The Jarlskog invariant and leptogenesis?

  • Thread starter Doofy
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Invariant
In summary: The mass^2 differences are inferred from the rapidity of the oscillations. The mass^2 differences can be calculated from the kinetic energy of the neutrinos. So it seems to me that neither of these are actually measured directly.In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of CP violation in the lepton sector and how it relates to the Jarlskog invariant, J. J is a measure of CP violation and can be directly measured in neutrino oscillation experiments. It is proportional to the coefficient of the sine term in the probability equation. The mixing angles and mass^2 differences are inferred from the rapidity of the oscillations and the kinetic energy of the neutrinos. J can also be
  • #1
Doofy
74
0
I've been trying to find out some info about CP violation in the lepton sector at a basic (ie. a fresh postgraduate) level. We can take the neutrino mixing matrix U in its standard parametrization:
[tex] \left( \begin{array}{ccc} c_{12}c_{13} & s_{12}c_{13} & s_{13}e^{-i\delta} \\ -s_{12}c_{23} -c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{-i\delta} & c_{12}c_{23}-s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{-i\delta} & s_{23}c_{13} \\ s_{12}s_{23} -c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{-i\delta} & -c_{12}s_{23} - s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{-i\delta} & c_{23}c_{13} \end{array} \right) [/tex]
where [itex]c_{ij}[/itex] means [itex]cos(\theta_{ij})[/itex], and s for sine. One may cross off a row r and a column s, and from the remaining 2x2 matrix define a quantity called the Jarlskog invariant [itex] J = (-1)^{r+s} I am (U_{ij}U_{lk}U_{ik}^*U_{lj}^*) [/itex], which in this case is [itex] J = c_{12}c_{13}^2c_{23}s_{12}s_{13}s_{23}sin(\delta) [/itex].

Now I'm reading that leptogenesis is the term for the imbalance of leptonic matter over antimatter, and that it requires CP violation to have happened. Also, apparently J is a "measure of CP violation", but I'm struggling to find an example of where it is actually used in this manner.

I mean, say in a neutrino oscillation experiment between states [itex]\nu_\alpha \rightarrow \nu_\beta[/itex], CP violation would cause [itex]P(\nu_\alpha \rightarrow \nu_\beta) \neq P(\overline{\nu_\alpha} \rightarrow \overline{\nu_\beta}) [/itex]. These experiments are being done to measure the values of the 4 parameters of the matrix U, namely [itex] \theta_{12}, \theta_{13}, \theta_{23} [/itex] and [itex] \delta [/itex], where a non-zero [itex]\delta[/itex] allows CP violation by causing [itex] U \neq U^{\dagger} [/itex], which is the reason for [itex]P(\nu_\alpha \rightarrow \nu_\beta) \neq P(\overline{\nu_\alpha} \rightarrow \overline{\nu_\beta}) [/itex].

My question is, I keep seeing this Jarlskog invariant being mentioned a fair bit, but I'm struggling to see what the point of defining it is? What does this J allow us to do? What is J telling us about CP violation exactly? Is it something like not being able to directly measure [itex]\delta[/itex] or something?
Can it be used to calculate how many more leptons than antileptons there should be in the universe or something like that?

Sorry if I haven't asked this question very well, but I'm a bit confused at this moment.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You have nearly all of the ingredients to answer the question. CP violation will occur if [itex]U=U^\dagger[/itex], which requires [itex]\delta\neq 0[/itex]. Also, it's clear that [itex]J[/itex] vanishes if [itex]U[/itex] is real. The missing piece is the expression of [itex]P(\alpha\rightarrow \beta)[/itex] in terms of [itex]U[/itex], which is given a few lines down at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation#Propagation_and_interference. This is a useful formula, because we could conceive of doing an experiment where we could measure the coefficients of the [itex]\sin^2[/itex] and [itex]\sin[/itex] terms. But the coefficient of the [itex]\sin[/itex] term is directly proportional to [itex]J[/itex]. So if we did a typical experiment, then [itex]J[/itex], rather than [itex]U[/itex], is what we would directly measure.
 
  • #3
fzero said:
You have nearly all of the ingredients to answer the question. CP violation will occur if [itex]U=U^\dagger[/itex], which requires [itex]\delta\neq 0[/itex]. Also, it's clear that [itex]J[/itex] vanishes if [itex]U[/itex] is real. The missing piece is the expression of [itex]P(\alpha\rightarrow \beta)[/itex] in terms of [itex]U[/itex], which is given a few lines down at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation#Propagation_and_interference. This is a useful formula, because we could conceive of doing an experiment where we could measure the coefficients of the [itex]\sin^2[/itex] and [itex]\sin[/itex] terms. But the coefficient of the [itex]\sin[/itex] term is directly proportional to [itex]J[/itex]. So if we did a typical experiment, then [itex]J[/itex], rather than [itex]U[/itex], is what we would directly measure.

ah right, thanks, but now I have another question. Say we have [itex] J = c_{12} c_{13}^2 c_{23} s_{12} s_{13} s_{23} sin \delta [/itex].

Now assuming we already know the mixing angles [itex] \theta_{12}, \theta_{13}, \theta_{23}[/itex], if we want to calculate [itex] \delta [/itex] then we need to know what J is. I thought that neutrino oscillation experiments were about measuring [itex] \theta_{12}, \theta_{13}, \theta_{23} [/itex] rather than J. How is J actually determined?

* In fact, I don't yet understand how people even manage to weedle out the mixing angles (and also mass^2 differences) from the data they measure at these detectors, which if I'm not mistaken is essentially just
[tex] P(\alpha \rightarrow \beta) = \frac{measured \hspace{1mm} flux \hspace{1mm} of \hspace{1mm} \nu_{\alpha}}{expected \hspace{1mm} flux \hspace{1mm} of \hspace{1mm} \nu_{\alpha} \hspace{1mm} without \hspace{1mm} oscillation \hspace{1mm} \nu_{\alpha} \rightarrow \nu_{\beta}} [/tex]
because it seems to me that you end up with a single equation for the probability (that link you gave me) that depends on like 3 or 4 variables.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Doofy said:
ah right, thanks, but now I have another question. Say we have [itex] J = c_{12} c_{13}^2 c_{23} s_{12} s_{13} s_{23} sin \delta [/itex].

Now assuming we already know the mixing angles [itex] \theta_{12}, \theta_{13}, \theta_{23}[/itex], if we want to calculate [itex] \delta [/itex] then we need to know what J is. I thought that neutrino oscillation experiments were about measuring [itex] \theta_{12}, \theta_{13}, \theta_{23} [/itex] rather than J. How is J actually determined?

* In fact, I don't yet understand how people even manage to weedle out the mixing angles (and also mass^2 differences) from the data they measure at these detectors, which if I'm not mistaken is essentially just
[tex] P(\alpha \rightarrow \beta) = \frac{measured \hspace{1mm} flux \hspace{1mm} of \hspace{1mm} \nu_{\alpha}}{expected \hspace{1mm} flux \hspace{1mm} of \hspace{1mm} \nu_{\alpha} \hspace{1mm} without \hspace{1mm} oscillation \hspace{1mm} \nu_{\alpha} \rightarrow \nu_{\beta}} [/tex]
because it seems to me that you end up with a single equation for the probability (that link you gave me) that depends on like 3 or 4 variables.

This is not a subject that I'm very familiar with, so I would suggest a review like http://inspirehep.net/record/748589?ln=en. I took a quick look through there and it seems like extracting parameters relies on exploiting the different physics that is relevant to specific types of events at specific detectors.

In particular, the neutrino source is important. The Sun is a source of mostly electron neutrinos, while beam lines from Earth-based accelerators can be mostly muon neutrinos. Measuring the fluxes of electron and muon neutrinos at the detectors gives independent information.
 
  • #5
fzero said:
You have nearly all of the ingredients to answer the question. CP violation will occur if [itex]U=U^\dagger[/itex], which requires [itex]\delta\neq 0[/itex]...
Are you sure that's quite right? If we are accepting the PDG parameterisation as used for the CKM matrix, then according to the SM textbook I have CP violation only requires that U cannot be made real by absorbing phases into wavefunction redefinitions, ie [itex]U≠U^*[/itex]. Making U real is possible iff [itex]J=0[/itex].

Also, with the PDG parameterisation, [itex]U[/itex] is unitary, hence [itex]U^\dagger = U^{-1}[/itex], which is the form used when transforming mass eigenstates back into flavour ones.
 
  • #6
AdrianTheRock said:
Are you sure that's quite right? If we are accepting the PDG parameterisation as used for the CKM matrix, then according to the SM textbook I have CP violation only requires that U cannot be made real by absorbing phases into wavefunction redefinitions, ie [itex]U≠U^*[/itex]. Making U real is possible iff [itex]J=0[/itex].

Also, with the PDG parameterisation, [itex]U[/itex] is unitary, hence [itex]U^\dagger = U^{-1}[/itex], which is the form used when transforming mass eigenstates back into flavour ones.

Yes, I meant [itex]\mathrm{Im}(U)\neq 0[/itex]. I was typing so carelessly I didn't even get the [itex]\neq[/itex] correct.
 
  • #7
thanks for your replies guys, but I'm still not quite clear on this J thing. Let's just ignore the details of how the angles and mass^2 differences are measured - it seems the ways they arrive at these values are quite varied and complicated, and possibly unique to each individual experiment.

Assuming we know what the angles are though, is anyone able to explain to me what the basic premise of an experiment to measure J would be, so that [itex] \delta [/itex] could be calculated ?
 
  • #8
In principle, if you could measure [itex]P(\alpha\rightarrow\beta)[/itex] for a range of neutrino energies [itex]E[/itex] and baselines [itex]L[/itex], you could separate the [itex]\sin[/itex] term from the [itex]\sin^2[/itex] term in the expression from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation#Propagation_and_interference. This would be a measurement of [itex]J[/itex]. That big review of Gonzalez-Garcia and Maltoni comments in Ch 7 about this in a few places (for example item (iv) on page 127), but this might be difficult depending on the values of the other angles (more about this on pages 128-129).
 

FAQ: The Jarlskog invariant and leptogenesis?

1. What is the Jarlskog invariant and how is it related to leptogenesis?

The Jarlskog invariant, also known as the CKM phase, is a measure of the amount of CP violation in the Standard Model of particle physics. It is named after the physicist Carl-Henrik Jarlskog, who first introduced the concept in 1985. Leptogenesis is a theoretical mechanism that explains the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe, and it is related to the Jarlskog invariant because CP violation is necessary for leptogenesis to occur.

2. How is the Jarlskog invariant calculated?

The Jarlskog invariant is calculated using the elements of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix, which describes the mixing of quarks in the Standard Model. It is given by the product of the differences between the complex conjugates of the CKM matrix elements in the first and third rows and columns. This value is a pure phase and is independent of the choice of basis for the CKM matrix.

3. What is the physical significance of the Jarlskog invariant?

The Jarlskog invariant has important physical significance because it is a measure of CP violation, which is necessary for explaining the observed matter-antimatter asymmetry in the universe. It also plays a crucial role in predicting the rates of rare processes involving quarks, such as the decay of the B meson. The value of the Jarlskog invariant can also provide insights into the structure of the CKM matrix and potential new physics beyond the Standard Model.

4. How does the Jarlskog invariant impact our understanding of the early universe?

The Jarlskog invariant is closely connected to leptogenesis, which is a leading theory for explaining the matter-antimatter asymmetry in the early universe. By studying the Jarlskog invariant and its effects on CP violation, scientists can gain a better understanding of the conditions in the early universe and how matter came to dominate over antimatter. This can provide insights into the fundamental laws of physics and the evolution of the universe.

5. What are some current research efforts related to the Jarlskog invariant and leptogenesis?

There is ongoing research to understand the value of the Jarlskog invariant and its connection to CP violation and leptogenesis. Scientists are also searching for new sources of CP violation beyond the Standard Model that may help explain the observed matter-antimatter asymmetry. Additionally, there are efforts to experimentally measure the Jarlskog invariant with higher precision and to test its predictions for rare quark processes, which can provide valuable insights into our understanding of the universe.

Back
Top