\n
![\"collision\"](\"https://www.googleapis.com/download/storage/v1/b/kaggle-forum-message-attachments/o/inbox%2F6648125%2Fe4fc0481af0b7ad099d45504ba4b9823%2Fcollision.jpg?generation=1674437298639305&alt=media\")
As a subject matter beginner, I'm having trouble bridging the gap between very general high level descriptions and super-technical low level descriptions that assume way more understanding than was provided by the high level descriptions.
\nIn particular, there is a collision, and the result at the high level is this can:
\n\"create charged leptons (electrons, muons, or taus). These charged leptons can, if they are energetic enough, emit Cherenkov radiation. This happens when the charged particle travels through the ice faster than the speed of light in the ice, similar to the bow shock of a boat traveling faster than the waves it crosses. This light can then be detected by photomultiplier tubes within the digital optical modules making up IceCube.\"
But what are the relative properties of this Cherenkov radiation light, in terms of the neutrino and collision point? What are the properties of the sensors (aka DOM aka PMT aka photomultiplier tubes). For example, there's several places already I've run into the term \"angular acceptance\"… but nothing mentioning the facing of these DOMs, if they have facing?
\nThe above was intended as background for some questions:
\nDirection: In all cases (electrons, muons, or taus), the light emitted at the point of collision is omnidirectional? Or entirely in the direction the neutrino is traveling, or a bit of a combination? And depending on the type and the clarity of the ice and distance traveled and other factors, it may or may not reach a sensor with enough charge to be detected? In other words, it might not look omnidirectional?
\n
Would this picture above happen from a SINGLE collision? Or only happen if there were a bunch of collisions? (For that matter, are multiple collisions generally expected from a single neutrino, or varies too much to say?)
\nEnergy and charge: Lower energy neutrinos will cause lower energy collisions which will be weaker, not travel as far, and less likely to be detected? And higher energy the reverse, and a single collision could theoretically light up a large number of sensors? Is there a direct correlation between 'charge' measured by the DOM and the energy of the neutrino?
\nSpeed: post-collision, the charged light will travel at approx the speed of light in vacuum? (As opposed to the speed of light in ice)
\nSensors: Are they receiving light omnidirectionally? For practical purposes their detection range is simply based on the energy of the collision, clearness of the ice and such factors?
\nNot expecting every question to have a clear answer, but trying to understand which of these are pretty well understood, and which are probably simulated mainly based on experimental data from IceCube's history.
", "messages": [ { "id": "2111575", "postDate": "01/23/2023 01:44:10", "content": "As a subject matter beginner, I'm having trouble bridging the gap between very general high level descriptions and super-technical low level descriptions that assume way more understanding than was provided by the high level descriptions.
\nIn particular, there is a collision, and the result at the high level is this can:
\n\"create charged leptons (electrons, muons, or taus). These charged leptons can, if they are energetic enough, emit Cherenkov radiation. This happens when the charged particle travels through the ice faster than the speed of light in the ice, similar to the bow shock of a boat traveling faster than the waves it crosses. This light can then be detected by photomultiplier tubes within the digital optical modules making up IceCube.\"
But what are the relative properties of this Cherenkov radiation light, in terms of the neutrino and collision point? What are the properties of the sensors (aka DOM aka PMT aka photomultiplier tubes). For example, there's several places already I've run into the term \"angular acceptance\"… but nothing mentioning the facing of these DOMs, if they have facing?
\nThe above was intended as background for some questions:
\nDirection: In all cases (electrons, muons, or taus), the light emitted at the point of collision is omnidirectional? Or entirely in the direction the neutrino is traveling, or a bit of a combination? And depending on the type and the clarity of the ice and distance traveled and other factors, it may or may not reach a sensor with enough charge to be detected? In other words, it might not look omnidirectional?
\n
Would this picture above happen from a SINGLE collision? Or only happen if there were a bunch of collisions? (For that matter, are multiple collisions generally expected from a single neutrino, or varies too much to say?)
\nEnergy and charge: Lower energy neutrinos will cause lower energy collisions which will be weaker, not travel as far, and less likely to be detected? And higher energy the reverse, and a single collision could theoretically light up a large number of sensors? Is there a direct correlation between 'charge' measured by the DOM and the energy of the neutrino?
\nSpeed: post-collision, the charged light will travel at approx the speed of light in vacuum? (As opposed to the speed of light in ice)
\nSensors: Are they receiving light omnidirectionally? For practical purposes their detection range is simply based on the energy of the collision, clearness of the ice and such factors?
\nNot expecting every question to have a clear answer, but trying to understand which of these are pretty well understood, and which are probably simulated mainly based on experimental data from IceCube's history.
", "rawMarkdown": "As a subject matter beginner, I'm having trouble bridging the gap between very general high level descriptions and super-technical low level descriptions that assume way more understanding than was provided by the high level descriptions.\n\nIn particular, there is a collision, and the result at the high level is this can:\n\"create charged leptons (electrons, muons, or taus). These charged leptons can, if they are energetic enough, emit Cherenkov radiation. This happens when the charged particle travels through the ice faster than the speed of light in the ice, similar to the bow shock of a boat traveling faster than the waves it crosses. This light can then be detected by photomultiplier tubes within the digital optical modules making up IceCube.\" \n\nBut what are the relative properties of this Cherenkov radiation light, in terms of the neutrino and collision point? What are the properties of the sensors (aka DOM aka PMT aka photomultiplier tubes). For example, there's several places already I've run into the term \"angular acceptance\"... but nothing mentioning the facing of these DOMs, if they have facing?\n\nThe above was intended as background for some questions:\n\n**Direction**: In all cases (electrons, muons, or taus), the light emitted at the point of collision is omnidirectional? Or entirely in the direction the neutrino is traveling, or a bit of a combination? And depending on the type and the clarity of the ice and distance traveled and other factors, it may or may not reach a sensor with enough charge to be detected? In other words, it might not look omnidirectional?\n\n\nWould this picture above happen from a SINGLE collision? Or only happen if there were a bunch of collisions? (For that matter, are multiple collisions generally expected from a single neutrino, or varies too much to say?)\n\n**Energy and charge**: Lower energy neutrinos will cause lower energy collisions which will be weaker, not travel as far, and less likely to be detected? And higher energy the reverse, and a single collision could theoretically light up a large number of sensors? Is there a direct correlation between 'charge' measured by the DOM and the energy of the neutrino?\n\n**Speed**: post-collision, the charged light will travel at approx the speed of light in vacuum? (As opposed to the speed of light in ice)\n\n**Sensors**: Are they receiving light omnidirectionally? For practical purposes their detection range is simply based on the energy of the collision, clearness of the ice and such factors?\n\nNot expecting every question to have a clear answer, but trying to understand which of these are pretty well understood, and which are probably simulated mainly based on experimental data from IceCube's history.", "votes": null }, { "id": "2113991", "postDate": "01/24/2023 16:25:30", "content": "Hello.
\nFrom the reading of the article https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.05093.pdf, i might have some answers to some of your questions. I'm not sure about everything but still i think it can help and leads to further interrogations.
\n\"Two different event topologies form the standard signatures of neutrinos in IceCube.\"
\nFirst one :
\n\"Track-like events originate from a charged-current interaction of a high-energy muon neutrino with a nucleus, producing a hadronic shower at the vertex and an outgoing muon that emits Cherenkov light in a cone along its track. The angular resolution for muon tracks and hence the incident neutrino direction is typically 0.6◦\"
Second one :
\n\"A second class of events are electromagnetic or hadronic showers from interactions of all neutrino flavors, resulting in a more spherical light generation in the detector. Since the total light output of such a shower is directly proportional to its energy, and the showers are often well-contained in the detector, the neutrino energy reconstruction for such events is much more precise than for
\ntrack-like events. The average deposited energy resolution for both event types is about 15%\".
I have not yet finish to read so i don't know if both classes of events are in the dataset. Still in the second paragraph i think to understand that the light output is indeed proportional to the neutrino energy. Once again i'm not sure but i would guess that the detection (on one detector) is therefore proportional to the neutrino energy and that the probability of reaching a higher number of sensor is link to its energy.
\nI don't know if it helps much but well. Please be indulgent it's my first post here :D
", "rawMarkdown": "Hello. \n\nFrom the reading of the article [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.05093.pdf](url), i might have some answers to some of your questions. I'm not sure about everything but still i think it can help and leads to further interrogations.\n\n\n\"Two different event topologies form the standard signatures of neutrinos in IceCube.\"\n\nFirst one : \n\"Track-like events originate from a charged-current interaction of a high-energy muon neutrino with a nucleus, producing a hadronic shower at the vertex and an outgoing muon **that emits Cherenkov light in a cone along its track**. The angular resolution for muon tracks and hence the incident neutrino direction is typically 0.6◦\"\n\n\nSecond one : \n\"A second class of events are electromagnetic or hadronic showers from interactions of all neutrino flavors, **resulting in a more spherical light generation in the detector.** **Since the total light output of such a shower is directly proportional to its energy**, and the showers are often well-contained in the detector, the neutrino energy reconstruction for such events is much more precise than for\ntrack-like events. The average deposited energy resolution for both event types is about 15%\".\n\n\n\nI have not yet finish to read so i don't know if both classes of events are in the dataset. Still in the second paragraph i think to understand that the light output is indeed proportional to the neutrino energy. Once again i'm not sure but i would guess that the detection (on one detector) is therefore proportional to the neutrino energy and that the probability of reaching a higher number of sensor is link to its energy.\n\n\nI don't know if it helps much but well. Please be indulgent it's my first post here :D", "votes": null }, { "id": "2115471", "postDate": "01/25/2023 19:38:27", "content": "Definitely very good questions. I have a grasp on some of it but will wait for my understanding to become clearer or for others to comment and help.
\nI will say that the energy of a neutrino is related to its cross sectional size. Meaning larger energy neutrinos are larger (physically) and more likely to interact/bump into particles.
\nI’ll come back to this in a few days to see if I can help more if my understanding improves.
\nThanks for voicing these questions so eloquently.
", "rawMarkdown": "Definitely very good questions. I have a grasp on some of it but will wait for my understanding to become clearer or for others to comment and help.\n\nI will say that the energy of a neutrino is related to its cross sectional size. Meaning larger energy neutrinos are larger (physically) and more likely to interact/bump into particles.\n\nI’ll come back to this in a few days to see if I can help more if my understanding improves.\n\nThanks for voicing these questions so eloquently.", "votes": null }, { "id": "2115478", "postDate": "01/25/2023 19:42:53", "content": "Ps: there may be some answers in the AMANDA paper as well as it was the PoC version of IceCube and the paper might cover some of this:
\nhttps://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9906203
", "rawMarkdown": "Ps: there may be some answers in the AMANDA paper as well as it was the PoC version of IceCube and the paper might cover some of this:\n\nhttps://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9906203", "votes": null }, { "id": "2115813", "postDate": "01/26/2023 01:15:36", "content": "Thanks for engaging! It's really helpful to hear similar to what I'd been starting to pick up.
\nOne of the references inside the article you linked was to another paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.3795.pdf
\nThis one is focused on energy reconstruction, but still has very in-depth - hard to read and understand, but very in-depth! - description of the types of patterns from neutrino collisions, including the text based table below.
\nIt's hard to read from below copy paste, but it has these \"signatures\" and appears to be a comprehensive list, which is really excellent:
\nCascade, Track (+ Cascade), Cascade/Double Bang, Cascade + Track, Cascade.
\nAnd it does appear that a Cascade is spherical, and a 'Track' is conic shaped (I found the wikipedia article on Cherenkov radiation really helpful the second time around, gives a lot of detail even about the speed of the tip of the cone vs the growth of the cross-section of the cone over time.
\nDouble Bang is defined below, but added here too for clarity: \"“Double Bang” refers to two cascades joined by a short track, a signature of charged-current ντ interactions at high energies (& 1 PeV) where the separate production and decay cascades of the τ are resolvable in IceCube.\"
\nvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
\nInteraction Signature Evis/Eν; Eν = 1 TeV Eν = 10 TeV Eν = 100 TeV
\nνe + N → e + had. Cascade 94% 95% 97%
\nνµ + N → µ + had. Track (+ Cascade) 94% 95% 97%
\nντ + N → τ + had. → had. Cascade/Double Bang < 94% < 95% < 97%
\nντ + N → τ + had. → µ + had. Cascade + Track < 94% < 95% < 97%
\nνl + N → νl + had. Cascade 33% 30% 23%
\nTable 1: Neutrino interactions with nucleons in IceCube. Evis denotes the median fraction of the neutrino energy deposited in any present primary lepton and in the EM-equivalent energy of a hadronic cascade at the vertex. In charged-current interactions (top section of table), nearly all the energy of the interacting neutrino is deposited in such light-producing particles. In neutral-current interactions (bottom), a large fraction of the neutrino energy leaves with the outgoing neutrino (Fig. 1) [5]. Note that some of Evis may escape the detector: muon tracks at these energies have lengths of multiple kilometers, and τ leptons will decay before ranging out, depositing only a fraction of Evis in the detector. Events in IceCube are observed as a combination of cascades (near-pointlike particle showers) and long tracks, as are left predominantly by muons. “Double Bang” refers to two cascades joined by a short track, a signature of charged-current ντ interactions at high energies (& 1 PeV) where the separate production and decay cascades of the τ are resolvable in IceCube. Due to the long lengths of muon tracks above 1 TeV, most observed neutrino-induced muons have production vertices outside the detector and the initial hadronic cascade is not observed.
as addition to you visualisation, this is a great animation with time embedded: https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/icecube-neutrinos-in-deep-ice/discussion/381166
", "rawMarkdown": "as addition to you visualisation, this is a great animation with time embedded: https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/icecube-neutrinos-in-deep-ice/discussion/381166", "votes": null } ], "comments": [ { "id": 2113991, "author_name": "alexandrelebel", "author_url": "", "post_date": "01/24/2023 16:25:30", "content": "Hello.
\nFrom the reading of the article https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.05093.pdf, i might have some answers to some of your questions. I'm not sure about everything but still i think it can help and leads to further interrogations.
\n\"Two different event topologies form the standard signatures of neutrinos in IceCube.\"
\nFirst one :
\n\"Track-like events originate from a charged-current interaction of a high-energy muon neutrino with a nucleus, producing a hadronic shower at the vertex and an outgoing muon that emits Cherenkov light in a cone along its track. The angular resolution for muon tracks and hence the incident neutrino direction is typically 0.6◦\"
Second one :
\n\"A second class of events are electromagnetic or hadronic showers from interactions of all neutrino flavors, resulting in a more spherical light generation in the detector. Since the total light output of such a shower is directly proportional to its energy, and the showers are often well-contained in the detector, the neutrino energy reconstruction for such events is much more precise than for
\ntrack-like events. The average deposited energy resolution for both event types is about 15%\".
I have not yet finish to read so i don't know if both classes of events are in the dataset. Still in the second paragraph i think to understand that the light output is indeed proportional to the neutrino energy. Once again i'm not sure but i would guess that the detection (on one detector) is therefore proportional to the neutrino energy and that the probability of reaching a higher number of sensor is link to its energy.
\nI don't know if it helps much but well. Please be indulgent it's my first post here :D
", "votes": null, "replies": [ { "id": 2115813, "author_name": "roberthatch", "author_url": "", "post_date": "01/26/2023 01:15:36", "content": "Thanks for engaging! It's really helpful to hear similar to what I'd been starting to pick up.
\nOne of the references inside the article you linked was to another paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.3795.pdf
\nThis one is focused on energy reconstruction, but still has very in-depth - hard to read and understand, but very in-depth! - description of the types of patterns from neutrino collisions, including the text based table below.
\nIt's hard to read from below copy paste, but it has these \"signatures\" and appears to be a comprehensive list, which is really excellent:
\nCascade, Track (+ Cascade), Cascade/Double Bang, Cascade + Track, Cascade.
\nAnd it does appear that a Cascade is spherical, and a 'Track' is conic shaped (I found the wikipedia article on Cherenkov radiation really helpful the second time around, gives a lot of detail even about the speed of the tip of the cone vs the growth of the cross-section of the cone over time.
\nDouble Bang is defined below, but added here too for clarity: \"“Double Bang” refers to two cascades joined by a short track, a signature of charged-current ντ interactions at high energies (& 1 PeV) where the separate production and decay cascades of the τ are resolvable in IceCube.\"
\nvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv
\nInteraction Signature Evis/Eν; Eν = 1 TeV Eν = 10 TeV Eν = 100 TeV
\nνe + N → e + had. Cascade 94% 95% 97%
\nνµ + N → µ + had. Track (+ Cascade) 94% 95% 97%
\nντ + N → τ + had. → had. Cascade/Double Bang < 94% < 95% < 97%
\nντ + N → τ + had. → µ + had. Cascade + Track < 94% < 95% < 97%
\nνl + N → νl + had. Cascade 33% 30% 23%
\nTable 1: Neutrino interactions with nucleons in IceCube. Evis denotes the median fraction of the neutrino energy deposited in any present primary lepton and in the EM-equivalent energy of a hadronic cascade at the vertex. In charged-current interactions (top section of table), nearly all the energy of the interacting neutrino is deposited in such light-producing particles. In neutral-current interactions (bottom), a large fraction of the neutrino energy leaves with the outgoing neutrino (Fig. 1) [5]. Note that some of Evis may escape the detector: muon tracks at these energies have lengths of multiple kilometers, and τ leptons will decay before ranging out, depositing only a fraction of Evis in the detector. Events in IceCube are observed as a combination of cascades (near-pointlike particle showers) and long tracks, as are left predominantly by muons. “Double Bang” refers to two cascades joined by a short track, a signature of charged-current ντ interactions at high energies (& 1 PeV) where the separate production and decay cascades of the τ are resolvable in IceCube. Due to the long lengths of muon tracks above 1 TeV, most observed neutrino-induced muons have production vertices outside the detector and the initial hadronic cascade is not observed.
Definitely very good questions. I have a grasp on some of it but will wait for my understanding to become clearer or for others to comment and help.
\nI will say that the energy of a neutrino is related to its cross sectional size. Meaning larger energy neutrinos are larger (physically) and more likely to interact/bump into particles.
\nI’ll come back to this in a few days to see if I can help more if my understanding improves.
\nThanks for voicing these questions so eloquently.
", "votes": null, "replies": [] }, { "id": 2115478, "author_name": "dschettler8845", "author_url": "", "post_date": "01/25/2023 19:42:53", "content": "Ps: there may be some answers in the AMANDA paper as well as it was the PoC version of IceCube and the paper might cover some of this:
\nhttps://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9906203
", "votes": null, "replies": [] }, { "id": 2117095, "author_name": "jirkaborovec", "author_url": "", "post_date": "01/27/2023 01:47:53", "content": "as addition to you visualisation, this is a great animation with time embedded: https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/icecube-neutrinos-in-deep-ice/discussion/381166
", "votes": null, "replies": [] } ], "raw_markdown_by_id": { "2111575": "As a subject matter beginner, I'm having trouble bridging the gap between very general high level descriptions and super-technical low level descriptions that assume way more understanding than was provided by the high level descriptions.\n\nIn particular, there is a collision, and the result at the high level is this can:\n\"create charged leptons (electrons, muons, or taus). These charged leptons can, if they are energetic enough, emit Cherenkov radiation. This happens when the charged particle travels through the ice faster than the speed of light in the ice, similar to the bow shock of a boat traveling faster than the waves it crosses. This light can then be detected by photomultiplier tubes within the digital optical modules making up IceCube.\" \n\nBut what are the relative properties of this Cherenkov radiation light, in terms of the neutrino and collision point? What are the properties of the sensors (aka DOM aka PMT aka photomultiplier tubes). For example, there's several places already I've run into the term \"angular acceptance\"... but nothing mentioning the facing of these DOMs, if they have facing?\n\nThe above was intended as background for some questions:\n\n**Direction**: In all cases (electrons, muons, or taus), the light emitted at the point of collision is omnidirectional? Or entirely in the direction the neutrino is traveling, or a bit of a combination? And depending on the type and the clarity of the ice and distance traveled and other factors, it may or may not reach a sensor with enough charge to be detected? In other words, it might not look omnidirectional?\n\n\nWould this picture above happen from a SINGLE collision? Or only happen if there were a bunch of collisions? (For that matter, are multiple collisions generally expected from a single neutrino, or varies too much to say?)\n\n**Energy and charge**: Lower energy neutrinos will cause lower energy collisions which will be weaker, not travel as far, and less likely to be detected? And higher energy the reverse, and a single collision could theoretically light up a large number of sensors? Is there a direct correlation between 'charge' measured by the DOM and the energy of the neutrino?\n\n**Speed**: post-collision, the charged light will travel at approx the speed of light in vacuum? (As opposed to the speed of light in ice)\n\n**Sensors**: Are they receiving light omnidirectionally? For practical purposes their detection range is simply based on the energy of the collision, clearness of the ice and such factors?\n\nNot expecting every question to have a clear answer, but trying to understand which of these are pretty well understood, and which are probably simulated mainly based on experimental data from IceCube's history.", "2113991": "Hello. \n\nFrom the reading of the article [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.05093.pdf](url), i might have some answers to some of your questions. I'm not sure about everything but still i think it can help and leads to further interrogations.\n\n\n\"Two different event topologies form the standard signatures of neutrinos in IceCube.\"\n\nFirst one : \n\"Track-like events originate from a charged-current interaction of a high-energy muon neutrino with a nucleus, producing a hadronic shower at the vertex and an outgoing muon **that emits Cherenkov light in a cone along its track**. The angular resolution for muon tracks and hence the incident neutrino direction is typically 0.6◦\"\n\n\nSecond one : \n\"A second class of events are electromagnetic or hadronic showers from interactions of all neutrino flavors, **resulting in a more spherical light generation in the detector.** **Since the total light output of such a shower is directly proportional to its energy**, and the showers are often well-contained in the detector, the neutrino energy reconstruction for such events is much more precise than for\ntrack-like events. The average deposited energy resolution for both event types is about 15%\".\n\n\n\nI have not yet finish to read so i don't know if both classes of events are in the dataset. Still in the second paragraph i think to understand that the light output is indeed proportional to the neutrino energy. Once again i'm not sure but i would guess that the detection (on one detector) is therefore proportional to the neutrino energy and that the probability of reaching a higher number of sensor is link to its energy.\n\n\nI don't know if it helps much but well. Please be indulgent it's my first post here :D", "2115471": "Definitely very good questions. I have a grasp on some of it but will wait for my understanding to become clearer or for others to comment and help.\n\nI will say that the energy of a neutrino is related to its cross sectional size. Meaning larger energy neutrinos are larger (physically) and more likely to interact/bump into particles.\n\nI’ll come back to this in a few days to see if I can help more if my understanding improves.\n\nThanks for voicing these questions so eloquently.", "2115478": "Ps: there may be some answers in the AMANDA paper as well as it was the PoC version of IceCube and the paper might cover some of this:\n\nhttps://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9906203", "2115813": "Thanks for engaging! It's really helpful to hear similar to what I'd been starting to pick up.\n\nOne of the references inside the article you linked was to another paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.3795.pdf \n\nThis one is focused on energy reconstruction, but still has very in-depth - hard to read and understand, but very in-depth! - description of the types of patterns from neutrino collisions, including the text based table below.\n\nIt's hard to read from below copy paste, but it has these \"signatures\" and appears to be a **comprehensive** list, which is really excellent:\n\nCascade, Track (+ Cascade), Cascade/Double Bang, Cascade + Track, Cascade.\n\nAnd it does appear that a Cascade is spherical, and a 'Track' is conic shaped (I found the wikipedia article on Cherenkov radiation really helpful the second time around, gives a lot of detail even about the speed of the tip of the cone vs the growth of the cross-section of the cone over time.\n\nDouble Bang is defined below, but added here too for clarity: \"“Double Bang” refers to two cascades joined by a short track, a signature of charged-current ντ interactions at high energies (& 1 PeV) where the separate production and decay cascades of the τ are resolvable in IceCube.\"\n\nvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv\n\nInteraction Signature Evis/Eν; Eν = 1 TeV Eν = 10 TeV Eν = 100 TeV\nνe + N → e + had. Cascade 94% 95% 97%\nνµ + N → µ + had. Track (+ Cascade) 94% 95% 97%\nντ + N → τ + had. → had. Cascade/Double Bang < 94% < 95% < 97%\nντ + N → τ + had. → µ + had. Cascade + Track < 94% < 95% < 97%\nνl + N → νl + had. Cascade 33% 30% 23%\nTable 1: Neutrino interactions with nucleons in IceCube. Evis denotes the median fraction of the neutrino energy deposited in any present primary lepton and in the EM-equivalent energy of a hadronic cascade at the vertex. In charged-current interactions (top section of table), nearly all the energy of the interacting neutrino is deposited in such light-producing particles. In neutral-current interactions (bottom), a large fraction of the neutrino energy leaves with the outgoing neutrino (Fig. 1) [5]. Note that some of Evis may escape the detector: muon tracks at these energies have lengths of multiple kilometers, and τ leptons will decay before ranging out, depositing only a fraction of Evis in the detector. Events in IceCube are observed as a combination of cascades (near-pointlike particle showers) and long tracks, as are left predominantly by muons. “Double Bang” refers to two cascades joined by a short track, a signature of charged-current ντ interactions at high energies (& 1 PeV) where the separate production and decay cascades of the τ are resolvable in IceCube. Due to the long lengths of muon tracks above 1 TeV, most observed neutrino-induced muons have production vertices outside the detector and the initial hadronic cascade is not observed.", "2117095": "as addition to you visualisation, this is a great animation with time embedded: https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/icecube-neutrinos-in-deep-ice/discussion/381166" }, "source": "meta" }