1: \documentstyle[times,pramana,epsf,floats]{ias}
2: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
3: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
4: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{eqnarray}}
5: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{eqnarray}}
6: \def\nue{{\nu_e}}
7: \def\anue{{\bar{\nu_e}}}
8: \def\numu{{\nu_{\mu}}}
9: \def\anumu{{\bar{\nu_{\mu}}}}
10: \def\nutau{{\nu_{\tau}}}
11: \def\anutau{{\bar{\nu_{\tau}}}}
12: \newcommand{\dm}{\mbox{$\Delta{m}^{2}$~}}
13: \newcommand{\st}{\mbox{$\sin^{2}2\theta$~}}
14: \newcommand{\brn}{\mbox{$^{8}{B}~$}}
15: \newcommand{\bee}{\mbox{$^{7}{Be}$~}}
16: \newcommand{\cl}{\mbox{$^{37}{Cl}$~}}
17: \def\lsim{\:\raisebox{-0.5ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}
18: \newcommand{\cnv}{\mbox{$\breve{\rm C}$erenkov~}}
19: \def\br{{$^{8}{B} ~$}}
20: \def\etal{{\it et al.}}
21: \def\js{Just So$^2$}
22: \def\kl{{KamLAND~}}
23: \begin{document}
24:
25: \title{Solar Neutrino Oscillation Phenomenology}
26:
27: \author{Srubabati Goswami}
28: \address
29: {Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Chhatnag Road, Jhusi,
30: Allahabad - 211-019, India}
31: \keywords{solar neutrino,reactor neutrino}
32: \pacs{14.6q}
33: \abstract{This article summarises the status of the solar neutrino
34: oscillation phenomenology at the end of 2002 in the light of the
35: SNO and KamLAND results. We first present the allowed areas obtained from
36: global solar analysis and demonstrate the
37: preference of the solar data towards the Large-Mixing-Angle (LMA)
38: MSW solution.
39: A clear confirmation in favor of the LMA solution comes from the
40: \kl reactor neutrino data.
41: The
42: \kl spectral data in conjunction with the global solar data
43: further narrows down the allowed LMA region and splits it
44: into two allowed zones -- a low $\Delta m^2$ region (low-LMA)
45: and
46: high $\Delta m^2$ region (high-LMA).
47: We demonstrate through a projected analysis that
48: with an exposure of 3 kton-year (kTy) \kl can remove this ambiguity.
49: }
50:
51: \maketitle
52: \section{The Neutrinos from the sun}
53: Solar neutrinos are produced via the reaction
54: \beq
55: 4p \rightarrow ^4He + 2e^+ + 2{\nue} + 28 {\rm MeV}
56: \eeq
57: The above process occurs through
58: two main cycles of nuclear reactions -- the
59: pp chain (CNO cycle) which is responsible for 98.5\% (1.5\%)
60: of the energy.
61: There are eight different types of neutrino fluxes, named according
62: to the
63: parent nuclei of the decay chain which generates it.
64: The pp chain gives rise to the neutrinos
65: $pp,~~pep,~~hep,~~^7Be,~~^8B$ while the neutrinos
66: $^{13}{N}$, $^{15}{O}$,$^{17}{F}$
67: are generated through nuclear reactions forming the CNO cycle.
68: The solar neutrino fluxes are calculated by the so called
69: "Standard Solar Models" (SSM) among which the most extensively used are
70: the ones due to Bahcall and his collaborators \cite{bp00}.
71: The flux predictions from the SSM are robust.
72: Different solar models agree to a very high degree of accuracy
73: ( to within 10\%)
74: when the same input values of the parameters
75: are used and also demonstrate striking
76: consistency with helioseismological measurements.
77: The $pp$ neutrinos are mainly responsible
78: for solar
79: luminosity and the SSM prediction for the pp flux is least uncertain.
80: The prediction for the $^8B$ neutrino flux is most uncertain
81: stemming from the uncertainties associated with the cross-section
82: of the reaction $^7{Be}(p \gamma)^8B$ producing these neutrinos.
83:
84: \section{Solar Neutrino Experiments}
85: The pioneering experiment for the detection of solar neutrinos is the
86: $^{37}{Cl}$ experiment in Homestake which started operation in 1968
87: {\footnote{
88: For recent reviews on solar neutrino experiments see
89: \cite{Goswami:2003b,Miramonti:wz}.}}.
90: It utilises the reaction \cite{cl}
91: \beq
92: \nu_e + ^{37}{Cl} \rightarrow ^{37}{Ar} + e^{-}.
93: \label{37cl}
94: \eeq
95: The threshold for this is 0.814 MeV and hence it is sensitive to
96: the $^{8}{B}$ and $^{7}{Be}$ neutrinos.
97:
98: Three experiments SAGE in Russia and GALLEX and its updated version GNO
99: in Gran-Sasso Underground laboratory in Italy uses the reaction
100: \cite{ga}
101: \beq \nu _e \; + \; ^{71}Ga \; \rightarrow \;^{71}Ge\; +
102: \;e^- \label{gaeq} \eeq
103: for detecting the solar neutrinos.
104: This reaction has a low threshold of 0.233
105: MeV and the detectors are sensitive to the basic $pp$ neutrinos.
106:
107: The radio chemical experiments $^{37}{Cl}$ and
108: $^{71}{Ga}$ experiments are sensitive to
109: only $\nu_e$ and can provide the total solar $\nue$ flux.
110:
111: The first real time measurement of the solar neutrino flux was
112: done by the Kamiokande imaging water \cnv detector,
113: located in the Kamioka mine in Japan \cite{kam}.
114: It was subsequently upgraded to SuperKamiokande -- a same type of detector but
115: with much larger
116: volume increasing the statistics \cite{superk}.
117: The neutrinos interact with the electrons in the water via
118: \beq
119: e^{-} + \nu_x \rightarrow e^{-} + {\nu_x}
120: \label{nuescatt}
121: \eeq
122: This reaction is sensitive to all the three neutrino flavours.
123: However the $\numu$ and $\nutau$ react {\it via} the neutral
124: current which is suppressed by a factor of 1/6 compared to the
125: $\nu_e$ interaction which can be mediated by both charged and
126: neutral currents.
127: The recoil electron energy threshold in Kamiokande was 7.5 MeV which could be
128: reduced to 5 MeV in SuperKamiokande.
129: Thus both the detectors are sensitive mainly to the \br neutrinos.
130:
131: The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) experiment also uses a \cnv detector
132: but containing heavy water ($D_2O$).
133: The deuterium in heavy water makes it possible to observe solar neutrinos
134: in three different reaction channels \cite{snocc,snonc}
135: \begin{center}
136: $\nu_e + d \rightarrow p + p +e^- $~~~~(CC) \label{nued}
137: \end{center}
138: \begin{center}
139: ${\nu_x} + e^- \rightarrow {\nu_x} +e^- $~~~~(ES)
140: \end{center}
141: \begin{center}
142: $\nu_x + d \rightarrow n + p + \nu_x$~~~~~(NC)
143: \label{neutral}
144: \end{center}
145: The charged current (CC) reaction is exclusive for $\nu_e$,
146: The electron scattering (ES) reaction is
147: same as in SK.
148: The unique feature of SNO is the neutral current (NC) reaction
149: which is sensitive to all the three flavours with equal strength.
150: For both CC and ES reactions the final state electrons are directly detected
151: through the \cnv
152: light emitted by them which
153: hits the PMTs and an event is recorded.
154: For the NC reactions the final state neutron can be captured
155: (i) by another deuteron
156: (ii)by capture on Cl in an NaCl enriched heavy water
157: (iii)by $^3{He}$ proportional counters.
158: For both (i) and (ii) the nuclei after capturing the neutrons emits
159: single and multiple gamma rays respectively which compton scatters the
160: electrons in the medium.
161: The \cnv light produced by these electrons will produce an event.
162: Therefore if the NC events are due to (i) and (ii) above then
163: they cannot be disentangled from the CC and ES events
164: Exclusive detection of the neutrons produced in the NC event
165: is possible for the process (iii).
166: %The important diagnostic is
167: %\beq
168: %\frac{R_{CC}}{R_{NC}} =
169: %\frac{\phi_{\nue}} {(\phi_\nue + \phi_\numu + \phi_\nutau)}
170: %\eeq
171: %A value
172: %$<$ 1 for the above ratio will lead to
173: %an unanimous signature for the presence of $\nu_\mu/\nu_\tau$ component
174: %in the solar $\nu_e$ flux.
175:
176: \subsection{The total solar neutrino flux}
177:
178: The ratio of the observed solar neutrino rates to the
179: SSM predictions are presented below.
180:
181: \[
182: \begin{tabular}{ccc} \hline
183: experiment & $\frac{obsvd}{BPB00}$ \\ \hline {Cl} &
184: 0.337 $\pm$ 0.029
185: \\
186: {Ga} & 0.553 $\pm$ 0.034
187: \\
188: {SK} & 0.465 $\pm$ 0.014
189: \\
190: {SNO(CC)} & 0.349 $\pm$ 0.021
191: \\
192: {SNO(ES)} & 0.473 $\pm$ 0.074
193: \\
194: {SNO(NC)} & 1.008 $\pm$ 0.123
195: \\\hline
196: \hline
197: \end{tabular}
198: \]
199: The declared SNO NC data is due to neutron capture on deuteron.
200: Therefore the CC,ES and NC events cannot be separated on an event
201: by event basis.
202: For extracting the separate rates from the entangled data sample one
203: one needs to assume an
204: undistorted \br flux as an input.
205: The SNO rates quoted in the above Table are obtained under this assumption
206: \cite{snonc}.
207: In all the above experiments
208: observed $\nue$ flux is less than the theoretical predictions
209: implying disappearance of the solar $\nu_e$s. On the other hand for the
210: SNO NC data the observed rate agrees to the theoretical prediction.
211: Since the NC is sensitive to $\numu$ and $\nutau$ as well this indicates that
212: the $\nu_e$s are reappearing as $\numu$s and/or $\nutau$s.
213:
214: \subsection{Information on Direction and Energy}
215: Apart from providing a measurement for the total solar neutrino flux the
216: real time measurements can also provide information on direction and
217: energy of the incoming neutrinos.
218: The electron scattering reaction used in SK and SNO has
219: excellent directional sensitivity.
220: In fact through this reaction the Kamiokande experiment first demonstrated
221: the solar origin of the neutrinos.
222: \begin{figure}
223: \epsfxsize=5cm
224: \vglue -1.0cm \hglue -3.8cm
225: \centerline{\epsfbox{fig1.eps}}
226: \epsfxsize=5cm
227: \vglue -4.0cm \hglue 3.3cm
228: \centerline{\epsfbox{fig3.eps}}
229: \caption{The left panel shows the number of events observed in SK
230: as a function of $\cos\theta_{\odot}$ while the right panel shows the
231: energy spectrum of the recoil electrons observed by SK.}
232: \label{skdir}
233: \end{figure}
234: The left panel in figure \ref{skdir} plots
235: the number of events observed in SK against the
236: cosine of the angle with the sun's direction. There is a clear peaking
237: towards $\cos\theta_{\odot}$ = 1.0
238: \cite{Fukuda:2001nj}.
239: The statistical capacity of SK allows it to make an energy wise binning of the
240: data and present the recoil electron energy spectrum.
241: The right panel in figure \ref{skdir} shows
242: the data/SSM as a function of the recoil
243: electron energy with a 5 MeV threshold.
244: The plot exhibits a flat recoil electron energy spectrum
245: consistent with no spectral distortion
246: \cite{Fukuda:2001nj}.
247:
248: The panels 1 and 3 in
249: Figure \ref{snospec} show the number of CC+ES+NC+background events in SNO
250: as a function of direction and energy respectively.
251: The solid lines in the figures show
252: the Montecarlo simulated CC,ES and NC events.
253: The ES events show the strong directional correlation
254: with sun as in SK. The CC events
255: has an angular correlation $1 - 0.34 cos
256: \theta_{\odot}$ while the NC events have no directional dependence as the
257: produced gamma rays do not carry any information of the incident neutrino.
258: The electron produced in the CC reaction being the only light
259: particle produced in the final state has a strong correlation with the
260: incident neutrino energy and thus can provide a good measurement of the
261: $^8B$ energy spectrum. The recoil electron spectrum from the ES reaction is
262: softer.
263: \begin{figure}[htbp]
264: %\vskip -1in
265: \epsfxsize =4cm
266: \centerline{\epsfbox{snospec.eps}}
267: \caption{The SNO spectrum vs $\cos\theta_{\odot}$, radial coordinate and
268: recoil electron energy. Also shown is the MonteCarlo simulated events.}
269: \label{snospec}
270: \end{figure}
271: The NC events due to capture on deuteron
272: has a peaked distribution around the energy of 6.25 MeV.
273: These probability density functions are used to perform a maximum
274: likelihood fit to the data.
275:
276: \subsection{Variations with time}
277:
278: SK already has enough statistics to divide their data into both energy
279: and zenith
280: angle bins. The latest SK data has been presented
281: with a binning of eighth energy bins and each energy bin contains data
282: subdivided into seven zenith angle bins.
283: \cite{smy2002}.
284: This binning enables one to measure the day time and night time fluxes
285: separately and study for any possible day/night asymmetry.
286: Since in day time the neutrinos do not pass through the earths matter and
287: in night time they traverse the earths matter
288: an observed day/night asymmetry would be
289: clear indicator of earths matter effect modifying the neutrino fluxes.
290: The day/night asymmetry measured in SK and SNO are still not at a
291: statistically significant level.
292:
293: \subsection{Evolution of the solar neutrino problem}
294: Before the declaration of the SNO data there were two
295: aspects of the
296: solar neutrino problem.
297: The first one is -- in all the experiments
298: the observed flux was less than SSM prediction.
299: The
300: second one was the 'problem of the \bee neutrinos'.
301: We note that among the pre-SNO experiments SK and its predecessor
302: Kamiokande is sensitive to the \br neutrinos.
303: The $^{37}{Cl}$ experiment is sensitive
304: mainly to the \br and \bee neutrinos
305: while the sensitivity of the $^{71}{Ga}$ experiments
306: amount to $pp$, \br and \bee neutrinos.
307: Combining
308: the $^{8}{B}$ flux measured in SK with the Cl
309: data resulted in no room for the $^{7}{Be}$
310: neutrinos.
311: Similarly
312: the expected $pp$ flux in Ga consistent with solar luminosity plus
313: the $^{8}{B}$ flux observed in SK indicated a negative flux of
314: $^{7}{Be}$ neutrinos in Ga.
315: The solar physics could not explain this preferential vanishing of
316: \bee flux over \br flux as in the pp chain \bee comes before \br
317: and any mechanism that reduces the \bee flux would eventually
318: reduce the \br flux.
319: Therefore the answer was sought in the properties of neutrinos
320: and neutrino flavour conversion was
321: considered as the most promising candidate for the solution.
322: SNO provided the compelling evidence.
323:
324: %\begin{figure}[htbp]
325: %\epsfxsize=5cm
326: %\centerline{\epsfbox{newfig1.eps}}
327: %\label{ccnc}
328: %\end{figure}
329:
330: The SNO CC reaction is sensitive only to $\nu_e$ while the
331: ES reaction in both SK and SNO is sensitive to both
332: $\nu_e$ and $\nu_\mu/\nu_\tau$.
333: Therefore a higher ES flux as compared to the CC flux
334: will imply the presence of $\numu/\nutau$ in the solar $\nu_e$
335: flux.
336: Combining the SK ES and SNO CC results one gets
337: \be
338: \phi_{ES}^{SK} - \phi_{CC}^{SNO} =
339: 0.57 \pm 0.17 \times 10^{6} {\rm /cm^2/sec}
340: \ee
341: This is a 3.3$\sigma$ signal for $\nu_e$ transition to an active
342: flavour (or against
343: $\nu_e$ transition to solely a sterile state).
344:
345: The NC reaction is sensitive to all the three flavours with equal strength
346: resulting in a greater sensitivity to the neutral
347: current component in the solar $\nu_e$ flux.
348: Comparing the NC and CC data from SNO
349: one gets
350: \be
351: \phi_{NC}^{SNO} - \phi_{CC}^{SNO} = 3.41 \pm 0.65 \times 10^{6}
352: {\rm /cm^2/sec}
353: \ee
354: In two circumstances we can have the CC and NC rates equal to each other.
355: Either when there is no flavour conversion or for flavour conversion to a
356: purely sterile state which does not interact with the detector.
357: The observed CC/NC difference rules out both these possibilities
358: at 5.3$\sigma$.
359:
360: \section{Two Flavour Oscillation}
361: If neutrinos have mass then the flavour eigenstates $\nue$ and $\numu/\nutau$
362: are different from the mass eigenstates $\nu_1$,$\nu_2$ and related as
363: \be
364: \pmatrix{\nu_e \cr \nu_x}
365: = \pmatrix{ \cos\theta & \sin\theta
366: \cr -\sin\theta & \cos\theta} \pmatrix{\nu_1 \cr \nu_2}
367: \ee
368: where $\theta$ is the mixing angle in vacuum. This leads to
369: neutrino oscillation in vacuum \cite{bruno}.
370: Then the survival probability that a $\nue$ remains $\nue$
371: after traveling distance L in vacuum is
372: \be
373: P_{\nu_{e}\nu_{e}} = 1 - \sin{^2}2\theta \sin{^{2}}(1.27{\Delta
374: m}^{2}L/E)
375: \label{p2nu}
376: \ee
377: $\Delta m^2 = m_2^2 - m_1^2$. The
378: term containing \dm is the oscillatory term
379: resulting from coherent propagation of the
380: mass eigenstates.
381:
382: In matter, only $\nu_e$'s undergoes Charged current interaction
383: giving rise to an matter induced mass term of the form
384: $\sqrt{2}G_FN_e$.
385: This changes the mixing angles as
386: \be
387: \tan2\theta_M
388: = \frac{\Delta m^2 \sin2\theta}{\Delta m^2 \cos2\theta -
389: 2 \sqrt{2} G_F n_e E}
390: \label{thetam}
391: \ee
392: $n_e$ is the
393: electron density of the medium and $E$ is the neutrino energy. Eq.
394: (\ref{thetam}) demonstrates the resonant behavior of $\theta_M$.
395: Assuming $\Delta m^2 > 0$ the mixing angle in matter is maximal
396: (irrespective of the value of mixing angle in vacuum) for an
397: electron density satisfying,
398: \begin{equation}
399: 2\sqrt{2}G_{F}n_{e,res}E = \Delta m^2 \cos 2\theta \label{neres}
400: \end{equation}
401: This is
402: the Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW) effect
403: of matter-enhanced
404: resonant flavor conversion \cite{msw}.
405:
406: The most general expression for $\nu_e$ survival probability in an
407: unified formalism over the mass range $10^{-12} - 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$
408: and for the mixing angle $\theta$ in the range [0,$\pi/2$] is
409: \cite{petcov}
410: \be P_{ee}&=&P_{\odot}P_{\oplus} + (1-P_{\odot})
411: (1-P_{\oplus}) \nonumber \\ && + 2\sqrt{P_{\odot}(1-P_{\odot})
412: P_{\oplus}(1-P_{\oplus})}\cos\xi
413: \label{probtot}
414: \ee
415: where
416: $P_{\odot}$ denotes the probability of conversion of $\nu_e$ to
417: one of the mass eigenstates in the sun and $P_{\oplus}$ gives the
418: conversion probability of the mass eigenstate back to the $\nu_e$
419: state in the earth. All the phases involved in the Sun, vacuum and
420: inside Earth are included in $\xi$.
421: Depending on the value of $\Delta m^2/E$ one has the following three limits
422: \\
423: (i)in the regime $\Delta m^2/E \stackrel{<}{\sim}
424: 5\times 10^{-10}$ eV$^2$/MeV matter effects inside the Sun
425: suppress flavor transitions while the effect of the phase $\xi$
426: remains. This is the vacuum oscillation limit.
427: \\
428: (ii)For $\Delta m^2/E \stackrel{>}{\sim} 10^{-8}$
429: eV$^2$/MeV, the total oscillation phase
430: becomes very large and the $\cos\xi$ term in Eq. (\ref{probtot})
431: averages out to zero signifying incoherent propagation of
432: the neutrino mass eigenstates.
433: This is the MSW limit.
434: \\
435: (iii)For
436: $5\times 10^{-10}$ eV$^2$/MeV $\stackrel{<}{\sim}
437: \Delta m^2/E \stackrel{>}{\sim} 10^{-8}$ eV$^2$/MeV, both matter effects
438: inside the Sun and coherent oscillation effects in the
439: vacuum become important. This is the {\it quasi vacuum oscillation}
440: (QVO) regime.
441:
442: %\subsection{Analysis and Results}
443: \begin{figure}[htbp]
444: \epsfxsize=6cm
445: \vglue -0.5cm \hglue -3.8cm
446: \centerline{\epsfbox{snor2.ps}}
447: \epsfxsize=6cm
448: \vglue -8.5cm \hglue 3.3cm
449: \centerline{\epsfbox{snor3.ps}}
450: \caption{The allowed regions in \dm-$\tan^2\theta$ plane from data on total
451: solar rates in the left panel and from data on total solar rates and SK
452: spectrum data in right panel.}
453: \label{snocc}
454: \end{figure}
455: Next we present the results obtained by performing
456: a $\chi^2$-analysis of the solar neutrino data.
457: The procedure followed can be found in
458: \cite{Choubey:2001bi,Choubey:2001ws,our-snocc}.
459: In figure \ref{snocc} we present the allowed regions obtained from
460: analysis including the total fluxes measured in Cl, Ga, SK and SNO
461: \cite{our-snocc}.
462: There are basically five regions which are allowed --
463: the small mixing angle region (SMA),
464: the large mixing angle high \dm regions (LMA),
465: the large mixing angle-low \dm regions (LOW),
466: the vacuum oscillation regions
467: symmetric about $\tan^2\theta=1.0$ and the
468: quasi vacuum region between the LOW and the vacuum oscillation regions.
469:
470: In the scond panel of figure \ref{snocc}
471: we present the allowed areas after including the
472: SK spectrum data with the total rates data \cite{our-snocc}.
473: The SMA region and large part of the vacuum oscillation region
474: are seen to have been washed away with the inclusion of the SK spectrum data.
475:
476: \begin{figure}[htbp]
477: \epsfxsize=6cm
478: \vglue -0.5cm \hglue -4.2cm
479: \centerline{\epsfbox{prob.ps}}
480: \epsfxsize=6cm
481: \vglue -7.6cm \hglue 3.3cm
482: \centerline{\epsfbox{allspec.eps}}
483: \caption{The left panel shows the dependence of the probability on energy.
484: The right panel gives the allowed area after including the latest SNO
485: spectrum data including the NC events. }
486: \label{prob}
487: \end{figure}
488:
489: In the left panel of
490: fig. \ref{prob} we show the dependence of the probabilities on energy.
491: In the SMA and the VO oscillation regions the probability has a
492: non-monotonic dependence on
493: energy whereas in the LMA and LOW regions the survival probability
494: does not have any appreciable dependence on energy beyond
495: 5 MeV which is the threshold for SK and SNO.
496: Thus these regions are favoured by the
497: flat SK spectrum.
498:
499: In the right panel of figure \ref{prob} ( from \cite{Choubey:2002nc})
500: we present the allowed regions
501: obtained from
502: an global $\chi^2$ analysis
503: \cite{Choubey:2002nc,our-snonc2,Bandyopadhyay:2002qg,others}
504: of the total rates observed in Cl and
505: Ga (SAGE, GALLEX and GNO combined rate), the 1496 day SK
506: zenith angle energy spectrum data and the recent SNO data of
507: combined
508: CC+ES+NC+background data in 17 day and 17 night energy bin.
509: After the inclusion of the SNO results
510: \\
511: (i) LMA emerges as the
512: favoured solution.
513: \\
514: (ii) The LOW region now appears only at 3$\sigma$.
515: \\
516: (iii)Values of $\Delta m^2$ above $3\times 10^{-4}$
517: eV$^2$ are seen to be disfavored.
518: \\
519: (iv)The QVO and VO solution are
520: not allowed at $3\sigma$.\\
521: (v) Maximal mixing
522: ($\theta=\pi/4$) is disfavored at $3.4\sigma$.\\
523: (vi)
524: SMA solution is disfavored at 3.7$\sigma$\\
525: (vii)The Dark Side ($\theta > \pi/4$)
526: solutions disappear.
527:
528: Apart from including the SNO spectral data the figure \ref{prob}
529: also has the new 1496 day SK zenith angle spectrum data.
530: The data reveal a flat zenith angle spectrum.
531: The inclusion of this data rule out the
532: higher part of the LOW solution beyond $1.5\times 10^{-7}$ eV$^2$
533: for which peaks in the zenith-angle spectrum are expected
534: \cite{Gonzalez-Garcia:2000dj}.
535:
536: \section{KamLAND}
537:
538: KamLAND is a
539: 1000 ton liquid scintillator neutrino detector
540: situated at the former site of Kamiokande \cite{kl}.
541: It looks for ${\bar{\nu_e}}$ oscillation coming from 16
542: reactors
543: at distances 81 - 824 km.
544: Most powerful reactors are at a distance $\sim$ 180 km.
545: The detection process is $\bar{\nu_e}p \rightarrow e^{+} n$.
546: The $e^+$ produced annihilates with the electrons in the medium to produce
547: prompt photons. The neutrons get absorbed by the protons in the medium to
548: produce
549: delayed photons. The correlation of time,position and energy between these two
550: constitute a grossly background free signal.
551: The survival probability relevant in KamLAND
552: is the vacuum survival probability (cf. eq. \ref{p2nu})
553: summed over the
554: distances from all the reactors.
555: The average energy and length scales for KamLAND are
556: $E_{\nu} \sim $ 3 MeV, L $\sim$ 1.8 $\times 10^{5}$ m which makes it
557: sensitive to $\Delta m^2
558: \sim 1.6 \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$ which is in the LMA region.
559: The figure \ref{klrate} shows the probabilities for KamLAND
560: for the average distance of 180 km
561: and solar neutrinos for \dm (=$ 6\times10^{-5}$ eV$^2$)
562: and $\tan^2\theta$ (=0.5) \cite{Bahcall:2002ij}.
563: Whereas for the solar probabilities the \dm dependence is completely averaged
564: out in KamLAND
565: the probability exhibits a $L/E$ dependence which gives
566: it an unprecedented sensitivity to determine \dm.
567:
568: \begin{figure}[htbp]
569: \epsfxsize=6 cm
570: \vglue -0.2cm \hglue -4.0cm
571: \centerline{\epsfbox{pee.ps}}
572: \epsfxsize=3.0cm
573: \vglue -4.4cm \hglue 3.3cm
574: \centerline{\epsfbox{sol+krate.ps}}
575: \caption{The left figure shows the variation of the survival probability with
576: energy for \kl and for the solar neutrinos.
577: The right figure gives the allowed region from an analysis of \kl
578: rate and global solar data.
579: The allowed region from only solar analysis is shown also by
580: the outer dashed line.}
581: \label{klrate}
582: \end{figure}
583:
584: The solar best-fit predicts a rate in \kl
585: $0.65^{+0.08}_{-0.39}$ (3$\sigma$) \cite{raj}
586: while the observed rate is
587: $0.611 \pm 0.094$ corresponding to 145 days of data.
588: Thus KamLAND confirms the LMA solution.
589: In figure \ref{klrate} we show the allowed area obtained from
590: a $\chi^2$-analysis of KamLAND rates data and global solar data
591: \cite{Bandyopadhyay:2002en}.
592: The contour obtained from only solar analysis is also drawn (dashed lines)
593: for understanding the role played by \kl.
594: The inclusion of the \kl rates data gives a lower bound
595: of $\Delta m^2 > 4 \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$.
596: The other parts of the parameter space allowed from the solar analysis
597: are not constrained much.
598:
599: Figure \ref{all}
600: shows the allowed areas obtained from a $\chi^2$ analysis of the
601: only \kl spectrum \cite{kl}.
602: For an average energy of 5 MeV and a distance 180 km a \dm of
603: $7 \times 10^-5 $ eV$^2$ corresponds to the oscillation wavelength
604: ($\lambda$)
605: $\sim$ the distance traveled(L) and $P_{ee} \approx 1$, for \dm
606: of $3.5 \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$ $\lambda=2L$ and $P_{ee} = 0.0$. Again for
607: \dm = $1.4 \times 10^{-4}$ eV$^2$ $\lambda = L/2$ and $P_{ee} =1$.
608: Since the \kl spectral data
609: corresponds to a peak around 5 MeV islands around the
610: first and the third \dm are allowed whereas the middle \dm is
611: disfavoured as is seen from the panel 1 of figure \ref{all}.
612:
613: \begin{figure}[htbp]
614: \epsfxsize=5.0cm
615: \vglue -0.0cm \hglue -4.0cm
616: \centerline{\epsfbox{finalsin.eps}}
617: \epsfxsize=3.8cm
618: \vglue -5.2cm \hglue 3.3cm
619: \centerline{\epsfbox{sol+kspec.ps}}
620: \caption{The left panel shows the allowed regions in the $\dm-\tan^2\theta$
621: plane from analysis of \kl spectrum data.
622: The right panel shows the allowed region from a global
623: analysis of \kl spectrum and
624: solar neutrino data.}
625: \label{all}
626: \end{figure}
627:
628: In the second panel of figure \ref{all}
629: we show the allowed area from \kl spectrum and
630: global solar data obtained through a $\chi^2$ analysis
631: \cite{Bandyopadhyay:2002en}.
632: Inclusion of the \kl spectral data
633: splits the allowed region into two zones at 99\% C.L.
634: low-LMA (LMA1) and high-LMA (LMA2). LMA2 has less statistical significance
635: (by
636: $\approx 2\sigma$)
637: The global best-fit comes at $\Delta m^2 =7.17
638: \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$ and
639: $\tan^2\theta = 0.44$ in low-LMA.
640: LOW region is disfavoured at $5\sigma$.
641: Maximal mixing although allowed by the \kl spectrum data gets disfavoured
642: at 3.4$\sigma$ by the overall analysis.
643:
644: In the left panel of figure \ref{proj}
645: we explore through a projected analysis of
646: 1 kton year simulated spectrum the potential of \kl in
647: distinguishing between the two allowed areas.
648:
649: The allowed $\Delta m^2$
650: ranges around both
651: low-LMA and high-LMA zones decrease in size.
652: Since the solar data favours the low-LMA zone the
653: allowed areas become more precise for spectrum simulated at the low-LMA
654: zone while ambiguity
655: between the two zones remains for high-LMA spectrum.
656: In the right panel of \ref{proj} we show that a higher statistics (3 kton year)
657: from \kl can remove
658: this ambiguity almost completely determining
659: \dm to within 6\%.
660:
661: \begin{figure}[htbp]
662: \epsfxsize=6 cm
663: \vglue -0.4cm \hglue -3.8cm
664: \centerline{\epsfbox{new_sol+kspec+chooz_1kty.ps}}
665: \vglue -8.5cm \hglue 3.3cm
666: \epsfxsize=6 cm
667: \centerline{\epsfbox{new_sol+kspec+chooz_3kty.ps}}
668: \caption{The 1 kTy (left panel) and 3 kTy (right panel)
669: projected contours of KamLAND and solar data. The points at which the spectra
670: are simulated are shown by bold dots.}
671: \label{proj}
672: \end{figure}
673:
674: Analysis of solar and \kl data has been done in the realistic
675: three neutrino scenario in
676: \cite{Fogli:2002au}.
677: In this case the non-zero value of the mixing angle
678: $\theta_{13}$ \footnote{this is at present limited by the CHOOZ data
679: to $\sin^2\theta_{13} < 0.04$.}
680: connecting the atmospheric sector and the solar
681: sector modifies the
682: allowed area in $\Delta m^2 - \tan^2\theta$
683: parameter space.
684: A third solution at a \dm higher than the high-LMA zone
685: gets marginally allowed for the three flavour case.
686: As $\theta_{13}$ is increased the high-LMA zones tend to
687: disappear.
688:
689: \section{Conclusions}
690: The solar neutrino research began
691: with a motivation of
692: understanding the sun through the neutrino channel. Over the years it
693: metamorphosed
694: into a tool of unraveling the fundamental properties of the neutrinos.
695: At the end of 2002 the status of the solar neutrino oscillation
696: phenomenology can be summarised as
697: \\
698: {$\bullet$}
699: Comparison of SNO CC and SNO NC signifies neutrino
700: flavour conversion at $5.3\sigma$.
701: \\
702: {$\bullet$} Rules out transitions to
703: pure sterile states at $5.3\sigma$.
704: \\
705: $\bullet$ {LMA} is the favoured solution to the solar
706: neutrino problem with $3\times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2 \leq \Delta m^2 \leq 3\times
707: 10^{-4}$ eV$^2$ and $0.25 \leq \tan^2\theta \leq 0.87$ at $3\sigma$.
708: \\
709: $\bullet$
710: KamLAND confirms LMA.
711: \\
712: {$\bullet$} Best-fit $\Delta m^2$ shifts from
713: $6 \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$ as obtained from global solar analysis to
714: $7.2 \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2$.\\
715: {$\bullet$}
716: There is no significant change in best-fit $\theta$ {($\tan^2\theta =0.4$)}.
717: \\
718: {$\bullet$}{LMA region splits into two parts at 99\% C.L.}.
719: \\
720: {$\bullet$}{$3\sigma$ allowed range after the first KamLAND data
721: is {$4.96 \times 10^{-5}$ eV$^2 < \Delta m^2 < 2 \times 10^{-4}$ eV$^2$} and
722: {$0.27 < \tan^2\theta < 0.88$}}.
723: \\
724: {$\bullet$}Transitions to a mixed state is still allowed with
725: $<13\%(52\%)$ sterile mixture at $1\sigma(3\sigma)$
726: \cite{Bahcall:2002ij}.
727: \\
728: At this juncture
729: the emerging goals in solar neutrino research are
730: \\
731: (i)precise determination of the oscillation parameters;
732: \\
733: (ii)to observe the low energy end of the solar neutrino spectrum
734: consisting of the pp,CNO and the $^7{Be}$ line and do a full
735: solar neutrino spectroscopy.\\
736: As far as precision determination of \dm is concerned \kl has remarkable
737: sensitivity and 3 kton year \kl data can remove the ambiguity between the
738: two presently allowed zones completely.
739: Even before that a day-night asymmetry $>1$\%
740: in SNO can exclude LMA2 \cite{deHolanda:2002iv}.
741: However the constraining power of \kl for $\theta$ is not as good
742: being limited by the 6\% systematic error and also by the fact that
743: in the statistically significant regions
744: the observed \kl spectrum corresponds to a peak in the survival probability
745: where the $\theta$ sensitivity is
746: very low.
747: At the present value of the best-fit parameters in the low-LMA region
748: a new \kl like reactor experiment
749: with a baseline of $\sim$ 70 km will be sensitive to the
750: the minimum in the survival probability
751: increasing the $\theta$ sensitivity by a large amount
752: \cite{Bandyopadhyay:2003du}.
753: The upcoming
754: Borexino experiment should see a rate {$0.64 \pm 0.03~(1\sigma)$ }
755: and no day-night asymmetry.
756: It cannot differentiate between the two LMA regions.
757: However it can provide a measurement of the $^7{Be}$ flux coming from the sun.
758: Real time measurement of the $pp$ neutrino flux is the target of the so
759: called "LowNU" experiments like
760: XMASS, HELLAZ, HERON. CLEAN, MUNU, GENIUS using $\nu-e$ scattering
761: and LENS, MOON and SIREN using charged current reactions \cite{scho}.
762: All these experiments involve development of new and challenging
763: experimental concepts and research work is in progress
764: for evolving these techniques.
765:
766: I acknowledge my collaborators A. Bandyopadhyay, S. Choubey, R. Gandhi and
767: D.P. Roy.
768:
769:
770: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
771: \bibitem{bp00} J. N. Bahcall, M.H. Pinsonneault and S. Basu,
772: Astrophys. J. {\bf 555} (2001)990.
773:
774: %\cite{Goswami:2003b}
775: \bibitem{Goswami:2003b}
776: S.~Goswami,
777: %``Solar neutrino experiments: An overview,''
778: arXiv:hep-ph/0303075
779: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0303075;%%.
780:
781: %\cite{Miramonti:wz}
782: \bibitem{Miramonti:wz}
783: L.~Miramonti and F.~Reseghetti,
784: %``Solar Neutrino Physics: Historical Evolution, Present Status And Perspectives,''
785: Riv.\ Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf 25N7} (2002) 1
786: [arXiv:hep-ex/0302035].
787: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0302035;%%
788:
789: \bibitem{cl} B. T. Cleveland {\it et al.,} Astroph. J. {\bf 496}
790: (1998) 505.
791:
792: \bibitem{ga}
793: J.N. Abdurashitov et al., (The SAGE collaboration),
794: astro-ph/0204245; W. Hampel {\em et al.}, (The Gallex collaboration),
795: Phys. Lett. {bf B447}, 127 (1999);
796: M. Altmann {\it et al.}, (The GNO collaboration),Phys. Lett. {\bf
797: B492},16 (2000).
798:
799: \bibitem{kam}Y. Fukuda {\em et al.}, (The
800: Kamiokande collaboration), {Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 77}, 1683
801: (1996).
802:
803: \bibitem{superk}
804: S.~Fukuda {\it et al.} [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],
805: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 539}, 179 (2002).
806:
807: \bibitem{snocc}Q.R. Ahmad {\it et al.},
808: (The SNO Collaboration)
809: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 071301 (2001).
810:
811: \bibitem{snonc}
812: Q.~R.~Ahmad {\it et al.} (SNO Collaboration),Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89}, 011301 (2002);
813: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 89}, 011302 (2002).
814:
815: %\cite{Fukuda:2001nj}
816: \bibitem{Fukuda:2001nj}
817: S.~Fukuda {\it et al.} [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration],
818: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 86} (2001) 5651.
819:
820: \bibitem{smy2002}
821: M.~B.~Smy, hep-ex/0202020.
822:
823: \bibitem{bruno}B. Pontecorvo, JETP {\bf{6}}, 429 (1958);
824: Z. Maki, M.
825: Nakagawa and S. Sakata, Prog. Theor. Phys. {\bf{28}}, 870 (1962).
826:
827: \bibitem{msw}
828: L. Wolfenstein, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D34}, 969 (1986);
829: S.P. Mikheyev and A.Yu. Smirnov, {\em Sov. J. Nucl.
830: Phys.} {\bf 42(6)}, 913 (1985); {\em Nuovo Cimento} {\bf 9c}, 17 (1986).
831:
832: \bibitem{petcov}S.T. Petcov, Phys.
833: Lett. B214 (1988) 139; Phys. Lett. B406, 355 (1997);
834: G.L. Fogli, E.Lisi, D. Montanino and A. Palazzo,
835: Phys. Rev. {\bf D62}, 113004, (2000).
836:
837: \bibitem{Choubey:2001bi}
838: S.~Choubey, S.~Goswami and D.~P.~Roy,
839: %``Energy independent solution to the solar neutrino anomaly including the SNO
840: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 65}, 073001 (2002)
841: S.~Choubey, S.~Goswami, N.~Gupta and D.~P.~Roy,
842: %``Reviving the energy independent suppression of the solar neutrino flux,''
843: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64}, 053002 (2001).
844:
845: \bibitem{Choubey:2001ws}
846: S.~Choubey, S.~Goswami, K.~Kar, H.~M.~Antia and S.~M.~Chitre,
847: %``Global oscillation analysis of solar neutrino data with helioseismically constrained fluxes,''
848: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 64} (2001) 113001
849:
850: \bibitem{our-snocc}
851: A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey, S.~Goswami and K.~Kar,
852: %``Impact of the first SNO results on neutrino mass and mixing,''
853: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 519}, 83 (2001).
854: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0106264;%%
855:
856: \bibitem{Choubey:2002nc}
857: S.~Choubey, A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Goswami and D.~P.~Roy,
858: %``SNO and the solar neutrino problem,''
859: arXiv:hep-ph/0209222.
860: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0209222;%%
861:
862: \bibitem{our-snonc2}
863: A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey, S.~Goswami and D.~P.~Roy,
864: %``Implications of the first neutral current data from SNO for solar neutrino oscillation,''
865: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 540}, 14 (2002).
866:
867: \bibitem{Bandyopadhyay:2002qg}
868: A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey and S.~Goswami,
869: %``Neutrino decay confronts the SNO data,''
870: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 555}, 33 (2003).
871:
872: \bibitem{others}
873: %\cite{Barger:2002iv}
874: %\bibitem{Barger:2002iv}
875: V.~Barger, D.~Marfatia, K.~Whisnant and B.~P.~Wood,
876: %``Imprint of SNO neutral current data on the solar neutrino problem,''
877: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 537}, 179 (2002);
878: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204253;%%;
879: %
880: %\cite{Creminelli:2001ij}
881: %\bibitem{Creminelli:2001ij}
882: P.~Creminelli, G.~Signorelli and A.~Strumia,
883: %``Frequentist analyses of solar neutrino data,''
884: %JHEP {\bf 0105}, 052 (2001)
885: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102234 (version 3)];
886: %
887: J.~N.~Bahcall, M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia and C.~Pena-Garay,
888: %``Before and after: How has the SNO neutral current measurement changed things?,''
889: JHEP {\bf 0207}, 054 (2002)
890: %
891: ; %\cite{deHolanda:2002pp}
892: %\bibitem{deHolanda:2002pp}
893: P.~C.~de Holanda and A.~Yu.~Smirnov,
894: %``Solar neutrinos: Global analysis with day and night spectra from SNO,''
895: arXiv:hep-ph/0205241;
896: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0205241;%%%
897: %
898: %\cite{Fogli:2002pt}
899: %\bibitem{Fogli:2002pt}
900: G.~L.~Fogli, E.~Lisi, A.~Marrone, D.~Montanino and A.~Palazzo,
901: %``Getting the most from the statistical analysis of solar neutrino oscillations,''
902: arXiv:hep-ph/0206162.
903: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0206162;%%
904:
905: %\cite{Gonzalez-Garcia:2000dj}
906: \bibitem{Gonzalez-Garcia:2000dj}
907: M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia, C.~Pena-Garay and A.~Yu.~Smirnov,
908: %``Zenith angle distributions at Super-Kamiokande and SNO and the solution of the solar neutrino problem,''
909: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63}, 113004 (2001).
910: %[arXiv:hep-ph/0012313].
911: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0012313;%%
912:
913: \bibitem{kl}
914: %\cite{Eguchi:2002dm}
915: %\bibitem{Eguchi:2002dm}
916: K.~Eguchi {\it et al.} [KamLAND Collaboration],
917: %``First results from KamLAND: Evidence for reactor anti-neutrino disappearance,''
918: Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 90}, 021802 (2003).
919: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0212021;%%
920:
921: %
922: %\cite{Bahcall:2002ij}
923: \bibitem{Bahcall:2002ij}
924: J.~N.~Bahcall, M.~C.~Gonzalez-Garcia and C.~Pena-Garay,
925: %``Solar neutrinos before and after KamLAND,''
926: arXiv:hep-ph/0212147.
927: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212147;%%
928:
929: \bibitem{raj}
930: A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey, R.~Gandhi, S.~Goswami and D.~P.~Roy,
931: %``Testing the solar LMA region with KamLAND data,''
932: arXiv:hep-ph/0211266.
933: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0211266;%%
934:
935: %\cite{Bandyopadhyay:2002en}
936: \bibitem{Bandyopadhyay:2002en}
937: A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey, R.~Gandhi, S.~Goswami and D.~P.~Roy,
938: %``The solar neutrino problem after the first results from KamLAND,''
939: arXiv:hep-ph/0212146.
940: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212146;%%
941:
942: %\cite{Fogli:2002au}
943: \bibitem{Fogli:2002au}
944: G.~L.~Fogli, E.~Lisi, A.~Marrone, D.~Montanino, A.~Palazzo and A.~M.~Rotunno,
945: %``Solar neutrino oscillation parameters after first KamLAND results,''
946: arXiv:hep-ph/0212127;
947:
948: %\cite{deHolanda:2002iv}
949: \bibitem{deHolanda:2002iv}
950: P.~C.~de Holanda and A.~Yu.~Smirnov,
951: %``LMA MSW solution of the solar neutrino problem and first KamLAND results,''
952: arXiv:hep-ph/0212270.
953: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0212270;%%
954: %
955: %\cite{Bandyopadhyay:2003du}
956: \bibitem{Bandyopadhyay:2003du}
957: A.~Bandyopadhyay, S.~Choubey and S.~Goswami,
958: %``Exploring the sensitivity of current and future experiments to
959: arXiv:hep-ph/0302243, to appear in Phys. Rev.D.
960: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0302243;%%
961:
962: \bibitem{scho}The talk by S. Sch\"{o}nert,
963: http://neutrino2002.ph.tum.de.
964:
965: \end{thebibliography}
966: \end{document}
967: ;
968:
969: ;
970:
971:
972: