1. Concluding remarks & proposal for Next steps Andrey Golutvin Imperial College London Disclaimer: It is not a summary talk. Real summaries are given in -the talks of the “theory” day -in the experimental talk on what is next, by Maxim - in the introductory talk on the SHIP performance requirements, by Richard

2. 2 Planning schedule of the SHIP facility A few milestones: Form SHIP collaboration  June-September 2014 Technical proposal  2015 Technical Design Report  2018 Construction and installation  2018 – 2022 Commissioning  2022 Data taking and analysis of 2×10 20 pot  2023 - 2027

3. Scope of the Technical Proposal Widen physics case both for the BSM and SM physics Provide Conceptual Design Report (few options per sub-detector is ok at this stage) Detailed analysis of the sub-detector technologies complemented, if really needed, with some RD studies of prototypes. No large scale detector modules is expected at this stage. It is however important to identify critical RD milestones for the TDR Full simulation based sensitivity reach and background evaluation for representative channels Provide cost evaluation of the detector Reach internal understanding who will do what for the TDR

4. Main objectives in physics Explore hidden portals of the SM using > 2×10 20 p.o.t. ( >10 17 D, >10 15  ) Work has started (assuming zero background) for - HNL in various final states - Dark photons - Low energy SUSY (certainly deserves more theoretical attention !) - Inflatons More ideas on representative channels are welcome ! Need a set of reference models for various portals Dark Matter detection through its neutrino-type interactions could significantly enhance physics programme of SHIP Neutrino interactions (expect ~3500  interactions in 6 tons emulsion target) -   and anti-   physics - Charm physics in neutrino and anti-neutrino interactions - Electron neutrino interactions at high energies (only low energy studies for oscillation experiments) - Search for New Physics in   scattering New ideas on physics with muons,    D   ??? Require feasibility studies Theorists do not have a clear view … MSM has initially motivated the SHIP EoI

5. Sensitivity to HNL: U  U 2 = U e 2 + U  2 + U  2

6. Sensitivity to HNL: U e

7. In parallel theoretical understanding of the cosmological parameter space is ongoing Example of not the best reference model has been found Well, late production of lepton asymmetry is also possible. For details, see the list of FAQ to SHIP

9. Frequently asked questions during confs or seminars whose answer is neither in our EOI nor in the addendum (page maintained by Walter, complain with him for any inconsistency!) What can TLEP do for the nuMSM with 10^12 Z for m<2GeV? Can NA62 do our measurement? do we have radiological problems with Tritium produced in the target water cooling or in the walls? is it possibile to do some timing with the incoming beam? Is the double beta decay limit of the Atre et al paper (providing the best limit in Ue^2) correct? Is the HNL lifetime formula of the Atre et al paper correct? Is the SM valid without introducing NP up to the Planck mass? How do explain dark energy in nuMSM? How do we understand the hierarchy problem in nuMSM? At which scale do the coupling constants meet in the nuMSM? What are the constraints from cosmology on the Ue, Umu ecc.? How can we get the constraint from BBN in Umu^2 units? do we care about consistency of the model with pulsar kicks and supernova explosions? what about the link to colder dark matter and the need of going beyond the minimal model? why Planck results do not affect our neutrinos? FAQ N16: what are the cosmological constraints to HNL? what are the excluded mass ranges? can N1 be mistaken for the gravitino? what are the main differences between the evidence of Harward-NASA and that of Alexey et al? Is the BICEP2 result going to falsify the Higgs inflationary model of Shaposhnikov et al,? Is the BICEP2 result suggesting the existence of a scale for new physics? suppose that some evidence could be collected that the Higgs inflation model is wrong and another inflaton is needed, would invalidate nuMSM? would a possible sterile neutrino of about a MeV (of which there is now some circumstantial evedence) invalidate nuMSM ? why we have lower limit on U^2 from see-saw and not an upper limit? is the measurement of the Dirac CP violating phase of the neutrino PMNS matrix (foreseen at LBNE at FNAL) enough to understand leptogenesis? what could be our strategy for HS? Will make this list of FAQ public !

10. Sensitivity to Dark photons

11. Light neutralinos Can be produced in charm decays, e.g. D 0   , D +      Decay final states:

12. Very essential for Technical Proposal  may require significant modification of the detector concept ! Main sources of background as seen currently: Understanding of backgrounds

13. Experimental Area Big Thanks to the Task Force ! To progress further we have to convince community that the SHIP physics case, as well as conceptual detector design, deserves dedicated experimental area at CERN More optimization is very important: -Further (small) beam energy optimization to maximize number of pots -Implement time stamping of the beam structure using pick-up technique (may be very essential for backgr. reduction and DM detection Eventually we need a test beam, possibly with a prototype target ! CERN experts know what to do very well !!!

14. 14 Initial detector concept for EOI HNL   Long vacuum vessel, 5 m diameter, 50 m length Background from active neutrino interactions becomes negligible at 0.01 mbar 10 m long magnetic spectrometer with 0.5 Tm dipole magnet and 4 low material tracking chambers 14 Reconstruction of the HNL decays in the final states:        &  e    Requires long decay volume, magnetic spectrometer, muon detector and electromagnetic calorimeter, preferably in surface building

15. We should prepare a new 3d-view of the SHIP detector with details of the  detector

16. Geometrical acceptance Saturates for a given HNL lifetime as a function of detector length The use of two magnetic spectrometers increases the acceptance by 70% Detector has two almost identical elements 16 Arbitrary units Two (almost) identical detector elements vs one with larger angular coverage. Would require larger magnet aperture, longer or segmented straws. Can we get ~70% acceptance gain with a single detector element ? More thoughts is clearly needed on the construction of the upstream tagger and upstream veto which have to enhance background suppression capability

17. Muon shield -active shielding with well configured magnetic field. There is still potential to perform better than pure passive shield -passive shielding, replacing parts of Pb with Fe to save money, issue with backscattered muons from concrete walls, and eventually full simulation with walls/decay tube / tau neutrino detector. Simulation framework is in place ! -Ideas are very welcome here how to reduce further the muon flux:  Critical for emulsion saturation  Can produce significant background for BSM searches Note: Feasibility study of    D  , … may necessitate a dedicated magnetic spectrometer as close to the target as radiation would allow. One then benefits from the deflecting magnets in this area suitable also for the muon momentum measurement

18. Vacuum vessel and Magnet Conceptual design, with properly addressed engineering issues (Modern submarine but not Noah’s arc) Investigate an option with larger angular coverage, larger magnet aperture Design of the vessel flanges Thinnest possible entrance window  can be useful for optimization of the VETO detectors outside of the vacuum vessel Vacuum system, possibility to pump down to 10 -3 mbar

19. Tracking spectrometer Simple affordable dipole a la LHCb (0.5 Tm field integral should be sufficient for very light material budget) Current design is based on NA62 straw tube technology What needs to be modified from NA62 to SHIP Do we need an alternative design with even further reduced material such as low pressure large drift chamber ? Length of the straws Configuration inside the layer. Vertical location in SHIP Can one improve two tracks resolution in time ( up to ~30 ns )

20. Calorimeter system Current ideas are based on use of Shashlik technology (demonstrated in many experiments, including HERA-B and COMPASS) Provides good energy resolution, well matching spectrometer momentum resolution for charged tracks, at modest cost Points requiring more attention: - Calibration ( only muons are available )  may become a limiting factor in resolution - Choice of light readout: PMT vs SiPM (synergy with Muon detector based on scintillating strips) - Careful optimization of parameters to achieve best possible photon, electron id. as well as best possible pion / muon discrimination - Good timing capabilities

21. 18 March 2010 COMPASS collaboration meeting, Venice  t ≈ 0.9 ns Amplitude cut: 20 ADC channels ≈ 600 MeV Real data 3068 channels CFD time resolution

22. Muon Detector Two options are being currently discussed scintillating strips with SiPM readout and RPC. The choice should be taken at some point. This is however not very urgent. Study combined performance of the CALO system and MUON detector to improve pion / muon discrimination Enhance hadron identification capabilities in low occupancy environment HCAL vs classical Muon detector ???

23. Upstream Tagger (UT) and Upstream Veto (UV) Detectors, and Timing Counter (TC) Definition of the Upstream Tagger and Upstream Veto technologies Optimization of their transverse and longitudinal granularity (for UT) Choice of technology for the Timing Counter (TC) Contribution is clearly welcome in this area More coordination is needed !

24.   detector Design issues: - neutrino flux calculation: better estimate of tau neutrino fluxes - implement bricks/CES into simulation framework - choice: magnetized/non-magnetized target area - target geometry (depends on magnetization): length vs depth of target CES details tracker choice and number of layers, etc… Emulsion specific: - emulsion plate choice - scanning technology - scanning strategy Compare technologies for electronic detectors to measure muon charge and momentum, and to provide “time stamp” SciFi option has a lot of similarity with the SciFi tracker for the LHCb upgrade Define geometrical detector envelop asap ! To be added to the simulation framework

25. Trigger and DAQ

26. Simulation and computing In very good shape thanks to super-effort of a few people !

27. Simulation and computing And we have Search Engine Yandex working on the SHIP computing model Will hopefully increase our chances to find what we are looking for !

28. Collaboration matters Three stages in the preparation of the experiment: first the work for the TP which should be completed early 2015, then the TDRs to be finished by 2018, and finally the construction to start data taking in 2022. Contribution to the Technical Proposal to be completed by March 2015 This document requires mainly an intellectual contribution. The current detector choices are based on existing technologies, so no essential R&D is required for the TP. Expect a tangible contribution to the detector conceptual design, evaluation of the physics reach, or software, simulation and computing activities. If considered necessary by the group, this phase may also include eventual R&D and test beam activity Assuming that the TP is approved by the CERN committees, the time scale for the preparation of the TDRs is 2016-2018. In particular the groups are expected - formulate an interest in a hardware and software contribution for the construction; - give an estimate of the strength of their group during the work for the technical proposal and for the preparation of the TDR Assuming that the TDRs are approved by 2018, it would be valuable to understand the groups’ prospects for contributing to the construction of the SHIP detector in 2018-2022

29. Summary We have had very successful 1 st SHIP workshop. Many thanks to Local Organizing Committee ! - Brilliant theoretical presentations including cosmology Think more on synergy between SHIP and Spaceship in future - Task Force report on the experimental area evaluation is ready SHIP is clearly very well supported ! The quality of report sets standards for the SHIP Technical Proposal - Review of possible technologies for various detector components Good start for starting optimization of detectors parameters - Simulation framework is ready and waiting for volunteers to start simulation studies We clearly have to plan next meeting to shape preparation of the TP Meanwhile please set up contacts with conveners of your area of interest We’ll provide a list of names shortly Will discuss a strategy how to activate collaboration in the afternoon