1. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Future accelerator neutrino beams for Europe 1. where do we stand? 2. possible options 2.1CERN LHC injector upgrade and CNGS+ 2.2 SPL Superbeam 2.3 Beta-beam baseline and new ideas 2.4 Neutrino factory how do they compare 3. outlook NB: status as of NUFACT06+ ISS

2. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel There are today THREE compelling and firmly established observational facts that the Standard Model fails to account for: -- neutrino masses -- the existence of dark matter -- the baryon asymmetry of the universe The fact that neutrino have masses and mix is established by neutrino oscillations The neutrino masses offer a chance to explain the baryon asymmetry in the most natural way via *** LEPTOGENESIS *** by a combination of -- fermion number violation (authorized by neutrino masses and GUT) -- three families of neutrinos ==> leptonic CP violation (authorized by the mixing of three families with large mixing angles)

3. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel

4. 1.We know that there are three families of active, light neutrinos (LEP) 2.Solar neutrino oscillations are established (Homestake+Gallium+Kam+SK+SNO+KamLAND) 3.Atmospheric (   ) oscillations are established (IMB+Kam+SK+Macro+Sudan+K2K) 4.At that frequency, electron neutrino oscillations are small (CHOOZ) This allows a consistent picture with 3-family oscillations    ~30 0  m 12 2 ~8 10 -5 eV 2    ~45 0  m 23 2 ~ 2.5 10 -3 eV 2    ~ 10 0 with several unknown parameters    mass hierarchy Where are we? *)to set the scale: CP violation in quarks was discovered in 1964 and there is still an important program (K0pi0, B-factories, Neutron EDM, LHCb, BTeV….) to go on for >>10 years…i.e. a total of >50 yrs. and we have not discovered leptonic CP yet! 5. LSND ? (  miniBooNe) This result is not consistent with three families of neutrinos oscillating, and is not supported (nor is it completely contradicted) by other experiments. If confirmed, this would be even more exciting See Barger et al PRD 63 033002 Where do we go? leptonic CP & T violations => an exciting experimental program for at least 25 years *)

5. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel The neutrino mixing matrix: 3 angles and a phase  Unknown or poorly known even after approved program:  13, phase , sign of  m 13 OR?  m 2 23 = 2 10 -3 eV 2  m 2 12 = 8 10 -5 eV 2        23  (atmospheric) = 45 0,  12  (solar) = 32 0,  13  (Chooz) < 13 0 2  m 2 12 = 8 10 -5 eV 2  m 2 23 = 2 10 -3 eV 2

6. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Kayser -- EPS05 Accelerator neutrinos are CENTRAL to the future program.

7. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel

8. An ambitious neutrino programme is a distinct, exciting possibility, but we must be well prepared to have a good proposal in time for the big decision period in 2010 (Funding window: 2011-2020) Avenues that have been identified as promising: a) Off axis Superbeam (T2HK, NOvA, NOvA2, CNGS+?) b) SuperBeam + Beta-Beam + Megaton detector (SB+BB+MD) c) Neutrino Factory (NuFact) + magnetic detector (100kton) The physics abilities of the neutrino factory seem superior in particular for flux & normalisation but….. « what is the realistic time scale? » (Hardware) cost estimate of a neutrino factory ~1B€ + detectors. This needs to be verifed and ascertained on a localized scenario (CERN, RAL…) and accounting. The cost of a (BB+SB+MD) is not very different, though perhaps lower Cost/physics performance/feasibility comparison needed

9. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel = A CP  sin    solar term… sin  sin (  m 2 12 L/4E) sin   … need large values of sin    m 2 12 (LMA) but *not* large sin 2   … need APPEARANCE … P( e  e ) is time reversal symmetric (reactor s do not work) … can be large (30%) for suppressed channel (one small angle vs two large) at wavelength at which ‘solar’ = ‘atmospheric’ and for e  ,  … asymmetry is opposite for e   and e   P( e   ) - P( e   ) P( e   ) + P( e   ) CP violation P( e   ) = ¦A¦ 2 +¦S¦ 2 + 2 A S sin  P( e   ) = ¦A¦ 2 +¦S¦ 2 - 2 A S sin   An interference phenomenon:

10. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel 3-family oscillations: I There will be   ↔ e and  ↔ e oscillation at L atm P (   ↔ e ) max =~ ½ sin 2 2  13 +… (small) II There will be CP or T violation CP: P (   ↔ e ) ≠ P (   ↔ e  T : P (   ↔ e ) ≠ P ( e ↔   III we do not know if the neutrino  which contains more e is the lightest one (natural?) or not. Oscillation maximum 1.27  m 2 L / E =  /2 Atmospheric  m 2 = 2.5 10 -3 eV 2 L = 500 km @ 1 GeV Solar  m 2 = 7 10 -5 eV 2 L = 18000km @ 1 GeV Oscillations of 250 MeV neutrinos; P (   ↔ e )

11. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Mezzetto L=  /2.54 E/  m  l =  /2.54 E/  m  Three family oscillations look at    e oscillation

12. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel T asymmetry for sin  = 1 0.1 0 0.3 0 1010 3030 9090 ! asymmetry is a few % and requires excellent flux normalization (neutrino fact., beta beam or off axis beam with not-too- near near detector ) NOTES: 1. sensitivity is more or less independent of  13 down to max. asymmetry point 2. This is at first maximum! Sensitivity at low values of  13 is better for short baselines, sensitivity at large values of  13 is better for longer baselines (2d max or 3d max.) 3.sign of asymmetry changes with max. number. error Asymmetry

13. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Neutrino Beams in Europe -- potential LHC injector upgrade -- CNGS and upgrade considerations -- Superbeams from proton driver SPL -- other -- beta-beams -- neutrino factory -- towards FP7 design studies

14. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Upgrade of the proton accelerator complex at CERN Protons Accelerators for the Future (PAF) WG Present chain: weak link in Linac 2 and in the PS (old!)

15. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Priority is given to LHC and efforts should be made to incorporate the demands of the High intensity neutrino programme the cheapest way to LHC luminosity consolidation is to -- implement the LINAC 4 and replace the CERN PS Step I : replace linac 2 by Linac 4 increase injection rate no major improvement for neutrinos ~2011

16. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Step II: new PS2 (5-50 GeV) PS remains in operation for injection at 5 GeV in PS2 possible increase of SPS intensity --> CNGS+ ~2015 Priority is given to LHC and efforts should be made to incorporate the demands of the High intensity neutrino programme the cheapest way to LHC luminosity consolidation is to -- implement the LINAC 4 and replace the CERN PS

17. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Step III: New SPL (or RCS) to ~5 GeV inject directly in PS2 Multi-MW oportunity @~5 GeV no date yet (i.e. a few more years)

18. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Intensity increase to CNGS? can one launch an off axis programme similar to T2K and NUMI-off-axis? -- present neutrino beam optimized for High energy (tau appearance) ==> factor >~10 less flux at off axis energy than T2K -- no near detector! A.Rubbia et al, A. Ball et al, have proposed a low energy version of CNGS with different target and more compact optics, run off axis (E  ~800 MeV for C2GT, 1.5-2 GeV GeV for Larg A. Ball et al(C2GT) CERN-PH-EP-2006-002 A. Rubbia, P. Sala JHEP 0209 (2002) 004[arXiv:hep-ph/0207084]. A. Meregaglia and A. Rubbia hep-ph/0609106

19. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel target and horn 1.5 Mton of water in the Golf of Taranto for 25 10 19 pot = 5yrs C2GT off axis 2d maximum detector module --> sensitivity (90%) to sin 2  13 = 0.0076

20. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel

21. hep-ph/0609106Imagine: 100 kton Larg detector at 0.75 0 off-axis 850 km (1st max) -->   search or 1.5 0 off-axis 1050 km 2d max CP violation and matter effect or sharing 1st and 2d maximum assume all of 50 GeV 200 kW PS2 accelerated to 400 GeV ==> CNGS+ = 30 10 19 pot/year <-- sensitivity sin 2 2  13 ~ 10 -3 (2026) 5years

22. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel thanks to and running, sensitivity to and matter effects example (90%)for ‘known hierarchy’ (assume that hierarchy is given by comparison with another expt)

23. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel   e physics at CNGS+? Basic issues to solve: 1. no near detector --> no knowledge of absolute cross sections (at osc. max there are no  to normalize…) difficult to measure absolute rates of   e and to compare vs or different energies for CP or matter effect 2. modifications of CNGS beam line are necessary. possible? perhaps easier to build new dk tunnel -- with adequate length and near detector. then why keep the same direction? 3. can SPS really handle 4x more protons? 4. 100 kton Larg or 1Mton water are large investments -- may be they deserve better!

24. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel LINAC4--> PS2: an opportunity for MultiMW physics Eventually the PS should be phased out completely: need for a machine that bridges 1.4 (booster) to 5 GeV, or better 0.16 Linac4 to 5 GeV (PS2) Superconducting Proton Liac or Rapid Cycling Synchrotron both fast cycling (O(10-50 Hz). potentially a high power machine serving -- LHC -- neutrinos -- nuclear physics (Eurisol) for neutrino physics: conventional p decay superbeam proton driver for neutrino factory

25. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Super-beams: SPL-Frejus TRE CERN SPL LSM-Fréjus Near detector 130km

26. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel SPL (2.2 GeV) superbeam 20m decay tunnel single open horn, L Hg target Low energy --> low Kaon rate better controlled e contamination

27. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel 2 years run to 440 ktonFrejus E  MeV small cross-sections limited sensitivity ( sin 2 2  13 ~ 210 -3 ) near detector design? Main technical issues -- 50 Hz horn operation -- handling of 4 MW in target and environment.

28. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel CERN:  -beam baseline scenario PS Decay Ring ISOL target & Ion source SPL Cyclotrons, linac or FFAG Decay ring B = 5 T L ss = 2500 m SPS ECR Rapid cycling synchrotron Nuclear Physics Same detectors as Superbeam ! target! Stacking! neutrinos of E max =~600MeV

29. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel 3.5 GeV SPL  beam -- low proton energy: no Kaons  e background is low --region below pion threshold (low bkg from pions) but: low event rate and uncertainties on cross-sections

30. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Combination of beta beam with super beam combines CP and T violation tests e   (  +) (T)    e (  + ) (CP) e   (  -) (T)    e (  - )

31. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Eurisol baseline Study CERN site (use PS and SPS as are) -- could benefit from PS2 Max.  ion in CERN SPS is 450 GeV Z/M ion  = 150 for 6 He,  = 250 for 18 Ne ==> E  eV 2.9*10 18 /yr anti- e from 6 He Or 1.1*10 18 /yr e from 18 Ne (10 17 with avail. tech.) race track (one baseline) or triangle (2 base lines) so far study CERN--> Fréjus (130km) longer baseline ~ 2-300km would be optimal + moderate cost: ion sources, 450 GeV equiv. storage ring (O(0.5M€)) + no need for 4MW target E max  =2. Q 0.  ion

32. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel J-E. Campagne et al. hep/ph0603172 combine SPL(3.5 GeV) +  B ==> improves sensitivity by T violation! 10 year exposure issues: -- 18 Ne flux? -- low energy --> cross-section accuracy? (assume 2%) -- energy reconstruction OK -- near detector concept? sensitivity sin 2 2  13 ~2-5 10 -4 3  sensitivity to sin 2 2  13

33. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Better beta beams: main weakness of He/He beta-beam is low energy (450 GeV proton equiv. storage ring produces 600 MeV neutrinos) Solution 1: Higher  (Hernandez et al) Use SPS+ (1 TeV) or tevatron ==> reach  expensive! Solution 2: use higher Q isotopes (C.Rubbia) 8 B --> 8 Be e + e or 8 Li --> 8 Be e - anti- e

34. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel A possible solution to the ion production shortage: Direct production in a small storage ring, filled [Gas + RF cavity] for ionization cooling For 8 B or 8 Li production, strip-inject 6 Li / 7 Li beam, collide with gas jet (D 2 or 3 He) reaction products are ejected and collected goal: >~ 10 21 ions per year

35. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Advantages of 8 B 5+ ( e Q=18MeV ) or 8 Li 3+ (anti- e Q=16MeV) vs 18 Ne, 6 He (Q~=3 MeV) The storage ring rigidity is considerably lower for a given E ==> for ~1 GeV end point beam for 8 B 5+ : 45 GeV proton equiv. storage ring for 8 Li 3+ : 75 GeV proton equiv. storage ring Two ways to see it: 1. Beta-beams to Fréjus (E max =600 MeV) could be accelerated with PS2 into a 50 GeV proton-equivalent storage ring (save €) 2. Beta beams of both polarities up to end-point energy of ~6 GeV can be produced with the CERN SPS (up to 2000km baseline) A new flurry of opportunities

36. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel EC: A monochromatic neutrino beam Electron Capture: N+e -  N’+ e Burget et al

37. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel -- Neutrino Factory -- CERN layout --    e + e   _ interacts giving   oscillates e     interacts giving    WRONG SIGN MUON Golden Channel 10 16 p/ s 1.2 10 14  s =1.2 10 21  yr 3 10 20 e  yr 3 10 20   yr 0.9 10 21  yr target! cooling! acceleration! also (unique) e      Silver channel

38. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel NB: This works just as well INO ~7000 km (Magic distance)

39. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Neutrino fluxes  + -> e + e   / e ratio reversed by switching     e   spectra are different No high energy tail. Very well known flux (  10 -3 ) -- 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

40. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Magnetized Iron calorimeter (baseline detector, Cervera, Nelson) B = 1 T  = 15 m, L = 25 m t(iron) =4cm, t(sc)=1cm Fiducial mass = 100 kT Charge discrimination down to 1 GeV Baseline 3500 Km 732 Km 10 8 4 x 10 6 2 x 10 8 7.5 x 10 6 3.4 x 10 5 3 x 10 5  CC e CC  signal (sin 2  13 =0.01) Event rates for 10 20 muon decays (<~1 year) (J-PARC I  SK = 40)

41. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel

42. A Strawman Concept for a Nufact Iron Tracker Detector (Jeff Nelson) 15m diameter polygon 4 piece laminate Can be thin if planes interconnected e.g. down to 1cm Idea from 1 st NOVA Proposal 60kA-turn central coil 0.5m x 0.5m Average field of 1.5T Extrapolation of MINOS Triangular liquid scintillator cells Structure based on NOvA using MINERvA-like shapes 4cm x 6cm cells (starting point) 3mm thick PVC walls Looped WLS fibers & APDs A sample would look like 1 cm Fe 0.7 cm PVC 3.3 cm LS 2/3rds Fe; ρ ≈ 2 Based on 175M$ for 90kt 6 cm 4 cm NB: in fact it is not best to go to iron:scint=1:4 cm Dp/P is better by 20% for iron:scint= 4:2 cm --> probably more mass/better cost possible

43. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel This ‘conceptual detector’ was used for the sensitivity studies. Performance from MINOS proposal CUTS optimized for low  13 limits with cut-off at muon energy of 5 GeV resulting signal efficiency: 13.1 m 14.5 m B B Monolith Iron (4cm) + active (1cm) NUFACT detector studied so far: 30 m at 3000 km, 1 st max is at 6 GeV 2d max is at 2 GeV

44. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel at 3000 km, 1 st max is at 6 GeV 2d max is at 2 GeV

45. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel New analysis (Cervera) OLD: P  > 5 GeV NEW: L  > L had + 75cm (shown for three different purity levels down to << 10 -4 ) old analysis new analysis

46. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Location of INO

47. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel INO Detector Concept

48. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel -- Emulsion detector: this is a typical NUFACT detector for the silver channel e     E  GeV experience from OPERA silver channel has opposite sign  dependence than golden --> solving ambiguities, test unitarity. By necessity less precise than golden channel. Here 5kton ECC combined with + 40 kton LMD only tau--> muon decay channel

49. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel supermodule 8 m Target Trackers Pb/Em. target ECC emulsion analysis: Vertex, decay kink e/  ID, multiple scattering, kinematics Extract selected brick Pb/Em. brick 8 cm Pb 1 mm Basic “cell” Emulsion  trigger and locate the neutrino interactions  muon identification and momentum/charge measurement Electronic detectors: Brick finding, muon ID, charge and p Link to muon ID, Candidate event Spectrometer  p/p < 20%

50. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel LARGE MAGNETIC VOLUME Observing the platinum channel or the silver channel for more decay channels requires a dedicated Low Z and very fine grained detector immersed in a large magnetic volume

51. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel

54. X 10 Magnets =140-600M$ conventional SC magnet:

55. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Also considered was a conventional Al magnet. Cost = ~50 M$, but power cost is about 10-30 M$ a year. Clearly a more detailed estimate would be highly worthwhile to understand what is the best way to build a large magnet on the walls of a large underground cavern. SC Magnets of this size can certainly be built, but better cost estimates will only come after some real engineering analysis 6-12 month effort It could be very expensive and unpractical therefore this is not considered to be a baseline nevertheless it seems very worthwhile to study.

56. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel

57. x ~ a few X0=14cm…. B > 0.5 T

58. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel

61. FIRST CONVINCING DEMONSTRATION THAT THE PLATINUM CHANNEL COULD BE USED!

62. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel A revealing comparison: A detailed comparison of the capability of observing CP violation was performed by P. Huber (+M. Mezzetto and AB) on the following grounds -- GLOBES was used. -- T2HK from LOI: 1000kt, 4MW beam power, 6 years anti-neutrinos, 2 years neutrinos. systematic errors on background and signal: 5%. -- The beta-beam 5.8 10 18 He dk/year 2.2 10 18 Ne dk/year (5 +5yrs) The Superbeam from 3.5 GeV SPL and 4 MW. Same 500kton detector Systematic errors on signal efficiency (or cross-sections) and bkgs are 2% or 5%. --NUFACT 3.1 10 20  + and 3.1 10 20  + per year for 10 years 100 kton iron-scintillator at 3000km and 30 kton at 7000km (e.g. INO). The matter density errors of the two baselines (uncorrelated): 2 to 5% The systematics are 0.1% on the signal and 20% on the background, uncorrelated. all correlations, ambiguities, etc… taken into account

63. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel  [0 0 -90 0 ]  [90 0 -180 0 ]

64. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel  [270 0 -360 0 ]  [180 0 -270 0 ] NB: 3sigma = 6 0 means that +-1 sigma = +-3.5 0

65. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel What do we learn? 1.Both (BB+SB+MD) and NUFACT outperform e.g. T2HK on most cases. 2. combination of BB+SB is really powerful. 3. for sin 2 2   below 0.01 NUFACT as such outperforms anyone 4. for large values of   systematic errors dominate. Matter effects for NUFACT, cross-sections for low energy beams. This is because we are at first maximum or above,  CP asymmetry is small! matter effect for NUFACT

66. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Consequences - 1 3.for sin 2 2   below 0.01 NUFACT as such outperforms anyone by 2010-12 we will know if this is the case:

67. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Consequences -2 4. for large values of   systematic errors dominate. Matter effects for NUFACT, cross-sections for low energy beams. This is because we are at first maximum or above,  CP asymmetry is small! for NUFACT:  work on understanding systematic errors on matter effect  try to reach second maximum by lowering the muon detection threshold  try to achieve wrong sign electron detection for superbeam/betabeam:  must have a near detector concept that demonstrates ability to measure detection and efficiency with high precision  going to second maximum requires a different baseline X 3 cf: project in Corea for T2HK baseline, or NUMI 2d max (farther off-axis) not easy to achieve for both Superbeam and Beta-beam

68. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel for NUFACT:  work on systematic errors on matter effect A preliminary study was made by E. Kozlovskaya, J. Peltoniemi, J. Sarkamo, The density distribution in the Earth along the CERN-Pyhäsalmi baseline and its effect on neutrino oscillations. CUPP-07/2003  the uncertainties on matter effects are at the level of a few% J. Peltoniemi

69. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel

70. Such a study, in collaboration with geophysicists will be needed for candidate LBL sites ISS-3 at RAL Warner

71. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel -- Near detectors and flux instrumentation -- flux and cross-section determinations -- other neutrino physics a completely new, yet essential aspect of superbeam, beta-beam and neutrino factory NO PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SHOULD BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY UNTIL THE NEAR DETECTOR CONCEPTS HAVE BEEN LAYED DOWN! Soler, Sanchez tomorrow

72. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel near detector constraints for CP violation = A CP  sin 2    solar term… sin  sin (  m 2 12 L/4E) sin   sin   P( e   ) - P( e   ) P( e   ) + P( e   ) Near detector gives e diff. cross-section*detection-eff *flux and ibid for bkg BUT: need to know  and  diff. cross-section* detection-eff with small (relative) systematic errors.  knowledge of cross-sections (relative to each-other) required  knowledge of flux! interchange role of e and  for superbeam ex. beta-beam or nufact:

73. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel need to know this: experimental signal= signal cross-section X efficiency of selection + Background and of course the fluxes… but the product flux*  sig is measured in the near detector this is not a totally trivial quantity as there is somethig particular in each of these cross-sections: for instance the effects of muon mass as well as nuclear effects are different for neutrinos and anti-neutrinos while e.g. pion threshold is different for muon and electron neutrinos

74. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel 3.5 GeV SPL  beam -- low proton energy: no Kaons  e background is low --region below pion threshold (low bkg from pions) but: low event rate and uncertainties on cross-sections

75. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel Uncertainties in the double ratio (Sobczyk at RAL meeting) 1. problem comes from compound of Fermi motion and binding energy with the muon mass effect. the double ratio calculation is very insensitive to variations of parameters … but

76. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel at 250 MeV (first maximum in Frejus expt) prediction varies from 0.88 to 0.94 according to nuclear model used. (= +- 0.03?) Hope to improve results with e.g. monochromatic k-capture beam

77. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel NEUTRINO FACTORY -- paradoxically quite mature option. ISS (International Scoping Study) revisited accelerator and detector options in 2005-2006.

78. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel

79. Overall comparisons from ISS (nearly final plots)   sign  m 2  CP phase  NuFACT does it all… (+ univ. test etc…) but when can it do it and at what cost?

80. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel

81. Conclusions CERN priority to LHC makes it unlikely to raise a new neutrino programme until at least 2016. However opportunities are open by the upgrades of the LHC acclerator complex -- upgrade of CNGS … tempting and politically attractive. but is it feasible? worth it given the time scales? -- SPL would offer a powerful low energy  beam -- beta-beam offers extremely clean e beam new ideas to improve flux/energy/cost…. -- baseline detector for sub-GeV neutrinos is WaterCherenkov -- in few GeV range, Larg, TASD etc… competitive -- near detector and monitoring systems should not be forgotten

82. Annecy 29 septembre 2006 Alain Blondel -- neutrino factory still the ultimate contender, especially if  13 is very small. Requires magnetic detectors -- design studies of Superbeam/betabeams/ NuFact and of the associated detector systems will be necessary for a choice around 2010/2012; organization ongoing. Conclusions (ctd)