55 research outputs found

    Nebuliser therapy in the intensive care unit

    Get PDF
    The relationship between identity, lived experience, sexual practices and the language through which these are conveyed has been widely debated in sexuality literature. For example, ‘coming out’ has famously been conceptualised as a ‘speech act’ (Sedgwick 1990) and as a collective narrative (Plummer 1995), while a growing concern for individuals’ diverse identifications in relations to their sexual and gender practices has produced interesting research focusing on linguistic practices among LGBT-identified individuals (Leap 1995; Kulick 2000; Cameron and Kulick 2006; Farqhar 2000). While an explicit focus on language remains marginal to literature on sexualities (Kulick 2000), issue of language use and translation are seldom explicitly addressed in the growing literature on intersectionality. Yet intersectional perspectives ‘reject the separability of analytical and identity categories’ (McCall 2005:1771), and therefore have an implicit stake in the ‘vernacular’ language of the researched, in the ‘scientific’ language of the researcher and in the relationship of continuity between the two. Drawing on literature within gay and lesbian/queer studies and cross-cultural studies, this chapter revisits debates on sexuality, language and intersectionality. I argue for the importance of giving careful consideration to the language we choose to use as researchers to collectively define the people whose experiences we try to capture. I also propose that language itself can be investigated as a productive way to foreground how individual and collective identifications are discursively constructed, and to unpack the diversity of lived experience. I address intersectional complexity as a methodological issue, where methodology is understood not only as the methods and practicalities of doing research, but more broadly as ‘a coherent set of ideas about the philosophy, methods and data that underlie the research process and the production of knowledge’ (McCall 2005:1774). My points are illustrated with examples drawn from my ethnographic study on ‘lesbian’ identity in urban Russia, interspersed with insights from existing literature. In particular, I aim to show that an explicit focus on language can be a productive way to explore the intersections between the global, the national and the local in cross-cultural research on sexuality, while also addressing issues of positionality and accountability to the communities researched

    Search for sterile neutrino mixing in the MINOS long-baseline experiment

    Get PDF
    A search for depletion of the combined flux of active neutrino species over a 735 km baseline is reported using neutral-current interaction data recorded by the MINOS detectors in the NuMI neutrino beam. Such a depletion is not expected according to conventional interpretations of neutrino oscillation data involving the three known neutrino flavors. A depletion would be a signature of oscillations or decay to postulated noninteracting sterile neutrinos, scenarios not ruled out by existing data. From an exposure of 3.18×1020 protons on target in which neutrinos of energies between ~500¿¿MeV and 120 GeV are produced predominantly as ¿”, the visible energy spectrum of candidate neutral-current reactions in the MINOS far detector is reconstructed. Comparison of this spectrum to that inferred from a similarly selected near-detector sample shows that of the portion of the ¿” flux observed to disappear in charged-current interaction data, the fraction that could be converting to a sterile state is less than 52% at 90% confidence level (C.L.). The hypothesis that active neutrinos mix with a single sterile neutrino via oscillations is tested by fitting the data to various models. In the particular four-neutrino models considered, the mixing angles Âż24 and Âż34 are constrained to be less than 11° and 56° at 90% C.L., respectively. The possibility that active neutrinos may decay to sterile neutrinos is also investigated. Pure neutrino decay without oscillations is ruled out at 5.4 standard deviations. For the scenario in which active neutrinos decay into sterile states concurrently with neutrino oscillations, a lower limit is established for the neutrino decay lifetime t3/m3>2.1×10-12¿¿s/eV at 90% C.L

    First observations of separated atmospheric nu_mu and bar{nu-mu} events in the MINOS detector

    Get PDF
    The complete 5.4 kton MINOS far detector has been taking data since the beginning of August 2003 at a depth of 2070 meters water-equivalent in the Soudan mine, Minnesota. This paper presents the first MINOS observations of nu” and [overline nu ]” charged-current atmospheric neutrino interactions based on an exposure of 418 days. The ratio of upward- to downward-going events in the data is compared to the Monte Carlo expectation in the absence of neutrino oscillations, giving Rup/downdata/Rup/downMC=0.62-0.14+0.19(stat.)±0.02(sys.). An extended maximum likelihood analysis of the observed L/E distributions excludes the null hypothesis of no neutrino oscillations at the 98% confidence level. Using the curvature of the observed muons in the 1.3 T MINOS magnetic field nu” and [overline nu ]” interactions are separated. The ratio of [overline nu ]” to nu” events in the data is compared to the Monte Carlo expectation assuming neutrinos and antineutrinos oscillate in the same manner, giving R[overline nu ][sub mu]/nu[sub mu]data/R[overline nu ][sub mu]/nu[sub mu]MC=0.96-0.27+0.38(stat.)±0.15(sys.), where the errors are the statistical and systematic uncertainties. Although the statistics are limited, this is the first direct observation of atmospheric neutrino interactions separately for nu” and [overline nu ]”

    Measurements of atmospheric neutrinos and antineutrinos in the MINOS far detector

    Get PDF
    This paper reports measurements of atmospheric neutrino and antineutrino interactions in the MINOS Far Detector, based on 2553 live-days (37.9 kton-years) of data. A total of 2072 candidate events are observed. These are separated into 905 contained-vertex muons and 466 neutrino-induced rock-muons, both produced by charged-current v_” and vÂŻ_” interactions, and 701 contained-vertex showers, composed mainly of charged-current v_e and vÂŻ_e interactions and neutral-current interactions. The curvature of muon tracks in the magnetic field of the MINOS Far Detector is used to select separate samples of v_” and vÂŻ_” events. The observed ration of vÂŻ_” to v_” events is compared with the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation, giving a double ration of (R^(data)_(vÂŻ/v))/(R^(MC)_(vÂŻ/v)) = 1.03 ± 0.08(stat) ± 0.08(syst). The v_” and vÂŻ_” data are separated into bins of L/E resolution, based on the reconstructed energy and direction of each event, and a maximum likelihood fit to the observed L/E distributions is used to determine the atmospheric neutrino oscillation parameters. This fit returns 90% confidence limits of |Δm^2| = (1.9 ± 0.4) x 10^(-3) eV^2 and sin^(2)2Ξ > 0.86. The fit is extended to incorporate separate v_” and vÂŻ_” oscillation parameters, returning 90% confidence limits of |Δm^2|-|ΔmÂŻ^2| = 0.6^(2.4)_(-0.8) x 10^(-3) eV^2 on the difference between the squared-mass splittings for neutrinos and antineutrinos

    Precise Measurement of the Neutrino Mixing Parameter theta(23) from Muon Neutrino Disappearance in an Off-Axis Beam

    Get PDF
    New data from the T2K neutrino oscillation experiment produce the most precise measurement of the neutrino mixing parameter theta_{23}. Using an off-axis neutrino beam with a peak energy of 0.6 GeV and a data set corresponding to 6.57 x 10^{20} protons on target, T2K has fit the energy-dependent nu_mu oscillation probability to determine oscillation parameters. Marginalizing over the values of other oscillation parameters yields sin^2 (theta_{23}) = 0.514 +0.055/-0.056 (0.511 +- 0.055), assuming normal (inverted) mass hierarchy. The best-fit mass-squared splitting for normal hierarchy is Delta m^2_{32} = (2.51 +- 0.10) x 10^{-3} eV^2/c^4 (inverted hierarchy: Delta m^2_{13} = (2.48 +- 0.10) x 10^{-3} eV^2/c^4). Adding a model of multinucleon interactions that affect neutrino energy reconstruction is found to produce only small biases in neutrino oscillation parameter extraction at current levels of statistical uncertainty

    Measurement of the intrinsic electron neutrino component in the T2K neutrino beam with the ND280 detector

    Get PDF
    The T2K experiment has reported the first observation of the appearance of electron neutrinos in a muon neutrino beam. The main and irreducible background to the appearance signal comes from the presence in the neutrino beam of a small intrinsic component of electron neutrinos originating from muon and kaon decays. In T2K, this component is expected to represent 1.2% of the total neutrino flux. A measurement of this component using the near detector (ND280), located 280 m from the target, is presented. The charged current interactions of electron neutrinos are selected by combining the particle identification capabilities of both the time projection chambers and electromagnetic calorimeters of ND280. The measured ratio between the observed electron neutrino beam component and the prediction is 1.01 +/- 0.10 providing a direct confirmation of the neutrino fluxes and neutrino cross section modeling used for T2K neutrino oscillation analyses. Electron neutrinos coming from muons and kaons decay are also separately measured, resulting in a ratio with respect to the prediction of 0.68 +/- 0.30 and 1.10 +/- 0.14, respectively

    T2K neutrino flux prediction

    Get PDF
    cited By 15 art_number: 012001 affiliation: Centre for Particle Physics, Department of Physics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada; Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics, Laboratory for High Energy Physics (LHEP), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston, MA, United States; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States; IRFU, CEA Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France; Institute for Universe and Elementary Particles, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, South Korea; Department of Physics, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO, United States; Department of Physics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States; Department of Physics, Dongshin University, Naju, South Korea; Department of Physics, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States; IN2P3-CNRS, Laboratoire Leprince-Ringuet, Ecole Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France; Institute for Particle Physics, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; Section de Physique, DPNC, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; H. Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics PAN, Cracow, Poland; High Energy Accelerator Research Organization (KEK), Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan; Institut de Fisica d’Altes Energies (IFAE), Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain; IFIC (CSIC and University of Valencia), Valencia, Spain; Department of Physics, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom; INFN Sezione di Bari, Dipartimento Interuniversitario di Fisica, UniversitĂ  e Politecnico di Bari, Bari, Italy; INFN Sezione di Napoli and Dipartimento di Fisica, UniversitĂ  di Napoli, Napoli, Italy; INFN Sezione di Padova, Dipartimento di Fisica, UniversitĂ  di Padova, Padova, Italy; INFN Sezione di Roma, UniversitĂ  di Roma la Sapienza, Roma, Italy; Institute for Nuclear Research, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation; Kobe University, Kobe, Japan; Department of Physics, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan; Physics Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, United States; UniversitĂ© de Lyon, UniversitĂ© Claude Bernard Lyon 1, IPN Lyon (IN2P3), Villeurbanne, France; Department of Physics, Miyagi University of Education, Sendai, Japan; National Centre for Nuclear Research, Warsaw, Poland; State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, United States; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Osaka City University, Department of Physics, Osaka, Japan; Department of Physics, Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom; UPMC, UniversitĂ© Paris Diderot, Laboratoire de Physique NuclĂ©aire et de Hautes Energies (LPNHE), Paris, France; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States; School of Physics, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States; III. Physikalisches Institut, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany; Department of Physics and Astronomy, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom; University of Silesia, Institute of Physics, Katowice, Poland; STFC, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Harwell Oxford, Warrington, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan; Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, Kamioka Observatory, University of Tokyo, Kamioka, Japan; Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, Research Center for Cosmic Neutrinos, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan; Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada; TRIUMF, Vancouver, BC, Canada; Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada; Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; Institute of Radioelectronics, Warsaw University of Technology, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom; Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Physics, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MB, Canada; Faculty of Physics and Astronomy, Wroclaw University, Wroclaw, Poland; Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada references: Astier, P., (2003) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 515, p. 800. , (NOMAD Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2003.07.054; Ahn, M., (2006) Phys. Rev. D, 74, p. 072003. , (K2K Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.072003; Adamson, P., (2008) Phys. Rev. D, 77, p. 072002. , (MINOS Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.072002; Aguilar-Arevalo, A., (2009) Phys. Rev. D, 79, p. 072002. , (MiniBooNE Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.072002; (2003) Letter of Intent: Neutrino Oscillation Experiment at JHF, , http://neutrino.kek.jp/jhfnu/loi/loi_JHFcor.pdf, T2K Collaboration; Abe, K., (2011) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 659, p. 106. , (T2K Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2011.06.067; Abe, K., (2011) Phys. Rev. Lett., 107, p. 041801. , (T2K Collaboration), PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.041801; Abe, K., (2012) Phys. Rev. D, 85, p. 031103. , (T2K Collaboration), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.031103; Fukuda, Y., (2003) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 501, p. 418. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/S0168-9002(03)00425-X; Beavis, D., Carroll, A., Chiang, I., (1995), Physics Design Report, BNL 52459Abgrall, N., (2011) Phys. Rev. C, 84, p. 034604. , (NA61/SHINE Collaboration), PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.84.034604; Abgrall, N., (2012) Phys. Rev. C, 85, p. 035210. , (NA61/SHINE Collaboration), PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.85.035210; Bhadra, S., (2013) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 703, p. 45. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.11.044; Van Der Meer, S., Report No. CERN-61-07Palmer, R., Report No. CERN-65-32, 141Ichikawa, A., (2012) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 690, p. 27. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.06.045; Matsuoka, K., (2010) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 624, p. 591. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2010.09.074; Abe, K., (2012) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 694, p. 211. , (T2K Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.03.023; Abgrall, N., (2011) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 637, p. 25. , (T2K ND280 TPC Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2011.02. 036; Amaudruz, P.-A., (2012) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 696, p. 1. , (T2K ND280 FGD Collaboration), NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.08. 020; Battistoni, G., Cerutti, F., Fasso, A., Ferrari, A., Muraro, S., Ranft, J., Roesler, S., Sala, P.R., (2007) AIP Conf. Proc., 896, p. 31. , APCPCS 0094-243X 10.1063/1.2720455; A. Ferrari, P. R. Sala, A. Fasso, and J. Ranft, Report No. CERN-2005-010A. Ferrari P. R. Sala A. Fasso J. Ranft Report No. SLAC-R-773A. Ferrari P. R. Sala A. Fasso J. Ranft Report No. INFN-TC-05-11R. Brun, F. Carminati, and S. Giani, Report No. CERN-W5013Zeitnitz, C., Gabriel, T.A., (1993) Proceedings of International Conference on Calorimetry in High Energy Physics, , in Elsevier Science B.V., Tallahassee, FL; Fasso, A., Ferrari, A., Ranft, J., Sala, P.R., Proceedings of the International Conference on Calorimetry in High Energy Physics, 1994, , in; Beringer, J., (2012) Phys. Rev. D, 86, p. 010001. , (Particle Data Group), PRVDAQ 1550-7998 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.010001; Eichten, T., (1972) Nucl. Phys. B, 44, p. 333. , NUPBBO 0550-3213 10.1016/0550-3213(72)90120-4; Allaby, J.V., Tech. Rep. 70-12 (CERN, 1970)Chemakin, I., (2008) Phys. Rev. C, 77, p. 015209. , PRVCAN 0556-2813 10.1103/PhysRevC.77.015209; Abrams, R.J., Cool, R., Giacomelli, G., Kycia, T., Leontic, B., Li, K., Michael, D., (1970) Phys. Rev. D, 1, p. 1917. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.1.1917; Allaby, J.V., (1970) Yad. Fiz., 12, p. 538. , IDFZA7 0044-0027; Allaby, J.V., (1969) Phys. Lett. B, 30, p. 500. , PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/0370-2693(69)90184-1; Allardyce, B.W., (1973) Nucl. Phys. A, 209, p. 1. , NUPABL 0375-9474 10.1016/0375-9474(73)90049-3; Bellettini, G., Cocconi, G., Diddens, A.N., Lillethun, E., Matthiae, G., Scanlon, J.P., Wetherell, A.M., (1966) Nucl. Phys., 79, p. 609. , NUPHA7 0029-5582 10.1016/0029-5582(66)90267-7; Bobchenko, B.M., (1979) Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 30, p. 805. , SJNCAS 0038-5506; Carroll, A.S., (1979) Phys. Lett. B, 80, p. 319. , PYLBAJ 0370-2693 10.1016/0370-2693(79)90226-0; Cronin, J.W., Cool, R., Abashian, A., (1957) Phys. Rev., 107, p. 1121. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.107.1121; Chen, F.F., Leavitt, C., Shapiro, A., (1955) Phys. Rev., 99, p. 857. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.99.857; Denisov, S.P., Donskov, S.V., Gorin, Yu.P., Krasnokutsky, R.N., Petrukhin, A.I., Prokoshkin, Yu.D., Stoyanova, D.A., (1973) Nucl. Phys. B, 61, p. 62. , NUPBBO 0550-3213 10.1016/0550-3213(73)90351-9; Longo, M.J., Moyer, B.J., (1962) Phys. Rev., 125, p. 701. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.125.701; Vlasov, A.V., (1978) Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., 27, p. 222. , SJNCAS 0038-5506; Feynman, R., (1969) Phys. Rev. Lett., 23, p. 1415. , PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.1415; Bonesini, M., Marchionni, A., Pietropaolo, F., Tabarelli De Fatis, T., (2001) Eur. Phys. J. C, 20, p. 13. , EPCFFB 1434-6044 10.1007/s100520100656; Barton, D.S., (1983) Phys. Rev. D, 27, p. 2580. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.27.2580; Skubic, P., (1978) Phys. Rev. D, 18, p. 3115. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.18.3115; Feynman, R.P., (1972) Photon-Hadron Interactions, , Benjamin, New York; Bjorken, J.D., Paschos, E.A., (1969) Phys. Rev., 185, p. 1975. , PHRVAO 0031-899X 10.1103/PhysRev.185.1975; Taylor, F.E., Carey, D., Johnson, J., Kammerud, R., Ritchie, D., Roberts, A., Sauer, J., Walker, J., (1976) Phys. Rev. D, 14, p. 1217. , PRVDAQ 0556-2821 10.1103/PhysRevD.14.1217; Abgrall, N., (2013) Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A, 701, p. 99. , NIMAER 0168-9002 10.1016/j.nima.2012.10.079; Hayato, Y., (2002) Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl., 112, p. 171. , NPBSE7 0920-5632 10.1016/S0920-5632(02)01759-0 correspondence_address1: Abe, K.; Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, Kamioka Observatory, University of Tokyo, Kamioka, Japan coden: PRVDA abbrev_source_title: Phys Rev D Part Fields Gravit Cosmol document_type: Article source: Scopu

    The 2010 Interim Report of the Long-Baseline Neutrino Experiment Collaboration Physics Working Groups

    Get PDF
    Corresponding author R.J.Wilson ([email protected]); 113 pages, 90 figuresCorresponding author R.J.Wilson ([email protected]); 113 pages, 90 figuresIn early 2010, the Long-Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE) science collaboration initiated a study to investigate the physics potential of the experiment with a broad set of different beam, near- and far-detector configurations. Nine initial topics were identified as scientific areas that motivate construction of a long-baseline neutrino experiment with a very large far detector. We summarize the scientific justification for each topic and the estimated performance for a set of far detector reference configurations. We report also on a study of optimized beam parameters and the physics capability of proposed Near Detector configurations. This document was presented to the collaboration in fall 2010 and updated with minor modifications in early 2011

    Measurement of the neutrino-oxygen neutral-current interaction cross section by observing nuclear deexcitation gamma rays

    Get PDF
    We report the first measurement of the neutrino-oxygen neutral-current quasielastic (NCQE) cross section gamma It is obtained by observing nuclear deexcitation. rays which follow neutrino-oxygen interactions at the Super-Kamiokande water Cherenkov detector. We use T2K data corresponding to 3.01 x 10(20) protons on target. By selecting only events during the T2K beam window and with well-reconstructed vertices in the fiducial volume, the large background rate from natural radioactivity is dramatically reduced. We observe 43 events in the 4-30 MeV reconstructed energy window, compared with an expectation of 51.0, which includes an estimated 16.2 background events. The background is primarily nonquasielastic neutral-current interactions and has only 1.2 events from natural radioactivity. The flux-averaged NCQE cross section we measure is 1.55 x 10(-38) cm(2) with a 68% confidence interval of (1.22, 2.20) x 10(-38) cm(2) at a median neutrino energy of 630 MeV, compared with the theoretical prediction of 2.01 x 10(-38) cm(2)

    The Long-Baseline Neutrino Experiment: Exploring Fundamental Symmetries of the Universe

    Get PDF
    Major update of previous version. This is the reference document for LBNE science program and current status. Chapters 1, 3, and 9 provide a comprehensive overview of LBNE's scientific objectives, its place in the landscape of neutrino physics worldwide, the technologies it will incorporate and the capabilities it will possess. 288 pages, 116 figuresMajor update of previous version. This is the reference document for LBNE science program and current status. Chapters 1, 3, and 9 provide a comprehensive overview of LBNE's scientific objectives, its place in the landscape of neutrino physics worldwide, the technologies it will incorporate and the capabilities it will possess. 288 pages, 116 figuresThe preponderance of matter over antimatter in the early Universe, the dynamics of the supernova bursts that produced the heavy elements necessary for life and whether protons eventually decay --- these mysteries at the forefront of particle physics and astrophysics are key to understanding the early evolution of our Universe, its current state and its eventual fate. The Long-Baseline Neutrino Experiment (LBNE) represents an extensively developed plan for a world-class experiment dedicated to addressing these questions. LBNE is conceived around three central components: (1) a new, high-intensity neutrino source generated from a megawatt-class proton accelerator at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, (2) a near neutrino detector just downstream of the source, and (3) a massive liquid argon time-projection chamber deployed as a far detector deep underground at the Sanford Underground Research Facility. This facility, located at the site of the former Homestake Mine in Lead, South Dakota, is approximately 1,300 km from the neutrino source at Fermilab -- a distance (baseline) that delivers optimal sensitivity to neutrino charge-parity symmetry violation and mass ordering effects. This ambitious yet cost-effective design incorporates scalability and flexibility and can accommodate a variety of upgrades and contributions. With its exceptional combination of experimental configuration, technical capabilities, and potential for transformative discoveries, LBNE promises to be a vital facility for the field of particle physics worldwide, providing physicists from around the globe with opportunities to collaborate in a twenty to thirty year program of exciting science. In this document we provide a comprehensive overview of LBNE's scientific objectives, its place in the landscape of neutrino physics worldwide, the technologies it will incorporate and the capabilities it will possess
    • 

    corecore