# Neutrino physics book

1. Apr 17, 2015

### orricl

Could someone provide the e-books about neutrino physics? thanks.

2. Apr 17, 2015

### Orodruin

Staff Emeritus
This is quite vague. Exactly what are you looking for? What level? What aspects? Etc.
As I am sure you are aware, it is usually illegal to share copyrighted material and if this is what you are looking for, you will have to do so elsewhere. Neutrino physics is also a field which have undergone a quite rapid experimental development over the last two decades. Books tend to become outdated rapidly and I would rather suggest looking into review material.

3. Apr 17, 2015

### ChrisVer

Carlo Giunti, Chung W. Kim Fundamentals of Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics
I find it nicely structured...

4. Apr 17, 2015

### Orodruin

Staff Emeritus
The thing to remember when reading "old" neutrino books (this one is 9 years old) is that whatever experimental status they portray is likely superseded by now. Of course, some things never die, such as the LSND anomaly ...

5. Apr 18, 2015

### vanhees71

But there are tons of legal articles, including good review articles, about neutrino physics (mostly of course the most recent results on neutrino oscillations) at the preprint server arXiv. Most of the papers posted there get published (or are so already) in peer-reviewed journals. This is a great gift of the physics community and should be used! A good starting point is also always the review sections of the "Review of Particle Physics":

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2014/reviews/contents_sports.html

What's much more difficult to find are correct treatments of the neutrino-oscillation phenomenology from theory. A good one is, e.g.,

http://de.arxiv.org/abs/1008.2077v2

6. Apr 18, 2015

Staff Emeritus
The OP - who seems to favor hit and run posting - asked specifically for a book. The problem with books is, as Orodruin suggests, is that they quickly become out of date.

7. Apr 18, 2015

### ChrisVer

I thought it was 2007... As for experiments there should not be a big difference from the status of 2007, except for some better results (but who reads to learn the number of a boundary?).

What do you mean?

8. Apr 18, 2015

### vanhees71

Just take google scholar and look for "neutrino oscillations". You find tons of wrong statements and a lot of debates. In my opinion, the only correct treatment for neutrino oscillations in the typical long-base-line experiments setups is to evaluate Feynman diagrams, describing the creation of the neutrinos at a source in a given space-time region and at a detection point in another space-time region in terms of the corresponding wave packets and the S-matrix formalism. Then all debates about energy and/or momentum conservation etc. are pointless and it's of course fulfilled in the usual sense of asymptotic theory. The neutrinos are always internal lines, and thus they are off-shell, as it must be, because you don't create neutrinos on a certain mass shell but a mixture of different mass eigenstates, making up the corresponding flavor, and then, while propagating, this superposition of mass eigenstates "oscillates", and you measure the neutrino at the detector again as a flavor eigenstate. The quantum-field theoretical formalism provides the correct detection probability for this situation and nothing else. In the literature, you find the claim, even by well known physicists, that QFT is inapplicable and one must use quantum mechanics (wave mechanics a la Schrödinger), which is plain wrong since to the contrary this situation is not describable with wave mechanics but you need QFT! I think, at least on the first glance, the quoted paper has it right, although I've not followed all steps of the calculation carefully myself yet.

9. Apr 18, 2015

### ChrisVer

So it's like taking a more complicated way to arrive at the same results?

I have seen the normal QM treatment of the problem (without the need of QFT), but I haven't been told that QFT is not applicable...

10. Apr 18, 2015

### vanhees71

What is the "normal QM treatment of the problem"? There are so many handwaving almost wrong treatments around that I don't know, what's considered "normal" ;-).

11. Apr 18, 2015

### ChrisVer

haha...
Check the same authors' paper:
http://de.arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1903v2
They show the standard way in the begginings of sec.2... and they say "we review the standard derivations of the neutrino oscillation probability in the plane wave and stationary state approaches and point out their inconsistencies."
Well I don't know, maybe I am an easy believer (but I'd never believe that the formula for the probability without doing the $c=L/t$ but keep it with $t$ would tell me "wait long enough at the source, and you will find a neutrino oscillated)...

But I had a problem with the same energy/momentum...

12. Apr 18, 2015

### vanhees71

This seems to be also very nice to read, because it clearly names what's wrong with the handwaving QM derivations. I've to read it first to the end to make more comments.

13. Apr 18, 2015

### Orodruin

Staff Emeritus
You should check this one out: http://inspirehep.net/record/844091

One should keep in mind that most reasonable neutrino physicists were perfectly aware of these issues. At least I do not know anyone who was surprised by the results of Akhmedov et al. Unfortunately, these papers were necessary to convince some people that there was not a factor of two missing in the standard oscillation phase. The wave packet treatment goes back a long time and was treated in the early 90's by Giunti, Kim, and Lee: http://inspirehep.net/record/319483, http://inspirehep.net/record/319484

14. Apr 19, 2015

### vanhees71

Well, sometimes there are still discussions on neutrino oscillations. The real problem here is that the handwaving arguments give "right" results at the accuracy needed to qualitatively understand the phenomenon. The derivation is, however, totally unclear and plain wrong. Although theoretical physics is about to "get the numbers out" directly testable by experiments but it's also about understaning the phenomena from fundamental theories, and here the QFT derivation is the only complete and correct one (at least known to me). That's what Akhmedov and Smirnov also write in the quoted paper (I've not been aware of the "Erratum", which I'd rather call a clarification than a true erratum).