1 / 13

Work Package 2 Meeting: Physics and simulation Paschal Coyle General Assembly Pylos, 16/4/07

susane
Download Presentation

Work Package 2 Meeting: Physics and simulation Paschal Coyle General Assembly Pylos, 16/4/07

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WP2 Monday 16 April 2007modify pass=wp20407Introduction (15') P. Coyle (CPPM)Status of Sirene (30') E. Presani (Nikhef) Graphical User Interface for Sirene (30') S. Meester (Nikhef)lunch breakApplication of Icecube software framework to water detectors (30') C. Kopper (Erlangen)Status of Mathematica based detector optimisation studies (40') F. Jouvenot (Liverpool)Summary of the Erlangen detector simulations (30') R.Shanidze, S. Kuch (Erlangen)Preliminary studies of the KM3NeT physics sensitivity (20') R.Shanidze, S. Kuch (Erlangen)coffee breakDifferential Sensitivity to Extragalactic Point Sources (10') R. White, S. Bradbury (Leeds)Sensitivity of KM3NeT to mSugra Dark Matter (20') H. Motz (Erlangen)Simulation Studies of KM3 architectures (30') A. Tsirigotis (HOU)Calibration of km3 with EAS (20') A. Leisos(HOU)

  2. Work Package 2 Meeting: Physics and simulation Paschal Coyle General Assembly Pylos, 16/4/07

  3. WP2 Web Page http://km3net.in2p3.fr • Access to a linux PC farm and computing environment with working antares-based code is available at CCLyon • Links to source and documentation of pilot project software (maintained by pilot project responsables) • Same approach with KM3NET software under development (SIRENE, Mathematica, ...) • Definition of ‘ICECUBE in the sea’ reference detector • written document • geometry definition file (Antares format) • Deliverables: Benchmark neutrino fluxes

  4. Reference Detector (ICECUBE in the sea) Geometry Inter-storey separation 17 m Inter-line separation 125 m Positioning of lines hex. lattice Number of lines 80 Number of OMs per storey 1 Orientation of OMs Downwards Number of storeys per line 60 Height of first storey 100 m Site Characteristics Depth of sea bed 2450 m Absorption length (Appendix A) 60 m Light Scattering ignored Baseline counting rate 50 kHz Bioluminescence bursts ignored Refraction index at 450 nm (Appendix B) 1.35 OM Characteristics-10 inch Hammatsu Photocathode sensitive area 500 cm2 Angular acceptance of the OM flat disk (prop. to cos ) Combined efficiency (see Appendix C) 20% (quantum*collection, 400-700nm) gain at 2500 V 2*108 pulse amplitude at working gain (5*107) 60 mV Transit time 60 ns Transit time spread () 1.5 ns Pulse rise time 5 ns Pulse width (FWHM, SPE) 12 ns Detection threshold 0.3 SPE Charge resolution (Gaussian) 30% Front end electronics 2 pulse separation 12 ns Dynamic range linear 0-20 SPE, saturated A sanity check for the new softwares-not a serious design

  5. Deliverables: Benchmark Neutrino Fluxes • Atmospheric neutrinos[Brunner] • Dark matter: [Lavalle] • Sun (not earth, not CG) 10 GeV-1 TeV • Astrophysics sources: [Shanidze] 1-100 TeV • HESS galactic • Diffuse flux: [Spurio] • WB, MPR bounds 10 TeV-10 PeV • Gamma Ray Bursts: [Petrovic] 10 TeV-10 PeV • WB • EHE: [Aublin, Kouchner] • GZK >1EeV + 1st YEAR REPORT

  6. Deliverables II • +14 months :first versions of simulation software packages • Event generators • Neutrino interactions genneu/genhen ANIS • Atmospheric muons corsika/MUPAGE • Muon propagation MUM/MUSIC • Detector response KM3/geasim SIRENMCGEN • Cherenkov light production • Light propagation • PMT & Front end electronics • Calibrations CALIBOB • Timing, amplitude • Positioning, absolute pointing • Reconstruction RECO MCRECO

  7. Deliverables III • +16 months :CDR contributions • Description of software packages • Event generator, Detector response, Calibrations • Event selection, Reconstruction • First results on detector architecture • First results on site comparison • First results on calibration studies need up to date documentation for the various softwares please start to release internal notes

  8. WP2 will also build the Physics Case Preliminary Physics case to be presented in the CDR Include comparison with existing planned experiments small editing group soon to be defined: Aharonian, …..

  9. Comment on Optimization Criteria Optimization condition • Optimal S/B for benchmark fluxes • Maximalneutrinoeffective area • Best angular resolution for muon neutrinos • Best energy resolution for muon neutrinos Compare various detectors which can be built and operated with the same budget difficult to do but necessary and important NEED Cost model and costs: WP1, WP3, WP4, WP5 Without full reconstruction in presence of realistic background the misleading conclusions could be drawn

  10. What Physics has priority DM, HESS, UHE, ? energy range What size of detector 1 km3 vs 5 km3energy range,cost 3D grid of active detector elements WP5 Distances between storeys, energy range, Distances between structures angular resolution, cost Line vs tower Dense core vs empty core Number of structures OM orientations WP4Upwards useful?-UHE, shadow of moon energy range, bkgd rejection, Horizontal, downwards, 45degrees cost Overlap PMT size, multiplicities bkgd rejection, bandwidth, WP3Number per storey cost Large vs many small PMTs Coincidence of 2 small vs 1 large Readout scheme energy range, bgkd rejection, WP3/4Offshore vs onshore trigger bandwidth, cost Waveform vs SPE Dynamic range of front end Calibration cost charge time- light beacons positioning- acoustic vs light pointing- moon, surface array Key Optimization Questions

  11. Optimisation ‘Guidelines’ Document Encourage the various groups to adopt the same methods and types of plots for presentation of optimisation results definition of neutrino effective area definition of muon effective area definition of relevant plots effective areas vs true nu energy (none, trigger, recon) e vs true nu energy effective areas vs true nu energ CPPM, ERLA

  12. Contributions Source modelling: INFN, CEA, DUBLIN Atmospheric muons: INFN Galactic (CR) neutrinos: INFN, UK, CEA Galactic (HESS) sources: Erlangen, IN2P3, CEA, INFN Dark matter: INFN, Erlangen, IN2P3, UK, FOM Diffuse flux: INFN, Erlangen Extragalactic pt source UK, IN2P3 GRBs: Erlangen, FOM UHE: UHA-GRPHE, APC Neutrino flux generator: INFN software: FOM, IN2P3 Multi-PMT geometry: FOM Directional PMT: INFN simulation of trigger INFN, FOM, Demo, HOU, Erlangen, IN2P3 Reconstruction algorithms: Erlangen,INFN, IN2P3, HOU, FOM, CEA Time,position calibration: UK, Valencia, Erlangen, INFN Absolute positioning : INFN(moon), HOU(surface array) Optimisation of design: ALL physics and analysis software calibration

  13. Which Energy Range ? • Astronomy • Point sources 1TeV-1PeV • Diffuse flux 10TeV-10PeV • GZK 1EeV-100EeV • Particle Physics • Neutralinos 10GeV-1TeV • Difficult to have a detector with optimal behaviour • over 8 orders of magnitude ! • Separate optimisations for low/medium/high energies • How much does one gain or lose in the physics?

More Related