4.4 Review

Progress in the Simulation and Modelling of Coherent Radio Pulses from Ultra High-Energy Cosmic Particles

期刊

UNIVERSE
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/universe8060297

关键词

ultra high energy neutrinos; ultra high energy cosmic rays; radio emission; high energy showers

资金

  1. Xunta de Galicia (Centro singular de investigacion de Galicia accreditation 2019-2022)
  2. European Union ERDF
  3. Maria de Maeztu Units of Excellence program [MDM-2016-0692]
  4. Spanish Research State Agency
  5. Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovacion [PID2019-105544 GB-I00, RED2018-102661-T]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paragraph discusses the use of radio techniques in detecting Ultra High Energy showers produced by cosmic rays or neutrinos. Significant progress has been made in studying the pulses from showers in different environments using algorithms and simulation programs.
In the last decade, many experiments have been planned, designed or constructed to detect Ultra High Energy showers produced by cosmic rays or neutrinos using the radio technique. This technique consists in detecting short radio pulses emitted by the showers. When the detected wavelengths are longer than typical shower length scales, the pulses are coherent. Radio emission can be simulated by adding up the contributions of all the particle showers in a coherent way. The first program to use this approach was based on an algorithm developed more than thirty years ago and referred to as ZHS. Since then, much progress has been obtained using the ZHS algorithm with different simulation programs to investigate pulses from showers in dense homogeneous media and the atmosphere, applying it to different experimental initiatives, and developing extensions to address different emission mechanisms or special circumstances. We here review this work, primarily led by the authors in collaboration with other scientists, illustrating the connections between different articles, and giving a pedagogical approach to most of the work.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据