Paper detail

Supernova Relic Neutrinos and the Supernova Rate Problem: Analysis of Uncertainties and Detectability of ONeMg and Failed Supernovae

Direct measurements of the core-collapse supernova rate in the redshift range 0<z 1 appear to be about a factor of two smaller than the rate inferred from the measured cosmic massive-star formation rate (SFR). We explore the possibility that one could clarify the source of this "supernova rate problem" by detecting the energy spectrum of supernova relic neutrinos with a next generation detector like Hyper-Kamiokande. We make an alternative compilation of the SFR data. We show that by only including published SFR data for which the dust obscuration has been directly determined, the ratio of the observed massive SFR to the observed supernova rate has large uncertainties$\sim 1.8^{+1.6}_{-0.6}$, and is statistically consistent with no supernova rate problem. If we consider that a significant fraction of massive stars end their lives as faint ONeMg SNe or as failed SNe, then the ratio reduces to $\sim 1.1^{+1.0}_{-0.4}$ and the rate problem is solved. We study the sources of uncertainty involved in estimates of the neutrino detection rate and analyze whether the spectrum of relic neutrinos can be used to independently identify the existence of a supernova rate problem and its source. We consider an ensemble of published and unpublished neutrino luminosities and temperatures from core collapse supernova simulation models. We illustrate how the spectrum of detector events might be used to constrain the average neutrino temperature and SN models. We study the effects of neutrino oscillations on the detected neutrino spectrum and also analyze a possible enhanced contribution from failed supernovae. We conclude that it might be possible to measure the neutrino temperature, neutrino oscillations, the EOS, and confirm this source of missing luminous supernovae.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

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.