Examination on K2K
Experiment and SK Atmospheric
Neutrino Experiment by the
Computer Experiment
A.Misaki
on behalf of the Computer
Numerical Experiment Group
The Computer Numerical
Experimental Group
• E.Konishi,N.Takahashi(Hirosaki Univ.),
V.I.Galkin(Moscow State Univ.),
A.Misaki(Waseda Univ.),M.Matsuyama
(Tohoku Univ.), M.Ishiwata,
I.Nakamura(Saitama Univ.),
Y.Minorikawa(Kinki Univ.),
M.Kato(Kyowa.Co.Ltd)
The Computer Numerical Experimental Group have
intended to submit the following items to this
workshop
• 1 On the reliability of the direction of the incident neutrino in the
analysis of neutrino oscillation around Fully Contained Events and
Partially Contained Events in Superkamiokande
• 2 The zenith angle distribution for Upward Through Going Events
and Stopping Muon Events in the Computer Numerical Experiment,
and the comparison between them and the Superkamiokande Results.
• 3 L/E Analysis of Upward Through Going Muon and Stopping Muon
Events in the computer Numerical Experiments.
• 4 Can one really find oscillatory signature from the analysis of
Fully
Contained Events and Partially Contained Events in the SK detector ?
• 5 Examination on K2K experiment by the computer Numerical
Experiment
A Reply from the Secretariat of
TAUP2005
• Dear Akeo,
regarding your submitted contributions for the
session on Atmospheric
Neutrinos and High energy neutrino beams that
do not appear in the agenda,
convenors of this session in this case decided that
you could join all your
contributions in an unique one.
Looking forward to seeing you in Zaragoza,
The TAUP Secretariat
Logical structure of the “evidence” of the neutrino
oscillation (sin22θ=1.0, Δm2=2.3 ∗10−3 eV2) in the
atmospheric neutrino in the SK based on:
1. Almost perfect discrimination between electron(neutrino)
and muon(neutrino).
2. Muon Deficit in the zenith angle distribution for the analysis
of Fully Contained Events and Partially Contained Events.
3. The same conclusion as [2] from the analysis of Upward
Through Going Muon Events and Stopping Muon Events.
4. Evidence of oscillatory signature in the L/E Analysis
5. Fatal blow from K2K experiment
Why SK is so trusted?
SELF CONSISTENCY AND SUFFICIENT STATISTICS ?
Substancial Diffrence between
SK and OURS as for the
methodology in the analysis
SK Analyze Physical Events in the
ABERAGE THEORY,
While OURS in FLUCTUATION
THEORY.
CONCLUSION 1
The SK determination of the incident
neutrino direction from the
analysis of Contained Events(FC)
and Partially Contained
Events(PC) is Unreliable.
Therefore,
Is the Zenith Angle Distribution for FC and PC reliable ?
Is the L/E Oscillatory Signature for FC and PC reliable ?
Zenith Angle Distributions in SK Detctor
no oscillation
1600
No. of Events
1400
pμ > 0.4 GeV/c
Incident Neutrinos
1200
1000
800
600
400
Emitted Muons +/−
200
0
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2
0.0
cos θ
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
CONCLUSION 2
The analysis of K2K experiment is
unreliable.
It is based on :
[1] The SK atmospheric neutrino achievement .
[2] The SK discrimination procedure between
electron neutrino and muon neutrino where the
concept of FLUCTUATION is absent.
CONCLUSION 3
• The SK Analysis of Upward Through Going
Muon Events and Stopping Muon Events is
unreliable, because SK do not take into account
range fluctuation of high energy muon correctly
for not enough statistics.
• We show rather non-existence of neutrino
oscillation by the computer numerical
experiment.
Zenith angle distributions
Upward Stopping Muon Flux
Upward Through Going Muon Flux
Null Oscillation
Oscillation
SK.Exp(1247days)
1247 livedays (1-st run)
1e-12
1e-12
Flux (1/cm^2 sec str)
Flux (1/cm^2 sec str)
Null Oscillation
Oscillation
SK Exp(1268days)
1247 livedays (1-st run)
1e-13
1e-14
1e-13
1e-14
sin(2theta)^2=1.0
dm^2=2.0e-3 eV^2
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
Cos(theta)
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
sin(2theta)^2=1.0
dm^2=2.0e-3 eV^2
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
Cos(theta)
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
Conclusion 4:Critical Remark to SK Analysis
1.There are the contradiction from the methodological point of view.
Why do SK analyze the data , combined of [Fully Contained
Events ]with [Partially Contained Events], while SK analyze data,
separating [Upward Through Going Muon Events] from [Stopping
Muon Events] !?
2. The Exact and Clear Cut Analysis of Muon-like Single Ring Events
and Electron-like Single Ring Events (QEL Events) as Fully
Contained Events should have been done as the first priority work !!
3. The analysis of Multi-Ring Events which may produce ambiguity is
the work in the second stage after the crucial analysis of QEL event
as FC.
4. The present SK analysis is of hodgepodge (hotchpotch), exclusively
to increase statistics, without the recognition of the different qualities
in the different category among the experimental data.
Zenith Angle Distribution for Single Ring
Muon Events(QEL)
160
No. of Events
140
120
1489.2 days
Fully Contained Events
100
no oscillation
80
60
40
20
oscillation
0
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2
0.0
cos θμ
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
References for Our Computer
Numerical Experiments
1.
On Discrimination procedure between
electron(neutrino) and muon (neutrino)
1-1: hep-ex/0501058 (under submission to NIM)
A discrimination Procedure between Muon and
Electron in Superkamiokande Experiment Based on
the Angular Distribution Function Method
by V.I.Galkin,A.M.Anokhina, E.Konishi and A.Misaki
1-2: hep-ex/0412059 (under submission to NIM)
A Theory of Pattern Recognition for the Discrimination between
Muon and Electron in the Superkamiokande
by V.I.Galkin,A.M.Anokhina, E.Konishi and A.Misaki
References 2
2 On the Reliability of the SK determination of the incident neutrinos:
2-1:hep-ex/047015 (Rejected by Phys.Rev.D)
Have Superkamiokande Really Measured the Direction of the
Atmospheric Neutrinos which Produce Fully Contained Events and
Partially Contained Events ?
by Konishi,Y.Minorikawa,V.I.Galkin,M.Ishiwata and A.Misaki
2-2: astro-ph/0406497
The Zenith Angle Distribution of Fully Contained Events in
Superkamiokande and the impact of Quasi Elastic Scattering on
their Direction
by E.Konishi,Y.Minorikawa,V.I.Galkin,M.Ishiwataand A.Misaki
Reference 3
3. L/E Analysis
3-1 hep-ex/0505020
• Can One Extract the neutrino Oscillation Signature from the
Superkamiokande Experiment ? An Analysis of Neutrino Events
Occurring outside the Detector
4. TAUP 2005
More Detailed Results on [1] tp [3] mentioned
above,including T/E Analysis on Fully Contained
Events in the SK detector.
Expectation toward SK and their
supporters
We would like to expect the refutation based on
the open minded spirit from SK people. Because
SK is the champion, while we are a challenger.
We are ready to reply SK possible refutations
toward our critical remarks.
We are highly welcome outdoor discussions at this
conference with the anybody and more frontal
debate in the international workshops and
conferences in the future as well.
On Conclusion 1
The SK ASSUMPTION on the direction of
the incident neutrino:
Kajita and Totsuka
Rev.Mod.Phys., Vol.73,85(2001))
Ishitsuka
Ph.D thesis for L/E Analysis,Feb.4,(2001))
Kajita & Totsuka
Ishitsuka
DistributionFig.
function
for scattering angle in QEL
4
5.0E-02
4.5E-02
4.0E-02
Eν = 2 GeV
dN/dθs
3.5E-02
muon neutrino
3.0E-02
2.5E-02
1 GeV
2.0E-02
1.5E-02
0.5 GeV
1.0E-02
5.0E-03
0.0E+00
0
20
40
60
80
100
θs ( degree )
120
140
160
180
The Azimuthal Angle and
Backscattering in QEL
• SK know the existence of larger scattering angle.
Nevertheless, WHY such the assumption !?
• The Azimuthal Angles in QEL events influence
greatly over the estimation of the direction of the
incident neutrino as well as the backscattering
does.
• SK do not include the effect of the azimuthal
angle and backscattering in their analysis.
φ
θs
μ
( lr, mr, nr)
neutrino
( l, m, n)
Fig. 6
⎡ l μ ⎤ ⎡cos θ cos φ − sin φ l ⎤ ⎡sin θ S cos φS ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎥ ⎢ sin θ sin φ ⎥
m
cos
θ
sin
φ
cos
φ
m
=
μ
S
S ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎥⎢
⎢ nμ ⎥ ⎢⎣ − sin θ
0
n ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ cos θ S ⎥⎦
⎣ ⎦
Correlation between cos θν and cos θμ
muon neutrino and muon−
1
0.8
1 < Eν < 2 GeV
0.6
2 < Eν < 5 GeV
0.4
5 GeV < Eν
cos θμ
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
cos θν
0.8
1
Correlation between cos θν and cos θμ
muon neutrino and muon−
cos θμ
1
0.8
1 < Eμ < 2 GeV
0.6
2 < Eμ < 5 GeV
0.4
5 GeV < Eμ
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
cos θν
0.8
1
The Logical Consequence of
the SK assumption
Even if the SK discrimination
procedure between electron
(neutrino) and muon (neutrino) is
perfect, the direction of the
incident neutrino is unreliable.
On Conclusion 2
• The K2K is under the same ideology of SK
and their analysis is quite dependent on the
SK discrimination procedure between
electron(neutrino) and muon(neutrino).
• However, the SK discrimination procedure
substantially neglect the FLUCTUATION .
Therefore, the K2K result should be
doubtful.
On Conclusion 3
In our computer numerical experiment, the range of
Individual Higher Energy Muon for the Upward
Through Going Muon Events and the Stopping
Muon Events is exactly simulated by considering
the physical processes concerned, namely, nuclear
interaction, bremsstrahlung, direct pair production
and ionization loss, while SK utilize the average
range of the muon concerned ,being helped by
“observation probability “. This does not reflect
the real situation for insufficient statistics.
Schematic illustration of the experiment
Pint (Eν , t, cosθ )dt
Ne
sp utr
ec in
tru o
m
In
te
sp ra
ec cti
tr on
um
μ , μ+
ν μ ,ν μ
L
Psurv(Eν ,t, cosθ )
dt
Su
sp rv
ec iv
tr al
um
Upward stopping muon
Distribution of L(km)/E(GeV), (Upward stopping muon)
1000
null Oscillation
Oscillation
Neut.+Anti_Neut. (CC)
Oscillation (sin2=1.0, dm2=2.0e-3)
counts
Number
of events
live days= 1247days
cos(Nadir)= 1.00 to 0.00
100
10
1
0.1
1
10
100
L(km)/E(GeV)
total events=
1000
L/E (km/GeV)
10000
100000
Upward through going muon
Distribution of L(km)/E(GeV), (upward through going muon)
1000
null Oscillation
Oscillation
Neut.+Anti_Neut. (CC)
countsof events
Number
Oscillation (sin2=1.0, dm2=2.0e-3)
live days= 1247days
cos(Nadir)= 1.00 to 0.00
100
10
1
0.1
1
total events=
10
100
L(km)/E(GeV)
1000
L/E (km/GeV)
10000
100000
Zenith angle distributions
Upward Stopping Muon Flux
Upward Through Going Muon Flux
Null Oscillation
Oscillation
SK.Exp(1247days)
1247 livedays (1-st run)
1e-12
1e-12
Flux (1/cm^2 sec str)
Flux (1/cm^2 sec str)
Null Oscillation
Oscillation
SK Exp(1268days)
1247 livedays (1-st run)
1e-13
1e-14
1e-13
1e-14
sin(2theta)^2=1.0
dm^2=2.0e-3 eV^2
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
Cos(theta)
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
sin(2theta)^2=1.0
dm^2=2.0e-3 eV^2
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
Cos(theta)
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
Conclusion 4: Clear Cut Analysis
of QEL Events
• We should concentrate our concern to the
analysis of Fully Contained Events,
particularly, Muon-like (Electron-Like)
Single Ring Events Based on Exact
Discrimination Procedure between
muon(neutrino) and Electron(neutrino).
Zenith Angle Distribution for Single Ring
Muon Events (QEL)
160
No. of Events
140
120
oscillation
Fully Contained Events
100
Upward Muons +/−
80
60
40
1489.2 days
Neutrinos
to Produce
Upward Muons
20
0
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2
0.0
cos θ
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Zenith Angle Distribution for Single Ring
Muon Events (QEL)
1489.2 days
160
No. of Events
140
Fully Contained Events
oscillation
120
100
Neutrinos
80
60
40
20
Muons +/−
0
-1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2
0.0
cos θ
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
L/E Distribution for Single Ring Muon Events(QEL)
1.0E+03
oscillation
1489.2 days
No. of Events
Fully Contained Events
1.0E+02
Our case
1.0E+01
SK case
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E+02
L/Eν ( km/GeV )
1.0E+03
1.0E+04
L/E Distribution for Single Ring Muon Events(QEL)
1.0E+03
1489.2 days
no oscillation
No. of Events
Fully Contained Events
1.0E+02
Our case
1.0E+01
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E+02
L/Eν ( km/GeV )
1.0E+03
1.0E+04
L/E distribution for Fully Contained Events
1489.2 days
1.0E+03
no oscillation
No. of Events
Upward Neutrinos
1.0E+02
Our case
1.0E+01
SK case
SK case
1.0E+00
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
1.0E+01
1.0E+02
L/Eν ( km/GeV )
1.0E+03
1.0E+04
Summary of Conclusions
1. The method for determination of the incident
neutrino direction by SK is unreliable.
2. The method for the analysis of K2K experiment
is unreliable due to “too accurate “ .
3. SK Experimental Data for Upward Through
Going Muon Events and Stopping Muon Events
by SK show rather non-existence of the
neutrino oscillation.
The Conclusion among Conclusions
1.
The Rare Events, something like Neutrino Events,
should be analyzed by FLUCTUATION THEORY.
2. All disclosure on the concrete
Monte Carlo Simulation by SK is
inevitable for the solution in
dispute issues.
2. The criticism in science, particularly, toward the
monopolized enterprise, like SK, is of vital
importance to keep healthy in science against
Band Wagon Effect.
to the muon decay process.
Then we apply Bayes’ decision rule which minimizes the error of misidentification assuming that prior probabilities of both types of events are equal:
→
−
→
−
N
P e/ Q
p Q /e
j=1
→
r = →
=
− = −
N
P μ/ Q
p Q /μ
j=1
δQej
1/2
δQμj
exp −
1/2
·
exp −
N j=1
Qj − Qej
N j=1
Qj −
Qμj
2
2
/δQej
/δQμj
, (5)
→
→
− − where p Q /e and p Q /μ come from Eq.(2).
The simplest criterion, q, which we use to define the type of event is:
q = ln r = qμ − qel + C ,
qμ =
qel =
N j=1
Qjexp − Qjμ
N j=1
Qjexp
−
2
e 2
Qj
N
1 j=1
C = ln N
2
j=1
δQej
δQμj
(6)
/δQjμ ,
(7 − a)
/δQje ,
(7 − b)
,
(7 − c)
where Qjexp is the contribution to j-th PMT in the “experimental” image under consideration.
The event is considered to be e-like if q > 0 and μ-like if q < 0.
A slightly more general form of the criterion can help to reduce the errors of type definition:
q = qμ − A · qel + B ,
(8)
6
dN/dcosθμ
5
muon neutrino cosθν=1(θν=0°)
Eν=1GeV
average=0.590
4
s.d.=0.439
SK
3
2
1
0
−0.8−0.6−0.4−0.2 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
cosθμ
1
6
dN/dcosθμ
5
muon neutrino cosθν=1(θν=0°)
Eν=1GeV
average=0.590
4
s.d.=0.439
SK
3
2
1
0
−0.8−0.6−0.4−0.2 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
cosθμ
1
6
dN/dcosθμ
muon neutrino
cosθν=0.731(θν=43°)
5
Eν=5GeV
4
SK
average=0.715
s.d.=0.103
3
2
1
0
−0.8−0.6−0.4−0.2 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
cosθμ
1
6
muon neutrino
cosθν=0(θν=90°)
Eν=1GeV
dN/dcosθμ
5
4
average=0.001
s.d.=0.480
SK
3
2
1
0
−0.8−0.6−0.4−0.2 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
cosθμ
1
6
muon neutrino
cosθν=0(θν=90°)
Eν=5GeV
dN/dcosθμ
5
average=0.006
4
s.d.=0.141
SK
3
2
1
0
−0.8−0.6−0.4−0.2 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
cosθμ
1
6
muon neutrino
cosθν=0(θν=90°)
Eν=0.5GeV
dN/dcosθμ
5
4
average=0.003
s.d.=0.564
SK
3
2
1
0
−0.8−0.6−0.4−0.2 0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
cosθμ
1