Post on 14-Sep-2020
Karl-Heinz Kampert Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
The Most Energetic Particles in Nature
Karl-Heinz Kampert University of Wuppertal
ASIAA/CCMS/IAMS/LeCosPA/NTU-Phys Joint Colloquium, April 7, 2015
Area ∝ Grant
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal Taipei Colloq, 7.04.20152
1 event per m2 and sec
γ≈ 2.7 - 3.0
„ankle“(1 per km2-year)
Energy Spectrum of Cosmic Rays
log(energy/eV)
log(
flux)
32 o
rder
s of
mag
n.32 orders of magnitude:
hair
Universe
„Knee“(1 per m2-year)
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal Taipei Colloq, 7.04.20153
1 event per m2 and sec
γ≈ 2.7 - 3.0
„ankle“(1 per km2-year)
log(energy/eV)
log(
flux)
32 o
rder
s of
mag
n.
„Knee“(1 per m2-year)
Balloons
Satellite
Air ShowerExps
<5 m2
0.1 km2
<1 m2
3000 km2
Karl-Heinz Kampert 4 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
• Where do they come from?
• What are they made of ?
• How do their accelerators work?
• Is there a maximum limit to their energy ?
• What can they tell us aboutfundamental and particle physics?
Key Questions aboutUltra High-Energy Cosmic Rays
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal 5 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
courtesy R. Engel
Particle Energy (eV)
1310 1410 1510 1610 1710 1810 1910 2010
)1.
5 e
V-1
sr
-1 s
ec-2
J(E
) (m
2.5
Scal
ed fl
ux
E
1310
1410
1510
1610
1710
1810
1910
(GeV)ppsEquivalent c.m. energy 210 310 410 510 610
RHIC (p-p)-p)eHERA (
Tevatron (p-p)LHC (p-p)
ATICPROTONRUNJOB
KASCADE (QGSJET 01)KASCADE (SIBYLL 2.1)KASCADE-Grande (prel.)Tibet ASg (SIBYLL 2.1)
HiRes-MIAHiRes IHiRes IIAuger SD 2008
~E-2.7
~E-3.1
„Knee“
„Ankle“
Image of non-thermal Universe
„GZK?“
Features of CR spectrum
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal 6 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
courtesy R. Engel
Particle Energy (eV)
1310 1410 1510 1610 1710 1810 1910 2010
)1.
5 e
V-1
sr
-1 s
ec-2
J(E
) (m
2.5
Scal
ed fl
ux
E
1310
1410
1510
1610
1710
1810
1910
(GeV)ppsEquivalent c.m. energy 210 310 410 510 610
RHIC (p-p)-p)eHERA (
Tevatron (p-p)LHC (p-p)
ATICPROTONRUNJOB
KASCADE (QGSJET 01)KASCADE (SIBYLL 2.1)KASCADE-Grande (prel.)Tibet ASg (SIBYLL 2.1)
HiRes-MIAHiRes IHiRes IIAuger SD 2008
SNR?
Diffusion losses from Galaxis ?
pFe
....
SNR ?
Galactic CRs?
Features of CR spectrum
Fe-knee
p,He-knee
classicalankle model
AGN ?
Extragal. CRs?
extragal. component
p
magn. confinement ➠ Emax ~ Z
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal 7 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
courtesy R. Engel
Particle Energy (eV)
1310 1410 1510 1610 1710 1810 1910 2010
)1.
5 e
V-1
sr
-1 s
ec-2
J(E
) (m
2.5
Scal
ed fl
ux
E
1310
1410
1510
1610
1710
1810
1910
(GeV)ppsEquivalent c.m. energy 210 310 410 510 610
RHIC (p-p)-p)eHERA (
Tevatron (p-p)LHC (p-p)
ATICPROTONRUNJOB
KASCADE (QGSJET 01)KASCADE (SIBYLL 2.1)KASCADE-Grande (prel.)Tibet ASg (SIBYLL 2.1)
HiRes-MIAHiRes IHiRes IIAuger SD 2008
SNR?
Diffusion losses from Galaxis ?
SNR ?
Galactic CRs?
Features of CR spectrum
Fe-knee
p,He-knee
AGN ?
Extragal. CRs?
pFe
? extragal. component
magn. confinement ➠ Emax ~ Z
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Lamor radii at 1020 eV compared to Milky-Way
E18 ≤ Z·BµG·Rkpc
Conjecture: Extragalactic
origin
Size × B-Field needsto be very large …
Interesting feature: Can do astronomy with cosmic rays !
1020 eV CRs in our Galaxy ?
8
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Cosmic Magnetic Fields
Halo B?
Extra-galactic B < nG ?
γ, ν
weak deflection
RL = kpc Z-1 (E / EeV) (B / μG)-1
RL = Mpc Z-1 (E / EeV) (B / nG)-1
strong deflection
Milky wayB ~ μG
E > 1019eV
E < 1018eV
�(E,Z) ⇥ 0.8��
1020 eVE
⇥ ⇤L
10 Mpc
⇤Lcoh
1 Mpc
�B
1 nG
⇥· Z
UHECR Astronomy
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN)
LHC
GRB
AGN-Jets
SNR
Colliding Galaxies
Potential Sources of 1020 eV particles
10 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Neutron Stars
white dwarfts
Active Galactic Nuclei ?
jets from radioInterplanetary
Space
Galact.disk
halo
eV proton
galaxies
GalacticClusters
Size
Mag
net
ic F
ield
stre
ng
th (G
auß
)
1AU
SNR
1012
10 6
1
10 –6
1km 10 6 km 1pc 1kpc 1Mpc
IGM
10 20
{
LHC
GRB ?Emax ~ βs·z·B·L
Fe
Hillas Diagramm
Realistic constraints more severe
• small acceleration efficiency • synchrotron & adiabatic losses • interactions in source region
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Cas A(3.4 kpc)
Cygnus A (250 Mpc)
Fornax A (20 Mpc)
NRAO/AUI
1.4 , 5, & 8.4 GHz
Supernova RemnantsAccreting
Supermassive Black Holes
E < 1016 eV
E ~ 1020 eV ?
Radio Images of Cosmic Accelerators
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
The Cosmic Zevatron
12 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
courtesy R. Engel
Particle Energy (eV)
1310 1410 1510 1610 1710 1810 1910 2010
)1.
5 e
V-1
sr
-1 s
ec-2
J(E
) (m
2.5
Scal
ed fl
ux
E
1310
1410
1510
1610
1710
1810
1910
(GeV)ppsEquivalent c.m. energy 210 310 410 510 610
RHIC (p-p)-p)eHERA (
Tevatron (p-p)LHC (p-p)
ATICPROTONRUNJOB
KASCADE (QGSJET 01)KASCADE (SIBYLL 2.1)KASCADE-Grande (prel.)Tibet ASg (SIBYLL 2.1)
HiRes-MIAHiRes IHiRes IIAuger SD 2008
SNR?
How much would LHC need to grow to accelerate 1020 eV?
LHC p-energy
1020 eV protons in LHC would requiresize of Earth orbit around Sun
VOLUME 10, NUMBER 4 PHYSICAL RK VIEW LKTTKRS 15 I'EBRUARY 196)
cleon-nucleon scattering see, for example, M. L. Gold-berger, Q. T. Grisaqu, S. %'. MacDow'ell, and D. Y.Kong, Phys. Rev. 120, 2250 (1960). Other methods ofcalculating phase shifts in terms of scalar and vectorparticle exchanges have been considered by a numberof authors. See, for example, R. Bryan, C. Dismukes,and W. Ramsay (to be published).3R. Blankenbecler and M. L. Goldberger, Phys.
Rev. 126, 766 (1962); G. F. Che~ and S. C. Frautschi,
Phys. Rev. Letters 7, 394 (1961);S. Frautschi,M. Gell-Mann, and F. Zachariasen, Phys. Rev. 126,2204 (1962); D. %'ong, Phys. Rev. 126, 1220 (1962).4H. Stapp (private communication).SM. Hull, K. Lassila, H. Ruppel, F. McDonald, and
G. Breit, Phys. Rev. 122, 1606 (1961).6C. de Vries, R. Hofstadter, and R. Herman, Phys.
Rev. Letters 8, 381 (1962).7J. Ball and D. %'ong (to be published).
EVIDENCE FOR A PRIMARY COSMIC-HAY PARTICLE WITH ENERGY 10 eV~
John LinsleyLaboratory for Nuclear Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
(Received 10 January 1963)
Analysis of a cosmic-ray air shower recordedat the NIT Volcano Ranch station in February1962 indicates that the total number of particlesin the shower (Serial No. 2-4834) was 5x10'0.The total energy of the primary particle whichproduced the shower was 1.0x10~ eV. The show-er was about twice the size of the largest we hadreported previously (No. 1-15832, recorded inMarch 1961).'The existence of cosmic-ray particles having
such a great energy is of importance to astrophys-ics because such particles (believed to be atomicnuclei) have very great magnetic rigidity. It isbelieved that the region in which such a particleoriginates must be large enough and possess astrong enough magnetic field so that REI» (1/300)x(E/Z), where R is the radius of the region (cm)and H is the intensity of the magnetic field (gauss).E is the total energy of the particle (eV) and Z isits charge. Recent evidence favors the choiceZ = 1 (proton primaries) for the region of highestcosmic -ray energies. ' For the pr esent event oneobtains the condition RB» 3 x 10' . This conditionis not satisfied by our galaxy (for which RH ~ 5x10", halo included) or known objects within it,such as supernovae.The technique we use has been described else-
where. ' An array of scintillation detectors isused to find the direction (from pulse times) andsize (from pulse amplitudes) of shower eventswhich satisfy a triggering requirement. In thepresent case, the direction of the shower wasnearly vertical (zenith angle 10+ 5'). The valuesof shower density registered at the various pointsof the array are shown in Fig. 1. It can be ver-ified by close inspection of the figure that thecore of the shower must have struck near the
point marked "A," assuming only (1) that showerparticles are distributed symmetrically about anaxis (the "core"), and (2) that the density of par-ticl.es decreases monotonically with increasingdistance from the axis. The observed densities
0.6
KlLOMETERS
FIG. 1. Plan of the Volcano Ranch array in February1962. The circles represent 3.3-m2 scintillation de-tectors. The numbers near the circles are the showerdensities (particles/m ) registered in this event, No.2-4834. Point A is the estimated location of theshower core. The circular contours about that pointaid in verifying the core location by inspection.
146
VOLUME 10, NUMBER 4 PHYSICAL RK VIEW LKTTKRS 15 I'EBRUARY 196)
cleon-nucleon scattering see, for example, M. L. Gold-berger, Q. T. Grisaqu, S. %'. MacDow'ell, and D. Y.Kong, Phys. Rev. 120, 2250 (1960). Other methods ofcalculating phase shifts in terms of scalar and vectorparticle exchanges have been considered by a numberof authors. See, for example, R. Bryan, C. Dismukes,and W. Ramsay (to be published).3R. Blankenbecler and M. L. Goldberger, Phys.
Rev. 126, 766 (1962); G. F. Che~ and S. C. Frautschi,
Phys. Rev. Letters 7, 394 (1961);S. Frautschi,M. Gell-Mann, and F. Zachariasen, Phys. Rev. 126,2204 (1962); D. %'ong, Phys. Rev. 126, 1220 (1962).4H. Stapp (private communication).SM. Hull, K. Lassila, H. Ruppel, F. McDonald, and
G. Breit, Phys. Rev. 122, 1606 (1961).6C. de Vries, R. Hofstadter, and R. Herman, Phys.
Rev. Letters 8, 381 (1962).7J. Ball and D. %'ong (to be published).
EVIDENCE FOR A PRIMARY COSMIC-HAY PARTICLE WITH ENERGY 10 eV~
John LinsleyLaboratory for Nuclear Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
(Received 10 January 1963)
Analysis of a cosmic-ray air shower recordedat the NIT Volcano Ranch station in February1962 indicates that the total number of particlesin the shower (Serial No. 2-4834) was 5x10'0.The total energy of the primary particle whichproduced the shower was 1.0x10~ eV. The show-er was about twice the size of the largest we hadreported previously (No. 1-15832, recorded inMarch 1961).'The existence of cosmic-ray particles having
such a great energy is of importance to astrophys-ics because such particles (believed to be atomicnuclei) have very great magnetic rigidity. It isbelieved that the region in which such a particleoriginates must be large enough and possess astrong enough magnetic field so that REI» (1/300)x(E/Z), where R is the radius of the region (cm)and H is the intensity of the magnetic field (gauss).E is the total energy of the particle (eV) and Z isits charge. Recent evidence favors the choiceZ = 1 (proton primaries) for the region of highestcosmic -ray energies. ' For the pr esent event oneobtains the condition RB» 3 x 10' . This conditionis not satisfied by our galaxy (for which RH ~ 5x10", halo included) or known objects within it,such as supernovae.The technique we use has been described else-
where. ' An array of scintillation detectors isused to find the direction (from pulse times) andsize (from pulse amplitudes) of shower eventswhich satisfy a triggering requirement. In thepresent case, the direction of the shower wasnearly vertical (zenith angle 10+ 5'). The valuesof shower density registered at the various pointsof the array are shown in Fig. 1. It can be ver-ified by close inspection of the figure that thecore of the shower must have struck near the
point marked "A," assuming only (1) that showerparticles are distributed symmetrically about anaxis (the "core"), and (2) that the density of par-ticl.es decreases monotonically with increasingdistance from the axis. The observed densities
0.6
KlLOMETERS
FIG. 1. Plan of the Volcano Ranch array in February1962. The circles represent 3.3-m2 scintillation de-tectors. The numbers near the circles are the showerdensities (particles/m ) registered in this event, No.2-4834. Point A is the estimated location of theshower core. The circular contours about that pointaid in verifying the core location by inspection.
146
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
1962: The First 1020 eV Event
13 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Volcano Ranch Air ShowerArray, New Mexico
Extensive Air Shower
detector array
VOLUME 10, NUMBER 4 PHYSICAL RK VIEW LKTTKRS 15 I'EBRUARY 196)
cleon-nucleon scattering see, for example, M. L. Gold-berger, Q. T. Grisaqu, S. %'. MacDow'ell, and D. Y.Kong, Phys. Rev. 120, 2250 (1960). Other methods ofcalculating phase shifts in terms of scalar and vectorparticle exchanges have been considered by a numberof authors. See, for example, R. Bryan, C. Dismukes,and W. Ramsay (to be published).3R. Blankenbecler and M. L. Goldberger, Phys.
Rev. 126, 766 (1962); G. F. Che~ and S. C. Frautschi,
Phys. Rev. Letters 7, 394 (1961);S. Frautschi,M. Gell-Mann, and F. Zachariasen, Phys. Rev. 126,2204 (1962); D. %'ong, Phys. Rev. 126, 1220 (1962).4H. Stapp (private communication).SM. Hull, K. Lassila, H. Ruppel, F. McDonald, and
G. Breit, Phys. Rev. 122, 1606 (1961).6C. de Vries, R. Hofstadter, and R. Herman, Phys.
Rev. Letters 8, 381 (1962).7J. Ball and D. %'ong (to be published).
EVIDENCE FOR A PRIMARY COSMIC-HAY PARTICLE WITH ENERGY 10 eV~
John LinsleyLaboratory for Nuclear Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
(Received 10 January 1963)
Analysis of a cosmic-ray air shower recordedat the NIT Volcano Ranch station in February1962 indicates that the total number of particlesin the shower (Serial No. 2-4834) was 5x10'0.The total energy of the primary particle whichproduced the shower was 1.0x10~ eV. The show-er was about twice the size of the largest we hadreported previously (No. 1-15832, recorded inMarch 1961).'The existence of cosmic-ray particles having
such a great energy is of importance to astrophys-ics because such particles (believed to be atomicnuclei) have very great magnetic rigidity. It isbelieved that the region in which such a particleoriginates must be large enough and possess astrong enough magnetic field so that REI» (1/300)x(E/Z), where R is the radius of the region (cm)and H is the intensity of the magnetic field (gauss).E is the total energy of the particle (eV) and Z isits charge. Recent evidence favors the choiceZ = 1 (proton primaries) for the region of highestcosmic -ray energies. ' For the pr esent event oneobtains the condition RB» 3 x 10' . This conditionis not satisfied by our galaxy (for which RH ~ 5x10", halo included) or known objects within it,such as supernovae.The technique we use has been described else-
where. ' An array of scintillation detectors isused to find the direction (from pulse times) andsize (from pulse amplitudes) of shower eventswhich satisfy a triggering requirement. In thepresent case, the direction of the shower wasnearly vertical (zenith angle 10+ 5'). The valuesof shower density registered at the various pointsof the array are shown in Fig. 1. It can be ver-ified by close inspection of the figure that thecore of the shower must have struck near the
point marked "A," assuming only (1) that showerparticles are distributed symmetrically about anaxis (the "core"), and (2) that the density of par-ticl.es decreases monotonically with increasingdistance from the axis. The observed densities
0.6
KlLOMETERS
FIG. 1. Plan of the Volcano Ranch array in February1962. The circles represent 3.3-m2 scintillation de-tectors. The numbers near the circles are the showerdensities (particles/m ) registered in this event, No.2-4834. Point A is the estimated location of theshower core. The circular contours about that pointaid in verifying the core location by inspection.
146
VOLUME 10, NUMBER 4 PHYSICAL RK VIEW LKTTKRS 15 I'EBRUARY 196)
cleon-nucleon scattering see, for example, M. L. Gold-berger, Q. T. Grisaqu, S. %'. MacDow'ell, and D. Y.Kong, Phys. Rev. 120, 2250 (1960). Other methods ofcalculating phase shifts in terms of scalar and vectorparticle exchanges have been considered by a numberof authors. See, for example, R. Bryan, C. Dismukes,and W. Ramsay (to be published).3R. Blankenbecler and M. L. Goldberger, Phys.
Rev. 126, 766 (1962); G. F. Che~ and S. C. Frautschi,
Phys. Rev. Letters 7, 394 (1961);S. Frautschi,M. Gell-Mann, and F. Zachariasen, Phys. Rev. 126,2204 (1962); D. %'ong, Phys. Rev. 126, 1220 (1962).4H. Stapp (private communication).SM. Hull, K. Lassila, H. Ruppel, F. McDonald, and
G. Breit, Phys. Rev. 122, 1606 (1961).6C. de Vries, R. Hofstadter, and R. Herman, Phys.
Rev. Letters 8, 381 (1962).7J. Ball and D. %'ong (to be published).
EVIDENCE FOR A PRIMARY COSMIC-HAY PARTICLE WITH ENERGY 10 eV~
John LinsleyLaboratory for Nuclear Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
(Received 10 January 1963)
Analysis of a cosmic-ray air shower recordedat the NIT Volcano Ranch station in February1962 indicates that the total number of particlesin the shower (Serial No. 2-4834) was 5x10'0.The total energy of the primary particle whichproduced the shower was 1.0x10~ eV. The show-er was about twice the size of the largest we hadreported previously (No. 1-15832, recorded inMarch 1961).'The existence of cosmic-ray particles having
such a great energy is of importance to astrophys-ics because such particles (believed to be atomicnuclei) have very great magnetic rigidity. It isbelieved that the region in which such a particleoriginates must be large enough and possess astrong enough magnetic field so that REI» (1/300)x(E/Z), where R is the radius of the region (cm)and H is the intensity of the magnetic field (gauss).E is the total energy of the particle (eV) and Z isits charge. Recent evidence favors the choiceZ = 1 (proton primaries) for the region of highestcosmic -ray energies. ' For the pr esent event oneobtains the condition RB» 3 x 10' . This conditionis not satisfied by our galaxy (for which RH ~ 5x10", halo included) or known objects within it,such as supernovae.The technique we use has been described else-
where. ' An array of scintillation detectors isused to find the direction (from pulse times) andsize (from pulse amplitudes) of shower eventswhich satisfy a triggering requirement. In thepresent case, the direction of the shower wasnearly vertical (zenith angle 10+ 5'). The valuesof shower density registered at the various pointsof the array are shown in Fig. 1. It can be ver-ified by close inspection of the figure that thecore of the shower must have struck near the
point marked "A," assuming only (1) that showerparticles are distributed symmetrically about anaxis (the "core"), and (2) that the density of par-ticl.es decreases monotonically with increasingdistance from the axis. The observed densities
0.6
KlLOMETERS
FIG. 1. Plan of the Volcano Ranch array in February1962. The circles represent 3.3-m2 scintillation de-tectors. The numbers near the circles are the showerdensities (particles/m ) registered in this event, No.2-4834. Point A is the estimated location of theshower core. The circular contours about that pointaid in verifying the core location by inspection.
146
VOLUME 10, NUMBER 4 PHYSICAL RK VIEW LKTTKRS 15 I'EBRUARY 196)
cleon-nucleon scattering see, for example, M. L. Gold-berger, Q. T. Grisaqu, S. %'. MacDow'ell, and D. Y.Kong, Phys. Rev. 120, 2250 (1960). Other methods ofcalculating phase shifts in terms of scalar and vectorparticle exchanges have been considered by a numberof authors. See, for example, R. Bryan, C. Dismukes,and W. Ramsay (to be published).3R. Blankenbecler and M. L. Goldberger, Phys.
Rev. 126, 766 (1962); G. F. Che~ and S. C. Frautschi,
Phys. Rev. Letters 7, 394 (1961);S. Frautschi,M. Gell-Mann, and F. Zachariasen, Phys. Rev. 126,2204 (1962); D. %'ong, Phys. Rev. 126, 1220 (1962).4H. Stapp (private communication).SM. Hull, K. Lassila, H. Ruppel, F. McDonald, and
G. Breit, Phys. Rev. 122, 1606 (1961).6C. de Vries, R. Hofstadter, and R. Herman, Phys.
Rev. Letters 8, 381 (1962).7J. Ball and D. %'ong (to be published).
EVIDENCE FOR A PRIMARY COSMIC-HAY PARTICLE WITH ENERGY 10 eV~
John LinsleyLaboratory for Nuclear Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
(Received 10 January 1963)
Analysis of a cosmic-ray air shower recordedat the NIT Volcano Ranch station in February1962 indicates that the total number of particlesin the shower (Serial No. 2-4834) was 5x10'0.The total energy of the primary particle whichproduced the shower was 1.0x10~ eV. The show-er was about twice the size of the largest we hadreported previously (No. 1-15832, recorded inMarch 1961).'The existence of cosmic-ray particles having
such a great energy is of importance to astrophys-ics because such particles (believed to be atomicnuclei) have very great magnetic rigidity. It isbelieved that the region in which such a particleoriginates must be large enough and possess astrong enough magnetic field so that REI» (1/300)x(E/Z), where R is the radius of the region (cm)and H is the intensity of the magnetic field (gauss).E is the total energy of the particle (eV) and Z isits charge. Recent evidence favors the choiceZ = 1 (proton primaries) for the region of highestcosmic -ray energies. ' For the pr esent event oneobtains the condition RB» 3 x 10' . This conditionis not satisfied by our galaxy (for which RH ~ 5x10", halo included) or known objects within it,such as supernovae.The technique we use has been described else-
where. ' An array of scintillation detectors isused to find the direction (from pulse times) andsize (from pulse amplitudes) of shower eventswhich satisfy a triggering requirement. In thepresent case, the direction of the shower wasnearly vertical (zenith angle 10+ 5'). The valuesof shower density registered at the various pointsof the array are shown in Fig. 1. It can be ver-ified by close inspection of the figure that thecore of the shower must have struck near the
point marked "A," assuming only (1) that showerparticles are distributed symmetrically about anaxis (the "core"), and (2) that the density of par-ticl.es decreases monotonically with increasingdistance from the axis. The observed densities
0.6
KlLOMETERS
FIG. 1. Plan of the Volcano Ranch array in February1962. The circles represent 3.3-m2 scintillation de-tectors. The numbers near the circles are the showerdensities (particles/m ) registered in this event, No.2-4834. Point A is the estimated location of theshower core. The circular contours about that pointaid in verifying the core location by inspection.
146
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
1962: The First 1020 eV Event
15 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Volcano Ranch Air ShowerArray, New Mexico
particle densities
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
1965: Discovery of CMB
G. Gamow
Penzias & Wilson
Measurements @ 4.08 GHz (7.35 cm)
1978
16
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
1966: „End to the CR Spectrum ?“
17 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Linsley‘s event
Greisen, Zatsepin & Kuz‘min
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
threshold: EpEγ > (mΔ2 - mp2)
⇒ EGZK ≈ 6·1019 eV100
101
102
103
104
1018 1019 1020 1021 1022
Ener
gy L
oss
Path
leng
th (M
pc)
Energy (eV)
Expansion
CMBRz = 0
Photopion, p
Photopair, p
Total, p
Photopair,Fe
Photopion,Fe
ePhotodisintegration, F
18
Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuz‘min (1966)
GZK-effect: Rapid Energy Loss of p & nuclei in CMB
p
CMB
pπ
A
CMB
photo-pion production
photo disintegration
➙ GZK-Horizon ~ 60 Mpc
p+ �CMB ! � ! p+ ⇡0
A+ �CMB ! (A� 1) + n...
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
The GZK - HorizonExpect anisotropies forprotons at E>1019 eV
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Situation ~8 years agoExperiments: AGASA, HiRes, Haverah Park, Yakutsk, SUGAR
20
• does the GZK-suppression exist? - Flux data contradictory AGASA ➙ no suppression HiRes ➙ possibly a suppression • Composition mostly protons • Apparent isotropy
Apparent continuation of spectrum in AGASA gave birth to exotic source and propagation scenarios• Top Down Models - Topological Defects, Super-Heavy Dark Matter Particles, WIMPzillas, Cryptons, ...
• Z-Burst Model ➙ massive neutrinos➙ expect EHE γ‘s and ν‘s
Energy (eV/particle)1310 1410 1510 1610 1710 1810 1910 2010
)1.
5 e
V-1
sr
-1 s
ec-2
J(E
) (m
2.5
Scal
ed fl
ux
E
1310
1410
1510
1610
1710
1810
1910
(GeV)ppsEquivalent c.m. energy 210 310 410 510 610
RHIC (p-p)-p)γHERA (
Tevatron (p-p)LHC (p-p)
ATICPROTONRUNJOB
KASCADE (QGSJET 01)KASCADE (SIBYLL 2.1)KASCADE-Grande (prel.)Akeno
HiRes-MIA
HiRes I
HiRes II
AGASA
AGASA
HIRES
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
A New Generation: Hybrid Observation of EAS
21 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Particle-density and-composition at ground
light traceat night-sky(calorimetric)
Also:Detection of Radio- & Microwave-Signals
Fluorescence light
Concept pioneered by thePierre Auger Collaboration(Fully operational since 06/2008)(Concept employed also by Telescope Array (TA))Pioneer of FD and first detection: Tanahashi, INS-Tokyo
1958, 1969
Kampert & Watson, EPJ H37 (2012) 359
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Pierre Auger Observatory
22
3000 km2
~65 km
~65 k
m
CoihuecoHEAT
BLS
CLF
XLF
Loma Amarilla
Los Morados
Los Leones
1660 detector stationson 1.5 km grid
27 fluores. telescopesat periphery
160 radio antennas...Province Mendoza, Argentina
Karl-Heinz Kampert Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
SANTIAGO
A R G E N T I N A
Pampa Amarilla Province of Mendoza 1400 m a.s.l. 35° South, 69° West 3000 km2
Karl-Heinz Kampert 24 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
...1660 stations in total
Water Cherenkov Station
Karl-Heinz Kampert 25 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
...1660 stations in total
Three 9“ PMT
12000 ltr water
solar panel
communicationGPS
electronics local trigger
40 MHz digit. 10 W
battery
Water Cherenkov Station
XP 1805
ISM band (0.9 GHz)
Karl-Heinz Kampert 26 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Karl-Heinz Kampert
Auger Hybrid Observatory
27 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Google maps
Karl-Heinz Kampert 28 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
24 telescopes (6 per site) 12 m2 mirrors, Schmidt optics 30°x30° deg field of view 440 PMTs/camera 10 MHz FADC readout
∅ 2.
2 m
opt. Filter (MUG-6)
Camera with 440 PMTs
UV optical filter
K.-H. Kampert, Univ. Wuppertal 29
nchargedrz01.mov
Karl-Heinz Kampert 30 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Central CampusVisitors are welcome (almost 100 000 visitors already)
Karl-Heinz Kampert 31 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Surface Detector (SD)507 plastic scintillator SDs
1.2 km spacing~700 km2
Fluorescence Detector(FD)3 stations
38 telescopes
TA detector in Utah
4
3 com. towers
14 telescopes
12 telescopes
12 telescopes
Refurbished HiRes
39.3°N, 112.9°W~1400 m a.s.l.
Middle Drum(MD)
Black Rock Mesa (BR)
LongRidge(LR)
CLF
ELS
2014/3/20 H. Sagawa @ VHEPA2014 FD and SD: fully operationalsince 2008/May
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Auger and TA
32
Pierre Auger Observatory Province Mendoza, Argentina 1660 detector stations, 3000 km2 27 fluorescence telescopes
Telescope Array (TA) Delta, UT, USA 507 detector stations, 680 km2 36 fluorescence telescopes
same scale
Declination dependent exposure I
2
�100 �80 �60 �40 �20 0 20 40 60d [�]
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
e(d
)h km
2sr
yri
⇥103
Vertical + horizontalVerticalHorizontal
�100 �50 0 50 100d [�]
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
e(d
)h km
2yr
i
⇥103
Auger vertical + inclinedAuger vertical (01/2004 - 12/2012)Auger inclined (01/2004 - 12/2012)TA (05/2008 - 05/2012)
Auger: 01/2004 - 12/2012TA: 05/2008- 05/2012
TA exposure (3690 km^2 sr yr) taken from http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/768/1/L1/ equivalent to 4 years
TA
Auger
Auger: 01/2004 - 12/2012TA: 05/2008 - 05/2012
Auger and TA can see the same sky
Auger exposure~10 times that of TA
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal Taipei Colloq, 7.04.201533
Event Example in Auger Observatory
12 km
~ 20 km
OBSERVATORY
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal Taipei Colloq, 7.04.201534
Event Example in Auger Observatory
12 km
~ 20 km
E = 68 EeVXmax=770 g/cm2
dE/
dx
(PeV
/g c
m2 )
Slant Depth (g cm2)
0
40
400 600 800 1000 2000
80
120
160Longitudinal Profile
Lateral Profile
1000
S(1000)
S(1000)=222 VEMθ = 54°S38=343 VEME = 71 EeV
10
100
1000
Sign
al (V
EM)
Distance to Shower Core (m)
12000 3000
OBSERVATORY
Cross Correlation
SD vertical energy calibration
Use events that were independently recorded by both SD and FDHigh quality selection incl. fiducial field of viewResolutions compared to Monte-Carlo simulations (rescaling: EMC
SD
⇥ 1.24 (avg.))Physical shower-to-shower fluctuations ⇡ 10%Sampling fluctuations: 15% (< 12%), E < 6EeV (E > 10EeV)
1019 1020
EFD / eV
101
102
S 38
/V
EM
Fit ±1 s
(Maximum-likelihood fit, 1475 events)
FD/ESDE0.5 1 1.5 20
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2data
proton
iron
(Muon number: e.g. talk by B. Kegl, paper 0860)
7 / 15
1475 events highest energy event: 8·1019 eV
energy determination basedsolely on experimental observables!
17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5log10( E /eV )
1036
1037
1038
E3J(E)
eV2km
−2sr
−1yr
−1
1035
863
1736
5622
0112
9532
4226
2720
1514
1052
202
2968
421
413
1301
486
2458
0739
8427
0017
0111
1667
642
718
890
457
31
1018 1019 1020E [eV ]
Auger 2013 preliminary
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal 35 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
OBSERVATORY
Auger Combined E-Spectrum (0°-80°)
γ1=3.23±0.07 γ2=2.63±0.04
Eankle=5·1018 eV
* *
E50% =4·1019 eV
130 000 events
J(E;E > Ea) µ E�g2
1+ exp
✓ log10 E � log10 E1/2
log10 Wc
◆��1
g g
29
Is this the GZK-effect... ?
Update from: PRL 101, 061101 (2008), Physics Letters B 685 (2010) 239
17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5log10( E /eV )
1036
1037
1038
E3J(E)
eV2km
−2sr
−1yr
−1
1035
863
1736
5622
0112
9532
4226
2720
1514
1052
202
2968
421
413
1301
486
24 5807 3984 2700
1701
1116
676
427
188
9045
73
1
1018 1019 1020E [eV ]
Auger 2013 preliminary
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5log10(E/eV)
1036
1037
1038
E3 J
(E)[e
V2
km-
2sr
-1
yr-
1 ] �E/E = 14 %
Proton, Ecut = 1020 eVProton, Ecut = 1020.5 eVIron, Ecut = 1020 eVIron, Ecut = 1020.5 eV
1018 1019 1020E [eV]
p-sources
Fe-sources
GZK-Effect or Exhausted Sources?
36 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
J(E;E > Ea) µ E�g2
1+ exp
✓ log10 E � log10 E1/2
log10 Wc
◆��1
g g
29
GZK- effect
“Galactic” (Allard-type) scenario: fixed k = 5
γ log10 Ecut(Fe) J0 H(%) He(%) N(%) Si(%) Fe(%) χ2 /dofk=5, 4 m 1.25 19.9 40.4 74.3 14.8 8.8 - 2.0 57.19/29
colour code for the spectrum plots:“4 masses”: A = 1 (blue), 2 ≤ A ≤ 4 (gray), 9 ≤ A ≤ 26 (green) and 27 ≤ A ≤ 56 (red)“5 masses”: A = 1 (blue), 2 ≤ A ≤ 4 (gray), 9 ≤ A ≤ 22 (green), 23 ≤ A ≤ 38 (violet), 39 ≤ A ≤ 56 (red)
18 18.5 19 19.5 20 20.5
3710
3810
(E/eV)10
log
]-1 yr-1
sr-2 km2
J [eV
3 E
(E/eV)10
log18 18.2 18.4 18.6 18.8 19 19.2 19.4 19.6 19.8 20
]-2
> [g
cmm
ax<X
600
650
700
750
800
850
900HHeNFe
EPOS 1.99
(E/eV)10
log18 18.2 18.4 18.6 18.8 19 19.2 19.4 19.6 19.8 20
]-2
) [g c
mm
ax(Xσ
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
H
He
NFe
5/15
expo 2
k=5, 4 masses
exhausted sources
Emax
Z / Z ⇥ Emax
pAllard et al. 2011
p
He
NFe
]2slant depth [g/cm200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
)]2 e
nerg
y de
posi
t [Pe
V/(g
/cm
0
10
20
30
40
50 Auger event
]2slant depth [g/cm200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
)]2 e
nerg
y de
posi
t [Pe
V/(g
/cm
0
10
20
30
40
50 Auger eventphoton
]2slant depth [g/cm200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
)]2 e
nerg
y de
posi
t [Pe
V/(g
/cm
0
10
20
30
40
50 Auger event
proton
]2slant depth [g/cm200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
)]2 e
nerg
y de
posi
t [Pe
V/(g
/cm
0
10
20
30
40
50 Auger event
iron
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
Longitudinal Shower Development ➙ Primary Mass
37 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
OBSERVATORY
Example of a 3·1019 eV EAS event in FD
KHK, Unger, APP 35 (2012)EPOS 1.99 Simulations
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
Decomposition of Xmax-Distributions
38 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
00.20.40.60.8
1
p f
ract
ion
00.20.40.60.8
1
He
fra
ctio
n
00.20.40.60.8
1
N f
ract
ion
00.20.40.60.8
1
Fe
fra
ctio
n
Sibyll 2.1QGSJET II-4
EPOS-LHC
1018 1019 1020
E [eV]
p
He
N
supp
ress
ion
regi
on
Auger collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 90, 122006 (2014)
? ? ? ?
Fe
we seem to see the exhaustion of sources!
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
Smoking Gun of GZK-effect
Cosmogenic+neutrinos+
4+
Detec?on+in+EeV+range+may+provide+complementary+informa?on+to+direct+UHECR+detec?on+on:++UHECR+nature+(p,+mixed,+Fe),+origin+(evolu?on+of+the+sources,+maximum+energy+a^ainable,…)+
[eV]νE1710 1810 1910 2010 2110
]-1
sr
-1 s
-2 d
N/d
E [
GeV
cm
2E
-1010
-910
-810
-710
-610
-510
-410Single flavour
p, best fit with Fermi-LAT bound (Ahlers)
eV (B. Sarkar)20=10maxp, FRII & SFR, E
eV (B. Sarkar)20=26 x 10maxFe, FRII & SFR, E
eV (Kotera)21.5 - 1020=Z x 10maxp & mixed, SFR & GRB, E
p+ �CMB ! � !
39 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
! p+ ⇡0! �EeV! n+ ⇡+! ⌫EeV
GZK-p
GZK-Fe
GZK-p
GZK-Fe
TopDown models
KHK, Unger, APP 35 (2012)
Cosmogenic Neutrinos and Photons – a guaranteed signal in presence of GZK –
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
Energy[eV]
1810
1910
2010
]-1
y-1
sr
-2 [km
0In
tegra
l F
lux E
>E
-310
-210
-110
1
upper limits 95% C.L.
SD
Hyb 2011
Hyb 2009A
A
Y
Y
TA
SHDM
SHDM'
TD
Z-burst
GZK
40 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Absence of Photons ⇒ TopDown ruled out
GZK
Photon upper limits rule out Top-Down Modelsand start to constrain GZK-expectatinons
OBSERVATORY
2011
SD 2015
2 orders of magnitude improvement during last 10 years!photon upper limits
top down models
Update from: Astropart. Phys. 31 (2009) 399; ICRC2015
Karl-Heinz Kampert 41 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
ντ$
Inclined+showers++&+UHE+neutrinos+
• Protons+&+nuclei+ini?ate+showers+high+in+the+atmosphere.++– Shower+front+at+ground:++
• mainly+composed+of+muons+• electromagne?c+component+absorbed+in+atmosphere.+
• Neutrinos+can+ini?ate+“deep”+showers+close+to+ground.+– Shower+front+at+ground:+
electromagne?c+++muonic+components+
6+
�������������������
���
�������������������
���
Searching+for+neutrinos+�+searching+for+inclined+showers+
+with+electromagne?c+component+
Search for EeV Neutrinosin inclined showers
11
The limit applies in the energy interval ⇠ 1.0⇥1017 eV�2.5⇥ 1019 eV where the cumulative number of events asa function of neutrino energy increases from 5% to 95%of the total number, i.e. where ⇠ 90% of the total eventrate is expected. It is important to remark that thisis the most stringent limit obtained so far with Augerdata, and it represents a single limit combining the threechannels where we have searched for UHE neutrinos. Thelimit to the flux normalization in Eq. (3) is obtained in-tegrating the denominator of Eq. (2) in the whole energyrange where Auger is sensitive to UHE neutrinos. Thisis shown in Fig. 4 , along with the 90% C.L. limits fromother experiments as well as several models of neutrinoflux production (see caption for references). The denom-inator of Eq. (2) can also be integrated in bins of energy,and a limit on k can also be obtained in each energy bin[35]. This is displayed in Fig. 5 where the energy binshave a width of 0.5 in log10 E⌫ , and where we also showthe whole energy range where there is sensitivity to neu-trinos. The limit as displayed in Fig. 5 allows us to showat which energies the sensitivity of the SD of the PierreAuger Observatory peaks.
The search period corresponds to an equivalent of 6.4years of a complete Auger SD array working continuously.The inclusion of the data from 1 June 2010 until 20 June2013 in the search represents an increase of a factor ⇠ 1.8in total time quantified in terms of equivalent full Augeryears with respect to previous searches [17, 18]. Furtherimprovements in the limit come from the combination ofthe three analysis into a single one, using the procedureexplained before that enhances the fraction of identifiedneutrinos especially in the DGH channel.
In Table III we give the expected total event rates forseveral models of neutrino flux production.
Several important conclusions and remarks can bestated after inspecting Figs. 4 and 5 and Table III:
1. The maximum sensitivity of the SD of theAuger Observatory is achieved at neutrino energiesaround EeV, where most cosmogenic models of ⌫production also peak (in a E2
⌫ ⇥ dN/dE⌫ plot).
2. The current Auger limit is a factor ⇠ 4 below theWaxman-Bahcall landmark on neutrino productionin optically thin sources [13]. The SD of the AugerObservatory is the first air shower array to reachthat level of sensitivity.
3. Some models of neutrino production in astrophys-ical sources such as Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN)are excluded at more than 90% C.L. For the model#2 shown in Fig. 14 of [32] we expect ⇠7 neutrinoevents while none was observed.
yields a value of Nup = 2.39 slightly smaller than the nominal2.44 of the Feldman-Cousins approach.
[eV]νE1710 1810 1910 2010 2110
]-1
sr
-1 s
-2 d
N/d
E [
GeV
cm
2 E -910
-810
-710
-610
-510Single flavour, 90% C.L.
IceCube 2013 (x 1/3) [30]
Auger (this work)
ANITA-II 2010 (x 1/3) [29]
modelsνCosmogenic p, Fermi-LAT best-fit (Ahlers '10) [33]p, Fermi-LAT 99% CL band (Ahlers '10) [33]p, FRII & SFR (Kampert '12) [31]
Waxman-Bahcall '01 [13]
[eV]νE1710 1810 1910 2010 2110
]-1
sr
-1 s
-2 d
N/d
E [
GeV
cm
2 E -910
-810
-710
-610
-510Single flavour, 90% C.L.
IceCube 2013 (x 1/3) [30]
Auger (this work)
ANITA-II 2010 (x 1/3) [29]
modelsνCosmogenic
Fe, FRII & SFR (Kampert '12) [31]
p or mixed, SFR & GRB (Kotera '10) [9]
Waxman-Bahcall '01 [13]
Figure 4. Top panel: Upper limit (at 90% C.L.) to the nor-malization of the di↵use flux of UHE neutrinos as given inEqs. (2) and (3), from the Pierre Auger Observatory. Wealso show the corresponding limits from ANITAII [29] andIceCube [30] experiments, along with expected fluxes for sev-eral cosmogenic neutrino models that assume pure protonsas primaries [31, 33] as well as the Waxman-Bahcall bound[13]. All limits and fluxes converted to single flavor. We usedNup = 2.39 in Eq. (2) to obtain the limit (see text for de-tails). Bottom panel: Same as top panel, but showing severalcosmogenic neutrino models that assume heavier nuclei as pri-maries, either pure iron [31] or mixed primary compositions[9].
4. Cosmogenic ⌫ models that assume a pure primaryproton composition injected at the sources andstrong (FRII-type) evolution of the sources arestrongly disfavored by Auger data. An exampleis the upper line of the shaded band in Fig. 17in [31] (also depicted in Figs. 4 and 5), for which⇠4 events are expected and as consequence thatflux is excluded at ⇠98% C.L. Models that assumea pure primary proton composition and normalizetheir expectations to the GeV �-ray flux observa-tions by the Fermi-LAT satellite detector are alsodisfavored. For instance for the model shown as asolid line in the bottom right panel of Fig. 5 in [33](also depicted in Figs. 4 and 5 in this work), cor-responding to the best-fit to the cosmic-ray spec-
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
Upper Limits on Neutrinos
42 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Auger Collaboration, subm. to PRD 2015
Neutrino upper limits start to constraincosmogenic neutrino fluxes of p-sources
11
The limit applies in the energy interval ⇠ 1.0⇥1017 eV�2.5⇥ 1019 eV where the cumulative number of events asa function of neutrino energy increases from 5% to 95%of the total number, i.e. where ⇠ 90% of the total eventrate is expected. It is important to remark that thisis the most stringent limit obtained so far with Augerdata, and it represents a single limit combining the threechannels where we have searched for UHE neutrinos. Thelimit to the flux normalization in Eq. (3) is obtained in-tegrating the denominator of Eq. (2) in the whole energyrange where Auger is sensitive to UHE neutrinos. Thisis shown in Fig. 4 , along with the 90% C.L. limits fromother experiments as well as several models of neutrinoflux production (see caption for references). The denom-inator of Eq. (2) can also be integrated in bins of energy,and a limit on k can also be obtained in each energy bin[35]. This is displayed in Fig. 5 where the energy binshave a width of 0.5 in log10 E⌫ , and where we also showthe whole energy range where there is sensitivity to neu-trinos. The limit as displayed in Fig. 5 allows us to showat which energies the sensitivity of the SD of the PierreAuger Observatory peaks.
The search period corresponds to an equivalent of 6.4years of a complete Auger SD array working continuously.The inclusion of the data from 1 June 2010 until 20 June2013 in the search represents an increase of a factor ⇠ 1.8in total time quantified in terms of equivalent full Augeryears with respect to previous searches [17, 18]. Furtherimprovements in the limit come from the combination ofthe three analysis into a single one, using the procedureexplained before that enhances the fraction of identifiedneutrinos especially in the DGH channel.
In Table III we give the expected total event rates forseveral models of neutrino flux production.
Several important conclusions and remarks can bestated after inspecting Figs. 4 and 5 and Table III:
1. The maximum sensitivity of the SD of theAuger Observatory is achieved at neutrino energiesaround EeV, where most cosmogenic models of ⌫production also peak (in a E2
⌫ ⇥ dN/dE⌫ plot).
2. The current Auger limit is a factor ⇠ 4 below theWaxman-Bahcall landmark on neutrino productionin optically thin sources [13]. The SD of the AugerObservatory is the first air shower array to reachthat level of sensitivity.
3. Some models of neutrino production in astrophys-ical sources such as Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN)are excluded at more than 90% C.L. For the model#2 shown in Fig. 14 of [32] we expect ⇠7 neutrinoevents while none was observed.
yields a value of Nup = 2.39 slightly smaller than the nominal2.44 of the Feldman-Cousins approach.
[eV]νE1710 1810 1910 2010 2110
]-1
sr
-1 s
-2 d
N/d
E [
GeV
cm
2 E -910
-810
-710
-610
-510Single flavour, 90% C.L.
IceCube 2013 (x 1/3) [30]
Auger (this work)
ANITA-II 2010 (x 1/3) [29]
modelsνCosmogenic p, Fermi-LAT best-fit (Ahlers '10) [33]p, Fermi-LAT 99% CL band (Ahlers '10) [33]p, FRII & SFR (Kampert '12) [31]
Waxman-Bahcall '01 [13]
[eV]νE1710 1810 1910 2010 2110
]-1
sr
-1 s
-2 d
N/d
E [
GeV
cm
2 E -910
-810
-710
-610
-510Single flavour, 90% C.L.
IceCube 2013 (x 1/3) [30]
Auger (this work)
ANITA-II 2010 (x 1/3) [29]
modelsνCosmogenic
Fe, FRII & SFR (Kampert '12) [31]
p or mixed, SFR & GRB (Kotera '10) [9]
Waxman-Bahcall '01 [13]
Figure 4. Top panel: Upper limit (at 90% C.L.) to the nor-malization of the di↵use flux of UHE neutrinos as given inEqs. (2) and (3), from the Pierre Auger Observatory. Wealso show the corresponding limits from ANITAII [29] andIceCube [30] experiments, along with expected fluxes for sev-eral cosmogenic neutrino models that assume pure protonsas primaries [31, 33] as well as the Waxman-Bahcall bound[13]. All limits and fluxes converted to single flavor. We usedNup = 2.39 in Eq. (2) to obtain the limit (see text for de-tails). Bottom panel: Same as top panel, but showing severalcosmogenic neutrino models that assume heavier nuclei as pri-maries, either pure iron [31] or mixed primary compositions[9].
4. Cosmogenic ⌫ models that assume a pure primaryproton composition injected at the sources andstrong (FRII-type) evolution of the sources arestrongly disfavored by Auger data. An exampleis the upper line of the shaded band in Fig. 17in [31] (also depicted in Figs. 4 and 5), for which⇠4 events are expected and as consequence thatflux is excluded at ⇠98% C.L. Models that assumea pure primary proton composition and normalizetheir expectations to the GeV �-ray flux observa-tions by the Fermi-LAT satellite detector are alsodisfavored. For instance for the model shown as asolid line in the bottom right panel of Fig. 5 in [33](also depicted in Figs. 4 and 5 in this work), cor-responding to the best-fit to the cosmic-ray spec-
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
Upper Limits on Neutrinos
43 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Auger Collaboration, subm. to PRD 2015
Neutrino upper limits start still abovecosmogenic neutrino fluxes for Fe-sources
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
UHECR Sky surprisingly isotropic
44 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
J(E;E > Ea) µ E�g2
1+ exp
✓ log10 E � log10 E1/2
log10 Wc
◆��1
g g
29
dipole like anisotropy
hot/warm spot
TA (5σ pre-trial) (3.4σ post-trial)
Auger (3σ pre-trial)
TA: ApJ 790:L21 (2014)
Auger: APP 34(2010) 314
E>57 EeVE>8 EeV
Auger Collaboration ApJ (2015) in pressAmplitude: (4.4±1.0)%; p=6.4·10-5
17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5log10( E /eV )
1036
1037
1038
E3J(E)
eV2km
−2sr
−1yr
−1
1035
863
1736
5622
0112
9532
4226
2720
1514
1052
202
2968
421
413
1301
486
24 5807 3984 2700
1701
1116
676
427
188
9045
73
1
1018 1019 1020E [eV ]
Auger 2013 preliminary
Cen A
Feain et al.,ApJ 740 (2011) 17
?
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
Weak excess of events around Cen A
45 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
0 20 40 60 80
100 120 140 160
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Num
ber o
f eve
nts
Angular distance from Cen A [deg]
E>58 EeV
68% isotropic95% isotropic
99.7% isotropicdata
Feain et al., ApJ 740 (2011) 17
fmin=2e-4, out to 15° there are 14 events, 4.5 expected, P=1.4%
Auger 1411.6111; ApJ (2015) in press
15°
14 events observedexpect 4.5p=1.5%
E > 58 EeV
giant lobes ~ 280 kpcphysical age ~ 560 Myr
distance ~ 3.8 Mpc
16° moon
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
Résumé
46 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Data from the Auger Observatory indicate that the flux suppression is mostly due to seeing the exhaustion of the sources:
1) change towards a heavier composition
2) constraints on GZK photonsand neutrinos
3) highly isotropic sky
Neutron Stars
white dwarfts
Active Galactic Nuclei ?
jets from radioInterplanetary
Space
Galact.disk
halo
eV proton
galaxies
GalacticClusters
Size
Mag
net
ic F
ield
stre
ng
th (G
auß
)
1AU
SNR
1012
10 6
1
10 –6
1km 10 6 km 1pc 1kpc 1Mpc
IGM
10 20
{
LHC
GRB ?Emax ~ βs·z·B·L
Fe
Logical next step: Measure composition event-by-event into the flux suppression region➨ composition becoming increasingly heavier?➨ enable composition enhanced anisotropy studies➨ do particle physics at √s≈100 TeV
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
UHECR: Near Future
47 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Auger upgrade: mass compositionwith ground array
origin of the flux suppression
hadronic interactionsbeyond LHC
TAx4
By H. Sagawa for TAx4 design,
G. Thomson, ECRS 2014
500 more SDs with
2.1 km spacing
700 ї 3000 km2
10 refurb. HiRes FDs
Submit TAx4 proposals
in Japan and US
in Oct. 2014, and build
in 2015 - 2016.
29
more rapidincrease of statistics
TA upgrade: area * 4
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
UHECR: Long Term Plan
48 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Global Cosmic Ray Observatory (GCOS)few sites in N+S, 90 000 km2
感谢您的关注!
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Bounds on LIV and Smoothness of Class. Space-Time
49
Klinkhamer/Risse; PRD77 (2008) 016002; 117901; Klinkhamer, AIP Conf.Proc.977:181-201,2008
• Conservative limit on any small-scale structure of space:LEP/LHC: ℓ≤10-19 m ≈ ℏc/(1 TeV).
• Use published 27 Auger events + 1 AGASA + 1 Fly‘s-Eye↪ single scale classical space-time foam at
UHECRs: b ≤ 10-26 m ≈ ℏc/(2·1010 GeV)
• Conjecture: fundamental length scale of quantum space time may be different from Planck length and may be linked to cosmological constant
Observation of 1020 eV eventsproofs absence of Vacuum Cherenkov-Radiation ➙ Provides limits on smoothness of space & LIV-effects
by far best (3 to 8 orders of magn.!) existing bounds of Standard Model Extension parameters of nonbirefringent modified Maxwell theory
Results complemented by TeV γ-rays
34th International Conference on High Energy Physics, Philadelphia, 2008
Figure 2: Sketch of a static classical spacetime-foam manifold.
5. DISCUSSION
Calculations [15] of standard photons and Dirac particles propagating in simple classical spacetime-foam models
reproduce a restricted (isotropic) version of model (1)–(2):
2 !κtr ="!b
#!l$4
, (!κo+)mn = (!κe−)mn = 0 , (8)
for randomly orientated defects with an effective size !b and an average separation !l (cf. Fig. 2). The heuristics of
the result is well understood, as the type of Maxwell solution found for the classical spacetime foam is analogous to
the solution from the so-called “Bethe holes” for waveguides [16]. In both cases, the standard Maxwell plane wave
is modified by the radiation from fictitious multipoles located in the holes or defects. But there is a difference: for
Bethe, the holes are in a material conductor, whereas for us, the defects are “holes” in space itself.
The UHECR bound (6c) implies that a single-scale"!b ∼ !l
$classical spacetime foam is ruled out. This conclusion
holds, in fact, for arbitrarily small defect size !b , as long as a classical spacetime makes sense. That is, down to
distances at which the classical-quantum transition occurs, possibly of order lPlanck ≡%
! GN/c3 ≈ 1.6 × 10−35 m.
This result is really like having a null experiment and there is an analogy with the Michelson–Morley experi-
ment [17]: theorists expect novel effects which are not seen by experimentalists.
In turn, this suggests the need for radically new concepts. Then, there was the “relativity of simultaneity”
introduced by Einstein [18]. Now, regarding the quantum origin of spacetime, there is . . . (alas, margin too narrow!)
References
[1] E.F. Beall, Phys. Rev. D 1, 961 (1970), Sec. III A, Cases 1 and 2.
[2] S.R. Coleman and S.L. Glashow, Phys. Lett. B 405, 249 (1997), arXiv:hep-ph/9703240.
[3] S. Chadha and H.B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. B 217, 125 (1983).
[4] D. Colladay and V.A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D 58, 116002 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9809521.
[5] V.A. Kostelecky and M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. D 66, 056005 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0205211.
[6] H. Muller et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 050401 (2007), arXiv:0706.2031.
[7] S. Reinhardt et al., Nature Phys. 3, 861 (2007).
[8] C.D. Carone, M. Sher, and M. Vanderhaeghen, Phys. Rev. D 74, 077901 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0609150.
[9] M.A. Hohensee, R. Lehnert, D.F. Phillips, and R.L. Walsworth, arXiv:0809.3442.
[10] C. Kaufhold and F.R. Klinkhamer, Nucl. Phys. B 734, 1 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0508074.
[11] B. Altschul, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 041603 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0609030.
[12] C. Kaufhold and F.R. Klinkhamer, Phys. Rev. D 76, 025024 (2007), arXiv:0704.3255.
[13] F.R. Klinkhamer and M. Risse, Phys. Rev. D 77, 117901 (2008), arXiv:0806.4351.
[14] F.R. Klinkhamer and M. Schreck, to appear in Phys. Rev. D, arXiv:0809.3217.
[15] S. Bernadotte and F.R. Klinkhamer, Phys. Rev. D 75, 024028 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0610216.
[16] H.A. Bethe, Phys. Rev. 66, 163 (1944).
[17] A.A. Michelson and E.W. Morley, Am. J. Sci. 34, 333 (1887).
[18] A. Einstein, Annalen Phys. 17, 891 (1905) [reprinted in: Annalen Phys. 14, 194 (2005)].
4
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
]2 [g/cmmaxX500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
/g]
2 [
cmm
axdN
/dX
-110
1
10
2 g/cm+2.4-2.3 = 55.8 fΛ
dPdX1
= 1�int
e�X1/�int
�p�Air = hmAiri�int
p-Air Cross-Section from Xmax distribution
50 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Data: 1018 eV < E < 1018.5 eV
In practice: σp-Air by tuning models to describe Λ seen in data
X1: point of 1st interactionΔX1
ΔXmax≈ ΔX1
Difficulties: • mass composition can alter Λ• fluctuations in Xmax
• experimental resolution ~ 20 g/cm2
Λint
top of atmosphere
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
Inelastic Proton-Proton Cross-Section
Standard Glauber conversion + propagation of modeling uncertainties
(Pro
ton-
Prot
on)
[m
b]in
elσ
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
[GeV]s310 410 510
ATLAS 2011CMS 2011ALICE 2011TOTEM 2011UA5CDF/E710Auger ICRC 2011
QGSJet01QGSJetII.3Sibyll2.1Epos1.99Pythia 6.115Phojet
σinelpp =
!
90 ± 7stat (+9−11)sys ± 1.5Glauber
"
mb√spp = [57 ± 6] TeV
The 1.5mb do not reflect the total theoretical uncertainty, since there are other
models available for the conversion.Ralf Ulrich (ralf.ulrich@kit.edu) Measurement of the Proton-Air Cross-Section with the Pierre Auger Observatory 12 / 19
p-Air and pp Cross section @ √s=57 TeV
51 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
(Energy/eV)10
log11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Cro
ss s
ecti
on
(p
ro
ton
-air
) [m
b]
200
300
400
500
600
700
QGSJet01c
QGSJetII.3
Sibyll 2.1
Epos 1.99
Energy [eV]
1110
1210
1310
1410
1510
1610
1710
1810
1910
2010
[TeV]pp
sEquivalent c.m. energy -1
10 1 102
10
Nam et al. 1975
Siohan et al. 1978
Baltrusaitis et al. 1984
Mielke et al. 1994
Honda et al. 1999
Knurenko et al. 1999
ICRC07 HiRes
Aglietta et al. 2009
Aielli et al. 2009
This work
0.9TeV 2.36TeV 7TeV 14TeV
LHC
Conversion from p-airto p-p cross section
by Glauber-approach
σp-Air= (505 ± 22stat (+26)sys ) mb –34
σpp = [92 ± 7stat (+9 )sys ± 7.0Glauber] mb –11
LHC OBSERVATORY
OBSERVATORY
inel
prod
σpp = [133 ± 13stat (+17 )sys ± 16Glauber] mb –20
tot
Auger
Auger Collaboration, PRL 109, 062002 (2012)
Karl-Heinz Kampert – University Wuppertal
Interaction Models lack Muons in EAS
52 Taipei Colloq, 7.04.2015
Auger Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 91, 032003 (2015); editors suggestion
680 700 720 740 760 780 800 820Xmax / g cm− 2
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
log 1
0Nµ
Augerdata
pHe
NFe
E = 1019 eV, θ = 67°EPOS LCHQGSJet II-04QGSJet II-03QGSJet01
Auger data 0.601 ± 0.016+ 0.168− 0.203 (sys. )
EPOS LHCp 0.197
Fe 0.482
lnA 0.315 ± 0.007± 0.039 ( sys. )
QGSJet II-04p 0.162
Fe 0.453
lnA 0.235 ± 0.007± 0.037 ( sys. )
QGSJet II-03p -0.026
Fe 0.258
lnA 0.026 ± 0.007± 0.043 ( sys. )
QGSJet01p 0.091
Fe 0.370
lnA 0.116 ± 0.004± 0.047 ( sys. )
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
lnR µ (1019 eV )
µ-deficit points to deficiencies of hadronic interaction modelsLHC forward physics program highly relevantjoint efforts by people from both communities