yuri kamyshkov/ university of tennessee email: kamyshkov@utk
DESCRIPTION
Mini-Workshop, WU St. Louis, February 11, 2011. Vacuum N-Nbar Oscillations vs Intranuclear Transformations. Review of recent status. Yuri Kamyshkov/ University of Tennessee email: [email protected]. All beyond SM physics is here. n nbar t ransition probability. -mixing amplitude. . - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Yuri Kamyshkov/ University of Tennessee email: kamyshkov@utk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5681448f550346895db12973/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Yuri Kamyshkov/ University of Yuri Kamyshkov/ University of TennesseeTennessee
email: [email protected] email: [email protected]
Mini-Workshop, WU St. Louis, Mini-Workshop, WU St. Louis, February 11, 2011February 11, 2011
![Page 2: Yuri Kamyshkov/ University of Tennessee email: kamyshkov@utk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5681448f550346895db12973/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
nnnbar transition probability nbar transition probability
2 2
mixed n-nbar QM state
H Hamiltonian on the system
where and are non-relativistic energy operators:
; 2 2
n
n
n n
n n n n n nn n
n
n
E
E
E E
p pE m U E m U
m m
a
a
æ ö÷ç ÷çY = ÷ç ÷÷çè ø
æ ö÷ç ÷ç= ÷ç ÷÷çè ø
= + + = + +
Important assumpti
( ) ( )
5
(i.e. T-invariance is hold)
there is a reference frame where 0
(as CPT required); ( ) / (9 5) 10
gravipotential for and is the same: 0 (S. Lamor
n n n n n
n n
n n n n
p
m m m m m
n n U U U
a a a
-
· ® @ ® =
· =
· = - = ± ´
· D = - =
ons :
( ) ( ) ( )
eaux et al., 1991)
magnetic moment as follows from CPT [BTW, not measured!]
Earth mag. field can be screened down to level
n n n
nT
m m m· = -
·
-mixing amplitude
All beyond SMphysics is here
![Page 3: Yuri Kamyshkov/ University of Tennessee email: kamyshkov@utk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5681448f550346895db12973/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
nnbar transition probability (for given )
( )2 22
22 2
( 2)For sin
( 2)
where is a potential different for neutron and anti-neutron
(e.g. due to non-compensated Earth mag. field; or a
nn n
n
V mm VH P t t
m V V m
V
aa aa a®
é ùæ ö + + D+ ê ú÷ç ÷ç= = ´ ê ú÷ç ÷- ÷ ê úç + + Dè ø ê úë ûh
s part of gravipotential)
is observation time in the experiment, and (if CPT is violated)n nm m mt D = -
In an ideal situation of no suppression i.e.
"vacuum oscillations" : 0 and 0V m= D =
24 is characteristic "oscillation" time [ from present l2 ts10 imi ]nn eVa
at -< ×=h
22
n nnn
tP t
at®
æ öæ ö ÷÷ çç ÷= ´ ÷ = çç ÷÷ çç ÷ ÷çè ø è øh
![Page 4: Yuri Kamyshkov/ University of Tennessee email: kamyshkov@utk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5681448f550346895db12973/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Suppression of nnbar in intranuclear transitions
22
2
Neutrons inside nuclei are "free" for the time: ~ ~ ~4.5 1030
each oscillating with "free" probability
1and "experiencing free condition" times per sec
binding
nn
t sE MeV
t
Nt
t
-D ´
æ öD ÷ç ÷= ç ÷ç ÷çè ø
=D
h h
2
ond.
1 1Transition probability per second: A
A nn
tP
tt t
æ ö æ öD ÷ ÷ç ç÷= = ´ ÷ç ç÷ ÷ç ç ÷÷ç Dè øè ø
22 1
22
AIntranuclear transition (exponential) lifetime:
1where R~ ~4.5 10 is "nuclear suppression factor"
t
nnnn
s
Rt
tt t
-´D
= = ´D
16 2 56 40Actual nuclear theory suppression calculations for , , , by C. Dover
et al; W.Alberico et al; B.Kopeliovich and J . Hufner, and most recently by
Friedman and Gal (2008) corrected this rough
O D Fe Ar
estimate within a factor of 2
(Friedman and Gal, 2008)22 1(Oxygen) 5 10 s ( 15%)R -» ´ ±
![Page 5: Yuri Kamyshkov/ University of Tennessee email: kamyshkov@utk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5681448f550346895db12973/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
General approach: one of the neutrons in the nucleus transforms toanti-neutron and the latter is annihilated with other nucleons to pions
![Page 6: Yuri Kamyshkov/ University of Tennessee email: kamyshkov@utk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5681448f550346895db12973/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
8Vacuum oscillations: 0.86 10 sec (at ILL, 1994)N N Sensitivity for free neutron search (appearance probability)
2obs
nN N
tP N
Sensitivity for bound neutron search (in nucleon decay expts)
exp
obsn
nucl
tP N
2 where "nuclear suppression factor"nucl N NR Rt t
®= ´
322 10 (SK-2009)nucl yr à
Will use ILL experiment limit as a unit of sensitivity = 1u
Corresponds to sensitivity = 16u
![Page 7: Yuri Kamyshkov/ University of Tennessee email: kamyshkov@utk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5681448f550346895db12973/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
2nucl N N
Rt t®
= ´
Important to know theoretical uncertainty
Important to know theoretical uncertainty
Is nuclear theoryreliable? complete?Is nuclear theoryreliable? complete?
intranuclear search experiments:Super-K,Soudan-2Frejus
Free neutronsearch limit (ILL)
![Page 8: Yuri Kamyshkov/ University of Tennessee email: kamyshkov@utk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5681448f550346895db12973/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Bound neutron N-Nbar search experiments Bound neutron N-Nbar search experiments Bound neutron N-Nbar search experiments Bound neutron N-Nbar search experiments
Experiment Year A nyear (1032) Det. eff. Candid. Bkgr. nucl , yr (90% CL)
Kamiokande 1986 O 3.0 33% 0 0.9/yr >0.431032
Frejus 1990 Fe 5.0 30% 0 4 >0.651032
Soudan-2 2002 Fe 21.9 18% 5 4.5 >0.721032
Super-K* 2007 O 245.4 10.4% 20 21.3 >1.81032
Super-K * 2009 O 254.5 12% 23 24 >1.971032
SNO * 2010 D 0.54 41% 2 4.75 >0.3011032
* Not yet published
Observed improvement weaker than SQRT is due to irreducible background of atmospheric ’s.
Still possible to improve a limit(though slowly) but impossible to claim a discovery.
![Page 9: Yuri Kamyshkov/ University of Tennessee email: kamyshkov@utk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5681448f550346895db12973/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Conversion of Bound Limit to free Oscillation LimitConversion of Bound Limit to free Oscillation LimitConversion of Bound Limit to free Oscillation LimitConversion of Bound Limit to free Oscillation Limit
Experiment Year A nucl , yr (90% CL) R(old), s1 R(new), s1 (old), s (new), s
Kamiokande 1986 O >0.431032 101022 51022 >1.2108 >1.65108
Frejus 1990 Fe >0.651032 141022 ? >1.2108 ?
Soudan-2 2002 Fe >0.721032 141022 ? >1.3108 ?
Super-K* 2007 O >1.771032 101022 51022 >2.36108 >3.34108
Super-K * 2009 O >1.971032 101022 51022 >2.5108 >3.53108
SNO * 2010 D >0.3011032 2.481022 0.821022 >1.96108 >3.4108
V. Kopeliovich 2010, Deuterium
Friedman and Gal 2008, Oxygen
Dover, Gal et. al, old
8 24(from bound) 3.5 10 or 2 10s eVt a -> ´ < ´
![Page 10: Yuri Kamyshkov/ University of Tennessee email: kamyshkov@utk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5681448f550346895db12973/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
![Page 11: Yuri Kamyshkov/ University of Tennessee email: kamyshkov@utk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5681448f550346895db12973/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
![Page 12: Yuri Kamyshkov/ University of Tennessee email: kamyshkov@utk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5681448f550346895db12973/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
n
n
'sp
Claudio Ciofi degli Atti (Perugia U.) is going to look at this (January 2011)
Crossing channel of
the same amplitude
3 3q q
®
®
![Page 13: Yuri Kamyshkov/ University of Tennessee email: kamyshkov@utk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5681448f550346895db12973/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
q
q4q
Proposed by Stuart Raby (2010)
Boris Kopeliovich / SMU
is going (Dec. 2010) to compare
this with 3q 3q crossing channel®
• overlap of two quarks wavefunctions is more probable than for 3 quarks• such 2 quarks might be coming from proton (not only neutron)• 4-antiquark final state annihilates faster
![Page 14: Yuri Kamyshkov/ University of Tennessee email: kamyshkov@utk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5681448f550346895db12973/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
udd
udd
n
n
'sp
q
q4q
All these processes governed by the same crossing amplitude can result into the same indistinguishablefinal state (of ~ 5 pions)
Existing intranuclear NNbar limits will need to be re-evaluated
![Page 15: Yuri Kamyshkov/ University of Tennessee email: kamyshkov@utk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5681448f550346895db12973/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
t
mV
mVtP nn
222
22
2 )2(sin
)2(
More on n More on n nbar suppression: sensitivity to CPT violation nbar suppression: sensitivity to CPT violation
Following Yu. Abov, F. Djeparov, and L. Okun, Pisma ZhETF 39 (1984) 493
• Transitions for free neutrons V=0 are suppressed when
• Suppression possible if m > (due to CPT violation)
obstm
• In the intranuclear transitions where V~10 MeV small provides no additional suppression. Intranuclear transitions Intranuclear transitions are not sensitive to are not sensitive to m !m !
14 (e.g. ~10 )m m eV-D D
• Valid only if 0 , i.e. if n nbar transformation exist
![Page 16: Yuri Kamyshkov/ University of Tennessee email: kamyshkov@utk](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022062423/5681448f550346895db12973/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
obs
mt
D =h
m (V=0) vs in NNbar search (if 0)
( ) ( )
0 019
9
9
5
8 10
2 10
8 10
/ 9 5 10
KK K
p p p
ee e
n n n
m m m
m m m
m m m
m m m
+ -
-
-
-
-
- < ´
- < ´
- < ´
- = ± ´
Experimental limits on mass difference
Uncertainty of intranuclear suppression
If NNbar transitionwill be observed this will be a new limit
of CPT m test