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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mathematical proof of the equivalence between two expressions for the probability of neutrino flavor oscillation. Participants explore the derivation of the second expression from the first, focusing on the mathematical steps involved in simplifying the formula.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty about proving the equivalence of two formulas for neutrino oscillation probabilities.
  • Another participant suggests breaking down the expressions and using known relationships, such as substituting time with distance and applying properties of unitary matrices.
  • A different participant proposes a step-by-step approach to derive the second expression from the first, emphasizing the need for trigonometric identities and careful index tracking.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of the Kronecker delta arising from cases where indices are equal and how to handle terms where indices differ.
  • There is mention of using complex conjugates to simplify the expressions and the relationship between real and imaginary parts of complex numbers.
  • One participant requests detailed guidance on the derivation process, indicating a struggle with the complexity of the calculations.
  • A later reply acknowledges the assistance received and indicates that the participant has successfully worked out the derivation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the mathematical approach to derive the second expression from the first, but there is no consensus on the specific steps or methods to achieve this, as some participants express confusion and seek further clarification.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention the need for trigonometric identities and careful handling of indices, indicating that certain assumptions or steps may be missing or require further elaboration.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students or researchers interested in neutrino physics, particularly those looking to understand the mathematical foundations of neutrino oscillation probabilities.

Trifis
Messages
165
Reaction score
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
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 (1)
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(\frac{Δm_{ij}^2L}{4E}) (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
which part of the formula is confusing you?
how to express E_{i} t in terms of L, m_{i}?
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 t= \frac{L}{c} 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:
(U^{\dagger} U)_{ab} = \delta_{ab} 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).
 
I want to start with (1) and reach (2) step by step.
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=
\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
Is this correct so far? How do we further simplify this expression and get the double sums? Also some trigonometry is involved for sure.
 
why don't you write the square explicitly?

|\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}

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

that's in general how you proceed...
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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...
 
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}## ...)
 
Thanks for your replies. I have finally worked out the derivation!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 350 ·
12
Replies
350
Views
30K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
4K