Minutes from the November 19 meeting
Attendees (in no particular order):
Bob Bernstein, Peter Shanahan, Ray Stefanski, Boris Kayser,
Andrea Romanino, Mario Campanelli, Bruce Brown, Craig Moore,
Mike Shaevitz, Mayda Velasco, Fritz DeJongh, Debbie Harris
Superbeam Studies Update: Fritz DeJongh
Specifically--Fritz and Debbie have been looking at possible
beamline designs for a beam to Homestake, and Dave Casper has
been in contact with Fritz, to use his fast monte carlo to
figure out how water cerenkov would work at these energies.
Fritz showed a comparison between a narrow band beam created with a
dipole compared to one coming from an off-axis beam, with the same
peak energy. The dipole beam had about 40% less flux in the peak bins,
but the cutoff at high energy was sharper, which would mean a lower
neutral current background level.
Fritz also followed up on a discussion at an earlier meeting on the
possible aperture sizes for a dipole--according to the JHF to SuperK
proposal, they assume a dipole with a 60cm diameter, which is also the
diameter of the first NUMI horn. So large diameters are feasible. This
was also confirmed by Nikolai Molkhov.
there will be an NNN workshop in Louisiana with more
FNAL participation, in hopes of getting us and them better acquainted
and in hopes of our getting our hands on the detector simulation tools!
Also, BIG NEWS:
starting in December Nikolai Molkhov and Mikail Kostin will be
working on beam design issues associated with sending a beam from
Fermilab to Homestake--Mikail has been working on MINOS as a post-doc
from the University of Texas at Austin, but will be starting his new
job with Nikolai Molkhov in December.
There was a question raised about what the goal of a superbeam program
should be: should we only say we're trying to see CP violation? This
leaves us open to the problem of if the solar solution isn't LMA then
it implies that there's no point in the entire program. Bob Bernstein
raised the question shouldn't we be trying for theta_13 and matter effects
Neutrino Community Consensus: Mike Shaevitz
Mike Shaevitz commented that we need to form a consensus on the next
neutrino experiment: i.e., what the best energy, the best detector,
(the best baseline?) Once we get a consensus on what the next experiment
looks like then it would be easier to get more of the community to back
it, and it will be easier to get the proton driver upgrade pushed ahead.
By "next neutrino experiment" Mike meant what comes after MiniBooNE,
MINOS, and any possible NUMI off-axis experiments. Mayda suggests that
we need to wait until KAMLAND says something concrete about the solar
neutrino anomaly (LMA or not LMA?) then we can figure out what the
motivation is for a superbeam to Homestake. The the presence of a
concrete motivation will inspire more of the community to support such a
- 1. how can we get to a consensus?
- 2. what kind of workshop would be useful (at Fermilab) in the next year?
- 3. This project needs to be international--how do we make it that way?
We need a realistic study for a design for a proton driver, even if it's
put on the shelf for awhile. Coupled with that is the need for a report on
the physics potential of the superbeam fed by that driver. Maybe this
report needs two scenarios in it: what if the solar solution is LMA, what if
it isn't? How does that change what we should be trying to measure?
Then if a LC doesn't come to Fermilab then we have these two studies that
we can pick up and stat putting real resources into. We don't want to have
to wait for a LC decision to START doing these studies!
Mayda points out that given the funding (and by implication physics) delay
at CERN and the LHC, the proton driver at Fermilab should be pushed ahead
since it becomes more relevant for Run II. She heard that the funding level
at CERN will stay constant over the next few years, they aren't getting the
increase they asked for.
Moving on to the HEPAP Subpanel Report:
First of all, there's a new mailing list that Bob Bernstein set up to
discuss what we as a neutrino community should propse as an edit to the
report --there have already been some interesting comments on the report,
and if you subscribe (send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org with one line of text
in the body of the message reading "subscribe nupap firstname lastname"
leaving the subject line blank) Bob B. will forward those emails to you
so you don't miss anything juicy.
There was a brief discussion of an email Cat James sent to the mailing
list, she warned about making the same mistakes with a LC that were made
with the SSC: she's afraid the report lowball's the cost and the
schedule of an LC.
The general concern with the document is that if the LC slips or goes
over budget then the field will really be in trouble. Also, the statment
is that if the LC is onshore, there is a 10-12 yewar gap in funding for
Some things that it was agreed we should ask the hepap subpanel writers
to stress more were:
Also, Mayda requested that we actually suggest something along the
lines of "if the linear collider is onshore but not at Fermilab then
the proton driver and superbeam should be pursued Fermilab" but the
rest of the attendees were worried that adding too many requests to
the report would dilute the message. Debbie H. also expressed concern
that the field wasn't going to necessarily support two large underground
water detectors. (but others assured me I was being pessimistic).
- 1) we should ask for new intiatives funding earlier on
in the schedule to ensure a broad physics program.
- 2) we should ask them to be more specific about what happens to
neutrino physics in the two scenarios: i.e. for the LC onshore
scenario, we should ask them to add something about possible modest
upgrades to existing onshore neutrino programs
(i.e. a NUMI off-axis beam experiment
to search for theta_13 and hopefully matter effects)
But in general it was agreed that we should ask for some text that
preceeded the two scenarios saying that while there is an obvious
ordering that was chosen for the scenarios, we should be prepared for
the possibility of either one. i.e., not put the rest of the program on
hold while the LC location decision is being made.
Bob B volunteered himself and Debbie to try and write a concise
suggestion incorporating the above ideas and pass it around to the nupap
Last modified: Mon Nov 19 16:17:38 CST 2001