1: 

2: \documentstyle[amssymb,preprint,aps,epsf,floats]{revtex}

3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

4: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=LATEX.DLL}

5: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Thu Oct 17 22:44:10 2002}

6: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}

7: %TCIDATA{Language=American English}

8: %TCIDATA{CSTFile=revtex.cst}

9: 

10: \def\overleftrightarrow{\raise1.5ex\hbox{$\leftrightarrow$}\mkern-16.5mu}

11: \newcommand{\pislash}{ {\pi\hskip-0.6em /} }

12: \newcommand{\pislashsmall}{ {\pi\hskip-0.375em /} }

13: \newcommand{\nopi}{{\rm EFT}(\pislash) }

14: \newcommand{\lia}{$L_{1,A}\ $}

15: \newcommand{\mt}{$\mu\tau$}

16: \newcommand{\smte}{\frac{\overline{\sigma}_{\mu\tau}}{\overline{\sigma}_e}}

17: \newcommand{\sccnc}{\frac{\overline{\sigma}_{CC}}{\overline{\sigma}_{NC}}}

18: \tighten

19: 

20: \tighten

21: \preprint{\vbox{

22: \hbox{DOE/ER/40762-265}

23: \hbox{MIT-CTP-3312}

24: }} \bigskip \bigskip

25: 

26: \begin{document}

27: \title{Constraining the Leading Weak Axial Two-body Current by SNO 

28: and Super-K }

29: \author{Jiunn-Wei Chen}

30: \address{Center for Theoretical Physics,

31: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139\\

32: and Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park,

33: MD 20742\\

34: {\tt jwchen@lns.mit.edu}}

35: \author{Karsten M. Heeger}

36: \address{Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720\\

37: and Department of Physics and Center for Experimental Nuclear Physics

38: and Astrophysics, \\

39: University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 \\

40: {\tt KMHeeger@lbl.gov}}

41: \author{R.G. Hamish Robertson}

42: \address{Department of Physics and Center for Experimental Nuclear 

43: Physics and Astrophysics, \\

44: University of Washington, Seattle, WA 

45: 98195 \\

46: {\tt rghr@u.washington.edu}}

47: \maketitle

48: 

49: \begin{abstract}

50: We analyze the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) and 

51: Super-Kamiokande (SK) data on charged current (CC), neutral current 

52: (NC) and neutrino electron elastic scattering (ES) reactions to 

53: constrain the leading weak axial two-body current parameterized by 

54: $L_{1,A}.$ This two-body current is the dominant uncertainty of

55: every low energy weak interaction deuteron breakup process,

56: including SNO's CC and NC reactions. Our method shows that the 

57: theoretical inputs to SNO's determination of the CC and NC fluxes

58: can be self-calibrated, be calibrated by SK, or be calibrated by 

59: reactor data. The only assumption made is that the total flux of active 

60: neutrinos has the standard $^{8}B$ spectral shape (but distortions in 

61: the electron neutrino spectrum are allowed). We show that SNO's

62: conclusion about the inconsistency of the no-flavor-conversion 

63: hypothesis does not contain significant theoretical uncertainty, and 

64: we determine the magnitude of the active solar neutrino flux.

65: \end{abstract}

66: 

67: \preprint{\vbox{

68: \hbox{ } }} \bigskip \bigskip \vfill\eject

69: 

70: 

71: \section{Introduction}

72: 

73: Recent conclusive results from the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory~(SNO) have

74: established the existence of non-electron active neutrino components in the $%

75: ^{8}B$ solar neutrino flux \cite{SNO1} and hence have given a strong

76: evidence for neutrino oscillation. These results are based on the three

77: reactions measured by SNO to detect the $^{8}B$ solar flux 

78: \begin{equation}

79: \begin{array}{llll}

80: \nu _{e}+d & \rightarrow & p+p+e^{-} & \qquad \text{(CC)}, \\ 

81: \nu _{x}+d & \rightarrow & p+n+\nu _{x} & \qquad \text{(NC)}, \\ 

82: \nu _{x}+e^{-}\!\!\!\! & \rightarrow & \nu _{x}+\text{{}}e^{-} & \qquad 

83: \text{(ES).}

84: \end{array}

85: \end{equation}

86: \ The charged current reaction (CC) is sensitive exclusively to

87: electron-type neutrinos, while the neutral current reaction (NC) is equally

88: sensitive to all active neutrino flavors ($x=e,\mu ,\tau $). The elastic

89: scattering reaction (ES) is sensitive to all active flavors as well, but

90: with reduced sensitivity to $\nu _{\mu }$ and $\nu _{\tau }$. Detection of

91: these three reactions allows SNO to determine the electron and non-electron

92: active neutrino components of the solar flux, and it is then obvious that

93: the cross sections for these three reactions are important inputs for SNO.

94: The cross sections for all three reactions are determined from theory, but

95: the CC and NC cross sections involve nuclear-physics complexities not

96: present in the ES interaction description. Thus the CC and NC cross sections

97: have become the main source of theoretical uncertainties for SNO.

98: 

99: The complexities in the CC and NC processes are due to two-body currents

100: which are interactions involving two nucleons and external leptonic

101: currents. In the potential model approach, the two-body currents are

102: associated with the meson exchange currents and can be calculated in terms

103: of unknown weak couplings. In effective field theory (EFT), the two-body

104: currents are parameterized. In both cases, experimental data from some other

105: processes are required in order to calibrate the unknowns in the problem. In

106: EFT, this calibration procedure can be described in an economic and

107: systematic way. The reason is that, up to next-to-next-to-leading order

108: (NNLO) in EFT, all low-energy weak interaction deuteron breakup processes

109: depend on a common isovector axial two-body current, parameterized by $%

110: L_{1,A}$ \cite{BCK} (see more explanations in the next section). This

111: implies that a measurement of any one of the breakup processes could be used

112: to fix $L_{1,A}$. A summary of the previous efforts in the determination of $%

113: L_{1,A}$ can be found in Ref. \cite{BCV}.

114: 

115: In this paper, after briefly reviewing the EFT approach, we will present the

116: constraint on $L_{1,A}$ using a combined analysis of the CC, NC and ES data

117: from SNO\ and Super-Kamiokande (SK). We then compare this new result with

118: other determinations of $L_{1,A}$ and comment on the interpretation of SNO's

119: measurements with the assumption about the size of $L_{1,A}$ eliminated.

120: 

121: \section{Effective Field Theory}

122: 

123: For the deuteron breakup processes used to detect solar neutrinos, where the

124: neutrino energies $E_{\nu }<15$~MeV, the typical momentum scales in the

125: problem are much smaller than the pion mass $m_{\pi }(\simeq 140$ MeV$).$ In

126: these systems pions do not need to be treated as dynamical particles since

127: they only propagate over distances $\sim 1/m_{\pi }$, much shorter than the

128: scale set by the typical momentum of the problem. Thus the pionless nuclear

129: effective field theory, ${\rm EFT}({\pi \hskip-0.6em/})$ \cite

130: {KSW96,K97,vK97,Cohen97,BHvK1,CRS}, is applicable.

131: 

132: In ${\rm EFT}({\pi \hskip-0.6em/})$, the dynamical degrees of freedom are

133: nucleons and non-hadronic external currents. Massive hadronic excitations

134: such as pions and the delta resonance are not dynamical. Their contributions

135: are encoded in the contact interactions between nucleons. Nucleon-nucleon

136: interactions are calculated perturbatively with the small expansion

137: parameter 

138: \begin{equation}

139: Q\equiv \frac{\left( 1/a,\gamma ,p\right) }{\Lambda }

140: \end{equation}

141: which is the ratio of the light to heavy scales. The light scales include

142: the inverse S-wave nucleon-nucleon scattering length $1/a(\lesssim 12$ MeV$)$

143: in the $^{1}S_{0}$ channel, the deuteron binding momentum $\gamma (=45.7$

144: MeV) in the $^{3}S_{1}$ channel, and the typical nucleon momentum $p$ in the

145: center-of-mass frame. The heavy scale $\Lambda $ is set by the pion mass $%

146: m_{\pi }$. This formalism has been applied successfully to many processes

147: involving the deuteron~\cite{CRS,npdgam2}, including Compton scattering \cite

148: {dEFT,GR}, $np\rightarrow d\gamma $ for big-bang nucleosynthesis \cite

149: {npdgam1,Rupak}, $\nu d$ reactions for SNO physics \cite{BCK}, the solar $pp 

150: $ fusion process \cite{KR,pp}, and parity violating observables \cite{PV} .

151: In addition, this formalism has been applied successfully to three-nucleon

152: systems \cite{BHvK2}. It has revealed highly non-trivial renormalizations

153: associated with three body forces in the $s_{1/2}$ channel (e.g., $^{3}$He

154: and the triton). For other channels, precision calculations were carried out

155: to higher orders \cite{BHvK1}.

156: 

157: For low energy deuteron breakup processes, it is well known that the

158: dominant contributions to the hadronic matrix elements are the $%

159: ^{3}S_{1}\rightarrow $ $^{1}S_{0}$ transitions through the isovector axial

160: couplings. The $^{3}S_{1}$ state (such as a deuteron) has spin $S=1$ and

161: isospin $I=0$, while the $^{1}S_{0}$ state has $S=0$ and $I=1$. Amongst the

162: spin-isospin operators {\bf 1}, $\tau ^{a}$, $\sigma ^{i}$ and $\tau

163: ^{a}\sigma ^{i}$, only the isovector axial coupling $\tau ^{a}\sigma ^{i}$

164: can connect $^{3}S_{1}$ to $^{1}S_{0}$ states. The $^{3}S_{1}\rightarrow

165: \,^{3}S_{1}$ transitions are suppressed at low energies because i) the

166: isovector operators do not contribute (the transition is isoscalar) and ii)

167: the matrix elements of the one-body isoscalar operators vanish in the zero

168: recoil limit ($d$ and $np$ states are orthogonal in this limit). This leads

169: to large suppression of the isoscalar two-body contributions through the

170: interference terms. Also, at low energies, the non-derivative operators are

171: more important than the derivative operators. Thus the leading two-body

172: current contributions for low energy weak interaction deuteron breakup

173: processes only depend on a non-derivative, isovector axial two-body current, 

174: $L_{1,A}$.

175: 

176: In Ref.~\cite{BCK}, ${\rm EFT}({\pi \hskip-0.6em/})$ is applied to compute

177: the cross-sections for four channels (CC, NC, $\overline{\nu }%

178: _{e}+d\rightarrow e^{+}+n+n$ and $\overline{\nu }_{x}+d\rightarrow \overline{%

179: \nu }_{x}+n+p$) to NNLO, up to 20 MeV (anti)neutrino energies. As already

180: mentioned, these processes have been shown to depend on only one parameter, $%

181: L_{1,A}$. This dependence is subject to an intrinsic uncertainty in our EFT

182: calculation at NNLO of less than 3\%. Through varying $L_{1,A}$, the

183: potential model results of Refs.~\cite{YHH} and \cite{NSGK} are reproduced

184: to high accuracy for all four channels. This confirms that the $\sim 5\%$

185: difference between Refs.~\cite{YHH} and \cite{NSGK} is due largely to

186: different assumptions made about short distance physics.

187: 

188: The same two-body current $L_{1,A}$ also contributes to the proton-proton

189: fusion process $p+p\rightarrow d+e^{+}+\nu _{e}$. This is the primary

190: reaction in the $pp$ chain of nuclear reactions that power the sun,

191: reactions which in turn generate the neutrino flux to be observed by SNO.

192: The calculations in ${\rm EFT}({\pi \hskip-0.6em/})$ were carried out

193: initially to second order \cite{KR}, and then to fifth order \cite{pp}. Thus

194: a calibration to SNO's CC and NC reactions can also be used to calibrate the

195: proton-proton fusion process.

196: 

197: \section{Fixing $L_{1,A}$ From a Combined NC, CC and ES Analysis}

198: 

199: In this section we present the constraint on $L_{1,A}\ $obtained from a

200: combined analysis of the solar neutrino fluxes measured by CC, NC, and ES

201: reactions. In SNO's analysis, a specific $L_{1,A}\ $was chosen in CC and NC

202: reactions. The extracted solar neutrino fluxes from CC and NC were then

203: compared to each other and to ES to extract a consistent set of neutrino

204: flavor-conversion probabilities and to map allowed regions in a 2-mass

205: mixing description. Here we take $L_{1,A}\ $as a free parameter and use the

206: available experimental data from SNO and SK to fix not only the

207: flavor-conversion probabilities but also $L_{1,A}$. The only assumption we

208: will make is that the {\em total} flux for the active solar neutrinos has

209: the standard $^{8}$B shape.

210: 

211: In the two-flavor oscillation analysis there are three parameters extracted, 

212: $\Delta m_{12}^{2}$, $\theta _{12}$, and $\Phi _{\nu _{x}}$, which are the

213: differences between the squares of the neutrino masses, the mixing angle,

214: and the total active neutrino flux. There are three separate experimental

215: inputs, the ES, CC, and NC rates. It might at first be thought impossible to

216: extract a fourth parameter, $L_{1,A}$, without additional inputs or

217: assumptions, such as fixing the shape of the electron-neutrino spectrum. The

218: shape is experimentally determined, but not yet with high accuracy. Our

219: strategy is to note that, in active-only oscillations, there is no shape

220: distortion in the total flux, and that the integrated spectral response in

221: the CC reaction over a certain range of final electron energies is the same

222: as that in the ES reaction over a different range of energies, independent

223: of distortions of the neutrino spectrum \cite{VFL}.

224: 

225: The CC and NC are measured at SNO and the ES is both measured at SNO and SK.

226: The measured event rates are the integrals of the effective cross sections

227: weighted by the solar neutrino fluxes that reached the target.

228: 

229: \begin{eqnarray}

230: R_{NC} &=&\int dE\widetilde{\sigma }_{NC}f_{\nu _{x}}\ ,  \label{m1a} \\

231: R_{CC} &=&\int dE\widetilde{\sigma }_{CC}f_{\nu _{e}}\ ,  \label{m1b} \\

232: R_{ES} &=&\int dE\widetilde{\sigma }_{e}f_{\nu _{e}}+\int dE\widetilde{%

233: \sigma }_{\mu ,\tau }\left[ f_{\nu _{x}}-f_{\nu _{e}}\right] \ ,  \label{m1c}

234: \end{eqnarray}

235: where $R_{i}$ is the event rate, $f_{\nu _{i}}$ is the $\nu _{i}$ flux and $%

236: E $ is the neutrino energy. $\widetilde{\sigma }_{i}$ is the effective cross

237: section, defined in Appendix A, with $i=e,\mu ,\tau $ for $\nu _{e,\mu ,\tau

238: }+e$ ES interaction. These effective cross sections are the true cross

239: sections convoluted with the detector resolution functions which describe

240: how the energy is transferred to electrons and detected by their Cherenkov

241: radiations. The effective cross sections depend on the electron detection

242: threshold $T_{i}^{th}$. For CC and NC reactions, they also depend on $%

243: L_{1,A} $.

244: 

245: The total flux for the active solar neutrinos is assumed to have the

246: standard $^{8}$B shape, 

247: \begin{equation}

248: f_{\nu _{x}}\left( E\right) =\Phi _{\nu _{x}}\phi _{^{8}B}\left( E\right) \ ,

249: \label{a1}

250: \end{equation}

251: where $\phi _{^{8}B}$ is the normalized $^{8}B$ shape function ($%

252: \int_{0}^{E_{\max }}dE\phi _{8B}\left( E\right) =1$) \cite{8B} and $\Phi

253: _{\nu _{x}}$ is the magnitude of the $\nu _{x}$ flux. This assumption is

254: valid if there are no oscillations to sterile neutrinos, or, even if such

255: mixing {\em is} present, the survival probability to active neutrinos is

256: energy independent. Similarly, the $\nu _{e}$ flux is 

257: \begin{equation}

258: f_{\nu _{e}}\left( E\right) =\Phi _{\nu _{x}}\phi _{^{8}B}\left( E\right)

259: P_{\nu _{e}/\nu _{x}}\left( E\right) \ ,  \label{a2}

260: \end{equation}

261: where $P_{\nu _{e}/\nu _{x}}\left( E\right) $ is the probability

262: distribution of finding a $\nu _{e}$ out of a $\nu _{x}$. Obviously, $P_{\nu

263: _{e}/\nu _{x}}\left( E\right) $ is bounded between $0$ and $1$.

264: 

265: We follow Villante et al. in Ref.\cite{VFL} to define the averaged effective

266: cross sections $\overline{\sigma }_{i}$ and the normalized response

267: functions $\rho _{i}\left( E\right) $ for the $^{8}B$ spectrum 

268: \begin{eqnarray}

269: \overline{\sigma }_{i} &\equiv &\int dE\widetilde{\sigma }_{i}\phi

270: _{^{8}B}\left( E\right) \ ,  \nonumber \\

271: \rho _{i}\left( E\right) &=&\frac{\widetilde{\sigma }_{i}\phi _{^{8}B}\left(

272: E\right) }{%

273: %TCIMACRO{\dint }%

274: %BeginExpansion

275: \displaystyle\int %

276: %EndExpansion

277: dE\widetilde{\sigma }_{i}\phi _{^{8}B}\left( E\right) }\ .  \label{a4}

278: \end{eqnarray}

279: Then we rewrite eqs. (\ref{m1a}-\ref{m1c}) using eqs.(\ref{a1}-\ref{a4})

280: 

281: \begin{eqnarray}

282: R_{NC} &=&\Phi _{\nu _{x}}\overline{\sigma }_{NC}\ ,  \label{m2a} \\

283: R_{CC} &=&\Phi _{\nu _{x}}\overline{\sigma }_{CC}\int dE\rho _{CC}P_{\nu

284: _{e}/\nu _{x}}\ ,  \label{m2b} \\

285: R_{ES} &=&\Phi _{\nu _{x}}\overline{\sigma }_{\mu ,\tau }+\Phi _{\nu

286: _{x}}\int dE\left[ \overline{\sigma }_{e}\rho _{e}-\overline{\sigma }_{\mu

287: ,\tau }\rho _{\mu ,\tau }\right] P_{\nu _{e}/\nu _{x}}\ .  \label{m2c}

288: \end{eqnarray}

289: An important observation made in Ref. \cite{VFL} is that the terms

290: with the

291: normalized response function $\rho \left( E\right) $ dependence can be

292: related by choosing suitable detection thresholds. This allows us to reduce

293: the numbers of unknowns such that eqs.(\ref{m2a}-\ref{m2c}) become solvable.

294: These approximate relations and their corrections are systematically

295: explored in Appendix A. As shown in Fig.1(b), $\rho _{CC}$ is very

296: insensitive to $L_{1,A}$. Thus we can set 

297: \begin{equation}

298: \frac{\partial }{\partial L_{1,A}}\rho _{CC}\left( E\right) |_{T_{CC}^{th}=5%

299: \text{MeV}}=0\ .  \label{s}

300: \end{equation}

301: Also, as shown in Fig. 1(c), to a very good approximation, 

302: \begin{equation}

303: \rho _{e}\left( E\right) |_{T_{e}^{th}=6.8\text{MeV}}=\rho _{\mu ,\tau

304: }\left( E\right) |_{T_{\mu ,\tau }^{th}=6.8\text{MeV}}\ .  \label{ss}

305: \end{equation}

306: The corrections of the above relations change $L_{1,A}$ by up to a

307: negligible amount of 0.25 fm$^{3}$. A more significant correction comes from 

308: \begin{equation}

309: \rho \left( E\right) \equiv \rho _{CC}\left( E\right) |_{T_{CC}^{th}=5\text{%

310: MeV}}\cong \rho _{e}\left( E\right) |_{T_{e}^{th}=6.8\text{MeV}}\ .

311: \label{sss}

312: \end{equation}

313: We will use a parameter $\epsilon $ in eq.(\ref{m3c}) to parametrize the

314: correction.

315: 

316: Because of eq.(\ref{s}), the $L_{1,A}$ dependence only shows up in $%

317: \overline{\sigma }_{NC}$ and $\overline{\sigma }_{CC}$. The scaling can be

318: written as 

319: \begin{eqnarray}

320: \overline{\sigma }_{NC} &=&\overline{\sigma }_{NC}^{0}g_{NC}(L_{1,A})\ , 

321: \nonumber \\

322: \overline{\sigma }_{CC} &=&\overline{\sigma }_{CC}^{0}g_{CC}(L_{1,A})\ ,

323: \label{n2}

324: \end{eqnarray}

325: where the $\overline{\sigma }_{NC}^{0}$ and $\overline{\sigma }_{CC}^{0}$

326: are the values used by SNO \cite{SNO1} which are based on the calculation of

327: Ref. \cite{SAT+} with the electromagnetic radiative corrections of Ref. \cite

328: {EM} (see Ref. \cite{BS} for an earlier attempt)

329: and a 5 MeV electron detection threshold. These cross sections are

330: corresponding to the NNLO EFT results with $L_{1,A}(\overline{\mu }=m_{\pi

331: })=4.0$ fm$^{3}$, where the renormalization scale $\overline{\mu }$ is set

332: to the pion mass. In the following expressions, we will suppress the $%

333: \overline{\mu }$ dependence of $L_{1,A}$ for simplicity. The scaling

334: functions can be\ parametrized as 

335: \begin{eqnarray}

336: g_{NC}(L_{1,A}) &=&1+\alpha _{NC}\left( \frac{L_{1,A}}{\text{fm}^{3}}%

337: -4.0\right) \ ,  \nonumber \\

338: g_{CC}(L_{1,A}) &=&1+\alpha _{CC}\left( \frac{L_{1,A}}{\text{fm}^{3}}%

339: -4.0\right) \ ,  \label{n3}

340: \end{eqnarray}

341: where $\alpha _{NC}=0.013$ and $\alpha _{CC}=0.010$. It is interesting to

342: note that if $\overline{\sigma }$ were averaged true cross sections instead

343: of the averaged {\em effective} cross sections, then $\alpha _{NC}$ and $%

344: \alpha _{CC}$ would be almost identical \cite{BCK}. The larger difference

345: here is due to the difference in the detection methods. As shown in eqs.(\ref

346: {2}) and (\ref{3}), the CC event detection requires the final state electron

347: energy to be above a certain detection threshold, thus leptons transferring

348: too much energy to the hadrons will not be detected. For NC detection,

349: however, there is no such discrimination---all the neutrons generated in NC

350: have the same probability to be detected in the thermalization and capture

351: process. Thus in general, the scaling factor of NC is associated with that

352: of more energetic scattering (with larger energy transfer to the hadrons)

353: than that of CC. We find the qualitative difference between $\alpha _{NC}$

354: and $\alpha _{CC}$ is consistent with the neutrino energy dependence of the

355: scaling factors calculated in Ref. \cite{BCK}.

356: 

357: Substituting eqs.(\ref{s}-\ref{n2}) into the eqs. (\ref{m2a}-\ref{m2c}), we

358: have 

359: \begin{eqnarray}

360: R_{NC} &=&\Phi _{\nu _{x}}\overline{\sigma }_{NC}^{0}g_{NC}(L_{1,A})\ ,

361: \label{m3a} \\

362: R_{CC} &=&\Phi _{\nu _{x}}\overline{\sigma }_{CC}^{0}g_{CC}(L_{1,A})\int

363: dE\rho P_{\nu _{e}/\nu _{x}}\ ,  \label{m3b} \\

364: R_{ES} &=&\Phi _{\nu _{x}}\overline{\sigma }_{e}\left[ \frac{\overline{%

365: \sigma }_{\mu ,\tau }}{\overline{\sigma }_{e}}+\left( 1-\frac{\overline{%

366: \sigma }_{\mu ,\tau }}{\overline{\sigma }_{e}}\right) \left( 1+\epsilon

367: \right) \int dE\rho P_{\nu _{e}/\nu _{x}}\right] \ .  \label{m3c}

368: \end{eqnarray}

369: Note that $T_{CC}^{th}=T_{NC}^{th}=5$ MeV and $T_{\mu ,\tau

370: }^{th}=T_{e}^{th}=6.8$ MeV to be consistent with eq.(\ref{sss} ). $\epsilon $

371: parametrizes the correction to the approximate identity of eq.(\ref{sss}).

372: As shown in Appendix A , there is a model independent bound 

373: \begin{equation}

374: \left| \epsilon \right| <4\%\ .

375: \end{equation}

376: This correction 

377: introduces changes $L_{1,A}$ by up to $\pm 2.0\ $fm$^{3}$ but

378: changes

379: the other quantities by negligible amounts.

380: 

381: Now it is clear that eqs.(\ref{m3a}-\ref{m3c}) are solvable. The three

382: equations determine three quantities: $\Phi _{\nu _{x}}$, $L_{1,A}$ and $%

383: \int dE\rho P_{\nu _{e}/\nu _{x}}$, which are the magnitude of the total

384: active neutrino flux, the axial two-body current, and the measured $\nu

385: _{e}/\nu _{x}$ ratio, respectively. If there is no neutrino oscillation,

386: then $\int dE\rho P_{\nu _{e}/\nu _{x}}=1$.

387: 

388: For the experimental inputs, SNO has measured the ES rates, but the SK

389: determination is more precise while in agreement with SNO. Therefore we use

390: the SK measurements not only to provide a value for the integral above 6.8

391: MeV as shown above, but also to fix (and remove) the ES contribution to the

392: total SNO rates above 5 MeV. With 1496 days of data, SK reports \cite{SK}

393: the equivalent electron neutrino fluxes ($\equiv R_{ES}/\overline{\sigma }%

394: _{e}$) for analysis thresholds of 6.5 and 5.0 MeV, 

395: \begin{eqnarray}

396: \Phi _{{\rm SK}}(6.5) &=&\left( 2.362_{-0.068}^{+0.074}\right) \times 10^{6}%

397: {\rm \ cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}\ , \\

398: \Phi _{{\rm SK}}(5.0) &=&\left( 2.348_{-0.066}^{+0.073}\right) \times 10^{6}%

399: {\rm \ cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}\ ,

400: \end{eqnarray}

401: respectively, where the statistical and systematic errors have been added in

402: quadrature. Here and in the subsequent analysis in this paper, where

403: asymmetric errors occur, we simply use the larger. We take the uncertainties

404: in the two SK fluxes to be fully correlated. In view of the lack of

405: significant threshold-energy dependence in the SK flux, we assume 

406: \begin{equation}

407: \Phi _{{\rm SK}}(6.8)=\Phi _{{\rm SK}}(6.5)\ .

408: \end{equation}

409: 

410: SNO provides a model-independent value for the NC rate, obtained by

411: separating the CC and NC parts of the signal by their different radial and

412: sun-angle dependences in the detector. This result is independent of the

413: energy spectrum of the CC events. Converting the flux reported into an

414: equivalent number of events gives $727\pm 190$ detected in the 306.4-day

415: running period.

416: 

417: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE I %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

418: \begin{table}[tbp]

419: \caption{Numbers of events reported by SNO for 306.4 live days for a kinetic

420: energy threshold of 5 MeV.  The uncertainties (except for the backgrounds) are statistical.}

421: \label{SNO02}

422: \begin{center}

423: \begin{tabular}{lrc}

424: Reaction & Events & Uncertainty \\ \hline

425: Candidate Events & 2928 & 54.1 \\ 

426: Backgrounds & 123 & +21.6 -17.0 \\ 

427: Total Neutrino Events & 2805 & +58.3 -56.7 \\ 

428: ES (from SK) & 258.3 & 8.0 \\ 

429: Net NC + CC & 2546.7 & 59 \\ 

430: NC (CC shape unconstrained) & 727 & 190 \\ 

431: NC (CC shape constrained) & 576.5 & 49.5

432: \end{tabular}

433: \end{center}

434: \end{table}

435: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

436: %

437: %

438: 

439: In Table \ref{SNO02} the event rates needed for the model-independent

440: analysis are summarized. The ``true'' number of ES events in the SNO data

441: set is derived from $\Phi _{{\rm SK}}(5.0)$ and the SNO effective elastic

442: scattering cross section with a 5.0 MeV threshold ${\overline{\sigma }_{e}|}%

443: _{5.0}$, 

444: \begin{equation}

445: {\overline{\sigma }_{e}|}_{5.0}=1.10\times 10^{-4}\text{\ cm}^{2}\text{sT}%

446: ^{-1}\ ,

447: \end{equation}

448: derived from Ref. \cite{SNO1}. (The number is in excellent agreement with

449: the $263.6\pm 26.4({\rm stat.})$ obtained during the SNO signal extraction.)

450: One could derive a value for the CC rate directly from the fifth and sixth

451: lines of this table, but the two would be highly correlated. It is

452: preferable to make use of expressions for NC + CC and NC because the summed

453: rate is essentially free of correlation with the NC rate. So we use 

454: \begin{eqnarray}

455: R_{NC}+R_{CC} &=&R_{tot}-\Phi _{{\rm SK}}(5.0){\overline{\sigma }_{e}|}_{5.0}%

456: {=}\left( 2546\pm 59\right) \text{T}^{-1}\text{\ ,}  \nonumber \\

457: R_{NC} &=&\left( 727\pm 190\right) \text{T}^{-1}\ ,  \label{Yo}

458: \end{eqnarray}

459: where T$=$306.4 days.

460: 

461: The averaged effective cross sections of SNO can be extracted from Ref. \cite

462: {SNO1} 

463: \begin{eqnarray}

464: \overline{\sigma }_{NC}^{0} &=&1.13\times 10^{-4}\text{\ cm}^{2}\text{sT}%

465: ^{-1}\ ,  \nonumber \\

466: \overline{\sigma }_{CC}^{0} &=&1.12\times 10^{-3}\text{\ cm}^{2}\text{sT}%

467: ^{-1}\ .

468: \end{eqnarray}

469: The effective cross sections are subject to uncertainty from a variety of

470: sources, tabulated by SNO \cite{SNO1}. These include principally the energy

471: scale, vertex-reconstruction accuracy, and (for the NC reaction) energy

472: resolution and neutron capture efficiency. The sources of uncertainty

473: produce in some cases correlated variations in the effective cross sections,

474: which are explicitly accounted for in the analysis.

475: 

476: In general we should have added $3\%$ systematics for the NNLO EFT

477: calculations of $\overline{\sigma }_{NC}^{0}$ and $\overline{\sigma }%

478: _{CC}^{0}$, because for an EFT with a small expansion parameter $Q\sim 1/3$,

479: 3\% error is reasonable for a third order (NNLO) calculation. In the

480: analysis of \cite{BCK}, however, a faster convergence is seen in four

481: channels of (anti)neutrino-deuteron scattering, such that 1-2\% higher

482: corrections also seems reasonable. Furthermore, it is conceivable that the

483: higher order corrections can be absorbed in $L_{1,A}$ in low energy

484: processes. One indication that this might happen is in the comparison with

485: the potential model calculations. The potential model results have quite

486: different systematics to those of EFT. The fact that NNLO EFT can fit four

487: channels of (anti)neutrino-deuteron reaction results of \cite{NSGK} to

488: within $1\%$ \cite{BCK} suggests that higher order effects can be absorbed

489: in $L_{1,A}$. Further investigation is still required to see whether the

490: higher order effects shift $L_{1,A}$ approximately the same amount. For

491: matrix elements with similar kinematics, this is likely to be true. In our

492: case, we have CC and NC in approximately the same energy region. Thus we

493: expect the higher order effects just shift $L_{1,A}$ by a certain amount ($%

494: \sim +2$ to $+3$ fm$^{3}$, with the sign fixed by the fifth order proton-proton

495: fusion calculation \cite{pp,BCV} as will be explained in more detail later)

496: without introducing additional error to the $\Phi _{\nu _{x}}$ and $\int

497: dE\rho P_{\nu _{e}/\nu _{x}}$ determinations.

498: 

499: For ES reactions with a $6.8$-MeV threshold, the ratio of the neutral

500: current and electron neutrino scattering cross sections is, 

501: \begin{equation}

502: \frac{\overline{\sigma }_{\mu ,\tau }}{\overline{\sigma }_{e}}=0.153\ ,

503: \end{equation}

504: with radiative corrections included.

505: 

506: Now we have all the inputs required to solve eqs. (\ref{m3a}-\ref{m3c}). The

507: full set of equations is nonlinear in $L_{1,A}$, but a linearized solution

508: may be obtained by making a first-order expansion for $g_{CC}/g_{NC}=1+(%

509: \alpha _{CC}-\alpha _{NC})(L_{1,A}/$fm$^{3}-4.0)+\ldots $ The term quadratic

510: in \ $(L_{1,A}/$fm$^{3}-4.0)$ is $\sim 10^{-4}$ and can be neglected. Using

511: this approximation, the solutions of eqs.(\ref{m3a}-\ref{m3b}) are: 

512: \begin{eqnarray}

513: (\frac{L_{1,A}}{\text{fm}^{3}}-4.0) =\left[ \alpha _{CC}\Phi _{{\rm SK}}(6.8)%

514: \overline{\sigma }_{CC}^{0}+(\alpha _{NC}-\alpha _{CC})R_{NC}\frac{\overline{%

515: \sigma }_{\mu \tau }}{\overline{\sigma }_{e}}\frac{\overline{\sigma }%

516: _{CC}^{0}}{\overline{\sigma }_{NC}^{0}}\right] ^{-1}  \nonumber \\

517: \times \left\{ \left[ R_{tot}-\Phi _{{\rm SK}}(5.0){\overline{\sigma }_{e}|}%

518: _{5.0}-R_{NC}\right] \left( 1-\frac{\overline{\sigma }_{\mu \tau }}{%

519: \overline{\sigma }_{e}}\right) (1+\epsilon )-\Phi _{{\rm SK}}(6.8){\overline{%

520: \sigma }_{CC}^{0}}+R_{NC}\frac{\overline{\sigma }_{\mu \tau }}{\overline{%

521: \sigma }_{e}}\frac{\overline{\sigma }_{CC}^{0}}{\overline{\sigma }_{NC}^{0}}%

522: \right\} ,

523: \end{eqnarray}

524: 

525: \begin{equation}

526: \int dE\rho P_{\nu _{e}/\nu _{x}}=\left( \Phi _{{\rm SK}}(6.8)\frac{g_{NC}%

527: \overline{\sigma }_{NC}^{0}}{R_{NC}}-\frac{\overline{\sigma }_{\mu ,\tau }}{%

528: \overline{\sigma }_{e}}\right) \left( 1-\frac{\overline{\sigma }_{\mu ,\tau }%

529: }{\overline{\sigma }_{e}}\right) ^{-1}\left( 1+\epsilon \right) ^{-1},

530: \end{equation}

531: 

532: \begin{equation}

533: \Phi _{\nu _{x}}=\frac{R_{NC}}{g_{NC}\overline{\sigma }_{NC}^{0}}\ .

534: \end{equation}

535: 

536: Inserting the experimental and theoretical quantities, 

537: \begin{eqnarray}

538: L_{1,A} &=&4.0\pm 4.7 (\rm stat.) \pm 4.5 (\rm syst.) \ \text{fm}^{3}\ ,  \nonumber \\

539: \Phi _{\nu _{x}} &=&\left( 6.4\pm 1.4 \pm 0.6 \right) \times 10^{6}\ \text{cm}^{-2}%

540: \text{s}^{-1}\ ,  \label{results} \\

541: \int dE\rho P_{\nu _{e}/\nu _{x}} &=&0.25_{-0.07}^{+0.12} \pm 0.03 \ .  \nonumber

542: \end{eqnarray}

543: The statistical errors in \lia are dominated by $R_{NC}$, and the systematic errors by $\Phi_{\rm SK}$ and by vertex reconstruction accuracy in SNO.

544: 

545: %

546: %

547: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% TABLE II %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

548: \begin{table}[tbp]

549: \caption{{Determinations of the NNLO $L_{1,A}$ (at renormalization scale $m_{%

550: \protect\pi }$) from different processes. The higher order theoretical

551: systematics are expected to be absorbed by shifting $L_{1,A}$ by $\sim +2$ to $%

552: +3 $ fm$^{3}$ thus is not included in this table. Note that the CC, NC \& ES

553: combined analysis assumes the standard $^{8}B$ shape for the active neutrino

554: flux. The tritium $\protect\beta$ decay analysis assumes the three-body

555: current is negligible. The helioseismology analysis does not include the

556: uncertainties from the solar model. The last two entries are theoretical

557: determinations. EFT dimensional analysis gives $\left|L_{1,A}\right| $ $\sim

558: 6$ (fm$^{3}$) which is denoted as $[-6,6]$ as its expected range. }}

559: \label{L1a}

560: \begin{center}

561: \begin{tabular}{lcr}

562: Processes & $L_{1,A}$ (fm$^{3}$) & References \\ \hline

563: CC, NC \& ES & $4.0\pm 6.3$ & [this work] \\ 

564: Reactor $\overline{\nu }$-$d$ & $3.6\pm 4.6$ & \cite{BCV} \\ 

565: Tritium $\beta $ decay & $4.2\pm 0.1$ & \cite{Tritium}(see also 

566: \cite{pp,BCV,park}%

567: ) \\ 

568: Helioseismology & $4.8\pm 5.9$ & \cite{helio} \\ 

569: Dimensional analysis & $\sim \lbrack -6,6]$ & \cite{BCK} \\ 

570: Potential model & $4.0$ & \cite{SAT+}

571: \end{tabular}

572: \end{center}

573: \end{table}

574: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

575: %

576: %

577: 

578: A few comments can be made about the result we obtain in eq.(\ref{results}).

579: First, the only assumption we have made is that the active neutrino flux has

580: the standard $^{8}B$ shape. The rest of the treatment is model independent

581: in the sense that we have not assumed the size of $L_{1,A}$ or assumed any

582: neutrino oscillation scenarios. Second, our result on $\int dE\rho P_{\nu

583: _{e}/\nu _{x}}$ can be used to constrain neutrino oscillation parameters.

584: Third, the size of the active neutrino flux is consistent with the $\nu _{e}$

585: flux of the standard solar model $\Phi _{SSM}=\left(

586: 5.05_{-0.81}^{+1.01}\right) \times 10^{6}\ $cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$. This sets a

587: constraint on the oscillations between the active and sterile neutrinos.

588: Fourth, the range of\ $L_{1,A}$ we have obtained is consistent with the

589: estimated value $\left| L_{1,A}\right| $ $\sim 6$ fm$^{3}$ (at $\overline{%

590: \mu }=m_{\pi }$) from dimensional analysis \cite{BCK}. It is also consistent

591: with the constraints from reactor-antineutrino deuteron breakup processes 

592: \cite{BCV} , tritium beta decay \cite{Tritium}, helioseismology \cite{helio}%

593: , and the latest improved potential model results \cite{SAT+} (corresponding

594: to $L_{1,A}$ $=4.0$ fm$^{3}$). The comparison of their corresponding NNLO $%

595: L_{1,A}$'s is listed in Table \ref{L1a}. Here we have assumed that most of

596: the higher order effects in EFT can be absorbed by $L_{1,A}$, and the higher

597: order theoretical systematics are therefore not included in the assigned

598: error bars. We expect a $+2$ to $+3$ fm$^{3}$ contribution to the effective

599: value of $L_{1,A}$ from higher orders. The sign is fixed by an explicit

600: fifth-order calculation of the proton-proton fusion at threshold \cite{pp}

601: which shows that $L_{1,A}$ shifts by +2 to +3 fm$^{3}$ from the third order

602: (NNLO) to the fifth order. Even though the tritium beta decay analysis

603: assumes that the three-body current is negligible and the helioseismology

604: analysis does not include the uncertainties from the solar model, it is

605: still very encouraging that all the constraints agree with each other very

606: well, given how different the physical systems are.

607: 

608: It is likely in the future the error bar of $R_{NC}$ could be reduced by a

609: factor of 2. In that case, the error on $L_{1,A}\ $ would be reduced to 5

610: fm$^{3}$.

611: 

612:  It is also

613: interesting to reinvestigate the null hypothesis (specifically that all

614: observed fluxes can be described consistently within the Standard Model 

615: of Particles and Fields) when $L_{1,A}\ $ is allowed to

616: float. $\int dE\rho P_{\nu _{e}/\nu

617: _{x}}=1$ in the Standard Model, and thus the set of

618: three equations (\ref{m3a}-\ref{m3b}) contain only two parameters. One finds

619: that the set is inconsistent at 4.3 $\sigma $.   Alternatively, if 

620: one uses the experimental determination of \lia from reactor data 

621: (Table \ref{L1a}), the null hypothesis fails at 5.1 $\sigma$ (SNO

622: only) or 5.3 $\sigma$ (SNO and SK).  Thus, even if SNO were to

623: place no reliance at all on the theoretical calculations of short-distance

624: physics \cite{NSGK,SAT+}, it would still be true that the

625: no-flavor-conversion hypothesis is ruled out with high confidence. 

626: 

627: 

628: One might suspect that if the value of $L_{1,A}$ is taken from some other

629: constraints, perhaps the $^{8}B$ shape assumption for the active neutrino

630: flux can be removed. This question can be easily answered by inspecting the

631: new set of equations 

632: \begin{eqnarray}

633: R_{NC} &=&\Phi _{B}\overline{\sigma }_{NC}^{0}g_{NC}\int dE\rho _{NC}P_{\nu

634: _{e}\rightarrow \nu _{x}}\ ,  \nonumber \\

635: R_{CC} &=&\Phi _{B}\overline{\sigma }_{CC}^{0}g_{CC}\int dE\rho P_{\nu

636: _{e}\rightarrow \nu _{e}}\ , \\

637: R_{ES} &=&\Phi _{B}\overline{\sigma }_{e}\left[ \frac{\overline{\sigma }%

638: _{\mu ,\tau }}{\overline{\sigma }_{e}}\int dE\rho _{\mu ,\tau }P_{\nu

639: _{e}\rightarrow \nu _{x}}+\left( 1-\frac{\overline{\sigma }_{\mu ,\tau }}{%

640: \overline{\sigma }_{e}}\right) \left( 1+\epsilon \right) \int dE\rho P_{\nu

641: _{e}\rightarrow \nu _{e}}\right] \ ,  \nonumber

642: \end{eqnarray}

643: where \bigskip $\Phi _{B}$ are the un-oscillated $^{8}B$ $\nu _{e}$ flux and 

644: $P_{\nu _{e}\rightarrow \nu _{i}}$ is the probability distribution between

645: the $\nu _{e}\rightarrow \nu _{i}$ transition. If $\rho _{NC}$ and $\rho

646: _{\mu ,\tau }$ satisfy the relation 

647: \[

648: \rho _{NC}|_{T_{NC}^{th}=5\text{MeV}}=\rho _{\mu ,\tau }|_{T_{\mu ,\tau

649: }^{th}=6.8\text{MeV}}\ , 

650: \]

651: then one can determine $\int dE\rho _{NC}P_{\nu _{e}\rightarrow \nu _{x}}$, $%

652: \int dE\rho P_{\nu _{e}\rightarrow \nu _{e}}$ and $\Phi _{B}$ provided $%

653: L_{1,A}$ is given. Unfortunately, the above relation, which implies $\rho

654: _{NC}|_{T_{NC}^{th}=5\text{MeV}}=\rho _{CC}|_{T_{CC}^{th}=5\text{MeV}}$,

655: does not hold, as shown in Fig. 1(a) in Appendix A.

656: 

657: \section{Conclusions}

658: 

659: We have analyzed the SNO and SK data on CC, NC and ES reactions to constrain

660: the leading axial two-body current $L_{1,A}.$ This two-body current

661: contributes the biggest uncertainty in every low energy weak interaction

662: deuteron breakup process, including SNO's CC and NC reactions. The only

663: assumption made in this analysis is that the total flux of active neutrinos

664: has the standard $^{8}B$ spectral shape (but distortions in the electron

665: neutrino spectrum are allowed). We have confirmed that SNO's conclusions

666: about the inconsistency of the no-flavor-conversion hypothesis and the

667: magnitude of the active solar neutrino flux do not have significant

668: theoretical model dependence. Our method has shown that SNO can be

669: self-calibrated or be calibrated by SK with respect to theoretical

670: uncertainties, and that the resulting calibration produces results in close

671: accord with theoretical expectations.  Alternatively, the purely experimental determination of \lia from reactor antineutrino data can be used to remove the dependence on theory, and SNO's conclusions are unaffected.

672: 

673: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

674: 

675: %%  Acknowledgments

676: 

677: \vskip1 in \centerline{\bf ACKNOWLEDGMENTS} We would like to thank Petr

678: Vogel for useful discussions. JWC\ is supported, in part, by the Department

679: of Energy under grant DOE/ER/40762-213. RGHR is supported by the DOE under

680: Grant DE-FG03-97ER41020.

681: 

682: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

683: %  Appendices

684: \appendix

685: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

686: 

687: \section{Computation of the Normalized Response Functions to the $^{8}B$

688: Spectrum}

689: 

690: In this Appendix, we define of the effective cross sections and then show

691: the numerical results that support eqs.(\ref{s}-\ref{sss}).

692: 

693: For CC and ES reaction, the effective cross section $\widetilde{\sigma }$ is

694: related to the true cross section $\sigma $ through the relation 

695: \begin{equation}

696: \widetilde{\sigma }_{CC(ES)}=\eta _{CC(ES)}\int_{T_{CC(ES)}^{th}}dT\int

697: dT^{\prime }r_{CC(ES)}(T,T^{\prime })\frac{d\sigma _{CC(ES)}}{dT^{\prime }}\

698: ,

699: \end{equation}

700: where $\eta $ is an experimental efficiency, $T^{\prime }$ is the true

701: kinetic energy of the final state lepton and $T$ is the electron energy

702: recorded through the Cherenkov radiation of the electron, and $T^{th}$ is

703: the detection threshold. If the resolution of the detector were perfect, the

704: resolution function $r(T,T^{\prime })$ would be a delta function. For SNO, $%

705: r(T,T^{\prime })$ is a Gaussion function \cite{SNO1} 

706: \begin{equation}

707: r_{CC(ES)}(T,T^{\prime })=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\Delta _{CC(ES)}}\exp \left[ -%

708: \frac{(T-T^{\prime })^{2}}{2\Delta _{CC(ES)}^{2}}\right]  \label{2}

709: \end{equation}

710: with resolution 

711: \begin{equation}

712: \Delta _{CC}=\left( -0.0684+0.331\sqrt{\frac{T^{\prime }}{\text{MeV}}}+0.0425%

713: \frac{T^{\prime }}{\text{MeV}}\right) \text{MeV\ .}

714: \end{equation}

715: For ES reactions, we have used the SK result rather than the SNO result for

716: better statistics. The resolution for SK is \cite{VFL} 

717: \begin{equation}

718: \Delta _{ES}=\sqrt{\frac{T^{\prime }}{10\text{MeV}}}1.5\text{MeV\ .}

719: \end{equation}

720: 

721: For NC reaction, the final state neutrons are thermalized then captured by

722: deuterons to form tritons and photons in SNO's first phase running. The

723: photons subsequently excite electrons which produce Cherenkov radiation.

724: Thus the SNO's NC events can be recorded as electron detections as well.

725: However, the kinematic information of the final state neutrons is lost in

726: thermalization. Thus the resolution function is monoenergetic \cite{NC} 

727: \begin{equation}

728: r_{NC}(T)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\Delta _{NC}}\exp \left[ -\frac{(T-T_{NC})^{2}%

729: }{2\Delta _{NC}^{2}}\right] \ ,  \label{3}

730: \end{equation}

731: where $T_{NC}=5.08$ MeV and $\Delta _{NC}=1.11$ MeV. In contrast to eq.(\ref

732: {2}), the effective NC differential cross section versus $E$ is not

733: distorted 

734: \begin{equation}

735: \widetilde{\sigma }_{NC}=\eta _{NC}\sigma

736: _{NC}\int_{T_{NC}^{th}}dTr_{NC}(T)\ .  \label{100}

737: \end{equation}

738: 

739: We now turn to the computation of the normalized response functions of the $%

740: ^{8}B$ spectrum define in eq.(\ref{a4}). In Fig. 1(a), $\rho

741: _{CC}|_{T_{CC}^{th}=5\text{MeV}}$ (solid curve) and $\rho

742: _{NC}|_{T_{NC}^{th}=5\text{MeV}}$ (dashed curve) are shown as functions of $%

743: E $. The two curves are quite different. $\rho _{NC}$ is independent of $%

744: T_{NC}^{th}$, according to eqs.(\ref{a4}) and (\ref{100}). In contrast, the

745: peak of $\rho _{CC}$ can be shifted towards the high energy end by

746: increasing $T_{CC}^{th}$. When $T_{CC}^{th}=5$MeV, $\rho _{CC}$ is close to

747: a Gaussian function. Likewise, when $T_{e}^{th}=6.8$MeV, $\rho _{e}$ and $%

748: \rho _{\mu ,\tau }$ are adjusted to be close to Gaussians as well. Thus $%

749: \rho _{CC}$, $\rho _{e}$ and $\rho _{\mu ,\tau }$ can be related. To see how

750: different they are, it is convenient to define the following functions, 

751: \begin{eqnarray}

752: \delta \rho _{CC} &\equiv &\rho _{CC}|_{L_{1,A}=5\ \text{fm}^{3}}-\rho

753: _{CC}|_{L_{1,A}=0}\ ,  \nonumber \\

754: \delta \rho _{e} &\equiv &\rho _{e}|_{T_{e}^{th}=6.8\text{MeV}}-\rho _{\mu

755: ,\tau }|_{T_{e}^{th}=6.8\text{MeV}}\ ,  \label{defs} \\

756: \delta \rho _{CC,ES} &\equiv &\rho _{CC}|_{T_{CC}^{th}=5MeV}-\rho

757: _{e}|_{T_{e}^{th}=6.8\text{MeV}}\ .  \nonumber

758: \end{eqnarray}

759: $\delta \rho _{CC}$, $\delta \rho _{e}$ and $\delta \rho _{CC,ES}$ are shown

760: as functions of $E$ in Fig. 1 (b)-(d), respectively.

761: 

762: %%%%%%%%%%   Figure 1  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

763: \begin{figure}[!t]

764: \centerline{{\epsfxsize=5.0 in \epsfbox{Fig1.eps}}}

765: \caption{{\it (a) $\protect\rho_{CC}|_{T_{CC}^{th}=5\text{MeV}}$ (solid

766: curve) and $\protect\rho_{NC}|_{T_{NC}^{th}=5\text{MeV}}$ (dashed curve) are

767: shown as functions of $E$. (b)-(d) $\protect\delta \protect\rho_{CC}$, $%

768: \protect\delta \protect\rho _{e}$ and $\protect\delta \protect\rho_{CC,ES}$

769: defined in eq.(\ref{defs}) are shown as functions of $E$, respectively. }}

770: \label{Fig:phaseshifts}

771: \end{figure}

772: %

773: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

774: 

775: To study the contributions of non-zero $\delta \rho $, we will first prove

776: an equality. Defining 

777: \begin{eqnarray}

778: \delta \rho _{\pm } &=&\frac{\delta \rho \pm \left| \delta \rho \right| }{2}%

779: \ ,  \nonumber \\

780: I_{\pm } &=&\int dE\delta \rho _{\pm }P_{\nu _{e}/\nu _{x}}\ ,

781: \end{eqnarray}

782: then 

783: \begin{equation}

784: \int dE\delta \rho P_{\nu _{e}/\nu _{x}}=I_{+}+I_{-}\ .

785: \end{equation}

786: Since 0$\leq P_{\nu _{e}/\nu _{x}}\left( E\right) \leq 1$, 

787: \begin{eqnarray}

788: 0 &\leq &I_{+}\leq \int dE\delta \rho _{+}\ , \\

789: \int dE\delta \rho _{-} &\leq &I_{-}\leq \ 0\ .  \nonumber

790: \end{eqnarray}

791: Because $\int dE\delta \rho =0$, $\int dE\delta \rho _{\pm }=\pm \frac{1}{2}%

792: \int dE\left| \delta \rho \right| $. Thus we find 

793: \begin{equation}

794: \left| \int dE\delta \rho P_{\nu _{e}/\nu _{x}}\right| \leq \frac{1}{2}\int

795: dE\left| \delta \rho \right| \ .

796: \end{equation}

797: This model independent relation gives 

798: \begin{eqnarray}

799: \left| \int dE\delta \rho _{CC}P_{\nu _{e}/\nu _{x}}\right| &\leq &0.0013\ ,

800: \nonumber \\

801: \left| \int dE\delta \rho _{ES}P_{\nu _{e}/\nu _{x}}\right| &\leq &0.0012\ ,

802: \\

803: \left| \int dE\delta \rho _{CC,ES}P_{\nu _{e}/\nu _{x}}\right| &\leq

804: &0.0105\ ,  \nonumber

805: \end{eqnarray}

806: in comparison with $\int dE\rho P_{\nu _{e}/\nu _{x}}\sim 0.25$. The first

807: two inequality show that the $L_{1,A}$ dependence in $\rho _{CC}$ and the

808: difference between $\rho _{e}$ and $\rho _{\mu ,\tau }$ are negligible

809: compared with the correction from $\delta \rho _{CC,ES}$. The $\delta \rho

810: _{CC,ES}$ effect is parametrized by $\epsilon $ in eq.(\ref{m3c}) with 

811: \begin{equation}

812: \left| \epsilon \right| <4\%\ .

813: \end{equation}

814: 

815: \begin{references}

816: \bibitem{SNO1}  Q.R. Ahmad {\it et al}., {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 87},

817: 071301 (2001); {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 89}, 011301 (2002), {\it Phys.

818: Rev. Lett.} 89, 011302 (2002).

819: 

820: \bibitem{BCK}  M.N.\ Butler and J.W.\ Chen, {\it Nucl.\ Phys.\ } {\bf A675},

821: 575 (2000); M.N.\ Butler, J.W.\ Chen and X. Kong, {\it Phys. Rev.} C {\bf 63}%

822: , 035501 (2001).

823: 

824: \bibitem{BCV}  M.N.\ Butler, J.W.\ Chen, and Petr Vogel, {\tt nucl-th/0206026%

825: }.

826: 

827: \bibitem{KSW96}  D.B. Kaplan, M.J. Savage and M.B. Wise, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B%

828: {\bf 478}, 629 (1996).

829: 

830: \bibitem{K97}  D.B. Kaplan, {\it Nucl. Phys.} B{\bf 494}, 471 (1997).

831: 

832: \bibitem{vK97}  U. van Kolck, {\tt hep-ph/9711222}; {\it Nucl. Phys.} A{\bf %

833: 645} 273 (1999).

834: 

835: \bibitem{Cohen97}  T.D. Cohen, {\it Phys. Rev.} C{\bf 55}, 67 (1997); D.R.

836: Phillips and T.D. Cohen, {\it Phys. Lett.} B{\bf 390}, 7 (1997); S.R.\

837: Beane, T.D. Cohen, and D.R. Phillips, {\it Nucl. Phys.} A{\bf 632}, 445

838: (1998).

839: 

840: \bibitem{BHvK1}  P.F. Bedaque and U. van Kolck, {\it Phys. Lett.} B{\bf 428}%

841: , 221 (1998).

842: 

843: \bibitem{CRS}  J.W. Chen, G. Rupak and M.J. Savage,{\it \ Nucl.\ Phys. }{\bf %

844: A653}, 386 (1999).

845: 

846: \bibitem{npdgam2}  J.W. Chen, G. Rupak and M.J. Savage, {\it Phys. Lett.} 

847: {\bf B464}, 1 (1999).

848: 

849: \bibitem{dEFT}  S.R. Beane and M.J. Savage, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A694},

850: 511 (2001){\tt .}

851: 

852: \bibitem{GR}  H.W. Griesshammer and G. Rupak, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B529},

853: 57 (2002) .

854: 

855: \bibitem{npdgam1}  J.W. Chen and M.J. Savage, {\it Phys. Rev. }C {\bf 60},

856: 065205 (1999).

857: 

858: \bibitem{Rupak}  G. Rupak, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A678}, 405 (2000).

859: 

860: \bibitem{KR}  X. Kong and F. Ravndal,{\it \ Nucl. Phys. }{\bf A656}, 421

861: (1999); {\it Nucl. Phys. }{\bf A665}, 137 (2000); {\it Phys. Lett. }{\bf %

862: B470 }, 1 (1999);{\small \ }{\it Phys. Rev.} C {\bf 64}, 044002 (2001).

863: 

864: \bibitem{pp}  M. Butler and J.W. Chen, {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B520}, 87

865: (2001).

866: 

867: \bibitem{PV}  M.J. Savage, {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A695}, 365 (2001).

868: 

869: \bibitem{BHvK2}  P.F. Bedaque, H.W. Hammer and U. van Kolck, {\it Phys. Rev.

870: Lett.} {\bf 82}, 463 (1999); {\it Nucl.\ Phys.\ } A {\bf 676}, 357 (2000);

871: H.-W.\ Hammer and T.\ Mehen, {\it Phys.\ Lett.\ } B {\bf 516}, 353 (2001);

872: P.F. Bedaque, G. Rupak, H.W. Griesshammer and H.W. Hammer, {\tt %

873: nucl-th/0207034}.

874: 

875: \bibitem{3bodyothers}  P.F.\ Bedaque, H.-W.\ Hammer and U.\ van Kolck, {\it %

876: Phys.\ Rev.} {\bf C58}, R641 (1998); F. Gabbiani, P.F.\ Bedaque and H.W.\

877: Grie{\ss }hammer, {\it Nucl.\ Phys.} A {\bf 675}, 601 (2000);

878: 

879: \bibitem{YHH}  S. Ying, W.C. Haxton and E. M. Henley,{\it \ Phys. Rev.} C 

880: {\bf 45}, 1982 (1992); {\it Phys. Rev.} D {\bf 40}, 3211 (1989).

881: 

882: \bibitem{NSGK}  S. Nakamura, T. Sato, V. Gudkov and K. Kubodera,{\small \ } 

883: {\it Phys. Rev.} C {\bf 63}, 034617 (2001).

884: 

885: \bibitem{8B}  C.E. Ortiz {\it et al}., {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 85}, 2909

886: (2000); J.N. Bahcall {\it et al}., {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf C} 54, 411 (1996).

887: 

888: \bibitem{VFL}  F.L. Villante, G. Fiorentini and E. Lisi, {\it Phys. Rev.} 

889: {\bf D}59, 013006 (1998); G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Palazzo and F.L. Villante, 

890: {\it Phys. Rev.} {\bf D63}, 113016 (2001).

891: 

892: \bibitem{SAT+}  S. Nakamura {\it et al}., {\it Nucl. Phys.} {\bf A707}, 561

893: (2002).

894: 

895: \bibitem{EM}  A. Kurylov, M.J. Ramsey-Musolf and P. Vogel, {\it Phys. Rev.}

896: C {\bf 65}, 055501 (2002).

897: 

898: \bibitem{BS} J.F. Beacom and S.J. Parke,

899: {\it Phys. Rev.} D{\bf 64}, 091302 (2001).

900: 

901: \bibitem{SK}  S. Fukuda {\it et al}., {\it Phys. Lett.} {\bf B539}, 179

902: (2002); {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 86}, 5651 (2001).

903: 

904: \bibitem{Thesis}  E.K. Blaufuss, PhD Thesis, Louisiana State University, Dec

905: 2000, http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/doc/sk/pub/index.html.

906: 

907: \bibitem{Tritium}  R. Schiavilla {\it et al.}, {\it Phys. Rev.}

908: {\em \ }C{\bf %

909: \ 58}, 1263 (1998).

910: 

911: \bibitem{park} T.S. Park {\it et al.}, {\tt

912: nucl-th/0106025}; {\tt nucl-th/0208055}; S. Ando {\it et al}.,

913: {\tt nucl-th/0206001}.  

914: 

915: \bibitem{helio}  K.I.T. Brown, M.N. Butler, and D.B. Guenther, {\tt %

916: nucl-th/0207008}.

917: 

918: \bibitem{NC}  HOWTO use the SNO Solar Neutrino Spectral Data, SNO

919: Collaboration, http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/sno/prlwebpage/.

920: \end{references}

921: 

922: \end{document}

923: