Neutrino light curve

(1)

Pre-supernova neutrino signal

10 years of progress in modelling

Andrzej Odrzywo lek

M. Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian U. in Krak´ow, Poland

Saturday 28 October 2017

NNN17, Warwick U., 26-28 Oct 2017

(2)

Early thouhts

60’s: ν detector on Pluto required to detect flux from stars, due to solar neutrino background (Chiu,H.-Y. Cosmic neutrinos and their detection (1964) NASA-TM-X-51721)

80’s: Bahcal, Neutrino astrophysics: only 1 of 567 pages devoted to distant stars;

renormalized CNO νespectrum used to estimate detection (J. Bahcall, Neutrino Astrophysics, §6.5 Fluxes from other stars)

90’s: A.O. noticed ν flux of 10¹²Lfor Si burning stage; Presupernova at distance of d =√

10¹²= 10⁶AU ' 5 parsecs could outshine the Sun in neutrinos. Unfortunately, no such a star exists!

2000: M. Misiaszek point out: half of the above flux is ¯νe. Use inverse β decay p + ¯νe→ n + e⁺! How to capture neutrons (Cl,³He, Cd . . . ) ?

2003: pair-annihilation e⁻+ e⁺→ νx+ ¯νxidentified as main ¯νe source; energy spectrum estimated via MonteCarlo simulation hEνi ∼ 4 kT ' 2 MeV; big detector required to get Galaxy coverage (OMK, Astroparticle Physics 21, 303 (2004)) A&A community: ,,absolutely undetectable” (S. E. Woosley, priv. comm.) but experimental physicists excited: could we really forecast supernova?

Beacom&Vagins: use Gd to capture neutrons; essentially background-free detection channel (John F. Beacom and Mark R. Vagins Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 171101 (2004))

(3)

Recent progress

1 better understanding of pair-annihilation neutrino spectra (MonteCarlo → moments/fit → 3D integration → tabulation/interpolation → 2D integration) (

Misiaszek, Odrzywolek, Kutschera, PRD, 74, 043006 (2006), Kato et. al. ApJ (2017) 848 48; arXiv:1704.05480)

2 neutrino light curves and spectra for s15 stellar modelIn: J. R.Wilkes, editor, NNN06, Volume 944 of AIoP Conf. Series, 109–118, (2007).

3 neutrino emission dependence on ZAMS mass (12, 15, 25 M)A. Odrzywolek, A. Heger, Neutrino Signatures of Dying Massive Stars, Acta Physica Polonica B, Vol. 41, No. 7, July 2010, page 1611.

4 νeemission&detection channel (Workshop Towards Neutrino Technologies, Trieste, Italy, 2009).

5 other production channels (photo, plasma, deexcitation)Kelly M. Patton et. al. ApJ (2017) 840:2, G. W. Misch, Y. Sun, G. M. Fuller, arXiv:1708:08792

6 effects of neutrino oscillationsThe KamLAND Collaboration, ApJ 818:91 (2016), Kato et. al. ApJ (2017) 808:2, Yoshida et. al., Phys. Rev. D 93 123012 (2016)

7 hydrodynamics of O and Si burningMeakin & Arnett, ApJ, 667, 448 (2007), S. M. Couch, E. Chatzopoulos, W. David Arnett, and F. X. Timmes, ApJ Letters, 808 Number 1, p. L21

8 Betelgeuse early warning, reactor backgroundKamLAND Collaboration, ApJ 818:91 (2016) 9 modern stellar evolution codesYoshida et. al., Patton et. al., Kato et. al. (2016-2017) 10 ONeMg vs Si-burning pre-supernovaeKato et. al. (2016-2017)

11 consistent post-processing of stellar models with β^±processesPatton et. al. (2016-2017)

(4)

Neutrino light curve

(5)

(6)

Neutrino oscillations

MSW effect in H envelope leads to flavor exhange:

F_ν^osc_e = p Fν_e+ (1 − p) Fν_µ

F_ν^osc_µ = (1 − p) Fν_e+ p Fν_µ

F_¯_ν^osc_e = ¯p Fν¯_e+ (1 − ¯p) Fν¯_µ

F_¯_ν^osc_µ = (1 − ¯p) Fν¯e+ ¯p Fν¯µ

Depending on mass hierarchy of neutrinos coeeficients are:

p = (

sin²θ13' 0.02

sin²θ₁₂cos²θ₁₃' 0.30 p =¯ (

cos²θ12cos²θ13' 0.68 Normal sin²θ₁₃' 0.02 Inverted

(7)

Neutrino oscillations

MSW effect in H envelope leads to flavor exhange:

F_ν^osc_e = p Fν_e+ (1 − p) Fν_µ

F_ν^osc_µ = (1 − p) Fν_e+ p Fν_µ

F_¯_ν^osc_e = ¯p Fν¯_e+ (1 − ¯p) Fν¯_µ

F_¯_ν^osc_µ = (1 − ¯p) Fν¯e+ ¯p Fν¯µ

Depending on mass hierarchy of neutrinos coeeficients are:

p = (

sin²θ13' 0.02

sin²θ₁₂cos²θ₁₃' 0.30 p =¯ (

cos²θ12cos²θ13' 0.68 Normal sin²θ₁₃' 0.02 Inverted

(8)

MESA & new approach to weak rates

neutrino emission computed DIRECTLY [19] from nuclear data (mass, energy levels, matrix elements)

100% compatibility of nuclear kinetics and spectral neutrino emission now possible pathway to neutrino spectra computed directly within stellar evolution code now open (vast area of research: N pocket, hot/explosive-CNO, 3α, shell-burning neutrinos)

35 years of ,,FFN tables” era begins to end

uncertainty factor of ∼2 or worse from interpolation procedure ALONE removed way open to include e.g. ν-accelerated H burning

(9)

Conclusions

3σ early warning of at least 2 hours possible in KamLAND (depending of hierarchy and reactor status) based on ¯νe detection via inv. β decay

SK-Gd, or any large LS detectors with low threshold/background could do better νedetection channel for inv. hierarchy might be method of choice, but stellar modelling of νespectra is difficult

TODO: re-evaluate event rates using consistent modelling and up-to-date physics

(10)

Selected references

[1] Chiu,H.-Y. Cosmic neutrinos and their detection (1964) NASA-TM-X-51721 [2] J. Bahcall, Neutrino Astrophysics, §6.5 Fluxes from other stars

[3] OMK, Astroparticle Physics 21, 303 (2004)

[4] Misiaszek, Odrzywolek, Kutschera, PRD, 74, 043006 (2006)

[5] OMK, Future neutrino observations of nearby pre-supernova stars before core-collapse, In: J. R.Wilkes, editor, NNN06, Volume 944 of AIoP Conf. Series, 109–118, (2007).

[6] John F. Beacom and Mark R. Vagins Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 171101 (2004)

[7] Kunugise&Iwamoto, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, Vol.59, No.6, L57 (2007) [8] Odrzywolek&Plewa, A&A, 529, id.A156

[9] I. Seitenzahl et. al., Phys. Rev. D, Volume 92, Issue 12, id.124013 [10] Wright et. al., Phys. Rev. D, Volume 94, Issue 2, id.025026

[11] A. Odrzywolek, A. Heger, Neutrino Signatures of Dying Massive Stars, Acta Physica Polonica B, Vol. 41, No.

7, July 2010, page 1611.

[12] Yoshida et. al., Phys. Rev. D 93 123012 (2016) [13] The KamLAND Collaboration, ApJ 818:91 (2016) [14] Chinami Kato et. al. ApJ (2017) 808:2 [15] Kelly M. Patton et. al. ApJ (2017) 840:2

[16] Chinami Kato et. al. ApJ (2017) 848 48; arXiv:1704.05480 [17] Kelly M. Patton et. al. (2017); arXiv:1709.01877 [18] G. W. Misch, Y. Sun, G. M. Fuller, arXiv:1708:08792 [19] Paxton et al. 2011,2013,2015 http://mesa.sourceforge.net/

[20] Meakin & Arnett, ApJ, 667, 448 (2007)

[21] S. M. Couch, E. Chatzopoulos, W. David Arnett, and F. X. Timmes, ApJ Letters, 808 Number 1, p. L21 NNN17, Warwick U., 26-28 Oct 2017

(11)

Extra slides

Neutrino spectra animation

(12)

SN Ia vs Pre-SN

Type Ia supernova explosion might be viewed as an extreme case of nuclear burning in stars.

Key similarities

C/O → Si/Fe burning available fuel mass ∼ 1.5 M

identical ν production processes similar neutrino energies

Essential differences

burning time: seconds vs days, hours energy lost to neutrinos 1% vs ∼100%

event rate, minimal possible distance to Earth Overall, detection challenge comparable [7, 8, 9, 10].

(13)

Betelgeuse vs Galaxy

β Ori: Galactic longitude 200^◦

NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Hurt (SSC/Caltech)

(14)

Neutron/β

⁻

decay controversy for ¯ ν

e

flux

Contrary results (e.g [16] vs [17]) on importance of ¯νeproduction process were obtained:

n + e⁺→ p + ¯νe

Is pair-annihilation or β⁻/postitron capture dominant ¯νeproduction process in pre-supernova stars?

Observations:

nuclear reaction network based results → pair dominates small NSE → pair/β similar

massive NSE → β dominated

Possible explanation: neutron abundance as a function of NSE network size (work in progress).

(15)

¯

ν

e

-HR diagram (α-network)

(16)

¯

ν

e

-HR diagram (α-network)

(17)

¯

ν

e

-HR diagram (α-network)

(18)

¯

ν

e

-HR diagram (α-network)

(19)

Photon & neutrino HR diagram

(20)

(21)

(22)