This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.


Signature of neutrino mass hierarchy in gravitational lensing

Himanshu Swami himanshuswami@iisermohali.ac.in    Kinjalk Lochan kinjalk@iisermohali.ac.in Department of Physical Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education & Research (IISER) Mohali, Sector 81 SAS Nagar, Manauli PO 140306 Punjab India.    Ketan M. Patel kmpatel@prl.res.in Physical Research Laboratory, Navarangpura, Ahmedabad-380 009, India.
Abstract

In flat spacetime, the vacuum neutrino flavour oscillations are known to be sensitive only to the difference between the squared masses, and not to the individual masses, of neutrinos. In this work, we show that the lensing of neutrinos induced by a gravitational source substantially modifies this standard picture and it gives rise to a novel contribution through which the oscillation probabilities also depend on the individual neutrino masses. A gravitating mass located between a source and a detector deflects the neutrinos in their journey, and at a detection point, neutrinos arriving through different paths can lead to the phenomenon of interference. The flavour transition probabilities computed in the presence of such interference depend on the individual masses of neutrinos whenever there is a non-zero path difference between the interfering neutrinos. We demonstrate this explicitly by considering an example of weak lensing induced by a Schwarzschild mass. Through the simplest two flavour case, we show that the oscillation probability in the presence of lensing is sensitive to the sign of Δm2=m22m12\Delta m^{2}=m_{2}^{2}-m_{1}^{2}, for non-maximal mixing between two neutrinos, unlike in the case of standard vacuum oscillation in flat spacetime. Further, the probability itself oscillates with respect to the path difference and the frequency of such oscillations depends on the absolute mass scale m1m_{1} or m2m_{2}. We also give results for realistic three flavour case and discuss various implications of gravitationally modified neutrino oscillations and means of observing them.

I Introduction

Neutrino oscillation phenomena has provided the most useful platform to study the fundamental properties of neutrinos. The analysis of neutrino oscillation data collected from the solar, atmospheric and reactor neutrinos (see for example Capozzi et al. (2014); de Salas et al. (2018); Esteban et al. (2019)) have established that (a) there exist at least three flavours of weakly interacting neutrinos, (b) neutrinos are massive, and (c) their mass eigenstates are different from their flavour eigenstates. However, in this process, we also learn that the neutrino oscillation probabilities depend only on the difference of the square of neutrino masses and not on their individual masses. Therefore, one cannot infer the absolute neutrino mass scale from the oscillation experiments. Further, the current experiments Tanabashi et al. (2018) based on oscillations have measured Δm212\Delta m_{21}^{2} (where Δmij2mi2mj2\Delta m_{ij}^{2}\equiv m_{i}^{2}-m_{j}^{2}) and |Δm312||\Delta m_{31}^{2}| which leaves two possibilities: either m1<m2<m3m_{1}<m_{2}<m_{3} or m3<m1<m2m_{3}<m_{1}<m_{2} known as normal or inverted ordering, respectively, where m1,m2,m3\mathit{m_{1},m_{2},m_{3}} denote masses corresponding to the neutrino mass eigenstates.

The non-oscillation experiments, like measuring end-point energy of electron in the nuclear beta decay Aker et al. (2019) or measuring the rate of neutrino-less double beta decay (only if neutrinos are Majorana fermions) Dolinski et al. (2019), can provide direct evidence for the neutrino mass scale. Moreover, the cosmological observations provide a constraint on the sum of all three neutrino masses Lesgourgues and Pastor (2014). Currently, all these experiments lead only to an upper bound on the mass of the lightest neutrino. The strongest cosmological constraints Vagnozzi et al. (2017); Roy Choudhury and Choubey (2018) imply the lightest neutrino mass < 0.05\>\raisebox{-4.73611pt}{$\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\textstyle<}}{{\sim}}$}\>0.05 eV while the latest results from beta-decay experiment Aker et al. (2019) lead to a much weaker limit, <1<1 eV.

Theoretical studies of neutrino oscillations are performed and the corresponding experimental data are interpreted mostly in the regime of flat spacetime. The gravitational effects on neutrino propagation have been explored theoretically in somewhat details Ahluwalia and Burgard (1996a, b); Grossman and Lipkin (1997); Bhattacharya et al. (1996); Luongo and Stagno (2011); Geralico and Luongo (2012); Koutsoumbas and Metaxas (2019). The phenomenological implications of gravitational potential on the neutrino propagation along geodesics are discussed in Cardall and Fuller (1997); Fornengo et al. (1997). It was shown that the gravitational redshift increases the effective oscillation length of neutrinos. Effects like spin-flip or helicity transitions Sorge and Zilio (2007); Lambiase et al. (2005), flavour oscillations in case of two and three flavours Zhang and Li (2016) and possible violation of equivalence principle Lambiase (2001); Bhattacharya et al. (1999) have also been investigated. One of the interesting effects is the lensing of neutrino oscillation probabilities due to gravity. In this case, different trajectories of neutrinos around a massive astrophysical body are focused on a common point where neutrino flavour oscillation probability is computed. This is first studied in the context of Schwarzschild geometry in Fornengo et al. (1997) and further details are explored in Crocker et al. (2004); Alexandre and Clough (2018); Dvornikov (2019).

We explore gravitational lensing of neutrinos for its potential to reveal the absolute neutrino mass scale. The lensing is studied in the context of Schwarzschild geometry in which neutrinos in their travel to the point of observation from a source adopt different trajectories around a gravitating source and get lensed at a common point arriving with different path lengths and hence different phases. The resulting path difference between the accumulating neutrinos results in interference of oscillation probabilities at the point of observation, and it depends not only on the difference of the squared masses but also on the absolute masses of the neutrinos, in general. The qualitative and quantitative aspects of these interference effects are studied in the context of simplified two flavour oscillation case. We show that the effects of this path dependency seeps into the normalization of the wavefunction as well and hence the overall probability not only cares about the individual masses but the path information as well. We develop the observables which reflect these dependencies and discuss the methodology for obtaining individual mass information from them. We also give results for the three flavour case.

The outline of the paper is as the following. We briefly review the neutrino oscillations in flat and curved spacetime in section II. The gravitational lensing effects on neutrino oscillations are discussed in section III. In section IV, we discuss explicitly two flavour oscillation case and its qualitative and quantitative features. The results for three flavour case are discussed in section V. The study is concluded in section VI with a discussion.

II Neutrino oscillations in flat and curved spacetime

In weak interactions, neutrinos are produced and detected in flavour eigenstates denoted by |να|\nu_{\alpha}\rangle, where α=e,μ,τ\alpha=e,\mu,\tau. The flavour and mass eigenstates |νi|\nu_{i}\rangle, with i=1,2,3i=1,2,3, are related by

|να=iUαi|νi,|\nu_{\alpha}\rangle=\sum_{i}U^{*}_{\alpha i}\,|\nu_{i}\rangle\,, (1)

where UU is 3×33\times 3 unitary matrix. In diagonal basis of the charged leptons, UU is identified with the leptonic mixing matrix Esteban et al. (2019). Assuming neutrino wave-function as a plane wave, its propagation from source SS to detector DD, located at spacetime coordinates (tS,𝐱S)(t_{S},{\bf x}_{S}) and (tD,𝐱D)(t_{D},{\bf x}_{D}) respectively, is described by

|νi(tD,𝐱D)=exp(iΦi)|νi(tS,𝐱S).|\nu_{i}(t_{D},{\bf x}_{D})\rangle=\exp(-i\Phi_{i})\,|\nu_{i}(t_{S},{\bf x}_{S})\rangle\,. (2)

If neutrinos are produced initially in the flavour eigenstate |να|\nu_{\alpha}\rangle at SS, then after travelling to DD the probability of the change in neutrino flavour from νανβ\nu_{\alpha}\to\nu_{\beta} at the detection point is given by

𝒫αβ|νβ|να(tD,𝐱D)|2=i,jUβiUβjUαjUαiexp(i(ΦiΦj)).{\cal P}_{\alpha\beta}\equiv\left|\langle\nu_{\beta}|\nu_{\alpha}(t_{D},{\bf x}_{D})\rangle\right|^{2}=\sum_{i,j}U_{\beta i}U^{*}_{\beta j}U_{\alpha j}U^{*}_{\alpha i}\,\exp(-i(\Phi_{i}-\Phi_{j}))\,. (3)

The change in flavour can occur if ΦiΦj\Phi_{i}\neq\Phi_{j}. Different neutrino mass eigenstates develop different phases Φi\Phi_{i} because of difference in their mass and energy/momentum which ultimately gives rise to neutrino oscillation phenomena Akhmedov and Smirnov (2009).

In flat spacetime, the phase is given by

Φi=Ei(tDtS)𝐩i(𝐱D𝐱S).\Phi_{i}=E_{i}(t_{D}-t_{S})-{\bf p}_{i}\cdot({\bf x}_{D}-{\bf x}_{S})\,. (4)

It is typically assumed that all the mass eigenstates in a flavour eigenstate initially produced at the source have equal momentum or energy Akhmedov and Smirnov (2009, 2011). Either of these assumptions together with (tDtS)|𝐱D𝐱S|(t_{D}-t_{S})\simeq|{\bf x}_{D}-{\bf x}_{S}| for relativistic neutrinos (EimiE_{i}\gg m_{i}) leads to

ΔΦijΦiΦjΔmij22E0|𝐱D𝐱S|,\Delta\Phi_{ij}\equiv\Phi_{i}-\Phi_{j}\simeq\frac{\Delta m_{ij}^{2}}{2E_{0}}\,|{\bf x}_{D}-{\bf x}_{S}|, (5)

where Δmij2mi2mj2\Delta m_{ij}^{2}\equiv m_{i}^{2}-m_{j}^{2}. E0E_{0} is the average energy of the relativistic neutrinos produced at SS. The oscillation probability 𝒫αβ{\cal P}_{\alpha\beta} therefore depends on the difference of squared masses and not on the absolute masses of the neutrinos in this case. In other words, a universal shift in the squared masses by a constant, i.e. mi2mi2+Cm_{i}^{2}\to m_{i}^{2}+C, leaves the expression of 𝒫αβ{\cal P}_{\alpha\beta} unchanged. Substitution of Eq. (5) in Eq. (3) and further simplification considering only two flavours of neutrinos lead to the following well-known oscillation formula:

𝒫eμ=sin22αsin2(Δm122L4E0){\cal P}_{e\mu}=\sin^{2}2\alpha\,\sin^{2}\left(\frac{\Delta m_{12}^{2}\,L}{4E_{0}}\right)\, (6)

where L=|𝐱D𝐱S|L=|{\bf x}_{D}-{\bf x}_{S}|. The angle α\alpha parametrizes the 2×22\times 2 matrix

U[cosαsinαsinαcosα],\displaystyle U\equiv\begin{bmatrix}\cos{\alpha}&\sin{\alpha}\\ -\sin{\alpha}&\cos{\alpha}\end{bmatrix}, (7)

relating the flavour and mass eigenbases for this case.

Modification in neutrino propagation caused by curvature of spacetime has been discussed in Cardall and Fuller (1997). In a curved spacetime, the expression of phase in Eq. (4) can be replaced by its covariant form

Φi=SDpμ(i)𝑑xμ,\Phi_{i}=\int_{S}^{D}\,p_{\mu}^{(i)}\,dx^{\mu}\,, (8)

where pμ(i)p_{\mu}^{(i)} is the canonical conjugate momentum to the coordinate xμx^{\mu} for the ithi^{\rm th} neutrino mass eigenstate and it is given by

pμ(i)=migμνdxμds.p_{\mu}^{(i)}=m_{i}\,g_{\mu\nu}\frac{dx^{\mu}}{ds}\,. (9)

Here, gμνg_{\mu\nu} is the metric tensor and dsds is the line element along the neutrino trajectory. Neutrino oscillation probability can be obtained by evaluating the phase Φi\Phi_{i} for given gravitational field and neutrino trajectories and substituting it in Eq. (3). For example, such studies have been performed in case of a gravitational field of a static spherically symmetric object described by the Schwarzschild metric Cardall and Fuller (1997); Fornengo et al. (1997). The line element in this case is given by

ds2=B(r)dt21B(r)dr2r2dθ2r2sin2θdϕ2,ds^{2}=B(r)\,dt^{2}-\frac{1}{B(r)}\,dr^{2}-r^{2}d\theta^{2}-r^{2}\,\sin^{2}\theta\,d\phi^{2}\,, (10)

where B(r)=12GM/r1Rs/rB(r)=1-2GM/r\equiv 1-R_{s}/r, and GG and MM are Newtonian constant and mass of the gravitating object, respectively and RsR_{s} its Schwarzschild radius.

For simplicity, the motion of neutrinos can be chosen confined on θ=π/2\theta=\pi/2 plane as the gravitational field in this case is isotropic. Then the oscillation phase developed by jthj^{\rm th} neutrino mass eigenstate, νj\nu_{j}, while travelling from the source S(tS,rS,ϕS)S(t_{S},r_{S},\phi_{S}) to detector D(tD,rD,ϕD)D(t_{D},r_{D},\phi_{D}), can be estimated using

Φj=SD(Ej(r)dtpj(r)drJj(r)dϕ),\Phi_{j}=\int_{S}^{D}\left(E_{j}(r)\,dt-p_{j}(r)\,dr-J_{j}(r)\,d\phi\right)\,, (11)

where Ej(r)pt(j)E_{j}(r)\equiv p_{t}^{(j)}, pj(r)pr(j)p_{j}(r)\equiv-p^{(j)}_{r} and Jj(r)pϕ(j)J_{j}(r)\equiv-p_{\phi}^{(j)}. In this calculation of phase, the classical trajectory from the source to the detector is employed. Being a quantum analysis such usage of “classical” trajectories seems unjustified and there has been a debate about it Cardall and Fuller (1997); Lipkin (2000) in the literature. However, as we show in Appendix A, this approximation can be justified for a relativistic quantum particle in the regime of sufficiently weak gravitational field. This also goes on to suggest that standard treatment of neutrino flavour oscillations can not be applied for strong lensing scenarios, where most of the interesting physics happens around the photon sphere (Rph=3Rs/2)R_{ph}=3R_{s}/2). Further, being massive, neutrinos do not really travel along the null rays and if one correctly employs the mass effects, we get an extra factor of 2 in the oscillation phase (as also reported in Bhattacharya et al. (1999); Chakraborty (2015))111This remains true in the flat spacetime too.. In order to keep tune with bulk of the existing literature on neutrino oscillation, we will employ the quantum mechanical treatment for weak lensing study with null ray approximation. However, the effects of lensing that we are going to discuss in this work remain qualitatively unchanged if one adopts massive trajectories.

The phase Φj\Phi_{j} is explicitly computed for neutrinos traveling along the light-ray trajectory in Fornengo et al. (1997). For radial propagation, one obtains

Φjmj22E0|rDrS|\Phi_{j}\simeq\frac{m_{j}^{2}}{2E_{0}}\,|r_{D}-r_{S}|\, (12)

where |rDrS||r_{D}-r_{S}| is coordinate difference and it is different from the physical distance in non-flat spacetime. To evaluate the phase for general light-ray trajectory, it is convenient to write the angular momentum JjJ_{j} in terms of the energy EjE_{j}, asymptotic velocity vjv_{j} of the corresponding neutrino and the impact parameter bb (the shortest distance of the undeflected trajectory). Assuming GMrGM\ll r (weak gravity limit) and brS,Db\ll r_{S,D}, one finds Fornengo et al. (1997)

Φjmj22E0(rS+rD)(1b22rSrD+2GMrS+rD).\Phi_{j}\simeq\frac{m_{j}^{2}}{2E_{0}}(r_{S}+r_{D})\left(1-\frac{b^{2}}{2r_{S}r_{D}}+\frac{2GM}{r_{S}+r_{D}}\right)\,. (13)

It is easy to see that the phase difference ΔΦjk\Delta\Phi_{jk} obtained from Eq. (12) or (13) depends on Δmjk2\Delta m^{2}_{jk}. Therefore, the oscillation probability even in curved spacetime is also invariant under the shift mi2mi2+Cm_{i}^{2}\to m_{i}^{2}+C, similar to the case in flat spacetime discussed earlier. However, as we discussed previously, in curved spacetime, there is a possibility of gravitational lensing as well, which brings in path difference too into play, which leads to breaking of this shift symmetry, as we see in the next section.

III Gravitational lensing of neutrinos in Schwarzschild spacetime

For neutrinos propagating non-radially around the gravitating source, the dependence of the phase on the impact parameter bb gives rise to novel effects when the lensing occurs. Let us consider a Schwarzschild black hole as gravitational lens situated between the neutrino source and detector as depicted in Fig. 1.

Schwarzschild massSourceObserverφ\varphiδ\deltayy^{\prime}xx^{\prime}yyxxbbOOφ\varphirSr_{S}rDr_{D}
Figure 1: Diagrammatic representation of weak lensing of neutrinos.

In curved spacetime, neutrinos of a given mass eigenstate νi\nu_{i} may travel through different classical paths and meet at the common detection point DD. The neutrino flavour eigenstate, propagated from the source to detector through different paths denoted by pp, is given by

|να(tD,𝐱D)=NiUαipexp(iΦip)|νi(tS,𝐱S),|\nu_{\alpha}(t_{D},{\bf x}_{D})\rangle=N\sum_{i}U_{\alpha i}^{*}\sum_{p}\exp(-i\Phi_{i}^{p})\,|\nu_{i}(t_{S},{\bf x}_{S})\rangle\,, (14)

where Φjp\Phi_{j}^{p} denotes the same phase as given in Eq. (13) but contains the path dependent parameter bpb_{p}. If the neutrino is produced in α\alpha flavour eigenstate at the source SS then the probability of it being detected in β\beta flavour at the detector location, is given by

𝒫αβlens=|νβ|να(tD,𝐱D)|2=|N|2i,jUβiUβjUαjUαip,qexp(iΔΦijpq),{\cal P}^{\rm lens}_{\alpha\beta}=|\langle\nu_{\beta}|\nu_{\alpha}(t_{D},{\bf x}_{D})\rangle|^{2}=|N|^{2}\sum_{i,j}U_{\beta i}U^{*}_{\beta j}U_{\alpha j}U^{*}_{\alpha i}\,\sum_{p,q}\exp\left(-i\Delta\Phi^{pq}_{ij}\right)\,, (15)

where,

|N|2=(i|Uαi|2p,qexp(iΔΦiipq))1.|N|^{2}=\left(\sum_{i}|U_{\alpha i}|^{2}\sum_{p,q}\exp\left(-i\Delta\Phi^{pq}_{ii}\right)\right)^{-1}\,. (16)

The phase difference can be conveniently parametrized, using Eq. (13) in two parts which depend on either the mass difference Δmij2\Delta m^{2}_{ij} or the path difference Δbpq2\Delta b_{pq}^{2}, as

ΔΦijpq=ΦipΦjq=Δmij2Apq+Δbpq2Bij,\Delta\Phi_{ij}^{pq}=\Phi_{i}^{p}-\Phi_{j}^{q}=\Delta m^{2}_{ij}\,A_{pq}\,+\,\Delta b_{pq}^{2}\,B_{ij}\,, (17)

where

Apq\displaystyle A_{pq} =\displaystyle= (rS+rD)2E0(1+2GMrS+rDbpq24rSrD),\displaystyle\frac{(r_{S}+r_{D})}{2E_{0}}\left(1+\frac{2GM}{r_{S}+r_{D}}-\frac{\sum b_{pq}^{2}}{4r_{S}r_{D}}\right)\,,
Bij\displaystyle B_{ij} =\displaystyle= mij28E0(1rS+1rD).\displaystyle-\frac{\sum m_{ij}^{2}}{8E_{0}}\left(\frac{1}{r_{S}}+\frac{1}{r_{D}}\right)\,. (18)

Here, bpq2=bp2+bq2\sum b_{pq}^{2}=b_{p}^{2}+b_{q}^{2} and mij2=mi2+mj2\sum m_{ij}^{2}=m_{i}^{2}+m_{j}^{2}. Clearly, by construction, the parameters ApqA_{pq} and BijB_{ij} are symmetric under the interchange of their respective indices Apq=Aqp;Bij=BjiA_{pq}=A_{qp};B_{ij}=B_{ji}. Further, the definition implies ΔΦiipq=Δbpq2Bii\Delta\Phi_{ii}^{pq}=\Delta b_{pq}^{2}B_{ii}, ΔΦijpp=Δmij2App\Delta\Phi_{ij}^{pp}=\Delta m_{ij}^{2}A_{pp} and ΔΦijpq=ΔΦjiqp\Delta\Phi_{ij}^{pq}=-\Delta\Phi_{ji}^{qp}.

It can be seen from Eq. (17) that the oscillation probability expression (given in Eq. (15) as well) depends on mij2\sum m_{ij}^{2} through path difference Δbpq2\Delta b_{pq}^{2}. Therefore, it is evident that for a choice of location of detector, for which Δbpq2\Delta b_{pq}^{2} vanishes, the oscillation probability 𝒫αβlens{\cal P}^{\rm lens}_{\alpha\beta} is invariant under the shift mi2mi2+Cm_{i}^{2}\to m_{i}^{2}+C. The locations, for which Δbpq20\Delta b_{pq}^{2}\neq 0, break this invariance, and the shift implies BijBij+2CB_{ij}\to B_{ij}+2C in these cases. A generic non-collinear configuration of the source, the Schwarzschild mass (lens) and the point of detection, is therefore, expected to retain the information of mij2\sum m_{ij}^{2} as well. Therefore, we evaluate this dependence of the oscillation probability at a generic point in the source-lens-detector plane, in the weak field limit and obtain observable aspects of it. Substitution of Eq. (17) into (15) leads to

𝒫αβlens=i,jUβiUβjUαjUαi(pexp(iΔmij2App)+2p>qcos(Δbpq2Bij)exp(iΔmij2Apq))Npath+i|Uαi|2q>p2cos(Δbpq2Bii).{\cal P}^{\rm lens}_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{\sum_{i,j}U_{\beta i}U^{*}_{\beta j}U_{\alpha j}U^{*}_{\alpha i}\Bigg{(}\sum_{p}\exp\left(-i\Delta m^{2}_{ij}A_{pp}\right)+2\sum_{p>q}\cos\left(\Delta b_{pq}^{2}\,B_{ij}\right)\exp\left(-i\Delta m^{2}_{ij}\,A_{pq}\right)\Bigg{)}}{N_{\rm path}+\sum_{i}|U_{\alpha i}|^{2}\sum_{q>p}2\cos(\Delta b_{pq}^{2}B_{ii})}\,. (19)

The above expression leads to conservation of total probability, i.e. β𝒫αβlens=1\sum_{\beta}{\cal P}^{\rm lens}_{\alpha\beta}=1. For simplicity, we consider neutrino propagation in θ=π/2\theta=\pi/2 plane. In this case, Npath=2N_{\rm path}=2 and the general expression of 𝒫αβlens{\cal P}^{\rm lens}_{\alpha\beta} forNN flavour reduces to

𝒫αβlens\displaystyle{\cal P}^{\rm lens}_{\alpha\beta} =\displaystyle= |N|2(2i|Uβi|2|Uαi|2(1+cos(Δb2Bii))+i,jiUβiUβjUαjUαi.\displaystyle|N|^{2}\Big{(}2\sum_{i}|U_{\beta i}|^{2}|U_{\alpha i}|^{2}(1+\cos(\Delta b^{2}B_{ii}))+\sum_{i,j\neq i}U_{\beta i}U^{*}_{\beta j}U_{\alpha j}U^{*}_{\alpha i}\Big{.}\, (20)
×\displaystyle\times .(exp(iΔmij2A11)+exp(iΔmij2A22)+2cos(Δb2Bij)exp(iΔmij2A12))),\displaystyle\Big{.}\left(\exp(-i\Delta m_{ij}^{2}A_{11})+\exp(-i\Delta m_{ij}^{2}A_{22})+2\cos(\Delta b^{2}B_{ij})\,\exp(-i\Delta m_{ij}^{2}A_{12})\right)\Big{)}\,,

with

|N|2=(2+2i|Uαi|2cos(Δb2Bii))1|N|^{2}=\left(2+2\sum_{i}|U_{\alpha i}|^{2}\cos(\Delta b^{2}B_{ii})\right)^{-1}\, (21)

where Δb122Δb2\Delta b_{12}^{2}\equiv\Delta b^{2}.

Many apparently similar versions of Eq. (20) are available in literature Fornengo et al. (1997); Crocker et al. (2004); Alexandre and Clough (2018), however with some subtle differences. The role of normalization in Eq. (21) has been neglected in Fornengo et al. (1997); Alexandre and Clough (2018) which is very important in understanding the neutrino oscillation interference effects as we show in the following sections. From Eq. (20), it is easy to verify that with the proper normalization, transition and survival probabilities sum up to unity. Since the normalization depends on Δb2\Delta b^{2}, one expects it to be path dependent in general. The normalization in Eq. (21) also depends on the neutrino mixing parameters unlike the one obtained earlier in Crocker et al. (2004). The expression of 𝒫αβlens{\cal P}^{\rm lens}_{\alpha\beta} in Eq. (20) also differs from that obtained in Crocker et al. (2004) where it is assumed to be factorizable into two parts: one which depends only on the neutrino path difference while the other depends solely on the neutrino mass difference. We find that such a factorization is not possible in general. Further, unlike in Alexandre and Clough (2018), the expression in Eq. (20) also captures the oscillation profile in the pre-lensing phase through its dependency on source location rSr_{S}. This is a crucial difference, since taking the flat space limit M0M\rightarrow 0 does not appropriately bring out the dependence on the distance between the source and detector in Alexandre and Clough (2018) and misses out the phase information during its journey from the source to the lens part. Therefore, we can proceed with Eq. (20) to study the dependency of transition on the individual neutrino masses.

IV Absolute neutrino mass dependent effects in lensing: Two flavour case

We now discuss the simplest case of two neutrino flavours in order to understand the qualitative difference that arise through lensing effects. In this case, the probability for νeνμ\nu_{e}\to\nu_{\mu} transition obtained from the general expression Eq. (20) is as the following.

𝒫eμlens\displaystyle{\cal P}^{\rm lens}_{e\mu} =\displaystyle= |N|2sin22α(sin2(Δm2A112)+sin2(Δm2A222).\displaystyle|N|^{2}\sin^{2}2\alpha\,\Big{(}\sin^{2}\left(\Delta m^{2}\frac{A_{11}}{2}\right)+\sin^{2}\left(\Delta m^{2}\frac{A_{22}}{2}\right)\Big{.}\, (22)
\displaystyle- .cos(Δb2B12)cos(Δm2A12)+12cos(Δb2B11)+12cos(Δb2B22)),\displaystyle\Big{.}\cos(\Delta b^{2}B_{12})\,\cos(\Delta m^{2}A_{12})+\frac{1}{2}\cos(\Delta b^{2}B_{11})+\frac{1}{2}\cos(\Delta b^{2}B_{22})\Big{)}\,,

and

|N|2=12(1+cos2αcos(Δb2B11)+sin2αcos(Δb2B22)),|N|^{2}=\frac{1}{2\left(1+\cos^{2}\alpha\cos(\Delta b^{2}B_{11})+\sin^{2}\alpha\cos(\Delta b^{2}B_{22})\right)}, (23)

where Δm2=Δm212\Delta m^{2}=\Delta m_{21}^{2}. The parameters A11,22A_{11,22} and B11,22B_{11,22} can be written in terms of the independent parameters A12A_{12} and B12B_{12} as A11,22=A12XΔb2A_{11,22}=A_{12}\mp X\Delta b^{2} and B11,22=B12XΔm2B_{11,22}=B_{12}\mp X\Delta m^{2} (-sign for 11 and + for 22 components). Here, X=rS+rD8E0rSrDX=\frac{r_{S}+r_{D}}{8E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}. The noteworthy features of the derived lensing probability are:

  1. (1)

    𝒫eμlens{\cal P}^{\rm lens}_{e\mu} does not change under the interchange of b1b_{1} and b2b_{2}. It is therefore an even function of Δb2\Delta b^{2}.

  2. (2)

    Under the interchange of m1m_{1} and m2m_{2}, the probability does not remain the same unless Δb2=0\Delta b^{2}=0 or α=π/4\alpha=\pi/4, due to B11,22B_{11,22} terms. This is in contrast to two flavour oscillation in the flat spacetime in which interchange of m1m_{1}, m2m_{2} implies the same probability. Therefore, Eq. (22) is sensitive to the neutrino mass ordering and lead to different results for Δm2>0\Delta m^{2}>0 and Δm2<0\Delta m^{2}<0222Note that this feature is not reflected in oscillation probability obtained for the two flavour case in Fornengo et al. (1997) as the expression derived there does not include appropriate normalization factor..

  3. (3)

    The lensing probability, 𝒫eμlens{\cal P}^{\rm lens}_{e\mu}, is not only sensitive to the mass ordering but it also explicitly depends on the sum of squared neutrino masses through B12B_{12} in general.

The above features become more clear when Eq. (22) is expanded for small Δb2\Delta b^{2}. Defining a dimensionless parameter ϵΔb2B12\epsilon\equiv\Delta b^{2}B_{12}, and for ϵ1\epsilon\ll 1 Eq. (22) can be approximated as

𝒫eμlens\displaystyle{\cal P}^{\rm lens}_{e\mu} \displaystyle\approx sin22αsin2(Δm2A122)(1ϵ22Δm2m2cos2α+ϵ416Δm2m2\displaystyle\sin^{2}2\alpha\,\sin^{2}\left(\Delta m^{2}\frac{A_{12}}{2}\right)\,\left(1-\frac{\epsilon^{2}}{2}\frac{\Delta m^{2}}{\sum m^{2}}\cos 2\alpha\,+\frac{\epsilon^{4}}{16}\frac{\Delta m^{2}}{\sum m^{2}}\right.\, (24)
×\displaystyle\times (Δm2m2(2cos4α+csc2(Δm2A122))23(1+(Δm2m2)2)cos2α)+𝒪(ϵ6)),\displaystyle\left.\left(\frac{\Delta m^{2}}{\sum m^{2}}\left(2\cos 4\alpha+\csc^{2}\left(\Delta m^{2}\frac{A_{12}}{2}\right)\right)-\frac{2}{3}\left(1+\left(\frac{\Delta m^{2}}{\sum m^{2}}\right)^{2}\right)\cos 2\alpha\right)\,+{\cal O}(\epsilon^{6})\right)\,,

where m2=m12+m22\sum m^{2}=m_{1}^{2}+m_{2}^{2}. Thus, we see that the probability of transition has a clear dependency on m2\sum m^{2} as well, unless one adopts certain very special trajectories which only depend on Δm2\Delta m^{2} (these are non-geodetic in nature generically 333It is easy to verify that Keplerian orbits r(ϕ)=a/(1+ecos(ϕϕ0))r(\phi)=a/(1+e\cos{(\phi-\phi_{0})}) maintain the dependency on m2\sum m^{2}. Therefore, a detector (such as on earth in its orbit around the sun) moving along its geodesic would be sensitive to the individual masses of neutrino through neutrino oscillations.). Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, 𝒫eμlens{\cal P}^{\rm lens}_{e\mu} is sensitive to the sign of Δm2\Delta m^{2} if the mixing angle is not maximal, απ/4\alpha\neq\pi/4. For the maximal case (α=π/4\alpha=\pi/4), the oscillation probability Eq. (24) does not depend on the m2\sum m^{2} at 𝒪(ϵ2){\cal O}(\epsilon^{2}) and the mass dependent lensing effects arise through the higher order terms in ϵ\epsilon. In fact, the absence of signature dependency or order ϵ2\epsilon^{2} effects, for maximal case can be attributed to the normalization Eq. (21) which contributes also in ϵ2\epsilon^{2} order.

The role of normalization has also an observable effect, as with the correct normalization, the total probability of transition and survival of an initial flavor species will add to unity. Generically, the ratio of survival and transition probability, which depends on m2\sum m^{2} and keeps oscillating over the trajectory, provides a natural measurement handle for the masses of the neutrino. As an example, the flipping points, specified by (rD,ϕDer_{D},\phi_{D}^{e}) on the trajectory where the two probabilities become equal, provide the information of m2\sum m^{2} (see Appendix B). For απ/4\alpha\neq\pi/4, we have

m2=16nπE0rSrDZΔb2+16E0rSrDZΔb2cot1(tan(Δm2ZΔb216E0rSrD)G(rS,rD,ϕDe,α,Δm2,Rs)),\displaystyle\sum m^{2}=\frac{16n\pi E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}{Z\Delta b^{2}}+\frac{16E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}{Z\Delta b^{2}}\cot^{-1}\left(\tan\left(\frac{\Delta m^{2}Z\Delta b^{2}}{16E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}\right)G(r_{S},r_{D},\phi_{D}^{e},\alpha,\Delta m^{2},R_{s})\right),
(25)

where G(rS,rD,ϕDe,α,Δm2,Rs)G(r_{S},r_{D},\phi_{D}^{e},\alpha,\Delta m^{2},R_{s}) can take two values G+G_{+} or GG_{-} with

G±(rS,rD,ϕDe,α,Δm2,Rs)\displaystyle G_{\pm}(r_{S},r_{D},\phi_{D}^{e},\alpha,\Delta m^{2},R_{s}) \displaystyle\equiv 2cos2αcos2αsin22αcosζ±sin42αcos2ζ+sin22αcos22α2cos2αcos2α+sin22αcosζsin42αcos2ζ+sin22αcos22α,\displaystyle\frac{2\cos 2\alpha\cos^{2}\alpha-\sin^{2}2\alpha\cos\zeta\pm\sqrt{\sin^{4}2\alpha\cos^{2}\zeta+\sin^{2}2\alpha\cos^{2}2\alpha}}{2\cos 2\alpha\cos^{2}\alpha+\sin^{2}2\alpha\cos\zeta\mp\sqrt{\sin^{4}2\alpha\cos^{2}\zeta+\sin^{2}2\alpha\cos^{2}2\alpha}},

where ++ and - symbols appearing in the expression above through ±\pm belong to G+G_{+} and GG_{-} respectively. Further, ζΔm2(rS+rD+Rs(rS+rD)b2/4rSrD)/2E0\zeta\equiv\Delta m^{2}\left(r_{S}+r_{D}+R_{s}-(r_{S}+r_{D})\sum b^{2}/4r_{S}r_{D}\right)/2E_{0} , Z=rS+rDZ=r_{S}+r_{D} and nn\in\mathbb{Z}. Whereas, for α=π/4\alpha=\pi/4, we simply get

m2=(2n+1)8E0rSrDZΔb2π±Δm2.\sum m^{2}=\frac{(2n+1)8E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}{Z\Delta b^{2}}\pi\pm\Delta m^{2}. (27)

Clearly, the right hand sides of the expressions Eq. (25, 27) for m2\sum m^{2} depend completely on observationally deterministic quantities and hence the identification of flipping point, therefore, gives its value off. Provided with Δm2\Delta m^{2} one thus obtains the individual masses of both the species.

For a quantitative understanding of the mass dependent effects in Eq. (22), it is useful to obtain the impact parameter in terms of the geometrical parameters of the system. A detailed description of lensing phenomena is described in Fig. 1. Consider (x,y)(x^{\prime},y^{\prime}) coordinate system obtained by rotating original (x,y)(x,y) coordinates by angle φ\varphi such that x=xcosφ+ysinφx^{\prime}=x\cos\varphi+y\sin\varphi and y=xsinφ+ycosφy^{\prime}=-x\sin\varphi+y\cos\varphi. In the rotated frame, the angle of deflection of neutrino from its original path with impact parameter bb is obtained as

δyDbxD=2Rsb,\delta\sim\frac{y^{\prime}_{D}-b}{x^{\prime}_{D}}=-\frac{2R_{s}}{b}, (28)

where (xD,yD)(x^{\prime}_{D},y^{\prime}_{D}) is location of the detector. In the second equality we use the expression for δ\delta in weak lensing (|b|Rs|b|\gg R_{s}) limit. Using the identity sinφ=b/rS\sin\varphi=b/r_{S}, we obtain

(2RsxD+byD)1b2rS2=b2(xDrS+1)2RsbyDrS.\left(2R_{s}x_{D}+by_{D}\right)\sqrt{1-\frac{b^{2}}{r_{S}^{2}}}=b^{2}\left(\frac{x_{D}}{r_{S}}+1\right)-\frac{2R_{s}by_{D}}{r_{S}}\,. (29)

Solutions of the above equation give the impact parameters in terms of the geometrical parameters such as rSr_{S}, RsR_{s} and the lensing location (xD,yD)(x_{D},y_{D}). In equatorial plane (θ=π/2)(\theta=\pi/2) and for yDxDy_{D}\ll x_{D}, the solutions of the above equation imply

b24RsxD(1+yD24RsxD),Δb2yD8RsxD(1+yD216RsxD).\sum b^{2}\approx 4R_{s}x_{D}\left(1+\frac{y_{D}^{2}}{4R_{s}x_{D}}\right)\,,~~~\Delta b^{2}\approx-y_{D}\sqrt{8R_{s}x_{D}}\,\left(1+\frac{y_{D}^{2}}{16R_{s}x_{D}}\right)\,. (30)

We now analyse the two flavour case by evaluating the oscillation probability given in Eq. (22) through solving Eq. (29) numerically in the equatorial plane. The values of geometrical parameters are chosen to simulate the Sun-Earth system in which the Sun is taken as the gravitational lens while the Earth represents the location of the detector. We assume a circular trajectory for the Earth around the Sun (with xD=rDcosϕx_{D}=r_{D}\cos\phi, yD=rDsinϕy_{D}=r_{D}\sin\phi) and take rD=108r_{D}=10^{8} km, Rs=3R_{s}=3 km. The source of neutrinos is assumed to be located at rS=105rDr_{S}=10^{5}\,r_{D} on the opposite side of the Sun and it emits relativistic neutrinos with common E0=10E_{0}=10 MeV. In our analysis, we compute 𝒫eμlens{\cal P}^{\rm lens}_{e\mu} only for those values of b1,2b_{1,2} which justify the approximation, Rsb1,2rDR_{s}\ll b_{1,2}\ll r_{D}, used while deriving Eq. (13) and Eq. (29). The results are displayed in Figs. 2, 3 and 4444 For prediction in a realistic settings, one will also need to account for the matter interaction effects once the neutrino passes through the sun, since b<Rsunb<R_{sun}. Such matter interaction inside the sun is already studied, see e.g. Smirnov (2005). For realizing pure Schwarzschild solution discussed here, one needs to move slightly farther on the x-axis i.e. increase xDx_{D}. . In these figures, we explore the neutrino flavour conversion over azimuthal angle ϕ\phi over the range of 0.002 radians, which corresponds to roughly 3 hours into the trajectory of the earth around the sun.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 2: Probability of νeνμ\nu_{e}\to\nu_{\mu} conversion as function of azimuthal angle ϕ\phi for the normal and inverted ordering of neutrino masses in the two flavour case. Here, Rs=3R_{s}=3 km, rD=108r_{D}=10^{8} km, rS=105rDr_{S}=10^{5}r_{D} and E0=10E_{0}=10 MeV. The lightest neutrino is assumed to be massless.
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 3: Probability of νeνμ\nu_{e}\to\nu_{\mu} conversion as function of azimuthal angle ϕ\phi for different different values of m1m_{1} and for Δm2>0\Delta m^{2}>0. Here, Rs=3R_{s}=3 km, rD=108r_{D}=10^{8} km, rS/rD=105r_{S}/r_{D}=10^{5} and E0=10E_{0}=10 MeV.
Refer to caption
Figure 4: Contours of νeνμ\nu_{e}\to\nu_{\mu} conversion probability in the presence of gravitational lensing for Rs=3R_{s}=3 km, rD=108r_{D}=10^{8} km, rS=105rDr_{S}=10^{5}\,r_{D} and E0=10E_{0}=10 MeV. Here, (xD,yD)(x_{D},y_{D}) is location of observer in equatorial plane.

The dependence of conversion probability on the neutrino mass ordering for non-maximal α\alpha is shown in Fig. 2. Away from ϕ=0\phi=0, the observer is not in the same line of the source and gravitational object which give rise to different probabilities for normal and inverted mass orderings. For α<π/4\alpha<\pi/4, the inverted ordering always corresponds to relatively increased conversion probability than that of the normal ordering. This is due to the fact that B11<B22B_{11}<B_{22} in Eq. (22) for inverted ordering enhances 𝒫eμlens{\cal P}^{\rm lens}_{e\mu} for α<π/4\alpha<\pi/4. This trend gets reversed if α>π/4\alpha>\pi/4 as Eq. (22) is invariant under simultaneous transformations, m1,2m2,1m_{1,2}\to m_{2,1} and απ/2α\alpha\to\pi/2-\alpha. It is clear that if the mixing angle is different from π/4\pi/4, one can infer the neutrino mass ordering from the lensing effects even in two flavour case in contrast to the standard neutrino oscillations in vacuum without lensing. On the paths independent of m2\sum m^{2}, e.g. along ϕ=0\phi=0, the probabilities depend upon (and thus reveal) the standard neutrino oscillation parameters (path length, Δm2\Delta m^{2}, energy). However, as discussed above, there are other paths which carry imprint of absolute masses as well as the signature of Δm2\Delta m^{2} depending upon the mixing angle. Thus, overall observation of probabilities along various directions in the plane of lensing is quite resourceful for neutrino physics.

The lensing of neutrinos is not only sensitive to the neutrino mass ordering but it can also shed light on the absolute mass scale of the neutrinos. As it is shown in Fig. 3, for fixed α\alpha and Δm2\Delta m^{2}, the probability itself oscillates as one goes further from ϕ=0\phi=0. The frequency of these oscillations depend on the absolute mass scale of the neutrino. We find that the probability oscillates slowly for hierarchical neutrinos, i.e. m1Δm2m_{1}\ll\sqrt{\Delta m^{2}}, when compared to the case when neutrinos are almost degenerate, i.e. m1>Δm2m_{1}\>\raisebox{-4.73611pt}{$\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\textstyle>}}{{\sim}}$}\>\sqrt{\Delta m^{2}}. This qualitative feature is more or less independent from the specific values of α\alpha and Δm2\Delta m^{2} as it can be seen from Fig. 3. In the two flavour case, it is therefore possible to infer the absolute neutrino masses by measuring the neutrino transition or survival probabilities with respect to the angle ϕ\phi.

We also show the probability distribution as function of (xD,yD)(x_{D},y_{D}) in equatorial plane in Fig. 4. The values of yDy_{D} and xDx_{D} are chosen such that they satisfy the weak lensing limit. As it is expected, the maxima and minima of the probability along yD=0y_{D}=0 line do not depend on the absolute value of neutrino masses. The lensing effect however give rises to different frequencies of maxima and minima of oscillation probabilities for different values of absolute neutrino mass as one deviates from yD=0y_{D}=0.

V Three flavour case: Numerical Results

In this section, we report results obtained for neutrino lensing in the three flavour case. The geometrical setup and the values of parameters used are same as in the two flavour case discussed in the previous section. For neutrino masses and mixing parameters, we use the values from the latest fit (NuFIT 4.1 (2019)) of neutrino oscillation data Esteban et al. (2019). These are Δm212=7.39×105eV2\Delta m_{21}^{2}=7.39\times 10^{-5}~{\rm eV}^{2}, θ12=33.82\theta_{12}=33.82^{\circ}, Δm312=2.523×103eV2\Delta m_{31}^{2}=2.523\times 10^{-3}~{\rm eV}^{2} (Δm322=2.510×103eV2\Delta m_{32}^{2}=-2.510\times 10^{-3}~{\rm eV}^{2}), θ23=48.3\theta_{23}=48.3^{\circ} (θ23=48.8\theta_{23}=48.8^{\circ}), θ13=8.61\theta_{13}=8.61^{\circ} (θ13=8.64\theta_{13}=8.64^{\circ}), δCP=222\delta_{\rm CP}=222^{\circ} (δCP=282\delta_{\rm CP}=282^{\circ}) for normal (inverted) ordering. The mixing matrix UU in three flavour case is evaluated using these mixing parameters and used to obtain the oscillation probabilities using Eq. (20) in equatorial plane. We compute conversion probabilities for νeνμ\nu_{e}\to\nu_{\mu}, νμντ\nu_{\mu}\to\nu_{\tau} and νeντ\nu_{e}\to\nu_{\tau} for normal and inverted ordering and for two values of the lightest neutrino masses in each case. The results are shown in Fig. 5.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 5: Probability of νανβ\nu_{\alpha}\to\nu_{\beta} conversion, for different α\alpha and β\beta, as function of azimuthal angle ϕ\phi in three flavour case. We take Rs=3R_{s}=3 km, rD=108r_{D}=10^{8} km, rS=105rDr_{S}=10^{5}r_{D} and E0=10E_{0}=10 MeV. The values of neutrino mass squared differences, mixing angle and the Dirac CP phase are taken from the latest (NuFIT 4.1 (2019)) global fit Esteban et al. (2019).

It can be noticed that the frequency of the oscillations of probabilities increases as the lightest neutrino mass is increased from 0 to 0.05 eV in both the cases of normal and inverted ordering. This is qualitatively in agreement with the two flavour case. Unlike in the two flavour case, one obtains different values of transition probabilities for normal and inverted ordering even for ϕ=0\phi=0. Different 𝒫αβ{\cal P}_{\alpha\beta} then oscillate differently for nonzero ϕ\phi as it can be seen from Fig. 5. The mass of the lightest neutrino in both the cases can be inferred by measuring the frequency of the oscillation of transition probabilities.

Throughout this paper, the neutrino wave functions are assumed plane waves. A more realistic treatment of the neutrino oscillations would involve wave packet approach in which neutrinos are produced and detected as wave packets of finite sizes in the position space Giunti and Kim (1998); Akhmedov and Smirnov (2009, 2011). This can give rise to decoherence of neutrinos when propagation over long distances is involved which ultimately leads to wash-out of the flavour oscillations. In flat spacetime and for the gaussian wave packets, the length over which neutrinos maintain coherence is typically given by

Lcoh42σxE02/|Δmij2|,L_{\rm coh}\simeq 4\sqrt{2}\sigma_{x}E_{0}^{2}/|\Delta m_{ij}^{2}|\,, (31)

where, σx2σxS2+σxD2\sigma_{x}^{2}\equiv\sigma_{xS}^{2}+\sigma_{xD}^{2}. Here, σxS\sigma_{xS} represents the position space width of the neutrino wave packet produced at the source while σxD\sigma_{xD} denotes the same for the neutrino at the detector Giunti and Kim (1998). The same expression of coherence length continues to hold in the case of Schwarzschild geometry but with the flat spacetime distance LcohL_{\rm coh} replaced by coordinate distance Chatelain and Volpe (2019).

Following these results we find that the coherence condition, in the weak gravity limit, is given by

(rS+rD)(1b22rSrD+2GMrS+rD)<42σxE02|Δmij2|.(r_{S}+r_{D})\left(1-\frac{b^{2}}{2r_{S}r_{D}}+\frac{2GM}{r_{S}+r_{D}}\right)\,<\,\frac{4\sqrt{2}\sigma_{x}E_{0}^{2}}{|\Delta m_{ij}^{2}|}\,. (32)

Further, the terms of 𝒪(b2rSrD){\cal O}\left(\frac{b^{2}}{r_{S}r_{D}}\right) and 𝒪(GMrS+rD){\cal O}\left(\frac{GM}{r_{S}+r_{D}}\right) in the above are negligible for the weak lensing cases. Therefore, the treatment of decoherence of neutrinos in the presence of weak lensing is similar to that in flat spacetime. For the typical values of parameters considered in the paper, i.e. rS+rD1013r_{S}+r_{D}\simeq 10^{13} km, E010E_{0}\simeq 10 MeV and |Δmij2|103|\Delta m_{ij}^{2}|\simeq 10^{-3} eV2, one obtains σx1.8\sigma_{x}\simeq 1.8 cm. Using σxσp\sigma_{x}\sigma_{p}\sim\hbar where σp\sigma_{p} is the width of neutrino wave packet in the momentum space, the above value of σx\sigma_{x} would imply neutrino wave packets with σp/p𝒪(1011)\sigma_{p}/p\lesssim{\cal O}(10^{-11}) at the source and detector in order to satisfy the coherence condition, Eq. (32). Therefore, this would require very precise information about the energies or meomenta of particles involved in the production and detection processes of neutrinos.

VI Conclusions

Neutrino flavour oscillation in flat spacetime is known to depend on the difference between the squared masses and not on the individual masses of neutrinos. We show that weak gravitational lensing of neutrinos modifies this standard picture drastically. The oscillation probabilities evaluated in the presence of lensing introduces novel effects which depend on the absolute neutrino mass scale in general. We demonstrate this explicitly considering a Schwarzschild mass as a gravitational source for lensing, while the source and detector for neutrinos are kept at finite distances from it. In the presence of Schwarzschild mass, the neutrinos produced at source take more than one classical path to reach to the detector through weak lensing, as justified by the Eikonal approximation. Neutrinos travelling along different trajectories develop different phases which give rise to interference at the location of the detector. We show that the phase difference not only depends on difference of squared neutrino masses but also depends on the individual neutrino masses in general. The dependency on the individual neutrino masses survives for wide class of trajectories of the detector including the geodesic ones. Therefore, the detectors situated on the Keplerian orbits around the Schwarzschild mass will be capable of revealing the absolute mass of neutrinos through measurements of flavour transition probabilities.

We derive the general expression of interference of oscillation probability, valid in the weak lensing limit, for NN neutrino flavours and arbitrary number of paths. We study the interference pattern in detail considering the equatorial plane for simplicity in which neutrinos are confined to travel along two trajectories. For N=2N=2, we show that the lensing probability is sensitive to the sign of Δm2\Delta m^{2} unlike in the case of standard neutrino oscillation in vacuum. Further, it also depends on the individual masses when source, gravitating object and detector are not collinear. flavour transition or survival probabilities oscillate as a result of interference when the detector moves away from the collinear axis. The frequency of these oscillations of probabilities depend on the absolute mass scale of neutrinos. We find that the hierarchical neutrinos, i.e. m1m2m_{1}\ll m_{2}, give rise to slower oscillations of probability in comparison to the case when they are almost degenerate, i.e. m1m2m_{1}\simeq m_{2}. We study these effects quantitatively considering the sun-earth like system in which the sun plays role of Schwarzschild mass for neutrinos coming from a distant source. We also give numerical results for N=3N=3 which also captures the qualitative effects of lensing obtained in the case of two flavours. All these novel effects are indeed gravitationally induced as they vanish in the flat space (Rs0R_{s}\to 0) limit. We, therefore conclude that the study of effects of gravitation in the standard analysis of neutrino oscillations can be very resourceful and informative.

Although our results reveal some very non-trivial aspects of neutrino oscillation in the presence of gravitational lensing, a more careful realistic treatment would be required before they can be used for real experimental tests. Firstly, we have adopted the standard practice of using quantum mechanical treatment for the neutrinos in the present study. However, justifiably a quantum field theoretic treatment Grimus et al. (1999); Kobach et al. (2018); Grimus (2019) would be more appropriate. Such a treatment would take into account the mode propagation and will take us out of the limitation of Eikonal validity of using classical trajectories. It may also provide insight to novel phenomenon of gravitational particle creation and the resulting mixing of flavour as well as energy modes due to this particle creation Blasone et al. (2017, 2018a); Cozzella et al. (2018); Blasone et al. (2018b, 2020), etc.. A more realistic treatment of neutrino oscillation with/without lensing should consider the wave packet approach. This, however, relies on the details of the exact mechanisms of neutrino production and detection. As mentioned earlier, such a treatment naturally accounts for the decoherence effects and washing out of oscillation. A detailed study addressing all the above aspects is beyond the scope of this paper and it should be taken up elsewhere.

Acknowledgements.
The authors thank Subhendra Mohanty and T. Padmanabhan for careful readings of the manuscript and for useful comments. We also thank Pratibha Jangra for helpful discussions. The authors thank Hrishikesh Chakrabarty for pointing out an error in one of the expressions in the previous version. HS would like to thank Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), India for the financial support through research fellowship Award No. 09/947(0081)/2017-EMR-1. Research of KL is partially supported by the Department of Science and Technology (DST) of the Government of India through a research grant under INSPIRE Faculty Award (DST/INSPIRE/04/2016/000571). KMP is partially supported by a research grant under INSPIRE Faculty Award (DST/INSPIRE/04/2015/000508) from the DST, Government of India. HS and KL are also grateful towards the hospitality of Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, where part of this work was carried out.

Appendix A Eikonal Approximation

The classical Hamilton Jacobi function S(x,p)=pμ𝑑xμS(x,p)=\int p_{\mu}dx^{\mu} satisfies S/xμ=pμ\partial S/\partial x^{\mu}=p_{\mu}. Therefore, classically we have,

pμpμ=m2gμνSxμSxνm2=0.p_{\mu}p^{\mu}=m^{2}\Rightarrow g^{\mu\nu}\frac{\partial S}{\partial x^{\mu}}\frac{\partial S}{\partial x^{\nu}}-m^{2}=0. (33)

On the other hand the squared Dirac equation satisfies,

[μμ+m2]ψ=0.\left[\partial_{\mu}\partial^{\mu}+m^{2}\right]\psi=0. (34)

If the wavefunction is taken as ψ=eiS/\psi=e^{iS/\hbar} then

[gμνSxμSxνigμνμνSm2]ψ=0.\left[g^{\mu\nu}\frac{\partial S}{\partial x^{\mu}}\frac{\partial S}{\partial x^{\nu}}-i\hbar g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}S-m^{2}\right]\psi=0. (35)

Therefore, as long as

gμνμνSgμνμSνS1,\frac{\hbar g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}\partial_{\nu}S}{g^{\mu\nu}\partial_{\mu}S\partial_{\nu}S}\ll 1,

the classical SS is a good approximation for the phase of the neutrino. For the massless case SS is identically zero and therefore one needs to evaluate the ratio in the limit of small mass mm. Since for a massive particle

S=Φ(r)=m22E[rS+rb2(rS+r)2rSr+2GM],S=\Phi(r)=\frac{m^{2}}{2E}\left[r_{S}+r-\frac{b^{2}(r_{S}+r)}{2r_{S}r}+2GM\right], (36)

a naive estimate suggests that the Eikonal approximation will be valid as long as at all the points (rr) along the path, the condition

(12GMr)2Eb2r31,\left(1-\frac{2GM}{r}\right)\frac{\hbar}{2E}\frac{b^{2}}{r^{3}}\ll 1, (37)

is satisfied. This becomes increasingly valid in weak lensing limit.

Appendix B Observable sensitive to the individual masses: Angle of flavour flipping

An interesting aspect of the transition probability is that in two flavour case Eq. (22), there exists a point where the transition probability from species α\alpha to β\beta becomes equal to its survival probability αα\alpha\rightarrow\alpha. In other words, one of these two processes remain dominant over some portion of trajectories (indicated by angle ϕ\phi in the geodesic trajectory of the earth around the sun in sun-earth system) and then become sub dominant for some other portion. In principle this flipping over occurs multiple times in a trajectory. Therefore, this angle of flipping over (an observable) also carries an imprint of m2\sum m^{2} which we can utilize and find out the absolute masses. Flipping occurs at point when probability transition and survival probability become equal. For two flavour case, the survival probability is obtained as,

Pαα=4N2(cos4αcos2(m12ZΔb28E0rSrD)+sin4αcos2(m22ZΔb28E0rSrD)\displaystyle P_{\alpha\rightarrow\alpha}=4N^{2}\Bigg{(}\cos^{4}\alpha\cos^{2}\left(m_{1}^{2}\frac{Z\Delta b^{2}}{8E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}\right)+\sin^{4}\alpha\cos^{2}\left(m_{2}^{2}\frac{Z\Delta b^{2}}{8E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}\right)
+2sin2αcos2αcos(m12ZΔb28E0rSrD)cos(m22ZΔb28E0rSrD)cosζ),\displaystyle+2\sin^{2}\alpha\cos^{2}\alpha\cos\left(m_{1}^{2}\frac{Z\Delta b^{2}}{8E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}\right)\cos\left(m_{2}^{2}\frac{Z\Delta b^{2}}{8E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}\right)\cos\zeta\Bigg{)}, (38)

and the transition probability expression (22) can be cast as

Pαβ=4N2sin2αcos2α(cos2(m12ZΔb28E0rSrD)+cos2(m22ZΔb28E0rSrD)\displaystyle P_{\alpha\rightarrow\beta}=4N^{2}\sin^{2}\alpha\cos^{2}\alpha\Bigg{(}\cos^{2}\left(m_{1}^{2}\frac{Z\Delta b^{2}}{8E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}\right)+\cos^{2}\left(m_{2}^{2}\frac{Z\Delta b^{2}}{8E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}\right)
2cos(m12ZΔb28E0rSrD)cos(m22ZΔb28E0rSrD)cosζ),\displaystyle-2\cos\left(m_{1}^{2}\frac{Z\Delta b^{2}}{8E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}\right)\cos\left(m_{2}^{2}\frac{Z\Delta b^{2}}{8E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}\right)\cos\zeta\Bigg{)}, (39)

where ζΔm22E0(Z+RsZb24rSrD)\zeta\equiv\frac{\Delta m^{2}}{2E_{0}}\left(Z+R_{s}-\frac{Z\sum b^{2}}{4r_{S}r_{D}}\right) and Z=rS+rDZ=r_{S}+r_{D}. Therefore, the condition for flipping over is obtained as

cos2αcos2αcos(m12ZΔb28E0rSrD)cos(m22ZΔb28E0rSrD)cos2αsin2αcos(m22ZΔb28E0rSrD)cos(m12ZΔb28E0rSrD)+sin22αcosζ=0.\cos 2\alpha\cos^{2}\alpha\frac{\cos\left(m_{1}^{2}\frac{Z\Delta b^{2}}{8E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}\right)}{\cos\left(m_{2}^{2}\frac{Z\Delta b^{2}}{8E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}\right)}-\cos 2\alpha\sin^{2}\alpha\frac{\cos\left(m_{2}^{2}\frac{Z\Delta b^{2}}{8E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}\right)}{\cos\left(m_{1}^{2}\frac{Z\Delta b^{2}}{8E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}\right)}+\sin^{2}2\alpha\cos\zeta=0. (40)

For απ/4\alpha\neq\pi/4, the above equation can be inverted as

m2=16nπE0rSrDZΔb2+16E0rSrDZΔb2cot1(tan(Δm2ZΔb216E0rSrD)G(rS,rD,ϕ,α,Δm2,Rs)),\displaystyle\sum m^{2}=\frac{16n\pi E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}{Z\Delta b^{2}}+\frac{16E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}{Z\Delta b^{2}}\cot^{-1}\left(\tan\left(\frac{\Delta m^{2}Z\Delta b^{2}}{16E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}\right)G(r_{S},r_{D},\phi,\alpha,\Delta m^{2},R_{s})\right),
(41)

where

G(rS,rD,ϕ,α,Δm2,Rs)\displaystyle G(r_{S},r_{D},\phi,\alpha,\Delta m^{2},R_{s}) \displaystyle\equiv 2cos2αcos2αsin22αcosζ±sin42αcos2ζ+sin22αcos22α2cos2αcos2α+sin22αcosζsin42αcos2ζ+sin22αcos22α.\displaystyle\frac{2\cos 2\alpha\cos^{2}\alpha-\sin^{2}2\alpha\cos\zeta\pm\sqrt{\sin^{4}2\alpha\cos^{2}\zeta+\sin^{2}2\alpha\cos^{2}2\alpha}}{2\cos 2\alpha\cos^{2}\alpha+\sin^{2}2\alpha\cos\zeta\mp\sqrt{\sin^{4}2\alpha\cos^{2}\zeta+\sin^{2}2\alpha\cos^{2}2\alpha}}.

Similarly, for α=π/4\alpha=\pi/4 we get

(cos(m2ZΔb28E0rSrD)+cos(Δm2ZΔb28E0rSrD))cosζ=0.\left(\cos\left(\frac{\sum m^{2}Z\Delta b^{2}}{8E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}\right)+\cos\left(\frac{\Delta m^{2}Z\Delta b^{2}}{8E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}\right)\right)\cos\zeta=0. (43)

Flipping point is given by above equation when either first term or second term is zero, or both. If we find point where first term if zero then, we have

m2=(2n+1)8E0rSrDZΔb2π±Δm2,\sum m^{2}=\frac{(2n+1)8E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}{Z\Delta b^{2}}\pi\pm\Delta m^{2}, (44)

since the cosine term is symmetric under Δm2Δm2\Delta m^{2}\to-\Delta m^{2}. Therefore,

m1,22=((2n+1)8E0rSrDZΔb2)π2.m_{1,2}^{2}=\left(\frac{(2n+1)8E_{0}r_{S}r_{D}}{Z\Delta b^{2}}\right)\frac{\pi}{2}. (45)

For cosζ=0,\cos\zeta=0, we cannot determine value of m2\sum m^{2} because ζ\zeta only involves Δm2,E0\Delta m^{2},E_{0} and other terms which involves geometrical points and geometry. As can be seen, in Eq. (41) and Eq. (44) all the direct observable quantities are on the right hand sides, while n𝒵n\in\mathcal{Z}. Thus, the observation of flip angle ϕ\phi for known rS,rD,α,E0,Rs and Δm2r_{S},r_{D},\alpha,E_{0},R_{s}\text{ and }\Delta m^{2} will reveal m2\sum m^{2} (upto an ambiguity due to undetermined value of nn, which have to settled through some independent observations such as Roy Choudhury and Choubey (2018)) which along with information of Δm2\Delta m^{2} can give the absolute masses of the neutrinos.

References