1:
2: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx}
5: %\usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx}
6: %\input epsf
7: \usepackage{times}
8: %\textwidth 160mm
9: %\textheight 230mm
10: \begin{document}
11: \begin{titlepage}
12: \title{Indications for the new unitarity regime in the extensive air showers measurements}
13: \author{S.M. Troshin,
14: N.E. Tyurin\\[1ex]
15: \small \it Institute for High Energy Physics,\\
16: \small \it Protvino, Moscow Region, 142281, Russia}
17: \normalsize
18: \date{}
19: \maketitle
20:
21: \begin{abstract}
22: We note that the new unitarity regime when scattering amplitude
23: goes beyond the black disc limit (antishadowing)
24: could help in the explanation of the regularities such as knee in the energy spectrum, existence of
25: penetrating and long-flying particles and other features observed in the measurements of the
26: extensive air showers which originate from cosmic particles interactions with the atmosphere.\\[2ex]
27: \end{abstract}
28: \end{titlepage}
29: \setcounter{page}{2}
30:
31:
32:
33: The experimental and theoretical studies of cosmic rays are the
34: important source of astrophysical information
35: (cf. e.g. \cite{der})
36: and they simultaneously provide a window to the future results of accelerator
37: studies of hadron interaction mechanism at the LHC\footnote{It should be noted
38: that the value of the total
39: cross--section extracted from cosmic rays measurements significantly depend on the
40: particular model for elastic scattering, because measurements of the extensive air showers
41: provide information on inelastic
42: scattering cross--section only\cite{engel}.}.
43:
44: \begin{figure}[thb]
45: \begin{center}
46: \includegraphics[width=90mm]{flux.eps}
47: \end{center}
48: \small{\caption{Scaled energy spectrum of the cosmic rays, figure from \cite{engel}.}}
49: \label{ts:fig1}
50: \end{figure}
51: It can happen that the
52: investigations of cosmic rays will give us a clue that the hadron
53: interaction and mechanism of particle
54: generation is changing in the region of $\sqrt{s}=3-6$ TeV\cite{crrev,her}. Indeed, the
55: energy spectrum which follows simple power-like law $F(E)=cE^{-\gamma}$ changes
56: its slope in this energy region and becomes steeper: index $\gamma$ increases from
57: $2.7$ to $3.1$. It is important that the knee in the energy spectrum appears in the same
58: energy region where the penetrating and long--flying particles also start to appear in
59: the extensive air showers (EAS):
60: the absorbtion length is also changing from $\lambda=90$ $g/cm^2$ to
61: $\lambda=150$ $g/cm^2$ (cf. \cite{crrev}). There is also specific feature of the
62: events at the energies beyond knee such as alignment {cf. \cite{cask} and the
63: references for the earlier papers therein}.
64: The above phenomena were interpreted as a result of appearance
65: of the new particles which have a small inelastic cross--section and/or
66: small inelasticity. These new particles can be associated with a manifestation of the
67: supersymmetry, quark--gluon plasma formation and other new mechanisms. However, there
68: is another possibility to treat those cosmic rays phenomena observed in EAS as the manifestations
69: of the new unitarity regime
70: (antishadow scattering mode)
71: at such energies \cite{ashd}.
72:
73: Unitarity of the scattering matrix $SS^+=1$ implies, in principle, an
74: existence at high energies $s>s_0$, where $s_0$ is a threshold\footnote{Model
75: estimates show that
76: new scattering mode starts to develop right beyond Tevatron energies, i.e. at
77: $\sqrt{s_0}\simeq 2$ TeV \cite{s0}, which corresponds to the energy in the laboratory system
78: $E\simeq 2$ $PeV$.}
79: of the new scattering mode ---
80: antishadow one. It has been revealed in \cite{ashd} and
81: described in some detail (cf.
82: \cite{echn} and references therein) and the most important feature
83: of this mode is the self-damping of the
84: inelastic channels contributions at small values of impact parameter --- antishadowing.
85: The antishadowing leads to $P(s,b=0)\to 1$ at $s\to\infty$, where $P$ is
86: a probability of the absence of the inelastic interactions,
87: $P(s,b)\equiv |S(s,b)|^2$, where $S$ is the elastic scattering
88: $S$--matrix.
89:
90: Self-damping of the inelastic channels leads to
91: asymptotically dominating role of elastic scattering.
92: The cross--section of inelastic processes rises with energy as $\ln s$, while
93: elastic and total cross--sections behave asymptotically as $\ln^2 s$.
94: The antishadow scattering mode could definitely be
95: observed at the LHC energies and studies of the extensive air showers
96: originated from the cosmic particles interactions
97: with the atmosphere provide evidence for it as we will argue in what follows.
98: Starting at some threshold energy $s_0$ (where amplitude reaches the black disk
99: limit at $b=0$), antishadowing can occur at higher energies
100: in the limited region of impact parameters $b<R(s)$ (while
101: at large impact parameters only shadow scattering mode can be
102: realized).
103:
104: The inelastic overlap function $\eta(s,b)$ becomes peripheral
105: when energy goes beyond $s=s_0$ (Fig.2).
106: At such energies the inelastic overlap function reaches its maximum
107: value at $b=R(s)$, where $R(s)$ is the interaction radius,
108: while the elastic scattering occurs at smaller values
109: of impact parameter, i.e.
110: $\langle b^2 \rangle_{el}<\langle b^2 \rangle_{inel}$. Note that
111: \[
112: \langle b^2 \rangle_{i}
113: \equiv \frac{1}{\sigma_i}\int_0^\infty b^2 \frac{d\sigma_i}{db^2},
114: \]
115: where $i=tot,el,inel$
116: and
117: \[
118: \mbox{Im} f(s,b)\equiv \frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{d\sigma_{tot}}{db^2};\,\,
119: |f(s,b)|^2\equiv \frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{d\sigma_{el}}{db^2};\,\,
120: \eta(s,b)\equiv \frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{d\sigma_{inel}}{db^2}
121: \]
122: and unitarity condition in the impact parameter space is the following
123: \[
124: \mbox{Im} f(s,b)=|f(s,b)|^2+\eta(s,b),
125: \]
126: where $f(s,b)$ is the elastic scattering amplitude.
127: The quantity $\langle b^2 \rangle$ is a measure of the reaction peripherality.
128: Despite that the asymptotics for
129: $\sigma_{el}$ and $\sigma_{inel}$ are different, the quantities $\langle b^2 \rangle_{el}$ and $
130: \langle b^2 \rangle_{inel}$ have the same asymptotical energy dependence, proportional to $\ln^2 s$.
131:
132: So, beyond the transition energy range there are two regions in impact
133: parameter space: the central region where self-damping of inelastic channels occurs
134: (antishadow scattering at $b< R(s)$) and the peripheral region of
135: shadow scattering at $b> R(s)$.
136: \begin{center}
137: \begin{figure}[hbt]
138: \begin{center}
139: \includegraphics[width=90mm]{ov.eps}
140: \end{center}
141: {\small\caption{Impact parameter dependence of the inelastic overlap
142: function in the framework of the unitarization scheme
143: with antishadowing. Arrows indicate the directions of movement of minimum at $b=0$ and maximum at
144: $b=R(s)$ with
145: the energy increase. In the region of $b=R(s)$ the complete absorbtion takes place, i.e.
146: $|S(s,b=R(s))|^2=0$.}}
147: \end{figure}
148: \end{center}
149: At the energies ${s}\gg {s_0}$ small impact parameter scattering
150: is almost elastic one.
151:
152: Thus head--on colliding particles will provide appearance
153: of penetrating long-flying component in the EAS
154: and such particles will spend only
155: small part of
156: their energy for the production of secondaries. The head-on collisions
157: will lead to smaller number of secondary particle and it will provide
158: faster decrease of the energy spectrum of cosmic rays, i.e. it
159: will result in the appearance of the knee. This qualitative picture
160: will be explained in more detail in what follows. It should be noted
161: that this effect has a threshold in the energy dependence. It is also
162: important to note that due to small probability of the sequential head-on
163: collisions the number of events with penetrating particles also should be small.
164: Nontheless, such events have been observed in the experiments
165: PAMIR \cite{ari}.
166:
167: Antishadowing leads to suppression of particle
168: production at small impact parameters:
169: \begin{equation}\label{mm}
170: \bar n(s)= \frac{1}{\sigma_{inel}(s)}{\int_0^\infty \bar n
171: (s,b)\frac{d\sigma_{inel}}{db^2}db^2},
172: \end{equation}
173: i.e. multiplicity distribution
174: \[
175: P_n(s,b)\equiv \frac{1}{\sigma_{inel}(s)}\frac{d\sigma_{n}(s)}{db^2}
176: \]
177: and mean multiplicity
178: $\bar n(s,b)$ in the impact parameter representation have
179: no absorptive corrections, but peripherality of $ {d\sigma_{inel}}/{db^2}$
180: leads to suppression of particle
181: production at small impact parameters and the main contribution to
182: the integral multiplicity $\bar n(s)$ comes from
183: the region of $b\sim R(s)$ (Eq. (\ref{mm})). This would lead to the events with
184: alignment observed in EAS and also to the imbalance
185: between orbital angular momentum in the initial and final states since particles
186: in the final state will carry out large orbital
187: angular momentum.
188: To compensate this orbital momentum spins of secondary particles should become
189: lined up, i.e. the spins of the produced particles should demonstrate
190: significant
191: correlations when the antishadow scattering mode appears \cite{sc}. Thus, the
192: observed phenomena of
193: alignment in EAS \cite{cask}
194: and predicted spin correlations of final particles should have a common origin.
195: The model estimate for the primary energy when these phenomena should appear is
196: $E_0 \simeq 2$ $PeV$ --- $E_0$ is the energy
197: when the new unitarity regime starts to develop at small impact parameters.
198:
199: The detected particle composition of the EAS is closely related to the quantity known as
200: gap survival probability.
201: Antishadowing leads to the nonmonotonous energy dependence of this
202: quantity \cite{gsp}. The gap survival probability, namely the probability to keep away
203: inelastic interactions which can result in filling up by hadrons
204: the large rapidity gaps, reaches its
205: minimal values at the Tevatron highest energy and this is due to the fact that
206: the scattering at this energy is very close to
207: the black disk limit at $b=0$ (Fig. 3).
208: \begin{figure}[thb]
209: \begin{center}
210: \includegraphics[width=80mm]{gpsee.eps}
211: \end{center}
212: \small{\caption{Energy dependence of gap survival probability.}}
213: \label{fig4}
214: \end{figure}
215: It is clear that its higher value
216: means higher fraction for diffractive component and consequently
217: the increasing of this component would result in the enhancement of
218: the relative fraction
219: of protons in the observed cosmic rays spectrum. Otherwise, decreasing of this quantity
220: will lead to increase of pionization component and consequently to the increasing
221: number of muons
222: observed as multi-muon events.
223: Experiment reveals that relative fraction of protons in cosmic rays also shows
224: nonmonotonous energy dependence (cf. Fig. 4). To explain such dependence an additional
225: component is introduced {\it ad hoc} at the energies above $3\cdot 10^7$ GeV. It was shown
226: that account
227: of the antishadowing makes an introduction of this {\it ad hoc} component unnecessary.
228:
229: The inelasticity parameter $K$,
230: which is defined as ratio of the energy going to inelastic processes to the total energy, is
231: important for the interpretation
232: of the EAS cascades developments. Its energy dependence is not
233: clear and number of models predict the decreasing energy dependence while other
234: models insist on the increasing energy behaviour at high energies
235: (cf. e.g. \cite{shabel}). Adopting simple ansatz of geometrical models where parameter
236: of inelasticity
237: is related to inelastic overlap function we can use the following equation for
238: $\langle K \rangle$ \cite{dias}
239: \[
240: \langle K \rangle=4\frac{\sigma_{el}}{\sigma_{tot}}
241: \left(1-\frac{\sigma_{el}}{\sigma_{tot}}\right)
242: \]
243: to get a qualitative knowledge on the inelasticity energy dependence.
244: The estimation of inelasticity based on the particular model with
245: antishadowing \cite{s0} leads to increasing dependence of inelasticity with energy
246: till $E\simeq 4\cdot 10^7$ GeV. In this region inelasticity reaches maximum value
247: $\langle K \rangle = 1$, since ${\sigma_{el}}/{\sigma_{tot}}=1/2$ and then
248: starts to decrease at the energies where this ratio goes beyond the black
249: disk limit $1/2$.
250: Such qualitative
251: nonmonotonous energy dependence of inelasticity is the result of transition to
252: the antishadowing
253: scattering regime. The distribution on the inelasticity is related
254: to the distribution
255: on the effective mass number, i.e. changes of $A$ are equivalent
256: to changes of $\langle K \rangle$, and, for example,
257: high-inelasticity primary proton interaction
258: produces the same result at the ground level as the low-inelasticity primary interaction
259: of the heavy nuclei \cite{jones}. The available experimental data on the average logarithm
260: of the effective nuclear mass number, extracted from the energy dependence of the depth
261: of EAS maximum, have large error bars, but they also
262: indicate a nonmonotonous energy dependence with the maximum in the region
263: $E\simeq (4-5)\cdot 10^7$ GeV
264: \cite{hern}.
265:
266:
267: It is also worth to note that the maximum in inelasticity energy
268: dependence, when the pionization component is maximal, is
269: correlated with the minimum of the relative component of protons in the EAS,
270: the following simple relation can be supposed
271: \[
272: {\Phi_p}/{\Phi_{all}}\sim 1-\langle K \rangle
273: \]
274: i.e. the relative
275: proton component in the detected EAS should have a non-monotonic energy dependence and this
276: is in agreement with the experimental analysis represented in Fig.~4.
277: \begin{figure}[thb]
278: \begin{center}
279: \includegraphics[width=90mm]{pfract.eps}
280: \end{center}
281: \small{\caption{Relative fraction of protons in EAS,
282: figure is taken from \cite{hern}.}}
283: \label{pfrac}
284: \end{figure}
285:
286: It should be noted that the behaviour of the ratio
287: ${\sigma_{el}}/{\sigma_{tot}}$ when it goes to unity at
288: $s\to\infty$ does not imply decreasing energy dependence of $\sigma_{inel}$.
289: The inelastic cross--section $\sigma_{inel}$ increases monotonically
290: and it grows as $\ln s$ at $s\to\infty$. Such a dependence of $\sigma_{inel}$ is
291: in good agreement with the experimental data and, in particular, with the observed
292: falling slope of the depth of shower maximum distribution \cite{gaisser}.
293: The predicted numerical value of the inelastic cross-section is
294: $\sigma_{inel}(s)\simeq 76$ $mb$ at the LHC energy $\sqrt{s}=14$ $TeV$. This value
295: is also in a good agreement with the value for this quantity extracted from
296: the proton-air inelastic cross-section \cite{hern}. This approach provides
297: a reasonable description \cite{jpg} of
298: the energy dependence of mean multiplicity and leads to
299: its power-like growth with a small exponent.
300:
301:
302:
303:
304:
305: The relation of the knee and other effects observed in the EAS measurements
306: with the
307: modification of particle generation mechanism is under discussion since the time when
308: they were discovered.
309: We propose here one particular realization of this idea --- an approach where
310: the corresponding particle generation mechanism in EAS is strongly affected by the unitarity effects and
311: the energy region between the knee and the ankle coincides with
312: the transition region to the scattering mode where antishadowing develops at small and then at
313: moderate values
314: of impact parameter, i.e. the energy spectrum of the primary cosmic particles
315: $F_0(E)$ is modulated by the significant variation of the scattering matrix $S$ in the energy region
316: starting from about $E_1\simeq 10^6$ GeV and finishing at about $E_2\simeq 10^9$ GeV and this
317: resulting in the regularities in the observed
318: spectrum $F(E)$ measured in the EAS studies. Below the energy $E_1$ and beyond the energy $E_2$ variation
319: of scattering matrix is slow and the primary energy spectrum $F_0$ is almost not affected.
320: It seems to be a rather natural explanation
321: of the observed regularities in the EAS measurements and has a close interrelation
322: with the nonmonotonous energy dependence of gap survival probability and inelasticity.
323: This hypothesis is based on the saturation of the unitarity and can be experimentally
324: checked at the LHC \cite{echn}. The studies of the proton scattering in the forward
325: region at the LHC will be very helpful for improving the
326: interpretation of the results of the cosmic rays experiments.
327:
328: \section*{Acknowledgement}
329: We are grateful to V.A. Petrov for the interesting discussions on the impact parameter dependence
330: of the mean multiplicity.
331: \small
332: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
333: \bibitem{der}
334: A. De R\'ujula, Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 151, 23, 2006, [hep-ph/0412094, astro-ph/0411763].
335: \bibitem{engel}
336: R. Engel, T.K. Gaisser, P. Lipari, T. Stanev,
337: Phys. Rev. D 58, 014019, 1998;\\
338: R. Engel, astro-ph/0504358.
339: \bibitem{crrev}
340: T. Stanev, astro-ph/0411113;\\ S.I. Nikolsky, V.G. Sinitsina,
341: Phys. Atom. Nucl. 67, 1900, 2004, ;\\ A.A. Petrukhin,
342: Proc. of the 28th International Cosmic Ray Conferences ICRC 2003, Tsukuba,
343: Japan, 31 Jul - 7 Aug 2003, 275.
344: \bibitem{her}
345: J.R. H\"{o}randel, talk at
346: 19th European Cosmic Ray Symposium, Florence, Italy, 30 Aug - 3 Sep 2004;
347: astro-ph/0501251.
348: \bibitem{cask}
349: T. Antoni et al., Phys. Rev. D 71, 072002, 2005.
350: \bibitem{ashd}
351: S. M. Troshin, N. E. Tyurin, Phys. Lett. B 316, 175, 1993.
352: \bibitem{hern}
353: J.R. H\"{o}randel, J. Phys. G 29, 2439, 2003.
354: \bibitem{echn}
355: S.M. Troshin, N.E. Tyurin,
356: Phys. Part. Nucl. 35, 555, 2004.
357: \bibitem{s0}
358: S.M. Troshin, N.E. Tyurin,
359: Eur. Phys. J. C 21, 679, 2001;\\
360: V.A. Petrov, A.V. Prokudin, S.M. Troshin, N.E. Tyurin,
361: J. Phys. G 27, 2225, 2001.
362: \bibitem{ari}
363: T. Arisawa, et al., Nucl. Phys. B 424, 241, 1994.
364: \bibitem{sc}
365: S.M. Troshin, Phys. Lett. B 597, 391, 2004.
366: \bibitem{gsp}
367: S.M. Troshin, N.E. Tyurin,
368: Eur. Phys. J. C 39, 435, 2005.
369: \bibitem{shabel}
370: Yu.M. Shabelski, R.M. Weiner, G. Wilk, Z. Wlodarczyk, J. Phys. G 18, 1281, 1992.
371: \bibitem{dias}
372: J. Dias de Deus, Phys. Rev. D 32, 2334, 1985;\\
373: S. Barshay, Y. Ciba, Phys. Lett. B 167, 449, 1985.
374: \bibitem{jones}
375: L.W. Jones, Nucl. Phys. B75A, 54, 1999.
376: \bibitem{gaisser} T.K. Gaisser et al., Phys. Rev. D 36, 1350, 1993.
377: \bibitem{jpg}
378: S.M. Troshin, N.E. Tyurin,
379: J. Phys. G 29, 1061, 2003.
380: \end{thebibliography}
381: \end{document}
382: