text:
# Power-law behavior in the power spectrum induced by Brownian motion of a domain wall

Address since April 1, 2003: \]Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan Address since April 1, 2003: \]Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan Address since April 1, 2003: \]Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan

## Abstract

We show that Brownian motion of a one-dimensional domain wall in a large but finite system yields a $`\omega ^{3/2}`$ power spectrum. This is successfully applied to the totally asymmetric simple exclusion process (TASEP) with open boundaries. An excellent agreement between our theory and numerical results is obtained in a frequency range where the domain wall motion dominates and discreteness of the system is not effective.

The asymmetric simple exclusion process (ASEP) is one of the simplest models of collective transport of particles.spohn ; D98 ; schutz  It can be interpreted as a simplified model of traffic flowhelbing ; chowdhury  or as a model of granular flow.hayakawa  Since some exact solutions of ASEP can be obtained under given boundary conditions, we may capture essential feature of more complicated systems such as traffic flows and granular flows.

In the study of the traffic flow or granular flow, the power spectrum $`I(\omega )`$ is used to investigate properties of local density fluctuations of vehicles or particles and it commonly shows a power-law form $`I(\omega )\omega ^\alpha `$. For example, in real observation of granular flow, it is confirmed that $`\alpha =4/3`$hayakawa ; peng ; moriyama . On the other hand, the value of the exponent $`\alpha `$ has not yet fixed for traffic flows.musha ; tadaki  It is worthwhile mentioning that the structure factor (Fourie transform of the power spectrum) in the Rouse model, which is the simplest model of polymer dynamics, obeys $`exp[(t/\tau )^{1/2}]`$ with the relaxation time $`\tau `$deGennes . Namely, the Brownian motion of structured material produces $`I(\omega )\omega ^{3/2}`$.

In this paper, we numerically calculate the power spectrum for the totally asymmetric simple exclusion process (TASEP) which is the simplest ASEP and find that this model also exhibits power-law $`I(\omega )\omega ^{3/2}`$. This behavior can be explained by a domain wall theorykolomeisky ; santen .

The TASEP is a continuous-time stochastic process on the one-dimensional lattice which is defined as follows. Consider the set of lattice points $`L/2,L/2+1,\mathrm{},L/2`$. Each site $`i`$ is either occupied by a particle ($`\tau _i=1`$) or empty ($`\tau _i=0`$). During an infinitesimal time interval $`dt`$, each particle hops to the right adjacent site with probability $`dt`$ if the destination site is empty. Moreover, in case of open boundaries, a particle is injected to site $`L/2`$ with probability $`\alpha dt`$ if the site is empty, and a particle is extracted from site $`L/2`$ with probability $`\beta dt`$ if the site is occupied.

The steady state of this model is exactly obtained for any parameter values $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ and system size $`L`$ by the method of matrix-product ansatzDEHP93 , which can also be applied to the more general ASEPSasamoto . Moreover, in the steady state, the mean occupation at site $`i`$, $`\rho =\tau _i`$, and the current $`J=\tau _i(1\tau _{i+1})`$ can be calculated in the large $`L`$ limit. As the result, it turns out that there exist three phases depending upon values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ as follows. When $`\alpha <\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\alpha <\beta `$, the mean occupation is $`\rho =\alpha `$ and the current is $`J=\alpha (1\alpha )`$. This is called the low density phase. When $`\beta <\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\beta <\alpha `$, the mean occupation is $`\rho =1\beta `$ and the current is $`J=\beta (1\beta )`$. This is called the high density phase. When $`\alpha >\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\beta >\frac{1}{2}`$, the mean occupation is $`\rho =\frac{1}{2}`$ and the current is $`J=\frac{1}{4}`$. This is called the maximum current phase. The phase diagram is illustrated in Fig. 1.

The thick line in Fig. 1, $`\alpha =\beta <\frac{1}{2}`$, is the coexistence line, where we focus our attention in the following. In this case, there occurs a domain wall between a left-hand region of the low density phase and a right-hand region of the high density phase. It is known that the time-averaged density profile is a linear function of the position. This means that the domain wall can be anywhere with equal probability as a result of its random walk. This kind of kink motion can also be obtained from a decouple approximation of ASEP where the equation of density profile is reduced to the inviscid Burgers equation. It should be noted that the inviscid Burgers equation is a model equation of traffic flowhelbing ; musha .

The average motion and fluctuations of a domain wall is obtained as followskolomeisky ; santen . Assume that the system consists of a left domain of particle density $`\rho _{}`$ and flux $`j_{}`$ and a right domain of particle density $`\rho _+`$ and flux $`j_+`$. Then the drift velocity of the domain wall is derived via the equation of continuity as

$$V=\frac{j_+j_{}}{\rho _+\rho _{}}.$$
(1)
This is further interpreted as the result of random walk of the domain wall with hopping rates

$$D_+=\frac{j_+}{\rho _+\rho _{}},D_{}=\frac{j_{}}{\rho _+\rho _{}},$$
(2)
for a move to the right ($`D_+`$) and the left ($`D_{}`$). In particular, on the coexistence line, the drift velocity vanishes and the diffusion constant for the domain wall motion is given by

$$D=\frac{\alpha (1\alpha )}{12\alpha }.$$
(3)
We carried out Monte Carlo simulations of the TASEP with open boundary conditions of system size $`L=200`$. In our simulations, one Monte Carlo step corresponds to time interval $`0.1`$. Parameter values are chosen to be $`\alpha =\beta =0.2`$, which is on the coexistence line. After discarding transient parts before a sufficiently large time $`T_0`$, sequences of site values $`\{x_t=\tau _y(T_0+t)|t=0,1,\mathrm{},T1\}`$ at a fixed position $`y`$ is recorded. The length of the sequence is $`T=2^{20}`$. Fourier components of the series is denoted by $`\varphi _n`$. That is,

$$\varphi _n=\frac{1}{T}\underset{t=0}{\overset{T1}{}}x_te^{i\omega _nt},$$
(4)
where $`\omega _n=\frac{2\pi n}{T}`$ ($`n=0,1,2,\mathrm{},`$). Then the power spectrum $`I(\omega )`$ is computed by

$$I(\omega _n)=T\left|\varphi _n\right|^2,$$
(5)
where the brackets mean averaging over 256 samples.

Figure 2 shows the simulation result for $`y=0`$, which lies in the center of the system. It is clearly observed that the power spectrum is propotional to $`\omega ^{3/2}`$ in the frequency range $`5\times 10^52\times 10^3`$. In the following, we show that this power law behavior is induced by Brownian motion of the domain wall.

Now we consider a Brownian motion of a domain wall in an idealized form. Let a domain wall be described by the step function $`\theta (x)`$ as

$$\tau (x,t)=\theta (xX(t)),$$
(6)
where $`X(t)`$ is a Brownian motion in $`[L/2,L/2]`$. The end points $`L/2`$ and $`L/2`$ are assumed to be the reflecting boundaries. Then, the autocorrelation function of $`\tau (y,t)`$ is given by

$$\tau (y,t)\tau (y,0)=_{L/2}^y𝑑x_0_{L/2}^y𝑑xP_{\mathrm{st}}(x_0)P(x,t|x_0,0)$$
(7)
where $`P_{\mathrm{st}}(x)`$ is the stationary probability density for $`X(t)=x`$ and $`P(x,t|x_0,0)`$ is the transition probability density. In other words, if $`D`$ denotes the diffusion constant for $`X(t)`$, $`P_{\mathrm{st}}(x)`$ is the stationary solution of the diffusion equation

$$\frac{P}{t}=D\frac{^2P}{x^2}$$
(8)
with the boundary condition

$$\frac{P}{x}|_{x=\frac{L}{2}}=\frac{P}{x}|_{x=\frac{L}{2}}=0$$
(9)
and $`P(x,t|x_0,0)`$ is the solution with initial condition $`P(x,0|x_0,0)=\delta (xx_0)`$. The equation is easily solved and we find

$$P_{\mathrm{st}}(x)=\frac{1}{L}$$
(10)
and

$`P(x,t|x_0,0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{n:\mathrm{even}}{}}e^{D\lambda _n^2t}\mathrm{cos}\lambda _nx_0\mathrm{cos}\lambda _nx`$ (11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{n:\mathrm{odd}}{}}e^{D\lambda _n^2t}\mathrm{sin}\lambda _nx_0\mathrm{sin}\lambda _nx,`$
where $`\lambda _n=\frac{\pi n}{L}`$ with $`n=1,2,3,\mathrm{}`$. Then, the integral in the right side of Eq. (7) is carried out to produce

$`\tau (y,t)\tau (y,0)=`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(L+2y)^2}{4L^2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{D\lambda _n^2t}}{L^2\lambda _n^2}}\left[1+(1)^{n1}\mathrm{cos}2\lambda _ny\right].`$
This result can be generalized to negative $`t`$ by replacing $`t`$ by $`|t|`$ in the above expressions.

Because the power spectrum is equal to the Fourier transform of the autocorrelation function, we have

$`I(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}e^{i\omega t}\tau (y,t)\tau (y,0)𝑑t`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\delta (\omega )+{\displaystyle \frac{2D}{L^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+(1)^{n1}\mathrm{cos}2\lambda _ny}{D^2\lambda _n^4+\omega ^2}}.`$
If the oscillatory part including factor $`(1)^{n1}`$ can be ignored and the sum over $`n`$ can be replaced by an integral, we can evaluate it as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2D}{L^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+(1)^{n1}\mathrm{cos}2\lambda _ny}{D^2\lambda _n^4+\omega ^2}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2D}{\pi L}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{D^2x^4+\omega ^2}}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2D}}{2L}}\omega ^{3/2}.`$
Thus we have arrived at the $`\omega ^{3/2}`$ law. It is remarkable that this result does not depend on position $`y`$. Actually, as we will see later, $`I(\omega )`$ shows deviations from the above result in small $`\omega `$ if $`|y|`$ is large. This is because the oscillatory part cannot be ignored in case of large $`|y|`$ and small $`\omega `$ even if system size $`L`$ is large.

Similar calculations can be done if the space is discrete. Assume that a domain wall performs a continuous-time random walk on the one-dimensional lattice between two reflecting walls located at $`\frac{L}{2}`$ and $`\frac{L}{2}`$. Denoting hopping rate by $`D`$, we obtain

$`I(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \left({\displaystyle \frac{[y]+1+\frac{L}{2}}{L+1}}\right)^2\delta (\omega )`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2D}{(L+1)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{L}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+(1)^{n1}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{m\pi }{L+1}\left(2[y]+1\right)\right)}{\omega ^2+16D^2\mathrm{sin}^4\left(\frac{m\pi }{2(L+1)}\right)}},`$
where $`[y]`$ denotes the largest lattice point that does not exceed $`y`$. As in the previous case, if the oscillatory part can be ignored, replacement of the sum in the right side by the integral yields for $`\omega 0`$

$`I(\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4D}{\pi (L+1)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{\omega ^2+16D^2\mathrm{sin}^2x}}`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2D}\omega ^{3/2}}{2(L+1)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\frac{\omega }{4D}+\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{\omega }{4D}\right)^2}}{1+\left(\frac{\omega }{4D}\right)^2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
In case $`\omega 4D`$, this returns to the previous result.

To confirm the above results, we carried out numerical simulations. In the simulation, we deal with a system of length $`L=200`$ and let a domain wall carry out a random walk $`W(t)`$ with hopping rate $`D=0.1`$. Figure 3 shows numerically obtained power spectra in case $`y=0`$ and in case $`y=0.3L`$. In case $`y=0`$, the agreement between the theory and the numerical result is excellent. Deviations from the power law are observed only in the very small frequency range $`\omega \pi ^2D/L^22.5\times 10^5`$, where discreteness of the spectrum $`\{\lambda _n\}`$ is eminent. In case $`y=0.3L`$, deviations extend to larger frequencies. As mentioned earlier, this is because the oscillatory part cannot be ignored if $`|y|`$ is large. In any case, however, the power law behavior is still clearly observed.

Now we return to the TASEP on the coexistence line. Within the domain wall theory, $`\tau _y(t)`$ is approximated by

$$\tau _y(t)=\alpha +(1\alpha \beta )\theta (yX(t)),$$
(17)
where $`X(t)`$ denotes the position of the domain wall at time $`t`$. Then, the prefactor of $`\omega ^{3/2}`$ becomes $`\sqrt{\frac{\alpha (1\alpha )(12\alpha )^3}{2L^2}}`$. Actually, the straight line in Fig. 2 is depicted with this prefactor. The excellent agreement between the theory and the numarical result confirms that the power-law behavior in the power spectrum is induced by the Brownian motion of a domain wall.

The prefactor of the power law includes inverse of system size $`L^1`$. This means that the power law in the power spectrum is a finite-size effect and is observed only in large but finite systems. Figure 4 shows numerical results with various system sizes. As system size $`L`$ varies, the power-law part of the power spectrum $`I(\omega )`$ is scaled by $`L^1`$ as expected, while higher frequency part is not. In fact, this part is independent of system size $`L`$. This means that the higher frequency part represents local fluctuations.

In summary, we have derived that Brownian motion of a domain wall yields an $`\omega ^{3/2}`$ power spectrum. This mechanism is successfully applied to explain the power law in the power spectrum for local density fluctuations in the TASEP.

It should be noted that the ASEP does not admit more than one domain wall. In real traffic or granular systems, however, many domains can occur and interactions between them may be important. It is a future problem to investigate power spectra in such more complicated systems.

It is remarkable that the domain wall theory is quantitatively valid for TASEP. This success may suggest the flutcuation of kink position is characterized by a simple diffusion process. On the other hand, it is known that the current fluctuation is not Gaussianjohansson . We will have to clarify this puzzled situation in the fluctuations of ASEP in the future.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is partially supported by the Hosokawa Powder Technology Foundation and the Inamori Foundation. TM and HH thank T. Sasamoto for fruitful discussion.


format: text

text:
# The role of baryon and lepton numbers in the physics beyond the standard model 11footnote 1Based on the plenary talk given at SUSY’01, Dubna, Russia, and the talk given at Gran Sasso Extended Workshop on Astroparticle Physics, July 2002

## 1 Introduction

In a search for the physics beyond the standard model (BSM), it is useful to use the tool of effective field theory. The great phenomenological success of the standard model (SM), based on local gauge invariance and renormalizability, tells us that the new physics at the scale $`M`$ should be in the form of nonrenormalizable operators, cut-off by inverse powers of $`M`$. In other words,

$$_{\mathrm{effective}}=(d=4)+\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{M^n}O^{(4+n)},$$
(1)
where $`O^{(4+n)}`$ denotes operators of mass dimension $`4+n`$. Two such operators stand out :

$`O_p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_p^2}}(qqql),`$
$`O_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_\nu }}(ll)\mathrm{\Phi }^2,`$ (2)
where I use a symbolic notation and $`q`$, $`l`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ stand for quarks, leptons and the Higgs doublet of the SM. These two operators have in a sense characterized the two decades of BSM. They measure violation of $`B`$ and $`L`$ symmetries, the accidental symmetries of the minimal SM. The first one, $`O_p`$, leads to proton decay. $`(\tau _p)_{exp}>10^{33}`$ yrs tells that $`M_p`$ must be enormous: $`M_p>10^{15}`$ GeV. $`O_\nu `$ leads to neutrino mass and from $`m_\nu 1`$ eV even $`M_\nu `$ is large: $`M_\nu >10^{13}`$ GeV (throughout my talk I am assuming only three light neutrinos and the smallness of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ measured by atmospheric and solar neutrino puzzle, together with the direct $`\beta `$ decay limit on $`m_{\nu _e}`$ implies all $`m_\nu 1`$ eV).

Thus, even if you ignore gravity, (1) and (1) indicate immediately the hierarchy problem, the problem of keeping $`M_W/M_p`$ and $`M_W/M_\nu `$ small in perturbation theory and on a deeper level the problem of understanding the origin of such small numbers. It is normally argued that in any case we have a hierarchy problem $`M_W/M_{Pl}10^{17}`$, but the Planck scale $`M_{Pl}10^{19}`$ GeV is not a fundamental scale (whereas $`M_W`$ is). This was used by Arkani-Hamed et al. (ADD) in their proposal  that the fundamental scale $`M_F`$ (the field theory cut-off, or string scale, or …) is of the order $`110`$ TeV, and the Planck scale is large due to the large size of extra space dimensions. In a sense this also poses a (different type of) hierarchy, but remarkably enough the program is phenomenologically consistent.

In view of the above it is fair to say that the understanding of proton stability and the smallness of the neutrino mass are, in my opinion, the main issues in the ADD proposal. A comment is called for regarding the smallness of neutrino mass. It is often stressed that large extra dimensions may account naturally for small neutrino Dirac Yukawa coupling , i.e. small neutrino Dirac mass. This is true, but although this is an interesting issue, the smallness of Yukawa couplings is NOT a problem due to protective chiral symmetries. In a technical sense, small Yukawa couplings are natural. The real problem is the smallness of $`O_\nu `$ is (1) if $`M_\nu 110`$ TeV. I will come to this later.

If you (as I do), on the other hand, believe in large physical scale BSM, you can assume a low energy supersymmetry, with the SUSY breaking scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SS}=`$ TeV. Amazingly enough, it leads to the unification of gauge couplings at $`M_X10^{16}`$ GeV . It is hard not to be amazed by this fact, for not only the couplings unify, but they unify in a tiny allowed window. Namely, experiment and calculability require

$$10^{15}<M_X<<M_{Pl}.$$
(3)
It is worth stressing that twenty years ago this required predicting a heavy top quark with $`m_t200`$ GeV . It was subsequently shown  that a large top Yukawa coupling would cause a flip in the sign of the Higgs mass when running down from large ($`M_X`$ or $`M_{Pl}`$) to low ($`M_W`$) scale. This would explain the great mystery behind the Higgs mechanism. The price that needs to be paid is the prediction of a desert in a sense of any new physics all the way from $`M_W`$ to $`M_X`$. This is hard to swallow.

Furthermore, low energy SUSY, just as large extra dimensions, suffers from the potential catastrophe regarding proton stability. Again, a natural scale for $`M_p`$ lies in the TeV region: $`M_p\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SS}`$. A way out is to assume a so-called R parity (or matter parity), but this is not so appealing. I will discuss this at length in what follows and argue that it may be naturally tied up to the smallness of the neutrino mass.

## 2 $`B`$ and $`L`$ as probes of BSM

We see that $`B`$ and $`L`$ play clearly a special role in probing new physics.

Let us focus on low energy SUSY. We need a symmetry which can forbid some (or all) of $`B`$ and $`L`$ violating terms of the supersymmetric standard model (SSM). Even if you use a discrete symmetry, presumably such a discrete should eventually be gauged in order to be safe from gravitational or other high energy physics effects. Ibañez and Ross  studied systematically all such anomaly free symmetries, i.e. all discrete symmetries that can be embedded in some U(1) (or bigger) gauge symmetry. They find only two types of such symmetries:

(a) any discrete subgroup of U(1)B-L symmetry if you allow for a right-handed neutrino superfield;

(b) a complicated $`Z_3`$ matter parity. By a suitable U(1)Y transformation you can rewrite this as a $`Z_9`$ subgroup of a baryon number symmetry

$$qe^{i\frac{2\pi }{9}n}q.$$
(4)
Since this symmetry is vector-like, it is free from QCD anomalies or a $`Z^3`$ anomaly, and the $`Z`$ SU(2)2 anomaly is given by an operator

$$(QQQL)^3,$$
(5)
which is obviously invariant under $`Z_9`$ ($`Q`$ and $`L`$ stand for quark and lepton left-handed doublets separately). Of course, if you wish to gauge it, you need to gauge $`B`$ and this requires new fermions in order to cancel anomalies.

In case (a) a particularly interesting subgroup of U(1)B-L is a $`Z_2`$ discrete matter parity

$$M=(1)^{3(BL)}.$$
(6)
It can be written as $`M=R(1)^{2S}`$, where $`S`$ is spin and $`R`$ is the usual $`R`$-parity, under which particles are invariant and sparticles change sign.

It is, of course, automatic in any theory with $`BL`$ gauge symmetry . The question, the central question in this case, is whether $`M`$ survives the necessary symmetry breaking down to SSM. Since the gauging of $`BL`$ requires $`\nu _R`$, the most natural scenario is to give $`\nu _R`$ a large mass and decouple it from low-energies. This is the see-saw mechanism of neutrino mass .

But then, it can be shown that $`M`$ (or $`R`$) remains exact to all orders in perturbation theory . Thus the usual see-saw mechanism, based on renormalizable field theory, implies the exactness of $`R`$-parity.

The proof is straightforward. In MSSM the spontaneous breaking of $`M`$ implies the breaking of $`L`$ and thus the existence of a Majoron coupled to the $`Z`$ boson . This is ruled out from the $`Z`$ decay width. But the effective field theory argument tells us that in the limit $`M_\nu \mathrm{}`$ (here $`M_\nu `$ is the scale of $`BL`$ breaking) we have MSSM with the same Majoron. In other words, there is a pseudo-Majoron with a mass

$$m_J^2\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{SS}^3}{M_\nu }<<m_Z^2.$$
(7)
Again, $`Z`$ decay width rules out such a possibility. Q.E.D.

Once again, just as in the formulas (1)-(3) we have simply used the decoupling theorem. The result is remarkable: the see-saw mechanism, in which $`m_{\nu _R}`$ originates in spontaneous breaking of $`BL`$ symmetry at the tree level, determines the structure of SSM in the form of MSSM. The conservation of $`R`$-parity is important for the stability of LSP.

## 3 SO(10)

A good theory should determine $`M_\nu `$. For this one must go to Pati-Salam or SO(10). It is worth summarizing here the nice features of the supersymmetric SO(10) theory with a renormalizable see-saw mechanism :

(i) unification of a fermionic family into 16-dim. spinors;

(ii) $`M=C^2`$, where $`C`$ is the center of SO(10), i.e. $`16\stackrel{C}{}i16`$, $`10\stackrel{C}{}10`$, etc.;

(iii) $`R`$-parity (or $`M`$) remain exact even after SU(2)$`\times `$U(1) breaking. This is due to the argument described above, i.e. to the fact that otherwise there would be a pseudo-Majoron coupled to the $`Z`$ boson. The $`Z`$ decay width rules this out;

(iv) the unification scale $`M_X`$ is related to the intermediate scale $`M_\nu `$. A decrease of $`M_\nu `$ implies a decrease of $`M_X`$;

(v) $`M_X>10^{15.5}`$ GeV ($`\tau _p>10^{33}`$ yrs) implies $`M_\nu >10^{13}`$ GeV;

(vi) $`pe^+\pi ^0`$ is potentially observable and would indicate the intermediate scale $`M_\nu `$;

(vii) if a non-canonical see-saw dominates, one can show that the large mixing angle for atmospheric neutrinos is a consequence of $`b\tau `$ unification ; and furthermore the leptonic mixing angle is predicted to be $`U_{e3}.16`$, to be tested in the near future .

(viii) the loss of asymptotic freedom above $`M_X`$ results in the gauge coupling becoming strong at the scale $`\lambda _S10M_X`$. This would indicate a string scale below $`M_{Pl}`$. For a possible dynamical symmetry brealing scenario, see.

For a detailed discussion of this theory, see the talk by C. Aulakh at this conference .

## 4 Low cut-off theories

How to understand the proton stability and the smallness of $`m_\nu `$ with $`M_pM_\nu 110`$ TeV? In the absence of some conspiracy, we would need to forbid the dangerous operators of the type

$$\frac{qqql}{M_p^2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{?}}{}}c_n\left(\frac{M_W}{M_p}\right)^n$$
(8)
for the proton’s sake. With $`M_p`$ TeV and $`c_nO(1)`$, it is easy to see that you need to forbid all the operators up to $`n=26`$! For $`M_p10`$ TeV, you get $`n=12`$, still hard to swallow. For neutrino mass, $`n=11`$ for $`M_\nu `$ TeV and $`n=5`$ for $`M_\nu 10`$ TeV.

We clearly need a protection mechanism. For example, quarks and leptons could be living on different branes , ensuring proton stability, or somehow $`B`$ and $`L`$ could be accidental symmetry, such as in the talk by Ibañez  at this conference. Even more appealing possibility is to have B and L gauged in extra dimensions as suggested by ADD. If the associated gauge bosons live in the bulk, a remarkable consequence emerges: a strong repulsive force at distances less than about a millimeter, independently of the number of extra dimensions (forces mediated by the bulk gauge fields may be weakened due to higher dimensional analog of Meissner effect, provided baryon number is spontaneously broken on our brane).

The authors of Ref  argue that in 6 dimensions Lorentz structure and gauge invariance do the job of stabilizing the proton while the compactification does not spoil it. It is also argued that the same can be achieved with a $`BL`$ symmetry in 6 dimensions; after compactification one is left with a residual discrete symmetry that keeps the proton stable while simultaneously ending up with a small neutrino mass

It is worth, thus, to systematically study the issue from the field theory point of view. What is the minimal prize needed to gauge $`B`$ and $`L`$ and ensure the absence of (1)? Surprisingly enough, there is still no systematic study.

The simplest possibility is to add three more, but now anti, families, i.e. three families with $`V+A`$ couplings (mirrors) 222See also the talk by Kobakhidze .. This is probably ruled out phenomenologically from the high precision electro-weak data, and it also require a mirror (gauge) symmetry needed to prevent the pairing off of ordinary and mirror fermions.

You could try adding a single mirror-like family, but with different $`B`$ and $`L`$ charges. The problem are $`B^3`$ and $`L^3`$ anomalies. I shall not bore you with the details here; suffice it to say that it seems very artificial and hard to gauge $`B`$ and $`L`$ in 4 dimensions.

## 5 Summary and outlook

We have seen that baryon and lepton numbers play an important role in the physics beyond the standard model. In a sense, they could give us a clue of what lies ahead. Supersymmetric grand unification illustrates perfectly this point. Here the unification of gauge couplings is a true physical phenomenon implying the single gauge coupling above $`M_X10^{16}`$ GeV. At the same time $`M_X`$ is tied with the proton lifetime: $`\tau _p(p\pi ^0e^+)M_X^4`$, with $`\tau _p10^{35\pm 1}`$ yrs.

Furthermore, a lepton number violation at the scale $`M_\nu M_X`$ gives a small mass for neutrinos and can imply the exactness of $`R`$ parity and LSP as a dark matter candidate.

On the other hand d=5 operators tend to imply, through $`\tau _pM_X^2`$, a rather short proton lifetime $`\tau _p10^{32}`$ yrs (see for example ). This, however is model dependent, i.e. it depends on the form of fermion (see for example ) and sfermion masses matrices, and on the uncertainties in the unification scale. It is therefore premature to claim a death blow even for a minimal SU(5) theory . For a careful analysis of this issue see .

There is a generic trouble, though, through non-renormalizable d=5 operators. If you write such a term in the superpotential, cut-off by the Planck scale

$$𝒲_{\mathrm{effective}}=\frac{1}{M_p}(QQQL);,$$
(9)
where $`Q`$ and $`L`$ denote the quark and lepton superfields, respectively, the proton lifetime turns out to be too fast by some 12 or more orders of magnitude. Is this an argument in favor of gauging B and L? In this case I would be willing, although reluctantly, to buy the possibility of the 1 - 10 TeV field theory cut-off a la ADD.

## Acknowledgments

I thank the organizers of SUSY’01 for a warm hospitality and an excellent conference. I am grateful to my collaborators Charan Aulakh, Borut Bajc, Alejandra Melfo, Pavel Fileviez-Pérez, Andrija Rašin and Francesco Vissani. I also wish to acknowledge useful discussions with Gia Dvali. This work is partially supported by EEC under the TMR contracts ERBFMRX-CT960090 and HPRN-CT-2000-00152.

## References


text:
# 𝒮𝒫ℳ BULLETIN Issue number 3: March 2003 CE

## 1. Editor’s note

In this issue we announce a fascinating series of works on the comparison of various types of convergence of sequences of functions. Some of these properties are provably related to some of the properties which were introduced in the earlier issues of the $`𝒮𝒫`$ BULLETIN, and many problems remain open. Section 2 below, written by Lev Bukovský, contains a brief survey of some of the major open problems in this area.

This issue gives the first example of the importance of the transmission of knowledge between the recipients of this bulletin: One of the announcements implies a solution to one of the problems posed in an *independent* paper announced here (see \[§3.7 below\]).

The first issues of this bulletin are available online:

1. First issue: http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GN/0301011
2. Second issue: http://arxiv.org/abs/math.GN/0302062

We are looking forward to receive more announcements from other recipients of the bulletin.

*Boaz Tsaban*, tsaban@math.huji.ac.il

http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~tsaban

## 2. Not distinguishing convergences: Open problems

We recall some definitions (see e.g. \[§3.3 below\]). An open cover $`𝒰`$ is *a $`\gamma `$-cover* if every point $`xX`$ is in all but finitely many sets from $`𝒰`$. In accordance with W. Hurewicz  we define \[§3.3 below\]:
E: for every sequence $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ of open covers of $`X`$ there exist finite subsets $`𝒱_n𝒰_n`$ such that $`\{𝒱_n\}_n`$ is a cover of $`X`$. 111This is $`𝖴_{fin}(𝒪,𝒪)`$ in Scheepers’ terminology adopted in this bulletin (see first issue).
E$`{}_{\omega }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$: for every sequence $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ of countable open covers of $`X`$ there exist finite subsets $`𝒱_n𝒰_n`$ such that $`\{𝒱_n\}_n`$ is a $`\gamma `$-cover of $`X`$ or a finite cover of $`X`$. 222This is $`𝖴_{fin}(𝒪,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ in Scheepers’ terminology, if $`𝒪`$ is restricted to *countable* open covers of $`X`$. This restriction can make a difference when $`X`$ is not Lindelöf.

A countably compact non-compact topological space has property E$`{}_{\omega }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ and has not property E. There are examples of such spaces (e.g. , pp. 261–262), however none of them is perfectly normal. The existence of a perfectly normal countably compact non-compact space neither can be proved nor can be refuted in ZFC (see e.g. ).

###### Problem 2.1 (\[§3.3 below\]).

Find in ZFC a perfectly normal E$`{}_{\omega }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$-space which does not possess property E.

We say that a sequence $`\{f_n\}_n`$ converges *quasi-normally to a function $`f`$ on $`X`$*, (see e.g. , in  as equally convergent) if there is a sequence of positive reals $`\{\epsilon _n\}_n`$ (*a control*) converging to $`0`$ such that

(1)
$$(xX)(n_0)(nn_0)|f_n(x)f(x)|<\epsilon _n.$$

Similarly, the series $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}f_n`$ converges *pseudo-normally on $`X`$* if there is a control sequence $`\{\epsilon _n\}_n`$ such that $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\epsilon _n<\mathrm{}`$ and (1) holds true (with $`f=0`$).

A topological space $`X`$ is said to be *a wQN-space*, see , if from every sequence of continuous functions converging to 0 on $`X`$ one can choose a quasi-normally convergent subsequence. A topological space $`X`$ is said to be *a* $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$*-space*, see \[§3.1 below\], if for every sequence $`\{f_n\}_n`$ of real functions with non-negative values such that $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}f_n(x)<\mathrm{}`$ for every $`xX`$ the series converges also pseudo-normally. Finally a topological space is *a $`\overline{\mathrm{QN}}`$-space*, see \[§3.1 below\], if every sequence of real functions converging pointwise to a function on $`X`$ (not necessarily continuous) converges to this function quasi-normally.

In \[§3.1 below\] the authors show that

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\overline{\mathrm{QN}}\text{ for perfectly normal space}.$$

Usually passing from properties of sequences of real-valued continuous functions to properties of open coverings we need to assume that the considered topological space is perfectly normal. However, both notions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$-space and $`\overline{\mathrm{QN}}`$-space do not use a notion of an open covering in their definitions. Therefore we suppose that

###### Problem 2.2.

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\overline{\mathrm{QN}}`$ for arbitrary topological space.

For a topological space $`X`$ and a subset $`AX`$ we denote

$`s_0(A)`$ $`=`$ $`A,s_\xi (A)=\{\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}x_n:x_n{\displaystyle \underset{\eta <\xi }{}}s_\eta (A)\text{ for each }n\},`$
$`\sigma (A)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{min}\{\xi :s_\xi (A)=s_{\xi +1}(A)\},\mathrm{\Sigma }(X)=sup\{\sigma (A):AX\},`$
The fundamental result in this area is David Fremlin’s

###### Theorem 2.3 ().

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(C_p(X))=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\omega _1`$.

The theorem suggests to define: a topological space $`X`$ is said to be *an $`s_1`$-space* if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(C_p(X))=1`$.

In  the author introduces the *sequence selection property*, shortly *SSP* of a topological space $`X`$: if $`lim_i\mathrm{}f_{n,i}(x)=0`$ for $`xX`$, $`n`$, then there are $`i_n`$ such that $`lim_n\mathrm{}f_{n,i_n}(x)=0`$ for $`xX`$. Actually SSP is equivalent to $`\alpha _2`$ property of $`C_p(X)`$ introduced by A. V. Archangelskij .

###### Theorem 2.4.

(, implicitly in ) SSP = $`s_1`$-space.

###### Theorem 2.5.

() SSP $``$ wQN.

Recently D. Fremlin proved

###### Theorem 2.6.

() wQN$``$SPP.

A topological space $`X`$ is said to be *a $`\mathrm{S}_1(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$-space* if for every sequence $`\{𝒰_n\}_n`$ of $`\gamma `$-covers of $`X`$ there exists a $`\gamma `$-cover $`\{U_n\}_n`$ such that $`U_n𝒰_n`$ for every $`n`$. In  the author shows that $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{s}_1\mathrm{space}`$ and conjectured that

###### Problem 2.7.

Every perfectly normal wQN-space (= s1-space) has property $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

*Lev Bukovský*, bukovsky@kosice.upjs.sk

## 3. Research announcements

### 3.1. Spaces not distinguishing convergences of real-valued functions

In  we have introduced the notion of a wQN-space as a space in which for every sequence of continuous functions pointwisely converging to $`0`$ there is a subsequence quasi-normally converging to $`0`$. In the present paper we continue this investigation and generalize some concepts touched there. The content is a variety of notions and relationships among them. The result is another scale in the investigation of smallness and the question is how this scale fits with other known scales and whether all relations in it are proper.

The paper appeared in *Topology and its Applications* 112 (2001), 13–40.

*Lev Bukovský*, bukovsky@kosice.upjs.sk

*Ireneusz Recław*, reclaw@ksinet.univ.gda.pl

*Miroslav Repický*, repicky@kosice.upjs.sk

### 3.2. Hurewicz Properties, not Distinguishing Convergence Properties and Sequence Selection Properties

We shall compare several properties of a topological space related to the behavior of open coverings and/or the behavior of sequences of continuous real-valued functions defined on the space. We shall show that there are closed relationships between them and several of them are mutually equivalent.

*Lev Bukovský*, bukovsky@kosice.upjs.sk

### 3.3. On Hurewicz Properties

We investigate Hurewicz properties introduced in  and  and later introduced related properties of topological spaces. The main result says that for perfectly normal spaces the property mQN introduced in \[§3.1 above\] is equivalent to Hurewicz property E$`{}_{\omega }{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$. As corollaries we obtain solution of several open problems stated in \[§3.1 above\]. A complete overview of relationships between the considered properties is presented.

*Lev Bukovský*, bukovsky@kosice.upjs.sk

*Jozef Haleš*, hales@science.upjs.sk

### 3.4. Uncountable $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ subset of $``$

If CH holds then there exists an uncountable $`X[0,1]`$ which belongs to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$.

*Lev Bukovský*, bukovsky@kosice.upjs.sk

*Krzysztof Ciesielski*, K\_Cies@math.wvu.edu

### 3.5. Spaces not distinguishing convergences

In the present paper we introduce a convergence condition ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$) and continue the study of “not distinguish” for various kinds of convergence of sequences of real functions on a topological space started in  and \[§3.1 above\]. We compute cardinal invariants associated with introduced properties of spaces.

*Miroslav Repický*, repicky@kosice.upjs.sk

### 3.6. A Nonhereditary Borel-cover $`\gamma `$-set

In this paper we answer some of the questions raised by Bartoszynski and Tsaban  concerning hereditary properties of sets defined by certain Borel covering properties:
Theorem. Suppose there is a Borel-cover $`\gamma `$-set 333That is, an element of $`𝖲_1(_\mathrm{\Omega },_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. of size the continuum. Then there is a Borel-cover $`\gamma `$-set $`X`$ and subset $`Y`$ of $`X`$ which is not even an open-cover $`\gamma `$-set. (In fact there is an of open $`\omega `$-cover of $`Y`$ with no $`\tau `$-subcover.)
It is also shown that CH implies that there exists a Borel-cover $`\gamma `$-set of size $`\omega _1`$.

*Arnold W. Miller*, miller@math.wisc.edu

### 3.7. Editor’s remark: A $`\gamma `$\- and $`\sigma `$-set need not be hereditary

In Problem 7.9 of the announced paper \[§3.1 above\] it is asked whether every $`\gamma `$-set of reals which is also a $`\sigma `$-set is a *hereditary* $`\gamma `$-set. By \[§3.6 above\], assuming CH there exists an element of $`𝖲_1(_\mathrm{\Omega },_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ with a subset which is not a $`\gamma `$-set. Clearly $`𝖲_1(_\mathrm{\Omega },_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ implies $`𝖲_1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ (= $`\gamma `$-set), as well as $`𝖲_1(_\mathrm{\Gamma },_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. In  it is proved that every set satisfying $`𝖲_1(_\mathrm{\Gamma },_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is a $`\sigma `$-set. This answers the problem negatively.

*Boaz Tsaban*, tsaban@math.huji.ac.il

### 3.8. The minimal cardinality where the Reznichenko property fails

According to Reznichenko, a topological space $`X`$ has the weak Fréchet-Urysohn property if for each subset $`A`$ of $`X`$ and each element $`x`$ in $`\overline{A}A`$, there exists a countably infinite pairwise disjoint collection $``$ of finite subsets of $`A`$ such that for each neighborhood $`U`$ of $`x`$, $`UF\mathrm{}`$ for all but finitely many $`F`$. In , Kočinac and Scheepers conjecture:

> The minimal cardinality of a set $`X`$ of real numbers such that $`C_p(X)`$ does not have the weak Fréchet-Urysohn property is equal to $`𝔟`$.

($`𝔟`$ is the minimal cardinality of an unbounded family in the Baire space $`{}_{}{}^{}`$). We prove the Kočinac-Scheepers conjecture by showing that if $`C_p(X)`$ has the Reznichenko property, then a continuous image of $`X`$ cannot be a subbase for a non-feeble filter on $``$.

*Boaz Tsaban*, tsaban@math.huji.ac.il

## 4. Other announcements

### 4.1. The Twentyseventh Summer Symposium in Real Analysis

June 23–29, 2003.

During June 23-29, 2003, the Mathematical Institute of Silesian University at Opava will host the Summer Symposium in Real Analysis XXVII. The nature of current work in real analysis is driven by the exchange of ideas generated by real analysts rooted in one subdiscipline of real analysis but with wide ranging interests. This Symposium will highlight lectures by both leading experts and energetic new researchers. Specifically, Summer Symposium XXVII will emphasize recent important work in harmonic analysis, integration theory and a solution of the celebrated Gradient Problem as well as some of the achievements of younger mathematicians in real analysis. In addition, we will provide a vibrant forum for the discussion of research problems, and allot prime speaking time to recent doctoral recipients.

The principal speakers have been invited and at the time of this submission, all have tentatively accepted our invitation.

* Jaroslav Kurzweil (Mathematical Institute of the Academy of Sciences, Prague)
* Zoltan Buczolich (Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest)
* Alexander Olevskii (Tel Aviv University, Israel)

Michigan State University Press will publish the proceedings of Symposium XXVI as a separate volume of the Real Analysis Exchange. Electronic registration for the conference can be found at:

> http://www.math.slu.cz/RealAnalysis/

*Petra Sindelarova*, Petra.Sindelarova@math.slu.cz

### 4.2. BEST 2003 (update)

The organizers of the BEST 2003 conference have informed us with the good news that Arnold Miller will attend this conference and give an invited lecture. For more details see .

## 5. Problem of the month

The following problem, which is a variant of Problem 3 in , appears as Problem 1 in \[§3.3 above\] and in \[§2 above\].

###### Problem 5.1.

Does there exist (in ZFC) a set $`X`$ which has the Menger property $`𝖴_{fin}(𝒪,𝒪)`$ but not the Hurewicz property $`𝖴_{fin}(𝒪,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$?

Assuming the Continuum Hypothesis, one can construct a *Luzin set* $`L`$ of size continuum $`𝔠`$, that is, such that for each meager (=first category) set $`M`$, $`LM`$ is countable. Such a set $`L`$ is *concentrated* on each of its countable dense subsets $`D`$ (that is, for each open set $`UD`$, $`LU`$ is countable), and therefore has Rothberger’s property $`𝖲_1(𝒪,𝒪)`$, which implies Menger’s property $`𝖴_{fin}(𝒪,𝒪)`$ (see, e.g., ). On the other hand, in  it is proved that every set with the Hurewicz property is (perfectly) meager. Thus, assuming the Continuum Hypothesis, the answer to the above problem is negative. But the Continuum Hypothesis is not necessary to get a negative answer: Let $``$ denote the collection of meager sets of reals, and write

$`\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗏}()`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{min}\{||:\text{ and }=\}`$
$`\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖿}()`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{min}\{||:(M)(F)MF\}`$
In  it is shown that it is enough to assume that $`\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗏}()=\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖿}()`$ (this hypothesis is strictly weaker than the Continuum Hypothesis ) for the above arguments to work (with some necessary modifications). The Problem of the Month asks whether the assumption $`\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝗏}()=\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖿}()`$ can be completely removed.

The papers , , and  deal with constructions in ZFC of sets of reals with the Hurewicz property, and seem to be relevant to the problem.

*Boaz Tsaban*, tsaban@math.huji.ac.il


text:
# Conceptual Design of a Cosmic Ray Detector Operating Between 10¹⁷ and 10¹⁹ eV for the Study of the Galactic Center

## 1 Introduction

The goal of GRaNDScan111Gamma Ray and Neutron Decay Scan of the Galaxy is to study the energy spectrum, chemical composition, and arrival direction of cosmic rays in the energy range from $`10^{17}`$ to $`10^{19}`$ eV with high sensitivity from a site with visibility of the Galactic center region.

The case for this study is strong in several respects. By concentrating on this energy range, GRaNDScan will provide data of unprecedented quality in a region where

* the cosmic ray energy spectrum shows features, the ‘ankle’ and (less prominent) the ‘second knee,’
* the chemical composition undergoes an important change from a heavier to a lighter mixture,
* a cosmic ray flux enhancement from the region around the Galactic center has been claimed.

Most of these features have not been studied with a dedicated instrument, and consequently their statistical significance is unsatisfying at this point. With the wealth of information that this energy range offers, this study will provide crucial information on the origin of ultra high energy cosmic rays and the acceleration mechanisms at work.

In our current understanding, the changes in composition and energy spectrum are indicative of a transition in the nature of the cosmic ray origin itself. Whereas cosmic rays below $`10^{18}`$ eV are mostly Galactic in origin, a new extragalactic component becomes dominant at higher energies.

Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence that supports this general picture – neither Galactic sources at energies below the ankle nor extragalactic sources at higher energies have been unambiguously detected. The most likely acceleration site in our own Galaxy is the region around the Galactic center, which stands out as its most energetic region. Radio, far infrared and $`\gamma `$-ray data indicate that the star formation and supernova activity of our Galaxy peaks in the center. This general picture is confirmed by studies of other disk galaxies. Correlations of data at radio and infrared wavelengths suggest that the cosmic ray production is generally higher in galactic center regions, just as the star formation rate is higher.

We therefore propose to operate GRaNDScan from a site on the southern hemisphere, with good visibility of the center region. This location will enable us to combine the general study of the composition and the energy spectrum with a detailed analysis and mapping of the Galactic center region,

Earlier results from AGASA , SUGAR , and Fly’s Eye  indicate that the Galactic center region may indeed harbor one or several sources of cosmic rays at $`10^{18}`$ eV. However, the statistical significance of the results is poor, mainly because these experiments were not optimized for the study of the Galactic center region in this energy range. An important goal of GRaNDScan is to clarify this unsatisfying situation and establish or disprove claims of an enhanced flux from the Galactic center with high significance.

The AGASA and SUGAR results naturally raise the question of the chemical nature of the cosmic ray flux from sources inside our Galaxy. While protons cannot reach us without deflection, it is well known that neutrons with energy 1 EeV can traverse the Galactic field undisturbed and reach us un-decayed from the Galactic center, a mere 8 kpc from the solar system. With higher energies, neutrons could reach us from anywhere in our Galaxy. In short, a properly designed detector could use neutrons as a tool for performing tomographic searches for sources of cosmic rays in our Galaxy.

The basic requirements for a multi-purpose detector like GRaNDScan are therefore excellent energy resolution, good angular resolution, and the ability to discriminate between different primaries, mainly $`\gamma `$’s, hadrons, and heavier nuclei like iron. All composition studies rely heavily on the quality of our understanding of the first interaction of cosmic ray primaries in the atmosphere and the development of the shower cascade. However, this dependence can be minimized with a detector that directly observes the development of the shower cascade. The air fluorescence technique meets all these requirements, and GRaNDScan is designed as an air fluorescence detector in the tradition of the Fly’s Eye and the HiRes experiment.

Taking the SUGAR detector as a baseline detector, GRaNDScan is designed with a factor of ten better angular resolution, a factor of ten improved energy resolution, more than a factor of ten larger aperture with shower profile measuring capability, a capability that SUGAR did not have. The profile measuring capability would enable the GRaNDScan detector to identify neutrons from a source by examining the mass composition of cosmic ray from the source and the mass composition of off-source cosmic rays. Similarly, $`\gamma `$-rays can also be identified by similar profile comparisons. The improved energy resolution would also allow one to compare on-source and off-source cosmic spectrum and thus to understand how cosmic rays are accelerated.

It should be noted that except for the Pierre Auger Array , there are no high energy cosmic ray detectors in the southern hemisphere. The main focus of the Auger Array is the study of cosmic rays above $`10^{19}`$ eV, and the layout of the Auger air fluorescence detectors is not optimized for studying cosmic rays far below this threshold. Using events that trigger a single fluorescence eye and one or more ground detectors, Auger can extend the sensitive range down to $`10^{18}`$ eV , but not far below that, and without the advantages of the stereo fluorescence technique.

In the following sections, we will first review some of the experimental findings (Section 2), then analyze the theoretical problems raised by the data (Section 3). Section 4 outlines the scientific goals of the GRaNDScan project, and Section 5 discusses the detector design.

## 2 Experimental Results

### 2.1 Energy Spectrum and Composition

There are two prominent breaks in the cosmic ray energy spectrum, a steepening around $`510^{15}`$ eV (the ‘knee’) and a flattening around $`310^{18}`$ eV (the ‘ankle’). The latter can be seen in Fig. 1, a summary plot of the current experimental status of cosmic ray energy spectrum measurements above $`10^{17}`$ eV . The knee and the ankle are correlated with changes in the average chemical composition of the cosmic ray flux. The KASCADE  experiment has shown that the composition is mainly heavy (iron) at energies above the cosmic ray “knee” at $`10^{15}`$ eV. Around the ankle, data from the Fly’s Eye and HiRes-MIA hybrid experiment indicate a change to a proton-dominated composition.

Both Fly’s Eye and its successor HiRes (High Resolution Fly’s Eye) are air fluorescence detectors, operated in the clean atmosphere of the Utah desert. Air fluorescence detectors observe the longitudinal shower profile and deduce the chemical composition using the fact that showers induced by lighter particles penetrate more deeply into the atmosphere. Due to large intrinsic fluctuations in the shower development, the determination of the particle type is not possible on an event-by-event basis, but the rate of change of the average shower maximum per logarithmic decade, the ‘elongation rate,’ is a good indicator of the chemical composition. Results from Fly’s Eye  and the HiRes-MIA hybrid detector  suggest that near the ankle, the average mass composition changes from iron-dominated to proton-dominated, and stays consistently proton-dominated at higher energies.

Both results lend credibility to a scenario that attributes the dominant cosmic ray flux below and above the ankle to two different source populations. Galactic sources, dominating the flux at lower energies, run out of steam around the ankle, and extragalactic contributions become dominant.

The exact location of the end of the Galactic component and therefore the maximum energy Galactic sources can achieve might be slightly below the ankle. There is marginal evidence in the Haverah Park , Fly’s Eye , AKENO and HiRes/MIA  spectrum for a second steepening of the spectrum near $`310^{17}`$ eV. Various models claim that this ‘second knee’ caused by the disappearance of the Galactic component - the heavy elements that dominate the all-particle spectrum above the (first) knee finally reach the highest possible energy and subsequently drop out, causing the spectrum to steepen . This means that the location of the second knee provides important information on Galactic acceleration mechanisms.

### 2.2 Excess From the Galactic Center

There is marginal evidence for a cosmic ray source in the vicinity of the Galactic center. To date, data from three different experiments have been used to search for this anisotropy: AGASA, Fly’s Eye, and SUGAR. A summary of the global coordinates and detector characteristics is given in Table 1.

In J2000 equatorial coordinates, the Galactic center is located at right ascension $`\alpha =266.4^{}`$ and declination $`\delta =28.9^{}`$. AGASA and Fly’s Eye, both located on the northern hemisphere, observe the Galactic Center near the edge of their acceptance. SUGAR is so far the only instrument to observe it from a location in the southern hemisphere. All three experiments were sensitive to very high energy cosmic rays ($`E>10^{17}`$ eV), but used different detection methods.

The AGASA experiment used a $`100\mathrm{km}^2`$ ground based shower array located at the Akeno Observatory in Japan operated since 1984. A harmonic analysis was performed on a sample of 114,000 events passing their selection criteria . The first harmonic revealed an excess in the region near $`10^{18}`$ eV with an amplitude of $`4\%`$. Analysis of the energy dependence shows the most significant excess falls in the range $`10^{17.9}10^{18.3}`$ eV.

A sky map of the AGASA data shows a $`4\sigma `$ excess in the direction of the Galactic center, a $`3\sigma `$ excess in the Cygnus region and a $`3.7\sigma `$ deficit in the direction of the anti-Galactic center. The Galactic center is outside of the visibility of the AGASA detector and the excess lies in the Galactic plane at the edge of acceptance. Fig. 2 shows the AGASA map near the Galactic center.

The Fly’s Eye anisotropy analysis  showed an enhancement in the Galactic plane which had a probability of 0.006 for resulting from a fluctuation. The enhancement was most significant in the energy range $`0.41.0\times 10^{18}`$ eV. A latitude gradient was searched for, but was not found to be statistically significant ($`<2\sigma `$).

The Sydney University Giant Air Shower Recorder (SUGAR) studied very high energy cosmic rays during the period 1968-1979. Located in New South Wales, Australia, the experiment measured shower muons $`>0.75`$ GeV using a $`70\mathrm{km}^2`$ ground array  with 47 liquid scintillation counters buried 1.5 m deep under ground on a grid with 1.6 km spacing. A denser inner sub-array of $`1\mathrm{km}^2`$ size with 500 m grid spacing was sensitive to lower energy showers.

A re-analysis of the SUGAR data by Bellido et al.  determined a priori the energy range and binning based on the AGASA analysis to avoid the trial penalty which makes the interpretation of the AGASA results so difficult. The analysis found an excess of background probability 0.005 at $`(\alpha ,\delta )=(274^{},22^{})`$, which is close to but significantly $`(7.5^{})`$ different from the location of the Galactic center and does not coincide with the position of the AGASA excess. Fig. 2 compares the excess in the Galactic center region as seen by AGASA and SUGAR. The positions differ by $`6^{}`$, and while the AGASA excess shows significant smearing, the SUGAR excess appears as a point source within the array’s resolution.

The statistically rigorous way the SUGAR analysis was performed allows a first estimate of the flux from the unknown source, which was found to be $`(2.7\pm 0.9)\mathrm{km}^2\mathrm{yr}^1`$ in the energy interval between $`17.9<\mathrm{log}(E/\mathrm{eV})<18.5`$. It should be noted that due to the small aperture of the instrument at these low energies, the accumulated excess amounts to only 10 events in 11 years of running time.

In summary, results from the northern hemisphere detectors, Fly’s Eye and AGASA, seem to indicate a broad cosmic ray enhancement near the Galactic center, while SUGAR reports an enhancement consistent with a point source. With the known Galactic magnetic fields, it is reasonable to conclude that the results from the three experiments are consistent with each other. If a source existed near the Galactic center, the two detectors in the northern hemisphere, with very limited exposure to the Galactic center, would detect mostly particles bent by the magnetic fields. The SUGAR detector, on the other hand, with a full view of the Galactic center, would be able to detect cosmic rays from the source. Albeit statistically not strong, the experimental results are consistent with each other, and they constitute strong and compelling reasons for pursuing the source study proposed in this paper.

## 3 Theoretical Issues

### 3.1 Cosmic Particle Sources and Acceleration

In our current understanding, cosmic ray particles are accelerated to ultra high energies by shock acceleration, a process initially proposed by Fermi . If shock acceleration is indeed the dominant process, any potential source has to meet requirements summarized by Hillas . The source must be able to (magnetically) confine the particles during the acceleration process, and the source environment must allow particles to eventually escape without substantial energy losses such as photopion production in region of high photon density. This limits the magnetic fields in the source vicinity, the source size, and the energy density of photons within the source. At $`10^{18}`$ eV, source parameters are at the edge of the allowed regions. Given all these requirements, conditions in known Galactic sources can not readily generate cosmic ray energies this high. Shock acceleration is at work in supernovae exploding into the interstellar medium, and in our current understanding, these supernovae are responsible for the cosmic ray flux below the knee at about $`10^{15}`$ eV.

If the energy spectrum continues above $`10^{18}`$ eV in violation of the Hillas limit, this might be an indication that our understanding of the acceleration process is wrong or incomplete, and other more efficient, but yet unknown processes, are at work.

A possible source for cosmic rays above $`10^{14}`$ eV has been proposed by Biermann . The model suggests that these cosmic rays also originate from shock acceleration in supernovae, but their sources are supernovae which explode into their own strong stellar wind rather than into the interstellar medium. Wind supernovae are produced by massive stars with initial zero age main sequence masses above 20 solar masses. These stars explode near their birthplace, where the material from which they were formed is still around . Wind supernovae have an energy of explosion near $`10^{52}`$ erg, and since the stellar wind has a density gradient, the shock speed stays high even at larger distances and energies up to $`310^{18}`$ eV for iron nuclei are possible.

This illustrates the impact of the study of cosmic particle origins at GRaNDScan energies. Understanding their origin may have consequences important for stellar evolution, supernova physics, and particle physics.

### 3.2 Galactic Magnetic Fields and Charged Particles

If the primary particles are protons or heavier nuclei, we also need to understand Galactic magnetic fields. Charged cosmic ray particles are subject to large deflections in ambient magnetic fields unless their Larmor radius is substantially larger than the distance between the source and the observer.

At present, the origin of Galactic magnetic fields is not well-understood. The strength of the field in the solar vicinity is about $`67\mu \mathrm{G}`$, with a regular and an irregular component both contributing about half the total (see the review and and summary in ). The regular component points along the spiral arms inward and is observed in all spiral galaxies which have been well-studied . It seems consistent with what we know about our own Galaxy. The irregular component is turbulent and possibly a result of the superposition of supernova shells. It is non-uniform with a typical length scale of 100 pc. A $`10^{18}`$ eV proton in a field of $`\mu \mathrm{G}`$ strength has a Larmor radius of 300 pc, while the distance between the Galactic center and the solar system is about 8 kpc. Charged particles can therefore not get from the Galactic center to us on a straight line.

If we indeed see a charged component, then the AGASA excess might be explained by diffusion of cosmic rays from the Galactic center region past us. Clay et al.  have modeled the propagation of charged cosmic ray particles and shown that any gradient in the flux of cosmic rays leads to a weak anisotropy and creates an excess of events which is distributed as a halo around the source direction. The estimated halo diameter of $`20^{}`$ is consistent with the AGASA results (although the results are weak and do not constitute much of a constraint). The anisotropy is expected to show a symmetry in opposite directions of the sky, and AGASA data in fact indicates a weak deficit in the direction of the Galactic anti-center.

As shown in , this diffusion model can also account for the relatively small energy region of the excess. At energies below $`10^{17}`$ eV, the propagation is diffuse and the expected anisotropy is small. With increasing energy (above $`10^{17}`$ eV for protons and $`10^{18.7}`$ eV for iron) the particles start to retain their directional information to some degree, and a directional excess with a broad halo around the source direction becomes visible. At even higher energies, the source itself may no longer be able to produce these energies, or, if it is, the flux from the source is overshadowed by other components, for example extragalactic sources. This would make a detection of the flux from the Galactic center statistically challenging with the limited amount of data currently available, and the conclusion is that any excess from the Galactic center is expected in a narrow energy range only.

The diffusion should result in a cosinusoidal dependence of the flux on angle from the Galactic center. Any future detector needs to be sensitive enough to measure the flux as a function of angular distance from the center to test this important prediction. The AGASA data, although skewed by the fact that the center itself is beyond the field of view and the center region is observed under a large zenith angle, also indicate that the excess might continue along the spiral arm, possibly funneled by the magnetic fields which are believed to follow the spiral arm structure.

In the diffusion model we would also expect deficits in the direction out of the Galactic plane, since the Larmor radius begins to exceed the thickness of the Galactic plane (300 pc) and particles can leak out. This leakage is currently not observed, which could mean that there are strong magnetic turbulences which extend well out of the Galactic plane into the halo and prevent the leakage. These halo fields have been observed in edge-on spiral galaxies observed by radio astronomers, but for only a small fraction ($`5\%`$) of edge-on galaxies .

### 3.3 Neutral Particles

Any model which assumes that charged particles are responsible for the observed enhancement predicts that the excess around $`10^{18}`$ eV should show substantial smearing, several tens of degrees in diameter. While the excess observed by AGASA does indeed show substantial smearing, the SUGAR array observes an excess which is compatible with a point source within the angular resolution of the array. This may be an indication that the excess flux stems at least in part from a neutral component, neutrons or $`\gamma `$-rays, which is not subject to deflection. However, the absence of any anisotropy below $`10^{18}`$ eV is hard to explain with $`\gamma `$-rays. In addition, SUGAR, with its buried counters, is sensitive only to the muonic component of air showers, which rules out $`\gamma `$-ray primaries if our current understanding of air shower development is correct. This leaves neutrons as a viable candidate.

Neutrons are produced by interactions between heavier nuclei and ambient photon fields in the source region, and by isospin flip in p-p-collisions. In a remarkable “coincidence,” neutrons of energies around $`10^{18}`$ eV have a $`\gamma `$-factor of $`10^9`$ and therefore a decay length which is close to the distance between us and the Galactic center. Since neutrons can propagate this distance without decay or deflection, they provide a natural explanation for the narrow energy range of the AGASA observations: below about $`10^{18}`$ eV, neutrons decay before reaching the Earth, and above $`10^{18.4}`$ eV, the acceleration mechanism runs out of steam.

The observed energies of $`10^{18}`$ eV cause a problem for both protons and neutrons. In particular, as Biermann et al.  point out, the black hole at the center of our Galaxy, a natural candidate for a cosmic ray source, does not have sufficient activity to produce neutrons near $`10^{18}`$ eV, and the same holds for mini-quasars in the Galactic center region.

## 4 Scientific Goals

The goal of GRaNDScan is a detailed study of the cosmic ray flux in the region from $`10^{17}`$ to $`10^{19}`$ eV. This includes

1. a measurement of the energy spectrum and detailed study of spectral features like the ankle and the ‘second knee,’
2. a measurement of the average chemical composition,
3. a mapping of the Galactic center region, and a determination of the chemical composition and the energy spectrum in regions where an excess is found.

The study of the flux and the composition will bridge the energy gap between experiments like KASCADE , which studied the composition around the “knee” at $`410^{15}`$ eV, and HiRes and Auger, which cover the range from $`10^{19}`$ eV up to the GZK cutoff or beyond.

The mapping of the Galactic center region needs to establish where any excess originates, how many sources are responsible, and whether the source image shows smearing or appears to be point-like. If indeed particular acceleration sites can be identified, we need to measure their energy spectrum with high accuracy to learn about the acceleration mechanisms at work. In particular, the high energy end of the spectrum will provide valuable information on the conditions at the source (or sources).

The detector must be able to distinguish between $`\gamma `$-ray primaries, protons/neutrons, and heavier nuclei. While most cosmic ray models are based on the acceleration of charged particles, other particle types inevitably occur after these primaries interact with the interstellar medium and produce (again) charged particles, neutrons, and neutral pions which decay into photons. If SUGAR’s excess is caused by neutrons, then the flux of cosmic rays in the source region and thus nucleon interaction must be extremely high, and a strong flux of $`\gamma `$-rays from pion decay must inevitably accompany the hadron flux.

These protons, neutrons, and photons provide important orthogonal information on Galactic sources of cosmic rays, as all three particle types probe different distances within the Galaxy. From charged hadrons, we expect a direct component only from a very limited region of space. Only with neutrons near $`10^{18}`$ eV or with $`\gamma `$-rays can we study the Galactic center region directly. While $`\gamma `$-rays measure the line of sight integral through the entire disk and halo, neutrons decay after a decay length $`d`$, so we measure the integral up to a distance $`d`$.

The separation of heavier nuclei from protons and protons from $`\gamma `$-primaries is possible if the height of the shower maximum is known. While the intrinsically large fluctuations of the shower start and development make a separation on an event-by-event basis impossible, the average height of the shower maximum for an ensemble of showers is a strong indicator of the particle type. Neutron- and proton-initiated air showers have identical signatures and can not be separated, but here, the shape of the excess will provide important information. Since charged particles can not reach us directly, any gradient in the charged particle flux from the Galactic center region will cause a symmetric anisotropy with an excess from the direction of the center and a deficit from the anti-center.

The most accurate technique today to determine the energy, the interaction characteristics, and the arrival direction of cosmic ray primary particles at ultra high energies around $`10^{18}`$ eV is the stereo air fluorescence technique. This technique uses the Earth’s atmosphere as a large aperture calorimeter, where primary cosmic ray particles interact with air molecules to produce huge cascades of particles, so-called extensive air showers. The particles of the shower cascade excite and ionize air molecules which fluoresce in the UV. The fluorescence light can be detected by photomultiplier cameras watching the dark night sky, and a three-dimensional picture of the shower development in the atmosphere can be reconstructed from the measured trigger times and light intensitites observed by each tube along the shower trajectory. If the shower is observed by two detectors simultaneously, the three-dimensional geometrical reconstruction of the shower axis is more precise, and systematic uncertainties due to incomplete knowledge of atmospheric parameters are largely removed.

The air fluorescence technique was pioneered by the Fly’s Eye collaboration, which operated a monocular detector from 1981 to 1986 and a stereo detector from 1986 to 1993. The HiRes experiment is currently operating as a second-generation air fluorescence detector at the same site, on the Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah.

The air fluorescence technique requires clear dark nights and good and stable atmospheric conditions. The technique is therefore limited to dry desert areas in remote locations with minimum light pollution. These requirements severely reduce the duty cycle, to less than $`10\%`$. In addition, constant monitoring of the atmosphere is necessary to correctly determine the aperture of the detector at any given time.

These shortcomings are outweighed by decisive advantages over ground arrays. A stereo air fluorescence detector can achieve angular resolution better than $`1^{}`$, energy resolution of $`20\%`$, and can directly determine the position of the shower maximum to $`20\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, an important requirement to determine the interaction characteristics and thus the type of the primary particle.

The design of GRaNDScan is therefore based on the stereo air fluorescence technique as the most appropriate technique to achieve the scientific goals outlined in this section.

## 5 GRaNDScan Design

The design for GRaNDScan has been driven by the attempt to achieve a maximum aperture for stereoscopic observation of air showers while keeping the number of telescopes small. In the baseline design, GRaNDScan is an air fluorescence detector with two sites about 12 km apart which are facing each other and therefore view a common volume of atmosphere.

A schematic of the detector is shown in Fig. 3. Each site consists of several reflecting telescopes with a $`3.4\mathrm{m}`$ diameter mirror for light collection and a photomultiplier camera in its focal plane. Each telescope covers a field of view of $`30^{}`$ by $`30^{}`$. The large field of view has been chosen to keep the number of detector units small. With 3 mirrors at each site, a range of $`90^{}`$ in azimuth and $`30^{}`$ in zenith angle can be covered. The axis of the mirror has an angle to the horizontal of $`50^{}`$. The number of camera units, the pointing direction in zenith angle and the distance between the sites are chosen to maximize the aperture of the detector in the relevant energy region around $`10^{18}`$ eV (see Section 5.2). Covering a larger range in azimuth and zenith increases the aperture, but at $`10^{18}`$ eV, detected showers are mainly “local,” i.e. close to both detector sites. Most of the sensitivity can be achieved with fewer units if we only consider the atmospheric volume in between the sites.

The configuration allows stereo observation of air showers and provides the angular resolution associated with this technique. The need for a good angular resolution is evident in the case of extended sources, where the exact structure of the source needs to be studied. However, a good angular resolution is also crucial for sensitivity to point sources.

The figure of merit for a telescope which is aimed at the detection of a point-like source over a dominating isotropic background is the signal to noise ratio

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{signal}}{\mathrm{noise}}\right)\frac{RQ\sqrt{A_{eff}T}}{\sigma _\theta },$$
(1)
where $`T`$ is the exposure time, $`A_{eff}`$ is the effective detector area, and $`\sigma _\theta `$ is the angular resolution. The signal/noise relative trigger efficiency $`R`$ and the signal/noise identification efficiency $`Q`$ are close to 1 in our case since background and noise presumably have similar chemical composition and a separation of the signal from the noise is not possible. (However, $`Q`$ can be considerably larger than 1 for an excess produced by $`\gamma `$-ray primaries over a hadronic background).

In the following sections, we address how to optimize the exposure time and the effective detector area or aperture of the detector.

### 5.1 Location

The experimental challenge for GRaNDScan is to overcome an infrastructure problem. Air fluorescence detectors require sites without light pollution and with excellent atmospheric conditions, which implies remote (desert) areas. The costs for installing power lines to remote locations is prohibitive. However, with recent developments in low power electronics and large analog memories it is for the first time feasible to design and develop an air fluorescence camera that operates on solar power alone. This means that only a minimal amount of infrastructure is required and operating costs are kept at a minimum. The minimal infrastructure also allows the detectors to be easily moved or reconfigured.

Air fluorescence detectors have limited duty cycles since observation time is restricted to dark, moonless nights. The duty cycle of an instrument which aims at the detection of a specific source is even smaller, as the source can not be observed during the period of the year when it crosses the sky during daytime.

Neglecting downtime caused by bad weather, the observation time is determined by the geographical latitude of the detector location. The Galactic center is at declination $`\delta =28.9^{}`$. A good visibility of this region therefore requires a detector location in the southern hemisphere. Fig. 4 shows the duty cycle as a function of the detector latitude integrated over a full year of observation. The duty cycle is defined as the observation time divided by the total time (1 year), where observation time is defined as those time periods between moon set (or rise) and astronomical twilight where the Galactic center has a zenith angle of less than $`60^{}`$ (solid line) and $`30^{}`$ (dotted line) in local coordinates. For a good visibility with small zenith angles, a southern latitude corresponding to the declination of the Galactic center optimizes the observation time. If we allow the Galactic center to go down to $`60^{}`$, more southern locations are equally well-suited, but it should be stressed that at latitudes further south than $`70^{}`$, the Sun starts to stay continuously above twilight limit for long periods of the year, and further south, it will also stay continuously below twilight limit. In our case, this is not an advantage, as we need sunlight periods to recharge batteries. An ideal site is therefore at moderate southern latitudes approximately equal to the declination of the Galactic center where days are sufficiently long to allow daily recharging. Duty cycles of $`8\%`$ ($`4\%`$) can be expected for $`\theta <60^{}`$ ($`\theta <30^{}`$), but this number is an upper limit, as it does not account for weather conditions. For comparison, a ground detector array at a latitude of $`30^{}`$ has a duty cycle for Galactic center observations of $`39\%`$ ($`19\%`$).

For measurements of the energy spectrum and the average chemical composition, which do not require the Galactic center to be in field of view, the duty cycle is more favorable and reaches $`xx\%`$.

### 5.2 Layout of the Sites

The distance of the two detector sites and the field of view in local coordinates will determine the aperture of the detector. The optimal distance varies with shower energies. The atmospheric volume observed should be as large as possible, but if the distance between the sites is too large, only a small fraction of events are seen by both detectors.

Another parameter which determines the aperture is the zenith angle range covered by the detector. To keep the number of mirror units small, the camera should not cover the whole zenith angle range from $`0^{}`$ to $`90^{}`$, but only that fraction of the full range which contributes most to the total aperture and is most likely to contain the shower maximum. A reliable energy and shower maximum reconstruction requires that at least one of the sites observes the shower maximum in its field of view.

This optimal zenith angle range depends on the energy of interest. High energy showers reach their maximum later, so the average height of the shower maximum decreases with energy. A detector working at energies below $`10^{18}`$ eV should therefore preferentially observe higher elevations, whereas at $`10^{19}`$ eV and above, a lower elevation range will maximize the aperture.

To find the site layout which maximizes the aperture of the stereo detector, we simulated the stereo aperture as a function of the distance between the sites and the zenith angle viewing range. To guarantee that the event can be reconstructed with good accuracy, an event is only accepted if each detector site has at least 5 signal tubes and the (reconstructed) shower maximum is in the field of view of at least one of the two sites.

Fig. 5 shows the aperture as a function of the detector distance for two different energies ($`10^{18}`$ eV and $`10^{19}`$ eV) and three zenith angle ranges. As expected, both the optimal distance between the two sites and the optimal zenith angle range strongly depend on energy. At higher energy, a larger distance and a field of view covering elevations closer to the horizon maximize the aperture.

The two energies illustrate a further advantage of a detector composed of movable units. Optimal detector parameters change rather dramatically with each decade in energy. It is conceivable that a mobile detector like GRaNDScan can be operated at different site distances over its life time. After an initial run at $`10^{18}`$ eV, the detector distance can be changed to increase the aperture at higher or lower energies.

### 5.3 Photomultiplier Camera and Electronics

A crucial element of GRaNDScan is the light detector used in the air fluorescence camera. At the lower end of the GRaNDScan energy range, the signal to noise ratio will limit the lowest signal that can be measured. This almost automatically leads to photomultiplier tubes as the best-suited camera element. Photomultipliers have typically high gain, single photon efficiency, low intrinsic noise, and do not require cooling, and important advantage if power consumption is to be kept at a minimum.

The GRaNDScan camera needs to be light in weight for instrumenting a remote detector. A wide field of view also requires a curved camera surface (see next section), which is difficult to achieve with conventional photomultipliers. Flat-panel multi-anode photomultipliers now overcome this limitation, and the anode pixellation of devices like the $`2^{\prime \prime }`$ BURLE 85001 $`\mathrm{Planacon}^{\mathrm{TM}}`$  can be chosen as to best match the application (see Fig. 6). 2 by 2 anode configurations in a $`2^{\prime \prime }`$ phototube are readily available, which means each of these compact devices replaces four conventional photomultipliers. A camera using flat multi-anode photomultipliers will be considerably smaller and less heavy than a traditional air fluorescence camera.

Current off-the-shelf solar power units deliver about 50 W for 5 to 6 hours per $`1\mathrm{m}^2`$ paddle size. Therefore the limit on the power consumption per channel for an air fluorescence camera with a $`30^{}`$ by $`30^{}`$ field of view and just under 1000 photomultiplier channels running for 6 hours during a typical data taking night is 50 to 100 mW per channel for one or two paddles. This is roughly two orders of magnitude lower than the power consumption of a current HiRes camera. However, these are numbers referring to the average power consumption. Since a camera will ultimately consist of low power and high power elements, the goal is to keep the power consuming elements dormant most of the time and only activate them when an intelligent second-level trigger identifies a shower candidate. This trigger can be modeled after HiRes 2, the FADC based second site of the HiRes detector  in Utah, where a possible scheme has been successfully implemented. A Digital Signal Processor calculates the geometrical moments of the image formed by signal tubes on the photomultiplier camera and bases a trigger decision on the shape of this image. The event is accepted if certain criteria for a track-like image are met.

While the trigger decision is pending, the data goes through an analog delay line (switched capacitor array). For the expected signal from air showers at $`10^{18}`$ eV, a sampling rate of 10 MHz and a dynamic range of 12 bits are appropriate. Both sites function as independent units with their own solar power unit and central data acquisition combining the data from the camera units. A trigger is generated independently from the other site and the data is broadcast to a central station where the data sets are combined and matched. Fig. 7 (left) illustrates this scheme. The data can be stored on hardware RAID systems, and the main control of the experiment can be remote over the Internet, linked by a satellite.

### 5.4 Optical System

The need to image extremely weak light tracks over an extended field of view of order $`30^{}`$ by $`30^{}`$ suggests a Schmidt optical system. A Schmidt camera consists of a spherical mirror with a large aperture stop (e.g. $`f/\mathrm{\#}=1`$), located at its center of curvature. The mirror gives uniform images over a spherical surface concentric with itself, but the images suffer from spherical aberration, which in a classical optical Schmidt system are corrected with a refractive plate at the aperture.

The resolution of a photomultiplier camera is determined by the pixel size of the photomultiplier. Consequently, a reduction of the image spot to a dimension much smaller than the pixel is not necessary. Simulations using the ZEMAX  ray tracing code show that a Schmidt system without a corrector plate is therefore sufficient if the field of view is not much larger than $`30^{}`$ by $`30^{}`$. For a given mirror radius of curvature radius $`R`$, the diameter $`D`$ of the aperture stop largely determines the size of the circular image spot. In considering various geometries, we have been guided by the following requirements:

1. a $`30^{}`$ by $`30^{}`$ field of view,
2. $`1^{}`$ per pixel resolution or better,
3. the size of the image spot be roughly the pixel size,
4. the camera obscures the mirror by not more than $`25\%`$.

Calculations using ZEMAX show that an optical system meeting these requirements is feasible. Table 2 summarizes the dimensions of a $`15\times 15`$ microchannel plate PMT camera, Fig. 7 shows a wire frame schematic of the camera design. The aperture diameter is $`1900`$ mm and the mirror size is $`3400`$ mm. The image spot diameter of $`25.4`$ mm matches the pixel size of the BURLE 85001 tube with a $`2\times 2`$ anode pixellation. It should be noted that these optimization results are similar to the design of the air fluorescence cameras of the Auger detector , although the final Auger design includes a partial corrector plate at the aperture stop.

For a larger field of view, for example $`40^{}`$ by $`40^{}`$, a corrector plate becomes necessary. The Orbiting Wide-Angle Light Collectors (OWL) experiment for example proposes a $`45^{}`$ Schmidt camera with corrector plate . Ultimately, the cost of a corrector plate has to be weighted against the cost of additional camera units if the desired field of view has to be covered by a larger number of smaller telescopes.

### 5.5 Sensitivity to a Galactic Center Source

The only flux measurement so far is based on the excess seen in the SUGAR data. To estimate the sensitivity of GRaNDScan to a flux of this magnitude, we calculate the aperture required to observe the excess at a significance $`>10\sigma `$ is one year of data taking. For this calculation, the SUGAR excess is treated as a signal coming from a point source. The angular resolution and the aperture of GRaNDScan have to compensate for the reduced duty cycle of an air fluorescence detector. If we estimate (conservatively) that the angular resolution will improve by a factor of 3 over SUGAR, then GRaNDScan needs an increase in aperture of a factor of 150 over SUGAR. Fig. 5 shows that this can easily be achieved with a detector of moderate size.

### Acknowledgements

We want to thank Peter Biermann, Roger Clay, Bruce Dawson, and Cyrus Hoffman for fruitful discussions and valuable comments on the manuscript. We also benefited from discussions with Frank Jones and Minghuey A. Huang.
The development of a solar-powered air fluorescence camera is supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number NSF-PHY-0134007.