Superluminal neutrinos?

1. Superluminal neutrinos? I.Masina Ferrara, 12/10/2011

2. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897v1 Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam Abstract: The OPERA neutrino experiment at the underground Gran Sasso Laboratory has measured the velocity of neutrinos from the CERN CNGS beam over a baseline of about 730 km with much higher accuracy than previous studies conducted with accelerator neutrinos. […] An early arrival time of CNGS muon neutrinos with respect to the one computed assuming the speed of light in vacuum of (60.7 ±6.9 (stat.) ±7.4 (sys.)) ns was measured. This anomaly corresponds to a relative difference of the muonneutrino velocity with respect to the speed of light (v-c)/c = (2.48 ±0.28 (stat.) ± 0.30 (sys.)) x 10-5

3. v = c + 6 km/s

4. While waiting for the experimental community to further check these results, it is worth to ask: “Which theoretical consequences would follow from the hypothesis that the muon neutrino is a superluminal particle?” HERE we focus on two theoretical proposals for superluminal behavior 1) Tachyons 2) Coleman-Glashow The Hypothesis of Superluminal Neutrinos: comparing OPERA with other Data A.Drago, I.Masina, G.Pagliara, R.Tripiccione e-Print: arXiv:1109.5917 [hep-ph]

5. For an up-to-date web page about experimental & theoretical aspects of superluminal neutrinos: http://web.mit.edu/redingtn/www/netadv/XftlNu.html

6. 0) RECALL WHAT’S SUBLUMINAL A particle with mass m and velocity v < c, has energy and momentum given by They are thus related via the DISPERSION RELATION

7. 1) NEUTRINOS AS TACHYONS

8. These expressions can be extended to the region v > c provided we substitute in the numerator m i m i i SO THAT

9. Tachyon a particle with mass m and velocity v > c, with energy and momentum given by They are thus related via MODIFIED DISPERSION RELATION

10. PROBLEMS OF A TACHYONIC INTERPRETATION OF OPERA RESULTS

11. a) Energy independence of the early arrival times After having traveled a distance L, the neutrino early arrival time is ≈2.4ms

12. a) Energy independence of the early arrival times After having traveled a distance L, the neutrino early arrival time is ≈2.4ms Consider two tachyonic neutrino beams of energy E1 and E2, with E1 ≤ E2 for E2 ≈ 3E1, one expects δt1 ≈ 9δt2 OPERA: considers two neutrino beams with mean energy E1= 13.9 GeV and E2= 42.9 GeV. The experimental values of the associated early arrival times are respectively δt1= (53.1 ± 18.8(stat) ± 7.4(sys)) ns and δt2= (67.1 ± 18.2(stat)±7.4(sys)) ns  consistent with energy dependence of δt

13. TACHYON MASS RANGE FROM OPERA ≈ 110-130 MeV at 1σ E=17GeV OPERA mμc2

14. b) Production from pion Simple kinematics (conservation of energy and momentum)

15. TACHYON MASS RANGE FROM OPERA ≈ 110-130 MeV at 1σ E=17GeV OPERA EXCLUDED BY π mμc2

16. Better look at the kinematics for π → μ νμ Tachyonvs subluminal (Bradyon) (v-c)/c < 10 -7 too small for OPERA mc2 < 10 MeV

17. SUPERNOVA SN1987a It is L = 1.68 × 105lyfar from the Earth and exploded releasing a huge neutrino signal, with energies E=10−20 MeV; allowed the first direct detection of astrophysical neutrinos. All neutrino flavors were emitted but Kamiokande-II, IMB and Baksan were designed to detect mainly electron anti-neutrinos.

18. The signal lasted about 10 s and the photons also arrived within a few hours.

19. The signal lasted about 10 s and the photons also arrived within a few hours. The time spread ∆T = |T2 − T1| of two neutrinos with energies E1 and E2 (with E1 ≤ E2) is Suppose that SN1987a also emitted a 100 MeV tachyonicmuon neutrino: its advance with respect to light would be of about δt ≈ 4yr, but with an enormous spread! These neutrinos would have certainly escaped detection.

20. c) Neutrino oscillations In principle, the formalism of neutrino oscillation in the tachyonic case is the same as for an ordinary neutrino. The ratio between the tachyonic mass of the muon neutrino suggested by OPERA and the mass of the electron anti-neutrino suggested by SN1987a would be ≥105 |∆m2| ≈ 104 MeV2 It appears impossible to agree with neutrino oscillation experiments, setting stringent bounds on the difference of neutrino masses squared: |∆m232| ≈ 2.4 × 10−3 eV2 and ∆m221≈ 7.6 × 10−5 eV2

21. These simple arguments disfavor the tachyon explanation of the OPERA data

22. 2) NEUTRINOS AS CG PARTICLES

23. The idea (Coleman and Glashow, 1987) is that the i-th particle has, in addition to its own mass mi, its own maximum attainable velocity ci, and obeys the standard dispersion relation In the relativistic regime Clearly IF ci > c superluminal

24. Consider now two CG neutrino mass eigenstates with masses m1 and m2≤ O(eV)/c2, and different limit speeds c1 and c2 Suppose that ν2 has a significant mixing with the muonneutrino, while ν1 mixes significantly with the electron neutrino |c1 − c|/c ≤ 10−9 to agree with SN1987a TAKE (c2 − c)/c ≈ 2 × 10−5 as suggested by OPERA

25. Energy independence of the early arrival time of νμbeam is guaranteed! (c2is a constant already chosen to reproduce the results from OPERA)

26. Energy independence of the early arrival time of νμbeam is guaranteed! (c2is a constant already chosen to reproduce the results from OPERA) 2) Production from pion. Kinematics imposes Since in OPERA Eπ ≈ 60GeV Eν ≤ 3.5 GeV which is NOT the case!

27. Energy independence of the early arrival time of νμbeam is guaranteed! (c2is a constant already chosen to reproduce the results from OPERA) 2) Production from pion. Kinematics imposes Since in OPERA Eπ ≈ 60GeV Eν ≤ 3.5 GeV which is NOT the case! 3) SN1987a.Abeam of CG ν2 would have arrived (not spread out) about 4 years before photons and the other ν1’s. But it would have escaped detection since the detectors had a lower sensitivity to νμ .

28. 4) Neutrino oscillations, pose another problem. The two CG neutrino eigenstates travel at different speeds and this affects the neutrino oscillation probability where θ is the mixing angle, R is the distance from source to detector E is the νenergy, typically in the MeV range for reactor and solar experiments For numerical estimates, it is safe to replace c ̄ with c. Oscillation experiments indicate (m22− m21) c4 ≈ 10−4 eV2  sensitivity to δc/c ≈ 10−18, much smaller than what would be needed to explain the OPERA data!

29. Also CG superluminal neutrinos do not to provide a satisfactory explanation of the OPERA results

30. OTHER SUGGESTIONS

31. PAIR BREMSSTRAHLUNG Cohen Glashow arXiv:1109.6562 Superluminal neutrinos would lose energy rapidly via the bremsstrahlung of electron-positron pairs For the claimed velocity and at the stated mean neutrino energy, most of the neutrinos would have suffered several pair emissions en route, causing the beam to haveE ≤ 12.5 GeV at Gran Sasso.

32. SYSTEMATIC ERROR IN SYNCHRONISATION OF CLOCKSC.Contaldi, arXiv:1109.6160 Since the Earth is rotating, one-way speed measurements require a convention for the synchronisation of clocks in non-inertial frames. We argue that the effect of the synchronisation convention is not properly taken into account in OPERA and may well invalidate their interpretation of superluminal neutrinos. As an example, let us assume that the travelling Time-Transfer Device was stationary at the LNGS site for 4 days while the apparatus for clock comparison was set up. this would result in a total shift of ∆t ≈ -30ns.

33. CONCLUSIONS No obvious theoretical solution to reconcile OPERA with other data Systematic errors have been fully understood by the OPERA Collaboration? Do not miss the talk by A.Paoloni tomorrow at 14.30