1. Cosmological Magnetic Fields
3/28/2017
Angela V. Olinto
University of Chicago

2. Cosmological Fields?
Were there Magnetic Fields before recombination?

3. Cosmological Fields? Were there Magnetic Fields before recombination?
If yes:
how were primordial Magnetic fields created?
What role have they played since?

4. Cosmological Fields? Were there Magnetic Fields before recombination?
If yes:
how were primordial Magnetic fields created? PHASE TRANSITIONS
What role have they played since?
Star Formation
Seed Dynamos
Structure Formation…

5. Cosmological Fields? Were there Magnetic Fields before recombination?
How would we know?
Were there Magnetic Fields before galaxies formed?
Lyman- forest - intermediate scales
Are there large scale Magnetic Fields today?

6. Extra Galactic Magnetic Fields
Constraints from Faraday Rotation to distant Quasars in an Inhomogeneous Universe (Burles, Blasi, A.O. ‘98)
variance increases - non-gaussian tail
Median| from z = 0 to 2.5, bh2 = 0.02
BHubble  10-9 G (Ly- forest)
BHubble  G (homogeneous)
B50Mpc G (Ly- forest)
B50Mpc G (homogeneous)
BJ  10-8 G (Ly- forest)
BJ  G (homogeneous)

7. Cosmological Fields? Where there Magnetic Fields before recombination?
How would we know?
Were there Magnetic Fields before galaxies formed?
Lyman- forest - intermediate scales
Are there large scale Magnetic Fields today?

8. Cosmological Fields? Were there Magnetic Fields before recombination?
How would we know?
Are there large scale Magnetic Fields today?
Yes - in clusters of galaxies (M ~ 1015 Msolar )
B can reach 10-6 Gauss (Kronberg et al)
equi-partition with gas dynamics
What about in emptier regions?

9. EHE Cosmic Rays should point!
1kpc
Rgyro = 0.11 Mpc E20/ZBG p B
B<10 nG
R>11 Mpc
after S. Swordy

10. EHE Cosmic Rays should point!
Magnetic Fields less effective at EHEs (~ 1020 eV):
Simulations CDM LSS + MFs  BExtraGal ~ <10 nG D. Grasso (ICRC03)
AGASA clusters  constraints Bgal
G. Medina-Tanco (ICRC03)
Isola, Lemoine, Sigl ‘02

11. AGASA Akeno Giant Air Shower Array
Presented 3 oral + 2 posters:
11 Super-GZK events
Small Scale Clustering
Constraints on Composition
- protons at UHEs.
111 scintillators + 27 muon det.

12. Composition: K. Shinozaki et al. ICRC03
AGASA
Composition: K. Shinozaki et al. ICRC03
Muon density E0 ≥1019eV q≤36º
Fe frac. CL): < 35% (1019 – eV), < 76% (E>1019.5eV)
Akeno 1km2 : Hayashida et al. ’95
Haverah Park: Ave et al. ’03
Volcano Ranch: Dova et al. ICRC03
HiRes: Archbold et al. ICRC03
AGASA
Gamma-ray fraction upper limits
34% (>1019eV) (g/p<0.45)
56% (>1019.5eV) (g/p<1.27)

13. Small Scale Clustering M. Teshima et al. ICRC03
AGASA
Small Scale Clustering M. Teshima et al. ICRC03
1 triplet + 6 doublets (2 triplets + 6 doublets with looser cut)
Clustering for E ~1019eV and ~5x1019eV,
Ratio of Cluster/All increases with E up to 5x1019eV
Above GZK energy (5x1019eV) statistics too small
No significant time self-correlation

14. Angular Correlations Log E>19.0 Log E>19.2 Log E>19.4

15. 2D-Correlation Map in (ΔlII ,ΔbII )
Log E >19.0eV, 3. 4σ
Log E >19.2eV, 3. 0σ
Polarization
studies will
limit B gal
and B Xgal
ΔbII
ΔlII
Log E >19.4eV, 2.0σ
Log E >19.6eV, 4.4σ

16. Polarization

17. Energy spectrum of Cluster events E -1.8±0.5
Cluster Component

18. AGASA 11 events with E > 1020 eV M. Takeda et al. ICRC03
AGASA systematic errors ~ 18%
Flux * E3

19. The High Resolution Fly’s Eye (HiRes)
Pioneers of Fluorescence Technique (8 oral + 4 posters)
No Super-GZK flux
No Small Scale Clustering
Composition Change
HiRes 1
HiRes 2
Air fluorescence detectors
HiRes mirrors
HiRes mirrors
Dugway (Utah)
start ‘97HR1 ‘99HR2

20. Systematic off-set
Thanks to D. Bergman

21. systematic errors in by hand…
30% in order to reconcile low energy data ( eV)
15% within limits allowed by both collaborations
AGASA -15%
HiRes +15%
DDM, Blasi, Olinto 2003
DDM, Blasi, Olinto 2003
best fit slope: 2.6
number of events above 1020eV:
no 1.5 sigma
number of events above 1020eV:
GZK cutoff
DeMarco et al (ICRC03)

22. Composition: J. Mathews et al. ICRC03
HiRes
Composition: J. Mathews et al. ICRC03
HiRes Stereo: unchanging, light composition above 1018 eV
Stereo HiRes and HiRes Prototype-MIA consistent in overlap region
HiRes Prototype-MIA Hybrid
changing composition
(Heavy to Light)
between 1017 and 1018 eV
No significant information
near GZK region yet
Come back to 29th ICRC

23. GZK cut-off is model and B dependent…
Magnetized Local
Super-Cluster -
better fit to spectrum
(Blasi, A.O. ‘99)
E. Parizot et al. ICRC03

24. Are the sources Astrophysical or New Physics?
Pulsar,
AGN
BL Lacs -
some correlation
Cosmic Strings
Super Heavy
Dark Matter Relics
in the Dark Halo
of our Galaxy

25. Anisostropic UHECRs -BL-Lacs correlation
Accounting for deflection by Galactic MF correlation improves
for charged +1 particles Tinyakov and Tkachev ’01b, 02

26. Time to get the Heavy Artillery

27. Auger & EUSO EUSO Auger South DeMarco et al (ICRC03)
DDM, Blasi, Olinto 2003
DeMarco et al (ICRC03)

28. Pierre Auger Project 2 Giant AirShower Arrays South – Argentina Funded
North – Not Funded Yet
1600 particle detectors over
3000 km2
+ 4 Fluorescence Detectors
Will Measure Direction,
Energy, & Composition of
~ 60 events/yr E > 1020eV
~ 6000 events/yr E > 1019eV
> 250 scientists from 19 countries
J. Cronin and T. Yamamoto

29. Pierre Auger Project
3000 km water tank array

30. Auger South
130 tanks on +40 EA

31. Fluorescence Telescopes
Complete Calibration from Atmosphere to Telescope
LASERS
LIDARS
Telescope and Mirrors Calibs…

32. Inclined showers Great Resource for
top view
in shower plane
Great Resource for
Asymmetry of Showers M. T. Dova et al ICRC03
which lead to novel
Composition Studies M. Ave et al ICRC03

33. Hybrid detector can reach 1018eV for Clustering studies
J. Cronin

34. N - Super Galactic Plane S - see through Galactic Center
Matter and Galaxies
N - Super Galactic Plane
S - see through Galactic Center
A. Kravtsov

35. Matter Distribution
A. Kravtsov

36. Statistics improve by 2 Overlap region (purple) L  L/ 2
Auger N and S can measure Large Scale Structure + Small Scale Clustering
Number of sources ~ 2
(blue or red)
N  2 x N
Statistics improve by 2
Overlap region (purple)
L  L/ 2
R  21/4 x R
N  23/4 x N
P. Sommers ‘03

37. The local supercluster (LSC)
3/28/2017
The local supercluster (LSC)

38. 3/28/2017
Gas + DM
Kravtsov, Klypin & Hoffman ‘01

39.  UHECRs isotropization (?)
Sigl, Miniati & Enßlin, ‘03
 UHECRs isotropization (?)
observer position

40. MAP OF DEFLECTIONS around “Virgo” cluster
3/28/2017
MAP OF DEFLECTIONS around “Virgo” cluster

41. Preliminary results
Dolag, Grasso et al 03
Significant deflections are obtained only when UHECRs cross a rich cluster of galaxies at a distance < few Mpc’s
In the filaments, where
 deflections in filaments are neglibible
MF strength around the local group is
UHECRs are not isotropized !!

42. Concluding
UHECRs can map Magnetic Fields in Intergalactic Medium ( B ~ nG) and the Galaxy (polarization).
Need complete simulations +
Better UHECR data
Watch for Auger S + N

43. MSPH simulations of MFs in rich clusters
Dolag, Bartelmann & Lesch, ‘99, ‘02
MSPH (Magnetic-SPH) simulations implement the SPH (Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics) strategy by adding MHD equations (Faraday equation) SPH:
N-BOBY SIMULATIONS of DM + GAS + MAGNETIC FIELDS
Initial conditions ( z ~ 20) : density fluctuation field compatible with -CDM + seed magnetic field
MAGNETIC FIELD AMPLIFICATION:
(frozen-in field)
+ non-linear MHD amplification due to the presence of shocks and turbulence

44. They succeed to reproduce observations if
3/28/2017
Predictions for -CDM
RMs
B(R)
Dolag, Baterlmann & Lesch ’02
They succeed to reproduce observations if
The memory of the initial MF geometrical structure is lost

45. are below experimental sensitivity if
Deflections induced by the smooth component of the cosmic MF:
are below experimental sensitivity if
This is consistent with the UHECRs – BL-Lacs correlation !
Probability to cross a rich cluster outside the LSC for a CR coming from d < 1000 Mpc:
Deflections have to be dominated by EGMF in the
local universe
It is consistent with hints of anisotropies in the UHECRs – BL-Lacs correlation

46. Need simulations of EGMF in the LSC ?
Close clusters and filaments have the largest cross section.
Constrained simulations of EGMF in the LSC
A realistic map of deflections
in order to be able to trace UHECRs back to the source
the EGMF in our surroundings
deflections may differ considerably depending whether we leave
or not in an extended magnetized bubble

47. Constrained MSPH simulation of the LSC
3/28/2017
Constrained MSPH simulation of the LSC
The goal is to produce a realistic map of MF in the LSC
Initial conditions on density fluctuations are constrained so that the
simulated smoothed density field is equal to that inferred from observations
Kolatt ’96
Mathis et al. ‘01
dark matter only
( IRAS survey)

48. 3/28/2017
Conclusions
MSPH simulations account for observed EGMF in rich clusters without requiring a strong smooth component in the IGM
The “maximal” EGMF compatible with observations give rise to significant UHECR deflections only when they cross or skim clusterized regions
This is consistent with the claimed UHECR-BL Lacs correlation
MSPH constrained simulations will provide soon maps of UHECR deflections to be compared with data from high statistics experiments
they will allow a more reliable source identification
provide a deeper insight on the nature of cosmological magnetic fields
Preliminary results suggest that
UHECR astronomy may be possible

49. The BL-Lacs – UHECR Connection
3/28/2017
The BL-Lacs – UHECR Connection
Tinyakov & Tkachev ’01a
Small angle clustering:
Very likely, sources of UHECR are pointlike !
● Correlation with -ray-loud BL-Lacs:
Accounting for deflection by MF in the Galaxy correlation improves
for charged +1 particles Tinyakov and Tkachev ’01b

50. Implications for the EGMF
3/28/2017
Implications for the EGMF
AGASA angular resolution : 2.5 deg
d(z = 0.082) = 351 (70/h) Mpc
E = 4.09 E 19 eV
See also Berezinsky, Gazizov and Grigoreva ’02
Blasi & De Marco, ‘03
Tinyakov & Tkachev ’01c 

51. simulations with point sources
AGASA multiplets
simulations with point sources
B=0 resol.=2.5º g=2.6 m=0
E > eV - 57 events
10-5 Mpc-3
Blasi, DDM 2003, AP in press
AUGER multiplets E > 1020 eV - 70 events in 5 yrs
EUSO multiplets E > 1020 eV events in 3 yrs
10-5 sources/Mpc3
from AGASA Small Scale Anisotropy w/ large uncertainties.
Auger & EUSO will greatly reduce the uncertainties.
DeMarco et al (ICRC03)

52. Small Scale Clustering - Monocular J. Belz et al. ICRC03
HiRes
Small Scale Clustering - Monocular J. Belz et al. ICRC03
No significant clustering seen yet.
“Bananas are harder than circles…”
Flux upper limits of on point sources
with E > eV Cygnus X-3
Dipole limit: Gal. Center, Centaurus A, M-87
HiRes-I Monocular Data, E > eV
HiRes-I Monocular Data, E > eV
Upper limit of 4 doublets (90% c.l.)
in HiRes-I monocular dataset.

53. Two-point correlation for HiRes Stereo Events > 1019 eV
Small Scale Clustering - Stereo C. Finley et al. ICRC03
No significant clustering seen yet.
RMS fluctuations
Two-point correlation for HiRes Stereo Events > 1019 eV

54. Extra Galactic Magnetic Fields UHE CR + Gamma Rays
Secondary Photon spectrum modified by EGMFs via synchrotron losses of e+e- in EM cascade (Lee, A.O., Sigl ‘95)
BEG ~ G

55. Extra Galactic Magnetic Fields & UHECRs
Monte Carlo for Propagation with EGMF  Time Delay, Deflection Angle
(Lemoine, A.O., Sigl, Schramm’97, Sigl, Lemoine, A.O.’97)
E ~ 20 yr (D/10Mpc)2 (E/10EeV)-2 (B/10-11 G)2 (lc/1 Mpc)
E ~ 0.02o (D/10Mpc)-1/2 (E/1yr)1/2
Need 10 events/cluster 
Auger

56. Most Recent Exposures
Thanks to HiRes and AGASA Collaborations

57. Too Low Statistics for clear GZK or no-GZK determination
Emax= eV
HiRes
AGASA
DDM, Blasi, Olinto 2003, AP in press
DDM, Blasi, Olinto 2003, AP in press
number of events above 1020eV:
no 2.5 sigma
number of events above 1020eV:
GZK cutoff
DeMarco et al (ICRC03)