View
214
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Pasquale BlasiINAF/Arcetri Astrophysical Observatory
4th School on Cosmic Rays and Astrophysics UFABC - Santo André - São Paulo – Brazil
WHAT NEXT?We have found the elegant results of the theory of DIFFUSIVE SHOCKACCELERATION in the TEST PARTICLE approximation and also foundsome of its limitations:
1.TOO LARGE EFFICIENCIES TO EXPECT TEST PARTICLES
2.THE EXPECTED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT LEADS TO TOO LOW EMAX
3.IF PARTICLES DIFFUSE THEY ALSO LEAD TO WAVE GROWTH
ALL THESE PHENOMENA SUGGEST THAT WE NEED TO MOVE BEYONDTHE TEST PARTICLE APPROXIMATION
NON LINEAR THEORY OF DIFFUSIVE SHOCK ACCELERATION
Dynamical Reaction of Accelerated Particles
PRECURSOR
Un
dis
turb
ed M
ediu
m
Sh
ock
Fro
nt v
subshock Precursor
Conservation of Momentum
Transport equationfor cosmic rays
SU
BS
HO
CK Velocity Profile
€
∂f∂t
=∂
∂xD∂f
∂x
⎡ ⎣ ⎢
⎤ ⎦ ⎥− u
∂f
∂x+
1
3
du
dxp∂f
∂p+Q(x, p, t)
€
ρ0u02 + Pg,0 = ρ (x)u2(x) + Pg (x) + PCR (x)
WHAT SHOULD BE EXPECT?
High p
UPSTREAM
Velocity
SUBSHOCK
PRECURSOR
1. PARTICLES WITH HIGH P FEEL LARGER COMPRESSION FACTOR THEN LOW P PARTICLES
2. THE TOTAL COMPRESSION BECOMES LARGER THAN 4
3. THE SPECTRUM SHOULD BE NO LONGER A POWER LAW!
4. AT HIGH P THE SLOPE SHOULD BE FLATTER THAN 2 !!!
5. THE GAS BEHIND THE SHOCK SHOULD BE COOLER THAN FOR AN ORDINARY SHOCKRtot Rsub
INJECTION
Ideal Collisionless Shock (More) Real Collisionless Shock
rL
WHICH PARTICLES AND HOW MANY PARTICLESENTER THE ACCELERATION CYCLE?
THIS IS THE LEAST UNDERSTOOD ASPECTS OF ALL !
INJECTION…cont’d
f(p)
p
Maxwellian for the Downstream gas
Pinj = pth,2
2321
13
4 ξsb/
eξRπ
η= Relation between
Rsub, ξ and η
T2
T1
OUTPUT OF THECALCULATIONS
SHOCK HEATING and SPECTRA
PB, Gabici & Vannoni 2005
SHOCKMODIFICATION
REDUCEDHEATING
Particle Diffusion Wave Growth
Remember that we showed that a particle diffuses along a direction z wherethere is an ordered magnetic field B0 because of a small perturbation B perpendicular to B0.
In this process the particles lose momentum in the z direction and this p Is transferred to the B waves.
This equals the momentum gained by the waves:
And imposing a perfect balance:
€
nCRmvD → nCRmvw ⇒dPCRdt
=nCRm(vD − vw )
τ
€
dPw
dt= γW
δB2
8π
1
vw
€
γW = 2nCRngas
vD − vwvw
Ωcyc
In the ISM this is ~10-3 yr-1 butclose to a shock front the growcan be even larger!!!B IS AMPLIFIED BY PARTICLES
SMALL PERTURBATIONS IN THE LOCAL B-FIELD CAN BE AMPLIFIED BY THE SUPER-ALFVENIC STREAMING OF THEACCELERATED PARTICLES
Particles are accelerated because there isHigh magnetic field in the acceleration region
High magnetic field is present because particlesAre accelerated efficiently
Without this non-linear process, no acceleration of cr to High energies (and especially not to the knee!)
Bell 2004, Amato & PB 2009
Successes of the SNR paradigm1. Observation of X-ray rims
TYPICAL THICKNESS OF FILAMENTS: ~ 10-2 pc
The synchrotron limited thickness is:
€
B ≈100 μGauss
ChandraCassiopeia A
ChandraSN 1006
Successes of the SNR paradigm
2. Max energy and the knee
pm
ax/m
c
107
106
105
104 50 100 150 200
M0
MAXIMUM MOMENTUMMAXIMUM MOMENTUM
PROTONKNEE
Bohm Diff withoutB-amplification
PB, Amato & Caprioli, 2007
Magnetic fieldamplification leadsto higher values of theMaximum energy
Observed proton spectrum
Data from Bertaina et al. 2008
Successes of the SNR paradigm
3. evidence for a CR precursor ?
PRECURSORREGION RIM
Morlino, Amato, PB & Caprioli 2010
Successes of the SNR paradigm
4. Balmer dominated shocksDOWNSTREAM
ION Temperature LOWER because of CR acceleration
NEUTRAL Temperature HIGHER because of charge exchange
+ +
BROAD BALMER LINE IS NARROWER
NARROW BALMER LINE IS WIDER
Observations of Balmer dominated shocks
Helder et al. 2009
INFERRED EFFICIENCY of CR ACCELERATION 50-60% !!!
Observation of Balmer dominated shocksbroader narrow Balmer line Sollerman et al. 2003
Broadening of the narrow line hints to a mechanism for heating of the neutrals upstreamon scales shorter than ionization scales TURBULENT HEATING
CHARGE EXCHANGE UPSTREAM
Observation of Balmer dominated shocks:
Possible evidence for a CR precursor in the narrow Balmer line
A broadened narrow Hline from upstream shows that the neutrals and ions have some level of charge exchange different bulk velocities and/or T’s between the two components
CR precursor
HADRONIC
LEPTONIC
Morlino, Amato & PB 2009
RXJ1713
RX
J17
13
RXJ1713 with fermi data
1. e/p Equilibration downstream? (Morlino et al. 2009)2. Very low value of Kep at given time 3. Lines from non-equilibrium ionization ? (Ellison et al. 2010)4. What are those Fermi data points telling us?
A Puzzling situationCourtesy of S. Funk
• Most SNR detected by Fermi have steep spectra (some exceptions, such as RXJ1713)
• The predicted spectra would naively require steep diffusion D(E)~E0.7 in conflict with anisotropy measurements
A small print in the theory of DSA: a point as important as poorly known
Velocity of scattering centers in the shock frame NOT velocity of the plasma
In general the velocity of scattering centers is small and there is no problem
BUT AMPLIFIED MAGNETIC FIELD high velocity ???
VERY MACROSCOPIC CONSEQUENCES ON SPECTRA!
€
vw =δB
4πρ>> vA,0
ROLE OF NUCLEI
Caprioli, PB, Amato 2010
The dynamical reaction of nuclei on the shock structureturns out to be VERY IMPORTANT
ROLE OF NUCLEI: The knee
Caprioli, PB, Amato 2010
WHERE DO GALACTIC CR end?1. The SNR paradigm hints to a galactic CR spectrum
ending at ~a few 1017 eV
2. Observations of chemical composition also suggest the same trend
?
PROPAGATION OF PROTONS from extragalactic sources
100 Mpc
GZK
DIP
HOW DOES THE SPECTRUM LOOK LIKE? THE DIP
Berezinsky et al. 2005Aloisio et al. 2007
Dip structure
HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE TRANSITION: THE ANKLE
ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE TRANSITION: MIXED COMPOSITION
Allard et al. 2005-2008
UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE:
DIP VS MIXED
From Kampert 2008
UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE:
DIP VS ANKLE
Aloisio, Berezinsky, PB & Ostapchenko 2008
DIP ANKLE
XMAX and RMS OF XMAX
Auger
HiRes