1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{cite}
4:
5:
6: %%PAGE FORMAT (for US Letter)
7: \topmargin -.5cm
8: \textwidth 15.3cm
9: \oddsidemargin 18pt
10: \evensidemargin 18pt %1mm =2.85pt
11: \textheight 21cm
12: \marginparwidth = 60pt %36pt standard
13: \marginparsep = 5pt %18pt standard
14:
15: %%DEFINITIONS
16: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
17: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
18: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
19: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
20: \newcommand{\smallz}{{\scriptscriptstyle Z}} % a smaller Z
21: \newcommand{\smallw}{{\scriptscriptstyle W}} %
22: \newcommand{\smallh}{{\scriptscriptstyle H}} %
23: \newcommand{\smallr}{{\scriptscriptstyle R}} %
24: \newcommand{\smalll}{{\scriptscriptstyle L}} %
25: \newcommand{\smallx}{{\scriptscriptstyle X}} %
26: \newcommand{\smallmax}{{\rm\scriptstyle max}} %
27: \newcommand{\smallmin}{{\rm\scriptstyle min}} %
28: \newcommand{\gl}{g_\smalll}
29: \newcommand{\gr}{g_\smallr}
30: \newcommand{\fl}{f_\smalll}
31: \newcommand{\fr}{f_\smallr}
32: \newcommand{\flr}{f_{\smalll \smallr}}
33: \newcommand{\fx}{f_\smallx}
34: \newcommand{\hov}{\bar{h}}
35: \newcommand{\flov}{\bar{f}_\smalll}
36: \newcommand{\frov}{\bar{f}_\smallr}
37: \newcommand{\flrov}{\bar{f}_{\smalll \smallr}}
38: \newcommand{\fxov}{\bar{f}_\smallx}
39: \newcommand{\mz}{M_\smallz}
40: \newcommand{\mw}{M_\smallw}
41: \newcommand{\mh}{M_\smallh}
42: \newcommand{\sideast}{\marginpar{\small\em ~~~~~~(*)}}
43: \def \sss {\scriptscriptstyle}
44: \def \mt {m_t}
45: \def \gev {\mbox{ GeV}}
46: \def \mev {\mbox{ MeV}}
47: \def \dilog {\mbox{Li}_2}
48: \def \seff {s^2_{eff}}
49: \def \ms {\overline{\mbox{MS}}}
50: \def \cl {\mbox{ 95\% C.L.}}
51: \def \psl {p \kern-.45em{/}}
52: \def \qsl {q \kern-.45em{/}}
53: \def \lsim {\raisebox{-.7ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle <}{\sim}\,$}}
54: \def \gsim {\raisebox{-.7ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle >}{\sim}\,$}}
55: \def \ct {c_\smallw}
56: \def \st {s_\smallw}
57: \def \st {s_{\mbox{\footnotesize{w}}}}
58: \def \Be7 {$\!\!\!\!\phantom{A}^7$Be~}
59: \def \B8 {$\!\!\!\!\phantom{A}^8$B~}
60: \def \bm {\boldmath}
61: \def \eom {E_\omega}
62: \def \zom {z_\omega}
63: \def \notin {\in \!\!\!\!\!/}
64:
65: \begin{document}
66:
67: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% titlepage %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
68: \begin{titlepage}
69: \begin{flushright}
70: \small
71: BUTP 2001/02\\
72: February 2001
73: \end{flushright}
74:
75: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
76:
77:
78: \begin{center}
79: \vspace{2cm}
80: {\LARGE \bf QED Corrections to the Scattering \\
81: of Solar Neutrinos and Electrons\footnote{Presented at the
82: Symposium in Honor of Professor Alberto Sirlin's $70^{th}$ Birthday:
83: {\em 50 Years of Precision Electroweak Physics},
84: New York University, October 27--28, 2000.}}
85:
86: \vspace{1cm}
87: %\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
88: {\large\bf M.~Passera}
89: %\footnote{E-mail address: passera@itp.unibe.ch}
90: \setcounter{footnote}{0}
91: \vspace{.5cm}
92:
93: {\it Institut f\"{u}r Theoretische Physik,
94: Universit\"{a}t Bern, \\
95: Sidlerstrasse 5, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland}
96: \vspace{1.8cm}
97:
98:
99: {\large\bf Abstract}
100: \end{center}
101: \vspace{5mm}
102: \noindent
103: We discuss recent calculations of the $O(\alpha)$ QED corrections to
104: the recoil electron energy spectrum in neutrino electron scattering,
105: and to the spectrum of the combined energy of the recoil electron and
106: a possible accompanying photon emitted in the scattering process. We
107: then examine the role of these corrections in the interpretation of
108: precise measurements from solar neutrino electron scattering
109: experiments.
110:
111: % PACS numbers:
112:
113: \end{titlepage}
114:
115: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
116: %2345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567
117: % 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
118: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
119: \section{Introduction}
120:
121: The calculation of the neutrino electron scattering cross section has
122: a long history. The cross section for the process $\nu_{e} + e
123: \rightarrow \nu_{e} + e$ was first computed by Feynman and Gell-Mann
124: almost half a century ago within the framework of an effective
125: four--fermion V$-$A theory \cite{FG}. The QED corrections to this
126: cross section were calculated in 1964 by Lee and Sirlin \cite{LS}, and
127: shortly afterwards Ram \cite{Ram} extended their calculations by
128: including hard photon emission. A few years later, 't Hooft computed
129: the lowest order prediction to this differential cross section in the
130: Standard Model (SM) \cite{tH}. Since then, the radiative corrections
131: to this process, which plays a fundamental role in the study of
132: electroweak interactions, have been investigated by many authors,
133: focusing on various aspects of the problem \cite{ZKN,SU-GV-MS-AHKKM,
134: AH,MSS,DB1,DB2,Bernabeu}.
135:
136:
137: 't Hooft's early SM predictions were used by Bahcall to examine the
138: total cross section, energy spectrum and angular distribution of
139: recoil electrons resulting from the scattering with solar neutrinos
140: \cite{B87}. In a later work, Bahcall, Kamionkowski and Sirlin
141: performed a detailed investigation of the radiative corrections to
142: these recoil electron spectra and total cross sections \cite{BKS}.
143: Their results showed the importance of these corrections for the
144: analysis of precise solar $\nu$--$e$ scattering experiments,
145: particularly of those measuring the higher energy neutrinos that
146: originate from \B8 decay. In a very recent article \cite{MP00}, we
147: extended previous calculations of the $O(\alpha)$ QED corrections to
148: the recoil electron energy spectrum and evaluated the corresponding
149: corrections to the differential cross section with respect to the
150: total combined energy of the recoil electron and a possible
151: accompanying photon. In the same paper, on which this note is based,
152: we examined the role of these two different radiative corrections in
153: the interpretation of precise measurements from solar neutrino
154: electron scattering experiments.
155:
156:
157: The energy spectrum of electrons from solar neutrino scattering, first
158: measured by the Kamiokande collaboration \cite{Kam}, provides
159: important information for the investigation of possible solutions to
160: the long standing solar neutrino problem, namely the large deficit in
161: the observed neutrino flux from the Sun with respect to the
162: theoretical predictions \cite{Ba2000}. Indeed, while solar neutrino
163: fluxes are predicted by the standard solar model, the shapes of the
164: neutrino energy spectra were shown by Bahcall to be essentially
165: independent of all solar parameters \cite{Ba91}. The shape of the
166: energy spectrum of recoil electrons resulting from the scattering with
167: solar neutrinos can be therefore accurately calculated in a solar
168: model-independent way and compared with the experimental measurements.
169: Distortions of the electron spectrum can be interpreted in terms of
170: neutrino oscillations. In particular, different flavor oscillation
171: solutions to the solar neutrino problem are reflected in
172: characteristic modifications of the shape of the electron spectrum and
173: precise theoretical predictions and experimental measurements are
174: needed to discriminate among them \cite{Ba97,Lisi}. (See also
175: ref.~\cite{Andre} for a study of the possibility of determining the
176: flavor content of the low-energy solar neutrino flux based on the
177: analysis of the shapes of the recoil electron spectra.) We refer the
178: reader to ref.~\cite{Concha} for an updated global two- and
179: three-neutrino oscillation analysis of solar neutrino data which
180: includes the electron spectrum measured by the Super--Kamiokande
181: collaboration \cite{SK}.
182:
183:
184: In the following we examine the $O(\alpha)$ QED corrections to the SM
185: prediction for neutrino electron scattering, with contributions
186: involving either neutral currents (as in the $\nu_{\mu,\tau} + e
187: \rightarrow \nu_{\mu,\tau} + e$ process) or a combination of neutral
188: and charged currents (as in the $\nu_{e} + e \rightarrow \nu_{e} + e$
189: process). In this analysis we make the approximation of neglecting
190: terms of $O(q^2/\mw^2)$, where $q^2$ is the squared four-momentum
191: transfer and $\mw$ is the $W$ boson mass. Within this approximation,
192: which is excellent for present experiments ($|q^2/\mw^2| \!\sim\! 1$
193: when the electron recoil energy $\sim 6 \times 10^3$ TeV!), the SM
194: radiative corrections to these processes can be naturally divided into
195: two classes. The first, which we will call ``QED'' corrections,
196: consist of the photonic radiative corrections that would occur if the
197: theory were a local four--fermion Fermi theory rather than a gauge
198: theory mediated by vector bosons; the second, which we will refer to
199: as the ``electroweak'' (EW) corrections, will be the remainder. This
200: split--up of the QED corrections is sensible as they form a finite
201: (both infrared and ultraviolet) and gauge--independent subset of
202: diagrams. We refer the reader to ref.~\cite{Si78-80} for a detailed
203: study of this separation.
204:
205:
206: The QED radiative corrections are due to both loop diagrams (virtual
207: corrections) and to the bremsstrahlung radiation (real photons)
208: accompanying the scattering process. Of course, only this combination
209: of virtual and real photon corrections is free from infrared
210: divergences. To order $\alpha$, the bremsstrahlung events correspond
211: to the inelastic process $\nu_l + e \rightarrow $ $\nu_l + e +\gamma $
212: ($l=e,\mu$ or $\tau$). Experimentally, bremsstrahlung events in which
213: photons are too soft to be detected are counted as contributions to
214: the elastic scattering $\nu_l + e \rightarrow$ $\nu_l + e$. The cross
215: section for these events should be therefore added to the theoretical
216: prediction of the elastic cross section, thus removing its infrared
217: divergence.
218:
219:
220: We will divide the bremsstrahlung events into ``soft'' (hereafter SB)
221: and ``hard'' (hereafter HB), according to the energy of the photon
222: being respectively lower or higher than some specified threshold
223: $\epsilon$. We should warn the reader that the words ``soft'' and
224: ``hard'' may be slightly deceiving. Indeed, if $\epsilon$ is large
225: (small), the SB (HB) cross section will also include events with
226: relatively high (low) energy photons. While calculations of both soft
227: and hard bremsstrahlung are often performed under the assumption that
228: $\epsilon$ is a very small parameter, much smaller than the mass of
229: the electron or its final momentum, we will also discuss
230: results for the case in which $\epsilon$ is an arbitrary parameter
231: constrained only by the kinematics of the process. Indeed, the HB
232: cross section (contrary to the SB one) is by itself, at least in
233: principle, a physically measurable quantity for any kinematically
234: allowed value of this threshold. All calculations have been carried
235: out without neglecting the electron mass.
236:
237:
238: In sect.~2 we present the lowest order prediction for the final
239: electron spectrum, together with its QED corrections (virtual, soft
240: and hard contributions). In sect.~3 we examine the spectrum of the
241: total combined energy of the recoil electron and a possible
242: accompanying photon emitted in the scattering process. We summarize
243: the main results in sect.~4.
244:
245:
246:
247:
248:
249:
250:
251:
252:
253:
254:
255: %2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
256: \section{QED Corrections to the Electron Spectrum}
257:
258: The SM prediction for the elastic neutrino electron differential
259: cross section is, in lowest--order and neglecting terms of
260: $O(q^2/\mw^2)$ \cite{tH},
261: %
262: \be
263: \left[\frac{d\sigma}{dE}\right]_0 \;=\; \frac{2mG_{\mu}^2}{\pi}
264: \left[\gl^2 +\gr^2 \left(1-z\right)^2 -\gl \gr
265: \left(\frac{m z}{\nu}\right)\right],
266: \label{eq:treelevel}
267: \ee
268: %
269: where $m$ is the electron mass, $G_{\mu}=1.16637(1) \times
270: 10^{-5}\gev^{-2}$ is the Fermi coupling constant \cite{FOS}, $\gl =
271: \sin^2 \!\theta_{\smallw} \pm 1/2$ (upper sign for $\nu_e$, lower sign
272: for $\nu_{\mu,\tau}$), $\gr = \sin^2 \!\theta_{\smallw}$ and
273: $\sin\theta_{\smallw}$ is the sine of the weak mixing angle. In this
274: elastic process $E$, the electron recoil energy, ranges from $m$ to
275: $E_\smallmax =$ $[m^2 +(2\nu +m)^2]/[2(2\nu +m)]$, $z=(E-m)/\nu$ and
276: $\nu$ is the incident neutrino energy in the frame of reference in
277: which the electron is initially at rest. We will refer to the $L$,
278: $R$ and $LR$ parts of an expression to indicate its terms proportional
279: to $\gl^2$, $\gr^2$ and $\gl \gr$, respectively. For example, the $R$
280: part of $\left[d\sigma/dE\right]_0$ (eq.~(\ref{eq:treelevel})) is
281: $(2mG_{\mu}^2/\pi) \gr^2 (1-z)^2$.
282:
283:
284: According to the definition discussed earlier, the one--loop QED
285: corrections to neutrino electron scattering consist of the photonic
286: vertex corrections (together with the diagrams involving the field
287: renormalization of the electrons) computed with the local
288: four--fermion Fermi Lagrangian. These corrections give rise to the
289: following expression for the differential cross section:
290: %
291: \be
292: \left[\frac{d\sigma}{dE}\right]_{\rm Virtual}
293: \;=\; \frac{2mG_{\mu}^2}{\pi}
294: \Biggl[\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \,\delta(E,\nu)\Biggr],
295: \label{eq:V}
296: \ee
297: %
298: where
299: %
300: \bea \delta(E,\nu) &=& \gl^2\; \left\{V_1(E) +V_2(E)\left[
301: z-1-\frac{mz}{2\nu} \right]
302: \right\} \nonumber \\
303: &+& \gr^2\; \left\{V_1(E)\left(1-z\right)^2 + V_2(E)\left[
304: z-1-\frac{mz}{2\nu} \right]
305: \right\} \nonumber \\
306: &-& \gl\gr\,\left\{ \left[V_1(E)-V_2(E)\right] \left(\frac{mz}
307: {\nu}\right) +2V_2(E) \left[z-1-z^2 \right] \right\},
308: \eea
309: %
310: \bea V_1(E) &=& \left(2\ln\!\frac{m}{\lambda}\right)
311: \left[1-\frac{E}{2l} \ln\!\left(\frac{E+l}{E-l}\right) \right] -2
312: -\frac{E}{l}\left[ \,\dilog\!\left(\frac{l-E+m}{2l}\right)
313: \right. \nonumber \\
314: &-& \left. \dilog\!\left(\frac{l+E-m}{2l}\right) \right] +
315: \frac{1}{4l} \left[3E+m-E\ln\!\left(\frac{2E+2m}{m}\right)\right]
316: \ln\!\left(\frac{E+l}{E-l}\right), \\ ~ \nonumber\\
317: V_2(E) &=& \frac{m}{4l}\ln\!\left(\frac{E+l}{E-l}\right).
318: \eea
319: %
320: $\lambda$ is a small photon mass introduced to regularize the infrared
321: divergence and $l=\sqrt{E^2-m^2}$ is the three-momentum of the
322: electron. The dilogarithm $\dilog(x)$ is defined by
323: %
324: $$ \dilog(x) = -\int_0^x \!dt \,\frac{\ln(1-t)}{t}. $$
325: %
326: The $L$ part of eq.~(\ref{eq:V}) (with $\gl=1$) is identical to the
327: formula for the one--loop photonic corrections to the $\nu_e +e
328: \rightarrow \nu_e +e$ differential cross section computed long ago in
329: the pioneering work of Lee and Sirlin \cite{LS} using the
330: effective four--fermion Fermi V$-$A Lagrangian. The analogous formula
331: for the reaction involving an anti--neutrino $\overline{\nu}_e$
332: (rather than a neutrino $\nu_e$) can be found in the same article and
333: coincides\footnote{with the exception of a minor typographical error
334: in their eq.~22, where the square bracket multiplying
335: $I_{\rm rad}$ should be
336: squared. We thank Alberto Sirlin for confirming this point.} with
337: the $R$ part of eq.~(\ref{eq:V}) (with $\gr = 1$). This identity is
338: simply due to the fact that the cross section for antineutrinos in the
339: local V$-$A theory is the same as that for neutrinos calculated with a
340: V$+$A coupling. On the contrary, the $LR$ part of eq.~(\ref{eq:V}) has
341: clearly no analogue in the V$\pm$A theory, but can be derived very easily
342: once the $L$ and $R$ parts are known.
343:
344:
345: The $\nu_e +e\rightarrow$ $\nu_e +e +\gamma$ differential cross
346: section with emission of a soft photon was computed in ref.~\cite{LS},
347: once again by using the effective four--fermion Fermi V$-$A
348: Lagrangian. It can be identified with the $L$ part (with $\gl=1$)
349: of the soft photon corrections to the tree level result in
350: eq.~(\ref{eq:treelevel}). The $L$, $R$ and $LR$ parts of these corrections
351: (with $\gl=\gr=1$) are however identical,
352: because the whole soft bremsstrahlung cross section is proportional to
353: its lowest--order elastic prediction. We can therefore write the soft
354: photon emission cross section in the following factorized form:
355: %
356: \be
357: \left[\frac{d\sigma}{dE}\right]_{\rm SB}
358: \;=\; \frac{\alpha}{\pi} \;I_\gamma (E,\epsilon)
359: \left[\frac{d\sigma}{dE}\right]_0,
360: \label{eq:SB}
361: \ee
362: %
363: with
364: %
365: \bea
366: I_\gamma(E,\epsilon) &=& \left(2\ln\!\frac{\lambda}{\epsilon}\right)
367: \left[1-\frac{E}{2l} \ln\!\left(\frac{E+l}{E-l}\right) \right]
368: + \frac{E}{2l}\left\{\,
369: L\! \left(\frac{E+l}{E-l}\right) -L\! \left(\frac{E-l}{E+l}\right)
370: \right. \nonumber \\
371: &+& \left. \ln\!\left(\frac{E+l}{E-l}\right)
372: \left[1-2\ln\!\left(\frac{l}{m}\right)\right] \right\} +1-2\ln\!2
373: \eea
374: and
375: $$
376: L(x) = \int_0^x \!dt \,\frac{\ln|1-t|}{t}.
377: $$
378: %
379: (For $x\in \mbox{I}\!\mbox{R}$, $L(x) = -\mbox{Re} [\dilog(x)]$.)
380: This result is valid under the assumption that $\epsilon$, the maximum
381: soft photon energy, is much smaller than $m$ or the final momentum of
382: the electron. As we mentioned earlier, in the following we will
383: discuss numerical results for the case in which $\epsilon$ is an
384: arbitrary parameter. The reader will notice that the sum
385: $(V_1(E)+I_\gamma(E,\epsilon))$ does not depend on $\lambda$, the
386: infrared regulator. Indeed, the infrared divergence of the virtual
387: corrections (eq.~(\ref{eq:V})) is canceled by that arising from the
388: soft photon emission (eq.~(\ref{eq:SB})).
389:
390:
391:
392: The SM prediction for the differential neutrino electron cross
393: section
394: %
395: \be
396: \nu_l + e \rightarrow \nu_l + e \;(+\gamma),
397: \label{eq:nuegamma}
398: \ee
399: %
400: where $(+\gamma)$ indicates the possible emission of a photon, can be
401: cast, up to corrections of $O(\alpha)$, in the following form:
402: %
403: \bea
404: \left[\frac{d\sigma}{dE}\right]_{\rm SM}
405: & = & \frac{2mG_{\mu}^2}{\pi}
406: \Biggl\{\gl^2(E) \left[1+\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \fl(E,\nu) \right]
407: +\gr^2(E) \left(1-z\right)^2
408: \left[1+\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \fr(E,\nu) \right] \nonumber\\
409: & & -\gl(E) \gr(E) \left(\frac{m z}{\nu}\right)
410: \left[1+\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \flr(E,\nu) \right] \Biggr\}.
411: \label{eq:SMdE}
412: \eea
413: %
414: (We remind the reader that terms of $O(q^2/\mw^2)$ are neglected
415: in our analysis.) The deviations of the functions $\gl(E)$ and
416: $\gr(E)$ from the lowest--order values $\gl$ and $\gr$ reflect the
417: effect of the electroweak corrections, which have been studied by
418: several authors \cite{SU-GV-MS-AHKKM,MSS,BKS}. (See ref.~\cite{BKS}
419: for simple numerical results.)
420:
421:
422:
423: The functions $\fx(E,\nu)$ ($X=L,R$ or $LR$) describe the QED effects
424: (real and virtual photons). For simplicity of notation their $\nu$
425: dependence will be dropped in the following. Each of these functions
426: is the sum of virtual (V), soft (SB) and hard (HB) corrections,
427: %
428: \be
429: \fx(E) = \fx^{\sss V}(E) +
430: \fx^{\sss SB}(E,\epsilon) +
431: \fx^{\sss HB}(E,\epsilon).
432: \label{eq:fxsum}
433: \ee
434: %
435: The analytic expressions for $\fx^{\sss V}(E)$ and $\fx^{\sss
436: SB}(E,\epsilon)$ can be immediately read from eqs.~(\ref{eq:V}) and
437: (\ref{eq:SB}) respectively (the latter being valid only in the small
438: $\epsilon$ limit) and their sums, which are infrared--finite, will be
439: denoted by
440: %
441: \be
442: \fx^{\sss VS}(E,\epsilon) = \fx^{\sss V}(E) +
443: \fx^{\sss SB}(E,\epsilon).
444: \ee
445: %
446: Analytic expressions from which one can obtain $\fl^{\sss
447: HB}(E,\epsilon)$ and $\fr^{\sss HB}(E,\epsilon)$ were calculated
448: long ago by Ram in the small $\epsilon$ approximation, keeping the
449: logarithmically divergent terms proportional to $\ln(\epsilon/m)$ but
450: neglecting the remaining $\epsilon$--dependent terms \cite{Ram}. The
451: formulae are nonetheless long and complicated. The function
452: $\flr^{\sss HB}(E,\epsilon)$ was computed only very recently
453: \cite{MP00}.
454:
455:
456:
457: In ref.~\cite{MP00} we created {\tt BC}, a combined {\tt
458: Mathematica}--{\tt FORTRAN} code\footnote{The code {\tt BC},
459: available upon request, computes all QED corrections discussed in
460: this note.} to compute the $\fx^{\sss HB}(E,\epsilon)$ functions for
461: arbitrary positive values of the parameter $\epsilon$ up to the
462: kinematic limit $\nu$ ($\nu$, the incident neutrino energy in the
463: laboratory system, is also the maximum possible energy of the emitted
464: photon). We refer the interested reader to this paper for details
465: concerning this computation and the comparison with Ram's results.
466: Our results confirm Ram's ones in the small $\epsilon$ limit. If
467: $\epsilon$ is not small, the discrepancy between them can become very
468: large. Moreover, Ram's results for $\fl^{\sss HB}(E,\epsilon)$ and
469: $\fr^{\sss HB}(E,\epsilon)$ are not always positive. This is of course
470: an unphysical property because the HB differential cross section,
471: being a transition probability for a physical process, cannot be
472: negative. Our functions $\fl^{\sss HB}(E,\epsilon)$ and $\fr^{\sss
473: HB}(E,\epsilon)$ are always positive (or zero).
474:
475:
476:
477: The total $O(\alpha)$ QED corrections $\fl(E)$ and $\fr(E)$, given by
478: the sum of V, SB and HB contributions (see eq.~(\ref{eq:fxsum})), can
479: be easily obtained by adding the analytic results of eqs.~(\ref{eq:V})
480: and (\ref{eq:SB}) to Ram's HB (lengthy) ones. Both SB and HB
481: corrections were computed in the small $\epsilon$ approximation, and
482: the logarithmically divergent terms proportional to $\ln(\epsilon/m)$
483: exactly drop out upon adding these soft and hard contributions. The
484: remaining $\epsilon$--dependent terms, which were neglected in both SB
485: and HB calculations, must cancel in the sum as well, and are therefore
486: irrelevant in the computation of the total QED corrections of
487: eq.~(\ref{eq:SMdE}). The $LR$ case is slightly different: Ram's
488: formulae, which were used to derive the small $\epsilon$ approximation
489: for $\fl^{\sss HB}(E,\epsilon)$ and $\fr^{\sss HB}(E,\epsilon)$, do
490: not provide us with the corresponding $LR$ correction. In order to
491: compute $\flr(E)$ we have therefore added the V and SB analytic
492: results of eqs.~(\ref{eq:V}) and (\ref{eq:SB}) to our HB numerical
493: results. The ``exact'' $\epsilon$ dependence of our HB results is not
494: completely canceled by that of the SB, which includes only terms
495: proportional to $\ln(\epsilon/m)$, and the sum $\flr(E)$ contains
496: therefore a residual (not logarithmically divergent) dependence on the
497: photon energy threshold $\epsilon$. This spurious dependence has been
498: minimized by fixing $\epsilon$ to be a very small value
499: $\epsilon_{\smalll \smallr}$ chosen so as to have an estimated induced
500: relative error as small as $O(0.1\%)$ \footnote{with the exception of
501: $E$ belonging to a tiny interval of $O(\epsilon_{\smalll \smallr})$
502: at the endpoint $E_\smallmax$. Note that $0.1\%$ is also the relative
503: numerical uncertainty used by our code {\tt BC} in the computation
504: of the functions $\fx^{\sss HB}(E,\epsilon)$ and produces a totally
505: negligible relative error $(\alpha/\pi)\fx^{\sss
506: HB}(E,\epsilon)\times 0.1\%$ in the corresponding $X$ parts of the
507: differential cross section in eq.~(\ref{eq:SMdE}).}.
508:
509:
510:
511: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:V}) and (\ref{eq:SB}) determine the analytic expression
512: of $\fx^{\sss VS}(E,\epsilon)$ (the infrared--finite sum of V and SB
513: corrections) in the small $\epsilon$ approximation. But the complete
514: $\epsilon$ dependence of our numerical $\fx^{\sss HB}(E,\epsilon)$
515: computations, combined with the knowledge of the above described
516: $\fx(E)$ functions, allows us to determine also the ``exact''
517: $\fx^{\sss VS}(E,\epsilon)$ functions via the subtraction
518: \be
519: \fx^{\sss VS}(E,\epsilon) =\fx(E)-\fx^{\sss HB}(E,\epsilon).
520: \label{eq:vsexact}
521: \ee
522: %
523: These will be the ``exact'' VS corrections employed in the rest of our
524: analysis.
525:
526:
527: In fig.~1 we plotted the functions $\fx(E)$ (thick solid), $\fx^{\sss
528: HB}(E,\epsilon)$ (medium solid) and $\fx^{\sss VS}(E,\epsilon)$
529: (thin solid) for $\nu=0.862 \mev$. The threshold $\epsilon$ in the VS
530: and HB functions was set to $0.02\mev$. In fig.~2 we plotted the same
531: functions with $\nu=10 \mev$ and $\epsilon=1\mev$. These two values
532: of the neutrino energy were chosen for their relevance in the study of
533: solar neutrinos: $\nu=0.862\mev$ is the energy of the (almost)
534: monochromatic neutrinos produced by electron capture on \Be7 in the
535: solar interior, while $\nu = 10\mev$ belongs to the continuous energy
536: spectrum of the solar neutrinos that originate from the decay of
537: %
538: \B8 $\!\!$. % !!!!!!!
539: %
540: In figs.~1 and 2 we also plotted the simple approximate formulae for
541: $\fx(E)$ introduced in ref.~\cite{BKS} (dotted lines). These compact
542: analytic expressions were obtained by modifying the expressions of
543: ref.~\cite{MSS}, which had been evaluated in the extreme relativistic
544: approximation. (The $LR$ term of the differential cross section, being
545: proportional to $(m/\nu)$, vanishes in the extreme relativistic limit
546: and, therefore, cannot be derived from ref.~\cite{MSS}. As a
547: consequence, the $LR$ approximation of ref.~\cite{BKS} is only a (very
548: educated!) guess.) Thanks to their simplicity, the compact formulae
549: of ref.~\cite{BKS} are easy to use and are employed, for example, by
550: the Super--Kamiokande collaboration in their Monte Carlo simulations
551: for the analysis of the solar neutrino energy spectrum.
552:
553:
554: As it was noted in refs.~\cite{Ram, BKS}, all $\fx(E)$ functions contain a
555: term which diverges logarithmically at the end of the spectrum. This
556: feature, related to the infrared divergence, is similar to the one
557: encountered in the QED corrections to the $\mu$--decay spectrum
558: \cite{BFS,KS}. If $E$ gets very close to the endpoint we have
559: $(\alpha/\pi)\fx(E) \approx -1$, clearly indicating a breakdown of the
560: perturbative expansion and the need to consider multiple-photon
561: emission. However, this divergence
562: can be easily removed (in agreement with the KLN theorem
563: \cite{KS,KLN}) by integrating the differential cross section over
564: small energy intervals corresponding to the experimental energy
565: resolution. We also note that the singularity of
566: $\flr(E)$ for $E=m$ does not pose a problem, as the product
567: $(mz/\nu)\flr(E)$, which appears in the $LR$ part of the differential
568: cross section, is finite in the limit $E\rightarrow m$. This can be
569: seen from the dashed line in the $LR$ plot of fig.~1, which indicates
570: the function $(mz/\nu)\flr(E)$. In the same plot, the dot-dashed line
571: is the product of the $\flr(E)$ approximation of ref.~\cite{BKS} and
572: $(mz/\nu)$.
573:
574:
575:
576:
577:
578:
579:
580:
581:
582:
583:
584:
585: %3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
586: \section{Spectrum of the Combined Energy of Electron and Photon}
587:
588: We will now turn our attention to the analysis of the differential
589: $\nu_l + e \rightarrow$ $\nu_l + e \;(+\gamma)$ cross section relevant
590: to experiments measuring the {\em total combined energy} of the recoil
591: electron and a possible accompanying photon emitted in the scattering
592: process. We will begin by considering bremsstrahlung events with a
593: photon of energy $\omega$ larger than the usual threshold $\epsilon$
594: (HB).
595:
596:
597: The HB differential cross section with respect to the sum of the
598: electron and photon energies is computed by our code {\tt BC} (see
599: ref.~\cite{MP00}). The code first calculates the HB corrections to the
600: energy spectrum of the final neutrino; the HB differential cross
601: section $[d\sigma/d(E+\omega)]_{\rm HB}$ is then immediately derived
602: via energy conservation. A check of the consistency of our results
603: was performed by comparing the values of the total HB cross section
604: $\sigma_{\rm HB}(\nu,\epsilon)$ obtained by integrating both
605: $[d\sigma/d(E+\omega)]_{\rm HB}$ and the differential HB cross section
606: of sect.~2 for several values of $\nu$ and $\epsilon$. All relative
607: deviations were found to be smaller than 0.1\% (which is also the
608: relative accuracy of the integrands). In the elastic reaction $\nu_l
609: + e \rightarrow$ $\nu_l + e$, the final neutrino energy $\nu'$ ranges
610: from $\nu'_\smallmin=$ $\nu m/(2\nu+m)$ to $\nu'_\smallmax=\nu$ (the
611: value $\nu'=$ $\nu'_\smallmin$ occurs when the final electron and
612: neutrino are scattered back to back, with the electron moving in the
613: forward direction with $E=E\smallmax$; the value $\nu'=$
614: $\nu'_\smallmax$ occurs in the forward scattering situation). When a
615: photon of energy $\omega > \epsilon$ is emitted, $\nu'$ varies between
616: $0$ and $\nu-\epsilon$, while the variable $E+\omega$ varies between
617: $m+\epsilon$ and $m+\nu$ (note that $m+\nu = E_\smallmax +
618: \nu'_\smallmin$).
619:
620:
621: How do we combine virtual, soft and hard bremsstrahlung contributions
622: in order to evaluate the complete $O(\alpha)$ QED prediction for the
623: differential cross section $d\sigma/d(E+\omega)$ of reaction
624: (\ref{eq:nuegamma})? In sect.~2 we computed the total QED corrections
625: by simply adding these three parts. Their sum does not depend on the
626: threshold $\epsilon$. The combination of VS and HB terms requires here
627: a more careful treatment for which we refer the interested reader,
628: once again, to ref.~\cite{MP00}. We will only discuss the results of
629: this analysis, which can be summarized in the following simple way.
630: Let's consider an experimental setup for $\nu$--$e$ scattering able to
631: measure the photon energy if it's higher than a threshold $\epsilon$,
632: but completely blind to low energy photons $(\omega\! <\!\epsilon)$.
633: Let's also assume that the electron energy $E$ is precisely measurable
634: independently of its value. This detector can measure the usual
635: electron spectrum $d\sigma/dE$ as well as the differential cross
636: section $d\sigma/dE_\omega$, where the variable $\eom$ is defined as
637: follows,
638: %
639: \be
640: E_\omega \equiv \left\{
641: \begin{array}{ll}
642: E+\omega & \quad\mbox{if} \;\; \omega \geq \epsilon \\
643: E & \quad\mbox{if} \;\; \omega < \epsilon
644: \end{array} \right..
645: \label{eq:eom}
646: \ee
647: %
648: The SM prediction for the spectrum of the combined energy of electron
649: and photon in reaction (\ref{eq:nuegamma}) can be cast, up to
650: corrections of $O(\alpha)$, in the form
651: %
652: \bea
653: \left[\frac{d\sigma}{dE_\omega}\right]_{\rm SM} \!\!\!\!
654: &=& \!\!\frac{2mG_{\mu}^2}{\pi}
655: \Biggl\{\gl^2(\eom) \!\left[\theta
656: +\frac{\alpha}{\pi} \flov(\eom,\epsilon,\nu) \right]
657: +\gr^2(\eom) \left(1-\zom\right)^2
658: \!\left[\theta
659: +\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\frov(\eom,\epsilon,\nu)\right]
660: \nonumber\\
661: & & -\gl(\eom)\gr(\eom) \left(\frac{m \zom}{\nu}\right)
662: \!\left[\theta+ \frac{\alpha}{\pi}
663: \flrov(\eom,\epsilon,\nu)\right]\Biggr\},
664: \label{eq:SMdeom}
665: \eea
666: %
667: where $\zom=(\eom-m)/\nu$ and $\theta = \theta(E_\smallmax -
668: E_\omega)$. As we mentioned in sect.~2, the deviations of the
669: functions $\gl(\eom)$ and $\gr(\eom)$ from the lowest--order values
670: $\gl$ and $\gr$ reflect the effect of the electroweak corrections (for
671: virtual corrections it is $\omega=0$ and $\eom=E$). The functions
672: $\fxov(\eom,\epsilon,\nu)$ ($X=L,R$ or $LR$), defined in the range
673: $[m, m+\nu]$, describe the QED effects and can be written in the very
674: simple form (once again, for simplicity of notation, we will drop
675: their $\nu$ dependence)
676: %
677: \be
678: \fxov(\eom,\epsilon) = \fx^{\sss VS}(\eom,\epsilon) +
679: \fxov^{\sss HB}(\eom,\epsilon),
680: \label{eq:fxovsum}
681: \ee
682: %
683: where $\fx^{\sss VS}(\eom,\epsilon)$ are the ``exact'' VS corrections
684: of sect.~2 (eq.~(\ref{eq:vsexact})) and the functions $\fxov^{\sss
685: HB}(\eom,\epsilon)$ are derived by dividing the $L$, $R$ and $LR$
686: parts of the above--mentioned HB cross section
687: $[d\sigma/d(E+\omega)]_{\rm HB}$ by $C\gl^2$, $C\gr^2(1-\zom)^2$ and
688: $-C\gl\gr(m \zom/\nu)$ respectively, with $C=2mG_{\mu}^2\alpha/\pi^2$.
689: The $\theta$ functions in eq.~(\ref{eq:SMdeom}) reflect the fact that
690: the lowest order prediction for $d\sigma/dE_\omega$ has a step at
691: $\eom = E_\smallmax$ and is zero if $\eom$ lies outside the elastic
692: range $[m, E_\smallmax]$. The VS functions $\fx^{\sss
693: VS}(\eom,\epsilon)$ are proportional to the same $\theta$ function,
694: while the corrections $\fxov^{\sss HB}(\eom,\epsilon)$ are set to zero
695: if $\eom \notin\; [m+\epsilon, m+\nu]$. We would like to emphasize
696: the $\epsilon$ dependence of the complete QED corrections
697: $\fxov(\eom,\epsilon)$, to be contrasted with the $\epsilon$
698: independence of the $\fx(E)$ functions of sect.~2.
699:
700:
701: In figs.~3 and 4 we compare the results of sects.~2 and 3. In
702: fig.~3 we chose $\nu=0.862\mev$ and plotted the functions $\fx(E)$
703: (thick) and $\fxov(\eom,\epsilon)$ for $\epsilon=$ 0.1 MeV (medium)
704: and 0.001 MeV (thin). In fig.~4 we plotted the same functions
705: with $\nu=10\mev$ ($\epsilon=$ 1 MeV, 0.1 MeV).
706:
707:
708: We would like to remind the reader that the functions $\fx(E)$ can be
709: obtained from $\fxov(\eom,\epsilon)$ by simply setting $\epsilon=\nu$.
710: The limiting case $\epsilon=0$ was studied in detail in
711: ref.~\cite{DB2} (in particular, the results of the second article of
712: this reference were obtained, like ours, without employing the
713: ultrarelativistic approximation $E \gg m$).
714:
715:
716:
717:
718:
719:
720:
721:
722:
723:
724:
725:
726: %444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
727: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}
728:
729: When are the results of sects.~2 and 3 applicable? In sect.~2 we
730: presented the $O(\alpha)$ SM prediction for the electron spectrum in
731: the reaction $\nu_l + e \rightarrow \nu_l + e \;(+\gamma)$
732: (eq.~(\ref{eq:SMdE})), where $(+\gamma)$ indicates the possible
733: emission of a photon. In this calculation we assumed that the
734: final--state photon is not detected and, as a consequence, we
735: integrated over all possible values of the photon energy $\omega$.
736: Therefore, eq.~(\ref{eq:SMdE}) is the appropriate theoretical
737: prediction to use in the analysis of $\nu$--$e$ scattering when the
738: detector is completely blind to photons of all energies, but can
739: precisely measure $E$, the energy of the electron. Of course, a
740: detector could provide more information by detecting photons as soon
741: as their energy is above an experimental threshold $\epsilon$. In
742: this case, still assuming a precise determination of $E$, one can
743: employ eq.~(\ref{eq:SMdE}), minus its HB correction, to analyze those
744: events which are counted as nonradiative (elastic), while the HB part
745: can be used, at least in principle, for a separate determination of
746: the inelastic cross section. Indeed, contrary to previous
747: calculations, our predictions are valid for an arbitrary value of the
748: threshold $\epsilon$ (and include the previously unknown $LR$ term).
749:
750:
751:
752: In sect.~3 we examined the spectrum of the total combined energy of
753: the recoil electron and a possible accompanying photon emitted in the
754: scattering process (eq.~(\ref{eq:SMdeom})). This type of analysis is
755: useful when the photon energy $\omega$ cannot be separately determined
756: although it fully contributes to the precise total energy measurement
757: if its value is above a specific threshold $\epsilon$. Let's consider
758: an experimental setup able to measure the photon energy if it's higher
759: than $\epsilon$, but completely blind to low energy photons $(\omega\!
760: <\!\epsilon)$. Let's also assume that the electron energy $E$ is
761: precisely measurable independently of its value. This detector can
762: determine both the differential cross section $d\sigma/dE_\omega$
763: (eq.~(\ref{eq:SMdeom})) and the electron spectrum $d\sigma/dE$
764: (eq.~(\ref{eq:SMdE})) (as well as its separate HB component). There
765: are experiments, however, which cannot measure $E$, but only $\eom$,
766: with a specific value of the threshold $\epsilon$. BOREXINO \cite{BX}
767: and KamLAND \cite{KL}, for example, are liquid scintillation detectors
768: in which photons and electrons induce practically the same response.
769: If a photon is emitted in the $\nu$--$e$ scattering process, its
770: energy $\omega$ is counted together with $E$, provided their sum lies
771: within a specific range. The appropriate theoretical prediction for
772: their analysis is given, therefore, by the cross section
773: $d\sigma/dE_\omega$ of eq.~(\ref{eq:SMdeom}) with a very small value
774: of $\epsilon$ (for the case $\nu=0.862\mev$ see the thin lines in
775: fig.~3). However, we should point out that although the QED
776: corrections $\fx(E)$ (in eq.~(\ref{eq:SMdE})) and
777: $\fxov(\eom,\epsilon)$ with small $\epsilon$ (in
778: eq.~(\ref{eq:SMdeom})) are different, their numerical values are very
779: small when $\nu=0.862\mev$, the energy of the monochromatic neutrinos
780: produced by electron capture on \Be7 in the solar interior. In fact,
781: as shown in fig.~3, both $(\alpha/\pi)\fx(E)$ and
782: $(\alpha/\pi)\fxov(\eom,\epsilon)$ with small $\epsilon$ are in this
783: case of $O(\lsim 1\%)$, and neither of the above collaborations is
784: likely to reach this high level of accuracy in their analyses of the
785: crucial \Be7 line.
786:
787:
788: There are detectors in which it might not be possible to identify the
789: measured energy with either $E$ or $\eom$. Indeed, the electron and
790: the photon may produce indistinguishable signals and the total
791: observed energy might not be the simple sum of $E$ and $\omega$, but
792: some other function of these two variables. Super--Kamiokande (SK),
793: for example, a water Cherenkov counter measuring the light emitted by
794: electrons recoiling from neutrino scattering, uses the number of hit
795: photomultiplier tubes to determine the electron energy. However, a
796: photon emitted in the scattering process may induce additional hits
797: indistinguishable from those of the electron. Moreover, a photon and
798: an electron of the same energy may produce different numbers of hits
799: and, therefore, it might not be possible to identify the total
800: measured energy with the sum $E+\omega$.
801:
802:
803: SK measures solar neutrinos with energies varying from 5 to 18 MeV.
804: For $\nu=10\mev$, fig.~4 shows that the QED corrections to the
805: differential cross sections $d\sigma/dE$ (eq.~(\ref{eq:SMdE})) and
806: $d\sigma/dE_\omega$ (eq.~(\ref{eq:SMdeom})) are of $O(1\%)$.
807: Corrections of this order may be relevant for the analysis of the very
808: precise data obtained by this collaboration. In fact, SK's Monte Carlo
809: simulations of the expected energy spectrum of recoil electrons from
810: solar neutrino scattering include the QED corrections of
811: ref.~\cite{BKS} (as well as the EW ones). As we investigated
812: in sect.~2, these corrections provide good approximations of the
813: complete $O(\alpha)$ QED corrections $\fx(E)$ to the electron spectrum
814: of eq.~(\ref{eq:SMdE}) (see fig.~2). Our previous discussion, however,
815: seems to suggest that these corrections are not appropriate for SK's
816: solar neutrino analysis. On the other hand, the SM prediction for the
817: spectrum of the combined energy of electron and photon of sect.~3
818: (eq.~(\ref{eq:SMdeom})) may be suitable, but only if we can assume a
819: similar efficiency in the detection of photons and electrons, and if
820: also relatively low energy electrons contribute to the total energy
821: measurement. If these conditions are not met, and the precision of
822: the data requires it, one should probably perform a dedicated analysis
823: of the double differential cross section $d^2\sigma/(dE \,d\omega)$
824: with a response function specifically designed for this detector. A
825: triple differential cross section $d^3\sigma/(dE \,d\omega \,d\phi)$,
826: where $\phi$ is the angle between the directions of the electron and
827: the photon, may also be useful (see the first article of
828: ref.~\cite{Bernabeu}).
829:
830:
831:
832:
833: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ACKNOWLED %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
834: \vspace{0.3cm}
835:
836: \noindent I would like to thank Massimo Porrati for organizing this
837: very pleasant and interesting symposium, and Alberto Sirlin for
838: innumerable instructive discussions on the topic presented here.
839:
840:
841:
842: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% REFERENCES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
843: %\newpage
844: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
845:
846: \bibitem {FG} R.~P.~Feynman and M.~Gell-Mann,
847: Phys.~Rev.~{\bf 109} (1958) 193.
848: \bibitem {LS} T.~D.~Lee and A.~Sirlin, Rev.~Mod.~Phys. {\bf36}
849: (1964) 666.
850: \bibitem {Ram} M.~Ram, Phys. Rev. {\bf 155} (1967) 1539.
851: \bibitem {tH} G.~'t Hooft, Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B37} (1971) 195.
852: \bibitem {ZKN} E.~D.~Zhizhin, R.~V.~Konoplich, Yu.~P.~Nikitin, and
853: B.~U.~Rodionov, JETP Lett.\ {\bf 19} (1974) 36;
854: E.~D.~Zhizhin, R.~V.~Konoplich and Y.~P.~Nikitin,
855: Sov.\ Phys.\ J.\ {\bf 18} (1975) 1709 (No.12),
856: translated from Izv.\ Vuz, Fiz.\ (1975) No.12 82-89;
857: {\em Elementary particles and cosmic rays}, Atomizdat, Moscow, (1976),
858: 57-71 (in russian).
859: \bibitem {SU-GV-MS-AHKKM} P.~Salomonson and Y.~Ueda,
860: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D11} (1975) 2606;
861: M.~Green and M.~Veltman,
862: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B169} (1980) 137;
863: Erratum--ibid. {\bf B175} (1980) 547;
864: W.~J.~Marciano and A.~Sirlin,
865: Phys. Rev. {\bf D22} (1980) 2695;
866: K.~Aoki, Z.~Hioki, R.~Kawabe, M.~Konuma and T.~Muta,
867: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 65} (1981) 1001.
868: \bibitem{AH} K.~Aoki and Z.~Hioki,
869: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 66} (1981) 2234;
870: Z.~Hioki,
871: Prog.\ Theor.\ Phys.\ {\bf 67} (1982) 1165.
872: \bibitem {MSS} S.~Sarantakos, A.~Sirlin and W.J.~Marciano,
873: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B217} (1983) 84.
874: \bibitem{DB1} D.~Y.~Bardin and V.~A.~Dokuchaeva,
875: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 39} (1984) 563.
876: \bibitem{DB2} D.~Y.~Bardin and V.~A.~Dokuchaeva,
877: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B246} (1984) 221;
878: Sov.\ J.\ Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf 43} (1986) 975.
879: \bibitem{Bernabeu}
880: J.~Bernabeu, S.~M.~Bilenky, F.~J.~Botella and J.~Segura,
881: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B426} (1994) 434;
882: J.~Bernabeu, L.~G.~Cabral-Rosetti, J.~Papavassiliou and J.~Vidal,
883: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D62} (2000) 113012.
884: \bibitem {B87} J.~N.~Bahcall, Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 59} (1987) 505.
885: \bibitem {BKS} J.~N.~Bahcall, M.~Kamionkowski and A.~Sirlin,
886: Phys. Rev. {\bf D51} (1995) 6146.
887: \bibitem{MP00} M.~Passera, BUTP 2000/11, hep-ph/0011190.
888: \bibitem{Kam} Kamiokande Collaboration, K.S. Hirata {\it et al.},
889: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 63} (1989) 16.
890: \bibitem{Ba2000} J.~N.~Bahcall, Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 333} (2000) 47;
891: these proceedings.
892: \bibitem{Ba91} J.~N.~Bahcall, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D44} (1991) 1644.
893: \bibitem{Ba97} J.~N.~Bahcall, P.~I.~Krastev and E.~Lisi,
894: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf C55} (1997) 494;
895: J.~N.~Bahcall and P.~I.~Krastev,
896: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf C56} (1997) 2839.
897: \bibitem{Lisi} E.~Lisi and D.~Montanino, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D56} (1997)
898: 1792; G.~L.~Fogli, E.~Lisi and D.~Montanino,
899: Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf B434} (1998) 333.
900: \bibitem{Andre} A.~de Gouvea and H.~Murayama,
901: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82} (1999) 3392;
902: JHEP{\bf 0008} (2000) 025.
903: \bibitem{Concha} M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia and C.~Pena-Garay, talk
904: presented at %the 19th International Conference on Neutrino
905: %Physics and Astrophysics --
906: Neutrino 2000, Sudbury, Canada,
907: June 16-21, 2000, hep-ph/0009041;
908: M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia, M.~Maltoni, C.~Pena-Garay and
909: J.~W.~Valle, Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf D63} (2001) 033005.
910: \bibitem {SK} Super--Kamiokande Collaboration, Y.~Fukuda {\it et al.},
911: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81} (1998) 1158;
912: Erratum--ibid. {\bf 81} (1998) 4279;
913: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 82} (1999) 2430;
914: Y.~Suzuki and Y.~Totsuka (Eds.),
915: Neutrino 98, Proceedings of the XVIII International
916: Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics, Takayama,
917: Japan, June 4-9, 1998,
918: Nucl.\ Phys.\ Proc.\ Suppl.\ {\bf 77} (1999);
919: Y.~Suzuki, talk presented at %the 19th International
920: %Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics --
921: Neutrino 2000, Sudbury, Canada, June 16-21, 2000.
922: \bibitem {Si78-80} A.~Sirlin,
923: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 50} (1978) 573;
924: Phys. Rev. {\bf D22} (1980) 971.
925: \bibitem{FOS} A.~Ferroglia, G.~Ossola and A.~Sirlin,
926: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B560} (1999) 23.
927: \bibitem {BFS} R.~E.~Behrends, R.~J.~Finkelstein and A.~Sirlin,
928: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 101} (1956) 866.
929: \bibitem {KS} T.~Kinoshita and A.~Sirlin,
930: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 113} (1959) 1652.
931: \bibitem {KLN} T.~Kinoshita,
932: J.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 3} (1962) 650;
933: T.~D.~Lee and M.~Nauenberg,
934: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 133} (1964) B1549.
935: \bibitem {BX} G.~Ranucci, talk presented at %the 19th International
936: %Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics --
937: Neutrino 2000, Sudbury, Canada, June 16-21, 2000.
938: \bibitem {KL} A.~Piepke, talk presented at %the 19th International
939: %Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics --
940: Neutrino 2000, Sudbury, Canada, June 16-21, 2000.
941:
942: \end{thebibliography}
943:
944:
945:
946:
947: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
948: \newpage
949:
950: %%%%%%%%%% FIG.1
951: \newpage
952: \begin{figure}[tbp]
953: \vspace{-2.8cm}\hspace{-3cm}\includegraphics[width=20cm]{./fig1.ps}
954: \vspace{-7.5cm}\caption{\sf
955: The functions \bm{$\fx(E)$} (thick solid), \bm{$\fx^{\sss
956: HB}(E,\epsilon)$} (medium solid) and \bm{$\fx^{\sss
957: VS}(E,\epsilon)$} (thin solid) for \bm{$\nu=$} 0.862 MeV and
958: \bm{$\epsilon=$} 0.02 MeV. The dotted lines represent the
959: \bm{$\fx(E)$} approximations of ref.~\cite{BKS}. In the $LR$ figure,
960: the dot-dashed line is the product of the \bm{$\flr(E)$}
961: approximation of ref.~\cite{BKS} and \bm{$(mz/\nu)$},
962: while the dashed line indicates the product \bm{$(mz/\nu)\flr(E)$}.}
963: \label{figure:f1}
964: \end{figure}
965:
966: %%%%%%%%%% FIG.2
967: \newpage
968: \begin{figure}[tbp]
969: \vspace{-2.8cm}\hspace{-3cm}\includegraphics[width=20cm]{./fig2.ps}
970: \vspace{-7.5cm}\caption{\sf
971: Same as Fig.~\ref{figure:f1}, but for \bm{$\nu=$} 10 MeV and
972: \bm{$\epsilon=$} 1 MeV. The dashed and dot-dashed lines are very
973: close to zero and are not indicated.}
974: \label{figure:f2}
975: \end{figure}
976:
977:
978: %%%%%%%%%% FIG.3
979: \newpage
980: \begin{figure}[tbp]
981: \vspace{-2.8cm}\hspace{-2.5cm}\includegraphics[width=20cm]{./fig3.ps}
982: \vspace{-7.5cm}\caption{\sf The functions \bm{$\fx(E)$} (thick) and
983: \bm{$\fxov(\eom,\epsilon)$} for \bm{$\epsilon=$} 0.1 MeV (medium)
984: and 0.001 MeV (thin). \bm{$\nu=$} 0.862 MeV.}
985: \label{figure:f3}
986: \end{figure}
987:
988:
989: %%%%%%%%%% FIG.4
990: \newpage
991: \begin{figure}[tbp]
992: \vspace{-2.8cm}\hspace{-2.5cm}\includegraphics[width=20cm]{./fig4.ps}
993: \vspace{-7.5cm}\caption{\sf \sf The functions \bm{$\fx(E)$} (thick) and
994: \bm{$\fxov(\eom,\epsilon)$} for \bm{$\epsilon=$} 1 MeV (medium) and
995: 0.1 MeV (thin). \bm{$\nu=$} 10 MeV.}
996: \label{figure:f4}
997: \end{figure}
998:
999:
1000: \end{document}
1001:
1002: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1003:
1004:
1005:
1006:
1007:
1008:
1009:
1010:
1011: