Source author record

A. Cunningham

A. Cunningham appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

hep-ex physics.ins-det physics.optics

Catalog footprint

What is connected

3works

3topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2016arXiv

First measurement of electron neutrino appearance in NOvA

We report results from the first search for $ν_μ\toν_e$ transitions by the NOvA experiment. In an exposure equivalent to $2.74\times10^{20}$ protons-on-target in the upgraded NuMI beam at Fermilab, we observe 6 events in the Far Detector, compared to a background expectation of $0.99\pm0.11$ (syst.) events based on the Near Detector measurement. A secondary analysis observes 11 events with a background of $1.07\pm0.14$ (syst.). The $3.3σ$ excess of events observed in the primary analysis disfavors $0.1π< δ_{CP} < 0.5π$ in the inverted mass hierarchy at the 90% C.L.

preprint2016arXiv

First measurement of muon-neutrino disappearance in NOvA

This paper reports the first measurement using the NOvA detectors of $ν_μ$ disappearance in a $ν_μ$ beam. The analysis uses a 14 kton-equivalent exposure of $2.74 \times 10^{20}$ protons-on-target from the Fermilab NuMI beam. Assuming the normal neutrino mass hierarchy, we measure $Δm^{2}_{32}=(2.52^{+0.20}_{-0.18})\times 10^{-3}$ eV$^{2}$ and $\sin^2θ_{23}$ in the range 0.38-0.65, both at the 68% confidence level, with two statistically-degenerate best fit points at $\sin^2θ_{23} = $ 0.43 and 0.60. Results for the inverted mass hierarchy are also presented.

preprint2013arXiv

Reply to the Comment on "A self-assembled three-dimensional cloak in the visible" in Scientific Reports 3, 2328

In a recent comment arxiv:1310.1503 Miller et al. noted that a cloak we previously presented (Scientific Reports 3, 2328) that exploits a scattering cancellation technique to render an optically small dielectric particle invisible suffers from increased extinction. According to Miller et al. this disqualifies the terminology of a cloak. We concur with the crux of the comment but wish to stress that we never claimed nor suggested a reduction in extinction. A scattering cancellation cloak cancels scattering. The issue, therefore, seems to be whether the structure should be called a cloak or not. We understand a cloaked object as an object that is not perceived by an external observer. We argue that optically small particles are much easier seen in a scattering configuration whereas it is difficult to perceive them in extinction; providing justification to the terminology as used.