1: %\documentclass[floatfix,nofootinbib,showpacs,showkeys,preprintnumbers,eqsecnum]{revtex4}

2: %

3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

5: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

6: \documentclass[%

7: %prl%

8: %,preprint%

9:  ,twocolumn%

10:  ,secnumarabic%

11:  ,showpacs,showkeys

12: %,tightenlines%

13: ,amssymb, amsmath,nobibnotes, aps, prd]{revtex4}

14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

15: 

16: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

17: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

18: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

19: 

20: \usepackage{epsfig} %<-----------------not revtex standard - added by me

21: 

22: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}    %<-----------------need this working for paper

23: %\usepackage[sort]{natbib}       %<-----------------comment out for final draft

24: %

25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

26: 

27: %% N.B. MUST INCORPORATE .BBL FILE INTO .TEX FILE

28: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

29: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

30: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

31: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

32: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

33: \newcommand{\bmu}{\begin{multline}}

34: \newcommand{\emu}{\end{multline}}

35: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

36: \newcommand{\V}{\vert}

37: \newcommand{\delslash}{/\!\!\!\partial}

38: \def\MES{{mass eigenstate}}

39: \def\neu{{neutrino}}

40: \def\dm{{$\delta m^2  $}}

41: \def\dmatm{{$\delta m^2_{\small{ATM}}  $}}

42: \def\dmsun{{$\delta m^2_{\odot}  $}}

43: \def\dmsub{{$\delta m^2_{\small{SUB}}  $}}

44: \def\numu{{$\nu_\mu  $}}

45: \def\nue{{$\nu_e  $}}

46: \def\nutau{{$\nu_\tau  $}}

47: \def\nus{{$\nu_s  $}}

48: \def\RX{{SNR RXJ1713.7-3946}}

49: \def\msun{{\,M_\odot}}

50: \def\lsun{{\,L_\odot}}

51: \def\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}}

52: \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}}

53: \def\um{{\,\mu\rm m}}

54: \def\cm{{\rm\,cm}}

55: \def\km{{\rm\,km}}

56: \def\au{{\rm\,AU}}

57: \def\pc{{\rm\,pc}}

58: \def\kpc{{\rm\,kpc}}

59: \def\mpc{{\rm\,Mpc}}

60: \def\sec{{\rm\,s}}

61: \def\yr{{\rm\,yr}}

62: \def\gm{{\rm\,g}}

63: \def\kms{{\rm\,km\,s^{-1}}}

64: \def\mdot{{\rm\,\msun\,yr^{-1}}}

65: \def\gms{{\rm\,g\,s^{-1}}}

66: \def\gcm3{{\rm\,g\,cm^{-3}}}

67: \def\ncm3{{\rm\,cm^{-3}}}

68: \def\kelvin{{\rm\,K}}

69: \def\erg{{\rm\,erg}}

70: \def\kev{{\rm\,keV}}

71: \def\ev{{\rm\,eV}}

72: \def\hz{{\rm\,Hz}}

73: \def\>{$>$}

74: \def\<{$<$}

75: \def\bsl{$\backslash$}

76: \def\refbook#1{\refindent#1}

77: \def\refindent{\par\noindent\hangindent=3pc\hangafter=1 }

78: \def\aa#1#2#3{\refindent#1, A\&A, {\bf#2}, #3.}

79: \def\aalett#1#2#3{\refindent#1, A\&A {\it (Letters)}, {\bf#2}, #3.}

80: \def\aasup#1#2#3{\refindent#1, A\&AS, #2, #3}

81: \def\aj#1#2#3{\refindent#1, AJ, #2, #3}

82: \def\apj#1#2#3{\refindent#1, {\it ApJ}, {\bf#2}, #3.}

83: \def\apjlett#1#2#3{\refindent#1, {\it ApJ (Letters)}, {\bf #2}, #3.}

84: \def\apjsup#1#2#3{\refindent#1, ApJS, #2, #3}

85: \def\araa#1#2#3{\refindent#1, ARA\&A, #2, #3}

86: \def\baas#1#2#3{\refindent#1, BAAS, #2, #3}

87: \def\icarus#1#2#3{\refindent#1, Icarus, #2, #3}

88: \def\mnras#1#2#3{\refindent#1, {\it MNRAS}, {\bf#2}, #3.}

89: \def\nature#1#2#3{\refindent#1, {\it Nature}, {\bf #2}, #3.}

90: \def\pasj#1#2#3{\refindent#1, PASJ, #2, #3}

91: \def\pasp#1#2#3{\refindent#1, PASP, #2, #3}

92: \def\qjras#1#2#3{\refindent#1, QJRAS, #2, #3}

93: \def\science#1#2#3{\refindent#1, Science, #2, #3}

94: \def\sov#1#2#3{\refindent#1, Soviet Astr., #2, #3}

95: \def\sovlett#1#2#3{\refindent#1, Soviet Astr.\ Lett., #2, #3}

96: \def\refpaper#1#2#3#4{\refindent#1, #2, #3, #4}

97: 

98: 

99: 

100: 

101: \begin{document}

102: %\preprint{hep-ph/0209169}

103: \title{Neutrino Interferometry In Curved Spacetime}

104: \author{Roland M. Crocker}

105: \email{r.crocker@physics.unimelb.edu.au}

106: \affiliation{%Research Centre for High Energy Physics,                                 

107: School of Physics, 

108: The University of Melbourne, 3010, Australia}

109: \author{Carlo Giunti}

110: \email{giunti@to.infn.it}

111: \homepage{http://www.to.infn.it/~giunti}

112: \affiliation{INFN, Sezione di Torino, and Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica, 

113: Universit\`a 

114: di Torino,

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

116: \author{Daniel J. Mortlock}

117: \email{mortlock@ast.cam.ac.uk}

118: \affiliation{Institute of Astronomy, 

119: Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, United Kingdom}

120: \date{\today}            

121: \begin{abstract}

122: Gravitational lensing introduces the possibility of multiple (macroscopic) paths

123: from an astrophysical neutrino source to a detector. Such a multiplicity 

124: of paths can allow for 

125: quantum mechanical interference  to take place that is qualitatively 

126: different to

127: neutrino oscillations in flat space. After an illustrative example clarifying 

128: some

129: under-appreciated subtleties of the phase calculation, we derive the form of 

130: the quantum

131: mechanical phase for a neutrino \MES \ propagating non-radially through a 

132: Schwarzschild metric.

133: We subsequently determine the form of the interference pattern seen at a 

134: detector. 

135: %It is also  demonstrated that a result extant in the literature 

136: %implying an in-principle sensitivity

137: %to absolute neutrino mass scale -- with interference between the 

138: %two macroscopic paths

139: %around a Schwarzschild lens -- is incorrect. 

140: We show that 

141: the neutrino signal from a supernova

142: could

143: exhibit the interference effects we discuss 

144: {\it were} it lensed by an object in a suitable mass range. 

145: We finally conclude, however, that -- given current

146: neutrino detector technology -- the probability of such lensing

147: occurring for a (neutrino-detectable) supernova is tiny in the immediate future.

148: \end{abstract}

149: \pacs{14.60.Pq, 95.30.Sf, 98.62.Sb}

150: \keywords{Neutrino Oscillations, Gravitational Lensing}

151: \maketitle

152: 

153: \section{Introduction}

154: 

155: %In this work

156: %we consider neutrino interference effects

157: %in  curved spacetime. We shall, in particular, be interested

158: %in calculating the phase difference(s) 

159: %between neutrino mass eigenstate propagating along 

160: %different geodesics in a Schwarzschild geometry.

161: %The fact that, in general, spacetime curvature allows for

162: %there to be more than one path from source to detector means that

163: %there is a  quantum mechanical

164: %interference phenomenon that may occur

165: %-- at least in principle --

166: %with gravitationally-lensed, astrophysical neutrinos that is

167: %qualitatively different from `conventional'

168: %neutrino oscillation. 

169: 

170: Spacetime curvature allows, in general, for

171: there to be more than one macroscopic path from a particle source to a detector.

172: This means that

173: there is a  quantum mechanical

174: interference phenomenon that may occur

175: -- at least in principle --

176: with gravitationally-lensed, astrophysical neutrinos that is

177: qualitatively different from `conventional'

178: neutrino oscillation. 

179: The possibility for this

180: different type of

181: interference arises because -- with, generically, 

182: each path from source to detector having a different

183: length -- a phase difference may develop at the detector due to affine {\it path}

184: difference(s). This is to be contrasted with flat spacetime 

185:  neutrino oscillations which arise because different mass eigenstates

186:  generically have different {\it phase} velocities. 

187: One might expect, in fact, that 

188: % interference of gravitationally-lensed neutrinos

189: %(which we label GINI for `gravitationally induced neutrino interference')

190: gravitationally-induced neutrino interference (`GINI')

191: exhibit a phenomenology partially analogous  to 

192: that produced by a Young's double slit experiment, viz., regular patterns of 

193: maxima and minima 

194:  across a detected energy spectrum.

195: As we show below, for ultra-relativistic neutrinos,

196: each maximum and minimum at some particular energy is characterised by, respectively, 

197: enhancement and depletion

198: of {\it all} 

199: neutrino species (not relative depletion of one species with respect to another which

200: characterizes flat space neutrino oscillations).

201: %(just as, other aspects of the phenomenology of

202: %interfering, lensed neutrinos are analogous to flat space oscillations).

203: 

204: Below we shall provide the theoretical

205: underpinning to all the contentions made above. 

206: We also sketch a proof-of-principle that this interference effect

207: could actually be seen in the neutrinos detected from a  supernova

208: {\it given} a suitable lens.

209: %(see \citep{Crocker2003} for more detail here).

210: %This is significant of itself, but is also remarkable because we speculate that the effect

211: %should be at least as easy to detect as the 

212: %We remark on the

213: %analogous effect for photons,

214: %which, though predicted (using light from GRBs) to be a 

215: %unique probe of dark matter in the universe' \citep{Stanek1993},

216: %has so far not been seen (see below). 

217: %We also consider 

218: There are

219: other situations where the GINI

220: effect might, in principle, also be evident. Reluctantly, however, we conclude that

221: pragmatic considerations

222: %rule out the observation of these effects. 

223: mean that GINI effects will be very difficult to see in these cases.

224: 

225: 

226: \section{Survey}

227: 

228: Particle interferometry experiments enjoy a venerable lineage and  -- apart from their

229: intrinsic interest -- have often found utility in the measurement of intrinsically small

230: quantities. The idea that the effects

231: of {\it gravity} -- the epitome of weakness as far as particle physics is concerned -- 

232: % {\it gravitational} effects 

233: on the phase of particles might become manifest in

234: interferometry dates to the seminal, theoretical

235:  work of Overhauser and Colella \citep{Overhauser1974}. 

236: It was these researchers  themselves, together

237: with Werner \cite{Colella1975}, who

238: were the first to experimentally confirm the effect they were

239: predicting (in what has come to be labeled a COW experiment after the initials of these

240: researchers: see Ref.\cite{Greenberger1979}

241: for a review).

242: 

243: Another interesting idea involving gravitational effects on interferometry of

244: neutral particles

245: -- though,

246:  to the authors' knowledge, without yet having received experimental confirmation --

247: is the idea that gravitational micro-lensing of {\it light} might realise a {\it de facto}

248: Young's double slit arrangement. There is an extensive literature devoted to this idea

249: %(see, e.g., 

250: %Refs.~\cite{Mandzhos1981}; \cite{Schneider1985}; \cite{Peterson1991}; 

251: %\cite{Gould1992};

252: %\cite{Stanek1993}; \cite{Ulmer1995}; \cite{Peterson2002}), which has been

253: (see 

254: Refs.~\cite{Mandzhos1981,Ohanian1983,Schneider1985,Deguchi1986a,Deguchi1986b,

255: Peterson1991,Gould1992,Stanek1993,Ulmer1995}), 

256: which has been

257: labeled `femtolensing' because of the natural angular scales involved

258: for cosmologically-distant sources and lenses \citep{Gould1992}.

259: Femto-lensing is somewhat more closely analogous

260: to the idea we present (indeed, as we show below, 

261: the analogy becomes exact  in the

262: massless neutrino limit) than COW-type experiments.

263:  This is   because in femtolensing gravity

264: not only affects the phase of the propagating photons, but

265: is also

266: itself responsible for 

267: the `bending' of these particles so that diverging

268: particle beams (or, more precisely, wave packets) can be brought back together to interfere.

269: Furthermore, while the interfering particles are relativistic 

270: in both the femtolensing and GINI cases, they are non-relativistic in COW experiments.

271: 

272: As far as sources go,

273: light from GRBs 

274: %-- expected to also

275: %be good sources of astrophysical neutrinos -- 

276: has received particular

277: attention in the context of femtolensing \citep{Gould1992,Stanek1993,Ulmer1995}.

278: %Similarly distant and powerful neutrino sources (GRBs and AGN)

279: % would seem to offer the best chance for detection of the effects 

280: %we describe below. 

281: While we would, of course, also require astrophysical objects as the sources for

282: a GINI `experiment', the  sources  best able to offer a chance for the detection

283: of this effect are probably supernovae.

284: A Galactic supernova would generate excellent statistics in

285: existing solar (and other) neutrino detectors (thousands of events -- see below).

286: And with a  much larger, generation of neutrino detectors on the drawing

287: board -- some having as one of their chief design goals the detection of neutrinos

288: from supernovae occuring almost anywhere in our Local Group -- prospects

289: for the detection of the effect we predict can only improve with time

290: %A Galactic supernova potentially

291: %offers much better statistics

292: %than a cosmologically-distant GRB (even given the different scales of the relevant

293: %detector technologies) 

294: \footnote{Note here 

295: that while there is quite some similarity between GINI and femtolensing effects,

296: there are at least two effects that might mean that

297: neutrino interference  be, at a pragmatic level,

298: intrinsically more observable than femtolensing:

299: (i) the typical length scale for the impact paramter

300: in gravitational lensing is given by the Einstein radius of the

301: lens. It may happen that 

302: the source-lens-observer geometry means

303: that the Einstein radius of a lens is actually `inside'

304: the lens body. There will be many situations, then, where

305: the lensing object is optically thick to photons 

306: at the Einstein radius but transparent to neutrinos, meaning that

307: interference effects are, in principle, observable in the former

308: situation but not the latter.

309: (ii) interference

310: effects can only show up 

311: when different lensed images are unresolved (i.e., 

312: one's apparatus must {\it not} be able to determine

313: which photon -- or neutrino -- belongs to which image).

314: But, because of the

315: very different, {\it intrinsic} angular resolutions of the microscopic

316: processes

317:  involved in neutrino and photon detection,

318: a clearly-resolved, astrophysical light source  may well be,  an 

319: {\it un}resolved source as far as

320: neutrinos are concerned.}. 

321: 

322: By way of a pedagogical detour, 

323: please note the following: we believe the `time-delay' nomenclature

324: is misleading in the context of either femtolensing or GINI effects. It is

325: much better, we contend, to think in terms of path difference(s). The idea of

326: a well-defined time-delay belongs to classical physics. The time delay is -- in the

327: frame of some observer -- the time elapsed between the arrival of two signals.

328: These should have their origins in the `same' (macroscopic) 

329: event at a source, but then travel down

330: different classical geodesics from source to detector. Now, from the viewpoint

331: of quantum mechanics, 

332: there is a limit in which the classical description just given makes sense and 

333: is useful. This limit is that

334: in which the size of the wavepackets describing the

335: signaling particles is small in comparison to the affine 

336: path length differences between the different classical trajectories under consideration.

337: This limit will usually be satisfied in observationally-interesting

338: cases of gravitational lensing. But this limit

339: must {\it not} be satisfied if femtolensing or GINI effects are to be observed. Indeed,

340: we require the opposite situation to pertain, viz, an affine path length difference

341: of the order or smaller that the wavepacket size. This is required

342: so that wave packets 

343: created in the same (microscopic) event can overlap at the detector --

344: with interference effects being the result. In this sense, there is {\it no} 

345: time delay because

346: the wavepackets have to be overlapping at the detector position at the same (observer) time,

347: i.e., overlap must be satisfied at the spacetime location of the observation event.

348: Note further that, to paraphrase Dirac, each photon -- or neutrino -- only interferes

349: with itself. So it is the wavepacket of the single particle that results from a

350: single (microscopic) event -- like the decay of an unstable parent particle -- 

351: that, in simple terms, splits to travel down all the classical geodesics from source

352: to detector, only to interfere when recombined there. The idea we are describing, then,

353: does not require some weird (and impossible) analog of a `neutrino laser'; it works

354: at the level of individual, particle wavepackets.

355: 

356: Another strand that will be peripherally 

357: drawn into this paper is the behavior -- at a classical level --

358: of neutrinos in a curved spacetime background (i.e., gravitational lensing of neutrinos

359: treated as ultra-relativistic, classical particles). This topic  

360: became of immediate interest with the detection of neutrinos from SN 1987A 

361: %which showed up as 

362: %an excess of around

363: %19 events in then-current solar $\nu$ experiments (in Kamiokande II -- 

364: %\cite{Hirata1987} -- and IMB -- \cite{Bionta1987}). 

365: \cite{Hirata1987,Bionta1987}.

366: Timing information

367: from the {\it nearly} simultaneous detection of these neutrinos and the supernova's

368: photon signal and from the time and energy spread of the neutrino burst alone 

369: has been investigated in many papers 

370: as an empirical limit on the  neutrino mass scale 

371: (see, e.g., Refs.~\citep{Bahcall1987, Arnett1987} and 

372: Refs.~\citep{Hillebrandt1989,Beacom2000,Bilenky2003} 

373: for reviews

374: and the seminal references concerning this idea)

375: and also

376: as a probe of the equivalence principle over

377: intergalactic distance scales \citep{Longo1988,Krauss1988}\footnote{Data from

378: SN 1987A neutrinos have been used to contrain other neutrino 

379: properties including neutrino mixing

380: and mass hierarchy, neutrino lifetime, and neutrino magnetic moment: 

381: see Ref.~\citep{Bilenky2003}

382: for a review.}.

383: More speculatively but germane to this work,

384:  the apparently bi-modal

385: distribution of  SN 1987A neutrinos observed by the then-operating 

386: Kamiokande solar neutrino observatory

387: was given an explanation in terms of an intervening gravitational lens (in the

388: $5 \times 10^5 \msun$ mass range:

389: \citep{Barrow1987}). Further, the idea that astrophysical neutrino `beams' might be

390: gravitationally focused by massive objects like the Sun has been investigated and

391: it has been found that such focusing can amplify an 

392: intrinsic neutrino signal by many orders of

393: magnitude (see \cite{Gerver1988} and \cite{Escribano2001} for more recent work).

394: %Also of note is the idea that the time delays between the photons and neutrinos

395: % received from GRBs might be used to probe fundamental physics

396: %(see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{Choubey2003}, and references therein). 

397: 

398: An early and important work treating  the

399:  {\it quantum mechanical} aspects of 

400: neutrino propagation through a curved metric

401:  is that of  Brill and Wheeler \citep{Brill1957}.

402: Their work is particularly important for

403: its elucidation of

404: the formalism that allows one to treat

405: (massless) spinor fields under the influence of gravitational effects

406: (i.e., the extension of the Dirac equation to curved spacetime)

407: 

408: As presaged above, in this paper

409: we shall be particularly concerned with the {\it phase} of neutrinos

410: (more particularly, neutrino \MES s) in curved spacetime.

411: The seminal work treating the phase of quantum mechanical 

412: particles in curved spacetime is that of

413: Stodolsky \citep{Stodolsky1979}. In this work the author 

414: argued that the phase of a {\it spinless} particle in 

415: an arbitrary metric is identical with the particle's classical action (divided by $\hbar$).

416: Later work conducted on neutrino oscillations in curved spacetime 

417: \citep{Kojima1996,Fornengo1997,Bhattacharya1999},

418: has often -- though not always \citep{Cardall1997,Konno1998} 

419: -- implicitly assumed the correctness of  Stodolsky's 

420: contention (that the phase is given by 

421: the classical action) for spinor fields as well and taken this as its starting point. 

422: Somewhat ironically -- as we set out

423: in detail below -- recent researches \citep{Alsing2001} have revealed that 

424: the equality of classical action and phase holds for spin half particles, but {\it not} for

425: spin zero or one particles, or, at least not in an unqualified sense.

426: In any case, that Stodolsky's contention holds for spinors means a considerable

427: simplification for our calculations as we can avoid directly treating the covariant Dirac

428: equation.

429: 

430: A full review of the literature (see  

431: \cite{Ahluwalia1996,Kojima1996,Grossman1997,Cardall1997,Fornengo1997,Konno1998,

432: Ahluwalia1998,Bhattacharya1999,Alsing2001,Wudka2001,Zhang2001,Linet2002,Zhang2003})

433: on neutrino phase 

434: %and neutrino oscillations 

435: in 

436: the presence of gravity is beyond the scope of this work. Suffice it to say that

437: most work here to date has been concerned with the calculation of neutrino phase

438: in radial propagation of neutrinos through stationary, spherically symmetric, spacetimes.

439: There is active controversy in this context as to at what order in neutrino mass 

440: ($m_\nu^2$ or $m_\nu^4$?)

441: gravitational corrections show up in the phase 

442: \citep{Ahluwalia1996,Konno1998,Bhattacharya1999,Wudka2001}. The answer to this

443: hangs critically on how energy and distance, in particular, are defined \citep{Wudka2001}.

444: We shall have to treat  such issues carefully, but all the subtleties of this 

445: debate need not particularly concern us. This is because we are {\it primarily} interested in

446: gravity not for its effect on phase {\it per se}, but for its ability to generate multiple

447: macroscopic paths from source to detector. And it is what might actually be

448: measured at the detector that concerns us. Detectors 

449: count the neutrinos -- 

450: registered in terms of flavor and (local) energy -- that interact within their volume.

451:  From these

452: one can infer interference patterns, but one does not, of course, have any direct

453: experimental access to the phase difference(s) (a point that does sometimes seem to

454: be forgotten). 

455: 

456: In regard to interference phenomenology, note 

457: the following:

458: whereas interference patterns 

459: with flat space neutrino oscillations take the form of

460: variations in neutrino flavor {\it ratios} across energy, with GINI, because there

461: will be constructive and destructive interference between the multiple allowed routes, 

462:  one (also) expects to see, in general,

463: maxima and minima (distributed across energy) 

464: in the counts of {\it all} neutrino flavors. 

465: These maxima and minima 

466: will be present irrespective of what measure of distance, say,

467: we settle on (though, of course, they may be undetectably small in amplitude -- 

468: but that is a separate issue). To put this in a different way, flat space neutrino

469: oscillations modify the {\it relative} abundances of neutrinos expressed as a function of

470: energy whereas GINI effects can modify {\it absolute} abundances.

471: 

472: Interestingly, 

473: of all the papers devoted to the topic of gravititationally-affected

474: neutrino phase, to the authors'

475: knowledge, only one \citep{Fornengo1997} has previously 

476: examined GINI, which, to reiterate, is

477: the idea that 

478: neutrino {\it oscillations} in the presence of

479: gravitational lensing -- or, to be strict, gravitational focusing -- might 

480: present interesting phenomenology. (This is the analog of the femto-lensing described

481: above that involved light.) To examine this idea, the authors of

482:  Ref.~\citep{Fornengo1997} were obliged to 

483: develop a formalism to deal with non-radial propagation of neutrinos

484: around a lensing mass, and we shall adopt much of this formalism in the current work.

485:  Unfortunately, Ref.~\citep{Fornengo1997}  contains

486: an incorrect result which it is one of the major aims of this paper to point out. Moreover,

487: other works which have considered gravitationally-affected neutrino

488: phase  contain results -- and commentary thereon -- 

489: which, if not strictly incorrect, can be misleading if one does not realise

490: the restricted nature of their tenability. In brief, most authors have failed to consider

491: the possibility of multiple paths. Any result which suggests the vanishing of neutrino phase

492: difference in the massless limit 

493: [see, e.g., Eq.~(13) of Ref.~\cite{Bhattacharya1999}

494: or 

495: Eq.~(4.7) of \cite{Konno1998}] should be interpretted with extreme caution

496: \footnote{As an example of this, take the contention on p.1483 of Alsing et al. 

497: in Ref.~\citep{Alsing2001}

498: that the phase of  photons propagating through a a Schwarzschild metric vanishes 

499: to lowest

500: order. This applies only to

501: radially-propagating photons and even then, should really be thought of as a 

502: statement about the {\it action}

503: along the classical, null-geodesic, rather than as a claim that the phase -- 

504: and therefore a potentially-measurable

505: phase difference -- actually is (close to) zero. Likewise, note that while the statement 

506: made in 

507: Ref.~\citep{Grossman1997} that 

508: `\dots if one compares two experimental setups with and without

509: gravity with the same curved distance in both cases there is no effect' 

510: is true,

511: it implicitly assumes that there is only one path from source to 

512: detector that 

513: need be considered

514: -- and this does not hold in general in the presence of gravity.}.

515: 

516: Essentially, the incorrect result in Ref.~\citep{Fornengo1997},

517: as alluded to above is, then, that the phase for a neutrino \MES, $j$, 

518: propagating non-radially through a Schwarzschild metric is purely 

519: proportional to its mass, $m_j$, squared 

520: [see Eq.~(58) of \cite{Fornengo1997} and 

521: also Eq.~(25) of \cite{Linet2002}].

522: %If this result {\it were} true it would have the following, 

523: %very interesting result: 

524: %imagine gravitationally recombining two paths that a neutrino \MES \ 

525: %might propagate down so that we have the analog of a 

526: %Young's double slit arrangment 

527: %(note that we expect, in general, two neutrino `images' in the case of 

528: %a Schwarzschild lens, though we remind the reader that our intrument should not be able to

529: %resolve these if we wish to detect interference effects). 

530: %Now, the  neutrino spectra seen at a detector --

531: %more particularly, the neutrino flavor ratios as a function of energy -- 

532: %are determined by the (analog of the) neutrino oscillation probability. 

533: %The expression for this will be dependent on functions whose 

534: %arguments are the difference(s) and the {\it sum(s)} of the (squared) masses of neutrino \MES s 

535: %[cf.\ Eq.~(62) of Ref.~\citep{Fornengo1997}]. And because of this leading dependence

536: %on the sum of the masses (squared), 

537: %{\it a suitably-lensed, astrophysical neutrino source apparently 

538: %provides a handle on absolute neutrino mass scale}.

539: %Unfortunately, 

540: This result is incorrect\footnote{Though it should be stressed here that

541: the authors of Ref. \cite{Fornengo1997} and many of the other papers we have mentioned

542: {\it do} obtain the correct result for the phase {\it difference} between neutrino \MES s 

543: traveling along the same macroscopic paths in curved spacetime (i.e., for

544: flat space neutrino oscillations in the presence of a point mass) because, in such cases,

545: any putative $\propto \ E$ term will vanish in subtracting one phase from the other (this term

546:  being the same for both phases).}: 

547: in the massless limit, the neutrino phase in curved spacetime should reduce 

548: (modulo spin-dependent corrections which vanish for radial trajectories 

549: \citep{Brill1957} and are negligible except in extreme, gravitational 

550: environments \citep{Alsing2001})

551: to the result for photons. 

552: And the photon phase is not zero 

553: (otherwise the interference fringes 

554: -- in space or energy -- 

555: predicted by the femto-lensing literature would not be produced), 

556: even though, of course, the classical action is zero along null geodesics. 

557: Indeed, the photon phase is essentially proportional to energy. As we show below,

558: furthermore, this $\propto \ E$ term is the leading order term for the neutrino phase

559: as well.

560: % and, although the full expression for the phase does contain corrections 

561: %dependent on absolute neutrino mass scale, these terms will always be swamped

562: %for ultra-relativistic neutrinos.

563: 

564: 

565: What has gone wrong when one's 

566: analysis misses the $\propto \ E$ term in the neutrino phase

567:  is that one has tried to simultaneously employ

568: two incompatible notions: 

569: the fundamentally wave or quantum mechanical idea of phase

570: with the particle notion of trajectory so that $x$ is given in terms of $t$ 

571: or {\it vice versa}. 

572: %(in other words, we are at variance with

573: %the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). 

574: Even in the simpler case of flat space oscillations, the introduction 

575: (often implicitly)

576: of the idea of a trajectory 

577: -- or, more particularly, a group velocity --

578: into the calculation of neutrino phase leads to error 

579: (in particular, the recurring bugbear that the conventional formula 

580: for the neutrino oscillation length is wrong by a factor of two: 

581: see \cite{Giunti2002}). 

582: In the calculations set out below, we show the reader how the error 

583: of introducing a trajectory can be avoided. 

584: Furthermore, our method allows calculations to be performed along the actual 

585: (classical) 

586: paths

587: [not trajectories; i.e., we have $r(\phi)$, say, rather than $r(t), \phi(t)$] 

588: of the neutrino \MES s, rather than taking the approach of calculation

589: along the null geodesic employed in Ref \citep{Fornengo1997}.

590: On the other hand, our approach also circumvents the obligation to 

591: introduce extra phase shifts `by hand'. 

592: This artificial device becomes necessary when

593: one offsets either the emission times or positions of the different \MES s

594: with respect to each other so that 

595: they arrive at the same spacetime point 

596: (see \cite{Bhattacharya1999} for an example of this). 

597: 

598: The plan of this paper is the following: in \S\ref{section_beamsplitter}

599: we describe, for illustrative purposes, 

600:  interference of neutrino plane waves propagating through flat

601: space along both different (classical) paths and having, in general,

602:  different phase velocities. 

603: Then in \S\ref{section_curvednuphase} we

604: describe the calculation of the neutrino \MES \ phase in a 

605: Schwarzschild metric, correcting an erroneous result that has existed in 

606: the literature for some time. 

607: We then set out, in \S\ref{section_osnprob} 

608: the calculation of the analog of the

609: survival and oscillation probabilities in flat space

610: for neutrinos that have been

611: gravitationally lensed by a point mass. 

612: In \S(\ref{section_phenomenology}) we examine -- at an heuristic level --

613: questions of coherence that can effect the visibility of the 

614: GINI effect for neutrinos from supernovae. We give a proof-of-principle that 

615: the effect should be detectable.

616: In \S\ref{section_furtherwk}

617: we describe some limitations

618: of our method -- which stem particularly from the assumption of exclusively

619: classical paths -- and set out improvements to be made in further work. 

620: Finally, in an appendix, we 

621: set out a wave packet treatment of the neutrino beam splitter

622: toy model treated in \S 3 in terms of plane waves.

623: We derive results here pertaining to the analog of the

624: coherence length in conventional neutrino oscillations.

625: 

626: \begin{figure*}[ht]

627: \epsfig{file=fig1.eps,height=17cm,angle=-90}

628: \caption{The geometry of either a double slit interference experiment or a

629: two-image gravitational lens. The bold lines are the two neutrino paths,

630: $+$ and $-$, between the source, $A$, and the observer, $B$, and the

631: geometry is defined both in terms of physical variables ($r_A$, $r_B$,

632: $b_\pm$ and $s$) and astronomical/lensing variables ($D_d$, $D_s$,

633: $D_{ds}$, $\theta_\pm$ and $\beta$). Also included is the deflection

634: angle, $\alpha_{\pm}(b)$, parameterised as a function of the physical

635: impact parameter. It is implicit in this diagram that the deflector is

636: rotationally symmetric, and that the paths are thus confined to the plane

637: of the page defined by the source, deflector and observer.}

638: \label{figure:geometry}

639: \end{figure*}

640: 

641: 

642: \section[Neutrino Beam Splitter]

643: %{Interference of Wavepackets with Different Phase Velocities

644: %along Different Paths}

645: {Neutrino Beam Splitter}

646: \label{section_beamsplitter}

647: 

648: By way of an illustrative introduction to this topic we consider a toy model

649: of interference effects that can arise when there are both multiple paths

650: from a source to a detector, {\it {\` a} la} Young's double

651: slit experiment, and

652: different phase velocities

653: for the propagating particles, {\it {\` a} la} neutrino oscillations.

654: Of course, interference

655: requires that our experimental apparatus be unable to distinguish between

656: the  propagating particles (just as we likewise require for

657: interference that the apparatus is unable to identify {\it which} path

658: any single particle has propagated down). We therefore

659: require the propagating and detected particles to be different objects.

660: In this context, let us consider, for the sake of definiteness and relevance,

661: a {\it Gedanken Experiment} involving an imaginary 

662: (flat space) neutrino beam splitter in

663: the geometry illustrated in Fig.~\ref{figure:geometry}. We take it that 

664: the neutrinos' paths can be approximated as two

665: straight-line segments

666: %, $a$ and $b$, 

667: along which momentum is constant in magnitude.

668: We need only treat, therefore,

669: one spatial dimension: $\int \mathbf{p}_j . \mathrm{d} \mathbf{x}

670: = \int {p}_j \mathrm{d} x 

671: = {p}_j \vert x \vert $, where $\vert x \vert$ is the total

672: distance along the two line segments.

673: We expect that the qualitative behavior of this device

674: shall illustrate many of the features expected to emerge

675: from interference of gravitationally lensed neutrinos.

676: Note that for reasons of clarity we present only a

677: plane wave treatment here, leaving a full wavepacket calculation for an

678: appendix. We stress, however, that wave packet considerations -- which 

679: allow, in particular, for a proper treatment of decoherence effects --

680: are, in general, important and must certainly be considered when

681: one is dealing with neutrinos that have propagated over long distances

682: (see \S 6). 

683: 

684: Let us write the ket associated with the 

685: neutrino flavour eigenstate $\alpha$ that has (in a loose sense)

686: propagated from

687: the source spacetime position $A = (x_A, t_A)$

688: to

689: detection position 

690: $B = (x_B, t_B)$ as

691: \begin{multline}

692: \label{eqn_bs}

693: \vert \nu_\alpha; A, B \rangle

694: = N \sum_p \sqrt{I_p} \sum_j U_{\alpha j} \\

695: \times \exp[-\mathrm{i} \Phi^p_j(E_j; L^{AB}_p, T^{AB})] 

696: \vert \nu_j \rangle,

697: \end{multline}

698: where $T^{AB}\equiv t_B - t_A$, $L^{AB}_p$ is the distance from 

699: source position $x_A$ to detector position $x_B$ along one of a finite number 

700: of paths labeled  by $p$, $\Phi^p_j(E_j; L^{AB}_p, T^{AB}) 

701: \equiv E_jT^{AB} - p_j(E_j)L^{AB}_p$, with

702: $p_j(E_j)$ denoting the momentum of \MES \ $j$ with energy $E_j$, and, finally,

703: $U$ is a unitary matrix relating the neutrino flavor eigenstates to the 

704: neutrino mass eigenstates. 

705: We have included the $\sqrt{I_p}$ factor to account for the fact that,

706: in general, we should allow for a path-dependence to the

707: amplitude. A situation where, for paths $p$ and $q$, $I_p \neq I_q$

708:  is the analog of a Young's slit experiment in which the slits are not equally

709: illuminated (thus reducing the {\it visibility} -- see

710: Eq.~(\ref{eqn_visibility}) -- of the resulting interference fringes).

711: The Schwarzschild lens scenario explored in \S\S 4 and 5 presents a situation

712: analogous to this: light or neutrinos propagating down the two classical paths

713: from source to observer will not be, in general, equally magnified.

714: Note that

715: we choose throughout this paper -- unless otherwise indicated -- to work in

716: units such that $\hbar = c = 1 \neq G$.  

717: The \MES s are assumed

718: to be on mass shell: $p_j(E_j) \equiv (E_j^2 - m_j^2)^{1/2}$.

719: The amplitude for a neutrino created as type $\alpha$ at the spacetime position

720: $A$ to be

721: detected as type $\beta$ at the spacetime position, $B$, 

722: of the detection event is then:

723: \begin{multline}

724: \label{eqn_bs'}

725: %A(\alpha \to \beta; B) \equiv 

726: \langle \nu_\beta \vert \nu_\alpha; A, B \rangle 

727: = N \sum_p \sqrt{I_p} \sum_j U_{\alpha j} U_{\beta j}^* 

728: \\ \times \exp[-\mathrm{i} \Phi^p_j(E_j; L^{AB}_p, T^{AB})].

729: \end{multline}

730: Assuming a stationary source, we

731: can get rid of the unwanted dependence on time by averaging over $T^{AB}$

732: in the above to determine

733: a time-averaged oscillation probability {\it analog} 

734: at the detector position $x_B$ 

735: \cite{Beuthe2001,Beuthe2002,Giunti2003}.

736: %\footnote{The authors thank Carlo Giunti for  this crucial insight.}.

737: This maneuver gives us that

738: \begin{multline}

739: \label{eqn_bs''}

740: %P(\alpha \to \beta; x_B) 

741: %\propto \int \mathrm{d}T \vert Amp(\alpha \to \beta; B)\vert^2 \\

742: \vert \langle \nu_\beta \vert \nu_\alpha; x_A,x_B \rangle \vert^2

743: \propto \int \mathrm{d}T 

744: \vert \langle \nu_\beta \vert \nu_\alpha; A,B \rangle \vert^2 \\

745: \propto \vert N \vert^2 \sum_{pq} \sqrt{I_pI_q} \sum_{jk} 

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

747: \times 

748: \exp[\mathrm{i}(p_j(E)L^{AB}_p - p_k(E)L^{AB}_q)],

749: \end{multline}

750: where we have $E_j = E_k \equiv E$ because

751: of the $\delta(E_j - E_k)$ that arises from the integration over time.

752: 

753: We find, then, after a simple calculation that the oscillation probability 

754: analog becomes

755: \begin{multline}

756: \label{eqn_bs'''}

757: %P(\alpha \to \beta; x_B) \\

758: \vert \langle \nu_\beta \vert \nu_\alpha; x_A,x_B \rangle \vert^2\\

759: \simeq \frac{1}{\sum_{rs} \sqrt{I_rI_s}} \sum_{pq} \sqrt{I_pI_q} \sum_{jk} 

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

761: \times  \exp\left[-\mathrm{i}\Delta \Phi_{jk}^{pq}\right],

762: \end{multline}

763: where the phase difference is given by

764: \begin{multline}

765: \label{eqn_splitterphase}

766: \Delta \Phi_{jk}^{pq} \equiv 

767: - E (L^{AB}_p - L^{AB}_q)

768: + \left(\frac{m_j^2 L^{AB}_p - m_k^2 L^{AB}_q}{2 E}\right).

769: \end{multline}

770: Note that in Eq.~(\ref{eqn_bs'''})

771: the normalization has been determined by requiring

772: that 

773: %$\sum_\beta P(\alpha \to \beta; x) \leq 1$. 

774: $\vert \langle \nu_\beta \vert \nu_\alpha; x_A ,x_B \rangle \vert^2 \leq 1$.

775: The presence of the $\leq$ sign (as opposed to a simple equality)

776: comes about as the interference between states propagating down

777: different paths can result in minima at which the total neutrino 

778: detection probability is zero, in which case the usual unity 

779: normalisation is impossible (so now 

780: %$P(\alpha \to \beta; x_B)$ 

781: $\vert \langle \nu_\beta \vert \nu_\alpha; x_A,x_B \rangle \vert^2$

782: no longer has a direct interpretation 

783: as a

784: probability).

785: This is qualitatively different behavior

786: to that seen in neutrino oscillations where, given maximal mixing between

787: $\nu_\alpha$ and $\nu_\beta$,

788: an experiment

789:  might be conducted

790: in a position where only neutrinos of type

791: $\alpha$, say, are to be found or, alternatively, only of type

792: $\beta$,

793: but never in a position where none can be found in principle.

794: 

795: On the other hand the behavior explained above 

796: -- involving interference minima and maxima --

797: is obviously analogous to what one would expect in a double slit

798: experiment or similar. In fact, we shall show below that the phenomenology

799: of neutrino interference -- when there is more than one path from source

800: to detector -- is a convolution of the two types of interference outlined above.

801: This means that, in general, one cannot simply re-cast 

802: $\vert \langle \nu_\beta \vert \nu_\alpha; x_A ,x_B \rangle \vert^2$

803: in terms of a conditional probability, separating out the overall

804: interference pattern (with its nulls, etc.) from the conditional

805: probability that any {\it detected} neutrino has certain properties. To understand this

806: point, imagine setting all mixing angles to zero so that the \MES s and weak eigenstates 

807: are identical. The point now is that the interference patterns

808: for the various

809: detected weak/mass eigenstates are still different:

810: the phase difference (which now stems purely from

811: path difference) is dependent on the mass of the neutrino species involved. 

812: In other words, $\vert \langle \nu_\beta \vert \nu_\alpha; x_A ,x_B \rangle \vert^2$ 

813: will {\it not},

814: in general,

815: factorise into a conditional probability multiplied by an interference envelope because

816: the putative interference envelope is different for different \MES s. 

817: As we show below, however, in the ultra-relativistic limit, the cross term (that mixes

818: different path indices with different \MES \ indices) always turns out to be small

819: with respect to the other terms. In this limit, then, factorization is a good approximation.

820: 

821: 

822: 

823: 

824: We now consider two particular, illustrative cases of the neutrino 

825: beamsplitter {\it gedanken Experiment} for which we calculate relevant 

826: phase differences and oscillation probability

827: analogs.

828: \subsection{Two Path Neutrino Beam Splitter}

829: \label{section_planewavesplitter}

830: 

831: A particularly perspicuous 

832: example is given by the two-path example of the

833: above equations.

834: %\footnote{The authors again thank Carlo Giunti for pointing

835: %out this particularly simple example of the neutrino beam splitter 

836: %{\it gedanken Experiment}.}. 

837: For this 

838: we specify 

839: a reference length, $L$, to which the two paths, of lengths $L_+$ and $L_-$, are related

840: by 

841: \be

842: L_\pm \equiv L \pm \frac{\Delta L}{2}.

843: \ee

844: This means that there are four phase difference types as labeled by the path indices

845: $p, q \in \{+,-\}$, viz:

846: \bea

847: i. \quad \Delta \Phi_{jk}^{++} &=& + \frac{\delta m^2_{jk} L + \Delta L/2}{2 E}\nn \\

848: ii. \quad \Delta \Phi_{jk}^{--} &=& + \frac{\delta m^2_{jk} L - \Delta L/2}{2 E} \nn \\

849: iii. \quad \Delta \Phi_{jk}^{+-} &=& -E \left(1 - \frac{m_j^2 + m_k^2}{4 E^2} \right)\Delta L

850: + \frac{\delta m^2_{jk} L}{2 E} \nn \\

851: iv. \quad \Delta \Phi_{jk}^{-+} &=& +E \left(1 - \frac{m_j^2 + m_k^2}{4 E^2} \right)\Delta L

852: + \frac{\delta m^2_{jk} L}{2 E}. \nn \\

853: \eea

854: In this case, then, Eq.~(\ref{eqn_bs'''}) becomes 

855: \begin{multline}

856: \label{eqn_planewave}

857: %P(\alpha \to \beta; x_B) \\

858: \vert \langle \nu_\beta \vert \nu_\alpha; x_A,x_B \rangle \vert^2\\

859: \shoveleft{

860: \simeq \frac{1}{I_+ + I_- + 2 \sqrt{I_+I_-}} 

861: }

862: \\

863: \times \sum_{jk} U_{\alpha j} U_{\beta j}^* U_{\beta k} U_{\alpha k}^* 

864: \exp\left(-\mathrm{i} \frac{\delta m^2_{jk} L}{2 E}\right) \\

865: \times \Biggl\{I_+ \exp\left(+\mathrm{i} \frac{\delta m^2_{jk} \Delta L}{4 E}\right) 

866: + I_- \exp\left(-\mathrm{i} \frac{\delta m^2_{jk} \Delta L}{4 E}\right) \\

867: \shoveright{

868: + 2 \sqrt{I_+I_-}\cos\left[E \left(1 -  \frac{m_j^2 + m_k^2}{4 E^2} \right)\right]\Biggr\}

869: \, .} \\

870: \end{multline}

871: This is an interesting result. It shows that the interference factorises into

872: a conventional, flat space oscillation term 

873: and an interference `envelope' in curly brackets

874: (as might be

875: expected from a Young's slit type experiment). If we now 

876: further particularize to the case

877: where $I_+ = I_-$, this envelope term becomes

878: \bea

879: \cos\left( \frac{\delta m^2_{jk} \Delta L}{4 E}\right) 

880: + \cos\left[E \left(\!1 -  \frac{m_j^2 + m_k^2}{4 E^2} \right)\right] 

881:   \nn \\

882: = 

883: 2 \cos \!

884:   \left[E \! \left(\!1 - \frac{m_j^2}{2 E^2} \right) 

885:   \! \frac{\Delta L}{2} \right] 

886: \cos \!

887:   \left[ E \! \left(\!1 - \frac{m_k^2}{2 E^2} \right) 

888:   \! \frac{\Delta L}{2} \right]

889:   ,\nn

890: \eea 

891: \be

892: \ee

893: which obviously reduces to 

894: the expected photon interference term $\propto \cos^2$ in the massless

895: limit. Later (in \S\ref{section_osnprob}) we shall see that this sort of

896: factorization property also arises, under a different set of assumptions, with

897: gravitational lensing of astrophysical neutrinos.

898: 

899: \subsection{Double slit experiment geometry}

900: 

901: Having considered

902:  a hypothetical neutrino plane wave beam-splitter 

903: (\S\ref{section_planewavesplitter}),

904: it is now possible to combine the rigorous, if simplistic, results

905: derived above

906: with heutristic arguments to investigate a more realistic

907: double slit neutrino interference experiment.

908: The choice of a double slit experiment is particularly relevant

909: not only because of its links with more familiar interference

910: phenomena, but also because a point-mass gravitational lens

911: admits two (significant) paths from source to observer.

912: Thus the results obtained in this section should provide a useful

913: guide to the qualitative behaviour of GINI in curved space time

914: considered in \S\ref{section_curvednuphase}.

915: 

916: 

917: %\begin{figure*}[ht]

918: %\epsfig{file=lensdiagram.eps,width=10cm,angle=-90}

919: %\caption{Two classical paths, $+$ and $-$,

920: %between source and observer labelled both

921: %in terms of physical variables

922: %($r_A$, $r_B$, $b$ and $s$)

923: %and astronomical/lensing variables

924: %($D_d$, $D_s$, $D_{ds}$, $\theta$ and $\beta$).

925: %Also included is the deflection 

926: %angle, $\alpha_{\pm}(b)$, 

927: %parameterised as a function of the physical impact parameter.

928: %It is implicit in this diagram that the deflector is rotationally symmetric, 

929: %and that the paths are thus confined to the plane defined by the source, 

930: %deflector and observer.}

931: %\label{figure:geometry}

932: %\end{figure*}

933: 

934: The relevant geometry is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{figure:geometry}, 

935: showing the two

936: classical paths ($+$ and $-$) from source to detector, with the important

937: introduction of a more physically motivated set of lengths than the

938: reference length, $L$, used previously.

939: The entire experiment is

940: taken to be planar, with the coordinate system origin

941: on the line defined by the two slits.

942: (This is an arbitrary decision at present, but will coincide

943: with the position of the deflector in \S\ref{section_curvednuphase}.)

944: The slits are defined by their positions, $b_+$ and $b_-$

945: (which will correspond to image positions in 

946: \S\ref{sect_convl_lens_params});

947: the source position is given by both its radial coordinate, $r_A$,

948: and its perpendicular offset, $s$;

949: the observer position is defined by its radial coordinate, $r_B$,

950: alone.

951: There are several other plausible ways in which this geometry could

952: be defined, but all derived results become equivalent under the

953: assumption that $|b_\pm| \ll r_{\{A,B\}}$, as applied throughout.

954: Note also that the observer and source are interchangeable.

955: 

956: As discussed in \S\ref{section_beamsplitter}, 

957: all flat-space interference phenomena

958: can be treated in terms of path lengths.

959: The lengths of the two paths illustrated in 

960: Fig.~\ref{figure:geometry} 

961: are

962: \begin{eqnarray}

963: L_\pm 

964:   & = & \left( r_B^2 + b_\pm^2 \right)^{1/2}

965:         + \left[ r_A^2 - s^2 + (b_\pm - s)^2 \right]^{1/2} \\

966:   & \simeq & (r_A + r_B)

967:         \left[1 + \frac{1}{2 r_A r_B}

968:           \left( 

969:             b_\pm^2 - \frac{2 r_B}{r_A + r_B} 

970:             s b_\pm 

971:           \right)

972:         \right], \nonumber

973: \end{eqnarray}

974: where, in most cases, $b_-$ and $b_+$ are of opposite sign,

975: and the second line explicitly utilises

976: the fact that $|b_\pm| \ll r_{\{A,B\}}$.

977: The path difference is thus

978: \begin{eqnarray}

979: \Delta L_{+-} 

980: & = & L_+ - L_- \\

981: & \simeq & \frac{r_A + r_B}{2 r_A r_B}

982:     \left[

983:        b_+^2 - b_-^2 - \frac{2 r_B}{r_A + r_B}

984:        s \left(b_+ - b_-\right)

985:     \right] \nonumber

986: \end{eqnarray}

987: and the average path length is

988: \begin{eqnarray}

989: L & \simeq & (r_A + r_B) \\

990: & & 

991:         \left\{1 + \frac{1}{4 r_A r_B}

992:           \left[

993:             b_+^2 + b_-^2 

994:             - \frac{2 r_B}{r_A + r_B} s (b_+ + b_-)

995:           \right]

996:         \right\}. \nonumber

997: \end{eqnarray}

998: 

999: \subsection{Schwarzschild slit geometry}

1000: 

1001: In a laboratory-based double slit experiment

1002: the two slit positions can be chosen arbitrarily,

1003: but in the case of gravitational lensing

1004: the impact parameters of the beams

1005: are determined by a combination deflector and source

1006: parameters (\S\ref{section_curvednuphase}).

1007: Given the Schwarzschild metric around a point-mass 

1008: (\S\ref{sect_convl_lens_params}),

1009: the assumption of small deflection angles implies that

1010: the source position and impact parameters are related by

1011: [cf.\ Eq.~(\ref{equation:deltathetasq})]

1012: \begin{equation}

1013: \label{equation:b_sch}

1014: b_+^2 - b_-^2 

1015: = \Delta b_{+-}^2

1016:   \simeq \frac{r_B}{r_A + r_B} s 

1017:     \left(b_+ - b_-\right).

1018: \end{equation}

1019: 

1020: Applying this result in the more general context of the double slit

1021: experiment,

1022: Eq.~(\ref{equation:b_sch}) can be rewritten as

1023: \begin{equation}

1024: \Delta L_{+-}

1025:   = L_+ - L_- 

1026:   \simeq - \frac{r_A + r_B}{2 r_A r_B}

1027:     \left(b_+^2 - b_-^2\right).

1028: \end{equation}

1029: Similarly, the mass-length expression that appears in, e.g., 

1030: Eq.~(\ref{eqn_splitterphase})

1031: can be simplified to

1032: \begin{eqnarray}

1033: m_j^2 L_+ - m_k^2 L_-

1034: %  & \simeq & 

1035: %  (r_A + r_B) \left\{

1036: %    \delta m_{jk}^2 + \frac{1}{2 r_A r_B} \nonumber \right. \\

1037: %& & \mbox{} \times \left[

1038: %      m_j^2 \left( b_+^2 - 2 \frac{r_B}{r_A + r_B} s b_+ \right) 

1039: %     \right. \nonumber \\

1040: %& & 

1041: %\left. \left. 

1042: %    - m_k^2 \left( b_-^2 - 2 \frac{r_B}{r_A + r_B} s b_- \right)

1043: %    \right]

1044: %  \right\}

1045: %\nonumber \\

1046: & \simeq &

1047: (r_A + r_B) \\

1048: & & \mbox{} \times

1049: \left[

1050: \delta m^2_{jk} - \frac{1}{2 r_A r_B} (m_j^2 b_+^2 - m_k^2 b_-^2)

1051: \right]. \nonumber

1052: \end{eqnarray}

1053: 

1054: Substituting these expressions in 

1055: Eq.~(\ref{eqn_splitterphase}) then gives the phase

1056: difference between mass eigenstates $j$ and $k$ travelling down

1057: paths $+$ and $-$ as

1058: \bmu

1059: \label{eqn_splitterphasepythag}

1060: \Delta \Phi_{jk}^{+-} \simeq

1061: + E

1062:  (r_A + r_B)\frac{\Delta b_{+-}^2}{2 r_A r_B} 

1063: +\frac{\delta m^2_{jk}}{2 E} (r_A + r_B)\\

1064: - \frac{r_A + r_B}{2 E}\frac{(m_j^2 b_+^2 - m_k^2 b_-^2)}{2 r_A r_B}.

1065: \end{multline}

1066: This expression includes contributions from both different phase

1067: velocities and different path lengths, and can be understood

1068: further by considering the special cases in which

1069: (1) different mass neutrinos travel down the same path

1070: or

1071: (2) the same mass eigenstate travels down different paths.

1072: 

1073: \begin{enumerate}

1074: 

1075: \item From Eq.~(\ref{eqn_splitterphase}) for the general case

1076: of the phase difference between the {\it same} \MES \

1077: propagating along {\it different} paths we find

1078: \bea

1079: \label{eqn_splitterphase''}

1080: \Delta \Phi_{jj}^{pq} &\equiv& 

1081: - \left[E - \frac{m_j^2}{2E}\right](L_p - L_q) \nn \\

1082: \eea

1083: So that if we further particularize, as above, to paths passing through

1084: slits at $b_+$ and $b_-$ we find

1085: \bea

1086: \label{eqn_samemes}

1087: \Delta \Phi_{jj}^{+-}

1088: & \simeq &  \left[E - \frac{m_j^2}{2E}\right]

1089: \frac{(r_a + r_b)\Delta b_{+-}^2}{2 r_a r_b}.\nn \\

1090: \eea

1091: Notice in the above the similarity to the phase difference

1092: for an ordinary

1093: Young's double slit type experiment using photons,

1094: namely,

1095: \bea

1096: \Delta \Phi^{pq}_\gamma &=&

1097: -\bar{E}v(L_p - L_q) \nn \\

1098: &=& - \left(\bar{E} - \frac{m^2}{2\bar{E}}\right)(L_p - L_q),

1099: \eea

1100: where $v$ is the (phase) velocity of the interfering particle

1101: (which we assume to be relativistic).

1102: We shall see below that the analog of this phase -- essentially

1103: proportional to energy $\times$ path difference -- has been missed

1104: in the existing literature on neutrino oscillations in curved space.

1105: This has led to an incomplete result

1106: %(see, e.g.,

1107: %\cite{Fornengo1997,Cardall1997,Alsing2001})

1108: suggesting

1109: that the phase difference vanishes

1110: in the massless limit even when there is more than one path from source

1111: to detector.

1112: \item Again for the general case,

1113: for the phase difference between {\it different} mass eigenstates

1114: propagating along the {\it same} path (i.e., the analog of the usual

1115: phase difference encountered in neutrino oscillation experiments), we find

1116: from Eq.~(\ref{eqn_splitterphase})

1117: \bea

1118: \label{eqn_splitterphase'}

1119: \Delta \Phi_{jk}^{xx} &\equiv&

1120: + \left(\frac{\delta m_{jk}^2 L_x}{2 E}\right) \nn \\

1121: & \simeq & \frac{\delta m_{jk}^2}{2 E}(L_a + L_b)

1122: \left(1 + \frac{b_x^2}{2 L_a L_b}\right),

1123: \eea

1124: where $x \in \{p,q\}$.

1125: %&& \qquad \textrm{where} 

1126: %x \in \{p,q\}. 

1127: %\eea

1128: %\item The phase difference between the {\it different} \MES s

1129: %propagating along {\it different} paths 

1130: %(given by Eq. (\ref{eqn_splitterphase}) for $j \neq k$ and $p \neq q$).

1131: 

1132: \end{enumerate}

1133: 

1134: It is worth keeping the above expressions in mind

1135: when considering the results for the neutrino phase difference

1136: in curved spacetime presented in \S\ref{sect_convl_lens_params}.

1137: As will be seen, the results obtained in this more complex physical

1138: situation are analogous to those derived above,

1139: e.g., compare Eq.~(\ref{eqn_samemes}) with 

1140: Eq.~(\ref{samemesnonradschwarzphasediff}) and

1141: Eq.~(\ref{eqn_splitterphase'}) with 

1142: Eq.~(\ref{samepathnonradschwarzphasediff}).

1143: 

1144: \section{The Phase of a Neutrino Mass Eigenstate in Curved Spacetime}

1145: \label{section_curvednuphase}

1146: 

1147: A neutrino beam splitter is in the realm of fantasy -- except

1148: for the interesting case of gravitational  lensing of neutrinos: a

1149: gravitational field can bring to a focus diverging neutrino beams, 

1150: and  therefore

1151: provide for multiple (classical) paths from a source to a detector.

1152: In the remainder of this paper 

1153: we explore whether any interesting, quantum mechanical interference

1154: effects can arise in this sort of situation.

1155: 

1156: We shall be concerned below, therefore, with deriving an expression 

1157: for the neutrino oscillation phase

1158: in curved spacetime, in particular a Schwarzschild metric (this 

1159: providing the simplest case in which gravitational lensing is possible).

1160: Here we shall follow the 

1161: development laid out in \cite{Fornengo1997} and \cite{Cardall1997} but,

1162: importantly,

1163: we shall also employ the prescription set out in \S\ref{section_beamsplitter}

1164: that allows

1165: for 

1166: the

1167: removal of time from consideration in the oscillation `probability' 

1168: by integration over $T \equiv t_B - t_A$ where $A = (\bm{r}_A, t_A)$ 

1169: %$A = (\vec{r}_A, t_A)$ 

1170: and $B = (\bm{r}_B, t_B)$ are the

1171: emission and detection events respectively \citep{Beuthe2001} . 

1172: %This allows us to

1173: %see that a number of papers that

1174: %have addressed 

1175: %the issue of neutrino oscillations in curved spacetime

1176: %(including, in fact,

1177: %the Refs.~\cite{Fornengo1997} and \cite{Cardall1997} and also, for

1178: %instance the Ref.~\cite{Alsing2001})

1179: %contain a result that is incorrect  or, at the very least, needs to be 

1180: %qualified

1181: %for the

1182: %neutrino oscillation phase difference.

1183: Note that we are assuming the semi-classical limit in which gravity is not quantized

1184: and its effects can be described completely by a non-flat metric, 

1185: $g_{\mu \nu} \neq \eta_{\mu \nu}$. 

1186: 

1187: The procedure we follow is to start with the

1188: generalization of the equation for a \MES 's phase \ in flat spacetime to 

1189: curved spacetime first arrived at by Stodolsky\citep{Stodolsky1979}:  

1190: %first derived in (\cite{Stodolsky1979}) 

1191: \begin{equation} 

1192: \label{curvedphase}

1193: \Phi_k(B,A) \qquad = \qquad \int_A^B p_{\mu}^{(k)} \mathrm{d}x^{\mu},

1194: \end{equation}

1195: where

1196: \begin{equation}

1197: \label{eqn_canmtm}

1198: p_{\mu}^{(k)} \qquad = \qquad m_k g_{\mu \nu} \frac{\mathrm{d}x^{\nu}}{ds},

1199: \end{equation}

1200: is the canonically conjugate momentum to the coordinate $x^{\mu}$. 

1201: Actually, as 

1202: pointed out by Alsing et al. in Ref.~\cite{Alsing2001},

1203: Stodolsky's expression for the phase is missing, in general, small

1204: correction terms that arise from quantum mechanical 

1205: modifications to the classical action. These

1206: vary according to

1207: the spin of the particle under consideration. Completely

1208: fortuitously, the would-be

1209: correction terms are identically zero

1210: in the case of spin half  

1211: particles in a {\it static} metric 

1212: (whereas for particles with, e.g., spin zero or one they are non-zero)

1213: so the 

1214:  Stodolsky expression happens to be exact for the Schwarzschild metric and many

1215: other cases of interest. Note in passing that this restriction to a static

1216: metric means that this technology cannot -- as it stands -- treat, e.g., 

1217: particle phases in a cosmological context.

1218: 

1219: We now introduce the metric of the Schwarzschild spacetime.

1220: This may be written in radial 

1221: co-ordinates, $x^\mu=(t,r,\vartheta,\varphi)$, as

1222: \begin{equation} 

1223: \label{schwarzmetric}

1224: ds^2 \ = \ B(r) dt^2 - B(r)^{-1} dr^2 - r^2 d\vartheta^2 - r^2 

1225: \sin^2 \vartheta d\varphi^2,

1226: \end{equation}

1227: where

1228: \begin{equation}\label{B}

1229: B(r) \ \equiv \ \left( 1 - \frac{2GM}{r} \right),

1230: \end{equation}

1231: and $G$ is the Newtonian constant and $M$ is the mass of the source of 

1232: the gravitational

1233: field, i.e., the lensing mass. 

1234: Given the isotropy of

1235: the gravitational field the motion of the neutrino mass eigenstate 

1236: will be confined

1237: to a plane which we take to be the equatorial one, $\vartheta = \pi/2$ and 

1238: $d\vartheta = 0$.

1239: 

1240: The relevant components of the canonical momentum, Eq.~(\ref{eqn_canmtm}),

1241: are, then \citep{Fornengo1997}:

1242: \be

1243: p^{(k)}_t = m_k B(r) \frac{dt}{ds},

1244: \ee

1245: \be

1246: p^{(k)}_r = - m_k B^{-1}(r) \frac{dr}{ds},

1247: \ee

1248: and

1249: \be

1250: p^{(k)}_\varphi = - m_k r^2 \frac{d\varphi}{ds}.

1251: \ee

1252: These are all inter-related through the mass-shell condition

1253: \citep{Fornengo1997}:

1254: \begin{eqnarray}

1255: \label{shell}

1256: m^2_k &=& g^{\mu \nu} p_\mu^{(k)} p_\nu^{(k)} \nn \\

1257: &=&

1258: \frac{1}{B(r)} (p_t^{(k)})^2 - B(r) (p_r^{(k)})^2 -

1259: \frac{(p_\varphi^{(k)})^2}{r^2}. \nn \\

1260: \end{eqnarray}

1261: 

1262: Given that the components of the metric are independent

1263: of the coordinates $t$ and $\varphi$, the momenta

1264: associated with these quantities, $p^{(k)}_t$ and $p^{(k)}_\varphi$ 

1265: shall be conserved along the

1266: classical geodesic traced out by $\nu_k$. 

1267: %Following \cite{Fornengo1997} 

1268: We define these constants of motion

1269: as $E_k \equiv p^{(k)}_t$ and $J_k \equiv -p^{(k)}_\varphi$. These two are,

1270: respectively, the energy and angular momentum seen by an observer at $r \to

1271: \infty$

1272: for the $k$th \MES \ \citep{Fornengo1997}.

1273: They are {\it not} identical with the energy and angular momentum that

1274: would be measured for $\nu_k$ at some definite, finite position $r$.

1275: In general, however,

1276: one may relate these quantities using the transformation law

1277: that relates a local reference frame 

1278: $\{x^{\hat{\alpha}}\} = \{\hat{t},\hat{r},\hat{\vartheta},\hat{\varphi}\}$

1279: to the frame $\{x^\mu\} = \{t,r,\vartheta,\varphi\}$ \citep{Misner1973}:

1280: \be

1281: x^{\hat{\alpha}} = L^{\hat{\alpha}}_{\ \mu}x^\mu, \qquad \qquad

1282: g_{\mu \nu} = L^{\hat{\alpha}}_{\ \mu} L^{\hat{\beta}}_{\ \nu} 

1283: \eta_{\hat{\alpha} \hat{\beta}},

1284: \ee

1285: where the $L^{\hat{\alpha}}_{\ \mu}$'s are the coefficients of the

1286: transformation between the two bases:

1287: \bmu

1288: \label{eqn_transform}

1289: L^{\hat{t}}_{\ t} = \sqrt{\vert g_{tt} \vert}, \qquad

1290: L^{\hat{r}}_{\ r} = \sqrt{\vert g_{rr} \vert}, \\

1291: L^{\hat{t}}_{\ \vartheta} = \sqrt{\vert g_{\vartheta \vartheta} \vert}, \qquad

1292: L^{\hat{\varphi}}_{\ \varphi} = \sqrt{\vert g_{\varphi\varphi } \vert}.

1293: \end{multline}

1294: So we have, in particular, that the local energy is given by

1295: \citep{Cardall1997}:

1296: \be

1297: \label{eqn_locenergy}

1298: E_k^{(loc)} (r) = |g_{tt}|^{-1/2} E_k = B(r)^{-1/2} E_k.

1299: \ee

1300: 

1301: \subsection{Calculating the Phase Difference}

1302: 

1303: Given the above definitions, we now have that:

1304: \bea 

1305: \label{schwarzphase}

1306: &\Phi_j^p(B,A) \qquad & = \qquad \int_A^B p_{\mu}^{(j)} \mathrm{d}x^{\mu}_p \nn \\

1307: &&= \int_A^B [E_j dt - p_j(r)\mathrm{d}r_p - J_j d\varphi_p],\nn \\

1308: \eea

1309: where we have implicitly defined $p_j(r) \equiv - p_r^{(j)}$.

1310: Note that we have explicitly introduced the path index $p$ which

1311: allows for the possibility of

1312: multiple paths from source to detector. Again, however, the integration

1313: over $t$ is independent of the path as the  endpoints of this integration

1314: are defined by the emission event and detection events. In fact, as discussed

1315: above, $E_j$ is conserved over classical paths,

1316: so that if \MES \ $j$ is assumed to travel down such a path, we can calculate

1317: the phase it accumulated after leaving the source to be

1318: \bea

1319: \label{schwarzphase2}

1320: &\Phi_j^p(B,A) & =  

1321: \int_{t_A}^{t_B} E_j dt 

1322: - \int_{r_A}^{r_B} 

1323: \left[p_j(r) + J_j \left(\frac{d\varphi}{dr}\right)_j^p\right] \mathrm{d}r_p

1324: \nn \\

1325: &&= E_j (t_B - t_A) \nn \\

1326: && \qquad - \int_{r_A}^{r_B} 

1327: \left[p_j(r) + J_j \left(\frac{d\varphi}{dr}\right)_j^p\right] \mathrm{d}r_p.

1328: \eea

1329: Of course, the quantity that governs the oscillation

1330: phenomenology is the phase difference $\Delta \Phi_{kj}^{pq}$ 

1331: where, generically,

1332: interference can be between different \MES s and/or different paths

1333: (cf.\ discussion in \S\ref{section_beamsplitter}). 

1334: %Note

1335: %that we continue to assume all involved paths are the classical. 

1336: As things stand

1337: this quantity would be parameterized in terms of both $t$ and $r$:

1338: \begin{multline}

1339: \label{schwarzphasediff}

1340: \Delta \Phi_{jk}^{pq}(r_B,t_B,r_A,t_A)   =  

1341: (E_j - E_k) (t_B - t_A) \\

1342: - \Biggl\{\int_{r_A}^{r_B} 

1343: \left[p_j(r) + J_j \left(\frac{d\varphi}{dr}\right)_j^p\right] \mathrm{d}r_p \\

1344: - \int_{r_A}^{r_B} 

1345: \Biggl[p_k(r) + J_k \left(\frac{d\varphi}{dr}\right)_k^q\Biggr] \mathrm{d}r_q\Biggr\}.

1346: \end{multline}

1347: We

1348: therefore

1349: follow the  prescription set out in \cite{Beuthe2001} to rid ourselves of the

1350: unwanted time parameter: 

1351: we assume a stationary source and integrate the interference term,

1352: %\begin{equation}

1353: %\mathcal{I}_{jk}^{pq}(r_A,t_A;r_B,t_B)

1354: %=

1355: %\exp\left[ - \mathrm{i} \Delta\Phi_{kj}^{pq} \right]

1356: %\end{equation}

1357: $\exp\left[ - \mathrm{i} \Delta\Phi_{kj}^{pq} \right]$,

1358: over the unknown emission time $t_A$ (or, equivalently, the

1359: transmission time $T \equiv t_B - t_A$). This results  

1360:  in a very useful

1361: $\delta(E_j - E_k)$. 

1362: 

1363: Note here that though the

1364:  energies of different mass eigenstates are different

1365: \citep{Giunti2001} -- 

1366: so that the $\delta\left( E_k - E_j \right)$

1367: arising from the time integration would

1368: seem to imply no interference -- in fact,

1369: in a correct treatment, massive neutrinos

1370: are described by wave packets, not plane waves as here.

1371: This means that, though  the average energies of different mass 

1372: eigenstate wave packets are, in general, different,

1373:  each massive neutrino wave packet has an energy spread

1374: and

1375: the detection process {\it can} pick up the same energy component

1376: for different massive neutrinos

1377: (see Refs.~\cite{Beuthe2001,Giunti2002d}).

1378: If the energy spread of the wave packets is small

1379: there is a suppression factor

1380: that, formally, can only be calculated only with a wave packet treatment 

1381: (cf.\ \S\ref{section_beamsplitter}), but, 

1382: can also be assessed at the heuristic level 

1383: (cf.\ \S\ref{section_phenomenology}).

1384: 

1385: Let us see how all the above works in practice.

1386: 

1387: 

1388: \subsection{Radial Propagation}

1389: \label{Radial Propagation}

1390: 

1391: We consider first the simple case of radial propagation, 

1392: in which case there is a single classical path from source to

1393: detector.

1394: Along this path, the angular momentum vanishes and we have:

1395: \begin{eqnarray}

1396: \label{radialschwarzphasediff}

1397: \Delta \Phi_{jk}(r_B,t_B,r_A,t_A)   

1398: = (E_j - E_k) (t_B - t_A) \nn \\

1399: - \int_{r_A}^{r_B} 

1400: [p_j(r) - p_k(r)]\mathrm{d}r

1401: \end{eqnarray}

1402: We can determine $p_j(r) - p_k(r)$ from the mass-shell relation, 

1403: Eq.~(\ref{shell})

1404: \citep{Fornengo1997}:

1405: \begin{eqnarray}

1406: p_k(r) = \pm \frac{1}{B(r)}\sqrt{E_k^2 - B(r) m_k^2},

1407: \end{eqnarray}

1408: where the $+$ sign refers to neutrinos propagating outwards from the

1409: gravitational well and the $-$ sign to neutrinos propagating inwards.

1410: We can further simplify this relation by employing the binomial

1411: expansion which, as in the flat space case, holds for relativistic

1412: particles:

1413: \bea

1414: \label{eqn_binomcurved}

1415: &\sqrt{E_k^2 - B(r) m_k^2} & \simeq E_k - B(r)\frac{m_k^2}{2E_k},

1416: %\\

1417: %&& \simeq E_k^2 - B(r)\frac{m_k^2}{2E_0},

1418: \eea

1419: where $E_0$ is the energy at infinity for a neutrino \MES \ in the massless

1420: limit 

1421: (see \cite{Fornengo1997} for a detailed account of

1422: the region of applicability of Eq.~(\ref{eqn_binomcurved})). 

1423: We therefore have that

1424: \be

1425: p_j(r) - p_k(r) \simeq \pm \frac{1}{B(r)}(E_j - E_k)  

1426: %\mp \frac{\delta m^2_{jk}}{2E_0}.

1427: \mp \left(\frac{m^2_j}{2E_j} - \frac{m^2_k}{2E_k}\right).

1428: \ee

1429: The phase difference then becomes

1430: \begin{multline}

1431: \label{radialschwarzphasediff2}

1432: \Delta \Phi_{jk}(r_B,t_B,r_A,t_A) \\

1433: %\simeq (E_j - E_k) \left[(t_B - t_A) 

1434: %\mp \int_{r_A}^{r_B}\frac{\mathrm{dr}}{B(r)}\right]\\

1435: %\pm \int_{r_A}^{r_B} 

1436: % \left(\frac{m^2_j}{2E_j} - \frac{m^2_k}{2E_k}\right) \mathrm{d}r \\ 

1437: \simeq (E_j - E_k) \left[(t_B - t_A) 

1438: \mp \int_{r_A}^{r_B}\frac{\mathrm{d}r}{B(r)}\right]

1439: \\

1440: + \left(\frac{m^2_j}{2E_j} - \frac{m^2_k}{2E_k}\right)\vert r_B - r_A \vert. 

1441: \end{multline}

1442: Given  the oscillation `probability' shall be, following our

1443: previously-establsihed procedure (cf.\ \S\ref{section_beamsplitter}),

1444:  integrated over $T \equiv t_B - t_A$,

1445: the {\it relevant} phase difference

1446: can be seen to be

1447: \bea

1448: \label{radialschwarzphasediff3}

1449: \Delta \Phi_{jk}(r_B,r_A)

1450: &\simeq&

1451: %\frac{\delta m_{jk}^2}{2E_0} \left| r_B - r_A \right|

1452: \frac{\delta m_{jk}^2}{2E_\nu} \left| r_B - r_A \right| \nn \\

1453: &\simeq&\frac{\delta m_{jk}^2}{2E_0} \left| r_B - r_A \right|

1454: \,.

1455: \eea

1456: where $E_\nu = E_j = E_k$ and

1457: $E_0$ is the energy at infinity for a massless particle and, as in flat

1458: space, the following relation holds \citep{Fornengo1997}:

1459: \be

1460: E_k \simeq E_0 + {\cal O}\left(\frac{m_k^2}{2E_0}\right).

1461: \ee

1462: 

1463: To digress a little, note that 

1464: the result presented in Eq.~(\ref{radialschwarzphasediff3}), 

1465: arrived at previously 

1466: \citep{Bhattacharya1996,Fornengo1997,Cardall1997,Bhattacharya1999},

1467: must be interpreted with some care:

1468: in

1469: Eq.~(\ref{radialschwarzphasediff3})

1470: one must keep in mind that the radial distance $\left| r_B - r_A \right|$ is

1471: a {\it coordinate distance}, and not the proper distance the various

1472: \MES s experience (except in the flat space case to which Eq.

1473: (\ref{radialschwarzphasediff3}) clearly reduces in the limit

1474: of a vanishing lensing mass) and that

1475: $E_0$ does not represent a locally-detected energy.

1476: Following \cite{Fornengo1997}, however, we can convert the phase difference

1477: so that it appears in terms of these parameters.

1478: The proper distance is given by (cf.\ Eq.~(\ref{eqn_transform})):

1479: \bea

1480: \label{eqn_propdist}

1481: &L_\mathrm{prop} &\equiv \int^{r_B}_{r_A} \sqrt{g_{rr}} \mathrm{d}r \\

1482: && \simeq r_B - r_A + GM\ln\frac{r_B}{r_A},

1483: \eea 

1484: where in the second line we have assumed the weak field limit holds.

1485: This demonstrates that, in a gravitational field, 

1486: the length relevant to the calculation of phases, 

1487: $\vert r_B - r_A \vert$, is actually shorter than the

1488: distances experienced by the propagating particles, $L_\mathrm{prop}$.

1489: Substituting Eqs.~(\ref{eqn_locenergy}) and (\ref{eqn_propdist}) into

1490: (\ref{radialschwarzphasediff3}) we determine that (cf.\ \citep{Fornengo1997}):

1491: \begin{eqnarray}

1492: \label{phi_measured}

1493: \Delta\Phi_{jk}(r_B,r_A) 

1494: \hspace{-3pt}

1495: &\simeq& 

1496: \hspace{-3pt}

1497: \left(

1498: \frac{ \Delta m^2_{jk} L_\mathrm{prop}}{2 E_0^{(loc)}(r_B)}

1499: \right) 

1500: \nn \\

1501: &&\times \left[

1502: 1

1503: -

1504: G M

1505: \left(

1506: \frac{1}{L_\mathrm{prop} }

1507: \,

1508: \ln \frac{r_B}{r_A}

1509: -

1510: \frac{1}{r_B}

1511: \right)

1512: \right]

1513: \;. \nn \\

1514: \end{eqnarray}

1515: 

1516: 

1517: 

1518: \subsection{Non-Radial Propagation}

1519: \label{Nonradial Propagation}

1520: 

1521: We turn now to the more interesting case presented by non-radial propagation.

1522: Here there will be, generically, more than one path for the \MES s to take

1523: from source to detector and we have the possibility, therefore, of 

1524: interference between particles on these different paths.

1525: 

1526: The phase difference we must calculate is given by

1527: Eq.~(\ref{schwarzphasediff}). To proceed with this calculation

1528: we must determine a value

1529: for 

1530: \begin{equation*}

1531: p_j(r) + J_j \left(\frac{d\varphi}{dr}\right)_j^p.

1532: \end{equation*}

1533: Firstly recall that $J_j$ is constant along the classical path taken by

1534: $\nu_j$. 

1535: Now, using the fact (see \cite{Landau1975}, Eq.(101.5)) that

1536: \begin{eqnarray}

1537: \label{eqnmassangmtm}

1538: \left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\phi}{\mathrm{d}r}\right)_j^p

1539: &=& 

1540: \pm \frac{J_j^p}{r^2 \sqrt{E_j^2 

1541: - \left(m_j^2 + \frac{(J_j^p)^2}{r^2}\right) B(r)}} \nonumber \\ 

1542: &\simeq&

1543: \pm \frac{b_p \left(1 - \frac{m_j^2}{2 E_j} \right)}

1544: {r^2 \sqrt{1 

1545: - \frac{B(r)}{E_j^2}\left[m_j^2 + 

1546: \frac{E_j^2 b_p^2}{r^2}\left(1 - \frac{m_j^2}{E_j^2}\right) \right]}},

1547: \nn \\

1548: \end{eqnarray}

1549: and, given that from the mass-shell relation we have 

1550: [see Eq.~(49) of \cite{Fornengo1997}]:

1551: \begin{eqnarray}

1552: B(r)p_j(r) &\simeq& \pm \sqrt{1 - B(r)\frac{b_p^2}{r^2}} \nn \\

1553: &&\times

1554: \left[1 - \frac{B(r)(1 - b_p^2/r^2)}{1 - B(r)b_p^2/r^2}

1555: \frac{m_j^2}{2 E^2_j}\right],

1556: \end{eqnarray}

1557: where $b_p$ is the impact parameter for path $p$, one may determine that:

1558: \begin{multline}

1559: \label{eqnsunnyday}

1560: p_j(r) + J_j^p \left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\phi}{\mathrm{d}r}\right)_j^p %\\

1561: %\simeq

1562: %\pm \frac{E_j}{B(r)\sqrt{1 - B(r)\frac{b_p^2}{r^2} 

1563: %- B(r)\frac{m_j^2}{E_j^2}\left(1 - \frac{b_p^2}{r^2}\right)}} \times \\

1564: %\shoveright{ \left(1 - B(r)\frac{m_j^2}{E_j^2}\right)} \\

1565: \simeq

1566: \pm \frac{E_j}{B(r)\sqrt{1 - B(r)\frac{b_p^2}{r^2}}} \\

1567: \mp \frac{m_j^2}{2E_j^2} \frac{1 

1568: + (1 - 2B(r))\frac{b_p^2}{r^2}}{\left(1-B(r)\frac{b_p^2}{r^2}\right)

1569: ^{\frac{3}{2}}}. 

1570: \end{multline}

1571: In the above we have also employed the fact that the angular momentum

1572: of \MES \ $j$ (traveling along path $p$)

1573: at infinity is 

1574: given in terms of $\nu_j$'s energy at infinity, $E_j$, the impact parameter

1575: along the path being considered, $b_p$, and 

1576: $\nu_j$'s velocity at infinity, $v_j^{(\infty)}$ \citep{Fornengo1997}:

1577: \bea

1578: &J_j^p &= E_j b_p v_j^{(\infty)} \nn\\

1579: && \simeq E_j b_p \left(1 - \frac{m_j^2}{2E_j^2}\right).

1580: \eea

1581: We can further evaluate Eq.~\ref{eqnsunnyday} by replacing

1582: the path-dependent impact parameter, $b_p$, with the minimal radial co-ordinate

1583: for the same path, $r_0^p$. The relation between these two

1584: is found  by noting that at the position of closest approach the rate of change

1585: of the co-ordinate $r$ with respect to the angle $\phi$ vanishes

1586: \citep{Fornengo1997}. For the massive case (Eq.~\ref{eqnmassangmtm}), this 

1587: implies that:

1588: \begin{eqnarray}

1589: \label{eqnbpro}

1590: b_p^2 \simeq \frac{1 + \frac{m_j^2}{E_j^2} \frac{2 GM}{r^p_0}}{B(r^p_0)} \,.

1591: \end{eqnarray}

1592: Employing Eq.~(\ref{eqnbpro}), taking the weak field limit, and

1593: also expanding to ${\cal O}(m_j^2/E_j^2)$ we find that:

1594: %\begin{eqnarray}

1595: \bmu

1596: \label{eqncontdsun}

1597: p_j(r) + J_j^p \left(\frac{\mathrm{d}\phi}{\mathrm{d}r}\right)_j^p \\

1598: \simeq \pm E_j \left[ \frac{r}{\sqrt{r^2 - (r^p_0)^2}} 

1599: + GM \frac{2r - 3r^p_0}{\sqrt{r^2 - (r^p_0)^2}(r + r^p_0)} \right] \\

1600:  \mp \frac{m_j^2}{E_j}  \left[ \frac{r}{\sqrt{r^2 - (r^p_0)^2}} 

1601: -GM \frac{r^p_0}{\sqrt{r^2 - (r^p_0)^2}(r + r^p_0)} \right] \\

1602: %\end{eqnarray}

1603: \end{multline}

1604: With this result in hand, 

1605: we can complete the calculation of Eq.~(\ref{schwarzphase2}),

1606: the phase accumulated by \MES \ in non-radial propagation from spacetime

1607: position $A = (r_A, t_A)$ to $B = (r_B, t_B)$, where either

1608: $r_A$ or $r_B$ is the minimal radial co-ordinate encountered over the

1609: journey (i.e. the path is either non-radially inwards {\it or} outwards

1610: but not both). After an elementary integration we find that

1611: %\begin{multline}

1612: %\Phi_j^p(B,A)  

1613: %%\shoveleft{\simeq E_j (t_B - t_A)} \\

1614: %\simeq E_j (t_B - t_A) \\

1615: %\mp E_j  \int_{r_A}^{r_B}\left[ \frac{r}{\sqrt{r^2 - (r^p_0)^2}} \right. \\

1616: %\left. \shoveright{

1617: %+ GM \frac{2r - 3r^p_0}{\sqrt{r^2 - (r^p_0)^2}(r + r^p_0)} \right] \mathrm{d}r 

1618: %}

1619: %\\

1620: %\pm \frac{m_j^2}{2 E_j}   \int_{r_A}^{r_B}  

1621: %\left[ \frac{r}{\sqrt{r^2 - (r^p_0)^2}}  \right. \\

1622: %\left.\shoveright{

1623: %- GM \frac{r^p_0}{\sqrt{r^2 - (r^p_0)^2}(r + r^p_0)} \right] \mathrm{d}r

1624: %}\\

1625: %\end{multline}

1626: %so that

1627: \begin{multline}

1628: \Phi_j^p(B,A)  

1629: %\shoveleft{\simeq E_j (t_B - t_A)}  

1630: %\\ 

1631: \simeq E_j (t_B - t_A)\\

1632: \mp E_j \left[

1633: \sqrt{r_B^2 - (r^p_0)^2} - \sqrt{r_A^2 - (r^p_0)^2}  \right. \\

1634:  + 2 GM \ln \left(\frac{r_B + 

1635: \sqrt{r_B^2 -(r^p_0)^2}}{r_A + \sqrt{r_A^2 -(r^p_0)^2}} \right)  \\

1636:   \left.  

1637: \shoveright{+GM \left(\sqrt{\frac{r_B - r^p_0}{r_B + r^p_0}} - 

1638: \sqrt{\frac{r_A - r^p_0}{r_A + r^p_0}} \right) \right]}  \\

1639: \pm \frac{m_j^2}{2 E_j} \left[\sqrt{r_B^2 - (r^p_0)^2} 

1640: - \sqrt{r_A^2 - (r^p_0)^2}  \right. \\

1641:  \left.\qquad \qquad -GM \left(\sqrt{\frac{r_B - r^p_0}{r_B + r^p_0}} - 

1642: \sqrt{\frac{r_A - r^p_0}{r_A + r^p_0}} \right) \right],  \\

1643: \label{schwarzphaseblah}

1644: \end{multline}

1645: where  the upper signs pertain if $dr$ is positive (outward propagation)

1646: and the lower

1647: if $dr$ is negative.

1648: 

1649: 

1650: \subsection{Neutrino Lensing}

1651: \label{section_nulensing}

1652: 

1653: Finally let us consider the case of gravitational lensing of neutrinos. In

1654: this case the neutrinos propagate non-radially 

1655: along classical paths, labelled by index $p$, from radial position

1656: $r_A$, inwards to a path-dependent minimal radial co-ordinate $r_0^p$,

1657: and outwards again to a detector situated at radial co-ordinate

1658: $r_B$. As presaged above,

1659: in this situation there will be (at least potentially)

1660: interference not only between

1661: different \MES s propagating down the same classical path, but also between

1662: \MES s propagating down different paths ($p$ and $q$, say).

1663: Taking into account the sign of the momentum along these two legs, 

1664: we find, following the developments above, 

1665: that the relevant phase is given by

1666: \begin{multline}

1667: \label{nonradschwarzphase}

1668: \Phi_j^{p}(B,A) \\

1669: \shoveleft{

1670: \simeq E_j (t_B - t_A)

1671: } \\

1672: - E_j \left[ \sqrt{r_A^2 - (r^p_0)^2} +

1673: 2 GM \ln \left(\frac{r_A + 

1674: \sqrt{r_A^2 -(r^p_0)^2}}{r^p_0} \right)  \right.\\

1675:   \left. 

1676: \shoveright{+ GM \left(\sqrt{\frac{r_A - r^p_0}{r_A + r^p_0}}\right) 

1677: + (r_A \to r_B)\right]}

1678:  \\

1679: \shoveleft{+ \frac{m_j^2}{2 E_j} \Biggl[\sqrt{r_A^2 - (r^p_0)^2} 

1680: }\\

1681: \shoveright{- GM \left(\sqrt{\frac{r_A - r^p_0}{r_A + r^p_0}}\right) + (r_A \to r_B) 

1682: \Biggr],}\\

1683: \end{multline}

1684: where $(r_A \to r_B)$ mean add another term of the same form but with $r_A$ replaced with $r_B$.

1685: 

1686: Before proceeding any further with the calculation it behooves us here to

1687: establish the plausibility of Eq.~(\ref{nonradschwarzphase}) by 

1688: showing its relation to results known from some simpler cases.

1689: In the $M \to 0$ limit this equation becomes

1690: \bea

1691: \label{eqnMzero}

1692: %\Phi_j^{p}(r_B,t_B)^{\textrm{geom}}\simeq

1693: \Phi_j^{p}(B,A)&\simeq&

1694: E_j (t_B - t_A)

1695: - E_j\left(1 - \frac{m_j^2}{2 E_j^2}\right) \nn \\

1696: && \qquad \times

1697: \left[ \sqrt{r_A^2 - (r^p_0)^2} + \sqrt{r_B^2 - (r^p_0)^2}\right]. \nn \\ 

1698: \eea                                                           

1699: %We label this phase `geom' because it is the {\it geometric} contribution

1700: %-- as commonly identified in gravitational lensing circles --

1701: %to the phase of the \MES . On the other hand, terms in 

1702: %Eq.~(\ref{schwarzphaseblah})

1703: %above that are proportional to $G$ are {\it gravitational} on origin.

1704: 

1705: Now refer back to Fig.~\ref{figure:geometry},

1706: and take the coordinate origin on the diagram to denote

1707: the position of a lensing point mass. 

1708: %Again

1709: %we take it that $b_{p,q} \ll r_{A,B}$, where the

1710: %$b$'s now indicate impact parameters. Paths $p$ and $q$ now

1711: %approximately indicate the two classical paths from source to observer that 

1712: %exist for the Schwarzschild metric.  

1713: In the massless case, the two classical paths reduce to the single

1714: `undeflected' path denoted by the dashed line in the diagram.

1715: Denote the minimal radial coordinate along this path by $r_0$ (which intersects

1716: the dashed line at right angles).

1717: Clearly, then, the geometrical 

1718: length of the path from source to detector is

1719: $\sqrt{r_A^2 - r_0^2} + \sqrt{r_B^2 - r_0^2}$. Now, given we 

1720: know that in flat space the 

1721: phase of \MES \ $k$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{curvedphase}) 

1722: with Minkowski metric, viz: 

1723: \begin{equation} 

1724: \label{flatphase}

1725: \Phi_j \qquad = \qquad E_j(t_B - t_A) - \bm{p}_j.(\bm{x}_B - \bm{x}_A).

1726: \end{equation}

1727: then,

1728: for the  $M \to 0$ case

1729: illustrated in Fig.~\ref{figure:geometry}

1730: %(\ref{2pathslens}) 

1731: this becomes

1732: \begin{eqnarray}

1733: \label{flatphase2}

1734: \Phi_j  

1735: %&\simeq& E_j(t_B - t_A) - \sqrt{E_j^2 - m_j^2}

1736: %(l_0 + l_0') \nn \\

1737: %&=& E_j(t_B - t_A) - E_j\left(1 - \frac{m_j^2}{2 E_j^2}\right)\nn \\

1738: %&& \qquad \qquad \times

1739: %\left[ \sqrt{r_A^2 - d^2} + \sqrt{r_B^2 - d^2}\right] \nn \\

1740: &\simeq&  E_j(t_B - t_A) - E_j\left(1 - \frac{m_j^2}{2 E_j^2}\right)\nn \\

1741: && \qquad \qquad \times

1742: \left( \sqrt{r_A^2 - r_0^2} + \sqrt{r_B^2 - r_0^2}\right). \nn \\

1743: \end{eqnarray}

1744: %where the last near-equality follows from the fact that in the massless lens case

1745: %the minimal radial coordinate and the impact parameter are one and the same,

1746: %independent of the path index $p$. 

1747: With Eq.~(\ref{flatphase2})

1748: we have, then independently established the plausibility

1749: of Eq.~(\ref{eqnMzero}), once one takes into account the fact that,

1750: in the massless lens case, all classical paths

1751: converge on the same undeflected path (as mentioned above) so that

1752: in this limit $ r_0^p =  r_0^q \equiv r_0$ $ \forall p,q$.

1753: 

1754: 

1755: The other limit of interest is to take

1756: $m_j \to 0$ in Eq.~(\ref{nonradschwarzphase}).

1757: In doing this -- and then setting the temporal and spatial

1758: contributions to the phase equal as appropriate for

1759: a null geodesic -- we find that we have re-derived the

1760: Shapiro time delay 

1761: [see, e.g., Eq.~(8.7.4) of Ref.~\citep{Weinberg1972}].

1762: 

1763: Continuing with our main calculation, we can re-write 

1764: Eq.~(\ref{nonradschwarzphase})

1765: in terms of $b_p$ by inverting Eq.~(\ref{eqnbpro}). 

1766: If we also expand to

1767: %This gives us that 

1768: %\begin{multline}

1769: %\label{nonradschwarzphase2}

1770: %\Phi_j^{p}(B,A) \\

1771: %\shoveleft{

1772: %\simeq

1773: %E_j (t_B - t_A) 

1774: %}\\

1775: %\shoveleft{

1776: %- E_j \Biggl\{ \sqrt{r_A^2 - b_p^2} 

1777: %} 

1778: %+ 2 GM \ln \Biggl[\frac{r_A + \sqrt{r_B^2 -b_p^2}}{b_p}  \\

1779: %+ \left(1 + \frac{m_j^2}{E_j^2}\right)

1780: %\frac{GM r_A}{b_p^2}\frac{1+\sqrt{1-b_p^2 / r_B^2}}

1781: %{\sqrt{1-b_p^2 / r_B^2}}

1782: %\Biggr] \\

1783: %\shoveright{

1784: % \left. 

1785: %+ GM \left(\frac{r_A}{\sqrt{r_A + r^p_0}}\right) + (r_A \to r_B)\right\}

1786: %} \\

1787: %\shoveleft{

1788: %+ \frac{m_j^2}{2 E_j} \Biggl[\sqrt{r_A^2 - (r^p_0)^2} }

1789: %\, - \,

1790: %GM \!\!

1791: %\left(\!\sqrt{\frac{r_A - r^p_0}{r_A + r^p_0}}\right) + (r_A \to r_B) \Biggr].

1792: %\\

1793: %\end{multline}

1794: %Expanding to 

1795: ${\cal O}(b_p^2/r^2_{B \leftrightarrow A})$, we find that 

1796: \begin{multline}

1797: \label{nonradschwarzphase3}

1798: \Phi_j^{p}(B,A)  \\

1799: \shoveleft{\simeq

1800: E_j (t_B - t_A) 

1801: }\\

1802: \shoveleft{

1803: \qquad - E_j (r_A + r_B)

1804: } \\

1805:  \times \left\{ 1 - \frac{b_p^2}{2 r_A r_B} + \frac{2 GM}{r _A + r_B}

1806: \left[ 1 + \ln\left(\frac{4 r_A r_B}{b_p^2} \right)\right] \right\} \\

1807: \shoveright{

1808: + \frac{m_j^2}{2 E_j}(r_A + r_B) \left(1 - \frac{b_p^2}{2 r_A r_B} 

1809: -  \frac{2 GM}{r _A + r_B} \right).

1810: }\\

1811: \end{multline}

1812: We can now find the phase difference, which allows for interference between

1813: different paths and/or different \MES s, by the  usual

1814: integration over $T$ (so that we have $E_\nu = E_j = E_k$):

1815: \begin{multline}

1816: \label{nonradschwarzphasediff}

1817: \Delta\Phi_{jk}^{pq}(r_B,r_A) \\

1818: \simeq

1819: + E_\nu (r_A + r_B)\left(\frac{\Delta b_{pq}^2}{2 r_A r_B} 

1820: + \frac{4 GM}{r _A + r_B} \ln\left|\frac{b_p}{b_q}\right| \right)  \\

1821: + \frac{\delta m_{jk}^2}{2 E_\nu}(r_A + r_B)

1822:  \left(1 - \frac{2 GM}{r_A + r_B}\right) \\

1823: - \frac{r_A + r_B}{2 E_\nu} 

1824: \left(\frac{m_j^2b_p^2 - m_k^2b_q^2}{2r_Ar_B}\right),

1825: \\

1826: \end{multline}

1827: where $\Delta b^2_{pq} \equiv b^2_p -b^2_q$ and, in our notation,

1828:  $\Delta\Phi_{jk}^{pq}(r_B)$ denotes the phase difference between

1829: \MES \ $j$ traveling down path $p$ and \MES \ $k$ traveling down path $q$

1830: \footnote{Note that the $M \to 0$ case of this equation

1831: can be re-derived by, again, considering Fig.~\ref{figure:geometry}

1832: %(\ref{2pathslens})

1833: while noting, in particular, that the Schwarzschild lens satisfies

1834: Eq.~\ref{equation:b_sch}

1835: for the two classical paths.}. 

1836: Eq.~(\ref{nonradschwarzphasediff}) is one of the major results of this paper.

1837: Note that the presence of the $\propto E_\nu$ term in this equation 

1838: -- missed in Ref.~\citep{Fornengo1997} -- 

1839: ensures that the phase difference behaves properly

1840: in the massless limit (i.e., does {\it not} vanish).

1841: In passing, also

1842: note that the above equation satisfies

1843: the discrete 

1844:  symmetry of swapping $B$ and $A$, as it should: the same result must be 

1845: obtained for the phase difference (in a static spacetime) if we swap the

1846: positions of source and observer.

1847: 

1848: Also recall that, excluding the case of perfect alignment of source, lens,

1849: and observer, there are only two possible classical paths from source to

1850: observer for the

1851: Schwarzschild case. These we label by $+$ (this path having an impact 

1852: parameter somewhat greater than the impact parameter

1853: for an undeflected ray) and $-$ (this path  having an impact

1854: parameter on the `opposite' side of the lens to the undeflected ray).

1855: We require, therefore, that $p,q \in \{+,-\}$ and

1856: in the particular case 

1857: that we are considering interference between the same

1858: mass eigenstates propagating down different paths 

1859: Eq.~(\ref{nonradschwarzphasediff}) becomes

1860: \begin{multline}

1861: \label{samemesnonradschwarzphasediff} 

1862: %\Delta\Phi_{jj}^{pq}(r_B,r_A) \equiv 

1863: \Delta\Phi_{jj}^{+-}(r_B,r_A)\\

1864: \simeq

1865: + E_\nu (r_A + r_B)\left(\frac{\Delta b_{+-}^2}{2 r_A r_B} 

1866: + \frac{4 GM}{r _A + r_B} \ln\left|\frac{b_+}{b_-}\right| \right) \\

1867: - \frac{m_j^2}{2 E_\nu} (r_A + r_B)

1868: \frac{\Delta b_{+-}^2}{2r_Ar_B}.\\

1869: \end{multline}

1870: Alternatively, in the case of 

1871: different \MES s traveling down the same path 

1872: (i.e., `ordinary' neutrino oscillations, but in curved space),  

1873: Eq.~(\ref{nonradschwarzphasediff}) 

1874: becomes

1875: \begin{multline}

1876: \label{samepathnonradschwarzphasediff}

1877: \Delta\Phi_{jk}^{pp}(r_B,r_A)  

1878: \simeq 

1879: \frac{\delta m_{jk}^2}{2 E_\nu}(r_A + r_B) \\

1880:  \times 

1881: \left(1 - \frac{b_p^2}{2 r_A r_B} - \frac{2 GM}{r_A + r_B}\right).

1882: \end{multline}

1883: Note that Eqs.~(\ref{nonradschwarzphasediff}), 

1884: (\ref{samemesnonradschwarzphasediff}), and 

1885: (\ref{samepathnonradschwarzphasediff}) give us that

1886: %\bea

1887: %\Delta\Phi_{jk}^{pq}(r_B,r_A) 

1888: %- \Delta\Phi_{jj}^{pq}(r_B) - \Delta\Phi_{jk}^{pp}(r_B) \nn \\

1889: %\simeq \frac{\delta m_{jk}^2}{2 E_\nu} (r_A + r_B) 

1890: %\frac{\Delta b_{pq}^2}{2 r_A r_B},

1891: %\eea

1892: %which we can also express as

1893: \begin{multline}

1894: \Delta\Phi_{jk}^{pq}(r_B,r_A) = \Delta\Phi_{jj}^{pq}(r_B,r_A) +

1895: \Delta\Phi_{jk}^{pp}(r_B,r_A) \\  

1896: + {\cal O}\left[\frac{\delta m_{jk}^2}{2 E_\nu} (r_A + r_B) 

1897: \frac{\Delta b_{pq}^2}{2 r_A r_B}\right].

1898: \end{multline}

1899: This correction term will be small with respect to other terms (given our assumptions

1900: of ultra-relativistic neutrinos and undeflected impact parameters small with 

1901: respect to the overall distances between source-lens and lens-observer). 

1902: In fact, the third term of Eq.~(\ref{nonradschwarzphasediff}) can be expected to be

1903: suppressed with respect to the first term by ${\cal O}(m^2/E^2_\nu)$ and with

1904: respect to the second term by ${\cal O}(b^2/(r_A r_B))$.

1905: The consequence of this is that the phase may be written

1906: %is guaranteed to  be small with respect to all 

1907: %terms in Eq.~(\ref{nonradschwarzphasediff}) (excepting the

1908: %$\propto GM/(r_A + r_B)$ correction to the $\propto \delta m_{jk}^2$ term)

1909: %if the neutrinos we are dealing with are near-degenerate in mass, i.e., the \MES s

1910: %satisfy

1911: %\be

1912: %\label{eqn_degeneracy}

1913: %\frac{\delta m_{jk}^2}{m_j^2} \ll 1  \qquad \forall j,k.

1914: %\ee

1915: %In this case, the phase difference satisfies

1916: %what we label `separability', viz

1917: \be

1918: \label{eqnseparable}

1919: \Delta \Phi^{pq}_{jk} 

1920: %\equiv \Phi^p_j - \Phi^q_k 

1921: %\simeq \Delta \Phi^{pp}_{jk} + \Delta \Phi^{pq}_{jj} 

1922: \simeq \Delta \Phi_{jk} +  \Delta \Phi^{pq},

1923: \ee

1924: satisfying what we label `separability',

1925: where

1926: \bea

1927: \label{eqn_phasediff_pq}

1928: \Delta \Phi^{pq} \equiv 

1929: E_\nu (r_A + r_B)\left(\frac{\Delta b_{pq}^2}{2 r_A r_B} 

1930: + \frac{4 GM}{r _A + r_B} \ln\left|\frac{b_p}{b_q}\right| \right) \nn \\

1931: - \frac{\overline{m}^2}{2 E_\nu} (r_A + r_B)

1932: \frac{\Delta b_{pq}^2}{2r_Ar_B}.

1933: \nn \\

1934: \eea

1935: and

1936: \bea

1937: \label{eqn_phasediff_jk}

1938: \Delta \Phi_{jk} &\equiv& 

1939: \frac{\delta m_{jk}^2}{2 E_\nu}(r_A + r_B)

1940:  \left(1 - \frac{\overline{b}^2}{2 r_A r_B} - \frac{2 GM}{r_A + r_B}\right),

1941: \nn \\

1942: \eea

1943: where 

1944: \bea

1945: \overline{m} \equiv \frac{1}{N_\nu}\sum^{N_\nu}_j m_j

1946: &\textrm{and} & \overline{b} \equiv \frac{1}{N_\textrm{path}}\sum^{N_\textrm{path}}_j b_p,

1947: \eea

1948: with $N_\nu$ the number of neutrino \MES s and $N_\textrm{path}$ the number of

1949: classical paths from source to detector (two in the case of the Schwarzschild metric).

1950: What Eq.~(\ref{eqnseparable}) says in words is that the phase difference that

1951: develops between source and detector is due to 

1952: two effects that can be considered separately: (i)

1953: a phase difference -- independent  of which \MES \ is under consideration -- 

1954: that develops because

1955: of the different lengths of the paths involved and (ii) the phase difference that develops

1956: because the different \MES s travel with different phase velocites. 

1957: This situation is analogous to two runners who run along two very similar -- though not

1958: identical -- paths, with similar -- though not

1959: identical -- velocities: to first order, the difference in the finishing times between the two

1960: depends on terms proportional to the difference in lengths of the two courses, $\Delta L$,

1961:  and the difference

1962: in the runners' velocities, $\Delta v$, but not, by definition, on terms 

1963: $\propto  \Delta L \, \Delta v$.

1964: 

1965: %Any extra phase difference 

1966: %that develops, then,

1967: %through different \MES s propagating with different phase velocities down different paths is 

1968: %assumed to be negligible as, indeed, would be guaranteed by mass degeneracy. 

1969: 

1970: \subsection{Phase Difference in Terms of Conventional Lensing Parameters}

1971: \label{sect_convl_lens_params}

1972: 

1973: To facilitate interpretation of the above results 

1974: in an astrophysical context

1975: -- and, eventually, to introduce an evolving cosmological model --

1976: it is useful to re-express the phase difference in the language

1977: of standard gravitational lensing theory

1978: (despite the fact that the particles being lensed are not photons).

1979: 

1980: \subsubsection{The lens equation}

1981: 

1982: The classically allowed neutrino paths in the presence

1983: of a deflector can be derived by 

1984: reconsidering the geometry shown in Fig.~\ref{figure:geometry}.

1985: Under the assumption that $|b_\pm| \ll r_{\{A,B\}}$,

1986: the source offset, $s$, can be related to

1987: the impact parameter, $b$, by the lens equation:

1988: \be

1989: \label{eqn_lensgeneral}

1990: s \simeq \frac{r_B}{r_A + r_B} b + r_A \, \alpha(b),

1991: \ee

1992: where $\alpha(b)$ is the deflection angle of the lens as a function of

1993: impact parameter.

1994: 

1995: It is standard practice to reexpress the lens equation in terms 

1996: of angular variables. 

1997: This entails replacing the source offset and impact parameters

1998: with angles (on the sky of the observer)

1999: and radial coordinates with line-of-sight distances.

2000: These conversions are summarised graphically in Fig.~\ref{figure:geometry},

2001: which leads to the following replacements:

2002: $r_A \to ({D_{ds}^2 + s^2})^{1/2} \simeq D_{ds}$,

2003: where $D_{ds}$ is the distance from deflector to source;

2004: $r_B \to D_d$, where $D_d$ is the distance from observer to deflector;

2005: and $r_A + r_B \to D_s$,

2006: where $D_s$ is the distance from observer to source.

2007: The notation employed for the distance measures is suggestive of their

2008: being the angular diameter distances used to relate angles and lengths

2009: in an evolving cosmological model, and they fulfil an analogous role here.

2010: It is most important to note, however, that they are

2011: not true angular diameter distances and

2012: the following results are only quantitatively valid on scales sufficiently

2013: small that the expansion of the Universe can be ignored

2014: (e.g., the Milky Way or the Local Group).

2015: These results will be extended to an evolving cosmology in \citep{Crocker2003}.

2016: 

2017: The above caveats notwithstanding, the angular position

2018: (relative to the deflector) of an image

2019: with impact parameter $b$ is now simply

2020: \be

2021: \theta \simeq \frac{b}{r_B} \simeq \frac{b}{D_d},

2022: \ee

2023: and the position of the source can be given in terms of

2024: an unobservable angular parameter $\beta$ as

2025: \be

2026: \beta \simeq \frac{s}{r_A + r_B} \simeq \frac{s}{D_s}.

2027: \ee

2028: Inserting these definitions into Eq.~(\ref{eqn_lensgeneral}),

2029: the lens equation becomes

2030: \begin{equation}

2031: \label{equation:lens_angle}

2032: \beta \simeq \theta + \frac{D_{ds}}{D_s} \alpha(D_d \theta).

2033: \end{equation}

2034: The position(s) of the images formed by a source in a 

2035: given position can then be found 

2036: for a given choice of deflector model.

2037: 

2038: \subsubsection{The Schwarzschild lens}

2039: 

2040: In a Schwarzshild metric, the total angular

2041: deflection of a particle of mass $m$ impinging on a point-mass $M$ 

2042: with undeflected impact parameter $b$ is 

2043: (see, e.g., \cite{Schneider1992}):

2044: \be

2045: \alpha_{\rm{gen}}(b) = - \frac{4 GM}{b} \frac{1}{2}

2046:   \left(1 + \frac{1}{v_\infty^2} \right),

2047: \ee

2048: where

2049: $v_\infty$ is the particle's speed at an infinite distance from the mass

2050: and it has been assumed that $b \gg 2 G M = R_S$, the deflector's

2051: Schwarzschild radius.

2052: For an ultra-relativistic particle, this becomes

2053: \be

2054: \label{eqn_defln}

2055: \alpha_{\rm{rel}}(b) \simeq 

2056:   - \frac{4 GM}{b}\left(1 + \frac{m^2}{2 E^2} \right),

2057: \ee

2058: where $E$ is its coordinate energy 

2059: (equal to the energy measured at an infinte distance 

2060: from the mass). 

2061: 

2062: For astrophysical neutrinos, however, $m^2 / (2 E^2) \ll 1$

2063: and so it is an excellent approximation to assume they travel

2064: along classical photon paths, for which 

2065: \be

2066: \label{eqn_angdefln}

2067: \alpha_{\rm{light}}(b) = - \frac{4 GM}{b}.

2068: \ee

2069: Previously we have been rigorous in taking the classical 

2070: paths of massive particles 

2071: from source to observer but, as will be seen below, 

2072: this assumption is entirely self-consistent when dealing with

2073: weak-field gravitational effects and ultra-relativistic particles.

2074: Note also that a corollary of this approximation is that the different 

2075: mass eigenstates are assumed to travel down identical paths 

2076: (whereas in reality the heavier eigenstates will fall marginally

2077: deeper into the deflector's potential well).

2078: 

2079: Applying the above deflection law to

2080: Eq.~(\ref{equation:lens_angle}) gives the point-mass lens equation as

2081: \be

2082: \label{equation:beta_theta}

2083: \beta \simeq \theta - \frac{\theta_E^2}{\theta}

2084: \ee

2085: where 

2086: \be

2087: \label{equation:theta_e}

2088: \theta_E = \sqrt{4 G M \frac{D_{ds}}{D_d D_s}}

2089: \ee

2090: is the Einstein radius of the lens.

2091: This is the angular radius of the circular image that would be formed

2092: in the case of perfect source-deflector-observer alignment

2093: (i.e., $\beta = 0$) and thus depends on distance factors

2094: as well as the lens mass.

2095: Solving the lens equation then gives the image positions as

2096: \be

2097: \theta_\pm

2098:   \simeq 

2099:   \frac{1}{2} \left( \beta \pm \sqrt{\beta^2 + 4 \theta_{\rm{E}}^2} \right).

2100: \ee

2101: This also implies the useful Schwarzschild-specific result that 

2102: \be

2103: \label{equation:deltathetasq}

2104: \theta_+^2 - \theta_-^2 = 

2105: \Delta \theta^2_{+-}

2106:   \simeq \beta (\theta_+ - \theta_-).

2107: \ee

2108: 

2109: Having found a relationship between the angular position of a neutrino

2110: source and its images, the expression for the phase

2111: difference given in Eq.~(\ref{nonradschwarzphasediff}) 

2112: can be recast in a form containing 

2113: only line-of-sight distances and angular variables.

2114: This yields the Schwarzschild-specific result that 

2115: \begin{eqnarray}

2116: \label{nonradschwarzphasediffdimless2}

2117: \Delta\Phi_{jk}^{pq} & \simeq &

2118: E_\nu \,

2119: \frac{D_d D_s}{D_{ds}} \left[\frac{\Delta \theta^2_{pq}}{2} 

2120: + \theta_{\rm{E}}^2 \,\ln 

2121:   \left(\left|\frac{\theta_p}{\theta_q}\right|\right) 

2122: \right] \nonumber \\

2123: & + & \frac{\delta m_{jk}^2}{2 E_\nu} D_s 

2124:   \left(1 - \frac{D_d}{D_{ds}} \theta_{\rm{E}}^2 \right) \nonumber \\

2125: & - & 

2126: \frac{1}{2 E_\nu} \frac{D_d D_s}{D_{ds}}

2127: \frac{m_j^2 \theta_p^2 - m_k^2 \theta_q^2}{2} .

2128: \end{eqnarray}

2129: The second term in this equation is simply the phase difference that

2130: develops between mass eigenstates $j$ and $k$ traveling along 

2131: the same path for distance $D_s$, 

2132: with a small correction for the presence of the deflector.

2133: The first term encodes the path difference along the trajectories

2134: $p$ and $q$, with separate contributions from the geometrical effect

2135: ($\propto \Delta \theta_{pq}^2$) 

2136: and the reduced coordinate velocity close to the deflector

2137: [$\propto \ln(|\theta_p / \theta_q|)$].

2138: The final cross term is the leading order contribution 

2139: from different eigenstates traveling down different paths.

2140: From the discussion in the previous section, 

2141: this term will be small in general.

2142: 

2143: Given that interference effects can only ever be important 

2144: when the detector cannot resolve different image positions

2145: (i.e., it cannot know down which path the neutrino has travelled),

2146: having the phase difference in terms of $\theta_p$ and $\theta_q$

2147: is not as useful as expressing it as a function of the (angular) source

2148: position, $\beta$.

2149: 

2150: For the Schwarzschild lens the conversion from $\theta$ to $\beta$

2151: is given in Eq.~(\ref{equation:beta_theta}), and substituting this into 

2152: Eq.~(\ref{nonradschwarzphasediffdimless2}) then gives 

2153: (for \MES \ $j$ down path $+$ and \MES \ $k$ down path $-$)

2154: \begin{eqnarray}

2155: \label{nonradschwarzphasediffdimless'}

2156: \Delta\Phi_{jk}^{+-} 

2157: & \simeq &

2158: E_\nu \frac{D_d D_s}{D_{ds}} \Biggl[

2159:     \frac{\beta \sqrt{\beta^2 + 4 \theta_{\rm{E}}^2}}{2} \nonumber \\

2160: & &    \qquad  \qquad \qquad + \theta_{\rm{E}}^2 \ln \left( \left|

2161:       \frac{\beta + \sqrt{\beta^2 + 4 \theta_{\rm{E}}^2}}

2162:            {\beta - \sqrt{\beta^2 + 4 \theta_{\rm{E}}^2}} 

2163:       \right| \right) \Biggr] \nonumber \\

2164: &+ &   \frac{\delta m_{jk}^2}{2 E_\nu} D_s

2165:    \left(1 - \frac{D_d}{D_{ds}} \theta_{\rm{E}}^2 \right) \nonumber \\

2166: &- &  \frac{1}{2 E_\nu} \frac{D_d D_s}{D_{ds}}

2167:    \frac{1}{4}

2168: \Biggl[\delta m_{jk}^2 (\beta^2 + 2 \theta_{\rm{E}}^2)\nonumber \\

2169: & &    \qquad  \qquad \qquad \qquad   + (m_j^2 + m_k^2) \beta \sqrt{\beta^2 

2170: + 4 \theta_{\rm{E}}^2} \Biggr] . \nonumber \\

2171: \end{eqnarray}

2172: Thus the phase difference is expressed in terms of 

2173: essntially independent astronomical variables: the line-of-sight

2174: distances between observer, deflector and source, the mass of the 

2175: deflector (encoded uniquely in $\theta_{\rm{E}}$ once the distances

2176: have been chosen) and the perpendicular source offset, $\beta$.

2177: 

2178: Most of the important results obtained towards the end of 

2179: \S\ref{section_nulensing}

2180: can be recast similarly in terms of standard lensing variables, either in

2181: terms of the unobservable image positions or the source position. 

2182: Assuming separability (see \S\ref{section_nulensing}), 

2183: for instance, the 

2184: contribution to the $\Delta \Phi$ due to path difference effects alone

2185: (Eq.~\ref{eqn_phasediff_pq})

2186: can be written as

2187: \bea

2188: \label{eqn_phasediff_pq_dimless}

2189: \Delta \Phi^{pq} &\simeq&

2190: E_\nu \,

2191: \frac{D_d D_s}{D_{ds}} \left[\frac{\Delta \theta^2_{pq}}{2} 

2192: + \theta_{\rm{E}}^2 \,\ln 

2193:   \left(\left|\frac{\theta_p}{\theta_q}\right|\right) 

2194: \right] \nonumber \\

2195: &-&  \frac{\bar{m}^2}{2 E_\nu} \frac{D_d D_s}{D_{ds}} 

2196: \frac{\Delta \theta^2_{pq}}{2}

2197: \eea

2198: which for $p = +$ and $q = -$ becomes

2199: \begin{eqnarray}

2200: \label{eqn_phasediff_+-_dimless}

2201: \Delta \Phi^{+-} & \simeq &

2202: E_\nu

2203:   \frac{D_d D_s}{D_{ds}} 

2204:   \Biggl[\frac{\beta \sqrt{\beta^2 + 4 \theta_{\rm{E}}^2}}{2} \nonumber \\

2205: && \qquad \qquad \qquad + \theta_{\rm{E}}^2 \,\ln

2206:   \left(\left|\frac{\beta + \sqrt{\beta^2 + 4 \theta_{\rm{E}}^2}}

2207:   {\beta - \sqrt{\beta^2 + 4 \theta_{\rm{E}}^2}}\right|\right)

2208: \Biggr] \nonumber \\

2209: & & 

2210: - \frac{\bar{m}^2}{2 E_\nu} \frac{D_d D_s}{D_{ds}}

2211: \frac{\beta \sqrt{\beta^2 + 4 \theta_{\rm{E}}^2}}{2}.

2212: \end{eqnarray}

2213: Similarly, the contribution due solely to the different phase velocities

2214: of two mass eigenstates traveling down the same path 

2215: (Eq.~\ref{eqn_phasediff_jk})

2216: can be expressed as

2217: \be

2218: \label{eqn_phasediff_jk_dimless}

2219: \Delta \Phi_{jk} \simeq

2220:   \frac{\delta m_{jk}^2}{2 E_\nu} D_s

2221:     \left[ 1 - \frac{\theta_{\rm{E}}^2}{8} 

2222:       \left( \beta^2 + 4 \theta_{\rm{E}}^2 \right)

2223:     \right].

2224: \ee

2225: 

2226: \section{The Oscillation `Probability'}

2227: \label{section_osnprob}

2228: 

2229: With the above results, we can now calculate the analog, in curved space,

2230:  of the flat-space neutrino

2231: oscillation probability:

2232: \be

2233: |\langle \nu_\beta | \nu_\alpha, D_s \rangle|^2 

2234: \propto

2235: \int \mathrm{d}T \vert \langle \nu_\beta \vert \nu_\alpha; A, B) \rangle \vert^2

2236: \ee

2237: so that we can write

2238: \begin{multline}

2239: \label{eqn_oscnprobcurved}

2240: |\langle \nu_\beta | \nu_\alpha, D_s \rangle|^2 \\

2241: = \vert N \vert^2 \sum_{pq} \sqrt{I_pI_q} \sum_{jk} 

2242: U_{\alpha j} U_{\beta j}^* U_{\beta k} U_{\alpha k}^* \\ 

2243: \times \exp\left[-\mathrm{i}\Delta\Phi_{jk}^{pq}(D_s)\right],

2244: \end{multline}

2245: where $I_p$ and $I_q$

2246: account for the fact that different paths may be differentially magnified

2247: by a lens. 

2248: We remind the reader that $|\langle \nu_\beta | \nu_\alpha, D_s \rangle|^2 $

2249: is no longer strictly a probability -- see \S\ref{section_beamsplitter}.

2250: %because we will no longer necessarily have (as is the case for

2251: %flat-space oscillations) that, for some

2252: %definite source-lens-observer geometry and for some

2253: %particular energy, $\sum_{\beta} 

2254: %\vert \langle \nu_\beta \vert \nu_\alpha,B \rangle \vert^2 = 1$. For instance,

2255: %with two equally magnified paths, it is possible, for some particular

2256: %energy and source-lens-observer geometry, to be at a nodal point -- or

2257: %interference minimum -- so that no neutrinos from the source in question

2258: %(of any species) are seen for that  energy.

2259: 

2260: In the case that the `separability' defined by Eq.~(\ref{eqnseparable})

2261: is satisfied, if, for the moment, we are 

2262: interested only in determining the (energy) spacing  of the

2263: interference maxima and minima, we need only consider a 

2264: plane-wave-like calculation (and can

2265: therefore set to one side the coherence length effects and so on 

2266: that emerge from a wavepacket calculation). So, following

2267: considerations similar to those

2268: that lead to Eq.~(\ref{eqn_app_bs''''}) in the appendix we can calculate that

2269: \bmu

2270: \label{gravoscnprobcontd'}

2271:  |\langle \nu_\beta | \nu_\alpha, D_s \rangle|^2  \\

2272: %\shoveleft{

2273: %  = |N|^2\biggl[ \delta_{\alpha \beta} N_\mathrm{path} I }\\

2274: %  + 2\sum_{p,q < p} \sqrt{I_p I_q} \cos(\Delta \Phi_{pq}) \times \\

2275: %  \left(\sum_j |U_{\alpha j}|^2 |U_{\beta j}|^2 

2276: %+ Re \left\{\sum_{j,k < j}U_{\alpha j}  

2277: %U_{\beta j}^* U_{\alpha k}^*  U_{\beta k} \right\}

2278: %\right) \\

2279: % -2 \left[N_\mathrm{path} I + 2\sum_{p,q < p} \sqrt{I_p I_q} 

2280: %\cos(\Delta \Phi^{pq})\right]  \\

2281: %\times Re\biggl\{ \sum_{j, k < j} 

2282: %U_{\alpha j}  U_{\beta j}^* U_{\alpha k}^*  U_{\beta k}

2283: %\biggl[2\sin^2(\frac{\Delta \Phi_{jk}}{2}) \\

2284: %\shoveright{

2285: %+ \mathrm{i}\sin(\Delta \Phi_{jk}) 

2286: %\biggr]\biggr\}\biggr] 

2287: %} \\ 

2288:  \shoveleft{

2289: = |N|^2 \left[N_\mathrm{path}I 

2290: + 2 \sum_{p,q < p} \sqrt{I_p I_q} \cos(\Delta \Phi^{pq})\right]}

2291: \\ \times 

2292:  \biggl[\delta_{\alpha \beta} - 

2293: %4Re\left\{\sum_{j, k < j} 

2294: 4Re\biggl\{\sum_{j, k < j}

2295: U_{\alpha j}  U_{\beta j}^* U_{\alpha k}^*  U_{\beta k}

2296: \left[\sin^2\biggl(\frac{\Delta \Phi_{jk}}{2}\right) \\

2297: %+ \frac{i}{2}\sin(\Delta \Phi_{jk}) \right) \right\}\biggr],

2298: + \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\sin(\Delta \Phi_{jk}) \biggr] \biggr\}\biggr],

2299: \end{multline}

2300: where $N_\mathrm{path}$ is again the number of classical paths from source to 

2301: detector (two in the case of a Schwarzschild metric), 

2302: $I \equiv \sum_p I_p/N_\mathrm{path}$,  and  

2303: the normalization, $|N|^2$ is again given 

2304: (cf.\ \S\ref{section_beamsplitter}) by requiring that

2305: $\sum_\beta |\langle \nu_\beta | \nu_\alpha, D_s \rangle|^2 \leq 1$, i.e.,

2306: \begin{equation}

2307: max\left\{\langle \nu_\alpha, B | \nu_\alpha, B \rangle\right\} = 1.

2308: \end{equation}

2309: This means that 

2310: \begin{equation}

2311: |N|^2 = \frac{1}{N_\mathrm{path} I + 2\sum_{p,q < p}\sqrt{I_p I_q}}.

2312: \end{equation}

2313: Eq.~(\ref{gravoscnprobcontd'})

2314: establishes 

2315: the contention made above

2316: that 

2317: interference effects that emerge with 

2318: gravitationally-lensed neutrinos 

2319: are a combination of a Young's double slit type interference

2320: \{the $[...\cos(\Delta \Phi^{pq})...]$ envelope term\} and flat space

2321: oscillations [the $(\delta_{\alpha \beta} -...)$ term].

2322: Further, assuming the separability requirement is satisfied, we can see

2323: how $|\langle \nu_\beta | \nu_\alpha, D_s \rangle|^2$ factorises

2324: into an interference pattern and a conditional probability.

2325: This is a repeat of the behavior see in 

2326: \S\ref{section_planewavesplitter}.

2327: %, but note

2328: %that separability has been obtained under different assumptions. 

2329: %Previously we assumed that there were only

2330: %two paths and parameterized the phase difference in terms of a 

2331: %reference length which was the average of the lengths along both paths. 

2332: %Here we do not assume two paths, rather

2333: %phase separability results because we have assumed the neutrino 

2334: %phase velocities are not too 

2335: %different 

2336: %(so the total phase difference is, to a good approximation, 

2337: %due to the independent contributions of the path difference and 

2338: %the flat space oscillation phase).

2339: 

2340: %For the case that $I_p = I_q = I\ \ \forall p,q$ this reduces to 

2341: %\begin{equation}

2342: %|N|^2 = \frac{1}{N^2_\mathrm{path}}

2343: %\end{equation}

2344: %so that if there are only two classical paths from 

2345: %source to detector, $p$ and $q \neq p$, 

2346: %the analog of the oscillation probability becomes:

2347: %\begin{multline}

2348: %\label{gravoscnprobcontd''}

2349: %|\langle \nu_\beta | \nu_\alpha, D_s \rangle|^2   \\

2350: %  = I \cos^2(\Delta \Phi^{pq}) \times \\

2351: %\biggl[\delta_{\alpha \beta} - 

2352: %4Re\Bigl\{\sum_{j, k < j}

2353: %U_{\alpha j}  U_{\beta j}^* U_{\alpha k}^*  U_{\beta k}

2354: %\Bigl(\sin^2\left(\frac{\Delta \Phi_{jk}}{2}\right) +\ \\

2355: %  + \frac{i}{2}\sin(\Delta \Phi_{jk}) \Bigr) \Bigr\}\biggr].

2356: %\end{multline}

2357: %This illustrates (assuming the separability requirement is satisfied)

2358: %that 

2359: %interference effects that emerge with 

2360: %gravitationally-lensed neutrinos (if they could ever be measured)

2361: %are a combination of a Young's double slit type interference

2362: %(the $\cos^2(\Delta \Phi^{pq})$ envelope term above) and flat space

2363: %oscillations (the term in square brackets).

2364: 

2365: One should also note that in the particular case of

2366: the Schwarzschild lens under consideration in the last section, the

2367: two (assuming non-perfect alignment) classical paths from source to detector,  

2368: %through $X_+$ and $X_-$

2369: denoted by the subscripts $+$ and $-$,

2370: experience magnifications given by 

2371: [see Eq.~(2.24) of ref.~\cite{Schneider1992}]

2372: \be

2373: I_\pm 

2374: %= \frac{1}{\pm1 \mp \left(\frac{\theta_\mp}{\theta_\textrm{E}}\right)^4} 

2375: =\frac{1}{4}\left(\frac{\beta}{\sqrt{\beta^2 +4\theta_\textrm{E}^2}}

2376: +\frac{\sqrt{\beta^2 +4\theta_\textrm{E}^2}}{\beta} \pm 2\right).

2377: \ee

2378: This gives us that

2379: \begin{equation}

2380: |N|^2 = \frac{1}{I_+ + I_- + 2\sqrt{I_+ I_-}} 

2381: = \frac{\beta}{\sqrt{\beta^2 + 4\theta_\textrm{E}^2}}

2382: \end{equation}

2383: Eq.~(\ref{gravoscnprobcontd'}) then becomes:

2384: \bmu

2385: \label{gravoscnprobcontd''}

2386:  |\langle \nu_\beta | \nu_\alpha, D_s \rangle|^2  \\

2387:   \simeq  \frac{1}{\beta^2 + 4\theta_\textrm{E}^2} 

2388: \bigl\{\beta^2 + 2\theta_\textrm{E}^2[1 + 2\cos(\Delta \Phi^{+-})]\bigr\}

2389: \\

2390: \times  \biggl[\delta_{\alpha \beta} - 

2391: %4Re\left\{\sum_{j, k < j} 

2392: 4Re\biggl\{\sum_{j, k < j}

2393: U_{\alpha j}  U_{\beta j}^* U_{\alpha k}^*  U_{\beta k}

2394: \left[\sin^2\biggl(\frac{\Delta \Phi_{jk}}{2}\right) \\

2395: %+ \frac{i}{2}\sin(\Delta \Phi_{jk}) \right) \right\}\biggr],

2396: +\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\sin(\Delta \Phi_{jk}) \biggr] \biggr\}\biggr],

2397: \end{multline}

2398: with $\Delta \Phi^{+-}$ and $\Delta \Phi_{jk}$ given

2399: by Eqs.~(\ref{eqn_phasediff_+-_dimless}) and 

2400: (\ref{eqn_phasediff_jk_dimless}) respectively (where, again, care should 

2401: be taken not to confuse $\beta$ as a label on the neutrino flavor 

2402: with $\beta$ as the source angular position).

2403: 

2404: Another result of interest is that for the {\it magnification}, 

2405: $\mu_{\nu_\beta}$,

2406: which

2407: is defined to be the ratio of the flux of neutrinos of type

2408: $\beta$ actually received

2409: (from the source at $Y$ and given the lensing mass  is where it is) {\it to}

2410: the flux of

2411: neutrinos of the same type that would be received  with

2412: the lens absent (but with the source in the same position):

2413: \be

2414: \mu_ {\nu_\beta}= \frac{F(D_s, E_\nu) \sum_\alpha 

2415: |\langle \nu_\beta | \nu_\alpha, D_s \rangle|^2_\textrm{lens}

2416: \times P_\alpha}

2417: {F(D_s, E_\nu) \sum_\alpha 

2418: |\langle \nu_\beta | \nu_\alpha, D_s \rangle|^2_\textrm{no lens}

2419: \times P_\alpha},

2420: \ee

2421: where $F(D_s, E_\nu)$ denotes the flux of neutrinos of all types that would be received,

2422: at an energy of $E_\nu$ and factoring in geometrical effects, in the absence of the lens. Also,

2423: $P_\alpha$ denotes the probability that a neutrino

2424: generated by the source under consideration is of type $\alpha$.

2425: Now, for the Schwarzschild lens, assuming mass degeneracy,

2426: the path difference and phase velocity contributions to 

2427: $|\langle \nu_\beta | \nu_\alpha, D_s \rangle|^2$ factorise

2428: into an interference pattern and a conditional probability, as mentioned above (Eq.~(\ref{gravoscnprobcontd'})).

2429: This has the effect  that the magnification

2430: is independent of the neutrino flavor under consideration:

2431: \bea

2432: %\mu_{\nu_\beta} \nn \\ 

2433: \label{eqn_magnification}

2434: \mu_{\nu_\beta} &\simeq

2435: \frac{\sum_\alpha |N|^2 \left[I_+ + I_- 

2436: + 2 \sqrt{I_+ I_-} \cos(\Delta \Phi^{+-})\right]

2437: P(\alpha \to \beta)_\textrm{flat}

2438: \times P_\alpha}

2439: {\sum_{\alpha'} |N|^2  

2440: P(\alpha' \to \beta)_\textrm{flat}

2441: \times P_{\alpha'}}\nn \\

2442: &= \left[I_+ + I_- 

2443: + 2 \sqrt{I_+ I_-} \cos(\Delta \Phi^{+-})\right] \nn \\

2444: &= \frac{1}{\beta \sqrt{\beta^2 + 4\theta_\textrm{E}^2}}

2445: \bigl\{\beta^2 + 2\theta_\textrm{E}^2[1 + \cos(\Delta \Phi^{+-})]\bigr\},

2446: \eea

2447: where $P(\alpha \to \beta)_\textrm{flat}$, 

2448: the flat space neutrino oscillation probability,

2449: is given by

2450: \bea

2451: P(\alpha \to \beta)_\textrm{flat}

2452: &=&  

2453: \biggl[\delta_{\alpha \beta} \,

2454: - 

2455: %4Re\left\{\sum_{j, k < j} 

2456: 4Re\biggl\{\sum_{j, k < j}

2457: U_{\alpha j}  U_{\beta j}^* U_{\alpha k}^*  U_{\beta k} \nn \\

2458: & &\times

2459: \left[\sin^2\biggl(\frac{\Delta \Phi_{jk}}{2}\right) 

2460: + \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\sin(\Delta \Phi_{jk}) \biggr] \biggr\}\biggr]. \nn \\

2461: \eea

2462: The result for the magnification is as expected given what is known about the photon case

2463: [see Eq.~(9) of Ref.~\citep{Stanek1993}].

2464: 

2465: Finally for this section, we determine, for future reference,

2466:  the fringe {\it visibility}, ${\cal V}(\beta)$:

2467: \bea

2468: \label{eqn_visibility}

2469: {\cal V}(\beta) & 

2470: \equiv & \frac{\mu_{\nu_\beta}^\textrm{max} - \mu_{\nu_\beta}^\textrm{min}}

2471: {\mu_{\nu_\beta}^\textrm{max} + \mu_{\nu_\beta}^\textrm{min}} \nn \\

2472: & \simeq & \frac{2\theta_\textrm{E}^2}{\beta^2 + 2\theta_\textrm{E}^2}. 

2473: \eea

2474: 

2475: 

2476: %\subsection{An Extra Phase Shift}

2477: %\label{section_extra_phase_shift}

2478: 

2479: %From consideration of interference of lensed {\it photons}

2480: %in a Schwarzschild metric (see \cite{Schneider1992} Eq.~(7.8) and also

2481: %see \cite{Stanek1993} Eq.~(9))

2482: %Eq.~(\ref{gravoscnprobcontd''}), 

2483: %is actually subtly in error: there is an extra  $-\pi/2$ phase shift

2484: %missing from the argument of $\cos$ term (in other words, the 

2485: %interference envelope should actually go as 

2486: %$Y^2 + 2 + 2\sin(\Delta \Phi^{+-}$), generating a central

2487: %minimum for $Y=0$). This is present in the

2488: %case of light -- and will also be present in the case of neutrinos -- 

2489: %because of the opposite parities of the two images produced

2490: %by a Schwarzschild lens (i.e., the images -- {\it were} they able to be distinguished -- 

2491: %would be flipped with respect to each

2492: %other: \footnote{An experimental analog of interference in such a situation

2493: %would be a Young's double 

2494: %slit apparatus where one beam of light is reflected in a

2495: %mirror. This produces, of course, a central minimum.}). 

2496: %We will discuss the reason why our treatment has failed to pick up this

2497: %extra phase shift in \S\ref{section_furtherwk}.

2498:  

2499: 

2500: \section{Phenomenology: Heuristic Considerations}

2501: \label{section_phenomenology}

2502: 

2503: 

2504: 

2505: 

2506: 

2507: Above we have presented the calculation of the phase and the consequent phase difference,

2508: oscillation probability analog -- $|\langle \nu_\beta | \nu_\alpha, D_s \rangle|^2$ -- 

2509: which determines the form of the oscillation pattern seen at a detector, and

2510: magnification factor, all for the Schwarzschild lens. 

2511: We now turn briefly to the question of the phenomenological consequences of all these 

2512: theoretical developments. We shall deal with the issues presented here at

2513: greater length in another work \citep{Crocker2003}.

2514: There are a number of factors which broadly determine the visibility of GINI effects

2515: \footnote{Note that we will assume separability of the phase difference is satisfied in the

2516: following discussion.}:

2517: 

2518: \begin{enumerate}

2519: \item \label{point_suitablesources} 

2520: {\bf Suitability of potentially-lensed sources.}

2521: The first consideration must be, what qualifies as a suitable source? We require sources

2522: that produce a neutrino signal that might be both gravitationally

2523: lensed and of sufficient intensity. 

2524: %In other words,

2525: %we want 

2526: %an interference pattern to be both generated and able, subsequently, to be

2527: %mapped out by the events recorded by a suitable detector technology

2528: %(a single neutrino event

2529: %per year from a source, say -- even if there is a interference pattern `there' to be

2530: %mapped out in principle -- will not suffice).

2531: \item \label{point_geometrical_opt} {\bf Geometrical optics limit.}

2532: Because our theoretical evaluation for the neutrino phase difference has been performed within 

2533: the geometrical optics limit (where only the classical paths

2534: from source to detector need be considered in determing the 

2535: form of the interference pattern), we 

2536: require that this limit holds in the experimental situation under consideration.

2537: This translates to the requirement that the de Broglie wavelength of the

2538: neutrino mass eigenstates in not larger than the Schwarzschild radius of the lens (the latter

2539: quantity setting the scale of the path difference: see below)

2540: \citep{Stanek1993,Deguchi1986a,Peterson1991}

2541: \footnote{This is analogous to the 

2542: requirement that, for the `usual' equation (obtained in the geometrical optics limit)

2543: describing the intensity

2544: on a screen in a Young's slit type experiment to be correct,

2545: the wavelength of the interferring radiation must not be larger than the slit separation.

2546: Otherwise, the equation suggests a (non-physical) violation of conservation of total intensity

2547: in the form of

2548: an interference maximum over the whole screen.}.

2549: %This restriction  translates to the requirement that  

2550: %the phase difference that controls the periodicity of the

2551: %interference envelope, $\Delta \Phi^{pq}$ as governed by 

2552: %Eq.~(\ref{eqn_phasediff_pq_dimless}),

2553: %is $\gtrsim 1$. 

2554: %Note that this is note to say that 

2555: %interesting interference effects do not occur for smaller phase differences, just that our

2556: %formalism cannot reliably deal with these.

2557: \item \label{point_detectorEresoln} {\bf Detector energy resolution.} 

2558: Even if there

2559: exists an interference pattern to be mapped out -- and sufficient events to achieve this -- 

2560: a separate question is whether the smearing of this  pattern

2561: caused by the finite energy resolution of any real neutrino detector 

2562: is so large as to completely wash it out. 

2563: %In general, because the absolute error 

2564: %in energy determination

2565: %increases with energy for a real detector, whereas the fringe separation is constant in energy

2566: %for constant path difference, 

2567: %%even if interference fringes are visible at an energy 

2568: %%such that the relevant phase difference is $\sim 1$, 

2569: %above some critical  energy (and therefore

2570: % phase difference), the interference fringes will be washed out. We require that

2571: %this critical energy is

2572: %siginificantly above the energy at which the phase difference is unity.

2573: \item \label{point_Goldilocks}{\bf Just-so condition for lensing mass.} 

2574: Points \ref{point_geometrical_opt} and \ref{point_detectorEresoln} 

2575: imply a range for 

2576: a `just-right' lensing mass  (given the energy scale of the neutrinos is already set)

2577: -- not too large and not too small --

2578: inside which GINI effects may become evident.

2579: This can be roughly determined by the following

2580: considerations: for a (point mass) lensing system

2581: to produce images of similar brightness (so that

2582: interference effects might be seen),

2583: we require that source be sufficiently well aligned with the line

2584: from the observer through the lens (i.e., $\beta \lesssim \theta_\textrm{E}$).

2585: Granted this, 

2586:  the scale of the path difference is then set by the 

2587: Schwarzschild radius (see, e.g., \cite{Schneider1992}, p. 240), 

2588: \bea

2589: R_S \equiv 2GM \simeq 3 

2590: \times 10^{-12} \left(\frac{M}{10^{-17}\, \msun  } \right) \, \mathrm{cm},\nn \\ 

2591: \eea

2592: of the lens (and -- very broadly -- can be considered as independent from

2593: the distance to the detector), once one has settled on a generic astrophysical source

2594: which emits neutrinos in some characteristic energy range, the lensing mass range is 

2595: determined. This is because

2596: we require

2597: \be

2598: \label{eqn_goldilocks}

2599: E_\nu \, \times \,R_S \simeq 1

2600: % \leftrightarrow N,

2601: \ee 

2602: %(where $\lambda_\nu$ denotes the de Broglie wavelength of the neutrino)

2603: at an energy either within or not too far below

2604: that detectable by 

2605: %and

2606: %$N$ is some number -- hopefully larger than 1 -- that must be determined by energy resolution

2607: %considerations for

2608: the particular

2609: detector technology under consideration 

2610: (see \S\ref{section_energyranges} below). 

2611: We label this constraint on the lensing mass range

2612: the just-so condition.

2613: \item {\bf Wave packet spreading and decoherence}. 

2614: By analogy with the considerations set out in 

2615: \S\ref{section_beamsplitter}, we expect that the full expression

2616: for the oscillation probability analog include

2617: exponential decay factors that account for coherence loss effects.

2618: These essentially factor in

2619: the interference attenuation which occurs when

2620: the different neutrino wavepackets, traveling

2621: with different group velocities 

2622: %(so that the

2623: %different mass eigenstates will tend to draw apart in propagation; 

2624: %giving rise to the analog of the

2625: %flat space neutrino oscillation coherence length)

2626: and/or along paths of different affine length,

2627: overlap significantly less than completely at the detector.

2628: %De-coherence  should, of course,

2629: %be considered in any situation where neutrinos are propagating over astrophysical

2630: %and, especially,

2631: %cosmological length scales. 

2632: See \S\ref{section_curved_space_decoherence} for more detail on this

2633: issue.

2634: \item {\bf Finite source  size effects.} Our derivation of the phase difference

2635: has assumed a stationary point source (and detector). 

2636: Of course, this is at variance with Heisenberg uncertainty requirements. But

2637: more significantly, any real, {\it macroscopic} source (the region giving birth to 

2638: all the neutrinos that

2639: are identified as having come from a particular astrophysical object) will be of

2640: finite -- indeed macroscopic -- size. This can, like detector

2641: energy resolution issues, tend to 

2642: wash away the interference pattern because the path difference is now different for the various

2643: neutrinos that come from different parts of the `same' object. More concisely, an effective

2644: source angular extent 

2645: of the order of -- or larger than -- the angular extent of the Einstein radius

2646: means that the visibility of the interference fringes is reduced \citep{Gould1992}. 

2647: %and, of course,

2648: %the required Einstein radius range is already determined by the considerations set 

2649: %out in point 

2650: %\ref{point_Goldilocks} above.  

2651: If the source size

2652:  is denoted by $r_\textrm{source}$, 

2653: then

2654: %Eq.~(\ref{eqn_sourcesize}) requires

2655: this translates to the requirement that

2656: \be

2657: \label{eqn_pointsourcecondn}

2658: r_\textrm{source} < \sqrt{4 GM \frac{D_s D_{ds}}{D_d}}.

2659: \ee

2660: Eq.~(\ref{eqn_pointsourcecondn}) is not a sufficient

2661: condition to guarantee a point-like source, however;  

2662: as  energy -- and, therefore, phase

2663: along any particular path -- increases, there will come a point where 

2664: %\be

2665: %\label{eqn_strictpointsourcecondn}

2666: %\frac{\mathrm{ p.d.}_\mathrm{ source }}{\lambda_\nu} < 1

2667: %\ee

2668: %will no longer  be satisfied 

2669: (while the lens-induced path difference might still generate the greatest component of the

2670: phase difference for neutrinos from all parts of the lens)

2671: the phase difference for neutrinos emerging from one part of the source

2672: will be noticably different to that for neutrinos generated

2673: from a different part of the source.

2674: At this point the interference pattern will, again, become

2675: smeared out.

2676: %Eq.~(\ref{eqn_strictpointsourcecondn}) is equivalent to the requirement that 

2677: That this {\it not} occur bounds the energy:

2678: \be

2679: \label{eqn_strictpointsourcecondn'}

2680: E_\nu \lesssim \frac{2 D_s D_{ds}}{D_d \,\, r_\mathrm{ source }^2 }\,.

2681: \ee

2682: \item {\bf Finite detector size effects.} Much of the 

2683: discussion immediately above carries through,

2684: {\it mutatis mutandis}, to considerations stemming from finite detector size.

2685: Explicitly, finite detector size effects can tend to wash away

2686: the interference pattern because the path difference (at any particular energy)

2687: will be non-constant across the volume

2688: of the detector. One must determine whether this is a significant effect.

2689: %Of course it will usually be the case with

2690: %astrophysical neutrinos that the effective size of the source is much larger than the

2691: %effective size of the detector. But geometrical effects must be considered here:

2692: %if the lens is much closer to the observer than the source, then finite

2693: %detector size might become an issue. On the other hand, one usually has information

2694: %about {\it where} in a detector's volume any particular neutrino interaction takes

2695: %place. This means that an experimentalist can, to some degree, estimate

2696: %the variation in path length

2697: %difference

2698: %across the volume of the detector and, thereby,

2699: %reconstruct the interference pattern by allowing for both the geometrical 

2700: %and energy dependence of the phase difference. The extent to which this is

2701: %possible would require a detector-dependent simulation. Roughly, observation of GINI effects

2702: %will require

2703: %\be

2704: %\label{eqn_pointdetectorcondn}

2705: %r_\textrm{detector} < \sqrt{4 GM \frac{D_s D_d}{D_{ds}}},

2706: %\ee

2707: %where $r_\textrm{detector}$ is not the overall scale of a detector, but rather its

2708: %position resolution.

2709: \item {\bf Finite lens size effects.}

2710: We have calculated the neutrino phase difference in a Schwarzschild metric, i.e., assuming

2711: the lens to be effectively pointlike.

2712: This assumption will hold, at least roughly, 

2713: if the Einstein radius

2714: of the lensing system 

2715: [$\theta_E$, as defined in Eq.~(\ref{equation:theta_e})]

2716: is larger than the scale of the physical dimension of the lens. 

2717: \item {\bf Source-lens-alignment probability.} In order 

2718: to see interference fringes we require that the

2719: {\it visibility} [defined in Eq.~(\ref{eqn_visibility})] be sufficiently good. 

2720: This requires

2721: a sufficient degree of alignment between source, lens, and detector 

2722: (i.e., a small $Y$ or $\eta$).

2723: One can then ask, 

2724: given the lensing mass scale, as determined by point 

2725: \ref{point_Goldilocks} above, and the

2726: expected distance to a source (of the chosen, generic type),

2727: how likely is it that there is a lens within a certain 

2728: distance of the line from the source to the detector?

2729: \item {\bf Time scale of lens crossing.} 

2730: Further to the point immediately above, 

2731: one must consider 

2732: over what time scale the lens will cross the `beam' from 

2733: source to detector and, therefore, how temporally-stable 

2734: -- and, indeed, how long-lasting -- 

2735: any interference pattern will be.

2736: \item {\bf Intrinsic Source Spectrum.} In order to confidently identify

2737: interference effects one must be able to rule out the possibility of

2738: the intrinsic spectrum of the source mimicking these effects. 

2739: Moreover, even given

2740: a well-understood source spectrum, a separate question is whether there 

2741: is a measurable neutrino

2742: flux over a sufficient energy extent that a number of interference fringes 

2743: might be seen at a detector. 

2744: \end{enumerate}

2745: 

2746: \subsection{More Detail on Decoherence Effects in Curved Spacetime}

2747: \label{section_curved_space_decoherence}

2748: 

2749: We only attempt an heuristic treatment 

2750: here\footnote{see the Appendix of Ref.~\cite{Cardall1997}

2751: for a treatment of the direct analog of the coherence length 

2752: of neutrino oscillations in flat space for 

2753: curved spacetime,

2754: though note that the treatment presented here does not apply for multiple,

2755: macroscopic paths.}.  

2756: Ignoring detector effects (see below), coherence requires that  there is

2757: significant overlap between \MES s at a detector. 

2758: As explained in the appendix, the various \MES s,

2759:  may have traveled with both different

2760: group velocities and along different paths.

2761: % Now, the scale of the path difference

2762: %between different paths around a gravitational lens 

2763: %is given by the lens's Schwarzschild radius

2764: %$R_S \equiv 4GM$.  

2765: Let us take a source located on a source plane at $D_s$ and

2766: neutrino \MES s with an effective width  of $\sigma_x$.  

2767: Then, by analogy with

2768: the second exponential damping term in Eq.~(\ref{eqn_app_bs''''}) of the

2769: appendix and 

2770: given the scale of the path difference is given by $R_S$, 

2771: interference between \MES \ $j$ traveling

2772: down one macroscopic path through a Schwarzschild spacetime and 

2773: $k$ the other, roughly requires:

2774: \be

2775: \label{eqn_curvedcoherence}

2776: \left(R_S \mp \frac{\vert \delta m^2_{jk}\vert}{2 E_\nu^2} 

2777: D_s \right)^2 \lesssim 8 \sigma^2_x.

2778: \ee

2779: Here the upper sign refers to the case when the lighter 

2780: \MES \ traverses the longer path,

2781: the heavier along the shorter path,

2782: and the lower sign refers to the opposite case (there are now four broad 

2783: cases depending on this sign

2784: and the relative sizes of $R_S$ and $2 \sqrt{2} \sigma_x$).

2785: 

2786: Note that if we wish to consider interference between different \MES s 

2787: traveling down the {\it same}

2788: path -- i.e., the direct analog of flat space neutrino oscillations -- we take $R_S \to 0$ in 

2789: in Eq.~(\ref{eqn_curvedcoherence})

2790:  so that we require

2791: \be

2792: \label{eqn_nuoscncoh}

2793: D_s \lesssim \frac{2 E_\nu^2}{\vert\delta m^2_{jk}\vert}2 \sqrt{2} \sigma_x,

2794: \ee

2795: (then the equality in the above is satisfied for 

2796: $D_s \simeq L_\textrm{coh}$, where $L_\textrm{coh}$ is the coherence length),

2797: whereas if we wish to consider interference between the same \MES \ traveling

2798: down different paths, then from Eq.~(\ref{eqn_curvedcoherence}) we require

2799: \be

2800: R_S \lesssim 2 \sqrt{2} \sigma_x.

2801: \ee

2802: Below we shall determine some plausible numbers to put in these relations 

2803: (for a number of different

2804: neutrino sources), 

2805: but first we recall some considerations behind the determination of $\sigma_x$.

2806: 

2807: 

2808: %\subsection{More Detail on Finite Source Size Effects}

2809: 

2810: %Let us label the scale of the neutrino source under 

2811: %consideration $r_\textrm{source}$. Then

2812: %to ensure that the path difference at a detector is 

2813: %almost constant for neutrino leaving 

2814: %different parts

2815: %of the source we require that the size of the source 

2816: %(projected on to the lens plane) 

2817: %is less than

2818: %the Einstein radius \citep{Gould1992}:

2819: %\be

2820: %\label{eqn_pointsourcecondn}

2821: %r_\textrm{source} < \sqrt{\frac{4 GM D_s D_{ds}}{D_d}}.

2822: %\ee

2823: 

2824: 

2825: \subsection{Determining the Size of the Wavepacket}

2826: \label{section_wvepktsize}

2827: 

2828: At an heuristic level 

2829: -- adequate to the order of magnitude calculations we will make -- 

2830: the neutrino wavepacket size (in position space) is given by the size, 

2831: $d$, of the

2832: region to which the neutrino parent particle is localized 

2833: \citep{Kayser1981,Kim1993}\footnote{Note that we ignore here 

2834: the contribution of the {\it detection} 

2835: process to the effective wavepacket size that can, 

2836: in principle, act to restore coherence 

2837: via broadening the effective wavepacket width through accurate energy/momentum

2838: measurement:

2839: see Ref.~\citep{Giunti1998a} for more detail here and 

2840: also  Ref.~\citep{Beuthe2002} 

2841: and for a rigorous, quantum-field-theoretic treatment of neutrino coherence 

2842: length.}:

2843: \be

2844: \sigma_x \qquad \simeq \qquad d.

2845: \ee

2846: In turn, $d$ is related to $t_\mathrm{eff}$, the effective time available for

2847: the coherent emission, by the parent, 

2848: of a neutrino wave train:

2849: \be

2850: d \simeq t_\mathrm{eff} \,.

2851: \ee

2852: In free space the coherent emission time corresponds to the decay 

2853: time of the parent particle, $\tau$, but if the parent particle is in 

2854: a dense and hot medium and undergoing 

2855: collisions with its neighbors on a timescale, $t_\mathrm{collision}$, 

2856: smaller than $\tau$, 

2857: then $t_\mathrm{eff} \simeq t_\mathrm{collision}$ 

2858: \citep{Nussinov1976,Anada1988}. 

2859: This effect corresponds to the collision or pressure broadening of

2860: atomic spectral lines. 

2861: %In this case, 

2862: %\be

2863: %t_\mathrm{eff} = t_\mathrm{collision} \simeq \frac{l}{v},

2864: %\ee

2865: %where $l$ is the mean-free-path of the neutrino parent particle and $v$ its mean thermal velocity

2866: %\citep{Kim1993}.

2867: %Now, in the particular case that the source particles are non-relativistic  we have that 

2868: %\be

2869: %\label{eqn_velparent}

2870: %v = \sqrt{\frac{3 \, T}{m}},

2871: %\ee

2872: %where $T$ is the temperature and and $m$ the mass of the parent (in units of energy).

2873: %Furthermore, making the reasonable assumption that the

2874: %interaction between the parent and its neighbors be through the Coulomb force,

2875: %it can be shown \citep{Kim1993} that 

2876: %\be

2877: %\label{eqn_lengthparent}

2878: %l \sim 2.4 \times 10^{22} \frac{T^2}{Z_1^2 Z_2^2 N}  \, \textrm{cm},

2879: %\ee

2880: %where $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ are the charges of the interacting particles and $N$ is the number density

2881: %(in units of cm$^{-3}$). 

2882: %Combining Eqs.~(\ref{eqn_velparent}) and (\ref{eqn_lengthparent}) one finds \citep{Kim1993}:

2883: %\be

2884: %t_\mathrm{collision} 

2885: %\simeq 1.4 \times 10^{22}  \, \frac{\sqrt{m}  \, T^{\frac{3}{2}}}{Z_1^2 Z_2^2  \, N} \, 

2886: %\textrm{cm}.

2887: %\ee

2888: In summary, we shall take

2889: \begin{equation}\label{sigxfromtau}

2890: \sigma_x  \simeq  \gamma \, t_\mathrm{eff} 

2891: \qquad \mathrm{with} \qquad t_\mathrm{eff} = min\{t_\mathrm{collision}, \tau \},

2892: \end{equation}

2893: where we have explicitly introduced a Lorentz boost, $\gamma$,

2894: to allow for any bulk motion of the source with respect to the detector frame.

2895: This factor can, of course, be large for astrophysical sources.

2896: 

2897: \subsection{Determing Energy Ranges for GINI Phenomenology}

2898: \label{section_energyranges}

2899: 

2900: There are two energy ranges that must be considered in our analysis, viz

2901: \begin{enumerate}

2902: \item {\bf Extrinsic energy range.}

2903: Forgetting GINI effects for the moment, one energy range -- which we label extrinsic -- 

2904: is delimited

2905: by the minimum and maximum energies, $E_\textrm{min}$ and  $E_\textrm{max}$,

2906: at which the generic source under consideration

2907: can be seen in neutrinos by a particular detector

2908: technology.

2909: These limiting energies are determined by either detector or intrinsic source spectrum

2910: considerations (whichever is the more severe). 

2911: %In more detail, we can expect that there will be some threshold energy

2912: %below which a detector cannot effectively identify neutrino interactions, 

2913: %$E_\textrm{min}^\textrm{detec}$ and, at least in principle, a maximum energy, 

2914: %$E_\textrm{max}^\textrm{detec}$,  beyond

2915: %which the detector cannot resolve between different neutrino energies (because the 

2916: %charged lepton, say,

2917: %resulting from a neutrino interaction, is no longer confined to the detector volume).

2918: %Likewise, there will be  minimum and maximum energies for neutrinos from a particular 

2919: %(generic)  source,

2920: %$E_\textrm{min}^\textrm{source}$ and $E_\textrm{max}^\textrm{source}$,

2921: % with either

2922: %the source spectrum cutting off or the number

2923: %of events dropping to an undetectable rate outside the

2924: %range defined by these two energies. 

2925: The extrinsic energy range is defined by

2926: \be

2927: E_\textrm{min} \lesssim E_\nu \lesssim E_\textrm{max}.

2928: \ee

2929: %where 

2930: %\bea

2931: %E_\textrm{min}  &\equiv& max\{E_\textrm{min}^\textrm{detec}, 

2932: %E_\textrm{min}^\textrm{source} \} \nn \\

2933: %E_\textrm{max}  &\equiv& min\{E_\textrm{max}^\textrm{detec}, 

2934: %E_\textrm{max}^\textrm{source} \}.

2935: %\eea

2936: 

2937: \item {\bf Intrinsic energy range.}

2938: We also identify an intrinsic energy range that is given by the following considerations: the

2939: lower bound on this range is given by the critical energy, $E_\textrm{crit}$,

2940:  at which the pertinent phase 

2941: difference 

2942: is equal to one (below this value our treatment of the phase breaks down). The scale of

2943: this energy is given by requiring

2944: \be

2945: E_\textrm{crit} \simeq \frac{\hbar c}{R_S}.

2946: \ee

2947: Note that the relation is not exact because the RHS does not account for

2948: the effect of the source alignment parameter, $Y$, on the phase difference.

2949: The upper bound on this range, $E_\textrm{washout}$,

2950: is determined by the energy at which detector energy resolution issues mean that

2951: one interference fringe can no longer be resolved from another. 

2952: %As previously mentioned,

2953: Washout occurs generically because, although interference fringes are distributed

2954: at equal energy intervals, the absolute uncertainty in neutrino energy determined by a

2955: detector can be expected to be an increasing function of energy. 

2956: \end{enumerate}

2957: 

2958: \section{Suitable Source - Lens - Detector Configurations for GINI}

2959: 

2960: 

2961: We can think of four scenarios for source - lens - detector configuration that {\it might} 

2962: exhibit

2963: GINI effects (there may well be more), viz:

2964: \begin{enumerate}

2965: \item Sun -- Moon -- solar neutrino detector (i.e., in an Solar eclipse)

2966: \item cosmological neutrino source -- intervening lensing object 

2967: -- large scale Water/Ice {\v C}erenkov neutrino

2968: detector or airshower array

2969: \item artificial neutrino beam on one side of earth aimed through center of earth to 

2970: detector on opposite side of the planet

2971: \item Galactic (i.e., Milky Way) Core Collapse supernova (Types II, Ib and Ic) -- 

2972: intervening lensing 

2973: object -- solar neutrino detector

2974: \end{enumerate}

2975: %We now consider each of these scenarios in turn.

2976: Unfortunately, scenarios 1. to 3. fail one or more of the 

2977: heuristic tests we have set out above and we must, reluctantly, dismiss them. 

2978: Scenario 4, however, holds out some

2979: promise and it is to this that we now briefly turn 

2980: (see \citep{Crocker2003} for more detail on all the scenarios mentioned), though

2981: we alert the reader from the beginning that scenario is unlikely to be realised 

2982: {\it at present} because of the low probability of supernovae at (neutrino-)detectable

2983: distances being lensed by objects in suitable mass range.

2984: 

2985: %\subsection{GINI and Lunar Lensing of Solar Neutrinos}

2986: 

2987: %The Einstein radius for solar neutrinos being lensed by the Moon during an eclipse is

2988: %${\cal O}$(km), i.e., such neutrinos, then pass through the interior of the moon. 

2989: %Having dealt only with the Schwarzschild metric above, we cannot strictly apply our results here.

2990: %But we can, in any case, rule out GINI phenomenology in this situation. 

2991: %The duration of totality on

2992: %the earth's surface lasts for no more than ${\cal O}$(minutes) (this is, of course, a gross 

2993: %{\it overestimate} of the time for which a detector -- that just happens to be along 

2994: %a line of totality

2995: %-- would be correctly aligned with the Sun and Moon for GINI effects). During this time

2996: %a solar detector of the size of SuperK would detect of order 0.01 events. Even if 

2997: %we scale up to a

2998: %Mton detector (see below), we still do not have a single event, on average, over this time. We

2999: %can for this reason (and others beside) safely rule out this scenario.

3000: 

3001: 

3002: %\subsection{GINI and AGN or GRB Neutrinos}

3003: 

3004: %We think that the chances for any phenomenological consequences of GINI

3005: %for cosmologically-sourced neutrinos are also remote. Disregarding the fact that our treatment 

3006: %is not strictly applicable for neutrino propagation across cosmological distances

3007: %(we assume a static metric), the problems are the following: to have any chance of detection, 

3008: %neutrinos

3009: %from GRBs or AGN must be in the super-PeV range. This restricts detector technology to

3010: %km$^3$ water or ice {\v C}erenkov detectors or, at $\gtrsim$EeV energies, to air-shower arrays

3011: %or  orbitting, cosmic ray detectors

3012: %(see Ref.~\citep{Halzen2002} for a review).

3013: %Even with these very large detection volumes, however, typical estimates for event rate

3014: %due to such objects are, {\it at the very best}, in the order of a few 10s per year. 

3015: %This is nowhere

3016: %near enough events to trace out an interference pattern over reasonable time scales.

3017: %Moreover, even if we did have the events, the uncertainty in energy determination 

3018: %\citep{Halzen2002} 

3019: %for these very large detectors would kill the interference fringes.

3020: 

3021: 

3022: %\subsection{GINI and Terrestrial Neutrino Beams Lensed by the Earth}

3023: 

3024: %The scenario here would involve sending an artificial neutrino beam through

3025: %the core of the Earth to a detector on the opposite side of the planet. Again we must state

3026: %clearly that the formalism we have developed for the Schwarzschild case does not strictly apply

3027: %here with the neutrinos necessarily passing through the lensing object. 

3028: %In any case, order-of-magnitude

3029: %considerations will allow us, unfortunately, to see that this scenario is probably impossible

3030: %to achieve with existing technologies. The most immediate problem is in trying to

3031: %arrange for a  phase difference that is not too big. Neutrinos in a collimated  beam can be

3032: %expected to

3033: %have an energy scale of ${\cal O}$(10 GeV). Further, the Schwarzschild radius of the earth is

3034: %${\cal O}$(cm). This means that the natural scale of the phase difference

3035: %is 

3036: %\be

3037: %\label{eqn_sourcedist}

3038: %\sim R_S^\oplus \simeq 5 \times 10^{14} \left(\frac{E_\nu}{10 \ \textrm{GeV}} \right) \cm ,

3039: %\ee

3040: %so any fringes can be expected to by unobservably close together. The only way around this

3041: %is to achieve an incredible degree of aligment between the source and the line through 

3042: %observer and lens

3043: %as 

3044: %characterised by the dimensionless offset $Y$ (cf.\ Eq.~(\ref{eqn_phasediff_pq_dimless})). 

3045: %But this then places an unreasonable constraint on the effective size of the source, viz,

3046: %$r_\textrm{source} \lesssim 10^{-4}$ cm. Such an experiment, then, seems impossible

3047: %for the foreseeable future.

3048: 

3049: 

3050: \subsection{Core Collapse Supernovae as Sources for GINI Observation}

3051: \label{section_SN}

3052: 

3053: 

3054: \subsubsection{Core Collapse Supernovae as Neutrino Sources: General Considerations}

3055: 

3056: %One to three core collapse supernovae (SN) can be expected in a galaxy the 

3057: %size of our own per century \citep{Muller1992,Bilenky2003}. 

3058: %These massive explosions

3059: %result from the collapse of the iron

3060: %cores of massive stars ($\sim 8 \to 30-60 \msun$: \citep{Bilenky2003}) which have reached the

3061: %end of their life cycles. 

3062: Let us take the characteristic scale of the distance to a Galactic core collapse supernova to be

3063: 10 kpc $\simeq 3 \times 10^{22}$ cm, 

3064: the approximate distance to the Galactic Center.

3065: %where we assume the expansion of the universe is negligible over the time

3066: %scale of the neutrino's passage from SN source to terrestrial detector.

3067: %Much has been written 

3068: %about the expected $\nu$ signal from such objects. Famously, 

3069: %1987A produced an excess of around

3070: %19 events in then-current solar $\nu$ experiments (in Kamiokande II -- 

3071: %\cite{Hirata1987} -- and IMB -- \cite{Bionta1987}). 

3072: %Today's solar $\nu$ detectors, of much 

3073: %larger volumes and with lower threshold energies, would have detected 

3074: %many more events. 

3075: A core collapse SN observed today at the fiducial 10 kpc 

3076:  would produce 

3077: around $10^4$ 

3078: and $10^3$ 

3079: events in SuperKamiokande 

3080: and the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory respectively 

3081: \citep{Beacom1999}. 

3082: Over the medium term, prospects for SN neutrino detection may 

3083: become even better than at present

3084: with the construction of the next generation of 1 Mt 

3085: underground, water {\v C}erenkov detectors

3086: \citep{Nakaya2002a,Antonioli1999,Jung2000}.

3087: %There are currently a number of designs on the drawing board for such devices,  

3088: %Hyper-Kamiokande \citep{Nakaya2002a}, AQUA-RICH \citep{Antonioli1999} and UNO 

3089: %(Underground Nucleon decay and Neutrino Observatory: \citep{Jung2000})

3090: %being of particular note. 

3091: %At ${\cal O}$(1 Mt),

3092: %These devices should be able to detect the neutrino signal from core collapse supernovae

3093: %out to a distance of around Mpc \citep{Jung2000}, a range that includes most of the local

3094: %group including the Andromeda galaxy. 

3095: For a 

3096: %Galactic 

3097: supernova at  10 kpc, a 1 Mt device

3098: should detect ${\cal O}(10^5)$ events \citep{Jung2000}.

3099: %Also of note are the plans for dedicated supernova neutrino detectors,

3100: %`OMNIS' \citep{Boyd2003} and `LAND' \citep{Hargrove1996}, based around  ${\cal O}$(1 kt)

3101: %lead targets. Such detectors would be peculiarly sensitivity to \nue's.

3102: 

3103: %The neutrino signal from a core collapse SN is bi-partite

3104: %\citep{Dalhed1999}, viz: (i) an initial pulse of $\nu_e$'s from 

3105: %`neutronization', the capture of electrons on to protons during 

3106: %the `pre-bounce' phase. This phase lasts $\sim$ few ms 

3107: %and carries away a few percent of the total binding energy 

3108: %\citep{Chiu2000}; 

3109: %(ii) thermal emission of $\nu \overline{\nu}$ pairs of all species 

3110: %via the annihilation of $e^+ e^-$ pairs during the `post bounce' 

3111: %phase. This phase takes $\sim$ few s. During it, 

3112: %all $\nu$ flavors are emitted with about the same total energy per 

3113: %flavour.

3114: %These neutrinos carry away the lion's share of the binding energy 

3115: %(up to 99 \%: \citep{Bilenky2003}).

3116: 

3117: %There has been considerable evolution and refinement of 

3118: %ideas concerning the final core structure of core collapse SNs. Nonetheless,

3119: %models indicate a fairly narrow mass range for the iron core

3120: %at the time of collapse (1.25 - 1.45 $\msun$: \cite{Timmes1996}). 

3121: %Furthermore, empirically

3122: %all known neutron star masses lie 

3123: %within $\pm 0.27$ of 1.35 $\msun$.

3124: %The neutron star binary system 1913+16, e.g., has a total mass of

3125: %2.828 $\msun$ \citep{Thorsett1993}.

3126: %The $\nu$ signal from these objects presents a number of 

3127: %interesting physics opportunities aside from

3128: %oscillation tests (e.g., absolute $\nu$ mass 

3129: %determination via time-spreading of the $\nu$ signal: \cite{Beacom2000}

3130: %and references therein).

3131: 

3132: \subsubsection{Natural Scale for Lensing Mass Required for GINI Effects with SN Neutrinos}

3133: 

3134:  Writing

3135: \bea

3136: \Delta \Phi^{+-} 

3137: &\sim& E_\nu R_S \nn \\

3138: &\simeq& 1.5 \times 10^{17} \left(\frac{E_\nu}{10 \, \textrm{MeV}}\right) 

3139: \left(\frac{M}{\msun}\right) ,

3140: \eea

3141: we can determine that the {\it smallest} lensing mass

3142: that might produce a phenomenological effect (that we can treat using our formalism) is, 

3143: very roughly, $10^{-17} \, \msun \, \simeq \, 3 \times 10^{16}$ g.

3144: This is in the cometary mass range. 

3145: %(see \S\ref{section_DM} below for more detail). 

3146: %We now consider in more detail the range of energies and masses

3147: %for which interference effects might be seen.

3148: A more detailed calculation \citep{Crocker2003}

3149: demonstrates -- for the specific case of SuperKamiokande -- a

3150: sensitivity to the GINI effect with lensing masses in the range

3151: \bea

3152: \label{eqn_massrange}

3153: 10^{-18} \, \msun \lesssim M_\textrm{lens} \lesssim 10^{-16} \, \msun.

3154: \eea

3155: This range is is both conservative and fairly

3156: sensitive to the SuperK energy thresholds and energy resolution. 

3157: %Improving these

3158: %can significantly improve the range of masses for which GINI effects can be seen.

3159: %Moreover, this simple range estimate is 

3160: %probably too restrictive: Ulmer and Goodman find in their numerical

3161: %treatment of femtolensing by point masses with external shear that masses as high as

3162: %$10^{-11} \msun$ produce observable results \citep{Ulmer1995} for $\sim MeV$ photons from

3163: %GRBs. We suspect that numerical studies of the neutrino case will show an  

3164: %extension of the range 

3165: %described in Eq.~(\ref{eqn_massrange}) to similarly large values.

3166: 

3167: 

3168: 

3169: 

3170: 

3171: 

3172: \subsubsection{Coherence of Supernova Neutrinos}

3173: A

3174:  neutrino wavepacket

3175: leaving the neutrinosphere of a nascent neutron star will have a size \citep{Anada1990,Kim1993}

3176: \be

3177: \sigma_x^{SN} \simeq 10^{-9} \, \textrm{cm}.

3178: \ee

3179: This is to be contrasted with the scale of the affine path difference for the 

3180: lensing mass range under

3181: consideration (Eq.~(\ref{eqn_massrange})) which is supplied by the range of 

3182: the Schwarzschild radius,

3183: viz:

3184: \bea

3185: 3 \times 10^{-13} \cm \gtrsim &R_S& \gtrsim 3 \times 10^{-11} \cm.

3186: \eea

3187: We do not, therefore, expect any significant damping of the interference amplitude by

3188: decoherence due to path difference effects.

3189: 

3190: There is, however, 

3191: also decoherence due to group velocity difference to be considered, i.e.,

3192: the direct analog of decoherence effects for conventional neutrino oscillations. The

3193: inequality to be satisfied is given by Eq.~(\ref{eqn_nuoscncoh}), 

3194: the RHS of which translates to $\sim 3 \times 10^{13}$ cm for 10 MeV neutrinos

3195: \footnote{We take the {\it largest} possible value for this quantity by assuming 

3196: the scale of the smallest 

3197: experimentally-determined $\delta m^2$, i.e., the solar mass splitting at 

3198: ${\cal O} (10^{-5})$ eV$^2$.}

3199: much smaller than the fiducial scale of $D_s$,  $\sim 3 \times 10^{22}$ cm. 

3200: We can expect, therefore, to be

3201: beyond the flat space coherence length. This means that

3202: the neutrino signal will be characterised by flavor ratios that are

3203: constant across (measurable) energy. 

3204: %This is actually rather nice because then the 

3205: %considerations set out in \S\ref{section_osnprob_non-sep} come into play and,

3206: %essentially, all the results set out

3207: %above for the interference pattern carry through to the

3208: %non-separable (i.e., non-mass-degenerate) case. 

3209: For supernova

3210: neutrinos, then, 

3211: %{\it whether the neutrino \MES s satisfy near-mass-degeneracy or not}, 

3212: if a suitable lens were present, GINI would cause

3213: patterns of maxima and minima across energy 

3214: in the detected neutrino spectra. 

3215: Furthermore,

3216: the positions, in energy, 

3217: of these maxima and minima would be essentially the same

3218: for all

3219: neutrino flavors 

3220: %(given the solar and atmopheric mass splittings). 

3221: Interference effects

3222: would be, in principle, directly evident even in neutral current interaction data.

3223: On the other hand, we would not expect a noticable change in the ratios between

3224: different neutrino species across energy. In other words, for supernova neutrinos,

3225: given a suitable lens, it is possible to see interference effects due to path

3226: difference effects but not due to phase velocity difference (i.e., flat space

3227: oscillation) effects.

3228: 

3229: 

3230: \subsubsection{Finite Source Effects with Supernova Neutrinos}

3231: 

3232: Given a scale for the neutrinosphere, $r_{SN}$, of $\sim 10$ km $= 10^6$ cm,

3233: a calculation shows that the point source condition, 

3234: Eq.~(\ref{eqn_pointsourcecondn}), 

3235: fails at the lower end of the 

3236: of phenomenologically-interesting lensing mass range {\it assuming} $D_{ds} \simeq D_d$. 

3237: Furthermore, from Eq.~(\ref{eqn_strictpointsourcecondn'})

3238: we find that in order that the phase uncertainty introduced by the finite size of

3239: the  supernova neutrino source not be too large, we require that the neutrino energy 

3240: be less than $\sim 1$ MeV,

3241: a condition that, with 10 MeV neutrinos, we fail to meet by an order of

3242: magnitude, {\it again assuming} $D_{ds} \simeq D_d$.

3243: We hasten to add, however, that 

3244: we do not believe that either of these two is necessarily fatal: a numerical

3245: study is needed here and this may well establish that

3246: GINI effects are visible even when the crude, heuristic inequalities above are violated.

3247: \footnote{Certainly, in their numerical

3248: study of femtolensing  with a disk source, Peterson and Falk \citep{Peterson1991},

3249: found that, allowing for a realistic deviation from smoothness in

3250: the source function -- which describes the intensity across the disk of the

3251: source -- 

3252:   interference effects were visible with a source size  significantly larger than the

3253: Einstein ring. We have not allowed for this (potential) effect for

3254: a supernova neutrino source.}

3255: Moreover, that $D_{ds} \simeq D_d$ need not 

3256: %be our expectation as we are

3257: %{\it not} considering lensing over cosmological distance scales. 

3258: %One could easily have $D_d \ll D_{ds}$ 

3259: hold (over the Galactic scales we are considering) and, further, we might have

3260: $D_s >$ 10 kpc (at the cost of a reduced event rate). In either case

3261: point source conditions could  easily be satisfied.

3262: 

3263: \subsubsection{Finite Lens Size Effects}

3264: 

3265: 

3266: For a lens in the mass range determined above, and both source and lens

3267: at Galactic length scales, the Einstein length scale is

3268: \be

3269: D_d \theta_E

3270: \simeq 3 \, \sqrt{\left(\frac{M}{10^{-17} \msun}\right)

3271: \left(\frac{D_d}{D_s}\right)

3272: \left(\frac{D_{ds}}{5 \kpc}\right)} \km.

3273: \ee

3274: On the other hand, for a lens with the density of $\sim 1$ gm cm$^{-1}$, 

3275: the scale of the

3276: dimensions of the

3277: lensing object, $l$, is given by 

3278: \be

3279: l \simeq 0.6 \left(\frac{M}{10^{-17} \msun}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}} \km,

3280: \ee

3281: meaning that the classical paths pass very close to the object, and, 

3282: in some cases, one path might actually pass inside the object. 

3283: Given the order of magnitude nature of the calculations we have 

3284: performed here, however, this fact will not significantly impinge 

3285: on the observability of the effect we predict. 

3286: Certainly the neutrinos will not interact significantly

3287: with the material of the lens. 

3288: Of course, if the lensing object is a black hole, taking 

3289: the lens to be a point source is unproblematic.

3290: 

3291: \subsubsection{Finite Detector Size Effects}

3292: 

3293: A quick calculation shows \citep{Crocker2003} that

3294: finite detector size/position resolution effects never become insurmountable

3295: over the whole range of possible lens positions.

3296: 

3297: \subsubsection{Crossing Time Scales for Supernova Neutrinos}

3298: 

3299: If the lens has a transverse velocity $v \simeq 30 \ \textrm{km \ s}^{-1}$, 

3300: it will move across the Einstein 

3301: ring in a time scale of $\sim 1$ s

3302: \citep{Gould1992}.

3303: Given, then, that we expect a detectable neutrino signal will be received

3304: from a SN over a period of around 10 seconds, 

3305: interference fringes will shift over the time of observation, but not

3306: so quickly that they cannot be observed.

3307: 

3308: \subsubsection{Lensing Probability}

3309: 

3310: The above paragraphs detail the conditions that a source-deflector-observer

3311: alignment must satisfy in order for GINI to be measured, but implicit at

3312: all stages is that such an alignment has occured. Unfortunately the 

3313: chance of a suitable deflector lying sufficiently close to the line-of-sight

3314: to a source in the Local Group is not high. 

3315: 

3316: The Galaxy's rotation curve places a strict upper bound on the total

3317: mass in its halo (e.g., \cite{Sakamoto2003}), which then 

3318: implies a maximum possible

3319: alignment probability to, say, the Magellanic Clouds. Even if the halo

3320: consisted only of point-masses of suitable size, the simple calculation

3321: made by Paczynski \cite{Paczynski1986} 

3322: implies that the lensing optical depth, $\tau$ -- essentially equal

3323: to the probability that any single source is lensed at a given time --

3324: of $\sim 10^{-6}$. This result has been corroborated experimentally by

3325: monitoring stars in both the Galactic center and the Large Magellanic

3326: Cloud for period variations: 

3327: both the MACHO \cite{Alcock2000} and OGLE \cite{Wozniak2001}

3328: groups 

3329: have found $\tau \simeq 3 \times 10^{-6}$. 

3330: %for lenses with ?? M_Sun <~ M <~ ?? M_Sun [\ref{84}]. 

3331: It is important, then, to note that even if the halo is dominated by 

3332: point-masses of $M \simeq 10^{-17} \msun$ suitable for GINI, 

3333: the alignment probability 

3334: to any neutrino sources sufficiently close to be detected at all is only

3335: $\sim 10^{-6}$.

3336: 

3337: In the future, however, as detector technology improves, it may be possible

3338: to observe neutrinos from cosmologically distant sources at effective

3339: distances of up to Gpc. The lensing optical depth is thus increased, 

3340: both because a given mass can act as a more efficient lens and because

3341: the chance of alignment increases proportionally with source distance. 

3342: A simple calculation of these effects (e.g., \cite{Schneider1992}) implies that optical

3343: depths of close to unity are plausible; thus when neutrinos are detected

3344: from cosmologically distant sources GINI effects will {\it have} to be taken

3345: into account in the interpretation of any such data obtained.

3346: 

3347: 

3348: 

3349: %\section{Significance of Work: Dark Matter Studies}

3350: %\label{section_DM}

3351: 

3352: \section{Extention of Theoretical Results} 

3353: \label{section_furtherwk}

3354: 

3355: Besides treating the potential phenomenological effects of GINI at 

3356: greater length in another work \citep{Crocker2003},

3357: there are, of course, a number of directions in which our theoretical

3358: treatment will be extended.

3359: Some issues we intend dealing with further in another publication 

3360: \citep{Crocker2003}

3361: include:

3362: \begin{enumerate}

3363: \item \label{point1} 

3364: 

3365: 

3366: From consideration of interference of lensed {\it photons}

3367: in a Schwarzschild metric

3368: [see Eq.~(7.8) of \cite{Schneider1992} and also

3369: see Eq.~(9) of \cite{Stanek1993}]

3370: Eq.~(\ref{gravoscnprobcontd''}), 

3371: is actually subtly in error: there is an extra  $-\pi/2$ phase shift

3372: missing from the argument of $\cos$ term (in other words, the 

3373: interference envelope should actually go as 

3374: $\beta^2 + 2\theta_\textrm{E}^2[1 + \sin(\Delta \Phi^{+-})]$, generating a 

3375: central minimum for $Y=0$). This is present in the

3376: case of light -- and will also be present in the case of neutrinos -- 

3377: because of the opposite parities of the two images produced

3378: by a Schwarzschild lens 

3379: (i.e., the images -- {\it were} they able to be distinguished -- 

3380: would be flipped with respect to each

3381: other: \footnote{An experimental analog of interference in such a situation

3382: would be a Young's double 

3383: slit apparatus where one beam of light is reflected in a

3384: mirror. This produces, of course, a central minimum.}). 

3385: The reason why our treatment has failed to pick this extra phase shift up

3386: is that we have artificially restricted the paths under consideration

3387: to only the classical ones. 

3388: In other words, 

3389: we have assumed the geometrical optics limit which is strictly only

3390: valid for

3391: phase differences 

3392: %${\cal O}[1]$ 

3393: of order unity

3394: and larger.

3395: A more complete treatment using the techniques of physical optics -- involving

3396: integration over {\it all} paths through the lens plane

3397: (each such path being uniquely specified by its impact parameter) -- would

3398: recover this phase [and, in fact, demonstrate that the full expressions

3399: for the oscillation probability and magnification

3400: involve confluent Hypergeometric functions

3401: that only reduce to trigonometric functions in the large phase limit: cf.\

3402: Eq.~(7.11) of Ref.~\citep{Schneider1992}

3403: or Eq.~(6) of \citep{Stanek1993}]. 

3404: Moreover, a more complete treatment would also demonstrate that the  singularity

3405: at $\beta = 0$ for Eq.~(\ref{eqn_magnification}) is not a real effect.

3406: %In \S\ref{section_extra_phase_shift} we notified the reader that our result for the

3407: %phase shift between neutrino \MES \ wavepackets propagating along 

3408: %different paths 

3409: %in a Schwarzschild metric 

3410: %had failed to pick up an expected, additional shift of $-\pi/2$.

3411: %The reason why our treatment has failed to pick this up

3412: %is that we have artificially restricted the paths under consideration

3413: %to only the classical ones. 

3414: %In other words, we have assumed the geometrical optics limit which is strictly only

3415: %valid for

3416: %phase differences of order unity and larger.

3417: %A more complete treatment using the techniques of physical optics -- involving

3418: %integration over {\it all} paths through the lens plane

3419: %(each such path being uniquely specified by its impact parameter) -- would

3420: %recover this phase (and, in fact, demonstrate that the full expressions

3421: %for the oscillation probability and magnification

3422: %involve confluent Hypergeometric functions

3423: %that only reduce to trigonometric functions in the large phase limit: cf.\

3424: %Ref.~\citep{Schneider1992},

3425: %Eq.~(7.11) or \citep{Stanek1993} Eq.~(6)). 

3426: %Moreover, a more complete treatment would also demonstrate that the  singularity

3427: %at $\beta = 0$ for Eq.~(\ref{eqn_magnification}) is not a real effect.

3428: \item \label{point2}

3429: So far we have assumed a static metric. But the GINI effect, as noted,

3430: requires

3431:  neutrinos from astrophysical sources 

3432: that would probably need to be located at extra-galactic or even

3433: cosmological distances 

3434: for a decent chance that lensing occur

3435: (though it should be stressed that

3436: current detector technologies would not allow detection of neutrinos from supernovae

3437: beyond out Galaxy and its satellites: \citep{Beacom1999}) and

3438: the introduction of cosmology into the formalism developed here

3439: %-- necessary to assess the phenomenological import of the

3440: %neutrino interference effects considered in this paper -- 

3441: would

3442: require the treatment of a non-static metric \citep{Wagner1998,Mbonye2001}.

3443: We note in passing that were GINI effects ever 

3444: seen in neutrinos from cosmological sources, these effects would provide for a  test 

3445: of quantum mechanics over the very longest scales. We speculate, then,

3446: that GINI could be sensitive to the effects of spacetime foam (cf., say,

3447: \citep{Ragazzoni2003}). In principle, we also expect that a GINI

3448: pattern in cosmologically-sourced neutrino could be interrogated to determine the value of

3449: the

3450: Hubble constant H$_0$

3451: \citep{Bolton2003,Refsdal1964}. Observation (or non-observation) of GINI

3452: effects would also contitute a {\it de facto} probe of the distribution

3453: of dark matter

3454: objects within a certain well-defined (and interesting) mass range \citep{Gould1992}.

3455: %

3456: %We need, therefore, to introduce

3457: %cosmology into our calculations.

3458: \item \label{point3}

3459: The Schwarzschild lens is an ideal case never precisely encountered in nature. 

3460: %-- at least

3461: %for situations that for photons produce examples of `macro-lensing'

3462: %involving lensing by galaxies and larger structures. 

3463: For the realistic situation we may need to  account for

3464: shear \citep{Ulmer1995}, multiple lensing masses, etc.

3465: Treating these effects may very well demonstrate

3466: %, as previously alluded to, 

3467:  that 

3468: the just-so mass range is considerably larger 

3469: %-- perhaps by orders of

3470: %magnitude -- 

3471: than the estimate given by Eq.~(\ref{eqn_massrange}) 

3472: \citep{Ulmer1995}. 

3473: In any case, it is fairly easy to understand, at least

3474: at the heuristic level, how more general lenses might be treated: 

3475: considering, say, Eq.~(\ref{nonradschwarzphasediffdimless2})

3476: it can be seen that almost all the contributions to the phase

3477: difference are essentially geometrical. The only expression which

3478: contains information on the mass distribution of the deflector

3479: is the logarithmic term. This suggests that it may be possible to modify our results

3480: to arbitrary weak deflectors simply by inserting the appropriate

3481: lens potential (and replacing a Schwarzschild-specific result

3482: for $\Delta \theta_{pq}^2$).

3483: \item \label{point4} In \S\ref{section_phenomenology} we added into the mix

3484: coherence loss considerations. Formally, these can only arise

3485: in a full wavepacket treatment which we have not attempted for the curved 

3486: spacetime case. 

3487: We remind the reader, however, that 

3488: our results for phase and phase-difference will continue to hold in any more detailed

3489: calculation because these are independent of wavepacket considerations.

3490: \item \label{point5}

3491: Our treatment of effects due to the 

3492: finite nature 

3493: of

3494: any real source is very much at an heuristic level.

3495:  Furthermore, finite detector effects can also be important, as has been remarked.

3496: In this regard,

3497: note, in passing, that logically connected to this concern is the consideration

3498: that the observation of GINI effects with two -- or, preferably, more --

3499: widely-separated detectors holds out some interesting possibilities

3500: \citep{Gould1992}. 

3501: One would expect here that the interference patterns seen by different

3502: detectors be, in general, displaced in energy with respect to each other. The degree of

3503: this displacement will be related to the lensing mass and the geometry.

3504: So the displacement could probably be used

3505: to better

3506: constrain relevant parameters than observation with a single detector. Moreover, observation

3507: of fringes with more than one neutrino detector would certainly lend credence to the idea

3508: that these have their origins in GINI.

3509: 

3510: 

3511: 

3512: \end{enumerate}

3513: 

3514: \section{Conclusion}

3515: \label{section_conclusion}

3516: 

3517: 

3518: In this paper we have  explicitly

3519: calculated the  phase  for a neutrino \MES \ propagating through

3520: curved spacetime, in particular, a Schwarzschild metric.

3521: With this expression in hand, we have shown how a novel

3522: interference effect -- gravitationally-induced neutrino interference (`GINI') -- 

3523: may show up for

3524: gravitationally-lensed, astrophysical neutrinos.

3525: These interference effects lead to a neutrino transition

3526: phenomenology qualitatively different from flat space neutrino

3527: oscillations.

3528: %, though we have

3529: %not yet explicitly calculated whether the conditions for coherence are met

3530: %for any real source of astrophysical neutrinos. 

3531: We have shown, further, that

3532: a result extant in the literature \citep{Fornengo1997}

3533: for the phase difference with gravitational lensing must be in error.

3534: We have also derived the form of this phase difference when it is given in 

3535: terms of conventional lensing parameters. We have derived the analog of the

3536: neutrino oscillation probability in flat space for the Schwarzschild metric. 

3537: This quantity controls the phenomenology

3538: at a detector, in particular, the pattern of maxima and minima (across energy)

3539: for neutrino wavepackets which have propagated from source to detector along multiple paths.

3540: We have adduced heuristic arguments that establish that this interference pattern

3541: could be seen in the neutrino signal from a supernova, {\it provided} a suitably-lensed

3542: supernova event occurs.

3543: Current -- and probably even next-generation -- neutrino detector technologies

3544: would seem to mean, however, that the probability of such lensing occurring for

3545: a neutrino-detectable supernova is small. Still, for astrophysical neutrinos

3546: originating at cosmological distances the lensing probability approaches 1 and some

3547: day the technology to detect large numbers of these from single sources may become

3548: available.

3549: %We have shown that phenomenological GINI studies

3550: %may well prove sensitive to dark matter objects in an interesting mass range.

3551: We have mapped out a program for further research in this field.

3552: 

3553: In summary, the

3554: material presented in this paper serves as

3555: a proof-of-principle that the GINI effect is both real -- in a theoretical sense -- and,

3556: what is more, could lead, one day, 

3557: to interesting phenomenological consequences for supernova neutrinos.

3558: 

3559: \section{Acknowledgements}

3560: 

3561: R.M.C. would like to sincerely thank Paul Alsing, Jesse Carlsson, Tim Garoni, 

3562: Matt Garbutt, Sasha Ignatiev, Bruce McKellar, Andrew Melatos,

3563: Keith Nugent, Alicia Oshlack, David Paganin, Andrew Peele, 

3564:  Ray Protheroe, Georg Raffelt, Rob Scholten, Cath Trott,

3565: Rachel Webster, and Stuart Wyithe for enlightening 

3566: discussions. 

3567: He also thanks Nicole Bell and John Beacom 

3568: for a useful correspondence.

3569: Finally, he particularly thanks 

3570: %Carlo Giunti, 

3571: German K{\" a}lberman, Ray Volkas,  and  Randall Wayth 

3572: who all devoted considerable time to setting this authour straight

3573: on a number of subtle issues.

3574: %He is supported by the Commonwealth of Australia.

3575: 

3576: \vspace{0.3cm}

3577: \noindent

3578: D.J.M. is supported by PPARC.

3579: 

3580: \vspace{0.3cm}

3581: \noindent

3582: The authors thank an anonymous referee for making

3583: comments that led to improvements to this work.

3584: %\vspace{0.3cm}

3585: %\noindent

3586: %Finally,

3587: %both authors would like to thank Carlo Giunti for crucial input to this

3588: %paper.

3589: 

3590: \begin{center}

3591: {\it This paper is dedicated to the memory of Professor Geoffrey Opat.}

3592: \end{center}

3593: 

3594: % for final paper, need bibliogrphy text as part of file. Append

3595: %text of type saved in revtexbib.eg

3596: %\bibliography{../../thesis/bibliodir/finalbib} 

3597: \newpage

3598: \section{Appendix: Wave Packet Treatment of Neutrino Beam Splitter}

3599: 

3600: In this appendix we set forth a full (Gaussian) wave packet

3601: treatment of the neutrino beam spliter {\it Gedanken Experiment} (treated in

3602: terms of plane waves in \S 3).

3603: Note that the results we derive for the exponential damping

3604: terms (in the equation for the oscillation probability analog --

3605: see Eq.~(\ref{eqn_app_bs''''}))

3606: serve as an heuristic justification of the

3607: treatment of decoherence we present in \S 6.

3608: 

3609: 

3610: We write the ket associated with the 

3611: neutrino flavour eigenstate $\alpha$ that has propagated from

3612:  the source spacetime position $A = (x_A, t_A)$

3613: to

3614: detection position 

3615: $B = (x_B, t_B)$ as

3616: \begin{multline}

3617: \label{eqn_app_bs}

3618: \vert \nu_\alpha,B \rangle

3619: = N \sum_p \sqrt{I_p} \sum_j U_{\alpha j} \\

3620: \times

3621: \int \mathrm{d}E \exp[-\mathrm{i} \Phi^p_j(E; L^{AB}_p, T^{AB})] A_j(E) 

3622: \vert \nu_j \rangle,

3623: \end{multline}

3624: where the various quantities are as explained in \S 3.

3625: The amplitude for a neutrino created as type $\alpha$ to be

3626: detected as type $\beta$ at the spacetime position, $B$, 

3627: of the detection event is then:

3628: \begin{multline}

3629: \label{eqn_app_bs'}

3630: %A(\alpha \to \beta; B) \equiv 

3631: \langle \nu_\beta \vert \nu_\alpha; A,B \rangle 

3632: = N \sum_p \sqrt{I_p} \sum_j U_{\alpha j} U_{\beta j}^* \\

3633:  \times  \int \mathrm{d}E  A_j(E) \exp[-\mathrm{i} \Phi^p_j(E; L^{AB}_p, T^{AB})].

3634: \end{multline}

3635: Again, we can get rid of the unwanted dependence on time by averaging over $T^{AB}$

3636: in the above to determine

3637: a time-averaged oscillation probability {\it analog} 

3638: at the detector position $x_B$ 

3639: \cite{Beuthe2001,Beuthe2002,Giunti2003}.

3640: %\footnote{The authors thank Carlo Giunti for  this crucial insight.}.

3641: This  gives us that

3642: \begin{multline}

3643: \label{eqn_app_bs''}

3644: %P(\alpha \to \beta; x_B) 

3645: %\propto \int \mathrm{d}T \vert A(\alpha \to \beta; B)\vert^2 \\

3646: \vert \langle \nu_\beta \vert \nu_\alpha; x_A,x_B \rangle \vert^2

3647: \propto \int \mathrm{d}T^{AB} 

3648: \vert \langle \nu_\beta \vert \nu_\alpha; A,B \rangle \vert^2 \\

3649: \propto \vert N \vert^2 \sum_{pq} \sqrt{I_pI_q} \sum_{jk} 

3650: U_{\alpha j} U_{\beta j}^* U_{\beta k} U_{\alpha k}^*  \\

3651: \times \int \mathrm{d}E A_j(E) A_k^*(E)

3652: \exp[\mathrm{i}(p_j(E)L^{AB}_p - p_k(E)L^{AB}_q)],

3653: \end{multline}

3654: where one integral over energy has disappeared because

3655: of the $\delta(E - E')$ that arises from the integration over time.

3656: 

3657: Assuming a Gaussian form for the wavepackets leads to

3658: \be

3659: A_j \propto \exp \left[-\frac{(E - {\bar E}_j)^2}{4 (\sigma^{(j)}_E)^2} \right]

3660: \simeq \exp \left[-\frac{(E - {\bar E}_j)^2}{4 \sigma^2_E} \right],

3661: \ee

3662: where ${\bar E}_j$ 

3663: is the

3664: peak or average energy of \MES \ $j$ and

3665: we employ the very good approximation \citep{Giunti1991} that 

3666: the wavepacket spread is the same for different \MES s. This gives us that

3667: \begin{multline}

3668: A_j(E) A_k^*(E) \\

3669: \propto \exp\left[-\frac{2E^2 - 2E({\bar E}_j + {\bar E}_k) + 

3670: ({\bar E}^2_j + {\bar E}^2_k)}

3671: {4 \sigma_E^2} \right].

3672: \end{multline}

3673: Now defining the peak momentum of \MES\ $j$ via ${\bar p}_j = 

3674: ({\bar E}_j^2 - m_j^2)^{1/2}$, 

3675: we can write

3676: \be

3677: \label{eqn_app_mtmdiff}

3678: p_j(E) \equiv {\bar p}_j + \Delta p_j(E),

3679: \ee

3680: where

3681: \bea

3682: \label{eqn_app_mtmdiff'}

3683: &\Delta p_j(E)

3684: &\equiv p_j(E) - {\bar p}_j \nn \\

3685: &&= \sqrt{E^2 - m_j^2} - \sqrt{{\bar E}_j^2 - m_j^2} \nn \\

3686: &&\simeq E - \frac{m_j^2}{2E} - {\bar E}_j + \frac{m_j^2}{2{\bar E}_j} \nn \\

3687: &&= (E - {\bar E}_j)\left(1 - \frac{m_j^2}{2E{\bar E}_j}\right).

3688: \eea

3689: Employing the group velocity of \MES \ $j$, viz. 

3690: \be

3691: \label{eqn_app_mtmdiff''}

3692: v_j = {\bar p}_j/{\bar E}_j = \frac{\sqrt{{\bar E}^2 - m_j^2}}{{\bar E}_j} 

3693: \simeq 1 - \frac{m_j^2}{2 {\bar E}_j^2},

3694: \ee

3695: we determine that $\Delta p_j(E) \simeq (E - {\bar E}_j)v_j$ \ \footnote{Note 

3696: that

3697: here we are ignoring

3698: the energy dependence of the velocities of the different plane

3699: wave components of each wavepacket so that our calculation makes no

3700: account of dispersive effects which, in general, extend the coherence length:

3701: see \cite{Kim1993}.}, so that

3702: \be

3703: \label{eqn_app_Beuthe''}

3704: p_j(E) \simeq {\bar p}_j + (E - {\bar E}_j)v_j

3705: %p_j(E) - p_k(E) \simeq p_j - p_k + E(v_j - v_k) - (E_jv_j - E_kv_k).

3706: \ee

3707: We find, then, after a simple calculation that the oscillation probability 

3708: analog becomes

3709: \begin{multline}

3710: \label{eqn_app_bs'''}

3711: %P(\alpha \to \beta; x_B) \\

3712: \vert \langle \nu_\beta \vert \nu_\alpha; x_A,x_B \rangle \vert^2\\

3713: \simeq \frac{1}{\sum_{rs} \sqrt{I_rI_s}} \sum_{pq} \sqrt{I_pI_q} \sum_{jk} 

3714: U_{\alpha j} U_{\beta j}^* U_{\beta k} U_{\alpha k}^*  \\

3715: \times  \exp\Bigl\{-\mathrm{i}\Bigl[ (v_jL^{AB}_p + v_kL^{AB}_q)

3716:   \frac{{\bar E}_j - {\bar E}_k}{2}

3717:  \\

3718: \shoveright{- (p_jL^{AB}_p - p_kL^{AB}_q)\Bigr] \Bigr\} } \\

3719:  \times \exp\left[-\sigma_x^2\frac{({\bar E}_j - {\bar E}_k)^2}{2}\right]

3720: \exp\left[-\frac{(v_jL^{AB}_p - v_kL^{AB}_q)^2}{8\sigma_x^2}\right]. \\

3721: \end{multline}

3722: Note that in the above calculation, though we have been employing the 

3723: group velocity,

3724: this does not -- and should not be seen to -- 

3725: enter into the phase in any fundamental way \citep{Giunti2002}. 

3726: Indeed, the phase can

3727: be calculated entirely with plane waves (see \S 3) and, therefore, totally

3728: without reference to wavepacket notions like group velocity -- though the

3729: exponential damping factors above critically depend on these. 

3730: Note also that, again, the normalization has been determined by requiring

3731: that 

3732: %$\sum_\beta P(\alpha \to \beta; x) \leq 1$. 

3733: $\vert \langle \nu_\beta \vert \nu_\alpha; x_A,x_B \rangle \vert^2 \leq 1$.

3734: 

3735: 

3736: The two damping factors in Eq.~(\ref{eqn_bs'''}) can be traced back

3737: to considerations following from (i) source localization and

3738: the (ii) requirement  for overlap of wavepackets at the detector's position.

3739: Observe that the second damping term accounts for an interesting possibility:

3740: having  

3741: a heavier -- and slower -- \MES \ travels down

3742: the shorter path and the lighter \MES \ down the longer path,  will tend to

3743: restore coherence. 

3744: 

3745: 

3746: 

3747: 

3748: As a further particularization  of the 

3749: expression for neutrino oscillation `probability' with 

3750: an imaginary beamsplitter, we take the expressions for 

3751: the energies, momenta, and velocities of the various wavefunctions

3752: given in terms of expansions around the energy in massless limit, $E_0$, viz:

3753: \begin{eqnarray} 

3754: \label{app_xieqn}

3755: & {\bar E}_i & \simeq \ E_0 \ + \ (1-\xi)\frac{m_i^2}{2 E_0} \\

3756: & {\bar p}_i & \simeq \ E_0 \ - \ \xi\frac{m_i^2}{2 E_0},

3757: \end{eqnarray}

3758: where $\xi$ is a dimensionless parameter of order unity

3759:  determined by kinematical

3760: considerations \citep{Giunti2002}. 

3761: The group velocity will then be

3762: \begin{eqnarray}

3763: \label{eqn_app_vel}

3764: & v_i & = \frac{{\bar p}_i}{{\bar E}_i} \nonumber \\

3765: && \simeq 1 - \frac{m_i^2}{2 E_0^2} \;.

3766: \end{eqnarray}

3767: Employing the above we find

3768: \begin{multline}

3769: \label{eqn_app_bs''''}

3770: %P(\alpha \to \beta; x_B) \\

3771: \vert \langle \nu_\beta \vert \nu_\alpha; x_A,x_B \rangle \vert^2\\

3772: \simeq \frac{1}{\sum_{rs} \sqrt{I_rI_s}} \sum_{pq} \sqrt{I_pI_q} \sum_{jk} 

3773: U_{\alpha j} U_{\beta j}^* U_{\beta k} U_{\alpha k}^*  \\

3774: \times  \exp\left[-\mathrm{i}\Delta \Phi_{jk}^{pq}\right] \\

3775: \times \exp\left[-\frac{\sigma_x^2}{2}\left(\xi\frac{\delta m^2_{jk}}{2 E_0}

3776: \right)^2\right]\\

3777: \times \exp\left[-\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{L^{AB}_p - L^{AB}_q}{2 \sigma_x} 

3778: - \frac{1}{2 E_0^2}\frac{m_j^2 L^{AB}_p - m_k^2 L^{AB}_q}{2 \sigma_x}\right)^2\right],

3779: \end{multline}

3780: where the phase difference is given by

3781: \begin{multline}

3782: \label{eqn_app_splitterphase}

3783: \Delta \Phi_{jk}^{pq} \equiv 

3784: - \left(E_0 + \xi\frac{m_j^2 + m_k^2}{4E_0}\right)(L^{AB}_p - L^{AB}_q) \\

3785: + \left(\frac{m_j^2 L^{AB}_p - m_k^2 L^{AB}_q}{2 E_0}\right).

3786: \end{multline}

3787: Note that we can take the  plane wave limit of the

3788: above equation

3789: %\footnote{T^{AB}he authors again thank Carlo Giunti for pointing

3790: %out this particularly simple example of the neutrino beam splitter 

3791: %{\it gedanken Experiment}.}. 

3792: by setting

3793: $\xi \to 0$ and $\sigma_x \to \infty$. This allows us to recover Eq.~(\ref{eqn_bs'''}).

3794: 

3795: \begin{thebibliography}{70}

3796: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

3797: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax

3798:   \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi

3799: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax

3800:   \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi

3801: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax

3802:   \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi

3803: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

3804:   \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi

3805: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi

3806: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}

3807: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}

3808: 

3809: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Overhauser} and {Colella}}(1974)}]{Overhauser1974}

3810: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~W.} \bibnamefont{{Overhauser}}}

3811:   \bibnamefont{and}

3812:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{{Colella}}},

3813:   \bibinfo{journal}{Physical Review Letters} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{33}},

3814:   \bibinfo{pages}{1237} (\bibinfo{year}{1974}).

3815: 

3816: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Colella} et~al.}(1975)\citenamefont{{Colella},

3817:   {Overhauser}, and {Werner}}}]{Colella1975}

3818: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{{Colella}}},

3819:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~W.} \bibnamefont{{Overhauser}}},

3820:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~A.}

3821:   \bibnamefont{{Werner}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Physical Review Letters}

3822:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{34}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1472} (\bibinfo{year}{1975}).

3823: 

3824: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Greenberger} and

3825:   {Overhauser}}(1979)}]{Greenberger1979}

3826: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~M.} \bibnamefont{{Greenberger}}}

3827:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~W.}

3828:   \bibnamefont{{Overhauser}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Reviews of Modern Physics}

3829:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{51}}, \bibinfo{pages}{43} (\bibinfo{year}{1979}).

3830: 

3831: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Stanek} et~al.}(1993)\citenamefont{{Stanek},

3832:   {Paczynski}, and {Goodman}}}]{Stanek1993}

3833: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~Z.} \bibnamefont{{Stanek}}},

3834:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{{Paczynski}}},

3835:   \bibnamefont{and}

3836:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{{Goodman}}},

3837:   \bibinfo{journal}{ApJL} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{413}}, \bibinfo{pages}{L7}

3838:   (\bibinfo{year}{1993}).

3839: 

3840: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Schneider} and {Schmid-Burgk}}(1985)}]{Schneider1985}

3841: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{{Schneider}}} \bibnamefont{and}

3842:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{{Schmid-Burgk}}},

3843:   \bibinfo{journal}{A\&A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{148}}, \bibinfo{pages}{369}

3844:   (\bibinfo{year}{1985}).

3845: 

3846: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Peterson} and {Falk}}(1991)}]{Peterson1991}

3847: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~B.} \bibnamefont{{Peterson}}}

3848:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{{Falk}}},

3849:   \bibinfo{journal}{ApJL} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{374}}, \bibinfo{pages}{L5}

3850:   (\bibinfo{year}{1991}).

3851: 

3852: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Gould}}(1992)}]{Gould1992}

3853: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Gould}}},

3854:   \bibinfo{journal}{ApJL} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{386}}, \bibinfo{pages}{L5}

3855:   (\bibinfo{year}{1992}).

3856: 

3857: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Ulmer} and {Goodman}}(1995)}]{Ulmer1995}

3858: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Ulmer}}} \bibnamefont{and}

3859:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{{Goodman}}},

3860:   \bibinfo{journal}{ApJ} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{442}}, \bibinfo{pages}{67}

3861:   (\bibinfo{year}{1995}).

3862: 

3863: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Mandzhos}}(1981)}]{Mandzhos1981}

3864: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~V.} \bibnamefont{{Mandzhos}}},

3865:   \bibinfo{journal}{Soviet Astronomy Letters} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{7}},

3866:   \bibinfo{pages}{213} (\bibinfo{year}{1981}).

3867: 

3868: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Ohanian}}(1983)}]{Ohanian1983}

3869: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~C.} \bibnamefont{{Ohanian}}},

3870:   \bibinfo{journal}{ApJ} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{271}}, \bibinfo{pages}{551}

3871:   (\bibinfo{year}{1983}).

3872: 

3873: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Deguchi} and

3874:   {Watson}}(1986{\natexlab{a}})}]{Deguchi1986a}

3875: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{{Deguchi}}} \bibnamefont{and}

3876:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~D.} \bibnamefont{{Watson}}},

3877:   \bibinfo{journal}{ApJ} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{307}}, \bibinfo{pages}{30}

3878:   (\bibinfo{year}{1986}{\natexlab{a}}).

3879: 

3880: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Deguchi} and

3881:   {Watson}}(1986{\natexlab{b}})}]{Deguchi1986b}

3882: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{{Deguchi}}} \bibnamefont{and}

3883:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~D.} \bibnamefont{{Watson}}},

3884:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{34}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1708}

3885:   (\bibinfo{year}{1986}{\natexlab{b}}).

3886: 

3887: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Hirata} et~al.}(1987)\citenamefont{{Hirata}, {Kajita},

3888:   {Koshiba}, {Nakahata}, and {Oyama}}}]{Hirata1987}

3889: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{{Hirata}}},

3890:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{{Kajita}}},

3891:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Koshiba}}},

3892:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Nakahata}}},

3893:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{{Oyama}}},

3894:   \bibinfo{journal}{Physical Review Letters} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{58}},

3895:   \bibinfo{pages}{1490} (\bibinfo{year}{1987}).

3896: 

3897: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Bionta} et~al.}(1987)\citenamefont{{Bionta},

3898:   {Blewitt}, {Bratton}, {Caspere}, and {Ciocio}}}]{Bionta1987}

3899: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~M.} \bibnamefont{{Bionta}}},

3900:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{{Blewitt}}},

3901:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~B.} \bibnamefont{{Bratton}}},

3902:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{{Caspere}}},

3903:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Ciocio}}},

3904:   \bibinfo{journal}{Physical Review Letters} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{58}},

3905:   \bibinfo{pages}{1494} (\bibinfo{year}{1987}).

3906: 

3907: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Bahcall} and {Glashow}}(1987)}]{Bahcall1987}

3908: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~N.} \bibnamefont{{Bahcall}}}

3909:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~L.}

3910:   \bibnamefont{{Glashow}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{\nat}

3911:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{326}}, \bibinfo{pages}{476} (\bibinfo{year}{1987}).

3912: 

3913: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Arnett} and {Rosner}}(1987)}]{Arnett1987}

3914: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.~D.} \bibnamefont{{Arnett}}} \bibnamefont{and}

3915:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~L.} \bibnamefont{{Rosner}}},

3916:   \bibinfo{journal}{Physical Review Letters} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{58}},

3917:   \bibinfo{pages}{1906} (\bibinfo{year}{1987}).

3918: 

3919: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Bilenky} et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{{Bilenky},

3920:   {Giunti}, {Grifols}, and {Mass{\' o}}}}]{Bilenky2003}

3921: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~M.} \bibnamefont{{Bilenky}}},

3922:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{{Giunti}}},

3923:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~A.} \bibnamefont{{Grifols}}},

3924:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{{Mass{\'

3925:   o}}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rep.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{379}},

3926:   \bibinfo{pages}{69} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

3927: 

3928: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Hillebrandt} and {Hoflich}}(1989)}]{Hillebrandt1989}

3929: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{{Hillebrandt}}}

3930:   \bibnamefont{and}

3931:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{{Hoflich}}},

3932:   \bibinfo{journal}{Reports of Progress in Physics}

3933:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{52}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1421} (\bibinfo{year}{1989}).

3934: 

3935: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Beacom} et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{{Beacom}, {Boyd},

3936:   and {Mezzacappa}}}]{Beacom2000}

3937: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~F.} \bibnamefont{{Beacom}}},

3938:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~N.} \bibnamefont{{Boyd}}},

3939:   \bibnamefont{and}

3940:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Mezzacappa}}},

3941:   \bibinfo{journal}{Physical Review Letters} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{85}},

3942:   \bibinfo{pages}{3568} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).

3943: 

3944: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Longo}}(1988)}]{Longo1988}

3945: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~J.} \bibnamefont{{Longo}}},

3946:   \bibinfo{journal}{Physical Review Letters} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{60}},

3947:   \bibinfo{pages}{173} (\bibinfo{year}{1988}).

3948: 

3949: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Krauss} and {Tremaine}}(1988)}]{Krauss1988}

3950: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~M.} \bibnamefont{{Krauss}}} \bibnamefont{and}

3951:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{{Tremaine}}},

3952:   \bibinfo{journal}{Physical Review Letters} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{60}},

3953:   \bibinfo{pages}{176} (\bibinfo{year}{1988}).

3954: 

3955: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Barrow} and {Subramanian}}(1987)}]{Barrow1987}

3956: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~D.} \bibnamefont{{Barrow}}} \bibnamefont{and}

3957:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{{Subramanian}}},

3958:   \bibinfo{journal}{\nat} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{327}}, \bibinfo{pages}{375}

3959:   (\bibinfo{year}{1987}).

3960: 

3961: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Gerver}}(1988)}]{Gerver1988}

3962: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~L.} \bibnamefont{{Gerver}}},

3963:   \bibinfo{journal}{Physics Letters A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{127}},

3964:   \bibinfo{pages}{301} (\bibinfo{year}{1988}).

3965: 

3966: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Escribano} et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{{Escribano},

3967:   {Fr{\` e}re}, {Monderen}, and {Van Elewyck}}}]{Escribano2001}

3968: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{{Escribano}}},

3969:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.-M.} \bibnamefont{{Fr{\` e}re}}},

3970:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{{Monderen}}},

3971:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{{Van

3972:   Elewyck}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Physics Letters B}

3973:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{512}}, \bibinfo{pages}{8} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

3974: 

3975: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Brill} and {Wheeler}}(1957)}]{Brill1957}

3976: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~R.} \bibnamefont{{Brill}}} \bibnamefont{and}

3977:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~A.} \bibnamefont{{Wheeler}}},

3978:   \bibinfo{journal}{Reviews of Modern Physics} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{29}},

3979:   \bibinfo{pages}{465} (\bibinfo{year}{1957}).

3980: 

3981: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Stodolsky}}(1979)}]{Stodolsky1979}

3982: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{{Stodolsky}}},

3983:   \bibinfo{journal}{General Relativity and Gravitation}

3984:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{11}}, \bibinfo{pages}{391} (\bibinfo{year}{1979}).

3985: 

3986: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Fornengo} et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont{{Fornengo},

3987:   {Giunti}, {Kim}, and {Song}}}]{Fornengo1997}

3988: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{{Fornengo}}},

3989:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{{Giunti}}},

3990:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~W.} \bibnamefont{{Kim}}}, \bibnamefont{and}

3991:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{{Song}}},

3992:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{56}},

3993:   \bibinfo{pages}{1895} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}).

3994: 

3995: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Bhattacharya}

3996:   et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{{Bhattacharya}, {Habib}, and

3997:   {Mottola}}}]{Bhattacharya1999}

3998: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{{Bhattacharya}}},

3999:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{{Habib}}}, \bibnamefont{and}

4000:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{{Mottola}}},

4001:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{59}},

4002:   \bibinfo{pages}{67301} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

4003: 

4004: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Kojima}}(1996)}]{Kojima1996}

4005: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{{Kojima}}},

4006:   \bibinfo{journal}{Modern Physics Letters A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{11}},

4007:   \bibinfo{pages}{2965} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).

4008: 

4009: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Cardall} and {Fuller}}(1997)}]{Cardall1997}

4010: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~Y.} \bibnamefont{{Cardall}}}

4011:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~M.}

4012:   \bibnamefont{{Fuller}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D}

4013:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{55}}, \bibinfo{pages}{7960} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}).

4014: 

4015: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Konno} and {Kasai}}(1998)}]{Konno1998}

4016: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{{Konno}}} \bibnamefont{and}

4017:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Kasai}}},

4018:   \bibinfo{journal}{Progress of Theoretical Physics}

4019:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{100}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1145} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).

4020: 

4021: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Alsing} et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{{Alsing}, {Evans},

4022:   and {Nandi}}}]{Alsing2001}

4023: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~M.} \bibnamefont{{Alsing}}},

4024:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~C.} \bibnamefont{{Evans}}},

4025:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~K.}

4026:   \bibnamefont{{Nandi}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{General Relativity and Gravitation}

4027:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{33}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1459} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

4028: 

4029: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Ahluwalia} and {Burgard}}(1996)}]{Ahluwalia1996}

4030: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~V.} \bibnamefont{{Ahluwalia}}}

4031:   \bibnamefont{and}

4032:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{{Burgard}}},

4033:   \bibinfo{journal}{General Relativity and Gravitation}

4034:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{28}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1161} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).

4035: 

4036: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Wudka}}(2001)}]{Wudka2001}

4037: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{{Wudka}}},

4038:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{64}}, \bibinfo{pages}{65009}

4039:   (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

4040: 

4041: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Ahluwalia} and {Burgard}}(1998)}]{Ahluwalia1998}

4042: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~V.} \bibnamefont{{Ahluwalia}}}

4043:   \bibnamefont{and}

4044:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{{Burgard}}},

4045:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{57}}, \bibinfo{pages}{4724}

4046:   (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).

4047: 

4048: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Grossman} and {Lipkin}}(1997)}]{Grossman1997}

4049: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{{Grossman}}} \bibnamefont{and}

4050:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~J.} \bibnamefont{{Lipkin}}},

4051:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{55}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2760}

4052:   (\bibinfo{year}{1997}).

4053: 

4054: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Zhang} and {Beesham}}(2001)}]{Zhang2001}

4055: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~M.} \bibnamefont{{Zhang}}} \bibnamefont{and}

4056:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Beesham}}},

4057:   \bibinfo{journal}{General Relativity and Gravitation}

4058:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{33}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1011} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

4059: 

4060: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Linet} and {Teyssandier}}(2002)}]{Linet2002}

4061: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{{Linet}}} \bibnamefont{and}

4062:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{{Teyssandier}}},

4063:   \bibinfo{journal}{ArXiv General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology e-prints}

4064:   pp. \bibinfo{pages}{6056--+} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}), \eprint{gr-qc/0206056}.

4065: 

4066: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Zhang} and {Beesham}}(2003)}]{Zhang2003}

4067: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~M.} \bibnamefont{{Zhang}}} \bibnamefont{and}

4068:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Beesham}}},

4069:   \bibinfo{journal}{International Journal of Modern Physics D}

4070:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{12}}, \bibinfo{pages}{727} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

4071: 

4072: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Giunti}}(2002{\natexlab{a}})}]{Giunti2002}

4073: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{{Giunti}}},

4074:   \bibinfo{journal}{ArXiv High Energy Physics - Phenomenology e-prints}

4075:   (\bibinfo{year}{2002}{\natexlab{a}}), \eprint{hep-ph/0202063}.

4076: 

4077: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Beuthe}}(2003)}]{Beuthe2001}

4078: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Beuthe}}},

4079:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rep.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{375}},

4080:   \bibinfo{pages}{105} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

4081: 

4082: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Beuthe}}(2002)}]{Beuthe2002}

4083: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Beuthe}}},

4084:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{66}}, \bibinfo{pages}{13003}

4085:   (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

4086: 

4087: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Giunti}}(2003)}]{Giunti2003}

4088: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{{Giunti}}},

4089:   \bibinfo{journal}{ArXiv High Energy Physics - Phenomenology e-prints}

4090:   (\bibinfo{year}{2003}), \eprint{hep-ph/0302026}.

4091: 

4092: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Giunti} et~al.}(1991)\citenamefont{{Giunti}, {Kim},

4093:   and {Lee}}}]{Giunti1991}

4094: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{{Giunti}}},

4095:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~W.} \bibnamefont{{Kim}}}, \bibnamefont{and}

4096:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{U.~W.} \bibnamefont{{Lee}}},

4097:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{44}},

4098:   \bibinfo{pages}{3635} (\bibinfo{year}{1991}).

4099: 

4100: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Misner} et~al.}(1973)\citenamefont{{Misner}, {Thorne},

4101:   and {Wheeler}}}]{Misner1973}

4102: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~W.} \bibnamefont{{Misner}}},

4103:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~S.} \bibnamefont{{Thorne}}},

4104:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~A.}

4105:   \bibnamefont{{Wheeler}}}, \emph{\bibinfo{title}{{Gravitation}}}

4106:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{San Francisco: W.H.~Freeman and Co., 1973},

4107:   \bibinfo{year}{1973}).

4108: 

4109: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Giunti}}(2001)}]{Giunti2001}

4110: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{{Giunti}}},

4111:   \bibinfo{journal}{Modern Physics Letters A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{16}},

4112:   \bibinfo{pages}{2363} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

4113: 

4114: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Giunti}}(2002{\natexlab{b}})}]{Giunti2002d}

4115: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{{Giunti}}},

4116:   \bibinfo{journal}{ArXiv High Energy Physics - Phenomenology e-prints}

4117:   (\bibinfo{year}{2002}{\natexlab{b}}), \eprint{hep-ph/0205014}.

4118: 

4119: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Bhattacharya}

4120:   et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{{Bhattacharya}, {Habib}, and

4121:   {Mottola}}}]{Bhattacharya1996}

4122: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{{Bhattacharya}}},

4123:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{{Habib}}}, \bibnamefont{and}

4124:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{{Mottola}}},

4125:   \bibinfo{journal}{pre-print(gr-qc/9605074)}  (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).

4126: 

4127: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Landau} and {Lifshitz}}(1975)}]{Landau1975}

4128: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~D.} \bibnamefont{{Landau}}} \bibnamefont{and}

4129:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~M.} \bibnamefont{{Lifshitz}}},

4130:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{{The classical theory of fields}}}

4131:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Course of theoretical physics - Pergamon International

4132:   Library of Science, Technology, Engineering and Social Studies, Oxford:

4133:   Pergamon Press, 1975, 4th rev.engl.ed.}, \bibinfo{year}{1975}).

4134: 

4135: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Weinberg}}(1972)}]{Weinberg1972}

4136: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{{Weinberg}}},

4137:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{{Gravitation and cosmology: Principles and applications

4138:   of the general theory of relativity}}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{New York: Wiley,

4139:   |c1972}, \bibinfo{year}{1972}).

4140: 

4141: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Evans} et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{{Evans}, {Nandi},

4142:   and {Islam}}}]{Evans1996}

4143: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{{Evans}}},

4144:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~K.} \bibnamefont{{Nandi}}},

4145:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Islam}}},

4146:   \bibinfo{journal}{American Journal of Physics} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{64}},

4147:   \bibinfo{pages}{1404} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).

4148: 

4149: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Schneider} et~al.}(1992)\citenamefont{{Schneider},

4150:   {Ehlers}, and {Falco}}}]{Schneider1992}

4151: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{{Schneider}}},

4152:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{{Ehlers}}}, \bibnamefont{and}

4153:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.~E.} \bibnamefont{{Falco}}},

4154:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{{Gravitational Lenses}}}

4155:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Gravitational Lenses, XIV, 560 pp.~112

4156:   figs..~Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York.~ Also Astronomy and

4157:   Astrophysics Library}, \bibinfo{year}{1992}).

4158: 

4159: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Nakaya} and {al.}}(2002{\natexlab{a}})}]{Nakaya2002}

4160: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{{Nakaya}}} \bibnamefont{and}

4161:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{{al.}}}

4162:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{SUPER-KAMIOKANDE}), \bibinfo{journal}{ArXiv High

4163:   Energy Physics - Experimental e-prints}

4164:   (\bibinfo{year}{2002}{\natexlab{a}}), \eprint{hep-ex/0209036}.

4165: 

4166: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Crocker} and {Mortlock}}(2003)}]{Crocker2003}

4167: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~M.} \bibnamefont{{Crocker}}}

4168:   \bibnamefont{and}

4169:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{{Mortlock}}},

4170:   \bibinfo{journal}{{forthcoming}}  (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

4171: 

4172: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Kayser}}(1981)}]{Kayser1981}

4173: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{{Kayser}}},

4174:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{24}}, \bibinfo{pages}{110}

4175:   (\bibinfo{year}{1981}).

4176: 

4177: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Kim} and {Pevsner}}(1993)}]{Kim1993}

4178: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~W.} \bibnamefont{{Kim}}} \bibnamefont{and}

4179:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Pevsner}}},

4180:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{{Neutrinos in Physics and Astrophysics (Contemporary

4181:   Concepts in Physics, 8)}}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Chur, Switzerland: Harwood,

4182:   1993}, \bibinfo{year}{1993}).

4183: 

4184: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Nussinov}}(1976)}]{Nussinov1976}

4185: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{{Nussinov}}},

4186:   \bibinfo{journal}{Physics Letters B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{63}},

4187:   \bibinfo{pages}{201} (\bibinfo{year}{1976}).

4188: 

4189: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Anada} and {Nishimura}}(1988)}]{Anada1988}

4190: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{{Anada}}} \bibnamefont{and}

4191:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{{Nishimura}}},

4192:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{37}}, \bibinfo{pages}{552}

4193:   (\bibinfo{year}{1988}).

4194: 

4195: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Beacom} and {Vogel}}(1999)}]{Beacom1999}

4196: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~F.} \bibnamefont{{Beacom}}} \bibnamefont{and}

4197:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{{Vogel}}},

4198:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{60}},

4199:   \bibinfo{pages}{33007} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

4200: 

4201: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Nakaya} and {al.}}(2002{\natexlab{b}})}]{Nakaya2002a}

4202: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{{Nakaya}}} \bibnamefont{and}

4203:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{{al.}}}

4204:   (\bibinfo{collaboration}{SUPER-KAMIOKANDE}), \bibinfo{journal}{presented at

4205:   the XXth Int. Conf. on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics, Munich}

4206:   (\bibinfo{year}{2002}{\natexlab{b}}).

4207: 

4208: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Antonioli} and {al.}}(1999)}]{Antonioli1999}

4209: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{{Antonioli}}} \bibnamefont{and}

4210:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{{al.}}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Nuclear Instruments

4211:   and Methods in Physics Research A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{433}},

4212:   \bibinfo{pages}{104} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

4213: 

4214: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Jung}}(1999)}]{Jung2000}

4215: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~K.} \bibnamefont{{Jung}}},

4216:   \bibinfo{journal}{ArXiv High Energy Physics - Experimental e-prints}

4217:   (\bibinfo{year}{1999}), \eprint{pre-print(hep-ex/0005046}.

4218: 

4219: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Anada} and {Nishimura}}(1990)}]{Anada1990}

4220: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{{Anada}}} \bibnamefont{and}

4221:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{{Nishimura}}},

4222:   \bibinfo{journal}{\prd} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{41}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2379}

4223:   (\bibinfo{year}{1990}).

4224: 

4225: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Sakamoto} et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{{Sakamoto},

4226:   {Chiba}, and {Beers}}}]{Sakamoto2003}

4227: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{{Sakamoto}}},

4228:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Chiba}}}, \bibnamefont{and}

4229:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~C.} \bibnamefont{{Beers}}},

4230:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{397}}, \bibinfo{pages}{899} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

4231: 

4232: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Paczynski}}(1986)}]{Paczynski1986}

4233: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{{Paczynski}}},

4234:   \bibinfo{journal}{ApJ} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{304}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1}

4235:   (\bibinfo{year}{1986}).

4236: 

4237: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Alcock} et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{{Alcock},

4238:   {Allsman}, {Alves}, {Axelrod}, {Becker}, {Bennett}, {Cook}, {Drake},

4239:   {Freeman}, {Geha} et~al.}}]{Alcock2000}

4240: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{{Alcock}}},

4241:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~A.} \bibnamefont{{Allsman}}},

4242:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~R.} \bibnamefont{{Alves}}},

4243:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~S.} \bibnamefont{{Axelrod}}},

4244:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~C.} \bibnamefont{{Becker}}},

4245:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~P.} \bibnamefont{{Bennett}}},

4246:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~H.} \bibnamefont{{Cook}}},

4247:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~J.} \bibnamefont{{Drake}}},

4248:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~C.} \bibnamefont{{Freeman}}},

4249:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Geha}}},

4250:   \bibnamefont{et~al.}, \bibinfo{journal}{ApJ} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{541}},

4251:   \bibinfo{pages}{734} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).

4252: 

4253: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Wozniak} et~al.}(2001)\citenamefont{{Wozniak},

4254:   {Udalski}, {Szymanski}, {Kubiak}, {Pietrzynski}, {Soszynski}, and

4255:   {Zebrun}}}]{Wozniak2001}

4256: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~R.} \bibnamefont{{Wozniak}}},

4257:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{{Udalski}}},

4258:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Szymanski}}},

4259:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Kubiak}}},

4260:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{{Pietrzynski}}},

4261:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{{Soszynski}}},

4262:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{{Zebrun}}},

4263:   \bibinfo{journal}{Acta Astronomica} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{51}},

4264:   \bibinfo{pages}{175} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

4265: 

4266: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Wagner} and {Weiler}}(1997)}]{Wagner1998}

4267: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~J.} \bibnamefont{{Wagner}}} \bibnamefont{and}

4268:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~J.} \bibnamefont{{Weiler}}},

4269:   \bibinfo{journal}{Modern Physics Letters A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{12}},

4270:   \bibinfo{pages}{2497} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}).

4271: 

4272: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Mbonye}}(2002)}]{Mbonye2001}

4273: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~R.} \bibnamefont{{Mbonye}}},

4274:   \bibinfo{journal}{{Gen. Rel. Grav.}} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{34}},

4275:   \bibinfo{pages}{1865} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

4276: 

4277: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Ragazzoni} et~al.}(2003)\citenamefont{{Ragazzoni},

4278:   {Turatto}, and {Gaessler}}}]{Ragazzoni2003}

4279: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{{Ragazzoni}}},

4280:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{{Turatto}}},

4281:   \bibnamefont{and}

4282:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{{Gaessler}}},

4283:   \bibinfo{journal}{ApJL} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{587}}, \bibinfo{pages}{L1}

4284:   (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

4285: 

4286: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Bolton} and {Burles}}(2003)}]{Bolton2003}

4287: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~S.} \bibnamefont{{Bolton}}} \bibnamefont{and}

4288:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{{Burles}}},

4289:   \bibinfo{journal}{ApJ} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{592}}, \bibinfo{pages}{17}

4290:   (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

4291: 

4292: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Refsdal}}(1964)}]{Refsdal1964}

4293: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{{Refsdal}}},

4294:   \bibinfo{journal}{MNRAS} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{128}}, \bibinfo{pages}{307}

4295:   (\bibinfo{year}{1964}).

4296: 

4297: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Giunti} and {Kim}}(1998)}]{Giunti1998a}

4298: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{{Giunti}}} \bibnamefont{and}

4299:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~W.} \bibnamefont{{Kim}}},

4300:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{58}},

4301:   \bibinfo{pages}{17301} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).

4302: 

4303: \end{thebibliography}

4304: 

4305: % \input{bibtex/bib.tex}

4306: 

4307: \end{document}

4308: ==============================================================================

4309: