[PPT] - Improved nuclear physics for supernovae Implications for neutrino PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

Improved nuclear physics for supernovae

Implications for neutrino spectra, nucleosynthesis and dark matter Ermal Rrapaj

University of Washington, Seattle

December 16, 2015

SLIDE 2

Core Collapse Supernovae

Collapse BE ∼

3GM 2

⊙

5RNS ≈ 1053 erg

Progenitor

M ≈ 8 - 20 M ⊙ R ≈ 500 -1500 R ⊙

Fe

M ≈ 1.4 M ⊙ S/N ∼ 1 R ≈ REarth S/N ∼ 1−2 T =? ρ ∼ 1014 −1015 gram/cm3

ν, ν PNS

SLIDE 3

Core Collapse Supernovae

Collapse BE ∼

3GM 2

⊙

5RNS ≈ 1053 erg

Progenitor

M ≈ 8 - 20 M ⊙

The binding energy is carried away by ν, ν

R ≈ 500 -1500 R ⊙

Fe

M ≈ 1.4 M ⊙ S/N ∼ 1 R ≈ REarth S/N ∼ 1−2 T =? ρ ∼ 1014 −1015 gram/cm3

ν, ν PNS

SLIDE 4

Core Collapse Supernovae

Collapse BE ∼

3GM 2

⊙

5RNS ≈ 1053 erg

Progenitor

M ≈ 8 - 20 M ⊙

The binding energy is carried away by ν, ν What about dark matter ?

R ≈ 500 -1500 R ⊙

Fe

M ≈ 1.4 M ⊙ S/N ∼ 1 R ≈ REarth S/N ∼ 1−2 T =? ρ ∼ 1014 −1015 gram/cm3

ν, ν PNS

SLIDE 5

Detection of SN87A

Hirata et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, (1490) 12 events in the burst sample observed in Kamiokande-II, and 8 events in the burst sample observed in the IMB detector

SLIDE 6

Dark Matter, Why ?

Astron.Astrophys. 571 (2014) A16

Energy composition of our universe: Planck Data

◮ Dark Energy: 68.3% ◮ Dark Matter (DM): 26.8% ◮ Attomic Matter: 4.8% ◮ Light: 0.005% ◮ Neutrinos: 0.0034%

SLIDE 7

Dark Matter, Why ?

Astron.Astrophys. 571 (2014) A16

Energy composition of our universe: Planck Data

◮ Dark Energy: 68.3% ◮ Dark Matter (DM): 26.8% ◮ Attomic Matter: 4.8% ◮ Light: 0.005% ◮ Neutrinos: 0.0034%

So, what is Dark Matter?

SLIDE 8

Can we ‘see’ dark matter?

Essig et al, arxiv:1311.0029 (2013) Portal Particles Operators “Vector” Dark Photons −ǫeJSM

µ

“Axion” PseudoScalars

a fa Gµν ˜

G µν, a

fa Fµν ˜

F µν, ∂µa

fa Ψγµγ5Ψ

“Higgs” Dark Scalars (µS + λS2)H†H “Neutrino” Sterile Neutrinos yNLHN

SLIDE 9

Can we ‘see’ dark matter?

Essig et al, arxiv:1311.0029 (2013) Portal Particles Operators “Vector” Dark Photons −ǫeJSM

µ

“Axion” PseudoScalars

a fa Gµν ˜

G µν, a

fa Fµν ˜

F µν, ∂µa

fa Ψγµγ5Ψ

“Higgs” Dark Scalars (µS + λS2)H†H “Neutrino” Sterile Neutrinos yNLHN

This talk will be focused on Dark Photons!

SLIDE 10

Dark Photons: How?

Holdom, Phys. Rev. B 166, (1986) 196

High - Energy

L ⊃ − 1 4 (Bµν)2 − 1 4 (F ′µν)2 − ǫY 2 cos θW BµνF‘µν + 1 2 m2

A′ A′2 + gDJD µ A′µ D

Low - Energy

L ⊃ gQA′

µJEM µ

− 1 2 m2

γQ A′ µA′µ +

gB V B

µ JB µ −

1 2 m2

γB (V B µ )2

Lee, Yang Phys. Rev. 98, 1501 (1955) Batell, deNerville, McKeen, Pospelov, Ritz Phys. Rev. D 90, 115014 (2014)

SLIDE 11

Dark Photons: Why?

γQ Parameter Space

Snowmass report (2013) arXiv:1311.0029

γB Parameter Space

Tulin Phys. Rev. D 89, 11408 (2014)

SLIDE 12

Dark Photons: Why?

http://hallaweb.jlab.org/experiment/APEX

Experimental searches for γQ

e− e− e− e+ γQ γ Z Z

APEX (spring 2016) at Jefferson Laboratory

◮

10−2 ǫQ 10−10

◮

65 MeV ≤ mγQ ≤ 550 MeV

Experimental searches for γB

η γ γQ γ πo u, d, s

Jlab Eta Factory (JEF) Experiment

◮

10−1 αB 10−7

◮

140 MeV ≤ mγB ≤ 550 MeV

https://cnidlamp.jlab.org/RareEtaDecay/JDocDB/system/files/biblio/2015/04/jef-gan-aps-pdf.pdf

And many more other experiments

SLIDE 13

Implications for supernovae

Dark matter cooling of PNS

1. produced in the hot core
2. light in mass −

→ copious amounts!

3. sap energy from the core
4. reduce neutrino energy and burst duration!

Raffelt’s Criteria

Conditions for fiducial calculations: ◮ T = 30 MeV ◮ ρ = 3 × 1014 gram/cm3

˙ E ≈ 1019

erg gram s =

⇒ Neutrino burst duration is halfed!

”Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics: The astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles” (University of Chicago Press, 1996)

SLIDE 14

How is light dark matter produced ?

Nucleon Bremsstrahlung

VNN

P1 P2 P4 P3 K

What has been studied so far ?!

◮ Axions,

Burrows, Turner, Brinkman, Phys. Rev. D 39, 1020,(1989)

◮ Kaluza–Klein gravitons and dilatons,

Hannart, Phillips,Reddy, Savage, Nuc. Phys. B 595(2001)

◮ Neutralinos

Dreiner, Hanhart, Langenfeld, Phillips Phys. Rev. D 68, 055004 (2003)

◮ Dark Photons

Dent, Ferrer, Kraus arxiv: 1201.2683 (2012) Kazanas, Mohapatra, Nussinov Teplitz, Zhang Nuc. Phys. B. 90, 17, (2014)

SLIDE 15

Current Dark Photon Constraint: Supernova Cooling

Dent, Ferrer, Kraus arxiv: 1201.2683 (2012)

Production by Bremsstrahlung

K P3 P4 P2 P1 P3 K P1 P4 P2 K P2 P1 P3 P4 P4 P3 K P2 P1 (a) (b) (c) (d) π π π π P2 P1 P3 P4 π (e) K

Emissivity

L˜

γ ≤ 1053 erg/s ←

→ ˙ E ≤ 8 × 1022 erg/g/s

SLIDE 16

Bremsstrahlung: Soft Radiation Approximation (SRA)

Low Phys. Rev. 110, 974 (1958)

K P3 P4 P2 P1 P3 K P1 P4 P2 K P2 P1 P3 P4 P4 P3 K P2 P1 (a) (b) (c) (d)

dσpp→pp˜

γ ≈ − 4παemǫ2 d3k

2ω (ǫµJµ)2 dσNN→NN

J(2) µ =

P1

P1 · K − P3 P3 · K

µ

, J(4) µ =

P1

P1 · K + P2 P2 · K − P3 P3 · K − P4 P4 · K

µ

Rrapaj, Reddy arxiv:1511.09136

˙ ǫnp→npγQ = 2αemǫ2

Q

√π nnnp (MT)3/2 T 4 ∞

mγQ /T

dx e−x x3 I(2)( mγQ /T x ) σ(2)

np (xT)

˙ ǫij→ijγB = 2αemǫ2

B

√π ni nj (MT)3/2 T 5 ∞

mγB /T

dx e−x x4 M I(4)( mγB /T x ) σ(4)

ij

(xT) σ(2)

ij

=

d cos θcm

dσni nj →ni nj dθcm (1 − cos θcm), σ(4)

ij

=

d cos θcm

dσni nj →ni nj dθcm (1 − cos2 θcm)

SLIDE 17

Partial Wave Expansion vs OPEP

Rrapaj, Reddy arxiv:1511.09136 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Ecm [MeV]

10−1 100 101 102 103

σnp [mb]

Data OPEP Lmax = 0 Lmax = 1 Lmax = 2 Lmax = 3 Lmax = 4 Lmax = 5

Data from Nijmegen University database

SLIDE 18

Partial Wave Expansion vs OPEP

Rrapaj, Reddy arxiv:1511.09136 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Ecm [MeV]

10−1 100 101 102 103

σnp [mb]

Low T

Data OPEP Lmax = 0 Lmax = 1 Lmax = 2 Lmax = 3 Lmax = 4 Lmax = 5

Data from Nijmegen University database

SLIDE 19

Partial Wave Expansion vs OPEP

Rrapaj, Reddy arxiv:1511.09136 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Ecm [MeV]

10−1 100 101 102 103

σnp [mb]

Low T High T

Data OPEP Lmax = 0 Lmax = 1 Lmax = 2 Lmax = 3 Lmax = 4 Lmax = 5

Data from Nijmegen University database

SLIDE 20

Dark Photon Constraint

Rrapaj, Reddy arxiv:1511.09136

100 101 102 103

mγQ [MeV]

10−16 10−15 10−14 10−13 10−12 10−11 10−10 10−9 10−8 10−7

ǫQ

OPEP Cooling: Raffelt Constraint

SLIDE 21

Dark Photon Constraint

Rrapaj, Reddy arxiv:1511.09136

100 101 102 103

mγQ [MeV]

10−16 10−15 10−14 10−13 10−12 10−11 10−10 10−9 10−8 10−7

ǫQ

OPEP Cooling: Raffelt Constraint OPEP Cooling [ Dent et al. (2012) ]

Emissivity !

SLIDE 22

Dark Photon Constraint

Rrapaj, Reddy arxiv:1511.09136

100 101 102 103

mγQ [MeV]

10−16 10−15 10−14 10−13 10−12 10−11 10−10 10−9 10−8 10−7

ǫQ

OPEP Cooling: Raffelt Constraint OPEP Cooling [ Dent et al. (2012) ] SRA Cooling: Raffelt Constraint

Emissivity !

Improved nuclear physics !

SLIDE 23

Dark Photon Constraint

Rrapaj, Reddy arxiv:1511.09136

100 101 102 103

mγQ [MeV]

10−16 10−15 10−14 10−13 10−12 10−11 10−10 10−9 10−8 10−7

ǫQ

OPEP Cooling: Raffelt Constraint OPEP Cooling [ Dent et al. (2012) ] SRA Cooling: Raffelt Constraint OPEP Trapping [ Dent et al. (2012) ]

Emissivity !

Improved nuclear physics !

SLIDE 24

Dark Photon Constraint

Rrapaj, Reddy arxiv:1511.09136

100 101 102 103

mγQ [MeV]

10−16 10−15 10−14 10−13 10−12 10−11 10−10 10−9 10−8 10−7

ǫQ

OPEP Cooling: Raffelt Constraint OPEP Cooling [ Dent et al. (2012) ] SRA Cooling: Raffelt Constraint OPEP Trapping [ Dent et al. (2012) ] SRA Trapping: τ(RS) = 3

Emissivity !

Improved nuclear physics !

SLIDE 25

Dark Photon Constraint

Rrapaj, Reddy arxiv:1511.09136

100 101 102 103

mγQ [MeV]

10−12 10−11 10−10 10−9 10−8 10−7

ǫQ

SRA: ˙ E = 1019 erg/g/s SRA Trapping: τ(RS) = 3 OPEP: ˙ E = 8 × 1022 erg/g/s [ Dent et al. (2012) ] OPEP Trapping [ Dent et al. (2012) ]

SN87a Excluded Region

SLIDE 26

What about the dark leptophobic photon ?!

No Current Supernova constraint!

SLIDE 27

Dark photon coupled only to baryonic current

Rrapaj, Reddy arxiv:1511.09136 10−6 10−5 10−4 10−3 10−2 10−1 100 101 102 103

mγB [MeV]

10−28 10−26 10−24 10−22 10−20 10−18 10−16 10−14 10−12 10−10

αB

SRA: Cooling SRA: Trapping Neutron Optics [Leeb et al. 1992] Neutron Scattering [Barbieri & Ericson, 1975]

SN87a Excluded Region

SLIDE 28

So, did we ‘solve’ this issue?

SLIDE 29

So, did we ‘solve’ this issue?

NOPE

SLIDE 30

Uncertainties in establishing constraints

Scattering Rate: Bremsstrahlung

◮ SRA valid only for ω/ECM ≪ 1 (perhaps effective field theories and two body currents) ◮ medium effects not included (rescattering, nucleon excitation lifetimes) ◮ ...

SLIDE 31

Uncertainties in establishing constraints

Scattering Rate: Bremsstrahlung

◮ SRA valid only for ω/ECM ≪ 1 (perhaps effective field theories and two body currents) ◮ medium effects not included (rescattering, nucleon excitation lifetimes) ◮ ...

Supernova environment

◮ S/N ∼ 1 − 2 ◮ ρ0 = 0.16 fm−3 ≤ ρC ≤? − → Equation of State (EoS) ◮ T = ? − → Specifit heat − → EoS− → ?

SLIDE 32

T = 0 : Equation of State

Constraining mean field models

◮ Saturation density properties Dutra, Lourenco, Martins,Delfino, Phys.Rev.C 85, 035201

(2012)

◮ Low density neutron matter, ab-inito methods Brown,Schwenk Phys.Rev.C 91,049902

(2015)

Compare many-body perturbation and Monte Carlo using χEFT Rrapaj, Roggero, Holt arxiv:1510.00444 (2015)

SLIDE 33

T = 0 : Equation of State

Constraining mean field models

◮ Saturation density properties Dutra, Lourenco, Martins,Delfino, Phys.Rev.C 85, 035201

(2012)

◮ Low density neutron matter, ab-inito methods Brown,Schwenk Phys.Rev.C 91,049902

(2015)

Compare many-body perturbation and Monte Carlo using χEFT Rrapaj, Roggero, Holt arxiv:1510.00444 (2015)

Found mean field models consistent with all constraints!

SLIDE 34

T = 0 : Equation of State

Constraining mean field models

◮ Saturation density properties Dutra, Lourenco, Martins,Delfino, Phys.Rev.C 85, 035201

(2012)

◮ Low density neutron matter, ab-inito methods Brown,Schwenk Phys.Rev.C 91,049902

(2015)

Compare many-body perturbation and Monte Carlo using χEFT Rrapaj, Roggero, Holt arxiv:1510.00444 (2015)

Found mean field models consistent with all constraints! Not currently used in supernovae simulations!

SLIDE 35

Many-body perturbation theory , T > 0

Wellenhofer, Holt, Kaiser, Weise Phys. Rev. C 89, 064009 (2014)

SLIDE 36

T > 0 EoS: Skyrme interactions and relativistic models

Rrapaj, Roggero, Holt arxiv:1510.00444 (2015)

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

ρ [fm

3]
60
50
40
30
20
10

10 20 30 40

F/N [MeV]

Skyrme RMF N3LO 414 + 3NF Pure Neutron Matter

T = 5 MeV T = 25 MeV 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

ρ [fm

3]
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

10 20 30 40

F/N [MeV]

Skyrme RMF N3LO 414 + 3NF Symmetric Matter

T = 5 MeV T = 25 MeV

SLIDE 37

T > 0 EoS: Skyrme interactions and relativistic models

Rrapaj, Roggero, Holt arxiv:1510.00444 (2015)

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

ρ [fm

3]
60
50
40
30
20
10

10 20 30 40

F/N [MeV]

Skyrme RMF N3LO 414 + 3NF Pure Neutron Matter

T = 5 MeV T = 25 MeV 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

ρ [fm

3]
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

10 20 30 40

F/N [MeV]

Skyrme RMF N3LO 414 + 3NF Symmetric Matter

T = 5 MeV T = 25 MeV

‘Qualitatively’ comparable with many-body calculations

SLIDE 38

Thermal Properties

Rrapaj, Roggero, Holt arxiv:1510.00444 (2015) S = const trajectories

1 2 3 4

ρ/ρ0

10 20 30 40

T (MeV)

Skyrme RMF N3LO414 + 3NF 1 2 3 4 Pure Neutron Matter Symmetric Matter

S/N = 1 S/N = 2 S/N = 1 S/N = 2

Core temperature uncertain!

SLIDE 39

Thermal Properties

Rrapaj, Roggero, Holt arxiv:1510.00444 (2015) S = const trajectories

1 2 3 4

ρ/ρ0

10 20 30 40

T (MeV)

Skyrme RMF N3LO414 + 3NF 1 2 3 4 Pure Neutron Matter Symmetric Matter

S/N = 1 S/N = 2 S/N = 1 S/N = 2

Beyond mean field signature !

SLIDE 40

Collaborators

Thank You

◮ Sanjay Reddy ◮ Jeremy Holt ◮ Alessandro Roggero ◮ Alexander Bartl ◮ Achim Schwenk