Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel ISS-detectors present standing challenges admin. and methodology

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel The status of detector studies was summarized very nicely by Paolo Strolin in his NUFACT04 and NUFACT05 talks

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel A kton magnetised iron detector à la Monolith Monolith concept by P. Picchi and collaborators taken up for the India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO) (talk by N.K. Mondal) → atmospheric neutrinos, in future -factories Investigations started with Monolith to be taken up again: detector performance studies, comparison horizontal vs vertical iron plates, design optimisation, comparison with other detectors, …..

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel INO ~7000 km (Magic distance)

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel 10 liters prototype liquid argon TPC has been tested in 0.5 T at ETHZ A. Rubbia   e    wrong sign electron! ¨Platinum channel!

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel near detector and beam instrumentation

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel Neutrino fluxes  + -> e + e   / e ratio reversed by switching     e   spectra are different No high energy tail. Very well known flux (  ) -- E&   calibration from muon spin precession -- angular divergence: small effect if  < 0.2/  -- absolute flux measured from muon current or by  e  ->   e in near expt. -- in triangle ring, muon polarization precesses and averages out (preferred, -> calib of energy, energy spread) Similar comments apply to beta beam, except spin 0  Energy and energy spread have to be obtained from the properties of the storage ring (Trajectories, RF volts and frequency, etc…)  polarization controls e flux:  + -X> e in forward direction is that all true?

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel Towards a comparison of performances on equal footing CP violation example = A CP  sin    solar term… sin  sin (  m 2 12 L/4E) sin   P( e   ) - P( e   ) P( e   ) + P( e   ) Near detector should give e diff. cross-section*flux BUT:need to know  and  diff. cross-section and detection efficiency with small (relative) systematic errors. interchange role of e and  for superbeam in case of beta-beam one will need a superbeam at the same energy. Will it be possible to measure the required cross sections with the required accuracy at low energies with a WBB? What is the role of the difference in mass between electron and muons? how well can we predict it? In case of sub-GeV superbeam alone how can one deal with this?

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel d  /d  e,e’  E e  E e’  Enegy transfer (GeV) E e = MeV Blue: Fermi-gas Green: SP Red: SP+FSI QE  Zeller These are for electron beam. errors are ~5-10% but what happens when a muon mass is involved?

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel The output of the scoping study will be a report in which:  The physics case for the facility is defined;  A baseline design for the accelerator complex, or, for some subsystems, the programme required to arrive at a baseline design, is identified;  The baseline designs for the neutrino detection systems are identified; and  The research-and-development programme required to deliver the baseline design is described. In achieving its primary goal, the scoping study will have three objectives to:  Evaluate the physics case for a second-generation super-beam, a beta-beam facility and the Neutrino Factory and to present a critical comparison of their performance;  Evaluate the various options for the accelerator complex with a view to defining a baseline set of parameters for the sub-systems that can be taken forward in a subsequent conceptual-design phase; and to  Evaluate the options for the neutrino detection systems with a view to defining a baseline set of detection systems to be taken forward in a subsequent conceptual-design phase. the following was written in the proposal comments?

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel The real aim: to prepare a funding request for three years of detector R&D leading to having substantially progressed in the performance of detectors that one could realistically propose at that date, in the direction that is most profitable for physics. $€£¥CHF NB the nice thing with neutrino beams is that one can have more than one detector on the same beam line!

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel Organization Detector ‘council’ (i.e. steering group) role: ensure basic organization, and monitors progress wrt objectives Interim group: Alain Blondel (Geneva) Alan Bross (Fermilab) Kenji Kaneyuki (ICRR) Paolo Strolin (INFN) Paul Soler (Glasgow) (po Dave Wark) someone missing?

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel Organization: II working groups working groups as of Paolo Strolin’s presentation at NUFACT05 Large Water Cherenkov detector (Working group exists: UNO+Frejus+HK) Magnetized segmented detector old studies exist. Need revisiting in many ways. Liquid Argon detector in fact there are two known cases -- Larg for Neutrino factory -- Larg for superbeam/beta-beam Emulsion detector Active Scintillator detector/Low Z calorimeter (see segmented detector) … … … need a contact person that organizes the practical basics of the work (Phone conferences, web page, edition of report, etc…)

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel More working groups: Near detectors and flux control (beam instrumentation) (many people are attending NUINT this week-end) technology group photodetectors, scintillators, etc… will be included in each detector working group as they see fit. General interest presentations in detector working group meeting. connection with physics group Mezetto something missing? Organization III 5

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel Methodology not unique… we try to optimize physics reach/€$£¥. Is the following naive approach the right one? 1.start with detector that could realistically be undertaken today and of which cost is relatively well known (Water Cherenkov of the size of SuperK, MINOS, OPERA, ICARUS) 2. produce a cost model as a function of key physics-related design parameters (in the process identify those) possible ex for Water Cherenkov: number or size of phototubes total fiducial mass 3. identify the physics drivers (muon and electron threshold for ID and sign) and the cost drivers (number of channels, mass?) 4. proceed to optimize physics reach -- within a given cost envelope or cost for a given physics reach? 5. look at result. Is R&D needed, how long and how difficult. define a program that allows to extend reach in the desired direction. maybe the starting point is too constraining? should we start from the ‘ideal’ detector and go back down to earth?

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel Other important jobs: --communicate with the physics group and get them to work for us by asking questions. ex. What would be the gain in physics reach of a neutirno factory if the detector could see muons down to 1.5 GeV. Would the optimization of the accelerator: baseline, muon energy etc… change? what would happen if one could do the platinum channel (wrong sign electrons) -- evaluate the need for simulation tools -- what exists, what more would be needed.

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel Combination of beta beam with super beam combines CP and T violation tests e   (  +) (T)    e (  + ) (CP) e   (  -) (T)    e (  - )

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel Superbeam+Betabeam option 1.What is the importance of the superbeam in this scheme? T violation? increased sensitivity? have a (known) source of muon neutrinos for reference? 2. At which neutrino energy can one begin to use the event energy distribution? Fermi motion and resolution issues. is there a good model for this? What is the impact of muon Cherenkov threshold? 3.What is the best distance from the source? What is the effect of changing the beta-beam and superbeam energy? (event rates, backgrounds, ability to use dN/dE ) Should energy remain adjustable after the distance choice? 4, what is the relationship between beta-beam energy vs intensity? 5. What is really the cost of the detector? what PM coverage is needed as function of energy and distance.

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel -- Neutrino Factory -- CERN layout --    e + e   _ interacts giving   oscillates e     interacts giving    WRONG SIGN MUON Golden Channel p/ s  s =  yr e  yr   yr  yr target! cooling! acceleration! also (unique!) e      Silver channel

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel Lindner et al newer plot should come out of NUFACT05 and scoping study ……………………………………degeneracies correlations systematics.  beam + SPL3.5 SB+Mton approval date: ~NOvA +PD

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel What happens to this at high    if -- two baselines are considered and -- a threshold of 1.5 GeV for wrong sign muons is imposed on the 3000 km det -- and there is a 4kton tau detector at the 3000 km station?

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel Degeneracies Stephano Rigolin: P. Huber’s plots assume: 4 GeV threshold, only golden channel.  Experimenters need to provide characteristics of tau detectors and think about efficiency for wrong sign muons at low energies.

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel Questions for Neutrino Factory experiments: 1.Do we REALLY NEED TWO far locations at two different distances? Muon momentum cut at 4 GeV cuts 2d max info km  1st osc. max at 6 GeV and 2d max at 2 GeV. Muon momentum cut at 4 GeV cuts 2d max info. Can this be improved? 3.Can we eliminate all degenracies by combination of energy distribution and analysis of different channels (tau, muon, electron, both signs, NC…) 4.what are the systematics on flux control? (CERN YR claims ) 5. optimal muon ENERGY? Cost of study II was 1500M$ + 400M$*E/20

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel Message to Physics group the detector group is challenged by trying to -- improve the golden channel by lowering the muon detection threshold -- achieve the platinum channel (wrong sign electrons) the physics potential of such improvements should be investigated. -- understand the near detector requirements for the CP/matter effect measurements. input from theorists will be welcome on this!

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel What we must achieve in this meeting: 1.agree on the working groups 2.identify one person who is in charge of assembling each W-group 3.make a preliminary definition of the tasks for the next meeting 4.begin a list of questions to the physics group see Alan Bross’s talk tomorrow to see what we have achieved!

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel Next ISS meetings KEK January 2006, RAL April 2006 (TBC, associated with a BENE meeting) Irvine California August 2006 just before NUFACT06