1 / 20

Cutting-Edge Advances in Radio Wave Shower Detection

Explore the latest developments in radio wave shower detection, including transparency in ice/water, radio coherence, signal power growth, system gain calibration, and more. Discover the unique geometry of inclined shower detection and ongoing efforts in air shower detection. Delve into upper limits, experimental scales, and the potential for multiple radio experiments for enhanced results. Stay updated on advancements in RICE, ANITA, ARIANNA, and other projects shaping the future of cosmic particle detection.

tkimberly
Download Presentation

Cutting-Edge Advances in Radio Wave Shower Detection

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. Radiowave shower detection (GV, also) – cf optical/acoustic Basic parameters: Transparency ~ 2 km vs. 40 m ice/water Radio ‘coherence’  quadratic growth of signal power at >20 cm wavelengths (vs. linear for optical/PMT) Now extensive experience in situ (RICE) + 3 beam tests at SLAC by GLUE/ANITA groups RMoliere

  2. Why believe radio? • Attenuation length in situ data • Test beam data consistentcoherenceGHz

  3. In situ absolute system gain calibration (~dE/E) using calibrated radio sources • RICE (gain error~3 dB) • ANITA (~ 0.5 dB) • In situ reconstructed radio sources (Tx) • Observation of l=10 m radio coherence in coincidence w/ EAS (LOPES/KASCADE) • Signal strength~Allen formula (from 60’s)

  4. Lower bar for radio (optical/EAS) AUGER, EUSO -geometry of inclined shower detection VERY distinctive Contained events better-reconstructed than events outside detector

  5. Efforts + Ideas • RICE, ANITA (In progress) • LOPES, CODALEMA, South-Pole-effort-with-which-I’m-not-very-familiar (Jeff Peterson,CMU) • Air shower detection • AURA, SALSA, ARIANNA • In planning/seed-funding • ROAST + other stationary elevated options • Europa (3-10 km thick ice [+salts and/or sulfuric acid] @ 91 K) • Surface Wave coupling of radio waves (evanescent solutions of Maxwell’s eqns.)

  6. In-Progress Efforts

  7. RICE ANITA beam test (SLAC, June 2006)

  8. ARIANNA – ice characterization 06-07 (steve barwick talk)

  9. Air shower detection of EAS (Heino Falcke, plenary) Threshold~100 PeV, LOPES must be externally triggered by ground detectors. 5 highly inclined events in 2004 data.

  10. SALSA

  11. Salt • Experimental site on continental US? • Surface layer+water  ‘insulating barrier’, but: • Uncertain salt properties, site-to-site • Lab measurements encouraging but not fully fleshed out (Latten~50 m  1 km) • High Drilling Costs • (~1M/hole vs. 50K/12 cm, 1 km deep hole at Pole)

  12. Upper limits (Saltzberg)

  13. Upper limits (Hussain) Cautions: 1) presented upper limits can `float’ horizontally (no energy resolution), 2) different model parameters used for different modes, 3) 90% vs. 95% C.L. limits, 4) results depend on binning

  14. Do we need multiple radio expts? • Threshold~experimental scale (coincidence trigger requirement) • 1013 eV threshold (104 elements, 20 m spacing, surface array [Greenland]) viewing upcoming Sgr*A neutrinos • 100 m spacingDense packed expt (RICE, e.g.); showers typically several km distant1017 eV • 38 km height; showers typically 100 km distant1019 eV threshold (ANITA)

  15. Atm. Nu:IceCube = X:radio; X NOT air showers RICE ANITA

  16. PMT noise:IC=Thermal noise:radio • Band-limited response from noise ~ band-limited response from signal • Probability for a false trigger in one N-sample waveform~Nexp(-x2/2s2), assuming Gaussian noise spectrum, with x=trigger threshold criterion (2.5-sigma, e.g.). • GLUE/ANITAGaussian • RICEnon-Gaussian tails: x=5, N=8192P=0.03/channel • For a big array, thermal noise is statistically characterizable: vertices cluster within array, with vertex distribution determined by coincidence window • Caution: most expts. Operating very close to the ‘edge’!

  17. RICE trigger rate(threshold)

  18. Trigger multiplicity vs. Reconstruction multiplicity • Trigger: Minimum of 4-hits needed to solve ct0=(x,y,z) • (quadratic ambiguity) • (RICE) biggest problem = N ‘real’ hits + M `noise’ hits • minimum hit multiplicity from 45 to `isolate’ noise hit via residuals, e.g.

  19. Acoustic compared to Radio +)10 km Latten? +) 20 khz-50 khz digitization and signal transmissioncan do all triggering/DAQ on surface with no high-frequency signal losses +) Ray tracing insulates acoustic waves produced at surface from interior +) No battle with RF backgrounds 0) both polarizations -) 1/f noise forces threshold up to 1019 eV BEST IF YOU CAN DO BOTH!

  20. Secular* Grail: Simultaneous obs.!GZK evts / hybrid dector (c. 2010) N.B: coincidences offer lower thresholds (50%?), enhanced event reconstruction (Justin Vandenbrouke WG talk tomorrow) *(an obscure reference to local KS politics; not crucial to understanding talk as a whole)

More Related