Customer Reviews

Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

With interest in cosmic rays and particle astrophysics growing, Tom Gaisser's Cosmic Rays and Particle Physics is really the only contemporary introduction to the field suitable for undergraduates as well as beginning graduate students. There is no attempt to be fully comprehensive - the field is too broad for that - but processes relating to extensive air showers and their products (including muons and neutrinos) are covered in some detail. I regularly recommend this book to students who are considering research in particle astrophysics. There are a few gaps and a few topics covered in more detail than most people need, as is typical for a first edition. I hope Prof. Gaisser will find the time to prepare a revised and updated edition soon!

The early history of particle physics is cosmic ray physics. But after the invention of the cyclotron and generations of accelerator-based particle physics, the two fields had drifted far apart. This well-written little book by Tom Gaisser rebuilt the connections. Now we have "non-accelerator particle physics" and people working in air showers who consider themselves to be doing high energy physics.

It would be great for there to be a new edition of this book. Updated with Auger results, modern neutrino experiments, Askaryan pulse experiments, and the like...

I looked at equation (3.22) for other purpose (than counting
cosmic ray particle collisions) and there seems to be a sign mistake in the first equation (integrated mass <25g/cm^2): as
it is, the equation indicates that the mass increases as the
air column gets smaller (or higher altitude).

It seems to be a pretty colorful "fitting formula" and it
could have been more useful if the reference to M. Shibata can
be found in the reference list (p.264: paperback) which may
have information on which "data" (most likely a combination
of measurements/modeling/computations) the formula originates from.

I presume that the next volume will have improved.

** the rating should be dismissed: I did not read through the
book and do not have a judgement. I chose the middle because I did not have choice not to choose. It will affect the
arithmetic statistics and if it matters, it is an unfortunate result of the limited survey method that mandates a choice of rating.