SERCH FOR LARGE-SCALE

Similar documents
P. Tinyakov 1,2 TELESCOPE ARRAY: LATEST RESULTS. P. Tinyakov. for the Telescope Array Collaboration. Telescope Array detector.

P. Tinyakov 1 TELESCOPE ARRAY: LATEST RESULTS. P. Tinyakov. for the Telescope Array Collaboration. Telescope Array detector. Spectrum.

The Pierre Auger Observatory: on the arrival directions of the most energetic cosmic rays

Measurement of Anisotropy and Search for UHECR Sources

UltraHigh Energy Cosmic Rays Corrected for Galaxy Magnetic Field Models: FRIs & BL Lacs (Galactic Plane sources?)

The AUGER Experiment. D. Martello Department of Physics University of Salento & INFN Lecce. D. Martello Dep. of Physics Univ. of Salento & INFN LECCE

Higher Statistics UHECR observatories: a new era for a challenging astronomy

The egg-carton Universe

Searches for cosmic ray anisotropies at ultra-high energies

RECENT RESULTS FROM THE PIERRE AUGER OBSERVATORY

Search for clustering of ultra high energy cosmic rays from the Pierre Auger Observatory

Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays and Astrophysics. Hang Bae Kim Hanyang University Hangdang Workshop,

Study of the arrival directions of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays detected by the Pierre Auger Observatory

ULTRA-HIGH ENERGY COSMIC RAYS

Overview: UHECR spectrum and composition Arrival directions and magnetic field Method for search for UHE nuclei sources Application to the Auger data

UHECRs sources and the Auger data

Simulating magnetic fields within large scale structure an the propagation of UHECRs

Ultrahigh Energy Cosmic Rays propagation II

Cosmogenic neutrinos II

A few grams of matter in a bright world

Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays: Observations and Analysis

Feb 20 6 h 30º M36 M38 M37 AURIGA 40º. Capella. b q 50º CAMELOPARDALIS 60º 70º 80º. a Polaris 80º 80º MINOR URSA 80º 70º. q 60º. Rastaban.

High Energy Messenger Workshop KICP, June Foteini Oikonomou

An Auger Observatory View of Centaurus A

STATUS OF ULTRA HIGH ENERGY COSMIC RAYS

Science Papercraft Natural Science Series Rotating Star Chart (section 1) 1. Align front pieces 1 and 2 2. Fold over the tabs and glue in place

99 Years from Discovery : What is our current picture on Cosmic Rays? #6 How cosmic rays travel to Earth? Presented by Nahee Park

PoS(ICRC2017)548. Telescope Array anisotropy summary

Extensive Air Showers and Particle Physics Todor Stanev Bartol Research Institute Dept Physics and Astronomy University of Delaware

UHECR autocorrelation function after Auger

Intergalactic Magnetic Field and Arrival Direction of Ultra-High-Energy Protons

PoS(ICRC2015)326. TA anisotropy summary

Cosmic Rays and Bayesian Computations

The Pierre Auger Observatory Status - First Results - Plans

Cosmic Distance Determinations

Calibration of the Mid-Infrared Tully-Fisher relation

Campus Observatory. 7pm. you are here

Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays What we have learnt from. HiRes and Auger. Andreas Zech Observatoire de Paris (Meudon) / LUTh

SEARCH FOR POINT-LIKE SOURCES OF COSMIC RAYS WITH ENERGIES ABOVE. Malina Aurelia Kirn

Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays I

Studies of Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays with the Pierre Auger Observatory

Arrival directions of the highest-energy cosmic rays detected by the Pierre Auger Observatory

The influence of the observatory latitude on the study of ultra high energy cosmic rays

Structure Formation and Evolution"

Grid lines are drawn at every 15 degrees of declination, and every hour (= 15 degrees at the equator) of right ascension.

PoS(ICRC2015)657. Telescope Array extension: TA 4

Hubble s Law. Tully-Fisher relation. The redshift. λ λ0. Are there other ways to estimate distances? Yes.

Constraints on dark matter annihilation cross section with the Fornax cluster

Multi-Messenger Astonomy with Cen A?

2 R.P. Saglia et al. 2 The Fundamental Plane The commonly used methods to nd the coecients of the FP are of the least-squared type: one minimizes the

PHY 475/375. Lecture 2. (March 28, 2012) The Scale of the Universe: The Shapley-Curtis Debate

TeV gamma-rays from UHECR sources 22 radio log10(e /ev ) 16 photon horizon γγ e + e CMB 14 IR kpc 10kpc 100kpc M pc Virgo 10M pc 100M pc G

9.1 Large Scale Structure: Basic Observations and Redshift Surveys

The Structural Properties of Milky Way Dwarf Galaxies. Ricardo Muñoz (Universidad de Chile) Collaborators:

Sky Maps of High Resolution Fly s Eye Stereo Data Above ev

Superclusters...what are they? They are Superfun!

arxiv:astro-ph/ v2 26 Aug 2004

Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays (III)

How would you explain the concept of a day, month, and a year to a small child?

OVERVIEW OF THE RESULTS

PHY323:Lecture 7 Dark Matter with Gravitational Lensing

Hidden Treasures List of 109 Deep Space Objects

Cosmology. Clusters of galaxies. Redshift. Late 1920 s: Hubble plots distances versus velocities of galaxies. λ λ. redshift =

Tracing the bright and dark sides of the universe with X-ray observations. Yasushi Suto. Department of Physics University of Tokyo

Results from the Pierre Auger Observatory. Paul Sommers, Penn State August 7, 2008, SSI

Recent results from the Pierre Auger Observatory

Secondary particles generated in propagation neutrinos gamma rays

Clusters are Very Large Magnets. U NM December 1, 2009

Big Galaxies Are Rare! Cepheid Distance Measurement. Clusters of Galaxies. The Nature of Galaxies

Cosmic Rays. M. Swartz. Tuesday, August 2, 2011

The American Association of Amateur Astronomers

arxiv:astro-ph/ v1 28 Oct 2004

The Highest Energy Cosmic Rays

Anisotropy studies with the Pierre Auger Observatory

Ultra-High-Energy Cosmic Rays: A Tale of Two Observatories

Galaxy Luminosity Function

Investigation on mass composition of UHE cosmic rays using CRPropa 2.0

Cosmic Ray Physics with the IceTop Air Shower Array. Hermann Kolanoski Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

Chapter 1 Introduction. Particle Astrophysics & Cosmology SS

The Cosmological Redshift. Cepheid Variables. Hubble s Diagram

The supercluster void network

Results from the Telescope Array Experiment

Learning Objectives. distances to objects in our Galaxy and to other galaxies? apparent magnitude key to measuring distances?

Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays. Malina Kirn March 1, 2007 Experimental Gravitation & Astrophysics

The Plasma Physics and Cosmological Impact of TeV Blazars

Ultrahigh Energy cosmic rays II

EVIDENCE OF INTERMEDIATE-SCALE ENERGY SPECTRUM ANISOTROPY IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE FROM TELESCOPE ARRAY

arxiv: v1 [astro-ph.he] 20 Jul 2015 Istvan Horvath National University of Public Service, Budapest, Hungary

Infrared Mass-to-Light Profile Throughout the Infall Region of the Coma Cluster

Blazars as the Astrophysical Counterparts of the IceCube Neutrinos


Discovery of Extreme Examples of Superclustering in Aquarius

On the GCR/EGCR transition and UHECR origin

Locating missing baryons from oxygen emission lines with DIOS

Selected Small Galaxy Groups 1

Name Midterm Exam October 20, 2017

Really, really, what universe do we live in?

Neutrino Oscillations and Astroparticle Physics (5) John Carr Centre de Physique des Particules de Marseille (IN2P3/CNRS) Pisa, 10 May 2002

Survey of Astrophysics A110

Galaxies. The majority of known galaxies fall into one of three major classes: spirals (78 %), ellipticals (18 %) and irregulars (4 %).

Transcription:

SERCH FOR LARGE-SCALE Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) Brussels SNOWPAC 23-28 March, 2010

Matter tracer model: generic model of CRs under the assumptions: nearly straight propagation typical deflections do not exceed 10 20 «θ rand = 1.8 E 1 «lc R 1/2 «B Z 10 20 ev 50Mpc 2 10 9 G «θ reg = 0.52 E 1 ««R B Z 10 20 ev 1kpc 10 6 G many sources within 100 Mpc GZK cutoff = sources must be nearby ( 100 Mpc) Main prediction: at scales 100 Mpc matter is inhomogeneous = anisotropic CR flux

Matter tracer model: generic model of CRs under the assumptions: nearly straight propagation typical deflections do not exceed 10 20 «θ rand = 1.8 E 1 «lc R 1/2 «B Z 10 20 ev 50Mpc 2 10 9 G «θ reg = 0.52 E 1 ««R B Z 10 20 ev 1kpc 10 6 G many sources within 100 Mpc GZK cutoff = sources must be nearby ( 100 Mpc) Main prediction: at scales 100 Mpc matter is inhomogeneous = anisotropic CR flux

Matter tracer model: generic model of CRs under the assumptions: nearly straight propagation typical deflections do not exceed 10 20 «θ rand = 1.8 E 1 «lc R 1/2 «B Z 10 20 ev 50Mpc 2 10 9 G «θ reg = 0.52 E 1 ««R B Z 10 20 ev 1kpc 10 6 G many sources within 100 Mpc GZK cutoff = sources must be nearby ( 100 Mpc) Main prediction: at scales 100 Mpc matter is inhomogeneous = anisotropic CR flux

Matter tracer model: generic model of CRs under the assumptions: nearly straight propagation typical deflections do not exceed 10 20 «θ rand = 1.8 E 1 «lc R 1/2 «B Z 10 20 ev 50Mpc 2 10 9 G «θ reg = 0.52 E 1 ««R B Z 10 20 ev 1kpc 10 6 G many sources within 100 Mpc GZK cutoff = sources must be nearby ( 100 Mpc) Main prediction: at scales 100 Mpc matter is inhomogeneous = anisotropic CR flux

for this analysis HiRes stereo data set 309 events with E > 10 EeV 27 events with E > 40 EeV 10 events with E > 57 EeV Angular resolution of stereo events is 1 Exposure is calculated from Monte Carlo simulations Matter distribution is modeled from the 2MRS catalog (2 Micron All-Sky Redshift Survey; provided by J.Huchra) complete up to K s -magnitude m < 11.25 except around the Galactic plane b < 10 contains spectroscopic redshifts for all but a few galaxies accurately represents source distribution out to 250 Mpc 15508 galaxies after all cuts

for this analysis HiRes stereo data set 309 events with E > 10 EeV 27 events with E > 40 EeV 10 events with E > 57 EeV Angular resolution of stereo events is 1 Exposure is calculated from Monte Carlo simulations Matter distribution is modeled from the 2MRS catalog (2 Micron All-Sky Redshift Survey; provided by J.Huchra) complete up to K s -magnitude m < 11.25 except around the Galactic plane b < 10 contains spectroscopic redshifts for all but a few galaxies accurately represents source distribution out to 250 Mpc 15508 galaxies after all cuts

Generating flux maps Sources within 250 Mpc are treated individually, assuming equal intrinsic luminosity For sources beyond 250 Mpc a uniform component is added Deriving model predictions Statistical test Main parameter smearing angle θ s

Generating flux maps Sources within 250 Mpc are treated individually, assuming equal intrinsic luminosity For sources beyond 250 Mpc a uniform component is added 0000000 1111111 000000000 1 00000000 00000000 00000000 UNIFORM DISCRETE SOURCES 00000000 DISTRIBUTION 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 D max 00000 11111 Deriving model predictions Statistical test Main parameter smearing angle θ s

Generating flux maps Sources within 250 Mpc are treated individually, assuming equal intrinsic luminosity For sources beyond 250 Mpc a uniform component is added 0000000 1111111 000000000 1 00000000 00000000 00000000 UNIFORM DISCRETE SOURCES 00000000 DISTRIBUTION 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 D max 00000 11111 Deriving model predictions Statistical test Main parameter smearing angle θ s

Generating flux maps For a given direction, we sum contributions of point sources and uniform component resulting flux smearing angle θ s Deriving model predictions Statistical test sources from the catalog θ,φ Modulate with exposure

C: Centaurus supercluster (60 Mpc); Ca: Canes I group (4 Mpc) and Canes II group (9 Mpc); Co: Coma cluster (90 Mpc); E: Eridanus cluster (30 Mpc); F: Fornax cluster (20 Mpc); He: Hercules superclusters (140 Mpc); Hy: Hydra supercluster (50 Mpc); L: Leo supercluster (130 Mpc), Leo I group (10 Mpc), and Deriving model predictions Statistical test Leo II group (20 Mpc); M81: M81 group (4 Mpc); M101: M101 group (8 Mpc); P: Pegasus cluster (60 Mpc); PI: Pavo-Indus supercluster (70 Mpc); PC: Pisces- Cetus supercluster (250 Mpc); PP: Perseus-Pisces supercluster (70 Mpc); S: Shapley supercluster (200 Mpc); UM: Ursa Ma jor supercluster (240 Mpc), Ursa Ma jor North group (20 Mpc), and Ursa Ma jor South group (20 Mpc); V: Virgo cluster (20 Mpc); VII: Virgo II group (20 Mpc); VIII: Virgo III group (20 Mpc).

Deriving model predictions Statistical test E > 10 EeV

Deriving model predictions Statistical test E > 40 EeV

Deriving model predictions Statistical test E > 57 EeV

Flux sampling test Deriving model predictions Statistical test Events following the model would produce uniform distribution over the bands No binning is needed (on the picture it is for illustration only): two distributions may be compared by the KS test

Flux sampling test Deriving model predictions Statistical test Events following the model would produce uniform distribution over the bands No binning is needed (on the picture it is for illustration only): two distributions may be compared by the KS test

Flux sampling test Deriving model predictions Statistical test Events following the model would produce uniform distribution over the bands No binning is needed (on the picture it is for illustration only): two distributions may be compared by the KS test

Flux sampling test Deriving model predictions Statistical test Events following the model would produce uniform distribution over the bands No binning is needed (on the picture it is for illustration only): two distributions may be compared by the KS test

For this analysis we choose: Three energy thresholds: E > 10 EeV, E > 40 EeV, E > 57 EeV Confidence level CL=95% Smearing angle 2 < θ s < 15

For this analysis we choose: Three energy thresholds: E > 10 EeV, E > 40 EeV, E > 57 EeV Confidence level CL=95% Smearing angle 2 < θ s < 15

For this analysis we choose: Three energy thresholds: E > 10 EeV, E > 40 EeV, E > 57 EeV Confidence level CL=95% Smearing angle 2 < θ s < 15

For this analysis we choose: Three energy thresholds: E > 10 EeV, E > 40 EeV, E > 57 EeV Confidence level CL=95% Smearing angle 2 < θ s < 15

At energy thresholds E > 40 EeV and E > 57 EeV the HiRes data are incompatible with the matter tracer model at the 95% CL for smearing angles θ s < 10, but are compatible with the isotropic distribution At energy threshold E > 10 EeV the data are compatible with both matter tracer model and the isotropic distribution = HiRes data favor large cosmic ray deflections at high energies.

At energy thresholds E > 40 EeV and E > 57 EeV the HiRes data are incompatible with the matter tracer model at the 95% CL for smearing angles θ s < 10, but are compatible with the isotropic distribution At energy threshold E > 10 EeV the data are compatible with both matter tracer model and the isotropic distribution = HiRes data favor large cosmic ray deflections at high energies.

At energy thresholds E > 40 EeV and E > 57 EeV the HiRes data are incompatible with the matter tracer model at the 95% CL for smearing angles θ s < 10, but are compatible with the isotropic distribution At energy threshold E > 10 EeV the data are compatible with both matter tracer model and the isotropic distribution = HiRes data favor large cosmic ray deflections at high energies.

vs. isotropic distribution.

Distribution of KS test statistics for matter tracer model ( Structure ) and isotropic distribution (E = 57 EeV and θ s = 3.2 ).

Fraction of integral CR flux that survives after traveling distance D.

Fraction of the total CR flux collected from distances within 250 Mpc.

Number of events required for 50% chance to rule out the matter tracer model if the true flux is isotropic.