arxiv: v1 [hep-ph] 8 Apr 2012

Transcription

1 Non-standard interactions and bimagic baseline for neutrino oscillations Rathin Adhikari, 1, Arnab Dasgupta, 1, and Zini Rahman 1, 1 Centre for Theoretical Physics, Jamia Millia Islamia Central University), Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-115, INDIA arxiv:.175v1 [hep-ph] Apr 1 For standard interactions of neutrinos with matter bimagic baseline of length about 5 Km is known to be suitable for getting good discovery limits of neutrino mass hierarchy, sin θ 13 and CP violation in the ν e ν µ oscillation channel. We discuss how even in presence of non-standard interactions NSIs) of neutrinos with matter this baseline is found to be suitable for getting these discovery limits. This is because even in presence of NSIs one could get the ν e ν µ oscillation probability to be almost independent of CP violating phase δ and θ 13 for one hierarchy and highly dependent on these two for the other hierarchy over certain parts of neutrino energy range. For another certain part of the energy range the reverse of this happens with respect to the hierarchies. We present the discovery limits of NSIs also in the same neutrino energy range. However, as with the increase of neutrino energy the NSI effect in the above oscillation probability gets relatively more pronounced in comparison to the vacuum oscillation parameters, so we consider higher neutrino energy range also for getting better discovery limits of NSIs. Analysis presented here for 5 Km could also be implemented for longer bimagic baseline > Km. rathin@ctp-jamia.res.in arnab@ctp-jamia.res.in zini@ctp-jamia.res.in

2 I. INTRODUCTION The present experiments on neutrino oscillations confirms that there is mixing between different flavours of neutrinos ν e, ν µ, ν τ ). The probability of neutrino oscillations depends on various parameters of the neutrino mixing matrix-the PMNS matrix [1]. The current experiments tells us about two of the angles θ 3 and θ 1 [] with some accuracy but for θ 13 only the upper bound is given [] and the CP violating phase δ is totally unknown. Although the mass squared difference of the different neutrinos m ij = m i m j ) are known to us but the sign of m 31 which is related to mass hierarchy) is still unknown. Due to the correlations among these unknowns there are ambiguities [3] in analysing neutrino oscillation datas. To reduce these ambiguities one may consider neutrino oscillation experiments in long baseline [] - particulaly in magic baseline [5]. The magic baseline satisfies certain condition on its length from the detector and is found to be about 75 Km where the perturbative expression of probability Pν e ν µ ) becomes independent of δ upto order α where α = m 1/ m 31). Although this could result in finding out the other unknown oscillation parameters conveniently but for measurement of δ this baseline is not suitable. To circumvent this problem, conditions on neutrino energy has been considered [, 7] in ν e ν µ channel for which also the perturbative expression of probability becomes independent of δ but only on a part of the neutrino energy spectrum. But the other part of the spectrum will be sensitive to CP violating phase δ. As pointed out in [7], one may consider satisfying two different energy conditions simultaneously for two hierarchies in the same baseline which results in fixing the length of bimagic baseline to about 5 Km. Unlike magic baseline, here the baseline is shorter so the neutrino flux for such baseline is reduced by lesser amount at the detector. Also in this oscillation channel ν e ν µ which has been considered in this work, the detection of muon is easier in comparison to some other channels where the detection of electron is required. We have studied the effect of non-standard interactionsnsis) of neutrinos with matter in bimagic baseline. At first there is discussion on how to obtain the perturbative expression of the probability of oscillation upto order α in ν e ν µ channel in presence of NSIs. The NSIs present in the ν e ν µ oscillation probability are ǫ ee,ǫ eµ and ǫ eτ among which ǫ ee,ǫ eµ are < α but ǫ ee has no such constraints in considering perturbation. In our numerical analysis we have considered the experimentally allowed range which covered the perturbative regime and also has gone beyond that. We have also presented the δ and θ 13 independent perturbative expression of the oscillation probability in presence of the NSIs under two different magic energy conditions corresponding to two different hierarchies. In presence of NSIs different discovery limits for hierarchy of neutrino masses, for sin θ 13 and also for CP violation have been shown in figures. Discovery limits of NSIs particularly ǫ ee, ǫ eµ and ǫ eτ for specific values of θ 13 and δ in their allowed range have also been presented. One may note that to satisfy the bimagic conditions one requires lower neutrino energy within 5 GeV. However, the perturbative expression of oscillation probability shows that the NSI effect will relatively increase in comparison to other neutrino oscillation parameters in vacuum if the neutrino energy is higher. For this reason we have considered higher neutrino energy of 5 GeV also to study the discovery limits of NSIs in the same baseline of 5 Km for which better limits are obtained.

3 3 II. ν e ν µ OCILLATION PROBABILITY IN PRESENCE OF NSI The fermion-neutrino interaction in matter is defined by the Lagrangian: L M NSI = G F ǫ fp αβ [ ν βγ µ Lν α ][ fγ µ Pf]+ G F ǫ fp αβ) [ να γ µ Lν β ][ fγ µ Pf] 1) where P L,R, L = 1 γ 5, R = 1 +γ 5, f = e,u,d and ǫ fp αβ is the deviation from standard interactions. There are model dependent bounds on these NSI parameters [, 9]. In R-parity violating Supersymmetric models these NSI parameters could be related to trilinear lepton number violating couplings [1]. Also such parameters could be sizable [11] in unified supersymmetric models [1]. The model independent bounds have been discussed in [13]. The above NSI parameters can be reduced to the effective parameters as: ǫ αβ = f,p ǫ fp n f αβ ) n e where n f is the number density of fermion, n e is the electron number density. In neutrino oscillation experiments this effective parameter ǫ αβ ) corresponds to the replacement in the matter interaction part of the evolution of flavoured neutrinos. This change can be seen as below: 1 1 ǫ ee ǫ eµ ǫ eτ H matter = + ǫ eµ ǫ µµ ǫ µτ 3) ǫ eτ ǫ µτ ǫ ττ In general, ǫ eµ, ǫ eτ and ǫ µτ could be complex. However, for our numerical analysis we have considered ǫ eµ and ǫ eτ to be real. If we assumne uncorrelated errors, the bounds on ǫ αβ can be approximately written as [13] 1/ [ )] ǫ αβ ǫ ep αβ ) +3ǫ up αβ ) +3ǫ dp αβ ) ) P The NSIs ǫ ee, ǫ eµ and ǫ eτ play significant role in ν e ν µ oscillation channel which we have considered. The bounds for these [13] in the context of neutrino oscillation for neutrinos passing through neutral earth like matter is ǫ ee <, ǫ eµ <.33 and ǫ eτ < 3. In vacuum, flavor eigenstates ν α may be related to mass eigenstates of neutrinos ν i as ν α >= i U αi ν i >, U = R 3 R 13 δ)r 1 and i = 1,,3, 5) where U is PMNS matrix [1] and R ij are the rotation matrices and R 13 δ) contains the CP violating phase δ signifying the complex rotation [11]. General probability expression for oscillation of neutrino of flavor l to neutrino flavor m in matter satisfying adiabatic condition for the density of matter) is given by Pν l ν m ) = δ lm i>j Re[Jij lm ]sin ij + Im[Jij lm ]sin ij ) i>j where J lm ij = U liu lj U mi U mj, 7)

4 Here ij = m ij L E. ) m ij = m i m j 9) and label ) indicates the neutrino matter interaction induced quantities corresponding to those quantities in vacuum. We discuss in brief the perturbative approach for evaluating the induced quantities and for obtaining the probability of oscillation ν e ν µ for neutrinos passing through earth matter. The diagonal neutrino mass matrix is approximately given by m m 31diag,α,1). 1) The effective Hamiltonian induced by interaction of matter with neutrinos is written in weak interaction basis as H R 3 MR 3 11) where M = m 31 E R 13δ)R 1 In equation 1) m m 31 R 1 R 13δ) + m 31 E diaga,,)+ m 31 E R 3 Z X Y X Y B C R 3. 1) C D A = E G F n e m, X = Aǫ eµ, Y = Aǫ eτ, Z = Aǫ ee, B = Aǫ µµ, C = Aǫ µτ, D = Aǫ ττ, 13) 31 where A is considered due to Standard model interaction of neutrinos with electron and G F is the Fermi constant and n e is the electron number density written as n e =.5N A )ρ and N A is Avogadro s number and ρ is the matter density in gm/cc. ǫ ee, ǫ eµ, ǫ eτ, ǫ µµ, ǫ µτ and ǫ ττ are considered due to NSI of neutrinos with matter. We consider magnitude of these NSI parameters except ǫ ee not higher than α in using perturbation method. As ǫ ee has been considered in the leading part of the Hamiltonian, our perturbative result is fine even for its highest experimentally allowed value. In our numerical analysis we have considered even the uppermost allowed values of other NSI parameters [13]. In equation 1), ) is denoted for complex conjugation. The mixing matrix U can be found out as U = R 3 W. Here W is the normalized eigenvectors of m 31M/E) calculated through perturbative technique similar to the one adopted in []. We have taken into account only the non-degenerate perturbative approach. Let us consider the case where NSIs are present and where sinθ 13 is small and of the order of α or less. M in equation 1) can be written as M = M ) +M 1) +M ) where M i contains terms of the order of α i. Then we can write αs M ) = m 31 E diaga,,1), M 1) = m 1 b a 31 b αc 1 E +c 3c s 3 d s 3 c+c 3 d, a c 3 e s 3 f s 3 e+c 3 f s M ) = m 13 e iδ αc 13 s 1 s e iδ αc 1 s 1 s 13 ) E e iδ αc 13 s 1 s 13 e iδ αc 1 s 1 s 13 s 13

5 5 where A = A1+ǫ ee ), a = c 3 Y +e iδ s 13 +Xs 3, b = c 3 X +c 1 αs 1 Ys 3, The eigenvalues of H upto second order in α are c = Bc 3 C s 3, d = Cc 3 Ds 3, e = C c 3 +Bs 3, f = Dc 3 +Cs 3 15) m 1 E m 31 [A +αs 1 +s 13 + b E A + m E m 31 E m 3 E m 31 E a ] 1+A, ) ] 1 b [αc A +cc 3 dc ) 3 +cs 3, [1 s 13 + a ] 1 A ) +fc 3 +es 3 +ec 3 fs 3 ) 1) UsingtheeigenvaluesofHgiveninequation1)toequation9), theterm ij inequation)canbe calculated ij is defined in equation)). From equation 1), it is seen that NSIs are present in the eigenvalues of H but those are of the order of α or α. The oscillation probability Pν e ν µ ) is calculated upto order α. As the non-zero terms in Jij lm in equation) calculated using equation7) is already at order α, only terms which are zeroth order in α is considered in calculating ij. Hence, the oscillation probability, Pν e ν µ ), in the presence of NSI upto order α can be written as: Pν e ν µ ) c 3 A b sin + s 3c 3 A 1 A ) Reba )sin + s 3c 3 A 1 A ) Imba )sin m 31 A L E m 31 A L E m 31 A L E ) + s 3 m 1 A ) a sin 31 1 A ) )L E ) m 31 L m sin 31 1 A ) )L ) cos ) sin E m 31 L E ) sin E m 31 1 A ) )L For NSI terms X = Y = Z = in equation 17), the probability expression reduces to that for the standard model interaction of neutrinos with matter. E 17) III. BIMAGIC CONDITIONS ON NEUTRINO ENERGY If we want the probability, Pν e ν µ ) to be independent of the CP violating phase δ and θ 13 upto order α then we have to use the condition: sin m 311 A )L E = 1) One may note here that this corresponds to two different conditions for two different hierarchies of neutrino masses. Considering ǫ ee = in A and keeping ǫ ǫµ and ǫ eτ less than α as required by the perturbation theory one can see that this condition on neutrino energy is the same one as discussed earlier without NSIs [7]. For a given length L of the baseline above condition constrains the neutrino energy E as E = m 31 ±n/l+ / ) G F n e 1+ǫ ee ). 19)

6 As long as ǫ ee is unknown it seems that this magic energy E cannot be known. However, what is important in our work is to know the possible range of this magic energy depending on the presently allowed range of ǫ ee which is less than. Using eq.1) in eq.17) we get Pν e ν µ ) c 3 m A c 3X +c 1 αs 1 Ys 3 sin 31 A ) L. ) E which is independent of θ 13 and δ. P Νe ΝΜ P Νe ΝΜ. with NSI Ε eμ. E magic n.15 E magic n E GeV. with NSI Ε eτ. E magic n.15 E magic n E GeV P Νe ΝΜ P Νe ΝΜ E magic n with NSI ΕeΜ. E magic n E GeV E magic n with NSI Ε eτ. E magic n E GeV FIG. 1: Plots for probability of oscillation ν e ν µ versus neutrino energy E) varying δ over the entire range of to and θ 13 in the entire allowed range to 1. In figure 1 we have shown the probability of oscillation ν e ν µ versus energy after varying θ 13 in the entire allowed rangeof 1 and alsovarying δ in the full rangeof for L = 5Km for both normal ) and inverted hierarchies ). We have made the plots for two NSIs ǫ eµ and ǫ eτ ) but considering one at a time. The value of the NSI considered is ǫ eµ =. and ǫ eτ =.. From the plots we can see that the probability becomes almost independent of δ and θ 13 at the magic energies. As for example, for n = 1 in eq.19) these energies are E = ) GeV for ) respectively. Magic energies for higher n values gets smaller as seen from eq.19) and the figure. Next we discuss the bimagic conditions on neutrino energy. As discussed in [7] the sensitivity of the hierarchy is maximum if one of the hierarchies say or ) obey the condition in eq.1) for which probability is independent of θ 13 and δ whereas for the other hierarchy the probability has maximum dependence with θ 13 and δ which can be achieved by imposing the condition sin m 311 A )L E = ±1. 1) These two conditions mentioned in 1 ) and 1) can be rewritten in two different ways: a) conditions for with δ and θ 13 independence and with maximum dependence to those - which can be written as: m A )L E c = n for )

7 7 m 31 1 A )L E c = m 1/) for 3) where n, m are integers and n >. b) conditions for with δ and θ 13 independence and with maximum dependence to those - which can be written as: m 31 1 A )L E c = n for ) m A )L E c = m 1/) for 5) where n and m are integers and n and m >. Solving the equations ) and 3) one gets the length of the baseline L) as which implies LKm ) = n m+1/) c GF n e 1+ǫ ee ) 1.5 n m+1/) ρgm/cc)1+ǫ ee ) ρlkm gm/cc) 1.5 n m+1/)/1+ǫ ee ) ) and for the inverted hierarchy the energy E with δ and θ 13 independence as E GeV) = 1 m 31 GeV )LKm) cgev Km) n+m 1/) 7) Similarly, solving the equations ) and 5) one gets the length of the baseline L ) as ρl Km gm/cc) 1.5 m n 1/)/1+ǫ ee ) ) and for the normal hierarchy the energy E with δ and θ 13 independence as E GeV) = 1 m 31 GeV )L Km) cgev Km) n +m 1/) 9) Firstly, for ǫ ee = one can get one possible solution for common baseline i.e., L = L to be about 5 Km if the choices are made as follows: n = 1, m = 1 and n = 1 and m =. The neutrino energy E 3.3 GeV and E 1.9 Gev. However, one could get more common solutions for bimagic baseline with L = L for length by considering suitable choices of m,n,m and n for which n m = m n 1; n m could be 1 or resulting in L = L > Km. As for example, considering ρ gm/cc with n m = 1 the length is about 1 Km. As the present upper bound of some of the NSIs could be quite large > α [13] which is not considered in our perturbative approach it is natural to ask what happen to such magic energies in the same 5 Km baseline in those cases. We have checked numerically that even for highest allowed values of NSIs as for

8 example,for ǫ eµ =.33 the E E ).33.) GeV; for ǫ ee =. the E E ) ) GeV. However, for ǫ eτ >.5 it is difficult to get bimagic energies although we have presented numerical analysis of discovery limits of various oscillation parameters for that also. For ǫ eτ =.5 the bimagic energies are the E E ).3.57) GeV. It is important to note that all these bimagic energies are within 1-5 GeV which is the full neutrino energy range in our analysis. Interestingly, one can check here that the perturbative results for bimagic baseline length and the energies hold good even for higher values of ǫ ee >> α. Even for such large ǫ ee it is possible to obtain bimagic energies within 1-5 GeV for the same baseline length of 5 Km. As for example, for ǫ ee = considering n = 3, m = 1, m = and n = 1 gives L = L 5 Km and E and E obtained from perturbative approach are very near to the numerical values for bimagic energies mentioned above. As the bimagic energies are within 1-5 GeV, by considering this as the neutrino energy range in our numerical analysis, it may be expected to get better discovery limits to hierarchy, θ 13 and CP violation for various choices of NSIs. Now, we can write down the probabilities at the particular energies E and E according to the conditions discussed above. At E E for condition satisfying eq. ) the probability is given by: Pν e ν µ )) c 3 A b sin n+m 1 )) 3) and for the condition satisfying eq. 3) the probability is given by: Pν e ν µ )) c 3 s 3c 3 A 1 A ) A b cos [ Reba )cos n+m 1 n+m 1 )) + s 3 1 A ) a )) + 1 Imba )sin At E E for condition satisfying eq. ) the probability is given by Pν e ν µ )) c 3 A b sin n +m 1 )) n+m 1 ))] 31) 3) and for the condition satisfying eq. 5) the probability is given by Pν e ν µ )) c 3 + s 3c 3 A 1+ A ) A b cos [ Reba )cos n +m 1 )) s A ) a n +m 1 )) 1 Imba )sin n +m 1 ))] 33) One can see that at E = 3.3 GeV from eqs. 3) and 31) in the case of ǫ eτ = ǫ eµ = case i.e., X = Y = if θ 13 also vanishes then a = and there is no difference in P and P. Same thing happens at E = 1.9 GeV as seen in eqs. 3) and 33). This means that for ǫ eτ = ǫ eµ = case it is not so likely to get the hierarchy discovery limit at θ 13 =. However, on the contrary in presence of these NSIs there is difference in P and P even for θ 13 =. So in presence of NSIs like ǫ eτ and ǫ eµ one could get discovery limit of hierarchy even at θ 13 =. However, in case of ǫ ee if θ 13 = then there is no difference between P and P and so it is not likely to get discovery limit at θ 13 =. These features are found in our numerical analysis.

9 In probing other NSIs like ǫ µµ, ǫ µτ and ǫ ττ, oscillation channel ν e ν µ is not appropriate. This follows from the probability in equation 17). For those NSIs considering the disappearance channel ν µ ν µ ) is appropriate. One cannot get any condition on neutrino energy in general to remove the dependence on δ in the oscillation probability for this channel. However, it is found that upto the order α without imposing any condition on neutrino energy this oscillation probability is already independent of δ as shown below [15]. Pν µ ν µ ) = 1 c 3s 3sin m 31L E +c 1c 3s 3α m 31L E sin m 31L E + c 3s [ 3 c 3 s 3) ǫµµ ǫ ττ ) c 3 s 3 Reǫ µτ ) ] m 31A L sin m 31L E E c 3 s 3 c 3 s 3)[ c3 s 3 ǫ µµ ǫ ττ )+ c 3 s ) 3 Reǫµτ ) ] A sin m 31 L E To get the sensitivity of NSIs like ǫ µµ, ǫ µτ and ǫ ττ, this disappearance channel is appropriate but it is not much suitable for finding sensitivity to δ or discovery limits for CP violation. As the probability upto order α is already independent of δ here one does not require the bimagic conditions and as such there is no restriction on the length of the baseline and neutrino energy. We have not done this analysis separately but sensitivity of some of the above-mentioned NSI parameters have been discussed in the disappearance channel ν µ ν µ ) in [1]. 9 3) IV. NUMERICAL SIMULATION As an outcome of the bimagic energy conditions in presence of NSIs the length of the baseline is 5 Km. To study the oscillation of ν e ν µ we have considered the experimental set-up and the detector characteristics as discussed in [7] for a running time of.5 year. We consider the neutrino factory having muondecaysperyearwithparentmuonofenergy5gevandthemagnetizedtotallyactivescintillator detector of 5 kt mass with energy threshold of 1 GeV. The numerical simulation has been done by using GLoBES [17]. In presenting the discovery limits of hierarchy, sin θ 13 and CP violation in bimagic baseline, highest possible values for the NSIs have been considered. However, when we observe that the discovery limits are either covering the entire allowed region or not at all obtainable then we refrain from presenting those figures and instead we present discovery limits for some lower values of NSIs. δ CP true) 3/ ε e τ =.1 δ CP true) 3/ ε e µ =.1 δ CP true) 3/ ε ee = / / / 1e sin θ 13 true) 1e sin θ 13 true) 1e sin θ 13 true) FIG. : The 3σ contours showing discovery limit of hierarchy for different NSIs ǫ eτ, ǫ eµ and ǫ ee. In figure we have shown for what value of δ and θ 13 at confidence level one can identify the specific hierarchy which could be either normal or inverted. For ǫ eτ = 3 and ǫ eµ =.33 one at a time) could

10 be discovered at any value of θ 13 irrespective of any specific value of δ whereas for nowhere it is found to be discovered. So in our figures we have chosen some lower values of these two NSIs. Considering ǫ eµ =.1 and ǫ eτ =.1 one at a time) we have shown in figure the discovery limit of hierarchy. From these figures for favorable values of δ one could identify the inverted hierarchy of nature for ǫ eτ at sin θ 13 as small as 1 and for ǫ eµ at sin θ 13 as small as about.5 1. For normal hierarchy however, it is found from the figures that for ǫ eτ =.1, only for δ in the range of 3/ to 5/ and sin θ 13 > 5 1 one could reach the discovery limit. For other values of δ normal hierarchy can be identified for any value of θ 13 including the zero value. Similarly, for ǫ eµ =.1, only for δ in the range of about / to 5/ and sin θ 13 > 1 one could reach the discovery limit. Here also for other values of δ normal hierarchy can be identified for any values of θ 13 including the zero value. For ǫ ee = the normal hierarchy can be identified at sin θ 13 > 1 and the inverted hierachy can be identified at sin θ 13 > 1. 1 δ CP true) 3/ ε e τ = 3 δ CP true) 3/ ε e µ =.33 δ CP true) 3/ ε ee = / / / 1e sin θ 13 true) 1e sin θ 13 true) 1e sin θ 13 true) FIG. 3: The 3σ contours showing discovery limits of θ 13 for different NSI s ǫ eτ, ǫ eµ and ǫ ee. δ CP true) 3/ ε e τ =3 δ CP true) 3/ ε e µ =.33 δ CP true) 3/ ε ee =. / / / 1e sin θ 13 true) 1e sin θ 13 true) 1e sin θ 13 true) FIG. : The 3σ discovery limits for the CP violating phase δ for different NSI s ǫ eτ, ǫ eµ and ǫ ee. We have shown the discovery limits of θ 13 in figure 3 at 3σ confidence level. From figure 3 it can be seen that for NSI ǫ eµ.33 the discovery limits for sin θ 13 could be as low as sin θ and for ǫ eτ 3. the limit could be as low as. 1 3 for both the hierarchies. However, for ǫ ee this limit improvesforandcanbeaslowassin θ , but forit couldbe aslowassin θ In figure we have shown the discovery limit of CP violation for different NSI at 3σ confidence level. The discovery limit for CP violating region is possible for ǫ eτ = 3. at sin θ for 3/ δ 3/ for. But for it is very difficult to obtain any discovery limit. However, for lower values of ǫ eτ discovery limits could be easily obtained. For ǫ eµ =.33 the discovery limit of CP violating region for is found for sin θ 13 > 1 3 with / < δ < 7/ and also for sin θ 13 > 1 with 9/ < δ < 15/. In the case of for the same value of ǫ eµ the discovery limits are found for sin θ 13 > 1 3 with / < δ < 3/

11 and also for sin θ 13 > 1 3 with 5/ < δ < 15/. For higher value of ǫ ee = it is not possible to get discovery limit for CP violating region. For ǫ ee =. the discovery limit of CP violating region for is found for sin θ 13 > with / < δ < / and also for sin θ 13 > 1 5 with 5/ < δ < 7/. In the case of for the same value of ǫ ee the discovery limit are found for sin θ 13 > with / < δ < / and also for sin θ 13 > 1 3 with 5/ < δ < 7/. 11 χ 1 1 δ=, sin θ 13 =.1 σ χ 1 1 δ=, sin θ 13 =.1 σ ε e τ ε e τ χ 1 1 δ=/, sin θ 13 =.1 σ χ 1 1 δ=/, sin θ 13 =.1 σ ε e τ ε e τ FIG. 5: Discovery limits of NSI ǫ eτ) for different fixed values of θ 13 and δ considering muon energy 5 GeV. Although we find good discovery limits for hierarchy, θ 13 and CP violation in bimagic baseline even in presence of NSI, however, to get good discovery limits of NSI, the neutrino energy around 5 GeV as required by magic energy conditions) is not appropriate. One can see from the expression of Pν e ν µ ) in Eq. 17) that the NSI terms are energy independent whereas the terms containing only vacuum mixing parameters are suppressed by neutrino energy. This feature is present irrespective of specific channel for neutrino oscillation. Naturally for higher energy the relative effect of NSI parameters are enhanced with respect to vacuum neutrino mixing parameter and one might expect to get better discovery liimits of NSIs. Now considering 5 GeV as the maximum neutrino energy, we have presented the discovery limits of some NSIs - ǫ eτ, ǫ eµ and ǫ ee for various fixed values of sin θ 13 and δ in figures 5, and 7 respectively. We can see from these figures that the discovery limits of ǫ eτ and ǫ eµ are as low as.15) for either of the heirarchy at 3σ confidence level. For ǫ ee the limit is as low as at the order of 1 1 ). But at higher neutrino energy say for 5 GeV from figures and 9 one can see that for the discovery limit of ǫ eτ can be as low as and that of ǫ eµ could be as low as 7 1. Similarly, for the discovery limit of ǫ eτ is as low as.1 and for ǫ eµ is as low as.. For the case of ǫ ee, from figure 1 we can see that the discovery limit of the NSI ǫ ee ) is not so good and could be as low as of the order of 1 1. However, the overall probability of oscillation is suppressed with the increase in neutrino energy. Naturally it is expected that just increasing energy one may not keep getting better NSI discovery limits. In fact, we have checked at neutrino energy above GeV there is insignificant improvement in discovery limits of ǫ eµ and ǫ eτ in 5 Km baseline.

12 1 χ 1 1 δ=, sin θ 13 =.1 σ χ 1 1 δ=, sin θ 13 =.1 σ ε e µ ε e µ χ 1 1 δ=/, sin θ 13 =.1 σ χ 1 1 δ=/, sin θ 13 =.1 σ ε e µ ε e µ FIG. : Discovery limits of NSI ǫ eµ) for different fixed values of θ 13 and δ considering muon energy to be 5 GeV. χ 1 1 δ=, sin θ 13 =.1 σ χ 1 1 δ=, sin θ 13 =.1 σ 1e e ε ee ε ee χ 1 1 δ=/, sin θ 13 =.1 σ χ 1 1 δ=/, sin θ 13 =.1 σ 1e e ε ee ε ee FIG. 7: Discovery limits of NSI ǫ ee) for different fixed values of θ 13 and δ considering muon energy 5 GeV.

13 13 χ 1 1 δ=, sin θ 13 =.1 σ χ 1 1 δ=, sin θ 13 =.1 σ ε e τ ε e τ χ 1 1 δ=/, sin θ 13 =.1 σ χ 1 1 δ=/, sin θ 13 =.1 σ ε e τ ε e τ FIG. : Discovery limits of NSI ǫ eτ) for different fixed values of θ 13 and δ considering muon energy 5 GeV. χ 1 1 δ=, sin θ 13 =.1 σ χ 1 1 δ=, sin θ 13 =.1 σ ε e µ ε e µ χ 1 1 δ=/, sin θ 13 =.1 σ χ 1 1 δ=/, sin θ 13 =.1 σ ε e µ ε e µ FIG. 9: Discovery limits of NSI ǫ eµ) for different fixed values of θ 13 and δ considering muon energy 5 Gev.

14 χ 1 1 δ=, sin θ 13 =.1 σ χ 1 1 δ=, sin θ 13 =.1 σ 1e e ε ee ε ee χ 1 1 δ=/, sin θ 13 =.1 σ χ 1 1 δ=/, sin θ 13 =.1 σ 1e e ε ee ε ee FIG. 1: Discovery limits of NSI ǫ ee) for different fixed values of θ 13 and δ considering muon energy 5 GeV. V. CONCLUSION It is found that for getting good discovery limits for hierarchy, sin θ 13 and CP violation particularly in the ν e ν µ oscillation channel, 5 Km baseline is suitable even when NSI of neutrinos with matter are present. This is because the bimagic energies E and E lie within specific energy range, which is 1-5 GeV for this baseline even in presence of NSIs with their loweror higher allowedvalues except for ǫ eτ >.5) and this neutrino energy range has been chosen in our analysis with NSIs. It is important to note that this energy range is also suitable for no NSIs as in that case also bimagic energies are within 1-5 GeV [7]. To show what could be the utmost effect to the discovery limits corresponding to no-nsi case, we have considered highest possible values as obtained in the model independent case [13]. However, for model dependent cases [ 1] these bounds are in general, more stringent. The discovery limits of hierarchy actually improves in presence of NSIs. Even one could get discovery limits at θ 13 = for ǫ eµ and ǫ eτ which in absence of those NSIs are not expected. This is due to the fact that at bimagic energies the P and P are unequal even at θ 13 = in presence of those NSIs. This does not occur for ǫ ee. In this case, as for example, for ǫ ee = the hierarchy discovery limits could be obtained at as low as sin θ 13 > 1. Considering highest possible allowed values of ǫ eτ, ǫ eµ and ǫ ee we find that the discovery limits of sin θ 13 could be as low as 1 3, 1 and 1 5 respectively for normal hierarchy and as low as. 1 3, 7 1 and respectively for inverted hierarchy. Considering favorablevalues of δ the discoverylimits of CP violation are possible at following sin θ 13 values. For ǫ eτ = 3 the discovery limits of CP violation could be possible for high value of sin θ 13 at about.5 for normal hierarchy only. For inverted hierarchy it is not possible. For ǫ eµ =.33 the discovery limits of CP violation could be obtained for sin θ 13 as low as 1 3 for normal hierarchy and at about 1 3 for inverted hierarchy. For ǫ ee =. discovery limits of CP violation cannot be obtained. However, for

15 lower values of both ǫ eτ and ǫ ee one could get discovery limits of CP violation at some sin θ 13 values. The discovery limits of NSIs could be improved if we consider neutrino energy upto 5 GeV and it could be as small as 1 3 for ǫ eµ and ǫ eτ and could be as small as 1 1 for ǫ ee. These NSI discovery limits essentially would give the upper bound on the respective parameters if they are not discovered. It is interesting tonote that thereareother bimagicbaselines with length greaterthan Kmapartfrom 5 Km as discussed before. One may explore the discovery limits of various vacuum neutrino oscillation parameters using those baselines also. 15 Acknowledgment: AD likes to thank Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Govt. of India and ZR likes to thank University Grants Commission, Govt. of India for providing research fellowships. [1] K. Hagiwara et al., Phys. Rev. D, 11 ); B. Pontecorvo Sov. Phys. JETP :9 19). [] K. Nakamura et al. Particle Data Group), J. Phys. G 37, 751 1) and 11 partial update for the 1 edition. [3] K. Kimura, A. Takamura and T. Yoshikawa, hep-ph/31; P. Huber, M. Maltoni and T. Schwetz, Phys. Rev. D71, 53 5). [] G. L. Fogli and E. Lisi, Phys. Rev. D5, ); J. Arafune, M. Koike, J. Sato, Phys. Rev. D5, ), Erratum-ibid. D, ); S. M. Bilenky, C. Giunti and W. Grimus, Phys. Rev. D5, ); V. D. Barger et al., Phys. Rev. D, 13 ); M. Freund et al., Nucl. Phys. B57, 7-57 ); H. Minakata et al., Phys. Rev. D, ), Erratum-ibid. D7, 5991 ); M. V. Diwan et al., Phys. Rev. D, 1 3); D. Choudhury and A. Datta, JHEP 57, 5 5). [5] P. Huber and W. Winter, Phys. Rev. D, 37313); P. Huber, J. Phys. G9, 153 3); A.Yu. Smirnov, hep-ph/119, A. Asratyan et al., hep-ex/333, S. K. Agarwalla, S. Choubey and A. Raychaudhuri, Nucl.Phys. B771, 1-7 7), S. Choubey et al, JHEP 91: 9). [] S. K. Raut, R. S. Singh and S.Uma Sankar,Phys.Lett. B9, ). [7] A. Dighe, S. Goswami and S. Ray, Phys.Rev.Lett. 15, 1 1). [] S. Davidson et al., JHEP 33, 11 3); M. M. Guzzo et al., Phys. Lett. B591, 1- ); J. Barranco et al., Phys. Rev. D73, 1131 ); G. Mangano et al., Phys. B75, 1-11 ); M. Blennow, T. Ohlsson, J. Skrotzki, Phys. Lett. B, 5-5 ); J. Kopp, M. Lindner, T. Ota, Phys. Rev. D7, 131 7); A. Esteban-Pretel, R. Tomas, J. W. F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D7, 531 7); J. Kopp et al., Phys. Rev. D77, 137 ); A. M. Gago et al., JHEP 11, 9 1); F.J. Escrihuela et al., Phys. Rev. D,159 9), Erratum-ibid. D, 199 9) ; O. Yasuda, Acta Phys. Polon. B3, ). [9] Super-Kamiokande Collaboration G. Mitsuka et al.), arxiv: [hep-ex]. [1] R. Adhikari, S. K. Agarwalla and A. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Lett. B, ). [11] J. W. F. Valle, arxiv:11[hep-ph]. [1] L. J. Hall, V. A. Kostelecky and S. Raby, Nucl. Phys. B7, 15 19). [13] C. Biggio, M. Blennow and E. Fernandez-Martinez, JHEP 9, 9 9). [] A. Cervera et al., Nucl.Phys. B579, ), Erratum-ibid. B593, ); M. Freund, Phys. Rev. D, 533 1); E. K. Akhmedov et al., Nucl.Phys. B, 39-1); E. K. Akhmedov et al., JHEP, 7 ). [15] T. Kikuchi, H. Minakata and S. Uchinami, JHEP 93, 1 9). [1] J.Kopp, T. Ota and W.Winter, Phys. Rev. D7, 537 ). [17] P. Huber, M. Lindner and W. Winter, Comput. Phys. Commun.17, 195 5); P. Huber, J. Kopp, M. Lind-

16 ner, M. Rolinec and W. Winter, Comput. Phys. Com- mun.177, 3 7). 1