1: \documentclass[english]{article}
2:
3: \usepackage{geometry}
4: \geometry{a4paper}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{amssymb}
7: \usepackage{epstopdf}
8: \bibliographystyle{plain}
9:
10: \usepackage{babel}
11: \usepackage{inputenc}
12: \usepackage{epsfig}
13:
14: \textwidth 16cm
15: \textheight 21cm
16: \oddsidemargin 0.0in
17: \topmargin 0.3in
18:
19: \def\aprle{\buildrel < \over {_{\sim}}}
20:
21: \begin{document}
22:
23: \vspace{0.8cm}
24:
25: \begin{center}
26: {\Large {\bf Magnetic Monopole Search at high altitude with the SLIM
27: experiment}}
28:
29: \vspace{0.8cm}
30:
31: \normalsize{
32: S. Balestra$^{1,2}$,
33: S. Cecchini$^{1,3}$,
34: M. Cozzi$^{1,2}$,
35: M. Errico$^{1,2}$,
36: F. Fabbri$^2$,
37: G. Giacomelli$^{1,2}$,
38: R. Giacomelli$^2$,
39: M. Giorgini$^{1,2}$,
40: A. Kumar$^{1,4}$,
41: S. Manzoor$^{1,5}$,
42: J. McDonald$^6$,
43: G. Mandrioli$^2$,
44: S. Marcellini$^2$,
45: A. Margiotta$^{1,2}$,
46: E.~ Medinaceli$^{1,7}$,
47: L. Patrizii$^2$,
48: J. Pinfold$^6$,
49: V. Popa$^{2,8}$,
50: I.E. Qureshi$^5$,
51: O. Saavedra$^{9,10}$,
52: Z. Sahnoun$^{2,11}$,
53: G. Sirri$^2$,
54: M. Spurio$^{1,2}$,
55: V. Togo$^2$,
56: A. Velarde$^7$ and
57: A. Zanini$^{10}$
58:
59:
60: \par~\par
61:
62: {\small\it
63: (1) Dip. Fisica dell'Universit\'a di Bologna, 40127 Bologna,
64: Italy \\
65: (2) INFN Sez. Bologna, 40127 Bologna, Italy\\
66: (3) INAF/IASF Sez. Bologna, 40129 Bologna, Italy\\
67: (4) Physics Dept., Sant Longowal Institute of Eng. \& Tech., Longowal,
68: 148 106, India\\
69: (5) PD, PINSTECH, P.O. Nilore, and COMSATS-CIIT, No. 30, H-8/1, Islamabad, Pakistan\\
70: (6) Centre for Subatomic Research, Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton,
71: Alberta T6G 2N4, Canada\\
72: (7) Laboratorio de F\'{i}sica C\'{o}smica de Chacaltaya, UMSA, La Paz, Bolivia\\
73: (8) Institute for Space Sciences, 077125 Bucharest-M\u{a}gurele, Romania\\
74: (9) Dip. Fisica Sperimentale e Generale, Universit\'a di
75: Torino, 10125 Torino, Italy\\
76: (10) INFN Sez. Torino, 10125 Torino, Italy\\
77: (11) Astrophysics Dept., CRAAG, BP 63 Bouzareah, 16340 Algiers, Algeria}
78: }
79:
80: \end{center}
81:
82:
83: \vspace{1cm}
84:
85: \begin{center}
86: {\bf Abstract}
87: \end{center}
88:
89: {\normalsize
90: The SLIM experiment was a large array of
91: nuclear track detectors located at the Chacaltaya high altitude
92: Laboratory (5230 m a.s.l.). The detector was in particular sensitive to
93: Intermediate Mass Magnetic Monopoles, with masses $10^5<M_M<10^{12}$ GeV. From
94: the analysis of
95: the full detector exposed for more than 4 years a flux upper limit of
96: $1.3 \cdot 10^{-15}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ for downgoing fast
97: Intermediate Mass Monopoles was established at the 90\% C.L.
98:
99: \section{Introduction}
100: \label{intro}
101: In 1931 Dirac introduced Magnetic Monopoles (MMs) in order to explain the
102: quantization of the electric charge, obtaining the formula
103: $eg=n \hbar c/2$, from which $g=ng_D=n \hbar c/2e=n~68.5e=n~3.29
104: \cdot 10^{-8}$ in the c.g.s. symmetric system of units \cite{Dirac}; $n$
105: is an integer, $n = 1,2,3,...$ MMs possessing an electric charge and
106: bound systems of a magnetic monopole with an atomic nucleus are
107: called dyons. An extensive bibliography on MMs is given in ref. \cite{biblio}.
108: Relatively low mass classical Dirac monopoles have been searched for at
109: high energy accelerators \cite{bertani,bakari}.
110:
111: Magnetic Monopoles are present in a variety of unified gauge models with
112: a wide range of masses.
113:
114: Grand Unified Theories (GUT) of the strong and
115: electroweak interactions at the mass scale $M_G \sim 10^{14}\div10^{15}$
116: GeV predict the existence of magnetic monopoles, produced
117: in the early Universe at the end of the GUT epoch, with
118: very large masses, $M_M \geq 10^{16}$ GeV. Such monopoles cannot be
119: produced with existing accelerators, nor with any foreseen for the
120: future. In the past, GUT poles were searched for in the cosmic
121: radiation. These poles are characterized by low velocities and
122: relatively large energy losses \cite{MMs}. The MACRO
123: experiment set the best limits on GUT MMs with $g=g_D,~2g_D,~3g_D$ and dyons
124: at the level of $\sim 1.4 \cdot 10^{-16}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ for
125: $4 \cdot 10^{-5} < \beta=v/c < 0.7$ \cite{MACRO}.
126:
127: Some GUT models and some supersymmetric models predict
128: Intermediate Mass Monopoles (IMMs)
129: with masses $10^{5}< M_{M} < 10^{12}$ GeV and with magnetic charges of
130: multiples of $g_D$; these MMs may have been
131: produced in later phase transitions in the early Universe and could be
132: present in the cosmic radiation \cite{IMMs,UHECR}.
133:
134: IMMs may be relativistic since they could be accelerated to high
135: velocities in one coherent domain of the galactic magnetic field. In
136: this case one would have to look for downgoing, fast ($\beta> 0.03$),
137: heavily ionizing MMs~\footnote{The interest in MMs was also connected
138: with the possibility that they could yield the highest energy cosmic
139: rays \cite{UHECR}.}.
140:
141: The main purpose of the SLIM (Search for LIght Monopoles)
142: experiment at the Chacaltaya laboratory in Bolivia at 5230 m a.s.l.,
143: was the search for IMMs \cite{proposal}. An exposure at a high altitude
144: laboratory allows to search for MMs of lower masses, higher magnetic
145: charges and lower velocities, see Fig. \ref{fig:betavsmass}.
146:
147: The searches for IMMs by Earth based detectors are essentially limited to
148: downgoing particles \cite{1998}. Water Cherenkov detectors are limited to
149: fast downgoing IMMs (with $\beta > 0.5$), and a search can be done if the
150: detectors are able to discriminate against the large background of cosmic
151: ray muons \cite{2007}.
152:
153:
154:
155: \begin{figure}[!h]
156: \begin{center}
157: {\centering\resizebox*{!}{8cm}{\includegraphics{beta-vs-mass-new.eps}}}
158: \begin{quote}
159: \caption{\small
160: Accessible regions (above lines) in the plane (mass, $\beta$) for
161: monopoles with magnetic charge $g=g_D$ coming from above for an experiment
162: at altitudes of 20000 m, 5230 m, and for an underground detector at
163: the Gran Sasso Lab. (average rock overburden of 3700 m.w.e.)}
164: \label {fig:betavsmass}
165: \end{quote}
166: \end{center}
167: %\vspace{-0.5 cm}
168: \end{figure}
169:
170:
171: The SLIM detector was also sensitive to Strange Quark Matter
172: nuggets \cite{nuclr,SLIM05/5} and Q-balls \cite{qballs}. The results
173: on these Dark Matter candidates are discussed in ref. \cite{SQM}. \par
174: In the following, we present a short description of the SLIM apparatus,
175: the calibrations of the Nuclear Track Detectors (NTDs), the etching and
176: analysis procedures, and the limits obtained by the experiment on IMMs
177: and GUT Magnetic Monopoles.
178:
179:
180: \begin{figure}[h!]
181: \centering
182: {\centering\resizebox*{!}{6.5cm}{\includegraphics{tetto.eps}}}
183: \hspace{1cm}
184: {\centering\resizebox*{!}{6.5cm}{\includegraphics{modulo2.eps}}}
185: \begin{quote}
186: \caption{\small Left: the SLIM modules installed at Chacaltaya.
187: Right: composition of one of the 7410 modules; each module was enclosed in an
188: aluminized mylar bag filled with dry air at a pressure of 1 bar.}
189: \label{fig:illustration2}
190: \end{quote}
191: %\vspace{-1 cm}
192: \end{figure}
193:
194:
195: \section{Experimental procedure}
196: \label{sec:experimental}
197: The SLIM experiment was an array of NTDs~\footnote{Another
198: 100 m$^2$ of NTDs were installed at Koksil (Pakistan, 4275 m a.s.l.) since
199: 2002 and were not used in the present analysis.} with a total surface area
200: slightly greater
201: than 400 m$^2$ \cite{proposal}. The array was organized into 7410
202: modules, each of area
203: $24 \times 24$ cm$^2$. All modules were made up of: three layers of
204: CR39$^{\scriptsize \textregistered}$~\footnote{The SLIM CR39 was produced
205: by the Intercast Europe Co, Parma, Italy according to our
206: specifications.}, each 1.4 mm thick; 3 layers of Makrofol
207: DE$^{\scriptsize \textregistered}$~\footnote{Manufactured by Bayer
208: AG, Leverkusen, Germany.}, each 0.48 mm thick; 2 layers of Lexan each
209: 0.25 mm thick and one layer of aluminum absorber 1 mm thick (see Fig.
210: \ref{fig:illustration2} right).
211: The CR39 used in about 90\% of the modules (377 m$^2$) was of the same type
212: used in the MACRO experiment \cite{MACRO}. The remaining modules, 50
213: m$^2$, utilized CR39 containing 0.1\% of DOP additive, CR39(DOP).
214:
215: Each module (stack) was sealed in an aluminized plastic bag (125 $\mu$m
216: thick) filled with dry air at a pressure of 1 bar.
217: The modules were transported to La Paz, Bolivia, from Italy in wooden
218: boxes and their position with respect to the other modules in the
219: shipping crate was recorded. The stacks were deployed under the roof of the
220: Chacaltaya Laboratory, roughly 4 m above ground (see Fig.
221: \ref{fig:illustration2} left).
222: The installation of the SLIM detectors started in February 2000 and ended
223: in February 2002. The return of the material to Italy was organized in
224: batches, after the completion of the 4 years exposure.
225:
226: The atmospheric pressure at Chacaltaya is about 0.5 bar; before shipping
227: to Chacaltaya, in Bologna we checked the air tightness of the envelopes
228: sealed with air at a pressure of 1 bar by placing a sample of them
229: in an airtight tank at a pressure of 0.3 atm for a few months; no significant
230: leakage was detected.
231:
232: From the experience gained with the MACRO Nuclear Track
233: Subdetector \cite{MACRO}, we know that the used CR39 does not suffer from
234: ``aging" or ``fading" effects for exposure times as long as 10
235: years \cite{NTDsM}. Further calibrations with 1 AGeV Fe$^{26+}$ ions in
236: 1999 and 2005 and with 158 AGeV In$^{49+}$ in 2003 confirmed the quality and
237: the stability of the CR39 used in the SLIM experiment \cite{calibrations}.
238:
239:
240:
241: \subsection{Environmental measurements}
242: \label{sub:env}
243: During the first phases of the detector deployment we evaluated possible
244: effects of climatic conditions on the detector response and possible
245: backgrounds. Previous tests had shown that the CR39 response does not
246: depend on the time elapsed from its production and the passage of the
247: particle if the ambient temperature ranges between -20 $^\circ$C and +30
248: $^\circ$C. The minimum and maximum values of the air temperature in each
249: detector hall in Chacaltaya was recorded 3 times a day over the lifetime
250: of the experiment. The temperature values usually ranged from 0 $^\circ$C to
251: 30 $^\circ$C with an average value of 12 $^\circ$C for the whole year
252: and from one year to the other; however in the summer months in very few cases
253: temperatures down to -5 $^\circ$C were measured in the early morning.
254: Therefore, no significant variations
255: were expected in the detector response over the exposure period.
256:
257: We performed measurements of the radon concentration in different locations
258: of the experimental rooms where the SLIM detectors were placed. We used
259: for this purpose E-PERM$^{\scriptsize \textregistered}$ radon dosimeters. The
260: measured radon activity was about $40 \div 50$ Bq/m$^3$ of air. According
261: to our previous experience with the MACRO NTDs, we concluded that this
262: level of radon induced radioactivity did not present a problem for the
263: experiment, even in case of radon diffusion into the module bags.
264:
265: Two different types of neutron detectors (BTI bubble counters and a BF3
266: counter detectors) were used to measure the neutron flux at Chacaltaya, during
267: the first installation shift of 2001 over the energy range of a few hundred
268: keV to about 20 MeV \cite{neutron}. Neutrons of these energies interacting
269: inside the detectors could induce background tracks, and their density
270: could affect the scanning speed and efficiency. Both types of neutron
271: detectors measured the accumulated dose. Consistent results were obtained
272: by both types of detectors. The accumulated dose measured in open air and
273: near the detectors was very similar. The absolute neutron flux was computed
274: using the BTI bubble counters for which the efficiency is known. A value
275: of $(1.7 \pm 0.8) \cdot 10^{-2}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ was obtained, which is
276: in agreement with other reported neutron flux data at the altitude of
277: Chacaltaya and with more recent measurements at the same location
278: \cite{neutroni}.
279: The necessity to reduce the neutron induced background in CR39 required us
280: to study special etching procedures, mainly based on the addition of ethyl
281: alcohol to the etching solutions. As discussed in the next section, the
282: addition of alcohol reduces the background tracks on the detector sheets
283: and improves the surface quality (i.e. greater transparency), at the
284: expense of a higher threshold \cite{calibrations}.
285:
286:
287:
288: \subsection{Etching procedures}
289: \label{sub:etching}
290: The passage of a magnetic monopole in NTDs, such as CR39, is expected to
291: cause structural line damage in the polymer (forming the so called
292: ``latent track''). Since IMMs have a constant energy loss through the
293: stacks, the subsequent chemical etching should result in collinear
294: etch-pit cones of equal size on both faces of each detector sheet.
295: In order to increase the detector ``signal to noise'' ratio different
296: etching conditions \cite{NTDsM,calibrations} were defined.
297: The so-called ``strong etching'' technique allows better surface quality
298: and larger post-etched cones to be obtained. This makes etch pits easier
299: to detect under visual scanning. Strong etching was used to analyze the
300: top-most CR39 sheet in each module.
301: ``Soft etching'' was applied to the other CR39 layers in a module if a
302: candidate track was found after the first scan. This process allows to
303: proceed in several etching steps and study the formation of the
304: post-etched cones.
305:
306: For CR39 and CR39(DOP) the strong etching conditions were: 8N KOH +
307: 1.5\% ethyl alcohol at 75~$^\circ$C for 30 hours. The bulk etching velocities
308: were $v_B = 7.2~\pm~0.4~ \mu$m/h and $v_B = 5.9 \pm 0.3~ \mu$m/h for
309: CR39 and CR39(DOP), respectively.
310:
311:
312: \begin{figure}[t]
313: \centering
314: {\centering\resizebox*{11cm}{11cm}{\includegraphics{figura3.eps}}}
315: \begin{quote}
316: \caption{\small Calibrations of CR39 nuclear track detectors
317: with 158 A GeV In$^{49+}$ ions and their nuclear fragments with
318: decreasing charge. The base areas ($1~pixel^2 = 0.3~\mu$m$^2$) of the
319: etched cones were averages over 2 faces. The CR39 was etched in (a) soft and
320: (b) strong etching conditions.}
321: \label{fig:picchi}
322: \end{quote}
323: %\vspace{-1 cm}
324: \end{figure}
325:
326: The soft etching conditions were 6N NaOH + 1\% ethyl alcohol at 70~$^\circ$C
327: for 40 hours for CR39 and
328: CR39(DOP). The bulk etching rates were $v_B = 1.25
329: \pm 0.02~\mu$m/h and $v_B = 0.98 \pm 0.02~\mu$m/h for CR39 and
330: CR39(DOP), respectively.
331:
332: Makrofol NTDs were etched in 6N KOH + 20\% ethyl alcohol at
333: 50~$^\circ$C for 10 hours; the bulk etch velocity was $v_B = 3.4~\mu$m/h.
334:
335:
336: \begin{figure}[t]
337: \centering
338: {\centering\resizebox*{!}{5.5cm}{\includegraphics{calibNoDOP.eps}}}
339: {\centering\resizebox*{!}{5.5cm}{\includegraphics{calibDOP.eps}}}
340: \begin{quote}
341: \caption{\small Reduced track etch rate $(p-1)$ vs REL for the
342: CR39 (left) and CR39(DOP) (right) detectors, exposed to the 158 A GeV
343: indium ion beam, etched in soft and strong etching conditions.}
344: \label{fig:tracketch}
345: \end{quote}
346: %\vspace{-0.5 cm}
347: \end{figure}
348:
349:
350:
351: \subsection{NTD calibrations}
352: \label{sub:cal}
353: The CR39 and Makrofol nuclear track detectors were calibrated with 158 A GeV
354: In$^{49+}$ and Pb$^{82+}$ beams at
355: the CERN SPS and 1 A GeV Fe$^{26+}$ at the Brookhaven National Laboratory
356: (BNL) Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS). The calibration layout was
357: a standard one with a fragmentation target and CR39 (plus Makrofol) NTDs
358: in front of and behind the target \cite{fraggg}.
359: The detector sheets behind the target detected both primary ions and nuclear
360: fragments of decreasing charge.
361:
362: We recall that the formation of etch-pit cones (``tracks'') in NTDs is
363: regulated by the bulk etching rate, $v_{B}$, and the track etching
364: rate, $v_{T}$, i.e. the velocities at which the undamaged and
365: damaged materials (along the particle trajectory), are etched out.
366: Etch-pit cones are formed if $v_T > v_B$.
367: The response of the CR39 detector is measured by the etching rate ratio
368: $p=v_T / v_B$.
369:
370: After etching the standard calibration procedure was the following:
371:
372: $(i)$ measure the base area of each track in NTDs with an automatic image
373: analyzer system \cite{Elbeck}. The projectile fragments carry the same
374: $\beta$ and approximately the same direction of the incident ion; the $Z$
375: of each resolved peak is identified via the base area spectrum.
376: The average base area distributions of the
377: In$^{49+}$ ions and of their fragments in CR39, etched in soft or
378: strong conditions, are shown in Figs. \ref{fig:picchi}a,b
379: ($1~pixel^2 = 0.3~\mu$m$^2$).
380:
381: $(ii)$ For each calibration peak the $Z/ \beta$ is obtained
382: and the reduced etch rate $(p-1)$ is computed. The Restricted Energy Loss
383: (REL) due to ionization
384: and nuclear scattering is evaluated, thus arriving to the calibration
385: data of $(p-1)$ vs REL shown in Fig.
386: \ref{fig:tracketch} for both strong and soft etching conditions for CR39
387: and CR39(DOP). For soft etching the threshold in CR39 is at $Z/\beta \sim 7$
388: corresponding to REL $\sim 50$ MeV cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$. For strong etching the
389: threshold is at $Z/\beta \sim 14$, corresponding to REL $\sim 200$ MeV
390: cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$. The extrapolation of the calibration curves to $p=1$
391: gives REL $\aprle 40$ MeV cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ for soft etching and REL
392: $\aprle 160$ MeV cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ for strong etching.
393: For CR39(DOP) the threshold in soft etching conditions is at $Z/\beta
394: \sim 13$ corresponding to REL $\sim 170$ MeV cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$; the threshold
395: in strong etching conditions is at $Z/\beta \sim 21$ corresponding to REL
396: $\sim 460$ MeV cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$. The extrapolation of the calibration curves
397: to $p=1$ gives REL $\aprle 240$ MeV cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ for strong etching.
398:
399: For magnetic monopoles with $g=g_D,~2g_D,~3g_D$ we computed the REL as
400: a function of $\beta$ taking into account electronic and nuclear energy
401: losses, see Fig. \ref{fig:rel-beta} \cite{rel-beta}.
402:
403:
404: \begin{figure}[t]
405: \centering
406: {\centering\resizebox*{!}{8cm}{\includegraphics{rel-beta.ps}}}
407: \begin{quote}
408: \caption{\small REL vs beta for magnetic monopoles with $g=g_D,~2g_D,~3g_D$.
409: The dashed lines represent the CR39 thresholds in soft and strong
410: etching conditions and the Makrofol threshold (see Sect. \ref{sub:etching}).}
411: \label{fig:rel-beta}
412: \end{quote}
413: %\vspace{-0.5 cm}
414: \end{figure}
415:
416:
417: With the used etching conditions, the CR39 allows the detection of $(i)$
418: MMs with $g=g_D$ for $\beta \sim 10^{-4}$ and for $\beta > 10^{-2}$; $(ii)$
419: MMs with $g=2g_D$ for $\beta$ around $10^{-4}$
420: and for $\beta > 4 \cdot 10^{-3}$; $(iii)$ the whole $\beta$-range of
421: $4 \cdot 10^{-5} < \beta < 1$ is accessible for MMs with $g > 2 g_D$ and
422: for dyons.
423:
424: For the Makrofol polycarbonate the detection threshold is at $Z/\beta \sim 50$
425: and REL $\sim 2.5$ GeV cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ \cite{calibrations}; for this reason
426: the use of Makrofol is restricted to the search for fast MMs.
427:
428:
429: \begin{figure}[t]
430: \centering
431: {\centering\resizebox*{!}{6.2cm}{\includegraphics{figura5a.eps}}}
432: \hspace{1cm}
433: {\centering\resizebox*{!}{6.2cm}{\includegraphics{figura5b.eps}}}
434: \begin{quote}
435: \caption{\small Illustration of the procedure used to define the
436: ``confidence'' area where the possible continuation of a candidate track
437: inside two (or more) sheets of the same module was searched for (see text for
438: details).}
439: \label{fig:illustration}
440: \end{quote}
441: %\vspace{-0.5 cm}
442: \end{figure}
443:
444:
445: \subsection{Analysis}
446: \label{sub:analysis}
447: After exposure at Chacaltaya the modules were brought back by air flights
448: to Italy in order
449: to be etched and analyzed in the Bologna laboratory. Three ``reference''
450: holes of 2 mm diameter were drilled in each module with a precision machine
451: (the hole locations were defined to within 100 $\mu$m). This allowed us to
452: follow the passage of a ``candidate'' through the stack.
453: The bags (envelopes) were opened, the detectors were labeled and their
454: thicknesses were measured, using a micrometer, in 9 uniformly distributed
455: points on the foil surface.
456:
457: The analysis of a SLIM module started by etching the uppermost CR39 sheet
458: using strong conditions in order to reduce the CR39 thickness from
459: 1.4 mm to $\sim 0.9$ mm. After the strong etching, the CR39 sheet was scanned
460: twice, with a stereo microscope, by different operators,
461: with a 3$\times$ magnification optical lens, looking for any possible
462: correspondence of etch pits on the two opposite surfaces. The measured
463: single scan efficiency was about 99\%; thus the double scan guarantees an
464: efficiency of $\sim 100\%$ for finding a possible signal.
465:
466: Further observation of a ``suspicious correspondence'' was made with an
467: optical $20 \div 40$$\times$ stereo microscope and classified either as a
468: defect or a candidate track. This latter was then examined by an optical
469: microscope with $6.3_{ob} \times 25_{oc}$ magnification and the axes of the
470: base-cone ellipses in the front and back sides were measured.
471:
472: A track was defined as a ``candidate'' if the computed $p$ and incident
473: angle $\theta$ on the front and back sides were equal to within 20\%. For
474: each candidate the azimuth angle $\varphi$ and its
475: position $P$ referred to the fiducial marks were also determined.
476: The uncertainties $\Delta \theta$, $\Delta \varphi$ and $\Delta P$
477: defined a ``coincidence'' area ($< 0.5$ cm$^2$)
478: around the candidate expected position in the other layers, as shown in
479: Fig. \ref{fig:illustration}.
480:
481: In this case the lowermost CR39 layer was etched in soft etching
482: conditions, and an accurate scan under an optical microscope with high
483: magnification (500$\times$ or 1000$\times$) was
484: performed in a square region around the candidate expected position,
485: which included the ``coincidence'' area.
486: If a two-fold coincidence was detected, the CR39 middle layer was also
487: analyzed.
488:
489: The bottom CR39 sheet was etched
490: in about 50 cases; the third CR39 sheet was etched only in few cases, when
491: there was still a possible uncertainty, and for checks ($\sim 16$ times). Some
492: Makrofol foils were etched for reasons similar to the previous point and
493: for other checks concerning the Makrofol itself ($\sim 12$ times).
494:
495:
496: \section{Results}
497: \label{sec:results}
498: From the detector calibration we computed the SLIM acceptance for
499: downgoing IMMs with $g=g_D,~2g_D,~3g_D$ and for dyons.
500: For the $i^{th}$ module of area $S_i$ the acceptance was computed as
501:
502: \begin{equation}
503: (S\Omega)_i = \pi S_i \left( 1 - \frac{1}{p^2} \right)
504: \end{equation}
505: The total acceptance is the sum of all the individual contributions.
506:
507:
508: \begin{figure}[t]
509: \begin{center}
510: {\centering\resizebox*{!}{9cm}{\includegraphics{limite-combinato-5calib-bn.eps}}}
511: %\vspace{-0.6cm}
512: \begin{quote}
513: \caption{\small 90\% C.L. upper limits for a downgoing
514: flux of IMMs with $g=g_D,~2g_D,~3g_D$ and for dyons (M+p , $g = g_D$)
515: plotted vs $\beta$ (for strong etching). The poor limits at $\beta \sim
516: 10^{-3}$ arise because the REL is below the threshold (for $g_D$ and $2g_D$)
517: or slightly above the threshold (for $3g_D$ and dyons), see
518: Sect. \ref{sub:cal}. }
519: \label {fig:limite}
520: \end{quote}
521: \end{center}
522: %\vspace{-0.5 cm}
523: \end{figure}
524:
525: Since no candidates were found, the 90\% C.L. upper limit for a downgoing
526: flux of IMMs and for dyons was computed as
527:
528: \begin{equation}
529: \phi = \frac{2.3}{(S\Omega) \cdot \Delta t \cdot \epsilon}
530: \end{equation}
531: where $\Delta t$ is the mean exposure time (4.22 y), $S\Omega$ is the total
532: acceptance, $\epsilon$ is the scanning efficiency estimated to be $\sim 1$.
533:
534:
535: The global 90\% C.L. upper limits for the flux of downgoing IMMs and dyons
536: with velocities $\beta > 4 \cdot 10^{-5}$ were computed, as shown in Fig.
537: \ref{fig:limite}. The flux limit for $\beta > 0.03$ is $\sim 1.3 \cdot
538: 10^{-15}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$.
539:
540: Two ``strange events'' were observed and were finally classified as
541: manufacturing defects in a small subset of CR39 NTDs. These ``strange events''
542: are discussed in detail elsewhere \cite{balestra}.
543:
544:
545: \begin{figure}[h!]
546: \centering
547: {\centering\resizebox*{!}{9cm}{\includegraphics{mmslim-lp-bn.eps}}}
548: \begin{quote}
549: \caption{\small Flux upper limits for cosmic MMs of charge $g=g_D$ and
550: $\beta > 0.05$ vs monopole mass. The figure shows the 90\% C.L. limits
551: obtained by the SLIM, MACRO \cite{MACRO} and OHYA \cite{orito} experiments.
552: MMs with masses smaller than $\sim 5 \cdot 10^{13}$ GeV are detected only
553: if coming from above; MMs with masses larger than $\sim 5 \cdot 10^{13}$ GeV
554: can traverse the Earth, so an isotropic flux is expected. The Parker
555: bound \cite{parker}, obtained from the survival of the galactic
556: magnetic field, and the
557: limit obtained from the mass density for a uniform density of monopoles
558: in the Universe \cite{uniform} are also plotted.}
559: \label{fig:limi}
560: \end{quote}
561: %\vspace{-0.5 cm}
562: \end{figure}
563:
564:
565:
566: \section{Conclusions}
567: \label{sec:conclu}
568: We etched and analyzed 427 m$^2$ of CR39, with an average exposure
569: time of 4.22 years. No candidate passed the search criteria. The 90\%
570: C.L. upper limits for a downgoing flux of fast ($\beta > 0.03$)
571: IMM's coming from above
572: are at the level of $1.3 \cdot 10^{-15}$ cm$^{-2}$ sr$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$. The
573: complete $\beta$-dependence for MMs with $g=g_D,~2g_D,~3g_D$ and for dyons
574: is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:limite}.
575:
576: Superheavy GUT magnetic monopoles in the cosmic radiation can traverse
577: the Earth. Therefore the SLIM limit on their flux is one half of the
578: IMM flux: $\phi_{GUT} < 6.5 \cdot 10^{-16}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$ for
579: $\beta > 0.03$ for $g=g_D$ \cite{MACRO}.
580:
581: Fig. \ref{fig:limi} shows the flux upper limits for MMs of charge $g=g_D$
582: and $\beta > 0.05$ vs monopole mass. Note that the SLIM limit is $1.3 \cdot
583: 10^{-15}$ cm$^{-2}$ sr$^{-1}$ s$^{-1}$ for MM masses smaller than
584: $\sim 5 \cdot 10^{13}$ GeV and $0.65 \cdot 10^{-15}$ cm$^{-2}$ sr$^{-1}$
585: s$^{-1}$ for masses larger than $\sim 5 \cdot 10^{13}$ GeV. In Fig.
586: \ref{fig:limi} are also shown the limits obtained by the MACRO
587: \cite{MACRO} and OHYA \cite{orito} experiments for $g=g_D$ magnetic monopoles
588: with $\beta > 0.05$.
589:
590: SLIM is the first experiment to extend the cosmic radiation search for
591: Magnetic Monopoles to masses lower than the GUT scale with a high sensitivity.
592:
593: The addition of SLIM data to the MACRO data would improve the MACRO limits
594: by only 18\%.
595:
596: Large scale underwater and under ice neutrino telescopes (Amanda, IceCube,
597: ANTARES, NEMO) have the possibility to search for fast IMMs with $\beta > 0.5$
598: to a level lower than the Parker bound \cite{2007,espi}.
599:
600: \vspace{0.5cm}
601:
602: {\Large \bf Acknowledgments}
603:
604: We thank the engineering staff in BNL and in CERN for their help for the
605: heavy ion calibration exposures. We acknowledge the collaboration of our
606: technical staff, in particular L. Degli Esposti, G. Grandi and C. Valieri
607: of INFN Bologna, and the technical staff of the Chacaltaya Laboratory. We
608: thank A. Casoni for typing and correcting the manuscript. We thank INFN
609: and ICTP for providing grants to non-Italian citizens.
610:
611: \newpage
612:
613:
614: \bibliographystyle{plain}
615: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
616:
617: \bibitem{Dirac} P.A.M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. \textbf{133} (1931) 60.
618:
619: \bibitem{biblio} G. Giacomelli et al., hep-ex/0005041.
620:
621: \bibitem{bertani}
622: M. Bertani et al., Europhys. Lett. \textbf{12} (1990) 613. \\
623: K. Kinoshita et al., Phys. Rev. D\textbf{46} (1992) R881. \\
624: G. Abbiendi et al., arXiv:0707.0404 [hep-ex]. \\
625: A. Abulencia et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{96} (2006) 201801.\\
626: G.R. Kalbfleisch et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{85} (2000) 5292.
627:
628: \bibitem{bakari}
629: D. Bakari et al., hep-ex/0004019.
630:
631: \bibitem{MMs}
632: J. Preskill, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. \textbf{34} (1984) 461.\\
633: G. Giacomelli, Riv. Nuovo Cimento 7N\textbf{12} (1984) 1; Riv. Nuovo
634: Cimento 16\textbf{N3} (1993) 1.\\
635: D.E. Groom, Phys. Rep. \textbf{140} (1986) 323. \\
636: G. Giacomelli et al, hep-ex/0702050.
637:
638: \bibitem{MACRO}
639: M. Ambrosio et al., Eur. Phys. J. C\textbf{25} (2002) 511;
640: Eur. Phys. J. C\textbf{26} (2002) 163;
641: Astropart. Phys. \textbf{18} (2002) 27;
642: Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A\textbf{486} (2002) 663.
643:
644: \bibitem{IMMs}
645: G. Lazarides and Q. Shafi, Phys. Lett. B\textbf{148} (1984) 35. \\
646: P.H. Frampton and T.W. Kephart, {\it Phys. Rev.} D42 (1990) 3892. \\
647: T.W. Kephart and Q. Shafi, Phys. Lett. B\textbf{520} (2001) 313.
648:
649: \bibitem{UHECR}
650: T.W. Kephart and T.J. Weiler, Astropart. Phys. \textbf{4} (1996) 271. \\
651: C.O. Escobar and R.A. Vasquez, Astropart. Phys. \textbf{10} (1999) 197.
652:
653: \bibitem{proposal}
654: D. Bakari et al., hep-ex/0003028. \\
655: S. Cecchini et al., Il Nuovo Cim. \textbf{24C} (2001) 639.
656:
657: \bibitem{1998}
658: J. Derkaoui et al., Astropart. Phys. \textbf{10} (1999) 339; Astropart.
659: Phys. \textbf{9} (1998) 173.
660:
661: \bibitem{2007}
662: H. Wissing for the ICECUBE Coll., 30$^{th}$ ICRC (Merida, 2007),
663: arXiv:0711.0353 [astro-ph], 139.
664:
665: \bibitem{nuclr}
666: A. Witten, Phys. Rev. D\textbf{30} (1984) 272. \\
667: A. De Rujula and S. L. Glashow, Nature \textbf{312} (1984) 734.
668:
669: \bibitem{SLIM05/5}
670: S. Balestra et al., hep-ex/0506075; Czech. J. Phys. \textbf{56} (2006)
671: A221; hep-ex/0601019.\\
672: S. Cecchini et al., Radiat. Meas. \textbf{40} (2005) 405.
673:
674: \bibitem{qballs}
675: S. Coleman, Nucl. Phys. B\textbf{262} (1985) 263. \\
676: A. Kusenko et al., Phys. Lett. B\textbf{418} (1998) 46.\\
677: J. Arafune et al., Phys. Rev. D\textbf{62} (2000) 105013.
678:
679: \bibitem{SQM} S. Cecchini et al., arXiv:0805.1797 [hep-ex], submitted to
680: Eur. Phys. Jou. C.
681:
682: \bibitem{NTDsM}
683: S. Cecchini et al., Radiat. Meas. \textbf{34} (2001) 55.
684:
685: \bibitem{calibrations}
686: S. Balestra et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. B\textbf{254} (2007) 254.\\
687: S. Manzoor et al., Radiat. Meas. \textbf{40} (2005) 433; Nucl. Phys.
688: B Proc. Suppl. \textbf{172} (2007) 296.\\
689: G. Giacomelli et al., Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A\textbf{411} (1998) 41.
690:
691: \bibitem{neutron}
692: H. Schraube et al., Rad. Prot. Dos. \textbf{84} (1999) 309. \\
693: A. Zanini et al., Il Nuovo Cim. \textbf{24C} (2001) 691.
694:
695: \bibitem{neutroni}
696: A. Zanini et al., Journ. Atm. and Solar-Terrestrial Phys. \textbf{67}
697: (2005) 755.
698:
699: \bibitem{fraggg}
700: S. Cecchini et al., arXiv:0801.3195 [nucl-ex], accepted by Nucl. Phys. A.
701:
702: \bibitem{Elbeck}
703: A. Noll et al., Nucl. Tracks Radiat Meas. \textbf{15} (1988) 265.
704:
705: \bibitem{rel-beta} J. Derkaoui et al., Astrop. Phys. \textbf{10} (1999) 339.
706:
707: \bibitem{balestra}
708: S. Balestra et al., arXiv:0802.2056 [hep-ex].
709:
710: \bibitem{orito} S. Orito et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{66} (1991) 1951.
711:
712: \bibitem{espi}
713: http://amanda.uci.edu/ ; http://icecube.wisc.edu/ ;\\
714: http://antares.in2p3.fr/ ; http://nemo.in2p3.fr/ .
715:
716: \bibitem{parker} M.S. Turner et al., Phys. Rev. D\textbf{26} (1982) 1296.
717:
718: \bibitem{uniform} A.H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D\textbf{23} (1981) 347.
719:
720: \end{thebibliography}
721: \end{document}
722: