Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Recent Progress in Understanding Particle Acceleration in Astrophysical Sources: Better Observations + Bigger Computers = Neither Sources nor Acceleration.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Recent Progress in Understanding Particle Acceleration in Astrophysical Sources: Better Observations + Bigger Computers = Neither Sources nor Acceleration."— Presentation transcript:

1 Recent Progress in Understanding Particle Acceleration in Astrophysical Sources: Better Observations + Bigger Computers = Neither Sources nor Acceleration Theories Quite What Expected …. P. Coppi, Yale With apologies to D. McCray (1979) On-Demand, Ultra-Fast Reconnection (Mini-jets?) Convenient Charge Starvation and Current Sheet Topology – Direct Field (LINAC) Acceleration? Striped Jets And Winds? Fermi I, II, I.5?High σ /quasi- perpendicular shocks “Bad”? Kill σ! Weibel, Weibel, Weibel … Two beam instability? L AGN/GRB ~ 40 c/ω p, right? Wave Resonance & Breaking Drift, Kink Mode? Tearing Modes Radiation Reaction and Feedback/Drag? To Guide or Not Guide Field? m e vs. m p still annoying Injection Problem? Ion Ring Instability But Dad, MHD is so twentieth century … Hey, world is not 1.5D + homogenous or toroidal – 3D + Turbulence!? PIC 2.5D >1.5 but still < 3D

2 Recent Progress in Understanding Particle Acceleration in Astrophysical Sources? With apologies to D. McCray + K. Nalewajko Dobje, dobje …

3 (Nature 2007)

4 HADRONIC LEPTONIC Morlino, Amato & PB 2009 RXJ1713 From P. Blasi, Brasil lectures

5 RXJ1713 with fermi data 1.e/p Equilibration downstream? (Morlino et al. 2009) 2.Very low value of K ep at given time 3.Lines from non-equilibrium ionization ? (Ellison et al. 2010) 4.What are those Fermi data points telling us?

6 A Puzzling situation Courtesy of S. Funk Most SNR detected by Fermi have steep spectra (some exceptions, such as RXJ1713) The predicted spectra would naively require steep diffusion D(E)~E 0.7 in conflict with anisotropy measurements

7 Marshall et al. 2010 Pictor A rapid X-ray Variability? Centaurus A - Chandra

8 Two components! Optical polarized  Synchrotron  TeV+ electrons! Uchiyama et al. 2007

9 Usual Observer Questions for particle acceleration people… What fraction of free energy goes into protons vs. electrons? What are overall acceleration efficiencies? What’s the electron energy spectrum? [Probably there are multiple acceleration/dissipation regions – what are energy >spectra< and how do they depend on ambient parameters?] Marek believes jet is kinetic dominated by the end (?) – is there a preferred conversion region/location? Why? Termination shock analog Crab? Pair loading (breeder)? Mass entrainment/baryon loading? How fast can you make things go? (PKS 2155 o.k.?) Coherent processes important or not? (High brightness temperature cores?) Anything interesting at boundary layer ? (cf. sheath/spine geometry? Edge brightening?) How much turbulence do you need/expect/what generates it?

10 Tammi & Duffy 2009 – no problem with “conventional” acceleration timescales in PKS 2155?

11 RXTE ASM May-June 2002 1959 flares! (RXTE TOO) TIMESCALES: TeV (and GeV) blazars appear to have discrete “flare” states… : vs. 6 hr rapid variability timescale in Mrk 421?? Takahashi et al. 2001 Structure Function

12 Steady X-Ray Component?? N.B. June 1997 data (after main flaring) included! The stability problem… Linear Axes! Key – 3 keV flux tracks TeV flux relatively poorly

13 3C 454.3 2009 Flare – SMARTS + Fermi (Chatterjee et al.)

14 Oops!! -- 1ES1959 May-Aug 2002 Krawczynski et al. 2004 Multiple Emission Components!

15 In case you still thought things were simple… Mkn 421 2002 X-ray/TeV campaign (Dieter Horns, preliminary) X-ray TeV X-ray hardness ratio (spectrum) Counts

16 G. Senturk et al. 2011

17

18 Neronov et al. 2011 Markarian 501 – Just after the big multi-wavelength campaign

19 One zone fit to 3C 454.3 Dec 2-3 2009, Bonoli et al. X-gamma + SMARTS NIR/opt

20 0235 PKS 1510 PKS 2155OJ 287 Bonning et al. (SMARTS) STATES!? Different Components??

21 Radio Quiet vs. FSRQ Optical Variability (Bauer et al. 2009, QUEST)

22

23 Some phenomenological observations/clues/questions – To me, seems like we often need E min for acceleration process? Agreed? Is it obviously γ min ~ 2σ 1/2 (m p /m e )? Do we actually need a large range of γ? Except for few cases, don’t see evidence of mono-energetic particle distribution, i.e., no pile-up (usual result for t acc < t cool ). How/why to separate emission/cooling region from acceleration region? Definitely multiple emission regions? One size/mechanism need not fit all. Blazars more dramatic than expected. Needles/mini-jets fine, but how do we avoid GRB efficiency/cannonball problems? (Really small region has to process a lot of power.)


Download ppt "Recent Progress in Understanding Particle Acceleration in Astrophysical Sources: Better Observations + Bigger Computers = Neither Sources nor Acceleration."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google