4.7 Article

Inverse Compton emission from Galactic supernova remnants: Effect of the interstellar radiation field

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 648, 期 1, 页码 L29-L32

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1086/507770

关键词

cosmic rays; Galaxy : general; gamma rays : theory; ISM : individual (G0.9+0.1, RX J1713.7-3946); radiation mechanisms : nonthermal; supernova remnants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The evidence for particle acceleration in supernova shells comes from electrons whose synchrotron emission is observed in radio and X-rays. Recent observations by the HESS instrument reveal that supernova remnants also emit TeV gamma-rays, long-awaited experimental evidence that supernova remnants can accelerate cosmic rays up to the knee energies. Still, uncertainty exists whether these gamma-rays are produced by electrons via inverse Compton scattering or by protons via pi(0)-decay. The multiwavelength spectra of supernova remnants can be fitted with both mechanisms, although a preference is often given to pi(0)-decay due to the spectral shape at very high energies. A recent study of the interstellar radiation field indicates that its energy density, especially in the inner Galaxy, is higher than previously thought. In this Letter we evaluate the effect of the interstellar radiation field on the inverse Compton emission of electrons accelerated in a supernova remnant located at different distances from the Galactic center. We show that contribution of optical and infrared photons to the inverse Compton emission may exceed the contribution of cosmic microwave background and in some cases broaden the resulting gamma-ray spectrum. In addition, we show that if a supernova remnant is located close to the Galactic center, its gray spectrum will exhibit a universal cutoff at very high energies due to the Klein-Nishina effect and not due to the cutoff of the electron spectrum. As an example, we apply our calculations to the supernova remnants RX J1713.7 + 3946 and G0.9 + 0.1, recently observed by HESS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据