arxiv: v1 [hep-ph] 27 Jul 2007

Transcription

1 26 July 2007 Neutrino production states in oscillation phenomena - are they pure or mix? arxiv: v1 [hep-ph] 27 Jul 2007 Micha l Ochman 1, Robert Szafron 2, and Marek Zra lek 3 Department of Field Theory and Particle Physics, Institute of Physics, University of Silesia, Uniwersytecka 4, Katowice, Poland Tel: , Fax: Abstract General quantum mechanical state of neutrinos produced by mechanisms beyond the Standard Model is discussed. Only in the case of relativistic neutrinos and the Standard Model left-handed charge current interaction, neutrino state is pure and described by Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata-Pontecorvo unitary mixing matrix. The problem of Wigner spin rotation, caused by Lorentz transformation from the rest production frame to the laboratory frame is considered. The mixture of the neutrino states as function of their energy and beyond the Standard Model parameters is investigated. Two sources of mixture, the appearance of subdominant helicity states and the mass mixing with several different mixing matrices are studied. PACS : g, Pq, St Keywords: neutrino oscillation, neutrino states, density matrix, Wigner rotation 1 mochman@us.edu.pl 2 rszafron@us.edu.pl 3 zralek@us.edu.pl

2 1 Introduction Neutrino oscillation phenomenon is well established. In several different experiments transition between different neutrino flavour is observed [1]. There is an agreement that oscillation is possible, when different mass neutrino states add coherently [2] in their production process. Such combination of eigenmass neutrino states was defined many years before by Maki, Nakagawa and Sakata [3] using previous idea of neutrino mixing invented by Pontecorvo[4]. Now, there is a common agreement concerning the definition of so called neutrino flavour states for relativistic neutrinos. The state of three massive relativistic neutrinos produced in the process with charged flavour α lepton is given by [5] ν α = 3 Uαi ν i, i=1 where U is the unitary mixing matrix known as Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata-Pontecorvo matrix. Such state which describe neutrino with negative helicity is understandable. Neutrinos are produced in charged lepton processes which are described by the chiral left - handed interaction, the only one existing in the Standard Model (SM). Coupling of the charged l α lepton with massive ν i neutrino and W boson is given by: e L CC = 2 ν i γ µ (1 γ 5 )Uαil α W µ + + h.c. (2) 2 sinθ W α,i Such interaction produces relativistic neutrino with negative helicity (antineutrino with positive helicity) and its propagation in vacuum or in matter does not reverse spin direction (neutral current interaction is also left - handed). In such circumstances it is natural to describe neutrino by pure quantum mechanical state Eq.(1). So far only relativistic neutrinos are detected (detection energy threshold is practically larger then 100 kev [6]), and the pure production state Eq.(1) works well. However, there are several reasons to pose question about general neutrino states. What is the neutrino state if it is not necessarily relativistic, and if/or its interaction is more general than that given by Eq.(2). The answer for such question is important as attempts are taken to define different neutrino states in non-relativistic region (see e.g. [7] ). Second reason why it is worth to study general neutrino states is a chance to look for beyond the SM signal in the future, more precise neutrino oscillation experiments. The attempts to define general neutrino states were discussed many times in literature (see e.g.[8]). The neutrino production and detection states which depend on the specific physical process were considered in e.g. [9]. To our knowledge the most general oscillation and detection neutrino states were studied by Giunti [10] (see also [11]). However, even in this paper only pure states in relativistic case, without spin effect of particles which produces neutrinos, are finally discussed. The aim of our study is to construct the general mixing matrix in the helicity - mass basis using the amplitude for production process in the CM system or rest system of decaying object (e.g. muon in the neutrino factory or nucleus in the beta beam experiments) and using full wave packets description of particles. In order to find how physics beyond the SM modify the neutrino production states, we consider general neutrino interaction. Next we have to transform the mixing matrix to the frame of detector, the laboratory frame. Such general Lorentz transformation causes the Wigner rotation for spin states [12]. We show that even if such Wigner rotation can be large, its effect for neutrino helicity states is small and without practical meaning. Then we have general mixing matrix describing neutrinos beam, which oscillates during passing a distance between production place to detector. In this way we will be able, although it is not subject of this paper, to consider more precisely any possible influence of New Physics not only on oscillation phenomena as it is usually done ([13]), but also on production and, in similar way, detection of neutrino. In such case, all quantum mechanical properties of neutrino oscillation phenomena as for example, problem of factorization, oscillation and coherence length could be consider in the more precise way. We ask questions when the neutrino state is pure and when it must be consider as mixed, how this property depends on neutrino energy and mechanism of production process. We show that for nonrelativistic neutrinos their state is always mixed. This is very natural result, for neutrinos with energy comparable to their masses even left handed interaction (Eq.(2)) produces neutrinos with both helicities. Such case must be described by mixed state. But, as we will see, appearance of the subdominant neutrino helicity states is not the only reason of states mixture. If the New Physics introduces different mixing (1) 1

3 matrices for different kinds of interactions as for example, for vector and scalar couplings, quantum mixing of states appears too. Because of that, any attempts to treat flavour neutrino as one object in Fock space (see e.g. [7]), even if mathematically consistent, have problem with description of real production process. Neutrino states are always mixed if production mechanism is more complicated in comparison with the SM left-handed interaction Eq.(2). The neutrino density matrix depends also on the other properties of production process, as for example the scattering angle, polarizations of other accompanying particles and their momentum uncertainties as well as on the neutrinos themselves, mass of the lightest neutrino or their mass hierarchy. In this paper we discuss only the first stage of oscillation process - preparation of neutrino states, leaving the problem of oscillation together with the interaction inside medium and the problem of their detection to separate paper. In the next Chapter we describe the neutrino density matrix for the selected production process. As the base process we take the neutrino production where charged flavour leptons α scatter on nuclei A (l α + A ν i + B). Amplitudes are calculated for general interaction and normalized (Tr(ρ) = 1) density matrix in the CM system is found. Then the problem of Lorentz transformation and Wigner rotation is discussed. Full analytical and numerical properties of neutrino density matrix are analyzed. To distinguish between mixed and pure states we calculate Tr(ρ 2 ) as a function of neutrino energy and the parameters which describe the SM extensions. We also discuss how fast the neutrino states become pure as energy increases. We study density matrices for two subsystems, the one which describes both neutrinos helicity independently of their mass and the second describing mixture of three neutrinos, independently of their spin state. Finally Chapter 3 gives our final comments and future prospectives. 2 Neutrino states in the production processes Let us assume that the beam of neutrinos with mass i, ν i is produced by a charged leptons (α = e, µ) which scatter on nuclei A. l α + A ν i + B. We do not measure separate neutrinos and their masses, we do not directly measure neutrinos at all. Quantum neutrino states can be deduced from the measured states of all other particles accompany with neutrino. So, having information about particles A, B and especially about charged lepton l α in the process Eq.(3) we are able to define neutrino states. To define the spatial or momentum distribution for neutrinos we have to assume that all particles in the discussed process have not precise determined momentum, so they must be defined by wave pockets and not by plane waves, as usually in any other scattering process. In order to discuss coherence effects in the detection process we have to define momentum distribution of mass-helicity density matrix. Such density matrix can be constructed from the amplitude for the process (3) for which we need to known the interaction mechanism. We assume that our interaction is described by effective model Lagrangian where both vector and scalar couplings with left and right chirality interaction are present. This sort of interaction appears for example in the Left - Right symmetric model (see e.g. [14]). We assume that: L CC = + α,i e 2 2sinθ W { α,i ν i [ γ µ (1 γ 5 )ǫ c L UL αi + γµ (1 + γ 5 )ǫ c R UR αi ] l α W + µ ν i [ (1 γ 5 )η L V L αi + (1 + γ 5 )η R V R αi ] l α H + (3) + u,d ū [ γ µ (1 γ 5 )ǫ q L U ud + γµ (1 + γ 5 )ǫ q R U ud ] d W + µ + u,d ū [ (1 γ 5 )τ L W L ud + (1 + γ 5)τ R W R ud ] d H+ } + h.c (4) where ε L,R, η L,R and τ L,R parameters are taken to define the scale and differ slightly from their νsm values. In the neutrino sector we introduce the mixing matrices separately for chiral-left and chiral-right parts as well as for vector and scalar neutrino interaction. In consequence, such phenomena like flavour neutrino state explicitly defined, does not exist any more, even for relativistic neutrinos. Mixing in the left-handed 2

4 vector interaction (U L ) and left-handed scalar one (V L ) can be different and unambiguous definition of flavour neutrino state is impossible. We see that determination of flavour neutrino state given by Pontecorvo-Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix is purely accidental and valid only in the SM and relativistic neutrino interaction. In such circumstances we cannot consider flavour neutrinos as elementary quanta of a field theory. In the lowest order two Feynman diagrams describe the neutrino production process Eq.(3) l α ν i q 2 W +, H + A B Figure 1: The charged boson(s) W + and charged Higgs particle(s) H + exchange diagrams which describe the neutrino production process. To define the neutrino state we have to calculate the amplitude for the process Eq. (3). Three measured particles l α, A and B are in the states given by the wave packets (a = l, A, B) ψ a, λ a = d 3 p a Ψ a ( p a, p a0, σ ap ) p a, λ a, (5) where p a, λ a is the particle state with definite momentum p a and helicity λ a, and Ψ a ( p a, p a0, σ ap ) are the momentum distribution wave functions with the central momentum p a and the momentum uncertainty σ ap. For narrow momentum distribution (σ ap p a ) physical results are independent of the specific shape of these functions, we take them in the Gaussian form: 1 Ψ a ( p a, p a0, σ ap ) = (2πσap 2 )3 4 e ( pa p 2 a0) 4σap 2. (6) With such wave packet states we calculate the amplitude for the process (3). After integration over particles momenta we obtain: 1 f S i = i [(2πσlx 2 )(2πσ2 Ax )(2πσ2 Bx )] d 4 xe i(e ER)t e i( p pr) x e x2 2 v R xt+σ R t 2 σ 3 Rx 2 M( p, λ...), (7) 4 where average values of neutrino energy and momentum are determined from the appropriate conservation rules (we use the same denotation as in Ref ([10])): and E R = E( p l0 ) + E( p A0 ) E( p i B0 ), p R = p l0 + p A0 p i B0. For the precise energy and momentum determination we have to remember that for given total energy in the process (3) the final particle momenta and energies depend on the neutrino masses. The neutrino spatial uncertainty σ Rx and average velocity v R are obtained from accompanying particles uncertainties σ ax = 1 2σ ap and their velocities v a = ( de d p ) p= p a : 1 σ 2 Rx = 1 σlx σax σ1bx 2, 3

5 And finally v R = σ 2 Rx ( vl0 σ 2 lx + v A0 σax 2 + v ) B0 σbx 2. ( ) v Σ R = σrx 2 2 l0 σlx 2 + v2 A0 σax 2 + v2 B0 σbx 2. The amplitudes M( p, λ,..) M( p, λ; λ l, λ A, λ B ) are the full helicity amplitudes for the production process Eq.(3) calculated in the CM frame for average values of all particle momenta except for neutrino. Using the saddle-point approximation the integrations over space and time can be done, giving the final amplitude A α i ( p, λ, λ B; λ l, λ A ) for the production of the ν i neutrino with mass m i momentum p and helicity λ in the process initiated by flavour α lepton: where and A α i ( p, λ, λ B; λ l, λ A ) = n αi f αi ( p, E) M α i ( p, λ; λ l, λ A, λ B ), (8) n αi = (σ lp σ Ap σ Bp ) 3 2, π 1 4σRp 4 ΣR vr 2 f αi ( p, E) = e ( p pr)2 4σ Rp 2 ( v R ( p p R ) E+E R )2 σ Rp(Σ 2 R v R) 2, where we have openly indicated that both factors depends on neutrino mass. Once more momentum uncertainty σ Rp = 1 2σ Rx appear in the above formulas. The second function f αi describes momentum distribution for the produced neutrinos. Amplitude Eq.(8) describes all properties of the produced neutrinos. Their quantum mechanical state is determined by the density matrix defined in the way: α( p, i, λ; p, i, λ ) = 1 N α λ l,λ A,λ B A α i ( p, λ, λ B; λ l, λ A )A α i ( p, λ, λ B ; λ l, λ A ) (9) where we assume that in the production process (3) initial particles are not polarized and final polarization of the B nuclei is not measured. For normalization factor N α given by N α = 3 λ=±1 i=1 λ l,λ A,λ B the density matrix is properly normalized: Tr( α) = λ=±1 i=1 d 3 p A α i ( p, λ, λ B ; λ l, λ A 2, (10) 3 d 3 p α( p, λ, i; p, λ, i) = 1. (11) Eq. (9) describes neutrino state in the CM frame. Such frame is equivalent to the rest frame of decaying muon in neutrino factory case or decaying nuclei in the beta beam experiments. Usually neutrinos are not produced in such frame. They are produced in the laboratory frame (LAB), where decaying muons or nuclei are moving very fast. Density matrix in such frame is interesting for us. To reach the LAB frame, we have to make Lorentz transformation. As helicity is not full Lorentz scalar we can expect that the density matrix in the LAB will be rotated (helicity Wigner rotation). Each neutrino state p, λ, i with mass m i, momentum p and helicity λ after general Lorentz transformation Λ, not necessary pointed along neutrino momentum, transforms in the way: U[Λ] p, s, λ = ( ) D s σ λ R(ϕ, θ, ϕ)r W R(ϕ, θ, ϕ) Λ p, s, σ (12) σ where angles ϕ and θ (ϕ and θ) are the spherical angles of momenta before ( p) and after (Λ p) carry up the Lorentz transformation. R W is the normal Wigner rotation: R W = L 1 (Λ p)λl( p) (13) 4

6 Hence each element of the density matrix transform in the way: α( p, i, λ; p, i, λ ) α(λ p, i, η; Λ p, i, η ) = (14) where R h Wi λλ D 1/2 η λ (Rh Wi) α( p, i, λ; p, i, λ )D 1/2 η λ (Rh Wi ), is the helicity Wigner rotation: R h Wi = R(ϕ, θ, ϕ)r WR(ϕ, θ, ϕ) and depends on neutrino mass as neutrino momentum depends on it. The matrix D 1/2 η λ (Rh Wi ) can be found. If we parametrize: ( ) D 1/2 (RWi h a b ) = b a, (15) Then where b = b e iϕ S( p + CẼ cos(θ)) CẼ sin(θ) b =, 2[(Ẽ + p cos(θ))(ẽ + C p + pcos(θ) + CẼ cos(θ) + SẼ sin(θ))] and with p = pβγ, a = 1 b 2 Ẽ = m i + Eγ γ(eβ + p cos(θ)) C =, S = 1 C 2. γ 2 (Eβ + p cos(θ)) 2 + p 2 sin 2 (θ) Here m i, E and p are neutrino mass, energy and momentum, γ and β are parameters of Lorentz transformation in z direction and θ, ϕ are spherical angles of neutrino momentum. It is worth to notice Figure 2: On the left - the not diagonal element b of the helicity Wigner rotation matrix as a function of neutrino s γ ν = E m i factor for five different neutrino scattering angle θ = π 6, π 3, π 2, 2π 3 and 5π 6 in CM. Lorentz transformation s is described by the γ = 500 factor. On the right side the neutrino momentum in LAB system for the same scattering angle in the CM frame. 5

7 that for normal (not helicity) Wigner rotation R W, C cosθ and S sinθ. The non diagonal element of D 1/2 matrix Eq. (15) b decide how big is the effect of Wigner rotation. In Fig. 2, on the left side, we have plotted the b element as function of neutrino γ factor (γ ν = E m i ) for various scattering angle θ CM for Lorentz transformation along the z axis with γ = 500. We see that the effect is large but only for very small neutrino energy E m i and large scattering angles. Unfortunately, as we see from right side of the picture, such neutrino have also small energy in LAB frame and are not measured. Effect of helicity flip for experimentally measurable neutrinos with enough large energy (E LAB 100 MeV) is completely negligible. We see that for practical purpose we can safely take that Lorentz transformation does not change the helicity structure of the density matrix and LAB (Λ p, i, λ; Λ p, i, λ ) = CM ( p, i, λ; p, i, λ ) (16) We can now check the quantum structure of the neutrino state described by Eq.(9). First we would like to answer how good is the MNSP assumption (Eq. 1). In order to do that we calculate Tr[( α) 2 ]: Tr[( α) 2 ] = d 3 p d 3 p α( p, i, λ; p, i, λ ) α( p, i, λ ; p, i, λ), (17) λ i λ i and check how it differs from one. To be more precise and do not complicate our consideration by the structure of particles A and B, which is not important for our purpose, as particles A and B we take the u and d quarks with masses m u = 2.25 MeV and m d = 5.0 MeV. For lepton α we take electron with m e = MeV. All particles momenta uncertainties are equal and σ ep = σ up = σ dp = 10 ev. The results do not depend crucially on the values of these uncertainties. In Fig. 3 we plot 1 Tr[( α) 2 ] as function of the kinetic neutrino Figure 3: 1 Tr[ρ 2 ] as function of neutrino kinetic energy for two lightest neutrino mass m 1 = 0 ev and m 1 = 1 ev with only Left (ε L = 1, ε R = 0.) and Left- and Right-currents (ε L = 1, ε R = 0.01). energy for two values of the lightest neutrino mass, m 1 = 0 ev and m 1 = 1 ev in two cases, when only Left-Handed chiral interactions are present (only ε L 0), and when Left- and Right-current exist (ε L 0 and ε R 0). Masses of the heavier neutrinos and the vector Left-Handed mixing (U L ) are taken from the oscillation data [15]. We assume normal mass hierarchy with m 2 = ev 2, m 2 atm = ev 2 and mixing angles, sin 2 θ 12 = 0.31, sin 2 θ 23 = 0.44, sin 2 θ 13 = and δ CP = 0 (central values are taken). The mixing in the Right-Handed vector (U R ) and scalar interactions (V L,R ) we take the same as in L-H case (V L = V R = U R = U L ). As we will see, by taking the same mixing matrices, we ignore the QM mixing caused by different mass states, and possible mixing effects are caused only by different helicity states. If the production process is described by the SM interaction (only L-H vector 6

8 interaction) state is strongly mixed for very small neutrino energy (continuous line and doted line). The effect of mixture depends on the lightest neutrino mass (as we see from the Fig. 3) and depends also slightly on the mass hierarchy and chosen particle momentum uncertainties (not shown) If neutrinos energy increase their state become pure. For relativistic neutrinos where masses and momentum uncertainties can be neglected the density matrix takes the form: α(+1, i; +1, k) = 1 N α ( Aε 2 R ε 2 R UR αi UR αk + A η 2 L η2 L V L αi V L αk + A ε Rη L ε R η L (U R αi V L αk + V L αi UR αk )), (18) α(+1, i; 1, k) = α( 1, k; +1, i) = (19) 1 ( AεLε N R ε R ε L Uαi R UL αk + A ε Rη R ε R η R Uαi R V αk R + A ε Lη L ε L η L Vαi L αk) UL, α and α( 1, i; 1, k) = 1 N α ( Aε 2 L ε 2 L UL αi UL αk + A η 2 R η2 R V R αi V R αk + A ε Lη R ε L η R (U L αi V R αk + V R αi UL αk )), (20) N α = A ε 2 L ε 2 L + A η 2 R η2 R + A ε 2 R ε2 R + A η 2 L η2 L + (21) A εrη L ε R η L (V L U R + U R V L ) αα + A εlη R ε L η R (V R U L + U L V R ) αα, where A s factors (not given here) depend on neutrino energy and scattering angles. We see that in the SM where only ε L 0: α( 1, i; 1, k) = U L αi UL αk, (22) and all other elements of density matrix are equal zero. Such density matrix describes pure states equivalent to MNSP mixture Eq. (1). Relativistic neutrinos in the SM model are produced in the pure states describes by MNSP mixture. The situation changes if any New Physics participates in neutrino production process. Then the states is not pure even for relativistic neutrino. Departure from the pure state depends on two properties of the system - on the helicity mixing and on the mass mixing. The first is obvious - neutrinos in two helicity states are produced, which in natural way gives mixed state. The second effect is more mysterious and appears only if the mixing matrices are not the same. In order to investigate both effects we can construct separately two density matrices for two subsystems - first for the helicity subsystem and the second for the mass. For the helicity subsystem the density matrix is given by: α,spin λ,η = 3 α(λ, i; η, i), (23) i=1 and for the mass subsystem: = α(λ, i; λ, k). (24) α,mass i,k λ=±1 With reference to helicity subsystem, 1 Tr[( α,spin ) 2 ] is different then zero even if all mixing matrices are equal and it is second order effect in NP parameters: 1 Tr[( α,spin ) 2 ] O(ε 2 R, η 2 R, η 2 L). In Fig. 3 we see (dashed line (m 1 = 0 ev ) and dashed - doted line (m 1 = 1 ev ) that above nonrelativistic region, where even L-H vector current produce neutrinos with h=+1/2, the state mixture is almost constant of the order of ε 2 R Generally the mixture of neutrino states is, in good approximation, proportional to the probability square that neutrinos with negative helicity are produced. Tr[( α) 2 ] (Tr[ α P ]) 2, (25) where the P is the projection operator on the negative helicity state, ( P ) λ, i ; η, k = δ λ, 1 δ η, 1 δ i,k. In 7

9 Figure 4: 1-Tr[( α,mass ) 2 ] as a function of the kinetic neutrino energy for various mixing matrices in the vector and scalar Lagrangian. For the parameter which define New Physics we take ε R = 0.01, η L = η R = All matrices are parametrize in the same way as the standard U L matrix. a) sin 2 θ 12 = 0.87, sin 2 θ 23 = 0.09, sin 2 θ 13 = 0.23, δ CP = 0.5 for U R and V L = V R = U L; b) V L = V R as U R in the case a) and U R = U L; c) V L = V R the same as in b) and sin 2 θ 12 = 0, sin 2 θ 23 = 0.09, sin 2 θ 13 = 0.71, δ CP = 0.8 for U R; d) V L = V R as in the case b) and sin 2 θ 12 = 0.01, sin 2 θ 23 = 0.09, sin 2 θ 13 = 0.71, δ CP = 0.8 for U R. Fig. 4 we depicted the effect of neutrino state mixture caused by the mass mixing. First of all, for relativistic neutrinos there is no mixture if all mixing matrices are the same: Tr[( α,mass ) 2 ] = 1, if U R = V R = V L = U L. We see also that the size of the mixture depends on shape of the chosen mixing matrices. For some mixing matrices the mixture can be large of the order of O(ε 2 R, η2 R, η2 L ). Both sources of state mixture, the helicity mixing and the mass mixing, can have comparable effects. For example the doted-dashed line in Fig. 4, where we take U R = U L V L = V R, indicates that the departure of Tr[( α,mass ) 2 ] from one is maximal. Here we parametrize the V matrices in same way as the standard U L matrix and take sin 2 θ 12 = 0.87, sin 2 θ 23 = 0.09, sin 2 θ 13 = 0.23 and δ CP = 0.5. If we take vive versa, V L = V R = U L U R (the continuous line in Fig. 4), the mixture caused by mixing between different state of neutrino masses is marginal. The neutrino mixing in the scalar sector has a decisive role. 3 Conclusions We have constructed the density matrix for neutrinos created in any production process. Numerical calculation have been done for the elementary reaction e + u ν i + d. The density matrix has been calculated in the total Center of Mass system. Then we have shown that Lorentz transformation to Laboratory system (the rest frame of a detector) has changed the density matrix for experimentally interesting neutrinos in completely negligible way. For neutrinos energy close to masses, their states must be described by mixed density matrix. In this region the effect depends on the lightest neutrino mass, the mass hierarchy and the particles momenta uncertainties given in wave pockets. It was shown that for relativistic neutrinos, mixing of the states depends on mechanism of the production process. For the νsm where only Left-Handed vector current is working, with extremely good accuracy neutrinos are produced in a pure state. In this way the assumption about so called flavour states as the Maki- Nakagawa-Sakata-Pontecorvo mixture of the mass states is justified. If New Physics interactions also 8

10 have influence on the neutrino production process, the assumption about purity of neutrino production states is not legitimate. Departure from pure states is caused by two effects - the possible production of neutrinos in two helicity states caused e.g by Right-Handed currents or by scalar interaction and by their mixing given by different mixing matrices in the various sectors of the production mechanism. Separate density matrices for helicity subsystem and mass subsystem were constructed. Both these effects have been investigated numerically and analytically in case of relativistic and non-relativistic neutrinos. Acknowledgments: This work has been partially supported by Polish Ministry of Science under grant No.1 P03 B References [1] Fukuda, Y. et al. (Super-Kamiokande), Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) ; Davis, R., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 32 (1994) 13-32; Hosaka, J. et al. (Super-Kamkiokande), Phys. Rev. D73 (2006) ; Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) [2] B. Kayser, Phys. Rev. D 24 (1981) 110. [3] Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata, Prog.Theor. Phys. 28 (1962) 870. [4] B. Pontecorvo, J. Expetl. Theoret. 33 (1957) 549 and ibid. 34 (1958) 247. [5] S. Eliezer and A.R. Swift, Nucl. Phys. B105 (1976) 45; H. Fritzsch and P. Minkowski, Phys.Lett. B62 (1976) 72; S.M. Bilenky and B. Pontecorvo, Sov. J. Nucl.Phys. 24 (1976) 316; S.M. Bilenky and B. Pontecorvo, Nuovo Cim. Lett. 17 (1976) 569. [6] see e.g. S. Bilenky, C. Giunti and W. Grimus, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 43 (1999) 1. [7] M.Blasone, G.Vitiello, Annals Phys. 244 (1995) 283; Blasone, P.A.Henning and G. Viliello, Phys.Lett.B 451 (1999) 140; K.Fujii, C.Habe and T. Yabuki, Phys.Rev. D59 (1999) and Phys.Rev.D64 (2001) ; M.Binger and C.R.Ji, Phys.Rev. D60 (1999) ; C.R.Ji and Y.Mishchenko, Phys.Rev. D64 (2001) ; D.Boyanovsky and C.M.Ho, Phys.Rev D69 (2004) [8] Kiers, N. Weiss, Phys. Rev. D57 (1998) 3091; C. Giunti, J.Phys. G34 (2007) 93; C.Giunty, Eur. Phys. J. C39 (2005) 377. [9] Y.Grossman, Phys.Lett. B359 (1995) 141. [10] C. Giunti, JHEP 0211 (2002) 017. [11] M. Beuthe, Phys.Rept. 375 (2003) 105; Ch. Cardall, Phys.Rev. D61 (2000) ; M. Zralek, Acta Phys. Polon. B29 (1998) [12] E. P. Wigner, Ann. Math. 40, 149 (1939) 204. [13] C. Giunti, C. W. Kim and U. W. Lee, Phys. Lett. B 274 (1992) 87; Y. Takeuchi, Y. Tazaki, S. Y. Tsai, T. Yamazaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 105 (2001) ; M. Nauenberg, Phys. Lett. B447 (1999) [14] J.C. Pati and A. Salam,Phys.Rev. D10 (1974) 277; R.N. Mohapatra and J.C. Pati, Phys.Rev. D11 (1975) 2558; G. Sanjanovic, Nucl.Phys Nucl. Phys. B153 (1979) 334; P.Duka, J. Gluza and M. Zralek, Annals of phys. 280 (2000) 336. [15] G.L. Fogli et all, Prog.Part.Nucl.Phys. 57 (2006)