1 / 31

ISS-detectors

ISS-detectors. present standing challenges admin. and methodology. The status of detector studies was summarized very nicely by Paolo Strolin in his NUFACT04 and NUFACT05 talks . A 50-100 kton magnetised iron detector à la Monolith.

yul
Download Presentation

ISS-detectors

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. ISS-detectors present standing challenges admin. and methodology

  2. The status of detector studies was summarized very nicely by Paolo Strolin in his NUFACT04 and NUFACT05 talks

  3. A 50-100 kton magnetised iron detector à la Monolith Monolith concept by P. Picchi and collaborators taken up for the India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO) (talk by N.K. Mondal) → atmospheric neutrinos, in future n-factories Investigations started with Monolith to be taken up again: detector performance studies, comparison horizontal vs vertical iron plates, design optimisation, comparison with other detectors, …..

  4. INO ~7000 km (Magic distance)

  5. 10 liters prototype liquid argon TPC has been tested in 0.5 T at ETHZ A. Rubbia nm <-> ne->wrong sign electron! ¨Platinum channel!

  6. near detector and beam instrumentation

  7. Neutrino fluxesm+ -> e+nenm is that all true? nm/n e ratio reversed by switching m+/ m- ne nm spectra are different No high energy tail. Very well known flux (10-3) -- E&sE calibration from muon spin precession -- angular divergence: small effect if q < 0.2/g, -- absolute flux measured from muon current or by nm e--> m-ne 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…) m polarization controls ne flux: m+ -X> nein forward direction

  8. Towards a comparison of performances on equal footing CP violation example P(nenm) - P(nenm) sind sin (Dm212 L/4E) sin q12 = ACP a sinq13 + solar term… P(nenm) + P(nenm) Near detector should give ne diff. cross-section*flux BUT:need to know nm and nm diff. cross-section and detection efficiency with small (relative) systematic errors. interchange role of ne and nm for superbeam in case of beta-beam one will need a superbeam at the same energy. Will it be possible to measure the required cross sections with the required accuracy at low energies with a WBB? What is the role of the difference in mass between electron and muons? how well can we predict it? In case of sub-GeV superbeam alone how can one deal with this?

  9. ds/dn O(e,e’), n=Ee-Ee’=Enegy transfer (GeV)Ee=700-1200 MeV Zeller Blue: Fermi-gas Green: SP Red: SP+FSI These are for electron beam. errors are ~5-10% but what happens when a muon mass is involved? QE D

  10. the following was written in the proposal comments? • The output of the scoping study will be a report in which: • · The physics case for the facility is defined; • · A baseline design for the accelerator complex, or, for some subsystems, the programme • required to arrive at a baseline design, is identified; • · The baseline designs for the neutrino detection systems are identified; and • The research-and-development programme required to deliver the baseline design isdescribed. • In achieving its primary goal, the scoping study will have three objectives to: • · Evaluate the physics case for a second-generation super-beam, a beta-beam facility and • the Neutrino Factory and to present a critical comparison of their performance; • · Evaluate the various options for the accelerator complex with a view to defining a baseline • set of parameters for the sub-systems that can be taken forward in a subsequent • conceptual-design phase; and to • Evaluate the options for the neutrino detection systems with a view to defining a baselineset of detection systems to be taken forward in a subsequent conceptual-design phase.

  11. $€£¥CHF The real aim: to prepare a funding request for three years of detector R&D 2007-2010 leading to having substantially progressed in the performance of detectors that one could realistically propose at that date, in the direction that is most profitable for physics. NB the nice thing with neutrino beams is that one can have more than one detector on the same beam line!

  12. Organization Detector ‘council’ (i.e. steering group) role: ensure basic organization, and monitors progress wrt objectives Interim group: Alain Blondel (Geneva) Alan Bross (Fermilab) Kenji Kaneyuki (ICRR) Paolo Strolin (INFN) Paul Soler (Glasgow) (po Dave Wark) someone missing?

  13. Organization: II working groups working groups as of Paolo Strolin’s presentation at NUFACT05 Large Water Cherenkov detector (Working group exists: UNO+Frejus+HK) Magnetized segmented detector old studies exist. Need revisiting in many ways. Liquid Argon detector in fact there are two known cases -- Larg for Neutrino factory -- Larg for superbeam/beta-beam Emulsion detector Active Scintillator detector/Low Z calorimeter (see segmented detector) … … … 1 2 3 4 need a contact person that organizes the practical basics of the work (Phone conferences, web page, edition of report, etc…)

  14. Organization III More working groups: Near detectors and flux control (beam instrumentation) (many people are attending NUINT this week-end) technology group photodetectors, scintillators, etc… will be included in each detector working group as they see fit. General interest presentations in detector working group meeting. connection with physics group Mezetto something missing? 5

  15. Methodology • not unique… • we try to optimize physics reach/€$£¥. • Is the following naive approach the right one? • start with detector that could realistically be undertaken today • and of which cost is relatively well known • (Water Cherenkov of the size of SuperK, MINOS, OPERA, ICARUS) • 2. produce a cost model as a function of key physics-related design parameters • (in the process identify those) • possible ex for Water Cherenkov: • number or size of phototubes • total fiducial mass • 3. identify the physics drivers (muon and electron threshold for ID and sign) • and the cost drivers (number of channels, mass?) • 4. proceed to optimize physics reach -- within a given cost envelope • or cost for a given physics reach? • 5. look at result. Is R&D needed, how long and how difficult. • define a program that allows to extend reach in the desired direction. • maybe the starting point is too constraining? • should we start from the ‘ideal’ detector and go back down to earth?

  16. Other important jobs: --communicate with the physics group and get them to work for us by asking questions. ex. What would be the gain in physics reach of a neutirno factory if the detector could see muons down to 1.5 GeV. Would the optimization of the accelerator: baseline, muon energy etc… change? what would happen if one could do the platinum channel (wrong sign electrons) -- evaluate the need for simulation tools -- what exists , what more would be needed.

  17. Combination of beta beam with super beam combines CP and T violation tests e m (+) (T)me (p+) (CP) e m(-) (T)me (p-)

  18. Superbeam+Betabeam option • What is the importance of the superbeam in this scheme? • T violation? • increased sensitivity? • have a (known) source of muon neutrinos for reference? • 2. At which neutrino energy can one begin to use the event energy distribution? • Fermi motion and resolution issues. is there a good model for this? • What is the impact of muon Cherenkov threshold? • What is the best distance from the source? What is the effect of changing the • beta-beam and superbeam energy?(event rates, backgrounds, ability to use dN/dE ) • Should energy remain adjustable after the distance choice? • 4, what is the relationship between beta-beam energy vs intensity? • 5. What is really the cost of the detector? • what PM coverage is needed as function of energy and distance.

  19. -- Neutrino Factory -- CERN layout -- cooling! 1016p/s target! acceleration! 1.2 1014 m/s =1.2 1021 m/yr _ 0.9 1021 m/yr m+ e+ne nm 3 1020 ne/yr 3 1020 nm/yr oscillatesne nm interacts givingm- WRONG SIGN MUON Golden Channel interacts giving m+ also (unique!) ne ntSilver channel

  20. b-beam + SPL3.5 SB+Mton systematics . ……………………………………degeneracies correlations approval date: ~NOvA +PD Lindner et al newer plot should come out of NUFACT05 and scoping study

  21. What happens to this at high q13if -- two baselines are considered and -- a threshold of 1.5 GeV for wrong sign muons is imposed on the 3000 km det -- and there is a 4kton tau detector at the 3000 km station?

  22. Degeneracies Stephano Rigolin: P. Huber’s plots assume: 4 GeV threshold, only golden channel.  Experimenters need to provide characteristics of tau detectors and think about efficiency for wrong sign muons at low energies.

  23. Questions for Neutrino Factory experiments: • Do we REALLY NEED TWO far locations at two different distances? • 3000 km  1st osc. max at 6 GeV and 2d max at 2 GeV. Muon momentum cut at 4 GeV cuts 2d max info. Can this be improved? • Can we eliminate all degenracies by combination of energy distribution and analysis of different channels (tau, muon, electron, both signs, NC…) • what are the systematics on flux control? (CERN YR claims 10-3) • 5. optimal muon ENERGY? Cost of study II was 1500M$ + 400M$*E/20

  24. Message to Physics group the detector group is challenged by trying to -- improve the golden channel by lowering the muon detection threshold -- achieve the platinum channel (wrong sign electrons) the physics potential of such improvements should be investigated. -- understand the near detector requirements for the CP/matter effect measurements. input from theorists will be welcome on this!

  25. What we must achieve in this meeting: • agree on the working groups • identify one person who is in charge of assembling each W-group • make a preliminary definition of the tasks for the next meeting • begin a list of questions to the physics group • see Alan Bross’s talk tomorrow to see what we have achieved!

  26. Next ISS meetings KEK 23-25 January 2006, RAL 27-29 April 2006 (TBC, associated with a BENE meeting) Irvine California 21-23 August 2006 just before NUFACT06

More Related