1 / 19

Near detectors for new physics searches

Near detectors for new physics searches. IDS-NF plenary meeting at TIFR, Mumbai October 12, 2009 Walter Winter Universität Würzburg. TexPoint fonts used in EMF: A A A A A A A A. Contents. Near detectors for standard osc. physics Three (new) physics examples: Non-standard interactions

nascha
Download Presentation

Near detectors for new physics searches

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Near detectors for new physics searches IDS-NF plenary meeting at TIFR, Mumbai October 12, 2009Walter Winter Universität Würzburg TexPoint fonts used in EMF: AAAAAAAA

  2. Contents • Near detectors for standard osc. physics • Three (new) physics examples: • Non-standard interactions • Non-unitarity of the mixing matrix • Sterile neutrinos • Requirements for new physics searches • What we need to understand … NB: For this talk, „near“ means L << 100 km (no std. osc. effect)

  3. Near detectors for standard oscillation physics • Need two near detectors, because m+/m- circulate in different directions • For the same reason: if only standard oscillations, no CID required, only excellent flavor-ID • Possible locations: (Tang, Winter, arXiv:0903.3039)

  4. See my talk tomorrow! Requirementsfor standard oscillation physics • Muon neutrino+antineutrino inclusive CC event rates measured (other flavors not needed in far detectors for IDS-NF baseline) • No charge identification, no ne,nt • At least same characteristics/quality (energy resolution etc.) as far detectors(a silicon vertex detector or ECC or liquid argon may do much better …) • Location and size not really relevant, because extremely large statistics (maybe size relevant for beam monitoring, background extrapolation) • The specifications of the near detectors may actually be driven by new physics searches!

  5. Beam+straight geometry • Near detectors described in GLoBES by e(E)=Aeff/Adet x on-axis flux and • For e(E) ~ 1: Far detector limit • Example: OPERA-sized detector at d=1 km: • L > ~1 km: GLoBES std. description valid(with Leff) (Tang, Winter, arXiv:0903.3039)

  6. New physics from heavy mediators • Effective operator picture if mediators integrated out:Describes additions to the SM in a gauge-inv. way! • Example: TeV-scale new physicsd=6: ~ (100 GeV/1 TeV)2 ~ 10-2 compared to the SMd=8: ~ (100 GeV/1 TeV)4 ~ 10-4 compared to the SM • Interesting dimension six operatorsFermion-mediated  Non-unitarity (NU)Scalar or vector mediated Non-standard int. (NSI) n mass d=6, 8, 10, ...: NSI, NU

  7. Example 1: Non-standard interactions • Typically described by effective four fermion interactions (here with leptons) • May lead to matter NSI (for g=d=e) • May also lead to source/detector NSI(e.g. NuFact: embs for a=d=e, g=m) These source/det.NSI are process-dep.!

  8. Lepton flavor violation… and the story of SU(2) gauge invariance • Strongbounds Ex.: NSI(FCNC) 4n-NSI(FCNC) CLFV e m ne nm ne nm ne ne e e e e • Affects neutrino oscillations in matter (or neutrino production) • Affects environments with high n densities (supernovae) BUT: These phenomena are connected by SU(2) gauge invariance • Difficult to construct large leptonic matter NSI with d=6 operators (Bergmann, Grossman, Pierce, hep-ph/9909390; Antusch, Baumann, Fernandez-Martinez, arXiv:0807.1003; Gavela, Hernandez, Ota, Winter,arXiv:0809.3451) • Need d=8 effective operators, …! • Finding a model with large NSI is not trivial!

  9. On current NSI bounds (Source NSI for NuFact) • The bounds for the d=6 (e.g.scalar-mediated) operators are strong (CLFV, Lept. univ., etc.)(Antusch, Baumann, Fernandez-Martinez, arXiv:0807.1003) • The model-independent bounds are much weaker(Biggio, Blennow, Fernandez-Martinez, arXiv:0907.0097) • However: note that here the NSI have to come from d=8 (or loop d=6?) operators  e ~ (v/L)4 ~ 10-4 natural? • „NSI hierarchy problem“?

  10. Source NSI with nt at a NuFact • Probably most interesting for near detectors: eets, emts (no intrinsic beam BG) • Near detectors measure zero-distance effect ~ |es|2 • Helps to resolve correlations This correlation is always present if:- NSI from d=6 operators- No CLFV (Gavela et al,arXiv:0809.3451;see also Schwetz, Ohlsson, Zhang, arXiv:0909.0455 for a particular model) ND5: OPERA-like ND at d=1 km, 90% CL (Tang, Winter, arXiv:0903.3039)

  11. Other types of source NSI • In particular models, also other source NSI (without nt detection) are interesting • Example: (incoh.)eems from addl.Higgs triplet asseesaw (II) mediator 1 kt, 90% CL, perfect CID Geometric effects? Effects of std. oscillations Systematics(CID) limitation?CID important! Requires CID! (Malinsky, Ohlsson, Zhang, arXiv:0811.3346)

  12. also: „MUV“ Example 2:Non-unitarity of mixing matrix • Integrating out heavy fermion fields, one obtains neutrino mass and the d=6 operator (here: fermion singletts) • Re-diagonalizing and re-normalizing the kinetic terms of the neutrinos, one has • This can be described by an effective (non-unitary) mixing matrix e with N=(1+e) U • Similar effect to NSI, but source, detector, and matter NSI are correlated in a particular, fundamental way (i.e., process-independent)

  13. Impact of near detector • Example: (Antusch, Blennow, Fernandez-Martinez, Lopez-Pavon, arXiv:0903.3986) • nt near detector important to detect zero-distance effect • Magnetization not mandatory, size matters Curves: 10kt, 1 kt, 100 t, no ND

  14. Example 3:Search for sterile neutrinos • 3+n schemes of neutrinos include (light) sterile states • The mixing with the active states must be small • The effects on different oscillation channels depend on the model  test all possible two-flavor short baseline (SBL) cases, which are standard oscillation-free • Example: ne disappearanceSome fits indicate an inconsistency between the neutrino and antineutrino data (see e.g. Giunti, Laveder, arXiv:0902.1992) • NB: Averaging over decay straight not possible! The decays from different sections contribute differently!

  15. SBL ne disappearance • Averaging over straight important (dashed versus solid curves) • Location matters: Depends on Dm312 • Magnetic field ifinteresting as well Two baseline setup? d=50 m d~2 km (as long as possible) 90% CL, 2 d.o.f.,No systematics, m=200 kg (Giunti, Laveder, Winter, arXiv:0907.5487)

  16. SBL systematics • Systematics similar to reactor experiments:Use two detectors to cancel X-Sec errors 10% shape error arXiv:0907.3145 Also possible with onlytwo ND (if CPT-inv. assumed) (Giunti, Laveder, Winter, arXiv:0907.5487)

  17. CPTV discovery reaches (3s) Dashed curves: without averaging over straight Requires four NDs! (Giunti, Laveder, Winter, arXiv:0907.5487)

  18. Summary of (new) physics requirements • Number of sitesAt least two (neutrinos and antineutrinos), for some applications four (systematics cancellation) • Exact baselinesNot relevant for source NSI, NU, important for oscillatory effects (sterile neutrinos etc.) • FlavorsAll flavors should be measured • Charge identificationIs needed for some applications (such as particular source NSI); the sensitivity is limited by the CID capabilities • Energy resolutionProbably of secondary importance (as long as as good as FD); one reason: extension of straight leads already to averaging • Detector sizeIn principle, as large as possible. In practice, limitations by beam geometry or systematics. • Detector geometryAs long (and cylindrical) as possible (active volume) Aeff < Adet Aeff ~ Adet

  19. What we need to understand • How long can the baseline be for geometric reasons (maybe: use „alternative locations“)? • What is the impact of systematics (such as X-Sec errors) on new physics parameters • What other kind of potentially interesting physics with oscillatory SBL behavior is there? • How complementary or competitive is a nt near detector to a superbeam version, see e.g.http://www-off-axis.fnal.gov/MINSIS/

More Related