advertisement

Arisaka Lamar

67 %
33 %
advertisement
Information about Arisaka Lamar
Entertainment

Published on November 15, 2007

Author: lusi

Source: authorstream.com

advertisement

Revisiting Science Case for Auger-North:  Katsushi Arisaka Revisiting Science Case for Auger-North University of California, Los Angeles Department of Physics and Astronomy arisaka@physics.ucla.edu Outline:  Outline What have we learned from Auger-South? Energy Spectrum Absolute Energy Scale and Flux GZK Cutoff Structure Composition Hadronic Mass Composition Photon Flux Limit Anisotropy Small Scale Auto-Correlation Correlation with Astronomical Objects BL Lac, TeV Blazar, Neutron Star, GRB… What to do on Auger-North? Science Case Detector Optimization UCLA Auger Group over Summer 2005:  UCLA Auger Group over Summer 2005 Physicists Katsushi Arisaka Professor William Slater Professor Arun Tripathi Research Scientist Energy Spectrum Graciela Gelmini Professor (Theory) Gamma Limit Alex Kusenko Professor (Theory) Oleg Kalashev Research Scientist (Theory) Energy Spectrum Grad Students Tohru Ohnuki PhD (on July 27) Clustering David Barnhill PhD (on October 13) Photon Limit Joong Lee 5th year grad. Energy Spectrum Pedram Boghrat 5th year grad. Clustering, BL Lac Matt Healy 4th year grad. Gamma/Composition Antoine Calvez 1st year grad. Clustering, BL Lac Undergrad Students Eitan Anzenber Undergrad. (UCSC) GRB w/ Swift data Adrian Cheng Undergrad. Thread-like clustering Justin Young Undergrad. Clustering Ryan Reece Undergrad. (REU) Fluorescence Yield Adam Lopez Undergrad. (CARE) QE Alfonso Vergara Undergrad. QE Daniel Maronde Undergrad. Collection Efficiency Energy Spectrum:  Energy Spectrum Energy Determination GZK Cutoff Structure Arun Tripathi et al, GAP2005-061 Strategy of UCLA Analysis:  Strategy of UCLA Analysis Coverage of the Entire Phase Space by MC Typically ~20 events per each condition De-convolution of Physical Processes S(1000) vs. Sec():  S(1000) vs. Sec() 60o 45o 30o 38o 47.0VEM 35.4VEM SD based CIC Iron Proton Model Dependence of S(1000) of Proton:  Model Dependence of S(1000) of Proton 60o 45o 30o 38o Model Dependence of S(1000) of Proton:  Model Dependence of S(1000) of Proton 45o 30o 38o Sys. Error < 10% 60o Sibyll (Aires) QGSII+Geisha (Corsika) QGS+Fluka (Corsika) QGS (Aires) QGS+Geisha (Corsika) Summary of S(1000) at 38o and 10 EeV:  Summary of S(1000) at 38o and 10 EeV FD (Event by Event) FD (Mixed Shower) FD Average Proton, QGSJET, OG Proton, QGSJET,UCLA Proton, SIBYLL, OG Proton, SIBYLL, UCLA Iron, QGSJET, OG Iron, QGSJET,UCLA Iron, SIBYLL, OG Iron, SIBYLL, UCLA SD Average 47.0 35.4 Systematic Uncertainty (at 100 EeV):  Systematic Uncertainty (at 100 EeV) SD+CIC+MC FD+CIC Summary of Absolute Energy:  Summary of Absolute Energy FD energy and SD energy differ by ~30%. No simple to change the SD energy to match the FD. SD energy could be ~ 10% too high, if iron dominant. FD based method is currently limited by Poor statistics: Systematic errors at 100 EeV is > 40%. Non trivial calibrations. Absolute photon yield Atmospheric correction Detector calibration. FD energy still seems ~20% too low. Data Set for Energy Spectrum :  Data Set for Energy Spectrum Data Period: Jan 2004 – Sep 2005 UCLA Aperture Estimate: 2297 km2 yr sr AGASA: 1619 km2 yr sr HiRes: ~5000 km2 yr sr Obtained from a simple but robust method developed at UCLA. Agrees with a much more detailed calculation. Energy Spectrum  E:  Energy Spectrum  E FD+CIC SD+CIC+MC 90% CL Energy Spectrum  E3:  Energy Spectrum  E3 FD+CIC Energy Spectrum  E3:  Energy Spectrum  E3 SD+CIC+MC Energy Spectrum  E3:  Energy Spectrum  E3 SD+CIC+MC Energy Spectrum  E3:  Energy Spectrum  E3 FD+CIC Slide18:  Theoretical Prediction ( dependence) FD+CIC Slide19:  Theoretical Prediction (Emax dependence) FD+CIC Slide20:  Theoretical Prediction (m dependence) FD+CIC Flux ~(1+z)3+m Slide21:  Theoretical Prediction (zmin dependence) FD+CIC Slide22:  Theoretical Prediction ( dependence) SD+CIC+MC Slide23:  Theoretical Prediction (Emax dependence) SD+CIC+MC Slide24:  Theoretical Prediction (m dependence) SD+CIC+MC Flux ~(1+z)3+m Slide25:  Zenith Dependence of Energy Spectrum SD+CIC+MC 45 – 60o 0 – 30o 30 – 45o Slide26:  North-South Effect SD+CIC+MC South North Summary of Energy Spectrum:  Summary of Energy Spectrum Energy spectrum, based on SD+MC+CIC, is consistent with the theoretical prediction of the GZK cutoff. Injection spectrum of 1/E2.6. Evolution factor not required. A hint of extra post-GZK events? However, Energy spectrum, based on FD+CIC, is not fully consistent with the GZK cutoff. Cutoff energy seems too low. Too flat above cutoff energy. We could use the predicted GZK shape for the absolute energy calibration. It supports SD+MC+CIC, and disfavors FD+CIC method. Composition:  Composition Hadronic Mass Composition Gamma Flux Limit David Barnhill, GAP2005-082 (PhD Thesis) S(1000) vs. Sec():  S(1000) vs. Sec() 60o 45o 30o 38o SD based CIC Iron Proton Photon S(1000) MC/CIC vs. sec() at 10 EeV:  S(1000) MC/CIC vs. sec() at 10 EeV 60o 45o 30o 38o Minimum Sys. Error Sensitive to Xmax Sensitive to Muon Richness Iron (QGS) Iron (Sibyll) Proton (Sibyll) Proton (QGS) S(600) MC/CIC vs. sec() at 10 EeV:  S(600) MC/CIC vs. sec() at 10 EeV 60o 45o 30o 38o Minimum Sys. Error Sensitive to Xmax Sensitive to Muon Richness Iron (QGS) Iron (Sibyll) Proton (Sibyll) Proton (QGS) S(r)MC/S(r)FD+CIC vs. r (Zenith = 36o):  S(r)MC/S(r)FD+CIC vs. r (Zenith = 36o) Minimum Sys. Error Iron (QGS) Iron (Sibyll) Proton (Sibyll) Proton (QGS) Sensitive to Muon Richness Muon Richness vs. Xmax:  Muon Richness vs. Xmax Iron/QGSJET Iron/SIBYLL Proton/QGSJET Proton/SIBYLL Gamma/QGSJET Gamma/SIBYLL Rise Time vs. Sec():  Rise Time vs. Sec() Photon Proton Iron Real Data Curvature vs. Sec():  Curvature vs. Sec() Photon Proton Iron Real Data 2 vs. Energy (Rise Time):  2 vs. Energy (Rise Time) 2 vs. Energy (Curvature):  2 vs. Energy (Curvature) 2 vs. Energy (Rise Time + Curvature):  2 vs. Energy (Rise Time + Curvature) Photon Detection Efficiency:  Photon Detection Efficiency Limited analysis to E > 20EeV 30o < Zenith < 60o 10EeV 20EeV 30EeV  of Rise Curvature vs.  of Time (Under Photon Assumption):   of Rise Curvature vs.  of Time (Under Photon Assumption) Gamma MC Proton MC (Gamma MC)  of Rise Curvature vs.  of Time (Under Photon Assumption:   of Rise Curvature vs.  of Time (Under Photon Assumption 50 < E< 79 EeV Gamma MC Real Data Flux  E with Photon Limit:  Flux  E with Photon Limit SD FD Photon 90% CL Limit FD+CIC SD+CIC+MC Flux  E3 with Photon Limit:  Flux  E3 with Photon Limit Auger: Energy based on FD+CIC SD Photon 90% CL Limit Flux  E3 with Photon Limit:  Flux  E3 with Photon Limit Auger: Energy based on SD+CIC SD Photon 90% CL Limit Summary of Photon Flux Limit:  Summary of Photon Flux Limit The combination of the following assumptions is disfavored. AGASA-like energy spectrum is correct. There is an extra Trans-GZK component. These Trans-GZK events are from the decay of Super Heavy Dark Matters. Most likely No Top-down component, at least, majority of UHECR are the Bottom-ups. Anisotropy :  Anisotropy Small-scale Auto-correlation Correlation with Astronomical Objects Tohru Ohnuki , GAP2005-080 (PhD Thesis) Activities at UCLA:  Activities at UCLA Data sample: January 2004 – September 2005 Direction reconstructed by CDAS Zenith coverage: 45o, 60o, 75o, 85o. Energy determined by SD+CIC+MC FD+CIC based plots being processed. Systematic Studies: Small angle Auto-correlation Correlation with Astronomical Objects BL Lac, TeV Blazar, Neutron Star, GRB… Thread-like Clustering Angular Resolution:  Angular Resolution UCLA CDAS OG AGASA HiRes Stereo Joong Lee et al, GAP2005-079 Previously Claimed Correlations by AGASA/HiRes:  Previously Claimed Correlations by AGASA/HiRes Mrk501 Mrk421 1ES1959+6450 1ES2344+514 H1426+428 Triplet G.C. Auger Sky Map (> 10EeV, <45o):  Auger Sky Map (> 10EeV, <45o) Energy by SD+CIC+MC G.C. Auger Sky Map (> 10EeV, <60o):  Auger Sky Map (> 10EeV, <60o) Energy by SD+CIC+MC G.C. Auger Sky Map (> 10EeV, <75o):  Auger Sky Map (> 10EeV, <75o) Energy by SD+CIC+MC G.C. Auger Sky Map (> 10EeV, <85o):  Auger Sky Map (> 10EeV, <85o) Energy by SD+CIC+MC G.C. Sky Map of Auger (>10 EeV, <85o) (with correlations claimed by AGASA/HiRes):  Sky Map of Auger (>10 EeV, <85o) (with correlations claimed by AGASA/HiRes) Mrk501 Mrk421 1ES1959+6450 1ES2344+514 H1426+428 Triplet G.C. Energy by SD+CIC+MC AGASA Auto-Correlation (E>40EeV):  AGASA Auto-Correlation (E>40EeV) G.C. Triplet Auger Auto-Correlation (> 40EeV, <85o):  Auger Auto-Correlation (> 40EeV, <85o) G.C. Auger Auto-Correlation (> 10EeV, <60o):  Auger Auto-Correlation (> 10EeV, <60o) G.C. Triplet Auger Auto-Correlation (> 10EeV, <60o):  Auger Auto-Correlation (> 10EeV, <60o) Auger Auto-Correlation (> 6EeV, <60o):  Auger Auto-Correlation (> 6EeV, <60o) HiRes – BL Lac Correlation:  HiRes – BL Lac Correlation G.C. Auger – BL Lac Correlation:  Auger – BL Lac Correlation Auger – BL Lac Correlation:  Auger – BL Lac Correlation Antoine Calvez et al, GAP2005-057 Correlation with TeV Blazars:  Correlation with TeV Blazars All 5 TeV Blazars Mrk 421 Mrk 501 H1426+428 Correlation with Neutron Stars:  Correlation with Neutron Stars Magnetar Glitching Pulsar Soft Gamma Repeater Summary of Science from Auger-South:  Summary of Science from Auger-South GZK cut-off seems to exist. Lorentz Invariance is valid. Cut-off energy may be lower than predicted? A hint of post GZK events?? There is no gamma ray at all. Top-down scenarios are disfavored. Bottom-up should be the case. But no signature on the sky map yet. Iron dominant? Magnetic fields stronger than predicted?? Auger-North:  Auger-North Science Case Infill in Auger-South Auger-North Detector Science Case for North:  Science Case for North We must build even Larger Detector than previously thought. Super GZK events are fewer than AGASA’s observation. But a hint of the excess above the GZK cutoff. Where is the real end point of the spectrum? Try to get Photons and Neutrinos from Top-down Mechanism and GZK interaction, if there is any. A window of the opportunity for “Charged Particle Astronomy” above ~41019 eV. So far, no anisotropy. Again, we need a really big detector for high statistics. Northern sky seems different from Southern Sky! At least, AGASA and HiRes say so. Rich Physics and Astronomy:  1019 eV 1021 eV 1020 eV 1018 eV Rich Physics and Astronomy Rich Physics and Astronomy:  Rich Physics and Astronomy 1019 eV 1021 eV 1020 eV 1018 eV at Auger-South! at Auger-North! Basic Concept of Hybrid SD:  Basic Concept of Hybrid SD e  10km ~ 27Xo ~ 11I MC Simulation of 1019 eV Proton Shower e S(1000)/E vs. X-Xmax (100EeV):  S(1000)/E vs. X-Xmax (100EeV)  e  36o 25o 45o 53o 60o 0o 66o Arisaka et al, GAP2004-037 (540)/E vs. X-Xmax (100EeV):  (540)/E vs. X-Xmax (100EeV)  e  36o 25o 45o 53o 60o 0o 66o Arisaka et al, GAP2004-037 Summary of Hybrid:  Summary of Hybrid FD + Water Tank (Auger-like) Energy is determined by FD Composition/Model is determined by combination of Xmax in FD and Muon counting by SD FD + Scintillator (TA-like) Energy is determined by both FD and Scintillator. Composition is determined by Xmax only. Hybrid-SD Detector:  Hybrid-SD Detector Auger-Tank Muon Hodoscope Scintillator e+   + ~50  Auger Original Region (3,120km2) :  Auger Original Region (3,120km2) Auger-Tank x 1600 750m Infill Region (97km2):  Infill Region (97km2) 25 Hybrid SD (Original Location) 75 additional Hybrid SD (Infill) 750m Case for Infill in Auger-South:  Case for Infill in Auger-South We are already limited by “systematics” below ~30 EeV. Absolute energy determination. Composition study. Both are strongly correlated. With modest additional Infill detectors on Auger-South, we can attack both problems. Water Tank + Scintillator + Muon Counter Such modification should have very high priority. Plan and develop now! Perhaps making the Infill by the last 100 tanks? Auger-North at Colorado:  Auger-North at Colorado FD SD 536m Square Infill SD 1.609km Square 122km ~$100M 10km 15.000km2 Detector Size per Site:  Detector Size per Site 2 FD:  40 km 10 km 15o 30o 2 FD Comparison of Experiments:  Comparison of Experiments Integrated Sensitivity (at 1020 eV):  Integrated Sensitivity (at 1020 eV)

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 1 Katsushi Arisaka ...

10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 1 Katsushi Arisaka Revisiting Science Case for Auger-North University of California, Los Angeles Department of Physics.
Read more

Revisiting Science Case for Auger-North

10/22/2005 Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 1 Katsushi Arisaka Revisiting Science Case for Auger-North University of California, Los Angeles Department of Physics ...
Read more

Energy Spectrum Updates - Physics

Title: Energy Spectrum Updates Author: Katsushi Arisaka Last modified by: Katsushi Arisaka Created Date: 10/14/2005 7:48:30 AM Document presentation format
Read more

Nagoya, Wwii and Rifles on Pinterest

WWII Arisaka Type 30 Japanese Rifle Bayonet with Scabbard Nagoya Original Combat. Sign up Log in. Pinterest • The world’s catalog of ideas.
Read more

9/26/2006Katsushi Arisaka, UCLA 1 Katsushi Arisaka ...

9/26/2006Katsushi Arisaka, UCLA 3 Talk Outline Physics Motivation Why is eV so special ? Past and Ongoing Experiments AGASA HiRes ...
Read more

Amazon.com: Dokidoki Cooking of Arisaka Mie: Arisaka Mie ...

Buy Dokidoki Cooking of Arisaka Mie: Read Digital Music Reviews - Amazon.com
Read more

Welcome to JASGA | JASGA

Welcome to the website of the Japan-America Society of Greater Austin. ... Emi Nishimura, Yu Otuska, Sora Arisaka, Sota Iwasaki, Keiichi Yamamoto, Kenichi ...
Read more

Gilbert Arenas - Wikipedia

Gilbert Arenas during his tenure with the Washington Wizards. In the fifth game of the first round of the Eastern Conference playoffs in 2005, ...
Read more

hickok45 - YouTube

WELCOME to HICKOK45 ! You're at a drama-free, "family-friendly" shooting channel! Please see the short FAQ Videos before asking questions. My son and I do ...
Read more