Failing to Teach Particle Physics
As the Christmas holiday draws to a close and I begin thinking about the possibility that sooner or later, in due course, at some point in the future, in the fullness of time, all things considered, when all is said and done, in the end, I will have to start teaching again. Thinking about this is preferable to thinking about the stack of exam marking that I will have to contend with shortly.
One of the modules I am down to teach in the Spring Semester is particle physics, a subject I haven’t taught for well over a decade, so I have been looking through a box of old notes on the subject. Doing so I remembered that I had to explain neutrino oscillations, a process in which neutrinos (which have three distinct flavour states, associated with the electron, mu and tau leptons) can change flavour as they propagate. It’s quite a weird thing to spring on students who previously thought that lepton number was always conserved so I decided to start with an analogy based on more familiar physics.
A charged fermion such as an electron (or in fact anything that has a magnetic moment, which would include, e.g. the neutron) has spin and, according to standard quantum mechanics, the component of this in any direction can can be described in terms of two basis states, say “up” for the +z-direction and “down” for the opposite (-z) represented schematically like this:
In this example, as long as the particle is travelling through empty space, the probability of finding it with spin “up” is 50%, as is the probability of finding it in the spin “down” state, the probabilities defined by the square of the amplitudes. Once a measurement is made, however, the state collapses into a definite “up” or “down” wherein it remains until something else is done to it. In such a situation one of the coefficients goes to zero and the other is unity.
If, on the other hand, the particle is travelling through a region where there is a magnetic field the “spin-up” and “spin-down” states can acquire different energies owing to the interaction between the magnetic moment of the particle and the magnetic field. This is important because it means the bits of the wave function describing the up and down states evolve at different rates, and this has measurable consequences: measurements made at different positions yield different probabilities of finding the spin pointing in different directions. In effect, the spin vector of the particle performs a sort of oscillation, similar to the classical phenomenon called precession.

The mathematical description of neutrino oscillations is very similar to this, except it’s not the spin part of the wavefunction being affected by an external field that breaks the symmetry between “up” and “down”. Instead the flavour part of the wavefunction is “precessing” because the flavour states don’t coincide with the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian that describes the neutrinoes. For this to happen, however, different neutrino types must have intrinsically different energies (which, in turn, means that the neutrinos must have different masses), in quite a similar way similar to the spin-precession example.
Although this isn’t a perfect analogy I thought it was a good way of getting across the basic idea. Unfortunately, however, when I subsequently asked an examination question about neutrino oscillations I got a significant number of answers that said “neutrino oscillations happen when a neutrino travels through a magnetic field….”.
Sigh.
Neutrinos have no magnetic moment so don’t interact with magnetic fields, you see…
Anyhow, I’m sure there’s more than one reader out there who has had a similar experience with an analogy that wasn’t perhaps as instructive as hoped. Feel free to share through the comments box…

January 7, 2025 at 6:53 pm
I have found that using quotes from Yes, Minister seems to be mostly lost on physicists.
January 7, 2025 at 7:13 pm
I once tried to explain to Year 11 about geostationary orbits so I stood up and put a metre rule on my forehead and turned round to show the tip of the rule was always in the same position.
Come the exam, in answer to ‘what is a geostationary orbit?’, there was more than one ‘it’s a stick attached to the Earth with a satellite on the end..’. Sigh.
January 7, 2025 at 7:24 pm
Well, we have only an observational upper bound on the magnetic moment of neutrinos and IIRC the minimal SM extension would make the moments proportional to the neutrino masses, the mixing of which leads to the oscillation … so maybe the students are merely incorrectly regurgitating what they hear in HEP seminars.
January 7, 2025 at 11:14 pm
I remember way back when the Shoemaker-Levy comet impacted on Jupiter, I was an MSc student in Norway. Several of us discussed that we should urge the national media to cover the event. I contacted the main TV station about it and got called up by a journalist and he wanted me to explain what the dark spots on Jupiter were.
I, rather foolishly, tried to explain with an analogy of a stone being thrown into a muddy pool of water which would cause some underlying mud to float up and make a muddy spot on the top of the pool.
The result: the journalist became completely convinced that Jupiter was covered in mud… I spent ages trying to explain that what I had used was an analogy and no, Jupiter had no muddy surface. He seemed much less inclined to believe my story of a gas planet etc – I never got to know whether they made a piece about it based on my chat – I hope not!
January 8, 2025 at 11:36 am
Not directly related, but as a B.Sc. student, I found it very difficult to understand how a point particle like electron can have spin… Silver atoms in Stern-Gerlach experiment are at least extended objects. Only with Dirac’s equation it was shown to be a consequence of special relativity and no longer required to be added by hand.