1. WG 1 Summary FNAL Proton Driver Workshop October 9, 2004 S. Brice, D. Harris, W. Winter

2. Contents Session I: Purpose and setting of scene Session I: Purpose and setting of scene Session II: Superbeam Experiments I Session II: Superbeam Experiments I Session III: Neutrino beams (with WG 2) Session III: Neutrino beams (with WG 2) Session IV: Cross section needs (with WG 2) Session IV: Cross section needs (with WG 2) Session V: What if MiniBOONE confirms LSND? Session V: What if MiniBOONE confirms LSND? Session VI: Superbeam Experiments II Session VI: Superbeam Experiments II Session VII:  -Beam at Fermilab? Session VII:  -Beam at Fermilab? Summary Summary

3. Session I Purpose and setting of scene

4. Neutrino oscillations as probes of GUT theories (Andre de Gouvea) Also: Mass hierarchy, deviations from max. mixing!

6. Session II Superbeam Experiments I

7. NO A Vital Statistics (Feldman) BaselineTASD Mass 50 kT 25 kT Optimized e efficiency 18%32% Optimized s/b 4.87.7 s/sqrt(b)24.524 Cost$147M$159M

8. NO A and the Proton Driver Note that a Proton Driver changes a 1  matter effect into a 3  effect:      2  Mass Hierarchy 3  CP violation: 2 nd detector and T2K synergy

9. Comparing Super-NO A and BNL Vigorous discussion: –BNL proposal is not so different in MW*kton than the NO A+PD+2 nd Det listed here –BNL Advantage: they can see “solar term” even if sin 2 2  13 =0; synergy w/p decay –NO A+PD+2 nd Det advantage: can proceed in a step-by step manner BNL Proposal NO A + PD + 2nd Det

10. Collider/Neutrino Program Analogy (Cooper) Integrated Luminosity doubles 14 times in 21 years (1988-2009) Integrated Luminosity doubles 14 times in 21 years (1988-2009) (2 14 =16,384), Integrated Luminosity advances by 3 + orders of magnitude (2 14 =16,384), Integrated Luminosity advances by 3 + orders of magnitude The original 87 CDF collaborators grew to 1500 total at CDF + DZero The original 87 CDF collaborators grew to 1500 total at CDF + DZero MINOS is 10* K2K MINOS is 10* K2K Add NO A, 5 * MINOS ktons Add NO A, 5 * MINOS ktons Add a Main Injector RF upgrade, Add a Main Injector RF upgrade, 2 * NuMI pot 2 * NuMI pot Add a Proton Driver Add a Proton Driver 5 * (NuMI + MI RF) pot 5 * (NuMI + MI RF) pot Add SuperNO A, 3 * NO A ktons Add SuperNO A, 3 * NO A ktons Overall, can get a factor >1000 Overall, can get a factor >1000 (in 10 20 pot * kT) in such a program (in 10 20 pot * kT) in such a program

11. Ah, but aren’t colliders just richer than “measure one number” physics? NO – While  13 is the driving goal, we should not start to think of  13 like we did about the Higgs as the only justification of a program NO – While  13 is the driving goal, we should not start to think of  13 like we did about the Higgs as the only justification of a program –Measuring  13 is like finding and measuring the top mass? –Determining the mass hierarchy is like a Higgs discovery? –Detection of CP violation in the neutrino sector is like finding SUSY ? –There are other physics topics Measuring sin 2  23 and  m 23 2 at each new level of luminosity is like measuring the W mass or B lifetimes at each new level of luminosity in the collider program Measuring sin 2  23 and  m 23 2 at each new level of luminosity is like measuring the W mass or B lifetimes at each new level of luminosity in the collider program Searching for sterile neutrino effects at each new level of luminosity is like searching for Z’ at each new level of luminosity Searching for sterile neutrino effects at each new level of luminosity is like searching for Z’ at each new level of luminosity Measuring low energy cross sections (DIS, quasi-elastic,…) is (like) studying QCD Measuring low energy cross sections (DIS, quasi-elastic,…) is (like) studying QCD There should be plenty of publications!!! There should be plenty of publications!!!

12. Fermilab to Homestake (2+2)MW (D. Michael) ~200M ~8m ~4m 30 mR maximum off axis 120 GeV protons 8 GeV protons 500kton Water C 1290km Uses all the protons from Booster Main Injector Highway tunnel Detector Perlite insulation h =20 m  ≈70 m Electronic crates A. Rubbia

13. Fermilab to Homestake (2+2)MW 90% CL 99% CL 150kT Liquid Argon

14. Session III Neutrino beams (together with WG2: to be discussed there)

15. Session IV Cross section needs (together with WG 2)

16. The Cross-Section Needs of Future Oscillation Experiments (Harris) Moral of Story: Need Near Detector AND cross section measurements!

17. Status of Neutrino Cross Sections (Zeller) The world’s NC  0 cross-section measurements (the dominant background in e appearance) J.Raaf, MiniBooNE ~7000 events Best measurements: CC QE

18. Session V What if MiniBOONE confirms LSND?

19. … does it have to be steriles? If there is a signal, test SBL further …

20. Decay at Rest Source (Van de Water) nucl-ex/0309014 hep-ex/0408135 Idea: Use stopped pions and muons to better predict spectrum =LSND with higher intensity and much larger duty factor

21. Check unitarity of mixing matrix: NuMI numu to nutau (Bazarko) Pb Emulsion layers  1 mm 8.3kg 10 X 0 10.2 x 12.7 x 7.5 cm

22. Session VI Superbeam Experiments II

23. FNAL-Japan/China (Fritz deJongh) Very long baseline good for  13 (“Magic baseline” = about 7400 km) Very long baseline good for  13 (“Magic baseline” = about 7400 km) Together with short baseline very good resolution for  CP Together with short baseline very good resolution for  CP

24. PD connection with national underground Lab (G. Rameika) Need for underground lab from proton decay, Dark matter searches … Need for underground lab from proton decay, Dark matter searches … Massive detector good destination for long- baseline neutrino beams -> Synergy! Massive detector good destination for long- baseline neutrino beams -> Synergy!

25. BNL- vs. FNAL- to Homestake (Diwan) FNAL-Homestake very competitive for  13 and also  CP FNAL-Homestake very competitive for  13 and also  CP BNL-Homestake has more solar oscillation contribution! BNL-Homestake has more solar oscillation contribution!

26. Session VII  -Beam at Fermilab?

27. Beta-Beams (Jansson)  13 ( o ) Burguet-Castell et al, Nucl.Phys.B695:217-240,2004. Use about 250kW per Ion source (for and  running simultaneously) Decay losses need study (quenching? Mokhov in January …) About 1 10 13 ions of either type per cycle should yield an average loss power of about 1 W/m in Tevatron.

28. Site Constraints of Beta-Beam at FNAL “Stretched Tevatron“ aimed at Soudan Total circumference: approximately 2 x Tevatron 320m elevation @ 58 mrad 26% of decays in Straight Section

29. Draft Table of Contents 1)Intro, purpose, and explanation of chapter layout 2)Osc theory summary (Parke, de Gouvea) a)Introduction b)Neutrino mixing: Three-flavor neutrino oscillations c)Matter effects d)Summary of current parameter knowledge e)Appearance and disppearance channels Including: which measurements are interesting: i.Theta13, ii.CP measurements iii.mass hierarchy iv.deviations from max. Mixing f)Complementarity to reactor experiments g)What if MiniBOONE confirms LSND? -> Steriles, CPT violation... h)Some other "new" physics possibilities 3)Theoretical motivation for neutrino oscillation measurements (Antusch, Lindner, Kersten, Ratz) a)Maybe some introduction about the generation of neutrino mass; Dirac/Majorana; see-saw b)Predictions from theoretical models (incl. GUTs, bottom-ups, anarchy etc)  13 ii.Deviations from max. Mixing iii.Mass schemes iv.Maybe something about Dirac CP phase!? v.Conclusion: Parameter predictions are within mid-term experimental reach c)Implications of RG running i.Conclusions: zero theta13 and theta23 very close to maximal unlikely (with caveats) d)Impact of future measurements to model selection and theoretical predictions i.Conclusion: Measurements help to select models or force theory to do it better 4)Where we may be in 10 years time (Shaevitz, Brice) a)Describe experiments that have yet to release results, but will have in 10 years time. b)Scenarios for where we may be in 10 years time i.SIN 2 2  13 greater than ~0.04 ii.SIN 2 2  13 between ~0.01 and ~0.04 iii.SIN 2 2  13 less than ~0.01 iv.LSND oscillation confirmed by MiniBooNE v.SIN 2 2  23 still consistent with 1 vi.Something unexpected 5)SIN 2 2  13 Greater Than ~0.04 a)Can use existing NuMI beamline b)Nova (Feldman) 6)SIN 2 2  13 Between ~0.01 and ~0.04 a)Need new beamline or larger detectors b)Super Nova, other off-axis (Feldman) c)FeHo (Michael) d)Broadband scheme (Diwan) e)FNAL to China (de Jongh) 7)SIN 2 2  13 Less Than ~0.01 a)Search with experiments from previous chapter b)Betabeam (Finley and Jansson) c)Neutrino Factory (Geer) 8)Other Possibilities 1)LSND oscillation confirmed by MiniBooNE i.Decay at rest source (Van de Water) ii.NUMI numu to nutau & numu disappearance (Bazarko) iii.Effect on LBL measurements a)SIN 2 2  23 still consistent with 1 i. Nova (Feldman) b)Something unexpected i..... 9)Summary

30. Summary and conclusions Interesting discussions: Interesting discussions: –Staged approach versus one big jump –Importance of long distance for “solar” terms –Parallels with collider program? –… Homework assignments Homework assignments –Writing for everybody –Gary Feldman will look at fluxes from 8 GeV protons to NOvA –How statistics limited is the NOvA theta23 measurement? –… Thanks to all our great speakers!