Dear Christos and everyone:

I agree with your comments.  Our overall goal is to raise the profile of neutrino physics relative to collider physics in the medium and long terms, but we must be careful not to allow excursions down useless paths.  The sterile neutrino questions is tricky because it is a hot topic, but it is also quite likely a dead end.  That's why I think any experiments searching for sterile neutrinos must not only have  sensitivity to non-standard oscillations at better than 5-sigma level but must also constitute an important step for the standard three-neutrino paradigm measurements.  That can come in the form of accelerator or detector R&D, or cross-section measurements, or of course sensitivity to delta or the MH.  NuSTORM fits that bill, but I don't think the ICARUS-based program does.

Cheers,
Morgan

M.O. Wascko
Imperial College London
http://www.hep.ph.ic.ac.uk/~wascko
http://www.t2k.org

On 13 Sep 2012, at 11:12, Touramanis, Christos wrote:

> Dear all,
> I am fully supporting the views presented here and I agree that we should submit our input as agreed. For a UK submission I would also be happy to put my name under nuSTORM also. We might want to state (or keep in mind to air in the discussion at Birmingham) that our priority is on long baseline for MH/CP rather than SBL/steriles (unless things have changed in your minds since we last discussed). One particular potential trap in my opinion is the proposed ICARUS-based sterile programme at CERN for which I do worry that it can create a hole were resources go in but world-class physics does not come out.
> Cheers
> Christos
>  
> From: List for the UK neutrino community [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Long Kenneth
> Sent: 13 September 2012 09:23
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Straegy doc submitted
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> I have circulated the nuSTORM author's with the suggestion (attached).  Response is very positive.  I will try and draft the promised covering letter today (or early tomorrow).  Given this traffic, I'll send it to the "UK neutrino community list" for information and to give anyone who has not yet had the opportunity to express an interest to add themselves to the list of supporters.
>  
> K
>  
> Kenneth Long
>      EMail:   [log in to unmask]      
>      Phone:   +44-(0)20-7594-7812      [at RAL: +44-(0)1235-445646]
>                                        [at DL : +44-(0)1925-864356]
>      Fax:     +44-(0)870-706-0215      [at RAL: +44-(0)1235-446733]
>      Mobile:  +44-(0)7890-595-138
>      WWW:     http://www.hep.ph.imperial.ac.uk/~longkr/
>      Address: Department of Physics
>               Blackett Laboratory
>               Imperial College London
>               Exhibition Road, London, SW7 2AZ
>  
> On 13 Sep 2012, at 08:58, Jenny Thomas wrote:
> 
> 
> We are waiting for the extra paragraph. I'm happy to do that today
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 13 Sep 2012, at 09:47, Dave Wark <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Alfons,
> Submit quick before consensus vanishes!
> Cheers,
> Dave
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: List for the UK neutrino community [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alfons Weber
> Sent: 13 September 2012 08:46
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Straegy doc submitted
>  
> Hi Dave,
>  
> I think we are all agreeing here. I know that Ken is submitting a separate nuStorm document to the PPAP and there is some cross signing between the documents. And nuStorm already has a paragraph in the document already. So that is well covered.
>  
>   Cheers
>  
>       Alfons
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: List for the UK neutrino community [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dave Wark
> Sent: 13 September 2012 07:01
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Straegy doc submitted
>  
> Hi Alfons,
> Strongly agree with all this.  It is very much in the spirit of the discussion here in Krakow.  Had a good breakfast with John W, Young Kee, Jim Strait, and Pier.  The whole community agrees on the need for agreement, especially in the headlights of the all-devouring ILC.  I don't know if the document mentions nuStorm, but given the discussion here I would add a line or two about it, saying we would participate wherever it was built.  Ditto Hyper K (although we know where that will be built!).  Also say we need to get serious on LAr R&D, as somebody is going to build an LAr somewhere.  Main point is just defending our slice of the resources, which will be in great demand (when are they not?).
>  
> Cheers,
> Dave
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: List for the UK neutrino community [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alfons Weber
> Sent: 12 September 2012 19:08
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Straegy doc submitted
>  
> Dear Jenny and Francesca,
>  
> I fully agree with what you said. This document has a very European focus and is not really what we want for the UK strategy. It should be open to have us contribute in a substantial way to the best experiments worldwide. However, iterating on the document and re-writing is will probably take more time than we have before this document has to go out. That is why I suggested adding a cover letter/email to it making the points about context etc.
> Mentioning HK as well as the US program would be quite nature and necessary in this context. So the points to cover are
> - The UK has vibrant neutrino community
> - Neutrinos are a hot topic
> - We need a next generation experiment to address the questions of CP and mass hierarchy
> - UK physicists are playing a leading role in current and some future LBL activities.
> - We want to pursue R&D to design and build the next generation experiment in a timely fashion
> - UK should engage with international community to drive the next generation of experiment wherever it happens
> (US and Japanese programs should be mentioned here)
>  
> Jenny or Francesca, do you want to draft the cover email making those points?
>  
>   Cheers
>  
>       Alfons
>  
>  
> Dr. Alfons Weber
> University of Oxford &
> STFC, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> http://www-pnp.physics.ox.ac.uk/~weber
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: List for the UK neutrino community [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Francesca Di Lodovico
> Sent: 12 September 2012 16:32
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Straegy doc submitted
>  
> Hi,
> I am fully sympathetic with what Jenny says.
> And having said that, if the document is submitted, I'd like to ask to add a statement on Hyper-K as well, saying also that the document is the same as submitted to the EU review, so obviously other options were not considered.
> Thanks,
> Francesca
>  
> On 12/09/12 23:52, Jenny Thomas wrote:
> Alfons,
> I think the Euro doc was very much weighted towards the european
> future, but we (at least some of us) think that the future may well be
> in the US in the shorter term, which really does not come across well
> in this document. I would suggest you add a paragraph at the front,
> saying that we need to keep our options open as to where the next
> steps will be, or that it may be we do not all want to do the same thing, and thats a strength of STFC or something, rather than having to only collaborate at CERN.
> I do not like it that a document written for one audience is then applied to all the others.
> Jenny
> On Sep 12, 2012, at 4:32 PM, Alfons Weber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> You all know that we have the PPAP town meeting next week and after discussing with some of you, we thought it would be a good idea to submit a paper to that process as well. They have not asked for written submissions, but talking to Mark and Phil, they told me that they will take those into account.
>  
> I don't think we will be able to draft an entirely new document in
> the available time, but I suggest we submit the document that we sent
> into the CERN strategy process also to the PPAP with an accompanying
> email stating that
> - The UK has vibrant neutrino community
> - Neutrinos are a hot topic
> - We need a next generation experiment to address the questions of CP
> and mass hierarchy
> - UK physicists are playing a leading role in current and some future LBL activities.
> - We want to pursue R&D to design and build the next generation
> experiment in a timely fashion
>  
> I know that this is not the optimal document one could submit, but it should make a strong point in support of future neutrino activities. I attached the document submitted to the CERN process.
>  
> Do people agree to this approach in general? The draft email would of course go to this list before being submitted.
>  
>   Best regards
>  
>       Alfons
>  
>  
>  
> Dr. Alfons Weber
> University of Oxford &
> STFC, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
> http://www-pnp.physics.ox.ac.uk/~weber
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: List for the UK neutrino community
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gary Barker
> Sent: 27 July 2012 13:05
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Straegy doc submitted
>  
> Dear All,
>          The UK neutrino input to the Euro Strategy process has now been submitted (abstract number 41). Final version attached.
>  
> Many thanks to all of you who have contributed and submitted comments/corrections.
>  
> Best wishes,
> Gary, Alfons, Christos, Ken  and Silvia
>  
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
>  
> <UK-Psn-ppr.pdf>
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.