English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Over the previous decade, many approaches for the modelling of radio emissionfrom cosmic ray air showers have been developed. However, there remainedsignificant deviations between the models, reaching from important qualitativedifferences such as unipolar versus bipolar pulses to large variations in thepredicted absolute amplitudes of up to factors of 20. Only recently, it hasbeen realized that in the many models predicting unipolar pulses, a radioemission contribution due to the time-variation of the number of chargedparticles or, equivalently, the acceleration of the particles at the beginningand the end of their trajectories, had not been taken into account. We discusshere the nature of the underlying problem and demonstrate that by including themissing contribution in REAS3, the discrepancies are reconciled. Furthermore,we show a direct comparison of REAS3 and MGMR simulations for a set ofprototype showers. The results of these two completely independent and verydifferent modelling approaches show a good level of agreement except forregions of parameter space where differences in the underlying air shower modelbecome important. This is the first time that two radio emission models showsuch close concordance, illustrating that the modelling of radio emission fromextensive air showers has indeed made a true breakthrough.

The convergence of EAS radio emission models and a detailed comparison of REAS3 and MGMR simulations