CERN restrict meeting, November 26 th 2013 Luca Stanco for the NESSiE Collaboration (Neutrino Experiment with SpectrometerS in Europe) Currently the following Institutions are members of NESSiE: -6 italian groups: Bari, Bologna,Frascati, Lecce, Padova, Roma1 -2 russian groups: SINP-MSU, Lebedev-LPI -1 Zagreb (Croatia) Around 65 physicists plus engineers and technicians Observers: -Strasbourg (France) -Hamburg (Germany) -Napoli (Itay) Collaboration All these groups have long experience in Neutrino Physics and Hardware (Chorus, Macro, Nomad, Opera, T2K …)

2 On the quest for the BLACK SWANs Taleb Nassim, “The Black Swan”, 2007 Ex-statistician, now a very rich person, by applying his theory of Risk Analysis to Financial World if you did not see ever any black swan, does it mean that they do not exist ?

3 In Neutrino Physics we may face a more complicate version: in case they exist, is there more than one species ? And our community own several opinions: -Only one type of Black Swan exists -Looking for more is equivalent to suspect that Flying Donkeys exist even if anybody never saw -How to look for them ? with this ?or like that ?

4 In any case, everybody knows that Risk-Analysis is a touchy and subtle operation. or Pay attention to avoid this situation Looking in the wrong direction Looking all in the same direction

Some facts: 1.Leptonic Flavor investigation should be a MUST for the HEP future 2.CPV is “in our hands” given the ”large” value of  13 3.It may be a long shot, and it might be difficult to have more than ONE Big Project 4.Contemporary R&D and even other Physics programs are mandatory 5.An SBL program may be a good possibility, with measurements of - e /  appearance/disappearance and neutrino cross-sections 6.Under Gran Sasso there are equipments 10 M€ valued to be perfectly usable, with a relative modest investment, for Spectrometers Spectrometers at a neutrino beam. Extended studies: -SPSC-P-343, arXiv: SPSC-P347, arXiv: ESPP, arXiv: LOI CENF: -L. Stanco et al., AHEP 2013 (2013) ID , arXiv: v2 Note: increasing consensus in the Community that Spectrometer(s) are needed either for SBL or LBL 5

Two Iron spectrometers (ICM), t, composed by: 48 yoke blocks,, 4.5 x 0.6 x 1 m, 25t 480 slabs, 2 – 3 t, 1.25m x 3.5–6 m m 2 of RPC «sandwich style» assembly to be made in situ, one piece per time 20,000+12,000 digital channels Two ACM preassembled and installed in one shot Precision Trackers preassembled and installed in one shot Near Nessie movable aside on air-pad MW, 10 kA, power (summed up for ACM and ICM) NESSiE Initial Design ICM ACM Optimized ! Reduced by about a factor of 2 !!! 6

7 Excerpt from ESPP CERN strategy, final document approved on May , Endorsed by CERN Council at the end of June.: High-priority large-scale scientific activities: (c-d-e-f) Following the outcome of the European Strategy Group, CERN committed us to start an R&D program for Neutrino Physics, in sinergy with LBL (USA or Japan), while waiting for a granted SBL beam Another fact:

8 WA104 (NESSiE) CENF/CERN SBL/FNAL NeDe/LBNE (from recent P5 DG presentation)

Which scenarios ? (1)Use OPERA Spectrometers to explore 1-2 orders of magnitude in   disappearance (Need CENF-like  beam, or new tunnels/caverns in NuMI) (1)Use NESSiE-original (ICM+ACM) plus a target (LAr or Scintillators) to also measure NC, and cross-sections (Need CENF-like  beam for Physics Enough FNAL Booster just for cross-sections) (1)Use large-ACM superconducting in LAr (5x3x2) to couple ACM and target. ICM also present, for Physics. How much R&D ? (Need Charged Beams,  beams for Physics as in (2)) (2)Use LAr tank of order 100 ton, with magnetized SC-ACM, and/or ACM-sa Prototype useful for one of the LNBE-Nears (Need Charged Beams, need CENF-like  beam and T600 for Physics) 9

SBL  disappearance search (*) - Focus the physics goal to gain an order of magnitude in  disappearance limit at eV scale for  m 2 - Set the issue of using only iron magnets, with a small scintillator target to measure NC - Define a way to extract oscillation by using a new variable (*) LS et al.: AHEP 2013 (2013) ID , arXiv: v2. 10 Scenario (1)

11 Non oscillation hypothesis is tested with a  2 test to a flat (= 1) distribution New variable: log 10 (1/E) Double ratio (F/N) data / (F/N) no-osci SPECTROMETERS ONLY…  beam anti-  beam 11

T2K, end 2012, ND, data vs Simulation, Part of Scenario (2)

13 Re-arrangement using OPERA Spectrs NESSiE Footprints NEAR SiteFAR Site Height (along y)5.47 m6.65 m Length (along z)10.06 m Transverse (along x)9.75 m13.5 m

14 Conductor: Al Coil Cross Section 72x72 mm 2 Hole (cooling) = 30 mm  Ø B=0.12T NESSiE ACM NEAR SiteFAR Site Nb of coils3951 Conductor Length/coil14,8 m22,3 m Power230 kW450 kW Compare e.g. with ISS-Detectors, 14

15 Sensitivities for the present NESSiE configuration (full simulation, with neutrino beam) Charge ID Momentum measured by range (ICM) up to 3.5 GeV, then ACM and ICM provide ≈30% Momentum Best, ever, sensitivity for  detection with similar apparata over large area (and few MCHF cost) (goal ≥ 250 MeV)

16 However recent developments on SuperConducting cables or even the use of SC coils à la ATLAS allow us to think to a different approach in magnetization. R&D on magnetization of LAr tank: Pros: - best detector for both muons and electrons - similar Near and Far detector sites for the LBNE project - couple ACM with target Cons: - structural forces (depending of the magnetic field) - insulation structures - cost ? - long way ?

17 R&D planning: 1) Prototype ACM-warm (conditionally funded by INFN) 2) Tracking Detectors in Magnetic Field R&D 3) Evaluation ACM-cold 4) Collaboration with LAr activities/groups

18 CONCLUSION/VISION 1.Neutrino Physics is a MUST for Particle Physics (neutrino mass, Majorana/Fermi, astroparticle connection, window for BSM) 2.CERN/Europe should be a MAJOR actor (facilities, past experience, major partner in the Global picture) 3.Large and experienced community (knowledge, motivation, largeness) 4.A Global Coherent Strategy is MANDATORY (increasing bigness of the experiments) 5.Prioritization or Compromise ? (multi-year projects, limited resources)

Thank you ! 19

20 Backup slides

B ( Gauss ) LAr ACM (z = m) z (beam axis, m) 22 Gauss Fringe Magnetic Field upstream the ACM – No shielding 10

0.7 Gauss Fringe Magnetic Field upstream the ACM – With shielding B ( Gauss ) LAr ACM (z = m) z (beam axis, m) 11

Shielding 2 iron slabs (5 cm thick) 1 Vacoflux-50 slab (1 cm thick) Vacoflux = Colbalt-Iron Alloy with maximum saturation at 2.35 T y z 12

New configuration (to be optimized) Iron Core Magnet => 1 higher iron slab (50 cm thick) y 13 z y (m)

New configuration (to be optimized) Iron Core Magnet => 1 higher iron slab (50 cm thick) 14 LAr ACM (z = m) z (beam axis, m)

In the first design the power consuption was P NEAR = 600 kWP FAR = 1630 kW The design was optimized in order to reduce the power consuption but keeping the required muon charge ID Full cross section = 72 x 72 mm 2 Cooling hole  = 30 mm=> Conductor cross-sectionS = 4477 mm 2 Coil length L = 17.2 m Coil number N = 39  Al =  mm 2 / m I =8100 A=>B = 0.12 T P NEAR = N I 2  Al L /S = 270 kW ( P FAR = 760 kW ) Power/Spending review NESSiE – WA104 16

27 OPERA re-use (under pressure of SPSC and INFN) 2 Spectrometers “available”, with Detectors and Servicing Possibility to full re-use for Far AND Near ICM Need two new sets of Yokes (Top & Bottom) new Electronics for RPC Mechanical Tools PT detectors Scintillators Other: ACMs Under discussion in OPERA: possible start dismantling begin 2015

MONEY estimation and Opera endowment Iron magnets: in-kind value 5940 K€ (from OPERA MoU) Cost for transportation to CERN and refurbishing: 3000 K€ In-kind value of Precision Tracker: 1900 K€ possible refurbishing: 700 K€ In-kind value of Scintillators: 1900 K€ possible refurbishing: 300 K€ Cost ACM: 1000 (Near) (Far) TOTAL: = 6 M€ ACM-FAR might be staged at 2 nd phase (after LS2) ACM-NEAR, including R&D, designs, certifications 28 (dismantling in 2015)

Top view Side view

30 Booster Beam (at 700 m) (realistic simulation with fluxes, cross-sections, GEANI 2.6) FNAL options under investigation

Muon momentum distribution Positive polarity (compare all) 22/11/ The spectrum at FNAL is softer than CERN but the rate including the numi off- axis are comparable. In positive polarity the anti-nu from from defocused mesons are small The various component test different L/E

32 New Beam for LBNE (at 700 m) (fluxes comparison, to be evaluated for the LBL-Near Detector)