1. Neutrinos September 24 2006 PDG advisory committee Maury Goodman for The neutrino group

2. List from 2004 Maury Goodman Encoding of accelerator neutrino papers Don 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” 2006 to Barcelona Ramon Miquel Overseer 2006 to Barcelona Hitoshi Murayama Plot with current oscillation parameters Kenzo Nakamura Encoding of extraterrestrial neutrino papers “Solar Neutrinos” Keith Olive Encoding of Astrophysical papers Andreas Piepke Encoding of Nuclear Physics papers & “Electron, Muon and Tau Neutrino Listings” Petr Vogel “Limits from Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay” + consultants, referees, verifiers…

3. 2006 RPP, Update to neutrinos was listed as the first big change

4. RPP Comparison 74-04-06 Pages: 1974 (1/3 out of 202) Pages:20042006 prop 7 4/66 2/6 # type 2 1/61 3/6 2  decay 3 1/64 2/6 Mixing16 1/614 1/6 Heavy L 0 3 2/6 33 out of 1109 3 4/6 31 out of 1232 Conclusion – mass is not correlated with RPP mass.

5. Mixing formalism MNS 3x3 matrix = U c 12

6. [Presented at 11/04 PDG] Summary of Workshop on 11/12/04 (I) Mixing –Introduce new “nodes” with measurements of          m 2 12,  m 2 23 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  m 2 regions we now know are irrelevant. –Keep LSND-related limits from   e  oscillation searches. ↔

7. 2004 RPP – not much indication of mixing in the mixing listings

8. [Presented at 11/04 PDG] Summary of Workshop on 11/12/04 (I) Mixing –Introduce new “nodes” with measurements of          m 2 12,  m 2 23 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  m 2 regions we now know are irrelevant. –Keep LSND-related limits from   e  oscillation searches. ↔ Mission Accomplished

9. 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.

10. [Presented at 11/04 PDG] Summary of Workshop on 11/12/04 (II) (Karsten Heeger, LBNL)

11. 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.

12. [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).

13. 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.

14. What was done this time Remove ,… no new notation used

15. Change names?

16. A notation issue   12,  13,  23 are labels,   m 2 jk are ordered (sign)   m 2 32 ~  m 2 31 will be good for several editions, but not forever  We know the sign of  m 2 21 but not  m 2 32  m 2 12  m 1 2 – m 2 2  m 2 21  m 2 2 – m 1 2  m 2 13  m 1 2 – m 3 2  m 2 31  m 3 2 – m 1 2  m 2 23  m 2 2 – m 3 2  m 2 32  m 3 2 – m 2 2   m 2 12 +  m 2 23 +  m 2 31 = 0

17. The numbers themselves   m 2 32 | 1.9-3.0  10 -3 eV 2 Super-K   m 2 21 8.0 + 0.4 - 0.3  10 -5 eV 2 KamLAND + Solar    sin 2 (2   ) = 0.86 +0.03 -0.04 KamLAND + Solar    sin 2 (2   ) > 0.92 Super-K    sin 2 (2   ) < 0.19 CHOOZ (+Super-K)

18. A real issue ►In the absence of a global fit, what value of  m 2 should be chosen for a  13 limit? We chose 1  low value ►The best limit on  13 comes from CHOOZ, but strongly depends on  m 2 ► The best measurement of  m 2 32 currently comes from Super-K ► The best measurement of  m 2 32 will soon be from MINOS Palo Verde Chooz SK sin 2 2 θ 13 (90% CL) sin 2 2 θ 13 ∆m 2

19. Equations

20. 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

21. 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

22. Summary PDG ♦Mixings – major change to accommodate present view of ’s. Seems satisfactory so far, some tweaking might be needed. ♦ Sections on e      Revamped 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.