skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: How well do we need to know the beam properties at a neutrino factory?

Abstract

In principle, a neutrino factory can produce a beam with a well known {nu}{sub e} and {nu}{sub {mu}} flux. In practice, the uncertainties on the muon beam properties will introduce uncertainties into the calculated neutrino fluxes. The authors explore the relationship between the beam systematics and the systematic uncertainties on predicted event rates at a far site. The desired precision with which they must know the beam momentum, direction, divergence, momentum spread, and polarization are discussed.

Authors:
;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Fermi National Accelerator Lab., Batavia, IL (US)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Energy Research (ER) (US)
OSTI Identifier:
751828
Report Number(s):
FERMILAB-TM-2101
TRN: US0001137
DOE Contract Number:
AC02-76CH03000
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Resource Relation:
Other Information: PBD: 29 Feb 2000
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS; ACCELERATORS; NEUTRINO BEAMS; DATA COVARIANCES; RADIATION FLUX; POLARIZATION; BEAM DYNAMICS

Citation Formats

Geer, S., and Crisan, C.. How well do we need to know the beam properties at a neutrino factory?. United States: N. p., 2000. Web. doi:10.2172/751828.
Copy to clipboard
Geer, S., & Crisan, C.. How well do we need to know the beam properties at a neutrino factory?. United States. doi:10.2172/751828.
Copy to clipboard
Geer, S., and Crisan, C.. Tue . "How well do we need to know the beam properties at a neutrino factory?". United States. doi:10.2172/751828. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/751828.
Copy to clipboard
@article{osti_751828,
title = {How well do we need to know the beam properties at a neutrino factory?},
author = {Geer, S. and Crisan, C.},
abstractNote = {In principle, a neutrino factory can produce a beam with a well known {nu}{sub e} and {nu}{sub {mu}} flux. In practice, the uncertainties on the muon beam properties will introduce uncertainties into the calculated neutrino fluxes. The authors explore the relationship between the beam systematics and the systematic uncertainties on predicted event rates at a far site. The desired precision with which they must know the beam momentum, direction, divergence, momentum spread, and polarization are discussed.},
doi = {10.2172/751828},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Tue Feb 29 00:00:00 EST 2000},
month = {Tue Feb 29 00:00:00 EST 2000}
}
Copy to clipboard
Technical Report:
View Technical Report (0.33 MB)
DOI:  10.2172/751828
Save / Share:
Export Metadata
Save to My Library
You must Sign In or Create an Account in order to save documents to your library.

  • ;
    In the past 10 years our knowledge of the parameters {rho} and {eta} of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix has improved substantially. This article reviews the measurements that contributed to this advance, and discusses their implication in terms of understanding CP violation in the Standard Model and beyond.

  • ;
    Analytical estimate of the number of muons that must decay in the straight section of a storage ring to produce a neutrino & anti-neutrino beam of sufficient intensity to facilitate cross-section measurements with a statistical precision of 1%. As we move into the era of precision long-baseline {nu}{sub {mu}} {yields} {nu}{sub e} and {bar {nu}}{sub {mu}} {yields} {bar {nu}}{sub e} measurements there is a growing need to precisely determine the {nu}{sub e} and {bar {nu}}{sub e} cross-sections in the relevant energy range, from a fraction of 1 GeV to a few GeV. This will require {nu}{sub e} and {bar {nu}}{submore » e} beams with precisely known fluxes and spectra. One way to produce these beams is to use a storage ring with long straight sections in which muon decays ({mu}{sup -} {yields} e{sup -}{nu}{sub {mu}}{bar {nu}}{sub e} if negative muons are stored, and {nu}{sup +} {yields} e{sup +}{nu}{sub e}{bar {nu}}{sub {mu}} if positive muons are stored) produce the desired beam. The challenge is to capture enough muons in the ring to obtain useful neutrino and anti-neutrino fluxes. Early proposals to use a muon storage ring for neutrino oscillation experiments were based upon injecting 'high energy' charged pions into the ring which then decayed to create stored muons. These proposals were hampered by lack of sufficient intensity to pursue the physics. The Neutrino Factory proposal in 1997 was designed to fix this problem by using a Muon Collider class 'low energy' muon source to capture many more pions at low energy, allow them to decay in an external decay channel, manipulate their phase space to capture as many muons as possible within the acceptance of an accelerator, and then accelerate to the energy of choice before injecting into a specially designed ring with long straight sections. All this technology would do a wonderful job in fixing the intensity problem, but at a price that excludes this solution from being realized in the short term. The question that we are now faced with is whether the older, lower intensity 'parasitic' muon storage ring based on 'high energy' pion decays can, with suitable modification, produce sufficient intensity to measure the desired cross-sections. Fortunately, the intensity requirements for cross-section measurements are less demanding than the corresponding requirements for oscillation measurements, so there is hope. To fuel the discussion, in this note we consider the design goal: how many muons do we need to store?« less

  • ; - Physical Review, D
    Individual neutrino fluxes are not well determined by the four operating solar neutrino experiments. Assuming neutrino oscillations occur, the {ital pp} electron neutrino flux is uncertain by a factor of 2, the {sup 8}B flux by a factor of 5, and the {sup 7}Be flux by a factor of 45. For matter-enhanced oscillation (MSW) solutions, the range of allowed differences of squared neutrino masses, {Delta}{ital m}{sup 2}, varies between 4{times}10{sup {minus}6} eV{sup 2} and 1{times}10{sup {minus}4} eV{sup 2}, while 4{times}10{sup {minus}3}{le}sin{sup 2}2{theta}{le}1.5{times}10{sup {minus}2} or 0.5{le}sin{sup 2}2{theta}{le}0.9. For vacuum oscillations, {Delta}{ital m}{sup 2} varies between 5{times}10{sup {minus}11} eV{sup 2} and 1{times}10{supmore » {minus}10} eV{sup 2}, while 0.7{le}sin{sup 2}2{theta}{le}1.0. The inferred ranges of neutrino parameters depend only weakly on which standard solar model is used. Calculations of the expected results of future solar neutrino experiments (SuperKamiokande, SNO, BOREXINO, ICARUS, HELLAZ, and HERON) are used to illustrate the extent to which these experiments will restrict the range of the allowed neutrino mixing parameters. For example, the double ratio (observed ratio divided by standard model ratio) of neutral current to charged current event rates to be measured in the SNO experiment varies, at 95{percent} confidence limit, over the range 1.0 (no oscillations into active neutrinos), 3.1{sub {minus}1.3}{sup +1.8} (small mixing angle MSW), 4.4{sub {minus}1.4}{sup +2.0} (large mixing angle MSW), and 5.2{sub {minus}2.9}{sup +5.6} (vacuum oscillations). We present an improved formulation of the {open_quote}{open_quote}luminosity constraint{close_quote}{close_quote} and show that at 95{percent} confidence limit, this constraint establishes the best available limits on the rate of creation of {ital pp} neutrinos in the solar interior and provides the best upper limit to the {sup 7}Be neutrino flux. (Abstract Truncated)« less

  • - International Journal of Thermophysics
    Some recent developments in the areas of measurement, prediction, and correlation of thermophysical properties and phase behavior are reviewed. However, important problems remain, and some of these are not being addressed. Here a number of thermophysical properties problem areas are identified based on the prejudices of the author and a small survey of friends and colleagues in industry and academia. Many of the problems arise as result of changes in industrial emphasis, for example, from chemicals to materials and pharmaceuticals, changes in federal or local regulations permitting lower air and water emissions, changes in technology, and an interest in determiningmore » the fate of chemicals in the environment. Some of the research needs, both experimental and theoretical, to deal with these problems are discussed.« less