Upload
valentine-mcgee
View
18
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Fluorescence Yield of Cosmic Rays at Various Altitudes. Melissa May Maestas Riverton High School March 7, 2003. Cosmic Rays. Mostly charged particles from outer space Two predominant components protons Iron nuclei. 2. 3. Cosmic Ray Detector. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Fluorescence Yield of Cosmic Rays at Various Altitudes
Melissa May Maestas
Riverton High School
March 7, 2003
Cosmic Rays
Mostly charged particles from outer space
Two predominant components protons Iron nuclei
2
3
Cosmic Ray Detector
Fluorescence light from particle shower can be detected by fast, sensitive cameras (“eyes”) on clear, moonless nightsSchematic of twin “eyes”
imaging an air shower
4
HiRes
HiRes: High Resolution Fly’s Eye Group A collaboration of eight universities Mission: measure Ultra-High Energy Cosmic
Rays
Photons are detected with photo-multiplier tubes (PMTs)
5
HiRes Detector
66 detector units each consisting of 2m diameter mirror and 256 PMTs
Each PMT views 1 degree cone of sky
6
A 25 Microsecond Movie of An Air ShowerA 25 Microsecond Movie of An Air Shower
(playback at 1/500,000 speed)
7
FLASH
FLASH: Fluorescence from Air in Showers Experiment to measure more precisely the
fluorescence yield Calibration of HiRes technique
Energy measured from amount of light detected
Beam pulses of ~billion electrons sent through chamber of gas
– Various pressures– PMT signal measured
8
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center2-mile accelerator3x1010 eV electrons in pulses of
~109 particlesSite of FLASH experiment
9
10
Chamber
11
Experiment
Experiment involved 30 people including two month preparation period between April-June, 2002
Data collected during 3 week “run” in June, 2002 at SLAC
Additional calibration analysis still in progress to this date
My part in this effort included PMT calibration, data analysis and preparation for next FLASH run
12
Experiment / Hypothesis
FLASH experiment simulated particle showers from cosmic rays
Hypothesis: Fluorescence yield would: Increase as pressure increases Decrease as altitude increases
Shower particles/electrons likely to interact more if more molecules present
13
Analysis Procedure
Data selections made for pressure dependence analysis
Plotted: Full pressure range to find settings used Each pressure distribution to find its mean Digitized PMT signal at each pressure Mean PMT signals vs. mean pressures
Converted pressure to altitude P(z)=Poe-mgz/KT
14
Pressure - Torr
Number of electron pulses
Pressure
15
Number of electron pulses
Lowest Pressure Range
Pressure - Torr 16
Signal at Lowest Pressure Range
PMT Signal - ADC Counts
Number of electron pulses
17
18
19
Discussion
Result: Yield increases at low pressures but levels off at higher pressures
Hypothesis supported at low pressures Higher yield - more molecules per unit length for
shower particles/electrons to interact with
Hypothesis not supported at higher pressures Maybe: At low pressures, only amount of gas
affects signal Maybe: At higher pressures, gas molecules interact
with each other, interfering with electrons
20
Future Improvements & Experiments
Convert ADC counts to number of photons per electron
– Calibration project currently underway
Examine Various Beam charge ranges Higher beam charge - higher yield, same
relationship?? Part 2 of FLASH: Summer of 2003
wavelength dependence shower depth dependence
21
Acknowledgments
Dr. Charles Jui Dr. John N. Matthews Dr. Petra Huentemeyer John Hinton Justin Findlay Cigdem Ozkan The HiRes Collaboration
22