English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

In [Phys. Lett. B 780, 216 (2018)], Capolupo et al. calculate the noncyclicgeometric phases associated with neutrino flavor transitions in thetwo-neutrino scenario, and claim that the results depend on the choice ofrepresentations of neutrino mixing matrix thus can be use to distinguishbetween Dirac and Majorana neutrinos. In this paper, we show that theircalculation is flawed due to incorrect application of the definition ofnoncyclic geometric phase and the omission of one term in Wolfenstein effectiveHamiltonian. Their results are neither gauge invariant nor lepton fieldrephasing invariant. We present an alternative calculation, which is solely inorder to demonstrate that the Majorana CP-violating phase enters the geometricphase essentially by lepton field rephasing transformation. We point out thatthe seemingly nontrivial dependence of geometric phase on Majorana CP-violatingphase presented in [Phys. Lett. B 780, 216 (2018)] is unphysical and thusunmeasurable.

Comment on: "Geometric phase of neutrinos: differences between Dirac and Majorana neutrinos" [Phys. Lett. B 780, 216 (2018)]