1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}

3: \input epsf

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: 

6: %\slugcomment{\LARGE \bf DRAFT - 23 Jan 2002}

7: \begin{document}

8: 

9: \title{Astrophysical Neutrino Event Rates and Sensitivity for Neutrino

10: Telescopes}

11: 

12: \author{Ivone F.\ M. Albuquerque}

13: \affil{Department of Astronomy and Space Sciences Laboratory,

14: University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.}

15: \email{IFAlbuquerque@lbl.gov}

16: 

17: \author{Jodi Lamoureux}

18: \affil{National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720.} 

19: \email{JILamoureux@lbl.gov}

20: 

21: \and

22: 

23: \author{George F. Smoot}

24: \affil{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Space Sciences Laboratory and

25: Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.}

26: \email{GFSmoot@lbl.gov}

27: 

28: 

29: \begin{abstract}

30: Spectacular processes in astrophysical sites produce

31: high-energy cosmic rays which are further accelerated by Fermi-shocks

32: into a power-law spectrum. 

33: These, in passing through radiation fields and matter, produce

34: neutrinos.

35: Neutrino telescopes are designed with large detection volumes 

36: to observe such astrophysical sources.

37: A large volume is necessary because the fluxes and cross-sections

38: are small.

39: We estimate various telescopes' sensitivities 

40: and expected event rates from astrophysical 

41: sources of high-energy neutrinos.

42: We find that an ideal detector of km$^2$ incident area 

43: can be sensitive to a flux of neutrinos integrated over

44: energy from $10^{5}$ and $10^{7}$ GeV 

45: as low as $1.3 \times 10^{-8} \rm{ E}^{-2}$ (GeV/cm$^2$ s sr)

46: which is three times smaller than the Waxman-Bachall conservative

47: upper limit on potential neutrino flux.  

48: A real detector will have degraded performance. 

49: Detection from known

50: point sources is possible but unlikely unless there is 

51: prior knowledge of the source location and neutrino arrival time.

52: \end{abstract}

53: 

54: \keywords{Neutrino flux. Neutrino detection. Neutrino detection rates.}

55: 

56: \newpage

57: 

58: \section{Introduction}

59: 

60: Galactic and extra-galactic high-energy cosmic rays 

61: are observed at the Earth and in space through

62: indicators such as synchrotron emission and gamma-radiation.

63: Some of the most spectacular sites for their origin are the double-lobed radio

64: sources associated with Active Galactic Nuclei.

65: Figure \ref{fig:cr} shows a compilation \citep{Gaisser01} of the observed cosmic ray 

66: spectrum  observed at the Earth.

67: 

68: 

69: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

70: \begin{figure}

71: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=5.0in \epsfbox{cr.eps}

72: \plotone{f1.eps}

73: \caption{Cosmic Ray flux versus cosmic ray energy (extracted from \citep{Gaisser01}).

74: Fits for two cosmic ray spectral indices ($\alpha$) are shown. The Super-GZK line

75: refers to a possible contribution from nearby sources assuming $\alpha=2$ (see

76: \citep{Gaisser01} for details.)}

77: \label{fig:cr}

78: \end{figure}

79: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

80: 

81: These high-energy cosmic rays interact with radiation or matter

82: at the acceleration sites, in transit through intergalactic and

83: interstellar space, and in the Earth's atmosphere.

84: Often the result of this interaction is the production of 

85: pions, kaons, and other particles that decay into muons and an associated

86: muon neutrino. 

87: The muon will usually decay into an electron, an electron neutrino and

88: a muon neutrino.

89: Each primary cosmic ray interaction typically would produce 

90: at least three neutrinos and could produce substantially more.

91: 

92: One can estimate the flux of such neutrinos

93: by models and from observations of the cosmic ray fluxes. 

94: One has to take into account the cosmic ray interactions 

95: which at high energies and from distant

96: sources are primarily with photons.

97: These estimates and fluxes must satisfy the limits set by the

98: observations of cosmic rays.  Another possibility to define the

99: neutrino spectrum is given by the assumption that the high energy gamma-rays

100: are produced by neutral pion decay. Under this assumption the high energy

101: gamma-ray spectrum can be used to estimate the neutrino spectrum

102: from charged pion decay.

103: In this paper we estimate the muon neutrino and secondary muon flux 

104: from diffuse and point sources. The sources considered are the ones

105: which are predicted to produce high energy (around $10^{19}$ eV) 

106: cosmic rays.

107: Most models within the standard model of particle physics predict

108: a muon neutrino rate that is at least twice the electron neutrino

109: rate and even higher than the tau neutrino rate. The detector acceptance

110: for muons is also higher than that for electrons and taus since muons can

111: be detected even when created outside of the detector volume.

112: For these reasons we

113: only concentrate on the muon neutrino rate. Here we do not account for the 

114: flux due to exotic and beyond standard model possibilities 

115: but leave those topics for a later paper. A review of neutrino physics

116: within and beyond the standard model can be found in \citep{learned}.

117: 

118: \begin{sloppypar}

119: There is strong evidence that neutrinos oscillate from one flavor to another

120: \cite{sk} and that most likely muon neutrinos oscillate into tau neutrinos \cite{sktau}.

121: Although this effect will lower the muon neutrino rate and enhance the one for tau neutrinos

122: it is not taken into account in this work. We determine the most optimistic rates which

123: are for muon neutrinos with no oscillation.

124: \end{sloppypar}

125: 

126: After reviewing estimates of neutrino fluxes we expand the previous work by including the

127: fundamental physics aspects of instrument performance. This is done in a generic

128: way that is independent of the detector configuration. We first determine the 

129: experimental sensitivity of an ideal detector of km$^2$ incident area to astrophysical

130: sources and then translate this result to different detector geometries. Our results

131: are compared to the sensitivity quoted by current and proposed experiments. 

132: 

133: \begin{sloppypar}

134: In Section~\ref{sec:nuflux} we review and examine estimates of high energy neutrino fluxes  

135: and upper limits from diffuse and point sources. 

136: We analyze Sagittarius (Sgr) A East as an example of a

137: galactic point source and Gamma Ray Bursts and Active

138: Galactic Nuclei as extra galactic point sources. These are good examples of

139: the brightest sources.

140: This section reviews the work of Waxman and Bahcall \citep{wax,WB1,WB2},

141: of Mannheim, Protheroe and Rachen \citep{mpr}

142: and the recent estimates by Gaisser \citep{Gaisser01}.

143: In Section~\ref{sec:rates} we compile and compute the interaction rates, that is, 

144: the neutrino interactions per unit volume per unit time and 

145: the number of muons entering or appearing in a generic detector.

146: This work is directly compared to estimates by Gaisser \citep{Gaisser01}. 

147: We then expand work previously done and determine the experimental 

148: sensitivity of an ideal detector to the muon rate.

149: This is done in a generic form such that in Section~\ref{sec:sens-real} it

150: is translated to different detector geometries. 

151: Realistic event rates are then determined for different proposed 

152: detectors such as IceCube, AMANDA, ANTARES and NESTOR.

153: \end{sloppypar}

154: 

155: \section{Neutrino Fluxes}

156: \label{sec:nuflux}

157: \subsection{Diffuse Flux}

158: \subsubsection{Waxman and Bachall Limit}

159: \label{sec:WB}

160: 

161: Waxman and Bahcall (WB) \citep{WB1,WB2} pointed out that the observed 

162: cosmic ray flux  at high energies implies an upper bound 

163: on the high-energy astrophysical neutrino flux. 

164: The latter is produced by the parent cosmic ray particles through pion production. 

165: 

166: This argument holds for sources that are ``optically thin'' 

167: to the primary cosmic rays. 

168: ``Optically thin" sources are those for which the majority 

169: of the protons escape and only a fraction interact inside the source. 

170: Observations of primary cosmic ray flux 

171: then set a limit on the cosmic production rate of high-energy protons and 

172: in turn on the production rate of neutrinos.

173: 

174: Waxman and Bachall also account for the 

175: cosmological evolution of the source activity and redshift 

176: energy loss of neutrinos due to cosmological expansion.

177: If the cosmic ray acceleration sites were much more active in the past

178: (billions of years) than in the present (last 100 million years),

179: then the flux of ``cosmological'' high-energy neutrinos could be enhanced.

180: 

181: In determining a limit for the diffuse neutrino flux, 

182: WB assume that all the proton energy is transferred to the pion 

183: when actually this energy transfer is typically about 20\%. 

184: Due to this factor, they point out that 

185: their upper bound exceeds what can be observed by at least a factor of five.

186: 

187: One can conclude that if the WB limit holds, 

188: the neutrino flux upper bound can guide neutrino telescope designs. 

189: Neutrino telescopes should be designed to detect realistic fluxes 

190: which would be at a level well below the WB limit.

191: 

192: The key parameter in setting an upper limit for the neutrino flux from

193: the collection of ``optically thin'' sources, is the primary cosmic ray

194: spectral index (which is the power in the power law energy distribution). 

195: For the relativistic shocks needed to produce 

196: the very highest energy cosmic rays the spectral index is  

197: in the range -2 to -2.5 \citep{bell,bland}.

198: Either will adequately explain what appears to be the extra-galactic 

199: component of the cosmic rays as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cr}.

200: 

201: Waxman \citep{wax} has shown that the cosmic ray energy spectrum for energies between $10^{19}$

202: and $10^{20}$ eV is consistent with what is expected from a homogeneous cosmological

203: distribution of cosmic ray sources and constrain the spectral index to be in the

204: 1.8 -- 2.8 range. 

205: 

206: Fixing the spectral index to 2, WB \citep{WB1} determine the limit 

207: on muon neutrino plus muon anti-neutrino extra-galactic flux to be

208: 

209: \begin{equation}

210: \left( \frac{d\phi_\nu}{dE} \right)_{\rm limit} = \frac{1 {\rm ~to~ } 4 \times 10^{-8} }{E^2} ~~ 

211: {\rm GeV \,cm^{-2} s^{-1} sr^{-1}} 

212: \end{equation}

213: where $\phi_\nu$ is the neutrino flux. Note that this limit is valid for sources

214: that accelerate cosmic rays to above $10^{19}$ eV.

215: The range in the coefficient depends upon what evolution is assumed.

216: For this discussion we use the highest value and obtain an upper limit 

217: on the muon neutrino flux of

218: 

219: \begin{equation}

220: \left(\frac{d\phi}{d ln E} \right)_{\rm limit} = \frac{4 \times 10^{-8} }{E} ~~ 

221: {\rm cm^{-2} s^{-1} sr^{-1}} 

222: \end{equation}

223: where E is given in GeV.

224: 

225: The WB limit is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:astro}.

226: 

227: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

228: \begin{figure}

229: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=4.5in \epsfbox{ast.eps}

230: \plotone{f2.eps}

231: \caption{Differential neutrino fluxes weighted by neutrino energy from astrophysical 

232: sources and upper bound on the

233: total diffuse neutrino flux. The lower edge of the dark shaded area is the WB limit

234: \citep{WB1} with no cosmological evolution, the upper edge is the same limit 

235: taking

236: evolution into account. The dashed line is the MPR \citep{mpr} limit for transparent

237: sources and the dotted dashed line for opaque sources. The continuous line

238: is the flux from the Galactic center and the dashed line is the galactic

239: flux from the direction orthogonal to the galactic plane \citep{IT}.

240: The light shaded area is the neutrino flux from Sgr A East \citep{crocker} where

241: the upper edge is the best case scenario flux and the lower edge is the worst

242: case scenario (see text).} 

243: \label{fig:astro}

244: \end{figure}

245: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

246: 

247: 

248: \subsubsection{Mannheim, Protheroe and Rachen limit}

249: \label{sec:mpr}

250: 

251: Mannheim, Protheroe and Rachen (MPR) \citep{mpr} determine an upper limit for

252: diffuse neutrino sources in almost the same way as WB but with one important

253: difference: 

254: they do not assume a specific cosmic ray spectrum but use the

255: experimental upper limit on the extra-galactic proton contribution. 

256: While WB base their calculation on a cosmic ray flux 

257: with a single spectral index equal to -2,

258: MPR define their spectrum based on current data at each energy.

259: 

260: MPR also extend their calculation for sources that are opaque

261: (``optically thick'') to nucleons. 

262: For these sources they set an upper limit using the observed diffuse 

263: extra-galactic gamma-ray background assuming that the dominant part 

264: of the emitted gamma-radiation is in the 

265: Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope \citep{egret} range.

266: 

267: Their results are also shown in Figure~\ref{fig:astro}. 

268: Their limit for transparent (``thin'') sources is approximately the same 

269: as the WB limit for energies 

270: between $10^7$ and $10^9$ GeV and higher otherwise. 

271: Their limit allows the rates to be within the area defined by

272: opaque and transparent sources. 

273: However, one should bear in mind that fluxes from opaque sources are difficult

274: to produce. 

275: The interaction target in these sources must be optimized to allow interactions

276: with most of the nucleons and at the same time allow pions and muons to decay.

277: They also require an extraordinary larger energy budget 

278: than optically thin sources since a higher flux requires more energy. Also

279: the opacity cuts down the flux of protons before they reach useful high energies implying a much larger initial flux and energy budget 

280: than  the simple order of magnitude more flux would imply.

281: As MPR state in their work, the WB limit is closer to current cosmic rays and 

282: neutrino production models. 

283: The opaque sources are in the ``hidden'' sources category.

284: 

285: 

286: \subsubsection{``Hidden'' Sources}

287: \label{sec:hidden}

288: 

289: The energy spectrum from opaque sources is not constrained by the

290: observed cosmic ray flux (see section~\ref{sec:WB}). 

291: Therefore models which predict such spectra are not limited by the 

292: WB derivation nor by the MPR for ``thin'' sources.

293: These models assume sources that are ``optically thick'' to nucleons.

294: The nucleons must first be accelerated to high energies 

295: and then encounter a target (radiation or matter) abundant enough

296: to interact with most of the protons but low enough 

297: that the pions and muons are able to propagate freely and decay and 

298: then the neutrinos be allowed to escape.

299: Berezinsky and Dokuchaev \citep{BD} have proposed such a model

300: and find that such a source could produce up to 10 muons 

301: crossing a one square kilometer area per year.

302: One could argue that such a high flux would be limited 

303: to a short term (10 years out of billions) outburst.  

304: However, the long term limit for all sources 

305: is close to the WB limit. 

306: 

307: Another model that assumes a source which is

308: ``optically thick'' to nucleons has been proposed by Stecker et al 

309: \citep{stecker}.

310: It proposes that protons are accelerated to high energies in the AGN core.

311: These protons produce neutrinos through photo-meson production.

312: The neutrino flux predicted by this model is shown in 

313: Figure~\ref{fig:wbagn}. A more recent version of this model \citep{stec96} 

314: predicts a slightly different neutrino spectrum coming

315: from quasars. Both predictions expect a  neutrino flux at the level of

316: the published AMANDA B-10 lower limit \citep{hill}.

317: 

318: A way to avoid both the WB and MPR limits is the

319: production of neutrinos in a way other than the photo-meson or

320: proton-nucleon interactions. 

321: There is a vast list of models that can account for this possibility. 

322: A list of them can be found in \citep{WB2}. 

323: Most of these involve new or ``exotic'' physics and we do not

324: include them as ``astrophysical'' sources.

325: 

326: As discussed in section~\ref{sec:mpr}, neutrino fluxes from hidden sources

327: are less likely to be produced. 

328: 

329: 

330: \subsubsection{GZK Fluxes}

331: \begin{sloppypar}

332: Very high-energy protons traveling through intergalactic space 

333: interact with the cosmic background photons and photo-produce pions.

334: Greisen and Zatzepin and Kuz'min \citep{GZK} first pointed out

335: that this process would occur and that it would set an upper bound

336: to the maximum energy (a few times $10^{19}$~eV) for a proton 

337: traveling intergalactic distances (hundreds Mpc).

338: \end{sloppypar}

339: 

340: The production and flux of high energy neutrinos originated from 

341: intergalactic propagation of ultra high

342: energy cosmic rays has been determined in \citep{engel}. 

343: They assume that the

344: ultra-high energy cosmic rays are of astrophysical origin and 

345: show their

346: result for different assumptions on cosmic ray source distributions, 

347: injection spectra and cosmological evolution. 

348: Their results with the same assumption for the injection power and

349: cosmological evolution as Waxman and Bahcall \citep{WB1}

350: are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:GZKflux}.

351: 

352: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

353: \begin{figure}% fig 3

354: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=4.0in \epsfbox{nugzk.ps}

355: %\vspace{10pt}

356: %\plotone{nugzk.eps}

357: \plotone{f3.eps}

358: \caption{Differential fluxes weighted by neutrino energy 

359: of neutrinos generated by ultra high energy

360: protons. Fluxes of electron neutrinos (dashed lines) and anti-neutrinos 

361: (dotted lines) are shown in the upper panel. 

362: The lower panel shows the fluxes of muon neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. 

363: Solid lines show  the sum of neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. These

364: fluxes were calculated in \citep{engel} using 

365: the same injection power and cosmological source evolution as

366: the WB limit~\protect\citep{WB1}. This limit is represented by the

367: shaded line. Figure extracted from \citep{engel}.}

368: \label{fig:GZKflux}

369: \end{figure}

370: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

371: 

372: \subsubsection{Neutrinos from the Galaxy}

373: There is a significant diffuse flux of neutrinos

374: created by interactions of the galactic and extra-galactic cosmic rays

375: with interstellar matter and starlight.

376: The spectrum of cosmic rays is reasonably well known,

377: as is the distribution of targets in our Galaxy. We call the flux

378: of neutrinos created by interactions in the interstellar medium 

379: the ``galactic flux''.

380: 

381: \begin{sloppypar}

382: Estimates of the galactic neutrino flux have been made by 

383: Domokos \citep{Domokos}, Berezinsky et al. \citep{Bere}, and 

384: Ingleman and Thunman \citep{IT}.

385: The diffuse galactic neutrino flux can be separated from the local 

386: atmospheric neutrino flux at energies above $10^{15}$ eV.

387: \end{sloppypar}

388: 

389: Above these energies 

390: the flux of diffuse galactic neutrinos stays harder

391: than the atmospheric flux both because the original galactic cosmic rays

392: have a harder spectrum nearer the center of the galaxy 

393: and most important the interstellar material is sufficiently thin

394: and far away that the muons have adequate range and time to decay.

395: 

396: The muon neutrino flux (per GeV cm$^2$ sr s) is estimated \citep{IT} by

397: 

398: \begin{equation}

399: \phi_\nu = \lbrace \matrix{ 3.0 \times 10^{-6} R E_\nu^{-2.63} ~~~~~ 

400: E_\nu < 4.7 \times 10^5 ~ {\rm GeV} \cr

401: 1.9 \times 10^{-4} R E_\nu^{-2.95} ~~~~~ E_\nu > 4.7 \times 10^5 ~ {\rm GeV} }

402: \end{equation}

403: where $R$ is the distance to the edge of the galaxy in Kpc  and E$_\nu$ is the neutrino

404: energy in GeV.

405: 

406: The resulting flux from the direction of the  

407: center of the galaxy (20.5 kpc) and from the

408: direction orthogonal to the galactic plane (0.26 kpc) are shown in 

409: Figure~\ref{fig:astro}. Both the WB and MPR limits are for extra-galactic

410: neutrinos.

411: 

412: One important point when considering the galactic flux is the direction

413: from which the neutrinos come. 

414: Experiments in the South Pole will have an additional background

415: from atmospheric muons when detecting neutrinos from the center of the 

416: galaxy since all events come from above the horizon. 

417: The atmospheric muon spectrum is steeper than the atmospheric

418: neutrino spectrum ~\citep{gaisser}.  The flux of atmospheric muons 

419: surviving to a depth of 1 km is 200 times larger than the 

420: atmospheric neutrino induced muons at 1 TeV.  

421: Furthermore, atmospheric muons that survive to kilometer depths

422: are often produced in collimated bundles near the core of the 

423: parent cosmic-ray shower.  Bundles of ~10 TeV muons can easily be

424: misidentified as a single high energy muon of 100 TeV or more.

425: The spectral characteristics of muon bundles are not yet well characterized

426: and lead to poor estimates of sensitivity above the horizon. 

427: For this reason we assume that atmospheric muons compose a irreducible

428: background.

429: In section~\ref{sec:sens} we determine the sensitivity for an expanded version

430: of ANTARES (expanded to a km$^2$ incident area) to the neutrino flux from the

431: galactic center.

432: 

433: \subsection{Point Sources}

434: \label{sec:point}

435: In this section we consider sources that produce high-energy particles.

436: Other than the hidden sources mentioned in section~\ref{sec:hidden} active

437: galactic nuclei (AGNs) and gamma-ray bursters are examples of extra galactic point

438: sources. Other extragalactic point sources such as blazars \citep{dermer}

439: (which compose a subclass of active galactic nuclei)

440: might produce a lower flux of neutrinos when compared to GRBs.

441: As an example of galactic point sources we show the neutrino

442: flux from Sagittarius (Sgr) A East.

443: 

444: In principle a sufficiently bright point source

445: can have their locations determined by the arrival direction of these

446: particles (or by the particles produced by them) at the detector.

447: The relevant issue is that, if the location of the source is pre-known,

448: then the effective atmospheric background is effectively reduced

449: by the ratio of the effective solid angles. 

450: The intrinsic angular deviation between the neutrino and daughter muon is 

451: of order $0.7^\circ/\sqrt{E_\nu/TeV}$ \citep{gaisser} so that the effective 

452: solid angle is of order one square degree.

453: If the detector angular resolution is of this order, 

454: then the relative enhancement of signal-to-background can be as much as $10^{4}$.

455: 

456: \subsubsection{Active Galactic Nuclei}

457: 

458: Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) are one of the brightest known astrophysical sources.

459: They produce a multi-wavelength spectrum that goes from radio to TeV gamma rays.

460: How such high-energy gammas are produced is still to be fully understood.

461: 

462: \begin{sloppypar}

463: In the more conventional model high energy photons are produced by 

464: inverse Compton scattering of accelerated electrons on thermal UV photons \citep{compt}. 

465: This description is supported by multi-wavelength observations 

466: of Mkn~421 \citep{mkn421} although there are adjustments to be made \citep{halzas}.

467: \end{sloppypar}

468: 

469: Other models \citep{managn,halzas,protagn} 

470: describe the production of high energy gamma rays through the

471: decay of photo produced neutral pions.

472: These protons would be produced and accelerated in the AGN jet. 

473: This mechanism would be responsible for the production of the 

474: observed gamma-ray background.

475: 

476: Figure~\ref{fig:wbagn} shows that the non conventional model

477: \citep{managn,halzas,protagn}

478: predictions are much higher than the WB limit. 

479: Waxman and Bahcall \citep{WB2} show that the sources in these models 

480: are optically thin and therefore should be constrained by their limit. 

481: They conclude that at least one of the basic assumptions of these models 

482: is not valid.

483: 

484: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

485: \begin{figure}

486: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=3.5in \epsfbox{wborg.eps}

487: \plotone{f4.eps}

488: \caption{Differential muon neutrino flux weighted by the square of the 

489: muon neutrino energy versus muon

490: neutrino energy. The WB limit is labeled as CR limit and compared to 

491: theoretical models. The Jet1 models

492: refers to results from \citep{managn} and Jet2 from \citep{halzas}.

493: These models should be constrained by the WB limit. As they violate

494: the limit, WB conclude that one of their assumptions must be wrong.

495: The GRB model is a prediction for neutrinos from Gamma Ray Bursts 

496: \citep{WB1,wbgrb}. The WB limit is also

497: compared to a hidden source model \citep{stecker} for which the WB limit

498: does not apply (see section~\protect\ref{sec:hidden}). This model  

499: is at the level of the published AMANDA B-10 lower limit

500: (Hill et al. 2001). Figure extracted from

501: \protect\citep{WB1}.}

502: \label{fig:wbagn}

503: \end{figure}

504: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

505: 

506: It is important to note that the AGN sources are intermittent and that

507: they might violate the WB limit in a temporary basis. 

508: However they should not do so when averaged over time.

509: 

510: \subsubsection{Gamma-ray bursts}

511: \label{sec:grb}

512: 

513: Energetic gamma-ray bursts (GRB) seem to be successfully explained by fireball

514: models (\citep{piran} and references therein). 

515: Recent observations suggest that they originate in cosmological sources. 

516: Waxman and Bahcall \citep{wbgrb} propose that

517: neutrinos are a consequence of these fireballs. 

518: They will be produced by  photo-meson production between the fireball 

519: gamma-rays and accelerated protons.

520: \citep{wbgrb,WB1} derive the energy spectrum and 

521: flux of high energy neutrinos created in this way. 

522: Their result is in agreement with \citep{rachen}.

523: 

524: \begin{sloppypar}

525: Figure~\ref{fig:wbagn} shows the predicted spectrum of high energy 

526: neutrinos from GRBs. 

527: This spectrum is consistent with the WB limit and the intensity over 

528: $2\pi$ sr coverage would be about 10 neutrino induced muons per year 

529: in a detector with $km^2$ incident area \citep{WB1}.

530: These neutrinos have the advantage of spatial and temporal coincidence with

531: GRB photons 

532: which can be used as a tool to reduce the atmospheric neutrino background.

533: The neutrinos produced from hadronic interaction may arrive on a time scale 

534: of about an hour 

535: after the photons in the model of simple acceleration \citep{WL}.

536: \end{sloppypar}

537: 

538: \subsubsection{Neutrinos from Galactic Point Sources}

539: \label{sec:galpoint}

540: The neutrino flux from Sgr A East is analyzed as an example of a galactic point

541: source. This is one of the dominant radio emitting 

542: structures at the Galactic 

543: Center and is a supernova remnant-like shell \citep{melia}. It has been shown \citep{melia}

544: that the highest energy component in the Sgr A East spectrum is compatible with a gamma-ray

545: spectrum produced by pion decay. This energy spectrum fits the one from the galactic center source

546: 2EG J1746-2852 measured by EGRET. The neutrino flux

547: from Sgr A East was determined under the assumption that pion decay 

548: constitutes the gamma-ray source 2EG~J1746-2852 \citep{crocker}.

549: Pions are produced in proton-proton collisions in

550: shock regions and the maximum energy of the shocked protons is $\sim 5 \times 10^{6}$~GeV.

551: Neutrinos are produced from pion and muon decay. There is a ratio of about

552: 67\% muon like to 33\% electron like neutrinos. We determine the sensitivity of a 

553: km$^2$ incident area to the largest neutrino flux, ie, the muon neutrino flux.

554: 

555: \begin{sloppypar}

556: If neutrino oscillations occur as expected from  Superkamiokande results \citep{sk} one

557: should take this effect into consideration \citep{crocker,crocker2}. In this

558: case, a portion of the muon neutrinos will most likely \citep{sktau} become tau

559: neutrinos. In this work we do not include oscillations and it represents an upper

560: limit for muon neutrinos.

561: 

562: In Figure~\ref{fig:astro} we show the muon neutrino flux from Sgr A East as

563: determined in \citep{crocker}. The band represents

564: the range between the best case scenario for which the proton energy spectrum will follow a power law

565: with spectral index equal to -2.1 and the worst case scenario with spectral index equal to

566: -2.4 \cite{crocker}. The cutoff is due to the maximum energy achieved by the proton.

567: In section~\ref{sec:sens} we will determine the detectability of this flux of

568: neutrinos.

569: \end{sloppypar}

570: 

571: Another galactic neutrino source might be supernova remnants (SNR). The 

572: CANGAROO collaboration has measured the gamma ray spectrum of a few of

573: these sources \citep{can1,can2}. If the

574: gammas were produced as a product of pion decays, neutrinos will also be produced.

575: The neutrinos from SNR will however have a lower flux than the ones from Sgr A East and

576: the cutoff energy will be at the TeV level instead of at the PeV level \cite{crocker2}. 

577: 

578: The brightest cosmic X-rays sources -- the X-ray binaries -- might also produce high

579: energy neutrinos. Composed by compact objects such as black holes or neutron stars,

580: they accrete matter from their companion stars. The accretion process might accelerate

581: protons to high energies. The interaction of these protons with either the accreted matter 

582: or matter from companion stars will produce a neutrino flux. The neutrino flux from

583: microquasars, which are Galactic jet sources associated with some classes of X-ray binaries

584: has been determined in \citep{waxqua}.

585: 

586: \subsubsection{Neutrinos from the Sun}

587: 

588: The high energy neutrino flux originating from cosmic ray interactions with 

589: matter in the Sun has been determined in \citep{itsun}. Although it is

590: higher than the atmospheric neutrino flux, the conclusion is that the 

591: absolute rate is low. Within the Sun's solid angle, the neutrino energy spectrum

592: will follow the atmospheric neutrino spectrum but is about 3 times higher.  

593: According to these authors the low rate precludes the

594: Sun as a ``standard'' candle for neutrino telescopes and also limits

595: neutrino oscillation searches. A detailed analysis of the influence of

596: neutrino oscillations on the high energy neutrino event rates from the Sun 

597: can be found in \citep{sun}.

598: 

599: \subsection{Atmospheric Neutrino Fluxes}

600: \label{sec:atm}

601: 

602: The atmospheric neutrino flux is the main background for neutrinos from

603: astrophysical sources.

604: As a parameterization of this background flux we use the derivation made by

605: Volkova \citep{volkova} as described also in \citep{alb}.

606: 

607: Volkova derives the atmospheric neutrino flux from the decay of light mesons

608: ($K, \pi$) and muons and from the decay of short-lived particles 

609: (prompt decay) which mainly includes charm particles. 

610: The latter will only be significant at higher energies (above a PeV).

611: 

612: \begin{sloppypar}

613: We compare this flux with that obtained by \citep{honda} and 

614: \citep{agrawal}.

615: The biggest difference between these calculations is of about 15\% 

616: (see Figure~14 of ref.~\citep{honda} and Figure~7 of ref.~\citep{agrawal}). 

617: In the energy range of interest to our work, the discrepancy is less

618: than 15\% and the Volkova

619: spectrum is underestimated in relation to these other spectra. 

620: \end{sloppypar}

621: 

622: Since the atmospheric neutrino flux is irreducible, understanding

623: the effect of its uncertainty is important. The uncertainties come from

624: the primary cosmic ray flux measurement and from 

625: the inclusive cross section for proton -- nucleon interactions.

626: We assume the biggest discrepancy between the atmospheric flux calculations

627: (15\%) as the uncertainty in the magnitude of the atmospheric flux.

628: 

629: Since the uncertainty in the primary spectrum increases with energy

630: there is also an uncertainty in the slope of the spectrum. At

631: lower energy there are more data and the uncertainty 

632: is mainly due to instrumental efficiency and exposure factor. 

633: At higher energies the uncertainty is dominated by limited statistics.

634: In general \citep{honda,agrawal} the uncertainty in 

635: the spectrum slope is assumed to be about 10\% below

636: 3 GeV increasing to 20\% at $3 \times 10^3$ GeV and remaining constant from

637: thereon. 

638: As discussed also in \citep{honda,agrawal} the uncertainties in the interaction

639: model at higher energies is estimated around 10\%. 

640: Neutrino oscillations do not affect the atmospheric spectrum at the energies

641: of interest here.

642: 

643: One can therefore estimate the overall uncertainty 

644: in the atmospheric neutrino flux as around 20\%. 

645: We will show that this uncertainty does not affect 

646: significantly our results. 

647: 

648: Although the atmospheric neutrino flux is always considered as a background for

649: neutrino astrophysics, the fact that the flux at higher energies is not well

650: determined by experiments, makes it an important measurement to be performed 

651: with neutrino telescopes. 

652: It has been suggested that the standard model neutrino

653: cross section above $10^8$ GeV might be lower than expected \citep{dicus}.

654: Measuring the atmospheric neutrino flux at these energies can determine

655: the neutrino -- nucleon cross section \citep{weiler}. It is important to note

656: that these energies cannot be directly probed by accelerator experiments.

657: 

658: 

659: 

660: \subsection{Summary of Fluxes}

661: \label{sec:summary}

662: 

663: Figure~\ref{fig:sum} shows a summary of the expected fluxes arriving

664: at the surface of the Earth from sources which produce high energy (around

665: $10^{19}$ eV) cosmic rays.  The atmospheric background dominates

666: at low energy. Neutrinos from the center of the galaxy  

667: contribute a small excess to the atmospheric flux at energies above 

668: $10^6$ GeV, but are constrained by a smaller solid angle.

669: They are not in the field of view of South Pole detectors, but are

670: interesting for more equatorial detectors.  

671: Diffuse limits on astrophysical neutrinos are characterized by the WB limit.  

672: The WB limit is avoided by the MPR limits as they abandon the power-spectrum

673: for optically thin limit and propose ``hidden'' source contributions

674: for the optically thick limit.

675: GZK fluxes are shown at the highest energies.

676: The most promising flux to be measured is the one from GRBs since

677: it allows reduction of the background 

678: through knowledge of arrival time and direction as well as the one from

679: Sgr A East.

680: 

681: Detected event rates are smaller since the 

682: neutrino conversion into a muon and the efficiency of the detector

683: have to be taken into account.  Event rates and experimental sensitivity

684: are considered in the next section.

685: 

686: A sensible design criteria for a neutrino detector is that

687: it be sensitive to the

688: highest known neutrino flux from astrophysical sources, namely five

689: times below the WB limit.  With such a sensitivity, backgrounds

690: can be characterized and new diffuse fluxes discovered.

691: Physics measurements of the new fluxes, namely brightness, energy spectrum

692: and points on the sky, will require substantially more events. 

693: 

694: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

695: \begin{figure}

696: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=4.5in \epsfbox{sum.eps}

697: \plotone{f5.eps}

698: \caption{Differential muon neutrino fluxes weighted by neutrino energy 

699: summary containing (1) Atmospheric vertical

700: (solid line) and horizontal (dashed) 

701: muon neutrino energy spectra based on \protect\citep{volkova}. 

702: The reason why these two fluxes overlap at high energies (above 

703: $10^6$ GeV) is that prompt decays (mainly from charm particles) 

704: dominate

705: the atmospheric flux when compared to meson and muon decay at these

706: energies.(2) WB \protect\citep{WB1} limit (with evolution) 

707: for neutrino fluxes from astrophysical sources (large solid line).

708: (3) Galactic neutrino flux \protect\citep{IT} from galactic center 

709: (dotted dashed line) and from direction orthogonal to the galactic 

710: plane (dotted).

711: (4) MPR \protect\citep{mpr} limit

712: for neutrino fluxes from sources

713: transparent to nucleons (medium dashed line) and from sources 

714: opaque to nucleons (medium dotted dashed).

715: (5) Estimate of GZK neutrinos \protect\citep{engel} (large dashed line).

716: (6) Estimate of GRB neutrinos \protect\citep{wbgrb} (large dot dashed line)

717: (7) Estimate of Sgr A East neutrinos \protect\cite{crocker} assuming the

718: best case scenario (see text) (medium dot dashed line).}

719: \label{fig:sum}

720: \end{figure}

721: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

722: 

723: 

724: \section{Event Rates and Sensitivity}

725: \label{sec:rates}

726: Neutrinos cannot be directly detected, because they do not 

727: deposit a significant amount of

728: energy as they pass through matter.  For a neutrino to be observed

729: it must undergo an electro-weak interaction with another particle 

730: resulting in detectable secondaries.  

731:  Since the neutrino interaction cross section is small, the probability

732: of an interaction can be increased if 

733: large, dense targets are used, such as the Earth.

734: 

735: The neutrino nucleon cross section increases as a function of energy 

736: resulting in two effects.  

737: First, high energy neutrinos are more likely 

738: to interact within the detector volume.  

739: Second, the flux of neutrinos that reach the detector is attenuated at high 

740: energy because of neutrino interactions in the Earth.

741: High energy muons travel many kilometers before stopping or decaying.

742: The advantage of detecting muons is that the detector could be sensitive to 

743: neutrino interactions over a length equal to the muon range.

744: Unfortunately, because high-energy muons lose energy rapidly and 

745: because at low

746: energy there is a large atmospherically-produced neutrino background,

747: this potential gain is reduced. 

748: 

749: Convolution of the neutrino flux, conversion cross sections, muon range

750: and deposited energy is the subject of the next sections.

751: 

752: 

753: \subsection{Neutrino Interactions}

754: The flux of leptons converted from the incident neutrino flux is

755: \begin{equation}

756: \phi_{lepton} = \phi_\nu P(\nu \rightarrow lepton)

757: \end{equation}

758: where $ P(\nu \rightarrow lepton)$ is the probability that a neutrino

759: suffers an interaction and produces a lepton.  

760: This probability is given by

761: \begin{equation}

762: P_I = P(\nu \rightarrow lepton) 

763:     = \int_0^{path} {\rm n} \sigma(\nu \rightarrow lepton) dx

764: \label{eq:pi}

765: \end{equation}

766: where ${\rm n}$ is the nucleon number density and $\sigma$ is the neutrino nucleon

767: cross section and the path is the distance the neutrino traveled.

768: In the following, we abbreviate the notation:

769: $P_{\rm I} = n \sigma_{\nu} L$ where $L$ is the neutrino path.

770: 

771: The deep inelastic neutrino cross sections, $\sigma_\nu$ 

772: are determined using CTEQ4-DIS parton distribution functions as described 

773: in \citep{gandhi98}.

774: In the case of muon neutrinos, the interaction

775: probability is dominated by the charge current (CC) cross section, 

776: but there is also some degradation of

777: neutrino energy by the neutral current (NC) cross section.

778: 

779: Neutrino fluxes will suffer attenuation as they pass through the Earth.

780: The differential flux is given by

781: \begin{equation}

782: \frac{d\phi_\nu}{dx} = -n \sigma_{\nu} \phi_\nu

783: \label{eq:dfatt}

784: \end{equation}

785: where 

786: $x$ is the distance traveled by the neutrino. 

787: Integrating over the path length traversed by the neutrino, we find 

788: \begin{equation}

789: \phi_\nu = \phi_{\nu 0} e^{-\int n \sigma(\nu) dx }  

790:          = \phi_{\nu 0} P_S

791: \label{eq:attfl}

792: \end{equation}

793: where $\phi_{\nu 0}$ is the flux at the earth's surface, $P_S$ is the

794: survival probability and the argument of the exponential term is $P_I$

795: integrated over all cross sections that make the neutrino cease to exist.

796: 

797: Figure \ref{fig:survival}

798: shows the muon neutrino survival probability at a point on the 

799: surface of the earth for a variety of neutrino energies as a

800: function of the cosine of the earth angle, $\theta_Z$

801: \footnote{$\theta_Z$ is the angle from local zenith. An upward going neutrino,

802: that is, one coming from the direction of the center of the Earth as viewed 

803: from the detector has a zenith angle of zero degrees.}.

804: The number density (see Equation~\ref{eq:pi}) 

805: is determined by an integration

806: of the earth density profile which is taken from \citep{gandhi96,earden}.  

807: The upper lines are the probability using

808: only CC interactions.  The lower lines include both CC and NC interactions.

809: It shows that the NC interaction will decrease the lepton flux by about 10\%.

810: At high energy, the steep cut-off results in as much as a 20\% decrease.

811: The NC interaction does not actually remove the neutrino from the flux,

812: but degrades its energy.  We include it in our analysis to be conservative,

813: and treat the CC-only case as an upper bound to the systematic 

814: uncertainty.

815: 

816: From Figure~\ref{fig:survival} one can see that 

817: the survival probability becomes quite small for high energy neutrinos

818: due to significant attenuation.  At low energies, the attenuation

819: is negligible, but it begins to contribute above about 10 TeV.

820: The Earth becomes essentially opaque to neutrinos at energies of above a PeV

821: \citep{gandhi98}.

822: 

823: The effect of the dense 

824: Earth core can be seen near $\cos{\theta_Z}$ of 0.8. 

825: Neutrinos that travel close to the Earth axis will go 

826: through most of the Earth core

827: and therefore increase their probability of interaction.

828: There is also evidence

829: of a thin crust at small $\cos{\theta_Z}$ where neutrinos

830: only pass through the crust.

831: 

832: 

833: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

834: \begin{figure}

835: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=5.in \epsfbox{fig-survival.eps}

836: %\psfig{figure=fig-survival.eps,height=7in}

837: \plotone{f6.eps}

838: \caption{Survival probability for neutrinos and anti-neutrinos

839: transversing the Earth as a function of $\cos(\theta_Z)$.

840: The horizon is at 0, and  a path through the center of the earth is at 1.  

841: The upper lines include only CC interactions, the lower lines include both

842: CC and NC interactions.

843: Differences due to NC interactions have a maximum effect at high energy

844: where the distributions drop sharply.}

845: \label{fig:survival}

846: \end{figure}

847: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

848: 

849: The flux of muons interacting in a detector volume is given by

850: \begin{equation}

851: \phi_{lepton} = \phi_{\nu 0} \times P_S \times P_I 

852: \label{eq:ncont}

853: \end{equation}

854: where the incident flux, $\phi_{\nu 0}$, is the flux in Figure~\ref{fig:sum}

855: and $P_I$ is now integrated over the neutrino path through the detector.

856: 

857: \subsection{Muon Fluxes}

858: Muons will propagate, losing energy until they eventually come to 

859: rest and decay or undergo a nuclear reaction.  

860: The mean energy loss is given by 

861: \begin{equation}

862: \frac{dE_\mu}{dx} = a + b E_\mu

863: \end{equation}

864: where asymptotically $a = 2 \times 10^{-3} {\rm GeV cm^2 / g}$ and 

865: $b = 4 \times 10^{-6} {\rm cm^2 / g}$ \citep{pdg} are

866: respectively ionization and radiation loss parameters.

867: 

868: Approximating the parameters $a(E_\mu)$ and $b(E_\mu)$ as constants, 

869: simple integration over the muon path yields the muon range, $R_\mu$.

870: \begin{equation}

871: R_\mu = \frac{1}{b} \ln \left( 1 + \frac{b}{a} E_0 \right)

872: \label{eq:muran}

873: \end{equation}

874: where $E_0$ is the muon initial energy. 

875: Below the critical energy \footnote{Critical energy is the one for which the

876: probability for a nuclear interaction in one nuclear mean free path equals the 

877: decay probability in the same path. It is given by $E_{critical} \equiv \frac{b}{a}$.}

878: ionization losses dominate and the muon range is

879: well described by the average energy loss.  

880: At high energies where radiative processes dominate, large fluctuations

881: develop and a stochastic approach is needed.

882: The mean muon range is shorter than Equation~\ref{eq:muran}

883: would suggest.

884: Lipari and Stanev \citep{lipari} developed a Monte Carlo

885: with the purpose of taking these fluctuations into account.  

886: We use their Monte Carlo to determine the muon range.

887: This approach also accounts for the energy dependence

888: of the energy loss parameters $a$ and $b$.

889: 

890: We now determine the upgoing muon rate in an idealized detector located

891: 1.5 km below the surface of the earth with a detector path length of 1 km

892: and a km$^2$ incident area for all incident angles. Two muon rates are relevant, those 

893: where the muon is produced inside the detector 

894: ($P_I$ integrated over 1 km) and those where the muon originates outside the 

895: detector and ranges into the detector ($P_I$ integrated over the muon range).  

896: Figure~\ref{fig:muflux} shows the rate of upgoing muons plus anti-muons 

897: weighted by neutrino energy 

898: versus neutrino energy for the WB limit, the MPR limit, GRB flux, GZK flux,

899: and for atmospheric neutrinos.  

900: Only muons with more than 100 GeV are included.  

901: These results are in good agreement with \citep{Gaisser01}.

902: The lower curve is the flux of muons plus anti-muons that start 

903: outside the detector volume and range into it.  

904: The upper curve includes the flux of

905: muons and anti-muons that start in the detector volume.

906: Except for very low energies,

907: the dominant flux is from muons that range into the detector.

908: 

909: Muons associated with the galaxy are not isotropic. 

910: We make estimates for a detector at a Mediterranean latitude of +35 degrees

911: corresponding to a expanded version of the ANTARES or NESTOR detector.  

912: A North Pole detector would see a rate 1.6 times higher. The galactic center

913: is above the horizon at the South Pole where the atmospheric muon background

914: is too high. Figure~\ref{fig:muflux} shows the

915: rate of neutrinos from 75 square degrees in the galactic plane, centered

916: on the galactic center.  The rate is much smaller than the Atmospheric 

917: neutrinos in the same solid angle.  We conclude, therefore that 

918: Galactic neutrinos will not be detectable.

919: 

920: We also determine the muon rate for Sgr A East at a latitude of 35 degrees. 

921: Two rates are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:muflux} corresponding to hard and 

922: soft proton spectra with a cut-off at $5\times10^6$ GeV (see 

923: section~\ref{sec:galpoint}).  Background neutrinos from the galaxy 

924: in 1 square degree surrounding Sgr A East are about 75 times smaller than

925: the rate shown in the figure.

926: For point sources such as GRB and Sgr A East, 

927: the primary background of atmospheric neutrinos is reduced in 1 square 

928: degree by a factor of about $5\times10^{-5}$ 

929: again leaving a nearly background-free source detection.

930: 

931: Muon rates are substantially lower than the neutrino rates shown earlier.  

932: The line on Figure~\ref{fig:muflux} shows where

933: 1 event/year is expected for each half decade in energy.  

934: The GZK flux peaks at $10^9$ GeV, just below the WB limit.  

935: About 0.17 muon per year is expected from the GZK flux.

936: 

937: \begin{sloppypar}

938: For all but the atmospheric flux, equal numbers of neutrinos and

939: anti-neutrinos are expected.  Atmospheric neutrinos

940: exceed anti-neutrinos by a factor of 2.5 at 1 TeV \citep{agrawal}.

941: By about 100 TeV, however, the neutrino and anti-neutrino cross 

942: sections become equal.  Across the whole spectrum, the uncertainty due 

943: to muon/anti-muon composition can be neglected since it is smaller than 

944: the theoretical uncertainty of $\pm20$\%.

945: \end{sloppypar}

946: 

947: 

948: 

949: 

950: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

951: \begin{figure}

952: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=5.in \epsfbox{fig-muflux.eps}

953: %\psfig{figure=fig-muflux.eps,height=4.5in}

954: \plotone{f7.eps}

955: \caption{Differential upgoing muon and anti-muon rate weighted by neutrino energy 

956: as a function of neutrino energy.

957: Most muons range into the detector although the fraction starting

958: inside increases at low energy. The horizontal line shows where 

959: 1 event/year is expected for each half decade in energy.}

960: \label{fig:muflux}

961: \end{figure}

962: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

963: 

964: 

965: Since the neutrino energy is not measured by the detector, 

966: but rather the muon energy is estimated by energy deposition in the detector,

967: the results are better shown as a function of the muon energy estimation.

968: The latter can be achieved in three steps: (1) first the flux as a function of

969: the muon energy,

970: (2) as a function of the muon energy at the detector, and 

971: (3) finally flux as a function of the energy deposition in the detector.

972: The muon flux as a function of muon energy is given by

973: \begin{equation}

974: \phi_\mu = 

975: \int_0^\infty \frac{d}{dE_\mu} (\frac{d\phi_\nu}{dE_\nu}) dE_\nu  

976: \end{equation}

977: 

978: \begin{sloppypar}

979: The average energy loss in a CC interaction, $y = (1-E_\mu/E_\nu)$, 

980: for neutrinos energies 

981: between 10 GeV and 100 GeV is 0.48 gradually

982: decreasing to about 0.2 at high energies \citep{gandhi96}. 

983: At high energy, the muon gets about 80\% of the neutrino energy.  

984: \end{sloppypar}

985: 

986: A stronger effect is noticed if we determine the flux as a function of 

987: the muon energy as it enters the detector. 

988: A very high-energy neutrino will make a very high-energy muon that travels

989: many kilometers losing energy as it goes.

990: If the track starts at random distance from the detector, the

991: measured energy will be distributed nearly uniformly 

992: between the initial energy and zero.

993: A high-energy muon will lose on average 1-1/e of its energy 

994: when traversing between 2.4 and 3 km of ice.

995: About each 2.7 km of ice traversed will move the muon down 

996: a natural logarithmic energy  interval of muon energy at the detector. 

997: We use the Lipari-Stanev Monte-Carlo \citep{lipari} to determine the 

998: muon range and the energy deposited in 100 m steps including fluctuations

999: from radiative processes.  

1000: A random spot is chosen along the track to represent the point it enters

1001: the detector.  

1002: Figure~\ref{fig:muflux-detector} 

1003: shows the differential muon plus anti-muon rate weighted by muon energy 

1004: resulting from neutrino

1005: interactions as a function of the muon energy as it enters the detector.

1006: 

1007: 

1008: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1009: \begin{figure}

1010: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=5.in \epsfbox{fig-muflux-detector.eps}

1011: \plotone{f8.eps}

1012: \caption{Differential upgoing muon and anti-muon rate weighted by muon energy 

1013: as a function of the muon energy when it enters the detector.

1014: The measured energy of muons that range into the detector is less than

1015: the initial energy.  Muons that start inside the detector make up about

1016: 30\% of the flux at high energy.}

1017: \label{fig:muflux-detector}

1018: \end{figure}

1019: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1020: 

1021: The atmospheric neutrino flux is a major background 

1022: over most of the energy range

1023: where events can be measured in a ${\rm km^2}$ per year.  

1024: To detect the high-energy signals, good energy resolution is needed.

1025: For point sources, the muon energy is used as a cut parameter to

1026: optimize signal to background. 

1027: For the diffuse flux, the resolution is needed 

1028: to deconvolve the spectrum back to the neutrino energy.  

1029: Where signals are not detected, 

1030: a cut on muon energy is needed to set upper limits.

1031: 

1032: 

1033: \subsection{Muon Energy Resolution}

1034: 

1035: Muon energies below about 100 GeV are measured by their path length.

1036: At higher energies, the path lengths become too long

1037: and the amount of Cherenkov radiation from the track is used. 

1038: The total Cherenkov radiation is nearly proportional to the

1039: total energy deposition in the detector volume. 

1040: Figure~\ref{fig:ls} shows the

1041: deposited energy in MeV/m for 100, 500 and 1000 meter track lengths

1042: at a variety of muon energies.   

1043: The distribution is essentially a Gaussian with a long tail to larger energy 

1044: deposition due to the stochastic nature of the energy loss processes\footnote{

1045: The energy losses determined by the Lipari-Stanev Monte Carlo and more modern

1046: codes \citep{mmc} are represented by

1047: a delta function and a radiative tail.  Depending on the energy, there will

1048: be a gap between these two parts (larger tracks have less gap).  We make

1049: a smooth parameterization to avoid this gap.  We use the difference between 

1050: the Lipari-Stanev standard prediction and our parameterizations 

1051: as an estimate of the systematic uncertainty inherent in 

1052: all currently available calculations.}.

1053: The energy loss includes \citep{lipari} the usual ionization and knock-on 

1054: electron processes important at lower energies and additional processes 

1055: important at higher energies 

1056: including pair production ($\propto \Delta E^{-\beta}$, $\beta$ varying from 1 to 3 as

1057: $\Delta E$ increases) \cite{groommok},

1058: bremsstrahlung ($\propto \Delta E^{-1}$), 

1059: and photonuclear (roughly $\propto \Delta E^{-1.1}$),

1060: all with a cut off at the total energy of the muon.

1061: These processes are responsible for the energy dependent portion of $dE/dx$.

1062: The numerous lower energy pairs (plus ionization) produce 

1063: \footnote{The Central Limit Theorem states that 

1064: the probability distribution of sum of variables drawn from probability

1065: distributions with finite variances will tend towards the normal (Gaussian) 

1066: distribution. 

1067: The very numerous low-energy deposition processes will result in a nearly 

1068: Gaussian peaked shape around the most probable energy loss for most energy 

1069: depositions. 

1070: The much rarer high-energy losses take many more samples to average down

1071: and result in a long tail to higher-energy deposition. 

1072: A true $1/\Delta E$ distribution would not tend to Gaussian as it has an 

1073: infinite variance were it not for the maximum energy cut-off.}

1074: the Gaussian-peaked shape for most energy losses. 

1075: The bremsstrahlung and photonuclear processes and the rarer high-energy pairs 

1076: produce a significant tail of much larger energy depositions.

1077: If the most probable (or mean) energy deposition is used as a measure of 

1078: the muon energy, a significant number of the much more abundant lower energy 

1079: muons will be reconstructed as high energy muons. 

1080: As a result a significant number of the abundant atmospheric muons 

1081: would be reconstructed as much higher energy muons.

1082: Longer sampling path lengths have a more truncated tail 

1083: because there is a cut off where the muon is completely stopped.  

1084: The deposited energy can not exceed the muon energy.  

1085: A clear statistical relationship exists between detected and true muon energy.

1086: 

1087: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1088: \begin{figure}

1089: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=5.in \epsfbox{fig-ls.eps}

1090: \plotone{f9.eps}

1091: \caption{Energy deposited in MeV/m for 

1092: 100m, 500m, and 1 km muon paths.  

1093: Notice there is a strong dependence

1094: in the deposited energy on the true muon energy until the muon energy

1095: drops below about 100 GeV.}

1096: \label{fig:ls}

1097: \end{figure}

1098: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1099: 

1100: 

1101: An ideal detector could measure the deposited energy perfectly.  

1102: If an ideal detector made many measurements with independent 100 meter

1103: samples, then events that fluctuated early could be removed at the

1104: expense of efficiency and the true muon energy could be measured  

1105: using the samples up to the first large fluctuation.   

1106: The Frejus detector \citep{frejus}

1107: being a sampling calorimeter determined the muon energy based on fluctuations

1108: in energy deposition. 

1109: The large scale of more recent neutrino detectors makes independent 

1110: sampling unrealistic.  

1111: In an open geometry, such as Cherenkov detectors, the samples can not 

1112: be cleanly separated with opaque barriers.  Long path lengths are an 

1113: advantage because they minimize the sensitivity to the long tails in the

1114: energy resolution.  Under sampling can reduce the advantage of long 

1115: path lengths, however if the detector is only able to measure portions

1116: of the energy deposition.

1117: Figure \ref{fig:muflux-ls} 

1118: shows the differential upgoing muon rate weighted by the energy deposited in the detector 

1119: as a function of energy deposited in the

1120: detector as radiation in a 500 meter track. 

1121: 

1122: 

1123: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1124: \begin{figure}

1125: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=5.in \epsfbox{fig-muflux-ls.eps}

1126: \plotone{f10.eps}

1127: \caption{Differential upgoing muon and anti-muon rate weighted by energy deposited in the 

1128: detector as a function of the energy deposited in the detector.}

1129: \label{fig:muflux-ls}

1130: \end{figure}

1131: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1132: 

1133: Figure~\ref{fig:muflux-ls-uncert} is included to show the main

1134: systematic effects on the spectrum.

1135: High energy muons are most sensitive to the NC effect on survival probability.

1136: The shape of the atmospheric background depends more 

1137: significantly on the length of the track.

1138: In addition to the systematics shown on the plot, there is about 20\% 

1139: theoretical 

1140: uncertainty in the predicted atmospheric flux (see section~\ref{sec:atm}).

1141: 

1142: 

1143: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1144: \begin{figure}

1145: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=5.in \epsfbox{fig-muflux-ls-uncert.eps}

1146: \plotone{f11.eps}

1147: \caption{The spectral dependence on survival probability and path

1148: length.

1149: Neutral currents (NC) primarily affect the overall normalization of the

1150: hard spectra.

1151: The spectrum dependence on path-length is shown for the steep atmospheric 

1152: background where the resolution tails become important.  For 100 m paths

1153: there is a kink in the distribution.  Without tails in the resolution,

1154: such a change in slope would signal the discovery of a new source of 

1155: neutrinos.  We use the

1156: 500 m resolution for our ideal detector and add the actual path length

1157: in Section~\ref{sec:sens-real} for real detectors.}

1158: \label{fig:muflux-ls-uncert}

1159: \end{figure}

1160: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1161: 

1162: 

1163: \subsection{Sensitivity of an Ideal km$^2$ Detector to Astrophysical Sources}

1164: \label{sec:sens}

1165: 

1166: Event rates above a cut where signal and background are equal are listed

1167: in Table~\ref{t:idealEvts}. 

1168: Also included are rates for two other possible energy cuts: 

1169: the energy where no background events are expected 

1170: (atmospheric $<$ 0.1 event), and

1171: the energy where 1 background event is expected.

1172: Uncertainties in the rates come from several sources.  

1173: There is a theoretical uncertainty on the atmospheric background of 

1174: $\pm$20\%. The NC contribution to the survival probability is +10\%.  

1175: Finally, the difference between Lipari-Stanev and a smooth parameterization

1176: of the energy deposition

1177: adds $\pm10\%$ for 500 meter tracks and $\pm50\%$ for 100 meter tracks.

1178: The total uncertainties in the event rates quoted (500 m tracks) are: 

1179: +14\%, -10\% for

1180: signals and +24\%, -22\% for the atmospheric flux.  

1181: 

1182: 

1183: \begin{table}

1184: \small

1185: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|c|}

1186: \hline

1187: Muon Source  & events            & events          & energy (Mev/m)& events \\

1188:              & E$>10^{5.5}$ MeV/m& E$>10^{4.95}$ MeV/m & S/B=1 & E$>$S/B=1 \\

1189: \hline\hline

1190: Atmospheric Neutrinos    & 0.11  & 1     & & \\ 

1191: WB Opt Thin Limit        & 3.0   & 7.8   & $10^{4.3}$ & 23.8   \\

1192: MPR Opt Thin Limit       & 15.5  & 90.0  & $10^{2.8}$ & 7500.0 \\

1193: MPR Opaque Limit         & 112.0 & 300.0 & $10^{2.9}$ & 7050.0 \\

1194: MPR Source ($10^3 GeV)$     & 10$^{-12}$ & 10$^{-7}$ &   & \\

1195: MPR Source ($10^4 GeV)$     & 0.0003  & 0.31& $10^{3.0}$ & 2500.0 \\

1196: MPR Source ($10^5 GeV)$     & 3.4     & 60.0& $10^{2.9}$ & 4000.0 \\

1197: MPR Source ($10^6 GeV)$     & 5.8   & 21.0  & $10^{3.9}$ & 76.0   \\

1198: MPR Source ($10^7 GeV)$     & 2.5   & 4.5   & $10^{4.5}$ & 6.4   \\

1199: MPR Source ($10^8 GeV)$     & 0.9   & 1.3   & $10^{4.9}$ & 1.4   \\

1200: MPR Source ($10^{11} GeV)$    & 0.1   & 0.1   & &   \\

1201: \hline

1202: \end{tabular}

1203: \caption{Event rates for 500 meter long muon tracks in an ideal 

1204: km$^2$ detector per year. 

1205: The background is composed of atmospheric neutrinos.  

1206: Background-free limits can be estimated for deposited 

1207: energy $ > 10^{5.5}$ MeV/m.

1208: A single background event is expected for energy $>10^{4.95}$ MeV/m.  

1209: Finally, the energy and rates where the signal equals background (S/B=1) 

1210: are listed.

1211: Uncertainties in event rates are +24\%, -22\% for atmospheric background and 

1212: +14\%, -10\% for the other signals.}

1213: \label{t:idealEvts}

1214: \end{table}

1215: 

1216: Also included in the table are a series of sources consistent with the

1217: MPR optically thin limit.  Since this limit is not a power law, it is

1218: a composite of sources at each energy. The maximum

1219: power-law spectrum consistent at all energies is the WB limit.

1220: Figure~\ref{fig:nuflux-sources} shows the neutrino flux for 

1221: these made-up sources.  We generously

1222: give them a E$^{-1}$ isotropic spectrum, cut-off by a gaussian shape with means varying 

1223: from $10^{3.0}$ to $10^{11.5}$ GeV, and widths of $\sigma = 0.3$.  

1224: Their normalization varies between the MPR thin limit and WB limit.

1225: Figure~\ref{fig:muflux-sources} shows the differential upgoing muon rate

1226: weighted by the energy deposited in the detector for these sources

1227: as a function of deposited energy in the detector.  From the numbers tabulated

1228: in Table~\ref{t:idealEvts} it is clear that the a km$^2$ 

1229: detector will be sensitive to neutrino fluxes with incident energies 

1230: between $10^{5}$ and $10^{7}$ GeV.  Higher fluxes have been ruled out by 

1231: the cosmic ray spectrum and lower fluxes are buried below the atmospheric

1232: background.  

1233: 

1234: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1235: \begin{figure}

1236: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=5.in \epsfbox{fig-nuflux-mprsources.eps}

1237: \plotone{f12.eps}

1238: \caption{Possible sources making up the MPR flux.  Sources are E$^{-1}$ spectra

1239: cut-off by a gaussian of width 0.3.    

1240: Amplitudes GeV/(cm$^2$ s sr) (cut-off energy(GeV)) $1.5 \times 10^{-6}$ (10$^{3}$), 

1241: $1.5 \times 10^{-6}$ (10$^{4}$), $1.5 \times 10^{-6}$ (10$^{5}$), 

1242: $1.5 \times 10^{-7}$ (10$^{6}$), $6.0 \times 10^{-8}$ (10$^{7}$), 

1243: $6.0 \times 10^{-8}$ (10$^{8}$), and $1.0 \times 10^{-6}$ (10$^{11}$).  }

1244: \label{fig:nuflux-sources}

1245: \end{figure}

1246: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1247: 

1248: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1249: \begin{figure}

1250: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=5.in \epsfbox{fig-muflux-mprsource-ls.eps}

1251: \plotone{f13.eps}

1252: \caption{Differential upgoing muon rate weighted by deposited energy as a function 

1253: of energy deposited in the detector for

1254: a series of example sources that could make up the MPR flux.

1255: }

1256: \label{fig:muflux-sources}

1257: \end{figure}

1258: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1259: 

1260: \begin{sloppypar}

1261: In the absence of signal events, flux

1262: limits can be set \cite{pdg2, FeldmanCousins} based

1263: on the number of events observed, $n_{obs}$, by an experiment and 

1264: knowledge of the mean background expected, $b$.  The poisson probability

1265: that an observation is consistent with a mean signal, $s$ is given by

1266: \begin{equation}

1267: P(n_{obs}|s) = (s + b)^{n_{obs}}exp[-(s + b)]/n_{obs}!

1268: \end{equation}

1269: \end{sloppypar}

1270: 

1271: Integrating this over all signals up to a confidence level, $CL$, gives

1272: the standard confidence belt, $s_{CL}(n_{obs},b)$.  

1273: Feldman and Cousins suggest that this belt 

1274: be modified to avoid flip-flopping between one and two-sided intervals

1275: based on the experiment performed.  Here we choose the simpler approach

1276: of always using a one-sided limit.  The Feldman and Cousins approach

1277: leads to $\sim 10$\% weaker limits for very low statistics experiments.

1278: The experimental flux limit is defined as

1279: \begin{equation}

1280: \Phi_{limit} = \phi_{s0} \times \frac{s_{CL}(n_{obs},b)}{s}.

1281: \end{equation}

1282: where $\phi_{s0}$ is the theoretical neutrino signal flux.

1283: Before the experiment is performed, there are no observed events.

1284: It is still interesting to 

1285: determine the average $<s_{CL}(n_{obs},b)>$ of a

1286: collection of proposed experiments having only background events.

1287: \citep{hill}

1288: \begin{equation}

1289: <s_{CL}(n_{obs},b)> = \sum_{n_{obs}=0}^{\infty} 

1290: s_{CL}(n_{obs},b) P(n_{obs}|b) 

1291: \end{equation}

1292: We define the average limit that a detector can place on signal fluxes 

1293: to be the sensitivity of the detector, $\Phi_{sensitivity}$.  

1294: \begin{equation}

1295: \Phi_{sensitivity} = \phi_{s0} \times \frac{<s_{CL}(n_{obs},b)>}{s}.

1296: \end{equation}

1297: The ratio $\phi_{s0}/s$ is the detection transfer function.  

1298: The magnitude of the signal flux cancels in the ratio leaving only the

1299: sensitivity to the spectral shape.  

1300: 

1301: \subsubsection{Diffuse Limits}

1302: \begin{sloppypar}

1303: Table~\ref{t:idealSens} shows the sensitivity (95\% CL) of

1304: an ideal detector of km$^2$ incident area to neutrino fluxes

1305: and various spectral shapes as suggested in \citep{mpr}.

1306: Included in these estimates are systematic 

1307: uncertainties in the background normalization.

1308: \end{sloppypar}

1309: 

1310: Systematic uncertainties affecting the background and 

1311: signal bound our knowledge of the measurement.

1312: For example, an experiment that expects 1000 background events can

1313: easily discover a signal with 100 events, even with poisson sampling

1314: statistics.  But this same experiment with a 10\% uncertainty in the

1315: background is barely sensitive to a signal with 200 events.

1316: The limits quoted in Table~\ref{t:idealSens} include Poisson statistics

1317: as described above, but limit the sensitive region to where the signal is

1318: larger than the 2 $\sigma$ uncertainty on the background.  

1319: 

1320: \begin{table}

1321: \small

1322: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|c|c|}

1323: \hline

1324: Muon Source

1325: 

1326: Flux         & Optimized & Atmospheric& Signal & Original  & km$^2$ Sensitivity \\

1327:              & Energy Cut& Background, $b$& $s$& Amplitude & GeV/cm$^2$ s sr\\

1328: 	     & (MeV/m)   &   (events) & (events) & GeV/cm$^2$ s sr &  (95\% CL)      \\

1329: \hline\hline

1330: WB Opt Thin Limit  & $10^{4.3}$ & 16.1 & 23.8 & $4.0 \times 10^{-8} E^-2$   & $1.3 \times 10^{-8}$ \\

1331: MPR Opt Thin Limit & $10^{4.3}$ & 16.1 & 487. & varies                 & $\times0.016$ \\

1332: MPR Opaque Limit   & $10^{4.3}$ & 16.1 & 893. & $1.5 \times 10^{-6} E^-2$   & $1.3 \times 10^{-8}$   \\

1333: MPR Source (10$^{4}$ GeV)&$10^{4.3}$ & 16.1 & 36.4 & $1.5 \times 10^{-6}$ & $2.1 \times 10^{-7}$ \\

1334: MPR Source (10$^{5}$ GeV)&$10^{4.3}$ & 16.1 & 448. & $1.5 \times 10^{-6}$ & $2.6 \times 10^{-8}$ \\

1335: MPR Source (10$^{6}$ GeV)&$10^{4.6}$ & 4.47 & 36.1 & $1.5 \times 10^{-7}$ & $2.2 \times 10^{-8}$ \\

1336: MPR Source (10$^{7}$ GeV)&$10^{5.0}$ & 0.83 & 4.31 & $6.0 \times 10^{-8}$ & $4.4 \times 10^{-8}$ \\

1337: MPR Source (10$^{8}$ GeV)&$10^{5.3}$ & 0.24 & 1.07 & $6.0 \times 10^{-8}$ & $1.4 \times 10^{-7}$ \\

1338: \hline

1339: \end{tabular}

1340: \caption{Sensitivity of a km$^2$ detector to fluxes with a variety of

1341: spectral shapes based on 1 year statistics.}

1342: \label{t:idealSens}

1343: \end{table}

1344: 

1345: We find that a detector with km$^2$ incident area will be sensitive to a spectral

1346: flux three times smaller than the WB limit.  From the MPR sources, we can see

1347: that the limit is most sensitive to neutrinos of ~1 PeV.  Neutrinos 

1348: between $10^{5}$ and $10^{7}$ contribute most to the signal rate.

1349: 

1350: 

1351: \subsubsection{Point Source Detection - GRB}

1352: 

1353: One easy way to reduce the background in these experiments is to narrow

1354: the search bin from half the sky to the characteristic size of the detected

1355: angular resolution.  The intrinsic resolution of a muon's direction with

1356: respect to the neutrino is about 1 square degree.  In this way, we

1357: can divide half the sky into 20,628 one degree square patches of sky.

1358: There are two kinds of searches.  The first involves looking for 

1359: neutrinos from sources that are known to exist.  The second involves looking

1360: for sources anywhere on the sky.

1361: 

1362: The GRB flux is a case where both the time and location of the burst is

1363: known {\it apriori}.  In this case, we take all known bursts and search in one

1364: degree bins, coincident in time.  The integrated GRB signal from 

1365: Figure~\ref{fig:muflux-ls} is 15 events per year.  

1366: The number of GRB detected in

1367: a year depends on the sensitivity of experiments like BATSE or MILAGRO.

1368: Based on expectations of these detectors, we estimate somewhere in the

1369: range of $10^2-10^3$ GRBs per year.  Assuming that all 15 muons above were

1370: produced in some fraction of these GRBs, we find that the expected background

1371: in all GRB events is 0.015 muons.  A $5\sigma$ discovery can be made even

1372: if the GRB flux is reduced by a factor of 5.  

1373: 

1374: Somewhat surprising is the robustness of this result to variations in 

1375: the number of detected GRBs and the time-scale of the event.  Depending

1376: on the number of GRBs detected by other experiments, the background can 

1377: change by an order of magnitude. 

1378: Similarly, if the neutrinos arrive over a 24 hour period instead of a 1 second

1379: pulse (used in the above calculation -- see section~\ref{sec:grb}) then the 

1380: background is 86000 times larger.

1381: In this case, the best limit comes from applying an energy cut at 

1382: $10^{2.4}$ MeV/m which leaves only 0.012 background events and 13 GRB

1383: neutrino induced muons.  If this energy cut is not possible, then the

1384: background is too large, and there is

1385: no way to find GRB muons that arrive on a long time scale.

1386: 

1387: \subsubsection{Point Source Detection - Sgr A East}

1388: 

1389: Sgr A East is an example of a bright galactic source.  It is known

1390: to vary in brightness, but on a time-scale of months so that 

1391: it is reasonable to expect measurements to

1392: integrate the neutrino signal over a full year.  

1393: We estimate that the Sgr A East rate

1394: is between 0 and 40 neutrino induced muons per year

1395: in an ideal km$^2$ detector at a latitude of +35 degrees.  

1396: The Atmospheric Neutrino 

1397: background is reduced by knowing the location of the source.  

1398: The best $5\sigma$ limit comes from applying an energy cut at 

1399: $10^{2.4}$ MeV/m which leaves only 4 background events and 33

1400: neutrino induced muons from Sgr A East with the hardest hypothesized

1401: proton spectrum.  Such a detector (equivalent to a km scale Mediterranean-based

1402: detector) will be sensitive to a source even

1403: half as bright.  The softest spectrum is about ten times dimmer and 

1404: would not be detectable.

1405: 

1406: 

1407: \subsubsection{Point Source Detection - AGN}

1408: 

1409: Another type of point-source search involves looking for sources without 

1410: prior knowledge of location or time.  Here we reduce the up-going 

1411: atmospheric neutrino background by 20,628 search bins on the sky. 

1412: The signal is also divided among an unknown number of sources.

1413: 

1414: There is an art to choosing bins on the sky.  If the bins are chosen

1415: before the experiment is performed, then sources will not fall in just

1416: one bin, and the search is not efficient.  If sliding windows are

1417: used to find spots with the largest number of events, then the search

1418: is biased to the locations where the background has clustered.  A poor-man's

1419: alternative is to consider a fixed array of search bins, but to perform

1420: 100 searches with each shifted by 1/10th of a degree in azimuth or zenith

1421: from the previous search.  This is a close approximation to 100 independent

1422: searches of the sky.  The signal will be 90\% contained in at least one 

1423: search, and can therefore be approximated by the true signal, ignoring the

1424: cases where the signal is partially contained in a different search.  

1425: The effect is that instead of performing 20,628 experiments for each

1426: spot on the sky, we perform 2,062,800 experiments.  To avoid mistaking a

1427: background fluctuation for signal, we calculate $6\sigma$ limits which

1428: will only be wrong one time out of 5 million.

1429: 

1430: If the entire isotropic diffuse flux is produced entirely from one point source

1431: (within a single degree-square bin) then

1432: an ideal km$^2$ detector will be sensitive to a flux 

1433: $1.4\times10^{-9}$E$^{-2}$ GeV/(cm$^2$ sr s) at $6\sigma$.

1434: This is 28 times lower than the WB limit.  Since the rate of 

1435: neutrinos is expected to be about 5 times lower than the limit,

1436: we conclude that this rate is expected and easily detected.

1437: If, however,

1438: the flux is divided between 10 bright sources, then we will only be

1439: sensitive to a flux 2.8 times lower than WB, and a point source discovery

1440: would indicate new physics.   This limit scales linearly with the

1441: number of sources that contribute to the flux; so, for example,

1442: $10^3$ sources are the maximum that may be detected by an ideal km$^2$

1443: detector because more would violate the MPR Opaque Limit.  

1444: 

1445: The diffuse limits have been treated as isotropic.  From 

1446: Figure~\ref{fig:survival}, one can see that the diffuse flux

1447: ($10^5-10^7$ GeV) is biased toward the horizon.  

1448: Astronomy with neutrinos relies on the flux being divided among a 

1449: handful of bright point sources located within a few tens of degrees

1450: of the horizon.

1451: 

1452: \section{Sensitivity of Proposed and Existing Detectors}

1453: \label{sec:sens-real}

1454: 

1455: The above calculations used an ideal geometry of a detector with km$^2$

1456: incident area and 500 meters long for all zenith angles.  We now include the

1457: geometry of proposed detectors to determine their acceptance.  Combining

1458: the irreducible physics effects with the detector acceptance allows us

1459: to determine the best possible limit for such detectors.

1460: 

1461: 

1462: Not included

1463: are the effects of specific detector designs which can only degrade the 

1464: sensitivities.  

1465: In real life detectors

1466: tend to be cylinders or spheres sunk into deep water, ice or caves.  

1467: The interaction probability of the rock below or surrounding the 

1468: detectors and the passive detecting medium of the instrument have to

1469: be considered.  Particularly important effects which are not addressed in

1470: this paper are the number of sampling elements, 

1471: the sensitivity of the detecting elements, the uniformity

1472: of the detecting medium, and the conversion of ``deposited radiation'' into 

1473: a measurable light spectrum.   

1474: 

1475: Figure~\ref{fig:geo1} shows the geometrical profile of 

1476: IceCube, AMANDA-II, ANTARES, NESTOR, and AMANDA-B10

1477: as a function of zenith angle.  Figure ~\ref{fig:geo2} shows the 

1478: mean detector path length and efficiency assuming a reasonable 

1479: minimum path length.

1480: IceCube is by far the largest, with essentially km$^2$ acceptance.

1481: AMANDA-II, ANTARES, and NESTOR are all of similar size and

1482: and AMANDA-B10 is the smallest.

1483: 

1484: Table~\ref{t:realSens} lists the sensitivities of these detectors to 

1485: an E$^{-2}$ flux of high-energy neutrinos.

1486: These estimates include the effects of neutrino attenuation in the earth,

1487: muon transport, and fluctuations in energy deposition.  For IceCube, a 300 m

1488: minimum track is required to reduce the systematic effects of the long tails

1489: in the resolution.  For the others, a 100 m minimum track is required.  For

1490: the smaller detectors, the irreducible systematic uncertainty is quite

1491: important.  For IceCube, we use +24\% for the atmospheric background systematic

1492: uncertainty, and for the others we use +50\% (see section~\ref{sec:sens}).

1493: Limits without systematics are 10\% better for IceCube, and 30\% better

1494: for the smaller detectors.

1495: 

1496: 

1497: 

1498: \begin{table}

1499: \small

1500: \begin{tabular}{|l||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}

1501: \hline

1502:              & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Optimized}   & 

1503:                \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Atmospheric} & 

1504:                \multicolumn{2}{c|}{WB Signal} & 

1505:                \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Sensitivity} \\ 

1506: Detector     & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Energy Cut} & 

1507:                \multicolumn{2}{c|}{Background, $b$} & 

1508:                \multicolumn{2}{c|}{$s$} &

1509:                \multicolumn{2}{c|}{ }   \\

1510: 	     & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{(MeV/m)}    &   

1511:                \multicolumn{2}{c|}{(events)} &  

1512:                \multicolumn{2}{c|}{(events)} &  

1513:                \multicolumn{2}{c|}{(GeV/cm$^2$ s sr)} \\

1514: \hline \multicolumn{1}{|r||}{CL}

1515:              & $90\%$ & $95\%$ & $90\%$ & $95\%$ & $90\%$  

1516: & $95\%$ & $90\%$ & $95\%$ \\

1517: \hline\hline

1518: IceCube     & $10^{4.3}$ & $10^{4.2}$ & 9.1 & 13.9 & 19.1 & 22.7 &

1519: $1.1 \times 10^{-8}$E$^{-2}$ & $1.4 \times 10^{-8}$E$^{-2}$ \\ 

1520: AMANDA-II   & $10^{4.1}$ & $10^{4.0}$ & 2.9 & 4.3 & 2.2 & 2.6 &

1521: $6.5 \times 10^{-8}$E$^{-2}$ & $8.0 \times 10^{-8}$E$^{-2}$ \\ 

1522: ANTARES     & $10^{4.0}$ & $10^{3.9}$ & 2.8 & 4.1 & 1.6 & 1.9 &

1523: $8.7 \times 10^{-8}$E$^{-2}$ & $1.1 \times 10^{-7}$E$^{-2}$ \\ 

1524: NESTOR      & $10^{4.1}$ & $10^{3.9}$ & 2.7 & 5.8 & 2.0 & 2.8 &

1525: $7.0 \times 10^{-8}$E$^{-2}$ & $8.2 \times 10^{-8}$E$^{-2}$ \\ 

1526: AMANDA-B10  & $10^{3.9}$ & $10^{3.7}$ & 2.8 & 5.4 & 1.2 & 1.7 &

1527: $1.2 \times 10^{-7}$E$^{-2}$ & $1.3 \times 10^{-7}$E$^{-2}$ \\ 

1528: \hline

1529: \end{tabular}

1530: \caption{Sensitivity of existing and proposed detectors to fluxes with 

1531: E$_{\nu}^{-2}$ spectral shapes based on 1 year statistics.}

1532: \label{t:realSens}

1533: \end{table}

1534: 

1535:   We state in section~\ref{sec:summary}

1536: that to ensure the discovery of neutrinos from

1537: astrophysical sources one needs a detector sensitive to about

1538: one fifth of the WB flux.  We find that current and future detectors 

1539: are at most sensitive to one third of the WB flux.

1540: IceCube will reach a sensitivity of one fifth the WB flux after 2-3

1541: years of 100\% efficient operation. 

1542: To characterize the source luminosity or energetics 

1543: would require additional factors of 10-100 in rate.  

1544: 

1545: 

1546: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1547: \begin{figure}

1548: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=5.in \epsfbox{fig-geoplane.eps}

1549: \plotone{f14.eps}

1550: \caption{Geometrical dependence of the IceCube, ANTARES, NESTOR and  

1551: AMANDA detectors as a function of zenith angle.

1552: Dimensions are for a cylinder of (depth, height, diameter) in meters: 

1553: IceCube (1850, 900, 1000), 

1554: AMANDA-II (1740, 500, 200), 

1555: ANTARES (2250, 300, 200), 

1556: NESTOR (3400, 450, 200), 

1557: AMANDA-B10 (1740, 500, 120).}

1558: \label{fig:geo1}

1559: \end{figure}

1560: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1561: 

1562: 

1563: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1564: \begin{figure}

1565: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=5.in \epsfbox{fig-geo.eps}

1566: \plotone{f15.eps}

1567: \caption{Geometrical efficiency for tracks longer than either 100

1568: or 300 meters as a function of zenith angle.}

1569: \label{fig:geo2}

1570: \end{figure}

1571: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1572: 

1573: 

1574: \section{Conclusions}

1575: \begin{sloppypar}

1576: We have summarized the muon neutrino plus muon anti-neutrino fluxes from 

1577: astrophysical sources. 

1578: We include fluxes predicted by models within the 

1579: particle physics standard model

1580: and do not include the ones predicted by exotic models. In this way the

1581: muon neutrino flux is constrained by the Waxman and Bahcall limit  (WB) \citep{WB1}

1582: for energies above $10^6$ GeV. The ``thin source'' (see \ref{sec:mpr}) limit

1583: from Mannheim, Protheroe and Rachen \citep{mpr} can slightly loosen this limit

1584: for energies between $10^6$ and $10^7$ GeV and above $10^9$ GeV. The ``thick

1585: source'' limit from these authors \citep{mpr} is shown to take

1586: into consideration sources that are unlikely to exist if they behave

1587: as expected by standard model physics.

1588: Any sources violating the thin limit must be modeled with physics

1589: beyond the standard model.  These are in the

1590: exotic sources category and will be considered in a future analysis.

1591: \end{sloppypar}

1592: 

1593: The neutrino signal is given by secondary muons produced in a charged

1594: current interaction of the neutrino with either the rock below the detector or

1595: the ice or water inside or surrounding the detector. 

1596: We translate the muon neutrino

1597: event rate to a muon event rate and show our results in 

1598: Figure~\ref{fig:muflux-ls}. 

1599: 

1600: \begin{sloppypar}

1601: From these rates we determine the sensitivity

1602: (see tables~\ref{t:idealSens}~and~\ref{t:realSens}) for an ideal 

1603: detector of Km$^2$ incident area as well as for current and proposed 

1604: experiments (AMANDA-B10, AMANDA-II, NESTOR, ANTARES and IceCube).

1605: 

1606: Among the current experiments, AMANDA-B10 is the only one with

1607: a reported limit.  At the 90\% CL they find a limit of

1608: $0.9\times10^{-6}$E$^{-2}$ GeV/(cm$^2$ sr s) \citep{hill}.

1609: This limit is based on 137 days of live-time during 1997.  For comparison,

1610: we find $2.7\times10^{-7}$E$^{-2}$ GeV/(cm$^2$ sr s) at 90\%

1611: CL for the same live-time statistics.

1612: This is consistent with their result if one considers that the

1613: instrument has additional resolution effects to be taken into

1614: consideration.  The sensitivities listed in Table~\ref{t:realSens}

1615: are for 1 year of live-time and are more than 2 times lower.

1616: 

1617: The predicted sensitivity for Amanda-II is

1618: $7\times 10^{-8}$E$^{-2}$ GeV/(cm$^2$ sr s) for 2 years of operation

1619: \citep{barwick}.  Assuming that two years would produce a better limit

1620: than one year, we conclude that the instrument has additional

1621: resolution issues.

1622: ANTARES predicts a sensitivity of

1623: $2\times 10^{-7}$E$^{-2}$ GeV/(cm$^2$ sr s) at 99.99\% CL (5$\sigma$)

1624: \citep{antares}. This is in agreement with our estimate

1625: which includes only irreducible physics and gross geometrical effects.

1626: The predicted sensitivity for IceCube at 90\% CL is

1627: $9.5\times 10^{-9}$E$^{-2}$ GeV/(cm$^2$ sr s) \citep{leuthold}

1628: which agrees with our estimate if we calculate without systematic

1629: uncertainties. Since the Leuthold estimate includes a full

1630: detector simulation, we conclude that the detector comes close to the

1631: irreducible physical limit.

1632: It is important to note that these predicted sensitivities are

1633: based on 100\% duty cycles and do not include

1634: the dead time due to trigger, maintenance and other normal experimental

1635: procedures.

1636: We point out that our estimates are optimistic since we do not

1637: include additional degradation due to instrumental effects as

1638: described in the previous section.

1639: \end{sloppypar}

1640: 

1641:   The most promising flux to be measured is that from GRB neutrinos.

1642: The background in point-source searches is greatly reduced by spatial

1643: and temporal localization.  Discovery of GRB neutrinos at the 5$\sigma$

1644: level is predicted to be possible in an ideal Km$^2$ detector according

1645: to current flux models.  

1646: Predicted neutrino fluxes for Sgr A East vary by an order of magnitude. 

1647: The brightest estimates from Sgr A East also 

1648: yield robust detections in a similar detector at Mediterranean

1649: latitudes.

1650: However, if there is no prior knowledge of location and time, detection

1651: of point sources relies on the flux being divided among no more than a handful of

1652: bright sources.

1653: 

1654: Discovery of neutrinos from high energy astrophysical sources, ie, the ones

1655: which are able to produce particles with energies around $10^{19}$ eV,

1656: will likely require a detector designed to a

1657: sensitivity of one 

1658: %We state that a detector has to be designed to be sensitive to at least one

1659: fifth of the WB limit. This limit is at least five times conservative (see

1660: Section~\ref{sec:WB}) and such a sensitivity would provide possibility 

1661: of detection.

1662: % in order to ensure discovery of neutrinos from astrophysical sources. 

1663: From all detectors analyzed, IceCube comes closest

1664: to this sensitivity, being able to measure a flux 3 times lower than 

1665: the WB limit in one year and 5 times lower after 2-3 years of full operation.

1666: 

1667:  

1668: 

1669: 

1670: 

1671: \acknowledgements

1672: We thank Christopher Spitzer for his support in the numerical analysis, 

1673: Dmitry Chirkin for his insight into muon radiation and Steve Barwick,

1674: Willi Chinowsky, Azriel Goldschmidt and Jozsef Ludvig for useful comments.

1675: We also thank NERSC for supporting the calculations in

1676: this paper with high-performance linux computing.

1677: 

1678: This work supported by NSF Grants KDI 9872979 and Physics/Polar Programs 

1679: 0071886

1680: and in part by the Director, Office of

1681: Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of

1682: High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No.

1683: DE-AC03-76SF00098 through the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

1684: 

1685: 

1686: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1687: \bibitem[Albuquerque and Smoot 2001]{alb} Albuquerque, I. F. M. and Smoot, G. F. 2001, 

1688: \prd, 64, 053008

1689: \bibitem[Agrawal et al. 1996]{agrawal} Agrawal, V., Gaisser, T. K., 

1690: Lipari, P. and Stanev, T. 1996, \prd, 53, 1314

1691: \bibitem[Bahcall and Waxman 2001]{WB2} Bahcall, J. and Waxman, E. 2001, \prd, 64, 023002

1692: \bibitem[Barwick 2001]{barwick} Barwick, S. W. 2001, Proceedings of the 27th

1693: International Cosmic Ray Conference

1694: \bibitem[Bell 1978]{bell} Bell, A. R. 1978, \mnras, 182, 147

1695: \bibitem[Berezinsky and Dokuchaev 2001]{BD} Berezinsky, V. S. and Dokuchaev, V. I. 2001,

1696: Astropart. Phys. 15, 87

1697: \bibitem[Berezinsky et al 1993]{Bere} Berezinsky, V. S., Gaisser, 

1698: T. K., Halzen, F. and Stanev, T. 1993, Astroparticle Phys. 1, 281

1699: \bibitem[Blanford and Ostriker 1978]{bland} Blandford, R. D. and Ostriker, J. P.

1700: 1978, \apj, 221, L29

1701: \bibitem[Chirkin and Rhode]{mmc} Chirkin, D. and Rhode, W. 2001, ``Muon Monte Carlo: a New High-precision Tool for Muon Propagation Through Matter'' ICRC 2001 proceedings.

1702: \bibitem[Crocker et al. 2000]{crocker} Crocker, R. M., Melia, F. and Volkas, R. R. and

1703: references therein 2000, \apjs 130, 339 

1704: \bibitem[Crocker et al. 2001]{crocker2} Crocker, R. M., Melia, F. and Volkas, R. R. 2001,

1705: astro-ph/0106090

1706: \bibitem[Dermer and Atoyan 2001]{dermer} Dermer, C., D. and Atoyan, A. 2001, astro-ph/0107200 

1707: \bibitem[Dicus et al. 2001]{dicus} Dicus, D. A., Kretzer, S. 

1708: Repko, W. W. and Schmidt, C. 2001, hep-ph/0103207

1709: \bibitem[Domokos 1993]{Domokos} Domokos, G. et al. 1993, 

1710: J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 19, 899

1711: \bibitem[Dziewonski 1989]{earden} Dziewonski, A. 1989, The Encyclopedia of Solid Earth 

1712: Geophysics, page 331, edited by James, D. E., Van Nostrand Reinhold, NewYork

1713: \bibitem[EGRET]{egret} see references listed in http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/gamcosray/EGRET/egret.html

1714: \bibitem[Engel and Stanev 2001]{engel} Engel, R. and Stanev, T. 2001, astro-ph/0101216

1715: \bibitem[Feldman and Cousins 1998]{FeldmanCousins} G. J. Feldman \& R. D. Cousins 1998, Phy. Rev. D. 57, 7.

1716: \bibitem[Fukuda et al 1998]{sk} Y. Fukuda et al. 1998, \prl, 85, 3999

1717: \bibitem[Fukuda et al 2000]{sktau} Y. Fukuda et al. 2000, \prl, 81, 1562

1718: \bibitem[Gaisser 1990]{gaisser} T.Gaisser 1990, ``Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics'', 

1719: Cambridge University Press

1720: \bibitem[Gaisser 2000]{Gaisser01} Gaisser, T. 2000, astro-ph/0011525, 

1721: Proceedings of International Workshop

1722: on Observing Ultra-high energy Cosmic Rays from Space and Earth

1723: Puebla, Mexico

1724: \bibitem[Gaisser and Stanev 1985]{GS85} Gaisser, T. K. and Stanev, T. 1985, 

1725: \prd, 31, 2770

1726: \bibitem[Gandhi et al. 1996]{gandhi96} Gandhi, R., Quigg, C.,

1727: Reno, M. H. and Sarcevic, I. 1996, Astropart. Phys. 5, 81

1728: \bibitem[Gandhi et al. 1998]{gandhi98} Gandhi, R., Quigg, C.,

1729: Reno, M. H. and Sarcevic, I. 1998, \prd, 58, 093009

1730: \bibitem[Greisen 1966 and Zatsepin and Kuzmin 1966]{GZK} Greisen, K. 1966

1731: \prl, 16, 748;

1732: Zatsepin, G. T. and Kuzmin, V. A. 1966 JETP Lett., 4, 78

1733: \bibitem[Groom et al. 2000a]{pdg} Groom, D.E.  et al. 2000, 

1734: The European Phys. Jour. 15, section 23.6. pp 171-172.

1735: \bibitem[Groom et al. 2000b]{pdg2} Groom, D.E.  et al. 2000,

1736: The European Phys. Jour. 15, section 28. pp 195-201.

1737: \bibitem[Groom et al. 2001]{groommok} Groom, D.E., Mohkov, N.V. and Striganov, S.I.

1738: 2001, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, 78, 183

1739: \bibitem[Halzen and Zas 1997]{halzas} Halzen, F. and Zas, E. 1997, \apj, 488, 669

1740: \bibitem[Hettlage et al. 2000]{sun} Hettlage, C., Mannheim, K. 

1741: and Learned, J. G. 2000, Astropart.Phys. 13, 45

1742: \bibitem[Hill et al. 2001]{hill} G.C. Hill et al. 2001, Proccedings of the 27th

1743: International Cosmic Ray Conference

1744: \bibitem[Honda et al 1995]{honda} Honda, M., Kajita, T., 

1745: Kasahara, K. and Midorikawa, S. 1995, \prd, 52, 4985

1746: \bibitem[ICECUBE project]{km3} The current status of the ICECUBE project is displayed

1747: at {\em pheno.physics.wisc.edu/icecube/}.

1748: \bibitem[Ingelman and Thunman 1996]{IT} Ingelman, G. and Thunman, M. 1996, hep-ph/9604286

1749: \bibitem[Ingelman and Thunman 1996b]{itsun} Ingelman, G. and Thunman, M. 1996, \prd, 54, 4385

1750: \bibitem[Kusenko and Weiler 2001]{weiler} Kusenko, A. and Weiler, T. 2001, hep-ph/0106071

1751: \bibitem[Learned and Mannheim 2000]{learned} Learned, J. G. and Mannheim, K. 2000,

1752: Annual Rev. Nucl. Part. Science, 50, 679

1753: \bibitem[Leuthold and Wissing 2001]{leuthold} Leuthold, M. and Wissing, H. ``Performance Studies for the IceCube Detector'' ICRC 2001 proceedings.

1754: \bibitem[Levinson and Waxman 2001]{waxqua} Levinson, A. and Waxman, E. 2001, astro-ph/0106102

1755: \bibitem[Lipari and Stanev 1991]{lipari} Lipari, P. and Stanev, T. 1991, \prd, 44, 3543

1756: \bibitem[Macomb et al 1995 1996]{mkn421} Macomb, D. J. et al. 1995, \apj, 449, L99;

1757: 1996, \apj 459, L111

1758: \bibitem[Mannheim 1995]{managn} Mannheim, K. 1995, Astropart. Phys., 3, 295

1759: \bibitem[Mannheim Protheroe and Rachen 2001]{mpr} Mannheim, K., Protheroe, R. J. and 

1760: Rachen, J. P. 2001, \prd, 63, 023003

1761: \bibitem[Melia et al. 1998]{melia} Melia, F., Fatuzzo, M., Yusef-Zadeh, F. and Markoff, S.

1762: 1998, \apjl, 508, L65

1763: \bibitem[Montanet 1999]{antares} Montanet, F. et al. 1999, astro-ph/9907432

1764: \bibitem[Muraishi et al 2000]{can2} Muraishi, H. 2000, \aap 354, L57

1765: \bibitem[Piran 1999]{piran} Piran, T. 1999, Phys. Rept., 314, 575

1766: %``Gamma-ray Bursts'', eds. Fishman, G. 

1767: %et al., AIP 307, NY

1768: \bibitem[Protheroe 1996]{protagn} Protheroe, R. J. 1996, astro-ph/9607165

1769: \bibitem[Rachen and Meszaros 1998]{rachen} Rachen, J. P. and Meszaros, P. 1998, \prd 58, 123005

1770: \bibitem[Rhode et al 1996] {frejus} Rhode, W. et al, 1996, Astroparticle Physics, 4 (1996) 217-225

1771: \bibitem[Sikora Begelman and Rees 1994]{compt} Sikora, M., Begelman, M. C. and 

1772: Rees, M. J., 1994, \apj 421, 153

1773: \bibitem[Stecker et al. 1991 and 1992]{stecker} Stecker, F,

1774: Done, C., Salamon, M. and Sommers, P. 1991, \prl, 66, 2697; 1992, \prl, 69, 2738(E)

1775: \bibitem[Stecker and Salamon 1996]{stec96} Stecker, F. and Salamon, M. H. 1996, Space 

1776: Science Rev., 75, 341

1777: \bibitem[Tanimori et al. 1998]{can1} Tanimori, T. et al. 1998, \apjl 497, L25

1778: \bibitem[Volkova 1980]{volkova} Volkova, L. V. 1980, Yad. Fiz. 31, 1510. Also published 

1779: at Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 31, 784

1780: \bibitem[Waxman 1995]{wax} Waxman, E. 1995, \apj, 452, L1

1781: \bibitem[Waxman and Bahcall 1997]{wbgrb} Waxman, E. and Bahcall, J. 1997, \prl, 78, 2292

1782: \bibitem[Waxman and Bahcall 1999]{WB1} Waxman, E. and Bahcall, J. 1999, \prd, 59, 023002

1783: \bibitem[Waxman and Loeb 2001]{WL} Waxman, E. and Loeb, A. 2001, \prl, 87, 071101

1784: \end{thebibliography}

1785: \end{document}

1786:  

1787: