Neutrino Mass Ordering: Hints and Challenges Eligio Lisi (INFN, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
neutrino mass ordering hints and challenges
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Neutrino Mass Ordering: Hints and Challenges Eligio Lisi (INFN, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 27, 2023 154 likes •690 views

Neutrino Mass Ordering: Hints and Challenges Eligio Lisi (INFN, Bari, Italy) Solvay Workshop, Brussels, 2017 Ren Magri+e, Voice of Space (1931) 2 OUTLINE: Prologue: 3 knowns and unknowns Global 3 oscillaFon analysis and

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Neutrino Mass Ordering: Hints and Challenges

ß René Magri+e, Voice of Space (1931)

Eligio Lisi

(INFN, Bari, Italy)

Solvay ν Workshop, Brussels, 2017

slide-2
SLIDE 2

OUTLINE:

  • Prologue: 3ν knowns and unknowns
  • Global 3ν oscillaFon analysis and mass ordering
  • CombinaFon with nonoscillaFon constraints
  • Future challenges
  • Epilogue

Mainly based on:

  • F. Capozzi, E. Di ValenFno, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, A. Melchiorri, A. Palazzo,

“Global constraints on absolute neutrino masses and their ordering”

arXiv:1703.04471 [PRD 95, 096014 (2017)]

For independent analyses, see also Esteban+ 1611.01514; de Salas+ 1708.01186

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Uαi =   1 c23 s23 −s23 c23     c13 s13e−iδ 1 −s13eiδ c13     c12 s12 −s12 c12 1     1 eiα/2 eiβ/2  

Mixings and phases: CKMà PMNS (Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata)

Extra CPV phases [if Majorana] not tested in oscillat.

Mass [squared] spectrum (E ~ p + m2/2E + “interaction energy” )

1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2

δm2 δm2 Δm2 Δm2

“N “Norma rmal” ” Ord rderi ring NO NO “I “Inve vert rted” ” Ord rderi ring IO IO + + intera ract ctions s in ma matter r à effect ctive ve terms rms ~ ~ GF

F . . E

E . densi sity y + + abso solute ma mass ss sca scale (n (not test sted in osci scillations) s)

2-3 rotation 1-3 rotation + + CPV PV “D “Dira rac” c” phase se 1-2 rotation 3 3 3 3

Prologue: 3ν paradigm - parameters

3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

ν flavor oscillation experiments: α à β in vacuum and matter a b c d e f g

eàe (KamLAND),

θ12

12 )

eàe (Solar) θ12

12 )

µàµ (Atmospheric) ( Δm2 , θ23

23 )

µàµ (LBL Accel) Δm2 , θ23

23 )

eàe (SBL Reac.) θ

µàe (LBL Accel) θ µàτ (OPER

(OPERA, SK , SK)θ

Data from various types of neutrino experiments: (a) solar, (b) long-baseline reactor, (c) atmospheric, (d) long-baseline accelerator, (e) short-baseline reactor, (f,g) long baseline accelerator (and, in part, atmospheric). (a) KamLAND [plot]; (b) Borexino [plot], Homestake, Super-K, SAGE, GALLEX/GNO, SNO; (c) Super-K atmosph. [plot], DeepCore, MACRO, MINOS etc.; (d) T2K (plot), MINOS, K2K; (e) Daya Bay [plot], RENO, Double Chooz; (f) T2K [plot], MINOS, NOvA; (g) OPERA [plot], Super-K atmospheric.

4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Leading sensitivities to 3ν oscillation parameters:

a b c d f g

eàe ( δm2 , θ12

12 )

eàe ( δm2 , θ12

12 )

µàµ ( Δm2 , θ23

23 )

µàµ ( Δm2 , θ23

23 )

eàe ( Δm2 , θ13

13 )

µàe ( Δm2 , θ13

13 , θ23 23 )

µàτ ( Δm2 , θ23

23 )

Data from various types of neutrino experiments: (a) solar, (b) long-baseline reactor, (c) atmospheric, (d) long-baseline accelerator, (e) short-baseline reactor, (f,g) long baseline accelerator (and, in part, atmospheric). (a) KamLAND [plot]; (b) Borexino [plot], Homestake, Super-K, SAGE, GALLEX/GNO, SNO; (c) Super-K atmosph. [plot], DeepCore, MACRO, MINOS etc.; (d) T2K (plot), MINOS, K2K; (e) Daya Bay [plot], RENO, Double Chooz; (f) T2K [plot], MINOS, NOvA; (g) OPERA [plot], Super-K atmospheric.

5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

“Broad-brush” 3ν picture (with 1-digit accuracy) +Δm2 δm2 m2

ν

ν2 ν1 ν3 ν3

  • Δm2

e

µ τ δm2 ~ 7 x 10-5 eV2 Δm2 ~ 2 x 10-3 eV2 sin2θ12 ~ 0.3 sin2θ23 ~ 0.5 sin2θ13 ~ 0.02 δ = Dirac CPV phase sign(Δm2) = ordering “octant” of θ23 absolute mass scale Dirac/Majorana nature

Knowns: Unknowns:

Normal Ordering (NO) Inverted Ordering (IO)

6

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Hi-res and larger picture à Global analysis of ν oscill. data

χ2 metric adopted. Parameters not shown are marginalized away: C.L.’s refer to Nσ =

= √ Δχ

Δχ2 = 1, 2, 3, ...

Analysis includes increasingly rich oscillation data sets:

LBL Acc + Solar + KL LBL Acc + Solar + KL + SBL Reactor LBL Acc + Solar + KL + SBL Reactor + Atmosph.

Global fit results taken from 1703.04471 . Note: KL=KamLAND. 7

slide-8
SLIDE 8 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m δ

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m ∆

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

π / δ

0.5 1 1.5 2

12

θ

2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23

θ

2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13

θ

2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

σ N

1 2 3 4

σ N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO

Current 1σ errors (1/6 of ±3σ range):

Note: Δm2 =

(Δm2

31 + Δm2 32)/2

Five known oscillation parameters:

δm2

2.3 %

Δm2

1.6 %

sin2θ12

12

5.8 % sin2θ13

13 4.0 %

sin2θ23

23 ~ 9 %

all < 10%... 2 - 3 digits needed

à Precision Era!

[but: PMNS still very far from CKM accuracy]

à novel expt+theo challenges (fluxes, cross sections, ...) in nuclear physics

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

/

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23 2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO 8

slide-9
SLIDE 9 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

π / δ

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23

θ

2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO

θ23 octant

δCP

Three unknown oscillation parameters

NO or IO

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10 1 2 3 4

23

θ

2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.03

LBL+Sol+KL

θ23

Δχ2

2

(IO-NO)

  • ctant

+1.1

θ θ θ

δ

6.5 1 2 3 4

∆ π δ

σ N σ

More on unknown oscillation parameters:

1 2 3 4

π / δ

0.5 1 1.5 2

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND

NH IH

θ θ θ

δ

6.5 1 2 3 4

∆ π δ

σ N σ

δCP

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

/

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23 2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO 10

slide-11
SLIDE 11 1 2 3 4

π / δ

23

θ

2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.03

1 2 3 4

23

θ

2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.03

LBL+Sol+KL +SBL Reac

θ23

Δχ2

2

(IO-NO)

  • ctant

+1.1 +1.1

θ θ θ

δ

6.5 1 2 3 4

∆ π δ

σ N σ

1 2 3 4

π / δ

0.5 1 1.5 2

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND

NH IH

θ θ θ

δ

6.5 1 2 3 4

∆ π δ

σ N σ

δCP

1 2 3 4

2.8

π / δ

0.5 1 1.5 2

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors

NH IH

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

/

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23 2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

/

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23 2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO

More on unknown oscillation parameters:

11

slide-12
SLIDE 12 1 2 3 4

π / δ

23

θ

2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.03

1 2 3 4

23

θ

2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.03

LBL+Sol+KL +SBL Reac +Atmos

θ23

Δχ2

2

(IO-NO)

  • ctant

+1.1 +1.1 +3.6 Max-mixing disfavored;

  • ctant flips

with NO/IO

Intriguing!

NO favored

θ θ θ

δ

6.5 1 2 3 4

∆ π δ

σ N σ

1 2 3 4

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

/

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23

θ

2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO

1 2 3 4

π / δ

0.5 1 1.5 2

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND

NH IH

θ θ θ

δ

6.5 1 2 3 4

∆ π δ

σ N σ

δCP

sin δ ~ -1

(or sin δ < 0)

favored; sin δ ~ +1 excluded

1 2 3 4

2.8

π / δ

0.5 1 1.5 2

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors

NH IH

1 2 3 4

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

π / δ

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23 2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

/

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23 2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

/

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23 2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO

More on unknown oscillation parameters:

12

slide-13
SLIDE 13 1 2 3 4

π / δ

0.5 1 1.5 2

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND

NH IH

1 2 3 4

π / δ

23

θ

2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.03

1 2 3 4

23

θ

2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.03

LBL+Sol+KL +SBL Reac +Atmos

θ23

Δχ2

2

(IO-NO)

  • ctant

+1.1 +1.1 +3.6

θ θ θ

δ

6.5 1 2 3 4

∆ π δ

σ N σ

Compare the current results (circa 2017) with...

1 2 3 4

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

/

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23

θ

2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO

θ θ θ

δ

6.5 1 2 3 4

∆ π δ

σ N σ

δCP

1 2 3 4

2.8

π / δ

0.5 1 1.5 2

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors

NH IH

1 2 3 4

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

π / δ

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23 2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

/

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23 2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

/

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23 2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO 13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

δ ∆

2.8

π / δ

0.5 1 1.5 2

θ θ θ σ σ

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND

NH IH

δ ∆

2.8

π / δ

0.5 1 1.5 2

θ θ θ σ σ

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NH IH

δ ∆

2.8

π / δ

0.5 1 1.5 2

θ θ θ σ σ

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors

NH IH

δ ∆ π δ θ

23

θ

2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

θ

0.04

σ σ

LBL+Sol+KL +SBL Reac +Atmos

θ23

Δχ2

2

(IO-NO)

  • ctant
  • 1.2
  • 0.9

+1.0

θ θ θ

δ

6.5 1 2 3 4

∆ π δ

σ N σ

θ θ θ

δ

6.5 1 2 3 4

∆ π δ

σ N σ

δCP

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

/

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23 2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

/

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23 2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO δ ∆ π / δ θ

23

θ

2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

θ

0.03

σ σ δ ∆ π / δ θ

23

θ

2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

θ

0.03

σ σ

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

/

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23 2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO

... 1yr ago, 2016: trends were somewhat weaker

14

slide-15
SLIDE 15 1 2 3 4

π / δ

0.5 1 1.5 2

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND

NH IH

1 2 3 4

π / δ

23

θ

2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.03

1 2 3 4

23

θ

2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.03

LBL+Sol+KL +SBL Reac +Atmos

θ23

Δχ2

2

(IO-NO)

  • ctant

+1.1 +1.1 +3.6

θ θ θ

δ

6.5 1 2 3 4

∆ π δ

σ N σ

Currently: ~2σ hints in favor of Dirac CPV, NO, and non-maximal θ23 (*)

1 2 3 4

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

/

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23

θ

2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO

θ θ θ

δ

6.5 1 2 3 4

∆ π δ

σ N σ

δCP

1 2 3 4

2.8

π / δ

0.5 1 1.5 2

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors

NH IH

1 2 3 4

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

π / δ

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23 2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

/

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23 2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

/

0.5 1 1.5 2

12 2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35

23 2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

13 2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

N

1 2 3 4

N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO

(*) Latest T2K data

(Aug. 2017) not yet included in this fit. Update (2018) of the global analysis with these and other data is in progress

Time will tell if these hints will grow up!

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

θ23

  • ctant +

(non)max

Very personal and subjective rating of such ~2σ hints:

δCP

Δχ2

2

(IO-NO)

*** ** *

νe / νe appearance probab. seem to differ by CPV:

Very interes7ng! [Akin to θ13 hints before 2012]

__

Mass-ordering informa7on rather “diluted” in data: S7ll vague, but starts to be interes7ng Fragile - different experiments not yet converging: Degeneracy might stay with us for quite some 7me...

Hints are “entangled” as subleading effects in νe appearance channel

[They might also be entangled with BSM neutrino physics, if any]

16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

0.00 0.010.02 0.030.04 0.050.06 0.070.08 0.09 0.10 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0.00 0.010.02 0.030.04 0.050.06 0.07 0.080.09 0.10 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0.00 0.010.020.03 0.040.05 0.060.07 0.08 0.090.10 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0.00 0.010.020.03 0.040.05 0.06 0.070.08 0.090.10 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0.00 0.010.02 0.030.04 0.050.06 0.07 0.080.09 0.10 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0.00 0.010.020.03 0.040.05 0.060.07 0.08 0.090.10 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

LBL Acc + Solar + KL + SBL Reactors + Atmos

13

θ

2

sin

13

θ

2

sin

13

θ

2

sin

13

θ

2

sin

13

θ

2

sin

13

θ

2

sin π / δ π / δ

σ 1 σ 2 σ 3

Normal Hierarchy Inverted Hierarchy

[Supplementary to arXiv:1703.04471] NO IO

2 overlapping bands for two octants

E.g.: (θ13, δ) covariances

θ13 from reactors (vs accel.) Impact of atmospheric ν

Hints may (not) converge be\er in one mass ordering wrt the other

17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Mass ordering via oscillations

Oscillation experiments can determine the sign of ±Δm2 ...

δm2 δm2 +Δm2

  • Δm2

...if they can observe inte interf rferenc nce of oscill. driven by ±Δm2 with

  • scill. driven by a quantity Q having known sign. Three options:

Q ~ δm2 medium-baseline reactors (a) Q ~ GF E Ne matter effects in accel./atmosph. ν (b) Q ~ GF E Nν self-interaction effects in supernovae (c)

(IO) (NO)

(a) JUNO (b) Atmos: KM3NeT-ORCA, PINGU, HyperK...; Accel.: DUNE, T2HK, ... (c) All operaFng low-E detectors

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Oscillation experiments can determine the sign of ±Δm2 ...

δm2 δm2 +Δm2

  • Δm2

...if they can observe inte interf rferenc nce of oscill. driven by ±Δm2 with

  • scill. driven by a quantity Q having known sign. Three options:

(IO) (NO)

Nonosc

  • noscilla

illation tion se searche hes m s may pr y provide vide fur furthe ther pr r probe

  • bes of

s of or

  • rde

dering ring à [independently on δCP and on θ23] Q ~ δm2 medium-baseline reactors Q ~ GF E Ne matter effects in accel./atmosph. ν Q ~ GF E Nν self-interaction effects in supernovae

Mass ordering via oscillations

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

( mβ , mββ

ββ , Σ )

β decay, sensiFve to the “effecFve electron neutrino mass”: 0νβ νββ decay: only if Majorana. “EffecFve Majorana mass”: Cosmology: Dominantly sensiFve to sum of neutrino masses: Note 1: These observables may provide handles to distinguish NO/IO. Note 2: Majorana case gives a new source of CPV (unconstrained) Note 2: The three observables are correlated by oscillation dataà

3ν paradigm: absolute ν masses and observables

20

slide-21
SLIDE 21
  • 1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0

0.2 0.4

  • 4.0
  • 3.5
  • 3.0
  • 2.5
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0

  • 1

10 1

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

  • 3.0
  • 2.5
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0

  • 4.0
  • 3.5
  • 3.0
  • 2.5
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

  • 1.4 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0

  • 1

10 1

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

(NH) σ 2 (IH) σ 2

(eV) Σ (eV)

β

m (eV)

β β

m (eV)

β

m

Constraints on nonoscillation observables from oscillation data

mββ ββ spread due to

Majorana CP phase(s): accessible in principle [but: large errors on Nuclear Matrix Elements from nuclear modeling]

NO IO

~degenerate for relatively large neutrino masses 21

slide-22
SLIDE 22
  • 1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0

0.2 0.4

  • 4.0
  • 3.5
  • 3.0
  • 2.5
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0

  • 1

10 1

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

  • 3.0
  • 2.5
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0

  • 4.0
  • 3.5
  • 3.0
  • 2.5
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

  • 1.4 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0

  • 1

10 1

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

(NH) σ 2 (IH) σ 2

(eV) Σ (eV)

β

m (eV)

β β

m (eV)

β

m

β : Mainz+Troitsk Σ : CMB+LSS 0νβ νββ : KL-Zen, GERDA, EXO, Cuore...

Upper limits on mβ, mββ

ββ, Σ (up to some syst.) + osc. constraints

Cosmological data generally prefer the smallest values for the total neutrino mass, and already contribute to put IO “under pressure” à NO IO

22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Δχ2

2

(IO-NO)

+1.1 +1.1 +3.6

LBL+Sol+KL +SBL Reac +Atmos +DBD, Cosmo

+3.6 ... +4.4

Small but coherent steps: N.O. favored... Overall preference at 1.9

1.9σ - 2.1 2.1σ Grand total of IO-NO differences:

The sta^s^cal significance of possible hints about ordering is currently debated. If they are not fluctua^ons, expect (frac^onal) improvements in upcoming years Dedicated projects are planned with reactor, atmospheric, accel. neutrinos...

[See 1703.04471 for detailed discussion]

23

slide-24
SLIDE 24
  • 1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0

0.2 0.4

  • 4.0
  • 3.5
  • 3.0
  • 2.5
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0

  • 1

10 1

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

  • 3.0
  • 2.5
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0

  • 4.0
  • 3.5
  • 3.0
  • 2.5
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

  • 1.4 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0

  • 1

10 1

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

(NH) σ 2 (IH) σ 2

(eV) Σ (eV)

β

m (eV)

β β

m (eV)

β

m

β : KATRIN Σ : Precision Cosmology 0νβ νββ : Upgraded/New expt. (+ (+ NME) ME)

... and on absolute masses. Upper limits on mβ, mββ

ββ, Σ in ~10 years ?

Large phase space for discoveries about ν mass and nature.

Theoretical challenges: cosmo high accuracy calculations/simulations, NME uncertainties

NO IO

24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

25

Once upon a time... all neutrino observations were limited by stat’s, and systematics could be treated as numbers (normalization, bias ...) Now we have as many as O(106) events collected in SBL reactors, and we expect O(105) events in each of JUNO, ORCA, PINGU etc. Systematic errors are no longer “numbers” but become “functions”. Dedicated approaches are needed to deal with such uncertainties. [This transition has already taken place in other fields, such as in parton distribution function fits and precision cosmology forecasts.] Unprecedented challenges are awaiting us in neutrino data analyses: We must be prepared to deal with “functions” which ideally should be known in size, shape, correlations and probability distributions, but in practice may also be partly (if not completely!) unknown.

Oscilla^ons: A glimpse of upcoming challenges...

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Hard lesson learned from current reactor experiments: An unknown systematic error source (function) δΦ δΦ(E), well beyond supposedly-known shape uncertainties!

Now we know its shape, and can correct for it, but residuals do remain: energy-scale uncertainties E à E’(E) (x-axis “stretch”) flux-shape uncertainties Φ (E) à Φ’(E) (y-axis “stretch”)

From S. Jetter (TAU 2014) & J. Cao (TAUP 2015) Daya Bay data Huber + Mueller uncert. Daya Bay RENO Double Chooz 26

slide-27
SLIDE 27

default halved

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2

E (MeV) E’/E E (MeV) Φ ’/ Φ

Relative 1σ error bands

Recent evaluations of energy-scale and flux-shape errors (reactors)

Dwyer & Langford 2014 B-Z. Hu @ Moriond 2015

E’(E) and Φ’(E) models

Smoothed errors assumed to be linear and symmetric (gaussian) [Note sawtooth-like spectrum]

27

slide-28
SLIDE 28 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 1.02

NH true

E’/E Φ ’/ Φ E (MeV) E (MeV) E (MeV)

  • sc. + norm.

+ energy scale + flux shape

1 2 3 4 5 5 10 NH true

  • sc. + norm.

+ energy scale + flux shape

σ N T (y)

Energy-scale and flux-shape errors with constrained “size” but unconstrained “shape” can noticeably lower JUNO sensitivity

(Note abscissa prop. to √T)

In addition: sawtooth-like fluctuations may further affect and challenge JUNO performances! Near detector needed? [See next reactor talks] [See arXiv:1508.01392]

28

slide-29
SLIDE 29

29

Another example: effect of shape uncertain^es on energy-angle spectra in ORCA

5 10 5 10 0 5 10 5 10 0 5 10 5 10 0 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 0 5 10 5 10 0 5 10 5 10 0 5 10 5 10

Stat + syst (osc+norm) + resolution (scale,width) + polynomial + uncorrelated

σ N σ N Normal ordering Inverted ordering Time (y) Time (y) Time (y) Time (y)

Other funcFonal uncertainFes in future expts: differenFal neutrino cross-secFons, nuclear form factors (including MA , gA), inhomogeneiFes of large-volume detectors, ...

See arXiv:1708.03022

slide-30
SLIDE 30

“Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see.”

Epilogue

René Magri+e: Start to have some hints on ν mass ordering. But: unprecedented challenges before we can really “see” it! Surprises?

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Extra slides

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Current indica^on Δχ

Δχ2

ΙΟ ΙΟ-ΝΟ ΝΟ = 3.6

3.6 from oscill. data starts to be interes^ng. Useful to see the effect of excluding/including this offset in the analysis:

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m δ

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m ∆

2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

π / δ

0.5 1 1.5 2 12

θ

2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35 23

θ

2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 13

θ

2

sin

0.01 0.02 0.03

σ N

1 2 3 4

σ N

1 2 3 4

LBL Acc + Solar + KamLAND + SBL Reactors + Atmos

NO IO 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15

2

eV

  • 5

/10

2

m δ

6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m ∆

2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

π / δ

0.5 1 1.5 2 12

θ

2

sin

0.25 0.3 0.35 23

θ

2

sin

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7

  • 2

/10

13

θ

2

sin

1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 5 10 15 5 10 15 2

χ

2

χ

Oscillation parameters

NO I O

Two different ways of marginalizing over mass ordering(s) à

slide-33
SLIDE 33

parameter P Apply a “Δχ Δχ2 cut” to SEPARATE minima in NO, IO....

χ2

(does not include IO-NO offset informaFon)

slide-34
SLIDE 34

parameter P ...or minimize and expand over ANY ORDERING

χ2

(includes IO-NO offset informaFon)

  • ffset
slide-35
SLIDE 35 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15 2 eV
  • 5
/10 2 m δ 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 2 eV
  • 3
/10 2 m ∆ 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 π / δ 0.5 1 1.5 2 12 θ 2 sin 0.25 0.3 0.35 23 θ 2 sin 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
  • 2
/10 13 θ 2 sin 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 5 10 15 5 10 15 2

χ

2

χ Oscillation parameters

NO I O

Oscilla^on parameter ranges

slide-36
SLIDE 36

1.4 − 1.2 − 1.0 − 0.8 − 0.6 − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.0 − 3.0 − 2.5 − 2.0 − 1.5 − 1.0 − 0.5 − 0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 −

10 1

3 −

10

2 −

10

1 −

10 1

1 −

10 1

3 −

10

2 −

10

1 −

10 1

Oscillations

Separate NO IO , ) σ and 3 σ (2 Any Ordering

(eV) Σ (eV) Σ (eV)

β β

m

Sum of neutrino masses (Cosmology) EffecFve Majorana Mass (DBD)

Absolute neutrino mass

  • bservables

spread from Majorana CPV phases

0νβ νββ

Cosmo

slide-37
SLIDE 37

yr)

25

(10

1/2

T 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

2

χ ∆ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

KamLAND-Zen Phase-I KamLAND-Zen Phase-II KamLAND-Zen Combined EXO-200 (2014)

KamLAND-Zen half-life limits +NME Likelihood based on: E.L., A. Rotunno, F. Simkovic, arXiv:1506.04058

Current leading 0νβ νββ constraints

2 −

10

1 −

10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(eV)

β β

m

2

χ (KamLAND-Zen) β β ν

sub-eV

slide-38
SLIDE 38

1.4 − 1.2 − 1.0 − 0.8 − 0.6 − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.0 − 3.0 − 2.5 − 2.0 − 1.5 − 1.0 − 0.5 − 0.0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 1 −

10 1

3 −

10

2 −

10

1 −

10 1

1 −

10 1

3 −

10

2 −

10

1 −

10 1

β β ν

  • Oscill. + 0

Separate NO IO , Any Ordering

(eV) Σ (eV) Σ (eV)

β β

m

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Analysis of various datasets within standard (6-param.) ΛCDM model augmented with Σ plus one possible 1 extra parameter Alens, to account for syst’s or nonstandard effects [Alens > 1 may be typically traded for higher values of the sum of neutrino mass Σ] Code: CosmoMC with NO / IO op^ons explicitly included in Σ, , via the two mass2 differences à unphysical spectra of neutrino masses (e.g., Σ = 0) not allowed by construcFon. à expect small NO-IO differences at low Σ, but vanishing at high Σ (degenerate spectrum)

Cosmological constraints (circa 2017)

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Cosmological constraints (circa 2017)

Analysis of various datasets within standard (6-param.) ΛCDM model augmented with Σ plus one possible 1 extra parameter Alens, to account for syst’s or nonstandard effects [Alens > 1 may be typically traded for higher values of the sum of neutrino mass Σ] Code: CosmoMC with NO / IO op^ons explicitly included in Σ, , via the two mass2 differences à unphysical spectra of neutrino masses (e.g., Σ = 0) not allowed by construcFon. à expect small NO-IO differences at low Σ, but vanishing at high Σ (degenerate spectrum) Results on Σ (upper bounds) and on Δχ

Δχ2

ΙΟ ΙΟ-ΝΟ ΝΟ :

slide-41
SLIDE 41

χ2 profile for NO, IO in representa^ve cases

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

#10 #1 #9 #6

Cosmology (eV) Σ

2

χ

IO NO

convergence

  • f NO, IO

curves at high Σ bifurca^on

  • f NO, IO

curves at low Σ

Thresholds: Σ > 0.06 eV (NO) Σ > 0.10 eV (IO) Σ = 0: not allowed

best fit Σ may be above threshold

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Grand total: combina^on of oscilla^on + nonoscilla^on data

(with increasingly strong cosmological constraints)

1.4 − 1.2 − 1.0 − 0.8 − 0.6 − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.0 − 3.0 − 2.5 − 2.0 − 1.5 − 1.0 − 0.5 − 0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1 −

10 1

3 −

10

2 −

10

1 −

10 1

1 −

10 1

3 −

10

2 −

10

1 −

10 1

Oscillations

Separate NO IO , ) σ and 3 σ (2 Any Ordering

(eV) Σ (eV) Σ (eV)

β β

m

slide-43
SLIDE 43

1.4 − 1.2 − 1.0 − 0.8 − 0.6 − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.0 − 3.0 − 2.5 − 2.0 − 1.5 − 1.0 − 0.5 − 0.0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 1 −

10 1

3 −

10

2 −

10

1 −

10 1

1 −

10 1

3 −

10

2 −

10

1 −

10 1

β β ν

  • Oscill. + 0

Separate NO IO , Any Ordering

(eV) Σ (eV) Σ (eV)

β β

m

slide-44
SLIDE 44

1.4 − 1.2 − 1.0 − 0.8 − 0.6 − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.0 − 3.0 − 2.5 − 2.0 − 1.5 − 1.0 − 0.5 − 0.0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 1 −

10 1

3 −

10

2 −

10

1 −

10 1

1 −

10 1

3 −

10

2 −

10

1 −

10 1

+ Cosmo β β ν

  • Oscill. + 0

#10

Separate NO IO , Any Ordering

(eV) Σ (eV) Σ (eV)

β β

m

[Case with “conservaFve” bounds from cosmology]

slide-45
SLIDE 45

1.4 − 1.2 − 1.0 − 0.8 − 0.6 − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.0 − 3.0 − 2.5 − 2.0 − 1.5 − 1.0 − 0.5 − 0.0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 1 −

10 1

3 −

10

2 −

10

1 −

10 1

1 −

10 1

3 −

10

2 −

10

1 −

10 1

+ Cosmo β β ν

  • Oscill. + 0

#9

Separate NO IO , Any Ordering

(eV) Σ (eV) Σ (eV)

β β

m

[RHS plot (inner red curve) shows how a cosmological “claim” of Σ>0 0 could look like]

slide-46
SLIDE 46

1.4 − 1.2 − 1.0 − 0.8 − 0.6 − 0.4 − 0.2 − 0.0 − 3.0 − 2.5 − 2.0 − 1.5 − 1.0 − 0.5 − 0.0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 1 −

10 1

3 −

10

2 −

10

1 −

10 1

1 −

10 1

3 −

10

2 −

10

1 −

10 1

+ Cosmo β β ν

  • Oscill. + 0

#6

Separate NO IO , Any Ordering

(eV) Σ (eV) Σ (eV)

β β

m

[Case with “aggressive” bounds from cosmology]

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Δχ2

2

(IO-NO)

+1.1 +1.1 +3.6

LBL+Sol+KL +SBL Reac +Atmos +DBD, Cosmo

+3.6 ... +4.4

Small but coherent steps: N.O. favored... Overall preference at 1.9

1.9σ - 2.1 2.1σ Grand total of IO-NO differences:

The sta^s^cal significance of possible hints about ordering is currently debated. If they are not fluctua^ons, expect (frac^onal) improvements in upcoming years Dedicated projects are planned with reactor, atmospheric, accelerator neutrinos

slide-48
SLIDE 48
  • 1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0

0.2 0.4

  • 4.0
  • 3.5
  • 3.0
  • 2.5
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0

  • 1

10 1

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

  • 3.0
  • 2.5
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0

  • 4.0
  • 3.5
  • 3.0
  • 2.5
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

  • 1.4 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0

  • 1

10 1

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

(NH) σ 2 (IH) σ 2

(eV) Σ (eV)

β

m (eV)

β β

m (eV)

β

m

With “dreamlike” and converging data one could, e.g.

Check 3ν consistency … IdenFfy the hierarchy … Probe the Majorana phase(s) …

Determine the mass scale…

27

slide-49
SLIDE 49
  • 1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0

0.2 0.4

  • 4.0
  • 3.5
  • 3.0
  • 2.5
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0

  • 1

10 1

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

  • 3.0
  • 2.5
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0

  • 4.0
  • 3.5
  • 3.0
  • 2.5
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

  • 1.4 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
  • 2.0
  • 1.5
  • 1.0
  • 0.5

0.0

  • 1

10 1

  • 3

10

  • 2

10

  • 1

10 1

(NH) σ 2 (IH) σ 2

(eV) Σ (eV)

β

m (eV)

β β

m (eV)

β

m

But a ut alte lterna rnativ tive situa situations (sur tions (surprise prises!) m s!) might a ight also oc lso occur ur.... ....

? ?

something wrong ? new physics ? why the mismatch ?

28

slide-50
SLIDE 50

Physics beyond “3 light ν” should always be kept in mind, e.g., in neutrinoless double beta decay: u e e u W W

ν Standard

u e e u W W

N Heavy ν

u e e u

Kaluza-Klein

W W

ν(n)

u e e u

WR,L

νL,R

RHC λ,η

λ=RH had, η=LH had

WR,L

e u u e u u g

SUSY g

~ ~ ~

~

p e e p π

SUSY π

π

SUSY

29

slide-51
SLIDE 51

More on known oscillation parameters: sinergy on Δm2

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

LBL Acc + Solar + KL + SBL Reactors + Atmos

23

θ

2

sin

23

θ

2

sin

23

θ

2

sin

23

θ

2

sin

23

θ

2

sin

23

θ

2

sin

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m ∆

2

eV

  • 3

/10

2

m ∆

σ 1 σ 2 σ 3

Normal Hierarchy Inverted Hierarchy

Normal Ordering Inverted Ordering

Each of these three data sets contributes to constrain Δm2

12

slide-52
SLIDE 52

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

LBL Acc + Solar + KL + SBL Reactors + Atmos

23

θ

2

sin

23

θ

2

sin

23

θ

2

sin

23

θ

2

sin

23

θ

2

sin

23

θ

2

sin π / δ π / δ

σ 1 σ 2 σ 3

Normal Hierarchy Inverted Hierarchy

Supplementary to arXiv:1703.04471