The Mirror Crack’d: Constraining the matter- antimatter asymmetry with T2K https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586- 020-2177-0 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 1 Outline • Introduction to the T2K experiment • Quick review of neutrino oscillations • Excursion to matter-antimatter asymmetry • The CP-violating phase measurement • Will try to be light on the maths • Will borrow slides from Federico Sanchez’ CERN seminar talk • logo in top right corner 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 2 The T2K Experiment 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 3 What is T2K • T2K = Tokai To Kamioka • Neutrino beam experiment in Japan • J-PARC (Tokai) → Super-Kamiokande (Kamioka) 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 4 J-PARC Main Ring Linac 30 GeV 180 MeV 0.75 MW ⇨ 1.3 MW 5 T2K experiment MR 30 GeV protons 280m beam detectors p → dump off-axis primary beamline target station decay muon Super-Kamiokande pipe monitors 110m 120m 280m 295km ν οscillations Neutrinos produced in a particle Neutrino flux Neutrino flux accelerators or nuclear reactors. properties & flavour _ _ νμ,νμ νeνe x _ νμνμ 6 Off-axis beam Off-axis 2.5º • off-axis optimises the flux at the maximum of the oscillation. • Only one oscillation maximum can be measured at a fixed distance. • Narrow beam less dependent on beam uncertainties but more on beam pointing. • Lower energies achieved. On-axis • on-axis optimises the total integrated flux. • Spectrum with higher neutrino energy (longer oscillation distances) • If broad enough, more than one oscillation maximum can be measured at a fixed distance. 7 Near Detector Site INGRID: On-axis ND280: Off-axis New! Wagasci/BabyMind: Off-axis 8 Far detector Particle identification Interaction vertex reconstruction Track Multiplicity Particle range Electromagnetic energy reconstruction Hadronic interactions 9 Neutrino Oscillations 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 10 Neutrino oscillations • Neutrino flavour eigenstates are not the same than the neutrino Lorentz eigenstates. • Eigenstates are related through a rotation matrix. Flavour eigenstates Lorentz eigenstates state of the neutrino interactions states of the neutrino propagation in space Pontecorvo–Maki–Nakagawa–Sakata (PMNS) matrix 11 Oscillation parameters PNMS Matrix PDG 2016 PDG atmospheric ~4% ~3% PDG 2018 PDG ~11% ~15% solar ~7% ~31% Most of the parameters measured with <10% precision θ23 is known with 15% precision Remaining parameters are δCP and the hierarchy 12 Mass hierarchy •Oscillations is a quantum interference phenomenon that depends on the (quadratic) mass difference: 2 2 2 ∆m ij = m i − m j •Due to matter effects in solar neutrinos we know: 2 ∆m 12 >0 •Hierarchy determines the ordering of the masses. Traditionally: •Normal: m1<m2<m3 •Inverted: m3<m1<m2 13 Neutrino oscillations • Neutrino state vector of 3 complex (!) numbers • Different mass eigenstates propagate with different phase velocities • When expressing neutrino state as in flavour base after a while it is no longer pure! 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 14 Neutrino oscillations • Neutrino state vector of 3 complex (!) numbers • Different mass eigenstates propagate with different phase velocities • When expressing neutrino state as in flavour base after a while it is no longer pure! 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 15 Neutrino oscillations • Neutrino state vector of 3 complex (!) numbers • Different mass eigenstates propagate with different phase velocities • When expressing neutrino state as in flavour base after a while it is no longer pure! 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 16 CP Asymmetry • Subdominant term changes electron appearance probability differently for (anti)neutrinos • Up to 40% effect on # of expected events at SK • Matter effects add another 10% → some sensitivity to mass ordering 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 17 CP Asymmetry • Subdominant term changes electron appearance probability differently for (anti)neutrinos • Up to 40% effect on # of expected events at SK • Matter effects add another 10% → some sensitivity to mass ordering 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 18 OIY (Oscillate It Yourself) • VISOS by Xianguo Lu, Rasched Haidari, Artur Sztuc • Web application to visualise changing flavour probabilities depending on oscillation parameters • http://www-pnp.physics.ox.ac.uk/~luxi/visos/ 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 19 CP Violation and the Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 20 CP violation • Charge (C) and parity (P) symmetry are maximally broken in weak interactions • Things are different in a mirror universe, xor when switching all particles for antiparticles • See e.g. Wu experiment • The combined CP symmetry is also broken, but less obviously so • Things are still different when in a mirror universe *and* switching all particles for antiparticles • Implies time symmetry (T) is also broken, assuming CPT is conserved • So far only observed in quark sector, see e.g. 퐾0 decay 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 21 CP violation • All standard model processes create/destroy matter and antimatter in equal amounts • Need beyond standard model physics to explain the observed matter dominance in the universe • Baryogenesis • Leptogenesis • … • Sakharov conditions: • Baryon number violation • C and CP violation • Process out of thermal equilibrium • CP violating effect in quark sector too weak to explain existence of matter excess via baryogenesis 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 22 CP violation • CP violation in lepton sector not observed yet • Could be large enough to “explain” existence of matter excess via leptogenesis • Jarlskog invariant in lepton sector (PMNS matrix): ≈ • In quark sector (CKM matrix): • CP violation is a necessary condition, not sufficient • Still need beyond standard model processes for other Sakharov conditions 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 23 T2K’s 훿퐶푃 Measurement 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 24 Principle • Count electron-neutrino events in SuperK • Both in neutrino and antineutrino beam mode • Data analysed here taken between 2009 and 2018 • Compare with model expectations • Exclude parameter space that is incompatible with data 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 25 Principle • Count electron-neutrino events in SuperK • Both in neutrino and antineutrino beam mode • Data analysed here taken between 2009 and 2018 • Compare with model expectations • Exclude parameter space that is incompatible with data Matter effect 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 26 Principle • Count electron-neutrino events in SuperK • Both in neutrino and antineutrino beam mode • Data analysed here taken between 2009 and 2018 • Compare with model expectations • Exclude parameter space that is incompatible with data CP violation Matter effect 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 27 SK 휈푒/휈푒ҧ candidates, neutrino mode 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 28 SK 휈푒/휈푒ҧ candidates, antineutrino md. 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 29 Result • First 3-sigma confidence interval of 훿퐶푃: • In normal mass ordering (푚3 > 푚1,2): [−3.41, −0.03] • In inverted mass ordering (푚3 < 푚1,2): [−2.54, −0.32] • Favouring maximal CP violation 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 30 Result < −휋 ! • First 3-sigma confidence interval of 훿퐶푃: • In normal mass ordering (푚3 > 푚1,2): [−3.41, −0.03] • In inverted mass ordering (푚3 < 푚1,2): [−2.54, −0.32] • Favouring maximal CP violation 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 31 Result No 68% confidence interval < −휋 ! • First 3-sigma confidence interval of 훿퐶푃: • In normal mass ordering (푚3 > 푚1,2): [−3.41, −0.03] • In inverted mass ordering (푚3 < 푚1,2): [−2.54, −0.32] • Favouring maximal CP violation 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 32 휈푒/휈푒ҧ samples overview • Systematic uncertainties constrained by near detector fits • ~17% → ~9% in single lepton samples • ~22% → ~19% in pion sample • Largest uncertainties from neutrino interaction models • “Largest individual contribution” 7.1% of total 8.8% 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 33 휈푒/휈푒ҧ samples overview Delayed electron = pion • Systematic uncertainties constrained by near detector fits • ~17% → ~9% in single lepton samples • ~22% → ~19% in pion sample • Largest uncertainties from neutrino interaction models • “Largest individual contribution” 7.1% of total 8.8% 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 34 휈푒/휈푒ҧ samples overview Delayed electron = pion “The probability of observing an • Systematic uncertainties excess over prediction in one of our five samples at least as large as that constrained by near detector fits seen in the electron-like charged • ~17% → ~9% in single lepton samples pion sample is 6.9%, […]” • ~22% → ~19% in pion sample • Largest uncertainties from neutrino interaction models • “Largest individual contribution” 7.1% of total 8.8% 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 35 Reactor constraint 1휎 • Result also uses reactor neutrino results as constraint 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 36 Summary • The (anti)electron-neutrino appearance probability in a (anti)muon-neutrino beam depends on a CP-violating phase in the PNMS matrix • It affects neutrinos and antineutrinos in opposite ways • T2K was able to exclude a large region of the phase space at the 3-sigma level • Result point towards maximal CP violation • Slight preference for normal mass ordering • CP violation in the lepton sector is a necessary building block for explaining the matter dominance via leptogenesis • Not a finished explanation, but important input for models 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 37 Thank you! 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 38 Thank you! http://higgstan.com/4koma-t2k/ 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 39 CP violation phase inverted sin θ23 hierarchy normal hierarchy T2K Data δCP~-π/2 40 ν energy dependency is not reflected in this plot _ νe vertex distribution 41 Systematic uncertainties • Constrained by near detector fits • 13% - 17% → 4% - 9% in single lepton samples • 22% → 19% in pion sample • Largest uncertainties from neutrino interaction models • “Largest individual contribution” 7.1% of total 8.8% 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 42 Systematic uncertainties • Constrained by near detector fits • 13% - 17% → 4% - 9% in single lepton samples • 22% → 19% in pion sample • Largest uncertainties from neutrino interaction models • “Largest individual contribution” 7.1% of total 8.8% 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 43 Near detector fit, FHC 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 44 Near detector fit, RHC 2/6/2020 Lukas Koch 45 Nova results 46.