1: \documentstyle[12pt]{article}
2: \def\la{\mathrel{\mathchoice {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil
3: $\displaystyle##$\hfil\cr<\cr\sim\cr}}}
4: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\textstyle##$\hfil\cr<\cr\sim\cr}}}
5: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptstyle##$\hfil\cr<\cr\sim\cr}}}
6: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptscriptstyle##$\hfil\cr<\cr\sim
7: \cr}}}}}
8: \def\ga{\mathrel{\mathchoice {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil
9: $\displaystyle##$\hfil\cr>\cr\sim\cr}}}
10: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\textstyle##$\hfil\cr>\cr\sim\cr}}}
11: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptstyle##$\hfil\cr>\cr\sim\cr}}}
12: {\vcenter{\offinterlineskip\halign{\hfil$\scriptscriptstyle##$\hfil\cr>\cr\sim
13: \cr}}}}}
14: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}
15: \begin{document}
16: \begin{center}
17: {\bf Probing deviations from tri-bimaximal mixing through ultra high
18: energy neutrino signals}
19: \end{center}
20: %\vskip 01.in
21: \begin{center}
22: Debasish Majumdar and Ambar Ghosal
23: \end{center}
24: %\vskip 01.in
25: \begin{center}
26: {\it Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics} \\
27: {\it 1/AF Bidhannagar, Kolkata 700 064, INDIA}
28: \end{center}
29: \begin{center}
30: {\bf Abstract}
31: \end{center}
32: We investigate deviation from the tri-bimaximal mixing in the case of
33: ultra high energy neutrino using ICECUBE detector. We consider the ratio of
34: number of muon tracks to the shower generated due to eletrons and hadrons.
35: Our analysis shows that for tri-bimaximal mixing the ratio comes out
36: around 4.05. Keeping $\theta_{12}$ and $\theta_{23}$ fixed at tri-bimaximal
37: value, we have varied the angle $\theta_{13}$ = $3^o$, $6^o$, $9^o$
38: and the value of the ratio gradually decreases. The variation of ratio
39: lies within $8\%$ to $18\%$ from the tri-bimaximal mixing value and it is
40: very difficult to detect such small variation by the ICECUBE detector.
41: \vskip 1.5cm
42: PACS No.98.70.Rz, 95.85.Ry, 14.60.Pq
43: \newpage
44: \section{Introduction}
45:
46: Various experiments for solar and atmospheric neutrinos provide
47: a range for the values of solar mixing angle $\theta_\odot = \theta_{12}$
48: (the 1-2 mixing angle) \cite{sfit}
49: that corresponds to solar neutrino oscillations and also a range for
50: atmospheric mixing
51: angle $\theta_{\rm atm} = \theta_{23}$ (the 2-3 mixing angle) \cite{sfit}
52: around their best fit values. The tri-bimaximal mixing condition
53: of neutrinos are given by $\sin \theta_{12} = \frac {1} {\sqrt {3}}$,
54: $\sin \theta_{23} = \frac {1} {\sqrt {2}}$ and $\sin \theta_{13} = 0$
55: \cite{tbi}. Possible deviations from tri-bimaximal mixing can be
56: obtained by probing the ranges of $\theta_{12}$ and $\theta_{23}$
57: given by the experiments. Also the exact 13 mixing angle
58: $\theta_{13}$ is not known except that the CHOOZ \cite{chooz} gives
59: an upper limit for $\theta_{13} (< 9^o)$. Probing the deviations
60: of $\theta_{12}$ and $\theta_{23}$ for different values
61: for $\theta_{13}$ is significant not only to understand the
62: neutrino flavour oscillations in general but also for the purpose
63: of model building for neutrino mass matrices.
64:
65: In this work we explore the possibility for ultra high energy (UHE)
66: neutrinos from distant Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs)
67: for probing the signatures of these deviations of the values of the mixing
68: angles from tri-bimaximal mixing as discussed above. One such proposition
69: of using UHE neutrinos is described in a recent work by Xing \cite{xing}.
70: Gamma Ray Bursts are short lived but intense burst of gamma rays.
71: During its occurence it outshines all other luminous objects in the
72: sky. Although the exact machanism of GRBs could not be ascertained
73: so far but the general wisdom is that it is powered by a central
74: engine provided by a failed star or supernova that possibly turned into a
75: black hole, accretes mass at its surroundings. This infalling mass
76: due to gravity bounces back from the surface of black hole much the same way
77: as the supernova explosion mechanism and a shock is generated that
78: flows radially
79: outwards with enormous amount of energies ($\sim 10^{53}$ ergs). This
80: highly energetic shock wave drives the mass outwards, in the form
81: of a ``fireball" that carries in it, protons, $\gamma$ etc. The pions
82: are produced when the accelerated protons inside the fireball
83: interacts with $\gamma$ through a cosmic beam dump
84: process. UHE neutrinos are produced by the decay of these pions.
85: Thus a generic cosmic accelerator accelerates the protons
86: into very high energies which then beam dump on $\gamma$ in the ``fireball"
87: as also at the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and ultra high energy
88: neutrinos are produced.
89:
90: The GRB neutrinos, due to their origin at astronomical distances from earth,
91: provide a very long baseline for the earth bound detectors for UHE
92: neutrinos such as ICECUBE \cite{icecube}. The oscillatory part of the neutrino
93: flavour oscillation probabilities ($\sin^2(\Delta m^2 [L/4E])$) averages
94: out to 1/2 becuase of this very long baseline $L$ ($\sim$ hundreds of Mpc)
95: and the $\Delta m^2$ (mass square difference of two neutrinos)
96: range obtained from solar and atmospheric neutrino
97: experiments are $\Delta m^2_{21} \sim 10^{-4}$ eV$^2$ and
98: $\Delta m^2_{32} \sim 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$ respectively ($L/\Delta m^2 >> 1$).
99: Thus for neutrino flavour
100: oscillation, in this case, the effect of $\Delta m^2$ is washed out and
101: governed only by the three mixing angles namely $\theta_{12} = \theta_\odot$,
102: $\theta_{23} = \theta_{\rm atm}$ and $\theta_{13}$. The purpose of the
103: present work is to probe whether or not the possible variations
104: of $\theta_{12}$ and $\theta_{23}$ from their best fit values can be
105: ascertained by UHE from distant GRBs.
106:
107: The GRB neutrinos, on arriving the earth, undergo charged current (CC) and
108: neutral current (NC) interactions with the earth rock and the detector
109: material. The CC interactions of $\nu_\mu$ produce secondary
110: muons and the same
111: for electrons produce electromagnetic shower ($\nu_\mu + N \rightarrow
112: \mu + X$ and $\nu_e + N \rightarrow e + X$). The former will produce
113: secondary muon tracks and can be detected by track-signal produced
114: by the Cerenkov light emitted by these muons during their passage
115: through a large underground water/ice Cerenkov detectors like ICECUBE.
116: The ICECUBE is a 1km$^3$ detector in south pole ice and can be considered
117: to be immersed in the target material for the UHE neutrinos where
118: the neutrino interactions are initiated.
119: In case of $\nu_e$, the electrons from the $\nu_e N$ CC interactions,
120: shower quickly and can also be detected by such ICECUBE detector.
121: The case of $\nu_\tau$ is somewhat complicated. The first
122: CC interaction of $\nu_\tau$ ($\nu_\tau + N \rightarrow \tau + X$)
123: produces a shower (``first bang") alongwith a $\tau$ track. But the
124: $\nu_\tau$ is regenerated (with diminished energy) by the decay of $\tau$
125: and in the process produces another hadronic or electromagnetic
126: shower (``second bang"). The whole process is called
127: double bang event. In case the first
128: bang could not be detected, then by possible detection of
129: second bang (with showers) the $\tau$ track can be reconstructed or
130: identified and
131: this scenario (the $\tau$ track and the second bang) is
132: called the lollipop events. An inverted lollipop event is one where
133: only the first bang ($\nu_\tau + N \rightarrow \tau + X$) is detected
134: and the subsequent $\tau$ track is detected or reconstructed. As mentioned
135: in Ref. \cite {cao}, the detection of $\nu_\tau$ from their CC interaction
136: mentioned above is not every efficient by a 1km$^3$ detector since
137: the double bang events can possibly be detected only for the $\nu_\tau$
138: energies between 1 PeV to 20 PeV beyond which the tau decay length
139: is longer than the width of such detector and at still higher energies
140: the flux is too small for such detectors for their detection.
141: Hence, in the present work we do not consider the events initiated
142: by $\nu_\tau N$ CC interactions. However, for $\nu_\tau$ we consider
143: the process that may yield events higher than the ``double bang" events.
144: We consider the decay channel of $\tau$ lepton \cite{sarada},
145: obtained from charged current interactions of $\nu_\tau$, where muons
146: are produced
147: ($\nu_\tau \rightarrow \tau \rightarrow {\bar \nu_\mu} \mu \nu_\tau$)
148: which can then be detected as muon tracks \cite{nayantau}
149: in ICECUBE detector.
150: The neutral current (NC) interactions of all flavours however will
151: produce the shower events at ICECUBE and they are considered in this
152: investigation.
153:
154: This paper is organised as follows. In Section 2 we describe the formalism
155: for neutrino fluxes of the three species while reaching the earth. The
156: nature of the GRB flux taken for present calculations is also discussed.
157: The flux suffers flavour oscillations while traversing from GRB site
158: to the earth. The oscillation probabilities are also calculated and
159: the oscillated flux obtained on reaching the earth is determined.
160: They are given in Section 2.1.
161: We also describe in this section the analytical expressions for the yield of
162: secondary muons and shower events at the ice Cerenkov kilometre square
163: detector like ICECUBE. This is given in Section 2.2. The actual calculations
164: and results are discussed in Section 3. Finally, in Section 4,
165: some discussions and summary are given.
166:
167: \section{Formalism}
168:
169: \subsection{GRB Neutrinos Fluxes}
170:
171: The neutrino production in GRB is initiated through the process
172: of cosmological beam dump by which a highly accelerated protons
173: from GRB interacts with $\gamma$ to produce pions which in turn
174: decays to produce $\nu_\mu ({\bar {\nu_\mu}})$ and $\nu_e ({\bar {\nu_e}})$
175: much the same ways as atmospheric neutrinos are produced. They are
176: produced in the proportion $2\nu_\mu : 2{\bar {\nu_\mu}} : 1\nu_e :
177: 1{\bar {\nu_e}}$ \cite{raj1}.
178:
179: For the present calculation we consider the isotropic flux
180: \cite{waxman} resulting from the summation over the sources and
181: as given in Gandhi et al \cite{raj2}. The isotropic GRB flux for
182: $\nu_\mu + {\bar {\nu_\mu}}$ is given as
183: \begin{equation}
184: {\cal F}(E_\nu) = \frac {d N_{\nu_\mu + {\bar {\nu_\mu}}}} {dE_\nu} =
185: {\cal N} \left ( \frac {E_\nu} {1{\rm GeV}} \right )^{-n}
186: {\rm cm}^{-2} {\rm s}^{-1} {\rm sr}^{-1} {\rm GeV}^{-1}
187: \end{equation}
188: In the above,
189: $$
190: {\cal N} = 4.0 \times 10^{-13},\,\,\,\, n=1,\,\,\,\, {\rm for}\,\,\, E_\nu < 10^5
191: \,\,{\rm GeV}
192: $$
193: $$
194: {\cal N} = 4.0 \times 10^{-8},\,\,\,\, n=2,\,\,\,\, {\rm for} \,\,\,E_\nu > 10^5
195: \,\,{\rm GeV}
196: $$
197: Thus,
198: \begin{equation}
199: \begin{array}{rclclclcl}
200: \displaystyle \frac {d N_{\nu_\mu}} {dE_\nu} &=& \phi_{\nu_\mu} &=&
201: \displaystyle \frac {d N_{\bar {\nu_\mu}}} {dE_\nu} &=& \phi_{\bar {\nu_\mu}}
202: &=& 0.5{\cal F}(E_\nu) \\
203: &&&&&&&& \\
204: \displaystyle \frac {d N_{\nu_e}} {dE_\nu} &=& \phi_{\nu_e} &=&
205: \displaystyle \frac {d N_{\bar {\nu_e}}} {dE_\nu} &=& \phi_{\bar {\nu_e}} &=&
206: 0.25{\cal F}(E_\nu)
207: \end{array}
208: \end{equation}
209: The neutrinos undergo flavour oscillation during their passage from the
210: GRB to the earth. Under three flavour oscillation, the $\nu_e$ and $\nu_\mu$
211: originally created at GRB will be oscillated to $\nu_\tau$.
212: Thus after flavour oscillations, the $\nu_e$ fluxes ($F_{\nu_e}$),
213: $\nu_\mu$ fluxes ($F_{\nu_\mu}$), $\nu_\tau$ fluxes ($F_{\nu_\tau}$)
214: become
215: \begin{eqnarray}
216: F_{\nu_e} &=& P_{\nu_e \rightarrow \nu_e} \phi_{\nu_e} +
217: P_{\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_e} \phi_{\nu_\mu} \nonumber \\
218: F_{\nu_\mu} &=& P_{\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_\mu} \phi_{\nu_\mu} +
219: P_{\nu_e \rightarrow \nu_\mu} \phi_{\nu_e} \nonumber \\
220: F_{\nu_\tau} &=& P_{\nu_e \rightarrow \nu_\tau} \phi_{\nu_e} +
221: P_{\nu_\mu \rightarrow \nu_\tau} \phi_{\nu_\mu}\,\,\, .
222: \end{eqnarray}
223:
224: The transition probability of a neutrino of flavour $\alpha$ to a flavour
225: $\beta$ is given by,
226: \begin{equation}
227: P_{\nu_\alpha \rightarrow \nu_\beta}
228: = \delta_{\alpha\beta} - 4\displaystyle\sum_{j>i} U_{\alpha_i}U_{\beta_i}
229: U_{\alpha_j}U_{\beta_j} \sin^2 \left ( \frac {\pi L} {\lambda_{ij}} \right )
230: \end{equation}
231: In the above oscillation length
232: $\lambda_{ij}$ is given by
233: \begin{equation}
234: \lambda_{ij} = 2.47\,\, {\rm Km} \left ( \frac {E} {\rm GeV} \right )
235: \left ( \frac {{\rm eV}^2} {\Delta m^2} \right )
236: \end{equation}
237: Because of astronomical baseline $\Delta m^2L/E >> 1$,
238: the oscillatory part
239: becomes averaged to half. Thus,
240: \begin{equation}
241: \left \langle \sin^2 \left ( \frac {\pi L} {\lambda_{ij}} \right )
242: \right \rangle = \frac {1} {2}
243: \end{equation}
244: Therefore
245: \begin{eqnarray}
246: P_{\nu_\alpha \rightarrow \nu_\beta}
247: &=& \delta_{\alpha\beta} - 2\displaystyle\sum_{j>i} U_{\alpha_i}U_{\beta_i}
248: U_{\alpha_j}U_{\beta_j} \nonumber \\
249: &=& \delta_{\alpha\beta} - \displaystyle\sum_i U_{\alpha_i}U_{\beta_i}
250: \left [ \displaystyle\sum_{j \neq i} U_{\alpha_j}U_{\beta_j} \right ]
251: \nonumber \\
252: &=& \displaystyle\sum_j |U_{\alpha_j}|^2 |U_{\beta_j}|^2
253: \end{eqnarray}
254: where use has been made of the condition $\sum_i U_{\alpha_i}U_{\beta_i} =
255: \delta_{\alpha\beta}$.
256:
257: With Eq. (7), Eq. (3) can be rewritten in matrix form
258:
259: \begin{eqnarray}
260: \left ( \begin{array}{c} F_{\nu_e} \\ F_{\nu_\mu} \\ F_{\nu_\tau} \end{array}
261: \right )
262: &=&
263: \left ( \begin{array}{ccc} U_{e1}^2 & U_{e2}^2 & U_{e3}^2 \\
264: U_{\mu 1}^2 & U_{\mu 2}^2 & U_{\mu 3}^2 \\
265: U_{\tau 1}^2 & U_{\tau 2}^2 & U_{\tau 3}^2 \end{array} \right )
266: \left ( \begin{array}{ccc} U_{e1}^2 & U_{\mu 1}^2 & U_{\tau 1}^2 \\
267: U_{e2}^2 & U_{\mu 2}^2 & U_{\tau 2}^2 \\
268: U_{e3}^2 & U_{\mu 2}^2 & U_{\tau 3}^2 \end{array} \right )
269: \left ( \begin{array}{c} \phi_{\nu_e} \\ \phi_{\nu_\mu} \\ \phi_{\nu_\tau}
270: \end{array} \right ) \nonumber \\
271: &=& \left ( \begin{array}{ccc} U_{e1}^2 & U_{e2}^2 & U_{e3}^2 \\
272: U_{\mu 1}^2 & U_{\mu 2}^2 & U_{\mu 3}^2 \\
273: U_{\tau 1}^2 & U_{\tau 2}^2 & U_{\tau 3}^2 \end{array} \right )
274: \left ( \begin{array}{ccc} U_{e1}^2 & U_{\mu 1}^2 & U_{\tau 1}^2 \\
275: U_{e2}^2 & U_{\mu 2}^2 & U_{\tau 2}^2 \\
276: U_{e3}^2 & U_{\mu 2}^2 & U_{\tau 3}^2 \end{array} \right )
277: \left ( \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ 2 \\ 0
278: \end{array} \right ) \phi_{\nu_e}
279: \end{eqnarray}
280: In Eq. (8) above, we have used the initial flux ratio from GRB to be
281: $\phi_{\nu_e} : \phi_{\nu_\mu} : \phi_{\nu_\tau} = 1 : 2 : 0$. From Eq. (8)
282: it then follows that,
283: \begin{eqnarray}
284: F_{\nu_e} & = & \left \{ U_{e1}^2 [1 + (U_{\mu 1}^2 - U_{\tau 1}^2)] +
285: U_{e2}^2 [1 + (U_{\mu 2}^2 - U_{\tau 2}^2)] + \right . \nonumber \\
286: && \left . U_{e3}^2 [1 + (U_{\mu 3}^2 - U_{\tau 3}^2)] \right \}
287: \phi_{\nu_e} \nonumber \\
288: && \nonumber \\
289: F_{\nu_\mu} & = & \left \{ U_{\mu 1}^2 [1 + (U_{\mu 1}^2 - U_{\tau 1}^2)] +
290: U_{\mu 2}^2 [1 + (U_{\mu 2}^2 - U_{\tau 2}^2)] + \right . \nonumber \\
291: && \left . U_{\mu 3}^2 [1 + (U_{\mu 3}^2 - U_{\tau 3}^2)] \right \}
292: \phi_{\nu_e} \nonumber \\
293: && \nonumber \\
294: F_{\nu_\tau} & = & \left \{ U_{\tau 1}^2 [1 + (U_{\mu 1}^2 - U_{\tau 1}^2)] +
295: U_{\tau 2}^2 [1 + (U_{\mu 2}^2 - U_{\tau 2}^2)] + \right . \nonumber \\
296: && \left . U_{\tau 3}^2 [1 + (U_{\mu 3}^2 - U_{\tau 3}^2)] \right \}
297: \phi_{\nu_e}
298: \end{eqnarray}
299: The MNS mixing matrix $U$ for 3-flavour case is given as
300: \begin{equation}
301: U = \left ( \begin{array}{ccc}
302: c_{12}c_{13} & s_{12}c_{13} & s_{13} \\
303: %
304: -c_{23}s_{12} - s_{23}s_{13}c_{12} & c_{23}c_{12} - s_{23}s_{13}s_{12} &
305: s_{23}c_{13} \\
306: %
307: s_{23}s_{12} - c_{23}s_{13}c_{12} & -s_{23}c_{12} - c_{23}s_{13}s_{12} &
308: c_{23}c_{13}
309: \end{array} \right )
310: \end{equation}
311: We are not considering any CP violation here. Hence Eqs. (3) - (9) above
312: also hold for antineutrinos.
313:
314: \subsection{Detection of GRB neutrinos}
315:
316: The $\nu_\mu$'s from a GRB can be detected from the tracks of
317: the secondary muons produced through the $\nu_\mu$ CC interactions.
318:
319: The total number of secondary muons induced by GRB neutrinos at a
320: detector of unit area is given by (following \cite{gaisser,raj1,nayan})
321: \begin{equation}
322: S = \int_{E_{\rm thr}}^{E_{\nu{\rm max}}}
323: %
324: dE_\nu \frac {dN_{\nu}} {dE_\nu} P_{\rm surv}(E_\nu)
325: P_\mu(E_\nu,E_{\rm thr})
326: \end{equation}
327: In the above, $P_{\rm surv}$ is the probability that a neutrino reaches
328: the detector without being absorbed by the earth. This is a function of
329: the neutrino-nucleon interaction length in the earth and the effective
330: path length $X(\theta_z)$ (gm cm$^{-2}$) for incident neutrino
331: zenith angle $\theta_z$
332: ($\theta_z = 0$ for vertically downward entry with respect to the detector).
333: This attenuation of neutrinos due to passage through the earth is
334: referred to as shadow factor. For an isotropic distribution of flux,
335: this shadow factor (for upward going neutrinos) is given by
336: \begin{equation}
337: P_{\rm surv}(E_\nu) = \frac {1} {2\pi}
338: \int^0_{-1} d\,\,\cos \theta \int d\phi {\rm exp}[-X(\theta_z)/L_{\rm int}].
339: \end{equation}
340: where interaction length $L_{\rm int}$ is given by
341: \begin{equation}
342: L_{\rm int} = \frac {1} {\sigma^{\rm tot}(E_\nu) N_A}
343: \end{equation}
344: In the above $N_A (= 6.022 \times 10^{23} {\rm gm}^{-1})$ is the Avogadro number
345: and $\sigma^{\rm tot} (= \sigma^{\rm CC} + \sigma^{\rm NC})$ is the
346: total cross section. The effective path length $X(\theta_z)$ is
347: calculated as
348: \begin{equation}
349: X(\theta_z) = \int \rho (r(\theta_z, \ell)) d\ell.
350: \end{equation}
351: In Eq. (9), $\rho (r(\theta_z, \ell)$ is the matter density inside the earth
352: at a distance
353: $r$ from the centre of the earth for neutrino path length $\ell$ entering
354: into the earth with a zenith angle $\theta_z$.
355: The quantity $P_\mu(E_\nu,E_{\rm thr})$ in Eq. (6) is the
356: probability that a secondary
357: muon is produced by CC interaction of $\nu_\mu$ and reach the
358: detector above the threshold energy $E_{\rm thr}$. This is then a
359: function of $\nu_\mu N$ (N represents nucleon) - CC interaction
360: cross section $\sigma^{\rm CC}$
361: and the range of the muon inside the rock.
362: \begin{equation}
363: P_\mu(E_\nu,E_{\rm thr}) = N_A \sigma^{\rm CC}
364: \langle R(E_\nu;E_{\rm thr})
365: \rangle
366: \end{equation}
367: In the above $\langle R(E_\nu;E_{\rm thr})\rangle$
368: is the average muon range given by
369: \begin{equation}
370: \langle R(E_\nu;E_{\rm thr}) \rangle = \frac {1} {\sigma^{\rm CC}}
371: \displaystyle\int_0^{1 - E_{\rm thr}/E_\nu}
372: dy R(E_\nu (1 - y), E_{\rm thr})
373: \frac {d\sigma^{\rm CC}(E_\nu,y)} {dy}
374: \end{equation}
375: where $y = (E_\nu - E_\mu)/E_\nu$ is the
376: fraction of energy loss
377: by a neutrino of energy $E_\nu$ in the charged current production of
378: a secondary muon of energy $E_\mu$. Needless to say that a muon thus produced
379: from a neutrino with energy $E_\nu$ can have the
380: detectable energy range between
381: $E_{\rm thr}$ and $E_\nu$. The range $R (E_\mu, E_{\rm thr})$ for a muon
382: of energy $E_\mu$ is given as
383: \begin{equation}
384: R (E_\mu, E_{\rm thr}) = \displaystyle\int^{E_\mu}_{E_{\rm thr}}
385: \frac {dE_\mu} {\langle dE_\mu/dX \rangle} \simeq \frac {1} {\beta}
386: \ln \left ( \frac {\alpha + \beta E_\mu} {\alpha + \beta E_{\rm thr}}.
387: \right )
388: \end{equation}
389: The average lepton energy loss with energy $E_\mu$ per unit distance
390: travelled is given by
391: \cite{gaisser}
392: \begin{equation}
393: \left \langle \frac {dE_\mu} {dX} \right\rangle = -\alpha - \beta E_\mu
394: \end{equation}
395: The values of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ used in the present calculations
396: are
397: \begin{eqnarray}
398: \alpha &=& \{ 2.033 + 0.077\ln[E_\mu {\rm (GeV)}] \}\times 10^{-3} {\rm GeV}
399: {\rm cm}^2 {\rm gm}^{-1} \nonumber \\
400: \beta &=& \{ 2.033 + 0.077\ln[E_\mu {\rm (GeV)}] \} \times 10^{-6}
401: {\rm cm}^2 {\rm gm}^{-1}
402: \end{eqnarray}
403: for $E_\mu \la 10^6$ GeV \cite{dar} and
404: \begin{eqnarray}
405: \alpha &=& 2.033 \times 10^{-3} {\rm GeV}
406: {\rm cm}^2 {\rm gm}^{-1} \nonumber \\
407: \beta &=& 3.9 \times 10^{-6}
408: {\rm cm}^2 {\rm gm}^{-1}
409: \end{eqnarray}
410: otherwise \cite{guetta1}.
411: For muon events obtained from $\nu_\mu$ CC interactions,
412: $\frac {d N_\nu}{d E_\nu}$ in Eq. (11)
413: will be replaced by $F_{\nu_\mu}$ (Eq. 9).
414:
415: As discussed earlier, the events due to $\nu_\tau$ CC interactions
416: is considered only for the process where the decay of secondary
417: $\tau$ lepton produces muon which then detected by the muon track.
418: The probability of production of muons in the decay channel
419: $\tau \rightarrow {\bar \nu_\mu} \mu \nu_\tau$ is 0.18 \cite{sarada,nayantau}.
420: The generated muon carries a fraction 0.3 of energy of original $\nu_\tau$
421: (a fraction 0.75 of the energy of the $\nu_\tau$ is carried by secondary
422: $\tau$ lepton and a fraction of 0.4 of $\tau$ lepton energy is carried
423: by the muon \cite{sarada,gaisser,nayantau}). For the detection of such muons,
424: the Eqs. (10 - 16) is applicable with properly incorporating the
425: muon energy described above. Needless to say, in this case,
426: $\frac {d N_\nu}{d E_\nu}$ in Eq. (11)
427: is to be replaced by $F_{\nu_\tau}$ (Eq. 9).
428:
429: For the case of showers, we do not have the advantage of a specific
430: track and then the whole detector volume is to be considered.
431: The event rate for the shower case is given by
432: \begin{equation}
433: N_{\rm sh} = \int dE_\nu \frac {dN_{\nu}} {dE_\nu} P_{\rm surv}(E_\nu)
434: \times \int \frac {1} {\sigma^j} \frac {d {\sigma^j}} {dy} P_{\rm int}
435: (E_\nu,y)\,\,.
436: \end{equation}
437: In the above, $\sigma^j = \sigma^{\rm CC}$ (for electromagnetic shower
438: from $\nu_e$ charged current interactions) or $\sigma^{\rm NC}$ as the
439: case may be. In the above $P_{\rm int}$ is the probability that a
440: shower produced by the neutrino interactions will be detected and is given by
441: \begin{equation}
442: P_{\rm int} = \rho N_A \sigma^j L
443: \end{equation}
444: where $\rho$ is the density of the detector material and $L$ is the
445: length of the detector (L = 1 Km for ICECUBE).
446:
447: For each case of shower events, $\frac {dN_{\nu}} {dE_\nu}$ in Eq. (21)
448: is to be replaced by $F_{\nu_e}$ or $F_{\nu_\mu}$ or $F_{\nu_\tau}$ as the case
449: may be.
450:
451: \section{Calculations and Results}
452:
453: The secondary muon yield at a kilometre scale detector such as
454: ICECUBE is calculated using Eqs. (6 - 20). The earth matter density
455: in Eq. (9) is taken from \cite{raj1} following the Preliminary
456: Earth Reference Model (PREM). The interaction cross-sections - both charged
457: current and total - used in these equations are taken from the
458: tabulated values (and the analytical form) given in Ref. \cite{raj2}.
459: In the present calculations $E_{\nu{\rm max}} = 10^{11}$ GeV and
460: threshold energy $E_{\rm thr} = 1$ TeV are considered.
461:
462: For our investigations, we first define a ratio ${\cal R}$ of the muon
463: events (both from $\nu_\mu$ (and ${\bar \nu_\mu}$) and $\nu_\tau$
464: (and ${\bar \nu_\tau}$)) and the shower events. As described in the
465: previous sections, the muon events are from $\nu_\mu$
466: (and ${\bar \nu_\mu}$) and $\nu_\tau$ (and ${\bar \nu_\tau}$), whereas
467: the shower events include electromagnetic shower initiated by CC
468: interaction of $\nu_e$ and NC interactions of neutrinos of all flavours.
469: Therefore,
470: \begin{equation}
471: {\cal R} = \displaystyle \frac {T_\mu} {T_{\rm sh}}
472: \end{equation}
473: where,
474: \begin{eqnarray}
475: T_\mu &=& S({\rm for }\,\,\, \nu_\mu) + S({\rm for }\,\,\, \nu_\tau)
476: \nonumber \\
477: T_{\rm sh} &=& N_{\rm sh} ({\rm for }\,\,\, \nu_e {\rm\,\, CC\,\,\, interaction})
478: \nonumber \\
479: &+& N_{\rm sh} ({\rm for }\,\,\, \nu_e {\rm\,\, NC\,\,\, interaction}) \nonumber \\
480: &+& N_{\rm sh} ({\rm for }\,\,\, \nu_\mu {\rm\,\, NC\,\,\, interaction}) \nonumber \\
481: &+& N_{\rm sh} ({\rm for }\,\,\, \nu_\tau {\rm\,\, NC\,\,\, interaction})
482: \end{eqnarray}
483:
484: The purpose of this work is to explore whether UHE neutrinos from GRB
485: will be able to distinguish any variation of $\theta_{12}$ and
486: $\theta_{23}$ from their best fit values. The tri-bimaximal mixing
487: condition is denoted by the best fit values of $\theta_{12}$ and
488: $\theta_{23}$ for $\theta_{13} = 0^o$. The best fit value of
489: $\theta_{12} = 35.2^o$ and that of $\theta_{23} = 45^o$.
490: We first vary $\theta_{12}$ in the limit $30^o \leq \theta_{12} \leq 38^o$
491: and vary $\theta_{23}$ in the limit $38^o \leq \theta_{12} \leq 54^o$
492: with $\theta_{13} = 0$ and for each case calculate the ratio ${\cal R}$
493: using Eqs. (1 - 24). We find that ${\cal R}$ varies from
494: 3.14 to 4.25. One readily sees that the variation in muon to shower
495: ratio is not very significant. The flux and other uncertainties of the
496: detector may wash away this small variations. ${\cal R}$ obtained from
497: tri-bimaximal condition given above is 4.05.
498:
499: The same operation is repeated for three different values of $\theta_{13}$,
500: namely $\theta_{13} = 3^o\,\,6^o$ and $9^o$ with similar results.
501: The results are tabulated below.
502:
503: \begin{center}
504: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
505: \hline
506: $\theta_{13}$ & ${\cal R}_{\rm Max}$ & ${\cal R}_{\rm Min}$ & ${\cal R}$ at \\
507: &&& $\theta_{12} = 35.2^o$, $\theta_{23} = 45^o$ \\
508: \hline
509: $0^o$ & 4.78 & 3.80 & 4.05 \\
510: \hline
511: $3^o$ & 4.75 & 3.77 & 4.01 \\
512: \hline
513: $6^o$ & 4.72 & 3.75 & 3.98 \\
514: \hline
515: $9^o$ & 4.69 & 3.73 & 3.96 \\
516: \hline
517: \end{tabular}
518: \end{center}
519: \noindent {\small Table 1. Maximum and minimum values of ratio ${\cal R}$
520: for different values of mixing angles}
521:
522: We have also plotted the variation of ${\cal R}$ with $\theta_{12}$ and
523: $\theta_{23}$ for four fixed values of $\theta_{13}$ as given in Table 1.
524: These are shown in Figs 1a - 1d for $\theta_{13} =$
525: $0^o,\,\,3^o\,,\,6^o$ and $9^o$ respectively.
526:
527: As is evident from Table 1 and Fig. 1, the variation of muon tracks to
528: shower ratio is not very significant
529: with the deviation from the best fit values of the mixing angles.
530: The ratio ${\cal R}$ varies upto only $\sim 18\%$. We have also
531: calculated the muon track signal for 1 year of ICECUBE run.
532: For $\theta_{13} = 0$, this varies from $\sim 99$ to $\sim 115$,
533: whereas the muon yield obtained for tri-bimaximal mixing is 103.
534: So the variation for deviation from tri-bimaximal mixing
535: condition is between $4\% - 11\%$. This variation is also not
536: significant given the sources of uncertainty in the flux and
537: the sensitivity of the ICECUBE detector.
538: Firstly, the flux itself can be uncertain
539: by several factors. This can induce errors in calculation of muon
540: yield and shower rate. If the flux uncertainties are energy-dependent,
541: even the ratio ${\cal R}$ can also be affected. Also the simulation results
542: for ICECUBE detector by Ahrens et al \cite{icecubesim1} shows
543: the cosmic neutrino signal is well below the atmospheric neutrino
544: background for one year data sample after applying suitable cuts
545: (for the source flux $E_\nu^2 \times dN_\nu/dE_\nu$
546: $=10^{-7} {\rm cm}^2 {\rm s}^{-1} {\rm sr}^{-1} {\rm GeV}$).
547: The diffuse flux needed
548: for a $5\sigma$ significance detection after 1 year is well below
549: the experimental limits \cite{icecubesim1,icecubesim2}. There can
550: also be systematic uncertainty arises out of optical module (OM) sensitivity
551: which is affected by the refrozen ice around OM, optical properties of the
552: surrounding ice, trapped air bubbles in the OM neighbourhood etc.
553: An estimation of these uncertainties for a $E^{-2}$ signal is calculated
554: to be around 20\% \cite{icecubesim1}. Taking into account these uncertainties
555: and sensitivity limit, it is
556: difficult by a detector like ICECUBE to detect the deviation ($\la 18\%$),
557: if any, from tri-bimaximal mixing through the detection of UHE neutrinos from
558: a GRB.
559:
560:
561: \section{Summary and Discussions}
562:
563: In summary, we investigate the deviation from the well known tri-bimaximal
564: mixing in the case of Ultra High Energy neutrinos from a Gamma Ray Burst
565: detected in a kilometer scale detector such as ICECUBE. We have calculated
566: the ratio ${\cal R}$ of the muon track events and shower events
567: (electromagnetic shower from charged current interactions of
568: $\nu_e$ and hadronic showers from neutral current interactions of
569: neutrinos of all flavours) for tri-bimaximal mixing condition given by
570: $\theta_{12} = 35.2^o$, $\theta_{23} = 45.0^o$, $\theta_{13} = 0^o$.
571: We then investigate the possible variation of ${\cal R}$ from
572: tri-bimaximal mixing condition by varying $\theta_{12}$ and $\theta_{23}$
573: within their experimentally obtained range for four different values
574: of $\theta_{13}$ namely $0^o,\,\,3^o\,,\,6^o$ and $9^o$.
575:
576: The isotropic flux of GRB neutrinos are obtained following Waxman-Bahcall
577: \cite{waxman} type
578: parametrization of the flux and summation over the sources. The initial
579: parametrization of neutrino flux can be written as
580: \begin{equation}
581: \displaystyle\frac {dN_\nu} {dE_\nu} = \left \{
582: \begin{array}{c} \frac {A} {E_\nu E_\nu^b}\,\, , \,\,\, E_\nu < E_\nu^b \\
583: \frac {A} {E_\nu^2}\,\, , E_\nu > E_\nu^b
584: \end{array} \right .
585: \end{equation}
586: where $E_\nu^b$ is the spectral break energy ($\sim 10^5$ GeV) and is related
587: to photon spectral break energy, Lorentz factor etc.
588:
589: The GRB neutrinos after reaching the earth has to pass through the
590: earth rock (for upward going events) to reach the detector to produce
591: muon tracks or shower. In the calculation therefore,
592: the attenuation of neutrinos through the earth (shadow factor) is estimated.
593: The muons produced out of charged current interactions of neutrinos
594: should also survive to enter the detector and produce tracks. Therefore,
595: to estimate the muon track events, the energy loss of muons through the
596: rock is also estimated. The average lepton energy loss
597: rate (with lepton energy $E_\mu$)
598: due to ionisation and the losses due to Bremsstrahlung, pair-production,
599: hadron production etc. (catastrophic losses) is parametrized as
600: $$
601: \displaystyle \left \langle \frac {dE_\mu} {dX} \right \rangle
602: = -\alpha - \beta E_\mu
603: $$
604: where $\beta$ describes the catastrophic loss which dominate over the
605: ionisation loss above a certain critical energy $\zeta = \alpha/\beta$.
606: This induces a logarithmic dependence of the lepton energy loss.
607:
608: The calculated ratio
609: ${\cal R}$ varies between $\sim 8\%$ to $\sim 18\%$ for variation from
610: tri-bimaximal mixing scenario and for different values of $\theta_{13}$.
611: Given the sensitivity of the ICECUBE detector in terms of detecting
612: GRB neutrino flux and considering other uncertainties
613: like that in estimating the flux itself, the atmospheric background,
614: low signal yield and the systematic uncertainties
615: of the detector, it appears that ICECUBE with its present
616: sensitivity will not be able to detect significantly such a small variation
617: due to deviations from tri-bimaximal mixing.
618: Hence to
619: detect such small deviation, very precise mesurement is
620: called for. This requires more data (more years of run)
621: and larger detector size for more statistics. The increase
622: in detector size will not widen the deviation of the ratio
623: significantly as the total area factor of the detector
624: cancels out in the ratio (Eq. 23) although the total number of both muon
625: tracks and total shower yield increase significantly.
626: For the case of shower, the whole detector
627: volume is to be considered and from Eq. (22), there is
628: indeed an $L$ dependence. This makes the deviation of
629: the ratio wider although very marginally as we increase
630: the detector dimension.
631:
632: It is difficult to predict the detector dimension and/or
633: the time of exposure that will be suitable for
634: such a precision measurement discussed above.
635: Detailed simulation studies
636: taking into account factors like atmospheric neutrino background,
637: photomultiplier tube efficiency and other possible uncertainties
638: like the one carried out in Ref. [16] is required for being able to comment
639: on the detector parameters for such precise measurements.
640:
641: We also want to mention in passing that we have repeated the same
642: calculation for
643: single GRBs with fixed red shift ($z$) values with similar results.
644:
645:
646:
647:
648:
649:
650: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
651: \bibitem{sfit} A. Strumia and F. Vissani, eprint no. hep-ph/0606054
652: \bibitem{tbi} P.F. Harrison, D.H. Parkins and W.G. Scott, Phys. Lett. B
653: {\bf 530}, 167 (2002).
654: \bibitem{chooz} M. Apollonio et al Phys. Lett. {\bf B420}, 397 (1998);
655: Phys. Lett. {\bf B466}, 415 (1999).
656: \bibitem{xing} Z. Xing, Phs. Rev. D {\bf 74}, 013009 (2006).
657: \bibitem{icecube} IceCube Collaboration: J Ahrens et al, Proceedings of
658: the 27th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Hamburg, Germany,
659: 7-15 August 2001 (HE 2.5 19:36), 1237-1240, http://icecube.wisc.edu.
660: \bibitem{cao} Z. Cao, M.A. Huang, P. Sokolsky and Y Hu, J. Phys. G {\bf 31},
661: 571 (2005).
662: \bibitem{sarada} S.I. Dutta, M.H. Reno and I. Saecevic, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62},
663: 123001 (2000).
664: \bibitem{nayantau} N. Gupta, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 541}, 16 (2002).
665: \bibitem{raj1} R. Gandhi, C. Quigg, M.H. Reno and I. Sarcevic,
666: Astropart. Phys. {\bf 5}, 81 (1996); eprint no. hep-ph/9512364.
667: \bibitem{waxman} E. Waxman and J. Bahcall, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 2292
668: (1997); Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 023002 (1999).
669: \bibitem{raj2} R. Gandhi, C. Quigg, M.H. Reno and I. Sarcevic, Phys.
670: Rev. D {\bf 58}, 093009 (1998).
671: \bibitem{gaisser} T.K. Gaisser, {\it Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics}
672: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1992);
673: T.K. Gaisser, F. Halzen and T. Stanev, Phys. Rep. {\bf 258}, 172 (1995).
674: \bibitem{nayan} N. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 65}, 113005 (2002).
675: \bibitem{dar} A. Dar, J.J. Lord and R.J. Wilkes, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 33}, 303
676: (1986).
677: \bibitem{guetta1} D. Guetta, D. Hooper, J.A. Muniz, F. Halzen and E. Reuveni,
678: Astropart. Phys. {\bf 20}, 429 (2004), eprint no. astro-ph/0302524.
679: \bibitem{icecubesim1} J. Ahrens et al, Astropart. Phys. {\bf 20}, 507 (2004).
680: \bibitem{icecubesim2} J. Ahrens et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 251101 (2003).
681: \end{thebibliography}
682:
683: \newpage
684: \begin{center}
685: {\bf Figure Caption}
686: \end{center}
687: \noindent {\bf Fig. 1} Variation of ${\cal R}$ with $\theta_{12}$ and
688: $\theta_{23}$ for (a) $\theta_{13} = 0^o$, (b) $\theta_{13} = 3^o$,
689: (c) $\theta_{13} = 6^o$ and (d) $\theta_{13} = 9^o$. See text for details.
690:
691: \end{document}
692: