one of the most important current tasks in neutrino physics is to understand the full implications of the solar @xcite , atmospheric @xcite , and reactor @xcite neutrino data that became available in the last five years .
while much of the recent effort has been focused on establishing the values of the neutrino masses and mixings , there has also been a growing realization that the same data may contain valuable information about other neutrino properties , such as its interactions with matter @xcite or with electromagnetic fields @xcite .
any measured deviation of these properties from their standard model ( sm ) values would have profound theoretical implications . as part of this program , we wish to reexamine here the sensitivity of the recent solar neutrino measurements to the neutrino electromagnetic properties .
the idea that the neutrino may possess a relatively large magnetic ( transition ) moment has been the subject of intense theoretical speculations for many years .
it was originally put forth in the early 1970 s , as a possible explanation to the solar neutrino deficit @xcite : the solar neutrinos , it was argued , were `` disappearing '' as a result of the neutrino spin precession in the solar magnetic field . remarkably , this explanation  much improved with time @xcite  remained viable for the next three decades . only in 2002 did the kamland measurement of the reactor antineutrino disappearance @xcite conclusively rule it out as the _ dominant _ mechanism of the solar neutrino conversion .
the possibility of the spin precession happening at a _ subdominant _ level , however , remains of great interest to this day , as a probe of the neutrino electromagnetic properties and , at the same time , of the magnetic fields in the solar interior .
for definiteness , here we will focus on the case of majorana neutrinos .
the experimental sensitivity to magnetic spin precession in this scenario is especially high , as has been long recognized @xcite : upon the spin flip , a majorana neutrino turns into an antineutrino and  thanks to flavor oscillations  can then be detected with some probability as an electron antineutrino , @xmath0 . the @xmath0 flux from the sun , in turn ,
is strongly constrained by super - kamiokande @xcite , sno @xcite , and especially kamland @xcite which can detect @xmath1 conversion of the solar @xmath2b neutrinos at the level of a few hundredths of a percent .    to understand
if the kamland bound places a nontrivial constraint on the neutrino magnetic moment , we need to compare it to the maximum possible @xmath0 flux from the sun .
this must be done taking into account ( i ) the recently measured values of the oscillation parameters , ( ii ) the bounds on the solar magnetic field strength and ( iii ) the existing direct bounds on the neutrino magnetic moment .
we also need to consider that magnetic spin flip could occur either in the convective zone ( cz ) of the sun , which comprises the outer 30% by radius , or deeper in the radiative zone ( rz ) . in the first case ,
the neutrino traverses a region of turbulent magnetic field ; in the second case , the field , if present , is smooth and frozen into stationary plasma .
the physics of the neutrino evolution is quite different in the two cases and requires separate treatments .
both the cz @xcite and the rz @xcite cases have been investigated in the literature and in both cases it has been concluded that it was _ a priori _ possible to have a signal greater than the current kamland sensitivity reach . in the case of the cz , even a bound on the neutrino magnetic moment was claimed .    in our analysis
, we reach different conclusions . in the case of the rz
, we find that the usual treatment , based on the @xmath3 resonance , works only for small flavor mixing . the large measured value of the solar neutrino mixing angle leads to a qualitatively new effect : the resonant level crossing disappears and no measurable magnetic spin flip can take place .
a new analytical result , extending the classical `` magnetic resonance '' condition @xcite to large flavor mixing , is derived here for the first time .    in the case of the cz , we consider two qualitatively different models of the magnetic field .
one of these models , that of the uniform kolmogorov turbulence , follows @xcite and our basic treatment of the neutrino evolution in this case agrees with that work .
we , however , take what we regard as more physically justifiable magnetic field parameters .
for the second model , we take a scenario of isolated flux ropes as suggested by the recent solar physics research .
this scenario , to the best of our knowledge , is considered in the neutrino literature for the first time .
the net result is that in both cases we estimate the maximum @xmath0 flux to be _ below _ the present kamland bound .
we begin by giving the necessary background information , including the form of the interaction ( sect .
[ sect : interaction ] ) , the known bounds on the neutrino magnetic moment ( sect .  [ sect : directbounds ] ) , the general properties of the solar magnetic fields ( sect .  [ sect : magnfields ] ) , and the form of the neutrino oscillation hamiltonian ( sect .  [ sect : oschamiltonian ] ) .
the case of the rz magnetic field is treated in sect .
[ sect : rz ] : after reviewing the conventional approach ( sect .  [
sect : rz_conventional ] ) , we argue that resonant antineutrino production is suppressed for large flavor mixing ( sect .  [
sect : rz_nores ] ) , derive a corresponding general analytical condition ( sect .
[ sect : rz_analyt ] ) , and finally perform a direct numerical scan of the parameter space to confirm our analytical conclusions ( sect .
[ sect : rz_scan ] ) .
this is followed by the analysis of the cz fields in sect .
[ sect : cz ] , where the two models of the magnetic field mentioned above are considered ( in sects . [ sect : cz_kolmogorov ] and [ sect : cz_tubes ] ) .
the results are summarized in sect .
[ sect : conclusions ] .
some additional technical details about the cz neutrino evolution can be found in the appendix .
the electromagnetic moment interaction of the majorana neutrinos is given by the following dimension five operator @xmath4 where @xmath5 and @xmath6 are majorana spinors of flavors @xmath7 and @xmath8 in the 4-component notation , and @xmath9/2 $ ] , with @xmath10 and @xmath11 being the lorentz indices .
it proves useful to rewrite this lagrangian in the 2-component weyl spinor notation .
this notation , besides being simply more natural for ultrarelativistic fermions , brings considerable physical insight .    writing the 4-component majorana spinor @xmath12 in the weyl basis as @xmath13 and introducing @xmath14 matrices @xmath15 , with @xmath16 , @xmath17 ( here @xmath18 are the usual pauli matrices ) , we rewrite eq .
( [ eq : lagr4 ] ) as @xmath19 this form makes the following important physical properties of the interaction manifest :    * _ the interaction couples the neutrino and antineutrino states . _ notice in eq .
( [ eq : lagr ] ) the spinors are either both `` undotted '' or both `` dotted '' . each `` undotted '' spinor destroys a neutrino state or creates an antineutrino state . *
_ no flavor - diagonal terms . _ since spinors anticommute , the @xmath20 terms in eq .
( [ eq : lagr ] ) vanish identically , and hence majorana neutrinos can not have flavor - diagonal magnetic moments @xcite .
this can be easily seen , for example , using the definition of the @xmath21 matrix given above and the identity @xmath22 the _ transition _ ( @xmath23 ) moments , however  which lead to a simultaneous spin and flavor change , _
i.e. _ , @xmath24  are perfectly allowed . * _ the interaction with the @xmath25 ( longitudinal ) component of the magnetic field vanishes identically , while the interaction with the transverse components @xmath26 is nonzero . _
one of the two spinors in eq .
( [ eq : lagr ] ) has a raised index . denoting it by @xmath27
, we write eq .
( [ eq : lagr ] ) in the three - dimensional notation as @xmath28 plugging in @xmath29  which neglects terms of order @xmath30  we find that the interaction picks the @xmath31 component of the matrix @xmath32 , i.e. , @xmath33 for @xmath34 , @xmath35 for @xmath36 , and @xmath37 for @xmath38 .
+ the same conclusion can be reached by boosting the magnetic fields to the neutrino rest frame . *
the real part of @xmath39 corresponds to the magnetic dipole moment and the imaginary part to the electric dipole moment .
an ultrarelativistic neutrino precesses in an external magnetic field if _ either _ the magnetic or electric dipole moments are non - zero @xcite .
following the convention , we will henceforth use the term  magnetic moment " to refer to both possibilities .
all these properties are well - known and are derived here for completeness .
the laboratory bounds on the neutrino magnetic ( transition ) moment come from measuring the cross sections of @xmath40 or @xmath41 scattering in nearly forward direction .
the recent bound for the interaction involving the electron antineutrino is @xmath42 at the 90% confidence level @xcite , where @xmath43 is the bohr magneton ( @xmath44 is the electron mass , @xmath45 is its charge ) .
stronger bounds , @xmath46 , exist from astrophysical considerations , particularly from the study of red giant populations in globular clusters @xcite .
larger values of the transition moment would provide an additional cooling mechanism and change the red giant core mass at helium flash beyond what is observationally allowed .    even allowing for new inputs ( such as updated distances to globular clusters ) or refinements in the stellar models , it appears extremely unlikely that the red giant bound could be weakened by more than a factor of a few .
correspondingly , as a very conservative bound , we will take @xmath47 in the subsequent analysis .    from the theoretical point of view , the neutrino does possess a nonzero transition moment , already in the sm .
it is induced by loop effects : as the neutrino briefly dissociates into virtual charged particles ( @xmath48 and a charged lepton @xmath49 ) , those constituent particles couple to the photon . because the operator in eq .
( [ eq : lagr ] ) requires a helicity flip , and because in the sm the @xmath48 boson couples only to left - handed fields , the mass insertion has to be put on the neutrino line .
the resulting moment is proportional to the neutrino mass and hence is highly suppressed , @xmath50 . in possible extensions of the sm , however , this need not be the case , and the effect can be proportional to the mass of the charged lepton running in the loop .
for example , in the left - right symmetric model one obtains @xmath51 @xcite , where @xmath52 is the left - right mixing parameter in the model .
the cz of the sun is known to host significant magnetic fields , which manifest themselves in a variety of effects on the solar surface ( sunspots , flares , prominences , etc ) .
these fields are created and destroyed during each solar cycle by a combination of convective motions and differential rotation .
detailed understanding of the solar cycle is still an active subject of research .
nevertheless , the following general features of the cz fields are well established :    * the magnetic field observed in sunspots is several kg , exceeding the average surface field strength by three orders of magnitude .
sunspots usually come in pairs of opposite polarity and are thought to be manifestations of large - scale magnetic structures residing inside the cz . * the total toroidal flux in the cz at sunspot maximum can be estimated from the total flux that emerges on the surface during the solar cycle , which is around @xmath53 mx @xcite . since the same flux tube may be emerging more than once ,
@xmath54 mx has been argued to be the likely value @xcite . averaged over the cz , this gives a field of several kg .
* the turbulent equipartition value for the magnetic field at the base of the cz can be expressed in terms of the density @xmath55 , the solar luminosity @xmath56 , and the distance to the center of the sun @xmath57 : @xmath58 kg ( e.g. , @xcite ) .
* modern models of the cz fields argue that fields on the order of 100 kg may exist in the cz . for the present discussion ,
it is important to realize that such strong fields , if they exist , can occupy only a small fraction of the cz volume , such as the _ thin _ shear layer near the base of the cz ( ` tachocline ' ) , or be localized in isolated flux tubes @xcite .
to have even half of the cz filled with such strong fields would be contrary to the flux arguments mentioned above , as well as basic energetics considerations .    for an in - depth review of the cz fields and further references ,
the reader is urged to consult an excellent review @xcite . for the status of the present - day
simulation efforts see , e.g. , @xcite .      unlike the cz
, the rz has no internal motions to provide an active mechanism to generate magnetic fields . on the other hand ,
the conductivity of the rz plasma is very high , which opens up the possibility that the rz could support large - scale magnetic fields left over from the early stages of the solar evolution .
let us consider both of these points in turn .
the evidence for the lack of any large - scale mixing motions in the rz comes from several sources .
first , helioseismological studies show that , unlike the cz , the rz rotates as a solid body .
( this fact by itself , incidentally , provides a hint that at least a weak poloidal field is present in the rz @xcite ) .
second , solar model calculations show that the stratification ( entropy gradient ) in the rz interior is quite strong , precluding large radial motions .
finally , a very impressive direct confirmation of the lack of radial mixing is provided by the observed beryllium abundance at the solar surface @xcite .
be is destroyed at @xmath59 k , which is the temperature at @xmath60 , @xmath61 being the solar radius , @xmath62 km . since beryllium observed at the solar surface is not noticeably depleted relative to its primordial abundance ,
the material at @xmath63 ( on the bottom of the cz ) and the material at @xmath64 have not been mixed during the lifetime of the sun ( except for a brief period during the pre - main sequence convection stage ) .    while a large - scale magnetic field in the rz is not being presently generated , it is also not destroyed by ohmic decay over the solar lifetime , 4.7 billion years .
the ohmic decay time for large - scale field configurations is in the billions of years @xcite , in fact for the lowest toroidal mode it is about 24 billion years @xcite .
over time , a primordial rz field has been invoked by many authors to explain a variety of effects : from the solar neutrino problem @xcite to the so - called princeton solar oblateness measurements @xcite .
what is important for the present analysis is that the field in the rz , if it exists , must be ( i ) smooth and ( ii ) bounded in strength @xcite .
smoothness follows from the fact that , because of ohmic decay , any small - scale magnetic field ( @xmath65 ) features would have decayed away over the lifetime of the sun .
this ensures the adiabatic character of the neutrino evolution throughout the bulk of the cz .
the bounds on the field strength come from several independent arguments , such as the measurements of the solar oblateness and the stability analysis of field configurations .
it follows that the amplitude of the large scale toroidal field can not exceed @xmath66 mg @xcite .
combined with the bounds on the size of the neutrino transition moment , this limits the value of the magnetic term ( see below ) in the neutrino oscillation hamiltonian .
since flavor oscillations change the neutrino ( and antineutrino ) flavor and the magnetic interactions convert neutrinos into antineutrinos , the evolution of the neutrino state is , in general , governed by a @xmath67 hamiltonian matrix , with the neutrinos and antineutrinos of all three flavors . for the purpose of studying the spin flip in the rz
, the problem can be reduced to a @xmath68 case .
sector , solar neutrinos actually oscillate between @xmath69 and a certain superposition state of @xmath70 and @xmath71 . to stay with the tradition , we denote the latter state by @xmath70 ( and the corresponding superposition antineutrino state by @xmath72 ) . ] in the basis @xmath73 , the hamiltonian is @xcite @xmath74 where @xmath75 are the transverse components of the magnetic field and the @xmath14 submatrices are given by @xmath76 here @xmath77 , @xmath78 and @xmath79 .
@xmath80 is the neutrino mass - squared splitting , @xmath81 is its energy , and @xmath82 and @xmath83 are the electron and neutron number densities .
the physical reason for the @xmath84 reduction is that the large atmospheric neutrino splitting effectively decouples two of the six states in the case of the smooth magnetic field .
it should be noted , however , that the `` noisy '' field in the cz enables transitions between states separated by the large splitting .
consequently , in the cz one may need to consider the full six - neutrino problem @xcite .
historically , in discussions of spin - flavor precession ( sfp ) in the sun , special attention has been given to the  sfp resonance " region @xcite , defined as the region where two of the _ diagonal _ terms in the hamiltonian ( [ eq : h]-[eq : h3 ] ) , namely those corresponding to the @xmath85 and @xmath86 entries , become equal .
the corresponding resonance condition is @xmath87 compared to the traditional  flavor resonance " condition , defined as the equality of the @xmath85 and @xmath88 diagonal entries in ( [ eq : h]-[eq : h3 ] ) ) , @xmath89 condition ( [ eq : res_diag ] ) is satisfied at a somewhat higher density in the sun .
when the resonant sfp mechanism was introduced back in the late 1980 s , the values of the oscillation parameters were essentially unknown .
in contrast , nowadays the solar and kamland experiments have told us that @xmath90 ev@xmath91 and @xmath92 @xcite .
two implications of this have been recognized : ( i ) if the process of sfp operates in the sun , it must be combined with the  ordinary " flavor oscillations @xcite , and ( ii ) the sfp resonance condition , as given in eq .
( [ eq : res_diag ] ) , is satisfied for @xmath2b neutrinos in the rz .
-[eq : h3 ] ) for @xmath93 ev@xmath91 , @xmath94 mev .
the solid / dashed lines correspond to the neutrino / antineutrino entries.,scaledwidth=47.0% ]    the second point is illustrated in fig .
[ fig : levels_diag ] , where the four diagonal elements of the hamiltonian are plotted as a function of the distance from the solar center . here and later in this paper ,
the bp04 solar model @xcite is used .    in most of the recent studies of the rz spin - flip @xcite ,
the two processes , flavor oscillations and spin - flavor precession , are treated as occurring in spatially separated regions .
the resulting probability of @xmath1 conversion is then given as a product @xmath95    a notable exception is ref .
@xcite , where it is noted that the evolution in the case of the rz does not decouple into two separate problems .
the numerical conclusions presented in fig .  2 of that paper , however , are quite different from ours , as discussed later .
the above treatment relies on the notion of resonance , as given by eq .
( [ eq : res_diag ] ) .
fundamentally , this notion comes from the analysis of a two - level system , and even there it applies only in the limit of small mixing @xcite .
we wish to examine whether it can be applied to the four - level system at hand .
let us first briefly review the physics behind the standard small - angle msw effect @xcite .
suppose we are given a two - level neutrino system with a hamiltonian @xmath96 if @xmath97 , flavor oscillations are suppressed , as observed already in @xcite . indeed , the mixing angle is given by @xmath98 and the oscillation amplitude is proportional to @xmath99 .
the physical idea behind the resonance is that this suppression is lifted if the diagonal splitting becomes small in some region along the neutrino trajectory , as a result of the crossing of the levels .
suppose @xmath100 over a distance @xmath101 .
then , inside this interval , @xmath102 becomes _ the dominant part of the hamiltonian _ and hence drives oscillations .
if @xmath103 is sufficiently large , it may be possible to obtain large flavor conversion .
fits inside the interval @xmath103 .
this condition gives nothing but the usual adiabaticity parameter of the resonance @xcite . ]    with this in mind , let us return to the hamiltonian in eqs .
( [ eq : h]-[eq : h3 ] ) .
now , the electron neutrino state , in addition to being coupled to the @xmath72 state via the magnetic moment interaction , is also coupled to @xmath70 state via the flavor oscillation term .
a simple , but crucial observation is the following : for large values of the mixing angle , even if the diagonal @xmath85 and @xmath86 terms are equal , the hamiltonian is _ still not dominated _ by the off - diagonal magnetic terms @xmath104 , but by the off - diagonal flavor oscillation terms @xmath105 .
thus , there is no reason to expect that the condition in eq .
( [ eq : res_diag ] ) should automatically lead to large @xmath3 conversion .
this complication is , however , easily removed by going to a basis in which the large off - diagonal flavor oscillation terms are absent .
consequently , we diagonalize @xmath106 and @xmath107 given in eqs .
( [ eq : h2 ] ) and ( [ eq : h3 ] ) by performing separate flavor rotations on neutrinos and antineutrinos .
we find    @xmath108    in eq .
( [ eq : hmass ] ) , @xmath109 , @xmath110 , @xmath111 and @xmath112 are the eigenvalues of the oscillation hamiltonian ( [ eq : h]-[eq : h3 ] ) for vanishing magnetic field ,    @xmath113^{\frac{1}{2}},\\      \label{eq : deltamibar } \bar\delta_{mi } & = & -\frac{a_e + a_n}{2 }      \pm \left[\left(\delta\cos 2\theta+\frac{a_e - a_n}{2}\right)^2+\delta^2\sin^2      2\theta\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},\end{aligned}\ ] ]    while @xmath114 and @xmath115 are the rotation angles , @xmath116,\\      \tan 2\bar\theta   & = & \delta\sin 2\theta/[\delta\cos 2\theta+(a_e - a_n)/2 ] .
\label{eq : mixingangle}\end{aligned}\ ] ] the barred quantities refer to antineutrinos .
let us first discuss the general properties of these equations .
when the matter potentials are negligible , @xmath109 and @xmath111 both approach @xmath117 , while @xmath110 and @xmath112 both approach @xmath118 .
likewise , in the same limit the rotation angles @xmath114 and @xmath115 both approach the vacuum value @xmath119 . notice that in vacuum the structure of the off - diagonal magnetic interactions in the mass basis is the same as in the flavor basis .
this structure is that of an antisymmetric tensor , eq .  ( [ eq : h1 ] ) , which is invariant under an @xmath120 rotation applied to both indices .
more generally , this is a manifestation of the fact that the operator in ( [ eq : lagr ] ) can not convert a majorana neutrino state in vacuum into its own antiparticle , whether this state is a mass eigenstate or a flavor eigenstate . in sufficiently dense matter
, however , @xmath114 and @xmath115 are , in general , different , because the matter terms for neutrinos and antineutrinos have opposite signs .
thus , in matter , direct transitions between all four states become allowed . and
@xmath121 have opposite signs and hence tend to cancel .
the cancellation is incomplete if one of the channels is enhanced with respect to the other one by matter effects . ]    for the energies at which kamland is sensitive to solar antineutrinos , @xmath122 mev , the magnitude of @xmath123 is of order @xmath124 ev . by comparison ,
the value of the off - diagonal magnetic terms is at most of order @xmath125 mg @xmath126 ev , or at least an order of magnitude smaller .
this makes the analysis in the mass basis quite straightforward .
clearly , transitions between any two states with diagonal splitting of order @xmath127 ev will be suppressed .
conversions between a pair of states with smaller diagonal splitting may take place , provided that @xmath114 and @xmath115 are sufficiently different , _
i.e. _ , the matter potential is sufficiently large .    )
( top panel ) and the mixing angles @xmath114 and @xmath115 ( bottom panel ) for @xmath93 ev@xmath91 , @xmath128 , @xmath94 mev .
the solid / dashed lines correspond to the neutrino / antineutrino levels.,scaledwidth=47.0% ]    in the top panel of fig .
[ fig : eigen_mixing ] we show the diagonal elements of the hamiltonian eq .
( [ eq : hmass ] ) for the best - fit values of the oscillation parameters . obviously , their behavior is quite different from the diagonal elements in the flavor basis , plotted in fig .
[ fig : levels_diag ] . in particular , in fig .
[ fig : eigen_mixing ] there is no level crossing at @xmath129 . _ the mass eigenvalues do not intersect anywhere inside the sun . _    notice that the top two levels in fig .
[ fig : eigen_mixing ] get close to each other for @xmath130 .
the difference @xmath131 there is small , but non - zero , and _ a priori _ could drive a transition between these two levels .
the possibility of this transition requires a more detailed study .
the answer comes from considering the _ adiabaticity _ of the neutrino evolution .
consider an idealized problem : a neutrino mass eigenstate moving through a magnetic field which is adiabatically turned on and then turned off .
the neutrino will be partially converted into the corresponding antineutrino state _ while inside the field region _ , but upon exiting the region will revert back to being fully a neutrino .
this idealized description applies in our case : ( i ) at the production point in the core , for the best - fit kamland mass splitting @xmath132 ev@xmath91 , the diagonal splitting dominates , suppressing the effects of the magnetic field .
the neutrino is produced predominately in the heavy eigenstate ( the top line in the upper panel of fig .
[ fig : eigen_mixing ] ) .
( ii ) in the region @xmath133 , the magnetic term drives partial @xmath134 conversion ( transitions between the top two states in the top panel of fig .
[ fig : eigen_mixing ] ) .
( iii ) as the effects of the magnetic term are decreased ( mainly due to the alignment of @xmath114 and @xmath115 at smaller densities ) , the @xmath134 conversion is largely undone .
the adiabaticity through the bulk of the rz zone is ensured by the physics of the rz fields : as mentioned in sec .
[ sect : fields ] , any structures smaller than @xmath135 must have decayed away over the lifetime of the sun .
state as a function of the distance from the solar center ( in units of the solar radius ) , for @xmath93 ev@xmath91 , @xmath136 mev , @xmath137 , @xmath138 mg.,scaledwidth=47.0% ]    this behavior is illustrated in fig .
[ fig : evolution ] , which shows that the electron antineutrino fraction @xmath139 indeed first grows , but then decreases to unobservable levels , as the effect of the magnetic term decreases in the outer part of the rz .
the residual nonzero value of @xmath139 is due to the violation of adiabaticity near the top of the rz .    in summary , except in the limit of small mixing angle , eq .
( [ eq : res_diag ] ) is not the right condition for describing resonant neutrino - antineutrino conversion .
a correct physical criterion should be based on comparing the diagonal elements _ in the mass basis _
, not in the flavor basis .
this `` mass basis level - crossing '' would be indeed realized in the sun , had the value of the mixing angle been small .
for the large measured value of the mixing angle , however , the level - crossing is simply absent and the efficiency of the neutrino - antineutrino conversion is very low .
let us now derive the general analytical condition for having resonant neutrino - antineutrino conversion . referring to fig .
[ fig : eigen_mixing ] , we see that , _ a priori _ , either the two light levels or the two heavy levels could intersect .
the corresponding analytical conditions for these two possibilities are @xmath140 and @xmath141 where the indices `` 1 '' and  2 " refer to the light and heavy states respectively ( the  - " and  + " signs in eqs .
( [ eq : deltami],[eq : deltamibar ] ) ) .    written out explicitly , the above two conditions read    @xmath142^{\frac{1}{2 } }
-\left[\left(\sqrt{2}g_f n_e/2-\delta\cos 2\theta\right)^2+\delta^2\sin^2      2\theta\right]^{\frac{1}{2}},\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath7 is @xmath143 for the condition in eq .  ( [ eq : cond ] ) and @xmath144 for the condition in eq .
( [ eq : condm1 ] ) . since in the sun @xmath145
always , the above condition can be satisfied only for @xmath146 for @xmath147 and only for @xmath148 for @xmath149 . in other words , in the `` dark side ''
@xcite only the two light levels can intersect , while in the `` light side '' , as preferred by the data , only the two heavy levels can .        with this in mind , let us solve eq .
( [ eq : cond_a ] ) .
we find , in addition to the trivial vacuum solution , @xmath150 , a solution @xmath151 this is the desired general condition for having resonant antineutrino production in the solar magnetic field .
once again , for @xmath149 , it solves eq .
( [ eq : cond ] ) , while in the opposite case it solves eq .
( [ eq : condm1 ] ) .
( it is also worth reminding here that ( [ eq : cond_solution ] ) has been derived assuming the neutrino is a majorana particle . )
we indeed see that eq .
( [ eq : cond_solution ] ) and the conventionally used eq .
( [ eq : res_diag ] ) agree only for @xmath152 and are substantially different for large @xmath119 . in particular , as @xmath119 is increased beyond @xmath153 the level crossing as given by eq .
( [ eq : cond_solution ] ) disappears .
it can be said that there is a `` topological '' difference between the cases of small and large mixing and eq .
( [ eq : analyt_theta ] ) gives the angle at which the topology changes .
the ratio @xmath154 varies with the distance to the center of the sun .
correspondingly , the numerical value of @xmath155 for which the disappearance takes place varies with @xmath118 ( which controls the location in the sun where the level crossing could have happened ) . in the central region , @xmath156 , while for the outer regions @xmath157 .
the corresponding variation in @xmath155 is @xmath158    let us finally discuss when each of the level - crossings , ( [ eq : cond ] ) and ( [ eq : condm1 ] ) , can affect the neutrino evolution .
the answer depends on the probability of finding the initial electron neutrino in each of the two neutrino mass eigenstates .
this probability , in turn , depends on the flavor mixing angle at the production point .
if the matter potential @xmath159 dominates over the vacuum term @xmath160 , the mixing angle at production approaches @xmath161 and the neutrino is produced almost entirely in the heavy neutrino mass eigenstate . in the opposite limit , the neutrino is produced in the superposition of both mass eigenstates , with the probabilities @xmath162 and @xmath163 .
the rough boundary between these two regimes for the @xmath16410 mev @xmath2b neutrinos lies near @xmath165 ev@xmath91 : for smaller @xmath80 including the best - fit region of @xmath166 ev@xmath91 only the condition in eq .
( [ eq : cond ] ) matters , while in the opposite case both eq .
( [ eq : cond ] ) and eq .
( [ eq : condm1 ] ) do . for @xmath167 ev@xmath91
we can thus expect sizable antineutrino production both in the `` light '' and `` dark '' sides , while for @xmath168 ev@xmath91 the effect can happen only in the light side .      to confirm this analysis ,
we have carried out a numerical scan of the oscillation parameter space , in the range @xmath169 ev@xmath91 .
the calculation was carried out for the realistic numerical solar density and chemical composition profiles @xcite .
for the magnetic field profile , we have taken the lowest toroidal ohmic eigenmode , as described in @xcite and in detail in @xcite .
while higher eigenmodes could also be present , the choice of the lowest mode is expected to capture the essential physics : the field is axisymmetric , smooth , and vanishes at the rz / cz boundary .
the only free parameter describing the field in this case is the overall mode normalization .
we have performed scans for three different ( highly optimistic ) normalization values of the magnetic field , @xmath170 mg , also taking a highly optimistic value of the transition moment , @xmath171 .
the results of the scan are shown in fig .
[ fig : scan ] .
the three colored regions on the left side ( small mixing ) indicate the regions where the @xmath0 flux for the chosen normalization values of the magnetic field would exceed the kamland bound .
the corresponding regions in the  dark " side , @xmath147 , are also shown .
all the regions agree well with the analytical analysis of the previous subsection .
the figure also shows the allowed regions from the kamland analysis of their reactor antineutrino spectrum @xcite , as well as the region that gives a fit to the solar neutrino data ( unfilled contours ) .
the best - fit ( `` lma - i '' ) region lies at the intersection of the solar and kamland regions and , as can be clearly seen , has no overlap with the regions where the @xmath0 flux would be measurable . we note that a similar conclusion was reached in @xcite , using , however , an analytical criterion that differs from eq .
( [ eq : analyt_theta ] ) .
the relatively large @xmath0 flux cited in that work was obtained by assuming the field strength of 50 mg at the neutrino production point , which was only later shown to be not allowed @xcite .
compared to the case of the rz , the case of the cz requires a different treatment . the difference has to do with the turbulent nature of the cz magnetic fields .
below , for completeness , we briefly review the relevant physics .
the main idea is that random variations @xcite of the magnetic field on scales equal to , or smaller than , the neutrino oscillation length lessen the suppression of the oscillations by a large diagonal mass splitting . while the neutrino follows slow variations with scales longer than the oscillation length @xmath172 adiabatically , for shorter variations
the adiabaticity condition is violated .
the net result of the small - scale  noise " is that the neutrino state vector performs a
 random walk " in the oscillation space , gradually receding from its original position .    to be specific ,
consider a simple model in which the magnetic field changes on scales of @xmath173 .
the probability of spin flip upon traversing the first correlation cell , @xmath174 , is @xmath175 ( simple vacuum oscillation on scales smaller than the oscillation length ) .
since the fields in different @xmath174 intervals are uncorrelated , as the neutrino traverses many domains the probabilities , not amplitudes , add up .
for solar neutrinos , the experimental bound on @xmath0 flux implies @xmath176 .
so long as this is satisfied , the probability of spin flip after traveling the distance @xmath177 can be written as @xmath178 .    for slow variations with @xmath179 , as already mentioned ,
the evolution is adiabatic and the conversion probability is exponentially suppressed .
one can also imagine a case when the field domains are longer than @xmath180 , but have sharp boundaries .
in such a case , the conversion probability is @xmath181 we see that in any case the conversion is most efficient for @xmath182 , namely , @xmath183 .
let us apply this to solar neutrinos .
once again , we are interested in the high - energy @xmath2b neutrinos , as these are the neutrinos the kamland bound applies to .
these neutrinos are produced almost exclusively in the heavy mass eigenstate @xmath184 and then propagate adiabatically through the rz . in the cz , these neutrinos encounter turbulent magnetic fields and ,
if the transition moment is large , a small fraction of them gets converted into the light antineutrino mass eigenstate @xmath185 .
the net result is the flux of neutrinos in the heavy eigenstate with possibly a small admixture of the antineutrinos in the light mass eigenstate .
the light mass eigenstate , in turn , is detected as an electron antineutrino with probability @xmath186 .
the relevant field fluctuations are those on scales of @xmath187 mev@xmath188 ev@xmath189 km .
we will denote them by @xmath190 .
overall , we get @xmath191    the oscillation parameters are known , @xmath192 , @xmath193 .
the extent of the region of the strong random field can be estimated to be some fraction of the cz , say @xmath194 . finally , the main issue is to estimate the size of the amplitude of the small - scale noise @xmath190 .
unfortunately , the theory and simulation efforts are not yet at the level to give a robust prediction of @xmath190 ( see @xcite for the state of the art on the simulation front ) .
we will next consider two models for the magnetic field .
a physically sensible estimate can be obtained by assuming that ( i ) the field on the large scales is of the order of its turbulent equipartition value ; and ( ii ) that the small - scale noise follows some kind of a scaling law @xmath195 typical of turbulent systems .
such approach was adopted in @xcite and , in our opinion , is a clear improvement over naive models of delta - correlated noise .
the largest scale of the turbulence , at which energy pumping takes place , is estimated to be of order the typical pressure scale height in the cz . in the inner part of the cz , the pressure scale height is of order @xmath196 km @xcite .
this number can be estimated directly from the solar model @xcite , and is also consistent with the value of the mixing length @xmath197 km at the base of the cz given in @xcite .
although the corresponding large - scale eddies reside in the interior of the cz , they manifest themselves on the solar surface as _ supergranules _ ( @xmath198 km ) .
these should not be confused with surface granules ( @xmath199 km ) whose size is dictated by the scale height near the surface .
the turbulent equipartition value for the large scale turbulent fields near the bottom of the cz is estimated as @xmath200 kg @xcite .
putting the numbers together , we find    @xmath201    this means that , for this field model , even with the most optimistic values of the neutrino magnetic moment kamland will not have a chance to see antineutrinos from the cz spin flip unless its sensitivity is improved by as least one order of magnitude .
the estimate just given uses a simple model for the turbulent magnetic field .
it is possible that the field in the cz instead has a `` fibril '' nature @xcite , i.e. , is expelled by the turbulence and combines in isolated flux tubes .
it has been argued that the total energy of the cz ( thermal + gravitational + magnetic ) is reduced by the fibril state of the magnetic field by avoiding the magnetic inhibition of convection @xcite .
let us then consider a model in which the neutrinos travel through spatially separated flux bundles . the conversion probability in this case depends on the transverse size of a bundle .
given that a sunspot typically contains @xmath202 mx @xcite and assuming superequipartition field strength inside the bundle of @xmath203 kg , one finds the transverse size of the bundle that is actually close to optimal , @xmath204 km .
the thickness of the flux rope comes out to be close to the oscillation length for the @xmath2b neutrinos , a remarkable coincidence indeed ! since the total toroidal flux in the cz is estimated to be of the order of @xmath54 mx @xcite , a given neutrino encounters only several of such flux bundles .
the resulting conversion probability in the most optimistic case is then close to the kamland sensitivity bound , as can be easily checked .
we have shown that the large measured value of the flavor mixing angle _ qualitatively _ changes the treatment of the neutrino interaction with the magnetic field in the radiative zone of the sun .
the physics of the effect is most transparent in the basis of the mass eigenstates , rather than in the flavor basis .
we have shown that in the mass basis , for the allowed values of the oscillation parameters , there is no neutrino - antineutrino level crossing and , as a result , no measurable antineutrino production in the rz .
a correct level crossing condition , eq .
( [ eq : cond_solution ] ) , was derived , and a detailed numerical scan carried out to confirm this conclusion .
we emphasize that the recent determination of the neutrino oscillation parameters is crucial for reaching this conclusion : for small flavor mixing angle , it was possible to have large @xmath3 conversion even with magnetic fields an order of magnitude below the bound , @xmath205 mg @xcite . moreover , as seen in fig .
[ fig : scan ] , even a relatively minor shift of the best - fit point , from @xmath206 ev@xmath91 and @xmath207 to , _
e.g. _ , @xmath208 ev@xmath91 and @xmath209 , would have made the resonant antineutrino production possible .
the field of solar neutrinos has truly entered the precision measurement stage !
one may wonder if our analysis is completely self - consistent .
after all , the oscillation parameters we use are found assuming only the flavor oscillations and neglecting possible magnetic @xmath134 transitions .
this , however , is entirely justified , because the kamland bound on the @xmath0 flux ensures that the magnetic transitions can be present only at very small levels and thus can not affect the fit to the oscillation parameters .    in the convective zone ,
the solar neutrino propagate through turbulent magnetic fields .
our estimate of the probability of the spin - flavor flip in this case gives a rate that , at present , is likewise not observable .
this conclusion disagrees with earlier analyses .
the source of the disagreement is not in the treatment of the neutrino evolution , but in the treatment of the solar magnetic fields , which we believe were significantly overestimated in the earlier studies .
overall , our conclusion is that , despite achieving a clearly impressive level of sensitivity to @xmath0 from the sun , kamland has not yet reached the level where it would be placing a meaningful constraint on the neutrino transition moment and/or solar magnetic fields . on the other hand , kamland has reached the point where it may begin probing the `` optimistic '' scenario , @xmath210 .
clearly , further sensitivity improvements through accumulation of additional statistics is very desirable .
i owe special thanks to andrei gruzinov for countless  always very clear and helpful  discussions of the solar magnetic fields and plasma physics in general , to matthias rempel for a very helpful discussion and for pointing me to an excellent set of references , and to cecilia lunardini for many useful suggestions on the draft .
i also acknowledge stirling colgate for a useful discussion of the physics of the convective zone fields .
additionally , i benefited greatly from stimulating correspondence with evgeny akhmedov and timur rashba that followed the initial posting of the preprint of this paper .
this work was supported by the department of energy , under contract w-7405-eng-36 .
as described in sect .  [ sect : cz ] , simple physical arguments give the following estimates for the probability of spin - flavor flip in random magnetic fields : @xmath211 more generally , the probability of conversion is proportional to a fourier component of the field correlation function @xcite @xmath212 if @xmath213 is a slowly decaying function ( compared to @xmath214 ) with a vanishing slope for small @xmath215 , indicating no small - scale noise , for example @xmath216 $ ] , the resulting @xmath139 is exponentially small , as expected for adiabatic evolution .
the quantity of interest in the isotropic turbulence model is @xmath217 .
@xcite performed an estimate based on a simple kolmogorov turbulence . within this model ,
the effects of the magnetic field on the character of the turbulence are neglected and the simple kolmogorov scaling law for velocities is applied , @xmath218 , where @xmath219 is the energy dissipation rate per unit mass .
the field was assumed to scale with @xmath220 the same way as velocities , _
i.e. _ , @xmath221 .    more generally , if the magnetic energy becomes comparable to the kinetic energy of the fluid , the character of the turbulence changes ( see , e.g. , @xcite , pp .
138 - 142 ) .
the rate of energy transfer to small scales is decided by the interaction of alfvn waves in plasma .
recent investigations @xcite argue that in the presence of magnetic fields the turbulence becomes anisotropic in @xmath222 space ( see @xcite , appendix a , for a clear summary ) . while a detailed discussion of the latest models of magnetohydrodynamics turbulence is clearly beyond the scope of this work , the preceding example show that the exponent in the scaling law ( [ eq : bscaling ] ) is not known precisely .
the correlation function can then be parameterized as @xmath223 , yielding upon integration @xmath224 as expected on physical grounds .
s.  fukuda _ et al .
_ [ super - kamiokande collaboration ] , phys .  rev .  lett .   * 86 * , 5651 ( 2001 ) [ arxiv : hep - ex/0103032 ] ; s.  fukuda _ et al . _ [ super - kamiokande collaboration ] , phys .
lett .   * 86 * , 5656 ( 2001 ) [ arxiv : hep - ex/0103033 ] .
q.  r.  ahmad _ et al .
_ [ sno collaboration ] , phys .  rev .
lett .   * 87 * , 071301 ( 2001 ) [ arxiv : nucl - ex/0106015 ] .
q.  r.  ahmad _ et al .
_ [ sno collaboration ] , phys .  rev .
lett .   * 89 * , 011301 ( 2002 ) [ arxiv : nucl - ex/0204008 ] .
q.  r.  ahmad _ et al .
_ [ sno collaboration ] , phys .  rev .
lett .   *
89 * , 011302 ( 2002 ) [ arxiv : nucl - ex/0204009 ] .
m.  b.  smy [ super - kamiokande collaboration ] , nucl .
suppl .   * 118 * , 25 ( 2003 ) [ arxiv : hep - ex/0208004 ] .
y.  gando _ et al .
_ [ super - kamiokande collaboration ] , phys .  rev .
lett .   * 90 * , 171302 ( 2003 ) [ arxiv : hep - ex/0212067 ] .
s.  n.  ahmed _ et al . _
[ sno collaboration ] , phys .
lett .   * 92 * , 181301 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : nucl - ex/0309004 ] .
k.  eguchi _ et al . _
[ kamland collaboration ] , phys .
* 92 * , 071301 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : hep - ex/0310047 ] .
b.  aharmim _ et al . _
[ sno collaboration ] , phys .
d * 70 * , 093014 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : hep - ex/0407029 ] .
b.  aharmim _ et al . _
[ sno collaboration ] , arxiv : nucl - ex/0502021 .
t.  toshito [ super - kamiokande collaboration ] , arxiv : hep - ex/0105023 . y.  ashie _ et al . _
[ super - kamiokande collaboration ] , phys .
lett .   * 93 * , 101801 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : hep - ex/0404034 ] .
k.  eguchi _ et al . _
[ kamland collaboration ] , phys .
lett .   *
90 * , 021802 ( 2003 ) [ arxiv : hep - ex/0212021 ] .
t.  araki _ et al .
_ [ kamland collaboration ] , arxiv : hep - ex/0406035 .
n.  fornengo , m.  maltoni , r.  t.  bayo and j.  w.  f.  valle , phys .
d * 65 * , 013010 ( 2002 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0108043 ] .
m.  guzzo , p.  c.  de holanda , m.  maltoni , h.  nunokawa , m.  a.  tortola and j.  w.  f.  valle , nucl .
b * 629 * , 479 ( 2002 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0112310 ] .
a.  friedland , c.  lunardini and c.  pena - garay , phys .
b * 594 * , 347 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0402266 ] .
m.  m.  guzzo , p.  c.  de holanda and o.  l.  g.  peres , phys .
b * 591 * , 1 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0403134 ] .
m.  c.  gonzalez - garcia and m.  maltoni , phys .
d * 70 * , 033010 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0404085 ] .
o.  g.  miranda , m.  a.  tortola and j.  w.  f.  valle , arxiv : hep - ph/0406280 .
a.  friedland , c.  lunardini and m.  maltoni , phys .
d * 70 * , 111301 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0408264 ] .
a.  friedland and c.  lunardini , arxiv : hep - ph/0506143 , to appear in phys .
d. j.  f.  beacom and p.  vogel , phys .
* 83 * , 5222 ( 1999 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/9907383 ] .
e.  k.  akhmedov and j.  pulido , phys .
b * 553 * , 7 ( 2003 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0209192 ] .
a.  friedland and a.  gruzinov , astropart .
* 19 * , 575 ( 2003 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0202095 ] .
b.  c.  chauhan , j.  pulido and e.  torrente - lujan , phys .
d * 68 * , 033015 ( 2003 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0304297 ] .
o.  g.  miranda , t.  i.  rashba , a.  i.  rez and j.  w.  f.  valle , phys .
* 93 * , 051304 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0311014 ]
. o.  g.  miranda , t.  i.  rashba , a.  i.  rez and j.  w.  f.  valle , phys .
d * 70 * , 113002 ( 2004 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0406066 ] .
a.  b.  balantekin and c.  volpe , arxiv : hep - ph/0411148 .
a.  cisneros , astrophys .
space sci .
* 10 * , 87 ( 1971 ) .
m.  b.  voloshin and m.  i.  vysotsky , yadernaya  fizika  * 44 * , 845 ( 1986 ) [ sov .
j.  nucl .
phys .  * 44 * , 544 ( 1986 ) ] .
l.  b.  okun , yadernaya  fizika   * 44 * , 847 ( 1986 ) [ sov .  j.  nucl
.  phys .
* 44 * , 546 ( 1986 ) ] .
m.  b.  voloshin and m.  i.  vysotsky , l.  b.  okun , zh .
fiz . , 446 ( 1986 ) [ sov .
jetp*64 * , 446 ( 1986 ) ] .
e.  k.  akhmedov , phys .
b * 213 * , 64 ( 1988 ) . c.  lim and w.  marciano , phys .
d * 37 * , 1368 ( 1988 ) .
r.  s.  raghavan , a.  b.  balantekin , f.  loreti , a.  j.  baltz , s.  pakvasa and j.  pantaleone , phys .
d * 44 * , 3786 ( 1991 ) .
a.  b.  balantekin and f.  loreti , phys .
d * 45 * , 1059 ( 1992 ) ; p.  vogel and j.  f.  beacom , phys .
d * 60 * , 053003 ( 1999 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/9903554 ] ; e.  torrente - lujan , phys .
b * 494 * , 255 ( 2000 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/9911458 ] .
j.  schechter and j.  w.  valle , phys .
d * 24 * , 1883 ( 1981 ) [ erratum - ibid .
d * 25 * , 283 ( 1981 ) ] .
z.  daraktchieva _ et al . _
[ munu collaboration ] , phys .
b * 564 * , 190 ( 2003 ) [ arxiv : hep - ex/0304011 ] .
g.  g.  raffelt , phys .
lett .   * 64 * , 2856 ( 1990 ) ; g.  g.  raffelt , phys .
* 320 * , 319 ( 1999 ) .
j.  e.  kim , phys .
d * 14 * , 3000 ( 1976 ) .
a.  friedland , in the proceedings of _ frontiers in contemporary physics - ii _
, march 2001 , nashville , tn ; arxiv : hep - ph/0106042 . l.  wolfenstein , phys .
d * 17 * , 2369 ( 1978 ) .
s.  p.  mikheev and a.  y.  smirnov , sov .
j.  nucl .
phys .   * 42 * , 913 ( 1985 ) [ yad .
fiz .   * 42 * , 1441 ( 1985 ) ] .
e.  k.  akhmedov , zhurnal  eksperimentalnoy  i teoreticheskoy  fiziki   * 95 * , 1195 ( 1989 ) [ sov
.  phys .
jetp * 68 * , 690 ( 1989 ) ] a.  de gouvea , a.  friedland and h.  murayama , phys .
b * 490 * , 125 ( 2000 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0002064 ] .
a.  friedland , phys .
lett .   * 85 * , 936 ( 2000 ) [ arxiv : hep - ph/0002063 ] .
f.  n.  loreti and a.  b.  balantekin , phys .
d * 50 * , 4762 ( 1994 ) [ arxiv : nucl - th/9406003 ] .