P. Wittich1

Peter Wittich

University of PAMarch 1, 2002

From Solar Neutrinos to B Physics: Flavor

Oscillations at SNO and CDF

P. Wittich2

SNO CDF

Goals Solar problem Many (B physics is small part)

Beam Divine (solar) e Tevatron ppbar

Detection Medium

Heavy water Si, ArC2H6, Scintillator, …

Channels ~104 ~106

Energies 4-15 MeV ~ 10 GeV

Event rate 10 Hz 7.6 MHz

S/N 10 events/day Depends…

Physics Flavor oscillations Flavor oscillations

At the base, the same physics!

What ties these two experiments together?

P. Wittich3

Flavor Oscillations

1

1

1

12

-)1(A

22-1

)(A2

-1

UUU

UUU

UUU

1212

1212

1313

1313

2323

2323

23

22

32

333231

232221

131211

massflavor

cs

sc

ces

esc

cs

sc

Ai

A

i

U

U

i

i

1

1

1

12

-)1(A

22-1

)(A2

-1

UUU

UUU

UUU

1212

1212

1313

1313

2323

2323

23

22

32

333231

232221

131211

massflavor

cs

sc

ces

esc

cs

sc

Ai

A

i

U

U

i

i

Wolfenstein: CKM

PDG “standard”: MNS

P. Wittich4

Solar Neutrino Problem

Bahcall

Bahcall

Most plausible solution: flavor oscillations in ’s

P. Wittich5

SNO DetectorSNO Detector

1 kT virgin D2O

~ 10,000 PMTson 16.8 m support (LBL!)

7 kT H2O, ultrapure

Penn ElectronicsControlRoom

Urylonliner

2039 m underground1 in Sudbury, Ontario, in INCO's Creighton Mine #9

1 6000 mwe

P. Wittich6

S. Gil, J. Heise, R.L. Helmer, R.J. Komar, T. Kutter, C.W. Nally, H.S. Ng, Y.I. Tserkovnyak, C.E. Waltham

University of British Columbia

J. Boger, R.L. Hahn, J.K. Rowley, M. YehBrookhaven National Laboratory

R.C. Allen, G. Bühler, H.H. Chen*University of California at Irvine

I. Blevis, F. Dalnoki-Veress, J. Farine, D.R. Grant, C.K. Hargrove, I. Levine, K. McFarlane, H. Mes,

C. Mifflin, A.J. Noble, V.M. Novikov, M. O'Neill, M. Shatkay, D. Sinclair, M. Starinsky

Carleton University

G. Milton, B. SurChalk River Laboratories

T.C. Andersen, K. Cameron, M.C. Chon, P. Jagam, J. Karn, J. Law, I.T. Lawson, R.W. Ollerhead,

J.J. Simpson, N. Tagg, J.-X. WangUniveristy of Guelph

J. Bigu, J.H.M. Cowan, E.D. Hallman, R.U. Haq, J. Hewett, J.G. Hykawy, G. Jonkmans, S. Luoma, A. Roberge, E. Saettler, M.H. Schwendener,

H. Seifert,R. Tafirout, C.J. VirtueLaurentian University

Y.D. Chan, X. Chen, K.T. Lesko, A.D. Marino, E.B. Norman, C.E. Okada, A.W.P. Poon, A. Schuelke,

A.R. Smith, R.G. StokstadLawrence Berkeley National Lab

T.J. Bowles, S.J. Brice, M.R. Dragowsky, M.M. Fowler, A. Goldschmidt, A. Hamer, A. Hime, K. Kirch,

G.G. Miller, J.B. Wilhelmy, J.M. WoutersLos Alamos National Laboratory

J.D. Anglin, M. Bercovitch, W.F. Davidson, R.S. Storey*National Research Council of Canada

J.C. Barton, S. Biller, R.A. Black, R.J. Boardman, M.G. Bowler, J. Cameron, B. Cleveland, X. Dai, G. Doucas, J. Dunmore, H. Fergani, A.P. Ferraris, K. Frame, H. Heron, N.A. Jelley, A.B. Knox, M. Lay, W. Locke, J. Lyon, S. Majerus, N. McCauley, G. McGregor, M. Moorhead, M. Omori, N.W. Tanner, R.K. Taplin, P. Thornewell,M. Thorman, P.T. Trent,

D.L. Wark, N. West, J. WilsonUniversity of Oxford

E.W. Beier, D.F. Cowen, E.D. Frank, W. Frati, W.J. Heintzelman, P.T. Keener, J.R. Klein, C.C.M. Kyba, D.S. McDonald, M.S. Neubauer, F.M. Newcomer, S.M. Oser, V.L. Rusu, R.G. Van de Water,R. Van Berg, P. Wittich

University of Pennsylvania

R. Kouzes, M.M. LowryPrinceton University

E.Bonvin, M.G. Boulay, Y. Dai, M. Chen, E.T.H. Clifford, , F.A. Duncan, E.D. Earle,H.C. Evans, G.T. Ewan, R.J. Ford, A.L. Hallin, P.J. Harvey, R. Heaton, J.D. Hepburn, C. Jillings, H.W. Lee, J.R. Leslie, H.B. Mak, A.B. MacDonald,W. McLatchie, B.A. Moffat, B.C. Robertson, T.J. Radcliffe,

P. SkensvedQueen's University

Q.R. Ahmad, M.C. Browne, T.V. Bullard, T.H. Burritt, G.A. Cox, P.J. Doe,C.A. Duba, S.R. Elliott, J.V. Germani, A.A. Hamian, R. Hazama, K.M. Heeger, M. Howe, R. MeijerDrees, J.L. Orrell,

R.G.H. Robertson,K.K. Schaffer, M.W.E. Smith, T.D. Steiger, J.F. Wilkerson

University of Washington*Deceased

SNO Collaboration

P. Wittich7

In matter:

2sec)/(1

2tan2tan m

m

eosc LL

Neutrino oscillationsNeutrino oscillations

• Recall (vacuum, two family):

L/E determines experimental sensitivity.

Typical L/E (L:m, E: MeV)Typical L/E (L:m, E: MeV)

Mixing angle

E

Lm222

e 27.1sin2sin)P(

21

22 mm

1019-1020Supernova

1010-1011Solar

102-104Atmos.

100-102Reactor

10-2 - 101Accl.

P. Wittich8

SNO reactions

e

e

NC

CC

-Good measurement of e energy spectrum-Weak directional sensitivity 1-1/3cos

-Measure total 8B flux from the sun.

-Low Statistics-Strong directional sensitivity

All types butenhanced sensitivity to e

NCNCxx npd

ESES -- eνeν x x

CCCC -eppd e

e only

Equal cross sectionfor all types

)(15.0ES

CC

e

e

Smoking Gun, model independent Significant with SuperK

P. Wittich9

SNO Run Sequence

Pure D2O– Good CC sensitivity

Added Salt in D2O– Enhanced NC sensitivity

Neutral Current Detectors– 3He proportional counters

in the D2O

Neutron Detection Method

Capture on D

Capture on Cl

Capture on 3He

Event-by-event separation of CC and NC events

n 3He p t

n 35Cl 36Cl … e (E = 8.6 MeV)

n d t … e (E = 6.3 MeV)

The Three Phases

1

2

3

P. Wittich10

NC Salt (BP98)

Signals in SNOSignals in SNOSNO MC assuming BP98 solar model (no oscillations)

Counts

in D

2O

/year/

hit

pm

t

Hit PMT’s (~Ee)

P. Wittich11

SNO: HandlesSNO: HandlesES

CCCharged current energy response leads to good sensitivity to spectral distortions.•ES: e washed out (SK)

•CC: need lots of statistics (>>1year)

•NC background to CC spectrum

Charged current energy response leads to good sensitivity to spectral distortions.•ES: e washed out (SK)

•CC: need lots of statistics (>>1year)

•NC background to CC spectrum

SNO GOAL:CC/NC ratio is a direct signature for oscillations. ES: SK, SNO

In addition:

P. Wittich12

Neutrino Candidate

P. Wittich13

SNO Results from Phase 1: Analysis outline

• Calibration• Data reduction• Final Fit

Physics results:

• CC flux (CC/ES ratio)

•More soon:

•Day/night, NC in D2O

P. Wittich14

Extracting Signals in Phase 1

Three signals, three handles

EnergyDistribution

RadialDistribution

SolarDirection

Distribution

Extended maximum likelihood fits amplitudes

P. Wittich15

SNO result: CC flux

NB: SNO CC flux < SNO ES flux (1.6 ). Also, SNO CC < SK ES (3.3 )

SNP: e SNP: e

Ratio of CC to BPB01 = 0.347± 0.029Ratio of CC to BPB01 = 0.347± 0.029

SNO measurements:

CC (8B) = 1.75 ± 0.07 ± 0.05

(stat) (sys.) (theor)

ES (8B) = 2.39 ± 0.34 (stat) (sys.)

+0.12- 0.11

+0.16- 0.14

(Units of 106/cm2/sec)

P. Wittich16

Implications: SNO Results

To Active Neutrinos To Sterile Neutrinos

sterile neutrino solutions strongly disfavored

P. Wittich17

Solar

(SuperK ES, SNO CC)

• m2 ~ 10-4 - 10-12 eV2

•sin22 - LMA large

•CCSNO/ESSK 3.3.

Neutrino oscillations: evidence roundup

Atmospheric

(SuperK)

• m2 ~ 310-3 eV2

•sin22 ~ 1

•Oscillation to s disfavored at 99%CL

Atmospheric

(SuperK)

• m2 ~ 310-3 eV2

•sin22 ~ 1

•Oscillation to s disfavored at 99%CL

LSND

m2 ~ 1 eV2

Sterile? ( )

LSND

m2 ~ 1 eV2

Sterile? ( )02 m

P. Wittich18

What’s next for ’s

• Minos - sensitive to atmospheric

• KamLand - sensitive to solar LMA

• miniBoone - address LSND

• Minos - sensitive to atmospheric

• KamLand - sensitive to solar LMA

• miniBoone - address LSND

Further off…• CP violation in MNS?

– Longer ways away…

• What about 13?

Address extra-terrestrial evidence with terrestrial experiments….

Solar neutrinos

•SNO NC/CC in D2O, day/night

•Borexino 7Be

P. Wittich19

Minos Sensitivity

Study 23 (atmospheric nu’s)

10 kT-years exposure

Null hypothesis (no osc.)

NUMI public pages

P. Wittich20

Kamland

From Kamland-US proposal.

Solar LMA in reach

• Reactor with very long baseline

• (Solar too…)

P. Wittich21

MiniBooNE Sensitivity to LSND

preliminaryIn two years, MiniBooNe can exclude the LSND region. Start taking data this year

P. Wittich22

BorexinoMeasure 7Be solar nu’s

Esp. sensitive to SMA

Data taking 5/2002

Borexino public pages

P. Wittich23

Silicon tracker

Time-of-Flight

Drift chamber

Plug calorimeter

Muon systems

Solenoid

Central calorimeter

CDF II

Substantial upgrades from Run I detector, of relevance for B physics

P. Wittich24

Oscillation in Quarks• CKM describes quark mixing• Also sensitive to ‘new physics’

What can you do at CDF (since we have B factories)?

•Access to other modes, such as Bs

•High bbar(ppbar)~ 100 b

•This comes at considerable cost…•Disadvantages:

–High backgrounds, coupled with low branching fractions, make interesting data hard to trigger on

•Need an effective B trigger.–CDF D2 low compared to B factories ( ~11% Run II estimate, rather than ~26% at BaBar)

–Better particle ID

nb7~)(

nb1~))4((0Z

S

bb

bb

nb7~)(

nb1~))4((0Z

S

bb

bb

CDF’s B program complementary

P. Wittich25

ms: motivation

By measuring ms, we can get at Vtd:

22

22

tssss

tdddd

s

d

VBf

VBf

m

m

ss s s

Information about one side of triangle.

P. Wittich26

How to measure ms

isii

iii tm

tNtN

tNtNtA

cos)()(

)()()(

unmixedmixed

unmixedmixedmixed

)cos1(e2

1),( 00 tmtBBP s

tss

Oscillation probability:

Determine the oscillation as a function of proper decay time:

P. Wittich27

How to measure ms, cont’d1. Find decay into

favorite mode

2. Determine meson type at creation

3. Measure proper decay length

4. Count oscillated vs non-oscillated as f(t)

KKD

DB

s

ss

;

;0

Txy p

mLc

Flavor tagging

P. Wittich28

Sensitivity

tpp

m plt

:lengthdecay proper ony Uncertaint

tpp

m plt

:lengthdecay proper ony Uncertaint

accurate estimate of decay length crucial

•For CDF, D2 small (~5% Run I, ~11% Run II exp.)

•Need large statistics (and/or good trigger)

Effect: ND2N

fully reconstructed modes: p negligible

P. Wittich29

• For fast oscillations:– Proper time

resolution– Dilution– Momentum

resolution• Fully

reconstructed modes

ms sensitivity: what matters?

Run I study for partially reconstructed mode:

νφl0s XB

P. Wittich30

• In Run II, CDF triggers on displaced tracks in trigger: exploit long B lifetimes.

• Ideal for enriched hadronic B samples– (cf Run I)

It works!

CDF II: SVT trigger

CDF II: SVT trigger

P. Wittich31

SVT, continued•Reconstructed with quantities available in the trigger

To do:

•SVX coverage

•L00

•SVT optimization

P. Wittich33

Flavor Tagging Determine the initial flavor of the B0

sOpposite side tags

Same side tags - TOF new to RunII

• SLT: 1.7%

•JetQ: 3.0%

•OSK: 2.4% (RunII est)

Run I

P. Wittich34

Tagging w/TOF: SSK

TOF:

•2 K/ separation for p < 1.6 GeV

•With COT dE/dx, stat separation

•K vs ? 1.0% 4.2% with TOF

P. Wittich35

Some numbers: estimated Bs yield

• Br(B0s D+

s+)= 3 x 10-3

• Br(D+s +)x Br(K+K-)=1.8%

Therefore, the total usable Bf Bftot~5.4 x 10-6.

(B0s) ~ 20 b

aBftot (B0s) ~ 5 pb-1.

Assuming full coverage, perfect reco, …, 5 Bs decays to tape per

pb-1

KKD

DB

s

ss

;

;0

P. Wittich36

Shutdown

Delivered

To tape

Run II so far

• L ~ 1.0 x 1031 sec-1 at beginning of store.• FNAL BD: 50pb-1 delivered by Summer 2002• CDF efficiency still needs work…

•Not a lot of Bs to tape yet

Jul Oct Jan

P. Wittich37

Reach for Run II: 50 pb-1

and 2 fb-1Reach for Run II: 50 pb-1

and 2 fb-1

For Run IIa (2 fb-1):

Expect ~ 10,000 Bs decays

For Summer 2002: 50 pb-1

Expect ~250 Bs on tape

Even this is a bit optimistic …

Time well spent tuning detector and analysis…

P. Wittich38

Current Status: Getting ready•B lifetime study: precursor

•Study of detector resolution (cf. Run I)

P. Wittich39

CKM MNS

Mixing Onset Goal

Approximate form

Masses ~hierarchical Flat?

Phases 1 in SM Marjorana? Dirac?

CP violation Established Unknown

In Summary: MNS vs CKM

1smallsmall

small1small

smallsmall1

CKMU

largelargelarge

largelargelarge

smalllargelarge

MNSU

Lots to do in both fields in the near future…

P. Wittich40

SNO calibrationsElectronics Calibration

q, t pedestals, discriminator walks & thresholds, TAC slopes

Optical CalibrationPulsed laser ~2ns (337, 365, 386, 420, 500 and 620 nm)Attenuation, Reflection, Scattering, PMT relative QE

Energy Calibration• 16N 6.13 MeV (also good for pointing)• p,T 19.8 MeV ’s (high E calibration point)• neutrons 6.25 MeV (NC response - bkgnd CC)• 8Li spectrum (CC also good for vertexing)

Low Energy BackgroundsEncapsulated Th and U sources

P. Wittich43

Signal Distributions

Signal Distributions

Radial Distribution Solar Direction Distribution

P. Wittich44

Error SourceEnergy scaleEnergy resolutionNon-linearityVertex shiftVertex resolutionAngular resolutionHigh Energy ’sLow energy

backgroundInstrumental

backgroundTrigger efficiencyLive timeCut acceptanceEarth orbit eccentricity17O, 18OExperimental

uncertaintyCross-sectionSolar Model

ES error (%) -3.5, +5.4

±0.3±0.4±3.3±0.4±2.2

-1.8, +0.00.0

-0.5, +0.00.0

±0.1-0.6, +0.7

±0.20.0

-5.7, +6.83.0

-16, +20

CC error (%)

-5.2, +6.1±0.5±0.5±3.1±0.7±0.5

-0.3, +0.00.0

-0.2, +0.00.0

±0.1-0.6, +0.7

±0.20.0

-6.2, +7.03.0

-16, +20

Signal Extraction Systematic Uncertainties

From varying pdfs by MC vs. calibration differences

P. Wittich45

What about other physics?•Atmospheric ’s: mixing to active flavors established by SuperK at 10.

•LSND - sterile neutrinos suggested, disfavored by solar and atmospheric data - miniBoone

•0test for Majorana masses

•Current direct mass limits

)( MeV18

)( keV 190

)( eV 2.2 33

nm

m

eHeHm ee

Recent controversial claims of evidence…

P. Wittich46 hep-ph/0201231

0

P. Wittich47

Current limits in plane

hep-ph/0201071

K from Kaons

md: B0 osc

Vub, Vcb from other B decays Babar, Belle

ms : limits only…

P. Wittich49

Current limits on ms

LEPBOSC results from CKM workshop 2/2002