Hello Christos, Alfons, Gary, Silvia and Ken,
We can agree with the point that if the goal of this submission is to
try an extract a substantial amount of money from CERN then we should
focus on the future European projects rather than discussing any or
all future US or Asian experiments. The whole UK community could get
behind a document that is proposing a future European facility (or
facilities), but this document is not the place to pick favourites
amongst the other future international projects. So in particular, in
the Christos draft we would strongly advocate removing the discussion
of T2HK and only mention it in the concluding remarks.
Factual Comments
---------------------------
The current state of the mixing angles and mass splittings was better
represented in the original draft which showed, amongst other things,
that the MINOS, SuperK and T2K data already (slightly) favour a non
maximal theta23 mixing.
The UK also provided target hardware for the upgraded NuMI beam for
NoVA/MINOS+ (and indeed the last of the old style NuMI-MINOS targets).
The UK provided readout electronics for MINOS Far Detector and the
optical readout chain for the MINOS Near Detector.
Cheers,
Ryan & Jenny
On 19 June 2012 22:47, Christos Touramanis <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I have prepared a draft submission in a slightly different style to the original one. Please be sure that I have no intention to antagonize the authors of the original (or the time to do so) but I felt that there were two aspects which maybe can be improved:
>
> 1. You don't go to the off-licence to buy spare parts for your car. The European strategy group can, within its mandate, recommend highly a neutrino programme in Europe (if we persuade them), but advocating T2HK, LBNE, GLADE, nuStorm
> (a) does not gain us much as they have no way to influence the US or Japanese programmes (assuming that the Americans are able themselves to get a programme approved in their own country in the first place)
> (b) gives the ideal justification to proponents of other programmes (colliders of every sort) to suppress neutrinos in Europe in order to promote their own plans (they probably know about Unitarity...)
>
> 2. I believe that at this level a more "wordy" strong essay might be better than a "review paper" style with concise averages, many significant digits, etc. They probably don't doubt that we (or some of us) are good physicists ;-)
>
> Enjoy reading and consider how we want to proceed.
>
> Regards
> Christos
>
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Ryan Nichol
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
University College London
Gower Street
London
WC1E 6BT
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: 0207 679 7266
-----------------------------------------------------
|
