Relic neutrino absorption spectroscopy

Physical Review D - Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology

Volumn 70, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 17-

  Eberle, Birgit ^a   Ringwald, Andreas ^a   Song, Liguo ^b   Weiler, Thomas J ^b,c  

^a DESY   (Germany)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABSORPTION; ABSORPTION SPECTROSCOPY; ARTICLE; BOSON; COSMOS; DENSITY; EVOLUTION; GRAVITY; MEASUREMENT; NEUTRINO; OSCILLATION; PHOTON;

EID: 37649027160     PISSN: 15507998     EISSN: 15502368     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.023007     Document Type: Article

References (128)

1. T.J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 234 (1982);in Neutrino Mass and Gauge Structure of Weak Interactions, Telemark, USA, 1982, edited by V. Barger and D. Cline (American Institute of Physics, New York, 1983), pp. 60–75.
2. T.J. Weiler, Astrophys. J. 285, 495 (1984).
3. E. Roulet, Phys. Rev. D 47, 5247 (1993).
4. S. Yoshida, H. Dai, C.C. Jui, and P. Sommers, Astrophys. J. 479, 547 (1997).
5. Particle Data Group Collaboration, K. Hagiwara, Phys. Rev. D 66, 010001 (2002).
6. For earlier suggestions, see J. Bernstein, M. Ruderman, and G. Feinberg, Phys. Rev. 132, 1227 (1963)
7. B.P. Konstantinov and G.E. Kocharov, Zk. Éksp. Teor. Fiz. 46, 1470 (1964) [Sov. Phys. JETP 19, 992 (1964)]
8. R. Cowsik, Y. Pal, and S.N. Tandon, Phys. Lett. 13, 265 (1964)
9. T. Hara and H. Sato, Prog. Theor. Phys. 64, 1089 (1980)
10. Prog. Theor. Phys.T. HaraH. Sato65, 477 (1981).
11. For related suggestions, see R. Wigmans, Astropart. Phys. 19, 379 (2003)
12. E.A. Paschos and O. Lalakulich, hep-ph/0206273
13. S. Davidson, S. Forte, P. Gambino, N. Rius, and A. Strumia, J. High Energy Phys. 02, 037 (2002).For a recent review, also covering non-cosmic-ray opportunities to detect the relic neutrinos, see A. Ringwald, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Strong and Electroweak Matter 2002, Heidelberg, Germany, 2002, edited by M. G. Schmidt (World Scientific, Singapore, 2003), pp. 497–503.
14. H. Päs and T.J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. D 63, 113015 (2001)
15. S.M. Bilenky, C. Giunti, J.A. Grifols, and E. Masso, Phys. Rep. 379, 69 (2003).
16. D.N. Spergel, Astrophys. J., Suppl. Ser. 148, 175 (2003).
17. SDSS Collaboration, M. Tegmark, Phys. Rev. D 69, 103501 (2004).
18. In fact, the depths of the absorption dips are inversely proportional to the expansion rate, leading, for fixed (Formula presented) to a significant increase in the depth by a factor of (Formula presented) at large redshift, when compared to the old cold dark matter (CDM) estimate based on (Formula presented) 12 (see Sec. II A for details). This is equivalent to an improvement in statistics by a factor of (Formula presented)
19. We will label neutrino masses in the order (Formula presented) regardless of the type of neutrino mass spectrum (“normal” or “inverted”). In this convention, (Formula presented) (Formula presented) in a “normal” scheme, and (Formula presented) (Formula presented) in an “inverted” one, respectively. (We are using the obvious notation (Formula presented)) Another convention is often used in the literature: (Formula presented) in “normal” schemes, and (Formula presented) in “inverted” schemes; this has the feature that, in either scheme, (Formula presented) and (Formula presented)
20. S. Hannestad, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 5, 004 (2003)
21. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.O. Elgaroy and O. Lahav, 4, 004 (2003)
22. V. Barger, D. Marfatia, and A. Tregre, hep-ph/0312065.
23. Seemingly minor assumptions can make a crucial difference for neutrino inferences from cosmic structure evolution, as discussed in detail in Refs. 912. In this sense, the recent claim that a combination of WMAP, 2dFGRS, and X-ray galaxy cluster data prefer a nonzero neutrino mass of (Formula presented) [S.W. Allen, R.W. Schmidt, and S.L. Bridle, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 346, 593 (2003)] have to be viewed with some caution.
24. V.D. Barger, T.J. Weiler, and K. Whisnant, Phys. Lett. B 442, 255 (1998).
25. C. Weinheimer, Phys. Lett. B 460, 219 (1999)
26. Phys. Lett. BV.M. Lobashev, 460, 227 (1999)
27. C. Weinheimer, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 118, 279 (2003).
28. The neutrino mass parameter measured in tritium beta decay is (Formula presented) Therefore, the heaviest neutrino mass is bounded by (Formula presented) 14.
29. H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, Eur. Phys. J. A 12, 147 (2001)
30. IGEX Collaboration, C.E. Aalseth, Phys. Rev. D 65, 092007 (2002).
31. This bound applies only for Majorana neutrinos. For a quasidegenerate neutrino spectrum (Formula presented) it arises from (Formula presented) where (Formula presented) is the effective mass (Formula presented) measured in neutrinoless double beta decay, U being the leptonic mixing matrix. The quoted ranges in the upper bound on (Formula presented) take into account the spread due to different calculations of the relevant nuclear matrix elements. Recently reported evidence for neutrinoless double beta decay H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, A. Dietz, H.L. Harney, and I.V. Krivosheina, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16, 2409 (2001)
32. H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, A. Dietz, I.V. Krivosheina, C. Doerr, and C. Tomei, Phys. Lett. B 578, 54 (2004) and correspondingly deduced parameter range (Formula presented) (95% CL) have been challenged by
33. F. Feruglio, A. Strumia, and F. Vissani, Nucl. Phys. B637, 345 (2002)
34. Nucl. Phys.F. FeruglioA. StrumiaF. VissaniB659, 359 (2003)
35. C.E. Aalseth, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 17, 1475 (2002). Nevertheless, in our conclusions we will note that a quasidegenerate neutrino mass above (Formula presented) is required to produce a measurable absorption dip at an accessible resonant energy.
36. K. Greisen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16, 748 (1966)
37. G.T. Zatsepin and V.A. Kuzmin, Pis’ma Zh. Éksp. Teor. Fiz. 4, 114 (1966) [JETP Lett. 4, 78 (1966)].
38. T.J. Weiler, Astropart. Phys. 11, 303 (1999).
39. T. J. Weiler, in Proceedings, Beyond the Desert 99’, Tegernsee, Germany, 1999, edited by H. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and I. Krivosheina (Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, 2000).
40. D. Fargion, B. Mele, and A. Salis, Astrophys. J. 517, 725 (1999).
41. S. Yoshida, G. Sigl, and S.J. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5505 (1998).
42. Z. Fodor, S.D. Katz, and A. Ringwald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 171101 (2002)
43. Z. FodorS.D. KatzA. RingwaldJ. High Energy Phys. 06, 046 (2002).
44. O.E. Kalashev, V.A. Kuzmin, D.V. Semikoz, and G. Sigl, Phys. Rev. D 65, 103003 (2002)
45. D.S. Gorbunov, P.G. Tinyakov, and S.V. Troitsky, Astropart. Phys. 18, 463 (2003)
46. D.V. Semikoz and G. Sigl, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 4, 003 (2004).
47. Pierre Auger Observatory, http://www.auger.org
48. IceCube, http://icecube.wisc.edu
49. ANtarctic Impulse Transient Array, http://www.ps.uci.edu/∼anita
50. Extreme Universe Space Observatory, http://www.euso-mission.org
51. Orbiting Wide-angle Light-collectors, http://owl.gsfc.nasa.gov
52. Saltdome Shower Array, P. Gorham, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 490, 476 (2002).
53. C. Spiering, J. Phys. G 29, 843 (2003);private communication.
54. J.G. Learned and S. Pakvasa, Astropart. Phys. 3, 267 (1995)
55. L. Bento, P. Keranen, and J. Maalampi, Phys. Lett. B 476, 205 (2000)
56. H. Athar, M. Jezabek, and O. Yasuda, Phys. Rev. D 62, 103007 (2000).
57. Radio Ice Cerenkov Experiment, http://www.bartol.udel.edu/(Formula presented)spiczak/rice/rice.html
58. Goldstone Lunar Ultra-high energy neutrino Experiment, http://www.physics.ucla.edu/moonemp/public
59. Fast On-orbit Recording of Transient Events satellite, A.R. Jacobson, S.O. Knox, R. Franz, and D.C. Enemark, Radio Sci. 34, 337 (1999).
60. I. Kravchenko, astro-ph/0306408.
61. P.W. Gorham, C.L. Hebert, K.M. Liewer, C.J. Naudet, D. Saltzberg, and D. Williams, Phys. Rev. Lett. (to be published), astro-ph/0310232.
62. N.G. Lehtinen, P.W. Gorham, A.R. Jacobson, and R.A. Roussel-Dupre, Phys. Rev. D 69, 013008 (2004).
63. R.M. Baltrusaitis, Phys. Rev. D 31, 2192 (1985)
64. S. Yoshida, AGASA Collaborationin, in Proceedings of the 27th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Hamburg, Germany, 2001, edited by K.-H. Kampert, G. Heinzelmann, and C. Spiering (Copernicus-Gesellschaft e.V., Katlenburg-Landau, 2001), Vol. 3, pp. 1142–1145
65. L.A. Anchordoqui, J.L. Feng, H. Goldberg, and A.D. Shapere, Phys. Rev. D 66, 103002 (2002).
66. X. Bertou, P. Billoir, O. Deligny, C. Lachaud, and A. Letessier-Selvon, Astropart. Phys. 17, 183 (2002).
67. P. Gorham et al., ANITA Collaboration, Proposal SMEX03-0004-0019, April 19, 2003.
68. S. Bottai and S. Giurgola, EUSO Collaboration, in Proceedings of the 28th International Cosmic Ray Conference, Tsukuba, Japan, 2003, edited by T. Kajita, Y. Asaoka, A. Kawachi, Y. Matsubara, and M. Sasaki (Universal Academy Press, Tokyo, 2003), pp. 1113–1116;S. Bottai, EUSO Collaboration, to appear in Proceedings Incontro Nazionale di Astrofisica delle Alte Energie, Roma, 2003.
69. P. Gorham, private communication.
70. S. Yoshida and M. Teshima, Prog. Theor. Phys. 89, 833 (1993)
71. J.N. Bahcall and E. Waxman, Astrophys. J. 542, 543 (2000)
72. Z. Fodor and S.D. Katz, Phys. Rev. D 63, 023002 (2001)
73. Z. Fodor, S.D. Katz, A. Ringwald, and H. Tu, Phys. Lett. B 561, 191 (2003);Z. Fodor, S. D. Katz, and A. Ringwald (unpublished).
74. Z. Fodor, S.D. Katz, A. Ringwald, and H. Tu, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11, 015 (2003).
75. The convenience of using (Formula presented) as the measure of distance, with t being the look-back time, is that it is easily translated into redshift. An alternate, but equivalent, derivation of the relation between source luminosity and differential flux at Earth, using not t but rather the comoving distance, is given in Ref. 2. Note that, in this original work, the source luminosity is defined per physical volume, so there is an additional redshift dependence there, traceable to (Formula presented) (per comoving (Formula presented) (per physical volume).
76. See, however, A. Blanchard, M. Douspis, M. Rowan-Robinson, and S. Sarkar, [Astron. Astrophys. 412, 35 (2003)] for a viable alternative to the concordance model. This alternative, which was obtained from the relaxation of the hypothesis that the primordial fluctuation spectrum, as measured in the CMB, can be described by a single power-law, has (Formula presented) (Formula presented) (Formula presented) and (Formula presented) as best-fit values. Interestingly, the amount of neutrino hot dark matter (Formula presented) needed in this model points to a quasidegenerate neutrino mass spectrum with (Formula presented)
77. Both approximations, (i) and (ii), are very well satisfied in the energy regions of the absorption dips, i.e. the energy decade below the resonance energy, on which our analysis mainly concentrates. At energies well above the Z-resonant values, t-channel W and Z exchange becomes a dominant energy loss mechanism. These t-channel reactions are the focus of Ref. 22.
78. Expression (12) for the relic neutrino density should be considered as a rather firm prediction. Possible uniform density enhancements due to lepton asymmetries are negligible in view of the recent, very stringent bounds on the neutrino degeneracies A.D. Dolgov, S.H. Hansen, S. Pastor, S.T. Petcov, G.G. Raffelt, and D.V. Semikoz, Nucl. Phys. B632, 363 (2002)
79. Y.Y. Wong, Phys. Rev. D 66, 025015 (2002)
80. Phys. Rev. DK.N. Abazajian, J.F. Beacom, and N.F. Bell, 66, 013008 (2002)
81. V. Barger, J.P. Kneller, P. Langacker, D. Marfatia, and G. Steigman, Phys. Lett. B 569, 123 (2003).
82. Moreover, significant (Formula presented) local density enhancements due to gravitational clustering are, for the mass range (4), only expected in the innermost regions (Formula presented) of very massive (Formula presented)—and hence rare—clusters [P. Singh and C.P. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 67, 023506 (2003)].
83. If the neutrinos are Dirac particles rather than Majorana particles, then their transition from relativistic, single-helicity particles to non-relativistic unpolarized particles populates the sterile spin states. If such is the case, then the depolarization of the Dirac states halves the unpolarized cross section, which in turn halves the annihilation rates compared to the rates for Majorana neutrinos 221. We present results only for the Majorana case, since the theoretical models for neutrino-mass generation favor Majorana neutrinos (two light spin-states per flavor).
84. V.S. Berezinsky and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 62, 083512 (2000)
85. V. Berezinsky, M. Narayan and F. Vissani, Nucl. Phys. B658, 254 (2003).
86. J.F. Beacom, N.F. Bell, D. Hooper, S. Pakvasa, and T.J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. D 68, 093005 (2003).
87. J.F. Beacom and N.F. Bell, Phys. Rev. D 65, 113009 (2002).
88. C. Giunti and M. Laveder, to be published in Progress in Quantum Physics Research, edited by V. Krasnoholovets (Nova Science Publishers, New York, 2004)
89. C. GiuntiM. Lavederhep-ph/0310238.
90. S.D. Wick, C.D. Dermer, and A. Atoyan, Astropart. Phys. 21, 125 (2004).
91. P. Madau, L. Pozzetti, and M. Dickinson, Astrophys. J. 498, 106 (1998).
92. A.W. Blain and P. Natarajan, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 309, 715 (1999).
93. P. Bhattacharjee, C.T. Hill, and D.N. Schramm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 567 (1992).
94. This is the case for almost all proposed topological defects such as ordinary strings, monopolonium, and necklaces. For superconducting cosmic strings it can be as large as (Formula presented) or bigger.
95. Any realistic injection spectrum (Formula presented) falls off rapidly with very large energy. Consequently, the contribution of large z is heavily suppressed in the relevant z integration (21), because the integrand is proportional to (Formula presented) Thus, the dependence on (Formula presented) is weak for very large (Formula presented)
96. The contribution from small z in Eq. (21) is negligible, for any reasonable activity. We note that a “cosmological” distance of 50 Mpc corresponds to the small value (Formula presented) for our default cosmological parameters.
97. For the case of small, i.e., nondegenerate or “hierarchical,” neutrino masses (cf. Fig. 33), the respective resonance energies given in Eq. (1) may possibly spread over three orders of magnitude. In this case, it might be appropriate to consider also broken power-law injection spectra. We will not pursue this because, as will be shown below, a significant detection of absorption dips in the foreseeable future seems to be possible only if neutrino masses are quasidegenerate.
98. P. Chen, T. Tajima, and Y. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 161101 (2002).
99. S.A. Colgate, talk at the 2002 Aspen Winter Conference, Ultrahigh Energy Particles from Space, based on dynamics in H. Li, S. A. Colgate, M. Kusunose and R. V. E. Lovelace, in Proceedings of High Energy Processes in Accreting Black Holes, edited by J. Poutanen and R. Svensson, ASP Conf. Series, 161, 349 (1998)
100. S.A. Colgateastro-ph/9812418
101. P.P. Kronberg, Q.W. Dufton, H. Li, and S.A. Colgate, Astrophys. J. 560, 178 (2001).
102. K. Mannheim, Astropart. Phys. 3, 295 (1995).
103. O.E. Kalashev, V.A. Kuzmin, D.V. Semikoz, and G. Sigl, Phys. Rev. D 66, 063004 (2002)
104. D.V. Semikoz and G. Sigl, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 4, 003 (2004).
105. V. Berezinsky, in “Texas in Tuscany,” Proceedings of the XXI Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics, edited by R. Bandiera, R. Maiolino, and F. Mannucci (World Scientific, Singapore, 2003), pp. 379–386
106. R. Aloisio, V. Berezinsky, and M. Kachelriess, Phys. Rev. D 69, 094023 (2004);R. Aloisio, V. Berezinsky, and P. Blasi (unpublished).
107. V.S. Berezinsky and A.Yu. Smirnov, Astrophys. Space Sci. 32, 461 (1975).
108. K. Mannheim, R.J. Protheroe, and J.P. Rachen, Phys. Rev. D 63, 023003 (2001).
109. V. Berezinsky, M. Kachelriess, and S. Ostapchenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 171802 (2002).
110. The cascade limit from Ref. 70 exploits the measurement of the diffuse (Formula presented) ray background from 30 MeV to 100 GeV by EGRET [P. Sreekumar, Astrophys. J. 494, 523 (1998)]. A lower extragalactic contribution to the (Formula presented) ray background than that inferred by SreeKumar et al., by roughly a factor of two, has been proposed recentlyA. W. Strong, I. V. Moskalenko, and O. Reimer, in Proceedings of the 28th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC 2003), Tsukuba, Japan 2003, edited by T. Kajita, Y. Asaoka, A. Kawachi, Y. Matsubara, and M. Sasaki (Universal Academy Press, Tokyo, 2003), pp. 2687–2690
111. U. Keshet, E. Waxman, and A. Loeb, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 4, 006 (2004). The cascade limit may therefore be stronger by a corresponding factor. Also, in the next few years the GLAST experimentGamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope, http://glast.gsfc.nasa.gov/, and eventually its successors, e.g. Constellation-XConstellation-X, http://constellation.gsfc.nasa.gov/, may resolve some of the diffuse flux, thereby lowering the cascade limit even further.
112. Possible astrophysical hidden sources have been discussed in the textbook V. S. Berezinsky, S. V. Bulanov, V. A. Dogiel, V. L. Ginzburg, and V. S. Ptuskin, Astrophysics of Cosmic Rays (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990) and by
113. V.S. Berezinsky and V.I. Dokuchaev, Astropart. Phys. 15, 87 (2001).
114. If the number of events are small, one should apply Poisson statistics, as given by N. Gehrels, Astrophys. J. 303, 336 (1986)
115. building on V.H. Regener, Phys. Rev. 84, 161 (1951); see also the statistics section of Ref. 5.
116. We take our numbers from the extrapolated cross sections given by R. Gandhi, C. Quigg, M.H. Reno, and I. Sarcevic, Phys. Rev. D 58, 093009 (1998)
117. R. GandhiC. QuiggM.H. RenoI. SarcevicAstropart. Phys. 5, 81 (1996).
118. Cryogenic Underground Observatory for Rare Events, http://crio.mib.infn.it/wig/Cuorepage/index.html
119. Neutrino Ettore Majorana Observatory, http://nemo.web.lal.in2p3.fr
120. KArlsruhe TRItium Neutrino experiment, http://www-ik1.fzk.de/tritium
121. W. Hu, D.J. Eisenstein, and M. Tegmark, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5255 (1998).
122. Even if Z dips cannot be measured, it may still be possible to infer the (Formula presented) from Z-burst data. The statistics of “emission” spectroscopy are not as formidable as those of absorption spectroscopy. In emission spectroscopy well above (Formula presented) each event is background free, and therefore statistically significant. Finally, let us comment on a possible loophole to greater event rates than those expressed so far. We have worked in the context of the concordance model of cosmology. There are some chinks in the armor. It has been known for some time that simulations with concordance parameters overproduce small-scale objects (dwarf galaxies and satellites) compared to observation. (For a recent overview, see S. Kazantzidis, L. Mayer, C. Mastropietro, J. Diemand, J. Stadel, and B. Moore, Astrophys. J. 608, 663 (2004). More recent observational evidence suggests that the largest scales may also conflict with the concordance model. There is some evidence that elliptical galaxies, galactic clusters, and even vast filaments and walls delimiting huge voids may have formed very early in the Universe (Formula presented)
123. Gemini Deep Deep Survey Collaboration, P. Palunas, H.I. Teplitz, P.J. Francis, G.M. Williger, and B.E. Woodgate, Astrophys. J. 602, 545 (2004);Gemini Deep Deep Survey Collaboration, K. Glazebrook, Nature (in press). Such a precocious structure suggests top-down hierarchical development rather than bottom-up as predicted by the concordance model. The parameters of the concordance cosmology may give way to something new. All of this encourages an open mind. If large structures did form early, then more neutrino sources and strong source evolution may be the reality. With precocious clustering of matter, precocious clustering of neutrinos also becomes possible. Neutrino clustering in our Galactic Supercluster would enhance “local” absorption, and thereby create narrower and deeper Z dips (it would also greatly enhance the local Z-burst rate).
124. The possible extermination of Schrödinger’s cat is described in the same way.
125. There is also a quantum mechanical spreading of the wave packet, governed by the phase velocity (Formula presented) This spreading is smaller than the eigenstate separation by the tiny factor (Formula presented) 84, and therefore negligible.
126. S. Nussinov, Phys. Lett. 63B, 201 (1976).
127. B. Kayser, Phys. Rev. D 24, 110 (1981).
128. P. Gondolo, G. Gelmini, and S. Sarkar, Nucl. Phys. B392, 111 (1993).