Detecting Ultra-High Energy Horizontal Cosmic Ray Muons and

Neutrinos

Joakim R. Jörwall
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, AR 72204, USA

April 1997

Abstract
Only a handful cosmic rays at energies E≥100 EeV (1020 eV) have been detected and there is today no model
capable of satisfactorily accounting for the acceleration mechanisms and sources responsible for their existence.
Neutrino fluxes are associated with these extensive air showers (EAS). This paper is concerned chiefly with the
horizontally incident neutrino primaries as carriers of information, as far as these may constitute very good
predictors of arrival directions and, thus, the anisotropies of cosmic ray sources. The neutrino may also act as a
good indicator/discriminator of various accelerator models in the cosmic neighborhood. Results from
MOCCA92s-based Monte Carlo simulations of neutrino-initiated horizontal air showers (HAS) at energies of 1
EeV are presented. The predicted dependence of xmax, injection depth, lateral and horizontal distributions, as well
as shower composition, upon variations in the zenith-angle, is observed and compared to ordinary EAS.
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................3
1.1 WHY HIGH ENERGY COSMIC RAYS? ....................................................................................3
1.2 WHY NEUTRINOS?..............................................................................................................3
1.3 WHY HORIZONTAL AIR SHOWERS (HAS) AND HOW DO WE DISTINGUISH HORIZONTAL
NEUTRINO SHOWERS FROM OTHER SHOWERS ? .........................................................................4
1.4 WHY NOT DETECT NEUTRINOS “THE OLD-FASHIONED” WAY? ............................................4
2. THEORY ..............................................................................................................................5
2.1 PARTICLE INTERACTION CONSIDERATIONS .........................................................................5
2.2 ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................6
2.3 SHOWER CHARACTERISTICS ...............................................................................................7
2.4 DETECTOR CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................................9
3. PROCEDURE ......................................................................................................................9
3.1 TECHNICAL DETAILS ..........................................................................................................9
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................10
4.1 ANGULAR DEPENDENCE OF XMAX AND PRIMARY COMPOSITION.........................................10
4.2 ELECTRON AND MUON COMPONENTS ...............................................................................11
4.3 INJECTION DEPTH AND ANGULAR DEPENDENCE ................................................................14
4.4 LATERAL MUON DISTRIBUTIONS.......................................................................................16
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................18

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................19

REFERENCES........................................................................................................................20

2
1. Introduction
1.1 Why high energy cosmic rays?
Our lack of knowledge of the physics of the neutrino particle, its possible lower- and
upper-mass/energy limits, flavor-oscillations (the “missing” solar-neutrinos?), -creation and -
ratios makes the neutrino a prioritized target of basic scientific research on the Standard Model.
The neutrinos may also, among other things, substantially contribute to the “missing mass” of
the universe, the dark matter.
A related problem addressed here concerns the detection of the origin of ultra-high
energy (UHE) cosmic ray particles at the far end of the energy spectrum. A modest amount of
particles at energies around 100 EeV have been detected, but there is no model today capable of
satisfactorily accounting for the mechanisms responsible for their existence, even though they do
exist [1]. There is also no indication of any known point sources for these UHE cosmic ray
events; the sky is completely isotropic, hence the tracing of the cosmic ray back to its source
proves a surprisingly difficult task. Proposed sources are active galactic nuclei (AGN), decay of
topological defects associated with GUTs and exotic, unknown mechanisms perhaps requiring
new physics [2]. The neutrino may prove a valuable tool in this detection effort.

1.2 Why neutrinos?

Theoretical limits set on various parameters in particle-interactions suggest these UHE
cosmic rays are extra-galactic. A maximum distance scale (~50 Mpc) for “ordinary” cosmic rays
is set by the following: (a) Nucleons and nuclei interact increasingly strongly (photo-pion and
pair production) with the 2.7 K cosmic microwave background (CMBR) up to very high energies
and are deflected by magnetic fields, and (b) photons become attenuated and absorbed as they
propagate through “empty space”. A minimum distance scale (~30 kpc since the Milky Way has
an approximate diameter of 30 kpc) for the very highest events is due to the fact that there is no
known mechanism for their creation within our own galaxy [3]. The galactic magnetic fields, as
one example of an accelerating mechanism, are far too weak to boost particles to high enough
energies. Since no particle, not even the photon, travels along a straight and uninterrupted path,
we must for our purposes choose to use the particle that travels the straightest path. Neutrinos
really could care less, and are the particles least disturbed by their surroundings. We are here
concerned only with the (primary) neutrinos as tools, carriers of information, as far as these may
constitute very good predictors of arrival directions and, thus, the anisotropies of cosmic rays in
the cosmic neighborhood, beyond 50 Mpc. Therefore it seems reasonable to try probing the
origins of UHE cosmic rays with farther-seeing neutrino telescopes, as long as the resolution and
the rates are adequate. By implication from the aforementioned distance scales and their
respective mechanisms, neutrino-induced showers likely dominate at high energies, provided
possible neutrino decay is not a factor (oscillations?) [4]. More on this later.
As an additional benefit, we may gain further insights into the life cycle of the neutrino;
its properties, creation and interaction at extreme energies.

3
1.3 Why horizontal air showers (HAS) and how do we distinguish horizontal neutrino showers
from other showers ?
In order to avoid confusion among the various kinds of neutrinos discussed here, a brief
clarification may be warranted. The first kind, secondary particles (atmospheric neutrinos), are
produced in well-established particle decay processes of the extensive air shower (EAS) as the
particles interact weakly with the atmosphere [5]. The second kind is primary particles, neutrinos
initiating the showers themselves (and thereby also the lower-energy atmospheric neutrinos).
These atmospheric neutrinos may be discriminated against by requiring a high enough energy
detection threshold in the electronics, thus eliminating solar neutrinos and neutrinos from
supernovae. Atmospheric neutrinos, due to their smaller cross section, are also less likely to
initiate an event at the desired energy (>1 EeV).
As explained further in Section 2, it is advantageous to direct the neutrino EAS detection
effort towards massive and deep horizontal showers since the muons in the shower then would
be the only remaining component [6]: The mean-free path of the hadron primary is short
compared to the thickness of the atmosphere, and its decay-probability is therefore very large.
A muon or a neutrino has a much lower interaction-probability and will in almost all
cases reach ground level without interacting. As the incidence angle increases, the atmosphere
presents a greater and greater barrier. Ultimately, at large enough angles no hadrons will make it
through to initiate showers below a certain threshold depth, whereas the muon and the neutrino
are largely undisturbed. Hence the neutrino may initiate HAS at any depth below the threshold.

1.4 Why not detect neutrinos “the old-fashioned” way?

Several neutrino detector facilities are currently in operation, doing a marvelous job, but
some (e.g. Super-Kamiokande) of these detectors are highly specialized for their particular tasks
(proton decay, atmospheric neutrinos, solar-neutrinos etc.) and do not cover the high-energy
ranges (due to detector saturation etc.). Only a handful cosmic ray detectors are currently in
operation at energies above the EeV range, HiRes in the United States, AGASA in Japan and the
Tibet air-shower array, among others. HiRes (former Fly’s Eye) is a pure fluorescence detector
with an approximate duty cycle of 10%, boasting its 1991 detection of the highest cosmic ray
event ever at ~320 EeV. The undetermined primary particle initiated an EAS, at a 45° zenith-
angle, at ~807 g/cm2 which reached xmax at ~815 g/cm2, i.e. extremely rapidly. Protons, nuclei,
gammas and meteorites were ruled out as possible primaries [7]. What was it? AGASA is a pure
ground array covering “only” 100 km2.
An enormous cosmic ray telescope (The Pierre Auger Observatory, PAO) is currently
proposed. PAO is intended primarily for ordinary EAS events, but will as an added bonus have a
good capability for neutrino detection through HAS [8]. PAO will be a hybrid detector with both
a fluorescence detector and a ground array, providing a 100% duty cycle, even when the
fluorescence detector is out. The total ground array will cover a 60 times larger surface area than
AGASA and will be complemented by the fluorescence detector. This leads to superior and
abundant statistics; PAO is expected to provide the same amount of statistics in one year that
HiRes (Fly’s Eye) has collected up to date on very-high energy events [9]. Neutrino detection
would, as mentioned, be a “spin-off” of the intended functioning of the detector, but at much
higher energies than achieved before. So, why not seize the opportunity?

4
 This paper intends to probe this scenario further in Monte Carlo simulations. An idea of
what these horizontal PAO neutrino showers would look like, their composition and
characteristics, is developed and compared to ordinary showers.

2. Theory
2.1 Particle interaction considerations
The neutrino is a charge-neutral, presumably massless (or very nearly so; this of course
makes a difference for the mean-free path of the neutrino, depending on whatever that mass
would be) and stable lepton. It thus has an extremely small interaction cross section and an
extremely long mean-free path, making it almost incapable of interacting with anything in its
way. Magnetic fields, such as the 2 µG average field within our galaxy, then do not affect the
particle’s trajectory. One may well consider the neutrino trajectory to point straight as an arrow
back to the source whence it came. The resulting muon fluxes we are concerned with here are
produced in weak interactions (quark) according to the scheme [10]

νµ + N → µ + anything, (1)

specifically

νµ + n → µ- + p (2)

⎯νµ + p → µ+ + n (3)

where the incoming muon-neutrino here is possibly from cosmological sources (at high energies)
and interacts with a nucleon in the airmass surrounding the detector. The interactions are both
charged current and neutral current [11]:
µ- u νµ q

W- Z0

νµ d νµ q
(a) (b)
Figure 1 Feynman diagrams of (a) charged current interaction and (b) neutral current interaction. The virtual W is emitted by the neutrino and
the virtual Z is emitted by the quark.

5
 It is the produced muon, not the neutrino, that is of practical use due to its long lifetime
(Lorentz-dilated to ~440 µs from ~2.2 µs), easy detection through Čerenkov light, high fluxes
and early appearance in the shower development. The muons are charged particles, possessing
approximately 200 times the restmass of an electron, and are, at high energies, atmospherically
produced in charged pion, kaon and charmed particle decays according to the more detailed
modes [12]

p → π+ (+K+…) → µ+ + νµ
⎝
→ e+ +⎯νµ + νe (4)

or

n → π - (+K-…) → µ- +⎯νµ
⎝
→ e- + νµ +⎯νe . (5)

The production of atmospheric neutrinos, as noted earlier, also results from the
interactions of primary neutrinos with nucleons. Heavy nuclei also interact more strongly with
the atmosphere and initiate showers earlier than protons. As a rule of thumb, the heavier the
nucleus, the more muons are produced. It is further proposed that the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin
cut-off (GZK) is also a source of neutrinos from the decay of ∆+ particles [13] as

∆+ → pπ0 [~2/3] + nπ+ [~1/3] , (6)

where the subsequent charged pions decay through the modes of Eqs. (4) and (5).

2.2 Energy considerations

Generally, the interaction-to-energy ratios make detection experimentally easier at higher
energies. A linear increase in the neutrino charged-current (Fig. 1(a)) cross section with energy
has been suggested for neutrino energies <1 TeV, but a non-linear cross section for energies >1
PeV, i.e.

σcc = (2.69 x 10-36 cm2) (Eν / 1 GeV)0.4 , (7)

such that the cross section increases to ~10-32 cm2 for 1 EeV νµ -interactions with a nucleon [14].
At the low-end of the neutrino energy distribution, detection is then increasingly harder
and little is known since a very large cross-sectional detection area is required for efficiency. At
ultra-high energies the cosmic ray flux is dramatically reduced and tends to a minimum at the
GZK cut-off for large propagation distances (~50 x 1020 eV for protons) [15]. This cut-off is a
statement of the effective opacity of the universe bathed in a sea of CMBR photons: At energies
below the cut-off, frequent pair production is the dominant feature and above the cut-off photo-
pion production dominates. But since the GZK cut-off may indeed produce additional neutrinos
as suggested, the cosmic ray flux should not be nil and should show structure at the cut-off and

6
beyond, a property to be investigated by The Pierre Auger Project. A good recipe is obtained by
stacking the odds in favor of some low-flux UHE events to be caught by a very large detector.

2.3 Shower characteristics

A neutrino-induced HAS may be thought of in the following way: An incoming neutrino
interacts deep into the atmosphere (most likely with a proton or neutron as in Eqs. (2) and (3)),
thereby causing, say, a proton shower. We would then expect such an event to retain all of the
characteristics of a hadron shower (at a large zenith-angle):

Figure 2 Features of an extensive air shower.

7
 Three shower quantities (besides the quantities already considered in ordinary hadron
cosmic ray showers), angular resolution, energy resolution and primary composition, are of
importance in the detection of primary neutrinos. Also, quantities this paper investigates, (1) the
dependence of xmax/Pfotzer maximum (depth of maximum particle production) upon primary
particle composition, (2) the dependence of shower composition and xmax upon the angle of
incidence and (3) the maximum depth at which a resulting hadron shower is initiated. Heavier
nuclei reach xmax higher up in the atmosphere due to the “superposition model”: A vertical
(zenith-angle of zero) iron shower, with each nucleon possessing 1/56 of the energy of a
corresponding nucleon shower, reaches xmax almost 100 g/cm2 earlier than an equivalent-energy
proton shower [16]. Decay into pions and subsequently into high energy muons takes place
earlier through this partitioning of primary energy, with less energy lost into radiation and
electrons. It has been shown that the muon component of a horizontal shower in either case
would be the only significantly surviving channel in this dense environment, due to scattering of
the electromagnetic part [17].
As the angle of incidence increases, the airmass increases dramatically (as the inverse
cosine of the angle) [18], i.e. there is more air for the particle to traverse, and the respective xmax
should shift upward, closer to the top of the atmosphere. The depth at which shower initiation
takes place should also shift upward since the probability of an interaction is increased:

Figure 3 How the atmosphere changes: Relationship between zenith-angle and atmospheric depth at sea level.

8
 It has been suggested that for the case of a horizontally incident neutrino, the airmass,
although with a density thin compared to water, produces an equivalent effective water detector
volume of 1 km3 (a gigantic beam-dump!), as seen by the neutrino [19]. Therefore, a massive
UHE horizontal shower with a strong muon component and an xmax detected at well below the
maximum depth of any hadron shower, must be due to a primary neutrino.

2.4 Detector considerations

The small interaction cross section of the neutrino inevitably makes detection both very
difficult and very expensive. Cosmic-ray detectors suitable for higher energies must as stated be
very large, are generally of low efficiency, rely heavily upon statistics, models and direct muonic
interactions with some kind of scintillator material (Čerenkov detectors). PAP, a self-sufficient
and efficient but relatively cheap detector approach to ultra-high energy cosmic ray detection has
been proposed. PAP will consist of two 3000 km2 arrays of water Čerenkov detectors, in
conjunction with atmospheric fluorescence detectors of the kind HiRes uses, to be strategically
placed in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres for full sky coverage [20].
The issues of adequate angular resolution, as well as adequate energy resolution, are
critical to source identification. It is shown that PAP would possess the necessary characteristics,
due to its size, individual detector geometry and the spacing of the detectors, to allow sufficient
angular resolution (0.3° for ~1020 eV vertical proton events) [21]. Note that in the case of the
neutrino, no magnetic deflection occurs and angular resolution is limited solely by the detector.
Event rates are also of utmost importance. PAP expects rates of ~ 60 events per year at 10 EeV
energies [22]. With the GZK cut-off of protons and nuclei in mind, it seems likely a fair fraction
of these high-energy events are neutrino-induced.

3. Procedure
3.1 Technical details
Simulation results of neutrino initiated HAS at energies of 1 EeV and higher were
investigated. The MOCCA92s software with the SIBYLL high-energy event generator [23] was
used to generate the simulations. The MOCCA92s program is based upon the original code by
A. M. Hillas [24,25], but has been updated, tested and altered several times by different people
to suit the Pierre Auger Project [26]. The code for this version was graciously provided by J.
Matthews of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
The simulations were performed on a VAX 7810 at the University of Arkansas, Little
Rock under some limiting circumstances. The thinning parameter therefore is limited to 10-3 in
the hope that fluctuations will not significantly alter the shower development [27]. The thinning
parameter determines at what energy level individual particles should no longer be followed in
the simulation; particles above 1/1000th (a thinning of 10-3) of the primary energy are followed
thoroughly, whereas particles below 1/1000th are weighted according to their interaction/decay
probabilities as they reach ground level. Products of the latter are extrapolated to fill in the

9
statistics. Thinning saves time as the simulations otherwise would be very lengthy. The
observation depth was set to 870 g/cm2 to match the proposed depth of PAP (>880 g/cm2 or
<1500 m a.s.l.) [28]. The increased injection depth and the spatial proximity to the detector of
the earliest part of the shower development, should compensate adequately for a lower thinning
factor: The bulk of the primary energy, as well as the desired muonic component, would already
be present [29]. The injection depth was varied in order to estimate possible shower thresholds
and characteristics.
These simulations take advantage of the dramatically increasing effective density of the
atmosphere in conjunction with an increase in the path traveled as the angle of incidence
increases. By increasing the angle of incidence, and by requiring the events to be initiated well
into the atmosphere, i.e. below typical depths of the hadron interaction (thresholds determined
by preliminary simulations, Fig. 4), events other than neutrino events may be discounted on basis
of the particularly short mean-free paths of nucleons, nuclei and gammas in this “hostile”
environment.
Since the MOCCA92s program has not been built to simulate an incoming neutrino,
protons as primaries were instead used at a lower injection depth, following the earlier
discussion. Only zenith-angles up to 75° were used due to run limitations of the program (it
seems that large angles in combination with shallow injection depths might create an “infinitely
deep” atmosphere/lack of curvature of the earth?). MOCCA92s was probably not intended for
such large angles. The dependence on variations in the zenith-angle and injection depth of xmax,
lateral and horizontal distributions as well as the shower composition, was investigated also for
ordinary showers for purposes of identification and comparison.

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Angular dependence of xmax and primary composition.
In order to establish an effective cut-off with zenith-angle for hadron showers, the points
in Fig. 4 were plotted. The graph suggests that although all the showers were initiated close to
the top of the atmosphere (T.O.A.), and that the respective depth of shower maxima does vary as
a function of primary composition and zenith-angle, all showers tend to a common shower
maximum at high angles. At a 75° angle the cut-off for any horizontal hadron shower is
effectively reached at 200 g/cm2. One could then safely assume that few hadron HAS initiate
below this depth, whereas neutrino HAS surely would.

10
 ZENITH-ANGLE

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
0

(obs. depth = 870 g/cm^2)

200
PROTON SHOWER MAX
OXYGEN SHOWER MAX
IRON SHOWER MAX
400

IRON 600

DEPTH,g/cm^2
OXYGEN

800
PROTON

1000

1200

Figure 4 1 EeV showers and their respective xmax (census) for a proton, oxygen and iron injected at T.O.A., and the anticipated zenith-angle
variation. As expected, the more massive primaries reach a shower maximum earlier. The tendency is towards earlier and earlier xmax as the
angle grows. But, at very steep angles (75°), all three showers reach their respective maximum at about the same depth of 200 g/cm2. Solid lines
are trends, for emphasis.

4.2 Electron and muon components

Fig. 5 shows the longitudinal distributions of shower electrons for (a) protons and (b)
iron as the zenith-angle is varied. As expected, the electronic contribution suffers at large angles
and is virtually non-existent in HAS at the indicated observation depth. The same is true for
muons although only a small reduction in population is indicated at the observation depth: The
muonic component for proton and iron (Fig. 6), is maintained well beyond the observation depth
of 870 g/cm2 and even beyond sea-level for any angle.

11
 (a) P RO TO N
1000
75 deg
0 deg

100
NUMBER OF ELECTRONS(10^6

10
3 5 de g 5 deg
65 deg

50 de g

1
0 20 0 4 00 60 0 800 10 00 1200 1 400

20 d eg
0.1

(obs . depth = 870 g/c m ^2)

0.01
DEPT H,g /cm ^2

(b)
IRON
1000

35 deg

100
NUMBER OF ELECTRONS(x10^6

0 deg

50 deg
10 65 deg
75 deg

5 deg 20 deg

1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0.1

(obs. depth = 870 g/c m ^2)

0.01
DEPTH,g/cm ^2

Figure 5 (a) Trend lines of the electronic contribution to an EeV proton shower (injected at T.O.A.) at various angles. The contribution dies out
rather quickly at 75° but persists beyond sea level at 0°, where the decay is nearly exponential. (b) Same for an EeV iron shower. The tendency is
also here towards lower xmax,.

12
 (a)
PROTON
10

70 deg
30 deg
1
0 10060 deg 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0 deg
number of muons (x10^6)

0.1

10 deg

40 deg

0.01
20 deg
50 deg

0.001

(obs. depth = 870 g/cm^2)

0.0001
DEPTH,g/cm ^2

(b)
10 IRON
50 deg

70 deg 40 deg

1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
NUMBER OF MUONS(x10^6

0.1

60 deg 0 deg
30 deg

0.01

10 deg

20 deg

(obs. depth = 870 g/cm^2)

0.001
DEPTH,g/cm ^2

Figure 6 (a) Fit of the muon contribution of a proton-initiated EeV shower. (b) Same for an iron shower. The muon contribution is rather steady
compared with the electronic contribution and tends only slowly to zero beyond the observing depth. But, even here, a reduction with zenith-
angle is evident.

13
4.3 Injection depth and angular dependence

PROTON
ZENITH-ANGLE
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
500

550
Injection
depths
600
(g/cm^2)
500
650
400

200 300
700 100
T.O.A.
DEPTH,g/cm^2

200

750 100
300 400
T.O.A

800
500

850

900

950

1000

Figure 7 Average xmax for a proton shower, initiated at various depths of the atmosphere. The trend is rather steady towards a higher shower
maximum.

It seems likely that the shower maximum occurs earlier and earlier as the zenith-angle is
increased. Fig. 7 indicates that this indeed is the case for an incident proton (“neutrino”) as the
atmosphere presents a greater target.
This is for the shower as a whole. How many muons are present and at what depth (since
these are what the ground array would detect)? How does the energy content of the primary
divide out among the produced muons? And how do the muons distribute themselves radially
from the core of the shower? Fig. 8-11 gives some clues to the first question, Fig. 12-13 the
latter.

14
 T.O.A. 300 g/cm^2 500 g/cm^2
TOA 300 500
1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07

1.00E+06 1.00E+06 1.00E+06

1.00E+05 1.00E+05 1.00E+05

1.00E+04 1.00E+04 1.00E+04

number
number

number
1.00E+03 1.00E+03 1.00E+03

1.00E+02 1.00E+02 1.00E+02

1.00E+01 1.00E+01 1.00E+01

1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00

19.95

39.81

79.43
0.16

0.32

0.63

1.26

2.51

5.01

10

19.95

39.81

79.43
0.16

0.32

0.63

1.26

2.51

5.01

10

19.95

39.81

79.43
0.16

0.32

0.63

1.26

2.51

5.01

10
GeV GeV GeV

Figure 8 Muon kinetic energy distribution of a proton shower at 0° zenith-angle. The injection depths are T.O.A., 300 and 500 g/cm2.

100 g/cm^2 300 g/cm^2 500 g/cm^2

100 300 500
1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+07

1.00E+06 1.00E+06 1.00E+06

1.00E+05 1.00E+05 1.00E+05

1.00E+04 1.00E+04 1.00E+04

number

number

number
1.00E+03 1.00E+03 1.00E+03

1.00E+02 1.00E+02 1.00E+02

1.00E+01 1.00E+01 1.00E+01

1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00

12.59

19.95

31.62

50.12

79.43
3.16

5.01

7.94
2

0.16

0.32

0.63

1.26

2.51

5.01

19.95

39.81

79.43

0.16

0.32

0.63

1.26

2.51

5.01

19.95

39.81

79.43
10

10
Ge V Ge V Ge V

Figure 9 Same as Fig. 6 but at a zenith-angle of 45°.

300 g/cm^2 400 g/cm^2 500 g/cm^2

300 400 500
1.00E+07 1.00E+07 1.00E+06

1.00E+06 1.00E+06 1.00E+05

1.00E+05 1.00E+05
1.00E+04

1.00E+04 1.00E+04
number

number

number

1.00E+03
1.00E+03 1.00E+03

1.00E+02
1.00E+02 1.00E+02

1.00E+01 1.00E+01 1.00E+01

1.00E+00 1.00E+00 1.00E+00

19.95

39.81

79.43
0.16

0.32

0.63

1.26

2.51

5.01

10
19.95

39.81

79.43
0.16

0.32

0.63

1.26

2.51

5.01

10

19.95

39.81

79.43
0.16

0.32

0.63

1.26

2.51

5.01

10

GeV GeV GeV

Figure 10 Same as for Fig. 6 and 7 but at a zenith-angle of 60°.

15
 T.O.A. 500 g/cm^2
TO A
1 .0 0 E+0 7 500
1 .0 0 E+0 7
1 .0 0 E+0 6
1 .0 0 E+0 6

1 .0 0 E+0 5
1 .0 0 E+0 5

1 .0 0 E+0 4

number
1 .0 0 E+0 4

number
1 .0 0 E+0 3 1 .0 0 E+0 3

1 .0 0 E+0 2 1 .0 0 E+0 2

1 .0 0 E+0 1 1 .0 0 E+0 1

1 .0 0 E+0 0 1 .0 0 E+0 0

19.95

39.81

79.43
0.16

0.32

0.63

1.26

2.51

5.01

10
19.95

39.81

79.43
0.16

0.32

0.63

1.26

2.51

5.01

10

Ge V Ge V

Figure 11 Muon kinetic energy distributions again: The left curve is of an injection depth of 0° and at the top of the atmosphere. The right curve
is at an injection depth of 500 g/ cm2 and at a zenith-angle of 70°. The peaks are remarkably similar.

The muon kinetic energy distributions seem to be largely unchanged, regardless of

injection depth and zenith-angle. Fig. 11 shows this independence as we go from a very small
angle to a very large angle, and at a minimum depth close to a maximum (effectively) depth of
500 g/cm2.

4.4 Lateral muon distributions

0°, T.O.A. injection 20°, T.O.A. injection 30°, T.O.A. injection

8.00E+05 4.00E+05 2.00E+05
0deg,TOA 20deg,TOA 30deg,TOA
1.80E+05
Rsq*muden(n above 700MeV*sectheta)

7.00E+05 3.50E+05

1.60E+05
6.00E+05 3.00E+05
1.40E+05
5.00E+05 2.50E+05
1.20E+05

4.00E+05 2.00E+05 1.00E+05

3.00E+05 8.00E+04
1.50E+05

6.00E+04
2.00E+05
1.00E+05
4.00E+04
1.00E+05
5.00E+04
2.00E+04
0.00E+00
0.00E+00 0.00E+00
1414.22
176.78
353.55
707.11
11.05

44.19
88.39
0.09

0.17
0.35
0.69

1.38
2.76

5.52

22.1

1414.22

1414.22
176.78
353.55
707.11

176.78
353.55
707.11
11.05

44.19
88.39

11.05

44.19
88.39
0.09
0.17
0.35
0.69
1.38
2.76
5.52

22.1

0.09
0.17
0.35
0.69
1.38
2.76
5.52

22.1

r (m)

16
 50°, 300g/cm^2 injection depth 50°, 500g/cm^2 injection depth
6.00E+05 3.50E+05
50deg,300 50deg,500

Rsq*muden(n above 700MeV*sectheta)

5.00E+05
3.00E+05

2.50E+05
4.00E+05

2.00E+05
3.00E+05

1.50E+05
2.00E+05

1.00E+05

1.00E+05
5.00E+04

0.00E+00

1414.22
11.05

44.19

88.39

176.78

353.55

707.11
0.09

0.17

0.35

0.69

1.38

2.76

5.52

22.1

0.00E+00

1414.22
176.78

353.55

707.11
0.09

0.17

0.35

0.69

1.38

2.76

5.52

11.05

22.1

44.19

88.39
r (m )

60°, 300g/cm^2 injection depth 60°, 500g/cm^2 injection depth

4.00E+05 2.50E+05
60deg,300 60deg,500

3.50E+05
2.00E+05
3.00E+05

2.50E+05
1.50E+05

2.00E+05

1.00E+05
1.50E+05

1.00E+05
5.00E+04

5.00E+04

0.00E+00 0.00E+00

1414.22
176.78

353.55

707.11
11.05

44.19

88.39
0.09

0.17

0.35

0.69

1.38

2.76

5.52

22.1
1414.22
176.78

353.55

707.11
11.05

44.19

88.39
0.09

0.17

0.35

0.69

1.38

2.76

5.52

22.1

Figure 12 Lateral distributions of muons, from the shower core, in proton-induced 1 EeV showers. Various zenith-angles and injection depths.

17
 0°, T.O.A. injection 70°, 500g/cm^2 injection depth
8.00E+05 7.00E+05
0deg,TOA 70deg,500

Rsq*muden(n above 700MeV*sectheta)

Rsq*muden(n above 700MeV*setheta)

7.00E+05 6.00E+05

6.00E+05
5.00E+05

5.00E+05
4.00E+05

4.00E+05
3.00E+05
3.00E+05

2.00E+05
2.00E+05

1.00E+05
1.00E+05

0.00E+00 0.00E+00

176.78

353.55

707.11

1414.22
0.09

0.17

0.35

0.69

1.38

2.76

5.52

11.05

22.1

44.19

88.39
1414.22
11.05

44.19

88.39

176.78

353.55

707.11
0.09

0.17

0.35

0.69

1.38

2.76

5.52

22.1

r (m ) r (m )

Figure 13 Same as Fig. 10, but at a 0 and 70° zenith-angle and at an injection depth of 0 and 500 g/cm2.

Some observations regarding the lateral muon kinetic energy distribution:

(i) The lateral muon kinetic energy distributions seem to shift toward larger radial distances
from the shower core (first three graphs of Fig. 12 for the same injection depth and as the
angle increases.
(ii) For the same angle, but for larger and larger injection depths (last four graphs of Fig. 12), the
distribution seems to shift back again toward the core as more muons are generated faster in
a denser atmosphere.
(iii) The distribution at a large angle and at a large injection depth, is similar to that for a shallow
depth and a small angle (compare Fig. 13).

5. Summary and conclusions

Detection of neutrino-induced >1 EeV HAS is possible through discrimination: A
neutrino event would initiate deeper into the atmosphere and at larger zenith-angles than
ordinary showers. A neutrino event should show much the same properties as a proton-induced
event, due to the weak interaction.
Barring any simulation errors or lack of event data, the following simulation results were
obtained. Ordinary showers, initiated close to the top of the atmosphere (regardless of
composition) suffer a threshold at large zenith-angles, at approximately 200 g/cm2 (to be safe),
and may not initiate beyond this depth. The muon and electron distributions behave as predicted:
Only the muon component survives at large angles.
The muon kinetic energy distribution of a deeply penetrating, large zenith-angle shower
seems to be largely equivalent to a shallow-angle T.O.A. event. The same goes for the muon
lateral distribution.

18
6. Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my professors at the Department of Physics & Astronomy at the
University of Arkansas, Little Rock for their helpful discussions and invaluable advice in getting
me started on this paper. Special thanks to Drs. D. Wold, W. Braithwaite and A. Grauer, the
members of my project committee. I also owe a debt of gratitude to Lon Jones for technical
support.
As well a big thanks to the people of the Auger project at Fermilab for their inspiration in
the Summer of 1996 and their great help to make feasible this work in the first place.

19
References

[1] Design report of the Pierre Auger Collaboration, 2nd ed. revised March 14, 1997.

[2] J. Matthews, Measuring the Highest Energy Cosmic Rays: The Auger Project, GAP-97-007, 1997.

[3] A.M. Hillas, The Origin of Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 22 (1984) 425.

[4] T.K. Gaisser, F. Halzen and T. Stanev, Particle Astrophysics with High Energy Neutrinos, Phys. Rep., 258
(1995) 173.

[5] T.K. Gaisser, F. Halzen and T. Stanev, Particle Astrophysics with High Energy Neutrinos, Phys. Rep., 258
(1995) 173.

[6] J. Matthews, Composition measurements with Auger, GAP-97-006 , 1997.

[7] D.J. Bird et al., Detection of a Cosmic ray with Measured Energy Well Beyond the Expected Spectral Cutoff
Due to Cosmic Microwave Radiation, Astrophys. J., 441 (1995) 144-151.

[8] Design report of the Pierre Auger Collaboration, 2nd ed. revised March 14, 1997.

[9] The Pierre Auger Project: Frequently Asked Questions, available at http://www-td-
auger.fnal.gov:82/Questions/Questions.html.

[10] T.K. Gaisser, F. Halzen and T. Stanev, Particle Astrophysics with High Energy Neutrinos, Phys. Rep., 258
(1995) 173.

[11] J.W. Rohlf, Modern Physics from α to Ζ0. (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1994) p. 517.

[12] T.K. Gaisser, F. Halzen and T. Stanev, Particle Astrophysics with High Energy Neutrinos, Phys. Rep., 258
(1995) 173.

[13] T.K. Gaisser, F. Halzen and T. Stanev, Particle Astrophysics with High Energy Neutrinos, Phys. Rep., 258
(1995) 173.

[14] R. Gandhi, C. Quigg, M. Reno and I. Sarcevic, Ultrahigh-Energy Neutrino Interactions, FERMILAB-
PUB_95/221-T, 1995.

[15] P. Sokolsky, P. Sommers and B.R. Dawson, Extremely High Energy Cosmic Rays, Phys. Rep., 217 (1992)
225.

[16] J. Matthews, Composition measurements with Auger, GAP-97-006 , 1997.

[17] J. Matthews, Composition measurements with Auger, GAP-97-006 , 1997.

[18] O.C. Allkofer and P.K.F. Grieder, Characteristic data of the atmosphere. in: Physik Daten.
(Fachinformationszentrum Energie, Physik, Mathematik GmbH. Karlsruhe. 1983) p. 19.

[19] J.W. Cronin, G. Parente and E. Zas, Detecting UHE Muons and Neutrinos with a Giant Shower Array (Draft),
US/FT/1-96, January 1996.

20
[20] Design report of the Pierre Auger Collaboration, 2nd ed. revised March 14, 1997.

[21] The Pierre Auger Project: Frequently Asked Questions, available at http://www-td-
auger.fnal.gov:82/Questions/Questions.html.

[22] J. Matthews, Measuring the Highest Energy Cosmic Rays: The Auger Project, GAP-97-007, 1997.

[23] R.S. Fletcher et al., Phys. Rev., D50 (1994) 5710.

[24] A.M. Hillas, The Sensitivity of Cerenkov Radiation Pulses to the Longitudinal Development of Cosmic-ray
Showers, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys., 8 (1982) 1475.

[25] A.M. Hillas, Angular and Energy Distributions of Charged Particles in Electron-photon Cascades in Air, J.
Phys. G: Nucl. Phys., 8 (1982) 1461.

[26] K.M. Simpson and B.R. Dawson, Longitudinal Development and Lateral Distributions with MOCCA and
SIBYLL, GAP-96-044, 1996.

[27] D. Ravignani, F. Hasenbalg and C. Hojvat, Cosmic Ray Shower Simulations with MOCCA: Artificial
Fluctuations Due to Thinning, GAP-96-020, 1996.

[28] Design report of the Pierre Auger Collaboration, 2nd ed. revised March 14, 1997.

[29] J. Matthews, Composition measurements with Auger, GAP-97-006 , 1997.

21