Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Rauf Mukhamedshin Rauf Mukhamedshin Institute for Nuclear Research Institute for Nuclear Research Moscow Russia On problems of choice of hadron interaction.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Rauf Mukhamedshin Rauf Mukhamedshin Institute for Nuclear Research Institute for Nuclear Research Moscow Russia On problems of choice of hadron interaction."— Presentation transcript:

1 Rauf Mukhamedshin Rauf Mukhamedshin Institute for Nuclear Research Institute for Nuclear Research Moscow Russia On problems of choice of hadron interaction models and study of PCR spectrum at ultra high energies

2 Traditional ground-based EAS arrays detect lateral distributions of secondary particles (e  or   )Traditional ground-based EAS arrays detect lateral distributions of secondary particles (e  or   ) The higher EAS’ E0, the larger distance of operated detectors from the EAS axisThe higher EAS’ E0, the larger distance of operated detectors from the EAS axis Lateral distributions depend on E 0,, observation depth etc.Lateral distributions depend on E 0,, observation depth etc. The larger is, the higher could be the estimated EAS energyThe larger is, the higher could be the estimated EAS energy r  (r) larger larger lower lower

3 QGS models (QGSJETs, SYBILLs, HDPM, DPMJET, VENUS) present the most popular concept BUT! Can these models describe all hadron interaction features at E 0 ≳ 10 16 eV? NO! Phenomenon of alignment (or coplanarity) of most energetic cores in  -h families observed with XRECs is beyond QGSM

4 XRECs aboard balloons and airplanes XRECs of “PAMIR” experiment «Carbon» C-XREC «Lead» Pb-XREC E thr > 4 TeV

5 procedure – merging of close (Z ik < Z C ) i-th and k-th particles for reconstruction of “initial” procedure – merging of close (Z ik < Z C ) i-th and k-th particles for reconstruction of “initial”  -rays: Z С ~ 1 TeV·cm  0 -mesons: Z С ~ 3 TeV·cm hadrons: Z С ~ 20 TeV·cm h*   X-ray films  p ±±±±  ik =R ik (E i E k ) 1/2 ~ 2Z ik Energetically Distinguished Cores (EDC) = isolated clusters of particles ( ,e ,h) joined with “decascading”

6 -1/(N-1) ≤ N ≤ 1.0 Aligned event: N ≥ fix Usually:  4 ≥0.8 Examples of aligned events k i j  k ij Electromagnetic halo hadron halo hadron  -ray cluster “Pamir” : a) Four-  -cluster event; b) Pb-6: 4 =0.95; c) Pb-28: 4 =0.85. d) JF2af2 event (“Concorde”); e) Strana event (balloon). Digitals mean energy in TeV  -ray clusters a)a)b) c)c) d)d) e)e) 5 most energetic particles  P t  = 23  7 GeV/c (Preliminary !)

7 Mini-Andromeda III upper chamberlower chamber E halo ~ 4,400 TeV S.Yamashita; JPSJ(1985)529

8 Fraction of aligned families Kanbala data(  E  ≥ 500 TeV, 3 ≥0.8) Kanbala data (  E  ≥ 500 TeV, 3 ≥0.8) 0.5  0.2 in Fe- XREC (3 from 6, 1.2 expected) 0.5  0.2 in Fe- XREC (3 from 6, 1.2 expected) Expected background: 0.21 Xue L. et al. 1999 Only two stratospheric  -h families (  E  ≳ 1000 TeV). Both are extremely aligned: 4  = 0.998 (JF2af2, Concorde) 4  = 0.998 (JF2af2, Concorde) 4  h  = 0.99 (Strana, balloon) 4  h  = 0.99 (Strana, balloon) Strong interactions ? Fluctuations ? Magnetic field ? Thunderstorm electric field ? Regress.coeff.  38  = 0.992 “Pamir” Experiment (  E  ≥ 700 TeV, 4 ≥0.8) 0.43  0.13 in Pb-XREC (6 from 14, 1.0 expected)0.43  0.13 in Pb-XREC (6 from 14, 1.0 expected) 0.27  0.09 in С- XREC (9 from 35, 2.1 expected)0.27  0.09 in С- XREC (9 from 35, 2.1 expected) Expected background : 0.06 Expected background : 0.06

9 QGSM-type modelQGSM-type model describes “PAMIR” Collaboration’s data at ≲ 5·10 15 eV (√s ≲ 3 TeV) and a lot of accelerator datadescribes “PAMIR” Collaboration’s data at ≲ 5·10 15 eV (√s ≲ 3 TeV) and a lot of accelerator data close to QGSJET 98 (CORSIKA) in features and simulation resultsclose to QGSJET 98 (CORSIKA) in features and simulation results Binomial distribution: Probability to observe k aligned events in a set of n events:   =  npq

10 Probability to observe the total set of experimental aligned events (Pamir, Kanbala, stratosphere): W fluct ~ 0.9  10 -4  1.5  10 -4  9  10 -2  3  10 -3  6  10 -4 < 10 –14 It is an upper limit only ! ExperimentCriterion Expected aligned-event number (probability for 1 event) Experi- mental event number Expected standard deviation (  ) Deviation from expected event number (in  ) Probability to observe experim. data Pamir (Pb) 4 ≥0.8 4 ≥0.8 1.0 from 14 61.05 0.9  10 -4 Pamir (С) 4 ≥0.8 4 ≥0.8 2.1 from 35 91.54,6 1.5  10 -4 Kanbala 3 ≥0.8 3 ≥0.8 1.2 from 6 31.21.5 900  10 -4 “Strana” 4 ≥0.99 4 ≥0.99 0.0029  0.0002 1 0.05 - 29  10 -4 “JF2af2” 4 ≥0.998 4 ≥0.998 0.0006  0.0001 1 0.015 - 6  10 -4

11 Probability to observe the total set of experimental aligned events W fluct << 10 -20 ! Estimation of probability to observe in “JF2af2” the regression 38   0.98 – 0.99 38   0.98 – 0.99-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11 log W( N ≥ fix ) N=38 coefficient  38  = 0.992 W fluct ( 38 ≥ 0.95) << 10 -9 38 ≥ 0.95 ! 38 ≥ 0.95 ! Strong correlation between  N and N !

12 QGSMs CANNOT give such p t values at E 0 ~ 10 16 eV ! Estimation of transverse momenta in the “Strana” event Geometry: P t = E  x / H  p t  = 23  7 GeV/c Preliminary ! Indirect methods  p t  ≃ 40–100 GeV/c Very preliminary !

13 The alignment phenomenon is produced neither by fluctuations nor by Earth’s magnetic or thunderstorm electric fieldsis produced neither by fluctuations nor by Earth’s magnetic or thunderstorm electric fields is caused by hadron interactionsis caused by hadron interactions

14 Interpretation of alignment Interpretation of alignment kinematic effects in diffraction processes (SmorSmir 90, Zhu 90, Capd 01);kinematic effects in diffraction processes (SmorSmir 90, Zhu 90, Capd 01); “New” physics “New” physics new strong interaction at √s ≳ 4 TeV; generation of bosons & hadrons with new higher-color superheavy quarks (White 94);new strong interaction at √s ≳ 4 TeV; generation of bosons & hadrons with new higher-color superheavy quarks (White 94); High-Q t transfer models High-Q t transfer models standard QCDstandard QCD gluon-jet generation (Halzen 90);gluon-jet generation (Halzen 90); semihard double diffractive inelastic dissociation (SHDID) (Royzen 94); projectile’s diquark breaking (Capd 03)semihard double diffractive inelastic dissociation (SHDID) (Royzen 94); projectile’s diquark breaking (Capd 03) QGS angular momentum conservation (Wibig 04)QGS angular momentum conservation (Wibig 04)

15 Specific correlation: higher p t − lower p L а) QCD jets: Sin  i  const  inappropriate correlation  inappropriate correlation  “Binocular” families  “Binocular” families  NO alignment (Lokhtin 05, e.g.) b) SHDID(Royzen, 1994) – rupture of stretched quark- gluon string (diffraction cluster): b) SHDID (Royzen, 1994) – rupture of stretched quark- gluon string (diffraction cluster):  appropriate correlation  appropriate correlation  alignment can be observed  alignment can be observed c) very-high-spin leading system  appropriate correlation  alignment can be observed  alignment can be observed d) QGS angular momentum conservation (Wibig 04)  appropriate correlation  alignment can be observed  alignment can be observed most energetic particles

16 QCD jets: Lokhtin et al 2005 QCD jets: Lokhtin et al 2005 PYTHIA @ √s = 14 TeV (LHC)  Conclusion: Alignment of 3 (only !) CLUSTERS (close to experimental one) could be observed ONLY at 1. E 3,4 jet ≥ 3 TeV, i.e. E 3,4 jet ~ E 1 But:  E 3,4 jet ~ E 1  ⋘  inel ! 2. Distance from interaction point to observation level (target thickness) x ~0. Alignment drops drastically with increase of x 2. Distance from interaction point to observation level (target thickness)  x ~0. Alignment drops drastically with increase of  x But: a) in mountain experiments x > 500 g/cm 2 But: a) in mountain experiments  x > 500 g/cm 2 b) no alignment of particles and/or N cluster  4 b) no alignment of particles and/or N cluster  4 QGS’ angular moment(Wibig 2004) QGS’ angular moment (Wibig 2004) t 0 – l ~  b and  ~const(  b ≪  b/2  l ~ const and  ~  b(  b~  b/2  (v = c) t 0 – l ~  b and  ~ const (  b ≪  b/2  l ~ const and  ~ 1/  b (  b ~  b/2  (v = c) t 1 – wave arrears; p t distribution changes t 1 – wave arrears; p t distribution changes Possible (?) scheme b/2 t1 t1 t0 t0 - b/2 conservation of angular moment CMS Lab

17 1) interaction features are related to the fragmentation region only 2) only a primitive (!) heuristic tool to study factors related to the alignment observation CPGM = Coplanar Particle Generation Model 1), 2) CPGM = Coplanar Particle Generation Model 1), 2) particles (  & K) are generated withparticles (  & K) are generated with ‹p t ›  0.4 GeV/c transversely to the coplanarity plane‹p t ›  0.4 GeV/c transversely to the coplanarity plane ‹p T copl ›  2.3 GeV/c in the coplanarity plane‹p T copl ›  2.3 GeV/c in the coplanarity plane multiplicity ‹n s ›  10multiplicity ‹n s ›  10

18 F( 4 ≥0.8) depends on depth in the atmospheredepth in the atmosphere distance to interaction pointdistance to interaction point If F( 4 ≥0.8) 0.2 at  x ≳ 500 g/cm 2  copl ~  inel If F( 4 ≥0.8) 0.2 at  x ≳ 500 g/cm 2  copl ~  inel Alignment can be only studied in Alignment can be only studied in high-resolution (  x ≲ 1cm ) mountain & stratospheric (or collider) experimentshigh-resolution (  x ≲ 1cm ) mountain & stratospheric (or collider) experiments background “Pamir” KASCADE EDCs hadrons p-air

19 Dependence of F( 4 z0.8) on Z C F( 4 z0.8) depends on Z CF( 4 z0.8) depends on Z C CPGM explains the effectCPGM explains the effect “Pamir’ & CPGM data have maxima at Z C  4 TeV·cm“Pamir’ & CPGM data have maxima at Z C  4 TeV·cm QGSMs cannot explainQGSMs cannot explain

20 Alignment dependence on   ▲∆ Experimental F( 4 z0.8) depends on   □ CPGM can explain the alignment □ CPGM can explain the alignment  QGSMs cannot explain the alignment  QGSMs cannot explain the alignment

21 CPG changes ER features of aligned  -h families “Pamir” (Borisov et al 2001) *  = 1.83  0.37   = 2.57 ± 0.81 Ratios of ‹ER› 4 & ‹R› 4 values in aligned and unaligned  - families ‹ER› 4 aligned > ‹ER› 4 unaligned ‹R› 4 aligned > ‹R› 4 unaligned ; * N c ≥ 6, E c ≥ 50 ТэВ * N c ≥ 6, E c ≥ 50 ТэВ   

22 Why did anybody not observe earlier this process in EAS and muon experiments? These experiments are generally insensitive to this effect.

23 Influence of heavy primaries is much stronger Influence of heavy primaries is much stronger Ratio of hadron densities  (E h > 3 GeV) in EAS 3340 m a.s.l (Tien Shan) Preliminary CPG changes EAS properties in a narrow lateral range ( ≲ 1 m) Difference range  p CPGM /  p MC0  Fe MC0 /  p MC0 depends on model !

24 Alignment Alignment can be only explained by coplanar particle generation ( > 2 GeV/c) at E 0 ≳ 10 16 eV (√s ≳ 4 TeV)can be only explained by coplanar particle generation ( > 2 GeV/c) at E 0 ≳ 10 16 eV (√s ≳ 4 TeV) can influence on lateral EAS featurescan influence on lateral EAS features Are PCR data derived from EAS data correct without taking these results into account?

25 Higher  p t   wider lateral distribution (normal longitudinal !) could imitate (for classical EAS-array approach) could imitate (for classical EAS-array approach) more heavy compositionmore heavy composition higher EAS energyhigher EAS energy Inconsistency of results by fluorescence techniques and classical EAS-array approaches Due to these reasons ? collider experiments (LHC) to studycollider experiments (LHC) to study high-resolution mountain experiments (Tien Shan, Pamirs) interactionshigh-resolution mountain experiments (Tien Shan, Pamirs) interactions development of theoretical modelsdevelopment of theoretical models direct space experiments (INCA, ACCESS (?)) to study the “KNEE”direct space experiments (INCA, ACCESS (?)) to study the “KNEE” range  to tune models range  to tune models What can we do ?

26 Thank you !

27 High-energy muon groups are insensitive to CPG processHigh-energy muon groups are insensitive to CPG process Alignment of muon groups is mainly caused by Earth’s magnetic fieldAlignment of muon groups is mainly caused by Earth’s magnetic field Multiplicity dependence of fraction of high-energy aligned muon groups R max = 10 m R max = 100 m E   1 TeV CPGM: =2.3 GeV/c

28 R.A. Mukhamedshin Institute for Nuclear Research Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia On concept of multipurpose astrophysical orbital observatory for study of high-energy primary cosmic rays

29 Basic concept 1)lead 2)polyethylene 3)Scintillators 4)Helium-2 neutron counters 5)SNM-17 neutron counters 6)electronics boards 7)photodetectors 8)charge detectors (5.5  5.5 cm 2 sections) A & B – sections of external part – total L tot – total dimension dimension – calorimeter L cal – calorimeter dimension dimension 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A B L cal. L tot.

30 Basic concept Basic features of two versions ( I & II )

31 Basic concept Basic features of two versions ( I & II ) (continuation)

32 Expected results “KASCADE” and “Tibet” fits of the PCR spectrum

33 Expected results Composition & spectra Expected results: Expected results: PCR nucleus number PCR nucleus number (3-year exposure)  = S  20 m 2  sr: (3-year exposure)  = S  20 m 2  sr: N(E 0  10 15 eV) ≳ 2 000N(E 0  10 15 eV) ≳ 2 000 N(E 0  10 16 eV) ≳ 30N(E 0  10 16 eV) ≳ 30 determination of determination of  PCR components in the “knee” range choice between choice between  “KASCADE” and “TIBET” spectra  QGSjet and SYBILL models

34 Expected results choice between “KASCADE” and “TIBET” spectra choice between “KASCADE” and “TIBET” spectra Study of average mass number

35 Expected results choice between “KASCADE” and “TIBET” spectra choice between “KASCADE” and “TIBET” spectra Study of protons-to-all particles ratio

36 Expected results Expected electron number Expected electron number (3-year exposure &  = S  20 m 2  sr): (3-year exposure &  = S  20 m 2  sr): PCR electrons number N(E 0 >10 12 eV) ~ 2  10 4PCR electrons number N(E 0 >10 12 eV) ~ 2  10 4 Study of electrons

37 Expected results Study of  -rays sensitivity is comparable with ground-based arrayssensitivity is comparable with ground-based arrays


Download ppt "Rauf Mukhamedshin Rauf Mukhamedshin Institute for Nuclear Research Institute for Nuclear Research Moscow Russia On problems of choice of hadron interaction."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google