1 / 27

Neutrino-nucleus s : Measurements vs. calculations

Neutrino-nucleus s : Measurements vs. calculations. Petr Vogel, Caltech Oak Ridge, Aug. 28-29, 2003. Outline: a) review of known weak processes b) successes and difficulties c) unknown but important processes

badrani
Télécharger la présentation

Neutrino-nucleus s : Measurements vs. calculations

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. Neutrino-nucleus s:Measurements vs. calculations Petr Vogel, Caltech Oak Ridge, Aug. 28-29, 2003 Outline: a) review of known weak processes b) successes and difficulties c) unknown but important processes d) why we need to `calibrate’ nuclear structure models

  2. Note for the web etc. version: Throughout the selection of references is rather subjective and incomplete. Also, to save space, usually only the first author and year are given. Aficionados will easily recognize the correct reference.

  3. The simplest system – a single nucleon These two processes are governed by the same hadronic matrix element: n p + e- + ne (neutron decay) ne + p n + e+ (inverse neutron decay) Knowing the neutron lifetime, t = 885.7(0.8), fixes the cross section for the relevant energies. The (relatively) small corrections of order En/Mp and a/p can be accurately evaluated. (see Vogel & Beacom, Phys. Rev. D60,053003 (1999) and Kurylov, Ramsey-Musolf & Vogel, Phys.Rev.C67,035502(2003)) In this way the cross section of the inverse neutron decay can be evaluated with the accuracy of ~0.2%.

  4. A more complicated system – the deuteron There are many possible reactions now: ne+ d p + p + e- (CC) • + d n + p + n (NC) the corresponding reactions with antineutrinos as well as p + p d + ne + e+ (pp in the Sun) p + p + e- d + ne (pep in the Sun) For all these reactions all unknown effects can be lumped together in one unknown parameter L1A (isovector two-body axial current) that must be fixed experimentally (calibrating the Sun). The cross section is of the form s(E) = a(E) + b(E)L1A, where the functions a(E), b(E) are known, and b(E)L1A contributes ~`a few’ % .

  5. Fixing the parameter L1A There are several ways to do this. One can use reactor data (neCC and NC), solar luminosity + helioseismology, SNO data, and tritum beta decay. Here is what you get: reactors: 3.6(5.5) fm3 (Butler,Chen,Vogel) Helioseismology: 4.8(6.7) fm3 (Brown,Butler,Guenther) SNO: 4.0(6.3) fm3 (Chen,Heeger,Robertson) tritium b decay: 6.5(2.4) fm3 (Schiavilla et al.) All these values are consistent, but have rather large uncertainties. To reduce them substantially, one would have to measure one of these cross sections to ~1%. This is very difficult.

  6. Reaction ne + 12C 12Ng.s.+ e- This is an example of a process where the cross section can be evaluated with little uncertainty. We can use the known 12N and 12B b decay rate, as well as the exclusive m capture on 12B and the M1 formfactor for the excitation of the analog 1+, T=1 state at 15.11 MeV in 12C. This fixes the cross section value for (almost) all energies, for both ne and nm.

  7. A=12 triad Qb+= 16.32 MeV Qb-= 13.37 MeV

  8. Experiment and theory agree very well(this reaction can be used for calibration) Exp.results (in 10-42cm2): 9.4 0.4 0.8 (KARMEN ne, 98, DAR) 8.9 0.3 0.9 (LSND ne, 01, DAR) • 8 10 (LSND nm, 02, DIF) 10.8 0.9 0.8 (KARMEN, NC, DAR ) Calculations: 9.3 , 63, 10.5 (CRPA 96) 8.8 , 60.4, 9.8 (shell model, 78) 9.2 , 62.9, 9.9 (EPT , 88)

  9. Cross section for 12C(nm,m)12Ngs in 10-42cm2, see Engel et al, Phys. Rev. C54, 2740 (1996)

  10. ne + 12C 12N* + e- (inclusive reaction) Here the final state is not fixed and not known, one cannot use (at least not simply as before) the known weak processes to fix the parameters of the nuclear models. The measurement is also more difficult since the experimental signature is less specific (units as before 10-42cm2): 4.3 0.4 0.6 (LSND, 01) 5.7 0.6 0.6 (LSND, 97) 5.1 0.6 0.5 (KARMEN, 98) 3.6 2.0 (E225, 92)

  11. Evaluation of the s for inclusive12C(ne,e-)N* with DAR spectrum This is dominated by negative parity multipoles, calculation becomes more difficult. Here is what various people get (in 10-42cm2): Kolbe 95 5.9-6.3 CRPA Singh 98 6.5 local density app. Kolbe 99 5.4-5.6 CRPA, frac. filling Hayes 00 3.8-4.1 SM, 3hw, extrapolated Volpe 00 8.3 SM, 3hw Volpe 00 9.1 QRPA The agreement between different calculations, and with the experiment, is less than perfect.

  12. True challenge, inclusive12C(nm,m-)N* with DIF Exp: LSND 02, (10.6 0.3 1.8)x10-40cm2 Calc: 17.5 – 17.8 (Kolbe, CRPA, 99) 16.6 1.4 (Singh, loc.den.app.,98) 15.2 (Volpe, SM, 00) 20.3 (Volpe, QRPA, 00) 13.8 (Hayes, SM, 00) Thus all calculations overestimate the cros section, with SM results noticeably smaller than CRPA or QRPA. The reason for that remains a mystery.

  13. But CRPA describes quite well electronscattering with similar momentum transfer

  14. Moreover, in another case (and a bit lower energies) CRPA (Kolbe) and SM (Haxton 87)agree quite well.

  15. CRPA angular distribution (which at low energy also agrees with SM)

  16. Let me now show some calculated s forseveral cases of practical interest (ICARUS).These could be, therefore, used as both testsof calculations and basis for detector design etc. 40Ar(ne,e-)40K*, and 40Ar(ne,e+)40Cl* RPA

  17. CC cross section for ne (T=4 MeV) on 52-60Fetotal s (full circles), n emission (empty), p (crosses)

  18. Reaction 127I(ne,e-)127Xebound states This was proposed by Haxton,88 as a radiochemical solar n detection reaction, similar to 37Cl. The cross section, unlike 37Cl, was based only on difficult calculations. To calibrate it, an experiment with DAR spectrum was performed at LAMPF, giving • = (2.75 0.84(stat) 0.24(syst))x10-40cm2 (Distel 02) Calculations, performed earlier (Engel 94) gave • = 2.1 (for gA=1.0) or 3.1 (for gA=1.26) . The agreement is good, but the experimental uncertainty is large, and the issue of gA renormalization remains unresolved.

  19. Charged current cross section on Pb Lead based detectors are considered for SN n detection. There are no experimental data, so the detector design has to rely on calculated cross sections. Shell model treatment is impossible for such heavy nucleus, so various forms of RPA and other approximations are used. The spread of the calculated values is often treated (for no logical reason, but nevertheless) as a measure of uncertainty of the calculated values.

  20. Calculated CC cross sections forne on 208Pb (in 10-40 cm2) For DAR: Kolbe & Langanke, 01 36 Suzuki & Sagawa, 03 32 For FD: T=6 MeV 8 MeV 10 MeV 14 25 35 Volpe 02 11 25 45 Kolbe 01 Considerably larger s were obtained by Fuller et al. 99; reasons for that overestimate are well understood, see Engel et al. 03 where the s are close to Volpe 02

  21. CC s on 208Pb calculated with SKIII (solid) and SkO+ (dashed) interactions, in fm2. From Engel et al. 03

  22. Conclusions: • Comparison between calculated and measured cross sections on complex nuclei is sporadic or nonexistent. Reliable and accurate data are needed 2) Different calculations agree on a ~30% level for the energies relevant to SNS or Supernovae. 3) However, if some (even small) number of parameters could be adjusted (as for the 12C 12Ng.s.) a much better description will likely result.

  23. Here are few slides I showed at the ORLAND workshop three years ago. They remain basically relevant for SNS2.

  24. (or SNS2)

  25. (or SNS2)

  26. (or SNS2)

  27. (or SNS2) (the smaller is rate is more correct)

More Related