RUNJOB and related topics

1
RUNJOB and related topics

• Toru Shibata
• INFN, Milano
• (Aoyama-Gakuin University)?
• 09/September/04

2
Contents
1) RUNJOB performance
2) Procedure in RUNJOB data analysis
gt Astrop. Phys. 16 (2001) 13, Apanasenko A.V.
et. al.
3) RUNJOB results and comparison with other data
4) Theoretical implication of the experimental
data
3
RUNJOB
RUssia-Nippon JOint Balloon experiment
M.Furukawa, V.I. Galkin, M. Hareyama, Y.
Hirakawa, M. Ichimura, N. Inoue, E. Kamioka, T.
Kobayashi, V.V. Kopenkin, S. Kuramata, A.K.
Managadze, H. Matsutani, N.P. Misnikova, R.A.
Mukhamedshin, S. Nagasawa, R. Nakano, M. Namiki,
M. Nakazawa, H. Nanjo, S.N. Nazarov, S. Ohata,H.
Ohtomo, D.S. Oshuev, P.A. Publichenko, I.V.
Rakobolskaya,T.M. Roganova, C. Saito, G.P.
Sazhina, H. Semba, T. Shibata, D. Shuto, H.
Sugimoto, R. Suzuki, L.G. Sveshnikova, R.Tanaka,
V.M. Taran,N. Yajima, T. Yamagami, I.V. Yashin,
E.A. Zamchalova, G.T. Zatsepin, I.S. Zayarnaya
Faculty of Engineering, Aomori University, Aomori
030-0943, Japan Department of Physics, Aoyama
Gakuin University, Tokyo 157-8572, Japan Faculty
of Science and Technology, Hirosaki University,
Hirosaki 036-8561, Japan School of Medicine,
Hirosaki University, Hirosaki 036-8562,
Japan P.N.Lebedev Physical Institute of Russian
Academy of Sciences, Moscow 117924,
Russia Physical Department of Moscow State
University, Moscow 119899, Russia D.V.Skobeltsyn
Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State
University, Moscow 119899, Russia Institute for
Nuclear Researches of Russian Academy of
Sciences, Moscow 117312, Russia Multimedia
Information Research Division, National Institute
of Informatics The Ministry of Education, Tokyo
101-8430, Japan Shonan Institute of Technology,
Fujisawa 251-8511, Japan Department of
Management, Urawa University, Urawa 337-0974,
Japan
4
(No Transcript)
5
Balloon Trajectory
landing
launching
6
Balloon Altitude
RUNJOB1,2
RUNJOB3,4
RUNJOB8,9
RUNJOB10,11
Average altitude 32km
10g/cm2
7
(No Transcript)
8

• Procedure in RUNJOB data analysis
• 
  
  
• 1) Energy determination
• 2) Charge determination
• 3) Detection efficiency calculation
• RUNJOB results and comparison with other data
• 1) Light elements (p, He)?
• 2) Heavy elements (CNO, NeMgSi, Fe)?
• 3) 2-ry/1-ry ratio (B/C, sub-Fe/Fe)?
• 4) All-particle spectrum and average mass

9
(No Transcript)
10
(Moscow04)?
11
(Moscow04)?
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(summarized by V. Zatsepin)?
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
Summary on RUNJOB data (1)?
?95 of all data was analyzed. ?The spectra cover
the energy range 10
-1000 TeV for proton
5 - 100 TeV/n for helium
1 - 70 TeV/n for CNO
1 - 20 TeV/n for NeMgSi
0.5 - 8 TeV/n for
iron ?Proton spectrum doesnt show any tendency
of steeping in observed energy range. ?Helium
flux is lower (about half) than JACEE , SOKOL
ATIC, but consistent with MUBEE and Grigorov
data. ?Proton and helium spectra are nearly
parallel
18
Summary on RUNJOB data (2)?
CNO spectrum has no indication of enhancement in
gt 10TeV/n region. Iron spectrum is consistent
with other groups within statistical error
2-ry/1-ry ratio was shown in TeV/n
region. All particle spectrum and average mass
covers the energy range from 30 to
1000TeV/particle. All particle flux is lower
than other direct measurement, but seems to be
consistent with ATIC (Moscow04)? The Spectrum
shape is similar to other direct measurement
gt flattering before knee ? Average mass is
nearly constant in our observation region,
30-1000 TeV with ltln Agt 1.5 (helium)?

19

• Procedure in RUNJOB data analysis
  
  
  
• 1) Energy determination
• 2) Charge determination
• 3) Detection efficiency calculation
• RUNJOB results and comparison with other data
• 1) Light elements (p, He)?
• 2) Heavy elements (CNO, NeMgSi, Fe)?
• 3) 2-ry/1-ry ratio (B/C, sub-Fe/Fe)?
• 4) All-particle spectrum and average mass
• Theoretical implication of the experimental data
• 0) Motivation
• 1) Model of CR propagation
• 2) 2-ry/1-ry ratio, isotope, diffusive?-ray,
  anti-p,

20

• Present status of C.R. direct obs. in GeV-PeV
  region
• observables
  physics
• ?1-ry nuclei (p, He, .., Fe) accel.
  limit, source spectrum
• ?2-ry nuclei (LiBeB, sub-Fe) path
  length, residence time
• - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  - - - - - - -
• ?ultra-heavy nuclei
  r-process, s-process
• ?anti-particle (p, e, )
  novel source, path length
• ?isotopes (Be10, Al26, Cl36, ) life
  time of C.R., gas density
• ?electrons
  nearby source, anisotropy
• ?diffusive ?-rays
  gas density, novel source
• in harmony
  with each other ?
• ? if not,
  novel source ?

21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
Important parameters

?

Kraichnan - type
?
Kolmogorov- type


?

24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
Comparison with experimental data
0) Cosmic-ray data on 1-ry, and 2-ry/1-ry ratio

1) Cosmic-ray data on 10Be / 9Be ratio
2) Longitudinal distribution (EGRET COS-B)?
3) Latitudinal distribution (EGRET)?
4) Energy distribution in GeV region (EGRET)?
5) Energy distribution in TeV (ground-base)?
28
(No Transcript)
29
(No Transcript)
30
(No Transcript)
31
(
average path length)?
?
at
for
gas density at Galactic center
scale height of diffusion coeffi.
32
(preliminary)?
33
(No Transcript)
34
Comparison with experimental data
0) Cosmic-ray data on 1-ry, and 2-ry/1-ry ratio

1) Cosmic-ray data on 10Be / 9Be ratio
2) Longitudinal distribution (EGRET COS-B)?
3) Latitudinal distribution (EGRET)?
4) Energy distribution in GeV region (EGRET)?
5) Energy distribution in TeV (ground-base)?
35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
? E0 1 GeV Bugg et al. (1964)

? 10 300 GeV Jaeger et al. (1975)?
? 400 2000 GeV Neuhofer et al. (1972)?
? 30 700 TeV Chacaltaya
(1980) , (UA7)?
38
(No Transcript)
39
(in CMS)?
40
(No Transcript)
41
lt isotropic dist. in CMS
42
(No Transcript)
43
(No Transcript)
44
(No Transcript)
45
(No Transcript)
46
(No Transcript)
47
(No Transcript)
48
(No Transcript)
49
(No Transcript)
50
only relative value is compared !
51
(No Transcript)
52
only relative value is compared !
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)
55
(No Transcript)
56
(No Transcript)
57
Conclusion
? EGRET data are not in harmony with C.R. data
1) Energy calibration ?
2) Subtraction of SNR ?
3) I.C. or Brems. Photons effective ?
3) Novel sources ?
? 100 GeV 100 TeV-? are quite important
58
(No Transcript)
59
(No Transcript)
60
(No Transcript)
61
(No Transcript)
62
(No Transcript)
63
(No Transcript)