1: \documentclass[fleqn,twoside]{article}
2: \usepackage{espcrc2}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \newcommand{\AmS}{{\protect\the\textfont2
5: A\kern-.1667em\lower.5ex\hbox{M}\kern-.125emS}}
6: \newcommand{\ttbs}{\char'134}
7: \title{Extensive Air Showers and the Physics of High Energy Interactions}
8: \author{A.D.Erlykin\address{P.N.Lebedev Physical Institute,
9: Leninsky prosp. 53, Moscow 119991, Russia}
10: \thanks{E-mail: erlykin@sci.lebedev.ru}}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \begin{abstract}
15: Extensive Air Showers are still the only source of information on primary cosmic rays
16: and their interactions at energies above PeV. However, this information is hidden
17: inside the multiplicative character of the cascading process. Inspite of the great
18: experimental and theoretical efforts the results of different studies are often
19: ambiguous and even conflicting. These controversies can partly be referred to
20: imperfections of our models of high energy particle interactions.
21:
22: The first part of the paper is concerned with this problem. The author thinks
23: that the present models should be corrected to give slightly deeper penetration of the
24: cascade into the atmosphere. In this respect the modification suggested by the QGSJET-
25: II model seems to be the step in the right direction. The Sibyll 2.1 model provides a
26: similar penetrating properies. However, this modification is not
27: enough and a small additional transfer of the energy from EAS hadrons
28: to the electromagnetic component is needed too. As a possible
29: candidate for such a process the inelastic charge exchange of pions is discussed.
30:
31: In the second part of the paper the author discusses the need to account for the
32: interaction of EAS with the stuff of detectors, their environment and the ground in
33: the light of the 'neutron thunder' phenomenon, discovered recently.
34: \end{abstract}
35:
36: \maketitle
37:
38: \section{Introduction}
39:
40: There is a big progress in the analysis of experimental data
41: on extensive air showers (~EAS~) during the last two decades. However,
42: one cannot say that we understand all the phenomena and
43: characteristics of EAS which we
44: observe. Partly this dissatisfaction is due to the controversies in
45: experimental data themselves, partly due to still remaining
46: imperfections of the analysis. We certainly need to improve our understanding
47: of EAS.
48:
49: This paper does not aim to give a comprehensive review of all high
50: energy interaction models, event generators and EAS simulation codes.
51: It consists of two different parts. In the first part I point out some problems
52: related to the particle interaction models which so far pose questions
53: at high energies. I do not go into the theoretical foundations
54: of various interaction models, but stay within a pure
55: phenomenological approach. Within it I indicate the possible way
56: to improve the models. The theoretical basis of some recent models can
57: be found in \cite{Stane}.
58:
59: In the second part of the paper I shall touch the problems related to some
60: effects of the EAS interaction with the environment.
61:
62: \section{High energy interactions}
63:
64: \subsection{The consistency of the results}
65: The EAS is a complex phenomenon - it has several different components: electromagnetic -
66: electrons, positrons and gamma-quanta, muons and hadrons - nucleons, pions, kaons and so on.
67: Besides that there are neutrinos which need massive detectors to be studied. Due to their
68: small interaction cross-section they are detected not as multiple shower neutrinos,
69: but as single ones. So far they are {\em not} combined with other EAS components in the
70: analysis of experimental data, but they certainly play a role in the
71: energy balance. Optical cherenkov and fluorescence photons emitted by
72: charged shower particles are also used as a powerful tool for the study.
73:
74: Since the characteristics of observed showers are the product of the
75: primary cosmic-ray (~CR~) energy
76: spectrum, mass composition and high energy interactions, the only way to disentangle
77: them is to achieve the self-consistency in the derivation of the properties of primary
78: CR from different observables and vice versa - the derivation of observed
79: characteristics for different shower components and different observation levels from
80: the same primary CR and the interaction model.
81:
82: There were many efforts in the past to use models of the popular CKP- or scaling type.
83: With the development of the QGS model \cite{Kaida} it has been shown that this model gives
84: a satisfactory description of both EAS \cite{Kalm1,Kalm2} and single, unassociated CR components
85: in the atmosphere \cite{Erly1,Erly2,Erly3}.
86: However, those old studies used as a rule different cascading algorithms and
87: programs, which certainly produced an additional uncertainty in the results and reduced
88: the credibility of the conclusions. It is to the credit of the KASCADE people
89: who spend great efforts to develop and to distribute freely the CORSIKA code \cite{Heck}.
90: With this code the analysis of experimental data can now be made at the level much better
91: than before.
92:
93: \subsection{The improvement of models}
94:
95: An early analysis of models indicated that the best consistency for the mean
96: logarithmic mass $\langle lnA \rangle$ of primary CR derived from the $\frac{N_\mu}{N_e}$
97: ratio and from $X_{max}$ can be achieved for the QGSJET model \cite{EW1}. Here $N_\mu, N_e$
98: are muon and electron sizes of EAS respectively and $X_{max}$ - the depth of the shower
99: maximum. Later a similar conclusion about the preference of QGSJET model has been
100: made on the basis of the analysis of the EAS hadronic core \cite{Anton}. After some
101: improvements the SIBYLL model, version 2.1 joined the list of the best, most popular
102: and often used models \cite{Engel}.
103:
104: However, the closer look reveals that some inconsistencies still
105: remain. It has to be said
106: that indications of possible inconsistencies appeared more that 30 years ago when
107: the mismatch between the direct and indirect measurements of the primary energy
108: spectrum has been noticed: the indirect measurements based on the EAS model
109: calculations gave as a rule the higher CR intensity in the PeV region than that derived
110: by the extrapolation of direct measurements from the lower energies - the so called
111: 'bump' problem \cite{Wdowc}. More recently this mismatch has been confirmed by
112: \cite{Hoer1}. Among possible explanations there was an assumption that even the best
113: models give an overestimation of the primary energy from the observations in the
114: atmosphere. It could happen if the shower penetrates deeper into the atmosphere
115: and has more charged particles at the observation level than it is expected from model
116: calculations.
117:
118: Observations of the EAS cherenkov light in the PeV region confirmed this deeper
119: penetration \cite{Hoer2}. As a consequence, the primary mass attributed to such showers
120: derived from observed $X_{max}$ values and $N_\mu/N_e$ ratio after the comparison
121: with model calculations turned to be smaller than the true primary mass. There was a
122: number of ideas how to increase the penetrability of the showers, for instance,
123: introducing the higher cross-section for the charm production \cite{Yakov} or
124: hypothetical strangelets \cite{Rybcz,Shaul}, but those models are still in the stage of
125: development. The possibility to improve the models were discussed also in
126: \cite{Hoer2,EW2}. In \cite{Hoer2} it has been assumed that the cross-section and the
127: inelasticity of the
128: proton interactions in the air are in fact smaller than in the models, although they
129: still agree with measurements at the lower end of the error bars. Their reduction
130: allowed to improve the agreement between the predictions of the models and the results
131: of the $X_{max}$ measurements. There were some indications of
132: the lower cross-sections in the past measurements of hadrons in the EAS cores
133: \cite{Neste}. The latest measurements of the inelastic cross-sections confirmed the
134: slower rise of the interaction cross-section with energy \cite{Aglie,Belov}. Therefore,
135: there are experimental indications that EAS may in fact penetrate deeper, than
136: predicted by models.
137:
138: There are also efforts to improve models not just on the pure phenomenological, but
139: also on the theoretical basis. The idea that the density of partons at high energies
140: becomes so high that they cannot interact independently of each other has been
141: discussed long ago \cite{Aniso}. However, it is to the credit of S.S.Ostapchenko, who
142: updated the QGSJET01 model including the non-linear effects of parton interactions,
143: developed it to the status of the Monte Carlo event generator and together with his
144: colleagues in Karlsruhe incorporated it into the Corsika code \cite{Osta1,Osta2}.
145: As a consequence of the non-linear effects, the interaction cross-section (~at least
146: for pions~), the multiplicity of secondaries and the inelasticity of the
147: collisions decreased slightly which helped atmospheric cascades to penetrate deeper.
148: Apparently the reduction of the inelasticity plays the major role in the increased
149: penetrability.
150: Due to its smaller inelasticity the updated Sibyll 2.1 model also provides EAS with
151: a greater penetrability than previous models. Certainly these improvements are
152: the step in the right direction.
153:
154: However, the only introduction of the non-linear effects of parton
155: interactions seems to be not enough. This suspicion appears when the examination of the
156: hadron component is included
157: into the analysis. It has been shown in \cite{Roth} that the primary mass composition
158: derived mainly from hadron and muon components is heavier than that which can be
159: obtained using mainly electromagnetic and muon components. Muons are usually less
160: model dependent at the fixed primary energy, since they are penetrating particles and
161: are collected from all atmospheric altitudes representing something like an integral
162: over the longitudinal profile of the shower. Taking them as the basis for the
163: comparison we should expect that for well tuned, consistent models the analysis of
164: ratios $N_e/N_\mu$ and $N_h/N_\mu$ should give the same $\langle lnA \rangle$. The
165: larger $\langle lnA \rangle$ value (2.25$\pm$0.08) found in KASCADE experiment from
166: $N_h/N_\mu$ analysis than that from $N_e/N_\mu$ (1.90$\pm$0.05) \cite{Roth} indicates
167: that the difference between $N_e/N_\mu$ and $N_h/N_\mu$ in the present models is too
168: low (~Figure 1~). In the more realistic model this difference should be increased.
169: \begin{figure}[htb]
170: \begin{center}
171: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm,height=7.5cm]{eas1.eps}
172: \caption{\footnotesize The illustration of the way to get the consistent value of mean
173: logarithmic
174: mass $\langle lnA \rangle$ from (a) $N_e/N_\mu$ and (b) $N_h/N_\mu$ measurements.
175: Initial values of $N_e/N_\mu$ and $N_h/N_\mu$ are calculated for 1 PeV primary protons,
176: nitrogen and iron nuclei using the QGSJET01 model and shown by the full line.
177: The dashed line shows the same ratios for the QGSJET-II model: $N_e/N_\mu$ and
178: $N_h/N_\mu$ rise by the same
179: factor. The dash-dotted line demonstates the effect of the charge exchange combined
180: with the QGSJET-II: $N_e/N_\mu$ rises, but $N_h/N_\mu$ falls. The thick arrow indicates
181: the consistent value of $\langle lnA \rangle$.}
182: \end{center}
183: \label{fig:eas1}
184: \end{figure}
185:
186: The theoretical basis of QGSJET-II model besides the reduction of the interaction cross
187: section for pions and an inelasticity requires also the reduction of the multiplicity
188: of the secondary particles. Simulations of EAS showed that transition from QGSJET01
189: to QGSJET-II model at the fixed energy leads to the {\bf rise} of $N_e/N_\mu$ and
190: $N_h/N_\mu$ ratios both for primary protons and for all primary nuclei.
191: It is because the EAS electromagnetic and hadron components follow each other in the
192: lower part of the atmosphere, i.e. beyond the shower maximum, in an approximate
193: equilibrium. However, the difference between $\langle lnA \rangle$ values derived from
194: $N_e/N_\mu$ and $N_h/N_\mu$ ratios in the QGSJET-II model becomes even larger than for
195: QGSJET01. While the $\langle lnA \rangle$ value derived from $N_e/N_\mu$ ratio rises
196: from 1.9 to 2.52, that derived from $N_h/N_\mu$ rises from 2.25 to 3.47 (~see Figure
197: 1~). Therefore, the reduction of the interaction cross-section for pions, of the
198: inelasticity and the multiplicity in the QGSJET-II, does not remove the existing
199: difference between $\langle lnA \rangle$ values and the inconsistency still holds.
200:
201: To eliminate this inconsistency we have suggested the additional
202: transfer of the energy into an electromagnetic component in the cascading
203: process \cite{EW2}. It has been made on a pure phenomenological
204: basis. Later we have suggested the so called 'sling
205: effect' in nucleus-nucleus interactions as the process responsible for a deeper
206: penetration into the atmosphere of cascades induced by primary nuclei and also for
207: an additional electromagnetic component in them \cite{EW3,EW4}. This effect could serve
208: as a possible theoretical basis of the needed model modifications. However, this
209: effect being very probable, seems to be small to give the noticable
210: changes. The needed effect has to be stronger and we now think that the charge exchange
211: process is the likely culprit.
212:
213: In fact charge exchange processes are already taken into account in both QGSJET01 and
214: QGSJET-II models. The question is whether it is possible to modify the probability of
215: this process without a conflict with the existing experimental data and whether such a
216: modification could give the consistent $\langle lnA \rangle$ value both from
217: $N_e/N_\mu$ and $N_h/N_\mu$ ratios.
218:
219: In order to analyse this possibility I used the option provided by the HDPM model. It
220: is the only model within the CORSIKA code where one can switch on and off the charge
221: exchange processes and by this way to estimate the effect which this process has on
222: $N_e/N_\mu$ and $N_h/N_\mu$ ratios. Actually I determined the ratios
223: $R_{e\mu} = (N_e/N_\mu)_{HDPM_+}/(N_e/N_\mu)_{HDPM_-}$ and
224: $R_{h\mu} = (N_h/N_\mu)_{HDPM_+}/(N_h/N_\mu)_{HDPM_-}$ for the HDPM model with and
225: without the charge exchange process (~denoted as $HDPM_+$ and $HDPM_-$ respectively~).
226: Then I applied these ratios to the QGSJET-II model as
227: $log(N_{e,h}/N_\mu)_{QGSJET-II+ch.exch.}=log(N_{e,h}/N_\mu)_{QGSJET-II}+\varepsilon logR_{e,h}$.
228: Here the coefficient $\varepsilon$ limited by $0 \leq \varepsilon \leq 1$
229: gives an estimate of possible increase of the charge exchange needed to get a
230: consistent value of $\langle lnA \rangle$ derived from $N_e/N_\mu$ and $N_h/N_\mu$
231: ratios, denoted as $\langle lnA \rangle_{e\mu}$ and $\langle lnA \rangle_{h\mu}$
232: respectively.
233:
234: This exersise shows that by this way it is possible to achieve the needed consistency.
235: Simulations show that inspite of the addtionsl energy transfer the shower size at the
236: sea level remains practically the
237: same as in the absence of the charge exchange process, whereas the number of hadrons
238: and muons decreased. So that in contrast to the modifications provided only by
239: non-linear effects in the QGSJET-II model when both $N_e/N_\mu$ and $N_h/N_\mu$ rise,
240: the increase of the charge exchange probability leads to the rise of $N_e/N_\mu$, but
241: to the fall of $N_h/N_\mu$, because both $N_\mu$ and $N_h$ fall but the latter falls
242: stronger. For example, with $\varepsilon = 1$ $\langle lnA \rangle_{e\mu}$ rises from
243: 2.52 to 2.98, but $\langle lnA \rangle_{h\mu}$ falls from 3.47 down to 2.86 (~see
244: Figure 1~). This 'overshooting' is due to that the charge
245: exchange process is already taken into account in the QGSJET-II model and
246: application of the expression given in the previous paragraph with $\varepsilon = 1$
247: makes this process too strong. The consistent value of
248: $\langle lnA \rangle_{e\mu} = \langle lnA \rangle_{e\mu} = 2.94 \pm 0.09$ is achieved
249: at $\varepsilon = 0.88 \pm 0.12$. The errors are derived from the statistical errors of
250: mean values of $N_e/N_\mu$ and $N_h/N_\mu$ ratios obtained by Monte-Carlo simulations
251: with CORSIKA6.014 and CORSIKA6500 codes and taking the values of
252: $\langle lnA \rangle_{e\mu}$ = 1.90$\pm$0.05 and $\langle lnA \rangle_{h\mu}$ =
253: 2.25$\pm$0.08 obtained from the experimental data using the QGSJET01 model \cite{Roth}.
254: Systematic errors are difficult to evaluate at
255: this stage of analysis, but actually our estimates are given just to demonstrate the
256: principal opportunity to use the QGSJET-II model with an enhanced charge exchange
257: probability to get a consistent estimates of the primary CR mass composition.
258:
259: The higher consistent value of $\langle lnA \rangle$ = 2.94$\pm$0.09 compared with
260: values of 1.90$\pm$0.05 and 2.25$\pm$0.08 derived from $N_e/N_\mu$ and $N_h/N_\mu$
261: ratios with the QGSJET01 model means that the true primary CR mass composition should
262: be heavier in the new analysis.
263:
264: Simulations show also that with the increased charge exchange the depth of maximum for
265: proton induced showers shifts upwards by about 5 gcm$^{-2}$, but for nitrogen and iron
266: induced showers it moves downwards by 1 gcm$^{-2}$ and 5 gcm$^{-2}$ respectively.
267: Hence the increase of the charge exchange cannot destroy the deeper penetration of
268: EAS by about 20 gcm$^{-2}$ provided by the QGSJET-II model.
269:
270: \subsection{The inelastic charge exchange for pions}
271:
272: Now we shall discuss the process which could be used to increase the charge exchange
273: probability. At the end of sixties one of
274: the inventors of the ionization calorimeter, V.S.Murzin from the Moscow
275: University used this detector to study interactions of CR pions. He has found
276: that with a considerable probability the charged pion could lose its charge but
277: preserve a good part of its initial energy. He called this process 'the inelastic
278: charge exchange' \cite{Murzi}. Actual numbers were the following: the probability to
279: preserve more
280: than 0.5 of the energy in the collision of the pion with iron nuclei has been estimated
281: as 10\% and this probability seemed to be independent of energy in hundred GeV - TeV
282: energy range.
283:
284: Since then numerous experiments have been made on the production of neutral pions in
285: hadron interactions. Their results can be found in the Particle Data Group archive
286: (~http://durpdg.dur.ac.uk/HEPDATA/reac.html~) (~see also the list of literature in
287: \cite{Ataya}~). However, measurements of collisions with nuclei are still
288: sparse and cover mostly the high transverse momentum (~$P_t$~) region. The relevant
289: data relate mostly to $\pi^{\pm} P$ interactions and often give the values of invariant
290: cross-sections \cite{Ataya,Aguil,Pauss,Abdur,Apsim,Barne}. After integrating over
291: $P_t$ some extreme examples \cite{Aguil,Pauss,Apsim} of the obtained inclusive spectra
292: for neutral pions are shown in Figure 2.
293: \begin{figure}[htb]
294: \begin{center}
295: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm,height=7.5cm,angle=0]{eas2.eps}
296: \caption{\footnotesize The inclusive spectrum of neutral pions produced in $\pi^- P$
297: interactions. Full circles - for the 58 GeV $\pi^-$ beam energy \cite{Pauss}, open and
298: full stars - for 80 and 140 GeV respectively \cite{Apsim}, triangles - for 360 GeV
299: \cite{Aguil}. Horizontal error bars indicate the interval of
300: $X$ used for the determination of the invarint cross-section. Histograms are spectra of
301: $\pi^+, \pi^0$ and $\pi^-$ calculated with CORSIKA INTTEST version for the
302: QGSJET01+GHEISHA interaction model at 80 GeV. The use of the QGSJET01 model at this
303: energy is justified since non-linear effects introduced in QGSJET-II appear at much
304: higher energies.}
305: \end{center}
306: \label{fig:eas2}
307: \end{figure}
308:
309: It is seen that the results of different experiments have a considerable spread.
310: While the result of one experiment matches the model perfectly \cite{Apsim}, the
311: $\pi^0$-spectrum obtained in another experiment follows the spectrum of $\pi^+$
312: \cite{Aguil} and
313: there is a spectrum which is definitely higher than that which matches the model
314: \cite{Pauss} although they agree with each other within error bars. This
315: difference cannot be caused by the energy dependence of the process since models and
316: experiments show no appreciable dependence in the 58 - 360 GeV energy interval
317: \cite{Barne}. The examination of these data indicates that the probability to have
318: $\pi^0$ with $X > 0.5$ is not 10\%, but about 7\% at these energies and for $X > 0.7$
319: it is about 2.3\%.
320:
321: It seems that on the basis of the spread of experimental data and the
322: absence of the preference between the different results the model can be
323: re-tuned according to indications of the EAS analysis towards the higher probability of
324: the charge exchange process for pions. This can improve the consistency between
325: $\langle lnA \rangle$ values obtained from different EAS components. Since at $X > 0.7$
326: the difference between different experiments rises up to $\sim 2.5$ and continues
327: growing with $X$, the big value for the estimate of $\varepsilon = 0.88 \pm 0.12$,
328: presented in the previous subsection, is not inconsistent with these experimental data.
329:
330: There is another point which should be remarked. The appearance of leading neutral
331: pions in charged pion collisions observed in cosmic-ray and in some of accelerator
332: experiments is interpreted within the framework of the triple-region description with a
333: substantial contribution of RRP-term. Its contribution should give the flat behaviour
334: of the inclusive $\pi^0$ cross-section at large $X > 0.7$. It is not seen in the data
335: shown in Figure 2. This discrepancy is not clear. However, in can be that $\pi^0$'s
336: with very large $X$ are biased in accelerator experiments by triggering conditions,
337: with partially suppressed low multiplicity and diffraction events as has been mentioned
338: in \cite{Aguil}, while the introduced corrections are model dependent. There was no
339: such bias in cosmic-ray experiments.
340:
341: The experimental value of the mean fraction $\alpha_\gamma$ of energy transferred by
342: $\pi^-$ to $\pi^0$ is independent of energy and equal to 0.25$\pm$0.01 \cite{Murzi}.
343: The $\alpha_\gamma$ provided by the QGSJET01 model shows a slight decrease with the
344: energy and above 10 TeV falls below the experimental value (~Figure 3~). Independently
345: of the origin of this fall (~e.g. change of the mass composition of secondaries~) it is
346: another indication that the energy transfer into the electromagnetic component should
347: be slightly increased to improve the model.
348: \begin{figure}[htb]
349: \begin{center}
350: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm,height=7.5cm,angle=0]{eas3.eps}
351: \caption{\footnotesize The mean fraction of energy $\alpha_\gamma$ transferred to neutral pions in $\pi^-P$
352: collisions as a function of energy. The experimental value of $\alpha_\gamma =0.25\pm0.01$
353: is from \cite{Murzi} and denoted by full and dashed lines. The full circles show
354: $\alpha_\gamma$ values calculated with the QGSJET01+GHEISHA model. The calculated values are
355: slightly smaller than experimental ones above 10 TeV.}
356: \end{center}
357: \label{fig:eas3}
358: \end{figure}
359:
360: \section{Interactions of EAS with detectors and an environment}
361:
362: The second part of this paper relates to interactions of EAS particles not with air
363: nuclei, but with another target: the stuff of the detectors, their environment and the
364: ground. The aim of this part is to draw an attention to the possible contribution of
365: low energy neutrons created in such interactions to the signal in the hydrogen
366: containing detectors, deployed particularly at mountains.
367:
368: It is well known that the thickness of the shower disk depends on the distance
369: from the shower core rising from 2-3 m at the EAS center to tens of m at about 1 km
370: from it. It corresponds to the time 'thickness' of a few hundreds ns. The delayed
371: particles which appear a few microseconds after the main shower front were observed and
372: discussed long ago \cite{Tongi,Greis,Linsl}. However, the discovery of neutrons
373: delayed by {\em hundreds} microseconds in the shower core made by Chubenko A.P. and his
374: group with the Tien-Shan neutron monitor \cite{Chub1,Aushe,Anto1,Anto2,Chub2} seemed
375: to be unexpected and attracted an attention \cite{Sten1,Sten2,Gawin,Baygu,Jedrz}.
376:
377: Though the dispute on the interpretation of this finding is not finished the majority
378: of participants is inclined to explain it by the interaction of hadrons in the EAS core
379: with the stuff of the detector, i.e. by multiplicative processes in the lead of the
380: neutron monitor with the subsequent long diffusion and thermalization of released
381: neutrons in the monitor's moderator and reflector \cite{Jedrz,Sten3,Erly4} (~see,
382: however, another view in \cite{Chub3}~). Independently of the interpretation the
383: phenomenon is very spectacular and looks as the neutron 'thunder' which appears with
384: a time delay after the 'lightning' which is the EAS itself \cite{Erly4,Erly5}.
385:
386: If the interpretation of the majority is correct, the observed neutrons can be produced
387: also in the ground which is not so heavy as lead, but nevertheless there are many
388: heavy elements in it (~mainly Si~) which could produce neutrons being hit by an EAS core.
389: There is also water in it which serves as a good moderator like in nuclear reactors.
390: The influence of the ground and ground-based environment has to be more substantial
391: at the mountain level, where EAS cores are much more energetic and a good part of the year
392: the ground is covered by snow. Sometimes this snow is of meters thick (~Tien-Shan, Aragats,
393: Chacaltaya, South Pole etc.~). As for the Tien-Shan station an additional factor is
394: that it is built on the permafrost with a good part of ice in it. Since neutrons can
395: diffuse up to long distances from the place where they are produced \cite{Agafo} their
396: effect might be noticable even at shallow depths underground.
397:
398: Many running EAS arrays use water or ice cherenkov detectors: Pierre Auger
399: Observatory, Milagro, Nevod, Ice-Top etc. At the first sight they should not be
400: sensitive to neutrons, since they are neutral particles and mostly non-relativistic.
401: However, the experimental study of the neutron 'thunder' revealed that delayed neutrons
402: are accompanied by gamma-quanta and electrons \cite{Anto2}, which in principle could
403: give a signal in water tanks.
404:
405: It is particularly relevant to Pierre Auger Observatory. The comprehensive modelling of
406: the effect of albedo neutrons emitted by the ground as a result of the EAS interaction
407: is complicated and planned for the future paper. Here I show that the effect can be
408: noticable even taking into account only EAS neutrons.
409:
410: Simulations of the EeV proton
411: induced showers observed at the altitude of 1400 m a.s.l. show that neutrons are the
412: most abundant among EAS hadrons and their lateral distribution function (~LDF~) is
413: wider than LDF for protons and pions. At the typical distance of $\sim$1 km from the
414: core the density of neutrons with energy above 50 MeV and their energy density is about
415: the same as for muons of this energy and about 10\% of the gamma-quanta plus electrons
416: with energy above 1 MeV (~Figure 4~).
417: \begin{figure}[htb]
418: \begin{center}
419: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm,height=7.5cm,angle=0]{eas4.eps}
420: \caption{\footnotesize Lateral distribution of particle numbers (a) and the particles
421: energy (b) for
422: 1 EeV primary proton incident vertically at the level of 1400 m a.s.l. It is seen that
423: neutrons could contribute up to 10\% to the signal of water tanks at 1km distance from
424: the shower axis, if among products of their interaction with water are relativistic
425: electrons.}
426: \end{center}
427: \label{fig:eas4}
428: \end{figure}
429:
430: Moreover after about 5 $\mu s$ behind the EAS front the neutron component at 1 km from
431: the EAS axis becomes dominant, overtaking muons, electrons and gamma-quanta (~Figure
432: 5~).
433: \begin{figure}[htb]
434: \begin{center}
435: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm,height=7.5cm,angle=0]{eas5.eps}
436: \caption{\footnotesize Arrival time distribution of electromagnetic, muon and neutron component of
437: the shower at core distances less than 10m (a), 100m (b) and 1000m (c). It is seen that
438: at 1000m from the core neutrons dominate among other particles after 5 $\mu s$.}
439: \end{center}
440: \label{fig:eas5}
441: \end{figure}
442:
443: This distance and the time delay are right the working distances and times for
444: Pierre Auger Observatory, so that the possible contribution of neutrons to the signal
445: from their water tanks should be analysed and taken into account if necessary. The same
446: remarks could be referred to hydrogen containing plastic scintillators used in many
447: other large arrays (~Yakutsk, Telescope Array etc.~). As it has been mentioned above,
448: signals delayed by $\mu s$ (~'subluminal pulses'~) have been already observed in large
449: scintillator arrays, such as Volcano Ranch \cite{Greis,Linsl}.
450:
451: A good analysis of the
452: possible effect of delayed particles on the primary energy estimation has been made in
453: \cite{Dresc} applicable to the AGASA array. It has been shown that overestimate of the
454: primary energy for its scintillators and the acquisition system cannot exceed a few
455: percents. For other arrays it may be higher.
456:
457: Presumably the effect of 'the neutron thunder' can be applied in practice for
458: the neutron carotage of the upper layers of the ground. Instead of the artificial
459: neutron source in this method the ordinary EAS can be used since EAS cores carry on
460: and produce a lot of secondary neutrons. Also 'the neutron thunder' can be used for
461: the search of water on the Moon \cite{Feld} or on the surface of other
462: planets \cite{Mitr1,Mitr2}.
463:
464: \section{Conclusion}
465:
466: The analysis of existing controversies in the interpretation of
467: experimental data on EAS indicates that an improvement of our
468: understanding of the EAS phenomenon and the self-consistency of results
469: on primary CR derived from EAS can be achieved by a moderate
470: modification of the current particle interaction models. This
471: modification has to result in a slightly deeper penetration of EAS
472: into the atmosphere as well as in the increased transfer of the
473: energy from the hadronic to electromagnetic components of EAS. The
474: account for non-linear effects in parton interactions like that in
475: the QGSJET-II model and an increasing probability of inelastic charge
476: exchange processes for pions can help.
477:
478: Here it is appropriate to make some general remarks.
479: The nuclear and electromagnetic nature of EAS has been established at
480: the end of forties. That was the time when the world greatest
481: accelerator - Dubna Synchrophasotron had not been commissioned and CR
482: were the unique source of information about high energy interactions. It is
483: surprising that now, after about 50 years of the leading role of accelerators in the
484: field, CR are still able to contribute to our understanding of the high energy
485: interactions. Another point is that after nearly 70 years since the discovery of EAS
486: by Pierre Auger and Roland Maze we still develop our understanding of this phenomenon.
487: The discovery of the 'neutron thunder' certainly complements our knowledge of the EAS
488: development and is worth of further experimental and theoretical study.
489:
490: {\bf Acknowledgments}
491:
492: The author thanks the INFN, sez. di Napoli and di Catania, personally Professors
493: M.Ambrosio and A.Insolia for providing the financial support for this work and their
494: hospitality. I also thank Capdevielle J.N., Martirosov R., Ostapchenko S., Petrukhin
495: A., Ryazhskaya O.G., Stanev T., Szabelski J., Ter-Antonian S., Tsarev
496: V.A., Watson A. and Yodh G. for useful discussions and references.
497:
498:
499: \begin{thebibliography}{51}
500: \bibitem{Stane} Stanev T., (2006), Nucl. Phys. B (~Proc. Suppl.~), {\bf 151}, 135
501: \bibitem{Kaida} Kaidalov A.B., Ter-Martisosyan K.A. (1984), Sov. J. Nucl. Phys., {\bf 39}, 979
502: \bibitem{Kalm1} Kalmykov N.N., Khristiansen G.B. (1983), Pis'ma ZhETF, {\bf 37}, 247
503: \bibitem{Kalm2} Kalmykov N.N. et al. (1985), Proc. 19th ICRC, La Jolla, {\bf 7}, 44
504: \bibitem{Erly1} Erlykin A.D., Kuzina N.P. (1981), Vopr. Atom. Nauki, Techn., ser. 'Techn. fiz. exp.',
505: {\bf 2/8/}, 34
506: \bibitem{Erly2} Erlykin A.D. et al. (1985), Proc. 19th ICRC, La Jolla, {\bf 6}, 92
507: \bibitem{Erly3} Erlykin A.D. et al. (1987), Yadernaya Fizika, {\bf 45}, 1075
508: \bibitem{Heck} Heck D. et al., Report FZKA 6019, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, 1998
509: \bibitem{EW1} Erlykin A.D., A.W.Wolfendale (1998), Astroparticle Physics, {\bf 9}, 213
510: \bibitem{Anton} Antoni T. et al. (1999), J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., {\bf 25}, 2161
511: \bibitem{Engel} Engel R. et al. (1999), 26th ICRC, Salt Lake City, {\bf 1}, 445
512: \bibitem{Wdowc} Wdowczyk J., Wolfendale A.W. (1973), J. Phys. A.: Math., Nucl., Gen., {\bf 6}, 1594
513: \bibitem{Hoer1} H\"{o}randel J.R. (2003), Astropart. Phys., {\bf 19}, 193
514: \bibitem{Hoer2} H\"{o}randel J.R. (2003), J. Phys. G: Nucl., Part. Phys., {\bf 29}, 2439
515: \bibitem{Yakov} Yakovlev V.I. (1992), Proc. 7th ISVHECRI, Ann Arbor. AIP Conf. Proc.,
516: {\bf 276}, 154
517: \bibitem{Rybcz} Rybczynsky M. et al. (2006), Nucl. Phys. B (~Proc. Suppl.~), {\bf 151}, 341
518: \bibitem{Shaul} Shaulov S.B. (1996), Proc. Conf. on Strangeness in Hadronic Matter, ed. by
519: T.Cs\"{o}rg\"{o} et al., 403
520: \bibitem{EW2} Erlykin A.D., Wolfendale A.W. (2002), Astropart. Phys., {\bf 18/2}, 151
521: \bibitem{Neste} Dubovy A.G. et al. (1983), Proc. 18th ICRC, Bangalore, {\bf 6}, 163
522: \bibitem{Aglie} Aglietta M. et al. (1999), Nucl. Phys. B (~Proc. Suppl.~), {\bf 75A}, 222
523: \bibitem{Belov} Belov K., (2006), Nucl. Phys. B (~Proc. Suppl.~), {\bf 151}, 197
524: \bibitem{Aniso} Anisovich V.V. and Shekhter V.M. (1978), Yadernaya Fizika, {\bf 28}, 1079
525: \bibitem{Osta1} Ostapchenko S.S., (2006), Czech. J. Phys. (~Suppl.A~), {\bf 56}, A149;
526: preprints hep-ph/0412332, 2004 and hep-ph/0501093, 2005
527: \bibitem{Osta2} Ostapchenko S.S. (2006), Nucl. Phys. B (~Proc. Suppl.~), {\bf 151}, 143 and 147
528: \bibitem{Roth} Roth M. et al. (2001), 27th ICRC, Hamburg, {\bf 1}, 88
529: \bibitem{EW3} Erlykin A.D., Wolfendale A.W. (2004), Nucl. Phys. B (~Proc. Suppl.~), {\bf 136}, 282
530: \bibitem{EW4} Erlykin A.D., Wolfendale A.W. (2005), J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., {\bf 31}, 791
531: \bibitem{Murzi} Murzin V.S., Sarycheva L.I., Multiple production processes in
532: cosmic rays, Ed. Nauka, 1984 ( in Russian )
533: \bibitem{Ataya} Atayan M.R. et al., (1992), Zeit. Phys. C {\bf 54}, 247
534: \bibitem{Aguil} Aguilar-Benitez M. et al., (1987), Zeit. Phys. C, {\bf 34}, 419
535: \bibitem{Pauss} Pauss F. et al. (1985), Zeit. Phys. C, {\bf 27}, 211
536: \bibitem{Abdur} Abdurakhimov A.U. et al. (1973), Preprint JINR PI-7268, Dubna, 20p
537: \bibitem{Apsim} Apsimon R.J. et al. (1991), Zeit. Phys. C, {\bf 52}, 397
538: \bibitem{Barne} Barnes A.V. et al. (1978), Nucl. Phys. B, {\bf 145}, 45
539: \bibitem{Tongi} Tongiorgi V. (1948), Phys. Rev., {\bf 73}, 923
540: \bibitem{Greis} Greisen K. (1962), Proc. 5th Interamerican Seminar on Cosmic Rays (~La
541: Paz, Bolivia, Lab. Fisica Cosmica UMSA~), v.2, XLVII-2
542: \bibitem{Linsl} Linsley J. (1984), J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., {\bf 10}, L191
543: \bibitem{Chub1} Chubenko A.P. et al. (1993), 23d ICRC, Calgary, {\bf 3}, 703
544: \bibitem{Aushe} Aushev W.M. et al. (1997), Izv. RAN, ser. fiz., {\bf 61}, 486
545: \bibitem{Anto1} Antonova V.A. et al. (1999), Nucl. Phys. B (~Proc. Suppl.~), {\bf 75A}, 333
546: \bibitem{Anto2} Antonova V. et al. (2002), J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys., {\bf 28}, 251
547: \bibitem{Chub2} Chubenko A.P. et al. (2001), 27th ICRC, Hamburg, {\bf 1}, 197
548: \bibitem{Sten1} Stenkin Yu.V. et al. (1999), 26th ICRC, Salt Lake City, {\bf 1}, 252
549: \bibitem{Sten2} Stenkin Yu.V. et al. (2001), 27th ICRC, Hamburg, {\bf 4}, 1449
550: \bibitem{Gawin} Gawin J. et al. (2001), 27th ICRC, Hamburg, {\bf 1}, 205
551: \bibitem{Baygu} Baygubekov A.S. et al. (2003), 28th ICRC, Tsukuba, {\bf 1}, 61
552: \bibitem{Jedrz} Jedrzeiczak K. et al. (2006), Nucl. Phys. B (~Proc. Suppl.~), {\bf 151}, 329
553: \bibitem{Sten3} Stenkin Yu.V. et al. (2001), 27th ICRC, Hamburg, {\bf 4}, 1453
554: \bibitem{Erly4} Erlykin A.D. (2007), J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. (to be published), hep-ph/0701179
555: \bibitem{Chub3} Chubenko A.P. et al. (2003), 28th ICRC, Tsukuba, {\bf 1}, 69
556: \bibitem{Erly5} Ambrosio M. et al. (1999), Nucl. Phys. B (~Proc. Suppl.~), {\bf 75A}, 336
557: \bibitem{Agafo} Agafonova N. et al. (2005), 29th ICRC, Pune, {\bf 9}, 37
558: \bibitem{Dresc} Drescher H-J., Farrar G.R., (2005), Astropart. Phys., {\bf 24}, 372
559: \bibitem{Feld} Feldman W.C. et al. (1998), Science, {\bf 281}, 1496
560: \bibitem{Mitr1} Mitrofanov I.G. et al. (2002), Science, {\bf 297}, 78
561: \bibitem{Mitr2} Mitrofanov I.G. et al. (2003), Solar System Res., {\bf 37}, 366
562: \end{thebibliography}
563:
564: \end{document}
565:
566: