Study of the performance of a large scale water-Cherenkov detector (MEMPHYS)

MEMPHYS (MEgaton Mass PHYSics) is a proposed large-scale water Cherenkov experiment to be performed deep underground. It is dedicated to nucleon decay searches, neutrinos from supernovae, solar and atmospheric neutrinos, as well as neutrinos from a future Super-Beam or Beta-Beam to measure the CP violating phase in the leptonic sector and the mass hierarchy. A full simulation of the detector has been performed to evaluate its performance for beam physics. The results are given in terms of "Migration Matrices" of reconstructed versus true neutrino energy, taking into account all the experimental effects.Comment: Updated after JCAP's referee's comment

Future large-scale water-Cherenkov detector

MEMPHYS (MEgaton Mass PHYSics) is a proposed large-scale water-Cherenkov experiment to be performed deep underground. It is dedicated to nucleon decay searches and the detection of neutrinos from supernovae, solar, and atmospheric neutrinos, as well as neutrinos from a future beam to measure the CP violating phase in the leptonic sector and the mass hierarchy. This paper provides an overview of the latest studies on the expected performance of MEMPHYS in view of detailed estimates of its physics reach, mainly concerning neutrino beams

On the complementarity of Hyper-K and LBNF

The next generation of long-baseline experiments is being designed to make a substantial step in the precision of measurements of neutrino-oscillation probabilities. Two qualitatively different proposals, Hyper-K and LBNF, are being considered for approval. This document outlines the complimentarity between Hyper-K and LBNF.Comment: 5 pager

Initial report from the ICFA Neutrino Panel

In July 2013 ICFA established the Neutrino Panel with the mandate "To promote international cooperation in the development of the accelerator-based neutrino-oscillation program and to promote international collaboration in the development a neutrino factory as a future intense source of neutrinos for particle physics experiments". This, the Panel's Initial Report, presents the conclusions drawn by the Panel from three regional "Town Meetings" that took place between November 2013 and February 2014. After a brief introduction and a short summary of the status of the knowledge of the oscillation parameters, the report summarises the approved programme and identifies opportunities for the development of the field. In its conclusions, the Panel recognises that to maximise the discovery potential of the accelerator-based neutrino-oscillation programme it will be essential to exploit the infrastructures that exist at CERN, FNAL and J-PARC and the expertise and resources that reside in laboratories and institutes around the world. Therefore, in its second year, the Panel will consult with the accelerator-based neutrino-oscillation community and its stakeholders to: develop a road-map for the future accelerator-based neutrino-oscillation programme that exploits the ambitions articulated at CERN, FNAL and J-PARC and includes the programme of measurement and test-beam exposure necessary to ensure the programme is able to realise its potential; develop a proposal for a coordinated "Neutrino RD" programme, the accelerator and detector R&D programme required to underpin the next generation of experiments; and to explore the opportunities for the international collaboration necessary to realise the Neutrino Factory.Comment: ICFA Neutrino Panel 2014(01

Philosophy and Science in Leibniz

This paper explores the question of Leibniz’s contribution to the rise of modern ‘science’. To be sure, it is now generally agreed that the modern category of ‘science’ did not exist in the early modern period. At the same time, this period witnessed a very important stage in the process from which modern science eventually emerged. My discussion will be aimed at uncovering the new enterprise, and the new distinctions which were taking shape in the early modern period under the banner of the old Aristotelian terminology. I will argue that Leibniz begins to theorize a distinction between physics and metaphysics that tracks our distinction between the autonomous enterprise of science in its modern meaning, and the enterprise of philosophy. I will try to show that, for Leibniz, physics proper is the study of natural phenomena in mathematical and mechanical terms without recourse for its explanations to metaphysical notions. This autonomy, however, does not imply for Leibniz that physics can say on its own all that there is to be said about the natural world. Quite the opposite. Leibniz inherits from the Aristotelian tradition the view that physics needs metaphysical roots or a metaphysical grounding. For Leibniz, what is ultimately real is reached by metaphysics, not by physics. This is, in my view, Leibniz’s chief insight: the new mathematical physics is an autonomous enterprise which offers its own kind of explanations but does not exhaust what can (and should) be said about the natural world

Non-factorizable corrections and effective field theories

We analyze the structure of higher-order radiative corrections for processes with unstable particles. By subsequently integrating out the various scales that are induced by the presence of unstable particles we obtain a hierarchy of effective field theories. In the effective field theory framework the separation of physically different effects is achieved naturally. In particular, we automatically obtain a separation of factorizable and non-factorizable corrections to all orders in perturbation theory. At one loop this treatment is equivalent to the double-pole approximation (DPA) but generalizes to higher orders and, at least in principle, to beyond the DPA. It is known that one-loop non-factorizable corrections to invariant mass distributions are suppressed at high energy. We study the mechanism of this suppression and obtain estimates of higher-order non-factorizable corrections at high energy.Comment: 45 page

Review of Final LEP Results or A Tribute to LEP

After a comment on the performance of LEP some highlights of the LEP1 and LEP2 physics programmes are reviewed. The talk concentrates on the precision measurements at the Z resonance, two fermion production above the Z, W+W- production, ZZ production, indirect limits on the Higgs mass, LEP contributions to the exploration of the CKM matrix, and on the LEP measurements of alpha_s.Comment: Proceedings of the XX International Symposium on Lepton and Photon Interactions at High Energies Rome, Italy, July 200

Future Precision Neutrino Oscillation Experiments and Theoretical Implications

Future neutrino oscillation experiments will lead to precision measurements of neutrino mass splittings and mixings. The flavour structure of the lepton sector will therefore at some point become better known than that of the quark sector. This article discusses the potential of future oscillation experiments on the basis of detailed simulations with an emphasis on experiments which can be done in about ten years. In addition, some theoretical implications for neutrino mass models will be briefly discussed.Comment: Talk given at Nobel Symposium 2004: Neutrino Physics, Haga Slott, Enkoping, Sweden, 19-24 Aug 200

Teleology and Realism in Leibniz's Philosophy of Science

This paper argues for an interpretation of Leibniz’s claim that physics requires both mechanical and teleological principles as a view regarding the interpretation of physical theories. Granting that Leibniz’s fundamental ontology remains non-physical, or mentalistic, it argues that teleological principles nevertheless ground a realist commitment about mechanical descriptions of phenomena. The empirical results of the new sciences, according to Leibniz, have genuine truth conditions: there is a fact of the matter about the regularities observed in experience. Taking this stance, however, requires bringing non-empirical reasons to bear upon mechanical causal claims. This paper first evaluates extant interpretations of Leibniz’s thesis that there are two realms in physics as describing parallel, self-sufficient sets of laws. It then examines Leibniz’s use of teleological principles to interpret scientific results in the context of his interventions in debates in seventeenth-century kinematic theory, and in the teaching of Copernicanism. Leibniz’s use of the principle of continuity and the principle of simplicity, for instance, reveal an underlying commitment to the truth-aptness, or approximate truth-aptness, of the new natural sciences. The paper concludes with a brief remark on the relation between metaphysics, theology, and physics in Leibniz