In which shell-type SNRs should we look for gamma-rays and neutrinos from p-p collisions?

Abstract

We present a simple analytic model for the various contributions to the non-thermal emission from shell type SNRs, and show that this model's results reproduce well the results of previous detailed calculations. We show that the ≥ 1 TeV gamma ray emission from the shell type SNRs RX J1713.7-3946 and RX J0852.0-4622 is dominated by inverse-Compton scattering of CMB photons (and possibly infra-red ambient photons) by accelerated electrons. Pion decay (due to proton-proton collisions) is shown to account for only a small fraction, 10-2, of the observed flux, as assuming a larger fractional contribution would imply nonthermal radio and X-ray synchrotron emission and thermal X-ray Bremsstrahlung emission that far exceed the observed radio and X-ray fluxes. Models where pion decay dominates the ≥ 1 TeV flux avoid the implied excessive synchrotron emission (but not the implied excessive thermal X-ray Bremsstrahlung emission) by assuming an extremely low efficiency of electron acceleration, Kep 10-4 (Kep is the ratio of the number of accelerated electrons and the number of accelerated protons at a given energy). We argue that observations of SNRs in nearby galaxies imply a lower limit of Kep 10-3, and thus rule out Kep values 10-4 (assuming that SNRs share a common typical value of Kep). It is suggested that SNRs with strong thermal X-ray emission, rather than strong non-thermal X-ray emission, are more suitable candidates for searches of gamma rays and neutrinos resulting from proton-proton collisions. In particular, it is shown that the neutrino flux from the SNRs above is probably too low to be detected by current and planned neutrino observatories (Abridged).

0

Turn this paper into a lesson

ArcXiv compiles a structured reading guide from this paper's metadata: plain-English importance, contributions, prerequisite concepts, which sections to read first, flashcards, and a quiz. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion.

Loading comments…