Investigations of CME in muon flux detected in hodoscopic mode

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Cosmic Ray Using for Monitoring and Forecasting Dangerous Solar Flare Events Lev I. Dorman (1, 2) 1. Israel Cosmic Ray & Space Weather Center and Emilio.

Advertisements

Solar and Interplanetary Sources of Geomagnetic disturbances Yu.I. Yermolaev, N. S. Nikolaeva, I. G. Lodkina, and M. Yu. Yermolaev Space Research Institute.

By: Estarlyn Hiraldo and Uri-Jaun Hall Contributors: Noe Lugaz, Devin Thomas Introduction Using images from stereo spacecrafts, we predicted arrival.

ESS 7 Lecture 14 October 31, 2008 Magnetic Storms

Identifying Interplanetary Shock Parameters in Heliospheric MHD Simulation Results S. A. Ledvina 1, D. Odstrcil 2 and J. G. Luhmann 1 1.Space Sciences.

RT Modelling of CMEs Using WSA- ENLIL Cone Model

Cosmic Ray Muon Detection Department of Physics and Space Sciences Florida Institute of Technology Georgia Karagiorgi Julie Slanker Advisor: Dr. M. Hohlmann.

What stellar properties can be learnt from planetary transits Adriana Válio Roque da Silva CRAAM/Mackenzie.

Radiation conditions during the GAMMA-400 observations:

CR variation during the extreme events in November 2004 Belov (a), E. Eroshenko(a), G. Mariatos ©, H. Mavromichalaki ©, V.Yanke (a) (a) IZMIRAN), ,

Magnetic Storm Generation by Various Types of Solar Wind: Event Catalog, Modeling and Prediction N. S. Nikolaeva, Yu.I. Yermolaev, and I. G. Lodkina Space.

Study of Local Heliospheric Current Sheet Variations from Multi-Spacecraft Observations D. Arrazola · J.J. Blanco · J. Rodríguez-Pacheco · M.A. Hidalgo.

A new approach to EAS investigations in energy region eV R.P.Kokoulin for DECOR Collaboration Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Russia.

A.V. Belov 1, E. A. Eroshenko 1, H. Mavromichalaki 2, V.A. Oleneva 1, A. Papaioannou 2, G. Mariatos 2, V. G. Yanke 1 (1) Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism,

Events 1. Figure 4 shows: Left panel – Negative values of the electric field and data of high energy neutrons (upper panel), thermal neutrons (lower.

Ground level enhancement of the solar cosmic rays on January 20, A.V. Belov (a), E.A. Eroshenko (a), H. Mavromichalaki (b), C. Plainaki(b), V.G.

IMF Prediction with Cosmic Rays THE BASIC IDEA: Find signatures in the cosmic ray flux that are predictive of the future behavior of the interplanetary.

TO THE POSSIBILITY OF STUDY OF THE EXTERNAL SOLAR WIND THIN STRUCTURE IN DECAMETER RADIO WAVES Marina Olyak Institute of Radio Astronomy, 4 Chervonopraporna,

The ANTARES neutrino telescope is located on the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea, 40 km off the French coast. The detector is installed at a depth of 2.5.

27-Day Variations Of The Galactic Cosmic Ray Intensity And Anisotropy In Different Solar Magnetic Cycles ( ) M.V. Alania, A. Gil, K. Iskra, R.

Melissa, Connie, Melissa, Jieyi, Ambereen, Dorothy King Edward VI High school for Girls.

Forecast of Geomagnetic Storm based on CME and IP condition R.-S. Kim 1, K.-S. Cho 2, Y.-J. Moon 3, Yu Yi 1, K.-H. Kim 3 1 Chungnam National University.

Cosmic rays at sea level. There is in nearby interstellar space a flux of particles—mostly protons and atomic nuclei— travelling at almost the speed of.

SolarFlows Dr. Gabriele Pierantoni (TCD). Contents What is Heliophysics ? How could workflows help ? Some examples What we are doing...

Cosmic Ray Workshop May 15, Cosmic Ray Detector Kit.

The Space Weather Week Monique Pick LESIA, Observatoire de Paris November 2006.

ENERGY ESTIMATION OF THE INTERPLANETARY PLASMA DURING STRONGEST GEOMAGNETIC STORMS OF THE CURRENT 24 SOLAR CYCLE ON MARCH 2015 The geomagnetic storms.

O N THE INFLUENCE OF THE CORONAL HOLE LATITUDE AND POLARITY ON THE GEOMAGNETIC ACTIVITY AND COSMIC RAY VARIATIONS Abunina Maria, IZMIRAN, Russia Abunin.

What we can learn from the intensity-time profiles of large gradual solar energetic particle events (LGSEPEs) ？ Guiming Le(1, 2,3), Yuhua Tang(3), Liang.

Yu.G. Shafer Institute of Cosmophysical Research and Aeronomy of SB RAS Transparency of a magnetic cloud boundary for cosmic rays I.S. Petukhov, S.I. Petukhov.

Global Structure of the Inner Solar Wind and it's Dynamic in the Solar Activity Cycle from IPS Observations with Multi-Beam Radio Telescope BSA LPI Chashei.

Study of VHE Cosmic Ray Spectrum by means of Muon Density Measurements at Ground Level I.I. Yashin Moscow Engineering Physics Institute,

What is a geomagnetic storm? A very efficient exchange of energy from the solar wind into the space environment surrounding Earth; These storms result.

Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, University of California, San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive #0424, La Jolla, CA , U.S.A

NEVOD-DECOR experiment: results and future A.A.Petrukhin for Russian-Italian Collaboration Contents MSU, May 16, New method of EAS investigations.

Extreme Event Symposium 2004 MAGNETOSPHERIC EFFECT in COSMIC RAYS DURING UNIQUE MAGNETIC STORM IN NOVEMBER Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism,

GLOBAL SURVEY METHOD: WHAT DO NEUTRON MONITORS SEE? Belov A.1, Eroshenko E.1, Abunin A. 1, Abunina M. 1, Yanke V. 1, Oleneva V.1, Mavromichalaki H.2, Papaioannou.

The CME geomagnetic forecast tool (CGFT) M. Dumbović 1, A. Devos 2, L. Rodriguez 2, B. Vršnak 1, E. Kraaikamp 2, B. Bourgoignie 2, J. Čalogović 1 1 Hvar.

IMF Prediction with Cosmic Rays THE BASIC IDEA: Find signatures in the cosmic ray flux that are predictive of the future behavior of the interplanetary.

1 Pruning of Ensemble CME modeling using Interplanetary Scintillation and Heliospheric Imager Observations A. Taktakishvili, M. L. Mays, L. Rastaetter,

The coordinate-tracking setup based on the drift chambers for ultrahigh-energy cosmic ray investigations E.A.Zadeba, N.V. Ampilogov, N.S. Barbashina, A.A.

The COMESEP Space Weather Alert System Luciano Rodriguez on behalf of the COMESEP Consortium (European Commission FP7 Project )

Detecting, forecasting and modeling of the 2002/04/17 halo CME Heliophysics Summer School 1.

NOAA L1 Status and Studies

An Introduction to Observing Coronal Mass Ejections

On behalf of the ARGO-YBJ collaboration

Solar gamma-ray and neutron registration capabilities of the GRIS instrument onboard the International Space Station Yu. A. Trofimov, Yu. D. Kotov, V.

GROUND-LEVEL EVENT (GLE)

ESA SSA Measurement Requirements for SWE Forecasts

ICME in the Solar Wind from STEL IPS Observations

Institute of High Energy Physics, CAS

A.S. Lidvansky, M.N. Khaerdinov, N.S. Khaerdinov

Characterizing Interplanetary Shocks at 1 AU

Insight of 3D imaging using SiRO

32nd International Cosmic Ray Conference, 2011

35th ICRC, Busan, Korea, July 2017

Solar Flare Energy Partition into Energetic Particle Acceleration

Kinetic Theory.

Corona Mass Ejection (CME) Solar Energetic Particle Events

Forecasting the arrival time of the CME’s shock at the Earth

Anisotropy of Primary Cosmic Rays

Rick Leske, A. C. Cummings, R. A. Mewaldt, and E. C. Stone

Quantification of solar wind parameters from measurments by SOHO and DSCOVR spacecrafts during series of Interplanetary Coronal Mass Ejections in the.

. Multipoint, galactic cosmic ray observations associated with a series of interplanetary coronal mass ejections: the case study of June 2015 A. Papaioannou1,

Forbush and GCRDs First rigorous experimental observation of Cosmic Ray Flux Decrease was obtained by S. E. Forbush in , after deep statisitcal.

Xi Luo1, Ming Zhang1, Hamid K. Rassoul1, and N.V. Pogorelov2

P. Stauning: The Polar Cap (PC) Index for Space Weather Forecasts

National Research Nuclear University MEPhI

7-th European Space Debris Conference 2017

Altai State University, RUSSIA

Presentation transcript:

Investigations of CME in muon flux detected in hodoscopic mode The International Conference on Particle Physics and Astrophysics ICPPA - 2016 MEPhI, Hotel Milan, 11 October 2016 Investigations of CME in muon flux detected in hodoscopic mode I.I. Astapov1, N.S. Barbashina1, V.V. Borog1, I.S. Veselovsky1,2,3, N.V. Osetrova1, A.A. Petrukhin1, V.V. Shutenko1 1 MEPhI; 2 SINP MSU; 3 IKI RAS http://ununevod.mephi.ru/ http://nevod.mephi.ru/ http://vk.com/nevod.mephi https://www.facebook.com/nevod.mephi Moscow, 2016

Muon hodoscope URAGAN URAGAN (55.7°N, 37.7°E, 173 m above sea level) is the coordinate detector that allows to investigate the variations of the muon flux angular distribution on the Earth’s surface. URAGAN consists of four independent supermodules (SM), total area ~46 m2. Each SM is assembled of 8 layers of gas-discharge chambers (streamer tubes) equipped with two-coordinate system of external readout strips which provides a high spatial and angular accuracy of muon track detection (correspondingly, 1 cm and 1°) in a wide range of zenith (0°-80°) and azimuthal (0°-360°) angles in the real time mode. Every minute, angular distribution of muons is recorded in a two-dimensional angular matrix, which represents a muonography of the upper hemisphere with one-minute exposure.

Experimental data To study the URAGAN integral counting rate, 10-min data summed over all modules and corrected for the barometric and temperature effects are used. Local anisotropy vector For the study of two-dimensional variations of muon flux registered by the URAGAN, a local anisotropy vector A is used. Local anisotropy vector indicates the average arrival direction of muons which is close to the vertical. To study its deviations from the mean value the relative anisotropy vector r and its horizontal projection rh are used:

Automatically generated by CACTus using LASCO C2/C3 observations. Coronal mass ejection CACTus CME list Automatically generated by CACTus using LASCO C2/C3 observations. Parameters: # t0: onset time, earliest indication of liftoff # dt0: duration of liftoff (hours) # pa: principal angle, counterclockwise from North (degrees) # da: angular width (degrees), # v: median velocity (km/s) # dv: variation (1 sigma) of velocity over the width of the CME # minv: lowest velocity detected within the CME # maxv: highest velocity detected within the CME # halo?: II if da>90, III if da>180, IV if da>270, indicating potential halo/partial halo CME During the peak of the solar cycle 2012-2015 – more then 100 CMEs/month During the minimum of the solar cycle 2008-2009 – about 10 – 30 CMEs/month http://sidc.oma.be/cactus/catalog.php

CMEs selection VCME > 500 km/s From 2008 to 2015 was 2237 CMEs with the velocity more than 500 km/s Dt0_CME - the difference between the start one of CME and the next CME If Dt0_CME < 24 hour, then the events are combined into a group

Summary data for calculating the speed and the start group time By number of CME in group to the event are divided into: Single CME Weak group (2 – 4 CME) Average group(5-10 CME) Powerful group (> 10 CME)

Example response

Results Powerful group Average group Weak group Single CMEs

The density distribution in interplanetary space iNTEGRATED SPACE WEATHER ANALYSIS SYSTEM (iSWA) http://iswa.ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/ The density distribution in interplanetary space The velocity distribution in interplanetary space

Is this CME geoeffective? OMNI data: The time Δt during which the CME passes a distance of 2 a.u. was estimated for each event. Then, according to the OMNI data the average values of the magnetic field B, solar wind velocity V and Kp-index in the time interval t0+Δt (t0 – time of the CME beginning according to the CACTus (COR2 STEREO-A data) were calculated. The obtained values of <B> and <Vsw> considering their spread do not exceed the average values calculated for the period of observations of the interplanetary magnetic field and solar wind from 2005 to 2015. Kp – index did not exceed 4 for all events.

«Geoeffective» CME CACTus: LASCO: STEREO-B: 2014/09/10 18:48 V ~ 1100 км/s 2 а.u. ~ 3 days iSWA:

2014/09/10 OMNI data: URAGAN: AFD ~ 1.5 %:

«Non-geoeffective» CME CACTus: LASCO: STEREO 2015/03/10 3:36 V ~ 760 km/s 2 a.u. ~ 4,5 days iSWA:

2015/03/10 OMNI data: URAGAN:

No CME beginning t0 <VCME>, km/s Time of passage 2a.u., days <B>, nT sB, nT <Vsw>, km/s ssw, Kp GEO? Response rh URG FD,% 1 01.01.2014 18:24 1135 3.1 6.26 2.24 561 31 4 GEO + 1.2 2 12.02.2014 5:48 287 12.1 7.19 3.10 378 38 1.5 3 18.02.2014 2:24 315 11.0 7.93 3.21 480 66 25.02.2014 1:25 504 6.9 3.99 1.61 376 34 NON-GEO 5 02.04.2014 13:55 1840 1.9 5.05 0.51 388 14 6 18.04.2014 19:09 885 3.9 7.53 2.03 505 80 7 10.06.2014 13:09 1531 2.3 4.82 1.42 508 58 8 09.07.2014 18:36 503 5.51 1.73 365 16 9 15.08.2014 21:12 498 7.0 4.83 1.70 302 19 10 02.09.2014 17:00 419 8.3 5.10 1.02 389 25 11 10.09.2014 18:00 637 5.5 12.12 8.18 492 116 12 01.11.2014 5:12 675 5.1 4.23 1.01 462 35 13 19.12.2014 0:27 726 4.8 7.64 2.45 358 23 2.1 12.01.2015 15:36 1126 6.30 0.37 420 17 15 10.02.2015 3:03 512 6.8 5.77 355 24 10.03.2015 10:00 879 4.0 6.31 0.79 406 24.03.2015 10:40 722 1.15 510 49 18 04.04.2015 23:48 946 3.7 7.45 5.40 62 10.04.2015 7:00 502 8.21 5.57 360 26 20 19.04.2015 17:48 422 8.2 5.54 1.81 481 69 21 25.04.2015 15:12 520 6.7 4.45 1.46 313 22 21.06.2015 2:48 1213 2.9 9.99 8.14 383 111 2.7 25.06.2015 8:36 644 5.4 5.7 2.05 554 83 19.07.2015 19:09 591 5.8 6.40 2.53 326 39 1.1 22.08.2015 23:12 459 7.5 6.81 2.93 429 61 1.3 04.11.2015 14:24 466 7.4 9.90 4.68 536 57 A total of 26 coronal mass ejections was considered that occurred in 2014 and 2015, were identified as non-geoeffective 14 of them. Of the 14 non-geoeffective CMEs in 6 cases was showed in response to the anisotropy of the muon flux according URAGAN data, while changes in the counting rates was not observed during such events. During geoeffective CMEs usually observed Forbush decrease. In this case, 9 events from 12 events observed changes in the values of the local anisotropy muon flux.

Conclusion Registration of muons in the hodoscopic mode enables to investigate with a single setup not only the intensity of the cosmic ray flux, but also its local anisotropy sensitive to the changes in the heliosphere. Non-geoeffective ejections have a small effect on the response muon hodoscope. The presented approach to the study of coronal emission mass will be the basis of the method identification of geoeffective events. This work was performed at the Unique Scientific Facility “Experimental complex NEVOD” in Moscow Engineering Physics Institute

Thank you for you attention