1: \documentclass[aps,twocolumn,superscriptaddress,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{nicefrac}
4:
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: %\begin{frontmatter}
8:
9: \title{Features of Kamiokande-II, IMB and Baksan observations
10: and their interpretation in a two-component model for the signal}
11: \author{Francesco Vissani}
12: \affiliation{INFN, Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso, Assergi (AQ), Italy}
13: \author{Giulia Pagliaroli}
14: \affiliation{University of L'Aquila, Coppito,
15: and INFN, Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso, Italy}
16: \begin{abstract}
17: We consider the time, angular and energy
18: distributions of SN1987A events discussing
19: the quality of their agreement with the expectations.
20: A global interpretation is performed
21: considering a simple model, based on the standard scenario
22: for the explosion.
23: Despite the contrasting and confusing indications, a straightforward fit
24: to the data provides a result that does not contradict but rather supports
25: the expectations.
26: The calculated electron antineutrino
27: flux is applied to predict the relic neutrino signal.
28: \end{abstract}
29: \maketitle
30: %\end{frontmatter}
31:
32: \section{Introduction}
33: The Symposium held in Moscow on February 2007 \cite{symp}
34: was devoted to discuss open problems of SN1987A.
35: The meaning of LSD events~\cite{mb} was discussed, and
36: the potential of the model of Imshennik and Ryazhskaya~\cite{ir}
37: was shown. The observations of
38: Kamiokande-II \cite{kii}, IMB \cite{imb} and Baksan \cite{bak}
39: were covered by the contribution of Alexeev.
40: In the spirit of the Symposium,
41: we recall that (1)~certain features of these observations
42: are difficult to understand, see e.g.\ \cite{olgarev};
43: (2)~there is not yet a complete model for the explosion,
44: that could shed doubts on the assumption that we
45: know how neutrinos are emitted;
46: this applies also to ref.~\cite{ir}.
47:
48: In this work that expands the talk of F.V.\ at \cite{symp}
49: we study the features of Kamiokande-II, IMB and Baksan data
50: and analyze them in the `standard scenario'
51: of emission, first advocated by
52: Nadyozhin \cite{nad}--also called
53: Bethe and Wilson scenario \cite{bw},
54: delayed explosion or $\nu$-assisted explosion.
55: We recall its features:
56: On top of a several-seconds lasting
57: emission from the proto neutron
58: star, the {\bf cooling}, there is
59: an initial intense emission
60: lasting a fraction of a second.
61: The $\nu_e$ and $\bar\nu_e$
62: irradiated in this phase transfer energy and
63: help the stalled shock wave to resume,
64: eventually leading to explosion. We call this phase of
65: neutrino emission {\bf accretion}.
66: For
67: progresses toward the implementation of the `standard
68: scenario' in numerical simulations, see~\cite{janka}.
69:
70: %peculiarita' della stella forse riflesse in peculiarita' dei dati
71:
72: \section{Features of the data\label{sec2}}
73: The observed events are 11 or 12 in Kamiokande-II, the $6^{th}$
74: being below the threshold of 7.5 MeV.
75: The duration and the energy of the signal
76: is not safely known. Thus we consider a unified time
77: window of $T=30$~s in this work.
78: The candidate signal events
79: increases to 16 in Kamiokande-II
80: (the events number 13,14,15,16 being below
81: the threshold), it is 8 in IMB and 5 in Baksan.
82: Recall that most
83: signal is due to
84: $\bar\nu_e p\to e^+ n$ [IBD reaction]
85: that has the
86: largest cross section; unless stated otherwise we assume that all
87: signal events are due to IBD.
88:
89: The background in Kamiokande-II declines rapidly
90: with the number of hit phototubes; on average,
91: there should be about 0.7 background events
92: above threshold and 5.6 in total.
93: Kamiokande-II analyzed the whole volume of the detector. The
94: region close to the walls (in particular the upper wall)
95: is the less safe against the risk of background. Five
96: of the 11 events are close to the walls, lying in the
97: outermost 4\% of the volume of the detector; they include
98: the events number 3,4,10 of the dataset, close
99: to the threshold.
100: We expect 1 background event in Baksan in $T=30$~s;
101: this, together with a typical expected signal
102: of about 1.6 antineutrinos ($\mu=2.6$)
103: gives a reasonable Poisson chance
104: $\mu^n e^{-\mu}/n\mbox{!}=8$~\% when $n=5$. IMB instead can be
105: assumed to be background free.
106:
107:
108:
109:
110:
111:
112:
113:
114: \paragraph*{Energy distribution}
115: This distribution is difficult to interpret.
116: We select 3 questions for the discussion:\\
117: (i) Do the observed energies meet the expectations?\\
118: (ii) Are the average energies of IMB $31.9\pm 2.6$ MeV
119: and of Kamiokande-II $15.4\pm 2.4$ MeV compatible?\\
120: (iii) Why the first 4 Kamiokande-II events have average
121: energy $12.6\pm 2.4$ MeV and the last seven $17.1\pm 3.3$ MeV? \\
122: The first can be answered fitting the data with a black body (thermal)
123: $\bar\nu_e$ spectrum with luminosity $\propto R^2_c T^4_c$. We confirm that the
124: Kamiokande-II and IMB datasets are compatible only when we consider the
125: 90\% C.L.; Baksan is compatible
126: with both. When we combine the data
127: in a unique analysis, the values of the
128: radius is larger than expected, $R_c\sim 30$ km.
129: The second question can be discussed quantitatively
130: calculating the average energies of the events, keeping the
131: antineutrino temperature $T_c$ as a free parameter (see e.g.,
132: \cite{prd}):
133: Kamiokande-II and IMB suggest different values of $T_c$.
134: The first two questions are the traditional formulations of the
135: ``energy problem''.
136: They suggest two possible ways-out:
137: a)~The energy distribution is strongly non-thermal. This is explored,
138: e.g., in \cite{mirizzi} and \cite{lunardini}.
139: Our objection is that this is a major deviation from the expectations
140: that should not be admitted in a conservative analysis, as, {\em e.g.},
141: \cite{jh}.
142: b)~Another possibility is that there are some
143: low energy background events in Kamiokande-II~\cite{jcap},
144: see the feature at $E=4-8$~MeV in Fig.~\ref{fig5},
145: but recall that the background events above the nominal
146: threshold are expected to be few.
147: The third formulation of the problem
148: \cite{ll},\cite{jcap} offers a new clue: the
149: excess of low energy Kamiokande-II events is due
150: to the early detected events.
151: This is fine since the
152: standard scenario predicts the existence
153: of the initial phase of accretion possibly with
154: peculiar features. The high luminosity
155: helps account the early events seen by Kamiokande-II.
156: \begin{figure}[t]
157: $$\includegraphics[width=0.44\textwidth,
158: height=0.30\textwidth,
159: angle=0]{fig1}$$\vskip-4mm
160: \caption{\em \footnotesize
161: Dots: observed energies in Kamiokande-II in 30 s.
162: Continuous curve: expected cumulative
163: spectrum (background + signal as in Eq.~\ref{appro})
164: as a function of the energy in MeV.
165: The Smirnov-Cram\`e{}r-Von Mises (SCVM) \cite{scvm} goodness of fit is 19\%;
166: compare also with \cite{jcap}.\label{fig5}}
167: \end{figure}
168:
169:
170:
171: \begin{figure}[b]
172: $$\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,
173: height=0.36\textwidth,
174: angle=0]{fig2}$$
175: \vskip-4mm
176: \caption{\em \footnotesize
177: Expected 2-dimensional (positron-energy in MeV, cosine with the direction of
178: SN1987A)-distribution for Kamiokande-II.
179: The contour plot with equally spaced heights shows
180: the mild directionality of IBD reaction and the peak of
181: ES events (forward region near 15 MeV)
182: whose shape is dictated by instrumental effects (see e.g., \cite{prd}).
183: \label{fa}}
184: \end{figure}
185:
186:
187:
188:
189: \paragraph*{Angular distribution}
190: The data and the expected angular distribution
191: have been recently compared in \cite{prd},
192: keeping into account the angular bias of IMB \cite{imb}. The SCVM test shows
193: that the ``problem'' of the forward peak is not severe:
194: if all event are IBD, the goodness of fit
195: is 6.4\% for IMB and 8.6\% in Kamiokande-II. With 1 or 2 elastic
196: scattering events (0.3-0.6 expected in Kamiokande-II) this improves
197: further. Note that, even being ready to consider
198: something exotic, it
199: is hard to imagine a reaction that is forward-peaked but too much,
200: as needed to locate half of the IMB events
201: in the region $30^\circ <\theta<60^\circ$.
202: Thus the discrepancy with the expectations
203: is not very compelling.
204: We also estimated the angular
205: distribution taking into account elastic scattering events (ES).
206: Assuming oscillations with normal mass hierarchy and
207: increasing non-electronic neutrinos as allowed in
208: \cite{keil} we calculated the time-averaged
209: distribution of Fig.~\ref{fa}.
210: From this, we find that the probability
211: that the first event detected by Kamiokande-II is due to ES
212: is about 30\%.
213:
214:
215:
216: \begin{figure}[t]
217: \vskip-4mm
218: $$\includegraphics[width=0.40\textwidth,
219: height=0.43\textwidth,
220: angle=270]{fig3}$$
221: \vskip-4mm
222: \caption{\em\footnotesize
223: In the abscissa, the time of the event; in the
224: ordinate, its progressive number.
225: Two time distributions, comprising
226: 22 signal and 7 background events,
227: are given. Also indicated their goodness of fit values.
228: In the lower one, all signal events belong to cooling,
229: where the signal declines with a time constant $\tau_c=4$~s.
230: In the upper one,
231: only 13 signal events belong to cooling;
232: the remaining 9 belong to accretion phase and
233: are distributed in the interval $t<0.7$~s.
234: The dotted vertical line marks the end of the first second.
235: \label{ff}}
236: \end{figure}
237:
238:
239:
240:
241: \paragraph*{Time distribution}
242: The time sequence of the Kamiokande-II events is at first sight odd;
243: there is a cluster of six events in the first second
244: and a ``gap'' of 7 seconds between the event number 9 and the event
245: number 10, difficult to understand on physical basis.
246: One way-out is to combine all data
247: in a single dataset as in Fig.~\ref{ff}.
248: This synthetic dataset can be compared with the expectations.
249: Besides the known background component, $n_b=6.6$ expected events,
250: the signal should accumulate in two phases:
251: a first one with $n_a$ events, followed by
252: a second and longer phase with $n_c=29-n_b-n_a$ events:
253: \begin{equation}
254: N(t)=n_b {\textstyle \frac{t}{T}} +
255: n_a [{\textstyle 1\!+\!\theta(t\!-\!\tau_a) (
256: \frac{t}{\tau_a}-1)}] +
257: n_c [1-e^{-{t}/{\tau_c}} ]
258: \end{equation}
259: where the suffixes $b,a,c$ mean background, accretion, cooling.
260: The goodness-of-fit values shown in Fig.~\ref{ff} suggest
261: that a two component model of this type has no
262: problem to reproduce the data.\footnote{This
263: still leaves some open questions:
264: The absolute times of Kamiokande-II and
265: Baksan are not reliable. Is it fair
266: to use the corresponding freedom
267: of interpretation to set the first event in each detectors
268: at $t=0$?
269: Do the assumed number of events fits into a reasonable model
270: for the emission?
271: Both of them are answered affirmatively with
272: the global fit of the data discussed later, based on \cite{new}.}
273: See \cite{malg,nadreview}
274: for further useful discussion of the time
275: sequence of the events.
276:
277:
278:
279:
280:
281: \section{A two component model for $\bar\nu_e$ emission\label{sec3}}
282: Let us summarize the previous section.
283: There is some disturbing feature of the data.
284: The presence of few elastic scattering events does not seem to be
285: essential to explain the angular distribution,
286: that conforts us to proceed with the usual IBD
287: hypothesis for the signal.
288: We showed that
289: background events should be accounted for
290: and that it is important to consider very seriously
291: the existence of an initial phase of high neutrino
292: luminosity.
293: In short, the opinion that we derive from the previous discussion
294: is that there is no serious problem with the data.
295: Thus we move to interpret them within the `standard scenario'.
296:
297: \begin{figure}[t]
298: $$\includegraphics[width=.38\textwidth,
299: height=0.50\textwidth,
300: angle=270]{fig4}$$\vskip-4mm
301: \caption{\em \footnotesize
302: Continuous curve: instantaneous
303: $\bar\nu_e$ flux for $M_a=0.15\ M_\odot$ and $T_a=2.5$ MeV.
304: Dotted curve: black body distribution with the same luminosity
305: ($1.1\times 10^{53}$~erg/s) and
306: average energy ($13$~MeV),
307: i.e., with parameters $R_c=82$ km and $T_c=4.1$~MeV.
308: \label{fig:pinch}}
309: \end{figure}
310:
311:
312:
313:
314:
315: We analyzed the
316: data of Kamiokande-II, IMB and Baksan
317: adopting a definite model for neutrino emission \cite{new}.
318: The first attempt in this direction has been done by Lamb and
319: Loredo~\cite{ll}.
320: Of course, the choice of the model is a critical step.
321: We assume the existence of the two main
322: phases of antineutrino emission as
323: expected in the `standard scenario'.
324: For each phase we need to describe the luminosity of the emission,
325: the average antineutrino energy and the duration.
326: For {\bf cooling}, the parameters
327: are $R_c$, $T_c$ and $\tau_c$
328: (similar to the parameters of the previous section). For {\bf accretion},
329: we use the mass of neutrons exposed to the positrons, $M_a$,
330: the temperature of the positrons, $T_a$,
331: and the duration of the accretion, $\tau_a$.
332: In fact, the $\bar\nu_e$ are produced
333: from the reaction of the thermal
334: positrons with the target neutrons around the proto neutron star,
335: through $e^+ n\to p\bar\nu_e$, the inverse of IBD; a sample energy
336: spectrum is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:pinch}.
337: Note the characteristic `pinching' of the distribution--an
338: output, not an input of our model.
339:
340:
341:
342:
343: Let us mention for completeness some qualifying
344: feature of our analysis.
345: We prescribe that
346: (1)~the temperature of $e^+$
347: increases during accretion so that
348: the average energy of $\bar\nu_e$ is
349: approximatively continuous at $t\sim \tau_a$, that overcomes
350: the shortcoming of the Lamb and Loredo model noted in~\cite{mirizzi};
351: (2)~the number of neutrons exposed to
352: the positron flux decreases in time more smoothly
353: than as in \cite{ll};
354: in this way the luminosity is also continuous, as expected on general
355: basis.
356: (3)~Finally we avoid the simultaneous presence of cooling and accretion
357: $\bar\nu_e$ delaying
358: the cooling phase by an amount $\sim \tau_a$ again
359: improving on~\cite{ll}.
360: We also improved the energy spectrum
361: of accretion neutrinos and included neutrino
362: oscillations with normal mass hierarchy.
363:
364:
365:
366: \begin{figure}[t]
367: $$\includegraphics[width=0.38\textwidth,
368: height=0.50\textwidth,
369: angle=270]{fig5}$$\vskip-4mm
370: \caption{\em \footnotesize
371: The continuous curve is the $\bar\nu_e$
372: spectrum in the best fit model;
373: the dotted curve is the approximant described in
374: Eq.~\ref{appro}.\label{fig:fluk}}
375: \end{figure}
376:
377:
378:
379: Our best fit result for the parameters is \cite{new}:
380: \begin{equation}
381: \begin{array}{ccc}
382: R_c=16\mbox{ km}, & T_c=4.6\mbox{ MeV}, & \tau_c=4.7\mbox{ s}, \\
383: M_a=0.22\ M_\odot, & T_a=2.4\mbox{ MeV}, & \tau_a=0.6\mbox{ s}.
384: \end{array}
385: \label{nb}
386: \end{equation}
387: The radiated binding energy is ${\cal E}_b=2.2\times 10^{53}$ erg,
388: similar to the expected value for the formation of a neutron star.
389: The values of the parameters of the cooling phase
390: are reasonable; in particular, $R_c$ resembles a
391: typical neutron star radius.
392: Also the values of the parameters of accretion resemble
393: the expectations; the value of initial
394: accreting mass $M_a$ is a fraction of the outer core mass $\sim 0.6M_\odot$.
395: A last interesting outcome is that in the 30~s window
396: Baksan had 0, 1, 2 background events
397: with a posteriori probabilities of
398: 20\%, 47\%, 29\%, that compares well
399: with the {\em a priori} expectation of 1 event.
400:
401:
402:
403:
404: The electron antineutrino spectrum, shown in
405: Fig.~\ref{fig:fluk} can be calculated from the fluence
406: (=time integrated flux) assuming $D=50$~kpc, and it
407: is well approximated by a modified Fermi-Dirac
408: distribution:
409: \begin{equation}
410: \frac{dN}{dE}=\frac{\kappa}{T^3}
411: \frac{E^2}{1+\exp\left(\frac{E}{T}-\eta\right)} \mbox{ with }
412: \left\{
413: \begin{array}{l}
414: \kappa=9.45\times 10^{56}, \\
415: T=3.77\mbox{ MeV},\\
416: \eta=0.531.
417: \end{array}
418: \right.\label{appro}
419: \end{equation}
420: The {\em a posteriori} comparison with the detected energies
421: is satisfactory, as already shown in Fig.~\ref{fig5}.
422:
423: As a possible application, we use this result to
424: predict the number of relic neutrino events.
425: We consider a detector a la SK
426: with a fiducial mass of 22.5 kton \cite{malek}.
427: The rate of accumulation of
428: IBD events is:
429: \begin{equation}
430: N_p \!\! \int_{\mbox{\tiny 19.3 MeV}}^{E_{max}}
431: \!\!\!\! dE \sigma(E)
432: \frac{c}{H_0} \! \int_{0}^{z_{max}} \!\!\! dz
433: \frac{R(z)\
434: \displaystyle
435: \frac{dN}{dE}((1+z) E)}{\sqrt{\Omega_\Lambda+\Omega_{DM}(1+z)^3}}
436: \label{osti}
437: \end{equation}
438: The cosmological parameters are $H_0=70$ km/sec/Mpc,
439: $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$, $\Omega_{DM}=0.3$.
440: An important quantity is the rate of core collapse
441: supernovae $R$ as a function of the redshift $z$,
442: adequately described by:
443: $R(z)=R(0) (1+z)^\beta$ if $z<1$ and
444: $=R(0)2^\beta$ if $z\ge 1$.
445: $R(0)$ is the product of the fraction of
446: core collapse supernovae $f_{SN}$ and
447: the cosmic rate of star formation $R_*(0)$.
448: Other quantities
449: (the maximum energy $E_\nu\sim 40-60$ MeV
450: and redshift $\sim 5-6$, the point
451: $z=1$ where the slope is modified)
452: are not critical for the prediction.
453: We compare in Tab.~\ref{tab2} the events per year for three descriptions
454: of the rate of cosmic supernovae. The lower number of events
455: is rather close to the one given in~\cite{lunardini}; in other words,
456: the non-standard neutrino spectrum used in~\cite{lunardini} gives
457: essentially the same results as the (more standard) spectrum of
458: Eq.~\ref{appro}.
459: Barring the possibility that SN1987A was a peculiar event,
460: we are lead to believe that the largest uncertainty in predicting
461: the relic neutrino signal is the rate of cosmic supernovae
462: rather than the model for neutrino emission.
463:
464:
465: \begin{table}[t]
466: \centerline{
467: \begin{tabular}{||c|c||cc|cc||c||}
468: \hline
469: $R(0)$ & $\beta$ &
470: $N_{tot}$ & $\langle z\rangle$ & $N_{thr}$ & $\langle
471: z\rangle$
472: & model \\
473: \hline
474: $2.00$ & 2.00& 3 &0.5 & 0.6 &0.2 & ref.\cite{john} \\
475: $0.67$ & 3.44& 2 &0.7& 0.3 &0.2 & ref.\cite{lunardini} \\
476: $1.25$ & 3.44& 4 &0.7& 0.5 &0.2 & ref.\cite{john2} \\
477: \hline
478: \end{tabular}}
479: \caption{\em\footnotesize
480: $1^{st}$ and $2^{nd}$ column, parameters of SN
481: distribution--$R(0)$ is in units of
482: $1/(10^{4}\mbox{Mpc}^{3} \mbox{yr})$;
483: $3^{rd}$ and $4^{th}$ column, total number of expected events
484: per year from the relic supernovae and average redshift;
485: $5^{th}$ and $6^{th}$ column, events above a threshold of 19.3 MeV
486: and average redshift.\label{tab2}}
487: \end{table}
488:
489:
490:
491:
492:
493:
494:
495:
496:
497:
498:
499: \section{Discussion}
500:
501:
502: The difficulty to interpret SN1987A data is due to
503: small-number statistics, partial operativity of IMB,
504: poor absolute times in Kamiokande-II and Baksan,
505: an apparent excess of events in Baksan,
506: ``gap'' in the time-distribution of Kamiokande-II,
507: peculiar angular distributions
508: and different energies of Kamiokande-II and IMB.
509: However, none of these problems
510: constitutes an unsurmountable difficulty
511: and on the contrary they can and have to be taken
512: care in the analysis; furthermore, none of them
513: can be solved too directly by considering
514: reasonable deviations from the standard expectations.
515: This does not guarantee us the possibility of reaching
516: a safe interpretation of the data, but contributes to make
517: less arbitrary the belief that these unique data
518: can be understood in a coherent framework.
519:
520: A general question that we addressed is if the data resemble the
521: conventional expectations. We motivated the opinion that
522: the presence of background events should be accounted for and that
523: the signal should be described by considering an initial phase of
524: intense neutrino luminosity, as required in the `standard scenario'
525: \cite{nad,bw}.
526: This opinion is in agreement with the conclusions
527: reached in 1989 in the review
528: on SN1987A by Imshennik and Nadyozhin \cite{in}.
529:
530:
531: Being aware of the incompleteness of the present information
532: (on 3D effects, rotation, magnetic fields; on peculiarities of
533: SN1987A; on the existence of the neutron star; on neutrino
534: oscillations; on the detailed detector response, {\em etc} \cite{symp})
535: we attempted to define the expectations of the `standard scenario'
536: \cite{nad,bw} in a
537: parameterized model, trying to keep it as simple and flexible as
538: possible but imposing certain general requirements,
539: such as the continuity of the antineutrino luminosity and average energy.
540:
541:
542: We elaborated on the pioneer approach of Lamb and
543: Loredo to SN1987A data analysis \cite{ll} emphasizing its
544: defects and drawbacks but arguing that their model
545: for antineutrino emission can be improved to
546: resemble more closely the expectations \cite{new}.
547: The numerical analysis of the data
548: yielded indications in (perhaps surprising) agreement with the
549: expectations of the `standard scenario' for neutrino emission.
550: We estimated in this way
551: the spectrum of $\bar\nu_e$ from the SN1987A data and
552: applied this result to evaluate the number of
553: relic neutrinos events.
554:
555:
556:
557: \vskip2mm
558: \noindent
559: {\scriptsize
560: {\em Acknowledgments} F.V.\ thanks
561: the Organizers of the Symposium for
562: the honorable invitation;
563: O.~Ryazhskaya for many stimulating discussions and
564: inexhaustible passion with SN1987A;
565: D.~Nadyozhin for help with
566: astrophysics and precious encouragement;
567: E.~Alexeev and A.~Mal'gin
568: for frank and useful discussions
569: on the meaning of the data;
570: and last but not least my friends
571: N.~Agafonova, A.~Mal'gin, and V.~Yakushev
572: who made my first visit to Moscow unforgettable.
573: \vskip-2mm}
574:
575:
576: %\footnotesize
577: \begin{thebibliography}{3}
578: \bibitem{symp} Web page: {\tt http://vaxmw.tower.ras.ru/SN1987A}
579:
580: \bibitem{mb} V.~L.~Dadykin {\it et al.},
581: JETP Lett.\ {\bf 45} (1987) 593
582: [Pisma Zh.\ Eksp.\ Teor.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 45} (1987) 464]
583:
584:
585: \bibitem{ir} V.S. Imshennik, O.G. Ryazhskaya,
586: Astron. Lett. 30 (2004) 14
587:
588: \bibitem{kii}
589: K.~Hirata {\it et al.} [KAMIOKANDE-II Collaboration],
590: %``Observation Of A Neutrino Burst From The Supernova Sn1987a,''
591: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 58} (1987) 1490;
592: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 38}, 448-458 (1988)
593:
594:
595: \bibitem{imb}
596: R.M. Bionta {\it et al.},
597: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 58} (1987) 1494;
598: C.B. Bratton {\it et al.}, IMB collaboration,
599: Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988)
600: 3361
601:
602: \bibitem{bak}
603: E.N. Alekseev, L.N. Alekseeva, V.I. Volchenko and I.V. Krivosheina,
604: JETP Lett.\ {\bf 45} (1987) 589 and
605: Phys.Lett. {\bf B 205} (1988) 209
606:
607: \bibitem{olgarev} V.L. Dadykin, G.T. Zatsepin, and O.G. Ryazhskaya,
608: Sov. Phys. Usp., 32 (5) 1989;
609: O.G. Ryazhskaya, Usp. Fiz. Nauk 49 (10) 2006
610:
611: \bibitem{nad}
612: D.K. Nadyozhin,
613: Astrophysics \& Space Science 59 (1978) 131
614:
615: \bibitem{bw}
616: J.R.~Wilson in {\em Numerical Astrophysics},
617: eds.\ J.~Centrella, J.~LeBlanc, R.L.~Bowers,
618: page 422 (Jones and Bartlett, Boston, 1985);
619: H.A.~Bethe and J.R.~Wilson,
620: %``Revival Of A Stalled Supernova Shock By Neutrino Heating,''
621: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 295} (1985) 14
622:
623: \bibitem{janka}
624: H.-T. Janka {\it et al.},
625: 0708.3372 [astro-ph]
626:
627:
628:
629: \bibitem{prd}
630: M.L. Costantini {\it et al.},
631: %``SN1987A and the properties of neutrino burst,''
632: Phys.Rev.D{\bf 70} (2004) 043006
633:
634:
635:
636:
637:
638:
639:
640:
641:
642: \bibitem{mirizzi}
643: A.~Mirizzi and G. G.~Raffelt,
644: %``New analysis of the SN 1987A neutrinos with a flexible spectral shape,''
645: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 72} (2005) 063001
646:
647: \bibitem{lunardini}
648: C.~Lunardini,
649: %``The diffuse supernova neutrino flux, star formation rate and SN1987A,''
650: Astropart.\ Ph.\ {\bf 26} (2006) 190
651:
652:
653: \bibitem{jh}
654: H.-T. Janka and W. Hillebrandt,
655: %Neutrino emission from type II supernovae - an analysis of the spectra
656: A\& A {\bf 224} (1989) 49
657:
658:
659:
660:
661: \bibitem{jcap}
662: M.L. Costantini,
663: A. Ianni,
664: G. Pagliaroli,
665: F. Vissani,
666: JCAP 0708:014, 2007.
667:
668: \bibitem{scvm}
669: Obtained calculating
670: $\omega^2\! =\! \nicefrac{1}{12 n}+ \sum_{i=1}^n ( F(E_i)-
671: \nicefrac{(i-1/2)}{{n}})^2$,
672: where $n$=number of data and $F(E)$=cumulative distribution
673:
674:
675: \bibitem{ll} T.J. Loredo and D.Q. Lamb,
676: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 063002, 2002
677:
678:
679: \bibitem{keil} M.T. Keil {\it et al.}, Astrophys.J. 590 (2003) 971
680:
681: \bibitem{new}
682: G. Pagliaroli,
683: M.L. Costantini,
684: A. Ianni,
685: F. Vissani,
686: LNGS/TH-01/08,
687: For a preliminary report,
688: see 0708.4032 [astro-ph]
689:
690:
691:
692:
693:
694:
695:
696:
697:
698:
699: \bibitem{malg}
700: A.~Mal'gin,
701: %``Analysis Of Integral And Averaged Characteristics Of The Imb And Kamioka
702: % Signals From Sn1987a,''
703: Nuovo Cim.\ C {\bf 21} (1998) 317.
704: %%CITATION = NUCIA,C21,317;%%
705:
706: \bibitem{nadreview}
707: V.S. Imshennik,
708: D.K. Nadyozhin,
709: IJMP A20 (2005) 6597
710:
711:
712:
713: \bibitem{malek}
714: M.~Malek {\it et al.} [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],
715: %``Search for supernova relic neutrinos at Super-Kamiokande,''
716: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90} (2003) 061101
717: %%CITATION = PRLTA,90,061101;%%
718:
719:
720: \bibitem{john}
721: L.E. Strigari {\it et al.},
722: JCAP 0504:017, 2005
723:
724: \bibitem{john2}
725: H.~Yuksel and J.F.~Beacom,
726: %``Neutrino spectrum from SN 1987A and from cosmic supernovae,''
727: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 76} (2007) 083007
728: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D76,083007;%%
729:
730: \bibitem{in}
731: V.S. Imshennik, D.K. Nadyozhin,
732: Astrophysics \& Space Science
733: Physics Review 8 (1989) part 1
734:
735: \end{thebibliography}
736: \end{document}
737: