4.7 Article

Impact of neutrino decays on the supernova neutronization-burst flux

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
Volume 101, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.043013

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. DOE [DE-SC0010143]
  2. National Science Foundation [PHY-1630782]
  3. HeisingSimons Foundation [2017-228]
  4. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-07CH11359]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The discovery of nonzero neutrino masses invites one to consider decays of heavier neutrinos into lighter ones. We investigate the impact of two-body decays of neutrinos on the neutronization burst of a core-collapse supernova-the large burst of nu(e) during the first 25 ms post-core-bounce. In the models we consider, the nu(e), produced mainly as a nu(3)(nu(2)) in the normal (inverted) mass ordering, are allowed to decay to nu(1)(nu(3)) or (nu) over bar (1)((nu) over bar (3)) and an almost massless scalar. These decays can lead to the appearance of a neutronization peak for a normal mass ordering or the disappearance of the same peak for the inverted one, thereby allowing one mass ordering to mimic the other. Simulating supernova-neutrino data at the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) and the Hyper-Kamiokande (HK) experiment, we compute their sensitivity to the neutrino lifetime. We find that, if the mass ordering is known and depending on the nature of the physics responsible for the neutrino decay, DUNE is sensitive to lifetimes tau/m less than or similar to 10(6) s/eV for a Galactic supernova sufficiently close by (around 10 kpc), while HK is sensitive to lifetimes tau/m less than or similar to 10(7) s/eV. These sensitivities are far superior to existing limits from solar-system-bound oscillation experiments. Finally, we demonstrate that using a combination of data from DUNE and HK, one can, in general, distinguish between decaying Dirac neutrinos and decaying Majorana neutrinos.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available