IceCube rules out last SM explanation of ANITA’s anomalous neutrinos

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the anomalous neutrino events detected by ANITA and the subsequent analysis by the IceCube Collaboration, which suggests that these events cannot be explained by the Standard Model of particle physics. Participants explore potential alternative explanations and the implications of the findings.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the IceCube analysis ruled out the Standard Model astrophysical explanation for the ANITA events, suggesting the need for new physics if the events are real.
  • Others propose several theoretical models that could potentially explain the anomalous events, including sterile neutrinos, ##L_e-L_\tau## gauge symmetry, and inelastic boosted dark matter.
  • One participant mentions that the small number of anomalous events detected by ANITA raises the possibility of a systematic error or glitch in the experiment.
  • Another participant discusses the potential for reflections in the Antarctic subsurface to account for the anomalous events, suggesting that further testing with radar could be beneficial.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the IceCube findings, with some suggesting alternative models while others remain skeptical about the validity of the ANITA events. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the cause of the anomalies.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the current understanding of the anomalous events, including the dependence on the interpretation of the data from both ANITA and IceCube, and the unresolved nature of the theoretical models proposed.

Wrichik Basu
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
Messages
2,186
Reaction score
2,694
Quoting from IceCube Observatory's webpage,
ANITA searches for radio waves because extremely high-energy neutrinos—those hundreds of times more energetic than the ones that IceCube commonly detects—can produce intense radio signals when they smash into an atom in the ice.
...
From its balloon flights, ANITA claimed to have detected a few events that appear to be signals of these extremely high-energy neutrinos, so the IceCube Collaboration decided to investigate.
...
When ANITA reported signals that looked like extremely high-energy neutrinos, physicists were puzzled. These neutrinos had arrived at an angle that suggested they had just traveled through most of the planet, which is not expected for neutrinos at these energies.
...
the researchers took eight years of IceCube data and looked for correlations between the locations of the ANITA events and the locations of the IceCube events.

Since the researchers could not know how long a potential point source might have been emitting neutrinos, their analyses used three different and complementary approaches equipped to find coincidences on different timescales. Their analyses also had to account for uncertainty in the ANITA events’ directions because the events do not have definite positions on the sky.
...
In all three searches, they found no evidence for a neutrino source in the direction of the strange ANITA events. This is particularly intriguing because, due to a process called tau neutrino regeneration, the extremely high-energy events that don’t make it all the way to ANITA should still be detectable by IceCube.

“This process makes IceCube a remarkable tool to follow up the ANITA observations, because for each anomalous event that ANITA detects, IceCube should have detected many, many more—which, in these cases, we didn’t,” says Anastasia Barbano of the University of Geneva in Switzerland, another lead on this paper. “That means that we can rule out the idea that these events came from some intense point source, because the odds of ANITA seeing an event and IceCube not seeing anything are so slim.

When the ANITA events were detected, the main hypotheses were an astrophysical explanation (like an intense neutrino source), a systematics error (like not accounting for something in the detector), or physics beyond the Standard Model. “Our analysis ruled out the only remaining Standard Model astrophysical explanation of the anomalous ANITA events,” says Pizzuto. “So now, if these events are real and not just due to oddities in the detector, then they could be pointing to physics beyond the Standard Model.”
(Emphasis added.)

The paper, available on arXiv, has been submitted to The Astrophysical Journal.

I haven't read through the paper yet, but if this detection cannot be explained by the Standard Model, what could possibly be the cause? Is there any other model that may explain this?

(For those who don't know: as per the PF rules on speculative theories, please refrain from posting your personal theory for the explanation of the above, and stick to content that has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Moderators are at liberty to delete any post that violates the guidelines.)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Lord Crc and vanhees71
Physics news on Phys.org
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JD_PM, eloheim, vanhees71 and 2 others
Note that ANITA had just two of these anomalous events (plus many expected events). Some strange glitch in the experiment stays a plausible explanation.
Something observable by ANITA but not by Icecube would be very exotic - I would expect that the recent Icecube analysis also rules out most theoretical models made for ANITA.

As far as I heard ANITA has funding for at least another flight.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: ohwilleke, Lord Crc, Wrichik Basu and 1 other person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K