Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology

Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology
Luis A. Anchordoqui
Department of Physics and Astronomy

Lehman College, City University of New York
Lesson XII
May 8, 2016
arXiv:0706.1988
L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 1 / 45
Table of Contents
1 Multi-messenger Astronomy
Cosmic rays
Cosmic neutrinos
Gravitational waves
Looking ahead

Multi-messenger Astronomy
For biological reasons

our perception of Universe + based on observation of photons
most trivially by staring at night-sky with our bare eyes
Conventional astronomy
covers many orders of magnitude in photon wavelengths
from 104 cm radio-waves to 10−14 cm gamma rays of GeV energy
This 60 octave span in photon frequency
allows for dramatic expansion of our observational capacity
beyond approximately one octave perceivable by human eye
Above a few 100 GeV + universe becomes opaque to γ rays
because of e+ e− production on radiation background fields
Pairs synchrotron radiate on extragalactic B-field B4 annihilation
Photon flux is significantly depleted/modified en route to Earth

Mean interaction length for photons on UV, vis, IR, and 3K backgrounds
16
3K
15
14
IR
13
energy log10[E/eV]
+ −
ee
maximum of star formation

12
Eew VIS
11
first objects form

Galactic Center
UV
10
Mrk501 + −
p eep
9
8
e e
7 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
redshift z
Friday, May 6, 16 7
Roadmap for Multimessenger Astronomy
Friday, May 6, 16 13

Multi-messenger Astronomy Cosmic rays
Cosmic ray discovery (Victor Hess 1912)
●
Ionization begins to increase > 1km
●
Earth is not the only source of ionization
●
Also not (just) the sun. (try it at night)

A B
●
Coincidences higher than chance
expectation (even ~ 300m separation)
●
CR-induced Extensive Air Showers
15
●
Primary energy estimated > 10 eV ~
Chance Rate :

The 3rst enormous event
~ 20 J
John Linsley
Volcano Ranch (1952-1972)

~10 km² scintillator array 5

The Pierre Auger Observatory
●
Large exposure to capture rare events near end of the spectrum
●
Complementary (hybrid) detection techniques - good systematics
control
Mendoza Province, Argentina

Completed 2008, (3000 km2)
Northern Auger site

was proposed, but not funded
TA, Utah, USA (680 km2)
TAx4 in proposal stages
Auger collaboration : ~550 scientists, 110 institutes, 18 countries
16

Hybrid detection
N2 Quorescence
Particles sampled at ground
Fluorescence
● quasi-calirometric
●
direct view of shower evolution
●
13% duty cycle
●
Exposure depends on energy,
and atmospheric conditions
Surface
● 100% duty cycle
●
Simple geometrical exposure
●
Extracting primary energy
and mass is model dependent
17

Air shower development

1 TeV proton
Cloud chamber + lead plates
at 3000 m altitude.
18
[Fretter, 1949]

Cosmic Ray (CR)

spectrum
1 / (m² sec)
1 / (m² yr)
1 / (km² year)
LHC
6

super-dooper collider !
Evatron & Zevatron Candidates ?

(1 EeV = 1018 eV)
Hillas Plot
Acceleration sites must be
able to contain particle as it
accelerates to ~ 1020 eV
Bottom up acceleration?
●
Fermi mechanism
Acceleration in a shock
(eg AGN, SNR jet, ..)
Top down production ?

●
Decays of supermassive
relics
8
(1 pc = 3.26 light years)

Structure in the sp
(what is the physical sig
m
ni s
cha r
e e
i m ow
rm s p m
Fe dict ctru
pre spe
law

Cosmic Leg
10 5
Knee
E 2.7J(E) [GeV1.7 m−2 s−1 sr−1]
2nd Knee
Grigorov
10 4 JACEE
MGU
TienShan
Tibet07 Ankle
Akeno
CASA/MIA
Hegra
Flys Eye
Agasa
HiRes1
10 3 HiRes2
Auger SD
Auger hybrid
Kascade
10 13 10 14 10 15 10 16 10 17 10 18 10 19 10 20
E [eV]
L. A.
Friday, Anchordoqui
May 6, 16 (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 16 /845
Structure
Structure in the spectrum + what isinthethe spectrum
statistical significance?
(what is the physical signi3cance?)
i sm
an
e ch er
i m ow
rm s p m
Fe dict ctru
pre spe
law
10

Propagation from sources to Earth : a striking feature
1966 Also Zatsepin & Kuzmin
GZK suppression : Interaction with CMB degrades CR energies

11

Cosmic ray propagation in the CMB
CMB
●
photopion production
(protons)
●
photodisintegration
(complex nuclei)
energy loss ≈ 20%/interaction

12

GZK “horizon”
CR's with energies ~1020 eV should be “nearby” (~100 Mpc)

→ Anisotropy in the CR arrival directions at highest energies?
13
Magnetic 3elds and propagation

1 EeV 100 EeV
proton, 1 nG, 1 Mpc cells
-40 40 -40 40
distance (Mpc) distance (Mpc)
At high energies, charged particle astronomy becomes feasible

proton, GMF ~ µG
1 EeV 10 EeV 100 EeV
Above ~1 EeV,
protons not
containable in GMF
→ Above this energy
CR of extragalactic
origin? 14
-20 20 -2 2 -2 2
distance (kpc) 0 0 0 0

Photodisintegration in source environment + could be key ingredient
source environment EBL/CMB detection
cosmic ray

Open questions
Does the spectrum terminate as predicted? Is it GZK?
What is the physical significance of other spectral features?
Does anisotropy emerge and can we pinpoint sources?
What is the composition? + protons, nuclei, photons, exotica ?
What acceleration mechanisms are plausible ?

bottom-up (e.g. Fermi mechanism) all the way to the top?
top-down + decays of massive particles
Can we learn about HEP at c.m. energies beyond LHC reach?
Cosmic rays discovered ∼ 100 years ago.. still many open questions

Multi-messenger Astronomy Cosmic neutrinos
energy (eV)
CMB
Radio
flux !
Visible
TeV γ-rays
cosmic
leg
GeV γ-rays
PeV photons?
L. A.May
Friday, Anchordoqui
6, 16 (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 24 / 45
9
energy (eV)
CMB
Radio
flux !
Visible cosmic
leg
GeV γ-rays
γ + p → n+π+
GZK cutoff
0 + -
neutral pions
are observed as
+ -
gamma rays
e+ e-
charged pions
are observed as
e+ e-
+
neutrinos e+
e+
~ /2

Neutrino Beams: Heaven & Earth

NEUTRINO BEAMS: HEAVEN & EARTH
Black Hole
Radiation
Enveloping
Black Hole
p + -> n + +
~ cosmic ray + neutrino

-> p + 0
~ cosmic ray + gamma

IceCube

IceCube layout
IceCube Lab
IceTop
50 m
IceCube Array
AMANDA II Array
1450 m (precursor to IceCube)
DeepCore
Eiffel Tower
324 m
2450 m
2820 m
Bedrock
Event topologies
1 νe CC interaction produces EM shower which ranges out quickly
shower produces symmetric signal ⇒ poor angular resolution
fully contained shower event ⇒ precise energy measurement
same for all NC interactions + ντ CC interactions ⇔ Eντ . 3 PeV
2 νµ CC interaction generates tracks
tracks point in direction of original νµ ⇒ good angular resolution
EEM deposited represents only lower bound of true Eνµ
Eντ
3 106.5 . GeV . 107.5 ⇒ sweet spot for τ double-bang detection

Bert Ernie
gure 3: The two highest energy neutrino events reported by the IceCube Collaboration. The left panel
rresponds to the event called Bert that ocurred in August 2011, whereas the right panel shows the event in
nuary 2012, called Ernie. Each sphere represents a DOM. Colors represent the arrival times of the photons
here red indicates early and blue late times. The size of the spheres is a measure for the recorded number
photo-electrons. Figure courtesy of the IceCube Collaboration.

Big Bird

Effective Area 8 Effective Volume
FIG. 6. Distribution of deposited PMT charges (Qtot ).

Muons at higher total charges are less likely to pass the veto
layer undetected, causing the muon background (red, esti-
mated from data) to fall faster than the overall trigger rate
(uppermost line). The data events in the unshaded region, at
Qtot > 6000, are the events reported in this work, with error FIG. 7. Neutrino e↵ective area and volume. Event rates can
IceCube Collaboration 2013
bars indicating 68% Feldman-Cousins intervals. The best-fit be obtained by multiplying the e↵ective areas by 4⇡, by the
2
E astrophysical spectrum (gray line) and atmospheric neu- sum of ⌫ and ⌫¯ fluxes, and by the livetime of 662 days. Top:
trino flux (blue) have been determined using Monte Carlo sim- Neutrino e↵ective areas for each flavor assuming an equal flux
ulations, with the hatched region showing current experimen- of neutrinos and antineutrinos and averaged over all arrival
tal uncertainties on the atmospheric neutrino background. angles. At 6.3 PeV, resonant W production on atomic elec-
The largest of these uncertainties is neutrinos from charmed trons increases sensitivity to ⌫¯e . The e↵ective area includes
meson decays, a flux which has yet to be observed and is thus e↵ects from attenuation of neutrinos in the Earth [26], rel-
not included in the blue region; the hatched region includes evant at energies above 100 TeV. Bottom: E↵ective target
the best experimental 1 upper limit [9]. For scale, two spe- mass as a function of energy. The deposited energy threshold
cific charm levels are also shown: a benchmark theoretical in this search causes some flavor bias at low energies due to
model [7]L. A. Anchordoqui
(green line) and (CUNY) Astronomy,
the experimental Astrophysics,
90% CL upper andenergy
missing Cosmology
in escaping particles from ⌫5-8-2016 33 / 45
µ and ⌫⌧ charged-
Deposited Energies 4
Arrival Directions 4
FIG. 3. Arrival angles of events with Edep > 60 TeV, as used

inFIG.
our fit
3.and aboveangles
Arrival the majority
of events of the
withcosmic
Edep >ray60muon
TeV,back-
as used
FIG. 2. Deposited energies of observed events with predic- ground. The
in our fit andincreasing
above theopacity
majority of of
the
theEarth
cosmicto ray
high energy
muon back-
tions.
FIG. 2.The hashed region
Deposited shows
energies of observed IceCube Collaboration 2014
uncertainties on with
events the sum of
predic-
neutrinos
ground. isThe
spheric
visible
neutrinos
neutrinos
at the opacity
increasing
by muons
is visible
right of of
at thefrom
the
righttheir
theplot.
Earth
parent
of the
Vetoing
to high
air Vetoing
plot.
atmo-
energy
showers de-
atmo-
all backgrounds.
tions. The hashed Muons (red)
region are uncertainties
shows computed from onsimulation
the sum of
to presses
sphericthe atmospheric
neutrinos neutrino
by muons frombackground
their parenton the
air left. Thede-
showers
all overcome statistical
backgrounds. Muonslimitations in our background
(red) are computed mea-
from simulation
surement and statistical
scaled to match the total data
presses the atmospheric neutrino background on the left. aThe
are described well by the expected backgrounds and
to overcome limitations in measured background
our background mea-
rate. Atmospheric neutrinos and uncertainties thereon are de- hard
dataastrophysical
are described isotropic
well byneutrino flux (gray
the expected lines). Col-
backgrounds and a
surement and scaled to match the total measured background ors as in Fig. 2. Variations of neutrino
this figureflux
with other energy
rived from previous measurements of both the ⇡/K and
rate. Atmospheric neutrinos and uncertainties thereon are de- charm hard astrophysical isotropic (gray lines). Col-
components of the atmospheric ⌫µ spectrum [9].⇡/K
A gap thresholds are in the online supplement [29].
ors as in Fig. 2. Variations of this figure with other energy
rived from previous measurements of both the andlarger
charm
than the oneofbetween
components 400 and 1000
the atmospheric TeV appears
⌫µ spectrum [9]. Aingap43% of
larger thresholds are in the online supplement [29].
realizations of the best-fit continuous spectrum.
than the one between 400 and 1000 TeV appears in 43% of
L. A. Anchordoqui
realizations (CUNY)
of the best-fit for and
Astronomy, Astrophysics,
continuous spectrum. maximal robustness. The penetrating
Cosmology muon back-
5-8-2016 34 / 45
γ’s accompanying ν’s saturate Fermi-LAT data

9
h 10-4 Ê Ê cosmic neutrinos-- IceCube

E2 dNêdE HGeV cm-2 s-1 sr-1 L
t- Á Fermi LAT Mod A

É Fermi LAT Mod B
d -5 – 31 –
10 Û Fermi LAT Mod C
n
n ÉÁ
Á
Û ÉÉ
Û Á É-6
10ÉÉÉ
ÛÁÁÁ
ÛÛÛ Á
ÛÁ ÉÉÉ
Û
Ice
Cu
be
Á
ÛÁ É É ÉÉ
e- ÛÁ
ÛÁÛÁÁ
ÛÛÁ ÉÉ
ÛÁÛ ÉÉ
Fit
Ba
nd
E2 dN/dE [MeV cm-2 s-1 sr-1]
ÁÁ
ÛÛÁ É
d 10
10-3
-7 GFM
Û É
Á
Û ÉÉ
Á
Û Á
Û
Total EGB
Ê
e 10-4
Un
cer
t ain
ty B
ÉÉ
ÁÁ
ÛÛ
É
Ê
Á
Û Ê
a -8
and
Fermi LAT, 50 months, (FG É
smodel A) Á
Û Ê
Ê
Ê
Ê
Ê
t- 10 10-5
Fermi LAT, 50 months, (FG model B)
Fermi LAT, 50 months, (FG model C)
Ê
Ê
Galactic foreground modeling uncertainty
i- -6
Fermi LAT, resolved sources, |b|>20° (FG model A)
-910 103 105 106

t- 10 102 104
E HGeVL
Energy [MeV]
0 1 2 3
10 10 10 10 104 105 106 107 108 109
d
Fig. 8.— Comparison of the total EGB intensities for di↵erent foreground models. The total EGB
intensity is obtained by summing the IGRB intensity and the cumulative intensity from resolved
Fermi LAT sources at latitudes |b| > 20 (gray band). See Figure 7 for legend.
u-
Distribution of arrival directions

Multi-messenger Astronomy Gravitational waves

Multi-messenger Astronomy Gravitational waves
Selected for a Viewpoint in Physics

week ending
PRL 116, 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 12 FEBRUARY 2016
Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger

B. P. Abbott et al.*
(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration)
(Received 21 January 2016; published 11 February 2016)
On September 14, 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC the two detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave
Observatory simultaneously observed a transient gravitational-wave signal. The signal sweeps upwards in
frequency from 35 to 250 Hz with a peak gravitational-wave strain of 1.0 × 10−21 . It matches the waveform
predicted by general relativity for the inspiral and merger of a pair of black holes and the ringdown of the
resulting single black hole. The signal was observed with a matched-filter signal-to-noise ratio of 24 and a
false alarm rate estimated to be less than 1 event per 203 000 years, equivalent to a significance greater
than 5.1σ. The source lies at a luminosity distance of 410þ160 þ0.03
−180 Mpc corresponding to a redshift z ¼ 0.09−0.04 .
In the source frame, the initial black hole masses are 36þ5 þ4
−4 M ⊙ and 29−4 M ⊙ , and the final black hole mass is
62þ4 þ0.5
−4 M ⊙ , with 3.0−0.5 M ⊙ c radiated in gravitational waves. All uncertainties define 90% credible intervals.
2
These observations demonstrate the existence of binary stellar-mass black hole systems. This is the first direct
detection of gravitational waves and the first observation of a binary black hole merger.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102
I. INTRODUCTION The discovery of the binary pulsar system PSR B1913þ16

In 1916, the year after the final formulation of the field by Hulse and Taylor [20] and subsequent observations of
equations of general relativity, Albert Einstein predicted its energy loss by Taylor and Weisberg [21] demonstrated
the existence of gravitational waves. He found that the existence of gravitational waves. This discovery,
the linearized weak-field equations had wave solutions: along with emerging astrophysical understanding [22],
L. A. Anchordoqui
transverse (CUNY)
waves of spatial Astronomy,
strain that travel led to
Astrophysics,
at the speed of theCosmology
and recognition that direct observations of the 38 / 45
5-8-2016
12 FEBRUARY 2016
Gravitational waves
signal-to-
e time of
pgraded,
to detect
rvational
osition is
ime and
g2 (90%
it being
les—i.e.,
nal black
requency
Hz, where
plausible
o orbiting
ssion. At
erized by

Multi-messenger Astronomy matched-filter
Gravitational analyses that use relativistic models of com-
waves
II. OBSERVATION
pact binary waveforms [44] recovered GW150914 as the
On September 14, 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC, the LIGO most significant event from each detector for the observa-
Hanford, WA, and Livingston, LA, observatories detected tions reported here. Occurring within the 10-ms intersite

Multi-messenger Astronomy Looking ahead

ν’s and UHECRs

ν’s and gravitational waves 3
GW150914 and the IceCube neutrino candidates de- 2

tected within the ±500 s window. This non-detection is
al point spread function (sky map) of the # consistent

T [s] RA
merger.
with our expectation from
[h] Dec [ ] µrec a[ binary ] Erec black hole
µ [TeV] fraction
computed through the full parameter es- 1 +37.2

To better8.84 understand16.6 0.35
the probability that175the de- 12.5%
signal, carried out using the LALInfer- 2 +163.2 11.13candidates
tected neutrino 12.0 are 1.95consistent with1.22back- 26.5%
ground, we briefly consider di↵erent aspects of the data
3 +311.4 7.23 8.4 0.47 0.33 98.4%
33, 34]. The LALInference results pre- separately. First, the number of detected neutrino can-
didates, i.e. 3 and 0 for IceCube and Antares, re-
count for calibration uncertainty in the TABLE I. Parameters
spectively, of neutrino
is fully consistent withcandidates
the expected identified
back- by Ice-
nal. The sky map is shown in Fig. 1. ground rate
Cube within the of±500
4.4 and ⌧ 1 for
s time the twoaround
window detectors,GW150914.
with T
credible FIG.
level1. (CL), the sky map covers p-value 1 Fpois (Nobserved  2, Nexpected = 4.4) = 0.81,
GW skymap in equatorial coordinates, showing is the time
whereof arrival
Fpois is theof the neutrino
Poisson cumulativecandidates relative to that
distribution func-
2
eg ). the reconstructed probability density contours of the of GWGW150914.
tion. Second,Efor
rec
µ theismost
thesignificant
reconstructed muon
reconstructed muonenergy.
rec
µ
event at 50%, 90% and 99% CL, and the reconstructed di-
rections of high-energy neutrino candidates detected byisIce- the energy
angular (Table I), 12.5% of background
uncertainty events will havetrack direc-
of the reconstructed
greater muon energy. The probability that at least one
Cube (crosses) during a ±500 s time window around thetion GW [43]. The last column shows the fraction of background
event. The neutrino directional uncertainties are < 1 and are
neutrino candidate, out of 3 detected events, has an en-
HIGH-ENERGY
not shown. GWNEUTRINO
neutrino
shading indicates the reconstructed probabil- ergycandidates
high enough towithmake higher
it appear reconstructed
even less background- energy at the
ity density of the GW event, darker regions corresponding
OINCIDENCE SEARCH same like, is 1 (1 (±5
to declination 0.125)).3 ⇡ 0.33. Third,
2
with the GW sky
higher probability. Neutrino numbers refer to the first column area 90% CL of ⌦gw = 590 deg , the probability of a
of Table I. background neutrino candidate being directionally coin-
cident is ⌦gw /⌦all ⇡ 0.014. We expect 3⌦gw /⌦all di-
neutrino observatories are primarily sen- rectionally coincident neutrinos, given 3 temporal coinci-
IV. RESULTS dences. Therefore, the probability that at least one of the
nos with GeV energies. IceCube and
3 neutrino candidates is directionally coincident with the
both sensitive to through-goingA. Joint analysis muons neutrino90% candidates’ directions
CL skymap of GW150914 is 1 are shown
(1 0.014) 3
in Fig. 1.
⇡ 0.04.
vents), L.produced by neutrinos
A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) nearAstronomy,
the Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 43 / 45
More data is coming!!!


Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology - L12

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology - L12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Department of Physics and Astronomy

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 2 / 45

For biological reasons

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 3 / 45

maximum of star formation

first objects form

Roadmap for Multimessenger Astronomy

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 5 / 45

Cosmic ray discovery (Victor Hess 1912)

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 6 / 45

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 7 / 45

The 3rst enormous event

Volcano Ranch (1952-1972)

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 8 / 45

The Pierre Auger Observatory

Mendoza Province, Argentina

Northern Auger site

Auger collaboration : ~550 scientists, 110 institutes, 18 countries

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 9 / 45

Particles sampled at ground

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 10 / 45

Air shower development

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 11 / 45

Cosmic Ray (CR)

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 12 / 45

Evatron & Zevatron Candidates ?

Top down production ?

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 14 / 45

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 15 / 45

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 17 / 45

Propagation from sources to Earth : a striking feature

1966 Also Zatsepin & Kuzmin

GZK suppression : Interaction with CMB degrades CR energies

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 18 / 45

Cosmic ray propagation in the CMB

energy loss ≈ 20%/interaction

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 19 / 45

CR's with energies ~1020 eV should be “nearby” (~100 Mpc)

Magnetic 3elds and propagation

proton, 1 nG, 1 Mpc cells

At high energies, charged particle astronomy becomes feasible

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 21 / 45

Photodisintegration in source environment + could be key ingredient

source environment EBL/CMB detection

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 22 / 45

What is the physical significance of other spectral features?

Does anisotropy emerge and can we pinpoint sources?

What is the composition? + protons, nuclei, photons, exotica ?

What acceleration mechanisms are plausible ?

Can we learn about HEP at c.m. energies beyond LHC reach?

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 23 / 45

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 26 / 45

Neutrino Beams: Heaven & Earth

~ cosmic ray + neutrino

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 27 / 45

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 28 / 45

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 30 / 45

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 31 / 45

L. A. Anchordoqui (CUNY) Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Cosmology 5-8-2016 32 / 45

Effective Area 8 Effective Volume

FIG. 6. Distribution of deposited PMT charges (Qtot ).

FIG. 3. Arrival angles of events with Edep > 60 TeV, as used

γ’s accompanying ν’s saturate Fermi-LAT data