Neutrino Geoscience a brief history…

1. Neutrino Geoscience a brief history… Physics and Geology Collaborations bring the best results 1930 – Pauli invokes the neutrino 1956 – Reines & Cowan detect ne 1984 – Krauss et al develop the map 2003 – KamLAND shows ne oscillate 2005 – KamLAND detects first geonus 2010 – Borexino4.2son Earth signal 2011 – ne signal require primordial heat 2013 – Combine detector events to reveal the mantle signal 2020 – Neutrino Tomography! (?)

2. 2011 Detecting Geoneutrinos from the Earth Latest Borexinoresults in Bellini et al 2013 http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.2571 2005 Latest KamLANDresults in Gando et al 2013 http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.4667 2010

3. Nature & amount of Earth’s thermal power radiogenic heating vs secular cooling - abundance of heat producing elements (K, Th, U) in the Earth - clues to planet formation processes - amount of radiogenic power to drive mantle convection & plate tectonics - is the mantle compositionally layered? or has large structures? estimates of BSE from 9TW to 36TW constrains chondritic Earth models estimates of mantle 1.3TW to 28TW layers, LLSVP, superplume piles the future is… Geoneutrino studies

4. U content of BSE models • Nucelosynthesis: U/Si and Th/Si production probability • Solar photosphere: matches C1 carbonaceous chondrites • Estimate from Chondrites: ~11ppb planet (16 ppb in BSE) • Heat flow: secular cooling vs radiogenic contribution… ? • Modeling composition: which chondrite should we use? • A brief (albeit biased) history of U estimates in BSE: • Urey (56) 16 ppbTurcotte & Schubert (82; 03) 31 ppb • Wasserburg et al (63) 33 ppb Hart & Zindler (86) 20.8 ppb • Ganapathy & Anders (74) 18 ppb McDonough & Sun (95) 20 ppb ± 20% • Ringwood (75) 20 ppb Allegre et al (95) 21 ppb • Jagoutz et al (79) 26 ppb Palme & O’Neill (03) 22 ppb ± 15% • Schubert et al (80) 31 ppb Lyubetskaya & Korenaga (05) 17 ppb ± 17% • Davies (80) 12-23 ppb O’Neill & Palme (08) 10 ppb • Wanke (81) 21 ppb Javoy et al (10) 12 ppb

5. Earth Models Update: …just the last year! Murakami et al (May - 2012, Nature): “…the lower mantle is enriched in silicon … consistent with the [CI] chondritic Earth model.” Campbell and O’Neill (March - 2012, Nature): “Evidence against a chondritic Earth” Zhang et al (March - 2012, Nature Geoscience): The Ti isotopic composition of the Earth and Moon overlaps that of enstatite chondrites. Fitoussi and Bourdon (March - 2012, Science): “Si isotopes support the conclusion that Earth was not built solely from enstatite chondrites.” Warren (Nov - 2011, EPSL): “Among known chondrite groups, EH yields a relatively close fit to the stable-isotopic composition of Earth.” - Compositional models differ widely, implying a factor of three difference in the U & Th content of the Earth

6. Enstatitechondrite vs Earth Carbonaceous chondrites diagrams from Warren (2011, EPSL) Carbonaceous chondrites Carbonaceous chondrites

7. 142Nd: what does it tell us about the Earth and chondrites? Please stop saying that the e142Nd = 18 ± 5 ppm for chondrites  Data from: Gannoun et al (2011, PNAS); Carlson et al (Science, 2007) Andreasen & Sharma (Science, 2006); Boyet and Carlson (2005, Science); Jacobsen & Wasserburg (EPSL, 1984); Qin et al (GCA, 2011)

8. Earth’s surface heat flow 46 ± 3 (47 ± 1) TW Mantle cooling (18 TW) Crust R* (7 ± 1 TW) (Huang et al ‘13) Core (~9 TW) - (4-15 TW) Mantle R* (13 ± 4 TW) total R* 20 ± 4 *R radiogenic heat (after McDonough & Sun ’95) (0.4 TW) Tidal dissipation Chemical differentiation after Jaupart et al 2008 Treatise of Geophysics

9. Summary of geoneutrino results MODELS Cosmochemical: uses meteorites – O’Neill & Palme (’08); Javoy et al (‘10); Warren (‘11) Geochemical: uses terrestrial rocks – McD & Sun ’95; Allegre et al ‘95; Palme O’Neil ‘03 Geodynamical: parameterized convection – Schubert et al; Turcotte et al; Anderson

10. Constructing a 3-D reference model Earth assigning chemical and physical states to Earth voxels

11. 3D imaging of the Earth’s K-Th-U distribution Surface geoneutrino flux Yu Huang et al (2013) arXiv:1301.0365

12. Early Earth differentiation followed by 4 billion years of plate tectonics Kellog et al (sciences 2000)

13. What’s hidden in the mantle? Seismically slow “red” regions in the deep mantle Can we image it with geonus? No, not that CMB, … Core – Mantle Boundary Retsima et al (Science, 1990)

14. Forming the Moon from terrestrial silicate-rich material (2013) R.J. de Meijer, V.F. Anisichkin, W. van Westrenen (Chemical Geology). Forming the Moon from a geo-reactor at the core-mantle boundary 4.5 Ga The latest form of “fission hypothesis” for the origin of the Moon

15. Mantle geonuetrino flux 14+8 TNU Bellini et al 2013 Mantle = BSE - Crust Uniform mantle 13 TW 3-8 TW Depleted MORB Mantle Low Q (10 ppb U) Med. Q (20 ppb U) High Q (30 ppb U) 6-10 TW “EL”: hot basal layer

16. Predicted geoneutrino flux Flux at the surface dominated by Continental crust Yu Huang et al (2013) arXiv:1301.0365 Flux at the Moho dominated by deep mantle structures Šrámeket al (2013) 10.1016/j.epsl.2012.11.001; arXiv:1207.0853

17. Present and future LS-detectors Borexino, Italy (0.6kt) KamLAND, Japan (1kt) SNO+, Canada (1kt) Europe Hanohano, US ocean-based (10kt) LENA, EU (50kt)

18. Future Experiments: world-wide deployable Pauli class research submarine Living and research quarters 10 ktons Hanohano-like Next Gen n or WIMP detector Liquid scintillation Liquid Ar, Xe Segmented research vessel with two detectors “Coincidence counting detectors”

19. The RV n-StarAN OVERVIEW International Collaboration Geosciences- Neutrino tomographyPhysics- Fundamental matter studies Applied- Reactor studies LOCATIONS - anywhere in theocean- depthof1k - 4k m.w.e. to reduce m-&cosmogenicbkgd - n-beam studies Liquid Ar, Xe n Liquid scintillation GOALS masshierachy – CP violationreactorneutrinosmantlegeoneutrinosartificialneutrinosourcessupernovaneutrinos+ geology, biology, monitoring

20. SUMMARY (~before today…) • Earth’s radiogenic (Th & U) power 22 ± 12 TW or11.2 TW • Prediction: models range from 8 to 28 TW(for Th& U) • On-line and next generation experiments: • SNO+ online 2013/14  • Daya Bay II: good experiment, limited geonu application? • LENA??: will the Europeans push on, put LENA in the ocean! • Hanohano or RV n-Star: this is FUNDAMENTAL for geosciences • Geology must participate and it must contribute to the cost • --experiment cost ~$300M; Geology’s contribution $150M; International -- • Future: • Neutrino Tomography of the Earth’s deep interior  + 7.9 - 5.1