scoping study plenary -- detectors alain blondel iss-detectors present standing challenges admin....

Scoping study plenary -- detectors Alain Blondel

ISS-detectors

present standingchallengesadmin. and methodology


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


Summary (1): Low-Z Calorimetry

- e oscillations ? 13 in off-axis NuMI beam: NOA

Evolution of a proven technique

Main issue:improve performance and reduce cost of trackers

NOA: mass ~ 10 x MINOS

New technologies with respect to MINOSplastic ? liquid scintillator: a totally active detector now chosenPMT ? Avalanche Photo Diodes (APD)

Progress on trackers potentially useful also formagnetised iron sampling spectrometers or for calorimetry in view of other applications(maintain contacts with the collider community)


Summary (2): Magnetised Fe Spectrometers

“Wrong sign” from e ? oscillations at -Factories

Well proven technique

Target mass ~ 10 x MINOS

Proceed from concepts towards a design

• Engineering work (mechanics, magnet design, …. ) must be done to assess the feasibility; technical support needed

• Evaluate and optimise the performance of the detector(tracking threshold, resolution, background rejection, e-ident, …)? detailed detector simulations


Summary (3): Water Čerenkov

oscillation , astrophysics, proton decay

Proven and successful technique, well known also in its limitationsSuper-K: a large Water Čerenkov detector of which the performancehas been simulated and observed

Experience with experiments:K ? Super-K ? Hyper-K/UNO/Frejus: in each step mass x ~10

Main issue: cost and production of photo-sensors

? collaboration with industries: very important, to be supported

? are 20” PMT’s optimal? Which is the optimal photo-sensor coverage?

? R&D on new photo-sensors with adequate long-term stability&reliability


Summary (4) : Liquid Argon TPC

A beautiful detector for oscillation , astrophysics, proton decay.Broad energy range

Tested at the scale of the 0.3 kton ICARUS T300 module:extrapolation in mass by two orders of magnitudes or more needed

New features envisaged to reach 50-100 kton:longer or much longer drifts, double-phase amplification and readout

Experience accumulated for ICARUS, dedicated R&D (results now available from 10 liter chamber in magnetic field, …)

Substantial R&D required on various aspects, partly depending on the design parameters: signal propagation and readout, HV and electric field shaping; cryogenics, purification, operation in a magnetic field, civil engineering, safety and logistics, …..

Proceed from concepts towards detector designs(without and with magnetic field)

Location: underground (availability and cost, more severe safety issues) orsurface location (assess if adequate: loss of events superimposed to cosmics)


A 50-100 kton magnetised iron detector à la MonolithMonolith concept by P. Picchi and collaborators taken up for the

India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO)(talk by N.K. Mondal)

→ atmospheric neutrinos, in future -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,

…..


INO ~7000 km (Magic distance)


10 liters prototype liquid argon TPChas been tested in 0.5 T at ETHZ

A. Rubbia

ewrong sign electron!

¨Platinum channel!¨Platinum channel!


near detector and beam instrumentation


Neutrino fluxes + -> e+ e

/ e ratio reversed by switching

e spectra are different No high energy tail.

Very well known flux (10-3)

-- E& calibration from muon spin precession

-- angular divergence: small effect if < 0.2/

-- absolute flux measured from muon current or by e -> e 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…)

polarization controls e flux:

+ -X> e in forward direction

is that all true?


Towards a comparison of performances on equal footing

CP violation example

= ACP sinsolar term…

sinsin (m212 L/4E) sin P(e) - P(e)

P(e) + P(e)

Near detector should give e diff. cross-section*flux

BUT:need to know and diff. cross-section and detection efficiency

with small (relative) systematic errors.

interchange role of e and 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?


d/de,e’EeEe’Enegy transfer (GeV)Ee=700-1200 MeV

Blue: Fermi-gasGreen: SPRed: SP+FSI

QE

Zeller

These are for electronbeam. errors are ~5-10% but what happenswhen a muon mass is involved?


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 programmerequired to arrive at a baseline design, is identified;

The baseline designs for the neutrino detection systems are identified; andThe research-and-development programme required to deliver the baseline design is described.

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 andthe 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 baselineset of parameters for the sub-systems that can be taken forward in a subsequentconceptual-design phase; and toEvaluate the options for the neutrino detection systems with a view to defining a baseline set of detection systems to be taken forward in a subsequent conceptual-design phase.

the following was written in the proposal comments?


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.

$€£¥CHF

NB the nice thing with neutrino beams is that one can have more than one detector on the same beam line!


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?


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 detectorin 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) … … …

need a contact person that organizes the practical basics of the work(Phone conferences, web page, edition of report, etc…)

12

34


More working groups:

Near detectors and flux control (beam instrumentation)(many people are attending NUINT this week-end)

technology groupphotodetectors, scintillators, etc… will be included in eachdetector working group as they see fit. General interest presentations in detector working group meeting.

connection with physics group Mezetto

something missing?

Organization III

5


Methodology

not unique… we try to optimize physics reach/€$£¥. Is the following naive approach the right one?

1. 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?


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.


Combination of beta beam with super beam

combines CP and T violation tests

e (+) (T) e (+)

(CP)

e (-) (T) e (-)


Superbeam+Betabeam option

1. 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?

3. 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.


-- Neutrino Factory -- CERN layout --

e+ e

_

interacts

giving

oscillates einteracts givingWRONG SIGN MUONWRONG SIGN MUON

Golden Channel

1016p/s

1.2 1014 s =1.2 1021 yr

3 1020 eyr

3 1020 yr

0.9 1021 yr

target!cooling!

acceleration!

also (unique!) eSilver channel


Lindner et al

newer plot should come out of NUFACT05 and scoping study

……………………………………degeneraciescorrelationssystematics

.

beam + SPL3.5 SB+Mton

approval date:

~NOvA +PD


What happens to this at high if -- 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?


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.


Questions for Neutrino Factory experiments:

1. Do we REALLY NEED TWO far locations at two different distances?

2. 3000 km 1st osc. max at 6 GeV and 2d max at 2 GeV. Muon momentum cut at 4 GeV cuts 2d max info.Muon momentum cut at 4 GeV cuts 2d max info. Can this be improved?

3. Can we eliminate all degenracies by combination of energy distribution and analysis of different channels (tau, muon, electron, both signs, NC…)

4. 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

SPSC 2004 Villars Alain Blondel, 24/09/04

Where do you prefer to take shifts?

SPSC 2004 Villars Alain Blondel, 24/09/04

-- Neutrino Factory --CERN layout

e+ e _

interacts

giving oscillates e interacts giving WRONG SIGN MUON

1016p/s

1.2 1014 s =1.2 1021 yr

3 1020 eyr3 1020 yr

0.9 1021 yr


Message to Physics groupMessage 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!


What we must achieve in this meeting:

1. agree on the working groups2. identify one person who is in charge of assembling each W-group3. make a preliminary definition of the tasks for the next meeting4. begin a list of questions to the physics group

see Alan Bross’s talk tomorrow to see what we have achieved!


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

scoping study plenary -- detectors alain blondel iss-detectors present standing challenges admin....

Documents