Research Article  Open Access
Cross Sections of Charged Current Neutrino Scattering off ^{132}Xe for the Supernova Detection
Abstract
The total cross sections as well as the neutrino event rates are calculated in the charged current neutrino and antineutrino scattering off ^{132}Xe isotope at neutrino energies MeV. Transitions to excited nuclear states are calculated in the framework of quasiparticle randomphase approximation. The contributions from different multipoles are shown for various neutrino energies. Fluxaveraged cross sections are obtained by convolving the cross sections with a twoparameter FermiDirac distribution. The fluxaveraged cross sections are also calculated using terrestrial neutrino sources based on conventional sources (muon decay at rest) or on lowenergy betabeams.
1. Introduction
The detection of neutrinos and their properties is one of the top priorities of modern nuclear and particle physics as well as astrophysics. Among the probes which involve neutrinos, the neutrinonucleus reactions possess a prominent position. Detailed predictions of neutrinonucleus cross sections (NNCS) are crucial to detect or distinguish neutrinos of different flavor and explore the basic structure of the weak interactions [1–14]. Mured cross sections for neutrinonucleus scattering at neutrino energies which are relevant for supernova neutrinos are available in only a few cases, that is, for [15], [15, 16], and the deuteron [17]. The use of microscopic nuclear structure models is therefore essential, for a quantitative description of neutrinonucleus reactions. These include the nuclear shell model [18, 19], the randomphase approximation (RPA), relativistic RPA [20, 21], continuum RPA (CRPA) [22], quasiparticle RPA (QRPA) [23–26], projected quasiparticle RPA (PQRPA) [27], hybrid models of CRPA, the shell model [28, 29], and the Fermi gas model [30]. The shell model provides a very accurate description of groundstate wave functions. The description of highlying excitations, however, necessitates the use of largemodel spaces, and this often leads to computational difficulties, making the approach applicable essentially only to light and mediummass nuclei. Therefore, for, systematic studies of weak interaction rates for relevant heavy nuclei of mass number around , microscopic calculations must be performed using models based on the RPA [23, 25].
The signature of supernova neutrino interaction taking place in various detectors is the observation of electrons, positrons, photons, and other particles which are produced through the charged and neutral current interactions. Two processes that contribute to the total event rates in the detectors are the charged current (CC) reactions and the neutral current (NC) reactions The neutrinos (or antineutrinos ) with do not have sufficient energy to produce corresponding leptons in charged current reactions and interact only through neutral current interactions and therefore have a higheraverage energy than and , which interact through charged current as well as neutral current interactions. Numerical simulations give the following values of average energy for the different neutrino flavors, that is, MeV, MeV, and MeV, and are consistent with the supernova neutrino spectrum given by a FermiDirac distribution [31, 32]: where is the neutrino temperature, is a degeneracy parameter taken to be either 0 or 3. denotes the normalization factor depending on given from for . Following [33], the average neutrino energy can be written in terms of the functions of (4) as Most calculations of neutrinonucleus cross sections have been taken the value . However, in astrophysical applications, it might be important to perform studies of reaction rates for different values of depending on the simulation performed and on the specific supernova phase considered [29, 34]. In our study, the value has also been used. The average energy values for the various neutrino species imply that for , the values of temperature are 3.5 MeV (2.75 MeV) for , 5 MeV (4 MeV) for , and 8 MeV (6 MeV) for (). The recent theoretical studies predict a smaller value of temperature for which is closer to [34–37].
Systematic neutrinonucleus interaction measurements could be an ideal tool to explore the weak nuclear response. At present, new experiments on various nuclei are being proposed with a new facility using muon decay at rest [38]. Another possibility could be offered by betabeams. This is a new method to produce pure and wellknown electron neutrino beams, exploiting the betadecay of boosted radioactive ions [39]. The idea of establishing a lowenergy betabeam facility has been first proposed in [40] and discussed in nuclear structure studies, corecollapse supernova physics, and the study of fundamental interactions [40–49].
A detector whose active target consists of the noble liquid Xenon can offer unique detection capabilities in the field of neutrino physics [47, 50] as well as the ability to detect very lowenergy signals in the context of dark matter searches [51, 52]. The new concept of a spherical TPC detector, filled with highpressure Xenon, has also been proposed as a device able to detect lowenergy neutrinos as those coming from a galactic supernova. In particular, a TPC detector can be used to observe coherent NC as well as CC neutrinonucleus scattering [37, 53–58].
In this paper, we present microscopic calculations of the CC reaction cross sections. The correspondingreduced matrix elements in the low and intermediateneutrino energy range have been calculated in the framework of quasiparticle randomphase approximation (QRPA). We present the total neutrinonucleus cross sections as well as the contribution of the various multipoles and discuss how their importance evolves, as a function of neutrino energy. A comparison between the CC cross sections and those involved by the coherent NC ones [37, 55] is also presented. Finally, we give the fluxaveraged cross sections associated to the FermiDirac distribution as well as to distributions based on terrestrial neutrino sources such as the lowenergy betabeams or to conventional sources (muon decay at rest).
2. The Formalism for NeutrinoNucleus Cross Sections Calculations
Let us consider a neutral or charged current neutrinonucleus interaction in which a low or intermediateenergy neutrino (or antineutrino) is scattered inelastically from a nucleus . The initial nucleus is assumed to be spherically symmetric having ground state a state.
The corresponding standard model effective Hamiltonian of the currentcurrent interaction can be written as where is the Fermi weak coupling constant, for charged current reaction, and for neutral current reaction. and denote the leptonic and hadronic currents, respectively. According to VA theory, the leptonic current takes the form where are the neutrino/antineutrino spinors.
From a nuclear physics point of view, only the hadronic current is important. The structure for neutral current (NC) and charged current (CC) processes of both vector and axialvector components (neglecting the pseudoscalar contributions) is written as where stands for the nucleon mass, and denote the nucleon spinors. The form factors and are defined as and the neutral current form factors and as Here, represents the nucleon isospin operator, and is the Weinberg angle (). The detailed expressions of nucleonic form factors are given in [59]. The axialvector form factor is given by [60] where GeV is the dipole mass, and is the static value (at ) of the axial form factor.
In the convention we used in the present paper, , the square of the momentum transfer, is written as where is the excitation energy of the nucleus. denotes the energy of the incoming neutrino and denotes the energy of the outgoing lepton. , are the corresponding 3momenta. In (11), we have not taken into account the strange quark contributions in the form factors. In the scattering reaction considered in our paper, only lowmomentum transfers are involved, and the contributions from strangeness can be neglected [61].
The neutrino/antineutrinonucleus differential cross section, after applying a multipole analysis of the weak hadronic current, is written as where denotes the lepton scattering angle. The summations in (14) contain the contributions , for the Coulomb and longitudinal , and , for the transverse electric and magnetic multipole operators [62]. These operators include both polarvector and axialvector weak interaction components. The contributions and are written as where , , and . In (16), the sign corresponds to neutrino scattering and the sign to antineutrino. The absolute value of the three momentum transfers is given by For charged current reactions, the crosssectional equation (14) must be corrected for the distortion of the outgoing lepton wave function by the Coulomb field of the daughter nucleus. The cross section can either be multiplied by the Fermi function obtained from the numerical solution of the Dirac equation for an extended nuclear charge distribution [29, 63], or, at higher energies, the effect of the Coulomb field can be described by the effective momentum approximation (EMA) [63–65]. In this approximation, the lepton momentum and energy are modified as where is the effective Coulomb potential. In a recent study using exact Dirac wave functions, it has been shown that an accurate approximation for the effective electron momenta is obtained by using the mean value of the Coulomb potential, , where corresponds to the electrostatic potential evaluated at the center of the nucleus [66, 67]. is the charge of the daughter nucleus, and is its radius assuming spherical charge distribution. denotes the fine structure constant. In calculations with EMA, the original lepton momentum and energy appearing in the expression for the cross section are replaced by the above effective quantities.
3. Energies and Wave Functions
For neutralcurrentneutrinonucleusinduced reactions, the ground state and the excited states of the eveneven nucleus are created using the quasiparticle randomphase approximation (QRPA) including two quasineutron and two quasiproton excitations in the QRPA matrix [68] (hereafter denoted by ppnn QRPA). We start by writing the Afermion Hamiltonian , in the occupationnumber representation, as a sum of two terms. One is the sum of the singleparticle energies (spe) which runs over all values of quantum numbers and the second term which includes the twobody interaction , that is, where the twobody term contains the antisymmetric twobody interaction matrix element defined by . The operators and stand for the usual creation and destruction operators of nucleons in the state .
For spherical nuclei with partially filled shells, the most important effect of the twobody force is to produce pairing correlations. The pairing interaction is taken into account by using the BCS theory [69]. The simplest way to introduce these correlations in the wave function is to perform the BogoliubovValatin transformation: where , , and . The occupation amplitudes and are determined via variational procedure for minimizing the energy of the BCS ground state for protons and neutrons, separately. In the BCS approach, the ground state of an eveneven nucleus is described as a superconducting medium, where all the nucleons have formed pairs that effectively act as bosons. The BCS ground state is defined as where represents the nuclear core (effective particle vacuum).
After the transformation (20), the Hamiltonian can be written in its quasiparticle representation as where the first term gives the singlequasiparticle energies , and the second one includes the different components of the residual interaction.
In the present calculations, we use a renormalization parameter which can be adjusted solving the BCS equations. The monopole matrix elements of the twobody interaction are multiplied by a factor . The adjustment can be done by comparing the resulting lowestquasiparticle energy to the phenomenological energy gap obtained from the separation energies of the neighboring doubly even nuclei for protons and neutrons, separately.
The excited states of the eveneven reference nucleus are constructed by use of the QRPA. In the QRPA, the creation operator for an excited state has the form where the quasiparticle pair creation and annihilation operators are defined as where and are either proton (p) or neutron (n) indices, labels the magnetic substates, and numbers the states for particular angular momentum and parity .
The and forward and backwardgoing amplitudes are determined from the QRPA matrix equation where denotes the excitation energies of the nuclear state . The QRPA matrices, and , are deduced by the matrix elements of the double commutators of and with the nuclear Hamiltonian defined as where . Finally, the twobody matrix elements of each multipolarity , occurring in the QRPA matrices and , are multiplied by two phenomenological scaling constants, namely, the particlehole strength and the particleparticle strength . These parameter values are determined by comparing the resulting lowestphonon energy with the corresponding lowestcollective vibrational excitation of the doubly even nucleus and by reproducing some giant resonances which play crucial role.
For charged current neutrinonucleus reactions, the excited states of the oddodd nucleus are generated adopting the protonneutron QRPA(pnQRPA). The QRPA in its protonneutron form contains phonons made out of protonneutron pairs as follows: The matrices and defined in the canonical basis are where and are the twoquasiparticle excitation energies, and and are the ph and pp matrix elements of the residual nucleonnucleon interaction , respectively. For charged current reactions, the matrix elements of any transition operator between the ground state and the excited can be factored as follows: where are the reduced matrix elements calculated independently for a given singleparticle basis [70, 71].
4. Results and Discussion
Transition matrix elements of the type entering in (15) and (16) can be calculated in the framework of pnQRPA. The initial nucleus was assumed to be spherically symmetric having a ground state. Twooscillator ( and ) major shells, plus the intruder orbital from the next higheroscillator major shell, were used for both protons and neutrons as the valence space of the studied nuclei. The corresponding singleparticle energies (SPE) were produced by the Coulomb corrected WoodsSaxon potential using the parameters of Bohr and Mottelson [72].
The twobody interaction matrix elements were obtained from the Bonn onebosonexchange potential applying Gmatrix techniques [73]. The strong pairing interaction between the nucleons can be adjusted by solving the BCS equations. The monopole matrix elements of the twobody interaction are scaled by the pairingstrength parameters and , separately, for protons and neutrons. The adjustment can be done by comparing the resulting lowestquasiparticle energy to reproduce the phenomenological pairing gap [74]. The results of this procedure lead to the pairingstrength parameters and . The particleparticle matrix elements as well as the particlehole ones are renormalized by means of the parameters and , respectively. These parameters were adjusted for each multipole state separately in order to reproduce few of the experimental known energies of the lowlying states in the and nucleus, respectively. The obtained values for the corresponding parameters lie in the range and . Especially, for the multipolarity, the values and were used, while for the multipolarity, the values and were used. Moreover, for , the values and were used with the exception of multipolarity for which and were used. All the states up to have been included.
In Figure 1, we present the numerical results of the total scattering cross section (14) as a function of the incoming neutrino energy for the reactions and , respectively. The values of the reactions are 2.12 MeV and 3.58 MeV, respectively. Here, we have considered a hybrid prescription already used in previous calculations [19, 75, 76], where the Fermi function for the Coulomb correction is used below the energy region on which both approaches predict the same values, while EMA is adopted above this energy region.
(a)
(b)
The contribution of the different multipoles to the total cross section for the impinging neutrino energies , and is shown in Figure 2. When , the total cross section is mainly ascribed to the GamowTeller () and the Fermi () transitions. Other transitions contribute only a few percent to the total cross section. As the neutrino energy increases, the multipole states , and become important as well. Finally, beyond 80 MeV, all states contribute, and the cross section is being spread over many multipoles.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 3 shows the cross sections of coherent neutral and charged current processes as a function of neutrino energy. As it is seen, the coherent neutral current () process [55] presents cross sections which are an order of magnitude greater than the electron neutrino charged current cross sections (). Both of them are even bigger than those from electron antineutrino charge current cross section () events. At MeV, the difference between and turns out to be a factor of 5. This can be understood in terms of the energy threshold and nuclear effects of the reactions. Since the value for the reactions is 1.46 MeV greater than one, it decreases the incident neutrino energy as and therefore reduces the cross section for a given energy. In Table 1, the total (anti) neutrino cross sections are listed in units of cm^{2}.

The fluxaveraged total cross sections can be calculated by folding the cross sections shown in Figure 3 with the FermiDirac spectrum given by (3) as follows: Table 2 shows the fluxaveraged total cross sections for different values of temperature . The chemical potential parameters and have been used in order to describe the supernova spectrum [32]. The corresponding average neutrino energy has been calculated by means of (4) and (5). As it is seen, the calculated fluxaveraged cross section increases as the average neutrino energy increases. The introduction of a chemical potential in the spectrum at fixed neutrino temperature increases the average neutrino energy. In Figure 4, a contour plot is used to display lines of constant fluxaveraged cross sections (in units of cm^{2}) of reaction, as a function of and . At lower temperatures, the fluxaveraged cross sections depend only very weakly on . However, already above MeV, the fluxaveraged cross sections increase much faster for higher values of the chemical potential .

In Table 3, we present the number of expected events for supernova explosion occurring at a distance of 10 kpc from earth, releasing an energy of ergs. These event rate calculations have been done for 3 kT Xenon detector corresponding to various values of temperature with and 3. Using , we find the total event rate of 485 which corresponds to a decrease of 32% as compared to the supernova neutrino spectrum.

In the literature, there are suggestions to look for charged current neutrinonucleus scattering at several neutrino sources. We propose to look for this reaction with a terrestrial neutrino sources with spectra similar to those of SN neutrinos, using a near detector whose active target consists of a noble liquid gas such as . In this paper, we examine two possibilities: (i) the lowenergy neutrino spectra corresponding to conventional neutrino sources, that is, muon decay at rest (DAR) given by the wellknown Michel spectrum from muons decaying at rest and (ii) the lowenergy betabeams with a boosted parameter .
Several experiments to be done at lowenergy betabeam have been proposed. Throughout our calculations, we have assumed that the boosted ions are storage in a ring similar to that used in [77]. Its total length is m with straight section length 150 m, while the detector is located 10 m away from the straight section. The radius of the cylindrical detector is 2.13 m with thickness 5 m. As seen in Figure 5, the DAR spectrum has quite similar shape to the lowenergy betabeam spectrum with . Note that, in principle, since the cross sections approximately grow as the neutrino energy square, the fluxaveraged cross sections can show differences due to the high energy part of the neutrino spectrum.
Table 4 presents the contribution of the different states to the fluxaveraged cross section. One can see that the results for are similar to the DAR case. The neutrinoXenon cross section is dominated by the , and multipoles. When the ion boost parameter increases, the relative contribution of the decreases in favor of all other multipoles except which seems to be almost constant. For , the contribution of all states becomes important in agreement with previously published results [76]. Table 5 presents the results for the antineutrino scattering, where the antineutrino fluxes are produced by the decay of boosted ions. As it can be seen, the contribution of both and transitions to the fluxaveraged cross sections is lying between 86% for boosted ions at and 72% for .


5. Conclusions
Detailed microscopic calculations of charged current and neutral current neutrinonucleus reaction rates are of crucial importance for models of neutrino oscillations, detection of supernova neutrinos, and studies of the process nucleosynthesis. In this paper we have calculated chargedcurrentneutrinoinduced reactions on by including multipole transitions up to . Excited states up to a few tens of MeV are taken into account. The ground state of is described with the BCS model, and the neutrinoinduced transitions to excited nuclear states are computed in the quasiparticle randomphase approximation.
In addition to the total neutrinonucleus cross sections, we have also analyzed the evolution of the contributions of different multipole excitations as a function of neutrino energy. It has been shown that except at relatively lowneutrino energies MeV for which the reactions are dominated by the transitions to and states, at higher energies, the inclusion of spindipole transitions, as well as excitations of higher multipolarities, is essential for a quantitative description of neutrinonucleus cross sections. It is found that the cross section on is about 5 times greater than the one. This difference is anticipated because of (i) the different values of the corresponding reactions, (ii) the fact that there are less excited states that one can populate in the channel with respect to the one and (iii) the different sign (minus for neutrino plus for antineutrino) of the interference term of magnetic and electric transitions introduced in (16).
Finally, we have given the contribution of the different states to the fluxaveraged cross section considering low energy neutrino beams.
These are either based on conventional sources (muon decay at rest) or on lowenergy betabeams. We found that the GamowTeller () and the Fermi () transitions are the main components. When the Lorentz ion boost parameter increases, the relative contribution of decreases in favor of all other multipole states except which seems to be almost constant, while the contribution of other states like , , , , and become important as well.
References
 T. W. Donnelly and R. D. Peccei, “Neutral current effects in nuclei,” Physics Reports, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 1–85, 1979. View at: Google Scholar
 R. Davis, “A review of the homestake solar neutrino experiment,” Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, vol. 32, pp. 13–32, 1994. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 K. Langanke, “Weak interaction, nuclear physics and supernovae,” Acta Physica Polonica B, vol. 39, pp. 265–282, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
 W. C. Haxton, “Radiochemical neutrino detection via ^{127}I$({V}_{e},{e}^{})$^{127}Xe,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 768–771, 1988. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. N. Bahcall and R. K. Ulrich, “Solar models, neutrino experiments, and helioseismology,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 297–372, 1988. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 K. Kubodera and S. Nozawa, “Neutrinonucleus reactions,” International Journal of Modern Physics E, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 101–148, 1994. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. Rapaport et al., “Empirical Evaluation of GamowTeller Strength Function for ^{37}Cl →^{37}Ar and its Implication in the Cross Section for Solar Neutrino Absorption by ^{37}Cl,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 47, no. 21, pp. 1518–1521, 1981. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. Rapaport, P. Welch, J. Bahcall et al., “Solarneutrino detection: experimental determination of gamowteller strengths via the ^{98}Mo and ^{115}In $(p,2)$ Reactions,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 54, no. 21, pp. 2325–2328, 1985. View at: Google Scholar
 D. Krofcheck et al., “Gamowteller strength function in ^{71}Ge via the $(p,2)$ reaction at medium energies,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 55, no. 10, p. 1051, 1985. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 D. Krofcheck, E. Sugarbaker, A.J. Wagner et al., “GamowTeller strength distribution in ^{81}Kr and the consequences for a ^{81}Br solar neutrino detector,” Physics Letters B, vol. 189, no. 3, pp. 299–303, 1987. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Yu. Lutostansky and N. B. Skulgina, “Strength function of ^{127}Xe and iodinexenon neutrino detector,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 67, no. 4, p. 430, 1991. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 “Scientific opportunities at the oak ridge laboratory for neutrino detectors (ORLAND),” in Workshop on Neutrino Nucleus Physics Using a Stopped Pion Neutrino Facility, pp. 22–26, Tennessee, Oak Ridge, Tenn, USA, May 2000. View at: Google Scholar
 S. Freedman, B. Kayser et al., “The neutrino matrix: DNP/DPF/DAP/DPB joint study on the future of neutrino physics,” Tech. Rep., American Physical Society, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
 J. A. Formaggio and G. P. Zeller, “From eV to EeV: neutrino cross sections across energy scales,” Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 1307–1341, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. Maschuw, “KARMEN collaboration,” Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, vol. 40, pp. 183–192, 1998. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. Albert, C. Athanassopoulos, L. B. Auerbach et al., “Measurement of the reaction ^{12}C( nu micro, micro)X near threshold,” Physical Review, vol. 51, pp. R1065–R1069, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
 S. P. Riley et al., “Neutrinoinduced deuteron disintegration experiment,” Physical Review C, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 1780–1789, 1999. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. C. Hayes, “Nuclear structure issues determining neutrinonucleus cross sections,” Physics Reports, vol. 315, no. 1–3, pp. 257–271, 1999. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 C. Volpe, N. Auebach, G. Colo, T. Suzuki, and N. Van Giai, “Microscopic theories of neutrino^{12}C reactions,” Physical Review C, vol. 62, no. 1, Article ID 015501, 11 pages, 2000. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 N. Paar, D. Vretenar, and T. Marketin, “Inclusive chargedcurrent neutrinonucleus reactions calculated with the relativistic quasiparticle randomphase approximation,” Physical Review C, vol. 77, no. 2, Article ID 024608, 11 pages, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. K. Cheoum, E. Ha, T. Hayakawa, T. Kajino, and S. Chiba, “Neutrino reactions on ^{138}La and ^{180}Ta via charged and neutral currents by the quasiparticle randomphase approximation,” Physical Review C, vol. 82, no. 3, Article ID 035504, 7 pages, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
 N. Jachowicz, K. Heyde, J. Ryckebusch, and S. Rombouts, “Continuum random phase approximation approach to chargedcurrent neutrinonucleus scattering,” Physical Review C, vol. 65, no. 2, Article ID 025501, 7 pages, 2002. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 V. Tsakstara, T. S. Kosmas, P. C. Divari, and J. Sinatkas, “Supernova neutrino detection by terrestrial nuclear detectors,” Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 411–413, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. C. Divari, V. C. Chasioti, and T. S. Kosmas, “Neutral current neutrino^{98}Mo reaction cross sections at low and intermediate energies,” Physica Scripta, vol. 82, no. 6, Article ID 065201, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 V. Tsakstara and T. S. Kosmas, “Lowenergy neutralcurrent neutrino scattering on ^{128,130}Te isotopes,” Physical Review Letters C, vol. 83, no. 5, Article ID 054612, 13 pages, 2011. View at: Google Scholar
 V. C. Chasioti, T. S. Kosmas, and P. C. Divari, “Inelastic neutrinonucleus reaction cross sections at low neutrinoenergies,” Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 481–485, 2007. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 F. Krmpotic, A. Mariano, and A. Samana, “Neutrinonucleus reactions and muon capture in ^{12}C,” Physical Review C, vol. 71, no. 4, Article ID 044319, 14 pages, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 E. Kolbe, K. Langanke, and P. Vogel, “Weak reactions on ^{12}C within the continuum random phase approximation with partial occupancies,” Nuclear Physics A, vol. 652, no. 1, pp. 91–100, 1999. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 E. Kolbe, K. Langanke, G. MartinezPinedo, and P. Vogel, “Neutrinonucleus reactions and nuclear structure,” Journal of Physics G, vol. 29, no. 11, p. 2569, 2003. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 T. Kuramoto, M. Fukugita, Y. Kohyama, and K. Kubodera, “Neutrinoinduced reaction cross sections at intermediate energies for chlorine and water detectors,” Nuclear Physics A, vol. 512, no. 4, pp. 711–736, 1990. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 D. S. Miller, J. R. Wilson, and R. W. Mayle, “Convection above the neutrinosphere in type II supernovae,” The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 415, no. 1, pp. 278–285, 1993. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 H. T. Janka and W. Hillebrandt, “Neutrino emission from type II supernovae—an analysis of the spectra,” Astronomy & Astrophysics, vol. 224, no. 12, pp. 49–56, 1989. View at: Google Scholar
 M. S. Athar, S. Ahmad, and S. K. Singh, “Supernova neutrino induced inclusive reactions on ^{56}Fe in terrestrial detectors,” Physical Review C, vol. 71, no. 4, Article ID 045501, 7 pages, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. Th. Keil, G. G. Rafelt, and H. T Janka, “Monte carlo study of supernova neutrino spectra formation,” The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 590, no. 2, p. 971, 2003. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 L. Hudephol, B. Muller, H. T. Janka, A. Marek, and G. G. Raelt, “Neutrino signal of electroncapture supernovae from core collapse to cooling,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 104, no. 25, Article ID 251101, 4 pages, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
 T. Fischer, S. C. Whitehouse, A. Mezzacappa, F. K. Thielemann, and M. Liebendorfer, “Protoneutron star evolution and the neutrinodriven wind in general relativistic neutrino radiation hydrodynamics simulations,” Astronomy & Astrophysics, vol. 517, no. A80, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. C. Divari, S. Galanopoulos, and G. A. Souliotis, “Coherent scattering of neutralcurrent neutrinos as a probe for supernova detection,” Journal of Physics G, vol. 39, no. 9, Article ID 095204, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 F. T. Avignone and Y. V. Efremenko J, “Neutrinonucleus crosssection measurements at intense, pulsed spallation sources,” Journal of Physics G, vol. 29, no. 11, p. 2615, 2003. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. Zucchelli, “A novel concept for a $\overline{V}e/Ve$ neutrino factory: the βbeam,” Physics Letters B, vol. 532, no. 34, pp. 166–172, 2002. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 C. Volpe, “What about a βbeam facility for lowenergy neutrinos?” Journal of Physics G, vol. 30, no. 7, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. Serreau and C. Volpe, “Neutrinonucleus interaction rates at a lowenergy βbeam facility,” Physical Review C, vol. 70, no. 5, Article ID 055502, 6 pages, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 G. C. McLaughlin, “Neutrinolead cross section measurements using stopped pions and low energy β beams,” Physical Review C, vol. 70, no. 4, Article ID 045804, 5 pages, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 N. Jachowicz and G. C. McLaughlin, “Reconstructing supernovaneutrino spectra using lowenergy β beams,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 96, no. 17, Article ID 172301, 4 pages, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 G. C. McLaughlin and C. Volpe, “Prospects for detecting a neutrino magnetic moment with a tritium source and βbeams,” Physics Letters B, vol. 591, no. 34, pp. 229–234, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. B. Balantekin, J. H. de Jesus, and C. Volpe, “Electroweak tests at βbeams,” Physics Letters B, vol. 634, no. 23, pp. 180–184, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. B. Balantekin, J. H. de Jesus, R. Lazauskas, and C. Volpe, “Conserved vector current test using low energy β beams,” Physical Review D, vol. 73, no. 7, Article ID 073011, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Bueno, M. C. Carmona, J. Lozano, and S. Navas, “Observation of coherent neutrinonucleus elastic scattering at a β beam,” Physical Review D, vol. 74, no. 3, Article ID 033010, 6 pages, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. Barranco, O. G. Miranda, and T. I. Rashba, “Sensitivity of low energy neutrino experiments to physics beyond the standard model,” Physical Review D, vol. 76, no. 7, 9 pages. View at: Google Scholar
 C. Volpe, “Betabeams,” Journal of Physics G, vol. 34, no. 1, p. R1, 2007. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Amerio, S. Amorusob, and M. Antonelloc, “Design, construction and tests of the ICARUS T600 detector,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, vol. 527, no. 3, pp. 329–410, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
 E. Aprile et al., “The XENON dark matter search experiment,” New Astronomy Reviews, vol. 49, no. 23, pp. 289–295, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 T. Sumner (UKDMC Collaboration), in Proceedings of Science (HEP '05), 2006, 003.
 K. Langanke, “Weak interaction, nuclear physics and supernovae,” Acta Physica Polonica B, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 265–281, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
 S. Aune, P. Colas, J. Dolbeau et al., “NOSTOS: a spherical TPC to detect low energy neutrinos,” AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 785, pp. 110–118, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. C. Divari, “Coherent and incoherent neutral current scattering for supernova detection,” Advances in High Energy Physics, vol. 2012, Article ID 379460, 18 pages, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. Giomataris and J. D. Vergados, “A network of neutral current spherical TPCs for dedicated supernova detection,” Physics Letters B, vol. 634, no. 1, pp. 23–29, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 I. Giomataris, I. Irastorza, I. Savvidis et al., “A novel largevolume spherical detector with proportional amplification readout,” Journal of Instrumentation, vol. 3, Article ID P09007, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
 T. Dafni, E. FerrerRibas, I. Giomataris et al., “Energy resolution of alpha particles in a microbulk Micromegas detector at high pressure argon and xenon mixtures,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A, vol. 608, no. 2, pp. 259–266, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. S. Athar, S. Ahmad, and S. K. Singh, “Neutrino nucleus cross sections for low energy neutrinos at SNS facilities,” Nuclear Physics A, vol. 764, pp. 551–568, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. K. Singh, “Electroweak form factors,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 112, no. 1–3, pp. 77–85, 2002. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Meucci, C. Giusti, and F. D. Pacati, “Neutralcurrent neutrinonucleus quasielastic scattering,” Nuclear Physics A, vol. 744, pp. 307–322, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
 T. W. Donnelly and J. D. Walecka, “Elastic magnetic electron scattering and nuclear moments,” Nuclear Physics A, vol. 201, no. 1, pp. 81–106, 1973. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. Engel, “Approximate treatment of lepton distortion in chargedcurrent neutrino scattering from nuclei,” Physical Review C, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 2004–2009, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
 M. Traini, “Coulomb distortion in quasielastic (e,e') scattering on nuclei: Effective momentum approximation and beyond,” Nuclear Physics A, vol. 694, no. 12, p. 325, 2001. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Aste and J. Jourdan, “Improved effective momentum approximation for quasielastic (e,e') scattering off highly charged nuclei,” Europhysics Letters, vol. 67, no. 5, p. 753, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Aste, C. von Arx, and D. Trautmann, “Coulomb distortion of relativistic electrons in the nuclear electrostatic field,” The European Physical Journal A, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 167–178, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Aste and D. Trautmann, “Focusing of highenergy particles in the electrostatic field of a homogeneously charged sphere and the effective momentum approximatio,” European Physical Journal A, vol. 33, no. 11, 16 pages, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
 P. Ring and P. Schuck, The Nuclear ManyBody Problem, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 1980.
 A. Bohr, B. R. Mottelson, and D. Pines, “Possible analogy between the excitation spectra of nuclei and those of the superconducting metallic state,” Physical Review, vol. 110, no. 4, pp. 936–938, 1958. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 T. W. Donnelly and W. C. Haxton, “Multipole operators in semileptonic weak and electromagnetic interactions with nuclei: harmonic oscillator singleparticle matrix elements,” Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 103–176, 1979. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 V. Ch. Chasioti and T. S. Kosmas, “A unified formalism for the basic nuclear matrix elements in semileptonic processes,” Nuclear Physics A, vol. 829, pp. 234–252, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 A. Bohr and B. R. Mottelson, Nuclear Structure, vol. 1, Benjamin, New York, NY, USA, 1969.
 K. Holinde, “Twonucleon forces and nuclear matter,” Physics Reports, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 121–188, 1981. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 G. Audi et al., “Cumulative author index volumes A701A717,” Nuclear Physics A, vol. 717, no. 34, pp. 337–369, 2003. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. S. Athar, S. Ahmad, and S. K. Singh, “$Ve(\overline{V}e)$−^{40}Ar absorption cross sections for supernova neutrinos,” Physics Letters B, vol. 591, no. 12, pp. 69–75, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. Lazauskas and C. Volpe, “Neutrino beams as a probe of the nuclear isospin and spinisospin excitations,” Nuclear Physics A, vol. 792, no. 34, pp. 219–228, 2007. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. S. Amanik and G. C. McLaughlin, “Manipulating a neutrino spectrum to maximize the physics potential from a low energy β beam,” Physical Review C, vol. 75, Article ID 065502, 18 pages, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 P. C. Divari. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.