Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byCordelia Smith Modified over 8 years ago
1
Cherenkov Tracking Calorimeters D. Casper University of California, Irvine
2
June 24, 2005D. Casper, UC Irvine2 Outline Overview Basic performance around 1 GeV Neutrino response
3
June 24, 2005D. Casper, UC Irvine3 Acknowledgements and Caveats Some work done together with: J. Dunmore, C. Regis (UCI) J. Dunmore, C. Regis (UCI) J. Burguet-Castell, E. Couce, J.J. Gomez-Cadenas, P. Hernandez (Valencia) J. Burguet-Castell, E. Couce, J.J. Gomez-Cadenas, P. Hernandez (Valencia) Thanks to: M. Fechner (Saclay) M. Fechner (Saclay) Super-Kamiokande and T2K Collaborations Super-Kamiokande and T2K Collaborations Disclaimers Not “official” results of any experiment except where noted Not “official” results of any experiment except where noted Intended as a generic overview Intended as a generic overview Hybrid (Cherenkov/Scintillation) detectors not considered explicitly Hybrid (Cherenkov/Scintillation) detectors not considered explicitly
4
June 24, 2005D. Casper, UC Irvine4 Motivations Fully active target Inexpensive detecting medium Inexpensive detecting medium Surface instrumentation PMT cost scales like (Mass) 2/3 PMT cost scales like (Mass) 2/3 Long attenuation length Size limited primarily by cavern excavation Size limited primarily by cavern excavation Originally designed for proton decay searches
5
June 24, 2005D. Casper, UC Irvine5 What Is Measured PMT timing Coincidence trigger Coincidence trigger Vertex position Vertex position Delayed coincidence Delayed coincidence e decay e decay Nuclear de-excitationNuclear de-excitation Neutron captureNeutron capture Cherenkov rings Particle directions from angle constraint Particle directions from angle constraint Showering/Non-showering topology for particle ID Showering/Non-showering topology for particle ID PMT pulse heights Energies from calorimetry and/or range Energies from calorimetry and/or range
6
June 24, 2005D. Casper, UC Irvine6 Cherenkov Detectors First Generation (1982-1992) IMB (3.3 kton, 1% 4.5%) IMB (3.3 kton, 1% 4.5%) Kamiokande (0.78 – 1.1 kton, 20%) Kamiokande (0.78 – 1.1 kton, 20%) Harvard-Purdue-Wisconsin Harvard-Purdue-Wisconsin Second Generation (1996-Present) Super-Kamiokande (22.5 kton, 40%) Super-Kamiokande (22.5 kton, 40%) SNO (1.0 kton, 55%) SNO (1.0 kton, 55%) K2K (0.025 kton, 40%) K2K (0.025 kton, 40%) Next Generation (ca. 2010+) T2K 2km (0.025 kton, 40%) T2K 2km (0.025 kton, 40%) Hyper-Kamiokande (~1 Mton, 40%) Hyper-Kamiokande (~1 Mton, 40%) etc… etc…
7
June 24, 2005D. Casper, UC Irvine7 Basic Performance near 1 GeV Vertex resolution: ~20-30 cm Challenge to control the fiducial volume of a small detector Challenge to control the fiducial volume of a small detector Direction resolution: 2-3° Negligible compared to neutrino-lepton scattering angle Negligible compared to neutrino-lepton scattering angle e/ mis-ID: ~0.4%/ ( %photocathode) For equal e/ purity and efficiency For equal e/ purity and efficiency Verified in test beam Verified in test beam Energy resolution: ~2%/( E vis ) 1/2 Additional energy scale uncertainty: 2-3% Additional energy scale uncertainty: 2-3% Muon decay efficiency: ~95% ( + ), ~75% ( ) 22% capture probability in water 22% capture probability in water
8
June 24, 2005D. Casper, UC Irvine8 Neutrino Response Response (1-ring mu-like sample) Super-beam disappearance signal Super-beam disappearance signal Super-beam appearance background Super-beam appearance background Beta-beam appearance signal Beta-beam appearance signal e Response (1-ring e-like sample) Super-beam appearance signal Super-beam appearance signal Beta-beam disappearance signal Beta-beam disappearance signal Beta-beam appearance background Beta-beam appearance background
9
June 24, 2005D. Casper, UC Irvine9 Does Size Matter? For a given photo-cathode coverage, greater pixelization helps reduce 0 e For a given photo-cathode coverage, a larger detector performs better at e/mu and e/ 0 separation For a given photo-cathode coverage, a larger detector performs better at e/mu and e/ 0 separation
10
June 24, 2005D. Casper, UC Irvine10 Cross-Sections
11
June 24, 2005D. Casper, UC Irvine11 CCQE Efficiency Loss of partially contained Fully-contained CCQE 1-ring mu-like efficiency Losses to 0 cuts Fully-contained e CCQE 1-ring e-like efficiency
12
June 24, 2005D. Casper, UC Irvine12 Signal and Backgrounds 1-ring -like sample 1-ring e-like sample
13
June 24, 2005D. Casper, UC Irvine13 Contamination vs. Smearing 1-ring -like sample 1-ring e-like sample
14
June 24, 2005D. Casper, UC Irvine14 CC Energy Transfer Matrices CCQE CC1 CC Other
15
June 24, 2005D. Casper, UC Irvine15 Higher Energies Possible to use hadronic calorimetry at higher energies Does not help with particle ID Does not help with particle ID Possible to identify clean sample of high- energy muons from interactions outside the detector “Upward-going muons” “Upward-going muons” May be able to say something about energy using angle(?) May be able to say something about energy using angle(?)
16
June 24, 2005D. Casper, UC Irvine16 Conclusions A very mature and powerful technology Backgrounds to low-medium energy super-beams or beta beams are fairly manageable Depends on details of beam, baseline, etc. Depends on details of beam, baseline, etc. Energies above 1.5-2 GeV create difficulties May be mitigated by migration May be mitigated by migration
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.