Studies of Anomalous Phenomena in the Development of Electron-Nuclear Cascades in the EAS Cores Registered by a Modernized Complex Installation at Mountain Altitudes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Authors review the Hadron-M experimental facility devoted to studying some as yet unexplained properties of gamma and hadronic components of Extensive Air Showers like aligned events, long-flying component,s or coplanar particle generation. As a reference paper on the Hadron-M experiment, it is pretty satisfactory so that I can draw the Authors’ attention to just a few minor deficiencies. As this is a review paper some features essential for such paper could be improved, namely:

 

1. Even though it is neither possible nor advisable to rewrite other papers, still the review paper should be characterized by some level of self explainabilty, which here can be improved. Eg., in the introduction Authors periodically refer to various information (mostly figures) from reference [1]. reproducing some of these figures in the current paper would make it much more readable.

2. I feel that the title of the paper is too general, given that the content is focused on just one experiment. Indeed there are not many (if any) competing experiments in the field, still, the title suggests broader scope than that really discussed.

3. Here and there one can find language and style glitches like in lines 69-73 where one finds the “that time” expression used 3 times. The authors should comprehensively read and correct the manuscript.

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review 1

Authors review the Hadron-M experimental facility devoted to studying some as yet unexplained properties of gamma and hadronic components of Extensive Air Showers like aligned events, long-flying component,s or coplanar particle generation. As a reference paper on the Hadron-M experiment, it is pretty satisfactory so that I can draw the Authors’ attention to just a few minor deficiencies. As this is a review paper some features essential for such paper could be improved, namely:

1. Even though it is neither possible nor advisable to rewrite other papers, still the review paper should be characterized by some level of self explainabilty, which here can be improved. Eg., in the introduction Authors periodically refer to various information (mostly figures) from reference [1]. reproducing some of these figures in the current paper would make it much more readable.
2. I feel that the title of the paper is too general, given that the content is focused on just one experiment. Indeed there are not many (if any) competing experiments in the field, still, the title suggests broader scope than that really discussed.
3. Here and there one can find language and style glitches like in lines 69-73 where one finds the “that time” expression used 3 times. The authors should comprehensively read and correct the manuscript.

Answers for Reviewer 1

Corrections have been made in accordance with your comments

1. Answer:

Two figures from Ref. [1] have been added to the paper, references and text have been changed accordingly.

 Answer:

The title of the paper has been changed as follows.

Studies of anomalous phenomena in the development of electron-nuclear cascades in the EAS cores registered by a modernized complex installation at mountain altitudes

3. Answer:

Lines 69-73 are rewritten as follows.

During the above-mentioned experiments, the charm generation cross-sections measured on accelerators were equal to only a few tens of microbarns. Therefore, the results obtained in cosmic rays showed that the cross section of charm generation should increase rapidly with increasing energy. This strongly contradicted the theoretical concepts of the time.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

First of all, thanks for your interesting contribution.

Some comments and suggestions follow.

1) Purpose of the paper

As a first, general comment, I would like to ask you if the paper is also meant to present the new updated setup of the Hadron-55 experimental facility. 

I ask this because, starting from line 171 / sec. 2.1, a quite detailed description of the updated Hadron-55 facility is presented, with some details (for example, the details about the PotgreSQL-based data server or the exact geographical coordinates of the calorimeter) that appear to being a bit "out of place" in a paper that is proposed as a Review. 

If a paper presenting the updated facility has been published already, I would suggest to cite that paper and remove some of the more technical details from this review paper. Instead, if a paper presenting the new Hadron-55 facility has not been published yet, I would suggest to move those more technical details to a new paper, expand on them with more details, and publish the presentation of the new Hadron-55 facility separately.

 

2) line 42, I would suggest to add a reference to the original Tien Shan experiment cited at line 41

3) line 54, typo:  "unteracting" --> "interacting"

4) line 56, missing reference to the Pamir experiment's original paper

5) line 125, In "1 -- 2 km", I would use the long dash ("n-dash"), instead of two single dashes, and remove the spaces ==>  "1–2 km"

6) line 141, a couple of "the" are missing: "due to the specific design of the collider and the detectors of the ALICE, ATLAS, CMS Collaborations"

7) lines 139–142, to the reader it is not very clear why it is not possible to perform those measures at the LHC experiments. I would suggest to expand on the provided statement and provide some references to papers addressing that issue.

8) line 142, the sentence "study only low-energy particles" can be misleading for the reader: the energies at LHC are "high energy" for particle physics ("HEP" = High Energy Physics). But of course they are not at the energy found in high-energy cosmic rays. I would suggest to rephrase this and to expand on that with more explanations on why the energy at LHC is not enough for certain studies

9) line 142, I would also suggest to expand on the sentence "in the central kinematic region", because several detectors are in place at LHC to detect forward particles and study forward physics; so, the sentence as it is could be misleading for the reader.

10) line 146, a reference to the original Hadron-9 publication/paper is missing

11) line 148, a reference to the original Hadron-44 publication/paper is missing

12) line 149, a reference to the original Hadron-55 publication/paper is missing

13) line 162, typo:  "[...], the one row" ==> "[...], one row"

14) line 167 and caption of Figure 1, it is not clear what the pins on the figure and their names describe.

15) line 174, as I said in my comment 1), is there a paper presenting the new upgrade to the Hadron-55 facility, INKA-55? A reference is missing here, at line 174. Also, if the paper has been published, I would remove some of the more technical details in this section, which would find a better place in a dedicated technical paper rather than in a Review paper as this one.

16) line 181, typo:  a comma is missing (in red):  "...perpendicular directions, and one row of..."

17) line 184, typo:  "The peculiarity of INKA-55" ==> "The peculiarity of the INKA-55"

18) line 201, typo: "whit" ==> "with"

19) line 205, typo: "recordes" ==> "records"

20) line 213, typo: "coordinate" ==> "coordinates"

21) line 233–235, this is not very clear for the reader without proper mathematical symbols/fonts. Without proper mathematical formatting, it is not clear, in fact, if the given formula should be read as:

a.   ( ion/camera ) + amplifier + ADC + ... 

b.   ion / ( camera + amplifier + ADC + ...)

To fix this ambiguity, I would suggest to use proper mathematical formatting for the formula

Also, it is not clear where this sentence belongs: "and the spectrum of single pulses ... was taken". A reader could think it is still part of the above formula, which I doubt. So, I would suggest to rephrase this sentence.

22) line 247, in the spirit of a Review paper, I would suggest to add  references to existing papers for "strangelets" and "centaurs"

23) line 259, the sentence refers to "new results", but it is not clear to what results it is referring to. I would suggest to add references to the existing papers presenting/describing those new results

24) line 267, LHC and RHIC are not "centers", as they are are called in this sentence; they are particle accelerators. The hosting laboratories are CERN and BNL respectively. I would suggest to rephrase the sentence to reflect this.

25) line 268, here the Authors tell about proposals of new studies, but no references are given. I would suggest to add references to those studies/proposals.

26) line 280, the sentence "A group of researchers showed that..." lacks of details and references. References to the relevant papers should be given. I would also add some details, especially in the spirit of a Review paper.

27) line 286, I would suggest to continue the list of needed actions, by  removing the full stop and using a semicolon instead:   "... facility. Calculate the composition..." ==> "... facility; calculate the composition..." 

28) line 289, same as comment 27), with an additional "and" to conclude the list : "... CORSIKA package. Carry out ..." ==> "... CORSIKA package; and carry out ..." 

29) lines 303–306, I find these lines quite succinct; also, I think they lack of proper references. I would suggest to expand these lines with a more accurate description and argumentation on the importance of these results, and how they can improve  our current understanding. Also, the sentence "several theoretical works" lacks of proper references; I would suggest to add proper references to existing papers.

 

Once again, thank you for your interesting contribution, and I wish you all the best with your current and future research.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 2.

Answers for Reviewer 2

Corrections have been made in accordance with your comments as follows.

1) Reviewer: Purpose of the paper

1. As a first, general comment, I would like to ask you if the paper is also meant to present the new updated setup of the Hadron-55 experimental facility. 
2. I ask this because, starting from line 171 / sec. 2.1, a quite detailed description of the updated Hadron-55 facility is presented, with some details (for example, the details about the PotgreSQL-based data server or the exact geographical coordinates of the calorimeter) that appear to being a bit "out of place" in a paper that is proposed as a Review.
3. If a paper presenting the updated facility has been published already, I would suggest to cite that paper and remove some of the more technical details from this review paper. Instead, if a paper presenting the new Hadron-55 facility has not been published yet, I would suggest to move those more technical details to a new paper, expand on them with more details, and publish the presentation of the new Hadron-55 facility separately.

Answer:

The purpose of the work is to show the modernized facility and its capabilities in solving a specific task: the search for anomalous phenomena in EAS trunks.

1. a) Modernization was carried out at the existing installation: two rows of ionization chambers and one row of neutron counters were added, an external shower system was installed.
2. b) Removed from the text details about the data server and the exact geographic coordinates of the calorimeter.
3. c) The modernization of the installation was carried out not at once, but in parts, therefore, previous publications did not inform about the complete structure of the installation. Reference is added.

2) Reviewer: line 42, I would suggest to add a reference to the original Tien Shan experiment cited at line 41

Answer: The reference is added under number the [1]

3) Reviewer: line 54, typo:  "unteracting" --> "interacting"

Answer: The error is corrected

4) Reviewer: line 56, missing reference to the Pamir experiment's original paper

Answer: The reference is added under number the [8]

5) Reviewer: line 125, In "1 -- 2 km", I would use the long dash ("n-dash"), instead of two single dashes, and remove the spaces ==>  "1–2 km"

Answer: The error is corrected

6) Reviewer: line 141, a couple of "the" are missing: "due to the specific design of the collider and the detectors of the ALICE, ATLAS, CMS Collaborations"

Answer: The error is corrected

7) Reviewer: lines 139–142, to the reader it is not very clear why it is not possible to perform those measures at the LHC experiments. I would suggest to expand on the provided statement and provide some references to papers addressing that issue.

Answer: The lines 133–142 is corrected in the text

8) Reviewer: line 142, the sentence "study only low-energy particles" can be misleading for the reader: the energies at LHC are "high energy" for particle physics ("HEP" = High Energy Physics). But of course they are not at the energy found in high-energy cosmic rays. I would suggest to rephrase this and to expand on that with more explanations on why the energy at LHC is not enough for certain studies

Answer: The lines 133–142 is corrected in the text

9) Reviewer: line 142, I would also suggest to expand on the sentence "in the central kinematic region", because several detectors are in place at LHC to detect forward particles and study forward physics; so, the sentence as it is could be misleading for the reader.

Answer: The lines 133–142 is corrected in the text

10) Reviewer: line 146, a reference to the original Hadron-9 publication/paper is missing

Answer: references with numbers [38-40] are added to the text and the bibliography

11) line 148, a reference to the original Hadron-44 publication/paper is missing

Answer: references with numbers [41, 42] are added to the text and the bibliography

12) Reviewer: line 149, a reference to the original Hadron-55 publication/paper is missing

Answer: references with numbers  [43-45] are added to the text and the bibliography

13) Reviewer: line 162, typo:  "[...], the one row" ==> "[...], one row"

Answer: The error is corrected

14) Reviewer: line 167 and caption of Figure 1, it is not clear what the pins on the figure and their names describe.

Answer: The line 167 and caption of Figure  is corrected, pins description added

15) Reviewer: line 174, as I said in my comment 1), is there a paper presenting the new upgrade to the Hadron-55 facility, INKA-55? A reference is missing here, at line 174. Also, if the paper has been published, I would remove some of the more technical details in this section, which would find a better place in a dedicated technical paper rather than in a Review paper as this one.

Answer:

The modernization of the installation was carried out not at once, but in parts, therefore, previous publications did not inform about the complete structure of the installation. We have made decision to use one name for installation as «Hadron-M» Complex Installation. INKA-55 is removed from the whole text.

16) Reviewer: line 181, typo:  a comma is missing (in red):  "...perpendicular directions, and one row of..."

Answer: The error is corrected

17) Reviewer: line 184, typo:  "The peculiarity of INKA-55" ==> "The peculiarity of the INKA-55"

Answer: Corrected in the text, changed to the calorimeter

18) Reviewer: line 201, typo: "whit" ==> "with"

Answer: The error is corrected

19) Reviewer: line 205, typo: "recordes" ==> "records"

Answer: The error is corrected

20) line 213, typo: "coordinate" ==> "coordinates"

Answer: The error is corrected

21) Reviewer: line 233–235, this is not very clear for the reader without proper mathematical symbols/fonts. Without proper mathematical formatting, it is not clear, in fact, if the given formula should be read as:

1.   ( ion/camera ) + amplifier + ADC + ... 
2.   ion / ( camera + amplifier + ADC + ...)

To fix this ambiguity, I would suggest to use proper mathematical formatting for the formula

Also, it is not clear where this sentence belongs: "and the spectrum of single pulses ... was taken". A reader could think it is still part of the above formula, which I doubt. So, I would suggest to rephrase this sentence.

Answer: The lines 218 – 240 are corrected in accordance with recommendations of Reviewer 1 (review paper should not contain technical details and calculations)

22) Reviewer: line 247, in the spirit of a Review paper, I would suggest to add  references to existing papers for "strangelets" and "centaurs"

Answer: references added under the number [53-57] .

23) Reviewer: line 259, the sentence refers to "new results", but it is not clear to what results it is referring to. I would suggest to add references to the existing papers presenting/describing those new results

Answer: The reference is added under number the [59]

24) Reviewer: line 267, LHC and RHIC are not "centers", as they are are called in this sentence; they are particle accelerators. The hosting laboratories are CERN and BNL respectively. I would suggest to rephrase the sentence to reflect this.

Answer: see answer in the number 25

25) Reviewer: line 268, here the Authors tell about proposals of new studies, but no references are given. I would suggest to add references to those studies/proposals.

Answer: To search for and study possible events of the "Centauro" type, the CMS-CASTOR (Centauro And Strange Object Research) very-forward calorimeter experiment [60-62] was designed and implemented as part of the CMS experiment at the LHC. A certain contribution to these studies could be made by the "Hadron-55" installation, which is aimed at studying the EAS central cores [63].

26) Reviewer: line 280, the sentence "A group of researchers showed that..." lacks of details and references. References to the relevant papers should be given. I would also add some details, especially in the spirit of a Review paper.

Answer: The first sentence on lines 289-282 has been removed as it does not provide specific information.

27) Reviewer: line 286, I would suggest to continue the list of needed actions, by  removing the full stop and using a semicolon instead:   "... facility. Calculate the composition..." ==> "... facility; calculate the composition..." 

Answer: The text has been corrected in accordance with the comments of Reviewer.

28) Reviewer: line 289, same as comment 27), with an additional "and" to conclude the list : "... CORSIKA package. Carry out ..." ==> "... CORSIKA package; and carry out ..." 

Answer: The text has been corrected in accordance with the comments of Reviewer.

29) Reviewer: lines 303–306, I find these lines quite succinct; also, I think they lack of proper references. I would suggest to expand these lines with a more accurate description and argumentation on the importance of these results, and how they can improve  our current understanding. Also, the sentence "several theoretical works" lacks of proper references; I would suggest to add proper references to existing papers.

 Answer:

The text has been changed in accordance with the comments of Reviewer.

References [35–37, 54, 55, 64] are used in Conclusion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Reviewer:17) строка 184, опечатка: "Особенность ИНКА-55" ==> "Особенность ИНКА-55"

Answer:  Corrected in the text (The peculiarity of the INKA-55 installation is that it represents a set of various detectors, allowing more detailed study of the characteristics of interactions of particles of cosmic radiation, accurate calculation arrival angles and the development of the EAS stem along the depth of the calorimeter.)

 

2. Reviewer:18) строка 201, опечатка: "с" ==> "с"

Answer: Corrected in the text.  (Figure 3. Gamma block with internal shower system of the SC-detectors of the “INKA-55” ionization-neutron calorimeter)

 

3. Reviewer:19) строка 205, опечатка: "recordes" ==> "records"

Answer:  Corrected in the text. 

 

(This row records neutrons to obtain information about the properties of nuclear interaction at high energies, in particular, to detect neutron fluxes resulting from the development of EAS.)

 

4. Reviewer:20) строка 213, опечатка: "координата" ==> "координаты"

Answer: Corrected in the text. 

 

(A pair of mutually perpendicular rows form the observation level (more precisely, they give the X,Y coordinates of the passage of particles). )

 

5. Reviewer: 21) строки 233–235, это не очень понятно для читателя без соответствующих математических символов/шрифтов. Без надлежащего математического форматирования на самом деле неясно, следует ли читать данную формулу как:

 

а. ( ион/камера ) + усилитель + АЦП + ...

 

б. ион/(камера+усилитель+АЦП+...)

 

Чтобы исправить эту двусмысленность, я бы предложил использовать правильное математическое форматирование формулы

 

Также непонятно, к чему относится это предложение: "и был снят спектр одиночных импульсов...". Читатель может подумать, что это все еще часть приведенной выше формулы, в чем я сомневаюсь. Поэтому предлагаю перефразировать это предложение.

 

Жакан

Answer: (ion / camera) + amplifier + ADC (analog-digital converter)+ computer and the spectrum of single pulses of cosmic ray background

To determine the amplitude of the signal from a single Uoe particle, a stand was assembled: (ion / camera) + amplifier + ADC (analog-digital converter). Measurements showed Uoe = 0.39 mV/particle.

 

 

6. Reviewer: 22) строка 247, в духе Обзорной статьи, я бы предложил добавить ссылки на существующие статьи для "странджлетов" и "кентавров"

Answer:  Added reference.  (?????  Turlan -Shaulov Kentavr )

 

Ewa Gladysz-Dziadus, Are Centaures exotic signals of the quark-gluon plasma? // Physics of Particles and Nuclei 34(3):285-347

 

Niccolò Bucciantini, Alessandro Drago, Giuseppe Pagliara, Silvia Traversi, Andreas Bauswein, Formation and evaporation of strangelets during the merger of two compact stars // Phys.Rev.D 106 (2022) 10, 103032  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1908.02501

 

7. Reviewer: 23) строка 259, в предложении говорится о «новых результатах», но неясно, о каких результатах идет речь. Я бы предложил добавить ссылки на существующие документы, представляющие/описывающие эти новые результаты.

Answer:  Added reference.  (?????  Turlan  Slavatinskei )

 

“HADRON-55” complex setup for study of hadron interactions within the central part of cosmic ray extensive air showers (EAS) cores / 1) / B.A. Iskakov, A.Kh. Argynova, A.D. Beisenova, B.O. Zhautykov, T.K. Idrisova, O.A. Novolodskaya, V.V. Piscal, V.A. Ryabov, T.Kh. Sadykov, Sadykov J.T., and Y.M. Tautayev. // Journal of Instrumentation. - V. 15 C12002, DOI 10.1088/1748-0221/15/12/C12002, 2020

 

10. Iskakov, K. M. Mukashev, K. A. Argynova, Zh. T. Sadykov, F. F. Umarov, V. V. Zhukov, On the use of the mutual correlation of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s crust with geoacoustic emission // Eurasian Journal of Physics and Functional Materials 6(3):213-222, 2022 https://doi.org/10.32523/ejpfm.2022060306

 

8. Reviewer: 24) строка 267, LHC и RHIC не являются "центрами", как они называются в этом предложении; они ускорители частиц. Принимающими лабораториями являются CERN и BNL соответственно. Я бы предложил перефразировать предложение, чтобы отразить это.

Answer: (?????  Answer Rauf)

 

9. Reviewer:25) строка 268, здесь Авторы сообщают о предложениях новых исследований, но без ссылок. Я бы предложил добавить ссылки на эти исследования/предложения.

Answer: Corrected in the text. Added reference.  (????? Answer Rauf)

 

“HADRON-55” complex setup for study of hadron interactions within the central part of cosmic ray extensive air showers (EAS) cores / 1) / B.A. Iskakov, A.Kh. Argynova, A.D. Beisenova, B.O. Zhautykov, T.K. Idrisova, O.A. Novolodskaya, V.V. Piscal, V.A. Ryabov, T.Kh. Sadykov, Sadykov J.T., and Y.M. Tautayev. // Journal of Instrumentation. - V. 15 C12002, DOI 10.1088/1748-0221/15/12/C12002, 2020

 

 

 

10. Reviewer: 26) строка 280, в предложении «Группа исследователей показала, что...» отсутствуют подробности и ссылки. Должны быть даны ссылки на соответствующие документы. Я бы также добавил некоторые детали, особенно в духе обзора.

Answer: Corrected in the text. Added reference.  (?????  Answer Rauf)

 

“HADRON-55” complex setup for study of hadron interactions within the central part of cosmic ray extensive air showers (EAS) cores / 1) / B.A. Iskakov, A.Kh. Argynova, A.D. Beisenova, B.O. Zhautykov, T.K. Idrisova, O.A. Novolodskaya, V.V. Piscal, V.A. Ryabov, T.Kh. Sadykov, Sadykov J.T., and Y.M. Tautayev. // Journal of Instrumentation. - V. 15 C12002, DOI 10.1088/1748-0221/15/12/C12002, 2020

 

 

 

11. Reviewer:27) строка 286, предлагаю продолжить список необходимых действий, убрав точку и поставив вместо нее точку с запятой: "... объект. Рассчитать состав..." ==> "... объект; вычислить сочинение..."

Answer: Corrected in the text.  (????? Answer Rauf)

 

12. Reviewer: 28) строка 289, то же, что и прим. 27), с дополнительным "и" для завершения списка: "...пакет КОРСИКА. Выполнить..." ==> "...пакет КОРСИКА; и выполнить.. ."

Answer: Corrected in the text.  (?????  Answer Rauf)

 

13. Reviewer: 29) строки 303–306, я нахожу эти строки довольно краткими; Кроме того, я думаю, что им не хватает надлежащих ссылок. Я бы предложил расширить эти строки более точным описанием и аргументацией важности этих результатов и того, как они могут улучшить наше текущее понимание. Кроме того, в предложении «несколько теоретических работ» отсутствуют надлежащие ссылки; Я бы предложил добавить надлежащие ссылки на существующие документы.

Answer: Corrected in the text. Added reference.  (????? Answer Rauf  если здесь расширить текст порядка 500 слов, то нет необходимости  добавлять моделирование)

 

 

Ewa Gladysz-Dziadus, Are Centaures exotic signals of the quark-gluon plasma? // Physics of Particles and Nuclei 34(3):285-347

 

 

 

 

Добавление статей

 

1. 36 – N. M. Nesterova, V. P. Pavlyuchenko, A. P. Chubenko & S. B. Shaulov Nuclear composition of 1-to 20-PeV primary cosmic rays according to lateral features of the electron-photon component of all extensive air showers and of extensive air showers accompanying high-energy gamma rays and hadrons in x-ray emulsion chambers at the Tien Shan level // Physics of Atomic Nuclei volume 66, pages847–853 (2003)

 

2. V. Vedeneev Depth of the maximum of extensive air showers and mass composition of primary cosmic radiation at an energy of 4 × 1017 eV according to data on radioemission from extensive air showers // Physics of Atomic Nuclei volume 72, pages250–256 (2009)

 

3. Karpikov, J. A. Bellido, R. W. Clay, N. N. Kalmykov, G. I. Rubtsov & S. V. Troitsky Muon Content of Extensive Air Showers: Comparison of the Energy Spectra Obtained by the Sydney University Giant Air-Shower Recorder and by the Pierre Auger Observatory // Physics of Atomic Nuclei volume 82, pages694–698 (2019)

 

4. Kawata, T. K. Sako, M. Ohnishi, M. Takita, Y. Nakamura & K. Munakata Energy determination of gamma-ray induced air showers observed by an extensive air shower array // Experimental Astronomy volume 44, pages1–9 (2017)

 

5. U. Beisembaev, Yu. N. Vavilov, N. G. Vildanov, A. V. Kruglov, A. V. Stepanov & J. S. Takibaev Delayed muons in extensive air showers and double-front showers // Physics of Atomic Nuclei volume 72, Article number: 1852 (2009)

 

6. 38 – M. Ichimura, E. Kamioka, M. Kitazawa, T. Kobayashi, T. Shibata, S. Somemiya, M. Kogawa, S. Kuramata, H. Matsutani, T. Murabayashi, H. Nanjyo, Z. Watanabe, H. Sugimoto & K. Nakazawa Unusually penetrating particle detected by balloon-borne emulsion chamber // Il Nuovo Cimento A (1965-1970) volume 106, pages843–852 (1993)

 

 

7. Zayarnaya & T. A. Irkhina Detection of the Rare Interaction of a Neutral Particle with Energy Higher than 15 TeV in the Stratospheric X-ray Emulsion Chamber (According to the RUNJOB Experiment Data) // Bulletin of the Lebedev Physics Institute volume 46, pages153–156 (2019)

 

8. Zayarnaya & T. A. Irkhina Interactions of Neutral Particles with Energies >7 TeV in Stratospheric X-Ray Emulsion Chambers // Bulletin of the Lebedev Physics Institute volume 48, pages353–356 (2021)

 

9. Zayarnaya & T. A. Irkhina Study of the coordinate prediction accuracy for galactic particles with an energy of 10–1000 TeV/particle using a new method for searching and tracking particles in nuclear emulsion films. (Data of the Russia–Nippon Joint Balloon (RUNJOB) experiment) // Bulletin of the Lebedev Physics Institute volume 44, pages130–136 (2017)

 

10. Zayarnaya Processing of high-energy proton events using a new method for searching primary cosmic ray particles in X-ray emulsion chambers (according to the RUNJOB experiment data) // Bulletin of the Lebedev Physics Institute volume 40, pages322–327 (2013)

 

11. 55 – “HADRON-55” complex setup for study of hadron interactions within the central part of cosmic ray extensive air showers (EAS) cores / 1) / B.A. Iskakov, A.Kh. Argynova, A.D. Beisenova, B.O. Zhautykov, T.K. Idrisova, O.A. Novolodskaya, V.V. Piscal, V.A. Ryabov, T.Kh. Sadykov, Sadykov J.T., and Y.M. Tautayev. // Journal of Instrumentation. - V. 15 C12002, DOI 10.1088/1748-0221/15/12/C12002, 2020

 

12. M. Salikhov, K. A. Argynova, L. I. Vildanova, V. V. Zhukov, T. K. Idrisova, B. M. Iskakov, S. A. Mamina, G. D. Pak, V. A. Ryabov, N. O. Saduyev, T. Kh. Sadykov & A. L. Shepetov Multichannel Monitoring of the Radiation Background and a Search for Precursor Signals of the Seismic Activity at the Tien Shan Mountain Station // Bulletin of the Lebedev Physics Institute volume 49, pages317–321 (2022)

 

13. 77 – Janusz Kempa, Bryan Pattison, Ewa Gładysz-Dziaduś, Lawrence W. Jones, Rauf Mukhamedshin, Masanobu Tamada & Zbigniew Włodarczyk Emulsion chamber observations of Centauros, aligned events and the long-flying component // Central European Journal of Physics volume 10, pages723–741 (2012)

 

14. Lokhtin, A. K. Managadze & A. M. Snigirev Ridge effect and alignment phenomenon // Physics of Atomic Nuclei volume 76, pages602–606 (2013)

 

15. S. Puchkov & S. E. Pyatovsky Origin of Gamma-Ray Families Accompanied by Halos and Detected in Experiments with X-Ray Emulsion Chambers // Physics of Atomic Nuclei volume 81, pages222–230 (2018)

 

16. Rauf Mukhamedshin FANSY 1.0: a phenomenological model for simulation of coplanar particle generation in superhigh-energy hadron interactions // The European Physical Journal C volume 60, pages345–358 (2009)

 

17. 84 – R. A. Mukhamedshin On coplanarity of the most energetic cores in gamma-ray-hadron families and hadronic interactions at √s ≳ 4 TeV // Physics of Particles and Nuclei Letters volume 3, pages234–240 (2006)

 

18. A. Mukhamedshin, V. S. Puchkov, S. E. Pyatovsky & S. B. Shaulov γ-families with halos observed by X-ray emulsion chamber in EAS and the estimate of the p+He fraction in primary cosmic rays at E0 = 1–100 PeV // Bulletin of the Lebedev Physics Institute volume 44, pages380–384 (2017)

 

19. S. Borisov, A. P. Chubenko, V. G. Denisova, V. I. Galkin, Z. M. Guseva, E. A. Kanevskaya, M. G. Kogan, V. N. Koulikov, A. E. Morozov, R. A. Mukhamedshin, S. N. Nazarov, V. S. Puchkov, S. E. Pyatovsky, G. P. Shoziyoev, M. D. Smirnova & A. V. Vargasov Studying the nature of the long-flying component of cosmic rays using X-ray emulsion chambers exposed in the Pamirs and Tien Shan // Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics volume 80, pages551–558 (2016)

 

20. 142 – Christophe Clement & ATLAS Collaboration Upgrade of the ATLAS Hadronic Tile Calorimeter for the High Luminosity LHC // Physics of Atomic Nuclei volume 84, pages368–372 (2021)

 

21. M. Nikityuk & V. N. Samoilov Review of the trigger systems of the ATLAS and CMS detectors at the LHC // Physics of Particles and Nuclei volume 38, pages659–697 (2007)

 

22. Balashov, N. Burtebayev, V. Korenkov, N. Kutovskiy, Ye. Mazhitova, I. Satyshev & R. Semenov CERN-JINR-INP-KazNU Data Center: Current Status and Plans // Physics of Particles and Nuclei Letters volume 19, pages547–549 (2022)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper reviews cosmic ray work relating to the interests of the Tien Shan high altitude laboratory.  Over many years, the cores of extensive air showers have taught us surprising things about interactions at energies which are, even now, barely accessible with the LHC.  Such studies require massive absorber/detector systems at high altitudes, such that interactions close to the first air shower interactions are accessible.  There are few such systems in existence and, like this one, their cost tends to mean that development is incremental and that the techniques may seem to be old fashioned. 

This review describes a number of the phenomena which have been deduced at high altitude laboratories and described over the years (the dates of many of the references are quite early, reflecting the difficulties inherent in this work).  They are generally well-known and, perhaps, have not had the acceptance which they have deserved by the particle physics community.  The review is clear and interesting and is well-worth being read broadly by the community.

The recent work, and proposals, described in the paper relates to an incremental improvement at the laboratory.  Whilst this is significant, it is frustrating that it has not been incorporated into one of the modern high altitude air shower systems for gamma-ray astrophysics, to provide really good air shower data.  The paper clearly describes the new system and it should be of interest to the air shower community, which tends to concentrate on other air shower components which are observable at lower altitudes.

 

The writing of the paper is very clear and the English expression is very good.

Author Response

no action needed

Reviewer 4 Report

M - major comments

m - minor comments.

 

m, line 19, - too slow absorption - try to change 'too slow' to something else, like very slow, much slower then expected, and so on. (stylistic suggestion)

m, 26 - a new cosmic-ray detector array, including a very thick ionization calorimeter, is designed to study EAS cores. -> from this line its unclear if this calorimeter is already built or it being designed. my suggestion would be to amend this line.. perhaps as: a newly installed cosmic-ray detector array - if detector is already in place. or a newly designed cosmic-ray detector array that is currently under construction - if its still not finished. you can also try: a recently installed new cosmic-ray detector array or something similar.

m, 44 - no need to use Ref. .. in [1] is perfectly fine by itself. (stylistic suggestion). this is because sometimes you use Ref and sometimes you don't. make consistent for best result.

m, 54 - of unteracting hadrons - interacting (typo)

m, 151 - increasing the thickness of the absorber of the installation and two
shower systems of 30 scintillation detectors -> it seems something is missing. Did you mean: increasing the thickness of the absorber and the installation of two shower systems of 30 scintillation detectors??

m, 155 with 4 SDs in each circular area. -> are the detector in the area or on the circle lines?? this is confusing. did you mean - with 4 SDs for each circle?

m, 156, The main difference of this calorimeter - from what, from Hardon-55? from the previous version? this is stylistic - its not good to leave the comparison unfinished as a reader starts to search what is this different from?

m, 174 -> The main purpose of the measuring complex will allow to search ->very unclear. you talk about the INKA55, and then suddenly its a complex. which one?  also - the purpose can not allow anything. the purpose is to search for ?

M, 219, the "Hadron-M" plant-> plant is not a proper word here. experiment, installation, detector complex, system, anything but plant (meaning 'zavod')

m, 224 registered ionization codes - what do you mean, codes? may be values? also ADC values, not code.. code is what you use to write a program. unless you code the output - like high, low, green, bottle, agent 007.. binary ADC data perhaps...or ADC output.. this is confusing.

m ,233, a stand was->the following stand was

m, 237 - the spread of nitrogen gas pressures - a distribution, not spread?

m, 241 - Currently, the "Hadron-M" facility is conducting and planning studies of the following tasks: you can't plan a study of a task.. you can plan a study or plan a task.. just say: facility is conducting and planning the following studies:

m, 243, 245, 247 - a study, a search

M, 250 - general form of the energy spectrum of galactic cosmic rays has become known, the magnitude of which is at least 10 orders - did you mean -> known over the range of 10 orders or magnitude?

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 4.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

M - major comments

m - minor comments.

Some comments and suggestions follow.

Answers for Reviewer 4

Corrections have been made in accordance with your comments as follows.

1. Reviewer: m, line 19, - too slow absorption - try to change 'too slow' to something else, like very slow, much slower then expected, and so on. (stylistic suggestion)

Answer: Corrected in the text. (too slow absorption – changed to - a delayed absorption)

2. Reviewer: m, 26 - a new cosmic-ray detector array, including a very thick ionization calorimeter, is designed to study EAS cores. -> from this line its unclear if this calorimeter is already built or it being designed. my suggestion would be to amend this line.. perhaps as: a newly installed cosmic-ray detector array - if detector is already in place. or a newly designed cosmic-ray detector array that is currently under construction - if its still not finished. you can also try: a recently installed new cosmic-ray detector array or something similar.

Answer: Corrected in the text. ( …. being upgraded to study EAS cores )

3. Reviewer: m, 44 - no need to use Ref. .. in [1] is perfectly fine by itself. (stylistic suggestion). this is because sometimes you use Ref and sometimes you don't. make consistent for best result.

Answer:  Corrected in the text.

4. Reviewer: m, 54 - of unteracting hadrons - interacting (typo)

Answer: The error is corrected.

5. Reviewer: m, 151 - increasing the thickness of the absorber of the installation and two shower systems of 30 scintillation detectors -> it seems something is missing. Did you mean: increasing the thickness of the absorber and the installation of two shower systems of 30 scintillation detectors??

Answer: Corrected in the text. (The thickness of the calorimeter includes two new rows of ionization chambers with iron absorbers.)

6. Reviewer: m, 155- with 4 SDs in each circular area. -> are the detector in the area or on the circle lines?? this is confusing. did you mean - with 4 SDs for each circle?

Answer: Corrected in the text. (An external shower system lies outside the building along concentric circles with radii of 25, 40, and 100 meters, 4 SDs for each circular area.)

 Reviewer: m, 156, - The main difference of this calorimeter - from what, from Hardon-55? from the previous version? this is stylistic - its not good to leave the comparison unfinished as a reader starts to search what is this different from?

Answer: Corrected in the text. (The main difference of this calorimeter from the previous similar installations is the added number of neutron counters for registering neutron fluxes resulting from the development of extensive air showers.)

 Reviewer: m, 174 - The main purpose of the measuring complex will allow to search ->very unclear. you talk about the INKA55, and then suddenly its a complex. which one?  also - the purpose can not allow anything. the purpose is to search for ?

Answer:  Corrected in the text.

The modernization of the installation was carried out not at once, but in parts, therefore, previous publications did not inform about the complete structure of the installation. We have made decision to use one name for installation as «Hadron-M» complex Installation. INKA-55 is removed from the whole text.

 Reviewer: M, 219 - the "Hadron-M" plant-> plant is not a proper word here. experiment, installation, detector complex, system, anything but plant (meaning 'zavod')

Answer: Corrected to «Hadron-M» complex Installation

 Reviewer: m, 224 -registered ionization codes - what do you mean, codes? may be values? also ADC values, not code.. code is what you use to write a program. unless you code the output - like high, low, green, bottle, agent 007.. binary ADC data perhaps...or ADC output.. this is confusing.

Answer: Corrected in the text.

The lines 218 – 240 are corrected in accordance with recommendations of Reviewer 1 (review paper should not contain technical details and calculations)

 Reviewer: m ,233, - a stand was->the following stand was

Answer: Corrected in the text.

 

12. Reviewer: m, 237 - the spread of nitrogen gas pressures - a distribution, not spread?

Answer: Corrected in the text.

 Reviewer: m, 241 - Currently, the "Hadron-M" facility is conducting and planning studies of the following tasks: you can't plan a study of a task.. you can plan a study or plan a task.. just say: facility is conducting and planning the following studies:

Answer: Corrected in the text.

14. Reviewer: m, 243, 245, 247 - a study, a search

Answer: Corrected in the text

15. Reviewer: M, 250 - general form of the energy spectrum of galactic cosmic rays has become known, the magnitude of which is at least 10 orders - did you mean -> known over the range of 10 orders or magnitude?

Answer:  Changed to 10^th order. We mean that the order (range) shall be 10 or more.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

This is a short and concise review on EAS core phenomena with a description of the proposed Hadron-M experiment. Publication is recommended after the following comments are considered by the authors in a revised version.

Title: the authors may consider to slightly modify the title to a more compact one. A proposal would be: "Anomalous phenomena in EAS-core hadron cascades detected in a mountain-based calorimeter"

L37-55: these paragraphs should be merged

L74-86: these paragraphs should be merged

In general, one should avoid one-sentence paragraphs.

L140: the current LHC experiments indeed cannot study EAS phenomena. However, the proposed MATHUSLA experiment may probe them [arXiv:1901.04040, arXiv:2006.00788]. It would be interesting to add a comment on that.

L280: A reference should be given

General comment: all units should not be in italic, as it is in the abstact

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 5.

 

This is a short and concise review on EAS core phenomena with a description of the proposed Hadron-M experiment. Publication is recommended after the following comments are considered by the authors in a revised version.

Title: the authors may consider to slightly modify the title to a more compact one. A proposal would be: "Anomalous phenomena in EAS-core hadron cascades detected in a mountain-based calorimeter"

Answers for Reviewer 5

Corrections have been made in accordance with your comments as follows.

1. Reviewer: L37-55: these paragraphs should be merged

Answer: corrected

2. Reviewer:  L74-86: these paragraphs should be merged

Answer: corrected

In general, one should avoid one-sentence paragraphs.

3. Reviewer: L140: the current LHC experiments indeed cannot study EAS phenomena. However, the proposed MATHUSLA experiment may probe them [arXiv:1901.04040, arXiv:2006.00788]. It would be interesting to add a comment on that.

Answer: corrected

4. Reviewer L280: A reference should be given
Answer: corrected

General comment: all units should not be in italic, as it is in the abstact

Answer: corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for your answers, and for all corrections, modifications and bibliographic additions.

I find the new version of the paper much more clear and informative, with all the relevant references to previous pieces of work, in the spirit of a Review paper. Thank you.

A couple of additional comments on the new parts:

l.213 -- typo:  "They and associated with the most" ==> "They are associated with the most"

l.223–225 -- Since you are discussing experiments to catch potential forward physics at LHC, it would be good to mention, for example, the LHCf and FASER experiments:

- https://home.cern/science/experiments/lhcf

- https://faser.web.cern.ch/physics

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 2.

 

Thanks for your answers, and for all corrections, modifications and bibliographic additions.

I find the new version of the paper much more clear and informative, with all the relevant references to previous pieces of work, in the spirit of a Review paper. Thank you.

 

A couple of additional comments on the new parts:

 

Answers for Reviewer 2

Corrections have been made in accordance with your comments as follows.

 

1) Reviewer:  l.213 -- typo:  "They and associated with the most" ==> "They are associated with the most"

Answer: The error is corrected

 

2) Reviewer:  l.223–225 -- Since you are discussing experiments to catch potential forward physics at LHC, it would be good to mention, for example, the LHCf and FASER experiments:

- https://home.cern/science/experiments/lhcf

- https://faser.web.cern.ch/physics

Answer: Corrections have been made in accordance with your comments. . The following text is added after line 374:

At present, the very-forward physics is being studied at the LHC by the LHCf (Large Hadron Collider forward) experiment [62]. LHCf is made up of two detectors which sit along the LHC beamline, at 140 metres either side of the ATLAS collision point. The location allows the observation of particles at nearly zero degrees to the proton beam direction (8.81 < η < 9.22 and η > 10.76). Each of the two detectors weighs only 40 kilograms and measures 30 cm long by 80 cm high and 10 cm wide. They can only detect neutral particles (neutrons, γ-rays etc.). Unfortunately, dimensions of these detectors are too small to study correlations of most energetic particles.

One can formally say that the forward physics kinematic region is also studied by the FASER experiment [63]. However, FASER is searching for new light long-lived and most weakly-interacting particles that are produced at or close to the ATLAS interaction point, move along the beam collision axis line of sight, and then decay within the volume of FASER into visible decay products. Thus, the goals of the FASER experiment are not focused on the study of most energetic hadrons, which is considered in this paper.

 

 

The references is added under number the [62] and [63].

 

[62] The LHCf Collaboration. The results from LHCf and future prospects. EPJ Web Conf. 2013, 52, 01007.  Available online:  https://home.cern/science/experiments/lhcf

[63] The FASER experiment. Available online:  https://faser.web.cern.ch/physics

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx