1. WP2: Physics Analysis and Simulation Objectives & Priorities Deliverables & Milestones Manpower Optimisation issues Discussion conclusions Some plots P. Coyle CPPMarseille

2. Objectives & Priorities PriorityObjectives 11Define benchmark neutrino fluxes 21Development of event selection software 31Development of simulation software 41Development of reconstruction software 51Definition of data format, storage, distribution 61 Comparison of detector geometries in terms of physics sensitivity 72 Comparison of candidate sites in terms of physics sensitivity 81Development of calibration strategies

3. Deliverables & Milestones 6 months : benchmark neutrino fluxes and energy range Astrophysics sources: - galactic SNR: RXJ1713, VELA-Jr  quasar: LS5039 PWN: VELA-X, MSH 15-52 CR interactions with gas near GC - extragalactic AGNs, GRBs, starburst galaxies… Diffuse flux WB bound Dark matter Sun EHE GZK Input from Felix Ahronian,…

4. Deliverables & Milestones 14 months : first release of simulation software packages Event generators Neutrino interactions Atmospheric muons Muon propagation Detector response Cherenkov light production Light propagation PMT & Front end electronics (needed dynamic range?) Calibrations Timing, amplitude Positioning, absolute pointing

5. Deliverables & Milestones 16 months : CDR contributions Description of software packages Event generator, Detector response, Calibrations Event selection, Reconstruction Scheme for data format, storage, distribution First results on detector architecture First results on site comparison First results on calibration studies

6. Deliverables & Milestones 34 months : TDR contributions Description of final software packages Event generator, Detector response, Calibrations Event selection, Reconstruction Scheme for data format, storage, distribution Final results on architecture optimization Final results on site comparison Final results on calibration systems

7. Manpower FTEM total FTEM requested Personnel total Personnel requested total IN2P314472900354930 CEA25036650171821 Erlangen36 193193 (*2)274 INFN252108225 112.5 (+42 travel +21.5 cons) 352 FOM108306317 Sheffield4218133 57 (*2) (+5 travel) 172 Basic request: 1-2 position for 3 years per institute

8. Contributions Optimisation of design:ALL Source modelling: INFN, CEA, DUBLIN, MALTA Atmospheric muons: INFN Galactic (CR) neutrinos: INFN, UK, CEA Galactic (HESS) sources: Erlangen, IN2P3, CEA Dark matter: INFN, Erlangen, IN2P3, UK Diffuse flux:INFN, Erlangen Extragalactic pt sourceUK, IN2P3 GRBs:Erlangen UHE:UHA-GRPHE Shower reconstruction:Erlangen, FOM Neutrino flux generator: INFN Upgraded software: FOM Multi-PMT geometry: FOM Reconstruction algorithms: INFN, IN2P3, HOU, FOM Time calibration: Valencia, Erlangen, INFN Absolute positioning (moon): INFN

9. Optimization goals 3D grid of active detector elements ( distances, distribution) (string, tower, dense core, empty core) OM orientations PMT size, multiplicities (e.g. large versus small PMTs) (coincidence versus high pulses)  Maximal neutrino effective area (volume) over full parameter space  Best angular resolution for neutrinos  Best energy resolution for neutrinos  Optimal S/B for benchmark fluxes Optimization criteria

10. Optimization condition Compare various detectors which can be built and operated with the same budget difficult to do but necessary…will take time First step: Compare detectors with same PMT eff. area

11. Choice of parameter space Which energy range ? Astronomy  Point sources 1TeV-1PeV  Diffuse flux 10TeV-10PeV  GZK 1EeV-100EeV Particle Physics  Neutralinos10GeV-1TeV Difficult to have a detector with optimal behaviour over 8 orders of magnitude !  Separate optimisations for low/medium/high energies

12. Choice of parameter space Which angular range ?  Classic: Upward going hemisphere  Highest energies no atm. muon BG: full sphere  Opacity of Earth: close to horizon  calibration with moon shadow OM arrangements depend on these choices  Downward looking  Antares like  Up/down symmetric  horizontal Will depend on energy range

13. Choice of parameter space Which particle type ? neutrino fluxes arrive at earth with about 1/3 fraction of e  . At high energies earth opacity increases further  fraction Distinction in a neutrino telescope  CC[   (  -  )] long muon track  CC[ e  (  -e,h)], NCnarrow, contained shower  CC[  (  -e,h)] above PeVdouble bang Complementary in Resolution: Energy Angle Muon mediocre excellent Showerexcellentmediocre First step: optimise for muon neutrino

14. Choice of parameter space Site parameters influence result  Absorption length of water  Light diffusion in water  Depth (atmosph. muon background)  Noise light (bioluminescence level) Optimized detector geometry in one site might be different from detector in another site  Need feedback from WP5 First step: standard antares parameters

15. Organisational Issues Mailing lists (general, steering) will be made Draft benchmarks and optimisation guidelines in ~2 months Common software framework-ROOT, C++  Adopt antares software as standard (currently used by most groups) Make available ALL softwares to ALL km3net members  Formal request to ANTARES/NEMO/NESTOR collaborations  New km3net webpages with code and instructions Develop cost model First challenge: optimal design for 5 sigma discovery of benchmark muon neutrino fluxes Optimal(now) = minimum PMT area Optimal(later) = minimum cost Meeting in ~6 months for final benchmarks and start convergence to optimal designs

16. Interfaces to other WPs WP1 – Cost model software WP3 – simulation of front-end, beacons costs WP4 – simulation of data filter costs WP5 – site parameters costs

17. Tasks not obviously Covered Position calibration using optical beacons? Is directional information useful? For what energy range? What dynamic range needed by front-end electronics? Waveforms required? What is the necessary electronic timing resolution? Can we improve the reconstruction algorithm? Risks Cost model/information does not converge

18. WP2 will also build the Physics Case First step: Create webpage resource of relevant papers Organise a physics workshop to encourage activity and awareness of high energy neutrino astronomy second step: Preliminary document for CDR writing group to be defined: Aharonian, …..

19. KM3net kickoff meeting Erlangen Date/Time:from Tuesday 11 April 2006 (09:00) to Thursday 13 April 2006 (18:00) Location:Erlangen Description:Details Tuesday 11 April 2006 14:00->18:00WP2WP2 (Erla ngen ) Tuesday 1 1 April 200 6 WP2 (14:00->18:00) Loc atio n: Erl ang en 14:00Introduction (20') Paschal Coyle (CPPM) 14:20Status+Plans CEA/DAPNIA (20') Luciano Moscoso 14:40Status+Plans INFN (20') Marco Circella 15:00Status+Plans NIKHEF (20') Els De Wolf (NIKHEF) 15:20Status+Plans Erlangen (20') Rezo Shanidze (University Erlangen) 15:40Status+Plans Great Britain (20') Fabrice Jouvenot (University Liverpool) 16:00Status+Plans Valencia (20') 16:20Status+Plans Greece (20') 16:40 Coffe break 17:00KM3Net Simulations (20') Sebastian Kuch 17:20HESS sources for KM3 (20') Christian Stegmann 17:40Shower reconstruction (20') Ralf Auer | HELPHELP

20. WE NEED TO THINK BIGGER  10km3?  20k, 50k, 100k PMTS?

25. The geometries 40m 20m 5832 PMT 81 strings String height 680 m (18floors/string) V= 0.88 km 3 String-dh_140_20NEMO_140String-d_125_16 5800 PMT 100 strings String height 912 m (58 PMT/string) V= 1.15 km 3 5832 PMT 81 towers String height 680 m (18floors/tower) V= 0.88 km 3 (Contributed slide from LNS - 6)

26. The effective neutrino areas vs E NEMO_140 string-d_125_16  string-dh_140_20 35 kHz background – abs 70m@450nm Up-going neutrinos (Contributed slide from LNS - 7)

27. Determination of the angular resolution (Simulated time 1 year) 100 days needed to observe a 3  effect Observation of the Moon shadowing effect on the flux of atmospheric muons (Contributed slide from LNS - 9)

28. Effects of abs abs 70m @ 440 nm abs 50m @ 440 nm At muon energy lower than 3TeV effective areas larger by (more than) 20% A eff (70m)/A eff (50m) vs E  A eff ( abs 70m)/A eff ( abs 50 m) A eff vs E  - 20 kHz (Contributed slide from LNS - 4)

29. Software Framework

30. source Distance (kpc) E (GeV) N μ (km -2 yr -1 ) Reference SNR RX J1713.7 Sgr A East SNR RX J1713.7 686686  10 4  10 5  10 4 ~40 ~140 ~10 Alvarez-Muñiz & Halzen 2002 Costantini astro-ph/0508152 E Flux Sensitivity of the KM3NeT n Telescope  requirement: 10 hits/event  80% duty cycle   flux Very preliminary ! KM3NeT sensitivity estimated for 23 events  flux =  flux / 2

31. Microquasars: LS5039, LS I=61 303 LS5039 observed by HESS Index=2.12±0.15, up to 4 TeV Aharonian et al, astro-ph/0508298 LS I+61 303 3-5 muon type/km 2 /yr Christiansen et al., astro-ph/0509214 severe absorption of >100 GeV gamma-rays (  + starlight  e + e - )  up to a factor 10 to 100 higher initial luminosity severe radiative (synchrotron and Compton) losses  difficult to accelerate electrons to multi-TeV energies Conclusion : TeV gamma-rays of hadronic origin Extrapolation from HESS observation: 3-6 neutrinos/yr/km 2 Aharonian, Montaruli et al., Astro-ph/0508658

32. Interaction of CRs with Gas Clouds at GC CR interactions in clusters of galaxies with IR photons also detectable DeMarco et al, astro-ph/0511535 AMANDA KM3NET CR density much higher than local density in solar system  evidence for young source of high energy CRs near GC -SNR? Arharonian et al, Nature 2006 neutrino signal from CR interactions detectable in KM3NET- enhancement in direction of GC Candia, Astro-ph/0505346

33. Measured UHECR flux provides most restrictive limit: - optically thin sources: nucleons from photohadronic interactions escape -CR flux above the ankle (>3 ·10 18 eV) are extragalactic protons with E -2 spectrum  E 2 F < 4.5 10 -8 GeV /(cm 2 s sr) Waxman & Bahcall (1999) Magnetic fields and uncertainties in photohadronic interactions of protons can affect the bound, as these effects restrict number of protons able to escape Mannheim, Protheroe & Rachen (2000) CR rate evolves with z Upper Bounds on Extra-Galactic fluxes ICECUBE/KM3 MPR

34. CR rate evolves with z Extragalactic: Starburst Galaxies Radio observation of starburst galaxies imply a robust lower limit on the extragalactic neutrino background flux ~  wb Loeb, Waxman astro-ph/0601695 M82 -xray M82 -radio Galaxies undergoing large-scale star formation. -strong IR emission -strong radio emission from SNRs Best studied: M82, NGC253 NGC253: TeV detection reported by CANGAROO Possible source of UHECRs Torres, Anchordoqui astro-ph/0505283 3.2Mpc

35. Detection directe spin-independent cross-section Télescopes a neutrino très compétitive et complémentaire au détection directe ANTARES/KM3: Dark Matter (neutralino) /km3 e.g. mSUGRA model A 0 =0,  >0, tan  =10, M 1/2 =0-800 GeV, M 0 =0-1000 GeV +  wimp h 2 < 1 + LEP constraint efficient capture in the sun  best sensitivity to spin dependent scattering Neutrino telescope flux de soleil Bertin, Nezri Orloff 02

36. Dark Matter – Intermediate Mass Black Holes Mini-spikes around IMBHs M imbh =10 5 M soleil Sources concentrated towards galactic centre Sensitive only to annihilation cross-section-complementary To sun search KM3NET: 10 sources with >20 events/year Bertone hep-ph/0603148

37. Armengaud, Sigl APPEC ROADMAP

38. Tau neutrinos  10 4 ly Flavour Ratios: Experimental Signatures E = 10 TeV E = 375 TeV  ~ 300m for 10 PeV   e  Icecube simulation Beacom et al., hep-ph/0307025 v3 sept 2005 Horizontal Muon Electron Shower Tau (lolipop, double bang)

39. Particle Physics: Lorentz Violation, Decoherence Hooper et al., hep-ph/0506091 Lorentz violation Pion source Decoherence neutron source Lorentz violation Atmospheric oscillations Anchordoqui et al., hep-ph/0506168 E 2 dependence icecube Neutron source (n  pe e ) may explain CR correlations from GC & Cygnus Anchordoqui et al., hep-ph/0510389 From angular depencence of e /  ratio Sudden onset VERY LONG BASELINE

40. Particle Physics: Modification of  ( N) at High Energies KK Gravitons TeV string resonances  scopic black holes p-Brane production instantons increased cross-section e.g. angular distribution above 500 TeV in model of BH production astro-ph/0202081 SM xmin=1 xmin=3

41. Amanda, Baikal 2002 2007 AUGER  Anita Amanda,Antare s, Baikal, Nestor 2012 km 3 Auger + new technologies 2004 RICE GLUE Flux Diffus: Limites et Sensibilités RICEAGASA C. Spiering, J. Phys. G 29 (2003) 843 Gamma Ray Bursts (Waxman & Bahcall) Extragalactic  p sources (Mannheim et al.) AGN Jets (Mannheim) Topological defects (Sigl) GZK neutrinos (Rachen & Biermann) WB98