Paper detail

Demystifying the PeV Cascades in IceCube: Less (Energy) is More (Events)

The IceCube neutrino observatory has detected two cascade events with energies near 1 PeV. Without invoking new physics, we analyze the source of these neutrinos. We show that atmospheric conventional neutrinos and cosmogenic neutrinos (those produced in the propagation of ultra-high- energy cosmic rays) are strongly disfavored. For atmospheric prompt neutrinos or a diffuse background of neutrinos produced in astrophysical objects, the situation is less clear. We show that there are tensions with observed data, but that the details depend on the least-known aspects of the IceCube analysis. Very likely, prompt neutrinos are disfavored and astrophysical neutrinos are plausible. We demonstrate that the fastest way to reveal the origin of the observed PeV neutrinos is to search for neutrino cascades in the range below 1 PeV, for which dedicated analyses with high sensitivity have yet to appear, and where many more events could be found.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access5 authors4 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.