1. EUROnu Review: 14 th April 2011 EUROnu Introduction and Objectives Neutrino oscillations: much interest since 1 st paper in 1998 - extension required to SM - possible explanation of matter-antimatter asymm. - contribution to dark matter - may bring explanation of hierarchy problem - etc Many projects World-wide to make new measurements Much theoretical interest In Europe:CNGS T2K Double Chooz etc Despite these, full picture looks to require new facilities conventional Super-Beams Neutrino Factory Beta Beam

2. EUROnu Review: 14 th April 2011 EUROnu Introduction and Objectives Much interest in Europe in these facilities Possible to host both accelerators and detectors: Accelerators: CERN & RAL Detectors: many places – see LAGUNA DS! Prior to EUROnu: work undertaken largely independently EUROnu created to: - bring together groups working on facilities - undertake crucial R&D on accelerators - compare performance, “cost”, safety and risk in same framework - report results to CERN Council + elsewhere Aim is that all of EUROnu (+ others) continue to next step

3. EUROnu Review: 14 th April 2011 EUROnu Introduction and Objectives Work package No Work package titleType of activity Lead participant No Person- months Start month End month 1Management and Knowledge Dissemination MGT192148 2Super-BeamRTD2333148 3Neutrino FactoryRTD5282148 4Beta BeamRTD3295148 5Detector Performance RTD4199148 6Physics ReachRTD6206148 TOTAL1407

4. EUROnu Review: 14 th April 2011 WP2: Super-Beam Conventional Super-Beam: - similar to existing beams - but higher beam power and bigger detectors Particular focus in EUROnu: CERN to Frejus

5. EUROnu Review: 14 th April 2011 WP2: Super-Beam Coordination: CEA C EA & CNRS STFC CNRS STFC & CUT CEA

6. EUROnu Review: 14 th April 2011 WP3: Neutrino Factory Detector 1: ~7000km Detector 2: ~4000km

7. EUROnu Review: 14 th April 2011 WP3: Neutrino Factory Work being done in close collaboration with International Design Study for a Neutrino Factory STFC Warwick STFC, CERN, Imperial, UOXF.DL, Warwick Coordination: Imperial STFC, Imperial STFC, CERN, Imperial

8. EUROnu Review: 14 th April 2011 WP4: Beta Beam Studied in EURISOL FP6 DS Looked at 6He and 18Ne – but couldn’t make enough Ne EUROnu: 8Li and 8B; increase 18Ne production Plus bunching, capture, acceleration and decay ring

9. EUROnu Review: 14 th April 2011 WP4: Beta Beam Coordination: CERN CERN INFN, UCL CNRS CEA, CERN

10. EUROnu Review: 14 th April 2011 WP5: Detectors Study only performance and cost of baseline detectors Includes both near and far detectors Neutrino Factory: Magnetised Iron Neutrino Detector iron (3 cm) + scintillators (2cm) beam 15 m B=1 T 50-100kT 50-100 m Coordination: Glasgow Glasgow, CSIC

11. EUROnu Review: 14 th April 2011 WP5: Detectors Super-Beam and baseline Beta Beam: Water Cherenkov, in particular MEMPHYS Paris 7 EuroNu, RAL, 19 January 2011 65m 60m MEMPHYS 440 kt

12. EUROnu Review: 14 th April 2011 WP5: Detectors Near detectors: - measure flux and beam composition - measure cross-sections - measure charm background - do physics Glasgow, UniSofia

13. EUROnu Review: 14 th April 2011 WP6: Physics Reach Brings together information from other work packages Treats it independently and consistently Physics performance Optimisation Systematic uncertainties Physics comparison CSIC, UDUR, INFN, MPG Coordination: CSIC CSIC, UDUR, INFN, MPG CSIC, INFN, MPG CSIC, CERN, UDUR, INFN

14. EUROnu Review: 14 th April 2011 Associates CountryAssociate CanadaTRIUMF FranceGANIL GermanyAachen GSI IndiaINO IsraelWeizmann PortugalLisbon RussiaIAP, Novgorad JINR, Dubna SwitzerlandGeneva UKBrunel USAArgonne Brookhaven FNAL Virginia Tech Muon Collaboration Have not signed GA. Not required to deliver EUROnu obligations. Interested in and contributing knowledge and work to the project. Some funds to allow attendance at EUROnu meeting.

15. EUROnu Review: 14 th April 2011 Costing Requirement is to do relative cost estimate of facilities Best accuracy within resources available Costing panel has been created Work so far: - existing CERN costing tool being used - use existing costs where possible - common WBS - WBS for WP2-5 quite advanced Workshop in May: - finalise WBS - start entering information in costing tool. Costing done in common way to improve relative error

16. EUROnu Review: 14 th April 2011 Safety and Risk Safety assessment: - no point in designing facility if can’t build it! Main safety issues of facilities identified Only time to look at large structures, e.g. target stations Implication of safety on cost and/or performance assessed Safety panel created - safety workshop in June Technical risk – will come out of R&D At the end of EUROnu: - some hardware R&D projects not finished - new hardware R&D identified by DS - some performance unknown Result to be entered in risk register - implications on cost and/or performance included

17. EUROnu Review: 14 th April 2011 Objectives ObjectiveDelivery date Define facility comparison criteria18 Undertake interim facility performance for Project Review 36 Produce a reference design of each facility42 Undertake a physics and cost comparison46 Write a design report for each facility and publish outcome 48

18. EUROnu Review: 14 th April 2011 Criteria Physics performance – sensitivity to - θ 13 - sign of Δm 2 23 - δ CP - unless θ 13 measured, will be done in ranges of θ 13 Relative cost Safety and implications on cost and/or performance Technical risk and implications on cost and/or performance In principle, figure-of-merit based on these possible Unlikely to be helpful!

19. EUROnu Review: 14 th April 2011 Conclusions EUROnu has brought together EU and world groups working on next generation of neutrino facilities - CERN to Frejus Super-Beam - Neutrino Factory - CERN based Beta Beam Focus on crucial R&D for each Aim is to do a comparison Report results to policy making bodies in Europe and World Help to determine next steps for neutrino physics Work is progressing well All objectives will be met by end of project