LBL Oscillation Physics @WIN05 H. Minakata (Tokyo Metropolitan U.)

n oscillatory behavior has been seen! SK K2K KamLAND WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

What is left #1: q13 (There are 2 ways) LBL vs. reactor WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

What is left #2:  mass hierarchy WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

What is left #3: CP violation Shoichi Sakata Ziro Maki Lepton-quark correspondence ? Relation to cosmic baryon number? WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

Closest possibility: J-PARC phase II T2K phase-I: The unique LBL experiment funded ! JPARC accelerator upgraded to 4MW Hyper-Kamiokande of 1 Mton (fiducial volume = 0.54 Mton) WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

There are competitive ideas/plans, e.g., NOA High-gamma beta beam WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

For me it is natural to think about J-PARC phase II project for many reasons, but it has a serious problem… WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

A half of the sensitivity region is obscured O. Yasuda, @NOON04 WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

Why so much ambiguity by sign(Dm2) degeneracy? The reason is: Large d2 - d1 (= p/2 ~ p) in overlapping region of different-sign Dm2 ==> CPC-CPV confusion One has to solve sign-degeneracy to determine  WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

T2KK, or Resolving neutrino mass hierarchy and CP degeneracy by Komioka-Korea twin Hyper-Kamiokande Based on: M. Ishitsuka, T. Kajita, HM, H. Nunokawa, hep-ph/0504026

There are cultural, philosophical, diplomatic, string-theoretical reasons for T2KK apart from scientific ones WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

Korea is booming in Japan ! 韓流ブーム WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

Korea is booming in Japan continued WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

Current design of Hyper-Kamiokande contains 2 tanks ! Why don’t you bring one of the 2 tanks to Korea? WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

Yes, we are the neighbours Taken from Hagiwara et al. WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

Sign confusion in Korea is as severe as in Kamioka WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

Where is the right place? How different are P’s of 2 degenerate solutions @Kamioka WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

What is the difference: 1st-1st OM WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

What is the difference: 1st-2nd OM Energy dependence far more dynamic at 2nd OM ! WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

high-E(1st-1st OM) vs. low-E(1st-2nd OM) WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

Spectral information solves degeneracy WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

T2K(0.54 Mt) vs. T2KK(0.27+0.27 Mt)  WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

T2K(0.54 Mt) vs. T2KK(0.27+0.27 Mt)  WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

T2KK can resolve  mass hierarchy keeping CP sensitivity thick: 3 thin: 2 WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

Power of 2 identical detectors Systematic errors cancel between 2 HK ! Modest requirement of 5% systematic errors is enough to guarantee the great sensitivity to CP violation and  mass hierarchy ! WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

Results insensitive to systematic error ! WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

T2KK vs. NOA; mass hierarchy thick: 3 thin: 2 T2K II WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

T2KK vs. NOA; CP thick: 3 thin: 2 WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

T2KK vs. super-NOA; mass hierarchy 95% CL dashed/ solid w/o proton D thick: 3 thin: 2 Mena-Palomares-Ruiz-Pascoli; L2nd=200 km WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

Conclusion People started to explore various 2 detector setups for determining CP & mass hierarchy in the context of conventional  superbeam There are two options; 1st-1st OM and 1st-2nd OM. They differ in  spectral properties => require different strategy T2KK improves the original T2K II proposal with no extra cost by adding ability to determine mass hierarchy while keeping sensitivity to CP violation WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

Supplementary sheets WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

2 and background 5% errors are assumed WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

Events vs. selections Dm2=2.5x10-3eV2,sin22q13=0.1 Mine@NP04 workshop (events / 22.5kt / 5yrs) nmCC BG nmNC beam ne ne(CC) Signal FCFV, Evis>100 2849 1082 248 290 1R 1313(46%) 277(26%) 114(46%) 243(84%) e-like 51(1.8%) 219(20%) 111(45%) 240(83%) no decay-e 15(0.5%) 195(18%) 92(37%) 222(77%) 0.35<Enrec<0.85 2.2(0.1%) 58(5%) 27(11%) 173(60%) DL<80,M<100,cos<0.9 12±0.8(0.3%) 16±0.4(6%) 122±3(42%) (stat.) (stat.) (stat.) (old p0 fitter: 12 15 109) WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata

Stability of the results WIN05, June 6-11 Hisakazu Minakata