when $`k=0`$ can be rewritten in the following form by putting $`L=1`$:

$$F_{k=0}=\frac{\pi ^2V_3N^2T^4}{8},$$
(17)
which is different from the field theoretical result by a factor $`\frac{4}{3}`$ as it was shown in refs. in all detail

$$F=\frac{\pi ^2V_3N^2T^4}{6}.$$
(18)
The numerical difference may be regarded as due to only leading approximation use.

Our next purpose is the attempt to clarify the role of AdS/CFT correspondence in the situation when cosmological AdS-like space is considered. For that one can naively employ the technique which is very similar to above construction. Inside the horizon $`r<r_h`$, if we rename $`r`$ as $`t`$ and $`t`$ as $`r`$ we obtain a metric of a kind of the cosmological model:

$$ds^2=\frac{L^2t^2}{\left(r_h^2t^2\right)\left(r_b^2+t^2\right)}dt^2+\frac{\left(r_h^2t^2\right)\left(r_b^2+t^2\right)}{L^2t^2}dr^2+t^2\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\widehat{g}_{ij}dx^idx^j.$$
(19)
Thus, we just exchanged the physical role of time and radial coordinates . Since we have only exchanged the coordinates $`r`$ and $`t`$, the metric, of course, satisfy the Einstein equations. Since $`t=0`$ corresponds to the singularity of the black hole, there is a curvature singularity, where the square of the Riemann tensor diverges as

$$R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }R^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\frac{72}{t^8}.$$
(20)
The singularity at $`t=0`$ might be regarded as big bang. The topology of the space is R$`{}_{1}{}^{}\times `$ME, where R1 corresponds to $`r`$. The metric of R1 vanishes at the horizon $`t=r_h`$. From (10), we also find that the scalar curvature $`R`$ is a negative constant, as in AdS. Note that suggested way is quite limited as narrow class of cosmological models may have AdS-like BH cousins.

One can consider an analogue $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ of the free energy in the metric (19). $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ would be evaluated by substituting the metric given in (19) into the action (1) as in (8) after “Wick-rotation” $`rir`$. Since $`r`$ is the time coordinate $`t`$ in the black hole metric (S0.Ex1), $`r`$ could have a period of $`\frac{1}{T}`$ after the “Wick-rotation”. Using (10), one finds

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa ^2}}{\displaystyle d^5x\left(\frac{8}{L^2}\right)}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_3}{\kappa ^2T}}{\displaystyle _0^{r_h}}𝑑tt^3\left({\displaystyle \frac{8}{L^2}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2V_3r_h^4}{L^2\kappa ^2T}}.`$
Here (15) is used. Then we find the following expression of the free energy $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}=TS=\frac{V_3}{8L^2\kappa ^2}\left\{\pi L^2T+\sqrt{\left(\pi L^2T\right)^2kL^2}\right\}^4.$$
(22)
Especially when $`k=0`$, one obtains

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{k=0}=\frac{2V_3L^6\left(\pi T\right)^4}{\kappa ^2}.$$
(23)
Using $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ in (22), we obtain the expressions of an analogue $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}`$ of the entropy and that of the energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ as

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{F}}{dT}}`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi V_3}{2\kappa ^2}}\left\{\pi L^2T+\sqrt{\left(\pi L^2T\right)^2kL^2}\right\}^3\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi L^2T}{\sqrt{\left(\pi L^2T\right)^2kL^2}}}\right)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{F}+T\stackrel{~}{𝒮}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{V_3}{8L^2\kappa ^2}}\left\{\pi L^2T+\sqrt{\left(\pi L^2T\right)^2kL^2}\right\}^3`$
$`\times \left(3\pi L^2T+{\displaystyle \frac{3\left(\pi L^2T\right)^2+kL^2}{\sqrt{\left(\pi L^2T\right)^2kL^2}}}\right).`$
Especially when $`k=0`$, the entropy $`𝒮`$ is given by

$$𝒮_{k=0}=\frac{8\pi V_3L^6\left(\pi T\right)^3}{\kappa ^2}.$$
(26)
Since the radius of the horizon is not different from the black hole case in (15), we have, when $`k=0`$,

$$r_h=\pi L^2T.$$
(27)
Then the area of the black hole horizon $`A_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ is given by

$$A_{\mathrm{BH}}=V_3(\pi L^2T)^3.$$
(28)
Putting $`\kappa ^2=16\pi `$ and combining (26) and (27), we find

$$𝒮=\frac{A_{\mathrm{BH}}}{2},$$
(29)
which seems to be different from the usual result in the black hole physics $`𝒮=\frac{A_{\mathrm{BH}}}{4}`$. It is well-known that definition of entropy in cosmological spacetimes is delicated problem (for a recent work on its definition see ). In fact, the cosmological model given here has two horizons at the same time. Then the total area $`A_{\mathrm{cosm}}`$ is twice of the area of the black hole horizon:

$$A_{\mathrm{cosm}}=2A_{\mathrm{BH}}.$$
(30)
Then from (29) and (30), we find

$$S=\frac{A_{\mathrm{cosm}}}{4},$$
(31)
which does not violate Bousso bound  $`𝒮\frac{A}{4}`$. In order to see that the cosmological model given here has two horizons at the same time, one changes the coordinate by

$$\tau =\frac{L^{\frac{3}{2}}}{4\mu ^{\frac{1}{4}}}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+\frac{t}{\mu ^{\frac{1}{4}}L^{\frac{1}{2}}}}{1\frac{t}{\mu ^{\frac{1}{4}}L^{\frac{1}{2}}}}\right)+\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{2L^{\frac{1}{2}}\mu ^{\frac{1}{4}}}{t}\right)\right\}$$
(32)
for $`k=0`$ case. Then the metric in (19) has the following form

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{t(\tau )^2}\left(\mu \frac{t(\tau )^4}{L^2}\right)\left(d\tau ^2+dr^2\right)+t(\tau )^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(dx^i\right)^2.$$
(33)
Here $`t`$ in (33) is given by solving (32). Near the horizon $`t\mu ^{\frac{1}{4}}L^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, we have

$`1{\displaystyle \frac{t}{\mu ^{\frac{1}{4}}L^{\frac{1}{2}}}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4\mu ^{\frac{1}{4}}}{L^{\frac{3}{2}}}\tau }`$ (34)
$`ds^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\mu ^{\frac{1}{2}}}{L}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{4\mu ^{\frac{1}{4}}}{L^{\frac{3}{2}}}\tau }\left(d\tau ^2+dr^2\right)+\mu ^{\frac{1}{2}}L{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(dx^i\right)^2`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\mu ^{\frac{1}{2}}}{L}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{2\mu ^{\frac{1}{4}}}{L^{\frac{3}{2}}}\left(x^++x^{}\right)}dx^+dx^{}+\mu ^{\frac{1}{2}}L{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\left(dx^i\right)^2.`$
Here

$$x^\pm \tau \pm r.$$
(36)
Eq.(35) tells that the cosmological model given here has two horizons corresponding to $`x^++\mathrm{}`$ and $`x^{}+\mathrm{}`$ at the same time $`t=\mu ^{\frac{1}{4}}L^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Hence, we demonstrated that our proposal being limited to narrow class of cosmological spacetimes gives correct value for cosmological entropy.

Taking (2) and putting $`L=1`$, Eq(22) can be rewritten as

$$\stackrel{~}{F}=\frac{V_3N^2}{4(4\pi )^2}\left\{\pi T+\sqrt{\left(\pi T\right)^2k}\right\}^4.$$
(37)
Especially when $`k=0`$, one finds

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{k=0}=\frac{V_3N^2\pi ^2T^4}{4},$$
(38)
which is twice of the free energy (17) of S-AdS black hole. Thus, our example demonstrates that could be cosmological AdS/CFT correspondence between some cosmological (AdS-like) space and $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ super Yang-Mills theory living on its boundary 333 The original S-AdS BH we started with is dual to $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ super Yang-Mills theory which lives on the boundary of S-AdS BH. Having no proof one can conjecture quite naturally that after exchange the role of time and radius the obtained cosmological AdS-like Universe is still dual to the same boundary super Yang-Mills theory. The reason is that at fixed time 4d geometry of 5d cosmological spacetime is the same as 4d geometry of S-AdS BH at fixed radius. Hence, we dont expect any effect of time-radius exchange to dual QFT. Of course, this should be carefully checked. (at least on the level of free energy). It suggests the way of calculation of QFT free energy and entropy starting from cosmological background. Note that our explicit example gives mismatch factor 3/2 between “cosmological” and super Yang-Mills free energy. It is interesting that above description may be relevant also for construction of entropy in cosmology, which is not easy in case of expanding Universe.

Let us give few more remarks on the spacetime described by the metric (19). If we change the coordinate by

$$t^2=\frac{r_h^2+r_b^2}{2}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\tau }{L}+\frac{r_h^2r_b^2}{2}=L^2\sqrt{\frac{k^2}{4}+\frac{4\mu }{L^2}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\tau }{L}\frac{L^2k}{2},$$
(39)
one can rewrite the metric (19) in the following form:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`d\tau ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(\frac{k^2}{4}+\frac{4\mu }{L^2}\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{2\tau }{L}}{\sqrt{\frac{k^2}{4}+\frac{4\mu }{L^2}}\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\tau }{L}\frac{k}{2}}}dr^2`$ (40)
$`+\left(L^2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mu }{L^2}}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{2\tau }{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{L^2k}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\widehat{g}_{ij}dx^idx^j.`$
In (40), $`\mathrm{sin}\frac{2\tau }{L}=0`$ corresponds to the horizon and $`\mathrm{cos}\frac{2\tau }{L}=\frac{k}{2\sqrt{\frac{k^2}{4}+\frac{4\mu }{L^2}}}`$ corresponds to the curvature singularity. Therefore the lifetime of the universe is $`𝒪(L)`$. Usually $`\mu `$ is not negative since $`\mu `$ corresponds to mass of the black hole. If we consider the case of $`\mu <0`$ and $`k<0`$, however, there does not appear the curvature singularity since $`\frac{|k|}{2\sqrt{\frac{k^2}{4}+\frac{4\mu }{L^2}}}>1`$. Epecially if one considers the limit $`\mu \frac{k^2L^2}{16}`$ and rescales the coordinate $`r`$ by $`r\frac{r}{\sqrt{\frac{k^2}{4}+\frac{4\mu }{L^2}}}`$, we obtain the following metric:

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2+\frac{2\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{2\tau }{L}}{|k|}dr^2+\frac{L^2|k|}{2}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\widehat{g}_{ij}dx^idx^j.$$
(41)
In the metric (41), the radius of the Einstein manifold ME, whose metric is expressed by $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{ij}`$, is constant. When we impose a periodic boundary condition on $`r`$, which is not always necessary in the Minkowski signature, $`r`$ expresses the coordinate of S1. Then the radius of S1 becomes a periodic function of $`\tau `$. Hence, one actually has two metrics with time topology S1 or R1.

In the metric (41), since $`\mu =\frac{k^2L^2}{16}`$, from (S0.Ex2), we find

$$r_h^2=r_b^2=\frac{L^2|k|}{4}.$$
(42)
When $`r_b^2<0`$, the radius $`\sqrt{r_b^2}`$ corresponds to the inner horizon. Then the metric (41) corresponds to a limit where two horizons coincide with each other, as in the Nariai limit in Schwarzschild-de Sitter solution. Using (7), one finds the temperature $`T`$ vanishs:

$$T=0.$$
(43)
In spite of (43), from Eq.(22), we get the analogue of the free energy $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is finite:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}=\frac{V_3|k|^2L^2}{32\kappa ^2}.$$
(44)
Using (2), the expression in (44) can be rewritten as

$$\stackrel{~}{F}=\frac{V_3|k|^2N^2}{16L\left(4\pi \right)^2}.$$
(45)
As one sees from here, when 3d space is flat the above expression is zero. It coincides with the expectations: QFT result for Casimir energy of super Yang-Mills theory with four supersymmetries on 4d flat space is zero. On the other side, when 3d space has constant curvature it is not zero. In this case it should be identified with vacuum energy (Casimir energy) (for calculation of Casimir energy in AdS/CFT set-up see refs.). Indeed, the calculation of Casimir energy from QFT side gives non-zero result when space part of metric represents 3d sphere and zero result when it represents 3d hyperbolic space. However, the only global characteristic of spacetime (negative curvature) has been concerned so the above example may correspond to Casimir energy in compact space H$`{}_{3}{}^{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The corresponding calculations have been done for various isometry groups (see for a review ). The general result for super Yang-Mills theory (same boundary conditions for all fields of supermultiplet are assumed) under consideration is following:

$$W=\frac{cV_3N^2}{L(4\pi )^2}$$
(46)
where numerical constant $`c`$ is defined by features of space H$`{}_{3}{}^{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Hence, we again obtain the qualitative agreement with the expression (45).

In summary, using simple examples of cosmological AdS-like space obtained from S-AdS BH we speculated on realization of AdS/CFT correspondence on “cosmological” level. Clearly, more work is necessary in order to understand such version of AdS/CFT duality (if it can exist as real duality and it is not the occasional coincidence). The results of this note do not prove the possibility of such cosmological AdS/CFT duality. Rather, that can be considered as some hint towards to its existance. Nevertheless, it is interesting that similar construction is possible also in higher derivative gravity which also admits S-AdS BHs  permitting to check the cosmological AdS/CFT correspondence even in next-to-leading order. This will be done elsewhere.

Acknoweledgements. We wish to thank O. Obregon for very helpful discussion. The research by SDO has been supported in part by CONACyT (CP,ref.990356 and grant 28454E) and in part by NORDITA.