Problems In Quasi-Elastic Neutrino-Nucleus Scattering

Gerry GarveyLANL, P-25

LANL, P-25July 25,2011

• What is quasi-elastic scattering (QES)? • Why has neutrino-nucleus QES Become Interesting?• Inclusive Electron QES; formalism and results. (longitudinal and transverse, scaling)• Extension to neutrino-nucleus QES processes.• Differences between electron and neutrino QES experiments. • Problems with impulse approximation. • Possible remedies and further problems.• Determining the neutrino flux??

Outline

• QES is a model in which the results of elastic lepton-nucleon scattering (neutral or charge changing, (n p)) is applied to the scattering off the individual nucleons in the nucleus. The cross-section is calculated the square of the incoherent sum of the scattering amplitudes off the individual nucleons. Pauli exclusion is applied and a 3-momentum transfer q > 0.3GeV/c is required to resolve individual nucleons.

What is Quasi-elastic Scattering?

Why has QES become Important?

Research involving neutrino oscillations has required the extention of QES (CCQE) to neutrino-nucleus interactions. For 0.3<Eν< 3.0 GeV it is the dominant interaction. CCQE provides essential information for neutrino oscillations, neutrino flavor and energy. CCQE is treated as readily calculable, experimentally identifiable and allows assignment of the neutrino energy. Some 40 calculations published since 2005 Oscillation period: 1.27Δmij

2(ev2)× (L(km)/Eν(GeV)) Δm23

2=10-3 L/E≈103 LBNE Δm2S

2=1 L/E≈1 SBNE

“ *** LSND effect rises from the dead… ?“ Long-Baseline News, May 2010:

New Subatomic Particle Could Help Explain the Mystery of Dark Matter. A flurry of evidence reveals that "sterile neutrinos" are not only real but common, and could be the stuff of dark matter.

And it’s Getting Worse!!

Cosmology, decay of sterile neutrino (dark matter), calibration of Ga solar neutrino detectors, increased flux from reactors

HIDDEN CLUE: Pulsars, including one inside this "guitar nebula," provide evidence of sterile neutrinos.

νe

C

Ni

Pb

QES in NP originated in e-Nucleus ScatteringMoniz et al PRL 1971

Simple Fermi Gas 2 parameter , SE, pF

Impulse Approximation

Inclusive Electron Scattering

Electron Beam ΔE/E ~10-

3

Magnetic Spectograph

Scattered electron

€

θ

Because the incident electron beam is precisely known and the scattered electron well measured, q and ω are precisely known without any reference to the nuclear final state

(E,0,0, p), (E ', p 'sinθ,0, p'cosθ) ω ≡E−E'

rθ =rp−rp'

€

(dσ / dΩe )Mott =α 2 cos2(θ / 2)/ E sin4(θ / 2)

p ', N Jμ p,N =iΩ

< uN(p')|[F1N(θ2 )γμ + F2

N(θ2 )s μνθν ] |uN(p) >

Fiτ3 (θ2 )=

12(Fi

S(θ2 )+τ 3FiV (θ2 )) 2μF2

S(0)=μ'p+ μν =−0.120

F1S(0)=1 F1

V (0)=1 2μF2V (0)=μ'p−μν =+3.706

dsdΩe

=sMoττE'E0

G EN,2(θ2 )+τGM

N,2(θ2 )1+τ

+ 2τGM2 (θ2 )τaν2(

θ2)

⎡⎣⎢

⎤⎦⎥

GE (q2 ) =F1(θ2 )+τF2(θ

2 ) GM (θ2 ) =F1(θ

2 )+ F2(θ2 )

Quasi-Elastic Electron Scattering

Q2 =θ2 −ω 2 ≡θ2 −ν 2

τ =Q2

4M 2Single nucleon vector current

Scaling in Electron Quasi-elastic Scattering (1) The energy transferred by the electron (ω), to a single nucleon with initial Fermi momentum

TN is the kinetic energy of the struck nucleon, Es the separation energy of the struck nucleon, ER the recoil kinetic energy of the nucleus.

The scaling function F(y,q) is formed from the measured cross section at 3- momentum transfer q, dividing out the incoherent single nucleon contributions at that three momentum transfer.

Instead of presenting the data as a function of q and ω, it can be expressed in terms of a single variable y.

F(y,q) =d 2sdΩdω

⎛⎝⎜

⎞⎠⎟EXP

1Zs ep(θ)+ Ns eν(θ)

⎛⎝⎜

⎞⎠⎟dωdy

rk ω =TN + Es + TR

ω =[(rk + rq)2 + m2 ]

12 − m + Es + Erecoil

= [k||2 + 2k||q + q2 + k⊥

2 + m2 ]12 − m + Es + Erecoil

neglect Es , Erecoil ,k⊥k|| = ω 2 + 2mω − q ≡ y

Scaling in Electron Quasi-elastic Scattering (2) 3He

Raw data Scaled

Excuses (reasons) for failure y > 0: meson exchange, pion production, tail of the delta.

At y = ω 2 + 2μω −θ =0

θ2 =ω 2 + 2μω =ω 2 +Q2 kiνiμ aτics for scaττeriνγ off a νucleoν aτ resτ

y < 0, ωheν τhe eνerγy τraνsfer (ω) is less τhaν iτ is for 3-μ oμ eντuμ τraνfer θ τo a free νucleoν aτ resτ.

Super Scaling

The fact that the nuclear density is nearly constant for A ≥ 12 leads one to ask, can scaling results be applied from 1 nucleus to another? W.M. Alberico, et al Phys. Rev. C38, 1801(1988), T.W. Donnelly and I. Sick, Phys. Rev. C60, 065502 (1999)

y =yRFG

kFermi

=mN

kFermi

(λ 1+ τ −1 −κ )

λ = ω2mN ,τ = Q2 / 4mN

2 , κ = q / 2m

A new dimensionless scaling variable is employed

Note linear scale: not bad for y < 0

Serious divergence above y =0

Separating Super Scaling into its Longitudinal and Transverse Responses Phys. Rev. C60, 065502 (1999)

Longitudinal

Transverse

The responses are normalized so that in a Relativistic Fermi Gas Model:

fL (y )= fT (y )fL satisfies the expected Coulomb sum rule. ie. It has the expected value. fT has mostly excuses (tail of the Δ, meson exchange, pion production etc.) Fine for fixed q and different A. Note divergence below ψ’=0

Transverse

Trouble even with the GOLD standard

Contrast of e-N with ν-N Experiments

Electron Beam ΔE/E ~10-3

Magnetic Spectograph

Scattered electron

€

θ

Neutrino Beam ΔE/<E>~1 l -θ

What’s ω ??? Don’t know Eν !!!

What’s q ????

Very Different Situation from inclusive electron scattering!!

Electron

Neutrino-Mode FluxNeutrino

MiniBooNE Setup

neutrino mode: νμ→ νe oscillation searchantineutrino mode: νμ→ νe oscillation search

ν mode flux

ν mode flux

MiniBooNE: νμ+12C CCQE Results PR D81 092005 (2010)

Tabular results available in article

MA=1.03 GeV MA=1.35 GeV

Data-MC Data-MC

While inclusive electron scattering and CCQE neutrino experiments are very different, the theory hardly changes.

dsdQ2 =

GF2 cos2θC

8pEν2 A(Q2 )±B(Q2 )

s−uM 2

⎡⎣⎢

⎤⎦⎥+C(Q2 )

s−uM 2

⎡⎣⎢

⎤⎦⎥2⎧

⎨⎪⎩⎪

⎫⎬⎪⎭⎪

A(Q2 )=Q2

4f12(Q2

M 2 −4)+ f1 f2(4Q2

M 2 )+ f22(Q2

M 2 −Q4

4M 4 )+ γ12(4 +

Q2

M 2 )⎡⎣⎢

⎤⎦⎥

B(Q2 )=Q2(f1 + f2 )γ1

C(Q2 )=M 2

4(f1

2 + f22 Q2

4M 2 + γ12 )

s−u=4MEν +Q2

Neutrino (+), Anti-Neutrino(-) Nucleon CCQE Cross Section

The f1 and f2 are isovector vector form factors that come from electron scattering. g1 is the isovector axial form factor fixed by neutron beta decay with a dipole form, 1.27/(1+Q2/MA

2). MA=1.02±.02

Charged lepton mass=0

NUANCE Breakdown of the QE Contributions to the MB Yields

MiniBooNE

Theoryconsensus

νμ +12 C → μ + 7 p,5n(π )What is Observed? CCQE

Other Experimental Results from CCQE

Some RPA p-h diagrams from Martini et al.PR C80, 065501

External interactionnucleonnucleon-

hole

deltavirtual SRI π,ρ, contact

Particle lines crossed by are put on shell

Exchange Current and pionic correlation diagrams in Amaro et al. PR C82 044601

Exchange

Correlation

Diagrams of Some Short Range Correlations

sCCQE (ν ,12 C) − σ CCQE (ν ,12 C)

Martini et al RPA

Further ReactionAmaro et al; Phys. Lett. B696 151(2011). arXiv:1010.1708 [nucl-th]

Included Meson Exchange into their SuperScaling (L) Approach

Straight impulse App. Meson Exchange Included

Angular Dependence

Experiment shows surplus yield at backward angles, and low energy

MORE RPAJ.Nieves, I. Ruiz and M.J. Vincente Vacas arXiv: 1102.2777 [hep-ph]

MiniBooNE

SciBooNE

arXiv:1104.0125 Scaling Function, Spectral Function and Nucleon Momentum Distribution in Nuclei A.N. Antonov, M.V. Ivanov, J.A. Caballero, M.B. Barbaro, J.M. Udias, E. Moya de Guerra, T.W. Donnelly

arXiv:1103.0636Relativistic descriptions of quasielastic charged-current neutrino-nucleus scattering: application to scaling and superscaling ideasAndrea Meucci, J.A. Caballero, C. Giusti, J.M. Udias

OTHER INTERESTING APPROACHES: Relativistic Potentials-FSI

Can the CCQE Cross Section/N Exceed the Free N Cross Section?

J. Carlson et al, PR C65, 024002 (2002)

Returning to the scaling of e-N QE cross section

F(y,q) =d 2sdΩdω

⎛⎝⎜

⎞⎠⎟EXP

1Zs ep(θ)+ Ns eν(θ)

⎛⎝⎜

⎞⎠⎟dωdy

y = ω 2 + 2μω −θ Scaling variable

Scaling function

Longitudinal-Transverse

GL =θμQ2 ZGEp

2 + NGEν2( )

GT =Q2

2θμZGMp

2 + NGMν2( )

fL ,T =kFRL,T

G L,T

Iν Relaτivisτic FG fL =fT

PR C65, 024002 (2002) Investigated the increased transverse response between 3He and4He

Euclidian Response Functions: PR C, 65, 024002 (cont.)

0 :Nuclear gs, E=E0 calculated with realistic NN and NNN interactions

H: True Hamiltonian with same interactions as above

RT, L(|q|,ω): Standard response functions from experiment.

τ: units (MeV)-1, determines the energy interval of the response function

NOTE: The group doing these calculation are extremely successful in reproducing all the features of light nuclei; Masses, energy spectra, transition rates, etc. for A≤12.

%E(| rq |,τ )= e−(ω−E0 )τ

ωτh

∞

∫ RT ,L(|rθ |,ω)dω

%E(|rθ |,τ ) caν be calculaτed as folloωs

%EL(|rθ |,τ )= 0 r(rθ)e−(H−E0 )τr(rθ) 0 −e

−θ2τ2Aμ 0(

rθ) r(rθ) 0

%ET (|rθ |,τ )= 0

rjT (

rθ)e−(H−E0 )τrjT (

rθ) 0 −e−θ2τ2Aμ 0(

rθ)rjT (

rθ) 0

ET ,L (q,τ )=

eθ2τ2μ

(1+Q2 / L2 )−4%ET ,L(θ,τ )

Is presented, removing the trivial kinetic energy dependence of the struck nucleon, and the Q2 dependence of the nucleon FF

What are the EM Charge and Current Operators??Covariant single nucleon vector current

jμ = uN (p') F1N(Q2 )γμ + F2

N(Q2 )is μνθν2μ

uN (p) N =ν, p

ri,NR(1) ( rq) = ε ie

irqgrr

rji

(1)( rq) =ε i

2m{ rpi ,e

irqgrr } −iμ i

a

2m( rqi ×

rσ i )e

irqgrr

negecting relatvistic corrections

Current Conservation requires:

∇γrj ( rq) =

∂ρ( rq)∂t

rqgrj ( rq) = [H , ρ ] H =

rpi2

2mi∑ + Vij

i< j∑ + Vijk

i < j <k∑

rqgrji

(1)( rq) = [rpi

2

2m, ρ i,NR

(1) ( rq)]rqg

rjij

(2)( rq) = [Vij ,ρ i,NR(1) ( rq) + ρ j ,NR

(1) ( rq)] A 2-body current

J = jii∑ + ji,μ

i<μ∑

Results of Calculation, for fixed q

3He L

3He T

4He L

4He T

%E(τ )

E(τ ) E(τ )Note: QE data stops here

Note: QE data stops here

ET(τ)

Let’s Look more carefully

τ ~1

ω −q2

2mn

− E0

, in FGIA =1

S +pF

2

6mn

=1

20 + 7= .037

SRC produce interactions requiring large values of ω.SRC + 2-body currents produce increased yield.

How Big are these Effects Relative to Free Nucleons?

Sum Rule at fixed 3 momentum transfer q:

ST , L (q) = ST ,L(θ,ω)ωτh

∞

∫ dω =CT ,L 0 %O∗T,L(

rθ)OT ,L(rθ) 0 −| 0 OT ,L(

rθ) 0 |2⎡⎣ ⎤⎦

CT =2μ 2

Zμp2 + Nμν

2 , CL =1Z

ST,L(θ)=CT .LET ,L(θ,τ =0)

Further Info from PR C65 024002

Small effect of 2-body currents evaluated in the Fermi Gas:!!!

Effect is due to n-p pairs

Some More EvidenceAmaro, et al, PHYSICAL REVIEW C 82, 044601 (2010)

Meson Exchange Diags. Correlation Diags.

56Fe, q=0.55GeV/c

One body RFG

2p-2h fin. sts.

Meson exchange

Correlation

Electron Scattering

http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.3771

Mosel, Lalakulich, Leitner

e+d inclusive scattering

The d the rms charge radius is 2 fm. pF≅50MeV/c

Absolute Normalization of the Flux

pp

pppn

p’p

Spectator proton (pp) spectrum

With ω and Eμ known, Eν is determined!!With q and ω known, y=(ω+2mω)1/2 - q < O can be selected.

Conclusions• Impulse approximation is inadequate to calculate ν-nucleus CCQE, correlations and 2-body currents must be included• Experimentalists must carefully specify what they call QE.• Determining the incident neutrino energy is a serious issue.• Measured Cross Sections are essential- Flux determination absolutely necessary• Need a good calculation of ν-d cross section (5%)• More work, theory and experiment on e-N transverse response might be the most fruitful avenue to pursue.• Differences between ν and ν cross sections(yields) should be better understood before large and expensive($1B) CP violation searches are undertaken. I’m particularly worried about different incident energies being extracted from the two processes.

MINOS arxiv: 1104.0344 [hep-ex]

1106.5374Nieves et al

1107.3771Mosel et al

They’re Catching On