Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Two quantum field theories of neutrino mixing give one formula

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A pedagogical review showing that the flavor Fock space and perturbative mixing-as-interaction approaches to neutrino oscillations reproduce the same oscillation formula.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A careful, self-aware review of the authors' two QFT approaches; the claimed equivalence is real but only for an inclusive flavor-charge expectation, not a single-particle transition probability. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2508.18917 v1 pith:X27Z46FN submitted 2025-08-26 hep-ph hep-th

Perturbative and nonperturbative aspects of neutrino oscillations in quantum field theory

Massimo Blasone , Luca Smaldone This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-th
keywords neutrino oscillationsflavor Fock spaceflavor vacuumBogoliubov transformationinteraction picturefinite-time quantum field theorytime-energy uncertaintylepton flavor charges
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that the two seemingly different quantum field theory descriptions of neutrino mixing—the non-perturbative flavor Fock space built on a flavor vacuum, and a perturbative treatment that regards mixing as an interaction—are not rivals. It shows that both produce the same oscillation probability, including a non-relativistic correction term, within the limits of the perturbative expansion. The key structural claim is that flavor oscillations can only be described at finite time; the asymptotic S-matrix framework suppresses flavor change entirely. If correct, this unifies the two frameworks and gives a consistent foundation for non-relativistic corrections and energy-time uncertainty bounds in neutrino physics.

Core claim

The central result is the equality of the oscillation formula derived in the two formalisms. In the flavor Fock space approach, flavor states are eigenstates of lepton flavor charges at a reference time, built over a flavor vacuum that is a Bogoliubov-rotated condensate of mass-vacuum pairs. The survival and transition probabilities are expectation values of flavor charges and take the form sin²2θ [ |U_k|² sin²(Ω⁻t) + |V_k|² sin²(Ω⁺t) ], with U_k and V_k the Bogoliubov coefficients. In the interaction-picture approach, where the off-diagonal mass term is treated as a perturbation and probabilities come from a finite-time Dyson expansion, the same expression emerges at first order in the mixi

What carries the argument

The machinery has two linked pieces. (1) The flavor Fock space: a Bogoliubov transformation relating mass and flavor creation/annihilation operators, whose generator produces a flavor vacuum with a condensate of mass-vacuum particle-antiparticle pairs. Flavor states are single excitations of this vacuum and are exact eigenstates of the lepton flavor charges; because the representation is unitarily inequivalent to the mass vacuum, the oscillation probability is computed as a charge expectation value, not as an S-matrix element. (2) The interaction picture: the off-diagonal neutrino mass term m_eµ(ν̄_e ν_µ + h.c.) is treated as the interaction Hamiltonian, and Dyson expansion of the time-evolu

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that neutrinos produced in weak interactions are exactly the flavor-charge eigenstates—excitations of the flavor vacuum at a reference time—and that the expectation value of the flavor charge is the oscillation probability; the paper postulates this rather than deriving it from the Lagrangian alone, and the mass and flavor vacua are unitarily inequivalent, so no measurement directly fixes the physical vacuum.

What would settle it

Measure the energy- or distance-dependent oscillation probability for neutrinos with momentum |k| near sqrt(m1 m2), where the predicted extra term |V_k|² sin²((ω1+ω2)t/2) is not negligible; observing only the standard Pontecorvo sin²(δm²t/4E) term would falsify the common formula of both formalisms. Alternatively, a short-time weak-decay experiment detecting W⁺ → e⁺ ν_μ at a rate incompatible with zero would contradict the lepton-number-conservation prediction that follows from flavor-charge eigenstates.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Flavor oscillations are a finite-time phenomenon: the asymptotic S-matrix limit gives zero flavor transition (for unequal masses), so any consistent QFT calculation must use the time-evolution operator over a finite interval.
  • Perturbation theory in the mixing interaction reproduces the non-perturbative result, so the Bogoliubov coefficients of the flavor vacuum are not an artifact of a special vacuum choice—they emerge from ordinary Dyson expansion.
  • The standard Pontecorvo oscillation formula is the relativistic limit of a more general expression; at momenta |k| near sqrt(m1 m2), a high-frequency term sin²((ω1+ω2)t/2) becomes significant.
  • Flavor states carry an intrinsic energy uncertainty bounded by a time-energy uncertainty relation, which sets a fundamental limit on energy and mass measurements in neutrino experiments.
  • Lepton number is conserved at tree level at short times only when complete flavor states (charge eigenstates) are used; Pontecorvo superpositions would predict spurious flavor-violating weak decays.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the two approaches agree beyond leading order, radiative corrections to oscillation probabilities could be computed in the perturbative picture and then mapped back to flavor-vacuum language, giving a practical tool the paper does not develop.
  • The high-frequency term could be searched for in relic-neutrino capture experiments: non-relativistic cosmic neutrinos with momenta near sqrt(m1 m2) would show deviations from the standard rate.
  • The finite-time structure invites a unified treatment with particle decays: both are short-time quadratic processes and both are governed by the same time-energy uncertainty logic, a connection the paper notes but does not formalize into a single framework.
  • A decisive test of the flavor-vacuum postulate—rather than the oscillation formula—would be a measurement sensitive to the vacuum condensate itself, such as a difference in the tritium capture rate computed with flavor states versus mass states.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper is a comprehensive pedagogical review of two quantum field theoretic approaches to neutrino flavor mixing: the non-perturbative flavor Fock space formalism (flavor vacuum, flavor-charge eigenstates) and a perturbative interaction-picture framework in which the off-diagonal mass term is treated as an interaction. After deriving the lepton flavor charges from a minimally extended Standard Model, the authors review the standard QM and first-quantized derivations, construct the flavor vacuum and its Bogoliubov structure, compute oscillation quantities from charges, Green's functions, and currents, and then re-derive the same formulas via a Dyson expansion of the mixing interaction. The central claim is that the perturbative method reproduces the non-perturbative oscillation formula, Eq. (317) vs Eq. (121), within the stated approximations, and that both approaches require a finite-time treatment rather than asymptotic S-matrix elements.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, the paper offers a useful unification of two apparently independent QFT descriptions of neutrino mixing, and it sharpens the argument that finite-time evolution is essential for flavor oscillations. The review is comprehensive and self-contained, with detailed derivations of the flavor vacuum, Bogoliubov coefficients, Green's function identities, entanglement measures, time-energy uncertainty relations, and the three-flavor extension. Its main value is as a reference for the flavor Fock space program and for the analogous perturbative construction. However, the claimed equivalence is conditional on an inclusive, charge-expectation definition of the oscillation probability, and the paper does not fully address the physical status of that definition. The nonrelativistic corrections that distinguish the QFT formulas from the standard Pontecorvo formula are tiny for realistic relativistic neutrinos, so the practical impact is limited, but the conceptual claim is still significant.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2 and Section 5.4 (Eqs. (118)-(121), (300)-(317))] The paper identifies Q_{σ→ρ}(t) with the oscillation probability, but Q is a flavor-charge expectation value, not the exclusive one-particle transition probability. In Section 5.4, the perturbative total transition probability P_e^D in Eq. (313) is the sum of the direct one-particle process |ν_e>→|ν_μ> and the three-neutrino process |ν_e>→|ν_e ν_μ ν_e> of Eqs. (300)-(310). The latter is essential for reproducing the |V_p|^2 high-frequency term in Eq. (317). Thus the 'same oscillation formulas' claim is valid only for this inclusive, charge-expectation definition. The paper should state this explicitly and discuss whether the quantity agrees with experimental detection probabilities, which are based on exclusive charged-current events. As written, the abstract can be read as claiming equivalence for the standard oscillation probability, which is not established.
  2. [Section 5.4 (Eqs. (304)-(310))] The final perturbative result depends on a subtraction prescription that is not derived from first principles. The divergent vacuum diagram is subtracted, and then a finite contribution at k=p is kept on the grounds that 'because of the Pauli principle, the vacuum should not carry the contribution with k=p' (Eqs. (307)-(308)). This prescription is load-bearing: without it the high-frequency term in Eq. (310) would be different or absent. The paper should either derive this subtraction systematically from a renormalization or normal-ordering prescription, or state it as an assumption and discuss the sensitivity of Eq. (317) to this choice.
  3. [Section 4.2 (Eqs. (108)-(109)) and Section 4.7.2] The physical identification of flavor states as eigenstates of the lepton flavor charges is a postulate, not a consequence of the Lagrangian alone. The paper acknowledges this in Section 4.7.2 ('the problem of the choice arise, which ones are the physical states'), but the abstract and conclusions present the equivalence of the two formalisms as a result. The perturbative approach does not invoke the flavor vacuum; its initial state is a single-particle excitation of the perturbative vacuum. The matching to Eq. (121) is therefore partly a consequence of both sides adopting the same inclusive definition, rather than an independent confirmation of the flavor vacuum construction. This limitation should be stated prominently in the introduction and conclusions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (28) and Section 5.4] The spinor notation is inconsistent: the mixing term is written as 'meµ(νeνµ+νµνe)' without the Dirac bars; it should be \(\bar\nu_e\nu_\mu+\bar\nu_\mu\nu_e\) (or equivalent). This makes the Lagrangian dimension and lepton-number assignments confusing.
  2. [Eq. (67)] The notation 'Pe→νμ' should probably be 'Pe→μ' for consistency with the rest of the paper; also check the factor 'sin 2 2θ' formatting.
  3. [Eq. (314)-(316)] The matching between the perturbative coefficients W_p, Y_p and the Bogoliubov coefficients U_p, V_p is only shown at leading order in m_eμ. This should be stated in the main text near Eq. (317), not only in the surrounding sentence, to avoid the impression of an exact identity.
  4. [Section 4.1] The phrase 'the flavor vacuum is annhilated' contains a typo. More importantly, the proof that the generator G_θ rotates the fields is correct, but the transition from Eq. (79) to the explicit Bogoliubov transformations (86)-(89) would benefit from a remark that the frame k=(0,0,|k|) is used and that spin indices are handled consistently.
  5. [Section 4.8] The three-flavor formulas (233)-(235) are presented without derivation and with very dense notation. A brief explanation of the structure of the terms (e.g., which combinations are CP-even/odd) would improve readability.
  6. [References] Several references are repeated or have incomplete author lists; for example, Refs. 20 and 23 appear to be the same paper, and Ref. 82 is listed as 'Proceedings of the Neutrino Oscillation Workshop' without the actual title. A final reference cleanup is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the perturbative/nonperturbative equivalence is a computed identity, not a fit.

full rationale

The central claim—that the perturbative interaction-picture result (Eq. 317) reproduces the non-perturbative flavor-Fock-space formula (Eq. 121)—is established by explicit computation, not by fitting or by definition. The perturbative probability is obtained from a Dyson expansion of the mixing interaction (Section 5.4), while the non-perturbative probability is obtained from the expectation value of the flavor charge on flavor states (Section 4.2). The matching uses algebraic relations (Eq. 316) between the spinor coefficients W_p, Y_p and the Bogoliubov coefficients U_p, V_p, together with the first-order mass identifications m_e ≈ m_1, m_µ ≈ m_2 and θ ≈ m_eµ/(m_µ − m_e). No parameter is adjusted to force the agreement. The high-frequency term in the perturbative calculation arises from a genuine first-order three-particle channel present in the interaction Hamiltonian; the analogous non-perturbative term arises from the flavor-vacuum condensate. The paper explicitly identifies the charge expectation as an inclusive sum of processes, so both sides are computing the same physical quantity. Although the review cites many works by the same authors, the derivations of the central equivalence are reproduced in the text; the cited prior work supplies details, not a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or an unexamined ansatz. The choice of flavor-charge eigenstates and charge-expectation probabilities is a physical postulate, but it is not circular: the resulting time-dependent oscillation formula requires nontrivial calculation and is not identical to the postulate by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The review adds no new free parameters; all inputs are standard SM masses, mixing angles and momenta. The central argument rests on the flavor vacuum postulate and on the finite-time interpretation of oscillation probabilities, both of which are assumptions from the authors' prior research program.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Minimally extended Standard Model with Dirac neutrino masses from Yukawa couplings and a unitary mixing matrix.
    Section 2.1. The entire review operates within this model; Majorana masses, seesaw, and alternative mechanisms are set aside.
  • ad hoc to paper Flavor neutrino states produced in weak interactions are eigenstates of the lepton flavor charges, hence excitations of the flavor vacuum.
    Section 4.2, Eqs. (108)-(109). This is the defining postulate of the flavor Fock space approach; it is not derived from the Lagrangian alone and is contested in the literature.
  • domain assumption Equal-momenta and plane-wave approximations for flavor states and oscillation probabilities.
    Sections 4.1-4.2; the k=(0,0,|k|) frame is chosen throughout. Wave-packet effects are treated only qualitatively in Section 4.4.
  • domain assumption Mixing term m_e_mu can be treated as a small perturbation, with theta approximately m_e_mu/(m_mu-m_e) at first order.
    Sections 5.2-5.4. The perturbative equivalence to Eq. (121) holds only in this small-mixing, first-order regime.
  • domain assumption Flavor oscillations must be computed at finite time with the evolution operator, not the asymptotic S-matrix.
    Stated in Sections 1, 4.5, 5.1 and throughout. It is a physical claim tied to the time-energy uncertainty relation.
  • standard math Mass and flavor representations of the CAR are unitarily inequivalent for different masses.
    Appendix A and Section 4.1. Relies on Bogoliubov transformations and Haag's theorem; standard in algebraic QFT.
invented entities (1)
  • Flavor vacuum |0(t)>_{e,mu} with particle-antiparticle condensate no independent evidence
    purpose: Serves as the vacuum for flavor annihilation operators so that flavor states are exact eigenstates of flavor charges; its condensate generates nonrelativistic corrections to the oscillation formula.
    The flavor vacuum is a postulated state from prior work, reviewed here rather than newly introduced. It has no direct experimental handle; the predicted nonrelativistic corrections are negligible for relativistic neutrinos and the cosmic neutrino background implications are speculative.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Perturbative and nonperturbative aspects of neutrino oscillations in quantum field theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X27Z46FN

@misc{pith2026250818917,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Perturbative and nonperturbative aspects of neutrino oscillations in quantum field theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X27Z46FN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18917}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In this work, we present a comprehensive and pedagogical review of two quantum field theoretical approaches to neutrino flavor mixing and oscillations: the non-perturbative flavor Fock space formalism and the perturbative interaction picture framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18917 by Luca Smaldone, Massimo Blasone.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: |Vk| 2 for sample values of masses. The solid line corresponds to m1 = 1 and m2 = 100, while the dashed line corresponds to m1 = 10 and m2 = 100.57 The function |Vk| 2 has its maximum at |k| = √m1m2 with |Vk| 2 max → 1/2 for (m2−m1) 2 m1m2 → ∞, and |Vk| 2 ≃ (m2−m1) 2 4|k| 2 for |k| ≫ √m1m2 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic representation of the different contributions. Left column: the first-order flavor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Real and Virtual Propagation in Neutrino Oscillations

    hep-ph 2026-06 conditional novelty 6.0

    In Gaussian wave-packet QFT, flavor oscillations switch on only after a propagation-time threshold set by the wave-packet energy uncertainty and the intermediate particle's decay width; below it the neutrino is purely...

  2. Neutrino mixing and gravitational production via inflation

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Gravitational production of neutrinos with time-dependent mixing during inflation is enhanced but remains bounded by an abundance Y ≲ 10^{-11}.

  3. Real and Virtual Propagation in Neutrino Oscillations

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Derives an extended flavor-changing amplitude showing oscillations require propagation time above a threshold set by energy uncertainty and decay width, distinguishing real from virtual propagation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

177 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Fermi, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik88, 161 (1934)

    E. Fermi, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik88, 161 (1934)

    1934

  2. [2]

    C. L. Cowan, F. Reines, F. B. Harrison, H. W. Kruse and A. D. McGuire, Science 124, 103 (1956)

    1956

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 19, 1264 (1967)

    1967

  4. [4]

    Salam, Conf

    A. Salam, Conf. Proc. C 680519, 367 (1968)

    1968

  5. [5]

    Weyl, PNAS 15, 323 (1929)

    H. Weyl, PNAS 15, 323 (1929)

    1929

  6. [6]

    J. N. Bahcall and R. Davis Jr., Science 191, 264 (1976)

    1976

  7. [7]

    Pontecorvo, Sov

    B. Pontecorvo, Sov. Phys. JETP 6, 429 (1957)

    1957

  8. [8]

    Pontecorvo, Zh

    B. Pontecorvo, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 34, 247 (1957)

    1957

  9. [9]

    Pontecorvo, Zh

    B. Pontecorvo, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 53, 1717 (1967)

    1967

  10. [10]

    V. N. Gribov and B. Pontecorvo, Phys. Lett. B 28, 493 (1969)

    1969

  11. [11]

    S. M. Bilenky and B. Pontecorvo, Phys. Lett. B 61, 248 (1976)

    1976

  12. [12]

    S. M. Bilenky and B. Pontecorvo, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 17, 569 (1976)

    1976

  13. [13]

    S. M. Bilenky and B. Pontecorvo, Comments Nucl. Part. Phys. 7, 149 (1977)

    1977

  14. [14]

    Vogel, L

    P. Vogel, L. Wen and C. Zhang, Nature Commun. 6, 6935 (2015). August 27, 2025 0:50 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE IJMPAReview 56 M.Blasone and L.Smaldone

    2015

  15. [15]

    IceCube Collaboration (M. G. Aartsen et al. ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 071801 (2018)

    2018

  16. [16]

    Tanabashi and et al.), Phys

    Particle Data Group Collaboration (M. Tanabashi and et al.), Phys. Rev. D 98, 030001 (2018)

    2018

  17. [17]

    Nakano), J

    Super-Kamiokande Collaboration (Y. Nakano), J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1342, 012037 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    Agafonova et al

    OPERA Collaboration (N. Agafonova et al. ), Sci. Data 8, 218 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    Bilenky, Nucl

    S. Bilenky, Nucl. Phys. B 908, 2 (2016)

    2016

  20. [20]

    T. P. Cheng and L.-F. Li, Phys. Rev. D 22, 2860 (1980)

    1980

  21. [22]

    S. F. King, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 94, 217 (2017)

    2017

  22. [23]

    Chaber, B

    P. Chaber, B. Dziewit, J. Holeczek, M. Richter, M. Zra lek and S. Zajac, Phys. Rev. D 98, 055007 (2018)

    2018

  23. [24]

    Altarelli and F

    G. Altarelli and F. Feruglio, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2701 (2010)

    2010

  24. [25]

    S. F. King, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 136, 022038 (2008)

    2008

  25. [26]

    Minkowski, Physics Letters B 67, 421 (1977)

    P. Minkowski, Physics Letters B 67, 421 (1977)

    1977

  26. [27]

    Yanagida, Prog

    T. Yanagida, Prog. Theor. Phys. 64, 1103 (1980)

    1980

  27. [28]

    Miransky, Dynamical symmetry breaking in quantum field theories (World Scien- tific, Singapore, 1993)

    V. Miransky, Dynamical symmetry breaking in quantum field theories (World Scien- tific, Singapore, 1993)

    1993

  28. [29]

    S. M. Bilenky and B. Pontecorvo, Phys. Rept. 41, 225 (1978)

    1978

  29. [30]

    P. D. Mannheim, Phys. Rev. D 37, 1935 (1988)

    1935

  30. [31]

    Giunti, C

    C. Giunti, C. W. Kim and U. W. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 45, 2414 (1992)

    1992

  31. [32]

    Giunti, C

    C. Giunti, C. W. Kim, J. A. Lee and U. W. Lee, Phys. Rev. D 48, 4310 (1993)

    1993

  32. [33]

    Blasone and G

    M. Blasone and G. Vitiello, Annals Phys. 244, 283 (1995), [Erratum: Annals Phys. 249, 363–364 (1996)]

    1995

  33. [34]

    Grimus and P

    W. Grimus and P. Stockinger, Phys. Rev. D 54, 3414 (1996)

    1996

  34. [35]

    Fujii, C

    K. Fujii, C. Habe and T. Yabuki, Phys. Rev. D 59, 113003 (1999)

    1999

  35. [36]

    Beuthe, Phys

    M. Beuthe, Phys. Rept. 375, 105 (2003)

    2003

  36. [37]

    Giunti and C

    C. Giunti and C. Kim, Fundamentals of Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics (OUP Oxford, 2007)

    2007

  37. [38]

    C. M. Ho, JHEP 12, 022 (2012)

    2012

  38. [39]

    A. E. Lobanov, Annals Phys. 403, 82 (2019)

    2019

  39. [40]

    Grimus, J

    W. Grimus, J. Phys. G 47, 085004 (2020)

    2020

  40. [41]

    Tureanu, Eur

    A. Tureanu, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 68 (2020)

    2020

  41. [42]

    Blasone and L

    M. Blasone and L. Smaldone, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 35, 2050313 (2020)

    2020

  42. [43]

    Blasone, F

    M. Blasone, F. Giacosa, L. Smaldone and G. Torrieri, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 736 (2023)

    2023

  43. [44]

    Fantini, A

    G. Fantini, A. Gallo Rosso, F. Vissani and V. Zema, Adv. Ser. Direct. High Energy Phys. 28, 37 (2018)

    2018

  44. [45]

    Blasone and G

    M. Blasone and G. Vitiello, Phys. Rev. D 60, 111302 (1999)

    1999

  45. [46]

    New Results in the Physics of Neutrino Oscillations

    M. Blasone, Subnucl. Ser. 36, 584 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9810329

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  46. [47]

    Blasone, P

    M. Blasone, P. A. Henning and G. Vitiello, Phys. Lett. B 451, 140 (1999)

    1999

  47. [48]

    K. C. Hannabuss and D. C. Latimer, J. Phys. A 33, 1369 (2000)

    2000

  48. [49]

    Fujii, C

    K. Fujii, C. Habe and T. Yabuki, Phys. Rev. D 64, 013011 (2001)

    2001

  49. [50]

    Ji and Y

    C.-R. Ji and Y. Mishchenko, Phys. Rev. D 65, 096015 (2002)

    2002

  50. [51]

    Lee, Mod

    C.-Y. Lee, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 35, 2030015 (2020)

    2020

  51. [52]

    Blasone, P

    M. Blasone, P. Jizba and L. Smaldone, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019)

    2019

  52. [53]

    M. H. Stone, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 16, 172 (1930)

    1930

  53. [54]

    von Neumann, Mathematische Annalen 104, 570 (1931)

    J. von Neumann, Mathematische Annalen 104, 570 (1931)

    1931

  54. [55]

    Fabri and L

    E. Fabri and L. E. Picasso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 408 (1966)

    1966

  55. [56]

    Umezawa, H

    H. Umezawa, H. Matsumoto and M. Tachiki, Thermo Field Dynamics and Condensed August 27, 2025 0:50 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE IJMPAReview Perturbative and nonperturbative aspect of flavor oscillations in quantum field theory 57 States (North-Holland Publishing Company, 1982)

    2025

  56. [57]

    Blasone, P

    M. Blasone, P. Jizba and G. Vitiello, Quantum Field Theory and Its Macroscopic Manifestations: Boson Condensation, Ordered Patterns, and Topological Defects(Im- perial College Press, 2011)

    2011

  57. [58]

    Haag, Matematisk-fysiske Meddelelser 29, 12 (1955)

    R. Haag, Matematisk-fysiske Meddelelser 29, 12 (1955)

    1955

  58. [59]

    Haag, Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras (Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, 1996)

    R. Haag, Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras (Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, 1996)

    1996

  59. [60]

    N. N. Bogolyubov, A. A. Logunov, A. I. Oksak and I. T. Todorov, General principles of quantum field theory (Reidel, Boston, 1990)

    1990

  60. [61]

    Nambu and G

    Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 122, 345 (1961)

    1961

  61. [62]

    Nambu and G

    Y. Nambu and G. Jona-Lasinio, Phys. Rev. 124, 246 (1961)

    1961

  62. [63]

    N. E. Mavromatos, S. Sarkar and W. Tarantino, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084046 (2009)

    2009

  63. [64]

    N. E. Mavromatos, S. Sarkar and W. Tarantino, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 28, 1350045 (2013)

    2013

  64. [65]

    Blasone, P

    M. Blasone, P. Jizba, N. E. Mavromatos and L. Smaldone, Phys. Rev. D 100, 045027 (2019)

    2019

  65. [66]

    Blasone, M

    M. Blasone, M. Di Mauro and G. Vitiello, Phys. Lett. B 697, 238 (2011)

    2011

  66. [67]

    Blasone, P

    M. Blasone, P. Jizba, N. E. Mavromatos and L. Smaldone, Phys. Rev. D 102, 025021 (2020)

    2020

  67. [68]

    Blasone, F

    M. Blasone, F. Giacosa, L. Smaldone and G. Torrieri, PoS CORFU2023, 098 (2024)

    2024

  68. [69]

    S. M. Bilenky (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0512215

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  69. [70]

    S. M. Bilenky, F. von Feilitzsch and W. Potzel, J. Phys. G 35, 095003 (2008)

    2008

  70. [71]

    E. K. Akhmedov, J. Kopp and M. Lindner, J. Phys. G 36, 078001 (2009)

    2009

  71. [72]

    S. M. Bilenky, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, 2134 (2006)

    2006

  72. [73]

    S. M. Bilenky, F. von Feilitzsch and W. Potzel, J. Phys. G 36, 078002 (2009)

    2009

  73. [74]

    S. M. Bilenky, Physics of Particles and Nuclei 42, 515 (2011)

    2011

  74. [75]

    Blasone, G

    M. Blasone, G. Lambiase, G. G. Luciano, L. Petruzziello and L. Smaldone, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 155004 (2020)

    2020

  75. [76]

    G. G. Luciano and L. Smaldone, Symmetry 15, 2032 (2023)

    2032

  76. [77]

    Blasone, F

    M. Blasone, F. Giacosa, L. Smaldone and G. Torrieri, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2883, 012012 (2024)

    2024

  77. [78]

    Fritsch and P

    H. Fritsch and P. Minkowski, Physics Letters B 62, 72 (1976)

    1976

  78. [79]

    S. M. Bilenky and S. T. Petcov, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 671 (1987), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 61, 169 (1989), Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 60, 575 (1988)]

    1987

  79. [80]

    Z. Maki, M. Nakagawa and S. Sakata, Progress of Theoretical Physics 28, 870 (11 1962)

    1962

  80. [81]

    Blasone, P

    M. Blasone, P. Jizba and G. Vitiello, Phys. Lett. B 517, 471 (2001)

    2001

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.