X-ray Observations of Groups and Clusters - A Relic of the High Redshift Universe

Abstract: I review the evidence from clusters and groups of galaxies for `relic' evidence of the high redshift universe. Contrary to the received wisdom, clusters are old. Their x-ray emitting intergalactic medium in massive clusters is a reservoir of metal and energy injection from the main epoch of star formation. There are strong indications that non-gravitational energy was extremely important in the formation of low-mass clusters and groups, implying that gravity did not dominate the process on all scales below that of massive, rich clusters. The data indicate that most of the metals in the universe are not in stars but in the hot gas and thus the use of stars to trace metal formation and evolution misses most of the processed material. The group data shows that galaxies are very poor tracers of mass on the scale of 10^13 M_Sun and since groups are the `average' place in the universe this probably holds for most of the visible universe.

\section{Introduction}
While classically clusters are presumed to be rather young (Gunn 1977),
and the present epoch is thought to be the era of cluster formation,
recent results strongly indicate that clusters are `old' and thus are
relics of the high-redshift universe. These indications are primarily
due to Rosat and ASCA results for $z<0.8$ clusters: the lack of
evolution in the x-ray luminosity function of clusters at $z<0.8$ (Jones
{\em et al.}\ 1998; Ebeling {\em et al.}\ 1999; Vikhlinin {\em et al.}\ 1998); the relatively
small change in the cluster temperature function out to $z\approx 0.8$
(Henry 1997; Donahue \& Voit 1999); the lack of evolution in the x-ray
luminosity temperature relation to $z\approx 0.5$ (Mushotzky \& Scharf
1997; Donahue {\em et al.}\ 1999); the lack of evolution in the metallicity in
the cluster gas to $z\approx 0.8$ (Fig.~1; Mushotzky \& Loewenstein
1997; Donahue {\em et al.}\ 1999); and the lack of evolution in the galaxy
velocity dispersion temperature relation (Tran {\em et al.}\ 1999). In addition,
the detection of massive clusters at $z\approx 0.8$ (Bahcall \& Fan
1998) and their possible existence at $z>1.2$ (Dickinson {\em et al.}\ 1999;
Stanford {\em et al.}\ 1997) are highly unlikely in a high-$\Omega$ universe
(however for a different opinion see Blanchard {\em et al.}\ 1999). Other,
independent, evidence is derived from HST and Keck observations that
indicate that the stars in cluster ellipticals are very old (Renzini
1999). However it is not known, at present, if the galaxies themselves
are old.  Thus for the high-redshift universe the question is: what can
we learn about the formation of large scale structure, galaxies and
clusters from studies of these relics?

\section{Cluster Results}
Clusters are, of course, the largest bound objects in the universe and
are thought to be fair samples of the content of the universe (baryons,
dark matter and metals).  As has been known for many years, x-ray
observations of groups and clusters indicate that most of the observable
baryons in these systems reside in the hot phase ($T>10^{7}$\,K,
Fig.~2). If clusters and groups are `representative' samples, the
stellar content of galaxies is, on average, $\approx 20$\% of the gas
mass (see Nevalainen 1999 for a recent detailed analysis). The mean
stellar `metallicity' (Fe) is $\approx 0.4$ `solar' (normalizing to the
solar abundances of Anders \& Grevesse 1989 and using the Jorgensen
{\em et al.}\ 1999 data, averaging out over the metallicity gradients and the
dependence of metallicity on luminosity). The metallicity of the gas is
$\approx 30$\% of solar (Fig.~3). Thus with 80\% of the mass in the gas
and a similar metallicity for the gas and the stars,
$\approx\threequarters$ of the metals are in the gas phase. Since there
are only subtle differences in the stellar spectra of `bulges' in groups
and clusters from the field, these results should apply to most galaxies
and therefore we expect that $\approx 20$\% of the observable baryons
and `most' of the total mass in stars is in bulges and that the rest of
the baryons are in the hot gas phase. It is amusing that this radical
result is actually found in semi-analytic models (Somerville \& Primack
1999).

What do these results imply for the formation and evolution of
galaxies?
\begin{itemize}
\item{Galaxies
are open systems -- much of their evolution involves outflow and inflow
of gas.}
\item{The presently-observable stars do not contain most of the
metals.}
\item{One cannot study the history of metal creation by looking
only at the `relic' stars.}
\item{The relic gas contains most of the `stuff'
-- where is this gas when it is not in groups and clusters?}
\item{Estimates of the total metals created by counting only stars are
wrong --
{\em c.f.}, the controversy (Madau this symposium) over the evolution of the
star formation rate in the universe.}
\item{There has been a lot more
metal creation/star formation in the universe than indicated by
normalizing to present day stellar data (Loewenstein \& Mushotzky
1996) because most of the metals are in the hot gas phase and not in
the stars. This is also essential for the semi-analytic models, which
require a large contribution from supernova energy to explain the
observed pattern of mass-to-light ratio and metallicity in
galaxies (see next section).}
\end{itemize}

\begin{figure}
\resizebox{0.9\textwidth}{!}{\rotatebox{270}{\includegraphics{mushotzkyr1_fig1xv.eps}}}
\caption{Abundance {\em vs.\ }redshift of selected clusters of galaxies as
observed by ASCA. The
objects are selected to have the smallest uncertainties in abundance,
except for the point at
$z\approx 0.83$ which is the average of 2 clusters. The abundance scale is that of
Anders \& Grevesse
(1989). The horizontal lines are the $\pm 1\,\sigma$ range for the low-$z$ sample
shown in Fig.~3.}
\end{figure}

\section{The History of Star Formation has Very Strong Implications for the
Evolution of the Gas}

\subsection{Evidence for Extra Heat}
The gas in clusters and groups contains a history of the total energy
deposited in it. This energy originates from two general sources: (1)
gravity (infall shocks and mergers) and (2) star formation (supernova
and stellar winds).  Since massive star formation produces most of the
metals, we can use the metallicity as an estimate of the total heat
produced. For a fixed metallicity the fraction of the energy from star
formation increases as the mass of the system is reduced; in other
words the available energy per particle from infall is reduced as the
mass of the system is lowered while, for a fixed metallicity, the
energy produced by stellar processes remains constant. However it is
important to know when and where the energy is produced. It is
believed that for massive clusters most of the gravitational energy is
produced by the infall shock during ``cluster formation''. Theoretical
N-body hydrodynamical estimates of the creation of entropy (heat) via
shocks (Eke, Navarro \& Frenk 1998) are in good agreement with the
data for {\em massive} clusters.

However at low masses (Ponman, Cannon \& Navarro 1999) there is excess
entropy compared to these simulations. This effect has also been noted
by many in the context of the luminosity temperature relation and the
distribution of entropy in clusters (David {\em et al.}\ 1996). The
theoretical work predicts $L_{X}\propto T^{2}$ while the data show
that $L_{X}\propto T^{3}$ (Markevitchl 1989) and this can also be
explained by `extra' ({\em e.g.}, non-gravitational) heat input (Kaiser
1991).

Detailed calculations (Loewenstein 1999; Tozzi \& Norman (TN) 1999;
Suginohara \& Ostriker 1998; Balogh {\em et al.}\ 1999) indicate that this
energy can be provided by star formation but requires a fairly high
efficiency of conversion of stellar energy into heat since the
$1-3$\,keV/particle that is required is about the maximum that can be
provided by the supenova that produce the metals. Since entropy
$\propto T/\rho^{\frac{2}{3}}$ (at the time of energy injection) for a
given heat input one gets more entropy if the density is low at time
of energy injection. These calculations strongly constrain the total
amount of energy and the epoch at which this energy is
injected. Following the scenarios of TN, where the entropy is
produced at a single epoch before the collapse of cluster, the mass
scale of the transition from a shock (gravity dominated) entropy to a
adiabatic model at a given mass scale is a strong function of the
total entropy and the redshift of energy injection. The appearance of
a floor in the entropy at a mass scale of $M\sim 10^{14}\,M_{\odot}$
($T\sim 1$\,keV) requires in their model a redshift of $z\sim 3-5$ for
the injection of the energy.  Suginohara
\& Ostriker (1998), who use a rather different set of constraints based
on the absence of thermal cooling runaway in clusters also require a
similar redshift for energy injection . While the situation is unclear
it seems as if certain structure formation scenarios (the
semi-analytic models presented by Valageas \& Silk 1999 and Wu, Fabian
\& Nulsen 1999) are not consistent with the required amount of extra
energy being provided solely by supernova.

\begin{figure}
\resizebox{0.9\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*[130,370][445,685]{mushotzkyr1_fig2.eps}}
\caption{The ratio of gas mass to galaxy mass for a set of clusters
{\em vs.\ }total mass. The objects are selected from the literature
and much of the variance is due to different assumptions about the
conversion of light to mass, different radii analyzed for galaxy data
and x-ray images. All of these objects are at $z<0.1$. Recent work
(Schindler 1999) indicates that this does not vary much with
redshift.}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\resizebox{0.9\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*[110,370][475,710]{mushotzkyr1_fig3.eps}}
\caption{Metallicity of the gas for $z<0.1$ clusters. Most of the data are
drawn from Fukazawa (1996). The range in abundance is real and not an
aritfact  of large errors. A
typical error is $\pm 0.04$ in abundance. The vertical axis is the
number of clusters in each bin of abundance=0.05}
\end{figure}

This additional energy can also be checked (Loewenstein 1999; Davis
{\em et al.}\ 1999) by:
\begin{itemize}
\item{calculating the cluster mass {\em vs.\ }$T$ relation (Horner
{\em et al.}\ 1999) -- some of the `extra' energy goes into `temperature' and
at low masses the observed temperatures are ``too high'' for the the
N-body hydrodynamical model masses.  }
\item{measuring the surface
brightness distribution: the gas tends to get puffed-up and have a
flatter surface brightness distribution than predicted by the N-body
hydrodynamical models.}
\item{comparing the ratio of gas to total mass
{\em vs.\ }temperature. If there has been no energy input other than
gravity this should be roughly constant from object to object (White
{\em et al.}\ 1993).  However recent analysis (Mohr {\em et al.}\ 1999; Fujita \&
Takahara 1999) find that the ratio of gas mass to total mass rises as
$M_{\rm gas}/M_{\rm tot}\propto M_{\rm vir}^{0.4}$, that is, more
massive clusters have a larger fraction of their virial mass in gas
(as originally suggested by David {\em et al.}\ 1995 and as indicated in
Fig.~2).The obvious solution is that some of the gas gets expelled
in low mass systems.  This is further supported by the metallicity
found in groups and the wide range of other parameters found in groups
(see next section).}
\end{itemize}

\subsection{What can we say about when the heating occurred?}
The observations that low redshift elliptical galaxies are old and
have mostly stopped forming stars at $z<1$, the lack of evolution in
the cluster metallicity since $z\approx 0.8$ (Fig.~1) and the
predominance of ellipticals in rich clusters all indicate that most of
the star formation in clusters, and thus the source of the additional
entropy occurred at $z>1$. If the heating occurred only prior to
collapse (Ponman {\em et al.}\ 1999) one expects that low mass systems are
isentropic (Balogh {\em et al.}\ 1999) and thus have a steep temperature
gradient. {\em This has not been observed and the best data to date
indicate that groups are roughly isothermal.}

However, as noted above, the effects of heating are much more
efficient if they occur at early times, when the gas was of lower
density. It thus seems likely that the heat was created at moderate to
high redshift sometime near the collapse of the cluster.  Clearly,
detailed calculations are necessary to determine the critical
observations which can determine the amount of energy injected, the
epoch at which it is injected and the source of the energy.

While clusters may be `rare' high density perturbations, groups are
the average place in the universe (see next section). The effects of
heating are most pronounced in groups, as evidenced by their high
specific entropy, their relatively low gas fractions and flat surface
brightness profiles. Thus {\bf most} galaxies have been subjected to
this process. As indicated in the semi-analytic models heating has
profound implications on galaxy formation and the epoch of formation
-- the lesson that one learns is that ONE CANNOT UNDERSTAND GALAXY
FORMATION BY MODELING DARK MATTER HALOS ALONE . There are many other
implications of this; for example: when overdense regions ``get hot''
due to gravitational collapse (cluster and group formation), star
formation stops because the cooling times increase drastically (Cen \&
Ostriker 1999) -- this gives a time dependent bias such that overdense
regions which collapse early (rich clusters) cease star formation at
high redshifts and the regions in which star formation proceeds occur
in lower and lower overdensities at lower redshifts. The effects of
heating due to star formation has a strong feedback loop (Menci \&
Cavaliere1999) and strongly effects the timescale in semi-analytic
models.

If the true energy is $1-3$\,keV/particle, as indicated by the entropy
models (Loewenstein
\& Mushotzky; Loewenstein 1999) then the mean energy per particle of
most of the baryons exceeds the binding energy of even the most
massive galaxies and galactic winds were important for ALL galaxies
(not just dwarfs). {\em The x-ray data for groups and clusters strongly
argues that the galaxies are poor tracers of mass , baryons and metals
and use of them as tracers may give a very poor `picture' of the
universe.}

\section{Data on Cluster and Group Metallicity}
The Fe abundances are strongly peaked near $<Fe>\approx 0.3$ solar and
do not vary with redshift out to at least $z\approx 0.4$ and perhaps
$z\approx 0.8$ (Donahue {\em et al.}\ 1999). This lack of evolution of gas
metallicity combined with the absence of major star formation in the
same clusters strongly constrains the epoch of major metal
formation. The absence of large number of A stars means that the
period of massive star formation has ceased in these systems $\approx
2$\,Gyrs (the age of A stars) before the age of the objects at
$z=0.8$. For $\Omega = 0.2$, $\Lambda_{0}=0.8$, $H_{0}=65\,{\rm
km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ this implies that the epoch of metal formation
is these clusters is at $z>1.2$.  The highest-$z$ cluster with
measured Fe abundance is at $z\approx 1$ (Hattori {\em et al.}\ 1997) and if
we adopt this as the highest redshift at which cluster metallicity is
not evolving this would constrain the epoch of metal formation in
clusters to $z> 1.4$.

\subsection{Abundance Pattern:}
The data are fairly robust with respect to Fe and Si (Fukazawa {\em et al.}\
1998) moderate for S but poor for Mg, O, Ca, Ar, Ne.  Recent analysis
of ASCA, XTE and SAX data (Dupke \& White 1999) give a strong
indication that Ni maybe be very overabundant with respect to Fe.  One
needs to combine these patterns with supernova models to derive
constraints (Gibson, Loewenstein \& Mushotzky 1998) and the relative
numbers of type~I and type~II supernova. Unfortunately the
uncertainties in yields and SN models make strong statements very
uncertain.  The existence of abundance gradients in Si/Fe in about
$\onethird$ of all clusters and groups (Finoguenov \& Ponman 1999;
Ezawa {\em et al.}\ 1997) seem to show that the centers of clusters are
relatively enriched in type I products and the outer regions are
almost `pure' type~IIs. The bulk of all the heavy elements is in the
outer regions. As shown in Lowenstein \& Mushotzky (1996) the toal
mass of Si seen in clusters indicates that type~II's have dominated
the total metal production, consistent with the early origin of the
metals in bursts of star formation. However the situation is not yet
fully resolved ({\em c.f.}, Arimtoto {\em et al.}\ 1997) and in order to determine
the true ratio of type~I to type~II will require better data for O, Ni
and Mg -- the elements that most sensitive to the relative number of
different types of supernova.

\section{Results For Groups}
Groups are the average place in the universe, over 70\% of all the
galaxies in the local volume of space occur in groupings and it is
very rare indeed to find truly isolated galaxies (Burstein 1999 pc. --
of the 2700 galaxies in the Tully Nearby Galaxies Atlas, only 35 are
not in a group, and none of those 35 are more than 0.75\,Mpc from
another giant galaxy). Thus the results for groups should apply to
{\em the universe as a whole if the x-ray emittings groups are
representative.}

Recent x-ray results show that large x-ray halos are a common property
of bulge dominated groups (Mulchaey {\em et al.}\ 1998) but are very rare in
spiral dominated systems.  The masses determined for the groups are
determined via the same techniques as for clusters (via use of
hydrostatic equilibrium and spatially resolved temperatures).

The derived masses are `typically' $\sim 3\times 10^{13}\,M_{\odot}$
at the viral radius (but only two groups have been measured to the
virial radius and if the systems are really dominated by
non-gravitational heat the extrapolation to the virial radius is
uncertain -- see Loewenstein 1999).

The space density of these systems is large and in rough agreement
with that predicted for virialized systems in LCDM models. Thus use of
an x-ray selected survey can derive the mass density of virialized
systems over a mass range $>100$ (from the lowest mass groups to the
richest clusters).

There is a very poor correlation between the optical richness of the
group and the x-ray temperature or luminosity (Mulchaey {\em et al.}\
1996). However there is an excellent agreement between the velocity
dispersion as derived from observations of the numerous small galaxies
in x-ray luminous groups (Mulchaey \& Zabludoff 1998) and the x-ray
temperature. This essentially implies that in groups the optical light
does not trace mass at all! The x-ray emission is a much more direct
tracer of mass than optical light and determination of the group mass
and mass distribution will be a strong test of all structure formation
models. This is a serious warning about the use of optical light to
trace mass in the universe since most galaxies are in poor groups.

The baryonic fraction, the gas to stellar mass and the $M/L$ ratio all
show wide variations in groups, but the mean values are distributed
around the cluster average (Fig.~4)

\begin{figure}
\resizebox{0.9\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*[120,75][380,310]{mushotzkyr1_fig3.eps}}
\caption{Ratio of baryonic (gas + stars) to total mass for groups. The
cluster average is
indicated with a vertical bar. The range for clusters is considerably
smaller than in groups.}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Abundance Data}
The metallicity in groups has a much larger range than that found in
clusters and is often less
(Fig.~5).

\begin{figure}
\resizebox{0.9\textwidth}{!}{\includegraphics*[100,440][440,690]{mushotzkyr1_fig4.eps}}
\caption{The abundance in groups. Compare to Fig.~3 for rich clusters
and note the much larger spread.}
\end{figure}

The ``iron mass to light ratio'' (ratio of total mass in Fe
(stars+gas) to the total light -- Renzini {\em et al.}\ 1997) tends to be
much lower than in clusters. If we believe that the stars visible
today in the groups are the tracers of the population that produced
the metals then this indicates that the groups have lost a substantial
fraction of their metals.

The abundance pattern is not well determined (Davis {\em et al.}\ 1999) but
the Si/Fe ratio is smaller than in clusters (Fukazawa {\em et al.}\ 1998)
indicative of either a larger ratio of type~I to type~II supernova
than in clusters, which is hard to understand, or a loss of type~II
material (Davis {\em et al.}\ 1999). Since the groups tend to have a higher
specific entropy than clusters (normalized to the expected shock
value) and have a wider range in baryon fraction, all these signatures
are consistent with mass ejection via the energy input from stellar
sources associated with massive star formation (SN+winds) on the group
mass scale.

\subsection{What does this mean for the high redshift Universe?}
The low iron mass to light ratios strongly constrain evolution
scenarios and indicate (1) either these systems have lost much of
their baryons and metals (winds from galaxies and groups) and/or (2)
they have been much more strongly effected by infall of primordial
material than clusters. {\em And thus even the most massive ``normal
systems'' have been affected by non-gravitational processes.}

\section{Conclusions:}
The picture of the high redshift universe that one obtains from x-ray
observations of groups and clusters in the $z<0.8$ universe is
radically different from what was the standard picture five years
ago. Clusters are old, and because they can hold onto all their
material (and even accrete from the IGM), they are the only systems
that are representative of the universe as a whole.  There are strong
indications from observations of groups and clusters that
non-gravitational effects are extremely important in the formation of
galaxies and groups and that gravity is not dominant on all
scales. One finds that at the group scale that galaxies are very poor
tracers of mass. The combination of all these effects may help to
explain the difficulty of comparing numerical N-body simulations of
structure formation against the available galaxy data. Finally the
importance of feed-back from non-gravitational energy sources, as
indicated in the semi-analytic models, cannot be underestimated. We
anticipate that the study of large scale structure with x-ray samples
will radically change our understanding of the universe.

In the next year, with the new data from Chandra (now operating), XMM
and Astro-E there will be a qualitative change in the signal to noise,
angular resolution and spectral resolution of the data and many of the
conclusions reached in this review will be strongly tested.

\acknowledgements
I would like to thank the organizers for the chance to present the
``Hy-Energy'' view of the
universe and for an exciting and well organized meeting. I would like to
thank my
collaborators: M Loewenstein, U. Hwang, J. Mulchaey, D. Davis, C. Scharf
and D. Horner
who have done so much of this work. Andrew Bunker is thanked for his
assistance in assembling this manuscript.


A solution of a hoary conundrum: the origin and properties of cosmic rays

Abstract: I discuss a theory of non-solar cosmic rays (CRs) based on a single type of CR source at all energies. All observed properties of CRs are predicted in terms of very simple and completely `standard' physics. The source of CRs is extremely `economical': it has only one parameter to be fitted to the enormous ensemble of all of the data. All other inputs are `priors', that is theoretical or observational items of information independent of the properties of the source of CRs and chosen to lie in their pre-established ranges.

\section{Introduction}
A couple of years ago, I presented at a large cosmic-ray (CR) conference
a preliminary version of the theory \cite{Florence} I am to summarize here.
The coffee break subsequent to my talk was attended by hundreds of participants.
A prominent CR theorist, who had heard my talk, told me: {\it `Your theory
is unacceptable. It solves the whole problem'}. He paused to make a large hand
gesture embracing the surrounding crowd, and added: {\it `What are then
all these people going to do?} Was he just joking? Not that I am convinced
that we have {\it the complete solution} to the problem. But, I shall argue,
we have {\it a} solution that Ockham would have favoured, for the reasons stated in
the abstract.

The {\it standard} theory posits that, up to the knee, CRs are
produced by supernovae (SNe) \cite{BZ}, via shocks in the
interaction of their roughly spherical non-relativistic ejecta with the interstellar
medium (ISM) \cite{Shlovsky}. The NASA website lists almost 70000 refereed papers
on `cosmic ray(s)', most of them theoretical and
`standard'. As implied by a fraction of these papers, the standard theory has
problems: it does not accelerate CRs up to the knee (e.g.~\cite{Cesarsky}),
the fraction of SN remnants perhaps compatible with the acceleration
of nuclear CRs is insufficient
to explain
the CR luminosity of the Galaxy (e.g.~\cite{HESS}), CRs produced by SN remnants
(most of which are within the `solar circle') would diffuse outwards,
 generating a directional asymmetry which is not observed
(e.g.~\cite{asymmetry}). CRs above the knee are mysterious.

Our theory \cite{DD2006} is {\it non-standard}  in that CRs
are accelerated {\it at all energies} by the {\it relativistic jets} ejected by  SNe.
It is part of a `unified theory of high-energy
astrophysics' \cite{Florence},
based  on the `cannonball' model \cite{GRB1} of the jets of
accreting black holes and neutron stars, which
also explains simply
the properties of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) \cite{DD},
X-ray flashes  (XRFs) \cite{DDDXRF}, their respective afterglows (AGs)
\cite{AGoptical,AGradio}, the gamma `background' radiation \cite{DDGBR}, the CR luminosity of our Galaxy \cite{DD2006,DDLum}, and the properties of
galaxy clusters harbouring `cooling flows'  \cite{CDD}. Many more and less
self-referring citations are given in \cite{DD2006,DD}.

\section{The Cannonball Model}

The `cannon' of the CB model is analogous to the ones
responsible for the ejecta of quasars and microquasars.
{\it Long-duration} GRBs, for instance, are produced in
{\it ordinary core-collapse} SNe by jets of CBs, made of {\it
ordinary-matter plasma}, and travelling with high LFs,
$\gamma\sim{\cal{O}}(10^3)$. As a consequence of the initial star's
rotation, an accretion disk  is produced around
the newly born compact object, either by stellar material originally
close to the surface of the imploding core, or by more distant stellar matter
falling back after the shock's passage \cite{GRB1,ADR}. A CB is emitted, as
in microquasars \cite{Felix}, when part of the accretion disk
falls abruptly onto the compact object.
A summary of the CB
model is given in Fig.~\ref{figCB}.

\begin{figure}
\vskip -1.cm
\hskip 2truecm
\begin{center}
{\epsfig{file=CBmodel3Grab.eps, width=7.2cm}}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1.cm}
\caption{An `artist's view' (not to scale) of the CB model
of long-duration GRBs, XRFs and CRs. A core-collapse SN results in
a compact object and a fast-rotating torus of non-ejected
material. Matter (not shown) episodically accreting
into the central object produces
two narrowly collimated beams of CBs; only some of
the `northern' CBs are depicted. As the CBs move through
the `ambient light' surrounding the star, they forward Compton up-scatter
its photons to GRB or XRF energies, depending on how close
the line of sight is to the CBs' direction.
Each CB produces a GRB `pulse'.
Later, a CB scatters ISM particles,
which are isotropized by its inner magnetic field. In the SN rest
system the particles are boosted by the CB's motion: they have become
CRs. The synchrotron radiation of the electrons is the late AG
of the GRB or XRF. The CBs generate CRs all along their
trajectories, in the galaxy, its halo, and beyond, as the CBs'
collisions with the ISM
slow them down. CRs are also forward-produced, diffusing thereafter in the
local magnetic fields.}
\label{figCB}
\end{figure}

{\it Do SNe emit cannonballs?} Until 2003 \cite{030329}, there was only one
case with data good enough to tell: SN1987A, the core-collapse
SN in the LMC, whose neutrino emission was seen. Speckle interferometry
data taken 30 and 38 days after the explosion \cite{NP}
did show two back-to-back relativistic CBs. The approaching one was `superluminal'.

{\it Are GRBs made by SNe?} For long-duration GRBs, the answer is
affirmative \cite{AGoptical}. The first evidence for a  GRB--SN association
concerned SN1998bw,
at  redshift $z\!=\!0.0085$, observed  within the angular error
towards GRB 980425.

GRBs have `afterglows': they are observable at
radio to X-ray frequencies, for months after their $\gamma$-rays
are seen. The optical luminosity of a 1998bw-like SN
peaks at $\sim\!15\,(1\!+\!z)$ days. The SN light
competes at that time with the AG of its
GRB: it is not always detectable.
 It makes sense {\it to test} whether long-duration GRBs
are associated with a `standard torch' SN,  akin to SN1998bw,
`transported' to their respective redshifts. The test works optimally:
{\it for all $\sim\!15$ cases in which such a SN could be seen,
it was seen (with varying
significance)} and {\it for all $\sim\!15$ cases in which the SN could not be seen,
it was not seen} \cite{AGoptical}. One could hardly do better. In practice SNe could
not be observed at $z\!>\! 1.1$.

Naturally, truly `standard torches' do not exist, but SN1998bw
made such a good job of it that  we could {\it predict}~\cite{DDDSN,DDD329a}
the SN contribution to the AG in all  six recent cases of
early detection of the AGs of near-by GRBs.
 Besides 980425--1998bw,
the most convincing  association was provided by the spectroscopic
discovery of a SN in the AG of GRBs 030329
for which even the night when the SN
would be discovered was foretold \cite{DDD329a}.

In a CB-model analysis of GRBs and their
AGs \cite{DD,AGoptical,AGradio} we find that,
within the pervasive cosmological
factor of a few, the long-GRB--SN association would be $\sim$1:1.
Yet,
current data are insufficient to determine whether long-duration
GRBs are associated with all core-collapse SNe ($\sim\!70$\% of all SNe,
including Type II) or only with Type Ib/c SNe ($\sim\!15$\% of core-collapse
SNe).

{\it CB-model priors.}
The study of GRB AGs \cite{AGoptical,AGradio}
allowed us to extract, case by case, the initial
LF, $\gamma_0$, and (less precisely) the initial mass and
baryon number, $M_0\!\sim\! N_{_{\rm B}}\, m_p\, c^2$,
of CBs, as well as `environmental'
quantities, such as the (highly varying) ISM density and the angle between
the jet of CBs and the observer. Typical values are:
\begin{equation}
\gamma_0\equiv E/(M_0\,c^2)\approx(10^3);
\;\;\;\;
N_{_{\rm B}} \sim {\cal{O}}(10^{50}).
\label{typical}
\end{equation}
$M_0$
is half the mass of Mercury, i.e.~tiny,
compared to the mass of the parent  star.
The $\gamma_0$ values are roughly log-normally distributed
around $\gamma_0\!\sim\!1100$ with a width at half-maximum
extending from $\gamma_d\!\sim\!630$ to $\gamma_u\!\sim\!1400$ \cite{AGradio}.
With these inputs, we could predict all properties of the individual
$\gamma$ pulses of a GRB, each corresponding to a single CB
whose electrons Compton-up-scatter the ambient light \cite{DD}.
The same inputs are used to predict the properties of CRs.

While a CB exits from its parent SN and emits a GRB pulse, it is
assumed~\cite{GRB1} to be expanding, in its rest system, at a speed close
to that of sound in a relativistic plasma ($v_s\!=\!c/\sqrt{3}$). CBs
continuously intercept electrons and nuclei of the ISM, ionized
by the GRB's $\gamma$-rays. Rapidly, such an expanding CB becomes
`collisionless': its
radius becomes smaller than the interaction length between the constituents
of the CB and the ISM. But a CB
still interacts with the charged ISM particles, for it contains a
strong magnetic field.

Assume that the
ISM particles entering a CB's magnetic mesh are trapped,
slowly re-exiting by diffusion. Then, the CB's mass increases as:
\begin{equation}
M_{\rm CB}\approx
M_0\,{\gamma_0/(\beta\,\gamma)},\;\;
\beta\equiv {\sqrt{\gamma^2-1}/ \gamma},
\label{NRmass}
\end{equation}
and, for an approximately hydrogenic ISM of local density $dn_{\rm in}$,
the CB's LF decreases as:
\begin{equation}
{d\,\gamma/(\beta^3\,\gamma^3)} \approx - \,{(m_p/M_0\,\gamma_0})\;
dn_{\rm in}(\gamma).
\label{gammadown}
\end{equation}

 We approximate a CB, in its rest system, by a sphere of radius $R(\gamma)$.
The ISM particles that are
intercepted ---isotropized in the CB's inner magnetic mesh,
and re-emitted--- exert an inwards force on it that counteracts its expansion.
The computed behaviour of $R(\gamma)$
is well described by:
\begin{equation}
R_{_{\rm CB}}(\gamma)\approx  R_0\,
\left[{\gamma_0/(\beta\,\gamma)}\right]^{2/3},
\;\;\;\;
R_0\sim10^{14}\;{\rm cm}.
\label{best}
\end{equation}
The distances
before a CB stops and blows up  range from
a fraction of a kpc to many kpc, depending on the density profile
they encounter.

The interactions of a CB and the ISM
constitute the merger of two  plasmas at a large relative
LF. This merger is very efficient in creating turbulent
currents and magnetic fields (MFs) within the CB.
We assume that the MFs,
as the CB reaches a quasi-stable radius, are in `equipartition':
the MF energy density equals that
of the ISM particles the CB
has temporarily phagocytized.
This results in a MF~\cite{AGoptical}:
\begin{equation}
B_{_{\rm CB}}=3\;{\rm G}\;{(\gamma/ 10^3})\;
\left[{n_{\rm in}/ (10^{-3}\;{\rm cm}^{-3}})\right]^{1/2}\; ,
\label{B}
\end{equation}
where $n_{\rm in}$ is normalized to a typical value in the
`superbubbles' in which most SNe and GRBs are born.  This
result for $B(\gamma)$ is supported by the analysis of the
spectral evolution of GRB AGs.

Charged particles interacting with  turbulently moving MFs tend
to gain energy: a `Fermi' acceleration process.
A `first-principle' numerical analysis~\cite{Fred} of
the merging of two plasmas
demonstrates the generation of such chaotic MFs,
and the acceleration of a small fraction of the injected
particles to the approximate spectrum:
\begin{eqnarray}
{dN/d\gamma_{_A}}&\propto&\gamma_{_A}^{-2.2}\,
\Theta(\gamma_{_A}-\gamma)\,\Theta[\gamma_{\rm max}(\gamma)-\gamma_{_A}],
\nonumber\\
\gamma_{\rm max}(\gamma)
& \simeq & 10^5\;\gamma_0^{2/3}\;(Z/A)\; \gamma^{1/3},
\label{gammaA}
\end{eqnarray}
with $Z$ and $A$ the nuclear charge and mass.
The first  $\Theta$ function reflects the
fact that it is much more likely for the light particles to gain than to lose
energy in their elastic collisions with the heavy `particles' (the CB's
turbulent MF domains). The second $\Theta$  is
the Larmor cutoff implied by the finite radius and
MF of a CB. But for the small dependence on the nuclear
identity (the factor $Z/A$), the spectrum of Eq.~(\ref{gammaA}) is
universal.

The average number
of  pulses in a GRB's
$\gamma$-rays  is $\sim 6$. Thus, the total energy of the two jets of CBs
emitted by a core-collapse SN is:
\begin{equation}
E[{\rm jets}]\simeq 12\,\gamma_0\,N_{_{\rm B}}\,m_p\,c^2
\simeq 2\!\times\! 10^{51}\;\rm erg.
\label{Ejets}
\end{equation}
Practically all of this energy will, in our model, be transferred to CRs
and the MFs they produce.

Let $R_{\rm SN}\!\sim\!2$ per century be the SN rate in our Galaxy.
In a steady state, if the low-energy rays dominating the CR luminosity
are chiefly Galactic in origin, their accelerators must
compensate for the escape of CRs from the Galaxy.
The Milky Way's luminosity in CRs is then:
\begin{equation}
L_{\rm CR}\!\approx\!
R_{\rm SN}\,E{\rm[jets]}\!\approx\! 1.3\times 10^{42}\,\rm erg\, s^{-1}.
\label{SNEsupply}
\end{equation}

\section{Relativistic magnetic rackets}

The essence of our theory of CRs is kinematical and trivial.
In an {\it elastic} interaction of a CB at rest
with ISM electrons or ions of LF $\gamma$,
the light recoiling particles (of mass $m$) retain their incoming energy.
Viewed in the ISM rest system, they
have a spectrum extending, for large $\gamma$,
up to $E\simeq 2\,\gamma^2\,m\,c^2$. A moving CB
is a gorgeous {\it Lorentz-boost accelerator:}
 the particles it elastically scatters with $\sim\!100$\% efficiency
reach up to,
for $\gamma=\gamma_0\!=\!(1\,{\rm to}\,1.5)\!\times\!10^3$,
an $A$-dependent {\bf knee}  energy
$E_{{\rm knee}}(A)\!\sim\! (2\,{\rm to}\,4)\!\times\! 10^{15}\,A\,{\rm eV.}$

A particle of LF $\gamma$ entering a CB at rest may be
accelerated by elastic interactions with the CB's turbulent
plasma. Viewed in the rest system of the bulk of the CB, the interaction
is {\it inelastic} and the particle may re-exit with a LF up to
$\gamma_{\rm max}\!\sim\! 10^7\,\gamma$; see Eq.~(\ref{best}).
Boosted by the CB's motion the spectrum of the scattered particles extends
to $\gamma_{_{\rm CR}}\!\sim\! 2\!\times\! 10^7\,\gamma^2$, in the
ultra-high-energy  (UHE)
 domain, for $\gamma\!\sim\gamma_0\!\sim 10^3$.
This powerful {\it Fermi--Lorentz accelerator} completes our theory of CRs.

The calculation of the CR spectra
takes 2.6 pages \cite{DD2006}, which I do not have here.
For $\gamma\!>\! 2$,  to a good approximation, the elastic contribution
to the CR flux of a nucleus of ISM abundance $n_{_A}$ is:
\begin{eqnarray}
{dF_{\rm elast}\over d\gamma_{_{\rm CR}}}&\propto& n_{_A}
\left({A\over Z}\right)^{\beta_{\rm conf}}
\int_1^{\gamma_0}{d\gamma\over \gamma^{7/3}}
\,{G[\gamma,\gamma_{_{\rm CR}}]}\; ,\nonumber\\
G[\gamma,\gamma_{_{\rm CR}}]&\equiv&
\int_{\rm max[\gamma,\gamma_{_{\rm CR}}/(2\,\gamma)]}
^{\rm min[\gamma_0,2\,\gamma\,\gamma_{_{\rm CR}}]}
{d\gamma_{\rm co}\over \gamma_{\rm co}^{4}}\; ,
\label{NRFlux}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\beta_{\rm conf}$ is the same `confinement' index as in
Eq.~(\ref{tururu});
$dF_{\rm elast}/d\gamma_{_{\rm CR}}$
depends on the priors $n_{_A}$, ${\beta_{\rm conf}}$,
and $\gamma_0$, but not on any
parameter specific to the mechanism of CR acceleration.
The  inelastic contribution is equally simple \cite{DD2006}.

The  source spectrum of a CR nucleus is the sum of an elastic and
an inelastic flux, illustrated, for protons,
in Fig.~\ref{DDelinel}. The elastic flux is larger than the inelastic one
by a factor $f\!\simeq\! 10$ at the nominal position of the proton's knee.
This ratio $f$ is the {\it only} input  for which we have
no `prior' information, and the only parameter to choose in an
unpredetermined range.
The other parameter in Fig.~\ref{DDelinel}, ${N_p}$, is the norm
of the proton inelastic flux at the proton's knee.
Albeit within large errors, $N_p$ (or $N_p\,f$) is determined from the
luminosity of Eq.~(\ref{SNEsupply}), and the Galactic (or universal) rate of SNe.
In the domains wherein they behave as power laws, the
elastic (inelastic) source spectra have indices $\beta_{\rm elast}\!=\!13/6$
($\simeq\!\beta_{\rm elast}+0.3$).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=DDElastinelast4.eps, width=7.5cm,angle=-0}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1.2cm}
\caption{Contributions to the $E^2$-weighed proton source spectrum.

 Notice the predicted {\bf `hip'}.}
\vspace {-.8cm}
\label{DDelinel}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\vspace {-0.8cm}
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=DDGroups4brief.eps, width=6.cm,angle=-0}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1.cm}
\caption{Predicted spectra for the abundant elements
and groups. The vertical scales are $E^3\,dF/dE$. (a): The source
spectra, with a common arbitrary normalization. (b): The CR spectra
at the location of the Earth. Notice that both the horizontal and
vertical scales are different.}
\vspace{-.8cm}
\label{Groups}
\end{figure}

\nopagebreak
\section{Tribulations of a Cosmic Ray}
\label{tribulations}

The source and local fluxes of the main CR elements
are shown in Fig.~\ref{Groups}. These fluxes differ because, on
its way from its source to the Earth, a CR
is influenced by the ambient magnetic fields, radiation and matter.
An extragalactic CR is also affected by cosmological redshift.
Three types of CR `tribulations' must be considered:

{\it Interactions with magnetic fields.}
Fluxes of CRs of Galactic origin, below the free-escape
({\bf ankle}) energy, $E_{\rm ankle}(Z)\!\sim\! Z\times (3\!\times\! 10^{18} \,\rm eV)$,
are enhanced proportionally to their
confinement time:
\begin{equation}
\tau_{\rm conf}\propto \left[{Z\,{\rm GeV}/(c\, p)}\right]^{\beta_{\rm conf}},
\;
{\beta_{\rm conf}}\sim 0.6\pm 0.1.
\label{tururu}
\end{equation}
At higher energies CRs escape or enter the Galaxy practically
unhindered \cite{Cocconi}. Lower-energy
extragalactic CRs entering the Galaxy must overcome the effect of its
exuding magnetic wind~\cite{DD2006}.

{\it Interactions with radiation,} significant for
CRs of extragalactic origin. The best studied one is the `GZK'
$\pi$-photoproduction on the CMB.
Pair ($e^+ e^-$) production is analogous.
Photo-dissociation on the
infrared CBR is also relevant.

{\it Interactions with the ISM} are well understood. CR spallation gives rise
to `secondary' CRs.

\section{Results}

{\it Relative abundances.}
It is customary to discuss the composition of CRs at a fixed
energy $E_{_A}=1$ TeV.
This energy is relativistic, below the
corresponding knees for all $A$, and in the domain wherein the
fluxes are dominantly elastic and very well approximated by a power law
of index $\beta_{\rm th}\!=\!\beta_{\rm elast}\!+\!\beta_{\rm conf}\!\simeq\!2.77$.
Expressed in terms of energy ($E_{_A}\!\propto\! A\,\gamma$), and modified
by the confinement factor of Eq.~(\ref{tururu}), Eq.~(\ref{NRFlux}) becomes:
\begin{equation}
{dF_{\rm obs}/ dE_{_A}}\propto \bar{n}_{_A}\,A^{\beta_{\rm th}-1}
\,E_{_A}^{-\beta_{\rm th}},
\label{compo}
\end{equation}
with $\bar{n}_{_A}$ an average ISM abundance.
At  fixed energy the prediction for the CR abundances relative to hydrogen is:
$X_{_{\rm CR}}(A)\!=\!(\bar{n}_{_A}/ \bar{n}_p)\,A^{1.77}$.
The results, for input $\bar{n}_{_A}$'s in the `superbubbles' wherein most
SNe occur, are shown in Fig.~\ref{f1}.
Eq.~(\ref{compo})
snugly reproduces the large enhancements in the heavy CR abundances
relative to hydrogen, with respect to solar or superbubble abundances
(e.g.~$A^{1.77}\!=\! 1242$ for Fe).
\begin{figure}
\vspace {-2.cm}
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=DDAbundances.eps, width=8.2cm,angle=0}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1.2cm}
\caption{The relative abundances of primary CR nuclei, from H to Ni
around 1 TeV.
The stars  are solar-ISM abundances.
The circles  are the predictions, with input superbubble
abundances, a bit more `metallic' than the solar ones. The squares  are the
CR observations.}
\label{f1}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\vspace {-1.cm}
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=DDAllPart2006.eps, width=7.5cm,angle=-0}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1.2cm}
\caption{The all-particle CR spectrum. The vertical scale is
$E^3\,dF/dE$. Some of the
high-energy data  disagree with others, and with our theory,
which opts for the results of fluorescence detectors.
The two curves correspond to two very different choices
for the `penetrability' of the Galaxy to extragalactic
CRs of energy below the ankle
and have slightly different values of two priors (both within errors):
the width of the $\gamma_0$ distribution and $\beta_{\rm conf}$, defined in
Eq.~(\ref{tururu}).}
\label{AllPart}
\end{figure}

{\it The all-particle spectrum} is shown in
Fig.~\ref{AllPart}.
The curves in this figure (and in later ones)
correspond to  two very different choices of the Galaxy's `penetrability'
 to extragalactic CRs \cite{DD2006}.

The  UHECR all-particle spectrum is
shown in Fig.~\ref{UHECR}. At $E=E_{\rm ankle}$ the extragalactic
contribution is $\sim\!1/2$ of the data.
 The flux shape and norm, at this energy or above it, are
approximate but `absolute': they are the `look-back-time' integral of the CR flux due
to SNe in other galaxies.
The shape of the high-energy end-point
and the height of the hump reflect not only the GZK cutoff,
but also the `Larmor' cutoff for protons.
\begin{figure}
\vspace {-.8cm}
\centering
\epsfig{file=DDHires2006b.eps, height=7cm,  width=7cm,angle=-0}
\vspace{-1.cm}
\caption{The $E^3$-weighed  UHECR spectrum \cite{HIRES1}.
The colour coding is as in Fig.~\ref{AllPart}.}
\label{UHECR}
\end{figure}

{\it The knee region.}
There are recent KASKADE data attempting
to disentangle the spectra of individual elements or groups in the
knee region.
Our predictions
for the spectra of  H, He and Fe are shown in Fig.~\ref{KASKADE}.
The green line in the proton entry has a narrow
$\gamma_0$ distribution, the
red and blue lines have wider distributions (all within the errors
in this `prior') and correspond to the equally coloured lines in
Figs.~\ref{AllPart} and \ref{UHECR}.

\begin{figure}[]
\centering
\vskip .5cm
\vbox{\epsfig{file=DDKneeKbrief.eps,width=7.5cm}}
\caption{Measurements of individual-element CR spectra in
the `knee' region \cite{Hoer}. The vertical scales are $E^{2.5}\,dF/dE$.
Top: protons; middle: $\alpha$ particles; bottom: iron nuclei.
The data were kindly provided to us by K.H. Kampert. The colour
coding is as in Figs.~\ref{AllPart} and \ref{UHECR}. The green line in the
proton entry corresponds to a narrow prior $\gamma_0$-distribution.
The $\alpha$ data and, more so, the Fe data, show the predicted
low-energy `hips', see also Figs.~\ref{DDelinel} and \ref{VeryLowEnergy}.
Notice the dependence of the KASKADE results on the chosen
`shower MonteCarlo'. The data are insufficient to tell apart
$E_{\rm knee}\!\propto\!A$ (our prediction) from $E_{\rm knee}\!\propto\!Z$
(sometimes quoted as the standard-theory result, but correct {\it iff} the limit is
a Larmor cutoff and CR nuclei were accelerated up to their knees).}
\label{KASKADE}
\end{figure}

{\it The low-energy spectra.}
In Fig.~\ref{VeryLowEnergy} we show
the weighted spectra $E_k^{2.5}\,dF/d\,E_k$
of protons and $\alpha$ particles, as functions of $E_k$, the
kinetic energy per nucleon. The data were taken at
various times in the 11-year solar cycle. The most intense
fluxes correspond to data near a solar minimum.
The curves do not  model the
effects of the solar wind. They should agree best with the
solar-minimum data, as they do, particularly for protons.
The theoretical source spectra, dominated by the elastic contribution,
 are given by Eq.~(\ref{NRFlux}). These data are well below the elastic cutoff
at $\gamma_{_{\rm CR}}\simeq 2\,\gamma_0^2$, and the predictions are
independent of the  $\gamma_0$ distribution. Thus, the shape
of the theoretical spectra is, in this energy domain, parameter-free.

\begin{figure}
\vspace {-0.5cm}
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=DDpHeBess6.eps, width=7cm,angle=-0}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1.5cm}
\caption{The very-low-energy fluxes of protons and $\alpha$ particles
at various times in a solar cycle. The 1998 data are close to solar-minimum
time.}
\label{VeryLowEnergy}
\end{figure}

{\it Rough measures of CR composition.}
The evolution of the CR composition with energy is
often presented in terms of the mean logarithmic
atomic weight $\langle \ln A \rangle$, or of the depth into the
atmosphere of the `maximum' of the CR-generated shower,
$X_{\rm max}$. The predicted   $\langle \ln A(E) \rangle$ is
compared with relatively low-energy
data in Fig.~\ref{lnAknee}. Results for $X_{\rm max}(E)$,
are shown in Fig.~\ref{Xmax}.

The predicted $\langle \ln A(E) \rangle$ at all energies,
shown in Fig.~\ref{lnA}, shows how, at very high energies,
the flux is once more Fe-dominated: lighter elements have
reached their GZK, acceleration and Galactic-escape cutoffs.
Naturally, this prediction is  sensitive to the
details of Galactic escape and extragalactic photodissociation.

\begin{figure}
\vspace {0.5cm}
\hbox{\hskip 0.7cm\epsfig{file=DDkneelnA2006Ksmall.eps, width=6.8cm,angle=-0}}
\vspace {-.5cm}
\caption{Mean logarithmic mass of  CRs. Data points were
         compiled  by Hoerandel \cite{Hoer} from
         experiments measuring electrons, muons, and hadrons at
         ground level. The colour-coded lines correspond to the same choices
of priors as in Figs.~\ref{AllPart}--\ref{KASKADE}.
The compilation of data was kindly provided to us by K.H. Kampert.}
\label{lnAknee}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=DDXmax2006.eps, width=8.5cm,angle=-0}
\end{center}
\vspace{-7cm}
\caption{The depth of shower maximum as a function of energy. The data are from a
compilation in Ref.~\cite{ZKP}. The colour-coded lines
correspond to the same choices as in
Figs.~\ref{AllPart}--\ref{KASKADE} and \ref{lnAknee}.
The theoretical lines are constructed with the simplified method of
Wigmans \cite{Wigmans}, arguably as good as any currently-used MonteCarlo.}
\label{Xmax}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\vspace {0.5cm}
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=DDLnAallEnergies2006.eps, width=7cm,angle=-0}
\end{center}
\vspace{-1.2cm}
\caption{Predicted $\langle \ln A(E) \rangle$ at all energies.}
\label{lnA}
\end{figure}

{\it Cosmic-ray electrons.}
Electrons and nuclei are accelerated by the `magnetic-racket'
CBs in the same manner \cite{DD2006,DDGBR}.
The functional form of their source spectra is
therefore the same,
$dF_s/d\gamma\propto\! \gamma^{\beta_{\rm elast}}$,
in the range $10\!<\!\gamma\!<\!10^6$.
Electrons lose energy much more
efficiently than protons in their interactions with radiation, MFs and the ISM.
The rates  $-dE/dt\!\propto\! E^{\alpha}$ of their various
mechanisms of energy loss have different $\alpha$'s.
For Coulomb losses $\alpha=0$; for bremsstrahlung $\alpha=1$; for
inverse Compton scattering (ICS)
and synchrotron losses at the relevant energies, $\alpha=2$.
At sufficiently high energy, the radiative energy loss
dominates the others.
In this domain, the steady-state
solution of the equation describing the radiation-modified electron spectrum,
for a source $dF_s/dE\propto E^{-\beta_{\rm elast}}$, is simply \cite{Anton,DDGBR}:
\begin{equation}
{dF_e/ dE}\propto E^{-\beta_e};\;\;\; \beta_e=\beta_{\rm elast}+1\approx 3.17.
\label{espectr}
\end{equation}
This result agrees with the observed slope of
the CRE spectrum; see Fig.~\ref{CREspectrum}.
The best-fitted value above $E\!\sim\!6$ GeV is
$\beta_{\rm obs}=3.2\pm 0.10$, and the
fit is excellent if the experiments are recalibrated to the same
flux at high energy \cite{DDGBR}.

\begin{figure}[]
\centering
 \epsfig{file=DDCREspectrum.eps,width=6.5cm}
\vspace{-1cm}
\caption{The CRE spectrum, compiled in  \cite{Sapinski}.
The line is the central result of a power fit to the higher-energy data;
its slope is $3.2\pm0.1$ \cite{Sreek}. The different slope below
$\sim\!6$ GeV results from the diffusion of electrons
in the Galactic MF  \cite{DD2006}.}
 \label{CREspectrum}
\end{figure}

{\it The GBR.} The existence
of a diffuse gamma background radiation,
suggested by data from the SAS 2 satellite,
was confirmed by the
EGRET instrument on the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory \cite{Sreek}.
We call `the GBR' the diffuse emission observed by EGRET
by masking the galactic plane at latitudes
$\rm{|b|\le 10^o}$, as well as the galactic centre
at $\rm{|b|\le 30^o}$ for longitudes $\rm{|l|\le 40^o}$,
and by extrapolating to zero column density, to eliminate the $\pi^0$
and bremsstrahlung contributions to the observations and
to tame the model-dependence of the results.
Outside this `mask', the GBR flux integrated over all directions,
shown in
Fig.~\ref{GBRspectrum}, is well described by a power law
$dF_\gamma/dE\!\propto\! E^{-2.10\pm 0.03}$ \cite{Sreek}.

\begin{figure}[]
\vspace{-.5cm}
\centering
 \epsfig{file=DDGBRspectrum.eps,width=7.2cm}
\vspace{-1cm}
\caption{The GBR spectrum, measured by EGRET \cite{Sreek}.
The line is the central result of a power-law fit of
slope  $2.10\pm0.03$.}
 \label{GBRspectrum}
\end{figure}

The EGRET GBR data show a significant deviation from isotropy, correlated with the
structure of the Galaxy and our position relative to its centre \cite{Anton}.
Contrariwise, the GBR's spectral index is uncannily directionally uniform.
These facts suggest a GBR that is partially local, as opposed
to dominantly cosmological, and a common origin for the
Galactic and extragalactic contributions.

In \cite{Anton,DDGBR} we have analyzed the directional and spectral
properties of the EGRET data and concluded that the
GBR is produced by ICS of CREs on starlight and the CBR. It has
comparable contributions from CREs in a Galactic halo
of dimensions akin to the hadronic-CR confinement volume
(a directional and local source) and from other galaxies
(an isotropic cosmological component).
Thus, the GBR is a CR `secondary'.
Its spectral index is the same for the local and cosmological contributions.

If produced by ICS by electrons with the spectrum of
Eq.~(\ref{espectr}), the GBR has a spectrum:
\begin{equation}
{dF^i_\gamma/ dE}\propto E^{-\beta_\gamma},\;\;\;
\beta_\gamma={(\beta_e-1)/2 }\simeq 2.08.
\label{ICSphotpred}
\end{equation}
 The predicted photon spectral index \cite{Anton,DDGBR}
coincides with the measured one, ${2.10\pm 0.03}$ \cite{Sreek}.

{\it Other predictions.}
Our CR theory explains other observations that I have no space to
discuss here: the slight differences between the slopes of the
spectra of the hadronic CRs, the deduced confinement time and volume
of CR electrons and nuclei in the Galaxy \cite{DD2006}, and the
normalization and
directional dependence of the GBR flux \cite{DDGBR}.

\section{Discussion and conclusions}

Our theory is incomplete in several respects. The
ejection of CBs in episodes of accretion onto a compact object is
supported by observations, but not fundamentally understood
(this is also the case for the ejection of SN shells). Because
CBs deposit CRs along their kpc-long trajectories, CR diffusion
does not play a crucial role, but we have not studied it in detail
(in the standard theory diffusion results in directional asymmetries
that are not observed, and calls for ad-hoc remedies, such as
`CR reacceleration'). The temporary confinement of CRs ---in
the Galaxy or within a CB--- is not fully understood. Neither is the
`penetrability' of the Galaxy to extragalactic CRs of energy below
the ankle. We have studied the dynamics of the
expansion of CBs, but not modelled it in minute detail. We contend
that a good fraction of the original energy of CRs ends up in the
production of  `equipartition' MFs~\cite{DDMF}, but we cannot predict this, nor
determine the effect that it may have on the CR spectral shape.

In spite of the above limitations, we have
demonstrated how our simple {\it and single}
accelerators ---cannonballs--- are effective at all observed
energies. The mechanisms of CR acceleration, particularly
the `elastic' one, could hardly be simpler: a fast massive object
slows down by kicking out of its way the light particles
it encounters.

Most of our results are `robust' in that ---within very large brackets---
they do not depend on the specific choices of parameters and priors:\\
$\bullet$ An all-particle piecewise power-law spectrum with four
features: two steepenings at the knee and the second knee, a
softening at the ankle, and an end-point at the roughly-coincident
GZK and proton-acceleration cutoffs.\\
$\bullet$ An UHECR flux above the ankle, which is predicted ---to
within a factor of a few--- and otherwise parameter-free.\\
$\bullet$ A composition dependence at 1 TeV with the observed trend,
so different from that of the ISM.\\
$\bullet$ A very low-energy flux whose spectral shape is independent of any
CB-model `prior' parameters.\\
$\bullet$ Individual-element knees that scale like $A$ and occur at the
predicted energies.\\
$\bullet$ A non-trivial shape of the individual knees: an abrupt decrease in flux,
followed by a spectrum
 steeper than that below the knee.\\
$\bullet$ An ankle with the observed shape. The dominantly Galactic-Fe flux
below it and the dominantly extragalactic-proton flux above it are comparable
in magnitude at the estimated escape `ankle' energy \cite{Cocconi} of Galactic protons.\\
$\bullet$ A composition dependence that is almost energy-independent below
the knee becomes `heavier' from the knee to the second knee,
`lighter' again above it, and finally heavier at yet unmeasured ultra-high
energies.\\
$\bullet$ An `extended' distribution of CR sources along CB trajectories emerging
from the central realms of the Galaxy, where most SN explosions occur,
implying a CR flux at the Earth's location with a much
smaller and less energy-dependent anisotropy than that of standard
 models of CRs.\\
$\bullet$
Predictions for the values of a related set of observables:
the CR luminosity, confinement time and volume of the Galaxy, the spectral
indices of CR electrons and of the diffuse GBR. \\

Our results describe the observed properties of hadronic non-solar
CRs very well from the lowest energies  to
$\sim 10^{10}$ GeV. Above that energy and up to the highest observed
energies, $\sim 10^{11}$ GeV, our theory opts for the data gathered with
fluorescence detectors. Overall, the energy range for which the theory is
successful covers ten decades
and the flux extends over  three times as many.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
I thank Shlomo Dado and Arnon Dar for a long and fruitful collaboration, and
Nick Antoniou, Giuseppe Cocconi,
Andy Cohen, Sergio Colafrancesco, Shelly Glashow and
Rainer Plaga for collaboration and/or patient discussions.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology (hep-ph); Astrophysics (astro-ph)


The Dwarf Satellites of M31 and the Galaxy

Abstract: The satellite systems of M31 and the Galaxy are compared. It is noted that all five of the suspected stripped dSph cores of M31 companions are located within a projected distance of 40 kpc of from the nucleus of this galaxy, whereas the normal dSph companions to this object have distances > 40 kpc from the center of M31. All companions within 200 kpc < D(M31) < 600 kpc are late-type objects. The companions to the Galaxy appear to exhibit different systematics with the irregular LMC and SMC being located at small R_{gc}. It is speculated that this difference might be accounted for by assuming that the Magellanic Clouds are interlopers that were originally formed in the outer reaches of the Local Group. The radial distribution of the total sample of 40 companions of M31 and the Galaxy, which is shown in Figure 1, may hint at the possibility that these objects contain distinct populations of core (R < 25 kpc) and halo (R > 25 kpc) satellites.)

\section{INTRODUCTION}

In the present investigation the data on the companions to M31 and the Galaxy are extended by including a number of recently discovered satellites. Furthermore, following Koch \& Grebel (2006), some compact objects that are widely believed to be the stripped cores of now defunct dwarf spheroidal galaxies, have been added to the list of satellites to M31 and the Galaxy. This enlarged database is then used to investigate some of the systematics of the
M31 and Milky Way satellite systems. In particular we seek to answer three questions: (1) How does the morphological type of a satellite depend on its distance from the center of its parent galaxy? (2) Do inner and outer dwarf satellites belong to separate core and halo populations, and (3) were the Magellanic Clouds formed as satellites of the Galaxy, or might they have been  captured from the outer reaches of the Local Group?

\section{ DATA ON LOCAL GROUP SATELLITES}

\subsection{\it The companions of M31.}

A listing of the known companions to the Andromeda galaxy is given in Table 1. Also included in this table are five objects that lie above the relation of Mackey and van den Bergh (2005), and which might therefore be regarded as candidate stripped cores of dwarf galaxies, rather than as extended globular clusters. The distances to, and structural parameters of, the majority
of the M31 companions were taken from the recent compilation by McConnachie \& Irwin (2006). Following Ferguson, Gallagher \& Wyse (2000) we assume that And IV is, in fact, a background galaxy that is viewed through the disk of the Andromeda galaxy. Furthermore the reality of Andromeda VIII (Morrison et al.
2003) does not yet appear to have been firmly established (Merrett
et al. 2006). This object has therefore been excluded from the present compilation.  Also Andromeda NE (Zucker et al. 2004) has been omitted from the
sample because the true nature of this object is still not firmly established. However, following this same reference , Andromeda IX has been included in Table 1. Andromeda X (Zucker et al. 2006) was also accepted as a dwarf spheroidal companion to M31. Also included in Table 1 are Mayall II = G1, which is suspected of being the stripped core of a dwarf galaxy (Meylan et al. 2001) and the most luminous M31 globular cluster 037-B327, which is also believed to be the stripped nucleus of a dwarf spheroidal (Ma et al. 2006). Also
included in Table 1 are the three extended objects discovered recently by Huxor et al. (2005) which lie above and to the left of the relation of Mackey and van den Bergh (2005), that appears to separate true globular clusters from the stripped cores of dwarf spheroidals. All five of the objects discussed above appear projected close to the nucleus of the Andromeda galaxy and were therefore assumed to be situated at the same distance from the Sun as M31 itself.  Both proper motions and radial velocities will be required to establish which of the objects listed in Table 1 are true satellites of M31, and which ones should more properly be regarded as free-floating members of the Andromeda subgroup of the
Local Group (van den Bergh 2000, p.285). Inspection of the data in Table 1 shows a clear dependence of morphological type on distance from the center of M31; an effect first noticed by Einasto et al. (1974). All 15 Andromeda satellites that are situated at D(M31) $<$ 200 kpc are seen to be of early type. On the other hand four out of seven of the galaxies with 200 kpc $<$ D(M31) $<$ 600 kpc
are of late type. [M33 (Sc), IC 10 (Ir), IC 1613 (Ir) and Pegasus = DDO 216 (Ir)].

\subsection{\it Companions to the Galaxy.}

A listing of possible physical companions to the Milky Way
system (van den Bergh 2000, Grebel, Gallagher \& Harbeck 2003) is given in Table 2. The object Willman 1 (Willman et al. 2006) has been excluded from the table because, with $M_{v} = -3.0$ and $R_{h} = 23$ pc, it falls well below the empirical relation (Mackey \& van den Bergh 2005) that appears to separate globular clusters from dwarf spheroidal galaxies. On the other hand the newly discovered Ursa Major system (Willman et al. 2005), which has $M_{v} = -6.75$ and $R_{h} = 250$ pc, lies far above this relation in the domain occupied by normal dwarf spheroidal galaxies. The Ursa Major system has therefore been included among the Galactic satellite galaxies listed in Table 2. On the other hand the Canis Major system was excluded because the possibility that it is a peculiar deformation or asymmetry of the outer Galactic disk cannot yet
be definitely ruled out (Bellazzini et al. 2006). Recently Carraro et al. (2006) have also suggested that NGC 6791 might be the nucleus of a tidally disrupted metal-rich galaxy. A more plausible suggestion (van den Bergh 2000, pp. 54-55)
would seem to be that NGC 6791 is a metal-rich open cluster that was ejected from the Galactic nuclear bulge by interactions with  the bar near center of the Galaxy. The fact that Carraro et al. find no significant abundance spread among the members of NGC 6791 also militates  against the suggestion that this object is the remnant core of a once more massive Galactic satellite.

\section{DISCUSSION}

Inspection of the data in Table 1 and Table 2 shows that the Galactic satellite system differs from that of M31 in three important ways: (1) All inner satellites of M31 are early-type objects. On the other hand the LMC and the SMC are presently situated at small Galactocentric distances. This perhaps encourages the speculation (Byrd et al. 1994) that the Magellanic Clouds might be interlopers that were initially formed in a more remote region of the Local Group. [A recent paper on the orbit of the LMC (Pedreros et al.
2006) {\it assumes} that the LMC is gravitationally bound to, and in an elliptical orbit around, the Galaxy.]  (2) All of the suspected stripped cores in M31 occur at small (R $<$ 40 kpc) distances from the nucleus of M31. However, among companions to the Galaxy the putative stripped core NGC 2419 is located quite far ($R_{gc}$ = 92 kpc) from the Galactic center. This suggests that this object may have had a different evolutionary history from those of NGC 5139  = $\omega$ Centauri $(R_{gc}$ = 6 kpc) and NGC 6715 = M54 $(R_{gc}$ = 19 kpc). (3) McConnachie \& Irwin (2006) have drawn attention to the fact that the dwarf spheroidals associated with the Galaxy have half-light radii that are two or three times larger than those of the dSph galaxies surrounding M31. The recently discovered Galactic satellite in Ursa Major (Willman et al. 2005) strengthens and confirms this result. It is not yet clear if the observed systematic differences between the dSph satellites of M31 and the Galaxy are due to stronger tidal striping of Galactic companions, or if the presently available data sample might have been more strongly biased against the discovery of Galactic companions of low surface brightness. It should of course be emphasized that it is very likely that many additional very low luminosity satellites of both M31 and the Galaxy remain to be discovered.  With the discovery of the UMa system one finds that the satellites of M31 and of the Galaxy, that are located within 150 kpc of their parents, now have a spread in surface brightness in excess of 5 mag arcmin$^{-2}$ . On the other hand the more distant satellites Leo I, Leo II, And II, And VI and And VII appear to have a much smaller luminosity dispersion and all have a surface brightness higher than 25 mag arcmin$^{-2}$. This difference might be due (McConnachie \& Irwin 2006) to a radial surface density gradient, or perhaps more plausibly, to observational selection effects that have biased the sample of dwarf spheroidal satellites against the discovery of distant low surface brightness objects.

In their comparison of (fossil) satellites with detailed numerical simulations of galaxy survival Gnedin \& Kratsov (2006) note a discrepancy between theory and observation, in the sense that the observed radial distribution of fossils shows an excess of satellites at small radial distances. The present data increase the size of this discrepancy because of the inclusion of the putative stripped cores of dwarf spheroidals which (with the sole exception of NGC 2419) are all located at quite small radial distances from the nuclei of M31 and the Galaxy.

A plot of the cumulative radial distribution of all of the satellites of M31 and the Galaxy is shown in Figure 1. This figure appears to show an
abrupt break at R $\sim$25 kpc. The existence of this sharp discontinity
suggests that the six innermost satellites (B327 - 3 kpc, M32 - 6 kpc,
NGC 5139 = $\omega$ Centauri -6 kpc, Hux C1 -13 kpc, Hux 3 -14 kpc,
and Sgr -19 kpc) might, in some way that is presently not understood,
differ from the other satellites of the Galaxy and M31. The observed
excess of satellites at small galactocentric distances is surprising
because one  would actually have expected disruptive tidal forces to have
produced a deficiency of satellites with pericentric radii $<$ 30 kpc
(Gauthier, Dubinski \& Widrow 2006). It would be interesting to
know if the apparent existence of an excess population of dwarfs
at small radial distances is related to a result of recent N-body
simulations (Lu et al. 2006) which appear to show that the assembly
of cold dark matter halos occurs in two phases: (1) a fast-accretion stage
with a rapidly deepening potential well, and (2) a  slow-accretion
stage characterized by a gentle addition of mass to the outer halo
with little change to the inner potential well.

A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test shows no statistically significant
differences between the distributions of the galactocentric
distances of the companions of M31 and of the Galaxy. This
conclusion is consistent with that of McConnachie \& Irwin (2006)
which was, however, based on a smaller data sample.

Within the, admittedly limited, accuracy of published
metallicity values there is no obvious systematic difference
between the Mv versus [Fe/H] relationships for the late-type
satellites of M31 and of the Galaxy.

In summary it appears that the M31 and Milky Way satellite
systems are broadly similar, except for the presence of the
LMC and the SMC, which might be interlopers that originated
in distant reaches of the Local Group. To check on this possibility
by detailed orbit computations one would have to have a much
improved knowledge of the three-dimensional shape and radial profile of
the gravitational potential of the Milky Way dark halo.

It is a pleasure to thank Ken Freeman, Eva Grebel, Nitya
Kallivayalil and Mario Pedreros for helpful exchanges of
of correspondence. I am also indebted to an unusually helpful
anonymous referee.