1 / 27

Hanohano

Hanohano. Mikhail Batygov, University of Hawaii, October 4, 2007, Hamamatsu, Japan, NNN’07. Overview of the project. Dual goal of the project Fundamental physics, esp.  oscillation studies Terrestrial antineutrinos Special advantages Reduced sensitivity to systematics

viho
Download Presentation

Hanohano

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. Hanohano Mikhail Batygov, University of Hawaii, October 4, 2007, Hamamatsu, Japan, NNN’07

  2. Overview of the project • Dual goal of the project • Fundamental physics, esp.  oscillation studies • Terrestrial antineutrinos • Special advantages • Reduced sensitivity to systematics • Big size and low energy threshold • Variable baseline possible • Additional studies • Nucleon decay, possibly incl. SUSY favored kaon mode • Supernova detection • Relic SN neutrinos

  3. Oscillation Parameters: present • KamLAND (with SNO) analysis: tan2(θ12)=0.40(+0.10/–0.07) Δm221=(7.9+0.4/-0.35)×10-5 eV2 Araki et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 081801. (improved in 2007) • SuperK, K2K, MINOS: Δm231=(2.5±0.5)×10-3 eV2 Ashie et al., Phys. Rev. D64 (2005) 112005 Aliu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 (2005) 081802 (improved in 2007) • CHOOZ limit: sin2(2θ13) ≤ 0.20 Apollonio et al., Eur. Phys. J. C27 (2003) 331-374.

  4. Oscillation parameters to be measured 2 mass diffs, 3 angles, 1 CP phase • Precision measurement of mixing parameters needed • World effort to determine θ13 (=θ31) • Determination of mass hierarchy

  5. 12 precise measurement (2 mixing) • Reactor experiment- νe point source • P(νe→νe)≈1-sin2(2θ12)sin2(Δm221L/4E) • 60 GW·kt·y exposure at 50-70 km • ~4% systematic error from near detector • sin2(θ12) measured with ~2% uncertainty Ideal spot Bandyopadhyay et al., Phys. Rev. D67 (2003) 113011. Minakata et al., hep-ph/0407326 Bandyopadhyay et al., hep-ph/0410283

  6. 3- mixing Pee=1-{ cos4(θ13) sin2(2θ12) [1-cos(Δm212L/2E)] + cos2(θ12) sin2(2θ13) [1-cos(Δm213L/2E)] + sin2(θ12) sin2(2θ13) [1-cos(Δm223L/2E)]}/2 • Survival probability: 3 oscillating terms each cycling in L/E space (~t) with own “periodicity” (Δm2~ω) • Amplitude ratios ~13.5 : 2.5 : 1.0 • Oscillation lengths ~110 km (Δm212) and ~4 km (Δm213~Δm223) at reactor peak ~3.5 MeV Two possible approaches: • ½-cycle measurements can yield • Mixing angles, mass-squared differences • Less statistical uncertainty for same parameter and detector • Multi-cycle measurements can yield • Mixing angles, precise mass-squared differences • Mass hierarchy • Less sensitive to systematic errors

  7. Reactor νe Spectra at 50 km invites use of Fourier Transforms Distance/energy, L/E Energy, E no oscillation no oscillation > 15 cycles oscillations oscillations Neutrino energy (MeV) L/E (km/MeV) 1,2 oscillations with sin2(2θ12)=0.82 and Δm221=7.9x10-5eV2 1,3 oscillations with sin2(2θ13)=0.10 andΔm231=2.5x10-3 eV2

  8. Fourier Transform on L/E to Δm2 Peak profile versus distance Fourier Power, Log Scale Δm232 < Δm231 normalhierarchy E smearing 0.0025 eV2 peak due to nonzero θ13 50 km Spectrum w/ θ13=0 Fewer cycles Δm2 (x10-2 eV2) Preliminary- 50 kt-y exposure at 50 km range sin2(2θ13)≥0.02 Δm231=0.0025 eV2 to 1% level Learned, Dye,Pakvasa, Svoboda hep-ex/0612022 Δm2/eV2 Includes energy smearing

  9. Measure Δm231 by Fourier Transform & Determine νMass Hierarchy inverted normal Δm231 > Δm232 |Δm231| < |Δm232| Determination at ~50 km range sin2(2θ13)≥0.05 and 10 kt-y sin2(2θ13)≥0.02 and 100 kt-y θ12<π/4! Plot by jgl Δm2 (x10-2 eV2) Learned, Dye, Pakvasa, and Svoboda, hep-ex/0612022

  10. Hierarchy Determination Ideal Case with 10 kiloton Detector, 1 year off San Onofre Distance variation: 30, 40, 50, 60 km Hierarchy tests employing Matched filter technique, for Both normal and inverted hierarchy on each of 1000 simulated one year experiments using 10 kiloton detector. Inverted hierarchy Inv. Norm. Sin22θ13 Variation: 0.02 – 0.2 sin22 = 0.02 Normal Hierarchy 30 km 100 kt-yrs separates even at 0.02 Sensitive to energy resolution: Simulation for 3%/sqrt(E) 0.2 60 km

  11. Effect of Energy Resolution • Uses the difference in spectra • Efficiency depends heavily on energy resolution Perfect E resolution E = 6%*sqrt(Evis) E, MeV E, MeV

  12. Estimation of the statistical significance • Thousands of events necessary for reliable discrimination – big detector needed • Longer baselines more sensitive to energy resolution; may be beneficial to adjust for actual detector performance Neutrino events to 1  CL < 3%: desirable but maybe unrealistic E resolution KamLAND: 0.065 MeV0.5 Detector energy resolution, MeV0.5

  13. Big picture questions in Earth Science • What drives plate tectonics? • What is the Earth’s energy budget? • What is the Th & U conc. of the Earth? • Energy source driving the Geodynamo? Geo- reactor?

  14. Earth’s Total Heat Flow • Conductive heat flow measured from bore-hole temperature gradient and conductivity Data sources Total heat flow Conventional view 441 TW Challenged recently 311 TW - ? What is the origin of the heat?

  15. Detectable >1.8 MeV n p + e- + ne Radiogenic heat and geo-neutrinos 40K-decay modes Th-decay chain 238U (“Radium”)-decay chain 2 more decay chains: 235U “Actinium” – no -decays with sufficient energy “Neptunium” – extinct by now

  16. Urey Ratio and Mantle Convection Models • Mantle convection models typically assume: mantleUrey ratio: 0.4 to 1.0, generally ~0.7 • Geochemical models predict: Urey ratio 0.4 to 0.5. radioactive heat production Urey ratio = heat loss

  17. Discrepancies? • Est. total heat flow, 44 or 31TW est. radiogenic heat production 16TW or 31TW • Where are the problems? • Mantle convection models? • Total heat flow estimates? • Estimates of radiogenic heat production rate? • Geoneutrino measurements can constrain the planetary radiogenic heat production.

  18. U and Th Distributionin the Earth • U and Th are thought to be absent from the core and present in the mantle and crust. • Core: Fe-Ni metal alloy • Crust and mantle: silicates • U and Th concentrations are the highest in the continental crust. • Continents formed by melting of the mantle. • U and Th prefer to enter the melt phase • Continental crust: insignificant in terms of mass but major reservoir for U, Th, K.

  19. Two types of crust: Oceanic & Continental Oceanic crust: single stage melting of the mantle Continental crust: multi-stage melting processes Compositionally distinct

  20. Predicted Geoneutrino Flux Continental detectors dominated by continental crust geo-neutrinos Oceanic detectors can probe the U/Th contents of the mantle Reactor Flux - irreducible background Geoneutrino flux determinations -continental (DUSEL, SNO+, LENA) -oceanic (Hanohano)

  21. Current status of geo-neutrino studies • 2005: KamLAND detected terrestrial antineutrinos • Result consistent with wide range of geological models; most consistent with 16 TW radiogenic flux • 2007: KamLAND updated geo-neutrino result • Still no reasonable models can be ruled out • KamLAND limited by reactor background; future geo-neutrino detector must be built further from reactors

  22. Requirements to the detector • Baseline on the order of 50 km; better variable for different studies • Big number of events (large detector) • For Hierarchy and m213/23: • Good to excellent energy resolution • sin2(213)  0 • No full or nearly full mixing in 12 (almost assured by SNO and KamLAND) • For Geo-neutrinos: ability to “switch off” reactor background • To probe the geo-neutrino flux from the mantle: ocean based

  23. Anti-Neutrino Detection mechanism: inverse  Key: 2 flashes, close in space and time, 2nd of known energy, eliminate background Production in reactors and natural decays Detection Evis=Eν-0.8 MeV prompt delayed Evis=2.2 MeV • Standard inverse β-decay coincidence • Eν > 1.8 MeV • Rate and precise spectrum; no direction Reines & Cowan

  24. Hanohano: engineering studies Makai Ocean Engineering • Studied vessel design up to 100 kilotons, based upon cost, stability, and construction ease. • Construct in shipyard • Fill/test in port • Tow to site, can traverse Panama Canal • Deploy ~4-5 km depth • Recover, repair or relocate, and redeploy Barge 112 m long x 23.3 wide Deployment Sketch Descent/ascent 39 min

  25. Addressing Technology Issues 20m x 35m fiducial vol. • Scintillating oil studies in lab • P=450 atm, T=0°C • Testing PC, PXE, LAB and dodecane • No problems so far, LAB (Linear AlkylBenzene) favorite… optimization underway • Implosion studies • Design with energy absorption • Computer modeling & at sea • No stoppers • Power and comm, no problems • PMT housing: Benthos glass boxes • Optical detector, prototypes OK • Need second round design 1 m oil 2m pure water

  26. Current status • Several workshops held (’04, ’05, ’06) and ideas developed • Study funds provided preliminary engineering and physics feasibility report (11/06) • Strongly growing interest in geology community • Work proceeding and collaboration in formation • Upcoming workshops in Washington DC (10/07) and Paris (12/07) for reactor monitoring • Funding request for next stage (’06) in motion • Ancillary proposals and computer studies continue

  27. Summary • Better precision for sin2(212), sin2(213) – to 2% possible with Hanohano • If sin2(213)  0: high precision measurement of m213, m223, and even mass hierarchy possible with the same detector; for sin2212 = 0.05, m213, m223 – to 1-2% (0.025-0.05x10-3 eV2) • Big ocean based detector is perfect for oscillation studies (adjustable baseline, high accuracy) and for studying geo-neutrinos, especially from the mantle • Geo-reactor hypothesis can be ultimately tested • Additional physics measurements achievable to higher precision than achieved before

More Related