27.12.2012 Views

Proc. Neutrino Astrophysics - MPP Theory Group

Proc. Neutrino Astrophysics - MPP Theory Group

Proc. Neutrino Astrophysics - MPP Theory Group

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

40<br />

Solar <strong>Neutrino</strong>s: Where We Are and What Is Next?<br />

G. Fiorentini<br />

Dipartimento di Fisica dell’Universitá di Ferrara and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare,<br />

Sezione di Ferrara, I-44100 Ferrara, Italy<br />

What has been Measured?<br />

All five experiments report a deficit of solar neutrinos with respect to the predictions of<br />

Standard Solar Models (SSMs), see Ref. [1].<br />

What Have We Learnt on Solar <strong>Neutrino</strong>s, Independently of SSMs?<br />

Actually, the solar neutrino puzzle (SNP) is not just the discrepancy between experimental<br />

results and the predictions of standard solar models. Rather, experimental results look inconsistent<br />

among each other with the only assumption that the present total neutrino flux can<br />

be deduced from the present solar luminosity, unless something happens to neutrinos during<br />

the trip from Sun to Earth, see Fig. 1 and Refs. [1, 2, 3].<br />

What Has Been Calculated?<br />

Accurate predictions of solar neutrino fluxes are anyhow extremely important. If neutrino<br />

masses (differences) are as small as suggested by several proposed solutions to the SNP, then<br />

the only way to measure neutrino masses is through the interpretation of future solar neutrino<br />

experiments, which requires accurate theoretical predictions of solar properties.<br />

Refined solar models are thus necessary. All these have to be confronted with the powerful<br />

helioseismic constraints, see Ref. [4], particularly for a quantitative (and conservative)<br />

determination of the accuracy of solar properties as deduced from helioseismology.<br />

Recent SSM calculations, using accurate equations of state, recent opacity calculations<br />

and including microscopic diffusion, look in agreement with heliosesimology, see Figs. 2 and 3<br />

and Ref. [4]. Alternative solar models should be as successful as these are [5, 6].<br />

Actually, one can exploit helioseismology within a different strategy. One can relax some<br />

assumptions on the most controversial ingredients of solar models (e.g. opacity and metal<br />

abundance) and determine them by requiring that helioseismic constraints are satisifed. These<br />

helioseismically constrained solar models (HCSM) all yield the same central temperature<br />

within about one percent [7]. The main uncertainties for the determination of solar neutrino<br />

fluxes arise now from nuclear physics measurements. After the succesful LUNA experiments<br />

at LNGS [8], the main uncertainties are now from the 3 He+ 4 He and 7 Be+p reactions.<br />

What Is Missing?<br />

In a prophetical paper of 1946 [9] Bruno Pontecorvo wrote: “direct proof of the existence of<br />

the neutrino ... must be based on experiments the interpretation of which does not require<br />

the law of conservation of energy, i.e. on experiments in which some characteristic process<br />

produced by free neutrinos ... is observed.”

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!