format: text

text:
# Single-particle quantum tunneling in ionic traps

## Abstract

We describe a proposal to probe the quantum tunneling mechanism of an individual ion trapped in a double-well electromagnetic potential. The time-evolution of the probability of fluorescence measurement of the electronic ground state is employed to characterize the single-particle tunneling mechanism. The proposed scheme can be used to implement quantum information devices.

Journal Ref. J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 5, 237-242 (2003)

Keywords: quantum tunneling, trapped ions, Rabi oscillations.

PACS numbers:42.50.Ct, 32.80.Pj, 42.50.Vk

Together with nonlocality and wave-vector collapse – the phenomena behind the recent advances in quantum communication  and computation  – the tunneling mechanism is one of the most intriguing aspects of the microscopic world of particles and their interactions, setting quantum reality apart from classical physics. While nonlocality and wave-vector collapse have been pursued as clues to understanding fundamental quantum phenomena such as the uncertainty principle and the process of quantum measurement , quantum tunneling is a valuable mechanism for probing the transition from quantum to classical dynamics .

Quantum tunneling at the macroscopic level has attracted much attention in the literature , firstly owing to its application to SQUIDs (superconducting quantum interference devices), permitted by the advances in cryogenics, and recently because of the realization of Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute atomic gases. The observation of matter-wave interference fringes has demonstrated that a Bose condensate consists of “laser-like” atoms which are spatially coherent and show long-range correlations, opening the field of coherent atomic beams and of atomic Josephson effect .

Probed at the single-particle level, quantum tunneling is just as provocative to our intuition as its manifestation on the macroscopic scale. The experimental techniques developed over the last decade for manipulating electronic and vibrational states of trapped ions can be employed to investigate fundamental quantum effects at a level so far accessible only as collective processes . We describe in this letter a scheme for probing the tunneling mechanism of an individual ion trapped in a double-well electromagnetic potential. The time evolution of the probability of a fluorescence measurement of the electronic ground state is used to probe the single-particle tunneling mechanism.

We first assume $`i)`$ that the ion is trapped in a symmetric double-well single-particle potential $`V(x)=b\left(x^2x_0^2\right)^2`$. (In ionic traps, the typical oscillation frequencies in the $`y`$ and $`z`$ directions are very much larger than that in the $`x`$ direction, providing a good approximation to a one-dimensional trap.) The minima are given by $`x_0=\pm \sqrt{d/2b}`$, so that the motion can be described as approximately harmonic, with frequency $`\omega _0=\sqrt{4d/m}`$, $`m`$ being the ionic mass. The harmonic approximation can be adjusted by fixing $`d`$ (and consequently $`\omega _0`$) and conveniently choosing the parameter $`b`$, which is equivalent to varying the height of the barrier separating the two wells, $`h=d^2/4b`$. We also assume $`ii)`$ that the parabolic approximation to the potential around each minimum is designed to contain (at least) the two lowest states of the harmonic oscillator described by the wave functions $`\varphi _𝐢^{\left(n\right)}\left[x(1)^𝐢x_0\right]`$, with $`n=1,2`$ referring to the ground and first-excited states of the harmonic oscillator and $`𝐢=1,2`$ referring to both harmonic wells centered at $`x=x_0`$. Finally, we assume $`iii)`$ that the potential is such that state $`\varphi _1^{\left(n\right)}`$ (of harmonic trap $`1`$) is spatially close to state $`\varphi _2^{\left(n\right)}`$ (of harmonic trap $`2`$). Thus, these local modes are not orthogonal, due to the overlap $`ϵ`$ between the corresponding modes of the two wells:

$$𝑑x\left(\varphi _𝐢^{\left(n\right)}\left[x(1)^𝐢x_0\right]\right)^{}\varphi _𝐣^{\left(m\right)}\left[x(1)^𝐣x_0\right]=\left[\delta _{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}}+ϵ\left(1\delta _{\mathrm{𝐢𝐣}}\right)\right]\delta _{nm}.$$
(1)
When $`ϵ1`$, given a first order correction , these local modes are approximately orthogonal and the eigenstates of the global double-well potential may be approximated by the symmetric and asymmetric superpositions $`\varphi _\pm ^{\left(n\right)}(x)\left[\varphi _1^{\left(n\right)}\left(x+x_0\right)\pm \varphi _2^{\left(n\right)}\left(xx_0\right)\right]/\sqrt{2}`$, with corresponding eigenvalues $`E_\pm ^{\left(n\right)}=E_0^{\left(n\right)}\pm ^{\left(n\right)}`$. The coupling constants between the local states are given by the matrix elements

$$^{\left(n\right)}=𝑑x\left[\varphi _1^{\left(n\right)}\left(x+x_0\right)\right]^{}\left[V(x)\stackrel{~}{V}_1\left[x+x_0\right]\right]\varphi _2^{\left(n\right)}\left(xx_0\right),$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{V}_𝐢\left[x(1)^𝐢x_0\right]`$ indicate the parabolic potential approximations around $`x=(1)^𝐢x_0`$. The tunneling frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\left(n\right)}`$ between the corresponding eigenstates in $`\stackrel{~}{V}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_2`$ are given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\left(n\right)}=2\left|^{\left(n\right)}\right|/\mathrm{}`$. In order to make the first order correction ($`ϵ^1`$) valid, ensuring that $`^{\left(n\right)}/E_0^{\left(n\right)}1`$, we further impose the condition $`x_0^2/\mathrm{\Delta }_x^21`$. Scaling the length in units of the position uncertainty in a harmonic oscillator ground state $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2=\mathrm{}/\left(2m\omega _0\right)`$, we obtain from Eq. (2) $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\left(1\right)}=\left(3\omega _0x_0^2/8\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(x_0^2/2\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2\right)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\left(2\right)}=\left(x_0^2/\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2\right)`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\left(1\right)}`$.

The Hamiltonian describing the motional degrees of freedom of the ion trapped in the above-described double-well potential is

$$\widehat{H}_{motional}=𝑑x\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}^{}H\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }},H=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2+V\left(x\right),$$
(3)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}\left(x\right)=_{n,𝐢}\varphi _𝐢^{\left(n\right)}\left(x\right)\widehat{c}_𝐢^{\left(n\right)}`$ is the field operator which annihilates the ion in the state $`\varphi _𝐢^{\left(n\right)}`$, i.e., in energy level $`E_0^{\left(n\right)}`$ of the harmonic well $`\stackrel{~}{V}_𝐢`$. From the eigenvalue equation $`H\varphi _\pm ^{\left(n\right)}=E_\pm ^{\left(n\right)}\varphi _\pm ^{\left(n\right)}`$ and the assumption that $`ϵ1`$, the Hamiltonian in Eq. (3) becomes

$$\widehat{H}_{motional}=_n\left[E_0^{\left(n\right)}\left(\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)}+\widehat{c}_2^{\left(n\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_2^{\left(n\right)}\right)+^{\left(n\right)}\left(\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_2^{\left(n\right)}+\widehat{c}_2^{\left(n\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)}\right)\right].$$
(4)
Next, we assume that the trapped ion has two effective electronic states, excited $`|`$ and ground $`|`$, separated by frequency $`\omega `$ and coupled by the interaction with an effective laser plane wave propagating in the $`x`$ direction, with wave vector $`k_L=\omega _L/c`$. In this configuration, only the ionic motion along the $`x`$ axis will be modified. The effective pumping laser beam, is detuned by $`\delta \omega \omega _L`$ from the $`|`$ $``$ $`|`$ transition. In NIST experiments with 9Be+ the laser beams (with different frequencies) composing the effective pumping laser, are detuned from a third more excited level which, in the stimulated Raman-type configuration, is adiabatically eliminated . In the Innsbruck experiments with 40Ca+, a coherently driving direct transition between the electronic ground and excited states is employed . A probe laser, strongly coupled to the transition between the electronic ground state and a third more excited level $`|s`$, is also employed in order to measure the ionic vibrational state by collecting the resonance fluorescence signal, which is the probability of the ion being found in the internal state $`|`$.

We can trail the tunneling phenomenon through the time-evolution of the probability of fluorescence measurement of the electronic ground state collected in two different situations: $`a)`$ by individual addressing the ion in harmonic well $`1`$ or, what seems to be more attractive experimentally, $`b)`$ considering the laser beams (the pumping and the probe lasers) to reach both local potential wells simultaneously. The ion-laser interaction Hamiltonian that describes the effective interaction of the quantized motion of the ionic center-of-mass coupled to its electronic degrees of freedom is

$$\widehat{H}_{ionlaser}=\mathrm{}g\left(\widehat{\sigma }_+e^{ik_L\widehat{x}i\omega _Lt+i\phi }+\widehat{\sigma }_{}e^{ik_L\widehat{x}+i\omega _Lti\phi }\right),$$
(5)
where $`\sigma _+=||`$ and $`\sigma _{}=||`$ are the usual Pauli pseudo-spin operators, $`g`$ is the effective Rabi frequency of the transition $`||`$ and $`\varphi `$ is the phase difference between the two lasers composing the effective beam. Since, considering the situation $`a)`$, the laser beams are disposed in harmonic well $`1`$, the position operator $`\widehat{x}`$ is given by

$`\widehat{x}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{n,m}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\varphi _1^{\left(n\right)^{}}\left(x\right)x\varphi _1^{\left(m\right)}\left(x\right)\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(m\right)}}`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x{\displaystyle _n}\sqrt{n+1}\left(\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n+1\right)}+\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n+1\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)}\right).`$ (7)
Evidently, considering the situation $`b)`$ where the laser beams reach both local wells, the position operator turn to be $`\widehat{x}=\mathrm{\Delta }_x_{j=1,2}_n\sqrt{n+1}\left(\widehat{c}_j^{\left(n\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_j^{\left(n+1\right)}+\widehat{c}_j^{\left(n+1\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_j^{\left(n\right)}\right)`$.

In what follows we consider only the situation $`a)`$ since the generalization for the situation $`b)`$, which will be analyzed further, is straightforward. In a frame rotating at the effective laser frequency $`\omega _L`$, the ion-laser Hamiltonian is given by

$$\widehat{H}_{ionlaser}=\mathrm{}g[\widehat{\sigma }_+\mathrm{exp}(i\eta _n\sqrt{n+1}(\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n+1\right)}+\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n+1\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)})+i\phi _L)+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.],$$
(8)
where we have introduced the Lamb-Dicke parameter $`\eta k_L\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$.

In what follows we rewrite the total Hamiltonian in the interaction picture (script font labels) via the unitary transformation $`\widehat{U}(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\widehat{H}_0t\right)`$, where $`\widehat{H}_0=_nE_0^{\left(n\right)}\left(\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)}+\widehat{c}_2^{\left(n\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_2^{\left(n\right)}\right)+\mathrm{}\frac{\delta }{2}\widehat{\sigma }_z`$ indicates the free Hamiltonian composed of the internal and motional degrees of freedom of the trapped ion, $`\sigma _z`$ being the Pauli operator. The resulting Hamiltonian, including the motional and electronic degrees of freedom, reads

$`\widehat{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _n}^{\left(n\right)}\left(\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_2^{\left(n\right)}+\widehat{c}_2^{\left(n\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)}\right)+\mathrm{}g\mathrm{exp}\left(\eta ^2{\displaystyle _n}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)}\right)`$ (10)
$`\times \{\sigma _+\mathrm{exp}\left[i\eta {\displaystyle _n}\sqrt{n+1}(\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n+1\right)}e^{i\omega _0t}+\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n+1\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)}e^{i\omega _0t})\right]e^{i\delta t+i\phi _L}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.\}`$
In order to simplify the expression (10) we $`i)`$ adjust the ion-laser detuning to the first red sideband for the ion-laser interaction ($`\delta =\omega _0`$). In addition, $`ii)`$ the assumption of the standard Lamb-Dicke limit ($`\eta 1`$), where the ionic center of mass is strongly localized with respect to the laser wavelength, enables the expansion of the Hamiltonian (10) to first order correction ($`\eta ^1`$). Finally, $`iii)`$ with the optical rotating wave approximation, we obtain the expression

$`\widehat{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _n}^{\left(n\right)}\left(\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_2^{\left(n\right)}+\widehat{c}_2^{\left(n\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)}\right)`$ (12)
$`+i\mathrm{}\eta g\mathrm{exp}(\eta ^2{\displaystyle _n}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)})(\sigma _+{\displaystyle _n}\sqrt{n+1}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n+1\right)}e^{+i\phi _L}\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.),`$
which in the absence of the tunneling mechanism leads to the coupling between the electronic and motional degrees of freedom of the trapped ion, described by the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian (JCH).

At this point, we assume that the ion is initially cooled to its motional ground state in harmonic well $`1`$, and laser-excited to the electronic state $`|`$. Thus, the JCH induces the transition $`|1,0_1`$ $`||0,1_1`$ $`|`$, where the ket $`|1,0_𝐥`$ ($`|0,1_𝐥`$) indicates the ion in the motional ground (excited) state of $`\stackrel{~}{V}_𝐥`$. Evidently, being in the motional state $`|1,0_1`$ ($`|0,1_1`$) the ion has a finite probability of tunneling to the corresponding state of $`\stackrel{~}{V}_2`$: $`|1,0_2`$ ($`|0,1_2`$). Therefore, the motional basis states of the process are restricted to the ground and first excited states of the harmonic traps, which is why we assumed from the beginning that the parabolic approximation to the potential around each minimum is designed to contain (at least) the two lowest states of the harmonic oscillator. By collecting the resonance fluorescence signal in $`\stackrel{~}{V}_1`$, we can probe the tunneling mechanism through the behavior of the function $`𝖯_{}(t)`$: the probability of fluorescence measurement of the electronic ground state.

Considering the Lamb-Dicke limit and the fact that we have only one particle in the process, the function $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\eta ^2_n\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(n\right)}\right)`$ can be fairly approximated by unity, so the Hamiltonian governing the process has the simplified form (for $`n=1,2)`$

$`\widehat{}`$ $`=`$ $`^{\left(1\right)}\left(\widehat{c}_1^{\left(1\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_2^{\left(1\right)}+\widehat{c}_1^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{c}_2^{\left(1\right)^{}}\right)+^{\left(2\right)}\left(\widehat{c}_1^{\left(2\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_2^{\left(2\right)}+\widehat{c}_1^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{c}_2^{\left(2\right)^{}}\right)`$ (14)
$`+i\mathrm{}\eta g\left(\sigma _+\widehat{c}_1^{\left(1\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(2\right)}e^{+i\phi _L}\sigma _{}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(2\right)^{}}e^{i\phi _L}\right).`$
Before proceeding further, it is worth mentioning that instead of adjusting the ion-laser detuning to the first red sideband for the ion-laser interaction ($`\delta =\omega _0`$), we could have chosen the carrier interaction where $`\delta =0`$. In this case the effective Hamiltonian following from Eq. (10) (with the above-mentioned approximations) simplifies to

$`\widehat{}_{carrier}`$ $`=`$ $`^{\left(1\right)}\left(\widehat{c}_1^{\left(1\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_2^{\left(1\right)}+\widehat{c}_1^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{c}_2^{\left(1\right)^{}}\right)+^{\left(2\right)}\left(\widehat{c}_1^{\left(2\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_2^{\left(2\right)}+\widehat{c}_1^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{c}_2^{\left(2\right)^{}}\right)`$ (16)
$`+\mathrm{}g\left(\sigma _+e^{+i\phi _L}+\sigma _{}e^{i\phi _L}\right).`$
We note that the Pauli operators act only when the ion is in harmonic well $`1`$. The dynamics governed by Hamiltonians (14) and (16) make it possible to probe the tunneling mechanism of the ion by collecting resonance fluorescence signals, as discussed above.

Starting from the initial state $`|1,0_1`$ $`|0,0_2`$ $`|`$ and Hamiltonian (14) we obtain from the Schrödinger evolution the evolved state

$`|\psi \left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[𝒞_1^{\left(1\right)}\left(t\right)|1,0_1|0,0_2+𝒞_2^{\left(1\right)}\left(t\right)|0,0_1|1,0_2\right]|`$ (18)
$`+\left[𝒞_1^{\left(2\right)}\left(t\right)|0,1_1|0,0_2+𝒞_2^{\left(2\right)}\left(t\right)|0,0_1|0,1_2\right]|,`$
whose coefficients satisfy the set of coupled linear equations

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}𝒞_1^{\left(n\right)}\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`^{\left(n\right)}𝒞_2^{\left(n\right)}\left(t\right)(1)^ni\mathrm{}\eta ge^{(1)^ni\phi _L}𝒞_1^{\left(m\right)}\left(t\right),`$ (20)
$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}𝒞_2^{\left(n\right)}\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`^{\left(n\right)}𝒞_1^{\left(n\right)}\left(t\right),`$ (21)
with $`n,m=1,2`$ ($`nm`$) and the initial conditions $`𝒞_1^{\left(1\right)}\left(0\right)=1`$, $`𝒞_2^{\left(1\right)}\left(0\right)=𝒞_1^{\left(2\right)}\left(0\right)=𝒞_2^{\left(2\right)}\left(0\right)=0`$. Now, we introduce a further simplification into the present scheme. The larger the ratio $`x_0^2/\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2`$ obtained by engineering the trap, the smaller becomes the ratio of the matrix elements $`\left|^{\left(1\right)}/^{\left(2\right)}\right|`$. Therefore, when $`\left|^{\left(1\right)}/^{\left(2\right)}\right|1`$ we can neglect the tunneling process between the ground states in the two harmonic wells. In this case, the first term in Hamiltonian (14) can be disregarded and, by adjusting the phase of the laser pulse such that $`\phi _L=\pi /2`$, we obtain the coefficients:

$`𝒞_1^{\left(1\right)}\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\mathrm{cos}(\xi 𝗐t)+\xi ^21\right]/\xi ^2,𝒞_2^{\left(1\right)}\left(0\right)=0,`$ (23)
$`𝒞_1^{\left(2\right)}\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{sin}(\xi 𝗐t)/\xi ,𝒞_2^{\left(2\right)}\left(0\right)=\sqrt{\xi ^21}\left[\mathrm{cos}(\xi 𝗐t)1\right]/\xi ^2,`$ (24)
where the effective Rabi frequency, $`𝗐=\eta g`$, is modified by the parameter $`\xi =\left\{1+\left[^{\left(2\right)}/(\mathrm{}\eta g)\right]^2\right\}^{1/2}`$. Next we analyze the influence of parameter $`\xi `$ on the time-evolution of the probability of measuring fluorescence of the electronic ground state $`𝖯_{}(t)=\left|𝒞_1^{\left(2\right)}\left(t\right)\right|^2`$in harmonic well $`1`$. Evidently, when $`^{\left(2\right)}=0`$, we recover the well-known dynamics of $`P_{}(t)`$ for JCH . For the choice $`^{\left(2\right)}/(\mathrm{}\eta g)=1`$ ($`\xi =\sqrt{2}`$) and employing the typical values in experiments with 40Ca+  $`\eta 0.1`$, $`g200`$ kHz, and $`\omega _02`$ MHz (giving the estimate $`^{\left(2\right)}/(\mathrm{}\eta g)150\times ^{\left(2\right)}/E_0^{\left(2\right)})`$, we obtain $`^{\left(2\right)}/E_0^{\left(2\right)}7\times 10^3`$ as required to justify the approximation that the superpositions $`\varphi _\pm ^n(x)`$ constitute eigenstates of the global double-well potential. In fact, remembering that $`^{\left(2\right)}/(\mathrm{}\eta g)=\left(3\omega _0x_0^4/16\eta g\mathrm{\Delta }_x^4\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(x_0^2/2\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2\right)`$, we obtain from the previous parameters the values $`x_0^2/\mathrm{\Delta }_x^217.3`$ and $`\left|^{\left(1\right)}/^{\left(2\right)}\right|6\times 10^2`$ which are in agreement with the approximations considered above. In Fig. 1 we display the behavior of function $`𝖯_{}(t)`$ for $`^{\left(2\right)}=0`$ ($`\xi =1`$, corresponding to the dynamics of the JCH) and $`^{\left(2\right)}/(\mathrm{}\eta g)=1`$. As anticipated by observing the expression for $`𝖯_{}(t)`$, the increase in the tunneling rate $`^{\left(2\right)}`$ leads to an increase in the effective frequency $`\xi 𝗐`$ of population inversion and, conversely, a decrease in the amplitude of the oscillations of $`𝖯_{}(t)`$, clearly indicating the tunneling process. In fact, as soon as the ion reaches the excited state of local well $`1`$, the coupling $`^{\left(2\right)}`$ to local well $`2`$ entangles the motional excited states of both wells, preventing the probability $`𝖯_{}(t)`$ (associated with the measurement of state $`|0,1_1|`$) from reaching unity. When the curve in Fig. 1 for $`^{\left(2\right)}/(\mathrm{}\eta g)=1`$ reaches its maxima ($`𝗐t=n\pi \sqrt{2}/4`$, $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$), we have the entangled state $`\frac{1}{2}|1,0_1|0,0_2|+\left(\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}|0,1_1|0,0_2\frac{1}{2}|0,0_1|0,1_2\right)|`$. Therefore, both characteristics, the effective frequency $`\xi 𝗐`$ of population inversion and the amplitude of the oscillations of $`𝖯_{}(t)`$, can be used to probe the single-particle tunneling mechanism.

It is worth observing that the choice of the alternative initial state $`|0,1_1`$ $`|0,0_2`$ $`|`$ leads to the entanglement $`\left(|1,0_1|0,0_2|+|0,0_1|0,1_2|\right)/\sqrt{2}`$. In this situation, as expected for a closed system, we can re-establish a value of unity for $`𝖯_{}(t)`$.

Now, turning to the Hamiltonian (16) and solving the Schrödinger equation for the initial state $`|0,1_1`$ $`|0,0_2`$ $`|`$, we obtain the result

$$𝖯_{}(t)=\frac{\left(\lambda _1\mathrm{sin}\left(\lambda _1gt\right)\lambda _2\mathrm{sin}\left(\lambda _2gt\right)\right)}{\left(\lambda _2^2\lambda _1^2\right)^2}^2,$$
(25)
where the parameters modifying the Rabi frequency, $`g`$, are $`\lambda _i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left\{1+2\left[^{\left(2\right)}/(\mathrm{}g)\right]^2+\left(1\right)^i\left[1+4\left[^{\left(2\right)}/(\mathrm{}g)\right]^2\right]^{1/2}\right\}^{1/2}`$. Evidently, when $`^{\left(2\right)}=0`$, we get the usual dynamics for the carrier pulse, with $`𝖯_{}(t)=\left|\mathrm{sin}\left(gt\right)\right|^2`$. In Fig. 2 we display the time evolution of Eq. (25), for $`^{\left(2\right)}=0`$ and $`^{\left(2\right)}/(\mathrm{}g)=1`$ $`\left(\lambda _i=\left[\left(3+(1)^i\sqrt{5}\right)/2\right]^{1/2}\right)`$. For the typical values given above, we obtain $`^{\left(2\right)}/E_0^{\left(2\right)}7\times 10^2`$ (a value which match $`x_0^2/\mathrm{\Delta }_x^210.8`$ and $`\left|^{\left(1\right)}/^{\left(2\right)}\right|0.1`$). Similarly to the behavior displayed in Fig. 1, we observe that the frequency of population inversion is higher than the Rabi frequency $`g`$ associated with free carrier dynamics. However, differently from the situation in Fig.1, the probability $`𝖯_{}(t)`$ (displaying the characteristic beat pattern due to Eq. (25)) can still reach unity. Since in the carrier regime the electronic states do not couple to the motional states, the excited and ground electronic states are both subject to the tunneling process (differently from the JCH case), resulting in the interference pattern shown in Fig. 2.

From the value for the position uncertainty in a harmonic oscillator ground state $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2=\mathrm{}/\left(2m\omega _0\right)`$ computed for 40Ca+ with motional frequency $`\omega _02`$ MHz, and considering the Jaynes-Cummings regime, where $`x_0^2/\mathrm{\Delta }_x^217.3`$, we obtain (using the typical values $`\eta 0.1`$ and $`g200`$ kHz ) the distance between the local minima $`2x_00.16`$ $`\mu `$m. Making the same estimates for the Carrier regime, where $`x_0^2/\mathrm{\Delta }_x^210.3`$, we obtain the distance between the local minima $`2x_00.13`$ $`\mu `$m. Recently, it was reported in Ref.  the laser addressing of individual ions in a linear ion trap with frequency $`125`$ kHz when the distance between the ions is about $`19.\mu `$m. The authors of Ref.  argue that the addressing technique presented permits individual addressing when the distance between the ions is only $`7.6.\mu `$m with small error. Therefore, with nowadays technology it is difficult to individually address each local potential well. On the other hand, when considering the situation $`b)`$ where the laser beams reach the local wells simultaneously, the Hamiltonian 14 (in Jaynes-Cummings regime and assuming $`\left|^{\left(1\right)}/^{\left(2\right)}\right|1`$) turns to be

$`\widehat{}`$ $`=`$ $`^{\left(2\right)}\left(\widehat{c}_1^{\left(2\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_2^{\left(2\right)}+\widehat{c}_1^{\left(2\right)}\widehat{c}_2^{\left(2\right)^{}}\right)`$ (28)
$`+i\mathrm{}\eta g[\sigma _+(\widehat{c}_1^{\left(1\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(2\right)}+\widehat{c}_2^{\left(1\right)^{}}\widehat{c}_2^{\left(2\right)})e^{+i\phi _L}.`$
$`\sigma _{}(\widehat{c}_1^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{c}_1^{\left(2\right)^{}}+\widehat{c}_2^{\left(1\right)}\widehat{c}_2^{\left(2\right)^{}})e^{i\phi _L}].`$
Starting from the initial state $`|1,0_1`$ $`|0,0_2`$ $`|`$ and Hamiltonian (28) we obtain from the Schrödinger evolution the evolved state described by Eq. (18) with the coefficients satisfying the coupled linear equations

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}𝒞_n^{\left(1\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}ge^{i\phi _L}𝒞_n^{\left(2\right)}\left(t\right),`$ (30)
$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}𝒞_n^{\left(2\right)}\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`^{\left(2\right)}𝒞_m^{\left(2\right)}\left(t\right)i\mathrm{}ge^{i\phi _L}𝒞_n^{\left(1\right)}\left(t\right),`$ (31)
with $`n,m=1,2`$ ($`nm`$) and the initial conditions $`𝒞_1^{\left(1\right)}\left(0\right)=1`$, $`𝒞_2^{\left(1\right)}\left(0\right)=𝒞_1^{\left(2\right)}\left(0\right)=𝒞_2^{\left(2\right)}\left(0\right)=0`$. Solving the system above we obtain the coefficients:

$`𝒞_1^{\left(1\right)}\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\chi ^2+4)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,2}{}}\left[\chi ^2\left(\lambda _j\right)^2+3\right]\mathrm{cos}\left(\lambda _jgt\right),`$ (33)
$`𝒞_2^{\left(1\right)}\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\chi (\chi ^2+4)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,2}{}}\lambda _j\left[\left(\chi ^2+2\right)^2\left(\chi ^2+2\right)\left(\lambda _j\right)^2\right]\mathrm{sin}\left(\lambda _jgt\right),`$ (34)
$`𝒞_1^{\left(2\right)}\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\phi _L}}{(\chi ^2+4)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,2}{}}\lambda _j\left[\left(\lambda _j\right)^2\chi ^23\right]\mathrm{sin}\left(\lambda _jgt\right),`$ (35)
$`𝒞_2^{\left(2\right)}\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie^{i\phi _L}}{\chi (\chi ^2+4)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,2}{}}\left[2\left(\lambda _j\right)^2\chi ^22\right]\mathrm{cos}\left(\lambda _jgt\right),`$ (36)
where $`\lambda _j=\left\{1+\left[\chi ^2+\left(1\right)^j\chi \sqrt{4+\chi ^2}\right]/2\right\}^{1/2}`$ and $`\chi =^{\left(2\right)}/\mathrm{}\eta g`$. The probability of measuring the electronic ground state $`|`$ of the ion in both local wells $`1`$ and $`2`$ is given by $`𝖯_{}(t)=\left|𝒞_1^{\left(2\right)}\left(t\right)+𝒞_2^{\left(2\right)}\left(t\right)\right|^2`$. In Fig. 3 we display the behavior of function $`𝖯_{}(t)`$ for $`^{\left(2\right)}=0`$ (corresponding to the well know Jaynes-Cummings dynamics) and $`^{\left(2\right)}/(\mathrm{}\eta g)=1`$ ( $`\lambda _1=\sqrt{3\sqrt{5}/2}`$ and $`\lambda _2=\sqrt{3+\sqrt{5}/2}`$). Similarly to the behavior displayed in Fig. 1, we observe that the frequency of population inversion in Fig. 3 (full line) is higher than the Rabi frequency $`g`$ associated with the free JCH dynamics whereas the amplitude of the oscillations of $`𝖯_{}(t)`$ is smaller than that for the free JCH dynamics. Both characteristics clearly indicate the tunneling process in Fig. 3, without the requirement of the individual addressing of each local potential well.

In conclusion, we have presented a scheme for probing the tunneling process of a single ion trapped in a double-well electromagnetic potential. The tunneling dynamics is characterized by the behavior of the probability of collecting an electronic ground state fluorescence signal in one of the local potential wells. Two situations were analyzed, when collecting fluorescence measurement $`a)`$ by individual addressing the ion in harmonic well $`1`$, and $`b)`$ considering the laser beams to reach the local wells simultaneously. Although the situation $`a)`$ is beyond nowadays technology, the single-particle quantum tunneling can clearly be probed through the situation $`b)`$. Considering the possibility of individual addressing of local wells, the present proposal can be extended to the implementation of the fundamental controlled-NOT two-bit gate by adding another laser beam in harmonic well $`2`$ and storing the quantum bits in the motional states of both local wells . We also note that our proposal can be implemented in spite of the decoherence processes coming from the coupling of the motional modes with the residual background gas  and with classical stochastic electric field , in addition to the finite lifetime of the electronic levels. From the experimental results reported in  we observe that several Rabi oscillations are visible within the decoherence time making it possible to observe the signature of the tunneling process. However, we stress that the designing of the double-well potential would require that the trap electrodes be only few micron away from the ion; then it is likely that the heating rate in the trap becomes higher than that observe in single traps, increasing the decoherence rate . Besides, the required trap structure makes difficult to obtain high trap frequencies, about MHz, and consequently, makes difficult the cooling process of the ion to its motional ground state . Here we note that the cooling process could be implemented in a single trap structure which could be adiabatically modified to a double-well potential.

Although the design of such a double-well trap may turn out to be a considerable technical challenge, the fundamental principles discussed here can be implemented by engineering two-mode interactions in ion traps , in which the motional states of the ion in two different directions can be coupled, analogously to the dynamics for the double-well. Besides, the proposal here presented might provide a motivation for future experimental work.

Acknowledgments

We wish to express thanks for the support from FAPESP (under contracts #99/11617-0, #00/15084-5, and #02/02633-6) and CNPq (Intituto do Milênio de Informação Quântica), Brazilian agencies. We also thank Christian Roos for helpful discussions.

Figure Captions

Figure 1. The evolution of function $`𝖯_{}(t)`$, in the Jaynes-Cumming regime and individual addressing of local well $`1`$, for the values $`^{\left(2\right)}/(\mathrm{}\eta g)=0`$ (dotted line) and $`1`$ (full line).

Figure 2. The evolution of function $`𝖯_{}(t)`$, in the carrier regime and individual addressing of local well $`1`$, for the values $`^{\left(2\right)}/(\mathrm{}g)=0`$ (dotted line) and $`1`$ (full line).

Figure 3. The evolution of function $`𝖯_{}(t)`$, in the Jaynes-Cumming regime and the laser beams reaching both local wells simultaneously, for the values $`^{\left(2\right)}/(\mathrm{}\eta g)=0`$ (dotted line) and $`1`$ (full line).


text:
# Comment on “Chandra Reveals X-ray Glint in the Cat’s Eye”

## Abstract

Chu et al. (2001) report that they find the diffuse X-ray emission from the Cat’s Eye Nebula, NGC 6543, to be inconsistent with nebular abundances but consistent with abundances expected for the stellar wind although the location and the derived temperature for the X-ray emitting region of NGC 6543 require that a significant fraction of the X-ray emitting material be nebular. A recent determination by Bernard-Salas et al. (2003) of nebular abundances in NGC 6543 incorporating infrared, optical, and ultraviolet observations provides a resolution of this apparent anomaly.

planetary nebulae: general–planetary nebulae: individual (NGC 6543)–stars: winds, outflows–X-rays: ISM

Chu et al. (2001) found that the X-ray spectrum of NGC 6543 could be adequately fit using stellar wind abundances but not with abundances that had been reported for the nebular material in this object (Aller & Czyzak, 1983; Pwa, Pottasch, & Mo, 1984; Manchado & Pottasch, 1989; de Koter, Hubeny, Heap, & Lanz, 1996). Chu et al. (2001) emphasized that the low temperature they derive for the X-ray emitting material (1.7$`\times 10^6`$K) is puzzling since the expected postshock temperature for the fast (1750 km s-1) stellar wind of NGC 6543 is of the order of 108K. They also note that the location of the X-ray emitting gas requires that a significant fraction of the X-ray emitting material be nebular. Here we re-analyze the Chandra X-ray Observatory ACIS-S spectrum of NGC 6543 using updated abundances found for the nebular material in an attempt to resolve this apparent anomaly.

Consistent with the work of Chu et al. (2001) we extracted spectra from four regions: the entire nebula and three regions corresponding to the central elliptical shell, the northern extension, and the southern extension. We are able to reproduce the spectral results of Chu et al. (2001), finding that the stellar wind abundances they used modeled the observed X-ray spectrum much better than the abundances they used for the nebula.

However, recently Bernard-Salas et al. (2003) re-determined the nebular abundances in NGC 6543 using multiple observations in the infrared, optical, and ultraviolet. They find a N/O abundance ratio that is significantly increased from that of previous measurements and used by Chu et al. (2001). Here we use the Bernard-Salas et al. (2003) abundances in the VMEKAL (variable abundance thin plasma emission) model in the X-ray analysis package XSPEC (Arnaud, 1996). These are listed in Table 1 as abundances relative to Solar using Grevesse & Sauval (1998) values for Solar abundance. All elements fit by VMEKAL that are not determined by Bernard-Salas et al. (2003) are kept at Solar abundances. We fit this new nebular model with only temperature, absorption column density, and the normalization factor as free parameters to the X-ray spectrum extracted from the entire nebula. The fits produced good results, giving significantly lower $`\chi ^2`$ ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$=1.3) than both the nebular ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$=1.8) and the stellar wind ($`\chi _\nu ^2`$=1.6) models proposed by Chu et al. (2001). Allowing important abundances to vary does not significantly lower $`\chi ^2`$. This new nebular model (plotted with the spectrum extracted from the entire nebula in Figure 1a) gives a plasma temperature of T = 1.8 $`\times `$ 106 K and an absorption column density of NH = 2.5 $`\times `$ 1020 cm-2. The reduced $`\chi ^2`$ as a function of NH and kT is plotted in Figure 1b. The 99% confidence contour spans NH = (2.0-3.5) $`\times `$ 1020 cm-2 and T = (1.54-1.66) $`\times `$ 106 K. For the energy range 0.2-1.5 keV we obtain an absorbed X-ray flux of 9.1 $`\times `$ 10-14 ergs cm-2 s-1 and an unabsorbed flux of 1.3 $`\times `$ 10-13 ergs cm-2 s-1. Assuming a distance of 1$`\pm 0.3`$ kpc (Cahn, Kaler, & Stanghellini, 1992; Reed et al., 1999), this gives a 0.2-1.5 keV X-ray luminosity of 1.5 $`\times `$ 1031 ergs s-1.

Fits to the spectra extracted from the central shell and the northern and southern extensions using the Bernard-Salas et al. (2003) abundances do not produce significantly different results from those reported earlier: consistent with the work of Miranda & Solf (1992) and Chu et al. (2001), our fits suggest that temperature appears uniform across the X-ray emitting region of NGC 6543 with no significant variations detected whereas the intervening absorption is greater for the southern extension (NH = 4.3$`\pm .02\times `$ 1020 cm-2) and the central shell (NH = 3.7$`\pm .02\times `$ 1020 cm-2) than for the northern extension (NH = 1.2$`\pm .08\times `$ 1020 cm-2).

We would like to thank J.Bernard-Salas, S.R.Pottasch, P.R.Wesselius and W.A.Feibelman for providing us their results prior to publication. H.M. was supported by the NSF REU program at SAO. SDV was supported in part by NASA grant NAG5-6711.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There exist at present convincing evidences of neutrino oscillations obtained in experiments with neutrinos from natural sources: in the atmospheric  and in the solar neutrino experiments . The observation of neutrino oscillations give us first evidence for nonzero neutrino masses and neutrino mixing.

The investigation of neutrino oscillations is based on:

1. Interaction of neutrinos with other particles is given by the Standard Model. It was proved by numerous experiments, including very precise LEP experiments, that the Standard Model perfectly describes experimental data in the energy region up to a few hundreds GeV. The Standard Charged Current (CC) and Neutral Current (NC) Lagrangians are given by

$$_I^{\mathrm{CC}}=\frac{g}{2\sqrt{2}}j_\alpha ^{\mathrm{CC}}W^\alpha +\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.;_I^{\mathrm{NC}}=\frac{g}{2\mathrm{cos}\theta _W}j_\alpha ^{\mathrm{NC}}Z^\alpha .$$
(1)
Here $`g`$ is the SU(2) gauge coupling constant, $`\theta _W`$ is the weak angle, $`W^\alpha `$ and $`Z^\alpha `$ are fields of charged $`W^\pm `$ and neutral $`Z^0`$ vector bosons and for the leptonic charged current $`j_\alpha ^{\mathrm{CC}}`$ and neutrino neutral current $`j_\alpha ^{\mathrm{NC}}`$ we have

$$j_\alpha ^{\mathrm{CC}}=\underset{l}{}\overline{\nu }_{lL}\gamma _\alpha l_L;j_\alpha ^{\mathrm{NC}}=\underset{l}{}\overline{\nu }_{lL}\gamma _\alpha \nu _{lL}.$$
(2)
2. Three flavour neutrinos $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ exist in nature.

From the LEP experiments on the measurement of the width of the decay $`Z\nu _l+\overline{\nu }_l`$ for the number of flavour neutrinos $`n_{\nu _f}`$ it was obtained the value

$$n_{\nu _f}=3.00\pm 0.06.$$
(3)
From the global fit of the LEP data for $`n_{\nu _f}`$ it was found

$$n_{\nu _f}=2.984\pm 0.008.$$
(4)

## 2 Neutrino mixing

The hypothesis of neutrino mixing is based on the assumption that there is a neutrino mass term in the total Lagrangian. It was proposed several mechanisms of the generation of the neutrino mass term. Later we will discuss the most popular see-saw mechanism .

There are two types of possible neutrino mass terms (see )

1. Dirac mass term

$$^\mathrm{D}=\overline{\nu }_R^{}M^\mathrm{D}\nu _L^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(5)
Here

$`\nu _L^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{eL}\\ \nu _{\mu L}\\ \nu _{\tau L}\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right);\nu _R^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{eR}\\ \nu _{\mu R}\\ \nu _{\tau R}\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)`$ (14)
and $`M^\mathrm{D}`$ is a complex non-diagonal matrix.

In the case of the Dirac mass term the total Lagrangian is invariant under global gauge transformation

$$\nu _L^{}e^{i\alpha }\nu _L^{};\nu _R^{}e^{i\alpha }\nu _R^{};le^{i\alpha }l$$

This invariance means that the total lepton number $`L=_lL_l`$ is conserved.
2. Majorana mass term

$$^{\mathrm{Mj}}=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\nu _L^{}})^cM^{\mathrm{Mj}}\nu _L^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(15)
Here $`M^{\mathrm{Mj}}`$ is a complex non-diagonal symmetrical matrix and

$$(\nu _L^{})^c=C\overline{\nu }_L^T,$$

where $`C`$ is the unitary matrix of the charge conjugation, which satisfies the conditions $`C\gamma _\alpha ^TC^1=\gamma _\alpha ;C^T=C`$. It is obvious that in the case of the Majorana mass term there are no any conserved lepton numbers.

After the standard diagonalization of a neutrino mass term we have

$$\nu _{lL}=\underset{i}{}U_{li}\nu _{iL},$$
(16)
where $`U`$ is a unitary mixing matrix and $`\nu _i`$ is the field of neutrino with mass $`m_i`$.

In the case of the Dirac mass term $`\nu _i`$ is the field of the Dirac neutrinos and antineutrinos which possess conserved lepton numbers ($`L(\nu _i)=1;L(\overline{\nu }_i)=1`$ ). In the case of the Majorana mass term $`\nu _i`$ is the field of truly neutral Majorana neutrinos. The field $`\nu _i`$ satisfies the Majorana condition

$$\nu _i=\nu _i^c=C\overline{\nu }_i^T.$$
(17)
If there are only flavour fields $`\nu _{lL}`$ in the column $`\nu _L^{}`$, the number of the massive neutrinos $`\nu _i`$ is equal to three and $`U`$ is a 3$`\times `$ 3 unitary matrix.

In the neutrino mass term it could be also fields, which do not enter into the standard CC and NC interactions. Such fields are called sterile. If in the coloumn $`\nu _L^{}`$ there are $`n_s`$ sterile fields $`\nu _{s_aL}`$, the number of massive neutrinos $`\nu _i`$ is equal to $`3+n_s`$ and $`U`$ is a $`(3+n_s)\times (3+n_s)`$ unitary matrix. In this case in addition to the mixing relation (16) we have

$$\nu _{s_aL}=\underset{i}{}U_{s_ai}\nu _{iL}.$$
(18)
Sterile fields can be right-handed neutrino fields, SUSY fields etc. If more than three neutrino masses are small, transition of the flavour neutrinos $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$, $`\nu _\tau `$ into sterile states become possible.

If sterile fields are right-handed neutrino fields $`\nu _{lR}`$, neutrino mass term has the form of the sum of the left-handed Majorana, Dirac and right-handed Majorana mass terms:

$`^{\mathrm{D}+\mathrm{Mj}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{\nu _L})^cM_L^{\mathrm{Mj}}\nu _L\overline{\nu }_RM^\mathrm{D}\nu _L{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\nu }_RM_R^{\mathrm{Mj}}(\nu _R)^c+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{\nu _L^{}})^cM^{\mathrm{D}+\mathrm{Mj}}\nu _L^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$
Here

$`\nu _L=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{eL}\\ \nu _{\mu L}\\ \nu _{\tau L}\end{array}\right),\nu _R=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _{eR}\\ \nu _{\mu R}\\ \nu _{\tau R}\end{array}\right),`$ (26)
$`M_L^{\mathrm{Mj}}`$ and $`M_R^{\mathrm{Mj}}`$ are complex non-diagonal symmetrical 3$`\times `$3 Majorana matrices and $`M^\mathrm{D}`$ is a complex non-diagonal 3$`\times `$3 Dirac matrix. The mass term $`^{\mathrm{D}+\mathrm{Mj}}`$ is called the Dirac and Majorana mass term. After the diagonalization of the mass term (19) we have

$$\nu _{lL}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}U_{li}\nu _{iL};(\nu _{lR})^c=\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}U_{\overline{l}i}\nu _{iL},$$
(27)
where $`U`$ is the unitary 6$`\times `$6 mixing matrix.

We will discuss now the see-saw mechanism of neutrino mass generation . In order to explain an idea of the mechanism we will consider the simplest case of one type of neutrino. Let us assume that the standard Higgs mechanism with one Higgs doublet, which is the mechanism of the generation of the masses of quarks and leptons, generates the Dirac neutrino mass term

$$^\mathrm{D}=m\overline{\nu }_R\nu _L+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(28)
It is natural to expect that the mass $`m`$ is of the same order of magnitude as masses of the corresponding lepton or quark. We know, however, from experimental data that neutrino masses are much smaller than the masses of leptons and quarks. In order to “suppress” neutrino mass let us assume that there exists lepton number violating beyond the SM mechanism of the generation of the right-handed Majorana mass term

$$_R^{\mathrm{Mj}}=M\overline{\nu }_R(\nu _R)^c+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(29)
with $`Mm`$ (usually it is assumed that $`MM_{\mathrm{GUT}}10^{15}\mathrm{GeV}`$).

The total mass term is the Dirac and Majorana one with

$`M^{\mathrm{D}+\mathrm{Mj}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& m\\ m& M\end{array}\right);\nu _L^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _L\\ (\nu _R)^c\end{array}\right)`$ (34)
After the diagonalization of the mass term we have

$`\nu _L`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{cos}\theta \nu _{1L}+\mathrm{sin}\theta \nu _{2L}`$
$`(\nu _R)^c`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{sin}\theta \nu _{1L}+\mathrm{cos}\theta \nu _{2L},`$ (35)
where $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ are fields of the neutrino Majorana with masses

$$m_1=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{M^2+4m^2}\frac{m^2}{M}1$$
(36)
and

$$m_2=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{M^2+4m^2}M$$
(37)
The mixing angle $`\theta `$ is given by

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta =\frac{2m}{M}1$$
(38)
Thus, the see-saw mechanism is based on the assumption that in addition to the standard Higgs mechanism of the generation of the Dirac mass term there exist a beyond the SM mechanism of the generation of the right-handed Majorana mass term, which change the lepton number by two and is characterised by a mass $`Mm`$. 222It is obvious that for charged particles such mechanism does not exist. The Dirac mass term mixes left-handed field $`\nu _L`$, the component of doublet, and right- handed singlet field $`\nu _R`$. As a result of this mixing neutrino acquires small Majorana mass.

In the general case of three generation for neutrino masses we have

$$m_i\frac{(m_i^f)^2}{\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{i}}m_i^f.$$
(39)
Here $`m_i^f`$ is the mass of quark or lepton in $`i`$-th family.

Let us stress that if neutrino masses are of the see-saw origin in this case:

* Neutrino with definite masses are Majorana particles.
* There are three light neutrinos.
* Neutrino masses satisfy the hierarchy $`m_1m_2m_3.`$
* The heavy Majorana particles must exist.

The existence of the heavy Majorana particles, see-saw partners of neutrinos, could be a source of the barion asymmetry of the Universe (see ).

## 3 Neutrino oscillations

In the case of neutrino mixing it is important to distinguish flavour neutrinos $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ and neutrinos with definite masses $`\nu _1`$, $`\nu _2`$,… The flavour neutrinos are particles that take part in the standard weak interaction. For example, neutrino that is produced together with $`\mu ^+`$ in the decay $`\pi ^+\mu ^++\nu _\mu `$ is the muon neutrino $`\nu _\mu `$, electron antineutrino $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ produces $`e^+`$ in the process $`\overline{\nu }_e+pe^++n`$ etc.

In order to determine the states of the flavour neutrinos let us consider a decay

$$ab+l^++\nu _l,$$
(40)
If there is neutrino mixing

$$\nu _{\alpha L}=\underset{i}{}U_{\alpha i}\nu _{iL}$$

the state of the final particles is given

$$|f>=\underset{i}{}|b|l^+|\nu _iil^+b|S|a,$$
(41)
where $`|\nu _i`$ is the state of neutrino with momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and energy

$$E_i=\sqrt{p^2+m_i^2}p+\frac{m_i^2}{2p};(p^2m_i^2)$$

and $`il^+b|S|a`$ is the element of S-matrix.

We will assume that the mass- squared differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{ik}^2=m_i^2m_k^2`$ are so small that emission of neutrinos with different masses can not be resolved in the neutrino production (and detection) experiments. In this case we have

$$il^+b|S|aU_{li}^{}\nu _ll^+b|S|a_{SM},$$
(42)
where $`\nu _ll^+b|S|a_{SM}`$ is the Standard Model matrix element of the process (40).

From (41) and (42) for the normalised state of the flavour neutrino $`\nu _l`$ we obtain

$$|\nu _l=\underset{i}{}U_{li}^{}|\nu _i.$$
(43)
Thus, in the case of the mixing of the fields of neutrinos with small neutrino mass-squared differences the state of flavour neutrino is a coherent superposition of the states of neutrinos with definite masses.333The relation (43) is analogous to the relations that connects the states of $`K^0`$ and $`\overline{K}^0`$ mesons, particles with definite strangeness, with the states of $`K_S^0`$ and $`K_L^0`$ mesons, particles with definite masses and widths.

In the general case of active and sterile neutrinos we have

$$|\nu _\alpha =\underset{i}{}U_{\alpha i}^{}|\nu _i,$$
(44)
where index $`\alpha `$ takes the values $`e,\mu ,\tau ,s_1,\mathrm{}`$. From the unitarity of the mixing matrix it follows that

$$\nu _\alpha ^{}|\nu _\alpha =\delta _{\alpha ^{}\alpha }.$$
(45)
The phenomenon of neutrino oscillations is based on the relation (44). Let us consider the evolution of the mixed neutrino states in vacuum. If at the initial time $`t=0`$ flavour neutrino $`\nu _\alpha `$ is produced, for the neutrino state at the time $`t`$ we have

$$|\nu _\alpha _t=e^{iH_0t}|\nu _\alpha =\underset{i}{}U_{\alpha i}^{}e^{iE_it}|i.$$
(46)
Because of different neutrino masses, phase factors in (46) are different. This means that the flavour content of the final state differs from the initial one. At macroscopic distances this effect can be large in spite of small differences of neutrino masses.

Neutrinos are detected through the observation of CC and NC processes. Developing the state $`|\nu _\alpha _t`$ over the total system of the flavour (and sterile) neutrino states $`|\nu _\alpha `$, we have

$$|\nu _\alpha _t=\underset{\alpha ^{}}{}A(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})|\nu _\alpha ^{},$$
(47)
where

$$A(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=\nu _\alpha ^{}|e^{iH_0t}|\nu _\alpha =\underset{i}{}U_{\alpha ^{}i}e^{iE_it}U_{\alpha i}^{}.$$
(48)
is the amplitude of the transition $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{}`$ during the time $`t`$.

Taking into account the unitarity of the mixing matrix, for the probability of the transition $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{}`$ we obtain the following expression 444 We label neutrino masses in such a way that $`m_1<m_2<m_3<\mathrm{}`$

$$\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=|\delta _{\alpha ^{}\alpha }+\underset{i}{}U_{\alpha ^{}i}U_{\alpha i}^{}(e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m_{i1}^2\frac{L}{2E}}1)|^2,$$
(49)
where $`Lt`$ is the distance between neutrino source and neutrino detector and $`E`$ is the neutrino energy.

Analogously, for the probability of the transition $`\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\alpha ^{}`$ we have

$$\mathrm{P}(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\alpha ^{})=|\delta _{\alpha ^{}\alpha }+\underset{i}{}U_{\alpha ^{}i}^{}U_{\alpha i}(e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m_{i1}^2\frac{L}{2E}}1)|^2.$$
(50)
Let us notice the following general features of the transition probabilities (see, for example, ):

* Transition probabilities depend on $`\frac{L}{E}`$.
* Neutrino oscillations can be observed if the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{i1}^2\frac{L}{E}1`$ is satisfied for at least one value of $`i`$.
* From the comparison of (49) and (50) we conclude that the following relation holds

$$\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=\mathrm{P}(\overline{\nu }_\alpha ^{}\overline{\nu }_\alpha ).$$

This relation is the consequence of the CPT invariance intrinsic for any local field theory.
* In the case of the CP invariance in the lepton sector the mixing matrix $`U`$ is real in the Dirac case. In the Majorana case the mixing matrix satisfies the condition

$$U_{\alpha i}=U_{\alpha i}^{}\eta _i,$$
(51)
where $`\eta _i=\pm i`$ is the CP parity of the Majorana neutrino $`\nu _i`$. From (49), (50) and (51) we conclude that in the case of the CP invariance in the lepton sector we have the following relation

$$\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=\mathrm{P}(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\alpha ^{}).$$

## 4 Oscillations between two types of neutrinos

We will consider here the simplest case of the transitions between two types of neutrinos ($`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ or $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ etc). In this case the index $`i`$ in Eq.(49) takes only one value $`i=2`$ and for the transition probability we obtain expression

$$\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=|\delta _{\alpha ^{}\alpha }+U_{\alpha ^{}2}U_{\alpha 2}^{}(e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\frac{L}{2E}}1)|^2,$$
(52)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=m_2^2m_1^2`$.

From this expression for the appearance probability ($`\alpha ^{}\alpha `$) we have

$$\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})==\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha }(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\frac{L}{2E}),$$
(53)
where the amplitude $`\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha }=4|U_{\alpha ^{}2}|^2|U_{\alpha 2}|^2=\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ;\alpha ^{}}.$$

Let us introduce the mixing angle $`\theta `$. We have

$$|U_{\alpha 2}|^2=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ;|U_{\alpha ^{}2}|^2=1|U_{\alpha 2}|^2=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta $$

and the amplitude $`\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha }`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha }=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta .$$

Hence, the two-neutrino transition probability takes the standard form

$$\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})==\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta (1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\frac{L}{2E}).$$
(54)
It is obvious that in the two-neutrino case the following relations are valid

$$\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha ^{}\nu _\alpha )=\mathrm{P}(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\alpha ^{});(\alpha ^{}\alpha ).$$
(55)
Thus, the CP violation in the lepton sector can not be revealed in the case of the transitions between two types of neutrinos.

The survival probability $`\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha )`$ is determined by condition of the conservation of the probability. We have

$$\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha )=1\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta (1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\frac{L}{2E}).$$
(56)
From (55) it follows that the two-neutrino survival probabilities satisfy the following relation

$$\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha )=\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha ^{}\nu _\alpha ^{}).$$
(57)
Thus, in the case of the transition between two types of neutrinos all transition probabilities are characterised by the two oscillation parameters: $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$.

The expressions (54) and (56) describe periodical transitions between two types of neutrinos (neutrino oscillations). They are widely used in the analysis of experimental data.

The expression (54) for the two-neutrino transition probability can be written in the form

$$\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})==\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta (1\mathrm{cos}2\pi \frac{L}{L_0}),$$
(58)
where

$$L_0=4\pi \frac{E}{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}$$
(59)
is the oscillation length.

Finally, the two- neutrino transition probability and the oscillation length can be written as

$$\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta (1\mathrm{cos}2.53\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\frac{L}{E})$$
(60)
and

$$L_02.48\frac{E}{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}\mathrm{m},$$
(61)
where $`E`$ is the neutrino energy in MeV, $`L`$ is the distance in m and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ is neutrino mass-squared difference in $`\mathrm{eV}^2`$.

## 5 Neutrino oscillation data

### 5.1 Evidence in favour of oscillations of atmospheric neutrinos

Atmospheric neutrinos are produced mainly in the decays of pions and muons

$$\pi \mu +\nu _\mu ;\mu e+\nu _\mu +\nu _e.$$
(62)
In the Super-Kamiokande (S-K) experiment  neutrinos are detected via the observation of the Cherenkov light emitted by electrons and muons in the large water Cherenkov detector (50 kt of $`\mathrm{H}_2\mathrm{O}`$).

At energies smaller than about 1 Gev practically all muons decay in the atmosphere and from (62) it follows that $`R_{\mu /e}2,`$ where $`R_{\mu /e}`$ is the ratio of the numbers of muon and electron events.

At higher energies the ratio $`R_{\mu /e}`$ is larger than two. It can be predicted, however, with an accuracy better than 5 %.

The ratio $`(R_{\mu /e})`$, measured in the S-K  and SOUDAN 2  atmospheric neutrino experiments, is significantly smaller than the predicted ratio $`(R_{\mu /e})_{\mathrm{MC}}`$. In the S-K experiment for the ratio of ratios in the Sub-GeV ($`E_{vis}1.33\mathrm{GeV}`$) and Multi-GeV region ($`E_{vis}>1.33\mathrm{GeV}`$) regions it was obtained, respectively

$$\frac{(R_{\mu /e})_{meas}}{(R_{\mu /e})_{\mathrm{MC}}}=0.638\pm 0.016\pm 0.050;\frac{(R_{\mu /e})_{meas}}{(R_{\mu /e})_{\mathrm{MC}}}=0.658\pm 0.030\pm 0.078$$

The fact that the ratio $`(R_{\mu /e})_{meas}`$ is significantly smaller than the predicted ratio was known from the results of the previous atmospheric neutrino experiments Kamiokande  and IMB . During many years this “atmospheric neutrino anomaly” was considered as an indication in favour of neutrino oscillations.

The compelling evidence in favour of neutrino oscillations was obtained recently by the S-K collaboration  from the observation of the large up-down asymmetry of the atmospheric high energy muon events.

If there are no neutrino oscillations, for the number of the electron (muon) events we have the following relation

$$N_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta _z)=N_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta _z)(l=e,\mu ),$$
(63)
where $`\theta _z`$ is the zenith angle.

For electron events a good agreement with this relation was obtained in the S-K experiment. For the Multi-GeV muon events the significant violation of the relation (63) was observed. For the ratio of the total number of the up-going muons $`U_\mu `$ ($`\pi /2\theta _z\pi `$) to the total number of the down-going muons $`D_\mu `$ ($`0\theta _z\pi /2`$) it was found the value

$$\left(\frac{U}{D}\right)_\mu =0.54\pm 0.04\pm 0.01.$$

At high energies leptons are emitted practically in the direction of neutrinos. Thus, up-going muons are produced by neutrinos which travel distances from $`500\mathrm{km}`$ to $`13000\mathrm{km}`$ and the down-going muons are produced by neutrinos which travel distances from $`20\mathrm{km}`$ to $`500\mathrm{km}`$. The observation of the up-down asymmetry clearly demonstrates the dependence of the number of the muon neutrinos on the distance which they travel from the production point in the atmosphere to the detector.

The S-K data  and data of other atmospheric neutrino experiments (SOUDAN 2 , MACRO  ) are well described, if we assume that the two-neutrino oscillations $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ take place. From the analysis of the S-K data it was found that at 90 % $`\mathrm{CL}`$ neutrino oscillation parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}`$ are in the range

$$1.610^3\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^23.910^3\mathrm{eV}^2;\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}>0.92;.$$

The best-fit values of the parameters are equal

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2=2.510^3\mathrm{eV}^2;\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}=1.0(\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2=163.2/170\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{o}.\mathrm{f}.)$$
(64)
### 5.2 Evidence in favour of transitions of solar $`\nu _e`$ into $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$

The energy of the sun is produced in the reactions of the thermonuclear $`\mathrm{pp}`$ and $`\mathrm{CNO}`$ cycles in which protons and electrons are converted into helium and electron neutrinos

$$4p+2e^{}^4\mathrm{He}+2\nu _\mathrm{e}.$$

The most important for the solar neutrino experiments reactions are listed in the Table I.

Table I

The main sources of the solar neutrinos. The maximum neutrino energies and SSM BP00 fluxes are also given.

| Reaction | Neutrino energy | SSM BP00 flux |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`ppde^+\nu _e`$ | $`0.42\mathrm{MeV}`$ | $`5.9510^{10}cm^2s^1`$ |
| $`e^{}+^7\mathrm{Be}\nu _\mathrm{e}^7\mathrm{Li}`$ | $`0.86\mathrm{MeV}`$ | $`4.7710^9cm^2s^1`$ |
| $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}^8\mathrm{Be}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ | $`15\mathrm{MeV}`$ | $`5.0510^6cm^2s^1`$ |

As it is seen from the Table I, the major part of the solar neutrino flux constitute the small energy $`\mathrm{pp}`$ neutrinos. According to the SSM BP00  the medium energy monoenergetic $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Be}`$ neutrinos make up about 10 % of the total flux. The high energy $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ neutrinos constitute only about $`10^2`$ % of the total flux. However, in the S-K  and SNO  experiments due to high energy thresholds practically only neutrinos from $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$-decay can be detected.555 According to the SSM BP00 the flux of the high energy $`hep`$ neutrinos, produced in the reaction $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}+\mathrm{p}^4\mathrm{He}+\mathrm{e}^++\nu _\mathrm{e}`$, is about three order of magnitude smaller than the flux of the $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ neutrinos. $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ neutrinos give dominant contribution to the event rate measured in the Homestake experiment  experiment.

The event rates measured in all solar neutrino experiments are significantly smaller than the event rates, predicted by the Standard Solar models. For the ratio R of the observed and the predicted by SSM BP00  rates in the Homestake , GALLEX-GNO , SAGE  and S-K  experiments the following values were obtained:

$`R=0.34\pm 0.03(\mathrm{Homestake})`$
$`R=0.58\pm 0.05(\mathrm{GALLEX}\mathrm{GNO})`$
$`R=0.60\pm 0.05(\mathrm{SAGE})`$
$`R=0.465\pm 0.018(\mathrm{S}\mathrm{K})`$
If there is neutrino mixing, original solar $`\nu _e`$’s due to neutrino oscillations or matter MSW transitions are transfered into another types of neutrinos, which can not be detected by the radiochemical Homestake, GALLEX-GNO and SAGE experiments. In the S-K experiment mainly $`\nu _e`$ are detected: the sensitivity of the experiment to $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ is about six times smaller than the sensitivity to $`\nu _e`$. Thus, neutrino oscillations or MSW transition in matter provide the natural explanations of depletion of the fluxes of solar $`\nu _e`$.

Recently strong model independent evidence in favour of the transition of the solar $`\nu _e`$ into $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ was obtained in the SNO experiment . The detector in the SNO experiment is a heavy water Cherenkov detector (1 kton of $`\mathrm{D}_2\mathrm{O}`$). Neutrinos from the sun are detected via the observation of the following three reactions:666$`\nu _x`$ stand for any flavour neutrino

1. CC reaction

$$\nu _e+de^{}+p+p,$$
(65)
2. NC reaction

$$\nu _x+d\nu _x+n+p,$$
(66)
3. ES process

$$\nu _x+e\nu _x+e$$
(67)

During 306.4 days of running $`1967_{60.9}^{+61.9}`$ CC events, $`576.5_{48.9}^{+49.5}`$ NC events, and $`263.6_{25.6}^{+26.4}`$ ES events were recorded in the SNO experiment. The kinetic energy threshold for the detection of electrons was equal to 5 MeV. The NC threshold is 2.2 MeV. Thus, practically only neutrinos from $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$-decay are detected in the SNO experiment. The initial spectrum of electron neutrinos from the decay $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}^8\mathrm{Be}+\mathrm{e}^++\nu _\mathrm{e}`$ is known .

The total CC event rate is given by

$$R_{\nu _e}^{CC}=<\sigma _{\nu _ed}^{CC}>\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{CC},$$
(68)
where $`<\sigma _{\nu _ed}^{CC}>`$ is cross section of the process (65), averaged over known initial spectrum of $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ neutrinos, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{CC}`$ is the flux of $`\nu _e`$ on the earth The flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{CC}`$ is given by the relation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{CC}=
_{CC}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0,$$
(69)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0`$ is the total (unknown) initial flux of $`\nu _e`$ and $`<P(\nu _e\nu _e)>_{CC}`$ is the averaged $`\nu _e`$ survival probability.

All flavour neutrinos $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ are recorded via the detection of the NC process (66). Taking into account $`\nu _e\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ universality of the NC for the total NC event rate we have

$$R_\nu ^{NC}=<\sigma _{\nu d}^{NC}>\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{NC},$$
(70)
where $`<\sigma _{\nu d}^{NC}>`$ is the cross section of the process (66), averaged over the initial spectrum of the $`{}_{}{}^{8}\mathrm{B}`$ neutrinos, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{NC}`$ is the total flux of all flavour neutrinos on the earth. We have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{NC}=\underset{l=e,\mu ,\tau }{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _l}^{NC}.$$
(71)
Here

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _l}^{NC}=
_{NC}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0,$$
(72)
where $`<P(\nu _e\nu _l)>_{NC}`$ is the averaged probability of the transition $`\nu _e\nu _l`$.

All flavour neutrinos are detected also via the observation of the ES process (67). However, the cross section of the (NC) $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }+e\nu _{\mu ,\tau }+e`$ scattering is about six times smaller than the cross section of the (CC + NC) $`\nu _e+e\nu _e+e`$ scattering.

The total ES event rate can be presented in the form

$$R_\nu ^{ES}=<\sigma _{\nu _ee}>\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{ES}.$$
(73)
Here $`<\sigma _{\nu _ee}>`$ is the cross section of the process $`\nu _ee\nu _ee`$, averaged over initial spectrum of the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ neutrinos and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{ES}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{ES}+\frac{<\sigma _{\nu _\mu e}>}{<\sigma _{\nu _ee}>}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _{\mu ,\tau }}^{ES},$$
(74)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{ES}`$ is the flux of $`\nu _e`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _{\mu ,\tau }}^{ES}`$ is the flux of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ and

$$\frac{<\sigma _{\nu _\mu e}>}{<\sigma _{\nu _ee}>}0.154.$$
(75)
We have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _l}^{ES}=
_{ES}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0,$$
(76)
where $`<P(\nu _e\nu _l)>_{ES}`$ is the averaged probability of the transition $`\nu _e\nu _l`$.

In the SNO experiment it was obtained

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{ES})_{\mathrm{SNO}}=(2.39_{0.23}^{+0.24}\text{(stat.)}\pm 0.12\text{(syst.)})10^6cm^2s^1,$$
(77)
This value is in a good agreement with the S-K value. In the S-K experiment  solar neutrinos are detected via the observation of the ES process $`\nu _xe\nu _xe`$. During 1496 days of running a large number $`22400\pm 800`$ solar neutrino events with recoil total energy threshold 5 MeV were recorded. From the data of the S-K experiment it was obtained

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{ES})_{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{K}}=(2.35\pm 0.02\text{(stat.)}\pm 0.08\text{(syst.)})10^6cm^2s^1.$$
(78)
In the S-K experiment the spectrum of the recoil electrons was measured. No sizable distortion of the spectrum with respect to the expected spectrum was observed. The spectrum of electrons, produced in the CC process (65), was measured in the SNO experiment . No distortion of the electron spectrum was observed also in this experiment.777Expected spectra were calculated under the assumption that the shape of the spectrum of $`\nu _e`$ on the earth is given by known initial $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ spectrum

Thus, the data of the S-K and SNO experiments are compatible with the assumption that in the high-energy $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ region the probability of the solar neutrinos to survive is a constant:

$$P(\nu _e\nu _e)\mathrm{const}.$$
(79)
From (79) it follows that

$$
_{CC}
_{NC}
_{ES}.$$

Taking into account these relations, from (69), (72) and (76) it follows that in the high energy $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ region the fluxes of electron neutrinos, detected via the observation of CC, NC and ES processes, are the same:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{CC}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{NC}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{ES}.$$
(80)
From the data of the SNO experiment  it was obtained that the flux of $`\nu _e`$ on the earth is equal to

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{CC})_{\mathrm{SNO}}=(1.76_{0.05}^{+0.06}\text{(stat.)}_{0.09}^{+0.09}\text{(syst.)})10^6cm^2s^1.$$
(81)
For the flux of all flavour neutrinos $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{NC}`$ it was found the value

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{NC})_{\mathrm{SNO}}=(5.09_{0.43}^{+0.44}\text{(stat.)}_{0.43}^{+0.46}\text{(syst.)})10^6cm^2s^1,$$
(82)
which is about three times larger than the value of the flux of electron neutrinos.

It is obvious that the NC flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{NC}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^{NC}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{NC}+\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _{\mu ,\tau }}^{NC}$$
(83)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^{NC}`$ is the flux of $`\nu _e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _{\mu ,\tau }}^{NC}`$ is the flux of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$.

Combining CC and NC fluxes and using the relation (80), we can determine now the flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _{\mu ,\tau }}^{NC}`$. Taking into account also the value (77) of the ES flux, in  it was obtained

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _{\mu ,\tau }})_{SNO}=(3.41_{0.45}^{+0.45}\text{(stat.)}_{0.45}^{+0.48}\text{(syst.)})10^6cm^2s^1.$$
(84)
Thus, detection of the solar neutrinos via the simultaneous observation of CC, NC and ES processes allowed the SNO collaboration to obtain the direct model independent $`5.3\sigma `$ evidence of the presence of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ in the flux of the solar neutrinos on the earth.

The total flux of the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ neutrinos, predicted by SSM BP00 , is given

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0)_{\mathrm{SSM}\mathrm{BP}}=(5.05_{0.81}^{+1.01})10^6cm^2s^1$$
(85)
This flux is compatible with the total flux of all flavour neutrinos (82), measured in the SNO experiment.

The flux of $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$ on the earth can be also obtained from the SNO CC data and the S-K ES data. In first SNO publication  it was found the value

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _{\mu ,\tau }})_{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{K},\mathrm{SNO}}=(3.69\pm 1.13)10^6cm^2s^1,$$
(86)
which is in a good agreement with the value (84).

The data of all solar neutrino experiments can be described if we assume that there are transitions of the solar $`\nu _e`$ into $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ and $`\nu _e`$ survival probability has two-neutrino form, which is charachterized by two oscillation parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}`$. From the global $`\chi ^2`$ fit of the total event rates measured in all solar neutrino experiments several allowed regions in the plane of the oscillation parameters were obtained (see, for example, ): large mixing angle MSW LMA and LOW regions, small mixing angle MSW SMA region, vacuum oscillations VO region and others. The situation changed after the day and night recoil electron spectra were measured in the S-K experiment  and SNO data  were obtained. From all analysis of the existing solar neutrino data it follows that the most plausible allowed region is the MSW LMA region (see  and references therein).

In  as a free variable parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ , $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}`$ and the initial flux of the $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ neutrinos $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _e}^0`$ were used . From the analysis of all solar neutrino data the following best-fit values of the parameters were found ($`\chi _{\mathrm{min}}^2=57/72\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{o}.\mathrm{f}.`$):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2=510^5\mathrm{eV}^2;\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}=0.34\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu _\mathrm{e}}^0=5.8910^6\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1$$
(87)
If neutrino oscillation parameters are in the LMA region, neutrino oscillations in the solar range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ can be explored in experiments with reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s if a distance between reactors and a detector is about 100 km. In the experiment KamLAND , which started in January 2002, $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ from several Japanese reactors are recorded by a large liquid scintillator detector (1 kt of liquid scintillator). The distance between reactors and the detector is $`175\pm 35`$ km. The average energy of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ from a reactor is about 3 MeV. Thus, at large mixing angles the KamLAND experiment is sensitive to the solar LMA range of neutrino mass-squared difference ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\frac{E}{L}10^5\mathrm{eV}^2`$).

### 5.3 Reactor experiments CHOOZ and Palo Verde

The results of the long baseline reactor experiments CHOOZ  and Palo Verde  are very important for the neutrino mixing. In these experiments the disappearance of the reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e`$’s in the atmospheric range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ were searched for.

In the CHOOZ experiment $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ from two reactors at the distance of about 1km from the detector were detected via the observation of the process

$$\overline{\nu }_e+pe^++n.$$

No indications in favour of disappearance of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ were found in the experiment. For the ratio $`R`$ of the total number of the detected $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ events to the expected number it was found the value

$$R=1.01\pm 2.8\%(\mathrm{stat})\pm \pm 2.7\%(\mathrm{syst})(\mathrm{CHOOZ})$$

In the similar Palo Verde experiment it was found:

$$R=1.01\pm 2.4\%(\mathrm{stat})\pm 5.3\%(\mathrm{syst})(\mathrm{PaloVerde})$$

The data of the experiments were analysed in  in the framework of two-neutrino oscillations and exclusion plots in the plane of the oscillation parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ were obtained. From the CHOOZ exclusion plot at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=2.510^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ (the S-K best-fit value) we have

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 1.510^1.$$

## 6 Neutrino oscillations in the framework of three-neutrino mixing

### 6.1 Neutrino oscillations in the atmospheric range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$

We have discussed evidences in favour of neutrino oscillations that were obtained in the solar and atmospheric neutrino experiments. There exist at present also an indication in favour of the transitions $`\overline{\nu }_\mu \overline{\nu }_e`$, that was obtained in the single accelerator experiment LSND . The LSND data can be explained by neutrino oscillations. From analysis of the data for the values of the oscillation parameters it was obtained the ranges

$$210^1\mathrm{\Delta }m^21\mathrm{eV}^2;310^3\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 410^2$$

In order to describe the data of the solar, atmospheric and LSND experiments, which requires three different values of neutrino mass-squared differences, it is necessary to assume mixing of (at least) four massive neutrinos (see, for example, ).

The result of the LSND experiment requires, however, confirmation. MiniBooNE experiment at Fermilab , that started in 2002, is aimed to check the LSND result.

We will consider here the minimal scheme of three neutrino mixing

$$\nu _{\alpha L}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}U_{\alpha i}\nu _{iL},$$
(88)
which provide two independent $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ and allow to describe solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillation data. In (88) $`U`$ is the unitary 3$`\times `$3 PMNS mixing matrix .

Let us consider first neutrino oscillations in the atmospheric range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, which can be explored in the atmospheric and long baseline accelerator and reactor neutrino experiments. In the framework of the three-neutrino mixing with $`m_1<m_2<m_3`$ there are two possibilities:

I. Hierarchy of neutrino mass-squared differences

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2;\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2;\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2.$$
(89)
II. Inverted hierarchy of neutrino mass-squared differences

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2;\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2;\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2.$$
(90)
We will assume that neutrino mass spectrum is of the type I. For the values $`\frac{L}{E}`$ relevant for neutrino oscillations in the atmospheric range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\frac{L}{E}1`$) we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\frac{L}{E}1.$$

Hence we can neglect the contribution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ to the transition probability Eq.(49). For the probability of the transition $`\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{}`$ we obtain in this case the following expression

$$\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})|\delta _{\alpha ^{}\alpha }+U_{\alpha ^{}3}U_{\alpha 3}^{}(e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\frac{L}{2E}}1)|^2$$
(91)
Thus, in the leading approximation transition probabilities in the atmospheric range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ are determined by the largest neutrino mass-squared difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ and the elements of the third column of the neutrino mixing matrix, which connect flavour neutrino fields $`\nu _{\alpha L}`$ with the field of the heaviest neutrino $`\nu _{3L}`$.

For the appearance probability from (91) we obtain

$$\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha }(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\frac{L}{2E})(\alpha \alpha ^{}),$$
(92)
where the oscillation amplitude is given by the expression

$$\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha }=4|U_{\alpha ^{}3}|^2|U_{\alpha 3}|^2$$
(93)
The survival probability can be obtained from the condition of the conservation of probability and Eq. (92). We have

$$\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha )=1\underset{\alpha ^{}\alpha }{}\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{B}_{\alpha ;\alpha }(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\frac{L}{2E}).$$
(94)
Taking into account the unitarity of the mixing matrix, for the oscillation amplitude $`\mathrm{B}_{\alpha ;\alpha }`$ we have

$$\mathrm{B}_{\alpha ;\alpha }=\underset{\alpha ^{}\alpha }{}\mathrm{A}_{\alpha ^{};\alpha }=4|U_{\alpha 3}|^2(1|U_{\alpha 3}|^2).$$
(95)
Let us notice that in the case of the inverted hierarchy of the neutrino mass squared differences transition probabilities can be obtained from (92)-(95) by the change $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`|U_{\alpha 3}|^2|U_{\alpha 1}|^2`$.

Transition probabilities Eq.(92) and Eq.(93) depend only on $`|U_{\alpha 3}|^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$. The CP phase does not enter into expressions for the transition probabilities. This means that in the leading approximation the relation

$$\mathrm{P}(\nu _\alpha \nu _\alpha ^{})=\mathrm{P}(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\alpha ^{})$$
(96)
is satisfied.

Thus, investigation of effects of the CP violation in the lepton sector in the long baseline neutrino oscillation experiments will be a difficult problem: possible effects are suppressed due to the smallness of the parameter $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2}`$. High precision experiments on the search for effects of the CP-violation in the lepton sector are planned for future Neutrino Superbeam facilities  and Neutrino Factories .

Transition probabilities (92)-(95) have two-neutrino form in every channel. This is obvious consequence of the fact that only the largest mass-squared difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ contributes to the transition probabilities. The elements $`|U_{\alpha 3}|^2`$, which determine the oscillation amplitudes, satisfy the unitarity condition $`_\alpha |U_{\alpha 3}|^2=1`$. Hence, in the leading approximation transition probabilities are characterised by three parameters. In the standard parametrisation of the neutrino mixing matrix (see ) we have

$$U_{\mu 3}=\sqrt{1|U_{e3}|^2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23};U_{\tau 3}=\sqrt{1|U_{e3}|^2}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{23},$$
(97)
where $`\theta _{23}`$ is the mixing angle.

From (93), and (97) for the amplitude of the transition $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ and $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ we will obtain, respectively

$$\mathrm{A}_{\tau ;\mu }=(1|U_{e3}|^2)^2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23};\mathrm{A}_{e;\mu }=4|U_{e3}|^2(1|U_{e3}|^2)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}.$$
(98)
For the amplitude $`\mathrm{B}_{e;e}`$ we have888Notice the following relation between oscillation amplitudes
$$\mathrm{A}_{e;\mu }=\mathrm{B}_{e;e}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}.$$

$$\mathrm{B}_{e;e}=4|U_{e3}|^2(1|U_{e3}|^2).$$
(99)
In the S-K atmospheric neutrino experiment  no any indications in favour of $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ transitions were obtained. The data of the experiment are well described under the assumption $`|U_{e3}|^20`$. In this approximation oscillations in the atmospheric range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ are pure $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ two- neutrino oscillations. The values of the two-neutrino oscillation parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{atm}=sin^2\theta _{23}`$, obtained from the analysis of the S-K data, are given in (64).

### 6.2 Oscillations in the solar range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$

Let us consider now in the framework of the tree-neutrino mixing neutrino oscillations in the solar range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. The $`\nu _e`$ survival probability in vacuum can be written in the form

$$\mathrm{P}(\nu _e\nu _e)==|\underset{i=1,2}{}|U_{ei}|^2e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m_{i1}^2\frac{L}{2E}}+|U_{e3}|^2e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2\frac{L}{2E}}|^2$$
(100)
We are interested in the survival probability averaged over the region where neutrinos are produced, neutrino energy spectrum etc. Because $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ is much larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$, in the averaged survival probability the interference between the first and the second terms in (100) disappears. The averaged survival probability can be presented in the form

$$\mathrm{P}(\nu _e\nu _e)=|U_{e3}|^4+(1|U_{e3}|^2)^2P^{(1,2)}(\nu _e\nu _e).$$
(101)
Here $`P^{(1,2)}(\nu _e\nu _e)`$ is given by the expression

$$\mathrm{P}^{(1,2)}(\nu _e\nu _e)=1\frac{1}{2}A^{(1,2)}(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2\frac{L}{2E}),$$
(102)
where

$$A^{(1,2)}=4\frac{|U_{e1}|^2|U_{e2}|^2}{(1|U_{e3}|^2)^2}.$$
(103)
In the standard parametrisation of the neutrino mixing matrix we have

$$U_{e1}=\sqrt{1|U_{e3}|^2}\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12};U_{e2}=\sqrt{1|U_{e3}|^2}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12},$$
(104)
where $`\theta _{12}`$ is the mixing angle. From (103) and (104) for the amplitude $`A^{(1,2)}`$ we obtain the following expression

$$A^{(1,2)}=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}$$
(105)
Thus, the probability $`\mathrm{P}^{(1,2)}(\nu _e\nu _e)`$ is characterised by two parameters and have the standard two-neutrino form.

The expression (101) is also valid in the case of matter . In this case $`P^{(1,2)}(\nu _e\nu _e)`$ is the two-neutrino $`\nu _e`$ survival probability in matter. In the calculation of this quantity the density of electrons $`\rho _e(x)`$ in the effective Hamiltonian of the interaction of neutrino with matter must be changed by $`(1|U_{e3}|^2)\rho _e(x)`$.

As we will see in the next subsection, from the data of the reactor CHOOZ and Palo Verde experiments it follows that element $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ is small. If we neglect $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ in Eq. (101) we come to the conclusion that in the framework of the three-neutrino mixing $`\nu _e`$ survival probability in the solar range of neutrino mass-squared difference has two-neutrino form

$$\mathrm{P}(\nu _e\nu _e)\mathrm{P}^{(1,2)}(\nu _e\nu _e)$$
(106)
The values of the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}`$, obtained from the analysis of the solar neutrino data, are given in (87).

Thus, due to the smallness of the parameter $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ and hierarchy of neutrino mass squared differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ neutrino oscillations in the atmospheric and solar ranges of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ in the leading approximation are decoupled  and are described by two-neutrino formulas, which are characterised by the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2,\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2,\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{12}`$, respectively.

### 6.3 The upper bound of $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ from the data of the CHOOZ experiment

The reactor long baseline CHOOZ  and Palo Verde  experiments are sensitive to the atmospheric range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. No any indications in favour of disappearance of reactor $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ were obtained in these experiments. From the analysis of the data of the CHOOZ and Palo Verde experiments the best bound on the parameter $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ can be obtained.

In the framework of the three-neutrino mixing the probability of $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ to survive is given by the expression

$$\mathrm{P}(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_e)=1\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{B}_{e;e}(1\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2\frac{L}{2E}),$$
(107)
where the amplitude $`\mathrm{B}_{e;e}`$ is given by Eq. (99).

In  exclusion plots in the plane of the parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \mathrm{B}_{e;e}`$ were obtained. From these exclusion plots we have

$$\mathrm{B}_{e;e}\mathrm{B}_{e;e}^0,$$
(108)
where the upper bound $`\mathrm{B}_{e;e}^0`$ depends on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. For the S-K  allowed values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ from the CHOOZ exclusion plot we find

$$110^1\mathrm{B}_{e;e}^02.410^1.$$
(109)
Using (99) and (108), for the parameter $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ we have the bounds

$$|U_{e3}|^2\frac{1}{2}\left(1\sqrt{1\mathrm{B}_{e;e}^0}\right)\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{B}_{e;e}^0$$
(110)
or

$$|U_{e3}|^2\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{1\mathrm{B}_{e;e}^0}\right)1\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{B}_{e;e}^0$$
(111)
Thus, parameter $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ can be small or large (close to one). This last possibility is excluded by the solar neutrino data. In fact, if $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ is large, from Eq. (101) it follows that in the whole range of the solar neutrino energies the probability of $`\nu _e`$ to survive is close to one in obvious contradiction with the solar neutrino data. Thus, the upper bound of the parameter $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ is given by (110). At the S-K best-fit point $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2=2.510^3\mathrm{eV}^2`$ we have

$$|U_{e3}|^2410^2(95\%\mathrm{CL}).$$
(112)
## 7 Conclusion

Compelling evidences in favour of neutrino oscillations, driven by small neutrino masses and neutrino mixing, were obtained in recent years in the S-K , SNO  and other atmospheric and solar neutrino experiments. These findings opened a new field of research in the particle physics and astrophysics: physics of massive and mixed neutrinos.

From the results of the experiments it follows that neutrino masses are many orders of magnitude smaller than the masses of other fundamental fermions (leptons and quarks). There is a general consensus that tiny neutrino masses are of a beyond the Standard Model origin.

There are many unsolved problems in the physics of massive and mixed neutrinos. In the nearest years LMA solution of the solar neutrino problem will be tested by the KamLAND  and the BOREXINO  experiments. If neutrino oscillation parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{sol}}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{\mathrm{sol}}`$ are in the LMA region, neutrino oscillations in the solar range of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ can be studied in details in terrestrial experiments with well known antineutrino spectrum.

Another problem which will be probably solved in the nearest years is the problem of LSND . If LSND result will be confirmed by the MiniBOONE experiment  it will mean that the number of light neutrinos is more than three and in addition to the three flavour neutrinos sterile neutrino(s) must exist. If LSND result will be not confirmed, the minimal scheme with three massive and mixed neutrinos will be very plausible possibility.

The problem of the nature of massive neutrinos (Dirac or Majorana?) is one of the most fundamental one. This problem can be solved by the experiments on the search for neutrinoless double $`\beta `$\- decay ($`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$ -decay). If massive neutrinos are Majorana particles the matrix element of this process is proportional to the effective Majorana mass $`<m>=_iU_{ei}^2m_i`$. The most stringent lower bounds for the time of life of the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$ -decay were obtained in the $`{}_{}{}^{76}\mathrm{Ge}`$ experiments . Taking into account different calculations of the nuclear matrix elements, for the effective Majorana mass from the results of these experiments the following upper bounds was obtained

$$|<m>|(0.31.3)\mathrm{eV}.$$

Many new experiments on the search for $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$ -decay are in preparation at present . In these experiments the sensitivities

$$|<m>|(1.510^2110^1)\mathrm{eV}$$

is planned to be achieved. Existing neutrino oscillation data allow to obtain some constraint on the value of the effective Majorana mass (see, for example ). If the number of massive neutrinos is equal to three and there is see-saw inspired neutrino mass hierarchy $`m_1m_2m_3`$, the upper bound of the effective Majorana mass is presumably lower than the sensitivity of the $`(\beta \beta )_{0\nu }`$-experiments of the next generation.

One of the very important problem of neutrino mixing is the problem of $`|U_{e3}|^2`$. In order to see effects of the three-neutrino mixing in future long baseline neutrino experiments and, in particular, effects of the CP-violation in the lepton sector, it necessary that the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ was in LMA region and the parameter $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ was larger than $`10^410^5`$ (see ). Best limit on $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ was found from the data of the reactor experiment CHOOZ . New information on $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ will be obtained in the nearest years in the MINOS , ICARUS  and JHF  experiments.

It is obvious that in order to reveal the real origin of the newly discovered phenomenon of small neutrino masses and neutrino mixing a lot of work have to be done. We would like to notice that it is not for the first time that breakthrough to a new physics was connected with neutrinos. The first Fermi theory of the $`\beta `$ -decay was based on the Pauli hypothesis of neutrino. The phenomenological V-A theory of the weak interactions started with Landau, Lee and Young and Salam two-component neutrino theory. The first evidence for the Glashow, Weinberg and Salam Standard Model of the electroweak interaction was obtained on neutrino beam in CERN (discovery of the NC).

It is a pleasure for me to acknowledge support of the “Programa de Profesores Visitantes de IBERDROLA de Ciencia y Tecnologia” and Istituto Nacionale di Fisica Nucleare, sezione di Torino.