Test for Lorentz violation with MiniBooNE low energy excess Teppei - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
test for lorentz violation with miniboone low energy
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Test for Lorentz violation with MiniBooNE low energy excess Teppei - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 21, 2023 625 likes •1.1k views

Test for Lorentz violation with MiniBooNE low energy excess Teppei Katori Massachusetts Institute of Technology CPT and Lorentz symmetry 2010 Bloomington, Indiana, USA, June 30, 10 06/30/10 Teppei Katori, MIT 1 Test for Lorentz violation

slide-1
SLIDE 1

06/30/10

Teppei Katori Massachusetts Institute of Technology CPT and Lorentz symmetry 2010 Bloomington, Indiana, USA, June 30, 10

Test for Lorentz violation with MiniBooNE low energy excess

1 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-2
SLIDE 2

06/30/10

Teppei Katori Massachusetts Institute of Technology CPT and Lorentz symmetry 2010 Bloomington, Indiana, USA, June 30, 10

Test for Lorentz violation with MiniBooNE low energy excess

  • utline
  • 1. MiniBooNE experiment
  • 2. νe candidate low energy excess
  • 3. Lorentz violating neutrino oscillation
  • 4. SME parameters fit
  • 5. Conclusion

2 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-3
SLIDE 3

06/30/10

  • 1. MiniBooNE experiment
  • 2. νe candidate low energy excess
  • 3. Lorentz violating neutrino oscillation
  • 4. SME parameters fit
  • 5. Conclusion

3 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-4
SLIDE 4

06/30/10

Neutrino oscillation is an interference experiment (cf. double slit experiment)

νµ

  • 1. Lorentz violation with neutrino oscillation

If 2 neutrino Hamiltonian eigenstates, ν1 and ν2, have different phase rotation, they cause quantum interference.

νµ

4 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-5
SLIDE 5

06/30/10

Neutrino oscillation is an interference experiment (cf. double slit experiment) If 2 neutrino Hamiltonian eigenstates, ν1 and ν2, have different phase rotation, they cause quantum interference. If ν1 and ν2, have different coupling with Lorentz violating field, interference fringe (oscillation pattern) depend on the sidereal motion.

νµ ν1 ν2 Uµ1 Ue1

*

ν2 ν1 νµ

  • 1. Lorentz violation with neutrino oscillation

5 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-6
SLIDE 6

06/30/10

Neutrino oscillation is an interference experiment (cf. double slit experiment) If 2 neutrino Hamiltonian eigenstates, ν1 and ν2, have different phase rotation, they cause quantum interference. If ν1 and ν2, have different coupling with Lorentz violating field, interference fringe (oscillation pattern) depend on the sidereal motion. The measured scale of neutrino eigenvalue difference is comparable the target scale of Lorentz violation (<10-19GeV).

νµ νe ν1 ν2 Uµ1 Ue1

*

νe


  • 1. Lorentz violation with neutrino oscillation

6 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-7
SLIDE 7

06/30/10 Booster

K+

target and horn detector dirt absorber

primary beam tertiary beam secondary beam

(protons) (mesons) (neutrinos)

π+

decay region FNAL Booster

MiniBooNE neutrino oscillation experiment at Fermilab is looking for νµ to νe oscillation Signature of νe event is the single isolated electron like events

νµ

  • scillation

 →    νe

e (electron-like Cherenkov) p n W

  • 1. MiniBooNE experiment

νµ

7 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-8
SLIDE 8

06/30/10

Booster Target Hall

MiniBooNE extracts beam from the 8 GeV Booster

Booster

K+

target and horn detector dirt absorber

primary beam tertiary beam secondary beam

(protons) (mesons) (neutrinos)

π+

decay region FNAL Booster

  • 1. MiniBooNE experiment

MiniBooNE collaboration, PRD79(2009)072002

νµ

8 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-9
SLIDE 9

06/30/10

within a magnetic horn (2.5 kV, 174 kA) that increases the flux by × 6 8GeV protons are delivered to a 1.7 λ Be target Magnetic focusing horn

Booster primary beam tertiary beam secondary beam

(protons) (mesons) (neutrinos)

K+

π+

target and horn dirt absorber detector decay region FNAL Booster π+ π+ π- π-

  • 1. MiniBooNE experiment

MiniBooNE collaboration, PRD79(2009)072002

νµ

9 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-10
SLIDE 10

νµ

The decay of mesons make the neutrino beam. The neutrino beam is dominated by νµ (93.6%), of this, 96.7% is made by π+-decay

Booster primary beam tertiary beam secondary beam

(protons) (mesons) (neutrinos)

K+

π+

target and horn dirt absorber detector decay region FNAL Booster π+ π+ π- π- Predicted νµ-flux in MiniBooNE

06/30/10

MiniBooNE collaboration, PRD79(2009)072002

π+ →µ+ + νµ

  • 1. MiniBooNE experiment

νe?

10 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-11
SLIDE 11

06/30/10 Booster

K+

target and horn detector dirt absorber

primary beam tertiary beam secondary beam

(protons) (mesons) (neutrinos)

π+

decay region FNAL Booster

MiniBooNE detector is the spherical Cherenkov detector

  • ν-baseline is ~520m
  • filled with 800t mineral oil
  • 1280 of 8” PMT in inner detector
  • 240 veto PMT in outer region
  • 1. MiniBooNE experiment

MiniBooNE collaboration, NIM.A599(2009)28

νµ νe?

11 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-12
SLIDE 12
  • Muons

– Sharp, clear rings

  • Long, straight tracks
  • Electrons

– Scattered rings

  • Multiple scattering
  • Radiative processes

MiniBooNE collaboration, NIM.A599(2009)28

µ ν

  • 1. MiniBooNE experiment
slide-13
SLIDE 13
  • Muons

– Sharp, clear rings

  • Long, straight tracks
  • Electrons

– Scattered rings

  • Multiple scattering
  • Radiative processes

MiniBooNE collaboration, NIM.A599(2009)28

ν e

  • 1. MiniBooNE experiment
slide-14
SLIDE 14

06/30/10

  • 1. MiniBooNE experiment
  • 2. νe candidate low energy excess
  • 3. Lorentz violating neutrino oscillation
  • 4. SME parameters fit
  • 5. Conclusion

14 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-15
SLIDE 15

06/30/10

Blind analysis MiniBooNE perform ~5 years blind analysis. νe candidate data is not used to tune MC. Background errors are constraint from measurements by MiniBooNE detector. e.g.

  • NCπo production (νµ misID background)
  • Beam νe contamination (intrinsic νe background)

NCπo measurement of MiniBooNE provide precise estimation for this type of background.

  • 2. νe candidate low energy excess

πο

MiniBooNE collaboration PLB664(2008)41 PRL100(2008)032301

πο NCπo production

  • not background
  • measured

NCπo production with asymmetric decay

  • background
  • cannot be measured

15 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-16
SLIDE 16

06/30/10

Blind analysis MiniBooNE perform ~5 years blind analysis. νe candidate data is not used to tune MC. Background errors are constraint from measurements by MiniBooNE detector. e.g.

  • NCπo production (νµ misID background)
  • Beam νe contamination (intrinsic νe background)

νµ measurement of MiniBooNE provide precise prediction of νe from µ-decay

  • 2. νe candidate low energy excess

MiniBooNE collaboration PLB664(2008)41 PRL100(2008)032301

µ → e νµ νe π → µ νµ

Predicted neutrino flux

νµ νe muon neutrino

  • not background
  • measured

νe from µ-decay

  • background
  • cannot be measured

16 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-17
SLIDE 17

06/30/10

MiniBooNE first oscillation result There is no νe candidate excess in the analysis region (where the LSND signal is expected from 1 sterile neutrino interpretation). However there is visible excess at low energy region, which is inconsistent with two massive neutrino oscillation hypothesis. Is this excess real physics?

  • 2. νe candidate low energy excess

MiniBooNE collaboration, PRL98(2007)231801

17 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-18
SLIDE 18

06/30/10

  • 2. νe candidate low energy excess

MiniBooNE collaboration, PRL102(2009)101802

New MiniBooNE oscillation result After ~1 year careful reanalysis, again no excess in oscillation candidate region, but low energy excess is confirmed. The energy dependence of νe low energy excess is not consistent with ~1/E, hence it is not consistent with two massive neutrino

  • scillation hypothesis.

Lorentz violating neutrino oscillation has various energy dependences, therefore it is interesting to test Lorentz violation!

18 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-19
SLIDE 19

06/30/10

  • 1. MiniBooNE experiment
  • 2. νe candidate low energy excess
  • 3. Lorentz violating neutrino oscillation
  • 4. SME parameters fit
  • 5. Conclusion

19 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-20
SLIDE 20

06/30/10

The examples of model independent features that represent characteristic signals of Lorentz violation for neutrino oscillation (1) Spectral anomalies (2) L-E conflict (3) Sidereal variation Any signals cannot be mapped on Δm2- sin22θ plane (MS-diagram) could be Lorentz violation, since under the Lorentz violation, MS diagram is no longer useful way to classify neutrino oscillations LSND is the example of this class of signal.

  • 3. Lorentz violating neutrino oscillation

Kostelecky and Mewes PRD69(2004)016005

20 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-21
SLIDE 21

06/30/10

The examples of model independent features that represent characteristic signals of Lorentz violation for neutrino oscillation (1) Spectral anomalies (2) L-E conflict (3) Sidereal variation Any signals do not have 1/E oscillatory dependence could be Lorentz violation. Lorentz violating neutrino oscillation can have various type of energy dependences. MiniBooNE signal falls into this class. usual term (3X3) additional terms (3X3) effective Hamiltonian of neutrino oscillation (direction averaged)

(heff)ab ~ 1 2E(m2)ab +(a)ab+(c)abE+

  • 3. Lorentz violating neutrino oscillation

Kostelecky and Mewes PRD69(2004)016005

21 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-22
SLIDE 22

06/30/10

The examples of model independent features that represent characteristic signals of Lorentz violation for neutrino oscillation (1) Spectral anomalies (2) L-E conflict (3) Periodic variation sidereal variation of the neutrino

  • scillation signal is the signal of

Lorentz violation This signal is the exclusive smoking gun of Lorentz violation. Test for Lorentz violation in MiniBooNE is to find sidereal time variation from low energy excess νe candidate data example of sidereal variation for LSND signal

  • 3. Lorentz violating neutrino oscillation

Kostelecky and Mewes PRD69(2004)016005

22 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-23
SLIDE 23

06/30/10

Test for Lorentz violation in MiniBooNE follows LSND sidereal time analysis (1) fix the coordinate system (2) write down Lagrangian including Lorentz violating terms under the formalism (3) write down the observables using this Lagrangian

  • 3. Lorentz violating neutrino oscillation

LANSCE to LSND detector is almost east to west χ = 54.1o, colatitude of detector θ = 99.0o, zenith angle of beam φ = 82.6o, azimuthal angle of beam

beam dump detector 30.8m

LSND collaboration, PRD72(2005)076004

23 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-24
SLIDE 24

06/30/10

Test for Lorentz violation in MiniBooNE follows LSND sidereal time analysis (1) fix the coordinate system (2) write down Lagrangian including Lorentz violating terms under the formalism (3) write down the observables using this Lagrangian

  • 3. Lorentz violating neutrino oscillation

Booster neutrino beamline is almost south to north χ = 48.2o, colatitude of detector θ = 90.0o, zenith angle of beam φ = 180o, azimuthal angle of beam

Be target detector 541m

24 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-25
SLIDE 25

06/30/10

Test for Lorentz violation in MiniBooNE follows LSND sidereal time analysis (1) fix the coordinate system (2) write down Lagrangian including Lorentz violating terms under the formalism (3) write down the observables using this Lagrangian

  • 3. Lorentz violating neutrino oscillation

Kostelecky and Mewes PRD69(2004)016005

SME parameters Modified Dirac Equation (MDE)

i(ΓAB

ν ∂ν − MAB)νB = 0

ΓAB

ν = γνδAB + cAB µν γµ + dAB µν γµγ5 + eAB ν

+ ifAB

ν γ5 + 1

2 gAB

λµνσλµ

MAB = mAB + im5ABγ5 + aAB

µ γµ + bAB µ γ5γµ + 1

2HAB

µν σµν

CPT odd CPT even

  • Lagrangian depends is direction dependant
  • >100 free parameters

25 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-26
SLIDE 26

06/30/10

Test for Lorentz violation in MiniBooNE follows LSND sidereal time analysis (1) fix the coordinate system (2) write down Lagrangian including Lorentz violating terms under the formalism (3) write down the observables using this Lagrangian Pνe→νµ ~ | (heff)eµ |2 L2 (c)2 = L c      

2

| (C)eµ +(As)eµ sinw⊕T

⊕ +(Ac)eµ cos w⊕T ⊕ +(Bs)eµ sin2w⊕T ⊕ +(Bc)eµ cos2w⊕T ⊕ |2

sidereal frequency sidereal time

w⊕ = 2π 23h56m4.1s T⊕

Kostelecky and Mewes PRD70(2004)076002

  • 3. Lorentz violating neutrino oscillation

Sidereal variation of neutrino oscillation probability for MiniBooNE

  • Neutrino oscillation probability depends on coordinate (sidereal time)
  • 14 SME parameters make 5 parameters (5 parameter fitting problem)

26 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-27
SLIDE 27

06/30/10

Expression of 5 observables (14 SME parameters)

  • CPT-odd vector, 4 SMEs, (aL)T, (aL)X, (aL)Y, (aL)Z
  • CPT-even tensor, 10 SMEs, (cL)TT, (cL)TX, (cL)TY, (cL)TZ, (cL)XX, (cL)XY, (cL)XZ, (cL)YY, (cL)YZ, (cL)ZZ

NX NY NZ             = cos χsinθcosφ − sinχcosθ sinθsinφ −sinχsinθcosφ − cos χcosθ           (C)eµ = (aL)eµ

T −NZ(aL)eµ Z +E − 1

2 (3−NZNZ)(cL)eµ

TT + 2NZ(cL)eµ TZ + 1

2 (1− 3NZNZ)(cL)eµ

ZZ

      (As)eµ = NY(aL)eµ

X −NX(aL)eµ Y +E −2NY(cL)eµ TX + 2NX(cL)eµ TY + 2NYNZ(cL)eµ XZ − 2NXNZ(cL)eµ YZ

      (Ac)eµ = −NX(aL)eµ

X −NY(aL)eµ Y +E 2NX(cL)eµ TX + 2NY(cL)eµ TY − 2NXNZ(cL)eµ XZ − 2NYNZ(cL)eµ YZ

      (Bs)eµ = E NXNY (cL)eµ

XX − (cL)eµ YY

( ) − (NXNX −NYNY)(cL)eµ

XY

      (Bc)eµ = E − 1 2 (NXNX −NYNY) (cL)eµ

XX − (cL)eµ YY

( ) − 2NXNY(cL)eµ

XY

     

  • 3. Lorentz violating neutrino oscillation

Kostelecky and Mewes PRD70(2004)076002

Coordinate vector (aL)µ = aµ + bµ (cL)µν = cµν + dµν Neutrino oscillation depends on coordinate

  • f experiments and sidereal time

(χ = 48.2o, θ = 90.0o, φ = 180o)

27 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-28
SLIDE 28

06/30/10

  • 1. MiniBooNE experiment
  • 2. νe candidate low energy excess
  • 3. Lorentz violating neutrino oscillation
  • 4. SME parameters fit
  • 5. Conclusion

28 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-29
SLIDE 29

06/30/10

  • 4. SME parameter fit

Data set

  • We use neutrino mode data from Mar. 2003 – Jan. 2006 (run 3539-12842), and
  • Oct. 2007 – Apr. 2008 (run 15833-17160), total 6.361E20 POT.
  • 544 event in low energy region, “lowE” (200MeV<EνQE<475MeV), and,
  • 420 event in oscillation region, “oscE” (475<EνQE<1300MeV).
  • All results in this talk are preliminary.

lowE event and oscE event distribute equally in all run period. Unbinned K-S test: P(lowE,oscE)=0.73 (compatible)

29 Teppei Katori, MIT

Event distribution over runs

  • red: lowE event
  • black: oscE event

Preliminary

slide-30
SLIDE 30

06/30/10

  • 4. SME parameter fit

Data set

  • We use neutrino mode data from Mar. 2003 – Jan. 2006 (run 3539-12842), and
  • Oct. 2007 – Apr. 2008 (run 15833-17160), total 6.361E20 POT.
  • 544 event in low energy region, “lowE” (200MeV<EνQE<475MeV), and,
  • 420 event in oscillation region, “oscE” (475<EνQE<1300MeV).
  • All results in this talk are preliminary.

lowE event and oscE event distribute equally in GMT time. Unbinned K-S test: P(lowE,oscE)=0.76 (compatible)

30 Teppei Katori, MIT

Event distribution over GMT time

  • red: lowE event
  • black: oscE event

Preliminary

slide-31
SLIDE 31

06/30/10

  • 4. SME parameter fit

31 Teppei Katori, MIT

Event distribution over sidereal time

  • red: lowE event
  • black: oscE event

Preliminary

Data set

  • We use neutrino mode data from Mar. 2003 – Jan. 2006 (run 3539-12842), and
  • Oct. 2007 – Apr. 2008 (run 15833-17160), total 6.361E20 POT.
  • 544 event in low energy region, “lowE” (200MeV<EνQE<475MeV), and,
  • 420 event in oscillation region, “oscE” (475<EνQE<1300MeV).
  • All results in this talk are preliminary.

lowE event and oscE event distribute equally in sidereal time. Unbinned K-S test: P(lowE,oscE)=0.59 (compatible)

slide-32
SLIDE 32

06/30/10

  • 4. SME parameter fit

Systematic error study Time varying backgrounds are potentially dangerous…

  • Detector

Detector response may have day-night effect (temperature, etc), however effect is expected to be small

  • Beam

Proton beam follows Fermilab accelerator complex run plan, namely MiniBooNE receive high intensity beam

  • n night, and low on day time.

Maximum variation is ±6%, but this effect is washed out in sidereal time distribution. Full systematic error study is ongoing

proton on target day-night distribution

±6%

before POT correction after POT correction GMT lowE excess distribution Sidereal lowE excess distribution

32 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-33
SLIDE 33

06/30/10

  • 4. SME parameter fit

Before SME parameter fit… Statistical test

  • Null hypothesis (=no time variation) is tested to 4 samples
  • 1. lowE GMT
  • 2. oscE GMT
  • 3. lowE sidereal time
  • 4. oscE sidereal time
  • Pearson’s c2 test
  • K-S test

33 Teppei Katori, MIT

Pearson’s χ2 test

slide-34
SLIDE 34

06/30/10

  • 4. SME parameter fit

Before SME parameter fit… Statistical test

  • Null hypothesis (=no time variation) is tested to 4 samples

All samples are consistent with flat However, data is not inconsistent with small variation, so we proceed to fit Pearson’s χ2 test d.o.f χ2 P(χ2) unbinned K-S test P(K-S) lowE GMT 107 107.6 0.47 0.42

  • scE GMT

83 69.6 0.85 0.81 lowE sidereal 107 106.0 0.51 0.13

  • scE sidereal

82 76.2 0.66 0.64

34 Teppei Katori, MIT

Preliminary

slide-35
SLIDE 35

06/30/10

  • 4. SME parameter fit

LogL = −(µsig[SMEs]+ µbkgd)+ [µsig[SMEs]⋅ ωsig[SMEs,Eν

QE,T⊕ ]+ µbkgd ⋅ ωbkgd] i=1 n

∑

Unbinned likelihood method

  • It has the maximum statistic power
  • Assuming low energy excess is Lorentz violation, extract Lorentz violation

parameters (SME parameters) from unbinned likelihood fit. µsig[SMEs] : predicted number of signal event, function of SME parameters (=14). µbkgd: predicted number of background event, from MiniBooNE public data ωsig[SMEs,Eν

QE,T ]: probability density function (PDF) of signal distribution with

sidereal time, function of SMEs and reconstructed neutrino energy. ωbkgd: PDF of background (=const, background is assumed time independent).

35 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-36
SLIDE 36

06/30/10

parameter space data and best fit curve parameter space parameter space

  • 4. SME parameter fit

Unbinned likelihood method, simultaneous fit result

  • simultaneous 3 parameter fit for low energy excess
  • 3 parameter fit can be interpreted nature has CPT-odd only
  • duplicate solution exist with opposite sign

Since data has good χ2 with flat hypothesis, fit improve goodness-of-fit

  • nly little.

After fit χ2/dof=5.7/9, P(χ2)=0.77 Flat hypothesis χ2/dof=9.3/11, P(χ2)=0.60

low energy excess (200MeV<EνQE<475MeV

36 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-37
SLIDE 37

06/30/10

  • 4. SME parameter fit

Only (C)eµ (sidereal time independent term) is statistically significantly non-zero extraction for (aL)µ and (CL)µν is rather simple due to special coordinate of MiniBooNE Unbinned likelihood method, simultaneous fit result

  • simultaneous 3 parameter fit for low energy excess
  • 3 parameter fit can be interpreted nature has CPT-odd only
  • duplicate solution exist with opposite sign

low energy excess (200MeV<EνQE<475MeV

parameter (C)eµ (As)eµ (Ac)eµ (Bs)eµ (Bc)eµ SME parameters (aL)T+0.75(aL)Z+0.35[-1.22(CL)TT-1.49(CL)TZ-0.33(CL)ZZ] 0.67(aL)Y+0.35[-1.33(CL)TY-0.99(CL)YZ] 0.67(aL)X+0.35[-1.33(CL)TX-0.99(CL)XZ] 0.35[-0.45(CL)XY] 0.35[-0.22((CL)XX-(CL)YY)] fit value

  • 3.1
  • 0.6

0.4

  • error

0.9 1.2 1.3

  • Unit is 10-20GeV

37 Teppei Katori, MIT

Preliminary

slide-38
SLIDE 38

06/30/10

  • 4. SME parameter fit

(aL)T (aL)X (aL)Y (aL)Z fit value (GeV)

  • 3.1×10-20

0.6×10-20

  • 0.9×10-20
  • 4.2×10-20

statistic error (GeV) 0.9×10-20 1.9×10-20 1.8×10-20 1.2×10-20 (cL)TT (cL)TX (cL)TY (cL)TZ (cL)XX (cL)XY (cL)XZ (cL)YY (cL)YZ (cL)ZZ fit value 7.2×10-20

  • 0.9×10-20

1.3×10-20 5.9×10-20

  • 1.1×10-20
  • 1.7×10-20

2.6×10-19 statistic error 2.1×10-20 2.8×10-20 2.6×10-20 1.7×10-20

  • 3.7×10-20
  • 3.4×10-20

0.8×10-19

38 Teppei Katori, MIT

low energy excess (200MeV<EνQE<475MeV

Unbinned likelihood method, simultaneous fit result

  • each SME parameters are
  • btained by setting others

zero.

  • 5 statistically significant

parameters correspond to sidereal time independent solution.

slide-39
SLIDE 39

06/30/10

parameter space data and best fit curve parameter space parameter space

  • 4. SME parameter fit

Unbinned likelihood method, simultaneous fit result

  • simultaneous 3 parameter fit for oscillation candidate
  • 3 parameter fit can be interpreted nature has CPT-odd only
  • duplicate solution exist with opposite sign

Since data has very little excess, best fit solution is consistent with zero. After fit χ2/dof=9.3/9, P(χ2)=0.41 Flat hypothesis χ2/dof=11.1/11, P(χ2)=0.44

  • scillation candidate

(475MeV<EνQE<1300MeV

39 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-40
SLIDE 40

06/30/10

  • 4. SME parameter fit

Since excess is small, all parameters are consistent with zero. Unbinned likelihood method, simultaneous fit result

  • simultaneous 3 parameter fit for oscillation candidate
  • 3 parameter fit can be interpreted nature has CPT-odd only
  • duplicate solution exist with opposite sign
  • scillation candidate

(475MeV<EνQE<1300MeV

parameter (C)eµ (As)eµ (Ac)eµ (Bs)eµ (Bc)eµ SME parameters (aL)T+0.75(aL)Z+0.35[-1.22(CL)TT-1.49(CL)TZ-0.33(CL)ZZ] 0.67(aL)Y+0.35[-1.33(CL)TY-0.99(CL)YZ] 0.67(aL)X+0.35[-1.33(CL)TX-0.99(CL)XZ] 0.35[-0.45(CL)XY] 0.35[-0.22((CL)XX-(CL)YY)] fit value

  • 0.6
  • 0.2

0.4

  • error

1.0 1.7 1.4

  • Unit is 10-20GeV

40 Teppei Katori, MIT

Preliminary

slide-41
SLIDE 41

06/30/10

  • 4. SME parameter fit

LSND result

  • 3 parameter fit solution for LSND data
  • there is a statistically significant sidereal time depending term

LSND collaboration, PRD72(2005)076004

parameter (C)eµ (As)eµ (Ac)eµ (Bs)eµ (Bc)eµ SME parameters (aL)T+0.19(aL)Z+0.04[-1.48(CL)TT-0.39(CL)TZ+0.44(CL)ZZ] 0.98(aL)X+0.053(aL)Y+0.04[-1.96(CL)TX-0.11(CL)TY-0.38(CL)XZ-0.021(CL)YZ] 0.053(aL)X-0.98(aL)Y+0.04[-0.11(CL)TX+1.96(CL)TY-0.021(CL)XZ+0.38(CL)YZ] 0.04[-0.052((CL)XX-(CL)YY)+0.96(CL)XY] 0.04[0.48((CL)XX-(CL)YY)+0.10(CL)XY] fit value

  • 0.2

4.0 1.9

  • error

1.0 1.4 1.8

  • Unit is 10-19GeV

LSND data sidereal 3 parameter fit distribution 5 parameter fit

parameter spaces show 2 solutions in 1-sigma of the fit

41 Teppei Katori, MIT

LSND solution (0MeV<Ee+<60MeV)

slide-42
SLIDE 42

06/30/10

  • 4. SME parameter fit

LSND result

  • extracted SME parameters

from published result (3 parameter fit)

  • 3 statistically significant

SME parameters correspond to sidereal time dependent solution. (aL)T (aL)X (aL)Y (aL)Z fit value (GeV) 0.2×10-19 4.2×10-19

  • 1.7×10-19

1.0×10-19 statistic error (GeV) 1.0×10-19 1.5×10-19 1.8×10-19 5.4×10-19 (cL)TT (cL)TX (cL)TY (cL)TZ (cL)XX (cL)XY (cL)XZ (cL)YY (cL)YZ (cL)ZZ fit value 0.3×10-18

  • 5.2×10-18

2.1×10-18 1.3×10-18

  • 2.7×10-17
  • 1.1×10-17
  • 1.1×10-18

statistic error 1.8×10-18 1.9×10-18 2.2×10-18 6.7×10-18

  • 1.0×10-17
  • 1.2×10-17

5.9×10-18

LSND collaboration, PRD72(2005)076004

LSND data sidereal 3 parameter fit distribution 5 parameter fit

42 Teppei Katori, MIT

LSND solution (0MeV<Ee+<60MeV)

slide-43
SLIDE 43

06/30/10

  • 4. SME parameter fit

Anti-neutrino oscillation data

  • We just announced new result from anti-neutrino oscillation analysis.
  • There are excesses both low energy, and oscillation candidate region.
  • Non-zero SME parameters are expected for both regions.

MiniBooNE collaboration, Neutrino 2010, Athens

  • Rex Tayloe’s talk,

tomorrow (July 1) morning session

43 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-44
SLIDE 44

06/30/10

  • 10. Conclusions

Lorentz and CPT violation has been shown to occur in Planck scale physics. MiniBooNE low energy excess νe data suggest Lorentz violation is an interesting solution of neutrino oscillations. Low energy excess events are statistically consistent with no sidereal variation. SME parameters are extracted under short baseline approximation. The flat solution is favoured. Full systematic study is ongoing. Recently antineutrino result will be analysed under SME formalism, too.

44 Teppei Katori, MIT

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Teppei Katori, MIT 06/30/10

BooNE collaboration

Thank you for your attention!

University of Alabama Bucknell University University of Cincinnati University of Colorado Columbia University Embry Riddle Aeronautical University Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Indiana University University of Florida Los Alamos National Laboratory Louisiana State University Massachusetts Institute of Technology University of Michigan Princeton University Saint Mary's University of Minnesota Virginia Polytechnic Institute Yale University

45

slide-46
SLIDE 46

06/30/10

Backup

46 Teppei Katori, MIT