1:
2: \documentclass[12pt,cite,epsf,epsfig]{article}
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6:
7: \renewcommand{\today}{}
8: \setlength\textwidth{6.5 in}
9: \setlength\topmargin{-0.5cm}
10: \setlength\textheight{9 in}
11: \addtolength\evensidemargin{-1.cm}
12: \addtolength\oddsidemargin{-1.cm}
13: \font\tenrm=cmr10
14: \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}
15: \setlength{\parskip}{6pt}
16:
17:
18:
19:
20:
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: \author{S. DEV\thanks{dev5703@yahoo.com}
25: and SANJEEV KUMAR\thanks{sanjeev3kumar@yahoo.co.in}}
26: \title{Spectral Distortions at Super-Kamiokande}
27: \date{Department of Physics, Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla 171005, INDIA}
28: \maketitle
29:
30: \begin{abstract}
31: We examine the effect of the rise in the survival probability of the electron
32: neutrinos with the decrease in the neutrino energy on the recoil electron spectrum
33: at Super-Kamiokande.
34: \end{abstract}
35:
36:
37:
38:
39: The neutral current (NC) measurements at SNO \cite{1} have,
40: conclusively, established the oscillations of the solar neutrinos
41: and after the evidence for terrestrial antineutrino disappearance
42: in a beam of electronic antineutrinos reported by KamLAND
43: \cite{2}, all other solutions \cite{3,4,5} of SNP can, at best, be
44: just sub-dominant effects. The solar neutrino experiments have,
45: already, entered a phase of precision measurements for oscillation
46: parameters. The completeness of the LMA solution is being questioned
47: \cite{6} and the scope for some possible sub-dominant transitions is
48: being explored vigorously \cite{7,8,9,10,11}. The presence of these `new
49: physics' (NP) effects even at a sub-dominant level will
50: affect the present determination of the oscillation parameters \cite{11}.
51: As of now, the exact profile of the survival probability of
52: electronic neutrinos over the whole energy spectrum remains
53: unknown as a result of which it is not possible to pin point the
54: exact mechanism(s) of neutrino flavor conversion or to exclude the
55: coexistence of the other sub-dominant transitions driven by non-
56: standard neutrino-matter interactions/ properties. The situation
57: is complicated by the fact that the transition probability in some
58: of these non-standard NP scenarios \cite{12} is energy-independent
59: implying an undistorted solar neutrino spectrum which is
60: consistent with the Super-Kamiokande and SNO spectral data.
61:
62:
63:
64:
65:
66: In order to study the effect of the rise in the electron survival
67: probability on the recoil electron spectrum, we define a quantity $S(T)$ as
68: \begin{equation}
69: S(T) =\frac{\left\langle \frac{d\sigma }{dT}\right\rangle _{LMA}}{
70: \left\langle \frac{d\sigma }{dT}\right\rangle _{SSM}}
71: =\frac{\int_{E_{\min }}^{E_{\max }}dEf(E)\left[ \frac{d\sigma _{e}}{dT}
72: P(E)+\frac{d\sigma _{x}}{dT}\left\{ 1-P(E)\right\} \right]
73: }{\int_{E_{\min }}^{E_{\max }}dEf(E)\frac{d\sigma _{e}}{dT}},
74: \end{equation}
75: where $P(E)$ is the LMA survival probability \cite{13} and $f(E)$
76: is the standard $^8$B neutrino spectrum \cite{14}. The quantity $S(T)$
77: has the interpretation as the probability of an electron
78: being scattered with a recoil kinetic energy T and closely
79: resembles the SK data/SSM ratio with the only difference that the
80: SK data/SSM ratio is presented for individual energy bins while
81: $S(T)$ as defined above is a continuous function of recoil
82: electron energy. The tree level cross-sections for $\nu _{e}e$ and
83: $\nu _{x}e$ ($x=\mu ,\tau $) scattering have been given in Ref. [15].
84: In fact, $S(T)$ is the LMA expectation for the
85: recoil electron spectrum normalized to the standard $^{8}$B
86: neutrino spectrum and has been plotted as a function of T in Fig.
87: 1 along with the $S(T)$ for energy-independent asymptotic value of
88: the LMA survival probability for comparison. The two probabilities
89: differ considerably from each other and this difference could be
90: as large as 10\% at 5 MeV. This is enough to highlight the role of
91: spectral distortions in discriminating the LMA suppression
92: scenario from the energy independent suppression NP scenarios
93: mentioned above \cite{12}. At the current level of precision, both the LMA
94: suppression and the energy-independent suppression are consistent
95: with the SK as well as SNO solar neutrino data. Consequently, one
96: can not claim a conclusive confirmation of the LMA solution from
97: the exclusive study of the high energy region of the solar
98: neutrino spectrum. It is, therefore, imperative to study
99: quantitatively the spectral distortions not only to finally
100: confirm the LMA solution but also to disentangle the possible NP
101: effects.
102:
103:
104:
105: The probability that a recoil electron
106: with true kinetic energy $T_{true}$ will be detected with the observed
107: kinetic energy $T_{obs}$ is given by
108: \begin{equation}
109: r\left( T_{true},T_{obs}\right) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma
110: _{T}}\exp \left( -\frac{\left( T_{true}-T_{obs}\right)
111: ^{2}}{2\sigma _{T}^{2}}\right)
112: \end{equation}
113: and is called the detector response function. The energy-dependent spread, $%
114: \sigma _{T}$, is of the form
115: \begin{equation}
116: \sigma _{T}=\epsilon \sqrt{\frac{T_{true}}{10MeV}}
117: \end{equation}
118: so that $\epsilon $ is the energy spread at 10 MeV. For SK,
119: $\epsilon =1.4$. To account for the finite energy resolution, the
120: differential cross-section must be folded with the detector
121: response function, i.e. we must have
122: \begin{equation}
123: \left\langle \frac{d\sigma }{dT}\right\rangle \left(
124: T_{obs}\right) =\int_{0}^{\infty }dT_{true}\left\langle
125: \frac{d\sigma }{dT}\right\rangle \left( T_{true}\right) r\left(
126: T_{true},T_{obs}\right)
127: \end{equation}
128: in Eq. (1) for $S(T)$ to obtain the observed value of
129: \begin{equation}
130: S(T_{obs})=\frac{\int_{0}^{\infty }dT_{true}r\left(
131: T_{true},T_{obs}\right)
132: \int_{E_{\min }}^{E_{\max }}dEf(E)\left[ \frac{d\sigma _{e}}{dT_{true}}P(E)+%
133: \frac{d\sigma _{x}}{dT_{true}}\left\{ 1-P(E)\right\} \right] }{%
134: \int_{0}^{\infty }dT_{true}r\left( T_{true},T_{obs}\right)
135: \int_{E_{\min }}^{E_{\max }}dEf(E)\frac{d\sigma _{e}}{dT_{true}}}.
136: \end{equation}
137: The quantity $S(T_{obs})$
138: has been plotted as a function of $T_{obs}$ in Fig. 2 for the LMA
139: value of survival probability as well as the energy independent
140: asymptotic value (EIAV) of the survival probability. Also shown
141: are the same two curves depicted in Fig. 1 assuming perfect energy
142: resolution. We integrate $S(T_{obs})$ over the total recoil electron
143: energy $E_{obs}=T_{obs}+m_e$ in the bins of 0.5 MeV. This
144: integrated normalized spectrum is denoted by $\mathcal{S}$ and has
145: been plotted in Fig. 3 alongwith the actual 1496 day SK spectrum
146: normalized to BP04 with statistical errors only \cite{16}.
147: One can calculate the rise in the LMA value $S_{LMA}(T_{obs})$
148: relative to the energy independent asymptotic value
149: $S_{EIAV}(T_{obs})$ at a particular value of $T_{obs}$ by defining
150: \begin{equation}
151: R(T_{obs})=\frac{S_{LMA}(T_{obs})-S_{EIAV}(T_{obs})}{S_{EIAV}(T_{obs})}.
152: \end{equation}
153: It is instructive to see the variation in $R(T_{obs})$ because of
154: the energy spread $\epsilon $. Fig. 4 shows $R(T_{obs})$ for
155: $\epsilon =0$ (perfect energy resolution) and for $\epsilon =1.4$
156: (finite energy resolution). It is clear that as a result of finite
157: energy resolution of the detector, $S_{LMA}(T_{obs})$ and,
158: therefore, $R(T_{obs})$ gets enhanced as compared to the
159: corresponding values for perfect energy resolution and, again,
160: this increase is more pronounced at the higher energies. Although,
161: the curve for $R(T_{obs})$ becomes flatter because of the finite
162: energy resolution of the detector but the actual value of
163: $R(T_{obs})$ becomes larger which is an advantage.
164: One can compare the value of $\mathcal{S}$ in a low
165: energy bin viz. $\mathcal{S}_L$ with that in a high energy bin
166: viz. $\mathcal{S}_H$ and find the relative increase in
167: $\mathcal{S}$ by defining the relative rise-up $\mathcal{R}$ as
168: \begin{equation}
169: \mathcal{R}=\frac{\mathcal{S}_L-\mathcal{S}_H}{\mathcal{S}_H}.
170: \end{equation}
171: It is important to note that $\mathcal{R}$ defined above is
172: essentially independent of the flux normalization. Otherwise, it
173: would have been difficult to directly compare $\mathcal{S}$ with
174: the experimental data which has to be normalized to the SSM
175: $^{8}B$ flux which is not known accurately enough. Also, the above
176: definition is, almost, independent of $\theta _{13}$ since the
177: factor of $\cos ^{4}\theta _{13}$ cancels in the ratio. A non-zero
178: $\theta _{13}$ will suppress $S(T)$ by the factor of $\cos
179: ^{4}\theta _{13}$ but the `rise-up' $\mathcal{R}$ will remain
180: practically unchanged (see Fig. 1). Thus, if the SK spectrum is
181: found to differ from the LMA spectrum, this conflict cannot be
182: reconciled even in a 3-flavor framework since the LMA value of
183: $\mathcal{R}$ is the same in two/three-flavor framework for small
184: $\theta _{13}$. This is contrary to some assertions made recently
185: \cite{17} in literature. Moreover, some part of the energy
186: correlated systematic uncertainties will cancel in $\mathcal{R}$.
187:
188:
189: The variable $\mathcal{R}$ defined in Eq. (7) can be used as an
190: observable to quantify the turn-up in the data/SSM ratio at SK at
191: low energies. It is different from the global observables like the
192: moments defined in Ref. [18] in the sense that it directly
193: compares the normalized spectral data at two energy ends of the
194: spectrum while the moments are global quantities which are not
195: suitable for this purpose. Moreover, the SK solar neutrino data
196: is, already, available in small energy bins. For the sake of
197: illustration, we choose the bins $E=5.5-6.0 MeV$ and $E=13.0-13.5
198: MeV$ and evaluate $\mathcal{R}$ for these bins to obtain
199: \begin{equation}
200: \mathcal{R}=-0.054\pm0.126
201: \end{equation}
202: where both the systematic and statistical errors have been
203: incorporated in the analysis. The rise-up is not significantly
204: different from zero for these energy bins. The upper bound on
205: $\mathcal{R}$ is approximately 0.07 (0.20) at $1 \sigma$ ($2
206: \sigma$) C.L.. This is to be compared with the corresponding LMA
207: value of rise-up
208: \begin{equation}
209: \mathcal{R}_{LMA}^{day}=0.087^{+0.026}_{-0.016}
210: \end{equation}
211: for $\Delta m^2=7.9\pm 0.3\times 10^{-5} eV^2$ and $\sin^2
212: \theta_{12}=0.3^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ where the earth regeneration
213: effects have been neglected. However, the earth regeneration
214: effects can be incorporated in a straight forward manner which
215: yields
216: \begin{equation}
217: \mathcal{R}_{LMA}^{night}=0.070^{+0.024}_{-0.015}.
218: \end{equation}
219: The rise-up in the total (day+night) SSM normalized rate is
220: \begin{equation}
221: \mathcal{R}_{LMA}=0.078^{+0.025}_{-0.016}.
222: \end{equation}
223: This LMA value is compatible with the present experimental value
224: [Eq. (8)] within 1 $\sigma$ C.L..
225: The `rise-up' $\mathcal{R}$ in the total (day+night) SSM
226: normalized rate has been plotted in Fig. 5 as a function of
227: $\theta _{12}$ for the central and 1 $\sigma$ upper/lower values
228: of $\Delta m_{12}^{2}$. Since, the rise-up $\mathcal{R}$ becomes
229: larger for smaller values of $\theta _{12}$, an upper bound on
230: $\mathcal{R}$ can be used to obtain a lower bound on $\theta
231: _{12}$ \cite{9}. Fig. 6 depicts the improvement in the
232: upper bound on $\mathcal{R}$ with increase in statistics and
233: reduction in systematic errors at Super-Kamiokande. The
234: confidence levels for the measurement of $\mathcal{R}$ with the
235: increase in statistics and a projected reduction in systematic errors
236: at SK have been given in Fig. 7 from which it is clear that with the present
237: level of accuracy at Super-Kamiokande, a rise-up of $20\%$ can be
238: measured at $1.1\sigma$ C.L. Not much improvement results even
239: with the increased statistics with the present level of systematic
240: errors. The contribution of \textit{hep} neutrinos for the bins we have
241: examined is very small (about $1.2\%$) for the SSM value of this
242: flux. However, arbitrarily large values of \textit{hep} flux can
243: substantially affect the higher energy bins with energy greater
244: than 14 MeV.
245:
246:
247:
248: The enhancement in $S(T)$ for smaller values of $T$ can be used to
249: further constrain the currently allowed neutrino parameter space.
250: We illustrate this point by plotting the constant $\mathcal{S}$
251: and $\mathcal{R}$ curves on the ($\Delta m_{12}^{2}$,
252: $\theta_{12}$) plane. The quantity $\mathcal{S}$ is obtained by
253: integrating $S(T)$ over the energy bin of 0.5 MeV centered around
254: $T=5 MeV$ and the quantity $\mathcal{R}$ is calculated from Eq.
255: (7) for the energy bins of 0.5 MeV centered around $T=5 MeV$, $15
256: MeV$. We choose these values for illustrative purposes only. The
257: constant $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{R}$ curves on the ($\Delta
258: m_{12}^{2}$, $\theta _{12}$) plane are shown in Fig. 8 for the
259: ($\Delta m_{12}^{2}$, $\theta_{12}$) parameter space within the
260: currently allowed LMA region. For $\Delta m_{12}^{2}$ and
261: $\theta_{12}$, we select the $2 \sigma$ ranges of these quantities
262: and plot the constant $\mathcal{S}$ curves for
263: $\mathcal{S}=0.44,0.46,0.48$ (curves with negative slope from left
264: to right, respectively) and, also, plot the constant $\mathcal{R}$
265: curves for $\mathcal{R}=0.12, 0.10, 0.08$ (curves with positive
266: slope from left to right, respectively). It is evident that there
267: is an increase in $\mathcal{S}$ and decrease in $\mathcal{R}$ with
268: increasing $\theta_{12}$. Therefore, an accurate measurement of
269: $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{R}$ at 5MeV will further constrain the
270: LMA allowed $\theta_{12}$. For instance, if $\mathcal{S}$ is
271: found to be smaller than 0.46 (i.e. $\mathcal{S}\leq 0.46$) and
272: $\mathcal{R}$ is found to be less than 12\% (i.e. $\mathcal{R}\leq
273: 12\%$), $\theta_{12}$ will, approximately, be within the range
274: $31^o\le \theta_{12} \le34^o$. In conclusion, the prospects for the
275: observation of spectral distortions at SK-III, in case it comes up,
276: appear to be bright \cite{19}. The failure to observe spectral
277: distortions at SK-III would signal new physics beyond LMA.
278:
279:
280: The research work of S. D. is supported by Department of Atomic
281: Energy, Government of India \textit{vide} Grant No. 2004/ 37/ 23/
282: BRNS/ 399. S. K. acknowledges the financial support provided by
283: Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), India.
284:
285: \pagebreak
286:
287: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
288: \bibitem{1} B. Aharmin \textit{et al} (SNO Collab.), nucl-ex/0502021.
289:
290: \bibitem{2} K. Eguchi \textit{et al} (KamLAND Collab.), \textit{Phys.
291: Rev. Lett.} \textbf{90}, 021802 (2003).
292:
293: \bibitem{3} C. S. Lim and W. J. Marciano,\textit{\ Phys. Rev.} \textbf{D37},
294: 1368 (1988).
295:
296: \bibitem{4} B. C. Chauhan, S. Dev and U. C. Pandey, \textit{Phys.
297: Rev.} \textbf{D 59}, 083002 (1999).
298:
299: \bibitem{5} E. Kh. Akhmedov and J. Pulido, \textit{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{B
300: 485}, 178 (2000), \textit{ibid.}, \textbf{B 553}, 7 (2003).
301:
302: \bibitem{6} A. Yu. Smirnov, arXiv:hep-ph/0305106 v2.
303:
304: \bibitem{7} P. C. de Hollanda and A. Yu. Smirnov, \textit{Phys.
305: Rev.} \textbf{D 69}, 113002 (2004).
306:
307: \bibitem{8} Bhag C. Chauhan and Jo$\widetilde{a}$o Pulido,
308: arXiv:hep-ph/0402194.
309:
310: \bibitem{9} S. Dev and Sanjeev Kumar,\textit{\ Mod. Phys. Lett.} \textbf{20}, 2083,
311: (2005).
312:
313: \bibitem{10} S. Dev and Sanjeev Kumar,\textit{\ Mod. Phys. Lett.} \textbf{20}, 2957,
314: (2005).
315:
316: \bibitem{11} H. Back \textit{et al}, arXiv:hep-ex/0412016 and references therein.
317:
318: \bibitem{12} J. W. F. Valle, \textit{Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.} \textbf{26},
319: 91, (1991); \textit{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{B 199}, 432, (1987).
320:
321: \bibitem{13} S. J. Parke,\textit{\ Phys. Rev. Lett.}
322: \textbf{57}, 1275, (1986).
323:
324: \bibitem{14} J. N. Bahcall, \textit{Nuc. Phys.} \textit{(Proc. Suppl.)},
325: \textbf{B118}, 77 (2003).
326:
327: \bibitem{15} G. t'Hooft, \textit{Phys. Lett.} \textbf{B37}, 195,
328: (1971).
329:
330: \bibitem{16} J. Hosaka \textit{et al}, (Super-Kamiokande Collab.),
331: hep-ex/0508053.
332:
333: \bibitem{17} Bipin Singh Koranga, Mohan Narayan, and S. Uma Sankar,
334: arXiv:hep-ph/0503029.
335:
336: \bibitem{18} J. N. Bahcall, P. I. Krastev and E. Lisi, \textit{Phys. Rev.}
337: \textbf{C 55}, 494, (1997).
338:
339: \bibitem{19} K. Ishihara [Super-Kamiokande Collab.], Invited Talk
340: at ICHEP04 (2004).
341:
342: \end{thebibliography}
343:
344:
345:
346:
347: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
348: \begin{figure}[tb]
349: \begin{center}
350: %\vskip 1cm
351: {\epsfig{file=figure1a.eps, width=8.0cm,
352: height=7.5cm}\epsfig{file=figure1b.eps, width=8.0cm,
353: height=7.5cm}}
354:
355: \end{center}
356: \caption{S(T) versus T for $\theta_{13}=0^o$ (left panel) and
357: $\theta_{13}=12.3^o$ (right panel).}
358: \end{figure}
359: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
360:
361: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
362: \begin{figure}[tb]
363: \begin{center}
364: %\vskip 1cm
365: \rotatebox{0}{\epsfig{file=figure2.eps, width=10.0cm,
366: height=7.5cm}}
367: \end{center}
368: \caption{Probability folded with detector response function and
369: neutrino cross-sections as the function of recoil electron kinetic
370: energy.}
371: \end{figure}
372: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
373:
374: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
375: \begin{figure}[tb]
376: \begin{center}
377: %\vskip 1cm
378: \rotatebox{0}{\epsfig{file=figure3.eps, width=10.0cm,
379: height=7.5cm}}
380: \end{center}
381: \caption{The recoil electron spectrum normalized to SSM in the
382: bins of 0.5 MeV ($\mathcal{S}$). The SK data with statistical
383: errors is also shown for comparison.}
384: \end{figure}
385: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
386:
387: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
388: \begin{figure}[tb]
389: \begin{center}
390: %\vskip 1cm
391: \rotatebox{0}{\epsfig{file=figure4.eps, width=10.0cm,
392: height=7.5cm}}
393: \end{center}
394: \caption{$R(E_{obs})$ versus $E_{obs}$.}
395: \end{figure}
396: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
397:
398: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
399: \begin{figure}[tb]
400: \begin{center}
401: %\vskip 1cm
402: \rotatebox{0}{\epsfig{file=figure5.eps, width=10cm, height=7.5cm}}
403: \end{center} \caption{The rise-up $\mathcal{R}$ in the total (day+night)
404: SSM normalized rate versus $\theta_{12}$ for the central and 1
405: $\sigma$ upper/lower values of $\Delta m^2$. The solar mixing
406: angle $\theta_{12}$ has been varied over its 1 $\sigma$ range.}
407: \end{figure}
408: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
409:
410: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
411:
412: \begin{figure}[tb]
413: \begin{center}
414: %\vskip 1cm
415: \rotatebox{0}{\epsfig{file=figure6a.eps, width=7.5cm,
416: height=7.5cm}}{\epsfig{file=figure6b.eps, width=7.5cm,
417: height=7.5cm}}
418: \end{center}
419: \caption{Improvements in the upper bound on $\mathcal{R}$ with
420: increased statistics with present (left panel) and half of the
421: present (right panel) systematic errors. The solid, dashed and
422: dotted lines are the upper bounds at 1, 2 and 3 $\sigma$ C.L.}
423: \end{figure}
424: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
425:
426: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
427:
428: \begin{figure}[tb]
429: \begin{center}
430: %\vskip 1cm
431: \rotatebox{0}{\epsfig{file=figure7a.eps, width=7.5cm,
432: height=7.5cm}} {\epsfig{file=figure7b.eps, width=7.5cm,
433: height=7.4cm}}
434: \end{center}
435: \caption{(a) Confidence levels for the measurement of
436: $\mathcal{R}$ with increase in statistics for present systematic
437: errors (left panel). (b) Confidence levels for the measurement of
438: $\mathcal{R}$ with increase in statistics for half of the present
439: systematic errors (right panel). The solid, dashed and dotted
440: lines are for $\mathcal{R}=0.10,0.15$ and $0.20$.}
441: \end{figure}
442: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
443:
444: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
445:
446: \begin{figure}[tb]
447: \begin{center}
448: %\vskip 1cm
449: \rotatebox{0}{\epsfig{file=figure8.eps, width=10.0cm,
450: height=7.5cm}}
451: \end{center}
452: \caption{Constant $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{R}$ plots.}
453: \end{figure}
454: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
455:
456: \end{document}
457: