Physics Working Group

1
Physics Working Group Aim and tasks
INTERNATIONAL NEUTRINO FACTORY AND SUPERBEAM
SCOPING STUDY MEETING CERN - 22-24 September
2005 Y. Nagashima OSAKA UNIVERSITY

• CONTENTS
• Mission defined
• Past studies SB, BB, NF
• Degeneracy problem
• Summary

2
What I have describe is an abridged version
of Physics Report Contents which can be found
at The Physics working group website Scoping-stud
y/ISS-www-site/WG1-PhysPhen/Council /2005-08-29/Ph
ysReport-contents-2005-08-29.doc With some
numbers borrowed from past studies.
3
Organization of Physics Working Group
Convener Yori Nagashima (Osaka U.) Council
members Debbie Harris (FNAL), Pilar Hernandez
(U.Valencia), Manfred Lindner (Technical U.
Muenchen), Ken Long (Imperial College London)
Hitoshi Murayama (LBL), Lee Roberts (U.
Boston), Osamu Yasuda (Tokyo Metropolitan
U.) Subgroup convener Theoretical TBC
Phenomenological O.Yasuda Experimental K.Long
4

• Neutrino factory is comparable
• with LHC and ILC
• In its scale.
• Is the physics case equally strong?

5
Mission of the theoretical subgroup Issue a
message to global community
Win Other Scientists Support It is not
enough to win arguments one must win
partners. The two are not the same.
Robin Staffin, DOE, 2005 ILC Workshop
at Snowmass

• Describe the impact of the neutrino and related
  researches
• towards the understanding of the matter
  unification, the synergy of particle physics,
  astro-physics and cosmology.
• Draw a road map, paint a colorful picture!

6
The neutrino opens the way to
many new frontiers
Super Beam
n factory
Courtesy Brian Foster NuFact02 Manfred Lindner
ISSWS05
7
Mission of the phenomenogical and
experimental subgroups

• Critical review of physics performance of future
  options
• Superbeam (SB)
• Beta beam (BB)
• Neutrino Factory (NF)
• Define strengths and weaknesses of each facility
• Perform critical comparison
• Step towards a consensus
• Identify the need for complementary measurements
• Make a scenario w/wo staging approach to achieve
  scientific goals

8
For Experimental subgroup

• Need to define
• Assumptions on accelerator performance
• Assumptions on detector performance
• Definition of baseline tools used for analyses
• e.g. Nuance/Globes.
• Neutrino cross sections status and what will be
  assumed.

9
Goals of the plenary meeting 1Establish a list
of parameters
and things to do.
10
Near Future / next 10 yrs
P.Huber et al., hep-ph/0403068
Super Beam opportunity X10 improvement over
ongoing experiments
Dm22.0x10-3eV2
11
Long Future / Next 30 years
Ability to observe non-zero q13 versus time
Fermilab Proton driver study report http//proto
ndriver.fnal.gov/
12
Indicator for risk minimization of CP precision
measurement
P.Huber et al., hep-ph/0412199
CP coverage is a range of fitted values of dCP
13
How to solve correlation and degeneracy?
Use combination of different En, L or
GoldenSilver channel
Many scenarios are proposed
14
An Example
2 Ls to resolve degeneracy
Staged approach One detector first, if dp/3 If
not, 2nd detector at MB
P.Huber et al., hep-ph/0412199
15

• Step towards a consensus
• Identify the need for complementary measurements
• Make a scenario w/wo staging approach to achieve
  scientific goals
• Establish the physics case for (or against!) a NF

S.Geers question (ISS WS 05) Is a NF needed if
sin22q13 is large ? What is the minimum NF
energy that will deliver the physics (cost
issue)?
16
Time schedule taken from An
International Scoping Study of a Neutrino
Factory and super-beam facility http//www.hep.p
h.ic.ac.uk /7Elongkr/UKNF/Scoping-study /ISS-www-
site/WG1-PhysPhen /Council/2005-08-29 /PhysPhen-co
uncil-2005 -08-29-WG1-plan.pdf
17
SHEDULE

• Physics working group workshop 1
• 14-21 November 2005
• Imperial College London
• Plenary Meetings
• 2 KEK 23-25 January 2006
• 3 RAL 27-29 April 2006
• 4 Irvine 21-23 August 2006 (just before
  NuFact06)