2004
DOI: 10.1088/0034-4885/67/9/r03
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Astrophysical origins of ultrahigh energy cosmic rays

Abstract: In the first part of this review we discuss the basic observational features at the end of the cosmic ray energy spectrum. We also present there the main characteristics of each of the experiments involved in the detection of these particles. We then briefly discuss the status of the chemical composition and the distribution of arrival directions of cosmic rays. After that, we examine the energy losses during propagation, introducing the Greisen-Zaptsepin-Kuzmin (GZK) cutoff, and discuss the level of confidenc… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
113
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 124 publications
(118 citation statements)
references
References 532 publications
(921 reference statements)
1
113
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For stellar-mass cores, this is 2Y3 orders of magnitude smaller than the energy of gamma-ray bursts Torres & Anchordoqui 2004), essentially because the efficiency is 3Y 4 orders of magnitude less than unity. Again, I should emphasize that all of these estimates and calculations give only very conservative upper limits on the efficiency and energy emitted, since they all assume that somehow one can hold the charge onto the surface of the collapsing core even when it is as large as the transition radius R t , which for 0 ¼ Q 0 /M > 10 À4 would be significantly greater than the size of a neutron star.…”
Section: Energy Efficiency Of the Pair Productionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…For stellar-mass cores, this is 2Y3 orders of magnitude smaller than the energy of gamma-ray bursts Torres & Anchordoqui 2004), essentially because the efficiency is 3Y 4 orders of magnitude less than unity. Again, I should emphasize that all of these estimates and calculations give only very conservative upper limits on the efficiency and energy emitted, since they all assume that somehow one can hold the charge onto the surface of the collapsing core even when it is as large as the transition radius R t , which for 0 ¼ Q 0 /M > 10 À4 would be significantly greater than the size of a neutron star.…”
Section: Energy Efficiency Of the Pair Productionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…However, a small sample of simulated proton and iron showers with snow attenuation was used to study this effect and to develop a method of accounting for it in event reconstruction. For each tank, the signal expectation is lowered by a factor which depends upon the measured snow depth above each tank, as well as the snow density, which was measured to be about 0.4 g/cm 3 . Thus, a correction has been made to the data at this reconstruction stage so that it corresponds to the standard simulation described above.…”
Section: Snow On Icetopmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Currently, the most popular model predicts cosmic ray acceleration in shock fronts via the first order Fermi mechanism [1]. More specifically, at energies up to ∼ 10 17 eV, the source of this acceleration mechanism is often attributed to supernova remnants; a cut-off energy which depends upon nuclear charge (Z) of the particle accelerated at the source could be responsible for a mass-dependent knee; the ankle is then attributed to cosmic rays from extragalactic sources such as gamma-ray bursts or active galactic nuclei [2,3,4].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These models are based on particle acceleration at shocks in powerful extragalactic astrophysical objects, ranging from compact objects such as γ−ray bursts (GRBs) to large-scale radio lobes of active galactic nuclei (AGNs), see for example Ref. [12]. They have the obvious advantage to be exclusively based on known physics and astrophysical objects.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%