Thoughts on the optimization of the VLENF VLENF meeting at - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
thoughts on the optimization of the vlenf
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Thoughts on the optimization of the VLENF VLENF meeting at - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Nov 22, 2022 146 likes •340 views

Thoughts on the optimization of the VLENF VLENF meeting at Fermilab, USA September 1, 2011 Walter Winter Universitt Wrzburg DISCLAIMER: Most of the following is based on the high energy Neutrino Factory However: many of the basic

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Thoughts on the optimization of the VLENF

VLENF meeting

at Fermilab, USA

September 1, 2011

Walter Winter Universität Würzburg

slide-2
SLIDE 2

DISCLAIMER:

Most of the following is based on the high energy Neutrino Factory However: many of the basic conclusions should be transferable …

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

Contents

  • Neutrino factory flux
  • Treatment of near detectors
  • Treatment of sterile neutrinos
  • Systematics/energy resolution issues
  • Conclusions
slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

Neutrino factory flux

  • Sometimes useful to integrate over energy:

[neglect beam collimation for the moment]

slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Geometry of the beam

  • Beam diameter ~

2 x L x 

  • We use two

beam angles:

  • Beam opening

angle:

  • Beam

divergence: contains 90% of total flux

(arXiv:0903.3039)

Beam divergence Beam opening angle 4 m in d=20 m Diameter ~0.4 m in d=20 m

slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

  • Example: high energy version
  • d = distance from end of straight
  • s = length of straight
  • L = baseline (from decay point to detector)

Geometry of decay ring

(arXiv:0903.3039)

L  decay

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Approximations

  • Far distance approximation:

Flux in whole detector looks like on-axis flux

  • Point source approximation:

Extension of source can be neglected d ~ L >> s

(arXiv:0903.3039)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

Extreme cases

  • Far detector limit:

Far distance approximation for any point of the decay straight, i.e., the detector diameter D < 2 x L x , where  is the beam opening angle

  • Near detector limit:

The detector catches almost the whole flux for any point of the decay straight, i.e., the detector diameter D > 2 x L x , where  is the beam divergence

(arXiv:0903.3039)

slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

Extreme cases: Spectra

  • Some examples (HENF):

~ND limit ~FD limit

(arXiv:0903.3039)

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

Some technicalities

  • How to treat arbitrary detectors in GLoBES?

(which uses the point source and far distance approximations)

1) Take into account extension of detector 2) Take into account extension of straight

(for details: arXiv:0903.3039)

GLoBES built-in with

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

Examples for near detectors

Near detector limit Far detector limit

SciBar-size Silicon- vertex size? OPERA- size Hypothetical

Nearest point Farthest point Averaged

=1: FD limit Dashed: ND limit

(Tang, Winter, arXiv:0903.3039)

  • Leads to excess of low-E events
  • near detector has to be large enough to have sufficient rates in high energy bins!
  • VLENF example: 200t TASD @ 20m, 2-3 m radius: ~ qualitatively similar to ND 3
  • VLENF example: 800t @ >> 600m, 6-7 m radius: ~ qualitatively similar to ND 4
slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

Sterile neutrinos: thoughts

  • First approximation (use Leff

!):

  • Examples (VLENF): E ~ 1 GeV

s=100 m, d=20 m: Leff =49 m  m2 ~ 60 eV2 s=100 m, d=600 m: Leff = 648 m  m2 ~ 5 eV2

  • The problem: are there effects from averaging over

the straight?

  • Oscillations depend on x=L/E, where

dx/x ~ |dL/L| + |dE/E| ~ s/Leff + 0.05 (TASD) s/Leff ~ 15% in far detector (d=600m)  Constrained by extension of straight, not energy resolution of detector!? Why need 5%?

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

Treatment of steriles

  • Requires generalization of ND scheme:
  • So far only tested for 

~ 1 (far detector limit); however, not in principle impossible if integrated in osc. engine (GLoBES)

(Giunti, Laveder, Winter, arXiv:0907.5487)

Effect

  • f beam

geometry Effect

  • f osc.

prob. Assumption: muon decays per dL ~ const

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Example: e disappearance

  • e disppearance:
  • Averaging over straight

important (dashed versus solid curves)

  • VLENF: Expect

significant averaging effects if d <~ s, i.e., in near detector [and limitation of x=L/E- resolution everywhere (see before)]

(arXiv:0907.5487)

90% CL, 2 d.o.f., No systematics, E =25 GeV, s=600m VLENF FD- equivalent

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

Disappearance systematics

  • Systematics similar to reactor experiments:

Use two detectors to cancel X-Sec errors

(arXiv:0907.5487)

10% shape error

arXiv:0907.3145

slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

On the VLENF optimization

(general conclusions)

  • From the above: E

can be rescaled if the baselines are adjusted accordingly (e.g. if required by X-sec measurements)

  • Advantage: Higher E

 longer d  less rel. effect of averaging of the straight

  • In principle: d >~ 2000m necessary if 5% energy

resolution needs to be useful in FD  E higher by a factor of three possible

  • However: not so clear to me where energy

resolution important … [maybe not at first osc. maximum]

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

On the VLENF optimization

(technical conclusions)

  • Numerical studies challenging, since optimization

depends on detector geometry and straight averaging (needs some coding), but recipe clear

  • But: sensitivity to sterile neutrinos will mostly

depend on far detector, which can be typically approximated by far detector limit

  • One has to ensure that the near detector has a

sufficient event rate at all energies; it may limit the energy resolution of the system because of the decay straight averaging

  • Some systematics difference between

appearance and disappearance searches!

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

Outlook

  • Dedicated pheno

studies should include:

  • Full N flavor

framework

  • Near+far+very

far detectors

  • Full m2 range
  • So far: only

effective near detector system

(Meloni, Tang, Winter, arXiv:1007.2419)