arxiv:hep-ph/ v2 23 Jan 2001

Transcription

1 Equivalence between Gaussian averaged neutrino oscillations and neutrino decoherence Tommy Ohlsson Λ Institut für Theoretische Physik, Physik Department, Technische Universität München, James-Franck-Straße, DE Garching bei München, Germany and Division of Mathematical Physics, Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics, Royal Institute of Technology, SE Stockholm, Sweden (Dated: January 9, 00) In this paper, we show that a Gaussian averaged neutrino oscillation model is equivalent to a neutrino decoherence model. Without loss of generality, the analysis is performed with two neutrino flavors. We also estimate the damping (or decoherence) parameter for atmospheric neutrinos and compare it to earlier obtained results. arxiv:hep-ph/0017 v 3 Jan 001 PACS numbers: Pq, Yz, Lm I. INTRODUCTION In this paper, we investigate two different models for transitions of neutrinos and how they are related to each other. The two models are: neutrino oscillations and neutrino decoherence. Neutrino oscillation models have been the standard description for neutrino transitions so far and still are. Neutrino decoherence models, on the other hand, have recently been discussed by several authors [1,, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] as an alternative description to neutrino oscillation models. There exist also other plausible descriptions of neutrino transitions such as neutrino decay models, which have been suggested by Barger et al. [9, 10, 11, 1]. However, these models will not be discussed in this paper. The paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II, we go through the formalisms of neutrino oscillations and neutrino decoherence. In Sec. III, we give the condition for them to be equivalent with each other and we also try to estimate the decoherence term and in Sec. IV, we estimate the damping or decoherence parameter for atmospheric neutrinos. Finally, in Sec. V, we present the summary and also our conclusions. II. FORMALISM A. Neutrino oscillations The theory of neutrino oscillations is the far most plausible description of neutrino transitions. Neutrino oscillations between different neutrino flavors, ν ff and ν, occur with the well-known neutrino transition probabilities P ff P ff (L; E) =f ff 4 b=1 b=1 <(Uffa Λ U au ffb Ub Λ ) m sin ab L 4E =(UffaU Λ a U ffb Ub) Λ sin m ab L ; ff; = e;μ;;:::; (1) E where f ff is Kronecker's delta, L is the neutrino path length, E is the neutrino energy, n is the number of neutrino flavors, m ab m a m b, a; b =1; ;:::;n is the (vacuum) mass squared difference between different neutrino mass Λ addresses: tohlsson@physik.tu-muenchen.de, tommy@theophys.kth.se; Homepages: ~tohlsson/,

2 eigenstates ν a and ν b (or rather jν a i and jν b i) with masses m a and m b, respectively, and U =(U ffa )= 0 U e1 U e U e3 U μ1 U μ U μ3 U 1 U U 3. is the unitary n n Maki Nakagawa Sakata (MNS) mixing matrix [13], which relates the flavor states jν ff i (ff = e;μ;;:::) and the mass eigenstates jν a i (a =1; ;:::;n). However, since in practice a neutrino wave is neither detected nor produced with sharp energy or with well-dened propagation length, we have toaverage over the L=E dependence and other uncertainties in the detection and emission of the neutrino wave. We will here use the Gaussian average, which is dened by Z 1 hp i P (x)f(x) dx; () 1 where f(x) 1 ff p (x `) ß e ff : p Here ` hxi and ff h(x hxi) i are the expectation value and standard deviation, respectively. By taking the Gaussian average of Eq. (1) and using x 4E L,we obtain the averaged transition probabilities from ν ff to ν as hp ff i = f ff b=1 b=1 <(U Λ ffau a U ffb U Λ b) The physical interpretations of the parameters ` and ff are the following: C A 1 cos ` m ( m ) ab e ff ab =(U Λ ffau a U ffb U Λ b) sin ` m ab e ff ( m ab ) ; ff; = e;μ;;:::: (3) ffl The parameter `: The parameter ` deals with the sensitivity of an experiment and is given by ` hl=ei=4. Note that we will here use hl=ei = hli=hei, i.e., This simplication holds if L and E are independent. ` = hli 4hEi : (4) ffl The parameter ff: The parameter ff is a so-called damping factor, which is responsible for the damping of the neutrino oscillation probabilities. A pessimistic upper bound for the damping parameter ff is given by the uncertainty inx, i.e., ff ' x = L E = hli L L=hLi;E=hEi 4hEi hli + E ; (5) hei where L and E are the uncertainties in the neutrino path length and the neutrino energy, respectively. A more optimistic upper bound would be s ff < ο hli L E + : (6) 4hEi hli hei For large values of ff, the dependence on the mass squared differences will be completely washed out, since 1 cos ` m ab e ff ( m ab )! 1 and sin ` m ab e ff ( m ab )! 0 when ff! 1, and the Gaussian

3 averaged transition probabilities hp ff i will just be dependent on the MNS mixing matrix elements, the U ffa 's, i.e., lim hp ffi = f ff ff!1 b=1 <(Uffa Λ U au ffb Ub Λ ): (7) Note that the imaginary part sum (the second sum in Eq. (3)) does not appear at all (in any form) in Eq. (7). Equation (7) corresponds to the classical limit. In the other limit, ff! 0, we will just regain Eq. (1) from Eq. (3) with ` = x, i.e., lim hp ffi = P ff : (8) ff!0 In the case of two neutrino flavors (n = ), we can call these neutrino flavors ν e and ν μ, the unitary (orthogonal) MNS mixing matrix U is usually parameterized as U =(U ffa )= Ue1 U e U μ1 U μ = cos sin ; (9) sin cos where is the (vacuum) mixing angle. Note that U Λ = U in this case. Furthermore, m m 1 = m 1. Observe that for two neutrino flavors there cannot be any CP (or T ) violation in the MNS mixing matrix U, since U is a real matrix in this case, which means that By taking the average of Eq. (10), we of course also have P ee =1 P eμ =1 P μe = P μμ : (10) hp ee i =1 hp eμ i =1 hp μe i = hp μμ i: (11) Thus, inserting ff = e, = μ, and n =into Eq. (3), we obtain the Gaussian averaged two flavor neutrino oscillation formula as hp eμ i(`) = 1 sin 1 e ff ( m ) cos ` m ; (1) 3 where ` 'hli=(4hei), i.e., hp eμ i(hli; hei) = 1 sin 1 e ff ( m ) cos m hli hei : (13) In what follows, we will use hp ff i = P ff, hli = L, and hei = E for simplicity. B. Neutrino decoherence Neutrino decoherence arises when we consider a neutrino system to be coupled to an environment (or a reservoir or a bath). In general, we are not allowed to use the Schrödinger equation to describe system-environment type interactions, since even if we start initially with a pure quantum mechanical state, the coupling to the environment will produce mixed quantum mechanical states. Thus, we are forced to use the Liouville equation. Assume that ρ = ρ(t) is the neutrino density matrix [1], which is Hermitian (ρ y = ρ) with positive eigenvalues and has constant trace equal to one (tr ρ = 1). The Liouville equation for the neutrino density matrix is then _ρ = i [H m ;ρ] ; (14) where H m is the free Hamiltonian for the neutrinos in the mass eigenstate basis. We will assume that the neutrino system is a two-level system, i.e., wehave two neutrino flavors (n = ), ν e and ν μ, as in the neutrino oscillation formalism. Thus, in this case, the neutrino density matrix ρ is a matrix and the free Hamiltonian H m is also a matrix and is given by H m = 1 E diag (m 1;m ) or H m 7! H 0 m = H m 1 (tr H m)i = 1 4E diag ( m ; m ); (15)

4 where I is the identity matrix and again m m m 1. The traceless Hamiltonian H0 m can be used instead of the Hamiltonian H m, since they just differ by a trace (of any of them). This trace will only give rise to a global phase that will not affect the transition probabilities anyway and is therefore irrelevant. Furthermore, note that we will not consider matter effects in this paper. In the case of neutrino transitions in matter, the Hamiltonian has a much more complicated structure. Solving Eq. (14) under the above assumptions leads to the ordinary neutrino oscillation transition probabilities in Eq. (1) with n = as it should. However, the neutrinos could be influenced by so-called decoherence effects. Such effects are introduced by an extra term D[ρ] in the Liouville equation for the neutrinos, i.e., the Markovian Liouville Lindblad quantum mechanical master equation [, 14, 15] _ρ = i [H m ;ρ] D[ρ]; (16) which allows transitions from pure quantum mechanical states to mixed quantum mechanical states. We will here use the Lindblad form for the decoherence term [14], viz., D[ρ] = fρ; D y a D a g D a ρda y ; (17) where the D a P 's are Lindblad operators [] arising from tracing or averaging away environment dynamics and must n be such that Dy a D a is a well-dened matrix. Note that the extra term D[ρ] is responsible for the fact that the quantum mechanical states can develop dissipation and irreversibility, and possible loss of quantum coherence i.e., (quantum) decoherence [, 16]. The D a 's are normally Hermitian (Da y = D a )ifwe require monotone time increase of the von Neumann entropy, S = tr (ρ log ρ), and they usually also commute with the Hamiltonian ([H m ;D a ]=0)if d we require conservation of the statistical average of the energy, i.e., dt tr (H m ρ)=0. Assuming that the D a 's are Hermitian, Eq. (17) becomes D[ρ] = [D a ; [D a ;ρ]] = ρd a + Daρ D a ρd a : (18) The operators ρ, H m, D a, which are all Hermitian, can therefore be expanded in the Pauli matrix basis as ρ = 1 (I + p ff) ; (19) H m = 1 k ff; (0) D a = 1 d a ff; a =1; ;:::;n; (1) where I is again the identity matrix, ff (ff 1 ;ff ;ff 3 ) is the Pauli matrix vector, and k (0; 0; k). Here k m E. In the Pauli matrix basis, we have after some tedious calculations _ρ = 1 _p ff; () [H m ;ρ] = i (k p) ff; (3) D[ρ] = 1 jda j p ff (d a p)(d a ff) ; (4) which means that Eq. (16) can be written in the form _p ff =(k p) ff jda j p ff (d a p)(d a ff) : (5) Using well-known formulas from vector algebra, the sum in the above equation can be expressed as (d a (d a p)) ff: 4

5 Thus, we have or _p = k p _p ff =(k p) ff d a (d a p) =k p (d a (d a p)) ff (6) ψ jd a j! p + (d a p)d a ; (7) which is the Bloch Lindblad equation. The rst term after the second equality sign in the Bloch Lindblad equation, k p, is giving rise to neutrino oscillations, whereas the second and third terms are the decoherence terms. If [H m ;D a ] = 0, then it follows that k d a = 0, i.e., k and d a are parallel vectors. Thus, we can put d a = d a^k, where ^k k=jkj. Inserting this into Eq. (7), we obtain (_p 1 ; _p ; _p 3 )=(kp ; kp 1 ; 0) d (p 1 ;p ;p 3 )+(0; 0;d p 3 ); (8) P where d n d a, i.e., _p1 = kp d p1; (9) _p = kp 1 d p ; (30) _p 3 = 0; (31) which can be written in matrix form as ( _p = Mp) 0 1 _p 1 _p A d k 0 k d 0 _p This system of rst order differential equations has the solution i.e., p(t) p 1(t) p (t) p 3 (t) 1 0 A = 10 p 1 p p e d t cos kt e dt sin kt 0 e dt sin kt e dt cos kt A : (3) 10 p 1(0) p (0) p 3 (0) 5 1 A e Mt p(0); (33) p 1 (t) = p 1 (0)e dt cos kt + p (0)e dt sin kt; (34) p (t) = p 1 (0)e dt sin kt + p (0)e dt cos kt; (35) p 3 (t) = p 3 (0): (36) Another, but equivalent, way of obtaining Eq. (7) has been found by Stodolsky. Stodolsky's formula is given by [17, 18] _P = V P DP T ; (37) where P is the polarization vector", V is the magnetic eld", D is the damping parameter determined by the scattering amplitudes on the background (i.e., the environment), and P T is the transverse" part of P. Inatwo-level system, the length of P measures the degree of coherence: jpj = 1 corresponds to a pure state, 0 < jpj < 1to some degree of incoherence, and jpj = 0 to the completely mixed or incoherent state [17], i.e., the loss of coherence is given by the shrinking of jpj. The time evolution described by Eq. (37) is a precession around V, combined with the shrinking of jpj to zero. The nal state corresponds to ρ = 1, where both neutrino flavor states, ν e and ν μ, are P equally populated, P and with vanishing coherence between them. In our notation, P p, V k, and n Dp T jd n aj p (d a p)d a = d (p (p ^k)^k). Since here ^k = e z,wehave that DP T = d (p p 3 e z )= d (p 1 ;p ; 0). Thus, we can now construct the time-dependent neutrino density matrix as ρ(t) = 1 (I + p(t) ff) = 1 1+p3 (t) p 1 (t) ip (t) p 1 (t)+ip (t) 1 p 3 (t) : (38)

6 As usual, the neutrino flavor states jν ff i, where ff = e; μ, are superpositions of the neutrino mass eigenstates jν a i, where a =1;, i.e., jν ff i = X U Λ ffajν a i = X U ffa jν a i; ff = e; μ: (39) If we represent the mass eigenstates by the vectors jν 1 i =(1; 0) and jν i =(0; 1), then the flavor states become jν e i = (cos ; sin ) and jν μ i =( sin ; cos ). Furthermore, if we assume that the initial state of a neutrino is jν e i, i.e., the system is prepared in a pure ν e state, then the initial condition for the neutrino density matrix is cos ρ(0) ρ ee jν e ihν e j = sin cos sin cos cos = 1 (I + p(0) ff) ; (40) and it follows, using Eq. (38), that p 1 (0) = sin, p (0) = 0, and p 3 (0) = cos. Similarly, if the initial state is jν μ i, then wehave ρ μμ jν μ ihν μ j = sin sin cos sin cos cos Thus, the neutrino transition probabilities with decoherence effects read =1 ρ ee : (41) P ee (t) tr (jν e ihν e jρ(t)) = 1 [1 + sin p 1(t) + cos p 3 (t)] ; (4) P eμ (t) tr (jν μ ihν μ jρ(t)) = 1 [1 sin p 1(t) cos p 3 (t)] : (43) Moreover, as in the neutrino oscillation formalism, we have the relation between the transition probabilities since 1=trρ(t) =tr(1ρ(t))=tr ψ X P eμ (t) =1 P ee (t) =1 P μμ (t) =P μe (t); (44) jν ff ihν ff jρ(t) ff=e;μ! =tr(jν e ihν e jρ(t)) + tr (jν μ ihν μ jρ(t)) = P ee (t)+p eμ (t): (45) Inserting Eqs. (34) - (36) with the above initial conditions into Eq. (43) gives P eμ (t) = 1 sin 1 e dt cos kt : (46) Furthermore, inserting t ' L and k = m =(E), we thus obtain the neutrino decoherence formula for two neutrino flavors as P eμ (L; E) = 1 sin 1 e dl cos m L : (47) E When m = 0 (no neutrino oscillations), we nd the pure neutrino decoherence formula P eμ (L) = 1 sin 1 e d L : (48) Note that this formula is explicitly independent of the neutrino energy E. Other interesting limits are obtained when d = 0 (no neutrino decoherence) P eμ (L; E) = 1 sin 1 cos m L ; (49) E i.e., the well-known Pontecorvo neutrino oscillation formula (cf. Eq. (8)) and when d!1(or m fl E=L) P eμ = 1 sin ; (50) i.e., the classical transition probability formula (cf. Eq. (7)), which is independent of both the neutrino path length L and the neutrino energy E. The effects of both neutrino oscillations and neutrino decoherence are said to be completely washed out. 6

7 7 III. EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN THE TWO MODELS In the previous section, we have seen that the two formalisms, neutrino oscillations and neutrino decoherence, have the same dependence for the transition probabilities. In both scenarios, the oscillation factor cos m L E is damped by an exponential factor (e ff ( m ) or e dl ). Comparing Eqs. (13) and (47) with each other, we obtain i.e., the decoherence parameter d is related to the damping parameter ff as ff m = d L; (51) d = p m p L ff; (5) which means that the two investigated models must be equivalent if this condition is fullled. The units of the decoherence parameter d is [d]=ev 1=. This investigation could of course be extended to n neutrino flavors, but we will not do this here. Next, we will now try to estimate the decoherence term D[ρ] (or the decoherence parameter d). The damping parameter ff can be written as q ff = L L r; where r = 4E L + E E (pessimistic) or r = L E L + E (optimistic): (53) Inserting Eq. (53) into Eq. (5) yields or d = mp L p E r (54) d = m L 8E r : (55) Thus, we obtain the following estimate for the decoherence term m L D/d ο (56) E if we assume that r = O(1). Recently, other estimates of the decoherence term D[ρ] have been found by Lisi et al. [3] and Adler [6]. Their different estimates are and Dο H m ο E (57) M Planck M Planck Dο ( H m) M Planck m ο ; (58) E M Planck respectively, where again D / d, H m ' E, H m ' m E = k, and M Planck is the Planck mass scale. They argue that the decoherence could be due to e.g. quantum gravity. We, on the other hand, have here argued more phenomenologically. In the next section, we are going to estimate the decoherence parameter for atmospheric neutrinos. IV. ESTIMATION OF THE DECOHERENCE PARAMETER FOR ATMOSPHERIC NEUTRINOS The path length for atmospheric neutrinos, which is easily obtained from geometrical considerations, is given by q L L(cos #) = R Φ cos # +R Φ d + d R Φ cos #; (59)

8 where # is the zenith angle, R Φ is the radius of the Earth (R Φ ' 6400 km), and d is the typical altitude of the production point of atmospheric neutrinos above the surface of the Earth (d ' 10 km). The uncertainty in the path length is mainly determined by cos # and therefore L cos # cos # = R Φ L L + R Φ cos # cos #; i.e., L L = R Φ cos #: (60) qr Φ cos # +R Φ d + d The uncertainty in the neutrino energy for the Super-Kamiokande experiment [19]as well as for the future MONOLITH experiment [0] is of the order of magnitude E ο E; i.e., E = O(1); E (61) even though the energy resolution is better for the MONOLITH than Super-Kamiokande they are of the same order of magnitude. Thus, using Eqs. (5), (60), and (61) as well as inserting numerical values, we have the following upper bound for the damping parameter ff atm: for up-going (cos # = 0:95 and cos # =0:1 ) L ' 1000 km and L=L ' 0:11) atmospheric neutrinos ff atm: < ο 3: m=ev ' 6: m ' 1: ev : (6) From two flavor neutrino oscillations analyses of Super-Kamiokande data, assuming ν μ -ν oscillations, the atmospheric mass squared difference m atm: has been measured to be m atm: ' 3: 10 3 ev (and the mixing angle atm: ' 45 f ) [19]. This means that the decoherence parameter for atmospheric neutrinos is p m d atm: = p atm: ff atm: < L(cos # = 0:95) ο : ev 1= (63) or d atm: < ο 7: ev=7: GeV ο 10 4 GeV: (64) Recently, Lisi et al. have discussed three scenarios for the decoherence parameter on the form d atm: = fl E 0 GeV n, where fl 0 is a constant and n = 1; 0; [3]. Our result is in general agreement with the ones obtained by Lisi et al. (i.e., they are all comparable within some orders of magnitude), which are d atm: < 0: GeV at 90% C.L. (n = ), d atm: < 3: GeV at 90% C.L. (n = 0), d atm: < 4: GeV at 95% C.L. (n = 0), d atm: < 5: GeV at 99% C.L. (n = 0), and d atm: < 10 1 GeV at 90% (n = 1) [3]. They found that d atm: / E 1 is favored, which is natural from our point of view, since this would mean that the dependence of the exponentially damping factor in the transition probabilities is on the form e ffl=e, where ff is some constant, i.e., it is exponentially decreasing with the L=E dependence. They also tted the data with a pure neutrino decoherence model ( m atm: = 0) and obtained d atm: =1: 10 1 GeV (n = 1) [3]. In all their ts, they obtained maximal mixing, i.e., atm: =45 f, as their best t value. 8 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, we have shown, in this paper, that a Gaussian averaged neutrino oscillation model and a neutrino decoherence model are equivalent if Eq. (5) is satised, i.e., d = p m p L ff. Our upper bound on d atm: < ο 10 4 GeV then immediately follows from the results of the Super-Kamiokande analyses, i.e., the neutrino decoherence model is just a reparameterization of the Gaussian averaged neutrino oscillation model or vice versa. We have also estimated the decoherence term to be D/d ο ( m ) L E, which is different from earlier results including the Planck mass scale M Planck and motivations that decoherence could be induced by new physics beyond the Standard Model such ase.g. quantum gravity. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Robert Buras, Martin Freund, Göran Lindblad, Manfred Lindner, Serguey T. Petcov, Georg G. Raffelt, Dmitri V. Semikoz, Hνakan Snellman, and Leo Stodolsky for useful discussions. This work was supported by the Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education (STINT) and the Sonderforschungsbereich 375 für Astro-Teilchenphysik der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft".

9 9 REFERENCES [1] C. P. Sun and D. L. Zhou hep-ph/ [] F. Benatti and R. Floreanini, J. High Energy Phys., 3 (000), hep-ph/0001. [3] E. Lisi, A. Marrone, and D. Montanino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1166 (000), hep-ph/ [4] H. V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, H. Päs, and U. Sarkar, Eur. Phys. J. A 8, 577 (000), hep-ph/ [5] E. Lisi, talk given at the XIXth International Conference on Neutrino Physics & Astrophysics (Neutrino 000), Sudbury, Canada, 000. [6] S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. D 6, (000), hep-ph/ [7] A. M. Gago, E. M. Santos, W. J. C. Teves, and R. Zukanovich Funchal hep-ph/0009. [8] A. M. Gago, E. M. Santos, W. J. C. Teves, and R. Zukanovich Funchal hep-ph/ [9] V. Barger, J. G. Learned, S. Pakvasa, and T. J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 8, 640 (1999), astro-ph/ [10] G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, and G. Scioscia, Phys. Rev. D 59, (1999), hep-ph/ [11] V. Barger, J. G. Learned, P. Lipari, M. Lusignoli, S. Pakvasa, and T. J. Weiler, Phys. Lett. B 46, 109 (1999), hep-ph/ [1] S. Pakvasa hep-ph/ [13] Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa, and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys. 8, 870 (196). [14] G. Lindblad, Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976). [15] R. Alicki and K. Lendi, Quantum Dynamical Semigroups and Applications, vol. 86 of Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987). [16] J. Ellis, J. S. Hagelin, D. V. Nanopoulos, and M. Srednicki, Nucl. Phys. B 41, 381 (1984). [17] L. Stodolsky, Phys. Rev. D 36, 73 (1987). [18] G. G. Raffelt, Stars as Laboratories for Fundamental Physics The Astrophysics of Neutrinos, Axions, and Other Weakly Interacting Particles, Theoretical Astrophysics (The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1996). [19] Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, T. Toshito, talk given at the XXXth International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP 000), Osaka, Japan, 000. [0] MONOLITH Collaboration, A. Geiser hep-ex/ [1] The complete time evolution of the neutrino density matrix ρ is given by a quantum mechanical semigroup, i.e., by a completely positive, trace-preserving family of linear maps: fl t : ρ(0) 7! ρ(t) []. [] Statements by Adler [6]: 1. For a two-level system, the only choices of D a that commute with H m are either D a = f a I (trivial, since it makes no contribution to the decoherence term D[ρ] [Eq. (18)] and it can therefore be ignored) or D a = d a H m.. The sum in the decoherence term can be replaced with a single Lindblad operator D = dh m.