1 / 29

Towards a world-wide Neutrino Facility step I: the International Scoping Study (ISS)

Towards a world-wide Neutrino Facility step I: the International Scoping Study (ISS). mother link http://muonstoragerings.cern.ch. http://www.hep.ph.ic.ac.uk/iss/. ‘ ECFA/CERN studies of a European Neutrino Factory Complex' CERN 2004-002 ECFA/04/230 and

chandler-nelson
Download Presentation

Towards a world-wide Neutrino Facility step I: the International Scoping Study (ISS)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Towards a world-wide Neutrino Facility step I: the International Scoping Study (ISS) mother link http://muonstoragerings.cern.ch http://www.hep.ph.ic.ac.uk/iss/ ‘ECFA/CERN studies of a European Neutrino Factory Complex' CERN 2004-002 ECFA/04/230 and Physics with a MMW proton driver (MMW workshop) CERN-SPSC-2004-024

  2. Kayser -- EPS05 Accelerator neutrinos are CENTRAL to the future program.

  3. evolution of sin2213 Mezzetto observation and study of CP violation requires -- all accelerator neutrinos -- high precision in neutrino vs antineutrino normalization -- redundancy. probably out of reach of these experiments  need to go further

  4. TARGET DATE: 2010 2010 will be a time of major decisions in particle physics LHC will be completed first results will appear ILC  first results from CNGS, T2K double-CHOOZ other reactor expts. might be available. It will be time for the next step in neutrino physics! Barry Barish, CERN SPC sept05

  5. An ambitious neutrino programme is a distinct possibility, • but it must be well prepared to have a good proposal in time for the big decision period in 2010 (Funding window: 2011-2020) • 2. Two avenues have been identified as promising • a) SuperBeam + Beta-Beam + Megaton detector(SB+BB+MD) • b) Neutrino Factory(NuFact) + magnetic detector (40kton) • The physics abilities of the neutrino factory are (much) superior • in particular for flux normalisation • but….. « what is the realistic time scale? » • 3. (Hardware) cost estimate of a neutrino factory ~1B€ + detectors. • This needs to be verifed and ascertained on a localized scenario (CERN, RAL…) and accounting. • The cost of a (BB+SB+MD) is not very different, though perhaps lower, but more uncertain. • Cost/physics performance/feasibility comparison needed

  6. CERN-SPL-based Neutrino SUPERBEAM 400 MeV n m Neutrinos small contamination from ne (no K at 3 GeV!) target! Fréjus underground lab. A large underground water Cherenkov (400 kton) UNO/HyperK or/and a large L.Arg detector. also : proton decay search, supernovae events solar and atmospheric neutrinos. Performance similar to J-PARC II There is a window of opportunity for digging the cavern starting in 2009 (safety tunnel in Frejus)

  7. CERN: b-beam baseline scenario Nuclear Physics SPL target! Decay ring B = 5 T Lss = 2500 m SPS Decay Ring ISOL target & Ion source ECR Cyclotrons, linac or FFAG Stacking! Rapid cycling synchrotron PS neutrinos of Emax=~600MeV Same detectors as Superbeam !

  8. Beta-beam at FNAL? High gamma beta-beam increases sensitivity considerably (Hernandez, Gomez-Cadenas) Winter CERN FNAL gmax = gmaxproton/3 for 6He fault of this one has to buy a new TeV acccelerator.

  9. Combination of beta beam with super beam combines CP and T violation tests e m (+) (T)me (p+) (CP) e m(-) (T)me (p-)

  10. Superbeam+Betabeam option • What is the importance of the superbeam in this scheme? • T violation? • increased sensitivity? • have a (known) source of muon neutrinos for reference? • 2. At which neutrino energy can one begin to use the event energy distribution? • Fermi motion and resolution issues. • What is the impact of muon Cherenkov threshold? • What is the best distance from the source? What is the effect of changing the • beta-beam and superbeam energy?(event rates, backgrounds, ability to use dN/dE ) • Should energy remain adjustable after the distance choice? • 4, what is the relationship between beta-beam energy vs intensity? • 5. What is really the cost of the detector? • what PM coverage is needed as function of energy and distance. NB superbeam requires 4 MW proton driver, beta-beam claim to be able to live with 200 kW!

  11. EC: A monochromatic neutrino beam Electron Capture: N+e- N’+ne Burget et al intensity? potential?

  12. -- Neutrino Factory -- CERN layout -- cooling! 1016p/s target! acceleration! 1.2 1014 m/s =1.2 1021 m/yr _ 0.9 1021 m/yr m+ e+ne nm 3 1020 ne/yr 3 1020 nm/yr oscillatesne nm interacts givingm- WRONG SIGN MUON Golden Channel interacts giving m+ also (unique!) ne ntSilver channel

  13. Neutrino fluxesm+ -> e+nenm is that all true? nm/n e ratio reversed by switching m+/ m- ne nm spectra are different No high energy tail. Very well known flux (10-3) -- E&sE calibration from muon spin precession -- angular divergence: small effect if q < 0.2/g, -- absolute flux measured from muon current or by nm e--> m-ne in near expt. -- in triangle ring, muon polarization precesses and averages out (preferred, -> calib of energy, energy spread) Similar comments apply to beta beam, except spin 0  Energy and energy spread have to be obtained from the properties of the storage ring (Trajectories, RF volts and frequency, etc…) m polarization controls ne flux: m+ -X> nein forward direction

  14. INO ~7000 km (Magic distance)

  15. b-beam + SPL3.5 SB+Mton systematics . ……………………………………degeneracies correlations approval date: ~NOvA +PD Lindner et al newer plot should come out of NUFACT05 and scoping study

  16. What happens to this at high q13if -- two baselines are considered and -- a threshold of 1.5 GeV for wrong sign muons is imposed on the 3000 km det -- and there is a 4kton tau detector at the 3000 km station?

  17. Degeneracies Stephano Rigolin: P. Huber’s plots assume: 4 GeV threshold, only golden channel.  Experimenters need to provide characteristics of tau detectors and think about efficiency for wrong sign muons at low energies.

  18. Questions for Neutrino Factory experiments: • Do we REALLY NEED TWO far locations at two different distances? • 3000 km  1st osc. max at 6 GeV and 2d max at 2 GeV. Muon momentum cut at 4 GeV cuts 2d max info. Can this be improved? • Can we eliminate all degenracies by combination of energy distribution and analysis of different channels (tau, muon, electron, both signs, NC…) • what are the systematics on flux control? (CERN YR claims 10-3) • 5. optimal muon ENERGY? Cost of study II was 1500M$ + 400M$*E/20

  19. 14.5 m B B 13.1 m 30 m This ‘conceptual detector’ was used for the sensitivity studies, with cut-off at muon energy of 4 GeV Monolith

  20. 10 liters prototype liquid argon TPC has been tested in 0.5 T at ETHZ A. Rubbia

  21. Towards a comparison of performances on equal footing CP violation example P(nenm) - P(nenm) sind sin (Dm212 L/4E) sin q12 = ACP a sinq13 + solar term… P(nenm) + P(nenm) Near detector should give ne diff. cross-section*flux BUT:need to know nm and nm diff. cross-section and detection efficiency with small (relative) systematic errors. interchange role of ne and nm for superbeam in case of beta-beam one will need a superbeam at the same energy. Will it be possible to measure the required cross sections with the required accuracy at low energies with a WBB? What is the role of the difference in mass between electron and muons? how well can we predict it? In case of sub-GeV superbeam alone how can one deal with this?

  22. ds/dn O(e,e’), n=Ee-Ee’=Enegy transfer (GeV)Ee=700-1200 MeV Zeller Blue: Fermi-gas Green: SP Red: SP+FSI These are for electron beam. errors are ~5-10% but what happens when a muon mass is involved? QE D

  23. The Beta-beam accelerator study is funded within EURISOL DESIGN STUDY and this is making impressive progress. (it is still a very new concept however) The Neutrino Factory and Superbeam design study (with RAL as home institute) was prepared for a EU DS call in 2004 (sub march 2005) which never took place. It turned out to be too far-fetched to substitute an I3 proposal to this. In the process the need to include detector R&D was identified. Meanwhile… Optimization of the neutrino factory in the US has led to cost reduction by 40% The target experiment nTOF11 is now approved at CERN, scheduled to run in 2007 The MICE experiment is now approved at RAL (+recognized as CERN RE11) and scheduled to run in 2007 There is a funded UK neutrino factory collaboration There is a proposal for an electron-model FFAG experiment

  24. Design study • Design study will take place in two phases • Scoping study: understand what are the most important parameters • of the facility to be studied, what are the critical tests to be performed, • and how to organize it. Assemble the team. • 2. Design study: proceed to the design study and associated R&D experiments, • with the aim to deliver a CDR that a laboratory can chose as its next project. It will be WORLD WIDE: 1. It is likely that there will be no more than one Megaton detector and/or one Neutrino Factory in the world so we better agree on what we want. 2. Expertise on Neutrino Factory is limited world wide (mostly in US) 3. Resources e.g. at CERN are also very limited 4. International community meets regularly at NUFACT meetings and is engaged in common projects (R&D experiments) Muon cooling exp. MICE at RAL, Target Experiment nTOF11 at CERN

  25. Collaborators of the scoping study: -- ECFA/BENE working groups (incl. CERN) (funded by CARE) -- Japanese Neutrino Factory Collaboration -- US Neutrino Factory and Muon collider Collaboration -- UK Neutrino Factory Collaboration (also part of BENE) -- others (e.g. India INO collaboration, Canada, China, Corea ...) objectives: · Evaluate the physics case for a second-generation super-beam, a beta-beam facility and the Neutrino Factory and to present a critical comparison of their performance; · Evaluate the various options for the accelerator complex with a view to defining a baseline set of parameters for the sub-systems that can be taken forward in a subsequent conceptual-design phase; · Evaluate the options for the neutrino detection systems with a view to defining a baseline set of detection systems to be taken forward in a subsequent conceptual-design phase.

  26. Physics compare performance of various options on equal footing of parameters and conventions and agreed standards of resolutions, simulation etc. identify tools needed to do so (e.g. Globes upgraded) propose « best values » of baselines, beam energies etc.. Yorikiyo Nagashima Detectors (NEW!) Water Cherenkov (1000kton) Magnetized Iron Calorimeter (50kton) Low Z scintillator (100 kton) Liquid Argon TPC (100 kton)magnet? Hybrid Emulsion (4 kton) Near detectors (and instrumentation) ( SB,BBNF ) Alain Blondel coordination Peter Dornan + ‘wise men’ Ken Peach Vittorio Palladino(BENE) Steve Geer Yoshitaka Kuno Accelerator: -- proton driver (energy, time structure and consequences) -- target and capture (chose target and capture system) -- phase rotation and cooling -- acceleration and storage evaluate economic interplays and risks include a measure of costing and safety assessment Michael Zisman

  27. Time scales: NUFACT05 26 June 2005 launch of scoping study CERN 22-24 September 2005 first meeting will be broadcast, (do register!) (CERN first page) KEK 23-25 January 2006, RAL 27-29 April 2006 (BENE) UC Irvine 21-23 August 2006 (just before NUFACT06) NUFACT06 (summer 2006) discussion of results of scoping study September 2006 ISS report 2007 full design study proposal 2010 conclusions of Design Study & CDR NB: This matches well the time scales set up at CERN – participation of CERN is highly desirable to ensure that the choices remain CERN-compatible. This effort is similar to and synergetic with the PAF and POFPA working groups at CERN.

More Related