Measurement of the Rate of<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi>ν</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>e</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mi /><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi /><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">d</mml:mi><mml:mi /><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:mi /><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">p</mml:mi><mml:mi /><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi /><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">p</mml:mi><mml:mi /><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi /><mml:mrow><mml:msup><m

Ahmad, Q. R.; Allen, R. C.; Andersen, T. C.; Anglin, J. D.; Bühler, G.; Barton, J. C.; Beier, E. W.; Bercovitch, M.; Bigu, J.; Biller, S. D.; Black, R. A.; Blevis, I.; Bardman, R. J.; Boger, J.; Bonvin, E.; Boulay, M. G.; Bowler, M. G.; Bowles, T. J.; Brice, S. J.; Browne, M. C.; Bullard, T. V.; Burritt, T. H.; Cameron, K.; Cameron, J.; Chan, Y. D.; Chen, M.; Chen, H. H.; Chen, X.; Chon, M. C.; Cleveland, B. T.; Clifford, E. T. H.; Cowan, J. H.M.; Cowen, D. F.; Cox, G. A.; Dai, Yong; Dai, Xiongxin; Dalnoki‐Veress, F.; Davidson, W.F.; Doe, P. J.; Doucas, G.; Dragowsky, M. R.; Duba, C. A.; Duncan, F. A.; Dunmore, J.; Earle, E.D.; Elliott, S. R.; Evans, H. C.; Ewan, G. T.; Farine, J.; Fergani, H.; Ferraris, A. P.; Ford, R.; Fowler, Μ. M.; Frame, K. C.; Frank, Edward D.; Frati, W.; Germani, J. V.; Gil, Salvador; Goldschmidt, A.; Grant, D.; Hahn, R. L.; Hallin, A. L.; Hallman, E. D.; Hamer, A. S.; Hamian, A. A.; Haq, Rizwan; Hargrove, C. K.; Harvey, P. J.; Hazama, R.; Heaton, R.; Heeger, K. M.; Heintzelman, W. J.; Heise, J.; Helmer, R. L.; Hepburn, J. D.; Heron, H.; Hewett, JoAnne L.; Hime, A.; Howe, M. A.; Hykawy, J.G.; Isaac, M. C. Perillo; Jagam, P.; Jelley, N. A.; Jillings, C.; Jonkmans, G.; Karn, J.; Keener, P. T.; Kirch, K.; Klein, J. R.; Knox, A.; Komar, R. J.; Kouzes, Richard T.; Kutter, T.; Kyba, Christopher C. M.; Law, J.; Lawson, I.; Lay, M.; Lee, H. W.; Lesko, K. T.; Leslie, J. R.; Levine, I.; Locke, W.; Lowry, M. M.; Luoma, S.; Lyon, J.; Majerus, Steve; Mak, H. B.; Marino, A. D.; McCauley, N.; McDonald, A.B.; McDonald, D. S.; McFarlane, K. W.; McGregor, G.; McLatchie, W.; Drees, R. Meijer; Mes, H.; Mifflin, C.; Miller, Guthrie; Milton, G.M.; Moffat, B. A.; Moorhead, M.; Nally, C. W.; Neubauer, M. S.; Newcomer, F. M.; Ng, Huah Shin; Noble, A. J.; Norman, E. B.; Новіков, В. М.; O’Neill, M.; Okada, C.; Ollerhead, R. W.; Omori, M.; Orrell, J. L.; Oser, S. M.; Poon, A. W. P.; Radcliffe, T. J.; Roberge, Aki; Robertson, B.C.; Robertson, R. G. H.; Rowley, J.K.; Rusu, V.; Saettler, E.; Schaffer, K. K.; Schuelke, A.; Schwendener, M. H.; Seifert, H.; Shatkay, M.; Simpson, John; Sinclair, D.; Skensved, P.; Smith, Alan Р.; Smith, M. W. E.; Starinsky, N.; Steiger, Thomas; Stokstad, R. G.; Storey, R. S.; Sur, B.; Tafirout, R.; Tagg, N.; Tanner, N.W.; Taplin, R. K.; Thorman, M.; Thornewell, P. M.; Trent, P. T.; Tserkovnyak, Yaroslav; Berg, R. Van; Water, R. G. Van de; Virtue, C. J.; Waltham, Chris; Wang, J. X.; Wark, D.; West, N.; Wilhelmy, J.B.; Wilkerson, J. F.; Wilson, J. R.; Wittich, P.; Wouters, J.M.; Yeh, M.

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.87.071301

Cited by 1,724 publications

(524 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

508

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The accuracy of the 9 We have attempted to determine why the SNO collaboration did not find any 3σ allowed vacuum solutions. We have found at least one plausible explanation.…”

Section: Discussion and Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Vacuum solutions are not favored, but are acceptable at 2.1σ (2.7σ) 9 . For the reader who (like us) often prefers pictures to tables, figure 2 shows the predicted energy dependence and day-night difference for the current best-fit LMA, LOW, and VAC solutions.…”

Section: Discussion and Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The interested reader may wish to consult in addition a number of recent papers, refs. [21,22,23,24,25,26], that have determined from a variety of perspectives the allowed solar neutrino oscillation solutions following the June, 2001 announcement of the SNO CC measurement [9].…”

Section: Global Oscillation Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the "Before" case, we use all the solar neutrino data (see refs. [9,10,11,12,13,14,15]) that were published or had appeared publicly before April 20, 2002, the date that the SNO NC and day-night asymmetry were first published. In the "After" case, we include in addition measurements reported in the two recent papers [1,2] by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) collaboration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Before and After: How has the SNO NC measurement changed things?

Bahcall¹,

González-García²,

Peña-Garay³

2002

J. High Energy Phys.

126

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present "Before and After" global oscillation solutions, as well as predicted "Before and After" values and ranges for ten future solar neutrino observables (for BOREXINO, KamLAND, SNO, and a generic p − p neutrino detector). The "Before" case includes all solar neutrino data (and some theoretical improvements) available prior to April 20, 2002 and the "After" case includes, in addition, the new SNO data on the CC, NC, and day-night asymmetry. We have performed global analyses using the full SNO day-night energy spectrum and, alternatively, using just the SNO NC and CC rates and the day-night asymmetry. The LMA solution is the only currently allowed MSW oscillation solution at ∼ 99% CL. The LOW solution is allowed only at more than 2.5σ, SMA is now excluded at 3.7σ or 4.7σ depending upon analysis strategy, and pure sterile oscillations are excluded at more than 4.7σ. Small mixing angles are "out" (pure sterile is "way out"); MSW with large mixing angles is definitely "in." Vacuum oscillations are allowed at 3σ, but not at 2σ. Precise maximal mixing is excluded at 3.2σ for MSW solutions and at more than 2.8σ for vacuum solutions. Most of the predicted values for future observables for the BOREXINO, KamLAND, and future SNO measurements are changed only by minor amounts by the inclusion of the recent SNO data. In order to test the robustness of the allowed neutrino oscillation regions that are inferred from the measurements and the predicted values for future solar neutrino observables, we have carried out calculations using a variety of strategies for analyzing the SNO and other experimental data.

show abstract

“…The accuracy of the 9 We have attempted to determine why the SNO collaboration did not find any 3σ allowed vacuum solutions. We have found at least one plausible explanation.…”

Section: Discussion and Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussion and Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Global Oscillation Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Before and After: How has the SNO NC measurement changed things?

Bahcall¹,

González-García²,

Peña-Garay³

2002

J. High Energy Phys.

126

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We include all the available solar neutrino and reactor oscillation data [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. We also present "Before and After" comparisons of the globally allowed solutions using both the previous(1998) standard value of S 17 (0),the low energy cross section factor for the production of 8 B, and a precise new measurement [8] for this important quantity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Robust signatures of solar neutrino oscillation solutions

Bahcall

González-García

Peña-Garay

2002

J. High Energy Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With the goal of identifying signatures that select specific neutrino oscillation parameters, we test the robustness of global oscillation solutions that fit all the available solar and reactor experimental data. We use three global analysis strategies previously applied by different authors and also determine the sensitivity of the oscillation solutions to the critical nuclear fusion cross section, S 17 (0), for the production of 8 B. Our standard results make use of the precise new measurement of S 17 (0) by Junghans et al. The globally favored solutions are, in order of goodness of fit: LMA(the only solution at 2σ), LOW, and VAC. The NC to CC ratio for SNO is predicted by the standard global analysis to be 3.45 +0.70 −0.54 (1σ) which is separated from the no-oscillation value of 1.0 by much more than the expected experimental error. The predicted range of the day-night difference in CC rates is 8.3 +5.0 −5.6 (1σ)%. A measurement by SNO of either a NC to CC ratio > 3.3 or a day-night difference > 10%, would favor a small region of the currently allowed LMA neutrino parameter space. The global oscillation solution predicts a 7 Be neutrino-electron scattering rate in BOREXINO and KamLAND in the range 0.65 +0.04 −0.03 (1σ) of the BP00 standard solar model rate, a prediction which can be used to test both the solar model and the neutrino oscillation theory. Only the LOW solution predicts a large day-night effect(≤ 42%, 3σ) in BOREXINO and KamLAND. For the reactor KamLAND experiment, the LMA solution predicts a charged current rate relative to the standard model of 0.44 +0.22 −0.07 (1σ), E threshold = 1.22 MeV. We have also evaluated the effects of including preliminary Super-Kamiokande data for 1496 days of observations.

show abstract

The Standard Model of Elementary Particles

Erler

2009

Digital Encyclopedia of Applied Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is first reviewed how the concepts of a quantum field theories (QFT) and of local gauge invariance naturally arise, before they are applied to the electroweak model of leptons. This model is then extended to include quarks and the strong interaction, family replication and quark mixing, CP violation, as well as neutrino mass and mixing. Experimental tests, the determination of fundamental parameters, and constraints on and limitations of the minimal model and ideas that go beyond it are also covered.

show abstract

Measurement of the Rate ofνe+d→p+p+

Cited by 1,724 publications

References 27 publications

Before and After: How has the SNO NC measurement changed things?

Before and After: How has the SNO NC measurement changed things?

Robust signatures of solar neutrino oscillation solutions

The Standard Model of Elementary Particles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About