Muon “depth-intensity” relation measured by the LVD underground experiment and cosmic-ray muon spectrum at sea level

Aglietta, M.; Alpat, B.; Alyea, E.D.; Antonioli, P.; Badino, G.; Bari, G.; Basile, M.; Berezinsky, V. S.; Bersani, Ferdinando; Bertaina, M.; Bertoni, R.; Bonoli, G.; Bosco, Annalisa; Bruni, G.; Romeo, G.; Castagnoli, C.; Castellina, A.; Чиавасса, А.; Chinellato, J. A.; Cifarelli, L.; Cindolo, F.; Conforto, G.; Contin, A.; Dadykin, V. L.; Silva, A. De; Deutsch, Martin; Dominici, P.; Santos, Larissa; Emaldi, L.; Enikeev, R. I.; Fabbri, F.; Fulgione, W.; Galeotti, P.; Ghetti, C.; Ghia, P. L.; Giusti, P.; Granella, R.; Grianti, F.; Guidi, G. M.; Hafen, E.; Haridas, P.; Iacobucci, G.; Inoue, N.; Kemp, E.; Khalchukov, F. F.; Korolkova, E. V.; Korchaguin, P. V.; Korchaguin, V. B.; Kudryavtsev, V. A.; Lau, K.; Luvisetto, M.L.; Maccarone, Grace; Malguin, A. S.; Mantovani, Roberto; Massam, T.; Mayes, B.; Megna, Antonella; Melagrana, C.; Silva, N. Mengotti; Morello, C.; Moromisato, J.; Nania, R.; Navarra, G.; Panaro, L.; Periale, L.; Pesci, A.; Picchi, P.; Pinsky, L.; Pless, I. A.; Pyrlik, J.; Ryasny, V. G.; Ryazhskaya, O. G.; Saavedra, O.; Saitoh, Katsumi; Santini, Stefano; Sartorelli, G.; Selvi, M.; Taborgna, N.; Talochkin, V. P.; Tang, Jie; Trinchero, G.; Tsuji, S.; Turtelli, A.; Uman, I.; Vallania, P.; Buren, G. Van; Vernetto, S.; Vetrano, F.; Vigorito, C.; Goeler, E. von; Votano, L.; Wada, T.; Weinstein, R.; Widgoff, M.; Yakushev, V. F.; Yamamoto, Isao; Зацепин, Г. Т.; Zichichi, A.

doi:10.1103/physrevd.58.092005

Cited by 104 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At p 2 TeV/c our prediction, regardless of the charm production model, is in very good agreement with the Nottingham direct and absolute measurements [14]. [44,47,62,[64][65][66]. The shaded areas are for the MACRO fit [44].…”

Section: Parametrization Of the Calculated Pm Fluxsupporting

confidence: 77%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Atmospheric muon flux at sea level, underground, and underwater

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The vertical sea-level muon spectrum at energies above 1 GeV and the muon intensities at depths up to 18 km w.e. in different rocks and in water are calculated. The results are particularly collated with a great body of the ground-level, underground, and underwater muon data. In the hadron-cascade calculations, we take into account the logarithmic growth with energy of inelastic cross sections and pion, kaon, and nucleon generation in pion-nucleus collisions. For evaluating the prompt muon contribution to the muon flux, we apply the two phenomenological approaches to the charm production problem: the recombination quark-parton model and the quark-gluon string model. We give simple fitting formulas describing our numerical results. To solve the muon transport equation at large depths of a homogeneous medium, we use a semianalytical method, which allows the inclusion of an arbitrary (decreasing) muon spectrum at the medium boundary and real energy dependence of muon energy losses. Our analysis shows that at the depths up to 6-7 km w.e., essentially all underground data on the muon flux correlate with each other and with the predicted one for conventional (π, K)-muons, to within 10 %. However, the high-energy sea-level muon data as well as the data at high depths are contradictory and cannot be quantitatively described by a single nuclear-cascade model.

show abstract

Section: Parametrization Of the Calculated Pm Fluxsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…The recent data from the two largest underground detectors MACRO [44] and LVD [47] (located in the Gran Sasso Laboratory) are presented in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively.…”

Section: G Gran Sasso Labmentioning

confidence: 99%

Atmospheric muon flux at sea level, underground, and underwater

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CRM's global fit of the vertical muon intensity versus opacity (which is approximately 2.7×depth underground), in units of meters of water equivalent, compared to a variety of data sets (Aglietta et al, ; Crouch, ). The theoretical model is for the standard rock formula defined in Groom et al () and uses the muon physics simulation in Geant4 (Agostinelli et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Muon Tomography Applied to a Dense Uranium Deposit at the McArthur River Mine

Schouten¹,

Ledru²

2018

JGR Solid Earth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports on the first application of muon tomography (a novel method for imaging density contrasts underground using cosmic rays) for imaging dense uranium deposits within the Athabasca Basin in Canada. We present a qualitative assessment of the radiographic imaging and 3‐D density inversion of a uranium deposit using muon tomography. The muon tomography survey summarized in this article was performed at the McArthur River mine. We demonstrate the validity of muon tomographic imaging with data acquired at a depth of about 600 m underground. The statistical significance of the uranium deposit signature in the muon data was larger than 5 standard deviations, and the corresponding 3‐D density inversion compared well with drill assay data from the deposit.

show abstract

“…and 3800 m.w.e. This reduces the muon flux to a measured value of 2.87×10 −4 /m 2 /s [Ahlen et al 1990, Aglietta et al 1998]. Measured neutron fluxes are 2.93×10 2 /m 2 /s and 0.86×10 2 /m 2 /s for thermal and fast neutrons (with a breakpoint defined at 1 keV), respectively [Belli et al 1989].…”

Section: The Hosting Laboratory: Laboratori Nazionali Del Gran Sasso mentioning

confidence: 99%