1 / 16

Anita Simulation on the Mainland

Anita Simulation on the Mainland. Amy Connolly April 9 th , 2005. Review of how our simulation works. Pick balloon position Pick interaction point in ice within horizon Trace ray to balloon Pick neutrino direction at random, throw away events that can’t pass (if too far off Cerenkov Cone)

eliza
Download Presentation

Anita Simulation on the Mainland

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Anita Simulation on the Mainland Amy Connolly April 9th, 2005

  2. Review of how our simulation works • Pick balloon position • Pick interaction point in ice within horizon • Trace ray to balloon • Pick neutrino direction at random, throw away events that can’t pass (if too far off Cerenkov Cone) • All events given a weight that accounts for •  ‘s attenuation in Earth • Volume of ice in horizon • Bias in selection of  direction • Model Antenna response for ray’s hit angle • Signal summed over frequency bins • Model trigger including bandwidth slices and treatment of polarizations

  3. Since our last collaboration meeting… • Documentation on the elog (#17) • Comments on that doc led to many improvements • Signal modeling, trigger sim., n(z) function, some bugs • Other new features since last meeting • Geoid earth shape • Secondary interactions • Capability for reflected rays (Fenfang) • Actual Anita-lite flight(shown Thursday,approx. -20% @ 10 19 ) • Polarization vector rotated properly (few %) • Use measured antenna gains instead of specs (-10%) • Various bug fixes resulting from a few more sets of eyes looking at the code (largest- fresnel coeff. error factor of 10) • Keeping log file (kept on CVS) listing each modification and the resulting % change at 1019.5 eV for SM 

  4. Rays reflected from Rock-Ice Interface Fenfang added the capability of accounting for rays that are emitted downward and are detected after being reflected from ice-rock interface. Largest impact at high cross sections. Could open up large region of the sky! Due to uncertainties in reflection from rock (Steve will discuss this), not a default setting. But the capability is there with the flip of a switch.

  5. Secondary Interactions • Use Ped’s distributions generated from MMC for multiplicity, energy for each flavor, interaction type • For a given neutrino: • Pick # of interactions of each type from Poisson distribution • For each interaction, grab energy (as fraction of neutrino energy) from Ped’s plots • Keep only the interaction (primary or secondary) which contributes the strongest signal • At 1019.5 , • Sensitivity to  increases by 50% • Sensitivity to  increases by nearly factor of 2

  6. Direct Comparisons Between Simulations Have Begun Ice altitude given 3.0 km 3 km Ice surface derived 6359.755 km 6360.9 km Payload height above ice given 37.0 km 37-3=34 km Shower depth given 500.0 m 500 m Index of refraction, ice given 1.79 1.79 Cherenkov angle derived 56.04 56.04 deg Nadir angle to event surface exit point chosen 80 80 deg Boresight ice intersection range derived 237.94 234 km Required angle of inc., ice-firn boundary derived 33.61 33.64 deg Refracted zenith angle derived 82.11 82.64 deg

  7. Comparisons Between Simulations (cont) Neutrino energy assumed 1.E19 1.E19 eV y assumed 1.00 1.00 Reference Energy given 1.E12 1.E12 eV reference frequency given 1.15E9 1.15E9 Hz Boundaries of frequency bands given same Peak field strength at 1m, band 1 derived 67.6 66.3 V/m Peak field strength at 1m, band 2 derived 122.8 122.5 V/m Peak field strength at 1m, band 3 derived 248.3 247.3 V/m Peak field strength at 1m, band 4 derived 444.6 442.6 V/m Shower rays slant range to surface derived 600.3 606.2 m Attenuation factor, band 1 derived 0.693 0.636 Attenuation factor, band 2 derived 0.667 (indep. of Attenuation factor, band 3 derived 0.619 freq.) Attenuation factor, band 4 derived 0.513

  8. Comparisons Between Simulations (cont) Refractive index of firn at surface given 1.325 1.325 Angle of incidence below firn surface derived 48.393 48.5 deg Firn transmission coefficient derived 1.30 1.30 deg Modified surface trans. coeff. derived 0.325 0.27 Modified surface trans. coeff. derived 0.270 0.22 Transmitted field strength, ref. to d=1m, ch1 derived 19.808 13.97 V/m Transmitted field strength, ref. to d=1m, ch2 derived 34.584 25.80 V/m Transmitted field strength, ref. to d=1m, ch3 derived 64.886 52.1 V/m Transmitted field strength, ref. to d=1m, ch4 derived 96.385 93.27 V/m

  9. [V]eff for Full ANITA • Discrepancy either factor of ~30 in sensitivity at low energies OR • ~1/2 order of magnitude in threshold • Agreement at high energies looks promising

  10. Nailing Down Source of Difference between MC’s a high priority • Since we have shown close agreement for a given event, discrepancy (if not due to bugs) must come from an input distribution or function, such as: • Ice map – compare effective ice depth, volume • y • Modeling Askaryan pulse • Crust density profile • Trigger simulation • Antenna response • Secondaries • Comparing plots with Stephen’s may provide clues

  11. Conclusions • Simulation is benefiting from more people running the code, stretching it different ways • More features being added • Bugs being flushed out • Given that we agree for a given event, I think discrepancy between two simulations most likely to be identified if we concentrate on input distributions/functions

  12. Backup Slides

  13. Secondary Interactions Thanks to Fenfang for getting these numbers with the latest code yesterday.

  14. The Askaryan Signal: Electric Field • Electric field emitted at interaction: • For salt (from personal communication w/ J. Alvarez Muniz in Fall 2003) • C=1.10£10-7 , 0=1300 MHz, » 1.5 • Compare to ice (J. Alvarez Muniz, astro-ph/0003315) • C=2.53£10-7, 0=1150 MHz, =1.44

  15. The Askaryan Signal: Cone Width • Width of Cerenkov cone (astro-ph/9706064, astro-ph/0003315, Phys.Lett.B434,396 (1998)): • Material dependence • Index of refraction • Shower length

  16. The Signal: Cone Width (cont) • Phys.Lett.B434, 396(1998): • Beyond parameterization (>7), scaling by 7.5% per decade. • Need theorists to come up with concise instructions for simulating the Askaryan signal, complete for all relevant media

More Related