1 / 23

Seasonal Variations in the MINOS Far Detector

Eric W. Grashorn University of Minnesota Thursday, 5 July, 2007. Seasonal Variations in the MINOS Far Detector . Far Detector. 2341 ft (2100 m.w.e.) Scintillator and steel tracking calorimeter 486 octagonal planes 2 “Supermodules” 5.4 Kton 1.5 T magnet. Seasonal Variation.

althea
Download Presentation

Seasonal Variations in the MINOS Far Detector

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Eric W. Grashorn University of Minnesota Thursday, 5 July, 2007 Seasonal Variations in the MINOS Far Detector

  2. Far Detector • 2341 ft (2100 m.w.e.) • Scintillator and steel tracking calorimeter • 486 octagonal planes • 2 “Supermodules” • 5.4 Kton • 1.5 T magnet

  3. Seasonal Variation • Underground experiments (Barrett, MACRO, AMANDA) reported positive correlation between muon intensity and atmospheric temperature • Correlation motivated by upper atmosphere density • Higher temp = lower density • Primary interactions take place higher in the atmosphere at higher temperatures • Thus, mesons are more likely to decay than interact

  4. Temperature Coefficient • Determine aT experimentally (for pion only hypothesis): • Effective Temperature (Teff) treats the atmosphere as isothermal • Weighted average of uniform atmospheric levels

  5. Muon Data Selection • Data from 08/03-08/06 • 1096 days of detector running (968 live-days) • 40.38 million CR events • Cuts: • Pre-analysis: DeMux FOM failures, “Bad run”, multiple muon, coil status • Data Quality cuts: Length <2, Nplanes <20, Fiducial cut, “fit quality” cut • 24.6 Million events survived, 60.9% of the data

  6. Cosmic Ray Events • Time between consecutive events, log y • c2/ndof = 90.9/105 • Slope <Rm> = 0.287 Hz • Rate per day:

  7. Temperature Data Selection • IGRA (Integrated Global Radiosonode Archive) data taken from International Falls, MN (150 Km NW of Soudan) • Cuts: • Two balloon flights, 1100 and 2300 (C.S.T.) • Column height > 60 g/cm2 • 128 days excluded • Error on Teff data was calculated by subtracting the rms from the mean.

  8. Teff Distribution <Teff> over the three year period: 221.0 K

  9. Deviation from Mean (%): • Left: DRm (top) DTeff (bottom) over three years • Right: DRm(DTeff) over the same three year period • Fit a straight line (error bars in both dimensions) • c2/ndof = 1420/953

  10. Correlation • The temperature coefficient (aT) is the slope of the linear fit of DRm (DTeff). The MINOS result (pion only hypothesis): aT = 0.87 ± 0.03 • Correlation for these two distributions: 0.79

  11. Theoretical aT • Calculate <aT > with a simple Monte Carlo: • Choose a random Em, cos(q) from the differential intensity spectrum, find random f, assume flat overburden to find X. • Use Em, cos(q) in aT calculation if Em > Eth . • Calculate aT (from Barrett) with 10,000 such successful muons at slant depths up to 4000 mwe.

  12. Theoretical aT • Data: Barrett 1, 2 (Barrett, 1952), AMANDA (Bouchta et al, 1999), all other points from Ambrosio et al, 1997. • Curve is calculated aT (depth)

  13. Charge Separated • Used qp/sqp > 2.2 • 11.86 Million events survive: • 6.74 million m+ • 5.12 million m- • Livetime: • 774 days forward • 192 days reverse Charge separated seasonal fluctuations as % diff from the mean; m+ in circles (top), m- in triangles (bottom). Reverse field

  14. Charge Separated • Charge separated DRm (DTeff) • Correlation coefficient: • m+: 0.54; m- : 0.47. • aT: • m+: 0.84 +/- 0.05 • m-: 0.84 +/- 0.06

  15. Conclusions • Temp Coefficient, aT, in MINOS: 0.87 +/- 0.03 • This precise measurement of a small signal ( +/- 4% fluctuations), shows MINOS’ sensitivity • Result is slightly below expectation • Charge Separated: • aT for m+: 0.84 +/- 0.05; aT for m-: 0.84 +/- 0.06 • Within error, these are identical; there is nothing new here (as expected).

  16. Backup Slides

  17. Temperature Coefficient • Correlation between Im and T given by Barrett as: • Rewriting Im for a particle counter: • So, to determine aT experimentally:

  18. Effective Temperature • In order to evaluate the integral, we use the “effective temperature” approximation of Barrett: where Lp= 160 g/cm2 ,LN = 120 g/cm2

  19. Effective Temperature • We now have: • Which gives: *Note that Teff is for pion induced muons only

  20. Cuts • Pre-analysis: • DeMux FOM failures, “Bad run”, multiple muon, coil status • Data Quality cuts: • Length >2, Nplanes > 20, Fiducial cut, “fit quality” cut • 24.6 Million events survived the cuts, 53.4% of the data

  21. Cuts • Table of events that survive each cut:

  22. Theoretical aT • For differential intensity distributions of the form: With g = 1.7, ep =139 GeV, ek = 860 GeV • Barrett gives: With Eth the threshold muon energy required to survive to slant depth X (mwe), given by Eth(q,f) = 0.5(TeV)(e0.4X -1)

  23. Conclusions: • Binned by day, there seems to be a correlation between Rm & Teff for charge-separated events as well • aT for m+: 0.84 +/- 0.05; aT for m-: 0.84 +/- 0.06 • Within the error for each measurement, these are identical, so the charge separated sample doesn’t tell us anything new (this is good)

More Related