Roma Meeting: June 2007

1

Roma Meeting: June 2007

Recent results from the Pierre Auger Observatory

(and comparisons with AGASA and HiRes)

Alan Watson

University of Leeds

a.a.watson@leeds.ac.uk

2

Czech Republic

France

Germany

Italy

Netherlands

Poland

Portugal

Slovenia

Spain

United Kingdom

Argentina

Australia

Brasil

Bolivia*

Mexico

USA

Vietnam*

*Associate Countries

~300 PhD scientists from

~70 Institutions and 17 countries

The Pierre Auger Collaboration

Aim: To measure properties of UHECR with unprecedentedstatistics and precision – necessary even if no disagreement

3

Array of water-Cherenkov or scintillation detectors

Fluorescence in UV →

11

Shower Detection Methods

OR

300 – 400 nm

Nitrogen fluorescence

The Design of the Pierre Auger Observatory marries these two well-established techniques

AND

~1°

Due to Enrique Zas

4

Present situation Present situation (April 13, 2007)(April 13, 2007)

1410 (1357 filled) SDstations deployed with 1304 taking data (300507) OVER 80%All 4 fluorescence buildings complete,each with 6 telescopes

AIM: 1600 tanks

30 May 2007

5

GPS Receiverand radio transmission

6

UV optical filter(also: provide protectionfrom outside dust)

Camera with 440 PMTs (Photonis XP 3062)

Schmidt Telescope using 11 m2 mirrors

7

θ~ 48º, ~ 70 EeV

Flash ADC tracesFlash ADC traces

Lateral density distribution

Typical flash ADC trace

at about 2 km

Detector signal (VEM) vs time (µs)

PMT 1

PMT 2

PMT 3

-0.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 µs

18 detectors triggered

8

Lateral density distribution

θ~ 60º, ~ 86 EeV

Flash ADC traces

Flash ADC Trace for detector late in the shower

PMT 1

PMT 2

PMT 3

-0.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 µs

35 detectors triggered

Much sharper signalsthan in more vertical events leads toν- signature

9

79 degrees

10

Laser Facilities Laser Facilities (April 13, 2007)(April 13, 2007)30 May 2007

There are also2 laser facilities,CLF and XLF

Steerable YAG lasersto mimic 100 EeV

CLF

XLF

11

The Central Laser Facility of the Pierre Auger Observatory

355 nm, frequency tripled, YAG laser, giving < 7 mJ per pulse: GZK energy

12

Atmospheric Monitoring

Balloon probes (T,p)-profiles

LIDAR at each FD building

light attenuation lengthAerosol concentration (Mie scattering)

steerable LIDAR facilities located at each FD eye

• LIDAR at each eye

• cloud monitors at each eye

• central laser facility

• regular balloon flights

13

Pixel geometryshower-detector plane

Signal and timingDirection & energy

FD reconstruction

14

ti

Geometrical Reconstruction

15

Angular and Spatial Resolution from Central Laser Facility

Laser position – Hybrid and FD only (m)Angle in laser beam /FD detector plane

Mono/hybrid rms 1.0°/0.18° Mono/hybrid rms 570 m/60 m

16

ARRIVAL DIRECTION DISTRIBUTION FROM AUGER

• No significant emission from Galactic Centre

• No broadband signals – e.g. Dipole – at any energy above 1 EeV e.g 1 < E < 3 EeV, Amplitude < 0.7%

• No clustering of the type claimed by AGASA

• No signal from BL Lacs as possibly seen by HiRes

Summary:Previous Claims have not been confirmed

BUT, two ‘prescriptions’ are currently being tested – but I cannot tell you what they are

17

Energy Determination with Auger

The detector signal at 1000 m from the shower

core

– S(1000)

- determined for each surface detector event

S(1000) is proportional to the primary energy

The energy scale is determined from the data and does not depend on a knowledge of interaction models or of the primary composition – except at level of few %.

Zenith angle ~ 48º

Energy ~ 70 EeV

18

A Hybrid Event

19

S38 vs. E(FD)

387 hybrid events

Absolute value of FDcalibration uncertain ~ 14%

Nagano et al, FY used

20

10 EeV S(1000)

Precision of S(1000) improvesas energy increases

21

22

(Outdated) Summary of FD systematic uncertainties

%

Note: Activity on several fronts to reduce these uncertainties

(to be updated)

~ 14%

23

Summary of systematic uncertainties

Note: Activity on several fronts to reduce these uncertainties

New version from Bruce Dawson’s Merida talk

24

25

5165 km2 sr yr ~ 0.8 full Auger year

Exp Obs>1019.6 132 +/- 9 58

> 1020 30+/- 2.5 2

Spectrum from Surface Detectors

26

Ankle? Comparisons of residualsagainst an arbitrary spectrum

27

Spectrum from very inclined events

28

Calibration curve for Inclined showers

29

Energy Spectrum from 60 °< < 80°: 734 events

1510 km2 sr yr

30

Blue: < 60°Black: inclined

31

ti

A ‘hybrid’ spectrum

32

Triggering probability for Hybrid Events

33

Lunar Cycles

34

Hybrid Spectrum: clear evidence of the ‘ankle’ at ~ 4 x 1018 eV

-3.1 +/- 0.2

35

36

Energy Estimates aremodel and mass dependent

Takeda et al. ApP 2003

Surface Detectors

Recent reanalysis has reduced number > 1020 eVto 6 events

37

Teshima: Roma 2006

38HiRes Group: astro-ph/0703099

- 5.1 +/- 0.7

39

17.0 17.5 18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.51E-38

1E-37

1E-36

1E-35

1E-34

1E-33

1E-32

1E-31

1E-30

1E-29

1E-28

1E-27

J (

m2 s

r s e

V)-1

log E (eV)

Auger Combined HiResI HiResII

40

18.0 18.5 19.0 19.5 20.0 20.5

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5(J

/Js )

- 1

log E (eV)

Auger HiRes I HiRes II

x3

x2

x1

Plot of residuals of individual spectra compared to standard, Js = A E-2.6

41

Immensely important IF it was to be establishedthat slopes at highest energy are different in northern (- 5.1+/- 0.7) and southern hemispheres (- 4.1 +/- 0.4)

But, MUCH TOO EARLY TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS

• Uncertainties about HiRes aperture

• Poorer energy and angular resolution in HiRes than Auger

• Low number of events – and no more to come to from HiRes

• Issue will be addressed with more Auger data

42

The HiRes aperture is noteasy to compute and requiresassumptions about the spectral indexand the mass composition in regionswhere it has not been measured.

astro-ph/0703099

Physics Letters B 2005

43

Exposure

AGASA ~1700

HiResI “3-4 times AGASA”

Auger

6675

1019 0.49 0.29 0.22

827 564 1473

> 4 x 1019 0.04 0.015 0.10

65 49 66

> 7x 1019 0.014 3.6 x 10-3 2 x 10-3

24 13 13

> 1020 6 x 10-3 1.0 x 10-3 3 x 10-4

11 4 2

Integral Rates: km-2 yr-1 sr-1

44

Variation of Depth of Maximum with Energy

Inferring the Primary Mass: Crucial for Interpretation

******

******

******

******

Xmax

log E

p

Fe

Key is energy per nucleon

protonsnucleineutrinosphotons

all are expected at some level- at different energies

45

46Fluctuations in Xmax yet to be explored and exploited

Elongation Rate measured over 2 decades in energy

47

and few photons at high energy

AnkleFluctuations in Xmax to be exploited

48

49Jump to 66

50Berezinsky et al Phys Rev D 74 (2006)

Steepening affected by over- and under-densities

Comparison of data with models of origin and propagation

Berezinsky et al. argue that the dip is caused by γ + p p + e+ + e-

51

52

Knee

>1019 eV1 km-2 sr-1 year-1

air-showers

after Gaisser

Hadronic Physics

Ankle

53

Models describe Tevatron data well - but LHC model predictions reveal large discrepancies in extrapolation.

Could there be surprises in the hadronic physics?

James L. Pinfold IVECHRI 2006 13

ET (LHC)

E(LHC)

54 Prospects from LHCf

55

LHC measurement of TOT expected to be at the

1% level

– useful in the extrapolation up to UHECR energies

The p-p total cross-section

10% difference in measurements ofTevatron Expts:

James L. Pinfold IVECHRI 2006 14

(log s)

56

Summary:• Spectrum: ankle and steepening seen in model-

independent measurement and analysis

• But what does this all mean? Is the ankle marking a galactic/extra-galactic change?

Have we seen the GZK effect?Or is it a ‘bump’ from a more local effect?Are the accelerators just ‘tired’?

Can we deduce much from propagation models?

• Measuring MASS is crucial: mixed at highest energy?

• Need a point source (or some evidence of anisotropy) – and/or more insight about hadronic interactions