Nonstandard models, solar neutrinos, and large ${\ensuremath{\theta}}_{13}$

Nonstandard models, solar neutrinos, and large $θ_{13}$

R. Bonventre, A. LaTorre, J. R. Klein, G. D. Orebi Gann, S. Seibert, and O. Wasalski

Phys. Rev. D 88, 053010 – Published 20 September 2013

Abstract

Solar neutrino experiments have yet to see directly the transition region between matter-enhanced and vacuum oscillations. The transition region is particularly sensitive to models of nonstandard neutrino interactions and propagation. We examine several such nonstandard models, which predict a lower-energy transition region and a flatter survival probability for the ${}^{8}B$ solar neutrinos than the standard large-mixing angle (LMA) model. We find that while some of the nonstandard models provide a better fit to the solar neutrino data set, the large measured value of $θ_{13}$ and the size of the experimental uncertainties lead to a low statistical significance for these fits. We have also examined whether simple changes to the solar density profile can lead to a flatter ${}^{8}B$ survival probability than the LMA prediction, but find that this is not the case for reasonable changes. We conclude that the data in this critical region are still too poor to determine whether any of these models, or the LMA model, is the best description of the data.

25 More

Received 28 May 2013

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.053010

Authors & Affiliations

R. Bonventre¹, A. LaTorre^2,*, J. R. Klein¹, G. D. Orebi Gann^2,3, S. Seibert¹, and O. Wasalski^2,†

¹Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA
²Department of Physics, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California 94720, USA
³Nuclear Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, USA

^*Present address: Department of Physics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA.
^†Present address: Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada.

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

Issue

Vol. 88, Iss. 5 — 1 September 2013

Reuse & Permissions

Access Options

Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Images

Figure 1
MSW prediction for $P_{ν_{e} \to ν_{e}}$ for the three-flavor KamLAND best-fit parameters and the combined solar best-fit parameters. Note that the pep uncertainties are not Gaussian and the value is only $\sim 2 σ$ from zero. Data points for Borexino and S-K ${}^{8}B$ represent the survival probability averaged over the measured energy range.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 2
KamLAND’s combined best-fit MSW-LMA prediction versus SNO extracted ${}^{8}B$ survival probability. The band represents the RMS spread at any given energy, i.e., not including energy correlations.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 3
Top left panel: Borexino. Top right panel: S-K I. Bottom left panel: S-K II. Bottom right panel: S-K III. Event rates binned in measured electron energy with each bin scaled by Monte Carlo predictions assuming GS98SF2 fluxes, versus the same ratio for the expected rates assuming KamLAND’s combined best-fit LMA parameters and SNO’s NC ${}^{8}B$ flux prediction. Error bars on the data points represent statistical and energy uncorrelated systematic uncertainties combined in quadrature. Detector response parameters have been fixed at their reported value; the width of the band does not include the effect of correlated systematic uncertainties. The best-fit oscillation prediction band width represents the uncertainty on the ${}^{8}B$ flux. Note that we have suppressed the zero for these figures to better illustrate the comparison between data and the model.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 4
Survival probabilities for a range of the NSI parameters $ϵ_{1}$ , $ϵ_{2}$ .Reuse & Permissions
Figure 5
Survival probabilities for the neutrino density-dependent MaVaN model at several values of $m_{1, 0}$ .Reuse & Permissions
Figure 6
Survival probabilities for the fermion density dependent MaVaN model at several values of $α_{2}$ , $α_{3}$ .Reuse & Permissions
Figure 7
Survival probabilities for a long-range scalar interaction at various values of the range and strength of the coupling and the neutrino mass scale.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 8
Survival probabilities for a long-range vector interaction at various values of the range and strength of the coupling.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 9
Survival probabilities for a long-range tensor interaction at various values of the range and strength of the coupling.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 10
Our best-fit MSW-LMA prediction versus SNO extracted ${}^{8}B$ survival probability. The band represents the RMS spread at any given energy, i.e., not including energy correlations.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 11
Borexino event rate binned in measured electron energy with each bin scaled by Monte Carlo predictions assuming GS98SF2 fluxes, versus the same ratio for the expected rates assuming our best-fit LMA parameters and fluxes. Error bars on the data points represent statistical uncertainties only. The best-fit oscillation prediction band width represents the uncertainty on the ${}^{8}B$ flux.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 12
S-K I event rates binned in measured electron energy with each bin scaled by Monte Carlo predictions assuming GS98SF2 fluxes, versus the same ratio for the expected rates assuming our combined best-fit LMA parameters and fluxes. Error bars on the data points represent statistical and energy uncorrelated systematic uncertainties combined in quadrature. The two bands show the effect of the correlated systematic uncertainties: for the dark band, detector response parameters have been fixed at their reported values, while for the light band, they have been floated in the fit. The best-fit oscillation prediction band width represents the uncertainty on the ${}^{8}B$ flux.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 13
S-K II event rates binned in measured electron energy with each bin scaled by Monte Carlo predictions assuming GS98SF2 fluxes, versus the same ratio for the expected rates assuming our combined best-fit LMA parameters and fluxes. Error bars on the data points represent statistical and energy uncorrelated systematic uncertainties combined in quadrature. The two bands show the effect of the correlated systematic uncertainties: for the dark band, detector response parameters have been fixed at their reported values, while for the light band, they have been floated in the fit. The best-fit oscillation prediction band width represents the uncertainty on the ${}^{8}B$ flux.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 14
S-K III event rates binned in measured electron energy with each bin scaled by Monte Carlo predictions assuming GS98SF2 fluxes, versus the same ratio for the expected rates assuming our combined best-fit LMA parameters and fluxes. Error bars on the data points represent statistical and energy uncorrelated systematic uncertainties combined in quadrature. The two bands show the effect of the correlated systematic uncertainties: for the dark band, detector response parameters have been fixed at their reported values, while for the light band, they have been floated in the fit. The best-fit oscillation prediction band width represents the uncertainty on the ${}^{8}B$ flux.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 15
Left panel: Two-flavor contours with $ϵ_{2} = 0$ and real $ϵ_{1}$ . Contours are shown for 68%, 95%, and 99.73% confidence levels for 2 d.o.f., where the $χ^{2}$ has been minimized with respect to all undisplayed parameters. Right panel: $Δ χ^{2}$ as a function of $ϵ_{1}$ .Reuse & Permissions
Figure 16
Left panel: Three-flavor contours including constraints from RENO and Daya Bay. Contours are shown for 68%, 95%, and 99.73% confidence levels for 2 d.o.f., where the $χ^{2}$ has been minimized with respect to all undisplayed parameters. Right panel: $Δ χ^{2}$ as a function of $ϵ_{1}$ .Reuse & Permissions
Figure 17
Three-flavor contours including constraints from RENO and Daya Bay for $ϵ_{1}$ and $θ_{13}$ . Contours are shown for 68%, 95%, and 99.73% confidence levels for 2 d.o.f., where the $χ^{2}$ has been minimized with respect to all undisplayed parameters.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 18
Results for the NSI fit with $ϵ_{2} = 0$ but complex $ϵ_{1}$ . Contours are shown for 68%, 95%, and 99.73% confidence levels (2 d.o.f.), where the $χ^{2}$ has been minimized with respect to all undisplayed parameters.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 19
Results for the NSI fit with real $ϵ_{1}$ . Contours are shown for 68%, 95%, and 99.73% confidence levels (2 d.o.f.), where the $χ^{2}$ has been minimized with respect to all undisplayed parameters.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 20
Results for the MaVaN model with neutrino mass coupled to neutrino density. Left panel: Contours are shown for 68%, 95%, and 99.73% confidence levels for 2 d.o.f., where the $χ^{2}$ has been minimized with respect to all undisplayed parameters. Right panel: $Δ χ^{2}$ as a function of $m_{1, 0}$ .Reuse & Permissions
Figure 21
Results for the MaVaN model with neutrino mass coupled to fermion density with $α_{2} > 0$ and $α_{3}^{2} < 0$ . Contours are shown for 68%, 95%, and 99.73% confidence levels (2 d.o.f.), where the $χ^{2}$ has been minimized with respect to all undisplayed parameters.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 22
Results for a model with a scalar long-range force and $m_{1, 0} = 0$ . Contours are shown for 68%, 95%, and 99.73% confidence levels (2 d.o.f.), where the $χ^{2}$ has been minimized with respect to all undisplayed parameters.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 23
Survival probability for MSW-LMA with various fractional increases $δ_{0}$ of the solar core density compared to the SNO results.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 24
Day-night asymmetry from SNO results compared to best-fit MSW-LMA and NSI with real $ϵ_{1}$ and $ϵ_{2} = 0$ . The band represents the RMS spread at any given energy, i.e., not including energy correlations.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 25
Day survival probability for SNO. The blue band shows the RMS spread from the best fit, and the green band shows the spread after the day-night asymmetry is fixed to the MSW-LMA prediction.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 26
Polynomial fit to SNO, Super-Kamiokande, Borexino ${}^{8}B$ data, and Homestake’s results. The band represents the RMS spread at any given energy, i.e., not including energy correlations.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 27
Three-flavor best-fit NSI survival probability compared to MSW-LMA at $ϵ_{1} = - 0.145$ , $Δ m_{21}^{2} = 7.481 \times 10^{- 5} {eV}^{2}$ , ${sin }^{2} θ_{12} = 0.320$ , ${sin }^{2} θ_{13} = 0.0238$ . The top plot shows the survival probability as a function of incident neutrino energy. The middle shows the best fit’s predicted event rate in Borexino for each of Borexino’s measured electron energy bins scaled by the GS98SF2 flux no-oscillation prediction compared to Borexino’s data, and the bottom shows the same for S-K III’s energy bins and data.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 28
Best fit for the NSI fit with $ϵ_{2} = 0$ but complex $ϵ_{1}$ at $ϵ_{1} = - 0.146 + 0.31 i$ , $Δ m_{21}^{2} = 7.472 \times 10^{- 5} {eV}^{2}$ , ${sin }^{2} θ_{12} = 0.320$ , ${sin }^{2} θ_{13} = 0.0238$ . The top plot shows the survival probability as a function of incident neutrino energy. The middle shows the best fit’s predicted event rate in Borexino for each of Borexino’s measured electron energy bins scaled by the GS98SF2 flux no-oscillation prediction compared to Borexino’s data, and the bottom shows the same for S-K III’s energy bins and data.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 29
Best fit for the NSI fit with real $ϵ_{1}$ at $ϵ_{1} = 0.014$ , $ϵ_{2} = 0.683$ , $Δ m_{21}^{2} = 7.487 \times 10^{- 5} {eV}^{2}$ , ${sin }^{2} θ_{12} = 0.310$ , ${sin }^{2} θ_{13} = 0.0238$ . The top plot shows the survival probability as a function of incident neutrino energy. The middle shows the best fit’s predicted event rate in Borexino for each of Borexino’s measured electron energy bins scaled by the GS98SF2 flux no-oscillation prediction compared to Borexino’s data, and the bottom shows the same for S-K III’s energy bins and data.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 30
Best fit for fermion density-dependent MaVaN at $α_{2} = 6.30 \times 10^{- 5}$ , $α_{3} = i 2.00 \times 10^{- 5}$ , $Δ m_{21}^{2} = 7.840 \times 10^{- 5} {eV}^{2}$ , ${sin }^{2} θ_{12} = 0.321$ , ${sin }^{2} θ_{13} = 0.0239$ . The top plot shows the survival probability as a function of incident neutrino energy. The middle shows the best fit’s predicted event rate in Borexino for each of Borexino’s measured electron energy bins scaled by the GS98SF2 flux no-oscillation prediction compared to Borexino’s data, and the bottom shows the same for S-K III’s energy bins and data.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 31
Best fit for scalar long-range force at $m_{1, 0} = 0$ , $λ = 1.56 R_{⊙}$ , $k_{S} = 6.73 \times 10^{- 45}$ , $Δ m_{21}^{2} = 7.484 \times 10^{- 5} {eV}^{2}$ , ${sin }^{2} θ_{12} = 0.320$ , ${sin }^{2} θ_{13} = 0.0239$ . The top plot shows the survival probability as a function of incident neutrino energy. The middle shows the best fit’s predicted event rate in Borexino for each of Borexino’s measured electron energy bins scaled by the GS98SF2 flux no-oscillation prediction compared to Borexino’s data, and the bottom shows the same for S-K III’s energy bins and data.Reuse & Permissions
Figure 32
Best fit for vector long-range force at $λ = 16.97 R_{⊙}$ , $k_{V} = 3.26 \times 10^{- 54}$ , $Δ m_{21}^{2} = 7.487 \times 10^{- 5} {eV}^{2}$ , ${sin }^{2} θ_{12} = 0.311$ , ${sin }^{2} θ_{13} = 0.0238$ . The top plot shows the survival probability as a function of incident neutrino energy. The middle shows the best fit’s predicted event rate in Borexino for each of Borexino’s measured electron energy bins scaled by the GS98SF2 flux no-oscillation prediction compared to Borexino’s data, and the bottom shows the same for S-K III’s energy bins and data.Reuse & Permissions

Physical Review D

covering particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology

Nonstandard models, solar neutrinos, and large $θ_{13}$

R. Bonventre, A. LaTorre, J. R. Klein, G. D. Orebi Gann, S. Seibert, and O. Wasalski

Phys. Rev. D 88, 053010 – Published 20 September 2013

Abstract

Authors & Affiliations

Article Text (Subscription Required)

References (Subscription Required)

Issue

Access Options

Physical Review D

covering particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology

Nonstandard models, solar neutrinos, and large θ13

R. Bonventre, A. LaTorre, J. R. Klein, G. D. Orebi Gann, S. Seibert, and O. Wasalski

Phys. Rev. D 88, 053010 – Published 20 September 2013

Abstract

Authors & Affiliations

Article Text (Subscription Required)

References (Subscription Required)

Issue

Access Options

Authorization Required

Other Options

Download & Share

Images

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Figure 11

Figure 12

Figure 13

Figure 14

Figure 15

Figure 16

Figure 17

Figure 18

Figure 19

Figure 20

Figure 21

Figure 22

Figure 23

Figure 24

Figure 25

Figure 26

Figure 27

Figure 28

Figure 29

Figure 30

Figure 31

Figure 32

Log In

Search

Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation

Nonstandard models, solar neutrinos, and large $θ_{13}$