1 / 25

Constraints on Astrophysical Magnetic Fields from UHE Cosmic Rays

Constraints on Astrophysical Magnetic Fields from UHE Cosmic Rays. Roger Clay, University of Adelaide based on work done with: Roland Crocker, Adelaide and Monash Bruce Dawson , Adelaide Ben Whelan , Adelaide and the Auger Collaboration. Cosmic Rays and Magnetic Fields.

eve-howell
Télécharger la présentation

Constraints on Astrophysical Magnetic Fields from UHE Cosmic Rays

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Constraints on Astrophysical Magnetic Fields from UHE Cosmic Rays Roger Clay, University of Adelaide based on work done with: Roland Crocker, Adelaide and Monash Bruce Dawson, Adelaide Ben Whelan, Adelaide and the Auger Collaboration Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  2. Cosmic Rays and Magnetic Fields Cosmic rays are charged particles so their propagation is affected by magnetic fields. • By changing their direction. If we know a point source and its corresponding particles, we should be able to deduce the characteristics of the intervening fields. 2.By increasing their path length to reach us. If we know the source spectrum, the observed spectrum and any attenuation process, we can deduce the intervening fields also. We can now attempt these tasks. The latter first – the spectrum. Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  3. The Cosmic Ray Spectrum Things to note are: It covers a huge range of energies so the physics is likely to change from one part to another. It is steep, with a power-law slope about –3. It is rather featureless but steepens a little in the middle and flattens near the highest energies. Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  4. Primary cosmic rays interact and a cascade develops which converts primary particle kinetic energy into secondary particles. Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  5. The Pierre Auger Observatory records the cascades using ground-based detectors and atmospheric fluorescence detectors. Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  6. A large collecting area is required because of the low flux – 3000 square kilometres (almost complete – 1500 tanks). (current exposure~ 7000 km2 sr yr) Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  7. At energies above a few times 1019 eV, interactions with the CMB result in a ‘small’ interaction mean free path for protons. THIS IS THE ‘GZK’ EFFECT(but notice that the energy loss per interaction is not huge – the energy attenuation length is typically ~90 Mpc) Mean free path below 10 Mpc For energies above 60 EeV Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  8. Simple idea of a spectrum depending on the source distance. Source Differential spectral index. (Surprisingly non-critical.) Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  9. But spectra are difficult to measure! Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007 ~ Auger

  10. Additional information will come from photon observations – Auger currently just has upper limits to photon fluxes. This relative photon flux is probably somewhat optimistic – but should not be too far in error. It is realistic to expect Auger to reach this physics. Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  11. Real Auger spectra to 2007 showing the cut-off. Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  12. Suppose that sources are randomly distributed in space – how will the spectrum depend on the diffusion properties – i.e. field strength and turbulence scales. Milky Way Extragalactic Log(E3*flux) Log(E eV) 1 nG too low. 10-100 nG possible depending on the turbulence parameters. Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  13. Building a spectrum to fit observed data leads one to realise that the spectrum is sensitive to parameters of the intergalactic magnetic field. Field strength Turbulence scale To get a steep cut-off we need the lower turbulence scale or a non-random source distribution Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  14. Another way of looking at this is to recognise that, above the ‘GZK cut-off’, the flux will have useful directional properties. Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  15. AGASA highest energies Supergalactic plane Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  16. Data from the Sydney University SUGAR array We will use these directions later Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  17. Developing a ‘Prescription’ • Data prior to May 2006 searched. • Directions compared to the Veron-Cetty and Veron catalog of AGN. • Minimum probability of random for angular uncertainty for 3.1o, zmax = 0.018 (75 Mpc), Eth = 56EeV • These all make sense! Use these for later data until chance of isotropy is below 1%. • Reject isotropy 31 August 2007 8 events compared to 2.7 expected – actual chance is 0.0017. • Then look at the properties of the whole dataset. Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  18. VIRGO AGASA REGIONS SUGAR C2 C3 C1 Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007 Centaurus Wall?

  19. Auger Directions on this image Auger point spread Galactic Field Deviation Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  20. Summary so far: • The shape of the GZK cut-off is now being measured and depends on the properties of the intergalactic (and more local) magnetic fields. • At the highest energies, the sources must be rather local. • There is apparent correlation with known astrophysical structures (3o uncertainty) such as the supergalactic plane (or a component of its contents – AGN?). • There are some unexpected directions (in the voids). Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  21. Correlating with the supergalactic plane (?) • AGASA, SUGAR and Auger all suggest this. • To the extent that it is true, the angular deviation above 60 EeV (GZK) must be << 30o (very conservative upper limit). • This is amazing: a. The intergalactic fields must be quite small (ball park 10 nG). • b. It makes us astronomers. Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  22. Centaurus A (Speculation) • Centaurus A stands out in the Auger data as a source close to a preferred sky direction. • Cen is a little below 4 Mpc distant – and is huge on the sky. • The spread of directions around Cen A is much below 10 degrees. This confirms that the intervening magnetic field strength is below 10nG or the turbulence scale is much below 1 Mpc. 10nG + 10kpc scale fits both spectral and directional data. • Note that Cen A should be resolved – the sources extend in the supergalactic plane either side but may suggest a southern lobe source. Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  23. Where now?We are just learning to play this game. • WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED IS EQUIVALENT TO ONE YEAR OF DATA AT OUR PRESENT RATE. • Each further year will add that much more. We can already find multiplets of events. These may or may not be real but the next step is to search for consistent field models for groups of events. Presently, we can fit a Bi-Symmetric Spiral galaxy model (plus halo) –only- to our multiplet data. It fits rather well for Cen A. Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  24. Tomography of the intervening fields should now become possible. • Then we can ask whether all the possible sources are known – of course, we are looking back in time at a different rate to photon astronomers so the sources may not correspond. • We can now put real galaxy directions and estimated activity into our models. Then, where do the particles below the GZK come from???? Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

  25. THANKS Magnetic Field Workshop November 2007

More Related