Sensitivity of T2HKK to non-standard flavor-dependent interactions - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sensitivity of T2HKK to non-standard flavor-dependent interactions Osamu Yasuda Tokyo Metropolitan University Sep. 26, 2017 WG5, NuFact 2017@ Uppsala, Sweden 1/31

Contents of this talk 1. Introduction 2. Nonstandard Interaction in propagation 3. Sensitivity to NSI of propagation at T2HKK Ghosh & OY, arXiv:1709.08264 4. Conclusions 2/31

1. Introduction Framework of 3 flavor ν oscillation Mixing matrix ν ν ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ U U U ⎟ e 1 e1 e2 e3 ν ν ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ Functions of = U U U ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ μ μ μ ⎟ μ 1 2 3 2 mixing angles ν ν ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ , θ 23 , θ 13 , θ 12 U U U τ τ ⎝ τ τ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ 1 2 3 3 δ δ and CP phase All 3 mixing angles have been measured π ν solar +KamLAND − 2 5 2 ≅ ≅ × θ , ∆ m 8 10 eV (reactor) 12 21 6 ν atm , K2K,T2K,MINOS,Nova π − 2 3 2 ≅ ≅ × θ , | ∆ m | 2.5 10 eV 23 32 (accelerators) 4 π ≅ θ 13 / 20 DCHOOZ+Daya Bay+Reno (reactors), T2K+MINOS+Nova 3/31

Both hierarchy sign( Δ m 2 Next task is to measure patterns are ) , 31 allowed π /4- θ 23 δ and Normal Hierarchy Inverted Hierarchy Proposed experiments • T2HK(JP, JPARC-->HK) L=295km , E~0.6GeV • T2HHK(JP, JPARC-->Korea) L=1100km , E~1GeV • DUNE (US, FNAL --> Homestake, SD) , L=1300km, E~2GeV ν μ → ν μ + ν μ → ν e (----) (----) (----) (----) These experiments are expected to measure sign( Δ m 2 31 ) , π /4- θ 23 and δ 4/31

Future plan: T2HK Phase 2 ● ν 0.75MW beam Hyperkamiokande ⇒ (50 times K2K) (10 times SK) ● Extension of T2K ● Measurement of CP phase δ Hyper-kamiokande 5/31

Future plan: T2HKK Recent revival of old T2KK idea in 2005: T2HKK proposal w/ baselines L=295km, 1100km → L=1100km is sensitive to the matter effect Seo@JPS mtg, 17/3/2017 6/31

Future plan: DUNE 2.3MW ν beam@Fermilab 40-kt Liquid Argon ⇒ detector @ Sanford Underground RF E 2GeV, L 1300km ～ ～ 7/31

Motivation for research on New Physics measurements of ν High precision oscillation in future experiments can be used to probe physics beyond SM by looking at deviation from SM+m ν (like at B factories). → Research on New Physics is important. 8/31

discussed in ν List of New Physics phenomenology Phenomenological Scenario beyond Experimental constraints on the SM+m ν indication ? magnitude of the effects ν Maybe O(10%) Light sterile NSI at production × O(1%) / detection e- τ: O(100%) NSI in Maybe propagation Others: O(1%) Unitarity violation × O(0.1%) due to heavy particles NSI: discussed in this talk 9/31

In the mean time we have had some possible tensions among the data within the standard oscillation scenario: sterile ν � ν solar - KamLAND: Δ m 221 or NSI � NOvA - T2K: θ 23 ?? � LSND-MiniBooNE anomaly, sterile ν Reactor anomaly, Gallium anomaly NSI: motivation to this talk sterile ν : not directly related to this talk 10/31

� Tension between Δ m 221 (solar) & Δ m 221 (KamLAND) Koshio@ NOW2016 2 σ tension 11/31

2. Nonstandard Interaction in propagation ν α ν β Phenomenological New Physics considered in this talk: 4-fermi Non Standard f f Interactions: neutral current non-standard interaction f = e, u or d Modification of matter effect NP 12/31

Observation of matter effect needs large L ν oscillation in matter (in two flavor toy case) 2 ⎛ ⎞ ~ ⎛ ⎞ ΔE Δ E L ⎜ ⎟ → = ⎜ ⎟ 2 2 P( ν ν ) sin 2 θ sin ≡ 2 ⎜ ⎟ ΔE Δm /2E μ e ~ ⎝ ⎠ 2 Δ E ⎝ ⎠ ≡ [ ] 1/2 A 2 G n (x) ≡ − 2 + 2 ~ Δ E (ΔE cos2θ A) (ΔE sin2θ) F e ≡ ΔE sin2θ ~ tan2 θ − ΔE cos2θ A Matter effect becomes most conspicuous if = Δ Ecos2 θ =A is satisfied ( ). In this case, ~ θ π/2 the baseline length L has to be large: = = = ~ π Δ E L ΔEsin2θL ALtan2θ → L > π /A > O(1000km) 13/31

� Constraints on ε αβ from non-oscillation experiments Davidson et al., JHEP 0303:011,2003; Berezhiani, Rossi, PLB535 (‘02) 207; Barranco et al., PRD73 (‘06) 113001; Barranco et al., arXiv:0711.0698 Biggio et al., JHEP 0908, 090 (2009) Constraints are weak � Some model predicts large NSI (new gauge boson mass is of O(10MeV) and SU(2) invariance is broken) : Farzan, PLB748 (‘15) 311; Farzan-Shoemaker, JHEP,1607 (‘16)033; Farzan-Heeck, PRD94 (‘16) 053010. 14/31

� NSI for solar ν : ε αβ vs ( ε D , ε N ) Gonzalez-Garcia, Maltoni, JHEP 1309 (2013) 152 analysis, Δ m 312 -> infinity, H -> H eff In solar ν f = e, u or d ε f ee , | ε f e τ |, ε f ττ have to be solved from ( ε f D , ε f N ) 15/31

Tension between solar ν & KamLAND data comes from little observation of upturn by SK & SNO Gonzalez-Garcia, Maltoni, JHEP 1309 (2013) 152 Standard scenario w/ Δ m 221 by KamLAND P( ν e → ν e ) E ν /MeV 16/31

Tension between solar ν & KamLAND can be solved by NSI Gonzalez-Garcia, Maltoni, JHEP 1309 (2013) 152 ε f N ε f N ε f D ε f D Best fit value of solar-KL Best fit value of global fit 17/31

3. Sensitivity to NSI of propagation at T2HKK Fukasawa,Ghosh,OY, PRD95 3.0 Motivation of our work (‘17) 055005; Ghosh,OY, to | ε e τ | appear ε ττ = | ε e τ /(1+ ε ee | 2 ) All the works on the ε ττ free Sensitivity sensitivity to NSI was of T2HKK expressed in terms of ε αβ to ( ε ee , | at 3 σ ε e τ |) in ( ε D , ε N )-plane typically ε ee -> Whether the LBL experiments have sensitivity to the region Ghosh, OY, PRD96 (2017) 013001 Depende suggested by the solar | ε e τ | nce on tension is not clear. systemati c errors -> Sensitivity given in ( ε D , ε N )-plane is desired. ε ee 18/31

3.1 Outline of our Analysis Strategy of our analysis: We assume ε αβ (true) = 0 and minimize ● ( ε fD (test), ε fN (test)) by varying other ε αβ (test). χ 2 We compare the sensitivities of T2HKK, DUNE, HK( ν atm ) 10km<L<13000km L=1100km L=1300km 19/31

ε αβ & ( ε D , ε N ) Relation between We treat ε f ττ , | ε f e τ | , ε f ee as dependent variables: φ 12 =arg( ε fe μ ), φ 13 =arg( ε fe τ ), φ 23 =arg( ε f μτ ) 20/31

φ 12 =arg( ε fe μ ), φ 13 =arg( ε fe τ ), φ 23 =arg( ε f μτ ) 21/31

In principle we could take into account ε fe μ , but contribution from ε fe μ turns out to be small, so we put ε fe μ =0 for simplicity 22/31

-> Independent variables to be marginalized over: , δ , | ε f μτ Δ m 232 , θ 23 | , φ 13 Pull variables for systematic errors 23/31

δ (true) = -90 o Ghosh & OY, arXiv:1709.08264 3.2 Results Excluded ε f N region by LBL is outside of the curve ε f D 24/31

Ghosh & OY, arXiv:1709.08264 ε f N δ (true) = -90 o Sensitivity of DUNE is slightly better than T2HKK ε f D 25/31

: Real ε N Sensitivity of ν atm at HK OY@nufact2016 Best fit point of glolal analysis for f=u: significance:5 σ Best fit point of glolal analysis for f=d: significance:5 σ Best fit point of solar & KamLAND for f=d: significance:11 σ Best fit point of solar & KamLAND for f=u: significance:38 σ 26/23 /23 26

� Comparison of sensitivity T2HKK, DUNE, ν atm @HK Ghosh & OY, arXiv:1709.08264 In the case of NH, ν atm @HK is the best Best fit point of glolal analysis for f=u Best fit point of glolal analysis for f=d 27/31

� Comparison of sensitivity T2HKK, DUNE, ν atm @HK Ghosh & OY, arXiv:1709.08264 In the case of IH, DUNE is the best 28/31

� Dependence of T2HKK on θ 23 (true) & δ (true) Ghosh & OY, arXiv:1709.08264 29/31

� Dependence of DUNE on θ 23 (true) & δ (true) Ghosh & OY, arXiv:1709.08264 30/31

4. Conclusions � T2HKK and DUNE have sensitivity to NSI and they cover some of the allowed region in the ( ε fD , ε fN )-plane suggested by the solar ν tension for δ (true) = -90 o . � Sensitivity of DUNE is slightly better than that of T2HKK because DUNE uses information of wide E ν spectrum. � Dependence of T2HKK on θ 23 (true) & δ (true) was found and if δ (true) = 180 o , then significance of the best-fit point becomes lower. 31/31

Backup slides 32/31

T2HKK:Appearance probability at L=1050km P( ν μ → ν e ) P( ν μ → ν e ) 33/31