1 / 88

High energy cosmic rays

High energy cosmic rays. Roberta Sparvoli Rome “ Tor Vergata ” University and INFN, ITALY. Nijmegen 2012. Lecture # 2 : outline. SATELLITE and ISS EXPERIMENTS FUTURE activities. Satellite flights. PAMELA Payload for Matter/antimatter Exploration and Light-nuclei Astrophysics.

madonna-douglas
Télécharger la présentation

High energy 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. High energycosmic rays Roberta Sparvoli Rome “Tor Vergata”University and INFN, ITALY Nijmegen 2012

  2. Lecture # 2 :outline SATELLITE and ISS EXPERIMENTS FUTURE activities

  3. Satellite flights

  4. PAMELAPayload for Matter/antimatter Exploration and Light-nuclei Astrophysics • Direct detection of CRs in space • Main focus on antiparticles(antiprotons and positrons) • PAMELA on board of Russian satellite Resurs DK1 • Orbital parameters: • inclination ~70o ( low energy) • altitude ~ 360-600 km (elliptical) • active life >6 years ( high statistics)  Launched on 15th June 2006  PAMELA in continuous data-taking mode since then! Launch from Baykonur

  5. + - PAMELA detectors • Time-Of-Flight • plastic scintillators + PMT: • Trigger • Albedo rejection; • Mass identification up to 1 GeV; • - Charge identification from dE/dX. • Electromagnetic calorimeter • W/Si sampling (16.3 X0, 0.6 λI) • Discrimination e+ / p, anti-p / e- • (shower topology) • Direct E measurement for e- • Neutron detector • 36 He3 counters : • High-energy e/h discrimination Main requirements: - high-sensitivity antiparticle identification - precise momentum measurement • Spectrometer • microstrip silicon tracking system+ permanent magnet • It provides: • - Magnetic rigidity R = pc/Ze • Charge sign • Charge value from dE/dx GF: 21.5 cm2 sr Mass: 470 kg Size: 130x70x70 cm3 Power Budget: 360W

  6. Flight data: 0.171 GV positron Flight data: 0.169 GV electron

  7. Antiparticles SECONDARY ORIGIN, COMING FROM INTERACTION OF PRIMARy CR WITH THE INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM

  8. Antiproton/proton identification: • Negative/positive curvature in the spectrometer  p-bar/p separation • Rejection of EM-like interaction patterns in the calorimeter  p-bar/e- (and p/e+ ) separation Main issue: • Proton “spillover” background: wrong assignment of charge-sign @ high energy due to finite spectrometer resolution • Strong tracking requirements • Spatial resolution < 4mm • R < MDR/10 • Residual background subtraction • Evaluated with simulation (tuned with in-flight data) • ~30% above 100GeV Antiprotons

  9. (Donato et al. 2001) • Diffusion model with convection and reacceleration • Uncertainties on propagation param . and c.s. • Solar modulation: spherical model ( f=500MV ) Antiproton flux Largest energy range covered hiterto Overall agreement with pure secondary calculation Experimental uncertainty (statsys) smaller than spread in theoretical curves  constraints on propagation parameters Adriani et al. - PRL 105 (2010) 121101 • (Ptuskin et al. 2006) GALPROP code • Plain diffusion model • Solar modulation: spherical model ( f=550MV )

  10. Antiproton-to-proton ratio Adriani et al. - PRL 105 (2010) 121101 Overall agreement with pure secondary calculation Very stringent constraints to exotic production mechanisms!

  11. New antiproton/proton ratio Preliminary Using all data till 2010 and multivariate classification algorithms 20-50% increase in respect to published analysis

  12. New positron fraction data Preliminary Using all data till 2010 and multivariate classification algorithms about factor 2-3 increase in respect to published analysis

  13. S1 CARD CAT S2 TOF SPE CAS S3 CALO S4 ND Positron/electron identification: • Positive/negative curvature in the spectrometer  e-/e+ separation • EM-like interaction pattern in the calorimeter  e+/p (and e-/p-bar) separation Main issue: • Interacting proton background: • fluctuations in hadronic shower development:p0 ggmimic pure e.m. showers • p/e+: ~103 @1GV ~104 @100GV • Robust e+ identification • Shower topology + energy-rigidity match • Residual background evaluation • Done with flight data • No dependency on simulation Positrons

  14. 32.3 GV positron

  15. Adriani et al. , Nature 458 (2009) 607 Adriani et al., AP 34 (2010) 1 (new results) Positron fraction Low energy  charge-dependent solar modulation High energy  (quite robust) evidence of positron excess above 10 GeV • (Moskalenko & Strong 1998) • GALPROP code • Plain diffusion model • Interstellar spectra

  16. Adriani et al. , Nature 458 (2009) 607 Adriani et al., AP 34 (2010) 1 (new results) Positron fraction Low energy  charge-dependent solar modulation (see tomorrow) High energy  (quite robust) evidence of positron excess above 10 GeV • (Moskalenko & Strong 1998) • GALPROP code • Plain diffusion model • Interstellar spectra

  17. New positron fraction data Preliminary Using all data till 2010 and multivariate classification algorithms about factor 2-3 increase in respect to published analysis

  18. Positron Flux

  19. A challenging puzzle for CR physicists Antiprotons  Consistent with pure secondary production Positrons  Evidence for an excess

  20. (Cholis et al. 2009) Contribution from DM annihilation. Positron-excess interpretations Dark matter boost factor required lepton vs hadron yield must be consistent with p-bar observation Astrophysical processes known processes large uncertainties on environmental parameters (Blasi 2009) e+ (and e-) produced as secondaries in the CR acceleration sites (e.g. SNR) (Hooper, Blasi and Serpico, 2009) contribution from diffuse mature & nearby young pulsars.

  21. Interpretation: DM M. Cirelli et al., Nucl. Phys. B 813 (2009) 1; arXiv: 0809.2409v3 Which DM spectra can fit the data? DM with and dominant annihilation channel (possible candidate: Wino)‏ positrons antiprotons No! Yes!

  22. Interpretation: DM M. Cirelli et al., Nucl. Phys. B 813 (2009) 1; arXiv: 0809.2409v3 Which DM spectra can fit the data? DM with and dominant annihilation channel (no “natural” SUSY candidate)‏ But B≈104 positrons antiprotons Yes! Yes!

  23. Interpretation: DM M. Cirelli et al., Nucl. Phys. B 813 (2009) 1; arXiv: 0809.2409v3 DM with and dominant annihilation channel positrons antiprotons Yes! Yes! Yes!

  24. Interpretation: DM I. Cholis et al.Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 123518; arXiv:0811.3641v1

  25. Astrophysical Explanation: SNR Positrons (and electrons) produced as secondaries in the sources (e.g. SNR) where CRs are accelerated. But also other secondaries are produced: significant increase expected in the p/p and B/C ratios. P.Blasi et al., PRL 103 (2009) 051104 arXiv:0903.2794

  26. Astrophysical Explanation: Pulsars Are there “standard” astrophysical explanations of the high energy positron data? Young, nearby pulsars Geminga pulsar Not a new idea: Boulares, ApJ 342 (1989), Atoyan et al (1995)‏

  27. Mechanism: the spinning B of the pulsar strips e- that accelerated at the polar cap or at the outer gap emit γ that make production of e± that are trapped in the cloud, further accelerated and later released at τ ~ 105 years. Young (T < 105 years) and nearby (< 1kpc) If not: too much diffusion, low energy, too low flux. Geminga: 157 parsecs from Earth and 370,000 years old B0656+14: 290 parsecs from Earth and 110,000 years old. Diffuse mature pulsars Astrophysical Explanation:Pulsars

  28. Astrophysical Explanation: Pulsars H. Yüksak et al., arXiv:0810.2784v2 Contributions of e- & e+ from Geminga assuming different distance, age and energetic of the pulsar diffuse mature &nearby young pulsars Hooper, Blasi, and Serpico arXiv:0810.1527 Mirko Boezio, Innsbruck, 2012/05/29

  29. Howtoclarify the matter? Courtesyof J. Edsjo

  30. (Strong & Moskalenko 1998) GALPROP code • + • (Kane et al. 2009) • Annihilation of 180 GeV wino-like neutralino • consistent with PAMELA positron data Positronsvs antiprotons Large uncertainties on propagation parameters allows to accommodate an additional component A p-bar rise above 200GeV is not excluded Adriani et al. - PRL 105 (2010) 121101 • (Blasi & Serpico 2009) • p-bar produced as secondaries in the CR acceleration sites (e.g. SNR) • consistent with PAMELA positron data • (Donato et al. 2009) • Diffusion model with convection and reacceleration

  31. Theoretical uncertainties on “standard” positron fraction γ = 3.54 γ = 3.34 Flux=A • E- T. Delahaye et al.,Astron.Astrophys. 501 (2009) 821; arXiv: 0809.5268v3

  32. Absolute fluxes of primary GCRs Needed for: identify sources and acceleration propagation mechanisms of cosmic rays; estimate the production of secondary particles, such as positrons and antiprotons, in order to disentangle the secondary particle component from possible exotic sources; estimate the particle flux in the geomagnetic field and in Earth's atmosphere to derive the atmospheric muon and neutrino flux.

  33. Adriani et al. , Science 332 (2011) 6025 H & He absolute fluxes First high-statistics and high-precision measurement over three decades in energy Dominated by systematics (~4% below 300 GV) Low energy  minimum solar activity (f = 450÷550 GV) High-energy  a complex structure of the spectra emerges…

  34. P & He absolute fluxes@ high energy Spectral index Deviations from single power law (SPL): Spectra gradually soften in the range 30÷230GV Abrupt spectral hardening @ ~235 GV Eg: statistical analysis for protons SPL hp in the range 30÷230 GV rejected @ >95% CL SPL hpabove 80 GV rejected @ >95% CL 2.85 2.77 2.48 2.67 232 GV 243 GV ? ? Solar modulation Solar modulation Standard scenario of SN blast waves expanding in the ISM needs additional features

  35. H/He ratio vs R Instrumental p.o.v. Systematic uncertainties partly cancel out (livetime, spectrometer reconstruction, …) Theoretical p.o.v. Solar modulation negligible  information about IS spectra down to GV region Propagation effects (diffusion and fragmentation) negligible above ~100GV  information about source spectra (Putze et al. 2010)

  36. P/He ratio vs R First clear evidence of different H and He slopes above ~10GV Ratio described by a single power law (in spite of the evident structures in the individual spectra) aHe-ap = 0.078 ±0.008 c2~1.3

  37. 2H and 1H flux2H/1H Preliminary

  38. 3He and 4He flux3He/4He Preliminary

  39. 2H/4He

  40. Boron and Carbon nuclei spectra Carbon Boron

  41. Anisotropy studies (p up to 1 TeV)

  42. Electrons Needed for: Recalculathe the expected positron fraction with better accuracy Closeby sources?

  43. Results from ATIC

  44. FERMI All-Electron Spectrum Theoreticaluncertainties on “standard” positronfraction FERMI e+ + e- flux (2009) A. Abdo et al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 102 (2009) 181101 M. Ackermann et al., Phys. Rev. D 82, 092004 (2010)

  45. Electrons measured with H.E.S.S.

  46. Adriani et al. , PRL 106, 201101 (2011) Electron energy measurements spectrometer Two independent ways to determine electron energy: Spectrometer Most precise Non-negligible energy losses (bremsstrahlung) above the spectrometer  unfolding Calorimeter Gaussian resolution No energy-loss correction required Strong containment requirements  smaller statistical sample calorimeter • Electron identification: • Negative curvature in the spectrometer • EM-like interaction pattern in the calorimeter

More Related