Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byCarlos Curtis Modified over 3 years ago

1
Photohadronic processes and neutrinos Lecture 2 Summer school High energy astrophysics August 22-26, 2011 Weesenstein, Germany Walter Winter Universität Würzburg TexPoint fonts used in EMF: AAAAA A A A

2
2 Contents Lecture 1 (non-technical) Introduction, motivation Particle production (qualitatively) Neutrino propagation and detection Comments on expected event rates Lecture 2 Tools (more specific) Photohadronic interactions, decays of secondaries, pp interactions A toy model: Magnetic field and flavor effects in fluxes Glashow resonance? (pp versus p ) Neutrinos and the multi-messenger connection

3
Repetition and some tools

4
4 Photohadronics (primitive picture) Delta resonance approximation: + / 0 determines ratio between neutrinos and gamma-rays High energetic gamma-rays; might cascade down to lower E If neutrons can escape: Source of cosmic rays Neutrinos produced in ratio ( e : : )=(1:2:0) Cosmic messengers Cosmogenic neutrinos

5
5 Inverse timescale plots Quantify contribution of different processes as a function of energy. Example: (not typical!) (from: Murase, Nagataki, 2005) Acceleration rate decreases with energy Photohadronic processes limit maximal energy Other cooling processes subdominant Inverse timescale/rate (might be a function of time)

6
6 Treatment of spectral effects Energy losses in continuous limit: b(E)=-E t -1 loss Q(E,t) [GeV -1 cm -3 s -1 ] injection per time frame N(E,t) [GeV -1 cm -3 ] particle spectrum including spectral effects For neutrinos: dN/dt = 0 (steady state) Simple case: No energy losses b=0 InjectionEscapeEnergy losses often: t esc ~ R

7
7 Energy losses and escape Depend on particle species and model Typical energy losses (= species unchanged): Synchrotron cooling Photohadronic cooling (e.g. p p ) Adiabatic cooling … Typical escape processes: Leave interaction region Decay into different species Interaction (e.g. p n ) … ~ E ~ E, const, … ~ const ~ 1/E ~ E, const, … Energy dependence

8
8 Relativistic dynamics (simplified picture) Transformation into observers frame: Flux [GeV -1 cm -2 s -1 (sr -1 )] from neutrino injection Q [GeV -1 cm -3 s -1 ] N: Normalization factor depending on volume of interaction region and possible Lorentz boost Spherical emission, relativistically boosted blob: Relativistic expansion in all directions: (fireball): typically via calculation of isotropic luminosity (later) Caveat: Doppler factor more general Observer Observer eff

9
Photohadronic interactions, pp interactions

10
10 : cross section Photon energy in nucleon rest frame: CM-energy: Principles Production rate of a species b: ( : Interaction rate for a b as a fct. of E; IT: interact. type) Interaction rate of nucleons (p = nucleon) p n : Photon density as a function of energy (SRF), angle r

11
11 Threshold issues In principle, two extreme cases: Processes start at (heads-on-collision at threshold) but that happens only in rare cases! p p r Threshold ~ 150 MeV

12
12 Threshold issues (2) Better estimate: Use peak at 350 MeV? but: still heads-on- collisions only! Discrepancies with numerics! Even better estimate? Mean angle cos ~ 0 Threshold ~ 150 MeV -Peak ~ 350 MeV r The truth is in between: Exercises!

13
13 Typical simplifications The angle is distributed isotropically Distribution of secondaries (E p >> ): Secondaries obtain a fraction of primary energy. M b : multiplicity of secondary species b Caveat: ignores more complicated kinematics Relationship to inelasticity K (fraction of proton energy lost by interaction):

14
14 Results Production of secondaries: With response function: Allows for computation with arbitrary input spectra! But: complicated, in general … Details: Exercises from: Hümmer, Rüger, Spanier, Winter, ApJ 721 (2010) 630

15
15 Different interaction processes (Photon energy in nucleon rest frame) (Mücke, Rachen, Engel, Protheroe, Stanev, 2008; SOPHIA; Ph.D. thesis Rachen) Multi-pion production Different characteristics (energy loss of protons; energy dep. cross sec.) res. r Direct (t-channel) production Resonances

16
16 Factorized response function Assume: can factorize response function in g(x) * f(y): Consequence: Fast evaluation (single integral)! Idea: Define suitable number of IT such that this approximation is accurate! (even for more complicated kinematics; IT ~ recover double integral) Hümmer, Rüger, Spanier, Winter, ApJ 721 (2010) 630

17
17 Examples Model Sim-C: Seven IT for direct production Two IT for resonances Simplified multi-pion production with =0.2 Model Sim-B: As Sim-C, but 13 IT for multi-pion processes Hümmer, Rüger, Spanier, Winter, ApJ 721 (2010) 630

18
18 Pion production: Sim-B Pion production efficiency Consequence: Charged to neutral pion ratio Hümmer, Rüger, Spanier, Winter, ApJ 721 (2010) 630

19
19 Interesting photon energies? Peak contributions: High energy protons interact with low energy photons If photon break at 1 keV, interaction with GeV protons (mostly)

20
20 Comparison with SOPHIA Example: GRB Model Sim-B matches sufficiently well: Hümmer, Rüger, Spanier, Winter, ApJ 721 (2010) 630

21
21 Decay of secondaries Description similar to interactions Example: Pion decays: Muon decays helicity dependent! Lipari, Lusignoli, Meloni, Phys.Rev. D75 (2007) ; also: Kelner, Aharonian, Bugayov, Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) , …

22
22 Where impacts? Hümmer, Rüger, Spanier, Winter, ApJ 721 (2010) 630 Spectral shape Neutrino- antineutrino ratio Flavor composition -approximation: Infinity -approximation: ~ red curve -approx.: 0.5. Difference to SOPHIA: Kinematics of weak decays

23
23 Cooling, escape, re-injection Interaction rate (protons) can be easily expressed in terms of f IT : Cooling and escape of nucleons: (M p + M p = 1) Also: Re-injection p n, and n p … Primary loses energyPrimary changes species

24
24 Comments on pp interactions Similar analytical parameterizations of response function exist, based on SIBYLL, QGSJET codes (secondaries not integrated out!) Kelner, Aharonian, Bugayov, Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) Ratio + : - : 0 ~ 1:1:1 Charged to neutral pion ratio similar to p However: + and - produced in equal ratios Glashow resonance as discriminator? (later) meson etc. contributions … Kelner, Aharonian, Bugayov, Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) ; also: Kamae et al, 2005/2006

25
A toy model: magnetic field and flavor effects in neutrino fluxes (… to demonstrate the consequences)

26
26 A self-consistent approach Target photon field typically: 1)Put in by hand (e.g. obs. spectrum: GRBs) 2)Thermal target photon field 3)From synchrotron radiation of co-accelerated electrons/positrons (AGN-like) 4)From more complicated combination of radiation processes Approach 3) requires few model params, mainly Purpose: describe wide parameter ranges with a simple model; minimal set of assumptions for !? ?

27
27 Optically thin to neutrons Model summary Hümmer, Maltoni, Winter, Yaguna, Astropart. Phys. 34 (2010) 205 Dashed arrow: Steady state Balances injection with energy losses and escape Q(E) [GeV -1 cm -3 s -1 ] per time frame N(E) [GeV -1 cm -3 ] steady spectrum InjectionEnergy lossesEscape Dashed arrows: include cooling and escape

28
28 An example: Primaries Hümmer, Maltoni, Winter, Yaguna, 2010 TP =2, B=10 3 G, R= km Maximum energy: e, p Maximal energy of primaries (e, p) by balancing energy loss and acceleration rate Hillas condition often necessary, but not sufficient! Hillas cond.

29
29 Maximal proton energy (general) Maximal proton energy ( UHECR) often constrained by proton synchrotron losses Sources of UHECR in lower right corner of Hillas plot? Caveat: Only applies to protons, but … Hümmer, Maltoni, Winter, Yaguna, 2010 (Hillas) UHECR prot.? Auger Only few protons?

30
30 An example: Secondaries Hümmer et al, Astropart. Phys. 34 (2010) 205 =2, B=10 3 G, R= km Cooling: charged,, K Secondary spectra (,, K) become loss-steepend above a critical energy E c depends on particle physics only (m, 0 ), and B Leads to characteristic flavor composition Any additional cooling processes mainly affecting the primaries will not affect the flavor composition Flavor ratios most robust predicition for sources? The only way to directly measure B? EcEc EcEc EcEc Pile-up effect Flavor ratio! Spectral split

31
31 Astrophysical neutrino sources produce certain flavor ratios of neutrinos ( e : : ): Pion beam source (1:2:0) Standard in generic models Muon damped source (0:1:0) at high E: Muons lose energy before they decay Muon beam source (1:1:0) Cooled muons pile up at lower energies (also: heavy flavor decays) Neutron beam source (1:0:0) Neutron decays from p (also possible: photo-dissociation of heavy nuclei) At the source: Use ratio e / (nus+antinus added) Flavor composition at the source (Idealized – energy independent) REMINDER

32
32 However: flavor composition is energy dependent! (from Hümmer, Maltoni, Winter, Yaguna, 2010; see also: Kashti, Waxman, 2005; Kachelriess, Tomas, 2006, 2007; Lipari et al, 2007) Muon beam muon damped Undefined (mixed source) Pion beam Pion beam muon damped Behavior for small fluxes undefined Typically n beam for low E (from p ) Energy window with large flux for classification

33
33 Parameter space scan All relevant regions recovered GRBs: in our model =4 to reproduce pion spectra; pion beam muon damped (confirms Kashti, Waxman, 2005) Some dependence on injection index Hümmer, Maltoni, Winter, Yaguna, 2010 =2

34
34 Individual spectra Differential limit 2.3 E/(A eff t exp ) illustrates what spectra the data limit best Auger Earth skimming (Winter, arXiv: ) IC-40

35
35 Constraints to energy flux density Which point sources can specific data constrain best? (Winter, arXiv: )

36
36 Neutrino propagation (vacuum) Key assumption: Incoherent propagation of neutrinos Flavor mixing: Example: For 13 =0, 23 = /4: NB: No CPV in flavor mixing only! But: In principle, sensitive to Re exp(-i ) ~ cos (see Pakvasa review, arXiv: , and references therein) REMINDER

37
37 At the detector: define observables which take into account the unknown flux normalization take into account the detector properties Example: Muon tracks to showers Do not need to differentiate between electromagnetic and hadronic showers! Flavor ratios have recently been discussed for many particle physics applications Flavor ratios at detector (for flavor mixing and decay: Beacom et al ; Farzan and Smirnov, 2002; Kachelriess, Serpico, 2005; Bhattacharjee, Gupta, 2005; Serpico, 2006; Winter, 2006; Majumar and Ghosal, 2006; Rodejohann, 2006; Xing, 2006; Meloni, Ohlsson, 2006; Blum, Nir, Waxman, 2007; Majumar, 2007; Awasthi, Choubey, 2007; Hwang, Siyeon,2007; Lipari, Lusignoli, Meloni, 2007; Pakvasa, Rodejohann, Weiler, 2007; Quigg, 2008; Maltoni, Winter, 2008; Donini, Yasuda, 2008; Choubey, Niro, Rodejohann, 2008; Xing, Zhou, 2008; Choubey, Rodejohann, 2009; Esmaili, Farzan, 2009; Bustamante, Gago, Pena-Garay, 2010; Mehta, Winter, 2011…) REMINDER

38
38 Parameter uncertainties Basic dependence recovered after flavor mixing Hümmer, Maltoni, Winter, Yaguna, 2010 However: mixing parameter knowledge ~ 2015 (Daya Bay, T2K, etc) required

39
Glashow resonance? Sensitive to neutrino-antineutrino ratio, since only e - in water/ice!

40
40 Glashow resonance … at source pp: Produce + and - in roughly equal ratio and in equal ratios p : Produce mostly + Glashow resonance (6.3 PeV, electron antineutrinos) as source discriminator? Caveats: Multi-pion processes produce - If some optical thickness, n backreactions equilibrate + and - Neutron decays fake - contribution Myon decays from pair production of high E photons (from 0 ) (Razzaque, Meszaros, Waxman, astro-ph/ ) May identify p optically thin source with about 20% contamination from -, but cannot establish pp source! Sec. 3.3 in Hümmer, Maltoni, Winter, Yaguna, 2010; see also Xing, Zhou, 2011 Glashow res.

41
41 Additional complications: Flavor mixing (electron antineutrinos from muon antineutrinos produced in + decays) Have to know flavor composition (e.g. a muon damped pp source can be mixed up with a pion beam p source) Have to hit a specific energy (6.3 PeV), which may depend on of the source Glashow resonance … at detector Sec. 4.3 in Hümmer, Maltoni, Winter, Yaguna, 2010

42
Neutrinos and the multi- messenger connection Example: GRB neutrino fluxes

43
43 Idea: Use multi-messenger approach Predict neutrino flux from observed photon fluxes burst by burst quasi-diffuse flux extrapolated Example: GRB stacking (Source: NASA) GRB gamma-ray observations (e.g. Fermi GBM, Swift, etc) (Source: IceCube) Neutrino observations (e.g. IceCube, …) Coincidence! (Example: IceCube, arXiv: ) Observed: broken power law (Band function)

44
44 Gamma-ray burst fireball model: IC-40 data meet generic bounds (arXiv: , PRL 106 (2011) ) Generic flux based on the assumption that GRBs are the sources of (highest energetic) cosmic rays (Waxman, Bahcall, 1999; Waxman, 2003; spec. bursts: Guetta et al, 2003) IC-40 stacking limit Does IceCube really rule out the paradigm that GRBs are the sources of the ultra-high energy cosmic rays? (see also Ahlers, Gonzales-Garcia, Halzen, 2011 for a fit to data)

45
45 IceCube method …normalization Connection -rays – neutrinos Optical thickness to p interactions: [in principle, p ~ 1/(n ); need estimates for n, which contains the size of the acceleration region] (Description in arXiv: ; see also Guetta et al, astro-ph/ ; Waxman, Bahcall, astro-ph/ ) Energy in electrons/ photons Fraction of p energy converted into pions f Energy in neutrinos Energy in protons ½ (charged pions) x ¼ (energy per lepton)

46
46 IceCube method … spectral shape Example: First break from break in photon spectrum (here: E -1 E -2 in photons) Second break from pion cooling (simplified)

47
47 Numerical approach Use spectral shape of observed -rays (Band fct.) Calculate bolometric equivalent energy from bolometric fluence (~ observed) [assuming a relativistically expanding fireball] Calculate energy in protons/photons and magnetic field using energy equipartition fractions Compute neutrino fluxes with conventional method (Baerwald, Hümmer, Winter, arXiv: )

48
48 Differences (qualitatively) Magnetic field and flavor-dependent effects included in numerical approach Multi-pion production in numerical approach Different spectral shapes of protons/photons taken into account Pion production based on whole spectrum, not only on photon break energy Adiabatic losses of secondaries can be included

49
49 Effect of photohadronics Reproduced original WB flux with similar assumptions Additional charged pion production channels included, also - ! ~ factor 6 Baerwald, Hümmer, Winter, Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) decays only

50
50 Fluxes before/after flavor mixing e Baerwald, Hümmer, Winter, Phys. Rev. D83 (2011) ; see also: Murase, Nagataki, 2005; Kashti, Waxman, 2005; Lipari, Lusignoli, Meloni, 2007 BEFORE FLAVOR MIXINGAFTER FLAVOR MIXING

51
51 Re-analysis of fireball model Correction factors from: Cosmological expansion (z) Some crude estimates, e.g. for f (frac. of E going pion production) Spectral corrections (compared to choosing the break energy) Neutrinos from pions/muons Photohadronics and magnetic field effects change spectral shape Baerwald, Hümmer, Winter, PRD83 (2011) Conclusion (this parameter set): Fireball flux ~ factor of five lower than expected, with different shape (Hümmer, Baerwald, Winter, in prep.) (one example)

52
52 Systematics in aggregated fluxes IceCube: Signal from 117 bursts stacked (summed) for current limit (arXiv: ) Is that sufficient? Some results: z ~ 1 typical redshift of a GRB Peak contribution in a region of low statistics Systematical error on quasi- diffuse flux (90% CL) -50% for 100 bursts -35% for 300 bursts -25% for 1000 bursts Need O(1000) bursts for reliable stacking extrapolations! Distribution of GRBs following star form. rate Weight function: contr. to total flux bursts (Baerwald, Hümmer, Winter, arXiv: ) (strong evolution case)

53
53 -distr. as model discriminator? Fireball pheno; bursts alike in SRF (L iso, B, d, …) (Baerwald, Hümmer, Winter, arXiv: ) Fireball pheno; bursts alike at detector (L iso, t v, T 90,, …) Contribution from dominates Plausible? Contribution from dominates Typical assumption in literature Spectral features + sharp flavor ratio transition No spec. features + wide flavor ratio transition

54
54 Why is FB-S interesting? If properties of bursts alike in comoving frame: L iso ~ 2 and E peak ~ generated by different Lorentz boost E peak ~ (L iso ) 0.5 (Yonetoku relationship; Amati rel. by similar arguments) Neutrinos sensitive to this approach! (arXiv: )

55
55 Summary (lecture 2) Efficient and accurate parameterization for photohadronic interactions is key issue for many state-of-the-art applications, e.g., Parameter space scans Time-dependent simulations Peculiarity of neutrinos: magnetic field effects of the secondaries, which affect spectral shape and flavor composition Do not integrate out secondaries! May even be used as model discriminators Flavor ratios, though difficult to measure, are interesting because they may be the only way to directly measure B (astrophysics) they are useful for new physics searches (particle physics) they are relatively robust with respect to the cooling and escape processes of the primaries (e, p, )

56
BACKUP

57
57 Revised fireball normalization (compared to IceCube approach) Normalization corrections: f C : Photon energy approximated by break energy (Eq. A13 in Guetta et al, 2004) f S : Spectral shape of neutrinos directly related to that of photons (not protons) (Eq. A8 in arXiv: ) f, f, f shift : Corrections from approximations of mean free path of protons and some factors approximated in original calcs (Hümmer, Baerwald, Winter, in prep.)

Similar presentations

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google