Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Mass composition of cosmic rays above 0.1 EeV by the Yakutsk array data

Mass composition of cosmic rays above 0.1 EeV by the Yakutsk array data S. Knurenko and I. Petrov Yu.G. Shafer Institute of Cosmophysical Research and Aeronomy SB RAS, 31 Lenin ave. 677980 Yakutsk, Russia The paper presents the results of the longitudinal development of extensive air showers (X ) of max ultra-high energies and mass composition of cosmic rays. The measurements of X are based on max data from observations of the Cherenkov radiation at the Yakutsk array for the period 1974-2014. The cascade curves of individual showers and the depth of maximum X were reconstructed max 16 19 over the energy range 10 -5.710 eV. It is shown that the displacement rate of the parameter dX / dE in the atmosphere is nonlinear and depends on the energy. Such a feature indicates a max change in mass composition, which is con rmed by uctuations of X in this energy region. The max composition of cosmic rays was determined by interpolation using the QGSJetII-04 model. I. INTRODUCTION Knowledge of the mass composition (MC) of cosmic rays (CR) in the energy range above 0.1 EeV is very important for astrophysics. It is assumed that a transition from galactic to extra-galactic CR [1] is within the energy range of 0.1-1 EeV, also irregularities like "dip-bump" at energies above 5 EeV [2], and cuto of the spectrum of CR associated with the GZK e ect at energies 50 EeV [3, 4]. One of the crucial techniques in the study of the characteristics of CR by Extensive Air Shower (EAS) method is Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation [5, 6] detection, which is produced by shower particles in the visible wavelength. The total ux of Cherenkov light allows determining the energy of the primary particle and the lateral distribution at sea level provides information on the nature of the development of a shower in the atmosphere [7]. Longitudinal development of the shower in the atmosphere was reconstructed by the lateral distribution function (LDF) of Cherenkov light [7, 8] using the inverse problem method [9]. To estimate the mass composition, the depth of maximum of air shower development X was used, which is sensitive to the atomic mass of the primary particle. max At the Yakutsk array, in order to estimate air shower energy we used the energy balance method [10]. The method is based on the energy dissipated by EAS particles in the atmosphere, i.e. full ux of Cherenkov light. In individual showers, the energy was determined by the ux density of Cherenkov light at a distance R = 200 m from the shower axis - Q (200). According to calculations, the classi cation parameter Q (200) is proportional to the shower energy and have little shower-to-shower uctuations. The average depth of the air shower maximum X was used to derive CR MC within the hadronic interaction max model QGSJetII-04 [11] according to [12]. The Yakutsk array consists of stations with scintillation and Cherenkov detectors to register elementary particles of di erent nature: hadrons, electrons and positrons, muons, and Cherenkov photons [13]. Additionally, there are surface electric eld and air shower radio emission observations [14]. The array consists of 120 scintillation detectors located on an area of 13 km . Three muon stations and 72 channels for integrated and di erential Cherenkov detectors are 15 20 located at the center [15{18] (Fig. 1). The observation energy range of the array is from 10 eV to 10 eV, which allows it to study both galactic and extra-galactic CR. Cherenkov measurements are conducted on clear and moon-less nights. The observation season starts in September and ends in April. The total observation time per season is 450-600 hours, which takes 6-10% of the annual array operation time. Since optical observations are very sensitive to such atmospheric characteristics as transparency and the aerosol component of the atmosphere [19, 20], the atmosphere is monitored daily at the array [21{23]. II. EXPERIMENTAL DATA AND ANALYSIS A. Reconstruction of air shower parameters The depth of maximum X is determined by the cascade curve of Cherenkov light, which is reconstructed from max the experimental Cherenkov LDF (Fig. 2) [7]. This algorithm is described in detail in [7, 8]. The algorithm is based Electronic address: igor.petrov@ik a.ysn.ru arXiv:1908.01508v1 [astro-ph.HE] 5 Aug 2019 2 FIG. 1: Arrangement of the observation stations at the Yakutsk array on the Fredholm equation of the rst kind (1), which is solved by the adaptive method [24]: Q =  + G(R; X=X ) N (E ; X ) K (; X )dX (1) exp Q 2 0 In equation (1), G(R; X=X ) is the function that represents the lateral-angular distribution of electrons in the electron-photon cascade. In our case, the function G(R; X=X ) takes into account the nonequilibrium spectrum of electrons [25, 26], i.e. depends on the age of the shower and is close to the data from Hillas [27, 28] and Giller [29]. More recent work [30, 31] con rms the correctness of the use of lateral-angular distribution that depends on the age of the shower, for X reconstruction by Cherenkov light of air showers. The use of di erent models of max lateral-angular distribution from the "equilibrium" approximation and, including calculations of the electron spectra depending on shower age, yielded 3-5% in the spread of the X estimation. N (E , X) is a cascade curve, Q max 0 is the "noise" level, depends on measurement uncertainty and data processing errors. The choice of lateral-angular distribution was made in [32]. K (, X) is transmittance of the atmosphere that takes into account the transmission of Cherenkov light throughout the entire thickness of the atmosphere. The coecient K (, X) was reconstructed by solving the inverse problem using the lateral distribution of Cherenkov light registered under di erent weather conditions by a photomultiplier with a maximum sensitivity at a wavelength of  = 430 nm [19]. Reconstructed dependence of Cherenkov light transmission coecient for di erent weather conditions on the height is shown in Fig. 3 FIG. 2: LDF of the Cherenkov light TABLE I: Di erent values for P and  in di erent scales of the atmosphere transparency. Atmospheric transparency P  P  P =530 =530 =369 =369 =430 low (2 points) 0.60 0.180 0.35 0.260 0.48 decreased (3 points) 0.70 0.080 0.46 0.120 0.56 normal (3 - 4 points) 0.75 0.060 0.50 0.080 0.60 increased (4 points) 0.80 0.040 0.52 0.060 0.68 high (5 points) 0.85 0.020 0.56 0.030 0.72 3. Approximation of these data is also given there. For the prompt estimation of atmospheric conditions during the registration of air showers in the optical wavelength at the Yakutsk array, a point system for estimation of the state of the atmosphere was developed. The estimation 15 16 was tested by instrumental methods, including the rate of triggers for showers with energies of 10 -10 eV [21]. The point system for classi cation of the atmosphere was proposed in the papers [22, 33] based on lidar measurements of the spectral transparency P and spectral atmospheric optical thickness  . The correlation results for the three wavelengths are given in Table I. X and X - upper and lower limits of the atmosphere for air shower development. The limits were used for 1 2 reconstruction of the air shower cascade curve. As seen from equation (1), the method takes into account the physics of air shower electron-photon component development and characteristics of the atmospheric conditions during registration of the Cherenkov radiation [22, 23] at the Yakutsk array. Using this technique, average cascade curves were reconstructed (Fig. 4) for energies of 10 and 10 eV [9] and compared with QGSJetII-04 simulations. As can be seen from Fig. 4, the experimental cascade curve is measured in a wide range of depths due to inclined showers. This circumstance was used to determine the absorption range of cascade particles beyond the maximum development of air showers [34]. On the other hand, cascade curves can be used to test di erent models of the development of air shower in the atmosphere. The energy at the Yakutsk array was determined by energy balance method of all air shower particles [10]. This suggests that the total energy of the shower takes into account the ionization losses of each of the components of air shower: electrons, muons, hadrons and neutrinos (see formula (2)). 4 FIG. 3: Vertical pro le of atmospheric transmittance coecient for di erent conditions: 1- 5 points; 2- four points; 3- three points [19] E = E + E + E + E + E + E (2) 0 ei el  hi i Their share of energy was determined empirically taking into account the experiment conducted at the Yakutsk array. For example, the ionization losses of the electronic component were determined by the total ux of Cherenkov light from air showers, according to formula (3): E = k(x; P )  (3) ei where  is the total ux of Cherenkov light; k (x, P ) is the approximation coecient (calculated value), takes into account the transparency of the real atmosphere, the nature of the longitudinal development of the shower (energy spectrum of secondary particles and its dependence on the age of the shower) and expressed through the depth of the maximum of air shower X , measured at the array [10, 17]. max As can be seen from Fig. 5, the fraction of E is 85-90%, fraction of the remaining components of the shower does em not exceed 10%, and their estimation is described in details in papers [10, 17]. The experimental data of the Yakutsk array are in good agreement with the calculations by the QGSjetII-03 model in the case of a mixed composition of primary particles. This estimate may change if other models are used, including the QGSjetII-04 [11]. This is stated in our work [35]. In papers [36, 37], the calculations of E / E were performed em 0 to estimate the energy of air showers registered at the HiRes and TA arrays. Based on the calculations and the experiment in Yakutsk, it can be said that with an accuracy of 10%, there is agreement on the energy estimates in both arrays. A test check of the reconstruction method was carried out using QGSjet-01 calculations of the Cherenkov light of air showers. The result of comparing the cascade curve calculated by the model for the energy of 10 eV and reconstructed by the method described above showed a good agreement [7]. 5 FIG. 4: Average experimental cascade curves and calculations by QGSJETII-04 [11] for proton and iron B. Air shower reconstruction uncertainty Measurement errors in our experiment are systematic and random [38]. The main source of systematic uncertainty is the absolute calibration error due to the uncertainty of the transition from the amplitude of the signal at the output of the PMT to the number of Cherenkov light photons. It is determined by the coupling coecient between the amplitudes of the signals from the reference light source and the plastic scintillator unit, which serves as a calibration light source. The relative error of this coecient is  = 21%. cal Random measurement errors are due to many factors. One of them is the instrumental error of response mea- surement itself, equal to  = 13%. For the short (R < 100 m) distances from the axis, a similar contribution app is made by axis determination method, the absolute error of which for showers selected by the central part of the array is R = 10 m for the approximation of Q (R) by a piecewise-power function with value of n  = n (R / loc R ). Along with this, there are Q (R) distortions due to the shower processing procedure. These include the thresh: use of di erent test functions with di erent boundary conditions for the density of charged particles, the classi cation of showers according to di erent measured parameters, the threshold of the Cherenkov light detector. The study of these distorting factors shows that in this case measurement errors of Q (R) increase at small and large (R> 800 m) distances from the shower axis. The in uence of the detector threshold begins to a ect from a distance of R> 600 m, depending on the energy of the primary particle. It is expressed in the fact that due to the random nature of the detector triggering at the threshold level, zero readings are underestimated and the value of the Cherenkov light ux begins to be systematically overestimated. For E = 210 eV, this overestimation is 5% and 20% at distances of 600 and 800 m, respectively, and this fact had to be taken into account when processing showers. For this reason, showers for the analysis were selected only by the central part of the array, where the symmetry condition of the location of observation stations relative to the air shower axis was met and all showers had approximately the same uncertainty for the reconstruction of the air shower characteristics. Above mentioned uncertainties were taken into account for reconstruction of the cascade curve according to formula (4): 2 2 2 = 0:04 + n   Q (4) Q i R 6 FIG. 5: The fraction of energy transferred to the electromagnetic component according to the registration of Cherenkov light of air shower at the Yakutsk array and hadronic interactions model QGSJetII-03 for proton p, helium He, CNO nuclei and iron nucleus Fe Here R - is error of air shower axis determination error, 0.04 - constant associated with the absolute calibration of the light receivers and n - slope value of the power approximation of Cherenkov light LDF. Uncertainty of the X reconstruction for individual showers was 15-55 g/cm [7, 32]. Uncertainty of energy max estimation at the Yakutsk array, taking into account the measurements uncertainties listed above is 23-26% [10, 39]. C. Depth of maximum development X max The analysis presented in this paper is based on the Yakutsk array 1974-2014 dataset. The showers selected for analysis are shown in Fig. 6, as the dependence of X on the classi cation parameter of air showers Q (200) - max Cherenkov light ux density at the distance 200 m from the shower axis. The ux density of the Cherenkov light has little shower-to-shower uctuations and weakly depends on zenith angle [32, 40], therefore Q(200) was used as the classi cation parameter for air shower selection. The energy of the shower is derived from Q (200) parameter by formula (5) [10]: 1:010:04 Q(200) E = (1:78 0:44) 10  (5) In the distribution of air showers given in Fig.6, there are events with X  800 g / cm , i.e. with the low depth max of maximum development compared to iron or even proton induced air showers. These showers can be used to search for neutral particles such as -rays and neutrinos [41]. The averaged data of the Yakutsk array together with the data of the Auger [42], TA [43], HiRes [44, 45], Tunka [46], LOFAR [47] arrays are shown in Fig. 7 (a) and comparison with di erent hadronic interaction models QGSJetII-04 [11], Sibyll 2.3c [48], EPOS LHC [49]. The data within the experimental errors are in good agreement with each other, although they were obtained at di erent experiments and by di erent methods. The data of the Yakutsk array covers almost four orders of magnitude in energy. Statistics allows with sucient accuracy to identify the shift of X with max increasing energy and to estimate the elongation rate (ER) at di erent energy ranges. According to our data, the ER is: 7 FIG. 6: Dependence of X from classi cation parameter Q (200) - EAS Cherenkov light ux density at a distance of 200 m max from the shower axis. 16 17 2 1. E = 10 -10 [eV]; E.R. = 486 [ g/cm ] 17 18 2 2. E = 10 -10 [eV]; E.R. = 785 [ g/cm ] 18 19 2 3. E = 10 -10 [eV]; E.R. = 636 [ g/cm ] 19 20 2 4. E = 10 -10 [eV]; E.R. = 507 [ g/cm ] The data hX i, (X ) and other characteristics are given in Tables II, III. max max In Fig. 7 (b) X uctuations are presented. These uctuations were obtained taking into account detectors e ect max according to the method given below. The accuracy of the X reconstruction was estimated from the simulation max of cascade curve reconstruction process by full Monte Carlo method, given the known values of the instrumental uncertainty Q(E , R, X ) and parameters of the average cascade curve. It was assumed that the measurement 0 0 uncertainty Q(E , R, X ) are distributed according to the normal law [50, 51]. As follows from [50, 51] (X ) 0 0 max app depends not only on measurements uncertainty Q(E , R, X ), but also on coordinates of the shower axis relative 0 0 to the array center (X , Y ) and the number of stations n participating in the registration of the Cherenkov EAS 0 0 18 2 light. So the average instrumental error at an energy of 10 eV is equal to < (X ) > = 38 g / cm , and its max app dependence on energy can be expressed as: h(X ) i = (38:5 5) (10 3) lg (6) max app Then physical uctuations (X ) were found as the di erence of measured uctuations and instrumental uctu- max ations: 2 2 2 (X ) =  (X )  (X ) (7) max max meas max app The data was divided by energy with a step of 1.5, and the value (X ) was found for each interval. The gure max contains data obtained at the Yakutsk array and data of Auger, TA and HiRes. The gure also shows calculations using modern models of hadron interactions for the primary proton and the iron nucleus. 8 a) b) FIG. 7: The mean (a) and the standard deviation (b) of the measured X distributions as a function of energy obtained max from Cherenkov light data in 1974-2014 at the Yakutsk array. Comparison with other experiments: Auger [42], TA [43], HiRes [44, 45], Tunka [46], LOFAR [47] and simulations for proton and iron primaries by di erent models QGSJetII-04 [11], Sibyll 2.3c [48], EPOS LHC [49]. From Fig. 7 (b) one can see there is a maximum of X uctuations dependency on energy in the range 210 - max 18 2 210 eV. In this range, the value of (X ) is 57-63 g/cm , which according to model calculations corresponds to max the mixed composition of cosmic rays with a high content of p + He and heavier nuclei. However, the composition consisting of a mix of 50% proton p and 50% iron nuclei Fe cannot be excluded. A decrease in uctuations above the energy of 510 eV indicates a heavier composition. D. Mass composition Knowing the depth of the shower maximum X (Fig. 7, a) and average X for the proton and the iron nucleus max max from QGSJetII-04 simulations, the value of hlnAi can be determined by interpolation using formula (8) [1, 12]: exp p X X max max hlnAi =  lnA (8) p Fe Fe X X max max 9 exp where X is the depth of maximum determined from the experiment, lnA is the natural logarithm of the iron Fe max atomic mass. The mean logarithmic mass values are presented for di erent energies in Fig. 8. The results are compared with data of Tunka [46], LOFAR [47], TA [52] and Auger [42], derived using the hadronic interaction model QGSJetII-04. There is also the Yakutsk array data for 1994-2010 [53]]. This result was obtained for limited data selection with QGSJETII model, which explains discrepancy with the data presented in current paper As can be seen from the gure, there 16 17 are irregularities of the value of hlnAi, due to MC change. For example, in the energy region of 10 -10 eV, the 17 18 composition is heavier than in the energy region of 10 -10 eV, where composition mostly consists of protons p and helium He nuclei. Starting from 10 eV, the composition becomes heavier, i.e. the fraction of such nuclei as CNO and Fe iron nuclei increases. FIG. 8: Average atomic mass hlnAi derived from the average depth of the shower maximum with QGSJetII-04 [11]. Comparison with Yakutsk (1994-2010)[53], Tunka [46], LOFAR [47], TA [52] and Auger [42] data. III. CONCLUSION The Yakutsk array is operating continuously for more than 45 years, detecting electrons, muons, Cherenkov light, 6 15 and radio emission. At the same time, more than 510 EAS events were recorded in the energy region above 10 16 19 eV. Using a large dataset of air showers with energies of 10 -5.710 eV, registered for the period 1974-2014, the longitudinal development of showers was reconstructed and the X dependence was found. The results showed that max elongation rate per decade of energy has nonlinear advancement and takes the values 486, 785, 636, 507 g / 2 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 cm for energy ranges, 10 -10 , 10 -10 , 10 -10 , 10 -10 eV. As can be seen (Fig. 7), there are kinks at the 17 18 energies 10 eV and 510 eV, i.e. on the "second knee" area and the beginning of irregularities in the spectrum like "dip-bump". As shown by the data of the Yakutsk array (Fig. 8), this is due to a change in the cosmic ray mass composition. At low energies up to 10 eV, there are noticeably more nuclei with an atomic mass of 4-56, at energies 17 18 of 10 -10 eV the proportion of protons increases and reaches a maximum, accounting for 60-80%. In the region of energy greater than 10 eV, CR predominantly consist of helium nuclei He, CNO, and heavier elements. 10 16 18 TABLE II: hX i , ( X ) and hlnAi observed in 1974-2014 at the Yakutsk array.10 - 10 eV max max 2 2 E , eV N, events X , g/cm (X ), g/cm hlnAi hlnAi stat. error 0 max max 1.74E+16 - 58917 - 1.97 0.68 2.62E+16 - 59114 - 2.25 0.55 3.50E+16 24 59811 53.67.7 2.23 0.43 5.31E+16 50 6068 56.75.7 2.35 0.32 7.01E+16 88 6086 56.34.2 2.50 0.24 8.85E+16 139 6175 58.93.5 2.34 0.20 1.07E+17 158 6285 62.83.5 2.17 0.20 1.24E+17 146 6315 60.53.5 2.17 0.20 1.42E+17 155 6365 62.23.5 2.09 0.20 1.60E+17 158 6395 62.93.5 2.07 0.20 1.78E+17 153 6465 61.93.5 1.97 0.20 2.68E+17 155 6555 62.33.5 1.95 0.25 3.57E+17 156 6725 62.43.5 1.48 0.21 5.43E+17 161 6885 63.53.5 1.28 0.21 7.18E+17 150 6955 61.23.5 1.30 0.22 9.06E+17 155 7035 62.43.5 1.18 0.22 18 19 TABLE III: hX i , ( X ) and hlnAi observed in 1974-2014 at the Yakutsk array. 10 5.710 eV max max 2 2 E , eV N, events X , g/cm (X ), g/cm hlnAi hlnAi stat. error 0 max max 1.09E+18 148 7155 60.93.5 0.87 0.22 1.27E+18 143 7215 59.83.5 0.73 0.22 1.45E+18 142 7255 59.63.5 0.66 0.22 1.64E+18 93 7346 58.04.3 0.47 0.25 1.82E+18 92 7356 57.44.2 0.47 0.26 2.74E+18 89 7496 56.54.2 0.30 0.26 3.66E+18 86 7626 55.74.2 0 0.26 5.56E+18 78 7696 52.94.2 0.09 0.26 7.35E+18 53 7747 50.84.9 0.17 0.30 9.27E+18 47 7777 48.15.0 0.34 0.30 1.12E+19 48 7847 48.75.0 0.25 0.30 1.28E+19 32 7828 45.55.7 0.39 0.35 1.48E+19 35 7848 47.25.6 0.48 0.35 1.66E+19 26 7829 45.56.3 0.69 0.39 1.86E+19 23 7859 42.86.3 0.73 0.39 2.80E+19 11 78713 42.99.1 0.99 0.56 3.74E+19 7 78315 39.710.6 1.57 0,64 5.69E+19 3 79023 41.116.8 1.69 0.97 Acknowledgement The reported study was funded by RFBR according to the research project 16-29-13019. 11 References [1] E. Berezhko, S. Knurenko, and L. Ksenofontov, Astroparticle Physics 36, 31 (2012). [2] V. Berezinsky, A. Gazizov, and S. Grigorieva, Physical Review D 74, 043005 (2006). [3] K. Greisen, Physical Review Letters 16, 748 (1966). [4] G. Zatsepin and V. Kuzmin, JETP Letters 4, 78 (1966). [5] V. Zrelov, Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation and its application in high-energy physics. Part 1 (Atom, Moscow, 1968). [6] J. Jelley, Cerenkov radiation and its applications (Pergamon Press, London, 1958). [7] S. Knurenko, V. Kolosov, and Z. Petrov, Proc. 27-th ICRC, Hamburg (Germany) 1, 157 (2001). [8] M. Dyakonov, S. Knurenko, V. Kolosov, and et al., Nuclear Instruments and Meth-s in Phys. Res. A 248, 224 (1986). [9] A. Tikhonov and V. Arsenin, Solutions of Ill-Posed Problems (V. H. Winston & Sons, Washington, D.C.: John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1977). [10] S. Knurenko, A. Ivanov, I. Sleptsov, and A. Sabourov, JETP Letters 83, 473 (2006). [11] S. Ostapchenko, Phys. Rev. D 83, 014018 (2011). [12] J. H orandel, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 47, 41 (2006). [13] V. Artamonov, B. Afanasyev, A. Glushkov, and et al., Bulletin of RAoS. Physics 58, 98 (1994). [14] S. Knurenko, Z. Petrov, and I. Petrov, NIM A 866, 230 (2017). [15] S. Knurenko, V. Kolosov, Z. Petrov, and et al., Sci. and Edu. 4, 46 (1998). [16] G. Garipov, V. Grigoryev, N. Efremov, and et al., Proc. 27th ICRC, Hamburg, Germany 2, 885 (2001). [17] A. Ivanov, S. Knurenko, A. Krasilnikov, Z. Petrov, M. Pravdin, I. Sleptsov, and L. Timofeev, NIM A 772, 34 (2015). [18] Y. Egorov, Z. Petrov, and S. Knurenko, Proc. of Science 301, 462 (2018). [19] M. Dyakonov, S. Knurenko, V. Kolosov, and et al., Atmos. Oceanic. Optics 12, 315 (1999). [20] V. Zuev, Atmospheric transparency in the visible and the infrared (Israel Program for Scienti c Translations, Jerusalem, 1970). [21] M. Dyakonov, S. Knurenko, V. Kolosov, and I. Sleptsov, Optics of atmosphere 4, 868 (1991). [22] S. Knurenko, S. Nikolashkin, A. Saburov, and I. Sleptsov, Proc. SPIE 6522, 65221U (2006). [23] S. Knurenko and I. Petrov, Proc. SPIE 9292, 92925B (2014). [24] A. Kochnev, Proc. of 'Use of PC in control problems'. Krasnoyarsk (USSR) pp. 62{71 (1985). [25] A. Belyaev, I. Ivanenko, B. Kanevsky, and et al., Electron-photon cascades in cosmic rays at ultra-high energies (Nauka, Moscow, 1980). [26] M. Dyakonov, Moscow:INR AS USSR p. 151 (1982). [27] A. Hillas, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 8, 1461 (1982). [28] J. Patterson and A. Hillas, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 9, 1433 (1983). [29] M. Giller, G. Wieczorek, A. Kacperczyk, and et al., Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 30, 97 (2004). [30] F. Nerling, J. Blumer,  R. Engel, and M. Risse, Astropart. Phys. 24, 421 (2006). [31] A. Smialkowski and M. Giller, The Astrophysical Journal 854, 48 (2018). [32] S. Knurenko, Yakutsk: SB RAS p. 168 (2003). [33] G. Guschin, Methods, instruments and results of the atmospheric spectral transparency measurements (Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad, 1988). [34] A. Glushkov, M. Dyakonov, S. Knurenko, and et al., Bull. of RAS. Physics 57, 91 (1993). [35] S. Knurenko, A. Ivanov, V. Kolosov, and et al., Intern. Jour. of Modern Physics A 20, 6897 (2005). [36] R. Abbasi, M. Abe, T. Abu-Zayyad, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal 865, 74 (2018). [37] H. Barbosa, F. Catalani, J. Chinellato, and C. Dobrigkeit, Astropart. Phys. 22, 159 (2004). [38] S. Knurenko, I. Petrov, Z. Petrov, and I. Sleptsov, EPJ Web of Conferences 99, 04001 (2015). [39] A. Ivanov, S. Knurenko, and I. Sleptsov, New Journal of Physics 11, 065008 (2009). [40] N. Kalmykov, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 6, 1019 (1967). [41] S. Knurenko and I. Petrov, JETP Lett. 107, 676 (2018). [42] J. Bellido, A. Aab, P. Abreu, and et al., Proc. of Science 301, 506 (2018). [43] R. Abbasi, M. Abe, T. Abu-Zayyad, and et al., ApJ 858, 76 (2018). [44] R. Abbasi, T. Abu-Zayyad, M. Al-Seady, and et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 199902 (2010). [45] R. Ulrich and L. Cazon, Astropart. Phys. 38, 41 (2012). [46] V. Prosin, S. Berezhnev, N. Budnev, and et al., EPJ Web of Conferences 121, 03004 (2016). [47] S. Buitink, A. Cortanje, H. Falcke, and et al., Nature 531, 70 (2016). [48] F. Riehn, R. Engel, A. Fedynitch, T. Gaisser, and T. Stanev, Proc. of Science 236, 558 (2015). [49] T. Pierog, I. Karpenko, J. Katzy, E. Yatsenko, and K. Werner, Phys. Rev. C 92, 034906 (2015). [50] M. Dyakonov, A. Ivanov, and S. K. et al., Proc. of 17 ICRC. Paris (France) 6, 78 (1981). [51] M. Dyakonov, A. Ivanov, and S. K. et al., Electromagnetic cascade pro les and uctuations of EAS lateral distribution (Yadernaya Fizika SB AS USSR, Yakutsk, 1983). [52] R. Abbasi, M. Abe, T. Abu-Zayyad, and et al., Phys. Rev. D 99, 02002 (2019). 12 [53] S. Knurenko and A. Sabourov, Astrophys. Space Sci. Trans. 7, 251 (2011). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Astrophysics arXiv (Cornell University)

Mass composition of cosmic rays above 0.1 EeV by the Yakutsk array data

Astrophysics , Volume 2019 (1908) – Aug 5, 2019

Loading next page...
 
/lp/arxiv-cornell-university/mass-composition-of-cosmic-rays-above-0-1-eev-by-the-yakutsk-array-s8ZuzWepAT
ISSN
0273-1177
eISSN
ARCH-3330
DOI
10.1016/j.asr.2019.07.019
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

S. Knurenko and I. Petrov Yu.G. Shafer Institute of Cosmophysical Research and Aeronomy SB RAS, 31 Lenin ave. 677980 Yakutsk, Russia The paper presents the results of the longitudinal development of extensive air showers (X ) of max ultra-high energies and mass composition of cosmic rays. The measurements of X are based on max data from observations of the Cherenkov radiation at the Yakutsk array for the period 1974-2014. The cascade curves of individual showers and the depth of maximum X were reconstructed max 16 19 over the energy range 10 -5.710 eV. It is shown that the displacement rate of the parameter dX / dE in the atmosphere is nonlinear and depends on the energy. Such a feature indicates a max change in mass composition, which is con rmed by uctuations of X in this energy region. The max composition of cosmic rays was determined by interpolation using the QGSJetII-04 model. I. INTRODUCTION Knowledge of the mass composition (MC) of cosmic rays (CR) in the energy range above 0.1 EeV is very important for astrophysics. It is assumed that a transition from galactic to extra-galactic CR [1] is within the energy range of 0.1-1 EeV, also irregularities like "dip-bump" at energies above 5 EeV [2], and cuto of the spectrum of CR associated with the GZK e ect at energies 50 EeV [3, 4]. One of the crucial techniques in the study of the characteristics of CR by Extensive Air Shower (EAS) method is Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation [5, 6] detection, which is produced by shower particles in the visible wavelength. The total ux of Cherenkov light allows determining the energy of the primary particle and the lateral distribution at sea level provides information on the nature of the development of a shower in the atmosphere [7]. Longitudinal development of the shower in the atmosphere was reconstructed by the lateral distribution function (LDF) of Cherenkov light [7, 8] using the inverse problem method [9]. To estimate the mass composition, the depth of maximum of air shower development X was used, which is sensitive to the atomic mass of the primary particle. max At the Yakutsk array, in order to estimate air shower energy we used the energy balance method [10]. The method is based on the energy dissipated by EAS particles in the atmosphere, i.e. full ux of Cherenkov light. In individual showers, the energy was determined by the ux density of Cherenkov light at a distance R = 200 m from the shower axis - Q (200). According to calculations, the classi cation parameter Q (200) is proportional to the shower energy and have little shower-to-shower uctuations. The average depth of the air shower maximum X was used to derive CR MC within the hadronic interaction max model QGSJetII-04 [11] according to [12]. The Yakutsk array consists of stations with scintillation and Cherenkov detectors to register elementary particles of di erent nature: hadrons, electrons and positrons, muons, and Cherenkov photons [13]. Additionally, there are surface electric eld and air shower radio emission observations [14]. The array consists of 120 scintillation detectors located on an area of 13 km . Three muon stations and 72 channels for integrated and di erential Cherenkov detectors are 15 20 located at the center [15{18] (Fig. 1). The observation energy range of the array is from 10 eV to 10 eV, which allows it to study both galactic and extra-galactic CR. Cherenkov measurements are conducted on clear and moon-less nights. The observation season starts in September and ends in April. The total observation time per season is 450-600 hours, which takes 6-10% of the annual array operation time. Since optical observations are very sensitive to such atmospheric characteristics as transparency and the aerosol component of the atmosphere [19, 20], the atmosphere is monitored daily at the array [21{23]. II. EXPERIMENTAL DATA AND ANALYSIS A. Reconstruction of air shower parameters The depth of maximum X is determined by the cascade curve of Cherenkov light, which is reconstructed from max the experimental Cherenkov LDF (Fig. 2) [7]. This algorithm is described in detail in [7, 8]. The algorithm is based Electronic address: igor.petrov@ik a.ysn.ru arXiv:1908.01508v1 [astro-ph.HE] 5 Aug 2019 2 FIG. 1: Arrangement of the observation stations at the Yakutsk array on the Fredholm equation of the rst kind (1), which is solved by the adaptive method [24]: Q =  + G(R; X=X ) N (E ; X ) K (; X )dX (1) exp Q 2 0 In equation (1), G(R; X=X ) is the function that represents the lateral-angular distribution of electrons in the electron-photon cascade. In our case, the function G(R; X=X ) takes into account the nonequilibrium spectrum of electrons [25, 26], i.e. depends on the age of the shower and is close to the data from Hillas [27, 28] and Giller [29]. More recent work [30, 31] con rms the correctness of the use of lateral-angular distribution that depends on the age of the shower, for X reconstruction by Cherenkov light of air showers. The use of di erent models of max lateral-angular distribution from the "equilibrium" approximation and, including calculations of the electron spectra depending on shower age, yielded 3-5% in the spread of the X estimation. N (E , X) is a cascade curve, Q max 0 is the "noise" level, depends on measurement uncertainty and data processing errors. The choice of lateral-angular distribution was made in [32]. K (, X) is transmittance of the atmosphere that takes into account the transmission of Cherenkov light throughout the entire thickness of the atmosphere. The coecient K (, X) was reconstructed by solving the inverse problem using the lateral distribution of Cherenkov light registered under di erent weather conditions by a photomultiplier with a maximum sensitivity at a wavelength of  = 430 nm [19]. Reconstructed dependence of Cherenkov light transmission coecient for di erent weather conditions on the height is shown in Fig. 3 FIG. 2: LDF of the Cherenkov light TABLE I: Di erent values for P and  in di erent scales of the atmosphere transparency. Atmospheric transparency P  P  P =530 =530 =369 =369 =430 low (2 points) 0.60 0.180 0.35 0.260 0.48 decreased (3 points) 0.70 0.080 0.46 0.120 0.56 normal (3 - 4 points) 0.75 0.060 0.50 0.080 0.60 increased (4 points) 0.80 0.040 0.52 0.060 0.68 high (5 points) 0.85 0.020 0.56 0.030 0.72 3. Approximation of these data is also given there. For the prompt estimation of atmospheric conditions during the registration of air showers in the optical wavelength at the Yakutsk array, a point system for estimation of the state of the atmosphere was developed. The estimation 15 16 was tested by instrumental methods, including the rate of triggers for showers with energies of 10 -10 eV [21]. The point system for classi cation of the atmosphere was proposed in the papers [22, 33] based on lidar measurements of the spectral transparency P and spectral atmospheric optical thickness  . The correlation results for the three wavelengths are given in Table I. X and X - upper and lower limits of the atmosphere for air shower development. The limits were used for 1 2 reconstruction of the air shower cascade curve. As seen from equation (1), the method takes into account the physics of air shower electron-photon component development and characteristics of the atmospheric conditions during registration of the Cherenkov radiation [22, 23] at the Yakutsk array. Using this technique, average cascade curves were reconstructed (Fig. 4) for energies of 10 and 10 eV [9] and compared with QGSJetII-04 simulations. As can be seen from Fig. 4, the experimental cascade curve is measured in a wide range of depths due to inclined showers. This circumstance was used to determine the absorption range of cascade particles beyond the maximum development of air showers [34]. On the other hand, cascade curves can be used to test di erent models of the development of air shower in the atmosphere. The energy at the Yakutsk array was determined by energy balance method of all air shower particles [10]. This suggests that the total energy of the shower takes into account the ionization losses of each of the components of air shower: electrons, muons, hadrons and neutrinos (see formula (2)). 4 FIG. 3: Vertical pro le of atmospheric transmittance coecient for di erent conditions: 1- 5 points; 2- four points; 3- three points [19] E = E + E + E + E + E + E (2) 0 ei el  hi i Their share of energy was determined empirically taking into account the experiment conducted at the Yakutsk array. For example, the ionization losses of the electronic component were determined by the total ux of Cherenkov light from air showers, according to formula (3): E = k(x; P )  (3) ei where  is the total ux of Cherenkov light; k (x, P ) is the approximation coecient (calculated value), takes into account the transparency of the real atmosphere, the nature of the longitudinal development of the shower (energy spectrum of secondary particles and its dependence on the age of the shower) and expressed through the depth of the maximum of air shower X , measured at the array [10, 17]. max As can be seen from Fig. 5, the fraction of E is 85-90%, fraction of the remaining components of the shower does em not exceed 10%, and their estimation is described in details in papers [10, 17]. The experimental data of the Yakutsk array are in good agreement with the calculations by the QGSjetII-03 model in the case of a mixed composition of primary particles. This estimate may change if other models are used, including the QGSjetII-04 [11]. This is stated in our work [35]. In papers [36, 37], the calculations of E / E were performed em 0 to estimate the energy of air showers registered at the HiRes and TA arrays. Based on the calculations and the experiment in Yakutsk, it can be said that with an accuracy of 10%, there is agreement on the energy estimates in both arrays. A test check of the reconstruction method was carried out using QGSjet-01 calculations of the Cherenkov light of air showers. The result of comparing the cascade curve calculated by the model for the energy of 10 eV and reconstructed by the method described above showed a good agreement [7]. 5 FIG. 4: Average experimental cascade curves and calculations by QGSJETII-04 [11] for proton and iron B. Air shower reconstruction uncertainty Measurement errors in our experiment are systematic and random [38]. The main source of systematic uncertainty is the absolute calibration error due to the uncertainty of the transition from the amplitude of the signal at the output of the PMT to the number of Cherenkov light photons. It is determined by the coupling coecient between the amplitudes of the signals from the reference light source and the plastic scintillator unit, which serves as a calibration light source. The relative error of this coecient is  = 21%. cal Random measurement errors are due to many factors. One of them is the instrumental error of response mea- surement itself, equal to  = 13%. For the short (R < 100 m) distances from the axis, a similar contribution app is made by axis determination method, the absolute error of which for showers selected by the central part of the array is R = 10 m for the approximation of Q (R) by a piecewise-power function with value of n  = n (R / loc R ). Along with this, there are Q (R) distortions due to the shower processing procedure. These include the thresh: use of di erent test functions with di erent boundary conditions for the density of charged particles, the classi cation of showers according to di erent measured parameters, the threshold of the Cherenkov light detector. The study of these distorting factors shows that in this case measurement errors of Q (R) increase at small and large (R> 800 m) distances from the shower axis. The in uence of the detector threshold begins to a ect from a distance of R> 600 m, depending on the energy of the primary particle. It is expressed in the fact that due to the random nature of the detector triggering at the threshold level, zero readings are underestimated and the value of the Cherenkov light ux begins to be systematically overestimated. For E = 210 eV, this overestimation is 5% and 20% at distances of 600 and 800 m, respectively, and this fact had to be taken into account when processing showers. For this reason, showers for the analysis were selected only by the central part of the array, where the symmetry condition of the location of observation stations relative to the air shower axis was met and all showers had approximately the same uncertainty for the reconstruction of the air shower characteristics. Above mentioned uncertainties were taken into account for reconstruction of the cascade curve according to formula (4): 2 2 2 = 0:04 + n   Q (4) Q i R 6 FIG. 5: The fraction of energy transferred to the electromagnetic component according to the registration of Cherenkov light of air shower at the Yakutsk array and hadronic interactions model QGSJetII-03 for proton p, helium He, CNO nuclei and iron nucleus Fe Here R - is error of air shower axis determination error, 0.04 - constant associated with the absolute calibration of the light receivers and n - slope value of the power approximation of Cherenkov light LDF. Uncertainty of the X reconstruction for individual showers was 15-55 g/cm [7, 32]. Uncertainty of energy max estimation at the Yakutsk array, taking into account the measurements uncertainties listed above is 23-26% [10, 39]. C. Depth of maximum development X max The analysis presented in this paper is based on the Yakutsk array 1974-2014 dataset. The showers selected for analysis are shown in Fig. 6, as the dependence of X on the classi cation parameter of air showers Q (200) - max Cherenkov light ux density at the distance 200 m from the shower axis. The ux density of the Cherenkov light has little shower-to-shower uctuations and weakly depends on zenith angle [32, 40], therefore Q(200) was used as the classi cation parameter for air shower selection. The energy of the shower is derived from Q (200) parameter by formula (5) [10]: 1:010:04 Q(200) E = (1:78 0:44) 10  (5) In the distribution of air showers given in Fig.6, there are events with X  800 g / cm , i.e. with the low depth max of maximum development compared to iron or even proton induced air showers. These showers can be used to search for neutral particles such as -rays and neutrinos [41]. The averaged data of the Yakutsk array together with the data of the Auger [42], TA [43], HiRes [44, 45], Tunka [46], LOFAR [47] arrays are shown in Fig. 7 (a) and comparison with di erent hadronic interaction models QGSJetII-04 [11], Sibyll 2.3c [48], EPOS LHC [49]. The data within the experimental errors are in good agreement with each other, although they were obtained at di erent experiments and by di erent methods. The data of the Yakutsk array covers almost four orders of magnitude in energy. Statistics allows with sucient accuracy to identify the shift of X with max increasing energy and to estimate the elongation rate (ER) at di erent energy ranges. According to our data, the ER is: 7 FIG. 6: Dependence of X from classi cation parameter Q (200) - EAS Cherenkov light ux density at a distance of 200 m max from the shower axis. 16 17 2 1. E = 10 -10 [eV]; E.R. = 486 [ g/cm ] 17 18 2 2. E = 10 -10 [eV]; E.R. = 785 [ g/cm ] 18 19 2 3. E = 10 -10 [eV]; E.R. = 636 [ g/cm ] 19 20 2 4. E = 10 -10 [eV]; E.R. = 507 [ g/cm ] The data hX i, (X ) and other characteristics are given in Tables II, III. max max In Fig. 7 (b) X uctuations are presented. These uctuations were obtained taking into account detectors e ect max according to the method given below. The accuracy of the X reconstruction was estimated from the simulation max of cascade curve reconstruction process by full Monte Carlo method, given the known values of the instrumental uncertainty Q(E , R, X ) and parameters of the average cascade curve. It was assumed that the measurement 0 0 uncertainty Q(E , R, X ) are distributed according to the normal law [50, 51]. As follows from [50, 51] (X ) 0 0 max app depends not only on measurements uncertainty Q(E , R, X ), but also on coordinates of the shower axis relative 0 0 to the array center (X , Y ) and the number of stations n participating in the registration of the Cherenkov EAS 0 0 18 2 light. So the average instrumental error at an energy of 10 eV is equal to < (X ) > = 38 g / cm , and its max app dependence on energy can be expressed as: h(X ) i = (38:5 5) (10 3) lg (6) max app Then physical uctuations (X ) were found as the di erence of measured uctuations and instrumental uctu- max ations: 2 2 2 (X ) =  (X )  (X ) (7) max max meas max app The data was divided by energy with a step of 1.5, and the value (X ) was found for each interval. The gure max contains data obtained at the Yakutsk array and data of Auger, TA and HiRes. The gure also shows calculations using modern models of hadron interactions for the primary proton and the iron nucleus. 8 a) b) FIG. 7: The mean (a) and the standard deviation (b) of the measured X distributions as a function of energy obtained max from Cherenkov light data in 1974-2014 at the Yakutsk array. Comparison with other experiments: Auger [42], TA [43], HiRes [44, 45], Tunka [46], LOFAR [47] and simulations for proton and iron primaries by di erent models QGSJetII-04 [11], Sibyll 2.3c [48], EPOS LHC [49]. From Fig. 7 (b) one can see there is a maximum of X uctuations dependency on energy in the range 210 - max 18 2 210 eV. In this range, the value of (X ) is 57-63 g/cm , which according to model calculations corresponds to max the mixed composition of cosmic rays with a high content of p + He and heavier nuclei. However, the composition consisting of a mix of 50% proton p and 50% iron nuclei Fe cannot be excluded. A decrease in uctuations above the energy of 510 eV indicates a heavier composition. D. Mass composition Knowing the depth of the shower maximum X (Fig. 7, a) and average X for the proton and the iron nucleus max max from QGSJetII-04 simulations, the value of hlnAi can be determined by interpolation using formula (8) [1, 12]: exp p X X max max hlnAi =  lnA (8) p Fe Fe X X max max 9 exp where X is the depth of maximum determined from the experiment, lnA is the natural logarithm of the iron Fe max atomic mass. The mean logarithmic mass values are presented for di erent energies in Fig. 8. The results are compared with data of Tunka [46], LOFAR [47], TA [52] and Auger [42], derived using the hadronic interaction model QGSJetII-04. There is also the Yakutsk array data for 1994-2010 [53]]. This result was obtained for limited data selection with QGSJETII model, which explains discrepancy with the data presented in current paper As can be seen from the gure, there 16 17 are irregularities of the value of hlnAi, due to MC change. For example, in the energy region of 10 -10 eV, the 17 18 composition is heavier than in the energy region of 10 -10 eV, where composition mostly consists of protons p and helium He nuclei. Starting from 10 eV, the composition becomes heavier, i.e. the fraction of such nuclei as CNO and Fe iron nuclei increases. FIG. 8: Average atomic mass hlnAi derived from the average depth of the shower maximum with QGSJetII-04 [11]. Comparison with Yakutsk (1994-2010)[53], Tunka [46], LOFAR [47], TA [52] and Auger [42] data. III. CONCLUSION The Yakutsk array is operating continuously for more than 45 years, detecting electrons, muons, Cherenkov light, 6 15 and radio emission. At the same time, more than 510 EAS events were recorded in the energy region above 10 16 19 eV. Using a large dataset of air showers with energies of 10 -5.710 eV, registered for the period 1974-2014, the longitudinal development of showers was reconstructed and the X dependence was found. The results showed that max elongation rate per decade of energy has nonlinear advancement and takes the values 486, 785, 636, 507 g / 2 16 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 cm for energy ranges, 10 -10 , 10 -10 , 10 -10 , 10 -10 eV. As can be seen (Fig. 7), there are kinks at the 17 18 energies 10 eV and 510 eV, i.e. on the "second knee" area and the beginning of irregularities in the spectrum like "dip-bump". As shown by the data of the Yakutsk array (Fig. 8), this is due to a change in the cosmic ray mass composition. At low energies up to 10 eV, there are noticeably more nuclei with an atomic mass of 4-56, at energies 17 18 of 10 -10 eV the proportion of protons increases and reaches a maximum, accounting for 60-80%. In the region of energy greater than 10 eV, CR predominantly consist of helium nuclei He, CNO, and heavier elements. 10 16 18 TABLE II: hX i , ( X ) and hlnAi observed in 1974-2014 at the Yakutsk array.10 - 10 eV max max 2 2 E , eV N, events X , g/cm (X ), g/cm hlnAi hlnAi stat. error 0 max max 1.74E+16 - 58917 - 1.97 0.68 2.62E+16 - 59114 - 2.25 0.55 3.50E+16 24 59811 53.67.7 2.23 0.43 5.31E+16 50 6068 56.75.7 2.35 0.32 7.01E+16 88 6086 56.34.2 2.50 0.24 8.85E+16 139 6175 58.93.5 2.34 0.20 1.07E+17 158 6285 62.83.5 2.17 0.20 1.24E+17 146 6315 60.53.5 2.17 0.20 1.42E+17 155 6365 62.23.5 2.09 0.20 1.60E+17 158 6395 62.93.5 2.07 0.20 1.78E+17 153 6465 61.93.5 1.97 0.20 2.68E+17 155 6555 62.33.5 1.95 0.25 3.57E+17 156 6725 62.43.5 1.48 0.21 5.43E+17 161 6885 63.53.5 1.28 0.21 7.18E+17 150 6955 61.23.5 1.30 0.22 9.06E+17 155 7035 62.43.5 1.18 0.22 18 19 TABLE III: hX i , ( X ) and hlnAi observed in 1974-2014 at the Yakutsk array. 10 5.710 eV max max 2 2 E , eV N, events X , g/cm (X ), g/cm hlnAi hlnAi stat. error 0 max max 1.09E+18 148 7155 60.93.5 0.87 0.22 1.27E+18 143 7215 59.83.5 0.73 0.22 1.45E+18 142 7255 59.63.5 0.66 0.22 1.64E+18 93 7346 58.04.3 0.47 0.25 1.82E+18 92 7356 57.44.2 0.47 0.26 2.74E+18 89 7496 56.54.2 0.30 0.26 3.66E+18 86 7626 55.74.2 0 0.26 5.56E+18 78 7696 52.94.2 0.09 0.26 7.35E+18 53 7747 50.84.9 0.17 0.30 9.27E+18 47 7777 48.15.0 0.34 0.30 1.12E+19 48 7847 48.75.0 0.25 0.30 1.28E+19 32 7828 45.55.7 0.39 0.35 1.48E+19 35 7848 47.25.6 0.48 0.35 1.66E+19 26 7829 45.56.3 0.69 0.39 1.86E+19 23 7859 42.86.3 0.73 0.39 2.80E+19 11 78713 42.99.1 0.99 0.56 3.74E+19 7 78315 39.710.6 1.57 0,64 5.69E+19 3 79023 41.116.8 1.69 0.97 Acknowledgement The reported study was funded by RFBR according to the research project 16-29-13019. 11 References [1] E. Berezhko, S. Knurenko, and L. Ksenofontov, Astroparticle Physics 36, 31 (2012). [2] V. Berezinsky, A. Gazizov, and S. Grigorieva, Physical Review D 74, 043005 (2006). [3] K. Greisen, Physical Review Letters 16, 748 (1966). [4] G. Zatsepin and V. Kuzmin, JETP Letters 4, 78 (1966). [5] V. Zrelov, Vavilov-Cherenkov radiation and its application in high-energy physics. Part 1 (Atom, Moscow, 1968). [6] J. Jelley, Cerenkov radiation and its applications (Pergamon Press, London, 1958). [7] S. Knurenko, V. Kolosov, and Z. Petrov, Proc. 27-th ICRC, Hamburg (Germany) 1, 157 (2001). [8] M. Dyakonov, S. Knurenko, V. Kolosov, and et al., Nuclear Instruments and Meth-s in Phys. Res. A 248, 224 (1986). [9] A. Tikhonov and V. Arsenin, Solutions of Ill-Posed Problems (V. H. Winston & Sons, Washington, D.C.: John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1977). [10] S. Knurenko, A. Ivanov, I. Sleptsov, and A. Sabourov, JETP Letters 83, 473 (2006). [11] S. Ostapchenko, Phys. Rev. D 83, 014018 (2011). [12] J. H orandel, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 47, 41 (2006). [13] V. Artamonov, B. Afanasyev, A. Glushkov, and et al., Bulletin of RAoS. Physics 58, 98 (1994). [14] S. Knurenko, Z. Petrov, and I. Petrov, NIM A 866, 230 (2017). [15] S. Knurenko, V. Kolosov, Z. Petrov, and et al., Sci. and Edu. 4, 46 (1998). [16] G. Garipov, V. Grigoryev, N. Efremov, and et al., Proc. 27th ICRC, Hamburg, Germany 2, 885 (2001). [17] A. Ivanov, S. Knurenko, A. Krasilnikov, Z. Petrov, M. Pravdin, I. Sleptsov, and L. Timofeev, NIM A 772, 34 (2015). [18] Y. Egorov, Z. Petrov, and S. Knurenko, Proc. of Science 301, 462 (2018). [19] M. Dyakonov, S. Knurenko, V. Kolosov, and et al., Atmos. Oceanic. Optics 12, 315 (1999). [20] V. Zuev, Atmospheric transparency in the visible and the infrared (Israel Program for Scienti c Translations, Jerusalem, 1970). [21] M. Dyakonov, S. Knurenko, V. Kolosov, and I. Sleptsov, Optics of atmosphere 4, 868 (1991). [22] S. Knurenko, S. Nikolashkin, A. Saburov, and I. Sleptsov, Proc. SPIE 6522, 65221U (2006). [23] S. Knurenko and I. Petrov, Proc. SPIE 9292, 92925B (2014). [24] A. Kochnev, Proc. of 'Use of PC in control problems'. Krasnoyarsk (USSR) pp. 62{71 (1985). [25] A. Belyaev, I. Ivanenko, B. Kanevsky, and et al., Electron-photon cascades in cosmic rays at ultra-high energies (Nauka, Moscow, 1980). [26] M. Dyakonov, Moscow:INR AS USSR p. 151 (1982). [27] A. Hillas, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 8, 1461 (1982). [28] J. Patterson and A. Hillas, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 9, 1433 (1983). [29] M. Giller, G. Wieczorek, A. Kacperczyk, and et al., Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 30, 97 (2004). [30] F. Nerling, J. Blumer,  R. Engel, and M. Risse, Astropart. Phys. 24, 421 (2006). [31] A. Smialkowski and M. Giller, The Astrophysical Journal 854, 48 (2018). [32] S. Knurenko, Yakutsk: SB RAS p. 168 (2003). [33] G. Guschin, Methods, instruments and results of the atmospheric spectral transparency measurements (Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad, 1988). [34] A. Glushkov, M. Dyakonov, S. Knurenko, and et al., Bull. of RAS. Physics 57, 91 (1993). [35] S. Knurenko, A. Ivanov, V. Kolosov, and et al., Intern. Jour. of Modern Physics A 20, 6897 (2005). [36] R. Abbasi, M. Abe, T. Abu-Zayyad, and et al., The Astrophysical Journal 865, 74 (2018). [37] H. Barbosa, F. Catalani, J. Chinellato, and C. Dobrigkeit, Astropart. Phys. 22, 159 (2004). [38] S. Knurenko, I. Petrov, Z. Petrov, and I. Sleptsov, EPJ Web of Conferences 99, 04001 (2015). [39] A. Ivanov, S. Knurenko, and I. Sleptsov, New Journal of Physics 11, 065008 (2009). [40] N. Kalmykov, Physics of Atomic Nuclei 6, 1019 (1967). [41] S. Knurenko and I. Petrov, JETP Lett. 107, 676 (2018). [42] J. Bellido, A. Aab, P. Abreu, and et al., Proc. of Science 301, 506 (2018). [43] R. Abbasi, M. Abe, T. Abu-Zayyad, and et al., ApJ 858, 76 (2018). [44] R. Abbasi, T. Abu-Zayyad, M. Al-Seady, and et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 199902 (2010). [45] R. Ulrich and L. Cazon, Astropart. Phys. 38, 41 (2012). [46] V. Prosin, S. Berezhnev, N. Budnev, and et al., EPJ Web of Conferences 121, 03004 (2016). [47] S. Buitink, A. Cortanje, H. Falcke, and et al., Nature 531, 70 (2016). [48] F. Riehn, R. Engel, A. Fedynitch, T. Gaisser, and T. Stanev, Proc. of Science 236, 558 (2015). [49] T. Pierog, I. Karpenko, J. Katzy, E. Yatsenko, and K. Werner, Phys. Rev. C 92, 034906 (2015). [50] M. Dyakonov, A. Ivanov, and S. K. et al., Proc. of 17 ICRC. Paris (France) 6, 78 (1981). [51] M. Dyakonov, A. Ivanov, and S. K. et al., Electromagnetic cascade pro les and uctuations of EAS lateral distribution (Yadernaya Fizika SB AS USSR, Yakutsk, 1983). [52] R. Abbasi, M. Abe, T. Abu-Zayyad, and et al., Phys. Rev. D 99, 02002 (2019). 12 [53] S. Knurenko and A. Sabourov, Astrophys. Space Sci. Trans. 7, 251 (2011).

Journal

AstrophysicsarXiv (Cornell University)

Published: Aug 5, 2019

References