1. I. Description/Status of survey II. Science projects with SDSS Galaxies and Large Scale Structure Quasars Milky Way Structures SLOAN DIGITAL SKY SURVEY (E885) Stephen Kent (CD/EAG) FNAL Users Meeting June 10, 2002

2. Partner Institutions Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Princeton University University of Chicago Institute for Advanced Study Japanese Promotion Group US Naval Observatory University of Washington Johns Hopkins University Max Planck Institute for Astronomy, Heidelberg Max Planck Institute, Garching New Mexico State University (new) Los Alamos National Laboratory (new) University of Pittsburgh

3. FNAL ROLE IN SDSS ● Participants ● EAG (10 Scientists*, 5 CP, 0.4 staff) ● Other CD (1 CP, 1 FTE) ● TAG (3 scientists) ● PPD (5 eng/tech, 2.5 staff) ● BD (0.5 FTE) ● Students ● 3 Thesis (U of Ch.) ● Responsibilities ● DAQ system, maintenance/upgrade ● Data processing HW, some SW, operations ● Data distribution ● Telescope & Systems engineering (APO) *includes 1 ex-director

4. Sloan Digital Sky Survey Goals: 1. Image ¼ of sky in 5 bands (Scope is now reduced by 1/3) 2. Obtain redshifts of 1 million galaxies and quasars Science: Measure large scale structure of a) galaxies in 0.2% of the visible universe b) quasars in 100% of the visible universe Astrophysics/Particle Physics Connection: Large scale structure today arose in universe from processes occurring above T=10 27 K (E=10 14 Gev).

5. Detectors/Equipment 2.5 m Telescope Mosaic Imaging Camera 640 Fiber Spectrograph “Photometric” telescope

6. 2. Identify Galaxies, Quasars 3. Design Plugplates 4. Obtain Spectra Survey Operations 1. Image Sky

7. Sloan Digital Sky Survey (CD/EAG, PPD/TAG) Current Status (Jun. 2002) Percent Complete 44% as of Apr 15, 2002 29% as of Apr 15, 2002 63% as of Apr 15, 2002 IMAGING SPECTROSCOPY MT (calibrations) Baseline 8452 sq. deg. 1688 tiles 1563 patches Operations began: Apr 1, 2000 Operations end: Jun 30, 2005 Sloan Digital Sky Survey (CD/EAG, PPD/TAG) Current Status (Jun. 2002) Percent Complete 44% as of Apr 15, 2002 29% as of Apr 15, 2002 63% as of Apr 15, 2002 IMAGING SPECTROSCOPY MT (calibrations) Baseline 8452 sq. deg. 1688 tiles 1563 patches Operations began: Apr 1, 2000 Operations end: Jun 30, 2005

8. Research Results ● Publications ● 173 total ● (103 in refereed journals) ● 13 additional based on SDSS data ● 28 Ph. D. Theses ● Topics ● Hi Z Quasars ● Gravitational Lensing ● QSO & Galaxy Corr. Function ● Galaxy Clusters ● Galaxy Struct./Evol. ● Milky Way Halo ● Brown Dwarfs ● Asteroids

9. Early Data Release (Stoughton et al. 2002) 1. 462 Sq. Deg. (5% of total survey) 2. Catalog of 14 million objects (stars, galaxies, quasars,...) 3. 54,000 spectra Data are publicly available in online databases accesed via STScI

10. What is Cosmology? ● Good old days – H 0, q 0 ● Modern Times – H 0 – Ω Total = Ω Λ + Ω Matter + Ω ν – σ 8, n, w, b – Derived parameters: Γ Ω Baryon + Ω CDM SDSS will measure SDSS will try to measure

11. Simulations of SDSS Performance Power spectrum (Γ, σ 8 ) Ω M, w

12. Distribution of Galaxies around Sun to z=0.1 The clustering of galaxies that we see today arose from quantum fluctuations laid down at the end of the inflationary epoch in the early universe.

13. Distribution of Quasars to z = 2

14. Galaxy Luminosity Function (Blanton et al. 2001)

15. Weak Lensing McKay, Sheldon, et al (2001, 2002) Foreground Galaxy Background galaxy (sheared)

16. Shear and mass Density vs. Radius for ensemble of 31,000 galaxies

17. Weak Lensing Calibration of M/L McKay + Blanton ==> Ω(matter) > 0.16

18. Galaxy-Galaxy 2-point Correlation Function (Zehavi et al. 2002) Galaxy Clustering

19. 3 Dimensional Power Spectrum Derived from Angular Correlation Function (Dodelson et al. 2002) Power Spectrum

20. Abell 1689 Galaxy Cluster Cluster members have same “golden” color Galaxy Clusters

21. z = 0.06 z = 0.13 z = 0.20 Likelihood= -7.8 N=0 N=19 N=0 Likelihood= 1.9 Likelihood= -8.4

22. The maxBcg Cluster Catalog ● T he 200 sq-degrees currently analyzed gives a catalog of 4000 clusters ● Photometric redshift for each cluster good to 0.015 ● Mass estimates from total galaxy light ● Plot shows all clusters from a wedge 90 o wide and 3 o high, out to redshifts of 0.7

23. Scaling Mass with N σ (km/s) log σ = 0.70 log N + 1.75 Weak Lensing log M ~ 2.1 log N Number & Mass Functions

24. Parameters of Interest Black line is a fiducial model. Red, orange, green, blue vary the parameter of interest. Dotted lines are a different redshift. Ω m σ 8 f ν n Ω m = 0.27 .07 .1 σ 8 = 1.04 .11 .1 f ν = 0.30 .08  +0.1 -0.2 (Work in Progress !!!)

25. z=6.28 Quasar (r', i', z')

26. Lyman Alpha Trough vs. Redshift Ly Alpha Trough

27. Optical Depth vs. Redshift

28. End of the Dark Ages

29. Debris in the Milky Way Halo (Yanny, Newberg, Ivesic, Grebel,...)

32. Sagittarius North stream Sagittarius South Stream New Structure? Monoceros Structure F stars along Celestial Equator

33. Conclusions ● SDSS is performing successfully ● Producing leading edge science in a wide range of disciplines ● 40% of reduced scope survey now done.

34. Cryogenic Dark Matter Search (CDMS) Progress and Status S. Kent for the CDMS collaboration FNAL Users Meeting June 10, 2002

35. CDMS Collaboration Santa Clara University B.A. Young Stanford University L. Baudis, P.L. Brink, B. Cabrera, C. Chang, T. Saab University of California, Berkeley M.S. Armel, V. Mandic, P. Meunier, W. Rau, B. Sadoulet University of California, Santa Barbara D.A. Bauer, R. Bunker, D.O. Caldwell, C. Maloney, H. Nelson, J. Sander, S. Yellin University of Colorado at Denver M. E. Huber Case Western Reserve University D.S. Akerib, A. Bolozdynya, D. Driscoll, S. Kamat, T.A. Perera, R.W. Schnee, G.Wang Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory M.B. Crisler, R. Dixon, D. Holmgren Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory R.J. McDonald, R.R. Ross, A. Smith National Institute of Standards and Technology J. Martinis Princeton University T. Shutt Brown University R.J. Gaitskell University of Minnesota P. Cushman

36. How it works ½ m wimp v 2 ~ 25 kev Measure phonons and ionizations CDMS I: Stanford Tunnel

37. CDMS Background Discrimination Detectors provide near-perfect event-by- event discrimination against otherwise dominant bulk electron-recoil backgrounds, very good (>95%) against surface electron-recoil backgrounds Measure simultaneously the phonons and the ionization created by the interactions. High sensitivity Discrimination Ionization Yield (ionization energy per unit recoil energy) depends strongly on type of recoil Most background sources (photons, electrons, alphas) produce electron recoils Electron recoils near detector surface result in reduced ionization yield WIMPs (and neutrons) produce nuclear recoils 616 Neutrons (external source) 1334 Photons (external source) 233 Electrons (tagged contamination)

38. CDMS I Enlargement of Sample –Inner-Electrode –12.4 kg-days for WIMPs (≠ 10.7 better efficiencies) u13 nuclear-recoil candidates > 10 keV u4 multiples: They are not WIMPs but neutrons NR Band (-3 ,+1.28  ) 90% efficient all single-scatters nuclear recoil candidates –Shared-Electrode –4.6 kg-days for WIMPs –10 nuclear-recoil candidates > 10 keV NR Band (-3 ,+1.28  ) 90% eff.

39. Results (to be send soon to PRD) ● Tests of various assumptions – Our story is stable ● Small statistics fluctuations – Still strong disagreement – with DAMA – Still best at low mass – We temporarily – lost the “lead” – at high mass – <= CDMSII focus ● Enlarged sample – Close to expected sensitivity – (we have that we were lucky – with the first sample – because of anomalously – high number of multiples)

40. CDMS I->II ● Go deep underground (Soudan Mine) ● Athermal phonon technology – Even better rejection of background ● Increase the mass -> 7kg ● Approved in January 2000

41. CDMS II and other efforts

42. Soudan Installation ● Takes much longer than we would like – Historically two obstacles: Institutional – Fridge commissioning problems ● 1) Institutional – How to build enclosures in a university laboratory, without direct participation from within? – Bureaucratic nightmare ( Building code, DOE) – Difficulties subcontracting through University of Minnesota – Some interference with MINOS construction – Needed enclosures are essentially finished but nearly one year after our initial hope. However, our major accomplishment was learning to work around these difficulties. They did not have much impact on our schedule. ●

43. New Scenario 2-4-7 UCB/Case T2 T1-4 Full Science Running T1-7 T1-2 Soudan 4 Twrs 60% Begin Science T1 SUF Begin Soudan 2 Twrs 30% T3-4 T5-7 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 T3 T5 T1

44. Conclusions ● CDMS I remains the most sensitive WIMP search at low mass ● CDMS II well under way – Soudan tower 1 exceeds specifications. – Our measured background level* rejection shows that we should reach the sensitivity we claim. – Impressive validation of our ZIP concept and our fabrication/testing techniques – We are systematically addressing detector yield issues – All other systems are in line – Enclosures at Soudan are ready and we will move electronics in the Spring – We are aggressively addressing our “slow” temperature physics problem ● First dark this summer! – The sensitivity gains in the first month should be spectacular – We should decisively enter the Supersymmetry domain

45. The Pierre Auger Project Stephen Kent, for the Auger Collaboration A Study of The Highest Energy Cosmic Rays 10 19 - 10 21 eV Energy Spectrum - Direction - Composition Two Large Air Shower Detectors Mendoza Province, Argentina (under construction) Utah, USA FNAL Users Meeting June 10, 2002

46. Cosmic Ray Spectrum Energy (eV) Flux (m 2 sr s eV) -1

47. Possible Sources Conventional – Bottoms-Up Hot spots in radio galaxy lobes? Accretion shocks in active galactic nuclei? Colliding galaxies? Associated with gamma ray bursts? Exotic – Top-Down Annihilation of topological defects? Wimpzillas – heavy dark matter Evaporation of mini black holes? New astrophysics? New physics? The highest energy cosmic rays should point back to possible sources (D < 50 Mpc) Supernova ~10 15 eV

48. A look at Air Showers Shower Max Depth in the Atmosphere N Sea level 10 11 Particles at surface Shower front Shower core hard muons EM shower

49. Pierre Auger Observatory Combines strengths of Surface Detector Array and Fluorescence Detectors Hybrid detector: Independent measurement techniques allow cross calibration and control of systematics More reliable energy and angle measurement Primary mass measured in complementary ways Uniform sky coverage

50. Auger Southern Site

51. Auger Surface Array 1600 Detector Stations 1.5 Km spacing 7000 km 2 str ~40 events/yr > 10 20 eV

52. The Auger Surface Detector Three 8” PM Tubes Plastic tank White light diffusing liner 12 m 2 of de-ionized water Solar panel and electronic box Comm antenna GPS antenna Battery box

53. Auger Fluorescence Detector 33 telescope units 3.4 meter dia. Mirrors 440 PMTs per camera

54. Construction Plan Years 2000 & 2001 (Engineering Array) Install ~40 surface detector station array. Install two fluorescence telescopes. Install communications and data acquisition. Complete Auger Campus. Year 2002 - 2004 Full production and deployment Transition to data taking

55. Auger Center Building

56. Event Display of a hybrid event Surface Array

57. Summary We have some exciting science. Strong collaboration organized. We have completed the Engineering Array. We have passed our major review. Construction of the full Auger southern site is underway. Deployment well underway by end of 2002