NeutrinosSeptember 24 2006

PDG advisory committee

Maury Goodman

for

The neutrino group

List from 2004Maury Goodman Encoding of accelerator neutrino papersDon Groom “Understanding Two-Flavor Oscillation Parameters and Limits” Boris Kayser “Neutrino Mass, Mixing, and Flavor

Change” (new review; was a mini-review)Dean Karlen “Number of Light Neutrinos”

Ramon Miquel Overseer 2006 to Barcelona2006 to BarcelonaHitoshi Murayama Plot with current oscillation

parametersKenzo Nakamura Encoding of extraterrestrial neutrino

papers “Solar Neutrinos”Keith Olive Encoding of Astrophysical papersAndreas Piepke Encoding of Nuclear Physics papers & “Electron, Muon and Tau Neutrino Listings”Petr Vogel “Limits from Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay”

+ consultants, referees, verifiers…

2006 RPP, Update to neutrinos was listed as the first big change

RPP Comparison 74-04-06

Pages: 1974 (1/3 out of 202)

Pages: 2004 2006

prop 7 4/6 6 2/6

# type 2 1/6 1 3/62 decay 3 1/6 4 2/6

Mixing 16 1/6 14 1/6Heavy L0 3 2/6

33 out of 1109

3 4/631 out of 1232

Conclusion – mass is not correlated with RPP mass.

Mixing formalismMNS 3x3 matrix

= Uc12

[Presented at 11/04 PDG]Summary of Workshop on 11/12/04 (I)

• Mixing

– Introduce new “nodes” with measurements of m212,

m223 in the 3-neutrino scenario, including mini-review explaining

how it is done, assumptions, etc.

– Remove Don’s two-flavor mini-review which focuses on understanding limits.

– Keep solar fluxes, atmospheric flux ratios, reactor flux ratios. Add accelerator flux ratios.

– Remove obsolete oscillation limits in m2 regions we now know are irrelevant.

– Keep LSND-related limits from eoscillation searches.

↔

2004 RPP – not much indication of mixing in the mixing listings

[Presented at 11/04 PDG]Summary of Workshop on 11/12/04 (I)

• Mixing

– Introduce new “nodes” with measurements of m212,

m223 in the 3-neutrino scenario, including mini-review explaining

how it is done, assumptions, etc.

– Remove Don’s two-flavor mini-review which focuses on understanding limits.

– Keep solar fluxes, atmospheric flux ratios, reactor flux ratios. Add accelerator flux ratios.

– Remove obsolete oscillation limits in m2 regions we now know are irrelevant.

– Keep LSND-related limits from eoscillation searches.

↔

Mission Accomplished

Mixing changes

• All these changes were implemented exactly as proposed, but only at the last minute

• Encoders did all papers in both the new and old systems

• Many old papers were re-encoded for the new system

• There was much hard last-minute work by a few people.

[Presented at 11/04 PDG]Summary of Workshop on 11/12/04 (II)

(Karsten Heeger, LBNL)

Issue

‡ The flavor eigenstates, such as e, are not particles in the sense that they do not have a mass, and do not propogate in free space. They are useful concepts.

‡ 1, 2 and 3 are the particles in the usual sense of the word. Some similarity to neutral K system.

[Presented at 11/04 PDG]Summary of Workshop on 11/12/04 (III)• Sections on e

– Eliminate “particles” called e

– Rename nodes with masses, etc. to reflect what is really being measured. Example: .

– Same thing for lifetime to mass ratio, magnetic moment, electric dipole moment, etc.

– In some cases (astrophysics), limits apply to all flavors: only one node needed.

– Remove many obsolete results, mostly in mass ranges that are now irrelevant.

– Add node for 2 lifetime to mass ratio (from limits to Majoron-

emission decays of solar neutrinos).

j

ejeff

jemUm 22)(2 ||

Advice

Consistent with this advice, and led by K. Olive, the old notation was eliminated without new notation being introduced. The effective mass, lifetime, etc. limits are limits to linear combinations of properties of the mass eigenstates. So, we decided on the scheme which is in RPP2006 - it's a clear improvement over 2004. The main mission, to do away with e, and , was acomplished.

What was done this timeRemove ,… no new notation used

Change names?

A notation issue

12, 13, 23 are labels,

m2jk are ordered (sign)

m232 ~ m2

31 will be good for

several editions, but not forever

We know the sign of m221 but

not m232

m212 m1

2 – m22

m221 m2

2 – m12

m213 m1

2 – m32

m231 m3

2 – m12

m223 m2

2 – m32

m232 m3

2 – m22

m212 + m2

23 + m231 = 0

The numbers themselves

m232| 1.9-3.0 10-3 eV2 Super-K

m221 8.0 + 0.4 - 0.3 10-5 eV2 KamLAND +

Solar sin2(2 ) = 0.86+0.03

-0.04 KamLAND + Solar

sin2(2 ) > 0.92 Super-K

sin2(2 ) < 0.19 CHOOZ (+Super-K)

A real issue►In the absence of a global

fit, what value of m2 should be chosen for a 13 limit?

We chose 1 low value►The best limit on 13 comes

from CHOOZ, but strongly depends on m2

► The best measurement of

m232 currently comes from

Super-K► The best measurement of

m232 will soon be from

MINOS

Palo Verde

Chooz

SK sin22θ13 (90% CL)

sin22θ13

∆m

2

Equations

Another Issue

These equations assume a 3 paradigm for neutrino oscillations

This paradigm is generally used, but may not be correct

The LSND result does not fit this paradigm

Some “limits” kept

Results “relevant” to LSND were kept

Since we don’t know what LSND measured, if it was right, this was not 100% straightforward

This was done in conjunction with MiniBooNE cospokespersons

Summary PDG

♦ Mixings – major change to accommodate present view of ’s. Seems satisfactory so far, some tweaking might be needed.

♦ Sections on eRevamped over 2004 listings with more clarity that it is linear combinations of mass eigenstates being measured.

♦ The future – next 4 years will see more exciting results from MiniBooNE, MINOS, KamLAND, Double Chooz, Daya Bay and Katrin which will shape the listings.