It is currently Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:42 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 7:02 am
Posts: 285
Location: MPE Garching
I recently noticed that electron inverse Compton energy losses are treated in the Thompson limit using the total ISRF energy density.
In my original development of the code around 2000 this was done as a provisional solution with the idea to upgrade this but somehow it got forgotten.
It means the energy losses at high energies (TeV) on optical radiation fields are incorrect as it enters the Klein-Nishina regime.
The correct way to do it is to integrate over the ISRF using the KN formula,
just as is done for gamma-ray production.


Also note that only continuous losses are handled by galprop,
while at high energies the losses become catastropic. This will require
a more fundamental development of the propagation code.

_________________
Andy Strong, MPE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 11:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:35 pm
Posts: 19
Location: Santa Cruz, California
I went and checked this. The KN losses are treated correctly (in create_transport_arrays.cc when electrons/positrons are created, e_KN_loss is called to generate the IC losses for all points in the spatial grid).

_________________
Dr. Troy A. Porter
Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory
452 Lomita Mall
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: catastrophic losses
PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 7:02 am
Posts: 285
Location: MPE Garching
good to know.
In fact it was done by Igor in October 2006
(the other method is still there but only to test analytical cases)




But catastrophic losses are anyway not handled correcly,
a problem at TeV.

_________________
Andy Strong, MPE


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 8:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:35 pm
Posts: 19
Location: Santa Cruz, California
Right. To do it properly we would probably need to use a Monte Carlo solution for the transport equations. We could put this in but it would require some redesign (and not just a small amount of it, either).

_________________
Dr. Troy A. Porter
Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory
452 Lomita Mall
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:07 pm
Posts: 34
Location: Stanford
The effect of treating this properly is negligible, cf. secondary protons vs primary protons. I did the proper treatment of the catastrophic losses, here is why "secondary protons."

_________________
Igor Moskalenko
Stanford University


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:26 am
Posts: 4
Location: Aachen
Examining the code, I found that right now the energy losses for electrons are treated in the following way:

First of all the method electron_loss(...) gets called, in which the inverse compton losses in the Thompson limit are included.
Later in the code the e_KN_losses(...) function calculates the Klein-Nishina losses. Is it correct to have both methods in the code? Wouldn't energy losses due to inverse compton interactions be considered twice now?

Also, since I am interested in doing calculations with TeV electrons to study the effect of local sources on the spectrum, could you please elaborate on the problem with catastrophic losses?

Cheers
Bastian Beischer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:07 pm
Posts: 34
Location: Stanford
The IC losses are NOT taken into account twice.
Before calling the routine electron_loss, the energy density of photon field is set to zero:
double uevcm3=0.

The effect of catastrophic losses is negligible due to the very steep spectrum of VHE electrons.

_________________
Igor Moskalenko
Stanford University


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 7:02 am
Posts: 285
Location: MPE Garching
But the steep spectrum is itself the result of the losses. Maybe it's less steep if they are catastrophic.
Anyway eventually it should be done correctly if we want to do TeV and above.
Meanwhile a simple analytical comparison of the approaches would shed light on the matter.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group