1. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 1 Galactic Cosmic Rays Igor V. Moskalenko Stanford & KIPAC Igor V. Moskalenko Stanford & KIPAC

2. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 2 Contents  Brief introduction to propagation of CRs  Direct measurements  Indirect measurements: diffuse gamma-ray emission  CR in other normal galaxies  Leptons in the heliosphere (Nicola Giglietto’s talk)  GALPROP: New and free service “webrun”. Registered users can run the considerably improved version of GALPROP on our new cluster (~200 cores and Terabytes of storage) using the Web interface. Goes on-line in the first week of August  Brief introduction to propagation of CRs  Direct measurements  Indirect measurements: diffuse gamma-ray emission  CR in other normal galaxies  Leptons in the heliosphere (Nicola Giglietto’s talk)  GALPROP: New and free service “webrun”. Registered users can run the considerably improved version of GALPROP on our new cluster (~200 cores and Terabytes of storage) using the Web interface. Goes on-line in the first week of August

3. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 3 Introduction

4. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 4 CR Propagation: Milky Way Galaxy Halo Gas, sources 100 pc 50 kpc 4-12 kpc 0.1-0.01/ccm 1-100/ccm Intergalactic space 1 kpc ~ 3×10 21 cm R Band image of NGC891 1.4 GHz continuum (NVSS), 1,2,…64 mJy/ beam Optical image: Cheng et al. 1992, Brinkman et al. 1993 Radio contours: Condon et al. 1998 AJ 115, 1693 Optical image: Cheng et al. 1992, Brinkman et al. 1993 Radio contours: Condon et al. 1998 AJ 115, 1693 NGC891 Sun “Flat halo” model (Ginzburg & Ptuskin 1976)

5. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 5 CRs in the Interstellar Medium PHeCNOPHeCNO X,γ ISRF LiBeBLiBeB ISM diffusion energy losses energy losses diffusive reacceleration diffusive reacceleration convection convection production of production of secondaries secondariesdiffusion energy losses energy losses diffusive reacceleration diffusive reacceleration convection convection production of production of secondaries secondaries IC bremss ACE helio-modulation pp HeCNOHeCNO Flux 20 GeV/n CR species:  Only 1 location  modulation CR species:  Only 1 location  modulation PAMELA BESS WIMP annihil. WIMP P,P, X,γ synchrotron

6. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 6 Elemental Abundances: CR vs. Solar System CR abundances: ACE Solar system abundances LiBeB CNO F Fe ScTiV CrMn Si Cl Al “input” “output” Cosmic ray vs. solar system abundances, normalized to Si=100

7. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 7 Secondary/primary nuclei ratio & CR propagation Using secondary/primary nuclei ratio (B/C) & radioactive isotopes (e.g. Be 10 ):  Diffusion coefficient and its index  Galactic halo size Z h  Propagation mode and its parameters (e.g., reacceleration V A, convection V z )  Propagation parameters are model-dependent Using secondary/primary nuclei ratio (B/C) & radioactive isotopes (e.g. Be 10 ):  Diffusion coefficient and its index  Galactic halo size Z h  Propagation mode and its parameters (e.g., reacceleration V A, convection V z )  Propagation parameters are model-dependent Z h increase Be 10 /Be 9 Typical parameters (model dependent): D ~ 10 28 (ρ/1 GV) α cm 2 /s α ≈ 0.3-0.6 Z h ~ 4-6 kpc; V A ~ 30 km/s3 Typical parameters (model dependent): D ~ 10 28 (ρ/1 GV) α cm 2 /s α ≈ 0.3-0.6 Z h ~ 4-6 kpc; V A ~ 30 km/s3 Interstellar

8. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 8 Secondary to primary nuclei ratios: B/C ratio The B/C ratio <30 GeV/n measured by Pamela is consistent with earlier measurements (no surprises) Statistical errors only Sparvoli’09 PAMELA Very preliminary! PAMELA Very preliminary! The propagation models’ predictions differ at high energies which will allow to discriminate between them when more accurate data are available CREAM Ahn+’08CREAM 0.3 0.6 models tuned to the data models tuned to the data different model predictions different model predictions 0.5

9. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 9 Being tuned to one type of secondary/primary ratio (e.g. B/C ratio) propagation models should be automatically consistent with all secondary/primary ratios:  sub-Fe/Fe  He 3 /He 4  pbar/p Being tuned to one type of secondary/primary ratio (e.g. B/C ratio) propagation models should be automatically consistent with all secondary/primary ratios:  sub-Fe/Fe  He 3 /He 4  pbar/p Secondary to primary nuclei ratios: sub-Fe/Fe Jones+’01 (Sc+Ti+V)/Fe ATICATIC Ti/Fe The rise in Ti/Fe ratio above ~100 GeV/nucleon is inconsistent with B/C ratio. Measurements of sub-Fe/Fe ratio is more challenging because of the smaller flux and charge is harder to discriminate

10. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 10 Diffusion coefficient in different models Plain diffusion Plain diffusion Diffusive Reacceleration (Kolmogorov) Diffusive Reacceleration (Kolmogorov) Reacceleration with damping Reacceleration with damping ~R 0.6 ~β -3 extrapolation Ptuskin+’06  The diffusion coefficient is model- dependent and is derived from secondary/primary nuclei ratio below ~100 GV  It is extrapolated above this energy  The diffusion coefficient is model- dependent and is derived from secondary/primary nuclei ratio below ~100 GV  It is extrapolated above this energy data

11. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 11 Energy losses of nucleons  The ionization and Coulomb losses are calculated for the gas number density 0.01 cm -3  The energy losses by nucleons can be neglected above ~1 GeV  Nuclear interactions are more important  The ionization and Coulomb losses are calculated for the gas number density 0.01 cm -3  The energy losses by nucleons can be neglected above ~1 GeV  Nuclear interactions are more important

12. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 12 Total inelastic nuclear cross sections E kin, MeV/nucleon  The inelastic cross section gives a probability of interaction  Rises with the atomic number as ~A 2/3  As the result of interaction the original nucleus is destroyed  The inelastic cross section gives a probability of interaction  Rises with the atomic number as ~A 2/3  As the result of interaction the original nucleus is destroyed Wellisch & Axen 1996

13. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 13 Effective propagation distance: LE nuclei  The interaction time scale at ~1 GeV – 1 TeV: τ ~ L/c ~ [σnc] -1 ~ 3×10 13 /[0.25 (A/12) 2/3 ] s ~ 3×10 6 yr (A/12) -2/3 σ Carbon (A=12) ≈ 250 mb  The diffusion coefficient (4 kpc halo): D ~ 3×10 28 R 1/2 cm 2 /s, R – rigidity in GV  Effective propagation distance: ~ √6Dτ ~ 4.5×10 21 R 1/4 (A/12) -1/3 cm ~ 1.5 kpc R 1/4 (A/12) -1/3 Helium: ~ 2.1 kpc R 1/4 Carbon: ~ 1.5 kpc R 1/4  0.36% of the surface area (25 kpc radius) Iron: ~ 0.9 kpc R 1/4  0.16% (anti-) protons:~ 6 kpc R 1/4  5.76%  γ-rays: probe CR p (pbar) and e ± spectra in the whole Galaxy ~50 kpc across  The interaction time scale at ~1 GeV – 1 TeV: τ ~ L/c ~ [σnc] -1 ~ 3×10 13 /[0.25 (A/12) 2/3 ] s ~ 3×10 6 yr (A/12) -2/3 σ Carbon (A=12) ≈ 250 mb  The diffusion coefficient (4 kpc halo): D ~ 3×10 28 R 1/2 cm 2 /s, R – rigidity in GV  Effective propagation distance: ~ √6Dτ ~ 4.5×10 21 R 1/4 (A/12) -1/3 cm ~ 1.5 kpc R 1/4 (A/12) -1/3 Helium: ~ 2.1 kpc R 1/4 Carbon: ~ 1.5 kpc R 1/4  0.36% of the surface area (25 kpc radius) Iron: ~ 0.9 kpc R 1/4  0.16% (anti-) protons:~ 6 kpc R 1/4  5.76%  γ-rays: probe CR p (pbar) and e ± spectra in the whole Galaxy ~50 kpc across

14. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 14 Direct probes of CR propagation  Direct measurements probe a very small volume of the Galaxy  The propagation distances are shown for rigidity ~1 GV  Direct measurements probe a very small volume of the Galaxy  The propagation distances are shown for rigidity ~1 GV 50 kpc p C Fe

15. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 15 Energy losses of electrons  The ionization and Coulomb losses are calculated for the gas number density 0.01 cm -3  Energy density of the radiation and magnetic fields 1 eV cm -3 (Thomson regime)  The ionization and Coulomb losses are calculated for the gas number density 0.01 cm -3  Energy density of the radiation and magnetic fields 1 eV cm -3 (Thomson regime)

16. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 16 Effective propagation distance: HE electrons  The energy loss time scale (IC) at ~1 GeV – 1 TeV: τ ~ 300 E 12 −1 kyr ~ 10 13 E 12 −1 s; E 12 – energy in TeV  The diffusion coefficient: D ~ (0.5-1)×10 30 E 12 1/2 cm 2 /s  Effective propagation distance: ~ √6Dτ ~ 5×10 21 E 12 −1/4 cm ~ 1 kpc E 12 −1/4 ~ a few kpc at 10 GeV  The cutoff energy of the electron spectrum ~1 TeV can be used to estimate the distance to the local HE electron sources: ≥ a few 100 pc.  The energy loss time scale (IC) at ~1 GeV – 1 TeV: τ ~ 300 E 12 −1 kyr ~ 10 13 E 12 −1 s; E 12 – energy in TeV  The diffusion coefficient: D ~ (0.5-1)×10 30 E 12 1/2 cm 2 /s  Effective propagation distance: ~ √6Dτ ~ 5×10 21 E 12 −1/4 cm ~ 1 kpc E 12 −1/4 ~ a few kpc at 10 GeV  The cutoff energy of the electron spectrum ~1 TeV can be used to estimate the distance to the local HE electron sources: ≥ a few 100 pc.

17. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 17 Direct probes of CR propagation  Direct measurements probe a very small volume of the Galaxy  The propagation distances are shown for nuclei for rigidity ~1 GV, and for electrons ~1 TeV  Direct measurements probe a very small volume of the Galaxy  The propagation distances are shown for nuclei for rigidity ~1 GV, and for electrons ~1 TeV 50 kpc p, 10 GeV e C Fe, TeV e

18. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 18 Fermi/LAT PAMELA A Constellation of CR and gamma-ray (also CR!) instruments pbar đ,α e + e - p He Z≤8 8<Z≤28 Z>28 WIMPs pbar đ,α e + e - p He Z≤8 8<Z≤28 Z>28 WIMPs 1 MeV/n 1 GeV/n 1 TeV/n TIGER BESS-Polar TRACER HEAO-3 Fermi/LAT BESS-Polar AMS-I BESS-Polar AMS-I ACE HESS Magic Milagro Veritas HESS Magic Milagro Veritas Integral COMPTEL EGRET COMPTEL EGRET BESS-Polar ATIC CREAM ATIC CREAM AMS-I HEAT WMAP CAPRICE anti-matter matter SUSY −

19. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 19 Direct measurements

20. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 20 Recent experiments in cosmic rays  ATIC electrons (Chang+2008): 360+  PPB-BETS electrons (Torii+2008): 150+  Fermi LAT electrons (Abdo+2009): 310+  HESS electrons (Aharonian+2008, 2009): 280+  PAMELA positron fraction (Adriani+2009): 530+ leptons in CRs total: 1600+ citations in ~2 years!  PAMELA antiprotons (Adriani+2009): 240+ citations  BESS program (only journal papers): 1000+ citations Of course, most of citations are coming from particle physics ★ using NASA ADS/June 2010  ATIC electrons (Chang+2008): 360+  PPB-BETS electrons (Torii+2008): 150+  Fermi LAT electrons (Abdo+2009): 310+  HESS electrons (Aharonian+2008, 2009): 280+  PAMELA positron fraction (Adriani+2009): 530+ leptons in CRs total: 1600+ citations in ~2 years!  PAMELA antiprotons (Adriani+2009): 240+ citations  BESS program (only journal papers): 1000+ citations Of course, most of citations are coming from particle physics ★ using NASA ADS/June 2010

21. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 21 Positron fraction  The excess in the CR positron fraction relative to the predictions of secondary production models is confirmed by Pamela and extended to higher energies (up to ~100 GeV)  Additional positron component?  Charge sign dependence below ~10 GeV is expected  The excess in the CR positron fraction relative to the predictions of secondary production models is confirmed by Pamela and extended to higher energies (up to ~100 GeV)  Additional positron component?  Charge sign dependence below ~10 GeV is expected Adriani+’08Adriani+’08 Solar modulation GALPROP

22. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 22 Antiprotons Antiprotons in CRs (BESS, Pamela) <200 GeV are in agreement with secondary production PAMELAPAMELA − GALPROP - - Donato+’01 − GALPROP - - Donato+’01 − GALPROP … Donato+’09 - - Simon+’98 − GALPROP … Donato+’09 - - Simon+’98 Adriani+’10 PAMELAPAMELA

23. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 23 Fermi measurements of leptons in CR What’s here? HESS FermiFermi  Recently extended down to 7 GeV  High statistics: ~8M events (7 GeV – 1 TeV) in 1 year  Errors dominated by systematic uncertainties  No evidence of a prominent spectral feature  Analysis of events with high energy resolution in progress to confirm spectral shape  Recently extended down to 7 GeV  High statistics: ~8M events (7 GeV – 1 TeV) in 1 year  Errors dominated by systematic uncertainties  No evidence of a prominent spectral feature  Analysis of events with high energy resolution in progress to confirm spectral shape

24. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 24 Interpretation of CR electron data  CR electron spectrum is consistent with a single power-law with index -3.05  Can be reproduced well by the propagation models  Multi-component interpretation is also possible –Dark matter contribution –Astrophysical sources (SNR, pulsars) –…  CR electron spectrum is consistent with a single power-law with index -3.05  Can be reproduced well by the propagation models  Multi-component interpretation is also possible –Dark matter contribution –Astrophysical sources (SNR, pulsars) –… The key to understanding the electron spectrum (local vs global) is the origin of the positron excess and the diffuse gamma-ray emission Kobayashi+’03

25. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 25 CR protons & He  The CR proton and He spectra by Pamela agree well with previous measurements  He spectrum is significantly flatter (~0.13 in index), but consistent with the proton index within the error bars  A hint on their different origin?  No surprises for production of secondary particles and diffuse gammas  The CR proton and He spectra by Pamela agree well with previous measurements  He spectrum is significantly flatter (~0.13 in index), but consistent with the proton index within the error bars  A hint on their different origin?  No surprises for production of secondary particles and diffuse gammas protons He PAMELA Picozza’09 H: -2.752±0.071 He: -2.624±0.122 IM+’02

26. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 26 p and He spectral hardening at HE Statistically significant spectral hardening and heavier composition at HE is reported by ATIC and confirmed by CREAM Panov+’09 Ahn+’10 CREAM ATIC

27. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 27 Heavy nuclei at high energies  Ratios of the mostly primary nuclei are independent on the energy pointing to a similar origin and the same acceleration mechanism  The spectral slopes of He and heavier nuclei are the same at HE and flatter than protons  A significant fraction of N is secondary – steeper spectrum; about 10% is primary  Ratios of the mostly primary nuclei are independent on the energy pointing to a similar origin and the same acceleration mechanism  The spectral slopes of He and heavier nuclei are the same at HE and flatter than protons  A significant fraction of N is secondary – steeper spectrum; about 10% is primary Ahn+’10 C/O CREAM Ne/O Si/O N/O Mg/O Fe/O

28. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 28 Good Xsections Well-known Differences in models CR source isotopic abundances The first time that a realistic propagation model (GALPROP) has been used to derive isotopic source abundances ! 41 Ca*, 53 Mn*  Two K-capture isotopes are present in the sources! -- 41 Ca*, 53 Mn*  Could tell us about the origin of CRs -- supports “volatility” hypothesis, but needs more analysis 41 Ca*, 53 Mn*  Two K-capture isotopes are present in the sources! -- 41 Ca*, 53 Mn*  Could tell us about the origin of CRs -- supports “volatility” hypothesis, but needs more analysis Solar system Reacceleration Plain diffusion Solar system Reacceleration Plain diffusion IVM+’07

29. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 29 Cosmic ray sources  Some isotopes in CR sources are more abundant than in the solar system  May indicate that ~20% of CR particles are coming from WR star winds  Some isotopes in CR sources are more abundant than in the solar system  May indicate that ~20% of CR particles are coming from WR star winds Binns+’05

30. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 30 Heavy Nuclei in CRs  Produced in SN explosions  Abundances drop quickly with Z  Local: very large inelastic cross section – small effective propagation distances  Produced in SN explosions  Abundances drop quickly with Z  Local: very large inelastic cross section – small effective propagation distances Nucleus Charge Fe Wiedenbeck+2007

31. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 31 The origin of cosmic rays  Cosmic ray acceleration seems to prefer refractory elements over volatile and does not depend on FIP, although most of refractory elements also have low ionization potential  Mixed with 20% of the WR wind outflow, the CR source composition/Solar system ratio shows a clear trend: ~A 2/3 for volatile and ~A for refractory elements  This dependence is yet to be understood  Cosmic ray acceleration seems to prefer refractory elements over volatile and does not depend on FIP, although most of refractory elements also have low ionization potential  Mixed with 20% of the WR wind outflow, the CR source composition/Solar system ratio shows a clear trend: ~A 2/3 for volatile and ~A for refractory elements  This dependence is yet to be understood TIGER Rauch+’09 TIGER Rauch+’09

32. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 32 Sources of high energy cosmic rays  A similar trend appears also at high energy, although with larger error bars  A single acceleration mechanism for LE and HE cosmic rays?  A similar trend appears also at high energy, although with larger error bars  A single acceleration mechanism for LE and HE cosmic rays? CREAM Ahn+’10 CREAM Ahn+’10

33. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 33 Fermi-LAT: First 3 Months Skymap (Counts) Indirect mearurements: Diffuse gamma-ray emission Indirect mearurements: Diffuse gamma-ray emission The diffuse emission is the brightest source on the sky: ~80% of all photons

34. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 34 Geminga pulsar Milagro C3 Geminga pulsar Milagro C3 Pulsar (AGILE/Fermi) MGRO 2019+37 Pulsar (AGILE/Fermi) MGRO 2019+37 Fermi Pulsar SNR g Cygni Fermi Pulsar HESS, Milagro, Magic Fermi Pulsar SNR g Cygni Fermi Pulsar HESS, Milagro, Magic Fermi Pulsar Milagro (C4) 3EG 2227+6122 Boomerang PWN Fermi Pulsar Milagro (C4) 3EG 2227+6122 Boomerang PWN SNR IC433 MAGIC, VERITAS SNR IC433 MAGIC, VERITAS Radio pulsar (new TeV source) Radio pulsar (new TeV source) unID (new TeV source) unID (new TeV source) unID (new TeV source) Fermi Pulsar MGRO 1908+06 HESS 1908+063 unID (new TeV source) Fermi Pulsar MGRO 1908+06 HESS 1908+063 SNR W51 HESS J1923+141 SNR W51 HESS J1923+141 G65.1+0.6 (SNR) Fermi Pulsar (J1958) New TeV sources G65.1+0.6 (SNR) Fermi Pulsar (J1958) New TeV sources G.Sinnis G.Sinnis’09 Milagro: TeV observations of Fermi sources Many γ-ray sources show extended structures at HE – thus they are also the sources of accelerated particles (CRs)

35. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 35 Fermi-LAT: diffuse gammas  Conventional GALPROP model is in agreement with the Fermi-LAT data at mid-latitudes (mostly local emission)  The EGRET “GeV excess” is not confirmed  This means that we understand the basics of cosmic ray propagation and calculate correctly interstellar gas and radiation field, at least, locally  Conventional GALPROP model is in agreement with the Fermi-LAT data at mid-latitudes (mostly local emission)  The EGRET “GeV excess” is not confirmed  This means that we understand the basics of cosmic ray propagation and calculate correctly interstellar gas and radiation field, at least, locally model Abdo+’09

36. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 36 Diffuse emission at low- to high Galactic latitudes Mid-latitudes Low latitudes High latitudes  The GALPROP predictions agree well with the LAT data  Pion-decay and inverse Compton emission are two dominant components – allow us to probe the average CR proton and electron spectra along the line of sight

37. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 37 Diffuse Gammas – Local Spectrum  The spectrum of the local gas, after the subtraction of the IC emission, agrees well with the GALPROP predictions  Confirms that the local proton spectrum is similar to that derived from direct measurements  The spectrum of the local gas, after the subtraction of the IC emission, agrees well with the GALPROP predictions  Confirms that the local proton spectrum is similar to that derived from direct measurements Abdo+’09

38. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 38 Milky Way as electron calorimeter  Calculations for Z halo = 4 kpc  Leptons lose ~60% of their energy  γ-rays: 50-50 by nucleons and by leptons  Calculations for Z halo = 4 kpc  Leptons lose ~60% of their energy  γ-rays: 50-50 by nucleons and by leptons Total gamma rays 1.6% Total gamma rays 1.6% Neutral pions 0.85% Neutral pions 0.85% Synchrotron 0.35% Synchrotron 0.35% Bremsstrahlung 0.15% Bremsstrahlung 0.15% Inverse Compton 0.58% Inverse Compton 0.58% Primary electrons 1.41% Primary electrons 1.41% Primary nucleons 98.6% Primary nucleons 98.6% Cosmic rays 7.90×10 40 erg/s Cosmic rays 7.90×10 40 erg/s Secondary leptons e + : 0.33% e − : 0.10% Secondary leptons e + : 0.33% e − : 0.10% 0.06% (13.5%) 0.09% (6.6%) 0.1% (21.1%) 0.5% (34.8%) 0.06% (13.4%) 0.29% (20.8%) 0.16% (34.6%) 0.59% (41.4%) * The percentages in brackets show the values relative to the luminosity of their respective lepton populations

39. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 39 Other normal galaxies

40. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 40 Cosmic rays in other normal galaxies (LMC) After background subtraction Milky Way LMC

41. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 41 Starburst Galaxies: M82, NGC 253 The relationship between the gas mass, SNR rate, and gamma-ray luminosities in normal galaxies: LMC, Milky Way, M82, NGC 253 LMC NGC 253 M82 MW

42. 38 th COSPAR, Bremen – July 18, 2010 :: IVM/Stanford-KIPAC 42 Thank you ! Thank you ! You are here