Neutral particle oscillation

Last updated

In particle physics, neutral particle oscillation is the transmutation of a particle with zero electric charge into another neutral particle due to a change of a non-zero internal quantum number, via an interaction that does not conserve that quantum number. Neutral particle oscillations were first investigated in 1954 by Murray Gell-mann and Abraham Pais. [1]

Contents

For example, a neutron cannot transmute into an antineutron as that would violate the conservation of baryon number. But in those hypothetical extensions of the Standard Model which include interactions that do not strictly conserve baryon number, neutron–antineutron oscillations are predicted to occur. [2] [3] [4]

Such oscillations can be classified into two types:

In those cases where the particles decay to some final product, then the system is not purely oscillatory, and an interference between oscillation and decay is observed.

History and motivation

CP violation

After the striking evidence for parity violation provided by Wu et al. in 1957, it was assumed that CP (charge conjugation-parity) is the quantity which is conserved. [6] However, in 1964 Cronin and Fitch reported CP violation in the neutral Kaon system. [7] They observed the long-lived KL (with CP = −1 ) undergoing decays into two pions (with CP = [−1]·[−1] = +1 ) thereby violating CP conservation.

In 2001, CP violation in the
B0

B0
system
was confirmed by the BaBar and the Belle experiments. [8] [9] Direct CP violation in the
B0

B0
system was reported by both the labs by 2005. [10] [11]

The
K0

K0
and the
B0

B0
systems can be studied as two state systems, considering the particle and its antiparticle as the two states.

The solar neutrino problem

The pp chain in the sun produces an abundance of
ν
e
. In 1968, R. Davis et al. first reported the results of the Homestake experiment. [12] [13] Also known as the Davis experiment, it used a huge tank of perchloroethylene in Homestake mine (it was deep underground to eliminate background from cosmic rays), South Dakota. Chlorine nuclei in the perchloroethylene absorb
ν
e
to produce argon via the reaction

,

which is essentially

. [14]

The experiment collected argon for several months. Because the neutrino interacts very weakly, only about one argon atom was collected every two days. The total accumulation was about one third of Bahcall's theoretical prediction.

In 1968, Bruno Pontecorvo showed that if neutrinos are not considered massless, then
ν
e
(produced in the sun) can transform into some other neutrino species (
ν
μ
or
ν
τ
), to which Homestake detector was insensitive. This explained the deficit in the results of the Homestake experiment. The final confirmation of this solution to the solar neutrino problem was provided in April 2002 by the SNO (Sudbury Neutrino Observatory) collaboration, which measured both
ν
e
flux and the total neutrino flux. [15]

This 'oscillation' between the neutrino species can first be studied considering any two, and then generalized to the three known flavors.

Description as a two-state system

A special case: considering mixing only

Caution: "mixing" discussed in this article is not the type obtained from mixed quantum states. Rather, "mixing" here refers to the superposition of "pure state" energy (mass) eigenstates, described by a "mixing matrix" (e.g. the CKM or PMNS matricies).

Let be the Hamiltonian of the two-state system, and and be its orthonormal eigenvectors with eigenvalues and respectively.

Let be the state of the system at time

If the system starts as an energy eigenstate of i.e. say

then, the time evolved state, which is the solution of the Schrödinger equation

   (1)

will be, [16]

But this is physically same as as the exponential term is just a phase factor and does not produce a new state. In other words, energy eigenstates are stationary eigenstates, i.e. they do not yield physically new states under time evolution.

In the basis is diagonal. That is,

It can be shown, that oscillation between states will occur if and only if off-diagonal terms of the Hamiltonian are non-zero.

Hence let us introduce a general perturbation in such that the resultant Hamiltonian is still Hermitian. Then,

where and

and,

   (2)

Then, the eigenvalues of are, [17]

   (3)

Since is a general Hamiltonian matrix, it can be written as, [18]

The following two results are clear:

With the following parametrization [18] (this parametrization helps as it normalizes the eigenvectors and also introduces an arbitrary phase making the eigenvectors most general)

,

and using the above pair of results the orthonormal eigenvectors of and hence of are obtained as,

   (4)

Writing the eigenvectors of in terms of those of we get,

   (5)

Now if the particle starts out as an eigenstate of (say, ), that is,

then under time evolution we get, [17]

which unlike the previous case, is distinctly different from

We can then obtain the probability of finding the system in state at time as, [17]

   (6)

which is called Rabi's formula. Hence, starting from one eigenstate of the unperturbed Hamiltonian the state of the system oscillates between the eigenstates of with a frequency (known as Rabi frequency),

   (7)

From the expression of we can infer that oscillation will exist only if is thus known as the coupling term as it couples the two eigenstates of the unperturbed Hamiltonian and thereby facilitates oscillation between the two.

Oscillation will also cease if the eigenvalues of the perturbed Hamiltonian are degenerate, i.e. But this is a trivial case as in such a situation, the perturbation itself vanishes and takes the form (diagonal) of and we're back to square one.

Hence, the necessary conditions for oscillation are:

The general case: considering mixing and decay

If the particle(s) under consideration undergoes decay, then the Hamiltonian describing the system is no longer Hermitian. [19] Since any matrix can be written as a sum of its Hermitian and anti-Hermitian parts, can be written as,

The eigenvalues of are,

   (8)

The suffixes stand for Heavy and Light respectively (by convention) and this implies that is positive.

The normalized eigenstates corresponding to and respectively, in the natural basis are,

   (9)

and are the mixing terms. Note that these eigenstates are no longer orthogonal.

Let the system start in the state . That is,

Under time evolution we then get,

Similarly, if the system starts in the state , under time evolution we obtain,

CP violation as a consequence

If in a system and represent CP conjugate states (i.e. particle-antiparticle) of one another (i.e. and ), and certain other conditions are met, then CP violation can be observed as a result of this phenomenon. Depending on the condition, CP violation can be classified into three types: [19] [21]

CP violation through decay only

Consider the processes where decay to final states , where the barred and the unbarred kets of each set are CP conjugates of one another.

The probability of decaying to is given by,

,

and that of its CP conjugate process by,

If there is no CP violation due to mixing, then .

Now, the above two probabilities are unequal if,

and    (10)

.

Hence, the decay becomes a CP violating process as the probability of a decay and that of its CP conjugate process are not equal.

CP violation through mixing only

The probability (as a function of time) of observing starting from is given by,

,

and that of its CP conjugate process by,

.

The above two probabilities are unequal if,

   (11)

Hence, the particle-antiparticle oscillation becomes a CP violating process as the particle and its antiparticle (say, and respectively) are no longer equivalent eigenstates of CP.

CP violation through mixing-decay interference

Let be a final state (a CP eigenstate) that both and can decay to. Then, the decay probabilities are given by,

and,

where,

From the above two quantities, it can be seen that even when there is no CP violation through mixing alone (i.e. ) and neither is there any CP violation through decay alone (i.e. ) and thus , the probabilities will still be unequal provided,

   (12)

The last terms in the above expressions for probability are thus associated with interference between mixing and decay.

An alternative classification

Usually, an alternative classification of CP violation is made: [21]

Direct CP violationDirect CP violation is defined as, In terms of the above categories, direct CP violation occurs in CP violation through decay only.
Indirect CP violationIndirect CP violation is the type of CP violation that involves mixing.In terms of the above classification, indirect CP violation occurs through mixing only, or through mixing-decay interference, or both.

Specific cases

Neutrino oscillation

Considering a strong coupling between two flavor eigenstates of neutrinos (for example,
ν
e

ν
μ
,
ν
μ

ν
τ
, etc.) and a very weak coupling between the third (that is, the third does not affect the interaction between the other two), equation ( 6 ) gives the probability of a neutrino of type transmuting into type as,

where, and are energy eigenstates.

The above can be written as,

   (13)

where,
, i.e. the difference between the squares of the masses of the energy eigenstates,
is the speed of light in vacuum,
is the distance traveled by the neutrino after creation,
is the energy with which the neutrino was created, and
is the oscillation wavelength.
Proof

where, is the momentum with which the neutrino was created.

Now, and .

Hence,

where,

Thus, a coupling between the energy (mass) eigenstates produces the phenomenon of oscillation between the flavor eigenstates. One important inference is that neutrinos have a finite mass, although very small. Hence, their speed is not exactly the same as that of light but slightly lower.

Neutrino mass splitting

With three flavors of neutrinos, there are three mass splittings:

But only two of them are independent, because .

For solar neutrinos
For atmospheric neutrinos  

This implies that two of the three neutrinos have very closely placed masses. Since only two of the three are independent, and the expression for probability in equation ( 13 ) is not sensitive to the sign of (as sine squared is independent of the sign of its argument), it is not possible to determine the neutrino mass spectrum uniquely from the phenomenon of flavor oscillation. That is, any two out of the three can have closely spaced masses.

Moreover, since the oscillation is sensitive only to the differences (of the squares) of the masses, direct determination of neutrino mass is not possible from oscillation experiments.

Length scale of the system

Equation ( 13 ) indicates that an appropriate length scale of the system is the oscillation wavelength . We can draw the following inferences:

  • If , then and oscillation will not be observed. For example, production (say, by radioactive decay) and detection of neutrinos in a laboratory.
  • If , where is a whole number, then and oscillation will not be observed.
  • In all other cases, oscillation will be observed. For example, for solar neutrinos; for neutrinos from nuclear power plant detected in a laboratory few kilometers away.

Neutral kaon oscillation and decay

CP violation through mixing only

The 1964 paper by Christenson et al. [7] provided experimental evidence of CP violation in the neutral Kaon system. The so-called long-lived Kaon (CP = −1) decayed into two pions (CP = (−1)(−1) = 1), thereby violating CP conservation.

and being the strangeness eigenstates (with eigenvalues +1 and −1 respectively), the energy eigenstates are,

These two are also CP eigenstates with eigenvalues +1 and −1 respectively. From the earlier notion of CP conservation (symmetry), the following were expected:

  • Because has a CP eigenvalue of +1, it can decay to two pions or with a proper choice of angular momentum, to three pions. However, the two pion decay is a lot more frequent.
  • having a CP eigenvalue −1, can decay only to three pions and never to two.

Since the two pion decay is much faster than the three pion decay, was referred to as the short-lived Kaon , and as the long-lived Kaon . The 1964 experiment showed that contrary to what was expected, could decay to two pions. This implied that the long lived Kaon cannot be purely the CP eigenstate , but must contain a small admixture of , thereby no longer being a CP eigenstate. [22] Similarly, the short-lived Kaon was predicted to have a small admixture of . That is,

where, is a complex quantity and is a measure of departure from CP invariance. Experimentally, . [23]

Writing and in terms of and , we obtain (keeping in mind that [23] ) the form of equation ( 9 ):

where, .

Since , condition ( 11 ) is satisfied and there is a mixing between the strangeness eigenstates and giving rise to a long-lived and a short-lived state.

CP violation through decay only

The
K0
L
and
K0
S
have two modes of two pion decay:
π0

π0
or
π+

π
. Both of these final states are CP eigenstates of themselves. We can define the branching ratios as, [21]

.

Experimentally, [23] and . That is , implying and , and thereby satisfying condition ( 10 ).

In other words, direct CP violation is observed in the asymmetry between the two modes of decay.

CP violation through mixing-decay interference

If the final state (say ) is a CP eigenstate (for example
π+

π
), then there are two different decay amplitudes corresponding to two different decay paths: [24]

.

CP violation can then result from the interference of these two contributions to the decay as one mode involves only decay and the other oscillation and decay.

Which then is the "real" particle?

The above description refers to flavor (or strangeness) eigenstates and energy (or CP) eigenstates. But which of them represents the "real" particle? What do we really detect in a laboratory? Quoting David J. Griffiths: [22]

The neutral Kaon system adds a subtle twist to the old question, 'What is a particle?' Kaons are typically produced by the strong interactions, in eigenstates of strangeness (
K0
and
K0
), but they decay by the weak interactions, as eigenstates of CP (K1 and K2). Which, then, is the 'real' particle? If we hold that a 'particle' must have a unique lifetime, then the 'true' particles are K1 and K2. But we need not be so dogmatic. In practice, it is sometimes more convenient to use one set, and sometimes, the other. The situation is in many ways analogous to polarized light. Linear polarization can be regarded as a superposition of left-circular polarization and right-circular polarization. If you imagine a medium that preferentially absorbs right-circularly polarized light, and shine on it a linearly polarized beam, it will become progressively more left-circularly polarized as it passes through the material, just as a
K0
beam turns into a K2 beam. But whether you choose to analyze the process in terms of states of linear or circular polarization is largely a matter of taste.

The mixing matrix - a brief introduction

If the system is a three state system (for example, three species of neutrinos
ν
e

ν
μ

ν
τ
, three species of quarks
d

s

b
), then, just like in the two state system, the flavor eigenstates (say , , ) are written as a linear combination of the energy (mass) eigenstates (say , , ). That is,

.

In case of leptons (neutrinos for example) the transformation matrix is the PMNS matrix, and for quarks it is the CKM matrix. [25] [lower-alpha 1]

The off diagonal terms of the transformation matrix represent coupling, and unequal diagonal terms imply mixing between the three states.

The transformation matrix is unitary and appropriate parameterization (depending on whether it is the CKM or PMNS matrix) is done and the values of the parameters determined experimentally.

See also

Footnotes

  1. N.B.: The three familiar neutrino species
    ν
    e
    ,
    ν
    μ
    , and
    ν
    τ
    , are flavor eigenstates, whereas the three familiar quarks species
    d
    ,
    s
    , and
    b
    , are energy eigenstates.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Uncertainty principle</span> Foundational principle in quantum physics

The uncertainty principle, also known as Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle, is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics. It states that there is a limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, can be simultaneously known. In other words, the more accurately one property is measured, the less accurately the other property can be known.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Quantum harmonic oscillator</span> Important, well-understood quantum mechanical model

The quantum harmonic oscillator is the quantum-mechanical analog of the classical harmonic oscillator. Because an arbitrary smooth potential can usually be approximated as a harmonic potential at the vicinity of a stable equilibrium point, it is one of the most important model systems in quantum mechanics. Furthermore, it is one of the few quantum-mechanical systems for which an exact, analytical solution is known.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bremsstrahlung</span> Electromagnetic radiation due to deceleration of charged particles

In particle physics, bremsstrahlung is electromagnetic radiation produced by the deceleration of a charged particle when deflected by another charged particle, typically an electron by an atomic nucleus. The moving particle loses kinetic energy, which is converted into radiation, thus satisfying the law of conservation of energy. The term is also used to refer to the process of producing the radiation. Bremsstrahlung has a continuous spectrum, which becomes more intense and whose peak intensity shifts toward higher frequencies as the change of the energy of the decelerated particles increases.

The Basel problem is a problem in mathematical analysis with relevance to number theory, concerning an infinite sum of inverse squares. It was first posed by Pietro Mengoli in 1650 and solved by Leonhard Euler in 1734, and read on 5 December 1735 in The Saint Petersburg Academy of Sciences. Since the problem had withstood the attacks of the leading mathematicians of the day, Euler's solution brought him immediate fame when he was twenty-eight. Euler generalised the problem considerably, and his ideas were taken up more than a century later by Bernhard Riemann in his seminal 1859 paper "On the Number of Primes Less Than a Given Magnitude", in which he defined his zeta function and proved its basic properties. The problem is named after Basel, hometown of Euler as well as of the Bernoulli family who unsuccessfully attacked the problem.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rabi cycle</span> Quantum mechanical phenomenon

In physics, the Rabi cycle is the cyclic behaviour of a two-level quantum system in the presence of an oscillatory driving field. A great variety of physical processes belonging to the areas of quantum computing, condensed matter, atomic and molecular physics, and nuclear and particle physics can be conveniently studied in terms of two-level quantum mechanical systems, and exhibit Rabi flopping when coupled to an optical driving field. The effect is important in quantum optics, magnetic resonance and quantum computing, and is named after Isidor Isaac Rabi.

In physics, the S-matrix or scattering matrix relates the initial state and the final state of a physical system undergoing a scattering process. It is used in quantum mechanics, scattering theory and quantum field theory (QFT).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fermi's interaction</span> Mechanism of beta decay proposed in 1933

In particle physics, Fermi's interaction is an explanation of the beta decay, proposed by Enrico Fermi in 1933. The theory posits four fermions directly interacting with one another. This interaction explains beta decay of a neutron by direct coupling of a neutron with an electron, a neutrino and a proton.

Creation operators and annihilation operators are mathematical operators that have widespread applications in quantum mechanics, notably in the study of quantum harmonic oscillators and many-particle systems. An annihilation operator lowers the number of particles in a given state by one. A creation operator increases the number of particles in a given state by one, and it is the adjoint of the annihilation operator. In many subfields of physics and chemistry, the use of these operators instead of wavefunctions is known as second quantization. They were introduced by Paul Dirac.

In quantum physics, Fermi's golden rule is a formula that describes the transition rate from one energy eigenstate of a quantum system to a group of energy eigenstates in a continuum, as a result of a weak perturbation. This transition rate is effectively independent of time and is proportional to the strength of the coupling between the initial and final states of the system as well as the density of states. It is also applicable when the final state is discrete, i.e. it is not part of a continuum, if there is some decoherence in the process, like relaxation or collision of the atoms, or like noise in the perturbation, in which case the density of states is replaced by the reciprocal of the decoherence bandwidth.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neutrino oscillation</span> Phenomenon in which a neutrino changes lepton flavor as it travels

Neutrino oscillation is a quantum mechanical phenomenon in which a neutrino created with a specific lepton family number can later be measured to have a different lepton family number. The probability of measuring a particular flavor for a neutrino varies between three known states, as it propagates through space.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Two-state quantum system</span> Simple quantum mechanical system

In quantum mechanics, a two-state system is a quantum system that can exist in any quantum superposition of two independent quantum states. The Hilbert space describing such a system is two-dimensional. Therefore, a complete basis spanning the space will consist of two independent states. Any two-state system can also be seen as a qubit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Electromagnetic reverberation chamber</span>

An electromagnetic reverberation chamber (also known as a reverb chamber (RVC) or mode-stirred chamber (MSC)) is an environment for electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) testing and other electromagnetic investigations. Electromagnetic reverberation chambers have been introduced first by H.A. Mendes in 1968. A reverberation chamber is screened room with a minimum of absorption of electromagnetic energy. Due to the low absorption very high field strength can be achieved with moderate input power. A reverberation chamber is a cavity resonator with a high Q factor. Thus, the spatial distribution of the electrical and magnetic field strengths is strongly inhomogeneous (standing waves). To reduce this inhomogeneity, one or more tuners (stirrers) are used. A tuner is a construction with large metallic reflectors that can be moved to different orientations in order to achieve different boundary conditions. The Lowest Usable Frequency (LUF) of a reverberation chamber depends on the size of the chamber and the design of the tuner. Small chambers have a higher LUF than large chambers.

The Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein effect is a particle physics process which modifies neutrino oscillations in matter of varying density. The MSW effect is broadly analogous to the differential retardation of sound waves in density-variable media, however it also involves the propagation dynamics of three separate quantum fields which experience distortion.

Quantum speed limit theorems are quantum mechanics theorems concerning the orthogonalization interval, the minimum time for a quantum system to evolve between two orthogonal states.

A quasiprobability distribution is a mathematical object similar to a probability distribution but which relaxes some of Kolmogorov's axioms of probability theory. Quasiprobabilities share several of general features with ordinary probabilities, such as, crucially, the ability to yield expectation values with respect to the weights of the distribution. However, they can violate the σ-additivity axiom: integrating over them does not necessarily yield probabilities of mutually exclusive states. Indeed, quasiprobability distributions also have regions of negative probability density, counterintuitively, contradicting the first axiom. Quasiprobability distributions arise naturally in the study of quantum mechanics when treated in phase space formulation, commonly used in quantum optics, time-frequency analysis, and elsewhere.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jaynes–Cummings model</span> Model in quantum optics

The Jaynes–Cummings model is a theoretical model in quantum optics. It describes the system of a two-level atom interacting with a quantized mode of an optical cavity, with or without the presence of light. It was originally developed to study the interaction of atoms with the quantized electromagnetic field in order to investigate the phenomena of spontaneous emission and absorption of photons in a cavity.

Photon polarization is the quantum mechanical description of the classical polarized sinusoidal plane electromagnetic wave. An individual photon can be described as having right or left circular polarization, or a superposition of the two. Equivalently, a photon can be described as having horizontal or vertical linear polarization, or a superposition of the two.

In quantum mechanics, the Pauli equation or Schrödinger–Pauli equation is the formulation of the Schrödinger equation for spin-½ particles, which takes into account the interaction of the particle's spin with an external electromagnetic field. It is the non-relativistic limit of the Dirac equation and can be used where particles are moving at speeds much less than the speed of light, so that relativistic effects can be neglected. It was formulated by Wolfgang Pauli in 1927.

Tribimaximal mixing is a specific postulated form for the Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata (PMNS) lepton mixing matrix U. Tribimaximal mixing is defined by a particular choice of the matrix of moduli-squared of the elements of the PMNS matrix as follows:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kicked rotator</span>

The kicked rotator, also spelled as kicked rotor, is a paradigmatic model for both Hamiltonian chaos and quantum chaos. It describes a free rotating stick in an inhomogeneous "gravitation like" field that is periodically switched on in short pulses. The model is described by the Hamiltonian

References

  1. Gell-mann, M.; Pais, A. (1 March 1955). "Behavior of Neutral Particles under Charge Conjugation". Physical Review. 97 (5): 1385. Bibcode:1955PhRv...97.1387G. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.97.1387.
  2. Mohapatra, R.N. (2009). "Neutron-anti-neutron oscillation: Theory and phenomenology". Journal of Physics G . 36 (10): 104006. arXiv: 0902.0834 . Bibcode:2009JPhG...36j4006M. doi:10.1088/0954-3899/36/10/104006. S2CID   15126201.
  3. Giunti, C.; Laveder, M. (19 August 2010). "Neutron oscillations". Neutrino Unbound. Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare. Archived from the original on 27 September 2011. Retrieved 19 August 2010.
  4. Kamyshkov, Y.A. (16 January 2002). Neutron → antineutron oscillations (PDF). Large Detectors for Proton Decay, Supernovae, and Atmospheric Neutrinos and Low Energy Neutrinos from High Intensity Beams. NNN 2002 Workshop. CERN, Switzerland. Retrieved 19 August 2010.
  5. Griffiths, D.J. (2008). Elementary Particles (2nd, Revised ed.). Wiley-VCH. p. 149. ISBN   978-3-527-40601-2.
  6. Wu, C.S.; Ambler, E.; Hayward, R.W.; Hoppes, D.D.; Hudson, R.P. (1957). "Experimental test of parity conservation in beta decay". Physical Review . 105 (4): 1413–1415. Bibcode:1957PhRv..105.1413W. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.105.1413 .
  7. 1 2 Christenson, J.H.; Cronin, J.W.; Fitch, V.L.; Turlay, R. (1964). "Evidence for the 2π decay of the K0
    2
    meson"
    . Physical Review Letters . 13 (4): 138–140. Bibcode:1964PhRvL..13..138C. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.138 .
  8. Abashian, A.; et al. (2001). "Measurement of the CP violation parameter sin(2φ1) in B0
    d
    meson decays". Physical Review Letters . 86 (12): 2509–2514. arXiv: hep-ex/0102018 . Bibcode:2001PhRvL..86.2509A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.2509. PMID   11289969. S2CID   12669357.
  9. Aubert, B.; et al. (BABAR Collaboration) (2001). "Measurement of CP-violating asymmetries in B0 decays to CP eigenstates". Physical Review Letters . 86 (12): 2515–2522. arXiv: hep-ex/0102030 . Bibcode:2001PhRvL..86.2515A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.2515. PMID   11289970. S2CID   24606837.
  10. Aubert, B.; et al. (BABAR Collaboration) (2004). "Direct CP violating asymmetry in B0 → K+π decays". Physical Review Letters . 93 (13): 131801. arXiv: hep-ex/0407057 . Bibcode:2004PhRvL..93m1801A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.131801. PMID   15524703. S2CID   31279756.
  11. Chao, Y.; et al. (Belle Collaboration) (2005). "Improved measurements of the partial rate asymmetry in B → hh decays" (PDF). Physical Review D . 71 (3): 031502. arXiv: hep-ex/0407025 . Bibcode:2005PhRvD..71c1502C. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.031502. S2CID   119441257.
  12. Bahcall, J.N. (28 April 2004). "Solving the mystery of the missing neutrinos". The Nobel Foundation . Retrieved 2016-12-08.
  13. Davis, R. Jr.; Harmer, D.S.; Hoffman, K.C. (1968). "Search for Neutrinos from the Sun". Physical Review Letters . 20 (21): 1205–1209. Bibcode:1968PhRvL..20.1205D. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.20.1205.
  14. Griffiths, D.J. (2008). Elementary Particles (Second, revised ed.). Wiley-VCH. p. 390. ISBN   978-3-527-40601-2.
  15. Ahmad, Q.R.; et al. (SNO Collaboration) (2002). "Direct evidence for neutrino flavor transformation from neutral-current interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory". Physical Review Letters . 89 (1): 011301. arXiv: nucl-ex/0204008 . Bibcode:2002PhRvL..89a1301A. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.011301 . PMID   12097025.
  16. Griffiths, D.J. (2005). Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. Pearson Education International. ISBN   978-0-13-191175-8.
  17. 1 2 3 Cohen-Tannoudji, C.; Diu, B.; Laloe, F. (2006). Quantum Mechanics. Wiley-VCH. ISBN   978-0-471-56952-7.
  18. 1 2 Gupta, S. (13 August 2013). "The mathematics of 2-state systems" (PDF). Courses (handout). Quantum Mechanics I. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research . Retrieved 2016-12-08.
  19. 1 2 Dighe, A. (26 July 2011). "B physics and CP violation: An introduction" (PDF) (lecture notes). Tata Institute of Fundamental Research . Retrieved 2016-08-12.
  20. Sakurai, J.J.; Napolitano, J.J. (2010). Modern Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley. ISBN   978-0-805-38291-4.
  21. 1 2 3 Kooijman, P.; Tuning, N. (2012). "CP violation" (PDF).
  22. 1 2 Griffiths, D.J. (2008). Elementary Particles (2nd, Revised ed.). Wiley-VCH. p. 147. ISBN   978-3-527-40601-2.
  23. 1 2 3 Olive, K.A.; et al. (Particle Data Group) (2014). "Review of Particle Physics – Strange mesons" (PDF). Chinese Physics C . 38 (9): 090001. Bibcode:2014ChPhC..38i0001O. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/38/9/090001. S2CID   260537282.
  24. Pich, A. (1993). "CP violation". arXiv: hep-ph/9312297 .
  25. Griffiths, D.J. (2008). Elementary Particles (2nd, revised ed.). Wiley-VCH. p. 397. ISBN   978-3-527-40601-2.