Can the Neutrino Oscillation Formula be Simplified Using a Trivial Proof?

In summary, the equation for the probability that a neutrino originally of flavor α will later be observed as having flavor β can be equivalently written as P_{α \rightarrow β}=δ_{αβ}-4\sum_{i>j}Re(U_{β i}^*U_{α i}U_{β j}U_{α j}^*)\sin^2(\frac{Δm_{ij}^2L}{4E})+2\sum_{i>j}Im(U_{β i}^*U_{α i}U_{β j}U_{α j}^*)\sin(\
  • #1
Trifis
167
1
Hi all!

I am not sure how to prove mathematically that the expression for the probability that a neutrino originally of flavor α will later be observed as having flavor β
[itex]P_{α \rightarrow β}=\left|<\nu_{\beta}|\nu_{\alpha}(t)>\right|^2=\left|\sum_{i}U_{β i}^*U_{α i}e^{-iE_it}\right|^2[/itex] (1)
can be equivalently written as
[itex]P_{α \rightarrow β}=δ_{αβ}-4\sum_{i>j}Re(U_{β i}^*U_{α i}U_{β j}U_{α j}^*)\sin^2(\frac{Δm_{ij}^2L}{4E})+2\sum_{i>j}Im(U_{β i}^*U_{α i}U_{β j}U_{α j}^*)\sin(\frac{Δm_{ij}^2L}{4E})[/itex] (2)
Whoever is not familiar with the notation and would still like to contribute "mathematically", all the variables and constants are explained perfectly in the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_oscillation

The proof has to be trivial, but here I am trying for two hours and still not able to show this for a general case.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
which part of the formula is confusing you?
how to express [itex]E_{i} t[/itex] in terms of [itex]L, m_{i}[/itex]?
This is done by some easy calculations, I think you can find them easy if you search... eg
http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~vjm/Lectures/SHParticlePhysics2012_files/PPNotes5.pdf
eq 16.3
and also by saying [itex] t= \frac{L}{c} [/itex] the time they traveled from distance L up to reaching us.
with c=1, and 16.3 you get your result.

or how to write the sums?
Those sums are in fact two sums, of i and j with the same expressions just change the i's to js and taking the conjugate...
After that you can start breaking the sums in such a way that you'll get something as the final result... for example for i=j you will evenutally get delta because the exponentials will cancel each other out (remind i=j again), and the U matrices are unitary, so you will get the delta Kroenicker by summing them:
[itex] (U^{\dagger} U)_{ab} = \delta_{ab} [/itex] for U unitary.
The rest is more tedious work, but in general that's how you get the Re and I am part (depending of what i,j configurations you sum).
 
  • #3
I want to start with (1) and reach (2) step by step.
[itex]P_{α \rightarrow β}=\left|\sum_{i}U_{β i}^*U_{α i}e^{-iE_it}\right|^2=\left|\sum_{i}U_{β i}^*U_{α i}e^{-iE_it}\right|^2=\left|\sum_{i}(Re(U_{β i}^*U_{α i})+iIm(U_{β i}^*U_{α i}))(\cos(E_it)-i\sin(E_it))\right|^2=[/itex]
[itex]\left[\sum_{i}Re(U_{β i}^*U_{α i})\cos(E_it)+Im(U_{β i}^*U_{α i})\sin(E_it)\right]^2+\left[\sum_{i}Im(U_{β i}^*U_{α i})\cos(E_it)-Re(U_{β i}^*U_{α i})\sin(E_it)\right]^2[/itex]
Is this correct so far? How do we further simplify this expression and get the double sums? Also some trigonometry is involved for sure.
 
  • #4
why don't you write the square explicitly?

[itex] |\sum_i U_{β i}^* U_{α i} e^{-iE_{i}t}|^{2} = \sum_{i} \sum_{j} U_{β i}^* U_{α i} U_{ α j}^{*} U_{β j} e^{-iE_{i}t} e^{+iE_{j}t} [/itex]

[itex]= \sum_{i} \sum_{j} U_{β i}^* U_{α i} U_{α j}^{*} U_{β j} e^{-i (ΔE)_{ij}t} [/itex]

that's in general how you proceed...
 
Last edited:
  • #5
So you simply write the square of the absolute value as the complex number times its conjugate and you get the Δm differences.
I see how for i=j, the Kronecker delta arises. Sorry but I am too bad at this and I still cannot work out the rest of the terms. Can you take me by hand or show the derivation in detail?
 
  • #6
because in most of the cases this is an exercises, you should just keep track of your indices and what you get...
I guess could help you if you showed me what you did, where you've reached. In most of cases it's just a to-be-done-carefully calculation, and at one point you have to use trigonometric identities (if I recall well)...
One thing is for sure, after you found the case of delta, you need also to add to this the cases where i is not equal to j... and from that see what you get for that term...
 
  • #7
Trifis said:
So you simply write the square of the absolute value as the complex number times its conjugate and you get the Δm differences.
I see how for i=j, the Kronecker delta arises. Sorry but I am too bad at this and I still cannot work out the rest of the terms. Can you take me by hand or show the derivation in detail?


For the remaining terms (##i \neq j##), you have one term for ##i > j## and one term for ##j < i##. Consider how they are related by writing out both sums and then changing the summation indices in one of them. After that you can make use of the relations
$$
z + z^* = 2 Re(z), \quad z - z^* = 2 Im(z)
$$
(Also note that ##\Delta E_{ij} = - \Delta E_{ji}## ...)
 
  • #8
Thanks for your replies. I have finally worked out the derivation!
 

1. What is the Neutrino Oscillation Formula?

The Neutrino Oscillation Formula is a mathematical equation that describes the phenomenon of neutrino oscillations. It explains how neutrinos, which are subatomic particles with no charge and very little mass, can change from one type to another as they travel through space.

2. How does the Neutrino Oscillation Formula work?

The Neutrino Oscillation Formula takes into account the different masses and energy states of the three types of neutrinos (electron, muon, and tau). As neutrinos travel through space, they have a chance of interacting with other particles, which causes them to change from one type to another. The formula uses probabilities to calculate the likelihood of these changes occurring.

3. What is the significance of the Neutrino Oscillation Formula?

The Neutrino Oscillation Formula is significant because it provides a framework for understanding the behavior of neutrinos, which are some of the most abundant particles in the universe. It also has implications for particle physics and our understanding of the fundamental forces and interactions in the universe.

4. How was the Neutrino Oscillation Formula discovered?

The Neutrino Oscillation Formula was first proposed by physicists Bruno Pontecorvo and Vladimir Gribov in the 1960s. It was later confirmed through experiments in the 1990s, including the Super-Kamiokande and Sudbury Neutrino Observatory experiments, which provided evidence of neutrino oscillations.

5. Are there any limitations to the Neutrino Oscillation Formula?

While the Neutrino Oscillation Formula accurately describes the behavior of neutrinos as observed in experiments, it is not a complete theory of neutrino oscillations. It does not explain the underlying mechanisms behind why neutrinos oscillate or why they have mass. Further research and experiments are needed to fully understand the nature of neutrinos and their oscillations.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Other Physics Topics
11
Replies
350
Views
25K
Back
Top