1 / 25

Towards Neutrino Mass Hierarchy & CP Violation Measurements

Explore he current knowledge, mass hierarchy determination, measurement of CP phase in neutrino oscillations from Dark Matter to the LHC & beyond. Discover neutrino oscillations & flavor physics, potential CP violation, precision measurements & unresolved anomalies. Learn about the mass hierarchy's model-discriminating role & the importance of measuring CP violation for baryogenesis. Delve into the challenges, technologies, and upcoming experiments in the quest for neutrino mass hierarchy and CP violation measurements.

dcoleman
Download Presentation

Towards Neutrino Mass Hierarchy & CP Violation Measurements

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 the measurements of mass hierarchy and CP violation in neutrino oscillations Frontiers in Particle Physics: From Dark Matter to the LHC and BeyondAspen, USA Jan. 18-24, 2014 Walter Winter Universität Würzburg / DESY TexPoint fonts used in EMF: AAAAAAAA

  2. Contents • Current knowledge of neutrino oscillations • Mass hierarchy determination • Measurement of the CP phase • Summary

  3. Neutrino oscillations(two flavors) • Two parameters: • Disappearance or survival probabilityAppearance probability Evidence for massive neutrinos!

  4. Three flavors: Masses and mixings • Two independent mass squared splittings, typically (solar) (atmospheric) • Mixing: Use same parameterization as for CKM matrix (4 params) 8 8 Normal Inverted (sij = sin qij cij = cos qij) Potential CP violation ~ q13

  5. (short distance) (also: T2K, Double Chooz, RENO)

  6. Precision of parameters? Gonzalez-Garcia, Maltoni, Salvado, Schwetz, JHEP 1212 (2012) 123 ± 2% ± 4% (or better) ± 4%  More details: talk by R. Patterson ± 3% ± 3% Age of theprecision flavor physicsof the lepton sector Open issues:- Degeneracies (mass ordering, octant)- CP phase

  7. Latest fits vs. projection • Indication for dCP, no evidence for mass hierarchy • Potential of existing equipment Capozzi, Fogli, Lisi, Marrone, Montanino, Palazzo, arXiv:1312.2878 T2K, NOvA, Double Chooz, Daya Bay; 5 years each CP cons. High CL determinationrequires new equipment NH simulated IH simulated Huber, Lindner, Schwetz, Winter, JHEP 0911 (2009) 044

  8. Short-distance anomalies… unresolved 2.0 ? Example:3+1 scenario • Well known tension between appearance and disapp. data (appearance  disapp. in both channels) • Need one or more new experiments which can test • ne disappearance (Gallium, reactor anomalies) • nm disappearance (overconstrains 3+N frameworks) • ne-nm oscillations (LSND, MiniBooNE) • Neutrinos and antineutrinos separately (CP violation? Gallium vs reactor?) • Summary of options: Appendix of white paper arXiv:1204.5379 • Example: completely self-consistent test atnSTORM - Neutrinos from STORed Muons    MiniBooNE

  9. Mass hierarchy determination

  10. Why would one like to measure the mass hierarchy? • Mass hierarchy is a good model discriminator(Albright, Chen, 2006) • Leading indicator for flavor model?[determines structure of couplings in hierarchical models] 8 8 Normal Inverted

  11. Parameter mapping… for two flavors, constant matter density • Oscillation probabilities invacuum:matter: (Wolfenstein, 1978; Mikheyev, Smirnov, 1985) L=11810 km For nm appearance, Dm312:- r ~ 4.7 g/cm3 (Earth’s mantle): Eres ~ 6.4 GeV- r ~ 10.8 g/cm3 (Earth’s outer core): Eres ~ 2.8 GeV  MH Resonance energy (from ):

  12. Mantle-core-mantle (Parametric enhancement: Akhmedov, 1998; Akhmedov, Lipari, Smirnov, 1998; Petcov, 1998) • Probability for L=11810 km Best-fit valuesfrom arXiv:1312.2878 ! Oscillation length ~mantle-core-mantle structureParametric enhancement. Core resonanceenergy Mantleresonanceenergy Naive L/E scalingdoes not apply! Thresholdeffects expected at: 2 GeV 4-5 GeV

  13. Emerging technologies:PINGU • Fill in IceCube/DeepCore array with additional strings • Lower threshold • Particle physics!? • PINGU (“Precision IceCube Next Generation Upgrade“): • 40 additional strings, 60 optical modules each • Modest cost, US part ~ 55-80 M$, foreign ~ 25 M$ (including contingency) • Completion 2019/2020? (PINGU LOI, arXiv:1401.2046)

  14. Mass hierarchy measurment… PINGU, using atmospheric neutrinos (WW, arXiv:1305.5539, PRD) • 3s conceivable after three years of operation • Complementary to beams+reactor 3s after 3.5 yr m tracks only (PINGU LOI, arXiv:1401.2046) (WW, arXiv:1305.5539, PRD)

  15. Global context LBNE 10kt if q23 varied as well Fig. 9 inarXiv:1305.5539 • Bands: risk wrt q23 (PINGU, INO), dCP (NOvA, LBNE), energy resolution (JUNO) • LBNE and sensitivity also scales with q23! True NO (version from PINGU LOI, arXiv:1401.2046,based on Blennow, Coloma, Huber, Schwetz, arXiv:1311.1822)

  16. Measurement of dCP

  17. Why is dCP interesting? sind • CP violationNecessary condition for successful baryogenesis (dynamical mechanism to create matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe) thermal leptogenesis by decay of heavy see-saw partner? • Model buildinge.g. TBM sum rule: q12 = 35 + q13cosd (Antusch, King, …) • Discuss precision of dCP rather than CP violation cosd  C. Hagedorn Correction leadingto non-zero q13? Symmetrye.g. TBM, BM, …? q13=0

  18. Precision of dCP  More details: talk by A. Sousa • Systematics important • Use explicit near-far detector simulations • Use same knowledge for cross sections for all experiments • Use same assumptions for systematics implementation! • The NF can measure dCP with a precision comparable to the quark sector CKM phase (bands: systematics opt.-cons.) /LBNE (Coloma, Huber, Kopp, Winter, arXiv:1209.5973)

  19. Main challenges for dCP Robust wrt systematics Main impact:Matter density uncertainty Neutrino Factory Operate in statistics-limited regimeExposure more important than near detector High-E superbeam(e. g. LBNE) QE ne X-sec critical:cannot be measured in near detectorTheory: ne/nm ratio?Experiment: Low-E (QE!) superbeam (Coloma, Huber, Kopp, Winter, arXiv:1209.5973)

  20. Perspectives for neutrino oscillations • Mass hierarchy: may be tested in beginning of 2020s by “emerging technologies“, such as PINGU or JUNO • CP violation: requires a new long-baseline experiment, such as LBNE, T2HK, NuFact • Other issues: q23 maximal? Octant?Sun and Earth tomography? New physics? • Light sterile neutrinos - best candidate for physics BnSM? Test short-baseline anomalies, measure neutrino X-secs, …

  21. Backup

  22. Options • Setup table + Daya Bay (Coloma, Huber, Kopp, Winter, arXiv:1209.5973)

  23. Systematics (Coloma, Huber, Kopp, Winter, arXiv:1209.5973)

  24. Interesting alternatives • Comparison at default systematics: NF5 exhibitsstrong dependence on dCP (some dependence on binning!) BB100+SPL is the only setup comparable with NuFact (Coloma, Huber, Kopp, Winter, arXiv:1209.5973)

  25. LBNE: Optimal baseline? • For dCP: ~500 – 1300 km • For MH, octant > 1000 km FNAL-Soudan FNAL-Homestake (LBNE, arXiv:1311.0212; see also: arXiv:hep-ph/0607177;arXiv:hep-ph/0703029)

More Related