1: \documentstyle[aps,floats,epsfig]{revtex}

2: \def\snp{\sigma^{tot}_{\nu p}}

3: \begin{document}

4: 

5: \special{papersize=8.5in,11in}

6: \twocolumn

7: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.0}

8: \twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname

9: @twocolumnfalse\endcsname

10: \title{Extensive air showers with TeV-scale quantum gravity}

11: \author{Luis Anchordoqui, Haim Goldberg, Thomas McCauley, Thomas Paul, 

12: Stephen Reucroft, and John Swain} 

13: \address{Department of Physics, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA}

14: 

15: \maketitle

16: 

17: \begin{abstract}

18: One of the possible consequences of the existence of extra

19: degrees of freedom beyond the electroweak scale is the increase of 

20: neutrino-nucleon cross sections ($\sigma_{\nu N}$) beyond Standard Model 

21: predictions. At ultra-high energies this may allow the existence of 

22: neutrino-initiated extensive air showers.

23: In this paper, we examine the most relevant observables of such   

24: showers. Our analysis indicates that the future Pierre Auger Observatory 

25: could be

26: potentially powerful in probing models with large compact dimensions. 

27: \end{abstract}

28: 

29: \vskip2pc]

30: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

31: 

32: Recently, it has become evident that a promising route to reconcile 

33: high energy particle physics and gravity is to modify the nature of 

34: gravitational interactions at distances shorter than a millimeter. 

35: Such a modification can be most simply achieved by introducing extra 

36: dimensions 

37: in the sub-millimeter range \cite{ADD}. In this approach the fundamental 

38: scale of gravity $M_*$ can be lowered all the way to ${\cal O}$ (TeV), 

39: and the 

40: observed Planck scale turns out to be just an effective scale valid for 

41: energies below 

42: the mass of Kaluza--Klein (KK) excitations. Clearly, while the gravitational 

43: force has not been directly measured below the millimeter range, Standard 

44: Model (SM) interactions have been fairly well investigated at this scale; 

45: so if 

46: large extra dimensions really exist, one needs some mechanism to prevent 

47: SM particles from feeling those extra dimensions. Remarkably, there 

48: are several 

49: possibilities to confine SM fields (and even gravity) to a 4 dimensional 

50: subspace (referred to as a 3-brane) within the $(4+n)$  dimensional 

51: spacetime \cite{trapping}. The provocative new features of this scenario 

52: have sparked a flurry of activity to assess its experimental 

53: validity. A brief resum\'e of current theoretical work devoted to higher 

54: dimensional models includes topics addressing fundamental issues of 

55: phenomenology \cite{pheno}, cosmology \cite{cosmology}, 

56: astrophysics \cite{astro}, and 

57: gravity \cite{gravity}. Moreover, an intense effort to find signatures 

58: of extra-dimensions in collider data is currently underway \cite{exp}.

59: 

60: Since 1966, a handful of extensive air showers have been

61: observed corresponding to what seem to be single particles

62: carrying over $10^{20}$ eV  \cite{reviews}. This, in itself, is

63: remarkable, as it is difficult or even impossible to explain how

64: such energies can be attained by conventional acceleration 

65: mechanisms \cite{bs}. 

66: Deepening the mystery, it was pointed out by Greisen, Zatsepin and 

67: Kuz'min \cite{gzk} (GZK) that extremely high energy

68: ($\gtrsim 10^{20}$ eV) cosmic rays, if nucleons and/or nuclei, would lose

69: energy rapidly through interactions with the cosmic microwave

70: background (CMB). This leads to the so-called GZK cutoff, which limits the 

71: propagation distance of these particles to roughly 50 Mpc.  

72: The difficulty in constructing nearby astrophysical sources that could

73: accelerate particles to such high energies led to the belief that 

74: beyond roughly $10^{20}$ eV, no cosmic rays would be detected.

75: Adding to the puzzle, the arrival directions of these events are 

76: distributed widely over the sky, with no plausible optical counterparts     

77: (such as sources in the Galactic plane or in the Local Supercluster).

78: Furthermore, the ``super-GZK'' data are consistent with an isotropic 

79: distribution of sources in sharp contrast to the anisotropic distribution of 

80: light within 50 Mpc from Earth \cite{s-source}.  In conclusion, the current 

81: picture is very unclear. Thus, it is reasonable to consider whether new physics 

82: could be at play.

83: 

84: Of particular interest here, the 

85: extraordinarily high center-of-mass (c.m.) energies achieved at 

86: the top of the atmosphere are well above those necessary to 

87: excite the hypothetical KK modes which would reflect a

88: change in spacetime dimensionality \cite{gravi-burst}.

89: Hence, a detailed analysis of extensive cosmic ray 

90: showers, taking into account this departure from previous 

91: fundamental particle theory, is worthwhile \cite{monopolo}.    

92: 

93: Interestingly enough, if gravity becomes strong at energies of a few TeV,  

94: virtual graviton exchange can produce relatively large effects on the

95: high energy scattering cross section, drastically changing the 

96: neutrino-nucleon interaction \cite{nussinov}. Neutrinos can 

97: propagate through the 

98: CMB essentially uninhibited, breaking the GZK 

99: barrier \cite{sigletal}. Unfortunately, 

100: within the SM scenario a neutrino incident vertically on the atmosphere would 

101: pass through it unihibited as well, never initiating an extensive air shower.  

102: It was already noted that within the extra dimensional framework, the neutrino 

103: nucleon cross section can approach typical hadronic values at c.m. energies 

104: $s \agt 400$ TeV, allowing earlier development of a vertical neutrino 

105: induced shower \cite{domokos,ralston,domokos2}. 

106: One may wonder whether the growth of the cross section carries with it 

107: observable deviations from SM predictions. Consistency with current 

108: experimental data 

109: requires \cite{haim-tom}, 

110: \begin{equation}

111: \sigma (E) \alt 3 \times 10^{-24} \,\frac{E}{10^{19} \,{\rm eV}} \, {\rm cm}^2,

112: \end{equation}

113: and this bound certainly does not challenge the neutrinos acquiring a 

114: hadronic-scale cross section.  

115: 

116: 

117: 

118: A complete theory of massive KK graviton modes is not yet

119: available, making it impossible to know the exact cross section at

120: asymptotic energies. Any air shower analysis would thus depend on

121: reliable guesswork, supplemented with generally acceptable

122: theoretical principles such as duality, unitarity, Regge behavior

123: and parton structure.  A simple Born approximation to the elastic

124: $\nu$-parton cross section \cite{ralston} (which underlies the

125: total $\nu$-proton cross section) leads, without modification, to

126: $\snp\sim s^2.$ Unmodified, this behavior by itself eventually

127: violates unitarity. This  may be seen either by examining the

128: partial waves of this amplitude, or by noting the high energy

129: Regge behavior of an amplitude  with exchange of the graviton

130: spin-2 Regge pole: with  intercept $\alpha(0)=2$, the elastic

131: cross section

132: \begin{equation}

133: \frac{d\sigma_{el}}{dt}\, \sim\, \frac{|A_R(s,t)|^2}{s^2}\, \sim 

134: s^{2\alpha(0)-2}\,\sim s^2,

135: \end{equation} 

136: whereas

137: \begin{equation}

138: \sigma_{tot}\, \sim \frac{{\rm Im}[A_R(0)]}{s}\,\sim s^{\alpha(0)-1}\,\sim s,

139: \end{equation}

140: so that eventually $\sigma_{el}>\sigma_{tot}.$ Eikonal

141: unitarization schemes modify these behaviors: in the case of the

142: tree amplitudes \cite{nussinov} the resulting (unitarized) cross

143: section $\snp\sim s,$ whereas for the single Regge pole exchange

144: amplitude, $\snp\sim \ln^2(s/s_0)$ \cite{michael}. However, the

145: Regge picture of graviton exchange  is not yet entirely

146: established: both the (apparently) increasing  dominance assumed

147: by successive Regge cuts due to multiple Regge pole exchange

148: \cite{nussinov,muzinich}, as well as the presence of

149: the zero mass graviton can introduce considerable uncertainty in

150: the eventual energy behavior of the cross section. Hereafter, we

151: work within the unitarization framework of Ref. \cite{nussinov}

152: and adopt as our cross section \cite{guenter}

153: \begin{equation}

154: \sigma_{\nu N} \approx \frac{4 \pi s}{M_*^4} \approx 10^{-28} 

155: \left(\frac{M_*}{{\rm TeV}}\right)^{-4} \,\, \left(\frac{E}{10^{19}\,

156: {\rm eV}}\right)\,{\rm cm}^2.

157: \label{cs}

158: \end{equation}

159: 

160: \begin{figure}

161: \label{nu1}

162: \begin{center}

163: \epsfig{file=nu1.eps,width=8.cm,clip=} 

164: \caption{Longitudinal development of neutrino and proton showers for different 

165: primary energies and primary zenith angle 43.9$\circ$. The error bars indicate the standard fluctuations of 

166: the means.}

167: \end{center}

168: \end{figure}

169: 

170: 

171: To simulate the consequences of this for $\nu$-induced air showers, 

172: we  assume that the increase in the cross 

173: section is driven by the production of minijets \cite{minijets}, 

174: and we adopt the {\sc sibyll} package to model the fragmentation 

175: region at ultra high energies \cite{sibyll}. 

176: In other words, the probability distribution for obtaining $N$ jet pairs

177: (with $P_T^{{\rm jet}} > P_T^{{\rm min}}$, where $P_T^{{\rm min}}$ is a sharp 

178: threshold on the transverse momentum above which soft interactions are 

179: neglected) in a collision at energy $\sqrt{s}$ is computed regarding 

180: $\nu$-nucleon scattering as a diffractive shadow scattering associated with 

181: inelastic processes \cite{duranpi}. Particle production comes after the 

182: fragmentation of hypothetical colorless parton-parton chains mimicking 

183: that of {\sc sibyll} hadron-hadron scattering. The reader should keep in mind 

184: the crudeness of this approximation. However, the imposed cutoff on the soft 

185: processes ensures 

186: that the inelasticity in any neutrino-nucleon collision is not much larger 

187: than $y \sim 0.15$ \cite{michael}, justifying the use of the {\sc sibyll} 

188: package. As we discuss below, most of the expected qualitative 

189: features in the shower can be quite well reproduced.  The algorithms of 

190: {\sc aires} (version 2.1.1) \cite{sergio} are slightly modified so as to 

191: track the particles in the atmosphere. In particular, Eq. (\ref{cs}) is 

192: translated into the neutrino mean free path 

193: \begin{equation}

194: \lambda_\nu = \frac{m_{\rm air}}{\sigma_{\nu {\rm air}}},

195: \end{equation}

196: via the standard 8 parameter function used in {\sc aires},

197: \begin{equation}

198: \lambda_\nu = P_1 \,\frac{ 1 + P_2\,\, u + P_3 \,\,u^2 + P_4\,\,u^3}{1 

199: + P_5 \,\,u 

200: + P_6 \,\,u^2 + P_7 \,\, u^3 + P_8 \,\,u^4} \,\, {\rm g}\,{\rm cm}^{-2}.

201: \end{equation}

202: Here $m_{\rm air}$ [g] is the mass of an average atom of air, and

203: $u = \ln E$ [GeV]. The coefficients $P_i$ are listed in Table I 

204: for different values $M_*$.

205: 

206: Several sets of neutrinos were injected at 100 km above sea level.

207: The sample was distributed in the energy range of $10^{20}$ eV up 

208: to $10^{21}$ eV, and was uniformly 

209: spread in the interval of 0$^{\circ}$ to 60$^{\circ}$ zenith angle at

210: the top of the atmosphere. All shower particles with energies above the 

211: following thresholds were

212: tracked: 750 keV for gammas, 900 keV for electrons and positrons, 10

213: MeV for muons, 60 MeV for mesons and 120 MeV for nucleons.

214: The results of these simulations were processed with the help of the 

215: {\sc aires} analysis package. 

216: 

217: 

218: \begin{figure}

219: \label{nu2}

220: \begin{center}

221: \epsfig{file=nu2.eps,width=9.5cm,clip=} 

222: \caption{Lateral distributions of vertical 300 EeV neutrino-induced 

223: showers (triangles), 60 EeV proton-induced showers (circles), and 60 EeV 

224: iron-induced showers (squares). 

225: The error bars indicate the RMS fluctuations.}

226: \end{center}

227: \end{figure}

228: 

229: 

230: Figure 1 shows the total number of charged particles 

231: versus atmospheric depth averaged over 25 showers for the case of 

232: a 300~EeV neutrino at $M_*$=1~TeV.  For comparison, proton-induced 

233: showers at 60 and 90~EeV are shown on the same figure.  As showers 

234: initiated by neutrinos 

235: typically start later than proton-induced showers, the longitudinal

236: development tends to level off after reaching a maximum, in contrast

237: to a standard air shower which decreases more rapidly after reaching a 

238: maximum. 

239: The number of charged particles produced in the cascade depends on 

240: the amount of energy deposited in the atmosphere by the primary.

241: Neutrinos at the energy and mass scale 

242: shown in the figure typically suffer 2 interactions in the atmosphere;

243: any energy remaining after this is undetected.  By comparing the

244: neutrino-induced showers to the proton-induced showers shown in the figure, one

245: can roughly estimate the inelasticity to be $0.1 < y < 0.15$.  This is

246: consistent with the estimates of reference~\cite{michael}.\footnote{It is 

247: important to stress that the maximum number of charged particles produced 

248: in a proton-induced shower does not depend on the hadronic interaction 

249: model \cite{prdhi}, making the present estimate on the 

250: inelasticity quite reliable.}  

251: 

252: 

253: 

254: Figure 2 shows the lateral distributions for vertical showers produced

255: by 300~EeV neutrinos, 60~EeV protons, and iron nuclei of 60~EeV. 

256: At 50~m from the core, 

257: the ratio of the number of charged particles in the neutrino shower

258: to that in the proton shower is $\approx 2$, whereas it is 

259: $\approx 1.5$ in $\nu$/$^{56}$Fe showers. At about 1~km 

260: from the core these ratios reduce to $\approx 1.1$ and $\approx 0.7$, 

261: respectively. This is significant 

262: since experiments

263: which rely on surface detectors to determine shower parameters typically 

264: use samples taken on the order of 1~km from the core, and thus would

265: not be able to easily distinguish between these particle species.

266: 

267: 

268: \begin{figure}

269: \label{1}

270: \begin{center}

271: \epsfig{file=nu3.eps,width=8.cm,clip=} 

272: \caption{Arrival times for charged particles in 

273: vertical 300~EeV neutrino and 60~EeV proton showers normalized at 50~m 

274: from the shower core. The error bars indicate the RMS fluctuations.}

275: \end{center}

276: \end{figure}

277: 

278: 

279: Figure 3 shows the radial dependence of the mean arrival time of muons  

280: for  showers initiated by 300~EeV neutrinos and 60~EeV protons.

281: It can be readily seen from the comparison that the proton-induced showers 

282: exhibit 

283: larger fluctuations than the neutrino-induced showers. Besides, 

284: each profile presents a well defined slope that characterizes the shower front

285: and comprises a  signature of the primary species. In particular, a neutrino 

286: interacts in the atmosphere only once or twice, and consequently the muons 

287: reach the ground with a relatively short time delay. 

288: 

289: The simulated neutrino showers discussed so far deposit far less

290: energy in the atmosphere than the most energetic of the observed 

291: cosmic ray events.  A natural question is then what the 

292: shower profile would look like for a neutrino whose energy and mean 

293: free path are such that it would deposit roughly the same energy 

294: as observed in the highest energy event~\cite{fe}.  

295: 

296: At this stage, it is important to point out that within the SM framework 

297: neutrinos are produced at extremely high energies, 

298: typically by the weak decay of pions or other hadrons. Thus, one needs 

299: protons to be accelerated to energies a few orders of magnitude even higher. 

300: In scenarii involving {\it precocious unification} \cite{zk}, 

301: there may be alternatives to decay chains for producing super-GZK 

302: neutrinos at the source.

303: 

304: Figure 4 shows the longitudinal development of a 900~EeV

305: neutrino-induced shower with a fundamental mass scale $M_* = 1.3$~TeV.  

306: We stress that such a scale is above the lower bound for $M_*$ derived from the 

307: expected flux of neutrinos and current non-observation of horizontal 

308: air showers \cite{guenter}. The total energy

309: deposited in the atmosphere (after 2 interactions) is of the

310: same order as the Fly's Eye event, but the shower maximum occurs, as

311: expected, significantly later. 

312: 

313: \begin{figure}

314: \label{nu4}

315: \begin{center}

316: \epsfig{file=nu4.eps,width=8.cm,clip=} 

317: \caption{The longitudinal development of a 900 EeV neutrino-induced shower 

318: is shown together with the experimental data reported by Fly's Eye.   

319: The error bars in the simulated points indicate the standard fluctuations of 

320: the means.}

321: \end{center}

322: \end{figure}

323: 

324: 

325: In summary, it has been proposed~\cite{domokos,ralston,domokos2} 

326: that the GZK cutoff can be skirted if the progenitors of the most energetic 

327: air showers are neutrinos.  Under this hypothesis, the neutrino-nucleon

328: cross section is increased by the presence of extra dimensions,

329: allowing the neutrinos to interact in the atmosphere.  Simulations indicate 

330: that neutrino-induced showers at energies 

331: of a few hundred EeV would exhibit signatures distinct from 

332: those of proton (or nucleus) induced showers that deposit a similar 

333: amount of energy in the atmosphere.  Similarly, if there are neutrinos 

334: energetic enough to deposit as much energy in the atmosphere as

335: is observed in the highest energy events, it appears they too

336: may have unique signatures.  In fact, any physics beyond

337: the standard model that increases the neutrino-nucleon cross

338: section should affect shower observables

339: like longitudinal profile (measured with fluorescence detectors)

340: and ground particle distributions (measured with surface detectors).

341: This article contains some qualitative discussion of relevant  

342: observables of neutrino-induced showers.  As far as we are aware, no

343: showers have been observed which are consistent with these features.

344: If candidates are eventually discovered, of course it will be necessary to 

345: carry out a much more detailed simulation than the one presented here.

346: We note that future hybrid detectors such as the Pierre Auger Observatory~\cite{auger} 

347: will be in an exceptional position to search for such phenomena.

348: 

349: 

350: {\bf Note added:} After this paper was written, it was stressed that 

351: extremely high energy (300 EeV) neutrinos with larger cross section 

352: ($s^2$ rise) can create showers that would look like the highest energy 

353: event \cite{jain}. If this is the case, it should also be stressed that 

354: neutrinos 

355: of a few tens of EeV could induce vertical air showers with very 

356: distinctive 

357: profiles. In Fig. 5 we show the longitudinal development of showers 

358: initiated by neutrinos of $E = 5 \times 10^{19}$ eV.\footnote{To 

359: compute the simulation we adopt the cross section growth used in Ref. 

360: \cite{jain} to reproduce the Fly's Eye data.}

361: For comparison we also 

362: show showers induced by gamma rays and protons of $E = 5 \times 10^{18}$ eV.

363: It is easily seen that within this framework a 50 EeV neutrino 

364: shower presents its own signature \cite{gamma}.

365: 

366: The question of whether the interaction cross section of neutrinos with matter

367: could be greatly enhanced (via massive spin-2 exchange) at high energies, 

368: is yet undecided. Observation of deeply penetrating showers with 

369: $5 \times 10^{18}$ eV deposited in the atmosphere  would 

370: give an experimental and definite answer to this question. 

371: As an immediate spinoff, we have the converse fact, i.e., that if there 

372: were no possible candidate which could be associated with a neutrino shower, 

373: then it should be understood as a serious objection to the  hypothesis 

374: of neutrinos as progenitors of the ``super-GZK'' events. We strongly 

375: recommend that the Fly's Eye data be re-analyzed searching for evidence of 

376: neutrino showers.  

377: 

378: 

379: 

380: 

381: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

382: \acknowledgements{

383: We would like to thank M\'aximo Ave, Anal\'{\i}a Cillis, Gabor Domokos, 

384: Michael Kachelrie{\ss}, Zurab Kakushadze, Susan Kovesi-Domokos,

385: Jeremy Lloyd-Evans, Doug McKay, Michael Plumacher, John Ralston, 

386: Lisa Randall, Sergio Sciutto, Robert Shrock, and 

387: Ricardo V\'azquez for useful discussions/correspondence. 

388: This work was partially supported by CONICET (Argentina) 

389: and the National Science Foundation.}

390: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

391: 

392: 

393: 

394: \begin{figure}

395: \label{nu5}

396: \begin{center}

397: \epsfig{file=sancle.eps,width=8.cm,clip=} 

398: \caption{Longitudinal development of 50 EeV neutrino-induced 

399: showers, 5 EeV proton-induced showers, and 5 EeV 

400: gamma-ray showers. The error bars indicate the standard fluctuations of 

401: the means.}

402: \end{center}

403: \end{figure}

404: 

405: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

406: 

407: 

408: \bibitem{ADD}  

409: N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, Phys.

410: Lett. B {\bf 429}, 263 (1998); I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed,

411: S. Dimopoulos and G. Dvali, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 436}, 257 (1998).

412: 

413: \bibitem{trapping} 

414: G. Dvali and M. Shifman, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 396}, 64 (1997), 

415: {\it erratum ibid} {\bf 407}, 452 (1997);

416: L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 

417: 4690 (1999); B. Bajc, G. Gabadadze, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 474}, 282 (2000);

418: G. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, [hep-th/0008054].

419: 

420: 

421: \bibitem{pheno} See for instance, 

422: G. F. Giudice, R. Rattazzi 

423: and J. D. Wells, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 544}, 3 (1999); T. Han, J. 

424: D. Lykken and R. J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 105006 (1999); 

425: J. L. Hewett, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82} 4765 (1999); E. A. Mirabelli, M. 

426: Perelstein and M. E. Peskin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 2236 (1999); 

427: T. G. Rizzo, [hep-ph/9910255]; S. Cullen, M. Perelstein and M. E. Peskin, 

428: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 055012 (2000); L. Randall and R. Sundrum,

429:  Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 3370 (1999); J. Lykken and 

430: L. Randall, JHEP {\bf 0006}, 014 (2000).   

431: 

432: 

433: \bibitem{cosmology} See for instance, C. Cs\'aki, M. Graesser, 

434: C. Kolda, J. Terning, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 462}, 34 (1999);

435: J. M. Cline, C. Grojean and G. Servant, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83},

436: 4245 (1999); C. Cs\'aki, M. Graesser, 

437: L. Randall and J. Terning, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 

438: 045015 (2000); S. Nojiri and S. Odintsov, JHEP {\bf 0007}, 049 (2000); 

439: L. A. Anchordoqui, C. Nu\~nez, K. Olsen, JHEP {\bf 0010}, 050 (2000) 

440: [hep-th/0007064]; S. W. Hawking, T. Hertog and H. S. Reall, [hep-ph/0010232]. 

441: 

442: \bibitem{astro} See for instance, S. Cullen and 

443: M. Perelstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 

444: {\bf 83}, 268 (1999); N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. Dvali and N. Kaloper,

445: [hep-ph/9911386];  V. Barger, T. Han, C. Kao, R. J. Zhang, Phys. Lett. 

446: B {\bf 461}, 34 (1999); G. C. McLaughlin, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 470}, 157 (1999);

447: S. Cassisi, V. Castellani, S. Degl'Innocenti, G. Fiorentini, B. Ricci, Phys. 

448: Lett. B {\bf 481}, 323 (2000).

449: 

450: 

451: 

452: \bibitem{gravity} See for instance, W. D. Goldberger and M. B. Wise, 

453: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 4922 (1999)

454: A. Chamblin, S. W. Hawking and 

455: H. S. Reall, Phys. Rev D {\bf 61}, 065007 (2000);  J. Garriga and 

456: T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84} 2778 (2000); S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov 

457: and S. Zerbini, Phys. Rev D {\bf 62}, 064006 (2000); S. B. Giddings, 

458: E. Katz and L. Randall, JHEP {\bf 0003}, 023 (2000); S. W. Hawking, 

459: T. Hertog and H. S. Reall, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 043501 (2000);

460: D. Langlois, R. Maartens and D. Wands, Phys. Lett. B {\bf 489}, 259 (2000); 

461: C. D. Hoyle et al., [hep-ph/0011014]. 

462: 

463: \bibitem{exp} M. Acciarri et al. (L3 Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B {\bf 470},

464: 281 (1999) [hep-ex/9910056]; C. Adloff et al. (H1 Collaboration),

465: [hep-exp/0003002]; B. Abbott et al. (D\O $\,\,$ Collaboration), 

466: [hep-ex/0008065].

467: 

468: 

469: 

470: \bibitem{reviews} S. Yoshida and H. Dai, J. Phys {\bf G24} 905

471: (1998); M. Nagano, A. A. Watson, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 72}, 659 (2000).

472: 

473: \bibitem{bs} For a comprehensive review on the origin of the highest energy 

474: cosmic rays the reader is referred to P. Bhattacharjee and G. Sigl, Phys. Rep. 

475: {\bf 327} 109 (2000).

476: 

477: 

478: \bibitem{gzk} K. Greisen , Phys Rev. Lett. {\bf 16} 748 (1966); 

479: G.T. Zatsepin and V.A. Kuz'min, Pis'ma Zh. Eksp. Teor.

480: Fiz. {\bf 4} 114 (1966) [JETP Lett. {\bf 4} 78 (1966)].

481: 

482: \bibitem{s-source} The observed near-isotropy of the distribution can be 

483: explained, within a single-source hypothesis, postulating a 

484: galactic wind  or a large extragalactic magnetic field. 

485: E. -J. Ahn, G. Medina-Tanco, P. L. Biermann and T. Stanev, 

486: [astro-ph/9911123]; G. Farrar and T. Piran, [astro-ph/0010370].

487: None of these models, however, could explain directional 

488: clustering as discussed by N. Hayashida et al. (AGASA Collaboration), Phys. 

489: Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 1000 (1996); M. Takeda et al., Astrophys. J. {\bf 522},

490: 225 (1999) [astro-ph/9902239 and astro-ph/0008102]; Y. Uchihori et al., 

491: Astropart. Phys. {\bf 13}, 151 (2000). For a recent analytic analysis, see 

492: H. Goldberg and T. J. Weiler, [astro-ph/0009378]. 

493:  

494: 

495: \bibitem{gravi-burst} In considering the 

496: exchange of gravitons (KK modes), one should distinguish the following 

497: two scenarios: (i) In the canonical example of \cite{ADD}, 

498: KK gravitons are couple extremely weakly, 

499: and the observational effects arise because of the very large 

500: multiplicity of states due to their 

501: fine splittings. (ii) In the Anti--de Sitter bulk scenario 

502: (see Randall-Sundrum in Ref. \cite{pheno}), each exited state coupling 

503: is ${\cal O} (E/{\rm TeV})$, and thus single KK modes could be detected 

504: via their decay products. Future cosmic ray data could play an important 

505: role in testing the latter. H. Davoudiasl, J. L. Hewett and T. G. Rizzo, 

506: [hep-ph/0010066].

507: 

508: 

509: \bibitem{monopolo} The influence of the extra-dimensional scenario 

510: on  monopole induced showers was reported elsewhere. 

511: L. A. Anchordoqui, T. P. McCauley, S. Reucroft and J. Swain, 

512: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63}, 027303 (2001) [hep-ph/0009319].

513: 

514: \bibitem{nussinov}

515: S. Nussinov and R. Shrock, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59} 105002 

516: (1999). 

517: 

518: 

519: \bibitem{sigletal} A remarkable correlation between the arrival direction

520: of cosmic rays above $10^{20}$ eV and high redshift compact radio quasars 

521: seems to support the neutrino hypothesis. Such a correlation, however, 

522: diminishes when considering only the highest energy events 

523: ($E>8 \times 10^{19}$ eV at 1-standard deviation) that have no contamination 

524: from the expected proton pile-up around the photopion production threshold. 

525: G. R. Farrar and P. Biermann, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 3579 (1998); 

526: G. Sigl et al., [astro-ph/0008363]; A. Virmani et al., [astro-ph/0010235].

527: 

528: 

529: \bibitem{domokos}  G. Domokos and S. Kovesi-Domokos, Phys. Rev. 

530: Lett. {\bf 82}, 1366 (1999).

531: 

532: \bibitem{ralston} P. Jain, D. W. McKay, S. Panda, and J. P. Ralston, 

533: Phys. Lett. B {\bf 484}, 267 (2000).

534: 

535: \bibitem{domokos2} G. Domokos, S. Kovesi-Domokos and P. T. 

536: Mikulski [hep-ph/0006328]. 

537: 

538: \bibitem{haim-tom} H. Goldberg, T. J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 

539: 113005 (1999).

540: 

541: \bibitem{michael} 

542: M. Kachelrie{\ss} and M. Plumacher, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 62}, 103006 (2000) 

543: [astro-ph/0005309].

544: 

545: 

546: \bibitem{muzinich} I. J. Muzinich and M. Soldate, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 37},

547: 359, (1988).

548: 

549: \bibitem{guenter} C. Taylor, A. Olinto and G. Sigl, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 63},

550: 055001 (2001) [hep-ph/0002257]. 

551: 

552: 

553: \bibitem{minijets} T. K. Gaisser and T. Stanev, Phys. Lett. 

554: B {\bf 219}, 375 (1989).

555: 

556: \bibitem{sibyll} R. S. Fletcher, T. K. Gaisser, P. Lipari and T.

557: Stanev, Phys. Rev. D {\bf 50}, 5710 (1994).

558: 

559: 

560: \bibitem{duranpi} L. Durand and H. Pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 58}, 303 (1987).

561: 

562: 

563: \bibitem{sergio} S. J. Sciutto, in {\it

564: Proc. XXVI International Cosmic Ray Conference}, (Edts. D. Kieda, M. Salamon,

565: and B. Dingus, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1999) vol.1, p.411, [astro-ph/9905185]. 

566: 

567: 

568: 

569: 

570: \bibitem{prdhi} L. A. Anchordoqui, M. T. Dova, L. N. Epele, S. J. Sciutto,

571: Phys. Rev. D {\bf 59}, 094003 (1999). See in particular Fig. 8.

572: 

573: \bibitem{fe} D. J. Bird et al., Astrophys. J. {\bf 441}, 144 (1995).

574: 

575: \bibitem{zk} Z. Kakushadze, Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 548}, 205 (1999); 

576: {\bf 552}, 3 (1999); {\bf 551}, 549 (1999). See also,

577: \cite{domokos}.

578: 

579: \bibitem{auger} For an overview of the Auger project see for instance,

580: D. Zavrtanik, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl. {\bf 85}, 324 (2000).

581: 

582: 

583: \bibitem{jain} A. Jain, P. Jain, D. W. McKay, and J. 

584: P. Ralston, [hep-ph/0011310].

585: 

586: \bibitem{gamma} It is worthwhile to remark that at these 

587: energies the CMB is completely opaque to the propagation of gamma rays. 

588: See for instance, 

589: R. J. Protheroe and P. A. Johnson, Astropart. Phys. {\bf 4}, 

590: 253 (1996).

591: 

592: 

593: \end{thebibliography}

594: 

595: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

596: 

597: 

598: 

599: \begin{onecolumn}

600: \begin{table}

601: \caption{Coefficients for mean free path parametrization}

602: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}

603: %\hline\hline 

604: $M_*$ [TeV] & $P_1$ & $P_2$ & $P_3$ & $P_4$ & $P_5$ & $P_6$ & $P_7$ 

605: & $P_8$

606: \\ \hline 

607: 1 & -14657 & -2254.4 & -13.931 & 3.3530 & -1236.7 & -814.89 & -4.6945 & 

608: 1.7814 \\

609: 1.2 & 5654.4 & 1130000 & 1393 & -1417.3 & -1724000 & -124980 & 

610: 100.44 & 316.09 \\

611: 1.3 & 6638.5 & 307640 & 355.94 & -366.14 & -1499700 & -19822 

612: & 845.46 & 91.015\\

613: %\hline \hline

614: \end{tabular}

615: \end{table}

616: \end{onecolumn}

617: 

618: \end{document}

619: 

620: 

621: 

622: 

623: 

624: