1: %%%%%%%%%% espcrc2.tex %%%%%%%%%%

2: %

3: % $Id: espcrc2.tex 1.2 2000/07/24 09:12:51 spepping Exp spepping $

4: %

5: \documentclass[fleqn,twoside]{article}

6: \usepackage{espcrc2}

7: 

8: % change this to the following line for use with LaTeX2.09

9: % \documentstyle[twoside,fleqn,espcrc2]{article}

10: 

11: % if you want to include PostScript figures

12: \usepackage{graphicx}

13: % if you have landscape tables

14: \usepackage[figuresright]{rotating}

15: 

16: % put your own definitions here:

17: %   \newcommand{\cZ}{\cal{Z}}

18: %   \newtheorem{def}{Definition}[section]

19: %   ...

20: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}

21: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2

22:   A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}

23: 

24: % add words to TeX's hyphenation exception list

25: \hyphenation{author another created financial paper re-commend-ed Post-Script}

26: 

27: % declarations for front matter

28: \title{A reinterpretation of Volcano Ranch lateral distribution measurements to infer the mass composition of cosmic rays}

29: 

30: \author{

31: M. T. Dova\address[UNLP]{Department of Physics, Universidad Nacional de La Plata,

32: 	   La Plata, 1900, Argentina}\thanks{dova@fisica.unlp.edu.ar},

33: M. E. Mance\~nido\addressmark[UNLP]\thanks{mance@fisica.unlp.edu.ar}, 

34: A. G. Mariazzi\addressmark[UNLP]\thanks{mariazzi@fisica.unlp.edu.ar},

35: T. P. McCauley\address{Department of Physics, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA}\thanks{mccauley.t@neu.edu}

36:         and

37: A. A. Watson\address{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK}\thanks{a.a.watson@leeds.ac.uk}

38: }

39:        

40: \begin{document}

41: 

42: \begin{abstract}

43: In the course of its operation, the Volcano Ranch array collected

44: data on the lateral distribution of showers produced by cosmic

45: rays at energies above $10^{17}$ {\rm eV}. From these data very precise 

46: measurements of the steepness of the lateral distribution function,

47: characterized by the $\eta$ parameter, were made. The current 

48: availability of sophisticated hadronic interaction models has

49: prompted a reinterpretation of the measurements. We use the

50: interaction models {\sc qgsjet} and {\sc sibyll} in the {\sc aires} Monte Carlo code to generate showers

51: together with {\sc geant4} to simulate the response of the detectors to 

52: ground particles. As part of an effort to estimate the primary mass composition of cosmic rays 

53: at this energy range, we present the results of our preliminary analysis of the distribution of $\eta$. 

54: \vspace{1pc}

55: \end{abstract}

56: 

57: % typeset front matter (including abstract)

58: \maketitle

59: 

60: \section{Introduction}

61: Over its lifetime, the Volcano Ranch array~\cite{vrall} collected data on the lateral distribution of air showers produced by cosmic rays of energies above $10^{17}$ {\rm eV}. This lateral distribution

62: is parameterized by a so-called lateral distribution function. The steepness of this function, given by 

63: $\eta$ , is sensitive to the depth of maximum ($X_{\rm max}$) of the shower, and therefore to the primary

64: composition and to the character of the initial hadronic interactions. 

65: 

66: Our analysis of precise Volcano Ranch measurements of $\eta$ is the first analysis of Volcano Ranch data

67: using modern Monte Carlo tools. To simulate the development of the air shower we use the 

68: {\sc aires}~\cite{aires} code (version 2.4.0), which contains the hadronic interaction generators {\sc qgsjet98}~\cite{qgsjet} and 

69: {\sc sibyll2.1}~\cite{sibyll}. The results of these simulations are convolved with a simulation of

70: the detector response carried out using {\sc geant4}~\cite{geant4}.

71: 

72: \section{Volcano Ranch}

73: The pioneering Volcano Ranch array was an array of scintillation counters in operation

74: from 1959-1974 at the MIT Volcano Ranch station located near Albuquerque, New Mexico. One of its

75: many distinctions was the detection of the first cosmic ray event with an energy estimated at 

76: $10^{20}$ {\rm eV}~\cite{vrevent}. Over its lifetime, the array existed in three distinct configurations.

77: The first configuration consisted of twenty scintillator detectors of surface area 3.26 ${\rm m^{2}}$. Nineteen

78: detectors were spaced 442 {\rm m} apart. A twentieth detector was placed at various locations

79: and used for the measurement of the density of particles. A second configuration had a larger spacing of 884 ${\rm m}$. 

80: 

81: It is the third configuration which is most significant for our analysis. In this configuration, the number 

82: of detectors was quadrupled by splitting up each of the twenty detectors into eighty detectors of 

83: surface area 0.815 ${\rm m^{2}}$ spaced 147 {\rm m} apart. This configuration, with many more detectors spaced closer

84: together, allowed for very precise measurements of the lateral distribution of signals in the detectors. The

85: steepness of the lateral distribution, and fluctuations in it, may lead to an estimate of the primary

86: composition.

87: 

88: \section{Simulation of detector response}

89: To simulate the detector response of the array to the ground particles, we utilized the 

90: general-purpose simulation toolkit {\sc geant4}. Our procedure follows the 

91: prescription found in ~\cite{kutter}, where the detector response to electrons, gamma, and

92: muons is simulated in the energy range 0.1 to 1.0e5 {\rm MeV} and for five bins per decade of energy.

93: This detector response is convolved with the results of {\sc aires} air shower simulations to

94: obtain scintillator yield in minimum ionizing particles per square meter ${\rm (mips/m^{2})}$.

95: 

96: %\begin{figure}[htb]

97: %\vspace{9pt}

98: %\includegraphics[width=15pc]{./figs/scd_eug.eps}

99: %caption{Particle density and signal density as a function of distance form the core.}

100: %\label{fig:detector}

101: %\end{figure}

102: 

103: \section{Lateral distribution function}

104: 

105: For Volcano Ranch data, a generalized version of the Nishimura-Kamata-Greisen (NKG) formula

106: was used by Linsley to describe the lateral distribution of particles at ground in ${\rm mips/m^{2}}$~\cite{denver}. This lateral distribution function is given as 

107: 

108: \begin{equation}

109: S_{vr}(r) = {\frac{N}{r_{m}^{2}}} C(\alpha,\eta) \left( {\frac{r}{r_{m}}} \right)^{-\alpha} \left( 1 + {\frac{r}{r_{m}}} \right)^{-(\eta-\alpha)} 

110: \end{equation}

111: 

112: normalized to $N$ with

113: 

114: \begin{equation}

115: C = {\frac{\Gamma(\eta-\alpha)}{2\pi\Gamma(2-\alpha)\Gamma(\eta-2)}} .

116: \end{equation}

117: 

118: Here $r_{m}$ is the Moliere radius, which is $\simeq$ 100 {\rm m} at the Volcano Ranch elevation.

119: 

120: From a subset of showers detected by the array in the third configuration, the following form

121: of $\eta$ as a function of zenith angle and shower size was found to fit the data~\cite{plovdiv1}: 

122: 

123: \begin{equation}

124: \langle \eta(\theta, N) \rangle = b_{0} + b_{1}(\sec \theta - 1) + b_{2}\:log_{10}({\frac{N}{10^{8}}})

125: \end{equation}

126: 

127: with $b_{0} = 3.88 \pm 0.054$, $b_{1} = - 0.64 \pm 0.07$, and $b_{2} = 0.07 \pm 0.03$.

128: 

129: \section{Preliminary comparison of lateral distribution}

130: Here we compare the Volcano Ranch lateral distribution with modern Monte Carlo simulations. 

131: In Figure~\ref{fig:firstLD} we show how well the simulations ({\sc aires/qgsjet98} with the detector

132: response included) reproduce the average lateral distribution of 707 showers of estimated size $N = 10^{8}$, measured by the array in its first configuration~\cite{denver}.   

133:  

134: \begin{figure}[htb]

135: \vspace{9pt}

136: \includegraphics[width=18.5pc]{simn1e8.eps}

137: \caption{Average lateral distribution of simulated showers compared to average measurements from

138: Volcano Ranch.}

139: \label{fig:firstLD}

140: \end{figure}

141: 

142: %\begin{figure}[htb]

143: %\vspace{9pt}

144: %\includegraphics[width=18.5pc]{./figs/simn6e9.eps}

145: %\caption{caption.}   

146: %\label{fig:secondLD}

147: %\end{figure}

148: 

149: As a further comparison, for fixed

150: bins of zenith angle, we determine the number of particles at ground level from a fit to the lateral 

151: distribution function (with $\alpha = 1$) and compare to the average functional form of

152: $\eta$ given by Equation 3. The results

153: of this comparison for $\sec \theta = 1.1 - 1.2$ can be seen for proton and iron showers using 

154: {\sc aires/qgsjet98} and {\sc aires/sibyll2.1} in Figures~\ref{fig:etaN_qgsjet} 

155: and~\ref{fig:etaN_sibyll}. 

156: One can see that the average form of $\eta$ over a realistic range of mass composition, from proton to iron, is reproduced by the 

157: simulations. At this stage, any attempt to draw a firm conclusion about composition or the suitability of interaction models is premature; we have limited Monte Carlo

158: statistics and are only comparing to an average functional form of $\eta$. What we are content to take from

159: this stage of the analysis is encouragement from the fact that the simulation can reproduce the data. A more detailed analysis will follow in a later work.

160: 

161: \begin{figure}[htb]

162: \vspace{9pt}

163: \includegraphics[width=18.5pc]{etap-nf_qgsjetp2.eps}

164: \caption{Comparison of $\eta$ as a function of shower size for $\sec \theta = 1.1 - 1.2$

165: and {\sc aires/qgsjet98}}

166: \label{fig:etaN_qgsjet}

167: \end{figure}

168: 

169: \begin{figure}[htb]

170: \vspace{9pt}

171: \includegraphics[width=18.5pc]{etap-nf_sibyllp2.eps}

172: \caption{Comparison of $\eta$ as a function of shower size for $\sec \theta = 1.1 - 1.2$

173: and {\sc aires/sibyll2.1}}

174: \label{fig:etaN_sibyll}

175: \end{figure}

176: 

177: \section{Towards an estimate of primary composition}

178: A more robust estimator of primary composition comes from an analysis of the measured 

179: fluctuations of $\eta$, which were found to be significantly greater than that expected from

180: measurement error alone~\cite{plovdiv1}.

181: From our knowledge of the characteristics of showers produced by nucleons and nuclei, one would 

182: expect that measured fluctuations in the distribution of $\eta$ would be smaller for a 

183: heavier composition. This can be understood if we consider an air shower produced by a nucleus 

184: with $A$ nucleons as a superposition of $A$ showers each with energy $E/A$. Thus in iron-initiated

185: showers the average fluctuations in shower development are reduced.

186: 

187: At Volcano Ranch, measurements of $\eta$ were made on a shower-to-shower basis for fixed

188: bins of zenith angle~\cite{plovdiv2}. Our procedure is to simulate showers in these bins of zenith angle, 

189: find $\eta$ from a fit to the lateral distribution function, and compare to data. The results of this

190: preliminary comparison can be seen in Figures~\ref{fig:1stbin_qgsjet} and~\ref{fig:2ndbin_qgsjet}. 

191: 

192: \begin{figure}[htb]

193: \vspace{9pt}

194: \includegraphics[width=18pc]{fig1btodas_qgsjet.eps}

195: \caption{Fitted $\eta$ parameter for proton and iron compared to Volcano Ranch data 

196: with $\alpha=1$, for $\sec \theta$ = 1.0 - 1.1,

197: using  {\sc qgsjet98}}

198: \label{fig:1stbin_qgsjet}

199: \end{figure}

200: 

201: \begin{figure}[htb]

202: \vspace{9pt}

203: \includegraphics[width=18pc]{fig1ctodas_qgsjet.eps}

204: \caption{Fitted $\eta$ parameter for proton and iron compared to Volcano Ranch data 

205: with $\alpha=1$, for $\sec \theta$ = 1.4 - 1.5,

206: using  {\sc qgsjet98}}

207: \label{fig:2ndbin_qgsjet}

208: \end{figure}

209: 

210: %\begin{figure}[htb]

211: %\vspace{9pt}

212: %\includegraphics[width=15pc]{./figs/fig1cnihuil_sibyll.eps}

213: %\caption{Fitted $\eta$ parameter for proton and iron compared to Volcano Ranch data 

214: %with $\alpha=1$, for $\sec \theta$ = 1.4 - 1.5,

215: %using  {\sc sibyll}}

216: %\label{fig:2ndbin_sibyll}

217: %\end{figure}

218: 

219: \section{Conclusions and future plans}

220: Using modern Monte Carlo tools previously unavailable during its operation

221: we have been able to reproduce lateral distribution measurements taken at the 

222: Volcano Ranch array. With an eye towards estimating the primary composition from

223: these measurements, our ability to reproduce them gives us some confidence that our

224: analysis procedure is correct and indicates that current hadronic interaction models 

225: can describe the data fairly well. A preliminary analysis of the distribution of the

226: steepness of the lateral distribution function, $\eta$, indicates that indeed something can be said about primary composition from an analysis of the data, but that further analysis is needed to

227: make any stronger statement. However, it is encouraging that the data from Volcano Ranch may be used to say something

228: useful about mass composition thirty years after its closure.

229: 

230: \begin{thebibliography}{9}

231: \bibitem{vrall} J. Linsley, L. Scarsi, and B. Rossi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 6 (1961) 485.

232: 

233: \bibitem{aires} S. Sciutto, Proc. 27th ICRC, Hamburg, (2001).

234: 

235: \bibitem{qgsjet} N. N. Kalmykov, S. S. Ostapchenko, Yad. Fiz. 56 (1993) 105; 

236: N. N. Kalmykov, S. S. Ostapchenko, Phys. At. Nucl. 56 (1993) 346; N. N. Kalmykov, S. S. Ostapchenko,

237: Bull. Russ. Acad. Sci. (Physics) 58 (1994) 1966.

238: 

239: \bibitem{sibyll} R. Engel, T. K. Gaisser, T. Stanev, Proc. 26th ICRC, Salt Lake City, 1 (1999) 415. 

240:  

241: \bibitem{geant4} {\tt http://geant4.web.cern.ch/geant4}

242: 

243: \bibitem{vrevent} J. Linsley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 (1963) 146.

244: 

245: \bibitem{plovdiv1} J. Linsley, Proc. 15th ICRC, Plovdiv, (1977) 56.

246: 

247: \bibitem{plovdiv2} J. Linsley, Proc. 15th ICRC, Plovdiv, (1977) 62.

248: 

249: \bibitem{kutter} T. Kutter, Auger Technical Note, GAP-98-048.

250: 

251: \bibitem{denver} J. Linsley, Proc. 13th ICRC, Denver, (1973) 3212.

252: 

253: 

254: \end{thebibliography}

255: 

256: \end{document}

257: 

258: