In the wikipedia page about neutrino oscillation (or ate least in the current revision), the CP-asymmetry is written as $$A^{(\alpha\beta)}_{\text{CP}}=P(\nu_\alpha \rightarrow\nu_\beta)-P(\bar{\nu}_{\alpha}\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_{\beta}) =4\sum_{i>j}\mathrm{Im}\big(U^*_{\alpha i} U_{\beta i}U_{\alpha j} U^*_{\beta j}\big) \sin\Big(\tfrac{\Delta m^2_{ij}L}{2E}\Big)\tag{1}$$ where where $U$ is the neutrino mixing matrix with elements $U_{\alpha i}$. Here, $\alpha$ labels neutrino flavours ($e,\mu$ or $\tau$) and $i$ labels neutrino mass eigenstates such that $$|\nu_\alpha\rangle=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{3}U^*_{\alpha i}|\nu_i\rangle.$$

Now, the probability of oscillation from neutrino flavour $\alpha$ to flavour $\beta$ is given by$$ \begin{aligned}P_{\alpha\beta}=P(\nu_\alpha \rightarrow\nu_\beta)&=\delta_{\alpha\beta}- 4\sum\limits_{i>j} {\text{Re}}(U_{\alpha i}^{*} U_{\beta i} U_{\alpha j} U_{\beta j}^{*}) \sin^2(\Delta m_{ij}^2 L/4E)\\&+ 2\sum_{i>j}{\text{Im}}(U_{\alpha i}^{*}U_{\beta i}U_{\alpha j} U_{\beta j}^{*}) \sin(2\Delta m_{ij}^2 L/4E ),\end{aligned}\tag{2}$$ And the probability of oscillation from an antineutrino flavour $\alpha$ to flavour $\beta$ is given by $$ \begin{aligned}P(\bar{\nu}_{\alpha}\rightarrow\bar{\nu}_{\beta})&=P_{\alpha\beta}(U_{\alpha i}\to U^*_{\alpha i})\\&= \delta_{\alpha\beta}- 4\sum\limits_{i>j} {\text{Re}}(U_{\alpha i} U^*_{\beta i} U^*_{\alpha j} U_{\beta j}) \sin^2(\Delta m_{ij}^2 L/4E) \\&+ 2\sum_{i>j}{\text{Im}}(U_{\alpha i}U^*_{\beta i}U^*_{\alpha j} U_{\beta j}) \sin(2\Delta m_{ij}^2 L/4E),\end{aligned}\tag{3}.$$ Simple subtraction of (3) from (2), does not lead to Eq. (1). How is the formula Eq.(1) derived?

  • $\begingroup$ In WP the formula for (2) given is quite consistent with (1). What makes your think they are not consistent? Are you hiding a bogus discrepancy in your undefined $\Delta_{ij}$? Are you flipping the sign of the imaginary part of the conjugate argument? $\endgroup$ – Cosmas Zachos Oct 29 '17 at 0:46
  • $\begingroup$ @CosmasZachos As fas fas the notation $\Delta_{ij}$ is concerned, I have corrected it. I don't understand your other confusions related to the question. I just ask subtracting (3) from (2), does not lead to the expression (1) in the question. This expression is quoted from Wikipedia. $\endgroup$ – SRS Oct 30 '17 at 12:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In eqn (3), the argument of Re and Im is the complex conjugate of the argument of Re and Im in eqn (2), isn't it? $\endgroup$ – user154997 Oct 30 '17 at 13:17
  • $\begingroup$ WP is right. Unless you show your work, (2)-(3) and what confuses you, one cannot figure out your sticking point. $\endgroup$ – Cosmas Zachos Oct 30 '17 at 15:57
  • $\begingroup$ @LucJ.Bourhis Oh yes! Thanks . The real parts cancel, and the imaginary parts add up. $\endgroup$ – SRS Oct 30 '17 at 20:41

CP-asymmetry occurs due to phase $\delta$ (I would call this cp-violating phase $\delta$), which makes the elements of mixing matrix complex because of the presence of $e^{-I \delta}$ term. When we deal with anti-neutrinos, the sign of this phase $\delta$ gets changed (as you have done by using the complex conjugation in Eq.(3)). Hence, the $\Re$ part remains the same as is in Eq.(2) but the $\Im$ part obtains the same value as that in Eq.(2) with a (-) sign. This makes Eq.(1) correct, in my opinion.

| cite | improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.