1 / 47

Flavor ratios in neutrino telescopes for decay and oscillation measurements

Flavor ratios in neutrino telescopes for decay and oscillation measurements. NuPAC meeting Chennai (Mahabalipuram), India April 6, 2009 Walter Winter Universität Würzburg. TexPoint fonts used in EMF: A A A A A A A A. Contents. Motivation The sources The fluxes

mervyn
Download Presentation

Flavor ratios in neutrino telescopes for decay and oscillation measurements

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Flavor ratios in neutrino telescopes for decay and oscillation measurements NuPAC meeting Chennai (Mahabalipuram), India April 6, 2009Walter Winter Universität Würzburg TexPoint fonts used in EMF: AAAAAAAA

  2. Contents • Motivation • The sources • The fluxes • Flavor composition and propagation • The detectors • Flavor ratios, and their limitations • The LBL complementarity • Particle physics applications • Summary and conclusions

  3. galactic extragalactic Neutrino fluxes • Cosmic rays of high energies:Extragalactic origin!? • If protons accelerated, the same sources should produce neutrinos (Source: F. Halzen, Venice 2009)

  4. Different messengers • Shock accelerated protons lead to p, g, n fluxes • p: Cosmic rays:affected by magnetic fields • g: Photons: easily absorbed/scattered • n: Neutrinos: direct path (Teresa Montaruli, NOW 2008)

  5. Different source types • Model-independent constraint:Emax < Z e B R(Lamor-Radius < size of source) • Particles confined to within accelerator! • Interesting source candiates: • GRBs • AGNs • … (Hillas, 1984; Boratav et al. 2000)

  6. Motivation (this talk) What can we learn from neutrinos coming from astrophysical sources about neutrino properties?Especially: Neutrino flavor mixing and decays

  7. The sources Generic cosmic accelerator

  8. From Fermi shock acceleration to n production Example: Active galaxy(Halzen, Venice 2009)

  9. Synchroton radiation • Where do the photons come from?Typically two possibilities: • Thermal photon field (temperature!) • Synchroton radiation from electrons/positrons (also accelerated) ? B Determined by particle‘s minimum energy Emin=m c2(~ (Emin)2 B ) ~ (1-s)/2+1determined by spectral index s of injection (example from Reynoso, Romero, arXiv:0811.1383)

  10. Pion photoproduction Powerlaw injection spectrumfrom Fermishock acc. Multi-pionproduction Differentcharacteristics(energy lossof protons) (Photon energy in nucleon rest frame) Resonant production (Mücke, Rachen, Engel, Protheroe, Stanev, 2008; SOPHIA)

  11. Neutrino production • Described by kinematics of weak decays(see e.g. Lipari, Lusignoli, Meloni, 2007) • Complication:Pions and muons loose energy through synchroton radiation for higher E before they decay – aka „muon damping“ Dashed:no lossesSolid:with losses (example from Reynoso, Romero, arXiv:0811.1383)

  12. The fluxes Single source versus diffuse flux versusstacking

  13. Neutrinos from a single source • Example: GRBs observed by BATSE • Applies to other sources in atmosphericBG-free regime as well … • Conclusion: Most likely no significant statistics with only one source! (Guetta et al, astro-ph/0302524)

  14. Diffuse flux (e.g. AGNs) (Becker, arXiv:0710.1557) • Advantage: optimal statistics (signal) • Disadvantage: Backgrounds(e.g. atmospheric,cosmogenic) Comovingvolume Single sourcespectrum Sourcedistributionin redshift,luminosity Decreasewith luminositydistance

  15. Stacking analysis (Source: IceCube) • Idea: Use multi-messenger approach • Good signal over background ratio, moderate statistics • Limitations: • Redshift only measured for a small sample (BATSE)  Use empirical relationships • A few bursts dominate the rates  Selection effects? (Source: NASA) Coincidence! Neutrino observations(e.g. AMANDA,IceCube, …) GRB gamma ray observations(e.g. BATSE, Fermi-GLAST, …) Extrapolateneutrino spectrumevent by event (Becker et al, astro-ph/0511785;from BATSE satellite data)

  16. Flavor composition and propagation Neutrino flavor mixing

  17. Flavor composition at the source(Idealized) • Astrophysical neutrino sources producecertain flavor ratios of neutrinos (ne:nm:nt): • Pion beam source (1:2:0)Standard in generic models • Muon damped source (0:1:0)Muons loose energy before they decay • Neutron beam source (1:0:0)Neutrino production by photo-dissociationof heavy nulcei • NB: Do not distinguish between neutrinos and antineutrinos

  18. Flavor composition at the source(More realistic) • Flavor composition changes as a function of energy • Pion beam and muon damped sources are the same sources in different energy ranges! • Use energy cuts! (from Kashti, Waxman, astro-ph/0507599;see also: Kachelriess, Tomas, 2006, 2007; Lipari et al, 2007 for more refined calcs)

  19. Neutrino propagation • Key assumption: Incoherent propagation of neutrinos • Flavor mixing: • Example: For q13 =0, q12=p/6, q23=p/4: • NB: No CPV in flavor mixing only!But: In principle, sensitive to Re exp(-i d) ~ cosd • Take into account Earth attenuation! (see Pakvasa review, arXiv:0803.1701, and references therein)

  20. The detection Neutrino telescopes

  21. IceCube • High-E cosmic neutrinos detected with neutrino telescopes • Example: IceCube at south poleDetector material: ~ 1 km3antarctic ice (1 million m3) • Status 2008: 40 of 80 Strings http://icecube.wisc.edu/

  22. Neutrino astronomy in the Mediterranean: Example ANTARES http://antares.in2p3.fr/

  23. Different event types • Muon tracks from nmEffective area dominated!(interactions do not have do be within detector)Relatively low threshold • Electromagnetic showers(cascades) from neEffective volume dominated! • nt: Effective volume dominated • Low energies (< few PeV) typically hadronic shower (nt track not separable) • Higher Energies:nt track separable • Double-bang events • Lollipop events • Glashow resonace for electron antineutrinos at 6.3 PeV t nt nt e ne m nm (Learned, Pakvasa, 1995; Beacom et al, hep-ph/0307025; many others)

  24. Flavor ratios … and their limitations

  25. Definition • The idea: define observables which • take into account the unknown flux normalization • take into account the detector properties • Three observables with different technical issues: • Muon tracks to showers(neutrinos and antineutrinos added)Do not need to differentiate between electromagnetic and hadronic showers! • Electromagnetic to hadronic showers(neutrinos and antineutrinos added)Need to distinguish types of showers by muon content or identify double bang/lollipop events! • Glashow resonance to muon tracks(neutrinos and antineutrinos added in denominator only). Only at particular energy!

  26. Applications of flavor ratios • Can be sensitiveto flavor mixing,neutrino properies • Example: Neutron beam • Many recent works inliterature(e.g. for neutrino mixing and decay: Beacom et al 2002+2003; Farzan and Smirnov, 2002; Kachelriess, Serpico, 2005; Bhattacharjee, Gupta, 2005; Serpico, 2006; Winter, 2006; Majumar and Ghosal, 2006; Rodejohann, 2006; Xing, 2006; Meloni, Ohlsson, 2006; Blum, Nir, Waxman, 2007; Majumar, 2007; Awasthi, Choubey, 2007; Hwang, Siyeon,2007; Lipari, Lusignoli, Meloni, 2007; Pakvasa, Rodejohann, Weiler, 2007; Quigg, 2008; Maltoni, Winter, 2008; Donini, Yasuda, 2008; Choubey, Niro, Rodejohann, 2008; Xing, Zhou, 2008) (Kachelriess, Serpico, 2005)

  27. The limitations • Flavor ratios dependon energy if energylosses of muonsimportant • Distributionsof sources oruncertainties withinone source • Unbalanced statistics:More useful muontracks than showers (Lipari, Lusignoli, Meloni, 2007; see also:Kachelriess, Tomas, 2006, 2007)

  28. Complementarity to long-baseline experiments

  29. Terrestrial neutrino sources There are three possible ways to create neutrinos artificially: • Beta decays: • Example: Nuclear fission reactors • Pion decays: • From accelerators: • Muon decays: • Muons created through pion decays! Reactorexperiments Beams,Superbeams Muons,Neutrinos Pions Neutrinos Protons Target Selection,Focusing Decaytunnel Absorber Neutrinofactory

  30. Reactor experiment: Double Chooz ~ Identical Detectors, L ~ 1.1 km Start: 2009? (Source: S. Peeters, NOW 2008)

  31. Beam experiment: MINOS • Running experiment in the USfor the determination of the atmospheric osc. parameters • Uses pion decays Beam line (Protons) Near detector: 980 t Ferndetektor: 5400 t 735 km Source: MINOS

  32. Narrow band superbeams • Off-axis technology to suppress backgrounds • Beam spectrum more narrow • Examples:T2KNOnA T2K beamOA 1 degreeOA 2 degreesOA 3 degrees (hep-ex/0106019)

  33. Appearance channels • Oscillation probability of interest to measure q13, dCP, mass hierachy (in A) Almost zerofor narrow band superbeams (Cervera et al. 2000; Akhmedov et al., 2004)

  34. Flavor ratios: Approximations • Astro sources for current best-fit values: • Superbeams: (Source: hep-ph/0604191)

  35. Complementarity LBL-Astro • Superbeams have signal ~ sin dCP(CP-odd) • Astro-FLR have signal ~ cos dCP(CP-even) • Complementarity for NBB • However: WBB, neutrino factory have cosd-term! (Winter, 2006) Smallestsensitivity

  36. SB-Reactor-Astrophysical • Complementary information for specific best-fit point:Curves intersect in only one point! (Winter, 2006)

  37. Octant complementarity • In principle, one can resolve the q23 octant with astrophysical sources (Winter, 2006)

  38. Particle physics applications … of flavor ratios

  39. Constraining dCP • No dCP in • Reactor exps • Astro sources(alone) • Combination:May tell something on dCP • Problem: Pion beam has little dCP sensitivity! (Winter, 2006)

  40. Earlier MH measurement? 8 8 (Winter, 2006) R: 10% Mattereffects

  41. Decay scenarios • 23 possibilities for complete decays • Intermediate states integrated out • LMH: Lightest, Middle, Heaviest • I: Invisible state(sterile, unparticle, …) • 123: Mass eigenstate number(LMH depends on hierarchy) 1-a a #7 b H M L ? 1-b (Maltoni, Winter, 2008; see also Beacom et al 2002+2003; Lipari et al 2007; …)

  42. Scenario identification (Maltoni, Winter, 2008) 99% CLallowed regions(present data) R Some informationeven if only ~ 10 useful events!(Pion beam source;L: no of eventsobserved in #1)

  43. Generalized source • Define (fe:fm:ft)=(X:1-X:0) at source (no nt in flux) X=0: Muon damped source X=1/3: Pion beam sourceX=1: Neutron beam source (Maltoni, Winter, 2008)http://theorie.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~winter/Resources/AstroMovies.html

  44. Unknown source/diff. flux • Cumulative flux (X marginalized X<=Xmax) X<=1/3: Cosmic accelerator with arbitrary pion/muon coolingX<=1: Any source without nt production (Maltoni, Winter, 2008)http://theorie.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~winter/Resources/AstroMovies.html

  45. Synergies with terrestrial exps • Pion beam, 100 muon tracks, only m1 stableDouble Chooz + Astrophysical, only R measured! • Independent of flavor composition at source! (Maltoni, Winter, 2008)

  46. Summary and conclusions • In this talk: argumentation from sources via propagation to detection with the purpose of physics applications • Flavor ratio measurements might be complementary to LBL physics if • Neutrinos decay (or have other exotic properties) or • Discovery of High-E neutrino flux within 5-10 years (T2K/NOvA-timescales) and • At least some statistics (esp. in showers)

  47. Discussion • Individual sources: In which cases can we predict the flavor ratio at the source? • Fluxes: If we accumulate statistics, which additional uncertainties enter? • Detector: • Ability to detect showers? • What about double bang and lollipop events? • Timescales: Can we expect some information at the timescale of the upcoming terrestrial experiments? ? Preliminary (Huber, Lindner, Schwetz, Winter, in prep.)

More Related