Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Neutrino Flavour Waves Through the Quantum Vacuum: A Theory of Oscillations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that flavour neutrinos are born as massless waves and oscillate because the vacuum of the electroweak scalar field refracts and mixes them, reproducing the standard oscillation formula and giving all flavours one…

desk verdict A coherent internal framework that rederives the standard oscillation formula, but the central premise—massless flavour neutrinos as asymptotic states—is asserted rather than derived and collides with standard QFT. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14348 v1 pith:AASU7V27 submitted 2024-11-21 hep-ph hep-th

Markku Oksanen , Nico Stirling , Anca Tureanu This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-th
keywords neutrinooscillationsrefractivequantumvacuumcoherentforwardscatteringmasslessflavourneutrinoselectroweakmassgroupvelocitymattereffects
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a picture in which neutrinos do not need to be massive particles in order to oscillate. Electron, muon, and tau neutrinos are treated as massless flavour waves produced by weak interactions; the mass and mixing terms in the Lagrangian act instead as interactions with the vacuum of the electroweak scalar field. After production, each wave undergoes coherent forward scattering, so the vacuum behaves like an optically active medium that rotates the flavour of the wave, just as it would rotate the polarisation of light. From this wave picture the paper derives the standard vacuum oscillation probability, a universal effective refractive mass $m^2_{\rm refr} = (1/F)\sum_i m_i^2$, and a single group velocity for all flavours of a given energy. If the argument is right, experiments that measure neutrinos at the production point should see no kinematic neutrino mass, while long-baseline oscillation experiments see a propagation effect.

What carries the argument

The central object is the averaged flavour-neutrino wave $\Psi_{\nu_\ell}(x,t)$, built by multiple coherent forward scattering of a massless plane wave off the vacuum scalar condensate; 'coherent forward scattering' means scattering that changes only the phase and the flavour of the wave, leaving its energy and momentum unchanged. This averaged wave obeys a matrix Helmholtz equation in which the mass-mixing matrix appears as an added refractive index term. The load-bearing identity is the forward scattering amplitude $f_{\ell'\ell}(0) = -V/(2\pi)\,(M M^\dagger)_{\ell'\ell}$ with $N = 1/V$, which converts the mass-mixing matrix into a refractive index matrix with eigenvalues $n_i^2 = 1 - m_i^2/E^2$. The physical flavour wave is the superposition of these eigenmodes, all carrying the same energy $E$; the average phase $\bar n\, \mathbf p\cdot\mathbf x$ produces the universal refractive mass $m^2_{\rm refr} = (1/F)\sum_i m_i^2$ and the unique group velocity.

What would settle it

A $\beta$-decay endpoint measurement that resolves a nonzero kinematic neutrino mass would refute the claim that flavour neutrinos are produced massless; equally, an observation of flavour-dependent group velocities, or of speeds that disagree with $v_g = 1/(1 + m^2_{\rm refr}/2E^2)$ for one universal mass, would refute the universal refractive mass.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the physical asymptotic states are massless flavour neutrinos $\nu_e, \nu_\mu, \nu_\tau$ satisfying $E = |\mathbf p|$ at production; the mass matrix $M$ in the Lagrangian is not kinematic but describes scattering of these waves off the vacuum scalar condensate. The key step is to show that the forward scattering amplitude matrix is proportional to $M M^\dagger$, so the same unitary matrix $U$ that diagonalises $M M^\dagger$ diagonalises the refractive index matrix, with eigenvalues $n_i^2 = 1 - m_i^2/E^2$. The observed flavour wave is the superposition of these eigenmodes, all carrying the same energy $E$; the average phase $\bar n\, \mathbf p\cdot\mathbf x$ then produces the standard oscillation probability $P_{\nu_\ell\to \nu_{\ell'}}(L,E) = \sum_{i,j} U_{\ell' i}U^*_{\ell' j}U^*_{\ell i}U_{\ell j} e^{-i\,\Delta m^2_{ij}L/2E}$, and defines the universal effective refractive mass and a unique group velocity $v_g = 1/(1 + m^2/2E^2) < 1$ for all flavours.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the mass-generating interaction is so much weaker than the weak interaction that neutrinos are born and detected as exactly massless particles, with their mass-like behaviour appearing only later, as scattering during propagation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Kinematic neutrino-mass experiments, such as beta-decay endpoint searches, should find a vanishing mass at the production vertex; the mass inferred from oscillation experiments would be a propagation effect.
  • The vacuum oscillation probability is exactly the standard $L/E$ formula with $\Delta m^2_{ij}$, so existing neutrino oscillation data remain compatible with this picture while avoiding coherent superpositions of massive states.
  • At a fixed energy, all flavour neutrinos in vacuum share one group velocity $v_g < 1$ (in units $c=1$), so precision time-of-flight comparisons between neutrinos of different energies, or between neutrinos and photons, can directly constrain $m^2_{\rm refr}$.
  • Coherence is maintained throughout vacuum propagation because there are no mass-eigenstate wave packets to separate; the visibility of oscillations would then be limited only by energy averaging or external decoherence.
  • Matter effects enter by adding weak forward scattering amplitudes to the same wave equation, reproducing the usual modified mixing angle and resonant enhancement without invoking energy eigenstates inside matter.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the cleanest decisive test is two-pronged: a beta-decay endpoint that resolves a nonzero mass would kill the theory, while a confirmed zero endpoint mass together with nonzero oscillation $\Delta m^2$ would strongly favour the refractive picture.
  • Editorial inference: the formalism suggests that neutrino mass is an environmental property of propagation, not an intrinsic property of the particle; if so, the cosmological role of neutrino mass should be re-examined, since the same vacuum that refracts neutrinos would also affect their clustering through the evanescence cutoff at very low energy.
  • Editorial inference: applying the same coherent-scattering logic to a spatially varying vacuum or matter background would predict flavour- and energy-dependent refraction beyond the standard matter effect, potentially observable in neutrinos passing through strong gravitational or dense astrophysical environments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that flavour neutrinos are massless particles that propagate through the Brout–Englert–Higgs vacuum as through a refractive medium. Treating the mass and mixing terms (1.3) as interactions, the authors derive a wave equation for flavour amplitudes, obtain refractive indices and the standard oscillation probability (3.9), and define a universal refractive mass and a unique group velocity for all flavours. The paper argues in Sec. 6 that asymptotic flavour-neutrino states are massless because mass-generating interactions are much weaker than weak interactions, with a rate estimate based on a finite normalization volume.

Significance. The framework is a self-consistent formal construction: if the massless-production premise is granted, the derivation from the assumed wave equation (2.4) to the probability (3.9) is coherent, and the final formula matches the established experimental expression. The paper also offers concrete, in principle falsifiable predictions of zero kinematic mass at production and a universal group velocity. However, the physical foundation of the premise is not established, and the uniqueness of the group velocity is not derived from the multi-component wave; these are load-bearing gaps. The paper is a thought-provoking speculative proposal rather than an established theory.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 6, Assumption 1 (Sec. 2)] The central premise that flavour neutrinos are created and annihilated as massless particles is not derived from the Lagrangian (1.1)–(1.3). In local quantum field theory with a non-zero Yukawa coupling to the Higgs vacuum expectation value, the neutrino two-point function develops poles at p^2 = m_i^2, and LSZ reduction defines asymptotic states as massive one-particle states; the rate estimate in eqs. (6.1)–(6.4) depends on the arbitrarily chosen normalization volume V in eq. (6.2) and does not address this. The kaon analogy in Sec. 6 actually supports the standard massive-state picture: K0 mesons are produced with a definite mass (approximately the average of the KL and KS masses), and weak interactions split the mass eigenstates. Since the zero-kinematic-mass prediction of Sec. 7.8 rests on this assumption, the refractive mechanism collapses if the assumption is false; the paper needs either a QFT derivation of massless asymptotic states or an explicit statement that this is an unproven postulate.
  2. [Appendix A and Sec. 3, eq. (3.2)] The derivation treats the Higgs vacuum as a set of N = 1/V scatterers with forward scattering amplitudes f_{ℓ'ℓ}(0) computed from mass insertions. This is not a scattering process: the term (1.3) is a bilinear mass term, not a potential with a countable density of scatterers, and the 'first Born approximation' has no well-defined expansion parameter. The product 4πN f is independent of V only because f is proportional to V (eq. A.4); the individual quantities are not observables. This makes the key step from the assumed wave equation (2.4) to the refractive indices (3.6) dependent on an ad hoc normalization choice rather than on a physical density.
  3. [Sec. 4, eqs. (4.1)–(4.2)] The flavour wave (2.24) is a superposition of components with distinct refractive indices n_i, each with its own phase velocity and, in a dispersive medium, its own group velocity v_{g,i} = (1 + m_i^2/(2E^2))^{-1}. The paper computes a single group velocity from the average refractive index n(E) as if the whole wave were a monochromatic plane wave. In the multiple-scattering theory used, the group velocity of the envelope of a superposition of modes at the same frequency is not generally equal to ∂E/∂(n E); the unique group velocity is therefore not established. This affects the predicted universal speed, one of the paper's falsifiable claims.
  4. [Sec. 3, eq. (3.9)] The final oscillation probability (3.9) is the standard formula with the same mass matrix M and mixing matrix U that are used as inputs (eqs. 3.4 and 3.5). The paper does not predict the values of m_i and U, and the universal refractive mass m^2_refr (eq. 4.3) cancels in the oscillation phase, so the agreement with eq. (3.9) is a consistency check rather than a new prediction. The paper should state this explicitly; as presented, the claim that the oscillation formula is 'obtained' is circular with respect to the input parameters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 1] The statement that any superposition of states of particles of different masses is 'by default incoherent' and 'does not belong to a Hilbert space' is too strong; standard treatments of flavour oscillations use superpositions of mass eigenstates as approximate one-particle states. The authors should qualify this motivation.
  2. [Various] There are several typographical errors: 'two orthogonal linear polarization' should be 'polarizations'; 'when light exists the medium' should be 'exits'; 'θ = 0 .6 radians' contains an extra space.
  3. [Eq. (1.3) and surrounding text] The display formula for M_{ℓ'ℓ} is typeset incorrectly: the denominator √2 is missing in the text, so M_{ℓ'ℓ} = v y_{ℓ'ℓ}/√2.
  4. [Sec. 4, 'Low-energy neutrinos'] The evanescence behaviour is presented as a consequence of the refractive index formula, but this lies outside the stated domain of validity (first Born approximation, E^2 ≫ m_i^2); the authors should label it as a speculative extrapolation.
  5. [References] The reference to Coleman's QFT lectures [4] as support for the incoherence of mass superpositions is likely a misinterpretation; the lectures discuss the representation theory of the Poincaré group, not the coherence of neutrino flavour states.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The massless-production premise rests on a rate calculation that already assumes masslessness, and the rejection of standard massive states is delegated to a load-bearing self-citation; the oscillation formula itself is a faithful re-expression of the input mass matrix.

  1. self definitional [Section 6, Eqs. (6.1)-(6.4) and Appendix A, Eq. (A.3)]
    "the incident neutrino flux is 1/V (massless neutrinos propagate with the speed of light) ... In other words, neutrinos are enormously “stable” as massless particles, and reluctant to acquire kinematical mass during their production in weak interactions."

    The interaction rate Γ_m used to establish massless production is computed in Appendix A by treating L_mass as an interaction among massless one-particle neutrino states; Eq. (A.3) explicitly invokes the massless dispersion relation and flux. Section 6 then uses this same Γ_m to conclude that neutrinos are ‘stable as massless particles’ and hence are produced as massless. The conclusion is therefore not derived: the smallness of the rate already assumes the massless asymptotic states whose existence it is supposed to prove. Moreover, the numerical result depends on the arbitrarily chosen normalization volume V in Eq. (6.2), so the claimed characteristic time is not a parameter-free first-principles prediction.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 1, p.2; Appendix A]
    "This conflict was analyzed in detail in [3] and we shall not go through it here. ... Treating (1.3) as an interaction leads to invariant transition matrix elements between flavour neutrinos (for details of calculation, see [3])."

    The paper's central departure from the standard theory rests on the claim that superpositions of different-mass neutrino states are impossible, but that claim is not re-derived here; it is delegated to Ref. [3], whose author overlaps with the present paper. The forward-scattering amplitudes that feed the refractive-index derivation are likewise imported from [3]. Because the paper itself cites an ongoing debate about the coherence of mass eigenstates (Refs. [6,7]) and because [3] is not independently machine-checked or reproduced in this work, this is load-bearing self-citation rather than an external mathematical fact.

full rationale

The central mathematical derivation of the oscillation probability is not a fitted-input circularity: starting from the Lagrangian mass matrix M (1.3), Appendix A computes a forward amplitude proportional to M M†, and Eqs. (3.2)-(3.9) turn the eigenvalues m_i^2 and mixing matrix U of that same input into the standard vacuum probability. That is a legitimate re-derivation, though it means the 'prediction' of Eq. (3.9) carries no new information about the values of m_i^2 or U. The score is elevated by two load-bearing moves that are circular or close to it. First, Section 6 aims to prove that asymptotic flavour neutrinos are massless, but the interaction rate used for the proof is computed in Appendix A under the explicit massless dispersion relation E=|p| (Eq. (A.3)); the smallness of Γ_m therefore cannot establish the massless assumption, it presupposes it. The numerical conclusion also depends on the arbitrary normalization volume V of Eq. (6.2). Second, the paper's reason for abandoning the standard massive-neutrino superposition is not derived here but delegated to Ref. [3], a self-citation, while the amplitude calculation is also taken from [3]. Since the paper itself cites an ongoing debate (Refs. [6,7]) on the coherence of mass eigenstates, this self-citation is load-bearing rather than independent support. These two issues make the central massless-production premise partially circular, while leaving the scattering-optics calculation as an internally consistent but not independently validated framework.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the same mass and mixing parameters as standard neutrino phenomenology, plus an ad hoc normalization volume used to justify massless production. No new particles or forces are introduced; the 'refractive vacuum' is a descriptive reinterpretation of the Higgs condensate.

free parameters (3)
  • Neutrino mass eigenvalues m_i = not fitted; taken from prior fits (e.g., m ~ 0.1 eV in Sec. 6)
    The matrix M M^dagger (or m_i^2) is the input to the refractive index in eqs. (3.5)-(3.6) and to the oscillation probability in eq. (3.9). The paper does not derive these values.
  • Mixing matrix U = not fitted; taken from prior oscillation fits
    U diagonalizes M M^dagger and sets the mixing angles in the probabilities. The paper uses the same U as standard neutrino phenomenology without deriving it.
  • Normalization volume V = V = (4 pi / 3) 10^6 / M_W^3 (eq. 6.2)
    Chosen ad hoc in Section 6 to estimate the mass-generating interaction rate. The conclusion that neutrinos are produced massless depends on this choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The BEH vacuum can be treated as a homogeneous weakly scattering medium with scatterer density N=1/V and the first Born approximation applies.
    Introduced in Sec. 2, assumptions 2 and 3, and used to write the wave equation (2.4)-(2.6). This is not derived from quantum field theory.
  • ad hoc to paper Flavour neutrinos are produced and annihilated in weak interactions as massless particles because mass-generating interactions are much weaker than weak interactions.
    Argued in Sec. 6 via a kaon analogy and an order-of-magnitude estimate with an arbitrary volume V. This is the load-bearing premise of the whole framework.
  • domain assumption The multiple scattering formalism (Foldy-Lax) applies to massless neutrino waves.
    Used throughout Sec. 2 to derive the averaged wave equation, based on refs. [10,11,13].
  • domain assumption The Dirac mass matrix M in eq. (1.3) is the same matrix used in standard neutrino oscillations.
    Needed to connect the refractive indices to m_i^2 and to recover the standard probability in Sec. 3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Neutrino Flavour Waves Through the Quantum Vacuum: A Theory of Oscillations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AASU7V27

@misc{pith2026241114348,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Neutrino Flavour Waves Through the Quantum Vacuum: A Theory of Oscillations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AASU7V27}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14348}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a theory for neutrino oscillations, in which the flavour neutrinos are treated as waves of massless particles propagating in a "refractive quantum vacuum" and obeying a relativistically covariant equation of motion. The difference in strength between weak interactions and mass-generating interactions is argued to allow for the production and detection of flavour neutrinos in weak interactions as massless particles. They experience the mass-generating interactions as coherent forward scattering in the Brout-Englert-Higgs vacuum, which induces macroscopically multi-refringent effects. The flavour neutrino wave is then found to have a universal effective refractive mass in vacuum and a unique group velocity for a given energy. The coherence of the wave is manifest throughout and, at every moment of the propagation, the energy of the waves is the same. The standard oscillation probability in vacuum is obtained and the effects of matter are incorporated in a natural way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14348 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The interaction of the left chiral Weyl neutrino field with the constant scalar field v causes a change of flavour. (b) This is equivalent to mass insertions. 3. Through multiple coherent forward scatterings, the neutrino wave builds into an averaged coherent wave with three flavour components Ψνℓ (x, t). Each component represents the probability amplitude that the neutrino has a certain flavour at the point x a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An illustration of two flavour oscillations, given by eqs. (2.21), with ¯n = 1 − m2 1+m2 2 4E2 and ∆n = (m2 2 − m2 1 )/2E2 . The real and imaginary components (blue and green, respectively) of the survival and transition amplitudes (top and bottom, respectively) for an electron neutrino initially at L = 0 and t = 0, as a function of the distance L, are shown. The following numerical values are used: E = 10 eV, m1 = … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of a leading scattered wave. The incoming blue wave scatters from the black dot. The scattering causes a negative shift in phase, but without a change in frequency, namely the green wave. The scattered wave is leading and the phase seems to travel faster than the speed of light. The actual speed of the wave formed by the superposition of the incident and emergent waves is the group velocity. The speed o… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The virtual weak interaction processes by which a K0 beam creates K¯ 0 in a coherent manner, after K0 had been produced in strong interactions. We shall use a similar argument in the case of neutrinos. Lifetime is defined as the inverse of the decay rate for an unstabl…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Neutrino astronomy and lepton charge,

    V. Gribov and B. Pontecorvo, “Neutrino astronomy and lepton charge,” Phys. Lett. B 28 (1969), 493

    work page 1969

  2. [2]

    Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neu- trinos,

    Y. Fukuda et al. (Super-Kamiokande), “Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neu- trinos,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998), 1562 [hep-ex/9807003]

    arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Neutrino oscillations by a manifestly coherent mechanism and massless vs. massive neutrinos,

    A. Tureanu, “Neutrino oscillations by a manifestly coherent mechanism and massless vs. massive neutrinos,” Phys. Lett. B843 (2023), 137996 [arXiv:2304.13491 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Coleman, Quantum Field Theory

    S. Coleman, Quantum Field Theory. Lectures of Sidney Coleman, ed. B. Gin-ge Chen et al. (World Scientific, Singapore, 2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Bogoliubov, A.A

    N.N. Bogoliubov, A.A. Logunov and I. T. Todorov, Introduction to Axiomatic Quan- tum Field Theory (W. A. Benjamin Inc, 1975)

    work page 1975

  6. [6]

    Quantum coherence between mass eigenstates of a neutrino can be destroyed by its mass-momentum entanglement,

    S. B. Zheng, “Quantum coherence between mass eigenstates of a neutrino can be destroyed by its mass-momentum entanglement,” [arXiv:2410.21850 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Quantum coherence between mass eigenstates of a neutrino cannot be destroyed by its mass-momentum entanglement,

    J. M. Cline, “Quantum coherence between mass eigenstates of a neutrino cannot be destroyed by its mass-momentum entanglement,” [arXiv:2411.01190 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Effects of Matter on Neutrino Oscillations,

    L. Wolfenstein, “Effects of Matter on Neutrino Oscillations,” AIP Conf. Proc. 52 (1979), 108

    work page 1979

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Neutrino oscillations in matter,

    L. Wolfenstein, “Neutrino oscillations in matter,” Phys. Rev. D 17 (1978), 2369

    1978

  2. [10]

    The Multiple Scattering of Waves

    L. L. Foldy, “The Multiple Scattering of Waves”, Phys. Rev. 67 (1945), 107

    1945

  3. [11]

    Multiple Scattering of Waves,

    M. Lax, “Multiple Scattering of Waves,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 23 (1951), 287

    1951

  4. [12]

    Feynman, R.B

    R. Feynman, R.B. Leighton and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, vol I, CalTech 1963

    1963

  5. [13]

    Born and E

    M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics (Cambridge University Press, 2005, reprinted)

    2005

  6. [14]

    M. L. Goldberger and K. M. Watson, Collision Theory (John Willey & Sons, Inc, 1964)

    1964

  7. [15]

    J. M. Jauch and F. Rohrlich, The Theory of Photons and Electrons (Springer Verlag, 1976, 2nd edition)

    1976

  8. [16]

    Neutrino Oscillations in Dark Matter,

    K. Y. Choi, E. J. Chun and J. Kim, “Neutrino Oscillations in Dark Matter,” Phys. Dark Univ. 30 (2020), 100606 [arXiv:1909.10478 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Refractive neutrino masses, ultralight dark matter and cosmology,

    M. Sen and A. Y. Smirnov, “Refractive neutrino masses, ultralight dark matter and cosmology,” JCAP 01 (2024), 040 [arXiv:2306.15718 [hep-ph]]. 23

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Testing the Origins of Neutrino Mass with Supernova-Neutrino Time Delay,

    S. F. Ge, C. F. Kong and A. Y. Smirnov, “Testing the Origins of Neutrino Mass with Supernova-Neutrino Time Delay,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) no.12, 121802 [arXiv:2404.17352 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    On the detection of cosmological neutrinos by coherent scattering,

    P. Langacker, J. P. Leveille, and J. Sheiman, “On the detection of cosmological neutrinos by coherent scattering,” Phys. Rev. D 27 (1983), 1228

    1983

  12. [20]

    Three Lectures on Meson Mixing and CKM phenomenology,

    U. Nierste, “Three Lectures on Meson Mixing and CKM phenomenology,” in the Proceedings of the Helmholtz International Summer School “Heavy quark physics”, Dubna, Russia, August 11-21, 2008 [arXiv:0904.1869 [hep-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Behavior of Neutral Particles under Charge Conjuga- tion,

    M. Gell-Mann and A. Pais, “Behavior of Neutral Particles under Charge Conjuga- tion,” Phys. Rev. 97 (1955), 1387

    1955

  14. [22]

    Note on the Decay and Absorption of the θ0,

    A. Pais and O. Piccioni, “Note on the Decay and Absorption of the θ0,” Phys. Rev. 100 (1955) 1487

    1955

  15. [23]

    Nishijima, Fundamental Particles (W

    K. Nishijima, Fundamental Particles (W. A. Benjamin Inc., 1963)

    1963

  16. [24]

    Feynman, The Theory of Fundamental Processes (Westview, 1961)

    R. Feynman, The Theory of Fundamental Processes (Westview, 1961)

    1961

  17. [25]

    Dynamical Model of Elementary Particles Based on an Analogy with Superconductivity. I,

    Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, “Dynamical Model of Elementary Particles Based on an Analogy with Superconductivity. I,” Phys. Rev. 122 (1961), 345

    1961

  18. [26]

    On the possibility of determining the upper limit of the neutrino mass by means of the flight time,

    G. T. Zatsepin, “On the possibility of determining the upper limit of the neutrino mass by means of the flight time,” Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 8 (1968), 333

    1968

  19. [27]

    The Speed of Light and the Speed of Neutrinos,

    L. Stodolsky, “The Speed of Light and the Speed of Neutrinos,” Phys. Lett. B 201 (1988), 353

    1988

  20. [28]

    Tests of Relativity From SN1987A,

    M. J. Longo, “Tests of Relativity From SN1987A,” Phys. Rev. D 36 (1987), 3276

    1987

  21. [29]

    Quantum decoherence effects on precision measurements at DUNE and T2HK,

    G. Barenboim, A. M. Calatayud-Cadenillas, A. M. Gago and C. A. Ternes, “Quantum decoherence effects on precision measurements at DUNE and T2HK,” Phys. Lett. B 852 (2024), 138626 [arXiv:2402.16395 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Stodolsky’s theorem and neutrino oscillation phases for pedestrians,

    H. J. Lipkin, “Stodolsky’s theorem and neutrino oscillation phases for pedestrians,” [arXiv:hep-ph/0212093 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    The Unnecessary wave packet,

    L. Stodolsky, “The Unnecessary wave packet,” Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998), 036006 [arXiv:hep-ph/9802387 [hep-ph]]

    1998 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Coherence and wave packets in neutrino oscillations,

    C. Giunti, “Coherence and wave packets in neutrino oscillations,” Found. Phys. Lett. 17 (2004), 103 [arXiv:hep-ph/0302026 [hep-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Direct neutrino-mass measurement with sub-electronvolt sensitivity,

    M. Aker et al. [KATRIN], “Direct neutrino-mass measurement with sub-electronvolt sensitivity,” Nature Phys. 18, 160 (2022); “Direct neutrino-mass measurement based on 259 days of KATRIN data,” [arXiv:2406.13516 [nucl-ex]]

    2022

  26. [34]

    Neutrinos in cosmology,

    A. D. Dolgov, “Neutrinos in cosmology,” Phys. Rept. 370 (2002), 333 [arXiv:hep- ph/0202122 [hep-ph]]. 24

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.