NEUTRINOS II The Sequel

NEUTRINOS II The Sequel More About Neutrinos Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR V - 2006 August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 1

There is something unusual about this neutrino talk compared to many other neutrino talks you may have seen. Can you discern it? August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 2

The Number of Neutrinos is Three August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 3

(L in km, E in GeV) or (L in m, E in MeV) August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 4

The Sun Flavor Produced ν e Baseline 10 11 m Energy 0.1-15 MeV Flavor Detected ν e, NC SNO, Super-K, others Reactor ν e 1-200 km 0.3 GeV ν e KamLAND, Chooz ν e 0.3+2 km 0.3 GeV ν e Double Chooz, Daya Bay Cosmic rays Accelerator Stopped π Beta Beam ν Factory ( ν + ν ),( ν + ν ) ν µ ν µ µ µ ν, ν ν, ν ν µ µ µ µ µ ν, ν e e ( ν + ν ),( ν + ν ) µ e e µ e e 10-10000 km 250, 735 km 295, 810 km 540 m 295+1000 km 50 m???? subgev TeV 0.1-10 GeV 0.7, 2.2 GeV 500 MeV 0.5 GeV 50 MeV 0.2-10 GeV? 20 GeV? ( ν + ν ),( ν + ν ) ν ν µ µ µ, e ν, ν e ν ν µ, e ν, ν e ν, ν e e e ν, ν, ν, ν e e µ µ ( ν + ν ),( ν + ν ) e e e µ µ e e Super-K, others K2K, MINOS T2K, NOνA MiniBooNE T2KK LSND, KARMEN?????? August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 5

The first hints of neutrino mixing, and the first convincing results came from natural sources Solar Neutrinos Atmospheric Neutrinos Φ ( ν ) < Φ ( ν + ν + ν ) Φ(SSM) e e µ τ Also important: Super-K, Kamiokande, SAGE, Gallex/GNO, Homestake Confirmed by MACRO, Soudan 2 Started by Kamiokande and IMB August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 6

But we must keep in mind an important negative result Chooz reactor experiment No evidence for electron neutrino disappearance over ~ 1 km 2 2 3 2 sin 2θ < 0.2 (at m ~ 2 10 ev ) Also Palo Verde Reactor experiment August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 7

Atmospheric Neutrinos Pretty! August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 8

Flux Atmospheric Neutrinos Cross Section 2:1 flavor ratio Up-down symmetric Angular Pointing e/µ Pretty technical! August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 9

Atmospheric Neutrinos August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 10

Super-Kamiokande III (newly rebuilt, filling in May 2006) August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 11

August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 12

August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 13

How we bin and fit the data at SK 380 bins (SK-I+SK-II) + 70 systematic terms August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 14

Muon Neutrino Tau Neutrino Mixing 380 bins (SK-I + SK-II) ν ν fit 2 χ = 839.7 / 755 DOF µ τ sin 2θ > 0.95, m = 2.5 10 ev (68% CL) 2 2 + 0.2 3 2 0.3 August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 15

August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 16

What about electron neutrinos? August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 17

What about tau neutrinos? E ν > 3.5 GeV August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 18

Neural Network Analysis of Tau Appearance August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 19

Neural Network Analysis of Tau Appearance 134 ± 48 events in excess + 16 27 cf. 78 ± 27 excess events expected ~2.4 σ effect August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 20

What about the oscillation pattern? Expand Fiducial Volume Keep events with good L/E resolution August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 21

August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 22

Lorentz Invariance Violation? Weak Equivalence Principle, CPT Invariance Violation? 1 Best fit is at L/ E. 2 χ > 100 disfavored by > 10σ Sterile Neutrinos? ν ν χ 2 µ sterile = 2 µ τ = ν ν χ 2 = χ 2 = χ 513.5 / 438 481.5 / 438 31 5.6σ DOF DOF NC should disappear Red: µ τ Blue: µ-sterile Matter effect suppression P osc 0. 8 0. 6 0. 4 0. 2 1 MaVans and ν oscillate in rock - 0. 5 0 0. 5 1-1 0 1 Cos(zenith) Low energy ν oscillate in air 2 = 19.5 4.4σ MaVaNs? August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 23 χ hep-ph/0401099 Dark energy related scalar field causes ρ dependent m 2

August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 24

We know a certain amount about the mixing angles, except θ 13 is only bounded. By B. Kayser August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 25

Neutrino Mixing Matrix Parameterization times Majorana Phases (not shown) WHY?? August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 26

A. de Gouvea We know the neutrino is much lighter than the quarks and leptons, and we have measured the mass splittings pretty well. The most massive must 2 have m > 0.05 ev ( m atm ). We know the heirarchy between 1 and 2. But we don t know: Degenerate Inverted hierarchy Normal hierarchy 2 1 3 3 2 1 2.5 10 ev } 3 2 7 10 ev 5 2 August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 27

Three Active Neutrinos or CPT violation?? KamLAND won t allow it now. LSND : m ~ ev 2 2 Atmospheric : m ~2.5 10 ev 2 3 2 Solar : m ~ 8 10 ev Pick any two! 2 5 2 or a sterile neutrino?? H. Murayama August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 28

LSND +/- Weakly significant (3.8σ) + No known defect - Complementary experiment, KARMEN, sees no effect (+ but with less sensitivity) August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 29

MiniBooNE L = 540 m (10 LSND) E = 500 MeV (10 LSND) ν not ν µ µ 950 kl of pure mineral oil Cherenkov+scintillation 1280 PMTs Blind Analysis 50 STATUS: 7.2x10 20 pot anti-ν since Jan. 2006 Expect result real soon now Important to be unambiguous and correct! 40 30 20 10 Un-blind sample Osc ν e MisID ν µ ν e from µ + ν e from K + 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 EnuQE (GeV) ν e from K 0 ν e from π + August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 30

Long Baseline Experiments ILLINOIS LAB WILL BOMBARD WISCONSIN WITH NEUTRINOS Wisconsin State Journal August 8, 2002 KEK - Kamioka (K2K) ~1 GeV neutrinos L=250 km 1999-2004 Fermilab Soudan (MINOS) ~3 GeV neutrinos L=735 km Started 2005 CERN Gran Sasso (Opera/ICARUS) ~17 GeV neutrinos (broadband) L=732 km Starts in 2006 August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 31

MINOS Far Detector 120 GeV protons, 4x10 13 ppp, 1.87 s cycle 0.4 MW beam power 1 kton near detector 5.4 kton far detector 484 steel/scintillator planes 1.2 T solenoidal magnetic field 750 km baseline, peak energy ~ 3 GeV 92% ν µ, 1.5% ν e /ν e -bar νs to Soudan, MN Near Detector Main Injector August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 32

Final results from K2K First results from MINOS N N OBS EXP = 112 = 158.1 + 9.2 8.6 > 4σ confirmation of atmospheric neutrino mixing m = 2.74 10 ev 2 sin 2 2 + 0.44 3 2 32 0.26 θ 23 > 0.87 (68% CL) August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 33

θ13 Gateway Parameter CP violating phase + terms in matter effect August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 34

Precision Reactor Experiments only depends on θ 13, not δ or hierarchy Survival Probability Requires careful control of systematics > 1% Require multiple detectors Require overburden to reduce background Can reach sin 2 2θ ~ 0.01 10 km 100 km August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 35

Double Chooz (France): 2 x 4 GW reactor cores 50-300 mwe overburden 0.3/1 km baseline Existing infrastructure early start? (above) 2x10 ton modules fixed Goal of 0.6% systematics Reach sin 2 2θ ~ 0.03 Daya Bay (Hong Kong): 6 reactor cores, 17 GW total 200-1000 mwe overburden 0.3/1.8-2.2 km baseline Construct tunnels and labs (above) 8x20 ton modules moveable Goal of 0.36% systematics Reach sin 2 2θ ~ 0.01 August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 36

Neutrino flux is roughly proportional to proton beam power. Neutrino beams power 2.00E+03 1.80E+03 1.60E+03 1.40E+03 1.20E+03 1.00E+03 8.00E+02 6.00E+02 4.00E+02 2.00E+02 0.00E+00 power (kw) BNL AGS Main Ring nu expts CERN WANF LSND KARMEN (ISIS) NuTev MiniBoone K2K NuMI (average) NuMI (peak power) NuMI (design) NuMI MI stacking NuMI RR stacking NuMI Accum. stacking NuMI Proton Driver CNGS J-PARC - T2K -19 Power[W]=(protons/pulse) (energy[ev]) (repetition rate[hz]) (1.6 10 [C/proton]) or if available: Power[W]=(beam current[a]) (beam energy[ev]) August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 37

Off-Axis Technique August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 38

Physics Goals Discover ν e appearance (first such result barring LSND/MiniBooNE), measuring non-zero θ 13 Resolve if θ 23 is non-maximal More precisely measure m 23 August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 39

T2K August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 40

One is signal, one is background ν e + n e + p 0 ν + p ν + p+ π µ µ August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 41

To 1 APD pixel NOνA L typical charged particle path 30 (25) kton totally active detector W D Planes of liquid scintillator (mineral oil) read by WLS fiber and APD Surface detector with small overburden (right) August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 42

One is signal, one is background + ν e + p e + p+ π 0 ν + N ν + p+ π µ µ August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 43

Resolving the Mass Hierarchy Matter effect enhances ν e appearance for normal hierarchy Effect is reversed (enhanced anti-ν e ) for inverted hierarchy T2K 10% ν 10% e νe NOνA bigger 600 MeV 290 km δm 2 23 =2.5x10-3 ev 2 sin 2 2θ 23 =1.0 δm 2 12 =7.1x10-5 ev 2 sin 2 2θ 12 =0.81 sin 2 2θ 13 =0.16 2.3 GeV 820 km August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 44

Beyond T2K and NOνA August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 45

P( ν ν ) P( ν ν ) µ e µ e ~1000 km eg. T2K-K A.K.A. CP Violation CP Asymmetry stronger at 2 nd maximum August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 46

To do list: Real soon- 2006?! August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 47

There was something unusual about this neutrino talk compared to many other neutrino talks you may have seen. Did you discern it? No contours! This is not because contours (confidence intervals) are bad. They are generally a very appropriate way to present a final result, and a very good way of comparing results (i.e by overlaying them). But contours are fully digested final answers there is no way to evaluate the character or quality of the data. As was mentioned: when reading a paper or proposal, try to find the important plot that characterizes the result, not simply states it. I recently seem to see many talks that seem to show only the contours. It s like seeing a talk that reports only the final numbers (with ±errors), and no other details. I imagine 90% of all neutrino physicists can sketch the Chooz contour for sin 2 θ 23, but many fewer can sketch the data and fit that produced it. So as an exercise for myself, I made this lecture without contours. Caveat: one set snuck in- can you find it? August 18, 2006 Ed Kearns Boston University NEPPSR 2006 48