Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Ray Observations Karl-Heinz Kampert, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
ultra high energy cosmic ray observations
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Ray Observations Karl-Heinz Kampert, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Feb 19, 2023 190 likes •555 views

Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Ray Observations Karl-Heinz Kampert, University of Wuppertal e-mail: kampert@uni-wuppertal.de Present Status of Detectors The Issues Energy Spectrum CR Composition (p,Fe, , ) Arrival Directions

slide-1
SLIDE 1 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Ray Observations

Karl-Heinz Kampert, University of Wuppertal

e-mail: kampert@uni-wuppertal.de

  • Present Status of Detectors
  • The Issues
  • The Future
  • Concluding Remarks

– Energy Spectrum – CR Composition (p,Fe,γ,ν) – Arrival Directions

slide-2
SLIDE 2 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

UHECR Experiments

2

construction

AGASA HiRes-I & II Auger

– Starting the Golden Hybrid Era –

T elescope Array

planned

JEM-EUSO

analysis only

  • perating
  • Understand the origin of CRs
  • Find the most power cosmic

accelerators

  • Learn about CR acceleration
  • EHE particle physics
slide-3
SLIDE 3 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

log10(E) (eV) Exposure (km2 sr yr)

HiRes-I Monocular Auger SD 2007 AGASA Yakutsk HiRes-II Monocular Haverah Park 1991 Flys Eye Stereo Akeno HiRes Prototype/MIA Haverah Park 2003

10
  • 2
10
  • 1
1 10 10 2 10 3 10 4 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 21

Auger Hybrid 2007

3

Exposures 2007

Auger-SD AGASA HiRes I mono (3°-17°; 9 yrs)

Note: Flat for Ground Arrays growing for Fluorescence Telescopes

HiRes II mono (3°-31°, 6.5 yrs) Auger-FD (1°-31°) 0.8 full Auger year 5165 km2 sr yr ± 3%

slide-4
SLIDE 4

HiRes-II HiRes-I

The HiRes Experiment

  • HiRes-I

– 21 mirrors – 1 ring, full azimuth, 3°-17° elevation – Sample & Hold DAQ System – Took data: June 1997-April 2006

  • HiRes-II

– 42 mirrors – 2 rings, full azimuth, 3°-31° elevation – FADC DAQ System – Took data: Dec. 1999-April 2006

  • Both:

– 5.1 m2 mirrors, 16x16 PMTs

4

slide from D. Bergmann

slide-5
SLIDE 5 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

HiRes Monocular Spectra

5

Expect 39.9 , observe 13 P=7x10-7 (4.8σ)

1019.75 eV

2.81 ± 0.03 3.26 ± 0.02 5.1±0.7

1018.65 eV

±3.3 ; 6.5x10-6 (4.3σ)

GZK effect

slide-6
SLIDE 6 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

HiRes Aperture & Error Table

6

HiRes I vs HiRes II

HiRes Energy Scale Uncertainties

– Missing Energy 5% – Energy Loss Rate 10% – Fluorescence Yield 6% – Atmospheric Conditions 4% – Photometric Calibration 10%

  • Total Energy Scale Uncertainty

17% factor 70 per decade in E !

Pure Iron Aperture Pure Proton Aperture

log10(E) aperture (km2 sr)

10
  • 1
1 10 102 103 104 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5

protons factor 10 between p & Fe Depends on assumptions about models, mass and spectrum slope Iron

  • exp. Resol.
slide-7
SLIDE 7 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

Pierre Auger Observatory

7

August 1, 2007

1482 deployed 1436 filled 1364 taking data ~ 85% All 4 fluorescence buildings complete, each with 6 telescopes Final: 1600 tanks

H y b r i d D e t e c t

  • r
slide-8
SLIDE 8 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan) 8

The Auger Hybrid Observatory

24 fluorescence telescopes... ...1600 Water Cherenkov tanks

slide-9
SLIDE 9 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan) 9

20 May 2007 E ~ 1019 eV

Quadruple Event

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Get T0 from SD tank! Geometry uncertainties shrink!

TAUP 2007, Sendai (Japan) Karl-Heinz Kampert

Arrival time at ground provided by the SD, removes degeneracy in the FD geometry fit

Hybrid - Precise Shower Geometry

first step towards precise energy, depth of maximum

10

Shower Detector Plane G r

  • u

n d P l a n e

FD t0 Rp i

s h

  • w

e r f r

  • n

t

S

^

0 - i t

i

i

prop

Si

.

i

shower
slide-11
SLIDE 11 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

The Power of Hybrid

Hybrid SD-Only FD-only Angular Resolution ~ 0.2° ~ 1 - 2° ~ 3 - 5° Aperture Flat Flat growing model ind. model ind. model depend. Energy model ind. model dep. model ind.

11

The combination is more than the sum of the individuals !

slide-12
SLIDE 12 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

FD-mono-Uncertainties: HiRes vs Auger

12

Auger HiRes Fluorescence Yield 14% 6% Energy loss rate 10% p, T, & humidity effects

  • n yield

7% 4% Photometric Calibration 9,5% 10% Invisible Energy 4% 5% Reconstruction 10% ? Total 21% 17%

11,6 { if reconstruction uncertainty is ignored: 19 % Note: this causes an integral flux uncertainty (γ=3.0) of: 46 % 37 %

(on top of effect of acceptance uncertainty)

slide-13
SLIDE 13 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

FD energy calibration

Fluorescence yield is at present the dominant error contribution

also: Auger uses Nagano et al, HiRes uses Kakimoto et al.

13

New (better) data will become available from: Goal: reach 1 % level Data on abs. yields expected to be released at workshop in Spain next week AIRFLY using test beam at DAΦNE and elsewhere measuring p, T, and humidity dependence of abs. yield FLASH using test beam at SLAC MACFLY using CERN-SPS test beam

slide-14
SLIDE 14 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

QGSJet & SIBYLL agree within a few percent

FD Systematics by Interaction Models

Drescher et al.; Astropart. Phys. 21 (2004) 87

FD: energy obtained from integral

slide-15
SLIDE 15 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

Effect of High-Energy Interaction Model: Sibyll / QGSJet (Gheisha) ~ 30 % effect to E Effect of Low-Energy Interaction Model: GHEISHA & FLUKA / UrQMD ~ 10-20 % effect to E

GHEISHA produces too many pions ~30 less μ‘s in QGSJet

SD Systematics by Interaction Models

Drescher et al.; Astropart. Phys. 21 (2004) 87

slide-16
SLIDE 16 TAUP 2007, Sendai (Japan) Karl-Heinz Kampert 16

Auger: SD Calibration by FD

Fluorescence Det. Energy Surface Detector 387 hybrid events 4·1019 eV Nagano et al. FY used

σ(EFD-ESD)= 19%

... improves as energy increases !

slide-17
SLIDE 17 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan) 17

Energy Spectrum

slide-18
SLIDE 18

lg(E/eV) 18.4 18.6 18.8 19 19.2 19.4 19.6 19.8 20 20.2 20.4

  • 37
  • 36
  • 35
  • 34
  • 33
  • 32
  • 31

E[eV]

1019 21019 31019 1020 21020

4128 2450 1631 1185 761 560 367 284 178 125 79 54 25 14 5 5 1 1

31018

lg(J/(m -2 sr -1 s -1 eV-1))

TAUP 2007, Sendai (Japan) Karl-Heinz Kampert

Exp Obs >1019.6 132 ± 9 51 > 1020 30 ± 2.5 2 Slope = -2.62 ± 0.03

Auger E-Spectrum (Θ< 60°)

significance = 6σ

  • nly statistical errors are shown

system: 6 % stat. + 22% syst.

Exposures Auger: 5165 km2 yr sr AGASA: 1619 km2 yr sr HiRes: ~ 5000 km2 yr sr

Pierre Auger Collab. @ ICRC 2007

slide-19
SLIDE 19 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

Energy Spectra: Comparison

19

23 23.4 23.8 24.2 24.6 25 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 log(E/eV) log(J(E)*E3 (/m2 s sr eV-2)

HR-I (mono) HR-II (mono) AGASA Auger (2007)

slide-20
SLIDE 20 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

23 23.4 23.8 24.2 24.6 25 18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5 log(E/eV) log(J(E)*E3 (/m2 s sr eV-2)

HR-I (mono) HR-II (mono) AGASA Auger (2007), E*1.15

Energy Spectra: Comparison

20

Energy of Auger scaled up by 15%

Remember: Auger and HiRes quote uncertainties in E of ~ 20%

Energy of AGASA scaled down by 15%

slide-21
SLIDE 21 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

log(E [eV]) log(JxE3 [m 2s 1 eV 2])

18 18.5 19 19.5 20 23 23.5 24 24.5

Strong source evolution ~ (1+z)5 ฀฀฀฀source ~ 2.3

Uniform source

~ source ~ 2.55

Fitting

Auger Spectrum & Source Distr.

21

Auger 2007

  • 3.30 ± 0.06
  • 2.62 ± 0.03
  • 4.1 ± 0.4

18.65 19.55

Test of Berezinsky’s e+e- dip model GZK effect is modified by

  • E-distribution of source
  • source local overdensity/deficit
  • different values of Emax

dip-model (Berezinsky et al.) can describe E-spectra... ... as ankle model can do ... and mixed model

slide-22
SLIDE 22 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan) 22

Composition

slide-23
SLIDE 23 TAUP 2007, Sendai (Japan) Karl-Heinz Kampert

Supernovae ?

Ankle: Measurement of composition is crucial !

23

Allard, Olinto, Parizot; astro-ph/00703633

dip model

  • nset EG CRs

p-dom. heavy

p + γCMB → p + e+e−

slide-24
SLIDE 24 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

Mass from Xmax observations

24

Auger 2007

E [eV]

18

10

19

10

]

2

> [g/cm

max

<X

650 700 750 800 850

QGSJETII-03 QGSJET01 SIBYLL2.1 EPOS1.6 QGSJETII-03 QGSJET01 SIBYLL2.1 EPOS1.6

proton iron

13 30 74 114 185 272 241 307 325 402 454 489 511 410 278

71±5 g/cm

2

40±4 g/cm2

Straight line fit of elongation rate: P < 3% Systematic error of Xmax: <15 g/cm2 @ <1018 eV; < 12 g/cm2 @ > 1018 eV

  • syst. err.

Pierre Auger Collab. @ ICRC 2007

slide-25
SLIDE 25 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

E [eV]

18

10

19

10

]

2

> [g/cm

max

<X

650 700 750 800 850

QGSJETII-03 QGSJET01 SIBYLL2.1 EPOS1.6 QGSJETII-03 QGSJET01 SIBYLL2.1 EPOS1.6

proton iron

25

Auger 2007 HiRes 2007

a n k l e

  • m
  • d

e l d i p

  • m
  • d

.

Elongation rate will be the most sensitive tool to setle quest about G-EG-Transition

Mass from Xmax observations

slide-26
SLIDE 26 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

UHE Photons ? Expected by Top-Down models

26

e.g.: Super Heavy Dark Matter fit to AGASA

Gelmini, et al, astro-ph/0506128

AGASA Data Bottom up Protons γ f r

  • m

S H D M

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1e+19 1e+20 1e+21 j(E) E2 [eV cm-2 s-1 sr-1] E [eV]

p from SHDM

slide-27
SLIDE 27 TAUP 2007, Sendai (Japan) Karl-Heinz Kampert

SD-Data: rise-time & shower-front curvature ⇔ µ # ⇔ primary mass

γ-simulation (median)

  • exp. data Auger

SHDM & TD models largely ruled out

UHE-Photon Limits from Ground Array

95% CL on photon fraction

[eV] E

19

10

20

10 [%] Photon Fraction for E>E 1 10 100

SHDM SHDM’ TD Z Burst ) Limit (E>E

Akeno A A2 Haverah Park HP AY Yakutsk Y Auger-FD Auger-SD

limits at 95% CL

Pierre Auger Collab. @ ICRC 2007

slide-28
SLIDE 28 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan) 28

GZK-effect: Yes UHE Photons: No

Top is Down Bottom is Up

slide-29
SLIDE 29 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

Test of Lorentz Invariance Violation

29

Galaverni & Sigl arXiv:0708.1737

cascading of UHE photons suppressed

LIV ➙ may modify photon dispersion relation

ω2 = k2 + m2 + ξnk2(k/MP l)n

➙ affect the threshold for e+e– pair production ➙ p + γCMB → ∆ → n + π0 ↳ γγ → e+e−

expect significant photon fraction above ~ 1019 eV

γ-fraction if LIV no LIV

ξ1 ≤ 2.4 × 10−15 7 orders of magnitudes beter than previous limits! ξ2 ≥ −2.4 × 10−7

slide-30
SLIDE 30 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

UHE Photon Physics: Future

30

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

threshold energy E0 (eV) photon fraction (%) for EE0

1019 1020

A1 A1 HP HP A2 AY Yp Yp Auger hybrid

SHDM ZB TD SHDM’

10 30 100

model spectra without cutoff Auger south sensitivity (2 yrs): (I) with (II) without cutoff (I) (II)

threshold energy E0 (eV) photon fraction (%) for EE0

1019 1020 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100

Auger hybrid 100 1000 10000 30000

GZK photons

Auger South sensitivity

array: 2 yrs a r r a y : 2 y r s

h y b r i d : 2 y r s

unc.

Risse & Homola,

  • Mod. Phys. Lett. A22 (2007) 749

beter limits on Top-Down Models GZK-Photons in reach

slide-31
SLIDE 31 TAUP 2007, Sendai (Japan) Karl-Heinz Kampert

ντ ν

~30 atm

h h

1 atm

em µ

฀ ฀฀ ฀

฀฀ ฀฀฀

‘old’ showers (h)

  • Narrow time distribution
  • Weak curvature
  • Flat lateral distribution

฀฀

  • ‘young’ showers (ν)
  • Wide time distribution
  • Strong curvature
  • Steep lateral distribution

Only a neutrino can induce a young horizontal shower !

Neutrinos by Horizontal EAS

slide-32
SLIDE 32 TAUP 2007, Sendai (Japan) Karl-Heinz Kampert

Search for Earth-skimming ντ

32

HiRes: events ± 10° from horizon, background events in MC, ~100 laser events Auger: Surface Det. ; using signal traces & direction, background-free

Neutrino Energy [eV]

14

10

16

10

18

10

20

10

22

10

24

10

26

10

]

  • 1

sr

  • 1

s

  • 2

f(E) [GeV cm

2

E

  • 8

10

  • 7

10

  • 6

10

  • 5

10

  • 4

10

  • 3

10

)

  • ,
  • AMANDA (e,

)

  • AMANDA (

)

  • ,
  • Baikal (e,

)

  • ,
  • RICE05 (e,

)

  • ,
  • GLUE04 (e,

)

  • ,
  • ANITA-lite (e,

)

  • ,
  • FORTE04 (e,

GZK, each flavor

)

  • Auger (

)

  • HiRes (

TD

GZK-ν‘s difficult... TD-ν‘s in reach...

talk by

  • O. Deligny

(Wednesday) Pierre Auger Collab. @ ICRC 2007

slide-33
SLIDE 33 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan) 33

Arrival Directions

slide-34
SLIDE 34

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 1019 1020

Energy (eV) Angular Resolution (68 %) H i R e s ( m

  • n
  • ,

i n

  • S

D P ) AGASA Auger-SD Auger-Hybrid

TAUP 2007, Sendai (Japan) Karl-Heinz Kampert

Angular Resolution

34

(40°)

factor 30 !

Magnetic Deflection intergalactic O(2-3)° 40 EeV 100 Mpc galactic O(1-2)° 40 EeV off disc

FD-mono: very bad for point-source searches

slide-35
SLIDE 35 Karl-Heinz Kampert TAUP, Sept. 2007, Sendai (Japan)

Anisotropy Searches

1 Galactic Center

35

(Large scale anisotropy)

(Autocorrelation) E 1 < E 2 < E 3

3 Correlation BL Lacs 2 Multipole Search 4 Cluster Search

(more general: point sources)