250 likes | 416 Views
SAS-2. COS-B. EGRET. 900,000 g 271 sources. 8,000 g 3 sources. 158,000 g 25 sources. More g s mean more sources. From COS-B to EGRET. Tip(s) of the iceberg(s). Cos-B. Egret. Glast will detect hundreds of sources which will be positioned at a 5-10 arcmin level.
E N D
SAS-2 COS-B EGRET 900,000 g 271 sources 8,000 g 3 sources 158,000 g 25 sources More gs mean more sources
From COS-B to EGRET Tip(s) of the iceberg(s) Cos-B Egret
Glast will detect hundreds of sources which will be positioned at a 5-10 arcmin level
22 sources with b< 10° 80 sources with b<10° 2 pulsars5(8) pulsars +Geminga 20 UGOs74 UGOs [1 solar flare] GLOBAL UGOs’ characteristics are unchanged 3 sources with b> 10° 181 sources with b>10° 3C273 66 AGNs (VARIABLE) r Oph 28 probable AGNs 1 weak unid. source LMC, Cen A 96 unid. sources From COS-Bto EGRET 90% 50%
The majority of the sources are unidentified Few,isolated cases have been solved Geminga 73-93INS Few are being solved 2CG 342-02PSR1706-49INS 3 EGJ1835+5918radio quietINS 2 CG 135+01 GT 61.303- MAGIC 3 EGJ2020+4017g Cyg. SNR 3 EGJ1420-6038, pulsar nebulae 3 EGJ0634+0521 msec pul +Be Few more pulsars …for sure
The rate of Identification is very low 1source/10y. It will take centuries to finish No general solution Euler was in the same position vis-à-vis the Fermat theorem He was unable to find a general solution, special cases were not satisfactory and said “without a bright idea …” It took 300 y to get a bright idea ….
The state of the art in g-ray astronomy • 271 sources 172 UGO
Unidentified g-ray sources Diversity? Craig Kanarick
Unidentified g-ray sources Similarity ? With some degree of freedom
UGOs’ presence: is it anomalous ? 206 without ID 339 sources
Known (catalogued) objects, floating in big error boxes Genuinely new class of objects Known objects with a new phenomenology The presence of unidentified sources is normal, when a field is (still) in its infancy Improving angular resolution if always beneficial
Big error boxes require additional inputs pulsars variability is the only viable tool AGNs If not, multiwavelength strategy Long, complex, success is not guaranteed
Geminga is a success story based on - luck - endurance
At “low” galactic latitudes 3EG 1835+5918 is the next Geminga even more difficult than the original one In g rays 5 times fainter than Geminga In X-rays 10 times fainter than Geminga In the optical 20 times fainter than Geminga No radio detection
1 4 3 2 3EG J0616-3310: 146 sources
2O G. Belanger et al. INTEGRAL Map of the Central Galactic Region 10 ___ 0 __ Not enough for a straighforward identification -10 ___ Multiwavelength zooming is still needed |350 |0 |10
Glast will detect hundreds of sources which will be positioned at a 5-10 arcmin level
a standard multilll approach cannot be applied to hundreds of sources Observing time (impossibly) intensive • Often not conclusive • Shallow XMM observations (10 ksec) yield 150 sources /sq deg., i.e.: • Error radius 10’ 15 sources • Error radius 5’ 4 sources • Error radius 3’ 1-2 sources Optical/radio follow-up difficult
Alternative, 2-step approach 1 -From detection to association 2 -From association to identification
1 -From detection to association Figure of merit approach Smart use of catalogues FoM suggests plausible associations
Defining a FoM how good is a potential counterpart? Customized for each source class Error box c.o.p. variability energetics spectrum
2 -From association to identification Multilll ob’s of high FoM targets can secure identifications e.g.:Swift filler obs time
Once we have identified new classes of galactic g-ray sources Binary systems, OB ass, microquasars, stars
It will be possible to proceed to population study