4.7 Article

Time dependent signatures of core-collapse supernova neutrinos at HALO

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 103, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.043016

关键词

-

资金

  1. APS Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation for its Visitor Award [GBMF6210]
  2. Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) [2214A]
  3. TUBITAK [117F327]
  4. NSF [PHY-1630782]
  5. HeisingSimons Foundation [2017-228]
  6. U.S. Department of Energy [DEAC02-76SF00515]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focuses on the response of lead-based detectors to Galactic core-collapse supernovae, with particular attention to the time dependence of reaction rates. It is found that although reaction rates decrease as neutrino luminosity drops during the cooling period, the ratio of 1n to 2n event rates still changes with the evolving conditions in the supernova due to the changing character of neutrino flavor transformations, limited to a few percent.
We calculate the response of a lead-based detector, such as the Helium and Lead Observatory (HALO) or its planned upgrade HALO-1kt to a Galactic core-collapse supernova. We pay particular attention to the time dependence of the reaction rates. All reaction rates decrease as the neutrino luminosity exponentially drops during the cooling period, but the ratio of one-neutron (1n) to two-neutron (2n) event rates in HALO is independent of this overall decrease. Nevertheless, we find that this ratio still changes with time due to the changing character of neutrino flavor transformations with the evolving conditions in the supernova. In the case of inverted hierarchy, this is caused by the fact that the spectral splits become less and less sharp with the decreasing luminosity. In the case of normal hierarchy, it is caused by the passage of the shock wave through the Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein resonance region. However, in both cases, we find that the change in the ratio of 1n to 2n event rates is limited to a few percent.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据