MPP-2019-205 Grand Unified Neutrino Spectrum at Earth: Sources and Spectral Components Edoardo Vitagliano,1, 2 Irene Tamborra,3 and Georg Raffelt1 1Max-Planck-Institut f¨urPhysik (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut), F¨ohringerRing 6, 80805 M¨unchen,Germany 2Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Los Angeles, California, 90095-1547, USA 3Niels Bohr International Academy & DARK, Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark (Dated: October 25, 2019; revised July 4, 2020) We briefly review the dominant neutrino fluxes at Earth from different sources and present the Grand Unified Neutrino Spectrum ranging from meV to PeV energies. For each energy band and source, we discuss both theoretical expectations and experimental data. This compact review should be useful as a brief reference to those interested in neutrino astronomy, fundamental particle physics, dark-matter detection, high-energy astrophysics, geophysics, and other related topics. CONTENTS A. Basic estimate 29 B. Redshift integral 29 I. Introduction2 C. Cosmic core-collapse rate 30 D. Average emission spectrum 32 II. Cosmic Neutrino Background4 E. Flavor Conversion 34 A. Standard properties of the CNB4 F. Detection perspectives 34 B. Neutrinos as hot dark matter5 C. Spectrum at Earth6 X. Atmospheric Neutrinos 35 D. Detection perspectives6 A. Cosmic rays 35 B. Conventional neutrinos 35 III. Neutrinos from Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis7 C. Prompt neutrinos 37 A. Primordial nucleosynthesis7 D. Predictions and observations 37 B. Neutrinos from decaying light isotopes8 E. Experimental facilities 37 C. Neutrinos with mass9 F. Solar atmospheric neutrinos 38 IV. Solar Neutrinos from Nuclear Reactions 10 XI. Extra-terrestrial high energy neutrinos 39 A. The Sun as a neutrino source 10 A. Production mechanisms and detection prospects 39 B. Production processes and spectra 11 B. Multi-messenger connections 39 C. Standard solar models 13 C. Star-forming galaxies 40 D. Antineutrinos 14 D. Gamma-ray bursts 41 E. Flavor conversion 14 E. Blazars 42 F. Observations and detection perspectives 15 F. Cosmogenic neutrinos 43 G. Future detection prospects 44 V. Thermal Neutrinos from the Sun 16 XII. Discussion and Outlook 44 A. Emission processes 17 B. Solar flux at Earth 17 Acknowledgments 45 C. Very low energies 18 A. Units and dimensions 45 VI. Geoneutrinos 18 A. Production mechanisms 19 B. Neutrino Mass Matrix 46 B. Earth modeling 20 C. Detection opportunities 21 C. Neutrino Mixing in Matter 47 arXiv:1910.11878v3 [astro-ph.HE] 10 Dec 2020 VII. Reactor Neutrinos 22 D. Constructing the GUNS plot 49 A. Production and detection of reactor neutrinos 22 1. Cosmic neutrino background 50 B. Measurements 24 2. Neutrinos from big-bang nucleosynthesis 50 3. Thermal neutrinos from the Sun 50 VIII. Supernova neutrinos 25 4. Solar neutrinos from nuclear reactions 50 A. Generic features of supernova neutrinos 25 5. Geoneutrinos 50 B. Reference neutrino signal 25 6. Reactor neutrinos 50 C. Electron-capture supernovae 27 7. Diffuse supernovae neutrino background 50 D. Failed explosions 27 8. Atmospheric neutrinos 50 E. Broken spherical symmetry in the stellar explosion 28 9. IceCube neutrinos 51 F. Flavor conversion 28 10. Cosmogenic neutrinos 51 G. Detection perspectives 28 11. Overall GUNS plot 51 IX. Diffuse Supernova Neutrinos 29 References 51 2 I. INTRODUCTION mass scale, and the Dirac vs. Majorana question, is the main unresolved issue. Here neutrinos are a hybrid be- In our epoch of multi-messenger astronomy, the Uni- tween radiation and dark matter. If neutrinos were mass- verse is no longer explored with electromagnetic radia- less, the CNB today would be blackbody radiation with tion alone, but in addition to cosmic rays, neutrinos and Tν = 1:95 K = 0:168 meV, whereas the minimal neutrino gravitational waves are becoming crucial astrophysical mass spectrum implied by flavor oscillations is m1 = 0, probes. While the age of gravitational-wave detection m2 = 8:6, and m3 = 50 meV, but all masses could be has only begun (Abbott et al., 2016), neutrino astron- larger in the form of a degenerate spectrum and the or- omy has evolved from modest beginnings in the late 1960s dering could be inverted in the form m3 < m1 < m2. with first detections of atmospheric (Achar et al., 1965; One may actually question if future CNB measurements Reines et al., 1965) and solar neutrinos (Davis et al., are part of traditional neutrino astronomy or the first 1968) to a main-stream effort. Today, a vast array of case of dark-matter astronomy. experiments observes the neutrino sky over a large range The large range of energies and the very different types of energies (Koshiba, 1992; Cribier et al., 1995; Becker, of sources and detectors makes it difficult to stay abreast 2008; Spiering, 2012; Gaisser and Karle, 2017). of the developments in the entire field of neutrino as- When observing distant sources, inevitably one also tronomy. One first entry to the subject is afforded by probes the intervening space and the propagation prop- a graphical representation and brief explanation of what erties of the radiation, providing tests of fundamental we call the Grand Unified Neutrino Spectrum1 (GUNS), physics. Examples include time-of-flight limits on the a single plot of the neutrino and antineutrino back- masses of photons (Tanabashi et al., 2018; Wei and Wu, ground at Earth from the CNB in the meV range to the 2018; Goldhaber and Nieto, 2010), gravitons (Goldhaber highest-energy cosmic neutrinos at PeV (1015 eV) ener- and Nieto, 2010; de Rham et al., 2017) and neutrinos gies (Koshiba, 1992; Haxton and Lin, 2000; Cribier et al., (Tanabashi et al., 2018; Loredo and Lamb, 1989, 2002; 1995; Becker, 2008; Spiering, 2012; Gaisser and Karle, Beacom et al., 2000; Nardi and Zuluaga, 2004; Ellis et al., 2017). As our main result we here produce an updated 2012; Lu et al., 2015), photon or graviton mixing with version of the GUNS plots shown in Fig.1. The top panel axion-like particles (Tanabashi et al., 2018; Raffelt and shows the neutrino flux φ as a function of energy, while Stodolsky, 1988; Meyer et al., 2013, 2017; Liang et al., the energy flux E × φ is shown in the bottom panel. 2019; Galanti and Roncadelli, 2018; Conlon et al., 2018), Our initial motivation for this task came from the low- the relative propagation speed of different types of ra- energy part which traditionally shows a gap between so- diation (Longo, 1987; Stodolsky, 1988; Laha, 2019; El- lar neutrinos and the CNB, the latter usually depicted lis et al., 2019), tests of Lorentz invariance violation as blackbody radiation. However, the seemingly simple (Laha, 2019; Ellis et al., 2019; Liberati and Maccione, task of showing a new component | the keV thermal 2009; Liberati, 2013; Guedes Lang et al., 2018), or the neutrino flux from the Sun and the neutrinos from β de- Shapiro time delay in gravitational potentials (Longo, cays of primordial elements | in the context of the full 1988; Krauss and Tremaine, 1988; Pakvasa et al., 1989; GUNS quickly turned into a much bigger project because Desai and Kahya, 2018; Wang et al., 2016; Shoemaker one is forced to think about all components. and Murase, 2018; Wei et al., 2017; Boran et al., 2019). While our brief review can be minimally thought of Neutrinos are special in this regard because questions as an updated and annotated version of the traditional about their internal properties were on the table imme- GUNS plot, ideally it serves as a compact resource for diately after the first observation of solar neutrinos. The students and researchers to get a first sense in particular daring interpretation of the observed deficit in terms of of those parts of the spectrum where they are no immedi- flavor oscillations (Gribov and Pontecorvo, 1969), sup- ate experts. One model for our work could be the format ported by atmospheric neutrino measurements (Fukuda of the mini reviews provided in the Review of Particle et al., 1998), eventually proved correct (Aharmim et al., Physics (Tanabashi et al., 2018). In addition, we provide 2010; Esteban et al., 2017; Capozzi et al., 2018; de Salas the input of what exactly went on the plot in the form et al., 2018). Today this effect is a standard ingredient of tables or analytic formulas (see AppendixD). to interpret neutrino measurements from practically any Astrophysical and terrestrial neutrino fluxes can be source. While some parameters of the neutrino mixing modified by any number of nonstandard effects, includ- matrix remain to be settled (the mass ordering and the ing mixing with hypothetical sterile neutrinos (Mention CP-violating phase), it is probably fair to say that in neu- et al., 2011; Abazajian et al., 2012), large nonstandard trino astronomy today the focus is on the sources and less interactions (Davidson et al., 2003; Antusch et al., 2009; on properties of the radiation. Of course, there is always room for surprises and new discoveries. One major exception to this development is the cosmic neutrino background (CNB) that has never been directly 1 We borrow this terminology from the seminal Grand Unified detected and where the question of the absolute neutrino Photon Spectrum of Ressell and Turner(1990). 3 1018 1012 ] CNB 1 Solar(thermal) Solar(nuclear) - 6 s 10 2 - Reactors 100 BBN(n) cm 1 - Geoneutrinos -6 10 BBN( 3 H) eV DSNB [ ϕ -12 10 Atmospheric 10-18 -24 IceCube data 10 (2017) Neutrino flux 10-30 Cosmogenic 10-36 10-6 10-3 100 103 106 109 1012 1015 1018 Energy E[eV] 1018 ] 1 CNB Solar nuclear - ( ) 1012 s 2 Solar(thermal) - Reactors cm 6 [ 10 ϕ Geoneutrinos 100 BBN(n) DSNB Atmospheric 10-6 IceCube data 3 (2017) 10-12 BBN( H) Neutrino energy flux E Cosmogenic 10-18 10-6 10-3 100 103 106 109 1012 1015 1018 Energy E[eV] FIG.