Future UK Strategy for Neutrino Physics

A PPAP consultation paper

20 Feb 2007

To develop a UK strategy for future particle physics experiments the PPAP has produced a
number of consultation documents which it has used to solicit comments from the community.
This document is the final version of the consultation on neutrino physics, following input
from the community.

Contents

1 Introduction........................................................................................................1
2 The Current Situation .........................................................................................2
2.1 Oscillations & the Mixing matrix......................................................................2
Atmospheric & Solar Experiments......................................................................2
Reactor Experiments...........................................................................................2
Long Baseline Experiments ................................................................................2
2.2 The Mass Hierarchy..........................................................................................3
2.3 The LSND effect ..............................................................................................3
2.4 Majorana/Dirac nature...................................................................................3
2.5 Absolute mass................................................................................................4
3 The Challenges...................................................................................................4
4 The Next 10 Years..............................................................................................5
4.1 Oscillation Experiments, 13 and ....................................................................5
Superbeam Experiments .....................................................................................5
Reactor Experiments...........................................................................................5
4.2 The Mass Hierarchy..........................................................................................6
4.3 Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay ......................................................................6
4.4 Absolute mass ..................................................................................................6
5 The future beyond 2015......................................................................................7
6 Accelerator Development and Future Neutrino Facilities. ...................................8
6.1 UK Accelerator development............................................................................8
7 Summary – the UK Programme ..........................................................................8
Appendix 1 Community Consultation.......................................................................10

1 Introduction
The field of neutrino physics has undergone a revolution in the past eight years following the
discovery of neutrino oscillations. It is now established that neutrino physics will be capable
of exploring areas of physics beyond the standard model in the not too distant future, in
particular the possibility of CP violation existing in the lepton sector.

Oscillations can only take place with massive particles leading to two distinct sets of
eigenstates, one defined by the neutrino masses and the other by their weak interactions. They
are related by a mixing matrix UMNS with four parameters, three angles, 12, 23, 13 and a
phase, . The detected flavour of a neutrino is then a function of the production flavour, the
MNS parameters, the mass differences and the time taken from production to detection,
typically expressed as L/E, the ratio of the distance travelled L to the neutrino energy E. The
general oscillation scheme may also include CP violating effects governed by the parameter 
in the MNS matrix.

1
Massive neutrinos can occur in two fundamentally distinct ways: either as Majorana particles,
where the neutrino is fundamentally its own antiparticle, or as Dirac particles, where the
particle and anti-particle are distinct in some way yet to be discovered.

2 The Current Situation

2.1 Oscillations & the Mixing matrix

Atmospheric & Solar Experiments

The first evidence for neutrino oscillations came from deficits in the number of detected muon
neutrino interactions from atmospheric neutrinos and the number of detected electron neutrino
interactions from the sun. The oscillation hypothesis only became broadly accepted once it
was observed in the Super-Kamiokande detector that the rate of muon neutrino induced
interactions was a function of the zenith angle and when SNO confirmed that the flux of
electron neutrinos reaching the earth was less than half the total flux of neutrinos from the sun.
These experiments still dominate current measurements of 23, 12, |m232| and |m122|.

Reactor Experiments
Nuclear reactors provide the most copious source of electron anti-neutrinos on earth. The
Kamland experiment in Japan has shown that the anti-electron neutrino component both
disappears and reappears, giving further confirmation of the oscillation hypothesis. Reactor
experiments involving electron neutrino disappearance can also give information on the third
MNS angle, 13. No measurement of this angle yet exists, although it is known to be small,
with the best upper limit coming from the Chooz reactor experiment in France.

The current situation (in 2004, pre-MINOS) is described concisely in Fig 1 from: Maltoni,
Schwetz, Tortola, and Valle

Long Baseline Experiments

Accelerator-produced muon neutrino beams from pion decay are energetic, and hence for
optimal L/E the detectors must be many kilometres away. Such beams permit verification and
refinement of the atmospheric measurements for 23 and |m232| by  disappearance and have
the potential to measure 13 by e appearance. The first successful long baseline experiment
was the K2K experiment in Japan in which neutrinos were fired from KEK on the east coast

2
to Super-Kamiokande on the west. The results are consistent with those from atmospheric
measurements but did not greatly advance the overall precision.

The MINOS experiment has substantial UK involvement. An initially pure muon-neutrino

beam produced at Fermilab emerges from the Earth 735 km away at Soudan. It is a much
more sophisticated experiment than K2K with a magnetised iron-scintillator far detector, a
near detector which is functionally identical, and the capability of changing the mean neutrino
energy by moving the target relative to the horn. First results appeared in March 2006 with a
competitive measurement of m232. MINOS is currently the definitive experiment for the
improvement of the atmospheric parameters and has the potential to improve on the Chooz
upper limit for 13 (or even to make a measurement if the value is close to the limit).

The OPERA experiment will commence taking data this year. It is located in the Gran Sasso
laboratory and uses the CERN CNGS beam. The main goal is to verify that the disappearance
of  in the atmospheric measurements is definitely due to the transition to  by direct
observation of tau production. For this an emulsion detector has to be used.

2.2 The Mass Hierarchy

Oscillation experiments where the beam travels through vacuum yield the moduli of the mass
differences |m12| and |m23| but not the signs. These can be obtained when the beam interacts
with matter due to the different cross section for the different flavours. Thus it is known from
the solar experiments that m2 > m1 due to interactions in the sun but not whether m3 > m2
(normal hierarchy) or m3 < m2 (inverted hierarchy).

2.3 The LSND effect

While the atmospheric and solar effects are now well corroborated, there is another
experimental observation which does not fit into the picture: the LSND result from Los
Alamos. In this experiment, claims were made for the observation of an anti-electron signal in
liquid scintillator resulting from anti-muon neutrinos from + decay. If correct, the observed
rate of oscillation is very high implying a |m2| which is very much greater than |m232|, and
thus incompatible with the three-flavour MNS scenario. The Karmen experiment at RAL,
which has covered most, but not all, of the LSND parameter space, shows no effect. The
MiniBOONE experiment at FNAL has been designed specifically to check the LSND claims
and is expected to report soon.

2.4 Majorana/Dirac nature

The only practicable way to resolve the question of whether neutrinos are Majorana or Dirac
particles is to measure the rate of neutrinoless double beta decay. If Majorana, the virtual
neutrino and antineutrino in double beta decay can annihilate, giving an enhanced and
potentially measurable rate for neutrinoless decay. There have already been many neutrinoless
double beta decay experiments but none have been able to probe the rates expected from a
Majorana neutrino with a mass ~ 0.1 eV. So far all experiments except one have produced
negative results with limits around 1023 to 1024 years, corresponding to masses between 1 and
10 eV.

The one experiment claiming a signal is the Heidelberg-Moscow experiment which uses
enriched 76Ge. The observation is not universally accepted, even by some members of the
collaboration. If verified it would give a rate for 76Ge neutrinoless double beta decay of
1.5.1025 years and a mass in the region of 0.4 eV. No other experiment has the sensitivity to
disprove this, a situation which will change with the next generation of experiments. If
confirmed it would demonstrate unambiguously that neutrinos are Majorana particles and that
neutrino masses are quasi-degenerate.

3
 2.5 Absolute mass
The absolute neutrino mass is one of the most important but also one of the most difficult
measurements. It is highly likely that the Higgs mass will be known before the neutrino mass!
For Majorana neutrinos the rate of neutrinoless double beta decay depends upon both the
mass and the mass hierarchy, but, even if observed, a precision measurement is unlikely
because of uncertainties in the nuclear matrix element.

The only direct way to make an absolute mass measurement is from the end point of the beta
decay energy spectrum, with 3H decay being the favoured choice. This is extraordinarily
difficult for masses in the 0.1 eV range and currently the best upper limits are 2.3 eV from the
Mainz group and 2.05 eV from the Troitsk group. For Dirac neutrinos the direct measurement
is the only known method to obtain information on the mass.

3 The Challenges
Neutrinos (together with photons) are, by many orders of magnitude, the most common
particles in the universe, yet they are among the least understood. The neutrino sector has
given the first significant observation of physics beyond the standard model but it is unknown
whether this is a major step or whether it just indicates a small modification to the standard
model and another 7 parameters, which may well be the case if neutrinos are Dirac particles.
Majorana neutrinos, however, would have profound theoretical consequences. They open up
many possibilities such as extra sources of CP violation and a window on high mass scales via
the see-saw mechanism. In either scenario, precision measurements of the neutrino
parameters will be a vital ingredient for a theory embracing both the quark and lepton sectors.

The challenges are therefore to:

The challenges are therefore to:

i) Determine if neutrinos are Dirac or Majorana in nature.

ii) Measure the absolute mass of one neutrino
iii)Improve precision on the mass differences and determine the mass hierarchy
iv) Improve precision on 12 and 23 and measure 13. This will allow:
a) to determine if 23 is maximal and if 13 is zero
b) to establish how well intriguing experimentally observed relations relating
quark to lepton sector such as
12MNS  12CKM    23MNS   23CKM  
 4 4
actually hold.
c) test GUT models based on groups such as E6 which relate quark to lepton
mixings.
v) Measure  and establish whether there is at least one source of CP violation in the
lepton sector.
vi) Establish if the MNS theory is correct and CPT is conserved
a) establish or disprove the LSND effect
b) determine if the lepton CP violating parameters are the same for all 3 possible
transitions.

4
Due to the very low neutrino cross sections, many of these measurements are
extremely difficult and new techniques need to be devised.

4 The Next 10 Years

4.1 Oscillation Experiments, 13 and 

The MINOS experiment will refine measurements of 23 and |m232| over the next 2-3 years
and may measure 13. OPERA should prove unambiguously that ’s do oscillate into  ’s

One of the most important consequences of neutrino oscillation is the likelihood of CP

violation in the lepton sector. In the MNS approach this requires a non-zero . CP violation
will only occur if the angle 13 is also non-zero as this angle governs the amplitude of the CP
violating effects. Accurate determination of 13 is thus at the top of the agenda for the next
period as its size will play an important role in deciding the correct approach for the
measurement of leptonic CP violation. .

Superbeam Experiments
Superbeam experiments are the next generation of long baseline experiments. They involve a
more powerful neutrino beam taken off-axis to improve the energy resolution and allow
tuning of L/E. The T2K superbeam experiment is approved and under construction in Japan
with strong UK participation. A second experiment, Noa, is proposed for the NUMI beam
from Fermilab but awaits final approval.

T2K: In the T2K experiment the muon neutrino beam is produced at Tokai on the eastern
coast of Japan and directed 295 km towards the Super-Kamiokande detector where electron-
type neutrinos are searched for. The accelerator is currently under construction and data
taking is planned to commence in 2009. The experiment uses an off-axis beam to tune the L/E
value to be in the most sensitive region to make this measurement and the Super-Kamiokande
detector provides excellent background rejection from neutral current events. The proposed
UK contributions are in the beam construction and in the near detector where measurements
of interactions of the un-oscillated neutrino beam are made. Comparison of these
measurements against those in the far detector will allow the measurement of very small
oscillation probabilities, and hence sensitivity to very small values of θ 13. Following the start
of data taking in 2009 steady upgrades of beam power are planned for at least 6 years: it has a
strong UK involvement. Noa, if approved, is expected to be operational one or two years
after T2K.

Reactor Experiments
Superbeam experiments determine 13 by observing e appearance in a  beam, a
measurement which depends upon both 13 and the unknown and which therefore
complicates the extraction of 13. The neutrinos produced at a nuclear reactor can also be used
to measure θ13 by comparing the flux at different distances from the reactor. Unlike the
superbeam experiments the disappearance of e in a e beam does not depend upon , and
matter effects are negligible compared with a superbeam experiment. Thus reactor
experiments offer complementary information on θ13. The number of reactor projects has
recently been consolidated and there are now only three: Double Chooz has been approved in
France, while Daya Bay in China and Reno in S. Korea are at more conceptual design stages.
The considerable UK experience with solar neutrinos is very relevant for a reactor experiment
and the UK interest is centred on Double Chooz where the proposed contributions are in PMT
reflectors and calibration.

5
 4.2 The Mass Hierarchy
Determination of the mass hierarchy requires that the neutrinos travel a substantial distance
through the earth so that the intensity is affected by the different cross sections. Of the
superbeam experiments planned for the next decade the T2K baseline is too short and so only
Noa may have some sensitivity to this.

4.3 Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay

A number of isotopes which undergo normal double beta decay can be used and
increasingly sophisticated techniques to instrument large enriched samples are in
progress. Claims for planned experiments are for half life measurements beyond 1027
years, corresponding to effective electron neutrino masses below 0.1 eV, but even this will
not necessarily cover the full range for a Majorana neutrino. The UK has a current
involvement with the Nemo-III experiment which has recently announced lifetimes for 100Mo
and 82Se in excess of 1023 years. R & D is also being conducted for two future neutrinoless
double beta decay experiments, SuperNEMO and COBRA. For masses in the 0.1 eV region
the measurements are very difficult and more than one positive result will be needed for the
effect to be accepted.

Super-Nemo: A 3 year R&D programme for a neutrinoless double beta decay experiment
which builds on the Nemo-III design is underway. This searches for the signature by direct
detection of the two beta-decay electrons using a combination of calorimetry and tracking.
The Super-Nemo experiment is being designed with the aim of increasing the lifetime
capabilities to a few 1026 years. A total of 100kg of enriched isotope will be monitored. The
resolution will be increased to around 7% at 3MeV and internal contaminant backgrounds
will be improved by a factor of 10.

COBRA: An array of Cadmium-Zinc-Telluride semiconductor detectors forms the COBRA

neutrinoless double beta decay experiment. The experiment is used to monitor five different
isotopes from within the semiconductor crystal itself which are known to undergo double beta
decay. Currently 4 cubes of 1cm3, each with a mass of 6.93g, are being operated in the Gran-
Sasso laboratory and construction of an array with 64 cubes is underway. The technique is
scalable to much larger masses and a 500kg detector is under design. COBRA is expected to
have a greater sensitivity than SuperNEMO but on a longer timescale

4.4 Absolute mass

This is one of the hardest parameters to measure. If neutrinos are Majorana the best
measurements are likely to come from the neutrinoless double beta experiments; if Dirac the
only way is the direct measurement from the 3H spectrum end point. The Katrin experiment
has a small UK involvement. It uses a gaseous, windowless tritium source, several pre-filters
and a main analysing spectrometer employing both electrostatic and magnetic elements in a
volume 10m in diameter and 22m in length. The sensitivity is such that if the electron
neutrino mass is 0.35eV, Katrin will discover it with a 5σ significance.

Neutrino telescopes are omitted from this summary because they fall under the remit of the
PAAP, not the PPAP.

6
5 The future beyond 2015
While speculating about the future can be hazardous, it is reasonable to imagine that in 10
years 13 will be known, although not necessarily very precisely, but that  and the mass
hierarchy will still be unknown.

To obtain accurate measurements of leptonic CP violation major new measures will be

needed involving both accelerator and .detector developments. The ideal experiment would
start with a single-flavour monochromatic neutrino or antineutrino beam and the composition
of the beam would be sampled at a number of distances from the source for evidence of the
other flavours. This cannot be realised in practice and many compromises are required for
actual experiments. Nevertheless, ever more imaginative experiments are planned to move
towards this ideal goal. The following approaches are under active study.

2nd generation super beams: Proposed upgrades at CERN (with the SPL), Fermilab (with the
proton driver) and at Tokai (increasing the beam power to 4MW) would allow the
conventional neutrino beam technique to be extended to higher intensity. The technologies
used are well understood although there are still significant challenges in the regions which
get irradiated (the target and horn). To be effective, developments in this area will require
much larger detectors, for example increasing by roughly a factor 20 the size of a water
Cerenkov detector from Super-K to Hyper-K. Such large water Cerenkov detectors have the
advantage of also being able to search for proton decay, however their effectiveness for
measuring leptonic CP violation is only competitive should 13 be just below the Chooz limit.

Beta beams: A novel way to produce a beam of neutrinos is by accelerating ions which are
unstable to beta decay and allowing them to decay in a storage ring with straight sections
pointing towards the neutrino detector. This can provide beams of either pure electron
neutrinos or pure electron antineutrinos. The electron capture process can in principle also be
used to yield a monochromatic beam, however at present it appears impossible to achieve
usable intensities. Lorentz factors of the order of 100 can be obtained with a number of
different ions using much of the present CERN infrastructure; however a considerably higher
factor is highly desirable. This will involve major new construction although new ideas using
high Q-value isotopes are being investigated. Currently there is virtually no UK involvement
with the beta beam activity.

Neutrino Factories: The majority of the UK effort in long-term future neutrino projects is on
neutrino factory accelerator research. The neutrino factory is a radical departure from a
conventional neutrino beam as it involves accelerating muons. Their decay in the straight
sections of an appropriately oriented storage ring forms the neutrino beam which consists of
muon neutrinos and electron antineutrinos (or vice-versa) with a well defined energy
spectrum. Considerable innovation has occurred in recent years to refine the accelerator chain
involving various phase rotation procedures and techniques for handling the reduction of the
emittance of the muons by cooling either in linear coolers or rings. FFAG acceleration
techniques are also being studied intensively and configurations found which could
potentially be effective in a neutrino factory. In particular the EMMA proof of principle
FFAG machine proposed for construction at Daresbury is an ideal opportunity to involve UK
industry. A considerable challenge in this (as in all neutrino beam projects) is the targetry.

Detector developments: The three main detector technologies in use for a future neutrino
facility are an instrumented (iron if magnetic) calorimeter, a totally active scintillation
detector, a water Cerenkov and a liquid argon TPC. The challenge with detectors for neutrino
experiments is to instrument a sufficiently large mass cheaply. Instrumented calorimetry is an
established technique (e.g. CDHS, MINOS) and such detectors are ideal for separating μ +
from μ- which is vital for a neutrino factory where the beam is derived from the decay of
muons. The highest mass neutrino detectors use the water Cerenkov technique which is ideal

7
for beta-beam applications, but inappropriate for a neutrino factory as muon charge separation
is not possible. Liquid Argon detectors are widely regarded as potentially the best possible
environment for neutrino physics because of their superb spatial resolution, which might even
allow tau-neutrinos to be detected, but need much more R&D before implementation on a
very large scale is possible. Magnetising a large totally active detector such as scintillator as
in Noa or liquid argon, as would be necessary for a neutrino factory, would be challenging,
although it could lead to valuable technological developments such as the use of high Tc
superconductors.

6 Accelerator Development and Future Neutrino Facilities.

ISS: The international scoping study for an international neutrino factory and super-beam
facility was a one year study to lay the baseline for a more detailed design study. It started
with a meeting at Imperial College in May 2005 and concluded at Irvine in summer 2006. The
final report is expected in the near future. The physics case for the facility was examined and
options for the accelerator complex and neutrino detection systems evaluated. The baseline
accelerator-detector configuration for a future neutrino factory facility has been established
with an FFAG acceleration system, ionisation cooling as with MICE, a 20 GeV muon storage
ring feeding detectors at ~3000 km and ~7500 km as well as the near detector.

6.1 UK Accelerator development

MICE: A demonstration of muon cooling is in preparation at ISIS at the Rutherford Appleton
Laboratory. This is an essential R&D step for a future neutrino factory. A section of a linear
cooling channel with solenoidal focusing will be tested by exposure to single muons which
will be measured precisely before and after the channel with scintillating fibre tracking
spectrometers. A variety of materials will be used for the ionisation loss including liquid
hydrogen and lithium hydride. Phase 1 of MICE which includes the pion production target
in ISIS, the beam line and tracking detectors is in progress and funding for phase II is being
sought.

Proton Driver and Targetry: A challenging aspect of the production of high intensity proton
sources is the production of an H- beam with suitable emittance, cycle time and intensity.
Building on the expertise at RAL from operating the ISIS H- sources, R&D is in progress on
sources to neutrino factory specifications, low energy beam transport, a radio frequency
quadrupole and beam chopper. It is planned that the expertise gained in this development will
be used to build up a front end test stand at RAL. Targetry studies are progressing with the
assessment of the effects of shock on solid tantalum, both experimentally and with computer
modelling. There is now a small UK involvement with a new prototyping experiment at
CERN, MERIT, being constructed to examine the use of a liquid jet mercury target, the
currently favoured solution for a neutrino factory.

7 Summary – the UK Programme

UK researchers have assumed a strong role in the decision making mechanisms for future
neutrino facilities worldwide. A strong program of R&D in new accelerator techniques is
directed towards the realisation of a much more intense source of neutrinos than is currently
possible, a neutrino factory. An international scoping study was originated in the UK to study
and compare the alternative programs of research for the future decades.

To maintain our leading status in neutrino physics worldwide, the UK community has
identified a programme which targets the two key areas of research where fundamental
advances in the understanding of nature are likely. The first is to do careful oscillation
measurements of all three flavour neutrinos at an L/E value intermediate between the two
effects which are now known, in a region where so far the e has not yet been seen to oscillate.

8
The second is to search for neutrinoless double beta decay – the signature that the neutrino is
its own antiparticle and therefore of Majorana type

The UK program which we advocate is listed below. It is at a higher level than has
historically been supported, but this is commensurate with the elevated interest in this field
among UK researchers which is mirrored in other countries. Over the past four years, the
number of UK universities which have a neutrino research program has nearly trebled. We
advocate:

1. A continuation of the effective participation in the MINOS experiment at least until the
superbeam experiments begin.

2. A strong participation of UK groups in the T2K long-baseline neutrino oscillation

experiment and participation in one of the reactor neutrino oscillation experiments.

3. Participation in the neutrinoless double beta decay programme with continued R&D for
SuperNemo and COBRA leading to participation in the experiments should proof of viability
prove timely.

4. Active participation in the International Neutrino Factory Design Study (IDS), the
successor to the ISS

5. A long term programme for R&D to develop accelerator technology for neutrino factories,
including the MICE experiment, so that the UK will be well positioned to bid for a neutrino
factory.

6. For the longer term progress in the development of the next generation of superbeam
experiments (post T2K and Noa) should continue to be monitored for possible UK
participation. In particular the T2KK experiment, with detectors in both Japan and Korea is
likely to be a significant development towards the end of the next decade.

7. Commencement of a programme of detector development for a future neutrino facility. UK

participation in one of the programmes examining the potentialities of liquid argon detectors
should be encouraged.

8. Neutrino phenomenology in the UK requires greater resources to keep pace with the
general growth in UK neutrino activity.

This program is designed to place the UK in a strong strategic position for the future by
taking a major rôle in one of the main neutrino experiments of the next decade (T2K), having
a broad program in a number of smaller projects and developing leadership in longer term
neutrino research.

9
Appendix 1 Community Consultation
The PPAP encouraged the UK PP community to comment on the first draft of this document
and a number of suggestions have been included in this final version. A brief summary of the
responses from the community is given in this appendix.

General Questions and Policies:

 Do you consider the current UK involvement in neutrino physics to be at an
appropriate level? What general comments do you have on the programme outlined in
section 7?

o There was a strong belief that the current UK programme, as outlined in the
document, is strong, ambitious, coherent, well balanced and covers the main
areas. However there were also a number of concerns that current funding is
marginal at best and that there is a danger of spreading too thinly with no
resources for future initiatives. Explicit mention of the T2KK programme and
a boost for neutrino phenomenology were considered important.

 Where do you see the strengths of the current UK plans? What do you consider to be
the risks of these plans? Should we be involved with more or fewer activities?

o Strengths: Expertise developed in MINOS, SNO and now in T2K Leadership

in Neutrino Factory R&D & MICE. T2K good for keeping in touch with
Japanese activities
o Risks: Inadequate funding to deliver all goals and as a consequence spreading
too thinly.
o Overall number of activities about right, unless substantial extra resources.
Additional resources should first go to strengthening current programme.
Some resources needed for new ideas.

 The UK is currently involved with two rather different neutrinoless double beta decay
experiments, although not in a Germanium experiment where claims for a positive
signal have been made; it also has a very minimal involvement with KATRIN, the
direct neutrino mass experiment. Do you have comments on this scenario?

o The majority support UK being in both experiments as they are

complementary but no pressure to be in more than two, although strength of
germanium is recognised.
o However concerns expressed that two will spread available resources too
thinly

 Do you believe that it is good UK policy to aim for a neutrino factory facility to be
situated on UK soil, or in what ways might this be detrimental to developing the best
UK contributions in a facility at one of the big centres abroad?

o If the science justifies the precision of a neutrino factory then it would be

great to have it in the UK and we should try hard – but only if there is a first
rate scientific justification. However good to aim for it now, without major
commitment.

 Now that the Braidwood experiment will not take place, should participation in one of
the other future reactor experiments be part of the UK programme?

10
 o General support for physics goals of the reactor programme. Some concern
that UK participation would be too low, but other opinion that there is
sufficient expertise for a small group (and modest investment) to make a
strong impact. Concern about endangering an already stretched programme.

 UK R&D for the next generation of neutrino experiments is focussed very strongly on
the neutrino factory. Assuming a constant budget for future neutrino facility research
do you consider that some of this investment should be directed towards a possible
future beta beam facility, presumably at CERN?

o Basic feeling is that beta beams are interesting but we do not have the
resources to pursue them in adequate strength and continue the neutrino
factory programme.
o Some comment that a beta beam activity lessens risk in the future but overall
no real enthusiasm for beta beam work in the UK

Neutrino Factory Accelerator Questions:

 What areas of accelerator development would it be sensible for us to aim at? What
opportunities can you see for UK industry in this programme? Can you think of ways
the programme could be directed to give substantial benefit to UK industry?

o No very good ideas of how to involve UK industry from those who replied

 Around the world there are only a limited number of potential sites for a neutrino
factory. If there is a consensus that a neutrino factory is the best future facility, would
you be in favour of a UK bid to host it?

o Yes, as long as it does not harm overall PP programme and the relationship
with CERN is well managed.

Neutrino Factory Far Detector Questions:

 There is currently no ongoing R & D in the UK on the detector technology which will
be necessary for the precision neutrino physics era, expected around 2020. The
necessary detectors will be very large and much R&D is necessary to reduce costs
and improve performance. Do you have preferences for which technology the UK
should conduct R&D?
o Water Cerenkov
o Magnetised Iron-Scintillator Calorimeter
o Liquid Argon, possibly magnetised.
o Magnetised Emulsions
o Other

General
Considerable interest in Liquid Argon R&D as potentially the best detector
Should also build upon expertise in Fe-scintillator calorimetry gained from MINOS.
An overall feeling that we are not doing enough in this area and the balance between
detector and accelerator is incorrect.

11
12