Pyramids: a case study for muon tomography · Éric Aubourg • Pyramids: a case study for muon...

Pyramids: a case study for muon tomography

Éric AubourgAstroparticule et Cosmologie

CEA/U. Paris Diderot

Éric Aubourg • Pyramids: a case study for muon tomography • MNR2012

Not new !

Search for Hidden Chambersin the Pyramids

The structure of the Second Pyramid of Gizais determined by cosmic-ray absorption.

Luis W. Alvarez, Jared A. Anderson, F. El Bedwei,James Burkhard, Ahmed Fakhry, Adib Girgis, Amr Goneid,

Fikhry Hassan, Dennis Iverson, Gerald Lynch, Zenab Miligy,Ali Hilmy Moussa, Mohammed-Sharkawi, Lauren Yazolino

The three pyramids 6f Giza are situ-ated a few miles southwest of Cairo,Egypt. The two largest pyramids standwithin a few hundred meters of eachother. They were originally of almostexactly the same height (145 meters),but the Great Pyramid of Cheops hasa slightly larger square base (230 meterson a side) than the Second Pyramid ofChephren (215.5 meters on a side). Aphotograph of the pyramids at Gizais shown as Fig. 1. Figure 2 shows theelevation cross sections of the twopyramids and indicates the contrast inarchitectural design. The simplicity ofChephren's pyramid, compared withthe elaborate structure of his father'sGreat Pyramid, is explained by arche-ologists in terms of a "period of ex-perimentation," ending with the con-struction of Cheops's pyramid (1). (Thecomplexity of the internal architectureof the pyramids increased during theFourth Dynasty until the time ofCheops and then gave way to quitesimple designs after his time.)An alternative explanation for the

sudden decrease in internal complexityfrom the Great Pyramid to the SecondPyramid suggested itself to us: perhapsChephren's architects had been moresuccessful in hiding their upper cham-bers than were Cheops's. The interiorof the Great Pyramid was reached bythe tunneling laborers of Caliph Ma-

The authors are affiliated with the Joint Pyra-mid Project of the United Arab Republic and theUnited States of America. They reside either inCairo, United Arab Republic, or in Berkeley,California. The article is adapted from an ad-dress presented by Luis W. Alvarez at theWashington Meeting of the American PhysicalSociety, 30 April 1969.

832

mun in the 9th century A.D., almost3400 y'ears after its construction. Ofour group only Ahmed Fakhry (authorof The Pyramids, professor emeritus ofarcheology, University of Cairo, andmember of the Supreme Council ofArcheology, Cairo) was trained in ar-cheology. As laymen, we thought it notunlikely that unknown chambers mightstill be present in the limestone abovethe "Belzoni Chamber," which is nearthe center of the base of Chephren'sSecond Pyramid, and that these cham-bers had survived undetected for 4500years. [We learned later that such ideashad occurred to early 19th-century in-vestigators (2), who blasted holes in thepyramids with gunpowder in attemptsto locate new chambers.]

In 1965 a proposal to probe theSecond Pyramid with cosmic rays (3)was sent to a representative group ofcosmic-ray physicists and archeologistswith a request for comments concern-ing its technical feasibility and archeo-logical interest. The principal noveltyof the proposed cosmic-ray detectorsinvolved their ability to measure theangles of arrival of penetrating cosmic-ray muons with great precision, over alarge sensitive area. The properties ofthe penetrating cosmic rays have beensufficiently well known for 30 years tosuggest their use in a pyramid-probingexperiment, but it was not until theinvention of spark chambers with digi-tal read-out features (4) that such ause could be considered as a real pos-sibility. [Cosmic-ray detectors with lowangular resolution had been used in1955 to give an independent measure

of the thickness of rock overlying anunderground powerhouse in Australia'sSnowy Mountains Scheme (5)].The favorable response to the pro-

posal led to the establishment by theUnited Arab Republic and the UnitedStates of America of the Joint U.A.R.-U.S.A. Pyramid Project on 14 June1966. Cosmic-ray detectors were in-stalled in the Belzoni Chamber of theSecond Pyramid at Giza in the springof 1967 by physicists from the EinShams University and the Universityof California, in cooperation with ar-cheologists from the U.A.R. Depart-ment of Antiquities. Initial operationhad been scheduled for the middle ofJune 1967, but for reasons beyond ourcontrol the schedule was delayed forseveral months. In early 1968 cosmic-ray data began to be recorded on mag-netic tape in our laboratory building,a few hundred meters from the twolargest pyramids. Since that time wehave accumulated accurate angularmeasurements on more than a millioncosmic-ray muons that have penetratedan average of about 100 meters oflimestone on their way to the detectorsin the Belzoni Chamber.

Proof of the Method

Before any new technique is usedin an exploratory mode, it is essentialthat the capabilities of the techniquebe demonstrated on a known system.We gave serious consideration to aproposal that the cosmic-ray detectorsbe tested first in the Queen's Chamberof the Great Pyramid, to demonstratethat the King's Chamber and the GrandGallery could be detected. But thissuggestion was abandoned because theKing's Chamber is so close to theQueen's Chamber and because it sub-tends such a large solid angle that ear-lier (low resolution) cosmic-ray experi-ments had already shown that theupper chamber would give a largesignal. It was apparent that the onlyuntested feature of the new techniqueinvolved the magnitude of the scatter-ing of high energy muons in solid mat-ter. (An anomalously large scatteringwould nullify the high angular resolu-tion that had been built into the de-tectors, in the same way that frostedglass destroys our ability to see distantobjects.) We had no reason to doubtthe calculated scattering, but we wereanxious to be able to demonstrate toour colleagues in the U.A.R. Depart-

SCIENCE, VOL. 167

on

Oct

ober

28,

201

1ww

w.sc

ienc

emag

.org

Down

load

ed fr

om

Search for Hidden Chambersin the Pyramids

The structure of the Second Pyramid of Gizais determined by cosmic-ray absorption.

Luis W. Alvarez, Jared A. Anderson, F. El Bedwei,James Burkhard, Ahmed Fakhry, Adib Girgis, Amr Goneid,

Fikhry Hassan, Dennis Iverson, Gerald Lynch, Zenab Miligy,Ali Hilmy Moussa, Mohammed-Sharkawi, Lauren Yazolino

The three pyramids 6f Giza are situ-ated a few miles southwest of Cairo,Egypt. The two largest pyramids standwithin a few hundred meters of eachother. They were originally of almostexactly the same height (145 meters),but the Great Pyramid of Cheops hasa slightly larger square base (230 meterson a side) than the Second Pyramid ofChephren (215.5 meters on a side). Aphotograph of the pyramids at Gizais shown as Fig. 1. Figure 2 shows theelevation cross sections of the twopyramids and indicates the contrast inarchitectural design. The simplicity ofChephren's pyramid, compared withthe elaborate structure of his father'sGreat Pyramid, is explained by arche-ologists in terms of a "period of ex-perimentation," ending with the con-struction of Cheops's pyramid (1). (Thecomplexity of the internal architectureof the pyramids increased during theFourth Dynasty until the time ofCheops and then gave way to quitesimple designs after his time.)An alternative explanation for the

sudden decrease in internal complexityfrom the Great Pyramid to the SecondPyramid suggested itself to us: perhapsChephren's architects had been moresuccessful in hiding their upper cham-bers than were Cheops's. The interiorof the Great Pyramid was reached bythe tunneling laborers of Caliph Ma-

The authors are affiliated with the Joint Pyra-mid Project of the United Arab Republic and theUnited States of America. They reside either inCairo, United Arab Republic, or in Berkeley,California. The article is adapted from an ad-dress presented by Luis W. Alvarez at theWashington Meeting of the American PhysicalSociety, 30 April 1969.

832

mun in the 9th century A.D., almost3400 y'ears after its construction. Ofour group only Ahmed Fakhry (authorof The Pyramids, professor emeritus ofarcheology, University of Cairo, andmember of the Supreme Council ofArcheology, Cairo) was trained in ar-cheology. As laymen, we thought it notunlikely that unknown chambers mightstill be present in the limestone abovethe "Belzoni Chamber," which is nearthe center of the base of Chephren'sSecond Pyramid, and that these cham-bers had survived undetected for 4500years. [We learned later that such ideashad occurred to early 19th-century in-vestigators (2), who blasted holes in thepyramids with gunpowder in attemptsto locate new chambers.]

In 1965 a proposal to probe theSecond Pyramid with cosmic rays (3)was sent to a representative group ofcosmic-ray physicists and archeologistswith a request for comments concern-ing its technical feasibility and archeo-logical interest. The principal noveltyof the proposed cosmic-ray detectorsinvolved their ability to measure theangles of arrival of penetrating cosmic-ray muons with great precision, over alarge sensitive area. The properties ofthe penetrating cosmic rays have beensufficiently well known for 30 years tosuggest their use in a pyramid-probingexperiment, but it was not until theinvention of spark chambers with digi-tal read-out features (4) that such ause could be considered as a real pos-sibility. [Cosmic-ray detectors with lowangular resolution had been used in1955 to give an independent measure

of the thickness of rock overlying anunderground powerhouse in Australia'sSnowy Mountains Scheme (5)].The favorable response to the pro-

posal led to the establishment by theUnited Arab Republic and the UnitedStates of America of the Joint U.A.R.-U.S.A. Pyramid Project on 14 June1966. Cosmic-ray detectors were in-stalled in the Belzoni Chamber of theSecond Pyramid at Giza in the springof 1967 by physicists from the EinShams University and the Universityof California, in cooperation with ar-cheologists from the U.A.R. Depart-ment of Antiquities. Initial operationhad been scheduled for the middle ofJune 1967, but for reasons beyond ourcontrol the schedule was delayed forseveral months. In early 1968 cosmic-ray data began to be recorded on mag-netic tape in our laboratory building,a few hundred meters from the twolargest pyramids. Since that time wehave accumulated accurate angularmeasurements on more than a millioncosmic-ray muons that have penetratedan average of about 100 meters oflimestone on their way to the detectorsin the Belzoni Chamber.

Proof of the Method

Before any new technique is usedin an exploratory mode, it is essentialthat the capabilities of the techniquebe demonstrated on a known system.We gave serious consideration to aproposal that the cosmic-ray detectorsbe tested first in the Queen's Chamberof the Great Pyramid, to demonstratethat the King's Chamber and the GrandGallery could be detected. But thissuggestion was abandoned because theKing's Chamber is so close to theQueen's Chamber and because it sub-tends such a large solid angle that ear-lier (low resolution) cosmic-ray experi-ments had already shown that theupper chamber would give a largesignal. It was apparent that the onlyuntested feature of the new techniqueinvolved the magnitude of the scatter-ing of high energy muons in solid mat-ter. (An anomalously large scatteringwould nullify the high angular resolu-tion that had been built into the de-tectors, in the same way that frostedglass destroys our ability to see distantobjects.) We had no reason to doubtthe calculated scattering, but we wereanxious to be able to demonstrate toour colleagues in the U.A.R. Depart-

SCIENCE, VOL. 167

on

Oct

ober

28,

201

1ww

w.sc

ienc

emag

.org

Down

load

ed fr

om

Fig. 1 (top right). The pyramids at Giza.From left to right, the Third Pyramid ofMycerinus, the Second Pyramid of Che-phren, the Great Pyramid of Cheops.[L National Geographic Society]

ment of Antiquities in a convincingmanner that the techniquLe really workedas we had calculated. For this pturposewe required as our test objects notlarge features that were nearby but,instead, small featuLres separated fromthe detectors by the greatest possiblethickness of limestone. Fortunately,such features are available in the Sec-ond Pyramid; the four diagonal ridgesthat mark the intersections of neighbor-ing plane faces were farther from thedetectors than any other points on theindividual faces. (From now on, wewill refer to these ridges as the "cor-ners.")From the known geometry of the

Second Pyramid, the trajectories ofcosmic-ray muons that pass through apoint on a face 10 meters from a cornerand then down to the detectors can beshown to traverse 2.3 fewer metersof limestone than do muLons that strikethe corner. They shoulld therefore ar-rive with 5 percent greater intensitythan the muons from the corner. SuLchan increase in intensity, correspondingto suLch a decrease in path through thelimestone, is abouLt half of what wouldbe expected to result from the presenceof a chamber of "typical size" (5 me-ters high) in the pyramid. Since such achamber would necessarily be closer tothe detectors, it wotuld for these tworeasons be a muLch "easier object tosee" than the corner.The detection equipment was there-

fore installed in the southeast cornerof the Belzoni Chamber, with the ex-pectation that it would first show thecorners in a convincing manner, so thatthe presence or absence of unknownchambers could later be demonstratedto the satisfaction of all concerned. InSeptember 1968 the IBM-1130 com-puLter at the Ein Shams UniversityComputing Center produced the data

Fig. 2 (bottom right). Cross sections of (a)the Great Pyramid of Cheops and (b) thePyramid of Chephren, showing the knownchambers: (A) Smooth limestone cap. (B)the Belzoni Chamber, (C) Belzoni's en-trance, (D) Howard-Vyse's entrance, (E)descending passageway, (F) ascendingpassageway, (G) underground chamber,(fl) Grand Gallery, (1) King's Chamber,(J) QuLeen's Chamber, (K) center line ofthe pyramiid.6 FEBRUARY 1970

>2 It =

E

G

833

*

(a)

on

Oct

ober

28,

201

1w

ww

.sci

ence

mag

.org

Dow

nloa

ded

from


Why look for an extra room in Chephren’s pyramid?

Pyramids are burial monuments. Real or symbolic?

Most were looted

Some were never used (Snefru built at least three)

Some designs were adjusted, with several rooms


Why look for an extra room in Chephren’s pyramid?

Cheops’ pyramid has several rooms and a complex design

His son’s is much simpler, with a single room

Could other rooms have been more successfully hidden?






>2 It =

E

G

833

*

(a)

on

Oct

ober

28,

201

1ww

w.sc

ienc

emag

.org

Down

load

ed fr

om


A conveniently located room in Khephren’s pyramid






>2 It =

E

G

833

*

(a)

on

Oct

ober

28,

201

1ww

w.sc

ienc

emag

.org

Down

load

ed fr

om


Spark chambers…

a \VU f >

Fig. 5. (a) Geometry of the bSecond Pyramid, showing theprojection technique used toproduLce a simulated x-ray photograph. The plane on the top of the pyramid can bethought of as the "film plane." (b) The spherical surface on which the events wereprojected for the ntumerical analysis of the data.

would have shown up clearly but theKing's Chamber would probably haverequLired some computer assistance tobe made visible. There is one unex-pected feature in Fig. 13a: on the northface, there appears to be a narrownorth-south-oriented region that hasa lower cosmic-ray intensity than isfound in surrounding areas. We wereat first hopeful that the north-southstreak indicated the presence of aGrand Gallery above and north of theBelzoni Chamber, just as the GrandGallery is above and north of theQueen's Chamber in the Great Pyra-mid. But we later found a satisfactoryexplanation of this feature in the pic-tuLre that did not involve any interiorstructure in the pyramid. The region oflower cosmic-ray intensity resultedfrom the construction of the sparkchambers. Since we could not transportsquare chambers 6 feet (1.8 meters)on a side through the small passage-

ways of the pyramid, each squarechamber comprised two chambers 3by 6 feet (0.9 by 1.8 meters) in area.Also, each of the large scintillationcounters was divided into sections. Theinactive areas between the two pairs ofspark chambers and between the sec-tions of the counters led in a predict-able way to the unexpected signalshown in Fig. 1 3a.

Numerical Analysis

We concluded from our study of thesimulated x-ray picture that no unex-pected features were discernible. Butsince we had been looking for an in-crease in intensity of approximately 10percent over a region larger than thatto which the eye responds easily, wethen turned to a more detailed numeri-cal analysis of the data. (The reason forexpecting a 10 percent increase in in-

tensity in the direction of a new cham-ber is simply that the integral rangespectrum of the muons is representedby a power law with an exponent equalto -2. Therefore, if the rock thicknessis changed by an amount AX, out ofan original thickness X, the relativechange in intensity is Al/I = -2AX/X.The four known chambers in the twolarge pyramids have an average heightof about 5 meters. Therefore AX/Xshould be -5 percent, and the corre-sponding value of AI/I should be +10percent.)

Since the counting equipment wassensitive out to approximately +45 de-grees from the vertical, our data wereplotted in a matrix with 900 entries,30 X 30 bins, each 3 by 3 degrees.Figure 5b illustrates this system ofbinning on a sphere that encirclesthe pyramid. We wrote a computerprogram to simulate the counting rateexpected in each of these bins. As thesimulation program became more so-phisticated with time, it took into ac-count the most detailed features of themeasured exterior surface of the pyra-mid, including the "cap" of originallimestone casing blocks near the top,the surveyed position of the detectorsin the Belzoni Chamber, the positionsof the walls and ceiling of the BelzoniChamber, and the sizes and positionsof each of the four spark chambersand the fourteen scintillation counters.An important control on the quality

of the experimental data being com-pared with the simulated data camefrom scatter plots showing the exactx and y coordinates of each riecorded

Fig. 6 (left). The equipment in place in the Belzoni Chamber under the pyramid.Fig. 7 (right). The detection apparatus containing the spark chambers.6 FEBRUARY 19708 835

on

Oct

ober

28,

201

1ww

w.sc

ienc

emag

.org

Down

load

ed fr

om


No extra room!

Se:arch for ('avities

A\s theIc Iil "Is pI o0cCerld ddiiiLInc-

di10 LIet s2Ioxlx( to1 tbhri 2I11Is h

pto leddx ltibhbeil- gceometIciria'1JIta'.1It thec coin,e)ot thixIx,~ oi-k \x e conIi meIId tb1itI thei sicL:))l crtax intelit \Its Intlie momenlcltuLli rliii_ce ot eroeic0 (4( to7t ( IC\ 1" siIo ic id has aIn inltexitrd1.-11IoC posse Ix~iwnrld\ ot1 2. .1 r)ilnrist ot th1I s t ImeIc xx Wxeie e'\cited bxthei pie-senlce of' t\\ o piosi tiI\ c rec-io,'

oIItent Iil iti"missit ilaIter- couxIIots )I(Itcot, thcse IcilitsppaIei-l\st i.ier thecpresecei ol i' IiI' abidiclx tinIerI theC ipx\ ot thl' px riilidtir .iboiit

() meiters abox c thc B3elzonii (haitibetl. BeCanse, rft theC displa"ICCletnet r)t theCBelzit C iabe to the no01ti~thann cist

a wA

(ftthe ceniter of thc pvrI am id's baIse, thea)pparenlt chaIIImbe mlapped us1ontothe sonthic1n part ot' the s\\s,ici 0 laccot, the p\vrm iid I-lhe Ici atlI\ C nci C~casII LVnoJtjiIne ate 5\ as ab-out 11pi et'1'Cpecterd. The an colail- size ot thec

anomaix,1 ConIld bec elated to dis'tanlce()III bx) aCS~i- nc11( a ccrtila si/c tar1 thell(oli airca of, the habi7IxxesSLimCd tha~t theC anomals~tk came1 Ii om1 a(oni"lhe size ot, C~heopsx, k nc's (hanibei. it hadc to be abouh) It 3( meiters-,ixwxax aind its la poItion turneCd Ontto he almIos,t Ce\ar'lx cenItra,l.

L ntoi tona11~tel\V. thIsP In cc LinId pICI-sisentsiea.to-cetheir \\ itli at L1i-cci

IcnaltI ox 'I SIILCeratsnLIaller-anIcIilarac.d' ",isappea edaCIs x\x Cle 1-inedIImic evict]I

,IIl theC diMenions0, ot theC apartisadolf the pxramid that '\Cci e impoirtint InIthe s I nIaILt ion p rocr!lailntVC\chad niot

atcipatecd the nieed l'oi sutch aIccur-ate

N

E b

S

.i7. 2"' -

. .$

xx..c xr$$

4

S 't ,.'S

C dS..x~plo ltixx inclie 01luce stajCes in eeiibnda.xxie dxsi

IatsitI\I, I IiC dli ant1d It plot, xx i 1LI]smritCd ThanItII erIV. 'iiit ul- ld snix hot''p4 ix 1xct drlt.u. Ibt I.t cot rectedi tot- thc ,ceonttic i .i Itiecptma n e f thle.ipiao 1 I oietd o simdsiieIoH ,C 1elf.i 'euel i.lIaCeptiC.

Ilxl 'SateC IIIILIr xx ittiiiat lchmb raII :0H Ii 12.

daIta. I Thec n11t itftcts 55 c obsci x ed tiremecinijone onlyv to sho\s thatItofa romiseeing, nothing'" thrloughIfont the tinal-sIs lpci-tor. xx\e hadtc thiree xcix\ e.\citinc

s11iunals that disa"~ppearedf nlxv Aimte the-eC~tca,et cai-c hadL beenl taken to ma1,ke

aectlv to thle 'e,omelllt\ bfoth the 'ip-

WAhen the sim rLilat(1ion pograml 5\Vas atscompleIte andI aPs coilCCi aIS 5\C couldImIake- it. thec fit bhtxx ce thec recoi ded

-) at 01 abhout 11)1. -1 he loiml-1

nnenIxIocalls thatIcl t1ts Ic af,I S

t cIsIIxc1istitico x.Bt a[ careu-l look0I\ it

the mati i\ otdiflicnce"s IsossedL thaItbeinc11.i,case inl " loserCl the eNpeCIedIaloeC 0ottabouIt 7 5 )) caLtmec pi- niai lx-1IIima-11tlt-itherI Lunit otlminlcrease inl dlittIteCe-IC Vx aLuIS root11 s,outh to nor1thl. II

C ISssIlleCd thtit the cosmic-rtiv m1ien-sitS1 saietilcfLs h ICOS 0. xv here Oi Isl90) decree-Cs Inl ti Vcitictillxv ot lentedl eas,t

est plane11. tindl O) degree f'or rtivs ap1-protarhing horizontalyIN riomi the nionI-i.the <\ drIoppedI to 90-5 xwhen di htid theN atloe of' 0. 15 (Fig. 101. Suich a \al Lic01' d1 would corres,pondl to ti smioothix rantiton in cosmic-ray inteolsity, fromn3(1 degrees niorth to 30) dlegrees sooth1.ot -_7 percenit. We do niot believe. ot'couirse, that the cosmic.--rtav inltensitschang1(es in suich ti maniner. but it is,qulite reasontible to aSII-,LiII thait oLi r'spark chamber sy sterns had SLuch asmall a~nd systema-tic chlange in scnsit ix-

Ouri confidenice inl suich tim explmiiition1 " as inlcreased xx heni xx e fotindc th.itthec reqitit -ed x tiltie ot' the conistant I\5tis dAiftYcent sxhen xwe atdvzedl thecdffata In t\\0sctr.t Samples. one Olca1sLi edC bxe-ach parof 3- bx 6-toot111.9- bx 1 .8 meter) spark cha-mbi-ers,WAc knoss tha-lt thc spairk cha-mber-, \%i-cnot un11it orml1v sflsitIxeN oxVer theicIr \% holearctis. ticl 55 e d1cisea dec all diatatirourunlis inl xxilch thii- erexxcr ross chain cesill seC,1ivsitvitxI omi pioinit to point Ilin th:hinmbcr.s. 13tii %\e hI,-e n]o technirlueLIax aiable to comtpens.,ite totr Slow tiitioOsl, II ,lset'isiti\ it\xxth positiotll (lit

ouir IeC\t opert-iltOiols, the apitts\ lhe iirri a oced sO thati ItI rotates about,1

citid im s: the Iimetir vx atjiationinism~n-sitixvitx iIbtit we ht1ive juist postulated xWIllaxeracI-te outt inl the i Cirocr apt a O

Wec made sex era-l attemp-ts`-1 to simiiiil.ite the I -- d sInl ii bhaxor%1 ot litheitppatrint cosnlie-rtx itetisitx7 bx)% thecpi eseilce of- a chamb11er abovx e ad xcixerclose to1 the .ipprarttits. BuIt theC mcii e

S II t-1 'xii i

on

Oct

ober

28,

201

1ww

w.sc

ienc

emag

.org

Down

load

ed fr

om

Raw dataAcceptancecorrected

Pyramid structurecorrected

Simulatedroom


An extra room also in Cheops’ pyramid?

Complex building history

Several rooms, several changes of design during the construction, no known room apparently used


An extra room also in Cheops’ pyramid?

Architectural hints point to the possibility of an extra room below the Queen chamber (reorganized flooring, side access — for portcullis? — reflexions seen in ground radar survey…)

Study by G. Dormion in 2004 — he successfully found two unknown chambers at Meidum with a similar analysis


Possible scenario (Dormion 2004)

First project: underground room, unfinished

Second project: burial room, the “Queen” room being ancillary — portcullis maneuvering

Third project: higher room (“King’s room”), that would have less weight above — cf Dashur’s failure

The King’s room ceiling breaks : back to the second project, with access through the Queen’s room floor.


An extra room ?

Below and to the West of the Queen chamber

(~20 m above ground level, + relieving chamber above)


Muon tomography for Cheops?

Only two possible locations for a detectorUnderground room — 72 m of 1.05 m x 1.20 m corridor to reach it

On the side of the pyramid, using grazing muons (like for a volcano…)


Muon tomography for Cheops?TOMUVOL team simulation of a 5m x 5m x 5m roomDetector on the side


Muon tomography for pyramids

Could confirm or rule out the existence of an extra room in Cheops’ pyramid, next to the Queen chamber or elsewhere

A portable detector could be used on many pyramidsPreviously unknown chambers found in Meidum a few years ago

Muon Maya project at U Texas (buried cylindrical detectors)


Other archeological applications?

Finding prehistoric painted caves?

Known caves could have neighbours in the same mountain

More difficult modeling though…

Pyramids: a case study for muon tomography · Éric Aubourg • Pyramids: a case study for muon...

Documents

Transcript of Pyramids: a case study for muon tomography · Éric Aubourg • Pyramids: a case study for muon...