Date post: | 03-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | damian-lambert |
View: | 219 times |
Download: | 3 times |
1
Multi-TeV Observation on the Galactic Cosmic Ray Anisotropy in the Tail-In and Cygnus Regions
by the Tibet-III Air Shower Array
C. T. Yan
08 / 12 / 2006
Inst. for Cosmic Ray Research, Univ. of Tokyo
” Locating PeV Cosmic-Ray Accelerators: Future Detectors in Multi-TeV Gamma-Ray Astronomy ” 6 – 8 December, 2006 - Adelaide, Australia
For the Tibet AS Collaboration
** **
2
The Tibet ASThe Tibet AS Collaboration Collaboration
M.Amenomori,1 S.Ayabe,2 X.J.Bi,3 D.Chen,4 S.W.Cui,5 Danzengluobu,6 L.K.Ding,3 X.H.Ding, 6
C.F.Feng,7 Zhaoyang Feng,3 Z.Y.Feng,8 X.Y.Gao,9 Q.X.Geng,9 H.W.Guo,6 H.H.He,3 M.He,7 K.Hibino,10
N.Hotta,11 HaibingHu,6 H.B.Hu,3 J.Huang,12 Q.Huang,8 H.Y.Jia,8 F.Kajino,13 K.Kasahara,14Y.Katayose,4
C.Kato,15 K.Kawata,12 Labaciren,6 G.M.Le,16 A.F. Li,7 J.Y.Li,7 Y.-Q. Lou,17 H.Lu,3 S.L.Lu,3 X.R.Meng,6
K.Mizutani,2,18 J.Mu,9 K.Munakata,15 A.Nagai,19 H.Nanjo,1 M.Nishizawa,20 M.Ohnishi,12 I.Ohta,21 H.Onuma,2
T.Ouchi,10 S.Ozawa,12 J.R.Ren,3 T.Saito,22 T.Y.Saito,23 M.Sakata,13 T.K.Sako,12 T.Sasaki,10 M.Shibata,4
A.Shiomi,12 T.Shirai,10 H.Sugimoto,24 M.Takita,12 Y.H.Tan,3 N.Tateyama,10 S.Torii,18 H.Tsuchiya,25
S.Udo,12 B. Wang,9 H.Wang,3 X.Wang,12 Y.G.Wang,7 H.R.Wu,3 L.Xue,7 Y.Yamamoto,13 C.T.Yan,12
X.C.Yang,9 S.Yasue,26 Z.H.Ye,16 G.C.Yu,8 A.F.Yuan,6 T.Yuda,10 H.M.Zhang,3 J.L.Zhang,3 N.J.Zhang,7
X.Y.Zhang,7 Y.Zhang,3 Yi Zhang,3 Zhaxisangzhu,6 and X.X.Zhou 8
(1) Dep. of Phys., Hirosaki Univ., Hirosaki, Japan(2) Dep. of Phys., Saitama Univ., Saitama, Japan(3) Key Lab. of Particle Astrophys., IHEP, CAS, Beijing, China(4) Fac. of Eng., Yokohama National Univ., Yokohama , Japan(5) Dep. of Phys., Hebei Normal Univ., Shijiazhuang, China(6) Dep. of Math. and Phys., Tibet Univ., Lhasa, China(7) Dep. of Phys., Shandong Univ., Jinan, China(8) Inst. of Modern Phys., South West Jiaotong Univ., Chengdu, China(9) Dep. of Phys., Yunnan Univ., Kunming, China(10) Fac. of Eng., Kanagawa Univ, Yokohama, Japan(11) Fac. f of Educ., Utsunomiya Univ., Utsunomiya, Japan(12) ICRR., Univ. of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan(13) Dep of Phys., Konan Univ., Kobe, Japan(14) Fac. of Systems Eng., Shibaura Inst. of Tech., Saitama, Japan
(15) Dep. of Phys., Shinshu Univ., Matsumoto, Japan(16) Center of Space Sci. and Application Research, CAS, Beijing, China(17) Phys. Dep. and Tsinghua Center for Astrophys., Tsinghua Univ., Beijing, China (18) Advanced Research Inst. for Sci. and Engin., Waseda Univ., Tokyo, Japan(19) Advanced Media Network Center, Utsunomiya University, Utsunomiya, Japan(20) National Inst. of Info., Tokyo, Japan(21) Tochigi Study Center, Univ. of the Air, Utsunomiya, Japan(22) Tokyo Metropolitan College of Industrial Tech., Tokyo, Japan(23) Max-Planck-Institut fuer Physik, Muenchen, Germany (24) Shonan Inst. of Tech., Fujisawa, Japan(25) RIKEN, Wako, Japan(26) School of General Educ.,Shinshu Univ., Matsumoto, Japan
3
OutlineOutline • The Tibet air-shower array
• Anisotropy of galactic cosmic rays (*)Anisotropy of galactic cosmic rays (*)• The tail-in and loss-cone model
• Gamma/hadron separation methodGamma/hadron separation method– Discrimination of gamma/hadron in the array– Gamma/Hadrons judgment by comparisons (**)
• Back-check by the Crab Nebula
• Investigation on two anisotropy componentsInvestigation on two anisotropy components– The ‘tail-in’ anisotropy component– Excesses from the Cygnus region (***)
• Conclusive remarks
4
The Tibet air shower array
View around the Tibet III array (90.52E, 30.10N;4300m a.s.l.) in 2003
– Located at an elevation of 4300 m (Yangbajing in Tibet, China)
– Atmospheric depth 606 g / cm2
– Wide field of view ( ~ 2 sr field of view)– High duty cycle ( > 90%)– Modal energy: ~ 3 TeV– Angular resolution: ~ 0.9o – Data sample used (1997 ~ 2005, 37 * 109)
Large-scaleLarge-scaleobservationobservation
5
Anisotropy of galactic cosmic rays
4.0 TeV
6.2 TeV
12 TeV
50 TeV
300 TeV
From Science, V314, pp.439 – 443 (2006), by the analysis method (I)
i) Temporal variation
ii) Anisotropy towards the Cygnus regionAnisotropy towards the Cygnus region
iii) Energy dependency
iv) Anisotropy fade away ~ 300 TeV
6
loss-cone
tail-inGalactic plane
Tail-in and loss-cone model of the anisotropyTail-in and loss-cone model of the anisotropy
1) Heliospheric magnetic field is not enough for TeV CR anisotropy.2) TeV CR anisotropy should be caused by the Local Interstellar Could (~ a few pc).
RRLL~ ~ 0.01pc0.01pc (for 10TeV proton in 1mG) (for 10TeV proton in 1mG)
Ref: K. Nagashima, K. Fujimoto, R.M. Jacklyn, J. Geophys. Res. V103, 17429 (1998).
< 1 TeV< 1 TeV
7
The Gamma/Hadron Separation
• Gamma-initiated air shower – Concentrated– Smooth– Uniformity– …
• Hadron-initiated air shower– Scattered– Large fluctuation– Sub core structure– …
• Simulations:– Corsika-6.204 for air showers– Epicsuv-8.00 for array detectors– Energy: 300 GeV – 10 PeV– E-2.7, Hadrons (comp. HD4)– E-2.6, Gamma (Crab-like)
• Data cuts:– Zenith < 45o
– Core inside array– Residual error < 1.0 m– 1.25 p / any 4– 30.0 < Sum_pFT <= 100.0
• Representative energy:Representative energy:– 4.2 TeV, Gamma– 8.1 TeV, Hadrons
• Angular resolutionAngular resolution– 0.9o
Data sample here (1999 ~ 2004, 10 * 10Data sample here (1999 ~ 2004, 10 * 1099))
8
Discrimination parameter for gamma and hadrons
• R0 distributions & survival ratios • Separation parameter– Global parameter
• Mean distance to core
• Virial distance of shower
• Hit_max to core
• Out core / All
– Cluster parameter• Num_clus / Num_hit
• Lateral distance of clus
• Steepness of clus
• Out_pixel / all_pixel
– Image (FFT) parameter • 1st freq / DC
• 2nd freq / DC
• 1st freq / All
• 2nd freq / All
where Ri is the distance between ith fitted detector
and shower core in the shower-front plane.
Gamma (MC)Gamma (MC)
Hadron (MC)Hadron (MC)
Real Data
Syst ~= 5%
9
• Rejection method
– Excess to Bkgrd Ratio (E2BR):
• E/B: E2BR before cut• E’/B’: E2BR after cut• Gamma survival ratio• Hadron survival ratio
– Expectation:• 100% gamma: E = E’• 100% hadron: E = E’’• Where E’’ = ** E’
– Hypothesis Rejection:• 100% gamma by• Quality factor1• 100% hadron by• Quality factor2
Gamma/hadron rejection and its quality factors
• Quality factors:
The key point is to compare the data sample before cut and after cut !!The key point is to compare the data sample before cut and after cut !!
10
~ 0.0046 +/- 0.00085~ 0.0046 +/- 0.00085
~ 0.0077 +/- 0.0012~ 0.0077 +/- 0.0012
~ 0.0031 +/- 0.00091~ 0.0031 +/- 0.00091
MC expected: 0.0069 +/- 0.00012
100% gamma-ray excess,
Hadron (100%) is rejected at 3.4 sigma; Data is consistent with gamma(100%) at 0.8 sigma.
Back-Check by the Crab NebulaData analysis by azimuth swapping(The standard gamma-ray source)(The standard gamma-ray source)
Before CutBefore Cut
After CutAfter Cut
ComparisonComparison
(b)
(a)
(a) (b)
Bin size: 1.7deg * 1.7 deg
11
Investigations on Two Anisotropy Components: the Tail-In and Cygnus regions
3.0 3.0 deg smootheddeg smoothed
Before CutBefore Cut
After CutAfter Cut
ComparisonComparison
100% CR excess assumption 100% gamma excess assumption
Data analysis by weighted azimuth swapping
12
Hints on the Tail-in and the Cygnus excessesHints on the Tail-in and the Cygnus excesses
Gamma-like
Hadron-like
Large-scale anisotropy removed
b = -5
b = +5
b = -5
b = +5
Search Region (II)Search Region (II)
Search Region (I)Search Region (I)
ComparisonComparison
ComparisonComparison
100%CRs Ex.
100%Gam. Ex.
Tail-InTail-In CygnusCygnus
13
• Investigation on the Tail-In anisotropy component:Investigation on the Tail-In anisotropy component:
Use it as the background source ( Is it CR !?Is it CR !? )
(Independent) bin size: 10 deg * 12 deg
““Tail-In”Tail-In” RegionRegion
14
~ 0.0025 +/- 0.00014~ 0.0025 +/- 0.00014
~ 0.0025 +/- 0.00028~ 0.0025 +/- 0.00028
~ 0.0011 +/- 0.00015~ 0.0011 +/- 0.00015
Gamma (100%) is rejected at 7.4 sigma; Data is consistent with hadron (100%) at 0.1 sigma.
If 100% gamma-ray,
from the MC expectation.
reduced Excess to Background Ratio
= 0.0014 +/- 0.0008,
Before CutBefore Cut
After CutAfter Cut
ComparisonComparison
( Is it CR !?Is it CR !? The GeV underground muon Exp. gives the answer is Yes !)
15
• Investigation on the excess from the Cygnus regionInvestigation on the excess from the Cygnus region (gamma point source, diffuse gamma-ray emissions)
After g/p cut, Excess to Background Ratio will be enhanced, if excess is from gamma. See next After g/p cut, Excess to Background Ratio will be enhanced, if excess is from gamma. See next
( Cross + is MGRO J2019+37 MGRO J2019+37) +/- 3.0 deg
Before CutBefore Cut
After CutAfter CutOnOn
Off1Off2
b = +5
b = -5
3.0 3.0 deg smootheddeg smoothed
16Hadron (100%) is rejected at 3.4 sigma; Data is consistent with gamma (100%) at 1.8 sigma.
Hadron Rejection:Hadron Rejection: onon & & offoff the Galactic plane
onon
Cygnus Region
~ 0.00065 +/- 0.00022~ 0.00065 +/- 0.00022
~ 0.00198 +/- 0.00045~ 0.00198 +/- 0.00045
~ 0.00133 +/- 0.00040~ 0.00133 +/- 0.00040
MC expected:0.00120 +/- 0.00045
If 100% gamma,
off1off1 off2off2
ComparisonComparison
After CutAfter Cut
Before CutBefore Cut
17
Conclusive RemarksConclusive Remarks
• The Crab excess is consistent with 100% gamma assumption at 0.8 sigma level, and 100% CRs assumption is rejected at 3.4 sigma level. (The CRs rejection is MC-independent).
• The Tail-In region anisotropy is from CRs except the small region including the Crab Nebula. 100% gamma excess assumption is rejected at 7.4 (3.5 [large-scale anisotropy removed]) sigma level. And 100% CR excess assumption is consistent at 0.1 (0.4 [large-scale anisotropy removed]) sigma level.
• As the original excess from the Cygnus region in our search window (-4.0o < b < 2.0o, 72.0o < l < 78.0o) is at 3.3 sigma level, we cannot effectively judge it is from gamma-ray or CRs. CRs rejection is at about 3.4 sigma level. And the gamma-ray consistence is at about 1.8 sigma level. Due to the fluctuations, here the result shows the excess is over gamma-like. But the (diffuse) gamma-ray emission hypothesis is slightly favored.
• Further improvement using multi-parameters is in progress.
18
Appendix: background estimationsAppendix: background estimations
• Global CR intensity fitting methods (I), (II)
• Technique of time swapping (from Milagro)
• Azimuth swapping method
• Weighted azimuth swapping method
19
Z e n i t h
O n - s o u r c e
O f f - s o u r c eO f f - s o u r c e
,o n o nI N o n
o n
I
N
o f f
o f f
I
N
2
o n o n o f f , i o f f , ii i2
t , o n 2
2 2o n o n o f f , i o f f , i
i i
N I - N I 1
χ =
N I + N I 1
2 2,
,t o t a l i t o n
t o n
I
E q u a l
,o f f o f fI N
Global CR intensity fitting method (I)
Reference: M. Amenomori, et al., ApJ. V633, 1005 (2005)
Used in the published resultUsed in the published result
20
Global CR intensity fitting method (II)
onon
b
NI
N
The background is estimated by weighted azimuth swapping
A Technique of Data Shuffling
1) Auto event and background normalizationAuto event and background normalization
2) Auto azimuth correction in swapping M.C.Auto azimuth correction in swapping M.C.