1. Beginnings of MINOS AYERS ROCKS September 3, 2008 Argonne National Laboratory Stan Wojcicki

2. Outline Historical Background Early MINOS History Pre-proposal days Getting MINOS Approved Getting MINOS Built

3. View In late 80’s, early 90’s 1000 lb Gorilla Theoretical view: “Any unbiased observer who has not been “brainwashed” by recent speculations concerning supersymmetry, axions, or galaxy formation would undoubtedly conclude that the leading “suspect” in the dark matter puzzle must be the light neutrino…at the relevant mass range of 15-65 eV.” “…angle   mixes adjacent generations. It is analogous to  23 in the quark sector…. The pattern of the charged lepton mass ratios is not very much different from that of the quark mass ratios. Most theoretical models expect mixing angles to be somehow related to fermion masses.” AND

4. The Bottom Line  Possible existence of neutrino oscillations with large mixing angles was viewed with scepticism  There was also scepticism about  oscillations as explanation of solar anomaly - since large mixing angles appeared to be required pre-MSW:  “Most likely the solar neutrino problem has nothing whatsover to do with particle physics. It is a great triumph that astrophysicists are able to predict the number of B 8 neutrinos coming from the sun as well as they do, within a factor of 2 or 3.”  Quark mixing matrix and neutrino candidacy for being the dark matter explanation argued for high Δm 2, low sin 2 2   In the words of one of my colleagues: “You will at best be able to set upper limits. There is no discovery potential.”

5. sin 2 2  vs. Δm 2 ( situation re  ’s in 1990’s) Orthodoxy: Mixing angles are small Atmospheric  experiments (IMB and Kamiokande) are probably wrong One should pursue short baseline expts (CHORUS, NOMAD, COSMOS) Heresy: Theorists don’t know everything There is no evidence that IMB and Kamiokande are wrong Physics is an experimental science Long baseline experiments (Δm 2 ) may be worth pursuing after all

6. Fermilab/PAC View …any Fermilab Long Baseline experiment should have the following broad characteristics: …an acceptable sensitivity in the exclusion plot for such an experiment is Δ m 2 = 10 -2 eV 2 and sin 2 2  = 10 -2 (from a report of the Fermilab PAC, June 93 meeting)  Recommendation clearly assumed equal a priori probability everywhere and did not optimize for the study of the Kamiokande/IMB “anomaly” The Kamiokande analysis published a year earlier gave ( 0.8 x 10 -2 and 0.87 ) as best fit parameters and a 90% contour that excluded sin 2 2  0.4 and allowed Δm 2 as low as 10 -3 eV 2

7. Questions in the 90’s ( that motivated current generation LBL expts) Do neutrinos really oscillate with large mixing angles? If so, what is are the precise values of the oscillation parameters? Is the dominant oscillation mode into   ? Is there evidence for oscillation into  sterile ? How large is the oscillation mode    e ?

8. Pre-MINOS Events Main Injector workshop; study of long baseline possibilities; heavy ANL involvement P822 - use Soudan2 (Maury, Dave et al) Fermilab call for EOI’s - by 5/10/94 3 EOI’s: Soudan 2, MACRO, SGW Snowmass workshop - summer ‘94

9. Beginnings of Collaboration Fermilab approved COSMOS ( Short Baseline Experiment) and urged creation of a single LBE in the same beam line First MINOS Collaboration Meeting in September 1994 at Fermilab Many Parameters Needed to be Defined Magnet construction methodology Active Detector medium/ readout Total mass Needed to write a Proposal by February 1995

10. Proposal Many different people/groups had to contribute to the writing of the proposal What also was also needed was an editor to put together all the contributions, make decisions about different parts and translate it into English I wrote a “job description” - Peter Litchfield’s comment - “you want someone for this job who has skills of both Hitler and Shakespeare” So we asked Dave Ayres to undertake the task

11. MINOS Proposal Cover of the MINOS Proposal Dave Ayres, Editor Cover of the MINOS Proposal Dave Ayres, Editor

12. MINOS Proposal Author List The MINOS Proposal used the streamer tubes as the active detector medium and had mass of 8 kt, 3 SM’s

13. Getting MINOS Approved Getting MINOS organized (Dave Ayres appointed Deputy Spokesperson) Finalizing major detector choices Getting approved by Fermilab PAC “Shootout” vis-a-vis BNL proposal Integrating Detector and New Cavern

14. MINOS Technical Design Report (TDR) By this time the major parameters of the detectors have been decided on

15. Getting it Built There were many major challenges Probably the two major ones were: Scintillator system (light output, electronics, packaging) Installation in the Soudan cavern Dave Ayres was the key player in planning and organizing that task The detector was finished on time and below budget (veto shield)

16. Ayres Behind the Scenes Dave was the person who kept MINOS functioning. Some examples: Minutes of collaboration meetings and ExCom meetings Taking care of collaboration meetings (rooms, agenda, etc) Creating a record of all collaboration meetings (docdb of the 90’s) Bureaucratic interactions with DOE and Fermilab

17. Final Comments Jim Cronin once said that construction of a major detector needs: A promoter to deal with Labs and Agencies and do the PR Planner and manager of work who will make sure that work gets done Thank you, Dave, for your many contributions that made MINOS possible SGW Doug, Dave