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

[Wrichik Basu]

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.)

 

[Orodruin]

Obviously, this has been discussed quite a lot in the recent literature. Some examples include:

Sterile neutrinos:
https://inspirehep.net/record/1653464
https://inspirehep.net/record/1667887

$L_e-L_\tau$ gauge symmetry:
https://inspirehep.net/record/1754684

Inelastic boosted dark matter:
https://inspirehep.net/record/1737511

 

[mfb]

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.

 

[mfb]

Reflections on the anomalous ANITA events: the Antarctic subsurface as a possible explanation

ANITA used the phase inversion to distinguish upgoing from reflected events, but the authors argue that reflections can happen without phase inversions. They also propose to test this with radar.