1: \documentclass{mem}
2: \usepackage{natbib}\usepackage{txfonts}\usepackage{balance}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage[a4paper]{hyperref}
5: \idline{75}{282}
6: \begin{document}
7: \def\mincir{\raise -2.truept\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{$\sim$}}\raise5.truept \hbox{$<$}\ }}
8: \def\magcir{\raise-2.truept\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{$\sim$}}\raise5.truept \hbox{$>$}\ }}
9:
10: \title{VHE astrophysics: recent developments}
11:
12: \subtitle{}
13:
14: \author{
15: Massimo Persic\inst{1}
16: \and
17: Alessandro De~Angelis\inst{2}
18: }
19:
20: \offprints{M.~Persic}
21:
22: \institute{
23: INAF and INFN, Trieste, Italy ~~~(\email{persic@oats.inaf.it})
24: \and
25: Universit\`a di Udine and INFN, Udine, Italy
26: }
27:
28: \authorrunning{Persic \& De~Angelis}
29:
30:
31: \abstract{
32: We review the current status, and some open issues, of VHE astrophysics.
33: \keywords{Gamma rays: observations, supernova remnants, pulsars, pulsar wind nebulae,
34: galaxies, active galactic nuclei; cosmic rays; dark matter }
35: }
36:
37: \maketitle{}
38:
39: \section{Introduction}
40:
41: The ground-breaking work of the imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescope (IACT) Whipple
42: led to the earliest detections of sources in the VHE (i.e., $\sim$0.1-100~TeV) band,
43: the Crab pulsar and nebula (Weekes et al. 1989) and the blazar Mrk~421
44: (Punch et al. 1992). These pioneering attempts initiated VHE astrophysics. Following
45: on, the first generation of major IACTs -- that included CAT (1996-2003), CANGAROO
46: (1992-2001) and HEGRA (1993-2002), in addition to Whipple (1969-2003) itself --
47: broadened the discovery potential of the new field by detecting several more blazars
48: and Galactic sources.
49: Thanks to reduced low-energy thresholds, improved sensitivities, wider-field cameras,
50: and lighter mechanical structures, the current second-generation IACTs -- i.e., H.E.S.S.
51: (2003-), MAGIC (2004-), CANGAROO III (2004-), and VERITAS (2006-) -- have taken VHE
52: astrophysics into maturity.
53:
54: In this paper we highlight some recent progress in VHE astrophysics obtained with the
55: current generation of instruments.
56:
57:
58: \section{Galactic sources}
59:
60: In a seminal VHE survey of the Galactic plane, the southern-located H.E.S.S. telescope discovered
61: 14 previously unknown sources (Aharonian et al. 2006a). Further Galactic sources, accessible from
62: the northern hemisphere, were subsequently observed with the MAGIC telescope (e.g., Albert et al.
63: 2007a). Proposed counterparts of such Galactic VHE sources include supernova remnants (SNRs), pulsar
64: wind nebulae (PWNe), and accreting binaries. Whatever their detailed nature, it is expected that
65: Galactic VHE sources are related to evolutionary endproducts of massive, bright, short-lived,
66: stellar progenitors. Hence, these Galactic VHE sources are immediate tracers of the current star
67: formation.
68:
69: \subsection{Supernova remnants}
70:
71: Galactic cosmic rays have long been suspected to be produced at supernova (SN) shock fronts via
72: diffusive acceleration. If the observed VHE $\gamma$-rays were found to be generated through the
73: hadronic channel, via $\pi^0$ decay following pp interaction with the dense molecular clouds embedding
74: the short-lived SN progenitor, then the acceleration by SNe of nuclei to energies of the order of
75: the knee in the CR spectrum would be virtually proven (e.g., Torres et al. 2003). However, it is
76: difficult to disentangle the hadronic VHE component from the leptonic one, produced by inverse-Compton
77: (IC) scattering of interstellar radiation field photons (in the inner Galaxy) or CMB photons (in the
78: outer Galaxy) off ultrarelativistic electrons (e.g., Porter et al. 2006), by measuring $\gamma$-rays
79: over only a decade or so in energy. The VHE data of RX~J1713.7-3946 can be explained in terms of
80: either channel, leptonic/hadronic if the relevant magnetic field is low/high ($B$$\sim$10/100$\,\mu$G:
81: Aharonian et al. 2006b and Berezhko \& V\"olk 2006). Data in the $\sim$0.1--100~GeV band, such as those
82: to be provided by AGILE and GLAST, are clearly needed to discriminate between the two channels. (For
83: Cas~A the high magnetic field, $B$$\sim$1~mG, suggests a mostly hadronic [Berezhko et al. 2003] VHE
84: emission [O\~na-Wilhelmi et al. 2007].)
85:
86: Whatever the details, the detection of photons with energy $\magcir$100 TeV from RX~J1713.7-3946 is a
87: proof of the acceleration of primary particles in SN shocks to energies well above 10$^{14}$~eV. The
88: differential VHE spectral index is $\sim$2.1 all across this SNR, suggesting that the emitting
89: particles are ubiquitously strong-shock accelerated, up to energies $\sim$200/100 TeV for primary CR
90: protons/electrons if the hadronic/leptonic channel is at work (Aharonian et al. 2007). This is getting
91: close to the knee of the CR spectrum, $\sim$10$^{15.5}$~eV, that signals the high-energy end of the
92: Galactic CR distribution (e.g., Blasi 2005).
93:
94: Circumstantial evidence supports a hadronic origin of the VHE emission. In several expanding SNRs
95: the X-ray brightness profile behind the forward shock is best explained as synchrotron emission from
96: energetic electrons in high magnetic fields, $B$$\sim${\cal O}(10$^2)\,\mu$G, i.e. $\sim$100 times
97: larger than typical interstellar medium (ISM) values. Such a large amplified magnetic field disfavors
98: the IC interpretation of the VHE data. Furthermore, in the remnant H.E.S.S.$\,$J1834-087 the maximum of
99: the extended VHE emission correlates with a maximum in the density of a nearby molecular cloud
100: (Albert et al. 2006a) -- which suggests hadronic illumination of the target molecular cloud.
101:
102:
103: \subsection{Pulsars and associated nebulae}
104:
105: Discrimination between different processes of pulsar magnetospheric emission (e.g., polar-cap vs
106: outer-gap scenario) is one clear goal of VHE astrophysics. Polar-cap (e.g., Daugherty \& Harding
107: 1982, 1996) and outer-gap (e.g., Cheng et al. 1986; Romani 1996) models essentially
108: differ by the location of the gap in the pulsar magnetosphere. In the former case
109: this is close to the neutron star (NS) surface, whereas in the latter it is further away from it.
110: Thus, the influence of the magnetic field ($B$$\sim$10$^{11-13}$~G) is crucially different in
111: these models. In polar-cap models, it produces absorption (due to $\gamma$$+$$B$ $\rightarrow$$e^\pm$)
112: leading to a super-exponential cutoff of the emission (mostly curvature radiation). In outer-gap
113: models, only a (milder) exponential cutoff is present, and the highest photon energies depend on
114: the electron energy: in these models a VHE IC component may thus arise from the upscattering, by
115: such energetic electrons, of their emitted synchrotron photons or of the X-ray photons released
116: by NS heating. Both models can deal with current observational constraints.
117:
118: The current situation is exemplified be the cases of the Vela and PSR~B1951+32 pulsars
119: (Aharonian et al. 2006c; Albert et al. 2007b). In the latter case upper limits to
120: the pulsed emission imply a cutoff energy $E_c$$<$32~GeV.
121: In both, Vela and PSR~B1951+32, IC emission at TeV energies as predicted by outer-gap models is
122: severely constrained, although not all outer-gap models are ruled out. Deeper sensitivities can test
123: the models further, and certainly no test of these models in the range 10--100 GeV has yet been
124: achieved.
125:
126: Millisecond pulsars, that have lower magnetic fields ($B$$\sim$10$^{8-10}$~G), in polar-cap models
127: could have $E_c$$\magcir$100 GeV (i.e., $E_c$$\propto$$B^{-1}$), hence their (pulsed) VHE emission
128: could be substantial. Detecting it would be a test of the polar-cap theory (Harding et al. 2005) --
129: however, no positive detection has been reported so far.
130:
131: The Crab nebula, a steady emitter that is used as a calibration candle, has been observed
132: extensively from the radio up to $\sim$70~TeV. No pulsed (magnetospheric) VHE emission was found
133: in MAGIC data, that implies
134: $E_c$$<$30~GeV (Albert et al. 2007c). The steady nebular spectrum, measured in
135: the $\sim$0.03-30~GeV range by EGRET and in the $\sim$0.06-70~TeV by several IACTs, shows a bump
136: that starts to dominate at $\sim$1~GeV and peaks at $\sim$50~GeV: this component results
137: from IC scattering, by the synchrotron-emitting electrons, of softer photons in the shocked wind
138: region -- i.e., synchrotron, FIR/mm or CMB photons. In spite of its detected IC $\gamma$-ray emission,
139: however, the Crab nebula is not an effective IC emitter as a consequence of its high nebular magnetic
140: field ($B$$\sim$0.4~mG).
141:
142: PWNe -- i.e., pulsars displaying a prominent nebular emission -- currently constitute the most populated class
143: of identified Galactic VHE sources (7 identifications -- e.g., Gallant 2006). The VHE emission of PWNe
144: is likely of leptonic origin. Let us consider the case of H.E.S.S.~J1825-137, for which spectra have been
145: measured in spatially separated regions (Aharonian et al. 2006d). In these regions, the VHE spectra steepen
146: with increasing distance from the pulsar, and the VHE morphology is similar to the X-ray morphology:
147: furthermore the low derived magnetic field (few $\mu$G) implies that synchrotron X-ray emission is due to
148: electrons of energy higher than the $\gamma$-rays. This suggests that the observations can be interpreted in
149: terms of very energetic electrons that efficiently lose energy via synchrotron losses, aging progressively
150: more rapidly as they are farther away from the acceleration site, and produce VHE $\gamma$-rays via IC
151: scattering.
152:
153:
154:
155: \subsection{TeV binaries}
156:
157: In both SNRs and PWNe particle acceleration proceeds on the parsec distance scales in the
158: shocks formed in interactions of either SN ejecta or pulsar winds with the ISM. A
159: different population of much more compact particle accelerators, which has been revealed
160: by current IACTs, is formed by the TeV binaries (TVBs). These systems contain a compact
161: object --either a NS or a black hole (BH)-- that accretes, or interacts with, matter
162: outflowing from a companion star: hence they are VHE-loud X-ray binaries (XRBs). Four TVBs
163: have been detected so far: PSR~B1259$-$63 (Aharonian et al. 2005a), LS~5039 (Aharonian et
164: al. 2005b, 2006e), LS~I~+61~303 (Albert et al. 2006b), and Cyg~X-1 (Albert et al. 2007d).
165:
166: PSR~B1259-63 is powered by the rotation energy of its young 48~ms pulsar, and strong VHE
167: emission is observed from this system in pre- and post-periastron phases when the relativistic
168: pulsar wind collides with the dense equatorial wind blowing from the companion Be star.
169:
170: LS~I~+61~303 and LS~5039 may share a similar structure. The former is composed of a compact
171: object and a Be star in a highly eccentric orbit. Its VHE emission, whose variability
172: constrains the emitting region of LS~I~+61~303 to be larger than the binary system's size,
173: appears correlated with the radio emission and does not peak at periastron, where $\dot M$
174: is expected to be largest. This picture favors an IC origin of VHE emission, as probably the
175: most efficient at the relatively large scales of the system at peak emission.
176:
177: The emission from Cyg~X-1 is point-like and excludes the nearby radio nebula powered by the
178: relativistic jet. Cyg~X-1 is the first stellar-mass BH, and hence the first established
179: accreting binary, detected at VHE frequencies.
180:
181: \subsection{Galactic center}
182:
183: The possibility of indirect dark matter (DM) detection through its annihilation into VHE
184: $\gamma$-rays has aroused interest to observe the Galactic Center (GC). H.E.S.S. and MAGIC
185: observed the GC, measuring a steady flux consistent with a differential power-law slope of
186: $\sim$2.2, up to energies of $\sim$20~TeV with no cutoff (Aharonian et al. 2004; Albert et
187: al. 2006c). Within the error circle of the measurement of the central source H.E.S.S.\,J1745-290
188: are three compelling candidates for the origin of the VHE emission: the shell-type SNR Sgr~A~East,
189: the newly discovered PWN G~359.95$-$0.04, and the supermassive BH Sgr~A$^{\star}$ itself.
190: Plausible radiation mechanisms include IC scattering of energetic electrons, the decay of
191: pions produced in the interactions of energetic hadrons with the ISM or dense radiation
192: fields, and curvature radiation of UHE protons close to Sgr A$^{\star}$. These considerations
193: disfavor DM annihilation as the main origin of the detected flux, whereas a more conventional
194: astrophysical mechanism is likely to be at work (e.g., Aharonian et al. 2006f). Furthermore,
195: the lack of flux variability on hour/day/year timescales suggests that particle acceleration
196: occurs in a steady object, such as a SNR or a PWN, and not in the central BH.
197:
198: The GC diffuse emission correlates with molecular clouds and suggests an enhanced CR spectrum
199: in the Galactic center (Aharonian et al. 2006g). Its morphology and spectrum suggest recent in
200: situ CR acceleration: because the photon indexes of the diffuse emission and of the central
201: source H.E.S.S.\,J1745-290 are similar, the latter source could be the accelerator in question.
202:
203:
204:
205: \section{Star-forming galaxies}
206:
207: Diffuse $\gamma$-ray emission from pp interactions of CR nuclei with target ISM and photons makes up
208: $\sim$90\% of the $>$100~MeV luminosity of the Milky Way (Strong et al. 2000). However, the VHE flux
209: from a galaxy like the Milky Way located 1 Mpc away would be well below current IACT sensitivities.
210: Indeed, only loose upper limits on the VHE flux from normal galaxies have been obtained, even for local
211: galaxies and for the VHE-bright starburst galaxies (e.g., Torres et al. 2004).
212: %(Only the LMC has been detected, albeit in the softer EGRET range:
213: %Sreekumar et al. 1992).
214: Detailed models of VHE emission from NGC~253 (V\"olk et al. 1996; Paglione et al. 1996; Domingo-Santamar\'{\i}a
215: \& Torres 2005) and for Arp~220 (Torres 2004) are only loosely constrained by current upper limits
216: (Aharonian et al. 2005c; Albert et al. 2007e).
217: %Detection of the VHE emission associated with ongoing star formation in the universe clearly is one
218: %major lingering goal of VHE astrophysics.
219:
220:
221:
222: \section{Active galactic nuclei}
223:
224: Supermassive black holes (SMBHs) reside in the cores of most galaxies. The fueling of SMBHs
225: by infalling matter produces the spectacular activity observed in active galactic nuclei (AGNs).
226:
227: The current AGN paradigm includes a central engine, most likely a SMBH, surrounded by an
228: accretion disk and by fast-moving clouds, which emit Doppler-broadened lines (Urry \& Padovani
229: 1995; Padovani 2007). In $\sim$10$\%$ of all AGNs, the infalling matter turns on powerful
230: collimated jets that shoot out from the SMBH in opposite directions, likely perpendicular
231: to the disk, at relativistic speeds.
232:
233: If a relativistic jet is viewed at small angle to its axis the observed jet emission is
234: amplified by relativistic beaming
235: %
236: \footnote{ Defining the relativistic Doppler factor as
237: $\delta$$\equiv$$[\Gamma$$(1$$-$$\beta \cos \theta)]^{-1}$ (with
238: $\beta$$=$$v/c$ the jet speed normalized to the speed of light,
239: $\Gamma$$=$$1/$$\sqrt{(1-\beta^2)}$, and $\theta$ the angle w.r.t. the
240: line of sight), the observed and intrinsic luminosities at a given
241: frequency $f$ are related by $L_f^{\rm obs}$$=$$\delta^p$$L_f^{\rm em}$
242: with $p$$\sim$2-3, and the variability timescales are related by
243: $\Delta t_{\rm obs}$$=$$\delta^{-1}$$\Delta t_{\rm em}$. For
244: $\theta$$\sim$0$^{\circ}$ and $\delta$$\sim$2$\,\Gamma$ the observed
245: luminosity can be amplified by factors $\sim$400--10$^4$ (for,
246: typically, $\Gamma$$\sim$10 and $p$$\sim$2-3); whereas
247: $\theta$$\sim$$1/\Gamma$ implies $\delta$$\sim$$\Gamma$,
248: with a luminosity amplification of $\sim$10$^2$--10$^3$.}
249: %
250: and dominates the observed emission. Such sources are called blazars. Given the blazars' compactness
251: (as suggested by their short variability timescales), all GeV/TeV photons would be absorbed through
252: pair-producing $\gamma\gamma$ collisions with target X-ray/IR photons. Beaming ensures the intrinsic
253: radiation density to be much smaller than the observed one, so that $\gamma$-ray photons encounter a
254: much lower $\gamma\gamma$ opacity and hence manage to leave the source: reversing the argument,
255: $\gamma$-ray detection is a proof of strongly anisotropic (e.g., beamed) emission.
256:
257: The spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of blazars are generally characterized by two broad
258: humps, peaking at, respectively, IR/X-ray and GeV-TeV frequencies (Ulrich et al. 1997). Analyses of
259: blazar SEDs (Fossati et al. 1998; Ghisellini et al. 1998) have suggested that:
260: {\it (i)} higher/lower-luminosity objects have both humps peaking at lower/higher frequencies
261: (they are called, respectively, LBLs and HBLs);
262: {\it (ii)} the luminosity ratio between the high- and low-frequency bumps increases with luminosity;
263: {\it (iii)} at the highest luminosities the $\gamma$-ray output dominates the total luminosity.
264: %In this proposed scheme, BL Lac objects populate the lower luminosity part of the
265: %sequence (\cite{g+98}).
266:
267: The mainstream interpretation of the blazars SEDs is synchrotron-Compton emission, i.e. synchrotron
268: emission (peaked in the IR/X-ray range) from a time-varying population of ultra-relativistic electrons
269: moving in a strong magnetic field, and IC emission (peaked in the $\sim$100$\,$MeV--100$\,$GeV range)
270: from soft photons scattering off energetic electrons. Depending on the relative efficiency of the
271: relativistic particles' cooling through scattering with photon fields that are internal to jet or external
272: to it, the synchrotron and Compton components peak at, respectively, UV/X-ray and GeV--TeV energies
273: (synchrotron-self-Compton [SSC] scheme: e.g., Maraschi et al. 1992) or at IR/optical and MeV--GeV energies
274: (external-IC [EIC] scheme, see Dermer \& Schlickeiser 1993). Hybrid SSC/EIC models have also been proposed
275: (Ghisellini 1999). Alternative models of VHE emission involve, e.g., two electron populations, one
276: --primary-- accelerated within the jet and the other --secondary-- generated by electromagnetic cascades
277: initiated by primary protons/nuclei that had been accelerated in the jet (Mannheim 1993); or a population
278: of extremely energetic protons emitting by synchrotron radiation (Aharonian 2000).
279:
280: The emitting particles are accelerated within the relativistic jets which transport energy from the
281: central SMBH outwards (Rees 1967). In the popular SSC framework this process is approximated with a
282: series of relativistically moving homogeneous regions (blobs), where particle acceleration and
283: radiation take place (e.g., Maraschi et al. 1992). The X-ray and $\gamma$-ray emission, with its
284: extremely fast and correlated multi-frequency variability, indicates that often a single region dominates
285: the emission.
286:
287: VHE data are of crucial importance to close the SSC model. Even in the simplest one-zone SSC model of
288: blazar emission, knowledge of the whole SED up to the VHE regime is required for a complete description
289: of the emitting electrons' distribution and environment (e.g., Tavecchio et al. 1998). The parameters
290: that specify the properties of the emitting plasma in the basic SSC model are: the electron distributions
291: normalization, low- and high-energy slopes, and min/break/max energy, and the plasma blobs magnetic field,
292: size and Lorentz factor. Knowing only the IR/X-ray peak would give info on the shape (i.e., the
293: broken-power-law slopes) of the electron distribution but would leave all other parameters unconstrained
294: (e.g., Tavecchio et al. 1998). However, accurate knowledge of blazar emission mechanism(s) requires
295: {\it simultaneous} broadband $\gamma$-ray and X-ray (i.e., IC and synchrotron) data. In fact, a
296: simultaneous SED can act as a snapshot of the emitting population of particles at a given time.
297:
298: Blazar observations have been a top priority for VHE astrophysics ever since the discovery of TeV
299: emission from Mrk~421 (Punch et al. 1992). To date, firm blazar TeV detections include 15 HBLs and 1 LBL.
300: (One further non-blazar AGN, M~87, has also been detected, see Aharonian et al. 2006h).)
301: %Such detections are much fewer than GeV ones ($\magcir$130, see Padovani 2007),
302: %the effect being possibly blamed on cosmological absorption of TeV photons (see below).
303:
304: The known TeV blazars are variable in flux in all wavebands. Even simple one-zone homogeneous SSC
305: modeling predicts the X-ray and TeV flux variability to be closely correlated, both emissions being
306: linked to the same electron population. Observational evidence, although still statistically limited,
307: supports this prediction (e.g., Pian et al. 1998).
308: (Some TeV flares that show no simultaneous X-ray counterpart may be explained as IC radiation
309: from an additional, very compact and dense, electron population -- see Krawczynski et al. 2004.)
310: Blazar variability, in flux and spectrum, has been observed at VHE frequencies down to minute timescales.
311: For Mkn~501, observed with the MAGIC telescope at $>$100~GeV during 24 nights between May and July 2005,
312: the integrated flux and the differential photon spectra could be measured on a night-by-night basis
313: (Albert et al. 2007f).
314: During the observational campaign, the flux variations (from $\sim$0.4 to $\sim$4 crab units) were
315: correlated with the spectral changes (i.e., harder spectra for higher fluxes), and a spectral peak
316: showed up during the most active phases. A rapid flare occurred on the night of 10 July 2005, showing
317: a doubling time as short as $\sim$2 minutes and a delay of $\sim$3 minutes as a function of energy of the
318: emitted photons.
319:
320: One further aspect of TeV spectra of blazars is that they can be used as probes of the
321: Extragalactic Background Light (EBL), i.e. the integrated light arising from the evolving
322: stellar populations of galaxies (see Hauser \& Dwek 2001). The TeV photons emitted by a blazar
323: interact with the EBL photons and are likely absorbed via pair production. Whatever its intrinsic
324: shape at emission, after travelling through the EBL-filled space, a blazar spectrum will reach
325: the observer distorted by absorption. This effect, which is stronger for more distant objects (e.g.,
326: Stecker et al. 1992), is the most likely origin of the avoidance zone (i.e., no flat spectra at
327: high redshift) in the observed spectral slope vs redshift plot. The strength of the absorption is
328: measured by $\tau_{\gamma \gamma}(E)$, the optical depth for attenuation between the blazar,
329: located at a distance $D(z)$, and the Earth (Fazio \& Stecker 1970; Stecker et al. 1992).
330: Usually, either {\it (i)} the shape and intensity of EBL($z$) is assumed, and the TeV spectrum
331: is corrected before the SSC modeling is performed (e.g., de Jager \& Stecker 2002; Kneiske et al. 2004);
332: or {\it (ii)} based on assumptions on the intrinsic VHE spectrum, EBL($z$) is solved for:
333: e.g., based on analysis of the observed hard VHE spectra of the distant blazars 1ES~1101-232 and
334: H~2359-309, a low EBL energy density at $z$$\mincir$0.2 has been derived (Aharonian et al. 2006i). The two
335: approaches can be used in combination to estimate the distance to the VHE source (Mazin \& Goebel 2007).
336:
337:
338:
339: \section{Gamma-ray bursts}
340:
341: There is a prevailing consensus that the basic mechanism of GRB emission is an expanding relativistic
342: fireball (Rees \& Meszaros 1992, Meszaros \& Rees 1993, Sari et al. 1998), with the beamed radiation
343: ($\delta$$\sim$O(10$^2$) due to internal/external shocks (prompt/afterglow phase, respectively). If so,
344: the emitting particles (electrons and/or protons) are accelerated to very high energies.
345:
346: In the fireball shock framework, several models have predicted VHE emission during both the prompt and
347: afterglow phases of the GRB (e.g., Meszaros 2006). This can occur as a result of electron
348: self-IC emission from the internal shock or the external forward/reverse shock. Seed photons can be produced
349: locally (through synchrotron, or be the leftover of the initial radiation content responsible for the
350: acceleration of the fireball) or can be produced in, e.g., the shell of a previously exploded SN. In the
351: latter case, the SN photons may also act as targets for the $\gamma \gamma$ absorption, and in this case
352: the VHE emission could be severely dimmed. If the emission processes are indeed synchrotron and IC, then
353: a blazar-like SED is predicted, with a double-peak shape extending into the VHE band. In such theoretical
354: freedom, VHE observations of GRBs could help constraining GRB models.
355:
356: MAGIC observed part of the prompt-emission phase of GRB~050713a as a response to an alert by the Swift
357: satellite (Albert et al. 2006d)
358: %
359: %\footnote{Being a member of the GRB Coordinate Network (GCN), and exploiting
360: % its relatively low threshold energy and its short slewing time
361: % ($\mincir$20~s), MAGIC has the unique capability to point at the GRB
362: % location still during the prompt-emission phase and measure TeV
363: % emission.}.
364: %
365: However, no excess at $>$175~GeV was detected, neither during the prompt emission phase nor later
366: -- but the upper limits to the MAGIC flux are compatible with simple extrapolations of the Swift
367: $\Gamma$$\simeq$1.6 power-law spectrum to hundreds of GeV. In general, however, the cosmological
368: distances of these sources prevent VHE detection (see Albert et al. 2007g): the average redshift
369: of the GRBs for which MAGIC was alerted (and whose $z$ are known) is $\bar z$$=$3.22, whereas at
370: 70~GeV the cosmological $\gamma$-ray horizon is $z$$\sim$1. Complementary Whipple data (Horan et
371: al. 2007) and MILAGRO data (Abdo et al. 2007) provide upper limits on, respectively, the late VHE
372: emission ($\sim$4 hr after the burst) from several long-duration GRBs, and on the prompt/delayed
373: emission from several, reputedly nearby ($z$$\mincir$0.5), short-duration GRBs.
374:
375:
376:
377:
378:
379: %\section{Exotica: Quantum gravity}
380: %
381: %Blazar emission allows to explore non-conventional physics. Different approaches to
382: %quantum gravity (QG) lead to similar quantifications of the first-order effects of a
383: %violation induced in the Lorentz-Poincar\'e symmetry. Such violation should cause a
384: %dependence of the speed of light on the photon energy, $E$, as $c^{\prime}=c
385: %(1-\xi{E \over E_{\rm QG}}$, where $E_{\rm QG}$$\sim$$10^{19}$ GeV (i.e.,
386: %the Planck scale), and $\xi$$=$$\pm 1$ depending on the dynamical framework (e.g.,
387: %Amelino-Camelia et al. 1998). Consequently, two photons of energy $E$
388: %and $E+\Delta E$, emitted simultaneously at a distance $L$, would be separated at
389: %arrival by a time delay $\Delta t = \xi {\Delta E \over E_{\rm QG}}{L \over c}$.
390: %Short arrival delay times (measured within minute-long timescale variability), large
391: %source distances, and large photon energy differences can lead to significant
392: %astrophysical (lower) limits of the symmetry-breaking scale. An energy-dependent delay
393: %of the peak emission during minute-timescale flux variability in Mrk~501 implies, if
394: %interpreted in this framework, $E_{\rm QG}$$\magcir$0.6$\times$10$^{17}$~GeV \cite{mk501}
395: %
396: %Amelino-Camelia, G. et al. 1998, Nature, 393, 763
397:
398:
399:
400: \section{Dark matter}
401:
402: Evidence for departure of cosmological motions from the predictions of Newtonian
403: dynamics based on visible matter, interpreted as due to the the presence of DM, are
404: well established -- from galaxy scales (e.g., van Albada et al. 1985) to
405: galaxy-cluster scales (e.g., Sarazin 1986) to cosmological scales (e.g., Spergel et al. 2003).
406:
407: DM particle candidates should be weakly interacting with ordinary matter (and hence neutral).
408: The theoretically favored ones, which are heavier than the proton, are dubbed weakly interacting
409: massive particles (WIMPs). WIMPs should be long-lived enough to have survived from their decoupling
410: from radiation in the early universe into the present epoch. Except for the neutrino, which is the
411: only DM particle known to exist within the Standard Model of elementary particles (with a relic
412: background number density of $\sim$50~ cm$^{-3}$ for each active neutrino species) but which is too
413: light ($m_\nu$$\mincir$1~eV) to contribute significantly to $\Omega_m$ given the current cosmological
414: model, WIMP candidates have been proposed only within theoretical frameworks mainly motivated by
415: extensions of the Standard Model of particle physics (e.g., the R-parity conserving supersymmetry
416: [SUSY]). Among current WIMP candidates (see Bertone et al. 2005), the neutralino, which is the
417: lightest SUSY particle, is the most popular candidate. Its relic density is compatible with {\it W}MAP
418: bounds (see Munoz 2004).
419:
420: WIMPs could be detected directly, via elastic scattering vith targets on Earth, or
421: indirectly, by their self-annihilation products in high-density DM environments.
422: DM annihilation can generate $\gamma$-rays through several processes. Most distinctive are
423: those that result in mono-energetic spectral lines, $\chi\chi$$\rightarrow$$\gamma\gamma$,
424: $\chi\chi$$\rightarrow$$\gamma$$Z$ or $\chi\chi$$\rightarrow$$\gamma$$h$. However, in most
425: models the processes only take place through loop diagrams; hence the cross sections for
426: such final states are quite suppressed, and the lines are weak and experimentally
427: challenging to observe. A continuum $\gamma$-ray spectrum can also be produced through
428: the fragmentation and cascades of most other annihilation products. The resulting spectral
429: shape depends on the dominant annihilation modes (see Bergstr\"om \& Hooper 2006), whereas
430: the normalization depends on the WIMP's mass and velocity-averaged annihilation cross section
431: as well as on the DM density profile.
432:
433: Once the astroparticle model has been chosen (e.g., Bergstr\"om et al. 1998), the biggest
434: uncertainties are of astrophysical nature. Superposed to any VHE emission from the
435: decaying DM (cosmological, non-baryonic signal), galaxies can display a VHE emission from astrophysical
436: sources associated with the visible matter distribution (astrophysical, baryonic signal).
437: The ratio of the former to the latter is maximized in small, low-$L$, low-SFR galaxy.
438: This is because the dark-to-visible mass ratio as well as the central DM density increase
439: with decreasing luminosity (Persic et al. 1996). Clearly, distance dilution of the signal opposes detection,
440: so galaxies candidate for indirect DM detection should be chosen among nearby objects. In
441: conclusion, the best obserational targets for DM detection are the Milky Way dwarf spheroidal
442: galaxies (e.g., Draco, Sculptor, Fornax, Carina, Sextans, Ursa Minor). A further issue,
443: stemming from the $\rho^2$ dependence (as a result of annihilation) of the normalization integral
444: of the $\gamma$-ray emission, concerns the shape of the inner halo profile, i.e. whether the latter
445: is cuspy or cored. Cuspy profiles are produced in cosmological N-body simulations of halo formation
446: (Navarro et al. 1997), whereas cored profiles are suggested by the measured rotation curves of disk
447: galaxies (Borriello \& Salucci 2001) -- also in low-surface-brightness galaxies,
448: where the local self-gravity of baryons is virtually negligible (de Blok et al. 2001).
449:
450: These considerations (and uncertainties) have been incorporated in detailed predictions of the
451: $\gamma$-ray flux expected from the annihilation of the neutralino pairs. Outlooks for VHE neutralino
452: detection in Draco by current IACTs are not very promising: for a neutralino mass $m_\chi$$=$100~GeV
453: and a variety of annihilation modes, and in the favorable case of a maximal (cuspy) inner halo profile,
454: VHE detection (by MAGIC in 40hr observation) can occur if average value of the neutralino's cross
455: section times velocity is $<$$\sigma$$v$$>$$\magcir$10$^{-25}$~cm$^3$s$^{-1}$, which is somewhat
456: larger than the maximum value for a thermal relic with a density equal to the measured (cold) DM
457: density (but may be fine for non-thermally generated relics) in the allowed SUSY parameter space.
458: The prospects are better in the HE range (100~MeV--10~GeV): for a maximal (cuspy) halo, 1 yr
459: of GLAST observation should be able to yield a detection if $m_\chi$$\mincir$500~GeV and
460: $<$$\sigma$$v$$>$$\sim$3$\times$10$^{-25}$~cm$^3$s$^{-1}$ (Bergstr\"om \& Hooper 2006).
461: %S\'anchez-Conde et al. 2007).
462:
463: No evidence of DM annihilation $\gamma$-rays has been unambiguously claimed so far. An
464: apparently extended signal from the direction of NGC~253
465: %, originally claimed by the CANGAROO collaboration
466: %(Itoh et al. 2002) and attributed to the halo of NGC~253 (Itoh et al. 2003a) as arising from a
467: %combination of astrophysical emission (Itoh et al. 2003b) and DM-annihilation emission
468: %(Itoh et al. 2003c), was later
469: has been definitely interpreted as due to hardware malfunction (Itoh et al. 2007).
470:
471:
472: \begin{acknowledgements}
473: We acknowledge the MAGIC collaboration for providing a stimulating, friendly, and effective working
474: environment. MP thanks Pasquale Blasi for inviting this review, which was presented at the 51th general
475: meeting of the Italian Astronomical Society (Florence, Apr. 17-20, 2007).
476: \end{acknowledgements}
477: \bigskip
478:
479: \def\ref{\par\noindent\hangindent 20pt}
480:
481: \noindent
482: {\bf References}
483: \vglue 0.2truecm
484:
485: \ref{\small Abdo, A.A., et al. 2007, arXiv:07051554}
486: \ref{\small Aharonian, F.A. 2000, New Astron., 5 , 377}
487: \ref{\small Aharonian, F.A., et al. 2007, A\&A, 464, 235}
488: \ref{\small Aharonian, F.A., et al. 2006a, ApJ, 636, 777}
489: \ref{\small Aharonian, F.A., et al. 2006b, A\&A, 449, 223}
490: \ref{\small Aharonian, F.A., et al. 2006c, A\&A, 448, L43}
491: \ref{\small Aharonian, F.A., et al. 2006d, A\&A, 460, 365}
492: \ref{\small Aharonian, F.A., et al. 2006e, A\&A, 460, 743}
493: \ref{\small Aharonian, F.A., et al. 2006f, Phys. Rev. Lett., 97, 221102}
494: \ref{\small Aharonian, F.A., et al. 2006g, Nature, 439, 695}
495: \ref{\small Aharonian, F.A., et al. 2006h, Science, 314, 1424}
496: \ref{\small Aharonian, F.A., et al. 2006i, Nature, 440, 1018}
497: \ref{\small Aharonian, F.A., et al. 2005a, A\&A, 442, 1}
498: \ref{\small Aharonian, F.A., et al. 2005b, Science, 309, 746}
499: \ref{\small Aharonian, F.A., et al. 2005c, A\&A, 442, 177}
500: \ref{\small Aharonian, F.A., et al. 2004, A\&A, 425, L13}
501: \ref{\small Albert, J., et al. 2007a, arXiv:0705.3119}
502: \ref{\small Albert, J., et al. 2007b, astro-ph/0702077}
503: \ref{\small Albert, J., et al. 2007c, arXiv:0705.3244}
504: \ref{\small Albert, J., et al. 2007d, arXiv:0706.1505}
505: \ref{\small Albert, J., et al. 2007e, ApJ, 658, 245}
506: \ref{\small Albert, J., et al. 2007f, astro-ph/0702008}
507: \ref{\small Albert, J., et al. 2007g, astro-ph/0612548}
508: \ref{\small Albert, J., et al. 2006a, ApJ, 643, L53}
509: \ref{\small Albert, J., et al. 2006b, Science, 312, 1771}
510: \ref{\small Albert, J., et al. 2006c, ApJ, 638, L101}
511: \ref{\small Albert, J., et al. 2006d, ApJ, 641, L9}
512: \ref{\small Berezhko, E.G., \& V\"olk, H.J. 2006, A\&A, 451, 981}
513: \ref{\small Berezhko, E.G., et al. 2003, A\&A, 400, 971}
514: \ref{\small Bergstr\"om, L., \& Hooper, D. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 063510}
515: \ref{\small Bergstr\"om, L., et al. 1998, Astropart. Phys., 9, 137}
516: \ref{\small Bertone, G., et al. 2005 Phys. Rep. 405, 279}
517: %\ref{\small Blandford, R., \& Eichler, D. 1987, Phys.Rep., 154, 1}
518: \ref{\small Blasi, P. 2005, Mod. Phys. Lett. A20, 3055}
519: \ref{\small Borriello, A. \& Salucci, P. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 285}
520: \ref{\small Cheng, K.S., et al. 1986, ApJ, 300, 500}
521: \ref{\small Daugherty, J.K., \& Harding, A. 1982, ApJ, 252, 337}
522: \ref{\small Daugherty, J.K., \& Harding, A. 1996, ApJ, 458, 278}
523: \ref{\small de~Bloek, W.J.G., et al. 2001, ApJ, 552, L23}
524: \ref{\small de~Jager, O.C., \& Stecker, F.W. 2002, ApJ, 566, 738}
525: \ref{\small Dermer, C., \& Schlickeiser, R. 1993, ApJ, 416, 458}
526: \ref{\small Domingo-S., E., \& Torres, D. 2005, A\&A, 444, 403}
527: \ref{\small Fazio, G.G., \& Stecker, F.W. 1970, Nature, 226, 135}
528: \ref{\small Fossati, G., et al. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 433}
529: \ref{\small Gallant, Y. 2007, astro-ph/0611720}
530: \ref{\small Ghisellini, G., et al. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 451}
531: \ref{\small Harding, A.K., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 531}
532: \ref{\small Hauser, M.G., \& Dwek, E. 2001, ARA\&A, 39, 249}
533: \ref{\small Horan, D., et al. 2007, astro-ph/0701281}
534: %\ref{\small Itoh, C., et al. 2002, A\&A, 396, L1}
535: %\ref{\small Itoh, C., et al. 2003a, A\&A, 402, 443}
536: %\ref{\small Itoh, C., et al. 2003b, ApJ, 584, L65}
537: %\ref{\small Itoh, C., et al. 2003c, ApJ, 596, 216}
538: \ref{\small Itoh, C., et al. 2007, A\&A, 462, 67}
539: \ref{\small Kneiske, T.M., et al. 2004, A\&A, 413, 807}
540: \ref{\small Krawczynski, H., et al. 2004, ApJ, 601, 151}
541: \ref{\small Mannheim, K. 1993, A\&A, 269, 76}
542: \ref{\small Maraschi, L, et al. 1992, ApJ, 397, L5}
543: \ref{\small Mazin, D., \& Goebel, F. 2007, ApJ, 655, L13}
544: \ref{\small Meszaros, P. 2006, Rep. Prog. Phys., 69, 2259}
545: \ref{\small Meszaros, P., \& Rees, M.J. 1993, ApJ, 405, 278}
546: \ref{\small Munoz, C. 2004, Int.J.Mod.Phys. A, 19, 3093}
547: \ref{\small Navarro, J.F., et al. 1997 ApJ, 490, 493}
548: \ref{\small O\~na-Wilhelmi, E., et al. 2007, ICRC07 abstract 528}
549: \ref{\small Padovani, P. 2007, arXiv:0704.0184 }
550: %\ref{\small Padovani, P. 2007, in First GLAST Symposium, Stanford U. (arXiv:0704.0184) }
551: \ref{\small Paglione, T.A.D., et al. 1996, ApJ, 460, 295}
552: \ref{\small Persic, M., et al. 1996, MNRAS, 281, 27}
553: \ref{\small Pian, E., et al. 1998, ApJ, 492, L17}
554: \ref{\small Porter T.A. et al. 2006, ApJ, 648, L29}
555: \ref{\small Punch, M., et al. 1992, Nature, 358, 477}
556: \ref{\small Rees, M.J. 1967, MNRAS, 137, 429}
557: \ref{\small Rees, M.J., \& Meszaros, P. 1992, MNRAS, 258, 41p}
558: \ref{\small Romani, R.W. 1996, ApJ, 470, 469}
559: %\ref{\small S\'anchez-Conde, M.A., et al. 2007, JCAP submitted (astro-ph/0701426)}
560: \ref{\small Sarazin, C. 1986, Rev. Mod. Phys., 58, 1}
561: \ref{\small Sari, R., et al. 1998, ApJ, 497, L17}
562: \ref{\small Spergel, D.N., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175}
563: %\ref{\small Sreekumar, P., et al. 1992, ApJ, 400, L67 LMC}
564: \ref{\small Stecker, F.W., et al. 1992, ApJ, 390, L49}
565: \ref{\small Strong, A.W., et al. 2000, ApJ, 537, 763}
566: \ref{\small Tavecchio, F., et al. 1998, ApJ, 509, 608}
567: \ref{\small Torres, D.F., et al. 2003, Phys. Rep., 382, 303}
568: \ref{\small Torres, D.F. 2004, ApJ, 617, 966}
569: \ref{\small Torres, D.F., et al. 2004, ApJ, 2004, 607, L99}
570: \ref{\small Ulrich, M.-H., et al. 1997, ARA\&A, 35, 445}
571: \ref{\small Urry, C.M., \& Padovani, P. 1995, PASP, 107, 803}
572: \ref{\small van Albada, T.S., et al. 1985, ApJ, 295, 305}
573: \ref{\small V\"olk, H., et al. 1996, Space Sci. Rev., 75, 279 }
574: \ref{\small Wang, X.Y., et al. 2006, ApJ, 641, L89}
575: \ref{\small Weekes, T.C., et al. 1989, ApJ, 342, 379}
576:
577: \end{document}
578:
579: