1: % ApJ, main journal/resubmission
2: % Igor V. Moskalenko, Troy A. Porter, Seth W. Digel, Peter F. Michelson, Jonathan F. Ormes
3: % A celestial gamma-ray foreground due to the albedo of small solar system bodies and
4: % a remote probe of the interstellar cosmic ray spectrum
5: %
6:
7: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
8: \documentclass{emulateapj}
9: %\usepackage{wasysym}
10: %\usepackage{mathabx}
11:
12: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
13:
14:
15: %%\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
16:
17:
18: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
19: %%\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
20:
21:
22: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
23:
24:
25: %\usepackage{amsmath}
26: %\usepackage{amsfonts}
27: %\usepackage{amssymb}
28: %\usepackage{graphicx}
29:
30:
31: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
32: % Author's definitions
33: \newcommand{\gray}{$\gamma$-ray}
34: \newcommand{\grays}{$\gamma$-rays}
35: \newcommand{\Dxx}{D_{xx}}
36: \newcommand{\hi}{H {\sc i}}
37: \newcommand{\hii}{H {\sc ii}}
38: \newcommand{\e}[2]{$^{#1}_{#2}$}
39: \newcommand{\Xco}{$X_{\rm CO}$}
40: \newcommand{\Xcounits}{$10^{20}$~molecules~cm$^{-2}$/~(K km s$^{-1}$)\ }
41: %\newcommand{\moon}{\leftmoon}%{_{(\hspace{-0.19em}|}}
42: \newcommand{\moon}{{\rm Moon}}
43: %%%%%%%%% Define journals
44: \newcommand{\pubbook}[6]{#1, #6, #2, #3, #4, #5}
45: \newcommand{\pubjournal}[6]{#1 #5, #2, #3, #4}
46: \newcommand{\pubjournala}[6]{#1 #5, #2, #4}
47: \newcommand{\pubjournalc}[6]{#1 #5, #4}
48: \newcommand{\pubjournalb}[6]{#4, #5 #1 #3}
49:
50: \newcommand{\nphysb}{Nucl.\ Phys.\ B}
51: \newcommand{\nimA}{Nucl.\ Instr.\ Meth.\ Phys.\ Res.\ A}
52: \newcommand{\pr}{Phys.\ Rev.}
53: \newcommand{\plb}{Phys.\ Lett.\ B}
54: \newcommand{\jgpr}{J.\ Geo.\ Phys.\ Res.}
55: \newcommand{\geant}{GEANT4}
56: \newcommand{\ieeenuc}{IEEE\ Trans.\ Nuc.\ Sci.}
57: \newcommand{\icrc}{Int.\ Cosmic Ray Conf.\ }
58: \newcommand{\adv}{Adv.\ Space Res.}
59: \newcommand{\app}{APh}
60: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
61:
62:
63: %%\slugcomment{}
64:
65:
66: \shorttitle{}
67: \shortauthors{Moskalenko et al.}
68:
69:
70: \begin{document}
71:
72:
73: \title{
74: A celestial gamma-ray foreground due to the albedo of small solar system bodies and
75: a remote probe of the interstellar cosmic ray spectrum
76: }
77:
78:
79: \author{Igor V. Moskalenko\altaffilmark{1}}
80: \affil{
81: Hansen Experimental Physics Laboratory,
82: Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
83: \email{imos@stanford.edu}}
84: \altaffiltext{1}{Also Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology,
85: Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94309}
86:
87: \author{Troy A. Porter}
88: \affil{
89: Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics,
90: University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064
91: \email{tporter@scipp.ucsc.edu}}
92:
93: \author{Seth W. Digel\altaffilmark{1}}
94: \affil{Stanford Linear Accelerator Center,
95: 2575 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025
96: \email{digel@stanford.edu}}
97:
98: \author{Peter F. Michelson\altaffilmark{1}}
99: \affil{
100: Department of Physics,
101: Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
102: \email{peterm@stanford.edu}}
103:
104: \and
105:
106: \author{Jonathan F. Ormes}
107: \affil{
108: Department of Physics and Astronomy,
109: University of Denver,
110: Denver, CO 80208
111: \email{jormes@du.edu}}
112:
113: \begin{abstract}
114: We calculate the \gray{} albedo flux from cosmic-ray (CR)
115: interactions with the solid rock and ice in Main Belt asteroids
116: (MBAs), Jovian and Neptunian Trojan asteroids, and Kuiper Belt
117: objects (KBOs) using the Moon as a template. We show that the
118: \gray{} albedo for the Main Belt, Trojans, and Kuiper Belt strongly
119: depends on the small-body size distribution of each system. Based on
120: an analysis of the \emph{Energetic Gamma Ray Experiment Telescope}
121: (EGRET) data we infer that the diffuse emission from the MBAs,
122: Trojans, and KBOs has an integrated flux of less than $\sim$$6 \times
123: 10^{-6}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (100--500 MeV), which corresponds to
124: $\sim$12 times the Lunar albedo, and may be detectable by the
125: forthcoming \emph{Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope} (GLAST). If
126: detected by GLAST, it can provide unique direct information about the
127: number of small bodies in each system that is difficult to assess by
128: any other method. Additionally, the KBO albedo flux can be used to
129: probe the spectrum of CR nuclei at close-to-interstellar conditions.
130: The orbits of MBAs, Trojans, and KBOs are distributed near the
131: ecliptic, which passes through the Galactic center and high Galactic
132: latitudes. Therefore, the asteroid \gray{} albedo has to be taken
133: into account when analyzing weak \gray{} sources close to the
134: ecliptic, especially near the Galactic center and for signals at high
135: Galactic latitudes, such as the extragalactic \gray{} emission. The
136: asteroid albedo spectrum also exhibits a 511~keV line due to
137: secondary positrons annihilating in the rock. This may be an
138: important and previously unrecognized celestial foreground for the
139: \emph{INTErnational Gamma-Ray Astrophysics Laboratory} (INTEGRAL)
140: observations of the Galactic 511~keV line emission including the
141: direction of the Galactic center.
142: \end{abstract}
143:
144:
145: \keywords{
146: elementary particles ---
147: Kuiper Belt ---
148: minor planets, asteroids ---
149: Galaxy: bulge ---
150: cosmic rays ---
151: gamma-rays: theory
152: }
153:
154:
155: \section{Introduction}\label{intro}
156: %##############################################################################
157: The populations of small solar system bodies (SSSB) in the asteroid
158: belt between Mars and Jupiter, Jovian and Neptunian Trojans, and in
159: the Kuiper Belt beyond Neptune's orbit (often called also
160: trans-Neptunian objects -- TNOs) remain the least explored members of
161: the solar system. A majority of the MBAs and KBOs have their orbits
162: distributed near the ecliptic with a FWHM of the order of 10$^\circ$
163: in ecliptic latitude \citep{Binzel1999,Brown2001}. The spatial and size
164: distributions of these objects provides important information about
165: the dynamical evolution of the solar system. Extending our knowledge
166: of the size distribution of these objects below current
167: sub-kilometer size limits of optical
168: \citep[e.g.,][]{Ivezic2001,Wiegert2007} and infrared
169: \citep[e.g.,][]{Tedesco2002,Yoshida2003} measurements would provide
170: additional information on the accretion/collision and depletion
171: processes that formed the populations of SSSBs\footnote{We note
172: that \citet{Babich2007} have suggested a method to place constraints upon
173: the mass, distance, and size distribution of TNOs using spectral
174: distortions of the CMB.}.
175: In this paper we show
176: that the CR-induced \gray{} albedo of these systems may be bright
177: enough to be detected with a \gray{} telescope such as GLAST and/or
178: INTEGRAL and/or Soft Gamma-ray Detector (SGD) aboard the NeXT satellite
179: \citep{Takahashi2006}
180: (see our estimates below), and can allow us to probe the size
181: distribution of SSSBs down to a few metres. Additionally,
182: the \gray{} emission of these systems may comprise a ``diffuse''
183: \gray{} foreground that should be taken into account when evaluating the
184: flux and spectra of \gray{} sources near the ecliptic. Our
185: preliminary results are presented in \citet{Moskalenko2008}.
186:
187: The Galactic center is a region crowded with \gray{} sources and is
188: one of the preferred places to look for \gray{} signatures of dark
189: matter (DM). An extensive literature on the subject exists, e.g.,
190: \citet{Bergstrom1998}, \citet{Zaharijas2006}, \citet{Finkbeiner2007},
191: \citet{Hooper2007}, \citet{Baltz2007}; also references in these
192: papers. The ecliptic crosses the Galactic equator near the Galactic
193: center almost perpendicularly with inclination $\sim$$86.5^\circ$,
194: and underestimation of the SSSB albedo foreground may lead to errors
195: in the analysis of weak or extended sources in this region.
196:
197: The Galactic center region also harbors the enigmatic source of the
198: 511 keV positron annihilation line observed by the \emph{Oriented
199: Scintillation Spectrometer Experiment} (OSSE)
200: \citep[e.g.,][]{Purcell1997} and INTEGRAL
201: \citep[e.g.,][]{Knodlseder2005,Weidenspointner2006}. The distribution
202: of the annihilation line does not match the distribution of any
203: positron source candidate, e.g., pulsars, supernova remnants,
204: binaries, radioactive isotopes, such as $^{26}$Al, etc. A number of
205: excellent discussions on the origin of this emission are available in
206: the literature, ranging from positron focusing by the regular Galactic
207: magnetic field to DM annihilation \citep[][and references therein]
208: {Guessoum2005,Jean2006,Prantzos2006,Finkbeiner2007,Hooper2007}. Our
209: calculations (detailed below) indicate the SSSB CR-induced albedo
210: spectrum should exhibit a 511 keV line due to secondary positrons
211: annihilating in the rock. Since the target material (rock, ice) is
212: %cold and
213: solid, the line has to be very narrow. This emission
214: produces a previously unrecognized celestial foreground to the 511
215: keV flux including the direction of the Galactic center.
216:
217: At higher energies, above $\sim$30 MeV, regions at high Galactic
218: latitudes are conventionally used to derive the level of the
219: extragalactic \gray{} emission by comparing a model of the diffuse
220: Galactic emission to the point-source-subtracted skymaps and
221: extrapolating to zero model flux
222: \citep[e.g.,][]{Sreekumar1998,SMR2004b}. The remainder is assumed to
223: represent the level of the isotropic, presumably extragalactic
224: emission. However, recent studies have predicted another important
225: foreground component with a broad distribution on the sky originating
226: from the inverse Compton scattering of solar photons by CR electrons
227: in the heliosphere \citep{MPD2006,Orlando2007}, which has to be
228: included in the analysis of the diffuse emission. A reanalysis of the
229: EGRET data revealed this broad component, in agreement with the
230: predictions \citep{Orlando2007b}. Since the ecliptic passes through
231: high Galactic latitudes, the SSSB albedo flux also may need to be
232: taken into account when analysing the weak extragalactic component.
233:
234: \section{Small solar system bodies}\label{sssb}
235: %##############################################################################
236: The asteroid mass and size distributions are thought to be governed by
237: collisional evolution and accretion. Collisions between asteroids
238: give rise to a cascade of fragments, shifting mass toward smaller
239: sizes, while slow accretion leads to the growth of the latter.
240: %small body impact with a much larger asteroid leads to
241: %the growth of the latter.
242: The first comprehensive analytical
243: description of such a collisional cascade is given by
244: \citet{Dohnanyi1969}. Under the assumptions of scaling of the
245: collisional response parameters and an upper cutoff in mass, the
246: relaxed size and mass distributions approach power-laws:
247: %
248: \begin{eqnarray}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
249: dN &=& a m^{-k} dm \label{eq1}\\ dN &=& b r^{-n} dr,\label{eq2}
250: \end{eqnarray}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
251: where $m$ is the asteroid mass, $r$ is the asteroid radius, and
252: $a,b,k,n$ are constants. These equilibrium distributions extend over
253: all size and mass ranges of the population except near its high-mass
254: end. The constants in eqs.~(\ref{eq1}), (\ref{eq2}) are not
255: independent. If all asteroids have the same density $\rho$, one
256: obtains $n=3k-2$ and $b=3a(4\pi\rho/3)^{1-k}$ (see eqs.~[\ref{eq3}],
257: [\ref{eq4}]). For a pure \citeauthor{Dohnanyi1969} cascade $k=11/6$
258: and $n=3.5$.
259:
260: However, collisional response parameters are not size-independent,
261: e.g., the energy per unit target mass
262: delivered by the projectile required for catastrophic disruption
263: of the target (the so-called critical specific energy)
264: %shattering impact specific energy
265: depends on the radius of the
266: body, and the single power-laws (eqs.~[\ref{eq1}], [\ref{eq2}])
267: break. Even though the sizes of asteroids generally can not be directly
268: observed (except by a small number of asteroids studied
269: by spacecraft flybys, by stellar occultation, or those well observed by radar)
270: and are instead estimated using apparent magnitude, optical and
271: infrared albedos,
272: and distances, the information collected on a large sample of
273: MBAs\footnote{The Minor Planet Center supports a database for all
274: observed SSSBs: http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/iau/mpc.html} seems to
275: confirm that the real distribution departs from a single power law, at
276: least for objects larger than a few kilometers. Smaller sizes are very
277: difficult to detect, and one has bear in mind the observational bias
278: of the incompleteness of the small (dim) asteroid sample. Though
279: de-biasing can be attempted \citep[e.g.,][]{Jedicke1998}, a large
280: ambiguity still remains.
281:
282: \begin{figure}[t]
283: \centerline{
284: \includegraphics[width=3.6in]{f1.ps}}
285: \caption{Cumulative size distribution $N(>r)$ of KBOs (upper set of
286: lines) and MBAs (lower set of lines). Line coding: thick dash-dot
287: line -- \citet{Binzel1999}, thick dashes -- \citet{Tedesco2002}, thick
288: solid -- \citet{Tedesco2005}, thick dots -- parameterization proposed
289: by \citet{Cheng2004}. Our parameterizations are shown by thin lines
290: (solid, dotted) where the numbers show the \emph{cumulative}
291: power-law index $(n-1)$ of a particular distribution. Thin solid lines
292: are our adapted distributions: index 2.0 ($n=3.0$) for MBAs, and 2.5 ($n=3.5$) for KBOs.
293: Thin dotted lines show the range discussed in the paper. See text for
294: details.}
295: \label{fig1a}
296: \end{figure}
297:
298: Figure \ref{fig1a} shows the MBA size distributions as published in the
299: literature and those used in this paper.
300: %the distributions used in our paper.
301: For the MBAs
302: larger than diameter ${\cal D}$ (km), \citet{Binzel1999} give
303: $N(>{\cal D})=1.9\times10^6 {\cal D}^{-2.52}$ (the authors do not give
304: the range of sizes, so we adopted a cut at ${\cal D}\sim0.5$ km).
305: \citet{Tedesco2002} give $\log N(>{\cal
306: D})=(5.9324\pm0.0016)-(1.5021\pm0.045)\log {\cal D}$ for $0.2 {\rm\
307: km} < {\cal D} < 2 {\rm\ km}$ based on \emph{Infrared Space
308: Observatory} (ISO) observations. Using a sample of more than
309: $6\times10^4$ MBAs to a limiting magnitude of $V$$\sim$21,
310: \citet{Jedicke1998} found a change in the slope of the cumulative
311: distribution from --2.25 for 1 km $\la {\cal D} \la $10 km to --4.00
312: for 10 km $\la {\cal D} \la$ few 10s of km. Based on observations of
313: $\sim$13000 MBAs by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS),
314: \citet{Ivezic2001} found that the cumulative size distribution
315: resembles a broken power-law, $\propto {\cal D}^{-2.3}$ for 0.4 km
316: $\la r \la$ 5 km, and $\propto {\cal D}^{-4}$ for 5 km $\la r \la$ 40
317: km, and is independent of the heliospheric distance. Finally,
318: \citet{Tedesco2005} gives a fit to data between 1 km $\la {\cal D}
319: \la$ 100 km, $\log N(>{\cal D})=6.275\pm0.013-(3.214\pm0.056)\log{\cal
320: D} +(0.974\pm0.066)\log^2{\cal D}-(0.182\pm0.022)\log^3{\cal D}$, but
321: extrapolation to smaller sizes is invalid. The size distribution
322: below $\sim$1 km is essentially unexplored territory. One piece of
323: evidence comes from the size distribution of ejecta blocks on 433
324: Eros. Based on the block distribution over a size range 0.1 -- 150 m,
325: \citet{Cheng2004} argued that these data support a cumulative index 2.5
326: extrapolation down to sizes $\sim$1 m. Our distribution with a single
327: cumulative
328: index $(n-1)=2$ (thin solid line), detailed in the next Section, seems
329: to match the global size distribution determined from various types of
330: observations in the wide range of radii $10^2 - 10^7$ cm. We will use
331: this distribution in our estimates of the MBA albedo, below.
332:
333: The dynamical estimate of the total mass of the asteroid belt is about
334: $(3.6\pm0.4)\times10^{24}$ g \citep{Krasinsky2002} or close to 5\% of
335: the mass of the Moon. The total mass is dominated by large bodies, while
336: the \gray{} albedo is dominated by very small bodies. The largest
337: MBA, 1 Ceres, comprises about 30\% of the total mass of the asteroid
338: belt alone. However, it does not provide a restriction on the size
339: (and mass) distribution of small bodies. Current estimates indicate
340: the total number of MBAs above 1 km in diameter is
341: $(1.2-1.9)\times10^6$ \citep{Binzel1999,Tedesco2002,Tedesco2005}. Our
342: adopted distribution with $n=3$ gives a number near the upper end of
343: this range, $1.92\times10^6$, while also putting the total number of
344: MBAs with $r>1$ m at $\sim5\times10^{11}$ (Figure \ref{fig1a}). To
345: get an idea of how the MBA albedo flux depends on the extrapolation to
346: small radii ${\cal D}<1$ km, we also consider broken power-law
347: distributions with indices 2.5 and 3.5 below 1 km in diameter,
348: retaining an index 3 for sizes larger than 1 km.
349:
350: The densities of most MBAs lie in the range 1.0 -- 3.5 g cm$^{-3}$
351: \citep{Binzel1999} while the densities of particular asteroid classes
352: can vary broadly,
353: 1.23 -- 1.40 g cm$^{-3}$ for carbonaceous,
354: 2.65 -- 2.75 g cm$^{-3}$ for silicate, and
355: 4.75 -- 5.82 g cm$^{-3}$ for metallic bodies \citep{Krasinsky2002}.
356: We adopt an average density $\rho=2$ g cm$^{-3}$.
357:
358: Most MBAs have a semimajor axis between 2.1 and 3.3 AU with a low
359: eccenticity orbit. In our estimates we assume an average circular
360: orbit with radius $\ell\sim2.7$ AU.
361:
362: The Jovian Trojan populations of asteroids are collections of bodies in
363: the same orbit as Jupiter (semimajor axis $\ell\sim5.2$ AU) located at
364: the $L_4$ and $L_5$ Lagrange points of the Jupiter-Sun system. The
365: Trojans are thus concentrated in two regions rather than distributed
366: over the entire ecliptic as for the MBAs. The total mass of the
367: Jovian Trojans is estimated to be $\sim10^{-4}$ $M_\oplus$ where
368: $M_\oplus$ is the mass of the Earth with a differential power-law
369: index $n \simeq 3$ in the size range 2 km to 20 km
370: \citep{Jewitt2000,Yoshida2005}, similar to MBAs, giving a number of
371: objects $\geq$ 1 km in diameter $\sim 1.3 \times 10^6$
372: \citep{Jewitt2000}. The combined mass of these objects is
373: approximately the same as for the MBAs.
374: %, but the
375: %total mass is not very important since it is dominated by large
376: %bodies.
377: The number of objects $\geq$ 1 km in diameter and the
378: power-law index $n \simeq 3$ makes their size distribution very
379: similar to that of MBAs.
380:
381: The mass density of SSSBs in this group varies significantly:
382: estimates for the binary Trojan 617 Patroclus are less
383: than water ice $\rho=0.8^{+0.2} _{-0.1}$ g cm$^{-3}$
384: \citep{Marchis2006}, as are those for other Trojan binaries
385: $\rho\sim0.6-0.8$ g cm$^{-3}$ \citep{Mann2007}, while 624 Hektor is
386: somewhat denser $\rho=2.48^{+0.292}_{-0.080}$ g cm$^{-3}$
387: \citep{Lacerda2007}. In our calculations we adopt an average density
388: $\rho=1$ g cm$^{-3}$ as a compromise between these bounds.
389:
390: We also consider icy bodies and comets in the Kuiper Belt \citep[for
391: a review see][]{Luu2002} and the conjoining innermost part of the
392: Oort Cloud\footnote{The Oort Cloud of comets
393: \citep[e.g.,][]{Stern2003} is thought to occupy a vast space between
394: 50 and 50000 AU from the Sun and also contributes to the celestial
395: \gray{} foreground. However, its exact mass and distribution are
396: poorly constrained. We are planning to investigate limits on the
397: albedo of the Oort Cloud in a forthcoming paper.}, but call them all
398: KBOs for simplicity. The KBOs are not uniformly distributed, with at
399: least three dynamically distinct populations identified: the
400: Classical Disk, the Scattered Disk with large eccentricities and
401: inclinations, and ``Plutinos'' around the 3:2 mean motion resonance
402: with Neptune at 39.4 AU. Kuiper Belt Objects are distributed between
403: 30 -- 100 AU \citep[][and references therein]{Backman1995} with
404: surface number density $\sigma(\ell)=A \ell^{-\alpha}$
405: \citep{Jewitt1995,Backman1995}, where $A$ is a constant determined in
406: eq.~(\ref{eq11}), and $\alpha=2$. The total mass is estimated to be
407: in the range $\sim$0.01--0.3 $M_\oplus$,
408: %where $M_\oplus$ is the mass of the Earth,
409: while the most often used value is $\sim$0.1 $M_\oplus$
410: \citep{Luu2002}. The density of small icy bodies and comets is
411: $\sim$0.5 g cm$^{-3}$ \citep{Asphaug1994,Solem1994}.
412:
413: The KBO size distribution is much more difficult to determine because
414: of their dimness. It is widely believed that the TNOs are dynamically
415: related to the Centaurs (planetesimals distributed between Jupiter
416: and Neptune that are
417: in crossing orbits of the giant gas planets), and to
418: the Jupiter-family group of ecliptic comets that may be objects that
419: were knocked inwards from the Kuiper belt. The KBO size distribution
420: is determined by very indirect methods such as measuring the sizes of
421: the nuclei of the ecliptic comets (and making assumptions on how they
422: evolve during their repeated passages through the inner solar
423: system), and Centaurs, as well as impact craters on the Galilean
424: satellites of Jupiter. The estimates of the size distribution for the
425: cometary nuclei range from $n=2.6$ to 3.7 in the range $r\sim 1-10$
426: km, for KBOs -- 3.7--4.45 ($r>20$ km), and for Centaurs -- 3.7--4.0
427: (an appropriate discussion can be found, e.g., in
428: \citealt{Bernstein2004}, \citealt{Toth2005}, \citealt{Tancredi2006},
429: and references therein). If the index is $\geq 4.0$, the mass of the
430: total population is dominated by the smallest bodies. However, there
431: are some reasons to believe that the size distribution begins to
432: flatten well above 1 km in size. Collisional evolution simulations
433: \citep{Kenyon2004} show that the size distribution is a power law with
434: index $\sim$4.5 for large bodies ($r\ga10-100$ km) and $\sim3.5-4$ for
435: small bodies ($r\la0.1-1$ km) for a wide range of bulk properties,
436: initial masses, and orbital parameters. Adopting a conservative value
437: of $n=3.5$, we obtain the total number of comets (${\cal D}>1$ km) at
438: $\sim9\times10^9$, which is in agreement with other estimates
439: \citep[e.g.,][]{Stern2003}.
440:
441: %The number of
442: %objects in the populations of Centaurs
443: %\citep[$N(\cal{D} \geq 1$ km) $\sim10^8$,][]{Sheppard2005}
444: %between the orbits of Jupiter and Neptune,
445: %and Neptunian Trojans at the $L_4$ and $L_5$ points of the Neptune-Sun
446: %system are also considerable. The number of large Neptunian Trojans
447: %(${\cal D} > 80$ km) outnumbers the number of large Jovian Trojans by a
448: %factor $\sim 10$ \citep{Sheppard2006}.
449:
450: There are also large populations of Centaurs $N({\cal D}>1\ {\rm
451: km})\sim10^8$ \citep{Sheppard2005} between the orbits of Jupiter and
452: Neptune, and Neptunian Trojans at the $L_4$ and $L_5$ points of the Neptune-Sun
453: system.
454: %are also considerable.
455: The number of large Neptunian Trojans
456: (${\cal D} > 80$ km) outnumbers the number of large Jovian Trojans by a
457: factor $\sim 10$ \citep{Sheppard2006}.
458: %at the distance of $\sim$30 AU from the
459: %Sun. The population of large Neptunian Trojans (${\cal D}>80$ km)
460: %outnumbers the population of large Jovian Trojans by a factor of
461: %$\sim$10 \citep{Sheppard2006}.
462: Their power-law index may be close to
463: that of the KBOs $n\sim3.5$ making their \gray{} albedo essentially
464: brighter than MBAs and Jovian Trojans at the same distance. While
465: Centaurs are scattered between Jupiter and Neptune, the positions of
466: Neptunian Trojans are well known so that the detection of a \gray{}
467: albedo signal may be simplified.
468:
469: \placefigure{f1.ps}
470:
471:
472: \section{Calculations}
473: %##############################################################################
474:
475: We use the Lunar albedo spectrum as an approximation of the SSSB
476: albedo for two main reasons: (i) the Moon is a solid body in which the
477: CR cascade in the rock develops similarly, and (ii) its proximity to
478: the Earth allows it to be easily detectable by \gray{} telescopes. The
479: spectrum of \gray{s} from the Moon has been calculated recently
480: \citep{MP2007a,MP2007b} using the \geant\ Monte Carlo framework to
481: simulate the CR cascade development in a Lunar rock target (regolith).
482: It has been shown that the Lunar albedo spectrum is very steep with
483: an effective cutoff around 3--4 GeV in agreement with observations
484: \citep{Thompson1997}. The central part of the disk of the Moon has an
485: even steeper spectrum with an effective cutoff at $\sim$600 MeV. The
486: emission above $\sim$10 MeV is thus dominated by the thin rim where CR
487: particles interact close-to tangentially with the surface and the
488: high-energy secondary \grays{} shower out of the Moon toward the
489: observer. In contrast to other astrophysical sources, the albedo
490: spectrum of the Moon is well understood, including its absolute
491: normalization; this makes it a useful template for estimations of the
492: CR-induced albedo of SSSBs without an atmosphere.
493: Since the
494: Moon functions as a standard (\gray{}) candle,
495: %in our estimates we use the
496: %flux of the Moon as our unit of measure and introduce the term ``Lunar
497: %albedo flux unit'' (laf) to denote this.
498: in our estimates we use the flux of the Moon as our standard and introduce
499: the term ``Lunar albedo flux units.''
500: % to denote this unit.
501:
502: If the SSSB size distribution $dN/dr$ is known, it can be directly
503: substituted into eq.~(\ref{eq6}) to estimate the \gray{} albedo flux. Below,
504: we derive this albedo flux assuming that the size distribution for a
505: single SSSB population is a
506: simple power law where the normalization has to be obtained from the
507: total mass of the system.
508:
509: Let the SSSB mass distribution have the form given by eq.~(\ref{eq1}),
510: which can be rewritten as a size distribution (cf.\ eq.~[\ref{eq2}])
511: %
512: \begin{equation}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
513: \frac{dN}{dr} = \frac{dN}{dm}\frac{dm}{dr} = 4\pi\rho r^2 \frac{dN}{dm},
514: \label{eq3}
515: \end{equation}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
516:
517: \noindent
518: where $\rho$ is the average density of the SSSB target.
519: Assuming that all SSSBs have a spherical shape, $m = (4\pi/3) \rho r^3$, we get
520: %
521: %\begin{equation}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
522: %\frac{dN}{dr} = 3 f M_{\moon} \left(\frac{4\pi}{3} \rho\right)^{-1} \frac{2-k}{r_1^{6-3k} - r_0^{6-3k}} \, r^{2-3k},
523: %\label{eq4}
524: %\end{equation}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
525: \begin{equation}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
526: \frac{dN}{dr} = 3 a \left(\frac{4\pi}{3} \rho\right)^{1-k} r^{2-3k}.
527: \label{eq4}
528: \end{equation}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
529:
530: \noindent
531: The normalization for $a$ is obtained from
532: %
533: \begin{equation}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
534: \int_{m_0} ^{m_1} m \frac{dN}{dm} dm = f M_{\moon},
535: \end{equation}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
536:
537: \noindent
538: where $m_0$ and $m_1$ are the lower and upper SSSB masses, respectively, and
539: $f M_{\moon}$ is the total mass of the SSSB emitting population considered
540: as a fraction $f$ of the Moon's mass ($f=0.05$ for MBAs,
541: $f=0.1 M_\oplus/M_{\moon}\approx8.13$ for KBOs).
542: The flux of \gray{s} from such an ensemble of bodies with
543: size distribution $dN/dr$ is then
544: %
545: \begin{eqnarray}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
546: F & = & F_{\moon} \left( \frac{D_{\moon}}{d} \right)^2
547: \int_{r_0} ^{r_1} \frac{dN}{dr} \frac{r}{R_{\moon}} dr \label{eq6}\\
548: & = & \frac{F_{\moon}}{R_{\moon}} \left( \frac{D_{\moon}}{d} \right)^2
549: \left(\frac{4\pi}{3}\rho\right)^{1-k} 3 a \int_{r_0} ^{r_1} r^{3 - 3k} dr \nonumber
550: \end{eqnarray}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
551:
552: \noindent
553: where
554: %
555: \begin{eqnarray}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
556: && \int_{r_0} ^{r_1} r^{3 - 3k} dr= \left\{
557: \begin{array}{ll}
558: \displaystyle \frac{1}{4-3k}\left(r_1 ^{4-3k} - r_0 ^{4 -3k}\right), & k \neq 4/3 \\
559: \displaystyle \ln(r_1/r_0), & k = 4/3
560: \end{array} \right.\nonumber \\
561: && a = f M_{\moon} \left\{
562: \begin{array}{ll}
563: \displaystyle \left(\frac{4\pi}{3}\rho\right)^{k - 2}\frac{2-k}{r_1^{6-3k} - r_0^{6-3k}},
564: & k \neq 2 \\
565: \displaystyle \frac{1}{3}\ln^{-1}(r_1/r_0), & k = 2
566: \end{array} \right. \nonumber
567: \end{eqnarray}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
568:
569: \noindent
570: Here $F_{\moon}$ is the Lunar rim albedo flux for the same incident spectrum of CR particles,
571: $R_{\moon}= 1.7382\times10^8$ cm is the Lunar radius,
572: $D_{\moon} \simeq 0.0025$ AU is the Earth-Moon distance, $d$ is the distance (in AU) of
573: the SSSB population from Earth, and $r_0$ and $r_1$ are the sizes corresponding to
574: the masses $m_0$ and $m_1$.
575:
576: The factor $r/R_{\moon}$ in eq.~(\ref{eq6})
577: comes from the fact that the albedo of SSSBs is dominated by the emission
578: from the rim.
579: The rim and the disk albedo fluxes of the Moon are about equal at low energies
580: (Figure~\ref{fig:moon1}),
581: with the rim albedo flux considerably dominating above 10 MeV \citep{MP2007b}.
582: Since the rim albedo flux scales $\propto r$,
583: and the inner part of the disk $\propto r^2$,
584: as the size of the emitting body decreases it is the rim which
585: produces most of the albedo photons for SSSBs.
586:
587: Assuming $k \neq 4/3, 2$, after some rearrangement we obtain
588: %
589: \begin{equation}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
590: F(\ell,\theta) = \frac{3}{2\pi} f F_{\moon} R_{\moon}^2 \frac{\rho_{\moon}}{\rho}
591: \left[\frac{D_{\moon}}{d(\ell,\theta)}\right]^2 G(r_1, r_0; k),
592: \label{eq7}
593: \end{equation}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
594: \begin{equation}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
595: G(r_1, r_0; k) = \frac{1}{r_1^2}\left[\frac{2-k}{4-3k}\right]
596: \left[\frac{1 - (r_0/r_1) ^{4 -3k}}{1 - (r_0/r_1)^{6-3k}}\right],
597: \label{eq8}
598: \end{equation}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
599:
600: \noindent
601: where $\rho_{\moon}=3.3$ g cm$^{-3}$ is the mean density of the Moon,
602: \begin{equation}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
603: %d=\ell_e\cos\theta +\left(\ell_a^2 -\ell_e^2\sin^2\theta\right)^{1/2},
604: d(\ell,\theta)=\cos\theta +\left(\ell^2 -\sin^2\theta\right)^{1/2},
605: \label{eq9}
606: \end{equation}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
607: $\ell$ (AU) is the radius of the orbit of the SSSB population
608: (for MBAs, $\ell = 2.7$ AU; for KBOs, see below), $\theta$ is the angle
609: between the line of sight (in the ecliptic) and the direction to the Sun,
610: and we divided by $2\pi$ to obtain the flux per radian.
611: The total flux integrated over $\theta$ is
612: \begin{equation}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
613: F_{\rm tot}=\int_0^{2\pi} F(\ell,\theta) d\theta.
614: \label{eq10}
615: \end{equation}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
616:
617: \noindent
618: For the case of the KBOs distributed between $\ell=30$ and 100 AU,
619: an additional integration over $\ell$ is required
620: \begin{equation}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
621: F_{\rm tot}^{\rm K}
622: = \int_0^{2\pi} d\theta
623: \int_{30}^{100} F(\ell,\theta) \sigma(\ell) \ell d\ell,
624: \label{eq11}
625: \end{equation}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
626:
627: \noindent
628: where $\sigma(\ell)=A \ell^{-2}$ and $A=-f/\ln0.3$.
629: These formulae provide fluxes integrated over ecliptic latitude.
630:
631: For the case of MBAs, our adopted differential size distribution is a
632: broken power law
633: with index $n_1=3k_1-2$ for $r>r_b$ and $n_2=3k_2-2$ for $r<r_b$:
634:
635: \begin{eqnarray}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
636: \frac{dN}{dr} &=& 3 f M_{\moon}\left(\frac{4\pi}{3}\rho\right)^{-1}\\
637: &\times& \frac{2-k_1}{r_1^{6-3k_1} - r_0^{6-3k_1}}
638: \left\{
639: \begin{array}{ll}
640: \displaystyle r ^{2-3k_1}, & r \geq r_b\\
641: \displaystyle r_b^{2-3k_1}\left(\frac{r}{r_b}\right)^{2-3k_2},& r < r_b
642: \end{array} \right. \nonumber
643: \end{eqnarray}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
644: where $r_b=0.5\times10^5$ cm, and we assume $2<n_{1,2}<4$.
645: This can be inserted into eq.~(\ref{eq6}) to derive corresponding expressions
646: for the flux from such a population of SSSBs.
647:
648: %\iffalse%########### details of our distributions ########################
649: %$$a_1 = f M_{\moon}\left(\frac{4\pi}{3}\rho\right)^{k_1 - 2}\frac{2-k_1}{r_1^{6-3k_1} -r_0^{6-3k_1}},
650: %$$
651: %Our integral size distribution:
652: %$$N(>r)= \int_r^{r_1} \frac{dN}{dr} dr
653: %$$
654: %$r > r_b=0.5$ km:
655: %$$N(>r)= 3 a_1 \left(\frac{4\pi}{3} \rho\right)^{1-k_1} (r_1^{3-3k_1}-r^{3-3k_1})/(3-3k_1)
656: %$$
657: %$$N(>r_b) = I= 3 a_1 \left(\frac{4\pi}{3} \rho\right)^{1-k_1} (r_1^{3-3k_1}-r_b^{3-3k_1})/(3-3k_1)
658: %$$
659: %$r < r_b$ km:
660: %$$N(>r)= I +3 a_1 \left(\frac{4\pi}{3} \rho\right)^{1-k_1} r_b^{3-3k_1} (1-(r/r_b)^{3-3k})/(3-3k)
661: %$$
662: %\fi%##################################################################
663:
664: We can see that the observed albedo flux gives direct information on
665: the integral $\int dr\, r\, (dN/dr)$, eq.~(\ref{eq6}), which can be
666: used to constrain the effective average radius of the emitting bodies
667: $\langle r\rangle$ and their total number in the system.
668: Additionally, if the size distribution is a single power law, the
669: observed albedo flux can provide us with information about the
670: power-law index.
671: %For example,
672: As can be seen from eq.~(\ref{eq8}),
673: the function $G(r_1, r_0; k)$ is a
674: steep function of $k$. For $k<4/3$, the expression in the last square
675: brackets (eq.~[\ref{eq8}]) is $\sim$1 since $r_1\gg r_0$ and
676: $G\approx r_1^{-2} (2-k)/(4-3k)$. For $k>2$, eq.~(\ref{eq8}) becomes
677: $G\approx r_0^{-2} (2-k)/(4-3k)$. In the intermediate region
678: $4/3<k<2$, $G$ quickly increases with $k$. For the distribution of
679: radii we consider the corresponding range for the size distribution index is
680: $n=2.5-3.5$ for MBAs and 3.0--4.0 for
681: KBOs. This translates into an index, $k$, for the mass distribution
682: in the range 1.5--2.0. In this range $G(r_1, r_0; k)$ changes by 3 --
683: 5 orders of magnitude depending mostly on the assumed value of $r_0$.
684: This allows a determination of $k$ assuming the average density of
685: the asteroid rocks is known. The function $G$ also contains a
686: dependence on $r_1$, the radius of the largest body. For the MBAs, we
687: use Ceres, $r_1=4.565\times10^7$ cm, and for the KBOs we use 134340
688: Pluto, $r_1=1.195\times10^8$ cm, but the exact value of $r_1$ does
689: not change the size distribution significantly and does not affect
690: our conclusions. Figure~\ref{fig1a} shows the adopted size
691: distributions of MBAs and KBOs which agree well with those given in
692: the literature.
693:
694: The question of where most of the heliospheric modulation occurs is
695: important for the determination of the CR flux at an arbitrary
696: distance from the Sun. The recent crossing of the heliospheric
697: termination shock by the Voyager 1 spacecraft at $\sim$94 AU
698: \citep{Stone2005}, currently at $\sim$104 AU, while Voyager 2 is
699: still inside the termination shock, allows unique studies of the
700: spectra of CR particles on both sides of the shock. Low-energy CR
701: detectors on board the spacecraft indicate that the particle spectra
702: are significantly different, supporting the conclusion that a
703: considerable modulation of the CRs occurs near the termination shock.
704: On the other hand, most of the albedo emission discussed in this paper
705: is produced by CR particles with energies $>$1 GeV; their flux does
706: not change significantly from local interstellar space down to
707: $\sim$40 AU, as indicated by current heliospheric models
708: \citep[e.g.,][]{Langner2006}.
709: %Since our estimates of the albedo flux
710: %are necessarily approximate, we use the parameterization of the
711: %modulation potential vs.\ heliospheric distance developed in
712: %\citet{MPD2006}.
713:
714: The Lunar albedo flux, $F_{\moon}$,
715: is calculated using the procedure described in \citet{MP2007b}.
716: To calculate the Lunar albedo at an arbitrary modulation level, we use
717: the local interstellar (LIS) spectra of CR protons, helium, and positrons,
718: as fitted to the
719: numerical results of the GALPROP propagation model \citep[][Table 1,
720: reacceleration and plain diffusion models]{Ptuskin2006}
721: as described in \citet[][eq.~(2)
722: with parameters listed in Table 1]{MP2007b}\footnote{The parameterization
723: constants for CR positrons, not given in Table 1 of \citet{MP2007b}, are:
724: $J_0 =44.8143$, $a_1 = 1$, $b_1 = 0.594634$, $c_1 = -9.14888$,
725: $a_2 = -605.291$, $b_2 = 1.53611$, $c_2 = -7.27809$,
726: $a_3 = 1.18135$, $b_3 = 0.365787$, $c_3 = -3.51576$.}.
727: The CR particle flux at an arbitrary phase of solar activity
728: can then be estimated using the force-field approximation \citep{Gleeson1968}:
729: \begin{equation}%#############################################################
730: \frac{dJ_p(E_k)}{dE_k}=\frac{dJ_p^\infty(E_k+\Phi Z/A)}{dE_k}\frac{E^2-M^2}{(E+\Phi Z/A)^2-M^2},
731: \end{equation}%###############################################################
732: where $dJ_p^\infty/dE_k$ is the LIS spectrum of the CR species, $E_k$ is the
733: kinetic energy per nucleon, $E$ is the total energy per nucleon,
734: $\Phi$ is the modulation potential, $Z$ and $A$ are the nuclear charge
735: and atomic number correspondingly, and $M$ is the nucleon mass.
736: The modulation potential $\Phi(\ell)$ at an arbitrary distance $\ell$
737: from the Sun
738: %is
739: can be
740: calculated using the expressions derived in \citet{MPD2006}, their
741: eqs.~(7), (8).
742:
743: \placefigure{f2.eps}
744: \placefigure{f3.eps}
745: \placefigure{f4.eps}
746:
747: \begin{figure}[t]
748: \centerline{
749: \includegraphics[width=3.4in]{f2.eps}}
750: \caption{Calculated \gray{} albedo spectrum for CR nuclei interactions
751: in the Moon rock \cite{MP2007b} for selected modulation potentials.
752: Line colouring: black, no modulation; red, $\Phi = 500$ MV; blue,
753: $\Phi = 1500$ MV. Dashed and dotted lines show the albedo of the disk
754: and the rim correspondingly for the case of $\Phi=1500$ MV. }
755: \label{fig:moon1}
756: \end{figure}
757:
758: \begin{figure}[t]
759: \centerline{
760: \includegraphics[width=3.4in]{f3.eps}}
761: \caption{Calculated \gray{} albedo spectrum of a Moon-sized body at the
762: Lunar distance composed of moon rock (black), iron ($\times10$, blue), or water ice ($\times0.1$, red).
763: Line-styles: solid, no modulation; long-dashed, $\Phi = 1500$ MV.}
764: \label{fig:moon}
765: \end{figure}
766:
767: \begin{figure}[t]
768: \centerline{
769: \includegraphics[width=3.4in]{f4.eps}}
770: \caption{Calculated \gray{} albedo spectrum showing components below 20 MeV for
771: no modulation (red) and modulation level 1500 MV (blue). Line-styles:
772: long dash: positron induced \gray{s} from center; short dash:
773: CR positron induced \gray{s} from rim; thin solid: total CR positron
774: induced \gray{s}; thick solid: total \gray{} emission from CR positrons
775: and nucleons.
776: }
777: \label{fig:moon2}
778: \end{figure}
779:
780: Figure~\ref{fig:moon1} shows the Lunar albedo spectrum for different
781: modulation potentials $\Phi=0, 500, 1500$ MV.
782: The no modulation case ($\Phi=0$) corresponds to the upper limit of the
783: KBO albedo, with moderate modulation ($\Phi=500$ MV) corresponding to
784: the MBA albedo. The difference in brightness below $\sim$1 GeV
785: due to the incident CR flux only (no modulation vs.\ moderate modulation)
786: is as large as a factor of $\sim$2--3. Also shown are the
787: components of the albedo spectrum (center, rim) for $\Phi=1500$ MV.
788:
789: Figure~\ref{fig:moon} shows the albedo spectrum of the Moon as if the
790: Lunar surface was made of different materials: water ice (multiplied
791: by a factor of 0.1), regolith, and iron (multiplied by a factor of
792: 10). The plot shows the albedo spectra for two limiting cases, no
793: solar modulation ($\Phi=0$) and solar maximum conditions at 1 AU
794: ($\Phi=1500$ MV). The low-energy parts of the spectra ($<$10 MeV)
795: from different materials are considerably different and the nuclear
796: emission lines can be used to distinguish between the materials. The
797: high-energy parts are essentially featureless and have similar shape.
798: The flux between iron and water ice changes by a factor of $\sim$2
799: above 100 MeV with the latter producing the larger flux. Above
800: $\sim$100 MeV the regolith albedo approaches the water ice albedo.
801:
802: The 511 keV line in Figures~\ref{fig:moon1} and \ref{fig:moon} is due
803: to the annihilation of positrons produced by CR cascades in the solid
804: target (iron, regolith, ice). In Figure~\ref{fig:moon1}, the albedo
805: spectrum also includes the contribution by CR positrons in the Lunar
806: rock target (see below). Since the rock is solid, secondary positrons
807: quickly thermalize and produce a narrow annihilation line. Its width
808: is determined by the energy bin size adopted in the simulation.
809:
810: Figure~\ref{fig:moon2} shows the components of the albedo spectrum
811: (Figure~\ref{fig:moon1}) below 20 MeV. The thick solid lines are the
812: total albedo flux due to the CR proton, helium, and positron
813: interactions with regolith for no modulation (upper, red) and
814: modulation level 1500 MV (lower, blue). The thin solid lines show the
815: albedo spectrum due to CR positron interactions with regolith for the
816: same cases of no modulation (upper, red) and modulation level 1500 MV
817: (lower, blue). The dashed and dotted lines show the components of the
818: CR positron induced \gray{s}, from the center and the rim,
819: correspondingly.
820:
821: \placefigure{f5.ps}
822:
823: \begin{figure}[t]
824: \centerline{
825: \includegraphics[width=3in]{f5.ps}}
826: \caption{
827: Profiles of \gray{} intensity with $\beta$ derived from EGRET data
828: as described in the text. The energy range is 100--500 MeV and the profiles
829: have been averaged over all ecliptic longitudes. $(a)$ Profile derived with
830: no masking of Galactic diffuse emission or \gray{} point sources.
831: $(b)$ Profile with the Galactic plane
832: ($|b| < 10^\circ$ for $|l| > 90^\circ$ and $|b| < 20^\circ$ for $|l| <
833: 90^\circ$) excluded. $(c)$ Profile with the identified 3EG sources \citep{Hartman1999}
834: and the Galactic plane excluded. $(d)$ Profile with the identified 3EG sources plus
835: the further blazar identifications proposed by \citet{Sowards2003,Sowards2004}
836: excluded. Overlaid on each profile is the best-fitting gaussian
837: (12.5$^\circ$ FWHM, centered on $\beta$ = 0) plus a constant, fit for the
838: region $|\beta| < 50^\circ$. This approximates the distribution of albedo
839: \gray{} emission expected for the the KBO.
840: }
841: \label{fig:profiles}
842: \end{figure}
843:
844:
845: \section{Analysis of the EGRET data}\label{egret}
846: %##############################################################################
847:
848: The EGRET instrument on the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory (1991--2000)
849: surveyed the sky in the range $>$30 MeV and here we use the EGRET data
850: together with the information in the Third EGRET Source Catalog
851: \citep[3EG,][]{Hartman1999} to set limits on the signal from the SSSBs.
852: Challenges to detecting diffuse emission associated with the ecliptic
853: plane include the brightness of the Galactic diffuse emission
854: \citep[e.g.,][]{Hunter1997}, the presence of bright point sources,
855: the limited angular
856: resolution and photon statistics of the EGRET data, and potential
857: large-scale artifacts in the exposure maps owing to ageing of the spark chamber
858: gas.
859:
860: We made maps of the EGRET data in ecliptic coordinates for Cycles 1--4 of
861: the mission, during which most of the EGRET exposure was obtained.
862: The event
863: data, after standard cuts on zenith angle and inclination angle
864: (30$^\circ$), were binned on a photon-by-photon basis in ecliptic
865: coordinates.
866: The exposure
867: maps for each EGRET viewing period were transformed into ecliptic
868: coordinates and added together and intensity maps were calculated from the
869: photon and exposure maps.
870:
871: \placetable{Table1}
872:
873: \begin{deluxetable*}{ccccc}
874: %\begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
875: \tablecolumns{5}
876: \tablewidth{0pc}
877: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
878: \tablecaption{Diffuse intensity around the ecliptic (100--500 MeV) \label{Table1}}
879: \tablehead{
880: \colhead{Set of cuts} &
881: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$|\beta| < 15^\circ$}
882: \\
883: \colhead{in Figure~\ref{fig:profiles}} &
884: \colhead{Flux, cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$} &
885: \colhead{Stat.\ error} &
886: \colhead{Fitted flux, cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$} &
887: \colhead{Stat.\ error}
888: }
889: \startdata
890: $a$ & $1.006\times10^{-5}$ & $5.5\times10^{-7}$ & $9.16\times10^{-6}$ & $3.5\times10^{-7}$\\
891: %b & $-6.71\times10^{-6}$ & $6.5\times10^{-7}$ & $-4.03\times10^{-6}$& $4.3\times10^{-7}$\\
892: $b$ & $7.95\times10^{-6}$ & $5.8\times10^{-7}$ & $5.95\times10^{-6}$ & $3.7\times10^{-7}$\\
893: $c$ & $3.59\times10^{-6}$ & $6.7\times10^{-7}$ & $3.53\times10^{-6}$ & $4.4\times10^{-7}$\\
894: $d$ & $1.1\times10^{-7}$ & $7.4\times10^{-7}$ & $1.52\times10^{-6}$ & $5.1\times10^{-7}$
895: \enddata
896: %\end{deluxetable}
897: \end{deluxetable*}
898:
899: In order to limit contributions from Galactic diffuse emission to any
900: possible enhancement of diffuse intensity at low ecliptic latitudes, the
901: region $|b| < 20^\circ$ for $|l| < 90^\circ$ and
902: $|b| < 10^\circ$ for $|l| > 90^\circ$ was masked out in the analysis.
903: We also
904: removed regions $12^\circ$ in diameter around the position of each identified
905: source in the 3EG catalog (designation other than ``u'' in the
906: 3EG catalog).
907:
908: Figure \ref{fig:profiles} presents the profile of \gray{} intensity in the
909: 100--500 MeV range over ecliptic longitude.
910: This range was chosen as having the
911: brightest expected albedo emission in the energy range of EGRET.
912: As described
913: in the caption, a sequence of profiles is shown for different combinations of
914: the masks described above.
915: In the last profile (Figure~\ref{fig:profiles}$d$), the 3EG sources
916: subsequently identified by \citet{Sowards2003,Sowards2004} as likely to be
917: blazars were included with the sources identified in the 3EG catalog in
918: defining the mask.
919: We did not mask out unidentified point sources because of
920: the possibility that some of them may have represented detections of the
921: \gray{} albedo from the Trojan groups, which move collectively, or
922: fluctuations in the SSSB \gray{} albedo at low ecliptic latitudes.
923:
924: In order to estimate the possible ``excess'' diffuse flux from
925: MBAs, Trojans, and KBOs
926: we calculated the integrated fluxes for ecliptic latitudes
927: $|\beta|<15^\circ$ and all ecliptic longitudes (Table~\ref{Table1},
928: ``Flux'' column).
929: In order to increase the sensitivity,
930: and to search for a diffuse
931: signal that is centered
932: on the ecliptic the table also includes fluxes for the best-fitting Gaussian
933: centered on $\beta=0^\circ$ and having FWHM width 12.5$^\circ$
934: (``Fitted flux'' column),
935: the approximate extent of the Kuiper Belt \citep{Brown2001}.
936: The fits included a
937: constant term to account for Galactic and extragalactic diffuse emission;
938: profiles of the fits are included in Figure~\ref{fig:profiles}.
939: The effective PSF for EGRET in
940: the 100--500 MeV range for the expected spectrum of the albedo emission is
941: approximately 4$^\circ$ FWHM, which would not appreciably broaden the apparent
942: distribution of \gray{} intensity.
943: In any case, the assumption of a single
944: Gaussian profile is an approximation; the contribution from MBAs
945: should result in an additional somewhat narrower but fainter
946: component to the diffuse emission around the ecliptic.
947:
948: Gamma-ray emission associated with the Moon and Sun
949: also contributes
950: to the intensity of the sky at low ecliptic latitudes.
951: The Moon is always
952: within about 5$^\circ$ of the ecliptic and the profiles shown in Figure 5
953: undoubtedly include lunar albedo \gray{} emission, at a level of $\sim5
954: \times 10^{-7}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ \citep{MP2007b}.
955: As described
956: by \citet{MPD2006} the solar radiation field is a fairly
957: bright and diffuse \gray{} source from inverse Compton scattering of
958: CR electrons.
959: The solar inverse Compton emission is brightest in the
960: ecliptic plane but of course depends on solar elongation angle.
961: The precise
962: contribution to the diffuse intensity at low ecliptic latitudes is difficult
963: to estimate.
964: The Sun was in the field of view of EGRET for only a small
965: fraction of the observing time and the contribution to the total flux should
966: have been less than that of the Moon.
967:
968: After the bright diffuse emission and identified point sources are masked from
969: the EGRET data, no strong excess of diffuse emission is apparent at low
970: ecliptic latitudes in Figure~\ref{fig:profiles}.
971: The integrated fluxes are formally
972: significant for the case where the Galactic plane and all sources
973: identified in the 3EG catalog are masked out (Table~\ref{Table1},
974: Figure~\ref{fig:profiles}$c$), but the systematic
975: uncertainties are comparable to the measurement.
976: This is suggested by the
977: effect on the integrated flux from masking out several more
978: sources that
979: \citet{Sowards2003,Sowards2004} identified as
980: blazars (Figure~\ref{fig:profiles}$d$).
981: The
982: overall average exposure does not change appreciably as a result of the
983: additional masking but the fit flux decreased by more than
984: 50\% (Table~\ref{Table1}).
985:
986: Based on our analysis of the EGRET data we infer that the diffuse emission
987: from MBAs, Trojans, and KBOs
988: has an integrated flux of less than $\sim$$6
989: \times 10^{-6}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ (100--500 MeV), as derived from the set of
990: cuts $b$, which corresponds to $\sim$12 Lunar albedo flux units.
991:
992: %\iffalse
993: %Kuiper belt key=1
994: %n,F,G,f,k,r0,r1= 2.5 0.000513992 3.82052e-14 8.13 1.5 400 1.195e+08
995: %n,F,G,f,k,r0,r1= 3 0.0938177 6.9735e-12 8.13 1.66667 400 1.195e+08
996: %n,F,G,f,k,r0,r1= 3.5 17.1243 1.27285e-09 8.13 1.83333 400 1.195e+08
997: %n,F,G,f,k,r0,r1= 3.9 583.524 4.33736e-08 8.13 1.96667 400 1.195e+08
998: %Kuiper belt key=3
999: %n,F,G,f,k,r0,r1= 2.5 0.0013721 1.07305e-13 7.72717 1.5 400 6e+07
1000: %n,F,G,f,k,r0,r1= 3 0.177595 1.38889e-11 7.72717 1.66667 400 6e+07
1001: %n,F,G,f,k,r0,r1= 3.5 22.9868 1.79769e-09 7.72717 1.83333 400 6e+07
1002: %n,F,G,f,k,r0,r1= 3.9 611.421 4.78163e-08 7.72717 1.96667 400 6e+07
1003: %MBAs key=21
1004: %my new: n,F,r0,r1= 2.5 0.044245 100 4.565e+07
1005: %my new: n,F,r0,r1= 3 0.671182 100 4.565e+07
1006: %my new: n,F,r0,r1= 3.5 12.5381 100 4.565e+07
1007: %\fi
1008:
1009:
1010: \section{Discussion and Conclusion}
1011: %##############################################################################
1012:
1013: The albedo \gray{} flux from MBAs
1014: can be calculated using eqs.~(\ref{eq7})--(\ref{eq11})
1015: and Figures~\ref{fig:moon1}, \ref{fig:moon}
1016: where we assume that their surface material is regolith.
1017: We use the following parameters:
1018: $\rho=2$ g cm$^{-3}$ for the MBA average density,
1019: $r_1=4.565\times10^7$ cm for the radius of
1020: Ceres,
1021: $r_0=100$ cm for the smallest radius of an asteroid that is still
1022: an opaque target for incident CR particles.
1023: %\footnote{
1024: The central grammage in this case ($r_0=100$ cm)
1025: is $\sim$400 g cm$^{-2}$. Since the composition of the MBAs
1026: (and other SSSB populations) is
1027: mainly oxygen, this corresponds to $\sim$5 interaction lengths which is
1028: sufficient
1029: for the hadronic cascade to fully develop at the CR energies we consider.
1030: %}.
1031: With these parameters, the total MBA
1032: albedo flux is
1033: ${\cal X}=F_{\rm tot}/F_{\moon}=0.05$, 0.67, 12
1034: %$F_{\rm tot}=0.06$, 0.67, 10 laf (1 laf $\equiv F_{\moon}$)
1035: for extrapolation to small sizes with indices $n=2.5$, 3.0, 3.5
1036: (see Figure~\ref{fig1a}), correspondingly.
1037:
1038: Similarly, for the Jovian Trojan asteroids we can estimate the \gray{} flux
1039: assuming the same size distribution as for MBAs,
1040: but with $\ell\sim5.2$ AU, and $r_0=200$ cm (which gives the same
1041: central grammage for $\rho=1$ g cm$^{-3}$). We obtain
1042: ${\cal X} = F_{\rm tot}/F_{\moon} = 0.01$, 0.07, 0.8
1043: %${\cal X} = F_{\rm tot}/F_{\moon} = 0.009$, 0.07, 0.76 laf
1044: %$F_{\rm tot} = 0.009$, 0.07, 0.76 laf
1045: (averaged over their orbit) for a similar
1046: extrapolation to small sizes with indices $n = 2.5$, 3.0, 3.5.
1047: For the closest (4.2 AU) and the farthest (6.2 AU) distances to Earth,
1048: the fluxes will be
1049: 0.01, 0.1, 1.2 and 0.006, 0.05, 0.5, correspondingly.
1050: %0.01, 0.1, 1.2 laf and 0.006, 0.05, 0.52 laf, correspondingly.
1051:
1052: The KBO size distribution is known very approximately.
1053: The second largest object of the Kuiper Belt after 136199 Eris is
1054: Pluto $r_1=1.195\times10^8$ cm,
1055: while the majority of the KBOs are icy rocks and comets
1056: with $\rho=0.5$ g cm$^{-3}$.
1057: To keep the same central grammage of the smallest body
1058: $\sim$400 g cm$^{-2}$ we have to use a larger minimum radius, $r_0=400$ cm, than
1059: for the MBAs.
1060: The incident spectrum of CR particles at $>$30 AU approaches the
1061: LIS spectrum which results in a factor of $\sim$2 increase below $\sim$1 GeV
1062: of the albedo flux compared to the same body at 1 AU
1063: (Figure~\ref{fig:moon1}).
1064: For these parameters, the total Kuiper Belt albedo flux is
1065: ${\cal X}^{\rm K}=F^{\rm K}_{\rm tot}/F_{\moon}=0.2$, 34, 1168
1066: %$F^{\rm K}_{\rm tot}=0.2$, 34, 1168 laf
1067: for $n=3.0$, 3.5, 3.9, correspondingly.
1068: The removal of Eris and Pluto
1069: ($\sim$$0.005M_\oplus$ combined) from the Kuiper Belt and using Charon
1070: instead, $r_1=6\times10^7$ cm, results in the flux increase:
1071: ${\cal X}^{\rm K}=F^{\rm K}_{\rm tot}/F_{\moon}=0.35$, 46, 1222
1072: %$F^{\rm K}_{\rm tot}=0.35$, 46, 1222 laf
1073: for the same values of $n$.
1074: However, this change is simply the result of anchoring the power-law
1075: size distribution to a large body.
1076:
1077: Our estimates show that the albedo of MBAs and KBOs
1078: could
1079: %can easily
1080: account for the EGRET upper limit of the flux from the ecliptic.
1081: For the adopted size distributions of SSSBs
1082: ($n=3.0$ for MBAs and $n=3.5$ for KBOs), the KBO albedo is essentially
1083: brighter.
1084: However, if the MBA size distribution is somewhat steeper
1085: than our adopted index of $n = 3.0$, e.g., as for the distribution
1086: proposed by \citet{Cheng2004}, it can
1087: account for the total albedo flux from the ecliptic.
1088: The SSSB \gray{} albedo, especially of the collectively moving Trojan groups,
1089: might be responsible for some fraction of the EGRET unidentified point
1090: sources at low ecliptic latitudes.
1091:
1092: A possible way to distinguish the albedo emission of MBAs and KBOs
1093: is to study the emission as a function of solar elongation angle.
1094: In the antisolar direction, $\theta\approx180^\circ$, the direction in which
1095: the Main Belt is closest to the Earth ($\sim$1.7 AU), the flux is predicted
1096: to be as much as $\sim$5 times that in the solar direction,
1097: $\theta\approx0^\circ$.
1098: On the other hand, the brightness of the Kuiper Belt is only weakly
1099: dependent on the elongation angle because it is much further away.
1100: %For the Trojans, their positions on the sky are known, being
1101: The positions of the Trojans on the sky are known, being
1102: determined relative to their respective planet (Jupiter, Neptune),
1103: making them easier to detect.
1104:
1105: The detection of the CR-induced \gray{} albedo of MBAs, Trojans, and
1106: the KBOs by \gray{} instruments is possible.
1107: At higher energies $\ga$1 GeV where the \gray{} albedo flux is steady
1108: and does not depend on the solar modulation, it can serve as
1109: a normalization point to the cumulative brightness
1110: of all MBAs plus KBOs.
1111: At lower energies $\la$1 GeV,
1112: the component of the albedo which is independent of elongation,
1113: the KBO albedo,
1114: will tell us directly about the LIS spectrum of CRs.
1115: Therefore, the observations of the albedo flux can provide
1116: us with valuable information about the size distributions of SSSBs in both
1117: regions, while the shape of the albedo spectrum can tell us about
1118: the LIS spectra of CR protons and helium at high energies.
1119: In turn, a detection of the MBA and KBO albedo
1120: at MeV-GeV energies will enable us to normalize properly the cumulative
1121: albedo spectrum and make a prediction for the intensity of the 511 keV line.
1122:
1123: A conservative estimate of the 511 keV line flux from SSSBs can be made using
1124: the upper limit derived in Section~\ref{egret}.
1125: The total flux of 511 keV
1126: photons from the Moon is $F_{\moon}^{511}
1127: \approx10^{-3}\Delta E\approx 2.4\times10^{-5}$ photons cm$^{-2}$
1128: s$^{-1}$ (Figure~\ref{fig:moon1}, $\Phi=0$ MV),
1129: where $\Delta E=0.024$ MeV is the size of the bin containing $E=0.511$ MeV.
1130: The total flux from the SSSBs
1131: ${\cal X}^{511}=F_{\rm tot}^{511}/F_{\moon}^{511}$
1132: %$F_{\rm tot}^{511}$
1133: can be calculated from eqs.~(\ref{eq7})--(\ref{eq11}).
1134: The SSSB albedo contribution to the 511 keV line flux within
1135: the Galactic bulge is
1136: %$\sim 0.06{\cal X}^{511}$,
1137: %$\sim$0.06 laf,
1138: $\sim0.72 F_{\moon}^{511}$,
1139: where we assumed that the FWHM
1140: of the bulge is $\sim$$10^\circ$ \citep{Knodlseder2005}, and $20^\circ/360^\circ\approx 0.06$,
1141: and we used the upper limit
1142: %$\sim$12 laf
1143: derived in Section~\ref{egret}.
1144: %A conservative estimate based on
1145: %Using the upper limit derived in Section~\ref{egret}
1146: It
1147: gives $\sim$$2\times10^{-5}$
1148: photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$, which is about 2\% of the total bulge emission as
1149: observed by the INTEGRAL $(1.05\pm0.06)\times10^{-3}$ photons cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$
1150: \citep[][]{Knodlseder2005}.
1151: Since most of the INTEGRAL observing time was spent on observations of the Galactic bulge
1152: and a comparatively small fraction went into observing regions
1153: above and below the Galactic plane,
1154: it is not surprising that a diffuse band near the ecliptic (the SSSB albedo)
1155: has not been found so far. It is interesting that
1156: the OSSE map of the 511 keV line has a controversial feature, the so-called
1157: ``annihilation fountain,'' above the Galactic bulge
1158: \citep{Purcell1997} which, in fact, may be the asteroid albedo foreground instead.
1159: Note, that the
1160: \gray{} spectrometer on the NEAR-Shoemaker spacecraft made observations
1161: of the 511 keV line from 433 Eros \citep{Evans2001} on the surface of
1162: Eros itself,
1163: however, it is hard to judge the absolute intensity of the line from the
1164: published data.
1165:
1166: Our estimates of the fluxes assume that the mass and radius distributions
1167: are valid for the whole range of masses, which is not necessarily true.
1168: The number of small bodies may be larger or smaller than the extrapolation
1169: from the distribution of more massive bodies.
1170: We have also assumed spherical bodies.
1171: However, the smallest bodies are distinctly non-spherical which would make
1172: them somewhat brighter than we have estimated.
1173: Thus, our calculations underestimate the SSSB albedo emission.
1174:
1175: The bodies that are smaller than the
1176: cutoff radius
1177: ($r_0=100$ cm for MBAs, 200 cm for Trojans, 400 cm for KBOs)
1178: will also contribute to the albedo flux.
1179: Because of their smaller size, only the initial stage of the CR
1180: cascade will develop, producing a harder albedo spectrum while
1181: its intensity will be reduced due to the partial
1182: conversion of energy of the primary CR particles into albedo \gray{s}.
1183:
1184: We emphasise that the detection of the \gray{} albedo from MBAs, KBOs, and
1185: other SSSB families directly probes the size distribution of these bodies
1186: below the detection limit of other methods, over considerably larger regions
1187: of the sky.
1188: The detectability of the \gray{} emission by these objects has implications
1189: for studies of
1190: the evolution of the
1191: solar and exo-solar planetary systems \citep{Brown2004},
1192: studies of CRs,
1193: and diffuse \gray{s}.
1194: The GLAST Large Area Telescope (LAT)\footnote{See the GLAST LAT performance Web-page: {\tt http://www-glast.slac.stanford.edu}},
1195: to be launched by NASA in May 2008, will in just one year
1196: %of surveying the sky
1197: have an essentially uniform exposure over the entire sky
1198: a factor of 40 or more deeper than EGRET
1199: and will be free from sensitivity variations owing to ageing of consumables.
1200: This capability will permit detection of albedo \gray{} fluxes for SSSBs at
1201: even the Lunar flux level.
1202:
1203: \acknowledgments
1204: I.\ V.\ M.\ wishes to dedicate this paper to the memory of his mother.
1205: We thank Clark Chapman and Bill Merline for careful
1206: reading of the manuscript and insightful
1207: remarks, and Joe Burns, Alan Harris, and Ed Tedesco
1208: for sharing their thoughts.
1209: This investigation was inspired by a question
1210: from NASA Associate Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate, Dr.\
1211: S.\ Alan Stern.
1212: I.\ V.\ M.\ and J.\ F.\ O.\ acknowledge support from NASA
1213: Astronomy and Physics Research and Analysis Program (APRA) grant.
1214: T.\ A.\ P.\ acknowledges partial support from the US Department of Energy.
1215: P.\ F.\ M.\ acknowledges support from NASA contract NAS5-00147 for GLAST.
1216: This work was carried out while J.\ F.\ O.\ was a visiting scientist at Stanford
1217: University; he wishes to acknowledge the kind hospitality.
1218: This research has made use of data obtained through the High Energy Astrophysics
1219: Science Archive Research Center,
1220: provided by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.
1221:
1222: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1223:
1224: \bibitem[Asphaug \& Benz(1994)]{Asphaug1994}
1225: \pubjournal{Asphaug, E., \& Benz, W.}
1226: {\nat}{370}{120}{1994}{}
1227:
1228: \bibitem[Babich et al.(2007)]{Babich2007}
1229: \pubjournal{Babich, D., Blake, C. H., \& Steinhardt, C. L.}
1230: {\apj}{669}{1406}{2007}
1231: {What Can the Cosmic Microwave Background Tell Us about the Outer Solar System}
1232:
1233: \bibitem[Backman et al.(1995)]{Backman1995}
1234: \pubjournal{Backman, D. E., Dasgupta, A., \& Stencel, R. E.}
1235: {\apj}{450}{L35}{1995}
1236: {Model of a Kuiper Belt Small Grain Population and Resulting Far-Infrared Emission}
1237:
1238: \bibitem[Baltz et al.(2008)]{Baltz2007}
1239: \pubjournala{Baltz, E. A. et al.}
1240: {JCAP}{}{submitted}{2008}{}
1241:
1242: \bibitem[Bergstr\"om et al.(1998)]{Bergstrom1998}
1243: \pubjournal{Bergstr\"om, L., Ullio, P., \& Buckley, J. H.}
1244: {\app}{9}{137}{1998}
1245: {Observability of gamma rays from dark matter neutralino annihilations in the Milky Way halo}
1246:
1247: \bibitem[Bernstein et al.(2004)]{Bernstein2004}
1248: \pubjournal{Bernstein, G. M., et al.}{\aj}{128}{1364}{2004}{The size distribution of trans-Neptunian objects}
1249:
1250: \bibitem[Binzel et al.(1999)]{Binzel1999}
1251: \pubbook{Binzel, R. P., Hanner, M. S., \& Steel, D. I.}
1252: {Solar System Small Bodies}
1253: {in Allen's Astrophysical Quantities}
1254: {ed.\ Cox, A. N.}
1255: {p.315}
1256: {2003}
1257:
1258: \bibitem[Brown(2001)]{Brown2001}
1259: \pubjournal{Brown, M. E.}
1260: {\aj}{121}{2804}{2001}
1261: {The inclination distribution of the Kuiper belt}
1262:
1263: \bibitem[Brown(2004)]{Brown2004}
1264: \pubjournal{Brown, M. E.}{Physics Today}{57}{49}{2004}{The Kuiper Belt}
1265:
1266: \bibitem[Cheng(2004)]{Cheng2004}
1267: \pubjournal{Cheng, A. F.}
1268: {Icarus}{169}{357}{2004}
1269: {Collisional evolution of the asteroid belt}
1270:
1271: \bibitem[Dohnanyi(1969)]{Dohnanyi1969}
1272: \pubjournal{Dohnanyi, J. S.}
1273: {\jgr}{74}{2531}{1969}
1274: {Collisional Model of Asteroids and Their Debris}
1275:
1276: \bibitem[Evans et al.(2001)]{Evans2001}
1277: \pubjournal{Evans, L. G., et al.}
1278: {Meteoritics \& Planetary Science}{36}{1639}{2001}
1279: {Elemental composition from gamma-ray spectroscopy of the
1280: NEAR-Shoemaker landing site on 433 Eros}
1281:
1282: \bibitem[Finkbeiner \& Weiner(2007)]{Finkbeiner2007}
1283: \pubjournal{Finkbeiner, D. P., \& Weiner, N.}
1284: {\prd}{76}{083519}{2007}{}
1285:
1286: \bibitem[Gleeson \& Axford(1968)]{Gleeson1968}
1287: \pubjournal{Gleeson, L. J. \& Axford, W. I.}{\apj}{154}{1011}{1968}{}
1288:
1289: \bibitem[Guessoum et al.(2005)]{Guessoum2005}
1290: \pubjournal{Guessoum, N., Jean, P., \& Gillard, W.}{\aap}{436}{171}{2005}{}
1291:
1292: \bibitem[Hartman et al.(1999)]{Hartman1999}
1293: \pubjournal{Hartman, R. C., et al.}{\apj{S}}{123}{79}{1999}{}
1294:
1295: \bibitem[Hooper et al.(2008)]{Hooper2007}
1296: \pubjournal{Hooper, D., Zaharijas, G., Finkbeiner, D. P., \& Dobler, G.}
1297: {\prd}{77}{043511}{2008}
1298: {Prospects for detecting dark matter with GLAST in light of the WMAP haze}
1299:
1300: \bibitem[Hunter et al.(1997)]{Hunter1997}
1301: \pubjournal{Hunter, S. D., et al.}{\apj}{481}{205}{1997}{}
1302:
1303: \bibitem[Ivezi\'{c} et al.(2001)]{Ivezic2001}
1304: \pubjournal{Ivezi\'c, \v{Z}., et al.}{\aj}{122}{2749}{2001}{}
1305:
1306: \bibitem[Jean et al.(2006)]{Jean2006}
1307: \pubjournal{Jean, P., et al.}
1308: {\aap}{445}{579}{2006}{}
1309:
1310: \bibitem[Jedicke \& Metcalfe(1998)]{Jedicke1998}
1311: \pubjournal{Jedicke, R., \& Metcalfe, T. S.}
1312: {Icarus}{131}{245}{1998}{}
1313:
1314: \bibitem[Jewitt \& Luu(1995)]{Jewitt1995}
1315: \pubjournal{Jewitt, D. C., \& Luu, J.-X.}
1316: {\aj}{109}{1867}{1995}{}
1317:
1318: \bibitem[Jewitt et al.(2000)]{Jewitt2000}
1319: \pubjournal{Jewitt, D. C., et al.}{\aj}{120}{1140}{2000}{}
1320:
1321: \bibitem[Kenyon \& Bromley(2004)]{Kenyon2004}
1322: \pubjournal{Kenyon, S. J., \& Bromley, B. C.}
1323: {\aj}{128}{1916}{2004}{}
1324:
1325: \bibitem[Kn\"odlseder et al.(2005)]{Knodlseder2005}
1326: \pubjournal{Kn\"odlseder, J., et al.}
1327: {\aap}{441}{513}{2005}
1328: {The all-sky distribution of 511 keV electron-positron annihilation emission}
1329:
1330: \bibitem[Krasinsky et al.(2002)]{Krasinsky2002}
1331: \pubjournal{Krasinsky, G. A., Pitjeva, E. V., Vasilyev, M. V., \& Yagudina, E. I.}
1332: {Icarus}{158}{98}{2002}
1333: {Hidden mass in the asteroid belt}
1334:
1335: \bibitem[Lacerda \& Jewitt(2007)]{Lacerda2007}
1336: \pubjournal{Lacerda, P. \& Jewitt, D. C.}{\aj}{133}{1393}{2007}{}
1337:
1338: \bibitem[Langner et al.(2006)]{Langner2006}
1339: \pubjournal{Langner, U. W., Potgieter, M. S., Fichtner, H., \& Borrmann, T.}
1340: {\apj}{640}{1119}{2006}{}
1341:
1342: \bibitem[Luu \& Jewitt(2002)]{Luu2002}
1343: \pubjournal{Luu, J.-X., \& Jewitt, D. C.}
1344: {\araa}{40}{63}{2002}{}
1345:
1346: \bibitem[Mann et al.(2007)]{Mann2007}
1347: \pubjournal{Mann, R. K., et al.}{\aj}{134}{1133}{2007}{}
1348:
1349: \bibitem[Marchis et al.(2006)]{Marchis2006}
1350: \pubjournal{Marchis, F., et al.}{Nature}{439}{565}{2006}{}
1351:
1352: \bibitem[Moskalenko \& Porter(2007a)]{MP2007a}
1353: \pubjournala{Moskalenko, I. V., \& Porter, T. A.}
1354: {Proc.\ 30th \icrc (Merida)}{}{in press}{2007}{}; arXiv:0705.3856
1355:
1356: \bibitem[Moskalenko \& Porter(2007b)]{MP2007b}
1357: \pubjournal{Moskalenko, I. V., \& Porter, T. A.}
1358: {\apj}{670}{1467}{2007}{}
1359:
1360: \bibitem[Moskalenko et al.(2006)]{MPD2006}
1361: \pubjournal{Moskalenko, I. V., Porter, T. A., \& Digel, S. W.}
1362: {\apj}{652}{L65}{2006}{}
1363:
1364: \bibitem[Moskalenko et al.(2008)]{Moskalenko2008}
1365: \pubjournala{Moskalenko, I. V., Porter, T. A., Digel, S. W., Michelson, P. F., \& Ormes, J. F.}
1366: {in Proc. 39th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference}
1367: {}
1368: {\#2280}
1369: {2008}
1370: {Gamma-ray albedo of small solar system bodies}%; arXiv: 0802.3404
1371:
1372: \bibitem[Orlando \& Strong(2007)]{Orlando2007}
1373: \pubjournal{Orlando, E., \& Strong, A. W.}{\apss}{309}{359}{2007}{}
1374:
1375: \bibitem[Orlando et al.(2007)]{Orlando2007b}
1376: \pubbook{Orlando, E., Dirk, P., \& Strong, A. W.}
1377: {in AIP Conf.\ Proc.\ 921}
1378: {First Int.\ GLAST Symp.}
1379: {ed.\ Ritz, S. et al.\ (Melville:AIP)}
1380: {p.502}
1381: {2007}
1382:
1383: \bibitem[Prantzos(2006)]{Prantzos2006}
1384: \pubjournal{Prantzos, N.}{\aap}{449}{869}{2006}{}
1385:
1386: \bibitem[Ptuskin et al.(2006)]{Ptuskin2006}
1387: \pubjournal{Ptuskin, V. S., Moskalenko, I. V., Jones, F. C., Strong, A. W.,
1388: \& Zirakashvili, V. N.}{\apj}{642}{902}{2006}{}
1389:
1390: \bibitem[Purcell et al.(1997)]{Purcell1997}
1391: \pubjournal{Purcell, W. R., et al.}
1392: {\apj}{491}{725}{1997}
1393: {OSSE Mapping of Galactic 511 keV Positron Annihilation Line Emission}
1394:
1395: \bibitem[Sheppard(2005)]{Sheppard2005}
1396: \pubjournala{Sheppard, S. S.}
1397: {Ph.D.\ Thesis}
1398: {}
1399: {University of Hawaii}
1400: {2005}
1401: {}
1402:
1403: \bibitem[Sheppard \& Trujillo(2006)]{Sheppard2006}
1404: \pubjournal{Sheppard, S. S., \& Trujillo, C. A.}
1405: {Science}
1406: {313}
1407: {511}
1408: {2006}
1409: {}
1410:
1411: \bibitem[Solem(1994)]{Solem1994}
1412: \pubjournal{Solem, J. C.}
1413: {\nat}{370}{349}{1994}{}
1414:
1415: \bibitem[Sowards-Emmerd(2003)]{Sowards2003}
1416: \pubjournal{Sowards-Emmerd, D., Romani, R. W., \& Michelson, P. F.}{\apj}{590}{109}{2003}{}
1417:
1418: \bibitem[Sowards-Emmerd(2004)]{Sowards2004}
1419: \pubjournal{Sowards-Emmerd, D., Romani, R. W., Michelson, P. F., \& Ulvestad, J. S.}
1420: {\apj}{609}{564}{2004}{}
1421:
1422: \bibitem[Sreekumar et al.(1998)]{Sreekumar1998}
1423: \pubjournal{Sreekumar, P., et. al.}{\apj}{494}{523}{1998}{}
1424:
1425: \bibitem[Stone et al.(2005)]{Stone2005}
1426: \pubjournal{Stone, E. C., et al.}{Science}{309}{2017}{2005}{}
1427:
1428: \bibitem[Stern(2003)]{Stern2003}
1429: \pubjournal{Stern, S. A.}{\nat}{424}{639}{2003}{}
1430:
1431: \bibitem[Strong et al.(2004)]{SMR2004b}
1432: \pubjournal{Strong, A. W., Moskalenko, I. V., \& Reimer, O.}{\apj}{613}{956}{2004}{}
1433:
1434: \bibitem[Takahashi et al.(2006)]{Takahashi2006}
1435: \pubbook{Takahashi, T., Mitsuda, K., \& Kunieda, H.}
1436: {in SPIE Conf.\ Proc.\ 6266}
1437: {Space Telescopes and Instrumentation II: Ultraviolet to Gamma Ray}
1438: {ed.\ Turner, M. J. L. \& Hasinger, G.}
1439: {p.62660D}
1440: {2006}
1441:
1442: \bibitem[Tancredi et al.(2006)]{Tancredi2006}
1443: \pubjournal{Tancredi, G., Fern\'andez, J. A., Rickman, H., \& Licandro, J.}
1444: {Icarus}{182}{527}{2006}
1445: {Nuclear magnitudes and the size distribution of Jupiter family comets}
1446:
1447: \bibitem[Tedesco \& Desert(2002)]{Tedesco2002}
1448: \pubjournal{Tedesco, E. F., \& Desert, F.-X.}
1449: {\aj}{123}{2070}{2002}{}
1450:
1451: \bibitem[Tedesco et al.(2005)]{Tedesco2005}
1452: \pubjournal{Tedesco, E. F., Cellino, A., \& Zappal\'a, V.}
1453: {\aj}{129}{2869}{2005}{}
1454:
1455: \bibitem[Thompson et al.(1997)]{Thompson1997}
1456: \pubjournal{Thompson, D. J., Bertsch, D. L., Morris, D. J., \& Mukherjee, R.}
1457: {\jgr\ {\it A}}{120}{14735}{1997}{}
1458:
1459: \bibitem[Toth(2005)]{Toth2005}
1460: \pubbook{Toth, I.}
1461: {in IAU Symp.\ Proc.\ 229}
1462: {Asteroids, Comets, Meteors}
1463: {ed.\ Lazzaro, D. et al.\ (Cambridge: University Press)}
1464: {p.67}
1465: {2005}
1466:
1467: \bibitem[Weidenspointner et al.(2006)]{Weidenspointner2006}
1468: \pubjournal{Weidenspointner, G., et al.}
1469: {\aap}{450}{1013}{2006}{}
1470:
1471: \bibitem[Wiegert et al.(2007)]{Wiegert2007}
1472: \pubjournal{Wiegert, P., et al.}{\aj}{133}{1609}{2007}{}
1473:
1474: \bibitem[Yoshida et al.(2003)]{Yoshida2003}
1475: \pubjournal{Yosihda, F., et al.}{Publ. Astr. Soc. Japan}{55}{701}{2003}{}
1476:
1477: \bibitem[Yoshida \& Nakamura(2005)]{Yoshida2005}
1478: \pubjournal{Yoshida, F. \& Nakamura, T.}{\aj}{130}{2900}{2005}{}
1479:
1480: \bibitem[Zaharijas \& Hooper(2006)]{Zaharijas2006}
1481: \pubjournala{Zaharijas, G., \& Hooper, D.}
1482: {\prd}{73}{103501}{2006}{}
1483:
1484: \end{thebibliography}
1485:
1486: \end{document}%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1487: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1488: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1489:
1490: \clearpage
1491: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1492: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% T A B L E S %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1493: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1494:
1495: %\begin{deluxetable*}{ccccc}
1496: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
1497: \tablecolumns{5}
1498: \tablewidth{0pc}
1499: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
1500: \tablecaption{Diffuse intensity around the ecliptic (100--500 MeV) \label{Table1}}
1501: \tablehead{
1502: \colhead{Set of cuts} &
1503: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$|\beta| < 15^\circ$}
1504: \\
1505: \colhead{in Figure~\ref{fig:profiles}} &
1506: \colhead{Flux, cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$} &
1507: \colhead{Stat.\ error} &
1508: \colhead{Fitted flux, cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$} &
1509: \colhead{Stat.\ error}
1510: }
1511: \startdata
1512: $a$ & $1.006\times10^{-5}$ & $5.5\times10^{-7}$ & $9.16\times10^{-6}$ & $3.5\times10^{-7}$\\
1513: %b & $-6.71\times10^{-6}$ & $6.5\times10^{-7}$ & $-4.03\times10^{-6}$& $4.3\times10^{-7}$\\
1514: $b$ & $7.95\times10^{-6}$ & $5.8\times10^{-7}$ & $5.95\times10^{-6}$ & $3.7\times10^{-7}$\\
1515: $c$ & $3.59\times10^{-6}$ & $6.7\times10^{-7}$ & $3.53\times10^{-6}$ & $4.4\times10^{-7}$\\
1516: $d$ & $1.1\times10^{-7}$ & $7.4\times10^{-7}$ & $1.52\times10^{-6}$ & $5.1\times10^{-7}$
1517: \enddata
1518: \end{deluxetable}
1519: %\end{deluxetable*}
1520:
1521:
1522: \clearpage
1523: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1524: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% F I G U R E S %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1525: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1526:
1527: \begin{figure}[t]
1528: \centerline{
1529: \includegraphics[width=3in]{f1.ps}}
1530: \caption{Cumulative size distribution $N(>r)$ of KBOs (upper set of
1531: lines) and MBAs (lower set of lines). Line coding: thick dash-dot
1532: line -- \citet{Binzel1999}, thick dashes -- \citet{Tedesco2002}, thick
1533: solid -- \citet{Tedesco2005}, thick dots -- parameterization proposed
1534: by \citet{Cheng2004}. Our parameterizations are shown by thin lines
1535: (solid, dotted) where the numbers show the \emph{cumulative}
1536: power-law index $(n-1)$ of a particular distribution. Thin solid lines
1537: are our adapted distributions: index 2.0 ($n=3.0$) for MBAs, and 2.5 ($n=3.5$) for KBOs.
1538: Thin dotted lines show the range discussed in the paper. See text for
1539: details.}
1540: \label{fig1a}
1541: \end{figure}
1542:
1543: \begin{figure}[t]
1544: \centerline{
1545: \includegraphics[width=3in]{f2.eps}}
1546: \caption{Calculated \gray{} albedo spectrum for CR nuclei interactions
1547: in the Moon rock \cite{MP2007b} for selected modulation potentials.
1548: Line colouring: black, no modulation; red, $\Phi = 500$ MV; blue,
1549: $\Phi = 1500$ MV. Dashed and dotted lines show the albedo of the disk
1550: and the rim correspondingly for the case of $\Phi=1500$ MV. }
1551: \label{fig:moon1}
1552: \end{figure}
1553:
1554: \begin{figure}[t]
1555: \centerline{
1556: \includegraphics[width=3in]{f3.eps}}
1557: \caption{Calculated \gray{} albedo spectrum of a Moon-sized body at the
1558: Lunar distance composed of moon rock (black), iron ($\times10$, blue), or water ice ($\times0.1$, red).
1559: Line-styles: solid, no modulation; long-dashed, $\Phi = 1500$ MV.}
1560: \label{fig:moon}
1561: \end{figure}
1562:
1563: \begin{figure}[t]
1564: \centerline{
1565: \includegraphics[width=3in]{f4.eps}}
1566: \caption{Calculated \gray{} albedo spectrum showing components below 20 MeV for
1567: no modulation (red) and modulation level 1500 MV (blue). Line-styles:
1568: long dash: positron induced \gray{s} from center; short dash:
1569: CR positron induced \gray{s} from rim; thin solid: total CR positron
1570: induced \gray{s}; thick solid: total \gray{} emission from CR positrons
1571: and nucleons.
1572: }
1573: \label{fig:moon2}
1574: \end{figure}
1575:
1576: \begin{figure}[t]
1577: \centerline{
1578: \includegraphics[width=2.5in]{f5.eps}}
1579: \caption{
1580: Profiles of \gray{} intensity with $\beta$ derived from EGRET data
1581: as described in the text. The energy range is 100--500 MeV and the profiles
1582: have been averaged over all ecliptic longitudes. $(a)$ Profile derived with
1583: no masking of Galactic diffuse emission or \gray{} point sources.
1584: $(b)$ Profile with the Galactic plane
1585: ($|b| < 10^\circ$ for $|l| > 90^\circ$ and $|b| < 20^\circ$ for $|l| <
1586: 90^\circ$) excluded. $(c)$ Profile with the identified 3EG sources \citep{Hartman1999}
1587: and the Galactic plane excluded. $(d)$ Profile with the identified 3EG sources plus
1588: the further blazar identifications proposed by \citet{Sowards2003,Sowards2004}
1589: excluded. Overlaid on each profile is the best-fitting gaussian
1590: (12.5$^\circ$ FWHM, centered on $\beta$ = 0) plus a constant, fit for the
1591: region $|\beta| < 50^\circ$. This approximates the distribution of albedo
1592: \gray{} emission expected for the the KBO.
1593: }
1594: \label{fig:profiles}
1595: \end{figure}
1596:
1597: \end{document}
1598:
1599: