关于A.V.Glushkov等人论文“雅库茨克阵列和望远镜阵列的超高能广延大气簇射的标定”的评论
Comments concerning the paper "On the calibration of ultra-high energy EASs at the Yakutsk array and Telescope Array" by A.V.Glushkov et. al
AI总结：
评论指出雅库茨克小组因误解和错误应用TA的能量沉积公式，得出TA能量标度不正确的结论，该结论已被证明是错误的。
摘要：
在最近对雅库茨克小组提交给《原子核物理学杂志》和arXiv的一篇论文的评审中，对雅库茨克和望远镜阵列（TA）实验的能量标度进行了审查。作者开发了一个定制的探测器响应模拟器，其中包含了电离、轫致辐射、电子对产生和康普顿散射。将该模拟器应用于雅库茨克和TA的地面探测器，他们得出结论：由于“响应单位”的定义错误，TA的能量标度可能不正确。他们引用了文献中TA的“能量沉积公式”，并通过两个因子对其进行了缩放，这两个因子归因于TA闪烁体的厚度和密度。他们使用QGSJET-II-04强子相互作用模型进行的模拟，对于垂直簇射与TA的计算结果一致，但对于倾斜簇射则不一致，这表明VEM单位2.05 MeV是不正确的。然而，这一结论被发现是错误的。TA的能量沉积公式是基于使用GEANT4进行的详细蒙特卡洛模拟得出的，它准确地表示了带电粒子在TA闪烁体中沉积的最可几能量。2.05 MeV的值考虑了闪烁体的厚度和密度，并通过TA模拟数据与观测数据之间的极好一致性得到了验证。雅库茨克小组对TA公式的误解和错误应用导致了他们的错误结论。
英文摘要：
In a recent review of a paper by the Yakutsk Group, submitted to the Journal Physics of Atomic Nuclei and arXiv, the energy scales of the Yakutsk and Telescope Array (TA) experiments were examined. The authors developed a custom detector response simulator incorporating ionization, bremsstrahlung, pair production, and Compton scattering. Applying this simulator to both Yakutsk and TA surface detectors, they concluded that the TA energy scale might be incorrect due to a misdefined ``response unit.'' They referenced the TA's ``energy deposit formula'' from the literature, scaling it by two factors attributed to the thickness and density of the TA scintillator. Their simulations, using the QGSJET-II-04 hadronic interaction model, agreed with TA's calculations for vertical showers but not for inclined showers, suggesting an incorrect VEM unit of 2.05 MeV. However, this conclusion was found to be incorrect. The TA's energy deposit formula, derived from detailed Monte Carlo simulations using GEANT4, accurately represents the most probable energy deposit by a charged particle in the TA scintillator. The value of 2.05 MeV accounts for the scintillator's thickness and density and is validated by excellent agreement between TA's simulated and observed data. The Yakutsk Group's misinterpretation and incorrect application of the TA formula led to their erroneous conclusion.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
