Minutes of July 5 meeting
Minutes from 7/5/00 Oscillations Measurements Working Group Meeting
Last modified: Mon Jul 17 14:39:45 CDT 2000
Working Group Minutes
Ray Stefanski's talk from July 5, 2000 meeting
This document describes some of the low energy neutrino
physics that is of interest, as well as the salient features
of the PRISM project in Japan.
Mario Campanelli (by phone)
Bob Shrock (by phone)
Next Meeting of this group: July 19, 2000 9:30AM
Don't forget NNN00 Workshop at Fermilab: Aug 7&8
CP and T violation in long baseline experiments with low energy neutrino
by Joe Sato, hep-ph/0006127 , June 13, 2000.
Future Studies and Deadlines
We discussed the various ways in which the 6-month study could
or should be extended. Click here
for Bob Bob Berstein's draft outline of the next long term
report. The deadline for this report is sometime before Nufact01/Snowmass.
A smaller report or addendum should also be written, with a November 4
deadline, since that is when the PAC will meet next. The draft charge
of that addendum is below. Steve Geer suggested that we also consider
the question of how far below ground various detectors need to be for
various measurements--since that determines what baselines are do-able
for each detector type.
New Draft Charge from Mike Shaevitz
What can be done with a conventional neutrino beam?
What is sin22th13 reach? At what level do systematic errors come in?
Can one measure matter effects and sign of Dm223 ?
What should be the energy and intensity of an entry level machine in order
to push x10 beyond the above conventional program?
Goal should be a measurement of sin22th13 at the 0.0001 to 0.001 level
Can one do precision nu_mu,e to nu_tau measurements?
Cost effective high mass detectors? How to do nu_tau detection?
What level of machine is needed to measure CP violation.
How would one do the measurement assuming the LMA solar solution
or MiniBooNE confirms LSND?
How can the neutrino factory address the issues associated with the
existence sterile neutrinos?
Beginnings of superbeam study
After discussing charges et al, we looked over the preliminary
superbeam study that Debbie and Steve have been working on (see
the superbeam web page
and the 7300km NUMI high energy beam
plots available from that web page). Seeing an effect for
sin^22theta_13=.001 looks really really hard even if nc background
rejection is 10^-3, because the intrinsic nu_e background is the
same size as the signal in the most significant energy bin (and
larger elsewhere). If sin^22theta_13=.01 then it wouldn't be so
bad with the NUMI high energy beam--for the right sign of delta m^2
the signal would be 10x the intrinsic nue background, for the wrong
sign of delta m^2 it would probably be the same size as the intrinsic
Last updated July 17, 2000
Suggestions ? Contact email@example.com