1: \documentclass[pra,aps,showpacs,preprint]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{dcolumn}

3: \input epsf

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: \begin{document}

6: 

7: \title{Measuring Atmospheric Neutrino Oscillations with Neutrino

8: Telescopes}

9: 

10: \vspace*{-24pt}

11: 

12: \author{Ivone F.\ M. Albuquerque }\thanks{Electronic mail: 

13:                 IFAlbuquerque@lbl.gov}

14: \affiliation{Department of Astronomy \& Space Sciences Laboratory,

15: University of California, Berkeley, \ CA 94720. }

16: 

17: \author{George F. Smoot}\thanks{Electronic mail: 

18:                 {GFSmoot@lbl.gov}}

19: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory \\

20: \& Space Sciences Laboratory.

21: University of California, Berkeley,\ CA 94720.}

22: %\end{center}

23: 

24: \date{28 March 2001}

25: 

26: \begin{abstract}

27: Neutrino telescopes with large detection volumes can demonstrate 

28: whether the current indications of neutrino oscillation are correct or 

29: if a better description can be achieved with non-standard alternatives.

30: Observations of contained muons produced by atmospheric neutrinos

31: can better constrain the allowed region for oscillations or determine

32: the relevant parameters of non-standard models.

33: We analyze the possibility of neutrino telescopes measuring atmospheric 

34: neutrino oscillations. We suggest adjustments to improve this potential.

35: An addition of four densely-instrumented strings to the AMANDA II detector

36: makes oscillation observations feasible.

37: Such a configuration is competitive with current and proposed 

38: experiments.

39: \end{abstract}

40: 

41: \pacs{14.60.Pq} 

42: 

43: \maketitle

44: 

45: \section{Introduction}

46: 

47: Experimental observations (Super-Kamiokande \cite{superk}, 

48: Kamiokande \cite{kamioka}, IMB \cite{imb} and Soudan \cite{soudan})

49: for atmospheric muon and electron neutrinos have found that the

50: ratio of the number of these neutrino species does not agree with theoretical

51: prediction. 

52: All experiments measuring the flux of solar neutrinos observe a deficit 

53: compared with the solar model predictions \cite{Bahcall}. 

54: The ratio of muon to electron events observed in atmospheric neutrino 

55: interactions is measured by most experiments to be less than expected 

56: from models of cosmic ray interactions in the atmosphere \cite{Fogli}.

57: Neutrino oscillation can explain these results. 

58: The measurement of the up/down asymmetry of this ratio by the Super-Kamionkande 

59: collaboration \cite{superk} is generally considered to be the strongest evidence

60: for neutrino oscillations.

61: As oscillations would most likely imply that neutrinos have mass, 

62: many researchers have fitted the available data for the mass difference among 

63: different neutrino species. 

64: 

65: While the cumulative evidence for neutrino oscillations is very striking,

66: a definitive proof that the observed anomalies are actually due to neutrino 

67: oscillations is still missing. 

68: In particular the current observations of atmospheric neutrinos are consistent

69: with the hypothesis of maximal $\nu_\mu$ oscillations, 

70: but do not exclude some alternative unconventional explanations, 

71: such as neutrino decay \cite{Barger}, micron-scale extra dimensions \cite{Barbieri} or 

72: quantum decoherence in propagation \cite{Lisi}.

73: 

74: Cosmic rays traveling to Earth will interact with its atmospheric nuclei.

75: These interactions produce hadrons which decay eventually into atmospheric neutrinos.

76: Up to neutrino energies of about 100 GeV, the main result from these 

77: interactions is pion production $\pi^{+} (\pi^-)$. These will 

78: decay into $\mu^{+} + \nu_{\mu}$ ($\mu^{-} + \overline{\nu}_{\mu}$)

79: almost 100\% of the time. The

80: secondary $\mu^+ (\mu^-)$ will decay into $e^{+} + \nu_e + \overline{\nu}_{\mu}$

81: ($e^{-} + \overline{\nu}_e + \nu_{\mu}$) which will give a 

82: $\nu_{\mu}+\overline{\nu}_{\mu}$

83: to $\nu_e+\overline{\nu}_e$ ratio (r) of 2:1. 

84: 

85: However, depending on the cosmic ray energy and

86: where it interacts in the Earth atmosphere, 

87: the muon might not decay before reaching the ground and corrections 

88: to this ratio have to be included. Another effect to be included is the Earth's magnetic field action on lower energy particles. 

89: These effects have been modeled and simulated and one looks for a 

90: ratio ($R$) that relates $r_{exp}$ 

91: from experimental data to $r_{sim}$ 

92: from simulations ($R = r_{exp}/r_{sim}$). 

93: In this way one can reduce the bias introduced by uncertainties 

94: in understanding these effects. 

95: 

96: Super-Kamiokande, Kamiokande, IMB and Soudan experiments \cite{superk,kamioka,imb,soudan}

97: found the ratio R to be lower than expected, with fewer $\nu_{\mu}$'s. 

98: Frejus and Nusex experiments \cite{frejus1,nusex} have not found any 

99: anomaly in R.

100: 

101: If neutrinos have mass, one type of neutrino can oscillate into another. 

102: The probability (P) for atmospheric neutrino oscillations, 

103: in a two neutrino mixing scenario, is given by \cite{kayser}:

104: 

105: \begin{equation}

106: P = \sin^2{2\theta}\sin^2\left(1.27 \frac{L}{E} \Delta m^2\right),

107: \label{eq:oscprob}

108: \end{equation}

109: where $\theta$ is the mixing angle, $\Delta m^2$ is the difference of the

110: squared mass  for two types of neutrinos

111: in $eV^2$, $L$ is the distance traveled by the original neutrino in km and 

112: $E$ is the neutrino energy in GeV. 

113: 

114: The Super-Kamiokande analysis \cite{superk} constrains $\Delta m^2$ 

115: from $5\times 10^{-4}$ to $6 \times 10^{-3} eV^2$ and $\theta$ 

116: to greater than 0.82 at 90\% confidence level. 

117: The most probable solution is $\Delta m^2 = 3.5 \times 10^{-3} eV^2$ and 

118: $\sin^2{2\theta} = 1$ (full mixing). 

119: Also the oscillation of a muon neutrino into a tau neutrino is favored 

120: over an oscillation into a sterile neutrino \cite{sktaufavor}. 

121: 

122: If the atmospheric neutrino result is joined with the solar and 

123: short baseline beam measurements, 

124: they indicate evidence of a non-zero $\Delta m^2$. 

125: However, new neutrino oscillation experiments are needed to precisely 

126: measure $\Delta m^2$ as well as to decide 

127: among experimental results that are in disagreement. 

128: As an example, 

129: the Super-Kamiokande \cite{superk} results barely overlap with Kamiokande 

130: \cite{kamioka} results.

131: 

132: As the detector area and volume covered by current or proposed 

133: high-energy astrophysical neutrino telescopes are large  

134: compared to underground detectors, it is possible for these experiments 

135: to contribute to the understanding of atmospheric neutrino oscillations. 

136: In this paper we investigate the possibility of AMANDA \cite{amanda} and 

137: IceCube \cite{ice3} detectors measuring atmospheric neutrino oscillations.

138: Similar analyses would apply 

139: for the ANTARES \cite{antares} and NESTOR \cite{nestor} detectors. 

140: 

141: \section{Measurement of Atmospheric Oscillations}

142: 

143: Figure~\ref{fig:osc} shows the neutrino flavor survival probability ($P_S$) versus 

144: the ratio of the distance traveled by the neutrino and its energy ($L/E$). 

145: This probability is given by $1-P_\sim$ where $P_{\sim}$

146: is the neutrino oscillation probability given in Equation~\ref{eq:oscprob}. 

147: 

148: As one can experimentally determine the number of events with 

149: energy E as a function of the zenith angle ($\theta_Z$), 

150: a plot of the survival probability versus $\cos\theta_Z$ 

151: provides a more convenient indication of what could be accomplished by 

152: neutrino telescopes.

153: 

154: Equation~\ref{eq:oscprob} shows that the larger the distance the neutrino

155: travels, the greater the possibility of oscillation. 

156: For energies of 10 GeV and above only upward going neutrinos,

157: those which come from below the detector after crossing the Earth, 

158: will have a significant probability of oscillating. 

159: 

160: We define $\theta_Z$ as the angle from the detector axis 

161: (defined by a line from the detector to the center of the Earth) 

162: to the direction of the particle arrival at the detector 

163: \footnote{\protect$\theta_Z = 0$ degree corresponds 

164: to upward going neutrinos and \protect$\theta_Z = 180$ degrees 

165: corresponds to downward going neutrinos.}. 

166: For a detector located at a distance $R_d$ from

167: the center of the Earth, 

168: the distance traveled (L) by the neutrino will be:

169: 

170: \begin{equation}

171: L = R_d \cos\theta_Z + \sqrt{R_\nu^2 - R_d^2 + R_d^2 \cos^2\theta_Z}

172: \label{eq:len}

173: \end{equation}

174: where $R_\nu$ is the radius from the Earth's center at which the neutrino is produced, $R_\nu  \simeq  R_\oplus + 15$~km, 

175: where $R_\oplus$ is the Earth radius. 

176: This equation reduces to $L = R_d + R_\nu \sim 2 R_\oplus$

177: for $\cos\theta_Z = 1 $ (vertical upcoming neutrinos), 

178: to $L = \sqrt{R_\nu^2 - R_d^2}$ for $\cos^2\theta_Z = 0 $ (horizontal neutrinos), 

179: and $L = R_\nu - R_d \sim 15$~km 

180: for $cos\theta_Z = -1$ (vertical downgoing neutrinos).

181: 

182: At the energies we are considering (10-100 GeV) only upwards going neutrinos will 

183: have a significant probability of oscillating. 

184: Thus the neutrino production point in the atmosphere 

185: will not be significant when compared to the length traveled

186: through the Earth.

187: 

188: Figure~\ref{fig:surv} shows $\cos\theta_Z$ versus the survival probability 

189: as a function of energy.

190: We assume that the detector is 2 km deep in the Earth (ice or water).

191: It can be seen that it is easier to detect oscillations using lower energy

192: neutrinos. Therefore to measure neutrino oscillations the telescope energy 

193: threshold cannot be too high and the energy resolution must be good. 

194: However, for high-energy neutrino telescopes the sensing elements are 

195: placed far apart to gain detector volume and the trigger energy threshold 

196: is usually set high to avoid atmospheric muon and neutrino background. 

197: The detector design has to be optimized, if it is to be used for both of 

198: these two types of observations.

199: 

200: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

201: \begin{figure}

202: \centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=300pt \epsfbox{osc1.eps}

203: \caption{Neutrino survival probability versus $L/E$. Full neutrino mixing 

204: ($\sin^2 2 \theta = 1$) and 

205: \protect$\Delta m^2 = 3.5 \times 10^{-3}\; eV^2$ is assumed.}

206: \label{fig:osc}

207: \end{figure}

208: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

209: 

210: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

211: \begin{figure}

212: \centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=300pt \epsfbox{osc2.eps}

213: \caption{Neutrino survival probability versus cosine of the zenith

214: angle for different neutrino energies as labeled. 

215: Full neutrino mixing and \protect$\Delta m^2 = 3.5 \times 10^{-3}\; eV^2$ is 

216: assumed. 

217: The probability is given for an idealized detector 2 km deep in the Earth.

218: It indicates that a neutrino telescope needs a low energy threshold 

219: (less than 30 GeV) to be able to measure atmospheric oscillations well.}

220: \label{fig:surv}

221: \end{figure}

222: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

223: 

224: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

225: \begin{figure}[t]

226: \centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=300pt \epsfbox{osc3.eps}

227: \caption{Neutrino survival probability versus cosine of the zenith

228: angle for different neutrino energies (as labeled in figure \protect\ref{fig:surv}).

229: The probability is given for a detector 2 km deep in the Earth.

230: Full mixing is assumed and $\Delta m^2 = 1.5 \times 10^{-3}$,

231: $\Delta m^2 = 5.5 \times 10^{-3}\; eV^{2}$ as labeled. One can see that

232: even for larger $\Delta m^2$ the neutrino telescope energy threshold has to be equal or

233: less than 30 GeV.}

234: \label{fig:oscdm2}

235: \end{figure}

236: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

237: 

238: Both Figure~\ref{fig:osc}~and~\ref{fig:surv} assume full mixing and 

239: $\Delta m^2 = 3.5 \times 10^{-3}\; eV^2$. 

240: In Figure~\ref{fig:oscdm2} we show the same dependencies as 

241: in Figure~\ref{fig:surv}, but for different values of $\Delta m^2$.

242: From this figure one can see that, depending on the energy threshold,

243: it may be possible to better constrain $\Delta m^2$ with a neutrino telescope. 

244: To understand whether or not this measurement can be done, 

245: one has to take into account the atmospheric neutrino flux, 

246: the rate of contained events and the energy resolution of the detector.

247: 

248: Figure~\ref{fig:neuoscd} shows the neutrino oscillation pattern for 20 GeV

249: neutrinos superimposed by other possible explanations which are compatible with

250: the Superkamiokande \cite{superk} results. Measuring this oscillation pattern can

251: allow to distinguish among different scenarios for the muon neutrino deficit. 

252: 

253: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

254: \begin{figure}

255: \centering\leavevmode 

256: \epsfig{figure=gscos.ps,width=300pt,angle=90}

257: \caption{Four theoretical scenarios that are consistent with the Super-Kamionkande 

258: results. 

259: (1) Solid line shows best fitted standard neutrino oscillations. 

260: Neutrino survival probability versus $\cos \theta_Z$ for 20 GeV

261: neutrinos crossing through the Earth ($L = $ Earth Diameter). 

262: Full neutrino mixing and \protect$\Delta m^2 = 3.5 \times 10^{-3}\; eV^2$ is 

263: assumed. 

264: (2) Dashed line is effect of additional dimension with characteristic radius of about

265: a micron \cite{Barbieri}.

266: (3) Dotted line is effect of a decaying neutrino \cite{Barger}.

267: (4) Dashed dotted line is the effect of quantum decoherence \cite{Lisi}.}

268: \label{fig:neuoscd}

269: \end{figure}

270: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

271: 

272: 

273: \section{Atmospheric Neutrino Flux}

274: \label{sec:nuflux}

275: 

276: To determine the number of events expected to be detected, 

277: one has to convolve the survival probability with the atmospheric neutrino 

278: flux.

279: We determine this flux versus $\cos{\theta_Z}$ from the flux calculated by Volkova

280: \cite{volkova} and compare it with other calculations \cite{honda,agrawal}.

281: 

282: Volkova derives the atmospheric neutrino flux from the decay of light mesons

283: ($K, \pi$) and $\mu$'s and from the decay of short-lived particles (prompt decay)

284: which mainly consist of charm particles. The latter will only be significant at

285: higher energies (around a PeV) but we include it for completeness.

286: 

287: The differential energy spectra of atmospheric muon neutrinos from light mesons and

288: muons can be approximated by \footnote{Although Volkova \cite{volkova} uses a lower

289: limit of \protect$10^2$~GeV for this approximation, the extrapolation down to

290: 10 GeV is in very good agreement with the flux for lower energies which can be

291: found in table~II of her paper.}:

292: 

293: \begin{eqnarray}

294: \left(\frac{dN}{dE}\right)_{\rm light} & = & 2.85 \times 10^{-2} E^{-2.69} \left( \frac{1}{1+6E/E_\pi(\theta_Z)}

295: + \frac{0.213}{1+1.44E/E_k(\theta_Z)}\right),\nonumber \\

296: & & 10 \leq E < 5.4 \times 10^5\; {\rm GeV} \\

297:  & = & 0.48 E^{-4.04} (E_\pi(\theta_Z) + 0.89 E_K(\theta_Z)), \hspace*{.5cm}

298: E\geq 5.4 \times 10^5\; {\rm GeV}, \nonumber

299: \label{eq:nufll}

300: \end{eqnarray}

301: where $E_\pi(\theta_Z)$ and $E_K(\theta_Z)$ are the $\pi$ and $K$ critical

302: energies, $E$ is the neutrino energy and the spectra is given in units of

303: neutrinos per $\rm{cm^2 \; sec\; sr\; GeV}$. The critical energy is the one 

304: for which the

305: probability for a nuclear interaction in one nuclear mean free path

306: equals the decay probability in the same path. It depends on the zenith angle since

307: the atmosphere density varies with depth and horizontal

308: events cross more dense regions than the vertical ones. 

309: 

310: The spectra for prompt neutrinos can be approximated by \cite{volkova}:

311: 

312: \begin{eqnarray}

313: \left(\frac{dN}{dE}\right)_{\rm prompt} & = & 2.4 \times 10^{-5} E^{-2.65}, \hspace*{.3cm}

314: E < 2.3 \times 10^6\; {\rm GeV}\\

315:  & = &  3.9 \times 10^{-3} E^{-3}\hspace*{.3cm}, \hspace*{.3cm}

316: E \geq 2.3 \times 10^6\; {\rm GeV}. \nonumber

317: \label{eq:nuflp}

318: \end{eqnarray}

319:  

320: In Figure~\ref{fig:nuflux} we show the vertical and horizontal neutrino energy 

321: spectra and the contributions from $K,\,\pi$ and $\mu$'s and from prompt decays.

322: One can see that the prompt contribution is negligible at lower energies.

323: In Figure~\ref{fig:nufluxcut} we expand the lower energy region and plot

324: the total flux for vertical ($\cos\theta_Z = 1$) and horizontal ($\cos\theta_Z = 0$)

325: spectra. As expected the number of horizontal neutrinos is slightly higher.

326: 

327: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

328: \begin{figure}

329: \centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=300pt \epsfbox{nuflux.eps}

330: \caption{Atmospheric vertical and horizontal (as labeled) muon neutrino energy spectra

331: based on \protect\cite{volkova}. Also shown the contribution from $K,\,\pi$ and $\mu$'s and 

332: from prompt decays.}

333: \label{fig:nuflux}

334: \end{figure}

335: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

336: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

337: \begin{figure}

338: \centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=300pt \epsfbox{nuflux10_1000.eps}

339: \caption{Atmospheric vertical and horizontal (as labeled) muon neutrino energy spectra.

340: Note that it is plotted per ${\rm km^2}$ instead of ${\rm cm^2}$ as in the previous 

341: figure.

342: The flux of horizontal neutrinos is higher than vertically down going neutrinos

343: since the muons have more opportunity to decay.}

344: \label{fig:nufluxcut}

345: \end{figure}

346: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

347: 

348: We compare this flux with that obtained by \cite{honda} and 

349: \cite{agrawal}.

350: The largest discrepancy between these calculations is of about 15\% 

351: (see Figure~14 of ref.~\cite{honda} and Figure~7 of ref.~\cite{agrawal}). 

352: In the energy range of interest to our work, the Volkova

353: spectrum is an underestimate compared to these other spectra. 

354: We will use the atmospheric neutrino flux based on the Volkova spectra.

355: This is a more conservative spectrum and having a larger flux will only enhance the

356: possibility of measuring neutrino oscillations.

357: Also important is to compare the slope of these spectra and Figure~7 of 

358: ref.~\cite{agrawal}) shows that for energies between 10 and 100 GeV the

359: difference between the slope of the Volkova spectrum and of the spectrum

360: determined in \cite{agrawal} or \cite{honda} is at maximum 1\%.

361: 

362: We now proceed to convolve the survival probability for upward going neutrinos shown in 

363: Figure~\ref{fig:surv}

364: by the flux obtained from the above analysis. 

365: This is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:survflux}.

366: 

367: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

368: \begin{figure}

369: \centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=300pt \epsfbox{oscflux.eps}

370: \caption{Muon neutrino survival probability weighted by atmospheric muon neutrino energy 

371: spectrum. 

372: As expected, neutrino oscillations are enhanced at lower energies by a 

373: combination of higher flux and more rapid oscillation probability.}

374: \label{fig:survflux}

375: \end{figure}

376: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

377: 

378: As expected, neutrino oscillations are enhanced at lower energies.

379: 

380: \section{Contained Events}

381: 

382: When muon neutrinos undergo a charged current interaction, they produce a muon. 

383: This will propagate losing energy and eventually comes to rest and decays.

384: If the entire event happens inside the detector (a ``contained'' event) it is 

385: much easier to reconstruct the event than if it is not fully contained.

386: 

387: The probability that a neutrino suffers a charge current interaction is given by:

388: 

389: \begin{equation}

390: P_{\rm conv} = n \sigma_{\rm cc} l

391: \label{eq:pconv}

392: \end{equation}

393: where $n$ is the number density of nucleons of the medium transversed by the neutrino, 

394: $\sigma_{\rm cc}$ is the charged current cross section for a neutrino nucleon interaction

395: and $l$ is the distance traveled by the neutrino inside the detector.

396: We determine $\sigma_{\rm cc}$ according the CTEQ4-DIS distributions, as described in \cite{quigg}. For energies below 10 GeV a correction on the cross

397: section due to quasi-elastic and resonant effects \cite{lip} should be

398: included. As our analysis starts with energies above 10 GeV we do not

399: include these corrections.

400: 

401: The number of contained events ($N_{\rm cont}$) is therefore given by:

402: 

403: \begin{equation}

404: N_{\rm cont} = P_{\rm conv} \varphi_\oplus A = n \sigma_{\rm cc} \varphi_\oplus V, 

405: \label{eq:ncont}

406: \end{equation}

407: where $\varphi_\oplus$ is the flux of upward going neutrinos, $A$ is the 

408: detector area and $V$ is the detector volume for contained neutrino 

409: interactions. 

410: 

411: The neutrino flux determined in the previous section will suffer a minor

412: attenuation when going through the Earth. 

413: This attenuation is not significant at these low energies

414: but we will include it for completeness. 

415: The differential flux is given by:

416: 

417: \begin{equation}

418: \frac{d\varphi}{dx} = -n \sigma_{\rm cc} \varphi

419: \label{eq:dfatt}

420: \end{equation}

421: where $\varphi$ is the atmospherical neutrino flux, $x$ is the distance traveled by the neutrino. 

422: The atmospheric neutrino flux after transversing the Earth will be given by:

423: 

424: \begin{equation}

425: \varphi_{\oplus} = \varphi_0 e^{-\int n \sigma_{\rm cc} dx} 

426: \simeq  \varphi_0 e^{- n_\oplus \sigma_{\rm cc} L} 

427: \sim \varphi_0 e^{-2 {n_\oplus} \sigma_{\rm cc} {R_\oplus}

428:  \cos{\theta_Z}}

429: \end{equation}

430: where $R_\oplus$ is the Earth radius and $\varphi_0$ is the initial neutrino flux, the approximations are for constant density and negligible detector depth, respectively.

431: 

432: The volume of the detector available for the neutrino to interact and produce 

433: a contained muon  depends on the muon range ($R_\mu$). 

434: Making the approximation that the detector

435: has a cylindrical shape, the effective volume V will be given by:

436: 

437: \begin{equation}

438: V = \frac{1}{2} h D_d^2 \arcsin\left(\sqrt{1 - \frac{R_\mu^2}{D_d^2}\sin^2\theta_Z}\right)

439:     \left( 1 - \frac{R_\mu}{h}|\cos\theta_Z|\right)

440: \label{eq:vol}

441: \end{equation}

442: where $h$ is the detector height and $D_d$ is the detector diameter.

443: 

444: For muons with energies of tens of GeV, the average muon range can be

445: determined analytically by the equation \cite{pdg}:

446: 

447: \begin{equation}

448: R_\mu = \frac{1}{b} \ln \left( 1 + \frac{b}{a} E_0 \right)

449: \label{eq:muran}

450: \end{equation}

451: where $a$ and $b$ are respectively ionization and radiation loss parameters and $E_0$ is the initial muon energy. 

452: The average $E_0$ is equal to the neutrino energy minus

453: the average energy loss in a charged current interaction. 

454: The fractional energy loss is given in \cite{quigg96} and 

455: for neutrinos energies between 10-100 GeV is 0.48. 

456: At these energies $a$ and $b$ can be approximated to constant values 

457: where $a = 2 \times 10^{-3} {\rm GeV\,cm^2\,/\,g}$ and 

458: $b = 4 \times 10^{-6} {\rm cm^2\,/g}$ \cite{pdg}.

459: 

460: 

461: %Figure~\ref{fig:rateice3} shows the contained event rate 

462: %for an idealized detector of the volume proposed for IceCube \cite{ice3} 

463: %with height and diameter of a kilometer. 

464: %The neutrino energy is fixed at 20, 40 or 60 GeV. The same is shown in 

465: %Figure~\ref{fig:rateam} for the idealized detector with the size of AMANDA-II 

466: %\cite{amanda}, 200-m diameter and 1-km height. 

467: 

468: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

469: %\begin{figure}

470: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=300pt \epsfbox{contice.eps}

471: %\caption{Contained events in idealized IceCube 

472: %(1 \protect$\rm km^3$ under-ice detector)

473: %versus cosine of the zenith angle. 

474: %The neutrino energy is fixed as labelled. 

475: %At 20 GeV there is a good possibility of

476: %measuring neutrino oscillations.}

477: %\label{fig:rateice3}

478: %\end{figure}

479: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

480: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

481: %\begin{figure}

482: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=300pt \epsfbox{contam.eps}

483: %\caption{Contained events in idealized AMANDA-II

484: %versus cosine of the zenith angle. The neutrino energy is fixed as labelled.

485: %At 20 GeV there is a good possibility of

486: %measuring neutrino oscillations.}

487: %\label{fig:rateam}

488: %\end{figure}

489: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

490: 

491: %Figure~\ref{fig:binice3} shows the same as Figure~\ref{fig:rateice3} but with

492: %$\cos\theta_Z$ divided in bins with a width of 0.05. Each bin corresponds to

493: %about 0.3 sr and the expected number of contained events per year

494: %is shown. The same is shown for an idealized detector like AMANDA in Figure~\ref{fig:binam}.

495: 

496: Figure~\ref{fig:bin} shows the expected number of contained events per year 

497: for an idealized detector of the volume proposed for IceCube \cite{ice3} 

498: with height and diameter of a kilometer. 

499: The neutrino energy is fixed at 20, 40 or 60 GeV and $\cos\theta_Z$ divided in bins 

500: with a width of 0.05. Each bin corresponds to

501: about 0.3 sr. The same is shown  for the idealized detector with the size of AMANDA-II 

502: 200-m diameter and 1-km height.

503: 

504: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

505: \begin{figure}

506: \leavevmode \epsfxsize=225pt \epsfbox{binice.eps}

507: \epsfxsize=225pt \epsfbox{binam.eps} \\

508: \caption{Annual contained events in idealized IceCube and AMANDA (as labelled) in 

509: 0.05 $\cos\theta_Z$ bins

510: versus cosine of the zenith angle. The neutrino energy is fixed as labelled.}

511: \label{fig:bin}

512: \end{figure}

513: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

514: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

515: %\begin{figure}

516: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=300pt \epsfbox{binice.eps}

517: %\caption{Contained events in idealized IceCube in 0.05 $\cos\theta_Z$ bins

518: %versus cosine of the zenith angle. The neutrino energy is fixed as labelled.}

519: %\label{fig:binice3}

520: %\end{figure}

521: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

522: %\leavevmode \epsfxsize=225pt \epsfbox{fig1a.eps}

523: %\epsfxsize=225pt \epsfbox{fig1b.eps} \\

524: %\vspace*{24pt}

525: %\leavevmode \epsfxsize=225pt \epsfbox{fig1c.eps} 

526: %\epsfxsize=225pt \epsfbox{fig1d.eps}

527: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

528: %\begin{figure}

529: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=4.5in \epsfbox{binam.eps}

530: %\caption{Same as figure~\ref{fig:binice3} but for idealized AMANDA II detector.}

531: %\label{fig:binam}

532: %\end{figure}

533: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

534: 

535: As up to now we are assuming an ideal detector, these figures show that the volume

536: of both AMANDA II and IceCube detectors are quite sufficient to measure atmospheric

537: neutrino oscillations. The key parameter for an idealized detector is that the energy

538: threshold has to be less than 30 GeV. The oscillation pattern for energies below this

539: threshold can be seen when measuring the number of contained events versus the neutrino

540: arrival direction.

541: 

542: However, instrumental effects have to be taken into consideration.

543: Before showing the sensitivity region for the $\Delta m^2$ and $\sin^2 2 \theta$

544: parameters that can be acheived with both AMANDA II and IceCube detectors, we will 

545: include these uncertainties in our analysis.

546: 

547: \section{Instrumental Effects and Limitations}

548: In this section we consider the degradation of the measurement that results 

549: from instrumental effects and limitations.

550: Two major issues are (1) angular and (2) energy reconstruction and resolution, 

551: since the physics manifests itself as a function of $L/E$ and we have $L$ 

552: as a function of $\cos \theta_Z$.

553: 

554: There are two kinds of analysis that can be done. One measures the number

555: of contained events with fixed energies (which is easy to visualize by measuring

556: the number of events versus $\cos \theta_Z$). The other measures the number 

557: of events versus the full $L/E$ spectrum.

558: 

559: To detect an oscillation pattern as a function of $L/E$ 

560: requires collecting enough events and determining $L/E$ to sufficient accuracy. 

561: From observations of the resulting muons and hadronic shower one estimates the 

562: incident neutrino arrival angle $\theta_Z$ and energy $E$.

563: The distance $L$ is determined from the angle $\theta$ (see Equation~\ref{eq:len}).

564: The fractional error in $L/E$ is given by:

565: 

566: \begin{equation}

567: \frac{\sigma_{L/E_\nu}^2}{(L/E)^2} = \frac{\sigma_{E_\nu}^2}{E_\nu^2} + 

568: \frac{\sigma_L^2}{L^2} 

569: \simeq \frac{\sigma^2_{E_\nu}}{E_\nu^2} + tan^2 \theta_Z \sigma_{\theta_Z^2}

570: \end{equation}

571: where $E_\nu$ is the neutrino energy

572: and in the approximation that $L = 2 R_\oplus \cos\theta_Z$

573: which is reasonably accurate for upward going events. 

574: For the next step we assume 

575: that the angle and energy correlation is small.

576: This is likely to be only partially correct but will show capabilities.

577: 

578: \subsection{Angular Reconstruction and Resolution}

579: The muon does not travel and thus point in the same direction as 

580: the incident neutrino except when averaged over many events. 

581: This difference occurs because there is some exchange of energy (inelasticity) 

582: and momentum to the nucleon when the neutrino converts into a muon.

583: The inelasticity of the interaction and the spread in pointing

584: are related although not as simply as one would like.

585: Figure~\ref{fig:angdis} shows the distribution of the angle

586: $\theta$ between the muon and neutrino directions

587: for several relevant energies.

588:  

589: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

590: \begin{figure}

591: \centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=300pt \epsfbox{angdis.eps}

592: \caption{Angle distribution for several energies (as labeled). $\theta$

593: corresponds to the angle between the neutrino and the muon directions.}

594: \label{fig:angdis}

595: \end{figure}

596: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

597: 

598: 

599: Characterized by one parameter, the RMS spread in direction 

600: between the incoming neutrino and 

601: the outgoing muon direction is given by the relation \cite{gaisser}:

602: \begin{equation}

603: \theta_{RMS} \simeq \sqrt{\frac{m_p}{E_\nu}}, 

604: \label{eq:deltheta}

605: \end{equation}

606: where the angle is given in radians.

607: 

608: The RMS for $\theta$ versus neutrino energy is shown in 

609: Figure~\ref{fig:rms}. This relation is valid for neutrino energies between

610: 10 and 3000 GeV. Figure~\ref{fig:rms} shows that for neutrino energies of 

611: a few tens of GeV,

612: the angular RMS varies from about 8 to 17 degrees. The RMS is spread enough that

613: the direction of the neutrino will only be known by the average of the angular

614: distributions of many events. 

615: 

616: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

617: \begin{figure}

618: \centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=300pt \epsfbox{thetarms.eps}

619: \caption{Angle distribution as a function of neutrino energy. $\theta_{RMS}$

620: corresponds to the RMS angle between the neutrino and the muon directions.}

621: \label{fig:rms}

622: \end{figure}

623: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

624: 

625: Figure~\ref{fig:avey} 

626: (extracted from \cite{quigg96}) shows the

627: mean inelasticity $<y>$ (where $y~=~(E_\nu~-~E_\mu)/E_\nu$) versus neutrino

628: energy. In a charged current interaction $<y>$ is almost constant between 10 and

629: 100 GeV with a value of 0.48. Figure~\ref{fig:angdis} shows that this corresponds

630: to an average scattering angle of about 15 degrees for a 20 GeV neutrino.

631: 

632: The muon direction is determined by measuring the arrival time 

633: of the Cerenkov light at each phototube.

634: A muon of energy $E$ will have a mean range of $5E$~m/GeV. 

635: If timing is done to $\delta t$, the direction of the muon can 

636: be measured to about 

637: \begin{eqnarray}

638: \delta \theta = \frac{\sqrt{2} c \delta t }{5 E} \hspace*{.3cm} 

639: {\rm \frac{rad~GeV}{m}}  

640: = \frac{0.085 \delta t}{E} \hspace*{.3cm} {\rm \frac{rad~GeV}{ns}} = 

641: \nonumber \\

642: \frac{4.86^\circ \delta t}{E} \hspace*{.3cm} {\rm \frac{GeV}{ns}}

643: \end{eqnarray}

644: For approximately upward moving muons the direction can also be determined 

645: by timing arrival of photons along a vertical string of tubes and comparing it 

646: to the speed of light.

647: This technique measures $\cos \theta_Z$ directly and with reasonable parameters 

648: to an accuracy better than 0.1.

649: 

650: In the energy

651: range that we are interested in ($10 \leq E \leq 100 $ GeV) the angular resolution is

652: therefore dominated by the neutrino-muon scattering distributions.

653: In our analysis we will consider the average scattering angle. For more precision a

654: Monte Carlo analysis can be done, but we consider the average scattering angle precise

655: enough for the purpose of predicting the possibility of measuring neutrino oscillations.

656: Also, Figures~\ref{fig:surv}~and~\ref{fig:oscdm2} show that to observe a $\Delta m^2$ 

657: effect, observations do not have to be made near the horizon 

658: where the path length changes rapidly with angle. Thus

659: the intrinsic spread in path length due to angular error

660: is sufficiently small. 

661: 

662: One can therefore expect that for energies above about 10 GeV the angle 

663: of the incoming neutrinos can be determined 

664: sufficiently accurately for neutrino oscillation studies. 

665: 

666: \subsection{Energy Reconstruction and Resolution}

667: \label{sec:enres}

668: 

669: We now include uncertainties on the energy estimation of the incident neutrino. 

670: An ideal detector, that is equally and fully sensitive 

671: to all energy deposited in the detector, 

672: could reconstruct the incident neutrino energy very precisely 

673: for all fully contained events.

674: 

675: If all the energy from the neutrino went into the muon, 

676: then one could exploit the range energy relation and 

677: reconstruct the muon and thus the neutrino energy.

678: 

679: We can write the formula for the error in $E_\nu$ as

680: \begin{eqnarray}

681: \label{eq:sigmu}

682: \sigma_{E_\nu}^2 &=& \sigma^2_{E_\mu}

683: + \sigma^2_{E_h} \nonumber \\

684: \frac{\sigma_{E_\nu^2}}{E_\nu^2} &=& \frac{\sigma^2_{E_\mu}}{E_\mu^2} 

685: (1 - y)^2 + 

686: \frac{\sigma^2_{E_h}}{E_h^2} y^2

687: \end{eqnarray}

688: where $E_\nu$, $E_\mu$, and $E_h$ are the neutrino, muon, and hadronic energies, 

689: and $y = E_h / E_\nu$ is the inelasticity of the interaction.

690: Note $E_\nu = E_\mu + E_h$, and $1 - y = E_\mu/E_\nu$.

691: 

692: The muon energy is determined by measuring its range - path length - 

693: which is on average 5 meters per GeV. 

694: Thus a determination of the path length to an accuracy of 5 meters 

695: corresponds to an error of 1 GeV independent of the energy of the muon.

696: The fluctuations in range have a slight energy dependence.

697: 

698: One has to take the inelasticity in the conversion of neutrino to muons into

699: account.

700: Figure~\ref{fig:avey} (extracted from \cite{quigg96}) shows that

701: for energies between 10 and 1000 GeV the muon 

702: carries about 52\%\ of the incident neutrino energy. The inelasticity $y$

703: ranges nearly uniformly for the energy range of interest here. 

704: At much higher energies it decreases asymptotically to about 20\%\ inelasticity.

705: 

706: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

707: \begin{figure}

708: \centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=300pt \epsfbox{GQRS07.ps}

709: \caption{Mean inelasticity versus energy. $<y> = (E_\nu - E_\mu)/E_\nu$.

710: Figure extracted from \cite{quigg96}.}

711: \label{fig:avey}

712: \end{figure}

713: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

714: 

715: Thus to reconstruct the neutrino energy the detector must estimate both 

716: the muon energy (which is given by the muon range measurement and therefore

717: approximately independent of the energy of the muon) and the inelastic portion.

718: Roughly, the energy resolution is composed of a component which is nearly 

719: linearly dependent on energy and a component which is nearly independent

720: of the energy.

721: The muon range is estimated by the observations by optical detectors of the Cerenkov radiation as it travels through the ice (or water).

722: In general, the total light emitted is proportional to the energy deposited.

723: The muon is a line source of light while the other interaction products

724: are generally more localized and near the point of neutrino interaction.

725: 

726: The errors in calibration and fluctuations in the fraction of the energy 

727: transferred to the muon and to the other products of the interaction result 

728: in an error which is roughly proportional to the energy of the incident neutrino. 

729: This uncertainty actually decreases somewhat from very low energies to higher energies.

730: 

731: We can therefore rewrite Equation~\ref{eq:sigmu} as

732: the standard deviation of a function which depends on the neutrino energy: 

733: $\sigma_E^2 = x^2 E^2 + (\delta E)^2$ 

734: where $x$ is a constant between 0 and 1 and $\delta E \sim 1 GeV$, assuming

735: no correlation between these terms.  

736: The energy resolution is therefore a fraction of the energy value plus a constant. 

737: We give our results assuming 0, 10, and 20\% energy resolution.

738: 

739: %The number of contained events in IceCube and in AMANDA-II assuming the above energy

740: %resolution are shown in Figures~\ref{fig:binice_err}~and~\ref{fig:binam_err}. 

741: %What one finds is that the standard deviation must be less than about 20\%\

742: %of the energy (or FWHM less than about 50\%) in order to make quality oscillation 

743: %observations.

744: 

745: The number of contained events in IceCube and in AMANDA-II assuming the above energy

746: resolution are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:bin_err}. 

747: What one finds is that the standard deviation must be less than about 20\%\

748: of the energy (or FWHM less than about 50\%) in order to make quality oscillation 

749: observations.

750: 

751: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

752: \begin{figure}

753: \leavevmode \epsfxsize=225pt \epsfbox{binice_err.eps}

754: \epsfxsize=225pt \epsfbox{binam_err.eps} \\

755: \caption{Contained events in IceCube and AMANDA (as labelled) volume in 

756: 0.05 $\cos\theta_Z$ bins. 

757: The neutrino energy is fixed as labelled and the effect of

758: 10 and 20\% energy resolution is shown.}

759: \label{fig:bin_err}

760: \end{figure}

761: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

762: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

763: %\begin{figure}

764: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=4.5in \epsfbox{binice_err.eps}

765: %\caption{Contained events in IceCube volume in 0.05 $\cos\theta_Z$ bins. 

766: %The neutrino energy is fixed as labelled and the effect of

767: %10 and 20\% energy resolution is shown.}

768: %\label{fig:binice_err}

769: %\end{figure}

770: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

771: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

772: %\begin{figure}

773: %\centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=4.5in \epsfbox{binam_err.eps}

774: %\caption{Same as figure~\ref{fig:binice_err} but for AMANDA II sized detector.}

775: %\label{fig:binam_err}

776: %\end{figure}

777: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

778: 

779: The energy threshold is also important. To be able to observe the oscillation

780: pattern the energy threshold can not be much above 20 GeV. 

781: 

782: Figure~\ref{fig:ecos} shows the survival probability versus $E/L$ (or 

783: $E/\cos\theta_Z$) including 10 and 20\% energy resolution. 

784: In this kind of analysis,

785: vertical upwards events ($\cos \theta_Z = 1$) are the best for measuring neutrino 

786: oscillations.

787: 

788: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

789: \begin{figure}

790: \centering\leavevmode 

791: \epsfig{figure=hires.ps,width=300pt,angle=90}

792: \caption{Flavor survival probability versus $E/\cos\theta_Z$.

793: Valid for upwards going neutrinos, where the distance traveled 

794: can be given in Earth radius units.

795: The dashed line corresponds to the effect of 10\% and the dotted

796: dashed to 20\% energy resolution.}

797: \label{fig:ecos}

798: \end{figure}

799: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

800:  

801: %% NEED TO SUB ANTARES FIG FOR ONE OF NUMBER OF EVENTS VS E/COS!!

802: 

803: IceCube \cite{ice3} is planned to have 81 strings in a $\rm km^3$ 

804: (125 m between each string). 

805: Each string will have 60 PMTs with 16 m between each optical module. 

806: AMANDA-II has 4 inner strings

807: with 20 PMTs in each of them; they are located in a cylindrical shape of

808: 60 m diameter and 400 m length. There are also two outer set of PMTs; one

809: has 6 strings with 36 PMTs per string and 120m diameter (same height).

810: The outermost set has 9 more strings, 700 m long and instrumented every 14 m

811: (50 PMTs per string). The diameter of this outer string array is 200 m.

812: 

813: Both AMANDA and IceCube were designed to detect higher energies neutrinos.

814: In both experiments, for atmospheric neutrino oscillation measurements,

815: the strings and phototubes are too far apart to acheive the necessary energy

816: resolution. Also the detector energy threshold is set too high. This is true

817: for a fixed energy analysis (which would require a energy threshold around

818: 20 GeV) and for the full energy spectrum (10-100 GeV) analysis.

819: 

820: 

821: For atmospheric neutrino oscillation measurements the current design proposed 

822: for IceCube has two major shortcomings:

823: 

824: \noindent

825: (1) Rejection of confusing events is too poor.

826: The individual strings of optical modules are too far apart 

827: to guard neighboring strings against muons coming near a string and appearing

828: to be a contained event or multiple muons depositing energy/light

829: near a string and simulating a contained event.

830: The rate of downward muons and muon bundles is about a million

831: times the contained event rate.

832: 

833: \noindent

834: (2) The vertical optical module spacing is also too great (by a small factor)

835: to provide sufficient energy resolution even for the vertical going 

836: contained events. 

837: One can estimate that with 16-m spacing that the range of the muon 

838: can be measured to about 8 to 10 meters RMS giving an error of about

839: 2 GeV RMS for the muon energy. 

840: However about half the energy of the original neutrino energy is

841: deposited in the hadron shower but in a very wide distribution

842: which ranges basically from 0 to 100\%.

843: Thus it is necessary to determine how much energy is deposited inelastically,

844: which can be done by measuring how much light comes from the

845: hadronic/electronic shower to the optical module and then 

846: estimating how much energy was deposited by determing how far it was

847: from the shower to the optical modules.

848: With a single string the vertical distance of the main energy deposition

849: can be determined, though somewhat too poorly,  but the distance away from 

850: the string is much more poorly constrained.

851: For example, if the distance to the inelastic energy deposition

852: is determined to 2 to 3 meters out of a typical distance of 10 meters,

853: then the error in estimating the distance translates into an error

854: of 40\% or more in reconstructing the inelastic energy.

855: There is also an intrinsic spread in the amount of light received

856: due to the statistical fluctuations in transit to 16-m separated optical modules. 

857: The net result is that the total energy resolution for 

858: vertical going contained events is too poor by a significant amount

859: and is worse for other angles.

860: 

861: 

862: The current version of AMANDA-II also lacks the resolution 

863: necessary for atmospheric neutrino oscillation measurements.

864: At the present the trigger system and experimental procedures are 

865: set for measuring higher energy neutrinos with a high energy threshold 

866: (about 50 GeV) and discriminate against contained events.

867:  

868: AMANDA-II is closer to the necessary density of strings and optical modules

869: than IceCube, 

870: but the vertical spacings of 20 meters, 11 meters, and 14 meters and

871: average horizontal spacing of 40 meters is just too large to have

872: the required energy resolution. 

873: The set of six strings with 11-meter vertical spacing would be nearly 

874: adequate but need additional infrastructure in terms of other strings

875: nearby, calibration of the optical module response and the appropriate

876: triggering and data processing software.

877: Based upon the optical properties of the ice and optical modules

878: {\it in situ} and the performance of the detectors, we estimate that a 

879: spacing of order 5 to 10 meters would be adequate.

880: 

881: Similar arguments hold when it comes to utilizing AMANDA-II and IceCube

882: for future long baseline neutrino oscillation experiments \cite{Dicka}.

883: If the beams originate from CERN or Fermilab, latitudes about 46$^\circ$

884: and 43$^\circ$ north respectively, then a typical angle of the

885: incoming neutrino and produced muon is about 45$^\circ$ to the zenith

886: and there is a noticeable spread in the muon directions.

887: For that range of angles, the optical horizontal separation is as important

888: as the vertical separation. 

889: (Also note that the rough 45$^\circ$ zenith angle makes the effective

890: vertical separation $\sqrt{2}$ or 41\%\ greater.)

891: Though long-baseline experiments have the advantage of timing to reduce

892: backgrounds and thus enable lower energy thresholds set by the experimental

893: trigger \cite{Dicka},

894: the angles for likely beams lowers the energy resolution substantially.

895: The neutrino beam effective volume for IceCube would be quite low

896: due to the large spacing between strings.

897: 

898: 

899: \section{Tower Detector Configuration}

900: It is clear that measuring various values of $L$ and $E$ provides a very good 

901: and self-consistent test of neutrino oscillations.

902: However, it is possible to test and observe neutrino oscillations 

903: for a fixed distance, 

904: providing sufficient range of energy and number of neutrinos can be observed.

905: 

906: Figure~\ref{fig:moden} shows the muon survival probability versus

907: energy $E$ for upwards going neutrinos ($L = 2 R_\oplus$) superimposed by 

908: non-standard explanations.

909: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

910: \begin{figure}

911: \centering\leavevmode 

912: \epsfig{figure=moden.ps,width=300pt,angle=90}

913: \caption{Muon neutrino survival probability versus neutrino energy

914: for upwards going neutrinos ($L = 2 R_\oplus$). Again four 

915: theoretical scenarios that might account for the observed effect are:

916: (1) Standard neutrino oscillations are shown by the solid line. 

917: Full neutrino mixing and \protect$\Delta m^2 = 3.5 \times 10^{-3}\; eV^2$ is 

918: assumed. 

919: (2) Dashed line is effect of additional dimension with characteristic radius 

920: of about a micron \cite{Barbieri}.

921: (3) Dashed Dotted line is effect of a decaying neutrino \cite{Barger}.

922: (4) Dashed line is the effect of quantum gravity decoherence \cite{Lisi}.}

923: \label{fig:moden}

924: \end{figure}

925: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

926: 

927: We now consider explicitly a configuration in the shape of a long tower.

928: This tower is oriented vertically both to get the maximum path length 

929: $L \simeq 2 R_\oplus$ and 

930: because that is operationally the most reasonable configuration 

931: for water and ice-based detectors.

932: The tower geometry has its height much longer than its diameter so that 

933: its acceptance is near vertical (near direct upward and downward going directions) 

934: and its solid angle is quite limited. 

935: The limited solid angle means that the distance is effectively constant

936: (due to the slow change in $\cos \theta$ near 0 and 180 degrees).

937: Thus the blurring due to the change in $L$ adds 

938: very  little to the blurring caused by the energy resolution.

939: 

940: We consider the hypothetical configuration  

941: with optical detectors at 5-m to 10-m spacings along a string 1-km long.

942: The close optical detector spacing improves the energy resolution

943: both in terms of determining the muon range and in the energy deposited by 

944: the other interaction products.

945: The tower detector consists of four such strings

946: embedded in a larger detector, e.g. AMANDA-II.

947: The larger detector acts as an after the fact additional veto

948: and, when appropriate, provides additional information in constraining the event 

949: and its energy.

950: 

951: 

952: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

953: 

954: %Figure~\ref{fig:vertmu} shows the number of contained 

955: Figure~\ref{fig:enres} shows the number of contained 

956: events per year versus energy for vertical going neutrinos. 

957: In order to get the atmospheric muon neutrino flux at lower energies, 

958: we extrapolate the Volkova \cite{volkova} spectrum used 

959: in section~\ref{sec:nuflux} to 5 GeV. 

960: We compared this flux with the one calculated in \cite{agrawal} and 

961: they are in good agreement.

962: 

963: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

964: %\begin{figure}

965: %\centering\leavevmode 

966: %\epsfig{figure=vertmu.ps,width=4in,angle=90}

967: %\caption{Annual contained events for tower configuration.}

968: %\label{fig:vertmu}

969: %\end{figure}

970: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

971: 

972: 

973: %This figure shows the expected event rates as a function of energy 

974: %with perfect energy resolution. 

975: %Figure~\ref{fig:enres} shows the same rate but including a 10 and

976: %20\% energy resolution effect.

977: 

978: This figure shows the expected event rates as a function of energy 

979: with perfect energy resolution and including a 10 and

980: 20\% energy resolution effect.

981: 

982: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

983: \begin{figure}

984: \centering\leavevmode 

985: \epsfig{figure=enres.ps,width=300pt,angle=90}

986: \caption{Annual contained events for tower configuration including 

987: a 10 and 20\% energy

988: resolution.}

989: \label{fig:enres}

990: \end{figure}

991: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

992: 

993: %%Figures \ref{fig:sens} and \ref{fig:dmsen} shows the sensitivity to the squared 

994: %%mass difference $\Delta m^2$ 

995: %%and the mixing angle $\sin^2 2 \theta$. MORE TO BE DONE HERE.

996: 

997: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

998: %%\begin{figure}

999: %%\centering\leavevmode 

1000: %%\epsfig{figure=dmsens.ps,width=4in,angle=90}

1001: %%\caption{Relative sensitivity for neutrino oscillation.}

1002: %%\label{fig:dmsen}

1003: %%\end{figure}

1004: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1005: 

1006: Previous figures in this section assume the measurement of the neutrino

1007: energy through measuring the muon energy and hadronic energy. 

1008: Another approach to observing neutrino oscillations is through the measurement 

1009: of the muon range, without the information on the hadron energy

1010: and reconstruction of the neutrino energy.

1011: Such a measurement would have the advantage of a clean estimate

1012: of muon energy.

1013: Since the muon carries a variable fraction of the energy of its

1014: parent neutrino, this is equivalent to having a random error in the

1015: neutrino energy estimate with a bias to the low energy side.

1016: This bias is not overwhelming because the atmospheric neutrino

1017: energy spectrum is steeply falling and the number of muons

1018: observed at energy $E_\mu$ is dominated by parent neutrino energies

1019: which are just above the muon energies rather than those 

1020: from much higher energies.

1021: 

1022: Figure~\ref{fig:muenr} shows the ratio of the number of events

1023: with oscillations over the number of events without oscillations 

1024: versus the neutrino energy and versus the muon energy.

1025: Measurement of neutrino oscillations using the muon energy information alone 

1026: is still possible. 

1027: This kind of analysis is proposed for ANTARES \cite{ANTARES} and the comparison

1028: of Figure~\ref{fig:muenr} with Figure~\ref{fig:ant} shows that our

1029: proposed tower configuration can measure neutrino oscillations as well

1030: as ANTARES, if using only the muon energy information.

1031: The key issue in that approach is to determine the ratio

1032: of upward going versus downward going contained muon events.

1033: 

1034: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1035: \begin{figure}

1036: \centering\leavevmode 

1037: \epsfig{figure=muerr.ps,width=4in,angle=-90}

1038: \caption{Ratio of the number of events

1039: with oscillations over the number of events without oscillations 

1040: versus the neutrino energy and versus the muon energy (GeV).}

1041: \label{fig:muenr}

1042: \end{figure}

1043: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1044: 

1045: 

1046: \section{Backgrounds and Systematics}

1047: This paper is not meant to be a complete analysis of the Tower configuration

1048: for neutrino oscillation observations.

1049: More work is necessary.

1050: However, it is appropriate to outline and scope

1051: anticipated backgrounds and systematic errors

1052: to see both if there are any potential show stoppers and

1053: which areas need further work.

1054: 

1055: \subsection{Atmospheric Muons}

1056: The primary background is due to the very numerous downgoing muons

1057: produced by cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

1058: This is the same process that produces the atmospheric neutrinos.

1059: 

1060: A veto against these events puts a more stringent requirement than 

1061: that needed to ensure that an event is contained.

1062: A special trigger is required that looks for events and event topology

1063: inside the active area of the detector and vetoes against particle

1064: entering the detector volume from above and below or from the side.

1065: An AMANDA style low multiplicity majority logic trigger

1066: would be dominated by random coincidence from optical module noise.

1067: Deadtime due to the veto is an issue so that separate triggers

1068: would be necessary for separate science goals.

1069: One must also be concerned about self-vetoing due to photons leaking 

1070: from the real signal because the absorption length in ice is fairly long.

1071: Overcoming this kind of self-vetoing requires careful timing 

1072: which may in turn require after the fact processing of a much larger data set.

1073: 

1074: The observation must have very good rejection of muons coming in at an angle 

1075: and thus appearing to be a contained event with very little inelasticity.

1076: This is the primary motivation for locating the denser optical module strings 

1077: inside the existing AMANDA-II array.

1078: The combination of the Tower closed-packed and dense strings and 

1079: the information from the 19 AMANDA-II strings provides

1080: good rejection of well off-vertical muons.

1081: 

1082: \subsection{Electron Neutrinos}

1083: At low energies (order of 10 GeV), electron neutrino charged-current interactions 

1084: could mimic low energy muon neutrino induced events.

1085: The fluxes are similar.  

1086: Some are likely to be included in the data sample

1087: and a careful study would be needed to show that they can

1088: readily be rejected to the necessary level.

1089: Fortunately, one can test the results using only the higher energy events

1090: at some cost in sensitivity.

1091: 

1092: \subsection{Neutral Current Interactions}

1093: 

1094: Although Super-Kamiokande favors muon neutrino oscillation into tau

1095: neutrino \cite{sktaufavor}, there is still the possibility that it

1096: oscillates into sterile neutrinos. If the latter is the case,

1097: muon neutrino neutral-current interactions are also a background to be 

1098: considered. 

1099: They will oscillate as the signal and due to an inelasticity comparable

1100: to the charged current one (see Figure~\ref{fig:avey}) will produce

1101: a jet of events from the nucleon recoil. This generates

1102: some oscillation in the energy spectrum of this background.

1103: The difficulty in distinguishing neutral-current and charge-current

1104: events is that the muon range and the photon range in ice are similar.

1105: So photons produced in the neutral current jet can reach the same optical 

1106: modules as the muon Cerenkov light, 

1107: and with fluctuations being what they are, it is easy to misreconstruct 

1108: the vertex of the interaction and/or muon range.

1109: 

1110: Vertex reconstruction is very difficult for short range (50 m) muons

1111: leaving the neutrino interaction vertex.

1112: Without good vertex, the energy resolution degrades. 

1113: %to the point of washing out all effects.  

1114: To get energy resolution of order 20\%\ 

1115: requires that the vertex is very well known.

1116: This requires careful timing and calibration of the optical modules.

1117: 

1118: This background can be understood as long as the detection

1119: and reconstruction efficiencies are the same as for the charged

1120: current events.

1121: %However, one wants to reject the electron neutrino induced events

1122: %in order to keep the signal effect as large a faction of the observed

1123: %data as possible.

1124: Count rates will be lower with realistic reconstruction efficiencies, 

1125: which at these energies is limited to some extent by the muon neutral

1126: current interaction background.

1127: 

1128: \subsection{Tau-Neutrinos}

1129: If there are neutrino oscillations,

1130: as other explanations (as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:moden}), 

1131: the muon neutrino, most likely they oscillate into tau neutrinos 

1132: \cite{sktaufavor}. If this interpretation is correct, 

1133: the tau neutrinos present a background which tends to wash out the 

1134: oscillations.

1135: 

1136: The outgoing tau from the tau neutrino charged current interactions decays 

1137: to muons about 18\%\ of the time. 

1138: Thus the secondary muon will look like a muon neutrino charged current event

1139: and attenuate the oscillation pattern.

1140: This represents a slight decrease in sensitivity and is

1141: comparable in effect to an energy degradation.

1142: 

1143: Another 11\%\ of taus decays into a pion plus a tau neutrino, 

1144: and the pion may decay to a muon or occasionally mimic a muon.

1145: Another 25\%\ of the taus decays in to a pion, pi-zero, and tau neutrino, 

1146: and the pion decays into a muon.  

1147: At 20 GeV, most pions interact before they decay.

1148: To do a full evaluation of these effects requires

1149: a simulation.

1150: The same may be required to determine what fraction of these taus will

1151: generate cascade backgrounds. 

1152: 

1153: The tau neutrino-interaction charged-current cross section has a threshold

1154: around 3 GeV, so any tau background is quite energy dependent and may

1155: cease to be important below 10 GeV.

1156: This background could be quite noticeable degradation of the

1157: signal for this experiment and for several of the others discussed here.

1158: 

1159: %The latest SuperK numbers are pushing \$delta M^2$ below $3 \times 10^{-3}$ eV$^2$. 

1160: 

1161: 

1162: \section{Sensitivity to Parameters and Comparison with other Experiments}

1163: 

1164: Figure~\ref{fig:sens} shows the parameters 

1165: $\sin^2 2 \theta$ and $\Delta m^2$ sensitivity region for the tower 

1166: configuration described

1167: above. This is the region where one can demonstrate oscillation with 

1168: 90\% CL and a precision of 10\% or better in both $\sin^2 2 \theta$ 

1169: and $\Delta m^2$. We assume that the detector energy threshold is

1170: 15 GeV and the energy resolution is 10\%.

1171: The sensitivity region for the tower configuration

1172: is $\sin^2 2 \theta > 0.40$ and $\Delta m^2 > 1 \times 10^{-3}$.

1173: 

1174: A better precision can be achieved around the most

1175: probable values of $\sin^2 2 \theta $ and

1176: $\Delta m^2$ ($\sin^2 2 \theta = 1$ and 

1177: $\Delta m^2 = 3.5 \times 10^{-3}$). This

1178: is shown in Figures~\ref{fig:sinerr}~and~\ref{fig:dm2err}

1179: for different detector energy threshold and energy resolution.

1180: In this region the AMANDA II - Tower configuration expects

1181: to have a relative error on $\sin^2 2\theta$ of order 3\% assuming the 

1182: projected detector energy threshold of 15 GeV and 90\% CL. The relative error 

1183: on $\Delta m^2$ is expected to be around 2\% for the same energy threshold

1184: and confidence level.

1185: 

1186: The sensitivity region and the relative error of the parameters were 

1187: determined by applying a maximum likelihood method \cite{pdg} assuming 

1188: a Gaussian distributed data set and using Fisher matrix coefficients. 

1189: This analysis does not include the effect of systematic errors nor 

1190: correlates the parameters $\sin^2 2 \theta$ and  $\Delta m^2$. 

1191: However, this is not a problem when comparing our proposed configuration with 

1192: other detectors, 

1193: since none of them include systematic bias in their sensitivity analysis.

1194: 

1195: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1196: \begin{figure}

1197: \centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=300pt \epsfbox{sens.eps}

1198: \caption{$\sin^2 2 \theta$ versus $\Delta m^2$ sensitive region to demonstrate

1199: neutrino oscillation with the proposed tower configuration. The shaded region

1200: can be probed  with 

1201: 90\% CL and with a precision of 10\% or better in both $\sin^2 2 \theta$ 

1202: and $\Delta m^2$. A detector energy threshold of 15 GeV and a 10\% energy

1203: resolution is assumed.}

1204: \label{fig:sens}

1205: \end{figure}

1206: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1207: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1208: \begin{figure}

1209: \centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=300pt \epsfbox{relerr_sin2.eps}

1210: \caption{90\% CL Estimated error in the mixing parameter $\sin^2 2 \theta$

1211: versus detector energy threshold.This precision can be acheived around the

1212: most probable value for neutrino oscillation ($\sin^2 2 \theta = 1$)

1213: assuming the most probable value for $\Delta m^2$ ($\Delta m^2 = 

1214: 3.5 \times 10^{-3}$).}

1215: \label{fig:sinerr}

1216: \end{figure}

1217: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1218: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1219: \begin{figure}

1220: \centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=300pt \epsfbox{relerr_dm2.eps}

1221: \caption{90\% CL estimated error in the difference in the two neutrino mass 

1222: squared $\Delta m^2$ versus detector energy threshold for the 

1223: proposed tower configuration. This precision can be achieved around the

1224: most probable value for neutrino oscillation ($\Delta m^2 = 

1225: 3.5 \times 10^{-3}$) assuming the most probale value for 

1226: $\sin^2 2 \theta$ ($\sin^2 2 \theta = 1$).}

1227: \label{fig:dm2err}

1228: \end{figure}

1229: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1230: 

1231: 

1232: 

1233: A comparison with other experiments is shown in table~\ref{tab:exp}. 

1234: MINOS \cite{minos} and MONOLITH \cite{monol} cover the broadest parameter region. 

1235: All experiments including our proposed tower configuration have roughly the same 

1236: sensitivity. 

1237: 

1238: An important point is that the experiments that compose Table~\ref{tab:exp} 

1239: represent

1240: three different techniques to measure neutrino oscillations. 

1241: K2K \cite{k2ksen} and MINOS\cite{minos} use a controlled beam line and 

1242: have two detectors, one close to the beam production

1243: and another one far away. 

1244: Although the detectors in each experiment are different from each other, 

1245: the fact that they can control the beam and therefore have a good

1246: energy and angular resolution is a strong characteristic of their design. 

1247: 

1248: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1249: \begin{table}

1250: \caption[t1]{\label{tab:exp} Comparison among current or proposed neutrino 

1251: experiments.}

1252: \begin{tabular}{lccccccc}

1253: \hline

1254: Experiment & Energy & $\Delta m^2\ ({\rm eV^2})$ & $\sin^2 2\theta$ 

1255: & Estimated   & Estimated & CL(\%) \\ 

1256: & Threshold & & & Precision  & Precision & \\

1257: & (GeV) & & & $(\Delta m^2)$ & $(\sin^2 2\theta)$ & \\

1258: \hline

1259: Proposed Tower & 16 & $> 10^{-3}$ & $ > 0.4$ & 10\% & 10\% & 90

1260:         \\

1261: K2K \cite{k2ksen} & 1 & $> 3 \times 10^{-3}$ &  $ > 0.4$ & 30\% & ? & 90

1262: 	 \\

1263: MINOS \cite{minos} & 1 & $> 10^{-3}$ & $ > 0.1$ & 10\% & 10\% & 90

1264: 	 \\

1265: MONOLITH \cite{monol} & 1.5 & $> 2 \times10^{-4}$ & $ > 0.2 $ & 6\% & ? & 90

1266:           \\ 

1267: ANTARES \cite{ant} & 5 & $> 10^{-3}$ & $> 0.6$ & 33\% & 33\%  & 99 \\

1268: \hline

1269: \end{tabular}

1270: \end{table}

1271: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1272: 

1273: MONOLITH \cite{monol} is a massive and dense magnetized tracking calorimeter. The size and density of the detector are important to increase the number 

1274: of neutrino interactions and the number of contained events. 

1275: MONOLITH will cover a large range in $\Delta m^2$ since it is able 

1276: to measure high momentum muons

1277: which in other experiments is not possible 

1278: since the muons range out of the detector before losing most of their energy.

1279: 

1280: The tower embedded in AMANDA-II that is proposed here and ANTARES are 

1281: neutrino telescopes with large volumes in water or ice. 

1282: Their advantage is their large size (detector volume). 

1283: Both track and measure the energy of the muons from the Cerenkov light 

1284: emitted in their passage through water or ice.

1285: 

1286: The current neutrino telescopes as AMANDA, Baikal and future telescopes as 

1287: IceCube, NESTOR and NEMO have been aimed at detecting astrophysical neutrinos

1288: and not designed specifically for neutrino oscillations.

1289: 

1290: ANTARES, in contrast, has been designed to be sensitive to neutrino oscillation 

1291: measurements. ANTARES \cite{antares} has a smaller net volume than IceCube but 

1292: has the potential 

1293: to measure neutrino oscillations in the range of parameters indicated by 

1294: Super-Kamionkande.

1295: 

1296: The fact that the neutrino oscillation hypothesis will be tested with different techniques

1297: only enhances the importance of these experiments. 

1298: All experiments will have a good sensitivity around the most probable values 

1299: found by SuperKamiokande \cite{superk}.

1300: 

1301: Two other experimental possibilities are UNO \cite{uno} and 

1302: a long baseline experiment

1303: that would have a beam coming from either Fermilab or CERN CNGS to IceCube 

1304: \cite{Dicka}.

1305: UNO would be a Cerenkov detector with 20 times the volume of Superkamiokande.

1306: It would identify electron and muon neutrino interactions

1307: and would have good energy and vertex resolution as well 

1308: as good reconstruction efficiency (comparable to SuperKamiokande).

1309: UNO could do even longer baseline physics to look for CP violation.

1310: However this would be in a much longer timescale and 

1311: UNO would have to adjust its goals according to new results obtained.

1312: 

1313: The long baseline \cite{Dicka} that proposes a beamline from Fermilab or CERN

1314: to IceCube would have to take into account the fact that the angle which the

1315: beam would reach the detector is not favorable as described in section~\ref{sec:enres}.

1316: Significant modifications would be necessary to the current design of IceCube 

1317: to make the effort of sending a beam to IceCube work.

1318: 

1319: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1320: \begin{table}

1321: \caption[t1]{\label{tab:time} Time scale for current or proposed neutrino 

1322: experiments.}

1323: \begin{tabular}{lcc}

1324: \hline

1325: Experiment & Start & Time scale to achieve \\

1326: & Data Taking   & Expected Results \\ 

1327: &    & (Years) \\

1328: \hline

1329: Proposed Tower & 2003 & 1 

1330:         \\

1331: K2K \cite{k2ksen} & June 1999 & 3

1332: 	 \\

1333: MINOS \cite{minos} & 2003 & 2

1334: 	 \\

1335: MONOLITH \cite{monol} & 2005-2006 & 4

1336:           \\ 

1337: ANTARES \cite{ant} & 2003 & 3 \\

1338: \hline

1339: \end{tabular}

1340: \end{table}

1341: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1342: 

1343: Table \ref{tab:time} shows the quoted time scale for each experiment. K2K is the

1344: only one already in data taking mode. All others will take two more years to start

1345: collecting data.

1346: 

1347: MINOS will be able to cover a broad $\sin^2 2 \theta$ and $\Delta m^2$ parameter

1348: space in a reasonable amount of time. Figure 4 of \cite{minos}

1349: %~\ref{fig:minos} (extracted from \cite{minos})

1350: shows their precision

1351: in these parameters assuming $\sin^2 2 \theta = 0.7$ and 

1352: $\Delta m^2 = 5 \times 10^{-3} \;eV^2$. In the same figure they show simulated 

1353: results where, assuming the above values,

1354: they can distinguish among non oscillations and oscillations. The energy region 

1355: shown

1356: in this figure ranges from zero to 20 GeV. The region which probes the oscillation

1357: pattern ranges from zero to less than 10 GeV.

1358: 

1359: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1360: %\begin{figure}

1361: %\centering\leavevmode 

1362: %\epsfig{figure=minosfiga.ps,width=300pt,angle=0}

1363: %\caption{Predicted MINOS reconstructed neutrino energy distribution for oscillations

1364: %(crosses) assuming $\sin^2 2 \theta = 0.7$ and $\Delta m^2 = 5 \times 10^{-3}\; {\rm eV^2}$

1365: %and for no oscillations (dashed histogram). Extracted from \cite{minos}.}

1366: %\label{fig:minos}

1367: %\end{figure}

1368: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1369: 

1370: Figure~\ref{fig:enres} shows that the Tower configuration can probe the region

1371: above 15 GeV and determine the existence or not of the oscillation pattern.

1372: Figure~\ref{fig:moden} shows that the region which can probe the oscillation

1373: hypothesis versus non-standard scenarios that can account for the neutrino deficit,

1374: is above about 10 GeV. So although MINOS can probe very well the current parameters

1375: of neutrino oscillation, the tower configuration will be able to distinguish among

1376: different scenarios that can account for the neutrino deficit. Even in the case 

1377: that

1378: the oscillation hypothesis holds, the Tower configuration and MINOS will complement

1379: each other results since they are probing different energy ranges in about the same

1380: timescale.

1381: 

1382: Although MONOLITH can also probe a broad parameter space region, it can be 

1383: considered

1384: as another generation of neutrino experiments given their timescale for data 

1385: taking.

1386: Figure~\ref{fig:monol} (extracted from their proposal \cite{monol}) shows that they can 

1387: also probe the 

1388: existence of an oscillation pattern well above 10 GeV. In this way they will also

1389: be able to distinguish among different models which can account for the SuperKamiokande

1390: result. However their timescale is far beyond MINOS, K2K and the Tower 

1391: configuration.

1392: 

1393: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1394: \begin{figure}

1395: \centering\leavevmode \epsfxsize=300pt \epsfbox{monol.eps}

1396: \caption{L/E distribution expected from MONOLITH for $\Delta m^2 = 3 \times 10^{-3}\;

1397: eV^2$ compared to the best fit oscillation hypothesis (oscillating line) and to

1398: the best fit of the neutrino decay model. (extracted from MONOLITH proposal \cite{monol}.}

1399: \label{fig:monol}

1400: \end{figure}

1401: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1402: 

1403: K2K also has good sensitivity for the oscillation parameter space and its

1404: timescale is comparable with both MINOS and the tower configuration. 

1405: %Although it

1406: %can probe well the $\sin^2 2 \theta$ and $\Delta m^2$ parameters, it does not

1407: %seem to probe the oscillation hypothesis {\em per se} and to be able to compare it with 

1408: %other possible explanations.

1409: 

1410: ANTARES will also be able to test the oscillation hypothesis, 

1411: since they will be able to go to higher energies.

1412: Figure~\ref{fig:ant} shows the potential anticipated observations for 3 years by 

1413: ANTARES \cite{ant}. 

1414: Their time scale is longer than the Tower configuration

1415: since they will need 3 years of data taking. 

1416: Also the plot of their predicted results is based 

1417: on the assumption that the atmospheric neutrino angular resolution can be measured to 

1418: about 3 degrees.

1419: We estimate that the intrinsic spread between the observed muon and 

1420: incoming neutrino is of order 10 degrees.

1421: 

1422: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1423: \begin{figure}

1424: \centering\leavevmode 

1425: \epsfig{figure=antares.eps,width=300pt}

1426: \caption{ANTARES estimated number of reconstructed events versus $E/L$

1427: from muon neutrinos undergoing oscillations with the parameters

1428: $sin^2 \theta = 1$ (maximal coupling) and $\Delta m^2 = 0.0035$~eV$^2$

1429: (points) and with no oscillations (histogram) for three years of observations.

1430: (Extracted from Antares proposal \cite{ANTARES}).}

1431: \label{fig:ant}

1432: \end{figure}

1433: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1434: 

1435: The comparison made above shows that AMANDA-II modified to include the tower configuration

1436: has a strong case for probing the neutrino oscillation hypothesis. 

1437: Its sensitivity can assure a good constraint in the current allowed region 

1438: for neutrino oscillations

1439: and will achieve its goal in a short time scale when compared to other experiments.

1440: 

1441: One could argue that low energy physics should be done with lower

1442: energy detectors and this is not the strong suit of IceCube or

1443: AMANDA due to the photon scattering and low phototube density.

1444: The argument here is that with some increase in phototube density

1445: then the Cerenkov water detectors can be very effective

1446: for atmospheric neutrino oscillation measurements because they can bring 

1447: large volumes to bear.

1448: 

1449: \section{Summary}

1450: High energy neutrino telescopes may be adapted to provide very powerful observations of

1451: neutrino oscillations and/or some of the alternatives that might explain the up/down neutrino 

1452: asymmetry observed by Super-Kamionkande and other anomalies.

1453: 

1454: \begin{acknowledgements}

1455: This work supported by NSF Grants KDI 9872979 and Physics/Polar Programs 0071886

1456: and in part by the Director, Office of

1457: Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of

1458: High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No.

1459: DE-AC03-76SF00098 through the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

1460: We thank Steve Barwick, Wick Haxton,Willi Chinowsky, John Jacobsen, Hitoshi Murayama 

1461: and Howard Matis for comments.

1462: \end{acknowledgements}

1463: 

1464: 

1465: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1466: \bibitem{superk} Y. Fukuda {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 1562 (1998).

1467: 

1468: \bibitem{kamioka} K. S. Hirata {\em et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B205}, 416 (1988); \\

1469:   K. S. Hirata {\em et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B280}, 146 (1992); \\ 

1470:   Y. Fukuda {\em et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B335}, 237 (1994).

1471: 

1472: \bibitem{imb} D. Casper {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 66}, 2561 (1991); \\

1473:   R. Becker-Szendy {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D46}, 3720 (1992).

1474: 

1475: \bibitem{soudan} W. M. Allison {\em et al.}, Phys Lett. {\bf B391},  491 (1997).

1476: 

1477: \bibitem{Bahcall} J. N. Bahcall, P. I. Krastev, and A. Yu Smirnov, Phys. Rev. 

1478: {\bf D 59},  046002 (1999).

1479: 

1480: \bibitem{Fogli} G. L. Foglie {\em et al.}, Phys Rev. Lett. {\bf 82},  2640 (1999).

1481: 

1482: \bibitem{Barger} V. Barger {\em et al.}, Phys Rev. {\bf D 57},  5893 (1998).

1483: 

1484: \bibitem{Barbieri} R. Barbieri, P. Creminelli, and A. Strumia, hep-ph/0002199 (2000).

1485: 

1486: \bibitem{Lisi} E. Lisi, A. Marrone, and D. Montanino, hep-ph/0002053 (2000).

1487:  

1488: \bibitem{frejus1} Ch. Berger {\em et al.}, Phys. Lett. {\bf B245}, 305 (1990).

1489: 

1490: \bibitem{nusex} M. Aglietta {\em et al.}, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 8}, 611 (1989).

1491: 

1492: \bibitem{kayser} P. Fisher, B. Kayser, K. S. Macfarland, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.

1493: {\bf 49}, 481 (1999).

1494: 

1495: \bibitem{sktaufavor} S. Fukuda {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85} 3999 (2000).

1496: 

1497: \bibitem{amanda} E. Andres {\em et al.}, Astropart. Phys. {\bf 13}, 1 (2000).

1498: 

1499: \bibitem{ice3} See the proposal for ICE CUBE at http://pheno.physics.wisc.edu/icecube/ .

1500: 

1501: \bibitem{antares} astro-ph/9907432 (1999).

1502: 

1503: \bibitem{nestor} Nucl.Phys.Proc.Suppl.{\bf 70},442 (1999).

1504: 

1505: \bibitem{volkova} L. V. Volkova, Yad. Fiz. {\bf 31}, 1510 (1980). Also published at

1506: Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 31}, 784 (1980).

1507: 

1508: \bibitem{honda} M. Honda, T. Kajita, K. Kasahara and S. Midorikawa, 

1509: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 52}, 4985 (1995).

1510: 

1511: \bibitem{agrawal} V. Agrawal, T. K. Gaisser, P. Lipari,P. and T. Stanev, 

1512: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 53}, 1314 (1996).

1513: 

1514: \bibitem{quigg} R. Gandhi, C. Quigg, M. H. Reno and I. Sarcevic, 

1515: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 58}, 093009 (1998).

1516: 

1517: \bibitem{lip} P. Lipari, M. Lusignoli and F. Sartogo, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74}, 4384 (1995).

1518: 

1519: \bibitem{pdg} Particle Data Group, The European Phys. Jour. {\bf 15}, section 23.6

1520: (2000).

1521: 

1522: \bibitem{quigg96} R. Gandhi, C. Quigg, M. H. Reno and I. Sarcevic, Astropart. Phys. {\bf 5},

1523: 81 (1996).

1524: 

1525: \bibitem{gaisser} T. Gaisser, ``Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics'', Cambridge University

1526: Press (1990).

1527: 

1528: \bibitem{ANTARES} ANTARES web page, http://antares.in2p3.fr/, see, for example, the ANTARES proposal and related publications.

1529: 

1530: \bibitem{Dicka} K. Dick, M. Freund, P. Huber, and M. Linder, hep-ph/0008016 (2000).

1531: 

1532: \bibitem{ant} C. Carloganu, Europhysics Neutrino Oscillation Workshop (NOW 2000), 

1533: Otranto, Italy (2000).

1534: 

1535: \bibitem{k2ksen} Y. Oyama, Talk given at the YITP Workshop on Flavor Physics, Kyoto, Japan (1998),

1536: hep-ex/980314 (1998). //

1537: S. Boyd, Talk given at the Sixth International Workshop on Tau Lepton Physics, 

1538: Victoria, Canada  (2000), hep-ex/0011039.

1539: 

1540: \bibitem{minos} D. A. Petyt, Phys. of Atomic Nuclei {\bf 63}, 1122 (2000).

1541: 

1542: \bibitem{monol}P. Antonioli, Europhysics Neutrino Oscillation Workshop (NOW2000), Otranto, Italy

1543: (2000), hep-ex/0101040.\\

1544: MONOLITH Proposal - CERN/SPSC 2000-031.

1545: 

1546: \bibitem{uno} C. K. Jung, astro-ph/0005046 (2000).

1547: 

1548: \end{thebibliography}

1549: \end{document}

1550:  

1551: