in the standard model of particle physics , neutrinos are strictly massless .
any evidence for neutrino masses would , therefore , imply physics beyond the standard model .
even though the direct experimental determination of a neutrino mass is ( probably ) far beyond the current experimental reach , experiments have been able to obtain indirect , and recently very strong , evidence for neutrino masses , via neutrino oscillations .
the key evidence for neutrino oscillations comes from the angular dependent flux of atmospheric muon - type neutrinos measured at superkamiokande @xcite , combined with a large deviation of the muon - type to electron - type neutrino flux ratio from theoretical predictions .
this `` atmospheric neutrino puzzle '' is best solved by assuming that @xmath5 oscillates into @xmath6 and that the @xmath7 does not oscillate .
for a recent analysis of all the atmospheric neutrino data see @xcite .
on the other hand , measurements of the solar neutrino flux @xcite have always been plagued by a large suppression of the measured solar @xmath7 flux with respect to theoretical predictions @xcite .
again , this `` solar neutrino puzzle '' is best resolved by assuming that @xmath7 oscillates into a linear combination of the other flavour eigenstates @xcite ( for a more conservative analysis of the event rates and the inclusion of the `` dark side '' of the parameter space , see @xcite ) .
the most recent analysis of the solar neutrino data which includes the mixing of three active neutrino species can be found in @xcite .
neutrino oscillations were first hypothesised by bruno pontecorvo in the 1950 s @xcite .
the hypothesis of three flavour mixing was first raised by maki , nakagawa and sakata @xcite . in light of the solar neutrino puzzle
, wolfenstein @xcite and mikheyev and smirnov @xcite realized that neutrino
matter interactions could affect in very radical ways the survival probability of electron - type neutrinos which are produced in the solar core and detected at the earth ( msw effect ) .    since then , significant effort has been devoted to understanding the oscillation probabilities of electron - type neutrinos produced in the sun . for example , in @xcite the survival probability of solar electron - type neutrinos was discussed in the context of three - neutrino mixing including matter effects , and solutions to the solar neutrino puzzle in this context were studied ( for example , in @xcite ) .    in this paper ,
the understanding of solar neutrino oscillations is extend to the case of other active neutrino species ( @xmath5 , @xmath6 , and antineutrinos ) produced in the solar core . even though only electron - type neutrinos are produced by the nuclear reactions which take place in the sun s innards ,
it is well know that , in a number of dark matter models , dark matter particles can be trapped gravitationally inside the sun , and that the annihilation of these should yield a flux of high energy neutrinos ( @xmath8  gev ) of all species which may be detectable at the earth @xcite .
indeed , this is one of the goals of very large `` neutrino telescopes , '' such as amanda @xcite or baikal @xcite .
it is important to understand how neutrino oscillations will affect the expected event rates at these experiments .
the oscillation probability of all neutrino species has , of course , been studied in different contexts , such as in the case of neutrinos produced in the core of supernovae @xcite or in the case of neutrinos propagating in constant electron number densities @xcite .
the latter case has been receiving a considerable amount of attention from neutrino factory studies @xcite .
the case at hand ( gev solar neutrinos ) differs significantly from these mentioned above , in at least a few of the following : source - detector distance , electron number density average value and position dependency , energy average value and spectrum .
neutrino factory studies , for example , are interested in @xmath0(1000 )  km base - lines , @xmath0(10 )  gev electron - type and muon - type neutrinos produced via muon decay propagating in roughly constant , earth - like ( matter densities around 3 g/@xmath9 ) electron number densities .
the paper is organised as follows . in sec .  2 ,
the well known case of two - flavour oscillations is reviewed in some detail , while special attention will be paid to neutrinos produced inside the sun . in sec .
3 the same discussion is extended to the less familiar case of three - flavour oscillations .
again , special attention is paid to neutrinos produced in the sun s core . in sec .
4 the results presented in sec .  3
will be analysed numerically , and the three - neutrino multi - dimensional parameter space will be explored .
contains a summary of the results and the conclusions .
it is important to comment at this point that one of the big challenges of studying three - flavour oscillations is the multi - dimensional parameter space , composed of three mixing angles , two mass - squared differences , and one complex phase , plus the neutrino energy .
for this reason , the discussions presented here will take advantage of the current experimental situation to constrain the parameter space , and of the possibility of producing neutrinos of all species via dark matter annihilations to constrain the neutrino energies to the range from a few to tens of gev .
in this section , the well studied case of two - flavour oscillations will be reviewed @xcite .
this is done in order to present the formalism which will be later extended to the case of three - flavour oscillations and describe general properties of neutrino oscillations and of neutrinos produced in the sun s core .
neutrino oscillations take place because , similar to what happens in the quark sector , neutrino weak eigenstates are different from neutrino mass eigenstates .
the two sets are related by a unitary matrix , which is , in the case of two - flavour mixing , parametrised by one mixing angle @xmath10 .
@xmath11 where @xmath12 and @xmath13 are neutrino mass eigenstates with masses @xmath14 and @xmath15 , respectively , and @xmath16 is the flavour eigenstate orthogonal to @xmath7 .
all physically distinguishable situations can be obtained if @xmath17 and @xmath18 or @xmath19 and no constraint is imposed on the masses - squared .    in the case of oscillations in vacuum , it is trivial to compute the probability that a neutrino produced in a flavour state @xmath20 is detected as a neutrino of flavour @xmath21 , assuming that the neutrinos are ultrarelativistic and propagate with energy @xmath22 : @xmath23 here @xmath24 is the mass - squared difference between the two mass eigenstates and @xmath25 is the distance from the detector to the source .
it is trivial to note that @xmath26 since all @xmath27 are real and the theory is @xmath28-conserving . furthermore , note that @xmath10 is indistinguishable from @xmath29 ( or , equivalently , the sign of @xmath30 is not physical ) , and all physically distinguishable situations are obtained by allowing @xmath19 and choosing a fixed sign for @xmath30 .    in the case of nontrivial neutrino
medium interactions , the computation of @xmath31 can be rather involved . assuming that the neutrino  medium interactions can be expressed in terms of an effective potential for the neutrino propagation
, one has to solve @xmath32\left(\matrix{\nu_{1}(t ) \cr
\nu_{2}(t ) } \right),\ ] ] with the appropriate boundary conditions ( either a @xmath7 or a @xmath16 as the initial state , for example ) . in the ultrarelativistic limit
one may approximate @xmath33 , @xmath34 , and @xmath35 .
a very crucial assumption is that there is no kind of neutrino absorption due to the neutrino
medium interaction , _
i.e. , _ the @xmath36 hamiltonian for the neutrino system is hermitian .
it is interesting to argue what can be said about @xmath31 in very general terms .
first , the conservation of probability requires that @xmath37 second , given that the hamiltonian evolution is unitary , @xmath38 it is easy to show that the extra constraint @xmath39 is redundant .
( [ extra_constraint ] ) can be understood by the following `` intuitive '' argument : if the same amount of @xmath7 and @xmath16 is produced , independent of what happens to @xmath7 and @xmath16 during flight , the number of @xmath7 and @xmath16 detected in the end has to be the same . in light of the constraints
above , one can show that there is only one independent @xmath31 , which is normally chosen to be @xmath40 .
the others are given by @xmath41 and @xmath42 .
note that the equality @xmath43 is _ not _ a consequence of @xmath28-invariance , but a consequence of the unitarity of the hamiltonian evolution and particular only to the two - flavour oscillation case , as will be shown later .
it is well known @xcite that neutrino  sun interactions affect the oscillation probabilities of neutrinos produced in the sun s core in very nontrivial ways .
indeed , all but one solution to the solar neutrino puzzle rely heavily on neutrino  sun interactions @xcite .
the survival probability of electron - type solar neutrinos has been computed in many different approximations by a number of people over the years , and can be understood in very simple terms @xcite .    in the presence of electrons , the differential equation satisfied by the two neutrino system is , in the flavour basis , @xmath44 \left(\matrix{\nu_{e}(x ) \cr \nu_{x}(x ) } \right ) , \label{eq_2ns}\ ] ] where terms proportional to the @xmath36 identity matrix were neglected , since they play no role in the physics of neutrino oscillations .
@xmath45 is the charged current contribution to the @xmath7-@xmath46 forward scattering amplitude , @xmath47 is fermi s constant , and @xmath48 is the position dependent electron number density . in the case of the sun @xcite
( see also @xcite ) , @xmath49  ev@xmath50/gev , assuming an average core density of 79  g/@xmath9 , and @xmath51 falls roughly exponentially until close to the sun s edge .
it is safe to say that significantly far away from the sun s edge @xmath51 is zero .
a particularly simple way of understanding the propagation of electron - type neutrinos produced in the sun s core to the earth is to start with a @xmath7 state in the basis of the eigenstates of the hamiltonian evaluated at the production point , @xmath52 , where @xmath53 ( @xmath54 ) correspond to the highest ( lowest ) instantaneous hamiltonian eigenstate .
the matter mixing angle @xmath55 is given by @xmath56    the evolution of this initial state from the sun s core is described by an arbitrary unitary matrix until the neutrino reaches the sun s edge .
from this point on , one can rotate the state to the mass basis and follow the vacuum evolution of the state .
therefore , @xmath57 , where @xmath25 is is the distance from the sun s edge to some point far away from the sun ( for example , the earth ) , is @xmath58 where overall phases in the amplitude have been neglected .
the matrix parametrised by @xmath59 represents the evolution of the system from the sun s core to vacuum , and also rotates the state into the mass basis .
unitary matrix is @xmath60 , where @xmath61 and @xmath62 . in the case of neutrino oscillations , however , the physical quantities are @xmath63 and the phase of @xmath64 , and therefore @xmath65 can be ignored . ] expanding eq .
( [ peex ] ) , and assuming that there is no coherence in the sun s core between @xmath66 and @xmath67 , one arrives at the well known expression ( these have been first derived using a different language in @xcite and @xcite ) @xmath68 where @xmath69 is the phase of @xmath64 , @xmath70 is the `` level crossing probability '' , and @xmath71 is interpreted as the probability that the neutrino exits the sun as a @xmath12 .
( [ pee ] ) should be valid in all cases of interest , and contains a large amount of features . in the case of the solar neutrino puzzle , the neutrino energies of interest range between hundreds of kev to ten mev , and matter effects start to play a role for values of @xmath30 as high as @xmath72  ev@xmath50 . in the adiabatic limit ( @xmath73 ) very small values of @xmath40 are attainable when @xmath74 and @xmath75 is small . more generally , in this limit @xmath76 .
this is what happens for all solar neutrino energies in the case of the low solution , for solar neutrino energies above a few mev in the case of the lma solution , and for 400  kev  @xmath77  mev energies in the case of the sma solution . in the extremely nonadiabatic limit , which is reached when @xmath78 , @xmath79 and @xmath74 , the original vacuum oscillation expression is obtained , up to the `` matter phase '' @xmath69
this is generically what happens in the vac solution to the solar neutrino puzzle .
if the electron number density is in fact exponential , one can solve eq .
( [ eq_2ns ] ) exactly @xcite . for @xmath80 , where @xmath81 is the centre of the sun , @xmath82 @xcite where @xmath83 for @xmath84  km @xcite . in the case of the sun ,
the exponential profile approximation has been examined @xcite , and was shown to be very accurate , especially if one allows @xmath85 to vary as a function of @xmath86 .
the exact expression for @xmath69 has also been obtained @xcite , and the readers are referred to @xcite for details concerning physical implications of the matter phase .
its effects will not be discussed here any further .
antineutrinos that are produced in the sun s core obey a differential equation similar to eq .
( [ eq_2ns ] ) , except that the sign of the matter potential changes , _
i.e. _ @xmath87 , and @xmath88 ( this is immaterial since , in the two - flavour mixing case , all @xmath27 are real ) .    instead of working out the probability of an electron - type antineutrino
being detected as an electron - type antineutrino @xmath89 from scratch , there is a very simple way of relating it to @xmath40 .
one only has to note that , if the following transformation is applied to eq .
( [ eq_2ns ] ) : @xmath90 , subtract the matrix @xmath91 , where @xmath92 is the @xmath36 identity matrix and relabel @xmath93 , the equation of motion for antineutrinos is obtained .
, a similar result can be obtained if @xmath94 , explicitly @xmath95 . ] therefore , @xmath96 ( this was pointed out in @xcite ) .
remember that , in the case of vacuum oscillations , @xmath10 is physically equivalent to @xmath29 , so @xmath97 . in the more general case of nontrivial matter effects , this is clearly not the case , since the presence of matter ( or antimatter ) explicitly breaks @xmath2-invariance .
it is curious to note that , in the case of two - flavour oscillations , there is no @xmath28-noninvariance , _
i.e. , _ @xmath26 , while there is potentially large @xmath2 violation , _
i.e. , _ @xmath98 , even if the hamiltonian for the system is explicitly @xmath28-noninvariant and @xmath2-noninvariant , as is the case of the propagation of neutrinos produced in the sun ( namely @xmath99 is a generic function of time and @xmath99 for neutrinos is @xmath100 for antineutrinos ) .
currently , aside from the solar neutrino puzzle , there is an even more convincing evidence for neutrino oscillations , namely the suppression of the muon - type neutrino flux in atmospheric neutrino experiments @xcite .
this atmospheric neutrino puzzle is best solved by @xmath101 oscillations with a large mixing angle @xcite .
furthermore , the values of @xmath30 required to solve the atmospheric neutrino puzzle are at least one order of magnitude higher than the values required to solve the solar neutrino puzzle . for this reason , in order to solve both neutrino puzzles in terms of neutrino oscillations , three neutrino families are required .    in this section , the oscillations of three neutrino flavours will considered . in order to simplify the discussion , i will concentrate on neutrinos with energies ranging from a few to tens of gev , which is the energy range expected for neutrinos produced by the annihilation of dark matter particles which are possibly trapped inside the sun . furthermore , a number of experimentally inspired constraints on the neutrino oscillation parameter space will be imposed , as will become clear later .
similar to the two - flavour case , the `` mapping '' between the flavour eigenstates , @xmath7 , @xmath5 and @xmath6 and the mass eigenstates @xmath102 , @xmath103 with masses @xmath104 can be performed with a general @xmath105 unitary matrix , which is parametrised by three mixing angles ( @xmath106 , @xmath107 , and @xmath108 ) and a complex phase @xmath109 . in short hand notation @xmath110 where @xmath111 and @xmath103 .
the mns mixing matrix @xcite will be written , similar to the standard ckm quark mixing matrix @xcite , as @xmath112 where @xmath113 and @xmath114 for @xmath115 .
if the neutrinos are majorana particles , two extra phases should be added to the mns matrix , but , since they play no role in the physics of neutrino oscillations , they can be safely ignored .
all physically distinguishable situations can be obtained if one allows @xmath116 , all angles to vary between @xmath117 and @xmath118 and no restriction is imposed on the sign of the mass - squared differences , @xmath119 .
note that there are only two independent mass - squared differences , which are chosen here to be @xmath120 and @xmath121 .
all experimental evidence from solar , atmospheric , and reactor neutrino experiments @xcite can be satisfied , somewhat conservatively , by assuming @xcite : @xmath72  ev@xmath122 , @xmath123  ev@xmath124 , while @xmath107 is mostly unconstrained .
there is presently no information on @xmath109 . in determining these bounds
, it was explicitly assumed that only three active neutrinos exist .
a few comments about the constraints imposed above are in order .
first , one may complain that @xmath107 is more constrained than mentioned above by the solar neutrino data .
the situation is far from definitive , however .
as pointed out recently in @xcite if the uncertainty on the @xmath125b neutrino flux is inflated or if some of the experimental data is not considered ( especially the homestake data @xcite ) in the fit , a much larger range of @xmath120 and @xmath107 is allowed .
furthermore , if three - flavour mixing is considered @xcite , different regions in the parameter space @xmath120-@xmath126 are allowed for different values of @xmath127 , even if @xmath127 is constrained to be small .
second , the limit from the chooz and palo verde reactor experiments @xcite do not constrain @xmath127 for @xmath128  ev@xmath50 . furthermore , their constraints are to @xmath129 , so values of @xmath127 close to one should also be allowed . however , the constraints from the atmospheric neutrino data require @xmath130 to be close to one .
this is easy to understand . assuming that @xmath131 is much larger than the earth s diameter and that @xmath132 , @xmath133 according to upcoming eq .
( [ p3vac ] ) .
almost maximal mixing implies that @xmath134 . with the further constraint from @xmath135 , namely @xmath136 ,
one concludes that @xmath137 and @xmath138 .    in the case of oscillations in vacuum , it is straight forward to compute the oscillation probabilities @xmath31 of detecting a flavour @xmath21 given that a flavour @xmath20 was produced .
@xmath139 the three different oscillation lengths , @xmath140 , are numerically given by @xmath141 which are to be compared to the earth - sun distance ( 1 a.u.@xmath142  km ) . in the energy range of interest , 1  gev@xmath143  gev and given the experimental constraints on the parameter space described above , it is easy to see that @xmath144 and @xmath145 are much smaller than 1 a.u . , and that its effects should `` wash out '' due to any realistic neutrino energy spectrum , detector energy resolution , or other `` physical '' effects .
such terms will therefore be neglected henceforth .
in contrast , @xmath146 maybe as large as ( and maybe even much larger than ! ) the earth - sun distance . note that a nonzero phase @xmath109 implies @xmath28-violation , _
i.e. , _ @xmath147 , unless @xmath148  a.u .. this will be discussed in more detail later .    in the presence of neutrino
medium interactions , the situation is , in general , more complicated ( indeed , much more ! ) . similar to the two - neutrino case , it is important to discuss what is known about the oscillation probabilities . from the conservation of probability one has @xmath149 and , similar to the two - neutrino case , unitarity of the hamiltonian evolution implies @xmath150 a third equation of this kind , @xmath151 , is redundant . as before , eqs .
( [ const3 ] ) can be understood by arguing that , if equal numbers of all neutrino species are produced , the number of @xmath152 s to be detected should be the same , regardless of @xmath21 , simply because the neutrino propagation is governed by a unitary operator .
one may therefore express all @xmath31 in terms of only four quantities . here , these are chosen to be @xmath40 , @xmath153 , @xmath3 , and @xmath4 . the others are given by @xmath154 note that , in general , @xmath1 .
the propagation of neutrinos in the sun s core can , similar to the two - neutrino case , be described by the differential equation @xmath155 where @xmath156 is the kronecker delta symbol .
terms proportional to the identity @xmath157 are neglected because they play no role in the physics of neutrino oscillations .
the matter induced potential @xmath51 is given by eq.([a(x ) ] ) .
as in the two - neutrino case , it is useful to first discuss the initial states @xmath158 in the sun s core , and to express them in the basis of instantaneous hamiltonian eigenstates , which will be referred to as @xmath53 , @xmath159 , and @xmath54 ( @xmath160  high , @xmath161=  medium , and @xmath162=  low ) . therefore @xmath163 . as
before ( see eq .  [ peex ] ) , the probability of detecting this initial state as a @xmath21-type neutrino far away from the sun ( _ e.g. , _ at the earth ) is given by @xmath164 where @xmath165 is an arbitrary @xmath105 unitary matrix which takes care of propagating the initial state until the edge of the sun and rotating the state into the mass basis .    in order to proceed ,
it is useful take advantage of the constraints on the neutrino parameter space and the energy range of interest .
note that @xmath166 ( remember that the energy range of interest is 1  gev@xmath143  gev and that @xmath167  ev@xmath50/gev ) .
it has been shown explicitly @xcite , assuming the neutrino mass - squared hierarchy to be @xmath168 , that , if the mass - squared differences are very hierarchical ( @xmath169 '' system and then with the matter effects in the `` @xmath170 '' system .
one way of understanding why this is the case is to realize that the `` resonance point '' corresponding to the @xmath121 is very far away from the resonance point corresponding to @xmath120 . with this in mind , it is fair to approximate ( this is similar to what is done , for example , in @xcite ) @xmath171 where @xmath172 , @xmath173 .
the superscripts @xmath174 , @xmath162 correspond to the `` high '' and the `` low '' resonances , respectively .
it also possible to obtain an approximate expression for the initial states in the sun s core .
following the result outline above , this state should be described by two matter angles , @xmath175 and @xmath176 , corresponding to each of the two - level systems . both should be given by eq .
( [ cos2tm ] ) , where , in the case of @xmath177 , @xmath10 is to be replaced by @xmath108 and @xmath178 by @xmath121 , while in the case of @xmath179 , @xmath10 is to be replaced by @xmath107 , @xmath30 by @xmath120 and @xmath180 is to be replaced by @xmath181 @xcite .
furthermore , because @xmath182 , @xmath179 can be safely replaced by -1 ( remember that @xmath183 ) . within these approximations
, in the sun s core , @xmath184 the accuracy of this approximation has been tested numerically in the range of parameters of interest , and the difference between the `` exact '' result and the approximate result presented in eq .
( [ inistate3 ] ) is negligible .    keeping all this in mind
, it is straight forward to compute all oscillation probabilities , starting from eq .
( [ palphabetax ] ) . from here on ,
@xmath185 ( no @xmath28-violating phase in the mixing matrix , such that all @xmath27 are real ) will be assumed , in order to simplify expressions and render the results cleaner . in the end of the day one
obtains @xmath186 where @xmath187 is the matter phase , induced in the low resonance , and @xmath188 and @xmath189 , which can also be written as @xmath190 .
this is to be compared with the expression for @xmath191 obtained in the two - flavour case .
note that @xmath192 .
the effect of @xmath187 will not be discussed here and from here on @xmath187 will be set to zero . for details about the significance of @xmath187 for solar neutrinos in the two - flavour case , readers are referred to @xcite .
many comments are in order .
first , in the nonadiabatic limit which can be obtained for very large energies , @xmath193 , @xmath194 and @xmath195 .
it is trivial to check that in this limit @xmath196 , @xmath197 , @xmath198 , and the vacuum oscillation result is reproduced , up to the matter induced phase @xmath187 .
second , @xmath40 can be written as @xmath199 where @xmath200 is the two - neutrino result obtained in the previous section ( see eq .
( [ pee ] ) ) in the limit @xmath74 .
it is easy to check that eq .
( [ pee ] ) would be exactly reproduced ( with @xmath201 replaced by @xmath176 , of course ) if the @xmath202 approximation were dropped .    for solar neutrino energies ( 100  kev@xmath203  mev ) ,
@xmath204 , @xmath205 and therefore @xmath206 , reproducing correctly the result of the survival probability of electron - type solar neutrinos in a three - flavour oscillation scenario ( see @xcite and references therein ) . in this scenario
there is no `` @xmath207 '' resonance inside the sun , because @xmath208 for solar neutrino energies .    on the other hand , in the case @xmath205 and @xmath195 , @xmath209 and electron - type neutrinos exit the sun as a pure @xmath210 mass eigenstate , and do not undergo vacuum oscillations even if @xmath120 is very small .
in contrast , @xmath5 and @xmath6 always undergo vacuum oscillations if @xmath120 is small enough .
the reason for this is simple .
the generic feature of matter effects is to `` push '' @xmath7 into the heavy mass eigenstate , while @xmath5 and @xmath6 are `` pushed '' into the light mass eigenstates .
this situation is changed by nonadiabatic effects , as argued above .
finally , it is important to note that all equations obtained are also valid in the case of inverted hierarchies ( @xmath211 or @xmath212 ) .
this has been discussed in detail in the two - neutrino oscillation case @xcite , and is also applicable here .
it is worthwhile to point out that , in the approximation @xmath213 the transformation @xmath214 can be reproduced by transforming @xmath215 , @xmath216 and redefining the sign of @xmath6 .
therefore , one is in principle allowed to fix the sign of @xmath120 as long as @xmath106 is allowed to vary between @xmath117 and @xmath217 .    in the case of inverted hierarchies (
especially when @xmath218 ) one expects to see no `` level crossing '' ( indeed , matter effects tend to increase the distance between the `` energy '' levels in this case ) , but matter effects are still present , because the initial state in the sun s core can be nontrivial ( _ i.e. _ , @xmath219 ) .
note that @xmath7 is still `` pushed '' towards @xmath67 , even in the case of inverted hierarchies , and the expressions for the matter mixing angles eq .
( [ cos2tm ] ) , and the initial states inside the sun eq .
( [ inistate3 ] ) are still valid .
the consequence of no `` level crossing '' is that the adiabatic limit does not connect , for example , @xmath220 but @xmath221 ( or @xmath12 , depending on the sign of @xmath120 ) .
this information is in fact contained in the equations above .
the crucial feature is that , for example , when @xmath218 , @xmath222 in the `` adiabatic limit , '' and the matrix @xmath165 correctly `` connects '' @xmath221 ( or @xmath12 ) !
another curious feature is that , in the limit @xmath223 , @xmath224 , @xmath222 and eq .
( [ pee3 ] ) correctly reproduces the survival probability of electron - type solar neutrinos in the three - flavour oscillation case .
note that on this case the sign of @xmath121 does not play any role , as expected . on the other hand ,
it is still true that @xmath225 in the extreme nonadiabatic limit , and vacuum oscillation results are reproduced , as expected .
again , in this limit , one is not sensitive to the sign of @xmath121 , as expected .      as in the two - neutrino case , the difference between neutrinos and antineutrinos is that the equivalent of eq .
( [ eq_3nus ] ) for antineutrinos can be obtained by changing @xmath226 and @xmath227 . unlike the two - flavour case
, however , there is no set of variable transformations that allows one to exactly relate the differential equation for the neutrino and antineutrino systems .
one should , however , note that if the signs of both @xmath30 are changed and @xmath227 , the neutrino equation turns into the antineutrino equation , up to an overall sign .
this means , for example , that the instantaneous eigenvalues of the antineutrino hamiltonian can be read from the eigenvalues of the neutrino hamiltonian with @xmath228 , @xmath227 plus an overall sign .
when it comes to computing @xmath229 this global sign difference is not relevant , and therefore @xmath230 .
this section contains the compilation and discussion of a number of results concerning the oscillation of gev neutrinos of all species produced in the sun s core .
the goal here is to explore the multidimensional parameter space spanned by @xmath120 , @xmath121 , @xmath126 , @xmath231 , and @xmath127 ( and @xmath22 ) .
it will be assumed throughout that the electron number density profile of the sun is exponential , so that eq .
( [ pc ] ) can be used . as mentioned before
, the numerical accuracy of this approximation is quite good , and certainly good enough for the purposes of this paper .
therefore , both @xmath232 and @xmath233 which appear in eq .
( [ pall3 ] ) will be given by eqs .
( [ pc ] , [ gamma ] ) , with @xmath234 , @xmath235 in the former , and @xmath236 , @xmath237 in the latter .    when computing @xmath31 , an averaging over `` seasons '' is performed , which `` washes out '' the effect of very small oscillation wavelengths .
furthermore , integration over neutrino energy distributions is performed .
finally , all @xmath31 to be computed should be understood as the value of @xmath31 in the earth s surface , _
i.e. , _ earth matter effects are not included .
this is done in order to make the sun matter effects in the evaluation of @xmath31 more clear .
it should be stressed that earth matter effects may play a significant role for particular regions of the parameter space , but the discussion of such effects will be left for another opportunity .
because the parameter space to be explored is multidimensional , it is necessary to make two - dimensional projections of it , such that `` illustrative '' points are required .
the following points in the parameter space are chosen , all inspired by the current experimental situation :    @xmath238    atm : @xmath239  ev@xmath50 , @xmath240 , and @xmath241 ,    lma : @xmath242  ev@xmath50 , @xmath243 ,    sma : @xmath244  ev@xmath50 , @xmath245 ,    low : @xmath246  ev@xmath50 , @xmath247 ,    vac : @xmath248  ev@xmath50 , @xmath249 .
atm corresponds to the best fit point of the solution to the atmospheric neutrino puzzle @xcite , and a value of @xmath241 which is consistent with all the experimental bounds . note that some `` subset '' of atm will always be assumed ( for example
, @xmath231 is fixed while exploring the ( @xmath250)- plane ) . for each analysis
, it will be clear what are the `` variables '' and what quantities are held fixed at their `` preferred point '' values .
all other points refer to sample points in the regions which best solve the solar neutrino puzzle @xcite , and the notation should be obvious
. initially a flat neutrino energy distribution with @xmath251  gev and @xmath252  gev is considered ( for concreteness ) , and the case of higher average energies is briefly discussed later .
if neutrinos were produced and propagated exclusively in vacuum , the oscillation probabilities would be given by eq .
( [ p3vac ] )
. this would be the case of neutrinos produced in the sun s core if either the electron number density were much smaller than its real value or if very low energy neutrinos were being considered .
nonetheless , it is still useful to digress some on the `` would be '' vacuum oscillation probabilities in order to understand better the matter effects .    in the case of pure vacuum oscillations , it is trivial to check that @xmath26 ( remember that the mns matrix phase @xmath109 has been set to zero ) , and therefore all @xmath31 can be parametrised by three quantities , namely @xmath253 , @xmath111 .
it is easy to show that @xmath254 from eq .
( [ p3vac ] ) @xmath255 note that there is no dependency on @xmath121 .
particularly simple limits can be reached when @xmath146 is either very small or very large compared with the earth - sun distance . in both limits @xmath253 is independent of @xmath120 and , in the latter case , @xmath253 depends only on @xmath256 .
[ dm21_vacuum ] depicts constant @xmath31 contours in the ( @xmath257)-plane , at atm .
remember that , here , @xmath153 is not an independent quantity but is a linear combination of all @xmath253 .
note that @xmath40 is symmetric for @xmath215 , and that @xmath258 when @xmath215 .
the latter property is a consequence of @xmath259 .
also , in the case of @xmath40 , the @xmath260 coincides with the @xmath261 limit for any @xmath146 ( this is because either @xmath262 or @xmath263 go to zero ) .
this is not true of @xmath3 or @xmath4 unless @xmath264 . another important consequence of @xmath148  a.u .
is that @xmath28-violating effects are absent , even if @xmath109 is nonzero .
this can be seen by looking at the second expression in eq .
( [ p3vac_aa ] ) , which is a function only of @xmath265 in the limit @xmath260 .
[ t ]    finally , one should note that oscillatory effects are maximal for @xmath266  ev@xmath50 . in this region @xmath267 , and the largest suppression to all @xmath253
is obtained when @xmath268 is maximum .
for example , @xmath40 is smallest when @xmath269 , since @xmath270 .
there are no `` localised '' maxima for @xmath253 because @xmath268 is positive definite .
when matter effects are `` turned on , '' the situation can be dramatically different .
this is especially true in the case of normal neutrino mass hierarchies ( @xmath271 ) , which will be discussed first .
the first effect one should observe is that , even though @xmath272  a.u .
, @xmath31 depend rather nontrivially on @xmath121 .
this dependency comes from the terms @xmath273 and @xmath274 in eq .
( [ pall3 ] ) .
remember that @xmath273 is interpreted as the probability that a @xmath7 produced in the sun s core exits the sun as a @xmath210 mass eigenstate .
when matter effects are negligible ( such as in the limit of small neutrino energies ) @xmath275 , its `` vacuum limit . ''
[ p3h ] depicts constant @xmath273 contours in the ( @xmath276)-plane .
[ t ]    note that , for @xmath277  ev@xmath50/gev , @xmath209 , even for small values of @xmath127 . in this region ,
@xmath7 s produced in the sun s core exit the sun as pure @xmath210 s .
therefore , @xmath278 . because of unitarity in the propagation , @xmath5 s and @xmath6 s exit the sun as linear combinations of the light mass eigenstates , and may not only undergo vacuum oscillations but are also susceptible to further matter effects ( dictated by the `` @xmath170 '' system , as described in sec .  3 ) .
for future reference , at atm , @xmath279 when averaged over the energy range mentioned in the beginning of this section .    as @xmath280 decreases ( as is the case for higher energy neutrinos ) the nonadiabaticity of the `` @xmath281 '' system starts to become relevant , and @xmath275 , as argued in sec
.  3.2 . a hint of this behaviour
can already be seen in fig .
[ p3h ] , for small values of @xmath280 .
the information due to the `` @xmath170 '' matter effect is encoded in @xmath233 , present in eq .
( [ pall3 ] ) .
[ 1-pcl ] depicts contours of constant @xmath282 in the ( @xmath283)-plane .
one should note that @xmath282 reaches its extreme nonadiabatic limit , @xmath126 , when @xmath284  ev@xmath50/gev .
for @xmath285  ev@xmath50/gev , matter effects increase the value of @xmath282 .
[ t ]    one can use the intuition from the two - flavour solution to the solar neutrino puzzle to better appreciate the results presented here . in the case of the solutions to the solar neutrino puzzle
, the energies of interest range from 100  kev to 10  mev , and large matter effects happen around @xmath286  ev@xmath50 .
furthermore , at @xmath287  ev@xmath50 one encounters the `` just - so '' solution , which is characterised by very long wave - length vacuum oscillations .
rescaling to @xmath0(gev ) energies , the equivalent of the `` just - so '' solution happens for @xmath288  ev@xmath50 , while large matter effects would be present at @xmath289  ev@xmath50 .
indeed , one observes large matter effects for @xmath290  ev@xmath50 .
@xmath291  ev@xmath50 corresponds to the region between the low and vac solutions , where matter effects distort @xmath31 from its pure vacuum value , but no dramatic suppression or enhancement takes place .
incidently , this behaviour has physical consequences in the solution to the solar neutrino problem , as was first pointed out in @xcite .    figs .
[ dm31_ssxi_lma ] and [ dm31_ssxi_low ] depict contours of constant @xmath253 and @xmath153 in the ( @xmath250)-plane . as expected , in the region where @xmath292 , @xmath40 and @xmath153 do not depend on @xmath120 or @xmath126 , namely @xmath293 and @xmath294 .
remember that the results depicted in figs .
[ dm31_ssxi_lma ] and [ dm31_ssxi_low ] ( and all other plots from here on ) are for an energy band from 1 to 5  gev . on the other hand , @xmath3 and @xmath4
do depend on the point ( lma , sma , etc ) , even for @xmath292 , as foreseen .
this dependence will be discussed in what follows .
[ pt ]    [ pt ]    in the limit @xmath295 , @xmath240 @xmath296 and @xmath297 at both lma and sma , the oscillatory term averages out to zero , while at vac @xmath298 .
it is only at low that the oscillatory term is nontrivial , as was mentioned in the analogy between the situation at hand and the solutions to the solar neutrino puzzle .
furthermore , at sma , @xmath282 is tiny ( see fig .  [ 1-pcl ] ) , so it is fair to approximate @xmath299 , in agreement with fig .
[ dm31_ssxi_lma](bottom ) . at lma , it is fair to approximate @xmath264 . in this limit , @xmath300 , while @xmath301 . therefore , because @xmath302 , @xmath3 is significantly less than @xmath4 , since @xmath303 is nonnegligible .
roughly , @xmath304 and @xmath305 , using the approximations above .
again , there is agreement with fig .
[ dm31_ssxi_lma](top ) .    in order to understand the behaviour at low and vac
, one should take advantage of the fact that @xmath306 . in this case
, it proves more advantageous to use the second form of eq .
( [ pall3 ] ) in order to express all @xmath31 @xmath307 where @xmath308 are the oscillatory terms .
when @xmath148
a.u . , the oscillatory terms are zero , and @xmath31 are particularly simple .
note that on this limit many simplifications happen : @xmath31 is independent of @xmath107 and @xmath120 , and @xmath309 if @xmath310 , as can be observed in fig .  [
dm31_ssxi_low](bottom ) .
a very important fact is that , when the oscillatory terms are neglected , @xmath311 , as one may easily verify directly . as argued before , when this condition is satisfied , @xmath26 .
this is not the case in the presence of nonnegligible oscillation effects or when @xmath312 .
both statements are trivial to verify directly .
for example , @xmath313\ ] ] while @xmath314,\ ] ] so @xmath315 .    figs .
[ sst_lma ] and [ sst_low ] depict @xmath31 as a function of @xmath231 at lma and sma , and at low and vac , respectively . in these figures ,
all @xmath31 are plotted , in order to illustrate that @xmath316 at lma , sma and vac .
note that at lma and sma , the difference comes from the fact that @xmath317 _ and _ @xmath318 . at low , @xmath319 , but @xmath317 _ and _
nontrivial oscillatory terms render @xmath1 . at vac , even though @xmath317 , @xmath26 because @xmath320 _ and _ because `` 1 - 2 '' oscillations do nt have `` time '' to happen .
[ pt ]    [ pt ]    from eqs .
( [ 1-pcl = sso ] ) one can roughly understand the dependency of @xmath31 on @xmath231 .
obviously @xmath40 does not depend on @xmath106 ( by the very form of the mns matrix , eq .
( [ mnsmatrix ] ) ) , while @xmath153 ( @xmath321 ) depends almost exclusively on @xmath231 ( @xmath322 ) .
this is guaranteed by the fact that @xmath323 even at lma and low , when one expects the interference terms to play a significant role .
it is also worthwhile to note that , as expected , at vac and sma the curves are very similar , a behaviour that can be understood from earlier discussions .
finally , fig .
[ dm21_std ] depicts constant @xmath31 contours in the ( @xmath257)-plane , at atm . in light of the previous discussions , the shapes and forms
can be readily understood .
first note that the shapes of the constant @xmath40 and @xmath153 regions resemble those of the pure vacuum oscillations depicted in fig .
[ dm21_vacuum ] , with two important differences .
first , the constant values of the contours are quite different .
for example , @xmath40 varies from a few percent to less then 15% , while in the case of pure vacuum oscillations , @xmath40 varies from 30% to 100% .
this can be roughly understood numerically by noting that @xmath324 ( remember that @xmath325 when averaged over the energy range of interest ) .
second , at high @xmath120 , the regions are distorted .
this is due to nontrivial matter effects in the `` @xmath170 '' system .
note that the contours follow the constant @xmath282 curves depicted in fig .
[ 1-pcl ] .
[ t ]    the @xmath3 and @xmath4 contours are a lot less familiar , and require some more discussion .
many features are rather prominent . for example , the plane is roughly divided into a @xmath326 and @xmath327 structure , and large ( small ) values of @xmath3 ( @xmath4 ) are constrained to the @xmath326 half , and vice - versa .
also , there is a rough @xmath328 symmetry in the picture , which was present in the pure vacuum case ( see fig .  [ dm21_vacuum ] ) .
this symmetry is absent for large values of @xmath120 , similar to what happens in the case of @xmath40 , and is due , as mentioned in the previous paragraph , to the fact that @xmath233 is significantly different from @xmath329 in this region .
the other features are also fairly simple to understand , and are all due to fact that @xmath330 .
it is convenient to start the discussion in the limit when @xmath331  a.u .
( the very small @xmath120 region ) . as was noted before , @xmath31
are given by eq .
( [ 1-pcl = sso ] ) where the osc@xmath332 terms vanish .
it is therefore easy to see that @xmath31 do not depend on @xmath107 or @xmath120 ( as mentioned before ) , and furthermore it is trivial to compute the value of @xmath31 given that we are at atm and that @xmath333 .
the next curious feature is that there is a `` band '' around @xmath334 where @xmath335 .
the same is true of @xmath4 .
this is due to the fact that , around @xmath336 , @xmath337 and @xmath338 vanish when @xmath273 is large . in the limit
@xmath295 one can use eq.([amubmu ] ) and note that indeed both @xmath337 and @xmath338 vanish at @xmath339 .
however , for values of @xmath340  ev@xmath50 @xmath319 , which explains the band around @xmath341 .
slight distortions are due to the fact that @xmath342 , and are easily computed from the exact expressions .    again in the limit @xmath295 , @xmath320 , the coefficient of the @xmath343 term eq .
( [ pmmtt ] ) is @xmath344 if @xmath127 terms are neglected .
the @xmath345 signs are for @xmath3 while the @xmath346 signs for @xmath4 .
it is trivial to verify numerically ( if a little tedious ) that the @xmath3 term has a maximum at @xmath347 and a minimum at @xmath348 .
for @xmath4 the maximum ( minimum ) is at @xmath349 .
it is important to comment that the minima are negative numbers . on the other hand , from fig .
[ dm21_vacuum ] ( as mentioned before ) it is easy to see that @xmath343 is minimum for @xmath266  ev@xmath50 ( this is where all @xmath253 are maximally suppressed in fig .
[ dm21_vacuum ] ) . combining both informations ,
it is simple to understand the maxima / minima of @xmath3 and @xmath4 at @xmath266  ev@xmath50 : minima occur when the coefficient is maximum ( _ e.g. , _ at @xmath347 for @xmath3 ) while maxima occur when the coefficient is minimum ( _ e.g. , _ at @xmath348 for @xmath3 ) .
a description of what has happened is the following : the matter effects `` compress '' the constant @xmath3 ( @xmath4 ) contours from the pure vacuum oscillation case ( presented in fig .
[ dm21_vacuum ] ) to the @xmath350 ( @xmath351 ) half of the plane , and a new region `` appears '' on the other half .
this other region is characterised by negative values to the coefficients of the oscillatory terms , which are not attainable in the case of pure vacuum oscillations ( see eq .  ( [ p3vac_aa ] ) ) .    at last ,
the contours in the region where the oscillatory effects average out , @xmath3 and @xmath4 are also best understood from eq .
( [ pmmtt ] ) and the paragraphs which follow it , in the limit that @xmath352 .
it is simple to see , for example , that @xmath353 if @xmath354 ( @xmath355 ) , while the situation is reversed if @xmath356 .
this is indeed what one observes in fig .
[ dm21_std ] .      here
i turn to the case of an `` inverted '' neutrino hierarchy , namely @xmath218 .
currently , there is no experimental hint as to what the sign of @xmath121 should be , so there is no reason to believe that the `` normal '' hierarchy is to be preferred over the `` inverted '' hierarchy . indeed ,
even from a theoretical/ model building point of view , there are no strong reasons for or against a particular neutrino mass hierarchy @xcite .
the discussion will be restricted to @xmath357 for two reasons .
first , the @xmath358 can be approximately read off from the @xmath357 case by changing @xmath215 , as mentioned before .
second , and most important , there is some experimental hints as to what is the sign of @xmath120 @xcite . for example
, the sma solution only exists for one sign of @xmath120 , while the lma and low solutions prefer one particular sign . even in the case of vac
there is the possibility of obtaining information concerning the sign of @xmath120 from solar neutrino data @xcite .
therefore , the notation introduced in the beginning of this section ( atm , sma , lma , low , vac ) still applies , and one should simply remember that here @xmath218 .    as advertised , the largest effect of @xmath218 is the typical values of @xmath359 . from eq .
( [ pc ] ) , keeping in mind that here @xmath360 is negative , @xmath361 where @xmath360 is given by eq .
( [ gamma ] ) with @xmath235 . since @xmath362 ( see eq .
( [ gamma ] ) ) , @xmath363 for all values of @xmath121 and @xmath127 of interest .
indeed , this is true for any value of @xmath127 as long as @xmath364  ev@xmath50 .
this is to be contrasted to the normal hierarchy case , when there is always some value of @xmath127 ( which is a function of @xmath121 ) below which @xmath365 deviates significantly from its adiabatic limit .
all of the @xmath121 dependency of @xmath31 is therefore encoded in @xmath175 . however , in the case @xmath218 it is trivial to show that @xmath366 , where the upper bound is reached in the limit @xmath367 ( this has been mentioned before .
the minus sign takes care of the `` unorthodox '' @xmath368 adiabatic limit ) .
since one is interested in @xmath369 ( @xmath370 ) , the range for @xmath175 is rather limited , and therefore any @xmath121 effects are bound to be very small .
larger @xmath121 effects are expected for larger @xmath127 .    in light of this ,
[ ssxi_min ] depicts @xmath31 and @xmath153 as a function of @xmath127 at the various points ( lma , sma , low , vac ) , for @xmath371  ev@xmath50 and @xmath240 .
[ t ]    it is interesting to compare the results presented here with the pure vacuum case . in the limit @xmath372 @xmath373,\ ] ] while the pure vacuum result in the same region of the parameter space is @xmath374+\sin^4\xi.\ ] ] in the limit @xmath320 , the difference @xmath375 where @xmath376 is the electron neutrino survival probability in the two - flavour case with @xmath377 and vacuum mixing angle @xmath107 .
this difference vanishes at @xmath264 , and @xmath378 , ( which is between 0 and 0.5 ) .
furthermore , it is a convex function of @xmath127 , which means that @xmath40 is _ larger _ than the pure vacuum case for values of @xmath379 .
away from the limit @xmath320 , keeping in mind that the oscillatory terms average out , @xmath40 is still larger than the pure vacuum case if @xmath380 since @xmath381 , as one can easily verify .
also , in the limit @xmath372 , @xmath382 , @xmath383.\ ] ] the same expression applies for @xmath4 with @xmath384 .
this is a consequence of @xmath310 .
furthermore , in the limit @xmath385 ( and for @xmath310 ) , @xmath386 , which explains why @xmath309 for @xmath387 . at vac this equality remains for all values of @xmath127 .
the reason for this is that , at vac , the expression simplifies tremendously and @xmath388 . in the same region of the parameter space ,
the pure vacuum oscillation case yields @xmath389 .
note that , in this region of the parameter space @xmath390 , the inequality being saturated at @xmath391 .    the same result also applies ( approximately ) at sma , since the oscillatory terms are proportional to @xmath303 and @xmath282 is very small at sma ( see fig  [ 1-pcl ] ) . the equality @xmath309 is broken at larger values of @xmath127 because @xmath318 at sma .
it remains to discuss how @xmath3 and @xmath4 diverge from the pure vacuum case at lma and low . in the limit @xmath320 , and
averaging out the oscillatory terms , @xmath392.\ ] ]    this difference goes to zero as @xmath385 .
this is to be expected , since in this limit the difference of @xmath393 and @xmath130 disappears . for small values of @xmath127 , the last term in eq .
[ eq_diff ] dominates , and , as discussed before , @xmath394 .
therefore , @xmath395 ( @xmath396 ) for @xmath354 ( @xmath396 ) .
the expression for @xmath4 can be obtained from eq.([eq_diff ] ) by replacing @xmath384 and changing the sign of the last term .
therefore , since @xmath397 , @xmath398 ( @xmath396 ) for @xmath356 ( @xmath399 ) . when the oscillatory terms do not average out , it is easy to verify explicitly that the behaviour of the oscillatory terms follows the behaviour of the average terms , discussed above , and the inequalities obtained above still apply .
[ t ]    the situation , however , changes , when @xmath318 , _
i.e. , _ when matter effects due to the `` m - l '' system are relevant . in this region
, a behaviour similar to the one observed in the `` normal '' hierarchy case is expected , since @xmath357 .
[ sso_min ] depicts constant @xmath31 contours in the ( @xmath257)-plane .
one should be able to see upon close inspection that the region @xmath400 is smaller in fig .
[ sso_min ] than the same region in the pure vacuum oscillation case , fig  [ dm21_vacuum ] .
also , the constant @xmath3 ( @xmath4 ) contours are shifted to larger ( smaller ) values of @xmath126 .
the other prominent ( and expected , as mentioned above ) feature is the distortion of the contours at large values of @xmath120 .
this behaviour is similar to the one observed in fig .
[ dm21_std ] .
i conclude this subsection with a comment on antineutrinos . as discussed previously , @xmath401 , such that the `` normal '' hierarchies yield `` inverted '' hierarchy results for antineutrinos , and vice - verse .
one can not , however , apply fig .
[ dm21_std ] and fig .
[ sso_min ] for the antineutrinos because both @xmath402 have to change sign , not just @xmath121 .
qualitatively , however , it is possible to understand the constant @xmath229 contours by examining figures fig .
[ dm21_std ] and fig .
[ sso_min ] reflected in a mirror positioned at @xmath403 , meaning that @xmath404 .
the equality is not complete because one is also required to exchange @xmath405 , as mentioned earlier .      as the average neutrino energy increases , the values of @xmath31 start to resemble more the pure vacuum case .
this is easy to see from figs .
[ p3h ] and [ 1-pcl ] .
any deviation of @xmath282 from @xmath126 goes away even at lma for @xmath406  gev , while `` h - m '' effects remain important up to @xmath407  tev , even though quantitatively the effect decreases noticeably .
this can be illustrated by the value of @xmath273 at atm , for example , which drops from 0.87 for energies which range from 1 to 5  gev ( see the previous subsections ) to 0.058 , for energies which range from 100 to 110  gev .
furthermore , all @xmath408 increase as the energy increases , for fixed values of @xmath402 .
therefore , low becomes indistinguishable from vac at @xmath409  gev .
for @xmath0(tev ) neutrinos the sensitivity to @xmath120 remains only for its highest allowed values , while one should start worrying about nontrivial oscillatory effects due to @xmath410 .
the case of higher energy neutrinos contains a more serious complications : neutrino absorption inside the sun . as the neutrino energy increases
, one has to start worrying about the fact that absorptive neutrino interactions can take place .
according to @xcite , for neutrinos produced in the sun s core , absorption becomes important for @xmath411  gev . in this case ,
@xmath7 and @xmath412 interact with nuclear matter and produce electrons and muons , respectively .
the former are capture and `` lost '' inside the sun , while the latter stop before decaying into low energy neutrinos .
the case of @xmath6-sun interactions is more interesting , because the @xmath413-leptons produced via charged current interactions decay before `` stopping '' , yielding @xmath6 s with slightly reduced energies .
therefore , it is possible to get a flux of very high energy initial state @xmath413-neutrinos but not muon or electron - type neutrinos .
such effects have been studied for high energy galactic neutrinos traversing the earth @xcite .
the effect of neutrino oscillations inside the sun in the presence of nonnegligible neutrino absorption is certainly of great interest but is beyond the scope of this paper .
the oscillation probability of @xmath0(gev ) neutrinos of all flavours produced in the sun s core has been computed , including matter effects , which are , in general , nontrivial .
in particular , it was shown that , unlike the two - flavour oscillation case , in the three - flavour case the probability of a neutrino produced in the flavour eigenstate @xmath20 to be detected as a flavour eigenstate @xmath21 ( @xmath31 ) is ( in general ) different from @xmath414 , even if the @xmath2-violating phase of the mns matrix vanishes .
this is , of course , expected since sun  neutrino interactions explicitly break @xmath28-invariance .
indeed , it is the case of two - flavour oscillations which is special , in the sense that the number of independent oscillation probabilities is too small because of unitarity .
the results of a particular scan of the parameter space are presented in sec .
4 . in this case
, special attention was paid to the regions of the parameter space which are preferred by the current experimental situation .
it turns out that , in the case of a `` normal '' neutrino mass hierarchy , it is possible to suppress @xmath40 tremendously with respect to its pure vacuum oscillation values , by a mechanism that is similar to the well known msw effect in the case of two - flavour oscillations : the parameters are such that electron - type neutrinos produced in the sun s core exit the sun ( almost ) as pure mass eigenstates , and the @xmath7 component of this eigenstate is small . both @xmath3 and @xmath4 can be significantly suppressed , and the constant @xmath3 and @xmath4 contours as a function of the `` solar '' angle and the smaller mass - squared differences are nontrivial .
one important feature is that when @xmath3 is significantly suppressed , @xmath4 is not , and vice - versa .
one consequence of this is that , for some regions of the parameter space , it is possible to have an enhancement of @xmath6 s detected in the earth with respect to the number of @xmath5 s ( or vice - versa ) .
this may have important implications for solar wimp annihilation searches at neutrino telescopes , and will be studied in another oportunity .
it is important to note that the effect of neutrino oscillations on the expected event rate at neutrino telescopes will depend on the expected production rate of individual neutrino species inside the sun , which is , of course , model dependent .    in the case of an `` inverted '' mass hierarchy ,
the situation is very similar to the pure vacuum case , and no particular suppression of any @xmath253 is possible .
indeed , for a large region of the parameter space @xmath40 is in fact enhanced , a feature which is also observed in the two - flavour case @xcite .
the case of higher energy neutrinos was very briefly discussed , and the crucial point is to note that , for neutrino energies above a few hundred gev , the absorption of neutrinos by the sun becomes important .
the study of absorption effects is beyond the scope of this paper .    finally , it is important to reemphasise that the values of @xmath31 computed here are to be understood as if they were evaluated at the earth s surface .
no earth - matter effects have been included .
it is possible that earth - matter effects are important , especially the ones related to @xmath121 , in the advent that @xmath415 turns out to be `` large . ''
i would like to thank john ellis for suggesting the study of gev solar neutrinos , and for many useful discussions and comments on the manuscript .
i also thank amol dighe and hitoshi murayama for enlightening discussions and for carefully reading this manuscript and providing useful comments .
e.g. _ , a. de rjula , m.b .
gavela , and p.  hernndez , _ nucl .
phys . _ * b 547 * , 21 ( 1999 ) ; v.  barger , s.  geer , and k.  whisnant , _ phys .
_ , * d 61 * , 053004 ( 2000 ) ; a.  bueno , m.  campanelli , and a.  rubbia , icarus - tm-2000 - 01 , hep - ph/0005007 .                                  for recent reviews see , _ e.g. _ r.n .
mohapatra , to appear in `` current aspects of neutrino physics '' , ed . by d.
caldwell , springer - verlag , 2000 , hep - ph/9910365 ; s.m .
barr and i.  dorsner , ba-00 - 15 , hep - ph/0003058 .