1. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 1 Katsushi Arisaka Revisiting Science Case for Auger-North University of California, Los Angeles Department of Physics and Astronomy arisaka@physics.ucla.edu

2. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 2 Outline  What have we learned from Auger-South?  Energy Spectrum Absolute Energy Scale and Flux GZK Cutoff Structure  Composition Hadronic Mass Composition Photon Flux Limit  Anisotropy Small Scale Auto-Correlation Correlation with Astronomical Objects – BL Lac, TeV Blazar, Neutron Star, GRB…  What to do on Auger-North?  Science Case  Detector Optimization

3. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 3 UCLA Auger Group over Summer 2005 Physicists  Katsushi ArisakaProfessor  William Slater Professor  Arun TripathiResearch ScientistEnergy Spectrum  Graciela GelminiProfessor (Theory)Gamma Limit  Alex KusenkoProfessor (Theory)  Oleg KalashevResearch Scientist (Theory)Energy Spectrum Grad Students  Tohru OhnukiPhD (on July 27)Clustering  David BarnhillPhD (on October 13)Photon Limit  Joong Lee5 th year grad.Energy Spectrum  Pedram Boghrat5 th year grad.Clustering, BL Lac  Matt Healy 4 th year grad.Gamma/Composition  Antoine Calvez 1 st year grad. Clustering, BL Lac Undergrad Students  Eitan AnzenberUndergrad. (UCSC)GRB w/ Swift data  Adrian ChengUndergrad.Thread-like clustering  Justin YoungUndergrad. Clustering  Ryan ReeceUndergrad. (REU)Fluorescence Yield  Adam LopezUndergrad. (CARE)QE  Alfonso VergaraUndergrad. QE  Daniel Maronde Undergrad. Collection Efficiency

4. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 4 Energy Spectrum  Energy Determination  GZK Cutoff Structure Arun Tripathi et al, GAP2005-061

5. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 5 Strategy of UCLA Analysis  Coverage of the Entire Phase Space by MC Typically ~20 events per each condition  De-convolution of Physical Processes ParameterValues No. Values Shower Simulator AIRES, CORSIKA 2 Hadronization ModelQGSJET,, QGSJET II, SIBYLL3 Low Energy HadronizationFLUKA, GEISHA (in CORSIKA)2 Detector SimulationG4FAST, G4LUT, Full G4, SDSIM4 Primary Particle KindProton, Iron, Photon3 Energy ( E ) 1, 3.1, 10, 31, 100 EeV5 Zenith (  ) 0, 25, 36, 45, 53, 60, 66, 72, 84 o 9 ReconstructionCDAS, OG (DPA), UCLA3 BetaFixed, Float2

6. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 6 S(1000) vs. Sec(  ) 60 o 45 o 30 o 38 o 47.0VEM 35.4VEM SD based CIC Iron Proton

7. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 7 Model Dependence of S(1000) of Proton 60 o 45 o 30 o 38 o

8. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 8 Model Dependence of S(1000) of Proton 45 o 30 o 38 o Sys. Error < 10% 60 o Sibyll (Aires) QGSII+Geisha (Corsika) QGS+Fluka (Corsika) QGS (Aires) QGS+Geisha (Corsika)

9. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 9 Summary of S(1000) at 38 o and 10 EeV FD (Event by Event) FD (Mixed Shower) FD Average Proton, QGSJET, OG Proton, QGSJET,UCLA Proton, SIBYLL, OG Proton, SIBYLL, UCLA Iron, QGSJET, OG Iron, QGSJET,UCLA Iron, SIBYLL, OG Iron, SIBYLL, UCLA SD Average 47.0 35.4

10. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 10 Systematic Uncertainty (at 100 EeV) SD+CIC+MC FD+CIC

11. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 11 Summary of Absolute Energy  FD energy and SD energy differ by ~30%.  No simple to change the SD energy to match the FD.  SD energy could be ~ 10% too high, if iron dominant.  FD based method is currently limited by  Poor statistics: Systematic errors at 100 EeV is > 40%.  Non trivial calibrations. Absolute photon yield Atmospheric correction Detector calibration.  FD energy still seems ~20% too low.

12. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 12 Data Set for Energy Spectrum  Data Period:  Jan 2004 – Sep 2005  UCLA Aperture Estimate:  2297 km 2 yr sr AGASA: 1619 km 2 yr sr HiRes: ~5000 km 2 yr sr  Obtained from a simple but robust method developed at UCLA.  Agrees with a much more detailed calculation.

13. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 13 Energy Spectrum  E FD+CIC SD+CIC+MC 90% CL Already limited by systematics

14. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 14 Energy Spectrum  E 3 FD+CIC

15. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 15 Energy Spectrum  E 3 SD+CIC+MC

16. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 16 Energy Spectrum  E 3 SD+CIC+MC

17. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 17 Energy Spectrum  E 3 FD+CIC

18. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 18 Theoretical Prediction (  dependence) FD+CIC

19. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 19 Theoretical Prediction (E max dependence) FD+CIC

20. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 20 Theoretical Prediction (m dependence) FD+CIC Flux ~(1+z) 3+m

21. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 21 Theoretical Prediction (z min dependence) FD+CIC

22. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 22 Theoretical Prediction (  dependence) SD+CIC+MC

23. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 23 Theoretical Prediction (E max dependence) SD+CIC+MC

24. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 24 Theoretical Prediction (m dependence) SD+CIC+MC Flux ~(1+z) 3+m

25. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 25 Zenith Dependence of Energy Spectrum SD+CIC+MC 45 – 60 o 0 – 30 o 30 – 45 o Iron Proton ?

26. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 26 North-South Effect SD+CIC+MC South North

27. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 27 Summary of Energy Spectrum  Energy spectrum, based on SD+MC+CIC, is consistent with the theoretical prediction of the GZK cutoff.  Injection spectrum of 1/E 2.6.  Evolution factor not required.  A hint of extra post-GZK events?  However, Energy spectrum, based on FD+CIC, is not fully consistent with the GZK cutoff.  Cutoff energy seems too low.  Too flat above cutoff energy.  We could use the predicted GZK shape for the absolute energy calibration.  It supports SD+MC+CIC, and disfavors FD+CIC method.

28. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 28 Composition  Hadronic Mass Composition  Gamma Flux Limit David Barnhill, GAP2005-082 (PhD Thesis)

29. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 29 S(1000) vs. Sec(  ) 60 o 45 o 30 o 38 o SD based CIC Iron Proton Photon

30. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 30 S(1000) MC/CIC vs. sec(  ) at 10 EeV 60 o 45 o 30 o 38 o Minimum Sys. Error Sensitive to Xmax Sensitive to Muon Richness Iron (QGS) Iron (Sibyll) Proton (Sibyll) Proton (QGS)

31. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 31 S(600) MC/CIC vs. sec(  ) at 10 EeV 60 o 45 o 30 o 38 o Minimum Sys. Error Sensitive to Xmax Sensitive to Muon Richness Iron (QGS) Iron (Sibyll) Proton (Sibyll) Proton (QGS)

32. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 32 S(r) MC /S(r) FD+CIC vs. r (Zenith = 36 o ) Minimum Sys. Error Iron (QGS) Iron (Sibyll) Proton (Sibyll) Proton (QGS) Sensitive to Muon Richness

33. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 33 Muon Richness vs. Xmax Iron/QGSJET Iron/SIBYLL Proton/QGSJET Proton/SIBYLL Gamma/QGSJET Gamma/SIBYLL CIC

34. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 34 Rise Time vs. Sec(  ) Photon Proton Iron Real Data

35. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 35 Curvature vs. Sec(  ) Photon Proton Iron Real Data

36. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 36  2 vs. Energy (Rise Time)

37. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 37  2 vs. Energy (Curvature)

38. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 38  2 vs. Energy (Rise Time + Curvature)

39. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 39 Photon Detection Efficiency Limited analysis to E > 20EeV 30 o < Zenith < 60 o 10EeV 20EeV 30EeV

40. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 40  of Rise Curvature vs.  of Time (Under Photon Assumption) Gamma MC Proton MC (Gamma MC)

41. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 41  of Rise Curvature vs.  of Time (Under Photon Assumption 50 < E< 79 EeV Gamma MC Real Data

42. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 42 Flux  E with Photon Limit SD FD Photon 90% CL Limit FD+CIC SD+CIC+MC

43. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 43 Flux  E 3 with Photon Limit Auger: Energy based on FD+CIC SD FD Photon 90% CL Limit

44. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 44 Flux  E 3 with Photon Limit Auger: Energy based on SD+CIC SD FD Photon 90% CL Limit

45. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 45 Summary of Photon Flux Limit  The combination of the following assumptions is disfavored.  AGASA-like energy spectrum is correct.  There is an extra Trans-GZK component.  These Trans-GZK events are from the decay of Super Heavy Dark Matters.  Most likely  No Top-down component, at least, majority of UHECR are the Bottom-ups.

46. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 46 Anisotropy  Small-scale Auto-correlation  Correlation with Astronomical Objects Tohru Ohnuki, GAP2005-080 (PhD Thesis)

47. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 47 Activities at UCLA  Data sample:  January 2004 – September 2005  Direction reconstructed by CDAS Zenith coverage: 45 o, 60 o, 75 o, 85 o.  Energy determined by SD+CIC+MC FD+CIC based plots being processed.  Systematic Studies:  Small angle Auto-correlation  Correlation with Astronomical Objects BL Lac, TeV Blazar, Neutron Star, GRB…  Thread-like Clustering

48. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 48 Angular Resolution  MC AIRES/Proton/QGSJET  Zenith Dependence  Comparison of Three DPA Modules UCLACDAS OG AGASA HiRes Stereo Joong Lee et al, GAP2005-079

49. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 49 Previously Claimed Correlations by AGASA/HiRes Mrk501 Mrk421 1ES1959+6450 1ES2344+514 H1426+428 Triplet G.C.

50. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 50 Auger Sky Map (> 10EeV, <45 o ) Energy by SD+CIC+MC G.C.

51. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 51 Auger Sky Map (> 10EeV, <60 o ) Energy by SD+CIC+MC G.C.

52. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 52 Auger Sky Map (> 10EeV, <75 o ) Energy by SD+CIC+MC G.C.

53. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 53 Auger Sky Map (> 10EeV, <85 o ) Energy by SD+CIC+MC G.C.

54. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 54 Sky Map of Auger (>10 EeV, <85 o ) (with correlations claimed by AGASA/HiRes) Mrk501 Mrk421 1ES1959+6450 1ES2344+514 H1426+428 Triplet G.C. Energy by SD+CIC+MC

55. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 55 AGASA Auto-Correlation (E>40EeV) G.C. Triplet

56. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 56 Auger Auto-Correlation (> 40EeV, <85 o ) G.C.

57. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 57 Auger Auto-Correlation (> 10EeV, <60 o ) G.C. Triplet

58. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 58 Auger Auto-Correlation (> 10EeV, <60 o )

59. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 59 Auger Auto-Correlation (> 6EeV, <60 o )

60. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 60 HiRes – BL Lac Correlation G.C.

61. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 61 Auger – BL Lac Correlation

62. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 62 Auger – BL Lac Correlation Antoine Calvez et al, GAP2005-057

63. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 63 Correlation with TeV Blazars All 5 TeV Blazars Mrk 421 Mrk 501 H1426+428

64. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 64 Correlation with Neutron Stars MagnetarGlitching Pulsar Soft Gamma Repeater

65. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 65 Summary of Science from Auger-South  GZK cut-off seems to exist.  Lorentz Invariance is valid. Cut-off energy may be lower than predicted? A hint of post GZK events??  There is no gamma ray at all.  Top-down scenarios are disfavored.  Bottom-up should be the case.  But no signature on the sky map yet. Iron dominant? Magnetic fields stronger than predicted??

66. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 66 Auger-North  Science Case  Infill in Auger-South  Auger-North Detector

67. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 67 Science Case for North  We must build even Larger Detector than previously thought.  Super GZK events are fewer than AGASA’s observation.  But a hint of the excess above the GZK cutoff. Where is the real end point of the spectrum?  Try to get Photons and Neutrinos from Top-down Mechanism and GZK interaction, if there is any.  A window of the opportunity for “ Charged Particle Astronomy ” above ~4  10 19 eV.  So far, no anisotropy. Again, we need a really big detector for high statistics.  Northern sky seems different from Southern Sky! At least, AGASA and HiRes say so.

68. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 68 10 19 eV 10 21 eV 10 20 eV 10 18 eV Top-Down? GZK? Bent by Extra-Galactic B (~nG) Ankle Charge Particle Astronomy Trapped by Inner-Galactic B (~  G) Bottom-Up UHE Gamma Rays UHE Neutrinos Straight Trajectories ? Rich Physics and Astronomy

69. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 69 Rich Physics and Astronomy 10 19 eV 10 21 eV 10 20 eV 10 18 eV Top-Down? GZK? Bent by Extra-Galactic B (~nG) Ankle Charge Particle Astronomy Trapped by Inner-Galactic B (~  G) Bottom-Up Straight Trajectories ? Original Auger SD Hybrid Expanded Auger Infill + 2  -FD at Auger-South! at Auger-North!

70. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 70 Basic Concept of Hybrid SD Air Fluorescence Detector ee  10km ~ 27X o ~ 11 I MC Simulation of 10 19 eV Proton Shower ee Water Tank  +  +  Scintillator ee

71. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 71 S(1000)/E vs. X-X max (100EeV)  ee  36 o 25 o 45 o 53 o 60 o 0o0o 66 o Proton/SIBYLL Proton/QGSJET Iron/SIBYLL Iron/QGSJET Arisaka et al, GAP2004-037 Water Tank

72. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 72  (540)/E vs. X-X max (100EeV)  ee  36 o 25 o 45 o 53 o 60 o 0o0o 66 o Proton/SIBYLL Proton/QGSJET Iron/SIBYLL Iron/QGSJET Arisaka et al, GAP2004-037 Scintillator

73. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 73 Summary of Hybrid  FD + Water Tank (Auger-like)  Energy is determined by FD  Composition/Model is determined by combination of Xmax in FD and Muon counting by SD  FD + Scintillator (TA-like)  Energy is determined by both FD and Scintillator.  Composition is determined by Xmax only.

74. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 74 Hybrid-SD Detector Auger-Tank Muon Hodoscope Scintillator e+ e+   + ~50   

75. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 75 Auger Original Region (3,120km 2 ) Auger-Tank x 1600 750m

76. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 76 Infill Region (97km 2 ) 25 Hybrid SD (Original Location) 75 additional Hybrid SD (Infill) 750m

77. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 77 Case for Infill in Auger-South  We are already limited by “systematics” below ~30 EeV.  Absolute energy determination.  Composition study. Both are strongly correlated.  With modest additional Infill detectors on Auger-South, we can attack both problems.  Water Tank + Scintillator + Muon Counter  Such modification should have very high priority.  Plan and develop now! Perhaps making the Infill by the last 100 tanks?

78. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 78 Auger-North at Colorado FD SD 536m Square Infill SD 1.609km Square 122km ~$100M 10km 15.000km 2

79. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 79 Detector Size per Site Spacing No. of Detector Area Coverage Energy Threshold Energy Resolution Angular Resolution LN SD S total (at 10 20 eV) Original Auger-S 1.5 km Triangle 1,6003,120 km 2 ~3x10 18 eV~20%~0.5 o Auger-N 1.609 km Square 5,80015,000 km 2 ~5  10 18 eV ~20%~0.5 o Infill Array 536 m Square 350100 km 2 ~ 5  10 17 eV ––

80. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 80 40 km 10 km 15 o 30 o 2  FD 60 o 90 o 45 o 75 o Infill Region 10 km

81. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 81 Comparison of Experiments Exper- iment Method Covered Area Duty Factor Effective Aperture Energy Thres. Energy Resol. Angle Resol. Cost Start Year Unit km 2 %km 2 streV %Deg.$M- Fly's EyeFD30010100~10 17 ~20~2 o 0.51986 AGASASD100 250~ 10 18 ~20~2 o 11992 HiResFD3,000101,000~ 10 18 ~20~0.5 o 51999 Auger - South SD3,1001009,000~3x10 18 ~20~1.0 o 502005 Hybrid3,10010900~10 18 ~15~0.5 o Auger - North SD15,00010045,000~5x10 18 ~20~1.0 o ~1002010 Hybrid3,10010900~10 18 ~15~0.5 o TA SD8001002,000~3x10 18 ~20~1 o 202007 Hybrid6010160~10 18 ~15~0.5 o EUSOFD150,0001050,000~10 19 ~30~2 o ~250>2012

82. 10/22/2005Katsushi Arisaka at Lamar 82 Integrated Sensitivity (at 10 20 eV)