Cosmic Rays: The Commonwealth and International Library: Selected Readings in Physics

discussions.

PART 1

Outline

Chapter I: Discovery

Chapter II: The Nature of the Radiation

Chapter III: Particles Produced by the Cosmic Rays

Chapter IV: The Primary Cosmic Radiation

Chapter V: Radio Waves from the Galaxy

Chapter VI: Extensive Air Showers

Chapter VII: The Origin of Cosmic Rays

Chapter VIII: Local Peculiarities

Chapter IX: Other Cosmic Radiations

References

I

Discovery

Publisher Summary

This chapter reviews the discovery of cosmic rays. Elster and Geitel in Berlin had pioneered the study of electrical conduction in the open air and had deduced that this resulted from the presence of positive and negative ions in the air. Attempts to interpret variations of the conductivity with geographical location, altitude, time, and atmospheric conditions were complicated by the fact that it depended not only on the concentration of ions but also on their variable mobility. However, Geitel and C.T.R. Wilson found that some ionization was present even in closed vessels containing air. When much of the ionization had been traced to radioactive impurities and deposits, but the residual amount was uncertain, Hess in Vienna and Kolhörster in Berlin undertook the preparation of very remarkable ascents in open balloons to find how high the radiation penetrated. The chapter also discusses a few experiments that were carried out by Millikan and Cameron that involved measurements of the ionization produced in electrometers lowered into snow-fed lakes in California, which were thought to be free from radioactive contamination.

THE history of the investigation of cosmic rays is remarkable for the variety of the new phenomena revealed or illuminated, so one is prepared for some original turn of events whenever a new method or domain of observation is opened up. It is of interest to see this happening as we pass through the eras of Geiger–Müller counters, cloud chambers, emulsions, radio-telescopes, and so on, and as the site of the observations is extended. But first, we see what can be done with an electroscope.

1.1 The penetrating radiation

Around 1900 the phenomena of ionization and electrical conduction in gases were under investigation in several laboratories; the electron was a new discovery, the phenomena of radioactivity were becoming established, though without a fundamental understanding in terms of atomic nuclei, and the effectiveness of certain radiations in producing ionization in air was known.

Elster and Geitel in Berlin had pioneered the study of electrical conduction in the open air and had deduced that this resulted from the presence of positive and negative ions in the air. Attempts to interpret variations of the conductivity with geographical location, altitude, time and atmospheric conditions, and so to trace its source, were complicated by the fact that it depended not only on the concentration of ions but also on their variable mobility. This bedevilled many experiments for the next decade. However, Geitel and C. T. R. Wilson, also interested in atmospheric electricity, found that some ionization was present even in closed vessels containing air, even in the dark, Wilson concluding that 20 ion pairs must be formed per cm³ per second. These conclusions were drawn from observations of the rate at which a charged gold leaf electroscope lost its charge even when protected against surface leakage. Wilson’s account continues (Wilson, 1901):

"The experiments with this apparatus were carried out at Peebles. The mean rate of leak when the apparatus was in an ordinary room amounted to 6·6 divisions of the micrometer scale per hour. An experiment made in the Caledonian Railway tunnel near Peebles (at night after the traffic had ceased) gave a leakage of 7·0 divisions per hour, the fall of potential amounting to 14 scale divisions in the two hours for which the experiment lasted. The difference is well within the range of experimental errors. There is thus no evidence of any falling off of the rate of production of ions in the vessel, although there were many feet of solid rock overhead.

It is unlikely, therefore, that the ionization is due to radiation which has traversed our atmosphere; it seems to be, as Geitel concludes, a property of air itself.

A worthy attempt—but it turned out (Elster and Geitel) that air in cellars and caves was especially conducting due to traces of radioactive emanation constantly seeping from the ground. It was clear that radioactive contamination played an important part in these observations. Perhaps all matter was to some extent radioactive.

Rutherford, then working in Montreal, himself observed the residual ionization in electroscopes, and found that some could be cut out by a lead shield (Rutherford and Cooke, 1903) indicating that part was due to γ-rays from the walls of his building, but inside a 5-ton mass of lead there remained 6 ions cm−3 s−1. As late as the first edition of his book on radioactive substances (Rutherford, 1913) he concludes, however, that the very weak activity actually observed is in all probability to be ascribed to the presence of traces of radioactive matter as impurities —in the walls of the vessel. It may seem that Rutherford missed the mark, but the conclusion appears to be essentially correct, in so far as it refers to observations near sea level. Most of the effects observed were not due to an external radiation (which, it now appears, contributes one-quarter of Rutherford’s residual ionization). It seems fortunate that most experiments around this time showed sufficient inaccuracy and unrepeatable results to stimulate further investigation over varying conditions and especially at higher altitudes. One observation in particular which spurred the search for an external radiation was a considerable diurnal variation in the ionization observed by several workers, pointing to the possibility of an extra-terrestrial source. However, the results were not reproducible: the variation was affected by atmospheric conditions and precipitation, and was much reduced as observing methods improved.

It should be remembered that the known ionizing agents arising from radioactive materials were α-particles, which leave a very heavy trail of ions along their tracks, and are stopped by ∼ 5 cm of air or a sheet of paper, β-particles, which expend their energy in ionization more gradually, and γ-rays, much the most penetrating, which would be cut down by a factor 10 in intensity by a few centimetres of lead, their ionization resulting only from secondary fast electrons ejected from materials they traverse.

To make more accurate measurements of the small amount of ionization Wulf developed a very sensitive electrometer in which the main part consisted of two quartz fibres fastened together at their ends, made slightly conducting, and carrying a small weight. When charged, the fibres bowed apart, and the very small electrical capacitance made the instrument sensitive to very small charges; and patient investigation showed that careful cleaning of zinc vessels gave less radioactive contamination and lower ionization rates.

This was the instrument used by most workers. It was possible to detect changes in ionization of a few ions cm−3 s−1.

The ionization fell considerably over lake water or over a glacier (the experiments gave considerable scope for travel). As both should be relatively free from radioactive contamination, it became clear that much of the ionization arose from γ-rays emitted from radioactive trace elements in the earth, and quantitative estimates did not seem unreasonable. Although 3 ions cm−3 s−1 remained over a glacier, and all estimates showed that the ionization to be expected from emanation escaping into the air should be at most one-tenth of the direct effect of γ-rays from the earth, it was hard to be certain that deposits did not form on the apparatus. However, Gockel did not find evidence of any decrease in the effect with altitude above a glacier. Experiments on towers showed a partial reduction as expected, but were inconclusive: in 1910 Wulf found that the ionization fell from 6 to 3·5 as he ascended the Eiffel Tower (330 m), whereas γ-rays should be halved in 80 m of air.

1.2 Manned balloon ascents

At this point, when much of the ionization had been traced to radioactive impurities and deposits, but the residual amount was uncertain, Hess in Vienna and Kolhörster in Berlin undertook the preparation of very remarkable ascents in open balloons to find how high the radiation penetrated.

Hess made two ascents to 1000 m in 1912, and after finding no drop in ionization realized that there must be a different cause. He then checked that at least up to 90 m from 1 g of radium C the γ-rays had an absorption coefficient of 4·5 × 10−5 cm−1 in air. He also analysed carefully the sources of radioactive materials in the air, and found that they could account for at most one-twentieth of the ionization seen between 1 and 2 km up (Hess, 1913).

In September 1912 Hess reported at a meeting in Münster the results of seven balloon flights, now reaching over 5 km, in which he found that after an initial reduction as expected, the intensity of ionization became very much greater with altitude. He concluded that there was a very penetrating radiation coming through the atmosphere from above. This remarkable observation went almost unrecorded in the British scientific literature. Extracts from Hess’s report are reprinted in Part 2 (Paper 1).

Kolhörster checked the effects which low temperature would have on the Wulf electrometers, and then in 1913 and 1914 made his dangerous ascents to 6 km and then 9 km, confirming and greatly extending the observations of an increase in radiation. Table 1.1 shows the average difference between the ionization observed at various heights (ions cm−3 s−1) and that at sea level (Kolhörster, 1914).

TABLE 1.1

There was a radiation from space which had an attenuation coefficient of only 1 × 10−5 cm−1, much more penetrating than known γ-rays.

ions cm−3 s−1 is attributable to the penetrating radiation there, and a little more to radiation from the ground.)

Now that there was clear evidence of an external radiation, the next problem was to locate its source. (It still is.) Hess referred (Paper 1) to the absence of any noticeable drop during a partial solar eclipse which, taken with the absence of a large day–night variation, pointed away from the Sun as a source. Many physicists kept observations of the ionization (screened from local γ-rays) for long periods of time in the hope of detecting variations with sidereal time, as the observer faced different parts of the sky. Although variations due to atmospheric changes came to light, and many observers claimed even very large daily changes, no real effects came out of this work, and it will be passed over.

1.3 Millikan’s experiments

Not all physicists were convinced by the evidence of a penetrating radiation, however. In America, Millikan was apparently unimpressed in face of the variations amongst the results reported by different workers; and when he moved to the California Institute of Technology after the First World War he set out very energetically to obtain much more precise measurements of the ionization and its variation with altitude.

Millikan’s advances in technique were very important, though at first his interpretation of the results confirmed his doubts. In 1922 Millikan and Bowen adapted meteorological sounding balloons to carry light-weight electroscopes which reached 15 km altitude, recording results automatically by casting a shadow of the fibres onto a moving photographic film. Two out of four balloons were recovered after their flights, and the results indicated much less ionization above 5 km than expected on an extrapolation of Kolhörster’s observations, though a large effect of temperature prevented detailed analysis. In the following year an expedition to Pike’s Peak (Millikan and Otis, 1926) confirmed his doubts when at an altitude of 4·3 km on the mountain he found the rate of ionization increased by 11·6 units compared with Pasadena, but if shielded by 48 mm of lead, the apparatus saw an increase of only 2·2 units. Millikan concluded that there was no cosmic radiation of the characteristics previously described, the increase at altitude representing a local γ-radiation. (It appears that the increase of 11·6 is what would be read from Kolhörster’s balloon observations, contrary to Millikan’s belief: the unexpected feature is really that lead is such an effective screen for radiation which is very penetrating in air.) From this it will be gathered that wrong conclusions can readily be drawn from cosmic-ray experiments unchecked by different techniques or different physicists.

In 1925 Millikan and Cameron began a series of measurements of the ionization produced in electrometers lowered into snow-fed lakes in California, which were thought to be free from radioactive contamination. The purpose was to clear up inconsistencies in measurements of the absorption coefficient of the radiation by making very precise measurements with a low background ionization. These results removed all doubts: in Muir Lake at an altitude of 3600 m the ionization dropped from 13·3 ions at the surface to 3·6 at a depth of 15 m; and in Arrowhead Lake at 2040 m the same readings were obtained at depths 6 ft less than those in Muir. As the mass of air between these altitudes corresponds to 1·85 m of water, the results strongly indicate a radiation travelling downwards through the air with no local generation. The results are shown in Figure 1.

FIG. 1 The observations of Millikan and Cameron with submerged electrometers. ML, A, mark the lake surfaces.

The absorption coefficient found for this radiation in the water was even smaller than had been suspected from the measurements in the open atmosphere, and the absorption was not exponential, but became steadily slower at greater depths. Millikan made repeated attempts over the next decade to analyse such absorption into a superposition of exponentials corresponding to γ-rays of different energies. The hardest rays on the graph shown, with an absorption coefficient of 0·18 m−1 water, were then taken to be γ-rays of ∼ 30 MeV, and later under 70 m water the coefficient was down to 0·04 m−1 water.

Millikan introduced the name cosmic rays at this point, and he already saw that they carried to the Earth an energy at least a few per cent of that arriving from the stars. Speculating on their possible origin, he suggested the synthesis of elements from hydrogen in space as the only adequate energy source, as by a remarkable coincidence the apparent energies deduced coincided with the nuclear binding energies of the common elements He (29 MeV), O and Si (∼ 240 MeV).

When a more accurate quantum mechanical treatment of Compton scattering of photons was published ((me being the electron mass), the Klein-Nishina formula gives an attenuation coefficient (in a material of atomic number and mass Z, A)

†where E is measured in MeV. Or, for water,

But this theory of attenuation had never been tested beyond a few MeV, and in fact is incomplete: for no γ-ray energy is the total attenuation in water less than 1·7m−1, a minimum reached at 40 MeV. In a lead absorber pair production has a dominant effect at even lower energies, but the anomalous absorption of the softer component in lead (i.e. not simply dependent on the density of atomic electrons in the material) was not appreciated and Millikan regarded observations of the less penetrating rays with suspicion. For this reason he did not discover any geographical dependence, when he made observations in a Bolivian lake. Perhaps it is fortunate that he could not detect a discrepancy in intensities at the two lake altitudes, an effect later exploited in connection with the instability of the particles, or the force of his observations might have been obscured.

Another fact which became better established during this period was that the radiation came from no preferred directions in space.

From Millikan’s more precise measurements, it was deduced that at sea level the part of the ionization due to cosmic rays amounted to only 1.4 ion pairs cm−3 s−1, in air at atmospheric pressure. It seems, therefore, that it did first make an undisputed appearance in Hess’s observations.

†Mass per unit area is a useful way to measure thickness of absorbers.

II

The Nature of the Radiation

Publisher Summary

This chapter discusses the nature of the radiation of cosmic rays. The likely existence of different primary and secondary rays of the radiation was recognized at the start, and their interrelationships soon set an unexpectedly challenging and tortuous problem. In the early part of the century, Skobelzyn had set up a small cloud chamber between the poles of a magnet to measure the energies of β-particles of radioactive origin from the curvature of their tracks. In some of the photographs, he saw extraneous tracks that were hardly deflected, looking like electrons of energies greater than 15 MeV. These were the first pictures of tracks of cosmic rays. He interpreted the particles as Compton recoil electrons secondary to the Hess ultra-γ-radiation. Later, it was observed by Bothe and Kolhörster that when two counters containing radioactive contamination were placed one above the other, simultaneous discharges in the two occurred very frequently, indicating that a charged particle of sufficient penetrating power had passed through the two. Having found charged particles reaching the ground from a great altitude, Bothe and Kolhörster pointed to the likely effect of the geomagnetic field on particles of the energy in question if they approached from infinity.

PAPER 2 takes up the question of the nature of the radiation which had been discovered.

The outstanding property of the radiation was its penetrating power: it was still detectable after passing through 1000 g cm−2 of our atmosphere, equivalent in mass to 76 cm of mercury. As we have seen, for the softer (less penetrating) part of the radiation, this did not seem to call for too large an extrapolation of the penetrating properties of known γ-rays, in contrast to electrons, or β-rays, which normally had ranges of < 1 g cm−2. A plausible picture was thus of a γ-ray entering and penetrating a large part of the atmosphere before giving up most of its energy by elastic collision to an atomic electron. These recoiling electrons, of relatively short range, were seen as the agents causing ionization in detectors, through which the γ-rays were indirectly