# Topical Seminar on Neutrinos and Astroparticle Physics. San Miniato. May 1999. RAL-TR/1999 -066 Tri-Maximal vs. Bi-Maximal Neutrino Mixing

## 1 TRI-MAXIMAL MIXING

Threefold maximal mixing, ie. tri-maximal mixing, undeniably occupies a special place in the space of all $`3\times 3`$ mixings. In some weak basis the two non-commuting mass-matrices $`m_l^2`$, $`m_\nu ^2`$ ($`m_im_i^{}m_i^2`$) may simultaneously be written  as ‘circulative’ matrices (‘of degree zero’) :

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_l& b_l& \overline{b}_l\omega \\ \overline{b}_l& a_l& b_l\omega \\ b_l\overline{\omega }& \overline{b}_l\overline{\omega }& a_l\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a_\nu & b_\nu & \overline{b}_\nu \overline{\omega }\\ \overline{b}_\nu & a_\nu & b_\nu \overline{\omega }\\ b_\nu \omega & \overline{b}_\nu \omega & a_\nu \end{array}\right)$$
(1)   
respectively invariant under monomial cyclic permutations (‘circulation’ matrices ) of the form:

$$C=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}.& 1& .\\ .& .& \omega \\ \overline{\omega }& .& .\end{array}\right)\overline{C}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}.& 1& .\\ .& .& \overline{\omega }\\ \omega & .& .\end{array}\right)$$
(2)   
($`C^{}m_l^2C=m_l^2`$, etc.) just as circulant matrices are invariant under simple cyclic permutations . The mass matrices Eq. 1 are diagonalised by the (eg. circulant) unitary matrices $`V`$ and $`\overline{V}`$:

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \overline{\omega }& 1\\ 1& 1& \overline{\omega }\\ \overline{\omega }& 1& 1\end{array}\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \omega & 1\\ 1& 1& \omega \\ \omega & 1& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(3)   
respectively, leading to threefold maximal mixing:

$$V\overline{V}^{}=\frac{1}{3}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}2+\omega & 2\overline{\omega }+1& 2\overline{\omega }+1\\ 2\overline{\omega }+1& 2+\omega & 2\overline{\omega }+1\\ 2\overline{\omega }+1& 2\overline{\omega }+1& 2+\omega \end{array}\right)$$
(4)   
where in all the above and in what follows $`\omega `$ and $`\overline{\omega }`$ represent complex cube-roots of unity and the overhead ‘bar’ denotes complex conjugation.

After some rephasing of rows and columns the tri-maximal mixing matrix may be re-written: 

$$U=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\begin{array}{cc}& \begin{array}{ccc}\nu _1& \nu _2& \nu _3\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}e\\ \mu \\ \tau \end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& \omega & \overline{\omega }\\ 1& \overline{\omega }& \omega \end{array}\right)\end{array}$$
(5)   
where the matrix in the parenthesis is identically the character table for the cyclic group $`C_3`$ (group elements vs. irreducible representations). In threefold maximal mixing the CP violation parameter $`|J_{CP}|`$ is maximal ($`|J_{CP}|=1/6\sqrt{3}`$) and if no two neutrinos are degenerate in mass, CP and T violating asymmetries can approach $`\pm 100\%`$.

Observables depend on the sqaures of the moduli of the mixing matrix elements :

$$(|U_{l\nu }|^2)=\begin{array}{cc}& \begin{array}{ccc}\nu _1& \nu _2& \nu _3\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}e\\ \mu \\ \tau \end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/3& 1/3& 1/3\\ 1/3& 1/3& 1/3\\ 1/3& 1/3& 1/3\end{array}\right)\end{array}.$$
(6)   
In tri-maximal mixing all survival and appearance probabilities are universal (ie. flavour independent) and in particular if two neutrinos are effectively degenerate tri-maximal mixing predicts for the locally averaged survival probability:

$$<P(ll)>=(1/3+1/3)^2+(1/3)^2=5/9$$
(7)   
and appearnce probability:

$$<P(ll^{})>=2\times (1/3)(1/3)=2/9.$$
(8)   
If all three neutrino masses are effectively non-degenerate: $`<P(ll)>=<P(ll^{})>=1/3`$.

## 2 ATMOSPHERIC NEUTRINOS

The SUPER-K  multi-GeV data, show a clear $`50`$% suppression of atmospheric $`\nu _\mu `$ for zenith angles $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ 0, as shown in Fig. 1a. At the same time the corresponding distribution for $`\nu _e`$ seems to be very largely unaffected, as shown in Fig. 1b. The best fit is for (twofold) maximal $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mixing with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^23.0\times 10^3`$ eV<sup>2</sup>, as shown by the solid/dotted curves in Fig. 1.

From the measured suppression we have:

$$(1|U_{\mu 3}|^2)^2+(|U_{\mu 3}|^2)^20.52\pm 0.05$$
(9)   
whereby the $`\nu _\mu `$ must have a large $`\nu _3`$ content, ie. $`|U_{\mu 3}|^21/2`$, or more precisely:

$$1/3\stackrel{<}{}|U_{\mu 3}|^2\stackrel{<}{}2/3$$
(10)   
where the range quoted corresponds to the $`1\sigma `$ error above (which is largely statistical).

## 3 THE CHOOZ DATA

The apparent lack of $`\nu _e`$ mixing at the atmospheric scale, is supported by independent data from the CHOOZ reactor  (Fig. 2), which rules out large $`\nu _e`$ mixing over most of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ range allowed in the atmospheric neutrino experiments.

Taken together, the CHOOZ and SUPER-K data indicate that the $`\nu _3`$ has no $`\nu _e`$ content, ie. there is a zero (or near-zero) in the top right-hand corner of the lepton mixing matrix, $`|U_{e3}|^2`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`0.03`$.

### 3.1 The Fritzsch-Xing Ansatz

Remarkably, the Fritzsch-Xing hypothesis  (published well before the initial CHOOZ data) predicted just such a zero:

$$(|U_{l\nu }|^2)=\begin{array}{cc}& \begin{array}{ccc}\nu _1& \nu _2& \nu _3\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}e\\ \mu \\ \tau \end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1/2& 1/2& .\\ 1/6& 1/6& 2/3\\ 1/3& 1/3& 1/3\end{array}\right)\end{array}$$
(11)   
The Fritzsch-Xing ansatz (Eq. 11) is readily obtained from theeefold maximal mixing (Eq. 5) by the re-definitions: $`\nu _e(\nu _e\nu _\mu )/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\nu _\mu (\nu _e+\nu _\mu )/\sqrt{2}`$ (up to phases), keeping the $`\nu _\tau `$ tri-maximally mixed. While the a priori argument for these particular linear combinations  is far from convincing, it is clear that Eq. 11 is so far consistent with the atmospheric data:

$$<P(\mu \mu )>=(1/6+1/6)^2+(2/3)^2=5/9$$
(12)   
(cf. Eq. 9), while beyond the second threshold:

$$<P(ee)>=(1/2)^2+(1/2)^2+(0)^2=1/2$$
(13)   
The famous ‘bi-maximal’ scheme  is very similar to the Fritzsch-Xing ansatz and likewise predicts a $`50`$% suppression for the solar data.

## 4 THE SOLAR DATA

Taken at face value, the results from the various solar neutrino experiments imply an energy dependent suppression. In particular, taking BP98 fluxes (and correcting for the NC contribution in SUPER-K), the results from HOMESTAKE and SUPER-K: $`P(ee)0.30.4`$, lie significantly below the results from the gallium experiments: $`P(ee)0.50.6`$, as shown in Fig. 3.

### 4.1 ‘Optimised’ Bi-Maximal Mixing

Mindful of the popularity of the large-angle MSW solution and the undenied phenomenological promise of the ‘original’ bi-maximal scheme , we have ourselves proposed , a phenomenologically viable (and even phenomenologically favoured) a posteriori ‘straw-man’ alternative to tri-maximal mixing:

$$(|U_{l\nu }|^2)=\begin{array}{cc}& \begin{array}{ccc}\nu _1& \nu _2& \nu _3\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}e\\ \mu \\ \tau \end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}2/3& 1/3& .\\ 1/6& 1/3& 1/2\\ 1/6& 1/3& 1/2\end{array}\right)\end{array}$$
(14)   
which we refer to here as ‘optimised’ bi-maximal mixing. This scheme is of course just one special case of the ‘generalised’ bi-naximal hypotheses of Altarelli and Feruglio  (and see also Ref. ). At the atmospheric scale Eq. 14 gives:

$$<P(\mu \mu )>=(1/6+1/3)^2+(1/2)^2=1/2$$
(15)   
while beyond the second scale it gives:

$$<P(ee)>=(2/3)^2+(1/3)^2+(0)^2=5/9$$
(16)   
There is then the added possibility to exploit a large angle MSW solution with the base of the ‘bathtub’ (given by the $`\nu _e`$ content of the $`\nu _2`$) given by $`P(ee)=1/3`$, as shown in Fig. 3.

Although clearly the matrix Eq. 14 is readily obtained from the tri-maximal mixing matrix Eq. 5 by forming linear combinations of the heaviest and lightest mass eigenstates: $`\nu _1(\nu _1+\nu _3)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\nu _3(\nu _1\nu _3)/\sqrt{2}`$ (up to phases), with the $`\nu _2`$ remaining tri-maximally mixed, we emphasise that we claim no understanding of why these redefinitions should be necessary.

## 5 TERRESTRIAL MATTER EFFECTS <br>IN TRI-MAXIMAL MIXING

In general, matter effects deform the mixing matrix and shift the neutrino masses, away from their vacuum values, depending on the local matter density. In the tri-maximal mixing scenario, the CHOOZ data require $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ $`\stackrel{<}{}`$ $`10^3`$ eV<sup>2</sup> (Fig 2), so that matter effects can be very important. For ‘intermeduate’ densities ,

the matter mass eigenstates become: $`\nu _1(\nu _1\nu _2)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\nu _2(\nu _1+\nu _2)/\sqrt{2}`$ (up to phases) while the $`\nu _3`$ remains tri-maximally mixed:

$$(|U_{l\nu }|^2)\begin{array}{cc}& \begin{array}{ccc}\nu _1& \nu _2& \nu _3\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}e\\ \mu \\ \tau \end{array}& \left(\begin{array}{ccc}.& 2/3& 1/3\\ 1/2& 1/6& 1/3\\ 1/2& 1/6& 1/3\end{array}\right)\end{array}$$
(17)   
As evidenced in Fig. 4, the phenomenology of Eq. 17 can be almost indistinguishable from that of ‘optimised’ bi-maximal mixing, Eq. 14. Beyond the ‘matter threshold’ we have for $`\nu _\mu `$:

$$<P(\mu \mu )>=(1/2)^2+(1/6)^2+(1/3)^2=7/18$$
(18)   
while for $`\nu _e`$:

$$<P(ee)>=(0)^2+(2/3)^2+(1/3)^2=5/9$$
(19)   
For atmospheric neutrinos, account must be taken of the initial flux ratio. $`\varphi (\nu _\mu )/\varphi (\nu _e)`$. For $`\varphi (\nu _\mu )/\varphi (\nu _e)`$ $``$ $`2/1`$, the effective $`\nu _\mu `$ suppression:

$$7/18+1/2\times 2/9=1/2$$
(20)   
(cf. Eq. 15) while the $`\nu _e`$ rate is fully compensated:

$$5/9+1/2\times 2/9=1$$
(21)   
so that $`\nu _e`$ appear not to participate in the mixing.

The up/down ratio (Fig. 5) measures the effective supression. For energies $`E`$ $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ $`1`$ GeV the initial flux ratio $`\varphi (\nu _\mu )/\varphi (\nu _e)`$ $`\stackrel{>}{}`$ $`2/1`$ and the $`\nu _e`$ rate becomes ‘over-compensated’, while, for sufficiently high energies compensation effects vanish as the complete decoupling limit $`\nu _e\nu _3`$ is approached. The resulting maximum in the up/down ratio for $`\nu _e`$ (Fig. 5) is describerd as a ‘resonance’ by Pantaleone .

### 5.1 Matter Induced CP-violation

As regards the mixing matrix, CP and T violating effects are maximal in tri-maximal mixing, but in spite of this, due to the extreme hierarchy of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ values involved, for most accessible $`L/E`$ values, observable asymmetries are expected to be unmeasurably small (in vacuum).

In the presence of matter (or indeed anti-matter) significant asymmetries can occur, however, ‘enhanced’ or ‘induced’ by matter effects. Thus for example if atmospheric neutrinos are separated $`\nu /\overline{\nu }`$, interesting matter induced asymmetries become observable (Fig. 6) in tri-maximal mixing. Such effects could be investigated using atmospheric neutrino detectors equipped with magnetic fields , and/or by using sign-selected beams in long-baseline experiments .

## 6 TRI-MAXIMAL MIXING AND <br>THE SOLAR DATA

The vacuum predictions for the solar data in tri-maximal mixing are largely unmodified by matter effects in the Sun, as is well known, or, as we have seen, by matter effects in the Earth (Eq. 7 vs. Eq. 16). Thus we expect $`P(ee)=5/9`$ in tri-maximal mixing with no energy dependence, as shown in Fig. 7. (Note that also the

‘optimsed’ bi-maximal scheme predicts $`P(ee)=5/9`$ with no energy dependence for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ outside the ‘bathtub’). In Fig. 7, the <sup>8</sup>B (and <sup>7</sup>Be) flux, affecting both the SUPER-K and HOMESTAKE data-points, has been rescaled by an arbitrary factor (0.72) for comparison to the energy-independent prediction. Given the flux errors ($`\pm 14\%`$ for <sup>8</sup>B ), the fit (Fig. 7) seems not unreasonable.

Fig. 8 shows the solar, atmospheric, accelerator and reactor data in overall perspective, within the tri-maximal context. Note that dis-appearance results only are represented: if the LSND appearance result  were ever to be confirmed, tri-maximal mixing would be instantly excluded.

## 7 CONCLUSION

The lepton mixing really does look to be either tri-maximal or bi-naximal at this point. Tri-maximal mixing is currently ‘squeezed’ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ by CHOOZ vs. SUPER-K (Fig. 1-2). For some $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$, bi-maximal mixing (in particular the ‘optimised’ version discussed here) clearly fits the data better. Tri-maximal mixing remains, however, the ‘simplest’ most ‘symmetric’ possibility.

Acknowledgement

I wish to thank Paul Harrison and Don Perkins for continued collaboration, and numerous helpful discussions relating to the above material.