1:
2: \documentclass[10pt,preprint1]{aastex}
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5:
6: %%%\textwidth=180mm \textheight=240mm \topmargin=0mm \headheight=4mm
7: %%%%\headsep=5mm \oddsidemargin=-10mm \evensidemargin=0mm
8: %%%%\parindent=2em
9: %%%%\parskip=1.5ex
10: %%%%\textfloatsep=15mm
11:
12:
13: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=Latex.dll}
14: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Mon Mar 22 14:53:30 2004}
15: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}
16:
17: \shorttitle{Tau Air-Shower Rates} \shortauthors{Fargion et al.}
18:
19: %%%%%%%%%%\input{tcilatex}
20:
21: \begin{document}
22:
23: \title{ Tau Air Showers from Earth}
24: \author{D. Fargion\altaffilmark{1,2}, P.G. De Sanctis Lucentini\altaffilmark{1}, M.
25: De Santis \altaffilmark{1}, M.Grossi \altaffilmark{1}}
26:
27: \begin{abstract}
28: We estimate the rate of observable Horizontal and Upward Tau
29: Air-Showers (HORTAUs, UPTAUS)
30: %, HORTAUs, and Upward ones, UPTAUs,
31: considering both the Earth opacity and the contribution of the
32: terrestrial atmosphere.
33: %the finite extension of the terrestrial atmosphere.
34: Our result applies to most neutrino telescope projects especially
35: to the EUSO space observatory. Using a compact analytical formula
36: we calculate the effective target volumes and masses for Tau
37: air-showers emerging from the Earth.
38: %The resulting model-independent effective masses may (at energy
39: %%$E_{\nu_{\tau}}\simeq 1.2 \cdot 10^{19}$ eV) an average huge
40: %%%surrounding ring volume $\simeq 1020$ $km^3$.
41: The resulting model-independent effective masses for EUSO may
42: encompass - at $E_{\nu_{\tau}}\simeq 10^{19}$ eV - an average huge
43: volume ($\simeq 1020$ $km^3$) compared to current
44: neutrino experiments. Adopting simple power law neutrino fluxes, $\frac{dN_{\nu}}{%
45: dE_{\nu}}$ $\propto$ $E^{-2}$ and $E^{-1}$, calibrated to GZK-like
46: and Z-Burst-like models, we estimate that at $E \simeq 10^{19}$
47: eV nearly half a dozen horizontal shower events should be
48: detected by EUSO in three years of data collection considering
49: the 10\% duty cycle efficiency and a minimal $\nu_{\tau}$ flux
50: $\phi_{\nu} E_{\nu} \simeq 50 $eV cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$.
51: The HORTAUS detection may test the "guaranteed" GZK neutrino flux
52: (secondaries of photopion production due to UHECR scattering onto
53: 2.75 K cosmic background radiation). We also find that the
54: equivalent mass for an outer layer made of rock is dominant
55: compared to the water, contrary to simplified all-rock/all-water
56: Earth models and previous studies. Therefore we expect an
57: enhancement of neutrino detection along continental shelves
58: nearby the highest mountain chains, also because of the better
59: geometrical acceptance for Earth skimming neutrinos. In this
60: picture, the Auger experiment might reveal such an increase at
61: $E_{\nu} \simeq 10^{18}$ eV (with 26 events in 3 yr) if the
62: angular resolution (both in azimuth and zenith) would reach an
63: accuracy of nearly one degree necessary to disentangle tau air
64: showers from common horizontal UHECR. Finally, we show that the
65: number of events increases at lower energies, therefore we
66: suggest an extension of the EUSO sensitivity down to
67: $E_{\nu}\sim 10^{19}$ eV or even below.
68:
69:
70: \end{abstract}
71:
72: \affil{\altaffilmark{1} Physics Department,
73: Universit\'a "La Sapienza", Pl.A.Moro ,\altaffilmark{2} INFN,
74: Rome, Italy}
75:
76: \altaffiltext{1}{Physics Department, Universit\'a "La Sapienza",
77: P.le A.Moro 5, 00185 Roma, Italy} \altaffiltext{2}{INFN Roma1,
78: Italy}
79:
80: \
81:
82: \section{Introduction: $\protect\tau$ air-showering from the Earth}
83:
84: The study of ultrahigh energy upward and horizontal $\tau$ air
85: showers produced by $\tau$ neutrino interactions within the Earth
86: crust has been considered in recent years as an alternative way to
87: detect high energy neutrinos. The problem of $\tau$ neutrinos
88: crossing the Earth is indeed quite complicated because of the
89: complex terrestrial neutrino opacity at different energies and
90: angles of arrival. In addition, several factors have to be taken
91: into account, such as the amount of energy transferred in the
92: $\nu_{\tau}$ - $\tau$ lepton conversion, as well as the $\tau$
93: energy losses and interaction lengths at different energies and
94: materials. This makes the estimate of the links between the input
95: neutrino - output $\tau$ air shower very difficult. Such a
96: prediction is further complicated by the existence of a long list
97: of theoretical models for the incoming neutrino fluxes (GZK
98: neutrinos, Z-burst model flux, $E^{-2}$ flat spectra, AGN
99: neutrinos, topological defects). Many authors have investigated
100: this mechanism, however the results are varied, often in
101: contradiction among themselves, and the expected rates
102: %encompass a wide variety of values.
103: range over a few order of magnitude (Fargion, Aiello, \&
104: Conversano 1999; Fargion 2002a; Feng et al. 2002; Bottai \&
105: Giurgola, hereafter BG03; Bugaev, Montaruli, \& Sokalski 2003;
106: Fargion 2003; Tseng et al. 2003; Jones et al. 2004; Yoshida et
107: al. 2004). So far, the majority of the current studies on this
108: topic is based on Monte-Carlo simulations assuming a particular
109: model of the incoming neutrino flux.
110:
111: To face such a complex problem, we think that the simplest
112: approach is the best. First one has to disentangle the incoming
113: neutrino flux from the consequent $\tau$ air-shower physics.
114: Therefore, to establish the $\tau$ production rate we introduce
115: an effective volume and mass for Earth-skimming $\tau$'s, which
116: is independent on any incoming neutrino flux model. This volume
117: describes a strip within the Earth where
118: neutrino/antineutrino-nucleon, $\nu_{\tau} (\bar{\nu}_{\tau })
119: -N$, interactions may produce emerging $\tau^{-},\tau^{+}$
120: leptons which then shower in air.
121:
122: We present a very simple analytical and numerical derivation (as
123: well as its more sophisticated extensions) which takes into
124: account, for any incoming angle, the main processes related to the
125: neutrinos and $\tau$ leptons propagation and the $\tau$ energy
126: losses within the Earth crust. Our numerical results are
127: constrained by upper and lower bounds derived in simple
128: approximations (enlisted in a final appendix). The effective
129: volumes and masses will be more severely reduced at high energy
130: because we are interested in the successful development of the
131: $\tau$ air-shower. Therefore we included as a further constraint
132: the role of the air dilution at high altitude, where $\tau$ decay
133: and the consequent air-shower may (or may not) take place.
134:
135: We show that our results give an estimate of the $\tau$ air-shower
136: event rates that greatly exceeds earliest studies but they are
137: comparable or even below more recent predictions. To make our
138: derivation as simple as possible we present only the main formula
139: and plots, while full details of the calculations and of the
140: approximation limits will be discussed in the appendix.
141:
142: We compare our general $\tau$ upward-going showers to detectors
143: such as
144: %as the gamma satellite GRO (BATSE),
145: the ongoing photo-fluorescence ground-based observatory Auger, we
146: present some definitive predictions for future projects like the
147: EUSO space observatory and we suggest how to enhance the neutrino
148: tau emergence especially at energies lower than $10^{19}$ eV.
149:
150: The paper is divided in the following way: section \S 2 gives a
151: brief review of the expected Ultra High Energy Neutrino Sources.
152: Section \S 3 discusses the general air-shower neutrino telescope
153: scenario focusing on $\tau$ Neutrino Astronomy, with a minor hint
154: to the present and future underground $km^3$ neutrino detectors;
155: in section \S 4 we introduce the comparable horizontal Ultra High
156: Energy Cosmic Rays Air-Skimming events at high altitude (HIAS) and
157: the lower air-skimming neutrino induced air-shower; we calculate
158: the Earth opacity for neutrinos and leptons; we briefly remind the
159: lepton energy losses in different materials (water and rock), and
160: we present the effective Earth skin Volumes and Masses leading to
161: UPTAUs and HORTAUs. Such volumes and masses will be derived under
162: different approximations and experimental framework. In section \S
163: 5 we present the event rate per km$^2$ assuming that the outer
164: layer of the Earth's crust is made either of rock or of water and
165: we compare it with large area projects such as Auger and EUSO.
166: Section \S 6 will show our conclusions and suggestions for $\tau$
167: air-shower Neutrino Astronomy, mainly concentrating on the EUSO
168: experiment.
169:
170: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%The article ...%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
171:
172: \section{Sources of High Energy Neutrinos}
173:
174: \subsection{The atmospheric neutrinos background}
175:
176: Cosmic Rays (CR) reach the Earth's atmosphere with a nearly
177: homogeneous and isotropic distribution with no astronomical memory
178: of their original place of birth. Parasite secondary neutrinos
179: originated by such blurred CR are abundantly hitting the
180: atmosphere, leading to an atmospheric neutrino background, with the
181: same nearly isotropic distribution as the parental CR flux in
182: celestial coordinates (with a power law spectrum $\propto$
183: $E^{-2.2}$). Their presence is a polluting signal for any future
184: Neutrino Astronomy. Nevertheless the atmospheric neutrino
185: background
186: is suppressed at high energy ($E_{\nu_{Atm}}> TeV$) and shows a spectrum ($%
187: \propto E^{-3.2}$) softer than that of the parental CR, because the
188: relativistic charged pion lifetime is larger than the time needed
189: to propagate through the atmosphere, and they do not easily decay
190: neither into muons nor into atmospheric neutrinos. Therefore the
191: detection of High Energy Neutrinos from galactic or extragalactic
192: objects is expected above $\sim 10$ TeVs (i.e. PeV - EeV - ZeV)
193: assuming a harder spectrum for neutrinos from astronomical sources.
194: It is worth noticing that the TeV-PeV charged cosmic rays are
195: confined within the Galaxy by the magnetic field, thus they are
196: more long-lived and tangled than direct galactic neutrinos; this
197: makes more likely (by at least two-three orders of magnitude) the
198: detection of atmospheric $\nu$'s (produced by galactic CR) compared
199: to those neutrinos from astrophysical sources, whose harder
200: spectrum may compensate this large difference.
201:
202: At high energy ($> 10^{19}$ eV) CR losses are also of nuclear
203: nature (photo-pion and multi-pion productions) and Ultra High
204: Energy Cosmic Rays, UHECR, mainly nuclei and nucleons, often
205: produce charged pions leading to neutrino and gamma secondaries
206: nearby the original source, such as an Active Galactic Nucleus
207: (AGN). In this case we may expect an UHE neutrino astronomy (at
208: EeV-PeV) associated with such UHECR and with hard gamma photons ,
209: secondaries of neutral pions (Semikoz \& Sigl 2003). Such UHE
210: neutrinos are often labeled as AGN secondary neutrinos. While they
211: travel undeflected and unperturbed, the corresponding gamma are
212: often absorbed and degraded to GeV - MeV energies by intergalactic
213: backgrounds.
214:
215: In the following sections we summarize the main sources of primary
216: UHE neutrinos such as the AGN, Gamma Ray Bursts (GRB) or more
217: exotic topological defects (TD), as well as the production of
218: secondary $\nu$'s by UHECR at GZK energies (GZK or cosmogenic
219: neutrino) and UHE neutrons. We also discuss the role of UHE
220: neutrinos as sources of UHECRs via $\nu - \nu_{relic}$ scattering,
221: as predicted by the Z-burst scenario.
222:
223:
224: \subsection{UHE $\protect\nu$ correlated to UHE neutrons}
225:
226: Neutral EeV neutrons may trace a corresponding neutrino imprint
227: through their beta decay in flight. Recently, a mild correlation
228: has been found between the Cosmic Ray excess in the AGASA data at
229: EeV energies with the EGRET gamma map towards Cygnus and the
230: Galactic Omega $17$ region (Hayashida et al. 1999; Fargion 2002a;
231: Fargion, Khlopov et al. 2003). The nature of such EeV galactic
232: anisotropy cannot be related to charged cosmic rays at high EeV
233: rigidity but it may be due
234: to EeV neutrons - able to avoid the galactic magnetic field bending and to survive up to galactic distances $%
235: D_{n}= 9.168\cdot \left(\frac{E_n}{10^{18} eV}\right)\cdot kpc $.
236: These UHECR neutrons anisotropy at $4\%$ level would imply an associated UHE neutrino flux.
237: Indeed neutrinos might be either the inescapable low tail of
238: neutron decay in flight, or the signature of UHE pions generated in
239: the same source with the UHE neutrons.
240: In the first case (relic of neutron's beta decay in flight) the
241: expected secondary neutrino energy flux is a negligible ($\leq 1\%$) fraction of UHE
242: neutron: $\phi_{\nu} \ll 12 $ eV $cm^{-2}s^{-2}sr^{-2}$ ; while in the
243: latter case (assuming the equipartition of the energy into pion-neutron "in situ" production) the
244: expected neutrino flux near EeV might exceed (up to a factor
245: ten) the UHE neutron flux $\phi_{\nu} \simeq 100 $ eV $cm^{-2}s^{-2}sr^{-2}$.
246:
247:
248: \subsection{UHE neutrinos from AGN and GRB}
249:
250: UHECR escaping from a Jet of a Quasar (QSO) or an AGN, or a beamed
251: GRB - Supernova (SN) Jet may interact with the intense photon
252: fields generated by the source itself. These interactions lead to
253: the production of charged and neutral mesons fuelling a collinear
254: gamma and neutrino flux (Kalashev et al. 2002). The gamma rays and
255: the high energy cosmic rays may interact inside the much denser
256: environment of the source (AGN,GRB Jets) where the gamma opacity
257: suppresses most of the electromagnetic escaping signal. In this
258: scenario the main signal coming from the core of AGN might be
259: dominated by 'transparent' Ultra High Energy Neutrinos whose
260: fluxes may be even greater than the gammas. These AGN or GRB-SN
261: Jet neutrinos have been often modeled and predicted in the
262: PeV-EeV energy range, and they may be well correlated with gamma
263: photons produced by blazars, if they are originated by the
264: interactions of relativistic nuclei. EeV photons by neutral pion
265: decay are suppressed by photon-photon interactions and their
266: energy may be degraded to MeV-GeV energies. The neutrino energy
267: fluence may reach a value comparable or just below the one of the
268: diffuse gammas observed by EGRET: $\phi_{\nu} \simeq 10^3 $ eV
269: $cm^{-2}s^{-2}sr^{-2}$. The slope of the spectrum near the maximum
270: at PeV energy might be flat: $\phi_{\nu}$ $\propto E^{-2}$.
271:
272: %nEUTRINOS from GRB would be characterised by a strong
273:
274: %directionality and short duration. The time-averaged background
275:
276: %flux has been calculated by Waxmann \& Bachall (1997) a.
277:
278: \subsection{UHE GZK neutrinos and the Z burst: neutrino masses imprint}
279:
280: The origin of UHECRs with energies above a few times $10^{19}$ eV
281: is a phenomenon that has not yet been clearly understood. There
282: are nearly a hundred of such UHECR events, which surprisingly are
283: not clustered to any nearby AGN, QSRs or known GRBs within the
284: narrow volume (10-30 Mpc radius) defined by the cosmic 2.75
285: $K^{o}$ proton drag viscosity, the so-called GZK cut-off (Greisen
286: 1966; Zatsepin \& Kuzmin 1966). Indeed the GZK cut-off implies the
287: shrinking of the UHECR propagation length to a few tens of Mpc,
288: making the expected UHECR astronomy a very local one. However
289: these events are neither correlated with any galactic or nearby
290: Local Group sources, nor with the Super-Galactic plane, nor with
291: nearby clusters. Following the Gamma Ray Burst lesson, the
292: observed UHECR overall isotropy is suggesting a very far away
293: cosmological origin. Such cosmic distances are not consistent
294: with the $< 10$ Mpc cut-off prescribed by the GZK effect.
295: Moreover, the presence of a few UHECR clustered events,
296: apparently correlated with a more distant, bright BL Lac
297: population makes this puzzle even more complicated. Such BL Lac
298: objects are in fact at far redshifts ($z> 0.1-0.3$) (Gorbunov,
299: Tinyakov, Tkachev, Troitsky 2002). This correlation and the
300: overall isotropy favor a cosmic origination for UHECRs, well
301: above the near GZK volume.
302:
303: A light ($0.05$ eV $< m_{\nu} < 2$ eV ) relic neutrino may play a
304: role in solving the puzzle. Assuming a neutrino flux at
305: corresponding energies ($2 \cdot 10^{21}$ eV $< E_{\nu} < 8 \cdot
306: 10^{22}$ eV) ejected by distant BL Lacs, such UHE $\nu$'s may be
307: hitting relic light neutrinos clustered in Hot Dark Halos with a
308: characteristic size of a few Mpc (for instance as extended as the
309: Local Group) or of tens of Mpc (the supergalactic cluster
310: volume). This interaction produces an UHE Z boson (Z-Shower or Z
311: Burst model) whose secondary nucleons are the final observed
312: UHECRs on Earth. In synthesis, the UHE neutrino is the neutral
313: flying link (transparent to BBR photons) from BL Lac sources at
314: cosmic edges to our local universe, while the relic neutrinos,
315: possibly clustered in Mpc or ten Mpc volumes around the Local
316: Group, represent the target calorimeter.
317: %At any neutrino mass , if not
318: % degenerated, may correspond an independent incoming UHE
319: % Z-Shower energy, leading to an expected UHECR modulation at highest
320: % edges ($ E \simeq ZeV = 10^{21} eV $).
321: In this scenario, a neutrino mass (Dolgov 2002; Raffelt 2002)
322: fine-tuned at $m_{\nu} \simeq 0.4$ eV (Fargion, Grossi et al.
323: 2000, 2001; Fodor, Katz, Ringwald 2002; Klapdor-Kleingrothaus et
324: al. 2001) or $m_{\nu} \simeq 0.1 \div 5$ eV, may solve the GZK
325: paradox overcoming the proton opacity. (Fargion, Salis, 1997;
326: Fargion, Mele, \& Salis 1999; Yoshida et al 1998; Weiler 1999).
327: In order to fit the UHECR observed data a UHECR Z-burst neutrino
328: flux at $E \simeq 10^{19} eV $should grow as $\phi_{\nu} \simeq 50 \cdot E^{-1}$ eV $cm^{-2}$ $s^{-1}$
329: $sr^{-1}$.
330:
331:
332: Therefore, UHE neutrinos may induce, as primary particles, the
333: astronomy of the UHECRs and their detection may allow to identify
334: the sources where such UHE particles are produced. Yet,
335: independently on the exact GZK puzzle solution, the extragalactic
336: UHE nucleons produced in our GZK surrounding are
337: themselves source of UHE neutrinos $\nu_{\mu}$,$\bar{\nu_{\mu}}$$\nu_{e}$,$\bar{\nu_{e}}$%
338: , with energies $E \simeq 4\cdot 10^{19} eV $, and UHE gammas by
339: photopion production.
340:
341: However, the light neutrino mass required to avoid the GZK paradox
342: does not solve the dark matter problem, although it is well
343: consistent with the solar neutrino oscillation mass limits
344: (Anselmann et al. 1992; Fukuda 1998), with the most recent claims
345: of anti-neutrino disappearance by KamLAND (Eguchi et al. 2003) (in
346: agreement with a Large Mixing Angle neutrino model and $\Delta
347: {m_{\nu}}^2 \sim 7 \cdot 10^{-5}{eV}^2$), and with the atmospheric
348: neutrino mass splitting ($\Delta m_{\nu} \simeq 0.07$ eV). Finally,
349: a light neutrino mass in agreement with the Z-burst model (Fargion,
350: Grossi et al. 2000, 2001) may be compatible with the more recent
351: (but controversial) results from the neutrino double beta decay,
352: which sets the mass at $m_{\nu} \simeq 0.4$ eV
353: (Klapdor-Kleingrothaus 2002).
354:
355: %If the neutrino mass was really heavy (few $eV$s) and very
356:
357: %clustered than the consequent UHE gammas at $ E \simeq 4\cdot
358:
359: %10^{19} eV $ could reach the observer, in apparent disagreement
360:
361: %with observational data. However in a very light Z-Shower scenario
362:
363: %the size exceed tens of Mpcs and those UHE gamma are absorbed by
364:
365: %radio cosmic backgrounds with no observational constrains.
366:
367: \subsection{Topological defects}
368:
369: Current theories of particle physics predict that a variety of
370: topological defects have formed during the early stages of the
371: evolution of the universe. Such extremely heavy relic particles,
372: indicated as monopoles, strings, walls or necklaces, might be
373: originated as fossil remnants of phase transitions occurring at
374: the Grand Unified Theories energy scale of $10^{15}$ GeV. The
375: potential role of topological defects as an alternative
376: explanation to the origin of UHECRs above $10^{20}$ eV has been
377: proposed and investigated in the recent years (Bhattacharjee,
378: Hill, \& Schramm 1992; Sigl, Schramm, \& Bhattacharjee 1994).
379: Their decay lifetime is somehow fine-tuned with the Universe age.
380: In addition, pair annihilations of heavy particles (TD-like), born in bounded binary
381: system, might also be a viable processes in a narrow parameter
382: range (Dubrovich, Fargion \& Khlopov 2004).
383: It is not clear if there are any sites in the universe capable to
384: accelerate the observed particles at such high energies, while the
385: annihilation and decay of topological defects may produce prompt
386: extremely high energy cosmic rays and neutrinos. The search for
387: such neutrinos reaching the energy of GUT scale may shed light on
388: these models and theories. However, even if the TD scenario may
389: solve the puzzle of the particles' acceleration, the clustering of
390: some UHECR events (doublets or triplets) is hardly explicable by
391: the decay of a diffuse halo distribution of superheavy particles
392: (Uchihori et al. 2000, Tinyakov, \& Tkachev 2001). Such UHE
393: neutrino spectra from TD might follow a power law $\propto
394: E^{-3/2}$ in between the Z-burst $\propto E^{-1}$ and GZK $\propto
395: E^{-2}$ power laws.
396:
397: \section{UHE Neutrino Telescopes: Electron, Muon and Tau traces in underground ice-water and air detectors }
398:
399: The very possible discover of an UHECR astronomy, the solution of
400: the GZK paradox, the very urgent rise of an UHE neutrino astronomy
401: are among the main goals of many new neutrino telescope projects.
402: Most detectors are related to the muon track in underground $Km ^3$
403: volumes, either in water or ice (Halzen, \& Hooper 2002). Such
404: detectors consist of a lattice of photo-multipliers spread over
405: large volumes and look for high energy neutrinos from the Cherenkov
406: emission of muons produced in $\nu - N $ interactions. The
407: detectors select preferentially upward-going muons entering from
408: below, originated by neutrinos propagating through the Earth, while
409: the vertical downward-going signals are polluted by atmospheric
410: muons. DUMAND and later BAIKAL detectors have been the pioneer
411: projects of under-ice detectors, more recently implemented by
412: AMANDA (Andres et al. 1997) and its extensions AMANDA II at the
413: South Pole, with 677 photo-multipliers placed in the ice at depths
414: between $1500$ and $2000$ meters.
415:
416: %In the near future ICECUBE, a cubic kilometer detector.
417:
418: ANTARES (Montaruli et al. 2002) and NESTOR (Grieder et al. 2001) in
419: the Mediterranean sea, are the two ongoing projects for under-water
420: telescopes planned to be finished by 2006. Other detectors are
421: related to the UHE neutrino showering in air. The UHE neutrino
422: interactions lead to nuclear or electromagnetic showers. The UHE
423: neutrino-nuclei charged current interactions may produce electrons,
424: muons or taus in air and/or water. In underground detectors the
425: electron-muon-tau interactions are leading to a Cherenkov flash
426: with or without a lepton track.
427: Muon tracks are the most penetrating at energies $\leq 10^{18} $ eV,
428: while taus are more penetrating, as we shall see, at higher
429: energies. The underground detectors are not aimed at
430: disentangling the lepton nature of the tracks.
431:
432: Among the experiments on the ground, Auger is designed to detect
433: air-showers both by muons bundles and their fluorescence lights
434: for downward UHECR. Auger will investigate the region of the CR
435: spectrum around the GZK cut-off; however the characteristics of
436: the observatory are such that it may be able to detect also
437: HORTAUs events. The well amplified horizontal air-shower at a
438: slant depth larger than $2000$g $cm^{-2}$, (but not exceeding $\gg
439: 10^4- 3\cdot 10^4$ g $cm^{-2}$), may trace an induced neutrino
440: air-shower event originated in air or, at higher rate, an
441: air-shower due to Tau decay in flight (HORTAUs) triggered by an
442: interaction within the nearby Andes mountain chain (Fargion,
443: Aiello, \& Conversano 1999; Fargion 2002a; Bertou et al. 2002) or
444: emerging directly from the Earth crust. We will discuss this
445: possibility in the following sections.
446:
447: Auger is under construction in Argentina, it is planned to be
448: completed by 2005/2006 and it will be operative for about a decade.
449: It is the first prototype of a hybrid observatory for the highest
450: energy cosmic rays consisting of both a surface array of particle
451: detectors and fluorescence telescopes looking at the Cherenkhov
452: emission from high energy charged particles propagating through the
453: atmosphere. It will have an aperture of $7 \times 10^3$ km$^2$ sr,
454: which is roughly a factor 10 larger than HiRes. The observatory
455: includes also an analogue counterpart in the northern hemisphere
456: which will allow full sky coverage in order to study in detail the
457: spatial distribution of such events.
458:
459:
460: Another competitive experiment is EUSO due to be
461: launched in a very near future. The EUSO detector is a wide angle
462: UV telescope that will be placed on the International Space
463: Station (ISS). It will look, in dark time, downward towards the
464: Earth atmosphere, and its aperture is such to cover a surface as
465: large as $\sim 1.6\times 10^{5}$ Km. Therefore it will encompass
466: AGASA-HIRES and Auger areas as well as their rate of UHECR events
467: (Cronin 2004). EUSO is designed to detect and measure
468: fluorescence and Cerenkov photons produced by the interactions of
469: UHECR in the atmosphere. As cosmic rays penetrate the atmosphere
470: they may originate both a photo-fluorescence signal (due to the
471: excitation of $N_{2}$ molecules) and a secondary (albedo)
472: reflection by Cherenkov photons. Given the large amount of UV
473: radiation emitted by the $N_{2}$ molecules, a substantial
474: fraction of UV photons is expected to reach the detector outside
475: the Earth's atmosphere at a height of $\sim 400$ km. For
476: instance, for a $10^{20}$ eV extended air shower (EAS), a few
477: thousand of photons are expected to reach EUSO . A much larger
478: number (at least two order of magnitude) of Cherenkov diffused
479: photons are expected for High Altitude Air-Showers (HIAS) and
480: HORTAUs. We will discuss in detail in the following sections the
481: possibility for EUSO to detect Horizontal Tau Air-Showers
482: originated within a very wide terrestrial skin volume around its
483: field of view (FOV)
484:
485: %%%%, corresponding to a few hundred kilometer radius wider area.
486:
487: %%%%%If these abundant photon shower might be collected and recognized
488: %%%%%properly, the EUSO energy threshold might be lowered with an
489: %%%%%increase of our preliminary event rate of at least of an order of
490: %%%%%magnitude.
491:
492: As mentioned in section \S 2, the scattering of UHE neutrino onto
493: light relic neutrinos may solve the GZK paradox as predicted by the
494: Z-burst model. EUSO will play an important role to discriminate
495: between different scenarios proposed for the origin of UHECR and it
496: may discover UHE neutrino signals due to the Z burst or due to the
497: "guaranteed" GZK ones.
498:
499: \section{ UHE $\protect\nu$ Astronomy by the Upward $\protect\tau$
500: Air-Showering}
501:
502: While longest ${\mu}$ tracks in $km^3$ underground detector have
503: been, in last three decades, the main searched UHE neutrino signal,
504: tau air-showers by UHE neutrinos generated in mountain chains or
505: within the Earth skin crust at PeV up to GZK energies ($>10^{19}$
506: eV) have been recently proved to be a powerful amplifier in
507: Neutrino Astronomy (Fargion, Aiello, \& Conversano 1999; Fargion
508: 2002a; Bertou et al. 2002; Hou Huang 2002; Feng et al 2002). Indeed
509: up-going UHE muons $E_{\mu} \geq 10^{14} $ eV, born from upward or
510: Earth skimming muon neutrinos, will propagate and escape from the
511: Earth atmosphere without any significant air-shower trace, $
512: L_{\mu}=6.6 \cdot10^{10} \,cm \left( \frac{E_{\mu}}{10^{14}\,eV}
513: \right)\gg $ atmosphere height. The UHE electron produced by UHE
514: $\nu_e$ will shower mainly within a very thin terrestrial crust and
515: its event will remain generally hidden and "buried" inside the
516: Earth. On the contrary UHE $\tau$ by UHE $\nu_{\tau}-N$
517: interactions are able to cross thick earth crust layers and they
518: might emerge freely from the Earth. The short $\tau$ lifetime
519: will lead to a decay in flight and to an amplified air-showering
520: at tuned $10^{14}-10^{19}$ eV energy band, within the main
521: interesting astrophysical range.
522:
523: Neutrino $\tau$ detectors searching for UPTAUs and HORTAUs will be (at least)
524: complementary to present and future, lower energy underground
525: $km^3$ telescope projects (such as AMANDA, Baikal, ANTARES, NESTOR,
526: NEMO, IceCube). In particular Horizontal Tau Air shower may be
527: naturally originated by UHE $\nu_{\tau}$ at GZK energies crossing
528: the Earth Crust just below the horizon and/or nearby high
529: mountain chains as the Andes. UHE $\nu_{\tau}$ are abundantly
530: produced by flavour oscillation and mixing from muonic (or
531: electronic) neutrinos, since galactic and cosmic distances are
532: larger than the neutrino oscillation lengths $
533: L_{\nu_{\mu}-\nu_{\tau}}=2.48 \cdot10^{19} \,cm \left(
534: \frac{E_{\nu}}{10^{19}\,eV} \right) \left( \frac{\Delta m_{ij}^2
535: }{(10^{-2} \,eV)^2} \right)^{-1} \simeq 8.3 pc.$ Therefore EUSO may observe HORTAUs events and it may set
536: constraint on models and fluxes, possibly answering some open
537: questions. Let us first describe the background UHECR events able
538: to mimic the HORTAUs signal that we are considering here.
539:
540: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig. 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
541:
542: \begin{figure}[htbp]
543: %%%%[htbp]
544: \par
545: \begin{center}
546: \includegraphics[width=12cm,height=8cm]{Fig01.eps}
547: \end{center}
548: \caption{A very schematic Horizontal High Altitude Shower (HIAS);
549: UHECRs (nucleon or nuclei or gamma) interact with the atoms of the
550: atmosphere at high altitude, producing a fan-shaped air-shower due
551: to the geo-magnetic bending of charged particles (mainly lepton
552: pairs) at high quota ($\sim 44 km$). The Shower may point to a
553: satellite as the old gamma GRO-BATSE detectors or to the more
554: recent Beppo-Sax, Integral, HETE, Chandra or the future ones as
555: Agile, Swift and GLAST (Fargion 2001b, 2001c, 2002a). These HIAS
556: Showers are extremely long (hundred km size) and they are often
557: split in five (or three) main components: $e^+ \, e^-,\protect\mu^+
558: \, \protect\mu^-, \protect\gamma $. Such multiple tails may be
559: detected in long horizontal air-showers by EUSO, and they may be
560: distinguished by their orthogonality to the local magnetic fields.
561: At much lower altitude, below $10$ km height, there are very
562: similar UHE horizontal showers due to neutrino-air interactions
563: leading to Neutrino Induced Air-Showers at slant depth $X_{max}
564: \gg 10^3 g cm^{-2}$ } \label{fig1}
565: \end{figure}
566: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% end fig. 1 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
567:
568: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig. 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
569: \begin{figure}[htbp]
570: %%%%[htbp]
571: %\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=4cm]{f2.eps} %
572: %\includegraphics[width=8cm,height=4cm]{f3.eps} %\plotone{f2.eps}
573: \includegraphics[width=8cm,height=4cm]{Fig02a.eps} %
574: \includegraphics[width=8cm,height=4cm]{Fig02b.eps} %\plotone{f2.eps}
575: \caption{\textbf{left)} Horizontal Upward Tau Air-Shower (HORTAUS)
576: originated by UHE neutrino skimming the Earth: fan-shaped jets
577: arise because of the geo-magnetic bending of charged particles at
578: high quota ($\sim 23-40$ km). The shower signature may be
579: observable by EUSO just above the horizon. Because of the Earth
580: opacity most of the UPTAU events at angles $%
581: \protect\theta > 45-50^o$ will not be observable, since they will
582: not be contained within its current field of view (FOV).
583: \textbf{right)} A very schematic UPTAU air-shower at high altitude
584: ($\sim 20-30 km$). The vertical tail may be spread by geo-magnetic
585: field into a thin eight-shaped beam, observable by EUSO as a small
586: blazing oval (few dot-pixels) orthogonal to the local magnetic
587: field.} \label{fig3}
588: \end{figure}
589: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% end fig. 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
590:
591:
592: Figure \ref{fig1} displays a characteristic scenario where a
593: common UHECR hits horizontally the Earth atmosphere leading to a
594: high altitude Air-Shower (HIAS, or Albedo Shower). This event takes
595: place at an altitude of $\sim 40$ km. A more interesting
596: but similar air-shower might originate at higher atmospheric density, i.e.
597: at altitudes lower than $ 10$ km, by weak interacting neutrinos
598: hitting the air nuclei. These events might be better detected by
599: most present arrays or satellites at high energies $\sim
600: 10^{19}$eV.
601: Figure \ref{fig3} describes the Horizontal Tau Air-Shower, HORTAUs
602: event at $\sim 10^{18} - 10^{19}$ eV energy range below the horizon, whose detection efficiency
603: is not contaminated by any downward cosmic ray background. Finally on the right-hand side
604: of Figure \ref{fig3} we describe a much lower energy
605: $\sim 10^{14} - 10^{17}$ eV Upward Tau Air-Shower UPTAUs
606: induced as for HORTAUs by incoming tau neutrino able to cross the
607: Earth inclined or almost vertical. At energies $leq 2\cdot 10^{14}$ eV and below the UPTAUs
608: more often take place inside the terrestrial atmospheric layer.
609:
610:
611: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\newpage
612:
613: \subsection{Effective Volume}
614:
615: Let us define two main effective volumes below the Earth surface
616: where UPTAUs and HORTAUs might originate:
617:
618: \begin{enumerate}
619: \item A deeper skin volume which is defined by all possible
620: $\nu_{\tau}$'s whose secondary $\tau$'s tracks escape from the
621: Earth. This volume is obtained by considering the Earth opacity to
622: the incoming neutrinos and the inelasticity factor in the
623: conversion $\nu_{\tau} - \tau$, disregarding the exact outcoming
624: $\tau$ final energy. In this case the $\tau$ propagation (or
625: interaction) lenght, to be estimated in the following section,
626: $l_{\tau}$ is defined uniquely by the incoming neutrino energy
627: $E_{\nu_{\tau}}$ and by the energy losses in matter (see Fig.
628: \ref{fig6}).
629:
630: \item A thinner skin volume whose size may be defined by the
631: outcoming $\tau$ energy ( which is related to the primary
632: $\nu_{\tau}$ energy). In this calculation we take into account the
633: earth's opacity, and the average energy losses of $\tau$ leptons
634: traveling through the earth's crust and escaping into the
635: atmosphere. The $\tau$ air-shower generation depends on the
636: presence of the atmosphere, whose thickness defines an additional
637: suppression at highest energies. In this case the $\tau$
638: propagation (or interaction) lenght $L_{\tau (\beta)}$ (see next
639: section) is much shorter than the $l_{\tau}$ lenght (see Fig.
640: \ref{fig6}).
641:
642:
643: \end{enumerate}
644:
645: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig.3 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
646: \begin{figure}[t]
647: %%%%%%%[htbp]
648: \par
649: \begin{center}
650: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[width=.50\textwidth]{f6-EarthNu.eps}
651: \includegraphics[width=.50\textwidth]{Fig05.eps}
652: \end{center}
653: \caption{A schematic representation of the possible incoming
654: neutrino trajectory through the Earth with the consequent
655: production of a tau lepton track. The thin shaded area on the left
656: (just below the Earth) defines the volume where the interaction
657: occurs. This area might be thinner for $L_{\tau (\beta)}$ than for
658: $l_{\tau}$ interaction lenght. These emerging $\tau$'s may decay
659: in flight, producing the HORTAUs within the terrestrial
660: atmosphere.} \label{fig6}
661: \end{figure}
662: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
663: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
664:
665:
666: Between these two scenarios, different effective volumes may be
667: obtained as a function of the primary neutrino energy
668: $E_{\nu_{\tau_i}}$ or the newly born $\tau$ ($E_{{\tau}_i}$) or
669: the final $\tau$ energy ($E_{{\tau}_f}$) related to the observed
670: air-shower; such different possibilities may lead to ambiguities
671: in the meaning and in the prediction of the UPTAUs and HORTAUs
672: rates. Many authors calculate the UPTAUs rates as a function of
673: the incoming neutrino energy $E_{\nu_{\tau_i}}$. In the present
674: article we calculate the Volumes, Masses and Rates as a function
675: of both the primary neutrino energy and the final tau energy.
676: This procedure avoids ambiguities and allows an easier
677: comparison with other studies.
678:
679: As we previously mentioned, our final effective volume should be
680: suppressed by a factor that includes the finite extension of the
681: earth's atmosphere (both for vertical and inclined air-showers)
682: which has never been considered before. This suppression guarantees
683: that one deals with only a fully developed air-shower and that
684: $\tau$ decays outside the terrestrial atmosphere are discarded.
685:
686: When one calculates the neutrino propagation through the Earth one
687: should take into account the complex internal structure of our
688: planet. Generally this may be approximated as a sphere consisting
689: of a number of layers with different densities, as represented in
690: the Preliminary Earth Model (Dziewonski 1989, see Fig. \ref{fig4}),
691: and for each density shell one should consider independent path
692: integrals. However, due to the complexity of these integrals we
693: shall skip them here, providing a more detailed calculation in the
694: Appendix.
695:
696: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig 4 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
697: \begin{figure}[htbp]
698: \begin{center}
699: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=12cm,height=8cm]{Fig03.eps}
700: %%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=0,width=12cm,height=8cm]{densita.ps}
701: %%%%%\includegraphics[width=.40\textwidth]{Col_Depth_V02.eps}
702: \end{center}
703: \caption{The Inner terrestrial density profile inferred from the
704: Earth Preliminary Model.} \label{fig4}
705: \end{figure}
706: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
707:
708: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig 5 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
709: \begin{figure}[htbp]
710: \begin{center}
711: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.4]{Fig04.eps}
712: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.4]{f5-Dtheta.eps}
713: \end{center}
714: \caption{Column depth as a function of the incoming angle having
715: assumed the multi-layers structure given by the Earth
716: Preliminary Model.} \label{fig5}
717: \end{figure}
718: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
719:
720: Alternatively for each chord described by a neutrino traversing the
721: Earth, one may introduce the column depth $D(\theta)$ defined as
722: $\int \rho(r) dl$, the integral of the density $\rho(r)$ of the
723: Earth along the neutrino path at a given angle $\theta$. The angle
724: $\theta$ is included between the neutrino arrival direction and
725: the tangent plane to the earth at the observer location (see Fig.
726: \ref{fig6}) ($\theta = 0^o$ corresponds to a beam of neutrinos
727: tangential to the earth's surface) and it is complementary to the
728: nadir angle at the same location. The function $D(\theta)$ is
729: displayed in Fig. \ref{fig5}.
730:
731: To calculate the effective volume we assume that the neutrino
732: traversing the Earth is transformed in a tau lepton at a depth $x$,
733: after having travelled for a distance $D(\theta) - x$. The
734: probability for the neutrino with energy $E_{\nu}$ to survive until
735: that distance is $e^{-(D(\theta) - x)/L_{\nu}}$, while the
736: probability for the tau to exit the Earth is $e^{- x/l_{\tau}}$. On
737: the other hand, as we will show in the next section, the
738: probability for the outcoming $\tau$ to emerge from the Earth
739: keeping its primary energy $E_{\tau_i}$ is $e^{- x/L_{\tau
740: (\beta)}}$. By the interaction length $\L_{\nu}$ we mean the
741: characteristic length for neutrino interaction; as we know its
742: value may be associated to the inverse of the total
743: %charged current $\sigma_{CC}$
744: cross-section $\sigma_{Tot}= \sigma_{CC} + \sigma_{NC}$, including
745: both charged and neutral current interactions. It is possible to
746: show that using the $\sigma_{CC}$ in the $e^{-(D(\theta) -
747: x)/L_{\nu}}$ factor includes most of the ${\nu}_{\tau}$
748: regeneration along the neutrino trajectory making simpler the
749: mathematical approach. Indeed the use of the total cross-section in
750: the opacity factor above must be corrected by the
751: multi-scattering events (a neutral current interaction first
752: followed by a charged current one later); these additional $relay$
753: events ("regenerated taus") are summarized by the less suppressing
754: $\sigma_{CC}$ factor in the $e^{-(D(\theta) - x)/L_{\nu CC }}$
755: opacity term. The only difference between the real case and our
756: very accurate approximation is that we are neglecting a marginal
757: energy degradation (by a factor $0.8$) for only those " regenerated
758: taus " which experienced a previous neutral current scattering. At
759: energy below $10^{17}$ eV there is also a minor
760: $\nu_{\tau}$ regeneration (absent in $\mu$ or $e$
761: case) that may be neglected because of its marginal role in the
762: range of energy ($ >> 10^{17}$ eV) we are interested in.
763:
764: The effective volume is given by
765:
766: \begin{equation}
767: \frac{V_{Tot}(E_{\nu})}{A}=\int^{\frac{\pi}{2}}_{0} \int^{D(\theta)}_{0} e^{-%
768: \frac{D(\theta) -x}{L_{\nu_{{CC}}}(E_\nu)}}e^{\frac{-x}{%
769: l_{\tau}(E_{\tau})}}\sin{\theta}\cos{\theta}d\theta dx
770: \end{equation}
771:
772: Under the assumption that the $x$ depth is independent of $L_{\nu}$ and $%
773: l_{\tau}$, the above integral becomes:
774:
775: \begin{equation}
776: \frac{V_{Tot}(E_{\nu})}{A}=\left(\frac{l_\tau}{1-\frac{l_\tau}{L_\nu}}%
777: \right)\int^{\frac{\pi}{2}}_{0} \left(e^{-\frac{D(\theta)}{L_{\nu CC
778: }(E_{\nu}))}}-e^{-{\frac{D(\theta)}{l_\tau (E_{\tau})}}}\right) \sin{\theta}%
779: \cos{\theta}d\theta
780: \end{equation}
781:
782: Given that $e^{-{\frac{D(\theta)}{l_\tau}}} \ll e^{-\frac{D(\theta)}{L_{\nu
783: CC}}}$, the second exponential in the integral may be neglected and the
784: relation can be rewritten as
785:
786: \begin{equation}
787: \frac{V_{Tot}(E_{\tau})}{A}=\left(\frac{l_{\tau}(E_\tau)}{1-\frac{%
788: l_{\tau}(E_{\tau})}{L_{\nu}(\eta E_\tau)}}\right)\int^{\frac{\pi}{2}}_{0}e^{-%
789: \frac{D(\theta)}{L_{\nu_{CC}}(\eta
790: E_\tau)}}\sin{\theta}\cos{\theta}d\theta \label{eq_vol_ltau}
791: \end{equation}
792:
793: where the energy of the neutrino $E_{\nu}$ has been expressed as a function
794: of $E_{\tau}$ via the introduction of the parameter $\eta = E_{\nu}/E_{\tau_f}$%
795: , the fraction of energy transferred from the neutrino to the
796: lepton. At energies greater than $10^{15}$ eV, when all mechanisms
797: of energy loss are neglected, $\eta = E_{\nu}/E_{\tau_f} =
798: E_{\nu}/E_{\tau_i} \simeq 1.2$, meaning that the 80 \% of the
799: energy of the incoming neutrino is transferred to the newly born
800: $\tau$ after the $\nu - N$ scattering (Gandhi 1996, 1998).
801:
802: When the energy losses are taken into account, the final $\tau$
803: energy $E_{\tau_f}$ is a fraction of the one at its birth,
804: $E_{\tau_i}$. Their ratio $x_i = E_{\tau_f} / E_{\tau_i}$ is
805: related to $\eta$ by the following expression
806:
807: \[
808: \eta(E_{\tau_f}) = \frac{E_{\nu}}{E_{\tau_f}} =
809: \frac{E_{\nu}}{E_{\tau_i}} \frac{E_{\tau_i}}{E_{\tau_f}} \simeq
810: \frac{1.2}{x_i(E_{\tau_f})} .
811: \]
812:
813: %%%% leading to a general expression for $E_{\nu_i} (E_{\tau_f})$.
814:
815: %Its behaviour with energy is important because it offers a clear
816: %view , model independent of the $\tau$ escaping the Earth.
817:
818:
819: Once the effective volume is found, we introduce an effective mass
820: defined as
821:
822: \begin{equation}
823: \frac{M_{Tot}}{A}=\rho_{out}\frac{V_{Tot}}{A}
824: \label{eq_M_ltau}
825: \end{equation}
826:
827: where $\rho_{out}$ is the density of the outer layer of the Earth crust: $\rho_{out}=1.02$ (water) and $%
828: 2.65$ (rock). Before showing the effective Volume and Mass in
829: Figure \ref{fig7} for different densities we discuss the $\tau$
830: lepton energy losses needed to estimate the above formula.
831:
832:
833: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
834:
835: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
836:
837:
838: \subsection{Neutrino and Tau Interactions and Energy losses: the beta
839: function}
840:
841: Ultrahigh-energy tau neutrinos may be detected by observing tau
842: air showers originated in the $\nu -$$N$ interactions as a
843: neutrino beam crosses the Earth. The tau lepton energy is the only
844: observable quantity we can measure, therefore we have to determine
845: the relation between the energy of the primary neutrino and of the
846: outgoing lepton $\tau$, $E_{\nu_i} = E(E_{\tau_f})$. Moreover, one
847: has to consider that $\tau$ leptons traveling across the Earth
848: lose energy while interacting with the nucleons. At low energies
849: the relation between $E_{\nu}$ and $E_{\tau}$ is easy to define,
850: and it may be approximated as $E_{\tau_i} = (1 - y) E_{\nu}$ where
851: $y \sim 0.2$ is the fractional energy transferred to the nucleus.
852: The elasticity parameters are different for the $\nu$ and
853: $\overline{\nu}$. While at low energy they differ by nearly a
854: factor $2$, at highest energy $y$ converges to the same $0.8$
855: limit for both neutrinos. We use their average value in our
856: analysis.
857:
858: Increasing the energy, different mechanisms suppress the lepton's
859: propagation: first ionization, then bremsstrahlung, pair
860: production and (at $E>10^8 GeV$) photo-nuclear reactions dominate our calculation of the emerging final lepton energy $%
861: E_{\tau_f}$. The energy losses are described by the equation
862:
863: \begin{equation}
864: - \frac{dE}{dX} = \alpha + \beta E
865: \end{equation}
866:
867: where $\alpha$, the ionization energy loss, is negligible at
868: energies above several hundreds GeV and $\beta = \sum_i \beta_i$
869: is the sum of the remaining three mechanisms, each one denoted by
870: the index $i$. For tau leptons the photonuclear and pair
871: production processes are more important compared to
872: bremsstrahlung (Dutta et al. 2001), but above $10^{5}$ GeV the
873: photonuclear interactions become the most efficient mechanism of
874: energy loss. The $\beta$ value is weakly dependent on the energy
875: and for small slant depth $dX$ it may be assumed as constant.
876: Thus, the final energy of the tau becomes $E_{\tau_f} =
877: E_{\tau_i} e^{-\beta (E_{\tau_i}) dX}$, where ($ \rho
878: \beta^{-1}$) defines a scale-length where the energy of the
879: leptons is not severely suppressed. Fig. \ref{beta} displays the
880: $\beta$ dependence on the tau energy for leptons propagating
881: through rock and water, including all the three components
882: (bremsstrahlung, pair production and photonuclear interactions)
883: whose expression has been derived by Dutta et al. (2001) for the
884: rock and by Jones et al. (2004) for the water. Here both
885: functions have been extrapolated to higher energies.
886:
887: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig. 6 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
888:
889: \begin{figure}[htbp]
890: \begin{center}
891: %%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.4]{f9-Beta.eps}
892: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.4]{Fig06.eps}
893: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f8-M-1.-KM-C.eps}
894: \end{center}
895: \caption{Beta energy values in water ($\protect\rho =$1) and rock ($\protect%
896: \rho = 2.65$)} \label{beta}
897: \end{figure}
898: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% end fig. 6 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
899:
900: In Fig. \ref{l_tau} we show the tau interaction length for
901: different matter densities. When energy losses are negligible the
902: tau range is given by the tau decay length $R_{\tau}$. Including
903: the energy losses the tau propagation is suppressed compared to the
904: free decay length. The $\tau$ interaction length - $l_{\tau}$ - for
905: escaping leptons from the Earth has been derived with a convenient
906: approximation of the solution of the following pair of transcendent
907: equations (see Fargion 2002a for a more detailed description)
908:
909: \begin{equation}
910: \frac{\ln (1/x_i)}{\rho_r [\beta_{0 \tau} + \beta_{1 \tau} \ln
911: (E_{\tau_i} / E_{0 \tau})]} = 492 x_i \frac{E_{\tau_i}}{E_{0 \tau}}
912: \label{l_tau_beta_i}
913: \end{equation}
914:
915: \begin{equation}
916: \frac{\ln (1/x_i)}{\rho_r [\beta_{0 \tau} + \beta_{1 \tau} \ln
917: (E_{\tau_i} x_i / E_{0 \tau})]} = 492 x_i \frac{E_{\tau_i}}{E_{0
918: \tau}} \label{l_tau_beta_f}
919: \end{equation}
920:
921: where $x_i = (E_{\tau_f} / E_{\tau_i})$, $E_{0 \tau} = 10^{14}$
922: eV, 492 is the tau length in cm at this energy , and $\beta_{0
923: \tau}$ contains comparably constant terms from pair production and
924: photo-nuclear interactions, while $\beta_{1 \tau}$ is mainly due to
925: photo-nuclear effects.
926:
927:
928: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig. 7 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
929: \begin{figure}[h]
930: \begin{center}
931: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.6]{x_i.eps} %
932: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.6]{Fig07.eps} %
933: \caption{ The ratio between the final and initial $\tau$ energy
934: ratio in water (solid line) and in rock.} \label{x_i}
935: \end{center}
936: \end{figure}
937: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
938:
939: For instance we have used as a convenient expression for the water
940: $\beta_{0 \tau} = 2.3 \cdot 10^{-7}$ cm$^{2}$ g$^{-1}$ and
941: $\beta_{1 \tau} = 4.5 \cdot 10^{-8}$ cm$^{2}$ g$^{-1}$ (see Fargion
942: 2002a). However in this paper we use the exact behaviour of $\beta$
943: as a function of $E_{\tau}$, as it is displayed in Fig. \ref{l_tau}
944: containing all the terms contributing to the energy losses
945: respectively for water and rock. The $\tau$ interaction length is
946: then given by
947:
948: \begin{equation}
949: l_{\tau} = 492 x_i \frac{E_{\tau i}}{E_{0 \tau}} \: cm
950: \label{l_tau_2002}
951: \end{equation}
952: where the $x_i$, displayed in Fig. \ref{x_i} as a function
953: of the outcoming $\tau$ energy, is the average value found at any energy by the set of two
954: independent transcendental equations above.
955:
956:
957: At highest energies, above 10$^{10}$ GeV weak interactions play a
958: role in the energy losses of the $\tau$. The interaction length of
959: the charged-current $\tau N$ process is shorter than the tau decay
960: length above 10$^{10}$ GeV but already the energy losses
961: length-scale (mainly due to nuclear losses ) suppress the tau
962: propagation at earlier high energies. In Fig. \ref{l_tau}
963: (left-hand side) this interaction length is indicated as $L_{\nu
964: CC}$, since one can show that the cross section of the electro-weak
965: reaction $\tau - N$ is equivalent to the one of the $\nu - N$
966: scattering (Fargion 2002a). These three processes combine into the
967: curve $l_{\tau}$ shown in Fig. \ref{l_tau} that we have calculated
968: for both water and rock.
969:
970: Finally, in the righthand side of Fig. \ref{l_tau} we compare the
971: value of $ l_{\tau}$ with the scale-length defined by $L_{\tau
972: (\beta)}$, that we will use for our calculation of the inner
973: effective volume for tau surviving with most primary energy. This
974: interaction length is defined as
975:
976: \begin{equation}
977: L_{\tau (\beta)} = \left( \beta \rho + \frac{1}{L_{\nu_{CC}}} +
978: \frac{1}{R_{\tau}} \right)^{-1} \label{l_tau_beta}
979: \end{equation}
980:
981: Again it is displayed for a $\tau$ propagating through water
982: (dash line) and rock (dotted line) and it is compared with
983: $l_{\tau}$. Compared to $l_{\tau}$, the interaction $L_{\tau
984: \beta}$ is shorter at energies greater than few times $10^{17}$
985: eV, therefore it defines a thinner effective volume. Within such
986: interaction volume the outcoming $\tau$ preserves most of the
987: initial energy determining a harder tau air-shower spectrum.
988: This procedure gives results equivalent to those of Monte-Carlo predictions
989: which we did verify but are not displayed here.
990:
991:
992: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig. 8 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
993: \begin{figure}[htbp]
994: %%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f10-Interazione.eps} %
995: %%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f11-All-LTAU-BETA.eps}
996: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{Fig08a.eps} %
997: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{Fig08b.eps}
998: \caption{\textbf{left)} Lepton $\protect\tau$ interaction Lengths
999: for
1000: different matter densities: $R_{\protect\tau} = c\cdot {\protect\tau_{%
1001: \protect\tau}}\cdot {\protect\gamma_{\protect\tau} } $ is the free $\protect%
1002: \tau$ range (dashed line),
1003: %$R_{\protect\tau_{Nucl}\cdot{\protect\rho}}$ , (Fargion 2000,2002; Dutta et al.2001), see also,
1004: $l_{\tau}$ is the $\protect\tau$ propagation length in water (solid
1005: line) and rock (thick dashed line), including all known
1006: interactions and energy losses. $L_{\nu CC}$ is the $\tau$
1007: propagation length due to electro-weak interactions with nucleons,
1008: ($\tau - N$), and it is equivalent to that of the $\nu - N$
1009: scattering (Fargion 2002a). Again this length is displayed for both
1010: water (dashed-dotted line) and rock (dotted line) densities.
1011: \textbf{right)} Comparison between $L_{\tau (\beta)}$ and $l_{\tau}$ for rock and water. The latter curves ($l_{\tau}$)
1012: are identical (but in different scale) to those shown on the left-hand side. As one
1013: can see from the picture, $L_{\tau (\beta)}$ is shorter than $l_{\tau}$ at energies above $10^{17}$ eV, thus it
1014: corresponds to a smaller effective volume where
1015: $\protect\tau$'s are produced while keeping most of the primary
1016: neutrino energy. The energy label on the x axis refers to the
1017: newly born tau.} \label{l_tau}
1018: \end{figure}
1019: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1020:
1021: \subsection{Final $\tau$ skin effective volume in different detectors}
1022:
1023:
1024: Having derived the relation between $E_{\nu_i}$ and $E_{\tau_f}$,
1025: and having defined a length scale for the tau energy losses, we can
1026: calculate the $\tau$ skin volume as a function of the $\nu$ as well
1027: as $\tau$ energy. We remind to the reader that $V_{eff}$ is the
1028: effective volume where Ultra High Energy neutrinos interactions
1029: within the Earth lead to UHE Taus. In this section we introduce the
1030: complete calculation and we show the plots of the corresponding
1031: effective volume and mass for the Earth preliminary model. In Fig
1032: \ref{fig7} we are showing the effective volume $V_{eff}(E_{\nu_i})$
1033: and its consequent mass $M_{eff}(E_{\nu_i})$ for a detection
1034: acceptance of $A= 1 km^2$, considering the simplest case where we
1035: include all the $\tau$ events regardless of the exact $\tau$ final
1036: energy and neglecting the $\tau$ air-shower occurrence.
1037:
1038:
1039: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig.9 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1040: \begin{figure}[tp]
1041: \begin{center}
1042: %%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f7-V-1.2-lt-BW-KM.eps}
1043: %%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f7-V-1.2-lt-C-KM.eps}
1044: %%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f8-M-1.2-lt-KM-BW.eps}
1045: %%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f8-M-1.2-lt-KM-C.eps}
1046: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{Fig09a.eps}
1047: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{Fig09b.eps}
1048: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1049: \end{center}
1050: \caption{\textbf{left)} The effective Volume for UPTAUs and HORTAUs
1051: for a detector acceptance of 1 km$^2$ having neglected the role of
1052: the atmospheric layer in the development of the tau air shower. We
1053: have chosen $\eta = 1.2$, implying that the 80 \% of the initial
1054: neutrino energy has been transferred to the newly born $\tau$. The
1055: volume has been estimated as in Eq. \ref{eq_vol_ltau} using
1056: $l_{\tau}$ as interaction length. \textbf{right)} The corresponding
1057: effective Mass for UPTAUs and HORTAUs per km$^2$ (see Eq.
1058: \ref{eq_M_ltau}) with the same approximations used for the
1059: calculation of the volume. The two additional curves represent a
1060: simplified model of the Earth treated as an unique homogeneous
1061: sphere of water ($\rho =$1) or of rock ($\rho = 2.65$). The
1062: horizontal line at $M = 10^{-2}$ $km^3$ corresponds to the air mass
1063: above the same $km^2$ area. Note that the masses for an Earth made
1064: entirely of water or rock has been obtained under the assumption of
1065: a finite thickness for the terrestrial atmosphere (an horizontal
1066: extension of $600$ km). The same constraint will be applied to the
1067: final calculation of the effective volume and mass.} \label{fig7}
1068: \end{figure}
1069: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% end fig. 7 %%
1070: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1071:
1072:
1073: At $10^{19}$ eV we find an effective Volume $V_{eff} = 2\cdot
1074: 10^{-2}$ km$^3$ and a mass $M_{eff} = 2\cdot 10^{-2}$ km$^3$
1075: (water equivalent) assuming an outer layer of the Earth made of
1076: water ($\rho = 1.02$). For the rock instead we obtain $V_{eff} =
1077: 1.86 \cdot 10^{-2}$ km$^3$, and $M_{eff} = 4.95 \cdot 10^{-2}$
1078: Km$^3$ (water equivalent).
1079: This simple result states the dominant role of UPTAUs and HORTAUs
1080: volume and masses compared to the downward induced neutrino events in air: $V_{air} = 10^{-2}$ km$^3$, $M_{eff} = 10^{-2}$ Km$^3$ (water equivalent)
1081: in the wide energy window $ 10^{16} eV< E_{\nu_i}< 10^{20} eV $
1082: almost un-affected by any atmospheric neutrino background.
1083:
1084: We first present the calculation of effective mass and volume in
1085: two cases: first for a generic detector with an acceptance of one
1086: km square unit area, then we present the same calculation for the
1087: characteristics of the EUSO experiment. Finally we compare EUSO
1088: with the Auger observatory.
1089:
1090: The expression of the effective volume in the most general case, using the
1091: Earth preliminary model is given by
1092:
1093: \begin{equation}
1094: \frac{V_{Tot}(E_{\tau})}{A}=\left(\frac{L_{\tau (\beta)}(E_\tau)}{1-\frac{%
1095: L_{\tau (\beta)}(E_{\tau})}{L_{\nu_{CC}}(\eta E_\tau)}}\right)\int^{\frac{\pi%
1096: }{2}}_{0}e^{-\frac{D(\theta)}{L_{\nu_{CC}}(\eta E_\tau)}}\sin{\theta}\cos{%
1097: \theta}d\theta \label{Veff_lbeta}
1098: \end{equation}
1099:
1100: where $L_{\tau \beta}$ is defined by Eq. \ref{l_tau_beta}. This
1101: interaction length (shorter than $l_{\tau }$) guarantees a high
1102: energy outcoming $\tau$ even if from a thinner Earth crust.
1103:
1104: The terrestrial cord, $D(\theta ),$ is responsible for the $\nu
1105: _{\tau }$ opacity, and $L_{\nu }$ is the interaction length for
1106: the incoming neutrino in a water equivalent density, where
1107: $L_{\nu_{CC} }=(\sigma_{CC} \,n)^{-1}$. It should be kept in mind
1108: that both $L_{\nu }$ and $D(\theta )$, the water equivalent
1109: cord, depend on the number density $n$ (and the relative matter density $%
1110: \rho _{r}$). We remind that the total neutrino cross section
1111: $\sigma _{\nu }$ consists of two main component, the charged
1112: current and neutral current terms, but the $\tau $ production
1113: depends only on the dominant charged current whose role will
1114: appear later in the event rate number estimate. The interaction
1115: lengths $L_{\tau \beta }$, $L_{\nu_{CC} },$ depends on the
1116: energy, but one should be careful on the energy meaning. Here we
1117: consider an incoming neutrino with energy $E_{\nu _{i}}$, a
1118: prompt $\tau $ with an energy $E_{\tau _{i}}$ at its birth place,
1119: and a final outgoing $\tau $ escaping from the Earth with energy
1120: $E_{\tau _{f}}$, after some energy losses inside the crust. The
1121: final $\tau $ shower energy, which is the only observable
1122: quantity, is nearly
1123: corresponding to the latter value $E_{\tau _{f}}$ because of the negligible $%
1124: \tau $ energy losses in air. However we must be able to infer
1125: $E_{\tau _{i}}$ and the primary neutrino energy, $E_{\nu}$, to
1126: perform our calculation. The effective volume and masses resulting
1127: from Eq. \ref{Veff_lbeta} are displayed in Fig. \ref{fig12}.
1128:
1129: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig.10 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1130: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1131: \begin{center}
1132: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{Fig10a.eps} %
1133: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{Fig10b.eps}
1134: %%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.4]{f12-V-Beta-NoAir-C.eps}
1135: %%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f12-V-Beta-NoAir-BW.eps} %
1136: %%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f13-M-Beta-NoAirBW.eps}
1137: %%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f13-M-Beta-NoAir-C.eps}
1138: \end{center}
1139: \caption{\textbf{left)} Effective Volume for UPTAUs and HORTAUs
1140: per km$^2$ unit area neglecting the finite extension of the
1141: horizontal atmospheric layer. Here the calculation has been
1142: performed using the most restrictive interaction length
1143: $L_{\protect\tau (\protect\beta)}$. Therefore on the x axis we
1144: have plotted the final energy of the tau lepton, rather than the
1145: initial neutrino energy as in Fig. \ref{fig7}. Again the two
1146: curves correspond to an outer layer made of water (solid line)
1147: and an outer layer made of
1148: rock (dotted line). \textbf{%
1149: right)} Effective Mass for UPTAUs and HORTAUs per km$^2$ unit area
1150: derived under the same assumptions. As in Fig. \ref{fig7} the
1151: curves obtained are compared with a simplified model of the Earth,
1152: considered as an homogeneous sphere of water (dashed line) and rock
1153: (big dotted line). Again, note that in these cases the masses have
1154: been obtained under the constraint of a finite extension of the
1155: terrestrial atmosphere (an horizontal length of $600$ km).}
1156: \label{fig12}
1157: \end{figure}
1158: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1159:
1160: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig.11 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1161: \begin{figure}[h]
1162: \begin{center}
1163: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f14-V-Beta-air-BW.eps} %
1164: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f15-M-beta-air-BW.eps}
1165: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f14-V-Beta-air-C.eps} %
1166: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f15-M-beta-air-C.eps}
1167: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{Fig11a.eps} %
1168: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{Fig11b.eps}
1169: \end{center}
1170: \caption{\textbf{left)} Effective Volume for UPTAUs and HORTAUs
1171: per km square unit area including the suppression factor due to
1172: the finite extension of the horizontal atmospheric layer. Again,
1173: the calculation has been performed using the most restrictive
1174: interaction length $L_{\protect\tau (\protect\beta)}$ and the
1175: volume is expressed as a function of the final tau energy.
1176: \textbf{right)} The corresponding effective Mass for UPTAUs and
1177: HORTAUs for km square unit area.} \label{fig14}
1178: \end{figure}
1179:
1180: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% end fig. 14 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1181:
1182:
1183: However one has to take into account the presence of the Earth
1184: atmosphere which implies a further suppression of the effective
1185: volume especially at high energies. Therefore Eq. \ref{Veff_lbeta}
1186: becomes
1187:
1188: \begin{equation}
1189: \frac{V_{Tot}(E_{\tau})}{A}= \left( 1 - e^{- \frac{L_0}{c \tau \gamma_{\tau}}%
1190: } \right) \left(\frac{L_{\tau (\beta)}(E_\tau)}{1-\frac{L_{\tau
1191: (\beta)}(E_{\tau})}{L_{\nu_{CC}}(\eta E_\tau)}}\right)\int^{\frac{\pi}{2}%
1192: }_{0}e^{-\frac{D(\theta)}{L_{\nu_{CC}}(\eta E_\tau)}}\sin{\theta}\cos{\theta}%
1193: d\theta \label{Veff_lbeta_air}
1194: \end{equation}
1195:
1196: where the first term outside the integral guarantees that the relativistic $%
1197: \tau$ length will never exceed the longest inclined path through the Earth's
1198: atmosphere ($L_o\simeq600 \,Km$) corresponding to a characteristic height $%
1199: h_1 \simeq 23 \,Km$ (Fargion 2001b, 2002a).
1200:
1201:
1202:
1203:
1204: The effective volume and mass obtained in this case are shown in
1205: Fig. \ref{fig14} for an acceptance of $1$ km$^2$ unit area. Even
1206: if the Effective Volumes and Masses are now reduced these values
1207: still exceeds those of the atmospheric layer above the same $km^2$
1208: area. Moreover it should be emphasized that the detection of
1209: downward neutrino induced air-shower is affected by different
1210: experimental problems. Most of the vertical events cross a too
1211: small slant depth, they can not develop a full air-shower and
1212: their signature is hidden in the UHECR downward background.
1213: Therefore HORTAUs are still the most relevant tracers of UHE
1214: $\tau$ neutrinos in the range of energy between $10^{16}$ eV and
1215: $10^{20}$eV.
1216:
1217:
1218: %%%%%%\subsection{ EUSO and Auger for HORTAUs discover}
1219:
1220: Among current and future neutrino detectors we would like to
1221: narrow our analysis down to two different projects capable of
1222: indirectly searching Tau Air-Showers: the ground-based arrays of
1223: scintillator/photomultipliers which constitutes the Auger project,
1224: and the space observatory EUSO, whose characteristics have been
1225: described in section \S 3. EUSO may detect HORTAUs (Horizontal
1226: Tau Air-Showers) originated within a very wide terrestrial skin
1227: volume around its field of view (FOV), corresponding to a few
1228: hundred kilometer radius wider area. A schematic picture its
1229: field of view
1230: and the kind of air-showers it may be able to observe is shown in
1231: Fig. \ref{figEUSOring}.
1232:
1233: %%%%%Auger is now under construction in Argentina, it is planned to be
1234: %%%%%completed by 2005/2006 and it will be operative for about a decade.
1235: %%%%%It is the first prototype of a hybrid observatory for the highest
1236: %%%%%%energy cosmic rays consisting of both a surface array of particle
1237: %%%%%%detectors and fluorescence telescopes looking at the Cherenkhov
1238: %%%%%%emission from high energy charged particles propagating through the
1239: %%%%%%atmosphere. It will have an aperture of $7 \times 10^3$ km$^2$ sr,
1240: %%%%%%which is roughly a factor 10 larger than HiRes. The observatory
1241: %%%%%%includes also an analogue counterpart in the northern hemisphere
1242: %%%%%%which will allow full sky coverage in order to study in detail the
1243: %%%%%%spatial distribution of such events.
1244:
1245:
1246: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig. 12 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1247: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1248: %%%%[htbp]
1249: \par
1250: \begin{center}
1251: %\includegraphics[width=12cm,height=8cm]{f23-Ring-EUSO.eps}
1252: \includegraphics[width=12cm,height=8cm]{Fig12.eps}
1253: \end{center}
1254: \caption{A schematic figure showing the field of view (FOV) of
1255: EUSO where $\tau$ air-shower are taking place. We note that the
1256: EUSO threshold energy above $ \sim 10^{19}$ eV implies $\tau$
1257: tracks longer than $500$ km, consequently only UHE neutrino
1258: interacting within a much wider terrestrial crust ($700-900$ km
1259: radius rings) might produce HORTAUs observable within the
1260: telescope's FOV. The correspondence between the outcoming $\tau$
1261: along the wide ring (producing the HORTAUs pointing to the EUSO
1262: FOV) and consequent HORTAUs observed within the same FOV,
1263: guarantees the equivalence between the effective volumes defined
1264: by these two different regions. There are three main groups of
1265: HORTAUs: the showers totally included in the FOV, and those that
1266: are partially contained in the FOV (both incoming and outgoing);
1267: the latter will exceed the fully contained ones. The HORTAUs
1268: should extend for a few hundred km in horizontal and reach tens
1269: of kilometers in altitude. Such showers should be opened by
1270: geo-magnetic forces into thin, fan-shaped, charged and neutral
1271: jet tails, mainly observable as forked and diffused Cherenkov
1272: lights. Their characteristic opening is ruled by the local
1273: geo-magnetic field strength and directionality.}
1274: \label{figEUSOring}
1275: \end{figure}
1276: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1277:
1278:
1279: %%%%%%Auger is designed to investigate the region of the CR spectrum
1280: %%%%%%around the GZK cut-off, however the characteristics of the
1281: %%%%%%observatory are such that it may be able to detect HORTAUs events.
1282: %%%%%%We will discuss this possibility in the following sections.
1283:
1284: %%%%%%The EUSO detector is a wide angle UV telescope that will be
1285: %%%%%%placed on the International Space Station (ISS). It will look, in
1286: %%%%%%dark time, downward towards the Earth atmosphere, and its aperture
1287: %%%%%%is such to cover a surface as large as $\sim 1.6\times 10^{5}$ Km.
1288: %%%%%%EUSO is designed to detect and measure fluorescence and Cerenkov
1289: %%%%%%photons produced by the interactions of UHECR in
1290: %%%%%%the atmosphere. %The atmosphere is hit by cosmic rays whose UHE
1291: %%%%%%%component produce showers of high energy particles.
1292: %%%%%%As cosmic rays penetrate the atmosphere they may originate both a
1293: %%%%%%photo-fluorescence signal (due to the excitation of $N_{2}$
1294: %%%%%%molecules) and a secondary (albedo) reflection by Cherenkov
1295: %%%%%%photons. Given the large amount of UV radiation emitted by the
1296: %%%%%%$N_{2}$ molecules, a substantial fraction of UV photons is expected
1297: %%%%%%to reach the detector outside the Earth's atmosphere at a height of
1298: %%%%%%$\sim 400$ km. For instance, for a $10^{20}$ eV extended air shower
1299: %%%%%%(EAS), a few thousand of photons are expected to reach EUSO . A
1300: %%%%%%much larger number (at least two order of magnitude) of Cherenkov
1301: %%%%%%diffused photons are expected for High Altitude Air-Showers (HIAs)
1302: %%%%%%and HORTAUs. If these abundant photon shower might be collected
1303: %%%%%%and recognized properly, the EUSO energy threshold might be lowered
1304: %%%%%%with an increase of our preliminary event rate of at least of an
1305: %%%%%%order of magnitude.
1306:
1307:
1308:
1309: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig. 13%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1310: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1311: \begin{center}
1312: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{Fig13a.eps}
1313: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{Fig13b.eps}
1314: %%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f16-M-no-air-ltau-EUSO-BW-1.2.eps}
1315: %%%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f17-M-beta-air-EUSO-BW-1.2.eps}
1316: %%%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f16-M-no-air-ltau-EUSO-BW-1.2.eps}
1317: %%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.4]{f16-M-no-air-EUSO-C-1.2.eps}
1318: \end{center}
1319: \caption{{\bf left)} Effective Mass for UPTAUs and HORTAUs for EUSO
1320: as a function of the incoming neutrino energy, calculated with the
1321: interaction length $l_{\tau}$. Here we have neglected the finite
1322: horizontal extension of Earth's atmosphere. The water mass-volume
1323: at $E_{\nu} = 10^{19}$ eV, is $3.2 \cdot 10^3$ $km^3$, while for
1324: the rock the mass-volume is $7.9 \cdot 10^3$ $km^3$. {\bf right)}
1325: Effective Mass for UPTAUs and HORTAUs for EUSO with
1326: $L_{\protect\tau (\protect\beta)}$, considering the finite
1327: horizontal extension of Earth's atmosphere. The water
1328: mass-volume is $7.8 \cdot 10^2$ $km^3$, while for the rock the volume is $%
1329: 5.9 \cdot 10^2$ $km^3$. The corresponding mass is nearly $1.6 \cdot
1330: 10^3$ water equivalent $km^3$.} \label{fig16}
1331: \end{figure}
1332: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% end fig. 13 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1333:
1334: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1335:
1336: After having derived the effective volume and mass for a 1 km$^2$
1337: unit area detector, we finally show in Fig. \ref{fig16} the
1338: Effective mass for EUSO. Note that the earliest prediction for a
1339: simplified Earth model considered as an homogeneous sphere of
1340: water and rock in the energy range $10^{15} - 10^{19}$ eV are not
1341: too different from our last result (Fargion 2002b), even though as
1342: it appears from the figure, the role of rock and water has now
1343: been inverted. Such a result has not been noticed before (Fargion
1344: 2002b, 2002c; BG03). The remarkable huge mass (either for water
1345: and rock) $7.8 \cdot 10^2$ $km^3$ and $1.6 \cdot 10^3$ water
1346: equivalent $km^3$ makes EUSO (even with $10 \%$ duty cycle) the
1347: widest neutrino telescope in Neutrino Astronomy. Other concurrent
1348: experiment (SALSA, ANITA and FORTE) are mainly neutrino
1349: collectors unable to follow their exact arrival direction.
1350:
1351:
1352: \section{Event Rate for GZK neutrinos with EUSO}
1353:
1354:
1355:
1356: The consequent event rate for incoming neutrino fluxes may be easily
1357: derived by:
1358:
1359: \begin{equation}
1360: \frac{dN_{ev}}{d\Omega dt}= \left( \int \frac{dN_{\nu}}{dE_{\nu}
1361: d\Omega dA dt } \sigma_{N \nu} (E) dE \right) n \rho_r V_{Tot}
1362: \end{equation}
1363:
1364: If the cross section is slowly varying with the energy (as it is in the $\nu
1365: N$ reaction), the integral reduces to
1366:
1367: \begin{equation}
1368: \frac{dN_{ev}}{d\Omega dt }= \frac{dN_{\nu} E_{\nu}}{dE_{\nu}
1369: d\Omega dA dt } \sigma_{N \nu} n \rho_r V_{Tot} =
1370: \frac{\phi_{\nu}}{L_{\nu_{CC}}} \rho_{r} V_{Tot}
1371: \end{equation}
1372:
1373:
1374: \bigskip where $(\sigma_{N \nu} n)^{-1} = L_{\nu CC}$ and $\phi _{\nu }=\frac{dN_{\nu}E_{\nu}}{dE_{\nu}d\Omega dA dt }
1375: $, and $\rho_r$ is the density of the layer relative to the water.
1376: As it has been mentioned in the previous section we have neglected
1377: the $ \nu _{\tau}- N$ scattering via the neutral current channel.
1378: This process causes a $\nu _{\tau }$ regeneration through a
1379: marginal energy degradation by a factor $(1-y)\simeq 0.8$ where $y$
1380: is the inelasticity parameter (Gandhi et al. 1995, 1998). Although
1381: this term may be responsible for a sequence of $\nu _{\tau }$
1382: regeneration, its contribution to the number of events
1383: is mainly taken into account by the use of the charged current cross section
1384: (and not by the additional neutral current contribute).
1385:
1386: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig. 14 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1387:
1388: \begin{figure}[h]
1389: \begin{center}
1390: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.6]{Fig14.eps}
1391: %%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{opacita.eps}
1392: \caption{The Earth opacity to upward neutrinos as a function of the
1393: initial $\nu_{\tau}$ energy.} \label{opacita}
1394: \end{center}
1395: \end{figure}
1396:
1397:
1398: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1399:
1400: After having introduced the effective volume we can estimate the outcoming
1401: event number rate for EUSO for any given neutrino flux. In particular this
1402: general expression will be displayed assuming a minimum GZK neutrino flux $%
1403: \phi _{\nu }\simeq \phi _{UHECR}\simeq 5\cdot
1404: 10^{-18}cm^{-2}s^{-1}sr^{-1}$ comparable to the observed UHECR
1405: one at the same energy ($E_{\nu }=E_{UHECR}\simeq 10^{19}eV$).
1406: The assumption on the flux may be changed at will and the event
1407: number will scale linearly according to the model.
1408:
1409: However, the initial incoming $\nu$ flux $\phi _{\nu
1410: }=\frac{dN_{\nu}E_{\nu}}{dE_{\nu}d\Omega dA dt }$ is suppressed
1411: when neutrinos cross the Earth by a shadow factor
1412:
1413: \[ S = \int_0^{\pi/2} e^{- \frac{D(\theta)}{L_{\nu CC}}} cos\theta d\theta \]
1414:
1415: shown in Fig. \ref{opacita}. This function defines the ratio
1416: between the final outgoing upward neutrinos, $\phi_{\nu_f}$ and
1417: the initial downward $\phi_{\nu_i}$, $S(E_{\nu_i}) =
1418: \phi_{\nu_f}/ \phi_{\nu_i}$.
1419:
1420: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig. 15 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1421:
1422: \begin{figure}[p]
1423: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.7]{Fig15a.eps}
1424: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.7]{Fig15b.eps}
1425: %%%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.6]{Nev-Tot-km2-ltau-noair-1.2-50eV-BW.eps}
1426: %%%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.6]{Nev-Tot-Km2-Beta-air-1.2-50eV-BW.eps}
1427: %%%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.6]{Nev-Tot-km2-ltau-noair-1.2-50eV-C.eps}
1428: %%%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.6]{Nev-Tot-Km2-Beta-air-1.2-50eV-C.eps}
1429: \caption{ {\bf left)} Number of HORTAUs Events per km$^2$ and for
1430: one year data collection as a function of the incoming neutrino
1431: energy excluding the finite extension of the horizontal
1432: atmospheric layer, with a $\tau$ lepton interaction length given
1433: by $l_{\tau}$ (see Fig. \ref{l_tau}). Here GZK and Z burst
1434: neutrino fluxes refers to the incoming upward and downward
1435: neutrino spectrum $\propto E^{-2}$ (inclined dashed line), and
1436: $\propto E^{-1}$ respectively (horizontal dotted-line). The
1437: outcoming neutrino curves are suppressed above energies $10^{14}$
1438: eV compared to the incoming $\nu$ fluxes by the shadow factor
1439: defined in Fig. \ref{opacita}. For each flux the number of events
1440: is derived for an outer layer of both
1441: rock and water. At $10^{19}$ eV we find $N_{ev}^{water}= 2.55 \cdot 10^{-4}$ ($\phi_{\protect\nu} E_{\nu} / 50$ eV cm$^{-2}$ s$%
1442: ^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$) and $N_{ev}^{rock}= 6.26 \cdot 10^{-4}$ ($\phi_{\protect\nu} E_{\nu} / 50$ eV cm$^{-2}$ s$%
1443: ^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$). {\bf right)} Number of events as a function of
1444: the outgoing lepton tau for $L_{\tau (\beta)}$, including the
1445: finite extension of the horizontal atmospheric layer. Again the
1446: results are compared to a GZK/Z-burst neutrino flux, and they are
1447: displayed for an outer layer made of rock and
1448: water. In this case $N_{ev}^{water}= 0.62 \cdot 10^{-4}$ ($\phi_{\protect\nu} E_{\nu} / 50$ eV cm$^{-2}$ s$%
1449: ^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$) and $N_{ev}^{rock}= 1.25 \cdot 10^{-4}$ ($\phi_{\protect\nu} E_{\nu} / 50$ eV cm$^{-2}$ s$%
1450: ^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$). } \label{figNevkm2}
1451: \end{figure}
1452:
1453:
1454:
1455: In Fig. \ref{figNevkm2} we show the expected number of event per
1456: km$^2$ to more easily compare our results with those of other
1457: authors. The results have been obtained for two different
1458: scenarios. On the left-hand side we display the number of events
1459: having neglected the presence of the atmospheric layer, with the
1460: choice of $l_{\tau}$ as interaction length. Under this assumption
1461: we calculate the number of events as a function of the energy of
1462: the incoming neutrino. On the right-hand side we have included the
1463: Earth's atmosphere and we have used $L_{\tau (\beta)}$, thus we
1464: may express the results as a function of the final $\tau$ lepton
1465: energy. Both scenarios have been calculated with two incoming
1466: neutrino fluxes, whose power law spectrum is proportional to
1467: $E^{-2}$ (which approximates at highest energies the GZK flux) and
1468: $E^{-1}$ (that mimics the Z-burst flux) respectively. In general
1469: one may imagine a power law $E^{-\alpha}$ , $0<\alpha <1$ within
1470: the two extreme laws above. These incoming neutrino fluxes are
1471: also shown in Fig. \ref{figNevkm2}, as well as the final neutrino
1472: fluxes $\phi_{\nu_f} = S(E_{\nu_i}) \phi_{\nu_i}$ for both
1473: models. One has to bear in mind that the final number of events
1474: for UPTAUs-HORTAUs is determined by the $V_{eff}$, $M_{eff}$
1475: functions (Eqs. 1 - 4) which already take into account the Earth
1476: opacity to neutrinos with the $\nu$ interaction length $L_{\nu
1477: CC}$. Therefore $N_{ev} \propto \phi_{\nu_i}$ rather than
1478: $N_{ev} \propto \phi_{\nu_f}$.
1479:
1480:
1481: At $E^{19}$ eV in the more restrictive
1482: approximation we obtain the following number of events for an
1483: area $km^2$ and in one year data collection :
1484:
1485: %%%%%%%%%%%\[ N_{ev}^{water}= 2.55 \cdot 10^{-4} (\phi_{\protect\nu} E_{\nu}
1486: %%%%%%%%%%%/ 50 eV cm^{-2} s ^{-1} sr^{-1}) \: \: \: \: \: N_{ev}^{rock}=
1487: %%%%%%%%%%%%6.26 \cdot 10^{-4} (\phi_{\protect\nu} E_{\nu} / 50 eV \, cm^{-2}
1488: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%\, s ^{-1} \, sr^{-1}) \]
1489: %%%%%%%%%%%%while in the more constraining scenario
1490:
1491: \[ N_{ev}^{water}= 2.55 \cdot 10^{-4} (\phi_{\protect\nu} E_{\nu}
1492: / 50 eV cm^{-2} s ^{-1} sr^{-1}) \: \: \: \: \: N_{ev}^{rock}=
1493: 6.26 \cdot 10^{-4} (\phi_{\protect\nu} E_{\nu} / 50 eV \, cm^{-2}
1494: \, s ^{-1} \, sr^{-1}) \]
1495:
1496:
1497: As regards EUSO, the general expected event rate around the same
1498: energy range is given by:
1499:
1500: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1501: \begin{eqnarray}
1502: N_{ev}\,= 5\cdot 10^{-18}cm^{-2}s^{-1}sr^{-1}\,
1503: \left({\frac{V_{eff} \rho_r}{L_{\nu CC}}}\right) (2
1504: \pi\,\eta_{Euso} \Delta t) \left( \frac{\Phi_{\nu} E_{\nu}}{50 eV
1505: cm^{-2} s^{-1} sr^{-1}} \right) \left( \frac{\eta
1506: E_{\tau}}{10^{19} \, eV} \right)^{- \alpha} %
1507: \end{eqnarray}
1508: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1509:
1510: where $\eta_{Euso}$ is the duty cycle fraction of EUSO, $\eta_{Euso} \simeq
1511: 10\%$, $\Delta \,t\ \simeq 3$ $years$.
1512: %and $L_{\nu}$ has been defined in Fig. \ref{fig4}.
1513: The consequent number of events for its area
1514: ($1.6\cdot10^{5}Km^2$) is displayed in Fig. \ref {fig18}
1515: %as a function of the incoming neutrino flux $\phi_{\nu}\equiv\frac{dN_{\nu}}{dA\,dt\,dE_{\nu}}$
1516: assuming both a flat power law ($\phi_{\nu} \propto\,
1517: E_{\nu}^{-2}$) and a harder Z-Burst spectra $\phi_{\nu}
1518: \propto\,E_{\nu}^{-1}$. These spectra are very simple and nearly
1519: model independent. They also fit a Berezinsky (1990) $\phi_{\nu}
1520: \propto\, E_{\nu}^{-2}$ or a Waxman-Bachall (1997, hereafter WB97)
1521: spectra for GRB as well as the GZK flux. Here we have neglected
1522: the presence of the atmosphere above the portion of the Earth
1523: surface covered by EUSO. The event number at $E_{\nu} = 10^{19}$ eV
1524: in such an approximation is for the EUSO area and for three years
1525: data collection:
1526:
1527: \[
1528: N_{ev}^{water} = 12.2 (\phi_{\nu} E_{\nu} / 50 \; eV \, cm^{-2} \,
1529: s^{-1} \, sr^{-1}) \: \: \: \: \: \: \: \: N_{ev}^{rock} = 30
1530: (\phi_{\nu} E_{\nu}/50 \; eV \, cm^{-2} \, s^{-1} \, sr^{-1})
1531: \]
1532:
1533: Such number of events greatly exceed previous results by at least two orders of magnitude (Bottai et al. 2003)
1534: but are below more recent estimates (Yoshida et al. 2004).
1535:
1536: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig.16 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1537: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1538: \begin{center}
1539: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{Fig16a.eps}
1540: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{Fig16b.eps}
1541: %%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f18-Nev-Noair-EUSO-Lt-50eV-Fix1.2-BW-GZK.eps}
1542: %%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f18-Nev-Noair-EUSO-Lt-50eV-Fix1.2-BW-Zburst.eps}
1543: %%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f18-Nev-Noair-EUSO-Lt-50eV-Fix1-C-GZK.eps}
1544: %%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f18-Nev-Noair-EUSO-Lt-50eV-Fix1-C-Zburst.eps}
1545: \end{center}
1546: %%%%%%%%%%%%% eta usato = 1.2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1547: \caption{Number of EUSO Event for HORTAUs in 3 years record as a
1548: function of the incoming neutrino tau energy, having neglected the
1549: finite extension of the horizontal atmospheric layer, with
1550: $l_{\tau}$ as interaction length. As above, we have used both a
1551: GZK
1552: {\bf (left)} and a Z-burst {\bf (right)} neutrino flux. At $E_{\protect\nu} = 10^{19}$ eV,
1553: the expected event number is $12.2$ ($\protect\phi_{\protect\nu}
1554: E_{\nu} / 50$ eV cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$) for the water
1555: and 30 ($\protect\phi_{\protect\nu} E_{\nu} / 50$ eV cm$^{-2}$
1556: s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$) for the rock.} \label{fig18}
1557: \end{figure}
1558: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1559:
1560: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig.17 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1561: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1562: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{Fig17a.eps}
1563: \includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{Fig17b.eps}
1564: %%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f19-Nev-air-EUSO-Lbeta-50eV-BW-GZK-1.2.eps}
1565: %%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f19-Nev-air-EUSO-Lbeta-50eV-BW-Zburst-1.2.eps}
1566: %%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f19-Nev-air-EUSO-Lbeta-50eV-C-Zburst-1.2.eps}
1567: %%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f19-Nev-air-EUSO-Lbeta-50eV-C-GZK-1.2.eps}
1568: \caption{Number of EUSO Event for HORTAUs in 3 years record as a
1569: function of the outgoing lepton tau ($L_{\tau (\beta)}$ as
1570: interaction length), including the finite extension of the
1571: horizontal atmospheric layer. At energy $E_{\tau} = 10^{19}$ eV,
1572: the event number is $N_{ev}= 3.0$ ($\protect\phi_{\protect\nu}
1573: E_{\nu} / 50$ eV cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$) for the
1574: water and $N_{ev}= 6.0$ ($\phi_{\protect\nu} E_{\nu} / 50$ eV cm$^{-2}$ s$%
1575: ^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$) for the rock. Again, we show the resulting
1576: number of events for two different neutrino fluxes: $\propto
1577: E^{-2}$ {GZK \bf (left)} and $\propto E^{-1}$ (Z-burst {\bf
1578: right)}.} \label{fig19}
1579: \end{figure}
1580: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1581:
1582:
1583:
1584: When the Earth's atmosphere is included in the calculation of the
1585: effective volume (Eq. \ref{Veff_lbeta_air}), this causes a
1586: general suppression of the event rate, especially at $E_{\nu} >
1587: 1.2 \cdot 10^{19}$ eV. At such energies the $\tau$ decay length
1588: exceeds the maximal thickness of the atmospheric layer ($\simeq
1589: 600$ km), reducing the possibility of $\tau$ shower detection
1590: with EUSO. The expected number of event in such a case is shown
1591: in Fig. \ref{fig19} for both a GZK and Z-burst fluxes. As one
1592: can see from Fig. \ref{fig19} we obtain
1593:
1594: \[
1595: N_{ev}^{water} = 3.0 (\phi_{\nu} E_{\nu} / 50 \; eV \, cm^{-2} \,
1596: s^{-1} \, sr^{-1}) \: \: \: \: \: \: \: \: N_{ev}^{rock} = 6.0
1597: (\phi_{\nu} E_{\nu} / 50 \; eV \, cm^{-2} \, s^{-1} \, sr^{-1})
1598: \]
1599:
1600: which is yet larger than the unity for the three years scheduled
1601: for the EUSO project. Because most of the HORTAUs would be
1602: observed partially contained (inward or outward the EUSO Field of
1603: view ) the total number of events might be doubled.
1604:
1605:
1606: It should be kept in mind that the plots of the EUSO number of
1607: events in Fig. \ref{fig18}, \ref{fig19} are already suppressed by
1608: a factor $0.1$ due to the minimal duty cycle factor $\eta_{EUSO}$.
1609:
1610:
1611: In Fig. \ref{fig20} we summarize our results with and without the presence
1612: of the Earth's atmosphere and we compare the obtained number of events with
1613: the upward and downward neutrino fluxes for a GZK and Z-burst spectrum.
1614:
1615: It is worth noticing that the number of horizontal $\tau $ showers
1616: observable by EUSO in three years record time is above unity at
1617: energies below $E_{\tau}\simeq 10^{19}eV$, with a peak around
1618: $10^{18}$ eV. This is quite a remarkable result which may
1619: strengthen the case of extending the EUSO energy sensitivity below
1620: $10^{19}$ eV by enlarging the size of the telescope. The rich
1621: Cherenkov diffused lights from HORTAUs might produce enough photons
1622: to allow a lower (than $10^{19}$ eV ) energy threshold.
1623:
1624:
1625: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig.18 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1626: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1627: %%%%%%%%%%%%[htbp]
1628: \begin{center}
1629: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.6]{Fig18a.eps}
1630: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.6]{Fig18b.eps}
1631: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.6]{f18-Nev-Noair-EUSO-Lt-50eV-Fix1.2-BW-2flux.eps}
1632: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.6]{f18-Nev-Noair-EUSO-Lt-50eV-Fix1.2-C-2flux.eps}
1633: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.6]{f20-Flux-N-Ev-EUSO-Lbeta-50eV-BW.eps}
1634: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%\includegrahics[angle=270,scale=0.3]{f20-Flux-N-Ev-EUSO-Lbeta-50eV-C.eps}
1635: \end{center}
1636: \caption{Number of EUSO Event for HORTAUs in 3 years record
1637: compared to the upward and downward neutrino flux (GZK, mostly
1638: comparable to a flux $\propto$ $E^{-2}$, and Z-burst $\propto
1639: E^{-1}$). The curves describing the number of events on the left
1640: and righthand side are the same as Fig. \ref{fig18} (using
1641: $l_{\tau}$ and neglecting the atmosphere) and Fig. \ref{fig19}
1642: (using $L_{\tau (\beta)}$ and including the atmosphere)
1643: respectively.} \label{fig20}
1644: \end{figure}
1645: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1646:
1647: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig.19 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1648: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1649: \begin{center}
1650: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{Fig19.eps}
1651: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f21-Flux_Nev_Noair-AUGER-50eV-BW.eps}
1652: %\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f21-Flux_Nev_Noair-Auger-50eV-C.eps}
1653: \end{center}
1654: \caption{Number of Events of HORTAUs expected to be detected by
1655: Auger in 3 years record, having neglected the finite extension of
1656: the horizontal atmospheric layer. Again, we show the results for
1657: two different neutrino fluxes: GZK and Z-burst. As one can see the
1658: number of events is slightly above the unity at $E = 10^{19}$ eV.
1659: However at energy as low as $E = 10^{18}$ eV in GZK model the
1660: number of events increases to $26.3$ for a rock layer: the most
1661: remarkable signature will be a strong azimuthal asymmetry
1662: (East-West) toward the high Andes mountain chain. The Andes shield
1663: UHECR (toward West) suppressing their horizontal flux. These
1664: horizontal showers originated in the atmosphere at hundreds of km,
1665: are muon-rich as well as poor in electron pair and gammas and are
1666: characterized by a short time of arrival. On the other hand the
1667: presence of the mountain chains at $50-100$ km from the Auger
1668: detector will enhance by a numerical factor $2-6$ (for each given
1669: geographical configuration) the event number respect to the East
1670: direction. These rare nearby (few or tens of km) tau air-shower
1671: will be originated by Horizontal UHE neutrinos interacting inside
1672: the Andes. These showers will have a large electron pair, and gamma
1673: component greater than the muonic one, and a dilution in the time
1674: of arrival.}\label{fig21}
1675: \end{figure}
1676: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1677:
1678: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig.20 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1679: \begin{figure}[htbp]
1680: \begin{center}
1681: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{Fig20.eps}
1682: %%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f22-Flux_Ev_Yosh_Up-NoAir-Ltau-10eV-Fix1-BW.eps}
1683: %%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.8]{f22-Flux_Ev_Yosh_Up-NoAir-Ltau-10eV-Fix1-C.eps}
1684: \end{center}
1685: \caption{Number of EUSO Event for HORTAUs in 3 years record,
1686: having neglected the finite extension of the horizontal
1687: atmospheric layer, compared to the results of Yoshida et al.
1688: (2004). Here the assumed a lower GZK and Z-Burst like spectra ($\phi_{\protect\nu} E_{\nu} / 10$ eV cm$^{-2}$ s$%
1689: ^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$) and we are evaluating the events assuming a
1690: water target, while Yoshida considered an almost comparable
1691: ($0.9$ lower density) ice mass. There is a partial disagreement:
1692: Yoshida predictions are at least a factor $2.7$ at $E = 10^{19}$
1693: eV and nearly an order of magnitude at $E = 10^{18}$ eV larger
1694: than ours. At PeVs-EeVs energies where comparison with Gandhi et
1695: al. (1998) was possible we found a general agreement. On the
1696: contrary the Bottai \& Giurgula. (2003) (see their Fig.11,c)
1697: expectations are in complete disagreement with us, leading to a
1698: number of events at least two order of magnitude smaller than
1699: ours.} \label{fig22}
1700: \end{figure}
1701: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1702:
1703: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig.21 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1704:
1705: %%%%%%%%%\begin{figure}[htbp]
1706: %%%%%%%%%%\includegrahics[]{f21.eps}
1707: %%%%%%%%%%\caption {EUSO thresholds for Horizontal Tau Air-Shower HORTAUs (or
1708: %%%%%%%%%%Earth Skimming Showers) over few $\gamma$, $\nu$ and Cosmic Rays
1709: %%%%%%%%%%(C.R.) Fluence and bounds. Dash curves for HORTAUs are drawn
1710: %%%%%%%%%%assuming an EUSO threshold at $10^{19}$eV. Because the bounded
1711: %%%%%%%%%%$\tau$ flight distance (due to the contained terrestrial atmosphere
1712: %%%%%%%%%%height) the main signal is better observable at $1.1 \cdot
1713: %%%%%%%%%%10^{19}$eV than higher energies. The Fluence threshold for EUSO has
1714: %%%%%%%%%%been estimated for a three year experiment lifetime. Z-Shower or
1715: %%%%%%%%%%Z-Burst expected spectra in light neutrino mass values ($m_{\nu} =
1716: %%%%%%%%%%0.04, 0.4$ eV) are shown. \citep{Fargion
1717: %%%%%%%%%%2000-2002,Fargion2001a,Kalashev:2002kx,Fargion et all.
1718: %%%%%%%%%%2001b,Fargion 2002d}.} \label{fig23}
1719: %%%%%%%%%%\end{figure}
1720: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1721:
1722: \begin{table}[t]
1723: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
1724: \hline
1725: % after \\: \hline or \cline{col1-col2} \cline{col3-col4} ...
1726: & $N_{ev}^{water} \:$ & $N_{ev}^{rock} \:$ & $N_{ev}^{water} \:$ & $N_{ev}^{rock} \:$ \\
1727: & atmosphere included & atmosphere included & no atmosphere & no atmosphere \\
1728: \hline
1729: km$^2$ (1 yr)$^{-1}$ & 0.62$ \cdot 10^{-4}$ & $1.25 \cdot 10^{-4}$ & $2.55 \cdot 10^{-4}$ & $6.26 \cdot 10^{-4}$ \\
1730: Auger (3 yr)$^{-1}$ & 0.56 & 1.13 & 2.3 & 5.64 \\
1731: EUSO (3 yr)$^{-1}$ & 3.0 & 6.0 & 12.2 & 30.0 \\
1732: \hline
1733: \end{tabular}
1734: \caption{Number of events at $10^{19}$ eV obtained for different
1735: detectors and periods of data collection. In the first
1736: two columns the calculation includes the finite extension of the atmospheric layer
1737: where the HORTAUs shower may take place and we adopted the most restrictive $L_{\tau (\beta)}$ as the interaction length,
1738: while in the latter two columns we have neglected the presence of the atmosphere and we have used $l_{\tau}$.
1739: The assumed incoming neutrino fluence within the GZK or Z-burst model at energy $10^{19}$ eV is $\phi_{\nu} \simeq 50 \cdot E^{-1}$ eV $cm^{-2}$ $s^{-1}$
1740: $sr^{-1}$ }
1741: \end{table}
1742:
1743:
1744: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%Tabella%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1745: \section{Conclusions}
1746:
1747: Horizontal and Upward $\tau $ neutrinos emerging from the Earth and
1748: the consequent detection of $\tau $ showers in air may represent an
1749: alternative way to investigate the neutrino astrophysics and
1750: possibly to open a Neutrino Astronomy at energies greater than
1751: $10^{15}$ eV. The conversion of $\tau $ neutrinos into $\tau $
1752: leptons coming out from a mountain chain (Fargion, Aiello, \&
1753: Conversano 1999) or from the Earth (Fargion 2002a; Feng et al.
1754: 2002; Bertou et al. 2002) may lead to electromagnetic and hadronic
1755: showers producing an amplified signal of gamma,X,muon bundles,
1756: electron pairs and Cherenkov or fluorescent photons. Contrary to
1757: any downward $\nu$ induced air-shower the detection of upward tau
1758: air-showers is not constrained by the presence of a high
1759: background noise. We present an exact analytical procedure to
1760: calculate the expected rate of up-going tau air-showers applied to
1761: the characteristics of large area detectors such as Auger and EUSO.
1762: We have introduced an effective volume and mass, which are
1763: independent of the neutrino fluxes, describing the Earth volume
1764: where neutrino-nucleon ($\nu _{\tau }-N$) interactions may produce
1765: emerging $\tau $ leptons. We have calculated such effective volume
1766: and mass taking into account the exact terrestrial structure, as a
1767: function of both the initial $\nu _{\tau }$ and the final $\tau $
1768: energy (the latter being the only observable quantity). To obtain a
1769: realistic prediction of effective target volumes and masses we
1770: considered the $\tau $ energy losses while propagating within the
1771: Earth and the atmosphere finite size where $\tau$ might decay in
1772: flight. We prove the dominant role of HORTAUs and UPTAUs volume and
1773: mass respect to those of atmospheric layers in the very relevant
1774: range $10^{16}-10^{19}$ eV. Secondly, we show for the first time
1775: that when we consider a multi-layer structure of the Earth as
1776: predicted by Dziewonski (1989), the equivalent mass for an outer
1777: layer made of rock is dominant compared to the water, contrary to
1778: simplified all-rock/all-water Earth models (Figs. \ref{fig12},
1779: \ref{fig14}, \ref{fig16}) and previous studies (Bottai \& Giurgula
1780: 2003).
1781:
1782: The EUSO space Observatory designed to detect UHECR may also
1783: discover HORTAUS and UPTAUS. We find that the effective
1784: HORTAUs-UPTAUs mass for water and rock in EUSO at $10^{19}$ eV
1785: is $780$ $km^3$ and $1600$ $km^3$ water equivalent (and, at
1786: $10^{18}$ eV, $3.18 \cdot 10^3$ $km^3$, $8.48 \cdot 10^3$ $km^3$
1787: respectively). The average Earth mass observed by EUSO is $1.02
1788: \cdot 10^3$ $km^3$. Even considering the EUSO duty cycle
1789: efficiency as low as $0.1$ these huge masses ($\simeq 100 km^3$)
1790: are making the EUSO telescope the widest neutrino future
1791: detectors at HORTAUs highest energies.
1792:
1793: We show that neutrino signals may be well detected by EUSO,
1794: obtaining an event number rate at $E_{\tau} = 10^{19}$ eV
1795: which is at least $N_{ev}^{water}$ = 3.0 ($\phi_{\nu} E_{\nu} / 50$ eV cm%
1796: $^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$) in the most conservative scenario
1797: assuming that the outer layer of the Earth is made of water
1798: ($\rho_r = 1.02$). Moreover we find that $N_{ev}^{rock}$ = 6.0
1799: ($\phi_{\nu} E_{\nu} / 50$ eV cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$), for
1800: an outer layer relative density $\rho_r = 2.65$. The consequent
1801: average number of events in three years is $<N_{ev}>$ = 4.0
1802: ($\phi_{\nu} E_{\nu} / 50$ eV cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ sr$^{-1}$),
1803: obtained with a minimal WB97 or GZK neutrino flux $\propto E^{-2}$.
1804: If one considers the HORTAUs events partially contained in the FOV
1805: of EUSO (see Fig. \ref{figEUSOring}) they must be at least doubled.
1806: A lower energy threshold $E_{\tau } \simeq 10^{18}$ eV in GZK models
1807: possible to achieve for Cherenkov diffused tracks, may lead to a significant increase of the event number up
1808: to an order of magnitude. Geo-magnetic bending of HORTAUs and
1809: UPTAUS at high quota will generally produce a fan-shaped shower "
1810: polarized " along the plane orthogonal to the direction of the
1811: local magnetic field. Such a signature, due to the magnetic
1812: splitting of the different components of the shower ($e^{\pm}$,
1813: $\mu^{\pm}$, $\gamma$) may be detected by EUSO and its
1814: polarization axis is an additional criterion to distinguish such
1815: events. The more abundant HIAS (High Altitude Air-Showers), see
1816: Fig. \ref{fig3}, event rate even nearly one-two order of magnitude
1817: above HORTAUs rate, can not hide the HORTAUs events because of
1818: their characteristic downward signature (Fargion, Khlopov et al.
1819: 2003, Fig.32 ).
1820:
1821: However UPTAUs (at PeV energies) arise at a negligible rate (even for an observing period
1822: of three years) because of the very narrow beam $\Delta\Omega
1823: \simeq 2.5 \cdot 10^{-5}$ $rad$ needed to point upward towards the
1824: EUSO telescope. Therefore the expected number of events is $N_{eV}
1825: \simeq N_{Uptaus} \cdot \Delta \Omega / \Omega = 0.025 $ for the
1826: water and $N_{eV} \simeq N_{Uptaus} \cdot \Delta \Omega / \Omega =
1827: 0.08 $ for the rock.
1828:
1829:
1830: We also consider the possibility of detection of HORTAUS and UPTAUS
1831: with Auger, and according to our calculation we obtain with no duty
1832: cycle cut-off a number of events which is at $E_{\tau } \simeq
1833: 10^{19}$ eV only slightly above the unity (see Fig. \ref{fig21} and
1834: Table 1).
1835:
1836: We find that our results differ from those of very recent studies
1837: (Yoshida et al. 2004, Bottai \& Giurgola 2002). As regards Yoshida
1838: et al. (2004), shown in Fig. \ref{fig22}, we have obtained a
1839: number of events that is at least 3 times lower even in our less
1840: restrictive scenario, where the atmospheric layer has not been
1841: considered, and where we have used longest $l_{\tau}$ as the
1842: interaction length. At energy band $10^{16}-10^{18}$ eV the
1843: discrepancy might be due to the fact that Yoshida et al. (2004)
1844: consider as a detection all those events where tau leptons
1845: propagate through the $km^3$ volume. In our analysis instead, we
1846: consider only the $\tau$'s that are produced inside the thin layer
1847: (mainly defined by $l_{\tau}$) just below the $km^2$ and that are
1848: able to emerge from such a surface area. When we introduce the
1849: more realistic and restrictive $L_{\tau (\beta)}$ interaction
1850: length and we take into account the presence of the atmosphere,
1851: our rate of events (now as a function of $E_{\tau_f}$ ) at
1852: $E_{\tau} \sim 10^{19}$ eV (see Table 1 and Fig. \ref{fig22}) is
1853: about 12 times lower than Yoshida and collaborators' one. At
1854: $E_{\tau} \sim 10^{18}$ there is still a difference of about one
1855: order of magnitude between our (lower) and their (larger) event
1856: rate.
1857:
1858: On the contrary, the comparison of our results with BG03 ones
1859: leads to a larger discrepancy in the opposite way. We infer that a
1860: standard rock outer layer provides a higher number (by a factor
1861: 2.6) of events compared to a layer made of water, while according
1862: to BG03 the efficiency of the two matter densities is inverted
1863: (by a factor larger than 2). Secondly the expected number of their
1864: events appears to be much more suppressed, by about two orders of
1865: magnitude, for both the water and the rock, assuming a GZK or a
1866: WB97 neutrino flux. The direct comparison between the results of
1867: BG03 and Yoshida and collaborators implies an even larger gap.
1868:
1869: Finally we emphasize the evidence of an expected high number of
1870: events at energies $E_{\tau} \lesssim 10^{19}$ eV. Therefore the
1871: most relevant Horizontal Tau Air-Shower, HORTAUs at GZK energies
1872: will be better searched and revealed at a lower threshold. These
1873: events may originate within a huge ring around the EUSO FOV whose
1874: surface is $A \geq 6.6 \cdot 10^6 km^2$. The horizontal $\tau$'s
1875: decay occur far away from such a ring ($\geq 550$ km), inside the
1876: FOV of EUSO, and at high altitudes ($\geq 20-40$ km), and they
1877: will give signatures clearly distinguishable from any other
1878: downward horizontal UHECR. Therefore we suggest ($a$) to improve
1879: the fast pattern recognition of Horizontal Shower Tracks to
1880: discriminate HIAS as well as HORTAU showers appearing as a
1881: sequence of dots with a forked signature; ($b$) to enlarge the
1882: Telescope Radius to reach energy thresholds lower than $10^{19}$
1883: eV where HORTAU neutrino signals are enhanced, mostly in the
1884: optical wavelengths where Cherenkov photons are produced. ($c$)
1885: To improve the angular resolution within an accuracy
1886: $\Delta\theta \leq 0.2^o$, and the error on the measurement of
1887: the shower altitude to $\Delta h \leq 2$, km to better
1888: disentangle HIAS from HORTAUs. ($d$) to search for the HORTAUs
1889: enhancement along the highest density geological sites such as
1890: the highest volcanos, or mountain chains. Because of the better
1891: transparency of the water to $\nu_{\tau}$ compared to the rock,
1892: such HORTAUs enhancement would be in principle more evident for
1893: largest mountain chains close to the sea. The most remarkable
1894: sites could be found in North America (Rocky Mountains), central
1895: America (Sierra Madre), but in particular the Andes mountains in
1896: South America, and the Indonesian Peninsula in Asia show the
1897: highest density contrast and they are bounded by massive
1898: submarine depths. These continental shelves must enhance greatly
1899: the HORTAUs rates. If the Auger experiment would improve
1900: horizontal shower resolution at low energy ($\simeq 10^{18}$ eV),
1901: it may benefit of this natural rock barrier observing a
1902: peculiar East-West asymmetry (Fargion, Aiello, \& Conversano
1903: 1999; Fargion 2002a; Bertou et al. 2002) at EeV energy band.
1904:
1905: To conclude large effective volumes are necessary for neutrino
1906: detectors in order to reach useful sensitivity, given the
1907: extremely low flux and weak interactions of UHE neutrinos. We have
1908: shown that EUSO is a very promising mission because it allows to
1909: inspect HORTAUS form a large effective volume, of the order of a
1910: thousand (or because duty cycle, at least a hundred) cubic
1911: kilometers water equivalent. Other projects such as SALSA (Gorham
1912: et al. 2002a) and ANITA (Gorham et al. 2002b) have a large
1913: effective telescope area, corresponding to neutrino huge
1914: detection volumes nearly comparable with EUSO. But they are
1915: mostly neutrino collecting detectors with poor angular
1916: resolution. EUSO on the other hand can discriminate the
1917: directionality of the neutrino signatures, and as we have
1918: definitively proved, it has the ability to find out at least half
1919: a dozen of events when we assume the most conservative and
1920: guaranteed GZK neutrino flux.
1921:
1922: \section{Appendix}
1923:
1924:
1925:
1926:
1927: The final results we have presented in this paper have been first
1928: tested and constrained with the analysis of simpler approximate
1929: scenarios which we have used to set upper and lower bounds on our
1930: results. First if we consider the Earth as an homogeneous sphere
1931: made of water (or rock) one finds (Fargion 2002b, 2003):
1932:
1933: $$
1934: \frac{V_{eff}}{A_{\oplus}}=
1935: \int_0^{\frac{\pi}{2}}\frac{(2\,\pi\,\,R_{\oplus}\cos\theta)
1936: \,l_{\tau}\,\sin{\theta}}{2\,\pi\,R^2_{\oplus}}\cdot e^{-
1937: \frac{2\,R_{\oplus}\,\sin{\theta}}{L_{\nu_{\tau}}}}\,R_{\oplus}\,d\theta\,=
1938: \left({\frac{L_{\nu_{\tau}}}{2\,R_{\oplus}}}\right)
1939: ^2\,l_{\tau}\int_0^{\frac{2\,R_{\oplus}}{L_{\nu_{\tau}}}}t\cdot
1940: e^{-\,t}d\,t
1941: $$
1942:
1943: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Equation %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1944: %%%%%\begin{eqnarray}
1945:
1946: \begin{eqnarray}
1947: V_{eff-Max}= A_{Euso}\,\left({1-e^{-
1948: \frac{L_0}{c\,\tau_{\tau}\,\gamma_{\tau}}}}\right)
1949: \,\left({\frac{L_{\nu_{\tau}}}{2\,R_{\oplus}}}\right)^2 \cdot
1950: l_{\tau}\left[{1\,-\,e^{-
1951: \frac{2\,R_{\oplus}}{L_{\nu_{\tau}}}}(1\,+\,\frac{2\,R_{\oplus}}{L_{\nu_{\tau}}})
1952: }\right] \label{V_allwater}
1953: \end{eqnarray}
1954: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% End equation %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1955:
1956: while if we take into account only a thin outer layer of water
1957: (or rock) not deeper than $4.5 km$, (considering all the inner
1958: terrestrial shells of infinite densities):
1959:
1960: \begin{eqnarray}
1961: V_{eff-Min}= \,A_{Euso}\,\left({1-e^{-
1962: \frac{L_0}{c\,\tau_{\tau}\,\gamma_{\tau}}}}\right)
1963: \,\left({\frac{L_{\nu_{\tau}}}{2\,R_{\oplus}}}\right)^2\cdot
1964: l_{\tau}\left[{1\,-\,e^{- \frac{2\,R_{\oplus} sin(\theta_1)
1965: }{L_{\nu_{\tau}}}}(1\,+\,\frac{2\,R_{\oplus}
1966: sin(\theta_1)}{L_{\nu_{\tau}}}) }\right] \label{V1shell}
1967: \end{eqnarray}
1968: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1969:
1970: Where $\theta_1$ is the angle between the tangential plane to the
1971: surface of the Earth at the horizon and to the inner layer (ocean
1972: - rock) we are considering, and it is $\theta_1 \cong 1.076 ^o$.
1973: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1974: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig.8 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1975:
1976: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%Hence one can see that
1977:
1978: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Equation %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1979: %%%%%%%%%%%%$V_{eff}
1980: %%%%%%%%%%%\propto A_{Euso}\,\left({\frac{L_{\nu_{\tau}}}{2\,R_{\oplus}}}%
1981: %%%%%%%%%%%%\right)^2l_{\tau} \propto \rho^{-2}$
1982: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% End equation %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1983:
1984: The above geometrical quantities have been already defined in the
1985: text. It is possible to see that the effective volume in the low
1986: energy approximation reduces to:
1987:
1988: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% equantion %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1989: \begin{eqnarray}
1990: V_{eff}&=&\,A_{Euso}\,\left({1-e^{- \frac{L_0}{c\,\tau_{\tau}\,\gamma_{\tau}}%
1991: }}\right) \,\frac{l_{\tau}}{2}
1992: \end{eqnarray}
1993: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% end equation %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1994:
1995: This is the simplest result that may be derived in a direct
1996: way, and it
1997: guarantees a link between the most sophisticated analytical
1998: integral (Eq. \ref{eq_vol_ltau}) and the upper and lower bounds
1999: set by Eqs. \ref{V_allwater} and \ref{V1shell}.
2000:
2001:
2002: Indeed, to calculate the effective volume in a more precise way
2003: one has to consider the Earth as a sequence of shells. For the
2004: first shell one obtains the same result as in Eq. \ref{V1shell}.
2005:
2006: \[
2007: \frac{V_{1}(E_{\tau})}{A}=\frac{l_{\tau}}{\left(1-\frac{l_{\tau}}{%
2008: L_{\nu_{1_{w}}}}\right)} \left(\frac{L_{\nu_{1_{w}}}}{2R_{\oplus}}%
2009: \right)^{2} \left(1-e^{-\frac{L_0}{l_{\tau_2}}}\right)\left[1-e^{- \frac{%
2010: 2R_{\oplus}\sin{\theta_1}}{L_{\nu_{1_{w}}}}} \left(
2011: 1+\frac{2R_{\oplus}\sin{\theta_1}}{L_{\nu_{1_{w}}}} \right)\right]
2012: \]
2013:
2014: For the following ones the corresponding volumes are given by
2015:
2016:
2017: \[
2018: \frac{V_{2}(E_{\tau})}{A}=\frac{l_{\tau}}{\left(1-\frac{l_{\tau}}{%
2019: L_{\nu_{1w}}}\right)} \left(1-e^{-\frac{L_0}{l_{\tau_2}}}\right)\int^{%
2020: \theta_2}_{\theta_1}{d\theta} \sin{\theta}\cos{\theta}\cdot{e}^{-2R_{\oplus}%
2021: \left[\left(\frac{\sin{\theta}-\sqrt{\cos^{2}{\theta_1}- \cos^2{\theta}}}{%
2022: L_{\nu_{water}(E)}}\right)+\left(\frac{\sqrt{\cos^{2}{\theta_1}- \cos^2{%
2023: \theta}}}{L_{\nu_{rock_1}(E)}}\right)\right]}
2024: \]
2025:
2026:
2027:
2028: \begin{eqnarray}
2029: \frac{V_{3}(E_{\tau})}{A} & = & \frac{l_{\tau}}{\left(1-\frac{l_{\tau}}{%
2030: L_{\nu_{1w}}}\right)} \left(1-e^{-\frac{L_0}{l_{\tau_2}}}\right)\int^{%
2031: \theta_3}_{\theta_2}{d\theta} \sin{\theta}\cos{\theta}\cdot \nonumber \\
2032: & \cdot & {e}^{-2R_{\oplus}\left[\left(\frac{\sin{\theta}-\sqrt{\cos^{2}{%
2033: \theta_1}- \cos^2{\theta}}}{L_{\nu_{water}(E)}}\right)+\left(\frac{\sqrt{%
2034: \cos^{2}{\theta_1}-\cos^2{\theta}}- \sqrt{\cos^{2}{\theta_2}-\cos^2{\theta}}%
2035: }{L_{\nu_{rock_1}(E)}}\right)+\left(\frac{\sqrt{\cos^{2}{\theta_2}- \cos^2{%
2036: \theta}}}{L_{\nu_{rock_2}(E)}}\right)\right]} \nonumber
2037: \end{eqnarray}
2038:
2039:
2040: \begin{eqnarray}
2041: \frac{V_{n}(E_{\tau})}{A} = \frac{l_{\tau}}{\left(1-\frac{l_{\tau}}{L_{\nu_1}%
2042: }\right)} \left(1-e^{-\frac{L_0}{l_{\tau_2}}}\right)\cdot \nonumber
2043: \end{eqnarray}
2044:
2045: \begin{eqnarray}
2046: \cdot\int_{\theta_{n-1}}^{\theta_{n}}d\theta\sin(\theta)\cos(\theta)\exp%
2047: \left\{ -2R_{0}\left[ \frac{\sin(\theta)}{L_{\nu_{_{1}}}}+\sum_{j=1,n-1}%
2048: \sqrt{_{\cos^{2}(\theta_{j})-\cos^{2}(\theta)}}\left(\frac{1}{%
2049: L_{\nu_{_{j+1}}}}-\frac{1}{L_{\nu_{_{j}}}}\right)\right] \right\}
2050: \end{eqnarray}
2051: %%%%%%%%%%%%\newline
2052: %%%\end{center}
2053:
2054: where again, $\rho_{r_j}$ is the relative density of the matter
2055: respect to the water, $L_{\nu_j} = (n_{\rho_{r_j}}
2056: \sigma_{CC})^{-1}$, and
2057: $\theta_j\equiv\arccos\frac{R_j}{R_{\oplus}}$.
2058:
2059: Thus the total effective volume is
2060:
2061: \[
2062: \frac{V_{tot}(E_{\tau})_{Shells}}{A}=\sum_{n=1,N}\frac{V_n(E_{\tau})}{A}%
2063: =\sum_{n=1,N}\frac{l_{\tau}{\left(1- e^{-\frac{L_0}{l_{\tau_2}}}\right)}}{%
2064: \left(1-\frac{l_{\tau}}{L_{\nu_1}}\right)}\cdot
2065: \]
2066:
2067: \[
2068: \cdot\int_{\theta_{n-1}}^{\theta_n}\sin({\theta} )\cos(\theta)\exp \left\{
2069: -2R_{0}\left[ \frac{\sin(\theta)}{L_{\nu_{_{1}}}}+\sum_{j=1,n-1}\sqrt{%
2070: _{\cos^{2}(\theta_{j})-\cos^{2}(\theta)}}\left(\frac {1}{L_{\nu_{_{j+1}}}}-%
2071: \frac{1}{L_{\nu_{_{j}}}}\right) \right] \right\}
2072: \]
2073:
2074: This result coincides with the analytic expression of the
2075: effective volume we have derived in the text using the
2076: $D(\theta)$. In this way we have calibrated the two methods and
2077: we have verified that they converge to a unique result when we
2078: calculate the effective volume, mass and event rate.
2079:
2080:
2081: \begin{table}[htbp]
2082: \begin{center}
2083: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
2084: \hline
2085: & & \\
2086: & & $R_{j+1}(Km)>R>R_j(Km)$ \\
2087: & & \\ \hline
2088: & & \\
2089: $L_{\nu_{1_{w}}} = L_{\nu_{water_1}}$ & $\rho_r=\,\, 1.02$ & $6371>R>6368$
2090: \\
2091: $L_{\nu_{1_{r}}}\,= L_{\nu_{rock_1}}\,\,$ & $\rho_r=\,\, 2.65$ & $6371>R>6368
2092: $ \\
2093: $L_{\nu_{2_{r}}}\,=L_{\nu_{rock_2}}\,\,$ & $\rho_r=\,\, 2.76$ & $6368>R>6346$
2094: \\
2095: $L_{\nu_{3_{r}}}\,=L_{\nu_{rock_3}} $ & $\rho_r=\,\, 3.63$\, & $6346>R>5700$
2096: \\
2097: $L_{\nu_{4_{r}}}\,=L_{\nu_{rock_4}}\,\,$ & $\rho_r=\,\, 5.05$\, & $%
2098: 5700>R>3480$ \\
2099: $L_{\nu_{5_{r}}}\,=L_{\nu_{rock_5}}\,\,$ & $\rho_r=11.28$ & $3480>R>1221$ \\
2100: $L_{\nu_{6_{r}}}\,=L_{\nu_{rock_6}}\,\,$ & $\rho_r=12.99$ & $1221>R>0$%
2101: \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \\
2102: & & \\ \hline
2103: \end{tabular}
2104: \end{center}
2105: \end{table}
2106: \
2107:
2108: \subsection{Acknowledgment}
2109:
2110: The author wish to thank Prof. Livio Scarsi for inspiring the
2111: present search as well as the EUSO collaboration for the exciting
2112: discussion; the author thanks M.Teshima for technical
2113: suggestions.
2114:
2115: \begin{thebibliography}
2116:
2117: \bibitem[]{}{\normalsize }
2118:
2119:
2120: \bibitem[Andres2000]{Andres00}{\normalsize Andres, E., et al. 2000, Astropart. Phys., 7, 263}
2121:
2122: \bibitem[Gallex Collaboration (1992)]{Gallex92} {\normalsize Anselmann et al., [Gallex
2123: Collaboration], 1992, Phys. Lett. B, 285, 376 }
2124:
2125: %\bibitem[Becattini and Bottai(2001)]{Becattini Bottai 2001} {\normalsize %
2126: %Becattini F and Bottai S 2001 Astropart. Phys. 15 323 }
2127:
2128: \bibitem[Bhatta-Hill]{Bhatta92}{\normalsize Bhattacharjee, P., Hill, C.T. Schramm, D.N., 1992, Phys. Rev. Lett., 69, 567B}
2129:
2130: \bibitem[SNO Collaboration (2002)]{SNO2002} {\normalsize SNO Collaboration,
2131: 2002, Phys.Rev.Lett., 89, 011302. }
2132:
2133: %\bibitem[Berezinsky (2002)]{Berezinsky 2002} {\normalsize Berezinzky V S,
2134: %Gazizov A Z and Grigorieva S I 2002 hep-ph/0204357 }
2135:
2136: \bibitem[Berezinzky V S et al.(1990)]{Berezinsky 1990} {\normalsize %
2137: Berezinzky, V.S., et al., 1990, Astrophysics of Cosmic Rays (North
2138: Holand ed.) }
2139:
2140: \bibitem[Bertou et al.(2002)]{Bertou et all 2002} {\normalsize Bertou, X.,
2141: Billoir, P., Deligny, O., Lachaud, C., Letessier, S.A, 2002,
2142: Astropart. Phys., 17, 183}
2143:
2144: \bibitem[Bottai02]{Bottai2002}{\normalsize Bottai, S., Giurgola, S., 2003, BG03, Astrop. Phys., 18, 539}
2145:
2146: \bibitem[Bugaev03]{Buga2003}{\normalsize Bugaev, E.V., Montaruli, T., Sokalski, I.A., 2003, astro-ph/0311086}
2147:
2148: \bibitem[Cronin04]{Cronin2004}{\normalsize Cronin, J.W., 2004, astro-ph/0402487}
2149:
2150: \bibitem[Prelmodel89]{Dziewonski1989}{\normalsize Dziewonski, A., 1989, "Earth Structure Global" in {\em The Encyclopedia
2151: of Solid Earth Geophysics}, edited by D.E. James (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York), p.331}
2152:
2153: \bibitem[Dolgov]{Dolgov2002}{\normalsize Dolgov, A., 2002, Phys. Rept. 370, 333, hep-ph/0202122}
2154:
2155: \bibitem[Dubrovich,Fargion and Khlopov 2004]{Farg-Khlop04}
2156: {\normalsize Dubrovich, V., Fargion, D., \& Khlopov, M., 2004,
2157: in prep.}
2158:
2159: \bibitem[Dutta et al.(2001)]{Dutta et al.2001} {\normalsize Dutta, I.S.,
2160: Reno, M.H, Sarcevic, I., \& Seckel, D., 2001, Phys. Rev. D, 63
2161: 094020 }
2162:
2163: \bibitem[Eguchi(2003)]{Eguchi02}{\normalsize Eguchi, et al., 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 021802}
2164:
2165: \bibitem[Fargion and Salis (1997)]{Fargion Salis 1997}
2166: {\normalsize Fargion, D., \& Salis, A., 1997, Proc.{\mbox 25th}
2167: ICRC HE-4-6153 }
2168:
2169: \bibitem[Fargion, Mele and Salis (1999)]{Fargion Mele Salis 1999}
2170: {\normalsize Fargion, D., Mele, B., \& Salis, A., 1999, ApJ 517,
2171: 725; astro-ph/9710029 }
2172:
2173: \bibitem[Fargion et al.(1999)]{Fargion et all 1999} {\normalsize
2174: Fargion, D., Aiello, A., Conversano, R., 1999, 26th ICRC HE6.1.10
2175: 396-398; astro-ph/9906450 }
2176:
2177: \bibitem[Fargion et al.(2000)]{Fargion 2000} {\normalsize Fargion, D., Grossi, M.,
2178: De Sanctis Lucentini, P.G., Di Troia, C., \& Konoplich, R.V.,
2179: 2000, in DARK2000, Heidelberg 10-14, July; Ed.
2180: Klapdor-Kleingrothaus H V Springer 2001, 455-468 }
2181:
2182: \bibitem[Fargion et al. (2001)]{Fargion et all. 2001b} {\normalsize
2183: Fargion, D., Grossi, M., De Sanctis Lucentini, P.G., \& Troia, C.,
2184: 2001, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., 70, 46 }
2185:
2186: \bibitem[Fargion (2001a)]{Fargion2001a} {\normalsize Fargion, D., 2001a, 27th
2187: ICRC 2001 HE2.5 1297-1300, astro-ph/0106239 }
2188:
2189: \bibitem[Fargion (2001b)]{Fargion2001b} {\normalsize Fargion, D., 2001b, 27th
2190: ICRC 2001 HE1.8 Germany 903-906, astro-ph/0107094}
2191:
2192: \bibitem[Fargion (2001c)]{Fargion2001c} {\normalsize Fargion, D., 2001c, JHEP PrHEP-hep2001/208;
2193: hep-ph/0111289}
2194:
2195: \bibitem[Fargion (2002a)]{Fargion 2002a} {\normalsize Fargion, D.,
2196: 2002a, ApJ, 570, 909; astro-ph/0002453; astro-ph/9704205 }
2197:
2198: \bibitem[Fargion (2002)]{Fargion 2002b} {\normalsize Fargion, D.,
2199: 2002b, SPIE Conference Proc. 4858, 1-13, hep-ph/0208093. }
2200:
2201:
2202: \bibitem[Fargion (2002)]{Fargion 2002c} {\normalsize Fargion, D., 2002c, Oulu,
2203: Beyond the Standard Model Conference; hep-ph/0211153 }
2204:
2205: %%%\bibitem[Fargion (2002)]{Fargion 2002e} {\normalsize Fargion, D., 2002d,
2206: %%%%astro-ph/0212342; Vulcano Conference, June, 2002 }
2207:
2208: \bibitem[Fargion (2003) et all]{Fargion 2003} {\normalsize
2209: Fargion, D., Khlopov, M., Konoplich, R., De Sanctis Lucentini, P.
2210: G., De Santis, M., and Mele, B., 2003, Recent Res.
2211: Devel.Astrophysics., 1}
2212: %%%%%%%%%: ISBN: 81-271-0004-8
2213:
2214:
2215:
2216:
2217: \bibitem[Fargion (2003b)]{Fargion 2003b} {\normalsize Fargion, D., 2003, JHEP, PRHEP-AHEP 2003/031 }
2218: astro-ph/0312627
2219:
2220: \bibitem[Feng et al. (2002)]{Feng et al 2002} {\normalsize Feng, J.L.,
2221: Fisher, P., Wilczek, F., \& Terri, M. Yu, 2002, Phys. Rev. Lett.
2222: 88, 161102; hep-ph/0105067 }
2223:
2224: \bibitem[Fodor, Katz and Ringwald (2002)]{Fodor Katz Ringwald 2002}
2225: {\normalsize Fodor, Z., Katz, S.D., \& Ringwald, A., 2002, Phys.
2226: Rev. Lett., 88, 171101; hep-ph/0210123 }
2227:
2228: \bibitem[Fukuda et al. (1998)]{Fukuda:1998mi} {\normalsize Fukuda,
2229: Y. et al. [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration], 1998, Phys. Rev.
2230: Lett., 81, 1562 }
2231:
2232: \bibitem[Gandhi1996]{Gandhi96}{\normalsize Gandhi, R., Quigg, C., Reno, M.H., Sarcevic, I., 1996, Astrop. Phys., 5, 81}
2233:
2234: \bibitem[Gandhi1998]{Gandhi98}{\normalsize Gandhi, R., Quigg, C., Reno, M.H., Sarcevic, I., 1998, Phys. Rev. D., 58, 093009}
2235:
2236: \bibitem[Gorbunov2002]{Gorbunov02}{\normalsize Gorbunov, D., Tinyakov, P., Tkachev, I., \& Troitsky, S., 2002,
2237: ApJ, 577, L93}
2238:
2239: \bibitem[Grieder2001]{Grieder01}{\normalsize Grieder, P., et al., Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.), 97, 105}
2240:
2241: \bibitem[Greisen1966]{Greisen66}{\normalsize Greisen, K., 1966, Phys. Rev. Lett., 16, 748
2242: }
2243:
2244: \bibitem[Hou and Huang (2002)]{Hou Huang 2002} {\normalsize Hou, G.W.S., \& Huang, M.A., 2002,
2245: {\em Proceedings of The First NCTS Workshop on Astroparticle
2246: Physics}, Kenting, Taiwan, Dec. 6-8, 2001; astro-ph/0204145 }
2247:
2248: \bibitem[Halzen et al. (2002)]{Halzen2002} {\normalsize Halzen, F.,
2249: \& Hooper, D., 2002, Rept. Prog. Phys., 65, 1025}
2250:
2251:
2252: \bibitem[Hayashida(1999)]{Hayashida et all. ICRC (1999)}{\normalsize Hayashida. N. et al., [AGASA collaboration], 1999,
2253: astro-ph/9906056}
2254:
2255: \bibitem[Hou and Huang (2002)]{Hou Huang 2002} {\normalsize Hou, G.W.S., \& Huang, M.A., 2002,
2256: {\em Proceedings of The First NCTS Workshop on Astroparticle
2257: Physics}, Kenting, Taiwan, Dec. 6-8, 2001; astro-ph/0204145 }
2258:
2259: \bibitem[Jones et al. (2004)]{Jones04} {\normalsize Jones, J., Mocioni, I., Reno, M.H., Sarcevic, I., 2004 Phys. Rev. D
2260: , 69, 033004}
2261:
2262: \bibitem[Kalashev et al. (2002)]{Kalashev:2002kx} {\normalsize Kalashev,
2263: O.E., Kuzmin, V.A., Semikoz, D.V., \& Sigl, G., 2002 Phys.\ Rev.\
2264: D 66 063004~ }
2265:
2266: \bibitem[KamLand Collaboration (2002)]{Kamland2002} {\normalsize KamLand
2267: Collaboration, 2002, hep-ex/0212021. }
2268:
2269: \bibitem[Klapdor-Kleingrothaus et al. (2001)]{Klapdor-Kleingrothaus:2002ke}
2270: {\normalsize Klapdor-Kleingrothaus, H. V., Dietz, A., Harney,
2271: H.L., \& Krivosheina, I.V., 2001, Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 16, 2409 }
2272:
2273: %%%\bibitem[Learned and Pakvasa (1995)]{Learned Pakvasa 1995} {\normalsize
2274: %%%Learned, J.G., \& Pakvasa, S., 1995, Astropart. Phys., 3, 267 }
2275:
2276: \bibitem[Mannheim et all 2001]{Mannheim2003} {\normalsize {Mannheim K.,
2277: Protheroe, R.J., Rachen, J.P., 2001 , Phys.Rev. D63 023003} }
2278:
2279: \bibitem[Montaruli2002]{Montaruli02}{\normalsize Montaruli, T. et al., [ANTARES collaboration] 2002, Nucl. Phys.
2280: Proc. Suppl., 110, 513; hep-ex/0201009}
2281:
2282:
2283: \bibitem[Raffelt (2002)]{Raffelt2002} {\normalsize Raffelt, G.G., 2002, New Astron.Rev., 46, 699, astro-ph/0207220 }
2284:
2285: \bibitem[Semikoz et all. (2003)]{Semikoz-et-al} {\normalsize Semikoz, D.,
2286: \& Sigl G., 2003, hep-ph/0309328 }
2287:
2288: \bibitem[Sigl(94)]{Sigl94}{\normalsize Sigl, G., Schramm, D. N., Bhattacharjee, P., 1994, Astropart. Phys., 2, 401}
2289:
2290: \bibitem[Sigl(2002)]{Sigl2002}{\normalsize Sigl, G., 2002, New Astron.Rev., 46, 699, astro-ph/0207220 }
2291:
2292: \bibitem[Singh and Ma (2002)]{Singh-Ma} {\normalsize Singh S., Ma C. P.,
2293: astro-ph/0208419. }
2294:
2295: \bibitem[Takeda et al. (2001)]{Takeda et all} {\normalsize Takeda, M. and
2296: AGASA Collab., 2001, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., 70, 15}
2297:
2298: \bibitem[Tinyakov and Tkachev (2001)]{Tinyakov-Tkachev2001}
2299: {\normalsize Tinyakov, P., \& Tkachev, I., 2001, J. Phys. Soc.
2300: Jpn., 70, 58}
2301:
2302: \bibitem[Uchihori(2000)]{Uchihori2000}
2303: {\normalsize Uchihori, Y. et al., 2000, Astropart.Phys., 13, 151}
2304:
2305: \bibitem[Yoshida et al. (1998)]{Yoshida et all 1998} {\normalsize
2306: Yoshida, S., Sigl, G., \& Lee, S., 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5505
2307: }
2308:
2309: \bibitem[Yoshida03]{Yoshida2003}{\normalsize Yoshida, S., Ishibashi, R., Miyamoto, H., 2003, Phys. Rev. D, accepted ;
2310: astro-ph/0312078}
2311:
2312: \bibitem[WB(1997)]{WB1997}{\normalsize Waxman, E., Bachall, J., 1997, Phys. Rev. Lett., 78, 2292}
2313:
2314: \bibitem[Weiler (1999)]{Weiler 1999} {\normalsize Weiler, T.J., 1999, Astropart. Phys. 11, 303}
2315:
2316: %%%%%%%\bibitem[Zatsepin and Kuzmin (1966)]{Zatsepin:1966jv} {\normalsize \
2317: %%%%%%%%Zatsepin G~T and Kuzmin~V~A 1966 JETP Lett.\ 4 78 }
2318:
2319: \bibitem[Zatsepin1966]{Zatsepin66}{\normalsize Zatsepin, G.T., \& Kuz'min, V.A., 1966, JETP Lett. 4, 78.}
2320:
2321:
2322: \end{thebibliography}
2323:
2324: \bibliographystyle{plain}
2325: \bibliography{xbib}
2326:
2327: \end{document}
2328:
2329:
2330:
2331:
2332: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% end fig. 10 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2333: %Moreover the integral to evaluate the energy losses inside the
2334: %Earth depends on the matter density whose values are greatly
2335: %variable.
2336: %Thus the Earth opacity does not vary in an homogeneous
2337: %way (see figure below):
2338:
2339: %In practice we deal
2340: %with the interaction lengths: $l_{\tau}(E_{\tau_i}(E_{\tau_f}))$ $L_{\nu}(E_{\tau_f}))$ \\
2341:
2342: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% End equation %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2343:
2344: %\subsection{The relation between the primary neutrino and final tau energies}
2345:
2346: %The relation between $E_{\tau_f}/E_{\nu}$ has been considered by
2347: %analytical and both by Monte-Carlo simulation and it will be
2348: %summarized in a variable
2349: %$\eta(E_{\tau})=\frac{E_{\nu_i}}{E_{\tau_f}}$ at average maximal
2350: %depth path $l_{\tau}\leq20\,Km$.
2351:
2352: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% fig.11 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2353: %%%%%%%%%%\begin{figure}[htbp]
2354: %%%%%%%%%%\includegraphics[angle=270,scale=0.4]{f11-All-LTAU-BETA.eps}
2355: %%%%%%%%%%\caption{Effective Interaction lengths taking into account the
2356: %%%%%%%%%%%energy losses and considering the smallest volume where the $\tau$
2357: %%%%%%%%%%% keeps most of the primary energy.} \label{fig11}
2358: %%%%%%%%%%%%\end{figure}
2359: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2360: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% end fig. 11 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2361:
2362: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2363:
2364: %\subsection{First order approximations for effective $\tau$ skin Volume}
2365: