# Geometric Solutions for the Neutrino Oscillation Length Resonance

## Abstract

We give a geometric interpretation of the neutrino “oscillation length resonance ” recently discovered by Petcov. We use this picture to identify two new solutions for oscillation length resonances in a 3-layer earth model.

In a recent study of the expected day-night asymmetry in the observed solar neutrino spectrum Petcov pointed out that neutrinos propagating through regions of varying density may undergo what has been called an “oscillation length resonance ” . This has interesting consequences for the day-night asymmetry. In particular it suggests a region of vacuum mixing angle $`\theta _0`$ and mass-squared difference $`\delta m^2`$ parameter space where the asymmetry may be enhanced. Significantly, this region coincides with the values of $`\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta _0)`$ and $`\delta m^2`$ that best explain the Kamiokande and SuperKamiokande data . As Petcov describes, this suggests the possibilty of detecting a signature of this resonance and hence a clear indication of neutrino oscillations.

In this brief paper we give a geometric interpretation of the resonance. These geometric considerations permit an easy derivation of the resonance properties and allow us to find two new resonance solution regions. We use our results to explain some interesting features of the calculated day-night asymmetry and also to clarify some confusion which has arisen from the more difficult algebraic approach.

In the following we work in the flavor basis and consider mixing between two neutrino species. We choose $`|\nu _e=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{0}\right)`$ and $`|\nu _\mu =\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0}{1}\right)`$. The method we use is based on the well known observation that in this basis the MSW Hamiltonian 

$$H=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}2\theta _0+\sqrt{2}G_fN_e/\mathrm{\Delta }_0& \mathrm{sin}2\theta _0\\ \mathrm{sin}2\theta _0& \mathrm{cos}2\theta _0\sqrt{2}G_fN_e/\mathrm{\Delta }_0\end{array}\right)$$
(1)   
can be written as $`H=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_n\overline{\sigma }\widehat{n}`$ and so has the same form as the generator of spatial rotations for two-spinors . In the above $`\overline{\sigma }`$ are the Pauli matrices, $`N_e`$ is the electron number density, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n=2\sqrt{H_{11}^2+H_{12}^2}`$ , $`\widehat{n}`$ is a unit vector with the cartesian components $`(1/\mathrm{\Delta }_n)(\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{sin}2\theta _0,0,\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{cos}2\theta _0+\sqrt{2}G_fN_e)`$ , $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\delta m^2/2E_\nu `$, and $`\widehat{n}\widehat{z}=\mathrm{cos}2\theta _n`$ where $`\theta _n`$ is the matter mixing angle. Let us represent a state $`|\nu =\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right)`$ which satisfies $`\overline{\sigma }\widehat{𝐩}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha }{\beta }\right)`$ for some unit 3-vector $`\widehat{p}`$ by $`|\nu =|\widehat{p}`$. The ambiguity in overall phase will not be of concern here.

The following points are easily verified.

i) A neutrino which begins in a state represented by $`|\widehat{a}`$ evolves, after passing for a time $`t`$ through a region with constant electron number density $`N_e`$ into a state $`|\widehat{b}`$ where $`\widehat{b}`$ is obtained by rotating $`\widehat{a}`$ about $`\widehat{n}(N_e)`$ through an angle $`\varphi =\mathrm{\Delta }_n(N_e)t`$. In an obvious notation this is represented by $`|\widehat{a}U(t)|\widehat{a}=|\widehat{b}=R\{\widehat{n}(N_e),\varphi \}\widehat{a}`$, where R is a 3x3 rotation matrix.

ii) The transition probability is given by,

$$|\widehat{a}|\widehat{b}|^2=(1/2)(1+\widehat{a}\widehat{b}).$$
(2)   
These points simply serve to verify that the evolution of the neutrino can be represented by a 3-vector precessing in a cone about $`\widehat{n}(N_e)`$. The case of a neutrino propagating through regions of different density $`(N_e^{(1)},N_e^{(2)},\mathrm{})`$ can be represented by a vector rotating first about $`\widehat{n}(N_e^{(1)})`$, then about $`\widehat{n}(N_e^{(2)})`$ after the appropriate time, and so on.

We now use this picture to solve the oscillation length resonance problem for neutrinos passing through the earth. In this scenario a neutrino passes through a low density mantle characterized by electron number density $`N_e^m`$ and length $`L_m`$, a higher density core with $`N_e^c`$ and length $`L_c`$ and the lower density mantle again ($`N_e^m`$,$`L_m`$). For the $`\delta m^2`$ and neutrino energies we consider, a neutrino which begins in the sun as a combination of the mass eigenstates $`|\nu _1`$ and $`|\nu _2`$ arrives at the earth with these components well separated spatially, owing to the difference in their propagation velocities . The relevant conversion probability in this case is $`P_{\nu _1\nu _\mu }`$. The aim is to find, for a given $`N_e^c,N_e^m`$ (or equivelantly matter mixing angles $`\theta _c`$ and $`\theta _m`$) the $`L_c`$ and $`L_m`$ which maximize this transition probability. For illustration we first consider the easier problem of finding the resonances for the transition probabilty between flavor eigenstates, $`P_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }`$. This corresponds to finding the $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ which maximize $`\widehat{z}^TR(\widehat{n}_m,\varphi _1)R(\widehat{n}_c,\varphi _2)R(\widehat{n}_m,\varphi _1)\widehat{z}`$. Clearly, $`R(\widehat{n}_m,\varphi _1)\widehat{z}=R(\widehat{n}_c,\varphi ^{})\widehat{p}`$ for some $`\varphi ^{}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ where $`\widehat{p}`$ is in the x-z plane and satisfies $`1\widehat{p}\widehat{z}\mathrm{cos}(2\theta _c|2(\theta _c2\theta _m)|)`$. Therefore, the quantity we wish to maximize is $`\widehat{p}^TR(\widehat{n}_c,\varphi _2+2\varphi ^{})\widehat{p}`$. This takes a maximum when $`\varphi _2+2\varphi ^{}=\pi `$, and when $`\widehat{p}\widehat{n}_c`$ is as close to zero as allowed by the above constraint on $`\widehat{p}`$. This and some geometry completely solves the problem of finding the resonances for $`P_{\nu _e\nu _\mu }`$. Similar considerations solve the $`P_{\nu _1\nu _\mu }`$ problem.

The results divide into three cases. In the following $`P_{\nu _1\nu _\mu }^{res}`$ is the resonance (maximum) value of the transition probability, obtained when $`L_m=L_m^{res}`$ and $`L_c=L_c^{res}`$.

I) For case I we have, $`2\theta _c\theta _0<\pi /2`$,

$$P_{\nu _1\nu _\mu }^{res}=\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta _c\theta _0),$$
(3)   
$$L_m^{res}=\frac{c}{\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{(mantle)}}2n\pi ,$$
(4)   
$$L_c^{res}=\frac{c}{\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{(core)}}(2m+1)\pi ,$$
(5)   
for $`m,n=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. In this case there is no enhancement of the transition probability, as $`P_{\nu _1\nu _\mu }`$ can take this value in the core alone.

II) For case II we have $`|2\theta _c4\theta _m+\theta _0|<\pi /2<2\theta _c\theta _0,`$

$$P_{\nu _1\nu _\mu }^{res}=1,$$
(6)   
$$L_m^{res}=\frac{c}{\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{(mantle)}}(\rho +2n\pi ),$$
(7)   
$$L_c^{res}=\frac{c}{\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{(core)}}((2m+1)\pi \gamma \eta ),$$
(8)   
for $`n,m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, and where

$$\mathrm{cos}\rho =\frac{\mathrm{cot}(2(\theta _c\theta _m))(\mathrm{cos}2\theta _m+\mathrm{cos}(2(\theta _m\theta _0)))}{(\mathrm{sin}2\theta _m+\mathrm{sin}2(\theta _m\theta _0))},$$
(9)   
$$\mathrm{tan}\gamma =\frac{\mathrm{sin}\rho }{(\mathrm{cot}2\theta _m\mathrm{sin}2(\theta _c\theta _m)+\mathrm{cos}\rho \mathrm{cos}2(\theta _c\theta _m))},$$
(10)   
$$\mathrm{tan}\eta =\frac{\mathrm{sin}\rho }{(\mathrm{sin}2(\theta _c\theta _m)\mathrm{cot}2(\theta _m\theta _0)+\mathrm{cos}\rho \mathrm{cos}2(\theta _c\theta _m))},$$
(11)   
Note that if $`\rho `$ is a solution then $`2\pi \rho `$ is also, with $`\gamma \gamma ,\eta \eta `$.

III) Petcov’s original solution. $`|2\theta _c4\theta _m+\theta _0|>\pi /2`$

$$P_{\nu _1\nu _\mu }^{res}=\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta _c+\theta _04\theta _m),$$
(12)   
$$L_m^{res}=\frac{c}{\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{(mantle)}}(2n+1)\pi ,$$
(13)   
$$L_c^{res}=\frac{c}{\mathrm{\Delta }_n^{(core)}}(2m+1)\pi ,$$
(14)   
for n,m=0,1,2,…. This is the case discussed by Petcov in Ref. .

Note that equations \[12a,12b\] of that paper, which give the conditions that must be satisfied in order for the transition probability to take a local maximum, differ from the conditions above because we are discussing global maxima here.

An interesting quantity is $`P^{res}P_{max}^{onelayer}`$, the difference between the parametric resonance transition probability and the maximum that the transition probability can take in a single layer (defined to be max$`\{\mathrm{sin}^2[2\theta _{inner}\theta _0],\mathrm{sin}^2[2\theta _{outer}\theta _0]\}`$). This is plotted in Figure 1, where we have chosen the outer layers of the sandwich to have density $`\rho =4.5\mathrm{gcm}^3`$ and electron fraction $`Y_e=.49`$ and the inner layer to have $`\rho =11.5\mathrm{gcm}^3`$ and $`Y_e=.46`$. These are the average values given by the Stacey earth model and those used by Petcov in .

To illustrate these ideas we consider a particular case. Suppose that $`\theta _0=.05`$ and that for the neutrino energy we are interested in we satisfy $`\mathrm{log}[\delta m^2/2E_\nu (ev)]=12.55`$. Then by calculating the matter mixing angles we find that we are in Case II above and that we can choose the lengths of the inner and outer layers in such a way that the transition probability is unity. For this case $`L^{(outer)}=11629`$km and $`L^{(inner)}=2080`$ km. This is to be contrasted with the maximum that the transition probability could take in a single layer, which for this case is $`.53`$. Note that for a given $`\theta _0`$, this type of resonance only has an interesting effect in a narrow region about the MSW resonance energies in the mantle and core.

The answer to the question of whether or not an oscillation length resonance actually occurs in the earth depends on the actual core and mantle lengths and the extent to which this simple model of the earth mirrors reality. The question is most easily answered by simply examining $`P^{earth}P^{onelayer}`$. An examination of the dependence of $`P^{earth}P^{onelayer}`$ on $`\theta _0`$ and $`E_\nu `$ reveals that this quantity is positive in a small region. We conclude that there is destructive interference as often as constructive. A different way of describing the phenomena in the earth then is to say not that it leads to an enhancement of the transition probabilty, but that the transition probability is more sensitive to the neutrino energy and phase of the neutrino state at the mantle/core boundary. Consequently, the transition probability for core-crossing neutrinos has a sharp energy dependence. It is characterized, for $`2\theta _0.1`$, by a peak centered at $`E_{\mathrm{res}}^{\mathrm{mantle}}(1+.5)`$, with a bump on each side. With a detector like SNO, with an expected energy resolution of $`15\%`$, this sharp structure may be useful for determining the mixing parameters. Of course, the clearer signature of MSW resonance in the mantle would first be observed.

In summary, we have shown how an analogy with the simple rotational geometry of spin 1/2 systems can be used to picture and solve certain neutrino oscillation problems. We have illustrated the method by finding the core and mantle lengths in a 3 layer earth model which maximize the $`\nu _1\nu _\mu `$ transition probability.

We note that two papers by Chizhov and Petcov  recently appeared which independently addressed some of the same issues investigated here. In contrast to our geometric arguments they have algebraically derived the results for cases I-III.

Acknowledgements. This work was supported in part by NSF Grant PHY98-00980 at UCSD. G.M.F. acknowledges stimulating conversations with S. Petcov and A.B. Balantekin at the 1998 Neutrino Workshop at the Aspen Center for Physics.

Figure Captions: Figure 1. Contour Plot of $`P^{res}P^{onelayer}`$. The vertical axis is $`2\theta _0`$, the horizontal is $`\mathrm{log}\delta m^2/2E`$ and the argument of the log is in eV.