Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Results from the Pierre Auger Observatory J. R. T. de Mello Neto University of Chicago & Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro for the Pierre Auger Collaboration.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Results from the Pierre Auger Observatory J. R. T. de Mello Neto University of Chicago & Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro for the Pierre Auger Collaboration."— Presentation transcript:

1 Results from the Pierre Auger Observatory J. R. T. de Mello Neto University of Chicago & Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro for the Pierre Auger Collaboration

2 Outline Introduction: the UHECRs The Pierre Auger Observatory – an hybrid detector Energy calibration The model-independent energy spectrum Hadronic models Photon fraction limit Anisotropy studies Perspectives –Auger South enhancements –North Site Auger contributions in the proceedings of ICRC 07 – Merida, Mexico

3 S. Swordy Cosmic rays flux vs. Energy UHECR one particle per century per km 2 many interesting questions (nearly) uniform power-law spectrum spanning 10 orders of magnitude in E and 32 in flux! structures : ~ 3 – eV: knee change of source? new physics? ~ eV: ankle transition galactic – extragalatic? change in composition?

4 Open questions How cosmic rays are accelerated at ? What are the sources? How can they propagate along astronomical distances at such high energies? Are they substantially deflected by magnetic fields? Can we do cosmic ray astronomy? What is the mass composition of cosmic rays?

5 Detection techniques Particles at ground level large detector arrays (scintillators, water Cerenkov tanks, etc) detects a small sample of secondary particles (lateral profile) 100% duty cicle aperture: area of array (independent of energy) primary energy and mass composition are model dependent (rely on Monte Carlo simulations based on extrapolations of the hadronic models constrained at low energies by accelerator physics) ex: AGASA

6 Detection techniques Fluorescence of N 2 in the atmosphere calorimetric energy measurement as function of atmospheric depth only for E > eV only for dark nights (10% duty cicle) requires good knowledge of atmospheric conditions aperture grows with energy, varies with atmosphere ex: HiRes

7 The Auger Observatory: Hybrid design A large surface detector array combined with fluorescence detectors results in a unique and powerful design; Simultaneous shower measurement allows for transfer of the nearly calorimetric energy calibration from the fluorescence detector to the event gathering power of the surface array. A complementary set of mass sensitive shower parameters contributes to the identification of primary composition. Different measurement techniques force understanding of systematic uncertainties in each.

8 Czech Republic France Germany Italy Netherlands Poland Portugal Slovenia Spain United Kingdom Argentina Australia Brasil Bolivia* Mexico USA Vietnam* *Associate Countries ~300 PhD scientists from ~70 Institutions and 17 countries The Pierre Auger Collaboration Aim: To measure properties of UHECR with unprecedented statistics and precision

9 1438 deployed 1400 filled 1364 taking data ~ 85% All 4 fluorescence buildings complete, each with 6 telescopes 1st 4-fold on 20 May 2007 AIM: 1600 tanks HYBRID DETECTOR Pierre Auger South Observatory 3000 km 2

10 A surface array station Communications antenna GPS antenna Electronics enclosure Solar panels Battery box 3 photomultiplier tubes looking into the water collect light left by the particles Plastic tank with 12 tons of very pure water

11 The fluorescence detector Los Leones telescope

12 The fluorescence telescope 30 deg x 30 deg view per telescope

13 20 May 2007 E ~ eV First hybrid qudriple event! Signal in all four FD detectors and 15 SD stations! First 4-fold hybrid on 20 May 2007

14 θ~ 48º, ~ 70 EeV Flash ADC traces Lateral density distribution Typical flash ADC trace at about 2 km Detector signal (VEM) vs time (µs) PMT 1 PMT 2 PMT µs 18 detectors triggered

15 Hybrid Event longitudinal profile

16  = 79 ° Inclined Events offer additional aperture

17 Energy spectrum from Auger Observatory Based on fluorescence and surface detector data First model- and mass-independent energy spectrum Power of the statistics and well-defined exposure of the surface detector Hybrid data confirm that SD event trigger is fully efficient above 3x10 18 eV for θ<60 o Uses energy scale of the fluorescence detector (nearly calorimetric, model independent energy measurement) to calibrate the SD energy.

18 SD parameter S1000: interpolated tank signal at 1000 meters from the lateral distribution function Determined for each SD event It is proportional to the primary energy Energy calibration Reduced measurement uncertainty (shower fluctuations dominate) VEM = vertical equivalent muons from self calibration of the tank signal (from ambient muons)

19 Energy calibration (constant intensity cut) How to relate S(1000 m) to E? It depends on the atmospheric depth --> shower zenith angle,   =0 one atm,  =90 36 atm, shower is attenuated depending on the zenith angle; Showers with the same energy developing at differente zenith angles produce different S1000 signals at ground level –The corresponding grammage of atmosphere along the shower axis (shower age) is different Choose a reference zenith angle 38° (median of the Auger data set) Make use of the isotropy of the observed CR flux For a fixed I 0 find S(1000) at each θ such that I(>S(1000)) = I 0

20 Constant intensity cut Integral number of events for cos 2 (θ) for the indicated minimum value of S(1000) Derived attenuation curve, CIC(θ), fitted with a quadratic function. Normalized so that CIC(38°) = 1; Define energy parameter S 38 = S(1000)/CIC(θ) for each shower : “the S(1000) it would have produced if it had arrived at 38 o zenith angle” Same value of S1000 at higher zenith angle correspond to a higher energy

21 S 38 (1000) vs. E(FD) 387 hybrid events Nagano et al, FY used 4 x eV

22 Energy calibration Fractional difference between the SD and FD energy for the hybrid events; Small relative dispersion includes uncertainties in both the FD energy and the SD signal S(1000) is intrinsecally a very good energy estimator Reliable energy measurements when properly calibrated

23 Summary of systematic uncertainties Note: Activity on several fronts to reduce these uncertainties Fluorescence Detector Uncertainties Dominate Invisible energy: fraction of the energy carried away by neutrinos and energetic muons (Monte Carlo dependent) energy determination nearly independent of mass or model assumptions

24 Energy spectrum from SD < 60° Calibration unc. 18% FD syst. unc. 22% 5165 km 2 sr yr ~ 0.8 full Auger year Exp Obs > / > / Slope = ± 0.03 sharp suppression in the spectrum is seen for the last energy decade pure power law is rejected with 6σ ( E > eV ) and 4σ ( E > eV )

25 Slope = -2.7 ± 0.1

26 Hybrid Spectrum: clear evidence of the ‘ankle’ at ~ 4 x eV ± 0.3

27 The agreement between the spectra derived using three diferent methods is good It is underpinned by the common method of energy calibration based on the FD measurements. Energy spectra from Auger

28 Astrophysical models and the Auger spectrum models assume: an injection spectral index, an exponential cutoff at an energy of Emax times the charge of the nucleus, and a mass composition at the acceleration site as well as a distribution of sources. Auger data: sharp suppression in the spectrum with a high confidence level! Expected GZK effect or a limit in the acceleration process?

29 Composition from hybrid data UHECR: observatories detect induced showers in the atmosphere Nature of primary: look for diferences in the shower development Showers from heavier nuclei develop earlier in the atm with smaller fluctuations –They reach their maximum development higher in the atmosphere (lower cumulated grammage, X max ) X max is increasing with energy (more energetic showers can develop longer before being quenched by atmospheric losses)

30 Composition from hybrid data X max resolution ~ 20 g/cm 2

31 composition from hybrid data The results of all three experiments are compatible within their systematic uncertainties. The statistical precision of Auger data already exceed that of preceeding experiments ( data taken during construction of the observatory)

32 test of hadronic models Assumption: universality of the eletromagnetic shower evolution Test: number of muons needed to obtain a self consistent description of data Lateral distribution function Longitudinal profile

33 Universality of the e/m shower component Sem parameterised as a function of the distance to ground DG = Xdet - Xmax Predicted signal at 1000 m: includes e/m signal for muon decays

34 constant intensity method Cosmic ray flux isotropic Result accounting for shower fluctuations and detector resolution

35 expected tank signal at eV from Auger data: const. intensity method from Auger hybrid data Corresponding energy scale: within current uncertainty of fluorescence detector energy scale it corresponds to assigning showers a ~ 30% higher energy than done in the fluorescence detector-based Auger shower reconstruction!

36 test of hadronic models two other methods, one using golden hybrid events and another using inclined showers, give consistent results with the constant intensity method ; Auger hybrid data: test of hadronic interaction models up to ultra-high energy ( E lab > eV, ) The number of muons measured in data is about 1.5 times bigger than that predicted by QGSJET II for proton showers! Universality of eletromagnetic shower evolution indicates energy scale compatible with that of fluorescence detectors.

37 Top down models acceleration models (astrophysics): active galactic nuclei, gamma-ray bursts... not easy to reach > 100 EeV; photon fractions typically < ~ 1% non-acceleration models (particle physics) UHECR: decay products of high-mass particles (> eV) super-heavy dark matter (SHDM): from early universe and concentraded on the halo of galaxies and clusters of galaxies topological defects (TD) produced throughout the universe UHECR produced as secondary particles (hadronization process) and are most photons and neutrinos, with minority of nucleus photon fraction typically > ~ 10% SHDM: CR from our galaxy, photons with a hard energy spectrum TD: sources distributed in the universe, photons interact with CMB (expect smaller photon fraction)

38 UHE photons status in 2005 HP: Haverah Park Ave et al.,2000; event rates A1, A2: AGASA 1000 m Shinozaki et al., 2002; M. Risse et al., 2005 Models: ZB,SHDM,TD - Gelmini et al SHDM' – Ellis et al., 2005 cosmic ray photon fraction: check nonacceleration models upper limits so far: surface detectors only !? needed: cross check by fluorescence technique (Xmax in hybrids)

39 variables for composition (photons) Photons: greater time spread and smaller radius of curvature Data lying above the dashed line ( the mean of the distribution for photons) are identfied as photon candidates. No events meet this requirement. Showers with greater Xmax have a time distribution in the SD which is more spread (geometrical effect) Energetic muons ( spherical shower front) larger values of Xmax related to smaller values of Rc.

40 photon limits A = Agasa HP = Haverah Park Y = Yakutsk

41 Angular resolution Surface detector Hybrid data: better angular resolution, ~ % c.l. in the EeV energy range Events with E > 10 EeV : 6 or more SD stations

42 Galactic center Galactic Center is a “natural” site for cosmic ray acceleration –Supermassive black hole –Dense clusters of stars –Stellar remnants –SNR (?) Sgr A East SUGAR excess is consistent with a point source, indicating neutral primaries Neutrons would go undeflected, and neutron decay length at eV is comparable to the distance to the Galactic center (~8.5 kpc) Chandra

43 Source at the Galactic center AGASA 20 o scales – eV N. Hayashida et al., Astroparticle Phys. 10 (1999) 303 Significance (σ) Cuts are a posteriori Chance probability is not well defined 22% excess

44 Source at Galactic center J.A. Bellido et al., Astroparticle Phys. 15 (2001) 167 SUGAR 85% excess – eV 5.5 o cone

45  test of AGASA: obs/exp = 2116/ R = 0.98 ± 0.02 ± 0.01 NOT CONFIRMED (with 3x more stats)  test of SUGAR: obs/exp = 286/289.7 R = 0.98 ± 0.06 ± 0.01 NOT CONFIRMED (with 10x more stats)  Galactic Center as a point source (σ=1.5°): obs/exp = 53.8/45.8 R = 1.17 ± 0.10 ± 0.01 NO SIGNIFICANT EXCESS  upper limit on the flux of neutrons coming from GC:  Galactic Plane:NO SIGNIFICANT EXCESS astro-ph/ (Astropart. Phys., 2007) Φ s < 0.08 ξ km -2 yr -1 at 95% C.L. 5°, top-hat AGASA SUGAR G.P. results for the galactic center (check proceedings ICRC 07 for an update)

46 Overdensity search (galactic center) Li, Ma ApJ 272, (1983) significance All distributions consistent with isotropy 1 EeV < E <10 EeV 0.1 EeV < E < 1 EeV

47 anisotropy searches All-sky blind searches for sources: NO EXCESS FOUND Right-ascension (RA) distribution of the events is remarkably isotropic! –Upper limit of 1.4% on the first harmonic amplitude (dipole in the RA modulation) Angular coincidences between Auger events and BL Lac objects (as possibly seen by HiRes) was not confirmed; Search for clustering (as seen by AGASA), no strong excess was observed Scan in angle and energy: hints of clustering at larger energies and intermediate angular scales –Large scale distribution of nearby sources? –Chance probability of such a signal from an isotropic flux ~ 2% (marginally significant)

48 Anisotropy studies For each target: specify a priory probability levels and angular scales avoids uncertainties from “penalty factors” due to a posteriori probability estimation Targets: low energy: Galactic center and AGASA-SUGAR location high energy: nearby violent extragalactic objects (ICRC 05) New results are coming out! Stay tuned!

49 other physics topics to be explored Neutrinos Gamma ray burst detection Measurement of the primary cosmic ray cross section; and many others...

50 Conclusion e perspectives More events > 10 EeV than from AGASA or HiRes and close to more than their total AND with superior angular and energy resolution Auger South: about 90% complete Detector working very well ( SD: 97% uptime) First rate physics results: spectrum, composition, anisotropy and many others Auger statistics will totally dominate after another year !!

51 Future for Auger Collaboration Complete Auger-South in ~ 6 months and provide reliable and extensive experimental data for many years Commence construction of Auger South upgrades: –HEAT: high elevation FD (to 60°) –AMIGA dense SD array plus muon detectors Submit Auger-North proposal within a year

52 Backup slides

53 GKZ suppression Cosmic rays E = eV interact with 2.7 K photons In the proton frame Nuclei Proton with less energy, eventually below the cutoff energy E GZK = 5x eV Universe is opaque for E > E GZK ! Photon-pion production Photon dissociation

54

55 x 10 between 1 and 10 EeV Depends on assumptions about Models, Mass and Spectrum slope 5-fold 3-fold Comparison of Auger and HiRes apertures Linear logarithmic

56 The Hybrid Era Angular Resolution Aperture Energy Hybrid SD-only FD-only mono (stereo – low N) ~ 0.2° ~ 1 - 2° ~ 3 - 5° Flat with energy AND E, A, spectral mass and model (M) free slope and M dependent A and M free A and M A and M free dependent

57 Super-Heavy Dark Matter Fit to AGASA data (Gelmini et al, 05) Similar shapes for ZB (Weiler, 1982) e TD (Hill 1983 ) models signature for exotics produced during inflation; Mx ~ eV, clumped in galactic halo (overdensity ~ 10 5 ) lifetime ~ y: decay (SUSY-QCD) -> pions -> UHE photons (and neutrinos) little processing during propagation: decay spectrum at Earth Spectrum for γ SHDM and p SHDM P: nucleonic component at lower energy Photons dominate E > 5 x eV


Download ppt "Results from the Pierre Auger Observatory J. R. T. de Mello Neto University of Chicago & Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro for the Pierre Auger Collaboration."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google