Supernova Neutrinos Irene Tamborra Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen CoCoNuT Meeting 2017 Garching, October 26, 2017
Core-Collapse Supernova Explosion Implosion (Collapse) Neutrinos carry 99% of the 53 released energy (~ 10 erg). Explosion neutrino cooling by diffusion Neutrino energies: ~ 10 MeV. Neutrino emission time: ~ 10 s.
Existing Detectors HALO (30, e, x ) SNO+ (300, e ) LVD (300, e ) Borexino (100, Baksan (100, ) Super-Kamiokande (7x10 4, e ) e e ) KamLAND (300, e ) MicroBooNE (17, e ) NovA(4000, e ) IceCube (10 6, e ) Daya Bay(100, e ) Expected number of events for a SN at 10 kpc and dominant flavor sensitivity in parenthesis. Fundamental to combine the supernova signal from detectors employing different technologies. Recent review papers: Scholberg (2017). Mirizzi, Tamborra, Janka, Scholberg et al. (2016).
Next Generation Large Scale Detectors 37 m 32 m 30 m Cherenkov telescopes ( e ) IceCube-Gen2 Hyper-Kamiokande (10 5 ) (10 6) Liquid Argon detectors ( e ) DUNE (3000) Scintillation detectors ( e ) RENO-50 (5400) JUNO (6000) 1000 20 OD Water PMTs Mineral Oil LS (18 kton) 15000 20 PMTs (67%) 30 m 32 m 37 m Expected number of events for a SN at 10 kpc and dominant flavor sensitivity in parenthesis. Recent review papers: Scholberg (2017). Mirizzi, Tamborra, Janka, Scholberg et al. (2016).
Xenon Dark Matter Detector: Nu Telescope DARWIN, 700 events ( e,x, e,x ) [σ] ( ) / ( ) ( ) [ ] Flavor insensitive (no uncertainties due to oscillation physics). Very low background and excellent time resolution. Good reconstruction of neutrino light-curve and neutrino emission properties. Lang, McCabe, Reichard, Selvi, Tamborra, PRD (2016). Horowitz et al. PRD (2003). Drukier and Stodolsky, PRD (1984).
General Features of Neutrino Signal Figure 4-1: Three phases of neutrino emission from a core-collapse SN, from left to right: (1) Infall, General bounce features and initial of shock-wave the neutrino propagation, signal well described including prompt by 1D hydro ν e burst. simulations. (2) Accretion phase with significant flavor differences of fluxes and spectra and time variations of the signal. (3) Cooling of the newly formed neutron star, only small flavor differences between fluxes and spectra. (Based on a Figure: 1D spherically symmetric SN simulation (M=27 M sun ), Garching group.
Neutrino-Driven Mechanism
Delayed Neutrino-Driven Explosion Shock wave forms within the iron core. It dissipates energy dissociating iron layer. Shock revival O O O Neutrinos provide energy to stalled shock wave to start re-expansion. Ni ν n, p ν Convection and shock oscillations (standing accretion shock instability, SASI) enhance efficiency of neutrino heating and revive the shock. Shock wave Proto-neutron star n, p, α ν ν Recent review papers: Janka (2017). Mirizzi, Tamborra et al. (2016).
SASI Detection Perspectives (27 M ) sun Strong signal modulation (optimistic observer direction) 456)+78-9 : ("" 01)2.3) '"" &"" %"" $"" #""!"" * )!'+, -./ Weak signal modulation (pessimistic observer direction) Expected rate above IceCube background Hyper-K rate = 1/3 IceCube rate SASI still detectable Tamborra et al., PRL (2013). Tamborra et al., PRD (2014). 012)3456 7 8 Counts/bin 89:;<6=>3; ("" +,)-./) '"" &"" %"" $"" #""!"" 3000 2000 1000 * Background 0 "#!!./,)0 1 "!!! ) 4000 IceCube (!! '!! %!! #!! e ) e 10 kpc 20 kpc "!*+,- ) #!*+,-!! "!! #!! $!! %!! &!! 234)*5467
Power Spectrum of the Event Rate Power spectrum of the IceCube event rate in [100,300] ms Power spectrum 120 100 80 60 40 20 11 M sun 20 M sun 27 M sun IceCube 0 0 50 100 Frequency [Hz] 150 200 A peak appears at the SASI frequency of ~ 80 Hz for the 20 and 27 M sun SN progenitors. Tamborra, Hanke, Mueller, Janka, Raffelt, PRL (2013).
LESA Instability Neutrino lepton-number flux for the 11.2 M sun progenitor [(F e F e )/hf e F e i]. positive dipole direction Lepton-number emission asymmetry (LESA) is a large-scale feature with dipole character. Once the dipole develops, its direction remains stable. No-correlation with numerical grid. Tamborra, Hanke, Janka, Mueller, Raffelt, Marek, ApJ (2014). See also: Janka, Melson, Summa, ARNPS (2016).
Lepton Number Flux Evolution Monopole, dipole and quadrupole of the lepton number flux Lepton Number Flux [10 56 1/s] 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 5 4 3 2 1 z9.6 LS 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 s20 LS 0.5 Time [s] 0.1 0.2 0.3 m15 0.4 LS 0.5 rot Time [s] 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Time [s] s11 LS 0.1 0.2 0.3 s20 0.4 LS 0.5 strange Time [s] 0.1 0.2 0.3 m15 0.4 LS 0.5 artrot Time [s] 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Time [s] s27 LS 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Time [s] l mode 0 1 2 s20 shen 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Time [s] z9.6 LS 0.173 0.240 0.225 0.210 0.195 0.180 0.165 0.150 Y e 0.135 40 20 0 20 40 Radius [km] Janka, Melson, Summa, ARNPS (2016). Tamborra, Hanke, Janka, Mueller, Raffelt, Marek, ApJ (2014).
SASI Dipole [10 52 erg/s] LESA Dipole [10 56 s 1 ] 5 4 3 2 1 LESA-SASI Interference 27 M sun SASI SASI 0 50 100 200 300 400 500 Time After Bounce [ms] SASI SASI 4 3 2 1 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Time After Bounce [ms] 27 M sun, [170,260] ms SASI Dipole [10 52 erg/s] LESA Dipole [10 56 s 1 ] 5 4 3 2 1 20 M sun SASI 0 50 100 200 300 Time After Bounce [ms] 4 3 2 1 SASI 0 0 100 200 300 Time After Bounce [ms] LESA dipole close to SASI plane LESA dipole perp. to SASI plane No clear correlation between LESA and SASI. Interplay dependent on relative orientations of SASI plane and LESA dipole. Tamborra et al., ApJ (2014). Tamborra et al., PRD (2014).
found by Pejcha and Thompson (2015) for one of their model sets and a different Black-Hole Forming Supernovae Successful Explosions Failed explosions Fallback SNe Fig. 12 NS and BH formation cases as function of progenitor ZAMS mass, based on 1D simulations with a calibrated neutrino engine (for more details of the modeling approach, see Ertl et al, 2016; Sukhbold et al, 2016). The upper row displays results for the compilation of solarmetallicity progenitors Supernova used (40 by M sun Sukhbold ) et al (2016), the middle row ultra metal-poor (10 4 solar 19 BH-forming 200 metallicity) models (set u2002) between 11.0 M and 75.0 M from Woosley et al (2002), and the bottom row zero-metallicity L νe models (set z2011) between 9.6 M and 100.0 M from Heger and Woosley (2010) for thelstars _ ν above and including 10.3 M and from A. Heger (2015, private e 150 communication) for the stars L νx with lower masses. Red vertical bars indicate successful explosions with NS formation, black bars BH formation without SN explosion, and blue bars fallback SNe where BHs form due to massive fallback, which leads to more than 3 M of baryonic matter in the 100 Fig. compact 12 NS remnant. and BHThe formation rugged landscape cases as function of alternating ofneutrinos progenitor intervalszams of reveal NS and mass, black-hole BHbased formation on 1D formation. events simulations a consequence with of non-monotonicities the pre-collapse structure of the progenitors as discussed is abrupt a calibrated termination neutrino engine (for more details of the modeling approach, see Ertl in Sect. 2.1. (Figure courtesy of Thomas Ertl) 50 et al, 2016; Sukhbold et al, 2016). The upper row displays results for the compilation of solarmetallicity progenitors used by Sukhbold et al (2016), the middle row ultra metal-poor (10 4 solar metallicity) models (set u2002) between 11.0 M and 75.0 M from Woosley et al (2002), and 0 the bottom row zero-metallicity models (set z2011) between 9.6 M and 100.0 M from Heger 0 100 200 300 400 500 and Woosley (2010) for the stars above and including 10.3 M and from A. Heger (2015, private communication) t - t bounce for [ms] the stars with lower masses. Red vertical bars indicate successful explosions with NS formation, black bars BH formation progenitor without star from SNWoosley explosion, & Heger and (2007) bluevolved bars with fallback the LS220 SNe EOS. We Sukhbold et al., ApJ (2016). Ertl et al., ApJ (2016). Horiuchi et al., MNRSL (2014). O Connor & Ott, ApJ (2011). O Connor, ApJ where BHs form due to massive fallback, which leads to more than 3 M of baryonic matter in the (2015). compact remnant. The rugged landscape of alternating intervals of NS and BH formation events is L ν [10 51 erg s -1 ] Figure 10. Neutrino observables from a failed CCSN simulation of a 40 M show the neutrino luminosity (left panel) and the neutrino average energy (right panel). In both panels, the curves corresponding to electron neutrinos are shown as solid black lines, electron antineutrino curves are shown as dashed red lines, and heavy-lepton neutrino curves are shown as a dashed-dotted blue line. Note the luminosities and average energies presented here are those as measured in the lab frame at 500 km. The lapse function at 500 km is 0.99, therefore very little
e Flavor Evolution in Supernovae µ
Neutrino Interactions all flavors e-flavor only Understood phenomenon. e,µ, Z fermion (p, n, e) e,µ, e W electron e Neutrinos interact with neutrons, protons and electrons. Wolfenstein, PRD 17 (1978) 2369 ( ) ( ) interactions We still need to learn a lot! Z Non-linear phenomenon ( ) ( ) Pantaleone, PLB 287 (1992) 128
SN Neutrino Equations of Motion Full neutrino transport + flavor oscillations = 7D problem! t + v x + F p ρ t, x, p = i H t, x, p, ρ t, x, p + C[ρ t, x, p ] External forces (negligible) Vacuum term Matter term [MSW resonant conversion] Collision term (negligible) interaction term [neutrino self-interactions] Challenging problem: Stiff equations of motion, involving non-linear term (nu-nu interactions). Quantities changing on very different time scales involved.
Simplified Picture of Flavor Conversions SN envelope Vacuum Earth R Slow self-induced conversions (spectral splits) vacuum oscillations (Earth Matter Effect) -sphere MSW m 2 resonance Shock wave MSW m 2 resonance [not in scale]
Nu-Nu and Matter Potentials (matter potential) µ (nu-nu potential) Neutrinosphere MSW resonances Nu-nu interactions relevant Fig. 22. Snapshots of SN potentials for di erent post-bounce times (1.0 7.0 s) for a 27 M SN progenitor (see Sec. 2). The profile at 0.2 s is an illustrative case for a typical condition before
Stationary & Spherically-Symmetric SN 1.0 Initial neutrino and antineutrino fluxes 0.8 ν e Flux (a.u.) 0.6 0.4 ν e Fluxes before oscillations 0.2 ν x ν x 0.0 0 10 20 Final fluxes 30 in 40 inverted 50 hierarchy 0 10 (multi-angle) 20 30 40 50 1.0 0.8 E (MeV) E (MeV) Flux (a.u.) 0.6 0.4 ν x ν x Fluxes after neutrino self-interactions 0.2 ν e ν e 0.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 E (MeV) 0 10 20 30 40 50 E (MeV) Spectral splits : For energies above a critical value, a full flavor swap occurs. Fogli, Lisi, Marrone, Mirizzi, JCAP (2007), Fogli, Lisi, Marrone, Mirizzi, Tamborra, PRD (2008). Raffelt and Smirnov, PRD (2007), PRD (2007). Duan et al., PRD (2007). Hannestad, Raffelt, Sigl, Wong, PRD (2006).
Real SN is Space-Time Dependent Spontaneous symmetry breaking may occur when releasing symmetry assumptions. Caveats: Studies only within 1D/2D toy-models. Numerical implementation very challenging. Breaking of axial symmetry. [Raffelt, Sarikas, de Sousa Seixas, PRL (2013)] Spatial and directional symmetry breaking (inhomogeneity). [Mirizzi et al., PRD (2015); Duan&Shalgar, PLB (2015); Hansen&Hannestad, PRD (2014), Chakraborty et al., JCAP (2016)]. Temporal instability (non-stationarity). [Abbar & Duan, PLB (2015), Dasgupta & Mirizzi, PRD (2015)]. Neutrino momentum distribution not limited to outward direction (nu halo). [Cherry et al., PRL (2012). Sarikas, Tamborra, Raffelt, Huedepohl, Janka, PRD (2012)]. Large-scale 3D effects (SASI, LESA). [Tamborra et al., PRL (2013) & ApJ (2014), Chakraborty et al., PRD (2015)].
Simplified Picture of Flavor Conversions SN envelope Vacuum Earth Fast self-induced conversions? (flavor equilibration?) R Slow self-induced conversions (spectral splits) vacuum oscillations (Earth Matter Effect) -sphere MSW m 2 resonance Shock wave MSW m 2 resonance [not in scale]
Fast Pairwise Neutrino Conversions Flavor conversion (vacuum or MSW): e (p)! µ (p). Lepton flavor violation by mass and mixing. Pairwise flavor exchange by scattering: e (p)+ e (k)! µ (p)+ µ (k) e (p)+ µ (k)! µ (p)+ e (k) Can occur without masses/mixing. No net lepton flavor change. p Growth rate: 2GF (n e n e ) ' 6.42 m 1 m 2 vs.. 2E ' 0.5 km 1 Fast conversions Neutrino angular distributions crucial. Sawyer, PRD (2005), Sawyer, PRL (2016), Chakraborty et al., JCAP (2016).
PRL 118, 021101 (2017) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S week ending 13 JANUARY 2017 Fast Pairwise Conversion of Supernova Neutrinos: A Dispersion Relation Approach Frequency 4 2 0-2 Ignacio Izaguirre, 1 Georg Raffelt, 1 and Irene Tamborra 2 1 Max-Planck-Institut für Physik (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut), Föhringer Ring 6, 80805 München, Germany 2 Niels Bohr International Academy, Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark (Received 10 October 2016; published 10 January 2017) Instabilities of flavor waves cos( 1 )=0.9 G 1 = 0.5 cos( 2 )=0.3 G 2 = 0.5 (,k z ) always real cos( 1 )=+0.8 G 1 = 0.5 cos( 2 )=-0.2 G 2 = 0.5 Complex k z for real in frequency gap Instabilities of plasma waves ¼ Frequency -4 4 2 0-2 cos( 1 )=0.9 G 1 =-0.5 cos( 2 )=0.3 G 2 =+0.5 Complex for real k z Complex k z for real Stable Particle-like cos( 1 )=+0.8 G 1 =-0.5 cos( 2 )=-0.2 G 2 =+0.5 Complex for real k z in wavenumber gap -4-4 -2 0 2 4 Wave number k z Tachyon-like -4-2 0 2 4 Wave number k z Izaguirre, Raffelt, Tamborra, PRL (2017). See also Capozzi et al., PRD (2017). [Landau&Lifshitz, Vol. 10, Physical Kinetics, Chapter VI, Instability Theory]
0 Fast Pairwise Neutrino Conversions 120 # 90 60 150 10 km 20 km 30 km 40 km 50 km 100 km 200 km 400 km 30 180 Outward direction! Non-negligible inward neutrino flux may induce fast conversions. LESA may induce fast conversions. Flavor equipartition might occur close to neutrino decoupling region. Explosion affected? Existing investigations are simplified case studies. Further work needed. Izaguirre, Raffelt, Tamborra, PRL (2017). Tamborra et al., ApJ (2017). Capozzi et al., PRD (2017).
What Can We Learn From a SN Burst?
A Multi-Messenger Riddle Log (luminosity [erg s -1 ]) 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 pre-sn ν e 9 progenitor ν e ν e ν x GW EM SBO plateau 6 3 0-2 0 2 4 6 8 Log (time relative to bounce [s]) Nakamura et al., MNRAS (2016).
Neutrinos Tell Us When To Look SuperNova Early Warning System (SNEWS) Super-Kamiokande Kamland HALO Borexino Concidence Sever (@ BNL) LVD IceCube Daya Bay E-mail alert ATel alerts, LIGO, GCN Shock break out arrives mins to hours after neutrino signal. Meanwhile, individual detectors, e.g.: Super-K could release alert within 1 hour of neutrino burst (time, duration, pointing). Super-K-Gd project may potentially release alert within 1 sec. http://snews.bnl.gov. Adams et al., ApJ (2013).
Neutrinos Tell Us When To Look Events per bin (1.6384 ms) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0-100 -10-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Time post bounce (ms) Probe core bounce time with neutrinos. Help timing for gravitational wave detection. Frequency [Hz] 1000 800 600 400 200 Without neutrino timing (S/N~3.5) With neutrino timing (S/N ~7) 0 500 1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 Time [ms] Time [ms] Pagliaroli et al., PRL (2009), Halzen & Raffelt PRD (2009). Nakamura et al., MNRAS (2016). 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 Frequency [Hz] 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 8.5 kpc 50 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Neutrinos Tell Us Where To Look + e! + e Super-K Hyper-K water 6 deg 1.4 deg water+gd 3 deg 0.6 deg FIG. 4: Angular distribution of ν e p ne + events (green) and elastic scattering events νe νe (blue) of one simulated SN. SN location with neutrinos crucial for vanishing or weak SNe. where l is the angle between the actual and the estimated SN direction, and δ is a fit parameter. Fundamental for multi-messenger searches. Angular uncertainty comparable to e.g., ZTF, LSST potential. 2000 Beacom & Vogel, PRD (1999). Tomas et al., PRD (2003). Fisher et al., JCAP (2015). Muehlbeier et al., PRD (2013).
Neutrinos Tell Us Where To Look Deleptonization peak is independent of progenitor mass & EoS but sensitive to mass ordering. (no peak) (peak) but for JUNO (left) and DUNE (right). For JUNO, IBDs and NC scatterings o of carbon have been rom any detection channel have been subtracted. If mass ordering known: Determination of SN distance. (Test role of oscillations in dense media.) Kachelriess et al., PRD (2005). Wallace, Burrows, Dolence, ApJ (2016).
Neutrinos Affect Element Production Location of r-process nucleosynthesis (origin elements with A >100) unknown. Flavor oscillations affect element production mainly via ν e + n p + e ν e + p n + e +. Coupling of oscillation physics to nucleosynthesis networks recently begun. 0.64 0.62 0.6 no oscill. (incl. α-effect) no oscill. active (incl. α-effect) active sterile (incl. α-effect) sterile Y e 0.58 0.56 Recent work suggests unlikely r-process conditions in SNe, but further work needed. 0.54 0.52 0.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 t 0 [s] Pllumbi, Tamborra et al., ApJ (2015). Wu et al., PRD (2015). Duan et al., J. Phys. G (2011).
Synopsis Figure Figure Figure 4-1: 4-1: Three 4-1: Three Three phases phases phases of of neutrino of neutrino emission emission from from from a a core-collapse a SN, SN, from SN, fromleft left toleft right: right: to right: (1) (1) Infall, (1) Infall, Infall, bounce bounce and and initial and initial initial shock-wave propagation, including prompt prompt ν Signal independent on SN e νburst. e νburst. e burst. (2) (2) (2) Accretion phase phase phase with with with Signal has strong variations significant flavor flavor flavor differences of of fluxes fluxes of fluxes and and and spectra spectra and and time and time time variations of of the signal. (3) of mass and EoS. EoS the of the and signal. signal. mass (3) dependence. (3) Cooling Cooling of of (mass, EoS, 3D effects). the the newly the newly newly formed formed neutron neutron star, star, only star, only small only small small flavor flavor flavor differences between between fluxes fluxes fluxes and and and spectra. spectra. (Based (Based (Based on on a on a a spherically symmetric Garching model model model with with with explosion triggered by by hand by hand hand during ms SN distance. during Test during nuclear 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 physics. ms ms [168,169]. Core collapse astrophysics. See See text for We show the and as well as (Test See text text for oscillation for details.) details.) We physics.) We show show the the flavor-dependent luminosities and and average Nucleosynthesis. average energies energies as as well well as as (Test oscillation physics.) the the IBD the IBDrate rate in rate in JUNO in JUNO JUNO assuming either either either no no flavor no flavor flavor conversion (curves (curves ν e ν e )orcompleteflavorswap ν e (curves (curves ν x ). ν x ). The ν x The ). elastic The elastic elastic proton proton proton (electron) scattering rate rate uses rate uses all uses sixall six speciesandassumesadetection threshold of 0.2of 0.2 MeV 0.2 MeV MeV of of visible visible of visible proton proton proton (electron) recoil recoil recoil energy. energy. For For the For the the electron electron scattering, two two two extreme extreme cases cases cases of of no no of flavor no flavor flavor conversion (curves (curves no no osc.) no osc.) osc.) and and flavor and flavor flavor conversion with with awith a normal a normal neutrino neutrino mass mass mass ordering ordering (curves (curves NH) NH) are NH) are are presented.
time z =0 z =1 neutrinos neutrinos Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background z =5
Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background DSNB detection may happen soon with, e.g., upcoming JUNO and Gd-Super-K project (sensitivity strongly improved). Recent review papers: Mirizzi, Tamborra et al. (2016). Lunardini (2010). Beacom (2010). Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Astrop. Phys. (2015). Beacom & Vagins, PRL (2004). JUNO Coll., 2015. Priya & Lunardini 2017.
Diffuse Supernova Neutrino Background DSNB sensitive to failed supernova fraction. Independent test of the global SN rate. Constraints on the fraction of core-collapse and failed supernovae. Constraints on average neutrino emission properties. Lien et al., PRD (2010), Nakazato et al., ApJ (2015), Yuksel&Kistler, PLB (2015). Priya & Lunardini 2017. Lunardini, PRL(2009),
SN-GRB Connection
Core-Collapse Supernovae FIG. 2. Kinetic energy profile of the ejecta of ordinary type Ibc SNe (red) and E-SNe, a class of explosions that includes GRBs (blue), sub-e GRBs (lightblue) and relativistic SNe (orange). Squares and circles are used for the slow-moving and the fast-moving ejecta, respectively, as measured from optical and radio observations. The velocity of the fast-moving ejecta has been computed at t = 1 d (rest-frame). Black solid lines: ejecta kinetic energy profile of a pure hydrodynamical explosion (E k / ( ) -5.2, Tan et al. 2001), and for explosions powered by a short-lived (E k / ( ) -2.4 ) and long-lived (E k / ( ) -0.4 ) central engine (Lazzati et al. 2012). Open black circles identify explosions with broad-lined optical spectra. The purple arrows identify the directions of increasing collimation and mass of the fastest ejecta. SN 2012ap bridges the gap between cosmological GRBs and ordinary SNe Ibc. Its kinetic energy profile, significantly flatter than what expected from a pure hydrodynamical explosion, indicates the presence of a central engine. References: Margutti et al. (2013a) and references therein; Ben-Ami et al. (2012); Horesh et al. (2013); Corsi et al. (2014), Walker et al. (2014); C14; M14. Evidence towards a continuum of stellar explosions originating from hydrogen-stripped envelopes. Margutti et al., ApJ (2014). Woosley & Bloom (2006). Bloom & Hjorth (2011). Lazzati et al. (2012). Piran et al., arxiv: that has been shown to scale as 1704.08298. Sobacchi et al., arxiv: 1705.00281. SN / R -n with n 10 (see line with the value derived for the relativistic SN 2009bb e.g. Matzner & McKee 1999; Chevalier & Fransson 2006). (Ṁ 2 10-6 M y -1, Soderberg et al. 2010b) and consis-
GRB Redshift Evolution GRBs potentially scarcely visible in photons may be more abundant than ordinary ones. Figure taken from Tamborra & Ando, JCAP (2015).
Supernova Aftermath Successful GRB (photons & neutrinos) Choked GRB (neutrinos only) Failed GRB (no particles) Neutrinos may be the only particles emerging from the stellar envelope.
Talk by Kopper @ ICRC 2017. IceCube Collaboration, Science (2013), PRL (2014), PRD (2015). IceCube Collaboration, ApJ (2015); PRL (2015). Upper Limit on Neutrino Emission 2017 2013 IceCube Preliminary IceCube observed O(80) events over six years in the TeV-PeV range. Zenith Distribution compatible with isotropic flux. Flavor distribution consistent with e : µ : =1:1:1. > 7 evidence for astrophysical flux
SN-GRB Connection 10 0 Advanced 1.0 0.9 0.8 10 0 90% CL 0.7 ζsn 10 1 10 2 90% 50% 10 50 10 51 10 52 10 53 Ẽ j [erg] 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Choked fraction ζsn 10 1 10 2 Simple Advanced 10 50 10 51 10 52 10 53 Ẽ j [erg] IceCube flux indirectly constraints the fraction of SNe evolving in jets and their jet energy. Denton & Tamborra, in preparation. Tamborra & Ando, PRD (2016). Senno et al., PRD (2015). Meszaros & Waxman, PRL (2001).
Conclusions Neutrinos play a fundamental role in supernovae. Intriguing neutrino features from 3D SN simulations. Nu-nu interactions: Work still needed to grasp their role, especially for fast conversions. Each SN phase offers different opportunities to learn about SN (and nu) physics. Realistic perspectives to detect the DSNB in the near future. Neutrinos are intriguing probes of the supernova aftermath.
Thank you for your attention!