Antimatter from Supernova Remnants Michael Kachelrie NTNU, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
antimatter from supernova remnants
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Antimatter from Supernova Remnants Michael Kachelrie NTNU, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 19, 2022 130 likes •648 views

Antimatter from Supernova Remnants Michael Kachelrie NTNU, Trondheim with S. Ostapchenko, R. Tom` as PAMELA anomaly )) 0.4 - (e 0.3 )+ + (e 0.2 ) / ( + (e Positron fraction 0.1 Muller & Tang 1987 MASS 1989

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Antimatter from Supernova Remnants

Michael Kachelrieß NTNU, Trondheim with S. Ostapchenko, R. Tom` as

slide-2
SLIDE 2

PAMELA anomaly

Energy (GeV)

0.1 1 10 100

))

  • (e

φ )+

+

(e φ ) / (

+

(e φ Positron fraction

0.01 0.02 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

Muller & Tang 1987 MASS 1989 TS93 HEAT94+95 CAPRICE94 AMS98 HEAT00 Clem & Evenson 2007 PAMELA

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 2 / 18

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Astrophysical sources for anti-matter: CR secondaries

standard secenario for Galactic CRs:

◮ sources are SNRs:

kinetic energy output of SNe: 10M⊙ ejected with v ∼ 5 × 108 cm/s every 30 yr ⇒ LSN,kin ∼ 3 × 1042 erg/s

◮ explains local energy density of CR ǫCR ∼ 1 eV/cm3 for a escape time

from disc τesc ∼ 6 × 106 yr

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 3 / 18

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Astrophysical sources for anti-matter: CR secondaries

standard secenario for Galactic CRs:

◮ sources are SNRs:

kinetic energy output of SNe: 10M⊙ ejected with v ∼ 5 × 108 cm/s every 30 yr ⇒ LSN,kin ∼ 3 × 1042 erg/s

◮ explains local energy density of CR ǫCR ∼ 1 eV/cm3 for a escape time

from disc τesc ∼ 6 × 106 yr

◮ 1.order Fermi shock acceleration ⇒ dN/dE ∝ E−γ with γ = 2.0 − 2.2 ◮ diffusion with D(E) ∝ τesc(E) ∼ E−δ and δ ∼ 0.5 explains observed

spectrum E−2.6

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 3 / 18

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Astrophysical sources for anti-matter: CR secondaries

standard secenario for Galactic CRs:

◮ sources are SNRs:

kinetic energy output of SNe: 10M⊙ ejected with v ∼ 5 × 108 cm/s every 30 yr ⇒ LSN,kin ∼ 3 × 1042 erg/s

◮ explains local energy density of CR ǫCR ∼ 1 eV/cm3 for a escape time

from disc τesc ∼ 6 × 106 yr

◮ 1.order Fermi shock acceleration ⇒ dN/dE ∝ E−γ with γ = 2.0 − 2.2 ◮ diffusion with D(E) ∝ τesc(E) ∼ E−δ and δ ∼ 0.5 explains observed

spectrum E−2.6

electrons, positrons: τloss ≪ τesc and τloss ∝ 1/E

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 3 / 18

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Astrophysical sources for anti-matter: CR secondaries

standard secenario for Galactic CRs:

◮ sources are SNRs:

kinetic energy output of SNe: 10M⊙ ejected with v ∼ 5 × 108 cm/s every 30 yr ⇒ LSN,kin ∼ 3 × 1042 erg/s

◮ explains local energy density of CR ǫCR ∼ 1 eV/cm3 for a escape time

from disc τesc ∼ 6 × 106 yr

◮ 1.order Fermi shock acceleration ⇒ dN/dE ∝ E−γ with γ = 2.0 − 2.2 ◮ diffusion with D(E) ∝ τesc(E) ∼ E−δ and δ ∼ 0.5 explains observed

spectrum E−2.6

electrons, positrons: τloss ≪ τesc and τloss ∝ 1/E electrons dN−/dE ∝ E−γ−1 positrons dN+/dE ∝ E−γ−δ−1

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 3 / 18

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Astrophysical sources for anti-matter: CR secondaries

standard secenario for Galactic CRs:

◮ sources are SNRs:

kinetic energy output of SNe: 10M⊙ ejected with v ∼ 5 × 108 cm/s every 30 yr ⇒ LSN,kin ∼ 3 × 1042 erg/s

◮ explains local energy density of CR ǫCR ∼ 1 eV/cm3 for a escape time

from disc τesc ∼ 6 × 106 yr

◮ 1.order Fermi shock acceleration ⇒ dN/dE ∝ E−γ with γ = 2.0 − 2.2 ◮ diffusion with D(E) ∝ τesc(E) ∼ E−δ and δ ∼ 0.5 explains observed

spectrum E−2.6

electrons, positrons: τloss ≪ τesc and τloss ∝ 1/E electrons dN−/dE ∝ E−γ−1 positrons dN+/dE ∝ E−γ−δ−1 ⇒ ratio n+ n− ∝ E−δ ⇒ CR secondaries can not explain increasing positron fraction

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 3 / 18

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Possible explanations for the PAMELA anomaly:

Astrophysics: as primaries from

◮ pulsars ◮ supernova remnants (SNR) Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 4 / 18

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Possible explanations for the PAMELA anomaly:

Astrophysics: as primaries from

◮ pulsars ◮ supernova remnants (SNR)

Dark matter

◮ requires large boost factors ∼ 100 ⋆ Sommerfeld enhancement ⋆ dense, cold clumps Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 4 / 18

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Possible explanations for the PAMELA anomaly:

Astrophysics: as primaries from

◮ pulsars ◮ supernova remnants (SNR)

Dark matter

◮ requires large boost factors ∼ 100 ⋆ Sommerfeld enhancement ⋆ dense, cold clumps ◮ “exclusive” coupling to leptons Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 4 / 18

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Supernova remnants

Astrophysical explanations II: SNR

[P. Blasi ’09 ]

NCR(E) ≫ Ne(E) for energies E ≫ mp in acceleration region

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 5 / 18

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Supernova remnants

Astrophysical explanations II: SNR

[P. Blasi ’09 ]

NCR(E) ≫ Ne(E) for energies E ≫ mp in acceleration region significant e± production by CRs even for small τpp in source

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 5 / 18

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Supernova remnants

Astrophysical explanations II: SNR

[P. Blasi ’09 ]

NCR(E) ≫ Ne(E) for energies E ≫ mp in acceleration region significant e± production by CRs even for small τpp in source secondary e± are accelerated, spectra becomes harder

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 5 / 18

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Supernova remnants

Astrophysical explanations II: SNR

[P. Blasi ’09 ]

NCR(E) ≫ Ne(E) for energies E ≫ mp in acceleration region significant e± production by CRs even for small τpp in source secondary e± are accelerated, spectra becomes harder several important implications for CR physics: ⇒ increase of ¯ p/p, B/C, . . .

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 5 / 18

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Supernova remnants

Positron ratio from SNR:

[Blasi ’09 ] Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 6 / 18

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Supernova remnants

Antiproton ratio from SNR:

[Blasi, Serpico ’09 ]

1e-05 0.0001 0.001 10 100 1000 p

  • /p

Kinetic Energy, T [GeV] Bohm-like A term B term ISM ISM+B term Total

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 7 / 18

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Supernova remnants

Antiproton ratio from SNR:

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 7 / 18

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Supernova remnants

Antiproton ratio from SNR:

[Blasi, Serpico ’09 ]

J¯

p,SNRs(E)

Jp(E) ≃ 2 n1 c [A(E) + B(E)] where A(E) = γ 1 ξ + r2

  • ×

E

m

dω ωγ−3 D1(ω) u2

1

Emax

ω

dE E2−γ σp¯

p(E, ω) ,

and B(E) = τSNR r 2 E2−γ Emax

E

dE E2−γ σp¯

p(E, E) .

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 8 / 18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Supernova remnants

Antiproton ratio from SNR:

[Blasi, Serpico ’09 ]

J¯

p,SNRs(E)

Jp(E) ≃ 2 n1 c [A(E) + B(E)] where A(E) = γ 1 ξ + r2

  • ×

E

m

dω ωγ−3 D1(ω) u2

1

Emax

ω

dE E2−γ σp¯

p(E, ω) ,

and B(E) = τSNR r 2 E2−γ Emax

E

dE E2−γ σp¯

p(E, E) .

A increases for large D and small u ⇒ old SNR

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 8 / 18

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Supernova remnants

Antiproton ratio from SNR:

[Blasi, Serpico ’09 ]

J¯

p,SNRs(E)

Jp(E) ≃ 2 n1 c [A(E) + B(E)] where A(E) = γ 1 ξ + r2

  • ×

E

m

dω ωγ−3 D1(ω) u2

1

Emax

ω

dE E2−γ σp¯

p(E, ω) ,

and B(E) = τSNR r 2 E2−γ Emax

E

dE E2−γ σp¯

p(E, E) .

A increases for large D and small u ⇒ old SNR constraints: tacc ∝ D(E)/u2 < ∼ τSNR and D(E)/u2 ≪ u1τSNR

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 8 / 18

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Supernova remnants

Advantage of a Monte Carlo framework:

you don’t need to think

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 9 / 18

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Supernova remnants

Advantage of a Monte Carlo framework:

you don’t need to think – easy to include: time-dependence of vsh, D, . . .

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 9 / 18

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Supernova remnants

Advantage of a Monte Carlo framework:

you don’t need to think – easy to include: time-dependence of vsh, D, . . . interactions: production of multi-particle states

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 9 / 18

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Supernova remnants

Advantage of a Monte Carlo framework:

you don’t need to think – easy to include: time-dependence of vsh, D, . . . interactions: production of multi-particle states Example: BS and AMS use as average energy fraction per antiproton/positron: ξe+ = Ze+ ne+ = 0.05 , ξ¯

p = Z¯ p

n¯

p

= 0.17 where Z¯

p ≡

1 σinel

pp (E)

  • dE′ E′

E dσp→¯

p(E, E′)

dE′

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 9 / 18

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Supernova remnants

Antiproton energy fraction:

QDC simulations give Ze+ ∼ 0.05 ∼ const. and Z¯

p ∼ 0.02 ∼ const. 0.001 0.01 0.1 1e+11 1e+12 1e+13 1e+14 1e+15 Zp E/eV Zp (QGSJET) Zp (SIBYLL)

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 10 / 18

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Supernova remnants

Antiproton energy fraction:

QDC simulations give Ze+ ∼ 0.05 ∼ const. and Z¯

p ∼ 0.02 ∼ const.

0.001 0.01 0.1 1e+11 1e+12 1e+13 1e+14 1e+15 Zp E/eV Zp (QGSJET) Zp (SIBYLL)

since multipicity increases fast, ξe+ = Ze+/ne+ and ξ¯

p = Z¯ p/n¯ p are

strongly energy dependent

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 10 / 18

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Supernova remnants

Disadvantage of the stationary framework:

shock velocity is time-dependent acceleration efficiency, injection rate,. . . are time-dependent too

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 11 / 18

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Supernova remnants

Disadvantage of the stationary framework:

shock velocity is time-dependent acceleration efficiency, injection rate,. . . are time-dependent too ⇒ replace parameter X(t) by “suitable” average X.

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 11 / 18

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Supernova remnants

Disadvantage of the stationary framework:

shock velocity is time-dependent acceleration efficiency, injection rate,. . . are time-dependent too ⇒ replace parameter X(t) by “suitable” average X. downstream flux is infinite, Emax is infinite ⇒ choose “appropriate” value

◮ Emax >

∼ 10 TeV

[Blasi, Serpico ’09 ] ◮ acceleration zone ≤ SNR [Ahlers, Mertsch, Sarkar, ’09 ] Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 11 / 18

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Supernova remnants

Disadvantage of the stationary framework:

shock velocity is time-dependent acceleration efficiency, injection rate,. . . are time-dependent too ⇒ replace parameter X(t) by “suitable” average X. downstream flux is infinite, Emax is infinite ⇒ choose “appropriate” value

◮ Emax >

∼ 10 TeV

[Blasi, Serpico ’09 ] ◮ acceleration zone ≤ SNR [Ahlers, Mertsch, Sarkar, ’09 ]

large component A requires small vsh and large D, giving small Emax protons accelerate efficiently early, produce secondaries in larger acceleration zone in late phase

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 11 / 18

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Supernova remnants

Time-dependent framework:

[MK, Ostapchenko, Tomas ’10 ]

spherical SNR shock; vsh(t) from self-similiar solutions

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 12 / 18

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Supernova remnants

Time-dependent framework:

[MK, Ostapchenko, Tomas ’10 ]

spherical SNR shock; vsh(t) from self-similiar solutions use random-walk with prescribed diffusion coefficient D

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 12 / 18

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Supernova remnants

Time-dependent framework:

[MK, Ostapchenko, Tomas ’10 ]

spherical SNR shock; vsh(t) from self-similiar solutions use random-walk with prescribed diffusion coefficient D Emax result of acceleration process

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 12 / 18

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Supernova remnants

Time-dependent framework:

[MK, Ostapchenko, Tomas ’10 ]

spherical SNR shock; vsh(t) from self-similiar solutions use random-walk with prescribed diffusion coefficient D Emax result of acceleration process QGSJET, JETSET for pp interactions, particle decays

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 12 / 18

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Supernova remnants

Time-dependent framework: results for constant D(t)

down up total

model 1 model 2

1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 10-2 10-1 1

E (eV) E2Fp

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 13 / 18

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Supernova remnants

Time-dependent framework: results for constant D(t)

down up total

model 1 model 2

1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 10-2 10-1 1

E (eV) E2Fp

  • nly downstream spectrum, E ≪ Emax, is “stationary”

upstream is always “non-stationary”

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 13 / 18

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Supernova remnants

Time-dependent framework: results for constant D(t)

A B A+B 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4

E (eV) Fp / Fp+p

  • Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim)

Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 14 / 18

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Supernova remnants

Time-dependent framework: results for constant D(t)

A B A+B 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4

E (eV) Fp / Fp+p

  • component A grows as ∝ E−2+β = E−1, solely from increase of

acceleration zone tacc ∝ D(E)/u2

1 <

∼ τSNR

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 14 / 18

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Supernova remnants

Time-dependent framework: results for constant D(t)

A B A+B 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4

E (eV) Fp / Fp+p

  • component A grows as ∝ E−2+β = E−1, solely from increase of

acceleration zone tacc ∝ D(E)/u2

1 <

∼ τSNR reacceleration is a misnamer

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 14 / 18

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Supernova remnants

Time-dependent framework: results for constant D(t)

p/(p+p)

  • -

e+/(e++e-) model 1 model 2

1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1

E (eV) Fx / Fx+x

  • Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim)

Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 15 / 18

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Supernova remnants

Time-dependent framework: results with amplification/damping

Bell: non-linear coupling between CRs and plasma (Alfven waves)

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 16 / 18

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Supernova remnants

Time-dependent framework: results with amplification/damping

Bell: non-linear coupling between CRs and plasma (Alfven waves) non-linear amplification of B by factor O(100) efficient acceleration of CRs to/beyond the knee in early SNR

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 16 / 18

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Supernova remnants

Time-dependent framework: results with amplification/damping

Bell: non-linear coupling between CRs and plasma (Alfven waves) non-linear amplification of B by factor O(100) efficient acceleration of CRs to/beyond the knee in early SNR then CR damp Alfven waves, turbulent field ≪ homogenous field

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 16 / 18

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Supernova remnants

Time-dependent framework: results with amplification/damping

Bell: non-linear coupling between CRs and plasma (Alfven waves) non-linear amplification of B by factor O(100) efficient acceleration of CRs to/beyond the knee in early SNR then CR damp Alfven waves, turbulent field ≪ homogenous field we model amplification/damping by setting D = 1/100 × cp

eB ,

t < t∗ 20 × cp

eB ,

t > t∗

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 16 / 18

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Supernova remnants

Time-dependent framework: results with amplification/damping

Fp A B 103×Fe+

1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 1

E (eV) E2Fx

Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 17 / 18

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Supernova remnants

Time-dependent framework: results with amplification/damping

A B A+B 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 10-7 10-6 10-5 10-4

E (eV) Fp / Fp+p

  • Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim)

Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 17 / 18

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Supernova remnants

Time-dependent framework: results with amplification/damping

p/(p+p)

  • -

e+/(e++e-)

1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 10-6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1

E (eV) Fx / Fx+x

  • Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim)

Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 17 / 18

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Prospects and Conclusions

Conclusions

1 Pulsars are natural solution to Pamela “excess” 2 Supernova remnants ◮ B,BS,AMS: E >

∼ 100GeV: ¯ p and B/C,. . . rising

◮ KOT: no reacceleration, no rise 3 Origin of difference: ◮ partly in interactions ◮ use of inconsistent effective parameters in stationary approach 4 test by AMS Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 18 / 18

slide-49
SLIDE 49

Prospects and Conclusions

Conclusions

1 Pulsars are natural solution to Pamela “excess” 2 Supernova remnants ◮ B,BS,AMS: E >

∼ 100GeV: ¯ p and B/C,. . . rising

◮ KOT: no reacceleration, no rise 3 Origin of difference: ◮ partly in interactions ◮ use of inconsistent effective parameters in stationary approach 4 test by AMS Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 18 / 18

slide-50
SLIDE 50

Prospects and Conclusions

Conclusions

1 Pulsars are natural solution to Pamela “excess” 2 Supernova remnants ◮ B,BS,AMS: E >

∼ 100GeV: ¯ p and B/C,. . . rising

◮ KOT: no reacceleration, no rise 3 Origin of difference: ◮ partly in interactions ◮ use of inconsistent effective parameters in stationary approach 4 test by AMS Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 18 / 18

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Prospects and Conclusions

Conclusions

1 Pulsars are natural solution to Pamela “excess” 2 Supernova remnants ◮ B,BS,AMS: E >

∼ 100GeV: ¯ p and B/C,. . . rising

◮ KOT: no reacceleration, no rise 3 Origin of difference: ◮ partly in interactions ◮ use of inconsistent effective parameters in stationary approach 4 test by AMS Michael Kachelrieß (NTNU Trondheim) Antimatter from Supernova Remnants TeVPA, Paris 2010 18 / 18