1: \documentstyle[preprint,aps,floats,psfig]{revtex}
2: \catcode`@=11
3: \def\references{%
4: \ifpreprintsty
5: %\newpage
6: \bigskip\bigskip
7: \hbox to\hsize{\hss\large \refname\hss}%
8: \else
9: \vskip24pt
10: \hrule width\hsize\relax
11: \vskip 1.6cm
12: \fi
13: \list{\@biblabel{\arabic{enumiv}}}%
14: {\labelwidth\WidestRefLabelThusFar \labelsep4pt %
15: \leftmargin\labelwidth %
16: \advance\leftmargin\labelsep %
17: \ifdim\baselinestretch pt>1 pt %
18: \parsep 4pt\relax %
19: \else %
20: \parsep 0pt\relax %
21: \fi
22: \itemsep\parsep %
23: \usecounter{enumiv}%
24: \let\p@enumiv\@empty
25: \def\theenumiv{\arabic{enumiv}}%
26: }%
27: \let\newblock\relax %
28: \sloppy\clubpenalty4000\widowpenalty4000
29: \sfcode`\.=1000\relax
30: \ifpreprintsty\else\small\fi
31: }
32: \catcode`@=12
33: \begin{document}
34: %my defs:
35: \def\mh{m_h^{}}
36: \def\vev#1{{\langle#1\rangle}}
37: \def\gev{{\rm GeV}}
38: \def\tev{{\rm TeV}}
39: \def\fbi{\rm fb^{-1}}
40: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
41: \def\gsim{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-.75em\lower1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}}
42: \newcommand{\teb}{{T_{\bar{\nu}_e}}}
43: \newcommand{\neb}{{\bar{\nu}_e}}
44: \newcommand{\tneb}{{T_{\bar{\nu}_e}}}
45: \newcommand{\tnx}{{T_{\bar{\nu}_x}}}
46: \newcommand{\eneb}{{\vev{E_{\bar{\nu}_e}}}}
47: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
48: %%%%%%%% Slash character...
49:
50: \newcommand{ \slashchar }[1]{\setbox0=\hbox{$#1$} % set a box for #1
51: \dimen0=\wd0 % and get its size
52: \setbox1=\hbox{/} \dimen1=\wd1 % get size of /
53: \ifdim\dimen0>\dimen1 % #1 is bigger
54: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen0{\hfil/\hfil}} % so center / in box
55: #1 % and print #1
56: \else % / is bigger
57: \rlap{\hbox to \dimen1{\hfil$#1$\hfil}} % so center #1
58: / % and print /
59: \fi} %
60:
61: \tighten
62: \preprint{ \vbox{
63: \hbox{MADPH--02-1257}
64: \hbox{hep-ph/0202158}}}
65: %
66: \title{Supernova 1987A did not test the neutrino mass hierarchy}
67: \author{$^1$V. Barger, $^2$D. Marfatia and $^1$B. P. Wood}
68: \vskip 0.3in
69: \address{$^1$Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706}
70: \vskip 0.1in
71: \address{$^2$Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215}
72: \maketitle
73:
74: \begin{abstract}
75: {\rm We dispel the misconception that data from SN 1987A favor the normal neutrino mass hierarchy
76: over the inverted hierarchy for $\sin^2 \theta_{13} \gsim 10^{-4}$.
77: We find comparable fits for the two hierarchies.
78: No bound can be placed on the mixing angle $\theta_{13}$ even at the 1$\sigma$ level.
79: }
80: \end{abstract}
81: \pacs{}
82:
83: On February 23, 1987, antineutrinos from a 20$M_{\odot}$ Type II supernova in the Large Magellanic
84: Cloud were detected by the Kamiokande II (KII)~\cite{snkam} and Irvine Michigan Brookhaven (IMB)
85: ~\cite{snimb} detectors.
86: The data on SN 1987A have been important in confirming the generic features of the
87: core collapse model of supernovae~\cite{lamb}.
88: However, the average antineutrino energy $\eneb$ and the binding
89: energy of the star $E_b$,
90: extracted from the signals at KII and IMB, only marginally agree with each
91: other~\cite{raffelt,lunardini,valle}.
92: Moreover, even under the most optimistic conditions, the allowed values of $\eneb$
93: are lower than the following predictions of traditional
94: supernova models~\cite{models1}:
95: \begin{eqnarray}
96: \eneb &=& 14-17\ {\rm MeV}\,, \nonumber \\
97: \vev{E_{\bar{\nu}_x}} &=& 24-27 \ {\rm MeV}\,, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ x=\mu,\ \tau\,, \nonumber \\
98: E_b &=& 1.5-4.5 \times 10^{53}\ {\rm ergs} \label{models} \,.
99: \end{eqnarray}
100: Including neutrino oscillations does little to
101: resolve these discrepancies. For the favored large-angle solution to the solar anomaly~\cite{lma},
102: compatibility of the two data sets is not significantly improved~\cite{raffelt,lunardini,valle}.
103: Furthermore, in any oscillation scenario,
104: $\neb \leftrightarrow \bar{\nu}_{\mu,\tau}$ oscillations result in a
105: hardened initial spectrum, implying even lower $\eneb$ and
106: increasing the discrepancy with theoretical
107: predictions~\cite{raffelt,lunardini,valle}.
108: The degree to which the data and supernova models disagree depends on the type of
109: neutrino mass hierarchy. There are two possibilities depending upon whether $m_3$ is the
110: largest or smallest mass eigenstate:
111: \begin{eqnarray}
112: \Delta m^2_{32}\equiv m_3^2-m_2^2 &>&0\,,\ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm normal\ hierarchy,}\\
113: &<&0\,,\ \ \ \ \ \ {\rm inverted\ hierarchy,}
114: \end{eqnarray}
115: where oscillations between the $m_3$ and $m_2$ ($m_2$ and $m_1$) mass eigenstates
116: are responsible for the
117: atmospheric (solar) neutrino deficit.
118: The disagreement with the theoretical predictions is aggravated
119: if the hierarchy of neutrino masses is
120: inverted and $\sin^2 \theta_{13} \gsim 10^{-3}$ because
121: the conversion of
122: the original $\neb$ spectrum is almost complete in this case (regardless of the solution to the
123: solar neutrino problem). This is a hint that the inverted mass scheme is disfavored by
124: SN 1987A~\cite{raffelt,lunardini}. However, it is
125: an overstatement that SN 1987A gives a strong indication that the
126: inverted hierarchy is disfavored unless $\sin^2 \theta_{13} \lsim 10^{-4}$~\cite{minakata}.
127:
128: We show that the SN 1987A data do not favor one hierarchy over the other by performing a maximum
129: likelihood analysis of the data from KII and IMB in the three neutrino framework assuming
130: the LMA solution to the solar neutrino problem. We perform three-parameter fits to
131: $\teb$, $E_b$ and $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$, where $\teb$ is the
132: temperature of the electron antineutrinos originating in the supernova, which for a Fermi-Dirac
133: distribution is related to
134: $\eneb$ via $\teb=180\zeta (3)\eneb/(7 \pi^4) \approx \eneb/3.15$.
135: We find that the data can be fit equally well by the two hierarchies with the maximum of the
136: likelihood function in the two cases to be approximately the same. No constraint
137: can be placed on $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$ at the 1$\sigma$ level.
138:
139: Recent refinements in supernova codes suggest that the discrepancy with
140: SN 1987A data may soon be resolved.
141: The simulations of Ref.~\cite{models2} find $\eneb$ and
142: $\vev{E_{\bar{\nu}_x}}$ below the ranges in Eq.~(\ref{models}).
143: The lower $\tnx$ is attributed to the inclusion (for the first time) of
144: nucleon-nucleon neutral-current bremsstrahlung which is softer than
145: $e^+e^-$ annihilation (the other major $\bar{\nu}_x$ source).
146: A similar conclusion is drawn in Ref.~\cite{models3} which explains that nucleon recoils
147: lower $\tnx$ substantially. Additional energy transfer due to neutrino-matter scattering processes
148: not included in supernova simulations
149: will further soften the emergent spectra.
150:
151: To simulate the time averaged spectrum of antineutrinos
152: from SN 1987A, we employ a
153: Fermi-Dirac distribution with equipartition of energy between the neutrino flavors.
154: As the antineutrinos travel
155: outward from their production point in the supernova, they encounter a density profile that falls
156: like $1/r^3$~\cite{bethe}.
157: For the LMA solution, antineutrinos can experience at most one resonance
158: (at density $\rho \approx 10^3 - 10^4 \; {\rm g/cm}^3$ and
159: characterized by $\Delta m^2_{32}$ and $\sin^2 2\theta_{13}$),
160: and only if the hierarchy is inverted.
161: For the normal
162: and inverted hierarchies, the survival probability of electron antineutrinos is given by~\cite{dighe}
163: \begin{equation}
164: \bar{p} = \bar{P}_{1e}\,,
165: \label{norprob}
166: \end{equation}
167: and
168: \begin{equation}
169: \bar{p}=P_H\bar{P}_{1e} + (1-P_H) \sin^2 \theta_{13}\,,
170: \label{invprob}
171: \end{equation}
172: respectively. Here,
173: $\bar{P}_{1e} = \bar{P}_{1e}(E_{\nu},\Delta m^2_{21},\sin^2 2 \theta_{12})$
174: is the probability that an
175: antineutrino reaching the earth in the $\bar{\nu}_1$ mass eigenstate will interact with the detector
176: as a $\neb$, and $P_H\sim e^{-\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}(|\Delta m^2_{32}|/E_\nu)^{2/3}}$~\cite{kuo}
177: is the hopping
178: probability at the resonance.
179: If $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13} \ll 10^{-3}$, we have $P_H \approx 1$ and the survival probabilities
180: for the two hierarchies are the same. Thus, the normal and inverted mass
181: hierarchies are indistinguishable for $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13} \ll 10^{-3}$.
182: If $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13} \gsim 10^{-3}$,
183: for the inverted hierarchy $\bar{p} \approx
184: \sin^2 \theta_{13} \lsim 2.5 \times 10^{-2}$ and the original
185: electron antineutrinos have all been swapped for the more energetic $\mu$ and $\tau$
186: antineutrinos by the time they exit the supernova envelope, resulting in a harder incident
187: spectrum.
188: Thus, the initial $\neb$ spectrum would have to be softer for the inverted hierarchy than for the
189: normal hierarchy.
190:
191: In performing our statistical analysis, we fix the solar neutrino oscillation parameters at
192: $\Delta m^2_{21} = 3.7 \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$,
193: $\sin^2 2 \theta_{12} = 0.79$~\cite{lma} and the atmospheric neutrino scale
194: $|\Delta m^2_{32}| = 3 \times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$~\cite{fogli}
195: and fit the data taking $E_b$, $\tneb$ and $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$ as free parameters. The time
196: structure of the SN 1987A signal (above threshold) is shown in Fig. 1, where it has been assumed
197: that the first events at the two detectors occurred simultaneously.
198: Most of the events are concentrated in the
199: first 2.75 seconds. We perform two sets of analyses to illustrate how sensitive
200: any conclusion about the mass hierarchy is to the data sample chosen for analysis. For the first
201: set of analyses (which we label $t_{<13}$), we use all the data reported by the two experiments:
202: the 11 events observed by KII and the 8 events observed by IMB.
203: For the second set (which we call $t_{<3}$), we only include events within the first 2.75 seconds:
204: 8 events at KII and 6
205: at IMB.
206: All are assumed to be antineutrino events~\cite{sato}.
207: The procedure employed for our likelihood analysis is that of Ref.~\cite{raffelt} up to four minor
208: refinements listed below. (We refer the reader
209: to Ref.~\cite{raffelt} for the definition of the likelihood function and a
210: description of the method).
211: \begin{enumerate}
212: \addtolength{\itemsep}{-2.5mm}
213: \item{We use an improved $\neb - p$ cross section which includes Coulomb, weak magnetism, recoil
214: and outer radiative corrections~\cite{beacom}.
215: It is approximately 8\% larger than the cross-section used in Ref.~\cite{raffelt}.}
216: \item{Instead of using the constant density approximation for the earth to calculate
217: $\bar{P}_{1e}$, we numerically integrate the evolution equations of neutrinos through a
218: realistic density profile of the earth~\cite{prem}.}
219: \item{We approximate the time integrated spectra of neutrinos with a Fermi-Dirac
220: distribution instead of a Boltzmann distribution.}
221: \item{We use the detector efficiencies given in Ref.~\cite{burrows}.}
222: \end{enumerate}
223:
224: To convey how these modifications (other than the different treatment of
225: earth matter effects) affect the $t_{<13}$ analysis, we show the
226: 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ allowed regions in $\eneb$ and $\tneb$ for the case of no neutrino mixing
227: in Fig.~\ref{snno}.
228: The results from separate analyses of KII and IMB data and an analysis of
229: the combined data are shown. This facilitates a direct comparison with other
230: analyses~\cite{raffelt,valle}. The dark-shaded region is the prediction
231: of supernova models from Eq.~(\ref{models}) while the light-shaded region is the result based on
232: Ref.~\cite{models2}. The overlap with the predicted $\tneb$ is significantly greater for
233: the $t_{<3}$ analysis, as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{snno1}. Also, KII and IMB data from the first
234: three seconds are consistent at the 1$\sigma$ level.
235:
236: For the inverted hierarchy, we perform three-parameter $t_{<13}$ analyses
237: for $\tau\equiv \tnx/\tneb = 1.7$
238: (corresponding to the middle of the ranges of Eq.~\ref{models}),
239: $\tau=1.4$ (the lowest value of $\tau$ from Eq.~\ref{models}) and
240: $\tau=1.25$ (corresponding
241: to a $\bar{\nu}_x$ spectrum that is softer~\cite{models2,models3,reddy}
242: than traditionally obtained),
243: the results of which are shown in Figs.~\ref{sni1}-\ref{sni3}, respectively. The results of
244: the equivalent $t_{<3}$ analyses are shown in Figs.~\ref{sni11}-\ref{sni31}.
245: The figures show allowed regions at the 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ C.L.
246: in the parameter space defined by
247: $E_b$, $\tneb$ and $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$. We do not consider $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}>0.1$ since
248: this would violate the CHOOZ bound~\cite{chooz}.
249:
250: \begin{table}[ht]
251: \begin{center}
252: \label{tab3par}
253: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|c|c|}
254: \hline
255: & $\tau=\tnx/\tneb$ & $E_b$ ($10^{53}$ ergs)& $\tneb$ (MeV)& $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$ & $ln({\cal L}_{max})$\\ \hline
256: t $<$ 13 sec &$1.25$ & 3.2 & 3.4 & 1.3 $\times {\rm 10}^{\rm -6}$ & -41.9\\ \hline
257: &$1.4$ & 3.4 & 3.2 & $1.3\times {\rm 10}^{\rm -6}$ & -41.6\\ \hline
258: &$1.7$ & 4.5 & 2.6 & $4.0 \times {\rm 10}^{\rm -6}$ & -41.2 \\ \hline
259: &$2.0$ & 6.3 & 2.0 & $1.6 \times {\rm 10}^{\rm -5}$ & -40.6 \\ \hline
260: t $<$ 3 sec &$1.25$ & 2.0 & 3.6 & $1.6 \times {\rm 10}^{\rm -5}$ & -35.5\\ \hline
261: &$1.4$ & 2.0 & 3.5 & $1.3 \times {\rm 10}^{\rm -6}$ & -35.4\\ \hline
262: &$1.7$ & 2.4 & 2.9 & $1.3 \times {\rm 10}^{\rm -5}$ & -35.2 \\ \hline
263: &$2.0$ & 3.0 & 2.5 & $3.2 \times {\rm 10}^{\rm -6}$ & -34.9
264: \end{tabular}
265: \end{center}
266: \caption{Best fit values for the binding energy $E_b$, electron
267: antineutrino temperature $\tneb$, and $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$
268: from three parameter fits to all the SN 1987A data and to data from the first three seconds, for the inverted neutrino mass hierarchy and several values of
269: $\tau$. The corresponding logarithms of the likelihood
270: function are given in the last column.}
271: \end{table}
272:
273: The best-fit points are displayed in Table~I, and as expected the $t_{<3}$ analysis gives
274: higher best-fit $\tneb$ (since
275: the same is true for no oscillations), and the best-fit values of
276: $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$ correspond
277: to highly non-adiabatic transitions.
278: However, $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$ is not constrained even at the 1$\sigma$ level.
279: Values of
280: $\tau$ greater than 1.7 lead to $\tneb$ shifted to smaller values than for $\tau=1.7$, but the
281: $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$ contour remains open at the 1$\sigma$ level.
282: It can be seen qualitatively, that for $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}\lsim 10^{-4}$,
283: values of $\tneb$ from supernova codes are
284: less inconsistent with the data (see the lower panels of Fig.~\ref{sni1}-\ref{sni31}).
285: But, for $\eneb$ in the range found in Ref.~\cite{models2} and $\tau \lsim 1.4$,
286: SN 1987A data are consistent with theoretical predictions
287: even for $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$ as high as the CHOOZ bound. The results of Ref.~\cite{reddy}
288: indicate that both the above conditions on $\eneb$ and $\tau$ can easily be met simultaneously.
289: Thus, even at a qualitative level it can not be claimed that the inverted mass hierarchy
290: is disfavored for $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}\gsim 10^{-4}$.
291:
292: For a given value of $\tau$, the
293: range of $\tneb$ that is allowed for the normal hierarchy
294: is the same as that for the inverted hierarchy with $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}=0$ since the
295: survival probabilities, Eqs.~(\ref{norprob}) and~(\ref{invprob}), are the same for both hierarchies
296: in this limit.
297: The $\tneb$ for the normal hierarchy can be read-off from the lower panels of
298: Figs.~\ref{sni1}-\ref{sni31} at $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}=10^{-6}$.
299: (This interpretation must be made
300: with caution, since for the normal hierarchy, it is known a priori that the antineutrino
301: spectra are independent of $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$, which would strictly mean that the confidence
302: regions should be determined for two parameters and not three).
303:
304: To make the fact that SN 1987A data did not probe the neutrino mass hierarchy even more
305: transparent, we show the results of two-parameter fits in $\eneb$ and $\tneb$
306: for the normal hierarchy and the
307: inverted hierarchy (with $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}=0.01$) in Table~II ($t_{<13}$) and
308: Table~III ($t_{<3}$).
309: We do not show figures of these allowed regions since these exist in the
310: literature~\cite{raffelt,lunardini,valle,minakata} for the $t_{<13}$ case.
311: As has been pointed out by previous authors, if
312: the hierarchy is inverted and $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}$ is large ({\it i.e.}, $P_H \approx 0$),
313: lower values of $\tneb$ are required to fit the data than if the hierarchy is normal.
314: Since in all cases the likelihoods are comparable, the data itself
315: does not favor one neutrino mass hierarchy over the other.
316: Any deductions about the hierarchy can only be based
317: on the disagreement of the data with supernova model predictions, which are in a state of
318: change.
319:
320: \begin{table}[t]
321: \begin{center}
322: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
323: \hline
324: & $E_b$ ($10^{53}$ ergs) & $\tneb$ (MeV) & $ln({\cal L}_{max})$ \\ \hline
325: no oscillations & 3.2 & 3.6 & -42.0\\ \hline
326: $\tau=1.25 \;,\; P_H = 0 $ & 3.1 & 2.9 & -42.0\\ \hline
327: $\tau=1.25 \;,\;$ normal & 3.2 & 3.4 & -41.9\\ \hline
328: $\tau=1.4\ \;,\; P_H = 0 $ & 3.1 & 2.6 & -42.0\\ \hline
329: $\tau=1.4\ \;,\;$ normal & 3.4 & 3.2 & -41.6\\ \hline
330: $\tau=1.7\ \;,\; P_H = 0 $ & 3.2 & 2.1 & -42.0\\ \hline
331: $\tau=1.7\ \;,\;$ normal & 4.2 & 2.7 & -41.2\\ \hline
332: $\tau=2.0\ \;,\; P_H = 0 $ & 3.2 & 1.8 & -42.0\\ \hline
333: $\tau=2.0\ \;,\;$ normal & 5.8 & 2.2 & -40.6
334: \end{tabular}
335: \label{tab2par}
336: \end{center}
337: \caption{Best fit values for $E_b$ and $\tneb$ from two-parameter fits to all the KII and IMB data.
338: Results
339: are presented for the case in which no oscillations occur, the
340: inverted hierarchy with $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}=0.01$ ($P_H \approx 0$),
341: and for the normal hierarchy.}
342: \end{table}
343:
344: \begin{table}[ht]
345: \begin{center}
346: \begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|c|}
347: \hline
348: & $E_b$ ($10^{53}$ ergs) & $\tneb$ (MeV) & $ln({\cal L}_{max})$ \\ \hline
349: no oscillations & 1.8 & 4.0 & -35.6\\ \hline
350: $\tau=1.25 \;,\; P_H = 0 $ & 1.8 & 3.2 & -35.6\\ \hline
351: $\tau=1.25 \;,\;$ normal & 1.9 & 3.7 & -35.5\\ \hline
352: $\tau=1.4\ \;,\; P_H = 0 $ & 1.7 & 2.9 & -35.6\\ \hline
353: $\tau=1.4\ \;,\;$ normal & 2.0 & 3.5 & -35.4\\ \hline
354: $\tau=1.7\ \;,\; P_H = 0 $ & 1.7 & 2.4 & -35.6\\ \hline
355: $\tau=1.7\ \;,\;$ normal & 2.4 & 3.0 & -35.2\\ \hline
356: $\tau=2.0\ \;,\; P_H = 0 $ & 1.8 & 2.0 & -35.6\\ \hline
357: $\tau=2.0\ \;,\;$ normal & 3.1 & 2.5 & -34.9
358: \end{tabular}
359: \label{tab2par1}
360: \end{center}
361: \caption{Same as Table~II but only data from the first 2.75 seconds are used.}
362: \end{table}
363:
364: In addition to the above arguments, one must keep in mind that SN 1987A provided
365: us with very limited statistics with a somewhat uncertain time sequence.
366: Moreover, even with oscillations, the marginal overlap
367: between the KII and IMB data should suggest that any conclusions can only be suggestive
368: at best.
369:
370: In summary, we have disputed the assertion that SN 1987A
371: provides a strong indication that
372: the inverted mass hierarchy is disfavored for
373: $\sin^2 \theta_{13} \gsim 10^{-4}$~\cite{minakata}. The data provides
374: no substantial evidence that this is the case.
375: Rather than telling us anything about the nature of the neutrino mass hierarchy, SN 1987A data
376: seem to indicate the need for more sophisticated supernova codes~\cite{models2}
377: which could remove
378: the (mass-hierarchy-independent) discrepancy with model predictions. For a future
379: galactic supernova, data from Super-Kamiokande and SNO would enable a precise determination of
380: both $E_b$ and $\tneb$~\cite{inverting,minakata1} (unless $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}\gsim 10^{-3}$
381: and the hierarchy is inverted~\cite{inverting})
382: and determine
383: the sign of $\Delta m^2_{32}$ if $\sin^2 2 \theta_{13}\gsim 10^{-4}$~\cite{dighe,inverting},
384: independently of supernova models.
385:
386:
387: %\newpage
388: \vspace{0.5in}
389: %\newpage
390: {\it Acknowledgements}.
391: We thank S. Reddy for numerous discussions and suggestions.
392: This research was supported by the U.S.~DOE
393: under Grants No.~DE-FG02-95ER40896 and No.~DE-FG02-91ER40676
394: and by the WARF.
395:
396:
397: \vspace{0.25in}
398: \newpage
399: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
400:
401: \bibitem{snkam}
402: K. Hirata {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 58}, 1490 (1987); K.~S.~Hirata {\it et al.},
403: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 38}, 448 (1988).
404:
405: \bibitem{snimb}
406: R.M. Bionta {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 58}, 1494 (1987);
407: C.B. Bratton {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D37}, 3361 (1988).
408:
409: \bibitem{lamb}
410: T.~J.~Loredo and D.~Q.~Lamb, astro-ph/0107260.
411:
412: \bibitem{raffelt}
413: B. Jegerlehner, F. Neubig and G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. {\bf D54}, 1194 (1996).
414:
415: \bibitem{lunardini}
416: C. Lunardini and A. Yu. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. {\bf D63}, 073009 (2001).
417:
418: \bibitem{valle}
419: M. Kachelriess, R. Tomas and J.W.F. Valle, JHEP {\bf 01}, 030 (2001).
420:
421: \bibitem{models1}
422: H.T. Janka, Proceedings of {\it Frontier Objects in Astrophysics and Particle Physics},
423: Vulcano, Italy, 1992, edited by F. Giovannelli and G. Mannocchi.
424:
425: \bibitem{lma}
426: V. Barger {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 88}, 011302 (2002);
427: J.N. Bahcall {\it et al.}, hep-ph/0111150;
428: G.L. Fogli {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D64},
429: 093007 (2001);
430: A. Bandyopadhyay {\it et al.}, Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 519}, 82 (2001);
431: M.V. Garzelli and C. Giunti, hep-ph/0111254.
432:
433: \bibitem{minakata}
434: H. Minakata and H. Nunokawa Phys. Lett. {\bf B504}, 301 (2001).
435:
436: \bibitem{models2}
437: A. Burrows, T. Young, P. Pinto, R. Eastman and T. Thompson, Astrophys. J. {\bf 539}, 865 (2000).
438:
439: \bibitem{models3}
440: G.~G.~Raffelt, astro-ph/0105250.
441:
442: \bibitem{bethe}
443: G. Brown, H. Bethe and G. Baym, Nucl. Phys. {\bf A375}, 481 (1982).
444:
445: \bibitem{dighe}
446: A.S. Dighe and A.Yu. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 033007 (2000).
447:
448: \bibitem{kuo}
449: T.K. Kuo and J. Pantaleone, Phys. Rev. {\bf D37} 298 (1988).
450:
451: \bibitem{fogli}
452: G.~L.~Fogli, E.~Lisi and A.~Marrone, hep-ph/0110089.
453:
454: \bibitem{sato}
455: K.~Sato and H.~Suzuki, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 58}, 2722 (1987).
456:
457: \bibitem{beacom}
458: P. Vogel and J.F. Beacom, Phys. Rev. {\bf D60}, 053003 (1999).
459:
460: \bibitem{prem}
461: A. Dziewonski and D. Anderson, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. {\bf 25}, 297 (1981).
462:
463: \bibitem{burrows}
464: A. Burrows, Astrophys. J. {\bf 334}, 891 (1988).
465:
466: \bibitem{reddy}
467: J.~A.~Pons, S.~Reddy, M.~Prakash, J.~M.~Lattimer and J.~A.~Miralles,
468: Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 513}, 780 (1999).
469:
470: \bibitem{chooz}
471: CHOOZ collaboration, M. Apollonio {\it et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\b466}, 415 (1999).
472:
473: \bibitem{inverting}
474: V. Barger, D. Marfatia and B.P. Wood, hep-ph/0112125.
475:
476: \bibitem{minakata1}
477: H. Minakata, H. Nunokawa, R. Tomas and J.W.F. Valle, hep-ph/0112160.
478:
479: \end{thebibliography}
480: \newpage
481: \begin{figure}[t]
482: \centering\leavevmode
483: \mbox{\psfig{file=timing.ps,width=12cm,height=12cm}}
484: \medskip
485: \caption[]{The time structure of the SN 1987A signal. 14 of the 19 events occurred in the first 2.75
486: seconds.}
487: \label{time}
488: \end{figure}
489:
490: \begin{figure}[t]
491: \centering\leavevmode
492: \mbox{\psfig{file=noosc.eps,width=11cm,height=8cm}}
493: \medskip
494: \caption[]
495: {The 1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ allowed regions for $E_b$ and $\tneb$ from a two-parameter fit
496: to SN 1987A data in the case that no oscillations occur. The results from separate KII and IMB
497: analyses (dashed), and a combined analysis (solid) of the data sets are shown.
498: All data in the first
499: 13 seconds are included.
500: The dark-shaded region is the range
501: of values from Eq.~(\ref{models}) and the light-shaded region
502: is based on Ref.~\cite{models2}.}
503: \label{snno}
504: \end{figure}
505:
506: \begin{figure}[t]
507: \centering\leavevmode
508: \mbox{\psfig{file=noosca.eps,width=10cm,height=8cm}}
509: \medskip
510: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{snno} but only data from the first 2.75 seconds are included.}
511: \label{snno1}
512: \end{figure}
513:
514: \begin{figure}[t]
515: \centering\leavevmode
516: \mbox{\psfig{file=cont17.eps,width=15cm,height=15cm}}
517: \medskip
518: \caption[]{1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ allowed regions from a three-parameter $t_{<13}$ analysis of
519: combined KII and IMB data for the inverted hierarchy.
520: A ratio $\tau=T_{\bar{\nu}_x}/T_{\nu_e}=1.7$ is assumed.
521: }
522: \label{sni1}
523: \end{figure}
524:
525: \begin{figure}[t]
526: \centering\leavevmode
527: \mbox{\psfig{file=cont14.eps,width=15cm,height=15cm}}
528: \medskip
529: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{sni1} but with $\tau=1.4$.}
530: \label{sni2}
531: \end{figure}
532:
533: \begin{figure}[t]
534: \centering\leavevmode
535: \mbox{\psfig{file=cont125.eps,width=15cm,height=15cm}}
536: \medskip
537: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{sni1} but with $\tau=1.25$. }
538: \label{sni3}
539: \end{figure}
540:
541: \begin{figure}[t]
542: \centering\leavevmode
543: \mbox{\psfig{file=cont17a.eps,width=15cm,height=15cm}}
544: \medskip
545: \caption[]{1$\sigma$ and 2$\sigma$ allowed regions from a three-parameter $t_{<3}$ analysis of
546: combined KII and IMB data for the inverted hierarchy.
547: The ratio $\tau=T_{\bar{\nu}_x}/T_{\nu_e}$ is 1.7.
548: }
549: \label{sni11}
550: \end{figure}
551:
552: \begin{figure}[t]
553: \centering\leavevmode
554: \mbox{\psfig{file=cont14a.eps,width=15cm,height=15cm}}
555: \medskip
556: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{sni11} but with $\tau=1.4$.}
557: \label{sni21}
558: \end{figure}
559:
560: \begin{figure}[t]
561: \centering\leavevmode
562: \mbox{\psfig{file=cont125a.eps,width=15cm,height=15cm}}
563: \medskip
564: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{sni11} but with $\tau=1.25$. }
565: \label{sni31}
566: \end{figure}
567:
568: \end{document}
569: