The importance of knowing the primary mass and how little we really know
Download
1 / 34

The importance of knowing the primary mass – and how little we really know - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 143 Views
  • Uploaded on

The importance of knowing the primary mass – and how little we really know. Alan Watson University of Leeds [email protected] Pylos: 7 September 2004. Key Questions about UHECR. Energy Spectrum above 10 19 eV? Arrival Direction distribution? Mass Composition?

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' The importance of knowing the primary mass – and how little we really know' - ernst


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
The importance of knowing the primary mass and how little we really know

The importance of knowing the primary mass – andhow little we really know

Alan Watson

University of Leeds

[email protected]

Pylos: 7 September 2004


Key questions about uhecr
Key Questions about UHECR

  • Energy Spectrum above 1019 eV?

  • Arrival Direction distribution?

  • Mass Composition?

  • Aim of talk is to show where I think that we have got to in trying to answer the fundamental question of what is the mass at the highest energies.

  • Life may be less simple than some theorists seem to think!


Question of Mass Composition

“We remain with the dilemma: protons versus heavy nuclei. A clear cut decision cannot be reached yet. I believe that up to the highest energies the protons are the most abundant in the primary cosmic rays. However, I must confess that a leak proof test of the protonic nature of the primaries at the highest energies does not exist. This is a very important problem. Experimentally it is quite a difficult problem.”

“Fere libenter homines id, quod volunt, credunt!”

“Men wish to believe only what they prefer”

Thanks to Francesco Ronga

G Cocconi: Fifth International Cosmic Ray

Conference, Guanajuato, Mexico, 1955


Corrections necessary to determine energy from fluorescence

~ 5%

The energy estimates are HIGHER if Fe is assumed

Song et al Astroparticle Physics 2000


For S(600), the energy estimates are LOWER if iron is assumed

S0 = 50 vem

1.04

1.13

1.09

1.13

From Takeda et al Astroparticle Physics 2003


Mass composition i x max with energy
Mass Composition (i): Xmax with energy

Elongation Rate (Linsley 1977, Linsley and Watson 1981)

dXmax/ dlog E < 2.3X0 g cm-2/decade

from Heitler modelXmax = ln (Eo/c)/ ln 2

extended to baryonic primaries:

dXmax/ dlog E = 2.3X0 (1 - Bn - B)

where Bn = d ln(n)/ d ln E

and B = (-N/X0)(d ln N/d ln E)


Composition from depth of maximum i
Composition from depth of maximum (i)

Model dependent AND

< 1019.25 eV

Abbasi et al: astro-ph/0407622


  • Some personal comments on the recent HiRes Composition Paper

  • Abbasi et al (astro-ph/0407622)

  • Selection of events:

  • χ2 per dof < 20

  • 2 measures of Xmax within 500 g cm-2

  • Measurements within 400 g cm-2 for global fit to 2 eyes

  • But resolution of Xmax claimed as 30 g cm-2 from Monte Carlo

  • BUT surely the resolution will depend on the distance from the Eyes (apparently not considered)

  • Periods of calibrated and uncalibrated atmosphere (419 and 134 events) put together

  • - would have been interesting to have seen these groups apart


Hires composition from x max fluctuations ii
HiRes Composition from Xmax fluctuations (ii)

p

BUT diurnal and seasonal atmospheric changes

likely to be very important

Solid lines: data

Models are Sibyll and QGSjet

Fe



“Standard” Atmospheres

can bias composition inferences

M. Risse et al ICRC03



Mass composition iii muons
Mass Composition (iii): muons

Muon Content of Showers:-

N(>1 GeV) = AB(E/A)p (depends on mass/nucleon)

N(>1 GeV) = 2.8A(E/A)0.86 ~ A0.14

So, more muons in Fe showers

Muons are about 10% of total number of particles

Used successfully at lower energies (KASCADE)

VERY expensive - especially at high energies

- conclusions derived are rather model dependent


Results from the AGASA array

Claim: Consistent with proton dominant component

Kenji Shinosaki: 129 events > 1019 eV

1

0

Log(Muon [email protected][m–2])

−1

−2

19

19.5

20

20.5

Log(Energy [eV])


Model dependence of muon signals
Model dependence of muon signals

Sibyll 1.7: Sibyll 2.1: QGSjet98

1: 1.17:1:45

Important to recall that we do not know the correct model to use.

LHC CMS energy corresponds to ~ 1017 eV


From Ralph Engel’s

presentation in Leeds,

July 2004


(i)

QGSjet

AGASA data: a second look

(ii)

(i)

(ii)

Plots by Maria Marchesini


Mass composition iv using the lateral distribution
Mass Composition (iv): Using the lateral distribution

(r)~ r –(+ r/4000)

circa 1978:

Feynman Scaling

Primary Uranium?!



Distribution of lateral distribution
Distribution of lateral distribution

Haverah Park data: Ave et al. 2003


Estimate of mass composition
Estimate of Mass Composition

QGSjet models (’98, dotted line and ’01, solid line).

First 3 points:

trigger bias

The fraction of protons (Fp) as a function of energy for two QGSjet models (’98, dotted line and ’01, solid line). The three low energy points correspond to a range in which there is a well-understood trigger bias that favours steep showers [24].


Lateral distribution data from Volcano Ranch interpreted by Dova et al (2004)

Astropart Phys (in press)



Are results consistent between different methods applied by same experimental group? An extreme situation

HiRes/MIA data:

Abu-Zayyad et al: PRL 84 4276 2000


Ideas to explain the enigma

Ideas to explain the Enigma same experimental group? An extreme situation

Decay of super heavy relics from early Universe (or top down mechanisms)

Wimpzillas/Cryptons/Vortons

New properties of old particles?

Breakdown of Lorentz Invariance?

  • or is it ‘simple’?

  • Are the UHE cosmic rays iron nuclei?

  • Are magnetic field strengths really well known?


Potential of the auger observatory
Potential of the Auger Observatory same experimental group? An extreme situation

  • Directions





  • Energy

  • Mass



- photons

- neutrinos

 K-H Kampert’s talk

- protons or iron?

HARDER: will use

Xmax , LDF, FADC traces,

Radius of curvature…


Mass information from study of Inclined Showers same experimental group? An extreme situation


M. Ave: 80 same experimental group? An extreme situation°, proton at 1019 eV

Details in Ave, Vazquez and Zas, Astroparticle Physics


Ave et al. PRL 85 2244 2000 same experimental group? An extreme situation


Haverah Park: same experimental group? An extreme situation

Photon limit at 1019 eV

< 40%

(@95% CL)

AGASA: muon poor events

Gamma-ray fraction upper limits (@90%CL)

34% (>1019eV)(g/p<0.45)

56% (>1019.5eV)(g/p<1.27)

60° < θ < 80°

Ave, Hinton, Vazquez, aaw, and Zas

PRL 85 244 2000


An elegant mass determination method
An Elegant Mass Determination Method same experimental group? An extreme situation

  • Zatsepin Effect

Zatsepin 1951

Zatsepin and Gerasimova 1960

Solar Magnetic Field Important

Medina Tanco and Watson (1998)

“..events from this very beautiful idea are too infrequent to be of use in any real experiment…”


Typical scale is ~ 1000 km same experimental group? An extreme situation


Conclusions
Conclusions same experimental group? An extreme situation

Beware: the experimentalists are still some way from AGREED statements about the mass composition above 1017 eV

- after one studies the differences between different experiments - and even the different conclusions from within the same experiment.

From Auger, we will get neutrino and photon limits (signals?) more readily than baryonic masses - but we have many tools in our armoury and should succeed in getting the latter, when we fully understand the showers and our hybrid detector. (Recall: ground breaking was only 5 years ago).

Personal view: assume 100% protons above 1019 eV at your own risk!


ad