Talk:Neutral particle oscillation

message: A list of those neutral particles for which this phenomenon can occur would be nice. Or is it possible for all of them? According to this article and my knowledge, it's possible for neutral kaons, B mesons and neutrinos. But what about neutrons, for example? --129.70.15.51 (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutron anti-neutron oscillations would violate baryon number conservation.  If observed, it would be evidence of physics beyond the Standard model.  See for instance: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.1877 --Tim314 (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which particles? 

message: I plan to include the following as I go about improving the page:
* Rabi Oscillations as a general property of any oscillatory two state system
* Inferences about suitable length scales for the system from the above
* Flavor oscillations of neutral particles
* Types of CP violation in neutral Kaon systems as a consequence of oscillation
* Discuss about the symmetries in two state systems and their corresponding commutator relations
* A very brief discussion on generalization to three state systems and how the CKM/PMNS matrices arise as a result
I'll be editing this page over the span of a month or so. You might find certain incomplete or unexplained sections occasionally. So please bear with me till I complete editing.
Any query, suggestion or constructive criticism will be extremely appreciated.
— Soham92 (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read through the article. Very nice work! Compared to the March version of this article, a huge improvement. The mathematical modeling sections are pretty clear and the notation well-explained. Stepping back from the details, I think what this article could use now is some introductory explanation, motivation and impact near the start of the article. Why should a reader care about neutral particle oscillations? Are they useful or important scientifically? What is the history of these--how were they discovered? What impact does this theory have on our understanding of the world? Ideally it would be good to give a qualitative explanation of the phenomenon, say at the level of Scientific American, that someone without detailed knowledge of the mathematics of quantum mechanics could grasp. Talking about neutral oscillations in the context of the the solar neutrino problem or CP violation in kaons, for instance, would help indicate the importance of these oscillations. --Mark viking (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement of the page 

message: I interact on the physics side of things rarely, and in general I find the greater collection of physics articles to be of poor quality. They are generally written using lots of jargon that isn't explained. Math articles are even worse, but that's little consolation. So with that in mind, I started reading this, and right off the bat:
"In particle physics, neutral particle oscillation is the transmutation of a particle with zero electric charge into another neutral particle due to a change of a non-zero internal quantum number via an interaction that does not conserve that quantum number."
Generally the lede should be written so anyone can read it and get a basic idea of what the article is about. This is a good example of a statement that cannot be understood unless you're already familiar with the topic. For instance, what is this "internal quantum number"? Why do I need to know that now? What does and does not conserve it? What is the difference between zero electric charge and neutral (note the way it's worded suggests they are not the same thing)? Here's a possible example of the same basic statement written in more general language...
"In particle physics, neutral particle oscillation refers to a number of possible quantum mechanical effects that convert one type of electrically neutral particle into another."
That really does capture the essence of the topic, no? Everything else in the lede, unless I'm mistaken, is a variation on that statement. For instance, "change of a non-zero internal quantum number" seems like a given, because that's the definition of "type" in this case - unless I'm missing what you're saying here. And then you add "For example, a neutron cannot transmute into an antineutron as that would violate the conservation of baryon number." but this is not an example, it's an example of something that doesn't happen, which just confuses things. So perhaps this is a clearer version with the same basic information and a concrete example:
"In particle physics, neutral particle oscillation refers to a number of possible (actions|events|hmmm???) that convert one type of electrically neutral particle into another. Perhaps the best known example is the oscillation from electron-neutrinos back and forth to muon-neutrinos, an oscillation who's experimental discovery in the 1990s solved a longstanding problem in physics known as the solar neutrino problem."
Now that's fine and all, but it's lacking in depth. Are these a common thing? Not common? Let's attack that...
"There are very few types of oscillations in comparison to the wide variety of (actions|events|hmmm???) that also cause the charge of the particle to change. [insert one or two examples of charge changing events here]. In contrast, there are only two common types of neutral oscillations:" [insert existing list here]
Now, how to conclude the lede? Well the rest of the stuff that's there now isn't really about this topic at all, and I recommend removing them entirely. But then what to add, if anything? Are there other possible cases that are not seen in nature? Some interesting physics that comes about because of them? Lots of possibilities here...
Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some notes... 

message: I am currently studying for a flavor physics exam and thought about checking out the wikipedia page on the oscillations of neutral mesons. The definitions of the CP eigensates of the neutral Kaons, K_1 and K_2, are mixed up. By that I mean that K1 should be "K0 - K0bar" and K2 should be "K0 + K0bar". The "+" and "-" should change places. This should be evident when applying the CP operator, because the "K1" should have a CP eigenvalue of "+1" and for that you need the "-", because "CP |K0> = -|K0bar>". I have looked at textbooks for sources and some got it right, but even some modern textbooks have gotten it wrong (maybe they copied it from here ;)). My best source be would be my lecture this semester and my own application of the CP operator, but I don't know if this is sufficient for Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elimik31 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: For a general quark-flavour eigenstate \psi, you have CP|\psi\rangle = e^{+i\phi}|\overline{\psi}\rangle and CP|\overline{\psi}\rangle = e^{-i\phi}|\psi\rangle where \phi is some arbitrary unobservable phase.http://pdg.lbl.gov/2016/reviews/rpp2016-rev-cp-violation.pdf The solutions to e^{+i\phi}=-1 and e^{-i\phi}=-1 are identical, so if CP|\overline{K}^0\rangle = -|K^0\rangle then CP|K^0\rangle = -|\overline{K}^0\rangle too. — dukwon (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. I asked my lecturer and he told me as well that the sign chosen for the charge Operator is conventional. Elimik31 (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  CP eigenstates of the neutral Kaons, K_1 and K_2, are mixed up