1 / 42

Future precision neutrino experiments and their theoretical motivation

Future precision neutrino experiments and their theoretical motivation. @UAM Madrid, Spain November 22, 2007 Walter Winter Universität Würzburg. Contents. Introduction: Neutrino oscillation phenomenology Future neutrino oscillation experiments Why these measurements?

roanna-watkins
Download Presentation

Future precision neutrino experiments and their theoretical motivation

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. Future precision neutrino experiments and their theoretical motivation @UAM Madrid, Spain November 22, 2007Walter Winter Universität Würzburg

  2. Contents • Introduction: Neutrino oscillation phenomenology • Future neutrino oscillation experiments • Why these measurements? • Testing the theory space: One example • Summary UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  3. Neutrino oscillation phenomenology

  4. Neutrino oscillations with two flavors Mixing and mass squared difference:na “disappearance”:nb “appearance”: ~Frequency Amplitude Baseline: Source - Detector Energy UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  5. Three flavor neutrino oscillations(the “standard” picture) Atmosphericoscillations:Amplitude: q23Frequency: Dm312 Two large mixing angles!Dm212 << Dm312 Solaroscillations:Amplitude: q12Frequency: Dm212 Coupling strength: q13 Suppressed effect: dCP (Super-K, 1998;Chooz, 1999; SNO 2001+2002; KamLAND 2002) Only upper bound so far!Key to CP violationin the lepton sector! Does this parameter explain the baryon asymmetry? UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  6. Neutrino oscillations: current knowledge (Maltoni, Schwetz, Tortola, Valle, 2004-2007) UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  7. Matter effects in n-oscillations (MSW) • Ordinary matter contains electrons, but no m, t • Coherent forward scattering in matter has net effect on electron flavor because of CC (rel. phase shift) • Matter effects proportional to electron density and baseline • Hamiltonian in matter: (Wolfenstein, 1978; Mikheyev, Smirnov, 1985) Y: electron fraction ~ 0.5 (electrons per nucleon) Matter potential not CP-/CPT-invariant! UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  8. Future neutrino oscillationexperiments

  9. A multi-detector reactor experiment… for a “clean” measurement of q13 Identical detectors, L ~ 1.1-1.7 km Daya Baysize Unknownsystematics important for large luminosity NB: No sensitivity to dCP andmass hierarchy! Double Choozsize (Minakata et al, 2002;Huber, Lindner, Schwetz, Winter, 2003) UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  10. On the way to precision:Neutrino Beams nb? Accelerator-based neutrinosource na Far detector Often: near detector (measures flux times cross sections) Baseline: L ~ E/Dm2 (Osc. length) UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  11. Example: MINOS • Measurement of atmosphericparameters with high precision • Flavor conversion ? Fermilab - SoudanL ~ 735 km Beam line Near detector: 980 t Far detector: 5400 t 735 km UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  12. The hunt for q13 • Example scenario; bands reflect unknown dCP • New generation of experiments dominates quickly! • Neutrino factory:Uses muon decaysm nm + ne + eReach down to sin22q13 ~ 10-5 -10-4 (~ osc. amplitude!) O(1,000,000) events/yearin 50 kt detector @ 3000 km from source! GLoBES 2005 (from: FNAL Proton Driver Study) UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  13. Neutrino factory • Ultimate “high precision” instrument!? • Muon decays in straight sections of storage ring • Technical challenges: Target power, muon cooling, charge identification, maybe steep decay tunnels Decays Target Cooling m-Accelerator m n p p, K m “Right sign” “Wrong sign” “Right sign” “Wrong sign” (from: CERN Yellow Report ) (Geer, 1997; de Rujula, Gavela, Hernandez, 1998; Cervera et al, 2000) UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  14. IDS-NF launched at NuFact 07International design study for a neutrino factory • Successor of the International Scoping Study for a „future neutrino factory and superbeam facility“:Physics case made in physics WG report (370 pp) (arXiv:0710.4947 [hep-ph]) • Initiative from ~ 2007-2012 to present a design report, schedule, cost estimate, risk assessment for a neutrino factory • In Europe: Close connection to „Euronus“ proposal within the FP 07; for UAM: Andrea Donini (deputy coordinator of WP 6); in Spain also: IFIC Valencia • In the US: „Muon collider task force“ - How can a neutrino factory be „upgraded“ to a muon collider? UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  15. Appearance channels: nmne • Complicated, but all interesting information there: q13, dCP, mass hierarchy (via A) Anti-nus (see e.g. Akhmedov, Johansson, Lindner, Ohlsson, Schwetz, 2004) UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  16. Problems with degeneracies • Connected (green) or disconnected (yellow) degenerate solutions in parameter space • Affect measurementsExample: q13-sensitivity • Discrete degeneracies: (d,q13)-degeneracy(Burguet-Castell et al, 2001)sgn-degeneracy (Minakata, Nunokawa, 2001)(q23,p/2-q23)-degeneracy (Fogli, Lisi, 1996) (Huber, Lindner, Winter, 2002) UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  17. Resolving degeneraciesExample: „Magic“ baseline for NF • L= ~ 4000 km (CP) + ~7500 km (degs) today baseline configuration of a neutrino factory (ISS report, arXiv:0710.4947) (Huber, Winter, 2003) UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  18. NF precision measurements dCP precision q13 precision 3s corresponds to ~ 5 to 10 degrees at 1s dCP dep. (Huber, Lindner, Winter, 2004) (Gandhi, Winter, 2006) UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  19. Why these measurements?

  20. Lepton masses and the seesaw Block-diag. Eff. 3x3 case Charged leptonmass terms Effective neutrinomass terms cf., CC interaction Rotates left-handedfields UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  21. Experiments vs. neutrino mass models • Mass models describe masses and mixings (mass matrices) by symmetries, GUTs, anarchy arguments, etc. • From that: predictions for observables • Example: Literature research for q13 Experimentsprovide importanthints for theory Peak generic or biased? (Albright, Chen, 2006) UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  22. Performance indicators for theoryWhat observables test the theory space most efficiently? • Magnitude of q13 (see before!) • Mass hierarchy(strongly affects textures) • Deviations from max. mixings(nm-nt symmetry?) • |sin2q12-1/3|(tribimaximal mixings?) • |sindCP-1| (CP violation)(leptogenesis?) • qC+q12 ~ p/4 ~ q23(indicator for quark-lepton unification?) (Antusch et al, hep-ph/0404268) Connection with quark sector! UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  23. One example for predictions: Anarchy • Assume: No structure in Yukawa couplings, all coefficients random and O(1) or: Low energy theory is sufficiently complicated to justify random matrices • From complex matrices: maximal mixings, large q13 preferred; dCP ~ p (CP conservation) • Can one combine such an approch with very simple=generic assumptions on flavor symmetries, quark-lepton unification etc.? (12, 13, 23) (Haba, Murayama, 2000) UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  24. Testing the theory space:One example

  25. Bottom-up approach: Procedure Connection to observables Diag.,many d.o.f. • A conventional approach: Theory(e.g. GUT,flavor symmetry) Yukawacouplingstructure Fit (orderone coeff.)to data!? • Bottom-up approach: Model m : 1 Texture 1 : n Realization Theory(e.g. flavor symmetry) Yukawacouplingstructure Yukawacouplingswith orderone coeff. Genericassumptions(e.g. QLC) No diag.,reduce d.o.f. by knowledge on data UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  26. Benefits of bottom-up approach Very genericassumptions Automatedprocedure:generate allpossibilities Select solutionscompatible with data Interpretation/analysis Key features: • Construct all possibilities given a set of generic assumptions  New textures, models, etc. • Learn something about parameter space Spin-off: Learn how experiments can most efficiently test this parameter space! Cannot foresee the outcome! Low bias!? UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  27. Quark versus lepton mixings VCKM UPMNS • Basic idea: Use same parameterization to compare mixing angles, phase(s) • Why should that be interesting at all if there was no connection suspected between the two sectors? UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  28. Generic assumptions from quark-lepton unification? • Phenomenological hint e.g.(„Quark-Lepton-Complementarity“ - QLC)(Petcov, Smirnov, 1993; Smirnov, 2004; Raidal, 2004; Minakata, Smirnov, 2004; others) • Is there one quantity e ~ qCwhich describes all mixings and hierarchies? • Remnant of a unified theory? E Unified theory e Symmetrybreaking(s) e e LeptonSector QuarkSector UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  29. Manifestation of e ~ 0.2 • Mass hierarchies of quarks/charged leptons: mu:mc:mt=e6:e4:1, md:ms:mb=e4:e2:1, me:mm:mt=e4:e2:1 (motivated by flavor symmetries) • Neutrino masses: m1:m2:m3~e2:e:1, 1:1:e oder 1:1:1 • Mixings Example: UPMNS ~ VCKM+Ubimax ? VCKM ~ Combination ofe and max. mixings? Generic assumption! UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  30. Extended QLC in the 3x3-case Cutoff givenby current precision ~ e2 • Generate all possible (real) Ul, Unwith mixing angles (262,144) • Calculate UPMNS and read off mixing angles;select only realizations compatible with data (2,468) • Calculate mass matrices using eigenvalues from last slide withand determine leading order coefficients a few Textures (19) • No diagonalization necessary 1 Example: UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  31. New textures from extended QLC • New sum rules and systematic classificationof textures • Example: „Diamond“ textureswith new sum rules, such as(includes coefficients from underlying realizations)Can be obtainedfrom two large mixing angles in the lepton sector! „Entangled“ mixings? (Plentinger, Seidl, Winter, hep-ph/0612169) UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  32. Distribution of observables • Parameter space analysis based on realizations • Large q13 preferred • Compared to the GUT literature:Some realizations with very small sin22q13 ~3.3 10-5 Tribimaximal? (Plentinger, Seidl, Winter, hep-ph/0612169) UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  33. How exps affect this parameter space • Strong pressure from q13 and q12 measurements • q12 can emerge as a combination between maximal mixing and qC!  „Extended“ QLC (Plentinger, Seidl, Winter, hep-ph/0612169) UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  34. Introducing complex phases (Ul ≠ 1) • Vary all complex phases with uniform distributions • Calculate all validrealizations andtextures (n:1) Landscape interpretation withsome mass structure?(see e.g. Hall, Salem, Watari, 2007) • Want ~qC-precision(~12o) for dCP? (Winter, 2007) UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  35. Distributions in the q13-dCP-plane • delta ~ theta_C necessary! (Winter, 2007; beta beam from Burguet-Castell et al, 2005) Clusters contain 50% of all realizations of one texture UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  36. The seesaw in extended QLC Generate allmixing angles andhierarchies byOnly real cases! (Plentinger, Seidl, Winter, arXiv:0707.2379) UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  37. See-saw statistics (NH)… based on realizations • Often: Mild hierarchies in MR foundResonant leptogenesis?Flavor effects? • Charged lepton mixing is, in general, not small! • Special cases rare, except from MR ~ diagonal! (Plentinger, Seidl, Winter, arXiv:0707.2379) UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  38. Seesaw-Textures (NH, q13 small) • Obtain 1981 texture sets {Ml, MD, MR} (Plentinger, Seidl, Winter, arXiv:0707.2379; http://theorie.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~winter/Resources/SeeSawTex/) x = 0, e2 UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  39. What are the textures good for?Example: Froggatt-Nielsen mechanism UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  40. Outlook: Towards model building Our 1981 textures • Example:Froggatt-NielsenmechanismUse M-fold ZN productflavor symmetry • e-powers are determined by flavor symmetry quantum numbers of left- and right-handed fermions! • How much complexity is actually needed toreproduce our textures? Depends on structurein textures! Systematic test ofall possible charge assignments! PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY (Plentinger, Seidl, Winter, in preparation) UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  41. One example • Z5 x Z4 x Z3 • Case 205, Texture 1679(http://theorie.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~winter/Resources/SeeSawTex/) • Quantum numbers (example):n1c, n2c, n3c: (1,0,1), (0,3,2), (3,3,0)l1, l2, l3: (4,3,2), (0,1,0), (0,2,2)e1c, e2c, e3c: (3,0,2), (2,0,2), (1,2,0) • Realization: can e.g. be realized with (q12,q13,q23) ~ (33o,0.2o,52o) Absorb overallscaling factor inabsolute scale!0 ~ e3, e4, …! (Plentinger, Seidl, Winter, in preparation) UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

  42. Summary • Future experiments may test sin22q13 down to ~ 10-5 and measure dCP at the level of about 10 degrees (1s, for sin22q13 = 10-3) • We parameterize UPMNS in the same way as VCKM What can we learn from a comparison? • One may learn about the theory space and distributions of observables from „automated model building“ using generic assumptions • Extended QLC is one such assumption which connects neutrino physics with the quark sector via e ~ qC: Want e.g. Cabibbo-angle precision for dCP? • Why use more complicated non-Abelian flavor symmetries if one can generate thousands of models from a priori very simple assumptions? UAM 2007 - Walter Winter

More Related