A new evaluation of the oscillation time

Alberico, W. M.; Bottino, A.; Molinari, A.

doi:10.1016/0370-2693(82)90493-2

Cited by 35 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this note, we point out a specific error in Nazaruk's derivation. Correcting it, one obtains a limit of the same order of magnitude as given by previous authors [2][3][4] who used potential models for the n-nuclear andn-nuclear dynamics. We also explain in very simple terms the origin of the standard limit.…”

mentioning

confidence: 76%

“…The introduction of real potentials for the n andn does not change the order of magnitude of the result [3,4]. The r.h.s.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…[1] in demonstrating the result for the oversimplified case where then-nuclear dynamics is reduced to just a width factor, H = −iΓ/2, with Γ ∼ 100 MeV being a typical value. The introduction of real potentials for the n andn does not change the order of magnitude of the result [3,4]. The r.h.s.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…

AbstractWe refute a recent claim by Nazaruk that the limits placed on the freespace neutron-antineutron oscillation time τ nn can be improved by many orders of magnitude with respect to the estimate τ nn > 2(T 0 /Γ) 1/2 , where T 0 is a measured limit on the annihilation lifetime of a nucleus and Γ ∼ 100 MeV is a typical antineutron-nucleus annihilation width.In a recent letter [1], Nazaruk claims to have increased the limit obtained from the stability of nuclei on the free-space n →n oscillation time [2][3][4] by 31 orders of magnitude. In view of the startling nature of this claim, it is important to carefully inspect the derivation of this result.

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a recent letter [1], Nazaruk claims to have increased the limit obtained from the stability of nuclei on the free-space n →n oscillation time [2][3][4] by 31 orders of magnitude. In view of the startling nature of this claim, it is important to carefully inspect the derivation of this result.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Limits on the neutron-antineutron oscillation time from the stability of nuclei

1995

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We refute a recent claim by Nazaruk that the limits placed on the freespace neutron-antineutron oscillation time τ nn can be improved by many orders of magnitude with respect to the estimate τ nn > 2(T 0 /Γ) 1/2 , where T 0 is a measured limit on the annihilation lifetime of a nucleus and Γ ∼ 100 MeV is a typical antineutron-nucleus annihilation width.In a recent letter [1], Nazaruk claims to have increased the limit obtained from the stability of nuclei on the free-space n →n oscillation time [2][3][4] by 31 orders of magnitude. In view of the startling nature of this claim, it is important to carefully inspect the derivation of this result. In this note, we point out a specific error in Nazaruk's derivation. Correcting it, one obtains a limit of the same order of magnitude as given by previous authors [2-4] who used potential models for the n-nuclear andn-nuclear dynamics. We also explain in very simple terms the origin of the standard limit.Nazaruk's framework is that of the S matrix in the diagrammatic approach. For neutron-antineutron oscillations in the nucleus, he writes down (Eq. (17) of Ref.[1]) the probability W (t) for the transition at time t aswherenn characterizes the free-space oscillation, and Wn is given by Eq. (12) of Ref.[1] (after noting that Wn = −2iTn ii by comparing Eqs. (16) and (17)):We will follow Ref.[1] in demonstrating the result for the oversimplified case where then-nuclear dynamics is reduced to just a width factor, H = −iΓ/2, with Γ ∼ 100 MeV being a typical value. The introduction of real potentials for the n andn does not change the order of magnitude of the result [3,4]. The r.h.s. of Eq. (2) is easily evaluated, resulting in Wn(t α , t β ) = 2(1 − exp[−Γ(t α − t β )/2]),which replaces Nazaruk's Eq. (18) Wn(t α , t β ) = 1 − exp[−Γ(t α − t β )].1

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 76%

“…The introduction of real potentials for the n andn does not change the order of magnitude of the result [3,4]. The r.h.s.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%