
2
over-pressured bubble expands adiabatically, becomes super-
sonic at the edge of the starburst region, and eventually blows
out of the disk into the halo forming a strong shock front on
the contact surface with the cold gas in the halo.
Two distinct mechanisms have been proposed to explain the
starburst anisotropy signal:
•UHECRs can be accelerated by bouncing back and
forth across the superwind’s terminal shock (hereafter
ARC model) [3].
•UHECR acceleration can occur in the disproportion-
ally frequent extreme explosions that take place in the
starburst nucleus due to the high star-formation ac-
tivity [17]; e.g., low-luminosity gamma-ray bursts (ll-
GRBs) [18].
A point worth noting at this juncture is that one would ex-
pect llGRB explosions to stochastically sample the locations
of cosmic star-formation throughout the volume of the Uni-
verse in which they can be observed. Then the probability
for a given type of galaxy to host a llGRB during some pe-
riod of time would be proportional to its star-formation rate.
Starburst galaxies represent about 1% of the fraction of galax-
ies containing star forming galaxies [19], and the probabil-
ity of SN explosions is about one to two orders of magnitude
larger in starbursts than in normal galaxies, e.g., the SN rate
for M82 is about 0.2−0.3 yr−1[20] whereas for the Milky
Way is ∼3.5±1.5 century−1[21]. Note that these two effects
tend to compensate each other, and so a straightforward cal-
culation shows that UHECRs accelerated in llGRBs will have
a stronger correlation with the nearby matter distribution than
with starbursts [22].
Indeed, given the ubiquity of llGRB explosions we can
ask ourselves why the correlation of UHECRs with starburst
galaxies would be explained by the presence of this common
phenomenon. Rather there must be some other inherently
unique feature of starburst galaxies to account for this cor-
relation. With this in mind, herein we focus on the ARC
model [3]. In previous work [23, 24], we investigated the
constraints imposed by the starburst anisotropy signal on the
ARC model and we readjusted free parameters to remain con-
sistent with the most recent astrophysical observations. We
now investigate the minimum power requirement for UHECR
acceleration at shocks.
The cosmic ray maximum energy for any multiplicative
acceleration process is given by the Hillas criterion, which
yields Emax ∼ZeuBR, where Ris the size and Bthe mag-
netic field strength of the acceleration region, and uis the
speed of the scattering centers (i.e., the shock velocity) [25].
Now, the magnetic field Bcarries with it an energy density
B2/(2µ0), and the out-flowing plasma carries with it an en-
ergy flux ∼uR2B2/(2µ0), where µ0is the permeability of free
space. This sets a constraint on the maximum magnetic power
delivered through the shock [26]. Following [27], we combine
the Hillas criterion with the constraint of the magnetic energy
flux to arrive at the minimum power needed to accelerate a
nucleus to a given rigidity R,
Pmin =R2
2µ0u∼1044 erg s−1u
0.01 c−1 R
1010 GV !2
.(2)
TABLE I: Infrared luminosities [30] and kinetic energy output.
Starburst Galaxy log10(LIR/L)Ptoday/(1043erg s−1)
NGC 253 10.44 1
NGC 891 10.27 0.7
NGC 1068 11.27 7
NGC 3034 (a.k.a. M82) 10.77 2
NGC 4945 10.48 1
NGC 5236 (a.k.a. M83) 10.10 0.5
NGC 6946 10.16 0.6
IC 342 10.17 0.6
This steady state argument provides a conservative upper limit
for the required minimum power in the superwind. Note that
the minimum power requirement can be relaxed if, e.g., the
energy carried by the out-flowing plasma needed to maintain
a 100 µG magnetic field strength on a scale of 15 kpc [24]
is supplied during periodic flaring intervals. Throughout we
remain cautious and adopt (2) as our point of reference.
Next, in line with our stated plan, we adopt the functional
form of the energy injection rate from stellar winds and super-
novae estimated in [28] to determine the kinetic energy output
of the starburst from measurements of the IR luminosity,
Ptoday ∼4×1043 LIR,11 erg s−1,(3)
where LIR,11 is the total IR luminosity (in units of 1011L), and
where we have rescaled the normalization factor to accommo-
date a supernova rate in M82 of 0.3 yr−1[29], rather than the
0.07 yr−1used in the original calculation of [28]. The associ-
ated mass-loss rate to match the normalization u∼0.01 cis
found to be
˙
M∼15 LIR,11 Myr−1.(4)
In Table I we list the present-day kinetic energy output of the
nearby starbursts contributing to the anisotropy signal.
By comparing (2) with the results on Table I we see that for
most of the starbursts the present-day power output falls short
by about an order of magnitude to accommodate the required
maximum rigidity to explain the anisotropy signal. However,
we note that the estimate in (2) is subject to large systematic
uncertainties; see Appendix I. Furthermore, the characteristic
time-scale for Fermi-acceleration in non-relativistic shocks is
O(107yr) [31], and the superwind power given in Table I does
not take into account any source evolution, but rather charac-
terizes the current state of the outgoing plasma assuming that
the star formation proceeded continuously at a constant rate.
The question is then: Could the superwind of the FIRGs
listed in Table I be more powerful in an earlier stage? The
answer to this question is, in principle, yes: the rationale be-
ing that very powerful FIRGs have been observed in our cos-
mic backyard. For example, Arp 220 and NGC 6240 are the
nearest and best-studied examples of very powerful FIRGs
(LIR ∼1012L), while IRAS 00182 - 7112 is the most FIR-
powerful galaxy yet discovered (LIR nearly 1013 L) [28]. We
note, however, that there is no solid evidence indicating that