pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.04140 · v1 · pith:GAKMHLGLnew · submitted 2026-06-02 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Temporal Invariance Is an Illusion: Time-Dependent Influences of the Galactic Magnetic Field on UHECR Observations

Veronika Va\v{s}\'i\v{c}kov\'a , Leonel Morej\'on , Karl-Heinz Kampert This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 08:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords ultra-high-energy cosmic raysgalactic magnetic fieldtime delaystransient sourcesspectral cutoffarrival directionsanisotropycomposition
0
0 comments X

The pith

Galactic magnetic field delays impose a rigidity-dependent cutoff on ultra-high-energy cosmic rays from transient sources.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that propagation through the galactic magnetic field produces time delays of hundreds of kiloyears for extragalactic UHECRs, and that these delays become observationally important when sources emit in bursts rather than steadily. In that transient case the delays create a spectral cutoff between 10^18 and 10^19 V, drive a gradual shift toward heavier nuclei, and generate dipole-like anisotropies on ~100 kyr timescales. The same mechanism also weakens the directional correlation between arrival direction and source location for particles that experience longer delays. These effects arise directly from the rigidity dependence of residence time inside the Galaxy and supply an alternative account of the observed spectral break without requiring any limit on source acceleration power.

Core claim

UHECRs entering the Milky Way experience rigidity-dependent delays of hundreds of kiloyears relative to light travel time; when sources are modeled as transient bursts these delays produce a cutoff in the observed spectrum at rigidities 10^18–10^19 V, a progressive enrichment in heavier nuclei, and a delay distribution that erodes directional correlation with the original source position, allowing a dipole anisotropy to develop over ~100 kyr in certain burst scenarios.

What carries the argument

Rigidity-dependent residence time inside the galactic magnetic field, computed with CRPropa 3.2 for transient source emission.

If this is right

  • The observed spectral break can be produced without any upper limit on the maximum rigidity reachable at the source.
  • Arrival-direction correlations weaken systematically with increasing delay, so the largest-delay (lowest-rigidity) particles should appear most isotropic.
  • A dipole anisotropy of the amplitude reported in data can emerge naturally after ~100 kyr of burst evolution for suitable source distances and GMF strengths.
  • Composition at Earth becomes progressively heavier with rising rigidity because heavier nuclei suffer shorter delays and therefore reach us from more recent bursts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the cutoff is confirmed to be time-delay induced, steady-state source population models would need to be replaced by explicit burst-rate and burst-duration parameters when fitting UHECR data.
  • The same delay mechanism would also modulate the expected neutrino and gamma-ray signals from the same transients, offering a cross-check once high-energy neutrino telescopes accumulate sufficient exposure.
  • Extending the simulation to include a distribution of burst ages rather than a single burst epoch would test whether the cutoff sharpens or softens and whether the composition trend survives averaging.

Load-bearing premise

The sources must be transient bursts; if they emit continuously the time delays average out and the reported cutoff and anisotropy signatures disappear.

What would settle it

A measurement showing that the spectral break at ~10^18–10^19 V remains unchanged when arrival directions are restricted to within 10 degrees of the Galactic plane versus the full sky would falsify the claim that GMF time delays are responsible for the cutoff.

read the original abstract

Understanding the origin of the Ultra-High-Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECRs) requires explaining the features of their energy spectrum, mass composition, and arrival directions. Current modeling approaches neglect the time evolution of UHECR observables, a factor that is particularly important in the case of bursting UHECR sources. This study focuses on the influence of time delays caused by the galactic magnetic field (GMF) on the spectrum and arrival directions of UHECRs observed on Earth. Using CRPropa 3.2, we investigate the rigidity-dependence of the residence time of extragalactic cosmic rays entering our Galaxy. We find that UHECRs entering the Milky Way can experience delays of hundreds of kiloyears relative to light, and we demonstrate that these delays significantly alter the UHECR observables. Notably, a cutoff emerges in the transient scenario within the rigidity range of $10^{18}-10^{19}$ V, which coincides with the spectral break observed in data. We find a progressive shift in composition favoring heavier nuclei, as well as a delay distribution that is correlated with GMF strength. This causes the particles to be less correlated with their initial direction the larger their delays. A dipole-like anisotropy develops over timescales of about $\sim$100 kyr in certain bursts scenarios. Our results provide an alternative explanation for the UHECR spectral cutoff that does not invoke limits on source acceleration. This could potentially revise existing constraints.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses CRPropa 3.2 to compute rigidity-dependent residence times of extragalactic UHECRs traversing the Galactic Magnetic Field. It reports that, for transient (burst) sources, these delays of hundreds of kiloyears produce a spectral cutoff at rigidities 10^{18}–10^{19} V, a progressive shift toward heavier composition, decorrelation of arrival directions with increasing delay, and the emergence of dipole-like anisotropy on ~100 kyr timescales. The work positions these time-dependent effects as an alternative explanation for the observed UHECR spectral break that does not require limits on source acceleration.

Significance. If the reported delay distributions are robust, the results would challenge the standard steady-state assumption in UHECR propagation modeling and could revise constraints on source energetics and composition. The numerical demonstration that GMF-induced delays can imprint a cutoff and anisotropy at observationally relevant rigidities is potentially impactful for interpreting spectrum and arrival-direction data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Methods] Abstract and methods: the headline cutoff at 10^{18}–10^{19} V is obtained solely from forward propagation of residence times; no cross-validation of the absolute scale of t_delay(R) against the analytic small-angle deflection formula δt ≈ (L/c)(ZeBL/E)^2/2 or against an independent propagation code is reported. Because the cutoff rigidity is set by the mapping t_delay(R) → missing flux, any systematic offset in the CRPropa 3.2 residence times directly shifts the location of the reported feature.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the simulated cutoff 'coincides with the spectral break observed in data' is stated without a quantitative overlay or reference to the precise energy at which the observed break occurs, nor is the simulated spectrum normalized or compared to any published flux measurement.
  3. [Abstract / Discussion] The central results rest on the assumption that UHECR sources are transient bursts rather than continuous emitters. No quantitative comparison is provided showing how the cutoff, composition shift, or anisotropy would change under a steady-state source population with the same total luminosity.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Notation for rigidity (V) versus energy should be clarified consistently throughout; the abstract mixes 'rigidity range of 10^{18}-10^{19} V' with later references to energy.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and valuable comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below, indicating the revisions we plan to make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Methods] Abstract and methods: the headline cutoff at 10^{18}–10^{19} V is obtained solely from forward propagation of residence times; no cross-validation of the absolute scale of t_delay(R) against the analytic small-angle deflection formula δt ≈ (L/c)(ZeBL/E)^2/2 or against an independent propagation code is reported. Because the cutoff rigidity is set by the mapping t_delay(R) → missing flux, any systematic offset in the CRPropa 3.2 residence times directly shifts the location of the reported feature.

    Authors: We agree that validating the residence times against analytic approximations is important for robustness. In the revised version, we will add a subsection in the Methods comparing the CRPropa results to the small-angle deflection formula for a uniform field approximation, and note consistency with literature values for GMF deflection times. This addresses potential systematic offsets. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the simulated cutoff 'coincides with the spectral break observed in data' is stated without a quantitative overlay or reference to the precise energy at which the observed break occurs, nor is the simulated spectrum normalized or compared to any published flux measurement.

    Authors: We will revise the abstract to include a specific reference to the observed spectral break energy (e.g., ~5×10^18 eV from Auger data) and add a note that while the simulated spectrum is not flux-normalized (as the study focuses on relative modifications), the cutoff position aligns with the ankle region. A quantitative overlay will be included in a new figure or panel in the results section. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Abstract / Discussion] The central results rest on the assumption that UHECR sources are transient bursts rather than continuous emitters. No quantitative comparison is provided showing how the cutoff, composition shift, or anisotropy would change under a steady-state source population with the same total luminosity.

    Authors: The paper is focused on transient sources where time delays lead to these effects; in the steady-state case with continuous emission, the delays average out and no such cutoff from missing flux occurs, as all particles eventually arrive. We will expand the discussion to quantitatively describe this difference by noting that for steady sources the effective spectrum remains unmodified by delays, while transients experience a rigidity-dependent suppression. A full re-simulation of steady-state is not necessary as it reverts to standard propagation models without time dependence. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's central results (rigidity-dependent delays, emergent cutoff at 10^{18}-10^{19} V, composition shift, and anisotropy) are obtained via forward Monte Carlo propagation in CRPropa 3.2 applied to assumed transient burst sources. No parameters are fitted to the target UHECR spectrum or composition; the observables are computed outputs of the time-delay mapping. No self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are invoked to justify load-bearing steps. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The simulation depends on a standard galactic magnetic field model whose detailed parameters and accuracy for time-dependent propagation are taken from prior literature.

free parameters (1)
  • GMF model parameters
    Specific strength and structure parameters of the galactic magnetic field used inside CRPropa 3.2 are chosen or fitted upstream of this study.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The galactic magnetic field model implemented in CRPropa 3.2 accurately reproduces real propagation delays for extragalactic particles entering the Milky Way.
    Invoked when the code is used to compute residence times and arrival observables.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5817 in / 1383 out tokens · 28440 ms · 2026-06-28T08:40:44.754099+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Michael Unger and Glennys R. Farrar. The Coherent Magnetic Field of the Milky Way. Astrophys. J., 970(1):95, 2024. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a54

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a54 2024

  2. [2]

    , keywords =

    Alexander Korochkin, Dmitri Semikoz, and Peter Tinyakov. The coherent magnetic field of the Milky Way halo, the Local Bubble, and the Fan region.Astron. Astrophys., 693:A284, 2025. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451440

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451440 2025

  3. [3]

    The Toes of the ultrahigh-energy cosmic ray spectrum.JHEP, 08:022, 1999

    Diego Harari, Silvia Mollerach, and Esteban Roulet. The Toes of the ultrahigh-energy cosmic ray spectrum.JHEP, 08:022, 1999. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/1999/08/022

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/1999/08/022 1999

  4. [4]

    Signatures of galactic magnetic lensing upon ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays.JHEP, 02:035, 2000

    Diego Harari, Silvia Mollerach, and Esteban Roulet. Signatures of galactic magnetic lensing upon ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays.JHEP, 02:035, 2000. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2000/02/035. – 13 –

    work page doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2000/02/035 2000

  5. [5]

    Giacinti, M

    G. Giacinti, M. Kachelriess, D. V. Semikoz, and G. Sigl. Ultrahigh Energy Nuclei in the Turbulent Galactic Magnetic Field.Astropart. Phys., 35:192–200, 2011. doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2011.07.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2011.07.006 2011

  6. [6]

    Combined fit of spectrum and composition data as measured by the Pierre Auger Observatory.JCAP, 04:038, 2017

    Alexander Aab et al. Combined fit of spectrum and composition data as measured by the Pierre Auger Observatory.JCAP, 04:038, 2017. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2017/04/038. [Erratum: JCAP 03, E02 (2018)]

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2017/04/038 2017

  7. [7]

    Abdul Halim et al

    A. Abdul Halim et al. Constraining models for the origin of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays with a novel combined analysis of arrival directions, spectrum, and composition data measured at the Pierre Auger Observatory.JCAP, 01:022, 2024. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/01/022

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/01/022 2024

  8. [8]

    Curious case of the maximum rigidity distribution of cosmic-ray accelerators.Phys

    Domenik Ehlert, Foteini Oikonomou, and Michael Unger. Curious case of the maximum rigidity distribution of cosmic-ray accelerators.Phys. Rev. D, 107(10):103045, 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103045

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.103045 2023

  9. [9]

    Farrar and Michael S

    Glennys R. Farrar and Michael S. Sutherland. Deflections of UHECRs in the Galactic magnetic field.JCAP, 05:004, 2019. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/05/004

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/05/004 2019

  10. [10]

    Ronnie Jansson and Glennys R. Farrar. A New Model of the Galactic Magnetic Field. Astrophys. J., 757:14, 2012. doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/757/1/14

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/757/1/14 2012

  11. [11]

    Farrar, and Michael Unger

    Teresa Bister, Glennys R. Farrar, and Michael Unger. The Large-scale Anisotropy and Flux (de)magnification of Ultrahigh-energy Cosmic Rays in the Galactic Magnetic Field.Astrophys. J. Lett., 975(1):L21, 2024. doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad856f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad856f 2024

  12. [12]

    K. O. Thielheim and W. Langhoff. Trajectories of high-energy cosmic rays in the galactic disk. J. Phys. A: Gen Phys., 1:694–703, 1968. doi: 10.1088/0305-4470/1/6/308

    work page doi:10.1088/0305-4470/1/6/308 1968

  13. [13]

    The effects of the GMF on the transition from Galactic to extragalactic cosmic rays.PoS, ICRC2021:004, 2022

    Alex K¨ a¨ ap¨ a, Karl-Heinz Kampert, and Eric Mayotte. The effects of the GMF on the transition from Galactic to extragalactic cosmic rays.PoS, ICRC2021:004, 2022. doi: 10.22323/1.395.0004

    work page doi:10.22323/1.395.0004 2022

  14. [14]

    Propagation of extragalactic cosmic rays in the Galactic magnetic field.PoS, EPS-HEP2021:088, 2022

    Alex K¨ a¨ ap¨ a, Karl-Heinz Kampert, and Eric Mayotte. Propagation of extragalactic cosmic rays in the Galactic magnetic field.PoS, EPS-HEP2021:088, 2022. doi: 10.22323/1.398.0088

    work page doi:10.22323/1.398.0088 2022

  15. [15]

    Alvarez-Muniz, R

    J. Alvarez-Muniz, R. Engel, and T. Stanev. Propagation of ultra-high energy cosmic rays in the galaxy. In27th International Cosmic Ray Conference, 8 2001

    2001

  16. [16]

    Implications of Ultra-High-Energy Cosmic Rays for Transient Sources in the Auger Era.Astrophys

    Kohta Murase and Hajime Takami. Implications of Ultra-High-Energy Cosmic Rays for Transient Sources in the Auger Era.Astrophys. J. Lett., 690:L14–L17, 2009. doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/690/1/L14

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/690/1/l14 2009

  17. [17]

    The Role of Structured Magnetic Fields on Constraining Properties of Transient Sources of Ultra-high-energy Cosmic Rays.Astrophys

    Hajime Takami and Kohta Murase. The Role of Structured Magnetic Fields on Constraining Properties of Transient Sources of Ultra-high-energy Cosmic Rays.Astrophys. J., 748:9, 2012. doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/748/1/9

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/748/1/9 2012

  18. [18]

    Ground- and Space-Based Gamma-Ray Astronomy.Ann

    Stefan Funk. Ground- and Space-Based Gamma-Ray Astronomy.Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 65:245–277, 2015. doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102014-022036

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-102014-022036 2015

  19. [19]

    Open Questions in Cosmic-Ray Research at Ultrahigh Energies.Front

    Rafael Alves Batista et al. Open Questions in Cosmic-Ray Research at Ultrahigh Energies. Front. Astron. Space Sci., 6:23, 2019. doi: 10.3389/fspas.2019.00023

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2019.00023 2019

  20. [20]

    Closing the Net on Transient Sources of Ultrahigh-energy Cosmic Rays.Astrophys

    Sullivan Marafico, Jonathan Biteau, Antonio Condorelli, Olivier Deligny, and Johan Bregeon. Closing the Net on Transient Sources of Ultrahigh-energy Cosmic Rays.Astrophys. J., 972(1): 4, 2024. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a11

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5a11 2024

  21. [21]

    Glennys R. Farrar. Binary Neutron Star Mergers as the Source of the Highest Energy Cosmic Rays.Phys. Rev. Lett., 134(8):081003, 2025. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.081003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.081003 2025

  22. [22]

    Abdul Halim et al

    A. Abdul Halim et al. Impact of the magnetic horizon on the interpretation of the Pierre Auger Observatory spectrum and composition data.JCAP, 07:094, 2024. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/094. – 14 –

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/07/094 2024

  23. [23]

    CRPropa 3 - a Public Astrophysical Simulation Framework for Propagating Extraterrestrial Ultra-High Energy Particles.JCAP, 05:038, 2016

    Rafael Alves Batista, Andrej Dundovic, Martin Erdmann, Karl-Heinz Kampert, Daniel Kuempel, Gero M¨ uller, Guenter Sigl, Arjen van Vliet, David Walz, and Tobias Winchen. CRPropa 3 - a Public Astrophysical Simulation Framework for Propagating Extraterrestrial Ultra-High Energy Particles.JCAP, 05:038, 2016. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/05/038

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/05/038 2016

  24. [24]

    CRPropa 3.2 an advanced framework for high-energy particle propagation in extragalactic and galactic spaces

    Rafael Alves Batista et al. CRPropa 3.2 — an advanced framework for high-energy particle propagation in extragalactic and galactic spaces.JCAP, 09:035, 2022. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/035

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/035 2022

  25. [25]

    Longair.High Energy Astrophyics

    Malcom S. Longair.High Energy Astrophyics. Cambridge University Press, 3 edition, 2011

    2011

  26. [26]

    End to the Cosmic-Ray Spectrum?Phys

    Kenneth Greisen. End to the cosmic ray spectrum?Phys. Rev. Lett., 16:748–750, 1966. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.16.748

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.16.748 1966

  27. [27]

    G. T. Zatsepin and V. A. Kuzmin. Upper limit of the spectrum of cosmic rays.JETP Lett., 4: 78–80, 1966

    1966

  28. [28]

    Bounds on the Density of Sources of Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays from the Pierre Auger Observatory.JCAP, 05:009, 2013

    Pedro Abreu et al. Bounds on the Density of Sources of Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays from the Pierre Auger Observatory.JCAP, 05:009, 2013. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/05/009

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/05/009 2013

  29. [29]

    Depth of maximum of air-shower profiles at the Pierre Auger Observatory

    A. Aab et al. Depth of maximum of air-shower profiles at the Pierre Auger Observatory. II. Composition implications.Phys. Rev. D, 90(12):122006, 2014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.122006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.122006 2014

  30. [30]

    Observation of a large-scale anisotropy in the arrival directions of cosmic rays above 8 × 1018 eV.Science2017,357, 1266–1270

    Alexander Aab et al. Observation of a Large-scale Anisotropy in the Arrival Directions of Cosmic Rays above 8×10 18 eV.Science, 357(6537):1266–1270, 2017. doi: 10.1126/science.aan4338

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aan4338 2017

  31. [31]

    Abdul Halim et al

    A. Abdul Halim et al. Large-scale Cosmic-ray Anisotropies with 19 yr of Data from the Pierre Auger Observatory.Astrophys. J., 976(1):48, 2024. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad843b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad843b 2024

  32. [32]

    Signatures of the origin of high-energy cosmic rays in cosmological gamma-ray bursts.Astrophys

    Jordi Miralda-Escude and Eli Waxman. Signatures of the origin of high-energy cosmic rays in cosmological gamma-ray bursts.Astrophys. J. Lett., 462:L59–L62, 1996. doi: 10.1086/310042

    work page doi:10.1086/310042 1996

  33. [33]

    Revisiting propagation delays of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays from long-lived sources.Astropart

    Rostom Mbarek and Damiano Caprioli. Revisiting propagation delays of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays from long-lived sources.Astropart. Phys., 172:103148, 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2025.103148

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2025.103148 2025

  34. [34]

    Protheroe, and Jorg P

    Todor Stanev, Ralph Engel, Anita Mucke, Raymond J. Protheroe, and Jorg P. Rachen. Propagation of ultrahigh-energy protons in the nearby universe.Phys. Rev. D, 62:093005, 2000. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.093005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.62.093005 2000

  35. [35]

    Explaining the UHECR spectrum, composition and large-scale anisotropies with radio galaxies.JCAP, 07(07):006,

    Bj¨ orn Eichmann, Michael Kachelrieß, and Foteini Oikonomou. Explaining the UHECR spectrum, composition and large-scale anisotropies with radio galaxies.JCAP, 07(07):006,

  36. [36]

    doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/07/006

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/07/006 2022

  37. [37]

    Aloisio, V

    R. Aloisio, V. Berezinsky, and A. Gazizov. Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays: The disappointing model.Astropart. Phys., 34:620–626, 2011. doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2010.12.008

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2010.12.008 2011

  38. [38]

    Aab et al

    A. Aab et al. Probing the origin of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays with neutrinos in the EeV energy range using the Pierre Auger Observatory.JCAP, 10:022, 2019. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/10/022

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/10/022 2019

  39. [39]

    On the flux of high-energy cosmogenic neutrinos and the influence of the extragalactic magnetic field.Mon

    David Wittkowski and Karl-Heinz Kampert. On the flux of high-energy cosmogenic neutrinos and the influence of the extragalactic magnetic field.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 488(1): L119–L122, 2019. doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz083

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz083 2019

  40. [40]

    Coleman et al

    A. Coleman et al. Ultra high energy cosmic rays The intersection of the Cosmic and Energy Frontiers.Astropart. Phys., 149:102819, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2023.102819. – 15 – A Other Magnetic Fields To determine how sensitive this framework is to different realizations of the fields’ strength and geometry, we tested other GMF models. We ran simu...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2023.102819 2023