text:
# A supernova constraint on bulk majorons

## I Introduction

Over the past few years there has been an enormous interest in models with extra dimensions beyond the 3+1 dimensions of the standard model. Such extra dimensions can be large if the gauge fields of the standard model are constrained to a 3+1 dimensional brane in the higher dimensional bulk space. This idea is particularly interesting because it may be connected with a low quantum gravity scale, perhaps only slightly above the scale of electroweak symmetry breaking. In Refs. add98 ; Antoniadis ; add99  such a model was proposed in which the standard model brane is embedded in a bulk space of dimension $`\delta `$ which is toroidally compactified. Because gravity is allowed to propagate in the full bulk space it will look weaker to an observer confined to the brane. By Gauss’ law the effective four-dimensional Planck scale, $`M_P`$, can be related to the true 4+$`\delta `$ dimensional energy scale of gravity, $`M`$, by

$$M_P^2=(2\pi R)^\delta M^{\delta +2},$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the common radius of all the extra dimensions. If $`R`$ is sufficiently large $`M`$ can be as small as the electroweak scale. Effectively gravity is weak because the field lines leak into the extra dimensions.

One of the most interesting features of these models is the presence of a tower of new modes for particles propagating in the bulk. The momentum of particles propagating in extra dimensions is discretised because the extra dimensions are compact. To an observer on the brane this effectively looks like a tower of new states (Kaluza-Klein) for each bulk particle, with a 4D mass related to the extra dimensional momentum. The energy spacing between these states is then in general of order $`R^1`$ which can be very small.

For the graviton this property has been used to put tight constraints on the possible radii of the extra dimensions. However, any particle which is a singlet in the standard model could in principle propagate in the bulk. Examples of this are sterile neutrinos and axions.

Some authors, for example, have investigated the possibility that right handed neutrinos might propagate in the extra dimensions and that their resultant suppressed couplings to the usual left handed neutrinos could account for the low scale of neutrino masses DDG ; ADDM ; Mohapatra:1999zd ; Mohapatra:1999af ; Dvali:1999cn ; Barbieri:2000mg ; Mohapatra:2000wn ; Ioannisian:mu . Other authors FP ; MN ; DK ; C ; BDN ; Abazajian:2000hw ; Ioannisian:1999cw  have studied the constraints on such models due to experiment and observation. An alternate approach MPP , corresponding to the conventional see-saw mechanism, has also been investigated by some authors. In this approach a Higgs singlet, which carries no standard model gauge quantum numbers, is allowed to propagate in the extra dimensions and give mass to right handed neutrinos which, for simplicity, are assumed to live on the brane.

Recently in Ref. MNSS  a model was studied in which the lepton number is spontaneously broken and the associated Goldstone boson (the “Majoron”) is present (see also MRS ). This model was used to compute the decay rate for the intermediate vector boson $`Z`$ to two neutrinos and the Majoron (denoted by $`J`$) or one of its “Kaluza-Klein” excitations MNSS . Using the accurately known value of the $`Z`$ width rpp  bounds on the dimensionless coupling of the two neutrinos to the Majoron were obtained allowing for any number of extra dimensions and any intrinsic mass scale (see also Carone:2002ss ). The related neutrinoless double beta decay process $`n+np+p+e^{}+e^{}+(J)`$ has already been treated in a model of the present type MPP . A detailed discussion of supernova constraints in the 3 $`+`$ 1 dimensional theory has very recently been given in TPV .

In this paper we use this model MNSS  to compute processes of astrophysical interest. We first see that when compact extra dimensions are present new processes become relevant and can heavily affect supernovae dynamics. We then show that supernovae constraints on the dimensionless couplings are by many order of magnitude more stringent than the accelerators bounds. Our findings seem to discourage unnatural see-saw models of neutrino masses still allowed by accelerator bounds.

We summarize in section II the Majoron model extended to the extra-dimensional brane-world . In section III we briefly review the accelerator constraints. The Supernovae constraints are presented in section IV. In the concluding section V we also discuss the possibility of the extra-dimensional Majorons to be source of dark matter.

## II A Majoron Model in Extra Dimensions

In the original Majoron model of Chikashige, Mohapatra and Peccei CMP  the lepton number associated with massive Majorana neutrinos is spontaneously broken. Here, the notations of Ref. SV  and Ref. MNSS  for the $`3+1`$ and the extra dimensional case will be followed, respectively. In addition to the usual Higgs doublet

$$\varphi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^+\\ \varphi ^0\end{array}\right)l=0$$
(2)
which has lepton number $`l`$ equal to zero, the model contains an electrically neutral complex singlet field

$$\mathrm{\Phi }l=2.$$
(3)
It is required that the Higgs potential constructed from $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\varphi `$ conserves lepton number. The vacuum expectation values are:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{},`$
$`\varphi ^0`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{}^{0}{}_{}{}^{}=\lambda 2^{\frac{1}{4}}G_F^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (4)
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (whose non-zero value violates lepton number) sets a new scale in the theory.

The three light physical two component neutrinos $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$ acquire Majorana masses $`m_1,m_2,m_3`$ which are of order $`ϵ^2_H`$ with

$$ϵ=𝒪\left(\frac{𝒟}{_H}\right).$$
(5)
According to the a standard “see-saw mechanism” ss  $`𝒟/\lambda `$ represents the “Dirac-type” coupling constants for the bare light neutrinos while the $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`_H/\mathrm{\Phi }`$ represents the Majorana type coupling constants for the bare heavy (or “right handed”) neutrinos. Assuming the heavy scale $`_H`$ to be substantially larger than the energy in play in the following we focus our attention only on the light neutrinos. The coupling of the Majoron $`J`$, identified as $`J=\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Phi }`$, to the physical neutrino fields $`\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3`$ in $`3+1`$ dimensions is:

$$_J=i\frac{J}{2}\underset{a,b=1}{\overset{3}{}}\nu _a^T\sigma _2g_{ab}\nu _b+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..$$
(6)
It turns out SV  that the coupling constants have the expansion:

$$g_{ab}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }}m_a\delta _{ab}+𝒪\left(ϵ^4_H\right),$$
(7)
where the leading term is diagonal in generation space. It is convenient to express this leading term using four component ordinary Dirac spinors

$$\psi _a=\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _a\\ 0\end{array}\right),$$
(8)
in a $`\gamma _5`$ diagonal representation of the Dirac matrices the relevant Lagrangian term reads:

$$_J=i\frac{J}{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}m_a\left(\psi _a^TC^1\frac{1+\gamma _5}{2}\psi _a+\overline{\psi }_a\frac{1\gamma _5}{2}C\overline{\psi }_a^T\right).$$
(9)
Here $`C`$ is the charge conjugation matrix of the Dirac theory.

The generalization of the present model to the case where the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ propagates in $`\delta `$ extra dimensions has been carried out in detail in Ref. MNSS . These extra dimensions, denoted as $`y_i`$ with $`i=1,\mathrm{}\delta `$, are assumed to be toroidally compactified with a radius $`R_i`$. For simplicity we assume that all the radii $`R_i`$ are equal to the same value $`R`$. $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y)`$ continues to carry the “engineering dimension” one as it would in $`3+1`$ dimensional space-time and via a Fourier expansion with respect to the compactified coordinates we have:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,y)=\mathrm{Norm}{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,\mathrm{},n_\delta }{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_1,\mathrm{},n_\delta }\left(x\right)e^{\frac{i}{R}\left(n_1y_1+\mathrm{}\right)},`$ (10)
where $`\mathrm{Norm}=\left[2\pi MR\right]^{\frac{\delta }{2}}`$ and $`M`$ represents the intrinsic scale of the new theory.

Each general Kaluza-Klein field receives a mass squared increment

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{n_1,n_2,\mathrm{}}^2=\frac{1}{R^2}\left(n_1^2+n_2^2+\mathrm{}n_\delta ^2\right).$$
(11)
The zero-mass Majoron $`J_{0,0,\mathrm{},0}(x)`$ corresponds to the previously studied $`3+1`$ massless Majoron. The fields $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n_1,n_2,\mathrm{}}(x)`$ are expected to receive a substantial increment from the pure Higgs sector of the theory MNSS  and will be neglected in the following.

The intrinsic scale $`M`$ and the compactification radius $`R`$ can be related to each other when assuming in the “brane” model the graviton to propagate in the full $`(3+\delta )+1`$ dimensional space-time. Then the ordinary form of Newtons’ gravitation law is only an approximation valid at distances much greater than $`R`$. The Newtonian gravitational constant (inverse square of the Planck mass $`M_P`$) is obtained add98 ; Antoniadis ; add99  as a phenomenological parameter from

$$\left(\frac{M_P}{M}\right)^2=\left(2\pi MR\right)^\delta =\frac{1}{\left(\mathrm{Norm}\right)^2}.$$
(12)
Considering $`M_P`$ as an experimental input (and approximating $`R_1=R_2=\mathrm{}=R_\delta `$), shows via (12) that $`M`$ is the only free parameter introduced to describe the extra dimensional aspect of the present simple theory when $`\delta `$ is fixed.

We expect $`_H/\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to be very roughly of the order unity and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of the order of $`M`$. Finally the Yukawa interactions of the Majoron and its Kaluza-Klein excitations with the light neutrinos are described by (c.f. (9)):

$`_J`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,\mathrm{},n_\delta }{}}ig_{aa;n_1,\mathrm{},n_\delta }J_{n_1,\mathrm{},n_\delta }\times `$ (13)
$`\times \left(\psi _a^TC^1{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma _5}{2}}\psi _a+\overline{\psi }_a{\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma _5}{2}}C\overline{\psi }_a^T\right),`$
to leading order in the neutrino masses, $`m_a`$ with

$$g_{aa;n_1,\mathrm{},n_\delta }g_{aa}=\frac{m_a}{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{M}{M_P}.$$
(14)
The vacuum expectation value $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (unless unnatural fine tuning is considered) is very roughly of the order of $`M`$, leading $`g_{aa}`$ to be naturally of the order of $`m_a/M_P10^{28}`$ regardless of the number of extra dimensions MNSS . Clearly the exact value of this universal coupling crucially depends on the unknown dynamics behind the spontaneous breaking of the lepton number MNSS .

## III Review of Constraints from Accelerators

In MNSS  it has been shown that the accurately known value of the Z width can provide information about the coupling of two neutrinos to the Majoron. Both the $`3+1`$ dimensional case and the case in which one adopts a “brane” world picture with the Majoron free to experience the extra dimensions have been studied. Bounds on the dimensionless coupling constants were obtained, allowing for any number of extra dimensions and any intrinsic mass scale. If the uncertainty of the $`Z`$’s invisible width $`1.7\times 10^3`$ GeV is roughly taken as an indication of the maximum allowed value for the total width into a Majoron and two neutrinos the following bounds on $`g_{aa}`$ were obtained in MNSS  for $`M_S=10^4GeV`$: $`g_{aa}<3.4\times 10^{12}`$, $`g_{aa}<2.3\times 10^{10}`$, $`g_{aa}<1.5\times 10^8`$ for $`\delta =2,3,4`$, respectively. These are much stronger bounds than the one obtained for the model in $`3+1`$ space-time dimensions which is $`g_{aa}<0.11`$.

If a technically natural see-saw model is adopted, the predicted coupling constants are far below these upper bounds. In addition, for this natural model, the effect of extra dimensions is to decrease the predicted partial Z width, the increase due to many Kaluza-Klein excitations being compensated by the decrease of their common coupling constant.

We shall see in the following that constraints from supernovae are much more stringent than the ones above.

## IV Constraints from supernovae

Supernova cooling — The proto-neutron stars created by core-collapse supernovae are born with core temperatures of 30-50 MeV. The main cooling mechanism for these stars is thermal surface emission of neutrinos on a timescale of a few seconds. The total energy emitted is the order a few $`10^{53}`$ erg, with roughly equal amounts in all flavours of neutrinos and antineutrinos. This emission has been observed from SN1987A by Kamiokande Hirata:ad , IMB Bratton:ww  and Baksan baksan , all observing $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ events. The results from SN1987A are compatible with theoretical supernova models and therefore put a constraint on any non-standard cooling mechanism carrying away too much energy, and since majorons from the KK-tower will be produced in the supernova and carry away energy 1987A data can be used to constrain $`g_{aa}`$. This has been done several times in the literature for the 3+1 dimensional majoron models Aharonov:ee ; Aharonov:ik ; Choi:1987sd ; Grifols:1988fg ; Berezhiani:gf ; Berezhiani:za ; Choi:1989hi ; Chang:1993yp ; Pilaftsis:1993af ; Berezhiani:1994jc ; Kachelriess:2000qc ; Tomas:2001dh . For these models, only a relatively small band in parameter space is excluded for the following reason: For large $`g_{aa}`$ the majorons are tightly coupled inside the neutron star, and only escape via surface emission, like neutrinos. Therefore they cannot carry away most of the energy and supernovae do not yield significant constraints. On the other hand, for small $`g_{aa}`$ the majorons do escape freely, but they are not produced in significant numbers. The end result is that a band of roughly $`3\times 10^7<g_{aa}<2\times 10^5`$ is excluded Kachelriess:2000qc .

For the $`3+1+\delta `$ models the situation is different because each KK-mode is very weakly coupled. Therefore we are always in the limit where majorons escape freely once they are produced, and do not need to worry about possible surface emission.

A fairly robust constraint on such “bulk emission” is the one proposed by Raffelt Raffelt:wa , that the emissivity of the neutron star medium should be

$$ϵ10^{19}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{g}^1\mathrm{s}^1.$$
(15)
In the 3+1 dimensional case where majorons are strictly massless the neutrino pair annihilation $`\nu \overline{\nu }J`$ is not allowed kinematically and the most important processes are $`\nu \overline{\nu }JJ`$ and $`\nu \overline{\nu }J`$. However, in the present case, most of the emitted majorons have mass of order $`T`$, and the simple pair-annihilation is by far the most important process. The squared and spin-averaged matrix element for this process (per single Kaluza-Klein excitation) is

$$|A|^2=\frac{1}{2}g_{aa}^2p_1p_2.$$
(16)
The emissivity per volume of the medium is then

$`Q(m_J)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{~}{p}_1𝑑\stackrel{~}{p}_2𝑑\stackrel{~}{p}_J(2\pi )^4f_\nu (p_1)f_\nu (p_2)}`$ (17)
$`\times |A|^2\delta ^4(p_1+p_2p_J)(E_1+E_2),`$
where $`d\stackrel{~}{p}=d^3𝐩/(2\pi )^32E`$ and $`f_\nu `$ are the thermal distributions of the incoming neutrinos, $`f_\nu e^{p_\nu /T}`$. Doing the integral gives

$$Q(m_J)=\frac{1}{128\pi ^3}g_{aa}^2T^5x^4K_2(x),xm_J/T,$$
(18)
where $`K_2(x)`$ is a Bessel function. However, we also need to sum over the KK-tower in order to obtain the total emissivity

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{\delta /2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\delta /2)(2\pi )^\delta }}{\displaystyle \frac{M_P^2T^{5+\delta }}{M^{2+\delta }}}g_{aa}^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xx^3K_2(x)`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`\delta \pi ^{(\delta 6)/2}2^{\delta 5}{\displaystyle \frac{M_P^2T^{5+\delta }}{(2\pi )^\delta M^{2+\delta }}}g_{aa}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(3+\delta /2)`$ (20)
Using the rough equality $`Q=ϵ\rho `$, $`\rho 4\times 10^{14}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$, this can be translated into a bound on $`g_{aa}`$ and $`M`$ which is

$$g_{aa}XM_{\mathrm{TeV}}^{1+\delta /2}T_{30}^{(5+\delta )/2},$$
(21)
with the following values for $`X`$

$$X=\{\begin{array}{cc}1.0\times 10^{21}\hfill & \text{for }\delta =2\hfill \\ 2.1\times 10^{17}\hfill & \text{for }\delta =4\hfill \\ 4.6\times 10^{13}\hfill & \text{for }\delta =6\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
In the above, $`T_{30}=T/(30\mathrm{MeV})`$. In all figures we use $`T_{30}=1`$. The bounds are shown in Fig. 1 as a function of $`M`$. However, from considerations of graviton emission, strong bounds on $`M`$ already exist Cullen:1999hc ; Barger:1999jf ; hanhart ; hanhart2 ; Hannestad:2001jv ; Hannestad:2001xi . The most recent, and most restrictive, limits are those from Ref. Hannestad:2001xi . These are shown as the thicker lines in the left part of the figure. Values of $`M`$ in this range are already excluded from graviton emission arguments Hannestad:2001xi .

Old neutron star excess heating — When considering graviton emission a much stronger bound on $`M`$ can be obtained by considering the decays of KK-gravitons produced in supernovae. Gravitons have a significant branching ratio into photons and the decays therefore produce gamma rays. All cosmological supernovae have therefore by the present produced a diffuse cosmic gamma background. Comparing this with observations of the diffuse gamma background by the EGRET instrument egret  yields a bound on $`M`$ significantly stronger than found from the supernova cooling argument Hannestad:2001jv . More interestingly, the tightest constraint comes from observations of old, isolated neutron stars.

Most of the KK-modes emitted from the proto-neutron star have masses of order $`3T`$ and therefore also relatively low velocities. This again means that a large fraction (roughly one half) of the KK-modes have velocities lower than the escape velocity, and that neutron stars retain a halo of KK-modes with a typical radius of 2-3 $`R_{NS}`$. When these gravitons decay they heat the neutron star and can lead to excess surface emission from old neutron stars. This argument applies equally to KK-gravitons and majorons. For gravitons it was used in Ref. Hannestad:2001xi  to put an extremely strong limit on $`M`$, $`M>1600`$ TeV $`(\delta =2)`$, 70 TeV $`(\delta =3)`$.

The KK-majorons only decay into neutrinos and not photons. However, the typical energy of the emitted neutrinos is 50-100 MeV, and the neutron star is not transparent to neutrinos of such high energy. Therefore the neutrinos hitting the neutron star surface will heat it just like photons do. The surface luminosity of the neutron star at late times should therefore reach a constant level corresponding to the energy deposited by decay neutrinos. This luminosity is given by

$$L_{NS}=f_JF_JE_{TOT}\mathrm{\Gamma }_J\frac{R_{NS}^2}{R_{halo}^2},$$
(23)
where $`f_J`$ is the fraction of the total supernova energy emitted in majorons, $`F_J`$ is the fraction of the emitted majorons remaining bound to the neutron star, taken to be $`1/2`$, $`E_{TOT}`$ is the total SN energy, taken to be $`3\times 10^{53}`$ erg, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the average majoron decay rate, and $`R_{halo}`$ is the typical radius of the majoron halo, taken to be 2 $`R_{NS}`$. The decay rate for non-relativistic majorons is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_J=\frac{1}{64\pi }g_{aa}^2m_J.$$
(24)
$`f_J`$ is a function of $`M`$ and $`g_{aa}`$, and can be found from the above cooling bound. The cooling bound, to a good approximation, corresponds to half the total energy being emitted in majorons ($`f_J1/2`$). For gravitons the strongest bound comes from the neutron star PSR J0953+0755 0953 ; psc96 ; ll99 , which is the oldest neutron star for which the thermal surface temperature has been measured. Its total surface luminosity is estimated to be $`L10^5L_{}`$ ll99 . For majorons this neutron star also yields a strong constraint on $`g_{aa}`$ which is roughly

$$g_{aa}YM_{\mathrm{TeV}}^{(2+\delta )/4}T_{30}^{(6+\delta )/4},$$
(25)
with the following values for $`Y`$

$$Y=\{\begin{array}{cc}3.3\times 10^{22}\hfill & \text{for }\delta =2\hfill \\ 4.8\times 10^{20}\hfill & \text{for }\delta =4\hfill \\ 7.0\times 10^{18}\hfill & \text{for }\delta =6\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
In all cases this bound is significantly stronger than the cooling bound, just as it is for gravitons. The bounds are summarized in Fig. 2. However, there is a limit to the applicability of the bound. The age of the neutron star PSR J0953+0755 is estimated to be $`\tau =1.7\times 10^7`$ yr ll99 . If the majorons decay faster than this, they will have vanished already and cannot act as a heating source. From Eq. (24) one finds a lifetime of

$$\tau =1.3\times 10^{21}g_{aa}^2\frac{100\mathrm{MeV}}{m_J}\mathrm{s},$$
(27)
giving a rough upper limit on $`g_{aa}`$ of $`1.5\times 10^{18}`$, above which the limit of Eq. (25) does not apply.

Another possible problem is that majorons could be reabsorbed when they pass through the neutron star on a timescale much shorter than the age of the neutron star hr02 . The most relevant process for reabsorption is inverse bremsstrahlung, $`JNNNN`$ which is induced via the electroweak interactions CMP . Since the majoron is a pseudo-scalar one can estimate the rate for this process in the same way as for axions Raffelt:wa . The result is that reabsorption only happens on a timescale much longer than the lifetime of the neutron star PSR J0953+0755.

## V Discussion

### V.1 Majorons as dark matter?

By the same neutrino pair annihilation process as in supernovae, majorons are also produced in the early universe. This means that in principle one might obtain non-trivial bounds on $`g_{aa}`$ from considering cosmological production of majorons. For gravitons such considerations lead to extremely stringent bounds on $`M`$ and the maximum temperature, $`T_{RH}`$, of the radiation dominated epoch after inflation hs99 ; Hannestad:2001nq ; Fairbairn:2001ct ; Fairbairn:2001ab . If the fundamental scale $`M`$ is close to 1 TeV then the reheating temperature needs to be extremely low, typically in the MeV regime. However, there is a lower limit to how low $`T_{RH}`$ can be without disturbing big bang nucleosynthesis. Detailed calculations have shown that this limit is roughly $`T_{RH}0.7`$ MeV Kawasaki:1999na ; Kawasaki:2000en . The number density of majorons in the universe can be found by solving the integrated Boltzmann equation

$$\dot{n}_J=3Hn_J+\frac{g_{aa}^2}{128\pi ^3}m_J^3TK_1(m_J/T),$$
(28)
which applies to a single majoron mode with mass $`m_J`$. $`n_J`$ is the number density of the single majoron mode $`J`$ and $`H`$ is the Hubble parameter. By summing over all KK-modes of the majoron in the same way as it was done for gravitons in Refs. hs99 ; Hannestad:2001nq , one finds a present day density of

$`\rho _J`$ $`=`$ $`8.3\times 10^{24}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^{\delta /2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\delta /2)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_P}{T_{RH}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_{RH}}{M}}\right)^{\delta +2}\mathrm{GeV}^4`$ (29)
$`\times g_{aa}^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑zz^{\delta 1}{\displaystyle _z^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑qq^3K_1(q)`$
Requiring that this density is smaller than the critical density, $`\rho _c=8.1\times 10^{47}h^2\mathrm{GeV}^4`$, then yields an upper bound on $`g_{aa}`$ as a function of $`M`$ and $`T_{RH}`$.

However, there is again a limit to the applicability of the bound because for large $`g_{aa}`$ the majorons will have decayed by the present. For the decay rate given in Eq. (24) and the requirement that $`\tau 10^{10}\mathrm{yr}`$ one finds

$$g_{aa}3\times 10^{19}T_{RH,\mathrm{MeV}}^1,$$
(30)
assuming that the typical majoron mass is $`3T_{RH}`$, a fairly good approximation. In Fig. 3 we show the contours of $`g_{aa}`$ corresponding to critical density. Also shown is the lower bound on $`M`$ as a function of $`T_{RH}`$ from considering the decay of gravitons produced in the early universe. From this argument anything to the left of the thick grey lines in the figure is excluded. The limits used are the ones from Ref. Hannestad:2001nq  which are the most restrictive cosmological limits, combined with the limits from Ref. Hannestad:2001xi  which for low $`T_{RH}`$ can be more restrictive. Finally, we also show the upper bound on $`g_{aa}`$ from the above equation. In the case where the line from the graviton bound is to the right of the decay lifetime bound, majorons cannot possibly contribute to critical density. This is seen to be the case for both $`\delta =2`$ and $`\delta =6`$, and indeed for all values of $`\delta `$ from 2 to 6. Therefore the conclusion is that no non-trivial bound on $`g_{aa}`$ comes from cosmology, and further that majorons cannot contribute the dark matter of the universe valle . Already, gravitons are excluded as a dark matter candidate because if they were to contribute critical density the photons produced by their decay would have been clearly visible.

### V.2 Conclusions

In the present paper we have shown that supernova constraints on brane-world scenarios for neutrino masses are many orders of magnitude stronger than the accelerator bound MNSS . Even so the constraints found are somewhat weaker than what is naturally expected in see-saw models of neutrino mass.

We have also shown that bulk majorons cannot act as the dark matter in the universe, at least not within the present scenario with equal radii of all the extra dimensions.

Finally, our findings suggest that unnatural types of the “see-saw” mechanism for neutrino masses are unlikely to occur in nature, even in the presence of extra dimensions.

###### Acknowledgements.

We wish to thank Jukka Maalampi, Georg Raffelt, Joseph Schechter, and Jose Valle for valuable comments. The work of F.S. is supported by the Marie–Curie fellowship under contract MCFI-2001-00181.


format: text

text:
# Quantum Field Theory of three flavor neutrino mixing and oscillations with CP violation

## I Introduction

In recent years, there has been much progress in the understanding of flavor mixing in Quantum Field Theory (QFT) . The original discovery of the unitary inequivalence of the mass and the flavor representations in QFT , has prompted further investigations on fermion mixing  as well as on boson mixing. It has emerged that the rich non–perturbative vacuum structure associated with field mixing leads to relevant modification of the flavor oscillation formulas, exhibiting new features with respect to the usual quantum–mechanical ones . Some topologically nontrivial features, such as the occurrence of a geometric (Berry-Anandan) phase in field mixing has been also pointed out .

In this paper we study in detail the case of three flavor fermion (neutrino) mixing. This is not a simple extension of the previous results since the existence of a CP violating phase in the parameterization of the three-flavor mixing matrix introduces novel features which are absent in the two-flavor case. We determine the generators of the mixing transformations and by use of them, we recover the known parameterizations of the three-flavor mixing matrix and find a number of new ones. We construct the flavor Hilbert space, for which the ground state (flavor vacuum) turns out to be a generalized coherent state. We also study the algebraic structure of currents and charges associated with the mixing transformations and we find that, in presence of CP violation, it is that of a deformed $`su(3)`$. The construction of the flavor Hilbert space is an essential step in the derivation of exact oscillation formulas, which account for CP violation and reduce to the corresponding quantum–mechanical ones in the relativistic limit.

The paper is organized as follows. In §II we construct the Hilbert space for three-flavor mixed fermions. In §III we study the various parameterization of the unitary $`3\times 3`$ mixing matrix obtained by use of the algebraic generators. In §IV, we study the currents and charges for three-flavor mixing, which are then used in §V to derive the exact neutrino oscillation formulas. Finally in §VI, CP an T violation in QFT neutrino oscillations are discussed. §VII is devoted to conclusions. In the Appendices we put some useful formulas and a discussion of the arbitrary mass parameterization in the expansion of flavor fields as recently reported in .

## II Three flavor fermion mixing

We start by considering the following Lagrangian density describing three Dirac fields with a mixed mass term:

$`(x)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_f(x)\left(i\overline{)}\text{M}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_f(x),`$ (1)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f^T=(\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau )`$ and $`\text{M}=\text{M}^{}`$ is the mixed mass matrix.

Among the various possible parameterizations of the mixing matrix for three fields, we choose to work with the following one since it is the familiar parametrization of the CKM matrix :

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_f(x)=𝒰\mathrm{\Psi }_m(x)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}& s_{13}e^{i\delta }\\ s_{12}c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& s_{23}c_{13}\\ s_{12}s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_m(x),`$ (2)
with $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$, being $`\theta _{ij}`$ the mixing angle between $`\nu _i,\nu _j`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m^T=(\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3)`$.

Using Eq.(2), we diagonalize the quadratic form of Eq.(1), which then reduces to the Lagrangian for three Dirac fields, with masses $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ and $`m_3`$:

$`(x)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_m(x)\left(i\overline{)}\text{M}_d\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_m(x),`$ (3)
where $`\text{M}_d=diag(m_1,m_2,m_3)`$.

Following Ref., we construct the generator for the mixing transformation (2) and define***Let us consider for example the generation of the first row of the mixing matrix $`𝒰`$. We have (see also Appendix B) $`\nu _e/\theta _{23}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0};`$ and $`\nu _e/\theta _{13}=G_{12}^1G_{13}^1[\nu _1,L_{13}]G_{13}G_{12}=G_{12}^1G_{13}^1e^{i\delta }\nu _3G_{13}G_{12}`$, thus:    $`^2\nu _e/\theta _{13}^2=\nu _e\nu _e=f(\theta _{12})\mathrm{cos}\theta _{13}+g(\theta _{12})\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13};`$  (4) with the initial conditions (from Eq.(6)): $`f(\theta _{12})=\nu _e|_{\theta _{13}=0}`$ and $`g(\theta _{12})=\nu _e/\theta _{13}|_{\theta _{13}=0}=e^{i\delta }\nu _3`$ . We also have    $`^2f(\theta _{12})/\theta _{13}^2=f(\theta _{12})f(\theta _{12})=A\mathrm{cos}\theta _{12}+B\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}`$  (5) with the initial conditions $`A=\nu _e|_{\theta =0}=\nu _1`$ and $`B=f(\theta _{12})/\theta _{12}|_{\theta =0}=\nu _2`$, and $`\theta =(\theta _{12},\theta _{13},\theta _{23}).`$

$`\nu _\sigma ^\alpha (x)G_\theta ^1(t)\nu _i^\alpha (x)G_\theta (t),`$ (6)
where $`(\sigma ,i)=(e,1),(\mu ,2),(\tau ,3)`$, and

$`G_\theta (t)=G_{23}(t)G_{13}(t)G_{12}(t),`$ (7)
where

$`G_{12}(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[\theta _{12}L_{12}(t)\right];L_{12}(t)={\displaystyle }d^3x[\nu _1^{}(x)\nu _2(x)\nu _2^{}(x)\nu _1(x)],`$ (8)
$`G_{23}(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[\theta _{23}L_{23}(t)\right];L_{23}(t)={\displaystyle }d^3x[\nu _2^{}(x)\nu _3(x)\nu _3^{}(x)\nu _2(x)],`$ (9)
$`G_{13}(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[\theta _{13}L_{13}(\delta ,t)\right];L_{13}(\delta ,t)={\displaystyle }d^3x[\nu _1^{}(x)\nu _3(x)e^{i\delta }\nu _3^{}(x)\nu _1(x)e^{i\delta }],`$ (10)
It is evident from the above form of the generators, that the phase $`\delta `$ is unavoidable for three field mixing, while it can be incorporated in the definition of the fields in the two flavor case.

The free fields $`\nu _i`$ (i=1,2,3) can be quantized in the usual way (we use $`tx_0`$):

$`\nu _i(x)={\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k\left[u_{𝐤,i}^r(t)\alpha _{𝐤,i}^r+v_{𝐤,i}^r(t)\beta _{𝐤,i}^r\right]e^{i𝐤𝐱}},i=1,2,3,`$ (11)
with $`u_{𝐤,i}^r(t)=e^{i\omega _{k,i}t}u_{𝐤,i}^r`$, $`v_{𝐤,i}^r(t)=e^{i\omega _{k,i}t}v_{𝐤,i}^r`$ and $`\omega _{k,i}=\sqrt{𝐤^2+m_i^2}`$. The vacuum for the mass eigenstates is denoted by $`|0_m`$: $`\alpha _{𝐤,i}^r|0_m=\beta _{𝐤,i}^r|0_m=0`$. The anticommutation relations are the usual ones; the wave function orthonormality and completeness relations are those of Ref..

The main result of Ref. is the unitary inequivalence (in the infinite volume limit) of the vacua for the flavor fields and for the fields with definite masses. There such an inequivalence was proved for the case of two generations; subsequently, in Ref., a rigorous general proof of such inequivalence for any number of generations has been given (see also Ref.). Thus we do not need to repeat here such a proof and we define the the flavor vacuum as:

$`|0(t)_fG_\theta ^1(t)|0_m.`$ (12)
The form of this state is considerably more complicated of the one for two generations. When $`\delta =0`$, the generator $`G_\theta `$ is an element of the $`SU(3)`$ group (see §IV) and the flavor vacuum is classified as an $`SU(3)`$ generalized coherent state à la Perelomov . A nonzero CP violating phase introduces an interesting modification of the algebra associated with the mixing transformations Eq.(2): we discuss this in §IV.

By use of $`G_\theta (t)`$, the flavor fields can be expanded as:

$`\nu _\sigma (x)={\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle }d^3k[u_{𝐤,i}^r(t)\alpha _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t)+v_{𝐤,i}^r(t)\beta _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t)]e^{i𝐤𝐱},(\sigma ,i)=(e,1),(\mu ,2),(\tau ,3).`$ (13)
The flavor annihilation operators are defined as $`\alpha _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t)G_\theta ^1(t)\alpha _{𝐤,i}^rG_\theta (t)`$ and $`\beta _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t)G_\theta ^1(t)\beta _{𝐤,i}^rG_\theta (t)`$. They clearly act as annihilators for the flavor vacuum Eq.(12). For further reference, it is useful to list explicitly the flavor annihilation/creation operators (see also Ref.). In the reference frame $`𝐤=(0,0,|𝐤|)`$ the spins decouple and their form is particularly simple:

$`\alpha _{𝐤,e}^r(t)`$ $`=`$ $`c_{12}c_{13}\alpha _{𝐤,1}^r+s_{12}c_{13}\left(U_{12}^𝐤(t)\alpha _{𝐤,2}^r+ϵ^rV_{12}^𝐤(t)\beta _{𝐤,2}^r\right)+e^{i\delta }s_{13}\left(U_{13}^𝐤(t)\alpha _{𝐤,3}^r+ϵ^rV_{13}^𝐤(t)\beta _{𝐤,3}^r\right),`$ (14)
$`\alpha _{𝐤,\mu }^r(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(c_{12}c_{23}e^{i\delta }s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}\right)\alpha _{𝐤,2}^r\left(s_{12}c_{23}+e^{i\delta }c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}\right)\left(U_{12}^𝐤(t)\alpha _{𝐤,1}^rϵ^rV_{12}^𝐤(t)\beta _{𝐤,1}^r\right)`$ (16)
$`+s_{23}c_{13}\left(U_{23}^𝐤(t)\alpha _{𝐤,3}^r+ϵ^rV_{23}^𝐤(t)\beta _{𝐤,3}^r\right),`$
$`\alpha _{𝐤,\tau }^r(t)`$ $`=`$ $`c_{23}c_{13}\alpha _{𝐤,3}^r\left(c_{12}s_{23}+e^{i\delta }s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}\right)\left(U_{23}^𝐤(t)\alpha _{𝐤,2}^rϵ^rV_{23}^𝐤(t)\beta _{𝐤,2}^r\right)`$ (18)
$`+\left(s_{12}s_{23}e^{i\delta }c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}\right)\left(U_{13}^𝐤(t)\alpha _{𝐤,1}^rϵ^rV_{13}^𝐤(t)\beta _{𝐤,1}^r\right),`$
$`\beta _{𝐤,e}^r(t)`$ $`=`$ $`c_{12}c_{13}\beta _{𝐤,1}^r+s_{12}c_{13}\left(U_{12}^𝐤(t)\beta _{𝐤,2}^rϵ^rV_{12}^𝐤(t)\alpha _{𝐤,2}^r\right)+e^{i\delta }s_{13}\left(U_{13}^𝐤(t)\beta _{𝐤,3}^rϵ^rV_{13}^𝐤(t)\alpha _{𝐤,3}^r\right),`$ (19)
$`\beta _{𝐤,\mu }^r(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(c_{12}c_{23}e^{i\delta }s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}\right)\beta _{𝐤,2}^r\left(s_{12}c_{23}+e^{i\delta }c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}\right)\left(U_{12}^𝐤(t)\beta _{𝐤,1}^r+ϵ^rV_{12}^𝐤(t)\alpha _{𝐤,1}^r\right)+`$ (21)
$`+s_{23}c_{13}\left(U_{23}^𝐤(t)\beta _{𝐤,3}^rϵ^rV_{23}^𝐤(t)\alpha _{𝐤,3}^r\right),`$
$`\beta _{𝐤,\tau }^r(t)`$ $`=`$ $`c_{23}c_{13}\beta _{𝐤,3}^r\left(c_{12}s_{23}+e^{i\delta }s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}\right)\left(U_{23}^𝐤(t)\beta _{𝐤,2}^r+ϵ^rV_{23}^𝐤(t)\alpha _{𝐤,2}^r\right)`$ (23)
$`+\left(s_{12}s_{23}e^{i\delta }c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}\right)\left(U_{13}^𝐤(t)\beta _{𝐤,1}^r+ϵ^rV_{13}^𝐤(t)\alpha _{𝐤,1}^r\right).`$
These operators satisfy canonical (anti)commutation relations at equal times. The main difference with respect to their “naive” quantum-mechanical counterparts is in the anomalous terms proportional to the $`V_{ij}`$ factors. In fact, $`U_{ij}^𝐤`$ and $`V_{ij}^𝐤`$ are Bogoliubov coefficients defined as:

$`V_{ij}^𝐤(t)=|V_{ij}^𝐤|e^{i(\omega _{k,j}+\omega _{k,i})t},U_{ij}^𝐤(t)=|U_{ij}^𝐤|e^{i(\omega _{k,j}\omega _{k,i})t}`$ (24)
$`|U_{ij}^𝐤|=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{k,i}+m_i}{2\omega _{k,i}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{k,j}+m_j}{2\omega _{k,j}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐤|^2}{(\omega _{k,i}+m_i)(\omega _{k,j}+m_j)}}\right)=\mathrm{cos}(\xi _{ij}^𝐤)`$ (25)
$`|V_{ij}^𝐤|=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{k,i}+m_i}{2\omega _{k,i}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{k,j}+m_j}{2\omega _{k,j}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|𝐤|}{(\omega _{k,j}+m_j)}}{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐤|}{(\omega _{k,i}+m_i)}}\right)=\mathrm{sin}(\xi _{ij}^𝐤)`$ (26)
$`|U_{ij}^𝐤|^2+|V_{ij}^𝐤|^2=1`$ (27)
where $`i,j=1,2,3`$ and $`j>i`$. The following identities hold:

$`V_{23}^𝐤(t)V_{13}^𝐤(t)+U_{23}^𝐤(t)U_{13}^𝐤(t)=U_{12}^𝐤(t),V_{23}^𝐤(t)U_{13}^𝐤(t)U_{23}^𝐤(t)V_{13}^𝐤(t)=V_{12}^𝐤(t)`$ (28)
$`U_{12}^𝐤(t)U_{23}^𝐤(t)V_{12}^𝐤(t)V_{23}^𝐤(t)=U_{13}^𝐤(t),U_{23}^𝐤(t)V_{12}^𝐤(t)+U_{12}^𝐤(t)V_{23}^𝐤(t)=V_{13}^𝐤(t)`$ (29)
$`V_{12}^𝐤(t)V_{13}^𝐤(t)+U_{12}^𝐤(t)U_{13}^𝐤(t)=U_{23}^𝐤(t),V_{12}^𝐤(t)U_{13}^𝐤(t)U_{12}^𝐤(t)V_{13}^𝐤(t)=V_{23}^𝐤(t),`$ (30)
$`\xi _{13}^𝐤=\xi _{12}^𝐤+\xi _{23}^𝐤,\xi _{ij}^𝐤=\mathrm{arctan}(|V_{ij}^𝐤|/|U_{ij}^𝐤|).`$ (31)
As already observed in Ref. we remark that, in contrast with the case of two flavor mixing, the condensation densities are now different for particles of different masses:

$`𝒩_1^𝐤=_f0(t)|N_{\alpha _1}^{𝐤,r}|0(t)_f`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{f}{}^{}0(t)|N_{\beta _1}^{𝐤,r}|0(t)_{f}^{}=s_{12}^2c_{13}^2|V_{12}^𝐤|^2+s_{13}^2|V_{13}^𝐤|^2,`$ (32)
$`𝒩_2^𝐤=_f0(t)|N_{\alpha _2}^{𝐤,r}|0(t)_f`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{f}{}^{}0(t)|N_{\beta _2}^{𝐤,r}|0(t)_{f}^{}=|s_{12}c_{23}+e^{i\delta }c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}|^2|V_{12}^𝐤|^2+s_{23}^2c_{13}^2|V_{23}^𝐤|^2,`$ (33)
$`𝒩_3^𝐤=_f0(t)|N_{\alpha _3}^{𝐤,r}|0(t)_f`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{f}{}^{}0(t)|N_{\beta _3}^{𝐤,r}|0(t)_{f}^{}=|c_{12}s_{23}+e^{i\delta }s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}|^2|V_{23}^𝐤|^2+|s_{12}s_{23}+e^{i\delta }c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}|^2|V_{13}^𝐤|^2.`$ (34)
| $`m_1`$ | $`m_2`$ | $`m_3`$ | $`\theta _{12}`$ | $`\theta _{13}`$ | $`\theta _{23}`$ | $`\delta `$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`1`$ | $`200`$ | $`3000`$ | $`\pi /4`$ | $`\pi /4`$ | $`\pi /4`$ | $`\pi /4`$ |

Table 1: The values of masses and mixing angles used for plots

We plot in Fig.(1) the condensation densities for sample values of parameters as given in the table aboveHere and in the following plots, we use the same (energy) units for the values of masses and momentum.:

Figure 1: Plot of the condensation densities $`𝒩_i^𝐤`$ in function of $`|𝐤|`$ for the values of parameters as in Tab.(1).

## III The parameterizations of the three flavor mixing matrix

In §II we have studied the generator of the mixing matrix $`𝒰`$ of Eq.(2). However, this matrix is only one of the various forms in which a $`3\times 3`$ unitary matrix can be parameterized. Indeed, the generator Eq.(7) can be used for generating such alternative parameterizations. To see this, let us first define in a more general way the generators $`G_{ij}`$ including phases for all of them:

$`G_{12}(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[\theta _{12}L_{12}(\delta _{12},t)\right];L_{12}(\delta _{12},t)={\displaystyle d^3x\left[\nu _1^{}(x)\nu _2(x)e^{i\delta _{12}}\nu _2^{}(x)\nu _1(x)e^{i\delta _{12}}\right]},`$ (37)
$`G_{23}(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[\theta _{23}L_{23}(\delta _{23},t)\right];L_{23}(\delta _{23},t)={\displaystyle d^3x\left[\nu _2^{}(x)\nu _3(x)e^{i\delta _{23}}\nu _3^{}(x)\nu _2(x)e^{i\delta _{23}}\right]},`$
$`G_{13}(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[\theta _{13}L_{13}(\delta _{13},t)\right];L_{13}(\delta _{13},t)={\displaystyle d^3x\left[\nu _1^{}(x)\nu _3(x)e^{i\delta _{13}}\nu _3^{}(x)\nu _1(x)e^{i\delta _{13}}\right]}.`$
Six different matrices can be obtained by permuting the order of the $`G_{ij}`$ (useful relations are listed in Appendix A) in Eq.(7). We obtain:

$`G_1G_{23}G_{13}G_{12}`$ (38)
$`𝒰_1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}e^{i\delta _{12}}& s_{13}e^{i\delta _{13}}\\ s_{12}c_{23}e^{i\delta _{12}}s_{23}s_{13}c_{12}e^{i(\delta _{13}\delta _{23})}& c_{12}c_{23}s_{23}s_{13}s_{12}e^{i(\delta _{23}\delta _{13}+\delta _{12})}& s_{23}c_{13}e^{i\delta _{23}}\\ s_{13}c_{12}c_{23}e^{i\delta _{13}}+s_{12}s_{23}e^{i(\delta _{12}+\delta _{23})}& c_{23}s_{13}s_{12}e^{i(\delta _{13}\delta _{12})}s_{23}c_{12}e^{i\delta _{23}}& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right)`$ (39)
$`G_2G_{23}G_{12}G_{13}`$ (40)
$`𝒰_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}e^{i\delta _{12}}& s_{13}c_{12}e^{i\delta _{13}}\\ s_{12}c_{13}c_{23}e^{i\delta _{12}}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i(\delta _{13}\delta _{23})}& c_{12}c_{23}& s_{13}c_{23}s_{12}e^{i(\delta _{12}\delta _{13})}+s_{23}c_{13}e^{i\delta _{23}}\\ s_{13}c_{23}e^{i\delta _{13}}+s_{12}s_{23}c_{13}e^{i(\delta _{12}+\delta _{23})}& c_{12}s_{23}e^{i\delta _{23}}& c_{23}c_{13}+s_{12}s_{13}s_{23}e^{i(\delta _{12}+\delta _{23}\delta _{13})}\end{array}\right)`$ (41)
$`G_3G_{13}G_{23}G_{12}`$ (42)
$`𝒰_3=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}+s_{13}s_{23}s_{12}e^{i(\delta _{12}\delta _{13}+\delta _{23})}& s_{12}c_{13}e^{i\delta _{12}}s_{13}s_{23}c_{12}e^{i(\delta _{23}\delta _{13})}& s_{13}c_{23}e^{i\delta _{13}}\\ s_{12}c_{23}e^{i\delta _{12}}& c_{12}c_{23}& s_{23}e^{i\delta _{23}}\\ c_{13}s_{23}s_{12}e^{i(\delta _{23}+\delta _{12})}s_{13}c_{12}e^{i\delta _{13}}& c_{13}s_{23}c_{12}e^{i\delta _{23}}s_{12}s_{13}e^{i(\delta _{13}\delta _{12})}& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right)`$ (43)
$`G_4G_{13}G_{12}G_{23}`$ (44)
$`𝒰_4=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}c_{23}e^{i\delta _{12}}s_{13}s_{23}e^{i(\delta _{23}\delta _{13})}& s_{12}s_{23}c_{13}e^{i(\delta _{12}+\delta _{23})}+s_{13}c_{23}e^{i\delta _{13}}\\ s_{12}e^{i\delta _{12}}& c_{12}c_{23}& s_{23}c_{12}e^{i\delta _{23}}\\ c_{12}s_{13}e^{i\delta _{13}}& c_{13}s_{23}e^{i\delta _{23}}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i(\delta _{13}\delta _{12})}& c_{23}c_{13}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i(\delta _{12}+\delta _{23}\delta _{13})}\end{array}\right)`$ (45)
$`G_5G_{12}G_{13}G_{23}`$ (46)
$`𝒰_5=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{23}e^{i\delta _{12}}s_{13}c_{12}s_{23}e^{i(\delta _{13}\delta _{23})}& s_{13}c_{12}c_{23}e^{i\delta _{13}}+s_{12}s_{23}e^{i(\delta _{12}+\delta _{23})}\\ s_{12}c_{13}e^{i\delta _{12}}& c_{12}c_{23}+s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i(\delta _{12}\delta _{13}+\delta _{23})}& s_{23}c_{12}e^{i\delta _{23}}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i(\delta _{12}\delta _{13})}\\ s_{13}e^{i\delta _{13}}& c_{13}s_{23}e^{i\delta _{23}}& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right)`$ (47)
$`G_6G_{12}G_{23}G_{13}`$ (49)
$`𝒰_6=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i(\delta _{12}+\delta _{23}\delta _{13})}& s_{12}c_{23}e^{i\delta _{12}}& c_{12}s_{13}e^{i\delta _{13}}+s_{12}s_{23}c_{13}e^{i(\delta _{12}+\delta _{23})}\\ c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i(\delta _{13}\delta _{23})}s_{12}c_{13}e^{i\delta _{12}}& c_{12}c_{23}& c_{12}s_{23}c_{13}e^{i\delta _{23}}s_{12}s_{13}e^{i(\delta _{12}\delta _{13})}\\ c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta _{13}}& s_{23}e^{i\delta _{23}}& c_{23}c_{13}\end{array}\right)`$
The above matrices are generated for a particular set of initial conditions, namely for those of Eq.(6). The freedom in the choice of the initial conditions reflects into the possibility of obtaining other unitary matrices from the above ones by permuting rows and columns and by multiplying row or columns for a phase factor.

We thus can easily recover all the existing parameterizations of the CKM matrix :

\- the Maiani parameterization  is obtained from $`𝒰_1`$ by setting $`\theta _{12}\theta `$, $`\theta _{13}\beta `$, $`\theta _{23}\gamma `$, $`\delta _{12}0`$, $`\delta _{13}0`$, $`\delta _{23}\delta `$;

\- the Chau–Keung parameterization  is recovered from $`𝒰_1`$ by setting $`\delta _{12}0`$ and $`\delta _{23}0`$;

\- the Kobayshi–Maskawa  is recovered from $`𝒰_5`$ by setting $`\theta _{12}\theta _2`$, $`\theta _{13}\theta _1`$, $`\theta _{23}\theta _3`$, $`\delta _{12}\delta `$, $`\delta _{13}0`$ and $`\delta _{23}0`$, $`\theta _i\frac{3}{2}\pi \theta _i`$, with $`i=1,2,3`$, and multiply the last column for $`(1)`$;

\- the Anselm parameterization  is obtained from $`𝒰_1`$ by setting $`\theta _{12}\theta _{13}`$, then $`\delta _{12}0`$, $`\delta _{13}0`$, $`\theta _{12}\pi +\theta _{12}`$, $`\theta _{13}\pi \theta _{13}`$, $`\theta _{23}\frac{3}{2}\pi +\theta _{23}`$, exchanging second and third column and multiplying the last row for $`(1)`$.

From the above analysis it is clear that a number of new parameterizations of the mixing matrix can be generated and that a clear physical meaning can be attached to each of them, by considering the order in which the generators $`G_{ij}`$ act and the initial conditions used for getting that particular matrix.

## IV Currents and charges for three flavor fermion mixing

In this Section we study the currents associated to the Lagrangians Eq.(3) and (1). To this end, let us consider the transformations acting on the triplet of free fields with different masses $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$, in the line of Ref..

$``$ is invariant under global $`U(1)`$ phase transformations of the type $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{}=e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$: as a result, we have the conservation of the Noether charge $`Q=d^3xI^0(x)`$ (with $`I^\mu (x)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_m(x)\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }_m(x)`$) which is indeed the total charge of the system (i.e. the total lepton number).

Consider then the $`SU(3)`$ global transformations acting on $`\mathrm{\Psi }_m`$:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_m^{}(x)=e^{i\alpha _jF_j}\mathrm{\Psi }_m(x),j=1,2,\mathrm{},8.`$ (50)
with $`\alpha _j`$ real constants, $`F_j=\frac{1}{2}\lambda _j`$ being the generators of $`SU(3)`$ and $`\lambda _j`$ the Gell-Mann matrices.

The Lagrangian is not generally invariant under (50) and we obtain, by use of the equations of motion,

$`\delta (x)=i\alpha _j\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_m(x)[F_j,\text{M}_d]\mathrm{\Psi }_m(x)=\alpha _j_\mu J_{m,j}^\mu (x)`$ (51)
$`J_{m,j}^\mu (x)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_m(x)\gamma ^\mu F_j\mathrm{\Psi }_m(x),j=1,2,\mathrm{},8.`$ (52)
It is useful to list explicitly the eight currents (we suppress spacetime dependence):

$`J_{m,1}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\overline{\nu }_1\gamma ^\mu \nu _2+\overline{\nu }_2\gamma ^\mu \nu _1],J_{m,2}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\overline{\nu }_1\gamma ^\mu \nu _2\overline{\nu }_2\gamma ^\mu \nu _1]`$ (53)
$`J_{m,3}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\overline{\nu }_1\gamma ^\mu \nu _1\overline{\nu }_2\gamma ^\mu \nu _2],J_{m,4}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\overline{\nu }_1\gamma ^\mu \nu _3+\overline{\nu }_3\gamma ^\mu \nu _1]`$ (54)
$`J_{m,5}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\overline{\nu }_1\gamma ^\mu \nu _3\overline{\nu }_3\gamma ^\mu \nu _1],J_{m,6}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\overline{\nu }_2\gamma ^\mu \nu _3+\overline{\nu }_3\gamma ^\mu \nu _2]`$ (55)
$`J_{m,7}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[\overline{\nu }_2\gamma ^\mu \nu _3\overline{\nu }_3\gamma ^\mu \nu _2],J_{m,8}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}}[\overline{\nu }_1\gamma ^\mu \nu _1+\overline{\nu }_2\gamma ^\mu \nu _22\overline{\nu }_3\gamma ^\mu \nu _3].`$ (56)
The related charges $`Q_{m,j}(t)d^3xJ_{m,j}^0(x)`$, satisfy the $`su(3)`$ algebra $`[Q_{m,j}(t),Q_{m,k}(t)]=if_{jkl}Q_{m,l}(t)`$. Note that only two of the above charges are time-independent, namely $`Q_{m,3}`$ and $`Q_{m,8}`$. We can thus define the combinations:

$`Q_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}Q+Q_{m,3}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}Q_{m,8},`$ (57)
$`Q_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}QQ_{m,3}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}Q_{m,8},`$ (58)
$`Q_3`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}Q{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}Q_{m,8},`$ (59)
$`Q_i={\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k\left(\alpha _{𝐤,i}^r\alpha _{𝐤,i}^r\beta _{𝐤,i}^r\beta _{𝐤,i}^r\right)},i=1,2,3.`$ (60)
These are nothing but the Noether charges associated with the non-interacting fields $`\nu _1`$, $`\nu _2`$ and $`\nu _3`$: in the absence of mixing, they are the flavor charges, separately conserved for each generation.

As already observed in §II, in the case when CP is conserved ($`\delta =0`$), the mixing generator Eq.(7) is an element of the $`SU(3)`$ group and can be expressed in terms of the above charges as:

$`G_\theta (t)|_{\delta =0}=e^{i2\theta _{23}Q_{m,7}(t)}e^{i2\theta _{13}Q_{m,5}(t)}e^{i2\theta _{12}Q_{m,2}(t)}`$ (61)
Following Ref., we can now perform the $`SU(3)`$ transformations on the flavor triplet $`\mathrm{\Psi }_f`$ and obtain another set of currents for the flavor fields:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_f^{}(x)=e^{i\alpha _jF_j}\mathrm{\Psi }_f(x),j=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},2,\mathrm{},8,`$ (62)
which leads to

$`\delta (x)=i\alpha _j\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_f(x)[F_j,\text{M}]\mathrm{\Psi }_f(x)=\alpha _j_\mu J_{f,j}^\mu (x),`$ (63)
$`J_{f,j}^\mu (x)=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_f(x)\gamma ^\mu F_j\mathrm{\Psi }_f(x),j=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},2,\mathrm{},8.`$ (64)
Alternatively, the same currents can be obtained by applying on the $`J_{m,j}^\mu (x)`$ the mixing generator Eq.(7):

$`J_{f,j}^\mu (x)=G_\theta ^1(t)J_{m,j}^\mu (x)G_\theta (t),j=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},2,\mathrm{},8.`$ (65)
The related charges $`Q_{f,j}(t)`$ $``$ $`d^3xJ_{f,j}^0(x)`$ still close the $`su(3)`$ algebra. Due to the off–diagonal (mixing) terms in the mass matrix M, $`Q_{f,3}(t)`$ and $`Q_{f,8}(t)`$ are time–dependent. This implies an exchange of charge between $`\nu _e`$, $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\nu _\tau `$, resulting in the flavor oscillations.

In accordance with Eq.(57), we define the flavor charges for mixed fields as

$`Q_e(t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}Q+Q_{f,3}(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}Q_{f,8}(t),`$ (66)
$`Q_\mu (t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}QQ_{f,3}(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}Q_{f,8}(t),`$ (67)
$`Q_\tau (t)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}Q{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{3}}}Q_{f,8}(t).`$ (68)
with $`Q_e(t)+Q_\mu (t)+Q_\tau (t)=Q`$. These charges have a simple expression in terms of the flavor ladder operators:

$`Q_\sigma (t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle }d^3k(\alpha _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t)\alpha _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t)\beta _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t)\beta _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t)),\sigma =e,\mu ,\tau ,`$ (69)
because of the connection with the Noether charges of Eq.(60) via the mixing generator: $`Q_\sigma (t)=G_\theta ^1(t)Q_iG_\theta (t)`$.

Notice also that the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_\sigma (t)Q_\sigma (t)Q_i`$ with $`(\sigma ,i)=(e,1),(\mu ,2),(\tau ,3)`$ , describes how much the mixing violates the (lepton) charge conservation for a given generation.

Let us now come back to the algebra of the currents including CP violating phases. To this end, we consider a generalization of the Gell-Mann matrices (we use a tilde for denoting the modified quantities including phases):

$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& e^{i\delta _2}& 0\\ e^{i\delta _2}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& ie^{i\delta _2}& 0\\ ie^{i\delta _2}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_3=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_4=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& e^{i\delta _5}\\ 0& 0& 0\\ e^{i\delta _5}& 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (70)
$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_5=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& ie^{i\delta _5}\\ 0& 0& 0\\ ie^{i\delta _5}& 0& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_6=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& e^{i\delta _7}\\ 0& e^{i\delta _7}& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_7=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& ie^{i\delta _7}\\ 0& ie^{i\delta _7}& 0\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_8={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 2\end{array}\right).`$ (71)
These are normalized as the Gell-Mann matrices: $`tr(\lambda _j\lambda _k)=2\delta _{jk}`$ . We define as usual the algebraic generators:

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_j={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_j,j=1,..,8`$ (72)
The above generators Eq.(72) do not close the $`su(3)`$ algebra, unless the condition $`\delta _2+\delta _5+\delta _7=0`$ is imposed (cf. Eq.(73) below), i.e. if one of the three phases is fixed in terms of the remaining two. Such a request is clearly incompatible with the parameterizations of the mixing matrices of §II and §III (cf. e.g. the discussion after Eq.(49); we have the correspondence $`\{\delta _2,\delta _5,\delta _7\}\{\delta _{12},\delta _{13},\delta _{23}\}`$). For the matrix (2), as already observed, it implies $`\delta =0`$.

The $`\stackrel{~}{F}_j`$ satisfy a deformed $`su(3)`$ algebra with deformed commutation relations given by:

$`[\stackrel{~}{F}_2,\stackrel{~}{F}_5]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{F}_7e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{~}{F}_3\sqrt{3}\stackrel{~}{F}_8)};[\stackrel{~}{F}_2,\stackrel{~}{F}_7]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{F}_5e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{~}{F}_3+\sqrt{3}\stackrel{~}{F}_8)};[\stackrel{~}{F}_5,\stackrel{~}{F}_7]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{F}_2e^{2i\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{F}_3}`$ (73)
$`[\stackrel{~}{F}_1,\stackrel{~}{F}_4]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{F}_7e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{~}{F}_3\sqrt{3}\stackrel{~}{F}_8)};[\stackrel{~}{F}_1,\stackrel{~}{F}_7]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{F}_4e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{~}{F}_3+\sqrt{3}\stackrel{~}{F}_8)};[\stackrel{~}{F}_4,\stackrel{~}{F}_7]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{F}_1e^{2i\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{F}_3}`$ (74)
$`[\stackrel{~}{F}_1,\stackrel{~}{F}_5]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{F}_6e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{~}{F}_3\sqrt{3}\stackrel{~}{F}_8)};[\stackrel{~}{F}_1,\stackrel{~}{F}_6]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{F}_5e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{~}{F}_3+\sqrt{3}\stackrel{~}{F}_8)};[\stackrel{~}{F}_5,\stackrel{~}{F}_6]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{F}_1e^{2i\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{F}_3}`$ (75)
$`[\stackrel{~}{F}_2,\stackrel{~}{F}_4]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{F}_6e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{~}{F}_3\sqrt{3}\stackrel{~}{F}_8)};[\stackrel{~}{F}_2,\stackrel{~}{F}_6]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{F}_4e^{i\mathrm{\Delta }(\stackrel{~}{F}_3+\sqrt{3}\stackrel{~}{F}_8)};[\stackrel{~}{F}_4,\stackrel{~}{F}_6]={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\stackrel{~}{F}_2e^{2i\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{F}_3}`$ (76)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _2+\delta _5+\delta _7`$. The other commutators are the usual $`su(3)`$ ones. For $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$, the $`su(3)`$ algebra is recovered.

It is useful to look at the deformed algebra in terms of the raising and lowering operators, defined as:

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_\pm \stackrel{~}{F}_1\pm i\stackrel{~}{F}_2,\stackrel{~}{U}_\pm \stackrel{~}{F}_6\pm i\stackrel{~}{F}_7,\stackrel{~}{V}_\pm \stackrel{~}{F}_4\pm i\stackrel{~}{F}_5`$ (77)
We also define:

$`\stackrel{~}{T}_3\stackrel{~}{F}_3,\stackrel{~}{U}_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sqrt{3}\stackrel{~}{F}_8\stackrel{~}{F}_3),\stackrel{~}{V}_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\sqrt{3}\stackrel{~}{F}_8+\stackrel{~}{F}_3)`$ (78)
Then the only deformed commutators are the following ones:

$`[\stackrel{~}{T}_+,\stackrel{~}{V}_{}]=\stackrel{~}{U}_{}e^{2i\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{U}_3},[\stackrel{~}{T}_+,\stackrel{~}{U}_+]=\stackrel{~}{V}_+e^{2i\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{V}_3},[\stackrel{~}{U}_+,\stackrel{~}{V}_{}]=\stackrel{~}{T}_{}e^{2i\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{T}_3}`$ (79)
## V Neutrino Oscillations

The oscillation formulas are obtained by taking expectation values of the above charges on the (flavor) neutrino state. Consider for example an initial electron neutrino state defined as $`|\nu _e\alpha _{𝐤,e}^r(0)|0_f`$ (for a discussion on the correct definition of flavor states see Refs.). Working in the Heisenberg picture, we obtain

$`𝒬_{𝐤,\sigma }^\rho (t)`$ $``$ $`\nu _\rho |Q_\sigma (t)|\nu _\rho {}_{f}{}^{}0|Q_\sigma (t)|0_{f}^{}=|\{\alpha _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t),\alpha _{𝐤,\rho }^r(0)\}|^2+|\{\beta _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t),\alpha _{𝐤,\rho }^r(0)\}|^2,`$ (80)
$`𝒬_{𝐤,\sigma }^{\overline{\rho }}(t)`$ $``$ $`\overline{\nu }_\rho |Q_\sigma (t)|\overline{\nu }_\rho {}_{f}{}^{}0|Q_\sigma (t)|0_{f}^{}=|\{\beta _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t),\beta _{𝐤,\rho }^r(0)\}|^2|\{\alpha _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t),\beta _{𝐤,\rho }^r(0)\}|^2,`$ (81)
where $`|0_f|0(0)_f`$. Overall charge conservation is obviously ensured at any time: $`𝒬_{𝐤,e}(t)+𝒬_{𝐤,\mu }(t)+𝒬_{𝐤,\tau }(t)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$. We remark that the expectation value of $`Q_\sigma `$ cannot be taken on vectors of the Fock space built on $`|0_m`$, as shown in Refs.. Also we observe that $`{}_{f}{}^{}0|Q_\sigma (t)|0_{f}^{}0`$, in contrast with the two flavor case. We introduce the following notation:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}^𝐤{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{k,j}\omega _{k,i}}{2}},\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}^𝐤{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _{k,i}+\omega _{k,j}}{2}}`$ (82)
Then the oscillation (in time) formulas for the flavor charges, on an initial electron neutrino state, follow as:

$`𝒬_{𝐤,e}^e(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta _{12})\mathrm{cos}^4\theta _{13}\left[|U_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^𝐤t\right)+|V_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^𝐤t\right)\right]`$ (85)
$`\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta _{13})\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{12}\left[|U_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^𝐤t\right)+|V_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}^𝐤t\right)\right]`$
$`\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta _{13})\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}\left[|U_{23}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}^𝐤t\right)+|V_{23}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}^𝐤t\right)\right],`$
$`𝒬_{𝐤,\mu }^e(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2J_{_{CP}}[|U_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^𝐤t)|V_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^𝐤t)+(|U_{12}^𝐤|^2|V_{13}^𝐤|^2)\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}^𝐤t)`$ (86)
$`+`$ $`(|V_{12}^𝐤|^2|V_{13}^𝐤|^2)\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}^𝐤t)|U_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^𝐤t)+|V_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}^𝐤t)]`$ (87)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\left[\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{12})\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{23})+4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\right]\left[|U_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^𝐤t\right)+|V_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}^𝐤t\right)\right]`$ (88)
$``$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\left[\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{12})\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{23})4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\right]\left[|U_{23}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}^𝐤t\right)+|V_{23}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}^𝐤t\right)\right]`$ (89)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{12})[(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13})\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{12})+\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{cos}(2\theta _{12})\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{23})]\times `$ (90)
$`\times `$ $`\left[|U_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^𝐤t\right)+|V_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^𝐤t\right)\right],`$ (91)
$`𝒬_{𝐤,\tau }^e(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2J_{_{CP}}[|U_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^𝐤t)|V_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^𝐤t)+(|U_{12}^𝐤|^2|V_{13}^𝐤|^2)\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}^𝐤t)`$ (92)
$`+`$ $`(|V_{12}^𝐤|^2|V_{13}^𝐤|^2)\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}^𝐤t)|U_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^𝐤t)+|V_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}^𝐤t)]`$ (93)
$``$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\left[\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{12})\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{23})4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{23}\right]\left[|U_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^𝐤t\right)+|V_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}^𝐤t\right)\right]`$ (94)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\left[\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{12})\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{23})+4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{23}\right]\left[|U_{23}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}^𝐤t\right)+|V_{23}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}^𝐤t\right)\right]`$ (95)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{12})[(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{23})\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{12})\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{cos}(2\theta _{12})\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{23})]\times `$ (96)
$`\times `$ $`\left[|U_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^𝐤t\right)+|V_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^𝐤t\right)\right],`$ (97)
where we used the relations Eqs.(28)-(31). We also introduced the Jarlskog factor $`J_{_{CP}}`$ defined as

$`J_{_{CP}}Im(u_{i\alpha }u_{j\beta }u_{i\beta }^{}u_{j\alpha }^{}),`$ (98)
where the $`u_{ij}`$ are the elements of mixing matrix $`𝒰`$ and $`ij,\alpha \beta `$. In the parameterization Eq.(2), $`J_{_{CP}}`$ is given by

$`J_{_{CP}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{sin}\delta \mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{12})\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{13})\mathrm{cos}\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{23}).`$ (99)
Evidently, $`J_{_{CP}}`$ vanishes if $`\theta _{ij}=0,\pi /2`$ and/or $`\delta =0,\pi `$: all CP–violating effects are proportional to it.

The above oscillation formulas are exact. The differences with respect to the usual formulas for neutrino oscillations are in the energy dependence of the amplitudes and in the additional oscillating terms. For $`|𝐤|\sqrt{m_1m_2}`$, we have $`|U_{ij}^𝐤|^21`$ and $`|V_{ij}^𝐤|^20`$ and the traditional (Pontecorvo) oscillation formulas are approximately recovered. Indeed, for sufficiently small time arguments, a correction to the Pontecorvo formula is present even in the relativistic limit.

In Appendix B the oscillation formulas for the flavor charges on an initial electron anti-neutrino state are given.

We plot in Figs.(2) and(4) the QFT oscillation formulas $`𝒬_{𝐤,e}^e(t)`$ and $`𝒬_{𝐤,\mu }^e(t)`$ in function of time, and in Figs. (3) and (5) the corresponding Pontecorvo oscillation formulas $`P_{ee}^𝐤(t)`$ and $`P_{e\mu }^𝐤(t)`$. The time scale is in $`T_{12}`$ units, where $`T_{12}=\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^𝐤`$ is, for the values of parameters of Tab.(1), the largest oscillation period.

Figure 2: Plot of QFT oscillation formula: $`𝒬_{𝐤,e}^e(t)`$ in function of time for $`k=55`$ and parameters as in Tab.(1).

Figure 3: Plot of QM oscillation formula: $`P_{ee}^𝐤(t)`$ in function of time for $`k=55`$ and parameters as in Tab.(1).

Figure 4: Plot of QFT oscillation formula: $`𝒬_{𝐤,\mu }^e(t)`$ in function of time for $`k=55`$ and parameters as in Tab(1).

Figure 5: Plot of QM oscillation formula: $`P_{e\mu }^𝐤(t)`$ in function of time for $`k=55`$ and parameters as in Tab.(1).

## VI CP and T violations in neutrino oscillations

In this Section we consider the oscillation induced CP and T violation in the context of the present QFT framework. Let us first briefly recall the situation in QMWe use here the ”hat” for QM quantities. For notational simplicity, we also suppress momentum indices where unnecessary.: there, the CP asymmetry between the probabilities of two conjugate neutrino transitions, due to CPT invariance and unitarity of the mixing matrix, is given as

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{_{CP}}^{\rho \sigma }(t)P_{\nu _\sigma \nu _\rho }(t)P_{\overline{\nu }_\sigma \overline{\nu }_\rho }(t),`$ (100)
where $`\sigma ,\rho =e,\mu ,\tau .`$ The T violating asymmetry can be obtained in similar way as

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}__T^{\rho \sigma }(t)P_{\nu _\sigma \nu _\rho }(t)P_{\nu _\rho \nu _\sigma }(t)=P_{\nu _\sigma \nu _\rho }(t)P_{\nu _\sigma \nu _\rho }(t).`$ (101)
The relationship $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{_{CP}}^{\rho \sigma }(t)=\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}__T^{\rho \sigma }(t)`$ is a consequence of CPT invariance.

The corresponding quantities in QFT have to be defined in the framework of the previous Section, i.e. as expectation values of the flavor charges on states belonging to the flavor Hilbert space. We thus have for the CP violation:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{_{CP}}^{\rho \sigma }(t)`$ $``$ $`𝒬_{𝐤,\sigma }^\rho (t)+𝒬_{𝐤,\sigma }^{\overline{\rho }}(t)`$ (102)
$`=`$ $`\left|\{\alpha _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t),\alpha _{𝐤,\rho }^r(0)\}\right|^2+\left|\{\beta _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t),\alpha _{𝐤,\rho }^r(0)\}\right|^2\left|\{\alpha _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t),\beta _{𝐤,\rho }^r(0)\}\right|^2\left|\{\beta _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t),\beta _{𝐤,\rho }^r(0)\}\right|^2.`$ (103)
We have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{_{CP}}^{\rho \sigma }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\rho ,\sigma =e,\mu ,\tau ,`$ (104)
which follows from the fact that $`_\sigma Q_\sigma (t)=Q`$ and $`\nu _\rho |Q|\nu _\rho =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\rho |Q|\overline{\nu }_\rho =1`$.

We can calculate the CP asymmetry Eq.(102) for a specific case, namely for the transition $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$. We obtain

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{_{CP}}^{e\mu }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`4J_{_{CP}}[|U_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^𝐤t)|V_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^𝐤t)+(|U_{12}^𝐤|^2|V_{13}^𝐤|^2)\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}^𝐤t)`$ (106)
$`+(|V_{12}^𝐤|^2|V_{13}^𝐤|^2)\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}^𝐤t)|U_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^𝐤t)+|V_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}^𝐤t)],`$
and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{_{CP}}^{e\tau }(t)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{_{CP}}^{e\mu }(t)`$. As already observed for oscillation formulas, high-frequency oscillating terms and Bogoliubov coefficients in the oscillation amplitudes appear in Eq.(106) as a QFT correction to the QM formula.

The definition of the QFT analogue of the T-violating quantity Eq.(101) is more delicate. Indeed, defining $`\mathrm{\Delta }__T`$ as $`\mathrm{\Delta }__T^{e\mu }𝒬_\mu ^e(t)𝒬_e^\mu (t)`$ does not seem to work, since we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }__T^{e\mu }\mathrm{\Delta }_{_{CP}}^{e\mu }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ in contrast with CPT conservation.

A more consistent definition of the time-reversal violation in QFT is then:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }__T^{\rho \sigma }(t)𝒬_{𝐤,\sigma }^\rho (t)𝒬_{𝐤,\sigma }^\rho (t),\rho ,\sigma =e,\mu ,\tau .`$ (107)
With such definition, the equality $`\mathrm{\Delta }__T^{\rho \sigma }(t)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{_{CP}}^{\rho \sigma }(t)`$ follows from $`𝒬_{𝐤,\sigma }^\rho (t)=𝒬_{𝐤,\sigma }^{\overline{\rho }}(t)`$.

We plot in Fig.(6) the CP asymmetry Eq.(106) for sample values of the parameters as in Tab.(1). In Fig.(7) the corresponding standard QM quantity is plotted for the same values of parameters.

Figure 6: Plot of the QFT CP asymmetry $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{_{CP}}^{e\mu }(t)`$, in function of time for $`k=55`$ and parameters as in Tab.(1).

Figure 7: Plot of the QM CP asymmetry $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{_{CP}}^{e\mu }(t)`$, in function of time for $`k=55`$ and parameters as in Tab.(1).

## VII Conclusions

In this paper, we have discussed the mixing of (Dirac) fermionic fields in Quantum Field Theory for the case of three flavors with CP violation. We constructed the flavor Hilbert space and studied the currents and charges for mixed fields (neutrinos). The algebraic structure associated with the mixing for the case of three generation turned out to be that of a deformed $`su(3)`$ algebra, when a CP violating phase is present.

We have then derived all the known parameterization of the three-flavor mixing matrix and a number of new ones. We have shown that these parameterizations actually reflect the group theoretical structure of the generator of the mixing transformations.

By use of the flavor Hilbert space, we have calculated the exact QFT oscillation formulas, a generalization of the usual QM Pontecorvo formulas. The comparison between the exact oscillation formulas and the usual ones has been explicitly exhibited for sample values of the neutrino masses and mixings. CP and T violation induced by neutrino oscillations have also been discussed.

We remark that the corrections introduced by the present formalism to the usual Pontecorvo formulas are in principle experimentally testable. The fact that these corrections may be quantitatively below the experimental accuracy reachable at the present state of the art in the detection of the neutrino oscillations, does not justify neglecting them in the analysis of the particle mixing and oscillation mechanism. The exact oscillation formulas here derived are the result of a mathematically consistent analysis which cannot be ignored in a correct treatment of the field mixing phenomenon. As we have seen above, our formalism accounts for all the known parameterizations of the mixing matrix and explains their origin and their reciprocal relations, thus unifying the phenomenological proposals scattered in the literature where such parameterizations have been presented. Moreover, our formalism clearly points to the truly non-perturbative character of the particle mixing phenomenon. A lot of Physics must be there waiting to be discovered.

## Acknowledgements

The present research has been carried out in the framework of the ESF network COSLAB and we acknowledge partial financial support also by INFN, INFM and EPSRC.

## Appendix A: Anti-neutrino oscillation formulas

If we consider an initial electron anti-neutrino state defined as $`|\overline{\nu }_e\beta _{𝐤,e}^r(0)|0_f`$, we obtain the anti-neutrino oscillation formulas as

$`𝒬_{𝐤,e}^{\overline{e}}(t)=𝒬_{𝐤,e}^e(t),`$ (108)
$`𝒬_{𝐤,\mu }^{\overline{e}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2J_{_{CP}}[|U_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^𝐤t)|V_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^𝐤t)+(|U_{12}^𝐤|^2|V_{13}^𝐤|^2)\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}^𝐤t)`$ (109)
$`+`$ $`(|V_{12}^𝐤|^2|V_{13}^𝐤|^2)\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}^𝐤t)|U_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^𝐤t)+|V_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}^𝐤t)]`$ (110)
$``$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\left[\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{12})\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{23})+4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\right]\left[|U_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^𝐤t\right)+|V_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}^𝐤t\right)\right]`$ (111)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\left[\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{12})\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{23})4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\right]\left[|U_{23}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}^𝐤t\right)+|V_{23}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}^𝐤t\right)\right]`$ (112)
$``$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{12})[(\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13})\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{12})+\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{cos}(2\theta _{12})\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{23})]\times `$ (113)
$`\times `$ $`\left[|U_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^𝐤t\right)+|V_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^𝐤t\right)\right],`$ (114)
$`𝒬_{𝐤,\tau }^{\overline{e}}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2J_{_{CP}}[|U_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^𝐤t)|V_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^𝐤t)+(|U_{12}^𝐤|^2|V_{13}^𝐤|^2)\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}^𝐤t)`$ (115)
$`+`$ $`(|V_{12}^𝐤|^2|V_{13}^𝐤|^2)\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}^𝐤t)|U_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^𝐤t)+|V_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}(2\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}^𝐤t)]`$ (116)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\left[\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{12})\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{23})4\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{23}\right]\left[|U_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{13}^𝐤t\right)+|V_{13}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{13}^𝐤t\right)\right]`$ (117)
$``$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\left[\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{12})\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{23})+4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{23}\right]\left[|U_{23}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{23}^𝐤t\right)+|V_{23}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}^𝐤t\right)\right]`$ (118)
$``$ $`\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{12})[(\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{23})\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{12})\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{cos}(2\theta _{12})\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta _{23})]\times `$ (119)
$`\times `$ $`\left[|U_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}^𝐤t\right)+|V_{12}^𝐤|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{12}^𝐤t\right)\right].`$ (120)
## Appendix B: Useful formulas for the generation of the mixing matrix

In deriving the $`𝒰_i`$ mixing matrices of §II and §III, we use the following relationships

$`[\nu _1^\alpha (x),L_{12}]=\nu _2^\alpha (x)e^{i\delta _{12}},[\nu _1^\alpha (x),L_{23}]=0,[\nu _1^\alpha (x),L_{13}]=\nu _3^\alpha (x)e^{i\delta _{13}},`$ (123)
$`[\nu _2^\alpha (x),L_{12}]=\nu _1^\alpha (x)e^{i\delta _{12}},[\nu _2^\alpha (x),L_{23}]=\nu _3^\alpha (x)e^{i\delta _{23}},[\nu _2^\alpha (x),L_{13}]=0,`$
$`[\nu _3^\alpha (x),L_{12}]=0,[\nu _3^\alpha (x),L_{23}]=\nu _2^\alpha (x)e^{i\delta _{23}},[\nu _3^\alpha (x),L_{13}]=\nu _1^\alpha (x)e^{i\delta _{13}},`$
and

$`G_{23}^1(t)\nu _1^\alpha (x)G_{23}(t)=\nu _1^\alpha (x),`$ (126)
$`G_{13}^1(t)\nu _1^\alpha (x)G_{13}(t)=\nu _1^\alpha (x)c_{13}+\nu _3^\alpha (x)e^{i\delta _{13}}s_{13},`$
$`G_{12}^1(t)\nu _1^\alpha (x)G_{12}(t)=\nu _1^\alpha (x)c_{12}+\nu _2^\alpha (x)e^{i\delta _{12}}s_{12},`$
$`G_{23}^1(t)\nu _2^\alpha (x)G_{23}(t)=\nu _2^\alpha (x)c_{23}+\nu _3^\alpha (x)e^{i\delta _{23}}s_{23},`$ (127)
$`G_{13}^1(t)\nu _2^\alpha (x)G_{13}(t)=\nu _2^\alpha (x),`$ (128)
$`G_{12}^1(t)\nu _2^\alpha (x)G_{12}(t)=\nu _2^\alpha (x)c_{12}\nu _1^\alpha (x)e^{i\delta _{12}}s_{12},`$ (129)
$`G_{23}^1(t)\nu _3^\alpha (x)G_{23}(t)=\nu _3^\alpha (x)c_{23}\nu _2^\alpha (x)e^{i\delta _{23}}s_{23},`$ (130)
$`G_{13}^1(t)\nu _3^\alpha (x)G_{13}(t)=\nu _3^\alpha (x)c_{13}\nu _1^\alpha (x)e^{i\delta _{13}}s_{13},`$ (131)
$`G_{12}^1(t)\nu _3^\alpha (x)G_{12}(t)=\nu _3`$ (132)
## Appendix C: Arbitrary mass parameterization and physical quantities

In Ref.  it was noticed that expanding the flavor fields in the same basis as the (free) fields with definite masses (cf. Eq.(13)) is actually a special choice, and that a more general possibility exists. In other words, in the expansion Eq.(13) one could use eigenfunctions with arbitrary masses $`\mu _\sigma `$, and therefore not necessarily the same as the masses which appear in the Lagrangian. On this basis, the authors of Ref. have generalized the Blasone-Vitiello (BV) formalism by writing the flavor fields as

$`\nu _\sigma (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle d^3k\left[u_{𝐤,\sigma }^r\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t)+v_{𝐤,\sigma }^r\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t)\right]e^{i𝐤𝐱}},`$ (133)
where $`u_\sigma `$ and $`v_\sigma `$ are the helicity eigenfunctions with mass $`\mu _\sigma `$. We denote by a tilde the generalized flavor operators introduced in Ref. in order to distinguish them from the ones in BV formalism Eq.(13). The expansion Eq.(133) is more general than the one in Eq.(13) since the latter corresponds to the particular choice $`\mu _em_1`$, $`\mu _\mu m_2`$, $`\mu _\tau m_3`$. Of course, the flavor fields in Eq.(133) and Eq.(13) are the same fields. The relation, given in Ref., between the general flavor operators and the BV ones is

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t)\\ \stackrel{~}{\beta }_{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t)\end{array}\right)=J_{\mu _\sigma }^1(t)\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t)\\ \beta _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t)\end{array}\right)J_{\mu _\sigma }(t),`$ (138)
$`J_{\mu _\sigma }(t)={\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,r}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{i{\displaystyle \underset{(\sigma ,j)}{}}\xi _{\sigma ,j}^𝐤\left[\alpha _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t)\beta _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t)+\beta _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t)\alpha _{𝐤,\sigma }^r(t)\right]\right\},`$ (139)
with $`(\sigma ,j)=(e,1),(\mu ,2),(\tau ,3)`$, $`\xi _{\sigma ,j}^𝐤(\chi _\sigma ^𝐤\chi _j^𝐤)/2`$ and $`\mathrm{cot}\chi _\sigma ^𝐤=|𝐤|/\mu _\sigma `$, $`\mathrm{cot}\chi _j^𝐤=|𝐤|/m_j`$. For $`\mu _\sigma m_j`$, one has $`J_{\mu _\sigma }(t)=1`$.

As already noticed in Ref., the flavor charge operators are the Casimir operators for the Bogoliubov transformation (138), i.e. they are free from arbitrary mass parameters : $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_\sigma (t)=Q_\sigma (t)`$. This is obvious also from the fact that they can be expressed in terms of flavor fields (see Ref.).

Physical quantities should not carry any dependence on the $`\mu _\sigma `$: in the two–flavor case, it has been shown  that the expectation values of the flavor charges on the neutrino states are free from the arbitrariness. For three generations, the question is more subtle due to the presence of the CP violating phase. Indeed, in Ref. it has been found that the corresponding generalized quantities depend on the arbitrary mass parameters.

In order to understand better the nature of such a dependence, we consider the identity:

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }|\stackrel{~}{Q}_\sigma (t)|\stackrel{~}{\psi }=\psi |J(0)Q_\sigma (t)J^1(0)|\psi =\psi |Q_\sigma (t)|\psi +\psi |[J(0),Q_\sigma (t)]J^1(0)|\psi .`$ (140)
valid on any vector $`|\psi `$ of the flavor Hilbert space (at $`t=0`$). From the explicit expression for $`J(0)`$ we see that the commutator $`[J(0),Q_\sigma (t)]`$ vanishes for $`\mu _\rho =m_j`$ , $`(\rho ,j)=(e,1),(\mu ,2),(\tau ,3)`$.

It is thus tempting to define the (effective) physical flavor charges as:

$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_\sigma ^{phys}(t)Q_\sigma (t)J^1(0)[J(0),Q_\sigma (t)]=J^1(0)Q_\sigma (t)J(0),`$ (141)
such that for example:

$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\rho |\stackrel{~}{Q}_\sigma ^{phys}(t)|\stackrel{~}{\nu }_\rho =\nu _\rho |Q_\sigma (t)|\nu _\rho .`$ (142)
It is clear that the operator $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_\sigma ^{phys}(t)`$ does depend on the arbitrary mass parameters and this dependence is such to compensate the one arising from the flavor states. The choice of physical quantities (flavor observables) as those not depending on the arbitrary mass parameters is here adopted, although different possibilities are explored by other authors, see Refs..

## References