Presentation on theme: "Cosmological Magnetic Fields Angela V. Olinto University of Chicago."— Presentation transcript:
Cosmological Magnetic Fields Angela V. Olinto University of Chicago
Cosmological Fields? Were there Magnetic Fields before recombination?
Cosmological Fields? Were there Magnetic Fields before recombination? If yes: how were primordial Magnetic fields created? What role have they played since?
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…
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?
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, b h 2 = 0.02 B Hubble G (Ly- forest) B Hubble G (homogeneous) B 50Mpc G (Ly- forest) B 50Mpc G (homogeneous) B J G (Ly- forest) B J G (homogeneous)
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?
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 ~ M solar ) B can reach Gauss (Kronberg et al) equi-partition with gas dynamics What about in emptier regions?
EHE Cosmic Rays should point! after S. Swordy B p R gyro = 0.11 Mpc E 20 /ZB G 1kpc B<10 nG R>11 Mpc
EHE Cosmic Rays should point! Magnetic Fields less effective at EHEs (~ eV): Simulations CDM LSS + MFs B ExtraGal ~ <10 nG D. Grasso (ICRC03) AGASA clusters constraints B gal G. Medina-Tanco (ICRC03) Isola, Lemoine, Sigl 02
Presented 3 oral + 2 posters: 11 Super-GZK events Small Scale Clustering Constraints on Composition - protons at UHEs. AGASA Akeno Giant Air Shower Array 111 scintillators + 27 muon det.
AGASA Composition: K. Shinozaki et al. ICRC03 Muon density E eV36º Fe frac. CL): eV) Akeno 1km 2 : 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% (>10 19 eV) ( /p<0.45) 56% (> eV) ( /p<1.27)
AGASA Small Scale Clustering M. Teshima et al. ICRC03 1 triplet + 6 doublets (2 triplets + 6 doublets with looser cut) Clustering for E ~10 19 eV and ~5x10 19 eV, Ratio of Cluster/All increases with E up to 5x10 19 eV Above GZK energy (5x10 19 eV) statistics too small No significant time self-correlation
2D-Correlation Map in (Δ l II, Δ b II ) Log E >19.0eV, 3. 4σLog E >19.2eV, 3. 0σ Log E >19.4eV, 2.0σLog E >19.6eV, 4.4σ Δ l II Δ b II Polarization studies will limit B gal and B Xgal
Energy spectrum of Cluster events E -1.8±0.5 Cluster Component
AGASA 11 events with E > eV M. Takeda et al. ICRC03 AGASA systematic errors ~ 18% Flux * E 3
The High Resolution Flys Eye (HiRes) Air fluorescence detectors HiRes mirrors HiRes mirrors Dugway (Utah) start 97HR1 99HR2 Pioneers of Fluorescence Technique (8 oral + 4 posters) No Super-GZK flux No Small Scale Clustering Composition Change HiRes 2HiRes 1
Thanks to D. Bergman Systematic off-set
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% best fit slope: 2.6 number of events above eV: no 1.5 sigma number of events above eV: GZK cutoff DDM, Blasi, Olinto 2003 DeMarco et al (ICRC03)
HiRes Composition: J. Mathews et al. ICRC03 HiRes Stereo: unchanging, light composition above eV Stereo HiRes and HiRes Prototype-MIA consistent in overlap region HiRes Prototype-MIA Hybrid changing composition (Heavy to Light) between and eV No significant information near GZK region yet Come back to 29 th ICRC
GZK cut-off is model and B dependent… E. Parizot et al. ICRC03 Magnetized Local Super-Cluster - better fit to spectrum (Blasi, A.O. 99)
Are the sources Astrophysical or New Physics? Super Heavy Dark Matter Relics in the Dark Halo of our Galaxy Cosmic Strings Pulsar, AGN BL Lacs - some correlation
Anisostropic UHECRs -BL-Lacs correlation Accounting for deflection by Galactic MF correlation improves for charged +1 particles Tinyakov and Tkachev 01b, 02
Time to get the Heavy Artillery
Auger & EUSO DDM, Blasi, Olinto 2003 Auger South EUSO DeMarco et al (ICRC03)
2 Giant AirShower Arrays South – Argentina Funded North – Not Funded Yet 1600 particle detectors over 3000 km Fluorescence Detectors Will Measure Direction, Energy, & Composition of ~ 60 events/yr E > eV ~ 6000 events/yr E > eV > 250 scientists from 19 countries J. Cronin and T. Yamamoto
Pierre Auger Project 3000 km water tank array
Auger South 130 tanks on +40 EA
Complete Calibration from Atmosphere to Telescope LASERS LIDARS Telescope and Mirrors Calibs… Fluorescence Telescopes
Inclined showers 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
J. Cronin Hybrid detector can reach eV for Clustering studies
A. Kravtsov Matter and Galaxies N - Super Galactic Plane S - see through Galactic Center
A. Kravtsov Matter Distribution
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 2 1/4 x R N 2 3/4 x N P. Sommers 03
Preliminary results Significant deflections are obtained only when UHECRs cross a rich cluster of galaxies at a distance < few Mpcs In the filaments, where deflections in filaments are neglibible MF strength around the local group is UHECRs are not isotropized !! Dolag, Grasso et al 03
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
MSPH simulations of MFs in rich clusters 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 Dolag, Bartelmann & Lesch, 99, 02
Predictions for -CDM Dolag, Baterlmann & Lesch 02 The memory of the initial MF geometrical structure is lost They succeed to reproduce observations if RMs B(R)
Deflections induced by the smooth component of the cosmic MF: This is consistent with the UHECRs – BL-Lacs correlation ! are below experimental sensitivity if 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
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
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)
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
The BL-Lacs – UHECR Connection Small angle clustering: Very likely, sources of UHECR are pointlike ! Correlation with -ray-loud BL-Lacs: Tinyakov & Tkachev 01a Accounting for deflection by MF in the Galaxy correlation improves for charged +1 particles Tinyakov and Tkachev 01b
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
AGASA multiplets simulations with point sources B=0 resol.=2.5º =2.6 m=0 E > eV - 57 events Mpc -3 Blasi, DDM 2003, AP in press AUGER multiplets E > eV - 70 events in 5 yrs EUSO multiplets E > eV events in 3 yrs sources/Mpc 3 from AGASA Small Scale Anisotropy w/ large uncertainties. Auger & EUSO will greatly reduce the uncertainties. DeMarco 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.
HiRes Small Scale Clustering - Stereo C. Finley et al. ICRC03 No significant clustering seen yet. Two-point correlation for HiRes Stereo Events > eV RMS fluctuations
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) B EG ~ G
Extra Galactic Magnetic Fields & UHECRs Monte Carlo for Propagation with EGMF Time Delay, Deflection Angle (Lemoine, A.O., Sigl, Schramm97, Sigl, Lemoine, A.O.97) E ~ 20 yr (D/10Mpc) 2 (E/10EeV) -2 (B/ G) 2 (l c /1 Mpc) E ~ 0.02 o (D/10Mpc) -1/2 ( E /1yr) 1/2 Need 10 events/cluster Auger
Most Recent Exposures Thanks to HiRes and AGASA Collaborations
Too Low Statistics for clear GZK or no-GZK determination AGASA HiRes E max = eV number of events above eV: no 2.5 sigma number of events above eV: GZK cutoff DDM, Blasi, Olinto 2003, AP in press DeMarco et al (ICRC03)