text:
# Operator relation among neutrino fields and oscillation formulas in matter

## I Introduction

In view of the great phenomenological and theoretical relevance of neutrino mixing and oscillations, much effort has been recently devoted to a full quantum field theoretical analysis of this phenomenon both in vacuum as well as in matter. Among the various approaches which have been developed, the one proposed by Blasone and Vitiello(hereafter, referred to BV) is based on two kinds of Hilbert spaces, i.e. the flavor- and the mass-Hilbert spaces, and related considerations in the case of vacuum oscillations have been published in Refs.. In these references it has been pointed out that non-standard oscillation terms due to the non-trivial nature of the mixing transformations do indeed appear in the full oscillation formula obtained in quantum field theory.

The aim of the present work is to develop field-theoretical considerations concerning neutrino oscillations in matter along the line of BV and the one developed by Fujii, Habe and Yabuki. We examine this task by assuming the static medium and the extreme-relativistic case which are to be defined exactly in Sec.II. In this respect, it is useful to remember that, when we want to define a flavor neutrino state with definite momentum and helicity, there appear arbitrary mass parameters $`\mu _\lambda `$’s, so that we cannot estimate the magnitude of $`\mu _\lambda `$’s in comparison with the neutrino momentum. Mannheim has investigated the same problem in the paper published in somewhat early stage***When one of the present authors (K.F.) reported the main part of the present work at International Workshop on the Quantum Field Theory of Particle Mixing and Oscillations, 13-15 June 2002, Vietri sul Mare (Salerno), Dr. C.Y. Cardall called attention to Mannheim’s work.: his conclusion is that the standard Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW) formalism is derived. However, after the considerations developed in the following, we obtain a negative conclusion against that of Mannheim. The essential point is that, in quantities related to the evolution relation of flavor neutrino states, Mannheim dropped the effect coming from Bogolyubov transformation between the two kinds of creation- and annihilation-operators (with definite momentum and helicity) corresponding to the flavor- and the mass-eigenstates. We discuss this point in detail in this paper.

In the following we consider the problem in the 2-flavor case for simplicity, although the above conclusion will be seen to hold true also in the many flavor case.

## II Preliminaries

### A General framework

We investigate the neutrino oscillation in matter on the basis of the electro-weak unified theory, in which the known neutrinos participate in the weak interaction of V-A type, mediated by $`W^\pm `$\- and $`Z^0`$-bosons. For low momentum-transfers, $`|q^2|m_W^2,m_Z^2`$, the effective interaction Lagrangian is

$`L_{weak}^{eff}(x)=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\{(\overline{\nu }_ev^\alpha e)(\overline{e}v_\alpha \nu _e)+(\overline{\nu }_\mu v^\alpha \mu )(\overline{\mu }v_\alpha \nu _\mu )+\mathrm{}`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\omega }{2}}({\displaystyle \underset{\rho }{}}\overline{\nu }_\rho v^\alpha \nu _\rho )(\overline{e}v_\alpha e+4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\overline{e}\gamma _\alpha e)+\mathrm{}\}`$ (2)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\{\overline{\nu }_ev^\alpha \nu _e((1{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\omega }{2}})\overline{e}v_\alpha e+2\kappa _\omega \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\overline{e}\gamma _\alpha e)`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\rho e}{}}(\overline{\nu }_\rho v^\alpha \nu _\rho )\kappa _\omega ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{e}v_\alpha e+2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\overline{e}\gamma _\alpha e)+\mathrm{}\},`$ (4)
where $`v^\alpha =\gamma ^\alpha (1+\gamma _5)`$ with $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }=\rho _y\stackrel{}{\sigma },\gamma ^4=\rho _xI,\gamma _5=\rho _zI`$ in the Kramers representation; $`\sqrt{\kappa _w}m_z/m_w=1/\mathrm{cos}\theta _w,(\kappa _w)_{exp}1;G_F1.027\times 10^5/m_P^2`$. Hereafter we take $`\kappa _w=1`$. (As to the details of the notations below, see Refs..)

For neutrino propagation in matter, we define

$`n^{(e)}(x)_\alpha =i\overline{e}(x)v_\alpha e(x)_{matt}i\overline{e}(x)\gamma _\alpha e(x)_{matt},`$ (5)
which plays the role of an external field. Under the adiabatic approximation, $`(n^{(e)}(x)_\alpha )`$ may be regarded as $`x`$-independent over a wide range. With the aim of presenting the logical structure of the problem as simply as possible, we assume $`(n^{(e)}(x)_\alpha )`$ to be $`x`$-independent in the same way as Mannheim. We define the time-like 4-vector $`(u_\alpha )=(\stackrel{}{u},iu_0)`$ with $`u^\alpha u_\alpha =1`$ such that it reduces to $`(\stackrel{}{0},i)`$ in the rest frame of medium; thus, we can write $`(n^{(e)}(x)_\alpha )=(n_{(e)}u_\alpha )`$ which reduces to $`(\stackrel{}{0},in_{(e)})`$ in the rest frame of medium.

By noting that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}\mathit{}^{(e)}P_L=\mathit{}^{(e)}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma _5}{2i}}=n_{(e)}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{u}+u_0I\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),`$ (8)
and by defining

$`b_1\sqrt{2}G_Fn_{(e)},b_0\sqrt{2}G_Fn_{(e)}(2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _w{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}),`$ (9)
the effective Lagrangian related with the present consideration for the 2-flavor case in expressed as

$`L_{eff}^{matt}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\nu }_e(x)& \overline{\nu }_\mu (x)\end{array}\right)\left[\partial ̸+M^0+\left(\begin{array}{cc}(b_0+b_1)\mathit{}P_L/i& 0\\ 0& b_0\mathit{}P_L/i\end{array}\right)\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e(x)\\ \nu _\mu (x)\end{array}\right)+L_{int}(x)`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\nu }_e(x)& \overline{\nu }_\mu (x)\end{array}\right)\left[\partial ̸+\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m_{ee}& N& m_{e\mu }& 0\\ 0& m_{ee}& 0& m_{e\mu }\\ m_{\mu e}& 0& m_{\mu \mu }& N^{}\\ 0& m_{\mu e}& 0& m_{\mu \mu }\end{array}\right)\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e(x)\\ \nu _\mu (x)\end{array}\right)+L_{int}(x)`$ (23)
$``$ $`L_F^{matt}(x)+L_{int}(x),`$ (24)
where $`L_{int}(x)`$ is assumed to include no bilinear term of neutrino fields, and hereafter its contributions are neglected; $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ are defined by

$`N(b_0+b_1)(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{u}+u_0I),N^{}=b_0(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{u}+u_0I).`$ (25)
The mass matrix $`M^0`$ in the 2-flavor case can be taken with no loss of generality, as $`m_{e\mu }=m_{\mu e},m_{\mu \mu }>m_{ee}0`$; then, the eigenvalues, $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$,

$`m_{1(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(m_{ee}+m_{\mu \mu }(+)\sqrt{(m_{\mu \mu }m_{ee})^2+4m_{e\mu }^2}\right)`$ (26)
satisfy

$`m_1`$ $``$ $`0\text{ for }\sqrt{m_{ee}m_{\mu \mu }}|m_{e\mu }|,`$ (27)
$`m_1`$ $`<`$ $`0\text{ for }\sqrt{m_{ee}m_{\mu \mu }}<|m_{e\mu }|.`$ (28)
From the mixing relation of the ”mass-eigenfield” $`\nu _j(x)`$’s

$`\nu _\rho (x)={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}z_{\rho j}^{1/2}\nu _j(x)\text{ with }Z^{1/2}=[z_{\rho j}^{1/2}]`$ (29)
satisfying $`Z^{1/2}Z^{1/2}=I`$ as well as

$`Z^{1/2}M^0Z^{1/2}=m_{diag}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_1& 0\\ 0& m_2\end{array}\right),`$ (32)
we can take

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e(x)\\ \nu _\mu (x)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1(x)\\ \nu _2(x)\end{array}\right)`$ (39)
with

$`\mathrm{tan}\theta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m_{e\mu }}}[(m_{\mu \mu }m_{ee})+\sqrt{(m_{\mu \mu }m_{ee})^2+4m_{e\mu }^2}].`$ (40)
For later convenience we write the relations among $`m_{\rho \sigma }`$’s, $`m_j`$’s and $`\theta `$;

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}m_{ee}\\ m_{\mu \mu }\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta & \mathrm{sin}^2\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}^2\theta & \mathrm{cos}^2\theta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}m_1\\ m_2\end{array}\right),`$ (47)
$`m_{e\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`(m_2m_1)\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{tan}(2\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{2m_{e\mu }}{m_{\mu \mu }m_{ee}}}.`$ (48)
Employing the above relations, we can write $`L_{(F)}^{matt}(x)`$ given by (15) in terms of the mass-basis operators;

$`L_{(F)}^{matt}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\nu }_1(x)& \overline{\nu }_2(x)\end{array}\right)\left[\partial ̸+\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m_1& B& 0& G\\ 0& m_1& 0& 0\\ 0& G& m_2& B^{}\\ 0& 0& 0& m_2\end{array}\right)\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1(x)\\ \nu _2(x)\end{array}\right)`$ (56)
$``$ $`L_{(M)}^{matt}(x),`$ (57)
where $`2\times 2`$ matrices $`B`$, $`B^{}`$ and $`G`$ are defined by

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}B& G\\ G& B^{}\end{array}\right)=\kappa (\sigma \stackrel{}{u}+u_0I)`$ (60)
with $`\kappa _{11}=b_0+b_1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ , $`\kappa _{12}=\kappa _{21}=b_1\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta `$ and $`\kappa _{22}=b_0+b_1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$.

### B Effective Hamiltonian and eigenvalue equation

The effective Hamiltonian obtained from $`L_{(M)}^{matt}(x)`$, (56), is

$`H_{(M)}^{matt}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`:\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\nu }_1(x)& \overline{\nu }_2(x)\end{array}\right)[\stackrel{}{\gamma }\stackrel{}{}+\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m_1& B& 0& G\\ 0& m_1& 0& 0\\ 0& G& m_2& B^{}\\ 0& 0& 0& m_2\end{array}\right)]\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1(x)\\ \nu _2(x)\end{array}\right):`$ (68)
$`=`$ $`:\left(\begin{array}{cc}\nu _1^{}(x)& \nu _2^{}(x)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}i\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{}& m_1& 0& 0\\ m_1& i\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{}+B& 0& G\\ 0& 0& i\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{}& m_2\\ 0& G& m_2& i\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{}+B^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1(x)\\ \nu _2(x)\end{array}\right):.`$ (76)
We expand the $`\nu _j(x)`$ fields ($`j=1,2`$) as

$`\nu _j(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{V}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}r}{}}\left\{\alpha _j(kr;x^0)u_j(kr)e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}}+\beta _j^{}(kr;x^0)v_j(kr)e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}}\right\}`$ (77)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{V}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}r}{}}\left\{\alpha _j(kr;x^0)u_j(kr)+\beta _j^{}(kr;x^0)v_j(kr)e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}}\right\};`$ (78)
here, $`u_j(kr)`$ and $`v_j(kr)`$ are the momentum-helicity eigenfunctions satisfying

$`(i\mathit{}+m_j)u_j(kr)=0,(i\mathit{}+m_j)v_j(kr)=0\text{ with }k_0=\sqrt{\stackrel{}{k}^2+m_j^2}\omega _j(k),`$ (79)
$`\beta (kr;x^0)\beta (\stackrel{}{k},k_0,r;x^0),v(kr)v(\stackrel{}{k},k_0,r).`$ (80)
By employing the concrete forms of $`u_j(kr)`$ and $`v_j(kr)`$ given in Appendix A, we can express the Hamiltonian

$`_{(M)}^{matt}(x^0){\displaystyle d^3xH_{(M)}^{matt}(x)},`$ (81)
in terms of the expansion-coefficient operators in (77). (See Table I as well as Eqs.(A40) and (A50) in Appendix A.) We obtain

$`_{(M)}^{matt}(x^0)={\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k}r}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}:w_j(k)(\alpha _j^{}(kr)\alpha _j(kr)\beta _j(kr)\beta _j^{}(kr)):+{\displaystyle d^3x\underset{j,l}{}\kappa _{jl}}:\nu _j^{}(x)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& \stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{u}+u_0\end{array}\right)\nu _l(x):`$ (84)
This shows that, due to the non-static($`\stackrel{}{u}0`$) contribution, $`_{(M)}^{matt}(x^0)`$ is not separable into two parts, corresponding to helicity $`r=`$ or $``$, since the last integral part of (84) is equal to

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j,l}{}}\kappa _{jl}:{\displaystyle d^3x(u_0\nu _j^{}(x)P_L\nu _l(x)+\nu _j^{}(x)(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{u})P_L\nu _l(x))}:.`$ (85)
In the static-medium approximation, i.e. $`(\stackrel{}{u},\stackrel{}{u}_0)(\stackrel{}{0},1)`$, $`_{(M)}^{matt}(x^0)`$ is separable into two parts; in the two-flavor case we are lead to consider the $`4\times 4`$ matrices $`_{(M)}^{matt}(k)`$ and $`_{(M)}^{matt}(k)`$ as given below.

From Eq.(84), we obtain the Hamiltonian in the static-medium case

$`_{(M)}^{matt}(x^0)|_{static}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},r}{}}_{(M)}^{matt}(kr;x^0),`$ (86)
$`_{(M)}^{matt}(kr;x^0)`$ $`=`$ $`:\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝜶_M^{}(kr;x^0)& 𝜷_M(kr;x^0)\end{array}\right)H_{(M)}^{matt}(kr)\left(\begin{array}{c}𝜶_M(kr;x^0)\\ 𝜷_M^{}(kr;x^0)\end{array}\right):`$ (90)
with

$`H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\omega _1+\kappa _{11}s_1s_1& \kappa _{12}s_1s_2& i\kappa _{11}s_1c_1& i\kappa _{12}s_1c_2\\ \kappa _{12}s_2s_1& \omega _2+\kappa _{22}s_2s_2& i\kappa _{12}s_2c_1& i\kappa _{22}s_2c_2\\ i\kappa _{11}c_1s_1& i\kappa _{12}c_1s_2& \omega _1+\kappa _{11}c_1c_1& \kappa _{12}c_1c_2\\ i\kappa _{12}c_2s_1& i\kappa _{22}c_2s_2& \kappa _{12}c_2c_1& \omega _2+\kappa _{22}c_2c_2\end{array}\right),`$ (95)
$`H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\omega _1+\kappa _{11}c_1c_1& \kappa _{12}c_1c_2& i\kappa _{11}c_1s_1& i\kappa _{12}c_1s_2\\ \kappa _{12}c_2c_1& \omega _2+\kappa _{22}c_2c_2& i\kappa _{12}c_2s_1& i\kappa _{22}c_2s_2\\ i\kappa _{11}s_1c_1& i\kappa _{12}s_1c_2& \omega _1+\kappa _{11}s_1s_1& \kappa _{12}s_1s_2\\ i\kappa _{12}s_2c_1& i\kappa _{22}s_2c_2& \kappa _{12}s_2s_1& \omega _2+\kappa _{22}s_2s_2\end{array}\right).`$ (100)
Here we use the notation (in the two-flavor case)

$`𝜶_M(kr;x^0)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _1(kr;x^0)\\ \alpha _2(kr;x^0)\end{array}\right),𝜷_M(kr;x^0)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta _1(kr;x^0)\\ \beta _2(kr;x^0)\end{array}\right);`$ (105)
$`c_j=\mathrm{cos}(\chi _j/2),s_j=\mathrm{sin}(\chi _j/2),cot\chi _j=|\stackrel{}{k}|/m_j.`$ (106)
The equations determining the energy eigenvalues are

$`det[H_{(M)}^{matt}(kr)]=0,r=,.`$ (107)
The concrete forms of LHS of (107) are given by

$`det[H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)\lambda ]=(\lambda ^2\omega _1^2)(\lambda ^2\omega _2^2)(\lambda k)\{\kappa _{11}(\lambda ^2\omega _2^2)+\kappa _{22}(\lambda ^2\omega _1^2)\}+(\lambda k)^2det\kappa ,`$ (108)
$`det[H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)\lambda ]=(\lambda ^2\omega _1^2)(\lambda ^2\omega _2^2)(\lambda +k)\{\kappa _{11}(\lambda ^2\omega _2^2)+\kappa _{22}(\lambda ^2\omega _1^2)\}+(\lambda +k)^2det\kappa .`$ (109)
Hereafter we write $`|\stackrel{}{k}|`$ simply as $`k`$ when there is no fear of confusion.

The relation of the eigenvalues obtained from Eq.(107) with the poles of flavor neutrino propagators will be examined in Sec.III. Here we discuss the relation of Eq.(107) with the eigenvalue equation obtained by Mannheim , i.e. Eq.(2.16) in his paper:

$`E^4E^3V`$ $``$ $`E^2(2k^2+Vk+m_1^2+m_2^2)+EV(k^2+m_1^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +m_2^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )`$ (110)
$`+`$ $`\omega _1^2\omega _2^2+Vk(k^2+m_1^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +m_2^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )=0;`$ (111)
$`V=\sqrt{2}G_Fn_{(e)}=b_1`$ in our notation. In (110) the neutral current contribution is subtracted from $`H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)`$ as a common term, so that in our case we have to take

$`\kappa b_1\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{sin}^2\theta \end{array}\right),det\kappa 0.`$ (114)
Then, we obtain from (109)

$`det[H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)\lambda ](E^2\omega _1^2)(E^2\omega _2^2)(E+k)V(E^2k^2m_1^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta m_2^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ),`$ (115)
which coincides with LHS of (110).

In Ref., Mannheim pointed out that, in the limit of high energies and weak potentials, the standard MSW formalism for neutrino oscillations in matter is derived on the basis of the field theory. It seems necessary, however, for us to reexamine this conclusion in detail because of the following reasons.

Hereafter we use the terminology “extreme-relativistic case” to denote the limit of higher neutrino-energies and weak potentials, i.e.

$`|\stackrel{}{k}|^2\{m_j^2\text{’s},A=2kb_1,A_0=2kb_0\}.`$ (116)
Since the mass eigenvalues are obtained by taking $`\omega _jk+\frac{m_j^2}{2k}`$, we use

$`c_j1{\displaystyle \frac{m_j^2}{8k^2}},s_j{\displaystyle \frac{m_j}{2k}}.`$ (117)
If we simply take the super-relativistic limit

$`c_j1,s_j0j,`$ (118)
then Eq.(100) reduces to

$`H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\omega _1+\kappa _{11}& \kappa _{12}& 0& 0\\ \kappa _{12}& \omega _2+\kappa _{22}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \omega _1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \omega _2\end{array}\right)`$ (123)
which is separable with respect to $`𝜶_{(M)}(k;x^0)`$ and $`𝜷_{(M)}^{}(k;x^0)`$, and leads to the usually employed Hamiltonian appearing in Schrödinger equation for one-particle states of two-flavor neutrinos. (See Eq.(2.23) in Ref. and the next subsection.) The eigenvalue equation for (123) is given by

$`det[H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)|_{c_j=1,s_j=0}\lambda ]=(\omega _1+\lambda )(\omega _2+\lambda )\{(\omega _1\lambda )(\omega _2\lambda )+(\omega _1\lambda )\kappa _{22}+(\omega _2\lambda )\kappa _{11}+det\kappa \}.`$ (124)
The curly bracket part in RHS of (124) and the remaining part determine the eigenvalues of positive- and negative-energy modes, respectively. If we take $`\omega _j,j=1,2`$ to be $`k`$, which is consistent with (118), the curly bracket part of (124) is

$`\{\mathrm{}\}\text{ of (}\text{124}\text{)}=(k\lambda )(k\lambda )+(k\lambda )(\kappa _{11}+\kappa _{22})+det\kappa ,`$ (125)
leading to the eigenvalues

$`\lambda k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[(\kappa _{11}+\kappa _{22})\pm \sqrt{(\kappa _{11}\kappa _{22})^2+4(\kappa _{12})^2}\right]`$ (126)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4k}}\left[2A_0+A\pm A\right].`$ (127)
If we write as usual

$`\lambda =k+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}^2}{2k}},`$ (128)
we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{m}^2=A_0+A\text{ or }A_0,`$ (129)
which are different from the usual ones apart from the common factor $`A_0`$.

In order to obtain the mass eigenvalues $`\{\stackrel{~}{m}^2`$’s$`\}`$, we have to examine the ”exact” expression (109), i.e.

$`det[H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)\lambda ]`$ $`=`$ $`(\omega _1+\lambda )(\omega _2+\lambda )\{(\omega _1\lambda )(\omega _2\lambda )`$ (130)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k+\lambda }{\omega _1+\lambda }}(\omega _2\lambda )\kappa _{11}+{\displaystyle \frac{k+\lambda }{\omega _2+\lambda }}(\omega _1\lambda )\kappa _{22}+{\displaystyle \frac{(k+\lambda )^2}{(\omega _1+\lambda )(\omega _2+\lambda )}}det\kappa \}.`$ (131)
When we take, in the approximation of the extreme-relativistic case,

$`\omega _jk+{\displaystyle \frac{m_j^2}{2k}}\text{ and }\lambda =k+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}^2}{2k}},`$ (132)
we obtain

$`\{\mathrm{}\}\text{-part in (}\text{130}\text{)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4k^2}}(m_1^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2)(m_2^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2)+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2}{4k^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{k\kappa _{11}}{k}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2}{2k}}+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2}{4k^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{k\kappa _{22}}{k}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2}{2k}}`$ (134)
$`+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2+m_2^2}{4k^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{k^2det\kappa }{k^2}}.`$
In accordance with the approximation in the extreme-relativistic case, we neglect all terms with higher order than $`\{m_j^2,\stackrel{~}{m}^2,A,A_0\}/k^2`$ in comparison with 1, and correction terms to terms such as (relevant mass)2 and $`k\kappa _{ij}`$ are to be dropped. Then (134) is consistently expressed as

$`\{\mathrm{}\}\text{-part in (}\text{130}\text{)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4k^2}}(m_1^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2)(m_2^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{A_0+A\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{2k}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_2^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2}{2k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{A_0+A\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{2k}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2\stackrel{~}{m}^2}{2k}}`$ (138)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4k^2}}det\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_0+A\mathrm{cos}^2\theta & A\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \\ A\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta & A_0+A\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \end{array}\right).`$
It should be noted that, although (138) is also obtained from (124) by employing (132), such a procedure includes internal inconsistency. Through detailed considerations we can prove that, when the approximation in the extreme-relativistic case is consistently performed, we obtain the (approximate) eigenvalues which coincide with the usual ones. The detailed derivation is given in Appendix B. However, a serious problem may arise with the energy eigenvectors. This will be investigated in Sec.IV.

### C Further remarks on derivation of the usual relations

In this subsection we give additional remarks on the implication of the statement that the usual quantum mechanical formulas are obtained by performing the replacement (118).

First we note the flavor neutrino field $`\nu _\rho (x)(\rho =e,\mu ,\mathrm{})`$ is expanded as

$`\nu _\rho (x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{V}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{k},r}{}}\left\{\alpha _\rho (kr;x^0)u_\rho (kr)+\beta _\rho ^{}(kr;x^0)v_\rho (kr)\right\}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{x}},`$ (139)
where $`u_\rho (kr)`$ and $`v_\rho (kr)`$ satisfy

$`(i\mathit{}+\mu _\rho )u_\rho (kr)=0,(i\mathit{}+\mu _\rho )v_\rho (kr)=0`$ (140)
with an arbitrary $`\mu _\rho `$; $`\beta _\rho (kr;x^0)`$ and $`v_\rho (kr)`$ are defined in the same way as (80). Here we are writing expressions and relations for the case of arbitrary flavor number. The relation of

$`𝜶_F(kr;x^0)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _e(kr;x^0)\\ \alpha _\mu (kr;x^0)\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right),𝜷_F(kr;x^0)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\beta _e(kr;x^0)\\ \beta _\mu (kr;x^0)\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}\right)`$ (147)
with $`𝜶_M(kr;x^0)`$ and $`𝜷_M(kr;x^0)`$ is given by

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}𝜶_F(kr;x^0)\\ 𝜷_F^{}(kr;x^0)\end{array}\right)=𝒦(k)\left(\begin{array}{c}𝜶_M(kr;x^0)\\ 𝜷_M^{}(kr;x^0)\end{array}\right),`$ (152)
where the matrix  is expressed as

$`𝒦(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}P(k)& i\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)\\ i\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)& P(k)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒦(k)_{\rho j}& 𝒦(k)_{\rho \overline{j}}\\ 𝒦(k)_{\overline{\rho }j}& 𝒦(k)_{\overline{\rho }\overline{j}}\end{array}\right),`$ (158)
$`P(k)=[P(k)_{\rho j}]=[z_{\rho j}^{1/2}\rho _{\rho j}(k)],\mathrm{\Lambda }(k)=[z_{\rho j}^{1/2}\lambda _{\rho j}(k)].`$
(As to the definition of $`\rho _{\rho j}`$ and $`\lambda _{\rho j}`$, see Appendix A.)

In the extreme-relativistic case (116), we employ $`\omega _j=k+m_j^2/(2k),c_j=1m_j^2/(8k^2),s_j=m_j/(2k)`$; on the contrary, it is not appropriate for us to employ

$`\rho _{\rho j}=1{\displaystyle \frac{(\mu _\rho m_j)^2}{8k^2}},\lambda _{\rho j}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _\rho m_j}{2k}},`$ (159)
since $`\mu _\rho `$ is arbitrary. Notwithstanding this, the direct way for deriving the usually employed quantum-mechanical relations is, as already seen partially from the consideration in the preceding subsection B, to take (118), i.e.

$`c_j1,s_j0j`$ (160)
in $`H_{(M)}^{matt}(kr)`$ and also

$`\rho _{\rho j}1,\lambda _{\rho j}0\rho ,j;\text{ thus }𝒦(k)I_2Z^{1/2}.`$ (161)
In this super-relativistic limit, the neutrino- and the antineutrino-operators decouple as seen from (95) and (100); $`𝜶_M(k;x^0)`$ and $`𝜷_M(k;x^0)`$ behave like free operators (as far as $`L_{int}(x)`$ in (15) is neglected). We obtain the Hamiltonian for $`𝜶_M(k;x^0)`$ expressed by

$`_{(M)}^{matt}(k;\alpha _M)`$ $`=`$ $`𝜶_M^{}(k;x^0)_{(M)}^{matt}(k)𝜶_M(k;x^0),`$ (162)
$`_{(M)}^{matt}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}k+\frac{m_1^2}{2k}+\kappa _{11}& \kappa _{12}\\ \kappa _{12}& k+\frac{m_2^2}{2k}+\kappa _{22}\end{array}\right).`$ (165)
This Hamiltonian is equal to

$`_{(F}^{matt}(k;\alpha _F)`$ $`=`$ $`𝜶_F^{}(k;x^0)_{(F)}^{matt}(k)𝜶_F(k;x^0),`$ (166)
$`_{(F)}^{matt}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`Z^{1/2}_{(M)}^{matt}(k)Z^{1/2}`$ (167)
$`=`$ $`k+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}^2+A_0}{2k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4k}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}2A\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )& \mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )\\ \mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )& \mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\end{array}\right);`$ (170)
here $`\overline{m}^2=\frac{m_1^2+m_2^2}{2},\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=m_2^2m_1^2`$. Since left-handed neutrino are produced through the weak interaction in, e.g., center region of the sun, Eq.(170) coincide with Hamiltonian employed in the usual quantum mechanical consideration (e.g.).

The eigenvalues of $`_{(F)}^{matt}(k)`$ are expressed as

$`\stackrel{~}{E}_j(k)=k+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_j^2()}{2k}}`$ (171)
with the effective masses $`\stackrel{~}{m}_j^2()`$ given by

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{1(2)}^2()=\overline{m}^2+A_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left\{A(+)\sqrt{(A\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta ))^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{sin}(2\theta ))^2}\right\}`$ (172)
We define the mixing angle $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ and the operators $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_j(k;x^0),j=1,2`$, as

$`\stackrel{~}{Z}^{1/2}_{(F)}^{matt}(k)\stackrel{~}{Z}^{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{E}_1(k)& 0\\ 0& \stackrel{~}{E}_2(k)\end{array}\right),`$ (175)
$`𝜶_F(k;x^0)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{Z}^{1/2}\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_1(k;x^0)\\ \stackrel{~}{\alpha }_2(k;x^0)\end{array}\right)\stackrel{~}{Z}^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{𝜶}_M(k;x^0)`$ (178)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{Z}^{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }& \mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\\ \mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }& \mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\end{array}\right),`$ (181)
$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_j(kj;x^0)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_j(k;0)\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{~}{E}_j(k;;x^0).`$ (182)
We obtain

$`\mathrm{tan}\stackrel{~}{\theta }={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )}{A+\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )+\sqrt{(A\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta ))^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{sin}(2\theta ))^2}}},`$ (183)
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}(2\stackrel{~}{\theta })\\ \mathrm{cos}(2\stackrel{~}{\theta })\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(A\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta ))^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{sin}(2\theta ))^2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )\\ \mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )A\end{array}\right)`$ (188)
Eq.(172) is known to lead to a level crossing phenomenon of the two-level problem in quantum mechanics.

From (178) or by integrating Heisenberg equation (without $`L_{int}(x)`$)

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx^0}}𝜶_F(k;x^0)`$ $`=`$ $`[𝜶_F(k;x^0),_{(F)}^{matt}(k;𝜶_F)]`$ (189)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{Z}^{1/2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{E}_1(k)& 0\\ 0& \stackrel{~}{E}_2(k)\end{array}\right)\stackrel{~}{Z}^{1/2}𝜶_F(k;x^0).`$ (192)
we obtain

$`\alpha _\rho (k;x^0)={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,j}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_{\rho j}^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{~}{E}_j(k)(x^0x_I^0))\stackrel{~}{z}_{\sigma j}^{1/2}\alpha _\sigma (k;x_I^0).`$ (193)
When we define the vacuum $`|\stackrel{~}{0}`$ as

$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\rho (k;0)|\stackrel{~}{0}=0\text{ for }\stackrel{}{k},\rho ,`$ (194)
and the state

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\rho (k;x^0)=\stackrel{~}{0}|\alpha _\rho (k;x^0),`$ (195)
we obtain Schrödinger equation corresponding to (189) and its integration

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\rho (k;x^0)={\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,j}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_{\rho j}^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}[i\stackrel{~}{E}_j(k)(x^0x_I^0)]\stackrel{~}{z}_{\sigma j}^{1/2}\mathrm{\Psi }_\sigma (k;x_I^0).`$ (196)
Then, the transition amplitudes for $`\nu _\sigma \nu _\rho `$ in matter are

$`A_{\rho \sigma }^{matt}(k;x^0x_I^0)={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\stackrel{~}{z}_{\rho j}^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}[i\stackrel{~}{E}_j(k)(x^0x_I^0)]\stackrel{~}{z}_{\sigma j}^{1/2}`$ (197)
and their absolute squares lead to the transition probabilities

$`P^{matt}(\nu _e\nu _\mu )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2(2\stackrel{~}{\theta })[1\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }E^{matt}L)]=P^{matt}(\nu _\mu \nu _e),`$ (198)
$`P^{matt}(\nu _e\nu _e)=P^{matt}(\nu _\mu \nu _\mu )=1P^{matt}(\nu _e\nu _\mu );`$ (199)
here $`L=(x^0x_L^0)/c`$, the approximate distance that neutrino passes in matter;$`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{matt}=\stackrel{~}{m}_2()^2\stackrel{~}{m}_1()^2`$.

In the same procedure, we obtain Hamiltonian for $`𝜷_F(k;x^0)`$ given by

$`_{(F)}^{matt}(k;𝜷_F)`$ $`=`$ $`𝜷_F^{}(k;x^0)_{(F)}^{matt}(k)𝜷_F(k;x^0),`$ (200)
$`_{(F)}^{matt}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`Z^{1/2}_{(M)}^{matt}(k)(Z^{1/2})^T,`$ (201)
where $`_{(M)}^{matt}(k)`$ is expressed as RHS of (165) with $`\kappa _{jl}`$ substituted for $`\kappa _{jl}`$; thus $`_{(F)}^{matt}(k)`$ is given by RHS of (170) with $`A_0`$ and $`A`$ instead of $`A_0`$ and $`A`$.

As pointed out in the preceding subsection B and concerning (159), the substitutions (160) and (161) are problematic approximations. Section IV will be devoted to examining this problem.

## III Poles of flavor-neutrino propagator

We give a remark on the poles of the flavor-neutrino propagator and their relation with the energy eigenvalues obtained in Sec.II.B. Those poles correspond to the physical masses of neutrinos. It has been shown in Ref. concretely in the two- and three-flavor neutrinos in vacuum that the diagonalization of the pole part in the propagator matrix is equivalent to the diagonalization of the mass matrix in Lagrangian in so far as the propagator matrix is evaluated by taking into account fully the repetition of the bilinear (mass-type) interaction and dropping other interactions. This is, as noted in Ref., independent of the ways separating the bilinear interaction part from the free Lagrangian.

Now we consider the neutrino propagation in matter, where the Lagrangian (15) is rewritten as

$`L_{eff}^{matt}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\nu }_e& \overline{\nu }_\mu \end{array}\right)\left[\partial ̸+\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{m}_{ee}& 0\\ 0& \widehat{m}_{\mu \mu }\end{array}\right)\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \end{array}\right)+L_I(x)+L_{int}(x),`$ (207)
$`L_I(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\nu }_e& \overline{\nu }_\mu \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ee}i(b_0+b_1)\mathit{}P_L& m_{e\mu }\\ m_{e\mu }& \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }ib_0\mathit{}P_L)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \end{array}\right)`$ (213)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\rho \rho }=m_{\rho \rho }\widehat{m}_{\rho \rho }`$.

The physical masses of neutrinos are obtained as poles of the propagator $`S_{\sigma \rho }^{}(k)`$ of the unrenormalized Heisenberg fields $`\nu _\rho (x)`$’s;

$`S_{\sigma \rho }^{}(xy)=0|T(\nu _\sigma (x)\overline{\nu }_\rho (y))|0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle d^4ke^{ik(xy)}S_{\sigma \rho }^{}(k)}.`$ (214)
The Fourier transform $`S_{\sigma \rho }^{}(k)`$ satisfies

$`S_{\sigma \rho }^{}(k)=\delta _{\sigma \rho }S_\rho (k)+{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}S_{\sigma \lambda }^{}(k)\mathrm{\Pi }_{\lambda \rho }(k)S_\rho (k);`$ (215)
here, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\lambda \rho }(k)`$ and $`S_\rho (k)`$ are the proper self-energy part and the Fourier transform of the free propagator when the first part in RHS of (207) is regarded as the free Lagrangian. Then $`S_\rho (k)`$ is expressed as

$`S_\rho (k)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathit{}i\widehat{m}_{\rho \rho }}{k^2+\widehat{m}_{\rho \rho }^2iϵ}}.`$ (216)
We neglect $`L_{int}(x)`$ which is taken not to include any bilinear terms of the flavor neutrino fields, and the repetition of $`L_I(x)`$ is fully taken into account; then we obtain (by assuming the x-independence of $`b_0`$ and $`b_1`$)

$`[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\sigma \rho }(k)]=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ee}i(b_0+b_1)\mathit{}P_L& m_{e\mu }\\ m_{e\mu }& \mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \mu }ib_0\mathit{}P_L\end{array}\right)`$ (219)
When we define the matrix $`[f_{\sigma \rho }(k)]`$ to be

$`S_{\sigma \rho }^{}(k)=[f(k)^1]_{\sigma \rho },`$ (220)
we obtain from (215)

$`f_{\sigma \rho }(k)=\delta _{\sigma \rho }S_\sigma (k)^1\mathrm{\Pi }_{\sigma \rho }(k),`$ (221)
the concrete form of which is

$`[f_{\sigma \rho }(k)]=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathit{}+i\{m_{ee}i(b_0+b_1)\mathit{}P_L\}& im_{e\mu }\\ im_{e\mu }& \mathit{}+i\{m_{\mu \mu }ib_0\mathit{}P_L\}\end{array}\right),`$ (224)
or

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}[f_{\sigma \rho }(k)]=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m_{ee}& (\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}+k_0)+N& m_{e\mu }& 0\\ \stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}k_0& m_{ee}& 0& m_{e\mu }\\ m_{e\mu }& 0& m_{\mu \mu }& (\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}+k_0)+N^{}\\ 0& m_{e\mu }& \stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}k_0& m_{\mu \mu }\end{array}\right)`$ (229)
where $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ are defined in (25). We see that, as expected, $`[f_{\sigma \rho }(k)]`$ is free from the arbitrariness of separating $`L_I`$ in $`L_{eff}^{matt}`$.

In the same way, from Lagrangian (56) expressed in terms of the mass-basis operators, we can define $`S_{jl}^{}(k)`$ which is the Fourier transform of

$`S_{jl}^{}(xy)=0|T(\nu _j(x)\overline{\nu }_l(y))|0`$ (230)
We obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}[f_{jl}^{(m)}(k)]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}[(S^{}(k)^1)_{jl}]`$ (231)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m_1& (\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}+k_0)+B& 0& G\\ \stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}k_0& m_1& 0& 0\\ 0& G& m_2& (\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}+k_0)+B^{}\\ 0& 0& \stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}k_0& m_2\end{array}\right);`$ (236)
here $`B`$, $`B^{}`$ and $`G`$ are defined in (60). We can confirm concretely the relation between (229) and (231)

$`[f_{jl}^{(m)}(k)]=Z^{1/2}[f_{\sigma \rho }(k)]Z^{1/2},Z^{1/2}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right),`$ (239)
expected from $`\nu _\rho (x)=_jz_{\rho j}^{1/2}\nu _j(x)`$.

Next we examine the poles of the propagator $`S^{}(k)`$, which are given by $`det[f_{\sigma \rho }(k)]=det[f_{jl}^{(m)}(k)]=0`$. It is useful for us to note that, for a matrix $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& c\\ d& b\end{array}\right)`$ with square sub-matrices $`a,b,c`$ and $`d`$, we have

$`det\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& c\\ d& b\end{array}\right)=\left|\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ d& I\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& a^1c\\ 0& bda^1c\end{array}\right)\right|,`$ (246)
which is equal to $`|abdc|`$ if $`[a^1,d]=0`$.  Note that    $`det\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}f_{jl}^m(k)\right]=det\left(\begin{array}{cccc}m_1& 0& (\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}+k_0)+B& G\\ 0& m_2& G& (\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}+k_0)+B^{}\\ \stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}k_0& 0& m_1& 0\\ 0& \stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{k}k_0& 0& m_2\end{array}\right).`$  (251)   We obtain

$`det[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}f_{jl}^{(m)}(k)]=`$ $`K_1^2K_2^2+2K_1K_2\{(K_1\kappa _{22}+K_2\kappa _{11})(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{u}k_0u_0)+(det\kappa )[2(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{u}k_0u_0)^2k_0^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2]\}`$ (253)
$`+(k_0^2\stackrel{}{k}^2)\{(K_1\kappa _{22}+K_2\kappa _{11})^2+2(K_1\kappa _{22}+K_2\kappa _{11})(det\kappa )(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{u}k_0u_0)+(det\kappa )^2(k_0^2\stackrel{}{k}^2)\},`$
where $`K_j=k_0^2(\stackrel{}{k}^2+m_j^2)=k_0^2\omega _j^2`$. RHS of (253) is divided into two parts, one of which vanishes in the static medium:

$`(\text{253})`$ $`=`$ $`[K_1^2K_2^2+2K_1K_2\{k_0(K_1\kappa _{22}+K_2\kappa _{11})+(det\kappa )(k_0^2+\stackrel{}{k}^2)\}`$ (257)
$`+(k_0^2\stackrel{}{k}^2)\{(K_1\kappa _{22}+K_2\kappa _{11})^22k_0(det\kappa )(K_1\kappa _{22}+K_2\kappa _{11})+(det\kappa )^2(k_0^2\stackrel{}{k}^2)\}]`$
$`+[2K_1K_2\{(K_1\kappa _{22}+K_2\kappa _{11})(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{u}k_0u_0+k_0)+2(det\kappa )[(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{u}k_0u_0)^2k_0^2]\}`$
$`+2(k_0^2\stackrel{}{k}^2)(K_1\kappa _{22}+K_2\kappa _{11})(det\kappa )(\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{u}k_0u_0+k_0)].`$
Thus we have

$`Det(k)_{static}`$ $``$ $`det[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}f_{jl}^{(m)}(k)]_{static}=det[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}f_{\sigma \rho }(k)]_{static}`$ (258)
$`=`$ $`\left[(k_0^2\omega _1^2)(k_0^2\omega _2^2)(k_0|\stackrel{}{k}|)\left\{(k_0^2\omega _1^2)\kappa _{22}+(k_0^2\omega _2^2)\kappa _{11}(k_0|\stackrel{}{k}|)(det\kappa )\right\}\right]`$ (260)
$`\times \left[(k_0^2\omega _1^2)(k_0^2\omega _2^2)(k_0+|\stackrel{}{k}|)\left\{(k_0^2\omega _1^2)\kappa _{22}+(k_0^2\omega _2^2)\kappa _{11}(k_0+|\stackrel{}{k}|)(det\kappa )\right\}\right].`$
We see that the two parts composing $`Det(|\stackrel{}{k}|,k_0=\lambda )_{static}`$ are equal to (108) and (109), respectively, i.e.

$`Det(|\stackrel{}{k}|,k_0=\lambda )_{static}=det[(H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)\lambda )(H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)\lambda )]`$ (261)
This is a natural equality in the present approximation of neglecting $`L_{int}(x)`$ contribution, since $`_{(M)}^{matt}(x^0)`$ in the static medium is separated into helicity-up and -down parts like (86).

## IV Energy-eigenvectors in matter

We investigate the eigenvectors of $`H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)`$ and $`H_{(F)}^{matt}(k)`$ corresponding to the eigenvalues in the extreme-relativistic case obtained in Appendix B. For convenience, we write these eigenvalues as

$`E_a(k)`$ $``$ $`k+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)a}()^2}{2k}},`$ (262)
$`E_{a+2}(k)`$ $``$ $`(k+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_{()a}()^2}{2k}}),a=1,2.,`$ (263)
Here we give a concrete form of $`H_{(F)}^{matt}(k)`$in the flavor basis; this is obtained by utilizing (90) and

$`H_{(F)}^{matt}(k)=𝒦(k)H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)𝒦(k)^{},`$ (264)
derived from (90) and (152);

$`H_{(F)}^{matt}(k)=`$ (265)
$`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\omega _e+\frac{\mu _e(m_{ee}\mu _e)}{\omega _e}+Nc_ec_e& m_{e\mu }\mathrm{sin}\frac{\chi _e+\chi _\mu }{2}& i\frac{k(m_{ee}\mu _e)}{\omega _e}ic_es_eN& im_{e\mu }\mathrm{cos}\frac{\chi _e+\chi _\mu }{2}\\ m_{e\mu }\mathrm{sin}\frac{\chi _e+\chi _\mu }{2}& \omega _\mu +\frac{\mu _\mu (m_{\mu \mu }\mu _\mu )}{\omega _\mu }+N^{}c_\mu c_\mu & im_{e\mu }\mathrm{cos}\frac{\chi _e+\chi _\mu }{2}& i\frac{k(m_{\mu \mu }\mu _\mu )}{\omega _\mu }ic_\mu s_\mu N^{}\\ i\frac{k(m_{ee}\mu _e)}{\omega _e}+iNs_ec_e& im_{e\mu }\mathrm{cos}\frac{\chi _e+\chi _\mu }{2}& \omega _e\frac{\mu _e(m_{ee}\mu _e)}{\omega _e}+Ns_es_e& m_{e\mu }\mathrm{sin}\frac{\chi _e+\chi _\mu }{2}\\ im_{e\mu }\mathrm{cos}\frac{\chi _e+\chi _\mu }{2}& i\frac{k(m_{\mu \mu }\mu _\mu )}{\omega _\mu }+iN^{}s_\mu c_\mu & m_{e\mu }\mathrm{sin}\frac{\chi _e+\chi _\mu }{2}& \omega _\mu \frac{\mu _\mu (m_{\mu \mu }\mu _\mu )}{\omega _\mu }+N^{}s_\mu s_\mu \end{array}\right),`$ (270)
where $`\omega _\rho =\sqrt{k^2+\mu _\rho ^2}`$, $`s_\rho =\mathrm{sin}(\chi _\rho /2)`$, $`c_\rho =\mathrm{cos}(\chi _\rho /2)`$, $`\mathrm{cot}\chi _\rho =k/\mu _\rho `$, $`N=b_0+b_1`$, $`N^{}=b_0`$. Thus we see that the eigenvectors of $`H_{(F)}^{matt}(k)`$ do depend generally on a set of arbitrary mass parameters $`\{\mu _e,\mu _\mu \}`$. We will examine this situation.

### A general relations

Let us define a set of the eigenvectors as

$`H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)𝒚_M^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`E_a(k)𝒚_M^{(a)},`$ (271)
$`H_{(F)}^{matt}(k)𝒚_F^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`E_a(k)𝒚_F^{(a)},a=1,2,3,4;`$ (272)
here, we take these eigenvectors so as to satisfy the ortho-normality condition

$`𝒚_M^{(a)}𝒚_M^{(b)}=\delta _{ab},𝒚_F^{(a)}𝒚_F^{(b)}=\delta _{ab},`$ (273)
and to have the relation

$`𝒚_F^{(a)}=𝒦(k)𝒚_M^{(a)}.`$ (274)
By defining the unitary matrices

$`T_{(M)}(k)`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}𝒚_M^{(1)}& 𝒚_M^{(2)}& 𝒚_M^{(3)}& 𝒚_M^{(4)}\end{array}\right),`$ (276)
$`T_{(F)}(k)`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}𝒚_F^{(1)}& 𝒚_F^{(2)}& 𝒚_F^{(3)}& 𝒚_F^{(4)}\end{array}\right)=𝒦(k)T_{(M)}(k),`$ (278)
we have

$`T_{(M)}^{}(k)H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)T_{(M)}(k)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}E_1(k)& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& E_2(k)& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& E_3(k)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& E_4(k)\end{array}\right)E_{diag}^{matt}(k);`$ (283)
thus, from (90),

$`_{(M)}^{matt}(k;x^0)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝜶_M^{}(k;x^0)& 𝜷_M(k;x^0)\end{array}\right)T_{(M)}(k)E_{diag}^{matt}(k)T_{(M)}^{}(k)\left(\begin{array}{c}𝜶_M(k;x^0)\\ 𝜷_M^{}(k;x^0)\end{array}\right)`$ (287)
Here, for convenience, we redefine $`H_{(M)}^{matt}(k;x^0)`$ by adding an appropriate c-number so that the normal ordering symbol $`::`$ is dropped. The above expression is rewritten as

$`\text{RHS of (}\text{287}\text{)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝜶_F^{}(k;x^0)& 𝜷_F(k;x^0)\end{array}\right)T_{(F)}(k)E_{diag}^{matt}(k)T_{(F)}^{}(k)\left(\begin{array}{c}𝜶_F(k;x^0)\\ 𝜷_F^{}(k;x^0)\end{array}\right)_{(F)}^{matt}(k;x^0),`$ (291)
which is the Hamiltonian in the flavor basis.

Corresponding to (178), we define renewdly the operators (with $`a=1,2`$):

$`\stackrel{~}{𝜶}_a(k;x^0)`$ $``$ $`𝒚_F^{(a)}(k)^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}𝜶_F(k;x^0)\\ 𝜷_F^{}(k;x^0)\end{array}\right),`$ (294)
$`\stackrel{~}{𝜷}_a^{}(k;x^0)`$ $``$ $`𝒚_F^{(a+2)}(k)^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}𝜶_F(k;x^0)\\ 𝜷_F^{}(k;x^0)\end{array}\right);`$ (297)
then we write them as

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{𝜶}_M(k;x^0)\\ \stackrel{~}{𝜷}_M^{}(k;x^0)\end{array}\right)=T_{(F)}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}𝜶_F(k;x^0)\\ 𝜷_F^{}(k;x^0)\end{array}\right)=T_{(M)}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}𝜶_M(k;x^0)\\ 𝜷_M^{}(k;x^0)\end{array}\right),`$ (304)
and Hamiltonian (287) (or (291)) is expressed in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{𝜶}_M(k;x^0)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝜷}_M(k;x^0)`$ as

$`_{(M)}^{matt}(k;x^0)=_{(F)}^{matt}(k;x^0)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{𝜶}_M^{}(k;x^0)& \stackrel{~}{𝜷}_M(k;x^0)\end{array}\right)E_{diag}^{matt}(k)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{𝜶}_M(k;x^0)\\ \stackrel{~}{𝜷}_M^{}(k;x^0)\end{array}\right).`$ (308)
By noting that

$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a(k;x^0)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{iE_a(k)x^0}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a(k;0),`$ (309)
$`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_a(k;x^0)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{iE_{a+2}(k)x^0}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_a(k;0)`$ (310)
we see that (308) is time-independent; then we write it as

$`^{matt}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{𝜶}_M^{}(k)& \stackrel{~}{𝜷}_M(k)\end{array}\right)E_{diag}^{matt}(k)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{𝜶}_M(k)\\ \stackrel{~}{𝜷}_M^{}(k)\end{array}\right),`$ (314)
where

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{𝜶}_M(k)\\ \stackrel{~}{𝜷}_M^{}(k)\end{array}\right)`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{𝜶}_M(k;0)\\ \stackrel{~}{𝜷}_M^{}(k;0)\end{array}\right).`$ (319)
Now we consider Heisenberg equation

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx^0}}\left(\begin{array}{c}𝜶_F(k;x^0)\\ 𝜷_F^{}(k;x^0)\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`[\left(\begin{array}{c}𝜶_F(k;x^0)\\ 𝜷_F^{}(k;x^0)\end{array}\right),\text{Eq.(}\text{291}\text{)}]=H_{(F)}^{matt}(k)\left(\begin{array}{c}𝜶_F(k;x^0)\\ 𝜷_F^{}(k;x^0)\end{array}\right),`$ (326)
where

$`H_{(F)}^{matt}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`T_{(F)}(k)E_{diag}^{matt}(k)T_{(F)}^{}(k).`$ (327)
By defining the vacuum $`|\stackrel{~}{0}`$ as

$`\left\{\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_a(k;x^0)\\ \stackrel{~}{\beta }_a(k;x^0)\end{array}\right\}|\stackrel{~}{0}=0\text{ for }\stackrel{}{k},a,x_0`$ (330)
and

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\rho (k;x^0)\stackrel{~}{0}|\alpha _\rho (k;x^0),`$ (331)
it may be possible for us, similarly to the explanation in Sec.II.C, to investigate the evolution relations. There will appears, however, a certain new aspect different from the simple relation (193): Even in the approximation framework of the extreme-relativistic case employed for obtaining the energy eigenvalues of $`H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)`$, the matrix $`T_{(F)}(k)`$ giving a sort of evolution relation

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}𝜶_F(k;x^0)\\ 𝜷_F^{}(k;x^0)\end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`T_{(F)}(k)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{𝜶}_M(k;x^0)\\ \stackrel{~}{𝜷}_M^{}(k;x^0)\end{array}\right)=W^{(F)}(k;x^0x_I^0)^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}𝜶_F(k;x_I^0)\\ 𝜷_F^{}(k;x_I^0)\end{array}\right),`$ (338)
$`W^{(F)}(k;x^0x_I^0)`$ $``$ $`T_{(F)}(k)\mathrm{\Phi }(k;x^0x_I^0)T_{(F)}^{}(k),`$ (339)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(k;x^0)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}(iE_{diag}^{matt}(k)x^0),`$ (340)
not only depends on the arbitrary mass parameters $`\mu _\lambda `$ but also has off-diagonal elements connecting $`\stackrel{~}{𝜶}_M(k;x^0)`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{𝜷}_M^{}(k;x^0)`$. In the following subsection we examine such a situation concretely.

### B Approximate forms of eigenvectors

By employing (100) , Eq.(271) for $`a=1`$ case is explicitly written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k}}`$ $`(\begin{array}{cc}m_1^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)1}()^2+(A_0+Ac_\theta ^2)c_1c_1& Ac_\theta s_\theta c_1c_2\\ Ac_\theta s_\theta c_2c_1& m_2^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)1}()^2+(A_0+As_\theta ^2)c_2c_2\\ i(A_0+Ac_\theta ^2)s_1c_1& iAc_\theta s_\theta s_1c_2\\ iAc_\theta s_\theta s_2c_1& i(A_0+As_\theta ^2)s_2c_2\end{array}`$ (351)
$`\begin{array}{cc}i(A_0+Ac_\theta ^2)c_1s_1& iAc_\theta s_\theta c_1s_2\\ iAc_\theta s_\theta c_2s_1& i(A_0+As_\theta ^2)c_2s_2\\ 4k^2m_1^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)1}()^2+(A_0+Ac_\theta ^2)s_1s_1& Ac_\theta s_\theta s_1s_2\\ Ac_\theta s_\theta s_2s_1& 4k^2m_2^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)1}()^2+(A_0+As_\theta ^2)s_2s_2\end{array})𝒚^{(1)}_M=0.`$
In the extreme-relativistic case, we see from the third and the forth equations that

$`y_{M,3}^{(1)},y_{M,4}^{(1)}=𝒪(1/k^n),n3`$ (352)
in comparison with $`1`$. Then, from the first and the second equations of (351) we obtain, by dropping $`O(1/k^2)`$-corrections to the masses

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_1^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)1}()^2+A_0+Ac_\theta ^2& Ac_\theta s_\theta \\ Ac_\theta s_\theta & m_2^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)1}()^2+A_0+As_\theta ^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}y_{M,1}^{(1)}\\ y_{M,2}^{(1)}\end{array}\right)=0.`$ (357)
The condition for the matrix on LHS to be consistent with $`|y_{M,1}^{(1)}|^2+|y_{M,2}^{(1)}|^2=1`$ is its determinant to be equal to $`0`$. This condition is seen to be satisfied, because, due to (B18) , the determinant is written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}`$ $`\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2+A\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )+\sqrt{(A\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)^2+(A\mathrm{sin}(2\theta ))^2}\right\}`$ (358)
$`\times `$ $`\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2A\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )+\sqrt{(A\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)^2+(A\mathrm{sin}(2\theta ))^2}\right\}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A\mathrm{sin}(2\theta ))^2=0.`$ (359)
As for the vector $`𝒚_M^{(2)}`$, we see that, due to the condition with $`()`$ sign substituted for the sign $`(+)`$ in front of the square root in (358), the solution

$`y_{M,3}^{(2)},y_{M,4}^{(2)}=𝒪(1/k^n),n3,|y_{M,1}^{(2)}|^2+|y_{M,2}^{(2)}|^2=1`$ (360)
is obtained.

As for $`𝒚_M^{(3)}`$ and $`𝒚_M^{(4)}`$, possible solutions are seen to exist: for $`n2`$

$`y_{M,3}^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(k^0);y_{M,1}^{(3)},y_{M,2}^{(3)}=𝒪(1/k^{n+1});y_{M,4}^{(3)}=𝒪(1/k^n),`$ (361)
$`y_{M,3}^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪(k^0);y_{M,1}^{(4)},y_{M,2}^{(4)}=𝒪(1/k^{n+1});y_{M,3}^{(4)}=𝒪(1/k^n).`$ (362)
As a result, under the approximation conditions of the extreme-relativistic case, we are allowed to take the matrix form of $`T_{(M)}`$, defined by (276), to be

$`T_{(M)}(k)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}t_{(M)}(k)& 0\\ 0& \left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\end{array}\right),t_{(M)}(k)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}y_1^{(1)}(k)& y_1^{(2)}(k)\\ y_2^{(1)}(k)& y_2^{(2)}(k)\end{array}\right),`$ (369)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{y_1^{(1)}(k)}{y_2^{(1)}(k)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )}{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2+A\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )+\sqrt{(A\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)^2+(A\mathrm{sin}(2\theta ))^2}}},`$ (370)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{y_1^{(2)}(k)}{y_2^{(2)}(k)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )}{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2+A\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\sqrt{(A\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\mathrm{\Delta }m^2)^2+(A\mathrm{sin}(2\theta ))^2}}}`$ (371)
with the unitarity condition $`t_{(M)}^{}t_{(M)}=I`$.

Thus the relation of $`\{𝜶_M(k;x^0),𝜷_M^{}(k;x^0)\}`$ with $`\{\stackrel{~}{𝜶}_M(k;x^0),\stackrel{~}{𝜷}_M^{}(k;x^0)\}`$, given by (304), becomes rather simple:

$`𝜶_M(k;x^0)=t_M(k)\stackrel{~}{𝜶}_M(k;x^0),`$ (372)
$`𝜷_M^{}(k;x^0)=\stackrel{~}{𝜷}_M^{}(k;x^0).`$ (373)
On the other hand, the corresponding relation for $`\{𝜶_F,𝜷_F\}`$ includes the Bogolyubov transformation:

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}𝜶_F(k;x^0)\\ 𝜷_F^{}(k;x^0)\end{array}\right)=𝒦(k)\left(\begin{array}{c}t_M(k)\stackrel{~}{𝜶}_M(k;x^0)\\ \stackrel{~}{𝜷}_M^{}(k;x^0)\end{array}\right).`$ (378)
Under the approximation of the extreme-relativistic case, the off-diagonal submatrix of $`𝒦(k)`$, i.e. $`i\mathrm{\Lambda }=i[z_{\rho j}^{1/2}\lambda _{\rho j}(k)]`$ can not be set equal to zero, because $`\lambda _{\rho j}(k)=\mathrm{sin}((\chi _\rho \chi _j)/2)`$ depends on $`\{\mu _\lambda \}`$; in other words, since (159) has no logical basis, we are not allowed to take (161). Therefore, contrary to Ref., we can not derive the standard relations including the oscillation formulas explained in Sec.II.C.

Finally, we add a remark on Ref.. When we write $`t_{(M)}(k)`$ as

$`t_M(k)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta _M& \mathrm{sin}\theta _M\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _M& \mathrm{cos}\theta _M\end{array}\right)`$ (381)
we have from (357) (or from (370) and (371))

$`\mathrm{tan}\theta _M={\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2\stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)1}()^2+A_0+A\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _\theta }{A\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta }}.`$ (382)
This is equal to Eq.(2.25) in Ref. for $`m_A^2=\stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)1}()^2`$ and $`A_0=0`$. As noted in Sec.II.C, the usually employed relations are derived if we take the super-relativistic limit (160) and (161). In this limit, $`𝒦(k)`$ reduces to

$`𝒦(k)\left(\begin{array}{cc}Z^{1/2}& 0\\ 0& Z^{1/2}\end{array}\right);`$ (385)
(378) leads to

$`𝜶_F(k;x^0)=Z^{1/2}t_M(k)\stackrel{~}{𝜶}_M(k;x^0)`$ (386)
with

$`Z^{1/2}t_M(k)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(\theta +\theta _M)& \mathrm{sin}(\theta +\theta _M)\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta +\theta _M)& \mathrm{cos}(\theta +\theta _M);\end{array}\right)`$ (389)
(389) should be equal to (181), i.e.

$`Z^{1/2}t_M(k)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }& \mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\\ \mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }& \mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\end{array}\right).`$ (392)
By employing (370)$`=1/\mathrm{tan}\theta _M`$ (or (371) $`=\mathrm{tan}\theta _M`$) as well as $`\mathrm{tan}\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ given by (183), we can confirm the equality (392) to hold. As to the oscillation formulas, we obtain (198) and(199); by using (188), (198) is rewritten as

$`P^{matt}(\nu _e\nu _\mu )={\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{sin}(2\theta ))^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\mathrm{\Delta }E^{matt}L/2)}{(A\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta ))^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{sin}(2\theta ))^2}},`$ (393)
which is equal to Eq.(2.35) in Ref..

It is asserted in Ref. that the standard formalism of neutrino oscillation in matter is derived from the field theoretical approach. This assertion, however, is based on the approximation (385) which is not allowed when the relativistic approximation is consistently performed.

## V conclusion and final remarks

We have investigated in detail the connection of the operatorial field mixing relations $`\nu _\rho (x)=_jz_{\rho j}^{1/2}\nu _j(x)`$ with the usually employed formulas of neutrino oscillations in matter. To this aim, we first derived the energy-eigenvalue equations for the 2-flavor neutrinos in the static medium with the $`(x^\rho )`$-independent electron density.

We examined the high-energy neutrino case, called the extreme-relativistic case, defined by (116), where all terms with higher order than $`\{m_j^2,A,A_0\}/k^2`$ in comparison with 1 are neglected and corrections to terms such as $`m_j^2`$ and $`k\kappa _{jl}`$ are dropped. After performing consistently this approximation, we obtained the energy eigenvalues which coincide with the usual ones obtained in the quantum mechanical approach as well as in the field theoretical one by Mannheim.

As for the evolution relations, however, we obtained a negative result against Mannheim’s assertion that the standard formalism of the neutrino oscillation is derived in the field theoretical approach. The reason for such a difference has been pointed out in Sec.V: while the relation (378) in our case, i.e.

$`\alpha _\rho (k;x^0)={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\{𝒦(k)_{\rho j}(t_{(M)}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_M(k;x^0))_j+𝒦(k)_{\rho \overline{j}}\stackrel{~}{\beta }_j^{}(k;x^0)\},`$ (394)
is (consistently) obtained, in Mannheim’s case the relation (386), i.e.

$`\alpha _\rho (k;x^0)={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}z_{\rho j}^{1/2}(t_{(M)}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_M(k;x^0))_j,`$ (395)
is utilized. Eq.(395) is obtained from (394) by performing (161)

$`\rho _{\rho j}1,\lambda _{\rho j}0,\rho ,j;`$ (396)
then the Bogolyubov transformation (152) reduces to

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}𝜶_F(kr;x^0)\\ 𝜷_F^{}(kr;x^0)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}z^{1/2}& 0\\ 0& z^{1/2}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}𝜶_M(kr;x^0)\\ 𝜷_M^{}(kr;x^0)\end{array}\right)`$ (403)
where the most characteristic feature of the field theory of mixed fields  has been lost. As already stressed in Sec.V, $`\rho _{\rho j}`$ and $`\lambda _{\rho j}`$ depend on the arbitrary parameters $`\{\mu _\lambda \}`$, and the limit (396) has no connection with the approximation in the extreme-relativistic case (116) with (117).

When the electron density in medium $`n_{(e)}`$ is taken to be $`0`$, i.e. $`A_00,A0`$, various relations in medium reduce to those in vacuum. It is worth to remember that, although our considerations have been done for the 2-flavor case, the results obtained have qualitatively general features which hold true for the many flavors case both in matter and in vacuum.

Regarding the calculation of neutrino oscillations in quantum field theory, there are several possible approaches , in which transition amplitudes for a finite time interval or finite distance are calculated on the basis of the field theory by treating the neutrinos as particles in intermediate states and without constructing any one-particle state with definite flavor. In the line of the considerations developed in the present paper, it seems meaningful for us to investigate further the implications of the relation (338) . This is a kind of evolution relation corresponding to the usual one given by (193), and the matrix $`W^{(F)}(k;x^0)`$, corresponding to the usual transition amplitudes (197), is an extension of $`W(k;x^0)`$ introduced in Ref. in the vacuum case. It has been pointed out that

$`W(k;x^0)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(W_{\rho \sigma }(k;x^0))& (W_{\rho \overline{\sigma }}(k;x^0))\\ (W_{\overline{\rho }\sigma }(k;x^0))& (W_{\overline{\rho }\overline{\sigma }}(k;x^0))\end{array}\right)`$ (406)
has an intimate connection with the momentum components of the retarded propagators or the anticommutators of the flavor neutrino fields as well as with the expectation value of the flavor charges. The combinations

$`\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}\left\{|(W_{\rho \sigma }(k;x^0))|^2+|(W_{\rho \overline{\sigma }}(k;x^0))|^2+|(W_{\overline{\rho }\sigma }(k;x^0))|^2+|(W_{\overline{\rho }\overline{\sigma }}(k;x^0))|^2\right\}\end{array}`$ (408)
are independent of $`\{\mu _\lambda \}`$ for $`\rho ,\sigma `$, and have properties allowing a probability interpretation. $`W^{(F)}(k;x^0)`$ is also seen to satisfy the above properties. In a subsequent paper we will investigate a possible field theoretical approach to the neutrino oscillation, where possible implications of the matrices $`W(k;x^0)`$ and $`W^{(F)}(k;x^0)`$ to the oscillation formula are considered.

## Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their thanks to Prof. G.Vitiello, the organizer of International Workshop on the Quantum Field Theory of Particle mixing and Oscillations, 13-15 June 2002, Vietri sul Mare (Salerno), where the main content of the present paper was report, and also to the participants in that workshop for discussions, especially to Dr. C.Y.Cardall for his calling attention to the Mannheim’s paper. M.B. thanks the ESF network COSLAB and EPSRC for support.

## A Momentum-helicity eigenfunctions

Explicit forms of the momentum-helicity eigenfunctions satisfying

$`(i\mathit{}+m)u(kr)=0,(i\mathit{}+m)v(kr)=0`$ (A1)
are given in the Kramers representation ($`\stackrel{}{\gamma }=\rho _y\stackrel{}{\sigma },\gamma ^4=\rho _xI,\gamma _5=\gamma ^1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3\gamma ^4=\rho _zI`$) by

$`u(k)=\left(\begin{array}{c}c\alpha \\ c\beta \\ s\alpha \\ s\beta \end{array}\right),u(k)=\left(\begin{array}{c}s\beta ^{}\\ s\alpha ^{}\\ c\beta ^{}\\ c\alpha ^{}\end{array}\right),v(k)=\left(\begin{array}{c}s\beta ^{}\\ s\alpha ^{}\\ c\beta ^{}\\ c\alpha ^{}\end{array}\right),v(k)=\left(\begin{array}{c}c\alpha \\ c\beta \\ s\alpha \\ s\beta \end{array}\right),`$ (A18)
where

$`c=\mathrm{cos}(\chi /2),`$ $`s=\mathrm{sin}(\chi /2),cot\chi =|\stackrel{}{k}|/m,k_z=|\stackrel{}{k}|\mathrm{cos}\vartheta ,k_x+ik_y=|\stackrel{}{k}|\mathrm{sin}\vartheta e^{i\varphi },`$ (A20)
$`\alpha =\mathrm{cos}(\vartheta /2)e^{i\varphi /2},\beta =\mathrm{sin}(\vartheta /2)e^{i\varphi /2};`$
for $`\stackrel{}{s}=(I\stackrel{}{\sigma })/2`$ and $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}=\stackrel{}{k}/|\stackrel{}{k}|`$, we have

$`(\stackrel{}{s}\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}})u(kr)=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u(kr),(\stackrel{}{s}\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}})v(kr)=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v(kr)\text{ for }r=\left\{\begin{array}{c}\\ \end{array}\right\}.`$ (A23)
Here, $`v(kr)`$ is defined by

$`v(kr)v(\stackrel{}{k},k^0,r).`$ (A24)
Noting $`\alpha (\stackrel{}{k})=i\beta ^{},\beta (\stackrel{}{k})=i\alpha ^{}`$, we have

$`v(k)=i\left(\begin{array}{c}s\alpha \\ s\beta \\ c\alpha \\ c\beta \end{array}\right),v(k)=i\left(\begin{array}{c}c\beta ^{}\\ c\alpha ^{}\\ s\beta ^{}\\ s\alpha ^{}\end{array}\right).`$ (A33)
We write the solution of Eq.(A1) with mass $`m`$ as $`u_j(kr)`$ and $`v_j(kr)`$. Then we have

$`u_j^{}(kr)u_l(ks)`$ $`=`$ $`v_j^{}(kr)v_l(ks)=\rho _{jl}(k)\delta _{rs},`$ (A34)
$`u_j^{}(kr)v_l(ks)`$ $`=`$ $`v_j^{}(kr)u_l(ks)=i\lambda _{jl}(k)\delta _{rs},`$ (A35)
where $`\rho _{jl}(k)=\mathrm{cos}[(\chi _j\chi _l)/2],\lambda _{jl}(k)=\mathrm{sin}[(\chi _j\chi _l)/2]`$ with $`cot\chi _j=|\stackrel{}{k}|/m_j`$. Further we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\{u(kr)u^{}(kr)+v(kr)v^{}(kr)\}=I^{(4)}.`$ (A37)
($`I^{(4)}`$ is the $`4\times 4`$ unit matrix.)

Utilizing the concrete forms of $`u(kr)`$ and $`v(kr)`$, we obtain Table I, where $`P_L=(1+\gamma _5)/2,`$ $`s_j\mathrm{sin}(\chi _j/2),c_j\mathrm{cos}(\chi _j/2),cot\chi _j=|\stackrel{}{k}|/m_j`$. Further, we obtain (by writing $`2\stackrel{}{s}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$)

$`u_j^{}(kr)(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{u})P_Lu_l(kr)`$ $`=`$ $`u_j^{}(kr){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{u}),(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}})\}P_Lu_l(kr)\left\{\begin{array}{c}+1\\ 1\end{array}\right\}`$ (A40)
$`=`$ $`(\stackrel{}{u}\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}})u_j^{}(kr)P_Lu_l(kr)\left\{\begin{array}{c}+1\\ 1\end{array}\right\}`$ (A43)
$`=`$ $`(\stackrel{}{u}\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}})\left\{\begin{array}{c}+s_js_l\\ c_jc_l\end{array}\right\}\text{ for }r=\left\{\begin{array}{c}+1\\ 1\end{array}\right\},`$ (A48)
$`u_j^{}(k)(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{u})P_Lu_l(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u_j^{}(k)[(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}),(\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{u})]P_Lu_l(k)`$ (A49)
$`=`$ $`i(\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\times \stackrel{}{u})u_j^{}(k)\stackrel{}{\sigma }P_Lu_l(k)0,`$ (A50)
and similar relations for other combinations among the momentum-helicity eigenfunctions.

| $`(r,s)`$ | $`(,)`$ | $`(,)`$ | $`(,)`$ | $`(,)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`u_j^{}(kr)P_Lu_l(ks)`$ | $`s_js_l`$ | $`c_jc_l`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`v_j^{}(kr)P_Lv_l(ks)`$ | $`c_jc_l`$ | $`s_js_l`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`u_j^{}(kr)P_Lv_l(ks)`$ | $`is_jc_l`$ | $`ic_js_l`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`v_j^{}(kr)P_Lu_l(ks)`$ | $`ic_js_l`$ | $`is_jc_l`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ |

Table I.

## B Eigenvalues of $`H_{(M)}^{matt}`$ in the extreme-relativistic case

We examine the eigenvalues of $`H_{(M)}^{matt}(kr)`$, i.e. the solutions of

$`det[H_{(M)}^{matt}(kr)\lambda ]=0,r=,.`$ (B1)
First we consider $`H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)`$, because it has a relation with $`𝜶_F(k;x^0)`$-operators of the neutrinos produced through the weak V-A interaction; then, from (109)(or (260)) we examine the equation

$`det[H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)\lambda ]`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda ^2k^2m_1^2)(\lambda ^2k^2m_2^2)`$ (B2)
$``$ $`(\lambda +k)\left\{\kappa _{11}(\lambda ^2k^2m_2^2)+\kappa _{22}(\lambda ^2k^2m_1^2)\right\}+(\lambda +k)^2det\kappa =0.`$ (B3)
We search its approximate solutions in the extreme-relativistic case (116) by taking into consideration all terms of $`1/k^2`$-order in comparison with $`1`$. Thus, the lowest order solutions of (B2) are $`\lambda =\pm k`$, so that we examine solutions in the neighborhoods of $`k`$ and $`k`$ separately, which we call hereafter $`(+)`$\- and $`()`$-solutions, respectively.

### 1 $`(+)`$-solutions

Eq.(B2) is rewritten as

$`det[H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)\lambda ]`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda +k)^2F_{(+)}^{}(\lambda )=0,`$ (B4)
where

$`F_{(+)}^{}(\lambda )`$ $``$ $`(\lambda k)^2(\lambda k)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2+m_2^2}{\lambda +k}}+(\kappa _{11}+\kappa _{22})\right\}+\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2m_2^2}{(\lambda +k)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{11}m_2^2+\kappa _{22}m_1^2}{\lambda +k}}+det\kappa \right\}.`$ (B5)
The discriminant $`D_{(+)}`$ of $`F_{(+)}^{}(\lambda )`$, regarded as a quadratic equation with respect to $`(\lambda k)`$, is

$`D_{(+)}=\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{\lambda +k}}b_1\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\right\}^2+b_1^2\mathrm{sin}^2(2\theta );`$ (B6)
thus, the $`(+)`$-solutions satisfy

$`\lambda _{(+)}k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2+m_2^2}{\lambda _{(+)}+k}}+2b_0+b_1\right)\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{D_{(+)}(\lambda _{(+)})}.`$ (B7)
With the aim of comparing (B7) with (171), we define

$`\lambda _{(+)+}k={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)2}()^2}{2k}},\lambda _{(+)}k={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)1}()^2}{2k}};`$ (B8)
here, $`\lambda _{(+)+}`$ and $`\lambda _{(+)}`$ correspond to the solutions with the signs $`+`$ and $``$, respectively, in front of $`\sqrt{D_{(+)}}`$ in (B7). Then we have

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)2}()^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}^2}{1+\stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)2}()^2/(4k^2)}}+A_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[A+\sqrt{D_{(+)}(\lambda _{(+)+})(2k)^2}],`$ (B9)
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)1}()^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}^2}{1+\stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)1}()^2/(4k^2)}}+A_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[A\sqrt{D_{(+)}(\lambda _{(+)})(2k)^2}].`$ (B10)
In accordance with the explanation concerning the approximation given in Sec.II.B, we have the approximate forms of $`D_{(+)}(\lambda _{(+)\pm })`$ expressed as

$`D_{(+)}(\lambda _{(+)+})(2k)^2`$ $`=`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2}{1+\stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)2}()^2/(4k^2)}}A\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\}^2+\{A\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )\}^2;`$ (B11)
$``$ $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2A\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\}^2+\{A\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )\}^2,`$ (B12)
$`D_{(+)}(\lambda _{(+)})(2k)^2`$ $``$ $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2A\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\}^2+\{A\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )\}^2;`$ (B13)
thus we have

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)1}()^2\\ \stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)2}()^2\end{array}\right)\overline{m}^2+A_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{A+\sqrt{(A\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta ))^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{sin}(2\theta ))^2}\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ +1\end{array}\right)\},`$ (B18)
which coincide with the usually utilized expressions $`\stackrel{~}{m}_j()^2`$’s given by (172).

### 2 $`()`$-solutions

Eq.(B2) is rewritten as

$`det[H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)\lambda ]=(\lambda k)^2F_{()}^{}(\lambda )=0,`$ (B19)
$`F_{()}^{}(\lambda )(\lambda +k)^2\{1{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{11}+\kappa _{22}}{\lambda k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{det\kappa }{(\lambda k)^2}}\}+(\lambda +k)\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2+m_2^2}{\lambda k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{11}m_2^2+\kappa _{22}m_1^2}{(\lambda k)^2}}\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2m_2^2}{(\lambda k)^2}},`$ (B20)
$`\text{Discriminant }D_{()}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{m_1^2+m_2^2}{\lambda k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{11}m_2^2+\kappa _{22}m_1^2}{(\lambda k)^2}}\right\}^2{\displaystyle \frac{4m_1^2m_2^2}{(\lambda k)^2}}\left\{1{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{11}+\kappa _{22}}{\lambda k}}+{\displaystyle \frac{det\kappa }{(\lambda k)^2}}\right\}`$ (B21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\lambda k)^2}}\left[\left\{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _{11}m_2^2\kappa _{22}m_1^2}{\lambda k}}\right\}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4m_1^2m_2^2}{(\lambda k)^2}}\kappa _{12}^2\right];`$ (B22)
thus, the $`()`$-solutions satisfy

$`\lambda _{()}+k={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(1\frac{b_0}{\lambda _{()}k})(1\frac{b_0+b_1}{\lambda _{()}k})}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\overline{m}^2}{\lambda _{()}k}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2b_0+b_1)\overline{m}^2+b_1\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )\mathrm{\Delta }m^2/2}{(\lambda _{()}k)^2}}\sqrt{D_{()}(\lambda _{()})}\right].`$ (B23)
We define $`\stackrel{~}{m}_j()^2,j=1,2`$, as

$`\lambda _{()}+k={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_{()2}()^2}{2k}},\lambda _{()+}+k={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_{()1}()^2}{2k}}.`$ (B24)
In the same approximation as before, we have

$`\sqrt{D_{()}(\lambda _{()})(2k)^2}\sqrt{D_{()}(k)(2k)^2}\mathrm{\Delta }m^2;`$ (B25)
thus,

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{()j}()^2m_j^2,j=1,2.`$ (B26)
### 3 remarks

Similarly to the $`H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)`$ case, we obtain the approximate eigenvalues of $`H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)`$. We use the notations $`\lambda _{(+)j}`$ and $`\lambda _{()j}`$($`j=1,2`$) for expressing the solutions of $`det[H_{(M)}^{matt}(k)0]=0`$. By comparing (95) and (108) with (100) and (109), respectively, we see the approximate eigenvalues are given by

$`\lambda _{(+)j}=k+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)j}()^2}{2k}},\lambda _{()j}=k{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{m}_{()j}()^2}{2k}},`$ (B27)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_{(+)j}()^2m_j^2,`$ (B28)
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{m}_{()1}()^2\\ \stackrel{~}{m}_{()2}()^2\end{array}\right)\overline{m}^2A_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{A+\sqrt{(A+\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{cos}(2\theta ))^2+(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2\mathrm{sin}(2\theta ))^2}\left(\begin{array}{c}+1\\ 1\end{array}\right)\}.`$ (B33)
As seen from the considerations described above in the present section, we obtain in the extreme-relativistic case the eigenvalues (B18) which coincide with the usually employed ones such as Eq.(172). This does not necessarily mean, as stressed in Sec.II.C, the validity of the usual relations among eigenvectors given below Eq.(172). In Sec.IV, this point is examined in detail.

Notice that an analogous situation is described in Ref., where the neutrino propagators on the flavor vacuum were studied: although they share the same poles of the usual propagators defined on the mass vacuum, they correspond to different boundary conditions and lead to different oscillation amplitudes.


format: text

text:
# 1 Lowest order diagrams contributing to the Σ⁻ decay for (a) two neutrino double beta decay mode, and (b) neutrinoless double beta decay mode.

Double beta decay of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ hyperons

C. Barbero1, G. López Castro2 and A. Mariano1

1 Departamento de Física, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas,
Universidad Nacional de la Plata, cc 67, 1900 La Plata, Argentina

2 Departamento de Física, Cinvestav del IPN
Apartado Postal 14-740, 07000 México D.F. México

## Abstract

We compute the strangeness-conserving double beta decay of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ hyperons, which is the only hadronic system that can undergo such decays. We consider both, the lepton number conserving $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+e^{}e^{}\overline{\nu }\overline{\nu }`$ ($`\beta \beta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2\nu }}`$) and the lepton number violating $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+e^{}e^{}`$ ($`\beta \beta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0\nu }}`$) modes. The branching ratios of these $`\beta \beta `$ decays are suppressed at the level of $`10^{30}`$ considering a light neutrino scenario in the case of the $`\beta \beta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0\nu }}`$ channel. The dynamical origin of such low rates and their possible enhancements are briefly discussed. Given its simplicity those decays can be used also for the purposes of illustrating the main features of double beta decays.

PACS Nos. : 23.40.-s, 13.30.-a, 12.60.-i

Keywords: Double-beta decay; $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperon.

1. Introduction

Neutrinoless double beta ($`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$) decays would occur if a mechanism allows the violation of the total lepton number $`L`$ by two units. Their observation in experiments will provide unambiguous evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). At present, the first evidences for physics beyond the SM come from the flavor oscillations in the neutrino sector that required to explain the deficit observed in solar  and atmospheric neutrinos . Flavor oscillations of neutrinos do not require a change of the total lepton number (namely $`|\mathrm{\Delta }L|=0`$), allow us to conclude that neutrinos are massive, but do not establish whether they are Dirac or Majorana particles. If neutrinos are Majorana particles, $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ decays have to occur at some level; their observation will establish the Majorana nature of neutrinos beyond any doubt.

The strangeness-conserving ($`\mathrm{\Delta }S=0`$) $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ decays have been unsuccessfully searched in nuclear transitions for several decades. An intense activity in the experimental and theoretical fronts witness the importance of such decays as a sensitive probe of physics beyond the SM. Some examples of extensions of the SM that can induce contributions to $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ decays are right-handed weak couplings as well as the Higgs exchange , right-handed weak coupling involving heavy Majorana neutrinos , massless Majoron emission , and R-parity breaking in the supersymmetric models . From a theoretical point of view, $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ decays in nuclei are limited in precision due a wide range of model-dependent predictions for the nuclear wavefunctions. In the present work, we study the double beta (both the lepton number-conserving $`\beta \beta _{2\nu }`$ and lepton number-violating $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$) strangeness-conserving decays of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ hyperon. The $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ hyperon is a unique system in hadron physics that can undergo strangeness-conserving double beta decays as it will be explained below. The hadronic matrix elements necessary for such calculations are well known and, therefore, can exhibit the underlying mechanisms for double beta decays in a more clean way.

As we have mentioned before, the determination of an upper bound for the effective neutrino mass in nuclear $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ decays is limited by model-dependent evaluations of the nuclear matrix elements. Some of the difficulties we encounter in those calculations are the following:

1. The nucleus is a many body system with many degrees of freedom; in practice there is not a well defined rule to choose the most relevant components to describe an specific excitation;
2. The Hilbert space where nuclear models are worked out have a huge dimension requiring a lot of time consuming computational work; and
3. The multipole expansion for the $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ decay amplitude is rather complex making theoretical expressions difficult to manipulate.

Despite these limitations in theoretical inputs, the large sensitivity of present experiments have been able to set strong constrains on the so-called effective Majorana mass term, $`m_{ee}U_{el}^2m_{\nu _l}`$, where $`m_{\nu _l}`$ denote neutrino mass eigenstates. By assuming that $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ in nuclei are mediated by the exchange of light Majorana neutrinos, the experimental upper bound on $`m_{ee}`$ is $`0.2`$ eV .

Before we proceed with our calculation, it is interesting to take a look at other reactions that can provide information on the violation of lepton number. The upper limits available on these rare processes can be used to set upper limits on the matrix elements $`m_{\alpha \beta }U_{\alpha l}U_{\beta l}m_{\nu _l}`$, where $`\alpha ,\beta =e,\mu ,\tau `$. Thus, muon to positron conversion in nuclei $`\mu ^{}+(A,Z)(A,Z2)e^+`$  gives $`m_{e\mu }<17(82)`$ GeV depending on the spin of the initial proton pair; the production of three muons in neutrino-nucleon scattering  leads to the upper limit $`m_{\mu \mu }\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^4`$ GeV; this limit has been slightly improved at HERA through the reaction $`e^+p\overline{\nu }l_1^+l_2^+X`$ , giving $`m_{\mu \mu }\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}4}\times 10^3`$ GeV and also for first time limits on the $`m_{l\tau }`$ (connected with the $`\tau `$-sector) were given; finally, the non-observation of heavy Majorana neutrinos at various colliders  can also be used to set limits on the effective Majorana mass. Similarly, some rare kaon decays are also useful to constrain lepton number violating interactions. For instance, present bounds on the branching ratio of the $`K^+\mu ^+\mu ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay  translates into the upper limit $`m_{\mu \mu }\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}4}\times 10^4`$ MeV . Those bounds from collision experiments and rare kaon decays are several orders of magnitude above the limit $`m_{\mu \mu }4.4`$ eV, inferred by an analysis  that combines experimental constrains from atmospheric and solar neutrino oscillation and the tritium beta decay end-point experiment .

Conversely, we can use the existing bounds from lepton number violating processes to set upper limits on the branching ratios of some rare kaon decay. Thus, the upper limit $`B(K^+\mu ^+\mu ^+\pi ^{})\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^{30}(10^{19})`$  can be obtained in models with a light (heavy) neutrino scenario, while $`B(K^+e^+e^+\pi ^{})\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}10}^{26}`$  can be derived from upper bounds from nuclear $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ decays. These values are well below the sensitivities of current experiments; for example the limits reported by the E865 experiment  are $`B(K^+e^+e^+\pi ^{})<6.4\times 10^{10}`$, and $`B(K^+\mu ^+\mu ^+\pi ^{})\stackrel{<}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}3}\times 10^9`$. This shows that we are far from detecting such processes, in spite of the special window in the hundred MeV region , and that the sensitivity of such processes are well below the previously discussed $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ case. Nevertheless it is important to pursue searches for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }L|=2`$ processes since they would lead to nonvanishing results even if nuclear $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ decay turns out to vanish or becomes extremely suppressed.

In this Letter we study the two double beta decays of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ hyperon, namely: the lepton number conserving $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+e^{}e^{}\overline{\nu }\overline{\nu }`$ ($`\beta \beta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2\nu }}`$) and the lepton number violating $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+e^{}e^{}`$ ($`\beta \beta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0\nu }},\mathrm{\Delta }L=2`$) channels. The Feynman graphs for the $`\beta \beta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2\nu }}`$ and $`\beta \beta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0\nu }}`$ decays, indicating the two intermediate states, are shown in Figure 1a and 1b, respectively. To our knowledge, these decay modes have not been reported previously in the literature and even an experimental upper limit is not available (an upper bound of order $`10^4`$ was reported in ref.  for the branching ratio of the related strangeness-changing $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}p\mu ^{}\mu ^{}`$ double beta decay). The isotriplet of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperons ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$) is a unique system of hadrons that can undergo strangeness-conserving double beta decays. Actually, the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ are not antiparticles of each other; they have a mass splitting of $`m_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}=8.08`$ MeV , which allows a sufficient phase space for $`\beta \beta `$ decays. An interesting feature of this system is that we can identify only two well defined intermediate states ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) that can give important contributions to the $`\beta \beta `$ transitions under consideration. One of these states (the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$) lies in the middle of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ levels while the other (the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) is around 77 MeV below them. Namely, one of these intermediate states can be real while the other is virtual.

On another hand, the hadronic matrix elements required for the calculations are dominated by a couple of axial and vector form factors, which have been computed by several authors in the literature  with good agreement among them. This is an important advantage over the evaluation of nuclear transition matrix elements. All these characteristics of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperon system make very interesting the study of their double beta decays, even as a possible textbook example to learn the formalism of $`\beta \beta `$ transitions applied to free baryons. In the following we consider each case separately.

2. Lepton number-conserving $`\beta \beta `$ decay

One of the four Feynman graphs corresponding to the $`\beta \beta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }2\nu }`$ decay is shown in Fig. 1a (the other three contributions are obtained under proper antisymmetrization with respect to final state electrons and antineutrinos).

The effective four-fermion weak Hamiltonian acting at each vertex has the usual current-current form

$$H_W=\frac{G}{\sqrt{2}}J_\mu j^\mu +h.c.$$
(1)
where

$$J_\mu =\overline{\psi }_B^{}\gamma _\mu (f_1+g_1\gamma _5)\psi _B,$$
(2)
is the baryonic current operator underlying the $`BB^{}`$ transition and

$$j_\mu =\overline{\psi }_e\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)\psi _\nu ,$$
(3)
is the $`VA`$ leptonic current operator111We do not consider here the possible existence of right-handed neutrinos, since their contribution to the nuclear double beta decay is negligible .. In eq. (2), $`f_1`$ and $`g_1`$ are dimensionless vector and axial-vector form factors for the $`BB^{}`$ transition. In our approximation we have neglected their momentum transfer dependence and we have also neglected the small contributions of the induced magnetic and scalar form factors for the vector and axial currents. The effective weak coupling constant is $`G=G_FV_{ud}`$, where $`G_F=(1.16639\pm 0.00003)\times 10^{11}`$ MeV-2 is the Fermi constant and $`V_{ud}`$ the relevant element of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa mixing matrix.

The rate for the $`\beta \beta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2\nu }}`$ decay from the initial $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}A`$ to the final $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+B`$ hyperon is given in the rest frame of $`A`$ by (we use natural units, i.e., $`\mathrm{}=c=m_e=1`$)

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }2\nu }=\pi \underset{spin}{}|_{2\nu }|^2\delta (m_Aϵ_Bϵ_1ϵ_2\omega _1\omega _2)\frac{d𝐩_1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d𝐩_2}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d𝐪_1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d𝐪_2}{(2\pi )^3},$$
(4)
where $`m_A`$ ($`ϵ_B`$) is the energy of the initial (final) hyperon, and $`ϵ_i`$ and $`𝐩_i`$ ($`\omega _i`$ and $`𝐪_i`$) denote the energy and momentum of the electron (neutrino). The decay amplitude reads

$`_{2\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`[1P(e_1e_2)][1P(\nu _1\nu _2)]`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\eta =\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_B;e_1e_2\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1\stackrel{~}{\nu }_2|H_W|\eta ,Q;e_1\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1\eta ,Q;e_1\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1|H_W|p_A}{m_Aϵ_Q(\eta )ϵ_1\omega _1}},`$
with $`ϵ_Q(\eta )=\sqrt{𝐐^2+m_\eta }`$ and $`𝐐𝐩_1𝐪_1=𝐩_B+𝐩_2+𝐪_2`$ being the energy and momentum of the intermediate baryon state, and $`P(x_1x_2)`$ the operator that exchanges $`x_1`$ with $`x_2`$. Thus, after introducing eqs. (1)–(3) in eq. (5) we get

$$_{2\nu }=\frac{G^2}{2}[1P(e_1e_2)][1P(\nu _1\nu _2)]\underset{\eta =\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\frac{B_\mu (p_A,Q;A)B_\nu (Q,p_B;B)L^{\mu \nu }(p_1,q_1,p_2,q_2)}{m_Aϵ_Q(\eta )ϵ_1\omega _1},$$
(6)
where

$$B_\mu (p_I,p_F;X)=\overline{u}(p_F)\gamma _\mu (f_{X\eta }+g_{X\eta }\gamma _5)u(p_I),$$
(7)
is the baryonic matrix element between states with momentum $`p_I`$ and $`p_F`$, and

$$L_{\mu \nu }(p_1,q_1,p_2,q_2)=\overline{u}_e(p_2)\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)u_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}(q_2)\overline{u}_e(p_1)\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)u_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}(q_1),$$
(8)
is the leptonic tensor. The values for the form factors $`f_{A\eta }f_1(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\eta )`$, $`g_{A\eta }g_1(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\eta )`$, $`f_{B\eta }f_1(\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }^+)`$ and $`g_{B\eta }g_1(\eta \mathrm{\Sigma }^+)`$ at zero momentum transfer are summarized in Table 1:

Given the small mass difference between the relevant hyperon states, we can use the non-relativistic impulse approximation for the baryonic current . The small mass difference between the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperon states is responsible of the suppression of the decay via the real intermediate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ particle, while the decay through an intermediate on-shell $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ state is forbidden since $`m_\mathrm{\Lambda }<m_\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$. Keeping only the usually called Fermi and Gamow-Teller operators we have

$$B_\mu (p_I,p_F;X)=\chi _{m_{s_F}}^{}(f_{X\eta }g_{\mu 0}g_{X\eta }\sigma _kg_{\mu k})\chi _{m_{s_I}},$$
(9)
where $`s_I`$ and $`s_F`$ denote the spin of the initial and final baryons in the $`IF`$ transition. In the spirit of the non-relativistic approximation the energy denominator in eq. (6) can be also simplified making $`ϵ_Q(\eta )m_\eta `$. Note that in the case of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ intermediate state, eq. (6) exhibits a singularity when $`ϵ_1+\omega _1=m_Am_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}=4.8`$ MeV (note that this singularity does not appear for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ intermediate state because $`m_Am_\mathrm{\Lambda }=81.7\text{MeV}ϵ_1+\omega _1`$). This singularity can be cured by taking into account the finite width ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}=8.89`$ KeV ) of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ intermediate state. Therefore, we will define:

* In the case $`\eta =\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_Am_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}ϵ_1\omega _1}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_Am_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}ϵ_1\omega _1+i\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}}{2}}}h_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^0}(ϵ_1,\omega _1).`$ (10)
* In the case $`\eta =\mathrm{\Lambda }`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_Am_\mathrm{\Lambda }ϵ_1\omega _1}}`$ $``$ $`h_\mathrm{\Lambda }(ϵ_1,\omega _1).`$ (11)

After a lengthy but straightforward calculation we can write the decay rate as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }2\nu }=\frac{G^4}{8\pi ^7}\underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}\underset{\eta \eta ^{}}{}𝒞_j(\eta \eta ^{})_j(\eta \eta ^{}).$$
(12)
The $`𝒞_j(\eta \eta ^{})`$ terms denote quartic combinations of form factors,

$`𝒞_1(\eta \eta ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`f_{A\eta }f_{B\eta }f_{A\eta ^{}}f_{B\eta ^{}}+3g_{A\eta }f_{B\eta }g_{A\eta ^{}}f_{B\eta ^{}}+3f_{A\eta }g_{B\eta }f_{A\eta ^{}}g_{B\eta ^{}}+9{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}g_{A\eta }g_{B\eta }g_{A\eta ^{}}g_{B\eta ^{}},`$
$`𝒞_2(\eta \eta ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`f_{A\eta }f_{B\eta }f_{A\eta ^{}}f_{B\eta ^{}}+3g_{A\eta }f_{B\eta }f_{A\eta ^{}}g_{B\eta ^{}}+3f_{A\eta }g_{B\eta }g_{A\eta ^{}}f_{B\eta ^{}}3g_{A\eta }g_{B\eta }g_{A\eta ^{}}g_{B\eta ^{}},`$
$`𝒞_3(\eta \eta ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`f_{A\eta }f_{B\eta }f_{A\eta ^{}}f_{B\eta ^{}}+3f_{A\eta }f_{B\eta }g_{A\eta ^{}}g_{B\eta ^{}}+3f_{A\eta ^{}}f_{B\eta ^{}}g_{A\eta }g_{B\eta }+3g_{A\eta }f_{B\eta }f_{A\eta ^{}}g_{B\eta ^{}}`$
$`+`$ $`3g_{A\eta ^{}}f_{B\eta ^{}}f_{A\eta }g_{B\eta }+3g_{A\eta }f_{B\eta }g_{A\eta ^{}}f_{B\eta ^{}}+3f_{A\eta }g_{B\eta }f_{A\eta ^{}}g_{B\eta ^{}}3g_{A\eta }g_{B\eta }g_{A\eta ^{}}g_{B\eta ^{}},`$
and $`_j(\eta \eta ^{})`$ are the phase space factors defined as follows:

$`_1(\eta \eta ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^{ϵ_01}}p_1^2𝑑p_1{\displaystyle _1^{ϵ_0ϵ_1}}p_2^2𝑑p_2{\displaystyle _0^{ϵ_0ϵ_1ϵ_2}}q_1^2(ϵ_0ϵ_1ϵ_2q_1)^2𝑑q_1`$
$`\times `$ $`h_\eta (ϵ_2,ϵ_0ϵ_1ϵ_2q_1)h_\eta ^{}^{}(ϵ_2,ϵ_0ϵ_1ϵ_2q_1),`$
$`_2(\eta \eta ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^{ϵ_01}}p_1^2𝑑p_1{\displaystyle _1^{ϵ_0ϵ_1}}p_2^2𝑑p_2{\displaystyle _0^{ϵ_0ϵ_1ϵ_2}}q_1^2(ϵ_0ϵ_1ϵ_2q_1)^2𝑑q_1`$
$`\times `$ $`Re\left[h_\eta (ϵ_2,ϵ_0ϵ_1ϵ_2q_1)h_\eta ^{}^{}(ϵ_1,q_1)\right],`$
$`_3(\eta \eta ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _1^{ϵ_01}}p_1^2𝑑p_1{\displaystyle _1^{ϵ_0ϵ_1}}p_2^2𝑑p_2{\displaystyle _0^{ϵ_0ϵ_1ϵ_2}}q_1^2(ϵ_0ϵ_1ϵ_2q_1)^2𝑑q_1`$ (14)
$`\times `$ $`Re\left[h_\eta (ϵ_2,ϵ_0ϵ_1ϵ_2q_1)h_\eta ^{}^{}(ϵ_1,ϵ_0ϵ_1ϵ_2q_1)\right],`$
where $`ϵ_0m_Am_B`$.

The numerical values for the factors entering in the expression of the decay rate, eq. (12), are given in Table 2. We can check that the main contribution comes from the term $`𝒞_1(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)_1(\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Sigma }^0)`$, which includes the contribution of a real $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ hyperon intermediate state.

Using the values obtained in Table 2, we can compute the branching ratio from the rate in eq. (12). We obtain:

$$B(\beta \beta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2\nu }})=1.38\times 10^{30}(1.36\times 10^{30}).$$
(15)
Just for comparison we have shown within parenthesis the value corresponding to the contribution of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ intermediate state. As expected, this contribution dominates almost completely the decay rate. The branching ratio given above turns out to be very suppressed due essentially to the large decay width of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ hyperon appearing in eq. (10). As we know, the decay rate of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ is 10 orders of magnitude larger than those of the charged $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperons because it can undergo the electromagnetic decay $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma `$.

3. Neutrinoless double beta decay

The decay rate for the (three-body) neutrinoless $`\beta \beta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0\nu }}`$ mode reads

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }0\nu }=\pi \underset{spin}{}|_{0\nu }|^2\delta (m_Aϵ_Bϵ_1ϵ_2)\frac{d𝐩_1}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d𝐩_2}{(2\pi )^3}.$$
(16)
The decay amplitude corresponding to the diagram in Figure 1b (after proper anti-symmetrization with respect to identical electrons) is

$`_{0\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`[1P(e_1e_2)]{\displaystyle \underset{\eta =\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{s_\nu }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{p_B;e_1e_2|H_W|\eta ,Q(q);e_1\stackrel{~}{\nu }\eta ,Q(q);e_1\stackrel{~}{\nu }|H_W|p_A}{m_Aϵ_1qϵ_Q(\eta )}}.`$
The four-momentum of the intermediate state $`\eta `$ is $`Q(q)p_Ap_1q=p_B+p_2q`$ and its energy is $`ϵ_Q(\eta )=\sqrt{𝐐^2(𝐪)+m_\eta ^2}`$. Introducing (1) into (17), and expanding the weak neutrino eigenstate as a mixture of light massive Majorana neutrino states, i.e., $`u_{\stackrel{~}{\nu }}(q)=_lU_{el}u_{\nu _l}(q)`$, we get

$`_{0\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`G^2[1P(e_1e_2)]`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}m_{\nu _l}U_{el}^2{\displaystyle \underset{\eta }{}}\overline{u}(p_B)\gamma _\mu (f_{B\eta }+g_{B\eta }\gamma _5)I_\eta (p_1)\gamma _\nu (f_{A\eta }+g_{A\eta }\gamma _5)u(p_A)L^{\mu \nu }(p_1,p_2),`$
with the leptonic factor

$`L_{\mu \nu }(p_1,p_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_e(p_1)\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)\gamma _\nu u_e^C(p_2).`$ (19)
The factor $`I_\eta (p_1)`$ in eq. (S0.Ex12) corresponds to the following loop integral ($`Q(q)=p_Ap_1q`$):

$$I_\eta (p_1)=\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{/Q(q)+m_\eta }{(q^2m_{\nu _l}^2)(Q^2(q)m_\eta ^2)},$$
(20)
which has a logarithmic divergence that we will manipulate in a simple cutoff procedure. After using Feynman parametrization techniques , we get

$$I_\eta (p_1)=\frac{i}{8\pi ^2}_0^1dx[(/p_A/p_1)x+m_\eta ]_0^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_c}\frac{k^3dk}{(k^2+M^2)^2},$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ is the cutoff energy and we have defined

$$M^2=m_\eta ^2(1x)(p_Ap_1)^2(1x)x+m_{\nu _l}^2x.$$
(22)
We stress here that the origin of this logarithmic divergence is related to the effective vertices we are using for the hadronic form factors. This divergence can in principle be cured by including the weak form factors which are expected to fall as $`1/[(p_AQ(q)]^2`$ with $`q^2\mathrm{}`$ in the dipole approximation, but their real behavior in the large $`q^2`$ limit are actually determined by QCD. In the case of the nuclear $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ decays it is usual to assume that the divergence is driven by the internucleon distance, which sets $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c1`$ GeV. This value can be identified with the largest momenta that the neutrino can carry which in turn is fixed by the lowest distance between two nucleons in the nucleus ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c(2d)^1`$, where $`d`$ is the nucleon radius). We will assume here that the average distance between the quarks within the hyperons are of the order of a typical hyperon (or nucleon) radius. Here, we adopt the point of view that our results are stable as far as they do not depend strongly on the specific value of the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$.

The integration in eq. (21) can be simplified by neglecting in eq. (22) all lepton masses and momenta, which is consistent for the neutrino since we are assuming a light neutrino scenario. We obtain

$$I_\eta (p_1)=\frac{i}{(4\pi )^2}[\frac{}{}(/p_A/p_1)F_\eta +m_\eta G_\eta ],$$
(23)
where

$`F_\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(1+m^2)\text{ln}(m+m^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1m^2)\text{ln}(1m){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\text{ln}(m)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(1m^2)\text{ln}(m^{})`$
$``$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}(1+m^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{[2m^{}(1m)^2](1+m)}{2D}}\left[arctg\left({\displaystyle \frac{1m}{D}}\right)+arctg\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+m}{D}}\right)\right],`$
$`G_\eta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+m)\text{ln}(m+m^{})(1m)\text{ln}(1m)m\text{ln}(m)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1m)\text{ln}(m^{})`$ (24)
$``$ $`i\pi (1+m)+{\displaystyle \frac{2m^{}(1m)^2}{D}}\left[arctg\left({\displaystyle \frac{1m}{D}}\right)+arctg\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+m}{D}}\right)\right].`$
In the above expressions, we have introduced the following dimensionless constants: $`m=m_\eta ^2/m_A^2`$, $`m^{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^2/m_A^2`$ and $`D=\sqrt{4m^{}(1m)^2}`$.

In order to evaluate the unpolarized squared amplitude we will use the non-relativistic impulse approximation for the final baryon and take $`p_B(m_B,\mathrm{𝟎})`$ (we can not do the same approximation for the intermediate baryon state in this case). The decay rate for the $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ transition becomes:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }0\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`m_{ee}^2{\displaystyle \frac{G^4}{4\pi ^7}}_{0\nu }`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\eta \eta ^{}}{}}\left[m_A^2F_\eta F_\eta ^{}^{}𝒟_1(\eta \eta ^{})2m_Am_\eta (G_\eta F_\eta ^{}^{}+G_\eta ^{}F_\eta ^{})𝒟_2(\eta \eta ^{})+4m_\eta m_\eta ^{}G_\eta G_\eta ^{}^{}𝒟_3(\eta \eta ^{})\right],`$
where $`m_{ee}=_lm_{\nu _l}U_{el}^2`$ is the effective neutrino mass . The other factors appearing in eq. (LABEL:24) are defined as follows:

$`𝒟_1(\eta \eta ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(f_{A\eta }f_{B\eta }+g_{A\eta }g_{B\eta })(f_{A\eta ^{}}f_{B\eta ^{}}+g_{A\eta ^{}}g_{B\eta ^{}}),`$
$`𝒟_2(\eta \eta ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(f_{A\eta }f_{B\eta }g_{A\eta }g_{B\eta })(f_{A\eta ^{}}f_{B\eta ^{}}+g_{A\eta ^{}}g_{B\eta ^{}}),`$
$`𝒟_3(\eta \eta ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(f_{A\eta }f_{B\eta }g_{A\eta }g_{B\eta })(f_{A\eta ^{}}f_{B\eta ^{}}g_{A\eta ^{}}g_{B\eta ^{}}),`$ (26)
for the product of form factors, and

$$_{0\nu }=_1^{ϵ_01}ϵ_1(ϵ_0ϵ_1)\sqrt{(ϵ_1^21)[(ϵ_0ϵ_1)^21]}𝑑ϵ_1.$$
(27)
for the phase space integral.

The neutrinoless double beta decay rate depends on the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ and the neutrino effective mass $`m_{ee}`$, which are free parameters in our model. Based on present bounds on electron neutrino mass $`eV`$ , we show in Fig. 2 the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0\nu }}`$ as a function of the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$, for a fixed neutrino mass of $`10`$ eV. From this figure we can clearly see that our results are not very sensitive to the specific cutoff value in the region under consideration, which gives further support to the method employed for the logarithmic divergence.

For illustrative purposes let us use $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c=1`$ GeV, which corresponds to a rough estimate of the inverse of the size of hyperons. The branching ratio in this case becomes

$$B(\beta \beta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }0\nu })=1.49\times 10^{35}.$$
(28)
Thus, the neutrinoless double beta decay of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ hyperon is very suppressed and even smaller that the branching ratios of $`\beta \beta _{0\nu }`$ decays of kaons. Note however that in the case of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperons we do not have a single neutrino (tree-level) intermediate state contribution as in the case of neutrinoless double beta kaon decays .

4. Summary and conclusions

We have considered the strangeness-conserving double beta decays of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ hyperons. Several characteristics make this particle a unique and interesting system to study (and to learn) such decays as an alternative to the corresponding decays in nuclei. First, the isotriplet of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperons is the only system of hadrons that can undergo double beta decays since the $`I_3=+1,1`$ components have different masses. Second, we can identify a few intermediate states that dominate such decays where one state is in the middle and the other is below the initial and final hadronic levels. Finally, the uncertainties in hadronic matrix elements are much smaller than in the nuclear case.

We study both the lepton number-conserving $`\beta \beta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }2\nu }`$ and the lepton number-violating $`\beta \beta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }0\nu }`$ decays. For the lepton number conserving decay we obtain $`B(\beta \beta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }2\nu })=1.38\times 10^{30}`$ and for the neutrinoless decay we get $`B(\beta \beta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }0\nu })=1.49\times 10^{35}`$, standing in the light neutrino scenario in the last case. The suppression of the lepton number-conserving decay is due to the large decay width of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ intermediate state. Therefore, it would be nice to find an analogue system to the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperons (the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_b`$ baryons?) where the mechanism under consideration could produce an enhancement of the decay rate if the corresponding isotriplet is similar to the spectra of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ hyperons. Our result for the neutrinoless double beta decay is almost insensitive to the specific value of the cutoff parameter used to regulate the divergent integrals.

Our numerical results for the branching ratios may look discouraging. However, let us assume an hypothetical model where $`B(\beta \beta _{\mathrm{\Sigma }0\nu })=(10^{20}10^{25})m_{ee}^2`$; in this very optimistic scenario, an experimental upper limit of $`10^8`$ would translate into the interesting bound $`m_{ee}1300`$ MeV. On another hand, if there exists such a model that causes $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ to have faster neutrinoless double beta decays, the SM background due to the lepton number-conserving double beta decays would certainly be very small.

Acknowledgements. C.B and A.M. acknowledge the support of ANPCyT (Argentina) under grant BID 1201/OC-AR (PICT 03-04296), and are fellows of the CONICET (Argentina). The work of G.L.C. has been partially supported by Conacyt (México).