Determining Neutrino Properties from Supernova Neutrino - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
determining neutrino properties from
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Determining Neutrino Properties from Supernova Neutrino - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jun 15, 2023 438 likes •1.01k views

Determining Neutrino Properties from Supernova Neutrino Detection Supernova Neutrinos Kate Scholberg, Duke University Solvay Workshop, Brussels, November 2017 OUTLINE - Overview of neutrinos from supernovae - The signal - Detection

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Supernova Neutrino Detection

Kate Scholberg, Duke University Solvay Workshop, Brussels, November 2017

Determining Neutrino Properties from Supernova Neutrinos

slide-2
SLIDE 2

OUTLINE

  • Overview of neutrinos

from supernovae

  • The signal
  • Detection
  • Neutrino Physics
  • Absolute mass
  • Mass ordering
  • New physics?
  • Summary
slide-3
SLIDE 3

from flavor,

energy, time structure

  • f burst

What can we learn from the next neutrino burst?

CORE COLLAPSE PHYSICS

explosion mechanism proto nstar cooling, quark matter black hole formation accretion, SASI nucleosynthesis .... ν absolute mass (not competitive) ν mixing from spectra: flavor conversion in SN/Earth (mass ordering)

  • ther ν properties: sterile ν's,

magnetic moment,... axions, extra dimensions, FCNC, ...

NEUTRINO and OTHER PARTICLE PHYSICS

input from neutrino experiments input from photon (GW)

  • bservations

+ EARLY ALERT

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Expected neutrino luminosity and average energy vs time

Vast information in the flavor-energy-time profile

Generic feature:

(may or may not be robust) hEνei < hE¯

νei < hEνxi

  • L. Huedepohl et al.,

PRL 104 251101

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Expected neutrino luminosity and average energy vs time

Vast information in the flavor-energy-time profile

neutronization burst infall neutrino trapping Explosion, SASI cooling on diffusion timescale

Generic feature:

(may or may not be robust) hEνei < hE¯

νei < hEνxi

  • L. Huedepohl et al.,

PRL 104 251101

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Fluxes as a function

  • f time

and energy

νe

¯ νe

νx

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Supernova Neutrino Detectors

Water Scintillator Argon Lead

+ some others (e.g. DM detectors)

νe νe νe νe

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Summary of supernova neutrino detectors

Galactic sensitivity Extragalactic

Detector Type Location Mass (kton) Events @ 10 kpc Status

Super-K Water Japan 32 8000 Running LVD Scintillator Italy 1 300 Running KamLAND Scintillator Japan 1 300 Running Borexino Scintillator Italy 0.3 100 Running IceCube Long string South Pole (600) (106) Running Baksan Scintillator Russia 0.33 50 Running HALO Lead Canada 0.079 20 Running Daya Bay Scintillator China 0.33 100 Running NOνA Scintillator USA 15 3000 Running MicroBooNE Liquid argon USA 0.17 17 Running SNO+ Scintillator Canada 1 300 Under construction DUNE Liquid argon USA 40 3000 Future Hyper-K Water Japan 540 110,000 Future JUNO Scintillator China 20 6000 Future PINGU Long string South pole (600) (106) Future

plus reactor experiments, DM experiments...

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Neutrino interaction thresholds

IBD νe

40Ar

CC νe

16O

CC νµCC CC ES

Require neutral current to see νµ,τ

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Confirmed baseline model... and limits on ν properties ....but still many questions

νe

SN1987A in LMC

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Information on Neutrino Properties from Core Collapse

  • Absolute Neutrino Mass
  • Neutrino Mixing Parameters: Mass Ordering
  • New Neutrino States?

A sampler...

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Neutrino Absolute Mass

u energy-dependent time spread u flavor-dependent delay

Look for:

Expect time of flight delay for massive neutrinos

  • G. Pagliaroli et al., Astropart. Phys. 33, 287 (2010)

mν=0 mν=2 eV

SK@10 kpc

¯ νe

slide-13
SLIDE 13

A more recent study example

J.-S. Lu et al., JCAP 1505, 044 (2015)

JUNO mass sensitivity (20 kton scintillator, low energy threshold) Future SN-based ν mass limits ~improvement over current laboratory limits, but not competitive w/next generation

slide-14
SLIDE 14

|νf =

N

  • i=1

U ∗

fi|νi

sij ≡ sin θij, cij ≡ cos θij

U =   1 c23 s23 −s23 c23     c13 s13e−iδ 1 −s13eiδ c13     c12 s12 −s12 c12 1   ×   eiα1/2 eiα2/2 1  

3 masses m1, m2, m3 (2 mass differences + absolute scale) 3 mixing angles θ23, θ12, θ13 1 CP phase δ (2 Majorana phases) α1, α2

signs of the mass differences matter

Three-flavor neutrino mixing parameters

Parameters of Nature

slide-15
SLIDE 15

The three-flavor picture fits the data well

  • I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, T. Schwetz, 1611.01514v2

Global three-flavor fits to all data

3σ knowledge

~no info ~14% ~9% ~32% ~14% ~11%

slide-16
SLIDE 16

What do we not know about the three-flavor paradigm? basically unknown sign of Δm2 unknown

(ordering

  • f masses)

Is θ23 non-negligibly greater

  • r smaller

than 45 deg?

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Can we learn about CP violation from a supernova? Answer: maybe, but very hard...

A.B. Balantakin, J. Gava and C. Volpe,

  • Phys. Lett. B 662, 396 (2008)
  • Effect of non-zero δ is mainly µτ mixing... unobservable...
  • However if νµ and ντ fluxes differ at neutrinosphere (FCNC?),

get small effects on electron flavor, but in high energy tail where rate is low

SK @ 10 kpc per MeV

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Next on the list to go after experimentally: mass ordering (hierarchy) (sign of Δm2

32)

∆m2

ij ≡ m2 i − m2 j

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Four of the possible ways to get MO Long-baseline beams Atmospheric neutrinos Reactors Supernovae

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Neutrino Mixing for Supernova Neutrinos

Not to scale!

Self-interaction effects* MSW transitions* Mass states MSW in Earth*

*All of these depend on

MO to some extent ... multiple signatures of MO

(although some model-dependence)

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Neutrino Mixing in the Supernova Itself

Self-interaction effects MSW transitions

slide-22
SLIDE 22

shock wave

  • A. Mirizzi et al., Riv. Nuov. Cim., 39, 1 (2016)

Matter potential (km-1) Matter potential ( density) in a supernova vs time

∝

slide-23
SLIDE 23

shock wave

  • A. Mirizzi et al., Riv. Nuov. Cim., 39, 1 (2016)

Matter potential (km-1)

ν-

sphere

Matter potential ( density) in a supernova vs time

∝

slide-24
SLIDE 24

MSW Transitions in Supernova Matter

Normal Ordering Inverted Ordering

  • A. Mirizzi et al., Riv. Nuov. Cim., 39, 1 (2016), G. Raffelt, Proc. Int. Sch. Phys. Ferml, 182, 61 (2012)
  • Mass-ordering-dependent

transition probability for neutrinos and antineutrinos

  • Can be adiabatic,
  • r non-adiabatic at a shock front
slide-25
SLIDE 25

Densities at which MSW effect occurs

MSW effects may turn on and off as the shock propagates

shock wave Matter potential (km-1)

ν-

sphere

Matter potential ( density) in a supernova vs time

∝

slide-26
SLIDE 26

In the proto-neutron star the neutrino density is so high that neutrino-neutrino interactions matter And another effect: “self-interaction effects”

neutrino-electron charged current forward exchange scattering neutrino-neutrino neutral current forward scattering

From G. Fuller “The physics is addictive” -- G. Raffelt

Anisotropic, nonlinear 
 quantum coupling of all 
 neutrino flavor evolution
 histories: “collective effects”

slide-27
SLIDE 27

A consequence: spectral “swaps” or “splits”

  • Depend on flavor flux ratio
  • Can be suppressed by matter density
  • Time-dependent, also affected by shock propagation

Initial fluxes

  • A. Mirizzi et al., Riv. Nuov. Cim., 39, 1 (2016) , S. Chakraborty and A. Mirizzi, PRD 90, 033004 (2014)

Can get spectral flavor conversion above or below specific energy thresholds

Dashed: no osc Red: νx Black: νe

slide-28
SLIDE 28

shock wave Matter potential (km-1)

ν-

sphere

Neutrino- neutrino potentials at different times

Matter potential ( density) in a supernova vs time

∝

slide-29
SLIDE 29

shock wave Matter potential (km-1)

ν-

sphere

Neutrino- neutrino potentials at different times

Matter potential ( density) in a supernova vs time

∝

Self-interaction effects

Self-interaction effects matter where/when ν-ν potential dominates matter potential

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Both MSW and collective effects are complicated... depend on details of the initial fluxes, matter density profile, turbulence, shock wave propagation... MSW is well understood, but self-interaction effects are still under study...

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Both MSW and collective effects are complicated... depend on details of the initial fluxes, matter density profile, turbulence, shock wave propagation... MSW is well understood, but self-interaction effects are still under study... Challenge for theorists is to find robust, model- independent

  • bservables...

challenge for experimentalists is to understand and

  • ptimize observability
slide-32
SLIDE 32

An example of a robust MO signature: the neutronization burst

  • J. Wallace et al., Ap.J., 817, 182 (2016)
  • almost a “standard candle”, ~independent of model
  • strongly dominated by electron flavor
  • ~no collective effects; MSW flavor transitions only

no oscillations

NMO: IMO:

slide-33
SLIDE 33

An example of a robust MO signature: the neutronization burst

  • J. Wallace et al., Ap.J., 817, 182 (2016)

~no collective effects; MSW oscillations only

no oscillations

NMO: IMO:

suppression for IMO, stronger suppression for NMO

è νe strongly suppressed, since ~no νx è νe suppressed by sin2θ12~0.31

slide-34
SLIDE 34

374 kton water NMO: IMO:

An example of a robust MO signature: the neutronization burst

suppression for IMO, stronger suppression for NMO

NMO: IMO: 20 kton scint 40 kton LAr

νe

νe from ES

  • n e-;

also small νe-bar effect

νe from ES

  • n e-;

also small νe-bar effect

Time (s)

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Another somewhat robust example: early time profile

  • A. Mirizzi et al., Riv. Nuov. Cim., 39, 1 (2016),
  • B. T. Janka et al., PTEP 2012, 01A309

NMO: IMO:

Still MSW-dominated (maybe); νe-bar, νx-bar turning on and fairly consistent behavior between models

NMO è νe-bar mostly non-oscillated IMO è νe -bar represents

  • riginal νx-bar flux, which

is lower during accretion, so will be suppressed

νe ¯ νe νx

Different lines represent different 1D “Garching” models

MSW for νe-bar :

slide-36
SLIDE 36

IceCube signal: integrated Cherenkov photons

Early: measured νe dominate, IMO>NMO

Later: measured νe-bar dominate, NMO>IMO

Still MSW-dominated; νe-bar and νx-bar turning on

neutronization accretion:

  • ther flavors

turning on

NMO è νe strongly suppressed, since ~no νx IMO è νe suppressed by sin2θ12~0.3

NMO è νe-bar mostly non-oscillated IMO è νe -bar represents

  • riginal νx-bar flux, which

is lower during accretion

  • A. Mirizzi et al., Riv. Nuov. Cim., 39, 1 (2016), Serpico et al., PRD 85, 085031 (2012)

Another somewhat robust example: early time profile

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Other examples: spectral swaps from self-interaction

Distinctive spectral swap features depend on neutrino mass hierarchy, for neutrinos vs antineutrinos

  • H. Duan & A. Friedland,PRD 106, 091101 (2011)
slide-38
SLIDE 38

Time-dependent shock-wave-induced effects

For NMO (not for IMO), “non-thermal” features clearly visible, and change as shock moves through the SN

10 kpc spectra from A. Friedland/JJ Cherry/H. Duan smeared w/ SNOwGLoBES response w/collective effects Black line: best fit to pinched thermal spectrum

Snapshots at ~ 1 second intervals (1 s integration), 34-kt argon for cooling phase w/ shock, NMO

34 kt 34 kt

Adams et al., arXiv:1307.7335

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Time-dependent shock-wave-induced effects

For NMO (not for IMO), “non-thermal” features clearly visible, and change as shock moves through the SN

10 kpc spectra from A. Friedland/JJ Cherry/H. Duan smeared w/ SNOwGLoBES response w/collective effects Black line: best fit to pinched thermal spectrum

Snapshots at ~ 1 second intervals (1 s integration), 34-kt argon for cooling phase w/ shock, NMO

34 kt 34 kt

Warning: collective effect signatures are still a bit of a Wild West; more theory work in progress

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Neutrino Mixing in the Earth

MSW in Earth

  • Well-understood, and supernova-model-independent!
  • Alas, a small effect...
  • Requires Earth shadowing

Mass states

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Matter-induced oscillations in the Earth

Requires very good energy resolution to resolve wiggles

NMO: IMO:

νe

slide-42
SLIDE 42

A long shot: Type Ia Supernovae

  • Thermonuclear mechanism (specific mechanism unknown)
  • MSW oscillations only (ν density too low for collective)
  • Very low flux, but observable within ~1 kpc for next-generation expts
  • W. Wright et al.,PRD95 043006 (2017), arXiv:1609.07403

If mechanism is known, w/HK can discriminate MO @ 1σ for d<3.17 kpc for DDT model, d<0.55 kpc for GCD Need to be lucky!

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Summary Table for Supernova MO Signatures

Normal Inverted Robustness Observability

Neutronization burst

Very suppressed Suppressed Excellent Good, need νe (HK, DUNE,...)

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Summary Table for Supernova MO Signatures

Normal Inverted Robustness Observability

Neutronization burst

Very suppressed Suppressed Excellent Good, need νe (HK, DUNE,...)

Early time profile

Low then high Flatter Somewhat Good, need stats (IceCube...)

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Summary Table for Supernova MO Signatures

Normal Inverted Robustness Observability

Neutronization burst

Very suppressed Suppressed Excellent Good, need νe (HK, DUNE,...)

Early time profile

Low then high Flatter Somewhat Good, need stats (IceCube...)

Shock wave Time dependent effects Time dependent effects

Fair, entangled with self- interaction effects Maybe, need stats

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Summary Table for Supernova MO Signatures

Normal Inverted Robustness Observability

Neutronization burst

Very suppressed Suppressed Excellent Good, need νe (HK, DUNE,...)

Early time profile

Low then high Flatter Somewhat Good, need stats (IceCube...)

Shock wave Time dependent effects Time dependent effects

Fair, entangled with self- interaction effects Maybe, need stats

Self- interaction effects

Multiple time- and energy- dependent signatures Yee-haw Good, want multiple (all...)

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Summary Table for Supernova MO Signatures

Normal Inverted Robustness Observability

Neutronization burst

Very suppressed Suppressed Excellent Good, need νe (HK, DUNE,...)

Early time profile

Low then high Flatter Somewhat Good, need stats (IceCube...)

Shock wave Time dependent effects Time dependent effects

Fair, entangled with self- interaction effects Maybe, need stats

Self- interaction effects

Multiple time- and energy- dependent signatures Yee-haw Good, want multiple (all...)

Earth Matter

Wiggles in anti-νe Wiggles in νe Excellent Hard, need energy resolution, stats (JUNO,...)

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Summary Table for Supernova MO Signatures

Normal Inverted Robustness Observability

Neutronization burst

Very suppressed Suppressed Excellent Good, need νe (HK, DUNE,...)

Early time profile

Low then high Flatter Somewhat Good, need stats (IceCube...)

Shock wave Time dependent effects Time dependent effects

Fair, entangled with self- interaction effects Maybe, need stats

Self- interaction effects

Multiple time- and energy- dependent signatures Yee-haw Good, want multiple (all...)

Earth Matter

Wiggles in anti-νe Wiggles in νe Excellent Hard, need energy resolution, stats (JUNO,...)

Type Ia

Lower flux Higher flux Quite Hard, need stats+luck (HK, DUNE,...)

slide-49
SLIDE 49

For supernova neutrinos, the more the merrier!

slide-50
SLIDE 50

New Neutrino States or Interactions?

An even wilder West... can have complicated effects on flavor time-evolution Sterile neutrinos, non-standard ν interactions, other exotica...

Limits on ~keV sterile neutrinos

  • C. A. Argüelles, et al. arXiv:1605.00654 [hep-ph]

But some robust bounds from the “energy leakage” argument

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Summary

A nearby supernova will bring information much information about neutrinos as well as core-collapse physics (in a virtuous circle) ² Absolute mass: not competitive with near- future laboratory measurements, but should not be forgotten ² Mass ordering: several approaches, some still under theoretical study, but some robust ² Information on BSM physics also possible... maybe surprises... Need energy, flavor, time structure... all detectors bring something to the table

slide-52
SLIDE 52

Extras/backups

slide-53
SLIDE 53

\begin{aside}

Neutrino Energy (MeV) 10 20 30 40 50 )

2

Fluence (neutrinos per 0.2 MeV per cm 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

6

10 ×

e

ν

e

ν )

τ

ν +

τ

ν +

µ

ν +

µ

ν (

x

ν

e

ν SNS

µ

ν SNS

µ

ν SNS

Interactions with nuclei (cross sections & products) very poorly understood... sparse theory & experiment

(only measurements at better than ~50% level are for 12C)

e+/-

νe

γ n γ

Neutrinos from pion decay at rest have spectrum overlapping with SN ν spectrum, e.g., at ORNL Spallation Neutron Source

Solid: SN Broken: stopped π

  • A. Bolozdynya et al., arXiv:1211.5199
slide-54
SLIDE 54

Fluence at ~50 m from the stopped pion source amounts to ~ a supernova a day!

(or 0.2 microsupernovae per pulse, 60 Hz of pulses)

Fluence from SN @ Galactic center

e+/-

νe

γ n γ

∝ 1 R2

This is an excellent opportunity to study poorly understood neutrino-nucleus interactions in the supernova energy range

slide-55
SLIDE 55

Currently measuring neutrino-induced neutrons in lead, (iron, copper), ... νe + 208Pb → 208Bi* + e-

1n, 2n emission CC

νx + 208Pb → 208Pb* + νx

1n, 2n, γ emission NC

\end{aside}