L18

P780.02 Spring 2002 L18
The Solar Neutrino Problem
The sun only produces electron neutrinos (ne)!
Richard Kass
M&S 11.1.2
Since 1968 R.Davis and collaborators have been measuring the cross section of:
ne + 37Cl e- + 37Ar
Their measured rate is significantly lower than what is expected from the
“standard solar model”
SNU=standard solar unit
Measured:
2.550.170.18 SNU
SNU=1 capture/s/1036 target atoms
Calculated:
7.32.3 SNU
Data from the
Homestake Gold
Mine (South Dakota)
There is a long list of other experiments have verified this “problem”.
Too few neutrinos from the sun!
P780.02 Spring 2002 L18
Richard Kass
The Solar Neutrino Energy Spectrum
Homestake:
Chlorine
ne + 37Cl e- + 37Ar
SAGE/GALLEX:
Gallium
ne + 71Ga e- + 71Ge
Figure by J. Bahcall
SuperK:
nX + e- nX +enmt + e- 1/6(ne +e-)
P780.02 Spring 2002 L18
The Solar Neutrino Problem
Richard Kass
P780.02 Spring 2002 L18
The SNO Detector
Located in a mine in Sudbury Canada
Uses “Heavy” water (D2O)
Detects Cerenkov light like SuperK
Richard Kass
SNO=Sudbury Neutrino Observatory
Nucl. Inst. and Meth. A449, p172 (2000)
P780.02 Spring 2002 L18
Richard Kass
Why Use “Heavy” Water?
Charged Current interaction (CC): ne + d  e- + p + p (ne + n  e- + p )
Deuterium has neutrons!
Only electron neutrinos can cause this reaction
Neutral Current Interactions (NC): nemt + d  nemt+ n + p
D2O has twice as many nucleons as H2O
Neutrons are captured by
all neutrino flavors contribute equally
deuterium and produce
energy threshold for NC reaction is 2.2 MeV
6.25 MeV g
Elastic Scattering interactions (ES): nemt + e-  nemt + emostly electron neutrinos (NC and CC)
SNO measures several quantities (fCC, fNC, fES) and from
them calculates the flux of muon and tau neutrinos
(fm+ftf):  f
CC
ne
f NC  fn e + fn m + fn t
f ES  fn e + 0.154(fn m + fn t )
SuperK only
has protons!
The quantities can
be compared with the
standard solar model.
They also measure the total 8B solar neutrino flux
into NC events and compare it with the prediction of the SSM.
P780.02 Spring 2002 L18
Results from SNO
Richard Kass
+0.44 +0.46
neutral current results: Fssm = 5.05 +1.01
F
=
5.09
sno
-0.81
-0.43 -0.43
Best fit to data gives:
Flux of 8B solar neutrinos
6
 2 1
F mt  3.41  0.45  00..45
48 10 cm s
Fmt=0 if no oscillations.
“SSM”=Standard Solar Model
Strong evidence for Neutrino Flavor Mixing at 5.3s (5.5s if include SuperK).
Total active neutrino flux agrees with standard solar model predictions.
Believe that the mixing occurs in the sun (“MSW effect”)
P780.02 Spring 2002 L18
Richard Kass
The Mikheyev Smirnov Wolfenstein Effect
Neutrino oscillations can be enhanced by traveling through matter.
Origin of enhancement is very similar to a “birefringent” medium where different
polarizations of light have different indexes of refraction. When polarized light passes
through a birefringent medium the relative phase of each polarization component
evolves differently and the plane of polarization rotates.
The neutrino “index of refraction” depends on its scattering amplitude with matter:
sun is made of protons, neutrons, electrons up/down quarks, electrons
All neutrinos can interact through neutral currents equally.
Only electron neutrino can interact through CC scattering: ne+ e-  ne + e-
The “refractive index” seen by electron neutrinos is different than the one seen
by muon and tau neutrinos.
The MSW effect gives for the probability of an electron neutrino produced at t=0
to be detected as a muon neutrino:
The MSW effect is
sin 2 2
xW
P(n e  n m )  sin 2 m sin (
)
osc
2
2
sin 2 2 m 
W2
W 2  sin 2 2 + ( D  cos2 2 ) 2
D  2GF N e
2 En
m 2
very similar to
“K-short regeneration”
M&S 10.2.4
Here Ne is the electron density.
For travel through vacuum Ne=0 and the MSW result reduces to our previous result.
P780.02 Spring 2002 L18
The MSW Effect
Richard Kass
There are only a few allowed regions in (, m2) space that are compatible with
MSW effect:
LMA= Large Mixing Angle region favored.
SNO Day and Night
Energy Spectra Alone
Combining All Experimental
and Solar Model information
From A. Hamer, APS Talk, 4/2002