4.7 Article

Can NSI affect non-local correlations in neutrino oscillations?

期刊

EUROPEAN PHYSICAL JOURNAL C
卷 82, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10373-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. SCOAP3

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Non-local correlations in entangled systems can be effectively captured by measures like Bell's inequality violation, but in neutrino systems, the non-local advantage of quantum coherence (NAQC) is found to be a stronger measure. The effects of non standard interaction (NSI) on these measures, including Bell's inequality violation and NAQC, have been analyzed for various experimental setups, showing differences in sensitivity to NSI between the two measures.
Non-local correlations in entangled systems are usually captured by measures such as Bell's inequality violation. It was recently shown that in neutrino systems, a measure of non-local advantage of quantum coherence (NAQC) can be considered as a stronger measure of non-local correlations as compared to the Bell's inequality violation. In this work, we analyze the effects of non standard interaction (NSI) on these measures in the context of two flavour neutrino oscillations for DUNE, MINOS, T2K, KamLAND, JUNO and Daya Bay experimental set-ups. We find that even in the presence of NSI, Bell's inequality violation occurs in the entire energy range whereas the NAQC violation is observed only in some specific energy range justifying the more elementary feature of NAQC. Further, we find that NSI can enhance the violation of NAQC and Bell's inequality parameter in the higher energy range of a given experimental set-up; these enhancements being maximal for the KamLAND experiment. However, the possible enhancement in the violation of the Bell's inequality parameter over the standard model prediction can be up to 11% whereas for NAQC it is 7%. Thus although NAQC is a comparatively stronger witness of nonclassicality, it shows lesser sensitivity to NSI effects in comparison to the Bell's inequality parameter.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据