Table 4
Summary of the different models for cosmic rays, and their results presented in this work.
Model | Reference | Reference | Cut-off rigidities (GV) | Composition at: | Extra-galactic | Predicted ⟨ lnA ⟩ between the second knee | ||
|
|
|||||||
Second | Extra-galactic | sections | figures | First | Second | 108 GeV, | contribution at | and the ankle |
Galactic | component | Galactic | Galactic | 109 GeV | (108,109) GeV | |||
component | component | component | (p, He, CNO, Fe) | |||||
|
||||||||
GW-CRs | EG-RSB93 | 3.1 and 4 | 5, 7 and 8 | 3.0 × 106 | 9.5 × 107 | (20%,32%,12%,24%), | (4%,30%) | Good agreement with TUNKA (QGSJET) |
(32%,2%,18%,30%) | and LOFAR/Yakutsk (EPOS-LHC) data, | |||||||
but strong disagreement with Auger data | ||||||||
WR-CRs | EG-RSB93 | 3.2 and 4 | 6 − 8 | 4.1 × 106 | 1.8 × 108 | (6%,51%,14%,24%), | (6%,50%) | Moderate agreement with LOFAR and |
(C/He = 0.1) | (48%,25%,26%,0%) | Yakutsk (QGSJET) data, and excellent | ||||||
agreement with Auger (EPOS-LHC) data | ||||||||
WR-CRs | EG-RSB93 | 3.2 and 4 | 6 − 8 | 4.1 × 106 | 1.3 × 108 | (6%,34%,30%,24%), | (5%,45%) | Good agreement with LOFAR (QGSJET) |
(C/He = 0.4) | (44%,6%,49%,0%) | data, and moderate agreement with Yakutsk | ||||||
(QGSJET) and Auger (EPOS-LHC) data | ||||||||
WR-CRs | EG-Minimal | 5 and B | B.1 − B.3 | 4.1 × 106 | 2.4 × 108 | (0%,57%,14%,24%), | (0%,16%) | Excellent agreement with LOFAR |
(C/He = 0.1) | (15%,51%,35%,0%) | (QGSJET) and moderate agreement | ||||||
with TUNKA/Yakutsk (QGSJET) data, | ||||||||
but strong disagreement with Auger data | ||||||||
WR-CRs | EG-PCS | 5 and B | B.1 − B.3 | 4.1 × 106 | 1.5 × 108 | (6%,52%,13%,24%), | (10%,66%) | Moderate agreement with LOFAR and |
(C/He = 0.1) | (25%,53%,21%,0%) | Yakutsk (QGSJET) data, and good | ||||||
agreement with Auger (EPOS-LHC) data | ||||||||
WR-CRs | EG-UFA | 5 and B | B.1 − B.3 | 4.1 × 106 | 1.6 × 108 | (4%,52%,14%,24%), | (3%,58%) | Moderate agreement with LOFAR |
(C/He = 0.1) | (49%,25%,25%,0%) | (QGSJET) data, and excellent agreement | ||||||
with Auger (EPOS-LHC) data | ||||||||
WR-CRs | EG-Minimal | 5 | 9 − 11 | 4.1 × 106 | 1.7 × 108 | (0%,38%,32%,24%), | (0%,15%) | Good agreement with TUNKA (QGSJET) |
(C/He = 0.4) | (14%,15%,69%,0%) | and LOFAR (EPOS-LHC) data, and | ||||||
moderate agreement with Yakutsk data, | ||||||||
but strong disagreement with Auger data | ||||||||
WR-CRs | EG-PCS | 5 | 9 − 11 | 4.1 × 106 | 1.1 × 108 | (6%,36%,29%,24%), | (10%,62%) | Moderate agreement with LOFAR/Yakutsk |
(C/He = 0.4) | (24%,42%,35%,0%) | (QGSJET) and Auger (EPOS-LHC) data | ||||||
WR-CRs | EG-UFA | 5 | 9 − 11 | 4.1 × 106 | 1.1 × 108 | (3%,35%,32%,24%), | (3%,55%) | Moderate agreement with LOFAR/Yakutsk |
(C/He = 0.4) | (47%,10%,41%,0%) | (QGSJET) data, and good agreement with | ||||||
Auger (EPOS-LHC) data |
Notes. In all the models, the Galactic contribution consists of two components: the first component which is produced by regular supernova explosions in the Galaxy (SNR-CRs), and the second component which is considered to be produced either by cosmic-ray re-acceleration by Galactic wind termination shocks (GW-CRs) or by explosions of Wolf-Rayet stars in the Galaxy (WR-CRs). The source spectral indices for the second Galactic component in all the models are assumed to be the same as for the SNR-CRs (see Table 1). For the extra-galactic component, the different models considered are: (a) sources with strong cosmological evolution like strong radio galaxies (EG-RSB93); (b) extra-galactic contribution mainly above the ankle irrespective of the nature of the sources (EG-Minimal); (c) significant photo-disintigration of cosmic-rays in a source region with high photon density (EG-UFA); and (d) cosmic rays accelerated by accretion shocks in clusters of galaxies (EG-PCS). The all-particle spectra predicted by the different combinations of the Galactic and extra-galactic components are quite similar, and show good agreement with the measured spectrum. On the other hand, although the ⟨ lnA ⟩ predicted by the different models are almost within the range of the different measurements compiled by Kampert & Unger (2012), they show distinctive differences especially in the energy range between the second knee and the ankle. For the model using GW-CRs, the predicted ⟨ lnA ⟩ also show deviation from the prediction of other models between ~ 107 and 108 GeV. The comments on ⟨ lnA ⟩ given in the table are with respect to the measurements from TUNKA (Berezhnev et al. 2013), LOFAR (Buitink et al. 2016), Yakutsk (Knurenko & Sabourov 2010), and the Pierre Auger Observatory (Porcelli et al. 2015) between the second knee and the ankle. QGSJET in the table refers to the QGSJET-II-04 model.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.