1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}

2: \usepackage{fullpage}

3: %\usepackage{showkeys}

4: \usepackage{float}

5: \usepackage{floatflt}

6: \usepackage[centertags]{amsmath}

7: \allowdisplaybreaks[1]

8: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

9: \usepackage{amsbsy}

10: \usepackage{amsfonts}

11: \usepackage{amssymb}

12: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}

13: %\usepackage{url}

14: \usepackage[dvips]{hyperref}

15: \usepackage[square,comma,numbers]{natbib}

16: \usepackage{tocbibind}

17: %\bibliographystyle{utphys-sorted}

18: \bibliographystyle{myplainnat}

19: \pagestyle{plain}

20: %

21: \usepackage[thinspace,derived,squaren]{SIunits}

22: %

23: %\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2}

24: %

25: \begin{document}

26: 

27: \begin{flushright}

28: % \text{\sf \today}

29: \textsf{30 October 2003}

30: \\

31: \textsf{hep-ph/0302026}

32: \end{flushright}

33: 

34: \vspace{1cm}

35: 

36: \begin{center}

37: \large

38: \textbf{Coherence and Wave Packets in Neutrino Oscillations}

39: \normalsize

40: \\[0.5cm]

41: \large

42: Carlo Giunti

43: \normalsize

44: \\[0.5cm]

45: INFN, Sezione di Torino, and Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica,

46: \\

47: Universit\`a di Torino,

48: Via P. Giuria 1, I--10125 Torino, Italy

49: \\[0.5cm]

50: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.8\textwidth}

51: \begin{center}

52: \textbf{Abstract}

53: \end{center}

54: General arguments in favor

55: of the necessity of a wave packet description of

56: neutrino oscillations are presented,

57: drawing from analogies with other wave phenomena.

58: We present a wave packet description

59: of neutrino oscillations in stationary beams

60: using the density matrix formalism.

61: Recent claims of the necessity of

62: an equal energy of different massive neutrinos are refuted.

63: \end{minipage}

64: \end{center}

65: 

66: \newpage

67: \tableofcontents

68: \newpage

69: 

70: \section{Introduction}

71: \label{Introduction}

72: 

73: The physics of massive and mixed neutrinos

74: is one of the hot topics in today's research in

75: high energy physics,

76: following the discovery of oscillations

77: of atmospheric and solar neutrinos

78: (see the reviews in Refs.~\cite{Bilenkii:2001yh,%

79: Gonzalez-Garcia:2002dz,%

80: Kayser:2002qs,%

81: Bilenky:2002aw}

82: and references therein,

83: as well as the references in

84: \cite{Neutrino-Unbound}).

85: 

86: Neutrino oscillations have been proposed in the late 50's

87: by Pontecorvo

88: \cite{Pontecorvo:1957cp,Pontecorvo-58}.

89: The oscillations are generated by the interference

90: of different massive neutrinos,

91: which are produced and detected coherently

92: because of their very small mass difference.

93: 

94: In 1962 Maki, Nakagawa and Sakata

95: \cite{Maki:1962mu}

96: considered for the first time a model

97: with mixing of different neutrino flavors.

98: In 1967

99: Pontecorvo

100: proposed the possibility of solar neutrino oscillations

101: \cite{Pontecorvo:1968fh},

102: before the discovery in 1968 of the solar neutrino problem

103: in the Homestake experiment

104: \cite{Davis:1968cp}.

105: In 1969

106: Pontecorvo and Gribov

107: considered $\nu_e\to\nu_\mu$ oscillations

108: as a possible explanation of the solar neutrino problem

109: \cite{Gribov:1969kq}.

110: 

111: The theory of neutrino oscillations

112: in the plane-wave approximation

113: was developed in the middle 70's

114: by Eliezer and Swift

115: \cite{Eliezer:1976ja},

116: Fritzsch and Minkowski

117: \cite{Fritzsch:1976rz},

118: Bilenky and Pontecorvo

119: \cite{Bilenky:1976yj},

120: and beautifully reviewed by Bilenky and Pontecorvo

121: in Ref.~\cite{Bilenky:1978nj}.

122: 

123: In 1976 Nussinov

124: \cite{Nussinov:1976uw}

125: for the first time

126: considered the wave packet nature of propagating neutrinos

127: and inferred the existence of a coherence length,

128: beyond which the interference of

129: different massive neutrinos

130: is not observable.

131: This is due to the different group velocities

132: of different massive neutrinos,

133: that causes a separation of their wave packets.

134: In 1996

135: Kiers, Nussinov and Weiss

136: \cite{Kiers:1996zj}

137: first pointed out the importance

138: of the detection process for the coherence of

139: neutrino oscillations

140: and discussed some implications

141: for the wave packet approach.

142: 

143: In 1981 Kayser

144: \cite{Kayser:1981ye}

145: presented the first detailed discussion

146: of the quantum mechanical problems

147: of neutrino oscillations,

148: pointing out the necessity of a wave packet treatment.

149: 

150: Wave packet models

151: of neutrino oscillations have been later developed

152: in the framework of quantum mechanics

153: \cite{Giunti-Kim-Lee-Whendo-91,%

154: Giunti:1992sx,%

155: Dolgov-Morozov-Okun-Shchepkin-97,%

156: Giunti-Kim-Coherence-98,%

157: Dolgov:1999sp,%

158: Dolgov:2002wy,%

159: hep-ph/0202063}

160: and

161: in the framework of quantum field theory

162: \cite{Giunti-Kim-Lee-Lee-93,%

163: Giunti-Kim-Lee-Whendo-98,%

164: Kiers-Weiss-PRD57-98,%

165: Cardall-Coherence-99,%

166: Beuthe:2002ej,%

167: hep-ph/0205014}

168: (see also Ref.~\cite{CWKim-book}

169: and the reviews in

170: Refs.~\cite{Zralek-oscillations-98,Beuthe:2001rc}).

171: 

172: In spite of the well-known fact that

173: in quantum theory localized particles are described by

174: wave packets

175: and in spite of the success of the wave packet treatment

176: of neutrino oscillations,

177: some authors have presented arguments

178: against such approach.

179: In Section~\ref{No source of waves vibrates indefinitely}

180: we briefly review well-known evidences

181: of the wave packet nature of light,

182: which, by analogy,

183: imply a wave packet nature of neutrinos.

184: In Sections~\ref{Bound states}

185: and \ref{Stationary beams}

186: we present objections to arguments

187: against a wave packet description of neutrinos.

188: In Section~\ref{Stationary beams}

189: we present also a wave packet derivation of neutrino oscillations

190: in the density matrix formalism

191: and we discuss some implications for the case of stationary beams.

192: 

193: Another debated problem

194: in the theory of neutrino oscillations

195: is the determination of the energies of massive neutrinos.

196: In Section~\ref{Energy of massive neutrinos}

197: we present objections to

198: recently proposed arguments

199: in favor of the equality

200: of the energies of different massive neutrinos.

201: 

202: \section{No source of waves vibrates indefinitely}

203: \label{No source of waves vibrates indefinitely}

204: 

205: The title of this section is taken from the beginning sentence

206: of Section~11.11

207: of Ref.~\cite{Jenkins-White-FundamentalsOfOptics-1981},

208: which concludes with the following paragraph:

209: \begin{quote}

210: In light sources,

211: the radiating atoms emit wave trains of finite length.

212: Usually,

213: because of collisions or damping arising from other causes,

214: these packets are very short.

215: According to the theorem mentioned above\footnote{

216: ``The largest the number $N$ of waves in the group,

217: the smaller the spread $\Delta\lambda$,

218: and in fact theory shows that

219: $\Delta\lambda/\lambda_0$

220: is approximately equal to $1/N$.''

221: (Section~11.11

222: of Ref.~\cite{Jenkins-White-FundamentalsOfOptics-1981}.)

223: },

224: the consequence is that the spectrum lines will not be very narrow

225: but will have an appreciable width $\Delta\lambda$.

226: A measurement of this width will yield the effective

227: ``lifetime''

228: of the electromagnetic oscillators

229: in the atoms and the average length of the wave packets.

230: A low-pressure discharge through the vapor of mercury

231: containing the single isotope

232: $^{198}\mathrm{Hg}$

233: yields very sharp spectral lines, of width about

234: $\unit{0.005}{\angstrom}$.

235: Taking the wavelength of one of the brightest lines,

236: $\unit{5461}{\angstrom}$,

237: we may estimate that there are roughly $10^6$

238: waves in a packet

239: and that the packets themselves are some 50 cm long.

240: \end{quote}

241: 

242: The broadening of optical lines

243: due to the finite lifetime of atomic transitions

244: is known as \emph{natural linewidth}.

245: 

246: It is interesting to note that the broadening

247: of optical lines

248: was well known to experimental physicists

249: in the nineteen century

250: and explained by classical models

251: before the

252: advent of quantum theory

253: (see Ref.~\cite{Breene-57} and references therein).

254: In 1895 Michelson

255: \cite{Michelson-1895}

256: listed among the hypotheses formulated before that time

257: to account for line broadening

258: \begin{quote}

259: 3. The exponential diminution in amplitude

260: of the vibrations due to communication of energy

261: to the surrounding medium or to other causes.

262: \end{quote}

263: As explained in \cite{Breene-57},

264: \begin{quote}

265: We consider an emitting atom

266: which we shall proceed to remove to infinity and reduce the ``temperature''

267: to the point where, classically at least,

268: no translational motion exists.

269: Now from the classical picture of a vibrating electron

270: or the simple picture of a pair of energy levels

271: between which our radiation transition takes place,

272: we should expect these conditions

273: to yield a spectral line of a single frequency.

274: We, of course, do not obtain this result, but,

275: rather, we obtain the familiar natural line shape

276: which is attributable to Michelson's Cause 3.

277: \end{quote}

278: A classical derivation of the natural linewidth

279: can be found in Section 17.7 of Ref.~\cite{Jackson-book-75}.

280: Let us emphasize that the natural linewidth of atomic lines

281: has been \emph{observed experimentally}

282: (see Section 21.4 of Ref.~\cite{White-book-34})!

283: 

284: Another important cause of line broadening known in 1895 was

285: \cite{Michelson-1895}

286: \begin{quote}

287: 4.

288: The change in wavelength due to the Doppler effect

289: of the component of the velocity of the vibrating atom

290: in the line of sight.

291: \end{quote}

292: The Doppler line broadening due to the thermal motion

293: of atoms in a medium was calculated by Rayleigh in 1889

294: \cite{Rayleigh-1889}.

295: This important effect,

296: that must be aways taken into account

297: in calculating the spectral shape

298: of monochromatic beams,

299: does not concern us here,

300: because it does not generate a coherent

301: broadening.

302: It is simply due to the different motion of

303: different atoms,

304: whose radiation is incoherent. 

305: 

306: To these (and other) causes of line broadening

307: Michelson added in 1895

308: \cite{Michelson-1895}

309: \begin{quote}

310: 5.

311: The limitation of the number of regular vibrations

312: by more or less abrupt changes of phase amplitude

313: or

314: plane of vibration caused by collisions.

315: \end{quote}

316: This important coherent effect has been called with several names,

317: among which

318: \emph{collision broadening},

319: \emph{pressure broadening}

320: and

321: \emph{interruption broadening},

322: it has been studied in depth by many authors

323: (see, for example, Refs.\cite{Breene-57,%

324: Loudon-TheQuantumTheoryOfLight-92})

325: and it has been \emph{observed experimentally}

326: (see Section 21.5 of Ref.~\cite{White-book-34})!

327: 

328: In quantum theory,

329: the fact that ``no source of waves vibrates indefinitely''

330: implies that all particles are produced as wave packets,

331: whose size is determined by the finite lifetime of

332: the parent particle,

333: or by its finite mean free path if the production process

334: occurs in a medium.

335: Since also

336: no wave detector vibrates indefinitely,

337: it is clear that all particles are also

338: detected as wave packets.

339: 

340: Usually, at least in high energy physics,

341: the wave packet character of particles is not important

342: and they can be well approximated by plane waves.

343: The phenomenon of neutrino oscillations is an exception,

344: as shown in 1981 by Kayser

345: \cite{Kayser:1981ye},

346: because the localization of the source and detector

347: requires a wave packet treatment.

348: 

349: The wave packet approach to neutrino oscillations

350: implemented in

351: Refs.~\cite{Giunti-Kim-Lee-Whendo-91,%

352: Giunti:1992sx,%

353: Dolgov-Morozov-Okun-Shchepkin-97,%

354: Giunti-Kim-Coherence-98,%

355: Dolgov:1999sp,%

356: hep-ph/0202063}

357: in the framework of quantum mechanics

358: and in

359: Refs.~\cite{Giunti-Kim-Lee-Lee-93,%

360: Giunti-Kim-Lee-Whendo-98,%

361: Kiers-Weiss-PRD57-98,%

362: Cardall-Coherence-99,%

363: Beuthe:2002ej,%

364: hep-ph/0205014}

365: in the framework of quantum field theory

366: allows to

367: derive the neutrino oscillation

368: probability from first principles in a consistent framework.

369: 

370: In the light of these considerations,

371: it seems rather surprising that some physicists

372: do not agree with a wave packet description of neutrinos

373: and put forward arguments

374: in favor of a unique value of neutrino energy.

375: A tentative explanation of this approach stems from the

376: common education and practice in physics

377: of working with energy eigenstates,

378: forgetting that they are only approximations

379: of the states of physical systems in the real world\footnote{

380: I would like to thank I. Pesando for an illuminating

381: discussion about this point.

382: }.

383: In the following Sections

384: %\ref{Bound states},

385: %\ref{Stationary beams} and \ref{Energy of massive neutrinos}

386: we present a critical discussion

387: of recently advocated approaches to neutrino oscillations

388: in which neutrinos are not described

389: by wave packets with some spread in momentum and energy.

390: 

391: \section{Bound states}

392: \label{Bound states}

393: 

394: Bound states of atomic electrons are usually calculated

395: with different degrees of approximation

396: taking into account the static potential generated

397: by the nucleus

398: and other electrons

399: and

400: neglecting the coupling of the electron

401: with the electromagnetic radiation field.

402: In this approximation,

403: bound states are stationary and have definite energy.

404: In spite of the obvious fact that

405: in such approximation

406: electrons

407: cannot jump from one bound state to another,

408: the energy difference between two stationary bound states

409: is sometimes associated

410: without any further explanation

411: with the energy of the photon

412: emitted or absorbed in the transition of an electron

413: from one bound state to the other.

414: 

415: However,

416: in order to describe the transitions

417: between bound states it is necessary

418: to take into account the coupling of the electron

419: with the time-dependent electromagnetic radiation field.

420: Since the bound states are not eigenstates of the

421: full Hamiltonian,

422: in reality they are not stationary and

423: they do not have definite energy.

424: The lack of a definite energy is a necessary

425: requirement for the existence of transitions:

426: since

427: the Schr\"odinger equation

428: implies that the time evolution of

429: energy eigenstates evolve by a phase,

430: orthogonality between different

431: energy eigenstates is conserved in time,

432: excluding transitions.

433: 

434: The fact that unstable systems

435: do not have a definite energy

436: is well-known to high energy physicists

437: from their experience with resonances

438: (hadronic excited states)

439: and highly unstable particles

440: ($Z$ and $W$ bosons),

441: which do not have a definite mass

442: (energy in the rest frame).

443: Their mass width is inversely proportional

444: to the decay rate.

445: 

446: From these considerations

447: it follows that the quantum field theoretical

448: model of neutrino oscillations in the process

449: \begin{equation}

450: n \to p + e^- + \bar\nu_e

451: \xrightarrow{\bar\nu_e \to \bar\nu_e}

452: \bar\nu_e + e^- \to \bar\nu_e + e^-

453: \label{GS01}

454: \end{equation}

455: presented

456: in Ref.~\cite{Grimus-Stockinger-96},

457: in which a neutrino is assumed to be produced by a nuclear

458: $\beta$-decay between two stationary bound states 

459: with definite energy

460: and detected through scattering with an electron

461: in a stationary atomic state with definite energy,

462: is unrealistic,

463: not to mention the description of the final-state

464: electrons by plane waves, which is

465: in contradiction with

466: the fact that the electrons interact with the surrounding medium

467: and with

468: the necessity to observe

469: the final lepton in the detection process,

470: as already noted in \cite{hep-ph/0205014}.

471: Of course,

472: once the matters of principle are clear,

473: one can consider the assumptions

474: in Ref.~\cite{Grimus-Stockinger-96}

475: as approximations acceptable in some cases.

476: One must also notice that

477: Ref.~\cite{Grimus-Stockinger-96}

478: is very interesting for the useful theorem

479: proved in the appendix,

480: which has been used in the quantum field theoretical

481: calculation of neutrino oscillations in the wave packet approach

482: in Refs.~\cite{Giunti-Kim-Lee-Whendo-98,Beuthe:2002ej}.

483: 

484: Developing the technique

485: proposed in Ref.~\cite{Grimus-Stockinger-96},

486: the authors of

487: Refs.~\cite{Grimus-Mohanty-Stockinger-98,Grimus-Mohanty-Stockinger-99}

488: considered neutrino oscillations in the process

489: \begin{equation}

490: \mu^+ \to e^+ + \nu_e + \bar\nu_\mu

491: \xrightarrow{\bar\nu_\mu \to \bar\nu_e}

492: \bar\nu_e + p \to n + e^+

493: \label{GS02}

494: \end{equation}

495: with the muon correctly described by a wave packet,

496: but the proton was still described by an unrealistic

497: stationary bound state with definite energy.

498: Furthermore,

499: all final particles were described by plane waves,

500: in contradiction with the fact that

501: the positrons and neutron

502: interact with the surrounding medium and

503: the necessity to observe the final positron

504: in the detection process

505: in order to measure oscillations.

506: Localized interactions of a particle with a detector

507: obviously imply that the particle cannot be described by an

508: unlocalized plane wave

509: and a wave packet description is necessary.

510: 

511: \section{Stationary beams}

512: \label{Stationary beams}

513: 

514: The author of the very interesting Ref.~\cite{Stodolsky-unnecessary-98}

515: wrote:

516: \begin{quote}

517: \ldots

518: many wavepacket discussions for the coherence

519: properties of particle beams

520: are unnecessary since they deal with stationary sources;

521: and when the problem is stationary,

522: essentially all information is in the energy spectrum.

523: \end{quote}

524: Indeed, as proved in Ref.~\cite{Kiers:1996zj},

525: \begin{quote}

526: \ldots

527: under very general assumptions it is not possible to distinguish experimentally neutrinos

528: produced in some region of space as wave packets

529: from those produced in the same region of space as

530: plane waves with the same energy distribution.

531: \end{quote}

532: 

533: It is not clear if the purpose of

534: Ref.~\cite{Stodolsky-unnecessary-98}

535: was to show that neutrinos are not described by wave packets,

536: but it is certain that it has been interpreted in this way by some

537: physicists.

538: However,

539: Ref.~\cite{Stodolsky-unnecessary-98}

540: certainly does not provide any help

541: for the derivation of neutrino oscillations

542: in the framework of quantum field theory.

543: Even in the framework of quantum mechanics

544: Ref.~\cite{Stodolsky-unnecessary-98}

545: does not go beyond the well-known

546: discussion of neutrino oscillations

547: assuming equal energies

548: for the different massive neutrino components

549: \cite{Lipkin-nonexperiments-95,Grossman-Lipkin-spatial-97},

550: which has been shown to be unrealistic

551: in Refs.~\cite{Giunti:2000kw,Giunti:2001kj}

552: and is further criticized in the Section~\ref{Energy of massive neutrinos}.

553: 

554: An interpretation of

555: Ref.~\cite{Stodolsky-unnecessary-98}

556: as a proof that neutrinos are not described by wave packets

557: seems to stem from a confusion between microscopic and macroscopic

558: stationarity,

559: as already remarked in \cite{Cardall-Coherence-99,Giunti:2000kw}.

560: Since most neutrino sources

561: emit neutrinos

562: at a constant rate over macroscopic intervals of time,

563: they can be considered macroscopically stationary.

564: However,

565: the microscopic processes of neutrino production

566: (nuclear or particle decay, etc.)

567: are certainly not stationary

568: and the single neutrino does not know if

569: it will be part of a stationary beam or not.

570: Because of the localization in space and time of the production and detection processes,

571: a description of neutrino oscillations

572: in terms of wave packets

573: is inescapable.

574: 

575: Of course,

576: after the matters of principle are settled,

577: neutrino oscillations are

578: derived from first principles in a consistent theoretical framework,

579: and an estimation of the coherence length

580: has shown that it is much longer than

581: the source-detector distance in a neutrino oscillation experiment,

582: the analysis of the experimental data

583: can be performed using the standard

584: oscillation probability

585: obtained in the plane wave approximation.

586: This turns out to be the case in all present-day

587: neutrino oscillation experiments.

588: 

589: In the following part of this section we present

590: a wave packet derivation of neutrino oscillations in the

591: density matrix formalism,

592: which is suitable for the description of a stationary beam,

593: as emphasized in Ref.~\cite{Stodolsky-unnecessary-98}.

594: Our calculation follows

595: a method similar to the one presented in Ref.~\cite{Giunti:1992sx}.

596: 

597: In a quantum-mechanical wave packet treatment of neutrino oscillations

598: a neutrino produced at the origin of the space-time coordinates

599: by a weak interaction process with definite flavor $\alpha$

600: ($\alpha=e,\mu,\tau$)

601: and propagating along the $x$ axis

602: is described by the state

603: \begin{equation}

604: |\nu_\alpha(x,t)\rangle

605: =

606: \sum_k U_{\alpha k}^* \psi_k(x,t) |\nu_k\rangle

607: \,,

608: \label{001}

609: \end{equation}

610: where $U$ is the mixing matrix,

611: $|\nu_k\rangle$

612: is the state of a neutrino with mass $m_k$

613: and

614: $\psi_k(x,t)$

615: is its wave function.

616: Approximating the momentum distribution

617: of the massive neutrino $\nu_k$

618: with a gaussian,

619: \begin{equation}

620: \psi_k(p)

621: =

622: \left( 2 \pi {\sigma_p^{\mathrm{P}}}^2 \right)^{-1/4}

623: \exp\left[

624: -

625: \frac{ \left( p - p_k \right)^2 }{ 4 {\sigma_p^{\mathrm{P}}}^2 }

626: \right]

627: \,,

628: \label{002}

629: \end{equation}

630: where

631: $p_k$ is the average momentum and $\sigma_p^{\mathrm{P}}$

632: is the momentum uncertainty determined by the production process,

633: the wave function is

634: \begin{equation}

635: \psi_k(x,t)

636: =

637: \int \frac{ \mathrm{d}p }{ \sqrt{2\pi} }

638: \psi_k(p)

639: e^{ipx-iE_k(p)t}

640: \,,

641: \label{004}

642: \end{equation}

643: with the energy $E_k(p)$ given by\footnote{

644: We do not make unnecessary assumptions about

645: the values of the energies and momenta of different massive neutrinos.

646: The claim that different massive neutrinos

647: must have the same energy has been confuted in

648: Refs.~\cite{Giunti:2000kw,Giunti:2001kj}

649: and in further discussed

650: in Section~\ref{Energy of massive neutrinos}.

651: }

652: \begin{equation}

653: E_k(p) = \sqrt{ p^2 + m_k^2 }

654: \,.

655: \label{005}

656: \end{equation}

657: If the gaussian momentum distribution

658: (\ref{002})

659: is sharply peaked around the mean momentum $p_k$

660: (\textit{i.e.} if $\sigma_p^{\mathrm{P}} \ll E_k^2(p_k)/m_k$),

661: the energy $E_k(p)$ can be approximated by

662: \begin{equation}

663: E_k(p)

664: \simeq

665: E_k

666: +

667: v_k \left( p - p_k \right)

668: \,,

669: \label{006}

670: \end{equation}

671: where

672: \begin{equation}

673: E_k

674: \equiv

675: E_k(p_k)

676: =

677: \sqrt{ p_k^2 + m_k^2 }

678: \label{007}

679: \end{equation}

680: is the average energy

681: and

682: \begin{equation}

683: v_k

684: \equiv

685: \left.

686: \frac{ \partial E_k(p) }{ \partial p }

687: \right|_{p=p_k}

688: =

689: \frac{ p_k }{ E_k }

690: \,.

691: \label{008}

692: \end{equation}

693: Under this approximation,

694: the integration over $p$ in Eq.~(\ref{004})

695: is gaussian and leads to the wave packet in coordinate space

696: \begin{equation}

697: \psi_k(x,t)

698: =

699: \left( 2 \pi {\sigma_x^{\mathrm{P}}}^2 \right)^{-1/4}

700: \exp\left[

701: - i E_k t + i p_k x

702: -

703: \frac{ \left( x - v_k t \right)^2 }{ 4 {\sigma_x^{\mathrm{P}}}^2 }

704: \right]

705: \,,

706: \label{009}

707: \end{equation}

708: where

709: \begin{equation}

710: \sigma_x^{\mathrm{P}}

711: =

712: \frac{ 1 }{ 2 \sigma_p^{\mathrm{P}} }

713: \label{010}

714: \end{equation}

715: is the spatial width of the wave packet.

716: From Eq.~(\ref{009})

717: one can see that $v_k$

718: is the group velocity

719: of the wave packet of the massive neutrino $\nu_k$.

720: 

721: The pure state in Eq.~(\ref{001})

722: can be written in the form of a density matrix operator as

723: \begin{equation}

724: \hat\rho_\alpha(x,t)

725: =

726: |\nu_\alpha(x,t)\rangle

727: \langle\nu_\alpha(x,t)|

728: \,.

729: \label{011}

730: \end{equation}

731: Using Eq.~(\ref{009}),

732: we have

733: \begin{eqnarray}

734: &&

735: \hat\rho_\alpha(x,t)

736: =

737: \frac{ 1 }{ \sqrt{ 2 \pi {\sigma_x^{\mathrm{P}}}^2 } }

738: \sum_{k,j}

739: U_{\alpha k}^* U_{\alpha j}

740: \exp\left[

741: - i \left( E_k - E_j \right) t + i \left( p_k - p_j \right) x

742: \vphantom{

743: \frac{ \left( x - v_k t \right)^2 }{ 4 {\sigma_x^{\mathrm{P}}}^2 }

744: }

745: \right.

746: \nonumber

747: \\

748: &&

749: \hspace{6.5cm}

750: \left.

751: -

752: \frac{ \left( x - v_k t \right)^2 }{ 4 {\sigma_x^{\mathrm{P}}}^2 }

753: -

754: \frac{ \left( x - v_j t \right)^2 }{ 4 {\sigma_x^{\mathrm{P}}}^2 }

755: \right]

756: |\nu_k\rangle

757: \langle\nu_j|

758: \,.

759: \label{012}

760: \end{eqnarray}

761: This space and time dependent density matrix operator

762: describes neutrino oscillations in space and time.

763: Although

764: in laboratory experiments

765: it is possible to measure neutrino oscillations in time

766: through the measurement of both the

767: production and detection processes

768: (see Ref.~\cite{Okun:2000-SNEGIRI})\footnote{

769: Let us also mention the possibility of

770: time-dependent flavor oscillations of neutrinos

771: in the primordial cosmological plasma

772: (see Ref.~\cite{Dolgov:2002wy} and references therein).

773: },

774: in all existing neutrino oscillation experiments

775: only the source-detector distance is known.

776: In this case the relevant density matrix operator

777: $\hat\rho_\alpha(x)$

778: is given by the time average of $\hat\rho_\alpha(x,t)$.

779: Since the integral over time is gaussian,

780: one easily obtains\footnote{

781: The density matrix operator in Eq.~(\ref{013})

782: is normalized by

783: $

784: \sum_{\alpha}

785: \hat\rho_\alpha(x)

786: =

787: \hat{I}

788: $,

789: where $\hat{I}$

790: is the identity operator.

791: }

792: \begin{eqnarray}

793: &&

794: \hat\rho_\alpha(x)

795: =

796: \sum_{k,j}

797: U_{\alpha k}^* U_{\alpha j}

798: \exp\left\{

799: - i

800: \left[

801: \frac{v_k+v_j}{v_k^2+v_j^2} \left( E_k - E_j \right)

802: - \left( p_k - p_j \right)

803: \right]

804: x

805: \right.

806: \nonumber

807: \\

808: &&

809: \hspace{4.5cm}

810: \left.

811: -

812: \frac{ \left( v_k - v_j \right)^2 x^2 }{ 4 \left( v_k^2 + v_j^2 \right) {\sigma_x^{\mathrm{P}}}^2 }

813: - \frac{ \left( E_k - E_j \right)^2 }{ 4 \left( v_k^2 + v_j^2 \right) {\sigma_p^{\mathrm{P}}}^2 }

814: \right\}

815: |\nu_k\rangle

816: \langle\nu_j|

817: \,.

818: \label{013}

819: \end{eqnarray}

820: Since this density matrix operator is time independent,

821: it is suitable for the description of a stationary

822: beam in neutrino oscillation experiments,

823: as noticed in Ref.~\cite{Stodolsky-unnecessary-98}.

824: 

825: In order

826: to obtain the oscillation probability,

827: it is convenient to simplify Eq.~(\ref{013})

828: for the realistic case of extremely relativistic neutrinos

829: (see the discussion in Section~2 of Ref.~\cite{hep-ph/0205014}).

830: In general,

831: the average massive neutrino energies $E_k$

832: can be written as

833: \begin{equation}

834: E_k \simeq E + \xi_{\mathrm{P}} \, \frac{m_k^2}{2E}

835: \,,

836: \label{101}

837: \end{equation}

838: where $E$ is the neutrino energy in the limit of zero mass

839: and $\xi_{\mathrm{P}}$ is a dimensionless quantity

840: that depends from the characteristics of the production process\footnote{

841: \label{xip}

842: The quantity

843: $\xi_{\mathrm{P}}$

844: cannot be calculated in a quantum mechanical

845: framework,

846: but its value can be estimated from energy-momentum conservation

847: in the production process.

848: The calculation of the value of

849: $\xi_{\mathrm{P}}$

850: requires a quantum field theoretical treatment

851: (see Ref.~\cite{hep-ph/0205014}).

852: }.

853: From Eq.~(\ref{005}),

854: the corresponding momentum in the relativistic approximation is

855: \begin{equation}

856: p_k \simeq E - \left( 1 - \xi_{\mathrm{P}} \right) \frac{m_k^2}{2E}

857: \,.

858: \label{102}

859: \end{equation}

860: The generality of these relations can be understood by noting that,

861: since the neutrino mass

862: $m_k$

863: enters quadratically in the energy-momentum dispersion relation

864: (\ref{005}),

865: its

866: the first order contribution

867: to the energy and momentum

868: must be proportional

869: to $m_k^2$ and

870: inversely proportional to $E$,

871: which is the only available quantity with dimension of energy.

872: 

873: Using Eqs.~(\ref{101}), (\ref{102}) and the relativistic approximation

874: \begin{equation}

875: v_k

876: \simeq

877: 1 - \frac{ m_k^2 }{ 2 E_k^2 }

878: \,,

879: \label{103}

880: \end{equation}

881: we obtain

882: \begin{equation}

883: \hat\rho_\alpha(x)

884: =

885: \sum_{k,j}

886: U_{\alpha k}^* U_{\alpha j}

887: \exp\left[

888: - i

889: \frac{ \Delta{m}^2_{kj} x }{ 2 E }

890: -

891: \left(

892: \frac{ \Delta{m}^2_{kj} x }{ 4 \sqrt{2} E^2 \sigma_x^{\mathrm{P}} }

893: \right)^2

894: -

895: \left(

896: \xi_{\mathrm{P}}

897: \frac{ \Delta{m}^2_{kj} }{ 4 \sqrt{2} E \sigma_p^{\mathrm{P}} }

898: \right)^2

899: \right]

900: |\nu_k\rangle

901: \langle\nu_j|

902: \,,

903: \label{014}

904: \end{equation}

905: with

906: $ \Delta{m}^2_{kj} \equiv m_k^2 - m_j^2 $.

907: 

908: In analogy with the production process,

909: we describe the process of detection of a

910: neutrino with flavor $\beta$ at the coordinate $x=L$ with the

911: operator

912: \begin{align}

913: \hat{\mathcal{O}}_\beta&(x-L)

914: =

915: \sum_{k,j}

916: U_{\beta k}^* U_{\beta j}

917: \nonumber

918: \\

919: &

920: \times

921: \exp\left[

922: - i

923: \frac{ \Delta{m}^2_{kj} \left( x - L \right) }{ 2 E }

924: -

925: \left(

926: \frac{ \Delta{m}^2_{kj} \left( x - L \right) }{ 4 \sqrt{2} E^2 \sigma_x^{\mathrm{D}} }

927: \right)^2

928: -

929: \left(

930: \xi_{\mathrm{D}}

931: \frac{ \Delta{m}^2_{kj} }{ 4 \sqrt{2} E \sigma_p^{\mathrm{D}} }

932: \right)^2

933: \right]

934: |\nu_k\rangle

935: \langle\nu_j|

936: \,,

937: \label{015}

938: \end{align}

939: where

940: $\xi_{\mathrm{D}}$

941: is a dimensionless quantity

942: that depends from the characteristics of the detection process

943: (see footnote~\ref{xip}),

944: $\sigma_p^{\mathrm{D}}$

945: is the momentum uncertainty of the detection process

946: and

947: $ \sigma_x^{\mathrm{D}} = 1 / 2 \sigma_p^{\mathrm{D}} $.

948: 

949: The probability of

950: $ \nu_\alpha \to \nu_\beta $

951: transitions

952: is given by

953: \begin{equation}

954: P_{\nu_\alpha\to\nu_\beta}(L)

955: =

956: \mathrm{Tr}\left( \hat\rho_\alpha(x) \hat{\mathcal{O}}_\beta(x-L) \right)

957: =

958: \int \mathrm{d}x

959: \sum_k \langle\nu_k| \hat\rho_\alpha(x) \hat{\mathcal{O}}_\beta(x-L) |\nu_k\rangle

960: \,,

961: \label{016}

962: \end{equation}

963: which leads to

964: \begin{equation}

965: P_{\nu_\alpha\to\nu_\beta}(L)

966: =

967: \sum_{k,j}

968: U_{\alpha k}^* U_{\alpha j} U_{\beta k} U_{\beta j}^*

969: \exp\left[

970: - 2 \pi i \frac{ L }{ L^{\mathrm{osc}}_{kj} }

971: -

972: \left(

973: \frac{ L }{ L^{\mathrm{coh}}_{kj} }

974: \right)^2

975: -

976: 2 \pi^2 \xi^2

977: \left(

978: \frac{ \sigma_x }{ L^{\mathrm{osc}}_{kj} }

979: \right)^2

980: \right]

981: \,,

982: \label{017}

983: \end{equation}

984: with

985: the oscillation and coherence lengths

986: \begin{eqnarray}

987: &&

988: L^{\mathrm{osc}}_{kj}

989: =

990: \frac{ 4 \pi E }{ \Delta{m}^2_{kj} }

991: \,,

992: \label{0181}

993: \\

994: &&

995: L^{\mathrm{coh}}_{kj}

996: =

997: \frac{ 4 \sqrt{2} E^2 }{ |\Delta{m}^2_{kj}| }

998: \sigma_x

999: \,,

1000: \label{0182}

1001: \end{eqnarray}

1002: and

1003: \begin{eqnarray}

1004: &&

1005: \sigma_x^2

1006: =

1007: {\sigma_x^{\mathrm{P}}}^2

1008: +

1009: {\sigma_x^{\mathrm{D}}}^2

1010: \,,

1011: \label{0191}

1012: \\

1013: &&

1014: \xi^2 \sigma_x^2

1015: =

1016: \xi_{\mathrm{P}}^2 {\sigma_x^{\mathrm{P}}}^2

1017: +

1018: \xi_{\mathrm{D}}^2 {\sigma_x^{\mathrm{D}}}^2

1019: \,.

1020: \label{0192}

1021: \end{eqnarray}

1022: This result was already obtained\footnote{

1023: The only improvement in the expressions above with respect

1024: to the analogous ones in Ref.~\cite{Giunti-Kim-Coherence-98}

1025: is the introduction of $\xi_{\mathrm{D}}$,

1026: that takes into account the properties of the detection process.

1027: }

1028: in a quantum mechanical framework

1029: in Ref.~\cite{Giunti-Kim-Coherence-98},

1030: where the wave packet treatment with pure states presented

1031: several years before in Ref.~\cite{Giunti-Kim-Lee-Whendo-91}

1032: was extended in order

1033: to take into account the coherence properties of the

1034: detection process,

1035: whose importance was first recognized in Ref.~\cite{Kiers:1996zj}.

1036: Expressions for the

1037: $\nu_\alpha\to\nu_\beta$

1038: transition probability similar

1039: to Eq.~(\ref{017})

1040: have been also obtained with wave packet treatments

1041: of neutrino oscillations

1042: in a quantum field theoretical framework

1043: in Refs.~\cite{Giunti-Kim-Lee-Lee-93,%

1044: Giunti-Kim-Lee-Whendo-98,%

1045: Cardall-Coherence-99,%

1046: Beuthe:2002ej,%

1047: hep-ph/0205014}.

1048: 

1049: It is important to remark that

1050: the wave packet treatment of neutrino oscillations

1051: confirms the standard value in Eq.~(\ref{0181})

1052: for the oscillation length

1053: $L^{\mathrm{osc}}_{kj}$.

1054: The coherence length

1055: $L^{\mathrm{coh}}_{kj}$

1056: in Eq.~(\ref{0182})

1057: is the distance beyond which

1058: the interference of the massive neutrinos

1059: $\nu_k$ and $\nu_j$

1060: is suppressed because

1061: the separation of their wave packets when they arrive at the detector

1062: is so large that they cannot be absorbed coherently.

1063: As shown by Eqs.~(\ref{0182}) and (\ref{0191}) the

1064: coherence lengths

1065: $L^{\mathrm{coh}}_{kj}$

1066: are proportional to the total coherence size,

1067: that is dominated by the largest between the coherence sizes

1068: $\sigma_x^{\mathrm{P}}$

1069: and

1070: $\sigma_x^{\mathrm{D}}$

1071: of the production and detection process.

1072: The last term in the exponential of Eq.~(\ref{017})

1073: implies that the interference of the massive neutrinos

1074: $\nu_k$ and $\nu_j$

1075: is observable only if the

1076: localization of the production and detection processes

1077: is smaller than the oscillation length.

1078: 

1079: The localization term is important

1080: for the distinction of

1081: neutrino oscillation experiments

1082: from experiments on the measurement of neutrino masses.

1083: As first shown by Kayser in Ref.~\cite{Kayser:1981ye},

1084: neutrino oscillations are suppressed

1085: in experiments able to measure the value of a neutrino mass,

1086: because the measurement of a neutrino mass

1087: implies that only the corresponding massive neutrino is

1088: produced or detected.

1089: 

1090: Kayser's \cite{Kayser:1981ye}

1091: argument goes as follows.

1092: Since a neutrino mass

1093: is measured from energy-momentum conservation

1094: in a process in which a neutrino is produced or detected,

1095: from the energy-momentum dispersion relation (\ref{005}),

1096: the uncertainty of the mass determination is

1097: \begin{equation}

1098: \delta{m_k}^2

1099: =

1100: \sqrt{ \left( 2 E_k \delta{E_k} \right)^2 + \left( 2 p_k \delta{p_k} \right)^2 }

1101: \simeq

1102: 2 \sqrt{2} E \sigma_p

1103: \,,

1104: \label{022}

1105: \end{equation}

1106: where the approximation holds for realistic extremely relativistic neutrinos

1107: and

1108: $\sigma_p$

1109: is the momentum uncertainty.

1110: If the mass of $\nu_k$ is measured

1111: with an accuracy better than

1112: $\Delta{m}^2_{kj}$,

1113: \textit{i.e.}

1114: \begin{equation}

1115: \delta{m_k}^2

1116: <

1117: |\Delta{m}^2_{kj}|

1118: \quad

1119: \Longleftrightarrow

1120: \quad

1121: \frac{ |\Delta{m}^2_{kj}| }{ 2 \sqrt{2} E \sigma_p }

1122: >

1123: 1

1124: \,,

1125: \label{023}

1126: \end{equation}

1127: the neutrino $\nu_j$ is not produced or detected\footnote{

1128: The smallness of $\sigma_p$

1129: required to satisfy the condition (\ref{023})

1130: implies that

1131: $\nu_k$ and $\nu_j$

1132: cannot be produced or detected in the same process,

1133: because

1134: their momentum difference is larger than the momentum uncertainty,

1135: or

1136: their energy difference is larger than the energy uncertainty

1137: (for extremely relativistic neutrinos the energy uncertainty

1138: is practically equal to the momentum uncertainty

1139: $\sigma_p$).

1140: In this case only one of the two massive neutrinos

1141: is produced or detected.

1142: }

1143: and the interference of

1144: $\nu_k$ and $\nu_j$

1145: is not observed.

1146: 

1147: The localization term

1148: in the oscillation probability

1149: (\ref{017})

1150: automatically implements Kayser's mechanism.

1151: Indeed,

1152: it can be written as

1153: \begin{equation}

1154: 2 \pi^2 \xi^2

1155: \left(

1156: \frac{ \sigma_x }{ L^{\mathrm{osc}}_{kj} }

1157: \right)^2

1158: =

1159: \xi^2

1160: \left(

1161: \frac{ \Delta{m}^2_{kj} }{ 4 \sqrt{2} E \sigma_p }

1162: \right)^2

1163: \,,

1164: \label{024}

1165: \end{equation}

1166: with the momentum uncertainty

1167: \begin{equation}

1168: \frac{1}{\sigma_p^2}

1169: =

1170: 4 \sigma_x^2

1171: =

1172: \frac{1}{ {\sigma_p^{\mathrm{P}}}^2 }

1173: +

1174: \frac{1}{ {\sigma_p^{\mathrm{D}}}^2 }

1175: \,.

1176: \label{025}

1177: \end{equation}

1178: If the condition (\ref{023}) for neutrino mass measurement

1179: is satisfied,

1180: the localization term (\ref{024})

1181: suppresses\footnote{

1182: This argument assumes that $\xi$ is not too small.

1183: As discussed in Ref.~\cite{hep-ph/0205014},

1184: in realistic cases $\xi$ is a number of order one,

1185: but,

1186: at least in principle,

1187: there could be some cases in which

1188: $\xi$ is very small, or even zero.

1189: In these cases Kayser's mechanism cannot be implemented in the simplified

1190: quantum mechanical framework presented here.

1191: However,

1192: it has been shown in Ref.~\cite{Beuthe:2002ej}

1193: that a wave packet quantum field theoretical derivation of the neutrino oscillation probability

1194: produces additional terms, independent from $\xi$ or similar quantities,

1195: which suppress oscillations when

1196: the condition (\ref{023}) is satisfied.

1197: I would like to thank M. Beuthe for a illuminating discussion

1198: about this problem.

1199: }

1200: the interference of

1201: $\nu_k$ and $\nu_j$.

1202: 

1203: In the above derivation of neutrino oscillations

1204: the wave-packet description of massive neutrinos is crucial in order to

1205: allow the integration over time of

1206: the time-dependent density matrix operator $\hat\rho_\alpha(x,t)$

1207: in Eq.~(\ref{012}),

1208: which leads to the time-independent density matrix operator $\hat\rho_\alpha(x)$

1209: in Eq.~(\ref{013}).

1210: Of course,

1211: as emphasized in Ref.~\cite{Stodolsky-unnecessary-98},

1212: \begin{quote}

1213: A single, given density matrix

1214: can arise in different ways,

1215: especially when incoherence is involved.

1216: \end{quote}

1217: As already noticed in Ref.~\cite{Kiers:1996zj}

1218: the density matrix operator $\hat\rho_\alpha(x)$

1219: can also be generated through an appropriate

1220: incoherent average over the energy spectrum.

1221: The same is obviously true for the

1222: oscillation probability (\ref{017}).

1223: 

1224: In order to illustrate this point, let us consider

1225: the simplest case of two-neutrino mixing.

1226: The wave packet oscillation probability (\ref{017}) becomes

1227: \begin{equation}

1228: P_{\nu_\alpha\to\nu_\beta}(L)

1229: =

1230: \frac{1}{2}

1231: \sin^2 2\vartheta

1232: \left\{

1233: 1

1234: -

1235: \cos \left(

1236: \frac{ \Delta{m}^2 L }{ 2 E }

1237: \right)

1238: \exp\left[

1239: -

1240: \left(

1241: \frac{ L }{ L^{\mathrm{coh}} }

1242: \right)^2

1243: -

1244: 2 \pi^2 \xi^2

1245: \left(

1246: \frac{ \sigma_x }{ L^{\mathrm{osc}} }

1247: \right)^2

1248: \right]

1249: \right\}

1250: \,,

1251: \label{036}

1252: \end{equation}

1253: with

1254: the oscillation and coherence lengths

1255: $L^{\mathrm{osc}}$ and $L^{\mathrm{coh}}$

1256: given, respectively, by Eqs.~(\ref{0181}) and (\ref{0182})

1257: with

1258: $ \Delta{m}^2_{kj} = \Delta{m}^2 $

1259: ($\Delta{m}^2$ is the squared-mass difference

1260: and

1261: $\vartheta$ is the mixing angle;

1262: see the reviews in Refs.~\cite{Bilenkii:2001yh,%

1263: Gonzalez-Garcia:2002dz,%

1264: Kayser:2002qs,%

1265: Bilenky:2002aw}).

1266: An incoherent average

1267: of the probability in the plane-wave approximation

1268: over a gaussian energy spectrum with width

1269: $\sigma_E$

1270: reads

1271: \begin{equation}

1272: P_{\nu_\alpha\to\nu_\beta}^{\mathrm{incoh}}(L)

1273: =

1274: \frac{1}{2}

1275: \sin^2 2\vartheta

1276: \left\{

1277: 1

1278: -

1279: \int \frac{ \mathrm{d}E' }{ \sqrt{ 2 \pi } \sigma_E }

1280: \cos \left(

1281: \frac{ \Delta{m}^2 L }{ 2 E' }

1282: \right)

1283: \exp\left[

1284: -

1285: \left(

1286: \frac{ \left( E - E' \right)^2 }{ 2 \sigma_E^2 }

1287: \right)^2

1288: \right]

1289: \right\}

1290: \,.

1291: \label{035}

1292: \end{equation}

1293: Figure~\ref{prob}

1294: shows the values of the probabilities

1295: (\ref{035}) and (\ref{036})

1296: as functions of the source-detector distance $L$

1297: for

1298: $ \Delta{m}^2 = \unit{2.5 \times 10^{-3}}{\squaren{\electronvolt}} $,

1299: $ \sin^2 2\vartheta = 1 $,

1300: $ E = \unit{10}{\giga\electronvolt} $,

1301: and

1302: $ \sigma_E = \sigma_p = \unit{1}{\giga\electronvolt} $.

1303: One can see that it is hard to distinguish the

1304: dashed line obtained with Eq.~(\ref{035})

1305: from the

1306: solid line obtained with Eq.~(\ref{036}).

1307: 

1308: This result does not mean that wave packet effects are irrelevant\footnote{

1309: Let us clarify here that with

1310: ``wave packet effects''

1311: we mean effects due to the momentum and energy uncertainty

1312: of a single process associated with

1313: the interruption of the emitted wave train

1314: caused by decay (natural linewidth)

1315: or collisions (collision broadening)

1316: discussed in Section~\ref{No source of waves vibrates indefinitely}.

1317: These effects are usually not taken into account

1318: in the calculation of neutrino energy spectra

1319: (see, for example, Ref.~\cite{Bahcall:1994cf}).

1320: }.

1321: It means that in practice one can calculate with reasonable approximation the

1322: decoherence of oscillations due to wave packet effects

1323: either taking into account the momentum spread in the calculation of the amplitude,

1324: as done in the derivation of Eq.~(\ref{036}),

1325: or averaging the probability

1326: over the same energy spread,

1327: as done in the derivation of Eq.~(\ref{035})\footnote{

1328: One must only be careful to notice that

1329: the energy distribution in the incoherent average

1330: of the probability must be normalized to one,

1331: whereas the squared modulus of the momentum distribution of the wave packets

1332: must be normalized to one.

1333: }.

1334: As emphasized in Ref.~\cite{Kiers:1996zj},

1335: it also means that

1336: if one does not have control on both the production and detection processes,

1337: one cannot know if

1338: oscillations are suppressed because of incoherent averaging over energy

1339: of different microscopic processes

1340: or because of decoherence due to the separation of wave packets.

1341: However,

1342: having good control of both the production and detection processes,

1343: it may be possible in the far future to

1344: reduce the causes of incoherent broadening of the energy spectrum

1345: and

1346: prove experimentally that

1347: oscillations can be suppressed because of wave packet effects

1348: (in practice using an approach similar to the

1349: one adopted for the measurement of

1350: the natural linewidth and collision broadening of atomic lines

1351: discussed in Section~\ref{No source of waves vibrates indefinitely}).

1352: 

1353: Let us finally mention that

1354: the fact that

1355: coherent and incoherent

1356: stationary beams

1357: are indistinguishable

1358: without a theoretical analysis

1359: is well known in optics

1360: (see Section 7.5.8 of Ref.~\cite{Born-Wolf-PrinciplesOfOptics-1959}),

1361: in neutron interferometry

1362: \cite{Comsa-PRL51-1105-1983,Kaiser-Werner-George-PRL51-1106-1983}

1363: and

1364: in general stationary particle beams

1365: \cite{Bernstein-Low-PRL59-951-1987}.

1366: 

1367: \section{Energy of massive neutrinos}

1368: \label{Energy of massive neutrinos}

1369: 

1370: In the recent Ref.~\cite{Lipkin:2002sq}

1371: the claim

1372: that different massive neutrinos

1373: must have the same energy

1374: \cite{Lipkin-nonexperiments-95,Grossman-Lipkin-spatial-97},

1375: which was refuted in

1376: Refs.~\cite{Giunti:2000kw,Giunti:2001kj},

1377: has been renewed.

1378: If such claim were correct,

1379: it would mean that, at least in a quantum mechanical framework,

1380: a wave packet description of neutrinos is not necessary.

1381: Indeed,

1382: in this case one can construct a time-independent

1383: density matrix operator from the plane wave state

1384: \begin{equation}

1385: |\tilde\nu_\alpha(x,t)\rangle

1386: =

1387: \sum_k U_{\alpha k}^* e^{i p_k x - i E t} |\nu_k\rangle

1388: \,,

1389: \label{201}

1390: \end{equation}

1391: with

1392: $p_k = \sqrt{ E^2 - m_k^2 }$:

1393: \begin{equation}

1394: \hat{\tilde\rho}_\alpha(x)

1395: =

1396: |\tilde\nu_\alpha(x,t)\rangle

1397: \langle\tilde\nu_\alpha(x,t)|

1398: =

1399: \sum_{k,j}

1400: U_{\alpha k}^* U_{\alpha j}

1401: \exp\left[

1402: i \left( p_k - p_j \right) x

1403: \right]

1404: \,.

1405: \label{211}

1406: \end{equation}

1407: Using this density matrix operator

1408: one can easily derive the standard oscillation probability

1409: without need of neutrino wave packets.

1410: Therefore,

1411: in this section we consider recent claims

1412: in favor of an equal energy of different massive neutrinos

1413: and show that they are faulty.

1414: 

1415: The author of Ref.~\cite{Lipkin:2002sq} wrote:

1416: \begin{quote}

1417: \ldots

1418: states with different ENERGIES ARE NEVER COHERENT

1419: in any realistic experiment.

1420: States of the same energy and different momenta

1421: can be coherent,

1422: but may not be.

1423: \end{quote}

1424: The reason offered by the author of Ref.~\cite{Lipkin:2002sq} is

1425: \begin{quote}

1426: The usual detector is a nucleon,

1427: which changes its state after absorbing a neutrino and emitting

1428: a charged lepton,

1429: and is initially either in an energy eigenstate

1430: or in a statistical mixture

1431: in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings.

1432: No neutrino detector has ever been

1433: prepared in a coherent mixture

1434: of energy eigenstates and no such

1435: detector has been proposed

1436: for future experiments.

1437: \end{quote}

1438: First,

1439: one must note that in terminology of Ref.~\cite{Lipkin:2002sq}

1440: ``detector''

1441: is not a macroscopic device,

1442: but a nucleon hit by a neutrino.

1443: Then,

1444: the claim in Ref.~\cite{Lipkin:2002sq} is easily proved to be wrong

1445: using the arguments presented

1446: in Section~\ref{No source of waves vibrates indefinitely},

1447: where we have shown that all kinds of waves,

1448: classical or quantistic,

1449: can be emitted or absorbed

1450: only as wave packets,

1451: \textit{i.e.}

1452: as coherent superpositions

1453: of plane waves with different frequency (energy).

1454: If the claim in Ref.~\cite{Lipkin:2002sq} were correct,

1455: photons, as well as other particles,

1456: could never be emitted or absorbed.

1457: The claim that a nucleon should be initially in an energy eigenstate

1458: has been shown to be incorrect in Section~\ref{Bound states}.

1459: Furthermore,

1460: it is a mystery why all the claims on energy in Ref.~\cite{Lipkin:2002sq},

1461: if they were true,

1462: do not apply also to momentum.

1463: 

1464: Also the author of

1465: Ref.~\cite{Stodolsky-unnecessary-98}

1466: claimed that

1467: different massive neutrinos have the same energy:

1468: \begin{quote}

1469: \emph{Energy or momentum?}

1470: In mixing problems,

1471: where we have to deal with linear combinations of particles

1472: of different mass,

1473: the question comes up as to whether one should

1474: deal with states of the same energy or the same momentum.

1475: Since as stated above,

1476: for stationary conditions

1477: we are to perform the calculation as an incoherent sum over energies,

1478: we have given the answer ``energy''.

1479: Evidently,

1480: for stationary problems

1481: it is most natural to use stationary wave functions

1482: $\sim e^{-iEt}$.

1483: \end{quote}

1484: The meaning of this paragraph

1485: seems to be that

1486: different massive neutrinos are supposed to manage to have equal

1487: energy in order to satisfy the

1488: calculational needs of some theoretical physicists.

1489: Therefore,

1490: we cannot consider it a proof of anything.

1491: 

1492: A simple way to show the absurdity of the claims

1493: that massive neutrinos must have equal energies

1494: is to consider the transformation properties

1495: of energy and momentum from one inertial frame to another,

1496: following the discussion presented in Ref.~\cite{Giunti:2001kj}.

1497: 

1498: If the arguments presented in

1499: Ref.~\cite{Lipkin:2002sq}

1500: were correct,

1501: in order to be produced and detected coherently

1502: massive neutrinos should necessarily have exactly equal energies

1503: in the inertial reference frames of both the

1504: production and detection processes

1505: (which presumably coincide with the rest frames of the initial nucleons in the

1506: production and detection processes,

1507: in the approach of Ref.~\cite{Lipkin:2002sq};

1508: let us skip the useless discussion of the determination of the relevant inertial reference frame

1509: in neutrino-electron scattering).

1510: Such a requirement would imply that the

1511: production and detection processes

1512: have to be at rest in exactly the same inertial system,

1513: because,

1514: as shown in Ref.~\cite{Giunti:2001kj}

1515: the equal-energy requirement is not Lorentz invariant.

1516: 

1517: Therefore

1518: if the arguments presented in

1519: Ref.~\cite{Lipkin:2002sq}

1520: were correct it would mean that in practice

1521: neutrino oscillations are not observable,

1522: since it is practically impossible to

1523: suppress random thermal motion in the source and detector.

1524: Certainly,

1525: oscillations of solar and atmospheric neutrinos

1526: would be impossible.

1527: Let me remind that in this discussion

1528: we are concerned with the oscillatory terms in the

1529: flavor transition probability

1530: (\ref{017}),

1531: due to the interference of different massive neutrinos,

1532: which require coherence.

1533: If these terms are suppressed,

1534: it is still possible to measure the distance-independent

1535: and energy-independent flavor-changing

1536: probability

1537: \begin{equation}

1538: P_{\nu_\alpha\to\nu_\beta}

1539: =

1540: \sum_{k}

1541: |U_{\alpha k}|^2 |U_{\beta k}|^2

1542: \,,

1543: \label{031}

1544: \end{equation}

1545: or the distance-independent flavor-changing

1546: probability calculated in Ref.~\cite{Parke:1986jy}

1547: if matter effects are important

1548: \cite{Wolfenstein:1978ue,Mikheev:1985gs,Mikheev:1986wj}.

1549: According to the results of solar neutrino experiments

1550: \cite{Cleveland:1998nv,%

1551: Hampel:1998xg,%

1552: Altmann:2000ft,%

1553: astro-ph/0204245,%

1554: Fukuda:2002pe,%

1555: Ahmad:2002jz,%

1556: Ahmad:2002ka},

1557: the solar neutrino problem

1558: is very likely due to

1559: neutrino oscillations in matter,

1560: in which the distance-independent flavor-changing

1561: probability calculated in Ref.~\cite{Parke:1986jy}

1562: is relevant.

1563: However,

1564: recently the KamLAND experiment

1565: \cite{hep-ex/0212021}

1566: observed

1567: indications in favor of

1568: distance and energy dependent oscillations in vacuum of reactor antineutrinos

1569: due to the same mass-squared difference

1570: responsible of solar neutrino oscillations.

1571: Distance and energy dependent flavor-changing

1572: transitions have been also observed

1573: in the Super-Kamiokande

1574: \cite{Fukuda:1998mi},

1575: Soudan 2

1576: \cite{Allison:1999ms}

1577: and MACRO

1578: \cite{Ambrosio:2000qy}

1579: atmospheric neutrino experiments

1580: and

1581: in the long-baseline experiment K2K

1582: \cite{Ahn:2002up}.

1583: These experimental evidences

1584: show without any doubt that the arguments presented in

1585: Ref.~\cite{Lipkin:2002sq}

1586: in favor of an equal energy for different massive neutrinos

1587: are wrong.

1588: 

1589: Indeed, if we consider for example

1590: atmospheric neutrinos

1591: produced by decays in the atmosphere

1592: of highly energetic pions and muons,

1593: the rest frames of the source and detector are very different

1594: and different massive neutrinos cannot have the same energy

1595: in both frames.

1596: If the arguments presented in

1597: Ref.~\cite{Lipkin:2002sq}

1598: were correct different massive neutrinos could not be

1599: either produced or detected coherently,

1600: in contradiction with the observed oscillations.

1601: The same reasoning applies to reactor and accelerator neutrinos,

1602: remembering that

1603: according to the arguments presented in

1604: Ref.~\cite{Lipkin:2002sq}

1605: coherence is possible only if

1606: the source and detector rest frames coincide \emph{exactly}

1607: (which, by the way, is an absurd concept,

1608: if velocity is a real-valued quantity).

1609: 

1610: The only rigorous and correct calculation which could

1611: be erroneously interpreted\footnote{

1612: Indeed,

1613: I made such mistake in the first version of this paper appeared in the

1614: \texttt{hep-ph} electronic archive.

1615: I am deeply indebted to M. Beuthe for his comments that helped to correct this mistake

1616: and my wrong criticisms of

1617: Refs.~\cite{Beuthe:2002ej,Beuthe:2001rc}.

1618: }

1619: as a proof in favor of the equal energy assumption

1620: has been presented in Ref.~\cite{Beuthe:2002ej}

1621: (see also Section~2.5 of Ref.~\cite{Beuthe:2001rc}).

1622: The argument can be illustrated with the

1623: density matrix model of neutrino oscillations

1624: presented in Section~\ref{Stationary beams}.

1625: Instead of writing the density matrix operator (\ref{011})

1626: in the form (\ref{012})

1627: using the wave packets (\ref{009})

1628: in which the integration over the momentum $p$

1629: in Eq.~(\ref{004})

1630: has been already performed,

1631: one could write the density matrix operator (\ref{011})

1632: using the wave functions (\ref{004}) as

1633: \begin{equation}

1634: \hat\rho_\alpha(x,t)

1635: =

1636: \sum_{k,j}

1637: U_{\alpha k}^* U_{\alpha j}

1638: \int \frac{ \mathrm{d}p \, \mathrm{d}p' }{ 2\pi }

1639: \psi_k(p) \psi_j(p')

1640: e^{i(p-p')x-i(E_k(p)-E_j(p'))t}

1641: |\nu_k\rangle

1642: \langle\nu_j|

1643: \,.

1644: \label{021}

1645: \end{equation}

1646: As in Section~\ref{Stationary beams},

1647: the time-independent density matrix operator

1648: that describes a stationary beam is given by the average

1649: over time of $\hat\rho_\alpha(x,t)$.

1650: The integral over $t$

1651: of

1652: $\exp[-i(E_k(p)-E_j(p'))t]$

1653: yields a

1654: $\delta(E_k(p)-E_j(p'))$,

1655: which means that

1656: ``interference occurs only between wave packet components with the same energy''

1657: \cite{Beuthe:2001rc}

1658: (see Refs.\cite{Gabor-RMP28-260-1956,Sudarsky:1991gv}

1659: for similar results in electron interferometry

1660: and kaon oscillations).

1661: This means that the time average of

1662: $\hat\rho_\alpha(x,t)$

1663: is equivalent to an appropriate incoherent average

1664: over the contributions of the single-energy components

1665: of the wave packets.

1666: This is the reason why

1667: coherent and incoherent

1668: stationary beams cannot be distinguished

1669: without a theoretical analysis,

1670: as discussed in Section~\ref{Stationary beams}.

1671: 

1672: Let us emphasize, however,

1673: that this argument does not mean that

1674: different massive neutrinos have the same energy,

1675: or that wave packets are unnecessary.

1676: The wave packet nature of massive neutrinos

1677: is necessary for the existence of components

1678: with the same energy that produce the observable interference,

1679: and

1680: the average energies of the wave packets of

1681: different massive neutrino

1682: are in general different.

1683: 

1684: \section{Conclusions}

1685: \label{Conclusions}

1686: 

1687: Starting from the well-known fact that

1688: ``no source of waves vibrates indefinitely'',

1689: we have argued that

1690: neutrinos, as all other particles, are naturally described by wave packets.

1691: This is in agreement with the well known fact that

1692: in quantum theory

1693: localized particles are described by

1694: wave packets.

1695: Even when neutrinos are produced or detected

1696: through interactions with particles in bound states,

1697: they are described by wave packets,

1698: because bound states in interaction with an external field

1699: do not have a definite energy.

1700: 

1701: Since the production and detection processes

1702: in neutrino oscillation experiments are localized in space-time,

1703: a consistent description of neutrino oscillations

1704: requires a wave packet treatment.

1705: In particular,

1706: the wave packet character of massive neutrinos

1707: is crucial for

1708: the derivation of neutrino oscillations in space,

1709: because the group velocity establishes a connection between space and time

1710: and allows the time average of the space and time dependent

1711: probability (or density matrix).

1712: 

1713: Finally, we have shown that the claimed arguments in

1714: favor of an equal energy of massive neutrinos

1715: (which could allow a quantum mechanical derivation of neutrino oscillations

1716: without wave packets)

1717: are in contradiction with well known physical laws and phenomena.

1718: 

1719: \section*{Acknowledgements}

1720: \label{Acknowledgements}

1721: 

1722: I would like to thank M. Beuthe and C. Cardall

1723: for very interesting and useful comments

1724: on the first version of this paper appeared in the

1725: \texttt{hep-ph} electronic archive.

1726: 

1727: %\input{bibtex/bib.tex}

1728: 

1729: \begin{thebibliography}{74}

1730: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1731: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

1732:   \def\url#1{{\tt #1}}\fi

1733: 

1734: \bibitem[Abdurashitov et~al.(2002)]{astro-ph/0204245}

1735: J.~N. Abdurashitov et~al.,

1736: \newblock ``{Measurement of the Solar Neutrino Capture Rate by the

1737:   Russian-American Gallium Solar Neutrino Experiment During One Half of the

1738:   22-Year Cycle of Solar Activity}'',

1739: \newblock {\em J. Exp. Theor. Phys.}, 95, 181--193, 2002,

1740: \newblock

1741:   \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0204245}{astro-ph/0204245}}.

1742: 

1743: \bibitem[Ahmad et~al.(2002{\natexlab{a}})]{Ahmad:2002jz}

1744: Q.~R. Ahmad et~al.,

1745: \newblock ``{Direct Evidence for Neutrino Flavor Transformation from

1746:   Neutral-Current Interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory}'',

1747: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 89, 011301, 2002{\natexlab{a}},

1748: \newblock \url{http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/results_04_02/NC},

1749: \newblock

1750:   \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0204008}{nucl-ex/0204008}}.

1751: 

1752: \bibitem[Ahmad et~al.(2002{\natexlab{b}})]{Ahmad:2002ka}

1753: Q.~R. Ahmad et~al.,

1754: \newblock ``{Measurement of Day and Night Neutrino Energy Spectra at SNO and

1755:   Constraints on Neutrino Mixing Parameters}'',

1756: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 89, 011302, 2002{\natexlab{b}},

1757: \newblock \url{http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/results_04_02/DayNight},

1758: \newblock

1759:   \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0204009}{nucl-ex/0204009}}.

1760: 

1761: \bibitem[Ahn et~al.(2003)]{Ahn:2002up}

1762: M.~H. Ahn et~al.,

1763: \newblock ``{Indications of Neutrino Oscillation in a 250 km Long- baseline

1764:   Experiment}'',

1765: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 90, 041801, 2003,

1766: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0212007}{hep-ex/0212007}}.

1767: 

1768: \bibitem[Allison et~al.(1999)]{Allison:1999ms}

1769: W.~W.~M. Allison et~al.,

1770: \newblock ``{The atmospheric neutrino flavor ratio from a 3.9 fiducial

1771:   kiloton-year exposure of Soudan 2}'',

1772: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B449, 137--144, 1999,

1773: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/9901024}{hep-ex/9901024}}.

1774: 

1775: \bibitem[Altmann et~al.(2000)]{Altmann:2000ft}

1776: M.~Altmann et~al.,

1777: \newblock ``{GNO solar neutrino observations: Results for GNO I}'',

1778: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B490, 16--26, 2000,

1779: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0006034}{hep-ex/0006034}}.

1780: 

1781: \bibitem[Ambrosio et~al.(2000)]{Ambrosio:2000qy}

1782: M.~Ambrosio et~al.,

1783: \newblock ``{Low energy atmospheric muon neutrinos in MACRO}'',

1784: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B478, 5--13, 2000.

1785: 

1786: \bibitem[Bahcall(1994)]{Bahcall:1994cf}

1787: J.~N. Bahcall,

1788: \newblock ``{The Be-7 solar neutrino line: A Reflection of the central

1789:   temperature distribution of the sun}'',

1790: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D49, 3923--3945, 1994.

1791: 

1792: \bibitem[Bernstein and Low(1987)]{Bernstein-Low-PRL59-951-1987}

1793: H.~J. Bernstein and F.~E. Low,

1794: \newblock ``{Measurement of Longitudinal Coherence Lenghts in Particle

1795:   Beams}'',

1796: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 59, 951, 1987.

1797: 

1798: \bibitem[Beuthe(2002)]{Beuthe:2002ej}

1799: M.~Beuthe,

1800: \newblock ``{Towards a unique formula for neutrino oscillations in vacuum}'',

1801: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D66, 013003, 2002,

1802: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0202068}{hep-ph/0202068}}.

1803: 

1804: \bibitem[Beuthe(2003)]{Beuthe:2001rc}

1805: M.~Beuthe,

1806: \newblock ``{Oscillations of neutrinos and mesons in quantum field theory}'',

1807: \newblock {\em Phys. Rept.}, 375, 105--218, 2003,

1808: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0109119}{hep-ph/0109119}}.

1809: 

1810: \bibitem[Bilenky and Giunti(2001)]{Bilenkii:2001yh}

1811: S.~M. Bilenky and C.~Giunti,

1812: \newblock ``{Lepton numbers in the framework of neutrino mixing}'',

1813: \newblock {\em Int. J. Mod. Phys.}, A16, 3931--3949, 2001,

1814: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0102320}{hep-ph/0102320}}.

1815: 

1816: \bibitem[Bilenky et~al.(2003)Bilenky, Giunti, Grifols, and

1817:   Masso]{Bilenky:2002aw}

1818: S.~M. Bilenky, C.~Giunti, J.~A. Grifols, and E.~Masso,

1819: \newblock ``{Absolute values of neutrino masses: Status and prospects}'',

1820: \newblock {\em Phys. Rept.}, 379, 69--148, 2003,

1821: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0211462}{hep-ph/0211462}}.

1822: 

1823: \bibitem[Bilenky and Pontecorvo(1976)]{Bilenky:1976yj}

1824: S.~M. Bilenky and B.~Pontecorvo,

1825: \newblock ``{Again on neutrino oscillations}'',

1826: \newblock {\em Nuovo Cim. Lett.}, 17, 569, 1976.

1827: 

1828: \bibitem[Bilenky and Pontecorvo(1978)]{Bilenky:1978nj}

1829: S.~M. Bilenky and B.~Pontecorvo,

1830: \newblock ``{Lepton mixing and neutrino oscillations}'',

1831: \newblock {\em Phys. Rept.}, 41, 225, 1978.

1832: 

1833: \bibitem[Born and Wolf(1959)]{Born-Wolf-PrinciplesOfOptics-1959}

1834: M.~Born and E.~Wolf,

1835: \newblock {\em {Principles of Optics}},

1836: \newblock Pergamon Press, 1959.

1837: 

1838: \bibitem[{Breene Jr.}(1957)]{Breene-57}

1839: R.~J. {Breene Jr.},

1840: \newblock ``{Line Shape}'',

1841: \newblock {\em Rev. Mod. Phys.}, 29, 94, 1957.

1842: 

1843: \bibitem[Cardall(2000)]{Cardall-Coherence-99}

1844: C.~Y. Cardall,

1845: \newblock ``{Coherence of neutrino flavor mixing in quantum field theory}'',

1846: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D61, 073006, 2000,

1847: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9909332}{hep-ph/9909332}}.

1848: 

1849: \bibitem[Cleveland et~al.(1998)]{Cleveland:1998nv}

1850: B.~T. Cleveland et~al.,

1851: \newblock ``{Measurement of the solar electron neutrino flux with the Homestake

1852:   chlorine detector}'',

1853: \newblock {\em Astrophys. J.}, 496, 505, 1998.

1854: 

1855: \bibitem[Comsa(1983)]{Comsa-PRL51-1105-1983}

1856: G.~Comsa,

1857: \newblock ``{Comment on ``Direct Measurement of the Longitudinal Coherence

1858:   Length of a Thermal Neutron Beam''}'',

1859: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 51, 1105, 1983.

1860: 

1861: \bibitem[Davis et~al.(1968)Davis, Harmer, and Hoffman]{Davis:1968cp}

1862: J.~Davis, Raymond, D.~S. Harmer, and K.~C. Hoffman,

1863: \newblock ``{Search for neutrinos from the sun}'',

1864: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 20, 1205--1209, 1968.

1865: 

1866: \bibitem[Dolgov(2000)]{Dolgov:1999sp}

1867: A.~D. Dolgov,

1868: \newblock ``{Neutrino oscillations and cosmology}'',

1869: \newblock 2000,

1870: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0004032}{hep-ph/0004032}},

1871: \newblock International School of Astrophysics, Daniel Chalonge: 7th Course:

1872:   Current Topics in Astrofundamental Physics (A NATO Advanced Study Institute

1873:   Euroconference), Erice, Italy, 5-16 Dec 1999.

1874: 

1875: \bibitem[Dolgov(2002)]{Dolgov:2002wy}

1876: A.~D. Dolgov,

1877: \newblock ``{Neutrinos in cosmology}'',

1878: \newblock {\em Phys. Rept.}, 370, 333--535, 2002,

1879: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0202122}{hep-ph/0202122}}.

1880: 

1881: \bibitem[Dolgov et~al.(1997)Dolgov, Morozov, Okun, and

1882:   Shchepkin]{Dolgov-Morozov-Okun-Shchepkin-97}

1883: A.~D. Dolgov, A.~Y. Morozov, L.~B. Okun, and M.~G. Shchepkin,

1884: \newblock ``{Do muons oscillate?}'',

1885: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.}, B502, 3--18, 1997,

1886: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9703241}{hep-ph/9703241}}.

1887: 

1888: \bibitem[Eguchi et~al.(2003)]{hep-ex/0212021}

1889: K.~Eguchi et~al.,

1890: \newblock ``{First Results from KamLAND: Evidence for Reactor Anti-Neutrino

1891:   Disappearance}'',

1892: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 90, 021802, 2003,

1893: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0212021}{hep-ex/0212021}}.

1894: 

1895: \bibitem[Eliezer and Swift(1976)]{Eliezer:1976ja}

1896: S.~Eliezer and A.~R. Swift,

1897: \newblock ``{Experimental consequences of electron neutrino - muon neutrino

1898:   mixing in neutrino beams}'',

1899: \newblock {\em Nucl. Phys.}, B105, 45, 1976.

1900: 

1901: \bibitem[Fritzsch and Minkowski(1976)]{Fritzsch:1976rz}

1902: H.~Fritzsch and P.~Minkowski,

1903: \newblock ``{Vector - like weak currents, massive neutrinos, and neutrino beam

1904:   oscillations}'',

1905: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B62, 72, 1976.

1906: 

1907: \bibitem[Fukuda et~al.(2002)]{Fukuda:2002pe}

1908: S.~Fukuda et~al.,

1909: \newblock ``{Determination of solar neutrino oscillation parameters using 1496

1910:   days of Super-Kamiokande-I data}'',

1911: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B539, 179--187, 2002,

1912: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/0205075}{hep-ex/0205075}}.

1913: 

1914: \bibitem[Fukuda et~al.(1998)]{Fukuda:1998mi}

1915: Y.~Fukuda et~al.,

1916: \newblock ``{Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos}'',

1917: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 81, 1562--1567, 1998,

1918: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ex/9807003}{hep-ex/9807003}}.

1919: 

1920: \bibitem[Gabor(1956)]{Gabor-RMP28-260-1956}

1921: D.~Gabor,

1922: \newblock ``{Theory of Electron Interference Experiments}'',

1923: \newblock {\em Rev. Mod. Phys.}, 28, 260, 1956.

1924: 

1925: \bibitem[Giunti(2001)]{Giunti:2001kj}

1926: C.~Giunti,

1927: \newblock ``{Energy and momentum of oscillating neutrinos}'',

1928: \newblock {\em Mod. Phys. Lett.}, A16, 2363, 2001,

1929: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0104148}{hep-ph/0104148}}.

1930: 

1931: \bibitem[Giunti(2002)]{hep-ph/0205014}

1932: C.~Giunti,

1933: \newblock ``{Neutrino wave packets in quantum field theory}'',

1934: \newblock {\em JHEP}, 11, 017, 2002,

1935: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0205014}{hep-ph/0205014}}.

1936: 

1937: \bibitem[Giunti(2003)]{hep-ph/0202063}

1938: C.~Giunti,

1939: \newblock ``{The phase of neutrino oscillations}'',

1940: \newblock {\em Physica Scripta}, 67, 29--33, 2003,

1941: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0202063}{hep-ph/0202063}}.

1942: 

1943: \bibitem[Giunti and Kim(1998)]{Giunti-Kim-Coherence-98}

1944: C.~Giunti and C.~W. Kim,

1945: \newblock ``{Coherence of neutrino oscillations in the wave packet approach}'',

1946: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D58, 017301, 1998,

1947: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9711363}{hep-ph/9711363}}.

1948: 

1949: \bibitem[Giunti and Kim(2001)]{Giunti:2000kw}

1950: C.~Giunti and C.~W. Kim,

1951: \newblock ``{Quantum mechanics of neutrino oscillations}'',

1952: \newblock {\em Found. Phys. Lett.}, 14, 213--229, 2001,

1953: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0011074}{hep-ph/0011074}}.

1954: 

1955: \bibitem[Giunti et~al.(1993)Giunti, Kim, Lee, and Lee]{Giunti-Kim-Lee-Lee-93}

1956: C.~Giunti, C.~W. Kim, J.~A. Lee, and U.~W. Lee,

1957: \newblock ``{Treatment of neutrino oscillations without resort to weak

1958:   eigenstates}'',

1959: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D48, 4310--4317, 1993,

1960: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9305276}{hep-ph/9305276}}.

1961: 

1962: \bibitem[Giunti et~al.(1991)Giunti, Kim, and Lee]{Giunti-Kim-Lee-Whendo-91}

1963: C.~Giunti, C.~W. Kim, and U.~W. Lee,

1964: \newblock ``{When do neutrinos really oscillate?: Quantum mechanics of neutrino

1965:   oscillations}'',

1966: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D44, 3635--3640, 1991.

1967: 

1968: \bibitem[Giunti et~al.(1992)Giunti, Kim, and Lee]{Giunti:1992sx}

1969: C.~Giunti, C.~W. Kim, and U.~W. Lee,

1970: \newblock ``{Coherence of neutrino oscillations in vacuum and matter in the

1971:   wave packet treatment}'',

1972: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B274, 87--94, 1992.

1973: 

1974: \bibitem[Giunti et~al.(1998)Giunti, Kim, and Lee]{Giunti-Kim-Lee-Whendo-98}

1975: C.~Giunti, C.~W. Kim, and U.~W. Lee,

1976: \newblock ``{When do neutrinos cease to oscillate?}'',

1977: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B421, 237--244, 1998,

1978: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9709494}{hep-ph/9709494}}.

1979: 

1980: \bibitem[Giunti and Laveder()]{Neutrino-Unbound}

1981: C.~Giunti and M.~Laveder,

1982: \newblock ``{Neutrino Unbound}'',

1983: \newblock \url{http://www.nu.to.infn.it}.

1984: 

1985: \bibitem[Gonzalez-Garcia and Nir(2003)]{Gonzalez-Garcia:2002dz}

1986: M.~Gonzalez-Garcia and Y.~Nir,

1987: \newblock ``{Neutrino Masses and Mixing: Evidence and Implications}'',

1988: \newblock {\em Rev. Mod. Phys.}, 75, 345--402, 2003,

1989: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0202058}{hep-ph/0202058}}.

1990: 

1991: \bibitem[Gribov and Pontecorvo(1969)]{Gribov:1969kq}

1992: V.~N. Gribov and B.~Pontecorvo,

1993: \newblock ``{Neutrino astronomy and lepton charge}'',

1994: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B28, 493, 1969.

1995: 

1996: \bibitem[Grimus et~al.(2000)Grimus, Mohanty, and

1997:   Stockinger]{Grimus-Mohanty-Stockinger-99}

1998: W.~Grimus, S.~Mohanty, and P.~Stockinger,

1999: \newblock ``{Neutrino oscillations and the effect of the finite lifetime of the

2000:   neutrino source}'',

2001: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D61, 033001, 2000,

2002: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9904285}{hep-ph/9904285}}.

2003: 

2004: \bibitem[Grimus and Stockinger(1996)]{Grimus-Stockinger-96}

2005: W.~Grimus and P.~Stockinger,

2006: \newblock ``{Real Oscillations of Virtual Neutrinos}'',

2007: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D54, 3414--3419, 1996,

2008: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9603430}{hep-ph/9603430}}.

2009: 

2010: \bibitem[Grimus et~al.(1999)Grimus, Stockinger, and

2011:   Mohanty]{Grimus-Mohanty-Stockinger-98}

2012: W.~Grimus, P.~Stockinger, and S.~Mohanty,

2013: \newblock ``{The field-theoretical approach to coherence in neutrino

2014:   oscillations}'',

2015: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D59, 013011, 1999,

2016: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9807442}{hep-ph/9807442}}.

2017: 

2018: \bibitem[Grossman and Lipkin(1997)]{Grossman-Lipkin-spatial-97}

2019: Y.~Grossman and H.~J. Lipkin,

2020: \newblock ``{Flavor oscillations from a spatially localized source: A simple

2021:   general treatment}'',

2022: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D55, 2760--2767, 1997,

2023: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9607201}{hep-ph/9607201}}.

2024: 

2025: \bibitem[Hampel et~al.(1999)]{Hampel:1998xg}

2026: W.~Hampel et~al.,

2027: \newblock ``{GALLEX solar neutrino observations: Results for GALLEX IV}'',

2028: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B447, 127--133, 1999.

2029: 

2030: \bibitem[Jackson(1975)]{Jackson-book-75}

2031: J.~D. Jackson,

2032: \newblock {\em {Classical Electrodynamics}},

2033: \newblock Wiley, 1975,

2034: \newblock Second Edition.

2035: 

2036: \bibitem[Jenkins and White(1981)]{Jenkins-White-FundamentalsOfOptics-1981}

2037: F.~A. Jenkins and H.~E. White,

2038: \newblock {\em {Fundamentals of Optics}},

2039: \newblock McGraw-Hill, 1981.

2040: 

2041: \bibitem[Kaiser et~al.(1983)Kaiser, Werner, and

2042:   George]{Kaiser-Werner-George-PRL51-1106-1983}

2043: H.~Kaiser, S.~A. Werner, and E.~A. George,

2044: \newblock ``{Answer to Comsa's Comment}'',

2045: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 51, 1106, 1983.

2046: 

2047: \bibitem[Kayser(1981)]{Kayser:1981ye}

2048: B.~Kayser,

2049: \newblock ``{On the quantum mechanics of neutrino oscillation}'',

2050: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D24, 110, 1981.

2051: 

2052: \bibitem[Kayser(2002)]{Kayser:2002qs}

2053: B.~Kayser,

2054: \newblock ``{Neutrino mass, mixing, and flavor change}'',

2055: \newblock 2002,

2056: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0211134}{hep-ph/0211134}}.

2057: 

2058: \bibitem[Kiers et~al.(1996)Kiers, Nussinov, and Weiss]{Kiers:1996zj}

2059: K.~Kiers, S.~Nussinov, and N.~Weiss,

2060: \newblock ``{Coherence effects in neutrino oscillations}'',

2061: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D53, 537--547, 1996,

2062: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9506271}{hep-ph/9506271}}.

2063: 

2064: \bibitem[Kiers and Weiss(1998)]{Kiers-Weiss-PRD57-98}

2065: K.~Kiers and N.~Weiss,

2066: \newblock ``{Neutrino oscillations in a model with a source and detector}'',

2067: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D57, 3091--3105, 1998,

2068: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9710289}{hep-ph/9710289}}.

2069: 

2070: \bibitem[Kim and Pevsner(1993)]{CWKim-book}

2071: C.~W. Kim and A.~Pevsner,

2072: \newblock {\em {Neutrinos in physics and astrophysics}},

2073: \newblock Harwood Academic Press, Chur, Switzerland, 1993,

2074: \newblock Contemporary Concepts in Physics, Vol. 8.

2075: 

2076: \bibitem[Lipkin(2002)]{Lipkin:2002sq}

2077: H.~J. Lipkin,

2078: \newblock ``{Stodolsky's Theorem and Neutrino Oscillation Phases -- for

2079:   pedestrians}'',

2080: \newblock 2002,

2081: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0212093}{hep-ph/0212093}}.

2082: 

2083: \bibitem[Lipkin(1995)]{Lipkin-nonexperiments-95}

2084: H.~J. Lipkin,

2085: \newblock ``{Theories of nonexperiments in coherent decays of neutral

2086:   mesons}'',

2087: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B348, 604--608, 1995,

2088: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9501269}{hep-ph/9501269}}.

2089: 

2090: \bibitem[Loudon(1992)]{Loudon-TheQuantumTheoryOfLight-92}

2091: R.~Loudon,

2092: \newblock {\em {The Quantum Theory of Light}},

2093: \newblock Oxford University Press, 1992.

2094: 

2095: \bibitem[Maki et~al.(1962)Maki, Nakagawa, and Sakata]{Maki:1962mu}

2096: Z.~Maki, M.~Nakagawa, and S.~Sakata,

2097: \newblock ``{Remarks on the unified model of elementary particles}'',

2098: \newblock {\em Prog. Theor. Phys.}, 28, 870, 1962.

2099: 

2100: \bibitem[Michelson(1895)]{Michelson-1895}

2101: A.~A. Michelson,

2102: \newblock {\em Astrophys. J.}, 2, 251, 1895.

2103: 

2104: \bibitem[Mikheev and Smirnov(1985)]{Mikheev:1985gs}

2105: S.~P. Mikheev and A.~Y. Smirnov,

2106: \newblock ``{Resonance enhancement of oscillations in matter and solar neutrino

2107:   spectroscopy}'',

2108: \newblock {\em Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.}, 42, 913--917, 1985.

2109: 

2110: \bibitem[Mikheev and Smirnov(1986)]{Mikheev:1986wj}

2111: S.~P. Mikheev and A.~Y. Smirnov,

2112: \newblock ``{Resonant amplification of neutrino oscillations in matter and

2113:   solar neutrino spectroscopy}'',

2114: \newblock {\em Nuovo Cim.}, C9, 17--26, 1986.

2115: 

2116: \bibitem[Nussinov(1976)]{Nussinov:1976uw}

2117: S.~Nussinov,

2118: \newblock ``{Solar neutrinos and neutrino mixing}'',

2119: \newblock {\em Phys. Lett.}, B63, 201--203, 1976.

2120: 

2121: \bibitem[Okun(2000)]{Okun:2000-SNEGIRI}

2122: L.~B. Okun,

2123: \newblock ``{On Neutrino Oscillations}'',

2124: \newblock {\em Surveys High Energy Physics}, 15, 75, 2000,

2125: \newblock

2126:   \url{http://www.to.infn.it/~giunti/NU/pap/okun/okun-snegiri-99.ps.gz},

2127: \newblock ITEP International Winter School, Snegiri, February 1999.

2128: 

2129: \bibitem[Parke(1986)]{Parke:1986jy}

2130: S.~J. Parke,

2131: \newblock ``{Nonadiabatic level crossing in resonant neutrino oscillations}'',

2132: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}, 57, 1275--1278, 1986.

2133: 

2134: \bibitem[Pontecorvo(1957)]{Pontecorvo:1957cp}

2135: B.~Pontecorvo,

2136: \newblock ``{Mesonium and antimesonium}'',

2137: \newblock {\em Sov. Phys. JETP}, 6, 429, 1957,

2138: \newblock [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 33, 549 (1957)].

2139: 

2140: \bibitem[Pontecorvo(1958)]{Pontecorvo-58}

2141: B.~Pontecorvo,

2142: \newblock {\em Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.}, 34, 247, 1958,

2143: \newblock [Sov. Phys. JETP 7, 172 (1958)].

2144: 

2145: \bibitem[Pontecorvo(1968)]{Pontecorvo:1968fh}

2146: B.~Pontecorvo,

2147: \newblock ``{Neutrino experiments and the question of leptonic-charge

2148:   conservation}'',

2149: \newblock {\em Sov. Phys. JETP}, 26, 984--988, 1968.

2150: 

2151: \bibitem[Rayleigh(1889)]{Rayleigh-1889}

2152: L.~Rayleigh,

2153: \newblock {\em Phil. Mag.}, 27, 298, 1889.

2154: 

2155: \bibitem[Stodolsky(1998)]{Stodolsky-unnecessary-98}

2156: L.~Stodolsky,

2157: \newblock ``{The unnecessary wavepacket}'',

2158: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D58, 036006, 1998,

2159: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9802387}{hep-ph/9802387}}.

2160: 

2161: \bibitem[Sudarsky et~al.(1991)Sudarsky, Fischbach, Talmadge, Aronson, and

2162:   Cheng]{Sudarsky:1991gv}

2163: D.~Sudarsky, E.~Fischbach, C.~Talmadge, S.~H. Aronson, and H.-Y. Cheng,

2164: \newblock ``{Effects of external fields on the neutral kaon system}'',

2165: \newblock {\em Annals Phys.}, 207, 103--139, 1991.

2166: 

2167: \bibitem[White(1934)]{White-book-34}

2168: H.~E. White,

2169: \newblock {\em {Introduction to Atomic Spectra}},

2170: \newblock McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, ltd., 1934.

2171: 

2172: \bibitem[Wolfenstein(1978)]{Wolfenstein:1978ue}

2173: L.~Wolfenstein,

2174: \newblock ``{Neutrino oscillations in matter}'',

2175: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev.}, D17, 2369, 1978.

2176: 

2177: \bibitem[Zralek(1998)]{Zralek-oscillations-98}

2178: M.~Zralek,

2179: \newblock ``{From kaons to neutrinos: Quantum mechanics of particle

2180:   oscillations}'',

2181: \newblock {\em Acta Phys. Polon.}, B29, 3925, 1998,

2182: \newblock \texttt{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9810543}{hep-ph/9810543}}.

2183: 

2184: \end{thebibliography}

2185: 

2186: \begin{figure}[p]

2187: \begin{center}

2188: \includegraphics*[bb=81 427 424 749, height=7cm]{prob.eps}

2189: \end{center}

2190: \caption{ \label{prob}

2191: Oscillation probability

2192: as a function of distance $L$

2193: for

2194: $ \Delta{m}^2 = \unit{2.5 \times 10^{-3}}{\squaren{\electronvolt}} $,

2195: $ \sin^2 2\vartheta = 1 $,

2196: and

2197: $ E = \unit{10}{\giga\electronvolt} $.

2198: Dotted line:

2199: Unsuppressed and unaveraged oscillation probability.

2200: Dashed line:

2201: Oscillation probability (\ref{035})

2202: averaged over a gaussian

2203: energy spectrum with width

2204: $ \sigma_E = \unit{1}{\giga\electronvolt} $.

2205: Solid line:

2206: Oscillation probability (\ref{036})

2207: suppressed by decoherence

2208: due to a momentum uncertainty

2209: $ \sigma_p = \unit{1}{\giga\electronvolt} $.

2210: }

2211: \end{figure}

2212: 

2213: \end{document}

2214: