Cosmological Magnetic Fields 3/28/2017 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, bh2 = 0.02 BHubble  10-9 G (Ly- forest) BHubble  2 10-8 G (homogeneous) B50Mpc 6 10-9 G (Ly- forest) B50Mpc 10-7 G (homogeneous) BJ  10-8 G (Ly- forest) BJ  10-6 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 ~ 1015 Msolar ) B can reach 10-6 Gauss (Kronberg et al) equi-partition with gas dynamics What about in emptier regions?

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

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

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.

Composition: K. Shinozaki et al. ICRC03 AGASA Composition: K. Shinozaki et al. ICRC03 Muon density E0 ≥1019eV q≤36º Fe frac. (@90% CL): < 35% (1019 –1019.5 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 (@90%CL) 34% (>1019eV) (g/p<0.45) 56% (>1019.5eV) (g/p<1.27)

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

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

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

Polarization

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

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

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 1 - 21 mirrors HiRes 2 - 42 mirrors Dugway (Utah) start ‘97HR1 ‘99HR2

Systematic off-set Thanks to D. Bergman

systematic errors in by hand… 30% in order to reconcile low energy data (1018.5-1019.5 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 GZK @ 1.5 sigma number of events above 1020eV: GZK cutoff DeMarco et al (ICRC03)

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

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

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

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

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

Pierre Auger Project 3000 km2 - 1600 water tank array

Auger South 130 tanks on +40 EA

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

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

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

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

Matter Distribution A. Kravtsov

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

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

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

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

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

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 !!

Concluding UHECRs can map Magnetic Fields in Intergalactic Medium ( B ~ 1 - 10 nG) and the Galaxy (polarization). Need complete simulations + Better UHECR data Watch for Auger S + N

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

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

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

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 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)

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

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

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 

simulations with point sources AGASA multiplets simulations with point sources B=0 resol.=2.5º g=2.6 m=0 E > 4 1019 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 - 180-360 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)

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 > 1018.5 eV Cygnus X-3 Dipole limit: Gal. Center, Centaurus A, M-87 HiRes-I Monocular Data, E > 1019.5 eV HiRes-I Monocular Data, E > 1018.5 eV Upper limit of 4 doublets (90% c.l.) in HiRes-I monocular dataset.

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

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 ~ 10-9 - 10-11 G

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

Most Recent Exposures Thanks to HiRes and AGASA Collaborations

Too Low Statistics for clear GZK or no-GZK determination Emax=1021.5 eV HiRes AGASA DDM, Blasi, Olinto 2003, AP in press DDM, Blasi, Olinto 2003, AP in press number of events above 1020eV: no GZK @ 2.5 sigma number of events above 1020eV: GZK cutoff DeMarco et al (ICRC03)