Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Influence of gravity on the quantum speed limit in neutrino oscillations

T0 review · 3 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 This paper argues that increasing the gravitational field strength around a rotating black hole shortens the quantum speed limit for two-flavor neutrino-antineutrino oscillations, implying faster flavor transitions, and that it also…

desk verdict The computation is fine but the central claim misreads a lower bound as a speed; T_QSL/L < 1 is slackness, not faster evolution. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18558 v1 pith:5XOKC6MN submitted 2024-11-27 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-phhep-thquant-ph

Abhishek Kumar Jha , Mriganka Dutta , Subhashish Banerjee , Banibrata Mukhopadhyay This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEhep-phhep-thquant-ph PACS 04.70.-s14.60.Pq03.67.-a
keywords quantumspeedlimitneutrinooscillationsneutrino-antineutrinomixinggravitationalZeemaneffectKerrblackholeentanglemententropycapacityofflavortransitions
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 uses quantum speed limit (QSL) bounds to ask how gravity affects how quickly neutrinos can turn into antineutrinos and how fast their entanglement changes. The authors model a two-flavor neutrino-antineutrino system moving at fixed radius around a rotating (Kerr) black hole, where the gravitational field acts through the gravitational Zeeman effect, an effective four-vector potential split into scalar and vector parts. Their central result is that as the gravitational scalar potential increases, the QSL time relative to propagation length drops below unity, which they interpret as faster neutrino-antineutrino flavor transitions. They also compute the QSL for entanglement entropy and find that stronger gravity suppresses entanglement more quickly. If correct, the work links a purely gravitational parameter to the intrinsic quantum tempo of neutrino flavor and entanglement dynamics.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a quantum speed limit inequality for unitary evolution, $T\ge T_{\rm QSL}=\hbar S_0/\Delta H$, where $S_0=\arccos\sqrt{P_s}$ is the geodesic distance between initial and final states and $\Delta H$ the energy fluctuation, paired with the analogous entanglement speed limit of Eq. (5). The gravity input is the gravitational Zeeman effect: the Kerr metric in Kerr-Schild form yields a four-vector potential $B^a$, whose time component $B_0$ enters the neutrino and antineutrino dispersion relations with opposite signs, generating neutrino-antineutrino mixing. The system is treated as a four-qubit bipartite pure state in occupation-number representation, with reduced density matrix $\rho_{\rm red}=\mathrm{diag}(0,0,\lambda_1,\lambda_2)$, so entanglement entropy and capacity of entanglement are computable in closed form from $\lambda_1,\lambda_2$. The paper's conclusion rests on evaluating $T_{\rm QSL}/L$ and $T^E_{\rm QSL}/L$ at three radii corresponding to $B_0$ values differing by two orders of magnitude.

What would settle it

Compute the actual survival probability $|T_{ee}(L)|^2$ as a function of propagation length for the same parameters and locate the first minimum; if the distance to the first minimum does not shrink when $B_0$ increases from $6.7\times10^{-4}$ to $3.7\times10^{-2}$ eV, the claim that stronger gravity accelerates flavor transitions is false even if $T_{\rm QSL}/L$ decreases. The same check applies to entanglement: the time at which $S_{EE}$ reaches its first maximum should move to smaller $L$ at high $B_0$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the strength of the gravitational field controls the minimum evolution time of the two-flavor neutrino-antineutrino system. Using the survival probability $P_s = |T_{ee}(t)|^2$ and energy fluctuation $\Delta H$ from the gravity-modified dispersion relations, the authors obtain $T_{\rm QSL} = \arccos(\sqrt{P_s})/\Delta H$ and find that increasing the scalar potential $B_0$ from $6.7\times10^{-4}\,\mathrm{eV}$ to $3.7\times10^{-2}\,\mathrm{eV}$ makes $T_{\rm QSL}/L$ fall below $1$. They read this ratio as the speed of the transition: $T_{\rm QSL}/L=1$ means the evolution is as slow as the bound allows, while $T_{\rm QSL}/L<1$ means the state oscillates faster. For entanglement, they employ the four-qubit occupation-number representation, compute the entanglement entropy $S_{EE}$ and capacity of entanglement $C_E$, and use the bound $T^E_{\rm QSL}\ge \hbar |S_{EE}(T)-S_{EE}(0)|/(2\Delta H \, \frac{1}{T}\int_0^T \sqrt{C_E(t)}\,dt)$; the result is that both $S_{EE}$ and the time needed to reach it shrink as $B_0$ grows, which they summarize as quick suppression of entanglement near a spinning black hole.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the quantum speed limit ratio $T_{\rm QSL}/L$ directly measures how fast the neutrino actually oscillates, even though the speed limit is only a lower bound and the paper does not compute the actual transition time or oscillation period as a function of $B_0$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the vicinity of a rotating black hole, neutrino-antineutrino flavor transitions can occur faster at smaller radii, where $B_0$ is larger.
  • The same gravitational field that accelerates flavor change suppresses entanglement between the flavor modes, so strong gravity acts as a rapid disentangler.
  • The QSL ratio $T_{\rm QSL}/L$ provides a gravity-strength diagnostic: for fixed neutrino masses, deviations below $1$ signal a stronger gravitational scalar potential.
  • The bounds suggest that fast-flavor neutrino-antineutrino transitions in compact astrophysical environments could be driven by gravity alone, without invoking new neutrino self-interactions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the quantum speed limit is a lower bound, the paper's 'faster evolution' conclusion is not logically forced; one would need to show that the actual fidelity $|T_{ee}(t)|^2$ reaches its extremum sooner as $B_0$ grows.
  • The same calculation could be repeated for three neutrino flavors, where the additional mass splitting may change how sharply $T_{\rm QSL}/L$ responds to $B_0$.
  • A testable extension would be to evaluate $T_{\rm QSL}$ with the exact state distance $S_0$ replaced by the Bures angle, which would tighten the bound and show whether the reported drop below $1$ survives.
  • The gravitational Zeeman effect is parameter-free once the Kerr metric is fixed, so the $B_0$ values in Table 1 could be compared with explicit numerical solutions of the neutrino evolution equation to test the speed-limit prediction.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the quantum speed limit (QSL) formalism to two-flavor neutrino-antineutrino oscillations in the gravitational field of a Kerr black hole. Using the effective Hamiltonian and mixing from earlier work [7,8], the authors compute the Mandelstam-Tamm QSL time T_QSL (Eq. 23) and a QSL for entanglement entropy T^E_QSL (Eq. 29) as functions of the gravitational scalar potential B0 and propagation length L. They report that the ratios T_QSL/L and T^E_QSL/L decrease as B0 increases, and interpret this as indicating that flavor transitions and entanglement suppression proceed faster at higher gravitational field strengths. The paper also studies the entanglement entropy and capacity of entanglement for the same system (Figs. 2-4).

Significance. The idea of using QSL bounds to probe gravitational effects on neutrino oscillations is interesting, and the paper provides a concrete calculation of T_QSL in a curved-spacetime context. The entanglement entropy and capacity results also add to the growing literature on quantum-information aspects of neutrinos in gravity. However, the central physical conclusion—that a decreasing T_QSL/L or T^E_QSL/L implies faster actual evolution—is logically unsupported, because the QSL is a lower bound on the evolution time, not the actual time. As a result, the headline claims of 'fast-flavor transitions' and 'quick suppression of entanglement' are not established by the presented analysis. The underlying computations may still be of value if reinterpreted correctly, but the paper in its current form does not support its main conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, after Eq. (23), and Fig. 1] The inference that T_QSL/L < 1 means the neutrino 'begins to oscillate faster' inverts the meaning of the lower bound in Eq. (3). For a unitary evolution, T >= T_QSL. With T = L, the ratio T_QSL/L is always <= 1. Equality (T_QSL/L = 1) means the bound is saturated, i.e., the system evolves at the maximum possible speed; T_QSL/L < 1 means the actual evolution time L is larger than the minimum required time, indicating that the system has slack and is not evolving at the speed limit. A decreasing T_QSL/L therefore reflects a loosening of the bound, not an increase in actual speed. To support the claim that gravitational field strength speeds up flavor transitions, the authors must compute the actual oscillation time or frequency from the energy differences in Eq. (21) and the mixing in Eqs. (17)-(20), for example by analyzing the survival probability P_s(t) or the oscillation length as a function of B0. No such computation is provided, so the central conclusion is not supported by the data presented.
  2. [Section 5, after Eq. (29), and Fig. 5] The same logical flaw affects the entanglement speed claim. The statement that 'under the time bound condition T^E_QSL/L < 1, we observe quick suppression of entanglement' misreads Eq. (5), which bounds the time required to achieve a change in entanglement entropy from below. A smaller value of T^E_QSL does not imply faster actual entanglement dynamics. The actual rate of entanglement suppression is governed by the time dependence of the eigenvalues λ_i in Eq. (26) (or equivalently of S_EE(t)), which the paper does not compute as a function of B0. Figures 3 and 4 show S_EE versus L at two values of B0, but the paper does not compare the actual slopes or turnover times; the comparison is only qualitative. Therefore, the conclusion of 'faster suppression of entanglement' with increasing gravitational field is not established by the QSL bound alone.
  3. [Section 4, Eqs. (23) and (21); Section 5, Eq. (29)] The manuscript does not provide the explicit expression for the energy fluctuation ΔH used in Eqs. (23) and (29), nor the explicit elements of the mixing matrix T. Without these, the reader cannot verify the B0-dependence of T_QSL or T^E_QSL, which are the paper's main quantitative results. The reference to [7] is helpful, but the QSL computation should be self-contained enough for the claimed qualitative behavior (e.g., the change from T_QSL/L ≈ 1 to T_QSL/L < 1 in Fig. 1) to be checked. Please include the explicit T-matrix and ΔH, or at least the explicit expressions for the amplitudes T_ee(t) and T_eμ(t) in terms of B0, |B|, and the masses.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Conclusion] The phrases 'indicates fast flavor transitions' and 'quick suppression of entanglement' should be revised to reflect what the QSL calculation actually shows (e.g., 'the QSL time decreases with gravitational field strength') unless the authors provide the missing actual-speed analysis.
  2. [Eq. (18) and surrounding text] The notation '∓' in Eq. (18) and the relation of φ1, φ2 to the mass eigenstates are not explained; a short clarification would help the reader follow the mixing structure.
  3. [Table 1 and Figs. 1, 5] The radii in Table 1 are given as 100, 200, and 500 without units; since B0 and |B| are in eV, the units of distance (presumably GM/c^2 or km) should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Section 5, Eq. (24)] The system is described as a 'four-qubit system', but the time-evolved state in Eq. (25) is a single excitation in a four-dimensional space. The wording could be clarified to avoid implying that all four qubits are occupied.
  5. [References] Reference [19] is cited for Eq. (3), but the bound is originally the Mandelstam-Tamm result; consider citing the original sources (Mandelstam & Tamm 1945; Margolus & Levitin 1998) more directly.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Central speed claims are the computed QSL ratios relabeled by an asserted equivalence; the underlying model is legitimate input, but the 'fast flavor transition' and 'quick entanglement suppression' conclusions reduce by definition to T_QSL/L and T^E_QSL/L.

  1. self definitional [Section 4, after Eq. (23) (discussion of Fig. 1)]
    "as the B0 changes from a smaller to a higher value (red dotted line), the initial neutrino state |ψ_e⟩ begins to oscillate faster because the ratio T_QSL/L < 1, causing the dynamical evolution to speed up as a smaller value of T_QSL/L implies a faster evolution of the quantum state."

    Equation (3) is a lower bound, T ≥ T_QSL. The paper computes T_QSL/L and then asserts that a smaller ratio 'implies a faster evolution of the quantum state.' No actual oscillation frequency, first-transition time, or dP_s/dt is computed. Thus the predicted 'faster' flavor transition is not derived from the modeled dynamics; it is stipulated to be equivalent to the condition T_QSL/L < 1. The conclusion is therefore the computed ratio under a new label, making the prediction equal to its input by definition.

  2. self definitional [Section 5, after Eq. (29) (discussion of Fig. 5)]
    "Under the time bound condition T^E_QSL/L < 1, we observe quick suppression of entanglement with the increase of gravitational field."

    Equation (5) bounds the time needed for a given change in S_EE; it says nothing directly about the actual rate dS_EE/dt. The paper's 'quick suppression' is read off solely from T^E_QSL/L < 1, with no computation of the actual suppression rate or time scale. Consequently, 'quick suppression' is defined by, and carries no information beyond, the plotted ratio T^E_QSL/L; the claim reduces to its own computed bound by construction.

full rationale

The Hamiltonian, mixing angles, and four-qubit mapping are taken from the authors' prior published work [7,28] and are not fitted here; that portion of the derivation is legitimate external input, not circularity. The circularity lies in the inference layer: the paper converts the lower-bound ratios T_QSL/L and T^E_QSL/L into claims of faster flavor oscillations and quicker entanglement suppression by asserting that a smaller ratio implies faster evolution. Because Eqs. (3) and (5) are bounds, a smaller ratio corresponds to a looser bound, not (without further computation) a faster actual process; no direct speed quantity is computed. The quoted sentences make the physical conclusions definitionally identical to the computed ratios. Hence the paper's central 'predictions' reduce by construction to the quantities plotted, giving partial circularity (score 6).

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation rests on a chain of prior results: the effective gravitational interaction model of Mukhopadhyay [8], the mixing formalism of Sinha and Mukhopadhyay [7], QSL theorems [17-21], and the Kerr-Schild metric [31]. The only truly new inputs are chosen parameter values (masses, B0, distances), and these are not derived from data. No new entities are introduced. The main unstated input is the black hole spin parameter, which controls B0 but is never specified.

free parameters (6)
  • m_e = 5e-3 eV
    Electron neutrino mass used in Figures 1-5; chosen by hand, not from experimental data.
  • m_mu = 6.5e-3 eV
    Muon neutrino mass used in all figures; chosen by hand.
  • m_emu = 3.5e-3 eV
    Off-diagonal mass term in Eq. (18); chosen by hand.
  • B0 values = 6.7e-4, 6.6e-3, 3.7e-2 eV
    Gravitational scalar potential at three radii (Table 1); derived from Kerr potential but with unspecified spin parameter a and unexplained unit conversion.
  • |B| values = 1.1e-4, 1.7e-3, 1.3e-2 eV
    Magnitude of vector potential at the same radii; same caveats.
  • black hole spin a = not specified
    The Kerr metric parameter a is required to compute B0 via Eq. (13) but is never given in the paper, making the numerical results irreproducible.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math QSL theorem T >= hbar S0 / ΔH for unitary evolution (Eq. 3) and the entanglement QSL bound (Eq. 5).
    Used as the foundation; cited from [19] and [21], accepted without proof.
  • standard math Kerr metric in Kerr-Schild form (Eq. 8).
    Background for the gravitational potential; from [31].
  • domain assumption Effective gravitational interaction Lagrangian leads to dispersion relations (Eq. 1).
    The gravity-induced neutrino-antineutrino coupling and gravitational Zeeman effect are assumed from [8]; no derivation is repeated here.
  • domain assumption Mixing matrix, masses and energies (Eqs. 17-21) taken from [7].
    The T matrix and flavor amplitudes are imported from Sinha and Mukhopadhyay; the paper states it 'strictly follows earlier results [7]'.
  • domain assumption The neutrino follows a fixed circular orbit at constant radius around the Kerr BH, with t approximately L in the ultra-relativistic limit.
    Stated in Section 4 and the Conclusion; this ignores radial motion and trajectory curvature effects.
  • domain assumption The bipartite partition of the four modes into two qubits is well-defined.
    The reduced density matrix in Eq. (26) requires tracing over two specific modes, but the paper does not state which modes are traced.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Influence of gravity on the quantum speed limit in neutrino oscillations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5XOKC6MN

@misc{pith2026241118558,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Influence of gravity on the quantum speed limit in neutrino oscillations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5XOKC6MN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18558}
}
read the original abstract

The quantum speed limits (QSLs) determine the minimal amount of time required for a quantum system to evolve from an initial to a final state. We investigate QSLs for the unitary evolution of the neutrino-antineutrino system in the presence of a gravitational field. It is known that the transition probabilities between neutrino and antineutrino in the framework of one and two flavors depend on the strength of the gravitational field. The behavior of the QSL time in the two-flavor system indicates fast flavor transitions as the gravitational field strength increases. Subsequently, we observe quick suppression of entanglement by exploring the speed limit for entanglement entropy of two-flavor oscillations in the neutrino-antineutrino system in the proximity of a spinning primordial black hole.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [7]

    Sinha and B

    M. Sinha and B. Mukhopadhyay,CPT and lepton number violation in neutrino sector: Modified mass matrix of neutrino coupled to gravity, Phys. Rev. D77 (2008), 025003. https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevD.77.025003

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.025003 2008

  2. [1]

    A. B. Balantekin and G. M. Fuller, Neutrinos in Cosmology and Astrophysics, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 71 (2013), 162-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2013.03.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2013.03.008 2013

  3. [2]

    W. X. Chen and A. M. Beloborodov, Neutrino-Cooled Accretion Disks around Spinning Black Hole, Astrophys. J. 657 (2007), 383-399. https://doi.org/10.1086/508923

    doi:10.1086/508923 2007

  4. [3]

    R Surman et al, The role of neutrinos in r-process nucleosynthesis in supernovae and gamma- ray bursts, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 35 014059 (2008). https://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/0954-3899/35/1/014059

    work page 2008

  5. [4]

    M. A. Luty, Baryogenesis via leptogenesis , Phys. Rev. D 45 (1992), 455-465. https:// doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.45.455

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.45.455 1992

  6. [5]

    Pontecorvo, Mesonium and anti-mesonium, Sov

    B. Pontecorvo, Mesonium and anti-mesonium, Sov. Phys. JETP6 (1957), 429

    work page 1957

  7. [6]

    S. M. Bilenky, The History of neutrino oscillations, Phys. Scripta T121, 17-22 (2005),https: //doi.org/10.1088/0031-8949/2005/T121/001

    doi:10.1088/0031-8949/2005/t121/001 2005

  8. [8]

    Mukhopadhyay, Gravity induced neutrino-antineutrino oscillation: CPT and lepton number non-conservation under gravity, Class

    B. Mukhopadhyay, Gravity induced neutrino-antineutrino oscillation: CPT and lepton number non-conservation under gravity, Class. Quant. Grav.24 (2007), 1433-1442, https://doi. org/10.1088/0264-9381/24/6/004

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/24/6/004 2007

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    V. D. Barger, J. G. Learned, S. Pakvasa and T. J. Weiler, Neutrino decay as an explanation of atmospheric neutrino observations, Phys. Rev. Lett.82 (1999), 2640-2643, https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.2640

    1999 doi

  2. [10]

    Barenboim, J

    G. Barenboim, J. F. Beacom, L. Borissov and B. Kayser, CPT Violation and the Na- ture of Neutrinos , Phys. Lett. B 537 (2002), 227-232, https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0370-2693(02)01947-0

    2002

  3. [11]

    Mohanty, B

    S. Mohanty, B. Mukhopadhyay and A. R. Prasanna, Experimental tests of curvature couplings of fermions in general relativity, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002), 122001, https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.65.122001

    2002

  4. [12]

    Singh and B

    P. Singh and B. Mukhopadhyay,Gravitationally induced neutrino asymmetry, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 18 (2003), 779-785, https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732303009691 12 Authors Suppressed Due to Excessive Length

    2003 doi

  5. [13]

    D. V. Ahluwalia and D. Grumiller,Dark matter: A Spin one half fermion field with mass dimen- sion one?, Phys. Rev. D72 (2005), 067701, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 72.067701

    2005 doi

  6. [14]

    Mukhopadhyay, Neutrino asymmetry around black holes: Neutrinos interact with gravity, Mod

    B. Mukhopadhyay, Neutrino asymmetry around black holes: Neutrinos interact with gravity, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 20 (2005), 2145-2156. https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0217732305017640

    2005

  7. [15]

    Debnath, B

    U. Debnath, B. Mukhopadhyay and N. Dadhich, Space-time curvature coupling of spinors in early universe: Neutrino asymmetry and a possible source of baryogenesis , Mod. Phys. Lett. A 21 (2006), 399-408, https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732306019542

    2006 doi

  8. [16]

    Mukhopadhyay, T

    B. Mukhopadhyay, T. Ghosh and S. K. Ganguly, Gravitational geometric phase , The Six- teenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting, pp. 689-698 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1142/ 9789811269776_0052

    2023

  9. [17]

    Mandelstam, L., Tamm, I. (1991). The Uncertainty Relation Between Energy and Time in Non-relativistic Quantum Mechanics , In: Bolotovskii, B.M., Frenkel, V.Y., Peierls, R. (eds) Selected Papers. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-642-74626-0_8

    1991

  10. [18]

    Margolus and L

    N. Margolus and L. B. Levitin, The Maximum speed of dynamical evolution , Physica D 120 (1998), 188-195, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2789%2898%2900054-2

    1998 doi

  11. [19]

    Thakuria, A

    D. Thakuria, A. Srivastav, B. Mohan, A. Kumari and A. K. Pati, Generalised quantum speed limit for arbitrary time-continuous evolution , J. Phys. A 57, no.2, 025302 (2024), https: //doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/ad15ad

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Pandey, D

    V. Pandey, D. Shrimali, B. Mohan, S. Das and A. K. Pati, Speed limits on correlations in bipartite quantum systems, Phys. Rev. A 107, no.5, 052419 (2023), https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.107.052419

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Shrimali, S

    D. Shrimali, S. Bhowmick, V. Pandey and A. K. Pati, Capacity of entanglement for a nonlocal Hamiltonian, Phys. Rev. A 106, no.4, 042419 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevA.106.042419

    2022

  14. [22]

    Blasone, F

    M. Blasone, F. Dell’ Anno, S. De Siena and F. Illuminati,Entanglement in neutrino oscillations, EPL 85 (2009), 50002, https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/85/50002

    2009 doi

  15. [23]

    Banerjee, A

    S. Banerjee, A. K. Alok, R. Srikanth and B. C. Hiesmayr, A quantum information theoretic analysis of three flavor neutrino oscillations , Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) no.10, 487, https: //doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3717-x

    2015 doi

  16. [24]

    A. K. Alok, S. Banerjee and S. U. Sankar, Quantum correlations in terms of neutrino oscil- lation probabilities, Nucl. Phys. B 909 (2016), 65-72, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nuclphysb.2016.05.001

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    A. K. Jha, S. Mukherjee and B. A. Bambah, Tri-Partite entanglement in Neutrino Oscil- lations, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 36 (2021) no.09, 2150056, https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0217732321500565

    2021

  18. [26]

    A. K. Jha, and A. chatla, Quantum studies of neutrinos on IBMQ processors , Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. (2022) 231: 141-149, https://doi.org/10.1140/epjs/ s11734-021-00358-9

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    A. K. Jha, A. Chatla and B. A. Bambah, Neutrinos as qubits and qutrits, Eur. Phys. J. Plus139 (2024) no.1, 68, https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/s13360-024-04861-5

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Dixit, J

    K. Dixit, J. Naikoo, B. Mukhopadhyay and S. Banerjee, Quantum correlations in neutrino oscillations in curved spacetime , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) no.5, 055021, https://doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.055021

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Mukhopadhyay and S

    B. Mukhopadhyay and S. K. Ganguly,Gravity-Induced Geometric Phases and Entanglement in Spinors and Neutrinos: Gravitational Zeeman Effect, Universe 6 (2020) no.10, 160. https: //doi.org/10.3390/universe6100160

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information, Cambridge University Press, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511976667

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    Doran, A New form of the Kerr solution , Phys

    C. Doran, A New form of the Kerr solution , Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000), 067503, https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.61.067503

    2000 doi

Pith tools

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