skip to main content

Title: Direct measurement of the muonic content of extensive air showers between $$\mathbf { 2\times 10^{17}}$$ and $$\mathbf {2\times 10^{18}}~$$eV at the Pierre Auger Observatory
Abstract The hybrid design of the Pierre Auger Observatory allows for the measurement of the properties of extensive air showers initiated by ultra-high energy cosmic rays with unprecedented precision. By using an array of prototype underground muon detectors, we have performed the first direct measurement, by the Auger Collaboration, of the muon content of air showers between $$2\times 10^{17}$$ 2 × 10 17 and $$2\times 10^{18}$$ 2 × 10 18 eV. We have studied the energy evolution of the attenuation-corrected muon density, and compared it to predictions from air shower simulations. The observed densities are found to be larger than those predicted by models. We quantify this discrepancy by combining the measurements from the muon detector with those from the Auger fluorescence detector at $$10^{{17.5}}\, {\mathrm{eV}} $$ 10 17.5 eV and $$10^{{18}}\, {\mathrm{eV}} $$ 10 18 eV . We find that, for the models to explain the data, an increase in the muon density of $$38\%$$ 38 % $$\pm 4\% (12\%)$$ ± 4 % ( 12 % ) $$\pm {}^{21\%}_{18\%}$$ ± 18 % 21 % for EPOS-LHC , and of $$50\% (53\%)$$ 50 % ( 53 % ) $$\pm 4\% (13\%)$$ ± 4 % ( 13 % ) $$\pm {}^{23\%}_{20\%}$$ more » ± 20 % 23 % for QGSJetII-04 , is respectively needed. « less
Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; more » ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; « less
Award ID(s):
2013146 2013199
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10293509
Journal Name:
The European Physical Journal C
Volume:
80
Issue:
8
ISSN:
1434-6044
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Ultra-high-energy (UHE) photons are an important tool for studying the high-energy Universe. A plausible source of photons with exa-eV (EeV) energy is provided by UHE cosmic rays (UHECRs) undergoing the Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin process (Greisen 1966; Zatsepin & Kuzmin 1966) or pair production process (Blumenthal 1970) on a cosmic background radiation. In this context, the EeV photons can be a probe of both UHECR mass composition and the distribution of their sources (Gelmini, Kalashev & Semikoz 2008; Hooper, Taylor & Sarkar 2011). At the same time, the possible flux of photons produced by UHE protons in the vicinity of their sources by pion photoproduction or inelastic nuclear collisions would be noticeable only for relatively near sources, as the attenuation length of UHE photons is smaller than that of UHE protons; see, for example, Bhattacharjee & Sigl (2000) for a review. There also exists a class of so-called top-down models of UHECR generation that efficiently produce the UHE photons, for instance by the decay of heavy dark-matter particles (Berezinsky, Kachelriess & Vilenkin 1997; Kuzmin & Rubakov 1998) or by the radiation from cosmic strings (Berezinsky, Blasi & Vilenkin 1998). The search for the UHE photons was shown to be the most sensitive methodmore »of indirect detection of heavy dark matter (Kalashev & Kuznetsov 2016, 2017; Kuznetsov 2017; Kachelriess, Kalashev & Kuznetsov 2018; Alcantara, Anchordoqui & Soriano 2019). Another fundamental physics scenario that could be tested with UHE photons (Fairbairn, Rashba & Troitsky 2011) is the photon mixing with axion-like particles (Raffelt & Stodolsky 1988), which could be responsible for the correlation of UHECR events with BL Lac type objects observed by the High Resolution Fly’s Eye (HiRes) experiment (Gorbunov et al. 2004; Abbasi et al. 2006). In most of these scenarios, a clustering of photon arrival directions, rather than diffuse distribution, is expected, so point-source searches can be a suitable test for photon - axion-like particle mixing models. Finally, UHE photons could also be used as a probe for the models of Lorentz-invariance violation (Coleman & Glashow 1999; Galaverni & Sigl 2008; Maccione, Liberati & Sigl 2010; Rubtsov, Satunin & Sibiryakov 2012, 2014). The Telescope Array (TA; Tokuno et al. 2012; Abu-Zayyad et al. 2013c) is the largest cosmic ray experiment in the Northern Hemisphere. It is located at 39.3° N, 112.9° W in Utah, USA. The observatory includes a surface detector array (SD) and 38 fluorescence telescopes grouped into three stations. The SD consists of 507 stations that contain plastic scintillators, each with an area of 3 m2 (SD stations). The stations are placed in the square grid with 1.2 km spacing and cover an area of ∼700 km2. The TA SD is capable of detecting extensive air showers (EASs) in the atmosphere caused by cosmic particles of EeV and higher energies. The TA SD has been operating since 2008 May. A hadron-induced EAS significantly differs from an EAS induced by a photon because the depth of the shower maximum Xmax for a photon shower is larger, and a photon shower contains fewer muons and has a more curved front (see Risse & Homola 2007 for a review). The TA SD stations are sensitive to both muon and electromagnetic components of the shower and therefore can be triggered by both hadron-induced and photon-induced EAS events. In the present study, we use 9 yr of TA SD data for a blind search for point sources of UHE photons. We utilize the statistics of the SD data, which benefit from a high duty cycle. The full Monte Carlo (MC) simulation of proton-induced and photon-induced EAS events allows us to perform the photon search up to the highest accessible energies, E ≳ 1020 eV. As the main tool for the present photon search, we use a multivariate analysis based on a number of SD parameters that make it possible to distinguish between photon and hadron primaries. While searches for diffuse UHE photons were performed by several EAS experiments, including Haverah Park (Ave et al. 2000), AGASA (Shinozaki et al. 2002; Risse et al. 2005), Yakutsk (Rubtsov et al. 2006; Glushkov et al. 2007, 2010), Pierre Auger (Abraham et al. 2007, 2008a; Bleve 2016; Aab et al. 2017c) and TA (Abu-Zayyad et al. 2013b; Abbasi et al. 2019a), the search for point sources of UHE photons has been done only by the Pierre Auger Observatory (Aab et al. 2014, 2017a). The latter searches were based on hybrid data and were limited to the 1017.3 < E < 1018.5 eV energy range. In the present paper, we use the TA SD data alone. We perform the searches in five energy ranges: E > 1018, E > 1018.5, E > 1019, E > 1019.5 and E > 1020 eV. We find no significant evidence of photon point sources in all energy ranges and we set the point-source flux upper limits from each direction in the TA field of view (FOV). The search for unspecified neutral particles was also previously performed by the TA (Abbasi et al. 2015). The limit on the point-source flux of neutral particles obtained in that work is close to the present photon point-source flux limits.« less
  2. We report on a measurement of the cosmic-ray composition by the Telescope Array Low-energy Extension (TALE) air fluorescence detector (FD). By making use of the Cherenkov light signal in addition to air fluorescence light from cosmic-ray (CR)-induced extensive air showers, the TALE FD can measure the properties of the cosmic rays with energies as low as ~2 PeV and exceeding 1 EeV. In this paper, we present results on the measurement of ${X}_{\max }$ distributions of showers observed over this energy range. Data collected over a period of ~4 yr were analyzed for this study. The resulting ${X}_{\max }$ distributions are compared to the Monte Carlo (MC) simulated data distributions for primary cosmic rays with varying composition and a four-component fit is performed. The comparison and fit are performed for energy bins, of width 0.1 or 0.2 in ${\mathrm{log}}_{10}(E/\mathrm{eV})$, spanning the full range of the measured energies. We also examine the mean ${X}_{\max }$ value as a function of energy for cosmic rays with energies greater than 1015.8 eV. Below 1017.3 eV, the slope of the mean ${X}_{\max }$ as a function of energy (the elongation rate) for the data is significantly smaller than that of all elements in themore »models, indicating that the composition is becoming heavier with energy in this energy range. This is consistent with a rigidity-dependent cutoff of events from Galactic sources. Finally, an increase in the ${X}_{\max }$ elongation rate is observed at energies just above 1017 eV, indicating another change in the cosmic-ray composition.« less
  3. A bstract The W boson mass is measured using proton-proton collision data at $$ \sqrt{s} $$ s = 13 TeV corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 1.7 fb − 1 recorded during 2016 by the LHCb experiment. With a simultaneous fit of the muon q/p T distribution of a sample of W → μν decays and the ϕ * distribution of a sample of Z → μμ decays the W boson mass is determined to be $$ {m}_w=80354\pm {23}_{\mathrm{stat}}\pm {10}_{\mathrm{exp}}\pm {17}_{\mathrm{theory}}\pm {9}_{\mathrm{PDF}}\mathrm{MeV}, $$ m w = 80354 ± 23 stat ± 10 exp ± 17 theory ± 9 PDF MeV , where uncertainties correspond to contributions from statistical, experimental systematic, theoretical and parton distribution function sources. This is an average of results based on three recent global parton distribution function sets. The measurement agrees well with the prediction of the global electroweak fit and with previous measurements.
  4. Table of Contents: Foreword by the CI 2016 Workshop Chairs …………………………………vi Foreword by the CI 2016 Steering Committee ..…………………………..…..viii List of Organizing Committee ………………………….……....x List of Registered Participants .………………………….……..xi Acknowledgement of Sponsors ……………………………..…xiv Hackathon and Workshop Agenda .………………………………..xv Hackathon Summary .………………………….…..xviii Invited talks - abstracts and links to presentations ………………………………..xxi Proceedings: 34 short research papers ……………………………….. 1-135 Papers 1. BAYESIAN MODELS FOR CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION FROM POLLEN RECORDS ..................................... 1 Lasse Holmström, Liisa Ilvonen, Heikki Seppä, Siim Veski 2. ON INFORMATION CRITERIA FOR DYNAMIC SPATIO-TEMPORAL CLUSTERING ..................................... 5 Ethan D. Schaeffer, Jeremy M. Testa, Yulia R. Gel, Vyacheslav Lyubchich 3. DETECTING MULTIVARIATE BIOSPHERE EXTREMES ..................................... 9 Yanira Guanche García, Erik Rodner, Milan Flach, Sebastian Sippel, Miguel Mahecha, Joachim Denzler 4. SPATIO-TEMPORAL GENERATIVE MODELS FOR RAINFALL OVER INDIA ..................................... 13 Adway Mitra 5. A NONPARAMETRIC COPULA BASED BIAS CORRECTION METHOD FOR STATISTICAL DOWNSCALING ..................................... 17 Yi Li, Adam Ding, Jennifer Dy 6. DETECTING AND PREDICTING BEAUTIFUL SUNSETS USING SOCIAL MEDIA DATA ..................................... 21 Emma Pierson 7. OCEANTEA: EXPLORING OCEAN-DERIVED CLIMATE DATA USING MICROSERVICES ..................................... 25 Arne N. Johanson, Sascha Flögel, Wolf-Christian Dullo, Wilhelm Hasselbring 8. IMPROVED ANALYSIS OF EARTH SYSTEM MODELS AND OBSERVATIONS USING SIMPLE CLIMATE MODELS ..................................... 29 Balu Nadiga, Nathanmore »Urban 9. SYNERGY AND ANALOGY BETWEEN 15 YEARS OF MICROWAVE SST AND ALONG-TRACK SSH ..................................... 33 Pierre Tandeo, Aitor Atencia, Cristina Gonzalez-Haro 10. PREDICTING EXECUTION TIME OF CLIMATE-DRIVEN ECOLOGICAL FORECASTING MODELS ..................................... 37 Scott Farley and John W. Williams 11. SPATIOTEMPORAL ANALYSIS OF SEASONAL PRECIPITATION OVER US USING CO-CLUSTERING ..................................... 41 Mohammad Gorji–Sefidmazgi, Clayton T. Morrison 12. PREDICTION OF EXTREME RAINFALL USING HYBRID CONVOLUTIONAL-LONG SHORT TERM MEMORY NETWORKS ..................................... 45 Sulagna Gope, Sudeshna Sarkar, Pabitra Mitra 13. SPATIOTEMPORAL PATTERN EXTRACTION WITH DATA-DRIVEN KOOPMAN OPERATORS FOR CONVECTIVELY COUPLED EQUATORIAL WAVES ..................................... 49 Joanna Slawinska, Dimitrios Giannakis 14. COVARIANCE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS OF CLIMATE MODEL OUTPUT ..................................... 53 Chintan Dalal, Doug Nychka, Claudia Tebaldi 15. SIMPLE AND EFFICIENT TENSOR REGRESSION FOR SPATIOTEMPORAL FORECASTING ..................................... 57 Rose Yu, Yan Liu 16. TRACKING OF TROPICAL INTRASEASONAL CONVECTIVE ANOMALIES ..................................... 61 Bohar Singh, James L. Kinter 17. ANALYSIS OF AMAZON DROUGHTS USING SUPERVISED KERNEL PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS ..................................... 65 Carlos H. R. Lima, Amir AghaKouchak 18. A BAYESIAN PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS OF DAILY PRECIPITATION DATA ..................................... 69 Sai K. Popuri, Nagaraj K. Neerchal, Amita Mehta 19. INCORPORATING PRIOR KNOWLEDGE IN SPATIO-TEMPORAL NEURAL NETWORK FOR CLIMATIC DATA ..................................... 73 Arthur Pajot, Ali Ziat, Ludovic Denoyer, Patrick Gallinari 20. DIMENSIONALITY-REDUCTION OF CLIMATE DATA USING DEEP AUTOENCODERS ..................................... 77 Juan A. Saenz, Nicholas Lubbers, Nathan M. Urban 21. MAPPING PLANTATION IN INDONESIA ..................................... 81 Xiaowei Jia, Ankush Khandelwal, James Gerber, Kimberly Carlson, Paul West, Vipin Kumar 22. FROM CLIMATE DATA TO A WEIGHTED NETWORK BETWEEN FUNCTIONAL DOMAINS ..................................... 85 Ilias Fountalis, Annalisa Bracco, Bistra Dilkina, Constantine Dovrolis 23. EMPLOYING SOFTWARE ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES TO ENHANCE MANAGEMENT OF CLIMATOLOGICAL DATASETS FOR CORAL REEF ANALYSIS ..................................... 89 Mark Jenne, M.M. Dalkilic, Claudia Johnson 24. Profiler Guided Manual Optimization for Accelerating Cholesky Decomposition on R Environment ..................................... 93 V.B. Ramakrishnaiah, R.P. Kumar, J. Paige, D. Hammerling, D. Nychka 25. GLOBAL MONITORING OF SURFACE WATER EXTENT DYNAMICS USING SATELLITE DATA ..................................... 97 Anuj Karpatne, Ankush Khandelwal and Vipin Kumar 26. TOWARD QUANTIFYING TROPICAL CYCLONE RISK USING DIAGNOSTIC INDICES .................................... 101 Erica M. Staehling and Ryan E. Truchelut 27. OPTIMAL TROPICAL CYCLONE INTENSITY ESTIMATES WITH UNCERTAINTY FROM BEST TRACK DATA .................................... 105 Suz Tolwinski-Ward 28. EXTREME WEATHER PATTERN DETECTION USING DEEP CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORK .................................... 109 Yunjie Liu, Evan Racah, Prabhat, Amir Khosrowshahi, David Lavers, Kenneth Kunkel, Michael Wehner, William Collins 29. INFORMATION TRANSFER ACROSS TEMPORAL SCALES IN ATMOSPHERIC DYNAMICS .................................... 113 Nikola Jajcay and Milan Paluš 30. Identifying precipitation regimes in China using model-based clustering of spatial functional data .................................... 117 Haozhe Zhang, Zhengyuan Zhu, Shuiqing Yin 31. RELATIONAL RECURRENT NEURAL NETWORKS FOR SPATIOTEMPORAL INTERPOLATION FROM MULTI-RESOLUTION CLIMATE DATA .................................... 121 Guangyu Li, Yan Liu 32. OBJECTIVE SELECTION OF ENSEMBLE BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR CLIMATE DOWNSCALING .................................... 124 Andrew Rhines, Naomi Goldenson 33. LONG-LEAD PREDICTION OF EXTREME PRECIPITATION CLUSTER VIA A SPATIO-TEMPORAL CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORK .................................... 128 Yong Zhuang, Wei Ding 34. MULTIPLE INSTANCE LEARNING FOR BURNED AREA MAPPING USING MULTI –TEMPORAL REFLECTANCE DATA .................................... 132 Guruprasad Nayak, Varun Mithal, Vipin Kumar« less
  5. Abstract The invariant differential cross section of inclusive $$\omega (782)$$ ω ( 782 ) meson production at midrapidity ( $$|y|<0.5$$ | y | < 0.5 ) in pp collisions at $$\sqrt{s}=7\,\hbox {TeV}$$ s = 7 TeV was measured with the ALICE detector at the LHC over a transverse momentum range of $$2< p_{\mathrm {T}}< 17\,\hbox {GeV}/c$$ 2 < p T < 17 GeV / c . The $$\omega $$ ω meson was reconstructed via its $$\omega \rightarrow \pi ^+\pi ^-\pi ^0$$ ω → π + π - π 0 decay channel. The measured $$\omega $$ ω production cross section is compared to various calculations: PYTHIA 8.2  Monash 2013 describes the data, while PYTHIA 8.2 Tune 4C overestimates the data by about 50%. A recent NLO calculation, which includes a model describing the fragmentation of the whole vector-meson nonet, describes the data within uncertainties below $$6\,\hbox {GeV}/c$$ 6 GeV / c , while it overestimates the data by up to 50% for higher $$p_{\mathrm {T}}$$ p T . The $$\omega /\pi ^0$$ ω / π 0 ratio is in agreement with previous measurements at lower collision energies and the PYTHIA calculations. In addition, the measurement is compatible with transverse mass scaling within the measured $$p_{\mathrm {T}}$$more »p T  range and the ratio is constant with $$C^{\omega /\pi ^{0}}= 0.67 \pm 0.03 \text {~(stat)~} \pm 0.04 \text {~(sys)~}$$ C ω / π 0 = 0.67 ± 0.03 (stat) ± 0.04 (sys) above a transverse momentum of $$2.5\,\hbox {GeV}/c$$ 2.5 GeV / c .« less