1 / 47

The PAMELA experiment: looking for antiparticles in Cosmic Rays

Waseda, 14 January 2009. The PAMELA experiment: looking for antiparticles in Cosmic Rays. Oscar Adriani University of Florence and INFN Florence. Outline. The PAMELA experiment: short review Results on cosmic-ray antimatter abundance: Antiprotons Positrons Other results:

waldo
Download Presentation

The PAMELA experiment: looking for antiparticles in Cosmic Rays

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. Waseda, 14 January 2009 The PAMELA experiment:looking for antiparticles in Cosmic Rays Oscar Adriani University of Florence and INFN Florence

  2. Outline • The PAMELA experiment: short review • Results on cosmic-ray antimatter abundance: • Antiprotons • Positrons • Other results: • Cosmic-ray galactic light nuclei (primaries & secondaries) • Solar physics • Terrestrial physics • Conclusions  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  3. Italy CNR, Florence Bari Florence Frascati Naples Rome Trieste Russia Moscow St. Petersburg Germany Sweden Siegen KTH, Stockholm Tha PAMELA collaboration  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  4. PAMELAPayload for Antimatter/Matter Exploration and Light-nuclei Astrophysics  Direct detection of CRs in space  Main focus on antimatter component  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  5. Why CR antimatter? Evaporation of primordial black holes Anti-nucleosyntesis First historical measurements of p-bar/p ratio WIMP dark-matter annihilation in the galactic halo Background: CR interaction with ISM CR + ISM  p-bar + …  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  6. Annihilation of relic Weakly Interacting Massive Particles (WIMPs) gravitationally confined in the galactic halo  Distortion of antiproton and positron spectra from purely secondary production A plausible dark matter candidate is neutralino (c), the lightest SUSY Particle (LSP). Most likely processes: cc  qq  hadrons anti-p, e+,… cc  W+W-,Z0Z0,…  e+,…  positron peak Ee+~Mc/2  positron continuum Ee+~Mc/20 Another possible candidate is the lightest Kalusa-Klein Particle (LKP): B(1) Fermionic final states no longer suppressed: B(1)B(1)  e+e- direct dicay  positron peak Ee+ ~ MB(1) Cosmic-ray Antimatter from Dark Matter annihilation Halo You are here Milky Way p-bar, e+ c c  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  7. Charge-dependent solar modulation Solar polarity reversal 1999/2000 Asaoka Y. Et al. 2002 Positron excess? ? ? ¯ + • CR + ISM  p-bar + … • Propagation dominated by nuclear interactions • Kinematical threshold: Eth~5.6 for the reaction CR antimatter Experimental scenario before PAMELA Positrons Antiprotons ___ Moskalenko & Strong 1998 • CR + ISM  p± + x m± + x  e± + x • CR + ISM  p0 + x gg e± • Propagation dominated by energy losses • (inverse Compton & synchrotron radiation) • Local origin (@100GeV 90% from <2kpc)  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  8. BESS-polar (long-duration) “Standard” balloon-borne experiments • low exposure (~20h) •  large statistical errors • atmospheric secondaries (~5g/cm2) •  additional systematic uncertainty @low-energy CR antimatter: available data Why in space? Positrons Antiprotons ___ Moskalenko & Strong 1998  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  9. PAMELA detectors Main requirements  high-sensitivity antiparticle identification and precise momentum measure + - • Time-Of-Flight • plastic scintillators + PMT: • Trigger • Albedo rejection; • Mass identification up to 1 GeV; • - Charge identification from dE/dX. • Electromagnetic calorimeter • W/Si sampling (16.3 X0, 0.6 λI) • Discrimination e+ / p, anti-p / e- • (shower topology) • Direct E measurement for e- • Neutron detector • plastic scintillators + PMT: • High-energy e/h discrimination GF: 21.5 cm2 sr Mass: 470 kg Size: 130x70x70 cm3 Power Budget: 360W • Spectrometer • microstrip silicon tracking system+ permanent magnet • It provides: • - Magnetic rigidity R = pc/Ze • Charge sign • Charge value from dE/dx  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  10. Track reconstruction • Measured @ground with protons of known momentum •  MDR~1TV • Cross-check in flight with protons (alignment) and electrons (energy from calorimeter) Iterative c2 minimization as a function of track state-vector components a Magnetic deflection |η| = 1/R R = pc/Ze magnetic rigidity sR/R = sh/h Maximum Detectable Rigidity (MDR) def: @ R=MDR sR/R=1 MDR = 1/sh Principle of operation  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  11. track average Z measurement 4He B,C 3He Be Bethe Bloch ionization energy-loss of heavy (M>>me) charged particles d (saturation) p Li e± 1st plane Principle of operation  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  12. Velocity measurement • Particle identification @ low energy • Identify albedo (up-ward going particles b < 0 ) •  NB! They mimic antimatter! Principle of operation  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  13. Electron/hadron separation • Interaction topology • e/h separation • Energy measurement of electrons and positrons • (~full shower containment) hadron (19GV) electron (17GV) Principle of operation + NEUTRONS!!  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  14. Multi-spectral remote sensing of earth’s surface near-real-time high-quality images Built by the Space factory TsSKB Progress in Samara (Russia) Operational orbit parameters: inclination ~70o altitude ~ 360-600 km (elliptical) Active life >3 years Data transmitted via Very high-speed Radio Link (VRL) The Resurs DK-1 spacecraft Mass: 6.7 tons Height: 7.4 m Solar array area: 36 m2 • PAMELA mounted inside apressurized container • moved from parking to data-taking position few times/year  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  15. PAMELA design performance Maximum detectable rigidity (MDR) energy rangeparticles in 3 years Antiprotons80 MeV ÷190 GeV O(104) Positrons50 MeV ÷ 270 GeV O(105) Electrons up to 400 GeV O(106) Protonsup to 700 GeV O(108) Electrons+positronsup to 2 TeV (from calorimeter) LightNuclei up to 200 GeV/n He/Be/C: O(107/4/5) Anti-Nuclei searchsensitivity of 3x10-8 in anti-He/He Magnetic curvature & trigger spillover shower containment • Unprecedented statistics and new energy range for cosmic ray physics (e.g. contemporary antiproton and positron maximum energy ~ 40 GeV) • Simultaneous measurements of many species  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  16. Launch from Baikonur June 15th 2006, 0800 UTC. ‘First light’ June 21st 2006, 0300 UTC. • Detectors operated as expected after launch • Different trigger and hardware configurations evaluated PAMELA in continuous data-taking mode since commissioning phase ended on July 11th 2006 PAMELA milestones Main antenna in NTsOMZ Trigger rate* ~25Hz Fraction of live time* ~ 75% Event size (compressed mode) ~ 5kB 25 Hz x 5 kB/ev ~ 10 GB/day (*outside radiation belts) Till December 2008: ~800 days of data taking ~16 TByte of raw data downlinked ~16•108 triggers recorded and analysed (Data from May till now under analysis)  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  17. Antiprotons

  18. High-energy antiproton analysis • Analyzed data July 2006 – February 2008 (~500 days) • Collected triggers ~108 • Identified ~ 10 106 protons and ~ 1 103 antiprotons between 1.5 and 100 GeV ( 100 p-bar above 20GeV ) • Antiproton/proton identification: • rigidity (R)  SPE • |Z|=1 (dE/dx vs R)  SPE&ToF • b vs R consistent with MpToF • p-bar/p separation (charge sign)  SPE • p-bar/e- (and p/e+ ) separation CALO • Dominant background spillover protons: • finite deflection resolution of the SPE  wrong assignment of charge-sign @ high energy • proton spectrum harder than positron  p/p-bar increase for increasing energy (103 @1GV 104 @100GV) •  Required strong SPE selection  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  19. 1 GV 5 GV Antiproton identification Preliminary!! -1  Z  +1 p (+ e+) p e-(+ p-bar) proton-consistency cuts (dE/dx vs R and b vs R) “spillover” p p-bar electron-rejection cuts based on calorimeter-pattern topology ( For |Z|=1, deflection=1/p )  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  20. Proton-spillover background MDR = 1/sh (evaluated event-by-event by the fitting routine) Minimal track requirements MDR > 850GV • Strong track requirements: • strict constraints on c2 (~75% efficiency) • rejected tracks with low-resolution clusters along the trajectory • - faulty strips (high noise) • - d-rays (high signal and multiplicity)  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  21. R < MDR/10 10 GV 50 GV Proton-spillover background MDR = 1/sh (evaluated event-by-event by the fitting routine) p p-bar “spillover” p • MDR depends on: • number and distribution of fitted points along the trajectory • spatial resolution of the single position measurements • magnetic field intensity along the trajectory  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  22. Antiproton-to-proton ratio *preliminary* astro-ph 0810.4994  In press by PRL (Petter Hofverberg’s PhD Thesis)  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  23. Positrons

  24. S1 CARD CAT S2 TOF SPE CAS S3 CALO S4 ND High-energy positron analysis • Analyzed data July 2006 – February 2008 (~500 days) • Collected triggers ~108 • Identified ~ 150 103 electrons and ~ 9 103 positrons between 1.5 and 100 GeV (180 positrons above 20GeV) • Electron/positron identification: • rigidity (R)  SPE • |Z|=1 (dE/dx=MIP)  SPE&ToF • b=1 ToF • e-/e+ separation (charge sign)  SPE • e+/p (and e-/p-bar) separation CALO • Dominant background interacting protons: • fluctuations in hadronic shower development  p0 ggmight mimic pure em showers • proton spectrum harder than positron  p/e+ increase for increasing energy (103 @1GV 104 @100GV) •  Required strong CALO selection  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  25. Positron identification with CALO 51 GV positron • Identification based on: • Shower topology (lateral and longitudinal profile, shower starting point) • Total detected energy (energy-rigidity match) • Analysis key points: • Tuning/check of selection criteria with: • test-beam data • simulation • flight data  dE/dx from SPE & neutron yield from ND • Selection of pure proton sample from flight data (“pre-sampler” method): • Background-suppression method • Background-estimation method 80 GV proton Final results make NON USE of test-beam and/or simulation calibrations. The measurement is based only on flight data with the background-estimation method  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  26. Z=-1 e- Rigidity: 20-30 GV p-bar (non-int) p-bar (int) NB! Z=+1 0.6 RM p (non-int) LEFT HIT RIGHT planes (e+) p (int) strips Positron identification Fraction of charge released along the calorimeter track  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  27. Positron identification Energy-momentum match Energy measured in Calo/ Deflection in Tracker (MIP/GV) e- ( e+ )  e  h p-bar p  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  28. Z=-1 Z=-1 e- e- Rigidity: 20-30 GV Rigidity: 20-30 GV + Constraints on: p-bar (non-int) p-bar (int) p-bar Energy-momentum match NB! Z=+1 Z=+1 p (non-int) e+ (e+) p (int) p Positron identification Fraction of charge released along the calorimeter track  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  29. Shower starting-point Longitudinal profile Positron identification 51 GV positron 80 GV proton  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  30. Z=-1 Z=-1 e- e- Rigidity: 20-30 GV Rigidity: 20-30 GV p-bar Shower starting-point Z=+1 Z=+1 Longitudinal profile Lateral profile e+ e+ p BK-suppression method p Positron identification Fraction of charge released along the calorimeter track + Constraints on: Energy-momentum match  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  31. Check of calorimeter selection Flight data Rigidity: 20-30 GV Test beam data Momentum: 50GeV/c Fraction of charge released along the calorimeter track e- e- + Constraints on: Energy-momentum match e+ p Shower starting-point p  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  32. Check of calorimeter selection Flight data Rigidity: 20-30 GV Flight data Neutron yield in ND Fraction of charge released along the calorimeter track e- e- + Constraints on: Energy-momentum match e+ e+ Shower starting-point p p  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  33. Check of calorimeter selection Energy loss in silicon tracker detectors: • Top: positive (mostly p) and negative events (mostly e-) • Bottom: positive events identified as p and e+ by trasversal profile method Relativistic rise Rigidity: 10-15 GV Rigidity: 15-20 GV neg (e-) pos (p) neg (e-) pos (p) p e+ p e+  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  34. The “pre-sampler” method Selection of a pure sample of protons from flight data CALORIMETER: 22 W planes: 16.3 X0 2 W planes: ≈1.5 X0 20 W planes: ≈15 X0  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  35. Proton background evaluation Rigidity: 20-28 GV e- Fraction of charge released along the calorimeter track (left, hit, right) + Constraints on: p (pre-sampler) Energy-momentum match Shower starting-point e+ p  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  36. Proton background evaluation Rigidity: 28-42 GV e- Fraction of charge released along the calorimeter track (left, hit, right) + Constraints on: p (pre-sampler) Energy-momentum match Shower starting-point e+ p  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  37. Positron fraction astro-ph 0810.4995  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  38. (( Do we have any antimatter excess in CRs? ))  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  39. Antiproton-to-proton ratioSecondary Production Models CR + ISM  p-bar + … • (Moskalenko et al. 2006) GALPROP code • Plain diffusion model • Solar modulation: drift model ( A<0, a=15o ) • (Donato et al. 2001) • Diffusion model with convection and reacceleration • Solar modulation: spherical model (f=500MV ) •  Uncertainty band related to propagation parameters (~10% @10GeV) •  Additional uncertainty of ~25% due to production cs should be considered !! • (Ptuskin et al. 2006) GALPROP code • Plain diffusion model • Solar modulation: spherical model ( f=550MV ) No evidence for any antiproton excess  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  40. Positron fractionSecondary Production Models CR + ISM  p± + … m± + …  e± + … CR + ISM  p0 + … gg e± • (Moskalenko & Strong 1998) • GALPROP code • Plain diffusion model • Interstellar spectra  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  41. Positron fractionSecondary Production Models CR + ISM  p± + … m± + …  e± + … CR + ISM  p0 + … gg e± • (Moskalenko & Strong 1998) • GALPROP code • Plain diffusion model • Interstellar spectra Soft (g ‘big’) Hard (g ‘small’) • (Delahaye et al. 2008) • Plain diffusion model • Solar modulation: spherical model (f=600MV) • Uncertainty band related to e- spectral index (ge= 3.44±0.1 (3s) MIN÷MAX) • Additional uncertainty due to propagation parameters should be considered (factor ~6 @1GeV ~4 @high-energy)  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  42. Preliminary!! fe+ ~E-3.5 expected from pure secondary models Electron spectrum • NB!! • Flux in the spectrometer • No solar demodulation Preliminary!! Geom.cutoff Hard, g small! ~ E- 3.24±0.04  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  43. Positron fractionSecondary Production Models soft hard Quite robust evidence for a positron excess  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  44. Primary positron sources Dark Matter • e+ yield depend on the dominant decay channel • LSPs seem disfavored due to suppression of e+e- final states • low yield (relative to p-bar) • soft spectrum from cascade decays • LKPs seem favored because can annihilate directly in e+e- • high yield (relative to p-bar) • hard spectrum with pronounced cutoff @ MLKP (>300 GeV) • Boost factor required to have a sizable e+ signal • NB: constraints from p-bar data!! LKP -- M= 300 GeV (Hooper & Profumo 2007)  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  45. Primary positron sources Astrophysical processes • Local pulsars are well-known sites of e+e- pair production:  they can individually and/or coherently contribute to the e+e- galactic flux and explain the PAMELA e+ excess (both spectral feature and intensity) • No fine tuning required • if one or few nearby pulsars dominate, anisotropy could be detected in the angular distribution • possibility to discriminate between pulsar and DM origin of e+ excess All pulsars (rate = 3.3 / 100 years) (Hooper, Blasi, Seprico 2008)  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  46. (Chang et al 2008) PAMELA positron excess might be connected with ATIC electron+positron structures?  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

  47. Primary positron sources PAMELA positron fraction alone insufficient to understand the origin of positron excess Additional experimental data will be provided by PAMELA: • e+ fraction @ higher energy (up to 300 GeV) • individual e- e+ spectra • anisotropy (…maybe) • high energy e++e- spectrum (up to 2 TV) Complementary information from: • gamma rays • neutrinos  Oscar Adriani  Waseda, January 14th, 2009 

More Related